Endorsement interviews: Scott Wiener

|
(70)

Scott Weiner has a long record in District 8. He helped build the LGBT Center, was the president of the Eureka Valley Improvement Association, co-founded Castro Community On Patrol, was co-chair of the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Club and chaired the San Francisco Democratic Party between 2006 and 2008.

He’s very much the political moderate; he told us he doesn’t want to see the city go into the retail electricity business with a full public-power system. He supports the sit-lie law (and opposes the ballot measure calling for community policing and foot patrols). He says he takes a “case by case” approach to taxes, and support the vehicle license fee, but doesn’t support the hotel tax increase. He’s got the support of the Small Property Owners, perhaps the most anti-tenant group in the city. He doesn't think the city should go any further to stop Ellis Act evictions.

In fact, overall, Wiener thinks the city ought to address its financial problems with cuts and service reductions. “We have to live within our means .... Until the state gets its house in order, we can’t tax our way out of it,” he said.
You can listen to our interview here:


 

Wiener by endorsements2010

Comments

Scott Wiener's common-sense approach to neighborhood safety and city finances will appeal to many voters. His progressive opponents and their surrogates will make a big mistake if they launch nasty personal assaults on him as a response to his ideas on these subjects.

The progressives used the strategy of ad hominem nastiness on behalf of Eileen Hansen and Alix Rosenthal in past races for supe in district eight. That strategy backfired.

A better strategy than engaging in ad hominem nastiness is to offer positive policy alternatives. What, practically speaking, will the progressives do to promote neighborhood safety? How will they improve the city's business climate?

Let's hope they come up with with some good ideas. Everybody will benefit, and they will come out of the race smelling better than in previous elections.

Posted by Arthur Evans on Sep. 17, 2010 @ 5:52 pm

Arthur, I'm glad that you support Scott. Even if I don't agree with his politics, I know that he's a decent guy who has done a lot for the district. But seriously, it sounds like you're crying wolf. Can you actually point out instances of Rafael or his close supporters making personal attacks? (and I'm talking about real supporters with connections to the campaign, not crackpots on the internet, every political campaign has those. See some of the nasty things that have been said about Rafael on this website for examples).

From what I've seen, this race has been remarkably civil with Rafael, Rebecca, and Scott all running positive campaigns. They are all addressing substantive issues and presenting their visions about how to serve the district. I do agree that I hope it stays that way.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 18, 2010 @ 4:43 pm

"The progressives used the strategy of ad hominem nastiness on behalf of Eileen Hansen and Alix Rosenthal in past races for supe in district eight. "

Citation?

Posted by Guest on Sep. 20, 2010 @ 11:27 am

“We have to live within our means .... Until the state gets its house in order, we can’t tax our way out of it,” he said. More tired old clichés. "Get the house in order. Live within our means." Can't these politicians come up with anything original to say? "He's very much the political moderate." What does that mean? How is a political moderate defined? (Jim Hightower defined moderate by saying There's Nothing in the Middle of the Road but Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos). There is nothing moderate about draconian sit-lie. This guy, Steve Wiener, is bad news. How many of the people supporting him actually know what he stands for? I think he has fooled a lot of people with his casual demeanor, his smile, his friendliness, and his door-to-door approach with handwritten notes. That's enough for many people.

Posted by Guest Bárbara Chelsai on Sep. 17, 2010 @ 5:59 pm

i agree with barbara chelsai. i've been doing intensive research on each and every item, and each and every person, including judges, on the ballot, and once he gets past what he's done for LGBT, i don't see any real substance. it's great that he supports the castro, but what about the rest of the district? every policy maker in the country says the same thing. cut the fat out of the budget. but once they get into office, they realize it can't be done. we can't cut anymore required services without losing more jobs, and the quality of life goes down. this is an expensive city. my question is: how can we raise money without new taxes, or cutting services, or raising prices on city run businesses, such as muni? i have no answers - if i did, i'd be the first to run to city hall and share.

Posted by Guestteresa on Oct. 16, 2010 @ 7:49 pm

at least he has the balls to talk to you, say what he thinks, and not pander.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 17, 2010 @ 6:00 pm

Weiner has balls you say? That's a first...

Posted by Guestjacey on Sep. 17, 2010 @ 6:19 pm

Below is a paragraph from an article by the Guardian's Steven T. Jones written on 04.26.10 where Wiener was mentioned.

>>>This is the Democratic Party that Nevius and his allies like Sup. Michela Alioto-Pier and supervisorial candidate Scott Wiener (a conservative attorney who would be the best friend that the suburban cowboy cops could ever have on the board) want to promote, and it looks more like the Republican Party than a political party with San Francisco values.<<<

Posted by Guest Bárbara Chelsai on Sep. 17, 2010 @ 6:20 pm

In a post above, Bárbara Chelsai, you make this comment:

“This guy, Steve Wiener, is bad news.”

Ahem, his name is Scott Wiener, not Steve Wiener.

Before you launch more attacks, perhaps you should get more facts.

Or is that asking for too much?

Posted by Arthur Evans on Sep. 17, 2010 @ 7:39 pm

Nice work, Mr. Civility.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 18, 2010 @ 5:36 pm

yes, it is asking too much. an attack on barbara's mistake of scott's name does not mean she doesn't know any facts about the man and his beliefs.
do you have anything to say about the man besides what his name is? what is your opinion of his past performance in his former career(s). does he have substance or new ideas that we don't know about? what can you add to the conversation? we are listening.

Posted by Guestteresa on Oct. 16, 2010 @ 7:58 pm

A lot of rumors out there that Wiener is polling way ahead. BAR hinted at that too. Better make your peace.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 17, 2010 @ 7:54 pm

Better make your peace? Just because Scott Wiener may be pulling ahead, that doesn't mean anything. If one remembers, the voters supposedly put in George Bush twice. They keep putting in Feinstein and Pelosi. Did those who did not support Bush "make their peace?" What's "make their peace" supposed to mean? It sounds like raw gunk to me. I fought against George Bush both terms. If I do not support a candidate before the election, I don't support them after the election either. One reason that Scott Wiener may be pulling ahead is that he's been campaigning heavily for a long time. He does know how to run a campaign. The other candidates by comparison are a bit on the lame side. Their inner-tube is a bit deflated. I don't have any doubts that Wiener will win and that sit-lie will pass. I have no confidence in the voters (those who do vote) to actually do any homework and study the issues and the candidates. Most will likely vote from seeing orange signs and the name Scott Wiener in their face for months. That alone will be all it will take. Voting is really, unfortunately for most people, about name recognition. I would guess that perhaps most of the voters don't even know who the other candidates are or anything about them because those candidates have waited much too long to start pumping up their inner-tubes and the pressure is still way too low.

Posted by Guest Bárbara Chelsai on Sep. 17, 2010 @ 9:18 pm

SF voters did not elect Bush twice or even once

Posted by Guest on Sep. 21, 2010 @ 9:18 pm

Supervisorial races are notoriously hard to poll, and those polls are influenced by the people paying for them.

The polls showed Chris Daly losing to Rob Black by some 10 points.

The polls showed Jake McGoldrick was finished.

The polls the week before the election in 2008 showed Eric Mar down 17 points to Sue Lee. Even the progressives believed it.

We all know had that worked out, right?

The lesson to be learned -just do the work, get the feets on the streets, crank out those phone calls, and you'll beat the Chamber of Commerce polls again.

Posted by Greg on Sep. 17, 2010 @ 9:48 pm

I wrote posts today about Steve Moss and re-reading my post up above I see that I called Wiener by the first name of Steve. Both Steve Moss and Scott Wiener are bad news no matter what one calls them.

Scott Wiener is for continued gentrification which is really about kicking the poor people out to make more room for the wealthy, which is happening in other places including West Hollywood and Harlem. Gentrification makes special neighborhoods look like every place else as far as cities go and when that becomes the case, why would anyone (especially tourists from around the country) want to come to the Castro when it will look like the (corporate) place they just left? Wiener supported corporate chain store Trader Joe's coming to the Castro (I opposed it) and what a mess that turned out to be.

Posted by Guest Bárbara Chelsai on Sep. 17, 2010 @ 9:01 pm

I'm glad to see that Bárbara Chelsai has finally gotten Scott Wiener's name right. The next step is for her to actually inform herself on what he stands for.

Good luck with that one!

Hint - click here:

http://www.scott2010.com/

Posted by Arthur Evans on Sep. 17, 2010 @ 9:36 pm

the better places to look are articles, biographies, past resumes, current job performance. looking at his own site only tells you what he wants people to think about what he stands for. i don't know barbara, and i don't agree with all that she has said, but i have to admire her for looking past the glossy adverts and working to get knowledge they may not want put out there.

Posted by Guestteresa on Oct. 16, 2010 @ 8:08 pm

Perhaps it's better to go to another thread. This one seems to be septic. It seems to be infected with the nastiness of gunk that one steps in accidentally and spreads all over the place. Unfortunately, some people have no social skills and don't know how to be civil. They only know how to patronize and to stink up the place and make it a rank and most unattractive place to be.

Posted by Guest Bárbara Chelsai on Sep. 17, 2010 @ 9:56 pm

Some of the most vocal supporters of Rafael Mandelman can't discuss issues in an informed, mature way. They get the most basic of facts wrong, launch personal attacks out of frustration, and stomp off in a huff when challenged on logic and evidence. They seem to have Chris Daly as their model.

Mandelman himself, to his credit, is intelligent, informed, and capable of competent debate. But if his supporters continue to act in the immature way that characterized the supporters of Eileen Hansen and Alix Rosenthal in the past, they will sink his campaign.

The voters want to see better.

Posted by Arthur Evans on Sep. 18, 2010 @ 9:18 am

Or is it just more hot gas?

Posted by Guest on Sep. 18, 2010 @ 5:35 pm

Amazing how some nameless numbskull "Guest" has the hubris to comment on someone's balls. I actually suspect that Arthur may be the only one here with literal or figurative cojones, and that Barbara may also be hiding something. Brava Ruth.
RAFI .........YES
PROZAC....NO
WIENERS...R 4 ROASTING
Back to FCJ, a place where everyone knows your name; kinda like Daly's Dive, or Inferno, or whatever, where there are no holds barred.

Posted by Guest Patrick Monk on Sep. 18, 2010 @ 12:42 pm

In an earlier post I wrote...>>>The other candidates by comparison are a bit on the lame side. Their inner-tube is a bit deflated.<<<

This morning while walking in the Castro, I observed the Mandelman campaign wearing blue Mandelman shirts and carrying blue Mandelman signs. Sort of corporate looking. Mandelman had about 6-7 people out in the Castro. On the corner of 18th & Castro, the Prozan campaign was stationed there. They had heat under it. They had the fire fully on. Prozan had strategically placed Drag Queens (yes!) in various areas with lots of interaction with the people in the Castro. Whereas Mandelman's group stayed as a group and I could not read their signs well because of the way they were holding them. There definitely was not heat under the Mandelman group, which is one of the many reasons I'm not supporting Mandelman because he does not seem to know how to run a campaign effectively. He is rather lame. The corporate Wiener campaign was no where to be found. GOOD! I've seen enough of him already. I'll provide more updates as I see them.

Posted by Guest Bárbara Chelsai on Sep. 18, 2010 @ 1:06 pm

Not how someone runs a campaign?

Posted by Greg on Sep. 18, 2010 @ 10:12 pm

I'd rather vote for someone who employs drag queens than some political science college freshman who wants points with the party.

Posted by Guest on Oct. 05, 2010 @ 9:34 pm

Reading some of your other comments, Barbara, I notice that you're opposed to Sit/Lie, and you nailed the "moderate" code language pretty accurately. So then I'm really surprised that you're not supporting Mandleman. If there's another progressive campaign that's better organized, it's news to me. If you're supporting Prozan, I'd encourage you to at least vote Mandleman second, though honestly I have a hard time seeing why you'd support her given some of your other comments. Better yet, if Mandleman is running such a weak campaign in your opinion, why not volunteer, and give them a couple of tips on how to do visibility? A campaign is only run as well as the people who volunteer for it.

Posted by Greg on Sep. 18, 2010 @ 10:30 pm

Greg: I don't agree. The person running the campaign is the "boss" and presumably that is the candidate (whether it be Mandelman, Prozan, Wiener and that other guy). The candidate is the person you're voting in, not the volunteers. In this campaign, the candidate who has run an excellent campaign is Wiener whom I have no intention of voting for since I can't stand much of what he stands for. I don't care what the volunteers do. They are presumably taking their orders from the candidate (Mandelman, in this case). If Mandelman does his job as supervisor (should he be elected) the way he has run his campaign, then D8 may be in trouble. There are no progressives in this race that I would vote for and I never vote for "best of the worst" because....well, you see where that has gotten us on the national level. As far as your suggestion that I volunteer, I previously wrote that I'm currently working 2 jobs and don't have time to volunteer for anyone's campaign. What I've suggested as what needs work with campaigns seems like basic sense to me. Wiener seems to do it just fine. He understands it. Why can't Mandelman? These are all bright people and I would think they would think of these things on their own, and you really think they are going to pay attention to someone who just walks in off the street to volunteer? I imagine that anyone who does volunteer for a campaign is told what to do. New people are usually not given much credit or allowed much, if any input, from my experience.

Posted by Guest Bárbara Chelsai on Sep. 18, 2010 @ 11:23 pm

Adding to my earlier post...

Some people would say that the campaign manager is responsible for how the campaign is run. Who chooses the campaign manager? The candidate. So we're back to the candidate again and his or her judgment and choice of people to be a part of the campaign. Do you want a strong campaign or a weak one? The choice of people (campaign manager, treasurer and fundraiser) the candidate chooses is critical in this regard. The candidate must choose his or her campaign manager wisely if the candidate has any hope of winning. Scott Wiener appears to have chosen his staff wisely based on the type of campaign he has run. In other words, the entire campaign reflects on the candidate whether the candidate is running the campaign or has a campaign manager. As for the issues, it's difficult to get your issues out there and talked about if one's campaign is weak.

Posted by Guest Bárbara Chelsai on Sep. 19, 2010 @ 1:53 am

I'm not sure I agree that Rafael's campaign is all that bad, though I do agree he's running against some tough opponents. But let's stipulate that it is. Can you entertain the possibility that someone can be a bad campaigner but a good supervisor?

Rafael is a UC Berkeley-trained public interest attorney. He understands land use and tenant issues, and has done an excellent job on the city commissions he's served on. If he can do that, then why couldn't he be a supervisor? I think the actual job of supervisor is probably more related to the actual job that he's doing now, than to the job of running a campaign.

Regardless of whether you stay home or not, one of these people -Scott Weiner, Rebecca Prozan, or Rafael Mandleman, will be the next supervisor. Which one of them it is, matters in terms of the legislation you want coming out of that body.

You know, last cycle I volunteered for Sup. Eric Mar's campaign. It wasn't a particularly strong campaign -not compared to the campaigns that Jake McGoldrick previously ran in the same district. They were weak on field and weak on fundraising, and I could see that in September. I flat out told them that they needed to get their ass in gear, and I gave them a couple of suggestions (as well as time and money). Fortuntely, they did -just enough to win by 300 votes. And you know what, thank god they did. Had they not, Bevan Dufty would probably be board president today, and it would be a whole different ballgame.

Think about that.

Posted by Greg on Sep. 19, 2010 @ 8:19 am

You complain about invasive government with sit-lie, but are proud to help elect someone who want to help you run your life in other areas?

Eric Mar says getting rid of toys with crappy fast food meals is giving people more choices.

Eric Mar is also pushing the cigarette/pharmacy thing further.

Your boy there is hardly about any sort of freedom.

Posted by matlock on Sep. 19, 2010 @ 9:24 pm

I haven't thought too deeply about the implications of limiting a corporation's right to peddle poison and trinkets. On the one hand, I guess you could couch it as a free speech issue... of sorts. On the other hand, there should be limits on corporate "freedom" that don't necessarily apply to people. I don't really care that much where corporations can peddle their junk -not sure if I agree with these particular limits or not, but either way it's not a big deal to me.

What is a big deal is civil liberties for people. The right of people to be secure from being profiled, searched, harrassed, and arrested at the whim of the police, is certainly more important than the question of whether or not corporations have sufficient venues to peddle their garbage.

Posted by Greg on Sep. 19, 2010 @ 10:33 pm

It would never occur to me that telling individuals how to live is sticking it to corporations. That is an interesting concept. Your argument is here "We progressives get to decide your personal politics for you" Does that sum up you views on how others should be living?

Since there are all sorts of things that I can have chosen by the "progressives" for me that stick it to corporations, I should just give up living my own life and let you all do it for me.

You and the gang should put all these fabulous ideas in writing someplace, along with your interesting rationals. Let me help you start, tell me what you think of these would you?

People should walk barefoot everywhere because; bikes, buses, cars, boats, shoes, etc... are made by corporations. Corporations cause pollution.

No one should be allowed to live or work in any structure that used equipment or materials supplied by a corporation. It takes fuel to build these things and that creates pollution.

People should never be allowed to take any medication or eat any food supplied by a corporation. Corporations make food that is bad for you, sometimes with toys, and it takes fantastic amounts of energy which creates pollution.

No one should be allowed to use electricity because it was supplied by a corporation. Creating electricity causes pollution and may kill fish. Also electricity is used to cook food that a corporation made that may be unhealthy

No one should be allowed to use a computer because it probably has things in it built by a corporation an it uses electricity.

We citizens should never be allowed any choices that may be bad for us and hurts mother Gia.

No matter how strained the logic by the progressives and the benefits to us as individuals, or our freedom of choice that may be involved, the progressive should be making all of our choices for us. Because after all everyone but the progressive is too stupid to think for themselves.

Posted by matlock on Sep. 20, 2010 @ 6:02 am

Thanks for your thoughtful post above, Greg.

I agree with you that Rafael Mandelman is highly qualified to hold public office. He has a good education, is informed about the issues, appreciates evidence and logic, and is personable. It's always a pleasure to have an intelligent and affable conversation with him.

However, he's weak on neighborhood safety. The Castro, in particular, is suffering both deterioration and danger. The deterioration comes from the increasing number of nomadic addicts and alcoholics who live on the streets.

They harass passers-by, urinate and defecate on the sidewalks, deal drugs, engage in prostitution, set fires, throw litter everywhere, get in fights with each other, and make noise around the clock.

The danger factor that I mentioned comes from rogue individuals, mostly young males, who come to the Castro from other neighborhoods from time to time, assaulting, robbing and raping residents. They are often viciously homophobic. Their numbers have increased in recent years.

The migratory addicts and the rogue homophobes play off each other, creating a cycle of decline for the neighborhood.

What's Mandelman's plan to deal with this problem? I haven't seen any mention of it in his campaign literature. It won't do for him to stick his head in the sand and pretend the problem is not there. Denial is not acceptable for someone who wants to be a supe.

Finally, Mandelman has a problem because of the Milk Clubbers. If he is elected supe, their clout at City Hall and in the Castro will increase.

This would not be a happy development. The Milk Clubbers include among their numbers today some of the most vicious and dishonest schemers in SF politics.

They are a far cry from the club as it was in the 70s (when I was a member). They remind me of unscrupulous Pharisees in the religious right. I am truly appalled by the ugly behavior that they take for granted as a norm among themselves.

So that's the Mandelman paradox - he's a smart, affable guy who's in denial about neighborhood safety, and backed by a clique of scheming Pharisees.

He would do well to address neighborhood safety and take steps to dissociate himself from the Milk Clubbers.

Neither is likely to happen.

Posted by Arthur Evans on Sep. 19, 2010 @ 10:10 am

Take a good look at the post above. I'm glad this is written because there are others like him, who won't tell you so. There are those who believe that "civility" can be imposed at the business end of a police nightstick (as Scott Weiner does). There are those who believe that being strong on civil rights means being "weak" on public safety.

When voters like YOU stay home, you leave it to voters like Arthur Evans to decide for you what kind of representation you have.

Posted by Greg on Sep. 19, 2010 @ 10:57 am

Greg,

I would hope that most people can tell deranged nuts when they post on here and I don't give them any credibility at all. That nut doesn't even live in D8 anyway so he can't vote for the candidate he campaigning for online. That nut lives in the Haight and very few people pay any attention to him.

As far as who wins these elections these days, it doesn't really matter that much. The corporations run things. Those who call themselves a progressive often cave to the corporatists or decide to join the Democratic Religion (which is a wing of the Republican Religion), which is not a progressive party at all. Mandelman first turned me off when he ran from being called a progressive in an interview.with the Examiner. Mandelman told the interviewer he (Mandelman) is a "existential.moderate." Why did he run from being called a progressive? Why is he uncomfortable with himself and who he is? That's not standing for who and what you are. I don't like people like that and I'm not a sheep and I don't vote for "best of the worst" (that's just a continuous downhill run), nor do I follow the herd and I'm not influenced by fear cards. I'm still waiting for a real, true progressive to run and a person who very proudly says to anyone who asks, "I'm a progressive, and proud of it and I stand behind it...and I'm comfortable with myself."

Posted by Guest Bárbara Chelsai on Sep. 19, 2010 @ 12:34 pm

Greg,

Adding to my earlier post...

You wrote about staying home at least twice. I always "stay home." I vote from home by absentee as do many other people. I'm just not voting for supervisor, or governor or Lt governor, etc. I'll vote against sit-lie. So I won't be "staying home" in the traditional sense that you're using the term. I vote for what I want to vote for (or against) and leave the rest.

Posted by Guest Bárbara Chelsai on Sep. 19, 2010 @ 1:38 pm

I'm a registered Democrat, but I'm no yellow dog partisan. If the Democrat is unacceptable, I vote for third party candidates. The only reason I continue to register Democratic is that the San Francisco Democratic Party still has room for people like me, and I don't want to leave its formidable machinery to use at the disposal of the corporatocracy. It's an entirely different animal than the national party. In fact, more than having room for progressives, the San Francisco Democratic Party *IS* generally progressive.

That doesn't mean that corporations don't have tremendous power. They do, even here. But progressives do their best to limit the damage, and not without success at some level.

As for labels, one can make the argument that progressives are the real moderates. I don't see anything "moderate" about tearing apart any last shreds of a safety net we have, privatizing everything in sight, using the police to rough up poor and homeless people, and generally giving corporations everything they want with no accountability. On the other hand, one could argue that a real moderate would stand for rent control, basic civil liberties, things like sick leave and minimum wage, not getting into wars of aggression, human rights for LGBT people, fair taxes on the rich, etc. None of these things are truly radical... but they are meaningful to people's lives. The only reason we call these things "progressive" is because this country is shifted too far right.

So that's a longwinded way of saying that labels mean less to me than what a person stands for on the issues. And I know Rafael well enough to know that whatever he calls himself, he is absolutely solid on both the social and economic issues.

Posted by Greg on Sep. 19, 2010 @ 2:02 pm

There are still some people, like Greg above, who believe it's ideologically incorrect for residents to want their neighborhoods to be safe, clean, and peaceful.

Rafael Mandelman, unfortunately, appears to be in this number.

On the other hand, there are those who maintain that neighborhood safety is a progressive issue.

Click here:

http://www.ebar.com/openforum/opforum.php?sec=guest_op

Posted by Arthur Evans on Sep. 19, 2010 @ 12:12 pm

Thank you, Bárbara Chelsai, for bravely laying out your political beliefs, undaunted by any considerations of practicality and moderation.

Based on your comments in this and other threads, I've come to the conclusion that there is candidate in district eight who perfectly captures your disdain for practicality and moderation. He's even more progressive than Rafael Mandelman!

His name is Starchild.

Check him out. You and he are a perfect match. Maybe the two of you can campaign together? Wouldn't that be a treat!

Posted by Arthur Evans on Sep. 19, 2010 @ 1:43 pm

Starchild is a libertarian. On economic issues, he's probably very close to Weiner.

Posted by Greg on Sep. 19, 2010 @ 2:05 pm

Greg,

Isn't it interesting that someone who started the Faery Circle in 1975 (which helped generate what is now known as "the Radical Faeries") is trying to belittle someone by the name of Starchild?...It sounds like someone has very much divorced himself from part of his past and done a flip flop like many politicians.

Posted by Guest Bárbara Chelsai on Sep. 19, 2010 @ 2:33 pm

The so called progressives and liberals try and legislate every aspect of our lives for our own good. Then complain about "conservatives" doing same when it infringes on the party.

Posted by matlock on Sep. 19, 2010 @ 9:35 pm

Says Greg in a post above:

"Starchild is a libertarian. On economic issues, he's probably very close to Weiner."

Ahem, Starchild is over the edge, hostile to moderation and practicality. Which definitely puts him in the same league as Bárbara Chelsai.

In referring to "Weiner," you meant to say "Wiener," right?

For Wiener's economic policies, click here:

http://www.scott2010.com/issues-sustainable-economic-growth

Posted by Arthur Evans on Sep. 19, 2010 @ 2:44 pm

A note to Bárbara Chelsai -

Starchild's name is the least of his problems. Have you ever checked out his background?

Nevertheless, I can certainly understand why you would want to put him forward as a model progressive. After all, if we had Chris Daly in that role, then why not Starchild?

Posted by Arthur Evans on Sep. 19, 2010 @ 2:57 pm

who is starchild? is that bill hemenger? if not, why isn't hemenger being put into this conversation? i haven't researched him yet, so if anyone knows where i can look for facts, other than what he has put out there himself, please let me know. thanks.

Posted by Guestteresa on Oct. 16, 2010 @ 8:24 pm

Some Milk Clubbers are Presidents of Neighborhood Associations and take crime and safety issues very seriously. (it's not nice to stereotype, Arthur)

But taking crime and safety seriously doesn't mean becoming a zealot, and it sure doesn't mean demeanizing the poor and the homeless.

You had a good heart when I met you 35 years ago. I'm sorry life has been so cruel to you to cause you to lose your way.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 19, 2010 @ 3:00 pm

Guest,

Very well put. I was wondering who is this person?... (that you responded to). This morning I put his name in my search engine and found a page about his background. The person who posts on here acts like he is not at all the same person whose bio page I found. They are like 2 completely different people but it's the same person. I don't understand the drastic change. It's as if something happened to them. Life being so cruel to them could explain it. The person's writing style is very demeaning which is why I began to avoid even reading most of the person's posts. You summed it up well.

Posted by Guest Bárbara Chelsai on Sep. 19, 2010 @ 3:34 pm

You know - using a different username is really quite transparent Sam.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Sep. 19, 2010 @ 5:31 pm

sam?

who is sam?

is that an inside joke?

if you're worried about different usernames you should check yourself. you use multiple screen names. you go by lucretia trollop and lately as lucretia snapples, not that anyone reads what you write but i've noticed the different screen names and your hypocrisy. you're really quite transparent.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 19, 2010 @ 7:17 pm

Not very clever.

Posted by matlock on Sep. 19, 2010 @ 9:05 pm