{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
