Disinfo Rehab

I'm no fan of Gavin Newsom, and that's not exactly a state secret. 7 years of ruining Muni and showboaty, go-nowhere policies and big pay raises to city workers has left the city a mess. That said, when I saw the infamous convention video that appointed Lt. Gov put out over the weekend, I was just blown away by some of the big lies in this thing and even I found it rather unfair. You know when something's up when even a big critic of the Mayor thinks the guy is being picked on unfairly.

Anyone can rip on Mayor Newsom with an endless array of provable facts. The fact that despite this, the Maldonado camapign felt a need to put a BIG ASS LIE in the middle of it made me realize that I'm going to have to write in someone for this because while I don't like seeing Newsom get a promotion he doesn't deserve, I sure as Hell can't vote for Abel either.

The lie? Well in the video they mention the death of an SFPD officer in 2006. Then they cut to a video of Newsom being interviewed by Dan Noyes of ABC7 in San Francisco. It's the famous "mad clap" video where he goes off on Noyes. You can find it at 4 minutes and 10 seconds in to the video (btw which has terrible editing. WTF?)

The problem is, Noyes wasn't asking him in 2006 about the death of an SFPD officer. Instead it was shot in 2007, and Noyes was asking about the many allegations of Newsom's alcohol abuse that were swirling around him as that and that other scandal were making its way out on the Series of Tubes.

Amazing. They had to edit a lie instead of just tell the truth. For no good reason. Yeah, we really want either one of these guys a heartbeat from the Governor's office. Time to write in your favorite celebrities or something!

Posted by Greg Dewar at 1:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Attention San Francisco! Listen up! I have a simple solution to all the bullsh*t going on right now! We can knock out several birds with one stone, and we don't have to pass any new laws to do so! Read up!

So apparently because Haight Street has some criminal punks littering the sidewalks, we in the rest of the city have to vote on some stupid "Sit/Lie" law to appease a few people in one street in one neighborhood. We don't need to do this though. (And really, do you want to get a pile of junk mail and epic yelling from all sides on this for the next 3 months? Hell no!)

So here's what I, as someone who's not a six-figure city employee, came up with in about 20 minutes:

-I was reading at the ever entertaining Uptown Almanac blog a raging debate about sweeps done by SFPD via motorcycle, crackin' down on drinkin', smokin' and the like. But look, there's like, 6+ members of the police on motorcycles. For one park! Even though there's way worse crime going down in Golden Gate Park (tree murders! muggings! coyotes having sex! Whatever!) And it's a bigger park!

-So then, I thought "But wait. The eastern edge of Golden Gate Park has way more problems, and it's also where the bad and sad that is Haight Street begins. Perhaps it might be smart to redeploy these police officers there?" Think about it. If Haight Street is the epicenter of crap in San Francisco, perhaps a rapidly deployable police force in the area might help, yes?

-So here's the deal - take 4 of the SFPD at Dolores Park. Move them over to Haight Street. Have a vigilant populace call in any criminal crap these kids pull (drugs, harassing people, threatening people with dogs, etc). Send in motorized police, have them arrested, and put in jail. Seize any and all illegal substances, and make sure everyone see this happen. Repeat as necessary until stupid trustafarians and kids from the suburbs get the message: it ain't the f*cking 60s anymore, and you can't bully and steal and do drugs on the streets.

There. Problem solved with existing laws (surely crack smoking is illegal, Mr. Mayor?!?), and we don't have to listen to the epic whining on all sides about the "sit/lie" law. Problem solved.

PS: And if that doesn't work? File ADA lawsuits for all the mean kids blocking the sidewalks. Because if there's one thing we know that work's like Thor's hammer in SF, it's an ADA lawsuit. I'm not kidding. I suggested the same to shut down the illegal prostitution in the Outer Sunset.

Posted by Greg Dewar at 2:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

For fun, I've collected all of the satirical trailers of "The Social Network" in one place. Because that's being productive, right?

If I could get access to some cameras and some youthful actors, I've got a script for "The Muni Blog" ready to go...

The Original:

The Twitter Version:

The YouTube version

annnd The MySpace version

Posted by Greg Dewar at 3:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Oh, here we go. Once again, we can rely on Sup. Eric Mar for legislation that's all about the feel good and the headlines, but not about the policy. Today, we find out that he wants to ban Happy Meals, because he wants to protect the children from their own parents and guardians, and because it sounds cool to him and his ilk. You can bet the SF Gate comments are flipping out about this one.

It sounds noble - until you realize like most SF legislation, is another half-assed idea hatched to make someone look good. As always, this will apply to Big Evil Chains - but you know that they'll exempt "local" restaurants, just like with the fake plastic bag ban. And, it will generate lots of heat, but the alleged goal (healthier children) is lost. Instead of wasting dollars on some showboaty measure like this, why not instead get more healthy produce in neighborhoods that have none? Why not instead educate parents so they can make informed decisions? Fast food shouldn't be a daily staple - but taking your kid to McDonalds once in a while will not kill them, either.

Oh wait. I forgot. Not only would that be a long term commitment to policies and program that won't show up on his next election mailer, it might also call attention to Mar's own shameful record on child nutrition.

What's that you say? Well, Mr. Mar was once a member of the San Francisco School Board. Want to see what kind of healthy lunches they're serving? Check out this student-made video that shows what they're serving at Lowell High, the gem of the school system:

While the video was made in 2009, after Mr. Mar left office, it is ludicrous to think this only started after he left office. Same goes for ongoing non compliance with complex regulations.

Interesting. We have people in office who don't mind coming up with "flavor of the month" policies, instead of long term effective solutions that aren't as showy. They generate regulations that are needlessly complex and don't serve the intended goal (in this case making sure kids get healthy options for lunch, etc.) and leave the detritus for someone else to deal with.

But subject them to such regulations, as the school district was, and suddenly it's a human rights violation.

Hmm.

To Summarize: Better food for kids=good. Giving parents the options and information about said choices=good. Getting better quality food, fresh vegetables, etc. to all neighborhoods=good. Showboaty regulations that are ill thought out and are intended mostly for a mail piece in 2012=FAIL.

UPDATE: Thanks for the link, SF Weekly!

Posted by Greg Dewar at 9:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Candidates who wanted the endorsement had to submit to a rather lengthy questionnaire which you can read here, or download it from their site.

I found it fascinating that amongst all the detailed questions, not one was about Muni, which is on most people's minds whether they like it or not. Even after the publication of the Muni Death Spiral, and the ongoing debates between the Mayor and City Hall about the future of Muni, there's nothing on here for local candidates for Supervisor or other office discussing something everyone is affected by. In a list of local ballot measures, the Fix Muni Now charter amendment isn't even listed. This, an amendment which amassed 75,000 or so signatures to get on the ballot and would surely be of some interest to voters.

There's been all sorts of speculating on how the DCCC will vote on a Fix Muni Now endorsement, but if I had to guess, looking at who serves on the board of the DCCC, it's going to be an interesting vote.

Four members of the committee are also elected members of the Board of Supervisors (Campos, Chiu, Avalos, Mar) who rely heavily on organized labor's support. Two are candidates for the Board (Walker, Mandelman) who also rely on labor support as a cornerstone of their campaign. Scott Weiner, another candidate for office, is sharing offices with Fix Muni Now in the Castro, and Gabriel Haaland is a well known labor leader in San Francisco.

It's difficult to tell how the ex-officio members (those who are Democrats elected to office) will vote on this, as is with some of the other members of the DCCC. If anyone has any insight into this, feel free to post in the comments.

I find it fascinating that a city that claims to be "green" and "transit first" has a Democratic Party locally that doesn't seem to want to talk about these issues. If the current questionnaire as posted on the Party website is wrong, and in fact they do list Fix Muni Now, I'd love to see it. Otherwise, it seems that once again, Muni's challenges aren't being relegated to the back of the bus - Muni isn't even being allowed on in the first place.

Oh, the irony.

PS: Since the local party doesn't seem to want to talk about these, I've launched the Muni Rider Voter Guide. It's now live. Which candidates will speak up and tell us about their plans for Muni, and which will duck the issue?

PS2: The local Democrats voted "no endorsement" for Prop. G, the Fix Muni Now measure. If anything it just proves once again the so-called "progressives" don't give a damn about Muni, and continue to actively work for its demise as much as Muni boss Nate Ford and Prince Newsom do.

Posted by Greg Dewar at 6:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Oh Target. Everyone was atwitterin' about how the chain store was finally opening one up in San Francisco. Yes, it's a chain, blah blah blah, but if you're buying household items and other said necessities, sometimes one doesn't want to buy an artisan macrame frying pan, they just want to buy one that's cheap, and not have to go to Colma. It didn't hurt that Target had a great local PR team to boost its chances, either.

Then the "big news" started to trickle out about Target's donation to a group backing some right wing guy in Minnesota (home base of Target) running for governor who thinks that all waiters make $100,000 a year, and dislikes gay people. What a surprise! A big company supports a right wing candidate based on their economic views? Shocking. Just shocking.

Naturally, this started a storm of fiery Internet critiques. Newspaper ads appeared, and trusty MoveOn.org launched Yet Another Email SPAM Blast begging for money and whatever else it is MoveOn.org begs from you, blasting away at the now Evil Target. Predictably, conservative bloggers and talkers rallied to Target's defense, and engaged in their own brand of self promoting babble. Blah blah blah.

Finally, Target "apologized." Their first foray in direct corporate funding for political camapigns ended in a bit of a standoff, with no one really "winning" (aside from all those lefty and righty groups, bloggers and whatnots who made a few pennies off the sh*tstorm).

Let's take a breather from all the hot air, and let's review a few facts:

- The Awl makes the very obvious-but-not-obvious point that Target's corporate management and PACs have always supported very conservative candidates for office. That is their right, after all - the leadership of Target is free to support whomever they choose.

Yes, Target does some donations and other things that are GLBT-positive. But that's not a moral decision - that was a business decision to appeal to the GLBT consumer. Target also makes political donations to conservative politicians - that was a business decision to benefit Target's bottom line.

That's perfectly logical to upper management - unfortunately that kind of "having it both ways" doesn't always play well with the public. Hence the downside of engaging in politics - the Other Sides have the same right to engage in free speech too.

- Target has made a priority of expanding into urban markets with smaller stores, similar to the ones proposed in San Francisco. Urban areas tend to have well-organized, vocal GLBT communities, and losing their support because of this latest kerfuffle could cost those urban locations. I'm sure that when whoever is in charge of Giving Target's Corporate Cash Directly To Campaigns Department made the big donation to that PAC in Minnesota, they figured no one would care outside of MN. A logical assumption, but not necessarily the right one in the Age of The Internet and the Age of Angry Hyper-Partisanship.

Besides, despite all this support for anti-gay candidates, the Human Rights Campaign Fund gives Target (and allied retailer Best Buy) a sparkly 100% rating for being GLBT friendly. Remember that when they come begging for money from you on a street corner next time.

- I don't know that this whole thing will make a bit of difference in Target's plans for San Francisco. Despite the alleged liberalism of San Franciscans, they have shown a unique ability to abandon principles in favor of material goods. Target does provide cheap products from China and other necessities people seem to like, hence a lot of Target love in Liberal SF.

When they announced Target's plans, it was very difficult to find the usual band of NIMBYs and lefties who go to protest rallies speaking out against this particular chain. Then again, San Francisco plants a wet one on Whole Foods every time it opens another store, despite being one of the most obnoxious and overpriced chains in the country, so again, big surprise. The Castro welcomed a Levi's store (complete with sweatshop made clothes) with open arms, as well. The common thread being that chains that hire the best local PR people tend to get their way, because the local PR people know how to use the Politics of Feelings to keep the local hippies in check.

Target didn't do anything criminal in donating directly to some right wing group. However, the donation had the net effect of slapping their logo onto a partisan cause for the far right, for all to see. This, at the same time it's trying to have it both ways with all sorts of marketing to GLBT consumers. Given the bloodbath that is political discourse nowadays, it's not hard to see why this ended up as a PR FAIL for Target.

People know the Target brand, and it's easy to see why people might feel a bit put off when they see their favorite store supporting people that think they have no right to exist, at the same time the same company is running around saying it's pro GLBT. It's a bit of (oh God not an Orwell reference) doublethink in the classic sense of the word. Makes sense inside the office, but doesn't play well outside.

As for Target's plans in SF - bring it on. There's nothing at the old Sears location on Geary right now anyway, and if moving Target in means keeping some sales tax dollars in SF instead of seeing it all go to Colma, fine. It's not like some artisan hippie collective is going to be doing anything useful in the space.

If people really dislike Target's politics, they don't have to shop there. As for me, I've never had any delusions about what big corporate stores are and are not. They are not benevolent charities and paragons of goodliness and socialism, they are in business to make money for shareholders and themselves any way they can. I've never thought Target was the former - and I don't see why anyone else would think so either.

PS: If some corporation decided to pony up the cash for some left wing candidate for Governor (unlikely but hey, this is America), you can bet that the conservatives would be throwing a temper tantrum worse than a spoiled child too. The shoutalot ideologues in our country who make a buck off of antagonism tend to operate in the same way, be they left or right.

UPDATE: It seem the shareholders aren't too fond of all this hullaballoo. This is no surprise. Corporations are in the business of making money and serving the financial needs of their shareholders. If engaging in any politics (left or right) impedes this, then shareholders will not be pleased.

Posted by Greg Dewar at 11:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)