Friday, July 31, 2009
Honest.
My RSS reader showed a post which linked to the death of Corazon Aquino. I was going to post: start your countdown until Phil Bronstein writes about how he was in the Philippines, and how intrepid he was. Because that's one of the favorites stories that gramps likes to tell by the fireplace.
Anyhow, he beat me to it.
Anyhow, he beat me to it.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
The Chron: Who Cares About Fact?
The Chron has been drooling over Schwarzenegger ever since he announced on Jay Leno he was running in the recall election.
So we recently had this "analysis" of the budget fight:
Winner: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. His approval ratings are in the dumps and he's not popular with his fellow Republicans, but the "post-partisan" governor summoned his Conan persona, sword intact. He held the GOP line, demanded cuts, tracked waste and abuse and played the political tough card with furloughs of state workers. And his poll numbers went up.
Everyone loves a strong sword wielding action hero, according to the Chron. Except that, in the real world:
A new PPIC Poll in California shows Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's (R) job approval rating dropped to a new low of 28%.
The last time a California governor's approval rating was that low was in 2003 when then-Gov. Gray Davis faced a recall election and was in a budget standoff with the Legislature.
A record-low 14% of Californians believe the state is headed in the right direction.
Carla should really get over her crush on Arnold. Yes, he is available for hot steamy dates, he won't let his marriage get in the way, but just not with you, Carla.
So we recently had this "analysis" of the budget fight:
Winner: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. His approval ratings are in the dumps and he's not popular with his fellow Republicans, but the "post-partisan" governor summoned his Conan persona, sword intact. He held the GOP line, demanded cuts, tracked waste and abuse and played the political tough card with furloughs of state workers. And his poll numbers went up.
Everyone loves a strong sword wielding action hero, according to the Chron. Except that, in the real world:
A new PPIC Poll in California shows Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's (R) job approval rating dropped to a new low of 28%.
The last time a California governor's approval rating was that low was in 2003 when then-Gov. Gray Davis faced a recall election and was in a budget standoff with the Legislature.
A record-low 14% of Californians believe the state is headed in the right direction.
Carla should really get over her crush on Arnold. Yes, he is available for hot steamy dates, he won't let his marriage get in the way, but just not with you, Carla.
Selective Interpretation.
Gavin Newsom - a 'pretty boy with baggage'?
The Chron cherry picks the quote above from an article in Fast Company, and that's the headline, but the full quote is:
Described as a "pretty boy with baggage," Newsom talks at length with reporter Ellen McGirt about changing the way California operates.
So, Gavin is a pretty boy, which I understand to mean: no substance, vacuous, a nice face but not much underneath.
The article goes on to call him "a walking, talking PowerPoint presentation" and notes that "listening can turn into a battle of wills and attention spans." Try watching his 7.5-hour State of the City speech, Ellen! Better yet, try watching it without a triple espresso.
So Gavin is a wonk machine, deeply invested in policy nitty-gritty and he knows he stuff so that he can talk about it for hours on.
Doesn't Heather Knight, the Chron scribe here, realize that he can't be both?
The Chron cherry picks the quote above from an article in Fast Company, and that's the headline, but the full quote is:
Described as a "pretty boy with baggage," Newsom talks at length with reporter Ellen McGirt about changing the way California operates.
So, Gavin is a pretty boy, which I understand to mean: no substance, vacuous, a nice face but not much underneath.
The article goes on to call him "a walking, talking PowerPoint presentation" and notes that "listening can turn into a battle of wills and attention spans." Try watching his 7.5-hour State of the City speech, Ellen! Better yet, try watching it without a triple espresso.
So Gavin is a wonk machine, deeply invested in policy nitty-gritty and he knows he stuff so that he can talk about it for hours on.
Doesn't Heather Knight, the Chron scribe here, realize that he can't be both?
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
C-Dub Irony.
C.W. Nevius' column today:
"Well, its trash day in my neighborhood, Bernal Heights," David Brame wrote... "Beginning last night, a parade of shopping carts began their march up and down the street, picking through the blue (recycling) bins."
Among the vexing annoyances in the city, recycling rustlers are one of the worst.
But, but, but, how do you know Chuck, I thought we established you lived in Walnut Creek?
But, [DoE waste coordinator Kevin] Drew admits, with the economy foundering, he doesn't have an easy answer [to the recycling thief problem]. Brame says he's come up with one. He's planning to move to Marin.
So today it's admirable to leave the city? Honestly, I don't get why the Chron prints columns which tells the people of SF that their city is so awful they should move out. That's Chuck opinion, and he has a right to it, and he did move away, but why would San Francisco Chronicle readers want to be given righteous lectures on how their city sucks? They would buy their city paper to be slapped in the face? Strange business model...
Chuck ends with another item:
The mail will arrive at the same time at houses in Noe Valley and the Castro today. But there will be a definite decline in good cheer. Mailman [K.T.], who walked his route for 31 years, died last week at 72.
"He passed away getting ready for work," said Elizabeth Downing, his supervisor. "He was wearing his uniform."
It's a sad story. What's even sadder is that a senior citizen is carrying heavy mail up steep hills. Couldn't he afford to retire? If anything, when I read stories about poor people ruffling into garbage to recover a 5c beer can, or septuagenarians working themselves to death, I don't think about how inconvenient they are, or how much good cheer they display in their fortitude. I'd hope someone would stand for those people. And so be it if some guy moves to Marin.
"Well, its trash day in my neighborhood, Bernal Heights," David Brame wrote... "Beginning last night, a parade of shopping carts began their march up and down the street, picking through the blue (recycling) bins."
Among the vexing annoyances in the city, recycling rustlers are one of the worst.
But, but, but, how do you know Chuck, I thought we established you lived in Walnut Creek?
But, [DoE waste coordinator Kevin] Drew admits, with the economy foundering, he doesn't have an easy answer [to the recycling thief problem]. Brame says he's come up with one. He's planning to move to Marin.
So today it's admirable to leave the city? Honestly, I don't get why the Chron prints columns which tells the people of SF that their city is so awful they should move out. That's Chuck opinion, and he has a right to it, and he did move away, but why would San Francisco Chronicle readers want to be given righteous lectures on how their city sucks? They would buy their city paper to be slapped in the face? Strange business model...
Chuck ends with another item:
The mail will arrive at the same time at houses in Noe Valley and the Castro today. But there will be a definite decline in good cheer. Mailman [K.T.], who walked his route for 31 years, died last week at 72.
"He passed away getting ready for work," said Elizabeth Downing, his supervisor. "He was wearing his uniform."
It's a sad story. What's even sadder is that a senior citizen is carrying heavy mail up steep hills. Couldn't he afford to retire? If anything, when I read stories about poor people ruffling into garbage to recover a 5c beer can, or septuagenarians working themselves to death, I don't think about how inconvenient they are, or how much good cheer they display in their fortitude. I'd hope someone would stand for those people. And so be it if some guy moves to Marin.
The Chron's Bi-Partisanship.
Phil's wisdom:
Police arrests a black man in his own home, the president finds this "stupid," the media makes a fuss that forces him to address the issue again. The media is right.
Sarah Palin attacks the media for going after one of her many ethics violations or reporting one of her confounding statements. The media is, of course, wrong. Leave that poor woman alone.
Quote:
The President, in his non-apology apology (his "stupidity" remark "was unfortunate", he said, using an uncharacteristically passive voice) over the Henry Louis Gates scuffle, talked about it being "ratcheted up." We all know who's responsible for that, you 24/7 media dogs. Yesterday, two days later, Sarah Palin told a hunted, red-meat crowd in Alaska that the press better leave her successor's family alone, and needs to "stop makin' things up."
....Sarah Palin might not be able to see Russia from her house, but her basketball diaries riff yesterday at least spoke more to her life experience than Obama playing cops and robbers.
That's definitely poor writing, and we can understand the affinity with Palin from that point of view ("It is as throughout all Alaska that big wild good life teeming along the road that is north to the future.") But it does look like the editor-at-large of the Chron thinks the media's take on the Gates/Obama/policeman is legitimate, while Sarah Palin is a poor victim of media attacks. Seriously.
The Chron's bi-partisanship: a wrong attack on a progressive should be balanced by a wrong defense of a Republican.
Quote:
The President, in his non-apology apology (his "stupidity" remark "was unfortunate", he said, using an uncharacteristically passive voice) over the Henry Louis Gates scuffle, talked about it being "ratcheted up." We all know who's responsible for that, you 24/7 media dogs. Yesterday, two days later, Sarah Palin told a hunted, red-meat crowd in Alaska that the press better leave her successor's family alone, and needs to "stop makin' things up."
....Sarah Palin might not be able to see Russia from her house, but her basketball diaries riff yesterday at least spoke more to her life experience than Obama playing cops and robbers.
That's definitely poor writing, and we can understand the affinity with Palin from that point of view ("It is as throughout all Alaska that big wild good life teeming along the road that is north to the future.") But it does look like the editor-at-large of the Chron thinks the media's take on the Gates/Obama/policeman is legitimate, while Sarah Palin is a poor victim of media attacks. Seriously.
The Chron's bi-partisanship: a wrong attack on a progressive should be balanced by a wrong defense of a Republican.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Phil's Cheap Shot of the Week.
Phil's column comes with an extra helping:
Phil's Luddite of the Week
Master of digital outreach Barack Obama. He might be a whiz in the virtual world, but his White House web site's "new media" page hasn't been updated since May 21. Dude! How Web 0.5.
Obama's been busy trying to fix health care, Phil, he'll write some fresh html, maybe a little ajax, as soon as America gets universal coverage.
We did not really expect Phil to top his previous effort in a game of silly gotchas so quickly!
Phil: there's a light bulb that needs to be changed in the Federal Building, can we blame Obama for that?
Phil's Luddite of the Week
Master of digital outreach Barack Obama. He might be a whiz in the virtual world, but his White House web site's "new media" page hasn't been updated since May 21. Dude! How Web 0.5.
Obama's been busy trying to fix health care, Phil, he'll write some fresh html, maybe a little ajax, as soon as America gets universal coverage.
We did not really expect Phil to top his previous effort in a game of silly gotchas so quickly!
Phil: there's a light bulb that needs to be changed in the Federal Building, can we blame Obama for that?
Phil Bronstein Claims Credit for Stopping Credit Card Arbitration Scam
It's Monday, Phil Bronstein pens an op-ed column in the print-only version of the Chron. Last week's piece was such a train wreck, we could not help but take a look today at our local coffee house.
"Godless bloodsuckers," it's called, and we can't link to it because we're not supposed to make fun of it on-line. Phil had more spine in Vietnam or wherever it was he was doing war coverage.
There's now one less back-alley financial mugger in a Brioni suit for us all to worry about, thanks to a few diligent San Franciscans.
Please, Phil, who are those noble warriors who fight the good crusade on our behalf?
This crusade started with a 2001 Chronicle series on mandatory arbitration companies in the tank to the banks and other credit card bandits...California legislators passed laws forcing places like the [thoroughly corrupted] National Arbitration Forum to upchuck their records. When the company refused, [SF District Attorney Kamala] Harris pounced. Lateral to [SF City Attorney Dennis] Herrera, then to [the attorney general in] Minnesota [where NAF is located] and boom: justice.
Phil is glowing about this great success. But he is too humble to remind us that he was the editor in 2001 who green lighted the series on arbitration, and as such, *cough* should be held responsible for this development. In all humility, of course.
That's right, for 50c, you can read Phil patting himself on the back. Too bad it's not on-line.
For free, you can read the 2001 series, and it's quite good. It actually got a prize to its author, Reynolds Holding, who did what every good Chronicle journalist does: leave and go to a serious news organization (in this case, Time magazine and ABC News). They probably incentivised him to hit the road with a buyout, but I could not confirm that point. Still, it's the Chron, so the odds are on my side.
"Godless bloodsuckers," it's called, and we can't link to it because we're not supposed to make fun of it on-line. Phil had more spine in Vietnam or wherever it was he was doing war coverage.
There's now one less back-alley financial mugger in a Brioni suit for us all to worry about, thanks to a few diligent San Franciscans.
Please, Phil, who are those noble warriors who fight the good crusade on our behalf?
This crusade started with a 2001 Chronicle series on mandatory arbitration companies in the tank to the banks and other credit card bandits...California legislators passed laws forcing places like the [thoroughly corrupted] National Arbitration Forum to upchuck their records. When the company refused, [SF District Attorney Kamala] Harris pounced. Lateral to [SF City Attorney Dennis] Herrera, then to [the attorney general in] Minnesota [where NAF is located] and boom: justice.
Phil is glowing about this great success. But he is too humble to remind us that he was the editor in 2001 who green lighted the series on arbitration, and as such, *cough* should be held responsible for this development. In all humility, of course.
That's right, for 50c, you can read Phil patting himself on the back. Too bad it's not on-line.
For free, you can read the 2001 series, and it's quite good. It actually got a prize to its author, Reynolds Holding, who did what every good Chronicle journalist does: leave and go to a serious news organization (in this case, Time magazine and ABC News). They probably incentivised him to hit the road with a buyout, but I could not confirm that point. Still, it's the Chron, so the odds are on my side.
The Chron Scores!
The Chron had two articles on Gavin Newsom, tackling a "problem": does Gavin lies to us, or does he just stretch the truth? Actually, the articles studied the "question," and failed to come up with demonstrative evidence. I mean, they get quote from Supervisors who sponsored the SF Healthcare measure and feel Gavin is taking too much credit. But that's hardly an indictment, just read the articles for yourself.
Anyhow, the point of the articles was not to prove that Gavin exaggerate, it was just to put the notion into the discourse. "Even the liberal SF Chronicle investigated claims of exaggeration by Gavin Newsom..." will we hear, again and again. We won't hear that they came up empty.
But the wheels are in motion:
What's more, and this is just delicious speculation from savvy media players, Gavin might have had Jaye "resign" after two recent Chron stories basically exposed Newsom as a fibber.
Brock is of course being provocative, and that's his job. But for the Chron, it's GOOOOOAAAAAAL! They created a hit on Newsom out of thin air, and they will sit back and watch it bounce around.
Anyhow, the point of the articles was not to prove that Gavin exaggerate, it was just to put the notion into the discourse. "Even the liberal SF Chronicle investigated claims of exaggeration by Gavin Newsom..." will we hear, again and again. We won't hear that they came up empty.
But the wheels are in motion:
What's more, and this is just delicious speculation from savvy media players, Gavin might have had Jaye "resign" after two recent Chron stories basically exposed Newsom as a fibber.
Brock is of course being provocative, and that's his job. But for the Chron, it's GOOOOOAAAAAAL! They created a hit on Newsom out of thin air, and they will sit back and watch it bounce around.
It Was A Cheap Shot from Bronstein.
Phil Bronstein wrote a piece on how Bay Area fresh faces were conspicuously absent in Obama's entourage. Where is the next generation of leaders, Phil asked, and if you answer Gavin, he added, then:
Gavin Newsom is our shining hope? Really?
Young, charismatic, engaged on gay rights or the environment: not enough for Phil who is going to dismiss you without as much as an explanation.
So how about Christina Romer?
Christina Romer (née Duckworth; born on December 25, 1958 in Alton, Illinois, USA) is the Class of 1957 Garff B. Wilson Professor of Economics at the University of California Berkeley and Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers in the Obama administration.
Chair of Council of Economic Advisers, sounds like a corner office to us. I mean, if Phil can hold Romer's colleague at Berkeley, John Yoo, as the example of "the next generation of leaders" from the Bush administration, definitely Christina qualifies.
There you go, Phil, I did your homework for you. I know you were not really intent on finding someone like Christina, your point was to gratuitously bash Gavin. But no matter, you're welcome.
Gavin Newsom is our shining hope? Really?
Young, charismatic, engaged on gay rights or the environment: not enough for Phil who is going to dismiss you without as much as an explanation.
So how about Christina Romer?
Christina Romer (née Duckworth; born on December 25, 1958 in Alton, Illinois, USA) is the Class of 1957 Garff B. Wilson Professor of Economics at the University of California Berkeley and Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers in the Obama administration.
Chair of Council of Economic Advisers, sounds like a corner office to us. I mean, if Phil can hold Romer's colleague at Berkeley, John Yoo, as the example of "the next generation of leaders" from the Bush administration, definitely Christina qualifies.
There you go, Phil, I did your homework for you. I know you were not really intent on finding someone like Christina, your point was to gratuitously bash Gavin. But no matter, you're welcome.
Friday, July 24, 2009
More Claims of Hypocrisy.
I see, by way of the SF Appeal that Marisa Lagos (first time mentioned here!) scored the Daly interview to explain the move of his family out of San Francisco.
Critics accuse Daly and his liberal allies of fighting for low-income tenants at the expense of middle-class families by making it harder for them to buy property here, and have called his family's move hypocritical. Daly said he is just doing what is right for his wife and children, by moving them to be close to Low's parents and extended family.
Mmm, critics say it's hypocritical for Daly to move his middle-class family out of SF because he is fighting for low-income tenants at the expense of middle-class families.
Does anyone at the Chron know what hypocritical means? I hope they don't, otherwise they would be aware they're spewing non-sense. Because, whatever Daly is doing, it looks like the opposite. If the price of his policies is for middle-class families to move out, then he's paying it, right? He is not saying one thing and doing the other. If Daly was advocating policies who benefit middle-class, then moving his family out of the city would be hypocritical. It's not too complicated, is it?
We emailed Nevius (the "critics" in Lagos' piece), asking this specific question: how is it hypocritical to not personally benefit from the policies he is advocating? And how can you criticize him, since you live in the East Bay. We got this reply:
Thanks for the note. I came to San Francisco 30 years ago. Like many people, including Daly, I moved to the suburbs to raise my kids and that's where I live now. Daly and others have ridiculed me for that. But now, when Daly moves for the same reason, the good of the kids, he wants it to be seen as a noble gesture. CWN
What? "He wants it to be seen as a noble gesture"? Where is that coming from (not from us, I put my email below)? Those guys are beyond irrational.
Dear Chuck,
I was reading your article, and I have a few questions.
First, you seem to imply a lot of things on Chris Daly (idealistic newcomer who gives up his social ideals as he grows up), I am curious, what facts is this based on? Your article says he did not discuss this with you, so I'm curious to see how you came up to apply this model of the young-grad-moving-on-with-his-kids to Daly. .
For instance, you don't mention in your article that the Daly family moved near the kids grand-parents. Is family support irrelevant in your mind? Why imply that Chris is moving AWAY from the city, and not INTO familial support? Also, how do you know Daly's wife did not make the decision?
Also, don't you live in the East Bay? Isn't it hypocritical to criticize Daly for doing so? After all, you have your pulpit to do the activism as well, and you are not afraid to use it. Every time you make a comment about the city, should we remind you you don't live there? If it is relevant for Chris (who still lives in SOMA), doesn't it apply to others as well?
Finally, your article criticizes Daly for not advocating middle class friendly policies. But isn't it on the other hand admirably selfless of a politician to advocate policies that will help people that are more in need than him (the poor, the minorities) rather than self-serving policies? There seems to be more respect in journalism for a millionaire senator who advocates tax cuts for the rich, than for a politician who tries to help the poor even though he won't personally benefit.
Hopefully you can provide answers to these questions, thanks a lot,
C.
Critics accuse Daly and his liberal allies of fighting for low-income tenants at the expense of middle-class families by making it harder for them to buy property here, and have called his family's move hypocritical. Daly said he is just doing what is right for his wife and children, by moving them to be close to Low's parents and extended family.
Mmm, critics say it's hypocritical for Daly to move his middle-class family out of SF because he is fighting for low-income tenants at the expense of middle-class families.
Does anyone at the Chron know what hypocritical means? I hope they don't, otherwise they would be aware they're spewing non-sense. Because, whatever Daly is doing, it looks like the opposite. If the price of his policies is for middle-class families to move out, then he's paying it, right? He is not saying one thing and doing the other. If Daly was advocating policies who benefit middle-class, then moving his family out of the city would be hypocritical. It's not too complicated, is it?
We emailed Nevius (the "critics" in Lagos' piece), asking this specific question: how is it hypocritical to not personally benefit from the policies he is advocating? And how can you criticize him, since you live in the East Bay. We got this reply:
Thanks for the note. I came to San Francisco 30 years ago. Like many people, including Daly, I moved to the suburbs to raise my kids and that's where I live now. Daly and others have ridiculed me for that. But now, when Daly moves for the same reason, the good of the kids, he wants it to be seen as a noble gesture. CWN
What? "He wants it to be seen as a noble gesture"? Where is that coming from (not from us, I put my email below)? Those guys are beyond irrational.
Dear Chuck,
I was reading your article, and I have a few questions.
First, you seem to imply a lot of things on Chris Daly (idealistic newcomer who gives up his social ideals as he grows up), I am curious, what facts is this based on? Your article says he did not discuss this with you, so I'm curious to see how you came up to apply this model of the young-grad-moving-on-with-his-kids to Daly. .
For instance, you don't mention in your article that the Daly family moved near the kids grand-parents. Is family support irrelevant in your mind? Why imply that Chris is moving AWAY from the city, and not INTO familial support? Also, how do you know Daly's wife did not make the decision?
Also, don't you live in the East Bay? Isn't it hypocritical to criticize Daly for doing so? After all, you have your pulpit to do the activism as well, and you are not afraid to use it. Every time you make a comment about the city, should we remind you you don't live there? If it is relevant for Chris (who still lives in SOMA), doesn't it apply to others as well?
Finally, your article criticizes Daly for not advocating middle class friendly policies. But isn't it on the other hand admirably selfless of a politician to advocate policies that will help people that are more in need than him (the poor, the minorities) rather than self-serving policies? There seems to be more respect in journalism for a millionaire senator who advocates tax cuts for the rich, than for a politician who tries to help the poor even though he won't personally benefit.
Hopefully you can provide answers to these questions, thanks a lot,
C.
The Chron: Where Politicians are Blamed for Not Being Self-Serving.
Chuck Nevius got himself a spot on the Chron cover. That's easy: if you want the front page on the Chron, just make baseless accusation against a liberal.
The preferred accusation? That a politician is a hypocrite because he is not personally taking advantage of the policies he is advocating. It works perfectly with Democrats, since most are richer than the people they intend to help.
Today's victim: Chris Daly. It's no news that Nevius hates Daly. Daly is liberal, and Nevius is conservative. What I would not expect is this kind of personal vendetta on the front page of one of the major American newspapers.
Daly would not respond to interview requests [ed: because Nevius has been unfair to him repeatedly], but he has fallen into the pattern of thousands who have come before him. Idealistic, well-educated young people move into town, rent an apartment and become champions of social causes. After five years or so, when they discover that they might like to own a home, raise kids or live in a place where they don't have to step over a homeless camper on their doorstep on the way to work, they realize they will have to move out of town.
Chuck, who "lives in the East Bay suburbs and drives into work" criticizes Daly's wife and kids for moving to the East Bay suburbs. Isn't it rich?
Chuck: what do you know about Daly's situation? One thing you know: the kids' grandparents live in Fairfield, as Daly explained himself. So that's a very practical reason to move the family there. He's not moving there because of homeless people or safety issues. He's moving there for free baby-sitting and grand-parent love and support. As a parent, I can believe Daly on this one.
Also Chuck: what do you know about the dynamics of the Daly family? Why do you assume Chris is making these decisions, and not his wife? Why do you accuse Chris, how do you know he had a choice?
More importantly, Daly's policies with respect to low income renter, whether you agree with them or not, are to allow families to STAY in the city. Rent control is not to keep the idealistic newcomers in town, it's too keep in the blue collar families who have been long time San Franciscans! Newcomers pay market rate, Chuck. Duh.
Sure, Daly's policies don't favor white middle class. So what? White middle class is not in need of supportive policies. Only the conservative Chron would criticize a politician for not enabling policies that serve himself rather than the general interest!
The preferred accusation? That a politician is a hypocrite because he is not personally taking advantage of the policies he is advocating. It works perfectly with Democrats, since most are richer than the people they intend to help.
Today's victim: Chris Daly. It's no news that Nevius hates Daly. Daly is liberal, and Nevius is conservative. What I would not expect is this kind of personal vendetta on the front page of one of the major American newspapers.
Daly would not respond to interview requests [ed: because Nevius has been unfair to him repeatedly], but he has fallen into the pattern of thousands who have come before him. Idealistic, well-educated young people move into town, rent an apartment and become champions of social causes. After five years or so, when they discover that they might like to own a home, raise kids or live in a place where they don't have to step over a homeless camper on their doorstep on the way to work, they realize they will have to move out of town.
Chuck, who "lives in the East Bay suburbs and drives into work" criticizes Daly's wife and kids for moving to the East Bay suburbs. Isn't it rich?
Chuck: what do you know about Daly's situation? One thing you know: the kids' grandparents live in Fairfield, as Daly explained himself. So that's a very practical reason to move the family there. He's not moving there because of homeless people or safety issues. He's moving there for free baby-sitting and grand-parent love and support. As a parent, I can believe Daly on this one.
Also Chuck: what do you know about the dynamics of the Daly family? Why do you assume Chris is making these decisions, and not his wife? Why do you accuse Chris, how do you know he had a choice?
More importantly, Daly's policies with respect to low income renter, whether you agree with them or not, are to allow families to STAY in the city. Rent control is not to keep the idealistic newcomers in town, it's too keep in the blue collar families who have been long time San Franciscans! Newcomers pay market rate, Chuck. Duh.
Sure, Daly's policies don't favor white middle class. So what? White middle class is not in need of supportive policies. Only the conservative Chron would criticize a politician for not enabling policies that serve himself rather than the general interest!
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Gotcha Journalism.
Yesterday, the cover of the Chron was: "Gavin, is he lying or just stretching the truth too much? Our ace team investigates."
Truth was: Gavin's claims were pretty sensible. Even quaint, by current politicians' standards. But the Chron has its knife out for Gavin, and it will use it.
Today, Phil Bronstein jumps in the fray. We paraphrase:
Gavin said that water conservation is important, yet he did not take his pipe wrench to adjust the sprinklers in Golden Gate park?<
Yeah, Phil is right, why, Gavin, why?
The Chron: stooping lower than you think they could. This is supposed to be humorous, but it's beyond ridiculous.
Phil: please, do yourself a favor, and make this Newsom op-ed disappear too!
Truth was: Gavin's claims were pretty sensible. Even quaint, by current politicians' standards. But the Chron has its knife out for Gavin, and it will use it.
Today, Phil Bronstein jumps in the fray. We paraphrase:
Gavin said that water conservation is important, yet he did not take his pipe wrench to adjust the sprinklers in Golden Gate park?<
Yeah, Phil is right, why, Gavin, why?
The Chron: stooping lower than you think they could. This is supposed to be humorous, but it's beyond ridiculous.
Phil: please, do yourself a favor, and make this Newsom op-ed disappear too!
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
The Chron Spins and Spins and Spins.
Carla Marinucci delivers The spin on winners and losers in budget deal
Yeah, the Chron's mission is now to spin the news. No pretense here.
Who will be the biggest loser when a $26.3 billion deficit in California's state budget finally gets patched together with duct tape and super glue? California.... So while everyone lost, spinners will claim victories. Here's how both parties are likely to spin the bruising tug-of-war:
Let me guess, the Republicans are the winners?
Winners: California Republicans...
Winner: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger...the "post-partisan" governor summoned his Conan persona, sword intact.
But of course. Arnold is so post-partisan that he refused to compromise with Democrats.
Winner: California Democrats...
Huh?
Losers: Democrats...
That's more like it.
Losers: Schwarzenegger...
Losers: Republicans
Ok, so winners: 1-CA Repubs, 2-Arnold, 3-CA Democrats; Losers: 1-Democrats; 2-Arnold; 3-Republicans. The biggest winner are the GOP, the biggest losers are Democrats. Yup, that's the Chron.
Yeah, the Chron's mission is now to spin the news. No pretense here.
Who will be the biggest loser when a $26.3 billion deficit in California's state budget finally gets patched together with duct tape and super glue? California.... So while everyone lost, spinners will claim victories. Here's how both parties are likely to spin the bruising tug-of-war:
Let me guess, the Republicans are the winners?
Winners: California Republicans...
Winner: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger...the "post-partisan" governor summoned his Conan persona, sword intact.
But of course. Arnold is so post-partisan that he refused to compromise with Democrats.
Winner: California Democrats...
Huh?
Losers: Democrats...
That's more like it.
Losers: Schwarzenegger...
Losers: Republicans
Ok, so winners: 1-CA Repubs, 2-Arnold, 3-CA Democrats; Losers: 1-Democrats; 2-Arnold; 3-Republicans. The biggest winner are the GOP, the biggest losers are Democrats. Yup, that's the Chron.
Phil's Disappeared Newsom Op-Ed.
Phil Bronstein's disappeared op-ed has resurfaced. And guess what? It's not worth putting for posterity on the Internets, that at least the Chron got right. "Where is our next generation of leaders?," he asks.
The short version is: "I, Phil Bronstein, endorse Republican Meg Whitman for Governor."
The slightly longer version: "Biz Stone, twitter co-founder, cannot protect his company's strategic data from hackers. Let's let him protect your vital interest as a politician."
The even slightly longer version: "Democrats should really look for leadership in the pool of the very very rich, as only freshly minted internet billionaires can defend the interest of the regular Joes. Then the Chron will call them hypocrites, like we did with John Kerry."
The long version goes: The Bay Area political talent gene pool is becoming a barren wasteland.
It's bad enough that we're in another vicious drought cycle in Northern California - more bricks in the toilet ahead. And the dependable Pacific salmon have lost their migratory path in local waterways.
But our veteran politicos are part of a different kind of environmental disaster: They aren't spawning much in the way of a next generation we can count on.
Mindless chat about the weather? Check. Uncomprehensible comparisons regarding bricks in toilet? Check (and please, if you get it, explain it to us). Random non segitur between salmons and politicians? Check. The premise is so silly, Phil must have begged his editors to pull this column off the website.
Where are the long coattails and mentored prodigies of our senior generation that now has a geographic lock in Congress (Pelosi, Feinstein, Boxer)? Those vets were once rookies on the farm team helped into the bigs by their elders. The hard-charging Californians Barack Obama has around him are mostly from SoCal.
People from here used to populate all sorts of corner offices because there were trainees lined up like winter storms over the Pacific. Ronald Reagan had Ed Meese, Clinton had Laura Tyson, and W had UC Berkeley's John Yoo, Mr. Waterboard. We've always had big feet where it counted.
Obama is surrounded by Boxer, Pelosi, Feinstein, (Phil forgets Panetta), but there's no one from Northern Californians around Obama? No, it does not make sense. There is
no next generation in the corner offices, because that's the current generation is sitting right now!
Oh, and John Yoo is part of which long coattails, exactly? Because if he is spawning, as Phil is kinda asserting, then we have to nip this one in the bud. Only Phil would take NorCal pride in Yoo's service.
Gavin Newsom is our shining hope? Really? Beyond his own self-generated image of brilliant wonkiness and charm, where's the list of Gavin's young contemporaries who might actually fill out those size 14 public service shoes in interesting and effective ways with help from the pros?
I found the answer to that question late last week in a San Francisco SoMa alleyway when I grabbed coffee with Biz Stone, co-founder of Twitter. He and his Bay Area tech colleagues are where the can-do skill has gone.
Gavin Newsom is not the answer, because, huh, because Phil says so. Why argue? Hey, the column won't be on-line, so won't be subject to scrutiny. No need to insert facts! And the answer is Biz Stone. Because java coding is the can-do skill one needs to run government!
Despite the hacking of his company's digital files (including personal stuff) and the resulting Web firestorm of back-and-forth righteous indignation, Stone was the model of calm.
Incompetent leaders who are not apologetic when confronted with their mistakes ("It speaks to the importance of following good personal security guidelines such as choosing strong passwords," said Biz Stone in this CNN piece. No shit, Sherlock), but exudes calm and manliness. Just like George Bush! No wonder Phil is swooning.
It was hard not to compare and contrast the guy with Newsom. In Twitter, Stone has created a profound new platform that inspires people, unlike Newsom, whose own platform is like cotton candy and who leases space on Twitter to spin it.
Newsom platform according to the Chron: gay rights, education, jobs, healthcare, environment. Phil does not find this inspiring? Same sex weddings at city hall, not inspiring?
If Stone won't run for office, how about someone from Google/Facebook or anywhere else our next generation of potent geniuses are hiding out?
Phil obviously has E-Bay's Meg Whitman on his mind. She was leading a new platform that inspired people too! That's pretty clearly transparent.
Phil also is obviously unaware that the Google guys, Sergei and Larry, are big Newsom buddies. They are the next generation of potent geniuses, and they are hiding behind Gavin!
What non-sense. And that explains why they would rather hide it from view. Poor Phil can't string three coherent sentences together.
The short version is: "I, Phil Bronstein, endorse Republican Meg Whitman for Governor."
The slightly longer version: "Biz Stone, twitter co-founder, cannot protect his company's strategic data from hackers. Let's let him protect your vital interest as a politician."
The even slightly longer version: "Democrats should really look for leadership in the pool of the very very rich, as only freshly minted internet billionaires can defend the interest of the regular Joes. Then the Chron will call them hypocrites, like we did with John Kerry."
The long version goes: The Bay Area political talent gene pool is becoming a barren wasteland.
It's bad enough that we're in another vicious drought cycle in Northern California - more bricks in the toilet ahead. And the dependable Pacific salmon have lost their migratory path in local waterways.
But our veteran politicos are part of a different kind of environmental disaster: They aren't spawning much in the way of a next generation we can count on.
Mindless chat about the weather? Check. Uncomprehensible comparisons regarding bricks in toilet? Check (and please, if you get it, explain it to us). Random non segitur between salmons and politicians? Check. The premise is so silly, Phil must have begged his editors to pull this column off the website.
Where are the long coattails and mentored prodigies of our senior generation that now has a geographic lock in Congress (Pelosi, Feinstein, Boxer)? Those vets were once rookies on the farm team helped into the bigs by their elders. The hard-charging Californians Barack Obama has around him are mostly from SoCal.
People from here used to populate all sorts of corner offices because there were trainees lined up like winter storms over the Pacific. Ronald Reagan had Ed Meese, Clinton had Laura Tyson, and W had UC Berkeley's John Yoo, Mr. Waterboard. We've always had big feet where it counted.
Obama is surrounded by Boxer, Pelosi, Feinstein, (Phil forgets Panetta), but there's no one from Northern Californians around Obama? No, it does not make sense. There is
no next generation in the corner offices, because that's the current generation is sitting right now!
Oh, and John Yoo is part of which long coattails, exactly? Because if he is spawning, as Phil is kinda asserting, then we have to nip this one in the bud. Only Phil would take NorCal pride in Yoo's service.
Gavin Newsom is our shining hope? Really? Beyond his own self-generated image of brilliant wonkiness and charm, where's the list of Gavin's young contemporaries who might actually fill out those size 14 public service shoes in interesting and effective ways with help from the pros?
I found the answer to that question late last week in a San Francisco SoMa alleyway when I grabbed coffee with Biz Stone, co-founder of Twitter. He and his Bay Area tech colleagues are where the can-do skill has gone.
Gavin Newsom is not the answer, because, huh, because Phil says so. Why argue? Hey, the column won't be on-line, so won't be subject to scrutiny. No need to insert facts! And the answer is Biz Stone. Because java coding is the can-do skill one needs to run government!
Despite the hacking of his company's digital files (including personal stuff) and the resulting Web firestorm of back-and-forth righteous indignation, Stone was the model of calm.
Incompetent leaders who are not apologetic when confronted with their mistakes ("It speaks to the importance of following good personal security guidelines such as choosing strong passwords," said Biz Stone in this CNN piece. No shit, Sherlock), but exudes calm and manliness. Just like George Bush! No wonder Phil is swooning.
It was hard not to compare and contrast the guy with Newsom. In Twitter, Stone has created a profound new platform that inspires people, unlike Newsom, whose own platform is like cotton candy and who leases space on Twitter to spin it.
Newsom platform according to the Chron: gay rights, education, jobs, healthcare, environment. Phil does not find this inspiring? Same sex weddings at city hall, not inspiring?
If Stone won't run for office, how about someone from Google/Facebook or anywhere else our next generation of potent geniuses are hiding out?
Phil obviously has E-Bay's Meg Whitman on his mind. She was leading a new platform that inspired people too! That's pretty clearly transparent.
Phil also is obviously unaware that the Google guys, Sergei and Larry, are big Newsom buddies. They are the next generation of potent geniuses, and they are hiding behind Gavin!
What non-sense. And that explains why they would rather hide it from view. Poor Phil can't string three coherent sentences together.
The Chron's Newsom Derangement Syndrom.
Our handsome mayor graces the cover of the Chron today. The headline: "Is Gavin Newsom stretching the facts?" The link to the article from the sfgate main page states: "Newsom the exaggerator." Woaw, Gavin is being given the Al Gore treatment!
Newsom is making stuff up, is exaggerating his accomplishments, is taking credit when none is due. Harsh headlines from the Chron! And, as for Al Gore, it is unfair...
A team led by Carla Marinucci, who else?, is on the case. The article is more circumspect than the headlines, but it is raising the question.
In making a case for how he will tackle the daunting financial and social challenges of the nation's most populous state, Newsom has stressed at the forums what he says are his city's landmark accomplishments in four key areas: health care, the environment, the budget and education.
But some critics suggest that, in his quest to boost his political profile, the mayor may be overstating those accomplishments or, in some cases, is oversimplifying the issues.
Let's assume for a moment that the critics are right, how is that different from any of the other politicians in the race?
The article shows its true colors by quoting a cherry-picked poll: A KGTV poll this week of 500 registered voters in San Diego County showed that just 11 percent hold a favorable view of Newsom, compared with 22 percent unfavorable, 23 percent neutral - and 44 percent who have no opinion of him. Duh, in Republican San Diego, where seniors and soldiers live, Gavin, he of the gay weddings, polls unfavorably. Big deal. But for California to discover another side of Gavin, he had to campaign and communicate in group sessions.
While the sessions showcase Newsom's considerable communications skills, they have raised questions about whether he is taking too much credit for the city's gains.
Then the article quotes Tom Ammiano, Ross Mirkarimi who are disgruntled because Newsom is taking credit for stuff that they initiated as supervisors. What else are they supposed to say? And it quotes some Sierra Club guy saying that the claims of Newsom regarding emissions are hard to quantify. And that's it!
Well, not for the Chron, who also runs a separate piece, Getting Real about Newsom's Claims. Another misleading headline.
Claim 1- Health Care, bottom line: Newsom has won praise from President Obama for the plan, but the mayor rarely mentions that then-Supervisor Tom Ammiano was its key catalyst; the mayor originally opposed employer mandates that are a major component. The mayor wanted employer mandates to be optional, and finally went along with the board's recommendation. Pragmatism: Yes. Exaggeration: nope.
Claim 2- Education, bottom line: The mayor has no official role in the public schools except to appoint people to vacant school board seats. While he has been more involved in schools than previous mayors, he can't claim credit for rising test scores and other academic achievements. The claim is that he increased funding. The Chron states he can't claim credit for rising test scores yet in the paragraph above writes: The city spends $500,000 a year for test preparation, mentors and other support. As if that would not impact test scores... The Chron: let's not stop our blatant contradictions from criticizing Newsom.
Claim 3- Green Initiative, bottom line: San Francisco's green credentials are strong, and Newsom has earned plaudits for championing them. But the specifics of some of his claims are hard to verify from third-party sources. Translation: we don't know if he is exaggerating, we don't have the data he has, but let's not let that stop us from insinuating he is.
Claim 4- Jobs, bottom line: Newsom deserves credit for bringing biotech jobs to Mission Bay and focusing on green-collar jobs, but construction jobs for development projects were years in the making. His administration hastened some of them and has maintained a strong bond rating to make work possible. The no-new-taxes claim is technically true - for now - but just about everybody in the city will be dipping into their pockets more to pay for city services. So Newsom's claim is true, for now. I guess he is exaggerating because he is only touting his current accomplishment- for now-, without mentioning that disaster might strike in the future.
Of the four claims, the thorough fact check of the Chron does not disprove anything! If anything, it shows that Newsom has a rather firm ground to stand when he is making the claims.
Then why run a front page article on the topic? But to plant the seed of doubts, of course! Let's see if the meme catches, the Chron is asking. After all, it worked for Al Gore. And the Chron is not in the business of sharing true information, it's in the business of trying to elect Republicans.
[as an aside, there is an honest case against Newsom, the SF Appeal makes it.]
Newsom is making stuff up, is exaggerating his accomplishments, is taking credit when none is due. Harsh headlines from the Chron! And, as for Al Gore, it is unfair...
A team led by Carla Marinucci, who else?, is on the case. The article is more circumspect than the headlines, but it is raising the question.
In making a case for how he will tackle the daunting financial and social challenges of the nation's most populous state, Newsom has stressed at the forums what he says are his city's landmark accomplishments in four key areas: health care, the environment, the budget and education.
But some critics suggest that, in his quest to boost his political profile, the mayor may be overstating those accomplishments or, in some cases, is oversimplifying the issues.
Let's assume for a moment that the critics are right, how is that different from any of the other politicians in the race?
The article shows its true colors by quoting a cherry-picked poll: A KGTV poll this week of 500 registered voters in San Diego County showed that just 11 percent hold a favorable view of Newsom, compared with 22 percent unfavorable, 23 percent neutral - and 44 percent who have no opinion of him. Duh, in Republican San Diego, where seniors and soldiers live, Gavin, he of the gay weddings, polls unfavorably. Big deal. But for California to discover another side of Gavin, he had to campaign and communicate in group sessions.
While the sessions showcase Newsom's considerable communications skills, they have raised questions about whether he is taking too much credit for the city's gains.
Then the article quotes Tom Ammiano, Ross Mirkarimi who are disgruntled because Newsom is taking credit for stuff that they initiated as supervisors. What else are they supposed to say? And it quotes some Sierra Club guy saying that the claims of Newsom regarding emissions are hard to quantify. And that's it!
Well, not for the Chron, who also runs a separate piece, Getting Real about Newsom's Claims. Another misleading headline.
Claim 1- Health Care, bottom line: Newsom has won praise from President Obama for the plan, but the mayor rarely mentions that then-Supervisor Tom Ammiano was its key catalyst; the mayor originally opposed employer mandates that are a major component. The mayor wanted employer mandates to be optional, and finally went along with the board's recommendation. Pragmatism: Yes. Exaggeration: nope.
Claim 2- Education, bottom line: The mayor has no official role in the public schools except to appoint people to vacant school board seats. While he has been more involved in schools than previous mayors, he can't claim credit for rising test scores and other academic achievements. The claim is that he increased funding. The Chron states he can't claim credit for rising test scores yet in the paragraph above writes: The city spends $500,000 a year for test preparation, mentors and other support. As if that would not impact test scores... The Chron: let's not stop our blatant contradictions from criticizing Newsom.
Claim 3- Green Initiative, bottom line: San Francisco's green credentials are strong, and Newsom has earned plaudits for championing them. But the specifics of some of his claims are hard to verify from third-party sources. Translation: we don't know if he is exaggerating, we don't have the data he has, but let's not let that stop us from insinuating he is.
Claim 4- Jobs, bottom line: Newsom deserves credit for bringing biotech jobs to Mission Bay and focusing on green-collar jobs, but construction jobs for development projects were years in the making. His administration hastened some of them and has maintained a strong bond rating to make work possible. The no-new-taxes claim is technically true - for now - but just about everybody in the city will be dipping into their pockets more to pay for city services. So Newsom's claim is true, for now. I guess he is exaggerating because he is only touting his current accomplishment- for now-, without mentioning that disaster might strike in the future.
Of the four claims, the thorough fact check of the Chron does not disprove anything! If anything, it shows that Newsom has a rather firm ground to stand when he is making the claims.
Then why run a front page article on the topic? But to plant the seed of doubts, of course! Let's see if the meme catches, the Chron is asking. After all, it worked for Al Gore. And the Chron is not in the business of sharing true information, it's in the business of trying to elect Republicans.
[as an aside, there is an honest case against Newsom, the SF Appeal makes it.]
Phil Bronstein: Too Good for Us.
So, in the post below, we saw how Phil's article wound up on-line, then withdrawn. According to the Chron, Phil is such a hot commodity that his column will be print-only, and that will get people to go out of their way and buy the paper on Mondays, instead of just free loading it on-line.
Yeah, right. Phil is so insightful, there's going to be a line at the newsstand on Monday morning. We saw how well that worked when the NY Times did the TimesSelect. But the Times only had Nobel prizes and Pulitzer winners on it's roster. The Chron has PHIL.
That's an interesting U-turn from the Chron, which was among the first newspaper to put all their content on-line. It does reek of desperation, since what will they gain from "print-only"? Will it increase print readership? Most likely not, cf. TimesSelect. Will it decrease it's online readership? Well, again, not exactly. Phil's readers are a drop in the bucket.
The only one who will be negatively impacted would be: a) Phil himself, who gets his reader's pool shrunk; b) those who laugh at his blatant GOP pandering, and would like to quote it for funs! (i.e. me); and c) the conservatives who use Phil as the prototypical example of "even the liberals think that...".
Case in point:
When an editor of one of the nation's most liberal newspapers is disgusted by the media's sycophantic adoration for President Obama, it's a metaphysical certitude the press's behavior has so deviated from anything close to journalism that the entire industry should be put in a time out.
With this in mind, the San Francisco Chronicle's Phil Bronstein wrote a piece... called Love or Lust, Obama and the Fawning Press Need to Get a Room.
Ok, so the wingnuts are losing their useful idiot to the print edition of the Chron, and we're losing some cringe-inducing dubious political commentary. Maybe it's not that bad a deal after all.
Oh, and is Phil's writing really so hot?
Here's the number of comments to his posts currently on his blog's first page: 11-11-7-19-54-18-216-27-725-7. Ok, so 216 or 725 is nothing to sneer at. If you take these out, however, it's quite middle of the road.
The post with 216 comment: Gavin tells San Jose that San Francisco is the model for CA: Is he living on his own Fantasy Island?
The post with 725 comment: that link from NewsBusters above saying the press is in the tank for Obama.
So Phil is getting no traction, unless he bashes Democrats like Newsom and Obama, and is linked approvingly by a deranged bunch of Republicans dead-enders. Yeah, you're right, not such a bad idea to take him off the on-line edition.
Yeah, right. Phil is so insightful, there's going to be a line at the newsstand on Monday morning. We saw how well that worked when the NY Times did the TimesSelect. But the Times only had Nobel prizes and Pulitzer winners on it's roster. The Chron has PHIL.
That's an interesting U-turn from the Chron, which was among the first newspaper to put all their content on-line. It does reek of desperation, since what will they gain from "print-only"? Will it increase print readership? Most likely not, cf. TimesSelect. Will it decrease it's online readership? Well, again, not exactly. Phil's readers are a drop in the bucket.
The only one who will be negatively impacted would be: a) Phil himself, who gets his reader's pool shrunk; b) those who laugh at his blatant GOP pandering, and would like to quote it for funs! (i.e. me); and c) the conservatives who use Phil as the prototypical example of "even the liberals think that...".
Case in point:
When an editor of one of the nation's most liberal newspapers is disgusted by the media's sycophantic adoration for President Obama, it's a metaphysical certitude the press's behavior has so deviated from anything close to journalism that the entire industry should be put in a time out.
With this in mind, the San Francisco Chronicle's Phil Bronstein wrote a piece... called Love or Lust, Obama and the Fawning Press Need to Get a Room.
Ok, so the wingnuts are losing their useful idiot to the print edition of the Chron, and we're losing some cringe-inducing dubious political commentary. Maybe it's not that bad a deal after all.
Oh, and is Phil's writing really so hot?
Here's the number of comments to his posts currently on his blog's first page: 11-11-7-19-54-18-216-27-725-7. Ok, so 216 or 725 is nothing to sneer at. If you take these out, however, it's quite middle of the road.
The post with 216 comment: Gavin tells San Jose that San Francisco is the model for CA: Is he living on his own Fantasy Island?
The post with 725 comment: that link from NewsBusters above saying the press is in the tank for Obama.
So Phil is getting no traction, unless he bashes Democrats like Newsom and Obama, and is linked approvingly by a deranged bunch of Republicans dead-enders. Yeah, you're right, not such a bad idea to take him off the on-line edition.
The Chron's Useful Idiocy.
There was a funny episode, about an article by Phil Bronstein regarding Gavin Newsom. The article was online, then was removed. The Newsom haters go crazy, hilarity ensues:
I guess Gavin Newsom’s PR machine will go any length to bury a story they don’t like — it’s no secret that Newsom’s shills regularly berate Chronicle reporters and editors.
I guess that sinking ship called the San Francisco Chronicle has no integrity left. Sigh
Of course, Newsom's shills regularly berate Chron reporters: the Chron is in the tank against him! The Chron is so strongly tilted against Newsom that Newsom's team cannot not be angry against them.
That what pisses me off the most about the Chron's Republican slant: they criticize Democrats tirelessly, and it comes back on Senator Orrin Hatch's Senate page (or on Fox News) with "Even the liberal San Francisco Chronicle thinks that...."
No matter how hard they are shilling against Democrats, the Chron is still perceived as "liberal," or obedient to City Hall's finger snapping.
Even though their latest addition to their op-ed columnist roster is ... drum roll... recall that they don't have any progressive columnists to oppose Debra Saunder (no, John All-I-Care-Is-My-Cats-And-Granddaughter Carroll does not count)...more drum roll... remember, Democrats just won all major national elections, and represent the opinion of a majority of the country...ting! George W. Bush's speechwriter Michael Gerson!
That being said, we agree with "ILoveGavinNewsom," even if for opposite reasons: the SF Chron indeed has little integrity left.
I guess Gavin Newsom’s PR machine will go any length to bury a story they don’t like — it’s no secret that Newsom’s shills regularly berate Chronicle reporters and editors.
I guess that sinking ship called the San Francisco Chronicle has no integrity left. Sigh
Of course, Newsom's shills regularly berate Chron reporters: the Chron is in the tank against him! The Chron is so strongly tilted against Newsom that Newsom's team cannot not be angry against them.
That what pisses me off the most about the Chron's Republican slant: they criticize Democrats tirelessly, and it comes back on Senator Orrin Hatch's Senate page (or on Fox News) with "Even the liberal San Francisco Chronicle thinks that...."
No matter how hard they are shilling against Democrats, the Chron is still perceived as "liberal," or obedient to City Hall's finger snapping.
Even though their latest addition to their op-ed columnist roster is ... drum roll... recall that they don't have any progressive columnists to oppose Debra Saunder (no, John All-I-Care-Is-My-Cats-And-Granddaughter Carroll does not count)...more drum roll... remember, Democrats just won all major national elections, and represent the opinion of a majority of the country...ting! George W. Bush's speechwriter Michael Gerson!
That being said, we agree with "ILoveGavinNewsom," even if for opposite reasons: the SF Chron indeed has little integrity left.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
The Chron: Misleading, misleading, misleading.
The Chron is not in the business of giving you news, it's a GOP propaganda outlet. Take today's cover story (by Carolyn Lochhead, of course):
The record-breaking $787 billion fiscal stimulus package that Congress passed in February is not breaking records on the job front. In California, with 11.5 percent unemployment, it has done little more than prevent layoffs of state workers.
In response, Democrats who sold the stimulus as a way to cap the national unemployment rate at 8 percent are scrambling to explain why hundreds of thousands of jobs disappear each month.
And House Republicans, who voted unanimously against the stimulus, have again ridiculed funding to save San Francisco Bay's salt marsh harvest mouse as an example of waste by Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, although the mouse lives outside her San Francisco district.
As President Obama's first signature achievement, touted as not only promoting recovery but laying a new economic foundation, the stimulus is drawing fierce GOP attack, stirring agitation on the left for a second stimulus and sowing doubts about Obama's credibility on health care reform and energy.
Nationwide, unemployment has reached 9.5 percent and is headed higher. Terrible job losses in June were followed Friday by a report of plunging consumer sentiment. Obama said the stimulus would "save or create" 4 million jobs, but 6.5 million have been lost since the recession began 19 months ago.
The political landscape has shifted since winter, with the financial crisis supplanted by worries about staggering federal debt.
Stimulus is crap. Says Carolyn Lochhead. Six (6!) paragraphs to tell you how horrible it is. Two paragraph later, we get:
None of this should be a surprise. Only a small fraction of the stimulus has even been spent, so it is not shocking that it has yet to show results. By the end of this year, less than a quarter of the money will be out the door. As was widely noted in February, the bulk of the $787 billion will arrive next year.
So what's the story again? The first six paragraphs are a strongly worded indictment of the stimulus, even though that stimulating money just has not been spent yet! Duh.
But many people won't go deep through the article, and those, Lochhead will have convinced the stimulus is a big waste. Mission accomplished.
Two other things she won't mention: that stimulus that Republicans opposed? It contained huge tax cuts to make it palatable for them. Obama tried to reach to the middle, and they spurned him. Tax cuts are known to have little stimulating effect (stimulus money has to be spent to work, while tax rebates tend to be saved until investment opportunities are more promising). But let's not recall this. Let's just say Republican unanimously opposed it, let's not bring up their hissy fit.
Second, the article discusses the impact of the stimulus in California. Well, the Republican governor is trying to shrink the spending of the state by $26 billion. Compare with: California is expected to receive $85 billion in stimulus money. More than $30 billion of that is tax relief. Half of the remaining $50 billion has not been awarded by the federal government. Just $9.4 billion has arrived in the state as of last week, said Camille Anderson, spokeswoman for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
So yeah, $30 million in tax relief (a concession to Republicans) won't most likely be spent, as mentioned earlier. $9.4 billion has arrived, but Arnold is trying to subtract $26 billion. Net effect: negative. Less money is spent, especially over the poor (where the bang-for-the-buck of stimulus is the highest, since they will spend it, not save it for later). Stimulating? Of course not. Quite the opposite. But who will be blamed? If you read the Chron, it's easy: Obama.
At least, the more recommended comments of the article seem to show that the readers are as rabid are Lochhead. Here are the 3 most recommended comments now:
comment 1: Didn't they say like a thousand times that Obama was going to hit the ground running and there would be no on-the-job training.
Now our country is in economic turmoil, and he's just as hapless as expected ?!
Yeah, like the turmoil does not predate the election; like his opponent knew how to handle the economy. Maybe Obama should have suspended his campaign too.
Comment 2: The whole stimulus thing is a political play designed to pour money out for the 010 election to buy all the votes needed to assure majorities in both houses.......you haven't seen anything yet. Our economy will never grow large enough to repay the staggering debt being printed by this administration. It would take 25 years straight at the amount of the last budget surplus to repay what has been printed to now and this president is just getting started.......25 years of straight surpluses.......do you really believe in this type of change!
Because the administration of the previous 8 years did not turn budget surplus in red ink as far as the eye can see, with nothing to show for it but the hugest economic crisis since 1929...
Comment 3: Democrats have the very odd idea that spending money is a stimulus. Well if it builds permanent private sector employment or gives consumers confidence to spend some their own money -- it is.
Odd idea that spending money is stimulus. Duh, that's the whole point! Where do the Chron find these commenters?
The record-breaking $787 billion fiscal stimulus package that Congress passed in February is not breaking records on the job front. In California, with 11.5 percent unemployment, it has done little more than prevent layoffs of state workers.
In response, Democrats who sold the stimulus as a way to cap the national unemployment rate at 8 percent are scrambling to explain why hundreds of thousands of jobs disappear each month.
And House Republicans, who voted unanimously against the stimulus, have again ridiculed funding to save San Francisco Bay's salt marsh harvest mouse as an example of waste by Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, although the mouse lives outside her San Francisco district.
As President Obama's first signature achievement, touted as not only promoting recovery but laying a new economic foundation, the stimulus is drawing fierce GOP attack, stirring agitation on the left for a second stimulus and sowing doubts about Obama's credibility on health care reform and energy.
Nationwide, unemployment has reached 9.5 percent and is headed higher. Terrible job losses in June were followed Friday by a report of plunging consumer sentiment. Obama said the stimulus would "save or create" 4 million jobs, but 6.5 million have been lost since the recession began 19 months ago.
The political landscape has shifted since winter, with the financial crisis supplanted by worries about staggering federal debt.
Stimulus is crap. Says Carolyn Lochhead. Six (6!) paragraphs to tell you how horrible it is. Two paragraph later, we get:
None of this should be a surprise. Only a small fraction of the stimulus has even been spent, so it is not shocking that it has yet to show results. By the end of this year, less than a quarter of the money will be out the door. As was widely noted in February, the bulk of the $787 billion will arrive next year.
So what's the story again? The first six paragraphs are a strongly worded indictment of the stimulus, even though that stimulating money just has not been spent yet! Duh.
But many people won't go deep through the article, and those, Lochhead will have convinced the stimulus is a big waste. Mission accomplished.
Two other things she won't mention: that stimulus that Republicans opposed? It contained huge tax cuts to make it palatable for them. Obama tried to reach to the middle, and they spurned him. Tax cuts are known to have little stimulating effect (stimulus money has to be spent to work, while tax rebates tend to be saved until investment opportunities are more promising). But let's not recall this. Let's just say Republican unanimously opposed it, let's not bring up their hissy fit.
Second, the article discusses the impact of the stimulus in California. Well, the Republican governor is trying to shrink the spending of the state by $26 billion. Compare with: California is expected to receive $85 billion in stimulus money. More than $30 billion of that is tax relief. Half of the remaining $50 billion has not been awarded by the federal government. Just $9.4 billion has arrived in the state as of last week, said Camille Anderson, spokeswoman for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
So yeah, $30 million in tax relief (a concession to Republicans) won't most likely be spent, as mentioned earlier. $9.4 billion has arrived, but Arnold is trying to subtract $26 billion. Net effect: negative. Less money is spent, especially over the poor (where the bang-for-the-buck of stimulus is the highest, since they will spend it, not save it for later). Stimulating? Of course not. Quite the opposite. But who will be blamed? If you read the Chron, it's easy: Obama.
At least, the more recommended comments of the article seem to show that the readers are as rabid are Lochhead. Here are the 3 most recommended comments now:
comment 1: Didn't they say like a thousand times that Obama was going to hit the ground running and there would be no on-the-job training.
Now our country is in economic turmoil, and he's just as hapless as expected ?!
Yeah, like the turmoil does not predate the election; like his opponent knew how to handle the economy. Maybe Obama should have suspended his campaign too.
Comment 2: The whole stimulus thing is a political play designed to pour money out for the 010 election to buy all the votes needed to assure majorities in both houses.......you haven't seen anything yet. Our economy will never grow large enough to repay the staggering debt being printed by this administration. It would take 25 years straight at the amount of the last budget surplus to repay what has been printed to now and this president is just getting started.......25 years of straight surpluses.......do you really believe in this type of change!
Because the administration of the previous 8 years did not turn budget surplus in red ink as far as the eye can see, with nothing to show for it but the hugest economic crisis since 1929...
Comment 3: Democrats have the very odd idea that spending money is a stimulus. Well if it builds permanent private sector employment or gives consumers confidence to spend some their own money -- it is.
Odd idea that spending money is stimulus. Duh, that's the whole point! Where do the Chron find these commenters?
Thursday, July 09, 2009
The Chron: Journalist Ethics are for Suckers.
Phil Bronstein used to be the editor of the Chron. He still has an "editor at large" title, and you would think that issues of journalism ethics would be close to his heart. After all, Bronstein climbed up the ranks not on the strength of his intellect, but on being a good, old fashioned, journalist: courageous, even fearless, in war zones. The kind of stuff that kids want to become journalist for: heroic, tanned, and speaking truth to the power of dictators over the world.
But that's in the past, and far from today's Bronstein: he is now a corporate guy who lost his moral compass, a cynical curmudgeon. So we get this very strange blog post about the resignation of Sarah Palin.
What do you call it when the Washington Post charges $25,000 for a "salon" at the publisher's house where advertisers, lobbyists, and powerful officials could have the privilege of mixing with the newspaper's reporters and editors?
What do we call it? Easy: corrupt, decadent journalism with no ethics; an unforgivable breach of the trust of their customers; shameful; rotten; and of course, since the poors and the sick don't have lobbyists, another way of being compliant to the rich, and the Republicans who do the work on their behalf. We got it right, Phil?
Wrong:
I'd say it's a "pattern of grandiosity," one of the "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders" descriptions of narcissism, according to Todd Purdum's Palin article.
The New York Times, of course, maintaining its own grandiose position, couldn't allow a media rival to go unpunished for such hubris. In a ritual of journalistic noogies, the Times ran a huge section front photo of offending Post publisher Katharine Weymouth, along with a big headline noting her "Stumble" and "Concerns about [the Post's] Integrity." Because the Times is infallible, as we all know, and must be first and without equals. Can you say the N-word?
Is Phil real? The NYTimes raises a stink, because compromising journalistic integrity means something to them, but Phil discredit the complain as just cheap baseless competitiveness, and no one is "infallible," and move along.
Phil is not shocked that the Washington Post could sell access to his newsroom to lobbyist. And to be honest, due to the lousy pro-Repub state of the media, the news does not exactly come as a surprise. Phil, of course, is part of this Republican-enabling establishment, but isn't he at least supposed to pretend it's a shame? Isn't he at least supposed to defend the journalistic ideals?
Phil: pay lip service to the issue of ethics in the newsroom, would you. You don't believe in it, ok. But at least, do it to defend the Chron from the suspicion that you, as editor, would have done the same as the Post. We know you would have, but it's your job to keep it hushed.
But that's in the past, and far from today's Bronstein: he is now a corporate guy who lost his moral compass, a cynical curmudgeon. So we get this very strange blog post about the resignation of Sarah Palin.
What do you call it when the Washington Post charges $25,000 for a "salon" at the publisher's house where advertisers, lobbyists, and powerful officials could have the privilege of mixing with the newspaper's reporters and editors?
What do we call it? Easy: corrupt, decadent journalism with no ethics; an unforgivable breach of the trust of their customers; shameful; rotten; and of course, since the poors and the sick don't have lobbyists, another way of being compliant to the rich, and the Republicans who do the work on their behalf. We got it right, Phil?
Wrong:
I'd say it's a "pattern of grandiosity," one of the "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders" descriptions of narcissism, according to Todd Purdum's Palin article.
The New York Times, of course, maintaining its own grandiose position, couldn't allow a media rival to go unpunished for such hubris. In a ritual of journalistic noogies, the Times ran a huge section front photo of offending Post publisher Katharine Weymouth, along with a big headline noting her "Stumble" and "Concerns about [the Post's] Integrity." Because the Times is infallible, as we all know, and must be first and without equals. Can you say the N-word?
Is Phil real? The NYTimes raises a stink, because compromising journalistic integrity means something to them, but Phil discredit the complain as just cheap baseless competitiveness, and no one is "infallible," and move along.
Phil is not shocked that the Washington Post could sell access to his newsroom to lobbyist. And to be honest, due to the lousy pro-Repub state of the media, the news does not exactly come as a surprise. Phil, of course, is part of this Republican-enabling establishment, but isn't he at least supposed to pretend it's a shame? Isn't he at least supposed to defend the journalistic ideals?
Phil: pay lip service to the issue of ethics in the newsroom, would you. You don't believe in it, ok. But at least, do it to defend the Chron from the suspicion that you, as editor, would have done the same as the Post. We know you would have, but it's your job to keep it hushed.
The Chron complains that politicians' narcissism is being called out.
Phil Bronstein, in a blog post about Sarah Palin's resignation, discovers that, gasp, politicians have, wait for it, a big ego.
There's a new N-word permeating our culture and it has nothing to do with racial epithets.
The warm bath of public narcissism is getting as crowded as the rooftop hot tub at SF's kink.com on a Friday night. Instead of luxuriating in it, or watching a few privileged porn performers sudsing up, we're all jammed in, flailing around and knocking into each other like the Three Stooges with ego bling.
Sarah Palin suffers from "narcissistic personality disorder," testifies Todd Purdum in the latest Palintology obsession in this month's Vanity Fair.
First, if you follow the link above (from Phil), there's no mention of any hot tub, but cute, proper, SFW pictures of my cute former SFist editor, Eve Batey. That hot tub digression, I'd be curious to hear where Phil got it. He seems very well informed about what's happening on the rooftop at Kink.
Anyhow, so someone called Palin a narcissist, and Phil go all booh-wah. Phil is all surprised that politicians are called narcissist, even though, you know, narcissism is part of the job definition. If you did not want people to like you and vote for you, if you didn't think you were specially super-awesome to fix the problems, don't go into politics. Duh.
Mr. Purdum himself also said the same thing about Bill Clinton in an earlier profile. And how about John Edwards and Eliot Spitzer? Narcissists, right?
Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Eliot Spitzer: guilty as charged, of course, just like 100% of our elected officials. Also, way out of the news cycle. Irrelevant. But: also guilty of being Democrats, so they are invited for no reason to this column because it's about Sarah Palin, Republican, and...
Mark Sanford confessed to the psycho-crime himself in fishing around for some behavioral alibi.
..Mark Sanford, Republican. Phil does need to rile back in Edwards or Spitzer, since you know, with Palin and Sanford making their waves, he is short of Democrats to slander. I mean, they committed adultery like, say McCain, Newt Gingrich, or Rudy Giuliani, but for some reasons, non-connected Republicans of the same notoriety don't get dragged in this conversation.
But retiring Governor Palin blames "the media" for her problems, ...After all, narcissists always blame others, don't they? And, like paranoids with real enemies, they're right.
Yeah, right, Palin *is* right. It's all Katie Couric's fault for being so mean to her. And her tricky questions: "what magazines do you read?", that's despicable gotcha journalism.
There's a new N-word permeating our culture and it has nothing to do with racial epithets.
The warm bath of public narcissism is getting as crowded as the rooftop hot tub at SF's kink.com on a Friday night. Instead of luxuriating in it, or watching a few privileged porn performers sudsing up, we're all jammed in, flailing around and knocking into each other like the Three Stooges with ego bling.
Sarah Palin suffers from "narcissistic personality disorder," testifies Todd Purdum in the latest Palintology obsession in this month's Vanity Fair.
First, if you follow the link above (from Phil), there's no mention of any hot tub, but cute, proper, SFW pictures of my cute former SFist editor, Eve Batey. That hot tub digression, I'd be curious to hear where Phil got it. He seems very well informed about what's happening on the rooftop at Kink.
Anyhow, so someone called Palin a narcissist, and Phil go all booh-wah. Phil is all surprised that politicians are called narcissist, even though, you know, narcissism is part of the job definition. If you did not want people to like you and vote for you, if you didn't think you were specially super-awesome to fix the problems, don't go into politics. Duh.
Mr. Purdum himself also said the same thing about Bill Clinton in an earlier profile. And how about John Edwards and Eliot Spitzer? Narcissists, right?
Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Eliot Spitzer: guilty as charged, of course, just like 100% of our elected officials. Also, way out of the news cycle. Irrelevant. But: also guilty of being Democrats, so they are invited for no reason to this column because it's about Sarah Palin, Republican, and...
Mark Sanford confessed to the psycho-crime himself in fishing around for some behavioral alibi.
..Mark Sanford, Republican. Phil does need to rile back in Edwards or Spitzer, since you know, with Palin and Sanford making their waves, he is short of Democrats to slander. I mean, they committed adultery like, say McCain, Newt Gingrich, or Rudy Giuliani, but for some reasons, non-connected Republicans of the same notoriety don't get dragged in this conversation.
But retiring Governor Palin blames "the media" for her problems, ...After all, narcissists always blame others, don't they? And, like paranoids with real enemies, they're right.
Yeah, right, Palin *is* right. It's all Katie Couric's fault for being so mean to her. And her tricky questions: "what magazines do you read?", that's despicable gotcha journalism.
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
The Chron Still Has It for Schwarzenegger.
The person next to me on the train was holding is Chron in such a way that I couldn't but notice Carla Marinucci's front page article:
Schwarzenegger holds his ground on budget
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has played an astonishing range of roles in California's budget dramas - bipartisan peacemaker and people's advocate among them. Now, the governor is reprising a classic familiar to millions: the steely-eyed, sword-wielding strongman.
Carla: still drooling over the muscles of Arnie.
In his latest efforts to close the staggering $26.3 billion deficit, Schwarzenegger is demanding ever-deeper cuts that Democrats say will shred the social safety net. He is even entertaining what some Democrats regard as a "nuclear option" in California politics - the suspension of Prop. 98, the landmark initiative voters passed in 1988 to ensure that 40 percent of the general fund goes to public schools and community colleges.
Oh, come on. It's not Democrats who say that, it's anyone with a brain.
When Democrats rule, the Chron insist that they should bend backward to reach out to Republicans to make everything bipartisan.
But for Schwarzenegger, his über-partisan, Republican-extremist, Grover Nordquist-abiding "no new tax" stance is bringing the state to the verge of chaos, against the will of the majority of the legislature and of the population, and Carla sees a movie hero, a courageous strongman. Bi-partisanship only goes one way in the Chron.
Carla: in Arnold's movie, he was wielding his sword to protect the children, the weak, and Sarah Connor. Not to leave them without food, schools and health coverage.
Schwarzenegger holds his ground on budget
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has played an astonishing range of roles in California's budget dramas - bipartisan peacemaker and people's advocate among them. Now, the governor is reprising a classic familiar to millions: the steely-eyed, sword-wielding strongman.
Carla: still drooling over the muscles of Arnie.
In his latest efforts to close the staggering $26.3 billion deficit, Schwarzenegger is demanding ever-deeper cuts that Democrats say will shred the social safety net. He is even entertaining what some Democrats regard as a "nuclear option" in California politics - the suspension of Prop. 98, the landmark initiative voters passed in 1988 to ensure that 40 percent of the general fund goes to public schools and community colleges.
Oh, come on. It's not Democrats who say that, it's anyone with a brain.
When Democrats rule, the Chron insist that they should bend backward to reach out to Republicans to make everything bipartisan.
But for Schwarzenegger, his über-partisan, Republican-extremist, Grover Nordquist-abiding "no new tax" stance is bringing the state to the verge of chaos, against the will of the majority of the legislature and of the population, and Carla sees a movie hero, a courageous strongman. Bi-partisanship only goes one way in the Chron.
Carla: in Arnold's movie, he was wielding his sword to protect the children, the weak, and Sarah Connor. Not to leave them without food, schools and health coverage.
