The Editor's Desk

I hate this case in so many ways — I hate the leader of the defendants probably more than is necessary, and unfortunately, I hate the verdict:

“The brokenhearted father of a Marine killed in Iraq won a long-shot legal fight today after a federal jury in Baltimore awarded him nearly $11 million in a verdict against members of a Kansas church who hoisted anti-gay placards at his son’s Westminster funeral.” — The Baltimore Sun (read the whole story here)

The Westboro Baptist Church family is a crew of loathsome people with a seeming collective persecution complex and apparently thrive on the fact that they repulse so many people. In fact, I have no doubt that they moved on from picketing gay events and AIDS victim funerals to military funerals exactly because of the negative attention it would give them. They probably believe deep in their hearts that the abuse they receive by so many people for what they do brings them closer to what Jesus went through.

I personally encountered these picketers about eight years ago while covering a story and made the decision to mention them, but not interview any of them, for the very reason that all they wanted was publicity and to feed off being loathed. I wanted to deny them of what they most craved.

But this verdict is wrong. There’s no way to get around it. The First Amendment should not have an exception: “unless it causes emotional distress.”

The can of worms this opens is absolutely unbelievable. Somebody could claim emotional distress over just about any comment. How do you argue that somebody hasn’t been caused emotional distress?

No doubt the horror of having this family show up to picket your dead son’s funeral is indeed a source of emotional distress, and I wouldn’t wish it on anyone, but it’s not the role of the government to protect us from cruelty, only threats to our safety and livelihood.

I suspect the judgment will be tossed on appeal, as it should be. I hate that I have to say that. As much as I would love to be rid of Phelps and his ilk, the potential consequences of letting this decision stand are far worse.

Much to my surprise, I’ve received a much stronger reaction to the proposed local rental inspection ordinance and my editorial expressing my opposition. And it turns out quite a number of Barstow residents are equally concerned about the violation of privacy and search and seizure protections.

I’ve received several calls and a couple of e-mailed comments about the issue, all in opposition to the city’s ordinance. A couple of days ago in the blog, I figured folks would support the ordinance as a way to (allegedly) help clean up Barstow.

As it was time for a new front page poll, I’ve put one up to gauge attitudes toward the proposed ordinance. Feel free to vote!

My editorial today took a fairly predictable libertarian position that the City of Barstow lacks the constitutional authority to order door-to-door inspections of rental units.

Though I’ve already gotten one supportive comment online, I’m not holding out much hope that Barstow residents will speak out against the ordinance, given the community’s dislike of some the really run-down properties in town.

The ordinance appeals to people on both the left in the right in the way it uses government authority to achieve wanted ends. On the left, the ordinance speaks to the desire to use the government to protect the consumer from some of the abuses of the marketplace — in this case, poor tenants stuck in uninhabitable homes, afraid to contact authorities for fear of being evicted. It appeals to the right as a tool of law enforcement to deal with a difficult problem — typically drug abusers/dealers/gang members who allow their homes to decay and affect the neighborhood negatively.

Whether or not any actual changes will occur is something of which I’m extremely suspect. I asked Jeanette Hayhurst, city project manager for housing, whether the city was having luck getting absentee landlords (the target of this proposed ordinance) to respond to existing code enforcement efforts. She said that the responses were improving, which sounds like they have a long way to go still. I have doubts that absentee landlords are going to respond to this ordinance or care about the city’s threats.

Before writing the editorial I contacted Patricia Neal, the consultant helping the city with the rental studies and the formulation of the ordinance. I asked her about legal challenges to the ordinances in other communities. She said the ordinance has survived a challenge on the state level over the forced fees. However, she wasn’t aware of any challenges on the federal level on the basis of the inspections violating the Fourth Amendment (the crux of my argument). She doubted whether the Supreme Court would even take up a challenge in this situation, and after the Kelo vs. New London decision (authorizing abuse of eminent domain) I’m sadly inclined to agree.

I’ll be updating the main site throughout the day with the latest wire reports about the Southern California wildfires.

Though the fires may not be anywhere near here, and we’re probably not in much danger here, that doesn’t mean the fires don’t have an impact on Barstow residents. If your family is personally being affected by the wildfires, please call our newsroom at 256-4121 and let us know.

In case you hadn’t seen it, I made a nuisance of myself at Monday night’s City Council meeting. You can watch the video here.

We’ve been mulling over what to do about crime reports in the newspaper for quite some time — and I should add that this problem existed well before Chief Burns took over and has nothing to do with her as far as I can tell. It has developed to the point where readers were accusing us of deliberately concealing crimes in the community. Nothing could be further from the truth.

What’s our incentive? There’s a saying, “If it bleeds, it leads,” meaning that crime and violence sells newspapers and increases viewership of news. This is true, though people tend to say it sarcastically, with idea that people are bloodthirsty and enjoy watching or reading about violence.

The reality is, though, that people want to read about crime because it affects them and their community. It’s very clearly the number one concern for most Barstow residents and it bothers me that there may be crimes out there going unreported.

And so, of course, my big speech ultimately accidentally backfires. Due to a technical issue, page A3 did not print properly today. So the bank robbery story was accidentally cut off and our crime reports did not print at all.

We will reprint the robbery story tomorrow and add the missing action briefings to the next report. We apologize for the problem.

Today, Oct. 11, is National Coming Out Day, a day ostensibly for folks to come out and declare that they’re gay, if they’re so inclined.

I’ve always found the day to be a little odd. If you’re involved enough in the community to know of this day’s existence, chances are you’re already out.

On the other hand, because I’m in the media, I’ve had to come out of the closet several times in my career in order to give context whenever I find myself writing opinion pieces on gay issues.

I find it strange every time I feel that I have to do it — journalists are taught to keep so much of ourselves to ourselves. But I’m a strong believer in honesty about any possible bias — I want people to know that on the rare occasion where I’m writing about gay issues, I’m coming from about as far an objective position as you can imagine.

I’ve written twice about gay issues on the opinion page where I’ve brought myself into the discussion as a gay man, and each time I’ve gotten a couple of e-mails in support and opposition. There are some who have written in about the difficulties of being or growing up gay in Barstow. I’ve only been in Barstow for about five years, but I have to say that I haven’t really had many issues with people. There are a couple of people who are very outspoken about my sexual orientation, but they’re really in the minority. I suspect the vast majority of Barstow folks don’t care one way or another.

That’s been my experience in a lot of communities. I have gay friends in large cities who think it’s quite impressive or courageous to be openly gay in a small town. I don’t quite get it. I think I’m more likely to be a victim of a gay bashing in Los Angeles than here.

As I’ve had this experience of being gay in a small town, I eventually came to realize what the fear is: It’s not so much the fear of harm or rejection as it is the lack of embrace or community. It’s the lack of a notable gay subculture in your town. You have to be comfortable in your own skin to be gay in a small town. You have to be able to live without those regular affirmations of the big city. You have to be able to accept the cultural disagreement with others and get on with your life. You can’t hide among “your own.”

Fortunately, I’m used to having a thick skin as a newspaper editor and opinion writer. That I don’t have a parade or a festival here is not really a concern of mine. I drove down to Redlands to see “Brokeback Mountain” and bought in on DVD at the Barstow Wal-Mart. I didn’t see it as some huge injustice that it didn’t play here (though given the part-empty rack at Wal-Mart, I think the local theater might have made a bad decision for economic reasons, not social ones — the theater where I saw the movie was sold out, and the audience consisted mostly of heterosexual couples).

I enjoy my life in Barstow, despite the lack of a traditional “gay community.” I visit friends on occasion in Los Angeles and we have dinner in West Hollywood and it’s fun, but when I leave, I don’t feel as though I’m missing something valuable to me in my return to Barstow.

So, happy coming out day, I guess. If you’re taking this day to inform others that you’re gay, remember that it’s your inner strength that matters, not the responses you get from others.