:: Brent Cox

Senate Overwhelmingly Passes the Matthew Shepard Act. Cochran and Lott Vote 'Nay'

This morning the Senate overwhelmingly voted to pass the historic Matthew Shepard Act, expanding federal hate crimes protection to include sexual orientation. The vote was 60 for, 39 against.

I’m sure you recall the young man for whom the act is named. Matthew Shepard was only 21 when two men brutally beat him to death simply because he was gay.

Shamefully, Mississippi's two senators Cochran and Lott were among those voting against the Matthew Shepard Act. Their votes are particularly inexcusable in light of the 2004 beatings of gay men here in Jackson by two Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics agents. That ugly case received national attention, attracted the Department of Justice and generally reinforced Mississippi's reputation as a state where minority rights are wantonly disregarded by our government. Cochran’s and Lott’s ‘nay’ votes did nothing to improve that reputation.

Fortunately, 60 other senators from across the country—senators of different races, genders and sexual orientations—voted in the affirmative.

Compromises must now be made between the House and Senate versions of the legislation. In the meantime, those opposed to the Matthew Shepard Act will likely step-up their misinformation campaign, particularly the claim that the Matthew Shepard Act restricts freedom of anti-gay expression. In reality, this legislation is not only a victory for protecting lesbians and gays, it's a great victory for the First Amendment because it targets only actions, not speech.

Once the compromise language has been agreed upon? Then we we wait to see if President Bush, as he has vowed to do, vetoes the Matthew Shepard Act.

Trust, But Verify

I had an opportunity recently to watch a demonstration of the $400,000 ‘Shotspotter’ technology that the Mayor wants to bring to Jackson. Essentially, Shotspotter is a network of surveillance cameras and microphones that are supposed to detect the location of nearby gunfire. When a gun is fired, the microphones ‘triangulate’ the shot's origin, coordinates are sent to the Jackson Police Department, and Shotspotter surveillance cameras swivel to video the location.

Judging by the demonstration, Shotspotter is impressive technology. But as with other high-priced surveillance technology the J.P.D. has spread across Jackson, city officials were unclear about what policies, if any, would be created to ensure that the technology is used in a manner consistent with citizens’ rights.

For example, Shotspotter microphones are able to detect nearby conversations. Without formal policies prohibiting eavesdropping—and independent oversight to ensure those policies are being followed—citizens have no way of knowing that the technology isn’t being used to listen to and record private conversations.

When the Shotspotter microphones triangulate a target, will nearby citizens be considered suspects merely because they live within the triangle? If so, what will be the J.P.D. policy for approaching and questioning those individuals?

Furthermore, without a system of independent oversight, citizens will have no way of knowing if the Shotspotter system is actually working or if the city is simply squandering needed tax dollars. (How many new officers could be hired for $400,000? How many good cops could get raises?)

When I asked about the need for such policies and independent oversight, I was effectively told by the Shotspotter representative and the J.P.D.’s Chief Anderson, “Just trust us”. Not a good answer in a country whose government is meant to be transparent and whose citizens don’t merely trust government not to violate our rights, we monitor our government to ensure it’s not violating them. Americans—as Ronald Reagan once famously remarked—“Trust, but verify”.

The truth is, I hope the Shotspotter technology works. I hope it reduces violent crime and makes our neighborhoods safer. I hope no one’s rights are violated by the surveillance technology. I hope all of this as you probably do. But should we simply trust Chief Anderson and Mayor Melton when they tell us that all is well? No; of course not. We’ll be happy to hear their report, but then, as responsible citizens, we’ll demand to see the data ourselves. We’ll trust, but verify.

By the way, I wanted to post with this blog entry a photo of the Shotspotter cameras that may soon be surveilling your neighborhood. But before I could snap a photo, I was told by J.P.D. Chief Anderson that if I were to take a picture of the government’s surveillance camera, my personal camera would be confiscated.

Coulter’s Words v. Edwards’ Sticks & Stones

There’s not much to say about Ann Coulter calling former Democratic Senator John Edwards a "faggot" when she was addressing the Conservative Political Action Conference last Friday. That sort of thing one expects from Coulter. She’s like a wan Andrew Dice Clay. Hideous bigotry is just part of the show that people expect when they attend her speeches and read her books.

More interesting to me is John Edwards’ act of being offended. Yes, he should condemn Coulter’s comment, but let’s not ignore that Edwards has made anti-gay discrimination part of his political platform by opposing marriage equality. And frankly, as a gay man, I’m much less offended by Coulter’s locker room slur than Edwards’ willingness to write anti-gay bigotry into his presidential platform.

Adding insult to injury, Edwards’ website encourages people offended by Coulter to contribute to his presidential campaign—what he’s calling Coulter cash. This is so incredibly offensive to me. It’s encouraging people to act against rhetorical bigotry by funding state-sanctioned bigotry in the form of an Edwards presidency. That’s a bit like asking people in 1964 who were offended by K.K.K. propaganda to contribute to the George Wallace for President campaign.

I really don’t give much thought to Ann Coulter. Her anti-gay bigotry is shtick I’ve seen too many times before. Edwards, though, I’d like to be in the audience when he acts like a great, injured friend of the lesbian and gay community. I’d remind him of his open opposition to marriage equality and say, frankly, “Senator, I’ve served with friends of the lesbian and gay community. I know friends of the lesbian and gay community. They are friends of mine. Senator, you're no friend of the lesbian and gay community."

Is Danks Unaware or Indifferent to the 1st Amendment?

In Dale Danks’ letter telling Kim Wade to retract his petition for removal, Danks calls Wade’s petition “Frivolous,” harassing” and “vexatious”. Danks’ letter (PDF, 300KB) further (mis)characterizes Wade’s petition as “without substantial justification, interposed for harassment," and having "no realistic hope for success."

Wade’s petition (PDF, 270 KB) is hardly frivolous given the mayor's abuses of power, and in submitting the petition Wade is simply exerting his sacred First Amendment right to “petition the government for a redress of grievances”.

Danks, as an attorney for an elected official, should really read that Amendment and study its origins. If he’s at all honest, he’ll appreciate the parallels between this mayor’s administration and the situation that led the Founders to insert that clause into the First Amendment.

From the Declaration of Independence: In every state of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Activism Really Satisfies

Did you catch the Super Bowl Snickers commercial? I didn’t see it, but all day I’ve been following the anger it’s generating among gays and lesbians around the country. Frankly, I don’t even care about football. But outrage over thoughtless, anti-gay advertising? That’s worth watching.

The ad shows two grimy, blue-collar men working on a car together. One takes out a Snickers, and then both men begin eating different ends of the candy bar until their lips touch. It’s like the Lady and the Tramp spaghetti scene—but instead of blushing and falling in love, the men register shock, revulsion, and in a panic they rip out their chest hair to prove how “manly” they still are.

Snickers has three versions of this commercial on their website, each with an alternate anti-gay ending. Visitors are supposed to vote for their favorite. One ending has the men drinking motor oil in order to, apparently, cleanse their mouths. Another—and this I find the most disturbing—shows one of the men smashing the other man’s head under the car hood.

Almost immediately after the ads aired, bloggers widely condemned their homophobic message. One blogger aptly suggested that Snickers name its most violent version of the commercial the “Matthew Shepard” version. Leading gay and lesbian websites such as AfterElton.com also decried the ads.

Now, as I write this, about 24 hours after the ads originally aired, they appear to have been removed from the Snickers website. Is this in response to the anger and outrage? Did Mars, Inc. get hit by a cold shower of emails, phone calls and wakeup to the fact that gay bashing just isn’t funny? I hope so.

Three cheers for the First Amendment. Advertisers have the freedom to say what they will, and I’d defend with my life their right to say it. But it’s my First Amendment too, and one way I used it today was by calling the Snickers consumer hotline to tell them what I thought of their ad. Apparently many, many others did as well, and hopefully people still are right now.

The Super Bowl is over (so I’m told). The struggle for equality and respect, though? That’s the American pastime that never ends. If you’d like to play, give Snickers a call and let them hear your voice: 1-800-627-7852.

Molly Ivins

"So keep fightin' for freedom and justice, beloveds, but don't you forget to have fun doin' it. Lord, let your laughter ring forth. Be outrageous, ridicule the fraidy-cats, rejoice in all the oddities that freedom can produce. And when you get through kickin' ass and celebratin' the sheer joy of a good fight, be sure to tell those who come after how much fun it was." ~Molly Ivins

I believe I will be praying more now that Molly Ivins has died. I imagine she's writing up articles now that mock the pomposity of heaven and needle the sycophantic seraphim who've made such careers out of flying eternally around God, telling Him how wonderful He is. She's my new patron saint.

I know no one has officially canonized Ivins, but she never waited for others' sanction and approval. She shot from the hip, reveled in the joy of intelligence and language, and she had a blast doing it. That's the only kind of patron saint I'd ever want.

Mark Twain advised, "Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company." Wherever you are now, Molly Ivins, rest in peace. I hope you have good company, a Texas climate and are having as much fun in the Hereafter as you had here on Earth. If angels have feet of clay under those white robes, I'm sure you'll find them.

Coming Out

Telling people that I’m gay isn’t a big deal for me anymore. I mention it when it’s relevant, and if someone’s shocked or offended, the most I usually tell him is to get over it and welcome to the human race. But when the news broke last week that two Mississippi Bureau of Narcotics officers were sentenced to mere house arrest for brutally assaulting two gay men, I was reminded that coming out publicly is still a profoundly important act—especially in Mississippi.

Coming out means becoming visible. It announces that you exist, and that you’re part of society. Simple enough. But in America, this is actually a radical announcement, for to be part of society in America means that you are entitled to full political equality.

Coming out in this way has always been part of America’s identity. Catholics, Jews, Native Americans have all had to come out. The very Civil Rights Movement was built on persons of color stepping forward to announce, “I exist and I demand the equality to which I am entitled as a human being and a citizen of the United States”. The Constitution is merely a promise. Coming out is the demand that the promise be kept.

So, for what it’s worth: I, Brent Cox, am gay. Enlightened as you are, J.F.P. Reader, this probably doesn’t shock you. Those of you who are shocked—well, get over it and welcome to the human race. My real hope is that someone reading this who’s in the closet will come out of the closet. And those already out? Keep coming out, every day telling one more person. It may no longer be a big deal to you, but doing this makes us visible. Visibility demands equality. We’re here, we’re queer. We’re good old fashioned American radicals.

The Divine Right of Mayors

As every student of history knows, most of humanity’s governments have been led by men who believed their authority derived from a “Divine Right of Kings.” The rule of law did not exist, as "law" was simply whatever the king felt suited his purposes.

One revolution and a couple hundred years later, Richard Nixon proved that even constitutional republics aren’t immune to imperial leaders. “When the president does it,” he explained, “that means it is not illegal”.

In Jackson, our own King Frank adores the Divine Right of Mayors. The law forbid him from carrying a gun onto school grounds, but he wanted to, so he did; the law be damned. When he pled no contest to breaking that law, one condition of his probation was that he not drive the Jackson Police Department’s Mobile Command Unit—but he wanted to, so he did; and the law be damned.

In response, a probation service official sent King Frank a letter reminding him of the conditions of his probation. Imperious men are rarely persuaded by stern letters, however, and I doubt this is the last time we will see King Frank thumbing his nose at the law. The question is, when he does it the next time, will the law or the king prevail?

I imagine King Frank is actually asking himself the same question as he glances up from the warning letter to admire the Mobile Command Unit. Let’s hope King Frank is also a student of history and remembers what happened when King George and President Nixon got the answer wrong.

Viva La Cell Phone Cameras!

The controversy surrounding the video of Saddam Hussein's hanging holds a lesson for us here in Jackson. You'll notice that while the civilized world is outraged by the way Hussein was hanged, Iraqi officials are more outraged that someone videoed the hanging and thereby exposed their cruel methods. They have vowed to find and prosecute the scoundrels who exposed them to the world! Governments simply hate transparency, for it leads to accountability.

Some of our government officials in Jackson are also zealous to keep out the scrutinizing gaze of the public. They prefer to meet and plan in private, and then, when they are ready, give us staged presentations. That process gives the appearance of good government, but it excludes the most important component of our government--the people of Jackson.

Why do they do it? Because government of, by and for the people is messy, be it in Mississippi or in the Middle East. It involves oversight, debate, protest, video cameras that catch corruption, reporters that write articles about abusive mayors and excessive City Attorney fees. For the government, the people are a pain in the ass because we embarrass, expose and object. And as such we are the only power that has ever kept a government accountable to the governed.

Long live the people and their cell phone camera batteries.

The Gift That Keeps on Taking

Tonight, the City is hosting a dinner for Jackson's homeless. It's a gift to that population the city insulted and injured the rest of this year. It reminds me of the gifts the Wise Men took to Bethlehem. There they found a homeless, hungry, freezing child. Did they give the child and his family a home, food and clothes? No; they gave gold, frankincense and myrrh. All symbolic gifts--which made the Wise Men very proud, but did very little for the neediest in that manger that night.

What other gifts has the City given the homeless this year? In November, the City Council passed an ordinance criminalizing panhandling in downtown Jackson. If one of the homeless men at tonight's dinner walks outside afterwards and asks someone for a dollar, that man can now be arrested.

Over the summer, our mayor declared a curfew that specifically required homeless men and women be indoors by 10 p.m., overlooking the problem that homeless people, by definition, have no doors to go into,--not to mention the greater problem that the City had no compelling reason to pass such a curfew. When the curfew drew national attention (none of it good), the mayor declared that the curfew would be voluntary. A voluntary curfew? Under penalty of disapproval, I suppose.

The mayor will be at tonight's dinner. I hope he runs into the same homeless men he patronized over the summer. I heard him during the curfew debacle promise about two dozen homeless men and women that he would get them each apartments with, as he put it, doors with keys that lock. I hope they ask where those apartments are. I hope they ask him why the City feels that one warm meal eclipses a year of harassment and empty promises.

One ironic note about the City's new anti-panhandling ordinance (beyond the obvious): When the Council was discussing the merits of the ordinance, they mentioned in shocked tones that some homeless are actually going inside churches to ask for money. Imagine! The nerve of those homeless going into a House of God to ask for charity. Perhaps they'd heard Jesus' words that as we do unto the least of humanity, we do it unto Him.

Tonight, unto Him the City does something right and kind. Tomorrow they will put Him in jail.