Election Endorsements: YES ON C, G - NO ON ALL THE REST

Very quickly, here are your election endorsements for June 3rd...

Letter Propositions:

YES ON C, G - NO ON ALL THE REST

A: NO - School Parcel Tax with unfair burden on homeowners. The problem is that SF Public Schools are treated as a social engineering experiment rather than schools. Lack of money is not the reason why SF Schools suck.

B: UNDECIDED - B contains some much needed reforms of San Francisco's ultra-generous retiree health care plan. However, the opponents have a point when they say the real problem is that this is a relatively minor point which should not come before the voters anyway, and that the City Charter should be changed so that we don't have to spend tons of money on elections for relatively minor stuff.

C: YES - The "moral turpitude" penalty. After a string of embarrassing scandals, someone had the idea that it might be nice to have at least some level of morality in San Francisco government. Gay advocates whine that "moral turpitude" laws traditionally have been used against homosexuals. In a town where half the government is openly gay, I don't see that as a problem. Chris Daly is against it. That right there is a good reason to vote YES.

D: NO NO NO - More affirmative-action bullshit. As the no on D campaign's argument says: "Good political appointees for City boards and commissions come from all ethnic, religious, and sexual communities... but never in the exact mathematical order demanded by City Hall 'bean counters.'" This is simply reverse racism - the usual "progressive" PC mindfuck that is driving this City into the ground.

E: NO - Another Mayor Newsom vs. Board of Supervisors bitchfight makes it to the ballot. Behind this is - as always - the usual Marxist crap from the Board; they want the power to put "acceptable" candidates on the PUC. Why? Because sewer and water bills are paid by LANDLORDS - evil, stinky landlords - and the Marxist scum on the Board are always up for any way to stick it to them.

F: NO NO NO - Anytime a good idea is proposed in San Francisco, the "progressives" will swoop right in to screw it up. Behind this proposal - which states any development in the Hunter's Point ghetto must include 50% "affordable housing" - is the usual white arrogance of the liberal goon squads. The argument in favor of it is one of the most patronizing things you will ever read - it literally treats the Afro-American community an endangered "tribe" which must be saved and preserved for future generations of guilty white liberals to wring their hands over.

This is so fucked up. One of the main reasons why blacks are leaving the ghettos of HP and Sunnydale is because they are SUCCEEDING! They are getting ahead in life and don't want to live in a mother-fucking GHETTO!

I find the Sierra Club's endorsement of this measure disturbing. If there is any more evidence needed that the Sierra Club is going the way of the Green Party, I don't know what it is. Just like the Greens, the Sierra Club has sold out the Earth in favor of Leftism. And they will soon be every bit as irrelevant.

G: YES - Prop. F was put on the ballot as a reactionary monkey-wrench to this one. This is a relatively good deal that much of Hunter's Point is behind. The poverty pimps don't agree - they feel the area MUST be preserved - as a GHETTO.

H: NO - A possibly unconstitutional attempt to eliminate the ability of some "special interest" groups to contribute to candidates... but not others.


Next up: The available seats and the butts that want to fill them...