The Ninth Circuit's decision to uphold San Francisco's Health Care Security Ordinance got everyone wondering if the Golden Gate Restaurant Association will take the matter all the way to the Supreme Court.

GGRA’s executive director Kevin Westly told me they might, or they might ask the Ninth Circuit to do an en banque review, instead, which involves all eleven Ninth Circuit judges.

“Healthy San Francisco is a good program and employer spending mandates are a separate issue," Westly said, repeating a position that Mayor Gavin Newsom used to share, back when Sup. Tom Ammiano, who authored this trailbreaking legislation, was trying to explain that it's not fiscally possible to provide uninsured residents with free access to the City's health clinics without the employer mandate , since the mandate generates the funding for the free access program.

Newsom eventually climbed on board, ( "kicking and screaming" as Ammiano recently recalled), but GGRA continues to hold that the mandate is a major fiscal and administrative burden that employers shouldn't bear. GGRA makes that argument based on their interpretation of Congress's intent in 1974, when it passed ERISA.

You Tube has already posted this parody of the Yes on 8 ad that features Newsom

By Saadia Malik

Mayor Gavin Newsom yesterday commented on the television ad urging California voters to approve Proposition 8 and reinstate the unconstitutional ban on same sex marriage, telling a small crowd of reporters, “The commercial was weak.”

The ad uses footage of Newsom’s May 15 speech to the jubilant City Hall rally that followed the California Supreme Court ruling that the ban on same sex marriage is unconstitutional. The ad claims that decision could trigger litigation against individuals’ personal beliefs, a move to revoke the churches’ tax-exempt status, and a push to teach children about same-sex marriage in public schools.

“Whether you like it or not,” is the Newsom statement that the Yes on 8 campaign turns into a mantra, associating it with their doomsday predictions about what same sex marriage will bring. At the end of the 30-second ad, the narrator declares, “We don’t have to accept this.”

Newsom sneered when asked about the commercial during an outside press conference at Justin Herman Plaza, saying “I’m not surprised they took comments completely out of context.”

“California will say no to Prop 8,” Newsom said confidently. “This is not a big issue anymore, from my perspective.”

By Steven T. Jones

Rev. Billy and his Church of Stop Shopping is rolling its anti-consumerist revival through California and including a stop tonight in San Francisco, where he'll bless Prop. H, the Clean Energy Act. Doors at the Noe Valley Ministry, 1021 Sanchez St. at 24th Street, open at 7:15 and the show begins at 8. Rev. Billy is a performance artist who honed his unique political theater in the Burning Man culture and has strong ties to San Francisco, although he's based in New York City, the citadel of late capitalism.

He'll be introduced by arts impresario Chicken John, who is battling with the Ethics Commission over that body's efforts to audit the spending by his mayoral campaign. Chicken now says that he's decided to go ahead and let Ethics officials have his records, but that he plans to do so by wheat-pasting them onto an art project that he'll unveil during an Oct. 9 event at CELLspace.

There's never a dull moment in San Francisco's politically active counterculture.

by Amanda Witherell

Today Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill that would have designated May 22 as Harvey Milk day. The legislation, authored by Assemblymember Mark Leno, would have required the governor to annually recognize the day and would have encouraged “all public schools and educational institutions to observe this day and to conduct exercises remembering and recognizing the life of Harvey Milk, his accomplishments, and the contributions he made to this state.”

According to the legislative analysis, the bill had no fiscal cost.

In his veto message, Schwarzenegger said, “I believe his contributions should continue to be recognized at the local level by those who were most impacted by his contributions.”

Yeah, but we already get it -- the whole point is to educate more people about his impact, and the guy’s about to go silver screen. If anyone out there doesn’t know who Harvey Milk is now, they will when they see Sean Penn playing him in “Milk,” the Gus Van Sant film that hits national screens in December -- which makes it seem entirely appropriate that California might go on the record officially recognizing the great man.

In his legislative comments on the bill, Leno said, “Perhaps more than any other modern figure, Harvey Milk's life and political career embody the rise of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender civil rights movement." Milk was assassinated in 1978, while serving as supervisor in San Francisco. He was the first openly gay elected official to hold office in a major US city.

“Harvey Milk is a hero who stood for simple equality and justice, and ultimately gave his life for these principles," said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese in a press release about the veto. "It would have been fitting to officially recognize his birthday as a day of special significance in California. However, as everyone who admires Harvey Milk fully understands, we can pay this great man lasting tribute by working to make equality a reality for all Californians.”

News that GGRA has decided to file an en banc appeal of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling upholding the City’s Healthcare Security Ordinance got supporters of the City’s ordinance expressing dismay and puzzlement.

They also declared themselves troubled by what they call the apparent hypocrisy of GGRA members who express their support for the ordinance in surcharge notices.

Tim Paulson, San Francisco Labor Council executive director, believes that the City's healthcare ordinance creates a level playing field for employers.

“It gives credit to employers who already offer healthcare to their employees and also allows other employers to comply without disrupting ERISA plans," Paulson said. "The Healthcare Ordinance is sound business policy as well as a win for San Franciscans."

Calling the Ninth Circuit's September 30 decision to uphold the City's ordinance, "a huge win for hard-working men and women in San Francisco who are currently without access to healthcare," Paulson said, "We need more healthcare in San Francisco, not less."

Paulsen said he was “particularly troubled by the apparent hypocrisy of GGRA member restaurants for expressing public support and admiration for a program that provides health and well-being to thousands of restaurant workers, while their GGRA membership dues pay the legal fees to dismantle it."

Paulson was referring to the fact that some GGRA member restaurants have issued surcharge notices that contain comments that appear to be supportive of SF's healthcare program, while GGRA seeks to overturn the ordinance.

IGGRA members Catch, Pomodoro, AsiaSF, Bar Bambino and Luna Park have issued notices in which they express support for the ordinance and explain that they are adding a surcharge to each check to cover these new healthcare related costs. The notices do not mention GGRA's lawsuit.

Sick of the endless hype-y analysis of tonight's VP debate preparations -- the "expectations bar" being spun like a top by all sides? Here's some things we figure we probably won't see, although maybe we secretly wish we would.

** Washington University evacuated due to Biden's overuse of Old Spice

** Palin packs attention-deflecting bomb in up-do, like Deborah Harry's in Hairspray. Bonus: goes off too early

by Amanda Witherell

For anyone looking to squeeze in a little extra fun before taking in the Biden-Palin throwdown, Bay Area Community Services is hosting a fundraiser in Oakland tonight. We profiled the amazing work this group is doing bringing local, fresh meals to seniors and disabled people through its Meals on Wheels program. In order to stop serving frozen food and start serving fresh, BACS partnered with Community Alliance with Family Farmers to connect with local growers who could supply bulk amounts of fruits and vegetables. They also established a free culinary training program for low-income adults who learn kitchen prep skills in exchange for cheffing up the homemade meals served through the Meals on Wheels program. Contrary to popular notions that eating fresh, organic food costs a lot more, BACS found the program cost per meal has only gone up five cents, but donations have increased by $20,000 because people see more worth in the fresher food they're now receiving.

But it's not enough and tonight they're holding a fundraiser, capping off their "Seeds to Harvest" campaign to expand their facilities and the culinary program.

"Seeds to Harvest is the cornerstone of our effort to make BACS a leading 'farm-to-table,' self-sufficient food security organization," said executive director Kent Ellsworth in a press release about the event. "The fact that we are so close to reaching our $100,000 goal shows that the sustainable food movement has reached critical mass. A few years ago no one expected us to be part of the slow food, sustainable food revolution at all, let alone be at its leading edge!"

Tonight, Oct. 2 at 5 pm, you can join them for locally produced snacks and goodies at the East Bay Community Foundation Conference Center, 365 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Oakland, CA. There will also be graduates from the culinary training program on hand to discuss their experiences.

by Sarah Phelan

In a surprise revelation, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District mentioned yesterday that it had reached a $515,000 settlement with Lennar over the developer's failure to monitor and control asbestos dust at Hunters Point Shipyard.

BAAQMD executive director Jack Broadment brought up the settlement, which was dated August 8 and allegedly finalized in early September, during the air district’s October 1 board meeting.

Broadbent's stunning revelation occured after Bay View Hunters Point residents asked the air district to address their concerns around Lennar's repeated asbestos dust violations in their community.

Broadbent's annoucement shocked the BVHP residents, who had showed up at the meeting. They countered that the amount was too little and too late.

An October 2 Air District press release claims the settlement is the “largest of its kind in California."

“Our Air District team negotiated an appropriate penalty based on the circumstances of the case,” Broadbent stated in the press release. “This settlement will deter the kind of conduct Lennar engaged in that led to these violations.”

Air District spokesperson Lisa Fasano told the Guardian that the $515,000 fine is “the biggest fine for a dust violation in the Bay Area air district.”

Fasano said that the biggest penalty that the district has imposed in recent years was the $2.8 million fine against Shell for exceeding emissions limits at its Martinez facility.

Asked how the Air District arrived at the $515,000 figure Fasano said it was a “negogiated number.”

“There were three basic violations involved,” Fasano told the Guardian. “Failing to maintain air monitoring systems appropriately; failing to maintain wash stations properly and failing to contain properly what they were receiving from those wash stations.”

Lennar was supposed to monitor asbestos dust at the site and make sure that vehicles leaving the site were washed down properly, so that the dust wouldn’t get tracked out.

The developer entered into a detailed asbestos dust mitigation plan with the Air District in 2005 and made power point presentations in the community to reassure residents that they would be protected from naturally occurring asbestos, a known carcinogen, while Lennar graded an entire hillside to build a 1,600-unit condominium complex.

But though monitoring was supposed to begin in July 2005, Lennar's negligence means there is no evidence of what the asbestos dust levels at the site were until September 2006. That was three months after intense grading began directly adjacent to a local k-12 school, where children played and studied, with only a chain link fence separating them from Lennar's machinery.

Fasana said the Air District and Lennar negotiated the penalty based on the type, duration and negligence of the violations.

Fasano told us that the settlement was completed by the end of August, but had not been mentioned before, because there had not been a Board meeting since the settlement was made. The Board's last meeting was July 30.

"The matter came up because folks from Bay View Hunters Point brought it up during public comment, " Fasano said. "It was going to be mentioned in the Executive director's report to the Board."

By Katie Baker

Thousands of visual artists wrote to Congress after the Senate passed the Orphan Works Bill (S.2913) on Sept. 27, urging their House representatives not to follow suit. As of now they haven’t, but the arts community is worried that the House will pass quietly behind the enormous economic issues currently distressing the country.

"Passing controversial legislation by this process, i.e. under the radar, is deeply troubling to say the least," the Advertising Photographers of America wrote in an email alert last week. "Every Senator needs to be held accountable."

The bill would deem “orphaned” any copyrighted work whose author can’t be located by a "reasonably diligent search." Artists fear that vague standard could allow individuals and corporations to steals artwork for any personal or commercial purpose after going through the motions of search. The artwork could then to deemed part of the public domain, preventing creators from claiming ownership and compensation for their work.

Gov.Sarah Palin gave the Democrats a great slogan, when she said "John McCain is the man we need to leave...I mean lead," during tonight's one and only vice-presidential debate. Classic.

Whoa, this is special.

According to a story in the Pasadena Weekly, Rep. Dana Rhorabacher -- a nutcase if there ever were one -- has decided that Sirhan Sirhan was part of an "arab conspiracy" to kill RFK -- and dressed in drag to secretly interview the admitted assassin in prison.

The fun thing about this is that there's a large and active Sirhan-Shirhan conspiracy underground out there, folks who attempt to linke the RFK killing to the JRK and Martin Luther King Jr. assassinations, the CIA, the Bay of Pigs, Israel, the Mob and many more shadowy characters.

And now we have Dana as Diana digging into this lovely mess. What a great country.

I

Gee, this campaign is getting weird. John McCain's brother suggested this weekend that Northern Virginia is "communist country."

But, ooh, they love Omama there.

CBC removed Canadian journalist Heather Mallick September 5 column about Palin after Fox complained

News that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation removed a Palin-critical column from its website after FOX News complained, got me seeking out the column in question to see what the fuss was about, 'natch.

Just in case that link gets blocked, here's how Mallick began her censored column:

"I assume John McCain chose Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential partner in a fit of pique because the Republican money men refused to let him have the stuffed male shirt he really wanted. She added nothing to the ticket that the Republicans didn't already have sewn up, the white trash vote, the demographic that sullies America's name inside adn outside its borders yet has such curious appeal for the right."

So, was it "white trash" that got FOX going? Or her following suggestions that GOP has irreparably messed up its chances of securing the Pissed-Off-Hillary-supporters' vote?

"So why do it? It's possible that Republican men, sexual inadequates that they are, really believe that women will vote for a woman just because she's a woman. They're unfamiliar with our true natures. Do they think vaginas call out to each other in the jungle night? I mean, I know men have their secret meetings at which they pledge to do manly things, like being irresponsible with their semen and postponing household repairs with glue and used matches. Guys will be guys, obviously."

Was that got FOX News going? Or the following?

"Palin has a toned-down version of the porn actress look favoured by this decade's woman, the overtreated hair, puffy lips and permanently alarmed expression."

According to today's New York Times, "CBC ruled that its opinion writers had to stick to the facts even when they were joking around."

(Now, if only Palin had to stick to the facts, and not duck the questions, during her one and only VP debate.)

By Stephen Torres

For most, this year’s Oct. 2 will be remembered as the day of the highly-anticipated debate between Veep candidates (if it's remembered at all). But for our neighbors to the south, it marked the 40th anniversary of one the bloodiest, and what many view as one of the most pivotal, days in Mexico's history.

It was 1968, the year Mexico City was to play host to the XIX Summer Olympiad. Not unlike the games that just closed in Beijing, the choice had become a contentious one for the International Olympic Committee; as the games neared, it became increasingly evident that the country was under a constant state of unrest and protest. Stories began to circulate of disappearances and rampant political corruption as President Diaz Ordaz frantically tried to silence the dissidence (especially by the student population) against one party-rule, corruption, and the games themselves.

The Sierra Club has challenged Mayor Gavin Newsom to debate the merits of Prop. H, the Clean Energy Act that Newsom and Pacific Gas & Electric are opposing. If Newsom accepts, the Commonwealth Club has agreed to host the debate at high noon on Oct. 23. No word yet on who would argue for the measure, but it would most likely be its author, Sup. Ross Mirkarimi, who is mulling a bid for Newsom's job in a couple years.

The Mayor's Office is treating the request like any other, with press secretary Nathan Ballard telling me, "We received this invitation this morning, and we'll consider it along with every other invitation the Mayor has received." It'll be interesting to see whether Newsom, who is exploring a run for governor, rises to the challenge. His track record of helping local measures and candidates he supports is fairly dismal, and the case that PG&E (and Eric Jaye, the consultant Newsom shares with the corporate utility) has been making with regular mailers has been based mostly on alarmist lies and distortions.

Hopefully, an open and honest debate would help set the record straight, assuming Newsom has any interest in that sort of thing.

My brother called me this morning a bit upset. He runs a small construction firm in upstate New York and he's bummed about the bailout bill.

"I think I'm the only company in the United States that isn't getting something out of this," he said. "I should be making wooden arrows or importing rum."

And, indeed, as MSNBC reports, there are lotsa goodies in the bill:

Tucked into pages 262 and 263 of the bill, for example, are provisions that will aid the manufacturers of "certain wooden arrows designed for use by children." The bill will exempt the arrows from an excise tax of 39 cents. There are also tax breaks for race-track owners, for rum imported from Puerto Rico, for worsted wool makers, Hollywood film and television production companies and on and on.

Cindy Sheehan is having fun with this; she and her pals took to the Hyatt hotel across from the federal reserve with a message:

by Amanda Witherell

Last week SF Chronicle columnist C.W. Nevius waded back into one of his pet issues, homelessness, in a piece on the SF Streets and Neighborhoods workgroup. Convened by Mayor Gavin Newsom, the group is tasked with coming up with a few ideas to improve the street safety for a couple pilot projects centered around downtown. The group is stacked with local law enforcement officials, Newsom staffers, reps from the Chamber of Commerce and tourist groups, and a couple token homeless rights advocates, and the subtext of their mission seems to be implementing new quality of life laws, like a sit-lie ordinance, and double-strength enforcement zones that will further criminalize the already unfortunate condition of being homeless.

I reported on their last meeting here, a markedly different assessment than what Nevius penned.

Oh, where to start? How about the obvious: Nevius reported the wrong date of the next meeting. It’s actually going to be tomorrow, October 7 – though you wouldn’t necessarily know that since the group hasn’t posted its agenda. (Sunshine violation, anyone?) Anyway, Dariush Kayhan, the mayor’s homeless policy director, confirmed to me that the meeting is on Oct. 7, at 11 a.m., at St. Anthony Foundation’s offices at 150 Golden Gate.

Moving on: Nevius spins the group to make it sound like their work will be the first sip of a panacea long overdue – cooperation.

Whoops, too close, everyone's dead

By Tim Redmond

The Chron did its usual puff piece on Fleet Week today:

Windows will rattle, dogs will howl and a lot of people will complain about the ruckus. But those cries are traditionally drowned out by cheers from enthralled fans, and also drowned out by the jet engines.

I hate to be a killjoy, but there's more to this story.

I'll admit -- I love cool technology, and the F/A 18 is a boss jet. I always appreciate amazing human skill, and the people who fly in the Blue Angels are phenomenal pilots. In the abstract, it's a fun show to watch.

But this is a big city, and it's a city with a big antiwar movement, and this expensive show of military might is really pretty ridiculous.

I got an interesting letter from journalist Rick Knee this morning in response to the KTVU news coverage. He makes some good points.

The Barack Obama campaign will host a presidential debate watching party this evening at Temple Prana, 540 Howard near First Street, so come on down to bask in the lefty love as Obama fends off the increasingly desperate (and downright duplicitous) attacks by John McCain. Even Mayor Gavin Newsom will be there. The event starts at 5:30 and the action kicks off at 6.

San Francisco has approved or built thousands of new high-end condos, and if the free-market theory is right, as supply is increased, rents should start coming down.

But look! They aren't.

San Francisco is an utterly irrational housing market. You can build luxury condos til the cows come home and it won't bring down rents.

By Steven T. Jones

Pacific Gas & Electric has already reported spending $5.23 million to defeat Prop. H, the Clean Energy Act, pretty much solely funding the ironically named Committee to Stop the Blank Check. And that's just through the end of September, according to the latest campaign finance filing. With more than a month of blank check spending to go, PG&E is on pace to spend about $10 million to try to kill a measure that would establish renewable energy goals and call for study of whether public power might be the best way to reach those goals. That would make it the most expensive campaign in San Francisco history.

The major beneficiaries of PG&E's blank check have been Storefront Political Media, the firm run by Mayor Gavin Newsom's chief political consultant, Eric Jaye, and politicians such as supervisors Sean Elsbernd and Carmen Chu, who have appeared on the No on H mailers that have been clogging mailboxes for more than a month. But conservative political consultants Jim Ross and Tom Hsieh have also shared in this unprecedented payday, along with a variety of individuals and community groups. Yup, the checkbook is open for anyone willing to accept dirty money and a dirty environment.

You might think that the main money behind the campaign to keep JROTC in the San Francisco United School District is flowing directly from the military.

You’d be wrong.

Think Gap, PG& E and the San Francisco Association of Realtors, instead.

They are among the top contributors to a political committee that is supporting Proposition V, which is the measure on the November election that seeks to keep JROTC in the SFUSD beyond June 2009.

Here are the top five contributors to Choice for Students, the pro Prop. V committee in the November election cycle:

1.SF Chamber of Commerce 21st Century Committee: $20,500.
2. Donald Fisher, Gap, Chairman Emeritus: $20,000.
3. Plan C, San Francisco PAC: $10,000.
4. PG&E Corporation: $7,500.
5. SF Association of Realtors: $7,499.

To put those figures in a deeper political and financia; context, check out the next top six largest contributors:

6. SF Police Officers Association: $5,000
7. Keith Phillips, Founder, Project Homecoming: $500
8. Gerald Paratore, Teacher, SF United School District: $300.
9. SF Chapter, Military Officers Association of America: $250.
10. Gwen Chan, Retired: $200.
11.. Elko Council Navy League: $113.

Choice for Students committee treasurer Quincy Yu gave her explanation of why these organizations are backing Prop. V.
“This is not about the military,” Yu said. “It’s about the 1,600 students who used to be served by the JROTC program, 90 percent of whom are minority students. It’s about preserving programs that work for our kids. If our school systems are not robust, they don’t attract middle class, who are then not going to stay in the City."

With a son attending a SFUSD high school, Yu makes an articulate spokesperson for the Prop. V campaign, even if her own son decided not to enroll in JROTC, choosing football, instead.

Yu points to what she calls the hypocrisy of SFUSD buying food from the Department of Defense, while trying to drum JROTC out of town.

Which brings us back to questions of who really pays for JROTC to be in our schools. As it happens, the US Department of Defense pays 50 percent of the JROTC’s teachers’ salaries and 100 percent of JROTC’s supplies. So, even if it’s not making campaign contributions, the military does majorly underwrite the SFUSD’s JROTC program, all year round.

By Anna Rendall

Lots of people opposed the creation of BART, but what would the Bay Area be if taxpayers groups and libertarians successfully derailed the campaign that created it in the 1960s?

That’s the same argument proponents give to Proposition 1A, which would build a high-speed train from San Francisco to Los Angeles, allowing riders to get from one end to the other for $55 in two and a half hours, after a nine-year construction period and the sale of nearly $10 billion in state bonds.

For the last 12 years this plan has had its caboose dragged all over the legislative map, and now that it’s on the ballot, it’s time to decide if California adopts a green transportation source that’s proven popular in Europe and Asia or whether its derailed by fears that it will strain taxpayers in the midst of a financial meltdown.

The opponents of same-sex marraige have raised $25 million. That's amazing: $25 million to stop people from getting married.

But apparently, it's working. The Newsom ad has been effective, and now No on 8 folks are issuing a wake-up call to their supporters.

In the meantime, I really like the Sonoma State University study that shows how same-sex marriage is good for the economy. Sonoma County alone could see $112 million in benefits.

More jobs, more money into the economy in a depression ... and these nut cases are spending $25 million to stop it?

A very funny Yes on H video:

Our endorsements are out today. Knowing our readers, I suspect not everyone agrees with everything we said. Comments?

Guardian illustration by Joshua Ellingson

By Steven T. Jones

For a politician who aspires to higher office, Mayor Gavin Newsom is surprisingly afraid of public debates. The latest example is his refusal to debate the merits of Prop. H, the Clean Energy Act, and the unusual step that Eric Jaye – the political consultant that Newsom shares with Pacific Gas & Electric – took in convincing the Commonwealth Club to rescind its offer to host the debate.

We’ve seen this before. When voters asked Newsom to engage in monthly public discussions with the Board of Supervisors, he flatly refused to comply, even as his petulant approach to governance began to take a serious toll on the city. And now, he’s content to let PG&E’s deceptive, multi-million-dollar propaganda blitz substitute for a public discussion on an issue vital to the future of the city and the planet.

Meanwhile, like Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger before him, Newsom has adopted hypocritical environmental piety and false claims of green progress as the central planks of his political platform. And when we try to ask him, Jaye, or his press secretary Nate Ballard about why Newsom won’t debate, when he changed his position on public power, or about the many contradictions in his public pronouncements, all we get are lies and obfuscation.

Two snapshots of the right and left -- such as! -- at this increasingly hysterical election moment that I think say it all:

This month's cover of The Progressive:

And an AP "shot" from one of Palin's Florida rallies yesterday. (The one where someone yelled "kill him!" or the one where they screamed at an African American sound man to "sit down, boy!"? And weren't these kids just at LoveFest last Saturday?)

Of course, it seems right now we're winning -- so say these wonderful things loud and proud, lest you lose your chance soon. And yet, we're losing ground on Prop 8 -- help out already! It's an upside-down autumn, and I feel like wearing shoes on my feet and hamburgers eating people.

Shout outs: Fierce bloggers and others to help stay sane during all this kerfuffle: Megan at Jezebel (this should be taught at blogging school), Ta-Nehisi Coates at the Atlantic, of course the fab Kos who is freaking killing it this election with the wonky deets, and, as ever, Cathy Horyn's coverage of the global fashion weeks -- because I'm far too busy frantically, panickedly checking the politisphere to measure this season's hemlines. Plus, that third grade class in Alaska. Stay golden, kids!

.... that just buzzed my office window? I'm glad it's not John "crash" McCain.

In the home stretch of a long presidential campaign, with the economy failing and politicians failing to really speak truth to power, it's easy to feel fatigue. So if you're looking for a bit of pro-Obama inspiration, download this awesome, free Obama mix from DJ Z-Trip and play it everywhere you go, loud. You'll feel better, regain your perspective, and get fired up for the real struggle that begins with our vote on Nov. 4.

And if that doesn't work, go back and watch this one again:

Eric Jaye, the flak for Pacific Gas and Electric Company, must be really worried about defeating Proposition H, the Clean Energy Act. He's gone so far as to try to convince the Sierra Club to somehow formally denounce a funny ad put out by the Yes on H campaign.

Jaye's complaint? The ad is "sexist."

Here's the ad again, in case you haven't seen it:

In an email to John Rizzo, the Sierra Club's political chair, Jaye wrote:

>>As a sponsor of Proposition H, do you also approve of this most recent >>video? >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZuwXSbb6WA >> >>Will you send out a release denouncing it? (You were pretty quick to >>send out a press release attacking the Mayor on Monday. I hope you >>will be as quick to denounce such offensive and sexist behavior).

If this wasn't a serious campaign, I'd find the whole thing just nutty. Is there anything wrong or politically incorrect about making fun of a pair of corporate weenies who act sexist?

Alix Rosenthal, immediate past president of the local National Women's Political Caucus and founder of the SF Women's Policy Summit, doesn't think so.

"If anyone has credibility on women's issues, it's me," she told me. "And I don't think it's sexist."

In fact, she said, "I could argue that it's a feminist video -- the two PG&E executives are mocked for being sexist."

She said that the leaders of several local women's organizations have been talking about this and "we certainly aren't going to be putting out any kind of statement denouncing it."

I called Jaye today and he had a hard time expaining why the ad was sexist. He did say he found it juvenile (whoa -- that's a crime in San Francisco politics) and said: "I find it demeaning for an august organization such as the Sierra Club to fund and support this kind of ad."

The Sierra Club had nothing to do with the ad, by the way.

So lighten the fuck up, Eric. All this is doing is drawing more attention to a funny ad that makes the point that the PG&E executives are assholes and can't be trusted.

Which is a great reason to vote Yes on H.

With the race-baiting haters trying to stir things up, here's a MC Yogi video that will lift your spirits:

It's taken 11 years, but Sup. Ammiano has finally convinced the Golden Gate Bridge Board to accept a suicide net on the bridge.

Eleven years fighting that bridge board must have felt like torture. But he hung in, and this will save lives.

by Amanda Witherell

image courtesy of 350.org

Send the prospective presidents a letter that says “get thee to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change negotiations in Poznan, Poland this December and talk to the rest of the world leaders, with or without preconditions, about rapidly reversing global carbon emissions.”

Or if you’re not feeling your inner environment-in-crisis muse, just click here and 350 will send it for you. It’s easy. I did it and was 9,000th person to do so.

350, an organization founded this past year by environmental writer Bill McKibben, has a mission to incite more public awareness and action on climate change. The name comes from 350 parts per million -- what most climate scientists and watchdogs consider the safety mark for atmospheric CO2 concentration. Globally, we were at around 384 ppm in 2007, and despite all the talk and attention, there are no indications it will be any lower this year. Jamie Henn, co-coordinator of the campaign, said the number is an important one to burn into peoples' minds. "We're in the climate danger zone right now," he told me. "For the first time we have a number, we have a target we can shoot for."

And it's a number off which to launch some long overdue international policy and action. The campaign began on Oct. 7 and organizers are hoping to get 35,000 people to sign letters, which will be delivered en masse to both Obama and McCain in an effort to get a solid commitment from both that whoever wins will participate in the international talks.

Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC, Yvo de Boer, has specifically asked that the president or vice president attend the next round of talks, according to 350.org and, as Henn told me, they’re targeting Obama and McCain, “because the US has been so bad, we have been so off the mark on this for so many years it would take the president attending” to repair our international reputation on limiting carbon emissions.

The Poland meeting is considered the precursor to a 2009 Copenhagen event that will hopefully result in an international treaty and agreement, a la Kyoto Protocol, to reduce global carbon emissions.

The US remains the only industrialized country that didn’t sign on to the Kyoto Protocol, the last attempt to curb global warming, and we're the second-highest CO2 emitter, outpaced only by China.

Does anyone think this really has anything to do with Eric Mar's comments about an earthquake in China? Come on -- this is part of the concerted downtown campaign to keep Mar from winning.

By Steven T. Jones

The Examiner reports that Mayor Gavin Newsom is proposing a crackdown on the city's medical marijuana clubs, including requiring them to keep detailed patient records that advocates say could easily be used by the federal government to prosecute people for smoking pot, which is legal under California law but not under federal law.

And once again, it appears that Newsom's increasingly conservative approach to policing and regulation is being driven by his top crime adviser, law-and-order Republican Kevin Ryan, the former US attorney who was fired for incompetence by the Bush Administration despite his deep political loyalty to Bush and the GOP. Ryan, who led the federal government's war on drugs against San Franciscans (including an overzealous prosecution of Ed Rosenthal), is quoted by the Examiner trying to justify going well beyond recent state guidelines.

Newsom's office didn't respond to our questions, but the latest proposal is directly at odds with the city's innovative approach to regulating the clubs, which had among its central tenets protection of patient privacy and wariness of giving the federal government information that could be used to prosecute San Franciscans.

By Tim Redmond

When I read all the crap about Barack Obama and Bill Ayers -- Jesus, Obama was a kid when the Weather Underground was active -- it reminds me of a story we ran back in 2002, when the Symbionese Liberation Army was back in the news and the history of the violent radicals of the 1960s was in the headlines.

Tommy Tompkins, our arts editor at the time, wrote the story, which we called "Burying the 60s with the T-Word." It got buried in a web crash we had a few years ago, so it isn't on sfbg.com, but I've pulled it out of our archives and I'm going to post it here.

Warning: It's long. And it's six years out of date. But it offers some insight into how the powers that be want us to think about the Sixties.

You can read it after the jump.

I like Obama's call for a moratorium on foreclosures, although it doesn't go far enough. But The Nation has been running some great stuff on what a real plan to overhaul the U.S. economy and get us out of this crisis would look like.

William Greider has a clear, coherent explanation of what went wrong and a prescription for how to fix it here. Howard Zinn talks about how to spend the money on the middle class, not Wall Street.

Paul Krugman talks about partial nationaization of the banks here. Funny how even the mad privatizers of the Bush Administration are being forced to accept at some level that idea that the public ought to own part of the financial institutions that we're bailing out.

McCain's new economic plan is all about getting the government out of the financial industry:

"When that is accomplished," McCain said, "government will relinquish its interest in these private companies. We're going to get the government out of the business of bailouts and equity stakes and back in the business of responsible regulation."

Oh, and he's going to give tax breaks on capital gains. That will help most of us.

This morning's Chronicle has an article about religious supporters of Prop. 8, and it included a chart of Bible verses that relate to homosexuality. Matthai Kuruvila, the Chron's religion writer, tried desperately to be "objective" about what both sides say on the issue. She quotes Leviticus 20:13, for example:

"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Ya know ... I grew up in the Catholic Church, and I realize my school was run by the Carmelites and my parents' friends were Jesuits and it was, after all, the Sixies ... but nobody, not even the priests, took the Bible at its literal word. When I asked one of the nuns during science class how God could have created the world in seven days and she said "don't worry about that, honey, God's time is a little different from our time."

So in that spirit, I thought I would quote a few of my favorite Bible verses that demonstrate how utterly silly it is to believe that this particular collection of writings has any relevance to the discussion of same-sex marriage.

There's loads more at Thebricktestament, one of my favorite Biblical sites.

By Steven T. Jones

So everyone knew that downtown financial interests (such as the Committee on Jobs, Chamber of Commerce, Police Officers Association, the Association of Realtors, BOMA, PG&E, etc., not the mention their enablers at the Chronicle and Examiner) would be spending big money this election to try to buy the Board of Supervisors. And we knew they’d fight dirty, particularly in the swing districts of 1, 3, and 11.

But a couple of revelations from the past 24 hours show that the attacks that are filling mailboxes and the airwaves aren’t simply dirty – they’re dishonest, unethical, and perhaps even illegal. The Fog City Journal stumbled onto a great story that appears to show illegal political collusion between Dist. 11 supervisorial candidate Ahsha Safai (the real estate developer candidate of Mayor Gavin Newsom who refused our request for an endorsement interview and won’t return our phone calls) and the POA.

And the Chronicle reports on the complaint that Dist. 3 candidate David Chiu filed with the Ethics Commission after a television ad falsely claimed that he supports legalizing prostitution, despite his consistent opposition to Prop. K, the ballot measure that would do so. The commercial and several mailers also falsely claim that Dist. 11 candidate John Avalos still works for Sup. Chris Daly, who downtown is trying to make the poster child for all that’s wrong with San Francisco.

Of course, PG&E and downtown’s bagman, attorney Jim Sutton, have already been the subject of the biggest fines that the Ethics Commission has ever levied for illegal campaign behavior. So perhaps they’re content to just keep lying now and worry later about paying fines with their seemingly bottomless reservoirs of cash.

Once again, Mayor Gavin Newsom appears to be letting his Bush Administration crime advisor, Kevin Ryan, , call the shots on a key policy measure. Either that or it's his political flak, Eric Jaye.

Because Newsom used to support the idea of a municipal ID card for immigrants. Now, despite a major court victory he wants to delay it.
The truth is, the mayor has no right to put this program on hold; ten supervisors voted for the legislation, Newsom signed it, the courts have upheld it and now it's city law. What -- other than the pernicious influence of Ryan and the mayor's desire to become governor -- could be the reason for delay?

As is increasingly often the case, Kos had the best debate wrap up -- McCain needed a game-changer and he didn't get it.

What he got was more reinforcement of what people don't like about him -- he's nasty and he spends too much time trying to attack Obama instead of offering his own ideas. (That, of course, is because his ideas suck, and everyone knows it.

But I have to say, this is uncanny (thanks, Kilian):

Yeah, the debate went well, and Obama looked cool and together while McCain looked like he was losing it, but the election is still three weeks away, and this is by no means a sure thing.

I got a great letter today from Paul Loeb, the author and activist who I'm proud to count as a friend, and his message is both inspiring and important.

Go to the jump to read how you really, really can change the outcome of this election.

So Kos reports that Obama now has so much money he's thinking about sharing it with Democratic Party committees to help expand the majority in Congress. I'm good with that; 60 seats in the Senate and a strongly Democratic house and Obama (like FDR in 1933) would have the ability to take immediate direct action to get the economy going again -- the right way.

Of course, if he has that much money, maybe he could toss some of it toward the San Francisco Democratic Party to help elect progressive supervisors, build affordable housing and pass the Clean Energy Act.

I was honored to be a guest on KQED's Forum with Michael Krasny this morning, but I was once again dismayed by the conservative political spin of Examiner columnist Ken Garcia, another guest on the show. Perhaps I should adjust my expectations (after all, Garcia works for a paper that endorsed John McCain for president) but it's still so frustrating to be arguing about issues we should have settled generations ago in San Francisco.

Instead, progressives are still fending off arguments by Garcia and his ilk that Pacific Gas & Electric is more trustworthy than our elected local government (a ridiculous notion that PG&E is spending record-breaking millions to push), that decriminalizing social ills such as drug use and prostitution is the same thing as condoning and promoting them (as if "harm reduction strategies" pioneered in SF is a foreign concept), that creation of affordable housing (which developers won't build without public subsidies that Prop. B will strengthen) is something the city can't afford, that new revenue measures are also bad, and that the best leadership program we can offer our young students is JROTC (the main purpose of which is to instill military values in our peace-loving kids and recruit them as cannon fodder for our wasteful, unnecessary wars).

I think I held my own and hopefully offered listeners a better sense of this city's full political spectrum than they often get from the mainstream media, but I'll let you all be the judge of that. You can listen to the show here:

Gavin Newsom just announced an "economic stimulus plan" for San Francisco. Guess he wants to get in on the action.

Unfortunately, there's not a lot in his plan that actually amounts to any local econic stimulus.

Here's his first proposal:

Accelerate capital projects, such as the Terminal 2 rebuild at SF International Airport, the SF General rebuild, the Transbay Transit Center, HOPE SF and the rebuild of the Hall of Justice.

That's nice -- I'm all in favor of increasing public works spending during a recession. But there are a couple of problems. For one thing, the municipal bond market is in the toilet. The airport's Terminal 2 bonds aren't going to fly off the shelf right now. If Prop. A passes and the voters approve the San Francisco General rebuild, it will be months before the city can start selling those bonds at a decent rate.

And, of course, most of the money for rebuilding the airport terminal won't do anything for local business. Those contracts go to big out-ot-town firms like Tutor-Saliba , which are not known for helping local and minority subcontractors.

Then there's this proposal:

Increase foreign investment by establishing San Francisco as the premier gateway between Chinese businesses and North America. A delegation of San Francisco officials will go to China in November to set up a “China Desk” to attract businesses to San Francisco.

You can ask any progressive urban economist what factors are effective in stimulating a local economy, and they'll tell you that it starts with local investment, local initiative, local business. Seeking outside investment is a poor and ineffective subsitute.

Then:

Reduce the cost of doing business in San Francisco by reviewing fees on businesses, helping local business take better advantage of federal, state and local tax credit programs and implementing targeted tax incentives.

Which fees is he going to reduce -- and how is he going to pay for that? Cut the public workforce -- in a recession? .

Finally:

Keep dollars local by creating more local jobs through City Build and other workforce programs, expanding San Francisco tourism marketing more regionally, revising parking and transit polices to make it easier to visit San Francisco, expanding Neighborhood Market Place Initiatives and Business Improvement Districts including the new Tourism Improvement District, reducing retail leakage with the “Shop Local” campaign, and increasing funding for business attraction and retention efforts.

As if we aren't already trying to expand our tourism marketing?

There are plenty of things that could help. I'd even argue that supporting Prop. B, the affordable housing measure, and Prop. H, the Clean Energy Act, would create jobs in the city for San Franciscans, keep more money in the economy and provide a sustainable economic stimulus.

But oh, wait -- the mayor is against those.

Colin Powell and Jeffrey Wright

By Steven T. Jones

It was weird to watch Colin Powell endorse Barack Obama for president on the same day that I saw Colin Powell (as played by actor Jeffrey Wright) help lead the country into an ill-fated war in Iraq, despite privately expressing all the right concerns and misgivings, on the big screen in Oliver Stone’s new film W.

Powell, the real one, was eloquent and insightful as he endorsed Obama on Meet the Press, in the process calling his own Republican Party to task for the nasty tactics it’s using to smear Obama. And perhaps the best scene in W is when Powell butts chests with Dick Cheney over the reasons for going to war as Karl Rove lurks in the shadows.

By Tim Redmond

Will Harper, who insists he's not opposed to public power, lashed out today at the Yes on H campaign. His claim: Supporters of the Clean Energy Act -- including me -- aren't being straight with the voters about what the measure means.

Yes, Will: Much of what is in the charter amendment could be done without going to the ballot -- if the mayor of San Francisco were willing. But with a mayor whose chief political advisor, Eric Jaye, is on Pacific Gas and Electric Company's payroll, it's a little hard to get any progressive energy policy done. Even if eight supervisors vote for, say, a study to consider public power, the mayor can do what he's done with affordable housing: Refuse to spend the money.

And yes, it seemed to make sense to put together an overall ballot measure that included several things -- aggressive clean-energy goals, an energy optioins study AND enabling legislation to allow the supervisors to issue revenue bonds for utility projects.

Harper insists that Prop. H is somehow misleading:

With the earlier power measures, their intent was always clear: Municipalize PG&E. Prop. H, however, conceals its true objective.

Um, I think if you read the Guardian, Will, you'll see that we've been rather clear that this is a BOTH a clean-energy proposal and a public-power measure, and that we think that's a good idea. The evidence is pretty clear that public power is the best (perhaps the only) way to meet strong clean-energy goals; PG&E clearly isn't going to get there.

It's true that the measure calls for a study on power options. If it hadn't, then PG&E and its allies would be blasting the measure for mandating public power without a study. You can't win with these guys.

As for his personal attack on me:

In various editorials, the Prop. H supporters at the Bay Guardian have made this seem like no big deal. The most blatant distortion appeared in its recent endorsement issue in which executive editor Tim Redmond proclaimed, “Nobody ever votes on revenue bonds. In California, we vote on general obligation bonds, which are backed by taxpayers. Revenue bonds are backed by a defined revenue stream...”

Actually, people do vote on revenue bonds. Seven years ago, San Francisco voters approved Prop. A, which authorized the city to sell $1.63 billion worth of revenue bonds to upgrade the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir. The defined revenue stream: San Francisco water users, who saw their rates go up.

Will, do your homework. In 2002, voters approved two things: A revenue bond measure for water and sewer projects and another measure that allows the SF PUC to issue revenue bonds without a vote of the people..

So we don't vote on water and sewer revenue bonds. We don't vote on airport revenue bonds, either. The airport is in the process right now of selling revenue bonds for the Terminal 2 rebuild; nothing on the ballot about that. In fact, the mayor wants to speed up the process. The voters have decided that it's okay to issue revenue bonds for improving the airport and the Hetch Hetchy water system; all Prop. H does is ask for the same authority for clean energy and power projects.

There's nothing secret about this (except maybe the SF Weekly's position on the issue). Harper writes:

I’m not opposed to the idea of public power, but I don’t like being bullshitted.

Okay, WIll, now that I've cleared it all up for you, are you voting Yes on H?

I've gotten some calls and emails on our school board endorsements, particularly our comment that we couldn't back Rachel Norton because of her support for JROTC. (Okay, that photo's a bit of a cheap shot; she discusses her own position here.

Well, school activist Caroline Grannan asked me, why did you endorse Yee -- who, according to the Chronicle's summary of candidate positions, is also a JROTC backer. In fact, Fog City Journal described him as supporting the military program.

In our endorsement interview, Yee told us he would not vote to bring back JROTC and that he didn't support Prop. V. What's up? It's a fair question.

I called Yee today and here's what he said, for the record:

"My position in JROTC has been misquoted all over. I do not support the JROTC ballot measure. I will not vote to bring back JROTC to the schools. I have always said that I support JROTC if it meets state requirements. But since it doesn't, I'm not for bringing it back. People ask these yes-or-no questions, and they don't understand what my position really is."

So there you have it.

By Steven T. Jones

San Francisco is filled with brilliant transportation visionaries, people who can see how to reach a future in which we’re less dependent on automobiles and the system not only continues to function, but it’s better, cheaper, and more efficient than what we have now.

I talked to many of them for my story this week on sustainable transportation, which was part of our larger Sustainable San Francisco anniversary package. And if you’d like to hear more from some of the sources that I assembled into a round table discussion, you can download the audio of that session here.

There’s also some other good news on the alternative transportation front in San Francisco: StreetsBlog and StreetsFilms – which do some of the best work in the country highlighting progressive innovations in getting around – have announced that they’re coming here.

That’s great news for those who prefer innovative, action-oriented approaches of our transportation future, rather than the mayor’s approach of issuing press releases and then failing to follow through, or waiting for entrenched transportation planners to make progress on important priorities. And if you’re one of those brilliant transportation wonks, consider applying to be the local editor of Streetsblog.

By Steven T. Jones

The San Francisco Ethics Commission takes a lot of heat (some of it from us), but the employees there have created a great resource for easily following the independent expenditures that are seeking to buy the Board of Supervisors on behalf of the city's wealthy interest groups, an effort that bodes ill for the San Francisco's workers and renters.

Groups that include the Building Owners and Managers Association, Citizens for Responsible Growth (a new conservative group formed to counter "the left" that in an August letter pledged "an all-out attack with other like minded groups"), the Association of Realtors, and the Police Officers Association have spent more than $363,000 attacking progressive candidates and supporting their candidates in the swing districts of 1, 3, and 11. As the Guardian reported last week, some of that money originally came from other downtown players, including the Chamber of Commerce, Committee on Jobs, and Pacific Gas & Electric.

The groups aren't legally supposed to be coordinating their "independent" efforts, either with each other or with the candidates, but the timing of their expenditures seems to suggest they are ensuring a steady, unrelenting drumbeat of political propaganda.

As the chart shows, the progressive supervisorial candidates -- Eric Mar, David Chiu, and John Avalos -- are also receiving some helpful independent expenditures from the San Francisco Labor Council and the San Francisco Democratic Party. So forget all these distracting nonsense involving Chris Daly, Gavin Newsom, JROTC, and prostitution -- who are you going to vote for, the candidates backed by Democrats, environmentalists, and workers, or those pushed by Republicans, landlords, and big corporate interests? The choice is yours.

A great moment at the Miraloma Park Improvement Association meeting last Sunday night. The No on H team, including Hunter Stern, the flak for PG&E's house union, showed up to make the case against the Clean Energy Act, but because of a scheduling confusion, Julian Davis of the Yes on H campaign wasn't there.

So the head of the neighborhood group turned to Sup. Sean Elsbernd. You're the supervisor, he said; why don't you make the case for H?

Well, Elsbernd said, I'm not supporting the measure, but if nobody else is here, I'll go ahead and explain what the Yes on H people are saying. He then proceeded to make an eloquent, effective and persuasive argument for clean energy and public power.

"Hunter Stern told me that was the best Yes on H argument he's heard all season," Elsbernd told me.

So there is hope for the supervisor for D7.

By Steven T. Jones

Pacific Gas & Electric has shattered previous campaign spending records by giving more than $9.7 million in cash and services to defeat Prop. H, the Clean Energy Act, as of Oct. 18, according to the latest campaign finance reporting. Is anyone else appreciating the irony of PG&E funneling its seemingly unlimited spending through the front group Committee to Stop the Blank Check? It would really be funny if it weren't such a seriously duplicitous effort to subvert honest political debate and prevent the switch to renewable energy sources, leaving us with a PG&E portfolio that relies on fossil fuels and nuclear power.

The money is going largely to Mayor Gavin Newsom's political team, mostly to Eric Jaye, who is spreading it around to various community groups, aggressive advertising, and paid campaign workers going door-to-door. They're also spending tens of thousands of dollars on polling, and considering that the pace of the PG&E spending has increased since the last reporting period, perhaps they're getting a little worried that people see through their lies and actually want a future of clean power and local control. The committee still has $1.7 million in the bank and unlimited reserves from PG&E, so watch for things to get even uglier in coming weeks.

But if you're interested in deciding this measure for yourself, read your ballot handbook about what it will actually do and/or check out a new, fairly even-handed story on the measure from the Associated Press.

I didn't think Proposition F, which would move the mayoral races to the same year as presidential elections, was that big a deal for downtown. The left is somewhat split on it; we endorsed it, but some progressives say it's a bad idea that will cause local issues to get lost.

But I've now received two slick fliers from the landlords urging No on F. I guess these guys really do think it might help a progressive get elected mayor.

by Amanda Witherell

Actually, this artist disagrees.

Once art is out in the public domain, it's fair game for all kinds of abuse, but we got the following message today from artist Chris Lux, who's perturbed that his mural served as a backdrop in a recent anti-Clean Energy Act advertisement.

Lux said:

"Recently a No on Prop H ad caught my eye.

"There is a shot of Richard Ventura, CEO of the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, in Lilac Ally speaking out against Prop H. He is standing in front of a mural that I painted there with another artist, Leslie Kulesh, in what looks like an attempt to show how he is ethnic, or whatever.

"As a big supporter of Prop H, as well as many progressives in San Francisco, I am appalled that my work was used as a backdrop for this sleazy and expensive ad campaign. This is one of the most important propositions that has come to San Francisco in a long time.

"I recently did a mural for the John Avalos Campaign Headquarters in District 11. I feel it is really important for artists to give what little they have to help make changes here in SF. I would hate for someone to see the ad and then go to Johns Avalos' headquarters and see the same work and think there was any relation.

"As the text above reads, "SF Citizens Agree- No on Prop H" -- I just wanted to speak out and say that as the person who painted the mural you are using, as a San Francisco citizen, as an artist, and someone who was born and raised here, Vote YES on Prop H."

Here's the original video, parroting PG&E's tired old lies about Prop H.

by Amanda Witherell

Or, as Sup. Aaron Peskin put it one point during the dramatic Wed. Oct. 22 Land Use and Economic Development committee hearing, “The only thing holding this proposal together is the staple in the upper left hand corner.”

Under discussion was Mayor Gavin Newsom's plan to retrofit 32-year-old Mirant Potrero power plant Units 4,5, and 6 to run on natural gas rather than diesel and be 97.5 percent cleaner than current operations – a retrofit and emissions reduction that's never been accomplished and might be impossible, according to testimony from industry experts called in by committee chair Sup. Sophie Maxwell.

The plan arose in June, after a May 23 tête-à-tête between Newsom and seven Pacific Gas & Electric executives just as the Board of Supervisors was preparing to vote on a plan to construct a new power plant to replace Mirant and meet state energy requirements. PG&E opposed the new plant (referred to as the “CTs”) as it would have been owned by the city, eroding the utility company's control of local energy resources. Prior to the May meeting, Newsom had been part of a coalition of city officials, which included city attorney Dennis Herrera and Supes. Maxwell and Peskin, who supported the new plant and had been fostering it forward for several years as a way to close down Mirant's more polluting operations. Newsom pushed for support of retrofitting Mirant instead, billing it as a cheaper alternative that could be just as clean as the new city-owned combustion turbine facility that had been proposed.

But the results of a July feasibility study [PDF], completed by CH2M Hill and currently part of the SFPUC's negotiations with Mirant, had Peskin comparing the idea to retrofitting a 1974 Chevy rather than going for a new Toyota Prius.

A score of issues came up as the study was discussed during what proved to be a very revealing hearing. They include an assumption of reduced air emissions for the retrofit based on reduced runtimes for a plant that the city has sued in the past for operating more than it was legally permitted, a possible ducking of CEQA environmental review, a lack of established regulatory oversight of the plant, an emissions control system that “predicts” rather than actually measures pollution, an understated project cost of $78,730,000 and the fact that executives from energy companies that routinely bid on such retrofit projects testified that they wouldn't go anywhere near this one.

If you liked it, then you should have put a ring on it ...

So. All my gay friends, even the "radical" ones, it appears, are getting married -- before Nov. 4, when Prop 8 just might pass, and the window may close for good on same-sex marriage. AG Jerry Brown has indicated that the marriages performed before then would still be considered valid, as the Chron reported. Hey, Matier & Ross, I'm expecting your penis-lily-embossed announcement any minute.

I've received no less than 12 frantic invites to hastily assembled same-sex weddings (although one couple took the time to register at Barney's -- Vera Wang crystalware, pshaw!). Is this the real case for how Prop 8 actually destroysl marriage -- forcing people, shotgun-style, into perhaps-unthought-through unions? I jest, maybe. But the trend appears also a bit, er, defeatist in my book. Although of course I wish the happy couples, and their makeshift receptions at the Powerhouse, all the best!

Still, despite all the blackmail, violence, foaming at the mouth, Blackwater connections and rampant Mormonism, we can still beat this thing. Please give to or volunteer for No on 8 today -- before I have to shoulder the costs of another seafoam and salmon crinoline-encrusted bridesmaid dress! No one makes me wear crinoline in October ....

By Tim Redmond

Okay, here's a legitimate issue. According to Paul Hogarth's insightful piece on BeyondChron, Mayor Gavin Newsom has decided to skip a major fundraising dinner for the San Francisco Democratic Party, even though he is getting an award at the gala, and will instead show his face at an event across town hosted by the Coalition for Responsible Growth, a Republican-led outfit that is trying to push the city "on a sharp turn to the right."

Why is Newsom skipping the annual Democratic Party event? I think it's entirely because the party is now controlled by progressives who didn't support the mayor's candidates for supervisor. Since he didn't get his way this year, he's not going do a thing to help his own political party. CRG is raising and spending a lot of money to support Newsom's allies in districts 1, 3 and 11, and the mayor is going to help.

If that's the position Newsom wants to put out -- he'd rather work with Republicans and big downtown interests than with elected Democrats who don't always do what he wants -- then he has every right to do so. But he ought to be honest about it.

Read the jump to see how Nathan Ballard, Newsom's press flak, tried to duck the issue.

Oh, these automated media times -- faster, news cycle, kill kill! Here's another fun distraction: In a gaffe that slightly recalls Yahoo's infamous Katrina photo captioning brew-ha-ha of 2005 (where black people were labelled as "looters" while white people were "finders"), that great news aggregator of the digital Alps pricelessly pulled up this pic of recently semi-outed -- and recently very-dead -- hard right Austrian fuckwad Joerg Haider and his simpering spokesperson/buttboy Stefan Petzner to illustrate a story on Prop 8, plus bonus slideshow. Oops.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey, though -- doesn't the number 88 mean something in skinhead culture? Fascists -- always only going halfway.

The bf and I were horrified when we Web-stumbled upon this Sunday night. Moral: Yahoo, it haz confuzed. Even bigger moral: The gays can be anything! We. Are. Everywhere.

Gayz: were in yr fascism, marrying yr mormonz.

UPDATE: Oh lord, it's still up there. Editors ...

My daughter says she say fliers everywhere in Berkeley yesterday, announcing that there will be no Halloween in the Castro.

Wait a minute! Does that mean that Berkeley is now home to the gang bangers and gay bashers that the Newsom administration reportedly wants to stop from coming to the Castro?

It makes you wonder just what is going on in the Mayor's mind. Especially since it's almost impossible to get a straight answer from his handlers. And especially if you had to sit through last week’s report to the Board of Supervisors on the impacts of the global economic meltdown on the San Francisco economy. There were lots of charts and statistics, mostly showing roller coaster plunges of one financial stripe or another, even though we were assured that there is no need to panic. At least not just yet.

But one of the predicted outcome, (In between fairly severe reductions to the City's property tax transfer revenues, as people stop flipping homes so fast, I guess.), was a drop in international and business tourism, as European visitors and convention traffic are forced, for credit freeze reasons, to stay home or go elsewhere.

I listened as the Mayor’s people described how they want to attract local Bay Area residents, instead.

Steven Hill, director of the Political Reform Program at the New America Foundation (www.newamerica.net) and author of "10 Steps to Repair American Democracy" (www.10Steps.net), sent this over. It's a fascinating story that shows how PG&E is not only slinging mud but refusing to debate the real issues of Prop. H.

The political mudslide threatening to drown us all

by Steven Hill

You know you are in the height of the political season when you start receiving activists knocking on your door for political campaigns. But I was taken aback recently when the activist at my door was a vice president for Pacific Gas and Electric.

He, of course, wanted to talk about Proposition H, the San Francisco ballot measure known as the "Clean Energy Act" for which PG&E is the main opponent. Before I provide details on that conversation, let me step back for a moment and get something off my chest.

I don't know about you, but in watching the presidential campaigns wage their mudslinging hack-attacks against each other, it's clear to me that such "win at all costs" tactics not only degrade the electoral process, but those who participate in and are forced to witness it. From the McCain campaign and their supporters we have heard that Obama is a pal of terrorists, a supporter of infanticide, and a tax-and-spend liberal, with subtle allusions to his race.

From the Obama side we have heard that McCain is too old, too crotchety and too out of touch with Main Street. Both sides feel that their characterizations are fair and accurate -- or at least close enough to sling the mud.

But from the voter's perspective, it's hard to watch. Instead of finding out what's good about each candidate, and what stirring vision they have for these difficult times, we are finding out the worst about them. And then, following the election, the tainted winner is supposed to rally the country behind him, even though half the country now detests him.

Something is very wrong with this picture. Sure, we can rationalize it, say that this kind of mudslinging has long been part of American politics. But perhaps that's partly why the public is so cynical about politicians, and so anti-government. That attitude has contributed to Republicans’ relentless bashing of government, which became the basis for massive deregulation of all stripes, including the financial, banking and home mortgage industries. "Get government out of the way," was their rallying cry.

So this mudslinging and distorting of facts and information is not harmless or innocent. Those who practice it know exactly what they are doing.

Which brings me back to my curious door-knocker, the vice president for PG&E. I politely greeted him, and he launched into a tirade against Prop H. If passed, he said, this clean energy legislation would “take away my right to vote” (his exact words), raise electricity rates and force San Francisco to buy PG&E’s system (which oddly he implied was antiquated and not worth the money). And besides that, “it's a power grab by the Board of Supervisors.”

Whew. I had just been doing my own research on Proposition H and other ballot measures to figure out how I would vote. So I knew he was tearing a page out of the Karl Rove campaign handbook. Unlike with the presidential campaigns, however, which happens far away like we are spectators in the 42nd row, here was one of the "candidates" right at my doorstep. PG&E had been spending barrels full of money, over $5 million, to defeat this measure. This was my chance, I figured, to have a real dialogue.

"The proponents of this measure dispute your claims," I told him. "They say Proposition H will make the City study all possible ways to get to 100% clean energy, and then create a plan to make it happen. PG&E’s system can be part of this plan if you figure out how to deliver low-cost, clean energy. They also say that any bonds issued would have to be approved by the City Controller and the Public Utilities Commission, who are all appointed by the mayor. The Board of Supervisors can’t do anything by itself. What's your response to that?"

His response was the Sarah Palin “deer in the headlights” look. I don't think he had been knocking on too many doors of people who had done some homework. Isn't that what the mudslingers always rely upon?

I was ready to engage and discuss. But instead he said, "I have to go." And that's what he did.

In this political season, I urge all voters to do your research, and don't automatically believe the candidates or their proxies. With the country facing deep economic challenges, too much is at stake to take the word of the sharks at your door or on your TV screens. And please vote Yes on Proposition H.

By Tim Redmond

I find it hard to believe that D1 supervisor candidate Sue Lee is allowing her supporters to resort to this sort of pandering, but here it is: Fliers from the landlords are going out attacking her main opponent, Eric Mar, over "neighborhood schools."

That's a buzzword for re-segregation. I hate to be that harsh and blunt, but it's the truth. THe pro-neighborhood schools people may be well-meaning, but if they get their way, and school assigment is done primarily on the basis of where you live, the schools are going to face some ugly problems.

Eric Mar's been on the school board. He understands this better than most. Sue Lee ought to understand it, too.

I get the frustration that some parents in the Richmond feel: After all, there are quite a few good schools in that part of town, and their kids won't necessarily get into those schools. But there's a very good reason for that: If every kid went to a school in his or her neighborhood, we'd have a lot of segregated schools. That's not only terrible for the kids, it's against federal law.

Imagine: All the Asian and white families in the Richmond could keep their kids in schools that were almost entirely Asian and white -- and the kids in Bayview Hunters Point would go to schools that would be almost entirely African American. Where do you think the resources are going to go?

My kids go to McKinley Elementary in the Castro. Their classmates are a picture of San Francisco -- black, white, Asian, Latino, Pacific Islander; kids from single-parent families, kids from traditional families, kids from gay families ... not all of them can walk to school (we commute from Bernal Heights), but it's a wonderful educational situation. It's what public schools ought to be.

And it's tricky in a city like San Francisco, where we still, sadly, have some hihgly segregated neighborhoods. But it's worth the effort.

Frankly, I can't believe anyone in this liberal city really thinks the schools would be better off if we didn't have policies that seek to integrate the classrooms.

Besides, San Francisco parents have made it very clear, over and over, that they want school choices. They don't want to be forced into one neighborhood school (especially if they live in a poor neighborhood or one where the local public school isn't very good). Why can't kids from Bayview go to Rooftop and Clarendon?

I've been through the San Francisco school assignment process, and it isn't perfect. And every time someone complains to me about it, I ask them the same question: How would you make it better? It's a tough one; either you accept that some schools are going to be segregated and some kids denied the opportunity to attend the best schools in town and all kids denied the value of learning in a diverse environment -- or you accept that fact that not everyone can go to the neighborhood school.

Of course, you can insist that San Francisco provide excellent schools in every neighborhood, and we should -- but really, that's a copout. It isn't happening now, and it's not going to happen in the next five years, and unless the state spends a lot more on education, it's not going to happen at all. Look: My school has some fairly well-off parents with organizing skills and time on their hands. We can raise money for special programs, and we have an active PTA and lots of volunteers. We just got a new playground built.

In a school that serves almost entirely a low-income community, the parents don't have money to pour into special programs, they're working two jobs to pay the rent and don't have time to spend on the school -- and it's not fair. Clarendon parents raise $200,000 a year, because they can. So Clarendon gets programs that other schools don't. If the state doubled education spending, we'd be better off, but it won't, and we're not.

So you simply have to let parents choose to send their kids to schools out of their neighborhoods -- and you have to accept the fact that some kids from richer parts of town won't be able to attend their local school.

Sue Lee ought to know that. It's a disgrace that she is allowing this to happen in her name.

by Amanda Witherell

For all y’all who are roaming around the financial district tomorrow or need some diversion from the grind, swing by 77 Beale Street where clean energy activists are going to be installing three enormous wind turbines in front of PG&E’s headquarters.

Starting promptly at noon, about three-dozen people dressed for green jobs construction success will build three 12-foot wind turbines in front of the headquarters of a $12 billion utility company that sells 89 percent non-renewable energy. They’ll be calling on voters to approve the Clean Energy Act, Prop H on next Tuesday’s ballot, which, if passed, lays out a plan for 100 percent renewable energy for San Francisco that includes a green jobs component.

According to the press release, “Workers in green hard hats and overalls will build the wind generators and then begin to erect them – evoking the image of the WW II victory photo, Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, illustrating the historic opportunity Prop H offers our country for secure energy. The $9.9 million that PG&E has spent to oppose Prop H will be visually depicted by ten large burlap sacks of money.”

PG&E has been busy blistering the city with lies about what the measure will do -- even their vice president quaked when reasonably questioned about the measure.

Proponents call it “the most robust renewable energy policy ever seriously considered in the country, and yet is more modest than Al Gore's recent call to Americato achieve 100% renewable energy in a decade.”

They may get the big PG&E boot, so be sharp to catch the action. Wed., Oct. 29, noon to 12:30 at 77 Beale Street.

By Tim Redmond

And while I’m raving about the D1 race: The attempts to link Eric Mar to Chris Daly would be laughable if they weren’t so toxic.

This ad

despite its pretty lame graphics and production values, suggests that the three progressives in the swing districts are all Daly “puppets.”

A little reality here:

Chris Daly is not much of a power broker these days. You could argue that Aaron Peskin, board president and chair the Democratic Party, is pushing a slate of candidates, and that would be accurate. But Daly’s off in the wings. He’s termed out in two years, he knows he’s not that popular outside of his district and, while I like and respect Chris, none of these candidates (except possibly John Avalos, his former aide) would owe him anything.

Peskin, the DCCC and the Labor Council are the ones pushing Avalos, Mar and Chiu. But nobody wants to run ads in San Francisco saying that a candidate would be a puppet of the Democratic Party or the Labor Council. So they’ve picked a guy who polls badly in those districts.

I had this argument with Eric Jaye the other day. He kept telling me that there’s a “Peskin Machine” and that the DCCC is now Peskin and Daly’s personal political operation. Nobody who understands the San Francisco left would ever believe that.

The left is notoriously fractious. We fight with each other, we fight with our elected leaders – and most of us never do what we’re told unless we want to. Peskin has very little ability to enforce his will on the DCCC or the progressive movement; his constituents in both areas are just too independent.

That’s the problem with building a left machine. The left in San Francisco doesn’t follow orders.

We're in the process of pulling together a complete list of election night parties that we'll post here before Tuesday (feel free to send me yours at steve@sfbg.com). In the meantime, if you're not looking to party with local political luminaries and just want to find a public spot to drink and watch the returns roll in, our intern Katie Baker has found some spots for you.

By Katie Baker

Is it really almost over? I feel like I'm living in some kind of alternate reality, where we'll be analyzing poll results and fretting over swing states until the end of time. This hasn't only been a grueling election process for Obama and McCain -- whether it's the latest Sarah Palin wardrobe controversy or another 700 point DOW drop -- it seems like there's a new political crisis every time you refresh your RSS feed. We're in the home stretch, but the most stressful day is still to come – wouldn't you rather skip the nail-biting anticipation and just black out until November 5th ? It doesn't matter whether you're a Republican or a Democrat; there's no reason to be sober on Election Night. Here's a list of the best places to get wasted on November 4th, whether you end up celebrating or drowning your sorrows.

By Tim Redmond

I respect the Green Party. We've endorsed a lot of Greens, from Matt Gonzalez to Ross Mirkarimi to Medea Bejamin. We even endorsed Nader the first time around. In San Francisco, the Greens are doing the right thing -- they're running local candidates for local office and building a base that way before they get all agitated about statewide and national races.

And if the Green Party wants to take the position that it endorses only Greens and not Democrats in partisan races, that's fine, too.

This fall, though, the Greens endorsed Mark Leno for state Senate, saying that

We are pleased that Mark Leno has represented our Key Values well in the State Assembly, and therefore we endorse him for a promotion to the State Senate.

Again, that's fine -- we endorsed Leno, too, and he'll be a great state Senator and will do his best to promote the progressive values that the Greens and I share.

So why did the party decline to endorse Tom Ammiano for state Assembly?

I mean, with all due respect to Leno (and I mean that, sincerely), Ammiano has always been more a leftist than Leno, and closer to the Greens core values. Leno endorsed Gavin Newsom for mayor. He's supported more moderate Democrats in a lot of races. That's not to say he isn't a good legislator and shouldn't get the Green nod -- but if he's good enough for the Greens, then Ammiano sure ought to be.

The party's take on Tom?

We are disappointed that Ammiano has not followed Supervisor Mirkarimi's lead in pushing for a Green approach to improving law enforcement, particularly as Mission residents feel that City officials have overlooked growing concerns about crime and public safety. Ammiano has also taken an increasingly partisan tone in recent years, and may as a result be ineffective in passing progressive legislation in Sacramento.

Gimme a Green Fucking Break, folks. Ammiano has been right there with Mirkarimi on foot patrols, against the ICE crackdown on immigrants, for progressive approaches to crime -- certainly as much as Leno has. And "too partisan?" I've never, ever heard the Greens argue that one before.

No, I think this is simple: Leno endorsed Mark Sanchez, a Green, for supervisor. Ammiano endorsed a Sanchez rival, David Campos. Both are qualified candidates for supervisor; it would be entirely appropriate and reasonable for any progressive to support either of them. Penalizing Ammiano for not supporting Sanchez makes no political sense.

It's a silly thing to fight about because both Leno and Ammiano are going to win overwhelmingly anyway, and I have no right to tell the Greens what to do with their endorsements -- but this just looks awful. It looks petty and yes, partisan, and frankly, drives a wedge between the Greens and the left wing of the local Democratic Party, which is the last thing we need.

Grow up, Greens.

By Steven T. Jones

There's a great website, He's Going to Die, focused on the likelihood that John McCain would die while serving as president -- leaving us with the absolutely frightening prospect of President Palin. Yikes!
It features actuarial tables and links to lots of stories about the poor health of the man who seeks to be the oldest president in American history. And for a great musical take on Palin, from a couple of "real Americans," check this out:

Or this one, a pro-Obama diddy, from the same adorable couple:

by Amanda Witherell

Clean Energy Act supporters gathered in front of Pacific Gas & Electric corporate headquarters on Wed., Aug. 29, to mock the $10 million the utility company has spent opposing the legislation.

Dressed as construction workers, activists from the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, Green4All, and Green Guerrillas against Greenwashing, successfully erected three wind turbines in front of the PG&E building.

PG&E employees, penned behind a barricade and standing underneath a "Stop the Blank Check" banner watched the activists wrestle with enormous burlap bags of money, signifying the millions PG&E has dumped into the campaign opposing the measure that would move San Francisco more rapidly toward 100 percent renewable energy. PG&E alleges the measure is a blank check for supervisors because it allows them to issue revenue bonds to finance renewable power infrastructure. In fact, PG&E has written the entire check for the No on H campaign. As we pointed out in this week's issue, it's also shunting some of that money into supervisors' races to support Mayor Gavin Newsom's picks for the Board in districts 1, 3, and 11. Besides the fact that Newsom's campaign director, Eric Jaye, also runs PG&E's No on H committee, why might it be important for PG&E to have friends on the Board of Supervisors?

Well, if Prop H does pass, unlike the "blank check" lies PG&E is telling you about it, the SFPUC will conduct a study to explore the best way toward 100 percent renewables. If that includes a publicly-owned utility system (that would, by default, put PG&E out of business in San Francisco) the supervisors will still have to vote for it and vote for the bonds to do it. So, PG&E needs a board that's friendly.

By Steven T. Jones

San Francisco looks very different depending on where you stand. And that point is certainly being driven home this election season as voters hear two very different political narratives about The City.

One expresses great pride that San Francisco is setting an example for cities across the country in strongly opposing excessive militarism; mandating that workers receive a living wage and decent benefits; protecting tenants from eviction, harassment, and unaffordable rents; maintaining a social safety net; demanding developers provide community benefits; seeking clean energy sources; creating a tax structure that favors small local businesses over large corporations; standing up for the rights of the LGBT and immigrant communities; treating prostitution, drug use, and quality-of-life crimes as social problems rather than strictly criminal matters; and generally standing up for the broad public interest against the self-interest of the wealthy and privileged.

The other side mocks such namby-pamby ideals, arguing that only free markets unfettered by government regulation can create social and economic progress, and that anyone who doubts that is either stupid or unrealistic. They decry taxes (but expect taxpayer support for things like promoting tourism, sweeping streets of trash and the homeless, and subsidizing drivers and development) and consider government a bloated, malevolent entity that is far less trustworthy than corporations. Job creation is their top stated concern (but public sector jobs don’t count). They value unwavering patriotism, property rights, and robust, risk-taking capitalism and generally consider the poor and their sympathizers to be lazy, morally deficient complainers who deserve their lowly status. And they think progressives (actually, “ultra-liberal” is their preferred label) are destroying the city.

Which narrative rings true to you? Because where you stand will largely determine how you vote on Tuesday.

by Amanda Witherell

Our SFBG email inbox contained these photos this morning, sent by "Subcomandante Marcos" who said they were a "guerrilla street response to your excellent story in this week's issue."

For those who missed it, here's the story.

And more photos from Marcos. We love it when politics incite art!

By Tim Redmond

I'm glad to see that the San Francisco Chronicle is covering the downtown-money campaigns in District 1, 3 and 11. But the paper misses the real point. Not only is downtown spending a lot of money, it's creating fake political groups and promoting outright lies.

Take this fake "San Francisco Democratic Club" that Sue Lee's campaign consultants have fabricated in D1. A serious daily newspaper would be all over this story, but since the Chron has missed it, the San Francisco Democratic Party ought to force the issue. Chair Aaron Peskin has made good, strong comments, but why not pull together a press conference with all of the progressive members of the DCCC denoucing this fraud>

If we don't stop it here and now, it's going to keep happening.

UPDATE FRIDAY 10/31: Heather Knight at the Chron emailed me to say that the paper did cover the fake Democratic Club.I stand corrected. I still don't think lies and bullshit coming out of downtown have gotten enough Chron attention, though. This is ongoing, big-story stuff, not small items for the insider column.

Watching former Sup. and State Sen. Quentin Kopp take on a bumbling politician or incompetant bureacrat used to be one of the great works of political theater in California. Now that he's a retired judge, who has to show some sort of judicial temperament, you don't see it as often, but this smackdown of Republican state Sen. Roy Ashburn, in a hearing on high-speed rail, is one for the ages.

(Thanks to Ken Bruce for the tip, and for pointing out the wonderful YouTube title:

October 23, 2008, in the California State Senate: Quentin Kopp delivers an epic smackdown to galactic asshat Senator Roy Ashburn of Bakersfield

By Tim Redmond

We poured a lot of ink this week into the races in D1, D3 and D11,, since those are the swing districts.

And while most of what we wrote about focused on the front-running progressives in those races -- Eric Mar, David Chiu and John Avalos -- I don't want anyone to forget that these are ranked-choice voting contests.

That means there will be no runoffs. Randy Shaw thinks that might be a bad thing; he says Avalos would easily beat Safai in a December runoff, but given the anti-Avalos money, I'm not sure that's true.

At any rate, RCV is the process now -- and in every one of these swing races, the outcome will depend on the second- and third-place votes.

So if you live in D1, D3 or D11, remember: It's not enough just to put your top candidate first. It's also important NOT to put Sue Lee, Joe Alioto or Ahsha Safai on your list at all. The don't-vote-for vote is as important as the do-vote-for.

We've endorsed three candidates in D 11 and D 3. And I've urged that in D3, Chiu and Denise McCarthy work together to stop Alioto. As a matter of strategy, I think it makes sense to vote a full ballot in those districts. (I wish I could say the same in D1, but other than Eric Mar, there's really nobody worth voting for, so bullet vote in that one.)

OK, well not exactly, but he's in the game:

as is Ms. Feinstein:

But where's Arnie? In Ohio, stumping for McCain, sigh. Obama? Anyhoodle, the No on 8 folks just announced another matching funds drive, after malevolent Mormon spiders downed their site. This is your last chance to tell the Knights of Columbus to shove it up their Shriners!

UPDATE: And Bill "DOMA" Clinton!

PS -- And don't think us gays won't remember this -- there will be a TON of kiss-in fun if 8 passes, which it won't, but just saying. I love tonsil-tickling my bf in Catholic churches. Just like the '90s. Bitter? Maybe I am. But the $50 mill already spent on this foolishness could have funded how many food banks?

By Tim Remond

Interesting endorsements from the Chron.. I'm not surprised they gave Ross Mirkarimi the nod in D5; he has no real competition, and has done a great job in office from almost any perspective. But the nice words

he's shown an ability to find common ground on many issues - and has pushed the mayor for more police foot patrols, authored a crackdown on rogue pot clubs and led efforts to ban plastic bags.

fit in with the Chron's obvious bias in this election. Although Mirkarimi can push the political edge as well as anyone on the board (jeez, did the Chron even support the plastic-bag ban?), the daily paper lauds him for "an ability to find common ground."

That seems to be why the Chron, which is typically in lock step with downtown's agenda on local issues, chose Mark Sanchez, another Green, in D9. Sanchez, the paper says, has

proved to be a reasonable consensus builder as president of the Board of Education, and he's promised to make civility and compromise a priority as supervisor.

I think civility is the word he used with us, and it's a fine one (actually, I think all three of the D9 progressives can claim they'll bring civility to the board). But what the Chron wants is "compromise," which is a buzz word for getting along with, and not defying, the mayor.

It's not exactly what I think of when I think of Sanchez, who as a progressive on the school board fought bitterly with Arlene Ackerman when she was school superintendent. And in fact, I just called Sanchez and he told me that "I didn't use the word compromise." But he did point out that he has a good relationship with the mayor on education issues, and that glimmer of hope was apparently enough for the Chron.

In D 11, the endorsement of Ahsha Safai comes as no surprise, but it's a bit warped. The district, the Chron says,

needs an active leader who can work with other supervisors and City Hall figures.

(Who do you suppose those "other City Hall figures might be?)

The problem is that Safai has no real political experience and isn't going to get along at all with the progressives on the board. He won't even talk to us.

And in D3, Denise McCarthy gets the nod because

In facing a worsening city budget, she's willing to consider the tough options of budget cuts and layoffs. Though her policy position put her on the left of the spectrum, she is open to other viewpoints and groups in this fractious corner of the city.

You see a pattern here?

The Chron wants people who will avoid fights and all play nicely with Newsom. That's not what the legislative branch of government is supposed to do, particularly with a mayor who is so focused on running for governor that he isn't spending much time running the city.

I'm not sure Sanchez is really going to be as willing to compromise as Chron seem to think... but then, I'm not sure the Chron endorsement means that much in D9.

Guardian contributing videographer Lisa Pickoff-White, along with Marnette Federis, Gaelle Faure and Elizabeth Shemaria, has been following newlywed couple Jen and Iris around -- and has put together an amazing multimedia biographical journalism project about their same-sex wedding. (You can view the entire fabulous project here.) Jen and Iris came from Atlanta to tie the knot in good ol' SF, where it's legal -- at least for the next four days. And yes, this is another plea to help out the No on 8 campaign.

Watch below as they describe what a difference marriage makes in their lives ...