|
|
|
Letters to the Editor
Tommi Fan Speaks Out on Mormons; Tommi Speaks Out on Catholic Church ...
Nov. 20‚ 2008
To the Editor:
I agree with Tommi Avicolli-Mecca's response to the Catholic and Mormon church's hypocricsy. My first reaction upon reading their united front spent upwards of 20 million to pass Proposition 8 made my stomach turn. As we see the economy spin downward, why aren' t they offering charity and compassion to those "true believers" faced with foreclosures, hunger and joblessness?
Obviously it seems ironic that these same dictators of morality were themselves faced with questionable charges ... last year, the Arch Diocese of Los Angeles announced they were paying millions to settle lawsuits filed in child abuse claims, the Mormon church has long battled charges of Polygamy ... so between child abuse claims and charges of Polygamy, where do these institutions find the time dictate to the rest of the world what is morally acceptable?
Enough already! A recent Letter to the Editor commented that the Catholic Church has survived 2000 years ... likewise, many who the Catholic church would accuse of heresy have also survived and will continue to thrive long after Rome is gone.
Anonymous Fed-Up Heretic
Dear Editor:
I disagree with Manuel Jimenez’s assessment that it’s not prudent to attempt to shame the Catholic Church to “change the realpolitik.” In fact, the queer movement has done it before. The best example of this was during the AIDS epidemic of the 80s. The Catholic Church was ignoring gay men who were ill and dying with the disease. Church leaders opposed condoms and safe sex education. A group called ACT UP (which created the “shame” chant) went after the church and at one point during a demo at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York, an ACT UP demonstrator went inside the church, took communion and threw it to the ground.
Though denounced by the more mainstream parts of the LGBT community, ACT UP’s radicalism turned things around. The church began providing services for people with AIDS and Catholics (like most other people in the country) became more compassionate. AIDS became less stigmatized. Had it not been for the often over-the-top tactics of ACT UP, I don’t think things would have changed when they did.
In reference to the all those saints’ names in our area: They are a reminder of the Spanish Catholic slaughter of native peoples and the stealing of their land. Not to mention the forced conversion of native peoples. Not a proud legacy. I was raised Catholic, but I am proud to be an atheist since I was 16.
Tommi Avicolli Mecca
San Francisco
You can submit letters to the editor by clicking on this link: feedback@beyondchron.org or by writing to:
Beyond Chron
126 Hyde Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
415-771-9850 (phone)
Catholics and Prop 8; Renters Tax Credit; Cal's Football Coach; More on Freelance Writers Settlement ...
Nov. 19‚ 2008
Dear Editor,
In regards to Tommi Avicolli-Mecca's November 17, 2008 piece, "Mormons and Catholics Deserve to Be Protested," to those who think that attempting to shame the Catholic Church is a politically prudent way to change the realpolitik, I caution them to take a look at California's demographics.
Propostion 8 won with only 52% of Latinos supporting it, vis-a-vis 70% African-Americans, and 49% Asians. Those of us who are culturally Catholic or religious won't be persuaded to join the fold with attacks. The Catholic Church has survived over 2000 years on the strength of its cultural, as well as faith, constituency. With growing numbers of Latinos dominating California's electoral equation, the Catholic Church is here, "like it or not."
The very cities we live in, and many of the very streets we commute on, were named for Catholic Saints when this territory was under Catholic Spanish Control, and subsequently Catholic Mexican control. Picking a fight with the Catholic Church is an invitation for a cultural war, which I dare say we may very well lose.
Manuel Jimenez
a/k/a Magdelyn
Re: Paul Hogarth's piece about the renters tax credit.
Mostly I appreciated the article, but consistently media and senior advocates get this wrong: it is NOT a SENIOR benefit, but for low income seniors and people with disabilities. From a community organizing perspective, this is crucial. As a disability rights advocate, I find it annoying and a reminder that all too frequently for some reason our "allies" on the left don't get it.
Herb Levine, Executive Director
ILRCSF Executive Director
San Francisco, CA
Dear Editor,
I've felt since 2 years ago that Jeff Tedford had hit a ceiling, when they tailspinned the home stretch of their seasons. This season, the last three games, they've essentially petered out in the second half. Against Maryland they were still in hibernation or jetlagged and simply unprepared to come out roaring on the eastern seaboard. Against SC and OSU they couldn't get it up when they needed to. That's coaching and leadership at the top's responsibility.
If the Golden Bears were pros, they should be responsible for getting up too. But these are youths and amateurs still learning how to draw on their depth. Tedford's been great getting Cal to a marquee football school. But it's leveled out over the last 3 years. The next level means not taking 2 conference losses in a row, and I think they'll be mentally weak going into the Big Game against a Stanford team that is "ranked" below but may very well play above Cal.
Chris Chow
To the Edtior:
The bold Mr. Anonymous, in his complaint about my Beyond Chron piece on the freelance writers' settlement, shows that he has the purposes and burdens of class action litigation exactly backwards.
Yes, the objectors could have opted out and pursued individual claims against the defendants. But our objections went beyond Mr. Anonymous's singular fixation on his personal view of the sufficiency of the compensation for past infringement. The whole point of the lawsuit had been to trigger the kind of royalty system contemplated by the Supreme Court in the Tasini case. The only way to fight the license-by-default-at-0%-royalties provision -- by which Mr. Anonymous and others sought to bind everyone else the world over to a giveaway of rights into perpetuity -- was to stay within the class and file objections.
Mr. Anonymous is wrong in asserting "that it was clear from federal code that recovery was not possible if the works were not registered." For one thing, jurisdiction for unregistereds for settlement purposes was routinely assumed before the Second Circuit's odd ruling last year to the contrary. More to the point, the open-ended nature of potential future claims by unregistereds (who can convert themselves to registereds at any time) defined the very leverage the plaintiffs held over the defendants in this case. A handful of class representatives and writers' organizations frittered away that leverage for the benefit of themselves and to the detriment of the class.
I understand that Mr. Anonymous is eager to collect his own pennies on the dollar, but what is at stake here is the architecture of freelance journalists' rights in the digital age, and in turn the future diversity and vitality of our culture. I apologize for the inconvenience to him caused by the inadequate representation of the class by the named plaintiffs and their lawyers.
Irv Muchnick
San Francisco
You can submit letters to the editor by clicking on this link: feedback@beyondchron.org or by writing to:
Beyond Chron
126 Hyde Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
415-771-9850 (phone)
Freelance Writers Settlement and Google Case ...
Nov. 18‚ 2008
Dear Editor:
This is a response to the distortions and assertions made by Irvin Mushnick in his article "Supreme Court Weighs Reviving Freelance Writers’ Settlement – and Google Case Lurks."
Before the original settlement in the class action suit was finalized, class members could have opted out of the settlement and filed their own suits if they felt the settlement was insufficient. Several hundred people did just that. Out of the thousands of class members there was a "slate" of exactly 10 objectors who decided they would speak out for the "injustices" of the settlement by objecting to the Court of Appeals. The vast majority of class members were happy with the settlement and pleased to get something back for their work, considering that it was clear from federal code that recovery was not possible if the works were not registered. It is important to note that it is not worth the time or money for most freelancers to register their works, especially if the works were time sensitive and would virtually be useless for future reference on the internet. In other words the "license by default", which Mr. Muchnick is so proud that he coined, either is meaningless for time sensitive items or has little residual value to the author via seach engines. Mr. Muchnick continues to push the idea that a freelance article submitted to a newpaper or magazine is on a par with a royalty system such as ASCAP. That suggestion is laughable on its face.
The bottom line is that if Mr. Muchnick and the other objectors had not filed an appeal, the settlement would have been final and the claims paid. With the additional attorneys fees incurred through appeals the settlement now, as Mr. Muchnick phrased it, would indeed be worth "crumbs" even if the court grants Cert and the appeal is eventually denied. The objectors will tell you that they were against the settlement on principle. The truth is that they were greedy and felt the settlement was not enough. They envisioned the Second Circuit ruling in their favor and sending the case back to District Court for more negotiations and eventually more cash. Well it backfired. The court threw the entire case out on jurisdictional grounds, which could easily have been predicted by reading the federal code concerning copyright registration. Because of their greed, thousands of freelance writers will get zero for past works.
In full disclosure, I am a freelance newspaper writer who submitted thousands of columns over the years. If the Supreme Court does not overturn the Circuit Court's ruling, I stand to lose a great deal of money.
Anonymous,
Palo Alto
You can submit letters to the editor by clicking on this link: feedback@beyondchron.org or by writing to:
Beyond Chron
126 Hyde Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
415-771-9850 (phone)
Prop 8 and Latinos; More On Overruling Prop 8; JROTC Controversy ...
Nov. 17‚ 2008
Dear Mr. Hogarth,
You have to understand that although you and the rest of the liberal establishment has been successful in brain-washing the naive and ignorant "undocumented"/legal Hispanic in believing that you are all "concerned" for the rights of minorites, you underestimated our religious roots. The majority of Hispanics are Catholic. Catholics will draw the line at some point. In this case it was that belief that marriage is between a man and woman. You and the rest of the the Homosexual Mafia can scream and shout all you want, but the consciousness (belief in God) will ultimately prevail.
Sincerely,
Jesse R. Ortega Jr.
Delano, CA
Hello Paul:
I saw your article about the Prop 8 legal situation. You refer to Martinez vs. Kulongoski as an Oregon Supreme Court court decision, but it was a decision of the Court of Appeals. I have not been able to find (on the net) any documents that confirm further legal action on Martinez vs. Kulongoski since the opinion was released in May.
I agree that Martinez was weak. My own opinion of the California situation is that the California Supreme Court will declare Prop 8 to be unconstitutional, and will do so in a way that provides support for marriage equality advocates around the nation.
My opinion is based on reading the May decision in California (Marriage Cases), the 4 petitions filed against Prop 8, the amici briefs for one of those petitions, the Connecticut case (Kerrigan), and Martinez. Of course, I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the California Supreme Court (the 4-3 majority, that is) made clear how it would rule on an initiative like Prop 8. They prepared the ground with Marriage Cases.
It's going to be interesting to see how this turns out, and how quickly the court moves.
Bob Callaway
San Francisco
To the Editor:
The local pro-JROTC forces loudly deny that it is a military recruitment program. But that doesn't stop JROTC-supporter Paul Franson from writing in his November 14 letter to Beyond Chron that we should retain the Pentagon program so that "future generals and admirals" will come from San Francisco. As they say, consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
And why should San Francisco send its youth off to join the Pentagon? To defeat "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," of course. Supposedly enlightened San Francisco JROTC cadets can get "ROTC scholarships, which lead to entering the active duty military as an officer." True enough, Mr. Franson, unless that cadet is openly LGBT, in which case both ROTC scholarships and military careers are not options.
Mr. Franson, and others like him, should study how the Pentagon was forced to end racial segregation. It wasn't ended by enlightened military leaders. Racial segregation in the military ended in 1948 after A. Philip Randolph, the founder of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters and one of the great black leaders of US history, launched a campaign of black resistance to the draft, threatening mass civil disobedience. Randolph and his allies went eyeball-to-eyeball with President Harry Truman. Truman blinked, and issued an Executive Order banning racial discrimination in the armed forces. That, I think, is a much better model for how to end LGBT discrimination in the military.
More than half of the federal budget today goes to the Pentagon and its illegal and immoral wars. Militarism and its consequences are a plague upon our nation. Enough is enough. Let's spend our money on educating our youth, not on putting them on a military track.
Marc Norton
San Francisco
You can submit letters to the editor by clicking on this link: feedback@beyondchron.org or by writing to:
Beyond Chron
126 Hyde Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
415-771-9850 (phone)
Overruling Prop 8; Tommi and the Mormons; Why Prop B Lost; JROTC and the School Board; School Planning ...
Nov. 14‚ 2008
To the Editor:
Thank you for the article on Proposition 8 and the upcoming legal battle. This is the only place where I have seen a single article address the precedent and explain why the death penalty initiative can be distinguished from Prop 8.
I would, however, like to point out that it was not only the Democrats in Massachusetts who protected the right of all people to marry. In 2005, Republican State Senate Minority Leader Brian P. Lees changed his position and stated his strong opposition to taking away the right of same sex couples to marry. Many Republicans followed him in voting against a ban on same sex marriage in Massachusetts.
When Republicans are willing to support equal rights, they should be commended. Not only are they standing up for what is right, but they often must return to seek re-election in districts where support for marriage equality may render them vulnerable to primary challenges. It seems to me that this requires more courage than the Democrats standing up for equal marriage rights when their constituents are overwhelmingly progressive. If only California Republicans could show such courage.
Michael Dorsi
Formerly of Berkeley, CA
To the Editor:
Wow, I just read your article titled "Mormons Baptize Jews Without their Consent" by Tommi Avicolli-Mecca. I am shocked at the bigotry involved. It's one thing to criticize a religion, and it's another to do so by misrepresenting the truth in nearly every respect. Tommi has some major lack of knowledge about the religion, and that's sad to see in a reporter. This only makes your publication look worse and gives you a bad name.
Brian Griffiths
To the Editor:
After reading your pieces, I thought you'd like feedback from someone who normally doesn't read Beyond Chron or the weeklies ... or the Chronicle, for that matter.
I am a liberal or progressive, and I was profoundly against Prop B. I am against ballot-box budgeting, and I also think there is a drastic need for affordable "middle income" or "workforce" housing. The below-market mix as conceived by B was too tilted towards those at the bottom of the income spectrum; in a time of budget scarcity, we can't do everything for everyone. We need to enlarge the City's tax base very badly; that must be considered in all housing policy decisions, and "higher-income low-income" families spend more and contribute more to the economy.
I think a very large number of others in the City agree with me. All of my friends do, although admittedly that's anecdotal and a small sample. However, I think this viewpoint is foreign to the left-edge of the progressive community.
So I think you (and other progressives) are fundamentally misreading the SF electorate on the housing issue. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a disconnect between the Supervisor candidate results and the ballot measure results.
As a practical matter, even if you cite campaign direct mail as the reason for the disconnect, that is not going to change any time soon. You need to find new policy solutions, not re-treads.
More workforce housing for families is the answer, as is a continued expansion of tax-paying market rate housing in dense developments in rezoned areas.
Sincerely,
Bennett Charles
To the Editor:
While the School Board is not required to listen to the voters who narrowly passed Proposition V regarding JROTC, I would like to offer a reason why they should.
The opposition to JROTC lies in two areas -- getting military recruitment out of the schools and not supporting "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." I would argue that removing JROTC only removes the recruitment of those who would be targeted to be leaders in the military, and that it actually further entrenches "DADT."
San Francisco is an oasis of progressive tolerance in a desert of hatred. Our area provides a culture where children grow up unaware that they are "supposed" to fear and loathe the LGBT community. The passage of Prop (h)8 and the other 17 states with similar constitutional amendments makes it clear that the values here are under fire.
JROTC, while not a true recruiting opportunity for the military, does give young people who are inclined to follow careers in the armed forces a pathway to leadership. ROTC scholarships, which lead to entering the active duty military as an officer, are often a direct result of success in the JROTC program. Students who are truly desirous of joining the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marines are denied this path if the JROTC program is removed from the schools.
"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" will never go away as long as large swaths of the senior command in the military still feel that "gay soldier" = "dangerous pervert". Why, then, wouldn't you want to cultivate a presence from our area in that command chain? If the future generals and admirals aren't coming from San Francisco, then they are coming from places like Oklahoma, where Sally Kern (the "gay agenda is worse than terrorism" lady) is being seriously considered for Governor.
The dissolution of JROTC is a striking display of our displeasure at the discrimination of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", but it eventually serves nothing more than to encourage the continuation of that policy for what could be an entire generation.
Paul Franson
San Francisco
In School Beat, Lisa Schiff wrote: "So far it appears that the school level planning work will be based in the traditional governing processes vested in School Site Councils (SSC) and will initially be an exercise in turning existing Academic Plans into Balanced Scorecards, which can then be connected to the plans of other schools and those of the district and the BOE."
Does anyone else feel as discouraged as I do about the amount of effort and resources it takes for SFUSD to translate the very similar goals of the previous administration into the language and rhetoric of the new administration? If equity and excellence were easy, we'd be there now.
There is no lack of good will and desire to do the right thing as far as closing the gap. People who care about student outcomes and schools have long understood the basic problems facing us. We change superintendents so often that the work of the district seems mostly updating the extensive paperwork to reflect current lingo and putting the linguistic stamp of the new administration. New buzzwords are not what have been missing, nor is a longer, more complicated accountability document for school sites.
Sarah Wilcox
San Francisco
You can submit letters to the editor by clicking on this link: feedback@beyondchron.org or by writing to:
Beyond Chron
126 Hyde Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
415-771-9850 (phone)
Community Justice Center ...
Nov. 12‚ 2008
To the Editor:
Paul Hogarth wrote: "Many spoke eloquently [at the press conference] about how incarceration doesn't solve homelessness – while ignoring the fact that a CJC is designed to prevent people from going to jail for committing a petty crime. If a person does a carjacking, wouldn't you rather they get services than be thrown in jail?"
Hmmm ... perhaps this is a typo? Or I'm just confused ... I can think of lots of examples of petty crime that occurs in the TL everyday ... but it would seem to me that carjacking isn't, nor should it be considered, a "petty" crime.
Sincerely,
Dan Calamuci
You can submit letters to the editor by clicking on this link: feedback@beyondchron.org or by writing to:
Beyond Chron
126 Hyde Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
415-771-9850 (phone)
Filipino Elected Officials; Rodel Rodis is the Real Impostor; District 9 Machinations; Ranked Choice Voting ...
Nov. 11‚ 2008
To the Editor:
In his recent opinion piece, Rodel Rodis opined that his defeat may indicate the loss of the only Filipino holding elected office in the Bay Area. Please pass on to Mr. Rodis that Hermy Almonte was just elected to the San Leandro School Board.
I don't pretend that Hermy's election means that we have adequately proportional Filipino representation, or that San Leandro is somehow the political heart of the Bay Area. Only that Rodel's defeat does not carry greater symbolic significance.
Thanks,
Rob Rich
To the Editor:
I take offense that Rodel Rodis stereotypes us by writing "Filipinos would rather spend money gambling in casinos than in supporting political candidates." This past election season, Filipinos flexed political muscle by participating in key races. We joined other San Franciscans in supporting candidates with a track-record of championing issues important to our community like affordable housing, immigrant rights, and opportunities for youth.
While it is understandable that Rodis has to save face having received only 8% of the vote on the College Board, he should not blame others for his pathetic loss. The truth is he failed to garner a minimum amount of votes to keep his seat because throughout 18 years of being the only elected Filipino official in San Francisco our community found no reason to support him.
In District 11, Filipinos showed that "people power" not pocket power is more important. Despite hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on false and malicious mailers by Rodis' downtown friends, John Avalos prevailed. Filipino residents who put in hundreds of hours of volunteer work combated the lies against Avalos and advanced a positive campaign of hope and change for the neighborhood.
Myrna Lim, who lost for the 3rd time in a district with a large population of Filipino and Chinese voters, did not get enough support despite playing up her Filipino and Chinese heritage. Endorsed by the Republican Party, Lim like her friend Rodis, does not represent the politics of change that Filipinos were calling for this election. While many of us would love to support Filipino candidates we also need to make sure that the people we elect will fight for our issues and not just serve as token representatives.
Rodis' embarrassing loss in the City College race shows that even at the local races like the Community College Board (a far cry from the White House), San Franciscans reject the politics of blame and embrace the politics of progress and hope.
Mariano Cruz Jr.
District 11 Resident
Paul Hogarth:
I worked on the Mark Sanchez campaign intensely for the last couple months, and I have an answer to your District 9 Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) "mystery."
Originally, the Mark Sanchez & Eric Quezada campaigns were to have both a dual press conference & dual lit pieces urging progressives to vote for each other as #2's. After the Sanchez campaign sent out an email to all supporters to vote Quezada #2, some folks from the Quezada camp felt the email gave them a big enough boost that they didn't need to continue in their part of the bargain and decided to cancel the RCV strategy.
So the claim from Quezada that there were no RCV plans is false. While the Guardian & Democratic Party endorsements did put Campos in the lead for 1st choice votes, I would argue that backing out on the #2 RCV strategy deserves equal credit to the win of David Campos as District 9 Supervisor.
Matt Garron
To the Editor:
Re: your detailed review of the Board of Supervisors election ("Ranked Choice Voting Didn’t Change Results," November 10): I suspect most readers know what Paul Hogarth means by "strategy voting" here. He's talking about how each voter translates her views on the issues and candidates, which vary in several complex dimensions, into a single ranking of the candidates. He also mentions the advice candidates give their supporters about who to rank second and third.
But this is quite different from the normal usage of the term "strategic voting" when comparing different voting methods. Had the article been about how RCV is better than, or worse than, plurality or delayed runoff, Hogarth's usage would be quite misleading. In such technical discussions, "strategic voting" means not honestly expressing your true preferences because doing so might help a candidate you dislike and therefore hurt a candidate who is not your favorite but who has a chance of winning. Voting strategically is the opposite of voting sincerely.
No voting method is entirely free of rewards for voting other than your true preferences. But RCV rewards strategic voting in this more technical sense only a very small percentage of the time -- as small as pretty much any voting method. In the vast majority of elections, your best strategy is to vote honestly. More specifically, using all three of your rankings can never hurt your first choice. There's never a good reason to leave a choice blank unless you just don't care about the remaining candidates, or are so opposed to all the remaining candidates that you want to eliminate the possibility that your vote could help one of them.
Bob Richard
Marin Ranked Voting
Kentfield, CA
You can submit letters to the editor by clicking on this link: feedback@beyondchron.org or by writing to:
Beyond Chron
126 Hyde Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
415-771-9850 (phone)
Rodel Rodis' Loss; Initative Reform; Prop L's Defeat; Gavin Newsom's Loss; More on Prop 8 ...
Nov. 10‚ 2008
Dear Editor,
So Rodel Rodis would have us believe that Chris Daly's power (and I suppose citywide appeal) is what cost him his race? Does he realize how absurd that sounds? I'm glad that someone seemingly so illogical is no longer on the Community College Board of Trustees.
Rodis came in 7th of 9 candidates because the public no longer supported his being on the Board of Trustees (where there's been some funny business going on for quite some time.) This time there were fresh candidates with real solutions who worked very hard over the last 4 months. They and their supporters swept across the city talking to as many voters as possible. They got the major endorsements they needed and the momentum went against Mr. Rodis.
The supervisors who Chris Daly supported and who appear to have won did so by orchestrating incredibly strong grassroots campaigns where they talked to the voters one on one. That's how you win campaigns. Not because of a single person's endorsement or non-endorsement.
Donna Linden
San Francisco
To the Editor:
In "Prop 8 Aftermath," Paul Hogarth suggests that California should make amending the state constitution more difficult. I hope reformers hold off on this until we have an opportunity to reverse Prop 8; as terrible as it is to have 52% of voters take away rights, it would add insult to injury to require 60% or more to get those rights back. If Prop 8 is not invalidated in court, making a constitutional amendment more difficult could set back marriage equality for a decade or more.
Mike Dorsi
Formerly of Berkeley, CA
To the Editor:
I voted down community courts (San Francisco's Proposition L.) But I would have endorsed this proposition, if these courts could try public officials and CEOs. What a great idea to have these jerks tried by the community!
Herbert J. Weiner
San Francisco
To the Editor:
Re: Paul Hogarth's recent article about aftermath of loser Newsom. From the leader to individual, support for same-sex marriage activists are doing their things for their own glory or personal good, in the name of equality.
For everyone who supported Prop 8, voting YES is for family bond, kids, a harmonic society, and most importantly, for the glory of GOD. You can easily determine who will be winner.
Peter Winfrey
To the Editor:
One key to Proposition 8's win was the Yes campaign's ability to make opponents of gay marriage out to be the victims. Even the most egregious oppressors rarely admit to themselves that they have power to do harm to others. They rationalize their actions by nursing some grievance that the oppressed group has supposedly done to them. This topsy-turvy view can be so ludicrous the other side doesn't know how to answer it, but the aggrieved believe it whole-heartedly.
In the case of Proposition 8, gay marriage was going to close our churches! Indoctrinate our children! Expose us to being called bigots and assaulted in the streets! Facts count for nothing against these arguments. I'm reminded of the difference between the attitudes of my parents. My father would spew racist epithets that would make my mother, not an unkind person, squirm. But then she would declare that "they" were getting everything from the government, to the neglect of "us."
This firm conviction that we whites were actually the underdogs prevented her from acting on her natural humane feelings. We must understand this deep harboring of resentment at supposed unfair
treatment in order to combat the inane beliefs it spawns.
Fran Taylor
San Francisco
Dear Paul Hogarth:
I've been looking for good coverage of what the No on 8 campaign looked like in San Francisco, and your piece confirmed what I had predicted: that it looked a lot like Sacramento's efforts - and that was a bad, bad thing.
I used to live in SF. I'm hetero, and married to a guy. This issue was the only one I wanted to work on this year, since I wasn't in a swing state and I wasn't going to able to quit what I was doing to move to a swing state (like I did in 2004 - moving from SF to West Virginia, and ultimately PA).
I phone-banked several times for No on 8 here in Sacramento. They would spend about an hour training people before they'd let us loose on the phones. Okay, that's fine (though I tried to assure them I had ample field experience and was anxious to get to work). It's important to control the message, so that's fine. I tried to ask who we were calling (as in, Dems, ages, frequent voters, etc) - no one ever knew. That's fine too - they are just volunteers running the bank, they don't have to know strategy.
I assumed, per my experience, we were collecting data to use for GOTV the weekend before the election (I started volunteering a few weeks past the point I would've thought the campaign would've moved from persuasion to preparing to get out their voters).
To me, the first real sign of trouble came not from the increasingly tightening poll numbers, but from the No on 8's email that said:
"We need a huge team on Election Day to talk to voters and hold signs 100 feet away from the polls. Because our opponents are trying to confuse our base about which way to vote, we need to be out and visible on Election Day to remind our supporters the correct way to vote on Prop 8 – NO on Prop 8! If too many of our supporters vote the wrong way, it could cost us the election."
I was shocked. Absolutely, jaw-droppingly shocked. Surely this was not their sole plan for Election Day, right? I was immediately concerned at first with possible bad press. People mostly view the polling place as sacrosanct - it's our national temple at which we pray for a better future every two or four years. People don't want it to look like the steps of the Supreme Court during an abortion debate with one or both sides of a contentious issue staring you down as you enter. Even if it's totally peaceful, you can't control for people's reactions. I even sent an email to campaign - knowing that if I were them, I'd be more likely to be annoyed by late-game people who think they have the "key" to success giving unsolicited advice.
I received this response:
"Thank you so much for you concern and your input is always welcome. Please consider that Equality for All is a broad coalition campaign and that any major plans have been carefully considered and debated and evaluated by the diverse body of coalition partners, committees and board members. We will peacefully remain 100 feet away from the polls. There is a lot of confusion about which way to vote by our supporters. If too many of our supporters vote the wrong way, we will lose."
I want to know who evaluated this plan and HOW they thought it was a good idea?
What we needed to be doing was calling and knocking on the doors of those who said they would vote against prop 8. We should have organized carpools. That's how you win elections. That's how Obama won. You don't need that much money to do that, you just need people. And you need them to NOT be rooted in front of a polling place.
In Sacramento, several polling places received visits from the Elections Board or law enforcement, armed with tape measures. As far as I know, no electioneering laws were broken - but how must it have looked to voters? And how much did we squander human resources.
Now, thousands choke off traffic in LA or demonstrate around Cali, or wave signs in Salt Lake City. As much as it may be symbolic and comforting to know that those who believe in equality are not alone and not giving up, it's too little MUCH too late. And the campaign did nothing to recruit or harness these would-be volunteers. They could use me. From your article, they couldn't use you. I have a friend in Berkeley who never got a call back.
It's SUCH a wasted opportunity. And I feel we MUST make a big deal out of it - not to blame, not to hurt, but to be ready, should we get another chance again. It's our total failure - as a group of people committed to equality - and whomever was in charge of the campaign needs to recognize the missteps, out-loud, and learn what we can do better next time.
This is a golden opportunity to educate all those protesters about what will really be needed from them next time. Protests don't win elections. Instead of marching in the streets, they need to be given voter information and sent to march down particular streets, knocking on doors, talking to voters, identifying supporters of equality, and then they must go back on Election Day and make sure they vote.
Your being sent to the Castro wasn't a mistake - it was what you were sent to do: visibility was a waste of your energy and your dedication to the campaign. No on 8 should have focused on the likely voters and those we knew to oppose the measure. But you don't know if you were effective at all by waving signs at cars.
Christiana Dominguez
Sacramento
You can submit letters to the editor by clicking on this link: feedback@beyondchron.org or by writing to:
Beyond Chron
126 Hyde Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
415-771-9850 (phone)
Welcoming the Dawning of a New Era; More on Prop 8's Passage ...
Nov. 07‚ 2008
To the Editor:
I write this at midnight, on the cusp of this most historic day, November 4th, 2008.
As I tucked my child Minh Jeffrey into bed tonight and kissed him good night, my child asked me, "Dad, do you know that President Obama's grandmother died today?" My child's question not only acknowledged and honored Senator Obama's grandmother, Madelyn Payne Dunham, but also predicted the outcome of our historic presidential election today: The election of President Barack H. Obama.
Like Americans everywhere, my child, my family, and I have been fully engaged in following the news events of this year's presidential campaign. And we have worked hard to share with others our deepest support of Senator Obama to become our next President of these United States. My own brother worked three phone bank shifts this past weekend, and has been active in the work of "Asians for Obama." One of my nephews, a veteran who served in Iraq, has been canvassing for Senator Obama, and disseminating information regarding Senator Obama's campaign through his wide network.
I am a Vietnamese American whose family immigrated to the U.S. My first glimpse of this beloved country as a young child was the sight of the Statue of Liberty. I did not know the meaning of the symbol of the Statue of Liberty that day. But I have come to appreciate and be grateful for what the Statue of Liberty stands for. I vividly remember the economic struggles of my own parents, as they toiled daily at a German bakery in the Midwest to put bread on the table to feed us children. I have also apppreciated the people of this great nation - a people who are generous, kind, and optimistic.
Senator Barack Obama has waged an unprecedented and history making presidential campaign. It is one that is based on much more than his campaign's motto: "Change We Can Believe In." Senator Obama told the American people what he stands for, when he declared, "This is our moment in history," and called on us to "turn the page for a new direction in this country and in this world." Senator Obama told us his views and plans for addressing the critical issues confronting our nation and our world. Senator Obama withstood the rigors of this presidential campagin, and did not allow the distractions hurled his direction by his opponents or distractors to trip him. Senator Obama displayed to the American people his intellectural brilliance, his vision and his hope for his nation and the world, his pragmatism, his resilience, and most importantly, his integrity and humility.
With President Barack Obama, let us together roll up our sleeves, and hand in hand, with joy and celebration "turn the page for a new direction in this country and in this world."
Anh Le
San Francisco
To the Editor:
Just wanted to mention, what about the local latino churches?? I mean, all of so Cal voted Yes on 8, I went down to see my parents in San Diego ... First of all there weren't too many supporters of anything, but the little I saw was Yes on 8 ... I tought I had convinced my mother to vote NO ON 8, but apparently the church was very persuasive and convinced everyone there to vote YES .... And I know a couple of white friends who are very Republicans not because of what they represent, but because they feel the abortion and the gay rights in a conservative way ... And that's it!! they don't even care about politics, they just care about what the bible says ... So, yes, you are right, especially about those commercials that mentioned "teaching of gay at schools" ... But don't forget about the rest.
Cristina Lopez
You can submit letters to the editor by clicking on this link: feedback@beyondchron.org or by writing to:
Beyond Chron
126 Hyde Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
415-771-9850 (phone)
Prop 8 Reactions; Obama's Historic Campaign; Sarah Palin; Debra Walker on Prop B ...
Nov. 06‚ 2008
Dear Paul,
I heartily agree with your column "No on 8 – When Reactive Politics Become Losing Politics." The people who ran the No on 8 campaign ran an absolutely horrible campaign! Thank goodness Barack Obama didn't hire them to run his campaign, and I am so elated about his victory. Here in Chico, the Democratic headquarters wanted No on 8 signs. Unfortunately I heard from someone that the statewide No on campaign had no more signs to send. Even though the Yes on 8 campaign spent a ton of money, it was not like the No campaign was short on funds. The managers of the No on 8 campaign simply assumed that their campaign won.
Walter Ballin
Chico
To the Editor:
I totally agree with your post on the Yes and No on 8 campaigns. I'm shocked, disappointed and outraged that measure won. It should not have passed. The truth is that the Yes on 8 team hired a better ballot initiative team, people who were disciplined and experienced because they do statewide measures every election. The good news is that when another gay marriage measure is attempted, lessons will have been learned. And it will pass.
Kathy Fairbanks
Sacramento
To the Editor:
What really disturbs me, and no one seems to be addressing, is the fact that civil rights should not be subject to a popular vote anyway. The Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act and others like the Bill of Rights might not have passed if it had been left to a popular vote. The will of the majority of the people who vote does not determine who is more equal. California should never been voting on this in the first place.
Mark Porter
San Antonio, TX
To the Editor:
Here in Florida, the problem with the gay marriage amendment was it wasn't publicized enough. The wording of the amendment was very confusing, and you really didn't know if you were against or for if you voted "NO."
It is a shame that we have come this far in politics and this issue is still an issue. No one can put a law on love or partnership. Doesn't more people that get married help our economy? Also, there are so many children that need to be adopted-why not let "couples" adopt them. Narrow mindedness is the next obstacle this country needs to get over.
Lori Gonzalez
Miami, Florida
Hi Paul,
Thank you for your article this morning. If there is anything I can do to help remove discrimination from our constitution, please let me know.
Best wishes,
Lisa Lambeth
To the Editor:
I just finished reading your article and found it most interesting. You call the people for YES on 8 liars and I am one of those people so I wonder where are the lies. I was all for letting people live and let live until I inquire into what is happening in Massachusetts. The only state that has allowed same sex marriage now for a while that we can look at. So I read and what I found out was that I didn't want any of that to happen here in California.
Do you really think that YES on 8 was lying when they said all that stuff about schools? No they were not. It will happen it is not fear it is just looking towards the future and seeing what can happen. Just with any other proposition we take the information and look and see how it will impact us in the future. I am the parent, I get to teach my children values and I get to teach them when and where and how they will hear about issues that differ from our core views.
You have to admit that the gay and lesbians have an agenda and that is to have the same dignity and respect as heterosexual couples have. That respect and dignity will not be gained if prop 8 failed and gay marriages were allowed to be the norm. I will teach my children that it is wrong and they will teach their children the same. We know this is not over because you will do anything to push your agenda and make it normal.
But know this that we will also fight for what we believe to be true. We will fight just as hard or harder for our rights. It is no longer acceptable to be politically correct. It is now acceptable to be morally correct. I will not stand by and let others push their agenda using fear tactics such as calling us biggots, or intolerant, or too religious or to right or whatever you care to come up with.
One thing I learned from this was that intolerance is a two way street. You need to be tolerant to my views and you need to respect me for not believing or accepting your gay lifestyle. Because it is a lifestyle right a choice you make. Most people I know who are homosexuals don't think there is such a thing as a gay gene or that you are born that way. So if you choose to be homosexual and I choose to be straight then we will need to respect each other.
The Mormon church did not donate 20 million dollars. It was individuals who believe that "marriage" between a man and a woman is called of God. It is individuals that have a strong conviction about family and children that donated their money. Who donated on your side? Wasn't it the Brad Pitt's of this world, the Hollywood crowd that have no moral values or ethics to begin with donated most of your money. You have your openly gay producers, directors, actors, politicians donating for your cause but average mothers, fathers, chidren from all faiths donate money and you want to defame a church for calling their people to action.
I don't know if you have ever attended church, but that is what church does. It teaches and calls you to action and when it has to it calls you to repentance. So don't single out one church because their members are actively involved in their communities. Because communities is where our children live and communities is where we get our future leaders. We will fight and we will organize better than you will ever do.
Your article full of lies and deception. Your article speaks of nothing but the truth is that you will have to wait until my generation dies and I am 30 years old to get your agenda passed. In the mean time, we will be vigilant in the schools and in other places so we can make sure that your agenda stays in the closet.
Carlota Carlos
Dear Paul,
Regarding Prop 8, and others - What we need to do is to stop out-of-state interests from pouring millions into our elections to confuse California voters with their lies thereby influencing changes in OUR constitution. The electorate needs to be more educated about this.
And wasn't it Montana that outlawed paid signature gathering for ballot propositions because they were "tired of people coming in from other states imposing their will on Montanans?" Why can't we do that here?
While volunteering to pass out literature, etc., during election season, I always come across folks who are often hawking causes just the opposite of my progressive values. When I question them, most of them only know what their compensators tell them about the issue. I realize they are happy to earn the money and probably need it, but it just irks me to see people pushing something they neither necessarily believe in nor understand because they are getting paid for it.
Maybe if those same folks, the majority of whom are young, volunteered to get more progressive issues passed, there would be more jobs eventually, and I don't mean the false promises of the likes of Lennar!
Terrrie Frye
San Francisco
Randy:
I am thrilled with Barack Obama's brilliant campaign, unimpeachable victory, switching nine red states to blue, his decisive Electoral Vote triumph, and the dramatic, rather exceptional popular vote plurality. Rationality and expertise and even civility may return to Washington. But claiming this single victory, however historic, equals the "Dawn of a New Progressive Era" has the feel of propaganda, at least cheerleading, not argument or substance.
Not once do you define what "progressive" means, making it by default little more than an electable liberal. Where is Obama's progressive agenda, vision or ideology? Where was the progressive campaign anywhere in the Democratic party -- Cindy Sheehan? I struggle to find anything about Obama more than safe liberal, such as withdrawing from Iraq over many months, his frightened FISA vote, or proposal to sustain very high defense spending.
Unless the notion is not being like George Bush or John McCain makes you a "progressive." What in last night's speech full of nice platitudes speak to your "mandate for progressive change"? Plus, where's the great collective wave of election support for this dawn of your new age -- not certainly in the modest Senate pickups, where only a few Bush senators (like E. Dole) were defeated and not mainly for being pro-Bush. Look at all the nasty Bush supporters re-elected, in Kentucky, Georgia, Oregon, even in historically very "progressive" Minnesota, where a discredited, corrupt hack (Norm Coleman, voting with Bush 80% of the time) beat a potentially progressive, energized Al Franken. No Obama shirt-tails I saw, even in states he won. Likewise: relatively few House pickups, less than expected. And why the loss in Missouri, with savvy Claire McCaskill pushing hard as national co-chair for Obama? A clear but not titanic mandate for something different.
Obama will govern as a centrist pragmatism, which may well involve unilaterally bombing Pakistan or enduring new FISA rules or backing dreadful Supreme Court decisions. I think his moderate health program is about as far-out as anything that will pass Congress, but it's not especially progressive. Ditto his tax plans, his support of Wall Street, his alliance with a bevy of Clinton and Democratic stalwarts from an earlier, hardly progressive age.
Now, don't get me wrong (and I am happy eventually to be wrong on this account): I am not complaining or expecting radical change as I view Obama as the perfect transition between the old, old Bush-Cheney politics and the tomorrow of a progressive era. But I don't see either cautious Rep. Pelosi or Sen. Reid as overseeing the dawn of your "progressive" age. You seem to be confusing current Democratic leadership, celebrated only yesterday for a lack of spine on anything controversial, as risk-taking progressives with vision.
I expect Obama to be a distinguished, perhaps great president as he has the brains, skills, and temperament for leadership. I hope he becomes the new FDR, who in fact didn't campaign as he eventually had to govern, but I don't see the virtue in your counting ill-defined chickens just because we may have banished the worse fox in a century from the government hen house.
Robert Becker
Mendocino CA
To the Editor:
Selecting Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate was Senator John McCain's first major decision as the Republican nominee. He made a big mistake. Sure, Palin energized the Republican base, but otherwise she was a major drag on his candidacy. McCain's team attempted to disguise her inadequacy by controlling media access to her.
However, when she did meet one-on-one with NBC's Katie Couric and ABC's Charles Gibson, her guile was insufficient to hide her vacuity. She made stirring canned speeches, but one always wondered if she knew what, for example, socialism is or why Obama's tax plan was supposed to be socialistic.
With the help of a ghost writer, she will probably get a book deal telling us all about her moment in the sun. And I bet she will be earning some pin money on the lecture circuit.
During the presidential debate, Senator Obama was asked if he thought Palin was qualified to be president. He answered: “That's going to be up to the American people.” Well, the American voters answered with a resounding "no" on Tuesday.
Ralph E. Stone
San Francisco
To the Editor:
In your write-up of San Francisco election results, you wrote: “One measure that remains in doubt is Proposition B — the affordable housing charter amendment — which is currently down by 2,000 votes. But as Debra Walker told me last night at David Chiu’s party, 'the new progressive Board could just legislate it."
How can the Board of Supervisors legislate a charter set aside without voter approval? Didn't Chris Daly appropriate $30m for housing 2 years ago and didn't Newsom refuse to spend it? Debra is much better at glad-handling than she is at the intricacies of policy after being around this for 20 years.
Marc Salomon
San Francisco
You can submit letters to the editor by clicking on this link: feedback@beyondchron.org or by writing to:
Beyond Chron
126 Hyde Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
415-771-9850 (phone)
Nov. 18, 2008 -- It’s Time to Re-Brand the “Housing Crisis”
Nov. 18, 2008 -- Statewide Day of Action to Save Renters Rebate
Nov. 18, 2008 -- Prop B Postmortem: Why Did it Fail?
Nov. 18, 2008 -- Reassessing Cal’s Jeff Tedford
Nov. 18, 2008 -- Freelance Writers Settlement and Google Case ...
Nov. 17, 2008 -- Where is California’s Barack Obama?
Nov. 17, 2008 -- Why the Prop 8 Protests Matter
Nov. 17, 2008 -- Supreme Court Weighs Reviving Freelance Writers’ Settlement – and Google Case Lurks
Nov. 17, 2008 -- Mormons and Catholics Deserve to Be Protested
Nov. 17, 2008 -- Prop 8 and Latinos; More On Overruling Prop 8; JROTC Controversy ...
Nov. 14, 2008 -- Latino Immigrants Played Key Role in Obama’s Red State Victories
MAIN ARTICLE ARCHIVE
Copyright © 2005-2008
Beyond
Chron.org. All rights reserved.
RSS News Feed
|
|
November 21, 2008
