Friday, September 29, 2006
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
"'The Secretary of State recently released new registration numbers for California showing a continuation of a serious trend: both major parties lost in the contest for new voters. The winner was "declined to state".'
All surveys show that "declined to state" voters are the least interested and least informed members of the electorate. They decline to state a party because they don't care about politics or government enough to learn the differences between the parties. They vote because they know good people do – sort of like brushing your teeth or combing your hair. Voting is more dutiful etiquette than thoughtful pursuit of good for the nation.'
But they do vote (albeit in lower percentages than partisans), and their vote is often the difference between winning and losing. Because they are so indifferent, they must be given the same simple message many times before it sticks enough to affect their behavior.'
That's why campaigns (and mainstream television) seem so mindless at times: they are pointed at a disinterested audience."
We discuss it here.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
With people finally waking up to Mayor Newsdriven's giving away of the store and Unease of the Week - driven policies, it's no suprise that both Sofia Milos and Jack Davis have dumped him.
Can the Ungovernable Mayor save himself?
Newsom vs. Newsom on Crime
Hennessy wants a raise, but was last in line at the trough
Saturday, September 23, 2006
KCBS reports that Supervisor Chris Daly is now actively pursuing elimination of the police chief post, something he first spoke of doing a few years ago. Instead, the elected sheriff would oversee all law enforcement in the city and county.
"If they're keep the attacks on me, I'll keep moving forward what I think is good public policy," Daly said. "What they fear is the end of their reign of terror in San Francisco."
But whose reign is he talking about? We talk about it here.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
'So, Bayview residents, who live in some of the most squalid conditions in the city, will have to wait another year before they are allowed to improve their lives. Never mind that there will be no "emminent domain" of houses. Never mind that no less a progressive than Sophie Maxwell supports redevelopment. Never mind that the new jobs created would have to be filled by bayview residents.
'There can only be four types of people who are blocking this: Developers who do not want to employ Bayview residents; "Activists" who want to keep playing the poverty game; "Progressives" who don't want to take any chances of having more black neighbors and Chris Daley who would lose support if people realized that he doesn't have any answers.
Way to go progressives. '
We discuss it here.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
SPUR, and, surprisingly, the SF Chamber (which seems to have gained a backbone since Jim Lazarus came on as political director), are launching a campaign to limit the last-minute politically-driven ballot measures put on by the Board of Supervisors. These are generally measures made from bills which failed to be passed at Board voting or meaningless litmus-test measures put on to drive turnout for certain incumbents, which can be put on the ballot with only four votes.
The incumbent in question, the careerist psychopath Chris Daly, defends himself in today's Examiner:
'Daly said he has a legal right to put measures on the ballot, if he gets the support of at least three other supervisors. He added that the process was a more equitable way of "pushing issues" than well-funded initiative campaigns where petition workers are paid per signature to gather support.'
'"I'll never be ashamed of pushing turnout for elections," said Daly. "Where there is actual conflict is when there's significant money involved."'But, isn't there already significant money involved? All that money Daly has corraled from developers who are currying his favor? Or the public money he's used to payback his political minions?
We discuss the issue here.
Saturday, September 16, 2006
Friday, September 15, 2006
As you will remember, we really don't care that much for the new, Anschutz-owned Examiner, its no-jump-pages allowed brand of shopper journalism, and its bizarre right-wing editorials. But an editorial in Today's edition takes the cake.
"Addressing the Chinese 'Threat'" (no link yet due to the sluggishness of Examiner.com's updates; go pick up a print copy to see this trash) by Doug Bandow is nothing more that a bought-and-paid-for advertisement for the Chinese government, downplaying China's military adventurism and still-hairy human rights record. It includes such jewels as the following:
"Fifth, the PRC insn't likely to catch the US militarily until mid-century. Beijing will match America (presumably the word "economically" goes here, damned Examiner editors!) more quickly, but Washington's advantage has always been artificial and bound to ebb. Maintaining American influence will require thoughtful diplomacy and economic openness."
In other words, the usual Chicago School line about taking advantage of China's cheaper labor markets in the face of growing regional and global military ambitions, which will inevitably come in conflict with Asian democracies - and, therefore, eventually, us.
But then, editorials are meant to be partisan. Problem is, you would think a major city newspaper, which the Examiner strives to be, would choose a better author to make this point than a hack for a fake right-wing think tank founded by Dick Armey who is so well-regarded that he has to self-publish his own policy monographs. Bandow has also been implicated in a scheme to buy editorial support for clients of Jack Abramoff, the recently deposed super-sleaze lobbyist.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
My take? She may not have a conflict, but she made herself an issue. Isn't that bad enough?
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
To that end we're going to change our focus a bit, and be more blog-like, with more frequent updates and links to news, items of note, and highlighted threads on the Wall Forum.
Speaking of which, if you haven't already, check out the current discussions on prostitution and blight, and about everyone's frustration over how to fix things.
Also, check out the new DeLeon/Latterman Progressive Voter Index study (PDF file) hosted at Usual Suspects. It would seem to confirm a move , slow as it may be, toward a new Center, with traditionally progressive scoring districts moving down, and more moderate ones moving up. And of course, we'll be discussing it here.