This is a slightly revised version of a page I just put up to give Identity Reports and One in Ten a permanent front page presence on my blog.
Identity, Inc. is a GLBTA nonprofit in Anchorage, Alaska. www.identityinc.org
In the 1980s, the nonprofit organization Identity, Inc. conducted two major research efforts to profile Alaska’s lesbian and gay community and to document sexual orientation bias in Alaska. The studies which resulted have gained relevance again with the introduction in the Anchorage Assembly in 2009 of ordinance AO 2009-64:
One in Ten: A Profile of Alaska’s Lesbian & Gay Community by the volunteers of Identity, Inc. (1986)
Identity Reports: Sexual Orientation Bias in Alaska by Melissa S. Green and Jay K. Brause (1989)
To make the studies more easily available, Identity has granted permission to scan the documents in and make them available on the Internet and to the Anchorage Assembly. Find both reports here.
Identity Reports (1989) and One in 10 (1986)
Some of the relevant findings from both reports:
Of the 734 respondents to One in 10 (statewide survey in 1985):
61% reported having been victimized by violence and harassment while in Alaska because of their sexual orientation;
39% reported having suffered from discrimination in employment, housing, and loans/credit; and
33% reported having suffered from discrimination because of sexual orientation from services and institutions.
From the “Closed Doors” component of Identity Reports (based on a 1987 survey):
31 percent of the 191 employers in the survey said they would either not hire, promote, or would fire someone they had reason to believe was homosexual.
20 percent of the 178 landlords in the survey said they would either not rent to or would evict someone they had reason to believe was homosexual.
From the “Prima Facie” component of Identity Reports (based on interviews and documentary evidence through 1987)
84 actual instances of antigay bias, discrimination, harassment, or violence (including three murders) were recorded involving 30 men and 21 women in the Municipality of Anchorage (64 cases), the City and Borough of Juneau (4), the Fairbanks North Star Borough (6), and 10 other localities in Alaska (10).
Victims were predominately gay men or lesbians, but also included heterosexuals who were erroneously assumed to be gay or lesbian.
Of the 42 cases of employment, housing, public accommodations, and business practices discrimination from personal (as opposed to documentary) testimony, 32 were evaluated by a former intake investigator with the Alaska Human Rights Commission as being jurisdictional under AS 18.80 (Alaska’s human rights statutes) if AS 18.80 had included “sexual orientation” as a protected class.
As I testified before the Anchorage Assembly on June 16, 2009, other testimony that had already been brought forward of actual cases of discrimination shows that sexual orientation discrimination, as well as gender identity discrimination, is still going on today. And I said that only two days into the testimony, which ended up taking up several hours over six different Assembly meetings, and including not only testimony from lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, and transsexual or transgendered people who had been discriminated against, but also testimony from ordinance opponents, many of whom made clear their prejudice and intention to discriminate. In fact, on the same night I testified, one man confessed to having physically assaulted a man who had (nonviolently) propositioned him — violently enough that he put the man in the hospital. And ordinance opponents applauded him!
Yet on August 11, 2009, in voting against the anti-discrimination ordinance AO 2009-64, two Assembly members — Chris Birch and Bill Starr — claimed that they could find no sign of “invidious” or “widespread” discrimination in Anchorage. Another Assembly member — Dan Coffey — constructed a resolution (which failed) for a task force to study the issue further, apparently because he also felt there wasn’t enough data. (Or not enough of the sort he wanted, perhaps.) Assembly Chair Debbie Ossiander described how she sought out data on sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination from the Anchorage Equal Rights Commission and the Alaska Human Rights Commission, only to find that there wasn’t any — because neither characteristic was covered by existing law. To Ossiander, that seemed to indicate that there was no data on discrimination — despite my testimony; despite my having provided every member of the Assembly with copies on CD of both reports, as well as a hard copy for each of them of the “Prima Facie” component of Identity Reports; and despite the testimony of other Anchorage residents on discrimination that they had actually experienced.
In this willful ignorance of data and testimony which had been placed before them, these four Assembly members were echoing much of the testimony of ordinance opponents, many of whom made the same claim: that “there is no evidence of discrimination.” Can you imagine how crazymaking it was on June 16 to hear at least four or five people testify that — after I had just provided such testimony? After other Anchorage citizens had just testified on the discrimination they had personally experienced? This isn’t just them not having the facts. This is them having the facts and intentionally refusing to look at them. Sort of like how some of Galileo’s contemporaries refused to look into his telescope to see the planets and moons that he had discovered. There were even some of them who did look — and then blithely claimed that they had seen nothing: because it didn’t fit their preconceived notions and closed-system ideologies.
In the meantime, thank you again to the seven Assembly members — Patrick Flynn, Sheila Selkregg, Jennifer Johnston, Mike Gutierrez, Matt Claman, Elvi Gray-Jackson, Harriet Drummond — who voted with the evidence, and passed an ordinance to prohibit sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination in Anchorage.
Call them and write them emails. Let them know how much you appreciate them.
Don’t forget to call and write to Mayor Sullivan too. Let him know how much you hope he, too, will go with the evidence.
Posts on this site which discuss data from the two Identity studies:
5/13/09. “Channel 11 interview, part 2 (the full story).” Both the Identity Reports write-up, and the full story, of my being fired from the Sears Mall branch of the Book Cache bookstore in 1984 after a coworker told my employers I was a lesbian.
Most people reading this post already know this: for the third time in 35 years, the Anchorage Assembly passed an ordinance which prohibits discrimination within the municipality on the basis of sexual orientation. But the Assembly went one better than it did in 1976 and 1992: the ordinance also prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender identity.
Dan Sullivan at his first Assembly meeting as Mayor of Anchorage on July 7
Let’s hope that our newly minted mayor, Dan Sullivan, can also do the prior ordinances one better: by allowing this one to stand. The first ordinance, passed by a unanimous Assembly in 1976 shortly after the Municipality of Anchorage was formed (from the various governments located within the Greater Anchorage Area Borough), was vetoed by the Municipality’s first mayor, George Sullivan — our present mayor’s father — and after a pitched battle featuring many of the same pressure tactics employed by the followers of the same antigay leader we’ve seen in action this year, namely Anchorage Baptist Temple pastor Jerry Prevo, the then-Assembly was unable to override the veto. In 1992-1993, a stripped down version of an antidiscrimination ordinance was passed by a liberal Assembly, but most them lost their seats in the April 1993 municipal elections and the ordinance was promptly reversed by the conservatives who replaced them.
I’ve been present at all the six Assembly meetings this summer that have been devoted to public testimony on this ordinance — at least three of them all the way until their adjournment at 11:00 PM (or, later, in the case of the 6th and final night on July 21). This Tuesday’s meeting differed from all of them in that we finally got to hear from the Assembly members themselves, beyond whatever we might have gathered of their opinion on the ordinance from the questions or comments they made during public hearings.
Dan Coffey at the July 7 Assembly meeting - voted no on AO 64
There was little to surprise anyone in the votes of three of the Assembly members who ultimately voted against the ordinance — Dan Coffey, Chris Birch, and Bill Starr. Dan Coffey was, of course, behind resolution AR 2009-186, which called for a task force to study the issue for another year (or more) [Ref #1] — an idea which a number of people, including me last week[Ref #2], called a delay tactic. Coffey’s resolution was originally an early item on last night’s agenda, but early in the meeting was rescheduled to be discussed just before AO 64, which was a later agenda item. When it at length was discussed, Coffey stated (as quoted during my livetweeting last night) that he had written the resolution “not with an intent to delay or defer” – my ironic comment on that was “no, only by a year.”[Ref #3] But Coffey agreed that everyone seemed to prefer a vote on the question now, and seemed little put out when the Assembly not only refused to postpone consideration of it until after discussion of AO 64, but completely voted it down by a vote of 7 to 4. I could be wrong, but I don’t recall Coffey making any comments on AO 64 itself during the course of the evening, except ultimately to register his vote against it. None of which surprised me: I hadn’t particularly noticed Coffey’s behavior during the long evenings of public testimony, but my blogging pals John Aronno and Heather Aronno both have observed his inattention, and have at various times speculated that maybe he was playing World of Warcraft[Ref #4] or solitaire on his iPhone[Ref#5] or reading magazines or books[Ref#6], instead of listening. I might live in Coffey’s district, but I’ve never had any sense that he in any way has ever “respresented” me on this or any other issue. Assembly members were far kinder in their assessment of what Coffey had attempted with the resolution; how much of that was sincere and how much of it the give and take of political etiquette is best left to judges other than me.
Patrick Flynn at the July 7 Assembly meeting. Flynn drafted the successful S-2 version of the ordinance, and was a yes vote on AO 64
Although four versions of ordinance AO 64 have been drafted over the summer (see my post of yesterday comparing them[Ref #7]), the one which immediately was moved for discussion Tuesday night — no doubt after plenty of discussion between Assembly members over the past couple of weeks — was the S-2 substitution drafted most recently by Assemblyman Patrick Flynn. [Ref#8] Flynn explained how he had tried to clarify the language of the ordinance, including in the area of religious exemptions to protect religious organizations’ right to hire employees compatible with their religious values.
Sheila Selkregg at the July 7 Assembly meeting - voted yes on AO 64
Selkregg said Flynn’s version of the ordinance was “an effort to respect the religious community” that packed the Assembly’s chambers to oppose the proposal. “It allows churches to choose who they hire” in a manner consistent with their religious beliefs, she said.[Ref #9]
Jennifer Johnston at the July 7 Assembly meeting - voted yes on AO 64
In an hour of discussion that became surprisingly emotional, I think it’s the statement of Jennifer Johnston which moved me the most. Johnston began by discussing her unease that the ordinance had been brought from a national organization (an apparent reference to Alaska ACLU executive director Jeffrey Mittman’s role in helping shape the earliest version of the ordinance), then went on to describe a person close to her who had been influential in shaping her beliefs about public service — and who had, she believed, fit one of the personal characteristics contained in this ordinance. As reported by KTUU Channel 2 News,
“That person did more for his community, for the state and country than I could do in 10 lifetimes, but that person’s life was short, it was cut by suicide, and I’ve often wondered if that person had been born 60 years later if the outcome would have been different,” Johnston said.[Ref #10]
Johnston also mentioned Dave Rose, chair of the first Anchorage Municipal Assembly, who had been one of the Municipality’s early champions of equal protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The ADN explains:
Because of Rose’s “memory and this other very special person, I am going to be voting in favor of this ordinance,” Johnston said. [Ref #9]
Chris Birch at the July 7 Assembly meeting - voted no on AO 64
The next Assembly member to speak, Chris Birch, could hardly have been more different. He “didn’t see invidious discrimination” in Anchorage, and said “we’re a tolerant community.” He would be voting against the ordinance, he said. My own thought was that Birch must have been asleep on June 16 when a male witness, recounted his history of having being approached by men who were attracted to him– each instance punctuated by the man’s assertion that “I was unavailable” — and concluding with the admission that the last time he was approached by a man, he put that man in the hospital. I tweeted at the time, “What a coincidence, Ive been propositioned by men when I was unavailable too. I never beat any of them & sent them to the infirmary though.” [Ref #11] That was a point echoed in testimony I heard Herman Coen give the following night, June 17: the June 16 witness had violently assaulted, to the point of hospitalization, another person for nothing more than that person being sexually attracted to him — and when that witness had concluded his testimony, Coen observed, all the red-shirted ordinance opponents in the room had reacted as one: they applauded. Nope, a completely tolerant and nondiscriminatory community here, Mr. Birch. Not.
Mike Gutierrez at the August 11 Assembly meeting - voted yes on AO 64
Mike Gutierrez spoke about the courage of people on both sides who testified during the six nights of public testimony. He also believed Assembly members had been getting to know each other better through this process, but said he’d had no idea about the feelings Jennifer Johnston had expressed, and that he hould have known of her feelings. S-2 was a good compromise, he said, and discrimination in his opinion is immoral: he was in support of the ordinance.
Patrick Flynn then spoke again, describing the mail carrier, Glen, who had delivered mail to his childhood home for years. More recently, Flynn related, Glen wrote him a note thanking him for what he was trying to do, but telling him that Glen himself had decided to retire to Asheville, NC — “a progressive city.” The implication seemed to be that in spite of efforts here in Anchorage, the prejudice here was too much for Glen to abide.
Matt Claman at the July 7 Assembly meeting - voted yes on AO 64
Matt Claman of course introduced the original version of AO 64 when he was Acting Mayor, and also introduced the first substitute version. His comments this night were brief: essentially, that he supported the ordinance, and hoped that Mayor Sullivan would as well.
Bill Starr at the July 7 Assembly meeting - voted no on AO 64
Bill Starr sounded to me almost like a ringer for Chris Birch. He would not be supporting any version of AO 64. He saw no sign of sweeping discrimination, he said — no signs saying “No gays allowed” or “Lesbians to the back.” In any case, Starr said he felt things like this should be brought up by people, not the Assembly. He expressed his belief in God and his faith, and claimed to listen intently; but sorry, as with Chris Birch, I thought: he must’ve been asleep, not only through the June 16 admission by one ordinance opponent of having violently assaulted someone to the point of hospitalization, but all the other expressions of prejudice — with loaded words like “perversion” for example — that were repeated innumerable times throughout the past few weeks. But: it’s not like I was surprised.
Elvi Gray-Jackson at the July 7 Assembly meeting - voted yes on AO 64
Elvi Gray-Jackson is the other Assembly member in whose district I live. Unlike with Coffey, I feel represented by her. Unlike Coffey, she responded to the letter I sent her and Coffey on June 2 — not only reponded, but responded the very next day and with much warmth. She told me that she had always been a believer in equal rights for everyone, and that it would be her honor to “do the right thing” by voting in favor of AO 64. Since then, I’ve seen no sign of her wavering in that belief and commitment; and Tuesday night I learned part of why. She wouldn’t speak long, she said, because this was an emotional issue for her; her nephew is gay, and if I heard rightly, his mother — her sister? — died in her arms when he was still fairly young. Her plea was for the Assembly “to simply do the right thing and allow all of us to live in this community without discrimination.”[Ref #9]
Harriet Drummond at the July 7 Assembly meeting - voted yes on AO 64
Assembly Vice-Chair Harriet Drummond recounted a several-year history of dealing with sexual orientation issues on the Anchorage School Board, beginning with an intiative by students at Dimond High School to form a gay/straight alliance. Now there are gay/straight alliances in every Anchorage high school, and Anchorage School District has had a nondiscrimination policy with regard to sexual orientation since, I believe she said, about 2001. ASD is obligated to serve every student who enters the schools, she declared, and can’t afford to discriminate; and she was unwilling to discrminate against those same students after they’d graduated from school.
Added 7/13/09: I just remembered that Drummond also stated that she had several cases of sexual orientation/gender identity discrimination that she could have brought to the Anchorage Equal Rights Commission, if the ordinance were already in effect.
Debbie Ossiander at the June 9 Assembly meeting - voted no on AO 64
The last Assembly member then to explain her position was Assembly Chair Debbie Ossiander. It was pretty quickly apparent to me that Ossiander, who had been calm, firm, and professional in her chairing of this meeting — as indeed all the other Assembly meetings I’ve attended — was feeling some distress. She was coughing a lot to begin with, as though she’d swallowed something down the wrong way; but I had the feeling it was emotional as much as physical: that’s how much conflict this ordinance had brought up for her. She gave a fairly lengthy account of the efforts she’d made to speak to people she respected on both sides of the issue, to read a lot, to learn what data is available on sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination, and to learn what other provisions other localities have with regard to discrimination.
She asserted her strong belief in protecting citizens, but found it troublesome that this version of the ordinance (none of them, actually) doesn’t stop people from being nasty (not the word she used, but certainly the sentiment) toward each other, of making them civil. I was confused by this complaint — she brought it up so strongly that it seemed almost to be what she considered its fatal flaw; and yet, I can’t think of any legislation that can require civility and mutual respect — nor indeed is that what we are asking for, in asking for equal protection from discrimination. I can only guess that this was how Ossiander was expressing her own unease with the unpleasantness and contentiousness of much of what she — and we — have heard these past few weeks. My guts have been twisted far too much by some of the ugliness I’ve heard — maybe she’s felt some of that too, especially since she, as both Assembly member and chair, has been getting a lot of pressure from both sides over what she, personally, should decide.
I found myself becoming increasingly annoyed by her continuing reference to transvestites. Especially after all the reading she’d said she done, did she not yet understand the fundamental difference between transvestites — not covered by this ordinance — and transsexual and transgender people — which the ordinance would protect. But in the end, I think her incorrect use of the terminology might also have been a signal of her agitation in deciding what to do with this issue.
Ossiander went on to identify other things she regarded as troublesome things in this version of the ordinance. For example, she was concerned that businesses might be forced to build new bathrooms. (Here’s another area where she again used the term transvestites when the S-2 version of the ordinance cleary refers to pre and post-operative transsexuals and transgendered people.)
In the end, despite what appeared to be her strong-held belief “that there are some citizens that need more protection than we’re giving them,” Ossiander nonetheless concluded:
This is a hurtful thing to do and I’m trying not to look at certain people in the audience right now, but I’m not going to be supporting this. [Ref #13]
At this point, Sheila Selkregg moved an amendment which stated that nothing “in this chapter” (i.e., in the chapter of the Anchorage Muncipal Code where the ordinance, if passed, would be encoded) should be construed to force businesses to build new bathrooms to “accomodate sexual orientation or gender identity,” and moved another, similar amendment with nearly identical language at another point in the ordinance — I didn’t catch exactly where, but I’m sure I’ll find out when I take a look at the final version of the ordinance. Both of these amendments were incorporated into the ordinance. The question at that point was whether the amendments would be sufficient to satisfy Ossiander’s doubts enough to change her stand on support of the ordinance.
Just prior to the vote, Mike Gutierrez made a statement complimenting Ossiander on her handling of the job of Assembly chair throughout this contentious debate, and all the Assembly members rose to applaud her, with the audience spontaneously rising to join in a standing ovation. I was in the third row from the front, and never turned around, so I didn’t learn until later that the (predominately red-shirted) ordinance opponents either did not join in the ovation at all (by one account), or did so belatedly and grudgingly (by another). John Aronno of Alaska Commons (who was sitting two seats away from me):
Tonight, Chairwoman Ossiander delivered a pained and thorough explanation of why she truly felt that she could not vote in support of this ordinance, which leaves a possible veto override one vote short. When Assemblyman Mike Gutierrez thanked her for her service to the assembly and for the way she handled these proceedings, she received applause and a standing ovation.
… By the group whom she was voting against.
Turning around in my chair, I saw, if not entirely, a clear majority of red-shirted attendees sitting with their arms crossed. [Ref #14]
Just before the final vote was tallied, Assemblyman Guttierrez took a few moments to praise Assemblywoman Ossiander for her contributions as chair and moderator during the many hearings. Though many have disagreed with her decision to allow non residents to testify at the hearings, Ms. Ossiander kept the peace and dealt fairly with each person who testified during those many, painful long hours. The crowd stood up and rendered to her enthusiastic applause, and I must note that those wearing blue shirts stood up first with a good portion of those in red shirts reluctantly following suit. Ms. Ossiander smiled very gratefully, and seemed genuinely surprised. [Ref #13]
But at the time, I only knew that I was joining in the ovation against my own disagreement with Ossiander over her having permitted non-Anchorage residents, bused or carpooled in from the Mat-Su, to testify (see my post on it[Ref #16]), but that other than that disagreement I did in fact respect the evenhanded way she’d handled some really difficult meetings. And I saw that she was moved by the tribute, even as she was embarrassed by it, modestly gesturing with her hand for people to resume their seats.
And then the vote was taken. Despite the amendments, Ossiander’s doubts had not apparently been answered. The final result: the S-2 version of ordinance AO 2009-64, as amended, passed by a vote of 7-4. If Mayor Sullivan should decide to veto the ordinance, a supermajority of 8 members will need to vote to override.
Then we milled around for a few minutes, and then most people left, and the Assembly sat down in chambers to conduct more of the Municipality’s business.
Votes against the ordinance: Dan Coffey, Chris Birch, Bill Starr, Debbie Ossiander.
Votes in favor of the ordinance: Patrick Flynn, Sheila Selkregg, Jennifer Johnston, Mike Gutierrez, Matt Claman, Elvi Gray-Jackson, Harriet Drummond. Thank you. Thank all of you.
Thanks also to everyone who testified, wrote letters, made phone calls, and otherwise stood up for equal protection from discrimination for lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transsexuals, and transgenders.
Thank you to all of you who are continuing to do so now by calling or writing Mayor Dan Sullivan and asking him to do one better than with the prior two attempts: let this one stand.
It’s been a long hard haul: six long nights of public testimony. Now finally tonight there may be some decisions made.
Here’s the Assembly’s agenda tonight. The equal rights-related items are item 9.B.2, which is Dan Coffey’s resolution for a task force to study the issue another year or more; and item 11.D, on Ordinance 64 (in its various incarnations) itself.
The four versions of the ordinance
These are right here on my website; you can also get them from the Assembly website.
AO No. 2009-64. Original draft submitted on behalf of then-Acting Mayor Matt Claman, for reading May 12, 2009. This version would add veteran’s status and sexual orientation to the municipal human rights code. with sexual orientation defined as including actual or perceived heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, and gender identity and expression.
AO No. 2009-64 (S). First substitution version submitted on behalf of then-Acting Mayor Matt Claman, for reading June 9, 2009. Similar to the original version, but removes veteran’s status from the proposed ordinance. Exludes home-operated businesses employing fewer than five people from Title 5’s provisions, which would mean extending the right to discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, ethnicity, age, etc. in such businesses, which under current law is prohibited. Explicitly states rights already present in law such as the right for employers to impose “reasonable dress codes, work rules, or other rules of general application” or to discriminate “because of one’s biological gender in matters such as acces to restrooms.”
AO No. 2009-64 (S-1). Second substitution version submitted by Assembly Chair Debbie Ossiander, for reading June 16, 2009.Weakest version from the point of view of granting equal protections from discrmination for LGBT people. Removes gender identity and expression from the definition of sexual orientiation, hence exluding transgender/transsexual people from protections. Permits workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in all except public (i.e., municipal) employment. Authorizes the Anchorage Equal Rights Commission to track discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression even if that discrimination otherwise falls outside the scope of Title 5. Permits public accommodation discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation when the public accommodation involves home occupation or provision of personal care services. Explicitly states rights already present in law such as the right for employers and operators of public accommodations to impose “reasonable dress codes, work rules, codes of conduct, or other rules of general application.” Explicitly states that the provisions of the ordinance “shall not be construed tas mandating preferential treatment or quotas bases on sexual orientation.” Amends religous exemptions to remove any question of the Equal Rights Commission examining the “genuineness” of religious reasons for permitted discrimination by religious bodies.
AO No. 2009-64 (S-2). Third substitution version submitted by Assembly Member Patrick Flynn, for reading August 11, 2009.Strongest version, both in terms of providing equal protections from discrimination to LGBT people, and in providing clear language on appropriate religious exemptions (right to discrminate by religious organizations). Rather than (erroneously) including gender identity as a category of sexual orientation, this version separately defines gender identity, with specific references to pre- and post-operative transsexuals, as well as “other persons who are transgendered and have a reasonably consistent gender presentation.” Throughout the rest of this verision, sexual orientation and gender identity are added to the various provisions prohibiting discimiation in employment, housing, financial practices, public accommodations, and muncipal practices. Definition of unlawful discriminatory act or practice explicitly states that “Nothing in this chapter is intended to permit any criminal act prohibted by federal, state, or local law.” The religious exemptions section (5.20.090) is the clearest language yet on religious exemptions (incuding improving on the existing Title 5), and specifically addresses exemptions (that is, the right to discriminate) in religious organizations that do not have religious ritual, worhip, or the propogation of religious doctrines/beliefs as their primary purpose — for example, schools or societies. Thus, this covers the common religious objection that earlier versions of the ordinance would force a church-affliliated school to hire homosexual school bus drivers, or the like.
If you want to print them out all at once, I’ve also got all four versions in one document, which I’ve bookmarked for easy navigation.
I’ll be livetweeting from the Assembly chambers as yksin, and will be (trying to remember to use) the hashtag #anclgbt.
These people kept me sane all the way through the presidential election season. Now as more & more insanity spreads by means of the nonsensical pronouncements of former (thank goodness!) Gov. Sarah Palin, and lots of other dishonest, unthinking, & irresponsible people, they’re keeping me sane again. Maybe they’ll do the same for you.
First, Jon Stewart of the Daily Show Jon Stewart on the disruptive tactics of deathers/tea baggers at town hall meetings around the country; he gets into Sarah Palin’s “death panel” claim around 5 minutes in.
But as good as the funny stuff is, there’s a serious side as well. Although long, Keith Olbermann’s commentary on the “death panel” claim and other irresponsible claims by right wing pundits and politicians is worth watching in full. The lies these people are telling is incitement to mob violence.
” ‘Death Panel’ Palin dangerously irresponsible”
Keith Olbermann comments on how “Sarah the Quitter [and other irresponsible rightwing commentators] incites mob violence and national disunity by ‘making stuff up’”
Republicans Disavow Wingnut Statements
Rachel Maddow comments on how certain Republicans, including Sarah Palin, make irresponsible and innaccurate statements, and later attempt to disavow them.
Thing is, as Maddow points out, once you’ve incited with lies, no matter how much you later disavow, it’s not going to get you off the hook if someone follows up on your earlier incitements. So this morning, I came across a report of a man, part of the crowd gathering outside today’s Obama town hall meeting on health care in New Hampshire, with a gun holstered on his hip holding a protest sign saying “IT IS TIME TO WATER THE TREE OF LIBERTY!” As pointed out by David Kurtz at Talking Point Memo,
[T]he gun-toting protestor was holding a sign referencing the Jefferson quote: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” It’s a well known quote from one of the archetypal founding fathers. And in itself it’s part of the American heritage, something that echoes with Jefferson’s always ambivalent and frequently dilettantish attitude toward political violence. But in the context of these townhall excesses and while carrying a firearm at a presidential event, it’s quite a menacing statement, in as much as it is about the need to kill tyrants. [Ref #1]
Hard not to agree with Dan Savage, who comments,
No one is going to be surprised—although Fox News anchors will fake it—when some nut takes a shot at the president to save Sarah Palin’s baby from Obama’s “death panel” and the rest of us from “socializm,” right? [Ref #2]
Meanwhile, in downtown Anchorage yesterday, the Alaska Legislature was holding its special session at which it confirmed Craig Campbell as Alaska’s new lieutenant governor and overrode (former) Gov. Sarah Palin’s veto of energy efficiency stimulus funds, Sen. Mark Begich was at the Dena’ina Civic and Convention Center speaking to the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce about health care, and the Democratic-funded Organizing for America was holding a press conference on health care reform — the same press conference I posted about yesterday where, as Anchorage Daily News reporter Lisa Demer writes,
the event was overrun by the anti-crowd, who heckled the speakers: a man with lung cancer, a mom with a special needs child, a Republican small business owner.
“They clearly don’t have any manners. They were shouting the whole time that people were speaking,” said one of the speakers, Lisa Rogers, owner of Rogers & Company, a certified public accounting firm. She said she was bonked twice on the head by a sign-waving man.[Ref #3]
The protesters, from a variety of groups — Demer identifies “The 912 Project, a Mat-Su based group that says it wants to bring government to heel. The Anchorage Second Amendment Task Force was there… [and] the Alaska Prager Group, fans of conservative syndicated talk radio show host Dennis Prager” [Ref #3] — were moving between the Dena’ina center, the press conference, and the Egan Center. Some of them were carrying guns — not actually illegal under Alaska law. But just as much as its menacing for a protester carrying a sign about political violence and wearing a firearm to a presidential event, it’s menacing for a protester to attempt to carry a firearm into a building where elected representatives are meeting to decide on a political issue about which you have a strong opinion:
Nick Brockett, wearing an American Patriot Tea Party shirt, got kicked out of the Egan Center for having his Glock 9mm on his hip.[Ref #3]
Mobocracy indeed.
And of course, some of those protesters have bought into Palin’s “death panel” lie, as shown in this video by Dennis Zaki:
I’ve read two reports now of anti-health care reform protesters at Senator Mark Begich’s health care press conference heckling and shouting down a lung cancer patient on oxygen tanks who was attempting to testify. The first report came via a tweet from Celtic Diva, who wrote,
Per Blogger Jeanette: At hc presser — man on oxygen couldn’t testify — shouted down by teabaggers. [Ref #1]
A little later, AKMuckracker at The Mudflats wrote a full-fledged blog post, reporting also on how hecklers shouted down other Alaska citizens attempting to testify about their problems with the health care system:
I knew there would be protesters carrying signs at this event, but when the press conference began, and four brave Alaskans…regular citizens….stood up to tell their harrowing stories of health care challenges, I never believed anyone would heckle them. I really didn’t. But as I stood there and watched, that’s exactly what they did. They shouted at a mom of a young child with special needs. They asked her how much she got paid by the AFL-CIO. They shouted at a man with lung cancer, breathing with assistance, telling him he wasn’t an American. They shouted at a small business owner telling him that he was in cahoots with “Obama’s Dirty Nuts” – ACORN. [Ref #2]
I regret to say I’m not that surprised. Not after reading a number of stories over the weekend about similar heckling crowds disrupting health insurance reform town halls around the country.
It’s becoming ever clearer that those in opposition to reform could care less about civil discourse or democracy. They believe in government by mob.
I wasn’t surprised either to learn that rightwing talk radio host and self-described racist homophobe Eddie Burke was amongst them, egging them on. Nor was I surprised to learn Sarah Palin was nowhere in evidence: her mob-incitement was done last week from a safe, Facebook distance. You remember: Sarah “Hands Off My Kids — Don’t Make Stuff Up” Palin using her son Trig as Exhibit A to illustrate her most recent attempt at making stuff up — but then, one hardly needed her, since Eddie “Sarah’s Lapdog” Burke could reliably be counted on to repeat the lie for her, as AKMuckracker also resports:
Eddie Burke managed to show up, and get on camera. He repeated Sarah Palin’s lies about a “Death Panel.” He did it because it sounded good and because it will inflame his “posse” as he called them. He didn’t say it because it was true. He didn’t say it because he wants dialog. Alaskans who use fear, and anger to intimidate those seeking discussion and reform harm us all. [Ref #2]
Exactly. Because ultimately, Eddie Burke and his “posse,” along with all the other birthers, deathers, and teabaggers, don’t believe in democracy. They believe in mobocracy.
AKMuckraker said it well:
They shame their party, and their state. [Ref #2]
Thanks to AKMuckraker, CelticDiva, Jeanette, and other bloggers who continue to report on the deather/teabagger actions, as well as the special Alaska legislative session — still going on as I write — involving the bipartisan effort to override of Palin’s irresponsible veto of stimulus funds for energy efficiency. I’ll look forward to reading their full reports later tonight.
I’m also happy to see Anchorage Daily News reporter Sean Cockerham on-scene — one of the best of ADN’s remaining reporters. He’s also posted, on the ADN’s Alaska Politics blog, on the protests outside the special legislative session and Sen. Begich’s health care reform presser (though making no mention of the hecklers, which perhaps he didn’t witness). [Ref #3]
References
8/10/09. “At hc presser…” by Linda Kellen Biegel (@celticdiva) [Twitter feed].
