San Francisco Diary--Journal Of An Exile

The Port of Oakland has taken most of the commercial shipping which used to thrive on the San Francisco docks. But sometimes, in order to get their supplies, the ships heading for Oakland have to get past our first line of defense--the Golden Gate Bridge. This one just scraped past.

Three massive cranes being imported from China (no comment) had to be folded over to pass under the bridge. The ship made it with 14 feet to spare. It later had to pass under the Bay Bridge, and did so with a mere 9 feet between the top of the cranes and the lower deck of the bridge. That's a hair's-breadth in maritime terms, and even though the event unfolded very slowly, it was breath-holding time. Any miscalculation, a shift in the currents, or a surge in the tides could have spelled disaster. The California Highway Patrol ran traffic breaks on the Bay Bridge, just in case.

Although this raises the obvious question about why these cranes couldn't have been manufactured in the United States, it is still a fact that the cranes will provide cargo capabilities at the Port of Oakland that will create jobs. Real jobs. So it isn't all bad. This gives Oakland 22 Super-Post Panamax cranes. Those are cranes that are large enough to service container ships which are too wide to pass through the Panama Canal. Oakland is the nation's fifth busiest port, and the three additional cranes could put Oakland in fourth place. So--I guess it was worth the risk.

NOTE: Apparently, eating nothing but veggies doesn't make one a peaceful lamb. Lierre Keith, a recovering vegan, had a book-signing at the Bay Area Anarchist Book Fair. The title of her apostate book is The Vegetarian Myth. I say "apostate" because Keith has not abandoned her beliefs that lots of veggies are good for you. But she was a vegan for 20 years, and that means no animal products, of any kind, ever. She has not only decided that an occasional egg or hamburger might be a more natural thing for omnivorous humans, but that agriculture is destroying the world (I said she was an apostate, I didn't say she had attained sanity).

Around 2:15 PM on Saturday, Keith was anarchically touting her book at the lectern of the Hall of Flowers in Golden Gate Park when she was set upon by three militant vegans shouting "go vegan!" while hitting her in the face with chili pepper-laced pies. Said Keith later from her sister's home in Kansas: "We're supposed to be against sadism and cruelty and domination, and these people were willing to do this to me. It's insane. My entire book is about how the world is being destroyed. You should not eat factory-farmed meat."

Frankly, I don't have a dog in this psycho fight. Keith believes in militant action, even property destruction, if it can lead to change. She rails against "factory farming" (which is probably nut-speak for anything larger than a mom and pop farm) and insists on the restoration of prairies and forests. Since she has abandoned pure veganism, I guess she supports everybody running around in the forest primeval with bows and arrows chasing down prey. A luddite anarchist doesn't suddenly become sane or logical simply because she might occasionally give in to the temptation to have a nice steak. If there's one thing "true believers" won't tolerate, it's the least deviation from the pure party line. I'm just trying to imagine what a hot chili pepper pie tastes like. Chicken, maybe.

Final comment: Keith and her people called the police. The primary group taking credit for the chili pie attack is the North American Animal Liberation Press. Their printed reaction online was that "Keith was wrong about veganism, she is an animal holocaust-denier, and betrayed the cause when she called in the "agents of state oppression (i.e., the police)."

NOTE: Mayor Gavin Newsom made an impromptu appearance at San Francisco International Airport. Newsom, unlike his Board of Supervisors, has actually run a successful business. His appearance at the airport was to tout his successful renegotiation of the contracts between The City and the airport vendors by which The City gets 15% of the concessions' revenues. Sure, we all hate paying more for airport food, snacks and books, but it has never actually damaged airport business. And the estimate is that the new contract will provide $330 million in revenue for The City that would otherwise have been lost. That ain't peanuts in a city deeply in deficit.

Some of Newsom's old competitiveness seemed to be coming back out. He pointed out that San Francisco Airport (SFO) is top-dog nationally in getting money per passenger from the activities of merchants at airports. And SFO is number three in collection of total revenues. He wants to make SFO number one. Since he isn't actually increasing the percentage of price which goes to The City, he is merely doing good P.R. for the city he represents. Where was this Newsom during the gay marriage rancor, or when he was testing the waters to become California's governor? I'm actually beginning to like him.

NOTE: A local San Francisco attorney, Daniel Balsam, started suing internet spammers even before he graduated from law school. He just received a $7,000 court award against one of those spammers, Trancos, Inc. Balsam was horrified to have received a personal e-mail from Trancos in 2007. Balsam has been a frequent beneficiary of the 2004 anti-spam law passed by California. In fact, he considers it more important than representing clients who have actually been harmed by something. The law Balsam sued under provides for private persons to collect money damages for advertising that is false or misleading (emphasis added). Mere puffery can be defined as "misleading" if you serve it up right. And that's what Balsam relied on. He won on the grounds that Trancos (which is a provider of advertising access to small companies) sent him e-mails with titles such as "Your promotion," "Paid Survey," and "Join elite." The California law provides for up to $1,000 for each serving of spam, even if the recipient didn't accept any of the offers and lost no money.

The defendant's attorney says Trancos will appeal. Though many cases of this type have been won in small claims court, this appears to be the first case decided at a full trial in Superior Court. His argument is that spam is the province of the federal law, which allows for damages only when someone has actually been harmed in some concrete way. As much as I'm a fan of state's rights, I'm with the defendant on this one. California has too many laws providing for money damages for people who have not actually been harmed in any real way. It would seem that Balsam is collecting legal (if not realistic) damages for being, what, inconvenienced? Annoyed? Has anybody informed him there's a thing called a "spam filter?" Are our courts not tied up enough with frivolous lawsuits that we need more like this?

NOTE: Strange things are happening in California politics. The once and future wannabe governor of California, Democrat Jerry Brown, was far ahead of all his potential rivals in both major parties right up until he announced his formal candidacy at the last possible minute. Although it is still very early in the actual race, Republican newcomer Meg Whitman is actually tied with, or ahead of Brown in several major respected polls. Brown has not started his campaign in earnest yet, but the idea of a California Republican, however liberal, being ahead of a well-known and well-financed former Democratic governor was simply unimaginable just a few short months ago.

Although Brown hasn't yet deigned to enter the fray, the basic strategy may have to be altered rather quickly for Brown to win. Whitman has already demonstrated a "take no prisoners" assault on her closest Republican rival, state Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner. Fair or not, she has demonstrated that she will not be the usual good-natured pushover that Democratic candidates for governor in California have faced over the past few election cycles (Schwarzenegger was a seeming exception, but he joined the goo-goo Republicans holding hands with the liberal Democrats shortly after his election). Poizner, a Silicon Valley moderate gazillionaire fellow of Whitman's is now trailing by nearly-insurmountable numbers for the Republican nomination.

Brown had been counting on the two rich Republican candidates knocking each other off in the primaries. That didn't happen, and Whitman is in a very powerful position at this point. The unions and left think-tanks have poured beaucoup bucks into anti-Whitman ads, and they've had next-to-no effect. It has reached the point where Whitman can largely abandon her attacks on Poizner and start to turn her attention to going after Brown. Brown, his staff and his supporters are what the military calls a "target-rich environment."

Traditional Republican conservatives are at best lukewarm toward Whitman, but have a long history of opposing Brown. The Massachusetts Miracle has turned pollsters toward looking carefully at the group that was largely responsible for electing Scott Brown to "Ted Kennedy's seat" in the Senate. And independents currently lean 50% to 36% toward Meg Whitman over Jerry Brown in the most recent Field Poll. Among all potential voters in the greater Los Angeles area, a traditionally Democratic demographic, Whitman is slightly ahead of Brown. Whitman leads Brown statewide among women, men, and voters over age 40.

Brown has some very canny and successful advisers. And he's certainly no stranger to electoral politics. He is not intimidated by strong opponents, even when he's running behind. His confrontation with Bill Clinton over Hillary's questionable political and legal activities is practically legend in California. Still, at the early stages of the Republican race, Whitman defined Poizner's role in the race with her ads and her speeches, leaving him on the defensive ever since. If Brown allows Whitman to do the same thing to him, he might very well be in serious danger of losing the election. Much remains to be seen.

NOTE: More unexpected (but wished-for) good news. Her Majesty and Royal Painness, Senator Barbara Boxer, has dropped behind Republican Tom Campbell for the first time in matchups against her potential GOP rivals. She is also for the first time within the margin of error with all three Republicans in the most recent Field Poll. Campbell: 44-43%. Fiorina: 44-45% DeVore: 41-45%. Field says its margin of error is 3.7%. No doubt this partially reflects the anti-incumbent feeling that is growing nationwide, since Boxer's name recognition is much higher than the three Repubicans. 60% of the respondents said they have no opinion of Campbell and Fiorina, while 78% said the same of DeVore. Still, I'll take all the "throw the bums out" votes we can get. It's now up to the ad agencies and the grassroots to make sure that by election day, the Republicans have name-recognition as well.