Quotable bits :::

Unions vs. Liberalism, Part XXIIII: If you are a liberal who believes in public education, do not let the teachers’ unions do to your school system what the United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA) has done to the L.A. Unified School District–make it so hard to fire a bad teacher that most school principals don’t even try. According to an L.A. Weeklyinvestigation, the school district itself seems to have given up:

In the past decade, LAUSD officials spent $3.5 million trying to fire just seven of the district’s 33,000 teachers for poor classroom performance — andonly four were fired, during legal struggles that wore on, on average, for five years each. Two of the three others were paid large settlements, and one was reinstated. The average cost of each battle is $500,000.

[W]e also discovered that 32 underperforming teachers were initially recommended for firing, but then secretly paid $50,000 by the district, on average, to leave without a fight. Moreover, 66 unnamed teachers are being continually recycled through a costly mentoring and retraining program but failing to improve, and another 400 anonymous teachers have been ordered to attend the retraining. [E.A.]

That’s less than one attempted firing a year. Why? Mainly because firings–and the bad performance evaluations that precede them–are almost invariably contested by the union. Firings must go through an expensive and protracted hearing and appeals process: “Documents show only one instance in the past 10 years in which an LAUSD teacher accepted his firing and left without a fight or big payment.” [E.A.]

Go read the rest on your own.

Speaking of Unions and other insane use of public funds that fly in the face of common sense. This is a bit old now, but in case you missed it ::: Willie Brown can talk common sense ‘cuz he is no longer in office.

The Only Republican in San Francisco has some first hand details:

“I just got back and it went well. We had 70-80 people, among them a Danish journalism student from Berkeley, many flags, a hottie handing out Havarti and a complete absence of local media.”

Let’s hope we see more events like this. I found out about it too late to make it over there, but I’d love to get to the next one…

Interesting to see that T.O.R.I.S.F. poses the following question in the header area of his blog: “Imagine being an empirical, free-market thinker in a liberal town.”

Hmmmmmmmm… Gee, I wonder what that WOULD be like?

Personal to TORISF: let’s talk.

People who do not live in the San Francisco area may be amazed that an elected official would actually say such a thing. People who live in San Francisco will not be amazed that an elected official would say such a thing.
Hat tip to SFSOS.

The transcript is below, or you can watch the video here. Oy.

SEAN HANNITY, CO-HOST: As we continue “Hannity & Colmes” from San Francisco tonight, the board of supervisors here overwhelmingly voted to reject a plan last year that would bring the historic World War II Iowa battleship right here to San Francisco harbor, as a museum and tourist center.

We’re now joined by one of the supervisors that voted against that plan, Gerardo Sandoval is with us.

Welcome to the show. You just said something to me as we were coming on the air. You don’t want a symbol of war in the harbor. Is what you said to me.

GERARDO SANDOVAL, MEMBER OF SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: That’s right.

HANNITY: I guess this is just a difference in philosophy. That symbol of war that beat back the forces of fascism in imperial Japan and Nazism, that’s really a symbol of peace. Why would you see it as a symbol of war when it defended liberty and freedom?

SANDOVAL: Well, it did do that. But also, it’s a warship and it’s got guns on it. It fires things. You know, you can’t deny what it is.

San Francisco is where we signed the United Nations charter, the original charter, created the United Nations. There are many, many ways to honor veterans and their sacrifice.

HANNITY: I understand that. But you don’t have liberty and freedom unless we win that war.

SANDOVAL: Absolutely.

HANNITY: So in that scene — well, then why would you dishonor the men that fought on that ship and preserved your freedom? To say what you want to say?

SANDOVAL: We don’t want to dishonor them.

HANNITY: Well, you are dishonoring them.

SANDOVAL: We just don’t want to put a 10-story gun on the waterfront where everybody is going to be looking at it every single day.

HANNITY: That gun gives you freedom. That gun ensures your liberty. That gun made this world a safer place.

SANDOVAL: But it could be a flag. It could be a statue. It could be many, many different things.

HANNITY: But is war against the Nazis a good thing? Is war against imperial Japan when they attacked Pearl Harbor, is that a good thing?

SANDOVAL: Well, sometimes you have to resort to violence.

HANNITY: No, no, no. Is war — was war against the Nazis a good thing?

SANDOVAL: Absolutely.

HANNITY: Was war against imperial Japan a good thing?

SANDOVAL: Absolutely. We don’t have to put a bomb or a warship right on the waterfront. It’s going to be 10 stories tall. You know how tall that is? It’s half as big as some of the biggest buildings in San Francisco.

HANNITY: You know something? I guess this is just a philosophical difference. Because you know what? I define peace as the ability to defend ourselves. And you seem to look at that as ship as something negative, not something to be proud of. Not something that gave you a great gift. I don’t understand that mentality. Can you explain it to our audience?

SANDOVAL: Well, it’s also a fiscal issue not just a symbolic or philosophical.

HANNITY: Yes, hurt that’s not the reason. Because a lot of people say it’s about money. If I told you the money would be there tomorrow, you would still be against it, wouldn’t you?

SANDOVAL: We would still be against it. That’s right.

HANNITY: So it’s not about money, but you’re using it as an excuse.

SANDOVAL: No, no, no. But it’s a very real reason. In Oakland right across the bay here, where they brought in the USS — one of the wood…

HANNITY: Would you have the freedom to vote this way, had we not used that ship, that symbol of war as you call it, if we had not won that war? Would you have the ability to even make this vote without that ship?

SANDOVAL: Things would be very, very different. No doubt. But that does not mean we have to put a warship on our waterfront.

HANNITY: Warship? Why don’t you call it a peace ship? The peace ship gave you the liberty to be who you are today?

SANDOVAL: Why don’t we paint war symbols on all schools if that’s the way you feel? So we can honor their sacrifice.

HANNITY: I rarely agree with Dianne Feinstein. And she even says this is not the San Francisco that I know. This is — and I guess this is the mentality. Do you think America should unilaterally disarm? Should we give up our weaponry and our war — our tools of war?

SANDOVAL: You know, that’s a very complicated question. But I would say yes, we should. We should invest our money in our kids.

ALAN COLMES, CO-HOST: This is Alan in New York. Should we not have military?

SANDOVAL: I don’t think we should have a military. Absolutely.

COLMES: We shouldn’t have a military? Wait a minute. Hold on. The United States should not have a military?

SANDOVAL: What good has it done for us in the last five years? That’s right. What good has it done us…

HANNITY: Good grief.

SANDOVAL: … in the last five years.

COLMES: Gerardo, wait a second.

SANDOVAL: We think about the billions that we’re spending in Iraq right now, if we spend it on schools. We should not…

COLMES: The United States should not have a military?

SANDOVAL: That’s correct.

COLMES: Are you kidding me?

SANDOVAL: The United States should not have a military. All in all, we would be in much, much, much better shape.

COLMES: You’ve got to be kidding me. We should have no military, we should have no ability to defend ourselves, we should have no armed forces in this country?

SANDOVAL: Well, we shouldn’t have a military that goes abroad and starts wars.

COLMES: You just said we shouldn’t have a military. I don’t want to give — I’m speaking out very forcefully to you, because I don’t want to give the impression that Democrats hate the military or don’t want a military. We may disagree with certain wars, like the ones fought now.

SANDOVAL: No, but you said should we give up.

COLMES: But to say that we shouldn’t have a military is absolutely absurd. It’s incredible. That’s a ridiculous fringe point of view.

HANNITY: That’s exactly what I was thinking, Alan. Welcome to San Francisco.

SANDOVAL: If you’re saying that we don’t have a right to defend ourselves that’s different from we shouldn’t have a military.

COLMES: What do you want to defend ourselves — what do you want to defend ourselves with?

SANDOVAL: Well, you got cops. It’s called the Coast Guard. There’s lots of things different.

COLMES: You want to send cops to defend our shores if we’re attacked? You want to send cops overseas if we’re attacked? Cops?

SANDOVAL: You want to send people abroad to start these wars.

COLMES: I don’t. Actually, Gerardo, you don’t know anything about what I stand for if you can say that. I’ve been one of the most outspoken people against this administration and the war in Iraq.

But that doesn’t mean we as Democrats hate the military or don’t want to defend this country. And I’m amaze you could get on national television and say we shouldn’t have a military in America?

SANDOVAL: Well, that’s the way I think a lot of people feel here in San Francisco.

HANNITY: I’ve got to tell you, this is a first. You made look Alan look like a hawk.

I’m going to tell you something. If America is attacked, you have no defenses. You have no liberty. You have no freedom. You can’t think in such a shallow way. You’ve got to tell me that this is a joke.

SANDOVAL: No, no. Not at all. I think that what you look at where you want America to go, I mean America has got hundreds of years, maybe thousands of years to go.

HANNITY: Without a military, there is no America. Without — it’s not a disagreement. It’s a fact.

SANDOVAL: We can imagine an America that someday will not have a military. It might take 1,000 years.

HANNITY: OK. And then when Iran bombs you…

SANDOVAL: But that’s what you’ve got to hope for.

HANNITY: Or when al Qaeda attacks you, what are you going to do?

UPDATE: If you’d like to let Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval know how you feel about his expressed viewpoint, here’s how to get in touch with him:

Gerardo Sandoval – Supervisor, District 11
City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244
San Francisco, CA 94102-4689
(415) 554-6975 – voice
(415) 554-6979 – fax
Gerardo.Sandoval@sfgov.org

Personal website: http://www.gerardosandoval.org/

Official website: http://www.sfgov.org/site/bdsupvrs_index.asp?id=4643

San Francisco Democratic Party Central Committee:

(415) 626-1161
1390 Market Street, Suite 818,
San Francisco, CA 94102
email: info@sfdemocrats.org

website:  http://www.sfdemocrats.org

UPDATE: Able Dart over at the SF Wall is mad as hell. He’s calling for all San Francisco Democrats to stay the hell off of any and all Fox News shows. I respect Able and I usually agree with where he’s coming from. But personally, I’d like to see MORE SF Politicians on these national news shows for the basic reason that our local media does SUCH a poor job of really challenging these folks on some of the more outrageous foolery and ideology that passes for “public policy” in these parts. Able’s larger point seems to be that Fox News is “out to get the Democrats.” “Any Democrat worth their salt knows that Fox News – the bastard baby of Reagan era GOP operative Roger Ailes – is out to discredit the Democratic Party [...] is not an impartial organization…” says the Dart.

The obvious counterpoint is, of course, that other Mainstream Media outlets are hardly “impartial organizations,” either — despite all their high-sounding protestations to the contrary. I think it’s actually healthy for the US to have a national media outlet that owns its viewpoint. Now, if only the NY Times, and CBS and CNN et. al. would have the guts to do the same. Because, let’s get real: one is hard pressed to find even-handed coverage of the Republicans (or the Libertarians) on any of the (mesaurably lefty-biased) Mainstream Media outlets.

Furthermore, Fox does do good reporting in their straight news segments. They’ve scooped other providers from time to time. As for the opinion shows, whatever — they’re opinion shows. Again, I’m glad Fox is on the scene and basically owning that they’re coming from a point of view, if only as a counter-balance.

What’s more troubling, to me, is the transparently bogus pretense of “objectivity” foisted on us by other networks and news outlets.

All in all, I am ALL FOR SF politicos “outing” themselves and shooting themselves in the foot when faced with folks who hasn’t been ideologically browbeaten into accepting some of the silly lefty tropes that so many in this City just accept as “received wisdom.”

So I say: More SF Democrats on Fox! Please! And, bring on the GREENS!

Yesterday a local gay community media outlet, the Bay Area Reporter, carried the story that gay police officers participated in the Police Christmas-party video that stirred up the local brouhaha:

“Yes, there were gay officers in that video, but I’m obviously not going to say who they are,” Gary Delagnes, president of the San Francisco POA, told the Bay Area Reporter. “They were willing participants. In fact, as I’m looking at this … almost half the officers involved in the video were either black, female, or gay.”

If you want to check out the videos for yourself, go here.

Reaction to this news from the Left was as swift as it was predictable:

Transgender activist Robert Haaland said the fact that women and minorities were involved in the videos proves that simply diversifying a workforce does not eliminate homophobia, sexism, and racism.

“Even in our most diverse work places we can have intense racism and sexism. Attitudes don’t necessarily change,” said Haaland, who believes the videos have provided the city with “an opportunity for reform” and that the system should now be revamped to provide “clear markers for acceptable behavior with clear lines of accountability so that police officers will conduct themselves appropriately.”

[..]

“I’m sure [the police officers involved] all had their sensitivity trainings. They know that videos like this are not meant for the public. That adds a certain illicit quality to it, doing something they know is forbidden and yet that our homophobic and racist and sexist society also permits,” said [UC Professor of Pyschiatry Dan] Karasic.

The solution, according to an editorial in the same edition of the Reporter:

We’d like to see an improvement in the culture of the department that currently impedes openly gay male officers from being promoted past the rank of sergeant – we are unaware of any serving currently. The police force’s diversity is underutilized, and that needs to change, too. Maybe if more minority officers were promoted, they could help change the culture within the department, and bring more empathy to the job. This improved climate, in turn, would boost morale in a more positive way than the seamy videos.

Meanwhile, the officers involved have been hitting back, led by the video’s producer, Officer Andrew Cohen, who retained an entire cohort of high-powered attorneys to defend him and help shore up his public image. Also , the captian of the Bayview station who was featured in the video — Capt. Richard Bruce — has demanded an apology from Police Chief Heather Fong and Mayor Gavin Newsom for what he called “smears” and overreactions to the video by the Chief and the Mayor.

Local online outlet The Wall named Officer Cohen as it’s “Scapegoat of the Week”, and cited the favorable press Cohen has gotten in the past.

The president of the San Francisco Police Union also weighed in:

“I know [the Mayor] has to deal with a lot of constituencies in this city,” police union president Gary Delagnes said. “But just because of some videos, you don’t throw the whole department under the bus for the sake of political expediency.”

Then San Francisco Chronicle media critic Steve Winn chimed in with his view that the whole video flap was really a tempest in a teapot, and the police brass and the politicians were missing the point of the self-parodying and satirical police video entirely:

Much of the blur and static around the police video caper has to do with the unstable nature of humor across the cultural spectrum. Satire and parody, especially, have gotten swept up in an engulfing tide of mockery and scorn. In today’s accelerated media swirl, things no sooner happen in the world than they are minutely minced by everyone from radioheads Rush Limbaugh and Al Franken to the Comedy Central tag team of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert to an army of instant-response bloggers.
[...]
Satire, certainly, can and often should be scalding. The death of Richard Pryor summoned up memories of a consummately gifted comic artist who held back nothing when it came to the hot-button topics of race, drugs or sex, but reserved his most withering scorn for himself. There was, in his work, an underlying humility, a sense of things that mattered being at risk.

At its heart, satire is meant to mend rather than destroy. The ancient Roman writer Horace viewed satire as a means “to tell the truth, laughing.” For John Dryden, the 17th century English poet, “the end of satire is the amendment of vice.”

In other words, according to Winn, the videos, like all satire, are a form of ridicule which is intended to ultimately produce an outcome of reform.

Clearly, Mayor Newsom didn’t see it that way. For his part, the Mayor has defended his response to the video, denying that he and Cheif Fong overreacted or rushed to judgment:

“If this occurred in any business in the private sector, none of us, I think, would criticize the company for taking aggressive and swift action,” Newsom said. “But for some reason, some people have lowered the bar here in San Francisco.

“The bar is so low in San Francisco that people think it’s fun and games to run over an alleged homeless person, to make fun of different races and communities, to make fun of the police chief … to enact skits of people not doing their job,’ Newsom said in describing some of the content in the videos.

Yesterday all 20 of the suspended SFPD officers were cleared to return to work. An investigation and blue-ribbon comission are going to continue to look into the whole matter, and further departmental changes and disciplinary action may be forthcoming.

A couple of final points: Officer Cohen seems nonplussed by all the attention his video is getting. And part of the reason for that seems to be Cohen’s belief that his identity ought to shield him from the business end of the PC buzzsaw:

“I’m a liberal Berkeley Jew with two biracial children, who was raised by a very strong liberal woman,” he said. “I’m not going to be the victim of someone else’s weird notion of political correctness.”

But it’s one of the features of weird notions of political correctness that context, fairness and balance are removed from the equation. It’s our modern version of the Scarlet Letter or the Salem witch trials — once accused, you’re presumed guilty. Period. Never mind your track record as a dedicated cop who’s made a difference nor your “solid liberal credentials.”

Also, Steve Winn’s points about satire and culture are well taken; it’s nice to hear a nuanced cultural view expressed amidst all the yelling. I encourage you to read his excellent piece “Laugh at your Own Risk.”

Also, the Chronicle’s Debra Saunders hits the issue squarely when she points out:

[Police Chief Heather] Fong intoned, “This is a dark day — an extremely dark day — in the history of the San Francisco Police Department for me as a chief to have to stand here and share with you such egregious, shameful and despicable acts” by SFPD members.

You know, I’d save that rhetoric for when a police officer or a civilian is shot — not for a prank video.
[...]
The Special City’s homicide rate is the highest in a decade. The murder toll hit 92 Tuesday. That makes for a dark day in San Francisco.

An SFPD officer added:

Sonia Mariona, a patrol officer, said, “Our hearts are breaking right now, and nobody wants to address that. We are undermanned, we are outgunned, we don’t have support and, at every turn, we are going to be persecuted by our own department.”

Exactly. And that’s just it: whereas the Left in our city seems to see “diversity” and more quotas and community outreach and identity hires and promotions as the “solution” for the situation, the issue runs far deeper and more fundamental than that. For many years now, the city of San Francisco has uttterly failed to take public safety or public sanitation issues seriously. As a result, our police force feels outgunned, overworked, abandoned and persecuted, and this feeling seems to be shared by a wide swath of officers, regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation.

Sure, perhaps there are things about Police “culture” that ought to be changed. But I say that it’s the culture of San Francisco — the political culture — that needs to change first and foremost. Let’s see the polticians and the police brass get as worked up over public safety and sanitation as they’ve gotten over these videos.

As Saunders points out:

People dying — that’s serious. And if you want to do something about it, you don’t announce you are going to suspend 20 officers or even one officer — Andrew Cohen, 39, without pay for producing the tapes. Not when you are 264 field officers short of a city mandate.

Let’s get our priorities straight.

Well, look out, because now The Wall has entered the blogosphere. I’d encourage anybody with even a passing interest in San Francisco politics and/or culture to go give it a look right now.

Able Dart’s most recent post on the new Wall blog concerns the puerile San Francisco Police Video Scandal that’s the obsession of the moment for our local media outlets. Local pols, journalists and “activists” are foaming at the mouth and spinning around in frantic little circles, while prognosticators are taking odds on which heads will roll and when. Here’s the lead from The Wall:

It seems that this city has to have a police scandal of some kind every few years, which is then used to try and pry some changes inside a hidebound department, but usually only ends up with the replacement of a politically hapless police chief.

The newest scandal, of course, is about a series of blue humor videos produced for a Christmas party at Bayview station. The videos feature a number of sociocultural stereotypes reinforced by the basic nature of police work. The police officer/videographer made the mistake of putting some of the more humorous clips on a website, and then the leaks to the press and Mayor’s Office came-a-flowing.

There is nothing new about this phenomenon, nor about political bluenoses making a scandal out of it. What is truly unfortunate about this particular case is the timing, which seems rather deliberate.

Many people who are not police officers will find some of the imagery in these videos offensive. The question comes however, whether it should even be judged by standards outside the environment of what police work has become…

So check out The Wall and read the rest of this excellent piece, which has a lot to say about “Community Policing” and what gets noticed by the media. You’ll probably want to make The Wall a regular stop. I can see myself linking to them on a fairly regular basis — if their first few days of operation are any indication, The Wall will soon be essential reading for any SF observer.

Plus, you gotta love a guy who uses the term “hidebound” in the very first sentence one of his inaugural posts.

If the San Francisco Handgun Ban law somehow DOES stand up in court, I think many people — myself definitely included — will be utterly shocked. It’s my impression that many people who voted in favor of Proposition H thought they were voting for some kind of “symbolic” measure, which had no chance at all of actually becoming law.

Background/Context: last month, 60% of San Francisco voters supported Proposition H, which, among other things, bans the sale or possession of handguns in the City and County of San Francisco. From the San Francisco Voter Guide:

Proposition H is an ordinance that would ban the manufacture, distribution, sale and transfer of firearms and ammunition within San Francisco.

Proposition H also would prohibit San Francisco residents from possessing handguns within San Francisco. An exception would allow residents to possess handguns if it is required for specific professional purposes. For example, San Francisco residents who are security guards, peace officers or active members of the U.S. armed forces would be permitted to possess handguns.

The Board of Supervisors would be required to enact penalties for violation of this ordinance.

Proposition H would take effect January 1, 2006. Until April 1, 2006, residents could surrender their handguns to any district station of the San Francisco Police Department or the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department without penalty.

Of course, the new law was challenged almost immediately. Like many people, I initially felt pretty certain that Prop. H would be struck down on appeal, just as the 1982 San Francisco Handgun ban was. (The text of that 1983 appeals court decision is here.)

But digging a little deeper I noticed that the 1983 decision actually held that “local governmental bodies” like the City of San Francisco are NOT, in the court’s opinion, “prevented” by State law “from regulating all aspects all aspects of the possession of firearms.” The Court of Appeals actually struck down San Francisco’s 1982 handgun ban primarily based on a concern over LICENSING. From the 1983 decision:

…the more troubling question is whether the [1982] San Francisco Handgun Ordinance merely regulates possession or instead constitutes a licensing ordinance in violation of the express preemption of Government Code section 53071.

The San Francisco ordinance does not mention the word “license” or “permit” and it does not establish a licensing procedure of any kind (unlike the ordinance struck in Sippel v. Nelder (1972) 24 Cal.App.3d 173, 101 Cal.Rptr. 89). However, it exempts from the general ban on possession any person authorized to carry a handgun pursuant to Penal Code section 12050. Thus, its effect is to create a new class of persons who will be required to obtain licenses in order to possess handguns

It was this question of “City creating a new class of persons who will be required to obtain licenses” that was the deal-breaker, it seems, in the eyes of the 1983 court.

The authors of Prop H have tried to get around this deal-breaker by writing the following language into the text of the new San Francisco Handgun Ban law. (The entire text of the law is in PDF form here, if you want to read it for yourself):

Section 6. State Law
Nothing in this ordinance is designed to duplicate or conflict with California state law. Accordingly, any person currently denied the privilege of possessing a handgun under state law shall not be covered by this ordinance, but shall be covered by the California state law which denies that privilege. Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to create or require any local license or registration for any firearm, or create an additional class of citizens who must seek licensing or registration.

If the courts accept this as dealing sufficiently with the licensing issue, then it appears that there’s at least a chance that the courts may actually affirm the City’s latest Handgun Ban law.

A reminder, perhaps, to “be careful what you vote for.”

UPDATE: Here’s a window into how Prop H. passed with such big numbers. It comes from a Handgun Ban supporter, who describes attempting to persuade “undecided” voters with the following reasoning: “…it might only be symbolic anyway, kind of like schools and the military, in the sense that even if we voted ‘yes,’ it would still be a court that made the decision (but ONLY if we voted yes, so ‘let’s vote yes and leave the choice to someone who deals with crime and it’s tributaries for a living – a judge.’) People who were undecided REALLY responded to that…”

Great.

UPDATE: Welcome California Conservative readers. The outcome of the legal challenge to San Francisco’s handgun ban law will certainly have statewide (and probably nationwide) implications. I’d welcome comments from anybody that has an opinion or insight into the upcoming court battle.

UPDATE: The San Francisco Chr0nicle had a front-page story on this issue today (12/05/05): “Some citizens fear for safety if courts uphold S.F.’s voter-approved ban on handguns”.

UPDATE: Stephen Chapman of the Chicago Tribune is less than impressed with Prop. H. In a column entitled “San Francisco’s Pointless Handgun Ban, he writes that the new law is akin to “fighting alcoholism by prohibiting beer sales to Mormons.” Chapman makes several valid points in his enjoyable piece, but his contention that the new law “clearly” conflicts with the California constitution is debatable, after reading the actual 1983 decision. Stay tuned.

But, holy cow, to make a COVER STORY out of the fact that you and your fellow dead-tree Old Media outlets are getting whupped by better service and greater efficiency (and more timeliness and accuracy)? And then to expect media savvy readers to cry big splashy tears over the fact that you can’t seem to adapt your performance and business models to the new reality? That takes real chutzpah and brings navel-gazing to a whole new level.

Here’s the boldface text from the COVER of the latest SF Weekly. (I exercised restraint in the headline to this post and refrained from calling it by it’s more commonly-known street moniker — “SF, WeAkly.”)

Craig$list.com
The much-loved Web site is taking millions from Bay Area newspapers and causing layoffs that adversely affect coverage. And its founder’s well-intentioned support of citizen journalism has a slim chance of fixing the problem.

Well, gosh, we’re just all broken up for you, New Times Media (parent company of SF Wea…er SF Weekly.)

But the hard fact is, oh mainstream media, the public doesn’t OWE you readers or subscribers or ad revenue. No business is OWED customers. So I’d humbly suggest that perhaps you ought to spend a little MORE energy on “lighting a candle” — delivering better service and adapting your practices to the new reality — and a little less energy on “cursing the darkness” — hating on Craigslist and expecting us in the media buying public to beweep your sad, sad fate.

Right now, you in the MSM are coming off just like this:

Pardon the public if we refrain from joining the sob-fest.

(Image credit: C. Johnson.)

UPDATE: From our local boards, Chic Deluxe draws the parallel with the Town Criers of old bemoaning the advent of the printing press “back in the day”:

At first, of course, the Town Criers – the official news sources at the time — weren’t worried. “Who’s going to pay for all that paper and ink?” they figured. “And besides — how many people can actually READ, anyway? Not to worry.”

But as the printing presses began to take off and the new business model for news distribution began to get legs, the Town Criers worried.

“Don’t believe anything you read!” they called out. “The printers don’t check their sources! Who regulates them? Why would you trust them! The have no standards, no guidelines! We have an Established System of Delivering Factual News!”

Town councils began to crack down on the printers. But the free press persevered despite having to deal with people breaking in and destroying their presses, setting fire to their shops, and trying to regulate them out of existence.

And what happened to all those Town Criers? They went into politics, of course.

Haw. Nice one.

Then, FogU2 pointed us to Slashdot’s excellent article on the subject (clearly, there is much more “lighting a candle” thinking going on at Slashdot.)

He adds:

Business models will change but the market for information, especially reliable and accurate information, is still vibrant. The real threat is when the govt gets involved in trying to save certain media by placing a stranglehold on the innovative media. Watch the FCC and others get involved in regulating the internet as big businesses begin to suffer as a result of cheap entry costs of the web. Lobbyists for the big media companies will cry foul when innovators like Craig Newmark, satellite radio, web phones, etc. start to threaten their cashflow.

Clearly, they already are.

UPDATE: Welcome, SFist readers. You might want to take a look at our past coverage of San Francisco culture & politics. Just keep on scrolling…

UPDATE: And welcome to all you Daily Pundit and Instapundit readers, too. Thanks for stopping ’round our way. As you’ve no doubt already noticed, we’re a San Francisco outlet of libertarian-minded, techno-phillic sass. You might want to check out some of our past posts on Liberty, the war against Islamic fascism, Economics and US Labor unions. But be sure to also check out that Slashdot article that we linked, above. As Glenn noted, not all old media folk are dumb. The thoughtful Slashdot piece lays out some possible ways that the old media can adapt and survive and even thrive in the years to come. It’s pretty much a given that bellyaching isn’t part of the solution, though.

UPDATE: The author of the SF Weekly piece, Ryan Blitstein, posted responses to our entry on both Daily Pundit and Instapundit.

In his Daily Pundit comment, Blitstein objects to Bill Quick’s description of the SF Weekly as “lefty.” It’s true that the SF Weekly isn’t as lefty as, say, the other San Francisco newsweekly, the SF Bay Guardian. OK, but let’s not get carried away. Though the SF Weekly does exhibit more balance than the Bay Guardian (which exhibits exactly none), “libertarian pillar” publications don’t usally run 6000+ word cover stories that amount to decrying the cruel fate of buggy-whip manufacturers in the modern era.

Instapundit publishes an email from Blitstein that says, in effect, we got him wrong — he wasn’t “whining.” I encourage you to read his entire SF Weekly piece and judge for yourself. See if you don’t detect a troubling sense of entitlement running throughout the piece — a sense that these classified advertising dollars RIGHTFULLY belong to newspapers. I also take issue with Blitstein’s other main premises: that it’s all a “zero sum game,” and that the (mostly dead-tree) “journalistic establisment” is the only trustworthy source of factual news; that the loss of classified revenue, by draining the lifeblood from old-media outlets, imperils the delivery of reliable information altogether.

For example, in his article, Blitstein says, “In the best case, [Craigslist's Craig] Newmark is joining a movement that will someday be of moderate help to the mainstream media. In the worst case, citizen journalism’s optimistic supporters, in neglecting the problems of the public institution that is the mainstream press, may leave America with both a failing news media and a mediocre technology that offers little assistance on essential stories.”

“Moderate help?” “Little assistance on essential stories?” See, I find these characterizations laughable, especially in light of the litany of vivid new-media-beats-the-old-media examples: Rathergate, the Plame story, reporting from Iraq — the list goes on and on. The dubious premises, coupled with the hand-wringing and notes of self-pity and impending doom, is what makes the SF Weekly piece a vintage whine.

But by all means, I encourage you read Blitstein’s SF Weekly piece for yourself and make your own call. It is also the case that there’s a lot of interesting stuff there, and I do appreciate that Blitstein’s decided to take part in the dialogue with us “citizen journalists.”

In the end, though, I think I’ve been rather fairer to the dead tree Old-Media outlets than Blitstein was to Craig Newmark, Craigslist or “citizen journalism” as a whole. From where I sit, for all its length and detail, the SF Weekly piece still basically reads like a great big whinge.

And finally, PLEASE make sure you also read the terrific Slashdot piece which has much more to say about old media, new media, and the idea of “news-as-dialogue.”

“News-as-dialogue.” Now THERE’S an idea…

When will we as a body politic ever LEARN? Geez. I mean, we make some progress, things seem to get moving in a positive direction, and then something like this smacks us square in the face.

In a nutshell, San Francisco Public School “Service Workers” (janitors, cafeteria workers and the like) are threatening to hold the School District hostage, going on strike for more pay even as the start of the school year approaches. San Francisco Teachers are threatening to join the strike, delaying the start of school for tens of thousands of San Francisco schoolchildren.

Now, in order to pay for these raises for the janitors and cafeteria workers, the San Francisco School Board is seriously considering raiding a special fund, approved by voters, which gave $13 million to the schools for things like sports, arts college and career counselling and other “enrichment activites” for kids.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the SFUSD fire any and all “service workers” who walk out. Period. Immediately hire replacements for all staff thus terminated.

Remember, it’s “all about the children.”

The public watchdog group SFSOS has it right:

School support staff threaten strike; teachers may join in

If you suffer through as many School Board meetings as we do, you’ll often hear politicos drone on about their pet project and claim that it’s good for the children, and, after all, “It’s all about the children.” Sometimes, like today, it’s becomes crystal clear who’s looking out for the children, and who’s looking out for the adults.

As the handful of families who remain in San Francisco are just weeks from the start of school, the teachers union is threatening to join SEIU’s service workers in a strike that would shut down K-12 education for 58,000 public school children. Threatening our children’s education unless we get pay raises. Who’s for the children here?

Despite the well-known financial struggles the School District has been enduring — the layoffs, the program cuts, the school closures — SEIU Local 790, which represents school support staff such as custodians and cafeteria workers, is demanding more money. Should they strike (they’ll vote on that in early September), the teachers themselves are likely to join. This might be the first strike ever sponsored by the Marin County Realtors Association.

To further undermine the confidence in our schools, and for that matter our confidence in our government as a whole, there is talk that a $13 million advance the City has provided the School District could go to pay for these raises. That $13 million is Prop H money. Remember Prop H? The crux of Prop H money — what voters endorsed — was funding for school enrichment programs. One-third was to go to sports, arts and libraries. One-third was to go to preschool and related programs. The final one-third was to be allocated to “…gifted and talented programs, magnet programs, literacy programs, dual-language immersion programs, special education, employee compensation, career and college centers at high schools, teacher mentoring or master teacher programs, or other instructional purposes.”

Now, while that tiny little reference to “employee compensation” among all those important programs certainly allows the Prop. H money to be used to pay salaries, absolutely everyone who supported Prop. H (like SOS and so many of our members) knew that all of the Prop. H money was supposed to be for more programs. The whole point was that taxpayers wanted the School District to have additional enrichment programs for the children, not additional enrichment for the adults already in the same programs. Voters weren’t asked to increase funding for the status quo. They passed Prop H to get more, not to get more of the same.

And, in an interesting contrast (that we’re so used to seeing), Schools Superintendent Arlene Ackerman and Board of Ed President Eric Mar vary greatly on their respective approach to the strike. Ackerman is the negotiating diplomat: “If there is any way I can support [Local 790's] issues without putting the district in any kind of fiscal jeopardy, I will do that,” the Examiner quoted her as saying. Mar, on the other hand — the president who should be leading a balanced dialogue toward a fiscally responsible end, is instead flying the extremist solidarity flag and sending out emails rallying protesters to mobilize on behalf of Local 790. Gee, is that “All About the Children” or “All About Mar’s 2008 District 1 Supervisor Campaign”? We think Richmond District parents will remember that Mar’s slogan as Board President has been “It’s all about my endorsements.”

Police and firefighters are prohibited by law from striking due to the threat to life that such a strike would cause. Teachers striking ought to take a close second on such a severity scale. But since it is not illegal, public outrage is all that protects us from such an irresponsible and damaging action. Your outrage should be doubled since the teacher’s union isn’t even involved in the financial negotiations. They’re threatening to strike just because it’s called for under their “you scratch my back; I’ll scratch yours” union boss solidarity pact.”

Please write a letter to the Board of Education, urging them to denounce the potential strike by the SEIU Local 790 and by the teachers’ union

And even if you don’t ride Muni, check it out anyway — there may be something like this coming to your community, soon.

This site is even more useful if you’ve got a mobile internet device of some kind (Laptop, Treo, etc.)

I love these people, but they drive me crazy. I had a girlfriend like that once; I think we’ve all had girlfriends like that once. Aren’t all girlfriends like that?

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors — well-meaning folks, but they make me nuts. Just this week, they rejected a plan to bring the battleship Iowa to San Francisco and turn it into a tourist attraction and museum. Why? Cecilia M. Vega of this very newspaper summed up the reasons given for the decision: “the widespread opposition to the war in Iraq, the unequal treatment of gay and lesbian enlisted men and women, and the city’s reputation as a home of the peace movement.”

The music tinkles, the picture ripples, and we take you into the near future for some more resolutions by the supes:

* The San Francisco Board of Supervisors this week voted to tear down Mission Dolores. “Indigenous American people were kept there in near slave conditions and forcibly recruited to a nonnative religion,” said Supervisor Jake McGoldrick. “We need to tear it down ancient adobe brick by ancient adobe brick.” He added: “History just sucks, and now we have a chance to do something about it.”

* The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to tear down Fort Point after it was brought to its attention that the fort had once had a military purpose. “The people of San Francisco do not want a part of the 19th century war machine within their city limits,” said Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi. “Researchers tell me that, at one time, guns actually protruded from those cute little holes in the side of the building. The fort should be replaced by a nice new dog run.”

* The San Francisco Board of Supervisors decided to turn the War Memorial Veterans Building, home of Herbst Theatre, into an indoor farmers’ market. “I was shocked to learn,” said Supervisor Tom Ammiano, “that some of the veterans who use this building killed foreign citizens as part of an invading army. Additionally, the armed forces in which they served virtually criminalized gay and lesbian behavior. Shame, I say, shame.

* The San Francisco Board of Supervisors this week voted to disband itself. “The board is steeped in the culture of sexism, racism and homophobia, ” said Supervisor Bevan Dufty. “For a long time, it was just a bunch of old white guys making decisions for the entire city. I feel personally soiled by being a member of this group, and ask that my colleagues to join me in ritual self-mutilation directly after the meeting.”

Yes, it’s a sick, sick city. Given the amount of bad behavior that has taken place in its various apartments and public spaces, we should probably raze the whole joint and start over. And then, because humans are imperfect and often idiotic, there’d be more sexism and racism and murder and extortion and nonmedical marijuana being sold to people who just want to get high, and .. . life is a cesspool. Let’s give up and not think about it anymore.

As usual, Carroll is poignant and funny. Treat yourself — go read the entire thing.