By Bruce B. Brugmann

I confess. I am an old-fashioned Rock Rapids, Iowa, liberal. For starters, that means I grew up in a little town in northwestern Iowa that has had public power since 1896 and so i know personally that public power is cheap, reliable, and accountable.

In San Francisco, where PG&E private power is expensive, unreliable, and unaccountable, I was startled to find that I am suddenly an "ultra liberal," along with a host of other progressives and independents who support the Clean Energy Initiative and public power.

Yes, according to PG&E and the San Francisco Chronicle, we are all suspicious characters and ought to be kept under watch for the duration for advocating such "ultra-liberal" things as clean energy, renewables, public power, mandates for making San Francisco a world leader in renewables, and kicking PG&E out of the mayor's office and the DCCC.

As Tim Redmond points out in his Editors notes (8/20/08), the term first appeared in Heather Knight's Aug. 15th article on the changes in the Democratic County Central Committee (DCCC), for decades the unassailable bastion of the Burton/ Brown machine. Her lead, he noted, was "almost breathtaking " in its drama. She wrote that the party "has veered dramatically to the left," and that it would be telling voters to vote for a raft of "ultra-liberal politicians supervisorial candidates" and, among other things, to "embrace public power." (The Clean Energy Initiative, as it is appropriately known, mandates aggressive goals for renewables but PG&E gallops swiftly by this point and loves to say without evidence that the initiative is a $4 billion takeover of PG&E, which is yet another Big PG&E Lie.)

Meanwhile, the new Chronicle columnist Willie Brown, who ran endless errands for PG&E as mayor and as a private attorney on the public payroll, and collected a nifty $200,000 in "consulting services" in 2007 from PG&E, wrote without gulping:

"It was quite a week for local politics, with the certified takeover of the San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee by outgoing Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin and Chris Daly...But what's really going on here behind the headlines is a move by the 'progressives' to take over the central committee a la Tammany Hall or Richard Daley's Chicago. The goal is to control the party money and endorsements--and that way be able to pick candidates for office as well.

"In other words the central committee will be Peskin's shadow mayoralty, allowing Peskin to keep calling the shots even when he leaves office."

Tammany Hall? Richard Daley's Chicago? Why didn't Wiillie just say what the facts are: that the Burton/Brown machine, and Mayor Newsom and PG&E et al, are no longer calling the shots on the DCCC and that a group of real progressives are cutting the umbilical cord to machine politics and calling the shots with real progressive issues and initiatives, such as the Clean Energy Act. Willie also couldn't say of course that PG&E got much of its influence through his office as mayor and the Burton/Brown machine, which never put as much as a pebble in PG&E's monopoly path. Thus, until now, the machine-dominated DCCC has been a safe haven for PG&E and even this time around the real progressives only won through a major organizing effort and tough battle.

Tim wrote that he thinks Newsom's political operatives are mad that "the progressives have seized control of the term 'progressives.' which is in fact an accurate and historically valuable term. They'd like to call Newsom a progressive mayor, which is inaccurate and historically invalid. But since they can't get away with that, they've pushed the Chronicle to use another term for people like Chris Daly and Aaron Peskin and the best the editors could come up with is 'ultra liberal.'" The Chronicle, which appears to be once again revving up for PG&E, tosses a juicy T-bone to PG&E and its campaign theme that only the loony left would support such dread issues as clean energy and public power.

Maybe we have a new insight into the term progressive. A real progressive supports the Clean Energy Act and public power, while a phony Willie Brown/Gavin Newsom 'progressive,' in quotes, supports PG&E and opposes the Clean Energy Act. In short, there is a big difference between a real progressive and a PG&E 'progressive.'

And me? I'm still just an old-fashioned Rock Rapids, Iowa, liberal.

More to come on this illuminating subject, B3

P.S. 1:Hearst ethics policy: If Hearst wants to present Willie Brown as a "legitimate" journalist and featured political columnist, making value judgments and ethical pronouncements on who is and is not a real progressive and whether the DCCC has been taken over by clean energy progressives playing Tammany Hall/Richard Daley machine politics, the Chronicle ought at minimum to require disclosure of his "consulting services" for PG&E and other private interests that would conflict his column? What specific "consulting services" did he provide for PG&E in 2007? What is he doing now for PG&E and for how much in the November election? Is he writing a political column for the Chronicle and working for PG&E at the same time? Is he advising PG&E on how to "steal" another election?
(I left a message for Willie at the Willie Brown Institute and I put out an email to Hearst corporate for comment on Willie's PG&E/editorial role.)

It was Mayor Willie, as the public power campaign was winning in the 2001 public power election, who ordered that the ballots be moved from City Hall to the Civic Auditorium because of an anthrax scare. I remember standing with Angela Alioto about l0:30 p.m. on election night when then Elections Director Tammy Haygood, announced the anthrax move. "Angela," I said, "we've lost the election." She didn't believe me and kept saying, "No, no, we couldn't lose the election now." Alas, I was right.

We raced over to the Auditorium where there was only minimal security. There was no evidence then or later of an anthrax scare. PG&E came from behind and won by a bare 500 votes. Several days later, several tops of the election boxes were found floating in the bay. There was no explanation from Willie nor his election director and no real investigation. The gallows humor was that the campaign should hire divers to go into the bay and find the missing ballots.

PG&E's big payments: PG&E discloses the $200,000 payment to Willie Brown for "consulting services" in 2007 in its annual report to the California Public Utilities Commission. In a key section of this report (called page 257), PG&E is required to list every payment that it made to an outside company or consultant. This amounts to billions year.
PG&E has the entire annual report posted on its Investor Relations website, but, significantly, page 357 is missing.
PG&E's statement explaining the omission says: "Details of this page are filed with the California Public Utilities Commission." Reporter Amanda Witherell formally asked the CPUC press office for it and they said they're "trying to track it down." But she did get a copy.

digg • del.icio.us • sphere • google •

Posted by Bruce B. Brugmann at 03:22 PM | Comments (1)

Big Media is big enough. Here's how to cut it back a notch.

By Bruce B. Brugmann

(Big Media is big enough. This is yet another Big Media story you won't see in the mainstream media: the ruling by the Federal Communications Commission to gut media ownership rules and the media reform moves to overturn it. You also won't see the news of the overwhelming Senate "resolution of disapproval" (H.J. Res. 79) . And you won't get the information on how to click in on how to join the media reform campaign and send your personal message to Rep. Nancy Pelosi and other congresspeople to support the "resolution of disapproval" and veto the FCC ruling. See below.)

In 2003, nearly 3 million people signed an online petition demanding that Congress stop the Federal Communications Commission from gutting media ownership rules. Those millions of actions added up and helped turn the tables on the FCC.

Now the FCC is at it again.

After hearing from a quarter million people, the Senate rejected Big Media's plan to get even bigger.

Now we need you to click here and send a message to the U.S. House asking them to do the same thing.

This isn’t just another online petition. We’re connecting online and offline actions to make the most of every click. Soon we are going to hand-deliver these petitions to members of Congress in their home offices, so it is vital to add your name now.

Your click matters. It only takes a few seconds. Click here to make a difference today!

In solidarity,

Josh Stearns
Campaign Coordinator
http://www.stopbigmedia.com/
http://www.freepress.net/

digg • del.icio.us • sphere • google •

Posted by Bruce B. Brugmann at 04:39 PM | Comments (0)

By Bruce B. Brugmann

FAIR made a key point in its analysis of the conflict between Russia and Georgia over South Ossetia (8/14/08).

The Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting media advocacy group wrote about the big corporate media coverage:

"A striking feature of the coverage was the ability of pundits who have enthusiastically advocated for U.S. invasions of sovereign countries, dismissing concerns that these would violate international law, to demand that Russia be punished for breaking the same law by violating Georgia sovereignty.

"These commentators seemed blissfully unaware of the contradiction, as when New York Times columnist William Kristol wrote (8/11/08) that 'in Iraq, we and our Iraqui allies are on the verge of a strategic victory over the jihadists,' citing this as evidence that 2008 was 'an auspicious year for freedom and democracy,' while two paragraphs later condemning the fact that 'Russia has sent troops and tanks across an international border.' Kristol even cited Georgia's eager participation in the violation of Iraq's sovereignty as a primary reason that 'we owe Georgia a serious effort to defend its sovereignty.'"

FAIR noted that "alternatives to the official media narrative were difficult to find outside of independent and foreign media." I particularly liked the linked Guardian piece (8/14/08) by Seumes Milne: "This is a tale of U.S. expansion, not Russian aggression. War in the Caucacus is as much the product of an American imperial drive as local conflict. It's likely to be a taste of things to come." B3

Click here to read FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) media advisory titled, Georgia/Russia Conflict Forced Into Cold War Frame.

digg • del.icio.us • sphere • google •

Posted by Bruce B. Brugmann at 03:38 PM | Comments (0)

The Nation's coverage on the crisis in Georgia in its Sept. 1 edition:

*Georgia's Biggest Mistake? Taking John McCain Seriously
by John Nichols
Did Saakashvili misread senator's March message about "the dangers posed by a revanchist Russia" and Black Sea "solidarity."

*Blood in the Caucasus
by Katrina vanden Heuvel
As a wobbly cease-fire takes hold in Georgia, it's time for the United States to dissolve its cold war military alliances and develop realistic new policies toward Russia.

*A Dispatch from Tblisi by Margarita Akhviediani
In Georgia's Capital City, residents worry they may have put too much faith in the West to save them from Russian aggression.

digg • del.icio.us • sphere • google •

Posted by Bruce B. Brugmann at 12:43 PM | Comments (0)

By Bruce B. Brugmann

Robert Scheer, the journalist who did one of the first major early critiques of the Vietnam War,
today weighed in on the Georgia war.

His lead paragraphs make his point: "Is it possible that this time the October surprise was tried in August and that the garbage issue of brave little Georgia struggling for its survival from the grasp of the Russian bear was stoked to influence the U.S. presidential election?

"Before you dismiss that possibility, consider the role of one Randy Scheunemann, for four years a paid lobbyist for the Georgian government, ending his official lobbying connection only in March, months after he became Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain's senior foreign policy adviser." B3

Click here to read Scheer's op-ed column in today's Chronicle, Georgia war is a neocon election ploy. Scheer was most prescient on the Vietnam War. Is he as prescient on this one?

digg • del.icio.us • sphere • google •

Posted by Bruce B. Brugmann at 04:44 PM | Comments (0)

By Bruce B. Brugmann (Scroll down for links to our current editorial on PG&E shenanigans on the Clean Energy Act initiative and a similar l982 Guardian story on PG&E shenanigans on the public power initiative of that era)

To repeat: When PG&E spits, City Hall swims.

In September of l982, public power forces placed Proposition K on the ballot, an initiative that would authorize a city study of the feasibility of municipalizing PG&E's electric distribution system in San Francisco.

The Guardian headlines told the emerging story of the standard PG&E response whenever its illegal monopoly in San Francisco is threatened.

Front page: "Uncovered! PG&E's inside moves at City Hall to squash public power: To subvert Prop. K, the utility sets up a front group, circulates a secret poll and recruits Feinstein, Kopp, Molinari and the city controller and city attorney." (Feinstein was the mayor and Kopp and Molilnari were powerful supervisors. This time around, PG&E won't have that luxury of public officials falling over themselves to run their errands and they have been forced to scramble for political support as never before.)

The head on our inside story: "PG&E attempts a coup against public power in San Francisco, The controller puts a misleading, one-sided and apparently illegal $1.4 billion cost-estimate for Prop. K in the voters' handbook--using PG&E's numbers." The story pointed out that the data submitted by the controller for the handbook was originally supplied by a PG&E attorney and a City Hall lobbyist for PG&E. And the controller never bothered to talk to the public power group nor do any independent investigation of his own. Why? The big PG&E Lie ran in the controller's statement in the voters' handbook and was a major factor in PG&E's victory over the public power initiative. PG&E's major campaign theme, then and now, is the relentlessly repeated argument, "too risky, too costly."

Today, as our current editorial discloses, the situation is much the same in the controller's office.
Controller Ben Rosenfeld wrote in an Aug. 7 letter to the Department of Elections for the voters' handbook that the costs to the city of acquiring PG&E's local distribution facilities are "likely to be in the billions of dollars."
What's his evidence for this astounding figure? The only evidence is a July 24 letter to the controller from David Rubin, PG&E's director of service analysis, who argues that the company's San Francisco system is worth $4.18 billion.

Once again, the controller took PG&E's word without gulping. He didn't check with the public power people. He didn't check with the state Board of Equalization, which sets a much lower value on PG&E property (which PG&E doesn't protest at tax time.) He didn't do his own research. He misinterpreted the initiative (which provides for revenue bonds, which would be paid off through a dedicated income stream and thus would cost the city nothing.) And he didn't discuss revenue (public power cities have cheaper power and lower rates than PG&E and they make gobs of money). In short, public power in San Francisco, with its own power source at the Hetch Hetchy dam, is the biggest potential source of new revenue for the city. Again, why didn't the controller do normal due diligence and research on such a vitally important issue for a cash-strapped city? Why is the controller once again so slavishly buying the PG&E Lie and propaganda line? The public deserves an explanation.

Sups. Ross Mirkarimi and Aaron Peskin, authors of the measure, and the clean energy forces are working hard to get PG&E out of the controller's proposed ballot information and get some honesty in. Our suggested language: "The costs of purchasing or building energy facilities would be substantial--but those costs would be covered entirely by the revenue from operating the facilities. The net cost for the city would, at worst, be minimal and the potential exists for the city to bring in significant new revenue to offset taxes and general fund expenses."

Let's kick PG&E out of the controller's office. Let's kick PG&E out of City Hall. B3

Click here to read this week's editorial And now, the controller's big lie.

Click here to read a similar Guardian story from Sept, 1982, outlining PG&E's mode of attack on a public power initiative

digg • del.icio.us • sphere • google •

Posted by Bruce B. Brugmann at 04:22 PM | Comments (6)

An open letter to the small business community

I was astounded to see that once again some small business organizations, and leaders, are about to put an argument on the November ballot that retails without blushing the PG&E lies and propaganda line against the Clean Energy Act and does not represent the views of many of us in the small business community.

As you can see from my recent blog, the current Guardian editorial, and our stories and editorials since l969, PG&E screws our small businesses and residents in many ways: high rates ( much higher than public power cities), frequent blackouts, lousy service, unaccountability, and a propensity to cut off power or force small businesses to buy an expensive bond if they are late on payments. And there's no way to effectively complain about PG&E's terrible service, rates, and glacial moves toward renewable energy.

Most embarrassing of all, the ballot argument retails the big PG&E Lie: the erroneous whopper that the cost to the city of acquiring PG&E's local distribution system would be $4 billion. For starters, the Clean Energy Act never mandates that the city buy PG&E's aging facilities. The charter amendment sets aggressive goals for renewable energy and directs city officials to study the best way to achieve those goals.

Since public power agencies around the country are leading the way on renewables, and since PG&E has already said it can't meet even the state's weak clean energy mandates, the city ought to be looking at taking over the business of selling retail power to businesses and residents. But buying out PG&E's old system might not be the best way.

More: even if San Francisco did buy out PG&E, there would be little or no cost to the city at all. The act would authorize the city to issue revenue bonds to buy electric power facilities. Unlike typical general obligation bonds, the revenue bonds would not be backed by taxpayers, and would be repaid by the money the city would make by selling retail electricity. Revenue bonds are paid off entirely through a dedicated revenue stream. So unless the city can prove in advance with a detailed study that buying out PG&E would bring in enough money to cover costs, there's no way Wall Street would ever buy the bonds.

In short, there is no possible scenario under which the Act could cost money. The opposite is true: Public power cities all over the United States make money, including the public power system in my hometown of
Rock Rapids, Iowa, which has had a successful public power system since 1896. Many public power systems
make large amounts of money while keeping rates well below private power rates. And our figures show that San Francisco would net millions, maybe hundreds of millions of dollars, in revenue from buying out PG&E.
Moreover, PG&E each year yanks upwards of $650 million out of the city with its high rates, according to our study.

So why are some small business leaders once again buying PG&E's Big Lies and once again trying to get small business groups and businesses to sign a ballot argument that undermines their own economic self interest? Would any of them run their own businesses this way? Small business people should steer clear of this embarrassing, self-immolating argument and either support the Clean Energy Initiative or stay neutral.

Most important, the business of PG&E Lies is academic. Because of the federal Raker Act giving San Francisco an unprecedented concession to dam a beautiful valley (Hetch Hetchy) in a beautiful national park (Yosemite), San Francisco is the only city in the U.S. mandated by federal law and a U.S. Supreme Court decision to have a public power system. And the longer the city is in violation of the Raker Act (because it does not have a public power system), the more vulnerable the city is to the tear-down-the-dam movement quietly orchestrated by PG&E and its allies. And that would be a costly catastrophe.

Meanwhile, the supervisors should hold hearings on the economics of this measure and demonstrate how lucrative public power is for cities--and how cheap for businesses and residents. They should also invite small business people to testify about their problems with PG&E. We're posting charts at SFBG.com that show that in California and throughout the U.S., public power is less expensive than private power across the board. B3

P.S. We are doing a major story on how PG&E screws local small business on many levels. If you have specifics and examples with your business, or know of any, please let us know at the Guardian. On guard, B3, who watched today from my office window as the fumes curled up from the Potrero Hill power plant, courtesy of PG&E

*PAID BALLOT ARGUMENT LANGUAGE

Proposition ___ Will Hurt San Francisco Small Business Owners

The Board of Supervisor's plan to takeover PG&E would force San Franciscans to pay an estimated $4 billion for the power system through a dramatic increase in monthly utility bills. If Proposition___ passes the City would lose the more than $20 million a year that PG&E pays in taxes and fees. That means our taxes would need to go up to pay for this lost revenue or basic services, like libraries, street cleaning, police and fire services. It will cost more to do business in San Francisco as small business owners and their families will face an additional $400 to $600 a year expense in utility bills.

Join San Francisco 's Small Business Community in Voting No on Proposition___

digg • del.icio.us • sphere • google •

Posted by Bruce B. Brugmann at 06:56 PM | Comments (1)

Today's Ammianoliner:

Muni enters the Olympics with the cable car luge. (ooooooo)

(From the home telephone answering machine of Sup. Tom Ammiano on Friday, Aug. 8, 2008.)

digg • del.icio.us • sphere • google •

Posted by Bruce B. Brugmann at 05:05 PM | Comments (0)

Today's Ammianoliner:

Mayor brings cell phone on hands free honeymoon.

(From the home telephone answering machine of Sup.
Tom Ammiano, running unopposed for the state assembly, on Wednesday, Aug. 6, 2008.) B3

digg • del.icio.us • sphere • google •

Posted by Bruce B. Brugmann at 05:57 PM | Comments (0)

By Bruce B. Brugmann

You really don't have to be watching the presidential race that closely to understand the charge of the McCain campaign that Barack Obama, the first African American to have a serious chance to be president, "played the race card."

It was and is nonsense. I liked the analysis by the media organization FAIR, a media advocacy organization. FAIR stands for Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting. I'm glad to see FAIR quoted David Gergen on "This Week" as a "rare exception to the media's uncritical coverage of McCain's claims." Gergen:

"There has been a very intentional effort to paint him a somebody outside the mainstream, other. He's not one of us. It's below the radar screen. I think the McCain campaign ahs been scrupulous about not directly saying it. But it's the subtext of this campaign. Everybody knows it. There are certain kinds of signals. As a native of the South, I can tell you, when yoiu see this Charlton Heston ad, 'The One,' that's code for "he's uppity." He ought to stay in his place.' Everybody gets that who's from a Southern background."

Click here to read FAIR's (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) article titled, Media Fall for 'Race Card' Spin: Outraged press ignores McCain's ties to GOP race-baiting tradition.

digg • del.icio.us • sphere • google •

Posted by Bruce B. Brugmann at 02:57 PM | Comments (0)