Sometimes it's time for less toleration 2009

For too long we as a country have been tolerating violent bigotry. We have allowed hypocrites to speak of God's love one moment while blocking legislation to protect the vulnerable the next.

It's been ten and a half years since I posted on this blog the beautiful speech from the Chaplain of Trinity College in Hartford, CT, about the death of Matthew Shepard. That's far too long to go without federal hate crimes legislation. Please support the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (H.R. 1913) which is about to go up for a vote in the House of Representatives.

Do that by writing to your representative - it's easy; they all have email and it can take you 2 minutes or less: just go to writerep.house.gov and say "Please support the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (H.R. 1913)".

Now, for every friend you have who might at some time have been attacked because of their color, religion, sexual orientation, race, national origin, gender identity, or disability, I want you to tell one other person to go take those same couple minutes and send in their support. And do it where it counts; tell someone who isn't in San Francisco or New York City, where support is already strong. Make a difference where it's needed most.

If you have a friend who was attacked, show them your love and respect by spreading the word even farther. Reach 10 people for each friend who was the victim of violence - and make sure the people you ask to support this bill know that you're asking them this in the name of another friend of yours who was hurt or killed. This isn't something that happens to some isolated stranger; make sure they understand it's real and it's personal.

It is time for us as a nation to live up to the pledge of equality. It is time for us as a nation to stop pretending that this violence is acceptable or that it doesn't happen.


Ten years on, I would have hoped not to need to be reviving these words from that address at Trinity in October of 1998, but we sadly still need to hear them.

Chaplain's Reflection
From the Chaplain of Trinity College, Hartford, CT, 10/15/98

I saw on the news today that Matthew Shepard died. He was the 22 year old man from Wyoming who was beaten and tortured and left to die for no reason other than he was a homosexual. This tragic murder has raised a national debate again, the kind of periodic soul-searching our society goes through whenever a crime of hate startles us into awareness. The burning of Black churches, the bombing of innocent people, the death of a shy young man from Wyoming: these events suddenly shake us out of complacency and remind us that fear, prejudice and rage are always the shadows just beyond the light of our reason. And so people suddenly start to speak out. There are voices of outrage and grief. Voices of sorrow and demands to know why such a thing could happen. And predictably, there are also defensive voices: the governor of Wyoming trying to explain why his state has no laws to protect people from hate crimes and the leadership of what is called the Christian right wing? trying to explain why their national ads against homosexuality don't influence people to commit such violence against gays and lesbians.

In the days to come, these many voices will fill our media and the cultural consciousness it imprints until we are once again lulled into the more familiar patterns of our lives, dozing off as a nation until the next tragedy rings the alarm of despair.

As the chaplain for our own community, I would like to invite us all to consider Matthew's death in another way. Not through the clamor or denials, not through the shouts or cries of anger: but rather, through the silence of his death, the silence of that young man hanging on his cross of pain alone in the emptiness of a Wyoming night, the silence that ultimately killed him as surely as the beatings he endured.

Silence killed Matthew Shepard. The silence of Christians who know that our scriptures on homosexuality are few and murky in interpretation and far outweighed by the words of a savior whose only comment on human relationships was to call us to never judge but only to love. The silence of well meaning educated people who pretend to have an enlightened view of homosexuality while quietly tolerating the abuse of gays and lesbians in their own communities. The silence of our elected officials who have the authority to make changes but prefer to count votes. The silence of the majority of straight Americans who shift uncomfortably when confronted by the thought that gays and lesbians may be no different from themselves, save for the fact that they are walking targets for bigotry, disrespect, cheap humor, and apparently, of murder.

Crimes of hate may live in shouts of rage, but they are born in silence. Here at Trinity, I hope we will all listen to that silence. Before we jump to decry Matthew's senseless death or before we seek to rationalize it with loud disclaimers: I hope we will just hear the silence. A young man's heart has ceased to beat. Hear the silence of that awful truth. It is the silence of death. It is the silence that descends on us like a shroud.

At Trinity, as in Wyoming, we are men and women surrounded by the silence of our own fear. Our fear of those who are different. Our fear of being identified with the scapegoat. Our fear of taking an unpopular position for the sake of those who can not stand alone. Our fear of social and religious change. Our fear comes in many forms but it always comes silently. A whispered joke. A glance to look away from the truth. A quick shake of the head to deny any complicity in the pain of others. These silent acts of our own fear of homosexuality are acted out on this campus every day just as they are acted out every day in Wyoming. Through silence, we give ourselves permission to practice what we pretend to abhor. With silence, we condemn scores of our neighbors to live in the shadows of hate. In silence, we observe the suffering of any group of people who have been declared expendable by our society.

As a person of faith, I will listen, as we all will, to the many voices which will eulogize Matthew Shepard. I will carry that part of our national shame on my shoulders. But I will also listen to the silence which speaks much more eloquently still to the truth behind his death. I will listen and I will remember. And I will renew my resolve never to allow this silence to have the last word. Not for Matthew. Not for gay men or lesbian women. Not for any person in our society of any color or condition who has been singled out for persecution. Not in my church. Not in my nation. Not in Wyoming. And not at Trinity College...

Is Palin's level of experience normal for a VP candidate? 2008

A concise and thorough review of our nation's other Vice Presidents.

Great stuff from Craig Ferguson 2008

We're in agreement on this one, Craig & I.

I believe if you can vote, especially in a presidential election and especially this year, and you don't, you're a moron.

I'll go one step further. How about if we made it a new rule that you can't legally make the choice to drink unless you've done your part and voted?

Not competent enough to think about what you would or wouldn't like to see happen with the most powerful job in the world for the next four years? Then, kid, you are not competent enough even for lite beer.

Also, let it be known throughout this great land that if you ever meet anyone who put in their vote for anything relating to some reality tv show or song contest or people's choice award for hottest babe in America or the like and who did not vote in this presidential election but could have, you're entitled to have them spayed or neutered so they can't breed any more cretins. Thank you for doing your part.

U.S. military presence (& thus costs to American taxpayers) 2008

Noted for future reference & more detailed reading:

Mother Jones' year-long project to investigate U.S. military activity around the globe

Map of Pentagon-reported U.S. troop presence (see notes for background details, but note that they may not provide context such as explaining how Indonesia's stated 26 troops manage three facilities totaling 49,122 square feet).

Useful journalism, both for the facts collected and the questions they raise.

"Because you both have a vagina" is as bad a reason to support a candidate as "because you both have a penis". 2008

I am deeply disappointed to see people who claimed to be fighting for equality drawn to support McCain due to his choice of Sarah Palin as his vice presidential candidate. If you want people to be judged and compensated on their merits rather than based on gender, then gender shouldn't be your first priority in choosing who to support.

- Sarah Palin is a member of an organization ("Feminists For Life") which opposes abortion and - a critically important detail - "abortifacient birth control", in other words the pill, IUD, and Plan B. Whether they are opposed to other methods is unclear, but probable considering their unwillingness to respond to questions on birth control other than to bring up ways in which different methods may cause health risks. (As if pregnancy didn't frequently have side effects far worse!)

She appears to be completely opposed to a woman's right to choose whether or not to become pregnant. Not being able to have control over your own body is definitely NOT a feminist political position.

- Despite the clear benefits to women (indeed, to everyone) of increasing education and scientific understanding, Sarah Palin is opposed to science education and is obstinately ignorant of the state of scientific knowledge. She has sued to try to stop the addition of animals which might interfere with oil drilling being added to the endangered species list in opposition to Alaska state biologists' recommendations and peer-reviewed scholarship showing numbers of polar bears are dropping. She supports the teaching of creationism in science classes (not in religious studies where it would belong if it belonged anywhere in a state-funded school), though it's possible that after some of her backpedaling it's more appropriate to say she isn't opposed to it. She is opposed to stem cell research. Most damning, she doesn't think human activity has led to global warming despite the opinion that it has held by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.

A person who's a creationist doesn't understand science and technology at all. A person whose understanding of environmental change is entirely shaped by ties to the oil industry is dangerously biased. The vice president of the United States needs to be held to a higher standard of understanding on science; it is too critical to our national health and competitive success.

So, should women who supported Hillary Clinton now support John McCain just because he's got a woman VP? No. It's ridiculous to think that Palin's gender should make her palatable to Clinton supporters.

No one skewered this point of view better than Jon Stewart and Samantha Bee on the Daily Show in the second half of this video:

Vote. 2008

Yes. We can.

The MetaGrrrl slate card for June 2008 voting 2008

Make up your own mind, but if you're curious how I've made mine up after reading about the different candidates and propositions, here's what I endorse this time around.

U.S. Representative - Nancy Pelosi
I'd prefer that she was firmly anti-war, but otherwise, I think she's doing a solid job and despite her war stance, I'll probably support her against Cindy Sheehan in the fall.

State Senator - Mark Leno
If he and Carole Migden were running for different positions, I'd probably vote for both of them, but I am a strong supporter of Mark Leno and am really excited at the prospect of having him in this role. As my friend Jennifer Granick said in her slate card, he's been effective, principled and pragmatic.

Member, State Assembly District 13 -  Tom Ammiano
Again, Jennifer sums it up nicely: he's worked his ass off for this city. Plus I believe he really listens and really thinks; lovely things in a politician.

Judge of the Superior Court, seat #12 - Mary E. Mallen
I was debating voting for Gerardo C. Sandoval with some reluctance; I was rather revolted by the amount of political junk mail I received from his campaign AND he's a board of supervisors member, which doesn't - at least in this city - suggest to me non-partisan consideration. However, getting Pete Wilson appointee Thomas Mellon off the bench was alluring enough to consider it. But then again Mary E. Mallen's statement in the Voter Information Pamphlet was so very much better than his and Jennifer picked her on her slate card too.

Proposition 98:  End Rent Control, and Then Some: NO NO NO
Proposition 99: Protect Homeowners from Eminent Domain: Yes
Remember we hate 98, 99 is fine.

Proposition A - School Parcel Tax - Yes
Funding schools pays off in increased economic health for communities. This is a good step to begin getting education funding back where it should be.

Proposition B - Changing Qualifications for Retiree Health and Pension Benefits and Establishing a Retiree Health Care Trust Fund - Yes
Changes city retirement rules to reduce city costs while still providing benefits for city employees who've been with the city at least 10 years.

Proposition C - Forfeiture of Retirement Benefits for Conviction of a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude in Connection with City Employment -No
"Moral Turpitude" has no precise definition; this is a ridiculous proposition. I can't say it better than Jennifer:

Not a big enough problem to be worth the litigation over whether something is morally turpitudinous enough to merit the penalty.  And yes, that is a word.

Proposition D - Appointments to City Boards and Commissions - No
A fine sentiment, but non-binding. The City Controller opines that it will have a minimal impact on the cost of government. I opine that it will have a minimal impact on egalitarianism and there are better things our city government can be spending its time on.

Proposition E -  Requiring Board of Supervisors' Approval of Mayor's Appointments to the Public Utilities Commission and Creating Qualifications for Commission Members - No
The Board already has veto rights on these appointments; this will needlessly further politicize this process. (Dudes, our mayor is NOT conservative; in any other city he'd be the farthest left-wing candidate. We're fine with the current controls.)

Proposition F -  No
Proposition G – YES
We already have a community-discussed, funding-provided solution to clean up and improve Hunters Point Shipyard and Candlestick Point: proposition G. The pie-in-the-sky ideas of proposition F will almost certainly guarantee the status quo remains, which helps no one. Sophie Maxwell, the supervisor for Bayview/Hunters Point, is in favor of G; I'm going to listen to her over Chris Daly on what's best for her community. Again, I'm going to quote Jennifer's analysis here:

Affordable housing is really important, as is avoiding gentrification that drives current residents away, as is avoiding the "barbell effect" where the really poor and the super rich can get access to homes in the city, and everyone else has to leave. The Lennar plan provides that housing, maybe not as much as you'd theoretically like [but more than has been provided by past development], in the context of a well-conceived detailed plan that can actually happen.  F puts the kibosh on that progress.  And waiting carries its own price.  Black residents are already being forced out of the Bayview area by a mixture of gentrification and violence.  [see for example] There's always something not to like, but that is not a good excuse anymore.  Vote yes on G and no on F.

So that's flaky F and grounded G; go G, fuck F.

Proposition H - Prohibiting Elected Officials, Candidates, or Committees They Control from Soliciting or Accepting Contributions from Certain City Contractors – No
So, let me get this straight, people contracting with the city are prohibited from making campaign contributions under certain circumstances and this will make it illegal for those already prohibited contributions to be accepted?  Jennifer (did I mention she's a lawyer?) says "This is a poorly crafted rule that does not define the 'controlled committees' that it allegedly regulates.  As a result is will not make government cleaner."

If you like her comments, you may want to subscribe to the Granick slate card.

If you like my comments, just keep readin' my blog, baby.

 

The risks of stock footage... 2008