Comments by TerryLeftgoff

Page 1 of 2 | Next

Posted on September 24 at 7:36 p.m.

And yes, I am real, the same person who signed the GLBA statement. Thanks to others for giving witness to my existence; my parents would be pleased.

On Rebuke Chik-fil-A

Posted on September 24 at 7:33 p.m.

I would like to thank some of the posters whose veiled anti-gay invective reminds us why anti-discrimination laws are so desperately needed.

Kingprawn: there was no deflection intended. It is, rather, an observation that racism and bigotry tend to flourish in dark anonymity. Thus some comments are rather nasty and mean spirited.

We've tried to stick to the facts of the situation rather than allow it to get blown out of proportion for political reasons, which ironically is what they are accusing others of doing.

Like Bill Clinton said, 'you've gotta have some brass to accuse someone of doing what you've done.'

On Rebuke Chik-fil-A

Posted on September 21 at 3:06 p.m.

So nice for so many to hide behind anonymous monikers to launch inflammatory factually inaccurate diatribes.

However, I will say this, we agree Mr. Cathy is free to do business anywhere he chooses and enjoy his free speech rights, just as we are free to exercise our free speech rights to urge people not to patronize his businesses and to launch a boycott which is a time honored civil rights protest.

As for taking him to court, his company and their franchises already have complaints pending for violations of various city human rights ordinances. Were they to expand into the west and north east, no doubt there would be plenty more. The south is notable for its history of poor human rights protections and anti-discrimination laws.

We believe our city officials should be fully informed.

Likewise, our ABR members, by serving on a city commission, do not surrender their free speech rights. In fact, they are sworn to uphold the constitution and obey the law. And in this instance they performed strictly in accordance with professional standards and how they are trained, which is to abstain if they felt they could not judge a project so as to avoid the appearance of any bias. So they did. Are they not entitled to their constitutional free speech rights?

Where is the evidence any ABR member took any affirmative action to deny the approval of this business? They did not. An abstention is the same as a recusal. We believe the ABR members showed appropriate restraint and judgment by abstaining. Calls for them to resign as if they had blocked the project, which they did not, smell to us of veiled homophobia and a witch hunt.

On Rebuke Chik-fil-A

Posted on September 21 at 12:06 p.m.

Editors, thank you for printing our statement. The formatting appears to have gotten jumbled as it all runs together.

Happy to see such a spirited online discussion. To the last post, I would trust Cathy to speak for himself when he said, 'Guilty as charged."

On Rebuke Chik-fil-A

Posted on June 17 at 4:58 p.m.

Barry was a quiet force of nature like a quiet river that carves solid granite.

I will never forget, as a young student, towing behind his sailboat with my colleagues in the UCSB ES Dept. That was over 30 yrs ago. And we all came to see him only last year.

His spirit lives in the fires he lit in those he inspired.

On Arent H. "Barry" Schuyler 1923 – 2011

Posted on July 23 at 5:55 p.m.

Thanks for this article Nick.

Few in SB know of the Palm Center's work or its national impact.

They have become quite the national power house tucked away at UCSB. The scholarly studies they've published would fill a library and has greatly advanced the movement to end DADT.

Aaron Belkin and Nathaniel Frank are rightly credited with focusing a laser on the issue, gathering documentary evidence and organizing heavy military brass for lifting the ban.

What is interesting is the reasons the radical right has fought this battle so fiercely. They know, as do we, the American public finds it distinctly un-American to deny rights to the very soldiers who proudly fight for the rights and freedoms the rest of us enjoy. Once discrimination falls in the military, societal discrimination will also fall. So it denies the radical right the ability to continue to dehumanize and demonize the gay community.

So this was their line in the sand. Unfortunately for them, the tide of history is washing it away.

It is true that Obama has been criticized for moving too cautiously given how his own Chair of the Jt Chiefs has called the policy discriminatory and counterproductive. Most of our Western and NATO allies already allow gays to serve openly. And our military already serves closely and depends upon them in Afganistan, Iraq and elsewhere. It is an issue the US continues to sorely lag behind in the industrialized world.

On Doing Away with 'Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell'

Posted on January 11 at 1:25 p.m.

Interesting article. Perhaps it is an editing mistake, but the article has some facts mixed up.

CEQA was not born in 2007 from SB97. CEQA was adopted in 1970. Part of the political impetus for it's origins lay in the 1969 Santa Barbara Oil Spill and the birth of the modern American environmental movement.

SB97 which addressed green house gas emissions was adopted in 2007. The referenced changes are to implement SB97 by amending the state CEQA Guidelines. SB97 was part of a progression of global warming legislation including AB32, SB375, and Executive Order S-3-05.

A full explanation entitled, 'Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines - Addressing Analysis and Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pursuant to SB97,' can be found at:

From the California Natural Resources Agency:

"The impetus for CEQA can be traced to the passage of the first federal environmental protection statute in 1969, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In response to this federal law, the California State Assembly created the Assembly Select Committee on Environmental Quality to study the possibility of supplementing NEPA through state law. This legislative committee, in 1970, issued a report entitled The Environmental Bill of Rights, which called for a California counterpart to NEPA. Later that same year, acting on the recommendations of the select committee, the legislature passed, and Governor Reagan signed, the CEQA statute."

On State Considers CEQA Amendments

Posted on January 7 at 10:55 p.m.

Thank you for a great article, Nick.

Truly a special lady who was ennobled by public service. We were all the benefactors. I will miss her.

A minor factoid: I believe there were 37 applicants for Tom Rogers' council seat.

On Winter for the Matriarch

Posted on December 5 at 11:34 p.m.

Just came across your article. I remember those days well. I was there.

At the time Hannity had a thick New Jersey accent and had no apparent relationship to UCSB that would quality him for a cherished broadcasting spot. Word was he was passing through town, had no connection to SB or UCSB, cozied up to a manager, and got himself on the air at the expense of students who legitimately wanted air time at the student station.

The incident began when Hannity railed against the gay community and when someone called in to challenge him, he used some pointed homophobic and demeaning slurs against her. The caller happened to be a KCSB broadcaster and UCSB staff member who produced a noted weekly gay and lesbian public affairs talk show.

It was a show I appeared on frequently during that period, a particularly heady time of growing activism following the defeat of state AIDS quarantine initiatives, and National and State Marches for LGBT Rights. I served as chair of local campaign committees for these efforts and happened to also then serve on the Board of the local ACLU and was chair of its Human Rights Committee.

The campus controversy came to a head when Hannity used the station to broadcast abusive personal comments about the producer's pregnancy. A broad controversy erupted that unified the Santa Barbara and campus gay and lesbian community and its social justice allies against Hannity, who would soon relish sharpening his chops as a right wing bully.

Complaints were lodged with UCSB based upon the University's adopted policies prohibiting discrimination, a hostile workplace, and harassment.

It soon surfaced that Hannity actually had no relationship with UCSB, a pre-requisite for radio station access. It became a rallying cry. The prime radio air time was subsequently reallocated to legitimate students and staff; Hannity found himself without a platform.

He then used recordings of his KCSB right wing diatribes to score his first radio gig. And the rest, as they say, is history.

So Hannity rightly owes his entire career and future fame to the Santa Barbara gay and lesbian community.

But we aren't waiting for his gift basket.

On Let Freeform Ring

Posted on December 6 at 10 a.m.

BillClausen asks:

"By the come Martin Luther King, who gave his life for his beliefs, didn't speak up on this issue?"

I realize this is probably a rhetorical question that might imply the gay community is not entitled to its own civil rights movement. But I think it deserves a reply.

Obviously the gay community was not MLK's primary issue or objective. MLK had a full plate and an artificially short time to advance it. But his comments always referred to ALL people treated equally by judging 'the content of their character.'. It is true he may not have mentioned sexual orientation, which was not spoken of as much in those days. So the question should be, what might MLK say today?

We needn't look far to find out. We need only look to his widow, Coretta Scott King, who carried the flame of the civil rights struggle for MLK after his death. Mrs. King spoke lovingly, frequently, eloquently, and forcefully about the need to extend equal civil rights to the gay community, particularly in the years before she died.

BTW, the same could be asked about Latino civil rights leaders. And in fact, many of the leaders ot the Chicano/Latino civil rights movement , such as Delores Huerta, have also spoken forcefully about the need for equal civil rights for gays and lesbians.

Clearly, some cannot be more equal than others; equal rights for one means equal rights for all.

On None

Page 1 of 2 | Next

event calendar sponsored by: