{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