Following is my latest Claremont Courier column appearing last Friday. I will add that California Governor Jerry Brown, who I have always liked and voted for in any office he has run for, was set to sign a bill, as part of the annual budget due July 1, allowing local governments to choose to not follow parts of the Public Records Act giving people easy and timely access to public documents. The reasoning was this would save the state millions of dollars, not having to reimburse the local governments for providing the documents. Fortunately, after much outcry from the media and public, the bill was stripped from the budget, and there is talk of making the records act an amendment to the state constitution with the mandate that local governments cover the costs. On the other hand, I saw today that Brown has signed the bill I mention below.
DON’T LIKE THE GAME? CHANGE THE RULES
“After attendance at the hot topic presentations begun to dwindle, Ms. Glaudi begun seeking ways to revamp the program.”
Sounds simple enough. And smart. Sometimes, when things are not working out, it’s good to revamp, shake things up, try something new. Sort of like getting a new perspective.
That’s what Shannon Glaudi, senior recreation leader at Claremont’s Joslyn Senior Center, was thinking. As noted recently in these pages, it was in regard to a longstanding interactive morning lecture series held at the center.
It appears that she was right. And, in this case, it was indeed simple. A change of rooms played a big part in the reboot. Once the series was moved to the Oak Room dining hall, the dwindling reversed, and there was “a much bigger turnout than the select few attendants that would show up for the previous program, according to Ms. Glaudi.”
Tinkering with the morning program at a senior center is one thing. What about tinkering with Claremont’s streets?
What about changing the road when we don’t like the rules of the road?
This is essentially what is being done as Claremont officials experiments with redesigning some streets rather than raising speed limits. As strange as this sounds, it stems from a stranger requirement from the state that the speed limits be raised.
Even stranger is that the state says the speed limits have to be raised, because people are driving faster. Never mind that speed limits are supposed to limit speed.
Here’s how the reasoning, if that is what it can be called, works: Cities are required to set a speed limit within a certain number of miles per hour of the speed a majority of cars travel at. Otherwise, a speeding ticket isn’t enforceable in court.
Not only did a Radar Speed Survey conducted last year suggest that people are driving faster in Claremont, but, with recent changes in the state regulations, the City now has to set the speed limit at the nearest 5 mph rather than within 5 mph of the majority speed. This means, for example, that if the speed of the majority of drivers on a street is 28 mph, the speed limit can’t be 25 mph but has to be 30 mph.
Like I said, strange.
Many Claremonters thought it was not only strange but also unfair and dangerous, and they told City officials so, citing children playing and the like. Hence, a dozen or so street segments are being changed, with crosswalks, bike lanes and other “traffic calming measures” costing $165,000.
“What we need is really a small decrease in speed, just 1 or 2 mph on most of these streets to bring down the speed limit,” Interim City Engineer Loretta Mustafa said. “That’s what we are looking to do here.”
This scheme is most likely for the best, but Ms. Mustafa and the rest of us should be clear that that is what this is - a scheme. We shouldn’t deny - not that we are - that we’re fudging here, changing the rules when we don’t like the game.
A bit of fudging may well be perfectly harmless and may even be beneficial when it comes to a discussion program at the local senior center or even the city streets, but what about when it comes to the way the government operates or is run? Is it good when our officials fudge, change the rules when the game isn’t working for them, even if the result may be generally for the best?
Eyebrows were raised earlier this month when California legislators sent a bill to Governor Jerry Brown that would allow him to attend closed meetings with county officials. The measure, AB 246, was written by Assemblyman Steven Bradford (D-Gardena) in reaction to a county prosecutor declaring that a private 2011 meeting between the governor and the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors violated the Ralph M. Brown Act, California’s open-meeting law. The topic at the meeting was Brown’s “realignment” plan to hold nonviolent felons and certain other low-level offenders in county jails rather than state lockups, following federal court orders to reduce prison crowding.
While those in favor of the bill claim it simply adds the governor to a list of officials and experts allowed under the Brown Act to attend closed-door meetings regarding public security matters, critics hold that it could be a slippery slope, used for an ever-expanding range of “public security matters,” in addition to noting that it being requested by L.A County reflects badly on the supervisors.
As Terry Francke, the general counsel for the open-government advocacy group Californians Aware, said, “This is how they correct violations of the Brown Act when they’re caught in the act: They change the law so it will give them cover in the future.” Mr. Francke also pointed out that if the governor signs the legalization, it will mean “he knew....the meeting was illegal” when he spoke behind closed doors with the supervisors in 2011.
Likewise, there was some head-scratching here last month when there was what appeared to be rule-bending or rule-stretching at a City Council meeting. It was all the more curious and perhaps disturbing when the cause was a well-intentioned one.
The cause was the Mayors Against Illegal Guns petition encouraging the adoption of laws to ban “lethal, military-style weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines,” develop technology to help law enforcement better trace illegal guns and punish those who obtain or deal such weapons and ammunition. Over 800 mayors in 44 states have signed the petition supporting the enforcement of gun laws within their respective communities and started by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg in the wake of the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, the cinema shooting in Aurora, and other shocking mass shootings, like the one recently not too far in Santa Monica.
The discussion at the meeting seemed to be at an end when a motion to direct the mayor to sign the petition failed on a 2-3 vote, with Mayor Opanyi Nasiali and Councilmen Corey Calaycay and Sam Pedroza uneasy with forcing the mayor petition against his will and with dealing with a “national or state” issue, as Mr. Nasiali indicated, and one that is not so clear for all Claremont residents. “It’s not for the city to put all of the residents on record,” Mr. Calaycay declared.
Mr. Pedroza began the bending and stretching by proposing a motion to “authorize” the mayor to sign the petition should he wish to do so now or in the future. The final twist came after the motion was approved, with Mr. Nasiali and Mr. Calaycay voting no, and City Attorney Sonia Carvalho said that, “under the government code” and with the mayor “unavailable or [refusing] for any reason to carry out your authorization,” Mayor Pro Tem Joe Lyon could “step into his shoes” and sign the petition.
Even residents in favor of the petition, like Claudia Strauss who “take[s] heart in the fact that a majority of the council and the audience came forward in support” of it, were perplexed. “I feel a bit uncomfortable with the idea that the mayor pro tem can step in,” she admitted. “I won’t go against legal counsel, but this is education for all of us.”
For sure.
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Lost in a tricked-out digital world
Not unlike the drifter who narrates the hilarious and harrowing novel, The Fuck-Up by Arthur Neseerian, about his hapless adventures in New York City, I lost the book. And I was almost done with it.
I had it next to me when I went out in my wheelchair, and I realized sometime after I returned home that it must have fallen through the gap between the seat and the armrest sometime during my bumpy journey. Just like I always thought it might - an accident waiting to happen. I went out, going along my route, hoping against hope I would find the book, but to no avail. I hope whoever found the book gets as much as a kick out of it as I was getting.
I really wanted to finish the book, so I went online to Amazon.com to order another copy, figuring that going to Barnes and Noble would be a waste, that I wouldn’t be lucky like I was when I stumbled across such a title on its shelves (plus I didn’t want to have to try to ask for it). I ended up ordering it and four other books. It would have been five, but I deleted one when it turned out I was confused.
The reason that I ordered more books is that, besides thinking I may as well stock up while on Amazon, I wanted to spend enough to get the free, fast shipping. However, I found out that some books aren’t eligible for the deal. These included The Fuck-Up.
Like I said, it was confusing.
I opted out of the Amazon Prime program minutes after opting for it, because I didn’t want to forget cancelling it before the $79 annual fee automatically was charged to my credit card when the 30-day Free Trial Period ran out. No doubt Amazon was counting on my forgetting and now has some sort of black mark by my name.
I kept seeing that I could get books “within minutes” if I had a Kindle. And a bunch of books appeared to be available only on Kindle. If only I could afford a Kindle! Anyone want to get me one? It’s almost my birthday.
After nearly 2 hours (when my attendant put me in bed, she said I looked exhausted - thanks!), I completed the order, which included paying extra for expedited shipping for The Fuck-Up (I really do want to read the end, and I still have to get it spiral-bound when I get it - yes, another reason to have a Kindle, but, then again, I’m old-school and prefer/like the printed page, not to mention bricks-and-mortar bookstore). I ended up paying almost $55 - not bad for 5 books, really, but considerably more than the $25 or $35 - which was it? I’m still confused - I needed to spend to get the free shipping, and I wasn’t expecting to be spending anything.
On the other hand, I don’t have to buy books for a while. Unless I fuck up and lose them.
I had it next to me when I went out in my wheelchair, and I realized sometime after I returned home that it must have fallen through the gap between the seat and the armrest sometime during my bumpy journey. Just like I always thought it might - an accident waiting to happen. I went out, going along my route, hoping against hope I would find the book, but to no avail. I hope whoever found the book gets as much as a kick out of it as I was getting.
I really wanted to finish the book, so I went online to Amazon.com to order another copy, figuring that going to Barnes and Noble would be a waste, that I wouldn’t be lucky like I was when I stumbled across such a title on its shelves (plus I didn’t want to have to try to ask for it). I ended up ordering it and four other books. It would have been five, but I deleted one when it turned out I was confused.
The reason that I ordered more books is that, besides thinking I may as well stock up while on Amazon, I wanted to spend enough to get the free, fast shipping. However, I found out that some books aren’t eligible for the deal. These included The Fuck-Up.
Like I said, it was confusing.
I opted out of the Amazon Prime program minutes after opting for it, because I didn’t want to forget cancelling it before the $79 annual fee automatically was charged to my credit card when the 30-day Free Trial Period ran out. No doubt Amazon was counting on my forgetting and now has some sort of black mark by my name.
I kept seeing that I could get books “within minutes” if I had a Kindle. And a bunch of books appeared to be available only on Kindle. If only I could afford a Kindle! Anyone want to get me one? It’s almost my birthday.
After nearly 2 hours (when my attendant put me in bed, she said I looked exhausted - thanks!), I completed the order, which included paying extra for expedited shipping for The Fuck-Up (I really do want to read the end, and I still have to get it spiral-bound when I get it - yes, another reason to have a Kindle, but, then again, I’m old-school and prefer/like the printed page, not to mention bricks-and-mortar bookstore). I ended up paying almost $55 - not bad for 5 books, really, but considerably more than the $25 or $35 - which was it? I’m still confused - I needed to spend to get the free shipping, and I wasn’t expecting to be spending anything.
On the other hand, I don’t have to buy books for a while. Unless I fuck up and lose them.
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Peace for Gabriel, agony for the rest of us
The teacher “said the boy told her he had been shot in the face by a BB gun and had ‘perfectly circled bruises all over his face.’”
I can’t get these “perfectly circled bruises all over his face,” mentioned in aa article in the Los Angeles Times a couple weeks ago, out of my head. I guess I’ll never forget this and that it was one of the abuses done to an eight-year-old boy, Gabriel Fernandez, by his mother and her boyfriend.
Just like I can’t forget Johnny, who I posted about a couple years ago. Johnny was a boy about the same age abused by his mother and her boyfriend. Among other things, he was repeatedly burned all over with cigarettes and made to sit in his piss and shit and eat from a dog food bowl.
At least Johnny was rescued and reportedly thrived in a new home. Eight-year-old Gabriel, who lived in Palmdale near Los Angeles, died after suffering numerous injuries resulting from abuse, including a fractured skull, several broken ribs and burns. Pellets have also been found embedded in his lungs. The mother and the boyfriend, who said that Gabriel was being punished for “lying and being dirty,” were taken into custody, charged with murder and torture.
In addition to the pellets embedded in Gabriel’s lungs and other details about the injuries that he was made to suffer, such as black eyes and a “busted lip” as noted by the teacher, a steady stream of subsequent articles in the Times revealed that the county’s Department of Children and Family Services was well aware of the boy’s situation and did precious little to protect him. Social workers got many concerned calls about the child, including from the teacher, and they knew that the mother and the boyfriend were heavily involved in drugs and criminal activities, including with other children, but they were “overwhelmed” by hundreds of pages of sometimes contradictory rules as well as tremendous pressure to keep families intact.
When social workers would interview Gabriel in front of his mother and her boyfriend about his reports of abuse, he would recant them. Duh! And when the 8-year-old expressed a desire to commit suicide, the social workers dismissed it, because the boy “had no plans for carrying it out.” Several workers have been put on “desk duty” while the case is being investigated.
So Gabriel was tortured and killed, lost due to red tape and incompetence. The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services has been known for poorly trained and swamped staff and its shoddy work and sometimes tragic record, since before Johnny was made to endure incomprehensible abuse until he was finally rescued after dozens of allegations.
Yes, this is outrageous - and there has been many commentaries and letters in the paper expressing outrage over what happened to Gabriel. It is tragic that this county department, which does vital and wrenching work, isn’t as well-funded and supervised as it must be, and I’ll add that there is a bitter irony in caring people not being able to adopt children in many places because of being gay or lesbian.
But what really bothers me, what I really want to know, is this: How can this be a society in which a parent can even think of punishing a child by using a BB gun to leave “perfectly circled bruises all over his face?”
I can’t get these “perfectly circled bruises all over his face,” mentioned in aa article in the Los Angeles Times a couple weeks ago, out of my head. I guess I’ll never forget this and that it was one of the abuses done to an eight-year-old boy, Gabriel Fernandez, by his mother and her boyfriend.
Just like I can’t forget Johnny, who I posted about a couple years ago. Johnny was a boy about the same age abused by his mother and her boyfriend. Among other things, he was repeatedly burned all over with cigarettes and made to sit in his piss and shit and eat from a dog food bowl.
At least Johnny was rescued and reportedly thrived in a new home. Eight-year-old Gabriel, who lived in Palmdale near Los Angeles, died after suffering numerous injuries resulting from abuse, including a fractured skull, several broken ribs and burns. Pellets have also been found embedded in his lungs. The mother and the boyfriend, who said that Gabriel was being punished for “lying and being dirty,” were taken into custody, charged with murder and torture.
In addition to the pellets embedded in Gabriel’s lungs and other details about the injuries that he was made to suffer, such as black eyes and a “busted lip” as noted by the teacher, a steady stream of subsequent articles in the Times revealed that the county’s Department of Children and Family Services was well aware of the boy’s situation and did precious little to protect him. Social workers got many concerned calls about the child, including from the teacher, and they knew that the mother and the boyfriend were heavily involved in drugs and criminal activities, including with other children, but they were “overwhelmed” by hundreds of pages of sometimes contradictory rules as well as tremendous pressure to keep families intact.
When social workers would interview Gabriel in front of his mother and her boyfriend about his reports of abuse, he would recant them. Duh! And when the 8-year-old expressed a desire to commit suicide, the social workers dismissed it, because the boy “had no plans for carrying it out.” Several workers have been put on “desk duty” while the case is being investigated.
So Gabriel was tortured and killed, lost due to red tape and incompetence. The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services has been known for poorly trained and swamped staff and its shoddy work and sometimes tragic record, since before Johnny was made to endure incomprehensible abuse until he was finally rescued after dozens of allegations.
Yes, this is outrageous - and there has been many commentaries and letters in the paper expressing outrage over what happened to Gabriel. It is tragic that this county department, which does vital and wrenching work, isn’t as well-funded and supervised as it must be, and I’ll add that there is a bitter irony in caring people not being able to adopt children in many places because of being gay or lesbian.
But what really bothers me, what I really want to know, is this: How can this be a society in which a parent can even think of punishing a child by using a BB gun to leave “perfectly circled bruises all over his face?”
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
A progress in work
Sometimes - okay, pretty often - I just have to say “wow!” about this small town where I live, with all the things going on and getting done here. And, here in my most recent column in the Claremont Courier, I’m not even talking about the eight colleges in Claremont which recently had their graduations, all but one in one crazy weekend.
CLAREMONTERS TAKE ON THE GOOD, THE BAD
Amy Andrews isn’t someone who we see as part of the Claremont community. We don’t think of her in Claremont.
We don’t want to think of her in Claremont.
Amy Andrews was a sex slave. She was a victim of human trafficking.
This happened when she was in her early teens, about 14. She had been in and out of foster homes, an incorrigible girl, a girl who was sexually abused in some of these homes, after being abandoned by her drug-addicted mother. A man, a man who she thought was nice, took her away, and she ended up in a locked house, working as the man’s prostitute.
This didn’t happen in some backwards, under-developed country. This didn’t happen in a far-off, impoverished region. This happened right next door, here in the Inland Empire. Ms. Andrews grew up in the Ontario area and met the “nice man” while spending time in Palm Springs. The man took her to a house in Los Angeles and later to Las Vegas.
She was probably driven through Claremont.
As much of a shock as this may be - it shocked me - it really shouldn’t be. It turns out that human trafficking, which includes not only prostitution but also domestic servitude and likely a range of things, is big businesses in America and that the Inland Empire is the “capital” of human trafficking in America.
News or not, this was the subject of an interfeith community forum last month in Claremont, sponsored by the Pomona Valley Chapter of Progressive Christians Uniting and co-sponsored by a range of groups, including the Interfeith Sustainability Council of the Pomona Valley, the Pomona Valley Affiliate of the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), the Democratic Club of Claremont and the Islamic Center of Claremont. It was here that I heard Ms. Andrews tell her story, giving a firsthand account of what happened to her. Ms. Andrews, now a successful mother and studying to be a healthcare professional, is quite a powerful and compelling speaker.
The lead speaker at the forum was Claremont’s State Assembly Member Chris Holden, who is sponsoring a bill to expand law officials’ wiretapping authority, with a judge’s permission, to those they suspect of human trafficking. As Ms. Andrews pointed out, most of the business of human trafficking. Again, Ms. Andrews was most compelling, and all the more so when she asked the audience to reach out and be compassionate to those who appear to be involved in prostitution (and to do so with discretion, for they may well be supervised).
The audience - that there was one there - was perhaps the most significant thing about the forum, which also included leaders from Christian and Islamic groups. The topic was one that is ugly, not nice, easy to ignore and dismiss, to say that it doesn’t happen here in Claremont, and the fact that there were people there to listen, to learn and to find out what they can do, says a lot.
It says that there are people here who care, who get involved in work that is not easy, who do more than attend the bright events, like the one that happened a few days earlier, when Uncommon Good’s Whole Earth Building had it’s grand opening.
Taking place on a sunny and warm Saturday morning, this was every bit a celebration of the good - the good that can happen and the good that does happen when people get together to make it happen. With music and blessings and excited speeches, this was a party for everything Claremonters can get done.
What’s more, this grand opening was groundbreaking. Literally. This building, right behind the Claremont Methodist Church on Foothill Boulevard, was built mostly by hand using materials, the dirt and the rocks and the plant matter, that was on the site, saving energy and resources and preventing further pollution and global warming. It was designed by “visionary architect” Erik Peterson, of the Claremont Environmental Design Group, for the Uncommon Good organization’s offices and events.
It was exciting enough to get to go inside this brand new unique and beautiful modern adobe building, opening right in time for Earth Day, with its thick walls and warren of small yet airy spaces. It was also a special treat to see Dolores Huerta, the legendary farm labor leader who worked alongside Cesar Chavez, giving some words of congratulations. She was joined by other officials and dignitaries like Claremont Mayor Opanyi Nasiali, Chief Anthony RedBlood Morales of the San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians and, again, Assemblymember Holden.
There were shouts of “Dolores! Dolores!” capturing the love, joy, accomplishment and pride - “Si, se puede!” - that the gathering was all about. It was indeed a bright celebration of what people in Claremont can do.
It was also a reminder that most of this work is just that - work. As Nancy Mintie, the Executive Director of Uncommon Good, emphasized during her remarks, putting the building up was exhausting, and there were days when she and her fellow workers wondered what they had gotten into.
Not only is this work that people in Claremont do hard, it is sometimes unpleasant, disturbing and downright dangerous. Reaching out to the Amy Andrews in our midst can lead to some dark, ugly and nasty places.
The people who are involved in this summer’s effort to end homelessness in Claremont know this. They are shining a light into a dark underside of Claremont, one that more often than not involves mental illness, addition and other distressing characteristics.
Not only are they shining a light on the problem, they are trying to bring light to the problem. The purposes of the campaign is not to ignore or ban the homeless in Claremont, as City officials have attempted to do in the past, but to reach out to them and help them get the resources they need - resources that are freely available but which can be not easy to get.
Like much that is done in Claremont, this is good, hard work.
CLAREMONTERS TAKE ON THE GOOD, THE BAD
Amy Andrews isn’t someone who we see as part of the Claremont community. We don’t think of her in Claremont.
We don’t want to think of her in Claremont.
Amy Andrews was a sex slave. She was a victim of human trafficking.
This happened when she was in her early teens, about 14. She had been in and out of foster homes, an incorrigible girl, a girl who was sexually abused in some of these homes, after being abandoned by her drug-addicted mother. A man, a man who she thought was nice, took her away, and she ended up in a locked house, working as the man’s prostitute.
This didn’t happen in some backwards, under-developed country. This didn’t happen in a far-off, impoverished region. This happened right next door, here in the Inland Empire. Ms. Andrews grew up in the Ontario area and met the “nice man” while spending time in Palm Springs. The man took her to a house in Los Angeles and later to Las Vegas.
She was probably driven through Claremont.
As much of a shock as this may be - it shocked me - it really shouldn’t be. It turns out that human trafficking, which includes not only prostitution but also domestic servitude and likely a range of things, is big businesses in America and that the Inland Empire is the “capital” of human trafficking in America.
News or not, this was the subject of an interfeith community forum last month in Claremont, sponsored by the Pomona Valley Chapter of Progressive Christians Uniting and co-sponsored by a range of groups, including the Interfeith Sustainability Council of the Pomona Valley, the Pomona Valley Affiliate of the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), the Democratic Club of Claremont and the Islamic Center of Claremont. It was here that I heard Ms. Andrews tell her story, giving a firsthand account of what happened to her. Ms. Andrews, now a successful mother and studying to be a healthcare professional, is quite a powerful and compelling speaker.
The lead speaker at the forum was Claremont’s State Assembly Member Chris Holden, who is sponsoring a bill to expand law officials’ wiretapping authority, with a judge’s permission, to those they suspect of human trafficking. As Ms. Andrews pointed out, most of the business of human trafficking. Again, Ms. Andrews was most compelling, and all the more so when she asked the audience to reach out and be compassionate to those who appear to be involved in prostitution (and to do so with discretion, for they may well be supervised).
The audience - that there was one there - was perhaps the most significant thing about the forum, which also included leaders from Christian and Islamic groups. The topic was one that is ugly, not nice, easy to ignore and dismiss, to say that it doesn’t happen here in Claremont, and the fact that there were people there to listen, to learn and to find out what they can do, says a lot.
It says that there are people here who care, who get involved in work that is not easy, who do more than attend the bright events, like the one that happened a few days earlier, when Uncommon Good’s Whole Earth Building had it’s grand opening.
Taking place on a sunny and warm Saturday morning, this was every bit a celebration of the good - the good that can happen and the good that does happen when people get together to make it happen. With music and blessings and excited speeches, this was a party for everything Claremonters can get done.
What’s more, this grand opening was groundbreaking. Literally. This building, right behind the Claremont Methodist Church on Foothill Boulevard, was built mostly by hand using materials, the dirt and the rocks and the plant matter, that was on the site, saving energy and resources and preventing further pollution and global warming. It was designed by “visionary architect” Erik Peterson, of the Claremont Environmental Design Group, for the Uncommon Good organization’s offices and events.
It was exciting enough to get to go inside this brand new unique and beautiful modern adobe building, opening right in time for Earth Day, with its thick walls and warren of small yet airy spaces. It was also a special treat to see Dolores Huerta, the legendary farm labor leader who worked alongside Cesar Chavez, giving some words of congratulations. She was joined by other officials and dignitaries like Claremont Mayor Opanyi Nasiali, Chief Anthony RedBlood Morales of the San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians and, again, Assemblymember Holden.
There were shouts of “Dolores! Dolores!” capturing the love, joy, accomplishment and pride - “Si, se puede!” - that the gathering was all about. It was indeed a bright celebration of what people in Claremont can do.
It was also a reminder that most of this work is just that - work. As Nancy Mintie, the Executive Director of Uncommon Good, emphasized during her remarks, putting the building up was exhausting, and there were days when she and her fellow workers wondered what they had gotten into.
Not only is this work that people in Claremont do hard, it is sometimes unpleasant, disturbing and downright dangerous. Reaching out to the Amy Andrews in our midst can lead to some dark, ugly and nasty places.
The people who are involved in this summer’s effort to end homelessness in Claremont know this. They are shining a light into a dark underside of Claremont, one that more often than not involves mental illness, addition and other distressing characteristics.
Not only are they shining a light on the problem, they are trying to bring light to the problem. The purposes of the campaign is not to ignore or ban the homeless in Claremont, as City officials have attempted to do in the past, but to reach out to them and help them get the resources they need - resources that are freely available but which can be not easy to get.
Like much that is done in Claremont, this is good, hard work.
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
He who sings prays twice
He missed the music.
I met him when I was attending a P-FLAG meeting here in Claremont (long since defunct) about a dozen years ago. He said that he was looking for a new faith community, no longer feeling welcome in the faith community that he grew up in because of his homosexuality. I could tell that religion or faith was at least as important to him as it is for me, and a friend and I suggested he might like joining us at the Quaker meeting in Claremont.
He attended the meeting for a few months, and it was nice having another gay guy there. He said that he liked the quiet and the open-mindedness, the absence of dogma. He also said that he “missed the music” and ended up joining his boyfriend at the Church of the Brethren, close by in La Verne.
Earlier this month, I skipped meeting and checked out a service at the Church of the Brethren. I had recently attended a performance there by Peterson Toscano, a gay, Quaker performance artist who deals frequently with the Bible, and I figured that a church that invited him to perform would be cool. Also, I had long heard about the Church of the Brethren, that it is a “peace church” like the Quakers, and, besides, the La Verne church is a lovely, old church.
I saw my P-FLAG friend, who I hadn’t been in contact with in years, there, singing in the choir, and his boyfriend/partner was playing the piano and had written some music for the service. It was clear that they are very happy and totally at home at the church. It was nice to see this.
It was also clear that music is quite important at the church. It seemed to be almost a tenet. In fact, other than the simple stained glass windows, the only art in the sanctuary had to do with music, depicted in three scenes from the Bible.
It made me think yet again of what I saw on a poster or banner at a Catholic mass when I was growing up: “He who sings prays twice.” I have often thought of this, even putting it on a leather bracelet that I made for a summer camp counselor.
Yes, as I suspected, the Church of the Brethren is far more Bible-oriented, with scripture read, quoted - and, of course, sung. But it all seemed, at least on a initial visit, pretty mild, pretty gentle, without much pressure to believe certain things or in a certain way. I’m not saying there was no dogma, but it wasn’t like when I was visiting the gay-based Metropolitan Community Church a couple years ago and felt, in a weird and terrible irony, that I didn’t belong if I didn’t believe in or accept Jesus as my savior, assuming I’m a sinner and/or inadequate, in need of saving. In any case, I liked the emphasis on, as was said during the service, “doing, not saying.”
I didn’t get what I wanted at the MCC, but there are also times when Quaker meeting is just too quiet and small for me, especially, I recently realized, when I have to get up early on Sunday morning. There are times when I miss the music. And, although I usually resist it, there are times when I want to be guided and read to and even lectured (a bit).
I am at home at Quaker meeting, and I’ll always be a Quaker, an unprogrammed, silent-meeting Quaker. But don’t be surprised if I sometimes show up at the Brethren, or - who knows? - another church, now and then.
I met him when I was attending a P-FLAG meeting here in Claremont (long since defunct) about a dozen years ago. He said that he was looking for a new faith community, no longer feeling welcome in the faith community that he grew up in because of his homosexuality. I could tell that religion or faith was at least as important to him as it is for me, and a friend and I suggested he might like joining us at the Quaker meeting in Claremont.
He attended the meeting for a few months, and it was nice having another gay guy there. He said that he liked the quiet and the open-mindedness, the absence of dogma. He also said that he “missed the music” and ended up joining his boyfriend at the Church of the Brethren, close by in La Verne.
Earlier this month, I skipped meeting and checked out a service at the Church of the Brethren. I had recently attended a performance there by Peterson Toscano, a gay, Quaker performance artist who deals frequently with the Bible, and I figured that a church that invited him to perform would be cool. Also, I had long heard about the Church of the Brethren, that it is a “peace church” like the Quakers, and, besides, the La Verne church is a lovely, old church.
I saw my P-FLAG friend, who I hadn’t been in contact with in years, there, singing in the choir, and his boyfriend/partner was playing the piano and had written some music for the service. It was clear that they are very happy and totally at home at the church. It was nice to see this.
It was also clear that music is quite important at the church. It seemed to be almost a tenet. In fact, other than the simple stained glass windows, the only art in the sanctuary had to do with music, depicted in three scenes from the Bible.
It made me think yet again of what I saw on a poster or banner at a Catholic mass when I was growing up: “He who sings prays twice.” I have often thought of this, even putting it on a leather bracelet that I made for a summer camp counselor.
Yes, as I suspected, the Church of the Brethren is far more Bible-oriented, with scripture read, quoted - and, of course, sung. But it all seemed, at least on a initial visit, pretty mild, pretty gentle, without much pressure to believe certain things or in a certain way. I’m not saying there was no dogma, but it wasn’t like when I was visiting the gay-based Metropolitan Community Church a couple years ago and felt, in a weird and terrible irony, that I didn’t belong if I didn’t believe in or accept Jesus as my savior, assuming I’m a sinner and/or inadequate, in need of saving. In any case, I liked the emphasis on, as was said during the service, “doing, not saying.”
I didn’t get what I wanted at the MCC, but there are also times when Quaker meeting is just too quiet and small for me, especially, I recently realized, when I have to get up early on Sunday morning. There are times when I miss the music. And, although I usually resist it, there are times when I want to be guided and read to and even lectured (a bit).
I am at home at Quaker meeting, and I’ll always be a Quaker, an unprogrammed, silent-meeting Quaker. But don’t be surprised if I sometimes show up at the Brethren, or - who knows? - another church, now and then.
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Guns for kiddies
Did you know that there are guns that are made for children? Not toy guns. (That’s already a problem right there.) But real guns. The kind that shoot real bullets. The kind that kill.
I didn’t.
I didn’t know this until I read a short article last week deep inside the Los Angeles Times about a 5-year-old boy in Kentucky shooting and killing his 2-year-old sister. It was an accident.
But this wasn’t another story about a child finding a parent’s gun, with tragic results. The gun - a rifle - was given to the boy. It was a gift. A birthday gift last year.
Apparently, there are guns made for little kids. According to the article, “The rifle is a Cricket designed for children and sold under the slogan ‘My First Rifle,’ according to the company’s website. It is a smaller weapon that comes in child-like colors, including pink, red and swirls.”
Sure, “this was just a tragic accident” and “very, very rare,” as the county coroner says, but, on top of wondering how the parents now feel about this gift, I am left with this question: When guns are made for children, “in child-like colors,” when guns are given to five-year-olds, how can we argue, logically, sensibly, for gun restrictions using a schoolyard massacre as a reason for doing so?
I didn’t.
I didn’t know this until I read a short article last week deep inside the Los Angeles Times about a 5-year-old boy in Kentucky shooting and killing his 2-year-old sister. It was an accident.
But this wasn’t another story about a child finding a parent’s gun, with tragic results. The gun - a rifle - was given to the boy. It was a gift. A birthday gift last year.
Apparently, there are guns made for little kids. According to the article, “The rifle is a Cricket designed for children and sold under the slogan ‘My First Rifle,’ according to the company’s website. It is a smaller weapon that comes in child-like colors, including pink, red and swirls.”
Sure, “this was just a tragic accident” and “very, very rare,” as the county coroner says, but, on top of wondering how the parents now feel about this gift, I am left with this question: When guns are made for children, “in child-like colors,” when guns are given to five-year-olds, how can we argue, logically, sensibly, for gun restrictions using a schoolyard massacre as a reason for doing so?
Monday, May 6, 2013
Play ball - like it or not!
I didn’t think I would get all shook up by a baseball movie.
The other night, I saw “42,” and there were a couple times when I almost bursted out crying. I had read a lot about this docudrama about Jackie Robinson, the first non-white man to play major league baseball when he begun playing for the Brooklyn Dodgers in the 1940's after playing in the Negro leagues, but I frankly wasn’t ready for how powerful and moving this film is.
This isn’t your typical movie about the glory and glamor of sports. And it’s not exactly a feel-good movie about making history. Sure, there are plenty of heroics and excitement, but they are more like those seen in a war zone rather than a playing fields, with Robinson facing boos, nasty racial epithets and violent threats from fans and players and with teammates and the whole team not welcome in some places. That this ugly, war zone of hate is this country is most disturbing (and seeing that Philadelphia, “the city of brotherly love,” a city known for its Quakers, was so viciously racist at the time is particularly eye-opening and jolting).
Robinson was famously told “to be man enough not to fight back,” and he famously was. In the film, it is absolutely heart-breaking to see him break down and let out all his rage in private.
Perhaps the reason why I was shaken up so by this movie is that I can relate right now. This Spring, as baseball season is well underway, I, as a gay man and with the nation waiting for key decisions, I know a bit of what Jackie Robinson felt.
If my heart didn’t break, it definitely sank when I read about the proposal by top officials of the Boy Scouts of America, up for a vote later this month by members, to resolve the controversy over the organization’s anti-gay stance by letting gay boys be scouts while continuing to exclude homosexual adults as leaders. As unsatisfying as this compromise position is to virtually everybody for numerous reasons, what I found really upsetting was the reaction to it, with people on both sides of the issue once again saying damaging, ugly things about the other. “I think it’s strictly the religious people saying, ‘They’re terrible people, they’re not moral,’” said Howard Menzer, who heads Scouting for All, a San Diego advocacy group, as Tony Perkins, the president of the conservative Family Research Council, called the proposal “an affront to the notion that Scouts are brave, reverent and ‘morally straight.’” Of course, what this means is that no matter what is ultimately decided, school people, if not everyone, will be unhappy to say the least.
It is hard not to feel, as a gay man, like the eye of a nasty storm, with a vital aspect of who I am being picked over and tossed about. At the risk of mixing sports metaphors, I said in an earlier post about court rulings on same-sex marriage, that I don’t like being a football, being punted between the opposing sides.
This is all the more the case as the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8, banning same-sex marriage, are in the hands of the U.S Supreme Court, with decisions due by July. Yes, it is encouraging that many commentators are saying there will be a partial ruling, if not a broad-based, nationwide ruling, in favor of gay marriage and that a few Republican U.S Senators have changed their minds and now endorse gay marriage, we really don’t know what the decision - which will no doubt make some unhappy - will be until it’s announced. And while it is encouraging that an active, professional, male athlete (a black one, to boot) has come out as gay for the first time - a situation not unlike Robinson’s - and that a state lawmaker (also black) in Nevada (!)recently came out, it is just plain not nice that U.S Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has compared homosexuality to murder.
The other night, I saw “42,” and there were a couple times when I almost bursted out crying. I had read a lot about this docudrama about Jackie Robinson, the first non-white man to play major league baseball when he begun playing for the Brooklyn Dodgers in the 1940's after playing in the Negro leagues, but I frankly wasn’t ready for how powerful and moving this film is.
This isn’t your typical movie about the glory and glamor of sports. And it’s not exactly a feel-good movie about making history. Sure, there are plenty of heroics and excitement, but they are more like those seen in a war zone rather than a playing fields, with Robinson facing boos, nasty racial epithets and violent threats from fans and players and with teammates and the whole team not welcome in some places. That this ugly, war zone of hate is this country is most disturbing (and seeing that Philadelphia, “the city of brotherly love,” a city known for its Quakers, was so viciously racist at the time is particularly eye-opening and jolting).
Robinson was famously told “to be man enough not to fight back,” and he famously was. In the film, it is absolutely heart-breaking to see him break down and let out all his rage in private.
Perhaps the reason why I was shaken up so by this movie is that I can relate right now. This Spring, as baseball season is well underway, I, as a gay man and with the nation waiting for key decisions, I know a bit of what Jackie Robinson felt.
If my heart didn’t break, it definitely sank when I read about the proposal by top officials of the Boy Scouts of America, up for a vote later this month by members, to resolve the controversy over the organization’s anti-gay stance by letting gay boys be scouts while continuing to exclude homosexual adults as leaders. As unsatisfying as this compromise position is to virtually everybody for numerous reasons, what I found really upsetting was the reaction to it, with people on both sides of the issue once again saying damaging, ugly things about the other. “I think it’s strictly the religious people saying, ‘They’re terrible people, they’re not moral,’” said Howard Menzer, who heads Scouting for All, a San Diego advocacy group, as Tony Perkins, the president of the conservative Family Research Council, called the proposal “an affront to the notion that Scouts are brave, reverent and ‘morally straight.’” Of course, what this means is that no matter what is ultimately decided, school people, if not everyone, will be unhappy to say the least.
It is hard not to feel, as a gay man, like the eye of a nasty storm, with a vital aspect of who I am being picked over and tossed about. At the risk of mixing sports metaphors, I said in an earlier post about court rulings on same-sex marriage, that I don’t like being a football, being punted between the opposing sides.
This is all the more the case as the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8, banning same-sex marriage, are in the hands of the U.S Supreme Court, with decisions due by July. Yes, it is encouraging that many commentators are saying there will be a partial ruling, if not a broad-based, nationwide ruling, in favor of gay marriage and that a few Republican U.S Senators have changed their minds and now endorse gay marriage, we really don’t know what the decision - which will no doubt make some unhappy - will be until it’s announced. And while it is encouraging that an active, professional, male athlete (a black one, to boot) has come out as gay for the first time - a situation not unlike Robinson’s - and that a state lawmaker (also black) in Nevada (!)recently came out, it is just plain not nice that U.S Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has compared homosexuality to murder.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)