Progressive annoyances
Your article on Ross Mirkarimi reminded me of what annoys me about some of the so-called progressive leaders in our community ["LGBTs weigh in on Mirkarimi," March 29]. They are so invested in defending individuals who they think are key to their movement that they lose sight of the actual issues.
First, David Waggoner is incorrect when he states that having Mirkarimi leave his position as sheriff would be a loss to the "entire" LGBT community. Waggoner does not speak for me and losing a sheriff who committed false imprisonment against his wife does not impact our community in any way.
Also, I am not interested in Debra Walker's patronizing and ridiculous lecture about the history of targeting LGBTs for inappropriate behavior. This is of absolutely no relevance to Mirkarimi's case. She may not think false imprisonment and bruising a wife's arm is a big deal but a lot of us do. She might also want to rethink using the word "lynching" to describe supposed poor treatment of Mirkarimi. If she doesn't understand why it was extremely inappropriate for her to use that word, then she is the one who needs a history lesson.
More importantly, the Mirkarimi case is not an LGBT or a progressive issue. It is a domestic violence case in which our elected sheriff pleaded guilty to false imprisonment. Most San Franciscans, including people like me who voted for him, don't want a sheriff who is guilty of this crime. Mayor Ed Lee is not abusing any authority; he is using the law to have Mirkarimi removed. If he is unsuccessful, we will use the recall process. It is time for Mirkarimi and his supporters to stop whining about his being "lynched," piled on, railroaded, etc. Reasonable people can disagree about whether or not Mirkarimi should be removed from office, but he has only himself to blame for what has happened.
Ryan Clary
San Francisco
Rich want to get richer
In response to the Guest Opinion piece by Tommi Avicolli-Mecca "Ending poverty in the LGBT community," [March 15] and Bill Hemenger's letter last week:
Hemenger's belief that "successful people and businesses" will solve the problem of poverty in our LGBT community sounds remarkably like the trickle down economics of former homophobic president Ronald Reagan.
If the dot-com boom "helped our economy," then why did displacement, evictions, and homelessness increase so much during those years when so much money was pouring into the city? Why did segments of the LGBT community become poorer while others became richer? Why didn't the "successful people and the businesses" come to the rescue of the people who were losing their homes and ending up on the streets?
Hemenger's idea that "together we can solve this (the poverty in our community)" is laudable, but when push comes to shove, those with money invest it in making more money, not helping the poor and disenfranchised, even in their own community.
Terrrie Frye
San Francisco
More poverty
In response to Bill Hemenger's March 29 letter: The hardest workers in our society are farmworkers. So how come they are mired in poverty? And for how many years must we hear that the rich will make us rich if only we will embrace the trickle down theory. Hey, they had their chance and muffed it and now we are all mired in poverty. Or can I say reaping the whirlwind?
Denise D'Anne
San Francisco