Saint Gavin?

Reading your letters to the editor this week makes me want to send Gavin Newsom's name to the Vatican for special dispensation [3/17/04]. He's "courageous." He's "honest." He "followed his conscience and did what he felt was morally right."

Mayor Newsom is a climber, as purely ambitious as driven snow. He rode homelessness to a corruptly purchased victory, and as soon as the hot-button issue of same-sex marriage surfaced in Massachusetts, his well-paid handlers saw an opportunity to make easy headlines. The new mayor had nothing to lose locally and national media exposure to gain.

If Matt Gonzalez had started issuing same-sex marriage licenses after winning office, the 15,000 Republicans who put Newsom in office would have been screaming for a recall.

Newsom got free national publicity, with no real responsibility for his "conscientious" act since the issue will be decided ultimately by the state Supreme Court.

Courage is following your conscience into an unpopular but morally correct position. Issuing same-sex marriage licenses in San Francisco is like handing out communion Twinkies to the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence on parade day. It's a win-win shtick.

So before we beatify a hungry "saint," let's remember how outraged Newsom was when Chris Daly and Gonzalez followed the law and appointed a qualified candidate to an environmental commission stacked with Willie Brown puppets. It didn't matter to Newsom that it was the right thing to do. What mattered was that Newsom could use it against Gonzalez in attempting to portray him as an irresponsible idealist.

Newsom has big eyes and a team of hired political cynics who are aiming for wider circles than potholes and wedding rings.

B. Wajchman
San Francisco

Defending the library

The San Francisco Public Library Commission recognizes and places great value on freedom of speech. However, the opinion piece "Make the Library Listen," by Sue Cauthen, makes many misleading claims [3/10/04].

To suggest or even imply that the library is dedicated to anything but access, knowledge, and equality is completely off course. The San Francisco Public Library maintains its level of service, free programs, and usership because of the commitment of its credentialed staff and the financial support of its residents. The commission works steadfastly with the library to ensure that San Franciscans have a pleasant library experience and access to the best services available.

The library operates in accordance with all city and state mandates with regard to the dissemination of public information; implying anything else is accusatory and just plain wrong.

Furthermore, the library officials Cauthen charges to be "bland" are the same ones that have taken a strong stand against intrusive federal government measures like the USA PATRIOT and Children's Internet Protection Acts. San Francisco remains filter free and by doing so has relinquished its rights to federal dollars; that's a bold and assertive move and quite the contrary of bland.

The Library Commission values the input and feedback from our users. We greatly appreciate the time the members of our many existing advisory committees dedicate to library matters; their advice and suggestions are always welcome. We will continue to forge ahead in making the San Francisco Public Library a system of unique neighborhood libraries that serve each community with the best tools and materials available in the library field. To insinuate otherwise places little value or respect on the expertise and experience of our library staff that diligently serve the public and effectively circulated close to 6.8 million items last year.

Charles Higueras, President
San Francisco Public Library Commission
San Francisco

What about Abu-Ghazalah?

I agree that the SF Weekly's coverage of the District 12 election was not fair. I would also say that about the Bay Guardian as well. In its endorsement article, the paper states why it is supporting Ro Khanna over Tom Lantos and completely ignores the candidacy of Maad Abu-Ghazalah, a Palestinian American who ended up getting nearly one-third as many votes as Khanna. The Bay Guardian may have had good reasons for supporting Khanna over Abu-Ghazalah, but I would have liked to have heard them.

Along the same lines, I'd like an explanation of why the Bay Guardian chose to endorse Lantos in 2002, again, with no explanation as to why it choose to ignore Abu-Ghazalah, who was opposing him at the time. It is not like Lantos suddenly became a militarist in 2003, as he has had the same message for decades. A message of support for ethnic cleansing in Palestine, and continuing taxpayer support for Israeli state terrorism. The Bay Guardian withheld support for Pelosi in that same election but had no problems supporting Lantos?

Jim Harris
Berkeley

For the record