Divisiveness of SF Pride's Manning Decision is Nothing New for the LGBT Community

The LGBT rights movement is by no means a monolithic group, and the range of opinions was contextualized Wednesday night when famous activists Dan Nicoletta and Anne Kronenberg took the stage for an event discussing the impact of Harvey Milk at the Castro Theater hosted by Facing History and Ourselves.

During the Q&A the recent SF Pride controversy around Bradley Manning's nomination and subsequent removal from the grand marshal list was brought up, where Dan Nicoletta diplomatically supported SF Pride, the representation of Manning in the movement, as well as the process of debating and disagreeing with each other.

Replying to the question about what he thought about the controversy Nicoletta answered, "And you know I love Pride... and I've worked intimately with Pride... So the discourse is heartbreaking but I think Stuart Milk so eloquently always says that our differences are our strengths and we are going to have fights and we should fight... we'll figure it out, it's a complex issue and I think by giving that spokesperson for Bradley Manning a place to talk about those issues we're doing the right thing...
"Just like in Harvey Milk's Day... under the pressures from the rest of the world when Anita Bryant challenged us at the ballot box and John Briggs challenged us at the ballot box... there was a lot of scrambling to be something other than what we are. To have our arguments in public, I think that's a healthy thing and we will figure it out."

Dan Nicoletta's photography has done much to document Harvey Milk's life as a politician in San Francisco and both he and Anne Kronenberg, who got her start in politics working with Milk, spoke at length about how they think Milk would have lead today had it not been for his assassination.

Meanwhile in current San Francisco LGBT politics, Supervisor David Campus wrote a strong letter to SF Pride in which he said, "The decision to rescind this honor is unprecedented and the community has every right to be concerned about the consequences of this abrupt, top-down directive. Most importantly, however, is the obligation Pride has to be accountable, transparent and representative to the diverse LGBT community it serves. As an organization which receives City funding, Pride has a responsibility to operate with transparency and accountability, and to allow for timely appropriate discussions with the community as needed. The failure of Pride leadership to do so in this circumstance is contrary to this responsibility."

"Controversy is not a new phenomenon to Pride festivities, nor is it a valid reason for Pride not to fulfill its responsibilities to the broader LGBT community. The recent statement made by Pride that the discussion on this matter is “closed” is disturbing, and may serve to further divide the community and foster long-lasting resentments."

Tuesday this week activists also held a "mock Pride board meeting" with a row of empty chairs to represent the absence of SF Pride in the discussion.

Whether or not SF Pride takes the time to respond to the community outcry or Supervisor Campos, the vigorous debate is nothing new in LGBT politics, though it certainly seems to have become reinvigorated thanks to the Manning nomination.

Immigration Reform 2013: Mark Zuckerberg's Lobbying Group Has Already Lost Key Donors

Mark Zuckerburg's forays into political action aren't proving to be successful. After launching on Aprill 11, Zuckerberg's lobbying group FWD.us has managed to quickly anger allies and lose support from key donors.

As the organization defines itself, "FWD.us is an organization started by key leaders in the tech community to promote policies to keep the United States and its citizens competitive in a global economy — including comprehensive immigration reform and education reform."

While that idea has been quick to garner support from techies, the reality of how that policy has come into play has been problematic. In order to get support from key Republicans, FWD.us has already waded into other issues, putting out TV ads supporting the Keystone XL Pipeline and drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge much to the anger of progressives.

Former Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) commented on FWD.us' actions, saying, "Leaders in the technology community have every right to talk about how immigration reform will benefit their businesses, but instead, FWD.us has chosen a strategy that’s condescending to voters and counterproductive to the cause of reform."

The former senator was part of a broader coalition of progressive organizers including Progressives United, MoveOn.Org, Democracy for America, CREDO, Daily Kos, The Sierra Club, The League of Conservation Voters, 350.org, and Presente.org. Although many of these organizations are allied with the cause of immigration reform, they have had their interested hurt by FWD.us's organizing tactics.

Even some FWD.us donors have left the cause, including Elon Musk and David Sacks. Musk said regarding his departure, "I agreed to support Fwd.us because there is a genuine need to reform immigration. However, this should not be done at the expense of other important causes. I have spent a lot of time fighting far larger lobbying organizations in D.C. and believe that the right way to win on a cause is to argue the merits of that cause."

In its blatant support of the Keystone XL Pipeline, FWD.us illustrates that Silicon Valley successes are not always the best qualified when it comes to policy, as they managed to not only divide both progressives and their own donors within a month of launch, but did so for a cause that the scientific community is largely against, despite FWD.us's lip service to STEM education.

In addition, the demographics of FWD.us illustrate that the Silicon Valley idea of a diverse group is rather stereotypically male-dominated. Out of their 13 listed founders, there is only one woman. Our of their 23 listed supporters, there are only four women. Despite that obvious gender gap they describe themselves as, "A diverse group of leading innovators, job creators, business owners, and founders from the tech community."

While Silicon Valley loves to talk about a meritocracy where the best product or solution wins, FWD.us looks much more like an old boys club engaging in politics as usual, and much less like an innovative solution to a tough political problem. While they repeatedly state on their Facebook page that the "the tech community is uniting around immigration reform," they lack policy specifics, can't boast any type of coalition work outside the tech community, and speak in generalities that don't indicate where they stand on rights for undocumented students (some of whom studied in the STEM fields FWD.us also supports), bi-national LGBT couples, the low income workers who support our food industry (techies gotta eat too, right?), families of immigrants (does that engineer have a mom who wants to live closer?), and more.

Maybe FWD.us will internalize these lessons and pivot to a better strategy like many of their supporters' companies, but if not Mark Zuckerburg's current work in the political arena seems to be causing more problems than it's fixing.

Originally Posted Here.

Bradley Manning: SF Pride Still Doesn't Get Why People Are Upset

San Francisco Pride would really like you to forget the whole Bradley Manning issue. After Manning was nominated to be honored by former Grand Marshals of the city's yearly Pride Parade, the announcement was made public, some veterans and LGBT groups protested, SF Pride retracted the honor, faced community protests, changed its tactics, and was protested again — and yet the organization still hasn't absorbed why the community is upset and why it matters.

SF Pride has announced via email that it's postponing the May 14 meeting on Manning's invitation until a larger, suitable location is secured, with the rationale that “We want to allow people to have a chance to voice their opinions about the recent controversy, but also have a large event coming up, and do not want to let one issue, as important as it is to some, overshadow the concerns and interests of the hundreds of thousands who attend SF Pride.”

The email went on to say, “SF Pride's decision concerning the election process of Bradley Manning as Grand Marshal being consistent with SF Pride's long standing Grand Marshal election policy is firm. Thus, the discussion of that matter is closed for this year.”

With this attitude that the matter is closed, any such meeting on Manning serves no purpose. The activists who gathered to protest both on April 29 and May 7 were not hoping to just get an idea out there, they sought concrete actions from SF Pride in order to best reflect the will of participants.
SF Pride justified this decision saying, “A meeting in a larger venue after the 2013 Celebration and Parade will allow people from all sides of that issue and others to fully air and hear one another's viewpoints, without jeopardizing the production of this year's event and the safety and security of the attendees. We ask everyone in the community to come together in Pride this June, recognizing that we can embrace difference without violence and hate.”

This is a classic strawman argument. There is no safety or security risk in honoring or not honoring Bradley Manning. And to deny the community a chance to be heard prior to the event is not respecting viewpoints of a diverse community; it is silencing the chance for those viewpoints to be reflected in action. This lack of representation in action has been a complaint of many protesters, and in its newest tactic to avoid controversy, SF Pride is showing just the attitude the protesters have become tired of.

In my observation of the protesters, I saw no hate for Pride as an organization or movement. Rather, their protest sought to better represent the community and was based out of a desire for greater inclusivity within the community. Many had frustrations due to SF Pride not listening, however this press release shows that such a frustration is well grounded. SF Pride wants to first have its event, and then have a conversation when it can have no effect on the outcome.

Originally Posted Monday May 13, 2013 here.

Prop 8 Update... to come tomorrow

Tomorrow's Prop 8 ruling will likely cover three parts to the case...
1) If former U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker should have recused himself from hearing the case because he is gay and had a long-time partner with whom he was not married (and therefore might have an interest in marrying someday)


2) If the proponents of Proposition 8 have the right to appeal Walker's decision striking down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional when the state of California won't

3) If Walker did not need to recuse himself and the proponents DO have the right to appeal, whether Walker was correct that Proposition 8 violates Californians' due process and equal protection rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution....

... So tired of this nonsense. More news to come - 10:30 am tomorrow. Most likely on twitter...

Why I'm not impressed with Komen (Despite changing their stance on PP)

Last night I was going to post about Komen and Planned Parenthood but today’s news changes that thought train but I still think it is worth commenting on.

For background see Rachel Maddow’s summary from last night.

Attacking Planned Parenthood is not new, so why is it so hugely different when The Susan G. Komen for the Cure removes support from Planned Parenthood than when Congress and State Legislators do?

I think it largely has to do with where expectations lie. With Congress – no matter when you look in the last few years and regardless of what side of almost any issue you have an opinion on – most Americans agree Congress is something we don’t approve of. Since 2009 the highest Congressional approval numbers were at 37%. So when congress does something I don’t approve of, like cutting support to Planned Parenthood, I can’t really do much to change that. My representatives in the House and Senate generally won’t be swayed by any one feedback mechanism and this is true of most representatives on hot button issues. I expect Republicans in congress to be anti-women’s health because they come in campaigning on it. They are “pro-life” until a child is born at which point they’re anti-healthcare, anti-women’s rights and autonomy of health decisions, anti-LGBT families, etc… I expect it from them to attack women’s rights. And on the left I expect Democrats to make non-binding resolutions and give lip service to those issues but that they will ultimately cave when push comes to shove. (See Obama’s record on parental notification or NDAA etc… if you want to know why my expectations are calibrated as such) Ultimately when it comes to the government while I think there is huge potential for good (I like clean air, roads without potholes, clean drinking water, schools, fire fighters etc…) the political process will not represent the best of that. So while individually Democrats and Republicans might support women in their lives, that support being embodied in programs extending to all is another issue.

Meanwhile over at The Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation – my expectations are a bit different. While there have been many critiques of running the non-profit too much like a business and making partners with ill fitted groups, reducing information and packing itself in a corporate manner that doesn’t suit the cause (See Komen Watch) – fundamentally people believe in the brand. People believe that if they are aware of cancer risks, wear their pink ribbon to bring a dialog about cancer and talk about the need for early screenings – ultimately there will be less breast cancer. When people participate in the Race for the Cure events, while they know the events won’t be the cure, there is a general feeling that the money they raise, and the awareness they raise will help. So when Komen pulls support from a group who’s About Us page says, “Planned Parenthood has promoted a commonsense approach to women’s health and well-being, based on respect for each individual’s right to make informed, independent decisions about health, sex, and family planning.” – it shocks.

Komen describes themselves saying, “As the world’s largest grassroots network of breast cancer survivors and activists, we’re working together to save lives, empower people, ensure quality care for all and energize science to find the cures.” – so when they put politics ahead of that mission and pull back support from Planned Parenthood who’s mission so clearly overlaps there is a natural and justified anger.

Today when Komen reversed that decision they said,

“We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives.  The events of this week have been deeply unsettling for our supporters, partners and friends and all of us at Susan G. Komen.  We have been distressed at the presumption that the changes made to our funding criteria were done for political reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood.  They were not.

Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation.  We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair.”

To which I’d like to call out – B*LL$HIT. As already pointed out by Mother Jones, Komen has not withdrawn support from Penn State which is under criminal investigations that are not political… Furthermore the timing of their withdrawn support does not correlate with the investigations, but it does follow the hiring of prominent Republican Karen Handel, a former GOP candidate who ran on a pro-life platform, (though not pro-life enough for Georgia where she took flak for being okay with abortion in cases of rape and incest). While she may not be responsible – an anonymous source claims she is and speculation began before the reversal of this choice. However she was stupid enough to tweet this (and promptly delete it when the internet exploded…) :

“Just like a pro-abortion group to turn a cancer orgs decision into a political bomb to throw. Cry me a freaking river.”

Regardless if she is directly responsible, she should be fired for that. She is Susan G. Komen’s Vice President of Public Policy, and to publicly put forward an insult like that to supporters of Planned Parenthood is not appropriate. “Cry me a freaking river?” That’s the VICE PRESIDENT OF PUBLIC POLICY’S reaction to low income women losing access to life saving preventative care and screenings? Ignoring the politics of I disagree with her perspective – from a pure business standpoint as  someone who should be a good public face of the organization – she had failed. And while Komen’s statement said, ”We do not want our mission marred or affected by politics – anyone’s politics.”  - the reality is it does.

And for a lot of advocates of women’s health Komen’s brand has lost a huge amount of trust, been mocked by Komen’s VP of Public Policy for reacting to that, and no reversal of policy will change that. Because a reversal of one politically motivated decision due to political outcry is in itself a political reaction. Once Komen pulled support it put itself in a position where by not giving support it was playing to one political agenda, and by renewing support in the wake of activists, senators and supports reactions – it played to the damage control of another political stance. Trustworthy non-profits operating to provide care do not do such abrupt about-faces- and the damage to the brand will not be repaired overnight.

As the Economist  posted:

“It’s a cynical thing to say, but I suspect this might cost Susan G. Komen more than it does Planned Parenthood.”

I agree.

If they were going to cut funding they should have also done so to Penn State. By not doing so they suggested that abortion is a worse crime than child rape. By cutting funding and doing a rapid about face they showed they’re operating in a political arena, and brought attention to their public policy, which is headed by someone who’s stance on the issue raises uncomfortable questions. And by allowing the news cycle to continue a full week – Planned Parenthood suddenly gained huge numbers of supporters, and people began to delve into what those pink ribbons actually mean. Which given the way they run their non-profit like a corporation is not a good thing to raise attention to. Things like the CEO making $481,704 in an annual salary… (I don’t believe non-profit workers should be paid so little they can’t lead a good life – but if one person’s salary is 70% the amount of grants you make to the largest provider of women’s health care in the country… HOW ARE YOU ALLOCATING YOUR RESOURCES? Seriously – that’s ridiculous.)

My mother is a breast cancer survivor. When I discussed this issue with her she said if it wasn’t reversed she wouldn’t participate in Race for the Cure. This is from someone who did 8 of the 3 day walks to raise funs for breast cancer research. Who has the keychain, a stuffed animal and lord knows how many pink products…  She is as much of Komen’s target market as you can get and an active part of their fundraising events- and this week she was disappointed and had lost interest in working with them.

I am glad to see they reversed their decision. But until they fire Karen Handle, reduce executive compensation in favor of allocating a greater chunk of their funds to actual preventative care and treatment – I’m done with the pink ribbon industry. For more reasons why you might want to do so too, further reading.