Monday, March 04, 2013

Queer Activists See, Discuss “Bully” at CFAC

Surprises in 2011 Film and Community Reaction to It

by MARK GABRISH CONLAN

Copyright © 2013 by Mark Gabrish Conlan for Zenger’s Newsmagazine • All rights reserved

L to R: Walter C. Meyer, Brandon Primus, Shirlynn

“We have a pretty safe space at Carlsbad High School, because we’ve had our GSA [Gay-Straight Alliance] for 10 years,” said the Carlsbad High GSA president, a student identified only as Shirlynn, at a special showing of the 2011 documentary Bully at Canvass for a Cause (CFAC) in Hillcrest February 26. “But when it started, people were so against it they would say that Mr. Dearie [the group’s faculty advisor] was a child molester and was Gay. My sister, who’s Lesbian like me, went to the same school and a teacher, Mr. Asher, scheduled an oral on the ‘Day of Silence’ [a nationwide day of action in which students agree not to speak for a day as a protest against anti-Queer bullying and bigotry], and the oral was referred to on the final exam. So people participating in the Day of Silence couldn’t get credit for the final.”
The film Bully, made in 2009-2011 by Jay Hirsch and Cynthia Lowen, is a stark documentary about the terrors certain students face in schools because, for whatever quirky reasons, they’re picked on by their peers and subjected to relentless harassment and, all too often, physical violence. It focuses on five cases — three living students and two, Tyler Long, 17, of Chatsworth, Georgia and Ty Smalley, 11, of Perkins, Oklahoma, who were driven to suicide by the constant bullying and assaults against them by fellow students. The three who survived the bullying were Alex Hopkins, 14, of Sioux City, Iowa; Ja’Meya Jackson, 14, of Yazoo County, Mississippi; and Kelby Johnson, 16, of Tuttle, Oklahoma.
The CFAC screening of Bully was followed by a dynamic and often surprising post-film discussion featuring three invited panelists. Shirlynn was one of them. The other two were Walter C. Meyer, author of the provocative 2009 novel Rounding Third — a searing portrayal of high-school bullying and homophobia that made him an in-demand speaker when a succession of suicides by Queer teens put the issue front and center in the U.S. media a year later — and Brandon Primus from Congressmember Susan Davis’s office. Primus was there to pitch the Student Non-Discrimination Act (SNDA), which Congressmember Davis is co-sponsoring, which would make it the law that “No student shall, on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity of such individual or of a person with whom the student associates or has associated, be excluded from participation in, or be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
The fact that all five students profiled in Bully are from the American heartland rather than the relatively cosmopolitan cities on both coasts might make you think that student bullying is merely a rural problem. Think again. According to the Bullying Prevention Institute (http://www.bullyingpreventioninstitute.org/Outreach/MythsAboutBullying.aspx), “Bullying occurs in rural, suburban and urban communities in all geographic regions and among children of every race and income level.” What’s more, much of the torture bullied children go through comes not only from the bullies themselves but the supposedly responsible adults who either refuse to do anything about it at all or effectively encourage it with the idea that the kids being bullied will somehow be toughened by the experience and thereby be better able to handle the stresses of the world they’ll grow up into as adults.
That attitude was reflected in a message board on the www.imdb.com Web page for Bully by Justin Truax, who started a thread called, “I’m Glad I Was Bullied — Here’s Why!” After enduring four years of bullying from fifth to ninth grade and complaining to his parents — “who went to the school, which ultimately did nothing,” Truax said — he joined a wrestling club and learned to fight back. “I said, ‘I'm done taking your **** and I'm not playing games anymore, leave me the **** alone and go masturbate or something.’ I remember saying those exact words. They laughed and went to throw the first punch, then all the training had paid off. I bobbed my head back and came back around with a right hook, square on the jaw. He dropped instantly. The other two were coming after me, so I kicked one of them in the nuts. He went down also. Finally, my bully was standing in front of me. He looked shocked. All the days where I just took it and did nothing in return, it was like he was seeing the second coming of Christ. It was now time for David to nail Goliath in the head with that little rock. Instead of that little rock, it was a nice kick to the liver and a nice knee to the head.”
Truax said the lesson of being bullied and learning to respond in kind prepared him for the adult world and its relentless competition and conflict. “In the real world, there are tons of ‘bullies’ out there and if I went through my life without any enemies or problems, the real world would eat me alive,” Truax wrote. “It’s only because of my bully that I went to those classes to get stronger and more confident. He was the catalyst. If I let my parents, my school, my teachers or my friends fight my battles for me during my life, then ultimately that would get me nowhere. It would get me a lot of pity, but it wouldn’t get me further in life. It wouldn’t get me the confidence that I needed to become a shark in this world instead of a tiny little fish.”
That’s just the problem, said Karl Ericsson of Sweden, who posted a review of Bully to imdb.com. “In a world of competition, one less competitor is a victory for the survivor,” Ericsson wrote. “We know today that it is cooperation that brlngs about development amongst humans and not competition, which only brings about degeneration and death. The American society that allows rich men to bully poor men to death is a society of apes, more or less. Actually it’s worse than a society of apes. Competition is hailed because, like this film and other occurrences show, it keeps the poor fighting each other for the crumbs from the rich’s table and keeps them from cooperating to get rid of the rich bullies. The American way of life is an abomination — get rid of it.”
Some of the participants in the discussion at the CFAC screening had similar points of view. “What’s turning our kids into monsters?” said CFAC staff member Gabe Conaway. “The system is left outside the conversation.” Conaway said that too often the class background of the bullies themselves isn’t considered. When he came out as Queer at 16, he said, “All the kids who picked on me were from poor families.”
Oftentimes, in fact, student-on-student violence begins with a bullying victim who tries to fight back and reaches a point of desperation. The massacre at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado in April 1999 is often described as the desperate fight-back of two misfit kids who got tired of being bullied — though a Slate.com article from 2004 (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/assessment/2004/04/the_depressive_and_the_psychopath.single.html) based on a report by an FBI investigator and a psychologist suggested that Columbine shooter Eric Harris was simply a psychopath and his partner in crime, Dylan Klebold, a troubled youth Harris recruited to help him.
Bully itself shows what can happen to a student who tries to fight back against the bullies at their own level. Fourteen-year-old African-American honor student Ja’Meya Jackson of Yazoo County, Mississippi was picked on every day during her hour-long bus ride between home and school. “It all started back when school first began, and there were a lot of kids on the bus saying things about me,” Jackson said in the film. “I tried my best to tell an adult, but it got worse.” So one morning she stole her mother’s gun and took it out on the bus. Though she never actually shot anybody, she was arrested, charged with 45 felony counts including kidnapping and attempted assault, and threatened with multiple life sentences.
“At the point she takes out the gun, that’s 22 counts of kidnapping,” one of the prosecutors explained in the film. “She has 22 counts of attempted aggravated assault. She’s got 45 total felony charges facing her. And for me, there’s nothing, no amount of bullying, or teasing, or picking on, or whatever, there’s nothing, unless someone was actually whipping on this girl every day, unless someone was hitting this young lady in the head and being physically brutal to her, there’s nothing to me that justifies her taking her gun on that bus, I don’t care what it is. … Even though things came out as best they possibly could have, if you added up all the years that she could get it, it would be hundreds of years.” Eventually prosecutors backed off and dropped the charges in exchange for a three-month stint in a psychiatric hospital, but Jackson was bitter that it was she, not the people who bullied her, who was punished.

The Queer Connection

One of the things Bully documents is how overwhelmingly the problem of bullying on school campuses is linked to prejudice and hatred against Queer students and the Queer community in general. According to a report on the Bullying Statistics Web site (http://www.bullyingstatistics.org/content/Gay-bullying-statistics.html), “Gay and Lesbian teens are two to three times as more likely to commit teen suicide than other youths. About 30 percent of all completed suicides have been related to sexual identity crisis. Students who also fall into the Gay, Bisexual, Lesbian or Transgender identity groups report being five times as more likely to miss school because they feel unsafe after being bullied due to their sexual orientation. About 28 percent out of those groups feel forced to drop out of school altogether. Although more and more schools are working to crack down on problems with bullying, teens are still continuing to bully each other due to sexual orientation and other factors.”
“The bullying of kids who are LGBT [Queer] is probably the largest growth area in our docket,” said John Perez, head of the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division at a hearing on the U.S. Senate version of the Student Non-Discrimination Act in September 2011. ”This is about safety — whether it’s kids who are Gay, whether it’s kids who are Muslim, whether it’s kids who speak English with an accent, whether it’s kids with disabilities, and we have in Tennessee a case involving bullying of kids with disabilities — this is an emerging growth area, I regret to say.”
Two of the bullying victims profiled in the film, Kelby Johnson and the late Tyler Long, were openly Queer. Tyler was repeatedly called “fag,” “geek” and other epithets by his classmates. “It took a toll on him early in middle school to where he cried, and then it got to the point where he didn’t cry anymore,” his father, David Long, said in the film. “And that’s when it became difficult to truly understand what he was going through.”
Kelby Johnson is identified as a Lesbian in the film, but since then has come out as Transgender and accepted a position as an intern in the Washington, D.C. office of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). GLSEN’s Web site and the Dallas Voice, a Queer paper that covered Kelby’s first public appearance as a Transgender teen, variously identify Kelby as “they” and “he.”
Ironically, of the five victims portrayed in Bully, Kelby seemed to have done the best job of “toughing it out,” maintaining their belief in themselves despite the bullying — even though the film tells us they’ve tried suicide three times and cut themselves. Kelby also vividly describes the guilt by association that leads any student who dares stand up for a victim to be bullied themselves: “I’m not welcome at church. I’m not welcome in a lot of people’s homes. I know [my friends] get called Gay just for hanging out with me.”
One of the cruelest aspects of bullying is that the same anti-Queer epithets get hauled out by virtually all bullies against their victims, whether they’re Queer or not. Alex Hopkins, whose story in the movie became the most famous one because the bullies went farther against him than anyone else — so much so that the filmmakers shared their footage of him being beaten and abused on the school bus to his parents and the school authorities — is a young man with Asperger’s syndrome, a relatively mild form of autism.
It’s only at the very end, when the filmmakers show Alex going through his school yearbook and pointing out all the girls who turn him on, that they acknowledge that he’s straight. It’s almost as if Hirsch and Lowen were leading us up the garden path, letting us assume that Alex was Queer because that’s what his bullies were calling him and then springing the trap on us in the final reel: “Ya got it? He’s straight! And you bought into what the bullies were calling him! You saw him just like they did!”
“We still have bullying,” said Shirlynn at the CFAC showing of Bully. “I haven’t put up with it since elementary school, but last year one of our students was being bullied and it was so bad — she was in P.E. and got basketballs thrown at her — a straight male had to be with her wherever she was.”
“I’ve been waiting to see this movie for a while,” said Meyer, who told Zenger’s (which interviewed him shortly after Rounding Third was published: see http://zengersmag.blogspot.com/search?q=rounding+third) that he’s been kept so busy delivering speeches about anti-Queer bullying he hasn’t had time to finish the long-planned sequel to his novel. “I wrote a novel, but I never knew it would become what it has,” Meyer said. “It came out just before the bullying crisis hit the news, and I got all these calls to speak about it.” Meyer said that some of Rounding Third came from his own experiences in high school, other parts from stories he’d heard, and it rang so true with many readers that “I got calls from people saying, ‘Did you follow me in school?’”
Along with laws making bullying a civil-rights issue, Meyer said, we also need laws like SB 48, passed last year in the California legislature, which mandated that this state’s public schools give students age-appropriate instruction about the contributions made by Queer people to U.S. and California history, politics and culture. According to a fact sheet prepared by the staff of openly Queer State Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), who sponsored the law, “Only 11 percent of [Queer] students [in California] report being bullied, but that number more than doubles to 24 percent if the majority of students in a school say they haven’t learned about LGBT people.”
“If teachers teach about Gay history and culture, the rate of bullying goes down,” Meyer said. “If you have a Gay-Straight Alliance in school, bullying goes down because it completely changes the atmosphere.” Though he admires the efforts of David Long and his wife Tina depicted in the film — they channeled their grief over their son’s suicide and started a nationwide grass-roots network that holds anti-bullying rallies and tries to build awareness one school at a time — Meyer said, “It’s not the bullies or the parents going to the rallies. It’s going to take laws to stop this.”

Friday, February 08, 2013

Queer Democrats Split in District 4 City Council Race

Crenshaw, Cole Both Rated “Acceptable” After Intense Debate

by MARK GABRISH CONLAN

Copyright © 2013 by Mark Gabrish Conlan for Zenger’s Newsmagazine • All rights reserved

L to R: Dwayne Crenshaw, Myrtle Cole, Tony Villafranca

Dwayne Crenshaw

Myrtle Cole

Ben Hueso

The predominantly Queer San Diego Democrats for Equality were unable to agree on a candidate to endorse in the March 26 special election in San Diego City Council District 4. At the club’s January 31 meeting, three of the nine candidates — Dwayne Crenshaw, Myrtle Cole and Tony Villafranca — appeared to seek the club’s endorsement. But the main battle was between Crenshaw and Cole, both African-Americans with long histories of involvement in community politics both inside and outside the district. The club deadlocked between them and ultimately voted to rate both candidates acceptable, a level of support below endorsement the club can use if it finds there is more than one candidate who supports Queer equality, women’s reproductive choice and the club’s other key issues.
Both Crenshaw and Cole scored 100 percent on the club’s issues questionnaire. Villafranca scored 98 percent; the only issue on which he differed was his support for school vouchers. With all three candidates on board with the club’s key issues, the questions asked of the candidates and the club members’ debate afterwards turned on issues like breadth of support, electability, endorsements and the candidates’ personal histories.
Cole, a former police officer and currently representative of the United Domestic Workers (UDW), a branch of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) that represents in-home caregivers for seniors and disabled people in San Diego County, is pursuing a classic “inside” strategy. She worked on the campaigns of San Diego’s first two openly Queer elected officials, City Councilmembers Christine Kehoe and Toni Atkins, as well as the two immediately preceding District 4 Councilmembers, the late Charles Lewis and Tony Young. (Lewis died in office and Young’s recent resignation to become president of the San Diego chapter of the American Red Cross triggered the March 26 election.)
Cole touted a list of high-powered endorsers including Kehoe, Atkins, current District 8 Councilmember David Alvarez, former San Diego County Democratic Party chair (and former San Diego Democrats for Equality president) Jess Durfee, openly Gay San Diego Unified School District board member Kevin Beiser, San Diego-Imperial Counties Central Labor Council head Lorena Gonzalez and longtime club activist (and former club president) Gloria Johnson.
Though he came in with a slicker and more elaborate leaflet than Cole’s, Crenshaw presented himself as an “outsider” candidate. While Cole’s opening statement stressed her record of working with previous Councilmembers, Crenshaw’s stressed his ties to the Queer community and his status as one of San Diego’s few prominent African-Americans who is also openly Gay. He reminded the club members that he had briefly served as the club’s treasurer and that his current job, from which he’s taking a leave of absence to run for office, is executive director of San Diego LGBT (Queer) Pride.
Some of the questions for the candidates dealt with substantive issues, including what they’d done to fight Proposition 8, the November 2008 ballot initiative that banned same-sex marriages in California. “In 2008 I worked with Ryan Hurd and Jess Durfee, and we opened the Obama Unity Office in a community that voted 70 percent for Obama and 70 percent for Proposition 8,” Crenshaw said. “I stood up against Proposition 8 and made phone calls at 301 University,” the local headquarters of the No on 8 campaign.
“In 2008 I was working hard for health care providers,” said Cole. “That’s a seven-day-a-week job.”
“I was not involved in Proposition 8,” said Villafranca. “I had my own personal issues. I had groups of friends who would enlighten me.” Though Villafranca endorsed the club’s positions on both marriage equality and reproductive choice in the questionnaire, he said he’d had to do “a lot of soul-searching” to get to that point.
Asked whether they would support reproductive choice in general and Planned Parenthood funding in particular, Cole said, “I would not want anybody in my community to tell me what I can do with my body.”
“I have been supported by Planned Parenthood in the past,” said Crenshaw. “I support Planned Parenthood personally, and when I was the grants director at the Jacobs Center we made grants to Planned Parenthood. I’m a lifelong member of Planned Parenthood, and I want to ask Myrtle [Cole] if she talks this way to all communities in the district.”
Though there was at least one other substantive question on an issue — rent control, which Cole and Villafranca said they supported and Crenshaw said he opposed — most of the remaining audience queries concerned issues like whether the candidates had supported openly Gay candidates for the San Diego County Board of Supervisors. Crenshaw said he “walked and wrote checks for” both former club president Stephen Whitburn’s failed campaign against Ron Roberts in 2010 and Dave Roberts’ win for an open seat in 2012. Cole said she personally supported Dave Roberts even though her union endorsed his Republican opponent, Steve Danon.
Other issues that came up included Crenshaw’s multiple runs for elective office — including two prior campaigns for the District 4 Council seat — and Cole’s residency. Though the City Council districts were redrawn in 2011, a quirk of the city’s charter requires the special election for Young’s seat to be held in the old district boundaries. When the vacancy occurred Cole was living within the new District 4 boundaries but not the old ones, and she had to move in order to be eligible to run. She’s been called a “carpetbagger” for doing this, though her supporters in the club pointed to other local candidates who’ve had to move — including current District 3 Councilmember Todd Gloria, who had to relocate for his re-election when his former home in City Heights, where he’d been living when he first ran, got moved out of the district in 2011.
Asked how they planned to win the race, Crenshaw said he had “run strong” in District 4 — even though he lost his two previous tries for the seat. “In 2004 we won the absentee vote and we lost on election day by 107 votes,” he said. “In my race for the Community College Board I won District 4. A poll released today has me first, with 24 percent of the vote. The next runner-up has 15 percent.”
“You win if you walk,” said Cole in answer to the same question. “I’m walking door to door, and I’ll have 100 people this Saturday walking with me.”
The club was so closely divided on the race that even the motion to make an endorsement at all — which is usually unanimous, or nearly so — was opposed by about one-fourth of the members present. On the first ballot, Crenshaw received 32 votes out of 61 cast, to 26 for Cole, none for Villafranca, and three for no endorsement — 7.5 percentage points short of the 60 percent threshold the club’s rules require for endorsement.
Under the club’s rules, Cole was dropped from the second ballot because she got the fewest number of votes of any candidate who got any votes, and Crenshaw got 27 votes to 23 for no endorsement — once again winning a majority (54 percent) but falling short of the 60 percent threshold. The final motion to rate both candidates acceptable passed by voice vote with only one in opposition.
In a far less controversial vote, the club also overwhelmingly endorsed California State Assemblymember Ben Hueso in the March 12 special election to fill the State Senate seat Juan Vargas vacated when he was elected to Congress last November. The vote for Hueso was 50 to seven for his Democratic opponent, author and activist Anna Nevenic, and five for no endorsement.

Thursday, January 24, 2013

Pro-Indian 1932 Western "End of the Trail" Screens in Hillcrest This Saturday!

As part of its continuing exploration of Native American rights and the continuing oppression and virtual genocide against Native people in the United States, Activist San Diego is showing a rare and unusual film from 1932 this Saturday, January 26, 7 p.m., at the Joyce Beers Community Center in Hillcrest, in the Uptown District mall on Vermont Street north of University between Panera and Aladdin Restaurants.

The film is “End of the Trail,” a 1932 Columbia Western that was the first U.S. film to depict the Indian Wars of the 1870’s from a pro-Native perspective. Strikingly similar in plot and theme to the 1980 Academy Award winner “Dances with Wolves,” “End of the Trail” tells the story of U.S. cavalry captain Tim Travers (Tim McCoy), who is unjustly thrown out of the U.S. Army for allegedly providing guns to the Arapahoe Indians. Then an attack by Travers’ former fellow officers results in the “collateral damage” death of Travers’ son. With nowhere else to go, Travers joins the Arapahoes and becomes part of their war council.

At a time when virtually all Westerns depicted Native people as mindless savages, “End of the Trail” — despite at least one wince-inducing line — shows them sympathetically and condemns the U.S. government’s systematic breaking of all treaties with the tribes. Tim McCoy’s unusual background helps explain why he made this film. In the 1920’s he was part of an oral history project that interviewed Native survivors of the battle of the Little Big Horn, thereby taking down the only firsthand accounts we have of it. The film’s script by Stuart Anthony anticipates the pro-Native readings of the Indian Wars by 1960’s and 1970’s historians like Native writers Dee Brown and Vine DeLoria, Jr. and whites like Howard Zinn.

The screening is free of charge, but donations to Activist San Diego’s community radio project, KNSJ 89.1 FM — an FCC-licensed broadcast station in East County scheduled to go on the air in April 2013, and an affiliated Internet radio site now operational at www.knsj.org — will be requested.

For more information about this event, please contact Mark Gabrish Conlan at (619) 688-1886.

For more information about the film: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0022856/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

For a review of the film by Mark Gabrish Conlan: http://moviemagg.blogspot.com/search?q=End+of+the+Trail

Wednesday, January 16, 2013

KNSJ Community Radio in San Diego Fundraising for a Broadcast Antenna

“People’s Ball” Fundraiser this Saturday, January 19, 7 p.m. at World Beat Center

SAN DIEGO--KNSJ Radio and Activist San Diego are hosting The People’s Ball, a gala and night of dancing with musical performances and surprise guests, Saturday, Jan. 19, 2013 at the World Beat Center at 2100 Park Boulevard, San Diego, CA 92101.  This gala is to raise funds to bring a new and needed radio voice to San Diego—KNSJ 89.1 FM out of Descanso, a truly independent community radio station of the people, by the people and for the people in San Diego county’s border region.

KNSJ radio is already streaming original local community programs online at www.knsj.org from contributors such as San Diego’s East County Magazine, the San Diego Troubadour, Ricardo Beas, David Rovics, Philip Raquel, Zenger’s Newsmagazine, and band Liquid Blue. A list of KNSJ’s current shows can be found here.

What now stands between having this unique non-commercial community-based radio station of, by and for the people on the airwaves, and losing the FCC license altogether, is $20,000 and 5 months.   

The $20,000 will purchase an $11,000 specially manufactured antenna, $4,000 for installation of the antenna, and $6,000 for the purchase of additional equipment for the KNSJ Radio studio.  A full list of the financial break down can be seen on the KNSJ Radio Indiegogo fundraising campaign page at www.indiegogo.com/knsjradio.

“It was a 1 year application process,” KSNJ Radio founder Martin Eder explained.  “Then the FCC gave us 3 years to get on-air.  We are down to the last five months, so its do or die time.”

Tickets for the People’s Ball can purchased online at www.knsj.org

About KNSJ Radio:

KNSJ Radio, YOUR Network for Social Justice, is an independent, non-commercial community radio station in the San Diego County and border region area.  KNSJ is a radio station of the people, by the people and for the people, and as an independent media outlet will give a voice to hundreds of thousands of people currently unheard.  KNSJ Radio is a project of Activist San Diego, a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization. 

KNSJ’s vision is to train and empower organizations and community members to produce their own news, culture and media, believing that a vibrant democracy depends on information, communications, and mobilization of, by, and for the people in our local and global society. 

A Sweet Treat for Valentine’s Day

Bach Collegium San Diego presents “When Cupid Strikes!” Program of Love-Inspired Songs with Wine & Chocolate Reception

He loves me… He loves me not!

Performances on February 8 & 9, 2013

“If I ever miss another [Bach Collegium SD concert] it will because I am out of town or dead.” -- David Gregson, OperaWest.com

Cupid will strike lovers of early music when Bach Collegium San Diego (BCSD), the city’s only early music performance ensemble, presents a special Valentine’s Day program focusing on music whose themes bring to mind tales of love gained, love lost, and tears shed.

Performances are Friday, February 8, 7:30pm at the San Diego History Center in Balboa Park, the group’s newest venue; and Saturday, February 9, 7:30pm at the Performing Arts Center in Rancho Santa Fe.

“The great Baroque composers Handel, Bach, Purcell, and Monteverdi all left great music focusing on the theme of love in its many complexities. From Purcell’s ‘If music be the food of love… sing on, sing on!’ that pronounces the virtues of love, to Bach’s secular canatata ‘Amore Traditore,’ in which a lover finds love a traitorous thing and hopes cupid’s arrows will miss him. But most importantly… chocolate! It seems natural to present a program on the subject of love, followed by a reception with chocolate,” said music director Ruben Valenzuela.

When Cupid Strikes!
Program:

Cantata: Amore Traditore BWV 203, J.S. Bach 

Incidental Music from The Fairy-Queen, Henry Purcell

If love’s a sweet passion (from The Fairy-Queen), Henry Purcell

Lamento della Ninfa (Amore, dicea), Claudio Monteverdi 

Love in her eyes sits playing (from Acis & Galatea), G.F. Handel 

As when the dove laments (from Acis & Galatea), G.F. Handel

Pur ti miro (from L’Incoronazione di Poppea), Claudio Monteverdi

If music be the food of love (3rd version), Henry Purcell

Chaconne in Three Parts upon a ground bass, Henry Purcell

DETAILS AND TICKETS
Individual Concerts
Tickets to individual concerts are $25 or $40. Senior/Student Discount: $20
Rush tickets may be purchased at the door for $10 if any seats are still available (student ID required).

PRE-CONCERT DISCUSSIONS
A pre-concert discussion begins 45 minutes before each concert. The discussion features selected performers and audience members, providing an opportunity to discuss the various topics related to the forthcoming concert.  

For more information and to purchase tickets please visit the BCSD website.

THE 2012-13 SEASON
Vivat! Music for an EnglIsh Coronation
Marking the Diamond Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II
September 28 & 29, 2012

Hodie! Christus Natus Est
A sequence of choral music for Advent and Christmas, sung by candlelight
December 14 & 15, 2012

When Cupid Strikes!
Friday, February 8, 2013: San Diego History Center, Casa de Balboa, Balboa Park, 7:30pm
Saturday, February 9, 2013: Rancho Santa Fe Performing Arts Center, 7.30pm

Handel: Messiah 
An oratorio
Friday, March 15, 2013: St. James by-the-Sea Episcopal Church, La Jolla, 7:30pm
Saturday, March 16, 2013: Rancho Santa Fe Performing Arts Center, 5pm
Sunday, March 17, 2013: First Presbyterian Church, 320 Date Street, San Diego, 5pm

A Venetian Vespers
First Vespers of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin (ca. 1640s)
Friday, May 17, 2013: St. James by-the-Sea Episcopal Church, La Jolla, 7:30pm
Saturday, May 18, 2013: San Diego History Center, Casa de Balboa, Balboa Park, 7:30pm

All dates, times, venues, and artists may be subject to change.

ABOUT BCSD
Now celebrating its Tenth Anniversary Season, Bach Collegium San Diego was founded in 2003 by Ruben Valenzuela with the purpose of enriching San Diego’s music community with historically informed performances of the Renaissance, Baroque, and in particular the vocal works of J.S. Bach. Its members bring longstanding experience from such ensembles as the Academy of Ancient Music (UK), American Bach Soloists, Festival Ensemble Stuttgart, and the Philharmonia Chorale. During its first nine seasons, the ensemble has earned an impressive reputation, captivating diverse audiences with its unique style and highly expressive and provocative approach to the Renaissance and Baroque repertoire and beyond. The ensemble regularly participates in an international tour to Mexico City with performances at the Festival Internacional del Organo Barroco. BCSD has brought many historically informed first performances to San Diego for the first time. Such works include Handel’s Theodora and Messiah, Bach’s St. John Passion and B minor Mass, and Monteverdi’s 1610 Vespers. BCSD was the only North American performance ensemble invited to participate in Bolivia’s national Baroque Music Festival in 2012.

For detailed bios and a list of ensemble performers please visit the website.

Ruben Valenzuela, Music Director
Pierre Joubert, Associate Director

P.O. BOX 33754
San Diego CA 92163 USA
619-341-1726

Bach Collegium San Diego Inc. is a non-profit 501 (c) (3) organization.

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter and visit our channel on YouTube.

Tuesday, December 11, 2012

Proposition 8, DoMA and the Supreme Court

“The End of the Beginning” of the Struggle for Marriage Equality

by MARK GABRISH CONLAN

Copyright © 2012 by Mark Gabrish Conlan for Zenger’s Newsmagazine • All rights reserved

First, the good news: the United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear the constitutional challenge to Proposition 8, the voter-approved initiative that abruptly stopped California’s four and one-half month experience of marriage equality in November 2008.
Now, the bad news: the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the constitutional challenge to Proposition 8.
It’s good news in the sense that we’re finally going to get an answer as to whether a state has the constitutional right to define marriage either to include or exclude same-sex couples. It’s bad news in the sense that the answer we’re going to get is hardly likely to be the one we want — especially those of us who, like my husband Charles and I, took advantage of the 4 ½-month “window” between the effective date of the California Supreme Court’s decision allowing same-sex marriage and the passage of Proposition 8 to get married. Since then we, and the estimated 18,000 other same-sex couples who got married in California when it was blessedly legal, have been in the truly weird position of actually having the “special rights” opponents of Queer equality always accuse us of seeking, since we can be married but other couples — including ones who’ve been together longer than we have — can’t.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to hear the Proposition 8 case is bad news in another way besides the eventual outcome of their decision. If they hadn’t — if they’d ducked the issue and allowed the most recent ruling in the Perry v. Brown case by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to stand — Queer couples would be able to marry in California now. Even if the Supreme Court ultimately upholds the right of same-sex couples in California to marry, their decision to take the case means up to a year of additional delay in a case that has already dragged on for over two years — and where the judges throughout the process have “stayed” the decision so Queer couples still can’t get married in California even though both courts that have ruled in the case have said they should.
And the case is coming before the most reactionary Supreme Court since the 1930’s. Justice Anthony Kennedy, whom Queer legal strategists are depending on to be the “swing vote,” isn’t the moderate “man in the middle” he’s been portrayed as in a lot of the media coverage. He’s a thoroughgoing Right-winger who wrote the infamous Citizens United decision in 2010, which basically said that corporations and rich people didn’t have enough influence on American politics and the Constitution said they must be allowed even more. He also wrote the dissent in the case on the Affordable Care Act — so-called “Obamacare” — which basically eviscerated the Constitution’s interstate commerce clause and drastically cut back the ability of Congress to regulate private business. Kennedy meant this to be a majority opinion, and it would have been had he not been double-crossed by Chief Justice John Roberts, who signed on to Kennedy’s attack on the commerce clause but found Obamacare’s individual mandate to purchase health insurance constitutional under Congress’s power to tax.
There are only two major issues on which Kennedy has deviated from the strict Right-wing line. One is capital punishment, particularly executing teenagers and using the death penalty for crimes other than murder. The other is Queer rights. The main reason both the Queer community and the odd couple of lawyers who brought the Perry case to court, Ted Olson and David Boies, counted on Kennedy as the “swing vote” is that he wrote the Court’s two most powerful and luminous opinions upholding Queer equality in its history: Romer v. Evans (1996), which threw out a voter-approved “No Promo Homo” initiative in Colorado that invalidated anti-discrimination laws based on sexual orientation; and Lawrence v. Texas (2003), which struck down all laws prohibiting sex between same-gender partners.
But even on Queer rights, Kennedy’s mostly positive record comes with some serious asterisks. In 2000 he provided the “swing vote” for a 5-4 decision upholding the Boy Scouts of America’s ability to discriminate against Queers and atheists, on the ground that the Boy Scouts is a religious organization and therefore has a First Amendment right to let its religious beliefs determine its membership policies. In 2009 he temporarily halted the release of the names of people in Washington state who’d signed a petition to repeal a domestic partnership law, and a year later he refused to allow the Perry trial to be televised. His reasoning in both cases was the same: whereas the Kennedy who wrote Romer had seen the Queer community as a persecuted minority that needed to be protected from efforts by the majority to legislate away their rights, the Kennedy of 2009-2010 saw evangelical Christians and other opponents of Queer equality as the embattled minority whose rights needed to be protected from a Queer-friendly majority.
Nonetheless, both judges who’ve written pro-Queer opinions in Perry to date clearly aimed them at Justice Kennedy, freely quoting from both Romer and Lawrence and citing them as controlling precedents. Indeed, Appeals Court Judge Stephen Reinhardt’s majority opinion in Perry, which is what the Supreme Court will be reviewing, narrowed the case considerably to make it seem more like Romer. Reinhardt ruled that once a state had allowed same-sex couples to marry, it would be unconstitutional to take away that right — but he left open whether it would be constitutional to ban same-sex marriage in a state that never had allowed it.
The other source for optimism about the Supreme Court’s decision is that after nearly 20 years of steady defeats for marriage equality at the ballot box, the tide finally turned in 2012. Voters in Maryland and Washington state defeated referenda that would have reversed their state legislatures’ bills allowing same-sex couples to marry. Voters in Maine reversed their 2009 vote for a Proposition 8-like initiative and became the first state specifically to allow same-sex marriage via direct democracy instead of legislation or a court case. And voters in Minnesota refused to enshrine their state’s legislative ban on marriage equality into the state constitution — making November 6 a welcome four-for-four win for our side on an issue that until then had been rejected by virtually every U.S. electorate that had had the chance to weigh in on it.
But it would be foolhardy to assume that this year’s election victories on marriage equality will make the Supreme Court more likely to rule in our favor and issue a sweeping decision declaring that barring same-sex couples from legal marriage is an unconstitutional violation of the equal protection clause. It’s just as likely that the justices will see it the other way — as evidence that the political process is working as it should. The Court could read victories for marriage equality at the ballot box as confirmation that rather than make a hard-and-fast ruling that would apply nationwide, they should let politics take its course and allow individual states to decide to allow same-sex couples to marry or not, as they choose — which, in California, would mean a long, hard slog to persuade voters to repeal Proposition 8 and a very expensive and problematic political campaign to counter the Right-wing lies that got them to pass it in the first place.
The current U.S. Supreme Court is dominated by a hard-core radical-Right majority that is generally loath to issue sweeping rulings expanding the civil rights of historically disadvantaged communities. This Court is not, no way, no how going to decide that over 200 years of American experience with marriage defined exclusively as the union of one man and one woman has been a violation of the Constitution. There is a scant possibility that there might be five justices on board for a compromise along the lines suggested by Judge Reinhardt in his Ninth Circuit opinion: that there isn’t necessarily an intrinsic constitutional right to marriage for same-sex couples, but once a state grants such a right they can’t take it away again. But even that seems unlikely. If the case had come before the Supreme Court from, say, Rhode Island, they might have ducked it altogether and allowed marriage equality to come to one relatively insignificant state essentially by default. But not in California, the nation’s most populous state —especially now that the nation’s second most populous state, New York, has legislated marriage equality through the political process rather than by the courts.
What’s most likely is that the Supreme Court will uphold the constitutionality of Proposition 8 and state that whether to allow same-sex couples access to legally recognized marriage is a matter for individual states to decide. There’s a possibility that either or both of the Court’s most crazily Right-wing justices, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, will issue a concurring opinion based on an “original intent” argument that since marriage was assumed to be between one man and one woman when both the original Constitution and the 14th Amendment were written, all laws allowing same-sex marriage are de facto unconstitutional. But it’s likely most of the justices will shy away from a sweeping constitutional pronouncement on either side of the marriage equality question. It’s even possible one or more of the Democratic appointees on the Court might join an opinion upholding Proposition 8 on the ground that even if their personal preference would be for allowing same-sex couples to marry, whether they can or not is a decision for the political process and not for the courts.
This result would leave marriage between same-sex couples about where marriage between first cousins is today: some states would allow it, some states wouldn’t. But there’d be one important difference: Congress never passed a law defining marriage at the federal level as between one man and one woman who aren’t closer blood relatives than second cousins. Congress did pass the disgusting “Defense of Marriage Act” (DoMA) in 1996, which had two major provisions: it barred legally married same-sex couples from enjoying any of the benefits of marriage granted by federal law, and it said that no state had to recognize any marriage of a same-sex couple from another U.S. state or foreign country where it was legal. And unfortunately, while the Supreme Court is reviewing the federal definition of marriage under DoMA, they’re not — at least not yet — making a decision on the constitutionality of the provision that allows states not to recognize same-sex marriages from other states. Until that part of DoMA falls, whether by Congressional action or a later Supreme Court case invalidating it, every married same-sex couple in the U.S. lives with a footnote on their marriage license: “*This marriage valid only in the state where it took place and any other state that chooses to recognize it.”
The DoMA case the Supreme Court did choose to review involves Edith Windsor, an 83-year-old Lesbian who married her partner in Canada in 2007 when they had already been together 42 years. Two years later, Windsor’s wife died — and the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) billed Windsor for $363,000 in estate taxes, which she wouldn’t have had to pay if the federal government had legally recognized her marriage. It’s a narrow enough case that it seems likely the Supreme Court will craft some sort of legal dipsy-doodle that will let Windsor off the hook for the $363,000 tax bill but won’t offer a definitive yea or nay on the constitutionality of DoMA. In the last 10 years before the landmark Brown v. Board of Education ruling in 1954, the Supreme Court routinely did this sort of thing in cases involving African-American victims of racial discrimination, especially in education and housing: they issued carefully crafted decisions that gave justice to the individual plaintiffs before them without disturbing the so-called “separate but equal” doctrine from 1896 that had allowed racial segregation. And it’s known that Anthony Kennedy is familiar with these cases because he cited two of them, Shelley v. Kraemer and Sweatt v. Painter, in his majority opinion in Romer v. Evans.
The Perry case was always a longshot before the current Right-wing Supreme Court, which has been so hostile to civil rights cases that the first law Barack Obama signed as President was a bill reversing a Supreme Court ruling that had made it virtually impossible for women to sue their employers for discriminating against them. It’s highly unlikely that a Court majority so hostile to claims by women, minorities and the 99 percent in general is going to issue a ground-breaking decision establishing the right of same-sex couples to marry, either throughout the country or in its most populous state. It’s more likely that the Court will leave it up to the governments of each U.S. state to decide whether or not to offer civil marriage to Queer couples — and the Queer rights movement will have to spend decades of struggle to win marriage equality state by state. The Court’s likely rulings on Proposition 8 and DoMA won’t be the end of the marriage equality fight; they will at best be what Winston Churchill called “the end of the beginning.”

A Different Inauguration for San Diego’s New Mayor

Bob Filner Takes Oath of Office in Balboa Park, Tours Neighborhoods

by MARK GABRISH CONLAN

Copyright © 2012 by Mark Gabrish Conlan for Zenger’s Newsmagazine • All rights reserved

Bob Filner speaking at the LGBT Center, Dec. 3, 2012

Bob Filner and his fiancée, Bronwyn Ingram

Bob Filner and Ingrid Croce (Jim Croce’s widow)

Bronwyn Ingram, Bob Filner, Jess Durfee and Christine Kehoe

Bob Filner “works the crowd”

Audience listens to Bob Filner speak

Newly elected City Council President Todd Gloria

Jess Durfee, Christine Kehoe, Todd Gloria

Christine Kehoe and her wife, Julie Warren

Elaine Graybill

Linda Perine and Ingrid Croce

Maureen Steiner and Mike Growe

Sister Ida Know of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence

Where’s the big hair? Sue Palmer plays boogie piano

Jack

When Bob Filner, long-time Democratic Congressmember and one of the most progressive voices in the House of Representatives, took the oath of office as Mayor of San Diego December 3, he did it with a difference. Instead of the formal stage of the Civic Theatre in the City Hall complex downtown, he booked the Balboa Park Club off Presidents’ Way and held his formal inauguration ceremony in its more proletarian environs. Then he got back in touch with his political roots — his first elective office was as a member of the board of the San Diego Unified School District — and did a tour of five schools across the city. After that his inaugural co-chairs, Nancy Chase and Bob Nelson, and “co-chair for neighborhood participation” Linda Perine took Filner on a whirlwind tour of five community events in La Jolla, Mira Mesa, Hillcrest, Euclid Avenue and San Ysidro, dramatizing Filner’s campaign promise to be a mayor for all San Diego’s neighborhoods, not just downtown and the affluent communities north of Interstate 8.
Filner began his speech after the swearing-in ceremony by introducing his fiancée, Bronwyn Ingram, and promising that they would be a team in the office. He also thanked his three major opponents in the mayor’s race, including City Councilmember Carl DeMaio, who placed first in the mayoral primary in June and narrowly lost the November runoff, “for your reform efforts and being so gracious as we have a change in administrations.” But he also made it clear that he rejected DeMaio’s confrontational attitude towards city workers and their unions. After thanking the city’s chief operations officer, Jay Goldstone, he told her, “The day of vilification of your employees is over.”
Calling his inauguration “the beginning of a new day for our city,” Filner thanked the City Council and the Mayor he’s replacing, former police chief Jerry Sanders, for helping San Diego overcome its years-long budget crunch. “After a decade of crises and cutbacks, we have a chance to look towards the future,” Filner said. “I can start with a balanced budget and a bond rating. We can talk about moving forward, but I couldn’t do that without the stability you have given us.” Filner acknowledged the city may still face financial challenges, including the end of the state’s redevelopment program and a bill passed in the state legislature denying construction aid money to cities that outlaw project-labor agreements (PLA’s) that protect local jobs, wages and union representation in the city’s construction projects.
San Diego voters passed a ban on PLA’s last June and also approved Proposition B, which ends guaranteed pensions for new city employees and replaces them with a 401(k)-type system. Filner’s main opponent, DeMaio, pushed Proposition B, former mayor Sanders signed on to it and all the major mayoral candidates except Filner (DeMaio, former Assemblymember Nathan Fletcher and San Diego County District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis) supported it. Filner pledged to implement Proposition B but “to do it in an environment that respects and honors the hard work of our city employees, who are on the front lines. They keep us safe, they pick up our trash, they maintain our parks, they answer our 911 calls, they keep our libraries open. Thank you, city employees.”
Pledging “transparency” in city government, Filner said, “The real heart and soul of our city is its neighborhoods. They define our residents’ character and quality of life. As I traveled across the city during the long mayoral campaign, residents expressed near-unanimous frustration with the city’s neglect of the facilities and services that they depend on. To me it’s unacceptable, in what we call ‘America’s Finest City,’ that some neighborhoods still lack some basics like paved streets and streetlights. It’s unacceptable that some neighborhoods devastated by the wildfires in 2003 and 2007 still lack adequate fire facilities and equipment, and a lot of times we can’t even meet federal standards for emergency response times. It’s unacceptable that a police department that already has one of the state’s lowest ratios of officers to residents is still over 200 officers short of our budgeted staffing level, and we lack the resources right now to restore community-oriented policing.”
Filner mentioned other areas in which the city falls short of what it should be doing, including the closing of neighborhood libraries evenings and weekends; the closing of lifeguard towers and community restrooms during off-hours; and the city’s failure to equip first responders with the vehicles they need. “We’re going to complete the updates of our community plans, protect urban open spaces, reduce storm water pollution and make sure our neighborhoods are pedestrian- and bike-friendly,” he said. “We’re going to work with labor unions, working people and businesses to streamline our regulatory processes. We’re going to encourage partnerships between businesses and school districts. … We’re going to build on the innovations of companies like Qualcomm, push the initiative to install solar panels on city buildings and push for more maritime uses for the port.”
Other pledges Filner made in his opening speech were more problematic for the progressives in the audience, including campaign volunteers who helped to elect him. He pledged his support for expanding the San Diego Convention Center and “keeping the Chargers in San Diego” — even though that may not be possible unless the cash-strapped city gives a major public subsidy to a stadium project. He also committed to “a great celebration of Balboa Park’s 100th anniversary,” but said, “I want my tenure as Mayor to be remembered by how it makes its decisions. I want an administration where everyone is at the table, and the only prerequisite for participation is your love for the city and your interest in improving it. I understand the difference between being a legislator and being Mayor, but I still have things I feel passionately about.”
Filner closed his inaugural speech by quoting Robert F. Kennedy’s famous lines about how some people see things as they are and ask why, while others see things as they might be and ask why not. “Why not get serious about eliminating homelessness?” he said. “Why not make the combined San Diego-Tijuana region an incubator for an innovative new economy? Why not protect our beaches and ensure that every neighborhood is a safe place to work and play in?”

Filner Visits the Queer Community

Filner’s post-inaugural whirlwind tour of San Diego took him to five evening events, including one at the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Center in Hillcrest. He was introduced by openly Queer City Councilmember Todd Gloria, who had an announcement of his own: that day the San Diego City Council elected him as its president, the first time an openly Queer member of the Council has filled that position. “Bob Filner made it clear that he was running to protect neighborhoods, and I intend to help him,” Gloria said.
Veteran Queer community activist and city commissioner Nicole Murray Ramirez also was prominently featured at the Center event. He thanked Filner for attending the Transgender Day of Remembrance, an annual commemoration in November of Transgender people who have been killed over their gender identity, and the lighting of the memorial tree on World AIDS Day December 1. Murray Ramirez announced that December 3 is his birthday and said Filner’s inauguration was the best birthday present he’d ever had.
Referencing his entry into activism 50 years ago, when he rode on one of the Freedom Rides protesting racial segregation on interstate bus lines and spent two months in a Mississippi jail, Filner said, “The previous Mayor [Sanders] was a police chief. I started my political career in jail. I think that’s an improvement.” He said that the way he’d scheduled his first day as Mayor — first visiting schools and then participating in events all around the city — showed that “we’re going to live in the neighborhoods” during his time as Mayor.
The celebration at the Center was full of ironies. Two of Filner’s election opponents, DeMaio and Dumanis, are openly Queer, but DeMaio was endorsed by Right-wing Republicans with strongly held anti-Queer positions, including hotel owner and publisher Doug Manchester, attorney and activist Charles LiMandri, and talk-show host and former Mayor Roger Hedgecock. DeMaio got the endorsement of the San Diego Republican Central Committee, largely by attacking opponent Nathan Fletcher for his vote for a bill to require public schools to teach the history and achievements of prominent Queers. He was raked over the coals about this at a forum for the primary candidates at the Center, and anti-DeMaio activists posted a clip of the event on YouTube.
Manchester’s U-T San Diego — formerly the Union-Tribune until Manchester ordered its name changed, possibly because Manchester, a ferocious opponent of organized labor, didn’t want anything he owned to have the name “union” in it — strongly endorsed DeMaio. So did Gay San Diego, owned by DeMaio’s partner Johnathan Hale, which refused an ad from the San Diego Democrats for Equality because it listed Filner as one of its endorsed candidates. Ironically, when DeMaio filled out the questionnaire from U-T San Diego, he listed his marital status as “single.” Later, after community activists launched a campaign to boo DeMaio as he and Hale appeared in the LGBT Pride Parade, Hale published an “open letter” to the community saying that the people in the Queer community targeting DeMaio “are putting their allegiance to labor union politics above what is right for the LGBT community and our efforts to achieve full equality.”
With a lot of people in the room being Queer activists who campaigned for him against an openly Queer opponent, Filner told the crowd at the Center, “You’ve helped us in the election and you’re going to see some new faces at City Hall. There might even be a Gay face or two to make sure this city is open to everybody” — an odd statement to make in a city which has had at least one openly Queer person on the City Council since 1993 and where two Queer long-time city commissioners, Murray Ramirez and Al Best (whom Gloria acknowledged as the very first openly Queer person to run for the City Council), were in the audience.
“It’s going to be harder to govern than it was to win an election,” Filner said, repeating a warning he’d given at the San Diego Democrats for Equality’s Freedom Awards November 17. “We’re going to blaze a new path. When people may need to be educated, we’ve got to go door-to-door, we’re going to have to campaign. All the things we had to do to get elected, we need to do now to build community support and make sure we’re doing what people want. We need your help and participation.”