So, had to go to the Post Office today to drop off a letter to the local Union stating that I oppose fees taken out of my check to cover certain expenditures, such as lobbying. The closest Post Office to my work is in a federal courthouse, which means going through security, presenting i.d., putting metal objects through the x-ray and stating my business. A mere annoyance.
The Post Office is in the basement of the federal courthouse, and after walking through a labyrinth, I find the Post Office. The first thing I see as I approach the double doors is a sign that says "No Stamps." Yes, a Post Office that is out of stamps. A portent of things to come.
I get in line and wait, and wait, and wait. Let's say the Post Office worker was deliberate, very deliberate. He has a bald spot on the top of his head, glasses, and a beard that is reminiscent of former Surgeon General C. Everett Coop- a sculptured beard and is long enough to be combed into a slight curl. So, I'm waiting, and waiting, and notice that not only is he deliberate, not only is he slow, but he also has a habit of sticking his tongue out, rather, slipping his tongue would be more accurate. He moves stiffly as he pokes at the computer in front of him all the while every 3 or 4 seconds slipping his tongue out like a snake. It's obvious that it's one of those involuntary habits or tics, but it's gross and annoying. I would say unbecoming a federal employee, but then I remember a) he works for the Post Office and b) I lived in D.C. and know about federal employees.
So, after about 15 minutes, I was the 3rd in line when I got there, I step up to the desk and get out of there rather scot free in 5 minutes. But all I can think about his this guy slipping his tongue out, over and over and over. Hopefully my letter made it out today.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
More Life in San Francisco
We had friends in town over the weekend and on Monday from Rhode Island. We've been friends since D.C., and they came out for a visit and brought their 8 month old along. Over the weekend, drove down the coast, where all the beaches are packed and saw a family with 3 kids all of whom were nekkid, including a 4 or 5 year old boy who once he dried off promptly went down face first into the sand, still nekkid. Gross. On Sunday, went to Napa and stopped at a few wineries. No big deal. But, they weren't flying back until Tuesday, so decided to take Monday off and entertain Andrew the husband with a trip to San Francisco's very own Anchor Steam Brewing Company for a tour and free samples.
Found our way to the brewery which is housed in a rather Art Deco style building. Walk up two flights of stairs, and at the top of the second floor is a guy in a white jump suit there to check off names for the tour- check. Walk in and wait in a room surrounded by various platters with beer logos and pictures on it, including such luminaries as Old Style, Ballentine, Schmidt's, Yuengling, but, alas, no Natty-Boh. At the end of the room was the bar, and in between were various beer making exhibits, several chairs to lounge around in, and in the very far corner a 3 shelf bookcase with Anchor Steam souvenirs. We wait about 5 minutes, then the tour begins- the tour guy proceeds to talk about the process Anchor Steam does to make their beer, shows examples of the 5 main ingredients in Anchor Steam, other than water, explains that every drop of Anchor Steam beer sold world-wide is made in this brewery, talks about the history of Anchor Steam, what a "steam" beer is and how that got incorporated into the Anchor Steam name, and how in the 70s they almost ceased to exist until it was purchased by one Fritz Maytag, and how he has turned the brewery around to be what it is today. The tour guy also explained the various types of beer made by Anchor Steam, of which we would eventually sample 6 of them- I only knew of 3 beers, so I was pretty surprised to learn they made more than just the Christmas beer, Liberty Ale and the namesake. Moved on to the kettles, apparently, the whole process is done in three very large kettles, or tums as they are apparently called. Anchor Steam beer is made in those 3 kettles 4 days a week, with the 5th day devoted to one of their other styles of beer. Walked down two flights of stairs to see the vats of beer waiting to be bottled- they keep the beer at 35 degrees to "condition" it before putting into bottles.
Saw the bottling line, but as we approached it all we heard was breaking glass- as I was to find out later, any mistake with the bottle, including things like misaligned labels are thrown away, except for a few which are saved for employee disbursement. Oh, how sad, you'd think that there would be beer outlets where there is nothing wrong with the liquid itself, just that the bottle is a little odd or the label is wrong. The tour guy said that if they were to let any mistake out that would effect the perception of Anchor Steam, and that can't be allowed. Fine, but do you really need to throw away perfectly good beer in the process? Perhaps just save all those bottles and have a distributor here in town sell those misfit beer bottles at a fraction of the cost, that way you're not left with unsold beer.
We finished up the tour with some additional information on some non-beer liquor that Anchor Steam makes. I am familiar with their rye whiskey, but didn't know they make three different kinds of rye whiskey, I also learned they make two types of gin, and that Fritz owns a vineyard in Sonoma and makes wine, port and grappa. I got the impression that the wine, port and grappa is not readily available for sale and is made in very limited quantities.
After that, we headed back into the room where the tour started and we began our drinking, in 8 ounce glasses. First up was the Anchor Summer. It was very light and refreshing; very enjoyable and 4.6% alcohol. Next, the Anchor Steam, which is the most popular and familiar of all the Anchor beers (4.9% alcohol). After that was the Anchor Liberty Ale which I liked a lot more than I thought I would (6% alcohol). The tour guide called it the first Pale Ale, and was first created to commemorate the midnight ride of Paul Revere, only it came out a year early in 1975. Next came the Anchor Bock (5.5% alcohol). It was a lot darker than I was expecting, having spent most of college living off of Shiner Bock. Which then lead to a discussion about Sam Adams' Double Bock, which the Anchor Bock seemed to be more similar. Andrew and I then reminisced about our experiences with Sam Adams' Double Bock and its effects. Next was the Anchor Porter (5.6% alcohol). I don't normally care for Porter's, they are too bitter for my liking and I don't really care for the coffee/chocolate overtones of the beer, but it was free and this was our 5th beer, so I wasn't dwelling on those negatives. Finally we got to the Anchor Old Foghorn (~9% alcohol!!!!). The Old Foghorn is called a barley wine and is much sweeter than normal beer, so much so that the tour guy said that it was best enjoyed after dinner. I can say that it was tasty, and at roughly 9% alcohol that's some bottle of beer. So, that was 6 beers each poured in 8 ounces. With the Porter and the Old Foghorn weighing me down the tour guy asked if anyone wanted another pour before he closed everything down- I asked for a return to the Summer so that I could start refreshed before meeting the girls for lunch.
Before I leave this entry though, I must bring up something else that took place whilst we were all tasting the beer. A gentleman next to me started talking to another Anchor employee who he apparently knew and started lambasting him for the lack of energy efficiency measures at the brewery, such as the use of incandescent lightbulbs throughout the brewery (the Anchor employee noted that Fritz isn't big on the light put out by the CFL), he then went on about how Sierra Nevada has solar panels, and does Anchor plan on installing solar panels, at which point the employee said, Look outside, how would solar panels help; it was overcast that day in San Francisco, as it is most days in San Francisco. After being harassed enough by Mr. Pat-Myself-On-The-Back, he then started asking the tour guy questions about their distribution and how much energy and carbon is used because they ship their beer around the world. Then he posits: How much better the world would be if we only consumed food and liquid from places within 150 miles of where we lived. The tour guy responded, Maybe, but I love my Scotch. Mr. Self-Satisfaction was having none of the snark and wondered if he could perhaps find a local maker of Scotch or drink something else that did not have as much evil carbon associated it with. Tour guy said Nope, he likes his scotch. I could do nothing but roll my eyes and sigh very loudly at the gall this person had to criticize Anchor Steam for providing a product that people wanted. Yes, god forbid that people outside of the Bay Area want Anchor Steam and that Anchor Steam wants to satisfy that demand. How dare Anchor Steam do that. I am so tired of listening to self-satisfied bay area people go on and on and on about how energy efficient they are, and how their carbon footprint is this or that (normally only after paying for a carbon offset to ease their own conscience). Nevermind that that the 150 mile limit may actually increase emissions and carbon, since large operations that truck in produce from far away is able to make up the carbon difference in volume; in other words, the local farm can bring in 200 to 2,000 pounds of produce from within 150 miles, but the large distributor can bring in 40,000 pounds of produce from within 1,000 miles, the carbon saved from the miles is offset by the volume of food brought in en masse. Course, that's only looking at the environmental aspect of the 150 mile limit, it says nothing about supporting local businesses or freshness or anything like that.
So Andrew not only got to taste some of San Francisco's own Anchor Steam, he also got to come into contact with a smug San Franciscan.
Ohhh, and one other thing about the tour: apparently it was new mother outing day, as there were 7 mothers carrying newborns on the tour, without dads. At the end of the tour they weren't shy about drinking the beer either.
Anyway, when in town during the week, I highly recommend taking the Anchor Steam brewery tour, but reservations are required. I mean it's 3 free beers, and good beer at that.
Found our way to the brewery which is housed in a rather Art Deco style building. Walk up two flights of stairs, and at the top of the second floor is a guy in a white jump suit there to check off names for the tour- check. Walk in and wait in a room surrounded by various platters with beer logos and pictures on it, including such luminaries as Old Style, Ballentine, Schmidt's, Yuengling, but, alas, no Natty-Boh. At the end of the room was the bar, and in between were various beer making exhibits, several chairs to lounge around in, and in the very far corner a 3 shelf bookcase with Anchor Steam souvenirs. We wait about 5 minutes, then the tour begins- the tour guy proceeds to talk about the process Anchor Steam does to make their beer, shows examples of the 5 main ingredients in Anchor Steam, other than water, explains that every drop of Anchor Steam beer sold world-wide is made in this brewery, talks about the history of Anchor Steam, what a "steam" beer is and how that got incorporated into the Anchor Steam name, and how in the 70s they almost ceased to exist until it was purchased by one Fritz Maytag, and how he has turned the brewery around to be what it is today. The tour guy also explained the various types of beer made by Anchor Steam, of which we would eventually sample 6 of them- I only knew of 3 beers, so I was pretty surprised to learn they made more than just the Christmas beer, Liberty Ale and the namesake. Moved on to the kettles, apparently, the whole process is done in three very large kettles, or tums as they are apparently called. Anchor Steam beer is made in those 3 kettles 4 days a week, with the 5th day devoted to one of their other styles of beer. Walked down two flights of stairs to see the vats of beer waiting to be bottled- they keep the beer at 35 degrees to "condition" it before putting into bottles.
Saw the bottling line, but as we approached it all we heard was breaking glass- as I was to find out later, any mistake with the bottle, including things like misaligned labels are thrown away, except for a few which are saved for employee disbursement. Oh, how sad, you'd think that there would be beer outlets where there is nothing wrong with the liquid itself, just that the bottle is a little odd or the label is wrong. The tour guy said that if they were to let any mistake out that would effect the perception of Anchor Steam, and that can't be allowed. Fine, but do you really need to throw away perfectly good beer in the process? Perhaps just save all those bottles and have a distributor here in town sell those misfit beer bottles at a fraction of the cost, that way you're not left with unsold beer.
We finished up the tour with some additional information on some non-beer liquor that Anchor Steam makes. I am familiar with their rye whiskey, but didn't know they make three different kinds of rye whiskey, I also learned they make two types of gin, and that Fritz owns a vineyard in Sonoma and makes wine, port and grappa. I got the impression that the wine, port and grappa is not readily available for sale and is made in very limited quantities.
After that, we headed back into the room where the tour started and we began our drinking, in 8 ounce glasses. First up was the Anchor Summer. It was very light and refreshing; very enjoyable and 4.6% alcohol. Next, the Anchor Steam, which is the most popular and familiar of all the Anchor beers (4.9% alcohol). After that was the Anchor Liberty Ale which I liked a lot more than I thought I would (6% alcohol). The tour guide called it the first Pale Ale, and was first created to commemorate the midnight ride of Paul Revere, only it came out a year early in 1975. Next came the Anchor Bock (5.5% alcohol). It was a lot darker than I was expecting, having spent most of college living off of Shiner Bock. Which then lead to a discussion about Sam Adams' Double Bock, which the Anchor Bock seemed to be more similar. Andrew and I then reminisced about our experiences with Sam Adams' Double Bock and its effects. Next was the Anchor Porter (5.6% alcohol). I don't normally care for Porter's, they are too bitter for my liking and I don't really care for the coffee/chocolate overtones of the beer, but it was free and this was our 5th beer, so I wasn't dwelling on those negatives. Finally we got to the Anchor Old Foghorn (~9% alcohol!!!!). The Old Foghorn is called a barley wine and is much sweeter than normal beer, so much so that the tour guy said that it was best enjoyed after dinner. I can say that it was tasty, and at roughly 9% alcohol that's some bottle of beer. So, that was 6 beers each poured in 8 ounces. With the Porter and the Old Foghorn weighing me down the tour guy asked if anyone wanted another pour before he closed everything down- I asked for a return to the Summer so that I could start refreshed before meeting the girls for lunch.
Before I leave this entry though, I must bring up something else that took place whilst we were all tasting the beer. A gentleman next to me started talking to another Anchor employee who he apparently knew and started lambasting him for the lack of energy efficiency measures at the brewery, such as the use of incandescent lightbulbs throughout the brewery (the Anchor employee noted that Fritz isn't big on the light put out by the CFL), he then went on about how Sierra Nevada has solar panels, and does Anchor plan on installing solar panels, at which point the employee said, Look outside, how would solar panels help; it was overcast that day in San Francisco, as it is most days in San Francisco. After being harassed enough by Mr. Pat-Myself-On-The-Back, he then started asking the tour guy questions about their distribution and how much energy and carbon is used because they ship their beer around the world. Then he posits: How much better the world would be if we only consumed food and liquid from places within 150 miles of where we lived. The tour guy responded, Maybe, but I love my Scotch. Mr. Self-Satisfaction was having none of the snark and wondered if he could perhaps find a local maker of Scotch or drink something else that did not have as much evil carbon associated it with. Tour guy said Nope, he likes his scotch. I could do nothing but roll my eyes and sigh very loudly at the gall this person had to criticize Anchor Steam for providing a product that people wanted. Yes, god forbid that people outside of the Bay Area want Anchor Steam and that Anchor Steam wants to satisfy that demand. How dare Anchor Steam do that. I am so tired of listening to self-satisfied bay area people go on and on and on about how energy efficient they are, and how their carbon footprint is this or that (normally only after paying for a carbon offset to ease their own conscience). Nevermind that that the 150 mile limit may actually increase emissions and carbon, since large operations that truck in produce from far away is able to make up the carbon difference in volume; in other words, the local farm can bring in 200 to 2,000 pounds of produce from within 150 miles, but the large distributor can bring in 40,000 pounds of produce from within 1,000 miles, the carbon saved from the miles is offset by the volume of food brought in en masse. Course, that's only looking at the environmental aspect of the 150 mile limit, it says nothing about supporting local businesses or freshness or anything like that.
So Andrew not only got to taste some of San Francisco's own Anchor Steam, he also got to come into contact with a smug San Franciscan.
Ohhh, and one other thing about the tour: apparently it was new mother outing day, as there were 7 mothers carrying newborns on the tour, without dads. At the end of the tour they weren't shy about drinking the beer either.
Anyway, when in town during the week, I highly recommend taking the Anchor Steam brewery tour, but reservations are required. I mean it's 3 free beers, and good beer at that.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Life in San Francisco
Just wanted to share a funny story....
The other morning around 8:50 AM or so I was waiting on the corner of Lincoln and 9th Avenue for a bus, and a woman walks up to me. She asks: Do you know where I can buy a protein bar or something like that? I say: There's a Jamba Juice down on the next corner. And she says: Oh, you mean THAT restaurant?
What? Since when is a Jamba Juice a restaurant. More importantly, when did self-interested people like her become too good for Jamba Juice? She left in a huff, and I saw her a few minutes later across the street at a "health food" store, the kind of store that sells raw food and other nonsense, only it was closed. She seemed to be rather distraught at it being closed as that meant, apparently, having to suffer a trip to Jamba Juice. Of course, I only get one thing at Jamba because everything else seems to have soy-this and yogurt-that in it. I'm tempted to order one of those drinks that has soy milk in it and ask if I can have whole milk instead.
Sometimes I can only shake my head at the people that live in this city; and I guess that would include me.
The other morning around 8:50 AM or so I was waiting on the corner of Lincoln and 9th Avenue for a bus, and a woman walks up to me. She asks: Do you know where I can buy a protein bar or something like that? I say: There's a Jamba Juice down on the next corner. And she says: Oh, you mean THAT restaurant?
What? Since when is a Jamba Juice a restaurant. More importantly, when did self-interested people like her become too good for Jamba Juice? She left in a huff, and I saw her a few minutes later across the street at a "health food" store, the kind of store that sells raw food and other nonsense, only it was closed. She seemed to be rather distraught at it being closed as that meant, apparently, having to suffer a trip to Jamba Juice. Of course, I only get one thing at Jamba because everything else seems to have soy-this and yogurt-that in it. I'm tempted to order one of those drinks that has soy milk in it and ask if I can have whole milk instead.
Sometimes I can only shake my head at the people that live in this city; and I guess that would include me.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Oh well
Today is June 3, and there's an election today here in California. But I failed to finish my proposition review. Frankly, I was not up to the task in reviewing what was left. I went to my polling place, which is in a Starbucks; if only it could have been two doors down from there which is my favorite bar, how much nicer would voting be if you could have a beer to go along with it? Anyway. . .voted, and got out of there.
But, I'm not here to talk about my voting experience, no. . .today, I decided to try the new McDonald's Southern Style Chicken Sandwich. Before moving on I must note two things about my local McDonald's- 1) as part of this whole "Southerninginging" of McDonald's, I could have also ordered a 32oz Sweet Tea to go along with my southern style chicken sandwich, but I hated sweet tea growing up, and I still hate it today (I don't like regular tea either, go figure), and 2) despite the numerous commercials and webpage (which I'm not going to bother linking to because it is just too annoying), the double cheeseburger at this particular McDonald's is not on the $1 menu, instead, it costs $1.39.
Back to the chicken sandwich. It's basically a rip-off of Chick-fil-A, but not anywhere near as tasty. It had three measly pickles, the bun was a bit too greasy and squishy, but not in a good way, and. . .either it had been steamed or had sat out too long, but the bun stuck to the bottom of the cardboard box that it was served in. The chicken was ok, but didn't have the same kick that you can get from Chick-fil-A; in other words, a bit more pepper. Plus, it was a bit smaller than the Chick-fil-A sandwich. So, would I order it again- maybe. At least there are no tomatoes on this one; every time I go to the local McDonald's and order one of their other chicken sandwiches it comes with a tomato, even though I specifically asked for no tomatoes. Needless to say, customer service can be lacking, but if they have the gall to charge $1.39 for a double cheeseburger, what else should I expect?
Speaking of cheeseburgers, I was surprised to read that a favorite cheeseburger place of mine from when I lived in D.C. has recently arrived to Southern California: Five Guys. Oh the many Sunday's when I would drive out to their Alexandria, Virginia location to get a double cheeseburger and an order of fries, whilst nursing a hangover. They also have a few locations in Alabama, where I have family- according to family accounts, their burgers are still good. Nevertheless, with franchising comes the risk of lowered standards.
I will be very interested to visit one of these franchised locations across the country and see if their burgers are still good and live up to my memories. That's always a challenge. Memory has a way of obscuring details, only focusing on the pleasant or terrible details of an event- and not putting the event in perspective. With sensory memories, such as food, things are never just ok- it is nearly impossible the match the first memory of something you associate with good, instead, the sense of excitement and eagerness to recreate that first moment often ends with a sense of disappointment. Events like these can never just be, they are compared and contrasted, and the memory of the past events can fool you into thinking something else. Food memories especially, at least for me.
But, I'm not here to talk about my voting experience, no. . .today, I decided to try the new McDonald's Southern Style Chicken Sandwich. Before moving on I must note two things about my local McDonald's- 1) as part of this whole "Southerninginging" of McDonald's, I could have also ordered a 32oz Sweet Tea to go along with my southern style chicken sandwich, but I hated sweet tea growing up, and I still hate it today (I don't like regular tea either, go figure), and 2) despite the numerous commercials and webpage (which I'm not going to bother linking to because it is just too annoying), the double cheeseburger at this particular McDonald's is not on the $1 menu, instead, it costs $1.39.
Back to the chicken sandwich. It's basically a rip-off of Chick-fil-A, but not anywhere near as tasty. It had three measly pickles, the bun was a bit too greasy and squishy, but not in a good way, and. . .either it had been steamed or had sat out too long, but the bun stuck to the bottom of the cardboard box that it was served in. The chicken was ok, but didn't have the same kick that you can get from Chick-fil-A; in other words, a bit more pepper. Plus, it was a bit smaller than the Chick-fil-A sandwich. So, would I order it again- maybe. At least there are no tomatoes on this one; every time I go to the local McDonald's and order one of their other chicken sandwiches it comes with a tomato, even though I specifically asked for no tomatoes. Needless to say, customer service can be lacking, but if they have the gall to charge $1.39 for a double cheeseburger, what else should I expect?
Speaking of cheeseburgers, I was surprised to read that a favorite cheeseburger place of mine from when I lived in D.C. has recently arrived to Southern California: Five Guys. Oh the many Sunday's when I would drive out to their Alexandria, Virginia location to get a double cheeseburger and an order of fries, whilst nursing a hangover. They also have a few locations in Alabama, where I have family- according to family accounts, their burgers are still good. Nevertheless, with franchising comes the risk of lowered standards.
I will be very interested to visit one of these franchised locations across the country and see if their burgers are still good and live up to my memories. That's always a challenge. Memory has a way of obscuring details, only focusing on the pleasant or terrible details of an event- and not putting the event in perspective. With sensory memories, such as food, things are never just ok- it is nearly impossible the match the first memory of something you associate with good, instead, the sense of excitement and eagerness to recreate that first moment often ends with a sense of disappointment. Events like these can never just be, they are compared and contrasted, and the memory of the past events can fool you into thinking something else. Food memories especially, at least for me.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Proposition E
Today's topic is Proposition E.
Proposition E is very simple: who should have control over appointments to the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, the Mayor or the Board of Supervisors? In reality, the measure does more than just that. The measure 1) says that all current members of the SF PUC terms will expire on August 1, 2008 and 2) specifies the type of experience that each of the 5 positions shall have. Seat 1 shall have environmental policy and environmental justice experience, Seat 2 shall have ratepayer or consumer advocacy experience, Seat 3 shall have project finance experience, Seat 4 shall have water systems, power systems or public utility management experience and Seat 5 shall be an at-large member. As for appointment to the SF PUC, the measure says that any appointment to the SF PUC by the Mayor will be subject to confirmation by the Board of Supervisors. Currently, anyone appointed by the Mayor takes office immediately and can only be rejected if 3/4 of the Board votes to reject. In essence, the Board of Supervisors wants a larger say in who makes up the SF PUC and what those commissioners will be doing.
As a simple matter of background, the SF PUC is the agency in charge of the city's water system, including the Hetch Hetchy system. The SF PUC is also responsible for various electricity-related projects, such as the various solar-related proposals, as well as the controversial "Combustion Turbine Project" which seeks to shutter the Mirant Potrero power plant and construct a batch of peaker plants to replace the power and reliability of the Potrero plant.
So, with all that going on, should the Board play a larger role in who runs the SF PUC? By specifying what type of background 4 of the 5 commissioners should have does nothing but inject politics into the operation of the SF PUC. If a commissioner is so offensive to the Board, by a 3/4 vote they can reject the appointment. What this measure does is give the Board a chance to hold, and hold, and hold, and hold a nominee for as long as it wants if they do not like a nominee, for whatever reason. Finally, a wholesale firing of the commissioners is the Board's way of wiping the slate clean and enforcing their power right away. This power grab by the Board is unnecessary and would only ensure that the Board's way of thinking prevails.
Vote No on E.
Proposition E is very simple: who should have control over appointments to the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, the Mayor or the Board of Supervisors? In reality, the measure does more than just that. The measure 1) says that all current members of the SF PUC terms will expire on August 1, 2008 and 2) specifies the type of experience that each of the 5 positions shall have. Seat 1 shall have environmental policy and environmental justice experience, Seat 2 shall have ratepayer or consumer advocacy experience, Seat 3 shall have project finance experience, Seat 4 shall have water systems, power systems or public utility management experience and Seat 5 shall be an at-large member. As for appointment to the SF PUC, the measure says that any appointment to the SF PUC by the Mayor will be subject to confirmation by the Board of Supervisors. Currently, anyone appointed by the Mayor takes office immediately and can only be rejected if 3/4 of the Board votes to reject. In essence, the Board of Supervisors wants a larger say in who makes up the SF PUC and what those commissioners will be doing.
As a simple matter of background, the SF PUC is the agency in charge of the city's water system, including the Hetch Hetchy system. The SF PUC is also responsible for various electricity-related projects, such as the various solar-related proposals, as well as the controversial "Combustion Turbine Project" which seeks to shutter the Mirant Potrero power plant and construct a batch of peaker plants to replace the power and reliability of the Potrero plant.
So, with all that going on, should the Board play a larger role in who runs the SF PUC? By specifying what type of background 4 of the 5 commissioners should have does nothing but inject politics into the operation of the SF PUC. If a commissioner is so offensive to the Board, by a 3/4 vote they can reject the appointment. What this measure does is give the Board a chance to hold, and hold, and hold, and hold a nominee for as long as it wants if they do not like a nominee, for whatever reason. Finally, a wholesale firing of the commissioners is the Board's way of wiping the slate clean and enforcing their power right away. This power grab by the Board is unnecessary and would only ensure that the Board's way of thinking prevails.
Vote No on E.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Proposition D
Today we have Proposition D.
Proposition D is fairly straightforward: should City policy be that city agencies "reflect the interests and contributions of both men and women of all races, ethnicities, sexual orientation and types of disabilities" and should the city officers and agencies "support the nomination, appointment or confirmation of female, minority and disabled candidates to fill seats on those bodies"?
That's from the ballot description. What that description does not mention is that the Commission on the Status of Women "shall conduct an analysis of appointments to appointive boards, commissions, and advisory bodies ... to track the diversity of appointments to such bodies. This analysis, to be based on voluntary disclosures, shall include gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability status, and any other relevant demographic qualities."
So, let's take this piece by piece.
First, I have no idea what the first clause is supposed to mean. The City Charter already states that boards and agency membership "be broadly representative of the communities of interest," so, this takes it one step farther to include interests and contributions of the make-up of the population. So, the first clause would appear to me to be redundant.
Moving on to the second clause, which advocates for the inclusion of anyone except able-bodied, white males. Now I'm having problems. First off, diversity for diversity's sake doesn't seem to me to be a good policy goal. Just because someone is not an able-bodied, white male shouldn't place them at the top of the list; rather, there should be qualified applicants for these positions. Putting unqualified applicants onto boards and agencies increases the likelihood of government waste and inaction. If there are qualified applicants, then current federal and state law already make discrimination illegal. To make it city policy to openly advocate for these preferences is bad policy.
The third part of this proposition asks the Department on the Status of Women to monitor the progress of city boards and agencies in installing non-able-bodied, white males into boards and agencies, but only using "voluntary disclosures." Who will be doing the disclosing? Individuals? The boards and agencies? What will be the cost to do the survey and prepare the report? It doesn't say. Basically, the Department will be collecting diversity-based data in attempt to show how progressive this city is. If this city was truly progressive, then city boards and agencies, and those responsible for installing people on boards and agencies, wouldn't need to be forced or encouraged to do it- they would just do it. Having a department come counting the make-up of boards and agencies every two years will do wonders for morale and composition, I'm sure.
There is a legitimate societal goal in play here, and that's to increase the membership of non-able-bodied, white males on boards and agencies, but by advocating for preferences and set asides is not the way to accomplish this. Having another city department checking up on other parts of city government does not encourage thoughtful hiring. Furthermore, I seriously doubt that the Board of Supervisors and those in the Mayor's Office really need a city charter amendment to do this. As I opined above, if this city truly is progressive, it's already hiring these folks, and this proposition is unnecessary (except to make people feel better about themselves and show how progressive they are).
In short, this is an unnecessary and potentially wasteful measure. Vote No on D.
Proposition D is fairly straightforward: should City policy be that city agencies "reflect the interests and contributions of both men and women of all races, ethnicities, sexual orientation and types of disabilities" and should the city officers and agencies "support the nomination, appointment or confirmation of female, minority and disabled candidates to fill seats on those bodies"?
That's from the ballot description. What that description does not mention is that the Commission on the Status of Women "shall conduct an analysis of appointments to appointive boards, commissions, and advisory bodies ... to track the diversity of appointments to such bodies. This analysis, to be based on voluntary disclosures, shall include gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability status, and any other relevant demographic qualities."
So, let's take this piece by piece.
First, I have no idea what the first clause is supposed to mean. The City Charter already states that boards and agency membership "be broadly representative of the communities of interest," so, this takes it one step farther to include interests and contributions of the make-up of the population. So, the first clause would appear to me to be redundant.
Moving on to the second clause, which advocates for the inclusion of anyone except able-bodied, white males. Now I'm having problems. First off, diversity for diversity's sake doesn't seem to me to be a good policy goal. Just because someone is not an able-bodied, white male shouldn't place them at the top of the list; rather, there should be qualified applicants for these positions. Putting unqualified applicants onto boards and agencies increases the likelihood of government waste and inaction. If there are qualified applicants, then current federal and state law already make discrimination illegal. To make it city policy to openly advocate for these preferences is bad policy.
The third part of this proposition asks the Department on the Status of Women to monitor the progress of city boards and agencies in installing non-able-bodied, white males into boards and agencies, but only using "voluntary disclosures." Who will be doing the disclosing? Individuals? The boards and agencies? What will be the cost to do the survey and prepare the report? It doesn't say. Basically, the Department will be collecting diversity-based data in attempt to show how progressive this city is. If this city was truly progressive, then city boards and agencies, and those responsible for installing people on boards and agencies, wouldn't need to be forced or encouraged to do it- they would just do it. Having a department come counting the make-up of boards and agencies every two years will do wonders for morale and composition, I'm sure.
There is a legitimate societal goal in play here, and that's to increase the membership of non-able-bodied, white males on boards and agencies, but by advocating for preferences and set asides is not the way to accomplish this. Having another city department checking up on other parts of city government does not encourage thoughtful hiring. Furthermore, I seriously doubt that the Board of Supervisors and those in the Mayor's Office really need a city charter amendment to do this. As I opined above, if this city truly is progressive, it's already hiring these folks, and this proposition is unnecessary (except to make people feel better about themselves and show how progressive they are).
In short, this is an unnecessary and potentially wasteful measure. Vote No on D.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Prop. C
Today we will discuss Proposition C.
Proposition C asks to amend language in the City's Employees Retirement System that would prohibit employees that engaged in "moral turpitude" in connection with their job from receiving any retirement funds funded with employer contributions. This proposition is in response to a recent court decision potentially allowing for some former employees to receive retirement benefits even if found guilty of "moral turpitude."
According to the election pamphlet, moral turpitude is defined as "There is no precise definition. Generally, a crime involving moral turpitude is one that reveals a person's dishonesty, readiness to do evil, bad character, or moral depravity. The courts decide this on a case-by-case basis. Examples would include crimes (misdemeanor or felony) involving theft, fraud, or breach of public trust." Further definition of moral turpitude and other examples can be found here. Additionally, according to the write up in the pamphlet, this language has not been consistently applied or added to new retirement plans. So, since this is a change to the city charter, it must go before the voters.
What does this all mean? Well, this is basically an addition to make all city employees' retirement plans terms consistent, and if an employee engages in certain illegal actions, see definition above, they will be prohibited from receiving any of their retirement contributions. It seems to me that if someone is convicted of any of the crimes that are defined as "moral turpitude," then the employee should definitely not be eligible to receive retirement benefits.
Opponents of the measure point out that moral turpitude has been used by various courts across the country to prosecute homosexual activity. As noted in the pamphlet rebuttal, the decision as to what constitutes moral turpitude is made by the S.F. Retirement Board and not a court. So, what it boils down is that the opponents of this proposition simply don't like the terminology. Simply put, the S.F. Retirement Board determines if someone has committed moral turpitude in relation to their retirement benefits, not the courts.
This appears to be merely a technical amendment. As the pamphlet notes, this term has been in use since 1966 and continues so. Despite opponents' attempt to cast this proposition in terms other than its intended purpose, people found guilty of crimes of moral turpitude, as determined by the S.F. retirement board, should not be allowed to receive their retirement benefits.
Vote yes on Prop. C.
Proposition C asks to amend language in the City's Employees Retirement System that would prohibit employees that engaged in "moral turpitude" in connection with their job from receiving any retirement funds funded with employer contributions. This proposition is in response to a recent court decision potentially allowing for some former employees to receive retirement benefits even if found guilty of "moral turpitude."
According to the election pamphlet, moral turpitude is defined as "There is no precise definition. Generally, a crime involving moral turpitude is one that reveals a person's dishonesty, readiness to do evil, bad character, or moral depravity. The courts decide this on a case-by-case basis. Examples would include crimes (misdemeanor or felony) involving theft, fraud, or breach of public trust." Further definition of moral turpitude and other examples can be found here. Additionally, according to the write up in the pamphlet, this language has not been consistently applied or added to new retirement plans. So, since this is a change to the city charter, it must go before the voters.
What does this all mean? Well, this is basically an addition to make all city employees' retirement plans terms consistent, and if an employee engages in certain illegal actions, see definition above, they will be prohibited from receiving any of their retirement contributions. It seems to me that if someone is convicted of any of the crimes that are defined as "moral turpitude," then the employee should definitely not be eligible to receive retirement benefits.
Opponents of the measure point out that moral turpitude has been used by various courts across the country to prosecute homosexual activity. As noted in the pamphlet rebuttal, the decision as to what constitutes moral turpitude is made by the S.F. Retirement Board and not a court. So, what it boils down is that the opponents of this proposition simply don't like the terminology. Simply put, the S.F. Retirement Board determines if someone has committed moral turpitude in relation to their retirement benefits, not the courts.
This appears to be merely a technical amendment. As the pamphlet notes, this term has been in use since 1966 and continues so. Despite opponents' attempt to cast this proposition in terms other than its intended purpose, people found guilty of crimes of moral turpitude, as determined by the S.F. retirement board, should not be allowed to receive their retirement benefits.
Vote yes on Prop. C.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)