Larry Ellison won't miss $22 million


If the America's Cup fundraising committee can't come up with $32 million, the city's going to be on the hook for a big chunk of change -- as much as $22 million -- budget analyst Harvey Rose says. Just for the record, I'd like to point out that the America's Cup won't just be an economic bonanza for the city (if it in fact turns out to attract a lot of people) -- it will be a huge advertising and public-relations boon for Oracle Corp, which will have its singature logo and the sail of its boat. Larry Ellison, who will be helping skipper the boat, will be all over the news. You won't be able to read a newspaper or watch the TV news or read anything online about the cup race without seeing the Oracle logo. You can't buy that kind of exposure for any level of money.

And as far as I know, Ellison hasn't contribute a dime to this fundraising committee.

For the record -- and I'm pretty sure I have the math right -- $22 million would be less than one tenth of one percent of Ellison's net worth.

Larry, for god's sake: Write out a check.


If even CW is getting 'worried' you know we're taking on water somewhere below deck down in the bilge.

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Feb. 10, 2012 @ 12:36 pm

We can't do major world-class events, regardless of who pays. We're too provincial here - the SFBG is a perfect example of that.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 10, 2012 @ 12:58 pm

I'd love to see the BG just ban fools like this guy or gal. He or she just uses the comments section to take a shot at either the BG writer of the piece (in this case you Tim) or the BG itself. He or she has no comment about the content of the piece in the Chron or the issues you brought up about it, just a cranky comment.

It was a real important article - the City of SF facing the real possibility of having to pay $22 million - yet he or she says nothing about it, probably because he doesn't know what you're talking about.

It's not about censorship - it's about having a comment section that actually contributes to a discussion of issues instead of an excuse to dish out personal attacks or attacks against the BG. This fool isn't interested in any discussion. He or she just prints this two-sentence poison piece garbage.

He is harming the environment here and makes it a less interesting place to visit. Thus he is actually harming the BG and possibly even threatening its existence.

Fools like this should just be banned. And they're all over the comment bd here. No matter what you or Steve write, you have a line-up of dumbass rightwingers that contribute nothing and just use this "forum" as an excuse to take shots at either you or Steve or the BG or progressives.

Just ban the MF'ers. Tell them to go start their own paper and comment all the rightwing garbg they want there.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 10, 2012 @ 11:32 pm

are you crazy?

Posted by Guest on Feb. 11, 2012 @ 8:00 am

We're all anonymous here and IP addresses are ten a penny.

He's just a control freak.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 11, 2012 @ 12:58 pm

Hey dummy, the BG could require posters to register by giving an email address just like you would have to do if you want to post a comment on sfgate or the NY Times or a milllion other places.

If the BG chose to make this a forum of somewhat intelligent discussion instead of a playground for rightwingers to post idiotic, one-or-two-sentence attacks on progressives or the BG or BG writers like it presently is, they could do so EASILY.

As it is, it's mostly toxic garbage.

Hey Tim and Bruce, notice how few progressives or moderates hang out here? Doesn't interest them for some reason - and the rightwingers JUST LOVE IT. Yet SF is a pretty progressive City.

I think it's because you've allowed this forum to become useless except, like I said, a playground for rightwingers. Is that good for your advertising revenue that your site turns off those most likely to read the digital version of your magazine and is your audience? Is the BG trying its best to go out of business? Because I believe it will if it keeps turning off its natural base and the ones it is trying to appeal to.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 11, 2012 @ 2:57 pm

policing by email isn't any more effective than policing by IP.

SFBG doesn't waste time with the type of control freakery you are suggesting because they know that they cannot control free speech, nor should they seek to.

While if this place really is full of "right-wingers" then why don't "left-wingers" rise to the challenge of debating them?

Posted by Guest on Feb. 11, 2012 @ 3:11 pm

So if the idiotic rightwingers don't want to make half-intelligent posts and insist on keep doing the idiotic one-sentence attack posts, they the BG should make them keep coming up with new email addresses. Eventually the dummies would realize the hoops they're jumping thru to continue their idiocy isn't worth it.

Somehow other message boards like sfgate (and a million or so others) do have some control over what is posted. Don't fool yourself - the BG for philosophical reasons I guess - has chosen to do it this way. They could change the rules tomorrow and "control free speech" - in other words, make this a forum where people post half-intelligent pieces where the personal attacks against the writer are not allowed.

It's not possible to debate one or two sentence attack pieces. There's no logic or reasoning shown and so to expect a debate based on logic or reason with such ppl is thinking Santa Claus exists. It's just toxic pollution that makes this not a very attractive place.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 11, 2012 @ 3:36 pm

I could set something up that changes my email addy every time I post.

You really need to learn more about IT if you want to grow up to be a control freak and petty censor.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 11, 2012 @ 4:40 pm

I agree that these trolls have nothing useful to contribute, and may even be getting paid for their efforts to highjack progressive blogs. But it probably won't do much good to require registration because the problem is much worse than you think. George Monbiot has investigated this issue, and here's what he has to say,

"Online astroturfing is more advanced and more automated than we’d imagined." [...]

"After I last wrote about online astroturfing, in December, I was contacted by a whistleblower. He was part of a commercial team employed to infest internet forums and comment threads on behalf of corporate clients, promoting their causes and arguing with anyone who opposed them. Like the other members of the team, he posed as a disinterested member of the public. Or, to be more accurate, as a crowd of disinterested members of the public: he used 70 personas, both to avoid detection and to create the impression that there was widespread support for his pro-corporate arguments. I’ll reveal more about what he told me when I’ve finished the investigation I’m working on."

"But it now seems that these operations are more widespread, more sophisticated and more automated than most of us had guessed. Emails obtained by political hackers from a US cyber-security firm called HB Gary Federal suggest that a remarkable technological armoury is being deployed to drown out the voices of real people."

"As the Daily Kos has reported, the emails show that:

"- companies now use “persona management software”, which multiplies the efforts of the astroturfers working for them, creating the impression that there’s major support for what a corporation or government is trying to do.

"- this software creates all the online furniture a real person would possess: a name, email accounts, web pages and social media. In other words, it automatically generates what look like authentic profiles, making it hard to tell the difference between a virtual robot and a real commentator.

"- fake accounts can be kept updated by automatically re-posting or linking to content generated elsewhere, reinforcing the impression that the account holders are real and active."

The article goes on to discuss how the US Airforce has provided "persona management software" to aid US corporations with their astroturf campaigns. It's a fascinating, if disturbing, piece.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 11, 2012 @ 5:34 pm

If you think people change their minds based on what they read on the internet, you should reconsider your assumptions.

If you think people are so impressionable that a good argument by the "other side" will lose you a future supporter, you should reconsider your assumptions.

If you think it makes for entertaining and informative reading to scan posts by reactionaries like yourself - no matter how liberal or radical you think you are - you shoud reconsider your assumptions.

You give the trolls power and provide them big belly laughs by your strident replies to their provocative posts. Quit it!

Posted by Guest on Feb. 11, 2012 @ 7:38 pm

Your post is confirmation to me of what the guest said who posted the link to the George Monbiot article - and that you're a part of it.

Notice how you end your post, "Quit it!" - as in "change the subject, there's nothing here!"

My ass there's nothing here. As soon as Tim posts something that could impact big money interests, a flood of idiotic, low content posts appear.

Gee now why would a very progressive blog in a very progressive city have such a pro-corporate, pro-billionaire, pro-Republican, anti-liberal website readership??? I think the George Monbiot article gave the answer to that.

And you are, I would bet anything, a part of it.

So BG - are you gonna do anything about it? Or do the corporate trolls get to control your website message bd?

Posted by Guest on Feb. 11, 2012 @ 8:02 pm

do you really think anyone with money and power is even remotely threatened by Tim?

Posted by Guest on Feb. 12, 2012 @ 2:10 am

Thanks for the info and link to the article. I guess I shouldn't be surprised the military is involved. When you think about it, for the post - WW 2 period, the US military has served as a protector / enforcer of corporate America.

Vietnam, all the shit the US military did in South America, the Cold War itself - was at the behest and purposes of corporate America.

And the science of propaganda (which I'm extending to infesting message bds with pro-corporate propaganda) has always been led by large corporations and the CIA (no doubt the USSR was doing it as well when they were around).

The Citizens United decision was right in line with an American govt institution being an agent of huge money interests (no laws will be allowed that prevent multi-national corporations or billionaires from buying elections).

Posted by Guest on Feb. 11, 2012 @ 8:17 pm

Thanks for almost confirming what the first replyer to your post is saying.

It means that if the BG gives a shit about this message bd, this website and really whether or not it stays in biz since everything is going digital, then it will have to find a way to deal with sophisticated corporate troll groups you're a part of.

I assume you're part of the same corporate troll that's invested this message board where maybe one person or a few is doing all the idiotic one or two sentence "don't attack billionaires!" or "progressives sucks!" posts. In the article that the first replyer mentioned, one person was acting like 70 different ppl on message bds.

I have no doubt the same thing is happening here. I fault the BG for ignoring the problem because one would think from just reading the message bd that the BG was located in Texas or something (somewhere with a very conservative POV - def not the most progressive paper in the most progressive city in the country).

I don't know what the solution is to the corporate / rightwing troll group you are a part of. The BG should talk to some ppl with some expertise to find a solution. It probably involves throwing enough hoops to jump thru that eventually the troll group you're employed by realizes they can't get away with it any more and leaves.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 11, 2012 @ 7:44 pm

So who's paying you corporate troll???

Feel good being a corporate scumbag???

Posted by Guest on Feb. 11, 2012 @ 8:08 pm

Yet somehow the hundreds of millions of dollars wasted in no bid contracts to Non Profit Inc do not concern Tim and his crew one iota.

Posted by guest on Feb. 10, 2012 @ 2:07 pm

hit piece on Zuckerburg, whose only crime is being a billion times more successful than Tim, it shouldn't shock anyone that Tim hates the America's Cup on principle.

If it was spending the taxpayers money to have a special olympic for poverty pimps, clueless activists and hopeless liberals, he'd be all for it. But rich people visiting SF? We're fortunate Tim doesn't want to eat them.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 10, 2012 @ 5:46 pm

Tim doesn't hate rich people. He just wants them to pay their fair share, as he's said many times. Do we really need another billionaire boondoggle to bankrupt this city? These fat cats have a choice. They can either pony up or get the fuck out of SF! No more feeding off the public trough.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 10, 2012 @ 6:26 pm

No more feeding at the public trough, time to send SEIU back to Oakland, thats a city that can afford them.

Posted by guest on Feb. 11, 2012 @ 4:50 am

So Tim and Steve, do you like reading these fools that only use this forum to constantly take shots at the both of you? Nothing about the important content of the Chron article, just an excuse to take a stupid personal attack or progressives.

Is this the kind of environment the BG wants to encourage here? Do fools like this guy have free reign here to dumb down this "forum" to as low as they can take it? Do you think this kind of garbage brings people here? Do you think it encourages good discussions here? So then why do you allow these fools to poison the environment here?

Posted by Guest on Feb. 10, 2012 @ 11:58 pm

If he's going to make a public exhibition of his strange views, then he needs to develop a thicker skin that you clearly possess.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 11, 2012 @ 4:21 am

This forum shouldn't be an excuse for rightwingers to respond to intelligent pieces Tim writes discussing important issues with one or two sentence attack pieces. It's toxic garbage.

If a person can't form a half thought-out opinion here and back it up with some facts relevent to the issue so that all he or she can do is post the usual, "BG just hates successful people" garbage, then he or she is just polluting the place.

Ban the MF'ers (or put 'em on probation and maybe they'll get a clue and post something half intelligent or realize the game is up and it's time to go back to

Posted by Guest on Feb. 11, 2012 @ 12:08 pm

thoughts are "trolling" or "abuse"?

What a skewed world you inhabit.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 11, 2012 @ 12:56 pm

The one-or-two sentence right-wing posts attacking progressives, the BG, or the writer of the article are abuse - and ridiculous.

I think it's strange so many rightwingers like to hang out at a site where they completely disagree with the philosophy of the magazine or website so that NO MATTER WHAT IS POSTED that is consistent with that philosophy, they can chime in with their "Tim just hates success!" posts. That's about as deep as they (you) get.

That's the level of intelligent discussion the BG has encouraged here by allowing that garbage to be the norm, not the exception. As soon as ANYTHING is posted by Tim or Steve, soon after a whole bunch of "Why does the BG and Tim hate success so much!" as if they were getting food after not eating for two days.

There used to be a somewhat well-known guy on the left who used to call in to Forum (Krasny's KQED-FM morning show) and as soon as he got on, he'd start attacking Krasny. Krasny put up with it for awhile and then finally just banned him.

That was proper. The guy thought he could just trash Krasny forever and nothing would happen.

It appears someone at the BG is lacking the balls to put his or her foot down and say, "this aint working" because, I guess, of fear of being attacked for "censorship."

The result is a website that's not a very appealing place to visit. I fear Bay Guardian that your days may be numbered because you put accomodating and pleasing idiotic rightwingers over a place of intelligent discussion.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 11, 2012 @ 3:24 pm

I "fear" you may be a complete idiot as well.

Posted by guest on Feb. 11, 2012 @ 4:12 pm

I guess all this talk of banning idiotic rightwing posts is hitting too close to home in your case. Good.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 11, 2012 @ 4:30 pm

Actually I think 'we' inhabit the real world, not the 1%er fantasy that you still aspire to and have been deluded into thinking is still a possibility for the rest of us.

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Feb. 11, 2012 @ 4:04 pm

Occupy kinda fizzled out, didn't it?

Posted by Guest on Feb. 11, 2012 @ 4:41 pm

No dipshit, it has now been incorporated into Federal policy.

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Feb. 11, 2012 @ 5:31 pm

You proud of yourself knowing you're a whore for corporate interests???

Have any prob looking yourself in the mirror, corporate troll???

What are they paying you to troll here, Mr. Corporate Troll??? Who's paying you scumbag???

Posted by Guest on Feb. 11, 2012 @ 8:07 pm

for posting here. Delusions of grandeur, perhaps?

Posted by Guest on Feb. 12, 2012 @ 2:09 am

How could anyone be so foolish as to think that trolls like you are on the take? I'm sure your integrity is unimpeachable, so you would NEVER even think of responding to an ad like this one:

Posted by Guest on Feb. 12, 2012 @ 6:43 pm

They paying you good to infest a progressive newspaper's message bd with corporate / billionaire troll posts???

Feel good to make a living doing this???

Having any nightmares from the scumbag role you're playing in society???

Posted by Guest on Feb. 11, 2012 @ 8:35 pm

Look at his (assuming this person is a male) comment - not a goddamn thing about the issue you brought up. Again - just a one sentence piece of rightwing garbage. This forum for this person is nothing but a vehicle to just take juvenile attacks on you, Steve, the BG, or progressives.

As long as the BG allows these fools to poison the atmosphere here, it makes it a very uninteresting place to visit, and it provides the toxic environment that this person and his co-horts (could be one or just a few that are doing most of them) just love. They get off on the negativity and personal attacks and the one or two sentence "dumb fucking leftists!" comments they post here.

Just ban the MF'ers. Get their IP or email address and automate it so when they try to post, they get, "sorry, you've lost posting PRIVILEGES here."

Posted by Guest on Feb. 10, 2012 @ 11:49 pm

all the anti-success rhetoric here?

Oh, and how many people do you think only ever use one IP address or email? (Hint: every wi-fi zone has it's own IP).

Quit trying to censor those you disagree with and start trying to refute them, if you even can.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 11, 2012 @ 4:23 am

It's not about censoring political opinions or those anyone disagrees with, it's about a forum or message bd that discusses issues instead of posting comments about as intelligent as, "Tim, you POS leftie!"

There's no refuting comments like that because all they are are one or two sentence attack pieces. No issues are brought up - they're just toxic garbage. Not one thing was mentioned about the Chron article, it's just toxic, "BG just hates successful people!" garbage.

And since almost everyone is "Guest" here, there's nothing to stop some rightwing nutcases who have nothing better to do than to hit each topic with many of these idiotic, one or two sentence toxic posts. It's not like there's any work or thought or time going into any of them, so the number of ppl posting them IS probably a lot less than the number of posts and no doubt there is some ppl here posting A LOT of that garbage.

Those people should be banned here or put on probation. They ruin the whole purpose of a message bd - to discuss the issues.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 11, 2012 @ 12:01 pm

Your IP will constantly change as you roam.

So it's a much better idea to simply ignore posts you don't agree with.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 11, 2012 @ 12:52 pm

It's the reactionary reply to troll-like posts that is the issue. Most of us can ignore intentionally provocative posts, so why can't you? It's not a great sign that you want everyone to conform to your rigid ideology. Give it up - let people think what they want since you'll never change anyone's thinking. Ever.

Relax. Let people spill their bile and try to entice people to waste their replying to their nonsense. If you ignore it like others do, they don't get any attention and they will go away where they can find the attention they crave.

Maybe you haven't been on the internet very long, but there are a lot of loney, miserable people who have nothing better to do than pretend they are connecting with other people on the blogosphere. By definition, posting on chatboards is an admission that someone doesn't have anything better to do with their time like organize with others to accomplish something positive in the world, or spend time with their family, or enjoy a few simple pleasures in life like a walk in the park or a bike ride to the beach.

When we're fighting with someone or reacting negatively to someone, it's always OUR problem, not theirs.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 11, 2012 @ 7:27 pm

If the message bd of a progressive newspaper is dominated by idiotic, one or two sentence toxic rightwing garbage, then might as well not have a message bd. It's not like those viewpts aren't expressed in the mainstream media often on AM radio and Faux and CNN occasionally.

I do think it'd be good for you to read the post with the link to George Monbiot's London Guardian article (or read that article). There does appear to be something like that going on here (and you may be part of it, who knows).

It's idiotic posts that are just an ad nauseum repeat of extreme rightwing, anti-tax, pro-corporate Republican philosophy as if that message wasn't heard plenty in the US media. No discussion of the issues - just one or two sentence, "well Tim just hates rich people, didn't you hear" repeated ad nauseum.

So you have no problem with that? Is that a message bd you find interesting? You're reading the message bd so you can't say you don't read it so you like reading posts like that over and over and over on a progressive newspaper's message bd?

You say they go away??? How long you been here? Not long obviously. Not only do they not go away, they post repeatedly and instantly as soon as Tim or Steve posts anything remotely anti-rich or anti-corporate which is why there probably is something going on here that Monbiot is talking about.

Those people aren't trying to connect with anyone. What are you smoking? The intention is to do a quick Rush Limbaugh-like idiotic post and take a cheapshot at progressives and / or the BG or its writer.

Get real - what you describe is not what is here. It's a playground for extreme rightwingers to showcase their idiocy over and over and over.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 11, 2012 @ 11:52 pm

people are fighting greed and 'money takes all' and 'little people of my way' barbarism on the public waterfront- the X games of yacht racing will be fun- Larry can afford to pay for his plans

Posted by Guest on Feb. 11, 2012 @ 7:58 am

That sarcastic tone underlines Tim's loathing of success. But he'll talk sympathetically all day long about life's underclasses.

He's actually more comfortable with failure and losers than with those who make things happen and create prosperity.

Posted by Guest on Feb. 11, 2012 @ 12:53 pm

We have heard this same talking point over and over and over from the same old trolls...or is it just one bot?

Posted by Guest on Feb. 12, 2012 @ 6:28 pm

RIP George, your presence is missed but your truth lives.

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Feb. 11, 2012 @ 1:01 pm

the hundreds of millions wasted on the bike lanes to nowhere on the new Bay Bridge?

In Tim's book, that's OK, since it's a pro-green pet cause of his.

we've pissed away $6+ billion on the bridge, but that's not scandalous!

Posted by Guest on Feb. 11, 2012 @ 2:27 pm

What's scandalous is that we 'outsourced' it to China.
Agreed, the bike lane should be completed for full length of bridge, but I'm curious as to where you got the figure that the addition of bike lane cost 'hundreds of millions' of dollars.

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Feb. 11, 2012 @ 2:46 pm

..please give references to verify 'hundreds of millions' of dollars.

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Feb. 11, 2012 @ 3:59 pm

According to the State:

Problem is - the increase in auto tolls accounts for a substantial portion of the cost of the new eastern span. Since bikers don't want to pay anything but want to use the transportation system funded by auto tolls this option creates a funding issue. I guess the toll on cars could be increased once again to pay for the wishes of the Bicycle Coalition, but at some point you're risking killing the goose which laid the golden egg.

Replacing the upper deck to allow for new bike/pedestrian lanes: $390 million.
Adding a strip on either side of the western span to accommodate bikes and pedestrians: $160 million (in 2001)

Posted by guest on Feb. 11, 2012 @ 4:20 pm

Appreciate your response. Will investigate further. However, even conceding that the figures quoted in this article may have any basis in fact, I have a feeling that this may be another of those instances when short term investment, does not take into account long term benefit, but as instant gratification and myopia seems to be the prevailing MO, I am not surprised.

Posted by Patrick Monk. RN on Feb. 11, 2012 @ 5:40 pm

We'll see. I'd like to see bike and pedestrian lanes across the western span - I think it's be great to be able to get across the bridge in something other than a car. But I also think everyone needs to chip in. It wouldn't be unreasonable to charge bikers $1 to cross the bridge.

Posted by guest on Feb. 11, 2012 @ 6:53 pm