Mad Moderate

Religious Discrimination in Eastham

Church-going landlords can be bigots too

Chris and Mark are fourth-generation Cape Codders looking for a rental home to share. Chris is a 30-year-old web designer. Mark is a 34-year-old carpenter. They’re brothers. Both men are responsible and have great references.

Any landlord renting to them would benefit from their habit of leaving a property in better shape than when they arrived.

This week, after a month of searching, Chris and Mark found a perfect place in Eastham. The rental agent said their references were the best she’d ever seen. But, after consulting the homeowner, they were rejected as prospective tenants.

Why?  Chris and Mark are both single parents with shared child custody arrangements. When the homeowner learned about their circumstances, she condemned them as “godless.”  

Mark has two young sons. Chris has twins, a boy and girl. On weekends they both have their kids. These children were born into marriages that weren’t meant to be. Their fathers love them and are actively involved in their lives.

Where is it written that brothers spending time with their children on weekends is “godless”?  There are no religious or social laws being broken here.  This landlord’s behavior defies common sense, basic decency and universal family values.

Discrimination against religious groups makes news regularly. Outrage is heard when fundamentalist groups protest against gays and lesbians. Chris and Mark don’t belong to any interest groups. No lobbyists will argue on their behalf. They’re just two honest hardworking people trying to raise their families on Cape Cod.

No one should discriminate against that.

Chris and Mark are still looking for a place to live. 

If you know of a place please send an email to Chris@MoreBeach.com.

You’ll receive many thanks.

3 comments »

Yo Bobby - Nantucket Sound Ain't Yosemite

Bobby, I grew up with Yosemite, I know Yosemite, Yosemite is a special place of mine. Bobby, Nantucket Sound is no Yosemite.

Portraying Nantucket Sound as untrammeled wilderness is a bald faced lie. It's pretty yes, just as pretty and virginal as Madonna. In the Yosemite back country visitors are annoyed by the appearance of a jet at 30,000 feet because that's the only intrusion into views that haven't changed since the glaciers retreated - there's not a single home or other evidence of development in sight. Anyone who can hike or ride a mule can see these truly unspoiled views. The magnificent views from Glacier Point and the Valley Floor are nearly as pristine and are available to anyone who can ride in a bus or a car.

And then you wrapped the Cape Cod National Seashore into your argument... for those who don't know better you make it sound like the Wind Farm will be located in a National Park. Have you been taking lessons from Rush Limbaugh? Seriously now, there are some fair arguments to be made against the Wind Farm. But the "like Yosemite" argument you made is about as lame and deceitful as it gets. Nantucket Sound has as much commercial Traffic as I-95.  Likewise your arguments about navigation, birds, and fishing. Lame, lame and lame again.

Windmills in Natucket Sound will be pretty during the day and at night... well... I admit that a runway full of red lights in what was once a mysterious sea of blackness will be unfortunate. But even that is weak tea for opposing the Wind Farm.

The best argument I'm aware of against the wind farm is that this allocation of sea bed for commercial development could open the door to a host of unintended and unfortunate consequences. That said, I think it's worth the risk.

The bottom line Bobby is that we need energy, lots of it, and all of the choices are ugly. Conservation will only go so far. Thus, we need to do a lot of things. I'm in favor of all of them to some degree...in conjunction with conservation we should impose a stiff carbon tax while aggressively pursuing nuclear energy, drilling in ANWAR and developing tidal geothermal and wind energy sources. We need conservation and more and better energy sources to accomplish two things that are critical to our local and national inerests: 1) true energy independence that diminishes income sources to radical islam and 2) aggressive action to mitigate global warming.

With regard to global warming, let me appeal to you as a selfish property owner (okay it's not yours but it might as well be) with beach front property just 10' above the high tide of Nantucket Sound. Cape Cod residents and especially people like you have a chance to set an example to take a position of true leadership against global warming. If you can't act in your own long term self interest, then how can we expect anyone else to do it.

28 comments »

Fox News Patriotism at The Ho

Orleans, MA - On Tuesday I had the soup and sandwich for lunch at Land Ho's bar. The boot clad 30 something guy to my right said loudly to the barkeeper, "could you change the channel from the Communist News Network to Fox - at least there they give news that's close to the truth." Hearing this the 50 something woman in a cashmere sweater to my left told her husband, "I agree with him." I thought about pointing out that my Manhattan clam chowder was a nice shade of red but kept my mouth shut. Then news about Gerald Ford came on and we all started talking. One thing led to another and we were onto the subject of Iraq.

I sincerely believe that toppling Saddam and establishing democracy in Iraq are noble acts that serve our national interest - in concept. I'm not sure  that these acts will be worth the cost. The staggering incompetence of the occupation has made success much harder to achieve. The President's father had good reasons to stop at Iraq's border after liberating Kuwait. He wrote about it in his book. It's a shame the President didn't honor his father by reading the book (or listening to his generals instead of Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney). All of that said, we're in Iraq now, and leaving prematurely would likely lead to something far worse than what we've already seen in Afghanistan or Sudan. We'd need to invade again. If I we're President I'd tell the country we should be prepared to stay in Iraq for twenty years or more.

Meanwhile, back at The Ho... 

None of this was an issue on Tuesday at the Land Ho bar. Not directly anyway. Honesty and patriotism were the issues. My Fox News barmates were steamed at the idea of news sources regularly informing the public about the names of the soldiers who had been recently killed or on the tally of death to date. I asked, "doesn't it honor the soldiers and their families to have their names told to the public at large?" No, telling the entire countrythe names of those who had died was somehow unpatriotic.

I ventured the thought that we should all be sharing the sacrifices required by the war against terrorism, including reinstituting the draft. Mr 30 something responded to the effect that the guys and gals who enlisted in the Army and National Guard knew what they were getting into and could have chosen other jobs if they'd wanted them. Mercenaries were fine with him.  The British had the right idea with the Hessians. "But if they invaded my town and threatened my home I'd be out there fighting you can be sure."

So, I asked, being a patriot requires nothing more than doing what's best for yourself and your business? Mr. 30-something replied that yes that's pretty much it. Ms. Cashmere noded assent. No need to sacrifice for the greater good of the country? Nope. There's no need since we could pay others to sacrifice for us. Following the tenets of Adam Smith and pursuingnaked self interest was all that was required to be a patriot.

J.F.K. had it wrong 

John Kennedy had it wrong. In today's America the "patriots" say, "ask not what you can do for your country, ask what you can do for yourself." That kind of patriotism seems crazy to me. But then maybe I am crazy. After all, who eats Manhattan clam chowder on Cape Cod?

36 comments »