« March 2007 | Main | May 2007 »
After reading some of the coverage yesterday at SFGate about the Big Fire, I wondered if this could finally debunk professional loudmouth Rose O'Donnell and the "Loose Change" nuts' theories
Then I read in today's coverage on the site, that apparently many of you have been calling the Chronicle making the same point.
Who's taking bets that Rosie O'Loudmouth will be retracting her dumb comments anytime soon?
While reading some coverage of the California Democratic Convention this weekend, I caught this article in the Chronicle by Carla Marinucci about the role of "bloggers" at the convention.
I would love to attended since this is probably going to be one of the few "good" conventions to attend, but I just couldn't justify the expense when I've got more important things to do than run around with political types who chatter on about how "great" their candidate is.
However, Marinucci's article was notable for one thing -it exposed just how terrified poltical consultants are of emerging media and technology. When we get to the point where smart, articulate people can put together on their own the media you used to have to spend thousands of dollars on expensive political consultants with lots of specialized equipment and personnel, that's about the time people start to wonder why it is we need "political consultants" in the first place.
Plus, when you consider the vast difference in sophistication, execution, design, and concept of advertising by mainstream American companies vs. the dull, cheap-looking ads of political campaigns, you start to wonder - why are people paying for advice that's so 1980s?
That's why "consultants" have to do what they can (just like mainstream media) to malign and stereotype citizen media. They, like the newspapers, are desperately trying to protect a monopoly-driven marketplace that has only a few people in control, and regard you as nothing more than a consumer of what they decide is best for you. For an example of this kind of nonsense, check out this quote from Ms. Marinucci's story:
But one key state Democratic strategist, speaking on the condition of anonymitybecause of concern for riling the netroots crowd, warns that such efforts are potentially positive and negative. Netroots commentary can frequently be intensely personal, even "totally mean and irrational," the strategist said, with some bloggers finding power in their ability "to assassinate political characters online." "It's amplified by the anonymity, and it can be scary that it's so irresponsible," the insider said. "And it's pulling the mainstream media in that direction."
In other words, this "consultant" is engaging in the kinds of things he alleges "all" bloggers do. Even though most people of any repute sign their names, and there is genuine anger and distrust of the media, the Highly Paid Democrat Consultant Way of Doing Things, and more that people want to talk about . Plus, how is it any better when political consultants get their clients to raise millions of special interest dollars for negative hit pieces and tv spots? Hmmm?
It's nothing new - these conversations have gone on for years. Now, people can talk to others around the world and organize themselves and succeed. And THAT has the well-paid, 20th Century political class scared, because they have no idea what to do, besides, well use the cover of anonymity to engage in character assassination!
This is an open plea to both the Mayor of San Francisco, his army of staff and supporters and the people of San Francisco. Specifically I'm talking today about the "Mayoral Town Hall Meeting" scheduled for tomorrow at 2pm.
Every single one of these things has featured a) bad weather, usually rain or cold, b) an endless conga line of city-paid bureaucrats who stand around in the back, and c) a program so scripted and so boring it makes watching paint dry look like the playoffs.
I would think that with the combined brainpower of the good citizens working in City Hall, and the endless amount of excess creative energy that seems to spill out all over the place in this lovely burg, somehow, these things could be made a bit more entertaining. Helen Lovejoy put it best - won't someone please think about the children??.
Seriously. My tax dollars are paying for this circus, so let's have the Mayor fly in on a jetpack into the Excelsior, with Stan Lee, and perhaps have a tiger jump through fire, or a team of city department heads do acrobatics (or would that be bureau-acro-batics?).
Now that's what I call a Town Hall Meeting! See you there!
Bored at work? Looking for something fun? Why not check out the Tshirt shop, and buy yourself an Adama in 2008 shirt, or celebrate the return of Heroes on April 23rd with a special Save the Bumblebee, Save the World shirt! Excelsior!
Last year I kicked off this site at the California Democratic Party Convention in Sacramento. I wanted to go to the big convention in San Diego this year (which will feature many presidential candidates) but work commitments won't allow it.
So here's your chance to help me cover the convention on the ground for me while I cover it on the webcast. I'm looking for a few committed folks who are attending the convention willing to post "live from the floor " dispatches. In exchange, I'll get you a press pass so you'll have full access to the convetion.
Email me and tell me why you'd like to be a correspondent and if you're picked, I'll ensure you get a press pass! Thanks and I look forward to your interest!
This weekend I got a copy of Street Fight. Although the title suggests it's a Hong Kong action flick, in fact it is a great documentary about the 2002 Newark Mayor's race. It has as much drama and tension as any Scorsese film, and it has more eye-opening and jaw-dropping moments than I can remember.
Why all the drama? In this case, the battle was between Councilman Cory Booker, a young African American attorney (and Stanford grad!) who was serving his first term on the Newark City Council, and incumbent Mayor Sharpe James, who'd been in office for decades.
Watching the film, and the amazing abuses of police power, democracy, and how easily an American city can toss the freedoms we take for granted into the dumpster, was really something to watch. In the face of such adversity, most people would give up, or lose it as the endless BS piled up against them, and who would blame them?
Instead, it was both the personal integrity Booker had, along with his strong sense of self and true belief in what he was doing, that kept him going through these really tough times. The film does an excellent job of showing behind the scenes moments in a campaign few people get to see, and by the end you're really rooting for the guy.
More to the point, spinning, politicking and talking points were not the way to win this race - it was standing up for something, saying what you meant, and doing something tangible as a result. I seriously doubt the James or Booker campaigns spent endless hours whining about Newarkist.com - they were too busy having a street fight.
Although he lost to James by a few points in 2002, he came back to win in 2006 (scaring James out of the race). He would never have won in 2006 had he not run so closely in 2002, and pretty much started up another campaign about a year or so after he lost.
After watching this film, I started thinking about our own local political scene, and contrasted it with the Booker/James race. Frankly, the only term I could come up with was "Dork Fight." And I don't mean that in a good way.
Seriously. We're supposedly this educated, cosmopolitan, smart city, and the best election we can come up with as we face Big Issues that will shape San Francisco for decades to come is, well, a bunch of dorks running around town acting silly.
Our idea of "mean" campaign behavior is a bunch of dorks in chicken suits critiquing the dorky mayor because he doesn't like conversing with people sans script - instead we have these city-sponsored forums (aka bore-rums). Crime, MUNI meltdown 2007, housing? What are those?
Make even a mild comment that the Mayor isn't perfect, you get ripped a new one for being "mean." Oh, the irony. Then there was that other fumble that kept the blogs fueled for a while. Compared to Newark, this is really, well, dorky.
There's plenty of dorkiness to go around. The so-called "progressives" have spent years passing countless new rules to supposedly help Their Guys - gimmicks like IRV/RCV, and more recently, public funding of mayoral elections. And yet, now with the a serious crime problem, and new MUNI-screwed commutes, not one progressive has stood up and been willing to put their name on the ballot and challenge the Mayor. Why?
Progressives need to put up or shut up. If after all of this the only thing they can do is run around in circles, ponder endlessly What Will Matt Do (note: he's not running and never planned to), and spend endless hours on blogs and chatrooms, instead of putting up a credible candidate, well it's time to take down the circus tent, shut down the progressive calliope, and get out of the way of the Mayor. He may not be perfect, but you can't spend 6 months talking smack and have no one as an alternative.
In the end, it's not the Mayor who's a loser, or the progressive politicians and politickers. They get to keep their paychecks and their jobs, and laugh at us while we're stuck waiting for MUNI to show up, etc.
We're the losers, becuase we have to see our great City of the 21st Century become the New York of the 1970s, all because neither side is willing to engage in a true "street fight" like they do in Newark, which a this point, we'd all benefit from. At least we'd get a chance to ask some questions, right?
A few weeks ago, I got an email from Merchant's Exchange Building and signed up. Who can pass up discounted Guinness, right?
Then I realized that it's the same night of the more recently announced debate/knife fight between Sen. Carole Migden and Assemblyman Mark Leno, which I figured might be worth some blogging goodness.
Guinness at 6:30 or Brawl at 7? Which should I choose?
People wondering if their concerns about public safety were just an eerie paranoid feeling had their worst fears confirmed with a string of revelations in the local press recently. First, we hear that auto break-ins are on the rise, while the D.A.'s office does nothing. So the next time your car is broken into, remember to the D.A. and the City, it's the criminal who has the rights, not you!
Then we read about a particularly dangerous day in San Francisco where repeat offenders are allowed to go free, and the only response from City leaders are shrug, spin and talk - while all along the fact remains murders and crime are on the rise, unpunished.
If any of this sounds familiar, that's because this has been par for the course for quite some time, and while San Franciscans are much less safe from violent crime, theft, and the like, the spin seems to work because neither the Mayor nor the District Attorney face serious threats to their re-election. The politickers engage in their chatter, the media refuses to take the long view, and all the while we're subjected to more chatter.
Meanwhile, you, I, and your friends and neighbors are far less safe. It seems spin and disinfo aren't a great foil for criminals with guns who shoot people, or thieves eyeing your hard-earned money as an entitlement they're owed by you. (Don't tell the spinners - it'll make them feel bad!)
Then we had a little doozy last week with our old pals with Critical Mass. As usual, the level of disinformation in any incident involving Critical Mass reaches a crescendo - between the participants who engage in junkie logic with a fervor that would make a meth addict blush, and the Rashomon-like retelling of the incident from various channels, official, et al.
I have long since lost any respect for both Critical Mass and the City's official endorsement, oops I mean response to Critical Mass, after witnessing a particularly egregious disparity in the way people are treated last summer.
I doubt most will remember that on the same day Critical Mass got their taxpayer/government sponsored fun day, the full force of John Law was being hammered onto a handful of hapless art students who were trying to promote mass transit with a fun Friday event.
And, by pointing this out, I had the pleasure of receiving foul-mouthed emails, death threats (!) and attempts to vandalize my property from the mob that is Critical Mass. All because I didn't march in goose-step with Critical Mass and repeat their rosary ad infinitum, without question. Silly me, I thought free speech was celebrated in San Francisco - but when you're dealing with Stalinists and the like, no dice.
This being San Francisco, we can't finish the day's absurdity without at least one elected official stepping in to "say something reassuring" and today it was Mayor Newsom who, after initially ho-humming the whole affair, vowed to take a serious look at the incident. Thank God. Because what we need is another "look" at something, right?
He also made a point of addressing the unnamed Bicylcle Coalition leadership, demanding that they "issue a statement" blah blah blah. Which is hilarious, considering he appointed said head of the Coalition to the powerful MTA, and tried to sound support for the "message" of the Massholes. Funny, I was told if we voted for that Greenie Gonzalez we'd have a mayor that was pro Critical Mass. Which way is it, moderate Mayor? I'm confused now!
Don't worry. He'll keep his job, and so will the D.A. Because no matter how often law abiding citizens get robbed, beaten, or killed, San Franciscans will continue to support the status quo. At least that's what the polls keep saying. Maybe San Franciscans like more crime?
It makes you wonder - did the criminals of SF form a PAC or something to get things this good?
UPDATE: Within hours of publishing this mere blog entry, I've already had to block comments that were virulently racist, anti-Semitic, and more. How funny that the alleged guardians of truth and justice and freedom from Critical Mass have to resort to the tactics of the thug, the Stalinist, or worse. And they're not even the focus of this article either!
