Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Lying is Fine for the Chron Editor, Unless....
Shorter Phil Bronstein:
Lying for a conservative pundit is totally cool by me, unless it is impugning on my courageous heroic war journalist heroism.
Longer version: Today, Phil draws the line in the sand where it is not fine for a conservative pundit to lie.
As a journalist, I know I should revere Bob Novak,...
Bob Novak, the guy who outed a CIA agent to advance Bush's case for a useless war in Iraq and silence its opponents, of course. And that little piece of information won't even be mentioned in Phil's column about Novak.
Why? Because Phil did not get to see an Iraqi family murdered first hand (even though 100,000s unnecessarily died).
I was covering the bloody conflict in El Salvador in the late '80s. I'm not an either/or person, generally, and I had good relations with colonels on the right and guerrillas on the left...
Grampa, please take your medication, these war stories always get you all excited, you never finish your yogurt. Go sit by the fireplace, and tell it to the TV, dear.
So I go to a disinterment of a couple of murder victims on the dusty outskirts of town...Once they were dug up and carted off for more examination, I left...I went to my rented house in the Escalon district of Salvador and slumped in a chair in front of an old TV set...There was Robert Novak, screaming ..."Death squads in El Salvador is a liberal MYTH!"
I haven't been accused of being a liberal all that much,...but I can tell you reliably that Salvadoran death squads were as real as Scooter Libby and Evans and Novak. At the time, I wanted to reach through the TV screen and strangle the guy into sensibility. Or have the two tragic dead men delivered, without benefit of makeup, on his front lawn.
Oh, no, Phil, you can't be accused of being a liberal, for sho. Nevertheless, what did you learn from the lesson? That conservative pundits will blatantly lie and lie and lie to dismiss facts and people who are reality-based? Well, not exactly:
Someone noted... that he was called "The Prince of Darkness," not by his enemies but by his friends because of his contacts and his power to move the D.C. discussion. I remember once being at dinner...when Bob Novak came in. He had that invisible wake around him that surrounds celebrities, that sense that the molecules in the room bend when someone famous arrives.
It's not the lying, agenda-pushing part that bothers Phil, it's when it's colliding with his heroism!
Lying for a conservative pundit is totally cool by me, unless it is impugning on my courageous heroic war journalist heroism.
Longer version: Today, Phil draws the line in the sand where it is not fine for a conservative pundit to lie.
As a journalist, I know I should revere Bob Novak,...
Bob Novak, the guy who outed a CIA agent to advance Bush's case for a useless war in Iraq and silence its opponents, of course. And that little piece of information won't even be mentioned in Phil's column about Novak.
Why? Because Phil did not get to see an Iraqi family murdered first hand (even though 100,000s unnecessarily died).
I was covering the bloody conflict in El Salvador in the late '80s. I'm not an either/or person, generally, and I had good relations with colonels on the right and guerrillas on the left...
Grampa, please take your medication, these war stories always get you all excited, you never finish your yogurt. Go sit by the fireplace, and tell it to the TV, dear.
So I go to a disinterment of a couple of murder victims on the dusty outskirts of town...Once they were dug up and carted off for more examination, I left...I went to my rented house in the Escalon district of Salvador and slumped in a chair in front of an old TV set...There was Robert Novak, screaming ..."Death squads in El Salvador is a liberal MYTH!"
I haven't been accused of being a liberal all that much,...but I can tell you reliably that Salvadoran death squads were as real as Scooter Libby and Evans and Novak. At the time, I wanted to reach through the TV screen and strangle the guy into sensibility. Or have the two tragic dead men delivered, without benefit of makeup, on his front lawn.
Oh, no, Phil, you can't be accused of being a liberal, for sho. Nevertheless, what did you learn from the lesson? That conservative pundits will blatantly lie and lie and lie to dismiss facts and people who are reality-based? Well, not exactly:
Someone noted... that he was called "The Prince of Darkness," not by his enemies but by his friends because of his contacts and his power to move the D.C. discussion. I remember once being at dinner...when Bob Novak came in. He had that invisible wake around him that surrounds celebrities, that sense that the molecules in the room bend when someone famous arrives.
It's not the lying, agenda-pushing part that bothers Phil, it's when it's colliding with his heroism!
Friday, August 14, 2009
I'm Not Reading that Crap.
But just for the record, I saw that Carolyn Lochhead wrote a piece which opens with:
A president famous for his campaign skills has let the opposition define the debate on health care reform, the central issue of his party and his presidency.
If by defining you mean: lying the shit out of it, then yes, they have been successful. And as long as Lochhead won't call them for it, they will be successful. But Obama is not to blame.
In a blog post, Lochhead writes:
It's a no-brainer to use code words to simplify a negative message, whether it's "privatization" or "government-run health care." Negative messages are always more effective than trying to sell something. Ask President Obama; he destroyed John McCain's health care proposal by radically oversimplifying it.
You understand that she actually volunteers false equivalences, she is creating those. She is an active participant in "defining" the proposal of Obama in a misleading way. "Privatization" was the term used by Republicans until they realized it did not poll well. It also is a truthful description of the Bush's "reform" of Social security. "Governement-run health care", death panels and what not are lies and scaremongering.
So, I'm not going to go beyond that first paragraph. But should you go, you've been warned.
A president famous for his campaign skills has let the opposition define the debate on health care reform, the central issue of his party and his presidency.
If by defining you mean: lying the shit out of it, then yes, they have been successful. And as long as Lochhead won't call them for it, they will be successful. But Obama is not to blame.
In a blog post, Lochhead writes:
It's a no-brainer to use code words to simplify a negative message, whether it's "privatization" or "government-run health care." Negative messages are always more effective than trying to sell something. Ask President Obama; he destroyed John McCain's health care proposal by radically oversimplifying it.
You understand that she actually volunteers false equivalences, she is creating those. She is an active participant in "defining" the proposal of Obama in a misleading way. "Privatization" was the term used by Republicans until they realized it did not poll well. It also is a truthful description of the Bush's "reform" of Social security. "Governement-run health care", death panels and what not are lies and scaremongering.
So, I'm not going to go beyond that first paragraph. But should you go, you've been warned.
Phil Bronstein: Hillary is Gay, Gay, Gay.
We're not sure what this bring to the discourse, except a self-satisfied smug smirk on Phil's face, but here you go!
Shorter Phil Bronstein: Hillary is a lesbian.
Title: Hillary comes out of the Bill closet.
Get it?
I've never been a huge Hillary fan, [ed note: no shit, sherlock. It would difficult to be even a tiny fan when Phil has been a thorough hater] but this was both heartbreaking and endearing, watching the cold steel and dispassion of the campaigner and too-often back seat passenger to power, explode into the molten lava that's been percolating all these years. Maybe it's been roiling around inside her, if you read Carl Bernstein's bio of her, since she showed up in Little Rock to marry Bill giving up her own promising DC career, and found him in flagrante with a young aide.
Oh yeah, Carl Bernstein's bio: out of the first four hits on google, one is for amazon, two is for an msnbc story: "Hillary is unauthentic," and one is for a London Times story: "Watergate reporter demolishes Hillary's career story." An unimpeachable source of unbiased information!
Even with the overlay of Mmes. Spitzer and Sanford, Hillary Clinton had remained the poster woman for the puzzlement of why anyone would repeatedly absorb such public humiliation.
Well, the answer of the puzzlement is in the subject line....Oh, Phil, you're so subtle.
Most recently, Bill arguably upstaged his wife yet again when he played the international broker in the freeing of two journalists in North Korea.
What does Phil mean, upstaged? Does Phil really think that Hillary's department was not involved in those negotation? Is Phil really such a rookie? Does Phil really think that Bill went there without his wife being part of the decision, either at the office or at home? Why Phil phrases this as a conjugal competition?
Phil freely speculates on the interworking of Bill and Hillary's couple, he's so definitely stuck in the past century, with his obsession about the Clintons and his reminding us at every turn he used to be a courageous war journalist. And he personally knows how it feels to feel upstaged by a glamorous wife. He must have been miserable married to a celeb.
After reading obsessively about it, I'm still not sure how exactly that went down. But it did appear that Bill had, as he often does, gotten applause for his role and snatched an inexpensive victory from the jaws of a larger lifetime of reminders of his self-absorption and incessant competition for the limelight.
It does not make sense, how do you snatch victory from reminders...that's poor, convoluted writing. But you have to admire how perverted Phil is: "incessant competition for the limelight." Bill used to be president of the US, so yes, he has a spotlight on him all the time, whether he wants it or not.
Let's rewind: Phil claims he read obsessively about it. So he read the Wall Street Journal. You know, North Korea Asked for Bill Clinton. Bill gracefully goes to rescue the hostages. Al Gore or Jimmy Carter were volunteered, but Kim Jong Il wanted the big dog. That does not square with Phil's view of Clinton. Clinton had to push away others so he could hog the spotlight as the savior of the day. So Phil just lies (and remember: that guy was editor of the Chron during the Clinton years!)
And something has kept this fascinating couple together all these years; I'm just as happy to believe it's love. I hope that's in there somewhere. But I also hope she feels better now. I certainly feel better about her after this dramatic blow-out. Maybe she's come out of her closet when it comes to Bill.
"When it comes to Bill." As for that other closet...
Shorter Phil Bronstein: Hillary is a lesbian.
Title: Hillary comes out of the Bill closet.
Get it?
I've never been a huge Hillary fan, [ed note: no shit, sherlock. It would difficult to be even a tiny fan when Phil has been a thorough hater] but this was both heartbreaking and endearing, watching the cold steel and dispassion of the campaigner and too-often back seat passenger to power, explode into the molten lava that's been percolating all these years. Maybe it's been roiling around inside her, if you read Carl Bernstein's bio of her, since she showed up in Little Rock to marry Bill giving up her own promising DC career, and found him in flagrante with a young aide.
Oh yeah, Carl Bernstein's bio: out of the first four hits on google, one is for amazon, two is for an msnbc story: "Hillary is unauthentic," and one is for a London Times story: "Watergate reporter demolishes Hillary's career story." An unimpeachable source of unbiased information!
Even with the overlay of Mmes. Spitzer and Sanford, Hillary Clinton had remained the poster woman for the puzzlement of why anyone would repeatedly absorb such public humiliation.
Well, the answer of the puzzlement is in the subject line....Oh, Phil, you're so subtle.
Most recently, Bill arguably upstaged his wife yet again when he played the international broker in the freeing of two journalists in North Korea.
What does Phil mean, upstaged? Does Phil really think that Hillary's department was not involved in those negotation? Is Phil really such a rookie? Does Phil really think that Bill went there without his wife being part of the decision, either at the office or at home? Why Phil phrases this as a conjugal competition?
Phil freely speculates on the interworking of Bill and Hillary's couple, he's so definitely stuck in the past century, with his obsession about the Clintons and his reminding us at every turn he used to be a courageous war journalist. And he personally knows how it feels to feel upstaged by a glamorous wife. He must have been miserable married to a celeb.
After reading obsessively about it, I'm still not sure how exactly that went down. But it did appear that Bill had, as he often does, gotten applause for his role and snatched an inexpensive victory from the jaws of a larger lifetime of reminders of his self-absorption and incessant competition for the limelight.
It does not make sense, how do you snatch victory from reminders...that's poor, convoluted writing. But you have to admire how perverted Phil is: "incessant competition for the limelight." Bill used to be president of the US, so yes, he has a spotlight on him all the time, whether he wants it or not.
Let's rewind: Phil claims he read obsessively about it. So he read the Wall Street Journal. You know, North Korea Asked for Bill Clinton. Bill gracefully goes to rescue the hostages. Al Gore or Jimmy Carter were volunteered, but Kim Jong Il wanted the big dog. That does not square with Phil's view of Clinton. Clinton had to push away others so he could hog the spotlight as the savior of the day. So Phil just lies (and remember: that guy was editor of the Chron during the Clinton years!)
And something has kept this fascinating couple together all these years; I'm just as happy to believe it's love. I hope that's in there somewhere. But I also hope she feels better now. I certainly feel better about her after this dramatic blow-out. Maybe she's come out of her closet when it comes to Bill.
"When it comes to Bill." As for that other closet...
Monday, August 10, 2009
Where are the Next Leaders from California?
You know, that's the question Phil Bronstein asked in one of his print-only emails (the one that went on-line anyway). His answer was: look for leaders in the new economy, in the leaders of twitter or google. Our take was: Bronstein endorses e-Bay's Meg Whitman, it was so transparent.
And today, we get Carla Marinucci making the case that: e-Bay's Meg Whitman is the savior to not only win the California governorship, but bring the GOP back from the dead and have a momentous impact on national politics.
Yep, Meg IS the answer to Phil's question. He hinted at it, Carla made is crystal clear.
The Chron endorses Republican Meg Whitman for governor.
And today, we get Carla Marinucci making the case that: e-Bay's Meg Whitman is the savior to not only win the California governorship, but bring the GOP back from the dead and have a momentous impact on national politics.
Yep, Meg IS the answer to Phil's question. He hinted at it, Carla made is crystal clear.
The Chron endorses Republican Meg Whitman for governor.
Congratulations, Phil!
We were looking on Lexis-Nexis for the weekly Mondays PRINT ONLY column of Chornical editor-at-large Phil Bronstein, and it's nowhere to be found.
And the reason is? Phil is a brand new daddy! Congratulations Phil. And we hope that the, how to put it, less than stellar piece from last week was due to other things on Phil's mind.
And the reason is? Phil is a brand new daddy! Congratulations Phil. And we hope that the, how to put it, less than stellar piece from last week was due to other things on Phil's mind.
California, The GOP Savior?
The title is the headline for this at SFGate's main page, and I don't have to read it to know it's an article by Carla Marinucci. Because she is so invested in finding (and broadcasting) hope for her beloved GOP.
Now, before clicking on the link, let's just say that it's absurd on its face to look at California as an example to lead the GOP. CA has an R-governor and a Republican minority in the state congress who rabidly blocked any solution to the budget crisis that did not involve putting the burden on the poor, the sick, and the education. CA passed one of the most despicable budgets ever, just because raising revenues was not an option: terminated by the GOP. CA was the laughingstock in the nation, with pundits everywhere showing it as an example of politics hijacked and thrown over the edge by extremists. Arnold's ratings hit rock bottom. That's the pile of manure where Carla is looking for someone to lead the way!
Despite California's sorry status as an economic basket case, some GOP voices are suggesting, ever so hopefully, that the Golden State could be poised for a new profile - as the birthplace of a potential renaissance for the Republican Party.
And it could start at the top, some argue, with the 2010 campaign for governor.
Oh, I see! The GOP is saying that the GOP will be reborn, and not sooner than 2010. I'm sure they don't have a dog in the fight. So they faxed the press release to Carla, and voila, FRONT PAGE of the Chron!
Democrats too can email releases to Carla, the address she gave them is trashbin778@hotmail.com, just don't forget to put "[SPAM] p01rn from Aykil Obadeba, Esq., Lagos" in the subject line.
National conservative columnist George Will penned a gushing piece ...[about] Meg Whitman...Fox News pundit Fred Barnes, the executive editor of the Weekly Standard, has also gone gaga over Whitman...
It's not only the GOP, it's also the conservative columnists, including Fox News! Still no dog in the fight, of course. When Bill Kristol chimes in, we might have the next Sarah Palin! And if conservative pundits think so, you bet it should be COVER STORY at the Chron!
Such high praise may explain why Whitman, ... has spent $6 million of her own money on her exploratory GOP campaign....Amazingly, she isn't the only member of her party who wants a shot at being GOP savior in the Golden State. State Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner, also a millionaire candidate...
Notice the subtle switch in semantics here? Some see in Whitman the resurgence of the GOP. "Amazingly," she won't run unopposed in the GOP primary. We found this quite unsurprising, but maybe we're just jaded. Or Carla really gets excited by having not one, but several GOP candidates interested in the governor position.
State party Vice Chair Jon Fleischman,... says that... "the Democrats are either going to put up Gov. Moonbeam" - Jerry Brown, the former two-term governor - "or the whacked-out mayor of San Francisco," Gavin Newsom. Both Democrats, he predicts, will "fire up the state's GOP grassroots and fundraising" from across the country.
But he's the Republican state party, he does not have a dog in the fight. This article must be PUBLISHED ON PAGE A1.
Then comes input from Hoover Institution senior fellow Morris Fiorina (Hoover Institution = Republican think tank), and Patrick Dorinson, whose CowboyLibertarian.com blog calls for a government to "keep their hands out of folks' wallets and their nose out of their private lives." But it's just a coincidence that they don't like Democrats.
Actually, I'm unfair. Carla has found a Democrat to interview.
Simon Rosenberg, who heads the Washington-based think tank NDN, formerly known as the New Democrat Network, says all three will be among the most-watched candidates in the nation in 2010.
"The California governor's race will be the most important in the country next year," he said. "It's going to be a titanic battle, and whichever party wins it will win the crown jewel."
That Democrat is sure pushing tough partisan talking points. Where did she find such an unabashed propagandist?
Rosenberg notes that "the most compelling Republican leader of the last generation came out of California: Ronald Reagan." But here's the challenge, he says: "The California today is not the California that created Reagan or the conservative movement. "Among aging pundits, there's a nostalgia for the old days," Rosenberg said. "But we're in the 21st century now."
That's some balance: to compensate for Republicans attacking "Moonbeam" Brown or "whacked-out" Newsom, she found a Democrat to admire Reagan.
And, dear readers, is HOW YOU SCORE THE FRONT PAGE of the Chron!
Now, before clicking on the link, let's just say that it's absurd on its face to look at California as an example to lead the GOP. CA has an R-governor and a Republican minority in the state congress who rabidly blocked any solution to the budget crisis that did not involve putting the burden on the poor, the sick, and the education. CA passed one of the most despicable budgets ever, just because raising revenues was not an option: terminated by the GOP. CA was the laughingstock in the nation, with pundits everywhere showing it as an example of politics hijacked and thrown over the edge by extremists. Arnold's ratings hit rock bottom. That's the pile of manure where Carla is looking for someone to lead the way!
Despite California's sorry status as an economic basket case, some GOP voices are suggesting, ever so hopefully, that the Golden State could be poised for a new profile - as the birthplace of a potential renaissance for the Republican Party.
And it could start at the top, some argue, with the 2010 campaign for governor.
Oh, I see! The GOP is saying that the GOP will be reborn, and not sooner than 2010. I'm sure they don't have a dog in the fight. So they faxed the press release to Carla, and voila, FRONT PAGE of the Chron!
Democrats too can email releases to Carla, the address she gave them is trashbin778@hotmail.com, just don't forget to put "[SPAM] p01rn from Aykil Obadeba, Esq., Lagos" in the subject line.
National conservative columnist George Will penned a gushing piece ...[about] Meg Whitman...Fox News pundit Fred Barnes, the executive editor of the Weekly Standard, has also gone gaga over Whitman...
It's not only the GOP, it's also the conservative columnists, including Fox News! Still no dog in the fight, of course. When Bill Kristol chimes in, we might have the next Sarah Palin! And if conservative pundits think so, you bet it should be COVER STORY at the Chron!
Such high praise may explain why Whitman, ... has spent $6 million of her own money on her exploratory GOP campaign....Amazingly, she isn't the only member of her party who wants a shot at being GOP savior in the Golden State. State Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner, also a millionaire candidate...
Notice the subtle switch in semantics here? Some see in Whitman the resurgence of the GOP. "Amazingly," she won't run unopposed in the GOP primary. We found this quite unsurprising, but maybe we're just jaded. Or Carla really gets excited by having not one, but several GOP candidates interested in the governor position.
State party Vice Chair Jon Fleischman,... says that... "the Democrats are either going to put up Gov. Moonbeam" - Jerry Brown, the former two-term governor - "or the whacked-out mayor of San Francisco," Gavin Newsom. Both Democrats, he predicts, will "fire up the state's GOP grassroots and fundraising" from across the country.
But he's the Republican state party, he does not have a dog in the fight. This article must be PUBLISHED ON PAGE A1.
Then comes input from Hoover Institution senior fellow Morris Fiorina (Hoover Institution = Republican think tank), and Patrick Dorinson, whose CowboyLibertarian.com blog calls for a government to "keep their hands out of folks' wallets and their nose out of their private lives." But it's just a coincidence that they don't like Democrats.
Actually, I'm unfair. Carla has found a Democrat to interview.
Simon Rosenberg, who heads the Washington-based think tank NDN, formerly known as the New Democrat Network, says all three will be among the most-watched candidates in the nation in 2010.
"The California governor's race will be the most important in the country next year," he said. "It's going to be a titanic battle, and whichever party wins it will win the crown jewel."
That Democrat is sure pushing tough partisan talking points. Where did she find such an unabashed propagandist?
Rosenberg notes that "the most compelling Republican leader of the last generation came out of California: Ronald Reagan." But here's the challenge, he says: "The California today is not the California that created Reagan or the conservative movement. "Among aging pundits, there's a nostalgia for the old days," Rosenberg said. "But we're in the 21st century now."
That's some balance: to compensate for Republicans attacking "Moonbeam" Brown or "whacked-out" Newsom, she found a Democrat to admire Reagan.
And, dear readers, is HOW YOU SCORE THE FRONT PAGE of the Chron!
Sunday, August 09, 2009
Leaving on a high note.
We find this so ironic: Phil Bronstein's last blog post (has not been updated since July 27) and was taking sides with Palin against Obama, in their relative disputes with the media.
Sarah Palin might not be able to see Russia from her house, but her basketball diaries riff yesterday [admonishing the media to "stop making things up"]at least spoke more to her life experience than Obama playing cops and robbers, were Phil's words of quote, wisdom, unquote.
Palin now is calling President Barack Obama's health plan "downright evil" Friday in her first online comments since leaving office, saying in a Facebook posting that he would create a "death panel" that would deny care to the neediest Americans.
Death panels. But that sounds awful! Obama of course denies.
So we find it highly ironic that she out-wackos herself while Phil's attempt to defend her is still hanging up there.
Barack Obama might not be able to kill granma in her sleep, but Palin's healthcare riff on Facebook at least spoke more to her life experience than Obama playing nurse and doctor.
Sarah Palin might not be able to see Russia from her house, but her basketball diaries riff yesterday [admonishing the media to "stop making things up"]at least spoke more to her life experience than Obama playing cops and robbers, were Phil's words of quote, wisdom, unquote.
Palin now is calling President Barack Obama's health plan "downright evil" Friday in her first online comments since leaving office, saying in a Facebook posting that he would create a "death panel" that would deny care to the neediest Americans.
Death panels. But that sounds awful! Obama of course denies.
So we find it highly ironic that she out-wackos herself while Phil's attempt to defend her is still hanging up there.
Barack Obama might not be able to kill granma in her sleep, but Palin's healthcare riff on Facebook at least spoke more to her life experience than Obama playing nurse and doctor.
Thursday, August 06, 2009
Shorter C.W. Nevius
Bike sharing won't work in SF because Critical Mass is offensive to me, and we need to accommodate the needs of car drivers first.
Money quote:
At the core of this is a simple proposition: the wishes of the few versus the needs of the many. There are a lot of bicyclists in San Francisco. But there are far more drivers and public transit commuters.
Screw you, bikers. We won't build bike lanes to increase bike use, and if you ask for more bike lanes, we'll say there's not enough of you.
I've emailed an ethics question to Chuck, since he drives to work, and well, not that it's a conflict of interest, not at all,but wouldn't it be swell if one could make that turn on 2nd street on his way to an office in SOMA? Per the link above, Chuck opposes congestion pricing, another way to limit the amount of cars...but I'm sure it's all innocent.
[update] We emailed the following question: "Wouldn't it help understand your opposition to making the city more bike friendly to put a disclaimer saying that you drive to work (according to SFBG Tim Redmond)? You seem to focus on the 2nd street left turn (not sure which turn you mention here) but 2nd street is pretty close to the Hearts building. Isn't your self interest involved in this story?" Here's C-Dub's answer (and we even vetted with him we could post this, just to be all journalisty):
Well there are over 500,000 people who commute into the city every day. Many drive cars, although in a perfect world we would not. The issue is whether or not the restrictions would make traffic worse. Second street has nothing to do with my commute, nor the Chronicle building. I was only voicing the concerns of those who live there, who are, as I noted, enthusiastic bicyclists and members of the Bicycle Coalition.
[update II] The point on how Chuck commute is relevant to me in terms of non-disclosure. But maybe I should state that I bike to caltrain to work, so there.
Money quote:
At the core of this is a simple proposition: the wishes of the few versus the needs of the many. There are a lot of bicyclists in San Francisco. But there are far more drivers and public transit commuters.
Screw you, bikers. We won't build bike lanes to increase bike use, and if you ask for more bike lanes, we'll say there's not enough of you.
I've emailed an ethics question to Chuck, since he drives to work, and well, not that it's a conflict of interest, not at all,but wouldn't it be swell if one could make that turn on 2nd street on his way to an office in SOMA? Per the link above, Chuck opposes congestion pricing, another way to limit the amount of cars...but I'm sure it's all innocent.
[update] We emailed the following question: "Wouldn't it help understand your opposition to making the city more bike friendly to put a disclaimer saying that you drive to work (according to SFBG Tim Redmond)? You seem to focus on the 2nd street left turn (not sure which turn you mention here) but 2nd street is pretty close to the Hearts building. Isn't your self interest involved in this story?" Here's C-Dub's answer (and we even vetted with him we could post this, just to be all journalisty):
Well there are over 500,000 people who commute into the city every day. Many drive cars, although in a perfect world we would not. The issue is whether or not the restrictions would make traffic worse. Second street has nothing to do with my commute, nor the Chronicle building. I was only voicing the concerns of those who live there, who are, as I noted, enthusiastic bicyclists and members of the Bicycle Coalition.
[update II] The point on how Chuck commute is relevant to me in terms of non-disclosure. But maybe I should state that I bike to caltrain to work, so there.
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
Only the Conservative Chronicle...
Only a conservative newspaper such as the Chron would describe the top .1% as "the other half."
For reference the median household income in the US is a tad over $50,000. That's where the boundary between the two halves is. Nowhere near buying you a $4.5 million beach house.
For reference the median household income in the US is a tad over $50,000. That's where the boundary between the two halves is. Nowhere near buying you a $4.5 million beach house.
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
The Disappeared Op-Ed.
Oh my, I just realized that I have access to LexisNexis through my work library. Which means: Phil Bronstein, you can run, but you can't hide!
This week (no link, because hey, would you like the world to link to your high school essays? Phil neither) the theme is forgiveness.
Shorter Phil: I have no clue what redemption mean, but I've been a journalist in war zones, so I can take a cheap shot at Chris Daly.
Longer version:
OK, all is forgiven. Want fries with that?
BYLINE: Phil Bronstein
SECTION: Op-Ed; PHIL BRONSTEIN; Pg. A11
LENGTH: 517 words
Salvation of the soul these days is faster than broadband. Is God on Twitter?
Broadband, twitter? Good thing this column is PRINT ONLY. Printed paper is the future.
With Michael Vick's return to football, Senator... Larry Craig opening a consulting firm and San Francisco anarchist Supervisor Chris Daly making homeboy brownies for a running-dog mainstream newspaper this one, we're clearly in the middle of a cultural phenomenon:
The Speedy Redemption.
Marisa Lagos' office must be in a different wing of the Hearst building, because, ahum, Chris ain't seeking redemption. See, you have to be guilty to be redeemed. Chris opened his door to Marisa to prove he still lived in SF. He did not bake brownies for forgiveness. Also, I don't think you know what "anarchist" means. Chris likes government, especially if it helps the poor.
Then, some (even more) vacuous bla-bla, Mr Vick, bla bla, Mark Sanford, Eliot Spitzer, bla-bla.
The latest era of immeasurable greed has passed through us like a foul wind, though it's as fast-dissolving and hard to grasp as gas. Jail sentences might be long, but Bernie Madoff has a prison consultant.
So the era of greed has passed through us, and now has dissolved? Maybe Phil should read the news. Also: not sure what he means with the prison consultant story. Maybe a link would help, see, like this, but oh wait, it's PRINT ONLY.
But doing hard time is not the same as paying back.
Duh.
Real redemption is a basic religious notion, all about genuine attempts to make good on your bad. "It's not a reprieve," [Jesuit priest and head of USF] Privett says. "It's an acknowledgment of the pain you've caused and your efforts to heal that."
Mmmm, why does Phil fetch a priest when Webster defines redemption nicely, thank you?
This priest knows something about the hard slog of real redemption. He walks the walk. I met him in El Salvador 20 years ago where he fearlessly ministered to terrified villagers while choppers strafed the tree line.
Mmm, he walked a different walk, that does not look like a redemption trail to me. Is Phil really hinting that Privett had sex with goats before going to El Salvador to atone for it? But, oh yeah, the point is: Phil used to be an intrepid, fearless journalist. Gramps love to tell his heroic stories by the fireplace.
At least some cultural sinners had the right idea: Richard Nixon not only suffered in the sealed chamber of his own personality, he spent years of hard work coming back. Jimmy Carter, irritating though he might be, has taken the long road to post-presidential recovery and redemption.
Poor Nixon, he suffered so much. Also, Richard Nixon = Jimmy Carter. In Phil's warped mind. Maybe Phil truly believes that Tricky Dick would get his Nobel prize too if he weren't so dead.
...I do believe that public redemption should be less like a statute of limitations and more like some serious and willing community service.
Mr. Daly, here's your broom.
A column about redemption weaving in Chris Daly's brownies, which are not related to redemption. But IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE!
You can disagree with Chris Daly, but the one thing no one would deny is that he is committed and passionate about what he feels is his "community service". No one, except Phil, of course.
Phil: cheap shots at Chris Daly drive traffic on-line, they get the rabid commenters frothing at the mouth. But this is PRINT ONLY!
Phil'ssilly gotcha sick deal of the week: Homeland Security wants to put a $700 million infectious diseases lab in the middle of Kansas' tornado alley. ... Brilliant. Toto, we're airborne!
Because $700 million won't buy a roof, is that what you're saying, Phil?
This week (no link, because hey, would you like the world to link to your high school essays? Phil neither) the theme is forgiveness.
Shorter Phil: I have no clue what redemption mean, but I've been a journalist in war zones, so I can take a cheap shot at Chris Daly.
Longer version:
OK, all is forgiven. Want fries with that?
BYLINE: Phil Bronstein
SECTION: Op-Ed; PHIL BRONSTEIN; Pg. A11
LENGTH: 517 words
Salvation of the soul these days is faster than broadband. Is God on Twitter?
Broadband, twitter? Good thing this column is PRINT ONLY. Printed paper is the future.
With Michael Vick's return to football, Senator... Larry Craig opening a consulting firm and San Francisco anarchist Supervisor Chris Daly making homeboy brownies for a running-dog mainstream newspaper this one, we're clearly in the middle of a cultural phenomenon:
The Speedy Redemption.
Marisa Lagos' office must be in a different wing of the Hearst building, because, ahum, Chris ain't seeking redemption. See, you have to be guilty to be redeemed. Chris opened his door to Marisa to prove he still lived in SF. He did not bake brownies for forgiveness. Also, I don't think you know what "anarchist" means. Chris likes government, especially if it helps the poor.
Then, some (even more) vacuous bla-bla, Mr Vick, bla bla, Mark Sanford, Eliot Spitzer, bla-bla.
The latest era of immeasurable greed has passed through us like a foul wind, though it's as fast-dissolving and hard to grasp as gas. Jail sentences might be long, but Bernie Madoff has a prison consultant.
So the era of greed has passed through us, and now has dissolved? Maybe Phil should read the news. Also: not sure what he means with the prison consultant story. Maybe a link would help, see, like this, but oh wait, it's PRINT ONLY.
But doing hard time is not the same as paying back.
Duh.
Real redemption is a basic religious notion, all about genuine attempts to make good on your bad. "It's not a reprieve," [Jesuit priest and head of USF] Privett says. "It's an acknowledgment of the pain you've caused and your efforts to heal that."
Mmmm, why does Phil fetch a priest when Webster defines redemption nicely, thank you?
This priest knows something about the hard slog of real redemption. He walks the walk. I met him in El Salvador 20 years ago where he fearlessly ministered to terrified villagers while choppers strafed the tree line.
Mmm, he walked a different walk, that does not look like a redemption trail to me. Is Phil really hinting that Privett had sex with goats before going to El Salvador to atone for it? But, oh yeah, the point is: Phil used to be an intrepid, fearless journalist. Gramps love to tell his heroic stories by the fireplace.
At least some cultural sinners had the right idea: Richard Nixon not only suffered in the sealed chamber of his own personality, he spent years of hard work coming back. Jimmy Carter, irritating though he might be, has taken the long road to post-presidential recovery and redemption.
Poor Nixon, he suffered so much. Also, Richard Nixon = Jimmy Carter. In Phil's warped mind. Maybe Phil truly believes that Tricky Dick would get his Nobel prize too if he weren't so dead.
...I do believe that public redemption should be less like a statute of limitations and more like some serious and willing community service.
Mr. Daly, here's your broom.
A column about redemption weaving in Chris Daly's brownies, which are not related to redemption. But IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE!
You can disagree with Chris Daly, but the one thing no one would deny is that he is committed and passionate about what he feels is his "community service". No one, except Phil, of course.
Phil: cheap shots at Chris Daly drive traffic on-line, they get the rabid commenters frothing at the mouth. But this is PRINT ONLY!
Phil's
Because $700 million won't buy a roof, is that what you're saying, Phil?
