{q\advance\baselineskip-0\pnt5pt \section{Crank Letters} {\it I guess I'm somewhat of a chronic letter writer. Usually¨ they get purged from the disk after printing, but somehow these¨ letters got saved. So publishing them here out of context seemed¨ appropriate. (I have also mastered the art of writing Letters to the Editor --¨ they {\rm always} get printed. Keep them short. Length, style,¨ content according to the publication. Don't directly insult¨ anyone. Righteousness is boring to read. Say what it is you are¨ writing about (context)! Stick to the point. Make it amusing.¨ Provide complete contact info, even though no one ever uses it,¨ it lets them know you are not a crank.)} \bigskip {\bf Bay Guardian (11 Apr 90)} Jim Balderson, re: The Denver Boot\margintext{[The Bay Guardian, a local weekly,¨ ran an article about the Denver Boot, to be introduced in S.F.¨ the next year. It included complete construction details, and a¨ how-to on disassembly. There were four references to¨ ``anarchists'' as the agents of their destruction. They article¨ had a gleeful secret-agent tone.]} -- So ``anarchists'' will dismantle the Boot¨ from cars in the city? An ignorant, reactionary and dangerous¨ choice of words. Dangerous, because anarchist people like myself¨ are specifically harassed by the police exactly because of idiots¨ who say ``anarchist'' to add spice to their writing. Hint: it's¨ rude as shit to use any group or label for such purposes. Take a look at what anarchists really do in this city. They work¨ for youth shelters and crisis lines. Distribute free food to¨ those who need it. The needle exchange. Any number of¨ understaffed and under- or un-paid volunteers that make S.F. a¨ good city to live in. Sorry, but you've got no excuse. It was¨ wise-ass remark, at our expense.\plainmargintext{[This letter¨ breaks two important rules (righteousness and insults), but the¨ PS: helps make up for it. Length was critical, as the Bay¨ Guardian has a minuscule Letters column.]} And a personal no-thanks from me for increasing the¨ harassment/irritation level in my life. Jerk. Tom Jennings, San Francisco PS: This doesn't mean I think dismantling them is a bad idea\dots \newpage {\bf S.F. Examiner (9 Dec 88)} Your article on violent fascists\margintext{\it [In response to¨ an incredibly inane and simplistic article on ``skinheads'',¨ complete with one of those ``How to tell\dots'' drawings with the¨ little lines pointing to various worn items (earrings: hoops for¨ girls, studs for boys; that sort of nonsense. This letter is¨ actually far longer than recommended, but they ran it anyways.]}¨ in Thursdays Examiner was generally good, in that it illuminated¨ something that's being ignored in our society, but also very¨ misleading, and may even put some of us in danger from would-be¨ do-gooders. People cannot be reduced to clothing or haircuts, just as we¨ cannot be reduced to just skin color. This is dangerous, short-cut thinking. The ``How to Spot a Skinhead'' drawing was simply wrong: you¨ cannot spot bigots by the way they dress. There are more bigots,¨ racists, anti-semites, fascists, etc.~that wear ``normal¨ clothes'', in both numbers and proportion, than there are¨ otherwise. (Besides, fashion-wise, most skinheads wear surplus¨ nylon ``bomber jackets'', not leather or denim.) The drawing as¨ about as useful, and as amusing, as those ``How to Spot a¨ Preppy/Hippy/Whatever'' posters. The same sort of simplistic thinking is at work in many¨ ``Neighborhood Watch'' programs, where neighbors are instructed¨ to report ``suspicious looking persons'' to the police;¨ frequently this means that a black person in a predominantly¨ white neighborhood is reported as ``suspicious looking'', out of¨ fear and ignorance, rather than overt racism. For example, I have very short hair, a black leather jacket,¨ levis and Doc Martens. I am not a skinhead, a bigot or fascist,¨ nor am I a fag-basher; as a matter of fact I am gay. If you had¨ done a bit more research, you would have found that many, if not¨ most, people that wear funny haircuts, leather jackets, levis and¨ boots do more specifically anti-fascist work than many ``normal-looking'' people; we volunteer for grassroots political¨ groups, support human rights in the US and abroad, do community¨ service, work at Rock Against Racism shows, all ages/drug free¨ shows, political protests, etc. Even if you don't agree with¨ these things, they are hardly bigoted or fascist acts. Also, the¨ nasty skinheads (as opposed to the OK ones) consider us their¨ enemies, too. Fortunately or unfortunately, you have to interact with people in¨ some way to find out what their views are. Fact is, most wars¨ were started by white people who wear suits. These sort of people¨ have also done a large proportion of the atrocities against¨ fellow humans in recorded history. See how useful this process¨ is? Tom Jennings, San Francisco CA \bigskip {\bf S.F. Sentinel (19 Aug 90)}\plainmargintext{The {\rm S.F.¨ Sentinel} is a local weekly gay/lesbian newspaper, owned by one¨ of the more piggish and small-minded bar owners in town.} Re: Your article on the Secret Gospel Church Something in your article scared me, I actually lost sleep over¨ it. In the context of the article, the writer asked the police, ``was¨ anyone charged with unsafe sex?'' Of course the officer said no¨ -- UNSAFE SEX IS NOT A CRIME!! The unspoken logic behind the¨ question is very, very dangerous to our civil liberties, and will¨ be a precedent for losing even more. The point is this: I and literally everyone I know agrees that¨ ``unsafe sex'' is bad, dangerous, etc\margintext{[Following a¨ prudish but ultimately terrifying article on an admittedly odd¨ sort of sex club/church, operating somewhere in San Francisco.]}.¨ But regardless, it is absolutely a personal decision. It can be¨ nothing more nor less. An anonymous sex-club operator was quoted as saying something to¨ the effect of, when we have people in our clubs, we have an¨ obligation to keep them safe from fire, etc, and also unsafe sex. Does this guy work for the police?! Fire and related issues are¨ {\it environmental} -- they are part of the structure. Safe sex¨ is between the participants. The only way to ``ensure safe sex''¨ is -- how? Monitors in the rooms? Video surveillance? Sure, the¨ monitors will be ``people from our community'' not the police --¨ but besides not being able to tell the difference, it sets the¨ precedence of stating {\it you cannot be trusted, you must be¨ monitored.} Taking this a little, but not very much, further, if unsafe sex¨ is so dangerous, it must be stopped everywhere. In Georgia, the¨ police can arrest you for homo-sex, period -- why not make it a¨ felony to have unsafe sex? My feeling is that the people who want to shut down sex clubs,¨ even or maybe especially the gay ones, simply haven't gotten it¨ through their heads what {\it tolerance} means, nor the ideas¨ behind the Bill of Rights -- you simply can't {\it control} what¨ people do, even if you think it is evil, simply because you feel¨ strongly against it. Helms can run for senator if he wants to. TV¨ christians can say you're going to hell and take fools money. It¨ is their right to do so. Their right stops variously when they¨ attempt to control others behavior, no matter how well meaning.¨ Or not. Tom Jennings, San Francisco CA \bigskip {\bf Bay Area Reporter (13 Oct 90)}\plainmargintext{The {\rm Bay¨ Area Reporter} (BAR) is the other weekly gay newspaper, while¨ still pretty conservative, is fairly consistent without the petty¨ vengefulness of the S.F. Sentiment.} Tony Fiore's Guest Opinion (BAR 11 Oct) I believe does represent¨ a vocal minority's opinion, hence this letter. Not everyone wants to live in a world where everything is nice¨ and neat, trimmed lawns and painted houses, where a street is¨ just for cars, sidewalks just for walking, and walls are just¨ walls, like some idealized TV/1950's Ozzie \& Harriet¨ world\margintext{[In the Castro, the somewhat\dash upscale most¨ obvious gay neighborhood in San Francisco, has it's share of¨ ``neighborhood improvement'' type idiots. You probably have them¨ in your town, out to defend niceness and convenience and the¨ American Way, against the grubby rabble out to lower their¨ property values. A pet peeve of mine. This particular one had his¨ ``15 minutes'' of fame, and managed to alienate everyone around¨ him within a few months.]} (but with nicer people of course).¨ Believe it or not, to some, a street is merely an ugly thing¨ covering 70\% of the city, sidewalks are for hanging out,¨ skateboarding, decorating, as well as walking, and walls are¨ surfaces for expression. The real issue here is one of aesthetics. Bear with me a moment. Sorry, your version of the world is no better nor more valid than¨ mine. It's not that I think your world is bad, or wrong, per se;¨ what annoys me is your assumption that {\it everyone wants this}¨ or should live-this-way, and if they appear to not, they must be¨ jealous, crazy, or just plain mean. Get a clue. The only word¨ I've ever found that expresses this assumption-that-my-views-are-Right is ``imperialism'', such a¨ dreadful word. (Suggestions anyone?) Better to call your group\margintext{[His group was called ``Help¨ Save Our Neighborhood''.]} what it is -- ``Help Save Us Property-Owners' Aesthetics''. Queer Nation (QN) is addressing¨ problems it sees, in ways it sees fit, like you are. So are other¨ people responding in ways they believe will help, like the Homo¨ Patrol street patrol -- no Guardian Angel macho nonsense, but¨ simply out there to prevent bashings. If you cared about the¨ people who actually live here -- rather than your idealized¨ ``Neighborhood'' -- you might do something like donate walkie-talkies or batteries or a big box of whistles for them distribute¨ while on patrol in your precious Neighborhood. (Call 267-6118)¨ You'd even get brownie points for helping to end divisiveness. I'm sure QN loves getting all the credit, but different groups do¨ the following: STRAIGHTS READ THIS, street patrol, BEHAVE OR BE¨ GONE, endless graffiti, and other one-shot non-events. Yes, the¨ world is far, far messier than you think. Others' actions do not¨ prevent you from doing your own thing. You should also take the hint that CUAV\margintext{Community¨ United Against Violence -- a well respected community group.} is¨ supporting Queer Nation's tactics. What you describe as¨ ``alienating'' the police is merely being self-sufficient --¨ don't you remember what {\it happened} Oct 6th?! How about 11¨ years back at the Elephant Walk? Why not ask CUAV how {\it they}¨ came into existence? \noindent ``I am now embarrassed to bring straight friends with¨ me into our neighborhood\dots'' -- are they only your friends if¨ you live in a ``nice'' place? With friends like that\dots Trying to see things from your shoes -- could you not view what¨ ``Queer Nation'' et al are doing as, at worst, your neighbors¨ doing what they can to respond to the homophobic environment, or¨ is your aesthetic such an overriding concern that you refuse to¨ change? PS: I am not a Queer Nation member. Tom Jennings, San Francisco \bigskip \newpage {\bf Bay Area Reporter (24 Dec 89)} Dear Dan Rotan {\it et al}, First Dan\margintext{[Just responding to another idiot with an us¨ (nice'n'normal) vs. them (downscale weirdos) letter.]}, if you¨ have ``friends'' -- straight or otherwise -- that voted ``anti-gay'' (sic) simply because they didn't like what some¨ other group of people did -- that's your problem. Personally, I¨ would never consider people that petty, spiteful and obviously¨ homophobic to be ``friends''. But I didn't write to comment on your insecurities, but the thing¨ unsaid behind yours and many other letters I've read lately: That you consider yourself to be one of the ``real'' gay people,¨ you know, the legitimate ones. The ones that act like ``you''.¨ ``We'' give ``you'' a bad name. If it weren't for us, much more¨ progress would be made. And so on. (I won't make the obvious¨ analogy with German Jews trying to ``pass''. Especially in these¨ Interesting Times.) Seems we've heard this story before -- how unsightly drag queens¨ (etc) give us good gay people a bad name. Butch boys say ``not¨ all gay men are like that!'' about sissy boys. Or how straight¨ boys hate ``fags''. Don't you recognize the process? -- it's the¨ same old fears in new clothing. Are you so unsure of yourself that you confuse someone else's¨ actions with your own? Don't your own actions speak for¨ themselves? Since you asked: I firmly believe that the attempt of some gay¨ people to blend into the so-called mainstream is suicide, and¨ that the people that want to do this will sell us ``weirdos''¨ out, climbing over our bodies if necessary, to get there. Your¨ incredible intolerance, for something as minor as disagreeing¨ with the tactics of a group you are not even part of, tells me¨ that I could not rely on you for anything. Your beliefs and actions genuinely give {\it me} a bad name. I¨ get shit in my life because mainstream, upscale, yuppy¨ consumptive people like you claim to represent ``all gay¨ people''. {\it You embarrass me!} Why is it that the so-called¨ ``mainstream'' can't tolerate difference? And no, I am not part¨ of ACT-UP, SANOE, or any other activist group. They don't¨ represent me either. Only I do that. You have no choice but to live with us. And us with you. Tom Jennings, San Francisco \bigskip {\bf S.F. Sentinel (28 June 90)} Imagine, a world where gay people are in all stations of life,¨ even the FBI and CIA\margintext{[After an editorial piece about¨ women and gays (sic) trying to stay in the (in this case) FBI¨ after ``coming out''.]} -- the thrill of gay men and women¨ enforcing our country's fine standards of justice throughout the¨ world, and at home, terrorizing those pornographers like¨ Mapplethorpe and Sturges. It would have just warmed my heart to know that our own gay¨ people helped the FBI seize video equipment and personal¨ belongings of a friend of mine, who had merely corresponded with¨ someone accused of having ``child pornography''. (No charges were¨ filed, they returned his personal items but kept the equipment.¨ Of course he could sue them\dots right.) And on your ACT-UP ``vs.'' the [6th International] AIDS¨ Conference attitude -- in Charles Linebarger's article, even¨ Conference people said ACT-UP was great -- why all the ``let's¨ tone things down a bit'' editorializing? Watch out, your true¨ feelings are showing! Tom Jennings, San Francisco \bigskip {\bf Bay Area Reporter (23 Nov 88)} What\plainmargintext{[Ballot Proposition 102 made it mandatory to¨ report to the state all HIV-positive blood tests, with penalties¨ for doctors who don't, and quarantine for people with AIDS.¨ Drafted by that sicko, Lyndon LaRouche. Prop 96 required HIV¨ testing for all} happened at the ``No on 96/102'' march and rally¨ at City Hall is somewhat different than reported by Cesar Cadabes¨ and Jim Mangia in the 17 Nov. letters column. The No on 96/102 Coalition hired Chunk of Coal (Hernan Cortez) to¨ do the sound and lights for the rally on City Hall steps; Hernan¨ asked the other two of us to help him. None of us were involved¨ in any way with any other phase of the planning or execution of¨ the event. We\plainmargintext{people convicted of sex-related crimes¨ (prostitution, etc). The typical ``thin end of the wedge'' type¨ law.]} had the equipment operating just as the march reached City¨ Hall steps, a few minutes early. While the people who were to be¨ speaking for the rally were being located, Dr. Fulani (who was¨ not on any list of speakers that we ever saw) approached the¨ microphone and started to speak on Props. 96 and 102, amidst¨ applaud from the crowd. After only a few minutes however, she¨ switched to the NAP political agenda, rather than the agreed upon¨ issue of props. 96/102, and the applause turned to criticism and¨ booing: ``Stick to the issue at hand!'' and other, less polite,¨ things were yelled quite loudly. When Dr. Fulani\margintext{Lenora Fulani is a front for a group¨ known as the New Alliance Party, a sicko cult with leftist-style¨ politics. They take upon themselves the attributes of a group¨ they wish to subvert (in this case, they fully support gay rights¨ and put infiltrators into groups like AIDS support services) and¨ meddle in hateful ways. Don't discount them -- they nearly¨ destroyed the largest Easy Bay AIDS support agency, and Fulani¨ got 4\% of the {\rm national} presidential vote!]} and her party¨ refused to relinquish the microphone, Billy from ACT-UP took up a¨ ``No on 96! No on 102!'' chant using a microphone down at the¨ soundboard; the next speaker was escorted to a second microphone¨ up on the steps, that mike made active, cutting off Dr. Fulani mid-sentence, much to her dismay. The rest of the rally went¨ without incident. I suppose you could call it rude, but it was the minimum¨ necessary to keep the rally on target and operating smoothly, and¨ it was done without rancor. The other speakers had no trouble¨ sticking to the subject at hand (as if that should need to be¨ mentioned). Racism had nothing to do with the incident, and the¨ claim of ``racism'' here is just diversionary bullshit. Cesar's¨ statement ``\dots I personally saw a number of people ripping¨ down posters which listed the various speakers who had been¨ invited'' implies that Dr. Fulani's name was on them; it was not,¨ unless NAP people put them up in the first place. Jim's¨ ``Democratic party thugs'' is absurd -- at least one of us is an¨ anarchist. From what we saw, the rally was a success; the speakers (all¨ applauded when introduced) spoke on a wide variety of views, the¨ people who attended the rally got the message and were also told¨ about the protest at the ``Midnight Caller'' episode filming that¨ night (which also went very well.) Tom Jennings, Duke Crestfield, Shred of Dignity, San Francisco Hernan Cortez, Chunk of Coal Productions, San Francisco \hbox to\bigcol{\hfil\endblob} }% end advance baselineskip