Those crazy San Franciscans

|
(63)

Joe Eskenazi has an SF Weekly piece that pretty much repeats what he's been saying for years: That San Francisco has too much government. This time he goes after all the boards, task forces and commissions -- and yeah, there are a lot of them, and yeah, some of them might not be necessary. I could also argue, though, that San Francisco is one of the most politically active cities in the world, and that having a whole lot of ways for residents to plug in to what's going on in their city isn't a bad thing at all.

Whatever. Here's the stuff that drives me nuts:

Last month, the volunteer body appointed by the Board of Supervisors advocated curtailing all pet sales in the city — including guppies, goldfish, and live rodents meant as snake food. Coming on the heels of a proposed criminalization of circumcision, San Francisco was, once again, reduced to an international punchline — many were left to wonder whether a ban on circumcising goldfish is our logical next step. Disbelieving articles poured in from around the globe. Perhaps none was as caustic as a piece in London's Telegraph titled "San Francisco goldfish ban exposes the pathology of America's bourgeois liberal nutjobs."

Ah, yes, Joe: Those crazy San Francisco liberals and their madcap ideas.

I'm not for banning pet sales (although I think banning puppy mills -- also a wacky idea that came out of the Animal Control and Welfare Commission -- is a fine thing). And I'm not for the circumcision ban (although, geez, it has lead to some interesting commentary that gives new meaning to the term "dick face.")

But every time I hear somebody talk about how San Franciscans should stop it with the nutty ideas, I think about a few I've followed over the years -- and how they've changed the way the entire nation thinks. Let me suggest a few for Eskanazi to look at:

"Those crazy San Franciscans don't want to build freeways." Yep -- in the late 1950s and early 1960s, while the rest of the country (and in particular, California) was rushing to build freeways as fast as possible, people in this city decided to say No. The freeway revolt and the movement that grew out of it changed the way Americans view cities. Wacky shit.

"Those crazy San Franciscans think homosexuals should have the same rights as married people." Yep, back in the 1970s San Franciscans started talking not only about nondiscrimination -- they actually said that gay people who live together should have health insurance benefits. Imagine that.

"Those crazy San Franciscans think that women should make the same amount of money as men." When then- Sup Nancy Walker introduced legislation in 1985 making "comparable worth" (the notion that men and women who do jobs that require comparable skills should be paid the same) it made headlines all over the country -- and was universally derided by the same set that now complain about "liberal nutjobs." It cost the city a lot of extra money (money that the Eskinazi crew of the day said was too much for a broke city) and led to all sorts of comments about social engineering. San Francisco was the first to push the issue, and it's now considered mainstream employment policy.

"Those crazy San Franciscans think we ought to give bicycles the same rights as cars." All the way back in the mid-1980s, bicycle advocates were talking about bike lanes, bike maps, bike racks and alternatives to the automobile. What were they drinking?

"Those crazy San Franciscans think that transgender people ought to get health benefits." This was as recent as 1993 -- and if you think circumcision and pets put SF in the right-wing-talk-show and late-night-comedy targets, imagine when the city decided "to use taxpayer dollars to fund sex-change operations," as the detractors insisted. Guess what? It turned out to be a major step forward for transgender rights.

"Those crazy San Franciscans think gay people should be allowed to get married." We did. We do. We were first. The rest of the country is following.

"Those crazy San Franciscans want to ban plastic bags." We did. For good reason. So did L.A. In another few years, it will be national policy.

"Those crazy San Franciscans want to ban happy meals." Guess what -- McDonald's got the message. 

I could list plenty more.

Yeah, we're ahead of the curve. Yeah, sometimes our shit seems crazy. But it's the crazy shit that makes the world change -- and over time, the world catches up to San Francisco. And if we weren't doing it, the world would get better just a little more slowly.

 

 

 

Comments

San Francisco adopts is somehow automatically later promulgated throughout the world. And, yes, you do select some examples where that is true. But what about all the things that SF does that nobody else, or hardly anyone else, copies?

No one city has a monopoly on good ideas and, in the aggregate, SF has imported far more ideas that it has ever exported.

To my mind, the real problem is not so much that SF has too much government, but rather that it is extraordinary and almost unprecedented that a City this small should have an autonomous government. Most other US cities the size of the Bay Area have a single, unitary government e.g. NYC, Chicago, LA and Houston.

The real anomaly in the Bay Area is the sheer number of self-governing Cities and Counties that exist in one urban area. And it is that that explains why so much of the politics in SF and Berkeley are derided the world over. The entities are, quite simply, too small and obscure to have national or global relevance. It's governent by Zip Code.

Posted by Walter on Jul. 27, 2011 @ 4:46 pm

>...it is extraordinary and almost unprecedented that a City this small should have an autonomous government.

Actually, most cities -- also towns and village and so forth -- have their own governments. It boggles my mind that you don't know this.

College Park, Maryland, population ~30,000 people, has:
A town council of 8, representing four distinct districts
A city manager, appointed by the council
A mayor, elected every two years

They have taxes, they have an autonomous budget.

This is absolutely dead typical of pretty much every city in the country. Of course, it is rarer that a city be its own county, and combine city and county government into one. However, there are plenty of cities of the size of San Francisco that have a large city government and an entirely separate county government.

Yes, San Francisco's government is bigger, per unit population. San Francisco also has a lot of unique attributes and challenges, and has an enormous amount of money flowing through it. And anyway, that's not what you were saying... you were saying that somehow it was normal only for cities the size of LA, NY, or the entire Bay Area to have a government. Not only is that just dead wrong, it's also so weird that I can't even imagine where you got that idea.

Extraordinary? Almost unprecedented? Jesus, five minutes with a map of Northern New Jersey and google and you could have avoided looking like a fool.

Posted by Fred Fnord on Jul. 27, 2011 @ 5:13 pm

"Most other US cities the size of the Bay Area have a single, unitary government e.g. NYC, Chicago, LA and Houston. "

Do they now?

Speaking about Los Ángeles:

West Hollywood has its own government.
West Hollywood, a city of Los Angeles County, California, was incorporated on November 29, 1984, with a population of 34,399 at the 2010 census.
http://www.weho.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Hollywood,_California

Beverly Hills has its own government.
Beverly Hills is a city in Los Angeles County, California, United States. With a population of 34,109 at the 2010 census, up from 33,784 as of the 2000 census. Incorporated in October 22, 1906.
http://www.beverlyhills.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beverly_Hills,_California

Beverly Hills and the neighboring city of West Hollywood are together entirely surrounded by the city of Los Ángeles.

Posted by Jorge Orwell 1984 on Jul. 27, 2011 @ 5:19 pm

Those cities you are talking about are mostly in the middle of nowhere.

What I'm talking about is chopping up a 5 million population City into 11 arbitary Counties and dozens of Cities when most people think of us as one large urban area.

If you take an urban area and split it into dozens of tiny fiefdoms, then you're going to get bizarre results. LA has 5 million people and one city government (excluding a couple of outliers). Why do we need 11 governments to do what LA, NY and Chicago do with one? That's the root of our perceived problem.

Posted by Walter on Jul. 27, 2011 @ 5:35 pm

FYI: Further research shows:

There are 89 cities in Los Ángeles County, California. Each city has a mayor and a city council.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_Los_Angeles_County,_Calif...

The City of Los Ángeles has a population of 3,792,621.

Posted by Jorge Orwell 1984 on Jul. 27, 2011 @ 6:45 pm

Bay Area has about 4 million people.

Posted by Walter on Jul. 28, 2011 @ 6:04 am

You started out this thread shouting out of your ass, and apparently you aim to finish it the same way.
The total population of L.A. County is 9,818,605.
90 cities.
This completely destroys your premise that: "The real anomaly in the Bay Area is the sheer number of self-governing Cities and Counties that exist in one urban area."
Which you would know if you glanced at the page linked above.
But yours is a willful ignorance.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 28, 2011 @ 12:23 pm

"LA has 5 million people"
Posted by Walter on Jul. 27, 2011 @ 5:35 pm
***
The City of Los Ángeles has a population of 3,792,621.
Posted by Jorge Orwell 1984 on Jul. 27, 2011 @ 6:45 pm
***
"Exactly, 4 million"
Posted by Walter on Jul. 28, 2011 @ 6:04 am

Posted by Guest on Jul. 28, 2011 @ 12:44 pm

with a population of 4 to 5 million, e.g. LA, Chicago and Houston, can be run with a single unitary government.

QED.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 28, 2011 @ 1:21 pm

Since you have proven yourself to be an uninformed, willfully ignorant blowhard.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 28, 2011 @ 4:26 pm

San Francisco has one of the highest ratios of constituent to local legislator of all of the combined cities and counties. Last time I did the math, it ran from like 240K in Philadelphia to 13K in Nashville. SF is about 75K.

New York has 51 council members but it also has borough/county government and there are community boards as subgovernment.

In San Francisco, power is centralized in the office of the Mayor to a greater extent than any other city/county.

It is not a matter of too much or too little government, rather the concentration and lack of distribution of power that is the problem in San Francisco.

-marc

Posted by marcos on Jul. 28, 2011 @ 9:50 am

Your comment shows the amazing level of ignorance prevailing in America today: citizens have little to no comprehension of some of the most basic concepts of civics.

When incorporation occurs (forming a city), that city becomes autonomous, but is still superseded by State and Federal government. California has over 500 such "autonomous" cities. Every single state has "autonomous" cities. This is the norm in America, not the exception. Do you propose one large bureaucratic centralized government to administer locales? I'm sure that would be cheap...

And when it comes to innovative ideas, credit is given to the city, state, or country that first executes it. San Francisco didn't "invent" LBGT rights, or even the idea of bike lanes, but it sure executed those ideas in a way that inspired other cities to follow suit.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 28, 2011 @ 1:06 pm

I see both sides. But San Francisco does have an awfully big government for a city/county of 800,000 and a geographic area of 47 square miles. It has 26,000 employees and a $6.7 billion budget. Government is supposed to be there to provide services to the residents, and it often seems San Francisco's government exists to employ people and provide them with high pay and benefits. Even the basic services our government is supposed to provide are poor -- I wish a new "crazy San Francisco idea" would be to repair the roads using money from a lower payroll.

Posted by The Commish on Jul. 27, 2011 @ 5:37 pm

Government to be a global think tank on ideological reform. I need them to fix the streets, the transit and the homeless problem.

While we're exporting civil rights for transgendered midgets, we can't even successfully prosecute drug dealers and murderers.

Walk before you run.

Posted by Walter on Jul. 27, 2011 @ 6:24 pm

If you were comfortable with yourself and your own sexuality, you would not be referring to 'transgendered midgets." That's a form of hate speech. Your prejudice and hate is duly noted....and I find it most offensive.

Posted by Jorge Orwell 1984 on Jul. 27, 2011 @ 6:57 pm

It's called sarcasm

Posted by Walter on Jul. 28, 2011 @ 6:05 am

Like if someone were to call you an ignorant, cock juggling thundercunt.
It's called sarcasm and everyone should just grow up.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 28, 2011 @ 12:14 pm

The comment was about government priorities.

Let's have less card-playing and more serious debate about how to govern.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 28, 2011 @ 1:24 pm

I was just trying to make the point that our city/county government is way, way, too big. Your "transgendered midget" comment--and any similar epithets--sound closed minded and are unnecessary for that economic discussion.

Posted by The Commish on Jul. 27, 2011 @ 7:27 pm

"trangendered midget" comment was to use wit to demonstrate how the City appears to give a higher priority to giving "rights" to tiny, obscure minorities over getting the basics of city governance right e.g. balancing the budget, fixing the streets, catching and convicting criminals etc.

I agree with you that the City/County government is too big. But it's also as extreme as it is because we have so many different administrations and jurisdictions within the Bay Area. If we had one single Bay Area City/ County then we'd have huge economies of scale, far fewer bureaucrats and much more moderate and reasonable politics.

And then maybe the world wouldn't laught at us quite so much.

Posted by Walter on Jul. 28, 2011 @ 7:18 am

The accusation of "racism" or "transphobia" is a red herring designed to shut down discussion on an issue where the commenter has no defense. It's used again and again and again. There's no defense to it because one can't disprove a negative. So just ignore it.

Posted by Lucretia "Secretia" Snapples on Jul. 28, 2011 @ 8:35 am

bullshit tangent about how the left is guilty of all the same things they complain about the right doing.
Just trot out the old false equivalency just like Hatelock and Arthur Gibbons, and me, Zero Logic Attack Bitch, all do.

Don't defend yourself when you can just say something along the lines of "I know you are, but what am I?"
That's the patented Lucreepia debate technique.
Try it- it's fun and takes no mental effort whatsoever, leaving you free to Troll On, brother!

Posted by Guest on Jul. 28, 2011 @ 12:39 pm

How do you know I am a "brother"? That shows patriarchal thinking, misogyny and sexism on your part which discredits everything you've said or will ever say on this site. If you were confident in yourself you wouldn't assume everyone is a man. Patriarchy is disgusting.

Posted by Lucretia "Secretia" Snapples on Jul. 28, 2011 @ 1:11 pm

How profoundly provincial to think that a city of substantially less than one million people somehow sets the pace for the rest of the world to eventually catch up with.
That statement is pretty much an endorsement of the kind of government we have here: too many people who think too highly of their opinions who take themselves way too seriously.
SF isn't Mayberry, but it's politics sure are.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 27, 2011 @ 6:34 pm

More like the guy in class in college who brags about "making you think" when they spout tired doctrine.

Tim Redmond in class

"you can't argue with me because my logic is seamless"

everyone else

"who gives a shit?"

Then a few years later the USSR crumbles and the "intellectuals" have to rewrite their views,

Posted by matlock on Jul. 27, 2011 @ 8:05 pm

Think that it's citizens are too stupid to make their own choices. SF progressives make more and more laws to perfect the people too stupid to agree with them, then brag about how enlightened they are in San Francisco.

San Francisco desegregates it's schools sometime in the 90's according to David Campos, sleazy school district lawyer, then gets sued by Asians to stop it. Very visionary.

San Francisco leads the way in city official taking orders from union's. The vision of representative government to SF's visionaries is to do the bidding of a different special interest.

San Francisco leads the way in losing lawsuits with the state over citizen passed propositions, such as the one concerning prop 209. SF's leaders are so untrustworthy when it comes to rewarding contracts that they sued the state so that they could keep themselves from being racially and sexually biased in awarding contracts.

SF leads the way in handing over 1/2 of a million dollars to the NRA after losing it's progressive backed gun ban. The visionary leadership went down fighting with our tax dollars.

etc...

Posted by matlock on Jul. 27, 2011 @ 7:50 pm

It really makes you look small and defensive every time you respond to a well-sourced piece in the SF Weekly by defending the indefensible.

There are too many commissions in SF and the government could be more responsive and yes - smaller. Stop defending things which don't deserve a defense and focus on defending the things that do.

Posted by Lucretia "Secretia" Snapples on Jul. 27, 2011 @ 8:43 pm

Lucretia: " focus on defending the things that do...deserve a defense "
Such as?

Posted by Guest on Jul. 27, 2011 @ 10:05 pm

Not one which spends massive man hours and millions of dollars on useless commissions. It's indefensible and the fact that Tim spends time refuting every investigative report on local government by the SF Weekly is reactionary. If commissions were so wonderful and producing such incredible results then why didn't the SFBG highlight that previously? SF Weekly says "jump," and the SFBG says "how high?"

There is no case to be made that commissions are an integral part of a caring, responsive and efficient local government - so why make it?

Next I expect Tim and Steven to author an "investigative report" on how much San Francisco's myriad of commissions do for the city. Like they did when they tried to prove that the atrocious waste by combined city/county government and the duplication of efforts somehow benefits our city. It doesn't.

Posted by Lucretia "Secretia" Snapples on Jul. 27, 2011 @ 10:28 pm

Which "useless commissions" do you suggest cutting?

Which "duplicate efforts" by San Francisco City and County are responsible for the "atrocious waste" that alarms you?

Posted by Guest on Jul. 28, 2011 @ 12:51 pm

I'm a private citizen who's entitled to my opinion - and who doesn't need to create a road map to trimming commissions to ending duplicative services in city/county government. Since no one knows for sure how many commissions there are to begin with or how many are meeting regularly, it would be difficult to present you with The Snaps' plan for merging commissions. However there don't need to be two commissions on the arts for example, or two authorities on local transportation.

If you believe San Francisco's 100+ commissions are doing a stellar job then why not tell us how?

Posted by Lucretia "Secretia" Snapples on Jul. 28, 2011 @ 1:07 pm

You don't know what you're talking about and you can't be bothered with facts or specifics.
Gets in the way of your ragegasms derived from your ignorant and unsupported attacks.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 28, 2011 @ 3:51 pm

Typical patriarchal dismissal of wimmin's concerns and thoughts. You can't deal with The Snaps - yet you're obsessed with her.

I am woman - I am the forefront of a movement.

Posted by Lucretia "Secretia" Snapples on Jul. 28, 2011 @ 5:55 pm

"Lucretia is a revolutionary sister." The dreams that some people have about themselves. Then reality kicks in, for some. Not for others. Many people see themselves quite the opposite of who they really are. Lucretia is a revolutionary sister? Not a chance. There's nothing "revolutionary" about Ms Right-Wing, Status Quo, Pro-Establishment, Bourgeois Elitist. Bottom line: She's abusing the name Snapples.

She says, "I am the forefront of a movement." Perhaps a bowel movement.

Posted by Jorge Orwell 1984 on Jul. 28, 2011 @ 6:23 pm

you mean, Lucretia is a reactionary, unsisterly troll who harasses other women (and men) who happen to be progressive

Posted by A woman's response on Jul. 28, 2011 @ 6:27 pm

You're the one doing the harassing - sister. It's clear you've absorbed the worst of the patriarchal culture which surrounds us. You've prolly been forced to write this by a man who abuses you, either physically, emotionally, sexually or a combination of all three. I see it again and again sister and help is out there for you.

Stay strong and know that there are people out there who care about you. Your sisters - like me.

Posted by Lucretia "Secretia" Snapples on Jul. 28, 2011 @ 6:57 pm

"A woman's response" told the truth about you. One really loses credibility (not that you had any to lose), when they resort to talking about what probably (or your word "prolly") is happening to someone. You're engaging in mere bull shit speculation and baseless assumptions. Not someone to be taken credibly.

Posted by Jorge Orwell 1984 on Jul. 28, 2011 @ 7:18 pm

More abuse-defending from the KING of speculation and baseless assumptions.

You're frightened by a revolutionary sister who refuses to be cowed by your sexism and adherence to patriarchal values. To you the appropriate position for a womyn is "prone." But this is one womyn you can't cow, abuse or sexually dominate.

Posted by Lucretia "Secretia" Snapples on Jul. 28, 2011 @ 7:27 pm

What are you on?

Put this article title in your search engine. It comes to mind when I think of you:

An unprecedented 1 in 66 Americans is a diagnosed psychotic

(I think the number is closer to 60 in 66).

Posted by Jorge Orwell 1984 on Jul. 28, 2011 @ 7:54 pm

Wonders never cease!

It's an old trick of the patriarchy to tell a womyn she's "crazy." You know every trick don't you? Bet you'll pulled a few on a few trusting wimmin in your time, haven't you? As I said before, this is one womyn you're not going to assault.

Posted by Lucretia "Secretia" Snapples on Jul. 28, 2011 @ 8:24 pm

A legend in it's own mind, lighting it's own right wing farts ablaze and praying for attention.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 28, 2011 @ 7:57 pm

If the number of your posts in response to my revolutionary musings are any indication.

Posted by Lucretia "Secretia" Snapples on Jul. 28, 2011 @ 8:27 pm

The same kind you get when you wander downtown, smeared with vomit and your tits hanging out.

Posted by Arthar Evuns on Jul. 28, 2011 @ 8:50 pm

Yes, it's clearly starving and desperate for attention. Best not to give it anymore. It's been a very revealing set of comments. It's nuttier and worse off mentally than I had thought which gives me a newer and even more negative perspective of it. Clearly on some head trip. It was an educational experience in that sense.

Posted by Jorge Orwell 1984 on Jul. 28, 2011 @ 9:00 pm

(which is quite good) the author identifies many useless commissions. And he makes the point that it's impossible to identify all of the useless commissions because even the City government doesn't keep track of them. Rather, the city pays secretaries nearly $200,000 a year to try and keep track of them, and they still can't do so.

Posted by The Commish on Jul. 28, 2011 @ 9:59 pm

Fact of the matter is that task forces and temporary commissions are sometimes set up to study an issue and then issue a report. The report will contain important findings that SF politicians and power-containing commissions should read and act on.

Often the findings of these groups are ignored because they are opposite to the goals of special interests and those special interests have pull with powerful politicians. Those powerful politicians then take actions to either ignore or block any action based on the findings of these groups.

These groups when acting in this faction are doing a great service to the people of SF. The fact that their findings go against powerful interests and thus ignored does not make them "ridiculous." That's why that SFW piece was lazy journalism, hoping to get its readers to go, "Gawd, SF govt is just waaay too big!"

A good example of what I'm talking about is the recent task force that found the stockton st subway tunnel was a giant waste of $ - hundreds of millions of dollars. The findings were then completely ignored, presumably because special interests very much want that tunnel even if it's a giant waste of $ for the people of SF (now and into the future).

Posted by Bill on Jul. 29, 2011 @ 11:57 am
Posted by matlock on Jul. 29, 2011 @ 1:21 pm

It was not a "temporary comission" that studied the Central Subway it was the GRAND JURY.

Get your facts right. And get your head out of your ass. No one here has refuted the proof SF weekly offered that we have many commissions that are duplicating efforts and wasting money.

I dare you or Tim Redmond to tell me why it is "progressive" to waste money hiring multiple bureaucrats , instead of spending that money on the actual programs that actually do things for people in SF like Healthy SF or Muni, or childcare.

If you honestly believe that spending money on middle management and 200,000 dollar secretaries is a good use of money, then it is you, not the Weekly that has a head up your ass.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 30, 2011 @ 10:21 am

Makes a big difference. They aren't selected from a regular jury pool. They volunteer.

So who would want to volunteer for that AND have all that time on their hands?

That explains both their findings and why their findings don't matter.

Posted by Harry on Jul. 30, 2011 @ 10:35 am

The point is the report of that grand jury was ignored just like a lot of the reports by task forces and similar bodies. Presumably those reports have, for the most part, good info with good research if the members did their job properly.

This waste-of-time SF Weekly is a waste of time because it doesn't, at the end of the day, tell the reader a whole lot. It's so broad that it doesn't discuss 1) salaries of commission members, 2) their interests (who they're connected to) and how that played out in decisions they made, 3) things they did that had an adverse or corrupt effect on how things were ultimately done by SF govt, etc.

He took 5 long web pages and yet could not come up with one example of corruption on the part of any of these commission members. I want my time back reading that thing!!!

And after implying the cost of "all these commissions" was hundreds of millions, he says the cost of them is a measly $6.5 million - a tiny drop in the bucket of SF's budget.

To give you some idea of how small that is relative to other things, the Rec and Park gave out one contract for $2 million for one playground (Kimbell playground at Steiner and Geary) to take out the grass and put in astroturf (they hid from the public that they were doing this when they did a public meeting notice of it - only saying the playground would be "improved.")

Real reporting would have looked at contracts like that - one that a commission is giving out so the reader could see if there's some corruption going on.

And to further show how small that is relative to other things, Rec and Park wants to give a contractor $12 million (and probably a lot more when all is said and done) to replace the grass in Golden Gate Park with astroturf (if they get away with it - tell your supe you don't want the 7 acre GG Park Beach Chalet soccer fields turned from grass to artificial turf "planted" in ground-up, petroleum-based tires that will have to be removed in 8 years - they will make the decision in the next few months about whether to approve it - let them all know you are against turning GG Park from grass to astroturf. It's especially important to tell Sup. Mar since he's cozied up to Fisher's City Fields Foundation in getting the going in the first place and the supes are apparently going to do what he decides so definitely tell him to keep GG Park grass!).

On that contract, Rec and Park, for some strange reason, decided that the late Don Fisher's City Fields Foundation (now run by his 3 sons) "brilliant" idea to change a large area (7 acres) of GG Park from grass to artificial turf planted in ground-up tires made sense. So why is Phil Ginsburg's Rec and Park Commission in liberal SF letting a rightwing Republican billionaire's foundation dictate what should be done with our beloved and historic GG Park???

To find out answers like that would have been worth my time.

As it was, the article he wrote was a WASTE of my time. And it was lazy because it didn't do any real useful reporting (like following the money - who's really making out) and it was an extremely long way of putting out a rightwing meme that "govt is bad and wasteful" yet never considering that govt bodies that study issues can save taxpayers tons of money if their findings are followed (such as the stockton subway grand jury report that found spending $300 million on that project is really dumb and a giant waste of money).

Posted by Bill on Jul. 30, 2011 @ 4:44 pm