The jury in the Bay Guardian's lawsuit against the SF Weekly finished its second full day of deliberations without reaching a verdict Monday. The 12 members will be back at work tomorrow morning.

Meanwhile, the Chronicle weighed in with a nice, fair story by Meredith May Saturday. There were, of course, things I wish May had written, and things I wish she hadn't, but I don't think either side can complain about the piece.

Here's what was most interesting to me:

Both Village Voice Media Executive Editor Michael Lacey and Weekly Editor Tom Walsh declined to comment.

Come on, guys. You run newspapers. What's this shit about not talking to the press?

The (hot) prince at war: Where's Jenna?

Yeah, the hype over Prince Harry getting assigned to combat duty in Afghanistan is way over the top. (As the U.K. Independent noted, even gaysocialites.com, not known for its war reporting, jumped in, calling Harry "like the hottest thing ever.")

But the whole thing reminded me that the British have a different standard when it comes to the children of the powerful serving in times of war. The sons of British royalty have always gone to war; it's almost expected. If the country's fighting, the royals don't sit it out.

The children of American leaders are doing just that, of course. You don't hear anything about the Bush twins signing up to fight their father's war. (Of course, Bush didn't fight in Vietnam, either, nor did Dick Cheney.)

Ralph Nader, who shouldn't be running for president, has a great line on this. He suggests that Congress ought to enact a law that

Whenever Congress and the White House take our country to war, all able-bodied military-age children of every member of Congress, the President and the Vice-President will be conscripted automatically into the armed forces.

Makes a lot of sense.

*UPDATE: It's happening in Ohio, too.

Below is a quick post from the Austin American-Statesman. Does the shortage of ballots in some states foreshadow the Dems taking on traditionally Republican sections of the country?

Williamson Democratic ballots running low
By Andrea Lorenz | Tuesday, March 4, 2008, 01:44 PM

So many Democrats have voted in Republican stronghold Williamson County that ballots are already running low in some precincts.

“I have a little bit of concern that (the Democrats) didn’t order enough ballots,” Elections Administrator Rick Barron said.

Democratic election workers in some Williamson County precincts have called the county elections office today to say they’re already halfway through their ballots, and the afternoon and early evening heavy traffic has yet to happen.

The Democrats ordered about 50,000 paper ballots, Barron said, and the Republicans ordered 57,000. Each Williamson County polling location has one electronic voting machine. If precincts run out of paper ballots completely, voters will be directed to the machines, Barron said, which could mean long lines later today.

The location most in danger is Precinct 382 at Cactus Ranch Elementary School in Round Rock. Richard Torres, the chair of the Williamson County Democratic Party, said two more electronic machines are being delivered to Cactus Ranch to make up for it.

Torres said his party ordered 4.5 times as many ballots as the Secretary of State recommended, according to the state formula of how many people to expect to vote.

“People are just coming out all over the place,” Torres said.

Barron also clarified that the problems with the Williamson County election site did not cause a crash of the system, but the site was only allowing 150 people on the site at one time. This created a system down notice to the other people trying to access the site. The problem has been fixed, he said, by allowing more users to visit the site.

The jury in the Guardian's lawsuit against the SF Weekly finished its third full day of deliberations without returning a verdict. The 12 members will be back at it tomorrow morning at 8:30.

Cat Rauschuber, Barack Obama and Julian Davis in Texas.
By Julian Davis and Catherine Rauschuber
(San Antonio, Texas) __ When we arrived here Friday afternoon, we had little idea what our experience of campaigning for Barack Obama would hold. We have several friends who are field organizers for the campaign and have been hopping from state to state, adding to Obama’s string of electoral victories. Now three of them are in Texas, Cat’s home state and the place that feels like ground zero in the presidential campaign right now. We decided to come to San Antonio, where campaign-diva Natasha Marsh was organizing a largely Latino district on the west side. Julian had never been to Texas before.

Since our arrival Friday, this experience has been nothing short of amazing. Friday evening we volunteered at a rally where Obama spoke that drew a crowd of 10,000 people. It was the perfect introduction to what the weekend would hold - the energy in the crowd, the diversity of attendees, the commanding and inspiring message of the candidate. Little did we know at the time that this would be the first of three events we would have the opportunity to see - and even interact with - the Senator.

I guess there's something to be said for term limits. State Senate President Don Perata, who will be out of office next year, said loud and clear yesterday something that's needed to be said for a long time in this state: The governor's budget cuts are unacceptable. And the state needs to find some new revenue.

The L.A. Times reports on a Perata press conference:

Perata drew his line in the sand while standing with his successor as Senate chief, Democrat Darrell Steinberg of Sacramento, and other Democratic senators and school leaders. Perata said the governor's proposal to cut school spending by 10% is unacceptable, and Democrats will reject any budget that includes less for education next year than this year.

Asked how Democrats propose to make up the difference, Perata said: "Raise taxes. That clear enough? Raise taxes."

Given the state's dire finances, he said, "no one is going to tell me . . . the average Californian would not be willing to pay pennies on the dollar more for an education system . . . that is worth what we believe California is about."

David Dayen at Calitics has the right line on this:

The second statement is exactly the way to play this. California is worth paying for. This state deserves a better education system than it's getting, a better health care system than it's getting, better infrastructure than it's getting. Because of the broken revenue model, we can't even fund the landmark global warming law that got the Governor on the cover of all those magazines. Paying for this state to have the society everyone generally wants is a patriotic act. That's exactly the frame the Democrats are using.

There's a hint of a "go-for-broke" strategy here, which I believe is sped up by the transition in the leadership. We've needed to have this fight for 20 years.

And so, the fight begins.

Shit! Mike Lacey flees the courtroom after losing a huge verdict
Photo by Charles Russo

Click here for full lawsuit coverage.

A San Francisco jury this afternoon found the San Francisco Weekly and its corporate parent guilty of illegal predatory pricing and awarded us $6.39 million.

Under state law, part of that verdict is subject to treble damages, bringing the total award to $15.6 million.

The battle isn’t over; Rod Kerr, attorney for the Weekly, told me immediately afterward that the 16-paper chain intends to appeal.

But the verdict sends a clear signal to small businesses, independent newspapers and the alternative press that a locally owned publication has the right to a level playing field and that a chain can’t intentionally cut prices and sell below cost to injure a smaller competitor.

It's official. The Affordable Housing requirement for the Candlestick Point and Hunters Point Shipyard Mixed Use Development Project Initiative, has qualified for the June 3 ballot.

This means that voters will decide on two BVHP-related measures this summer: the Lennar-led Mixed Use Project for Candlestick Point and the Shipyard, and the community-led Affordable Housing requirement, which demands that 50 percent of housing to be built as part of the Lennar led project, be affordable

Michael Cohen of the Mayor's Office of Economic and Workforce Development complained, at a SF4Democracy presentation last night. that the community initiative has been drawn up without an economic feasibility report. Cohen also told the Guardian, when I asked about Lennar's troubled financial picture, that it's not written in stone that Lennar would be the Candlestick/Shipyard project developer.

Either way, it looks like issues around Lennar's less than perfect environmental monitoring performance at the Shipyard won't be going away any time soon.

Last week, during my research into this week's Light Brown Apple Moth story, a couple of sources spoke off the record about research that they intimated will prove that the LBAM risk is overstated. Today that research was released and its authors claim that LBAM is controlled by naturalpredators, a claim based on what the authors describe as a fact-finding tour to New Zealand. (New Zealand is also where the California Department of Food and Agriculture and the US Department of Ag are currently conducting trials on a new, longer lasting, pheromone spray.)

In a press release sent to the Guardian, Dr. Daniel Harder, botanist and Executive Director of the University of California at Santa Cruz Arboretum, and Jeff Rosendale, a Watsonville grower and horticulturalist, said that during a three-week, 3,000-kilometer fact-finding study in New Zealand, they earned that "80 to 90 percent of LBAM larvae are destroyed by natural predators and never mature."

The report's authors also said they also spoke with current research experts on LBAM in New Zealand’s government agricultural agency, HortResearch.

“The success of New Zealand agriculture and horticulture professionals in controlling LBAM and other leaf-roller pests using Integrated pest management techniques and few or no chemical applications is a model of best IPM practices that can be readily adopted in California to control LBAM," the report's authors stated .

Dr Daniel Harder, one of the authors of the report into integrated pest management practices in New Zealand, told me that he was motivated to go to New Zealand to carry out research on the Light Brown Apple Moth, because he is the executive director of UC Santa Cruzs arboretum, which has over 10,000 species in its plant collections that are from New Zealand and Australia, and therefore wants to protect these collections.

"We have a long standing relationship with people in those countries and so we called them and asked, 'what's up with this insect?'" Harder recalls.

He says USCS's arborteum uses integrated pest management techniques and was found to have LBAM when inspected last fall.
"We elected not to use organophosphates," Harder said, noting that while the arboretum sells plants, and likes the revenue from them, it's not in the same situation as local farms and nurseries, who saw significant revenue loss last fall, if they had been sprayed, compared to farmers and growers who could say they were outside the spray 9and therefore quarantine) zone.

Harder said that the main reason New Zealand controls LBAM, which he says is a "minor pest" is because it's a trade barrier to shipping to the United States, just as the US now faces quarantines from Canada and Mexico over LBAM's detection in California.
"China has been considering quarantining California, too" Harder says.

With 17 million people now in CDFA's proposed spray zone, Harder says "The gorilla in the room is the eradication program, which as proposed, won't work."

To read more about the moths in all their fluttering glory, read the report, authored by Harder and Soquel nursery owner Jeff Rosendale, at the website of Assemblymember John Laird, who has been dealing with aerial spraying since last fall, when CDFA did their aerial bombardment of Santa Cruz and Monterey counties.
http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a27/pdf/HarderNZReportFINAL.pdf

Opposition to the aerial spraying of Light Brown Apple Moth pheromones continues to grow.

Hard on the heels of a report that claims the moth threat has been overstated comes the news that Sen. Carole Migden will be heading up a protest rally Monday, March 10 in Sacramento, as well as a hearing March 13 in Marin, about state plans to aerially spray the Bay Area with Light Brown Apple Moth pheromones.

The March 10 rally begins at 11 am, on east side of the Capitol, lawn area, adjacent to fishpond (Area 22).

The rally features Sen. Carole Migden, Assemblymember Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael), Paul Schramski of Pesticide Watch, Emily Levy of the California Alliance to Stop the Spray, John Russo of stopthespray.org and Albany mayor Robert Lieber. Plus a bunch of community activists bearing signs that protest government plans to spray urban area without first proving that the spray is both safe and effective.

And on Thursday, March 13, Midgen joins forces with Senate Environmental Safety Committee chair Sen. Joe Simitian (D-Santa Cruz) at a oversight hearing in Marin to analyze the state's LBAM plans.

The March 13 hearing takes place at the Marin County Civic Center, 3501 Civic Center Drive, Room 330, San Rafael from 1-3 PM. It will feature state officials who support the spraying alongside scientists who oppose it, and include an opportunity for the public to comment.

It's one thing for Mayor Gavin Newsom to bash the Board of Supervisors, something we're likely to see a lot of this year as he angles to get a few more allies on the board this fall. But it's quite another thing for the city's top elected leader to urge his business community buddies to sue the city, which is just downright irresponsible and could even be considered official misconduct. And how ironic is it that little miss civility, Sup. Michela Alioto-Pier, is beating the drum for the most uncivil of acts, a civil lawsuit against a city that's she's taken an oath to serve and protect. Have these people lost their minds?
Maybe so, because this latest outrage comes just two days after Newsom took a facts-be-damned approach to pushing tidal power, which a study concludes would be an expensive and inefficient boondoggle, but Newsom wants to do anyway, probably because it would make such a whiz-bang press release. His quote to the Chron was priceless: "I don't care about the arguments against it. I care about the arguments for it."
George W. Bush couldn't have said it better himself.

The word from the San Francisco Elections Office is that all hell has broken loose as the city's top progressive political leaders file to run for the Democratic County Central Committee in a bold and surprising move to seize control of the political body from moderates like Mayor Gavin Newsom, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, and U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein. And the word is that Team Newsom was caught flat-footed, able to get only a couple administration loyalists -- Mike Farrah and Catherine Dodd -- to file before today's 5 p.m. deadline.

But the lineup on the left is a who's who list of top progressives: supervisors Chris Daly, Jake McGoldrick and Aaron Peskin, Public Defender Jeff Adachi, school board members Eric Mar and Kim-Shree Maufis, likely supervisorial candidates Debra Walker and Eric Quesada, mayoral runner-up Quintin Mecke, and McGoldrick's son Jamie. If elected, they would join incumbent progressives such as Robert Haaland, Michael Goldstein, and Rafael Mandelman.

"I think what you'll see is a more progressive central committee," said Bill Barnes, chief of staff for Assembly member Fiona Ma and a progressive member of the DCCC who is also running for reelection.
Control of the DCCC would allow local progressives, most of whom have endorsed Barack Obama for president, to take advantage of the opportunity to push a more innovative political agenda and try to pressure the party to move to the left.

They are also likely to use a coordinated campaign this year to present progressive policy options to San Franciscans just as Newsom is working to sell a Lennar-sponsored development proposal on the June ballot and using a power grab on city committees to try to take control of the public agenda.

So Eliot Spitzer got nabbed hiring a $1,300-an-hour hooker from New York who met him in a DC hotel room.

That's a lot of money. But only the best for the gov: He went to The Emperors Club, where the top women (with seven diamonds by the names) go for $31,000 a day.

I always wonder: How can someone who has messed with some of the most powerful people in the country and who has legendary enemies both in and out of the public sector be dumb enough to get caught up in a prostitution ring that was under federal investigation?

I don't care who he fucks; I think prostitution ought to be legal. But the political future of someone who was, more or less, one of the good guys is now toast.

As one local official, who I will decline to identify by name, put it to me:

"What's wrong with the old-fashioned discreet affair -- you know, with someone who doesn't work for you and isn't part of a criminal enterprise? It worked for politicians for years."

And what's with dragging his poor wife in front of the cameras with him? Cheap, Eliot. Cheap.

(Oh, and by the way: The Gov appears to be a bit kinky. Check out the documents on the smoking gun . The woman, named "Kristen," who spent several hours with Spitzer, was warned that he might "ask you to do things that you might not think were safe." "Kristen," who is no fool, replied to her handler: "I have a way of dealing with that. I'm like, listen dude, you really want the sex?")

(Oh, and by the way II: Don't the feds have anything better to do than wiretap a prostitution ring and snare Democratic politicians? I mean, Spitzer was an idiot and all, but aren't there terrorists to chase or something?)

Oh, and by the way III: Dailykos notes that it cost less for Spitzer to hire his own call girl than it cost the public to guard Rudy Giulinani when he went off on trysts.

More big news on the Light Brown Apple Moth front:

California Certified Organic Farmers, one of the nation’’s oldest and largest third-party organic certifying agencies, has revoked its support of aerial spraying of organically approved pheromones.

CCOF took this decision due to what its Board of Directors describe as “potential human health and environmental concerns.”

Instead, CCOF will support diversified ground integrated pest management approaches toward LBAM and is urging the California Department of Food and Agriculture to “pursue a diverse and precautionary approach”.

CCOF's decision comes hard on the heels of a report that claims the moth threat has been overstated

Maybe CCOF’s withdrawal of support and Dr. Harder's report will open up the door on the wider policy discussion here: namely, what are truly sustainable policies and practices in a steadily shrinking global economy?

To find out more about the California Department of Food and Agriculture’s spraying plans and the opposition to them, head for Marin on Thursday March 13, where Sen. Carole Midgen joins forces with Senate Environmental Safety Committee chair Sen. Joe Simitian (D-Santa Cruz) for a hearing on the state's LBAM plans.

The March 13 hearing takes place at the Marin County Civic Center, 3501 Civic Center Drive, Room 330, San Rafael from 1-3 PM. It will feature state officials who support the spraying alongside scientists who oppose it, and include an opportunity for the public to comment.

To see CCOF’s Board of Directors full statement, keep reading::

Hundreds of people-- teachers, administrators, school staff, parents, children, union members, state and city officials-- gathered in front of the State Building at McAllister and Van Ness, to demand job security for educators and to put education at the top of California's priority list.
Governor Schwarzenegger's 2008-09 budget proposes a $4.8 billion cut in state education funds. This would create a $40 million deficit for the San Francisco Unified School District and, in anticipation, the City's Board of Education sent out 535 pink slips to administrators and certified teachers this week. Paraprofessionals and support staff wait in limbo to learn how many of their positions are on the chopping block.
Organization and activism were in full effect at the rally: participants wore pink clothes, and carried pink balloons and signs to flaunt their opposition to termination notices; letters were written to Schwarzenegger; people carried signs reading 'Sell a Hummer, Fund a School' and 'Terminate the Terminator'; chants of 'Books Not Bombs!' rang out; car horns blared in support.
Superintendent Carlos Garcia, who was in Sacramento yesterday with 100 state superintendents and 60 City principals to speak out against the cuts, displayed an oversized pink slip addressed to Arnold, and incited the crowd with the statement, "The fight is just starting...let's keep the fight going!"
A number of local politicians offered words of outrage towards Schwarzenegger, as well as support of educators. Mayor Gavin Newson stated, "It goes without saying that we are opposed to the governor's cuts." He added that the city is not going to sit back and wait for the state to solve its woes, noting "There's a $40 million problem, but we have a $30 million solution in our back pocket." This refers to the City's current $122 million rainy day fund that would divert 25% one-time infusion to SFUSD during a crisis.
State Assembly members Mark Leno and Fiona Ma also spoke. Both made specific mention of a bill, to be introduced tomorrow by Democrats in Sacramento, proposing a 6% severance tax on oil production in the state, as well as well as a 2% windfall profits tax on oil companies that could create $1.2 billion in funds to mitigate budget cuts. State Senator Carole Midgen vowed "We will never let them cut our schools", and Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi called this endeavor a "Fight against the lack of common sense" of the Governor.
The stars of the day were the teachers, and one who received a pink slip is Tara Ramos. She is a second year probationary teacher of Spanish in 4th and 5th grades at Paul Revere Elementary in Bernal Heights. Revere is one of eight Dream Schools in SFUSD, which face especially rigorous standards in the No Child Left Behind era because a majority of students are at-risk, non-native speakers, and low proficiency.
Ramos said, "100% of the staff told the principal they want to come back," in a recent staff meeting, yet 21 of 30 certified teachers got served notices this week, and many paraprofessionals have job insecurity.
While explaining the 'Program Improvement' requirements of NCLB--where standardized test scores are analyzed by factors such as race--Ramos stated, "Look at our population of kids at Paul Revere...the number of white kids you can count on one hand." The irony of the whole situation is not lost on her or her colleagues: the tough schools that are full of young teachers face the most uncertainty; layoffs and rehirings create a cyle of shortages and voids; teachers are under constant scrutiny to raise test scores, and now have to worry about their jobs.
"It's not fair," Ramos said adamantly. Yet, her priority remains the children. "I'm not so worried about my job. I'm here for the kids...I can get another job."
As Superintendent Garcia stated, the fight is just starting, so pay attention to this important issue. Write, call, or email the Governor's office if you are opposed to his cuts, and hold all the officials accountable to their promises of support and finances. This is a social justice issue at its core.

I had nothing to do with this, I swear. I don't even know who the "non partner track associate at Altweeklydeathwatch LLP" is. But there's a brilliant analysis of the Village Voice Media's grounds for appealing our court victory here.

The blog post goes through a recent SFW/VVM piece on the verdict and takes it apart, line by line. Here's just one example:

Supervisor Tom Ammiano has been all over the news recently and has a couple of major accomplishments, including a restaurant-nutrition requirement and legislation that sets standards for care in homeless shelters.

And yet he’s still getting a beating from the Chronicle, which seems to think that something as basic as asking chain restaurants like McDonalds to tell you how unhealthy their food is could somehow harm the city’s business climate.

The restaurant disclosure bill got a lot of press, but the homeless shelter standards was more of a political challenge – Ammiano had to get the mayor, who has been reluctant to admit that any part of his homeless program is a failure, to sign on to the program.

The conditions in the shelters are, and for a long time have been, deplorable. So this may actually make the lives of a lot of human beings a lot better.

And of course, Newsom made a bit point the other day of talking about how he was going to use the city’s rainy day fund to bail out the city’s schools – without ever mentioning the Ammiano was the one who wrote that bill (without any help from then-Sup. Gavin Newsom.)

Ammiano's going to leave the Board of Supes next year with one of the longest and most distinguished legislative records in memory. He deserves a little more respect.

Does anyone really believe that Geraldine Ferraro was speaking only for herself, and not for the Clinton campaign, when she went after Barack Obama? Because I don’t.

I’ve been watching how the Clintons work for years. They do what it takes – sometimes, whatever it takes – to win. That doesn’t mean Hillary would be a terrible president, and if she wins the nomination, I will happily and proudly vote for her. I like her health-care plan better than Obama’s, and I think having someone in the White House who is tough and fierce and knows how to fight in the streets with the worst of the political hacks is not entirely a bad thing.

But let’s be honest here: This was carefully, and brilliantly, orchestrated.

Ferraro is a veteran politician, and she knows how presidential campaigns work. She knows that you don’t make comments about something as sensitive as race without checking with headquarters. She’d be a fool – and she isn’t a fool – to just blurt that out.

Think about what she did from a political perspective. The key battle now is Pennsylvania, a state with a mixed demographic. Obama will win Philadelphia, with its large African-American population and sizable numbers of students and liberal white people. But there are plenty of more conservative, suburban and working-class areas – and in some of those places, there are no doubt people who are unhappy about affirmative action.

And that’s who Ferrero’s comments were aimed at – the angry white people who want to blame their problems on black people.

Her message was pretty simple, when you get right down to it: Obama got an unfair advantage over a white person (Clinton) because he’s black. She may not have said it in so many words, but in the areas where the Clinton polling shows she can exploit that sort of fear and resentment, people will get the point right away.

Naturally, Clinton could never say anything like that (any more than Obama could say that his opponent was a “monster” who would do anything to win). But both candidates wanted that message out, and in both cases, sophisticated surrogates put it out, then fell on the sword and resigned for the team.

I know this sounds incredibly cynical, but this is how the game is played at this level.

I'm usually the one who talks about how we have to solve financial problems locally, since the state and the feds won't give us what we need. And I still believe that, and I support a parcel tax for the local schools and I support using the rainy day fund and if we were allowed to raise property taxes in San Francisco, I'd support that.

But right now, while teachers and parents and students are flooding school board meetings around the state denouncing cuts, the real problem is in Sacramento, where the governor doesn't seem to care.

So maybe all of those angry people should take a little trip to Los Angeles and march on Schwarzenegger's house. He's home most weekends, I'm told. I think he lives in Brentwood.

50,000 protesters in Brentwood? Maybe he'd have to listen.

Greetings, Californians for a Clean Energy Future! Welcome to the fold of innocuous sounding, pseudo-environmental political front groups. This one is brought to us by our buddies over at Pacific Gas and Electric Co.

The group, which doesn't seem to have a Web site or any other physical manifestation outside of filings with the California Secretary of State, already has $340,000 ready and waiting for the upcoming election cycle. According to a Secretary of State spokesperson, the group was born on Dec. 21, 2007. The only contact is the law firm Nielsen Merksamer, which has a history of teaming up with PG&E to break the law for political gain.

So far, they haven't spent a cent -- all of which were dumped into the committee by PG&E in three lump sums. Wonder what they're going to spend all that money on? Since it's calling itself a "coalition of environmentalists, taxpayers, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company," it could go for or against nearly anything -- including boosting Prop 98 on this June's ballot. If passed, the measure would kill rent control and make it illegal for governments to use eminent domain to seize utility infrastructure and use it to provide the services themselves, an idea San Francisco has considered in the past and Stockton is currently pursuing.

By JB Powell

Word has just come down from the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) that State Sen. Carole Migden and her campaign have agreed to pay $350,000 in fines for 89 different campaign finance violations.

Many the violations have to do with failures to itemize credit-card expenditures. Last July, Assemblymember Mark Leno, who is running against Migden, lodged a formal complaint about that spending.

But it appears that FPPC investigators found numerous other violations, above and beyond Leno’s allegations – including several improper transfers from old committees. Exhibit 2, posted on the commission’s website, states that Migden, her campaign aide Eric Potashner, and her volunteer treasurer, Roger Sanders, twice “failed to timely report receipt” of transfers from Migden’s now defunct Leadership Committee.

The violations relating to fund transfers are especially significant because Migden is currently suing the FPPC to free up nearly $1 million in cash the commission says she improperly transferred from an old campaign account. As we report in the upcoming issue, (“Migden sues the FPPC”) commissioners barred Migden from spending that cash last October. In a public statement issued just after Migden filed her suit in federal court, commission chair Ross Johnson asserted that Migden had already spent “nearly $400,000” of that money. That could mean even more penalties for the embattled senator, as the current settlement announced today does not pertain to the cash in question.

In addition to spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on campaign credit cards without itemizing the expenditures, Counts 57-65 of Exhibit 2 show that her campaign has now admitted to failing to account adequately for more than $300,000 spent between 2005 and 2007.

Counts 81-88 might be the most eye-raising – they detail how Migden and her aide Potashner spent large sums of campaign money for “Personal Use.” From the settlement: “Respondents admit, and corresponding records indicate, that expenditures by the 2008 Senate Committee totaling $16,317.91 were neither reasonably nor directly related to a political, legislative, or governmental purpose. Instead, these expenditures conferred a substantial personal benefit on Respondents Migden and Potashner.”

Neither Migden nor her attorney could immediately be reached for comment.

FPPC commissioners will meet Thursday, March 20, in an emergency session to vote on whether to approve the settlement agreement. As for Migden’s lawsuit, a hearing is scheduled for April 1st in the US District Court.

UPDATE: Reached for comment later, Migden’s attorney, James Harrison, told us that “in several instances [Migden and Potashner] took out the wrong credit card” when making personal purchases. He said they both reimbursed the campaign for the misused funds.

Harrison also pointed to passages in the settlement documents that show that Migden herself, not Leno, brought these matters to the attention of regulators last year. Leno has been taking credit in recent weeks for exposing Migden’s credit card violations in a complaint he filed last August. But in the conclusion to Exhibit 2, FPPC staff state that Migden “self-reported” her problems after previous FPPC fines prompted her to conduct an audit of her books.

“This is a textbook example of how we want a public official to act.” Harrison argued. “Sen. Migden identified a problem and she worked diligently with the FPPC to resolve it … She’s standing up and taking responsibility.”

Ghost Word has a smart take on what newspaper layoffs mean for Bay Area readers:

Thursday, March 13, 2008

Good Old-Fashioned Reporting led to the Eliot Spitzer Story; Too Bad There Won't Be Enough Bay Area Reporters to Do the Same

The New York Times deconstructs how it uncovered the Eliot Spitzer prostitution ring story. The Times reporters got the information through good old-fashioned beat reporting. The Attorney General's office had sent out a press release announcing the break-up of a prostitution ring. There was nothing unusual about that. But reporters noticed that the lead prosecutor in court on March 6 was very high up in the Manhattan U.S. Attorney’s office. That got people thinking.

“No one had talked of the escort ring’s inner workings, and certainly no one mentioned the governor’s name,” according to a story in the Times. “Just one fact piqued interest for some in the room: The lead prosecutor on the case was Boyd M. Johnson III, the chief of the public corruption unit of the Manhattan United States attorney’s office."

"Later that day, reporters at The New York Times learned of the unusual presence of three lawyers from the corruption unit, including the boss of that division and an F.B.I. agent from one of the bureau’s public corruption squads. The public corruption units often look at the conduct of elected officials."

"Within hours, the reporters were convinced that a significant public figure was involved as a client of the prostitution ring.”

That’s how reporters get stories. By being around and working sources. That’s the kind of gumshoe reporting that will now be missing all around the Bay Area as virtually every paper has slashed its staff to the bone.

Posted by Frances at 5:53 PM
Labels: Bay Area Newspaper Layoffs, Eliot Spitzer, New York Times

LA PAZ, BOLIVIA -- I've spent a lot of time in recent months pondering people power, both for my article on the fifth anniversary of the Iraq War and in preparing for my trip to Bolivia, where since 2000 popular movements and direct action have ousted two presidents, thwarted water and natural gas privatization efforts, and brought former coca grower Evo Morales and his MAS (Movement Toward Socialism) Party to power.

Here in Bolivia, where everyone down to the poor street vendors are organized into unions and federations, the people can shut down entire cities or critical infrastructure for weeks on end. Solving the myriad problems facing this poor country may still be difficult, particularly with Morales facing a U.S.-backed upper class in revolt over the new proposed constitution, but there is a sense of real empowerment here, of true democracy in action.

In the U.S., we seem to have forgotten that definition of democracy, instead content to define it as what we do in voting booths, choosing between the two parties every couple years, or bitching about the government in conversations or blog posts. Five years ago today, we saw an exception to that approach on the streets of San Francisco.

But what if we didn't go home? What if it was like Cochabamba, Bolivia in 2000, or El Alto and other departments spilling into La Paz in 2003, and the people stayed in the streets, absorbed the police and military crackdown, and developed into a broad uprising that drew in the middle class and made governing the country -- let alone launching an ill-advised war -- an untenable position?

It's tough to imagine that scenario in the U.S., isn't it? But whereas President Bush has arrogantly condemned Bolivia for what he sees as "a breakdown in democracy," I think there are important lessons that we gringos can learn from our Bolivian brothers and sisters. Here, with no power beyond direct action, they have fundamentally altered the course of their country. But we in the States, with all our wealth and power, have allowed our government to illegally run amuck in the world, causing irreparable harm. And I think that's something we should all ponder today and in the months ahead.

p.s. To read a travel journal of my five-week trip through Bolivia and Peru, visit my personal blog.

Thanks to Bob Brigham, I have some video of the Market Street protests this afternoon.

The Chron describes the scene this way: " As officers encircled the group, they briefly pushed other protesters onto the sidewalk and confiscated at least one bicycle and a sign."

But the video suggests a lot less restraint on the part of the cops.

Okay, I didn't hear the speech live. And I didn't have a chance until tonight to watch the clip and read the entire text..

But wow. I must say, I agree with the NY Times -- its was a a profile in courage. Obama broke through a huge barrier -- he actually talked about race in an intelligent way and gave white Americans a reason to understand that he shares their pain, but that he expects them to share his. Yes, it was historic.

I don't know if it's over now; I was just watching the idiots on the O'Reilly factor talk about how the polls in Pennsylvania are favoring Hillary Clinton and that one of the great moments in political oratory of our generation might actually cost Obama votes. Still, for the superdelegates, this will be tough to ignore.

And I think that femlaw at kos is right: This was Obama's swift-boat test, and he did far better than John Kerry could dream of in showing how he will deal with vicious attacks from the GOP.

God, it would be nice to have a president who can demand that Americans rise to their best instincts. I don't agree with Obama on everything, and I'm the world's worst cynic when it comes to national politics, but tonight I'm thinking that his candidacy is truly something special. He got me.

by Bryan Cohen

We hope. We really hope. After nearly two years of collaboration from a variety of homeless service providers, city officials, and activists, the standards of care legislation for city-funded homeless shelters was finally passed in a quick roll call vote by the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, March 18.

The legislation is considered a major victory for homeless rights advocates and groundbreaking for homeless programs across the country. The legislation, sponsored by Supervisor Tom Ammiano and co-signed by Supervisors Ross Mirkarimi and Gerardo Sandoval, was initiated after investigations by the city’s Shelter Monitoring Committee found many shelters lacking in basic hygiene products. Over half of shelter residents reported some form of abuse during their stays. Key components of the legislation require shelters to provide toilet paper, clean sheets and towels, sanitary bathrooms, and eight hours of sleep a night.

Over the past few weeks the legislation has caused some tension between Supervisors and supporters of the bill and the Mayors office. One of the biggest points of contention was the pricetag of the legislation, initially ballparked at $6 million by the Budget Analyst’s office. However, members of the Standards of Care work group, which wrote much of the legislation, argued the estimates were far too high. In fact, the final bill passed with an estimated $165,000 per year cost to the city.

The legislation also includes a mandate for a 24-hour drop-in center, another departure from Mayor Gavin Newsom’s fiscal priorities. In his recent mid-year de-funding spree, the Mayor pulled Buster's Place, the city’s only centrally located 24-hour drop-in center. Read this if you want to know why Buster's is often the only places to go if you're looking for a shelter bed. While the legislation requires a 24-hour center, it is not clear who will run the center and where.

Supervisors Carmen Chu (District 4) and Sean Elsbernd (District 7) were the only supervisors present who voted against the legislation. Both were appointed to the Board by the Mayor.

By JB Powell

On Thursday, the full board of the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) voted to approve a record settlement agreement with State Sen. Carole Migden. As part of the deal, Migden had to pony up $100,000 of her own money as a down payment on the $350,000 in total penalties - the largest amount the FPPC has ever fined a public official in its 34 year history. The incumbent senator has one year to come up with the rest of the cash. Migden and two of her campaign aides admitted to 89 different campaign finance violations - including spending over $16 grand of campaign funds for "personal use."

In a separate matter - covered this week in the Guardian ("Migden sues the FPPC") - Migden is hauling the FPPC into federal court to save about a million dollars they say she can't have. In a statement released after the vote yesterday, commission chair Ross Johnson didn't mince words in voicing his displeasure with the San Francisco Democrat: "Senator Migden's track record has shown her complete disdain for [campaign finance laws] ... We will now focus our attention on [her] lawsuit and Senator Migden's numerous other serious and deceitful violations of California law. We will fight her all the way."

Reporting by SFBG intern Emma Rae Lierley and SFBG reporter Sarah Phelan

Amid a backdrop of increased bloodshed in Tibet, and an early morning March 20 arson attack on the Chinese Consulate in San Francisco, Tibetan supporters gathered last Thursday outside City Hall for a candlelight vigil to protest San Francisco’s April 9 Olympic torch relay.

Inside City Hall, Mayor Gavin Newsom spoke to a semi-circle of news cameras, claiming that hosting the torch brings “pride” to many in the city, including San Francisco’s Chinese community, and stressing that the torch should be seen as a symbol of unity, both for the city and the world.

But during the Olympic Torch’s April 9 relay through San Francisco—its only North American touchdown as it travels from Greece to Beijing—the torch will be run along San Francisco’s waterfront, not through the narrow streets of the city's Chinatown. And that Tibetan critics of China’s continuing human rights abuses would like to stamp out the torch’s relay through San Francisco entirely, claiming China has stained the flame's original symbolism

“We, the Tibetans in San Francisco, see the torch as a tainted torch, a Chinese torch tainted in Tibetan blood,” said Tsering Gyurmey, an organizer of the March 20 vigil and an activist with SF TeamTibet, a collection of local organizations.

“The people of San Francisco don’t want the torch,” Gyurmey added. “It’s against the values of the city, against human rights and democracy. This torch comes from the communist Chinese government, where Tibetan people are being killed on their own land.”

A few hours earlier, Gyurmey was one of over a hundred speakers at a Board of Supervisors committee meeting, as Sups. Carmen Chu and Sean Elsbernd, Newsom’s closet allies on the Board, helped strike down a resolution, authored by Sup. Chris Daly, that took a critical stance of China and the Olympic torch.

Public comment lasted over two hours on the item, and was largely in favor of the resolution introduced by Supervisor Chris Daly. Calling for a solemn acceptance of the torch, the resolution asked for the city to receive it with “alarm and protest.”

Supervisor Daly also decried the city’s consideration of “free speech zones,” or special areas where anti-Chinese demonstrations would be limited to during the torch run.

“When our administration was asked to set up these zones, they should have said no,” Daly said during the meeting. “We can not be told to compromise our democracy as we ask others to expand theirs.”

Daly has pledged to try and reinsert his criticisms, when the resolution comes before the full Board on April 2, the week before the Olympic Torch relay is scheduled.

Meanwhile, China has lashed out at US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, calling her a "defender of arsonists, looters and killers" according to international news reports, after she visited the Dalai Lama and criticized Chinese oppression in Tibet.

"If freedom-loving people throughout the world do not speak out against China's oppression in Tibet, we have lost our moral authority to speak on behalf of human rights anywhere in the world," said Pelosi. who came out punching when evidence of China's pre-Olympic crackdown on religious leaders, journalists and lawyers first emerged.

“The Olympic Games in Beijing this summer should provide an opportunity for more free expression, not less,” Pelosi said. MArch 12.

But now US Senator Dianne Feinstein is weighing in on the side of caution, telling the Board of Supervisors not to use the Olympic torch relay to condemn China, claiming that doing so, will make it harder to resolve the Tibet issue.

As for San Francisco's plan to try to contain protesters in "free speech zones" - located at the start and end of the torch run - Feinstein reportedly doesn't have a problem with it. That's the way she handled demonstrations at Democratic National Convention in San Francisco back in 1984 when she was mayor.

I just heard a fascinating little rumor that says something about the state Senate race between Carole Migden, Mark Leno and Joe Nation.

Nation’s from Marin and is the more moderate candidate, and some San Franciscans fear that the two more progressive queer legislators could split the SF vote and leave the door open for Nation to win – and for San Francisco to lose a state Senate seat. So a few supporters of Sup. Ross Mirkarimi are saying that he ought to enter the race, as a write-in for the June Green Party primary.

Under the theory here, Mirkarimi would get the Green nomination. If Migden or Leno is the Democrat in the race, he’d drop out. If it’s Nation, he might want to decide to stay in.

Of course, that could mean giving up his board seat, since he’s up for re-election in November, and I’m not sure that’s a good idea. Perhaps better to have Mirkarimi in San Francisco than Sacramento.

But it shows how concerned people are about the prospect of SF losing this seat.

Mirkarimi was a little startled when he first heard of the plan, which was hatched by supporters who never actually talked to him about it. “I was taken by surprise at how well thought out this became, completely independent of me,” he said. He said he’s running for re-election to the Board of Supervisors, and that’s his priority. But he’s not against the concept of joining the Green Party primary, and if the Democrat were Joe Nation “then I would have to make a decision.”

Well, my blog item on some supporters of Ross Mirkarimi suggesting he run as a green for state Senate attracted calls almost the moment I posted it. And the callers have a point:

This isn't just a San Francisco seat. Right now it's a queer seat. And it's possible that even the talk of Mirkarimi running could siphon away some of the energy that progressives say is needed to defeat Joe Nation.

For the record, I don't think it's a particularly good idea for Mirkarimi to run for state Senate; as I wrote, I think he would do better to stay in San Francisco. But I think the fact that this is even being talked about (and not by Ross, who I'm sure is flattered by it but who really isn't pushing the issue) is evidence that there's a concern out there about what would happen if neither Carole Migden nor Mark Leno wins the June primary.

Here's the other option: Progressive supporters of both Leno and Migden could do something entirely radical, and come together to campaign to keep this a queer SF seat -- which means running a campaign that says hey: Vote Leno. Or vote Migden. But don't vote for Nation.

That might mean Migden and Leno deciding not to attack each other as Election Day approaches, and to save their negative campaigning for the candidate from Up North.

Gee, could they actually do that?

...is bound to cause a flap.

Earlier this month, State Senator Carole Migden sued the state's campaign finance watchdog. Today, the watchdog fired back - with a howitzer. The Fair Political Practices Commission filed a counter-suit in federal court against the District 3 senator seeking $9 MILLION in potential damages. This comes on top of the record-breaking $350,000 the commission fined Migden last week for 89 different campaign finance violations.

At issue in Migden's lawsuit and the FPPC's counter-suit is nearly $1 million in cash that the commission has barred her from spending. (See earlier blog entries and also "Migden sues the FPPC" in last week's issue) But the FPPC's counter-suit today alleges EVEN MORE irregularities in Migden's bookkeeping. From a commission press release: "Migden ... failed to report a number of large transactions entirely, while reporting other large transactions which simply never occurred." When I asked FPPC spokesman Roman Porter to explain these new charges in more detail, he would only tell me that the Senator's campaigns have "had significant issues with regard to reporting." Porter would not elaborate, but he did repeat the word "significant" twice, with emphasis.

Anyway you cut it, the city budget deficit is going to be painful

Sup. Chris Daly failed to save Buster’s Place from the budgetary chopping board today—a quest Sup. Tom Ammiano deemed “a Sophie’s Choice,” since it involved disappropriating funds that had been earmarked for making the Board's Chambers wheelchair accessible.

“But I applaud Daly for trying to do an Immaculate Conception, a Hail Mary to make it work,” said Ammiano, as he joined Sups. Sean Elsbernd, Sophie Maxwell, Jake McGoldrick, Carmen Chu and Bevan Dufty to defeat Daly’s plan.

But by meeting’s end, the homeless weren’t the only ones feeling the city's budget pain. Hundreds of highly paid city employees were surely chewing their nails, following Board President Aaron Peskin’s announcement that in light of the city’s $338 million deficit, he is drafting an ordinance to eliminate all base salaries over $150,000.

596 city employees make over $150,000 a year, according to the Controller’s Office.

But while the MTA’s Nathaniel Ford tops the list ($297,999), with the Retirement System’s David Kushner ($289,478) and Administrative Services’ Amy Hart ($264,524) in second and third place, followed by the Airport’s John Martin ($256,565), Controller Ed Harrington ($256,553) and DPH’s Dr Mitch Katz ($256,553), don’t expect them to be laid off any time soon.

You can try dealing with the deficit with lots of little cuts from the bottom up.

As Peskin told the Guardian, the Board is not allowed to tinker with some positions, because of charter mandates.

“Some people are constitutionally protected, such as department heads,” Peskin said, “and Proposition D arguably protects police personnel who make over $150,000. And others are doctors at San Francisco General Hospital.”

But beyond those restrictions, a lot of folks could be standing in Peskin's potential firing line.

“All of them, regardless of pay, perform an important function in the government,” Peskin observed, “but rather than do what the Mayor is doing and make 8 percent across-the-board cuts, we’re making sure that the most vulnerable people don’t get hurt."
"And we don’t need public information officers in every department,” Peskin added, noting that their elimination would save the City about $50 million a year.

Or try attacking the problem from the top down.

Peskin admitted that the police, fire and nurses MOUs, which Mayor Gavin Newsom negotiated last summer in the run up to his 2007 mayoral reelection, explain a large part of the City's 2007-2008 budgetary woes.

“We are all to blame for that. The Board signed off on them, I’m not going to pretend we didn’t,” Peskin said, observing that this month's axing of Buster’s Place and the Workers Compensation Clinic are “just the tip of the iceberg.”

“Come the Mayor’s budget, we’ll be crying over much larger things,” Peskin explained. “That’s why we need to take some radical steps now to lessen the impact.”

Monique Zmuda of the Controllers Office told the Guardian that the City will need to determine if the functions performed by folks who make over $150,000 are “mandated”. From the remaining sublist, Peskin will have to decide, “if he is truly intending to delete those jobs,” said Zmuda, noting that many of the remaining positions are lawyers, and that “it’s not Peskin’s intention to stop city departments from being able to do business.”

Pointing to the 8 percent cut that the mayor asked of departmental baseline budgets last November, and the additional 8 percent personnel cut that Newsom just announced, Zmuda said, “Peskin’s request means the Boad has additional options to consider, that it’s not just reacting to the Mayor’s proposal. If we have a $338 million gap, it’s better if the options add up to more than that, so that the Board can pick and choose and decide what is the highest priority to save and to cut.”

Or as Sup. Jake McGoldrick told the Guardian” I think Peskin is trying to invigorate a dynamic dialogue and debate.”

And then, of course, there's the Chinese toy axe.

In other Board-related news, the Olympic Torch debate continues to burn.
As protesters chanted 'Mayor Newsom reject China's bloody torch" outside City Hall, Sup.Tom Ammiano introduced a resolution urging the Mayor, the Mayor's Office of Criminal Justice and the San Francisco Police Department to comply with the City’s Sunshine ordinance and immediately release the route of the April 9 torch run, along with other documents that the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California requested on March 13.

And Board President Aaron Peskin sent Supervisor Chris Daly’s resolution, which proposes to accept the Olympic Torch with "alarm" in light of China's Tibetan crackdown, to the Rules Committee this Thursday.

Here's something juicy: a PDF file that lists the 596 people who work for the City of San Francisco and earn over $150,000 a year.

Imagine how many packets of Ramen you could buy if you made over $150K a year? Better yet, imagine what you could eat, instead?

This list was procured following Sup. Aaron Peskin's announcement that he wants to eliminate such positions, unless they are absolutely essential, rather than simply slash and burn from the bottom up, as Mayor Gavin Newsom appears to be proposing.

As it happens, most of these jobs are safe from cuts, thanks to a bunch of charter mandates that say, the City needs department heads, and lawyers and doctors.

But the list makes for interesting reading especially if you are sitting in a cramped apartment, huddled over a space heater and eating Ramen noodles for the 596th time!

By Emma Lierley

As several thousand striking nurses continue to picket ten Bay Area Sutter Health hospitals this week, the California Nurses Association announced Thursday that they have filed charges against Sutter Health for mistreatment of their members.

Alleging continued harassment and threats made against striking nurses, along with failure to bargain “in good faith,” the union lodged their complaints with the National Labor Relations Board. CNA official Shum Preston told the Guardian Thursday that the charges are being brought forward on behalf of a few specific nurses who have received direct threats, as well as many nurses who faced hostile situations in their hospitals.

Amie Davidow, a striking labor and delivery nurse with California Pacific Medical Center in San Francisco, told the Guardian Thursday that “nurse managers are calling people at home, threatening them with losing their job, loss of health benefits, and threats of suspension.”

Davidow said that she herself has received no direct harassment but that, “there are a lot of nurses very scared about [these threats].”

When we asked CPMC representative Kevin McCormick about the charges, he strongly disputed their validity, and claimed that they were made to drum up sensational media headlines. “This is the third time our nurses have been on strike, and we have never done anything to them in the past. Why would we do something now?”

McCormick added that the dispute was with the union, and not the nurses themselves. “We want the nurses to come back to work after the strike. We want to have the best relationship we can with our nurses,” he said.

Kulbir and Amritpal Dhaliwal-- the brothers attacked Christmas Day at the San Francisco Zoo by Tatiana the Siberian tiger--have sued San Francisco.

Readers may recall that following the attack, the City accused the Dhaliwal brothers, who saw Tatiana fatally maul their friend Carlos Souza Jr, of taunting the tiger, lying to the authorities and being under the influence.

But now the attorneys for the Dhaliwal brothers are claiming that that their clients have been "defamed by a public relations firm, acting as an agent of the City and County of San Francisco and the San Francisco Zoo. Members of the public relations firm, including but not limited to Sam Singer, made false statements about Claimant's action on the date of the attack."

Kulbir's attorneys note that their client suffered serious physical and emotional injuries, including deep lacerations and wounds, all over his body, head and face, requiring stitches, had surgery to both knees, and has scarring from the tiger attack.

Adorably majestic from afar, tigers are majorly fatal, up close and personal.

"Claimant has also been wrongfully deprived of the use of his vehicle, a 2002 BMW M3," states Kulbir's claim. "Further, Claimant has suffered emotional injuries as a result of the tiger attack as well as humiliation and degradation from the smear campaign brought against him."

Kulbir's brother, Amritpal, has filed a similar claim against the City, except that the extent of his injuries differ--and then there's the fact that the Beemer, which the police subsequently impounded, only belonged to his brother.

The amount of damages Geragos is asking, on behalf of the Brothers Dhaliwal ?
"In excess of the jurisdictional minimum of 'unlimited Jurisdiction' of the Superior Court."

Maybe the brothers will donate a portion of their award, assuming they win their case, to improve animal welfare at the zoo?
Maybe they won't win.
But either way, this case keeps a needed spotlight on the Zoo, in terms of who runs it, how the money is being spent, why and whose interests are being best served.

I’m starting to wonder how many times I’m going have to fight this battle.

For five weeks, as our predatory-pricing case against the SF Weekly was in trial, Andy Van De Voorde, the Denver-based hit man who works for Village Voice Media, attacked me, attacked the Guardian, attacked our witnesses and attacked the whole idea that an independent paper had the right to go to court to fight a predatory attack by a national chain.

When a San Francisco jury found (by an 11-1 margin) that VVM and its local outlet, the SF Weekly, had sold ads below cost for seven years with the intent to harm the Guardian – a violation of state law – Van De Voorde attacked the judge, the jury and the law itself.

Then when we started to talk about what the verdict meant, the hit man retailed the same old arguments all over again, in yet another blog post.

And now Matt Smith, the Weekly columnist who is often wrong on the issues but generally has some sense, has jumped in with what appears to be a preview of the arguments we can expect when the Weekly pursues its appeals.

By Megan Ma

Under pressure to reject any official welcome of the Olympic torch relay when it comes through town on April 9th, SF supervisors plan to vote on two competing resolutions tomorrow, April 1st, that will set the tone for the city's stance on the controversy.

Board members have been wrangling over wording of potential resolutions for the past few weeks. On March 20th Sup. Chris Daly brought forward a version that called on his colleagues and Gavin Newsom to greet the torch with "alarm and protest at the failure of China to … cease the egregious and ongoing human rights abuses in China and occupied Tibet."

Daly's proposal was rejected the same day by Sups. Carmen Chu and Sean Elsbernd, both Newsom allies, who turned around and wrote a much milder version. Their proposal hacks out Daly's list of grievances against China, and simply states that the city welcomes both the Olympic torch and the Tibetan Freedom Torch, which is slated to arrive a day earlier.

Daly's offering runs 5 pages longer, and lists a number of China's alleged human rights abuses, including its role in the Darfur genocide, its abuses against Falun Gong and the Burmese monk protests. He's re-introducing his version at tomorrow's meeting.

Dozens of protesters from Students for Free Tibet and Burmese American Democratic Alliance (BADA) lined city hall Friday, saying Tibet sympathizers would be there everyday until the torch arrives. And while the ultimate goal for many activists was for city officials to unanimously boycott the Olympics and reject the torch, UC Davis student Phuntsok Wangden said some would be "satisfied" with the approval of Daly's "alarm and protest" resolution.

A representative from SF Team Tibet, an umbrella organization for Bay Area protestors, says Desmond Tutu and Richard Gere are scheduled to speak at a candlelight vigil for the Tibetan Freedom Torch on April 8 in the city.

Meanwhile, SFPD still hasn't released the route of the torch yet.

There's some heinous new legislation targeted at pretty much killing independent nightlife in the city coming up, folks. Mayor Gavin Newsom and Supe Sophie Maxwell think it'll curb violence happening outside some of the bigger clubs, but the proposals -- requiring even the smallest promoters to apply for permits and show proof of $1 million in liability insurance, as well as citing anyone who stands outside a club for more than three minutes unless smoking or hailing a cab -- would wipe out a ton of vital little parties and charitable events after dark. Read more about it here. (And look for our editorial on the subject in Wednesday's Guardian.)

Nightlife: Even Swedish kids like it!

Here's your chance to speak up about this to the Entertainment Commision! Info courtesy of the fab DJ Raverpup, who's spearheading the resistance.

Hi everyone,

Just a reminder that tomorrow, Tuesday, April 1, the Entertainment Commission meeting will have the new promoter permits on the agenda, and the floor will be open for members of the public to make comments for up to three minutes. We need to get a good turnout of independent promoters (and party people) to comment on this and make it apparent how this new legislation will affect us and San Francisco nightlife. The meeting will be at 4PM at City Hall; follow the link below for more information.

http://www.sfgov.org/site/entertainment_page.asp?id=78062