Author: mopress

  • Forever Grateful, Forever Pissed: Two More Replies on Cape Cod

    Please notice in the following rant how the writer takes the ‘white usage’ of racism and runs with it. There is no evidence in the email that the writer bothered to consider the ‘black usage’ for racism suggested by the article under fire. No doubt, experience with this sort of Cape Codder is what motivates Mr. Gonsalves to advise his black readers not to use the r-word in white company.

    Dear Sir,

    Read your article on Cape Cod “racism” problem.What a pathetic example of race baiting jibberish and unmitigated BS.

    I happen to live in the area and if you knew what you were talking about you would know that Cape Cod is well represented by many black people of good character who are treated with dignity and respect. The town of Onset Mass has and has had a very large, possibly majority, black population, mostly Cape Verdeans, one of whom I would bet is Mr.Gonsalves. These people are hard working good citizens who have always enjoyed the acceptence of the rest of the population in the area. It has always been a given that with minor exceptions people are judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin or the movies that they prefer.

    Until now I was not aware that there were “black”movies or”white” movies although I have seen “black and white” movies in the past. You have the distinction of trying to popularise a newly perceived or concocted schism between blacks and whites, for what purpose I can’t imagine, maybe just to stir up some conflict where it doesn’t exist. Would it be your purpose to force theater owners to show predominantly unpopular movies to empty theaters for the sake of political correctness or reparitions for slavery? I would like to know how you derived your assessment of the theater owners “intent”as other than making a living by selling tickets.

    One of the most significant factors in keeping any dissention going between black and white is people like you and your absurd contentions continually harping on their differences real or as in this case imagined. This article is really a stretch in an attempt to do so and you do a disservice to your fellow blacks. This article has “pity poor me I’m black and everyone shares my self loathing” in every line,except where Mr Gonsalves is quoted.

    Previous to the Civil rights Act of 1963 if you referred to a Cape Verdean as Black they would be very quick to correct you and insist that they were Cape Verdean and not black or negro (an acceptable term then). Now everybody is black and proud and taking their place at the front of the line for set asides and affirmative action preference. That is affirmative action at work.

    Cape Verdeans (blacks) are now a protected class where before they were just like everyone else in town, a person. I guess they signed on to your philosophy of “Whitey” owes me. Where before they were just “folks”as you so quaintly label them now the citizens of Cape Cod are “black folks” and “white folks”and “Whitey won’t give them the movies they want. None of them would ever think or believe that they were getting the short end of the movie biz if you didn’t concoct this pathetic exercise in race baiting.You should be ashamed.

    I have an idea that most proud Cape Cod blacks would agree with me and disavow your racist screed about such a pathetic issue as what movies are being shown. You see racism everywhere and if it stopped you would just be like everyone else.Heaven forbid that racism is eliminated and you lose your “special” victimhood status. Not much chance of that happening with an outlook like yours. You are part of the problem not the soloution.Smarten up.

    With lowest of regards,

    PS. No need to reply you don’t have anything to say that will redeem yourself from this slur on the good people of Cape Codfish.

    Honestly, I think the reader above did not take much time to think about the article. Not only does he (she?) neglect the article’s attention to two quite different meanings of racism, but he also seems not to have read the phrase “existential courage” (something quite different from “pity me”).

    But quite aside from ideas that were explicitly treated in the article, the writer above plays innocent on the question of audience demographics. He would blame me first for practices that have long been embedded in the funding, marketing, and casting decisions of motion pictures in the USA.

    Affirmative action? Oh no. There’s that, too? Yes, and a classic case of defacto segregation to go right along with it.

    On the other hand, here is a reader who found in the Cape Cod article a new way to think about the difficulties of our common lives.

    Sir:

    An excellent, delicate elucidation of a problem that many might well not even see exists; I didn’t really grasp it myself until I read your article. I sensed that there was a dichotomy between the views of whites and people of color I know, but your essay clarified for me the precise nature of that difference.

    How fatiguing it is to be always thinking of skin color. Your article brought that home to me as well. We need explanations such as yours, yet I can’t help wishing people would simply grow up and forget about it. But then I’m so mixed (1/4 Native American, 1/4 Creole, 1/4 Welsh, 1/16 African American, 1/16 French) I hardly even know where I fit on your continuum of “intent” versus “effect”, though I recognize the existence and influence of both.

    At any rate, this is one of the most useful things I’ve read in a long time. You expanded my thinking and I value that above everything.

    Most sincerely,

    Note to pissed off Cape Codders: readers who find the article useful do not blame Cape Codders first.–gm

  • Maxey to Lead Campaign to Defeat Texas Homophobic Code

    Former State Representative Glen Maxey of Austin will lead the effort
    to defeat the Texas constitutional amendment prohibiting recognition of civil
    marriage or civil unions between persons of the same gender which the
    Legislature has placed on the November, 2005 statewide ballot.

    "I’m eager to use my experience to bring a broad coalition of
    fair-minded Texans together to say ‘No’ to this nonsense in November," said Maxey in a Tuesday press release from the Lesbian /
    Gay Rights Lobby of Texas.

    "With public education, health care access, and rational and fair tax
    policy languishing, the Legislature spent their time and our tax
    dollars enacting this divisive, unnecessary amendment. They now are
    asking Texans to rubber stamp their efforts to deny many Texans the
    basic civil rights to protect their relationships and their family’s
    property and inheritance rights, hospital visitation, and the hundreds
    of other rights and responsibilities brought by a civil marriage or
    civil union."

    Maxey, 53, is a native of Baytown, Texas and holds a Masters Degree in
    Education and a B.S. in Social Rehabilitation and Social Services from
    Sam Houston State University. He has a 35 year career in political
    activism, campaign management, and public policy. He has participated
    in hundreds of electoral campaigns ranging from municipal, county and
    school elections to Presidential campaigns and issue referendums. He
    was instrumental in the historic grass roots effort that helped elect
    Governor Ann Richards in 1990 and was the Texas statewide coordinator
    for Gov. Howard Dean’s campaign in 2004. He has been an integral part
    of statewide campaigns for over three decades. His leadership in 2004
    resulted in a historic voter turnout in Travis County local elections.

    Lesbian Gay Rights Lobby of Texas Press Release

  • A Personal Preference for Civil Rights: Rating Chris Bell

    Thanks to a comment at PinkDome we checked out the Congressional voting
    record of Chris Bell who will likely be running for Governor of
    Texas. The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) gives Bell a rating of 100
    percent for his votes in the 108th Congress and three special notes for
    his co-sponsorship of legislation that was not rated. So we’ll
    call it a rating of 103 percent, which is quite a curve-setter for the
    rest of the Texas delegation.

    In the PinkDome interview, Bell expresses a personal preference against
    gay marriage. This reminds us of dedicated Civil Rights activists
    who have personal preferences about inter-racial marriage also, but whose
    wisdom never wavers from public commitments to providing a vigorous Civil
    Rights context for the exercise of personal preference. Just as
    codes have thankfully withered away that would outlaw inter-racial or
    inter-ethnic marriage, there is no reason to replant those mean seeds
    in the area of sexual orientation. So we are glad to see that Bell has a personal preference for Civil Rights.

    Only Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Houston) matches Bell’s rankings by the HRC on all
    counts, upholding the fine tradition of her district as the conscience
    of Texas in Washington (here are the voters who elected Barbara Jordan
    and Mickey Leland). Although Eddie Bernice
    Johnson (D-Dallas) also gets 100 percent, she doesn’t score the extra
    credit. Honorable mentions go to Lloyd Doggett (D-South Texas)
    and Martin Frost (D-Dallas) whose single shortcoming was a failure to
    support permanent partners for immigrants.

    Republican re-districting deliberately targeted liberal white seats
    held by Bell, Frost, and Doggett, with the result that only Doggett
    survived. A Bell campaign for Governor appears to hold clear
    promise of a Civil Rights renewal in Texas. We only hope that
    putting things so clearly won’t hurt him too much. Pasted below
    are the reasons why HRC rated Bell as a perfect lawmaker.–gm

    1) MARRIAGE PROTECTION AMENDMENT, H.J. RES. 106, ROLL CALL VOTE 494
    Th e Federal Marriage Amendment, introduced in the House by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo.,
    would enshrine discrimination into the U.S. Constitution by defi ning marriage as the union
    between one man and one woman and prohibiting federal and state laws from conferring same-sex
    couples with marital status and “the legal incidents thereof,” thereby endangering civil unions and
    domestic partnership benefi ts. Th e amendment was brought to the House fl oor for a vote Sept. 30,
    2004. It needed a 2/3 majority in the House to pass. Th e amendment failed by a vote of 227 to 186:
    Democrats — 36 yes, 158 no; Republicans — 191 yes, 27 no; Independents — 0 yes , 1 no. HRC
    opposed this amendment — and the vote is double-weighted in the fi nal House scores.

    2) PELOSI MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
    AUTHORIZATION. H.R. 4200
    On Sept. 28, 2004, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., off ered a non-binding motion to instruct the House
    Department of Defense authorization conferees to accept the Senate-passed, Kennedy-Smith hate
    crimes amendment. (See Vote 2 in the Senate.) Th is amendment would add real or perceived sexual orientation,
    gender and disability to existing law and remove the overly burdensome restriction on federal
    involvement in helping investigate and prosecute hate crimes. Th e Pelosi motion passed Sept. 28,
    2004, by a vote of 213 to 186. Th irty-three representatives did not vote: Democrats — 182 yes, 9 no;
    Republicans — 31 yes, 177 no; Independents — 0 yes, 0 no. HRC supported this motion.

    3) MARRIAGE PROTECTION ACT OF 2004, H.R. 3313
    Th e House voted July 22, 2004, to pass legislation, introduced by Rep. John Hostettler, R-Ind.,
    that would strip federal court jurisdiction over questions relating to the Defense of Marriage Act,
    closing the courtroom doors to a group of Americans. Th e House passed the legislation with a
    vote of 233-194, with eight members abstaining. Republicans — 206 yes, 17 no; Democrats
    — 27 yes, 176 no; Independents — 0 yes, 1 no. HRC opposed this legislation.

    4) LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT HATE CRIMES PREVENTION ACT OF 2004,
    H.R. 4204 (CO-SPONSORSHIP)
    Members of the House were asked to co-sponsor legislation introduced April 22, 2004, that
    would update and expand federal hate crimes laws to cover serious, violent hate crimes committed
    because of real or perceived sexual orientation, gender or disability to cover the gay, lesbian,
    bisexual and transgender community. As of Oct. 1, 2004, the measure had 178 co-sponsors:
    Democrats — 168; Republicans — 9; Independents — 1.

    5) PERMANENT PARTNERS IMMIGRATION ACT, H.R. 832 (CO-SPONSORSHIP)
    Members of the House were asked to co-sponsor legislation introduced Feb. 13, 2003, that would
    amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide same-sex partners of U.S. citizens and lawful
    permanent residents the same immigration benefi ts legal spouses of U.S. residents enjoy. As of Oct. 1,
    2004, the measure had 129 co-sponsors: Democrats — 125; Republicans — 2; Independents — 1.
    10
    REPRESENTATIVE (Party) SCORE q r s t u v w x

    6) EARLY TREATMENT FOR HIV ACT OF 2004, H.R. 3859 (CO-SPONSORSHIP)
    Members of the House were asked to co-sponsor legislation introduced Feb. 26, 2004, which
    would expand Medicaid to people living with HIV and provide states with the option to cover
    low-income HIV-infected individuals. As of Oct. 1, 2004, the measure had 142 co-sponsors:
    Democrats — 119; Republicans — 22; Independents — 1.

    7) EMPLOYMENT NON-DISCRIMINATION ACT, H.R. 3285 (CO-SPONSORSHIP)
    Members of the House were asked to co-sponsor legislation introduced Oct. 8, 2003, that would
    prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace. As of Oct. 1, 2004,
    H.R. 3285 had 180 co-sponsors: Democrats — 165; Republicans — 14; Independents — 1.

    8) POLICY PLEDGE OF NON-DISCRIMINATION
    Th is Congress, the Human Rights Campaign and the Gender Public Advocacy Coalition worked
    together and asked every representative to adopt, voluntarily, a written policy for their own offi ces
    indicating that sexual orientation and gender identity and expression are not factors in their employment
    decisions. As of Oct. 1, 2004, 150 representatives in the 108th Congress have adopted
    this policy: Democrats — 131; Republicans — 18; Independents — 1.

    SIGNIFICANT CO-SPONSORSHIPS NOTED BUT NOT SCORED

    1) – DENOTES CO-SPONSORSHIP OF DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP BENEFITS AND OBLIGATIONS
    ACT OF 2003, H.R. 2426
    Th is bill would provide domestic partners of federal employees the same benefi ts available to and
    obligations accorded upon spouses of federal employees. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., introduced
    this bill to the House on June 11, 2003. As of Oct. 1, 2004, 98 members of the House have cosponsored
    this piece of legislation: Democrats — 97; Republicans — 0; Independents — 1.

    2) – DENOTES CO-SPONSORSHIP OF TAX EQUITY FOR HEALTH PLAN BENEFICIARIES ACT
    OF 2003, H.R. 935
    Under the current tax code, employees are taxed on the benefi ts provided to their domestic partners
    while benefi ts for spouses are tax free. On Feb. 26, 2003, Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., introduced
    a bill that would amend the current tax code, allowing employees to exclude from their
    gross income the costs of employee-provided health coverage provided to other eligible designated
    benefi ciaries, in addition to spouses and dependent children. Th ere were 84 co-sponsors to this
    bill as of Oct. 1, 2004: Democrats — 79; Republicans — 4; Independents — 1.

    3) – DENOTES CO-SPONSORSHIP OF FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE INCLUSION ACT, H.R. 1430
    Current law does not permit employees covered by the Family Medical Leave Inclusion Act to
    take appr

    oved leave to care for domestic partners. Th is legislation, introduced by Rep. Carolyn B.
    Maloney, D-N.Y., on March 25, 2003, amends the Family Medical Leave Act of 1993 to permit
    leave to care for domestic partners, among others, if they have a serious health condition. Th is
    bill has been co-sponsored by 93 members of the House as of Oct. 1, 2004: Democrats — 91;
    Republicans — 1; Independents — 1.

  • Slavery in Texas 2005

    The South Texas office of the Texas Civil Rights Project this week
    filed suit in the 139TH state District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas
    on behalf of two women who were victims of human trafficking and forced
    labor until they escaped through a window in the house where they were
    held against their will.

    The suit claims that the five defendants, members of a Rio Grande
    Valley family, transported the two women to the United States after
    promising jobs, but forced them to work with no pay when they arrived.
    The women claim they were forced to work up to 21 hours a day over the
    course of two months at Pappasitos adult day care center in Mission.
    They were also forced to perform domestic labor in several homes. They
    received no compensation for their work, were not allowed to take
    breaks, and were denied adequate food and water.

    The women were also subjected to sexual harassment and were not
    permitted to have contact with family or friends. They were threatened
    with deportation, if they complained. During the two-month period, the
    women were forced to work more than 1,300 hours before they were able
    to escape. See the rest of the press release at the Texas Civil Rights Project.