Wired News: Congress Expands FBI Spying Power: Congress approved a bill on Friday that expands the reach of the Patriot Act, reduces oversight of the FBI and intelligence agencies and, according to critics, shifts the balance of power away from the legislature and the courts. A provision of an intelligence spending bill will expand the power of the FBI to subpoena business documents and transactions from a broader range of businesses -- everything from libraries to travel agencies to eBay -- without first seeking approval from a judge. Under the Patriot Act, the FBI can acquire bank records and Internet or phone logs simply by issuing itself a so-called national security letter saying the records are relevant to an investigation into terrorism. The FBI doesn't need to show probable cause or consult a judge. What's more, the target institution is issued a gag order and kept from revealing the subpoena's existence to anyone, including the subject of the investigation. The new provision in the spending bill redefines the meaning of "financial institution" and "financial transaction." The wider definition explicitly includes insurance companies, real estate agents, the U.S. Postal Service, travel agencies, casinos, pawn shops, ISPs, car dealers and any other business whose "cash transactions have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax or regulatory matters."
For heaven's sake, why? There doesn't seem to have been a massive outbreak of domestic terrorism in the past two years. I can't imagine that the FBI or that Ashcroft, our Lord High Minister of Injustice, could have reasonably defend such a desire in public.
Other portions of the funding bill eliminate annual reports to Congress on several controversial matters, such as foreign companies' involvement in the spread of weapons of mass destruction, the effectiveness of the intelligence community and antidrug efforts. The bill also nixes reports on how many times national security letters are used to access individuals' credit reports.
My, but the extent of Congress' craven cowardice is awesome, isn't it? They approve a bill that might never have survived public debate, but which should have, at the least, been given the opportunity. As part of that bill, they stick in requirements that say, basically, "Don't tell us what you're doing. We don't want to know. We think Sgt Schultz of Hogan's Heroes is a real role model: We know nothing! We see nothing! We hear Nothing! We do NO-thing!"
What earthly good is having a deliberative body as part of the government if they refuse to deliberate? What good is congressional oversight of executive agencies if they refuse to exercise it?
Pity that people don't really pay attention to Congress. There's a body needing a thorough purge. Maybe electing an entirely new House would make things worse, maybe it wouldn't. (Given the general rightward tilt of our politics these days, it would probably make things quite a bit worse.) But there must be something we can do to get Congress to act the way it's supposed to act, as a check on this sort of unrestrained exercise of executive power. Yet every time they're given the opportunity to do so, they abdicate.
Posted by iain at 02:10 PM
Well, well, well. I am impressed. Apparently, same sex couples attending a school dance proposes such a challenge to the school's moral fiber that they had the county sheriff keep one such couple away.
CNN.com - Student challenges same-sex dance rule - Nov. 23, 2003: A straight teenager is challenging a school district policy that bars students from bringing same-sex dates to school dances. In September, Amanda Blair tried to defy the rule by taking another young woman to the homecoming dance at Big Piney High School. They were kept out by sheriff's deputies at the request of school officials. Blair, a senior at Big Piney, has now enlisted the help of the American Civil Liberties in formally calling on Sublette County School District No. 9 to lift the same-sex date ban.
Now, mind, it's rather clear that Ms Blair is what they might call a "shit stirrer". I can't imagine that things reached the stage where they sent in an armed trooper to keep her out without her having served notice -- after all, how would they have known to do so?
Of course, the other issue is that she is right. Mostly.
Ken Choe, of the ACLU's Lesbian and Gay Rights Project, said the ban violates students' constitutional rights to freedom of expression and equal treatment.
While that may be technically true, one notes that the current Supreme Court has gleefully and with malice aforethought restricted students' rights to control even their own bodies, allowing school districts to force those involved in extracurricular activities to undergo drug tests even absent any suspicion of drug use, with Scalia implying that he wouldn't find it unreasonable to test all students all the time for no reason whatsoever. Now if they're willing to allow that sort of invasion of privacy on the slimmest of pretexts, one would not think that this Court would give much credence to the concept that students are allowed much in the way of free speech or expression at school sponsored and/or sanctioned activities. To be sure, nothing has gone that far yet; first the policy must be actively challenged in court. Given that Ms Blair is a senior, one wonders if perhaps the Wyoming courts might simply delay deciding until the issue is technically mooted by Ms Blair's graduation, and then dismiss the case. It's certainly easier than getting involved in the mess.
I wonder if Lawrence v Texas can actually be extended to cover this. After all, it is, quite clearly, discrimination of the type envisioned by the decision, although sexual conduct as such isn't involved.
Posted by iain at 11:10 AM
ABCNEWS.com : Md. H.S. Kiss Prompts Talk on Tolerance: Inspired by a high school assignment, Stephanie Haaser leaped onto a cafeteria table, shouted "End homophobia now!" and kissed classmate Katherine Pecore. Haaser said she was making a statement on behalf of gay and lesbian students because she was bothered by the verbal and physical harassment they face. Their principal said he respected what the heterosexual students were trying to do, but they needed to learn more appropriate ways to make a point. Haaser and Pecore were suspended for two days. "It's highly inappropriate to stand on a table in the cafeteria and make out, whether the kiss was heterosexual or homosexual," said River Hill High School principal Scott Pfeifer. "I don't think there's a school in the country where parents would consider that appropriate behavior."
You know ... it may or may not be highly inappropriate behavior, but unless public high schools have changed drastically since my day, you see straight couples making out everywhere. The most any teacher will do is to wander past and say something like "Not now, people. Hold it until after school." Very seldom will you see people getting suspended for kissing.
To be sure, most people don't shout about it in the cafeteria, either.
Haaser, a junior, said she chose to make the statement as part of an English class assignment, which required that she engage in a nonconformist act in the tradition of Henry David Thoreau and Ralph Waldo Emerson.
Mind, if she was really doing it in the tradition of Thoreau and Emerson, she'd be kissing lots of girls. Ideally, a few of them might even be married to someone else.
One does suspect that the teacher involved was asked to be perhaps a touch more specific about his assignments from here on in. And given this repressive day and age, I can't imagine, once the parents found out what the assignment was, that they were well pleased with them in any event.
Posted by iain at 01:53 PM
Well. My, my, my. How things do change.
Boston.com / News / Local / Mass. / SJC: Gay marriage legal in Mass.(Boston Globe, 11/18/23): The Supreme Judicial Court today became the nation's first state supreme court to rule that same-sex couples have the legal right to marry. "We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts constitution," Chief Justice Margaret Marshall wrote in the 4-3 decision. The ruling won't take effect for 180 days in order to allow the Legislature "to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion," the court ruled in its 50-page decision. Since the SJC is the ultimate authority on the state constitution, however, the Legislature cannot overturn today's decision -- nor would the US Supreme Court agree to interpret a state's constitution. Opponents could fight for a constitutional amendment, but the soonest that could be placed on the ballot is 2006. The Legislature has already been considering several bills, including one that would allow gay marriage, that would grant benefits to same-sex couples.
It will be interesting to see what comes of this. Or rather, how long it takes; what's going to come is relatively certain. Even if the soonest a constitutional amendment could be placed on the ballot is 2006, there will be an attempt to do so. However, because it will be three years before anyone could possibly vote on it, that may well be enough time for people in Massachusetts to realize that, no, the republic hasn't fallen, allowing gays to marry hasn't somehow made straight marriage anything less than what it was, and that everyone can survive.
Or perhaps not.
The actual text of the decision (PDF; Adobe Acrobat Required, and a full 160 pages long, thanks awfully) is rather fascinating. It uses Lawrence v Texas as one of the bases for its decision (thus explaining, at least in part, the unexpectedly long delay in announcing the decision), and following along those lines, seems to have based its decision in the fundamental liberty interest found in the Massachusetts state constitution: Barred access to the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage, a person who enters into an intimate, exclusive union with another of the same sex is arbitrarily deprived of membership in one of our community's most rewarding and cherished institutions. That exclusion is incompatible with the constitutional principles of respect for individual autonomy and equality under law. The Supreme Judicial Court does recognize that the original intent of the law was to restrict marriage to one man and one woman; they simply decide that doing so, when it comes to same-sex couples, was an unlawful exercise of the state's authority.
Interestingly, the SJC explicitly rejected the assertion that the primary purpose of marriage was "procreation": Our laws of civil marriage do not privilege procreative heterosexual intercourse between married people above every other form of adult intimacy and every other means of creating a family. General Laws c. 207 contains no requirement that the applicants for a marriage license attest to their ability or intention to conceive children by coitus. Fertility is not a condition of marriage, nor is it grounds for divorce. People who have never consummated their marriage, and never plan to, may be and stay married. [...] While it is certainly true that many, perhaps most, married couples have children together (assisted or unassisted), it is the exclusive and permanent commitment of the marriage partners to one another, not the begetting of children, that is the sine qua non of civil marriage. By contrast, in rejecting the right to same sex marriage, the Arizona Court of Appeals explicitly used those grounds in Standhardt and Keltner v. State of Arizona (PDF file, a mere 34 pages in comparison to Massachusetts' 160): Petitioners more persuasively argue that the State’s attempt to link marriage to procreation and child-rearing is not reasonable because (1) opposite-sex couples are not required to procreate in order to marry, and (2) same-sex couples also raise children, who would benefit from the stability provided by marriage. However, as the State notes, “[a] perfect fit is not required” under the rational basis test, and we will not overturn a statute “merely because it is not made with ‘mathematical nicety, or because in practice it results in some inequality.’” (P. 25 of the decision) Interestingly, in the footnotes for that paragraph, the Arizona Court of Appeals notes a raft of decisions that explicitly reject the "procreation" argument; essentially, the Arizona court's position boils down to, "We're accepting the procreation argument because we want to, and we're using the least rigorous test of the state's interest in regulating association between consenting adults because it's the only one that allows us not to look too closely at what we're doing. So there. Nyah!"
It will be interesting to see what the Massachusetts legislature does with the 180-day stay, aside from push forward the state constitutional amendment. I suspect -- just suspect, mind -- that they may find themselves somewhat paralyzed. The language of the decision means that the legislature really can't simply push a basic law forward saying, "Marriage is between one man and one woman forever and ever amen." Anything other than a law specifically authorizing same-sex marriage is likely to be struck down by the court as unresponsive to the decision -- they have already stated that . (I'm not entirely sure why you would need any such law, given the decision, or what indeed the legislature could be expected to do during that 180 days that would make a significant difference. The only thing I can imagine is that if a constitutional amendment defining marriage does get pushed out of the legislature and onto the 2006 ballot, the SJC may stay the effect of its decision until after the 2006 vote, so that you then don't have all sorts of legal relationships being nullified by the amendment.
In any event, the next step is likely going to come from the federal government (the Massachusetts legislature adjourns for the year tomorrow). On the one hand, we have the reintroduction of the Federal Marriage Amendment into this session of Congress (sponsored by 97 representatives), where it sits quietly (for the moment) in the Subcommittee on the Constitution, awaiting action. Although the FMA is a nice simple two sentence amendment, it is entirely possible that when/if enacted (and I do think that the applicable term is likely when), it may well overturn not only the Massachusetts supreme court's reading of that state's constitution, but also Vermont's civil unions act, California's domestic partners act (assuming it survives -- see below) Hawaii's domestic partnership act, and various city and county domestic partnership acts.
Constitutional Amendment - Declares that marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Prohibits the Constitution or any State constitution, or State or Federal law from being construed to require that marital status or its legal incidents be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
The question is what, precisely, "construed to require" means. It can mean merely that states can't be forced by the courts to allow the "legal incidents" of marriage to those whom the federal government does not recognize to be married. On the other hand, it can be construed to mean that where the state has granted such marriage and/or its "legal incidents", such grants will perforce be overturned. One suspects that, when it comes up for debate, the sponsors will make certain to get that interpretation into the legislative record, so that courts will have some textual support in reading it that way.
On the other hand, we also have the State Regulation of Marriage Is Appropriate Act (cosponsored by Barney Frank and three others, which may give an idea of how much support it's going to get). In that helpfully useless way of legislation, the entire text of the act is as follows:
A BILL
To amend title 1, United States Code, to eliminate any Federal policy on the definition of marriage.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `State Regulation of Marriage Is Appropriate Act'.
SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF FEDERAL POLICY ON THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.
(a) IN GENERAL- Title 1, United States Code, is amended by striking section 7.
(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 1 of such title is amended by striking the item relating to section 7.
Really, that just tells you everything you need to know, doesn't it?
For the US Code impaired (that is, everyone outside the lawyers in Congress), the House of Representatives provides a handy dandy US Code search engine. (For some reason, nobody just lists out the titles and lets you wander through. Then again, it is massive.) So, herewith, 1 USC Sec. 7:
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word ''marriage'' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ''spouse'' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
In other words, they're trying to repeal the Federal Defense of Marriage Act. Oh, yeah, that'll work. The four people trying to get rid of DOMA will easily persuade the 97 who think that marriage is between one man and one woman so help them god. Yep. Sure they will, you betcha.
DataLounge keeps a page tracking marriage related issues. It's alternately encouraging and depressing; for every step toward true civil marriage for all, there usually seems to be an accompanying step backward. On the down side, Arizona and New Jersey's lower courts have specifically if speciously rejected any same sex marriages; Hawaii and Alaska's supreme courts rule that the state has no compelling interest in barring same sex marriage, so the legislature promulgates and the people pass constitutional amendments defining marriage, placing that issue beyond the reach of the courts. California passes a domestic partners law (which does not, however, take effect until 2005); their new governor states that he would not have signed it, and a petition is now circulating to put a repeal position onto the March 2004 primary ballot. Michigan is considering an amendment to its constitution. On the (theoretically) up side, Wisconsin's governor vetoed what he considered a "mean-spirited" attempt to define marriage, but then, they already had a state defense of marriage act.
Bush criticizes state ruling on gay marriage; Republicans call for constitutional amendment (SFgate.com/AP; 11/18/2003): President Bush criticized Tuesday's ruling by Massachusetts' highest court striking down the state's ban on same-sex marriage and said he would work with Congress to "defend the sanctity of marriage."
"Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," Bush said in a statement released shortly after he arrived in London for a state visit. He said the ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court "violates this important principle." [...] Bush has said in the past that he supports strengthening the federal definition of marriage as a solely man-woman union. But he has declined to endorse a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and his statement Tuesday gave no specifics of how he believes that stronger definition should be accomplished. "I will work with congressional leaders and others to do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage," he said.
Of course, civil marriage isn't actually sanctified, is it? It's a state-sanctioned act, and therefore cannot technically be "sanctified". Not that such niceties make the least difference to our theocratically inclined government ... er, pardon me, to our civic leaders, who could give, at most, two figs about the whole "separation of church and state" thing.
You know, it would be lovely if our highest elected officials, who theoretically should know something about the law of the land, could distinguish between civil marriage -- and the SJC was extremely careful to specify that they were only discussing civil marriage -- and religious marriage, over which the state has no direct control. Unfortunately, by allowing religious figures to conduct binding legal marriage, we've only confounded this issue. In theory, we could clear this right up by utterly and completely separating civil and religious marriage. When you go to City Hall to be married, there should be no little ceremony, no celebration, absolutely nothing indicating any sort of solemnization of the marriage; you simply complete the paperwork, and you're done. Ministers and the like should be flatly forbidden from doing any sort of civil paperwork in the church or at the time/on the day of the religious wedding itself. I'm not proposing stripping "justice of the peace" functions from ministers; merely making it absolutely clear that, if the state must have a role in marriage, it is utterly and entirely separate from that role played by religion. Unfortunately, the innovation of the separation of Church and State is extraordinarily recent, as civilization goes, and nobody in power really believes that it should be entirely separate (at least, not as long as it's their church that's being melded in). So there is unfortunately little chance that jurisdictions will adopt policies forcibly separating the civil and religious institutions.
Posted by iain at 04:44 PM
You know... the presence of an "Are you a metrosexual" quiz doesn't surprise me these days. For some reason, since Queer Eye took off, they've been in all sorts of places. (Although the term not only predates QE, but I don't recall it ever being used there ... but never mind.) So, yes, quizzes quizzes in all sorts of places.
But here?: ESPN.com: SPORTS NATION - SportsNation Trivia: Are you a metrosexual?
That's just peculiar.
Posted by iain at 07:23 PM
BBC NEWS | Health | How the brain reacts to romance: Scientists say they have discovered what happens in the brain when someone falls in love. They studied chemical reactions in men and women who were all in the early stages of relationships. Research, published by the Society for Neuroscience, found activity in areas of the brain which are linked to energy and elation. But scans found women's brains showed emotional responses, while men's showed activity linked to sexual arousal.
Weird, that men and women would be so different in that. Or perhaps not.
Although it does, actually, give certain weight to some of the stereotypical differences between gay men and lesbians. (Which is as far down that path as I care to go, thanks kindly!)
Posted by iain at 12:26 AM
So let me get this straight-ish:
One of the British newspapers was going to publish an accusation of some sort. They were quashed by the British courts, which are much freer with that whole "prior restraint" deal. Then another one of the newspapers was going to publish the name of the person requesting that the publication be quashed , and they were quashed in turn.
And then they were unquashed, and everybody published. Mind, because they were restricted to publishing only the name of the person requesting the quashing, the stories they were publishing were more or less complete hash. They could only dance delicately around things to keep from getting into trouble.
Of course, because non-British papers aren't subject to their laws, they can publish with wild abandon, and translate this mess into something resembling English. And so Gaywired, of all possible places, puts the whole thing into more or less comprehensible (if seriously over the top in the headline) English:
Is The Future King A Queen?: (London, UK) Details are finally emerging about allegations Britain's Prince Charles had a sexual affair with one of his aides, Michael Fawcett. So concerned are Charles' supporters about suggestions he could be bisexual, they have succeeded in getting a court order banning publication in the UK of any of the details. The Prince then took the extraordinary step of issuing a denial of the allegations. "Anyone who knows the Prince of Wales at all would appreciate that the allegation is totally ludicrous and, indeed, risible," the Prince's secretary Sir Michael Peat said in an unprecedented statement on the matter. But, with the media unable to to print what it was he was denying having done, it served to worsen the crisis.
You wonder that Charles is allowed out without a keeper, you really do. And someday, this man is going to be the head of state.
According to other reports, Charles wanted to sue the newspapers, as well as simply quashing the article. Of course, that would not only have produced the terribly odd spectacle of a newspaper being sued over something it didn't publish, but then he would be forced to testify about his sex life in detail on the stand. One gathers that his associates convinced him that it is, to put it mildly, unseemly to have the head of state on the stand, pointing and saying, "I did not have sex with that man, the former servant!" One imagines that they may well have drawn on unfortunate recent parallels, as it were.
In the meantime, Paul Burrell, Diana's former butler, is running around Chicago giving stunningly uninformative interviews to all and sundry to promote his book, and doing impressively uninformative op-eds in the British press.
Really, monarchies can be so very entertaining!
The enquashed newspaper, by the by, is appealing the decision to be quashed:
Legal challenge from newspaper over royal allegations (The Scotsman, Tuesday, November 11, 2003): A JUDGE was urged yesterday to allow the public to be given "the whole story" about the allegations concerning Prince Charles and a former royal servant. The ex-aide, Michael Fawcett, asked Lord Brodie at the Court of Session for an order banning publication of details of the allegation made by George Smith, another former member of the prince’s staff. However, lawyers for the Mail on Sunday newspaper maintained that it was time for the public to be fully informed so people could make up their own minds about the so-called scandal. Lord Brodie hopes to give his ruling today but indicated that, after a full day of argument, he might need more time. Yesterday, Craig Sandison, counsel for Mr Fawcett, said he was seeking an interim interdict to prevent publication of details of the alleged homosexual activity. He explained that Mr Fawcett was concerned that the false information might, in the minds of some readers, add to the credibility of the allegations.
I note from the quote of the article above that the normally more or less respectable Scotsman is skirting perilously close to the enquashing line itself; that's the clearest statement of what's going on that I've actually seen in a British paper. They have actually published that Prince Charles is being accused of "alleged homosexual activity" with Mr Fawcett, more or less in those words. One would think that the Scotsman is now in terribly hot water indeed.
Posted by iain at 12:00 AM
You know, you just don't hear about unexpected penises every day, do you?
Inmate at women's prison is discovered to be a man: You could call it a case of mistaken sexual identity. An inmate at the Kentucky Correctional Institution for Women was moved to an isolation cell Monday after the prisoner said he is a man and a physical examination verified it. Billie Jo Hawks, 43, of Battletown, had been admitted to the women's prison near Pewee Valley on Oct.22 and was housed in a dorm with female inmates. For eight months before that, Hawks was held in the women's section of the Meade County Detention Center on convictions of first-degree trafficking in a controlled substance and cultivating marijuana. [...] All inmates are subject to a thorough strip search as part of the admission process to any state prison to ensure no contraband is brought into prison, [Lisa Lamb, spokeswoman for the Department of Corrections] said. As for how Hawks' organ went unnoticed earlier, Lamb said, "All we can say for now is that clearly procedures were not followed in the admission of this inmate."
Well, I should think they might not have been followed, no.
According to another article, Hawks also has breasts. The issue on which everyone is pointedly not commenting is whether or not Hawks was undergoing gender reassignment treatment, and somehow that got missed on the record.
That said, I can't imagine what else they can do besides keep Hawks in isolation in a men's prison, or in isolation or general population in a women's prison. The one option not available is general population in a men's prison; that's just throwing rape bait to the masses.
Posted by iain at 01:44 PM
Well, of course. I mean, what else could you do with that mess?
Ananova - Arnie election race to become porn movie: The story of the race to become the governor of California is being turned into a porn movie. One of the candidates in the race, adult actress Mary Carey, is poised to begin shooting a sexy behind-the-scenes view of the campaign. The movie will co-star fellow hopefuls Ernie Gropenegger and the state's lieutenant governor Spooge Cruztamante, reports Sky News. The characters' names are reminiscent of those of Arnold Schwarzenegger and California's current deputy governor, Cruz Bustamante.
"It's kind of like satirical," said Mark Kulkis, president of Kickass Pictures which is producing the film. "Our attorney told us to use different names from those of the real candidates, but I guess it's pretty obvious. I think that Mr Bustamante and Mr Schwarzenegger will take it in the fun spirit in which it's intended because we're not being mean-spirited at all with this."
Carey, 23, will play herself in the movie. The two-hour picture will co-star porn star Ron Jeremy as Spooge Cruztamante and muscle-bound X-rated actor Lee Stone as Ernie Gropenegger.
You wonder what poor Cruz ever did to deserve quite that videographic fate. In any event, this just follows the recent tradition of turning absurd elections into pornographic entertainment; the 2000 election was turned into a gay video called The Florida Erection. Just imagine the fun they'll be able to have with the next California recall!
If nothing else, losing the election seems to have been quite the boon to Mary Carey's career, what with this and the CAn YOU be a Pornstar?" show
A group of 28 women will compete for a one-year contract with a major adult video distributor and a cash prize of $100,000. "It's going to be an R-rated version for pay-per-view," Silhouette Productions chief executive officer Harry Feingold told The Associated Press. "Obviously, there will be outtakes that will be hardcore," which will likely turn up on DVD release later. [...] He added that the show is designed "not just for men, but for wives and girlfriends who enjoy both reality TV and adult entertainment."
Is it, really? With 28 women and no men competing for the prize? Well, my, my. Who knew?
Posted by iain at 11:03 AM
thedesertsun.com | Oden ousts Kleindienst: Ron Oden, who has been a vocal opponent of the status quo, won a decisive victory over incumbent Will Kleindienst Tuesday in what some political observers say highlights frustrations in the business community. "Let’s celebrate, Palm Springs," said Oden, grinning widely before a raucous crowd of about 300 dancing to "I Will Survive" at the Riviera Resort and Racquet Club in northwest Palm Springs.
Oden, who will become one of the country’s only openly gay, black mayors, has served on the City Council for eight years. He defeated the two-term Kleindienst with nearly 51.3 percent of the vote -- a margin of more than 840 votes.
Actually, I'd think he must be the only openly gay black mayor in the country. I mean, really, how many openly gay mayors are there, period? As far as I can tell (and it's a difficult topic to find anything useful on), there are very few. One in Wilton Manors, Florida (which has an gay majority on the city council, of all things ... what on earth?) and the mayor of Tempe, Arizona; a town in Maine has re-elected a lesbian as their mayor -- the articles notes that there are "only about a dozen openly gay mayors in the country". Ammiano lost his bid in San Francisco (... the Green Party? the Green Party actually has a candidate in a runoff? That's just peculiar, people.)
Ken Reeves was the mayor of Cambridge (Mass.) City Council from 1992-1995, so he does have the distinction of being first. That said, he was apparently very technically not openly gay when he was elected.
Posted by iain at 03:41 PM
San Mateo County Times Online - African Americans with HIV/AIDS: A Protracted War: The mean stretch of San Pablo Avenue heading up towards 30th Street in Oakland is where the county's HIV emergency is most glaring. [...] This Wednesday marks the fifth anniversary of Alameda County becoming the first municipality in the nation to declare a state of emergency on HIV/AIDS among African Americans. The state of emergency was meant to bring money and awareness to the epidemic - at a time when 41 percent of infections were among African Americans, who make up only 18 percent of the county's overall population. It was also intended to lower infection rates and provide better treatment for those who already had the disease.
Activists and county officials who work day in and day out on this issue point to significant accomplishments over the past five years. People with the disease are living longer, fuller lives. And the community is more aware of how to prevent it. Local groups have more forums to strategize together.
But the five-year anniversary won't come with any fanfare or celebration. African Americans in the county are being infected at even more disproportionate rates than five years ago. In 2002, half or more of the local AIDS cases were among African Americans, compared to 42 percent in 1998, when the emergency was declared. And while the number of AIDS cases peaked in 1992 and continues to decline, case rates in Alameda County exceed state and national rates, according to county figures. Even more at risk today are African American women, who account for 65 percent of all women in the county with AIDS. These women are primarily contracting the disease through heterosexual sex with male partners, though IV drug use remains a consistent source of infection. Latinos, too, are catching up, accounting for 20 percent of AIDS cases, about on par with the percentage of cases among whites. [...] One problem with securing services is that no one is sure how many HIV-positive people are in the Bay Area. Most available figures are AIDS cases, though experts agree that AIDS rates no longer reflect the true picture of the epidemic. An estimated 800,000 to 900,000 people in California are HIV-positive, according to the state Department of Health Services. In 1997, the National Centers for Disease Control and Prevention put the number infected in Alameda County at possibly 7,000 people. But anecdotal evidence suggests that number could be much higher. This summer, Highland Hospital did a pilot project on the new OraQuick rapid HIV test, which gives results in 20 minutes, compared to traditional tests that typically take a week. The hospital tested high-risk patients, such as pregnant women who had received no prenatal care, men who have sex with men, and injection drug users. Out of 100 people tested, 15 came up positive, a rate the state and the hospital found astonishingly high. Other anecdotes: Tri-City Health in Fremont recently tested 50 youth, and got 5 positives. Calhoun recalls testing people in East Oakland one day in 2001 and getting a 7 percent positive rate out of 150 people.
So it's possible that between 7-15% of high risk people in the Bay Area are infected. Most of them probably don't even know.
And, of course, there's no particular reason that Oakland and environs would be unique in this matter. You could probably find similar infection rates in high risk areas of New York, or Los Angeles, or Chicago.
Africans, blacks share AIDS burden, some say (The Tennessean, October 17, 2003): The devastating economic and social toll that HIV and AIDS exact on sub-Saharan Africa mirrors the disproportionate burden the disease places on blacks here in the United States, said attendees at the 10th annual PanAfrica Conference, which began yesterday in Nashville. ''The face of HIV in America is increasingly black,'' said Dr. Kenneth Robinson, commissioner of the state Department of Health. ''You are not alone in your pandemic of HIV and AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa.'' [...] In the United States, blacks constitute 12% of the population but accounted for half of the new HIV infections in 2001, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Vice Mayor Howard Gentry said the lack of access to care that is prevalent in Africa occurs to a lesser extent in rural and poor populations in Tennessee. Other factors thought to contribute to the disproportionately high rates among African Americans include:
• Denial that makes black men who have sex with men less likely to acknowledge their risk for infection and pass the disease on to their partners.
• Drug abuse and high overall rates of sexually transmitted disease infection, which makes it easier for HIV infection to occur.
And leave us not forget poverty and lack of education, as mentioned above in the first article.
Posted by iain at 11:39 AM
