Leonard Link

What Ever Happened to Elementary Rules of Journalism at the NY Times?

I just have to wonder.  When I was a high-schooler writing for and eventually editing my school newspaper, we were taught that the questions "who, what, when, where and how" should be addressed in the lead paragraph of a news story.  Well, maybe in the first few paragraphs?

But in this morning's NY Times, on page A32 of the Late Edition, there is an article titled "Former Prosecutor Appointed to Investigate Corruption in Crane Operator's Union."  The story was judged by editors to merit 19 paragraphs.  The name of the former prosecutor appointed to investigate corruption in the crane operator's union is a well-kept secret until paragraph 12, buried in the fourth column of type out of 6. 

Copy Desk?  Asleep at the switch?  The identity of the man appointed to undertake this investigation, thought significant enough to merit a headline, is only incidental to the story and thus need not be revealed until more than half way through the story?  C'mon, guys.  Journalism 101.

What the doctors think about the health care reform bill

My brother Dave posted this on facebook.  I don't know where it originates, but it seems genuine enough:

The American Medical Association debated their response to Obama's new health care package.

The Allergists were in favor of scratching it, but the Dermatologists advised not to make any rash moves. The Gastroenterologists had sort of a gut feeling about it, but the Neurologists thought the Administration had a lot of nerve.

Meanwhile, Obstetricians felt certain everyone was laboring under a misconception, while the Ophthalmologists considered the idea shortsighted. Pathologists yelled, "Over my dead body!", while the Pediatricians said, "Oh, grow up!"...

The Psychiatrists thought the whole idea was madness, while the Radiologists could see right through it. Surgeons decided to wash their hands of the whole thing and the Internists claimed it would indeed be a bitter pill to swallow. The Plastic Surgeons opined that this proposal would "put a whole new face on the matter".

The Podiatrists thought it was a step forward, but the Urologists were pissed off at the whole idea. Anesthesiologists thought the whole idea was a gas, and those softy Cardiologists didn't have the heart to say no.

In the end, the Proctologists won out, leaving the entire decision up to the assholes in Washington.

Missing in Action at the "Meet Market"

I hvaen't posted anything for a few days since I've been otherwise occupied.  As co-chair of the Faculty Appointments Committee for NY Law School, I have been attending the Annual Faculty Recruitment Conference sponsored by the Association of American Law Schools in Washington, D.C.  Aspiring law teachers and recruitment teams from law schools take over a big Washington convention hotel for a few days to facilitate an efficient process of interviewing large numbers of people in a short period of time.

As part of the NYLS team, I participated in interviews beginning early Thursday afternoon, continuing into the evening, all day yesterday, and continuing this morning until midday.  Then I hope onto the Amtrak ACELA back to NYC, in time -- I hope -- to attend the opening of the New York City Opera's revivial of Hugo Weisgal's opera "Esther."  So I will be back to substantive posting soon.

I haven't posted anything about the election and LGBT rights.  On Tuesday we were 2 for 3. 

There has been a lot of whining and moaning about the loss in Maine, where a "voter's veto" repealed the same-sex marriage law passed earlier this year.  There are a few things to remember about this vote.  Unfortunate as it was, it was NOT the enactment of a constitutional amendment or a statute banning same-sex marriage.  It has no substantive effect going forward.  All it does is to repeal the marriage law passed earlier this year.  It does not preclude the legislature from revisiting the issue, either with an interim civil union measure or another attempt at marriage.  There is a history of this in Maine.  It took several tries to get a law banning sexual orientation discrimination solidly on the books, but after several legislative actions and a few referenda, we finally got the law.  So although it was discouraging that the measure was repealed, the margin of the voting gives room for hope.  (After all, just a few short years ago national polling tended to show public opposition to same-sex marriage at 2/3 or higher, but the margin of defeat on this measure was substantially lower than that, although not much different form the measure by with California Prop 8 passed last year.

On the other hand, we had wins in Washington State -- where the public voted affirmatively to ratify the legislature's action earlier this year in expanding the domestic partnership law to be the legal equivalent of the DP laws in neighboring Oregon and California.  So registered domestic partners in Washington State will have almost all of the same legal rights and responsibilities under state law that married couples have.  The rate of approval was not as high as one would have liked, but it was high enough to be decisive - no recounts needed.  And, in Kalamazoo, Michigan, voters overwhelming supported the action by local legislators earlier this year to pass a law banning discrimination, so we can count that one a major victory, albeit solely local.

So it was not all gloom and doom on election day.  Could we have won Maine with a stronger campaign?  Perhaps, but it was no certainty, and indeed a win would have been historic, since I don't think there is anywhere in the world where a general public ballot has affirmatively enacted same-sex marriage.  It is a defeat, but determination to go back and win it is the appropriate response, not recriminations and nitpicking over this or that commercial.

A Letter to Tim Kaine - Why I Won't Join the Presidential Partners

By an interesting quirk of timing, supporters of the DNC and the Obama campaign are receiving in the mail just now solicitations to join "President Obama's Presidential Partners."  The package includes a membership certificate, and copy of the president's inaugural address in a handsome folder with the image of the White House gold-stamped on the cover, and a form letter from DNC Chair Tim Kaine urging participation for a minimum donation of $1,000 to join at the "Community Organizer" level.

What lousy timing on their part, in light of the past few weeks.  The package also includes a stamped return envelope, which I decided to use to send Mr. Kaine a letter explaining why, as a gay Democrat, I'm not going to join the Presidential Partners at this time.  And, I figured, why not make it an "open letter" on my blog, so here is the text of what I wrote:

Dear Chairman Kaine:

Your invitation to join the Presidential Partners donor group came at the worst possible time, not just because expendable cash for this purpose is tight just now, but because I am one of the many gay Democrats who is suffering quite a bit of disillusionment about the President and our Congressional leaders just now, and thus disinclined to make this financial commitment to a party that takes my support for granted and breaks its promises to me.

I decided to support Barack Obama’s campaign at an early point during the Democratic primaries. I read both of his books, looked at the positions on his website, and I decided he was my candidate for a whole host of reasons. I signed up to make a small monthly donation automatically charged to my credit card, and I also sent occasional larger donations by check. I talked up his candidacy among family and friends, and voted for him in the New York primary as well as the general election. One of the important reasons for my support was his promise that equality for LGBT Americans would be an important goal of his administration.

I noted with excitement that the full range of promises was reiterated on the White House website on day one, then noticed uneasily that they were subsequently withdrawn and rephrased to be less specific. I noted with some alarm that President Obama invited Rick Perry, a famous homophobe, to speak at his inauguration. I noted with more alarm the retention of Secretary Gates - a man not committed in any way to end the embarrassing and discriminatory "don’t ask don’t tell"policy - was retained in charge of the Defense Department. I watched and waited as there was no action from the White House on repealing DOMA, repealing DADT, or even making a minimal start on dealing with other aspects of inequality embedded in federal law.

But, as a close observer of LGBT law (I write a monthly newsletter and a blog, and am co-author of a law school casebook on Sexuality Law), the most alarming thing was to read the Justice Department’s filing with the Supreme Court on the Pietrangelo cert. petition, and the filing with the district court in California in the Smelt DOMA challenge. Despite the President’s strongly worded promises to repeal DADT and DOMA, the Justice Department argued, in rather insulting language, that both policies are rational and meet the test of constitutionality. They also argue that sexual orientation discrimination merits only the lowest level of constitutional scrutiny, and articulate specious and insulting justifications for the two laws.

A fuzzily worded Gay Pride Month proclamation, and yesterday’s "memorandum" tossing a few scraps to same-sex partners of federal employees, do little to counter the conclusion that, contrary to his campaign promises, President Obama places a low priority on addressing his promises to the LGBT community. It is clear that he has decided to expend as little political capital as possible on LGBT issues, and that the most we will get from this administration is likely to be lip service. The President talks a good game, but seems disinclined to exert any leadership on these issues in a concrete sense.

Since that is the case, I hardly think it is a worthwhile investment on my part to direct whatever funds I have for political activity to the DNC at this time. It makes more sense for me to support individual candidates as recommended by the LGBT Victory Fund, and local candidates who are supporting gay rights in New York. I married my same-sex partner in Connecticut in March (a marriage the President opposes, by the way, because of his religious beliefs, which I find rather galling, since I didn’t vote for him to enact his religious beliefs), and to me the more immediate issue is doing what I can to see that our marriage is recognized by local, state and federal governments. Since the President does not seem serious about repealing DOMA, and is defending it in court with specious arguments, I can’t in good conscience respond with financial support at this time.

Sincerely,

Arthur S. Leonard

Former Vice President Richard Cheney and Same-Sex Marriage

Yesterday, the blogs were full of reports that former Vice President Dick Cheney had endorsed same-sex marriage during remarks at a press conference, and then the story was repeated in the newspapers today.  I looked at a video clip of his comments and I saw the same sort of dodging and shading that has always characterized his remarks on the issue.  After the press conference, he did a CNN interview, and here's what he had to say on the follow-up:

VAN SUSTEREN: You bring up sort of the social issues, and of course, today, I couldn't help but notice you were asked the question about -- of gay marriage, and you said that it wasn't -- that you weren't in favor, at least -- as I understand your answer, in favor of federal statute, but it should be state by state by state. Did that mean you're in favor of gay marriage within state by state?

D. CHENEY: Well, if that's what the people of the state want to do, that's fine by me. I mean, I don't, I ...

VAN SUSTEREN: How would you vote on it?

D. CHENEY: I made the announcement at the outset that I believe equal rights means equal rights for everybody and that people ought to be able to enter into any kind of relationship they want, but that the states ought to retain the ability to regulate and determine what's marriage and what the legal status of those unions are. It should not be a federal issue.

VAN SUSTEREN: President Obama is in favor of civil unions, not in favor of gay marriage. Are you saying you're in favor -- if you were, you know, hitting the button in the voting booth, that you would be for your state having gay marriage, or would be you be ...

D. CHENEY: Well, I look at it, obviously, in personal terms. And my daughter, Mary, is in a -- you know, I think a very commendable relationship with somebody she's known for a long time, and I'm strongly supportive of that.

-------

OK, so what's his position?  He's supportive of his daughter's relationship.  He's made that point many times.  And he thinks the states, not the federal government, should decide who can get married.  Nothing new there.   And, if a state decided to let same-sex couples marry, "that's fine with me."

But when he's pushed by an interviewer to answer the question directly, if he was in the voting booth and same-sex marriage was on the ballot, how would he vote.... he refuses a direct answer.  He just says he's "strongly supportive" of his daughter's relationship.

Where does that leave us?  Does Dick Cheney support allowing same-sex couples to marry?  Some might ask, who cares?  He's out of office, his party was defeated across the board in 2008, what he has to say about this makes no difference in terms of what the law is....

But it is important because Dick Cheney is part of a deeply conservative wing of the Republican Party that continues to retain some influence in the public debate.  He ducks and weaves on the issue, but the media seizes upon his somewhat ambiguous comments and turns him into a same-sex marriage advocate.  I'm not really convinced, until he gives a direct answer to the question how he would vote.  If he were a California citizen last fall, how would he have voted on Proposition 8?  That's the question he should be pushed to answer.  And, what does he think about Colorado's enactment of the Designated Beneficiary Act, or Maine's enactment of the Same-Sex Marriage Act, or Nevada's enactment this weekend over the governor's veto of the Domestic Partnership  Act?  Somebody ask this man the questions directly and see if we can get some answers.

President Obama's Gay Pride Proclamation

On June 1, President Barack Obama issued a Proclamation for LGBT Pride Month, June 2009.  The last such proclamation was issued by President Bill Clinton during his final year in office, in 2000.  No formal endorsement for Gay Pride emanated from the Bush White House.  Anybody surprised about that, please raise your hand....

At any rate, the full text of the President's Proclamation can be found on the White House website, in the Briefing Room section, under Presidential Actions, in the Proclamation list for June 1.  (You've got to scroll down to find the Proclamation list, as it is not the first thing under Presidential Actions.  After all, Executive Orders take priority over Proclamations....)

The important thing, for those trying to track the Obama Administration's handling of LGBT priorities, is the paragraph devoted to substantive policy, which states:

"My Administration has partnered with the LGBT community to advance a wide range of initiatives.  At the international level, I have joined efforts at the United Nations to decriminalize homosexuality around the world.  Here at home, I continue to support measures to bring the full spectrum of equal rights to LGBT Americans.  These measures including enhancing hate crimes laws, supporting civil unions and Federal rights for LGBT couples, outlawing discrimination in the workplace, ensuring adoption rights, and ending the existing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy in a way that strengthens our Armed Forces and our national security.  We must also commit ourselves to fighting the HIV/AIDS epidemic by both reducing the number of HIV infections and providing care and support services to people living with HIV/AIDS across the United States."

One suspects that this paragraph was not intended to be exhaustive, but one glaring omission from my viewpoint is the Uniting American Families Act, which is intended to provide recognition under US immigration laws to same-sex couples.  Another is the repeal of DOMA, which was promised during the 2008 campaign as well.  And, of course, the President seems stuck on civil unions when the world is rapidly moving on to same-sex marriage.  It's past time for him to rethink his position on this, now that Dick Cheney has come out for same-sex marriage.  Let it not be said that conservative Republicans are out front of President Obama on this issue - although it will be said and has been said on gay blogs over the past day and I hope the message is getting back to the White House that patience is wearing thin on this front.

As to the other issues mentioned in the Proclamation, I wish somebody could get him to read Nathaniel Frank's book on gays in the military, because I think it would help him to see that taking action now rather than waiting for Congress to do something, probably next year, would be the better course for our national security.  How many Arabic-fluent gay military personnel and seasoned combat veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan with vital skills have to be dismissed before we get over this folly? 

As to the other legislative issues, I believe an inclusive version of ENDA (the Employment Non-Discrimination Act) is scheduled for introduction in Congress this month, and it would be nice to see the Administration put some real advocacy behind it.  Public opinion polls show overwhelming support for banning workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation, so this should be a popular cause for the President to back with more than a press release. We could use the "bully pulpit" on this one.  And it's time for him to show some enthusiasm about the rapid unfolding of legal recognition for same-sex partners, as such enthusiasm is a necessary prerequisite to redeeming his promise to repeal DOMA.

But after all this sniping, I have to say that it is a wonderful feeling that we now have a President who thinks it is a good idea to issue a Gay Pride Month Proclamation.  It's been 8 years since we've had such a President in the White House, and it signals an important change of heart in our national government.  Whenever musing about the failure of the Obama Administration to move decisively forward on LGBT rights, it is well to think comparatively about where our agenda stood under the prior administration.  At least our current president's rhetoric is in the correct place on our issues much of the time, which is a start.

Who Will Teach the Commencement Speaker?

Today I attended the Vassar College commencement, to observe the graduation of my niece, Caroline (Cari) Adele Leonard.  The commencement speaker was Dr. Matthew C. Spitzer, a medical doctor and president of the U.S. chapter of Doctors Without Borders, an organization that rushes health care assistance to trouble spots around the world. 

Dr. Spitzer is an impressive individual, with an interesting resume, an extraordinary record of service, and important experiences to share.  But as a commencement speaker today he was a real flop.  I imagine that it would be the rare medical doctor who would be an ideal public speaker, since their education is devoted to other things than public speaking.  But if somebody from a profession that does not normally include lots of public speaking is recruited to give a commencement address, somebody from the inviting institution would do well to offer some guidance and assistance to avoid the kind of scene we had today.

The commencement was taking place outdoors.  Despite a dodgy weather prediction, it ended up being sunny and hot.  The commencement speaker was placed well along in the ceremony, after the seniors, administrators and faculty had paraded in and there had already been 4 speeches.  People were hot and parched.  And Dr. Spitzer droned on for more than half an hour with a speech that seemed like a collection of anecdotes and truisms without any overall structure or theme.  Many of the individual vignettes were interesting, and I'm sure there were points he could make that would be valuable for the graduating class.  But the speech he gave was hard to follow, not well enough organized to be effective, and full of trivial side-excursions to try the patience of the listeners.  Among the people with whom I spoke afterward, almost everyone was asking "what was the point of that?"

This is not to detract from Dr. Spitzer's accomplishments, or the valuable work that his organization does.  I have been a donor for many years and intend to continue being a donor.  But anybody who invited Spitzer to speak at a graduation ceremony should exercise some common sense and help him out with putting together a well-structured speech of appropriate length.

The Gay Agenda Takes Concrete Form - The Dallas Principles

The opponents of LGBT rights commonly harp on a "gay agenda" as something to be feared, as some nefarious scheming by sexual deviates seeking "special rights" of some unspecified sort.  As somebody who has been "out" in varying degrees for more than 30 years, I'd seen various manifestos and resolutions and program statements by a variety of gay organizations, but never thought that I was seeing any sort of definitive "gay agenda" that might be adopted as goals by the LGBT rights movement.  Now I have.

A bunch of self-identified activists held a meeting in Dallas and have adopted a formal written statement which they call "The Dallas Principles" and which is an attempt to state a concrete gay agenda.  For the full text, you can go to http://www.thedallasprinciples.org

Their statement has a prologue that insists that now is the time to move on the attainment of full LGBT civil rights.  The prologue is followed by a statement of 8 guiding principles, 7 "full civil rights goals," and a 7 point action plan.  In terms of a substantive gay agenda, the "full civil rights goals" are the heart of it, and I'm going to take the liberty of quoting in full here:

1.  Dignity and Equality.  Every lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender person has inherent dignity and worth, and has the right to live free of discrimination and harassment.

2.  Family.  Every LGBT person has the right to a family without legal barriers to immigration, civil marriage or raising children.

3.  Economic Opportunity.  Every LGBT person has the right to economic opportunity free from discrimination in employment, public housing, accommodation, public functions, credit, and federally funded programs and activities.

4.  Education.  Every LGBT child and youth has the right to an education that is affirming, inclusive and free from bullying.

5.  National Security.  Every LGBT person should have the opportunity to serve our country openly and equally in our military and foreign service.

6.  Crime.  Every LGBT person should enjoy life protected against bias crimes.

7.  Health Care.  Every person should have access to affordable, high quality, and culturally competent health care without discrimination.

I found no grounds for dissent to any of this, and in fact thought a few of the points were a bit on the modest side.  (In particular, I would not restrict the goal of achieving non-discrimination in housing to "public housing."  Housing discrimination statutes generally extend to all transactions in residential real estate, including leasing apartments from private owners and the purchase of residential property, and I see no reason to restrict that goal to "public housing," which means housing owned or operated under contract to governmental authorities in order to provide housing to the poor.)   I would also note that we are at least part of the way there in some jurisdictions towards achieving many of the points on this agenda, but the focus of The Dallas Principles seems to be on the federal level, since they are really a call to the Obama Administration and the Democratic majorities in Congress, and are not focused on the states where, ironically, much of the work remains to be done on some of the most important points.

I have signed on to the statement, and I encourage others to go the website and do the same.

The NY Times, Giuliani, and the Koeppel-Hsiao Wedding Announcement

Inquiring minds want to know about how the NY Times has handled -- or rather, not handled -- the story about the same-sex marriage of the couple who hosted gay-marriage-opponent Rudy Giuliani when it proved inconvenient for him to continue living in Gracie Mansion due to his adulterous affair.

Today's Styles Section includes a report on the wedding Saturday of Howard Koeppel and Mark A. Hsiao in Old Greenwich, Connecticut.  Koeppel and Hsaio have been a couple since 1991, and surfaced in the news when the mayor camped out in their apartment during that embarrassing period.  That he was so friendly with the Koeppel-Hsaios as to become a protracted live-in guest was cited by Log Cabin Republican supporters of the mayor as evidence of how gay-friendly he really was.

But now Rudy is making noises about running for office again -- Governor?  Senator? -- and suddenly he's front-and-center with the anti-gay-marriage crowd, as deemed "necessary" to run for a state-wide GOP nomination in New York, because of the significance of suburban and rural voters in Republican primaries, who are presumed to despise same-sex marriage. Is this just one more example of the political expediency that seems to break out whenever somebody who should know better takes a particular position solely for the purposes of election?  (I know, I know, witness Barack Obama strategically retreating from his written support for same-sex marriage as a state legislative candidate to his opposition as a presidential candidate....  I'm not claiming that Rudy Giuliani has a monopoly on political hypocrisy.)

But what about the NY Times in all this? There is the wedding article, graced by a photo of the smiling couple and and 9 paragraphs of text about their lives and history, but nary a word of their famous house-guest, and no attempt for a reaction quote from him about how he loves Howard and Mark but of course disapproves of their marriage.  (Was he a guest?  Was he invited?  Did he decline an invitation?  Did he send a wedding gift?  Is he ignoring the entire thing?  Does anybody at The Times still have the instinct for a news story?  What ever happened to this great newspaper?  Since when did "discretion" emerge as the leading value in gathering and presenting the news?  Might we hope for better from The Post and the The Daily News?  Have to check their websites....

Well, down below the wedding story, there is a box of italicized print referring the reader to the NY Times website, where a "video feature" can be found where Koeppel and Hsiao reminisce... and, oh yes, at the very bottom of the box, it is revealed that their reminiscences will include their experience hosting the mayor for six months.

But has the Times given up on being a real newsprint and ink newspaper?  There is a news story here that is not being reported.  There is a politician who craves again the power of office who is taking a strategic position on a question of public importance.  Where is our inquiring press?

Equality Forum Begins Today in Philadelphia

Prof. John G. Culhane of Widener University School of Law has alerted us that Equality Forum, a one-week event providing a variety of public programs culminating in a massive celebration next weekend, is beginning today in Philadelphia. 

For full information and schedule of events, check out their website:

http://www.equalityforum.com

Prof. Culhane will be blogging daily about what is happening at Equality Forum:

http://www.wordinedgewise.org