Does Ed Lee think moms can't be supes?

|
(40)
Ed Lee/SF Examiner file photo

As I expected, Mayor Lee appointed a new supervisor before the Democratic County Central Committee had a chance to weigh in on a resolution suggesting he appoint a mother. The resolution is moot now; Lee named Katy Tang, an aide to outgoing Sup. Carmen Chu, and my most accounts Tang is a smart young woman with plenty of experience in the district who will likely carry on the more conservative politics of her former boss. She will have to face the voters in November, but in a district where more than half the voters are Asian -- and where Chu was popular, and Tang has been out and about on the streets for years -- she's going to be in a strong position to win.

So that should be over, and Rosenthal's suggestion consigned to the Oh Well, That Was A Nice Idea file, and it would be ... except that the mayor made a kinda stupid comment on KTVU. When asked about Rosenthal's suggestion, he said there were lots of qualifications for office, one of them being "somone who's going to be spending a lot of their personal time on the weekends."

Now: I'm sure the mayor didn't really mean to say that a woman with kids can't hold a demanding public office, or that women with kids can't spend time working on the weekends. "I know a dozen female law partners who would scoff at the idea that mothers don't work at night and on weekends," Rosenthal told me.

Sup. John Avalos has kids, and does a fine job on the board. Former Sup. Sean Elsbernd had a young family, and nobody ever said he didn't devote enough time to the district. Sup. Eric Mar has a daughter, and just won a tough re-election race.

It's absolutely true that none of the four women on the board right now has kids. I think that was sort of Rosenthal's point. I don't know; it's 2013, and maybe I'm reading too much into this, but did the mayor of San Francisco just imply that women with kids don't have the time to handle the responsibilities of elective office? I hope not.

Comments

Good parenting may take precedence over everything else. But this is more about winning in a district election.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 26, 2013 @ 2:29 pm

What we want is a alck of discrimination, and we have that. If the best person for the job is not a mother (or a gay, or a black, or a Jew, or disabled) then so what? We pick the best person for the job regardless of the identity group.

And what are the odds that one the four existing female Supes will have a kid? Fairly high.

Non issue. and particularly in a city like SF with the lowest ratio of kids of any major US city. People who have kids usually leave SF like, er, Chris Daly?

Posted by Guest on Feb. 26, 2013 @ 2:38 pm

"Political office is often beyond the reach of mothers, because balancing a political life with family and work is often an insurmountable challenge" - Alix Rosenthal.

is what Mayor Lee said, off the cuff, really any worse/different than what A.R. wrote in her resolution?

Posted by guestD on Feb. 26, 2013 @ 3:12 pm

rich, like the Hoolywood celebrities that have kids and then outsource them to a team of "experts", having a kid does make you less available, and especially if you are a woman unless you have a Stay-at-home husband.

Maybe it should not be true but it is. How does it work when the mother has to pitch in 30 hours over a week-end and the kid is sick? Pack the kid off to grandma? An undocumented Swedish au pair? (that's caught out more than a few politicians).

I've no objection to a mother on the board, but AR makes a compelling point - if she is not way better than the other candidiates, then why would you, other than as a gesture of empty tokenism?

Posted by anon on Feb. 26, 2013 @ 6:32 pm

"I have a black, a woman, two Jews and a cripple. And we have talent."

- Tim Redmond

Posted by matlock on Feb. 26, 2013 @ 6:59 pm

A black female Jewish cripple?

Posted by anon on Feb. 26, 2013 @ 7:26 pm

Michela Alioto-Pier was the last mother of young children to serve on the Board of Supervisors. How did that work out for Alix Rosenthal?

I've learned over the years that prioritizing identity politics is more dangerous to my political values than letting the identity cards fall where they may. There is no connection between electing someone from an identity group and policy outcomes that benefit most folks in that identity group in a way that minimizes identity marginalization.

The black population plummeted after Willie Brown's 20 years of running City government. Families with children fled San Francisco in droves during Michela Alioto-Pier's and Chris Daly's terms in office. Countless lesbians were extirpated from Valencia Street while Achtenberg, Migden and Leal were on the Board of Supervisors.

Identity is important but to my mind can only be used as a tiebreaker moving forward where the politics are in place and the contest is between a represented and unrepresented group.

Posted by marcos on Feb. 27, 2013 @ 6:35 am

Great word -- and I'm putting that into the top 100,000 or so of my everyday vocabulary -- but I think it is a bit strong to use in the case of lesbians on Valencia Street unless it can be shown that no lesbians live there any more.

Just so you don't think I'm being pointlessly contrary, I will say that I agree with your view on identity politics. I think the point all along was to make a political point and cause Ed Lee to fall back onto his heels.

"Playing for keeps?"

Posted by lillipublicans on Feb. 27, 2013 @ 8:39 am

Our corporate and conservative opponents play for keeps.

The left is comprised of losers, or those who have learned to love to lose, whose sole goal in life is to establish dominance over their tribe, to be viewed as "King of the Leftists."

The best way for them to do this is for them to not take the fight to our opponents, to serve as insulation between "the people" they claim to represent and corporate and government power that cuts them their checks.

As Steven writes, politics is all about relationships, as if policy is secondary and not the ultimate goal of politics for which relationships serve as resources.

Note that the old school white people are using their wealth to take the fight to the developers. The old school leftist identity politics crowd, meanwhile, has laid down their arms and is cutting a separate peace with capital. That separate peace that will end up with their claimed constituencies being clearcut from the Mission in a bout of economic and ethnic cleansing. But, hey, they get paid, right? And it is all about the money so long as the "community organizers" continue to get paid to make sure that we don't leverage our numerical advantage over their cash advantage.

One side plays for keeps, the other side is comprised of authoritarian conrol freaks doing politics as personal therapy.

Posted by marcos on Feb. 27, 2013 @ 8:54 am

and I see the validity of your criticism with *some* aspects of the "left" -- but I believe your blanket criticisms are counterproductive.

The "stupid human tricks" you describe can afflict the reactionary leadership also. Leftists are not "authoritarian control freaks"; that's BTL #8: "Progressives ... enjoy telling everyone else how to run their lives, their families, their states, and their countries."

It's the reactionary right that constantly seeks to compel people into dead-end jobs and usurious lending agreements; to legislate medical procedures and patient's relations with their doctors, etc.

It is the reactionary right and their right wing Democrat allies who are constantly seeking to impose U.S. control over foreign states to benefit the power elites here and abroad.

I think "playing for keeps" means assiduously avoiding giving any support to rightist memes. If you need to criticize errant leftist leaders, leave the others out of it.

That's "playing for keeps."

Posted by lillipublicans on Feb. 27, 2013 @ 9:23 am

We cannot build the foundations of tomorrow's successes on the quicksand of yesterday's failures.

We cannot blame our opponents for them beating us. It is incumbent upon us to figure out what we need to do to win.

"The Left," liberals and progressives are too mired in what Kaczinsky called "oversocialization" and "feelings of inferiority" endlessly recycled for activist gratification in the echo chamber for us to count on "the left" to be much help.

There are authoritarian leftists, progressives and liberals who think that they've got it all figured out and pass laws to tell others how to live their lives. But this is not the exclusive province of the left, the right and center do the same all the time.

There is so little of "the left" left to criticize that it is almost not worth the time. But the remnant left is tenacious, if anything, and since they've given up on winning people over to their politics, they're relegated to yelling and demonizing anyone who disagrees with them. That, as you've noted from my comments, is something that "the left" can dish out but it cannot take.

As Marx wrote "relentless critique of all things existing."

Posted by marcos on Feb. 27, 2013 @ 9:54 am

to criticize a sacred cow of the left shows that the elft can be as intolerant as those it criticizes.

Until the left gives up comparmentalism, class warfere and the politics of hatred, it is doomed to remain irrelevant outside of a few college towns.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 27, 2013 @ 10:07 am

Kaczinski - as in the Unabomber?! Interesting source for political/social analysis.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 27, 2013 @ 10:58 am

Interesting, but spot on.

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF MODERN LEFTISM

6. Almost everyone will agree that we live in a deeply troubled society. One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern society in general.

7. But what is leftism? During the first half of the 20th century leftism could have been practically identified with socialism. Today the movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be called a leftist. When we speak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists, collectivists, “politically correct” types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and the like. But not everyone who is associated with one of these movements is a leftist. What we are trying to get at in discussing leftism is not so much movement or an ideology as a psychological type, or rather a collection of related types. Thus, what we mean by “leftism” will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussion of leftist psychology. (Also, see paragraphs 227-230.)

8. Even so, our conception of leftism will remain a good deal less clear than we would wish, but there doesn’t seem to be any remedy for this. All we are trying to do here is indicate in a rough and approximate way the two psychological tendencies that we believe are the main driving force of modern leftism. We by no means claim to be telling the WHOLE truth about leftist psychology. Also, our discussion is meant to apply to modern leftism only. We leave open the question of the extent to which our discussion could be applied to the leftists of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

9. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call “feelings of inferiority” and “oversocialization.” Feelings of inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of modern leftism; but this segment is highly influential.

FEELINGS OF INFERIORITY

10. By “feelings of inferiority” we mean not only inferiority feelings in the strict sense but a whole spectrum of related traits; low self-esteem, feelings of powerlessness, depressive tendencies, defeatism, guilt, self- hatred, etc. We argue that modern leftists tend to have some such feelings (possibly more or less repressed) and that these feelings are decisive in determining the direction of modern leftism.

11. When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is pronounced among minority rights activists, whether or not they belong to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities and about anything that is said concerning minorities. The terms “negro,” “oriental,” “handicapped” or “chick” for an African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connotation. “Broad” and “chick” were merely the feminine equivalents of “guy,” “dude” or “fellow.” The negative connotations have been attached to these terms by the activists themselves. Some animal rights activists have gone so far as to reject the word “pet” and insist on its replacement by “animal companion.” Leftish anthropologists go to great lengths to avoid saying anything about primitive peoples that could conceivably be interpreted as negative. They want to replace the world “primitive” by “nonliterate.” They seem almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that any primitive culture is inferior to our own. (We do not mean to imply that primitive cultures ARE inferior to ours. We merely point out the hypersensitivity of leftish anthropologists.)

12. Those who are most sensitive about “politically incorrect” terminology are not the average black ghetto- dweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any “oppressed” group but come from privileged strata of society. Political correctness has its stronghold among university professors, who have secure employment with comfortable salaries, and the majority of whom are heterosexual white males from middle- to upper-middle-class families.

13. Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals) or otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems. (We do not mean to suggest that women, Indians, etc. ARE inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology.)

14. Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong and as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and as capable as men.

15. Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful. They hate America, they hate Western civilization, they hate white males, they hate rationality. The reasons that leftists give for hating the West, etc. clearly do not correspond with their real motives. They SAY they hate the West because it is warlike, imperialistic, sexist, ethnocentric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socialist countries or in primitive cultures, the leftist finds excuses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whereas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly exaggerates) these faults where they appear in Western civilization. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist’s real motive for hating America and the West. He hates America and the West because they are strong and successful.

16. Words like “self-confidence,” “self-reliance,” “initiative,” “enterprise,” “optimism,” etc., play little role in the liberal and leftist vocabulary. The leftist is anti-individualistic, pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone’s problems for them, satisfy everyone’s needs for them, take care of them. He is not the sort of person who has an inner sense of confidence in his ability to solve his own problems and satisfy his own needs. The leftist is antagonistic to the concept of competition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser.

17. Art forms that appeal to modern leftish intellectuals tend to focus on sordidness, defeat and despair, or else they take an orgiastic tone, throwing off rational control as if there were no hope of accomplishing anything through rational calculation and all that was left was to immerse oneself in the sensations of the moment.

18. Modern leftish philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftish philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e., failed, inferior). The leftist’s feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual’s ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is “inferior” it is not his fault, but society’s, because he has not been brought up properly.

19. The leftist is not typically the kind of person whose feelings of inferiority make him a braggart, an egotist, a bully, a self-promoter, a ruthless competitor. This kind of person has not wholly lost faith in himself. He has a deficit in his sense of power and self-worth, but he can still conceive of himself as having the capacity to be strong, and his efforts to make himself strong produce his unpleasant behavior. [1] But the leftist is too far gone for that. His feelings of inferiority are so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as individually strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of the leftist. He can feel strong only as a member of a large organization or a mass movement with which he identifies himself.

20. Notice the masochistic tendency of leftist tactics. Leftists protest by lying down in front of vehicles, they intentionally provoke police or racists to abuse them, etc. These tactics may often be effective, but many leftists use them not as a means to an end but because they PREFER masochistic tactics. Self-hatred is a leftist trait.

21. Leftists may claim that their activism is motivated by compassion or by moral principles, and moral principle does play a role for the leftist of the oversocialized type. But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power. Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help. For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs. Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black people, because the activists’ hostile attitude toward the white majority tends to intensify race hatred.

22. If our society had no social problems at all, the leftists would have to INVENT problems in order to provide themselves with an excuse for making a fuss.

23. We emphasize that the foregoing does not pretend to be an accurate description of everyone who might be considered a leftist. It is only a rough indication of a general tendency of leftism.

OVERSOCIALIZATION

24. Psychologists use the term “socialization” to designate the process by which children are trained to think and act as society demands. A person is said to be well socialized if he believes in and obeys the moral code of his society and fits in well as a functioning part of that society. It may seem senseless to say that many leftists are oversocialized, since the leftist is perceived as a rebel. Nevertheless, the position can be defended. Many leftists are not such rebels as they seem.

25. The moral code of our society is so demanding that no one can think, feel and act in a completely moral way. For example, we are not supposed to hate anyone, yet almost everyone hates somebody at some time or other, whether he admits it to himself or not. Some people are so highly socialized that the attempt to think, feel and act morally imposes a severe burden on them. In order to avoid feelings of guilt, they continually have to deceive themselves about their own motives and find moral explanations for feelings and actions that in reality have a non-moral origin. We use the term “oversocialized” to describe such people. [2]

26. Oversocialization can lead to low self-esteem, a sense of powerlessness, defeatism, guilt, etc. One of the most important means by which our society socializes children is by making them feel ashamed of behavior or speech that is contrary to society’s expectations. If this is overdone, or if a particular child is especially susceptible to such feelings, he ends by feeling ashamed of HIMSELF. Moreover the thought and the behavior of the oversocialized person are more restricted by society’s expectations than are those of the lightly socialized person. The majority of people engage in a significant amount of naughty behavior. They lie, they commit petty thefts, they break traffic laws, they goof off at work, they hate someone, they say spiteful things or they use some underhanded trick to get ahead of the other guy. The oversocialized person cannot do these things, or if he does do them he generates in himself a sense of shame and self-hatred. The oversocialized person cannot even experience, without guilt, thoughts or feelings that are contrary to the accepted morality; he cannot think “unclean” thoughts. And socialization is not just a matter of morality; we are socialized to conform to many norms of behavior that do not fall under the heading of morality. Thus the oversocialized person is kept on a psychological leash and spends his life running on rails that society has laid down for him. In many oversocialized people this results in a sense of constraint and powerlessness that can be a severe hardship. We suggest that oversocialization is among the more serious cruelties that human beings inflict on one another.

27. We argue that a very important and influential segment of the modern left is oversocialized and that their oversocialization is of great importance in determining the direction of modern leftism. Leftists of the oversocialized type tend to be intellectuals or members of the upper-middle class. Notice that university intellectuals [3] constitute the most highly socialized segment of our society and also the most left-wing segment.

28. The leftist of the oversocialized type tries to get off his psychological leash and assert his autonomy by rebelling. But usually he is not strong enough to rebel against the most basic values of society. Generally speaking, the goals of today’s leftists are NOT in conflict with the accepted morality. On the contrary, the left takes an accepted moral principle, adopts it as its own, and then accuses mainstream society of violating that principle. Examples: racial equality, equality of the sexes, helping poor people, peace as opposed to war, nonviolence generally, freedom of expression, kindness to animals. More fundamentally, the duty of the individual to serve society and the duty of society to take care of the individual. All these have been deeply rooted values of our society (or at least of its middle and upper classes [4] for a long time. These values are explicitly or implicitly expressed or presupposed in most of the material presented to us by the mainstream communications media and the educational system. Leftists, especially those of the oversocialized type, usually do not rebel against these principles but justify their hostility to society by claiming (with some degree of truth) that society is not living up to these principles.

29. Here is an illustration of the way in which the oversocialized leftist shows his real attachment to the conventional attitudes of our society while pretending to be in rebellion against it. Many leftists push for affirmative action, for moving black people into high-prestige jobs, for improved education in black schools and more money for such schools; the way of life of the black “underclass” they regard as a social disgrace. They want to integrate the black man into the system, make him a business executive, a lawyer, a scientist just like upper-middle-class white people. The leftists will reply that the last thing they want is to make the black man into a copy of the white man; instead, they want to preserve African American culture. But in what does this preservation of African American culture consist? It can hardly consist in anything more than eating black-style food, listening to black-style music, wearing black-style clothing and going to a black- style church or mosque. In other words, it can express itself only in superficial matters. In all ESSENTIAL respects most leftists of the oversocialized type want to make the black man conform to white, middle-class ideals. They want to make him study technical subjects, become an executive or a scientist, spend his life climbing the status ladder to prove that black people are as good as white. They want to make black fathers “responsible,” they want black gangs to become nonviolent, etc. But these are exactly the values of the industrial-technological system. The system couldn’t care less what kind of music a man listens to, what kind of clothes he wears or what religion he believes in as long as he studies in school, holds a respectable job, climbs the status ladder, is a “responsible” parent, is nonviolent and so forth. In effect, however much he may deny it, the oversocialized leftist wants to integrate the black man into the system and make him adopt its values.

30. We certainly do not claim that leftists, even of the oversocialized type, NEVER rebel against the fundamental values of our society. Clearly they sometimes do. Some oversocialized leftists have gone so far as to rebel against one of modern society’s most important principles by engaging in physical violence. By their own account, violence is for them a form of “liberation.” In other words, by committing violence they break through the psychological restraints that have been trained into them. Because they are oversocialized these restraints have been more confining for them than for others; hence their need to break free of them. But they usually justify their rebellion in terms of mainstream values. If they engage in violence they claim to be fighting against racism or the like.

31. We realize that many objections could be raised to the foregoing thumbnail sketch of leftist psychology. The real situation is complex, and anything like a complete description of it would take several volumes even if the necessary data were available. We claim only to have indicated very roughly the two most important tendencies in the psychology of modern leftism.

32. The problems of the leftist are indicative of the problems of our society as a whole. Low self-esteem, depressive tendencies and defeatism are not restricted to the left. Though they are especially noticeable in the left, they are widespread in our society. And today’s society tries to socialize us to a greater extent than any previous society. We are even told by experts how to eat, how to exercise, how to make love, how to raise our kids and so forth.

Posted by marcos on Feb. 27, 2013 @ 11:07 am

We need to return to our cabin to fight the good fight.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 27, 2013 @ 11:44 am

No, Kaczynski was not "spot on"; that indicates his treatise was above criticism -- a claim he expressly denied in paragraphs 231 and 232.

marcos, some of what the man wrote is interesting -- and even compelling -- but your adoptation of his absurdly one-sided hatred of "leftism" is not.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/unabomber/manifes...

Posted by lillipublicans on Feb. 27, 2013 @ 12:25 pm

Says the person who has Dworkin favorably rammed up inside his brain case.

Part of a revolutionary theory has to be the ability of people to apprehend it and its utility in assessing current conditions AND pointing a way forward.

Leftism has been bankrupt at all of this for 40 years and all the leftists can do is to yell at people for not accepting the divine dogma of the preeminence of the class struggle and the oppression olympics.

Posted by marcos on Feb. 27, 2013 @ 2:40 pm

cultism. He can really take that shit down.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Feb. 27, 2013 @ 3:05 pm

He slapped down Greg for his anti-Asian bias, and then cleaned Lilli's clock for his mindless, kneejerk "leftier than thou" incongruity.

Keep it up.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 27, 2013 @ 3:34 pm

"He slapped down Greg for his anti-Asian bias"

Uh... what anti-Asian bias, and when was that? Are you sure you're talking about me, and are you sure you're talking about marcos? Are you sure you're talking about this reality, and not some dream you had?

Posted by Greg on Feb. 27, 2013 @ 11:52 pm

Or was that an imp of you that trucked with that?

Posted by Guest on Feb. 28, 2013 @ 2:18 pm

"O mama it was horrible," said Buffy, as she burst into the drawing room of her mothers Pacific Heights Mansion.

"O dear, what?" said Mama.

"Peets was closed, I couldn't get a carmelfudgesoylattemacchiatto."

"It's those horrid service workers, they've gone on strike for a day," said Mama, grimly.

"Service workers?" said Buffy.

"The ones who make your carmelfudgesoylattemachiattos," said Mama.

"O....those people..."

"Yes those awful little people. Don't worry, I'll have Lucretia make you one Darling."

And Mama rang her bell. But there was no answer.

"Mama, it's been 2 minutes, Lucretia never takes this long," wailed Buffy.

"Well...I'll call her on her cell phone," said Mama, and she picked up her iphone 17 off the Louis the XXIInd endtable.

But after several excruciating minutes Mama put the cell phone down.

"She's not answering," said Mama, greatly perplexed.

"Mama, O Mama, what are we going to do, you don't think Lucretia has gone over to....those people?!"

"Don't be a silly child. Lucretia has been with the family for 30 years. She's as loyal as a beagle."

"But I need my carmelfudgesoylattemacchiatto!"

"Don't worry Buffy, we'll make one ourselves. It can't be that difficult if someone like Lucretia can do it."

"O Mama, this will be an adventure." Her face suddenly hopeful.

"Of course it will Buffy, all we have to do is find the kitchen."

Posted by pete moss on Feb. 27, 2013 @ 5:33 pm

Wait a minute, wasn't the last Bourbon king Louis the XVI?

Posted by marcos on Feb. 27, 2013 @ 6:17 pm

smashing all of the bricks and throwing a bunch of your shit into the mortar.

Posted by lillipublicans on Feb. 27, 2013 @ 11:31 am

of the real issue here. The tired old Left/good and Right/bad meme has been over-worked to the point where nobody buys it. There are good and bad on all sides of politics, and in the center too.

The aim, always, is to achieve workable compromizes and not to seek an all-out victory which usually just ends up in 100% failure.

Without an ability to self-critique, the left falters, much as communism did when it shut down all criticism. Marcos's approach rings truer.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 27, 2013 @ 10:05 am

My approach is populist which empowers the primary stakeholders, the sovereigns, the people over corporate power.

It is clearly more "on the left" and is not right wing by any measure, except to the cloistered leftist ideologue.

The fundamental values of "the left" are sound, it is the structures that arouse around the left, the Marxist/Leninist parties, the labor unions, Trotskyism, Maoism and Stalinism, which have been unable to adapt to changing circumstances, either through inertia or cooptation.

For instance, unions are not the goal, unions were supposed to be a tool to bring democracy to the workplace. Workplace democracy is the goal.

If unions no longer function to bring workplace democracy to light, then we need to figure out what can do the job better than today's unions.

Posted by marcos on Feb. 27, 2013 @ 10:29 am

The high-water mark for left politics in SF was a decade ago, where the novelty if IRV and voters' unfamiliarity with it gave us Supervisors like Daly who, thru his antics, probably set back the progressive cause more than any one other person.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 27, 2013 @ 10:00 am

minority" already, with (correct me if I am wrong here):

Four Asians
Four women
Two blacks
Two hispanics
Two gays

In fact, the most under-represented group on the board is straight white men - I think there is only one.

So appointing or voting on merit has given us a level of diversity without compromizing on quality, which is always the problem with AA and quota's.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 27, 2013 @ 7:19 am

of this comment. Women outnumber men so they can hardly be characterized as a "minority."

Down with stupidity!!!

Power to the thoughtful!!!

Posted by San Francisco Anti-Stupidity Campaign on Feb. 27, 2013 @ 8:41 am

who have historically been under-represented. It's more about having a minority of money, power and opportunity than mere numbers.

CA is more than 50% non-white but we still refer to non-whites as "minorities".

Posted by Guest on Feb. 27, 2013 @ 9:58 am

I agree it would be hard for a single parent, of any gender, to do the overhelming job of being an SF supervisor (unless the person has plenty of extra money), although Carol Ruth Silver pulled it off in the early days of the first district elections, when her young son was known to sit with her at meetings. The issue for me isn't the overall "diversity" question and whether there's one from every column on the board; it's the idea that nobody says John Avalos or Sean Elsbernd couldn't be a supervisor and a parent, but there seems to be -- still -- a double standard when it comes to women. 

I live with a lawyer who has a very busy job that requires a lot of weekend work. (My job does, too.) We have two kids and no "au pair" or babysitter. When she needs to work on the weekend or at night, which is very common, I take care of the kids. Why do we still have the assumption that a dad can't be a primary care-giver and that a mom can't be the one with the 80-hour-a-week job? Why assume that a woman who has kids is less able to do that level of work than a man?

We manage. We take turns. I take my son with me to political events that I'm covering. I work after the kids have gone to bed. And because we have kids, and are dealing with the challenges of two working parents, we have a different perspective on policy issues.

The point of diversity is not purely appearance. The idea is that people bring different perspectives to the board from their own personal experiences. It doesn't always work that way, but it really, really doesn't work to have all rich white people running a city.

I'm not saying that the mayor needed to pick a mother. I'm saying that I was a little disturbed by the implication in his statement that a mother wouldn't have the time to do the job.

Posted by tim on Feb. 27, 2013 @ 10:59 am

Amazing - you are obviously a very hard worker. Hopefully you make some time for vacations. SF can be such a small bubble.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 27, 2013 @ 11:54 am

easily one of the stupidest things The Publisher has posted yet.

if he appointed Suzy Loftus, she would have had her ass kicked. Sacrificed on the altar of alix's political stunt. So yeah appoint "a mother" and then when she loses in less than a year, you get Katy anyways.

Really, you should just quit if this is the best you can offer for "insight." Maybe you could do some beat reporting for your bosses at the Examiner and reacquaint yourself with how City Hall works.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 27, 2013 @ 12:21 pm

Last time he listened to the identity politics crowd he appointed Christina Olague, a self-declared "bisexual working class Latina." Look how well THAT turned out.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Feb. 27, 2013 @ 1:32 pm
Posted by Guest on Feb. 27, 2013 @ 2:50 pm

claim to speak for "the people" should go out and acquaint themselves to real shit work.

Perhaps the crowd down at the Guardian should spend a few months doing real shit work instead of pontificating on what these people want.

The real world experience of the Bay Guardian effete corps of impudent snobs is nill.

Posted by matlock on Feb. 27, 2013 @ 9:57 pm

I'm still holding out some hope that while Katy Tang will need to be fairly conservative to make it in her district, on some issues she'll be a freer spirit, especially since she grew up in the city (unlike Chu, a Southern California native). One can hope.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 28, 2013 @ 9:05 am

They want kneejerk support for a left-wing agenda with no room for independent thinking.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 28, 2013 @ 9:27 am

The part that I love about this is the logical fallacy that asserts that since Ed Lee does not do what Alix Rosenthal wants him to do that Ed Lee must not think that a mom can be a County Supervisor.

Anxiously awaiting the next blog post that accuses Ed Lee of hating Alix Rosenthal as a person because he did not act as she demanded.

Posted by marcos on Mar. 05, 2013 @ 9:19 am