Bay Guardian Archives

A downtown tax for free buses

0

EDITORIAL Free Muni is a great idea. It’s an even better — and more realistic — idea if the mayor is willing to support a tax on downtown office buildings to pay for it.

That’s what Mayor Gavin Newsom needs to be talking about — and if he doesn’t, the supervisors need to push the idea.

We’ve been calling for free Muni since at least 1993, when we ran a cover story explaining how the idea would work. It’s always made sense for San Francisco: eliminating bus fares would encourage more people to get out of their cars, which would eliminate traffic congestion, pollution, and safety problems and set a standard for fighting global warming. Without having to worry about fare collection, drivers could move the buses along faster (and pay more attention to driving). And the city would save a lot of money that’s currently spent collecting and counting fares and monitoring fare cheats.

Besides, as we pointed out back then, it’s a great economic boost for the city: if all the people who currently pay $45 a month for a fast pass could hold on to that money, millions of dollars in consumer spending would likely be pumped into local business.

But here’s the rub: Muni collects about $138 million in fares every year — and the system needs more money, not less. Free Muni will inevitably spur more ridership — that, after all, is the whole point — so the cost of operating the system will rise even further. The city doesn’t exactly have $138 million in extra General Fund cash to throw around. So there has to be a new source of revenue to fund this plan.

So far Newsom hasn’t said a word about that — which is all too typical. The mayor loves to advance all sorts of ideas without explaining how the city’s going to pay for them. And then, not surprisingly, a lot of his plans never go anywhere.

But in this case there’s an excellent way to make the numbers add up. For more than 30 years, San Francisco activists have been promoting the idea of a special tax district downtown, with revenue going directly to Muni. It’s got political and economic logic: a significant amount of Muni’s operational budget goes to ferrying workers to office buildings in the Financial District, and since those buildings tend to be vastly undertaxed (thanks to Proposition 13), the city ought to levy a special fee every year to help underwrite transportation.

San Francisco has about 80 million square feet of commercial office space in the central downtown core. An annual tax of as little as $2 per square foot would provide more than enough money to cover the cost of free bus service citywide. The money would come from those most able to pay — building owners and the (typically) large, wealthy businesses that rent downtown. The benefits would go to the (typically) less-wealthy people who ride the buses every day.

It’s green, it’s fair, it’s creative, it’s economically sound — all the things Mayor Newsom likes to talk about. All he has to do is announce a proposal to pay for free Muni with a downtown tax district, and his plan might actually have a chance of working. Since that’s unlikely, we urge the supervisors to take up the initiative: yes, let’s have free Muni — and let’s make downtown pay for it. *

The Guardian Iraq War casualty report (3/12/07)

0

Casualties in Iraq

Iraqi civilians:

31 Iraqi civilians were killed yesterday as a part of the violence targeting Shiite religious pilgrims, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. This week’s toll for Shiite religious pilgrims is 220.

Source

98,000: Killed since 3/03

Source: www.thelancet.com

58,598 – 64,405: Killed since 1/03

For a week by week assessment of significant incidents and trends in Iraqi civilian casualties, go to A Week in Iraq by Lily Hamourtziadou. She is a member of the Iraq Body Count project, which maintains and updates the world’s only independent and comprehensive public database of media-reported civilian deaths in Iraq.

Source: http://www.iraqbodycount.net

A Week in Iraq: Week ending 11 March 2007:
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/editorial/weekiniraq/35/

For first hand accounts of the grave situation in Iraq, visit some of these blogs:
www.ejectiraqikkk.blogspot.com
www.healingiraq.blogspot.com
www.afamilyinbaghdad.blogspot.com

Antiestablishmentarianism attitudes among Iraqi religious groups is fueling intolerance and violence towards homosexuals in Iraq, according to the UN.

Source: http://www.gaypeopleschronicle.com/stories07/february/0202071.htm

U.S. military:

3,421: Killed since the U.S. invasion of Iraq 3/20/03

Source: http://www.icasualties.org/

For the Department of Defense statistics go to: http://www.defenselink.mil/

For a more detailed list of U.S. Military killed in the War in Iraq go to:
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/2007.01.html

Iraq Military:

30,000: Killed since 2003

Source:http://www.infoshout.com

Journalists:

151: Killed since 3/03

Source: http://www.infoshout.com/

Refugees:

The Bush administration plans to increase quota of Iraqi refugees allowed into the U.S. from 500 to 7,000 next year in response to the growing refugee crisis, according to the Guardian Unlimited.

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2013034,00.html

Border policies are tightening because one million Iraqi refugees have already fled to Jordan and another one million to Syria. Iraqi refugees who manage to make it out of Iraq still can’t work, have difficulty attending school and are not eligible for health care. Many still need to return to Iraq to escape poverty, according to BBC news.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6293807.stm

1.6 million: Iraqis displaced internally

1.8 million: Iraqis displaced to neighboring states

Many refugees were displaced prior to 2003, but an increasing number are fleeing now, according to United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ estimates.

Source: http://www.unhcr.org/iraq.html

U.S. Military Wounded:

47,657: Wounded since 3/19/03 to 1/6/07

Source: http://www.icasualties.org/

The Guardian cost of Iraq war report (3/12/07): Bush asks congress to approve $622 billion for 2008. So far, $407 billion for the U.S., $51 billion for California and $1 billion for San Francisco.
Compiled by Paula Connelly

Bush asked congress to approve $622 billion for defense spending, most for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, in a $2.9 trillion budget request for 2008, according to Reuters.
Source: http://today.reuters.com/

Here is a running total of the cost of the Iraq War to the U.S. taxpayer, provided by the National Priorities Project located in Northampton, Massachusetts. The number is based on Congressional appropriations. Niko Matsakis of Boston, MA and Elias Vlanton of Takoma Park, MD originally created the count in 2003 on costofwar.com. After maintaining it on their own for the first year, they gave it to the National Priorities Project to contribute to their ongoing educational efforts.

To bring the cost of the war home, please note that California has already lost $46 billion and San Francisco has lost $1 billion to the Bush war and his mistakes. In San Francisco alone, the funds used for the war in Iraq could have hired 21,264 additional public school teachers for one year, we could have built 11,048 additional housing units or we could have provided 59,482 students four-year scholarships at public universities. For a further breakdown of the cost of the war to your community, see the NPP website aptly titled “turning data into action.”

The culprit’s perspective?

0

By Steven T. Jones
Mayor Gavin Newsom is the culprit. He’s the elected official, the boss, the guardian of the public treasury, the guy asking for our continued trust, the only reason why anyone cares who Ruby Rippey-Tourk fucked.
Amid all the chatter about Newsom girlfriend Jennifer Siebel’s nasty comments about Rippey-Tourk, few people have keyed in to what strikes me as the most important revelation in all of this: Newsom appears to have lied when, upon admitting the affair, he proclaimed, “I am accountable for what has occurred.”
Newsom has proven himself anything but accountable since then. He has refused to answer questions about the incident or the alleged alcohol abuse treatment he’s chosen to seek, even as there have been new revelations about improper payoffs to Rippey-Tourk using public funds and ethical questions raised about his rehab.
Except for one softball television interview, Newsom has refused to field any questions on the subject from the public or media, acting like a wounded victim or a blind and deaf man whenever I or anyone else has tried to press the issue at public events (something we’re forced to do by Newsom’s refusal to hold regular press conferences). Absent that accountability, we’re left to sift through the tea leaves of his girlfriend’s extensive comments – which, it seems clear, are based on what Newsom has told her– to learn how Newsom really feels about Rippey-Tourk and his own culpability in the affair.
In other words, this is closest thing we’ve seen to Newsom’s true feelings about what happened (an account that Newsom has yet to disavow, going on three days later). And the results are not pretty, revealing Newsom to be a dishonest and dishonorable cad who still doesn’t have a clue as to what he did wrong.

Leno attack is pulled

0

By Tim Redmond

Carole Migden has finally done the right thing: She has requested Michael Colbruno take down his nasty posts about Mark Leno, and Colbruno just called to tell me he is going to do it.

So this is a victory for the collective efforts of many on the left to prevene mud-slinging, and let’s hope we can keep things (somewhat) civil going forward.

Nuts to laundry!

0

Divine intern Sam Devine gets soapy:

Laundry day will be different today. I’m using a new hippy product from Santa Cruz to clean my clothes: Soap Nuts, the soap that grows on trees.

Soap grows on trees?

Yeah, turns out Soap Nuts are the dried fruit of the Chinese Soapberry tree. According to a letter from Maggie’s Pure Land Products, people have been using the cracked apricot looking little bastards to wash clothes for thousands of years.

soapnuts_1kgbag.jpg

Now, what I could really use are some laundry quarters grown on trees, but I’ll settle for soap.

On the road to Cartagena

0

I am off to Cartagena, Colombia, for an assembly of the InterAmerican Press Association (IAPA), a free press organization for the Americas. I will keep you posted. B3

On the road to Cartagena

0

I am off to Cartagena, Colombia, for an assembly of the InterAmerican Press Association (IAPA), a free press organization for the Americas. I will keep you posted. B3

NOISE: Blonde Redhead to die for?

0

New York City trio BLONDE REDHEAD is excited to announce their upcoming
appearance at SXSW and plans to tour in April on the heels of the April 10th
release of their new album, titled “23”.

SXSW:
BLONDE REDHEAD
Wednesday 3/14 – 12:45am @ Emo’s (4AD Showcase)
Thursday 3/15 – 4:15 pm @ Antone’s (Spaceland and LiveDaily SXSW party)

TO DOWNLOAD THE ALBUM:

Link: http://promo.beggars.com/us
Username: blonderedhead
Unique code: 2355HO2T7D

Let me know if you need me to burn you a cd r

To get a taste, listen to the title track “23” now (FEEL FREE TO POST)

Best,
~Catherine

“23” was produced by the band and recorded by Chris Coady (TV On The Radio,
Yeah Yeah Yeah’s) and co-mixed by Rich Costey (Mars Volta, Franz Ferdinand)
& Alan Moulder (Secret Machines, Smashing Pumpkins, NIN). Recorded in New
York at Magic Shop Studios, it is a truly confident and powerful follow-up
to their sixth record, 2003’s ” Misery Is A Butterfly”, which was hailed as
one of the band’s best albums to date, and was their first for 4AD.

Continually making innovative music since the early 90s, the trio of Amedeo
Pace (voice, words, guitar, baritone guitar), his twin brother Simone Pace
(drums, percussion, machines) along with Kazu Makino (voice, words,
clavinet, guitar) are a band whose music has been growing stronger and more
distinctive with each release. “23” is no exception.

TRACK LISTING:
1) 23
2) Dr. Strangeluv
3) The Dress
4) SW
5) Spring And By Summer Fall
6) Silently
7) Publisher
8) Heroine
9) Top Ranking
10) My Impure Hair
TOUR DATES:
April 13 Detroit, MI Magic Stick
April 14 Chicago, IL Metro
April 15 Minneapolis, MN First Avenue
April 19 Portland, OR Wonder Ballroom
April 20 Vancouver, BC Commodore Ballroom
April 21 Seattle, WA Show Box
April 23 San Francisco, CA Bimbo’s
April 24 San Francisco, CA Bimbo’s
April 25 Pomona, CA Glasshouse
April 27 San Diego, CA Belly Up Tavern
May 1 Dallas, TX Granada
May 2 Austin, TX Stubb’s
May 4 Atlanta, GA Variety Playhouse
May 5 Chapel Hill, NC Cat’s Cradle
May 6 Washington, D.C. 9:30 Club
May 8 New York, NY Webster Hall
May 9 Boston, MA Paradise
May 11 Toronto, ON The Opera House
May 12 Montreal, QC Club Soda

The Beggars Group
XL Recordings*4AD*too pure*Playlouderecordings*
Matador Records*Beggars Banquet*

www.beggars.com/us

NOISE: Burned out in Oakland

0

Guardian intern Sam Devine weighs in on this weekend’s Dustfish Burning Man camp benefit:

The Oakland Police Department busted the Dustfish Burning Man camp benefit party Sunday, March 11, early in the morning. It was a massive party of 3,000 in a warehouse on Mandela Parkway. The building was so huge that a charter bus company, seemingly indifferent to the bash, was coming and going from another part of the warehouse.

Thelony on Rye opened, playing strange, noisy bebop. Then came Dr. Abacus, playing a similar but grooving jazz that had the room jitterbugging and hopping around. In a side area, DJs spun drum and bass and industrial garage while people banged on a steel statue of a stick figure with large metal bolts.

Fuzzy hats were all around. A boat, converted to a hot tub, was filled with naked partygoers. Spiky, steel columns were licked with fire on one side of the main floor. Colossal metal statues of men and women decorated the space. There was a small wine bar inside a miners shack. Strange. It was Burning Man-ed out.

Shortly after Dr. Abacus finished, the police moved in for the first time. The East Bay Rats, security for the night, supposedly couldn’t do much to stop them. There were reports of 10 police cars. The music stopped, and the lights came on. But the party continued.

I smoked a spliff and drank a Tecate while talking with a man named Mathew T. Whatley, esq. He claimed to operate a legal establishment, having attended Golden Gate University and a handful of other schools, one in Hong Kong. He said, while in China, he would regularly go about with a foreign ambassador, abusing diplomatic privilege to score free lunches. Fantastic.

The police finally came in at about 4 a.m. (or really 3 a.m. because of daylight savings time). They walked around, taking pictures. Seemingly cool with everything, they talked with a few people.

The room cleared out. The party was over.

Leno, Migden, porn and sewer politics

1

By Tim Redmond

I really, really wish I didn’t have to write about this. But here we go.

I’ve spent far too much of the past few days researching a 2006 bill by Mark Leno that has led a local blogger to dub him a “Kiddie Porn King.” I now understand exactly where this came from, and I’ve talked to all sides, and I can fairly conclude that it’s a stupid, vicious, shitty little allegation that doesn’t belong in San Francisco politics.

The guy responsible for this is Michael Colbruno, a former aide to Migden who now works for Clear Channel Oudoor. I finaly got a comment from Migden’s campaign today; spokesman Paul Hefner told me Migden “does not approve of this” and “wants her supporters to run a positive campaign.” Which is nice, but I think she should go a step further: If the senator called Mr. Colbruno and told him to take that shit down, now, I suspect he’d comply.

Anyway, let me lay out the background here, since it’s a case study in how political smears are created.

Why people get mad at the media (part l2) The New York Times answers questions about its slow coverage of the Walter Reed scandal but stonewalls on its censorship of Project Censored

0

By Bruce B. Brugmann

Byron Calame, the public editor of the New York Times, spent an entire column in the Sunday New York Times (March ll) answering an important question:

“Why,” Calame asked in his lead, “were readers of the New York Times left without a word of news coverage of the Walter Reed Army Medical Center scandal for six days after it had been exposed by the Washington Post?
That was the question posed to me in the wake of the Post’s Feb. l8 scoop by readers thirsty for readers thirsty for news of the poor care given those wounded in Iraq.”

As attentive readers of the Bruce blog will recall, I raised an even more important question as to why the Times and its sister paper in Santa Rosa (the Press Democrat) have for 30 years refused to run the Project Censored story from the local Sonoma State University. I have also asked Calame, and Times and PD editors, why they won’t run the Project Censored story, even though its stories before and during the Iraq War laid out much of the key neocon policy behind the war and the anti-war strategies in opposing it. Neither Calame nor any Times nor editor would answer me nor provide an explanation to Carl Jensen, the project’s current founder, nor Peter Phillips, the current director, for their censorship of the Censored Project through the years.

This is highly significant in light of Calame’s Sunday column. “Readers have every right to be angry about the Times’s slowness in telling them about the compelling news in The Post’s two-part series,” he wrote.
((I won’t raise the question here as to why neither the Post nor the Times, nor any of the beltway journalists, didn’t get the stories months earlier at nearby Walter Reed and why they didn’t respond earlier to the accelerating drumbeat of criticism of lousy treatment of returning soldiers from veterans, their families, and veteran’s organizations.)

Calame did find the culprit: “Excessive pride, I believe, is the fundamental problem. The desire to be first with the news still permeates the newsroom at the Times and other newspapers in a way that makes editors and reporters feel defeated when they have to conclude that the information in another publication’s exclusive article is so newsworthy that it has to be pursued.” Good point: but what about newsworthy stories broken by other publications, picked up by Project Censored, stamped “Censored,” and put out as a major package that the Times and other mainstream media then refused to print? Was “excessive pride” at work here for 30 years? Is that much of an excuse on stories as big as Iraq and Bush?

I pointed out in my earlier blog that the Censored stories were particularly timely during the war years.
For example, on Sept. l0, 2003, while the Times and the PD and affiliated papers on its news service, were running the stories of the disgraced Judith Miller that helped Bush make the case for the Iraq War and then seeking to justify it, the Guardian ran the Censored package with a headline that read, “The neocon plan for global domination–and nine other big stories the mainstream press refused to cover in 2002.” I noted that our introduction to the timely censored package made the critical point: “If there’s one influence that has shaped world-wide politics over the past year, it’s the extent to which the Bush administration hs exploited the events of Sept. ll, 200l, too solidify its military and economic control of the world at the expense of democracy, true justice, and the environment. But President George Bush W. Bush hasn’t simply been responding to world events. The agenda the administration has followed fits perfectly with a clearly defined plan that’s been in place for a decade.”

I noted that the neocon story, and the many other such stories that Project Censored put out during the war years and again this year, laying out the drumbeat to war and the dark side of the Bush administration, got no play in the Times nor the PD and very little play in the rest of the mainstream press and its “embedded” and “mission accomplished” journalism that marched us into war and is now keeping us there. Who was right, the Guardian and Project Censored stories or Judith Miller and the Times?

Calame wrote that “readers would benefit if the
Times could swallow a bit of its pride and make use of two readily available approaches to dealing with important news in the scoops of competing competitors.” He said the Times could put the stories of competitors up on its web and they could be encouraged to use “solidly reported wire stories” of significant exclusives in other publications. What about the Censored stories?

Calame concluded, “The reality is that when significant news breaks–even in the form of an exclusive in a competing publication–the Times must be committed to getting on the story. Anything less seriously damages the paper’s value to the readers.”

Another good point: so repeating for emphasis: Why won’t the Times and the PD run the Project Censored stories
that were so often on target when the Times wasn’t? And why won’t the Times and its public editor answer or even acknowledge the question and underlying issues of biased reporting, flawed news judgment, and too much lapdog access to the Bush administration? I’m sending this blog to them and asking once again.

I am waiting for the public editor and Times/PD editors to reply. Is this like waiting for Godot? Stay tuned. B3

Project censored blog:

http://www.sfbg.com/blogs/bruce/2007/02/new_blog_project_censored.html

Byron Calame’s The public editor:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/11/opinion/11pubed.html?ex=1331269200&en=7f7f89dff165cf09&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Gavin girlfriend continues digging their grave

0

By Steven T. Jones
As if Gavin girlfriend Jennifer Siebel’s woman-blaming comments in the Sunday Chronicle weren’t bad enough, you ought to check out her comment (assuming it is her, that is) to the SFist. It’s downright batty, not to mention even more vicious in its attack on Ruby Rippey-Tourk. My favorite part: “i am not going to blindly support a woman who has cheated on her husband multiple times and watch while my boyfriend is the only one who gets punished..and, what, for something a long time ago when the man was going through a crises- divorce, the loss of his mother, the pressures of being mayor, etc. and he was vulnerable and lonely? and, what’s your definition of affair? he’s been so hurt by this all — personally and professionally- and it was a few nothing incidents when she showed up passed out outside of his door. come on guys, have a heart. I have tried to see Ruby’s side of the story but unfortunately everyone near to her has stories and says she is bad news.”
Just think about the many, many implications of that one for a second. The mind reels.

SF Port to Vote (and maybe cash in) on the Trans Bay Cable

0

By JB Powell

Tomorrow could be ‘show me the money’ day for the SF Port Commission. Commissioners there will vote on the Trans Bay Cable, a privately financed, $300 million power cord that would run underwater from Pittsburg. For weeks, staff members from the port as well as various other city agencies have been hammering out the details of a community benefits package with the cable’s developer, Australian financial firm, Babcock and Brown. The Guardian has obtained a staff report with details of the proposed benefits package. Several officials had already told us it was “significant” and they were right. If the deal goes through, the port will reap millions in rent and licensing fees, a needed cash-infusion for the strapped agency. The package also includes hefty sums for waterfront open space and, in perhaps the biggest news for the city, millions of dollars for the SF Public Utilities Commission. The SFPUC plans to use the funds to bankroll sustainable energy projects, including solar, wind, and tidal initiatives.
Why the largesse? Many of the cable’s shore-side facilities would be on port land. That means Babcock and Brown needs port commission approval before the project can move on to the last local regulatory step, the Board of Supervisors. If the cable goes through, it would plug the city’s electrical grid into 400 megawatts of power from plants in and around Pittsburg. But green power advocates claim the “59 mile extension cord” would be a “waste of resources.” Their biggest fear is that bringing all those relatively cheap megawatts into the city from fossil-fuel burning plants across the bay will derail the city’s plans to rely on more eco-friendly energy.
But the California Independent System Operator (Cal-ISO) insists the city needs the cable or it will see blackouts in the future. Cal-ISO is the “public benefit corporation” in charge of the state’s grid. Sources in and around city hall have described the bind local leaders are in: they would rather look to greener power projects to solve the city’s energy needs, but electricity can be the third rail of California politics. Just ask Gray Davis. So, in an attempt to have their megawatts and eat them too, staff from the mayor’s office and several supervisors, as well as the port and SFPUC, pushed hard for the best “benefits package” they could get from the developer. It remains to be seen if the money for renewable energy projects will placate the activist community. Stay tuned to the Guardian for more coverage on the issue in the coming weeks.

SF Port to Vote (and maybe cash in) on the Trans Bay Cable

1

By JB Powell

Tomorrow could be ‘show me the money’ day for the SF Port Commission. Commissioners there will vote on the Trans Bay Cable, a privately financed, $300 million power cord that would run underwater from Pittsburg. For weeks, staff members from the port as well as various other city agencies have been hammering out the details of a community benefits package with the cable’s developer, Australian financial firm, Babcock and Brown. The Guardian has obtained a staff report with details of the proposed benefits package. Several officials had already told us it was “significant” and they were right. If the deal goes through, the port will reap millions in rent and licensing fees, a needed cash-infusion for the strapped agency. The package also includes hefty sums for waterfront open space and, in perhaps the biggest news for the city, millions of dollars for the SF Public Utilities Commission. The SFPUC plans to use the funds to bankroll sustainable energy projects, including solar, wind, and tidal initiatives.
Why the largesse? Many of the cable’s shore-side facilities would be on port land. That means Babcock and Brown needs port commission approval before the project can move on to the last local regulatory step, the Board of Supervisors. If the cable goes through, it would plug the city’s electrical grid into 400 megawatts of power from plants in and around Pittsburg. But green power advocates claim the “59 mile extension cord” would be a “waste of resources.” Their biggest fear is that bringing all those relatively cheap megawatts into the city from fossil-fuel burning plants across the bay will derail the city’s plans to rely on more eco-friendly energy.
But the California Independent System Operator (Cal-ISO) insists the city needs the cable or it will see blackouts in the future. Cal-ISO is the “public benefit corporation” in charge of the state’s grid. Sources in and around city hall have described the bind local leaders are in: they would rather look to greener power projects to solve the city’s energy needs, but electricity can be the third rail of California politics. Just ask Gray Davis. So, in an attempt to have their megawatts and eat them too, staff from the mayor’s office and several supervisors, as well as the port and SFPUC, pushed hard for the best “benefits package” they could get from the developer. It remains to be seen if the money for renewable energy projects will placate the activist community. Stay tuned to the Guardian for more coverage on the issue in the coming weeks.

“The woman is the culprit”

1

By Steven T. Jones
Omigod. Like, omigod. Where do I even begin to dissect the comments by Gavin girlfriend Jennifer Siebel in today’s Chronicle Style section profile ? Let’s start with the money quote: “the woman is the culprit,” which she spoke in reference Ruby Rippey-Tourk, who had sexual relations with the mayor even though she was his employee and the wife of his right hand man. To be fair, maybe Siebel didn’t realize that she is the first Newsom proxy to attack Rippey-Tourk in print, something many journalists and women’s groups feared might happen in the election year. Because in reading this profile, she seems to be perfect for Newsom in several key ways: she’s gullible, good-looking, well-born, and not terribly smart. But that isn’t even the most interesting revelation in this article, which is that this relationship (which she claims is already “love” after six months) was arranged by Newsom’s political advisors (“after running a background check, one of the mayor’s staffers invited her”) and the Wilsey family (who is leading the oppositon to Healthy Saturdays and has convinced Newsom to oppose it) just as the news of Newsom dating a 20-year-old hostess broke and when the Rippey-Tourk affair was heading in that direction.

Bruce Blog — Josh

0

@@http://www.sfbg.com/blogs/bruce@@

More layoffs at the Chronicle?

0

By Steven T. Jones
steve@sfbg.com
Sources at the San Francisco Chronicle say that Editor Phil Bronstein and Hearst Corp. executives yesterday convened an hour-long emergency meeting at the paper to warn that more layoffs and other cost-cutting measures are on the way. They provided Chronicle staffers with few details, except to say that all temporary employees would be terminated at the end of the current pay period. Employees were simply told that the paper would be getting smaller and that more details on what that means would be coming in the near future.
Employee morale at the paper isn’t high right now, with this new round of cutbacks following a major staff reduction in 2005 (done primary through optional buyouts), new labor union contracts approved last year that significantly eroded employee rights and essentially broke the Pressman’s Union, an unseemly partnership between Hearst Corp. and competitor MediaNews, and the Chronicle’s recent decision to include advertising on the front of its Bay Area section and occasionally even on its front page.
We’ll have more on this unfolding story as it develops.

More layoffs at the Chronicle?

0

By Steven T. Jones
steve@sfbg.com
Sources at the San Francisco Chronicle say that Editor Phil Bronstein and Hearst Corp. executives yesterday convened an hour-long emergency meeting at the paper to warn that more layoffs and other cost-cutting measures are on the way. They provided Chronicle staffers with few details, except to say that all temporary employees would be terminated at the end of the current pay period. Employees were simply told that the paper would be getting smaller and that more details on what that means would be coming in the near future.
Employee morale at the paper isn’t high right now, with this new round of cutbacks following a major staff reduction in 2005 (done primary through optional buyouts), new labor union contracts approved last year that significantly eroded employee rights and essentially broke the Pressman’s Union, an unseemly partnership between Hearst Corp. and competitor MediaNews, and the Chronicle’s recent decision to include advertising on the front of its Bay Area section and occasionally even on its front page.
We’ll have more on this unfolding story as it develops.

The kimono photo is real …

1

By Tim Redmond

Or so says the person who took it.

Remember: I was given a print of the photo of Newsom in a pink kimono with alleged stalker Han Shin from someone who says he got if directly from Shin. I had no idea who took it. But the photographer just came forward and called me. I can’t use his name, but here’s the story he tells (and it rings true).

The photo was taken at Sup. Bevan Dufty’s campaign kickoff. Newsom was there, wearing a Dufty t-shirt over his dress shirt. Han Shin showed up and presented Dufty with the kimono. Dufty tried it on, then Shin took it over to Newsom and draped it over the mayor’s shoulders. Then Shin handed his little camera to a person on the scene — the one who just called me — and that person snapped the pic.

It wasn’t a high-quality camera and there were lots of sources of light on the scene, which explans the weird shadow patterns.

For the record, the person who called me has a history in local politics and no reason to make this up.

What’s up, Carole?

0

By Tim Redmond

I’m still waiting to hear something from Carole Migden about this truly offensive blog post by her former aide, Michael Colbruno.

For the record, this attack on Mark Leno started when right-wingers went after him for opposing Proposition 83. We opposed Prop. 83, too. So did San Francisco Sheriff Mike Hennessey. So, I’m told by Migden’s office, did Migden.

I left word for Migden two days ago. She ought ot come out and say that this is bullshit and that she won’t have her supporters pulling this stuff. (And if any of Leno’s people try to do the same kind os smear-stuff, I hope he smacks them down as well.)

Fun at the Village Voice

0

By Tim Redmond

Lotsa fun talk about the new editor at the Village Voice. That would be editor number five since the boys from Phoenix took the place over.

Apparently the new guy isn’t so fond of literary language. But it looks like the boss likes him.

m_aa9944478ec2a98b33ef2d27af2d0c81.jpg

And these guys are having a good time with Mike Lacey’s inability to spell the names of dead Soviet generals.

End the war!

0

By Steven T. Jones
Good for Nancy Pelosi! It’s great to see her finally get serious about ending this disastrous war and to start being a long overdue check on this out-of-control imperial presidency. Win or lose, it’s the right thing to do and a move that makes me proud to be from San Francisco. And if Bush indeeds vetoes this thing, maybe she’ll reconsider her opposition to impeachment. After all, the Constitution vests Congress with the power to start and end wars, not the president.

Killing closure

0

By Steven T. Jones
How desperate is the pro-car crowd to kill Healthy Saturdays? Sources tell us that De Young Museum matriarch Dede Wilsey and other allies talked rookie Assembly member Fiona Ma into writing state legislation that would have required voter approval for creating car-free spaces in San Francisco parks, and that she was talked out of doing so by financier and backer Warren Hellman — a supporter of Healthy Saturdays — just before the Feb. 23 deadline for introducing bills. Contacted by the Guardian, Hellman confirmed the basic story, telling us, “We talked and she had an idea of proposing something, but I thought it was unnecessary.” He thinks the issue is likely to end up before voters either way, either through a referendum on the passage of Healthy Saturdays or a measure placed on the ballot by four supervisors if it fails. Ma’s office refused to comment on whether she pursued legislation to prevent Healthy Saturdays — which she opposed last year as a member of the Board of Supervisors — and would say only, “I do not discuss private conversations with constituents in the media.”
Saturday closure is an emotion-packed issue for both sides, which may be why Newsom decided to announce his opposition fairly early, just to avoid the acrimony. But that left Sup. Bevan Dufty (who voted against it last year) as the swing vote and someone who admits that his phone has been ringing off the hook lately. But he’s pledged to stay engaged and try to do the right thing: “I’m trying to stay refreshingly open on the issue of Healthy Saturdays and consider different viewpoints.”

Josh Wolf vs. Howard Kurtz, the Washington Post, and the inside-the-beltway gang

2

By Bruce B. Brugmann

Marvelous. Simply marvelous. While ten of the l9 witnesses testifying in the Libby trial were singing journalists, and three of them were central to securing Libby’s conviction, Howard Kurtz, the media critic of the Washington Post and the voice of the inside-the-beltway media establishment, did not raise any of the obvious issues and questions in this unprecedented mass outing of sources by journalists in federal court in Washington, D.C. It was a “spectacle that would have been unthinkable only a few years ago,” as Adam Liptak put it rightly in the New York Times March 8.

Instead, one day after the Libby guilty verdict, Kurtz went after Josh Wolf, the longest jailed journalist in U.S. history for contempt of court, in his March 8 column headlined “Jailed Man Is A Videographer And a Blogger but Is He a Journalist?” Kurtz, who tosses softballs about every Sunday morning in his media show on CNN, hit Josh hard with a lead that said, “He is being cast by some journalists as a young champion of the First Amendment, jailed for taking a lonely stand heavy-handed federal prosecutors.”

Then: “But Wolf’s rationale for withholding the video, and refusing to testify, is less than crystal clear. There are no confidential sources involved in the case. He sold part of the tape to local television stations and posted another portion on his blog. Why, then, is he willing to give up his freedom over the remaining footage?”

And then he quoted, not a media lawyer nor a journalist with knowledge of
California law, but a professor who ought to be flunked out of law school (Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California Los Angeles). Kurtz quoted Volokh as saying without blushing, “It’s one thing to say journalists must respect promises of confidentiality they made to their sources. It would be quite another to say journalists have a right to refuse to testify even about non-confidential sources. When something is videotaped in a public place, it’s hard to see even an implied agreement of confidentiality.”

Tom Newton, general counsel of the California Newspaper Publishers Association, had the appropriate polite response in an email to Kurtz: “Huh?”

“That, as they say, would be a settled right in California. In California, the people have flatly rejected the idea that police and prosecutors ought to be able to deputize journalists whenever they can’t figure out how to do their job themselves.”

“Moreover,” Newton continued, “the test for whether Josh is a journalist or not should not be based on who the U.S. attorney says he is, (“simply a person with a video camera”), or even who Josh says he is (an “artist, an activist, an anarachist and an archivist”), but on what he does and what he was doing when gathering the information at issue (i.e., creating videotape of a public and newsworthy event and actually selling portions of it for a profit to a news organization which made it part of the local evening TV news).” Read Newton’s full comment below.

So, when the chips are down and the question is raised in time of war, who stood the test of being a real journalist? Josh Wolf, who went to jail on principle, and is still there, and may be there until a new federal jury is impaneled in July? Josh Wolf, who was put in jail in my view by the Bush administration to send a don’t-mess-with-us message to anti-war protestors inside and outside of San Francisco and to journalists at large. Or the l0 journalists warbling away in federal court and thereby avoiding jail (excepting Judith Miller from the New York Times, who did jail time but still ended up testifying)?

I stand with Josh Wolf. I think he is not only a real journalist in the best sense of the word, but a journalistic Hero and a First Amendment Hero who is paying his dues and more every day he serves in federal prison in Dublin, California. As for Howard Kurtz and the Washington Post and the inside-the-Beltway gang, well, they helped George Bush march us into Iraq, no real questions asked, and they are now helping keep us there with this kind of logic and reporting.

There are lots of real questions for Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post/inside the beltway gang who asked the is-Josh-a-journalist question the day after the verdict and to some extent for Debra Saunders of the San Francisco Chronicle who asked the same question a few days before the verdict. The questions do not involve whether whether Josh Wolf is a journalist or not. The questions are, how in the world did those hotshot inside-the-beltway journalists with access and those hotshot inside-the-beltway media organizations with access so screw up the story of the biggest foreign policy mistake in U.S. history? And how did they so screw it up when millions of us without access, in San Francisco and around the world, figured out the real story, knew it was a terrible mistake to go to war with Iraq, and went into the streets to protest the decision? And when will they start reporting the real story behind the Libby trial: that Bush and Cheney lied us into war, that Libby was key to the much larger story of the cover up of the campaign of lies, that the war is now lost but the lies go on, and that our only option left is to get out as quickly as possible? Kurtz and the inside-the-beltway gang are the journalists who have the explaining to do, not Josh Wolf.


<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/07/AR2007030702454.html>


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/08/washington/08fitzgerald.html?n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fL%2fLiptak%2c%20Adam

Newton’s email to Kurtz:

“While the national attention on shield law issues has focused almost entirely on the protection of confidential sources, out here in California we have for many years granted journalists the ability to protect both their confidential sources and unpublished information associated with newsgathering. Had the San Francisco situation not rather bizarrely become a federal case (it was, after all, an incident involving a San Francisco crowd, a San Francisco peace officer and a San Francisco police car), there would be no question that Josh, assuming for a moment he is a journalist covered by California law, would be immune from a contempt order for his steadfast refusal to disclose his unpublished information to a state prosecutor. This immunity is squarely set by popular vote in the state’s constitution (Article I. Sec. 2).

“I am totally puzzled by this quote in your column from an esteemed constitutional scholar: “It’s one thing to say journalists must respect promises of confidentiality they made to their sources,” says Eugene Volokh, a law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles. “It would be quite another to say journalists have a right to refuse to testify even about non-confidential sources.” Huh? That, as they say, would be a settled right in California. In California, the people have flatly rejected the idea police and prosecutors ought to be able to deputize journalists whenever they can’t figure out how to do their job themselves.

“Moreover, the test for whether Josh is a journalist or not should not be based on who the U.S. Attorney says he is, (“simply a person with a video camera”), or even who Josh says he is (an “artist, an activist, an anarchist and an archivist”), but on what he does and what he was doing when gathering the information at issue (i.e., creating videotape of a public and newsworthy event and actually selling portions of it for a profit to a news organization which made it a part of the local evening TV news). Based on a recent California case involving a blogger’s attempt to quash a subpoena pursued by Apple in an attempt to identify an internal leak, it’s clear to me Josh would be found to be a journalist for purposes of California’s Shield Law and would be a free man right now, but for this becoming a federal case.”

Full disclosure: I asked CNPA, as a member publisher, to support Wolf, his cause, and a federal shield law. To its immense credit, the CNPA board and staff rose to the occasion and has supported Wolf, a member of no media organization, with skill and passion. From CNPA to the Society of Professional Journalists to the California First Amendment Coalition to the International Free Press Institute in Vienna to other international free press groups to labor unions to the grassroots movement of Andy Blue and Julian Davis in San Francisco and beyond, this is quite a massive and growing coalition of the willing for Josh Wolf. Keep it rolling till Josh is out of jail and the U.S. is out of Iraq. B3