Today's Ammianoliner:

Arnold says girlie men wear pink slips.

(From the home telephone answering machine of Sup. Tom Ammiano on
Friday, Aug 1, 2008) b3

Why did Mayor Newsom recently buckle three times to PG@E? How can he be a "green" mayor and a "green" gubernatorial candidate if he's scared of PG@E?

By Bruce B. Brugmann

Last Saturday (July 26), out driving in my car, I was startled to hear Mayor Gavin Newsom on the Progressive Talk Radio Show Green 960 show. He was the host, interviewing Stewart Brand of Whole Earth Catalog fame, and generally sweating away to appear clean and green, green, green, and green some more.
However, he greened over his recent classics in green self-immolation. So I sent him and the station some questions by email and then on to his press secretary Nathan Ballard. No answer as of blogtime almost a week later.

Dear Gavin,

I was interested to hear you this morning on the Progressive Talk Radio Green 960 program. I am curious to know why, as a purported "green" mayor and a purported "green" candidate for governor, and a "purported" radio host on a green 960 show, you have buckled twice recently to PG&E? The first time you buckled to PG&E and changed your position on the Potrero Hill peakers, allowing PG&E to continue to control the power plant and city energy policy.

The second was your quick and hard rejection of the clean energy initiative. How can you be a "green" mayor if you are buckling to PG&E on the big green issues? I will be posting the questions and answers on my Bruce blog at sfbg.com, so I would appreciate hearing from you. Thanks, Bruce B. Brugmann, Guardian editor and publisher

P.S. 1:And now there is a third Newsom instance of buckling to PG@E: Newsom's five PG@E-friendly appointments to the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. None had any public power or community choice aggregation credentials. And Nora Vargas, director of the Latino Issues Forum, was not only considered PG@E friendly, but PG@E between 2004 and 2005 had given $150,000 as part of their community grantmaking.

More: Guillermo Rodriguez, former public relations flak for PG@E, is on the board of the forum (along with two other private private utility executives. Rodriguez left PG@E to head the A. Philip Randolph Institute, which receives gobs of money from PG@E on a regular basis and in return provides "community services" for PG@E.

This, ladies and gentleman, is yet another example of how PG@E exerts its power and uses the mayor to subvert any real moves toward real clean and green power, such as the Clean Energy Initiative. PG@E has used this maneuver successfully for decades: they influence the mayor to make PG@E-friendly appointments to the PUC and then the PG@e-friendly appointees never put a pebble in the path of PG@E or raise serious questions about its illegal private power monopoly. So far, it's always worked but a new day may be coming. On guard!

P.S. 2:Why doesn't the station bring on people from the clean energy campaign? Why doesn't it appear to allow call-in questions on the show (at least I didn't hear any during my listening time?)

P.S. 3: Alert: Let us know of any PG@E astroturfing and greenwashing as the campaign goes along. PG@E is more worried than ever and it will be spending millions to try to convince San Francisco voters that clean green energy is not for San Francisco. Their propaganda line: leave the greening to PG@E and Gavin the Green. B3

Click here to hear the podcast of the Gavin Newsom Show from Saturday July 26th.

By Bruce B. Brugmann (Scroll down for a picture of the Friends of Chet)

Lee Housekeeper, the worthy keeper of the flame for Chet Helms, sent out the word to the Friends of Chet.

"This Saturday (Aug. 2) we would have celebrated Chet's 66th birthday with him at the Great American Music Hall. Some of you would have shared a meal with him at Lefty O'Doul's. Alas, Chet's ashes are stashed at the Columbarium but that won't stop us from celebrating our brother."

And so 22 Friends of Chet showed up on a beautiful Saturday afternoon on the top floor of the Columbarium in San Francisco to celebrate the legendary rock impresario and symbol of the Summer of Love who died on June 25, 2005.

It was a a lively little group, who talked and joked as if Chet were with us, wearing flowing white robes and looking like Jesus Christ. That is how I remembered him when he appeared at Guardian parties in the late l960s at the time he was energizing the old Avalon Ballroom and rock music. Then it was Chet Helms and the Family Dog and he was at the top of his game.

Carole Vernier was there, looking as if she were still gathering items for Herb Caen (she was Caen's last assistant). And there was Boots Houston, who did a benefit to pay off Chet's debts and promoted the 40th anniversary of the Summer of Love in memory of Chet in Golden Gate park); Eugene (Dr. Hip) Schoenfeld and his wife Lonie (Dr. Hip wrote a famous column on sex and drugs for the old Berkeley Barb and the Guardian); Robert Altman, of the famous last name, but a fine photographer in his own name, who arranged the group photo; and Julius Karpen, who managed Janis Joplin, Chet's find from Texas, and Big Brother and the Holding Company, her group.

Jose Angel Najera, who used to throw free block parties on Mullen Avenue in the l960s/70s with Chet, Janis and their d his rock star friends, did a beat on Chet's memorial glass. Everybody chimed in with the beat. Jose's son Eloy Cipriano Najera (aka CIPRE) let out a freestyle rap in honor of Chet.
"Chet was loving and giving and music is what kept him livin.'" (Full rap below.) Then everyone headed to Lefty O'Douls where even more Friends of Chet were gathered to continue the festivities.

Chet, you inspired another jolly good show. B3

Top row standing left to right: Julius Karpen, Sydney Minnerly, Jose Najera II, Jose
Najera, Lee Houskeeper, Bruce Brugmann, Steve Sodokoff, Scott Mize, Boots Houston, Karen Albin, Jon Diamante, Robert Altman

Middle row seated left to right: Tom Soto, Steve Somerstein, Jose Najera, Carol Vernier

Bottom row seated left to right: Eugene Schoenfeld, Lanie Schoenfeld, Judith Davis, Darice Murphy, Jerilyn Brandelius, Ann Pierson

Eloy's rap on Chet:

"Chet Helms was born in Texas, and hitch hiked with Janis, she always wanted a Mercedes Benz but now we ridin in a Lexus!

"I remember him and my pops, smokin on chops, around the table, and gettin much props! Passin the wine, and enjoyin the time, and Cipriano raps with a rhyme! That was pulled off the grape vine

"He was good friends with my mother, and he was like a brother to my parents, and he was even the manger for Jimmy Hendrix. So we are all here to give respect thats just, due to a great man from the Family Dog, while your gone we are all in the Fog, but I goin to rise a bay HOG!,

"But Chet was loving and giving and music is what kept him livin'! SO we're all here to give honor and respect to a man that gave the Hippies a reason for wishin for Peace, and love, and to shine bright like the stars above, and I to be free like a dove! One love! Chet Helms!"

Eloy says check out his websites:

myspace.com/Cipre
Ursession.com/Cipre
Ursessoin.com/BERNALBEAT

By Bruce B. Brugmann

For connoisseurs of PG&E's Big Lies in political campaigns, the company's early massive carpet bombing against the Clean Energy Initiative is most revealing. They are panicked.

Most likely, PG&E will not attack the fundamental premise of the pioneering measure (after all, clean and renewable energy is in this year). But, as our editorial this week notes, PG&E's theme is to try and scare voters into thinking that the Clean Energy Act is too risky and too expensive in these difficult times. (The last time out, PG&E just used the phrase "too risky, too costly.")

And they use just plain Big Lies, repeated endlessly in mailers, ads, astroturf campaigns. The reason they often get away with the ads is that they spend millions of dollars to push them and the local media retails them allegro furioso and does little to correct them. and even, in the case of the San Francisco Chronicle, just leaves the initiative out of the news and has yet to do a decent story or insert the local clean initiative angle on their energy stories.
For example, take David Baker's otherwise creditable front page story in the Saturday (Aug. 2) Chronicle, ""Utiliies To Miss Energy Deadline, PUC says providers are failing to harness 20% from sun, wind."

Baker doesn't says nothing about the initiative, which sets ambitious goals for renewable energy. He didn't quote its sponsors (Sups. Ross Mirkarimi and Aaron Peskin). He didn't talk to any of the campaign leaders (chair Julian Davis, the Sierra Club's John Rizzo et al). He didn't point out that other studies, including one for the California Energy Commission, gave higher marks to public utilities. Why did he ignore the hottest issue on the fall ballot that tied directly into his story? I put the question to him in an email. No answer.

The point: since the local mainstream media don't correct PG&E's Big Lies, we'll do so on a regular basis. .
Let us know if you spot one we haven't covered. On guard, B3

P.S. A Potrero Hill martini to Matthew S. Bajko, who corrected a PG&E whopper in the Bay Area Reporter blog.
He noted that PG&E got "glowing media coverage" for its $250,000 shareholder donation to the campaign to defeat Proposition 8, the anti-gay marriage ban on the November ballot. The news, he said, was "just the latest in a string of pink steps the company hs taken this summer."

However, he reported that the pro-gay moves "strike some San Francisco officials as suspect, as the company is locked in a fierce battle with state and local officials over two similar clean energy bills on the fall ballot."
Some are questioning "PG&E's altruism in the marriage fight" to shield it from the company's "homophobic smear campaign" this spring against openly gay Assemblyman Mark Leno in his successful primary victory and that PG&E was behind the mayor's ouster of Susan Leal as general manager of the PUC.

And he did what Chronicle reporters have not done: called the Clean Energy Campaign for comment. Spokesperson Julian Davis had a good one, "I think addition to greenwashing, PG&E is engaged in gay washing."

By Bruce B. Brugmann

You really don't have to be watching the presidential race that closely to understand the charge of the McCain campaign that Barack Obama, the first African American to have a serious chance to be president, "played the race card."

It was and is nonsense. I liked the analysis by the media organization FAIR, a media advocacy organization. FAIR stands for Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting. I'm glad to see FAIR quoted David Gergen on "This Week" as a "rare exception to the media's uncritical coverage of McCain's claims." Gergen:

"There has been a very intentional effort to paint him a somebody outside the mainstream, other. He's not one of us. It's below the radar screen. I think the McCain campaign ahs been scrupulous about not directly saying it. But it's the subtext of this campaign. Everybody knows it. There are certain kinds of signals. As a native of the South, I can tell you, when yoiu see this Charlton Heston ad, 'The One,' that's code for "he's uppity." He ought to stay in his place.' Everybody gets that who's from a Southern background."

Click here to read FAIR's (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) article titled, Media Fall for 'Race Card' Spin: Outraged press ignores McCain's ties to GOP race-baiting tradition.

Today's Ammianoliner:

Mayor brings cell phone on hands free honeymoon.

(From the home telephone answering machine of Sup.
Tom Ammiano, running unopposed for the state assembly, on Wednesday, Aug. 6, 2008.) B3

Today's Ammianoliner:

Muni enters the Olympics with the cable car luge. (ooooooo)

(From the home telephone answering machine of Sup. Tom Ammiano on Friday, Aug. 8, 2008.)

An open letter to the small business community

I was astounded to see that once again some small business organizations, and leaders, are about to put an argument on the November ballot that retails without blushing the PG&E lies and propaganda line against the Clean Energy Act and does not represent the views of many of us in the small business community.

As you can see from my recent blog, the current Guardian editorial, and our stories and editorials since l969, PG&E screws our small businesses and residents in many ways: high rates ( much higher than public power cities), frequent blackouts, lousy service, unaccountability, and a propensity to cut off power or force small businesses to buy an expensive bond if they are late on payments. And there's no way to effectively complain about PG&E's terrible service, rates, and glacial moves toward renewable energy.

Most embarrassing of all, the ballot argument retails the big PG&E Lie: the erroneous whopper that the cost to the city of acquiring PG&E's local distribution system would be $4 billion. For starters, the Clean Energy Act never mandates that the city buy PG&E's aging facilities. The charter amendment sets aggressive goals for renewable energy and directs city officials to study the best way to achieve those goals.

Since public power agencies around the country are leading the way on renewables, and since PG&E has already said it can't meet even the state's weak clean energy mandates, the city ought to be looking at taking over the business of selling retail power to businesses and residents. But buying out PG&E's old system might not be the best way.

More: even if San Francisco did buy out PG&E, there would be little or no cost to the city at all. The act would authorize the city to issue revenue bonds to buy electric power facilities. Unlike typical general obligation bonds, the revenue bonds would not be backed by taxpayers, and would be repaid by the money the city would make by selling retail electricity. Revenue bonds are paid off entirely through a dedicated revenue stream. So unless the city can prove in advance with a detailed study that buying out PG&E would bring in enough money to cover costs, there's no way Wall Street would ever buy the bonds.

In short, there is no possible scenario under which the Act could cost money. The opposite is true: Public power cities all over the United States make money, including the public power system in my hometown of
Rock Rapids, Iowa, which has had a successful public power system since 1896. Many public power systems
make large amounts of money while keeping rates well below private power rates. And our figures show that San Francisco would net millions, maybe hundreds of millions of dollars, in revenue from buying out PG&E.
Moreover, PG&E each year yanks upwards of $650 million out of the city with its high rates, according to our study.

So why are some small business leaders once again buying PG&E's Big Lies and once again trying to get small business groups and businesses to sign a ballot argument that undermines their own economic self interest? Would any of them run their own businesses this way? Small business people should steer clear of this embarrassing, self-immolating argument and either support the Clean Energy Initiative or stay neutral.

Most important, the business of PG&E Lies is academic. Because of the federal Raker Act giving San Francisco an unprecedented concession to dam a beautiful valley (Hetch Hetchy) in a beautiful national park (Yosemite), San Francisco is the only city in the U.S. mandated by federal law and a U.S. Supreme Court decision to have a public power system. And the longer the city is in violation of the Raker Act (because it does not have a public power system), the more vulnerable the city is to the tear-down-the-dam movement quietly orchestrated by PG&E and its allies. And that would be a costly catastrophe.

Meanwhile, the supervisors should hold hearings on the economics of this measure and demonstrate how lucrative public power is for cities--and how cheap for businesses and residents. They should also invite small business people to testify about their problems with PG&E. We're posting charts at SFBG.com that show that in California and throughout the U.S., public power is less expensive than private power across the board. B3

P.S. We are doing a major story on how PG&E screws local small business on many levels. If you have specifics and examples with your business, or know of any, please let us know at the Guardian. On guard, B3, who watched today from my office window as the fumes curled up from the Potrero Hill power plant, courtesy of PG&E

*PAID BALLOT ARGUMENT LANGUAGE

Proposition ___ Will Hurt San Francisco Small Business Owners

The Board of Supervisor's plan to takeover PG&E would force San Franciscans to pay an estimated $4 billion for the power system through a dramatic increase in monthly utility bills. If Proposition___ passes the City would lose the more than $20 million a year that PG&E pays in taxes and fees. That means our taxes would need to go up to pay for this lost revenue or basic services, like libraries, street cleaning, police and fire services. It will cost more to do business in San Francisco as small business owners and their families will face an additional $400 to $600 a year expense in utility bills.

Join San Francisco 's Small Business Community in Voting No on Proposition___

By Bruce B. Brugmann (Scroll down for links to our current editorial on PG&E shenanigans on the Clean Energy Act initiative and a similar l982 Guardian story on PG&E shenanigans on the public power initiative of that era)

To repeat: When PG&E spits, City Hall swims.

In September of l982, public power forces placed Proposition K on the ballot, an initiative that would authorize a city study of the feasibility of municipalizing PG&E's electric distribution system in San Francisco.

The Guardian headlines told the emerging story of the standard PG&E response whenever its illegal monopoly in San Francisco is threatened.

Front page: "Uncovered! PG&E's inside moves at City Hall to squash public power: To subvert Prop. K, the utility sets up a front group, circulates a secret poll and recruits Feinstein, Kopp, Molinari and the city controller and city attorney." (Feinstein was the mayor and Kopp and Molilnari were powerful supervisors. This time around, PG&E won't have that luxury of public officials falling over themselves to run their errands and they have been forced to scramble for political support as never before.)

The head on our inside story: "PG&E attempts a coup against public power in San Francisco, The controller puts a misleading, one-sided and apparently illegal $1.4 billion cost-estimate for Prop. K in the voters' handbook--using PG&E's numbers." The story pointed out that the data submitted by the controller for the handbook was originally supplied by a PG&E attorney and a City Hall lobbyist for PG&E. And the controller never bothered to talk to the public power group nor do any independent investigation of his own. Why? The big PG&E Lie ran in the controller's statement in the voters' handbook and was a major factor in PG&E's victory over the public power initiative. PG&E's major campaign theme, then and now, is the relentlessly repeated argument, "too risky, too costly."

Today, as our current editorial discloses, the situation is much the same in the controller's office.
Controller Ben Rosenfeld wrote in an Aug. 7 letter to the Department of Elections for the voters' handbook that the costs to the city of acquiring PG&E's local distribution facilities are "likely to be in the billions of dollars."
What's his evidence for this astounding figure? The only evidence is a July 24 letter to the controller from David Rubin, PG&E's director of service analysis, who argues that the company's San Francisco system is worth $4.18 billion.

Once again, the controller took PG&E's word without gulping. He didn't check with the public power people. He didn't check with the state Board of Equalization, which sets a much lower value on PG&E property (which PG&E doesn't protest at tax time.) He didn't do his own research. He misinterpreted the initiative (which provides for revenue bonds, which would be paid off through a dedicated income stream and thus would cost the city nothing.) And he didn't discuss revenue (public power cities have cheaper power and lower rates than PG&E and they make gobs of money). In short, public power in San Francisco, with its own power source at the Hetch Hetchy dam, is the biggest potential source of new revenue for the city. Again, why didn't the controller do normal due diligence and research on such a vitally important issue for a cash-strapped city? Why is the controller once again so slavishly buying the PG&E Lie and propaganda line? The public deserves an explanation.

Sups. Ross Mirkarimi and Aaron Peskin, authors of the measure, and the clean energy forces are working hard to get PG&E out of the controller's proposed ballot information and get some honesty in. Our suggested language: "The costs of purchasing or building energy facilities would be substantial--but those costs would be covered entirely by the revenue from operating the facilities. The net cost for the city would, at worst, be minimal and the potential exists for the city to bring in significant new revenue to offset taxes and general fund expenses."

Let's kick PG&E out of the controller's office. Let's kick PG&E out of City Hall. B3

Click here to read this week's editorial And now, the controller's big lie.

Click here to read a similar Guardian story from Sept, 1982, outlining PG&E's mode of attack on a public power initiative

By Bruce B. Brugmann

Robert Scheer, the journalist who did one of the first major early critiques of the Vietnam War,
today weighed in on the Georgia war.

His lead paragraphs make his point: "Is it possible that this time the October surprise was tried in August and that the garbage issue of brave little Georgia struggling for its survival from the grasp of the Russian bear was stoked to influence the U.S. presidential election?

"Before you dismiss that possibility, consider the role of one Randy Scheunemann, for four years a paid lobbyist for the Georgian government, ending his official lobbying connection only in March, months after he became Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain's senior foreign policy adviser." B3

Click here to read Scheer's op-ed column in today's Chronicle, Georgia war is a neocon election ploy. Scheer was most prescient on the Vietnam War. Is he as prescient on this one?

The Nation's coverage on the crisis in Georgia in its Sept. 1 edition:

*Georgia's Biggest Mistake? Taking John McCain Seriously
by John Nichols
Did Saakashvili misread senator's March message about "the dangers posed by a revanchist Russia" and Black Sea "solidarity."

*Blood in the Caucasus
by Katrina vanden Heuvel
As a wobbly cease-fire takes hold in Georgia, it's time for the United States to dissolve its cold war military alliances and develop realistic new policies toward Russia.

*A Dispatch from Tblisi by Margarita Akhviediani
In Georgia's Capital City, residents worry they may have put too much faith in the West to save them from Russian aggression.

By Bruce B. Brugmann

FAIR made a key point in its analysis of the conflict between Russia and Georgia over South Ossetia (8/14/08).

The Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting media advocacy group wrote about the big corporate media coverage:

"A striking feature of the coverage was the ability of pundits who have enthusiastically advocated for U.S. invasions of sovereign countries, dismissing concerns that these would violate international law, to demand that Russia be punished for breaking the same law by violating Georgia sovereignty.

"These commentators seemed blissfully unaware of the contradiction, as when New York Times columnist William Kristol wrote (8/11/08) that 'in Iraq, we and our Iraqui allies are on the verge of a strategic victory over the jihadists,' citing this as evidence that 2008 was 'an auspicious year for freedom and democracy,' while two paragraphs later condemning the fact that 'Russia has sent troops and tanks across an international border.' Kristol even cited Georgia's eager participation in the violation of Iraq's sovereignty as a primary reason that 'we owe Georgia a serious effort to defend its sovereignty.'"

FAIR noted that "alternatives to the official media narrative were difficult to find outside of independent and foreign media." I particularly liked the linked Guardian piece (8/14/08) by Seumes Milne: "This is a tale of U.S. expansion, not Russian aggression. War in the Caucacus is as much the product of an American imperial drive as local conflict. It's likely to be a taste of things to come." B3

Click here to read FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) media advisory titled, Georgia/Russia Conflict Forced Into Cold War Frame.

Big Media is big enough. Here's how to cut it back a notch.

By Bruce B. Brugmann

(Big Media is big enough. This is yet another Big Media story you won't see in the mainstream media: the ruling by the Federal Communications Commission to gut media ownership rules and the media reform moves to overturn it. You also won't see the news of the overwhelming Senate "resolution of disapproval" (H.J. Res. 79) . And you won't get the information on how to click in on how to join the media reform campaign and send your personal message to Rep. Nancy Pelosi and other congresspeople to support the "resolution of disapproval" and veto the FCC ruling. See below.)

In 2003, nearly 3 million people signed an online petition demanding that Congress stop the Federal Communications Commission from gutting media ownership rules. Those millions of actions added up and helped turn the tables on the FCC.

Now the FCC is at it again.

After hearing from a quarter million people, the Senate rejected Big Media's plan to get even bigger.

Now we need you to click here and send a message to the U.S. House asking them to do the same thing.

This isn’t just another online petition. We’re connecting online and offline actions to make the most of every click. Soon we are going to hand-deliver these petitions to members of Congress in their home offices, so it is vital to add your name now.

Your click matters. It only takes a few seconds. Click here to make a difference today!

In solidarity,

Josh Stearns
Campaign Coordinator
http://www.stopbigmedia.com/
http://www.freepress.net/

By Bruce B. Brugmann

I confess. I am an old-fashioned Rock Rapids, Iowa, liberal. For starters, that means I grew up in a little town in northwestern Iowa that has had public power since 1896 and so i know personally that public power is cheap, reliable, and accountable.

In San Francisco, where PG&E private power is expensive, unreliable, and unaccountable, I was startled to find that I am suddenly an "ultra liberal," along with a host of other progressives and independents who support the Clean Energy Initiative and public power.

Yes, according to PG&E and the San Francisco Chronicle, we are all suspicious characters and ought to be kept under watch for the duration for advocating such "ultra-liberal" things as clean energy, renewables, public power, mandates for making San Francisco a world leader in renewables, and kicking PG&E out of the mayor's office and the DCCC.

As Tim Redmond points out in his Editors notes (8/20/08), the term first appeared in Heather Knight's Aug. 15th article on the changes in the Democratic County Central Committee (DCCC), for decades the unassailable bastion of the Burton/ Brown machine. Her lead, he noted, was "almost breathtaking " in its drama. She wrote that the party "has veered dramatically to the left," and that it would be telling voters to vote for a raft of "ultra-liberal politicians supervisorial candidates" and, among other things, to "embrace public power." (The Clean Energy Initiative, as it is appropriately known, mandates aggressive goals for renewables but PG&E gallops swiftly by this point and loves to say without evidence that the initiative is a $4 billion takeover of PG&E, which is yet another Big PG&E Lie.)

Meanwhile, the new Chronicle columnist Willie Brown, who ran endless errands for PG&E as mayor and as a private attorney on the public payroll, and collected a nifty $200,000 in "consulting services" in 2007 from PG&E, wrote without gulping:

"It was quite a week for local politics, with the certified takeover of the San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee by outgoing Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin and Chris Daly...But what's really going on here behind the headlines is a move by the 'progressives' to take over the central committee a la Tammany Hall or Richard Daley's Chicago. The goal is to control the party money and endorsements--and that way be able to pick candidates for office as well.

"In other words the central committee will be Peskin's shadow mayoralty, allowing Peskin to keep calling the shots even when he leaves office."

Tammany Hall? Richard Daley's Chicago? Why didn't Wiillie just say what the facts are: that the Burton/Brown machine, and Mayor Newsom and PG&E et al, are no longer calling the shots on the DCCC and that a group of real progressives are cutting the umbilical cord to machine politics and calling the shots with real progressive issues and initiatives, such as the Clean Energy Act. Willie also couldn't say of course that PG&E got much of its influence through his office as mayor and the Burton/Brown machine, which never put as much as a pebble in PG&E's monopoly path. Thus, until now, the machine-dominated DCCC has been a safe haven for PG&E and even this time around the real progressives only won through a major organizing effort and tough battle.

Tim wrote that he thinks Newsom's political operatives are mad that "the progressives have seized control of the term 'progressives.' which is in fact an accurate and historically valuable term. They'd like to call Newsom a progressive mayor, which is inaccurate and historically invalid. But since they can't get away with that, they've pushed the Chronicle to use another term for people like Chris Daly and Aaron Peskin and the best the editors could come up with is 'ultra liberal.'" The Chronicle, which appears to be once again revving up for PG&E, tosses a juicy T-bone to PG&E and its campaign theme that only the loony left would support such dread issues as clean energy and public power.

Maybe we have a new insight into the term progressive. A real progressive supports the Clean Energy Act and public power, while a phony Willie Brown/Gavin Newsom 'progressive,' in quotes, supports PG&E and opposes the Clean Energy Act. In short, there is a big difference between a real progressive and a PG&E 'progressive.'

And me? I'm still just an old-fashioned Rock Rapids, Iowa, liberal.

More to come on this illuminating subject, B3

P.S. 1:Hearst ethics policy: If Hearst wants to present Willie Brown as a "legitimate" journalist and featured political columnist, making value judgments and ethical pronouncements on who is and is not a real progressive and whether the DCCC has been taken over by clean energy progressives playing Tammany Hall/Richard Daley machine politics, the Chronicle ought at minimum to require disclosure of his "consulting services" for PG&E and other private interests that would conflict his column? What specific "consulting services" did he provide for PG&E in 2007? What is he doing now for PG&E and for how much in the November election? Is he writing a political column for the Chronicle and working for PG&E at the same time? Is he advising PG&E on how to "steal" another election?
(I left a message for Willie at the Willie Brown Institute and I put out an email to Hearst corporate for comment on Willie's PG&E/editorial role.)

It was Mayor Willie, as the public power campaign was winning in the 2001 public power election, who ordered that the ballots be moved from City Hall to the Civic Auditorium because of an anthrax scare. I remember standing with Angela Alioto about l0:30 p.m. on election night when then Elections Director Tammy Haygood, announced the anthrax move. "Angela," I said, "we've lost the election." She didn't believe me and kept saying, "No, no, we couldn't lose the election now." Alas, I was right.

We raced over to the Auditorium where there was only minimal security. There was no evidence then or later of an anthrax scare. PG&E came from behind and won by a bare 500 votes. Several days later, several tops of the election boxes were found floating in the bay. There was no explanation from Willie nor his election director and no real investigation. The gallows humor was that the campaign should hire divers to go into the bay and find the missing ballots.

PG&E's big payments: PG&E discloses the $200,000 payment to Willie Brown for "consulting services" in 2007 in its annual report to the California Public Utilities Commission. In a key section of this report (called page 257), PG&E is required to list every payment that it made to an outside company or consultant. This amounts to billions year.
PG&E has the entire annual report posted on its Investor Relations website, but, significantly, page 357 is missing.
PG&E's statement explaining the omission says: "Details of this page are filed with the California Public Utilities Commission." Reporter Amanda Witherell formally asked the CPUC press office for it and they said they're "trying to track it down." But she did get a copy.

Is PG&E making payments to Willie Brown while he is writing a featured political column for the Chronicle/Hearst?

By Bruce B. Brugmann

Earlier today, I sent the following questions to Hearst Corporate in New York, which owns the San Francisco Chronicle. I sent copies to
its Chronicle management and staff. Read my blog below for context, details, and my take on the difference between a real progressive and a PG&E progressive. I'll keep you posted.

"PG&E has disclosed a $200,000 payment to Willie Brown for
'consulting services' for 2007 in its annual report to the California Public Utilities Commission. Now that Willie is doing a featured top-of-the-page political column each Sunday in the Chronicle, I'm curious if he is doing a Chronicle column while still providing 'consulting services' for PG&E?

"If so, d oes Hearst have an ethics policy that covers this apparent conflict? Would it at minimum require disclosure of PG&E payments to Willie in this year and previous years and what was the nature of these 'consulting services?' I would appreciate a comment. Thanks very much. B3

Click here to read my blog, PG&E and a Rock Rapids, Iowa, liberal.

Clean Energy Act Fundraiser tonight (Thursday, Aug 21) - YES on H

Join the movement to ensure San Francisco moves towards 100% clean energy to become a world leader in combating climate change. Visit www.sfcleanenergy.com to make a donation, or come to the fundraiser to meet fellow concerned citizens who believe San Francisco must transition away from fossil fuels and towards clean energy production at affordable rates.

6-9 pm, Thursday, Aug. 21
On the Corner cafe
Oak & Divisadero
Jazz music and no-host food/drinks
Sliding scale donation: $15-$50 or more (suggested $25)

RSVP on Facebook at http://tinyurl.com/6l6eof

The Clean Energy Act will be on the Nov. 4, 2008 ballot. Please spread the word to vote YES on Prop. H.

Yes on H!

What is there in the Hearst DNA that keeps it honoring the shameful deal that William Randolph Hearst made with PG&E in the late 1920s to reverse his long standing pro-public power and anti-PG&E position?

By Bruce B. Brugmann

And so when our Guardian reporter Amanda Witherell flashed the word that ex-mayor Willie Brown is still on the PG&E payroll, I sent the following note to Hearst corporate in New York City (which owns the San Francisco Chronicle):

"PG&E has disclosed a $200,000 payment to Willie Brown for 'consulting services' for 2007 in its annual report to the California Public Utilities Commission. Now that Willie is doing a featured top-of-the-page political column each Sunday in the Chronicle, I'm curious if he is doing a Chronicle column while still providing 'consulting services' for PG&E?

"If so, does Hearst have an ethics policy that covers this apparent conflict? Would it at minimum require disclosure of PG&E payments to Willie in this year and previous years and what was the nature of these 'consulting services?' I would appreciate a comment."

Chronicle Editor Ward Bushee to his credit called me promptly to respond to my questions. (Let us just say his predecessors adopted a variety of stonewalling techniques to avoid answering such questions from the Guardian.)

As attentive Guardian readers know, there is a long history here between Hearst and PG&E and the Willie/PG&E incident is but the latest example of a geologic outcropping of some shameful Hearst history. Hearst was a powerful influence in pushing the original Hetch Hetchy public power project through Congress and beyond, then reversed his policy in the late 1920s as a condition to get a major loan from a PG&E-controlled bank. The pro-PG&E/anti-public power policy continues to this day and nobody I’ve talked to from Hearst through the years can explain why the policy is still in effect to this day.

There is also a juicy history with then Mayor Willie Brown and Hearst. Willie as mayor helped secretly orchestrate for Hearst the deal that allowed Hearst in 2000 to buy the Chronicle, give away the Examiner to the Fang family, and dissolve the Ex/Chron joint-operating agreement with the approval of the Justice Department. Remember all those horse-trading charges in which then Examiner publisher testified under oath that he had used the Examiner editorial pages as a bargaining chip with Willie. (“The Truth Hurts,” by Tali Woodward and Tim Redmond, Guardian 5/10/2000.)

Chronicle editor Ward Bushee to his credit promptly called me to respond. This was a refreshing change from his predecessors who went to creative lengths to stonewall on such questions. I asked Bushee if he knew about the PG&E payment to Willie and if Hearst considered this a conflict with its ethics policy for Willie to be on the PG&E payroll while, among other things, attacking the progressives who voted for the Clean Energy Act that PG&E is opposing with mighty muscle and many millions.

Bushee did not see a conflict nor think that disclosure of Willie’s clients was necessary. Bushee said that Willie is widely known, is “a man about town,” has a popular column, is subject to “strenuous editing,” but is “a freelance columnist who is free to pursue his business interests as any other person who is not a part of the staff.” He said that, if Willie were on staff, he would be subject to Hearst’s “ethical standards.”

Since this issue is of such journalistic importance, I summarized Bushee’s positions and sent him an email and asked if I had properly and fully reflected his and Hearst’s position. I also asked how he could reconcile his and Hearst’s position with the Ethics Code of the Society of Professional Journalists which states that “journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public’s right to know…should avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived…disclose unavoidable conflicts. (The Guardian and many media use the SPJ code.)

Bushee responded by email by my deadline (missing it by two minutes). He wrote, and I quote in full,

“I’m not going to cover the same ground that we did this morning. However, I will say that since Willie Brown’s column was introduced into the Sunday Chronicle, it has been very well received by readers because it is amusing, topical, controversial and informed. Willie has special connections to the Bay Area. That Wiliie Brown has outside interests and income was well noted when he undertook the column and was no secret to anybody who has followed his career.

"A summary of his political career was published when the column was launched.

“You well know that Willie is one of the most quoted San Franciscans in the Chronicle and other media outlets around the Bay Area. He is a sought-after guest for local, regional, and national TV shows. I’m told that you have been a guest of his radio show with Will Durst. Willie is not a journalist or a member of the news staff of the Chronicle, but his column goes through extensive planning with one of our most experienced journalists and then then same rigorous editing processes as any staff produced article. Our freelance agreements give the newspaper complete control of the content we use including his column. So if you question is that Willie is somehow avoiding ethical scrutiny, that’s not correct.

“Look, Bruce. If we ever found that Willie had knowingly used his column to benefit his clients, we would end the relationship. As with any agreement, trust is implicit.

“The Chronicle news staff always has aggressively—and fairly—covered Willie Brown as a newsmaker. And I have told our editors that I expect nothing less when Willie Brown makes news in the future.

“Besides that, Willie writes a great column. I’m delighted he is in the Sunday Chronicle.”

Well, I am still unable to crack the Hearst corporate fortress that has protected and promoted PG&E all these years and is now protecting and promoting Willie Brown as PG&E's Secret Agent Man in this critical Clean Energy election. PG&E is conducting the most massive and nasty campaign ever against clean energy and public power, with huge Lies, and Hearst is once again refusing to cover the story, correct the lies, or give any indication it is not going to once again back PG&E all the way. Why?

This enduring Hearst position of more than eight decades raises some of the most tantalizing questions in American journalism: What is there in the Hearst corporate DNA that forces its editors and reporters in San Francisco to keep in effect honoring, against early Hearst history, against all evidence, and against all ethical standards, the shameful deal that William Randolph Hearst made with a PG&E- controlled bank in the 1920s to reverse his pro-Hetch Hetchy/anti-PG&E stand and go forever after with PG&E and against public power? (For details, see previous Guardian articles, Bruce blogs, and the authoritative David Nasaw biography of Hearst called "The Chief.") Repeating for emphasis:

Why does Hearst allow a key PG&E lobbyist to write a featured political column in its Sunday paper without proper disclosure by either Willie or Hearst? Will the Chronicle today, in August of 2008, with a non-Hearst publisher and non-Hearst editor (meaning Frank Vega and Ward Bushee, both experienced executives who came new to Hearst with solid Gannet credentials) be allowed to cast off this terrible yoke and start covering PG&E, clean energy, public power, and the Raker Act scandal in a professional manner? Will Hearst and the Chronicle cover this critical Obama/Clean Energy election honestly?

Meanwhile, I am waiting anxiously to see what Willie and Hearst will report on the big Newsom party that PG&E is helping pay for at the Democratic National Convention in Denver. Newsom is gearing up to run as the “green progressive" candidate for governor, but there is no way in the world he can be Gavin the Green when he fronts for PG&E against the Clean Energy campaign in San Francisco and then lets PG&E stamp its logo on his forehead and derriere before a national political audience in Denver.

Newsom and Willie want to be known as real progressives but alas they are "PG&E progressives" and their opposition to the Clean Energy Act only illustrates the difference in 96 point Tempo
Bold between a real progressive with real green credentials and a PG&E progressive taking money to help with PG&E greenwashing and progressive bashing. Guardian City Editor Steve Jones will be at the Newsom event in Denver and will keep you posted. On guard, much more to come, B3

P.S. 1: The Hearst and Willie horse-trading story is my favorite example of Hearst ethics. (See our “The Truth Hurts” story.) Just a few hours into the Clint Reilly antitrust trial challenging the Hearst monopoly deal, Examiner publisher Tim White admitted, in no uncertain terms, that he had used the paper’s editorial pages as a bargaining chip with then Mayor Willie Brown shortly before Wille's reelection bid in November of l999. White testified that at the Aug. 30, 1999 lunch with Willie, he suggested that the Examiner would give Willie more positive coverage if he’d get behind Hearst’s plan to take over the Chronicle and create a daily monopoly.

“You were doing a little horse trading of your own, weren’t you?” asked Reilly attorney Joseph M. Alioto.

“I was,” White said calmly.

The day after White’s testimony, Hearst issued a press release saying the company had “reaffirmed its policy that the content of news and editorial pages may not be negotiated or compromised in any way.”

And then came many pious denunciations from Hearst of White’s “horse-trading” with Willie and many solemn promises from Examiner and Chronicle editors that their news and editorial coverage wasn’t for sale. The ethics problem for Hearst was that, despite several news stories critical of Willie, the paper wound up two months after the lunch giving Willie a glowing endorsement for mayor with no reservations or discouraging words whatsoever. Willie had earned the endorsement by working with the ranking local and national Democrats to orchestrate the deal and knock out any official opposition. He even told Hearst that he had called then U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno and gotten assurances that the U.S. Justice Department would not intervene to stop the deal.

As we put it at the time: "The bottom line: it appears, based on all available evidence, that White was doing exactly what he had been sent out here to do--buy the Chron, shut down the Ex, and create a monopoly--and if he offered to trade positive coverage in the pages of the paper for the political clout it took to make that deal, that was just fine with the people at Hearst headquarters back in New York."

However, we put some questions to Hearst and found that if such an ethics policy really existed at Hearst, nobody from Hearst could produce it, then or later, either at corporate in New York or at the Examiner in San Francisco. The Hearst spokesperson in New York told us that each Hearst publication had independent editorial policies and that we should contact the Examiner.

We contacted then Editor Phil Bronstein who told us the Examiner had an ethics policy, but that it covered reporters and editors, not publishers. “It certainly doesn’t cover situations like this,” he told us. He promised to fax over a copy but it never arrived. Again: Why don't Hearst ethics policies apply to Willie and PG&E?

Is Pelosi for clean energy in Washington and Denver but standing with PG&E and punting on supporting the Clean Energy Act in San Francisco? Is she investing with T. Boone Pickens and his Clean Energy Fuels Corp. in Texas and punting on clean energy in San Francisco?

By Bruce B. Brugmann

Paul Hogarth, the agile staff writer and columnist for the Beyond Chron website, asked a key question of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at a press conference this morning on the first day of the Democratic Convention in Denver.

Hogarth reported on Beyond Chron that he had asked Pelosi that, "because she endorsed Al Gore's ambitious goals of energy independence by 2019, does she support San Francisco's Clean Energy Act (Prop H)--which calls for energy independence by 2040."

"I haven't see the text," she told Hogarth, but I support going in that direction. This timetable of energy independence is a path we hope to go on."

Hogarth made the proper point: Maybe, he noted, she should have sent a proxy to the Democratic County Central Committee endorsement meeting, referring to the recent vote by the DCCC approving the Clean Energy Act. She did not send a proxy to vote and her quote to Hogarth is her only known public response to the measure. The head on Hogarth's story made his point more direct: "Pelosi Schools Traditional Media; Punts on SF Clean Energy Act."

Meanwhile, the punting question was raised again for Pelosi by a major story in the Wall Street Journal (8/23/08). The Journal reported that Pelosi and her husband Paul invested between $50,000 and $100,000 in T. Boone Pickens's Clean Energy Corporation in Texas. The Journal said the investment "could benefit from legislation the California Democrat favors to boost U.S. use of natural gas."

"The investment is a small fraction of the Pelosis' net worth. But it highlights the unlikely alliance evolving between Mr. Pickens, an old man with a long history of support for Republican causes, and powerful Democrats who have welcomed Mr. Pickens's recent campaign for developing alternatives to oil." (B3: Pickens was a major funder of the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth, which helped defeat John Kerry in the last presidential election.)

Drew Hammill, a Pelosi spokesperson, told the Journal that the investment "does not raise any direct conflict of interest issues" or violate any ethics rules of the House of Representatives. "The speaker has been an advocate for increasing our country's energy independence and for renewable energy for years, long before this purchase."

Pelosi has always been a PG&E ally in San Francisco and Washington, notably in her move to help PG&E and the development gang privatize the Presidio and set the precedent for privatizing the national park system.

So the question for her is even more tantalizing: will she go for clean energy in Washington, Texas, and Denver but stand with PG&E and punt on the Clean Energy Act in San Francisco? We'll try to get the questions to her. But I suggest that others work on it as well. She's tough to pin down when it comes to PG&E, clean energy, and renewables back in her home district. B3

PS: How much are the Pelosis worth? Anywhere from $15 million to $156 million (including real estate), according to the The Journal. The investment amounts to less than one per cent off the Pelosis' total 2007 public and private investment assets, which, not including real estate, are estimated at between $15 million and $52 million, based on the Speaker's disclosure record, according to the Journal. Including real estate and bank account assets, the Pelosis' net asset value is estimated at between $35 million and $156 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Today Ammianoliner (actually from last Friday):

John McCain sings: My house is a very very very fine house.

I don't know where they are, but please don't foreclose, while I doze.

(From the home answering machine of Sup. Tom Ammiano on Friday, Aug. 22, 2008)

Tom, Tom, speak up and enunciate clearly. I couldn't understand the little snort at the end: "Obama endorses same sex ticket." B3