Category Archives: San Francisco Politics

In politics, a bad idea never goes away, especially when it is campaign gimmickry designed to boost the fortunes of a politician desperate for headlines. The problem is these silly campaign gimmicks can often end up becoming very bad, very expensive policy, and you, the citizen, end up paying the price.
The latest example has been this ongoing media barrage BART board member James Fang has been creating over his half-baked idea to use cell phones to pay BART Fares. Today’s Matier and Ross detailed Fang’s $4000 trip to London to go to a conference hosted by vendors of said technology. All this in addition to BART resources directed to “study” this issue at great cost. This, during a budget crisis.
But let’s take a trip in the political Wayback Machine to Fang’s 2006 campaign. Fang is a Republican in one of the most non-Republican parts of California. In a re-election bid against Emily Drennen, an advocate for transit and other Good Things, he had to find a way to ensure his re-election, using, of course the taxpayer-funded resources BART could offer.
The result was a completely phony “demonstration” of technology that simply does not exist in the United States (on the scale it does in other nations), with a whole slew of media on hand to “document” a completely falsified event. Naturally, in the closing days of the campaign, Fang, with a local press ready to reprint his every word like good PR people, was able to eclipse any discussion of real issues and win re-election. All based on a lie.
It should be noted that yes, you can use cell phones in Europe and Asia to make purchases of all sorts. Cell phones in Europe can be used with vending machines to buy sodas, and Japanese cell phones can show television broadcasts and so on. There’s just one problem – not one US cell carrier currently supports any “pay by cell” techonlogy, nor do any other transit agencies, any vending machine companies and so on. So Mr. Fang is either a liar or a fool when he somehow suggests that magically, within a couple of years, the US will be falling in line with European or Asian standards for cell phones amongst all its cell phone carriers.
The TransLink system, which cost a ton of money and allows for more efficient fare collection with BART, MUNI, AC Transit, and Golden Gate Transit, is FINALLY almost ready to go. MUNI passengers are already finding that using a TransLink pass is easier, and it’s expected to help all beleaguered transit systems with money issues. And yet Mr. Fang insists on spending scarce taxpayer dollars to go on junkets and insist on repeating his campaign gimmicks – on our dime. Worse, he’s actively undermining a significant regional project the public seems to like for no other reason than his own personal political gain.
The press needs to be admonished for going along with this phony baloney gimmick during the election and not asking the tough questions instead. However, Mr. Fang should also be admonished for wasting taxpayer dollars at a time of crisis, as should BART’s management for allowing this to continue. Mr. Fang’s actions are no longer a matter of political disagreement, but are costing taxpayers money, and the lies and foolishness need to stop NOW.
BART riders can’t afford it any more.

Disclaimer: I do some work for No on H.
It seems no good deed goes unpunished. Sunday, the Yes on H ran the strangest attack rally yet, calling anyone who opposes Prop. H a “liar.” And yet, in promoting the rally, which was both pro-Prop. H and against Prop. 8, the ban on same-sex marriages, it seems the pro-H people engaged in a bit of lying of their own.
First, they put out press releases claiming that the Alice B. Toklas Democratic club was participating in the rally. Not true, according to sources at the Toklas Democratic Club, who declined to particpate formally as a group.
But second, they seemed to omit the fact that PG&E, one of the sponsors of the No on H campaign has given a significant donation to the No on 8 campaign, as have many large corporations (Apple and Google being some of the most notable).
Now here’s where the tortured logic begins. It seems that giving to No on 8 is not “good enough” for the angry partisans supporting Prop. H, which frankly I don’t understand. The No on 8 campaign needed help. Many large companies decided to stand up and give significant donations to fight Prop. 8. To me, that sounds like a good thing.
Now, obviously, when it comes to any issue, be it Prop. H, what search engine to use, or what computer to buy, there is going to be a diversity of opinion within the LGBT community. That’s fine. What’s not fine is seeing Prop. H engage tell lies about it, and condemn a corporation that is now the target of a boycott campaign for standing up against Prop. 8 and make the suggestion that PG&E is for Prop. 8.
That’s the worst kind of lie, especialy when we see the hateful actions of folks on the other side.

I’ve never made a secret of what I do for a living – anyone can find my LinkedIn profile or my resume online, and so on. I’ve also created several blogs to voice my opinions for fun, including the N Judah Chronicles and BSG fanblog Adama for President. And, as a result, I’m often asked to contribute writing and analysis for private compaines, often because of the work I put on display here.
So it was funny to get an email from Steve Jones, the City Editor of the Bay Guardian, who wrote this rambling, nonsensical note, apparently upset that I don’t worship at the altar of Public Power, and was asked to come work for those opposed to the $4 billion power grab by Supervisors Daly, et al:

So you troll the blogs calling people out for not being progressive enough, and now you’re PG&E’s bitch. I hope they’ve paid handsomely for your soul, you hypocritical scumbag.

(I penned a short, polite response to Mr. Jones, sans profanity and homophobia, but I won’t post it until he sends another insult via Facebook. Folks shouldn’t have to read private correspondence online.)
UPDATE: You can see a transcript of the silliness here. You can see how unhinged (and how much of a liar) he is. Despite the fact that I always said I was working on the campaign once I got hired, and despite the fact I complied with all the rules, and went overboard to make sure that people knew what I was doing, he’s just too angry, stubborn and stupid to admit he’s printed lies. Oh, and I wonder if his bosses ever just picked up the phone and screamed insults at their subjects like he did.
I love the part about “corporate sponsorships in Seattle and the East Coast.” Um, dumbass, I didn’t have a blog in Seattle, I never published anything back then, and I worked in fundraising for legislative candidates. East Coast? Yeah, the corporations sure were hard at work electing Mark Green in 2001 or Felix Arroyo in 2003 in Boston. I guess if all you have is anger, stupidity, and a blind belief in outdated Marxist bullshit, you don’t need to do any work. Or admit you’re a foil for the Yes On H campaign.

Um, whatever. The first part of his little note (gotta love that junior college journalism degree writing there) makes no sense, but the last part just sounds childish. I mean really, my “soul?” I didn’t realize the method of transmitting power to customers involved the spiritual realm, but according to the Great and Wise Mr. Jones, it does.
Now remember, folks, this is someone who claims to be a “journalist” but in fact is a partisan as any “flak” for a cause or candidate. Pot calling kettle black, for sure.
Thin skinned and a poor journalist, I’ve had some exchanges with Mr. Jones about the medicority the Bay Guardian has slid into. And each exchange reinforces what I’ve believed all along – Mr. Jones just doesn’t have the temprament to be a reporter and just isn’t a very nice guy. Some of his former colleagues have confirmed that notion.

Continue reading →

There’s no denying that people want to see Good Things happen in San Francisco, and around the country, when it comes to global warming. People have responded to Vice President Gore’s film, and want to do the right thing. So it’s a bit disturbing when people’s good intentions are manipulated by politicians, as they are with the so-called “Clean Energy Act” (aka Measure H) in San Francisco.
The measure claims simply to be about “clean energy” sources for San Francisco. But once you read the measure, you find out two things. It’s not really about encouraging the use of clean energy sources for San Francisco residents – it’s about a multi-billion dollar take over of a private utility by the City of San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors. But more importantly, the measure would actually replace enforceable state regulations with regards to clean energy, and allow a City-run utility to use any power source – clean or not – so long as it’s “non nuclear.”
Yes, you read that right. The so-called “Clean Energy Act” has two loopholes large enough to drive a fleet of panda-burning Hummers through that allow this to happen. First, publicly owned utilities are EXEMPT from the strict regulations that will ensure private power companies will adhere to rules that require clean energy sources. So while PG and E, a company strictly regulated by the Public Utilities Commission, must comply with these rules, a City-run system will not.
Worse, the act defines clean energy as simply any source that is “non-nuclear.” By that definition, coal, natural gas, diesel, and other fossil fuels could be used by a City owned system. While San Franciscans will go to the polls and think they’re voting for clean energy, in fact they could be voting to open the door to more polluting energy sources if a City-run system can’t provide the power we need to turn on the lights every day.
San Francisco has an unfortunate history of packaging bad legislation in good wrappers – in the 1950s citizens voted to “save” the historic Cable Car system – but the measure in fact dismantled the useful and profitable network and turned it into the tourist ride that it is today.
Likewise, the proponents of the Clean Energy Act use the spirit of Al Gore’s call to fight global warming to package an expensive takeover of a private utility by the Board of Supervisors – one that has consistently been rejected by voters in the past. Voters will need to cut through the packaging and see this plan for what it really is.