Endorsements 2011 - Page 3

Avalos for mayor. Mirkarimi for sheriff. Onek for district attorney. Yes on C, No on D, E, and F ... complete endorsements for the San Francisco election

The Guardian endorses Ross Mirkarimi for San Francisco County Sheriff

He also realizes the danger of secrecy, corruption and cronyism in undermining faith in government. He's been an excellent supervisor, and the city would be well served by an Avalos administration.

Our second choice is City Attorney Dennis Herrera. We've had problems with Herrera in the past — his office disqualified a referendum on redevelopment in Bayview Hunters Point on the basis of a ridiculous interpretation of state law that he could easily have challenged. He's promoted gang injunctions that are anathema to civil liberties. His office has allowed city departments to keep secret more documents than necessary. He's weak on housing, declining to call for a moratorium on new market-rate units until affordable housing catches up.

But he, as much as Newsom, was responsible for promoting and defending San Francisco's landmark same-sex marriage campaign, he's got a strong record on consumer and environmental protection — and on most issues, he's a decent progressive. By all accounts, he's a good manager. He has a solid grasp of public policy issues. He agrees that a big part of the solution to the city's budget crisis has to be new revenue. He promised not only to introduce and lead a public power campaign but to appoint public-power-friendly commissioners to the Public Utilities Commission.

He would replace the Brown-Newsom hacks on key city commissions and in top administration positions — and we're convinced that he's principled enough to put an end to pay-to-play, unregistered lobbyists and the growing tide of sleaze in the Mayor's Office. He's a hard worker with strong executive experience, and San Francisco would be well served by a Herrera administration.

Then there's the third choice — which was, to put it mildly, a challenge.

There are a few decent candidates out there who have good things to say. The Green Party's Terry Baum, one of only three women in the race, is right on all the issues, but has no electoral experience — and honestly, little chance of winning.

Assessor-Recorder Phil Ting has been great on Prop. 13 and has gone after big business and the Catholic Church on tax issues; his "Reset SF" campaign relies a little too much on the idea that crowd-sourcing policy solutions will save the day, but we like Ting. Unfortunately, he's barely registering in the major polls and his campaign hasn't developed the kind of traction it needs to make him a viable challenger.

Supervisor David Chiu was a progressive once, and he claims he still is. He's personable and accessible and votes the right way more than half the time. But he is single-handedly responsible for giving the conservatives control of the Board of Supervisors. He was a swing vote for Ed Lee for mayor, he supported the Twitter tax break, he's trying to block Sup. David Campos' move to close a loophole in the city's health-care law — and in general, he's too quick to compromise and move to the center.

Bevan Dufty is the only candidate who shows a consistent sense of humor ("I'm a little Strawberry Shortcake meets Hello Kitty"), and he's often the star of the candidate forums. He's the only candidate talking seriously about the crisis in the African American community. He opposed the sit-lie law. He's got some wonderful wild ideas, like getting Virgin Airlines to decorate the inside of Muni buses to make the ride colorful and exciting. He actually cares about city workers. We appreciate having Dufty in the race.

But he's been abysmal on tenant issues, and told us that he thinks landlord tenant battles "are too adversarial." Overall, his voting record on economic issues has been consistently with the conservative wing of the board. We hope the next mayor finds a spot for him in city government; he has a lot to offer. But we just disagree on too many issues.


The deficit is a fiction.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 8:19 am

Steven, I can read your language and from that know EXACTLY who you spoke with and EXACTLY whose lines you are parroting.

Ted Kaczinsky was wrong about a lot of things, the mail bomb part, but he did get the "over-socialization" of leftists part spot on correct.

The reason why progressivism is a bankrupt movement headed for extinction is that focus has been placed on ratifying existing social relationships and not hurting feelings of your activist friends instead of unifying to challenge corporate power.

How pathological that the professional left is more concerned about its feelings and playing nice with each other, even if those activists are paid by the same government and corporate power which sees demolishing progressivism as a "matter of survival" and in the end has activists (un)wittingly contributing to that process.

The names on SF's progressive tombstone will be the SFBG, Labor and the nonprofits, and that tombstone will be redeveloped so that nobody will ever know that we were here.


Posted by marcos on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 8:23 am

This is a very true and important point. I work a -lot- on moving policy through City Hall and city agencies, and the number one obstacle I and my coalition partners face every day is the ridiculous desire of the 'City Family' and its parasitic community nonprofits to all avoid stepping on eachother's toes at all costs, and be so damned civil and accommodating with eachother all of the time. This constant absurd deference between everybody means than when a city agency is corrupt and purposely fighting something good, or pushing something bad, it is ridiculously difficult to work around that agency and get the good to win through.

This 'let's all get along' nonsense creates a civic paralysis in which almost nothing of substance ever gets accomplished.

The reason Chris Daly got so much done was that he was willing to get up in people's faces and argue and -force- real progress to actually happen.

And I find the nonprofits I that work with which avoid getting stuck in overly cozy relationships with City policy makers, such that they actually have the space and fighting posture from which to hold those policy makers accountable, are the nonprofits which are actually getting things done in this city.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 8:51 am

Maybe one day they'll find our shell mounds.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 9:38 am

The SF Bay Guardian with their patented "back-handed endorsement" YET AGAIN- they spend 8 paragraphs talking about Mayor Ed Lee, then say their #1 pick Avalos doesn't have a chance of winning. Thanks a lot, fuckers. Learn how to run a Progressive newspaper, learn how to use your ink, thanks for the huge pic of Ross Mirkarimi on the cover and David Chiu ads all over your website. Guess the mayor's race isn't that important after all. #titanicsinking

Posted by Guest on Oct. 04, 2011 @ 10:11 pm

was on our cover three weeks ago, and we accept advertising regardless of who it's from as long as it meets our standards, H.

Posted by marke on Oct. 04, 2011 @ 10:38 pm

Unfortunately, the SFBG's sabotage is not the decisive factor in Avalos' lack of viability.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 05, 2011 @ 9:31 am

Never have,

Never will.

Trade the rights to Vlllalona!


Posted by h. brown on Oct. 04, 2011 @ 11:14 pm

you must have a fan.

Go Tigers! Off to Detroit, and what do you know: the Lions won one!

Posted by marke on Oct. 05, 2011 @ 4:33 am


I noticed they used my talking points too. As a native St. Louisan I'm rootin for the Cardinals til they're out of the tournament and then thinking about Texas cause they showed class when we beat em next year and you gotta love a senior citizen manager who still does cocaine with the troops.

Have you got a link to all of your interviews? I never did see Ross'.

Go Niners!


Posted by h. brown on Oct. 05, 2011 @ 7:06 am

Eric is correct. If fighting all the way to the State Supreme Court in order to deny 33,000 SF voters the right to vote on the future of our city is not in and of itself sufficient reason to disqualify him from your consideration, then WTF does it take !!
It is often said, even half jokingly by some of us 'lefties', that an endorsement from SFBG is the kiss of death. You have probably just driven one of the last nails into the coffin.

Posted by Patrick Monk RN on Oct. 05, 2011 @ 7:12 am

Since I like your staff,

After studying your endorsements closely I have come to the conclusion that your staff has been either 'blinded by the touch of God' or are stupid. Since I like you all and a few come dangerously close to being friends, I'll opt for the former.

Dennis Herrera's worst sin (other than refusing to enforce the Raker Act - you let him off from that?) is that he has done everything in his power to negate the power of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force. He instructs every lawyer advising every City department to instruct them as to how to avoid giving out information rather than how to give out information. He supports frivolous lawsuits against members of the 'Sunshine Posse'. Folks, Bruce Brugmann created this Task Force and now he's endorsing its worst enemy?

Since the Raker Act and the Sunshine Task Force are the mainstays of Bruce Brugmann's twin Holy Grails and he is endorsing an individual who has spent the past decade or so blocking their enforcement, I must conclude that B3's senses have been clouded by the Almighty. Or, as I mentioned, he's become senile or has always been simply stupid, both of which I'll argue against. No, it has to the the hand of the Lord.

In a sane world, the Mayor and Leland Yee and Dennis Herrera and David Chiu would not be Jeff Adachi's opponents. They would be his clients. On Chiu, you left your suppression of the entire story of his work for the George Bush re-election campaign (he got $350,000) and the other seedy things his 'Grassroots Enterprise' ... you left out the sins of David Chiu which should have been in your, 'Censored Stories' edition. Of course, when it is the Guardian doing the censoring I can understand why you wouldn't mention it.

You dismissed Captain Paul Miyamoto with one vague sentence about him having no, 'vision'? You neglected to mention that there is a real possibility that Ross and Lee will win and the trade-off will be that the City gets a narcissistic bully for Sheriff and a Moderate hack as D-5 supe. Again, I'm certain it's because the Lord blinded you to these facts.

And, hardened your hearts.

I won't touch the DA race. Gascon has that one in the bag and it is a very good thing. If you really hated Gascon, you'd put him on your cover which would pretty much guarantee his defeat.

It's kinda ironic that you say MIyamoto has no 'vision' when it is the Guardian that censors and skips and twists to avoid the truth. But, it's not your fault. Clearly you've been blinded by the hand of God.

Adachi for Mayor!

Baum for Mayor!

Avalos for Mayor!

Hall for Mayor!

Yes on D.

Yes on H.

No on every other measure.

Niners 2 games up with 12 to play?

Clearly, you aren't the only ones touched by God.


Posted by h. brown on Oct. 05, 2011 @ 9:03 am

Have you explained why you are shilling for Gascon anywhere h? I'm sure you have and I just missed it.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 05, 2011 @ 11:47 am

Silly guest, you're operating under the assumption that h brown is progressive.

If that's the assumption, then shilling for Gascon makes no sense, getting in bed with Adachi and the union-busting millionaires makes no sense, choosing Miyamoto over Mirkarimi makes no sense, and supporting a return to school segregation really, really makes no sense. Neither do his occasional bursts of Gibson-esque anti-semitism, his issues with the free speech of others to post anonymously, and harassment of women.

But if you assume that h is a right-leaning concern troll, then it makes a lot more sense.

But then his adoration for fringe left flunkies like Krissy Keifer, Jim Meko, and Terry Baum make no sense.

Perhaps h is just a saboteur out there to make progressives look bad.

Or perhaps it's simply that all of his puppies ain't barkin.

Considering how his mayoral ballot seems to be the only one in the city with 4 spaces while the rest of us have to make do with only 3, I opt for the latter explanation.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 05, 2011 @ 9:43 pm

Well played.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 6:25 am

a saboteur to make them look bad.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 6:39 am


Posted by Patrick Monk RN on Oct. 05, 2011 @ 9:27 am

It's like we have to support an Asian this year regardless his political record.

That is a major weakness of Democrats and a major strength of Republicans, the ability to resist racial politics.

That is how David Chiu was able to get into office and turn it over to closet Republicans. Clever.

David Chiu is getting the karma now because he felt it was so important to have the first Asian mayor 12 months early rather than someone we could all trust.

Racial politics does not work. The most african americans got moved out of town under the city's first african american mayor. I can't wait to see how the first Asian mayor is going to screw Asians ha ha ha mark my words.....

Posted by Guest on Oct. 05, 2011 @ 11:08 am

Don't get us started about the first black president either...

Posted by marcos on Oct. 05, 2011 @ 11:10 am

One thing I hate about Democrats is how they have issues you cannot talk about, which creates crazy elections with lots of winks and nods, and candidates taking seemingly irrational, odd positions on issues.

I can tell you one issue we are not allowed to talk about:

If Asians had not been banned from immigrating to America for so long, would America have a billion people now?

Go ahead, Democrats, delete my post......

Posted by Guest on Oct. 05, 2011 @ 11:13 am

If I'd wanted to live in Asia, I'd move to Asia.

If Asians wanted to live in Asia, they'd stay in Asia.

The reason why so many people of color come to the US is because we white folks, while doing lots of damage, created a pretty liberal and inclusive society with lots of good things going for it.

No, the American middle class way of life is not sustainable because it is predicated on brutal resource extraction from the global south, but that is no reason to destroy it completely by making the US a hypercompetitive work camp of serfs with no individuality.

We need to be transforming the good values of the American middle class, such as leisure time, freedom from want for the survival basics and creative diverse culture into sustainable values so that all of the non-rich can live creative, valuable lives free from want without having to run on a treadmill for 60+ hours a week.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 05, 2011 @ 12:06 pm

SFBG and CSFN agree on quite a few points.
A - Yes
B - No!
C - No
D - Yes!
E - No!
F - No!
G - Yes
H - No

Ting / Yee
Avalos / Baum / Rees / Hall



Posted by sfjberk on Oct. 05, 2011 @ 3:08 pm


Take the time to listen to the 67 minute Guardian interview. Gascon breaks the mold everywhere he goes. He pushed defense of immigrant rights so far (he used his cops to block Joe Arpaio's stormtrooper deputies in Mesa and went to DC to speak against ICE abuses before Congress - Mesa/Mariposa was set to fire him for that) ... he cleared the backlog of OCC cases in SF within a year. He sounded the alarm on the Crime Lab and brought in the feds and state within hours. As DA he threw out hundreds of these cases. He could have done the traditional routine and covered for all the incompetency and misconduct.

Watch the Guardian interview. Matt Gonzalez (Chief Attorney for the Public Defender) came with him because they like him because he actually works with them. He doesn't shield police misconduct.

Gascon for DA

Trade rights to Villanona!


Posted by h. brown on Oct. 05, 2011 @ 3:57 pm

I'm not voting for anyone who has to bring in MattyG to hold his hand. If he's not man enough to do his own interview, then he has no business being DA.


Posted by Guest on Oct. 05, 2011 @ 9:56 pm

So where is Gascón on breaking up, arresting and prosecuting Occupy San Francisco? Onek? Bock?

The answer to this question might have bearing on the winner's relationship to tar and feathers in the very near future.

Posted by marcos on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 7:47 am


To comment here so much. My email is down. Check out the Haaland/POA ad that I assume is running on TV. Weekly's Joe Eskenazi points out how slimy this thing is. Note that the talking points could have easily been written by your own Greg Kamin or Eric Brooks.

The link:



Posted by h. brown on Oct. 05, 2011 @ 4:30 pm

Again, apparently you think I'm someone I'm not. I could tell you, but I actually think it's kind of fun to keep you guessing. So even if I were, I wouldn't tell you.

In any case...

1. I'd never make that ad, because I'm NO on both.

2. I don't think Adachi's a tea partier. I actually like the guy. I like his approach to crime and punishment. He was fantastic at the BOS against Sit-Lie (unlike your buddy Gascon). I'm all about compassion, so I guess we could use someone like that in the mayor's office. It's unfortunate that his compassion doesn't seem to extend to ordinary working people though. Still, I was flirting with the idea of ranking him third, behind Leland Yee/John Avalos. But every time I see one of your posts mixing Republican talking points with wild-eyed speculation about other people on this board (me, Lisa, Snaps, Eric, etc etc), I'm reminded about the kind of crowd that he'd be bringing in, and I think that maybe that's not the best idea.

3. The ad is hard-hitting and effective. Your whining proves that. And while I don't think Jeff's a tea partier, I do think that BOTH his and Ed Lee's initiatives come out of the same ideological framework.

Posted by Greg on Oct. 05, 2011 @ 10:20 pm

Talking points? I call them facts and truths.

Call me picky...

Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 5:28 pm

You should have gone with your initial instinct to vote NO on Props C and D. Really. How can you be sure that both measures will pass? Last year's pension reform effort (Prop B) was defeated by a wide margin.

As CJ Flowers rightly points out, Prop C had "little to no input from rank and file members of the lowest paid and most adversely affected or retirees." In fact, it was shoved down their throats by the Union bosses at the behest of billionaire Warren Hellman, who puts on a good act as the "good cop" (just loves those city workers).

Well, if these billionaires truly cared about the City and its workers, they would do everything in their power to push for real 'shared sacrifice' by agreeing to higher taxes on their profits. Currently, the tax rate for hedge funds and venture capitalists is a piddling 15% on their "carried interest" profits! These are the real pillagers of the general fund.

Look, if you support either measure, you are colluding with a right-wing, unionbusting agenda. It's the billionaires and right-wing foundations who are backing similar measures in cities across the state and all around the nation. And they are willing to shell out a pretty penny to get them passed in one of the most lliberal cities in the country. (as Moritz says, if it can work here, it can work anywhere)

Don't be fooled. Hellman and Moritz could care less about the workers, the City or anything other than their bottom line. Ah, but they're scared shitless that they might have to pay their fair share of taxes. Pobrecitos!

Don't fall for the "good cop"/ "bad cop" (divide and conquer) routine.

Vote NO! on Props C and D

Posted by Lisa on Oct. 05, 2011 @ 5:45 pm

These Bay Guardian endorsements are unbelievable! They are REALLY getting conservative. Avalos an "excellent supervisor." Well, if you overlook his vote to immunize the police and firefighters for two years (likely to be extended, as with all of their sleazy maneuvers), privatize the Arboretum ("for a year") with non-union ticket collectors that taxpayers foot the bill for), the Stow Lake Eviction, the Ed Lee coronatio....and then there are two botched initiatives this fall that had to be retracted. (Ditto for Mirkarimi — who gave everybody an options tax moratorium — in a time of fiscal crisis! Over the top!

Baum and Adachi, the two least worst candidates.

Miyamoto is better than the flakey and pandering Mirkarimi!

Yes on C? We should not be voting on this and both measures are corrupt!

Posted by Richard on Oct. 05, 2011 @ 10:10 pm

Attacking me from cover is understandable.

This person owns a business and I'd like to know how they'd feel if I started a campaign on Yelp telling lies about his services just as he tells lies about me and Adachi from the cover of a troll's anonymity.

I wouldn't do that because, like Adachi, I have integrity.

Grow some balls and use your name Greg X.

Welcome to the fray to Judy Berkowitz, head of Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods.

Go Cardinals and Diamondbacks and Tigers and NIners!


Posted by h. brown on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 7:32 am

-I don't own a business
-I've never been afraid to say what I think, and if I ever meet you I'll tell you directly
-I'm not X/Kamin/or Guest. I'm Greg. Just Greg.


Posted by Greg on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 8:13 am

My challenge to you then,

Keep going after my friends and I'll head to Yelp with a campaign against someone who looks at eyes for a living. Should he sue, the judge will first go to the ISP and see who's telling the truth.

Simple enough for you, 'Just Greg'?

Go Niners!


Posted by h. brown on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 9:02 am

Guys, can you please stop burning all of the links in the list and taking up everyone's time and energy on this blog saying nothing about the story topics, and instead just throwing insults back and forth at eachother to point out whose penis is the shortest?


Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 9:22 am

'Just Greg'

I reserve the right to respond to you in kind again if you go after my friends. You can say anything you like about me. I luvs publicity.

Go NIners~


Posted by h. brown on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 9:36 am

h: Could you list the politicians that you don't want me going after?

Interesting tactic, h. But let's say that I agreed to "stop going after" your political friends? Even if that worked -huge "if", don't you think... considering that you have the details of my identity and personal life incorrect? ...but even *if* that worked, what's to stop other people who don't like the same politicians you do to write unflattering things about them? What threats would you use to chill *their* speech?

And what do your "friends" think about those tactics... that's what I really want to know?

Eric: I don't know at which point you think I insulted h about something that had nothing to do with the topic, but I'd be more than fine if all those posts of h (and my responses) were just deleted.

Posted by Greg on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 10:25 am

Greg the post you just wrote is a perfect example. It's all about what you and H said to eachother and nothing of substance about the candidates and the endorsements.

Let's steer this conversation back to the substance at hand.

For instance, see this awesome new video attacking Adachi, showing how much he parrots Scott Walker's talking points:


Posted by Eric Brooks on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 12:30 pm

And my response is still the same as I posted above.

I'm NO on both, so I think they're being a bit hypocritical, in that both initiatives come from a Scott Walker/tea party ideological framework.

It's the pot calling the kettle black. However, the kettle is indeed black, as well, which makes the ad extremely effective. I hope that they tear each other apart and seed enough doubt to make them both fail.

Maybe in the process, Lee and Adachi will also tear each other apart personally, and leave an opening for either Avalos or Yee. Wouldn't that be awesome?

And I actually think we have an excellent shot at *at least* the first part of that scenario. Too bad the Guardian chose to capitulate and go with lesser-evilism, when in fact victory over both is very possible.

Posted by Greg on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 1:57 pm

Just clean up your act,

No need for all of the invective.

Go Cardinals!


Posted by h. brown on Oct. 06, 2011 @ 12:15 pm


Uploaded with [URL=http://imageshack.us]ImageShack.us[/URL]

Posted by Guest on Oct. 07, 2011 @ 3:17 pm

This turd is the agent provocateur of the comments section.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 07, 2011 @ 4:26 pm

So the Hennessey endorsed Mirkarimi. That's only 1 endorsement. Cunni has the endorsement of the POA board, but not the POA as a whole. You only mentioned that Miyamoto had the endorsement of the Deputy Sheriff Association, but you failed to mention all the other endorsements that he has. From Tony Hall, Quentin Kopp, Bevin Dufty, Matt Gonzalez! Different police and sheriff organizations. From the Progressive to the Moderates! No other candidate has such a wide range of endorsements! That's telling you something about Paul Miyamoto. The fact that SFPD officers are at Miyamoto's campaign events on their off time is telling you a lot! The POA board endorse Cunni because he was the POA president. They never came to the officers for their vote. SFPD officers are supporting Miyamoto. Cunni is a hit and run kind of guy. He's never had a job longer than 4 years, other than his career as an SFPD officer. Mirkarimi is not qualified and his own Supervisors won't even endorse him!

Posted by Guest on Oct. 08, 2011 @ 1:01 pm

Endorse the candidate that's Soft on Crime !!
You're keeping your streak alive BG !!

Mirkarimi was against sit/lie and is for legalization of weed
Sounds like a Great Sheriff
Does he support naked bodies on Market Street ??

Avalos wants Free Muni rides for kids !!!
Somebody figure out how to pay for that ???

Posted by Guest on Oct. 14, 2011 @ 3:42 pm

Why your support for Prop C, and not D?

C keeps the ridiculous pensions paid to police and fire dept. personnel fully intact. A fireman in SF can retire at age 55 and collect a six-figure annual pension and other lavish benefits for life.

Adachi's measure (D) attacks the pension problem right at its source: exhorbitant policemen/firemen pension payments.


Posted by Guest on Oct. 17, 2011 @ 9:49 pm

Vote for any city district attorney candidates who pledge to issue criminal arrest warrants for the Wall Street Gangsters who looted America!!!!! Arrest em if they set foot in SF!!
and who will make it a priority to jail all politicians who receive bribes!
Any candidates willing to pledge?

Posted by GuestSf T Party on Oct. 19, 2011 @ 10:13 am

What is your paper smoking?

Bevan Dufty is clearly the best choice for mayor of this great City, But I guess
you also supported Willy Brown and look where that got us!

If any of your readers do vote, PLEASE check out Bevin Dufty a clear choice for less taxes and more people with money paying there share. Enought with the Willy Brown, Gavin Newsoms, Avalos and Yee's! Lets make SF a great place to live again!

Posted by my vote counts! on Oct. 25, 2011 @ 2:33 pm

Seems to me that the strength of Prop D, authored by Adachi without the consultation of labor unions is the correct way to draw up a plan. Why would he consult with the people who are most likely to oppose his plan? Regarding the SFBG's endorsement of C, Where is the logic of saying that we shouldn't ask city employees to pay more into their own benefits because corporations rake in all the dough? Are you boys smokin'? The hole in your logic is a gaper. True, corporations are doing fine, some of them even getting a free ride, tax-wise, from Ed Lee. But this is not reason enough to refrain from asking city workers to pay a little more for benefits. After all, they get the benefit.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 27, 2011 @ 2:09 pm

Thank you SFBG for providing me a list of WHO NOT TO VOTE FOR.

This is by far the most prejudice, discriminatory and bias list of endorsements that pretend to support the people of SF.

Wow, Mirkarimi !? He's not fit to be dog catcher much less a Sheriff!

Not Avalos or Adachi even?!

Posted by Guest on Oct. 31, 2011 @ 10:29 am

"The reason why so many people of color come to the US is because we white folks, while doing lots of damage, created a pretty liberal and inclusive society with lots of good things going for it."


Not only does the history of this country COMPLETELY refute how many people of color came to be here, it denies how many red and brown people were evicted and eradicated so white folks could have their "inclusive society."

Not to mention, have you NOT heard about how immigrants are treated in Arizona, Alabama, and across nearly all border states?

Newsflash! No one is coming here for the "inclusive society."

Posted by Guest of Color on Oct. 31, 2011 @ 4:17 pm

Related articles

  • Listen to the Guardian's endorsement interviews

  • Guardian endorsements for June 5 election

    Sure, the primaries are a joke -- but your vote still matters. Our take on the trash wars, the DCCC race, and more local elections

  • Campaign cash roundup and questions about our sleeping watchdog