Architecture Wednesday: Restored Midcentury

I like this one because it’s Midcentury, because it’s in my old hometown, Sacramento, and because it was designed by local architect John Harvey Carter in 1968 for a family who went on to live there for fifty years. After hitting the market for the first time in 2020, the three-bedroom, three-bathroom 2,232 light-filled residence was restored and updated, with much of the original design still intact.

When you enter the home, you face the blue panel wall that shields the dining room from view. Down a hallway to the left is a sunken living room, anchored by a drop-down fireplace and features, not original, but appropriate, shag carpet, as well as floor-to-ceiling windows that overlook a reflecting pool.

Yes, there’s a reflecting pool, ’all.

In fact, the formal living room, dining room, breakfast area, and family room all have stunning views of the side yard and the Zen courtyard reflecting pool. In addition to the courtyard, Carter was also influenced by other Japanese design influences, like the large overhanging eaves that shade the house from the California heat.

Past the dining room, with its own courtyard view, is the kitchen. Now, my one quibble might be the kitchen; while large, the double islands and overhead cabinetry, make it seem closed off in an otherwise incredibly open home. But, you know, a little remodel and the kitchen could still feel original.

Across from the kitchen, and across the reflecting pool from the living room is a more casual family room area. There are two bedrooms and a bath along one side of the home, while the primary suite and bath are along the other side.

I love the openness of the hose, and the quirky sunken living room; I also know the neighborhood where the house sits, and it is one of my favorites in Sacramento with large trees and wide lawns.

I think, and here’s another quibble, there’s no garage, that with a garage out front and with maybe a million or so in my bank account, I could really live in this house.

Dwell

No Criminal Charges For Police Officers Who Murdered Stephon Clark

Stephon Clark was killed, no, murdered last March after Sacramento police responded to a 911 call of a man breaking car windows in a South Sacramento neighborhood. When officers arrived on the scene, they searched outside a nearby residence and, after seeing Stephon Clark, they pursued him into a backyard—which they later learned was his grandmother's home—where they shot him.

After the shooting, Sacramento police officers Jared Robinet and Terrence Mercadal said they thought Clark had a gun, but they only found a cellphone at the scene. One of the officers saw a "flash of light that he believed was the muzzle" of a gun in the seconds before the shooting, and that "Clark had in fact advanced at the officers" before they fired.

Two officers murdered a man with a cell phone.

Now, later on, DNA evidence confirmed that Clark was the individual who broke the windows and a sliding glass door with a cinder block, but should he have been killed for that?

Stephon Clark's murder sparked demonstrations and immediate calls for the district attorney to bring criminal charges against Robinet and Mercadal, and after the police department released body-camera videos from the shooting, demonstrators spilled into the streets of downtown Sacramento, at one point bringing traffic on a major freeway to a stop and, later, blocking thousands of fans from entering a Sacramento Kings game.

Stephon Clark’s mother, SeQuette Clark, said it best:

"I don't care if he was a criminal. None of that matters. What matters is how those officers came with lethal force around a corner, on a vandalism call, after my son and gunned him down — when he had nothing but a cellphone in his hand."

He broke some windows, which makes him not a nice man, which makes him a criminal, a vandal, but does that warrant being shot to death?

Apparently so, because last week, nearly a year after the murder, Sacramento District Attorney Anne-Marie Schubert announced that the two officers will not face criminal charges. And Schubert is appearing to make the shooting justified for several reasons …

Schubert says, after her office investigated the shooting, they discovered that Stephon Clark may have been contemplating suicide in the days leading up to the shooting.

So, he broke a few windows so officers would chase him down the street and shoot him to death? Or maybe it’s this …

Schubert says that, two days before his death Salena Manni, the mother of Clark's children, called the police on Clark to report physical abuse.

So, he broke a few windows a few days later and the officers chased him down the street and shot him to death because he’d allegedly assaulted his girlfriend two days earlier, something the officers knew nothing about?

Anne-Marie Schubert is blaming Stephon Clark for his own murder.

Schubert described text messages, Internet searches and drafts of emails seized from Clark's cellphone, which she said showed he feared he would be arrested. Investigators also discovered communications on Clark's cellphone indicating that he sent Manni text messages implying that he wanted to kill himself.

Again, so Stephon Clark was distraught, and perhaps suicidal, but how does that matter at all in his being chased down the street for breaking some windows and then being shot to death?

Robinet and Mercadal, while chasing Stephon Clark down the street had no knowledge that he was either suicidal, or that he’d assaulted his girlfriend two days earlier; they didn’t even know his name.

Former Sacramento police chief Rick Braziel believes Anne-Marie Schubert is making the case that Stephon Clark committed "suicide by cop," but when taking questions from reporters, Schubert said she was not suggesting Clark wanted to commit suicide-by-cop.

And yet she brought it up, in a news conference where she announced that two police officers pursued a black man into a backyard, assumed he had a gun, and fired twenty … twenty … shots at him, hitting him seven times, even though he was holding a cell phone.

And please, do not make the argument that police officers have to err on the side of caution; I know that. But twenty shots.

Twenty shots at a man who broke a few windows and never fired one shot at police because he didn’t have a gun.

NPR

A Mass Exodus Over The Firing Of Gay Scout Member

Although I was born in Mississippi, we left when I was about six months old, and I grew up in Sacramento, California, so I feel a strong bond with my home town, which makes this story all the more special.

This week, responding to the continued homophobia, discrimination, and bigotry of the Boy Scouts of America [BSA], 10 members of a Sacramento area summer camp staff walked out after Tim Griffin, a gay staff member, was fired.

Naturally, the BSA is denying that Griffin was fired for being gay. Their “official” story is that he was let go because he failed to heed repeated requests to dress appropriately for camp.

Oh, Tim had painted his fingernails and wore an earring.

How, um, gay?

But one Senior official also said there were complaints about his mannerisms and behavior.

You know, gay mannerisms, I guess.

Griffin, a 22-year-old Eagle Scout, believes he was fired for being gay: "I definitely think that the reaffirmation of the anti-gay policy played a role in my termination."

But his wasn’t the only vacancy at camp. After that week’s campers left, 10 members of the 30 member staff resigned in support of Griffin. And, while decision to fire Griffin came from the Golden Empire Council—program director, Glen Goddard said, "What it came down to was his failure to comply with management regarding a uniform issue. We gave him plenty of warnings"—those fellow staffers all say Griffin was fired simply because he was gay.

"It was absolutely about his sexual orientation, no question about it," said Graham Littlejohn, an Eagle Scout and the third-ranking staff member at camp until he joined Saturday's walkout.

Griffin is considering his legal options, but he may not find any help in California's anti-discrimination statutes because a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court decision found that the BSA was able to successfully argue that their anti-gay stance is an essential part of the membership; the BSA also bans atheists and agnostics.

Griffin said most people at the camp have known for years that he is gay, and it only became an issue this summer when an adult leader him aside to tell him he was being too gay.

Too gay. Oh, yeah. The nail polish, cuz nail polish is gay.

At first, Griffin said camp director Joel Adema had stood up for him, but over the summer Adema also asked him to stop wearing the nail polish. Right after that request, more than half the staff, male and female, joined Griffin in wearing nail polish in a display of solidarity.

But visiting adult leaders followed up with complaints to Sacramento-based Scouting leaders, and Scout Executive Jim Martin said the council received four separate complaints. The tension over the firing of Griffin–the longest tenured staff member–peaked at a Friday night campfire when the camp program director gave a speech ablaut tolerance. He resigned the following morning over Griffin’s firing.

Griffin admits that he knew when he first joined the Scouts that he was gay, and he knew of their anti-gay policies. But, he said, counselors at summer camp had a different message: “The thing that really kept me going was Camp Winton. It was full of enthusiastic role models … the staff taught me it was OK to be who I was."

It’s a shame that those in power at the BSA don’t get that message.

source

The Catholic Church In Sacramento Stops Helping The Homeless

You gotta love the Catholic Church. You know, how they say they want to help children and the poor, and then punish those very groups to show how anti-gay they are. And they're at it again.

Out in Sacramento, California--where I grew up--the Catholic Diocese of Sacramento has announced that it will no longer fund programs at Francis House, a nonprofit agency that serves the homeless community, because the new director of Francis House supports abortion rights and marriage equality.

Yup, people will starve because of this.

The Reverend Michael Kiernan, the diocese's director of social services  said that the views of new director, the Reverend Faith Whitmore, clash with the...antiquated...teachings of the Catholic Church, making it "impossible for the diocese to continue funding Francis House" as part of its annual Catholic Appeal.

Um, no, it's still possible. You announce that you disagree with Whitmore, but in the spirit of Faith, in the spirit of 'God,' in the spirit of 'Jesus,' you will continue helping the homeless anyway.

But that's not how the Catholic Chutrchworks. They punish the innocent.

The Francis House, one of the largest homeless services agencies in the Sacramento region, is in its 42nd year, serving upward of 25,000 people. It's annual budget of roughly $500,000 has been helped for the last twenty years with donations of up to $10,000 a year from the diocese. But because someone in the Francis House has a different stance on certain issues, the Catholic Church will stop helping the homeless in Sacramento.

Again, how effing-Christ-like.

The Reverend Faith Whitmore took over leadership of Francis House last year after the death of executive director Gregory Bunker. A member of the United Methodist church, Whitmore has been a strong advocate of same-sex marriage. In 2008, during that short period in which gay marriage was legal in California, Whitmore defied church law by marrying same-sex couples. 

She calls the diocese's decision to discontinue its support disappointing: "I have never represented any of those positions on behalf of Francis House. I was speaking as an individual. So for me, this came out of the blue."

But, Reverend, the Catholic Church doesn't do "individual". They do goosestepping. They do hypocrisy. They do aiding and abetting pedophiles.

Maybe it's best for you to disassociate from them.

via The Sacramento Bee

Showed His Face At Faces

I used to live in Sacramento. In fact, the house I lived in was just a few blocks from Faces, the gay nightclub in question here. Faces, while a gay bar, also has a diverse clientele; many straight people ::::gasp:::: go there for the music and the dancing, but let's not forget, it's a gay bar in the middle of a neighborhood affectionately known as "Lavender Heights.".

People often wondered why.

Not wondering, however, is one of California's most anti-gay Republicans, Senator Roy Ashburn, who was arrested for allegedly driving drunk after leaving Faces. A California Highway Patrol [CHP] officer noticed a black Chevy Tahoe swerving through the downtown streets, and when the officer stopped the state-issued vehicle, the driver identified himself as Senator Ashburn. He was arrested without incident and charged with two misdemeanors: driving under the influence and driving with a blood alcohol level higher than .08% or higher.

Interestingly enough, Ashburn was leaving Faces with an unidentified male passenger, who was not detained. Ashburn was booked into the Sacramento County Jail and released on $1,400 bond.

Roy Ashburn, quite well known for a long history of opposing gay rights, and a father of four--he divorced his wife in 2003--released the obligatory statement after his post-gay nightclub arrest:

"I am deeply sorry for my actions and offer no excuse for my poor judgment. I accept complete responsibility for my conduct and am prepared to accept the consequences for what I did. I am also truly sorry for the impact this incident will have on those who support and trust me – my family, my constituents, my friends, and my colleagues in the Senate."

Effin' self-loathing closet case. Ashburn voted against a Senate resolution declaring Prop H8 unconstitutional; voted three times to oppose the creation of Harvey Milk Day; voted against California recognizing out-of-state same-sex marriages; voted to oppose an expansion of California's insurance laws to include sexual orientation as a protected class.

Once again. Effing.Self-loathing.Closet case.

Have We Really Come To This?

When I lived in Sacramento I used to volunteer at Loaves & Fishes, a place where homeless people could get a meal and a chance to clean up. I worked a few Thanksgivings, offering turkey and gravy to those with no job, no car no home, and often no hope.

And yet I never felt such a sense of gratitude from people as I felt those days standing behind a line scooping mashed potatoes onto the plates of people who are often ignored, unseen, and demonized. I realized then, and feel the same way now, that There but for the grace of god, go I.

It could happen to any of us. Lose a job and fall behind in payments. Foreclosures. Eviction. Repossession. Despair. Homelessness. Sure, it wouldn't happen in the blink of an eye, maybe, but it could happen. And how would I feel if I were one of the faceless, one of the shunned; one of those people that you cross the street to avoid. The eyes you dare not look into because you know they're going to ask for money and you won't give it.

i don't know how that feels, any more than i know how I would survive being on the streets without a Loaves a& Fishes, without a hand. Without a place to sleep. In Sacramento, a homelessness advocate-lawyer began allowing the use of his own property for homeless people to camp on; a refuge of sorts, where they can sleep safely. Or so he thought.

However, it seems that in Sacramento it's illegal to camp for more than 24 hours on public or private property. So, what do the police do? Come along and shoo these homeless, faceless, nameless human beings off, right?

No. The police arrest them, and confiscate their tents and bags and belongings, refusing to return them because these bags and backpacks and tents and boxes are evidence. Evidence of what? A time when there was a home and job? Evidence of a life once lived? Or evidence of man's inhumanity to man?

The City of Sacramento, which, up until a few months ago, had a tent city where homeless people could stay at night, where they could feel safe, and maybe close their eyes and get some sleep without fear of interference or arrest, now prefers removal over compassion; arrest over assistance. The City of Sacramento would prefer to arrest you and take away the last precious things you own.

Shuffle along. Go somewhere else.

Have we come to this? Really? Have we become so desensitized to the plight of other people that we look the other way rather than offer a hand? We turn the other cheek because the view is less grim.

I've never been homeless; I've never even been close. But I know, from seeing the faces of the homeless, and hearing their stories, I know it really isn't as far off as we might like to believe.

There but for the grace of god....................................

Radio Asshats

I used to live in Sacramento. It was a nice place to live. I used to listen to KRXQ, one of the local radio stations. Imagine my surprise to learn that several on-air personalities recently took to the airwaves to discuss transgender children, and what should be done to them. This idiocy went on for quite some time, but here are the choice bits of bigotry, stupidity, and general asshattedness:

• ROB WILLIAMS [11:12]: This is a weird person who is demanding attention. And when it’s a child, all it takes is a hug, maybe some tough love or anything in between. When your little boy said, ‘Mommy, I want to walk around in a dress.’ You tell them no cause that’s not what boys do. But that’s not what we’re doing in this culture.
• ARNIE STATES [13:27]: If my son, God forbid, if my son put on a pair of high heels, I would probably hit him with one of my shoes. I would throw a shoe at him. Because you know what? Boys don’t wear high heels. And in my house, they definitely don’t wear high heels.
• ROB WILLIAMS [17:45]: Dawn, they are freaks. They are abnormal. Not because they’re girls trapped in boys bodies but because they have a mental disorder that needs to be somehow gotten out of them. That’s where therapy could help them.
• ROB WILLIAMS [18:15]: Or because they were molested. You know a lot of times these transgenders were molested. And you need to work with them on that. The point is you don’t allow the behavior. You cure the cause!
• ARNIE STATES [21:30]: You got a boy saying, ‘I wanna wear dresses.’ I’m going to look at him and go, ‘You know what? You’re a little idiot! You little dumbass! Look, you are a boy! Boys don’t wear dresses.’
• ARNIE STATES [29:22]: You know, my favorite part about hearing these stories about the kids in high school, who the entire high school caters around, lets the boy wear the dress. I look forward to when they go out into society and society beats them down. And they end up in therapy.

I first read about this trash on the GLAAD website. GLAAD demanded an apology and, at first, calls and emails to the station went unanswered.
I'm all for free speech, even when it's stupid, but in this day and age, when so many children being bullied, do we need a radio station, and their so-called 'talent' urging the beating of anyone? I don't think so.
Many advertisers are pulling their money out of KRXQ; companies like Snapple, Sonic, and Chipotle. Sonic released this statement:
Sonic wants to assure you that the views of this station are in no way related to the views of Sonic. Sonic was alerted to the May 28th segment only yesterday and immediately began researching the segment, show and Sonic’s planned advertising on the station. SONIC in no way condones violence toward children and does not wish to be associated with media content that condones or promotes such activity in any way. We have decided to immediately withdraw advertising from this station and have notified the station of our decision.

Gotta go now. I'm off to Sonic for a Foot-Long Coney and Tots. And to say 'Thanks.'

Doubt

I've been thinking about doubt. It started with the movie. It makes you think, because it doesn't wrap the story up in a nice neat package. You're left wondering if he did or didn't; why did she do that? You're left, for lack of a better word, doubting.

And that made me think about something that happened to some guys I knew back in California. I was tending bar at a restaurant along the town's Restaurant Row; there were four restaurants right there together, and several more a few doors down in each direction. And, as people who work in the food biz do, we all got to know each other from one place to another. We'd hit one place up for after shift drinks; another place was for brunch....one for dancing....another for karaoke. And the people who worked at those places came to where I worked for some of those same reasons.

One Easter morning, I woke, ready to work Sunday brunch with a Saturday night hangover. Groggy I showered; head pounding I drank some coffee; then off to work I went. I set up the bar with champagne and orange juice, Bloody Mary mix, celery....hair of the dog. Just before opening I walked to the curb to buy a copy of the Sunday Sacramento Bee to leave out for guests to read.

The top story on that Sunday, on Easter Sunday, of all days, was of a child molestation ring that had been busted. Apparently one of the men was the father of the children being molested, and he brought several of his friends along to have their way with his children.

Disgusting story, especially on Easter.

More disgusting, however, was the fact that I knew these men. They were bartenders and servers at a nearby place. One of them lived in my apartment building. I'd served all these guys food and drink, and had been served by all of them. I was in shock. Even more shocking was the fact that they showed up at my bar that Easter Sunday; all of them having been fired from their jobs. Fired because of the story. They didn't sit at the bar this time, but in a back booth, looking down at the table and not saying much. Drinking quietly and talking amongst themselves.

Those of us working that day knew the story, so we couldn't help but watch these guys and how they were acting. There were no photos of them in the paper, so our guests didn't know who they were, but we did. We looked at them and wondered; we doubted.

The guys didn't come in much after that, and the story grew. It was all a plot, someone said, created by one man's ex-wife who wanted sole custody of the children. She made up the story, I heard, of molestation; she coerced her own children into telling the story.

It dragged on for months, this story, with more lurid tales of what was done, and how they'd done it; what the children had said, how the mother was devastated. It seemed a week didn't go by without another story in the Sunday paper with graphic details of men sexually molesting children.

And the guys; they'd lost their jobs; they'd lost their homes, because they couldn't afford the rent or mortgage. Unable to find work because of the story, they drifted around, staying with a friend who didn't believe the news stories, until it became unbearable for them to have these guys around.

They came into the bar every so often, always at the quiet times when there weren't many people around; there were no jokes; it was just a quick drink, a short hello and then out the door. They couldn't, or wouldn't talk about the story, and although we tried, I tried, it was hard not to whisper, what if? It became easier to think the worst of people because of stories in the paper, quips on the nightly news. More people came forward to say what they had seen and heard; what they knew.

But then as quickly as it happened, it was over.

The mother confessed. It was a plot to gain full custody, to get more support money. It was a lie, all of it. She'd told her children what to say. Not one of those men had ever touched those children, yet each of them lost something. Houses, Cars. Jobs. Friends.

I remember one guy, Augustine, who had lived in my apartment building. I saw him about a year later at another restaurant. He looked different, older, subdued, less friendly. This was man who was always smiling and laughing and hugging everyone; he knew all the bar jokes,and the bar tricks; he was a friend to every one.

Now he looked unsure.

Even doubtful.