The Mayor of Castro Street

[michaelflanagansf]

Well, I guess it's the romantic in me, too, Michael, but I really wish they had.  I keep wondering whether there's any way the story could have had a different outcome for both of them (with Harvey having been murdered, and Scott Smith dying from AIDS) if they had just stayed together all along.

It's that old butterfly flapping its wings creating a hurricane paradox, isn't it Deb?  I wonder about the effects he would have had on many lives - including Bill Kraus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Kraus

And Dick Pabich:

http://www.poz.com/articles/200_10448.shtml

And Jim Rivaldo:

http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=2323

And all of those many, many lives his being alive might have saved....

[Jenny]

Dianne Feinstein puzzles me. I understand that she was a"nice girl" from a wealthy family who was truly shocked by some of the things she saw among gays:she was educated in Catholic schools and no doubt absorbed their attitudes (though she herself was Jewish.) This was a woman who was always turned out in a decorous dress and heels, who didn't like showy displays of any kind. She was naive enough to not know what quaaludes were. She was a moderate who supported the police and real-estate interests, was pro-business and sponsored Dan White, but also voted for the gay rights ordinance and had the wedding of her friend Jo Daly to a lesbian partner held in her back yard so she could attend. I don't know where she stood on Prop. 6, but she did oppose Prop. 8 very publicly, though she was late to the party. She spoke out against the verdict in Dan White's case, saying As I look at the law it was two murders. She took awhile to do it, but she did appoint Harry Britt to fill Harvey's seat. She did appoint a police commissioner from the ranks, but he supported a pretty successful gay and lesbian police recruitment drive. She also put her friend Jo Daly on the police commission. A lot of this may have been to hold on to some of the gay vote, but I don't think all of it was.

I think her decisions on extending health insurance to domestic partners and to partners of city employees were wrong and inhumane, but I bet a lot of her opposition had to do with the costs the city would incur. The lady is pragmatic and a political animal in a way Harvey never could or would be. She  accumulated a great number of "firsts" for women in California politics, which led to more female participation, but she is not an activist of any stripe.

She and Harvey are diametrically opposed types; obviously he thought of her as one of the hated moderates. She didn't approve of his grandstanding and felt Kronenberg's speech at his memorial service was "inappropriate". IMO, she actually believed that too much "in your face" gay pride might lead to a backlash at the polls and in the streets; like Goodstein and the other moderate gay politicos, she thought that gays should be discreet, for fear of bringing out the conservative vote in droves. She still thinks so, apparently, since The San Francisco Chronicle reported in May that "Sen. Dianne Feinstein said the backlash four years ago helped bring out conservative voters who re-elected President Bush."

 I guess you can sum her up by saying she's a cautious woman who prefers consensus; I think she does have a mind of her own but she always knows which way the wind is blowing.

[michaelflanagansf]

Dianne Feinstein puzzles me.

Join the party!!!   

She puzzled me for the whole time she was mayor - that is, when she wasn't peeving me.  She really was a pawn of the downtown developers - I can't emphasize that enough.  A third of the high rise buildings in downtown San Francisco were built (or got permission to be built) during her administration.  In some ways this turned out to be an alright decision - it set San Francisco up for the boom during the dot com period.  But it also has to be said that the homeless problem got entirely out of hand during her administration.  She really didn't have much vision in the long run.

A lot of this may have been to hold on to some of the gay vote, but I don't think all of it was.

I agree with this too.  She liked a particular type of gay person.  It's no big surprise that she was Jo Daly's friend.  Jo Daly was a real moderate - her fights with radical gays continued through the days of Queer Nation.  Perhaps Diane thought we could all be trained to be respectable.

I think her decisions on extending health insurance to domestic partners and to partners of city employees were wrong and inhumane, but I bet a lot of her opposition had to do with the costs the city would incur. The lady is pragmatic and a political animal in a way Harvey never could or would be. She  accumulated a great number of "firsts" for women in California politics, which led to more female participation, but she is not an activist of any stripe.

Yes, although she's often seemed more militaristic than even the men in the Senate - sort of the same stripe as Hillary was when she said that we would 'obliterate' Iran during the primary - the only time I had real problems with her as a candidate.  They both have tendencies toward the Thatcherite condition where M.T. was called 'Attila the Hen.'

I agree that the health insurance decisions all related to the bottom line.  However we were dealing with a horrible medical health emergency at the time and it's something I don't think I'll ever be able to forget.  To become impoverished in midlife before death and to destroy not only the life of the sick person but whoever is their partner is a terrible thing.

She and Harvey are diametrically opposed types; obviously he thought of her as one of the hated moderates. She didn't approve of his grandstanding and felt Kronenberg's speech at his memorial service was "inappropriate". IMO, she actually believed that too much "in your face" gay pride might lead to a backlash at the polls and in the streets; like Goodstein and the other moderate gay politicos, she thought that gays should be discreet, for fear of bringing out the conservative vote in droves. She still thinks so, apparently, since The San Francisco Chronicle reported in May that "Sen. Dianne Feinstein said the backlash four years ago helped bring out conservative voters who re-elected President Bush."

 I guess you can sum her up by saying she's a cautious woman who prefers consensus; I think she does have a mind of her own but she always knows which way the wind is blowing.

It's hard to know which way she thinks it's blowing, however - she said that Newsome's marriages in City Hall were "too much, too fast, too soon."  And when she came out agains Prop 8 it was news:

http://ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=3320

[Jenny]

That's just it, Michael. I think she felt that Gavin Newsome was too far ahead of the pack, and was doing something illegal and riling up all the anti gay marriage folks. But in 2008, popular opinion in CA was more receptive to gay marriage, and the Supreme Court had adjudicated the issue and found the ban on gay marriage unconstitutional. If a good-sized chunk of her voters are for it and the court has found it legal, then she's behind it. I think she also found the anti-discrimination argument something she could really get behind--she's comfortable with the idea of GLBT folks as another minority; she's not comfortable with being seen as supporting their sexual mores when they diverge too far from the heterosexual norm. If they're trying to marry, they look a lot more like us.

I'm also betting that she felt that AIDS was a direct result of promiscuous behavior on the part of gays, and had some sympathy for the idea that supporting the extending of insurance benefits would be somehow "condoning" that behavior. What I really fault her for, though, is that she had lived through the death of her husband from colon cancer. She personally knew what going through that was like. And even if she had a large enough personal fortune to not "need" medical insurance, she had a darned good idea what the costs for chemotherapy and nursing and hospitalization were and how rapidly they could wipe out all the savings of a middle-class family if they weren't covered. She clearly had an empathy gap; too focused on the bottom line. I think that's where her willingness to support rapid downtown development and breaks for business interests came from, too: she believed that insuring revenue for the city (and jobs, to be fair) was essential; the cost to the poor who were displaced and priced out of housing wasn't large enough, in her view, to justify missing out on those benefits.

Dianne also seems to be all about security and protection; she likes order and procedure. So she supports the police, the firefighters, the armed services, etc. It takes a lot for her to support individual rights when she believes they are interfering with measures that protect us all against the threat of chaos.   

[janjo]

The romantic in me thinks it's a shame that he didn't get back together with Scott Smith before his death.  But by this time I think the relationship had moved on to where they were trying to deal with one another as friends.

Well, I guess it's the romantic in me, too, Michael, but I really wish they had.  I keep wondering whether there's any way the story could have had a different outcome for both of them (with Harvey having been murdered, and Scott Smith dying from AIDS) if they had just stayed together all along.

I don't know how romantic this is Debs?
More stability in peoples lives must be a good thing in mental and physical health terms, and is one reason why such a diservice is done to gay people by measures such as Prop 8.
It is not romantic to hope that people can find life partners who can mutually help and support each other.
On the other hand, Harvey did have a need for the young and vulnerable which may well have had something to do with his political motivations, a need to help, and a need to be needed.
What a shame such good people ended their lives in such tragedy.

[Nikki]

More stability in peoples lives must be a good thing in mental and physical health terms, and is one reason why such a diservice is done to gay people by measures such as Prop 8.
It is not romantic to hope that people can find life partners who can mutually help and support each other.

I agree Janjo.  Life partners who can mutually help and support each other can certainly bring stability to society and, by doing so, show that gay marriage is not an anomaly, but an important part of society.  How long will it take to prove this?

[Nikki]

Michael, the way the media declined to cover Hinckle's and others' stories on the murders, I wondered if the 'Chronicle' or the 'Examiner' reviewed Shilts' book favorably or unfavorably if at all?

[dejavu]

Well, I guess it's the romantic in me, too, Michael, but I really wish they had.  I keep wondering whether there's any way the story could have had a different outcome for both of them (with Harvey having been murdered, and Scott Smith dying from AIDS) if they had just stayed together all along.

I don't know how romantic this is Debs?
More stability in peoples lives must be a good thing in mental and physical health terms, and is one reason why such a diservice is done to gay people by measures such as Prop 8.
It is not romantic to hope that people can find life partners who can mutually help and support each other.
On the other hand, Harvey did have a need for the young and vulnerable which may well have had something to do with his political motivations, a need to help, and a need to be needed.
What a shame such good people ended their lives in such tragedy.

Of course, Jess, I agree that it's not romantic to hope that people can find life partners who can mutually help and support each other.  Not, at least, if we're talking about the present and future lives of present-day living people.

I was just thinking it was kind of "romantic" in a fairy-tale way (as opposed to "realistic" or "historical") to wish that the lives of people who lived in the past could be rewritten so they would have had a happier outcome.  Nothing we can do to change Harvey's and Scott's history now.  But, still, I wish it had turned out differently.

[michaelflanagansf]

Michael, the way the media declined to cover Hinckle's and others' stories on the murders, I wondered if the 'Chronicle' or the 'Examiner' reviewed Shilts' book favorably or unfavorably if at all?

I'm going to check on that - I'll post reviews on Wednesday (first day I can get to SFPL - and they're the only ones who will have an index that far back).  I'll also post the reviews from the local gay press too, as that should be interesting as well.  As I said, I recall there being controversy in the gay community when the book came out - so it will be interesting to read that.

[dejavu]

29.)  There are four appendices to the book.  Which of the speeches at the end of the book were most moving to you - and why?  Do you feel that now that the movie 'Milk' is out that these writings will become better known?  Do you think that it was a good idea for Randy Shilts to include the appendices?

Actually, there are five appendices:  four speeches and one transcribed political will.

I enjoyed reading all of the appendices and was glad that Randy Shilts included them.  Some quotes from them had been included in the body of the book, but this was an opportunity to read them in full, and get a better picture of what Harvey must have looked and sounded like as he stood before a crowd or an audience, delivering his messages. 

If the movie “Milk” encourages some people to read the book, then the writings probably will become better known, and I do think some people will follow through by reading the book.  However, there are numerous casual moviegoers who attend movies for entertainment, and those people may not be inclined to follow up with what may seem like an arduous (in terms of time, compared to the two hours it takes to watch a movie) task of reading a book.

The first two speeches (“A Populist Looks at the City” and “A City of Neighborhoods”) deal with San Francisco’s particular situation, and look at many issues (poverty, education, neighborhoods) in addition to gay issues.  I found them very educational, but they have more of a nitty-gritty feel to them, and are dryer compared to the third and fourth speech.  The latter speeches (“The Hope Speech” and “That’s What America Is”) have a wider national appeal, IMO.  They are tied more specifically to the gay rights movement, and I found them more inspirational.

There are sections of all the speeches which are moving to me, but I would say the most moving in its entirety is the fourth one, “That’s What America Is.”  The pacing and delivery are effective.  The tone is eloquent, when Harvey talks about freedom and equality and references the Statue of Liberty, the Declaration of Independence, and the national anthem.

[dejavu]

Michael, I've now finished the questions on the book, but will be looking forward to seeing your additional links, reviews, etc.

I just want to thank you for coming up with some very thought-provoking questions.  For me, the answers weren't at all obvious, and I had to dig into the book yet again to piece together the facts about some of the situations, in order to form an intelligent opinion.  It's been really enjoyable, and I look forward to discussing the movie (but, obviously, without a DVD at hand).



By the way, I don't remember you answering my earlier question about the location of the People's Temple: where was the Filmore district?  Buildings had evidently been torn down there, but what was the previous demographic of that area?  Poor?  Minority?  African-American?  Or mostly a warehouse district without many residences?

And I had also been curious as to whether the location where Robert Hillsborough first met up with his attackers (at a hamburger stand in a Latino area east of the Castro) is still a Latino area, or is it mostly a gay area now?

For that matter, I have a new question which arises from the last chapter of the book (which talked about how the Castro changed after Harvey died, but prior to 1984 when this book was written).  Is the Castro still almost all a gay area, or has it become in any way a more integrated gay/straight area over the past 25 years?

[michaelflanagansf]

Okay!  As I said, I'll get cracking on that on Wednesday.

People's temple was at the corner of Geary and Filmore.  The area went through a 'redevelopment' in the late 60s, early 70s which displaced large numbers of African-American residents who had lived there for decades - the Filmore had been the jazz district of San Francisco (along with North Beach, to a lesser extent).

Robert Hillsborough's saga began in the Mission - at 17th and Folsom, I think (I'll check) and ended in the Castro.

I'll write more on both of these things when I get home from work tonight.  Stay tuned.

And I'll also address the 'Castro as a neighborhood' issue.  It's complex.

You're welcome regarding the questions.  This has been a labor of love for me - and I'm hoping we can keep the thread alive for a while - I know there are people (Linda, for example) who are just getting around to reading the book now and may want to revisit some of our questions.  Thanks so much to everyone here for your participation - you've been a stellar group.

Michael, I've now finished the questions on the book, but will be looking forward to seeing your additional links, reviews, etc.

I just want to thank you for coming up with some very thought-provoking questions.  For me, the answers weren't at all obvious, and I had to dig into the book yet again to piece together the facts about some of the situations, in order to form an intelligent opinion.  It's been really enjoyable, and I look forward to discussing the movie (but, obviously, without a DVD at hand).



By the way, I don't remember you answering my earlier question about the location of the People's Temple: where was the Filmore district?  Buildings had evidently been torn down there, but what was the previous demographic of that area?  Poor?  Minority?  African-American?  Or mostly a warehouse district without many residences?

And I had also been curious as to whether the location where Robert Hillsborough first met up with his attackers (at a hamburger stand in a Latino area east of the Castro) is still a Latino area, or is it mostly a gay area now?

For that matter, I have a new question which arises from the last chapter of the book (which talked about how the Castro changed after Harvey died, but prior to 1984 when this book was written).  Is the Castro still almost all a gay area, or has it become in any way a more integrated gay/straight area over the past 25 years?

[janjo]

Michael,

I finished the book last night. I read it in four or five days and couldn't put it down. The film has haunted me, and so has the book. I intend to buy the DVD as soon as it comes out, and then to re-read the book.
Harvey Milk and his whole story was completely unknown to me.
Thank you so much for opening my eyes to this.

I will be very interested to hear how you think the Castro District has changed from Harvey's time up to the present day.

[Nikki]

 29.)  There are four appendices to the book.  Which of the speeches at the end of the book were most moving to you - and why?  Do you feel that now that the movie 'Milk' is out that these writings will become better known?  Do you think that it was a good idea for Randy Shilts to include the appendices?

I'm glad Shilts included the appendices; they fleshed out Harvey's bio, and gave me a chance to read the speeches in his own words.

The film may attract people who want to read the speeches and the will, but the interest will die off after the film disappears from theaters IMO.

I think "A Populist Looks at the City" is important because, as Shilts writes,  the basic themes of this speech remained the core of Milk's four campaigns and his year in office.  If one wanted to know what Harvey's platform was, his political aims, and what he wanted for San Francisco, it's all layed out here and it is important to understand Harvey the candidate. 

Shilts calls it the quintessential stump speech.  For that special quality that captured the popular imagination and inspired thousands, "The Hope Speech" will probably be best remembered.  From its opening: My name is Harvey Milk and I'm here to recruit you. until the end: So if there is a message I have to give, it is that I've found one overriding thing about my personal election, it's the fact  that if a gay person can be elected, it's a green light.  And you and you and you, you have to give people hope.  This was Harvey's mantra, his constant message and belief: "You've gotta give them hope." 





edited to fix quote

[Nikki]

Michael, the way the media declined to cover Hinckle's and others' stories on the murders, I wondered if the 'Chronicle' or the 'Examiner' reviewed Shilts' book favorably or unfavorably if at all?

I'm going to check on that - I'll post reviews on Wednesday (first day I can get to SFPL - and they're the only ones who will have an index that far back).  I'll also post the reviews from the local gay press too, as that should be interesting as well.  As I said, I recall there being controversy in the gay community when the book came out - so it will be interesting to read that.

This should be interesting, especially  re the controversy in the gay community concerning the book.

Thanks.