Want a decades-old Oakland bakery uncomfortably linked to a litany of alleged violent and sexual felony criminal charges? It’s yours for just $900,000.

Oh yeah, it’s been shut down by the health department, too.

A trustee for Your Black Muslim Bakery’s Chapter 7 federal bankruptcy has hired a real-estate broker for the seemingly impossible task of selling the business, according to court records filed in Oakland last week. We made a trip to the court’s public terminals in downtown Oakland for a look at where the case stood.

The attempted sale includes Your Bakery’s main 5839 San Pablo Avenue location in Oakland, raided by a swarm of police last month, in addition to a duplex at 1083 59th St. Records show they will attempt to sell it “as is,” baggage and all.

But court records don’t indicate whether the trustee will try to also sell two other bakery locations slapped with minor health-code violations last year, including one for not properly cleaning and sanitizing food contact surfaces. (Follow this link to view descriptions of alleged health-code violations leveled at three total bakery locations over the last several months.)

By Tim Redmond

The grand experiment in electricity deregulation appears to be in collapse around the country, according to the New York Times. Oddly enough -- or perhaps not oddly enough -- the one state that still seems to be sticking with this disastrous program is California.

I was a bit startled to see the supplement called "Spaces" fall out of my SF Weekly today; it's a slick, 16-page fluffer for the real estate industry, complete with an ad for Vanguard Properties on the cover.

Even by the standards of shameless ad supplements, this is pretty low; selling the cover of anything to an advertiser is considered pretty shoddy form. I suspect (still waiting for confirmation from the Weekly folks) that the editorial department over there had nothing to do with this, but it does contain some stories (one marked "advertorial," two others not marked at all) -- and boy, are they a piece of work.

My favorite is called "Lifestyles of the Young and Wealthy: Is SoMa San Francisco's neighborhood du jour?" The piece, by Chelsea Sime (who is not an SF Weekly staff writer) is all about a realtor named Michael Novia who lives in Sausalito but "knows first-hand how unique -- and lucrative -- the SoMa neighborhood has become."

Novia's proud that SoMa has come such a long way, and promises: "Five to 10 years from now, SoMa will be a little Manhattan."

How lovely. What a great perspective for an alternative weekly to be promoting.

Oh, and by the way: If you go to the supplement's website, as published, (sfweeklyspaces.com) not only is there nothing there, but it appears that SF Weekly doesn't even own it.

Migden, Leno: Who's killing the bills?

By Tim Redmond
It’s been a wild few days in Sacramento.

On Thursday afternoon, the state Senate narrowly passed a terrible campaign finance bill that could strictly limit the ability of local governments to control political money. Although Common Cause and the League of Women Voters opposed it (as did San Francisco’s Ethics Commission director, John St. Croix) it had the support of the Democratic Party and had sailed through the Assembly, 77-0. On the Senate floor, Carole Midgen and Sheila Keuhl both made strong speeches against it – and almost, almost convinced enough of their colleagues to vote it down. Instead, it squeaked through 27-9 (needing two-thirds).

Migden at least tried. Good for her. Leland Yee voted the right way. But the arm-twisting by the party was too much.

And frankly, the opponents of the bill weren't exactly on their game: There was no opposition when the bill went through the Assembly, and when it came to the Senate floor, the good guys were noticably absent.

Meanwhile, Randy Shaw reports on BeyondChron that Migden is making sure some of Assemblymember Mark Leno’s key bills never get a vote on the Senate floor. The reason: Migden (and her ally, state Senate President Don Perata) don’t want Leno to have any legislative success to brag about next spring when he challenges Migden in the Democratic primary.

See, one of Migden’s central arguments is that she’s an effective legislator. Sure, she cuts deals, she compromises – but in the end, she gets things done. And pointing out that none of Leno’s bills for 2007 actually became law would be a powerful campaign theme.

Among the Leno bills held hostage: A measure that would limit toxic chemicals in household furniture (AB 709) and AB 1590, which would allow San Franciscans to vote to raise local car taxes to provide revenue for city services.

Migden’s office insists that Shaw has it wrong: Tracy Fairchild, communications director, told me: “The root cause of Assemblyman Leno's problems lies not with Senator Migden but rather with the entire Senate, whose bills met with unusually harsh treatment last week in the Assembly Appropriations Committee which he chairs. Rather than tell that truth, Mr. Leno has chosen to disparage Sen. Migden's reputation by blaming all his problems on her and that is simply not the case.”

But Leno has another take: “Eight of the nine bills by Carole Migden that came to my committee [Appropriations] made it out, and I will make sure that every one of her Senate bills will leave the Assembly floor.” Only five of Leno’s 13 bills went forward, even though the ones that were bottled up had little real opposition.
The one Midgen bill that Leno didn’t let out of committee, interestingly, was SB 11, which would have extended domestic partnership rights to unmarried opposite-sex couples. Leno says the $33 million price tag doomed it, but I think the real problem was that, while I supported the bill and think it’s a fine idea, there wasn’t any real visible upwelling of support for it.

Overall, the Assembly Appropriations Committee let 74 percent of Senate bills out; only 63 percent of Assembly bills made it out of the corresponding Senate committee.

Part of what’s going on here may be the natural tension between the houses, but I think that Perata is sending a message to Leno and his colleagues: Don’t you dare take on an incumbent senator, or your bills will be held hostage.

I suspect that if Migden doesn’t like this message (and she shouldn’t) she could tell Perata to back off, and Leno’s bills would move forward.

I've been listening to Gen Petraeus go on and on and on, and it's stunning: He keeps talking about Iran and Al Qaeda. I'm having a very bad flashback here .... The whole message seems to be, things are getting better, the surge is working, and now we need to "defeat AL Qaeda" and (gasp) deal with Iran.

When he talked about the threat of Iran, one woman stood up in the chamber and shouted "That's a lie." She was quickly removed.

But here we go again ... and all I can wonder is, this time around, will the Democrats shake off their fear of criticizing a Man in a Uniform and stand up to this nonsense?

Here's a pretty good summary timeline I particularly love Ambassador Ryan Crocker's discussion of "post-kinetic environments" -- which are places that have been leveled by the U.S. military and thus are no longer threats.

The essence of what General David Petraeus said today is that the Bush Administration has no plans to end the war. Sure, the headlines talk about withdrawing 30,000 troops -- but that will just get force levels back to what they were before the "surge." In fact, all the talk about Al Qaeda and Iran has a spooky resonance -- and it's not just a reminder of the lies that got us here in the first place. I remember Richard Nixon talking about how well the war in Vietnam was going as he invaded Cambodia, then Laos, and drove the nation deeper and deeper into the muck.

Let's face it: This administration is talking war without end in the middle east, and the Democratic candidates for president need to stop with their safe and cautious attitude and give us a reason to vote for them.

We've now been able to independently confirm what the Chronicle reported a couple hours ago: Mayor Gavin Newsom has asked for the resignation of all the city's department heads, senior staff, and appointees to city boards and commissions, although Newsom reportedly told them he will only accept some of them. But the mayor's office and press secretary Nathan Ballard has not returned our calls or e-mails to make sense of this or get details, despite the fact that the department heads who were told of this request in this morning's weekly meeting were asked to refer all press inquiries to Ballard.

It's all very strange and unsettling, and it appears that many of the people being asked to resign can just say no. The City Attorney's Office issued this opinion in 2004 outlining how appointees may be removed, and most are allowed to finish their terms unless the mayor wants to level official misconduct charges against them, which he's not even been willing to do with disgraced Sup. Ed Jew.

Meet the new boss, John Rahaim

In theory, the San Francisco city Planning Commission gets to decide who runs the department, but in practice, it's up to the mayor -- who has announced today that the new Planning Director will be John Rahaim, who now holds that same job in Seattle. Rahaim has apparently informed the folks in Seattle that he's accepted the job, although I don't think the commission has formally offered it to him. And, of course, he has to resign his new position immediately, before he even starts work. Welcome to San Francisco.

I don't know much about Rahaim, but I found one interview that he did with a Seattle radio station in which he made it pretty clear who calls the shots in major development decisions:

MANY AMERICAN PLANNERS ADMIRE WHAT'S HAPPENED IN VANCOUVER. BUT THEY SAY STANDARD PRACTICE IN CANADA CAN'T FLY ON THIS SIDE OF THE BORDER.

RAHAIM: "Rightly or wrongly, in American society we rely on private developers to build."

SEATTLE CITY PLANNER JOHN RAHAIM SAYS UNLIKE CANADA, WHERE THE GOVERNMENT DETERMINES HOW AND WHAT DEVELOPERS WILL BUILD, IN THIS COUNTRY WE RELY ON INCENTIVES TO ENCOURAGE DEVELOPERS TO CARRY OUT AN OFFICIAL VISION.

RAHAIM: "And it's the only way to achieve some of these goals…We don't nearly influence the market the way other governments do, where development is a privilege, not a right. But nonetheless we do. These programs, subsidies, do influence the market."

Seattle's had a downtown housing building boom, just like San Francisco, and of course, if the guy didn't share Newsom's basic philosophy, he wouldn't have been offered the job.

UPDATE: My error on the process. In fact, the commission sent three names to the mayor, including Rahaim's, and the mayor made the choice. That's how it works. So Rahaim has the job -- until, of course, he follows the mayor's directive and resigns.

photo courtesy of wolf.like.me on flickr

That’s right, break out the picket signs -- your favorite apocalypse is on the reprise. Irvine Rep. Assemblyman Chuck DeVore has introduced legislation to repeal the 31-year ban on new nuclear power plants and launched a ballot initiative. On Sept. 12, the state’s Republican party unanimously voted to support the bill for more nuclear power, which is being touted as safe, clean, reliable, and affordable -- all adjectives the industry has yet to merit.

It's also being called “emissions-free,” a handy moniker for a power source in our globally-warmed future. It's being promoted by pro-clearcutting, pro-GMO "environmentalists" that happen to pull paychecks from the nuclear industry.

Pro-nukes fans are now gathering the 433,000 signatures needed to put the bill on California's June 2008 ballot.

A 1976 California state law banned new nuclear plants until a permanent storage facility for the radioactive waste was established. Meanwhile, said permanent facility – Nevada’s Yucca Mt. -- suffered another setback on Sept. 4 when a federal judge ruled the state could suspend water permits for drilling at the site – further delaying a project that is already seven years overdue.

Spent-fuel nuclear waste is currently stored on the sites of nuclear power plants – which has raised concerns about safety from terrorist attacks. CA Attorney General Jerry Brown recently filed a petition with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, arguing that its waste confidence ruling is inadequate – meaning, we don’t have much faith in your determination that the pools of water where used up nuclear fuel rods bob like swimming pool toys are safe.

By Sarah Phelan

My son leaving Oakland Airport on his way to Iraq

Six years ago, when the first planes hit the World Trade Center, I never imagined that my son would end up being deployed to Iraq as part of Bush’s 2007 troop surge. I also never imagined that there was a connection between 9/11 and Iraq. That's because there wasn’t one, even though Bush kept trying to make one, and can now claim that Al Qaeda is in Iraq--even though he won't explain his own role in creating a vacuum in Iraq, which Al Qaeda and other faith-based militias have since filled. But enough about Bush.

My son was 14 years old in 2001 and already showing interest in all things military, despite or perhaps because of, my own peacenik tendencies. But as I watched horrific images of the towers burning and imploding in New York, I had no inkling of the personal price that Bush’s warmongering was going to cost my family on the West Coast, or the losses that the people of this nation and Iraq would start to endure within two years of the 9/11 attacks.

But within weeks of those attacks, I did get my first clue of Bush’s takeover plans for Iraq when I interviewed a former UN ambassador to Iraq, a weapons inspector, and an activist who delivered medicine to Iraqis in defiance of US sanctions during the 1990s.

These three experts on Iraq warned that Bush was serious about invading Iraq, a country they said was broken from years of sanctions and not home to weapons of mass destruction—though Saddam Hussein’s pride would not allow him to admit as much to the US and the rest of the world .

In the ensuing years, I saw the claims of these three experts being proven right, and those of Bush's experts being proven wrong, over and over again. And yet, once the invasion was in full force, opposition to Bush’s illegal invasion was successfully framed by his spin meisters as "opposition to our troops".

The "Stop the War" sticker came first, then the "Army Mom" sticker. And then is a yellow ribbon on the side bumper, of my car too. Proving that you can support the troops and oppose the war on Iraq all at the same time

Want to know a secret? Stating the obvious, namely that US military intervention can't solve Iraq’s civil war. But stating this stark truth won't endanger our troops, nor will it dishonor them or their families. It will endanger the credibility of all those who peddled the war and have still not taken ownership for misleading the public.

One of the bloggers at DailyKos linked to our Project Censored story, and the comments include a lot of other suggestions for stories that the mainstream media ignored. Check it out.

Photo from www.mindprod.com/politics/iraqwarpix.html

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) today published an excellent analysis of how the mainstream media and Democratic Party are falsely conveying a sense of official powerlessness to end the war in Iraq. The reality is that the Democrat-controlled Congress could defund the war effort immediately if it had the will to do so, forcing the Bush Administration to pursue a new strategy (ideally something along the lines of the McGovern plan).
Unfortunately, Nancy Pelosi is more concerned with expanding her party's power than taking a principled stand that would save thousands of lives and begin restoring this country's image in the eyes of the Muslim world. And none of the presidential candidates (except also-rans Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel) are offering plans for Iraq that will substantially reduce the long-term U.S. military involvement in the Middle East. That's a disgrace that is being compounded by the mainstream media and its campaign to disempower the average American and ensure that our imperial experiment continues unchecked and unquestioned.

When Ken Garcia and Robert Haaland agree that Mayor Gavin Newsom screwed up, it must really be true. I'm talking about the mayor's strange decision to ask for the resignations of every top official and appointee in his administration, which the Chronicle reports has made Newsom quite happy, although he's about the only one feeling any joy over this.
Haaland correctly says the decision is disrespectful of workers and demonstrates a hostility toward government. And as I reported, it's a power grab prohibited by the City Charter. But mostly, it's just weirdly megalomaniacal, and one more sign that our young mayor is far more concerned with his own political ambitions than with simply being a decent human being who makes an honest effort to do right by this city, its employees, and its residents.

By Sarah Phelan

OK, so "Ed Jew Legal Defense Fund For Wine and Food" probably isn't what Jew meant when his team sent out this pulp fictionesque style invite (pictured above,) but the wording sure makes it look that way.

As the info on the inside of the "Support Jew's speedy trial" envelope notes, City Law does not allow Supervisors to set up "legal defense funds" per se. Instead it allows them to raise $100 per source for "post-election legal proceedings," in addition to the regular $500 in campaign funds.

That means if you already chipped in $500 to get Jew elected, you can add another $100 dollop . If not, you can give the whole $600 enchilada. Readers will doubtless remember that Jew's legal problems began after he took $40,000 in cash from the owners of a tapioca bubble drink chain. So, we couldn't help noticing that Jew's fund raising event at Pier 33 is being hosted by Seafood Suppliers. Not that we're saying that any of this sounds fishy, or anything.

By Sarah Phelan

Photos by Charles Russo

Last week I witnessed presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama’s deliver a very powerful speech at the Women for Obama event in San Francisco. Obama spent a lot of time talking about his opposition to the war in Iraq and his plans to withdraw all combat troops by the end of 2008, as well as other issues that women really care about like health care and equal wages for all.

Obama still had his toothy, crinkly edged smile and easy going style, but a fierceness came into his voice when he talked about the cost of the war to the troops and their families. And I wasn’t the only military mom in the house who appreciated Obama’s honest talk about Iraq.

Up on stage with Obama, alongside San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris, was Kim Mack. Mack, who is executive director for Sacramento for Obama, talked about why she is for Obama--and one big reason was her 23-year old son Bobby, who has been serving in Iraq for a year.

In today's New York Times Magazine, two smart writers, Stephen J. Dubner and Steven D. Levitt, make a really stupid mistake when they talk about nuclear power. The piece is called "the Jane Fonda Effect," and it argues that the reason the United States doesn't have more "clean and cheap nuclear energy" is that the 1979 movie "The China Syndrome" , combined with the accident at Three Mile Island, , irrationally scared the public away from this otherwise wonderful source of energy that doesn't contribute to global warming.

"The big news is that nuclear power may be making a comeback in the United States," the authors, who write the popular column "Freakonomics," note. "Has fear of a meltdown subsided, or has it merely been replaced by the fear of global warming?"

To find that answer, they cite the work of Frank Knight, a legendary U.S. economist who first defined the different in the behavior of people faced with risk (which is quantifiable) and uncertainty, which is, well, uncertain. Here's the drill: You have two boxes filled with red balls and white balls. Box one has exactly half of each; box two has an unknown mix. You want to draw a red ball; which box do you pick?

The Bay Guardian is interviewing the candidates for the 2007 elections. We'll be updating this entry as more information comes in. Post your thoughts or comments below.

Quintin Mecke: Mayoral candidate

http://qformayor.com/

Quintin Mecke interview (play time - 1:04:39)

"It's hard to find an innovative, non-PR-type initiative coming out of the mayor's office."

Visit the Guardian 2007 Election Center for updates, more interviews, and 2007 election news.

The Bay Guardian is interviewing the candidates for the 2007 elections. We'll be updating this entry as more information comes in. Post your thoughts or comments below.

Mayoral candidate: Lonnie Holmes

http://campaignwindow.com/lonnieholmesforsfmayor/

Lonnie Holmes interview (play time - 46:25):

"The crime in this city is absolutely outrageous"

Visit the Guardian 2007 Election Center for updates, more interviews, and 2007 election news.

The Bay Guardian is interviewing the candidates for the 2007 elections. We'll be updating this entry as more information comes in. Post your thoughts or comments below.

Mayoral candidate: Josh Wolf

http://joshwolf.net/JoshWolf4Mayor

"Let's make the police a part of the community, not an occupying force."

Josh Wolf interview (play time - 48:15)

Josh Wolf news on SFBG.com

Visit the Guardian 2007 Election Center for updates, more interviews, and 2007 election news.

Since this is one of the fastest-growing unions in one of the fastest-growing sectors of the workforce -- and since it's president, Andy Stern, is a leader in the rebel group that walked out of the AFL-CIO, this should be a fascinating choice.

Robert Haaland is there, live blogging it.

Newsom's decision to ask for the resignations of hundreds of city employees and appointed commissioners was a impetuous one made with no legal advice, his press secretary has admitted to the Guardian. And now, the strange and sweeping gesture is raising troubling legal questions and potential long term problems for many city employees.
"The mayor did just make the decision more or less on the spot," Newsom spokesperson Nathan Ballard told the Guardian yesterday, referring to the Sept. 7 meeting with a couple dozen senior staffers. "It was in the context of an inspirational speech to the staff."
Ballard said the big moment caused the entire room to applaud, a response that was definitely muted by Sept. 10 when Newsom sent resignation-demand letters out and informed all department heads at a regular weekly meeting. Then came the confusion, the return of some letters that amount to an immediate resignation, and the close work with the City Attorneys Office (whose representatives say they can't speak on the record about this attorney-client matter) to fix the mess.

Newsom press secretary Nathan Ballard -- who got the job after his predecessor was caught lying to reporters -- has always seemed to me a fairly robotic center-right spinmeister, delivering carefully scripted comments without much feeling or human warmth. Or maybe he just hates me and the Guardian, as I've heard from others at City Hall, which is why he's generally fairly unresponsive to our requests and terse when he finally does answer. For example, I had to hound him for days, even after he'd missed the Sunshine Ordinance deadline for the resignation letters Newsom requested and blown off a 10 a.m. appointment with me, before I could finally see the documents and ask him a few questions about them in his office on Monday, which he answered while distractedly looking at his computer almost the entire time.
That was when I was able to finally corner him into admitting that Newsom didn't seek legal advice before announcing his unorthodox and overreaching demand for everyone's resignations, a scoop that the Fog City Journal followed up today with a story on whether Ballard had lied to them and other reporters. So today, I followed up with an e-mail to Ballard (CCed to FCJ, the Chron, and the Examiner, who have also sought a straight answer) asking a simple question: Precisely when did Newsom seek legal advice on his resignation request plan? His answer, delivered a couple hours later, follows:

Alex "Grasshopper" Kaplan was at our office today to talk about his campaign for mayor, but he almost didn't make it; the guy, who has been in and out of jail for the past few weeks, got popped yesterday on what has to be one of the more utterly bogus charges in recent memory.

See, Kaplan is under a restraining order; he's supposed to stay away from Sup. Ed Jew. That goes back to his stunt a few weeks back when he parked his cab in the driveway of Jew's San Francisco house and asked if he could live there. Jew apparently thought Kaplan was a threat, and got the stay-away order.

The problem is that Kaplan loves to speak up at public comment during Board of Supervisors meetings. And just approaching the front of the room, where the microphone is, puts him within 50 feet of Jew. So when he went to speak up this week, he was hauled out in handcuffs.

I realize this isn't the biggest issue in the world, but please: Can't the Powers that Be find a away around this one? How about giving him a cordless mike in the back of the room? You can't just shut up a member of the public and stop him from speaking at a public meeting because of a questionable restraining order.

The Elections Department has notified proponents of move to recall Sup. Jake McGoldrick that their effort has failed. The campaign -- sparked by business interests who oppose the Geary bus rapid transit proposal and McGoldrick's sponsorship of Healthy Saturdays -- turned in 3,844 signatures on Sept. 14, according to Elections officials. But a random sampling of those signatures found that at least 500 weren't valid signatures from voters in the district, leaving them short of the 3,573 they needed to qualify for the February ballot. Proponents were informed in a letter that went out yesterday.
McGoldrick had been preparing to fight to finish his term, which ends next year, assuming that the campaign would meet the low threshold of 10 percent of those in the district who voted in the last election. But now, that election won't happen and the mayor won't get to appoint a replacement if McGoldrick lost.

The implications behind today's big news that San Francisco has an unreliable voting system are mind-boggling. It's bad enough that it's going to take weeks of hand-counting ballots before we'll know the results -- not just after this November's snoozer election, but also after the high-stakes February and June contests. But consider the fact that the state has found that the San Francisco system doesn't count many ballots. Has that affected past elections? Did Sup. Ed Jew really win his squeaker of an election, or for that matter, did Gavin Newsom really beat Matt Gonzalez four years ago?
As the Chron story notes, the Board of Supervisors earlier this year elected not to switch from our current ES&S system to one made by Sequoia Voting Systems, mostly because they would allow an independent review of the computer coding, which is a valid concern. People have good reasons, and more all the time, to have no faith in this country's dysfunctional democracy. This is serious stuff, people. If we don't find a way to restore people's faith in the system, it isn't just trust and hope that will be lost. It could be the system itself.

UPDATE: After learning a bit more about this issue, it turns out that the scope of the city's problems in the past aren't as potentially far-reaching as the Secretary of State's action might indicate. Respected election reformer Steven Hill tells us this is a drastic action based largely on ES&S not being the most responsive corporation in the world, as he and the Guardian experienced during the implementation of ranked choice voting. But the potential for votes not being counted only concerns those cast at precincts by voters who don't use the provided pens and instead use their own with light ink. On absentee ballots where that's most likely to occur, they are already read on more sensitive machines that will count the votes. Anyway, look for next week's Guardian where we'll have more on this developing story.

We know at this point that Mayor Newsom didn't seek legal counsel before he decided to ask for everyone who runs anything in town to resign. If he had, and he'd thought about it a little bit, he might have discovered what City Attorney Dennis Herrera did: This could cost the city big money.

I'm not talking about lawsuits by forcibly resigned employees -- Newsom had ever legal right to do what he did. No, what's fascinating is a two-sentence note at the end of the city attorney's seven-page opinion on the mass resignations. It says:

"The resignations of certain department heads or commissioner may present other legal issues for the City depending on the particular facts and circumstances. For example, There could be questions about whether to make public disclosures under certain City bonds or municipal debt issuances."

What that means is that the city might have to notify the financial markets -- the bond holders and brokers -- about the mass almost-firings, the same way a company that holds public debt would have to notify debtors that all of its senior staff had resigned.

If the bond-rating agencies decide that a mass exodus of all the experience and talent managing the city is a bad thing for San Francisco's financial stability, we could see a downgrading of our bonds -- and that could cost us a lot of money.

I wonder if Gavin ever thought about that.

A ballot measure that would effectively guarantee that the next president is a Republican -- and quite possible guarantee GOP control of the White House for years to come -- is headed for the California ballot, and the Democratic party has been a bit slow to respond. Considering that this is a Very Big Deal -- about as big a deal as you can imagine, with the future of the world literally at stake -- the Democratic party needs to pull out all the stops to defeat this thing.

And the bloggers aren't waiting around for that to happen.

Already, there's a lively campaign underway at Nodirtytricks.com -- and it features a stunning video from Bradly Whitford, better known as Josh on the West Wing. Check it out:

For the first time ever, the San Francisco Controller's Office (using outside consultants) is conducting a survey on the behavior and effectiveness of the SFPD. You can fill it out online here.

This is part of legislation by Sup. Ross Mirkarimi, and it's important that all parts of the community respond. Cuz' you know the cops will all fill out the survey ....

My only problem with the survey is that it doesn't ask about police abuse or accountability, but it does ask about effectiveness, and there are places where you can type in comments.

The Bay Guardian is interviewing the candidates for the 2007 elections. We'll be updating this entry as more information comes in. Post your thoughts or comments below.

Mayoral candidate: Ahimsa Sumchai

www.ahimsa4mayor.com

"Just as we looked at AIDS as an epidemic, we should look at violence as an epidemic."

Ahimsa Sumchai interview (play time: 59:15)

Ahimsa Sumchai news on SFBG.com

Visit the Guardian 2007 Election Center for updates, more interviews, and 2007 election news.

This one's a real corker. Iran's national nightmarish, Holocaust-denying president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke today at Columbia University -- in the interests of promoting democratic exchange, of course! And to help Americans who have "suffered in diverse ways and have been deprived of access to accurate information." Columbia's president Lee Bollinger asked him what he called a "tough question": What about the persecution of gays in his country?

The response: "In Iran, we don't have homosexuals like in your country."

No, Little Hitler, you just have hanged, flogged, and beheaded ones. (Oh! My bad. That last one was our fabulous Saudi allies. Rock on Saudi Arabia!)

Pic from -- oh dear, strange bedfellows -- glennbeck.com

Hey Ahmadinegay, bite my gay Arab ass, and then work me on the wicked dance floor of your life. One look at your alterna-beard and sassy coif and my gaydar goes apewild.

PS. Nice shoes, Mahry.

PPS. "Too hobbit"

Photo by Charles Russo
Or at least your District 4 replacement might be

With the legal noose tightening at the federal and the state level around beleagured Sup. Ed Jew’s neck, and City Attorney Dennis Herrera preparing to file a civil lawsuit to remove Jew from office, two San Francisco women, b have sent a letter to Mayor Gavin Newsom, urging him to name a woman to replace Jew.
In their letter Alix Rosenthal, President, National Women's Political Caucus (SF chapter) and SaskiaTraill, President, San Francisco Women's Political Committee note that during Newsom's administration, "the number of women who serve in elected office has been reduced, after you replaced two women, Assessor Mabel Teng and Treasurer Susan Leal, with men."

The full text of the letter follows:

Dear Mayor Newsom,

When you appoint a replacement for Supervisor Ed Jew, we strongly urge you to name a woman. It is important that you continue to demonstrate your commitment to gender equity at the highest levels of government.

On Saturday, September 15, forty-five elected officials and leaders of women’s organizations met at the San Francisco Women’s Policy Summit 2007, with the aim of determining our top priorities to improve the lives of women in San Francisco. The Summit participants agreed unanimously that our highest priority is to get more women elected and appointed to public office.

One of every three citywide elected offices in San Francisco is held by a woman. In addition, only two members of the Board of Supervisors are female. During your administration, the number of women who serve in elected office has been reduced, after you replaced two women, Assessor Mabel Teng and Treasurer Susan Leal, with men.

We are confident that you will select a woman who has the energy and the experience to restore District 4's confidence in their elected representative. Until women hold half of the seats of power in San Francisco, a woman’s perspective will not be adequately represented in City Hall. We will be happy to meet with you at any time to discuss this further.

Sincerely,

Alix Rosenthal - President, National Women's Political Caucus (SF chapter)
and
Saskia Traill - President, San Francisco Women's Political Committee

Mayor Gavin Newsom finally stepped up today, filing official misconduct charges against the twice-indicted Sup. Ed Jew, and removing him from office pending permanent removal by the Ethics Commission and Board of Supervisors. A PDF of the charge and related letters is available here. That overdue action was long-anticipated, so the real news today is that he has named his 29-year-old deputy budget director Carmen Chu to fill the slot, starting with today's board meeting.
Chu is a virtual unknown in local politics, but those who have worked with her tell us that she's smart, attractive, not very political, and a sort of quiet, behind the scenes policy wonk. Given her age and the huge opportunity that Newsom has just handed her, most people assume that she'll be a loyal vote for Newsom. Yet Chu did play a role in this year's divisive and highly politicized budget battle between Newsom and Sup. Chris Daly, serving as the point person on two of Newsom's most troubling (and ultimately unsuccessful) budget gambits: cutting funding for local AIDS programs and reducing the number of psychiatric beds at General Hospital. It was an understandable role given that she was with the Department of Public Health before moving over to the Budget Office.

And this time, it's a total non-story. This is the big, three-deck, front-page banner head in the Examiner. And why? Who cares if a Newsom aide gave $95 to Chicken John Rinaldi's mayoral campaign? Everyone knows Newsom is going to win; Rinaldi himself says he's running for number two. This is a performance, a Chicken John special, and Rinaldi hopes to make some points along the way about the importance of arts in San Francisco. So Mike Farrah gave $95 to see the show.

That has Eric Jaye all agitated and the Ex in a tizzy? Come on.

The Bay Guardian is interviewing the candidates for the 2007 elections. We'll be updating this entry as more information comes in. Post your thoughts or comments below.

Mayoral candidate: Grasshopper Alec Kaplan

Grasshopper Alec Kaplan interview

Grasshopper news on SFBG.com

Visit the Guardian 2007 Election Center for updates, more interviews, and 2007 election news.

The Bay Guardian is interviewing the candidates for the 2007 elections. We'll be updating this entry as more information comes in. Post your thoughts or comments below.

Mayoral candidate Harold Hoogasian

www.unplugthemachine.org

"I decided to run after this bozo took away 400 garbage cans and called it an anti-litter program."

Harold Hoogasian interview

Harold Hoogasian news on SFBG.com

Visit the Guardian 2007 Election Center for updates, more interviews, and 2007 election news.

The Bay Guardian is interviewing the candidates for the 2007 elections. We'll be updating this entry as more information comes in. Post your thoughts or comments below.

District Attorney: Kamala Harris

www.kamalaharris.org

"It's a self-defeating thing to say, 'I'm not going to work because the DA won't prosecute.' ... If no report is taken, then you're right, I'm not going to prosecute."

Kamala Harris interview

Visit the Guardian 2007 Election Center for updates, more interviews, and 2007 election news.

The Bay Guardian is interviewing the candidates for the 2007 elections. We'll be updating this entry as more information comes in. Post your thoughts or comments below.

San Francisco Sheriff Michael Hennessey

www.sheriffhennessey.com

"From about 1850 to 1895, the San Francisco police chief was elected. I think it'd be a very good idea for this city. It's a small enough city that I think the elected politicians really try to be responsive to the public will."

Michael Hennessey interview

Visit the Guardian 2007 Election Center for updates, more interviews, and 2007 election news.

The October issue of Harper's Magazine has an editorial by Garret Keizer (printed in the hole left by Lewis Lapham) titled "Specific Suggestion" and calling for a general strike on this election day, November 6, 2007.

"Of all the various depredations of the Bush regime none has been so thorough as its plundering of hope." Keizer writes in the opening of the piece.

Stop whatever you're doing and go read the rest of it. His remedy for the general despair, rather than twiddling thumbs until November 2008, is: Don't go to work and don't buy anything. If you're frustrated with the war, annoyed that calls for impeachment have gone nowhere, and generally depressed by the Bush administration then let it be known by refusing to engage the cogs that keep the machinery of our "democracy" operating.

"Any strike, whether it happens in a factory, a nation, or a marriage, amounts to a reaffirmation of consent," writes Keizer. "The strikers remind their overlords—and, equally important, themselves—that the seemingly perpetual machinery of daily life has an off switch as well as an on."

It's a beautiful idea, brilliant in its simplicity, and a potentially inspirational reminder that we, as a people, are responsible for our democracy. Of course, I've come across no mentions of this so far in the mainstream media so it's going to require some real grassroots swelling to take off. Some lefty bloggers like DailyKos diarist conchita have picked it up. You should too: Tell your friends! Let's shut it off!

Meet the Dude: Ron Dudum outside City Hall, following Newsom's Jew-Chu coup

Dude, Ron Dudum is polite. Maybe a little too polite, given that he just got passed over by Mayor Gavin Newsom for the job of temporarily replacing suspended Sup. Ed Jew.

Dudum is the dude who lost to Jew by 53 votes in an instant runoff race for District 4 last fall. Since then, questions about Jew’s residency have been raised, large piles of cash have been found in Ed Jew’s City Hall safe, the transcripts of some very incriminatory FBI tapes have been made public in which Jew appears to be demanding money for help getting permits for a chain of tapioca bubble drink stores, and charges have been filed against him at the state and federal level.

More and more City Hall watchers are focusing on the asterisk that the Mayor's Office has left next to the name of the newest member of the Board of Supervisors, Carmen Chu.

"She's an interim replacement," Newsom flak Nathan Ballard confirmed for me yesterday. In other words, she may just be a placeholder until the Board of Supervisors votes whether to remove disgraced Sup. Ed Jew from office a few weeks from now.

"At the point when Ed Jew is removed from office...then the mayor would have the opportunity to appoint a permanent replacement or appoint Carmen," Ballard said. Asked whether the mayor has made that decision yet, Ballard told us, "We'll cross that bridge when we come to it."

This is unbelievable, particularly given the FBI raided Jew's office and by his own admission found a wad of ill-gotten cash way back in May. Newsom has had plenty of time to pick a replacement, and probably already did well before Monday when he informed Chu of her selection. And I'm not the only one who smells the foul stench of a political power grab in Newsom's strangely secretive ploy.

A busload of 49er fans based in Bayview Hunters Point traveled to the 49ers headquarters in Santa Clara today to ask the team owners not to build a new stadium with developer Lennar. The group also requested a meeting with the York family regarding health problems they say are a result of Lennar’s activities.

In November 2006, the York family announced that the team was planning to leave San Francisco and relocate to Santa Clara. The announcement set off an intense competition to win the 49ers’ affections. As part of that battle, Mayor Gavin Newsom offered to build a new stadium at Hunters Point Shipyard—a move mayoral candidate Dr. Ahimsa Porter Sumchai decried as “a dirty transfer of the shipyard.”

Jaron Browne of People Organized to Win Employment Rights, which participated in today’s bus ride, told the Guardian that the Yorks “weren’t able to come out and give a statement”.

“But we delivered an informational packet, including medical records and the personal accounts of people living in the surrounding neighborhood. Our message was, ‘Lennar is not a builder in good faith’,” Browne said.

The bus ride came the day after the San Francisco Board of Education voted unanimously, on the basis of their belief that the City’s precautionary principle requires them to take “anticipatory action” to prevent harm, to call on the Mayor, the Board of Supervisors, the Redevelopment Agency the Department of Public Health and other relevant City agencies to “require an immediate halt of Lennar’s development of Parcel A of the Hunters Point Shipyard until an immediate and independent health and safety assessment can be conducted in cooperation with the SFUSD Superintendent and the School District’s School Health Programs Office and other relevant community organizations and City task forces like the SF Asthma Task Force.”

Their vote makes the School Board the first elected body in San Francisco to insist on a halt and comes ten months after a group of Bayview Hunters Point residents first started to ask for a temporary work stoppage until community health concerns could be addressed.

The School Board’s decision comes shortly after the California Department of Public Health’s, which is funded Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, released a report in response to concerns about Lennar’s grading operations at Parcel A.

The report finds, amongst many other concerns, that there are validity problems with the monitoring equipment that Lennar is currently using at the site, which is designed for indoor, not outdoor, conditions.

“Due to the novel application of the equipment for fence line monitoring,” notes the report, “CDPH is not able to interpret whether dust exposures in the community occurred that would explain some of the community health complaints such as headaches, bloody noses, adult onset asthma, respiratory symptoms, nausea and vomiting.”

The report also suggests beefing up monitoring and mitigation measures, and giving more power to City officials overseeing the site. It does not recommend any health screenings.

Lennar officials immediately issued a press release claiming that the report "supports recent findings by state and local public health professionals that grading operations at a construction site pose no significant long-term health threats to residents in San Francisco's Bayview Hunters Point neighborhood."

But a thorough reading of the CDPH's report raises numerous concerns with Lennar's monitoring operations and makes major recommendations for the site.

The Bay Guardian is interviewing community leaders about the issues at stake in the upcoming 2007 elections. We'll be updating this entry as more information comes in. Post your thoughts or comments below.

Supervisor Aaron Peskin on Prop A and other election issues

www.fixmuni.com

Aaron Peskin interview

Visit the Guardian 2007 Election Center for updates, more interviews, and 2007 election news.

The Bay Guardian is interviewing community leaders about the issues at stake in the upcoming 2007 elections. We'll be updating this entry as more information comes in. Post your thoughts or comments below.

Supervisor Chris Daly on Prop E and other election issues

"Proposition E is the one item on the ballot that provides some checks and balances"

Chris Daly interview

Visit the Guardian 2007 Election Center for updates, more interviews, and 2007 election news.

The Bay Guardian is interviewing community leaders about the issues at stake in the upcoming 2007 elections. We'll be updating this entry as more information comes in. Post your thoughts or comments below.

San Francisco Police Department Representative John Scully on Prop F

John Scully interview

Visit the Guardian 2007 Election Center for updates, more interviews, and 2007 election news.

courtesy of www.letsgreenwashthiscity.org

I've mentioned here and elsewhere the PG&E "Let's green this city" broadsides that have been dousing San Francisco's public spaces with a sickly lime green unfit for a Gap t-shirt. We've also provided proof of how bogus they are, which today's Chronicle business page finally noticed.

To further substantiate that PG&E's commitment is more greenwashing than green, check out their opposition to Senate Bill 411, which would have advanced the Renewable Portfolio Standard for investor-owned utilities in California from 20 percent to 33 percent by 2020.

Southern California Edison supports the bill. So why not PG&E, which says it's seeking to become the "greenest utility in America?"

"Then why do they have all these advertisings?" Jim Metropulos, the Sierra Club's legislative representative in Sacramento, asked us, citing their front page ads in the Chronicle. This Sunday, strolling around my Mission neighborhood, I also noticed them on the front page of El Mensajero, which must be part of PG&E's new Latin flair.

Why don't they put all that advertising money toward purchasing green power instead?

The Bay Guardian is interviewing community leaders about the issues at stake in the upcoming 2007 elections. We'll be updating this entry as more information comes in. Post your thoughts or comments below.

Friends of the San Francisco Public Library on Prop D and other election issues

Friends of the Public Library interview

What's up with this week's issue of the SF Weekly? A rambling, non-funny and oddly pointless spoof on steroids and Barry Bonds (who's gone from SF now anyway) and an advertising supplement on restaurants that's the most blatant, embarrassing sell-out advertorial I've seen in any publication anywhere. Ick.

Slate has a great piece by Tim Wu, author of "Who Owns the Internet," that points out why Mayor Newsom's public-private partnership idea for municipal wifi will never work.

Wu's point (also bloggednicely in leftinsf)

"The basic idea of offering Internet access as a public service is sound. The problem is that cities haven’t thought of the Internet as a form of public infrastructure that—like subway lines, sewers, or roads—must be paid for. Instead, cities have labored under the illusion that, somehow, everything could be built easily and for free by private parties. That illusion has run straight into the ancient economics of infrastructure and natural monopoly. The bottom line: City dwellers won’t be able to get high-quality wireless Internet access for free. If they want it, collectively, they’ll have to pay for it."

And yet, Newsom's crew are out raising money for a ballot measure, Prop. J, that would lock the city in to a "public-private" free-lunch partnership. I've just looked at the Ethics Commission filings on it, and in many ways it's the usual Newsom bunch: Eric Jaye of Storefront Media, Newsom's chief consultant, is running the campaign. Jim Sutton is doing the legal work. The money's come from downtown types (the Orrick, Herrington and Sutcliffe law firm gave $500), Newsom's father (who gave $1,000) Newsom's political allies (Assessor Phil TIng gave $250) and labor groups that want to stay on the mayor's good side or owe him favors (Sign painters, transport workers, and firefighters). What a waste of time and money -- unless this whole thing is about providing a back-channel way to give cash to the mayor.

Barney Frank

Why are Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank throwing the transgender community under a train? Frank says it's because America isn't ready to have an employment-rights bill include trannies: "there is more resistance to protection for people who are transgender than for people who are gay, lesbian and bisexual."

This leaves mainstream gay organizations with the prospect of either supporting a bill that actively allows discrimination against trans people -- or pulling their support for a bill that protects (some) queer people. There's a press conference this afternoon on the issue; more to come.