Arturo Rodriguez, president of the United Farmworkers Union (UFW), today blasted the $11.1 billion water bond on the November ballot in an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle.
"The water bond that was recently approved by our lawmakers will give agricultural companies billions more in subsidized water," said Rodiguez. "The state treasurer has asked the right question: Why aren't these giant ag industry operators paying for their water like everyone else?"
Rodriguez's eloquent slam against the water bond rammed through the California Legislature by Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger completely negates the argument of corporate agribusiness "Astroturf" groups, such as the Latino Water Coalition, that the battle against the water bond and the peripheral canal is a conflict of "fish versus people" or "fish versus jobs."
In reality, the campaign to restore the Delta, stop the peripheral canal and defeat the water bond is a conflict between the vast majority of people - including farmworkers, fishermen, Delta family farmers, California Indian Tribes and environmentalists - and greedy agribusiness corporations that don't care about the health and safety of their workers or the thousands of workers and fishermen unemployed because of the Central Valley salmon collapse.
"The $800 million per year in annual bond payments required under the new water bond is more than California spends on health care for farmworkers and their children, more than the entire worker-safety budget, more than on farmworker housing, more than on pesticide regulations and food safety. In fact, it's more than all those things added together," noted Rodriguez.
Why is the UFW opposing the bond? "We don't believe that the giant agriculture corporations should get more subsidized water until farmworkers get the right to protect themselves, including the right to clean and fresh drinking water," explained Rodriguez.
"We see a clear and ironic link between a state government unwilling to enforce its own laws protecting farmworkers, a governor vetoing legislation to allow farmworkers to protect themselves, and a Legislature that bemoans budget cuts while giving the agriculture industry water subsidies at a cost of $800 million every year," said Rodriguez.
Last year SEIU and the Teamsters Union put $1 million into a UFW "war chest" to fight Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's water bond. The groups fighting the peripheral canal and water bond were eagerly awaiting an official announcement by UFW against the water bond - and that announcement took place today.
In the New York Times on April 17, 2009, Rodriguez condemned the Latino Water Coalition's "March for Water" for being a "farmer march orchestrated and financed by growers."
The UFW joins a growing group of conservation, fishing, environmental, tribal and family farming groups opposed to the water bond's bailout to corporate agribusiness. Everybody who cares about the future of California fisheries and Delta farms and the thousands of jobs that depend on them must applaud Rodriguez for speaking out against the budget-busting water bond!
The New York Times is struggling. They had a war with the Boston Globe's reporters and are hemorrhaging cash. They have no really innovative new revenue model to boost their finances either. However, they think they might be on to something: San Francisco!
Yes, both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal are planning "San Francisco editions."
Both The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times are planning to introduce San Francisco Bay Area editions, hoping to win new readers and advertisers there by offering more local news, in what could be the first glimpse at a new strategy by national newspapers to capitalize on the contraction of regional papers.
*** *** ***
The Journal expects to start its San Francisco edition in November or December, adding a page or two of general-interest news from California, probably once a week, produced by the large staff it already has in the Bay Area. This is different from previous efforts by The Journal to publish regional editions, which had focused on local business news. The paper, based in New York, is also looking into creating a New York edition, with emphasis on adding coverage of the arts, but that plan is not as fully developed. (NY Times 9/4/09)
San Francisco, and the Bay Area in general, have a relatively transient population. In SF in particular, you have a much higher percentage of people from outside the area with less loyalty to the local paper. I suppose this was somewhat inevitable.
So, who is looking forward to the re-creation of the New York newspaper rivalries on the West Coast? At this point all local coverage can't be dismissed as it is so sorely lacking now. However, I'm not sure that having the national papers parachute in is really the best solution. A page or two a week isn't really enough to address the myriad of crises (and the occasional good news) that we are dealing with out here. And if these editions push the Chronicle and the other papers here further towards the grave, it is likely the net result of this coverage will be less local reportage.
The newspaper industry doesn't really need more consolidation or more vulturing of each other's business. It needs a connection with the community that will restore trust in local media establishments.
Less than 48 hours after "King of Mean" Garry South was left calling the shots in the Gavin Newsom campaign for Governor, the SF Chronicle had a front-page piece attacking Jerry Brown. Apparently, Brown fundraising for his favorite charities carries all sorts of "conflict-of-interest" allegations that voters should be mindful about in next year's election. But this wasn't the first time reporter Carla Marinucci went on the attack to help Garry South's clients. In the last gubernatorial race, Marinucci used her perch at the Chronicle to repeatedly go after rival Phil Angelides - who was locked in a nasty primary fight against South client Steve Westly. On March 16, 2006, Marinucci wrote a story on Angelides that strangely resembled yesterday's piece on Brown - attacking the state Treasurer for raising corporate donations to a non-profit. South burned bridges in that race with his scorched-earth campaign against Angelides (and bad-mouthing the nominee after the primary was over), and it seems like he's back to his old tricks. But feeding stories to the Chronicle sounds like part of his modus operandi.
Attention San Francisco Chronicle: the truth called. They want Page B-6 of yesterday's paper back.
You see, in recent days, the Courage Campaign has come out with a new action asking Attorney General Jerry Brown to investigate Republican lawmakers for potential violations of the California Penal Code regarding vote-trading.
In comes John Wildermuth to save the day, and tell the Courage Campaign that they need to be careful:
You have to be careful what you wish for in politics, and Democrat-friendly groups looking to bash Republican legislators over state budget delays should remember that.
Well, John, a couple of points are in order here. I would say that the first one is your use of the word "bash." Now, in a political journalism context, "bash" is frequently used to refer to one side attacking another side on its policy positions, and implies a typical political attack. However, the Courage Campaign is not bashinig Republican legislators. They are encouraging the Attorney General to investigate a possible crime. And what are they going after? Not "state budget delays", John. The "delay" has nothing to do with it. It is, rather, allegations of vote-trading, which is illegal under the California Penal Code. After all, the Republicans appear to have made offers that they will vote for a budget compromise if the Democrats vote to gut certain labor and environmental regulations.
So, that's for starters: John, you're portraying this as typical partisan run-of-the-mill politics, when in reality it's anything but. But let's move on, shall we?
"The California Penal Code explicitly prohibits this type of vote-trading, and the attorney general is duty-bound to investigate this felonious activity," said Rick Jacobs, founder of the progressive Courage Campaign.
People on both sides of the political aisle say Jacobs seems to be attacking the type of horse-trading that goes on every day in Sacramento, Washington and every city hall and state capital in the country.
Now, there's a reason I titled this post "epic journalism fail": because that's exactly what your piece is, John. I would have you notice that nowhere do you actually mention what California's Penal Code actually says on the subject:
86. Every Member of either house of the Legislature, or any member of the legislative body of a city, county, city and county, school district, or other special district, who asks, receives, or agrees to receive, any bribe, upon any understanding that his or her official vote, opinion, judgment, or action shall be influenced thereby, or shall give, in any particular manner, or upon any particular side of any question or matter upon which he or she may be required to act in his or her official capacity, or gives, or offers or promises to give, any official vote in consideration that another Member of the Legislature, or another member of the legislative body of a city, county, city and county, school district, or other special district shall give this vote either upon the same or another question, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years and, in cases in which no bribe has been actually received, by a restitution fine of not less than two thousand dollars ($2,000) or not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or, in cases in which a bribe was actually received, by a restitution fine of at least the actual amount of the bribe received or two thousand dollars ($2,000), whichever is greater, or any larger amount of not more than double the amount of any bribe received or ten thousand dollars ($10,000), whichever is greater.
I have bolded the relevant section of the text. It's the part, John, that says, basically, that trading votes, either on the same question (i.e., bill) or a different question (i.e., "I'll vote for yours if you vote for mine") is illegal.
So I'll be completely honest here, John. I don't honestly give a damn if you claim it's the type of thing that goes on every day in Sacramento and Washington--and the reason I don't is that if you're going to write an article critical of the Courage Campaign's call for an investigation, you might actually want to discuss the merits of the case. I'm no lawyer, John, but generally, the way the law works is: state the law; state the facts; apply the law to the facts. And it doesn't matter whether "it happens all the time" or "all the kids are doing it" or any other such excuse or rationale. The only questions are: what is the law, and what are the facts?
My recommendation, John, is that if you have a problem with the Penal Code barring political horse-trading, take it up with the Penal Code. But critiquing the Courage Campaign for actually asking that the Code be enforced? That's just weak.
And I would end there, John, but your epic journalism fail is not yet done. I submit as evidence:
Under the interpretation by Jacobs and the unions, Rep. Nancy Pelosi and her GOP counterparts could be looking at prison time for negotiating Wednesday's agreement on President Obama's stimulus package.
FAIL! John, I did mention, did I not, that this is the California Penal Code, not the US Code? And that, according to the Penal Code, the law applies to "Every Member of either house of the Legislature, or any member of the legislative body of a city, county, city and county, school district, or other special district"? So, no, Nancy Pelosi and her GOP colleagues could not be prosecuted under section 86?
And, John, even if there were some vague ambiguity about that, the United States Constitution would put that to rest--specifically, Article 1, Section 6:
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
That provision, of course, as clarified by subsequent interpretations such as the 1966 US v. Johnson ruling, clarify completely that members of Congress cannot be prosecuted for any speech and debate (for example, negotiating the stimulus bill?) that they engage in as a part of their official duties.
I bring it up, John, because you're not only trying to compare apples to oranges. It's worse than that. It's worse because what you think is an apple is actually...say...a kiwi. And that, John, is a pure and unadulterated journalism FAIL. Until you know more about the law and the Constitution than I do, I recommend you stop writing about it for a major newspaper.
In the final stretch of this election, Proposition 8 is dangerously close in the polls-after months of it being safely behind. With massive out-of-state funding, including $8.4 million from the Mormon Church, the "Yes on 8" campaign has scared many swing voters into falsely believing that marriage equality will intrude on their religion and indoctrinate their children. And while the San Francisco Chronicle took a formal position against it, the paper's news coverage-which has a far greater impact than its editorial endorsements-has actively pushed a meme that helps Prop 8's message. Over the last two weeks, the paper has treated a first-grade teacher's wedding as front-page news, repeated the line that Gavin Newsom is a liability and that San Francisco is "so different" from the rest of the state, and fomented divisions within liberal constituencies that give wavering voters an "out" in supporting Prop 8. With the stakes in this election higher than virtually any other race, the Chronicle should not think that merely opposing Prop 8 can absolve them of responsibility should it pass on November 4th.
Like every other dead wood and ink publication, the San Francisco Chronicle is facing hard times. What the Chronicle has going for it is credibility, which is why it makes no sense to publish every right wing hack that some "think tank" pays to distort public opinion. Today, the Chronicle embarrassed itself by publishing Elizabeth Karasmeighan. She's now with the Cato Institute after leaving Americans for Tax Reform and you'll be shocked to learn that she thinks the entire budget crisis is due to government spending and the solution is to cut, cut, cut. Department of Conservation? Scrap it. Environmental protection? Not needed. Mandated spending increases? Cancel them. State property? Sell it off.
Elizabeth Karasmeighan's column is devoid of any value, she's a right-wing tool and not a very interesting one at that. In a monopoly environment, papers can get away by unleashing such junk (i.e. San Diego Union-Tribune), but it makes zero sense now days for newspapers to litter their opinion pages with boring shills pushing a narrow agenda to screw over the vast majority of the paper's readers.
California has a systemic revenue problem that was created by people like Americans for Tax Reform whining against government, Cato making their arguments appear academic instead of reactionary, and Republican elected officials vowing in writing that they won't change a thing. With California's ridiculous 2/3 budget requirements, that is all that is needed to gum up the works. The opinion page is the perfect venue for telling that story so that the analysis can have the appropriate level of vitriol that those responsible deserve, but instead the Chronicle lets Cato reprint their propaganda. When the Chronicle publishes people like Elizabeth Karasmeighan they are propping up a writer who could not make it in the open market she worships (I doubt many of her friends and family would read her blog). The relationship is such that the Chronicle lowers itself in proportion to the degree it raises Cato's writer. Why does the editorial page continue with such an awful model instead of using a proven model (the Eve Batey model?) of utilizing voices that have proven popular online for commentary? The Chronicle would have far better content on the opinion pages and the three people who read Cato online could read on how the value of the marketplace was proven by Cato not appearing in print.
And Chronicle readers would be better informed about important issues like the California Budget.
Stockton Record, "Awarding California's electoral votes based on the outcome in each congressional district is unfair, harmful to democratic precepts and a blatant political power grab."
OC Register, "A proposed change, which could be on next June's ballot, in the way California's votes are allocated in the presidential election might have a sheen of fairness, but it is nakedly partisan and profoundly subversive of our constitutional system."
A poll by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner for Democracy Corps, surveying us folks in the 18-29 age group, show that 50-60% of us believe the Democrats are better on any given issue than the Republicans. It's a portrait of a generation that grew up under conservative rule - and by witnessing its effects and costs firsthand, has utterly rejected it.
But in the first traditional media article on this quite significant poll, Carla Marinucci tells a rather odd story about this. To her, the only story here is that young voters dislike the Republican Party. Which we do, no doubt about it. But her article is filled with quotes from Republicans young and old about why we've abandoned them.
Nowhere does she ask the more obvious question: why are we so strongly identifying with Democrats? If it was just alienation from Republicans why don't we become apathetic? Why aren't we identifying as independents?
I've got more to say, but before the flip, I want to cut to the chase: we have a lot of people here age 18-29. In the comments, do what Marinucci refused to do: explain why you don't just reject the Republicans, but also why you so strongly embrace the Democrats. Why are you a proud Democrat?
I am not joking, this is above the fold on today's San Francisco Chronicle. You would think a bill could only be a "stealth" bill if the local paper was too busy laying people off to report on the legislature. But as always, the butt of the joke didn't seem to get why the smart people who saw today's front page were laughing.
Of course, they didn't call it a stealth bill because of their lousy coverage, they called it that because there wasn't much debate as everything was moving last week. Probably, for a reason (if you bothered to read through to the 10th paragraph):
Southern California Assemblyman Michael DuVall -- the lone Republican to voice his opposition on the Assembly floor last week -- said that, given many of his GOP colleagues' vocal opposition last year to Prop. 87, he thinks many didn't see a need to voice that opinion again.
I like Phil Bronstein going to SFist, it is a smart move. But when Matthew Yi manufactures a B.S. story reprinted from the fringe on the right who are out of line with reality, most Californians, and almost everyone in SF -- and it is put above the fold, is it any surprise why people won't subscribe?
For {Ed} Jew, who's now in China on a long-planned vacation, one thought has to be gnawing at his mind: It wasn't supposed to be like this.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha...
While the FBI investigation could send Jew to prison, it's the questions about his San Francisco home that might strike deepest, because if ever there was a son of the city, it was Ed tJew.
The Chron pulls this BJ agaist a crappy supe who is crooked and they wonder why I don't subscribe? WTF? After this story I'd ask to cancel my subscription but it is too late.
It is a good thing I'm not an angry blogger, otherwise I might write the choice words that newspaper types only speak (often). But the LA Times made the same mistake the of the San Francisco Chronicle in losing Bob Salladay -- who was doing the best job of a newsman in using the internet of anyone in the country. If that isn't enough, the very reason I enjoyed clicking through to his blog every day is being assaulted but the person the Times should want to let go.
Literally, this makes me want to cry. Does my local paper want to convince me to get a subscription by laying off 25% of the newsroom? I'm a news junkie, I really love to read the news. It isn't just part of my profession, it is something that could be thought of as a hobby. On the rare occasions I go on vacation, all I think about is that I want coffee (sometimes mimosas) next to the pool to read all the local papers wherever I am. Blogs aren't to newspapers as craigslist was to classifieds, bloggers live on loving or hating stories in the papers.
We all know the entire newspaper industry is in dire straights and that really sucks. It is even worse for me as my ideal retirement plan involves a front porch and a bunch of newspapers (while I yell at those myspace kids to stay off my great lawn). I firmly believe it was the newsroom that failed in Iraq and it is Wall Street that has failed ever since.
My only point is I'm frustrated, but I'd love to hear ideas in the comments.
For the Democrats, Clinton unquestionably topped the pack with $24 million raised nationally in the first quarter -- a record that swelled her total bank account to $36 million.
However, the unlike the above paragraph, the online version of neither story actually included a link to what they were talking about. This is a blatant violation of accepted ethical guidelines and it is far past time for newspapers to start forcing ethics online.
Today's Washington Post has a 2,700 word, above the fold, front-page story examining what is one of the most important debates concerning the future of the Democratic Party. Ground zero is the Bay Area, but you wouldn't know that from reading the San Francisco Chronicle. In contrast, on the front page of today's Chron was a story on how daylight savings time is coming in a few weeks.
With circulation dropping, California papers are pursing contrasting tactics. While the LA Times is in limbo between either being bought or sucking, the San Francisco Chronicle and the Sacramento Bee are telegraphing the approaches they will be taking to survive.
(Yay! The Chronicle is right on track here. Bowen will be a SoS with vision. - promoted by SFBrianCL)
Democratic candidate and voting rights advocate Senator Debra Bowen was officially endorsed by the San Francisco Chronicle this morning after an extensive public debate before their editorial board last Wednesday.
"In Bowen, California would have a secretary of state who is asking the right questions and has the grounding to know when she is getting straight answers. She recognizes that a conversion to electronic voting systems must be accompanied by appropriate safeguards -- such as paper trails and open source software -- that maintain public confidence in the electoral process."
