Author Archives: gdewar

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

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!

The San Francisco Democratic Party (known formally as the Democratic Central Committee) will be voting on its endorsements next week. This is an important vote, because many people simply look at what the party recommends on a postcard they get in the mail, and votes more or less along those lines.
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.

San Francisco’s politics are driven in large part by anectdotal stories, so why not add another one to this “sit/lie” silliness that’s made its way to the ballot. Because the Upper Haight sucks (sorry, but it does, it hasn’t been cool for decades) we’re now going to have well-funded antagonism for the next few months. And, as in the past, it may result in some “law” passed, but like the aggressive panhandling law, and other such things, it probably won’t do a damn thing.
On to the anecdote. This morning I was awoken by some loud shouty people outside my window. At first I thoguht it was the loud, shouty guys who’ve been fixing up some of the units in our building, but after a few minutes I realized it wasn’t them. Instead 3 homeless guys decided to sit on some boxes and get drunk on cheap liquor. Now if they weren’t making any noise, and not making a mess, I don’t think anyone would have necessarily noticed. But no, these jerks were making noise, going through the recycle bins and being jerks.
What tore it for me (aside from the fact I got very little sleep last night thanks to some jerks who decided to rev up their cars and drag race down our block at 3am) was when of them decided to use one of the nice planter boxes on our street that neighbors had built to make the street nicer, as a toilet. So, I called the Taraval Station (this was not a 911-worthy call) and told them what was up. (I later learned several others did as well)
Within 5 minutes, the SFPD was on the scene, and told them to scram, and they did. Now, apparently according to the brainiacs downtown, the police have “no power” in this situation. Sorry to burst bubbles, but in this case, the pack of jerks scattered like rats within 2 minutes of the officer’s arrival. So that makes swiss cheese out of that straw man (see how I combined metaphors improperly there?)
Now, before the liberals get all in my face about being mean to the homeless, let me say this: If these three had simply been sitting and talking quietly on one of our benches and treating the neighborhood with respect, no one would have cared, or even noticed.
In fact many people walking through use our benches and enjoy our planters (not as toilets but as planters), and that’s fine. But when they literally shit on something people worked hard to make the place nicer, and show no respect at 8am for everyone by shouting and drinking, they are being jerks, so therefore they are treated as jerks.
Too often San Francisco defines compromise and respect as “do what the shrillest, extremist voices say, and don’t you dare oppose them ‘or else.'” That is not respect or compromise, that is the dictatorship of the shrill. Until we learn the difference, we will always have this choose-up-sider BS legislation proposed, when in fact if people simply acted like adults, instead of constantly babied children, we would all get along better in a dense urban city.

Breaking News! Sup. Michela Alioto-Pier, fresh off a failed bid for Insurance Commissioner, fought in court and “won” a victory today – her name can appear on the ballot after all, despite term limits, to run for re-election as Supervisor after all.
At least, that’s the headlines. Take a closer look and you’ll see why this is a Pyrrich political victory, SF-style.
See, while Her Supervisorness was off either not running for re-election or for Insurance Commissinoer or whatever, Other Candidates decided to run. And unlike the joke candidates Sup. Alioto-Pier faced in the past as an incumbent, these candidates are very credible, and very competitive.
Janet Reilly has the endorsement of pretty much everyone on the political scene, somehow managing to get the support of both progressives and “moderate” Democrats, and endorsements from both Aaron Peskin and Mayor Newsom. (Go research when the last time those two agreed on anything, much less the wide variety of politicians and community leaders from all sides did).
Mark Farrell is also a very credible candidate, having raised a lot of money early in the race, hiring a crack campaign team, and who has been running for this office for some time now. He is also a credible candidate, like Mrs. Reilly.
In every campaign where Sup. Alioto-Pier has faced Credible Candidates, she has lost each time. She may have the incumbency badge, but this late in the game it’s hard to see much of either Reilly or Farrell’s supporters peeling off to support someone who as recently as a few months ago was running for another office.
Congratulations, Supervisor. Now let’s see how things shake out when our Supervisorial elections aren’t simply rubber stamps for incumbents.