Finding Balance in San Francisco

Three cheers for gay marriage!

Last week, the California Supreme Court struck down a law banning gay marriage, making California the second state (behind Massachusetts) to allow gay and lesbian weddings.  The court likened the law to bias in gender and racial discrimination.  Back in March, after oral arguments for the same case (In re Marriage Cases) I outlined how I feel about the issue.

Bottom line: I'm delighted that the California Supreme Court saw the light and did the right thing. The antiquated law banning same sex marriage strongly reminds me of apartheid.

Click here for background on the law banning gay marriage (that was struck down by the court), as well as the reaffirmation of that law by voters in 2000. In 2004, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom ignored that law, allowing around 4,000 same-sex couples to marry. The California Supreme Court then halted the unions and later annulled them.

The ruling means that in 30 days from the decision (conveniently right before San Francisco's Gay Pride Parade), gays and lesbians will be able to legally marry in California. Pundits Matier and Ross of the San Francisco Chronicle are already talking about the huge boom that San Francisco will get in gay tourism.

Conservative groups have already gathered over a million signatures to put a "marriage is between a man and a woman" language in the California state constitution. Fear-mongering is in full-force, and conservatives paint a slippery slope parade of horribles if gay marriage is allowed (needless to say, I disagree).

The justices released a split 4-3 decision, saying that domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage in an opinion written by Chief Justice Ron George. Justices Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Werdegar and Carlos Moreno joined the majority. In oral arguments, Justice Kennard pointed out that California used to prevent interracial marriage, allowed women to be treated as chattel and prohibited females from serving as police officers or fire fighters, so I'm not surprised that she backed the idea of calling the law out as discriminatory.

Congratulations on the victory to all the gay and lesbian couples out there just out to pursue happiness. Allowing gays and lesbians to marry hurts nobody. Make love, not war I say.

 

Senate Voting on Ledbetter Fair Pay Tomorrow!

I've been relatively active in trying to convince my Senate representatives (Feinstein and Boxer) to take up the cause of passing the the Fair Pay Restoration Act in the Senate... and happily the Senate is scheduled to vote on the Fair Pay Restoration Act  tomorrow!

As a quick refresher, this is the legislation resulting from the Supreme Court's decision last year in Ledbetter v. Goodyear. My commentary on that unfortunate decision here.

MomsRising.org (of which I'm a part) coordinated a nationwide effort to help overturn Ledbetter via legislation, an it seems to have worked (we'll see tomorrow)!

I've spoken with both Feinstein's and Boxer's offices, and according to their respective office staffs, both of my Senators plan to vote for the  Fair Pay Restoration Act.

Below is some info. from MomRising in case you want to participate:

Tell your Senator to vote YES (again!) now: http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/1768/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=24276

THE LOWDOWN: The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (H.R. 2831) is an important legislative "fix" to a May 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision (Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.), which severely limited the ability of victims of pay discrimination to sue and recover damages under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Without this "fix," the impact of the Court's decision will likely be widespread, affecting pay discrimination cases under Title VII involving women and racial and ethnic minorities, as well as cases under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Basically, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is a narrow "fix" to reestablish law that was in place until the U.S. Supreme Court Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. decision of last year.  This Act stops us from losing ground on civil rights and fixes a fundamental unfairness in the workplace which many women face.

MAKE A QUICK PHONE CALL TOO!  Thanks to our policy partners working on this issue with us, we have an additional way for you to contact your Senators.  The AFL-CIO set up a toll-free phone number just for people to call in support of the Fair Pay Act:

(866) 338-1015*

* note that I just tried to call Boxer's office and her voice mailbox in D.C. is full.  Call her representative Jennifer Tang in the San Francisco office instead: 415-403-0129 to make your voice heard.  I talked with Jennifer about the voicemail problem in D.C. and she also assured me that Ledbetter Fair Pay is "huge" on Boxer's radar.

You can use this number through Wednesday.  When you call, you will reach the Capitol switchboard.  Ask the operator to connect you with your Senator's office.  Then you can just say, "Please pass the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (H.R. 2831). We need this protection back now so none of us faces wage discrimination without tools to challenge it."

And don't forget to call back to reach your other Senator's office! Now is the time for us to use those outside voices and let the Senate know-- we need fair pay now!

*Don't forget to email your Senator to vote YES now! http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/1768/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=24276


P.S. Some press links about the Ledbetter decision:

New York Times Ledbetter Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/30/us/30pay.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Washington Post Ledbetter Article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/29/AR2007052900740.html
New York Times Ledbetter Editorial: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/31/opinion/31thu1.html
LA Times Ledbetter Editorial: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-court31may31,0,6046584.story?coll=la-opinion-leftrail

And, here's what some of MomsRising's aligned organizations have to say about this issue:

Alliance for Justice, http://www.afj.org/assets/resources/take-action/ledbetter-background-final.pdf
Alliance for Justice's 5 minute documentary short on Lilly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5w1eSymFBOg
National Women's Law Center, http://www.nwlc.org/display.cfm?section=employment
National Organization for Women, http://www.now.org/issues/economic/070530equalpay.html

      

Paranoia, self destroy-a

Someone just posted the article (reproduced below) on GGMG, and it made me pause for a moment. 

I definitely think that the author has a point.  We're so hyper paranoid these days compared to the "olden days" of the 1970s and 1980s when I was growing up.  The extreme vigilance is  probably doing ourselves and our children a disservice, based on the heightened anxiety level alone.

Back in the day, nobody even wore seat belts.  I walked a couple miles to school and back with a fellow 6 year old to first grade, and nobody thought a thing of it- seemed like the most normal thing in the world. Half the time we'd stop by my grandma's house for a half hour to an hour on the way home from school and not even call our moms.  When we arrived home, our moms were totally at peace, and so were we.

The other evening I listened to a group of my yuppie friends ('yuppie' - how long has it been since you've heard that?) talk at length about how none of them let their nannies take their kids out in a car.  Not that anybody's nanny's car is lacking a car seat- it's not.  The underlying fear seemed instead to be lack of control on the mom's part:  maybe the nanny isn't maintaining her car at the optimal level; maybe the nanny could take the kid somewhere that the mom wouldn't approve of; maybe it's 'just easier' to have the nanny limited to pushing a stroller.  I quietly wondered whether I've been reckless in letting my own kids go in a car with our babysitter to the zoo, the Discovery Museum, the babysitter's apartment, where ever. 

Granted, my kids and those of my friends are 3 and under, so even back in the day people weren't letting 3 year olds ride the subway by themselves.  That said, there was something shocking about the article below... even though I know intellectually that there's nothing shocking about it at all, really.

I wonder how I'll feel when my boys are 9.

Why I Let My 9-Year-Old Ride the Subway Alone

By LENORE SKENAZY | April 4, 2008
New York Sun

I left my 9-year-old at Bloomingdale' s (the original one) a couple 
weeks ago. Last seen, he was in first floor handbags as I sashayed out the door.

Bye-bye! Have fun!

And he did. He came home on the subway and bus by himself.

Was I worried? Yes, a tinge. But it didn't strike me as that daring, either. Isn't New York as safe now as it was in 1963? It's not like we're living in downtown Baghdad.

Anyway, for weeks my boy had been begging for me to please leave him 
somewhere, anywhere, and let him try to figure out how to get home on his own. 
So on that sunny Sunday I gave him a subway map, a MetroCard, a $20 bill, and several quarters, just in case he had to make a call.

No, I did not give him a cell phone. Didn't want to lose it. And no, I didn't trail him, like a mommy private eye. I trusted him to figure out that he should take the Lexington Avenue subway down, and the 34th Street crosstown bus home. If he couldn't do that, I trusted him to ask a stranger. And then I even trusted that stranger not to think, "Gee, I was about to catch my train home, but now I think I'll abduct this adorable child instead."

Long story short: My son got home, ecstatic with independence.

Long story longer, and analyzed, to boot: Half the people I've told this episode to now want to turn me in for child abuse. As if keeping kids under lock and key and helmet and cell phone and nanny and surveillance is the right way to rear kids.  It's not.

It's debilitating — for us and for them.

And yet —

"How would you have felt if he didn't come home?" a New Jersey mom of 
four, Vicki Garfinkle, asked.

Guess what, Ms. Garfinkle: I'd have been devastated. But would that just prove that no mom should ever let her child ride the subway alone?

No. It would just be one more awful but extremely rare example of random violence, the kind that hyper parents cite as proof that every day in every way our children are more and more vulnerable.

"Carlie Brucia — I don't know if you're familiar with that case or 
not, but she was in Florida and she did a cut-through about a mile from her house, midday- at 11 in the morning, she was abducted by a guy who violated her several times, killed her, and left her behind a church."

That's the story that the head of safetynet4kids. com, Katharine Francis, immediately told me when I asked her what she thought of my son getting around on his own. She runs a company that makes wallet-sized copies of a child's photo and fingerprints, just in case.

Well of course I know the story of Carlie Brucia. That's the problem. 

We all know that story— and the one about the Mormon girl in Utah and the one about the little girl in Spain — and because we do, we all run those tapes in our heads when we think of leaving our kids on their own. We even run a tape of how we'd look on Larry King.

"I do not want to be the one on TV explaining my daughter's disappearance, " a father, Garth Chouteau, said when we were talking about the subway issue.

These days, when a kid dies, the world — i.e., cable TV — blames the parents. It's simple as that. And yet, Trevor Butterworth, a spokesman for the research center STATS.org, said, "The statistics show that this is an incredibly rare event, and you can't protect people from very rare events. It would be like trying to create a shield against being struck by lightning."

Justice Department data actually show the number of children abducted by strangers has been going down over the years. So why not let your kids get home from school by themselves?

"Parents are in the grip of anxiety and when you're anxious, you're  totally warped," the
author of "A Nation of Wimps," Hara Estroff Marano, said. We become  so bent out of shape
over something as simple as letting your children out of sight on the playground that it starts seeming on par with letting them play on the railroad tracks at night. In the rain. In dark non-reflective coats.

The problem with this everything-is- dangerous outlook is that over- protectiveness is a danger in and of itself. A child who thinks he can't do anything on his own eventually can't.

Meantime, my son wants his next trip to be from Queens. In my day, I doubt that would have struck anyone as particularly brave. Now it seems like hitchhiking through Yemen.

Here's your MetroCard, kid. Go.

 

lskenazy@yahoo. com

RELATED: Listen to Ms. Skenazy on WNYC.

There is only one planet, and it has its limits

I've just finished watching the 2006 Swedish film The Planet... boy, how depressing.  Looks like things are going to get ugly, and uncomfortably soon.

The basic message of The Planet is that overpopulation is the main, underlying problem facing earth.  I agree.

My husband wonders why I even watch depressing films like The Planet. Fair enough, but I don't see the point in continuing to ignore a huge problem, especially one that will directly impact me and our children... and, if we get that far, our grandchildren.

In 2004, Larry King asked Stephen Hawking what worried him most. The great physicist's answer: overpopulation. According to Stephen Hawking, if population growth continues at the current rate, we will literally be standing shoulder to shoulder by the year 2600.

Sadly, long before 2600 we'll have exhausted our planet's resources. The earth currently has a recorded population of just over six billion. 12 years ago it was just over five billion. World population is growing by approximately 75 million people per year.

According to the World Overpopulation Awareness Organization, by 2050 at the current rate of growth our global food supply would need to be tripled (thereby necessitating a 1,000 percent increase in the total energy expended in food production) in order to meet the most basic of needs.

Before we as a planet fundamentally run out of food, prices of natural resources (including water, metal, oil, fish) will inevitably skyrocket.  There will come a time when a sushi meal, for example, will be prohibitively expensive even for the U.S. middle class.  We'll all start feeling sticker shock about the price of groceries by 2020 (at the latest).  By 2050 we'll look back on 2008 as the good ol' times, a time of plenty and relative abundance.

Some argue that an already developing massive water crisis is only expected to worsen as the population increases. Other changes impacting Earth's ability to function as a suitable habitat for human beings, such as global warming, desertification, overfishing, peak oil, soil degradation, deforestation, aquifer depletion and other environmental problems will significantly reduce the factors necessary for well-being. In other words: our standard of living will be nowhere near what it is now.

A Living Planet report stated that if we all want to live with a high degree of luxury (European standards), we're already spending three times more than what the planet can supply. Other reports, such as the one cited in the The Planet documentary, claim that we already consume five times more than that the planet can supply, giving the current population numbers and our standard of living. Although there is still no real consensus, it is expected that the amount of overpopulation currently lies within this range.

David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell University, and Mario Giampietro, senior researcher at the National Research Institute on Food and Nutrition (INRAN), place in their study Food, Land, Population and the U.S. Economy the maximum U.S. population for a sustainable economy at 200 million. To achieve a sustainable economy and avert disaster, the United States must reduce its population by at least one-third, and world population will have to be reduced by two-thirds, says the study. The authors of this study believe that a major agricultural crisis will only begin to impact us after 2020, and will not become critical until 2050.

What this all boils down to is that we cannot, as a species, waste much more time without coming up with some semblance of a solution to the problem. While the number of humans continues to rise with no limits, the total amount of resources our earth has to offer started as a constant, and can only decrease.

My question is:  why isn't this in the public debate already?  2050 isn't very far away at all.

Global warming is acceptable conversation... why not overpopulation? As Juliette Jowitt put it: "Everybody is talking only about one half of the equation: the emissions we generate, not how we generate them. All the standby buttons and low-energy light bulbs are dwarfed by the pressure of a global population rising by the equivalent of Britain every year."

Post Script

A few days after I wrote this, The Economist came out with an article about the silent tsunami of food shortages currently roiling the world in some places (e.g., Bangladesh, China). 

Eugenics conspiracy theories abound.

Then about a week later (on April 21), Paul Krugman wrote this piece in the NYT about planet limits on world food supply.

To See The Olympic Torch, or Not?

I'm torn about whether to go watch the Olympic torch making its only U.S. appearance en route to Beijing.  San Francisco has a very large Chinese population, which is probably why China picked San Francisco as the only U.S. stop for the torch relay.

The torch relay is scheduled to begin in about an hour, so I need to decide now. On the one hand, it's historic and might be an interesting life experience. On the other- I'm frankly worried about potential suicide bombers. For sure I will not bring my kids.

There is, of course, much violent political turmoil currently going on in Tibet and San Francisco has historically been a haven for political protesters. Nate Ballard, spokesman for San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, said of San Francisco “Nowhere in the United States has such regular and active protest activities.” A New York Times article published today described San Francisco as "a liberal city that never met a rally it did not like."

On Monday, here in San Francisco there was the spectacular protest display on the Golden Gate Bridge,

and I've seen many anti-China advertisements on busses around San Francisco. The San Francisco Board of Supervisors, voted on April 1 to condemn China’s human rights record. Speaker of the House and fellow San Franciscan Nancy Pelosi has recently spoken out in favor of protesting the torch.

Due to fierce protests in Europe earlier this week, the Olympic torch was extinguished in Paris on Monday and amid chaos and the Olympic torch relay was disrupted in London Sunday. China also recently reported that they foiled 2 terrorist plots against the Olympics. Chris Daly, the San Francisco Supervisor who wrote the resolution condemning China's human rights record, posted a blog entry Monday calling on followers to “build on the message that’s been delivered” in Paris and London.

I'm more than a little nervous about going to watch the torch pass through San Francisco, especially because there was a Free Tibet related suicide just down the street from me earlier this week. On Monday night, a 64 year old Asian man wearing a "Free Tibet" sign around his neck shot himself in the head in front of 2246 Beach Street. My friend's husband was the first on the scene and is the one who called 911. Apparently, the victim used to be a tenant in the building he shot himself in front of, and the owners of the building are also Asian. Anyway, it literally hit close to home. Just the description of blood and brains all over the driveway makes me sick to my stomach.

There are protesters gathering on the torch route in San Francisco as I type this. Heido and I just got back from a walk along Crissy Field, and there are plenty of airplanes with banners trailing behind them circling San Francisco, though allegedly there are currently airspace restrictions in place in San Francisco. An or so hour ago, we saw several pro-China banners trailing airplanes, including "Tibet Will Always Be A Part of China" and protest banners, including "San Francisco Supports Tibet," as well as pro-Olympics banners... and I can currently hear multiple airplanes overhead from our apartment.

The opening ceremony for the San Francisco Olympic Torch Relay begins at McCovey Cove at 1 p.m. Pacific Time.  The torch will then be carried in relays along the city's waterfront, from AT&T Park to Fisherman's Wharf and back. There are expected to be 80 relay runners, some chosen through an essay contest, carrying the torch on short legs of the route. The closing ceremony is scheduled for Justin Herman Plaza at 3:30 p.m.

Olympic Torch Relay Route through San Francisco:

• McCovey Cove northbound to Third Street
• Third Street to the Embarcadero
• The Embarcadero to Jefferson Street
• Jefferson Street to Hyde Street
• Hyde Street to Beach Street
• Beach Street to Polk Street
• Polk Street to Bay Street
• Bay Street back to the Embarcadero
• The Embarcadero to Justin Herman Plaza for a concluding ceremony

Well despite the danger, I think I'll head down by Fisherman's Wharf and see whether I can catch a glimpse of the torch from afar.

I'd hate to completely miss this momentous event.

chilling- especially 'the verse of the sword'

I just stumbled across this video- chilling in some parts.  I'm unfortunately not well versed enough to know which parts to believe and which parts to discard.  Interesting take, at any rate:

A More Perfect Union

I'm still reeling from the beauty and majesty of Barack Obama's stunning, historic, deeply inspirational speech earlier this week.

His speech was pitch-perfect. It highlighted his grace, courage and, improbably, honesty as a leader- even through uncharted, difficult waters. Time after time, he's risen above the fray and shown us all that he really does represent a change for the better. I particularly loved that he didn't throw his long-time (albeit flawed) friend under the bus, even in the face of tremendous political pressure.

I voted for Hillary in February because I believe that Hillary and Barack's policies are virtually identical, and, all other things being equal, I'd pick the woman. While I still believe that Hillary would do a great job and that she's eminently well qualified, Barack is simply better.

In other words, all other things are not equal. In short, I was absolutely blown away by Barack this week. He gave the best speech I've ever witnessed- on par with Jeff Bridges' speech at the end of The Contender (one of my favorite movies of all time).

The charge is that he's short on experience, but on the contrary I think that he has just the experience (and lack of experience) America needs at this moment. He's lived abroad (in a Muslim country, no less), he's free of marital scandal (not Hillary's fault, but still- do we really believe that Bill hasn't cheated since 2000?) and, significantly, he had the presence of mind to speak forcefully out against the ill-fated war in Iraq before it started (as opposed to voting for it).  And he's run a better campaign- from day one.

I do feel like a light has shone through my window and I've had an epiphany.   Obama is not only a good candidate and a great man, but his background and experience are intersecting with our collective history at the exact moment that we need him most. It feels like divine intervention in some ways.

I'm officially switching camps.  Barack, Barack, he's our man...

Brilliant Barack

I'm currently reading Dreams from My Father, and I'm very darn impressed with Mr. Obama's ability to speak truths that need to be spoken.   Dignified, honorable, unwavering, unafraid.  I would be proud to have this man be our next President. Watch video here:

Gay Marriage- an idea whose time has come

Two days ago (March 4), the California Supreme Court heard oral arguments for In re Marriage Cases- could be a landmark case.  If you're so inclined, you can listen to all 3 hrs, 38 minutes of it here. The Court must rule in 90 days (Art. VI § 19.).

Personally, I don't see any harm in gay marriage and fundamentally don't understand why some people are against it, often passionately. Like Gavin Newsom, I see it as a civil rights issue. If two consenting adults love one another and want to spend their lives together, what's the point in denying them certain civil rights and broader societal acceptance? Keeping an antiquated law in place doesn't keep people from being gay, it merely creates unnecessary misery.

I believe that gay marriage will inevitably win the day because it's in line with common sense, reason and logic. I can't even think of a good argument for categorically discriminating against a whole class of people, based solely on their sexual orientation. Making gay couples call each other "domestic partners" rather than allowing them to be full fledged spouses smacks of 'separate but equal.' In this case, it seems that a rose by any other name does not smell as sweet.

On that note, California has already created domestic partnerships for gay couples that grant them all or virtually all of the rights and benefits of marriage under state law (federal law being, of course, separate).  Why not call these relationships "marriages" instead of "domestic partnerships?" 

California Deputy Attorney General Christopher Krueger, representing the state, argued that California's traditional definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman has "stood the test of time" and was approved by the state legislature in 1977. The state's counsel argued that withholding the title of "marriage" is justified by the state's desire to "preserve the common and traditional definition of marriage."   

To this, Justice Kennard pointed out that Califronia also used to prevent interracial marriage, allowed women to be treated as chattel and prohibited females from serving as police officers or fire fighters. 

From what I can gather, gay marriage opponents seem to believe that allowing same sex couples to marry would increase some generalized moral decay in society, which in my opinion is fear-based and doesn't even make sense. What's so scary about same sex couples, anyway? Does allowing the gay couple next door to marry in any way undermine my heterosexual marriage? How could it?

I also don't believe that God has directly said anything about gay marriage. Moreover, church and state should be separate on this issue, anyway.

Gay marriage is an idea whose time will come, and I hope that we as a society choose to evolve sooner rather than later on this issue.

So, bottom line, that's what I think should happen... the question of the hour is what will happen.

In re Marriage Cases consolidates various individual cases challenging California's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage.  The lawsuits stem from San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's 2005 decision to issue marriage licenses to 4,000 same-sex couples.

Plaintiffs in In re Marriage Cases argued that the right to marry is protected by the California Constitution. Plaintiffs also compared the ban against gay marriage to California's old ban against interracial marriage, which was struck down by the California Supreme Court's decision in Perez v. Sharp in 1948. At that time, it was the first court in the nation to strike down the practice as discriminatory.

The voter-approved ban is the real hitch in this case. Again, I can't imagine why voters did approve the ban, but the fact is that they did. The question now is whether the court should overturn the will of the people. Some California Supreme Court justices were troubled by that, other justices hinted that they have an obligation to intervene if the ban is unconstitutional.

Justice Joyce Kennard also expressed skepticism that the court should wait for the voters or legislators to remedy discrimination, noting that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger already has twice vetoed legislation that would permit gay marriage.

Only one state, Massachusetts, allows gay marriage, though in addition to California, the Connecticut Supreme Court is also considering the issue. In New York, a Canadian gay marriage was recently recognized.

Most legal pundits I've read seem to believe that it will be a very close vote. Some even think that a loss for same sex marriage proponents could be a blessing in disguise.  It seems unclear what level of review (strict scrutiny vs. rational basis) will be used, but the case could wind up turning on that.

In what has been described as a sea change, young people are as confused as I am about all the fuss over gay marriage. So if it's not this generation that finally ends this pointless form of discrimination, it will be the next.

Why wait?

The Bloody San Francisco Zoo

During a short break in the rain yesterday morning, Jordan and I went to the San Francisco Zoo. Below are mommy and baby giraffes we saw right off the bat. I felt a bond with the mommy giraffe and I kissed my baby while she was snuggling hers.

We've been huge zoo-goers since the kids were born. Even as infants, the boys went to the zoo at least a few times a month. The zoo has been a big part of our lives, and we're apparently in good company- Zoologist Ron McGill of the Miami Metro Zoo said "More people visit zoos each year than all professional sports combined." Zoos apparently get 150 million visitors annually.

We hadn't been to the San Francisco Zoo (or any other zoo, for that matter), since the fatal tiger attack on Christmas Day 2007.

Rundown of Tatiana's Murderous Rampage

Around closing time on Christmas (somewhere around 4:30), a small pack of drunk, stoned, jerky boys (brothers Paul Dhaliwal, 19, and Kulbir Dhaliwal, 23, and Carlos Sousa Jr., 17) went over to the big cats area of the San Francisco Zoo and started taunting the lions and tigers.

For a more thorough discussion of whether they were indeed taunting the tigers, see below. In sum, allegations are that they were yelling and roaring at the animals, waving their arms, throwing things into their cages and probably had slingshots. Suffice it to say that they really riled up the animals.

The Dhaliwal brothers are by all accounts local tyrants who get drunk and act up and terrorize their neighbors. They have at least one unrelated drunk-and-disorderly type charge pending (from September 2007). In one of Sousa's last myspace entries, he said he was 'high' - Carlos' myspace page here.

At any rate, they succeeded in provoking a fight-or-flight response in a 350-pound Siberian tiger named Tatiana, and she was able, in that frenzied state, to escape her grotto.

As it turns out, the wall that Tatiana was able to leap over was almost 4 feet shorter than the recommended height for tigers.

Tatiana initially attacked the older brother, Kulbir, but his friend Carlos Sousa successfully drew Tatiana's attention away from Kulbir towards himself. She then attacked Sousa, fatally wounding him with a slash to the neck.

The injured brothers fled, leaving their friend bleeding and dying there right outside Tatiana's enclosure, where his body was subsequently found by police. Because Kulbir had been attacked first, the brothers left a trail of blood, which police believe the tiger followed for 300 yards up a zoo pathway towards the Terrace Cafe.

Here's a picture of the Terrace Cafe yesterday. As it turns out, the place where I was standing when I took this photo is about where the tiger was eventually killed.

One thing that struck me yesterday is that the Terrace Cafe is far from the big cats area.  300 yards is a long way to run, bleeding and running from an angry Siberian Tiger.

They must have been scared out of their minds.  For a video of the crazy aftermath at the Terrace Cafe, click here.

The tiger was loose for 20-30 minutes. After killing Sousa, Tatiana specifically went after the Dhaliwal brothers, although others were around. The tiger attacked only those three men who were there together, and no one else.

The brothers ran to the Terrace Cafe (where they'd eaten earlier) and started frantically beating on the door, trying to get the half-wits who work there to let them in, which they wouldn't because the Terrace Cafe had closed.

I say half-wits because when I was there yesterday, nobody at working at the Terrace Cafe seemed to have any idea about the tiger attacks. I found that shocking... I mean... if I worked at a cafe where there had been a tiger attack just 6 weeks ago I think that I'd be at minimum aware of it. I got only shrugs and blank stares when I inquired into where the attack occured. One guy finally said lamely "I think the tiger exhibit is closed."

I could just imagine banging for my life on the door of the Terrace Cafe only to have the half-wit behind the glass shrug and point to his watch.

So anyway, the Dhaliwal brothers stood there, locked out, trying in vain to get in to the Terrace Cafe.  According to the Dhaliwal brothers' attorney, at that point the brothers lost sight of the tiger. 

The brothers then spotted a female security guard who appeared "diffident" when told of the escaped tiger, according to the Dhaliwal brothers' attorney.  Tatiana successfully stalked them, following Kulbir's blood right to them.

Police now say that finally someone at the Terrace Cafe did call, at 5:07. The cafe worker said that an "agitated" Paul Dhaliwal (the younger brother) stood screaming outside the closed and locked Terrace Cafe on the zoo's eastern edge. The half-wit worker at that point could not even tell the dispatcher whether serious bleeding was involved.

   

According to the logs, the Terrace Cafe worker initially told police that two men reporting the escaped tiger might be mentally disturbed and "making something up," though the older brother was bleeding from the back of the head.

From that account, fire dispatchers obtained a vague description of the incident, saying a lone man "was bitten by an exotic animal," and had suffered a laceration. The caller said he was not with the victim, who was reported as conscious and breathing, according to the fire dispatch logs.

Two minutes later, at 5:10 p.m., zoo employees reported that a tiger was loose and, at 5:13 p.m., the zoo was being evacuated and locked down as fire department responders arrived.

 

 

By 5:20 p.m. medics had located Sousa with a large puncture hole to his neck. The tiger was still loose.

Zoo emergency procedures weren't followed after the attack- more about that here. According to the zoo's policies, guards should "direct visitors away from the (animal) and secure people inside of buildings if appropriate" (as opposed to -say- leaving them frantically banging on the locked cafe door while a 350 pound tiger hunts down and attacks them).

Zoo visitor Rajesh Bhatia of San Mateo, who was visiting the zoo with his wife, two children and his wife's parents, said that he never got word about a loose tiger on the zoo grounds.*

He said that he and his family visited the large cat exhibit at about 4:45 p.m., which must have been just before the tiger got loose. Then they went to get something to eat- happily for them they picked the Leaping Lemur cafe on the zoo's west side. While the tiger was escaping and then mauling the Dhaliwal brothers at the Terrace Cafe, Bhatia and his family blissfully sat in the Leaping Lemur cafe and grabbed a bite to eat. For nearly half an hour, there were no announcements, warnings or alarms, he said.

Maybe it was more than luck that nobody else got hurt- apparently, Tatiana ignored all of the other zoo patrons and hunted down those specific boys.

Tatiana cornered, attacked and began mauling Kulbir Dhaliwal again at the Terrace Cafe before police officers arrived.  When the police/paramedics finally got there, they found the tiger standing over one of the brothers. It gets a little unclear here what happened exactly and where each brother was, but one account says that 'a man' was sitting on the ground, blood running from gashes in his head and Tatiana was sitting next to him. I know that at some point both brothers were attacked by the tiger.

As medics attended to one of the brothers, an officer spotted the tiger sitting down before it fled and began attacking the other brother, according to the logs. Four police officers managed to make enough noise to get Tatiana’s attention, but she went right back to her attack, ignoring everyone else and attacking only those young men.

The paramedics must have been freaking out, too, as they had been told (wrongly, as it turns out) that three other tigers might be on the loose, and it was getting dark. The zoo has no emergency lighting system, and there are no surveillance cameras pointed at the big cats' grottos. Thus, officers could not find out from zoo guards which animal or animals had escaped.

At 5:27 p.m. the officers began firing at Tatiana, killing her instantly.

SF Zoo proprietor Mollinedo said that the zoo has a response team armed with tranquilizers and firearms, but that the scene unfolded "so quickly that the officers found (Tatiana) first." 

So... Were They Taunting Tatiana?

In some ways, that's the $64,000 question, but in on the other hand... I'm sure that they were utterly shocked (as were all zookeepers nationwide) that the tiger was able to get out, even if provoked.

One of the boys initially admitted to taunting the tiger, but (likely on the advice of his lawyer) he's subsequently recanted that admission. The lawyer for the survivors is Mark Geragos, who previously represented Scott Peterson (the guy who killed his extremely pregnant wife Lacey and their unborn son).

Lawyer spin or not, in short it seems that yes, they were taunting the tiger... why else would the tiger suddenly gain super-tiger, adrenaline-induced fight-or-flight strength, surmount a wall nobody thought possible and go after just those 3 boys? The tiger grotto is 40 years old and no tiger has escaped before.

Plus there were eyewitnesses who saw the boys taunting the big cats.  In a San Francisco Chronicle article, zoo patron Jennifer Miller reported that she, her husband and children saw four young men at the big cat grottos and that three of the men were teasing the lions. Ms. Miller said that she called the zoo to report the obvious "taunting." 

"The boys, especially the older one, were roaring at them. He was taunting them," the San Francisco woman said. "They were trying to get that lion's attention. The lion was bristling, so I just said, 'Come on, let's get out of here' because my kids were disturbed by it.

Miller called their behavior "disturbing."

Her family was looking at the lions when the young men stopped beside them at the big-cat grottos - five outdoor exhibits attached to the Lion House. The young men started roaring at the lions and acting "boisterous" to get their attention, said Miller, who added that she watched the four for five minutes or so a little after 4 p.m.

"It was why we left," she said. "Their behavior was disturbing. They kept doing it."

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, police found a shoe and blood in an area between the gate and the edge of the animal’s 25- to 30-foot-wide moat, prompting the possibility that one of the victims dangled a leg or other body part over the edge of the moat.

The Big Cats Today

After all the commotion, the big cat cages and grottos were recently renovated, to the tune of somewhere between a million and $1.3 million. As if yesterday much of the area remained closed to visitors like us:

The lions and one Sumatran Tiger were the only big cats we could find. There was a thick glass wall between the magnificent beasts and us, but they're still pretty close:

We were able to look through the lions' window and see the new, taller walls, complete with electrified wires at the top:

I've since heard that the big cats will be on display today (Feb. 21)- but since it's pouring down rain today, yesterday had to do. We were able to get up close and personal with a Sumatran tiger yesterday:

In retrospect, I regret that the flash on my camera went off when I snapped the picture of my hand, above.  With all of the tiger attack mania in my head, I was surprised when I saw just how close the Sumatran tiger was to us and my roiling brain forgot to turn off the flash.

There Will be Lawsuits

Legal experts said lawsuits are likely. Already, the zoo is facing a lawsuit by zookeeper Lori Komejan, who was attacked last year when she fed the same tiger (Tatiana) last year. On Dec. 22, 2006, Tatiana chewed the flesh off Lori Komejan's arm in front of about 50 visitors lingering in the Lion House after the cats were fed. A state investigation later ruled that the zoo was at fault for the attack because of the way the cages were configured.

In October, Komejan sued the city of San Francisco, seeking compensation for lost wages, medical expenses and emotional distress. She accused the city, which owns the zoo property, of "housing the tigers with reckless disregard for the safety of animal handlers and members of the general public."

The deadly tiger escape at the San Francisco Zoo could prove to be a costly blow to an institution that has come under fire repeatedly in just the past few years over the deaths of two elephants and the mauling of a zookeeper.

"All this legal action is likely to impact the financial viability of the zoo," said Rory Little, a professor at the University of California's Hastings College of the Law. "Whether the zoo can stay open is a big question."

Has the zoo learned?  Well... there's an SF Gate story about near escapes by a polar bear and, in a separate incident, also a snow leopard at the SF Zoo less than a week after the tiger attack.  Read more about those near misses in January 2008, here.

I also saw to my horror that the plexiglass (or whatever it is), right next to the window where Jordan and I had been standing next to the tiger was ajar yesterday:

this is literally 3 feet to the right of here:

I hope that the zoo is able to fix its problems and remain open. We high-tailed it outta the tiger area after we saw the broken plexiglass-thing, but I hope to go back to a safer zoo soon.... would love to check out the new improved tiger grottos.

S.F. Zoo incidents

 

 

Dec. 25, 2007: A Siberian tiger named Tatiana escapes and kills a 17-year-old San Jose boy and injures two brothers.

   

Dec. 22, 2006: Tatiana attacks and mauls zookeeper Lori Komejan, causing deep lacerations to her arms.

   

February 2001: A zoo employee is attacked and injured by the claws of a cassowary, a 5-foot-tall, 80-pound flightless bird native to the tropical forests of New Guinea and northeastern Australia.

   

November 1994: Two Patas monkeys escape from the Primate Discovery Center. The monkeys are about 15 inches high and weigh around 35 pounds.

   

May 1990: Veteran zookeeper Alan Feinberg is attacked and bitten by a 90-pound Persian leopard as a crowd of schoolchildren watches in horror. The keeper is treated for deep wounds to his head and neck.

   

February 1990: A keeper suffers a lower back fracture after being knocked into a 10-foot-deep moat by Tinkerbelle, a 7,000-pound elephant.

   

October 1988: Tinkerbelle attacks animal health technician Gail Hedberg, who was treating the elephant for an abscess on its cheek. The elephant knocks the technician down and does a headstand on her. Hedberg suffers a crushed pelvis.

   

July 1985: Two Patas monkeys escape from the zoo and remain at large for six weeks before being recaptured behind the University of California medical complex on Mount Sutro.

   

April 1980: Five female City College students are caught fording the moat around Monkey Island. Police officers find a dead spider monkey in a duffel bag floating in the moat. The women are later given suspended jail sentences and six months' probation.

   

January 1979: A male Indian elephant injures keepers, knocking one into the moat.

   

November 1976: A 175-pound South American jaguar escapes from the zoo's animal hospital, where it was recovering from cracked footpads. Zoo director Saul Kitchener fells the animal, named Buster, with a dart from a tranquilizer gun

   

February 1976: An antelope leaps over a damaged fence and knocks a visitor to the ground, causing head injuries.

   

March 1972: A 3-year-old girl suffers a broken jaw and deep facial cuts when a camel leans over a fence and bites the child in the face. It drags her over the fence and tramples her.

   

March 1971: A 300-pound female tapir escapes from her compound and is found wandering on Sloat Boulevard. The tapir bounds over two police cars, denting both, and then knocks a police officer to the ground.

   

August 1969: An escaped chimpanzee bites two keepers.

   

April 1968: Amos Watson, a visitor, is mauled by a 450-pound lion, suffering puncture wounds over most of his body. Watson had climbed over a rail and tumbled into the moat. The lion is killed by one shot from a keeper's rifle.

   

August 1967: Zookeeper Robert Caldwell is badly bitten by a 400-pound orangutan. He was alone near the Great Ape Grotto when Big Red, the male orangutan, reached under the mesh-covered bars and grabbed Caldwell's left arm, pulling it into the cage. Then Linda, a female orangutan, chewed on the keeper's arm.

   

November 1962: May, a 6,000-pound elephant, attacks her keeper, battering him with her trunk and butting him with her head.

   

December 1960: A 500-pound lion reaches between the bars of its cage and hooks the arm of a keeper, who has to undergo two hours of surgery for his injuries.

   

May 1960: A 125-pound black leopard attacks a keeper who had been feeding the animal.

   

March 1949: A polar bear reaches through the bars of its cage and hooks a visitor's arm.

* I copied some of these quotes directly from the Internet.  I did not personally interview anyone- well, except for the half-wit Terrace Cafe workers yesterday.  Charts and graphs have also been lifted.