• No categories

Politics Blog

A stunning gag order

28

By Tim Redmond

The Guardian of London just received a stunning gag order forbidding the paper from reporting on a Parliamentary debate.

Check this out:

Today’s published Commons order papers contain a question to be answered by a minister later this week. The Guardian is prevented from identifying the MP who has asked the question, what the question is, which minister might answer it, or where the question is to be found.

The Guardian is also forbidden from telling its readers why the paper is prevented – for the first time in memory – from reporting parliament. Legal obstacles, which cannot be identified, involve proceedings, which cannot be mentioned, on behalf of a client who must remain secret.

Whoa. The thing is, with today’s social networking and fast-moving media, I suspect somebody’s going to leak and post the info pretty quickly anyway. And I don’t think the UK authorities can prevent web sites in other countries from publishing it.

The outcome will be interesting not just for UK media law, but for the (lack of) success of gag orders in general. At least, I hope so.

Mexico report: The anarchists return

9

By John Ross

90909bomb.jpg

MEXICO CITY — An unprecedented wave of anarchist bombings here and in provincial capitals has Mexican security forces on red alert.

Beginning September 1st, bombs have gone off once or twice a week regularly as clockwork, taking out windows and ATMs at five banks, and torching two auto showrooms and several U.S. fast-food franchises and an upscale boutique in the chic Polanco district of this conflictive capital. In each case, the Anarchist “A” has been spray-painted on nearby walls along with slogans supporting animal liberation demands to stop prison construction, and calls for the demise of capitalism.

The serial bombings are the first to strike Mexico City since November 2006, when radicals took out a chunk of the nation’s highest electoral tribunal, blew up a foreign-owned bank, and scorched an auditorium in the scrupulously-guarded compound of the once and future ruling PRI party. The 2006 attacks came in the wake of a fraud-marred presidential election and federal police suppression of a popular uprising in the southern state of Oaxaca and were claimed by five armed groups, most prominently the Democratic Revolutionary Tendency, a split-off from the Marxist-Leninist Popular Revolutionary Army (EPR) which itself bombed a Sears outlet in Oaxaca City in 2006 and PEMEX pipelines in central Mexico in 2007.

Anarchist cells that claim to have perpetrated the recent explosions take pains to distance themselves from the Marxist bombers.

In vindicating a September 25th blast at a Banamex branch in the rural Milpa Alta delegation (borough) of Mexico City during which the rebels claim a half million pesos were immolated, “The Subversive Alliance For The Liberation Of The Earth, The Animals, & The Humans” (in that order) charged that the U.S.-owned bank promoted “torture, destruction, and slavery. “Our motives are to stop these bastards and let them know that we are not playing games.”

SF vs. the Catholic Church, round 3

5

By Ryan Thomas Riddle

A decision is expected next month in the high-stakes battle
between the Archdiocese of San Francisco and Assessor-Record Phil Ting, which will determine whether the church will pay out millions in transfer taxes.

On Thursday, Oct. 8, Ting once again went before the Transfer Tax Review Board to counter the Archdiocese’s
assertions that its extensive 2008 property transfers aren’t taxable. The board then called for final legal documentation in the case, including closing briefs, to be delivered by both sides on Nov. 9. The board will render its final ruling two weeks later, according to Ting.

“It is in the capable hands of the tax review board,” he told the Guardian.

Ting said he expects that the verdict will be in his office’s favor, which could force the Catholic Church to pay somewhere between $3 million and $15 million in transfer taxes to the city. Church officials, who have yet to respond to our calls, contend that the properties the archdiocese moved from one interdenominational entity to another are considered a “gift” under canon law, and thus do not qualify for transfer taxation since the properties still belong to the greater Catholic Church.

The Assessor’s Office reviewed a January 2009 California Supreme Court ruling that reaffirmed the national Episcopal Church’s ownership of local church buildings and properties, a case the archdiocese has cited. “Basically, it’s an interdenominational conflict that has no barring on this case,” Ting said.

As for accusations from the more militant church supporters that this is the city’s retaliation for the passing of Proposition 8
, Ting said that his office made overtures on the transfer taxes long before the same-sex marriage issue went to the election ballot. Craig Dziedzic, manager of the recording division within the Assessor’s Office who testified in Thursday’s hearing, sent emails out to the legal counsel for the diocese regarding the transfer taxes back in April 2008, months before Prop 8 was passed.

Duck under your desk!

13

By Tim Redmond

Yes, that sound overhead is the annual display of America’s military might, the Blue Angels. And as always, I ask myself: Is this a good idea in a big city?

Addressing global poverty in UN Plaza

0

Story and photos by Sarah Morrison
vigil.jpg
It seemed only fitting that San Francisco’s first ever public eulogy to honor the thousands of people who die around the world from poverty-related causes took place yesterday at the UN Plaza – a link that almost all the speakers paid tribute to.

While religious leaders, educators and volunteers came together last night to honor individuals who have lost their lives to poverty, they also told the crowd that action must be taken to ensure that the United Nations Millennium Development Goals – which strive to end poverty and hunger – are embraced by all.

“For decades, the UN has tried to help people all over the world with the limited resources it has,” said Imam Suleiman Ghali from the Islamic Society of San Francisco as he began addressing the audience. “This gathering is to bring us together, to tell people what is going on in the world, and to say that it is something we no longer can accept.”

Environmental pork?

0

By Rebecca Bowe

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced yesterday that he wouldn’t sign any new legislation unless a water plan is in place — and he has some very concrete ideas about what that plan should be. There are about 700 bills awaiting his signature by Sunday.

Siding with Republicans and Central Valley farmers on the water issue, Schwarzenegger has said he would veto any water package that does not include bonds for new dams and reservoirs, at a cost of an estimated $12 billion.

Major agricultural interests are hopeful that these projects will improve their access to water for irrigation, but environmentalists fear that investing in them would take the state down the wrong path when it comes to protecting environmental resources and encouraging more efficient water use. So far, an agreement hasn’t been reached.

As the deadline creeps closer, money is becoming a key concern, especially in the wake of dramatic budget cuts to education and social services. Environmentalists are worried that protections for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta will be abandoned in favor of the major water-storage projects forcefully championed by Central Valley farmers who say they’re in dire straits due to unreliable water supply. Sen. Mark Leno told the Guardian this afternoon that as discussions go on, funding for stronger Delta protections is being eyed as a way to bring down the total cost of the water package.

Signaling a reversal from what lawmakers characterized as the “coequal goals” of water reliability and environmental protection at the beginning of the process, Leno says Delta ecosystem protections are now being characterized as “environmental pork” that should have a lower funding priority.

“Republicans are squawking [about the cost], but they won’t let there be any impact on dams, so all the money is coming out of protections for the Delta,” Leno said.

The Chron, the guv and the issues

3

By Tim Redmond

It’s as if the San Francisco Chronicle didn’t recognize that there are real issues facing California — and that the governor is acting like a thug, threatening the future of the state and clowning around like it doesn’t matter.

Check this out: The Chron’s editorial page criticizes Tom Ammiano for standing up to the governor:

But Assemblyman Tom Ammiano crossed the line when he shouted “You lie!” at Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger during a Democratic fundraiser in San Francisco on Wednesday night. Ammiano reportedly went even further on the crass-o-meter when he suggested that the governor could kiss his posterior.

.

(By the way, this is San Francisco — it’s okay for the daily newspaper to say “ass.”)

And then suggests that this was just a nice event at which

The governor was invited for a brief visit to a Democratic Party event by former Mayor Willie Brown

(By the way, Brown is also a San Francisco Chronicle columnist)

without ever saying that Brown had no business bringing the governor — who is so openly threatening the Democrats with mass bill vetoes that Sen. Mark Leno is forced to ask “are we dealing with the Mob or the governor of California?” — to a Democratic party fundraiser.

Brown was playing his normal games, goofing around and ignoring the life-and-death issues at stake. He and Arnold are buds, and Brown backed Schwarzenegger for governor over a Democrat. He knew bringing the guy into that room would create a furor, and he knew that the governor would love it (it helps him with his conservative base to get booed by San Francisco Democrats.)

Ammiano knows all that, too, and frankly, was somewhat reserved in his comments. I would have gone further; I would have called out Willie Brown for a back-stabbing political stunt.

And don’t the Chron editorial writers have any sense of humor? “You lie” was a joke, guys, a parody. Please: Lighten up, and get a clue.

Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize

9

By Steven T. Jones

Whether or not President Barack Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize – which is a subject of great debate today by the commenting class – it’s important to note how a simple change in tone by the US is being so enthusiastically welcomed and greeted with such hope by the Nobel Committee and people around the world.

Obama has long advocated talking with our enemies instead of simply threatening them or issuing ultimatums, a stand that has been criticized as naïve by Establishment voices. But it is the politically dominant American view that is naïve, this sense that we are somehow morally superior and can dictate our values to others, equating belligerence and violence with toughness, and diplomacy – listening, talking, trying to pick the best solution from a field of bad options – with weakness.

But the toughest stand Obama has taken is his insistence on talking to Iran’s leaders, as well as those from other despotic regimes. We gain nothing from isolating our enemies. Economic sanctions didn’t topple Saddam Hussein and they won’t hurt the mullahs in Iran or Pakistan. In a similar vein, Obama has advocated the creation of international efforts to tackle such difficult problems as climate change and nuclear proliferation, lending important and long overdue American leadership to those important causes.

The path to peace begins with pursuing it honestly, diligently, and with mutual respect for our myriad partners, and I think that’s the message behind this honor.

SF vs. the Catholics, Round Two

1

By Ryan Thomas Riddle

Today, as Assessor-Recorder Phil Ting and the Archdiocese of San Francisco continue their ongoing battle over millions in transfer tax revenue, witnesses on both sides are being called to testify in this high-stakes case.

The two sides previously squared off on Tuesday, Oct. 6, when Ting got to present his side of the case before the Transfer Tax Review Board, countering church officials’ claims that their extensive 2008 property transfers doesn’t qualify for taxation. But the Assessor’s Office told the Guardian that it will take time before there is a resolution.

At issue are the diocese’s transferred properties, valued at anywhere from $210 million to $1.25 billion. If that’s the case then the transfer tax revenue could fall somewhere between $3 and $15 million, and more could be collected in property taxes once the properties are reassessed.

The Democrats wild night

24

By Tim Redmond

Well, I’m really sorry I missed the Democratic Party gala Wednesday night. Apparently it was quite a show. Brian Leubitz has a great report at Calitics on the unexpected appearance of Gov. Schwarzenegger and the overwhelmingly negative response by the attendees, including Assemblymember Tom Ammiano, who stood up and shouted “You Lie!”

“It was political theater of the type we love,” Ammiano told me.

Seriously, though: Former Mayor Willie Brown apparently told the guv that the event was happening, and since Schwarzenegger was in the same hotel for a President’s Cup event, he decided (perhaps at Brown’s invitation, it’s not entirely clear) just to drop by. And everyone was supposed to act all nice and pretend that they’re aren’t real, serious issues in Sacramento and that the governor isn’t really, really screwing up the state and hurting a lot of people.

“This wasn’t the Legislative Chambers, where you have to put up with this shit,” Ammiano said.. “It’s like this guy just showed up and took a big dump in my living room.”

Labor folks weren’t happy, either, and a bunch of them walked out. Then Ammiano (and we should all give thanks that he’s in the Legislature, reminding everyone what San Francisco stands for) accepted an award and made a speech:

And then he proceeded to bludgeon the Governor’s record. He questioned why he was holding bills hostage to get a bad water deal. He questioned why a Governor who has vetoed the Harvey Milk Day bill would stand up in front of a room that was at least 25% LGBT. He politely asked Mayor Brown to send a message to the governor to sign the bills already.

And finally, Senator Mark Leno closed the proceedings for the evening. Leno took a different tack than Ammiano’s passion. He simply stated the facts. He said that the events of this evening were all funny and stuff, but the fact is that this Governor had cut state workers salaries by 15% with the furloughs. This Governor wanted to cut IHSS salaries to minimum wage. This Governor illegally used the line item veto to slash funding for domestic violence shelters. And that he, and the Senate Democrats, were going to fight him tooth and nail.

And to a loud applause, Leno stepped off the stage and the crowd began to thin. And everybody was saying, “um, wow.”

The other thing Ammiano said in his speech was that Democrats have gotten a little lax on standing up for their friends — and he mentioned both ACORN and Kim-Shree Maufas, and both times was met with huge applause.

And, of course, the Chron’s Carla Marinucci focused her reporton Willie Brown’s comments about how inappropriate this all was and how everyone needed to make nice to poor Arnold. But there are serious issue here that aren’t just fun and games, and when the stakes are as high as they are here, I’m glad to see them Democrats (or at least some of them) deciding not to play so nice with a governor who is smiling while he drives the state into bankruptcy and despair.

PS: Ammiano told me that when Marinucci called him, she seems astounded that he had said “kiss my gay ass” while walking out of the governor’s speech. “I told her, I don’t remember, but I probably did say that,” Ammiano said. “After all, it’s safe sex.”

Newsom reneges on parking, but the MTA shouldn’t

11

By Steven T. Jones
409-cover.web.jpg
The Guardian explored the politics of parking in our July 1 cover package.

The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, which will soon consider a long-awaited study into how to generate more than $1 million in additional parking meter revenue that was part of a May budget deal, faces another test of whether it is truly an independent agency or merely Mayor Gavin Newsom’s puppet.

As the backlash over extended meter hours in Oakland caused the City Council there to cave in to driver and merchant demands, Newsom – who likes to dress in green but has never really challenged the dominant car culture’s sense of entitlement – has signaled that he now wants to break the deal he helped broker and stop meter hours from being extended.

But under 2007’s Proposition A, which Newsom supported, this isn’t a decision for either the mayor or the Board of Supervisors, but instead for the theoretically independent MTA board. In fact, the whole argument for that change was based on giving that body the power to do the right thing even when craven, conflict-averse politicians get cold feet.

“Any decision on whether to extend meter hours is under the SFMTA Board of Directors,” confirmed SFMTA spokesperson Judson True, who also said the study is almost complete and could be released as soon as next week. He said it is a “study of parking with a variety of factors that will determine whether extended hours is a good idea.”

Drivers and merchants may squawk over extending meters into the evening hours, but with the city failing to put general revenue measures on the ballot and motorists not even coming close to paying for their full impacts and use of public spaces, this is a basic equity issue.

Muni riders took the biggest hit in the May budget deal, with their fares doubling since Newsom took office. Unlike in Oakland, San Francisco is well-served by public transportation, so there’s no good reason why motorists need such fiscal coddling. Newsom may be afraid, but the MTA board shouldn’t be.

Prison report: No accountability

10

By Just A Guy

Editors note: Just A Guy is an inmate in a California state prison. His dispatches run twice a week.

By Just A Guy

There are a lot of things I would like to talk about, to be more explicit about, but fear of retaliation stops me, for now.

One of the things I find disconcerting is how many of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation staff and administrators have the ability to lie to cover up things without any thought of being held accountable. CDCR’s staff are able to do whatever they want, with impunity, because they believe that most people just don’t care what happens to inmates.

Sadly, this belief is mostly true — they can lie, cover up, spend your money and do whatever they want to inmates. They can, and they do.

When the jailer becomes guilty of the same sins as the jailed, but is allowed to continue because he or she is “just doing it to inmates” something is fundamentally flawed.

Some of the CDCR staff justify their behavior because it’s the only way many of them can sleep at night. The fact is that if you do things at the expense of others for personal gain or to protect yourself you are wrong, just as most of us were wrong in the crimes we committed that hurt other people and landed us in prison.

“People are sent to prison as punishment, not for punishment.”

How can the same people that say they are protecting the public use diabolical means and excuses to do whatever they want to inmates, but not be judged for it?

What makes those people at CDCR guilty of such acts exempt from investigation or suspicion? I guess Abu Ghraib is okay when it’s inmates in California.

Avalos tries to halt pending evictions of low-income families

6

By Rebecca Bowe

The toll that the economy is taking on low-income families was painfully apparent at yesterday’s Land Use and Economic Development Committee hearing, when single mothers with weary eyes asked city supervisors to help them stay in their homes.

The hearing was being held to discuss Sup. John Avalos’ proposed legislation to extend a rental-subsidy program administered by the city’s Human Services Agency (HSA) from two years to a maximum of five years. “We have a recession that’s pretty deep, and it is affecting a lot of families in a pretty hard way,” Avalos said. “Families, especially low-income families, are finding it more and more difficult to maintain their employment.”

With unemployment soaring, and many of the people in this program facing challenges such as having a lack of marketable skills, health problems, or language barriers, work prospects are dwindling. Many of the people who testified during public comment said that they were within days of losing their rental subsidies.

“I’m scared to wind up out on the street with my kids,” a woman who spoke in Spanish said via a translator. Many people who enrolled in the program in 2007 have received letters telling them that the city can no longer provide the subsidy, because they’ve reached the program time limit. A phone number for a homeless shelter was listed among the suggested alternatives in the letters, but the shelter has a six-month waiting list. Meanwhile, there are an estimated 17,000 people on the wait-list for public housing in the city.

Throughout the public hearing, small children could be heard crying in the background.

Who’s afraid of the angry nativists?

4

Text and photos by Sarah Phelan

Mickeymouse.jpg
Is this man the true face of those who want immigrant kids deported without a chance to prove their innocence?

Yesterday, hundreds showed up to support Sup. David Campos proposal that the city’s sanctuary policy be amended so that only immigrant youth who have actually committed a felony be referred to the feds for deportation. And during the four-hour hearing that ensued, only two people showed up to oppose the Campos amendment.

One of these two opponents is pictured above (forgive the ochre hue, but lighting in the Board chambers is tricky) and he seemed to be slurring his words.

The other described himself as an “openly gay person” and asserted that his sexual orientation is “not a choice.”

“But coming here is in violation of federal law,” this gentleman continued. “As a tax paying resident, I resent my tax dollars being used to settle a claim of the Bologna family, because the city failed to deport Edwin Ramos.”

Kudos to this gentleman, who didn’t share his name, for laying out the nativist argument against giving immigrant kids a chance to prove their innocence. (Especially since no one from the Mayor’s Office showed up to defend Newsom’s policy, which he implemented last July without any public input or notice.)

But as Campos politely pointed out to this gay, tax-paying resident, if the amendment which Campos is proposing was already in place, Ramos would have been deported while he was a youth.

And as others pointed out during yesterday’s hearing, some youth come here to escape persecution for their sexual orientation, others come because their parents brought them when they were very young, others come to send money to their cash-strapped families, and others were born here to undocumented parents and have never set foot in Latin America, even though some folks assume they are undocumented just because they are brown.

But let’s face it, those on the right who oppose the Campos amendment aren’t going to be swayed by reason, not when it comes to banging the drum for a good ol’ wedge issue like immigration, just before the 2010 elections.

Campos’ civil rights legislation heads to Board

4

Text and photos by Sarah Phelan

Sup. David Campos’ proposal to amend the city’s sanctuary ordinance so that it extends due process to youth inched one step closer to becoming law, today.

During the Oct. 5 meeting of the Board’s Public Safety Committee, Board President David Chiu and Sup. Ross Mirkarimi recommended that the Campos proposal be sent to the full Board for consideration later this month.

Sup. Michela Alioto-Pier, who said she wanted the Campos proposal to be first heard in a closed session of the Board, voted against Chiu and Mirkarimi’s recommendation.

But as Campos noted, the legal implications of his proposal have already been publicly aired, thanks to Mayor Gavin Newsom’s decision to leak a confidential City Attorney memo to the Chronicle—a memo now posted at the Mayor’s website.

“I know a lot has been said about this piece of civil rights legislation,” Campos said at today’s hearing “And this is a piece of civil rights legislation that deals with the specifics of the city’s sanctuary ordinance and more precisely a very narrow and measured amendment to that legislation.”

“And I understand the very important role that the supervisors play in a number of issues involving civil rights,” added Campos, noting that he was sitting in the seat once occupied by Sup. Harvey Milk, the now legendary gay rights activist.

Campos also thanked the dozens of civil and human rights organizations that support his legislation, including several LGBTQ groups, and his seven co-sponsors on the Board—Board President David Chiu and Sups. John Avalos, Bevan Dufty, Eric Mar, Sophie Maxwell, Ross Mirkarimi and Chris Daly.

Together, these colleagues have given Campos a veto-proof majority in face of Mayor Gavin Newsom’s ongoing opposition towards Campos’ proposed changes.

That opposition crystallized in August, when Newsom leaked a confidential memo to the Chronicle, in an apparent effort to deal the Campos legislation a preemptive strike.

The bogus credit-card “scandal” st SFUSD

44

By Tim Redmond

90509maufas.jpg>
Maufas didn’t steal money or cheat the public

Let’s get this out of the way immediately, so my dear commenter trolls won’t take my head off and call me a hypocrite: I don’t think Kim-Shree Maufas should have used her school district credit card for personal expenses. It wasn’t illegal, and she quickly reimbursed the district for all those expenses — but it still wasn’t a good idea.

And I fully agree that the daily newspaper in town has every right and responsibility to check the expenses of all public officials and local agencies.

But let’s have a little perspective here: Was this really such a huge scandal that it deserved to be the lead story on the front page of the Sunday Chronicle?

Because the more I look into it, the more I think it’s really not front-page news.

Newsom agrees to meet with Local 1021

4

By Tim Redmond

The members of SEIU Local 1021 have agreed to stand down for a day, suspend their unfair labor practices claim and hold off on sending protesters to Mayor Gavin Newsom’s campaign events — and he’s agreed to meet with the union tomorrow (Tuesday) morning to discuss their grievances.

Larry Bevan, a Local 1021 shop steward who works as a site tech at Laguna Honda Hospital, told me that Labor Council director Tim Paulson has agreed to mediate the discussion.

“I am told that the mayor will be there personally,” Bevan said. “Going through intermediaries doesn’t seem to be working.”

The union wants to challenge the mayor to live up to his promise during budget season — that he’d work to find a way to raise new revenue this fall so that 600 union members, most of them women of color, most of them front-line service workers in the Department of Public Health, wouldn’t face layoffs.

It’s too late for a ballot measure to raise new revenue. That plan fell apart when it became clear that the supervisors would not unanimously declare a state of fiscal emergency — a move that would have allowed a revenue measure to pass with a simple majority of the vote. WIthout all 11 supervisors, any attempt to raise taxes would require an insurmountable two-thirds majority.

The Oakland City Council agreed unanimously to seek new revenue, but in San Francisco, Supervisors Sean Elsbernd, Michela Alioto and Carmen Chu refused. All three were originally Newsom appointees.

Elsbernd told me that the mayor’s office tried to get him on board, but he refused to bend. The reforms that the mayor was proposing weren’t strong enough to get the relatively conservative supervisor to drop his opposition to new taxes. “Oh, they tried, all right,” Elsbernd said. “But the reform was bogus. I said no.”

But I have to wonder how serious Newsom was: He never picked up the phone and called Elsbernd personally. His chief of staff, Steve Kava, did that job.

Sorry, Mr. Mayor — when there are millions of dollars and hundreds of jobs on the line, if you actually want to get a reluctant supervisor who owes his career to you on your side, you talk to him personally. It still might not have worked — but sending an aide over with the message was clearly doomed to fail. It almost seems as if Newsom was fine with that.

At any rate, the unions will try to get Newsom’s support for a new fee on alcoholic beverages, money that could go directly to DPH. Maybe he’ll go along; maybe he’ll drag his feet. Still, Local 1021 got him to the table, which these days, with this mayor, is quite an accomplishment.

Best Castro Street Fair T-shirts

1

By Tim Redmond

My cell phone battery was dead, so I didn’t get pictures, but I’ll give you the slogans on may two favorite T-SHirts from the Castro Street Fair Sunday:

1. “Marriage is SO gay”

2. “I’d fuck me.”

And bright sunshine and cold beer … you couldn’t beat it.

Obama to decide Healthy San Francisco’s fate?

0

By Steven T. Jones

The US Supreme Court has delayed a decision on the Golden Gate Restaurant Association’s legal challenge to the Healthy San Francisco program, instead asking for the Obama Administration’s opinion on whether the required employer contributions that fund the universal health care plan violate federal law.

The GGRA suit contends the employer mandate violates the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), a view that was supported by the Bush Administration but opposed by the city and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, whose ruling against GGRA the Supreme Court is deciding whether to hear, a decision that had been expected today. President Barack Obama has publicly cited Healthy San Francisco as a model for health care reform and City Attorney Dennis Herrera has personally lobbied the administration to reverse the previous administration’s position, and now the court wants a formal opinion from Obama’s Solicitor General Elena Kagan.

“The Bush Labor Department’s position was not simply wrong as a matter of law, it was wrong for fundamentally ignoring the urgent need for health care reform,” Herrera said in a public statement. “I am hopeful that the new administration will not take such a knee-jerk position, but will instead thoroughly review the legal and policy implications of the case.”

The local list of censored stories

2

539-cover.web.jpg
By Guardian News Staff
Every year, when the Guardian covers the release of Project Censored’s list of underreported news story, we also try to list a few local stories that didn’t get the coverage they deserve. For 2009, they include:

Gavin Newsom’s no-new-taxes budget
When Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Republicans in Sacramento insisted that they wouldn’t raise taxes to address the budget deficit, it was big news — and plenty of San Francisco officials were critical. When Mayor Gavin Newsom took the exact same stance — no new taxes — the news media largely ignored the story and let him off the hook.

What happened to the tax measures?
Last winter, there were big fights over putting revenue measures on the fall ballot. Progressives dug in and fought through a mayoral veto. Commissions were convened. Polls were taken. Promises were made. And then the election deadline simply passed and it was as if the whole thing never happened.

The demise of newspapers
The San Francisco Chronicle has done a few, weak stories about its own extensive layoffs, and other news outlets have discussed the paper’s shaky finances. And the news industry fretted about MediaNews gobbling up most Bay Area newspapers. But there’s been little deep analysis or attention to the end game: What would San Francisco be like with no daily newspaper? Is that where this city is headed? Who will speak truth to power?

Fight global poverty and Honor the Dead

1

By Sarah Morrison

Bay Area musicians, educators, and spiritual and secular leaders will come together next week at San Francisco’s UN Plaza for the first-ever public eulogy to honor the tens of thousands of people who die around the world each day from poverty-related causes.

The event, which will take place on Oct. 8 starting at 7.30 pm, is being hosted by Honor the Dead — a non-partisan organisation that is dedicated to raising awareness of global poverty — in the attempt to inspire individuals to take action on international issues of inequality.

Newsom goes ballistic at SEIU

11

By Tim Redmond

The mayor is getting a wee bit sensitive about a flier from SEIU local 1021 that accuses him of breaking his word during contract talks. And he’s clearly getting more and more angry at the 1021 activists who are following him to fundraising events and making noise about his labor record. (The union plans to appear in Los Angeles Oct. 5 when Newsom holds a gala with Bill Clinton)

In fact, on Sept 28th, around 6:45 p.m., union member (and certified nurses assistant) Evalyn Morales approached the mayor at a Filipino Americans for Progress event and handed him a copy of the flier (PDF). It charges that the mayor had cut a deal with the union that he hasn’t kept:

“The deal was that city workers would make $38 million in concessions to help with the city’s half-billion budget deficit if the city would let the workers keep their jobs long enough (5 more months) for government, business and city workers to put a revenue measure on the Nov. 2009 ballot. …. Suddenly, the deal’s off … Newsom and his board allies prevented a revenue measure from reaching the ballot.”

And it notes that 600 union workers have received layoff notices — and virtually all of them are women of color.

(They’re also mostly lower-level jobs — the Management Employees Association hasn’t faced any real layoffs, and the mayor’s staffers — including five people in the press office — continue to be well compensated.)

Newsom, according to Morales, was furious to see the flier. And apparently he lost his shit. Here’s her account of the interaction, taken from a sworn statement she filed with the union:

“He said ‘this is a lie,’ referring to the flier. “I don’t want to do anything to deal with the union. I hate Robert [SEIU organizer Robert Haaland]. What you’re doing now is hurting me …. I hate Robert. I don’t want to do anything for the union.”

Harsh.

In fact, Local 1021 is planning to file a complaint with California’s Public Employee Relations Board citing the mayor’s statements as intimidation and harassment.

Now: I can’t speak to the legality of what the mayor did under labor law, but I can say that it fits in with something we’ve seen all too much over the years: Newsom loses his temper over little stuff. He can’t take a punch; the minute you go after him he gets all pissy and says stupid stuff (like “I hate Robert.” How statesmanlike and gubernatorial.)

Nathan Ballard, his press secretary, isn’t exactly conciliatory, either. Here’s what he sent me when I asked him about the incident:

Prison report: The cell phone question

8

By Just A Guy

Editors note: just A guy is an inmate in a California state prison. His reports run twice a week.

By Just A Guy
 
It’s been about six months since Tim Redmond asked the question, should prisoners be allowed cell phones? Back in April, there was quite a furor about inmates and cell phones, but since that time there hasn’t been much mention of it, so I thought I would chime in on the subject, as it bears discussion and analysis.

 The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation claims that inmates having cell phones is a huge security risk — that we can plan escapes, plan simultaneous riots, or call in hits on people. While all those things are true, they are certainly things that were done in prisons by inmates before cell phones existed! Cell phones just make those things quicker to accomplish.

 Those are words meant to scare the public into believing the inmates that do have cell phones all use their phones for negative things.

Another reason that CDCR is against cell phones, just possibly, is that cell phones have things like cameras, video records, and voice recorders. God forbid an inmate take a picture of a cop “sleeping the toughest beat,” or take a video of cops beating someone’s ass, or maybe recording conversations in which the officers or others were threatening or just disrespectful.

 Today’s technology even allows for real-time streaming if you have the right type of phone. Can you imagine the doors of possibility that this opens up? Hello, You Tube!
 And what about the amount of money that the collect-call phones generate for GTL.

Doesn’t CDCR get $30 million a year from GTL for giving them the contract?

Few folks know that even though the collect call phones we are allowed to use are monitored, there is really no way for the staff to find out who made a call. And this is especially true if you make a three-way call; they can know the number you dialed but not the third-party number. Also, you ever heard of call forwarding? Duh!
 
What if CDCR contracted with a company like AT&T? Here’s what I propose:
 AT&T or the like should be allowed to sell phones to prisoners. There could only be one type of phone, and this found would not have a camera or Internet capability, but would have text. There could be a number of different plans for inmates to choose, from cheapo to unlimited minutes.

 The provider would be responsible for the monitoring the calls and text messages. (They could even contract this out.) All cell calls go through supercomputers anyway, and those computers have very complex algorithms that can detect all kinds of stuff, from key words to language spoken. (The Department of Defense uses this technology).

 Each phone would be registered to the purchaser so that if anything unlawful was done, it could automatically be attributed to the registered user. If there is someone at CDCR, or any other agency, that is suspicious of, how much easier will it be to track their calls? Using another inmate’s phone would result in your phone privilege being suspended as well as that of the inmate who allowed you to use his or her phone.  
Maybe there could be a limit on the number the phones could dial.  There would be a limit on hours of operation, say, 6 am to 10 pm. The scenarios are endless on how CDCR could control this.

Imagine — what cell phone company wouldn’t be interested in having its customer base increase by 160,000 users, with no competition?

 Before cell phones came to prisons, the collect-call phones we are allowed to use were busy all day and there was a line to use them. Now they are empty all day.

 I’ve done the math before, but here is is again: Ninety six collect call phones (in this prison) being used a minimum of 12 hours a day. With calls limited to 15 minutes at a minimum of $3 a call. One phone generates a minimum of $144 a day. Times 96 phones equals a minimum of $13,824 a day, times 365 days a year equals $5 million a year. I wonder what the net profit of that $5 million is? Remember too that there are 33 prisons in California — and even if you cut my numbers in half, it’s still $2.5 million, at just one prison.

 You know the very same people who are saying it’s a huge security issue are the ones bringing in the phones — ‘cause I have yet to meet an inmate capable of sticking a cell phone, charger, and headset up his ass, let alone in the visiting room.

 By the way, that $29.99 version mobile phone you can buy at Best Buy costs $600 in here. Who do you suppose is making that profit?
 
And while possession of cell phone in prison is not a crime, it would be great to get some statistics on how many raids are focused on cell phones vs. drugs – — and possession of drugs is a felony.

 Look, there are fucking cell-phone sniffing dogs now. It’s safer to be a drug dealer in prison than a cell phone user. because they rarely go for the dealer. Why should they — we’re only hurting ourselves with the drugs anyway.