Tomorrow's Post has this story on H Street (which I haven't had time to read more than once). Also see the video featuring Scott (manager of the Argonaut) & Joe Englert talking about H Street. As previously posted, here is the video of Quike Morales (former Argonaut bartender) taking about being shot last fall and his efforts to raise funds for other victims of neighborhood violence (the video accompanies this story, but was posted earlier). Check out the Post's H Street photo set here. Also see the updated nightlife map. Here's my hangouts and haunts post.
A few early comments on the story:
-the Catherine Fuller reference: Catherine Fuller was a a cleaning lady who was raped by a group of young men (there were convictions, but I'm not sure if it covered the entire group, there some issues with the witness reports). She was sodomized with a pipe such that it perferated certain vital organs and she would have died of those wounds, but her then proceeded to beat and kicked her. It's also my recollection that she had a small amount of money (perhaps $50) on her at the time. It happened in broad daylight (in an alley). That was 1984.
-Rae no longer works at the Argonaut, but that's because she got a promotion at her daytime job, and is no longer making the twice weekly commute from her place in Baltimore to DC to pour drinks at the tavern. I don't where that review was posted, but it definitely wasn't here (and I couldn't find it with a Google search). That's the first time I've heard that story, sometimes people suck. Rae was a good bartender.
-An Aquarius party is (I had to look this up) apparently a party for people with the zodiac sign of Aquarius.
54 comments:
The chalk story reminds me of a neighbor who informed a listserv group that he improved the neighborhood "just by moving into his house." His new house was built on a community garden. I remembered his statement, and was sorely tempted to remind him about every time, I had to walk on the icy sidewalk in front of his house this winter. I guess he was too important, to be bothered to shovel his sidewalk.
The more people communicate and share compassion for people different than them, the more we all get a long. I have been treated kindly by old women, crackheads, gangbangers and singlemoms on H as long as I had a smile on my face and a kind word at the ready. Let's all move on to better places and conversations in our lives.
The article left me pretty disappointed. It seemed to lack a point other than the fact that gentrification's going on on H Street and that can cause racial issues. Is this news?
I appreciated hearing more about Quike's horrendous assault. But the author treats these horrible cases so oddly. "She is asked whether she knows what happened at 8th and H to Catherine Fuller. She says no. And you don't tell her." So the author is condemning a woman for not knowing something that she then refuses to tell her? Is she implying that Quike's "details would seem impolite in polite company." too?
The writing seemed pretty juvenile. (Hardly subtle -"She pours drinks, integrating brown liqueurs and white liquor.")
And can anyone explain the ending to me? "He bends to pick up a dime on the sidewalk, and 13 pennies fall out of his pocket." What???
I thought it took a bit of information and tried to make more of an issue than exists. Was I expecting too much from the Post?
I'm eager to see the tone of the chat today, as the article did hit a few of the "newcomers vs. long-time residents" notes that a lot of people fixate on. With 85 vacant storefronts on H Street and quite a few of the occupied properties featuring check-cashing, liquor sales and carry-out, it's hard for me to understand why people oppose the influx of businesses that seek to restore H Street to the 'destination' status it once enjoyed.
Unfortunately, there are people like the ones described in the chalk story whose self-important (and, frankly, racist) attitudes will continue to exacerbate the divide between new residents and old. And they will always get attention because of their inflammatory words and actions. But I'd like to think that they're a small-minded minority of those of us who have moved into the area and are working to make it a more enjoyable place for everyone to live.
Am I naive to not really believe the chalk story? Do people REALLY say things like that? And why did no one ask her to leave? Why didn't other patrons tell her where to go? etc.? I just don't believe that that happened.
In addition to the "Chalk Story", I think there are several other pieces to her story that just don't fit. In the very first paragraph, I didn't buy the "white woman and her daughter walking down the street with the black men yelling at her". I also don't believe a white man walked into the kitchen of the Rib Tip and asked to inspect the woman's kitchen. I'm sure Ms. Brown (the author of the article) is a nice person, but I think her story is 90% creative writing and 10% reporting. It will be interesting to watch The Post online chat with her beginning today at 11:00.
No, you're not naive. The chalk anecdote as related sounds highly suspect. The article itself was tendentious rubbish; a transparent attempt to play up racial and "class" tensions by a reporter angling for a Pulitzer for socially conscious reporting. The inexplicable reference to the horrific murder 23 years ago was ludicrous. The whole thing sounds like it belongs in a college newspaper.
Although I don't think I'm the "white man who moved in up the street," I did stop into Rib Tip one afternoon soon after they opened to ask them about the type of barbecue they cooked. The owner seemed quite pleased to talk barbecue, and he showed me their kitchen facilities (not yet fully operational) and even let me taste both of their sauces (the hot has a great latent heat).
It's distinctly possible that a similar scenario unfolded with another customer, and Ms. Brown either misunderstood or felt it made for a better story as a request to inspect the kitchen before deigning to sample the food.
I'm not sure I go so far as to accuse the author of making things up. Remember that pretty outlandish things are said and done everyday, but the constitute the freak occurance, and the minority of our interactions with others. If you were to take a bunch of these instances and slant them the way you want them to go, you'll have a story that isn't fiction, but isn't exactly representative of reality either.
I think where this story comes up short is that the author gives you only small snippets of each whole, and some of pieces she omits really change the slant of what she's saying (I'm talking about various details and recent -say 5 years- history) that give a little context. When I see stuff like that i wonder how much necessary context is missing from the episodes she mentions. The chalk story isn't go to get any better no matter how much context you give it. But a woman walking down the street with her daughter? That's all about context. The Rib Tip thing, not implausible. But we don't know if the guy actually wanted to "inspect" the kitchen because he worried about what he might find, or if he just asked to check out the kitchen because he was curious about the space and how they were using it. Essentially the same story, but how you choose to tell it makes all the difference.
Exactly the type of thing I'm talking about Mike. That could easily be the genesis for a story about a white who asked to inspect the kitchen first. Omit a context, use the word "inspect" and it fits in well with the over picture the author paints, no?
Absolutely, Inked.
I just submitted a question to the chat asking about the role of minority-owned businesses (Rib Tip, H Street Martini, Sidamo, Dissident Design) in the gentrification.
I wonder if an effort could be made to highlight such positives as revitalization continues. If long-time residents like Cliff Humphries (H Street Martini) are also succeeding as a result of the influx of new development, isn't this a win for everyone?
I think that if anyone who cooperated with this article or was interviewed for it feels that their comments were taken out of context or that they were misquoted or has a strong suspicion that certain stories were simply made up (the opening story with the "white woman and her daughter followed by two black men" comes to mind: did the reporter actually witness this scene?) they should ask the Washington Post to investigate the veracity of this story. There have been too many examples recently of reporters engaging in creative fiction for a good story to just assume the Post did due dilligence on this.
The most aggressively stupid statement in the aerticle is "someone is complaining about Cluck-U Chicken, arguing it was not the kind of sit-down restaurant they wanted." It completely ignores the dispute over the zoning regs, and the District's longstanding (and indisputable) laxity in granting improper permits to fast-food joints on H St. Instead of recognizing this important context, the Post writer trivializes the issue as one of personal preference.
Wow.
"Aggressively stupid" may be just a little harsh.
Though the anecdote overlooks the actual issue at hand in the dispute over Cluck-U, calling it "aggressively stupid" seems to go a bit further than is warranted in response to the article.
The longer her chat goes, the more she seems to be trying to spin her article as seeking out the "inclusivity" instead of playing up the divisions. Don't know that it comes across that way at all, though.
(I deleted this to repost with the following addition so as to avoid back-to-back posting)
Mr. Englert:
I can't help but be a little amused that you would credit the CityPaper for the fact-checking after the incident on their blog regarding the Singles Moratorium. I am the "Joe HStreet" they assumed was you. Sorry for any inconvenience it caused.
Re the chalk incident, somebody just posted this on the Post chat:
The only factual parts of that story were that we were indeed writing with chalk on the tables (what else would a bucket of sidewalk chalk on the table be for) and that a confrontation ensued. Contrary to what appeared in the story, the confrontation did not take on any race/class overtones until Ms. Rawls said "Y'all wouldn't act like this in your own neighborhood." We replied, as proud Capitol Hill residents, "this is our neighborhood." To which Ms. Rawls replied, "You are the kind of people that are ruining this neighborhood."
I found the two posts (that had first-hand knowledge) about the chalk incident in the WP chat interesting; shows there are two sides to every story. No one comes out clean in that one.
The chat irritated me as much as the article. Most of her answers were "this deserves to be looked at in another column." Fine, as long as someone else is writing it, and isn't so loose with the facts.
I found the article to be simplistic. It glosses over a very basic fact - there are some black people in our neighborhood that simply don't want to live next to whites. Until we're honest enough to admit that then any other discussion seems a bit off. I too found the Argonaut Chalk Debacle a bit odd. On the WP chat with the author several posters chimed in saying it wasn't as described in the article. I don't know. I wasn't there. But I found the whole quoted verbiage in the WP article to be awkward and didn't really sound like how people actually talk. Does anyone actually say "black ghetto neighborhood"? Not to beat a dead horse, but most people would simply say "ghetto neighborhood", and the unstated implication would be that it's predominately black (let's be honest, most neighborhoods people would call ghetto in DC are black... unlike, say, the Hollywood Cemetery neighborhood in Richmond, which was at one time quite the urban white ghetto).
The following was on the Post chat. If the chalk incident happened two years ago, how is this relevant to the current "Changing Face of H Street"?? It's ancient history regardless of whose version you believe.
"H St., NE: I feel that I have to respond to the story from Ms. Rawls. I was actually at the bar that night the incident occurred over two years ago. My boyfriend and I were sitting by the juke box and overheard the entire interaction. The white students were writing on the table but they did not say what Ms. Rawls said they did. As a resident of the area, and to Ms. Brown's point, "Assumptions get made." H St. is a great area and we need to remember that."
there's an interesting article in the post about the changing landscape in SE d.c., called "The Far Side of Rebirth".
it affects our area, because it implies that some businesses are leaving that area and relocating to NE d.c.
The purpose of the article was to be divisive. While the author attempted to be truly interested in the nuances of gentrification on the Post chat-line, it is clear from her article that she was more interested in stringing together a few second-hand anecdotes to portray a neighborhood in crisis.
I think most 'newcomers' moved over to NE because it's where they could afford a place in the city and they liked living somewhere that wasn't 'all white'. I wouldn't live in G'town even if I could afford it. But don't kid yourself into thinking developers give a damn about anything but making a fast buck. It's tough to watch entire apartment buildings be bought out and everyone be pushed out to make room for overpriced condos. And I guess, inadvertantly, we started it. I don't know what the answer is but it's easy to see where the anger comes from. Ignoring it and getting mad at the Post for 'stiring things up' doesn't address any of the issues. Maybe we need to join with our neighbors and fight for more affordable housing or stronger caps on tax increases. I've definitely heard white people say they can't wait for the neighborhood to 'change over'. That's the kind of attitude that pisses people off, not whether a few hipsters come to H for a drink at Argonaut.
Thanks Anonymous 1:24. I bought my house in Trinidad because my budget was that much and no more and because I wanted to be close to my friends on the Hill. End of story. As other commenters have said there are plenty of people of all races with negative attitudes but we can't change that. We can just get to know our neighbors and find common cause in making the neighborhood better.
I know that there are people who can't wait for the neighborhood to "change over" in the way you think they mean it (from black to white).
But I would guess that there are a lot of people who might say that meaning that they are looking forward to not being nervous walking home, to not seeing people peeing on the street, to having more restaurants and stores, to having less trash on the sidewalk.
Change over from the way things currently are doesn't have to mean changing from black to white.
The Catherine Fuller case is important to all of us because the accused (and found guilty) were typical young guys of the neighborhood. It was very, very shocking to the families, friends and neighbors of these guys. In later years, there reports of witnesses lying about who did what. Most of the guys are out of jail and may be living on your street, especially if you live south of H.
Very interesting comments. The discussion about memory etc. is very very interesting. Different perspectives mean we hear very different things all too often.
E.g., I wrote once something like "how come when people say 'your business isn't meeting my needs as a potential customer' that proprietors hear 'we don't want African-American businesses!'"
These are completely different statements, not at all connected.
I didn't like the story either, which I blogged about too.
And the thing about "music is bulletproof" -- it is, but then again, it wasn't for Tupac and Notorious B.I.G.
My sense is that Quike was robbed because people knew he was a bartender and likely to come home with a pocket full of money.
Traditional residents are a lot more attuned to the comings and goings of all residents. And new residents tend to be targets in many ways.
There was a very interesting discussion of this kind of behavior in an old Travis McGee mystery by John McDonald. Also relevant is the discussion of the "use value of place" by Logan and Molotch, and Anderson's _Code of the Streets_.
Anon 1:24,
I say I can't wait for the neighborhood to "change over" almost every single day and I'm African-American. By "change over," I mean less crime, less destitution, less public urination/defication, etc. I'm sure 99% of the people you hear say this have that in mind and not a hope that white residents will replace black residents, or that new residents will replace old. Instead they're probably hoping new responsible residents will replace existing irresponsible neighbors, regardless of color. People lose sight of the fact that most black residents in the neighborhood don't contribute to these problems and that it's only a small percentage of bad apples that do. I'm sure there are residents who have lived here 20+ years who have been waiting in vain for things to "change over" as well. Wanting a better neighborhood is not about race (although I'm sure that is not the case in many parts or our country where housing discrimination still looms). I hardly think racist white folks would want to live in a diverse DC neighborhood like this.
I initially questioned the validity of her storytelling, although as I read further I thought it maybe the way she recounted the incidents and/or the story's mere relevance for her piece. For instance, the chalk story didn't seem right when she wrote the "black ghetto neighborhood" comment. Just doesn't sound like what someone (blk or wht) drinking would say. Oh well, Joe later confirmed that the incident did occur.
As a black person, there has been occasions when I've walked down the street that black men have said to me that I don't need to be afraid of them. So I can't say that it's so far fetched that the incident might have occurred. My only comment is maybe it was just cold and the lady and her daughter were hurrying to their vehicle. So to just leave it out there as a racial issue w/o further context made that story a little suspect to me also.
Last, I totally didn't get the ending. Could someone enlighten me?
You said something there, brotha. Wish I could have put it so dead-on eloquent.
Come on, you guys. It's obvious what the author is getting at with that ending. You see, the sneaky white guy planted that dime in an effort to pilfer a three penny profit from that nice brotha who asked him for a smoke. Just another one of the white man's underhanded schemes!! Totally sums up what's going in the neighborhood in general, right???
richard, I don't really understand your comments about Quike and his "Music is Bulletproof" campaign.
Also, as I have said here before--he was not robbed. There's no evidence that it was even an attempted robbing. The main suspect, who was later shot and killed, had a history of shooting people with little or no provocation. That part of the story really bugs people for some reason but it's true. Sh*t happens sometimes (and I say that because it's the only conclusion I've been able to draw.)
H St. Neighbor
haha! nice one, brotha.
i think her point was that a shiny silver dime is worth more than thirteen pennies, although one would think that the pennies would feel like much more because there's more of them and they're heavier than a single dime. and i think she implies that it's too bad because the copper material of the pennies is actually worth even more than the metal of the tiny, inoffensive little dime that so grabbed his attention. i'm still trying to figure it out, but i think she's implying something about how we all just don't listen to each other as well as we could. you know? cuz otherwise, the guy would have heard the pennies fall on the ground and he would have picked them up, giving him a grand total of 23 cents, which is amost 1/8 of a cup of good ethiopian coffee. but wait! maybe she means that even though he's tall, he is still willing to work (bend over) for money, but the fact that his hearing is so bad, he's actually losing money....
i can't wait for her follow up story that will hopefully solve this complex mystery.
Mike,
It was actually DCist that made the Joe H Street mistake. Someone from City Paper (the guy who screens comments) did leave a comment on the DCist post indicating that he didn't belive that Joe H Street was Joe Englert, and criticizing DCist for not doing a little basic fact checking.
I think this line from the article is pretty telling --
"Later, you stand on the street and watch, like the narrator in some novel, who knows more than the characters moving through the plot, through the street, but who must remain a distant storyteller."
There's a basic lack of respect for the people she's reporting on here. Black folks need her to stand up for them because they are "invisible" and "neglected." White folks need her to educate them on crimes from 23 years ago.
In the big picture, it's not crazy to write an article that points out there is racial tension surrounding H St development. But simply taking a couple of (seemingly random) incidents and recounting them all through a racial prism is pretty weak.
Inked, in the history of F.T. what are the most posts you've gotten from any one topic? I'm curious if this will be it. Thanks.
I too found this article to be a bit condescending. The implication was that all blacks are somehow happy with crime and drunks on the street, and that all whites hate poor people and live to be demeaning to those around them. Neither stereotype is true, but this article did nothing to help dispel them. I very much appreciate the comments from black posters that say they too are looking forward to better security, better stores and restaurants, etc.
Re my comment, I guess I was saying that Music isn't really bulletproof unfortunately, even if Quike won't let it stop him (which of course is great).
re your comment about the likely behavior of the shooter, all I can say is holy f***. It's amazing to me that someone would go around killing people without provocation, without an intent to rob.
I don't mean to say that robbing and shooting is ok, just that I have observed that guns tend to be more involved in robberies over the past couple years, which I assume has to do with lessening the likelihood of resistance.
Inked,
Thanks for reminding me - you're right...it wasn't the CityPaper that failed to fact check...they just ran the blog that accused us all of being NIMBY's in the first place. Oh well - at least they got their facts straight, which is better than I just did!
There is distinct possibility that I may be responsible for that disappearing comment. I earlier tried to delete a post that had been deleted by the author (Mike) so he could remove a double posting. Now I had a computer problem at that moment, and I see that Mike's deleted post is still there, and the Englert post is gone. Normally any post deleted by the author would leave a trail (and I don't think an anonymous poster, Mr. Englert posts as anonymous, but signs his name) can delete a comment. So if I deleted it, my apologies. I think the gist of it was that he wasn't upset with the author, or offended by the piece. He had read other stories by her, and was familiar with her general tone (which he did not view negatively).
I don't think the story covers much new ground, or is exactly untrue, I just think it doesn't really get the context. But this is a difficult issue to cover the author is getting stories from people that are already filter through them, so some distortion is inevitable. I don't find the story offensive, or poorly written, but I also don't think it contributes much. I also think it is probably pretty close to impossible to write on a topic like this without offending at least someone, or having some say "look at all this stuff you didn't include."
I'm not sure of the top number of comments for a post. I'd need to dig a bit. I will say that I don't expect the kind of response to this piece that the Winds of Change story ellicited. But I also didn't much care for the Winds of Change story, and I don't think it ellicited that kind of reponse because it was somehow true, or cut to the bone. Maybe the problem the Winds of Change article was that it sort of pretended to be "real" "objective" journalism when it just wasn't. This is more clearly an opinion/analysis piece (the author is more clearly in the piece).
This story was pretty surreal--I'm glad to see so much discussion here today. I kept thinking about it through today and trying to pinpoint what bothered me about it.
It's weird how hard it is to forget race. Even though we all understand that it's about complex things like class and shared culture, it keeps popping up. I can't help but feel self-conscious of my blindingly white arms and legs flailing around like flags saying "I'm different!" when I go out jogging.
I love the take Rob and many others keep emphasizing: get to know your neighbors. Live with them. Work to make the place better. Nothing better to get rid of the self-consciousness than that.
Inked: I disagree a bit. I think the author was quite selective. She chose to use race as the focus of the entire article. Yet she ignored the most obvious and confrontational racial event - the street preachers at 8th and H. These guys don't even pretend - they flat out will tell you they hate whites and gays. So any article that leaves them out is suspect.
And I found the odd recounting of blacks and whites getting along to be, well, odd.... like they had to be told in detail lest we not believe it possible. Call me simple, but blacks and whites have positive interactions everyday. This is not news.
Last, there is no substantive mention of anyone other than blacks or whites. What, is there no one in DC other than black and white?
Like I said, the article doesn't try to paint an accurate picture of the whole. She gives you snippets, but if all you get is the snippets, it's misleading. When she isn't outright skewing the slant of a particular tale, she's giving you just enough that the article's overall slant will suggest a certain interpretation of the those sparse facts. The guys at 8th and H shout some awful stuff, but they are so ridiculous as to be non-threating. No rational person could possibly take the content of their speech too seriously (though check out Paul Schwartzman's crappy Winds of Change article). The story about the white people writing with chalk is also an outlier, but it is more shocking because it doesn't involve some wackjob standing on the corner, but rather it involves what you envision as regular old people sitting in a neighborhood tavern.
Why is it "aggressively stupid" for the writer to say that "Cluck-U-Chicken was not the kind of sit-down restaurant they wanted[?]" It's true. So until one is ready to admit their real motivations, we will get no where in these discussions.
Sure the zoning regs were at issue but Cluck-U stood steadfast and prevailed. The newcomers didn't want to see another fastfood-like restaurant on H St. even though no zoning regs were being violated.
Here's a comment from the "Rae" mentioned in the article. Found this in the comment section of the City Paper's blog City Desk:
Rae Says:
Mar. 19, 2007, at 5:18 pm
I’m the one quoted in the article, and I’d like to say a couple of things about this. First of all, the incident in question did not go down exactly as the article states…there were a few minor differences. I wasn’t waiting on this group (I wasn’t working at the Argonaut at the time) but it’s true that I did confront the group about their behavior at the table after they’d been asked by the bartender to stop drawing on the table. Not everyone in the group was rude, but there was one woman and one man in particular who I certainly felt took the altercation to a racial level (and yes, they were drinking). I don’t accept responsibility for having taken it to a racial level. I related this incident to DeNeen NOT because I thought that it was representative of the average H St. encounter (because it DEFINITELY is not!) but because it was so extreme (yes, one of the women really did say that I should be glad she bought a $500,000 house in my “ghetto black neighborhood”). I agree that most racially-charged incidents these days are more subtle. This was not one of them. I have experienced my share of subtle and overt racism in my life (being asked if I had a tail, being called a nigger and having a bottle thrown at me, etc etc etc) and this ranked up there with those two incidents. The Argonaut is a comfortable place to be–H Street is a comfortable place to be. There is a lot of character and love on that street. While I’m glad this is sparking conversation, I would like the chance to have a less emotionally-charged conversation with those involved. Don’t know how that could happen, but I’d be open to it. I’m not of the mindset that gentrification ruins a neighborhood, but these kinds of miscommunications can.
I agree with "Hillman 9:56 a.m." For her to have ignored the racist homophobes on H & 8th clearly demonstrates her race baiting agenda to say that the whites are gentrifying the neighborhood and the blacks don't like it. And Inked, I respectfully disagree, as a gay white male, I find their speech extreemly threatning and no different then shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. In my mind, they are inciting (directly or indirectly) physical harm to gays and whites and I do not understand how that can be protected by "Free Speech". - Near 8th Resident
Basically speech is protected unless:
(a) the speech calls directly for harm (e.g. "we should set the church on fire")
(b) the harm called for is likely
(c) the harm called for is imminent.
Unless you've got all three, your speech is protected. But the business owners over there would have a good (I think) case if the sought to get the guys banned because these guys are aggressive towards passersby, and they hurt the businesses because the discourage patrons (through their behavior) from shopping there.
As much as I would like to agree with you, Near 8th Rez, the U.S. actually allows for what is known as Hate Speech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech).
There are some countries that regulate this, but the U.S. is founded on it.
I'm a straight male, and even I have to admit that I find them rather intimidating.
I don't buy the "they're harmless" argument. They are harmful on a variety of levels.
One of these days, something will provide the tipping point, and they'll have to go elsewhere.
I'm not saying that the preachers are harmless. i'm justing their speech falls within the protected area. I can understand how writer might choose to omit mention of them if the focus of the article was on interactions between everyday people of difference races (the author claimed that the focus of this article was along those lines). Because these guys aren't everyday people any more than the KKK Grand Wizard you once saw on Jerry Springer. They are outside the norm.
I have to disagree. The writer shouldn't have omitted the preachers because - although they are outside the norm - they are obviously accepted to some extent on H street right now. And that still says a lot about the neighborhood. I don't see this type of preaching in a lot of other neighborhoods.
Yes, legally they are protected, but if everyone was as offended by this hate speech, don't you think that they would feel unwelcome? I don't get the impression that everyone's as horrified by the words coming out of their mouths as I am.
the real problem is that those guys have become part of the norm...
they're there every weekend, and have been for a long time.
and everyone just sort of tolerates it.
that's the norm on H.
anon 2:10,
Klav on his quest for quiet blog has documented many instances of black residents yelling at these guys so I wouldn't be so quick to assume they are totally welcome in the neighborhood. Also, they congregate in other neighborhoods in the city as well, not just H Street.
My parents flew in for the weekend and we happened to drive by these folks. My parents were quite alarmed, and my father actually rolled up his window (and believe me, my parents spend most of their time in NY, Mexico City, Stockholm, Sao Paulo, etc. They are very, very far from suburban).
Perhaps if you live near them and see them all the time, you develop a tolerance for them. For anyone else, it's a bit disconcerting. Heck, even Klav can't stand their noise (let alond profane ideas)!
I'm not sure they should have been included in the article though. It would have made it a bit more balanced, and I don't think that's what she was after. It was in the style section, and she was expressing her opinion in a local/national media so that she could help to further some agenda she had/has. I don't write op-eds to be balanced, I write them for a reason.
Including these guys would have really tainted her already-sad piece.
I also agree that the street preachers aren't harmless. They do get little converts from time to time, and those are the ones that are really scary. It's only a matter of time before some of their new converts, eager to prove their devotion, go out to kick some gay white boy butt.
And I guarantee you that if it was the KKK on that corner preaching their crap the city would have magically found a way to close it down months ago. At a bare minimum they would have found a way to get rid of the megaphones.
But I am glad to hear that black residents have denounced them. I know it's hard to keep that up, since the street preachers probably thrive on denunciation and confrontation.
One thing that may be interesting - if some group was willing to show up every time these losers show up and let them know that for every minute of their hatefilled rhetoric a donation was being made to a gay rights organization that may make them think twice about it.
This was used to some success against Fred Phelps, the clown that goes around the country shouting hate at funerals.
But, then, they may love the attention as well.
But ignoring them doesn't seem to be working well.
it's always funny until someone gets their eye poked out.
this situation is ITCHING for an eye to get poked out, and one day it'll happen.
dc really needs to shut the loophole before something bad happens.
Post a Comment