{q\advance\baselineskip-0\pnt5pt

\section{Crank Letters}

{\it I guess I'm somewhat of a chronic letter writer. Usually�
they get purged from the disk after printing, but somehow these�
letters got saved. So publishing them here out of context seemed�
appropriate.

(I have also mastered the art of writing Letters to the Editor --�
they {\rm always} get printed. Keep them short. Length, style,�
content according to the publication. Don't directly insult�
anyone. Righteousness is boring to read. Say what it is you are�
writing about (context)! Stick to the point. Make it amusing.�
Provide complete contact info, even though no one ever uses it,�
it lets them know you are not a crank.)}

\bigskip

{\bf Bay Guardian (11 Apr 90)}

Jim Balderson,

re: The Denver Boot\margintext{[The Bay Guardian, a local weekly,�
ran an article about the Denver Boot, to be introduced in S.F.�
the next year. It included complete construction details, and a�
how-to on disassembly. There were four references to�
``anarchists'' as the agents of their destruction. They article�
had a gleeful 
secret-agent tone.]} -- So ``anarchists'' will dismantle the Boot�
from cars in the city?  An ignorant, reactionary and dangerous�
choice of words. Dangerous, because anarchist people like myself�
are specifically harassed by the police exactly because of idiots�
who say ``anarchist'' to add spice to their writing. Hint: it's�
rude as shit to use any group or label for such purposes.

Take a look at what anarchists really do in this city. They work�
for youth shelters and crisis lines. Distribute free food to�
those who need it. The needle exchange. Any number of�
understaffed and under- or un-paid volunteers that make S.F. a�
good city to live in. Sorry, but you've got no excuse. It was�
wise-ass remark, at our expense.\plainmargintext{[This letter�
breaks two important rules (righteousness and insults), but the�
PS: helps make up for it. Length was critical, as the Bay�
Guardian has a minuscule Letters column.]}

And a personal no-thanks from me for increasing the�
harassment/irritation level in my life. Jerk.

Tom Jennings, San Francisco

PS: This doesn't mean I think dismantling them is a bad idea\dots


\newpage
{\bf S.F. Examiner (9 Dec 88)}

Your article on violent fascists\margintext{\it [In response to�
an incredibly inane and simplistic article on ``skinheads'',�
complete with one of those ``How to tell\dots'' drawings with the�
little lines pointing to various worn items (earrings: hoops for�
girls, studs for boys; that sort of nonsense. This letter is�
actually far longer than recommended, but they ran it anyways.]}�
in Thursdays Examiner was generally good, in that it illuminated�
something that's being ignored in our society, but also very�
misleading, and may even put some of us in danger from would-be�
do-gooders. 

People cannot be reduced to clothing or haircuts, just as we�
cannot be reduced to just skin color. This is dangerous, 
short-cut thinking. 

The ``How to Spot a Skinhead'' drawing was simply wrong: you�
cannot spot bigots by the way they dress. There are more bigots,�
racists, anti-semites, fascists, etc.~that wear ``normal�
clothes'', in both numbers and proportion, than there are�
otherwise. (Besides, fashion-wise, most skinheads wear surplus�
nylon ``bomber jackets'', not leather or denim.) The drawing as�
about as useful, and as amusing, as those ``How to Spot a�
Preppy/Hippy/Whatever'' posters. 

The same sort of simplistic thinking is at work in many�
``Neighborhood Watch'' programs, where neighbors are instructed�
to report ``suspicious looking persons'' to the police;�
frequently this means that a black person in a predominantly�
white neighborhood is reported as ``suspicious looking'', out of�
fear and ignorance, rather than overt racism.

For example, I have very short hair, a black leather jacket,�
levis and Doc Martens. I am not a skinhead, a bigot or fascist,�
nor am I a fag-basher; as a matter of fact I am gay. If you had�
done a bit more research, you would have found that many, if not�
most, people that wear funny haircuts, leather jackets, levis and�
boots do more specifically anti-fascist work than many 
``normal-looking'' people; we volunteer for grassroots political�
groups, support human rights in the US and abroad, do community�
service, work at Rock Against Racism shows, all ages/drug free�
shows, political protests, etc. Even if you don't agree with�
these things, they are hardly bigoted or fascist acts. Also, the�
nasty skinheads (as opposed to the OK ones) consider us their�
enemies, too.

Fortunately or unfortunately, you have to interact with people in�
some way to find out what their views are. Fact is, most wars�
were started by white people who wear suits. These sort of people�
have also done a large proportion of the atrocities against�
fellow humans in recorded history. See how useful this process�
is?


Tom Jennings, San Francisco CA

\bigskip

{\bf S.F. Sentinel (19 Aug 90)}\plainmargintext{The {\rm S.F.�
Sentinel} is a local weekly gay/lesbian newspaper, owned by one�
of the more piggish and small-minded bar owners in town.}

Re: Your article on the Secret Gospel Church

Something in your article scared me, I actually lost sleep over�
it. 

In the context of the article, the writer asked the police, ``was�
anyone charged with unsafe sex?'' Of course the officer said no�
-- UNSAFE SEX IS NOT A CRIME!! The unspoken logic behind the�
question is very, very dangerous to our civil liberties, and will�
be a precedent for losing even more.

The point is this: I and literally everyone I know agrees that�
``unsafe sex'' is bad, dangerous, etc\margintext{[Following a�
prudish but ultimately terrifying article on an admittedly odd�
sort of sex club/church, operating somewhere in San Francisco.]}.�
But regardless, it is absolutely a personal decision. It can be�
nothing more nor less. 

An anonymous sex-club operator was quoted as saying something to�
the effect of, when we have people in our clubs, we have an�
obligation to keep them safe from fire, etc, and also unsafe sex.

Does this guy work for the police?! Fire and related issues are�
{\it environmental} -- they are part of the structure. Safe sex�
is between the participants. The only way to ``ensure safe sex''�
is -- how? Monitors in the rooms? Video surveillance? Sure, the�
monitors will be ``people from our community'' not the police --�
but besides not being able to tell the difference, it sets the�
precedence of stating {\it you cannot be trusted, you must be�
monitored.}

Taking this a little, but not very much, further, if unsafe sex�
is so dangerous, it must be stopped everywhere. In Georgia, the�
police can arrest you for homo-sex, period -- why not make it a�
felony to have unsafe sex?

My feeling is that the people who want to shut down sex clubs,�
even or maybe especially the gay ones, simply haven't gotten it�
through their heads what {\it tolerance} means, nor the ideas�
behind the Bill of Rights -- you simply can't {\it control} what�
people do, even if you think it is evil, simply because you feel�
strongly against it. Helms can run for senator if he wants to. TV�
christians can say you're going to hell and take fools money. It�
is their right to do so. Their right stops variously when they�
attempt to control others behavior, no matter how well meaning.�
Or not.

Tom Jennings, San Francisco CA

\bigskip

{\bf Bay Area Reporter (13 Oct 90)}\plainmargintext{The {\rm Bay�
Area Reporter} (BAR) is the other weekly gay newspaper, while�
still pretty conservative, is fairly consistent without the petty�
vengefulness of the S.F. Sentiment.}

Tony Fiore's Guest Opinion (BAR 11 Oct) I believe does represent�
a vocal minority's opinion, hence this letter.

Not everyone wants to live in a world where everything is nice�
and neat, trimmed lawns and painted houses, where a street is�
just for cars, sidewalks just for walking, and walls are just�
walls, like some idealized TV/1950's Ozzie \& Harriet�
world\margintext{[In the Castro, the somewhat\dash upscale most�
obvious gay neighborhood in San Francisco, has it's share of�
``neighborhood improvement'' type idiots. You probably have them�
in your town, out to defend niceness and convenience and the�
American Way, against the grubby rabble out to lower their�
property values. A pet peeve of mine. This particular one had his�
``15 minutes'' of fame, and managed to alienate everyone around�
him within a few months.]} (but with nicer people of course).�
Believe it or not, to some, a street is merely an ugly thing�
covering 70\% of the city, sidewalks are for hanging out,�
skateboarding, decorating, as well as walking, and walls are�
surfaces for expression. 

The real issue here is one of aesthetics. Bear with me a moment.

Sorry, your version of the world is no better nor more valid than�
mine. It's not that I think your world is bad, or wrong, per se;�
what annoys me is your assumption that {\it everyone wants this}�
or should live-this-way, and if they appear to not, they must be�
jealous, crazy, or just plain mean. Get a clue.  The only word�
I've ever found that expresses this 
assumption-that-my-views-are-Right is ``imperialism'', such a�
dreadful word. (Suggestions anyone?)

Better to call your group\margintext{[His group was called ``Help�
Save Our Neighborhood''.]} what it is -- ``Help Save Us 
Property-Owners' Aesthetics''.  Queer Nation (QN) is addressing�
problems it sees, in ways it sees fit, like you are. So are other�
people responding in ways they believe will help, like the Homo�
Patrol street patrol -- no Guardian Angel macho nonsense, but�
simply out there to prevent bashings.  If you cared about the�
people who actually live here -- rather than your idealized�
``Neighborhood'' -- you might do something like donate 
walkie-talkies or batteries or a big box of whistles for them distribute�
while on patrol in your precious Neighborhood. (Call 267-6118)�
You'd even get brownie points for helping to end divisiveness.

I'm sure QN loves getting all the credit, but different groups do�
the following: STRAIGHTS READ THIS, street patrol, BEHAVE OR BE�
GONE, endless graffiti, and other one-shot non-events. Yes, the�
world is far, far messier than you think. Others' actions do not�
prevent you from doing your own thing. 

You should also take the hint that CUAV\margintext{Community�
United Against Violence -- a well respected community group.} is�
supporting Queer Nation's tactics. What you describe as�
``alienating'' the police is merely being self-sufficient --�
don't you remember what {\it happened} Oct 6th?! How about 11�
years back at the Elephant Walk? Why not ask CUAV how {\it they}�
came into existence? 

\noindent ``I am now embarrassed to bring straight friends with�
me into our neighborhood\dots'' -- are they only your friends if�
you live in a ``nice'' place? With friends like that\dots

Trying to see things from your shoes -- could you not view what�
``Queer Nation'' et al are doing as, at worst, your neighbors�
doing what they can to respond to the homophobic environment, or�
is your aesthetic such an overriding concern that you refuse to�
change? 

PS: I am not a Queer Nation member.

Tom Jennings, San Francisco

\bigskip
\newpage

{\bf Bay Area Reporter (24 Dec 89)}

Dear Dan Rotan {\it et al},

First Dan\margintext{[Just responding to another idiot with an us�
(nice'n'normal) vs. them (downscale weirdos) letter.]}, if you�
have ``friends'' -- straight or otherwise -- that voted 
``anti-gay'' (sic) simply because they didn't like what some�
other group of people did -- that's your problem.  Personally, I�
would never consider people that petty, spiteful and obviously�
homophobic to be ``friends''.

But I didn't write to comment on your insecurities, but the thing�
unsaid behind yours and many other letters I've read lately:

That you consider yourself to be one of the ``real'' gay people,�
you know, the legitimate ones. The ones that act like ``you''.�
``We'' give ``you'' a bad name. If it weren't for us, much more�
progress would be made. And so on. (I won't make the obvious�
analogy with German Jews trying to ``pass''. Especially in these�
Interesting Times.)

Seems we've heard this story before -- how unsightly drag queens�
(etc) give us good gay people a bad name. Butch boys say ``not�
all gay men are like that!'' about sissy boys. Or how straight�
boys hate ``fags''. Don't you recognize the process? -- it's the�
same old fears in new clothing. 

Are you so unsure of yourself that you confuse someone else's�
actions with your own? Don't your own actions speak for�
themselves?

Since you asked: I firmly believe that the attempt of some gay�
people to blend into the so-called mainstream is suicide, and�
that the people that want to do this will sell us ``weirdos''�
out, climbing over our bodies if necessary, to get there. Your�
incredible intolerance, for something as minor as disagreeing�
with the tactics of a group you are not even part of, tells me�
that I could not rely on you for anything.

Your beliefs and actions genuinely give {\it me} a bad name. I�
get shit in my life because mainstream, upscale, yuppy�
consumptive people like you claim to represent ``all gay�
people''. {\it You embarrass me!} Why is it that the so-called�
``mainstream'' can't tolerate difference? And no, I am not part�
of ACT-UP, SANOE, or any other activist group. They don't�
represent me either. Only I do that.

You have no choice but to live with us. And us with you. 


Tom Jennings, San Francisco

\bigskip

{\bf S.F. Sentinel (28 June 90)}

Imagine, a world where gay people are in all stations of life,�
even the FBI and CIA\margintext{[After an editorial piece about�
women and gays (sic) trying to stay in the (in this case) FBI�
after ``coming out''.]} -- the thrill of gay men and women�
enforcing our country's fine standards of justice throughout the�
world, and at home, terrorizing those pornographers like�
Mapplethorpe and Sturges. 

It would have just warmed my heart to know that our own gay�
people helped the FBI seize video equipment and personal�
belongings of a friend of mine, who had merely corresponded with�
someone accused of having ``child pornography''. (No charges were�
filed, they returned his personal items but kept the equipment.�
Of course he could sue them\dots right.)

And on your ACT-UP ``vs.'' the [6th International] AIDS�
Conference attitude -- in Charles Linebarger's article, even�
Conference people said ACT-UP was great -- why all the ``let's�
tone things down a bit'' editorializing? Watch out, your true�
feelings are showing!

Tom Jennings, San Francisco

\bigskip

{\bf Bay Area Reporter (23 Nov 88)}

What\plainmargintext{[Ballot Proposition 102 made it mandatory to�
report to the state all HIV-positive blood tests, with penalties�
for doctors who don't, and quarantine for people with AIDS.�
Drafted by that sicko, Lyndon LaRouche. Prop 96 required HIV�
testing for all} happened at the ``No on 96/102'' march and rally�
at City Hall is somewhat different than reported by Cesar Cadabes�
and Jim Mangia in the 17 Nov. letters column.

The No on 96/102 Coalition hired Chunk of Coal (Hernan Cortez) to�
do the sound and lights for the rally on City Hall steps; Hernan�
asked the other two of us to help him. None of us were involved�
in any way with any other phase of the planning or execution of�
the event.

We\plainmargintext{people convicted of sex-related crimes�
(prostitution, etc). The typical ``thin end of the wedge'' type�
law.]} had the equipment operating just as the march reached City�
Hall steps, a few minutes early. While the people who were to be�
speaking for the rally were being located, Dr. Fulani (who was�
not on any list of speakers that we ever saw) approached the�
microphone and started to speak on Props. 96 and 102, amidst�
applaud from the crowd. After only a few minutes however, she�
switched to the NAP political agenda, rather than the agreed upon�
issue of props. 96/102, and the applause turned to criticism and�
booing: ``Stick to the issue at hand!'' and other, less polite,�
things were yelled quite loudly.

When Dr. Fulani\margintext{Lenora Fulani is a front for a group�
known as the New Alliance Party, a sicko cult with leftist-style�
politics. They take upon themselves the attributes of a group�
they wish to subvert (in this case, they fully support gay rights�
and put infiltrators into groups like AIDS support services) and�
meddle in hateful ways. Don't discount them -- they nearly�
destroyed the largest Easy Bay AIDS support agency, and Fulani�
got 4\% of the {\rm national} presidential vote!]} and her party�
refused to relinquish the microphone, Billy from ACT-UP took up a�
``No on 96! No on 102!'' chant using a microphone down at the�
soundboard; the next speaker was escorted to a second microphone�
up on the steps, that mike made active, cutting off Dr. Fulani 
mid-sentence, much to her dismay. The rest of the rally went�
without incident.

I suppose you could call it rude, but it was the minimum�
necessary to keep the rally on target and operating smoothly, and�
it was done without rancor. The other speakers had no trouble�
sticking to the subject at hand (as if that should need to be�
mentioned). Racism had nothing to do with the incident, and the�
claim of ``racism'' here is just diversionary bullshit. Cesar's�
statement ``\dots I personally saw a number of people ripping�
down posters which listed the various speakers who had been�
invited'' implies that Dr. Fulani's name was on them; it was not,�
unless NAP people put them up in the first place. Jim's�
``Democratic party thugs'' is absurd -- at least one of us is an�
anarchist.

From what we saw, the rally was a success; the speakers (all�
applauded when introduced) spoke on a wide variety of views, the�
people who attended the rally got the message and were also told�
about the protest at the ``Midnight Caller'' episode filming that�
night (which also went very well.)

Tom Jennings, 
Duke Crestfield, 
Shred of Dignity, 
San Francisco

Hernan Cortez, 
Chunk of Coal Productions, 
San Francisco
\hbox to\bigcol{\hfil\endblob}

}%	end advance baselineskip
