As we discussed earlier in the week, plans are underway for LGBT "supporters of Luke" to get together with him over lunch to discuss LGBT issues.  A few key LGBT designated leaders have been invited.  This was confirmed by local LGBT business owner and chair of the Delta Foundation, Gary Van Horn, in the comments section of our blog. 

Also confirmed in the comments: this is a private event and not open to the media. 

What I've recently discovered is that those attending the private lunch to discuss LGBT issues are allegedly being required to make a campaign contribution to the Luke Ravenstahl war chest.

Wow.  I'm sure this goes on all the time.  Money buys you access.  Is it a sign of the times that gay money is worth courting?  Should we care about a secret meeting?

Well, yes.  And here is why.  This will be the second private opportunity for dialogue on LGBT issues between the Mayor and actual LGBT people.  The first was held on election eve after he infamously announced live on WQED that he was opposed to civil unions.  That meeting, too, was top secret and did not result in the Mayor reversing his public stance on civil unions. 

Publicly, the Mayor has had contact with the LGBT community.  He's just adroitly sidestepped any type of public contact that involves dialogue.  This includes the "Big Gay Chat" sponsored by the Allegheny County Democratic Committee last spring.  Luke sent a surrogate. 

Luke himself did attend PrideFest.  With a police escort.  He attended OUTrageous Bingo.  He spent some time in a gay bar.  None of these contacts allowed for any real dialogue between Luke and our community.  He came, but he didn't listen.  He didn't even know we had anything to say.  Or maybe he just didn't care.

The community is not well-served by secret meetings and backroom negotiations.  We deserve a Mayor that is willing to talk publicly about our issues and engage a cross section of the community, not just one particular interest.  We deserve a Mayor who doesn't trade access for campaign contributions (allegedly).

If that is the price of admission to this luncheon, let us hope that those who represent us on boards and committees and commissions will think twice before attending.  Have any of the previous private meetings and soirees moved Luke a single inch further along the line of gay tolerance?  There is no evidence of that.  No change on civil unions.  No support for HB 1400.  No promise to protect the civil liberties and domestic partner benefits in a City-County merger.  No nothing. 

The private meetings aren't working.  At least, they aren't working for our community.  They might be working for the campaign.  We don't know because even the gay media is excluded (believe me, I've tried).

Make no mistake, gentle readers, we are WAY past the point at which attending PrideFest is newsworthy.  There's no extra credit points for taking that risk.  The Mayor's people should be aggressively courting connections with the LGBT community.  What happened to plans for a LGBT liaison in the Mayor's office?  Or the LGBT advisory committee? 

So, the meeting.  Gary thinks it is a worthwhile investment of his time and he's entitled to that opinion. He's also entitled to organize events to support candidates in whom he believes.  However, I think that continuing to contribute our hard-earned monies to a candidate that hasn't done a single thing for our community is going to get us nowhere.  We cannot allow Luke Ravenstahl to continue making promises to us -- liaisons and committees, etc -- with no consequences for his failure to act. 

So, why not email your local LGBT leaders and ask if they plan to attend the Mayor's event and, if so, whether they are financially supporting his campaign?  It would be interesting to identify LGBT leaders that publicly support a candidate opposed to civil unions.  After all, we can get the campaign contribution information after the fact if the City Paper keeps up the database.  It would just be nice to know in advance where people stand. 

LGBT supporters of Luke, comment away ...

What's more important for local social justice - the stability of the Thomas Merton Center or the culpability of a dead police dog?  I'd like to ask Carole Weidmann that question.  Carole's pants were ripped during an anti-war protest a few years ago and the culprit may have been Ulf, the dog who was shot and killed by Justin Jackson a few weeks ago. Mr. Jackson was subsequently killed by return fire.  (Ripped pants do not equal dead teenager.)

Carole is oft brought up as an example of the horrors of police brutality in Pittsburgh.  Carole is also a board member of the Thomas Merton Center, Pittsburgh's most significant anti-war organization.  The Merton Center seems to be in terrible straights -- almost all of the professional staff have resigned.  One sent an email (I have a copy if you want it) citing board issues as a reason for his resignation.  The organization is struggling financially.

Who is going to protect the rights of other Justin Jacksons if TMC isn't back on solid ground?  As a member, I'd personally prefer Carole put her time and energy (and her legion of fans) to use on that issue. 

It is sad to read a City Paper story about a CMU student who claims to have stared down Ulf and avoid being "mauled" as he put it.  That's just silly, condescending talk.  David Struthers believes his elite status saved the day when he was confronted with a big bad police dog anxious to get 'em.  I noted with some interest that the City Paper did not include any perspective from reputable dog trainers.  I have consulted a few and their interpretation of the YouTube video footage is very different than Mr. Struthers. 

Further, there's the never-ceasing coverage of police dogs gone wild with little if any acknowledgment of situations where police dogs saved lives or prevented violent endings.  No information on the difference between a dog grabbing a suspect and a dog biting a suspect.  Anyone with large dogs can tell the difference.  A dog can be trained to subdue.  They do it every day and no one ends up dead.  It doesn't take Swami Struthers to prevent a catastrophe. 

I love the man called Potter and his crew.  They do good reporting.  But this story mimics the one-dimensional approach to the death of Justin Jackson we saw when the story broke.  And it continues to really piss me off to see all of this man v dog coverage.   And I would be disingenuous if I didn't write this post out of deference to their feelings.  I almost didn't.  But they have much thicker skins than certain people who write 80 paragraphs responses to my criticism.  So on we go ...

If David Struthers is so concerned about the other Justin Jackson's of the world, maybe he should call up Carole, roll up his sleeves and do something to build up the TMC. 

Instead we get this ...

Still, Struthers believes, there was one overwhelming factor that helped his police-dog encounter toward its peaceful end. "I had a confidence, when I was sitting there, with the dog coming toward me, [police] weren't just going to let the dog maul me," he concludes. "First, because there were a lot of people there. But, really, if you release dogs on people attending elite universities there's going to be a lot of people upset at that," and very publicly. "I can't imagine [Jackson] thinking that a lot of people are going to care if he gets mauled, in the world at large. It changes how you are going to react in that situation. What happened to this guy was par for the course in many Pittsburgh neighborhoods, and that's the real story, as far as I'm concerned."

Par for the course?  Ahem.  This man puts monies (and his talent) in the coffers of a University that builds robots for war.  A war in which Justin Jackson is much more likely to be used as cannon fodder than CMU "elite" students.  So spare us the moral high ground, David.  You have no clue what Justin was thinking when he pulled that trigger and it is insulting to imply otherwise.  More importantly, why don't you speak out about what you are doing to make a difference? 

To summarize.  Stop the man v dog media coverage.  Give the public a well-rounded perspective on police dogs  -- find out how many suspects have been apprehended without violence with the assistance of a police dog --- now that would be a story.  Consult dog behavioral experts instead of college students for analysis.  Figure out what the hell is going on with the Thomas Merton Center -- they don't even list their board members on the website.