I’m not sure how I feel about the death of Osama bin Laden. I’m very glad he can no longer bring harm, but I’m pensive & mournful about the harm his followers & sympathizers, as well as his detractors & enemies, have already caused & will continue to cause.

I came in to work this morning, turned on NPR, & the first words I heard were about really bad things happening in New York & Washington, DC. My first thought was, “They’re retaliating already?!!!” until I realized, no, NPR is replaying some of its broadcast from 9/11. The words I heard were, in fact, probably the very same words I heard on that Tuesday morning in 2001 that gave me my first news of that event. I was going to say that “dreadful” event, but no adjective encompasses what happened that day, & what it did & is still doing to us. I mean “us” in the big sense: not just Americans (& of course the people who died that day were of many nationalities), but all the world.

So much death & stupidity has proceeded from that one day, catalyzed by that one man, who was so tremendously successful at unleashing the murderousness & hatred of so many. Too bad there are so people equally closed & fanatic in their chosen cause, equally intent on killing, equally locked into destructive & murderous cycles of retaliaton & counter-retaliation. It would be nice if all the killing & stupidity would end with the death of this one man. But it won’t.

Pres. Obama’s announcement of Osama bin Laden’s death (via Slate):

The night before last, Saturday night, I spent some time watching video of that night’s remarks by President Obama remarks — one might say, his comedy stylings — as well as those of Seth Myers at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner in Washington. I thought Pres. Obama was the funnier of the two — and he was devastating in his takedown of Donald Trump & birtherism. If you haven’t seen it, you really should. Here it is, via CSpan:

The only false note for me was the use of “The Lion King” as Obama’s birth video…but that’s only because it seemed to me a direct ripoff of The Daily Show’s use of “The Lion King” on August 28, 2008 during the Democratic convention in 2008, though in that case not for “birther” reasons.

The most memorable comment about Trump:

But all kidding aside, obviously, we all know about your credentials and breadth of experience. [laughter] For example — no, seriously, just recently, in an episode of Celebrity Apprentice — [laughter] — at the steakhouse, the men’s cooking team cooking did not impress the judges from Omaha Steaks. And there was a lot of blame to go around. But you, Mr. Trump, recognized that the real problem was a lack of leadership. And so ultimately, you didn’t blame Lil’ Jon or Meatloaf. [Laughter.] You fired Gary Busey. [Laughter.] And these are the kind of decisions that would keep me up at night. [Laughter and applause.] Well handled, sir. [Laughter.] Well handled.

What’s really striking now, in hindsight, is that Obama made these comments even as the operation to capture or kill bin Laden was already underway, following the President’s go-ahead last Friday morning. Andrew Sullivan last night:

And the steadiness under pressure, well, let’s just say: The cat is cool. The poker face of the man has for the last few weeks been pretty damn impressive. Just because he’s calm doesn’t mean he isn’t lethal. And imagine what must have been going through his mind as he was getting closer and closer to this just as Donald Trump was doing performance art with a birth certificate.

I don’t like Pres. Obama on everything. I’ve been disappointed by a lot. But, y’know, mostly I think the stuff I’m disappointed about is because being President of the U.S. is, yes, a powerful office for any man (or, one day, woman) to hold, but it’s also an office that owns whoever holds it as much or even more than s/he owns it. The office of POTUS is one nexus, if a very powerful one, in a large & complex system, & there’s only so much that one person can do in that position even wielding such power.

So there’s much Obama has been unable to do. There’s been much he’s wanted to change that obstacles in the system have prevented him from changing. There’s realities he’s had to accept that I’m sure he wishes he didn’t have to. (As was interestingly acknowledged in his response to some of Seth Myers’ comments at the press dinner the other night.) And yet, how much he’s accomplished in spite of those obstacles. If one must have a president, he’s a damn good one. I’m so glad it’s him in this office, rather than one of these walking jokes that even the most “viable” of the Republican candidates — not to mention the last election’s losers — are proving to be.

Well handled, sir. Well handled.

Related posts:

1. On celebrating the death of bin Laden
2. President Obama on DADT
3. Alaska post-election blues

On Channel 11 News

It was a surprise to me: around 10:30 or so this morning I got a call at work, on my direct line, from someone identifying himself as a reporter. I’m not entirely unused to getting calls from reporters — faculty in my department are often asked to comment on this or that issue in the news — but those calls usually come to our main office line, not to my direct extension.

Turns out it was Corey Allen-Young of KTVA Channel 11 News. With the introduction in the Anchorage Assembly last night of an ordinance which would prohibit discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, etc. on the basis of sexual orientation, Channel 11 was interested in talking with people who had actually experienced discrimination. Mr. Allen-Young had seen a comment I made on the blog of Assemblymember Patrick Flynn yesterday, in which I had made reference to having experienced discrimination for being a lesbian. Though I signed myself there as “Mel Green” rather than by my full name, with a little detective work Mr. Allen-Young had managed to track me down at my workplace a the university. Although my instance of discrimination had taken place quite awhile ago — in 1984, 25 years go — Mr. Allen-Young was still interested in talking with me.

So it is that I came to be on Channel 11 News tonight — the first time I’ve ever been interviewed for TV news. So pardon me if I go on about it a little (later) — it’s a new experience for me.

Here’s the interview, from KTVA’s website:

Tip o’ the nib to Katie, who found it online first.

More to say later.  Meanwhile, consider making a donation to Equality Works, which is working to end discrimination in Anchorage on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

Related posts:

1. Channel 11 interview, part 2 (the full story)
2. Identity Reports & One in Ten — now online!
3. Against discrimination in Anchorage

Alaska Pride flag (design by Steve)

The Anchorage Daily News has a story by Megan Holland on the proposed equal rights ordinance:

“Assembly to consider gay rights ordinance — Discrimination ban: Proposal would also cover veterans; Rev. Prevo plans fight”

No big surprise that Jerry Prevo of the Anchorage Baptist Temple plans to battle the ordinance — Prevo was also a vocal opponent in the earlier attempts to establish equal rights in Anchorage in the mid-1970s and in 1992-1993. I expect the ADN will have more complete coverage tomorrow. The story confirms what Patrick Flynn indicated in his blog earlier today on Sunday: that the Assembly would hold a public hearing on the proposed ordinance on June 9.

Meanwhile, the homophobes have already begun to climb out of the woodwork in comments on the ADN story. Example:

hhecuba wrote on 05/12/2009 09:20:45 PM:

Is the Anchorage Assembly pro sodomite? Will Anchorage be known as the new Sodom and Gomorra? Will the Anchorage Assembly support the Democrats new hate bill that supports and gives pedophiles and sodomites special privileges, and make it a hate crime for a preacher to give a sermon against homosexuality or normal people to live a their lives in a biblical way?

To which I replied:

Will people like hhecuba continue to ask questions that add nothing to a true civil discussion at all?

It took me some thought to frame my comment as a civil question, rather than to respond in kind. I hope that all of us who favor equal rights for lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, and transfolk will take that kind of time — to take a deep breath & stay calm. Yes, the noise has begun. But a Finnish proverb I like to use as an email .sig comes readily to mind:

Hiljaa hyvä tulee.
(Good comes quietly.)

Which isn’t to say, say nothing. But say it with calm, quiet conviction, rather than spittle-flecked lips.

Foregoing The Daily Show tonight to see what KTUU Channel 2 News has to say in their 10 PM broadcast.

Related posts:

1. Assembly report 1
2. Words for equality
3. Prevo's red herrings

Flags at Pride, 2006

Anchorage Assemblymember Patrick Flynn posted on his blog this morning on Sunday that an ordinance to bar discrimination based upon sexual orientation or veteran’s status in the Municipality of Anchorage would be introduced at tonight’s Anchorage Assembly meeting.  Per Mr. Flynn’s blog:

This change, which is consistent with Anchorage’s long history of social justice, would prevent:

“discrimination in the sale or rental of real property, financing practices, employment practices, public accommodations, educational institutions, and practices of the municipality, based upon…sexual orientation or veteran’s status.”

This would simply add to the existing list of protected classes, including “race, religion, age, sex, color, national origin, marital status, or physical disability,” so I therefore consider it quite reasonable.

Furthermore, the definition of sexual orientation in the ordinance (see its full text on the Muni website), makes clear that the ban on discrimination extends to transgender/transsexual persons:

Sexual orientation means actual or perceived heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality or gender expression or identity. As used in this definition, ‘gender expression or identity’ means having or being perceived as having a self-image, appearance, or behavior different from that traditionally associated with the sex assigned to that person at birth.

Be sure to visit Mr. Flynn’s blog to commend him for stepping forward on this, & answer the poll there too (in the right-hand column, scroll down to see it). And if you’re a resident of the Municipality of Anchorage, let your Assembly representative(s) know that you support this ordinance. Mr. Flynn indicates that a public hearing on the ordinance will take place on June 9, so please show up at the Assembly chambers at the Loussac Library, too. Consider also making a donation to Equality Works, which is working to end discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation or gender identity in Anchorage.

The last time we went to battle on this was 1992–1993. I still curl up into a tiny ball inside when I think of that time — palpable hatred in the air, of which Wayne Anthony Ross’ referring to lesbians/gays as “degenerates” in a 1993 letter to the Anchorage Bar Association was merely one instance. It’s bound to get noisy this time, too. But have heart. We can win this. And will.

(On a lighter side: I also predict that a certain well-known Anchorage preacher will bring up paranoid fears about “basement rooms.”)

Related posts:

1. What's on the table: Anchorage equal rights ordinance
2. My letter to Mayor Sullivan: Please let AO 64 stand
3. "There's no sign of discrimination" — uh, yes there is

We fought the good fight, people, and we WON!

The lima beans of the state are dancing. And so, I bet, are Alaska Natives, women who’ve suffered from domestic abuse & other violence, and all of the friends and allies of all of us.

Who next will Palin nominate to continue her neverending circus?

Not much more I have time to add at this point, except:

Booyah!

More on the day’s events later, from home, when I have time.

Related posts:

1. Anti-WAR letter: Opposing Wayne Anthony Ross
2. Pro-WAR = anti-LAW
3. Jay Ramras: "We won't necessarily be coloring within the lines"

• Fairbanks Daily News-Miner — “Reject Ross: Nominee for top legal post is wrong man for the job” (April 16)

The ADN is doesn’t really like him, but is quite a bit more week-kneed:

• Anchorage Daily News — “Our view: Hurtful bigotry” (April 15)

Both base much of their argument on WAR’s antigay bigotry , with neither of them convinced that he can fairly act on the behalf of the LGBTQ* Alaskans.  That’s great — because we “lima beans” aren’t convinced, either.

But there’s plenty else to oppose him on too.

I’m interested to learn what the Juneau Empire might say.  After all, thanks to Palin’s refusal to abide by Alaska Statutes on the appointment of former state senator Kim Elton’s replacement, Juneau has been without representation in the Alaska Senate for quite awhile now — and Wayne Anthony Ross played an instrumental role in the latest iteration of Palin’s revolving-door fiasco.

My sympathies to the people of Juneau.  You deserve better.

So do the rest of us, also too. Step number one: reject Ross.

* LGBTQ: That’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, & queer, for those who aren’t quite so familiar with our alphabet soup.

Related posts:

1. Pro-WAR = anti-LAW
2. Jay Ramras: "We won't necessarily be coloring within the lines"
3. WAR's antigay letter to the Alaska Bar Association, 1993

This post, I’ll let Rena Delbridge of the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner explain it:

Gov. Sarah Palin is not complying with state law to fill a Senate vacancy by submitting three names at once, according to a legal memo.

Palin spokeswoman Sharon Leighow told a reporter Tuesday that Wayne Anthony Ross, the governor’s recent appointment to attorney general, had checked off on her process.

Ross, who has not been confirmed by the Legislature, told Rhonda McBride, a KTUU reporter, that he approved Palin’s process.

In other words, a process which does not follow Alaska Statutes — in this case AS 15.40.320, 15.40.330, and 15.40.350 (see the legal opinion of Pam Finley of Legal Affairs, Alaska Legislative Affairs Agency) — was vetted & okayed by the guy who Palin wants to serve as the head of Alaska’s biggest law firm, the Alaska Department of Law.

I’ll say that again: the would-be head honcho attorney of the entire state said that a process which does not comply with Alaska law was a process that the governor was okay to follow.  What were those scores in the bar surveys on Ross’s legal competence, again?

Not that Ross apparently cares about following the rule of law to begin with, as I earlier discussed:

“It seems to me the most important thing that can be done by the Senate is not argue with legal or illegal but to appoint somebody to represent Juneau,” said Ross, whose own appointment is up for a confirmation vote by the Legislature tomorrow.

Enter Rep. Jay Ramras.  He’s a Republican state representative from Fairbanks who is also chair of the House Judiciary Committee.  Rep. Ramras presided last week over the House Judiciary hearings on whether or not to confirm Wayne Anthony Ross (aka WAR) to be Alaska’s Attorney General.  Here’s what he said today to the News-Miner:

“The murmurs around the building is that his confirmation is in jeopardy, but at this point I still intend to be a yes vote for him,” Ramras said.

“But I think this foretells the larger-than-life relationship that he is going to have with the governor and with the state,” he said. “We’re in for a colorful, bumpy ride. We won’t necessarily be coloring within the lines… There will be more of this to come.”

Pretty scary.  As I wrote in my reader comments on that story at the News-Miner website:

Representative Ramras: the lines you’re willing to stop “coloring within” here are the lines of Alaska state law. And yet you will vote for the appointment to be Alaska’s chief law enforcement officer, & head of its largest law firm, someone who thinks that legal vs. illegal is OPTIONAL?!!!

It’s disheartening to learn that the chair of the House Judiciary Committee seems to care no more about the rule of law than does the nominee himself.

Let’s hope the Legislature votes tomorrow in such a way that there won’t, in fact, be “more of this to come.”

But this is Alaska under Palinocracy.  So even if WAR goes down… there’s not too much doubt the circus will continue.

Update 7:25 PM: Andrew Halcro has an excellent analysis of the Juneau appointment fiasco.  Read it.

Related posts:

1. Pro-WAR = anti-LAW
2. Alaska newspaper editorials against WAR
3. WAR's antigay letter to the Alaska Bar Association, 1993

His middling scores on the Alaska Bar Association surveys when he applied for seats on the Alaska Supreme Court and Court of Appeals are not simply statistics, but indicative of the opinion those of his colleagues in the bar who have had direct professional experience with him have for his professional competence, integrity, fairness, judicial temperament, suitability for the position, and overall performance. Obviously candidates for Attorney General are not judged according to the same standards as used by the Alaska Judicial Council — but perhaps they should be.

Today WAR himself offers further proof, in his public statement about the current standoff between Sarah Palin and Democrats in the Alaska State Senate over the appointment of a state senator for Juneau. Shannyn Moore has a good summation of the order of events here: essentially, Palin is attempting to bypass Alaska Statutes in how the replacement for former state senator Kim Elton (who has gone to work for the Obama Administration in the Dept. of the Interior) should be appointed.

This morning, this announcement, as reported by Sean Cockerham in the Anchorage Daily News politics blog:

State Senate Democrats are refusing to vote on the three names that Gov. Sarah Palin forwarded as appointees for the open Senate seat. They obtained a legal opinion this morning saying it is illegal for Palin to submit more than one name.

“There is nothing for us to vote on, there is no appointment,” said Senate Judiciary Chairman Hollis French, an Anchorage Democrat. “The governor has taken an unusual course which is outside the law and leaves us no choice but to ignore what she‘s done.”

(The legal opinion is here.)

Wayne Anthony Ross’ response:

“It seems to me the most important thing that can be done by the Senate is not argue with legal or illegal but to appoint somebody to represent Juneau,” said Ross, whose own appointment is up for a confirmation vote by the Legislature tomorrow.

Great. Palin’s Attorney General nominee doesn’t even care about the rule of law.

Not that she does, either.

Related posts:

1. Jay Ramras: "We won't necessarily be coloring within the lines"
2. Alaska newspaper editorials against WAR
3. Still trying to quash the Troopergate investigation

Update, April 15, 9:10 PM: Just discovered I had the spelling of a name wrong: it’s not “Paige Hodgson,” but “Paige Hodson.”  My apologies: I was going by ear only, & found an internet reference that “confirmed” my mistaken spelling.  Separate post about her coming in the next couple of days, regardless of what happens with WAR’s confirmation vote.

Dear Senator/Representative:

I am writing on my own behalf to express my opposition to Wayne Anthony Ross as Alaska Attorney General. Amongst other things, this letter provides substantiation for one of the claims made in public testimony by Paige Hodgson Hodson during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on April 8 about Mr. Ross’ opinions about domestic violence.

I oppose Mr. Ross’ confirmation on several grounds:

• His biased and even misogynistic attitudes with regard to domestic violence, sexual violence, and violence against women and children, about which I have more to say below.
• His antigay attitudes, as expressed in his calling lesbians and gays “degenerates” in a letter to the Alaska Bar Association in 1992. In his House Judiciary Committee testimony last week, he compared lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transsexual/transgender Alaskans to “lima beans,” a vegetable he “hates” but would still “represent” if he was hired to be the advocate for “United Vegetable Growers.” His un-apt and tortured analogy brings no reassurance to those of us who have already suffered the brunt of his antigay slanders.
• His longstanding opposition to Alaska Native sovereignty and subsistence rights, about which representatives of the Alaska Native community have testified.
• His lackadaisical attitude with regard to possible ethical violations by the Governor, as shown in his replies to Rep. Jay Ramras’ questions on Friday in the House Judiciary Committee (regarding Gov. Palin’s wearing of Arctic Cat gear, regarding her possible book tour, regarding other ethics-related questions). As has been pointed out by others, part of the Attorney General’s job is to advise the Governor on questions of executive ethics. Mr. Ross’ answers indicate he will more likely simply turn a blind eye.
• His qualifications as a practitioner of law. His middling scores on the Alaska Bar Association surveys when he applied for seats on the Alaska Supreme Court and Court of Appeals are not simply statistics, but indicative of the opinion those of his colleagues in the bar who have had direct professional experience with him have for his professional competence, integrity, fairness, judicial temperament, suitability for the position, and overall performance. Obviously candidates for Attorney General are not judged according to the same standards as used by the Alaska Judicial Council — but perhaps they should be. In any event, his mediocre scores are instructive. Further evidence of Mr. Ross’ capabilities as an attorney — particularly, I would say, with regard to temperament, and hence his ability to work productively with others — can be found in last Wednesday’s public testimony by Vic Vitale, a retired attorney who reported having tried many cases against Mr. Ross. Mr. Vitale described Mr. Ross as “ill prepared in court,” “bombastic,” and “very rigid,” and said that in his experience Mr. Ross “doesn’t give credence to contrary arguments.” The picture which begins to emerge is that of someone who has closed his mind and does not permit contrary evidence to sway him. Is this the person who should be appointed to direct the state’s largest law firm?

I want now to go into further discussion of his views about violence against women and children.

By way of background, I am an 18-year staff member of the Justice Center at University of Alaska Anchorage, where I am responsible for the preparation and layout of research documents, including our quarterly, the Alaska Justice Forum (http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/forum/). I’m also responsible for the design and maintenance of the by-now extensive Justice Center website. As such, I am very familiar with the groundbreaking research conducted in recent years by the Justice Center’s Dr. André Rosay and his research partners on sexual violence and violence against women in Alaska (http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/vaw/index.html), and in fact helped to prepare most of the materials which Dr. Rosay presented to the Senate Judiciary Committee when he testified there on March 25 (http://uaajusticecenter.blogspot.com/2009/03/dr-rosay-presents-violence-against.html).

My familiarity with Dr. Rosay’s research findings made me all the more alarmed when I heard the testimony at last week’s Senate and House Judiciary Committee hearings on Mr. Ross’ appointment. I mean not only the public testimony of Leah Burton to the House Judiciary Committee on the statements about spousal rape and domestic violence which Mr. Ross is alleged to have made at a DADS group meeting in the early 1990s — testimony I personally find credible — but also the public testimony last week to the Senate Judiciary Committee of Paige Hodgson Hodson, who discussed comments made by Mr. Ross at a panel discussion a few years ago at University of Alaska Anchorage. According to Ms. Hodgson Hodson, Mr. Ross, who was one of the panel presenters, remarked that domestic abuse was on the rise because the equal rights movement “emasculated men” and caused them in turn to beat their wives. He further insinuated that women lied about domestic violence in order to gain advantage in child custody cases. On questioning by the committee, Ms. Hodgson Hodson stated that she had asked the university to set up the panel discussion, and that it was organized by Dr. Sharon Araji. Dr. Araji was at that time a sociology professor at UAA but has since joined the faculty of University of Colorado in Denver. In an attempt to verify the testimony, I wrote to Dr. Araji last week, and today received an email in reply, in which Dr. Araji wrote:

Yes, he was on the panel that was a community workshop. Andre [Rosay] and Pam [Kelley] are well aware of this workshop as [the] Justice [Center] also participated in it. I think it was Fall of 2005 — it was in conjunction with the PBS documentary “Breaking the Silence”. This was about children’s experiences when they were given to abusive parents in contested custody battles. I don’t remember what Wayne’s words were exactly, but his attitude was quite cavalier and placed the blame anywhere but on the abusive husbands/partners.

Research on the UAA website confirms that the event, cosponsored by the UAA Sociology Department and the Justice Center, was held on the UAA campus on October 14, 2005 in advance of KAKM’s broadcast of “Breaking the Silence: Children’s Stories” the following week. The event included a showing of the documentary, followed by a panel discussion and discussion with the audience. Justice Center faculty member Pamela Kelley, J.D. was among the panelists, along with Dr. Araji and Mr. Ross. I spoke with Professor Kelley this afternoon about the panel. Like Dr. Araji, she has no recollection of a specific remark by Mr. Ross about the equal rights movement “emasculating men,” but she indicated that Mr. Ross’ comments on the panel were much as both Paige Hodgson Hodson and Dr. Araji characterized them, “hook line and sinker” taking an extremist “dads’ rights” position that excused abusive men from any responsibility for domestic violence and abuse, and alleging that accusations of such crimes were generally fabricated in order to gain advantage in divorce or child custody battles — regardless of evidence to the contrary.

This should come as no surprise to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and others who heard Mr. Ross’ testimony last Wednesday, April 8, because many of his statements there echoed such opinions — for example, Mr. Ross contended that Office of Children’s Services workers, who are tasked with protecting children from abuse, are actually trying to remove children from families in order to “get money from the legislature” or that at least some people are accused of child abuse “just because they offended an OCS worker.” Of course there are men who prove to be innocent of charges of abuse and domestic and sexual violence brought against them. But Mr. Ross, who claimed in his testimony that “all my clients are innocent” (by implication, even those who were found guilty in court), appears to have a strong bias against even entertaining the possibility of guilt on the part of a husband, boyfriend, or father accused of these serious crimes, regardless of the evidence. Mr. Ross also showed considerable ignorance of the facts regarding sexual violence in the state — for example, that Alaska has the dubious distinction of having the highest rates of sexual assault in the nation. “I’ve heard that,” he told the committee, “and I have no way to verify if that’s correct.” (Committee members, of course, had received ample proof just two weeks before when Dr. Rosay presented UAA research to them.) Asked by Sen. Lesil McGuire “how you intend to tackle and educate yourself” about these issues, Mr. Ross evaded the question, telling the committee how after his few days on the job so far, he now knew “where the men’s room was” and was learning how to use the state email system, commenting that “learning new things” was part of the fun of the job. Once again the word “cavalier” comes to mind.

Is someone with such a proven bias qualified to take on the role of Alaska’s chief law enforcement officer, and head of the department charged with prosecuting these crimes? Research shows that less than 30 percent of founded cases of sexual violence cases reported to the Alaska State Troopers actually result in a conviction (http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/forum/25/1-2springsummer2008/b_attrition.html). Might we not expect conviction rates for founded cases to go down even further under an Attorney General who, biased to believe all the accused to be innocent regardless of evidence, might well pressure the district attorneys under his supervision to “pull their punches”?

Mr. Ross claims that he can fairly represent and protect the rights of all Alaskans, including all of those he has shown enmity, disregard, and contempt toward throughout his long career. I am not so confident.

I urge you to vote against Mr. Ross’ confirmation as Attorney General.

Sincerely,

Melissa S. Green

Updates

April 15, 11:30 PM

More about Paige Hodson: She was a founder of Alaska Moms for Custodial Justice and helped to gain passage in 2004, I believe, of a law which protects abused children from being placed in the custody of the abusive parent — which reportedly won unanimous passage in both houses of the Alaska Legislature.

My letter/blog has now been excerpted or reprinted in full at:

• Think Alaska (excerpt)
• Bent Alaska
• Progressive Alaska

It was also quoted in the story “Temperament” by Krestia DeGeorge, Anchorage Press, April 15, 2009.

Related posts:

1. Jay Ramras: "We won't necessarily be coloring within the lines"
2. Pro-WAR = anti-LAW
3. WAR goes down! 23 yeas, 35 nays!

Note to Jeff Bezos: #glitchmyass, we deserve more explanation & apology than that for #amazonfail. Do you really want to regain our trust?

Things have really snowballed. In fact I’d say it’s a snow-boulder now, what with the Twitter hashtag #amazonfail, the online petition which is now at over 17,000 signatures, & a Google search on Amazon Rank now brings up as first result the satirical definition coined yesterday by Smart Bitches Trashy Books. (They’ve now got the definition in the Urban Dictionary too.) Trolls are taking advantage: one Livejournal blogger claims to have written code that brought the delisting about, only to be exposed by another Liveblogger as a metatroll with bad code. I’m only surprised that there’s not a Wikipedia article about it, though the Wikipedia entry on Amazon.com now has a section on the delisting (currently subtitled “Deranking of erotic, LGBT, feminist, progressive and sex-positive content”).

A huge public relations nightmare for Amazon.com. As well it should be. So far their only public statements are to the effect that #amazonfail was caused by a technical “glitch” which they are working furiously to resolve. But I have a hard time buying that as anything other than, as others have noted, a “templated” cover story as they try to resolve the issue internally. There’s too much data provided by bloggers researching the delisting for it to have been merely a glitch: how else explain why a search on “homosexuality” bring books about “preventing” or “curing” homosexuality to the very top of the search results, to the almost complete exclusion of the numerous other non-homophobic books on the subject?

Reports from the disabled community that Amazon also delisted books on disability & sexuality which news needs to be shared more widely.

I do think it possible that some enterprising homophobic souls within the Amazon hierarchy took it upon themselves to interpret a policy about “adult books” rather more widely than top management had intended. But that remains to be seen. For my part, I am looking for something more than weak babble about a software glitch. I want a public explanation & apology from someone at the very top levels of the Amazon hierarchy — preferably Jeff Bezos himself — on top, of course, of correcting the problem itself. They’ve lost a lot of trust, & they’re gonna have to work pretty hard to regain it. I’ve seen plenty or reports from people saying they’ll never buy from Amazon again, even if they do fix the “glitch.”

This, for me, comes on top of having learned a month or two ago (after I’d already purchased my Kindle) about their monopolistic actions with regard to their print-on-demand service BookSurge. This is currently in antitrust litigation — see the Small Publishers Association of North America page on the lawsuit and the Amazon Booksurge Antitrust Lawsuit Clearinghouse.

I know there are alternatives to Amazon, but I’m also a hoping-to-be-published writer, so this has relevance to me also as someone who recognizes Amazon as one of the most important places to have one’s books listed in order to be able to make a living at it.

There are signs that Amazon is making progress in relisting the delisted books, but it’s slow — & still no public explanation or apology besides the inadequate & mealymouthed “glitch” explanation offered so far.

Related posts:

1. Amazon Rank – Google bomb 'em!
2. Against discrimination in Anchorage
3. My October reading list