Two very interesting things developing here today. First the fun: The final decision on which tower will be built atop the new Transbay Terminal has come. It is a 1,200 foot tower (Empire State is 1250), with a 5.4-acre rooftop park (at the moment called City Park) atop a new terminal. Access to the park will be via funicular railway through a grove of oak trees from "Mission Square", a huge covered square on Mission St. It will be built by architecture firm Pelli Clarke, who built the twin Petronas Towers in Kaula Lumpur, Malaysia, which were the tallest buildings in the world until the Burj Dubai passed it very recently. It will house local and East Bay buses, with a direct connection to the Bay Bridge. In the future, it will house commuter trains to San Jose (Caltrain) and hopefully someday CHSR (California High-Speed Rail). It will likely have an one-block long underground tunnel connecting the station to Montgomery Station. Therefore, it will, in effect, if all is built, house BART trains, MUNI metro underground trains, MUNI trolley-bus lines, MUNI hybrid bus lines, AC (Alameda County) Transit buses, Caltrain to San Jose and CHSR trains to Sacramento, San Jose, Oakland, Los Angeles, Orange County and San Diego. Grand Central indeed. Add to that the Renzo Piano plan to build 5 towers accross the street, two of which (The Twin Towers...... i know, i know, i know, dear god) would also be 1200 feet. I think that would help make the height of the transbay tower look a little less silly. The new San Francisco will begin to play in the same league as Chicago and New York.
The other interesting tidbit, is that Ed Jew, Supervisor in the Sunset was here in my work building today, and news teams from around the bay were present, as Jew was arraigned for yet another federal felony count. The first count is of bribery, and the new one is of mail fraud. He allegedly solicited a bribe through the mail. He is also charged by the state with somewhere around 8 counts of electoral fraud, as he registered to vote and voted in the Sunset, when his actual residence was in Burlingame, a separate city near SFO. If convicted of any of these 10 or so federal and state counts, he will surely be removed from his supervisorial position and for the federal crimes, he will likely face jail time.
Look here for pictures: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?o=0&f=/c/a/2007/09/21/BAO7S9J2H.DTL
Friday, September 21, 2007
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
September 1, 1939 by W.H. Auden
Friday, September 14, 2007
Justice and Sadness
Today, in the United States Court in my building in the case The United States of America v. Judy Green, the verdict was read. The case dealt with the E-Rate scandal, which involved defrauding the government of millions of dollars that was supposed to be for funding underprivileged schools. On all 21 counts, guilty. She will never again see the light of day. This is fair justice. Thank you fair federal court system. At least we still have something. Way to go, Antitrust!
On a much sadder note, this is Katie's last minute. I will miss you. You were a good one.
On a much sadder note, this is Katie's last minute. I will miss you. You were a good one.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Yet again, SF shows itself to be the city that CAN and WILL
San Francisco Takes Unique Approach to Providing Medical Care for All
New York Times
By KEVIN SACK
Published: September 13, 2007
SAN FRANCISCO, Sept. 5 — Diagnosed with polio at age 2, Yan Ling Ho has lived with pain for most of her 52 years. After immigrating here from Hong Kong last year, the soreness in her back and joints proved too debilitating for her to work.
That also meant she did not have health insurance. Not wanting to burden her daughter, who was already paying her living expenses, Ms. Ho delayed doctor visits and battled her misery with over-the-counter medications.
“Sometimes the pain was so bad, I would just cry,” she said. “I didn’t know what else to do.”
Last month, unable to bear her discomfort any longer, Ms. Ho came to North East Medical Services, a nonprofit community clinic on the edge of Chinatown, and discovered to her delight that she qualified for a new program that offers free or subsidized health care to all 82,000 San Francisco adults without insurance.
The initiative, known as Healthy San Francisco, is the first of its kind in the nation, and represents the latest attempt by state and local governments to patch a broken federal system.
It is financed mostly by the city, which is gambling that it can provide universal and sensibly managed care to the uninsured for about the amount being spent on their treatment now, often in emergency rooms.
After a two-month trial at two clinics in Chinatown, the program is scheduled to expand citywide to 20 other locations on Sept. 17.
Whether such a program might be replicated is difficult to assess. In addition to its unique political culture, San Francisco, with a population of about 750, 000, has the advantages of compact geography, a unified city-county government, an extensive network of public and community clinics, and a relatively small population of uninsured adults. Virtually all of the city’s children are covered by private insurance or government plans.
At the bustling North East Medical Services clinic, where the staff and signage are multilingual, doctors and nurses are trying to build trust with patients who may have last sought treatment from an herbalist. Families crowd the elevators, as teenagers help parents and grandparents navigate the system. Patients like Ms. Ho say they hope their access to the clinic’s services will bring them independence, and a chance to work.
Healthy San Francisco provides uninsured San Franciscans with access to 14 city health clinics and eight affiliated community clinics, with an emphasis on prevention and chronic diseases. It is, however, not the same as insurance because it does not cover residents once they leave the city.
After a phased start-up, the city plans to bring private medical networks into the program next year, expanding the choice of doctors. Until November, enrollment will be limited to those living below the federal poverty line ($10,210 for a single person; $20,650 for a family of four). Then it will open to any resident who has been uninsured for at least 90 days, regardless of income or immigration status.
Only then will city officials learn whether the program appeals to middle-class workers, who comprise a growing share of the uninsured. And only then can they test whether San Francisco has the medical infrastructure to handle the desired increase in demand, and to do so without raising taxes. So far, enrollment has exceeded expectations. The city projected that between 600 and 1,000 people would sign up by the end of August. More than 1,300 did, even though officials have done little marketing. They hope to enroll about 45,000 people — more than half of the city’s uninsured — in the first year. Some clinics are adding night hours and small numbers of staff.
“We really didn’t know what the interest level would be so we’ve very pleased,” said Mayor Gavin Newsom. “At the same time, we don’t want over-exuberance yet because we don’t want to fall of our own weight.”
At the two pilot clinics, efforts are first made to qualify patients for Medicaid or other state and federal insurance programs. Those left over receive a Healthy San Francisco card that makes them eligible for primary care, dental exams, mental health and substance abuse services, hospitalization, radiology and prescription drugs.
Because the coverage is not portable, officials believe that those with private insurance will have little incentive to drop their policies to take advantage of the city’s cut-rate services.
Like Ms. Ho, many of those enrolling were already using the city’s health clinics — or the emergency room at San Francisco General Hospital — in times of acute need, like an asthma attack or stroke. About 57,000 of the 82,000 uninsured San Franciscans have used the city’s health system at some point.
But the new program hopes to persuade them to become regulars who regard their neighborhood clinic as a medical home. Once enrolled, patients are assigned a physician and encouraged to get blood pressure checks, mammograms and other screenings.
“We had a system that was not a system, and was based on episodic visits for chronic and acute care,” said Dr. Mitchell H. Katz, the city health director. “The idea that you should come get a cholesterol test, that didn’t happen.”
It was also common for patients to ignore doctors’ orders because of cost. Before the program started in July, a clinic doctor had ordered X-rays and blood tests for Ms. Ho, but she never got them.“Now I feel more comfortable coming in to get services and following the doctor’s instructions,” she said, speaking through an interpreter. She added that she recently took the recommended tests and is waiting for results.
The program was born of the city’s impatience with federal and state inaction, said Dr. Katz. In 1998, voters overwhelmingly endorsed universal access to health care in a citywide referendum. In ensuing years, city officials explored ways to provide universal insurance but, like other governments, could not figure out how to pay for it.
“What we did next,” Mr. Newsom said, “was profound and simple. We asked a different question. We asked: how do we provide universal health care to all uninsured San Franciscans? And that one modest distinction allowed us to answer the question we hadn’t been able to answer for a decade.”
Tangerine M. Brigham, the program’s director, projects it will cost $200 million the first year, and Mr. Newsom expects to finance it without a tax increase. The city already spends about that much on care for the uninsured, and those funds will essentially be redirected to Healthy San Francisco.
The program was also selected by the state to receive a three-year federal grant worth $24 million a year for expanding access to care. And because enrollees are still uninsured, they remain eligible for state and federal benefits, like discounts on AIDS drugs.
Patients are asked to contribute nominal amounts through membership fees and co-payments that vary by income.
Those from families with incomes below the federal poverty line pay nothing. Those who earn more pay quarterly fees that range from $60 to $675. That is the rate for those with incomes above 500 percent of the poverty level ($51,050 for a single; $103,250 for a family of four), which is where the subsidy ends. The co-payments range from $10 to $20 for a clinic visit and from $200 to $350 for an inpatient stay.
A final funding mechanism has placed the program in legal jeopardy. To make sure the new safety net does not encourage businesses to drop their private insurance, the city in January will begin requiring employers with more than 20 workers to contribute a set amount to health care. The Healthy San Francisco program is one of several possible destinations for those funds, with others being private insurance or health savings accounts.
Late last year, the Golden Gate Restaurant Association challenged that provision in federal court, arguing that it violates a law governing employer health benefits. A judge has scheduled a hearing for early November.
Mr. Newsom, a restaurateur and former member of the association, said the program would only work if accompanied by an employer mandate. But he said the city will have contingencies if it loses in court. “It may set us back” he said, “but it’s not going to end this program.
Current music: OutKast - Dracula's Wedding (feat. Kelis)
New York Times
By KEVIN SACK
Published: September 13, 2007
SAN FRANCISCO, Sept. 5 — Diagnosed with polio at age 2, Yan Ling Ho has lived with pain for most of her 52 years. After immigrating here from Hong Kong last year, the soreness in her back and joints proved too debilitating for her to work.
That also meant she did not have health insurance. Not wanting to burden her daughter, who was already paying her living expenses, Ms. Ho delayed doctor visits and battled her misery with over-the-counter medications.
“Sometimes the pain was so bad, I would just cry,” she said. “I didn’t know what else to do.”
Last month, unable to bear her discomfort any longer, Ms. Ho came to North East Medical Services, a nonprofit community clinic on the edge of Chinatown, and discovered to her delight that she qualified for a new program that offers free or subsidized health care to all 82,000 San Francisco adults without insurance.
The initiative, known as Healthy San Francisco, is the first of its kind in the nation, and represents the latest attempt by state and local governments to patch a broken federal system.
It is financed mostly by the city, which is gambling that it can provide universal and sensibly managed care to the uninsured for about the amount being spent on their treatment now, often in emergency rooms.
After a two-month trial at two clinics in Chinatown, the program is scheduled to expand citywide to 20 other locations on Sept. 17.
Whether such a program might be replicated is difficult to assess. In addition to its unique political culture, San Francisco, with a population of about 750, 000, has the advantages of compact geography, a unified city-county government, an extensive network of public and community clinics, and a relatively small population of uninsured adults. Virtually all of the city’s children are covered by private insurance or government plans.
At the bustling North East Medical Services clinic, where the staff and signage are multilingual, doctors and nurses are trying to build trust with patients who may have last sought treatment from an herbalist. Families crowd the elevators, as teenagers help parents and grandparents navigate the system. Patients like Ms. Ho say they hope their access to the clinic’s services will bring them independence, and a chance to work.
Healthy San Francisco provides uninsured San Franciscans with access to 14 city health clinics and eight affiliated community clinics, with an emphasis on prevention and chronic diseases. It is, however, not the same as insurance because it does not cover residents once they leave the city.
After a phased start-up, the city plans to bring private medical networks into the program next year, expanding the choice of doctors. Until November, enrollment will be limited to those living below the federal poverty line ($10,210 for a single person; $20,650 for a family of four). Then it will open to any resident who has been uninsured for at least 90 days, regardless of income or immigration status.
Only then will city officials learn whether the program appeals to middle-class workers, who comprise a growing share of the uninsured. And only then can they test whether San Francisco has the medical infrastructure to handle the desired increase in demand, and to do so without raising taxes. So far, enrollment has exceeded expectations. The city projected that between 600 and 1,000 people would sign up by the end of August. More than 1,300 did, even though officials have done little marketing. They hope to enroll about 45,000 people — more than half of the city’s uninsured — in the first year. Some clinics are adding night hours and small numbers of staff.
“We really didn’t know what the interest level would be so we’ve very pleased,” said Mayor Gavin Newsom. “At the same time, we don’t want over-exuberance yet because we don’t want to fall of our own weight.”
At the two pilot clinics, efforts are first made to qualify patients for Medicaid or other state and federal insurance programs. Those left over receive a Healthy San Francisco card that makes them eligible for primary care, dental exams, mental health and substance abuse services, hospitalization, radiology and prescription drugs.
Because the coverage is not portable, officials believe that those with private insurance will have little incentive to drop their policies to take advantage of the city’s cut-rate services.
Like Ms. Ho, many of those enrolling were already using the city’s health clinics — or the emergency room at San Francisco General Hospital — in times of acute need, like an asthma attack or stroke. About 57,000 of the 82,000 uninsured San Franciscans have used the city’s health system at some point.
But the new program hopes to persuade them to become regulars who regard their neighborhood clinic as a medical home. Once enrolled, patients are assigned a physician and encouraged to get blood pressure checks, mammograms and other screenings.
“We had a system that was not a system, and was based on episodic visits for chronic and acute care,” said Dr. Mitchell H. Katz, the city health director. “The idea that you should come get a cholesterol test, that didn’t happen.”
It was also common for patients to ignore doctors’ orders because of cost. Before the program started in July, a clinic doctor had ordered X-rays and blood tests for Ms. Ho, but she never got them.“Now I feel more comfortable coming in to get services and following the doctor’s instructions,” she said, speaking through an interpreter. She added that she recently took the recommended tests and is waiting for results.
The program was born of the city’s impatience with federal and state inaction, said Dr. Katz. In 1998, voters overwhelmingly endorsed universal access to health care in a citywide referendum. In ensuing years, city officials explored ways to provide universal insurance but, like other governments, could not figure out how to pay for it.
“What we did next,” Mr. Newsom said, “was profound and simple. We asked a different question. We asked: how do we provide universal health care to all uninsured San Franciscans? And that one modest distinction allowed us to answer the question we hadn’t been able to answer for a decade.”
Tangerine M. Brigham, the program’s director, projects it will cost $200 million the first year, and Mr. Newsom expects to finance it without a tax increase. The city already spends about that much on care for the uninsured, and those funds will essentially be redirected to Healthy San Francisco.
The program was also selected by the state to receive a three-year federal grant worth $24 million a year for expanding access to care. And because enrollees are still uninsured, they remain eligible for state and federal benefits, like discounts on AIDS drugs.
Patients are asked to contribute nominal amounts through membership fees and co-payments that vary by income.
Those from families with incomes below the federal poverty line pay nothing. Those who earn more pay quarterly fees that range from $60 to $675. That is the rate for those with incomes above 500 percent of the poverty level ($51,050 for a single; $103,250 for a family of four), which is where the subsidy ends. The co-payments range from $10 to $20 for a clinic visit and from $200 to $350 for an inpatient stay.
A final funding mechanism has placed the program in legal jeopardy. To make sure the new safety net does not encourage businesses to drop their private insurance, the city in January will begin requiring employers with more than 20 workers to contribute a set amount to health care. The Healthy San Francisco program is one of several possible destinations for those funds, with others being private insurance or health savings accounts.
Late last year, the Golden Gate Restaurant Association challenged that provision in federal court, arguing that it violates a law governing employer health benefits. A judge has scheduled a hearing for early November.
Mr. Newsom, a restaurateur and former member of the association, said the program would only work if accompanied by an employer mandate. But he said the city will have contingencies if it loses in court. “It may set us back” he said, “but it’s not going to end this program.
Current music: OutKast - Dracula's Wedding (feat. Kelis)
As Virginia goes, so goes our country
Wow, I'm prescient. As Virginia goes blue, one of the most conservative democrats in the country continues to look more and more like our messiah. I like his economic message and his attitude on the war. This is what wikipedia says about my pick for Democratic VP candidate.
"Webb is expected to be on the top of the Vice Presidential list for the Democratic nominee in 2008 due to his credentials as former Secretary of Navy, his early opposition to the War in Iraq and his ability to attract military voters to the Democratic side and fulfill the "military" imbalance that could occur if either Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) or Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) were the nominee, as neither of them has military credentials. Also, Virginia is seen as a emerging swing state and Webb's presence on the ticket could swing the state on the Democratic side."
He was swept into office by percentage points after Republican incumbent George Allen arrogantly referred to a Webb campaign worker of Indian descent using a racial slur.
Webb is known for holding Reagan and Jackson to be our two best presidents. He is against gun control. He served as Asst. SecDef and Sec. of the Navy under Reagan. He resigned as Sec. of the Navy because he refused to decommission 16 ships out of use. He wanted to INCREASE the size of the navy. His father was in World War II. He (and his brother) fought in Vietnam, where he earned a Navy Cross, the second highest decoration in the Navy and Marine Corps for heroism in Vietnam. He also earned the Silver Star, two Bronze Stars, and two Purple Hearts. His son is now serving in the Iraq War, though he recently returned to the US inbetween deployments. Webb is married (3rd wife) to a Vietnamese-American lawyer and he speaks Vietnamese. He has opposed the current war from the start, writing op-ed pieces in the NYTimes and USA Today as early as March, 2003. He is also the author of many books including at least one novel and many books on international relations.
I'm not sure I want him to be President, but he could definitely pull Clinton or Obama along with the right-wingers. He knows his rhetoric and he quotes Republican heroes to make Democratic points.
Jim Webb is the only senator who has a child fighting in Iraq. He refused to have his picture taken with George Bush in 2007 as all other incoming senators did. When Bush asked him, "How's your boy?", Webb answered, "I'd like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President". The President responded with, "That's not what I asked you. How's your boy?", to which Webb responded, while suppressing the desire to punch Bush in the face, according to sources close to Webb, "That's between me and my boy, Mr. President."
"On March 5, 2007, Webb introduced his second piece of legislation, S.759, which is intended to prohibit the use of funds for military operations in Iran without the prior approval of Congress. In a statement on the floor of the Senate, Webb said: 'The major function of this legislation is to prevent this Administration from commencing unprovoked military activities against Iran without the approval of the Congress. The legislation accomplishes this goal through the proper constitutional process of prohibiting all funding for such an endeavor.'" (from Wikipedia)
Here is the text of Webb's career-making rebuttal to Bush's 2007 State of the Union address, in its entirety:
"Good evening.
I'm Senator Jim Webb, from Virginia, where this year we will celebrate the 400th anniversary of the settlement of Jamestown – an event that marked the first step in the long journey that has made us the greatest and most prosperous nation on earth.
It would not be possible in this short amount of time to actually rebut the President’s message, nor would it be useful. Let me simply say that we in the Democratic Party hope that this administration is serious about improving education and healthcare for all Americans, and addressing such domestic priorities as restoring the vitality of New Orleans.
Further, this is the seventh time the President has mentioned energy independence in his state of the union message, but for the first time this exchange is taking place in a Congress led by the Democratic Party. We are looking for affirmative solutions that will strengthen our nation by freeing us from our dependence on foreign oil, and spurring a wave of entrepreneurial growth in the form of alternate energy programs. We look forward to working with the President and his party to bring about these changes.
There are two areas where our respective parties have largely stood in contradiction, and I want to take a few minutes to address them tonight. The first relates to how we see the health of our economy – how we measure it, and how we ensure that its benefits are properly shared among all Americans. The second regards our foreign policy – how we might bring the war in Iraq to a proper conclusion that will also allow us to continue to fight the war against international terrorism, and to address other strategic concerns that our country faces around the world.
When one looks at the health of our economy, it’s almost as if we are living in two different countries. Some say that things have never been better. The stock market is at an all-time high, and so are corporate profits. But these benefits are not being fairly shared. When I graduated from college, the average corporate CEO made 20 times what the average worker did; today, it’s nearly 400 times. In other words, it takes the average worker more than a year to make the money that his or her boss makes in one day.
Wages and salaries for our workers are at all-time lows as a percentage of national wealth, even though the productivity of American workers is the highest in the world. Medical costs have skyrocketed. College tuition rates are off the charts. Our manufacturing base is being dismantled and sent overseas. Good American jobs are being sent along with them.
In short, the middle class of this country, our historic backbone and our best hope for a strong society in the future, is losing its place at the table. Our workers know this, through painful experience. Our white-collar professionals are beginning to understand it, as their jobs start disappearing also. And they expect, rightly, that in this age of globalization, their government has a duty to insist that their concerns be dealt with fairly in the international marketplace.
In the early days of our republic, President Andrew Jackson established an important principle of American-style democracy – that we should measure the health of our society not at its apex, but at its base. Not with the numbers that come out of Wall Street, but with the living conditions that exist on Main Street. We must recapture that spirit today.
And under the leadership of the new Democratic Congress, we are on our way to doing so. The House just passed a minimum wage increase, the first in ten years, and the Senate will soon follow. We've introduced a broad legislative package designed to regain the trust of the American people. We’ve established a tone of cooperation and consensus that extends beyond party lines. We’re working to get the right things done, for the right people and for the right reasons.
With respect to foreign policy, this country has patiently endured a mismanaged war for nearly four years. Many, including myself, warned even before the war began that it was unnecessary, that it would take our energy and attention away from the larger war against terrorism, and that invading and occupying Iraq would leave us strategically vulnerable in the most violent and turbulent corner of the world.
I want to share with all of you a picture that I have carried with me for more than 50 years. This is my father, when he was a young Air Force captain, flying cargo planes during the Berlin Airlift. He sent us the picture from Germany, as we waited for him, back here at home. When I was a small boy, I used to take the picture to bed with me every night, because for more than three years my father was deployed, unable to live with us full-time, serving overseas or in bases where there was no family housing. I still keep it, to remind me of the sacrifices that my mother and others had to make, over and over again, as my father gladly served our country. I was proud to follow in his footsteps, serving as a Marine in Vietnam. My brother did as well, serving as a Marine helicopter pilot. My son has joined the tradition, now serving as an infantry Marine in Iraq.
Like so many other Americans, today and throughout our history, we serve and have served, not for political reasons, but because we love our country. On the political issues – those matters of war and peace, and in some cases of life and death – we trusted the judgment of our national leaders. We hoped that they would be right, that they would measure with accuracy the value of our lives against the enormity of the national interest that might call upon us to go into harm’s way.
We owed them our loyalty, as Americans, and we gave it. But they owed us – sound judgment, clear thinking, concern for our welfare, a guarantee that the threat to our country was equal to the price we might be called upon to pay in defending it.
The President took us into this war recklessly. He disregarded warnings from the national security adviser during the first Gulf War, the chief of staff of the army, two former commanding generals of the Central Command, whose jurisdiction includes Iraq, the director of operations on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many, many others with great integrity and long experience in national security affairs. We are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable – and predicted – disarray that has followed.
The war’s costs to our nation have been staggering. Financially. The damage to our reputation around the world. The lost opportunities to defeat the forces of international terrorism. And especially the precious blood of our citizens who have stepped forward to serve.
The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought; nor does the majority of our military. We need a new direction. Not one step back from the war against international terrorism. Not a precipitous withdrawal that ignores the possibility of further chaos. But an immediate shift toward strong regionally-based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq’s cities, and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq.
On both of these vital issues, our economy and our national security, it falls upon those of us in elected office to take action.
Regarding the economic imbalance in our country, I am reminded of the situation President Theodore Roosevelt faced in the early days of the 20th century. America was then, as now, drifting apart along class lines. The so-called robber barons were unapologetically raking in a huge percentage of the national wealth. The dispossessed workers at the bottom were threatening revolt.
Roosevelt spoke strongly against these divisions. He told his fellow Republicans that they must set themselves “as resolutely against improper corporate influence on the one hand as against demagogy and mob rule on the other.” And he did something about it.
As I look at Iraq, I recall the words of former general and soon-to-be President Dwight Eisenhower during the dark days of the Korean War, which had fallen into a bloody stalemate. “When comes the end?” asked the General who had commanded our forces in Europe during World War Two. And as soon as he became President, he brought the Korean War to an end.
These Presidents took the right kind of action, for the benefit of the American people and for the health of our relations around the world. Tonight we are calling on this President to take similar action, in both areas. If he does, we will join him. If he does not, we will be showing him the way.
Thank you for listening. And God bless America."
Obama/Webb '08!
"Webb is expected to be on the top of the Vice Presidential list for the Democratic nominee in 2008 due to his credentials as former Secretary of Navy, his early opposition to the War in Iraq and his ability to attract military voters to the Democratic side and fulfill the "military" imbalance that could occur if either Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) or Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) were the nominee, as neither of them has military credentials. Also, Virginia is seen as a emerging swing state and Webb's presence on the ticket could swing the state on the Democratic side."
He was swept into office by percentage points after Republican incumbent George Allen arrogantly referred to a Webb campaign worker of Indian descent using a racial slur.
Webb is known for holding Reagan and Jackson to be our two best presidents. He is against gun control. He served as Asst. SecDef and Sec. of the Navy under Reagan. He resigned as Sec. of the Navy because he refused to decommission 16 ships out of use. He wanted to INCREASE the size of the navy. His father was in World War II. He (and his brother) fought in Vietnam, where he earned a Navy Cross, the second highest decoration in the Navy and Marine Corps for heroism in Vietnam. He also earned the Silver Star, two Bronze Stars, and two Purple Hearts. His son is now serving in the Iraq War, though he recently returned to the US inbetween deployments. Webb is married (3rd wife) to a Vietnamese-American lawyer and he speaks Vietnamese. He has opposed the current war from the start, writing op-ed pieces in the NYTimes and USA Today as early as March, 2003. He is also the author of many books including at least one novel and many books on international relations.
I'm not sure I want him to be President, but he could definitely pull Clinton or Obama along with the right-wingers. He knows his rhetoric and he quotes Republican heroes to make Democratic points.
Jim Webb is the only senator who has a child fighting in Iraq. He refused to have his picture taken with George Bush in 2007 as all other incoming senators did. When Bush asked him, "How's your boy?", Webb answered, "I'd like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President". The President responded with, "That's not what I asked you. How's your boy?", to which Webb responded, while suppressing the desire to punch Bush in the face, according to sources close to Webb, "That's between me and my boy, Mr. President."
"On March 5, 2007, Webb introduced his second piece of legislation, S.759, which is intended to prohibit the use of funds for military operations in Iran without the prior approval of Congress. In a statement on the floor of the Senate, Webb said: 'The major function of this legislation is to prevent this Administration from commencing unprovoked military activities against Iran without the approval of the Congress. The legislation accomplishes this goal through the proper constitutional process of prohibiting all funding for such an endeavor.'" (from Wikipedia)
Here is the text of Webb's career-making rebuttal to Bush's 2007 State of the Union address, in its entirety:
"Good evening.
I'm Senator Jim Webb, from Virginia, where this year we will celebrate the 400th anniversary of the settlement of Jamestown – an event that marked the first step in the long journey that has made us the greatest and most prosperous nation on earth.
It would not be possible in this short amount of time to actually rebut the President’s message, nor would it be useful. Let me simply say that we in the Democratic Party hope that this administration is serious about improving education and healthcare for all Americans, and addressing such domestic priorities as restoring the vitality of New Orleans.
Further, this is the seventh time the President has mentioned energy independence in his state of the union message, but for the first time this exchange is taking place in a Congress led by the Democratic Party. We are looking for affirmative solutions that will strengthen our nation by freeing us from our dependence on foreign oil, and spurring a wave of entrepreneurial growth in the form of alternate energy programs. We look forward to working with the President and his party to bring about these changes.
There are two areas where our respective parties have largely stood in contradiction, and I want to take a few minutes to address them tonight. The first relates to how we see the health of our economy – how we measure it, and how we ensure that its benefits are properly shared among all Americans. The second regards our foreign policy – how we might bring the war in Iraq to a proper conclusion that will also allow us to continue to fight the war against international terrorism, and to address other strategic concerns that our country faces around the world.
When one looks at the health of our economy, it’s almost as if we are living in two different countries. Some say that things have never been better. The stock market is at an all-time high, and so are corporate profits. But these benefits are not being fairly shared. When I graduated from college, the average corporate CEO made 20 times what the average worker did; today, it’s nearly 400 times. In other words, it takes the average worker more than a year to make the money that his or her boss makes in one day.
Wages and salaries for our workers are at all-time lows as a percentage of national wealth, even though the productivity of American workers is the highest in the world. Medical costs have skyrocketed. College tuition rates are off the charts. Our manufacturing base is being dismantled and sent overseas. Good American jobs are being sent along with them.
In short, the middle class of this country, our historic backbone and our best hope for a strong society in the future, is losing its place at the table. Our workers know this, through painful experience. Our white-collar professionals are beginning to understand it, as their jobs start disappearing also. And they expect, rightly, that in this age of globalization, their government has a duty to insist that their concerns be dealt with fairly in the international marketplace.
In the early days of our republic, President Andrew Jackson established an important principle of American-style democracy – that we should measure the health of our society not at its apex, but at its base. Not with the numbers that come out of Wall Street, but with the living conditions that exist on Main Street. We must recapture that spirit today.
And under the leadership of the new Democratic Congress, we are on our way to doing so. The House just passed a minimum wage increase, the first in ten years, and the Senate will soon follow. We've introduced a broad legislative package designed to regain the trust of the American people. We’ve established a tone of cooperation and consensus that extends beyond party lines. We’re working to get the right things done, for the right people and for the right reasons.
With respect to foreign policy, this country has patiently endured a mismanaged war for nearly four years. Many, including myself, warned even before the war began that it was unnecessary, that it would take our energy and attention away from the larger war against terrorism, and that invading and occupying Iraq would leave us strategically vulnerable in the most violent and turbulent corner of the world.
I want to share with all of you a picture that I have carried with me for more than 50 years. This is my father, when he was a young Air Force captain, flying cargo planes during the Berlin Airlift. He sent us the picture from Germany, as we waited for him, back here at home. When I was a small boy, I used to take the picture to bed with me every night, because for more than three years my father was deployed, unable to live with us full-time, serving overseas or in bases where there was no family housing. I still keep it, to remind me of the sacrifices that my mother and others had to make, over and over again, as my father gladly served our country. I was proud to follow in his footsteps, serving as a Marine in Vietnam. My brother did as well, serving as a Marine helicopter pilot. My son has joined the tradition, now serving as an infantry Marine in Iraq.
Like so many other Americans, today and throughout our history, we serve and have served, not for political reasons, but because we love our country. On the political issues – those matters of war and peace, and in some cases of life and death – we trusted the judgment of our national leaders. We hoped that they would be right, that they would measure with accuracy the value of our lives against the enormity of the national interest that might call upon us to go into harm’s way.
We owed them our loyalty, as Americans, and we gave it. But they owed us – sound judgment, clear thinking, concern for our welfare, a guarantee that the threat to our country was equal to the price we might be called upon to pay in defending it.
The President took us into this war recklessly. He disregarded warnings from the national security adviser during the first Gulf War, the chief of staff of the army, two former commanding generals of the Central Command, whose jurisdiction includes Iraq, the director of operations on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many, many others with great integrity and long experience in national security affairs. We are now, as a nation, held hostage to the predictable – and predicted – disarray that has followed.
The war’s costs to our nation have been staggering. Financially. The damage to our reputation around the world. The lost opportunities to defeat the forces of international terrorism. And especially the precious blood of our citizens who have stepped forward to serve.
The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought; nor does the majority of our military. We need a new direction. Not one step back from the war against international terrorism. Not a precipitous withdrawal that ignores the possibility of further chaos. But an immediate shift toward strong regionally-based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq’s cities, and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq.
On both of these vital issues, our economy and our national security, it falls upon those of us in elected office to take action.
Regarding the economic imbalance in our country, I am reminded of the situation President Theodore Roosevelt faced in the early days of the 20th century. America was then, as now, drifting apart along class lines. The so-called robber barons were unapologetically raking in a huge percentage of the national wealth. The dispossessed workers at the bottom were threatening revolt.
Roosevelt spoke strongly against these divisions. He told his fellow Republicans that they must set themselves “as resolutely against improper corporate influence on the one hand as against demagogy and mob rule on the other.” And he did something about it.
As I look at Iraq, I recall the words of former general and soon-to-be President Dwight Eisenhower during the dark days of the Korean War, which had fallen into a bloody stalemate. “When comes the end?” asked the General who had commanded our forces in Europe during World War Two. And as soon as he became President, he brought the Korean War to an end.
These Presidents took the right kind of action, for the benefit of the American people and for the health of our relations around the world. Tonight we are calling on this President to take similar action, in both areas. If he does, we will join him. If he does not, we will be showing him the way.
Thank you for listening. And God bless America."
Obama/Webb '08!
Thank you, Gov. Warner!
It's become painfully obvious to me that our candidate should be Obama. My hope is that Edwards fails early and throws his support behind Obama. Most Edwards supporters would rather relieve themselves in their own bedrooms than vote for Hillary. I think that attitude is rather silly, but I'll take any vote "surge" on Obama's side. However, if Hillary wins, that's ok too.
I'm becoming less and less sure that a Democrat will win in 2008. It's also becoming less important to me. We need to win that 60th Senate seat and retain our majority in the house. Then, President Giuliani will be the only person able to block sensible legislation. 60 stops the filibuster and Giuliani will be hated with a passion if he refuses that large of a majority. Kerrey has a good chance in Nebraska for the good guys and Warner in VA is a lock. Democrats look likely to pick up 5-7 seats. There are a further 5 seats in play. It's a stretch, but with the Republican implosion, it's becoming ever more possible. Democrats are only defending a handful of seats, none of which are in danger, whereas Republicans are defending something around 20, more than half of which are unsafe and many of which they have no chance of keeping.
GO BLUE! (If Michigan doesn't need the phrase for this season, we should co-opt it for the Democratic Party)
Current music: OutKast - Spread
I'm becoming less and less sure that a Democrat will win in 2008. It's also becoming less important to me. We need to win that 60th Senate seat and retain our majority in the house. Then, President Giuliani will be the only person able to block sensible legislation. 60 stops the filibuster and Giuliani will be hated with a passion if he refuses that large of a majority. Kerrey has a good chance in Nebraska for the good guys and Warner in VA is a lock. Democrats look likely to pick up 5-7 seats. There are a further 5 seats in play. It's a stretch, but with the Republican implosion, it's becoming ever more possible. Democrats are only defending a handful of seats, none of which are in danger, whereas Republicans are defending something around 20, more than half of which are unsafe and many of which they have no chance of keeping.
GO BLUE! (If Michigan doesn't need the phrase for this season, we should co-opt it for the Democratic Party)
Current music: OutKast - Spread
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Caffe Bella Venezia
I met an old friend from undergrad who works at a yoga studio in the city. She was always a good friend of mine, but we had divergent lives and never hung out much. Now, we have less to do so we thought we'd meet up and hang out again.
We decided to try Caffe Bella Venezia, a very cheap Italian restaurant two blocks from my house. We went in and I ordered a small pizza and a glass of wine. She ordered lasagna and a glass of wine. All of that cost less than $20. Amazing prices for SF.
We walked in the door and it was empty inside as it was only about 5:30. The owner greeted us with an Italian accent and gave it menus. We noticed a fruit fly flying about and I mentioned to my friend Joey that there were lots of fruit flies in the neighborhood. It was a little bit apologia, a little bit fact. There was no music, so tt was a little eerie, but then the nice owner man started some Italian music. Then, the flies started flying. There were lots of them. We both started to get annoyed. We got bread and it was wonderful, so we started to feel that everything was ok, but the flies would not dissipate!
A group of four people came in. They were kind of white-trashy. They did not appear to be from the city. They sat on the other side of the restaurant. They were kinda loud, but not a problem at all.
We had already ordered our food so we couldn't leave, but we decided that maybe the table was the problem. We got up and told the man we were gonna take the table next to ours. We figured that since the other people were having fun, there must be flyless tables.
We ended up at a less fly-infested table, and we got our food. It was pretty good. It was definitely good for the price and the sit-down-ness of the restaurant. However, there were still a few flies. Joey's pretty damn cool though and we laughed it off. This whole experience made me quite sad when I surmised that the owner man was also the cook. Here is a man who comes from Italy to SF and opens a restaurant. He features food from his home for cheap prices, which he cooks all on his own. It's his life, his home, his food. His restaurant is empty and fly-infested. All he gets are low-budget tourists, many of which must scowl and write his place off due to the flies.
At this point, the other guests start taking pictures and they go ask the owner if he knows any clubs. The owner looks slightly flustered and mumbles something about a place named Dragonfly. The woman who asked him, who is around 35, overweight, with tight jeans, a leather jacket and frizzy brown hair, returns to her seat and a second later, we hear, "Dragonfly, dragonfly, dragonfly."
The whole scene freaked me out. Sad man from Italy and the tourists who come to SF and this dump is the highlight.
I don't know though. At one point, the man opened the door to street up wide. I wondered if maybe he knew that the flies were a problem and it was only today, so he opened the door up.... Or maybe, this is a constant issue.... I don't really know.
I came home and looked it up on yelp. No one mentioned the flies and it got very good reviews, for being so cheap and good. I would never wanna harm this man's business, so I figured I'd just write my review on my blog instead.
I get sad at the weirdest shit.
Current music: OutKast - A Life in the Day of Benjamin André (Incomplete)
We decided to try Caffe Bella Venezia, a very cheap Italian restaurant two blocks from my house. We went in and I ordered a small pizza and a glass of wine. She ordered lasagna and a glass of wine. All of that cost less than $20. Amazing prices for SF.
We walked in the door and it was empty inside as it was only about 5:30. The owner greeted us with an Italian accent and gave it menus. We noticed a fruit fly flying about and I mentioned to my friend Joey that there were lots of fruit flies in the neighborhood. It was a little bit apologia, a little bit fact. There was no music, so tt was a little eerie, but then the nice owner man started some Italian music. Then, the flies started flying. There were lots of them. We both started to get annoyed. We got bread and it was wonderful, so we started to feel that everything was ok, but the flies would not dissipate!
A group of four people came in. They were kind of white-trashy. They did not appear to be from the city. They sat on the other side of the restaurant. They were kinda loud, but not a problem at all.
We had already ordered our food so we couldn't leave, but we decided that maybe the table was the problem. We got up and told the man we were gonna take the table next to ours. We figured that since the other people were having fun, there must be flyless tables.
We ended up at a less fly-infested table, and we got our food. It was pretty good. It was definitely good for the price and the sit-down-ness of the restaurant. However, there were still a few flies. Joey's pretty damn cool though and we laughed it off. This whole experience made me quite sad when I surmised that the owner man was also the cook. Here is a man who comes from Italy to SF and opens a restaurant. He features food from his home for cheap prices, which he cooks all on his own. It's his life, his home, his food. His restaurant is empty and fly-infested. All he gets are low-budget tourists, many of which must scowl and write his place off due to the flies.
At this point, the other guests start taking pictures and they go ask the owner if he knows any clubs. The owner looks slightly flustered and mumbles something about a place named Dragonfly. The woman who asked him, who is around 35, overweight, with tight jeans, a leather jacket and frizzy brown hair, returns to her seat and a second later, we hear, "Dragonfly, dragonfly, dragonfly."
The whole scene freaked me out. Sad man from Italy and the tourists who come to SF and this dump is the highlight.
I don't know though. At one point, the man opened the door to street up wide. I wondered if maybe he knew that the flies were a problem and it was only today, so he opened the door up.... Or maybe, this is a constant issue.... I don't really know.
I came home and looked it up on yelp. No one mentioned the flies and it got very good reviews, for being so cheap and good. I would never wanna harm this man's business, so I figured I'd just write my review on my blog instead.
I get sad at the weirdest shit.
Current music: OutKast - A Life in the Day of Benjamin André (Incomplete)
The Mayor of Castro Street
The title is unclear, but the upcoming docudrama based on the life of Harvey Milk has finally released the names of the actors and director. And the names are big.
Director: Gus Van Sant
Harvey Milk: Sean Penn
Dan White (Assassin of Milk and Moscone): Matt Damon
George Moscone: still unknown
Dianne Feinstein: still unknown
Impressive names. Shooting will start this December in and around City Hall.
Director: Gus Van Sant
Harvey Milk: Sean Penn
Dan White (Assassin of Milk and Moscone): Matt Damon
George Moscone: still unknown
Dianne Feinstein: still unknown
Impressive names. Shooting will start this December in and around City Hall.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)