October 29, 2019
The response to the scurrilous red baiting attacks on District Attorney candidate Chesa Boudin has been fierce.
People familiar with the grandstanding and character assassination engaged in by the Police Officers Assocation are speaking out in no uncertain terms.
October 28, 2019
Post by Lee Heidhues
The San Francisco Police Officers Association (POA) is engaged in a last minute vicious attempt to confuse the electorate and deny the District Attorney’s office to Chesa Boudin.
City mailboxes have been sullied with two hate filled and defamatory mailers in the last week. Both mailers left ethics, integrity and decency on the cutting room floor.
The POA mailers are a sad commentary on the State of Play in local politics and the San Francisco District Attorney race in particular. The POA through its well financed PAC has sunk to depths of personal and professional destruction that are rare even in the hardball world of San Francisco politics.
Chesa Boudin is a threat to the ironclad hold the cops have on City Hall.
Beyond the nice photo ops that the cops put out in the public arena to burnish their reputation, the reality is often something else. The cops are the enforcers of the State and anyone who threatens their hegemony is a marked man.
Chesa Boudin is the latest target
The Guardian 10.27.2019
Donald Trump once claimed he was courted by several major league baseball clubs in his youth but turned them down because they couldn’t offer him enough money. On Sunday, baseball got its revenge.
The President attended Game 5 of the World Series between the Washington Nationals and Houston Astros at Nationals Park, a short journey from the White House. When Trump was shown on the video screens in the stadium he was loudly booed by fans. That, perhaps, was predictable: Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon and both Bushes were all booed while attending baseball games as President. What came shortly afterwards was a little more personal in a city that is heavily Democratic as cries of “Lock him up!” rang out, a reference to the chants about Hillary Clinton used at Trump’s rallies in the run-up to the 2016 presidential elections.
Footage of the incident swept through Twitter, showing the moment that fans inside the stadium changed from cheering to booing.
Adam Longo✔@adamlongoTV
President Trump was booed loudly by the fans at Nats Park when he was shown on the big screen.
Then came a loud chant: “Lock him up.” @wusa9
Excerpted from San Francisco Chronicle 10.25.2019
Massive blackouts affecting more than 2 million people are expected this weekend throughout the Bay Area, Northern California and Central California, the third time this month that Pacific Gas and Electric Co. will have turned off power to avert catastrophic wildfires.
PG&E said about 850,000 homes and businesses in its service territory might start losing power Saturday evening as it scrambles to prevent powerful winds — the strongest in years — from damaging its lines and thereby sparking more fires.
PG&E issued a “watch” notice — meaning that shut-offs are highly likely — on territory across 36 counties, including most of the Bay Area, for Saturday, Sunday and Monday. The shut-offs will affect more Bay Area residents than either the outage this week that’s just ending or the mid-October outage.
San Francisco is expected to be spared, but every other Bay Area county will see some lose power if the shut-offs proceed as planned.
The National Weather Service said Friday that a red-flag warning for dangerously strong winds and critically low humidity was in effect for the North Bay and East Bay from 8 p.m. Saturday to 11 a.m. Monday, and for the Peninsula coast and the Santa Cruz Mountains from 3 a.m. Sunday to 11 a.m. Monday.
With the Wall Street Journal it is always about the bottom line for investors, while Northern California is once again ablaze.
Wall Street Journal 10.25.2019
The failure of a PG&E Corp. PCG -30.56% power line minutes before a wildfire broke out in California’s wine country starkly shows how the company’s electric system continues to pose risks to the safety of millions of residents, even as it takes desperate measures to reduce the threat of fire.
The San Francisco-based utility, which provides gas and electric service to 16 million people, or roughly one in 20 Americans, disclosed that one of its high-voltage transmission lines malfunctioned shortly before the Kincade Fire ignited Wednesday evening in Sonoma County.
California investigators won’t determine the official cause for some time. But the news that PG&E equipment may have sparked another fire sent the company’s shares down nearly 31% on Friday, heightening concerns about the future of the utility, which sought bankruptcy protection in January citing an estimated $30 billion in fire-related liabilities. Shareholders and bondholders alike worried that additional fire costs could dim their prospects for financial recovery.
PG&E shares dropped 24%, tumbling $1.70 to $5.50 each in early New York Stock Exchange trading, after the Kincade fire spread through Sonoma County in northern California. The company’s $3 billion bond due 2034 fell about 3.5% to 106.63 cents on the dollar and was the third most actively traded bond Friday with $130 million changing hands, according to data from MarketAxess.
The action reflects expectations that the firm may face some liability for starting the blaze, traders said—an outcome that would likely reduce any potential recoveries by investors in PG&E’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding.
Among the issues at hand Friday: PG&E could be solely responsible for wildfire claims that arise before it emerges from bankruptcy, while payment for postbankruptcy claims could be shared through a statewide wildfire fund that is being set up to help shore up the finances of California utilities.
Close to 2,000 residents of the county in Northern California have been evacuated as the fire quickly grew to over 10,000 acres, fueled by strong winds and dry conditions. PG&E has been under intense pressure in the state for its role in previous fires and for a program of blackouts that aim to limit the likelihood of blazes.
You would think The Feds must have better things to do than hassle dogs and their owners. Can we expect a Tweet from the White House incumbent about this latest attempted to smack down the rights of our canine friends? Woof Woof!!!
Excerpted from San Francisco Examiner 10.23.2019
The National Park Service has revived a decades-long quarrel with local dog owners this fall by announcing changes to dog-access rules set to take effect Oct. 28 within the Golden Gate National Recreation Area.
Released in a draft of the park’s biannual rulebook, the Superintendent’s Compendium, the regulations restrict dog walking in park lands across San Francisco, San Mateo and Marin counties, and expand park officials’ discretionary authority to cite and fine dog owners, and impound their pets.
In San Francisco, the changes include requirements to leash dogs on stairwells at Ocean Beach and in several parking, wildlife and plant protection areas in Fort Funston. Even stricter restrictions apply in San Mateo and Marin counties, where dogs will be banned from several park trails if the compendium is implemented.
Park authorities claim the changes are too small to require a public comment process. But several hundred dog owners have sent in comments anyway, insisting that the regulations are highly problematic and should be removed from the document.
“If they don’t make changes that satisfy our concerns, we will sue,” said Sally Stephens, a longtime member of a dog owners advocacy group, SF DOG, and a San Francisco Examiner columnist. “They used an improper procedure process to make changes that are highly significant, given the 30-year history we have with them.”
It wouldn’t be the first time dog owners have sued. Local dog advocacy groups and elected officials have been at odds with the park service since the late 1990s, when park officials first tried to ban dogs from 12 acres of land at Fort Funston to protect threatened bird species.
The fight continued through the early 2000s, when some groups sued park authorities over a plan that attempted to ban off-leash activity on park lands altogether. Dog owners won that battle.
The rampant senseless violence caused by guns continues unabated in America with the latest example coming from Montana as the State Supreme Court struck down a sensible Missoula Ordinance.
Americans love their guns and the violence will continue condoned by the Courts, legislators and their National Rifle Association enablers.
The Missoulian 10.22.2019
The Montana Supreme Court on Tuesday reversed a Missoula judge’s decision upholding the city of Missoula’s gun ordinance, which would have required background checks on all transfer of firearms, including gun show purchases.
The high court ruled 5-0 in favor of Montana Attorney General Tim Fox, who voided in 2017 the Missoula City Council’s ordinance adopted the year earlier, arguing the council did not have the authority to infringe on gun ownership rights in the state and U.S. constitutions.
Missoula City Council President Bryan von Lossberg told the Missoulian on Tuesday he was “deeply saddened” by the ruling.
“I have said throughout this process that the background check system saves lives,” he said. “It’s a proven tool to do that. I was really heartened as I went through carrying this ordinance to learn of several people who use the instant background check system for private transfers.”
The City Council took Fox to Missoula District Court, and Judge Robert “Dusty” Deschamps overturned Fox’s opinion, writing that the attorney general’s opinion ignored local government’s ability to keep firearms out of the hands of convicted felons.
In its Tuesday ruling, the Supreme Court said the ordinance went too far beyond keeping guns away from convicted felons, minors and the mentally ill. While the state law controlling local government’s ability to enact gun regulations allows cities the ability to restrict “possession” of firearms, it does not allow restrictions on purchase, sale, other transfer, ownership, transportation and use, the justices wrote.
“Nothing within the language of (state code annotated) permits cities to regulate these other functions in any manner, yet the ordinance does so,” Justice Jim Rice wrote. “Although purporting to merely suppress the ‘possession’ of firearms by convicted felons, adjudicated mental incompetents, illegal aliens, and minors, the scheme of the ordinance goes much further.”
The judgement orders Deschamps’ ruling be reversed and the case sent back to Missoula County District Court for a judgement in favor of the attorney general.
In a statement provided by his office, Attorney General Fox said he had informed Missoula it lacked authority to impose the regulations in the ordinance.
“When Missoula tried to do so anyway, I asked that an Attorney General Opinion request be submitted to my office, confident that our legal position would be vindicated in the end,” Fox said. “Today the Supreme Court upheld my office’s conclusion in a 5-0 ruling. Missoula’s ordinance is unenforceable. The rule of law and Montana’s constitution matter.”
Although the city lost, von Lossberg said he hoped it brought light to the issue in the process.
“If a few good things came out of this, I hope that there’s greater public awareness of the background check system and that people can use it voluntarily for private transfers.”
Von Lossberg said the background check system in its current form has stopped 20,000 gun sales in the last 20 years in Montana alone.
Missoula’s progressive gun control measure sparked a number of efforts to reverse it. Republican lawmakers attempted to pass a measure in the 2019 Montana Legislature to restrict local government’s ability to enact such measures, although Gov. Steve Bullock, a Democrat, vetoed the bill.
Earlier in the year I attended a District Attorney candidates debate. Afterwards an older woman when asked her opinion of Suzy Loftus tartly replied, “She’s too corporate.” That observation was spot on as Suzy willingly took the Mayor’s offer to become “Interim” DA. Ethics and good judgment took a back seat to raw ambition.
Excerpted from San Francisco Examiner 10.20.2019
Mayor London Breed has been accused of pulling a political stunt by appointing her preferred candidate as interim district attorney just two weeks before voters will decide who holds the position permanently.
At least two of her opponents, deputy public defender Chesa Boudin and deputy state attorney general Leif Dautch, have said their campaigns garnered more volunteers and support after Breed announced her controversial decision to appoint Loftus earlier this month.
Breed has been criticized for unfairly tipping the scales of the election by tapping Loftus for the interim role instead of allowing the race to play out.
The mayor explained her decision by saying that the office was too important to leave vacant for even a minute.
But many said that there was not much Loftus could get done in the short two weeks leading up to election day.
But on Sunday, newly appointed interim District Attorney Suzy Loftus explained how much she planned to accomplish while serving in the role for 11 court days before the hotly contested Nov. 5 election.
In an interview with the San Francisco Examiner, Loftus seemed intent on boosting morale in an office that she said had lost more than 40 attorneys over the last year and a half.
“What you can expect from me is me getting right to work and telling both the staff and San Francisco why I’m doing what I’m doing and why I think it’s important for the safety of our city,” Loftus said.
“In one week, 125 new cases come into that office that are charged,” Loftus said. “So one week matters, and how we handle every case, how the prosecutors feel and are they getting direction [matters].”
Loftus said she had already ordered prosecutors to reexamine the handling of a “handful” of sexual assault cases to determine whether further investigation is needed or whether charges were properly filed.
She has also halted the practice of letting first-time offenders accused of driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs enter a diversion program instead of facing criminal consequences, Loftus said.
“That is a dangerous practice that was widely criticized,” Loftus said. “It’s not going to make us more safe, and I’m all for identifying smart ways to divert people out of our criminal justice system, and I will continue to look for ways to do that, but drunk driving is not one of them.”
Loftus was surrounded by family when the mayor swore her in to office during a small ceremony Saturday morning.
Former District Attorney George Gascon officially stepped down Friday evening to explore a run for district attorney in Los Angeles after serving as San Francisco’s top prosecutor since 2011.
Gascon had previously said he would not seek re-election in San Francisco, but the public did not expect him to suddenly announce earlier this month that he would not finish his term.
The announcement came in the middle of the first district attorney’s race in more than a century without an incumbent in which Loftus is running against candidates Chesa Boudin, Leif Dautch and Nancy Tung.
Loftus will be running her campaign while at the same time serving as interim district attorney, and political observers previously told the Examiner she would be wise to avoid making any significant changes.
“It’s strange that the district attorney decided to leave his post when he did,” Loftus said. “It was very unexpected for many people including myself.”
“But when the vacancy opened up,” she continued. “The mayor asked me to step in and do this job which I think is so essential to The City. Who I am is always someone who is going to say yes to serve The City that I love and in particular in an office that I think is in disarray and very needing of leadership.”
Loftus worked as assistant chief legal counsel for Sheriff Vicki Hennessy until her appointment. She previously served as president of the Police Commission and worked in the District Attorney’s Office under former top prosecutor and presidential candidate Kamala Harris.
Even conservative Switzerland is moving to the Left politically. I keep asking myself why in America, with so many “Progressive” folks, there is not a Party which represents their interests. Instead, American “Progressives” are assimilated, homogenized and neutralized within the mainstream Democrat Party.
Deutsche Welle 10.20.2019
Switzerland’s Green opposition parties have made historic gains, while the anti-immigration People’s Party saw a drop in support. But political tradition might keep the Greens out of the cabinet.
Support for environmentalist parties surged in Switzerland’s Sunday election, while the right-wing People’s Party (SVP) kept their lead but emerged chastened.
The left-leaning Green Party garnered 13.2% support, surpassing their pre-election projection with a six-point bump from their performance in the last election in 2015.
Read more: Tens of thousands join Swiss climate march ahead of election
The Liberal Greens, a more centrist environmental party with libertarian socioeconomic policies, also gained ground with 7.8% of the vote, moving up from less than 5% in 2015.
‘Green wave’
Sunday’s “green wave” marks a “tectonic shift” to the left, said Green Party President Regula Rytz, and gives the Greens or a coalition of the two environmentalist parties a chance for a seat in the broad coalition that has governed the country for decades.
“We have clearly beat our expectations,” Green Party Vice President Lisa Mazzone told public broadcaster RTS. “We are tremendously pleased that the mobilization we saw on the streets has translated into votes.”
Switzerland is especially vulnerable to climate change, with temperatures in the landlocked country rising twice as rapidly as the global average.
Dominant parties bleed votes
The anti-immigration SVP kept its top spot, but dropped from the 29% it won four years ago to 25.8%, according to RTS projections. The runner-up, the center-left Social Democrats, scored 16.6%, marking a 2.3% drop compared with 2015.
The SVP is the only major party that has not promised to pursue bolder climate action, and instead persistently denounced “climate hysteria” in Swiss politics.
“We knew we were going to suffer a setback,” outgoing SVP senator Oscar Freysinger told RTS. “But the important point remains that before saving the planet we have to save Swiss sovereignty.”
The Liberals came third with 15.3%, despite the party’s percentage also shrinking somewhat compared with the previous vote.
The Greens surpassed the Christian Democratic People’s Party, which holds one seat on the Federal Council, for the first time.
Under Switzerland’s unique electoral system, voters were electing members to the 200-seat lower house, known as the National Council (Nationalrat), and the 46 seats of the Council of States (Ständerat).
Read more: Swiss elections: What you need to know
Green gains expected to have little impact
However, analysts have predicted that Green gains will do little to change the Swiss government — the Federal Council— even if they do increase their share of the votes.
The seven Cabinet positions have been made up of the same four groups for the last 60 years, and according to Swiss political tradition, Greens can only become ministers after getting strong results in at least two elections in a row.
Currently, the SVP occupies two of these positions, as do the center-right Liberal party and the left-wing Social Democratic Party. One is held by the Christian Democratic People’s Party (CVP). The same four parties have divided up the Cabinet posts between them for the past 60 years.
The country’s governance relies on consensus, and many have expressed reluctance to remove the long-serving CVP, who represent the country’s centrist bloc. Instead, the left-wing Greens would prefer to take a Federal Council seat from the Liberal party. To do so, though, the party may have to engage in a delicate alliance with Green Liberals.
Climate change to the fore
Although Switzerland has not borne the brunt of climate change owing to its geographical position, experts have warned that the Alpine country has lost 15% of its glacier volume in the past 10 years.
Experts also think younger voters may have been mobilized in this election by their concern for environmental issues, driving up voter turnout.
The new parliament will decide the governmental positions on December 11. More than 4,600 candidates stood for the 200 seats available in the National Council.
https://www.dw.com/en/greens-surge-in-swiss-elections-as-voters-climate-concerns-grow/a-50903915
Lee's Perspective 