The Guardian, the Examiner, and the Weekly


As you can all imagine, I'm getting calls and emails, so let me clear it up: Yes, San Francisco Newspaper Co. has bought SF Weekly.

Yes, Todd Vogt is the co-owner of the Examiner, Guardian and now Weekly, but for the record, I am the editor and publisher of the Guardian.

No, there are no plans to merge the two weeklies or consolidate them or combine the editorial staffs. We will continue to do our best to be the progressive voice of San Francisco; the Weekly, I assume, will continue to do its own different thing.

And no, this doesn't mean that I'm going to suddenly be BFFs with Joe Eskenazi. We have our view of things; he has his. I fervently believe that we will continue to disagree, and the city will be served by the ongoing debate. (Unless Joe comes to his senses and realizes that I'm always right.)



But "Zero Dark Forty" is at bottom a "political" movie.

Am I serious? Yes.
Morose? Not usually.
Self-absorbed? Don't think so, but I am answering this post, so maybe. In the US, we are socialized to be self-absorbed. I'm less so than average.
Sense of humor? Very strong.

I love movies and discussing them. I slightly regret sharing my thoughts on this one.

Posted by Eddie on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 9:49 am

No bounds can be placed on fiction or fantasy, it is all speech, literature, not actions.

As is usual on the oversocialized left, speaking of or commenting on something evil and real is more dangerous than doing the real evil deeds themselves.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 10:03 am

Before the Nazis started rounding up Jews, gays, Socialists and Gypsies, they just "talked about it" a bunch.

*All* things are political. (That may not be absolutely true but it is close enough to not bother much thinking otherwise.)

I was having a discussion about machinery designed-life and worker productivity and happened to mention German workers making $60/hr -- and the fellow interrupted with a retort about "the unions."

See? Everything is viewed through a political glass but populists aren't supposed to notice or give voice to their side. The trolls exhibit this same propagandistic method.

I'd only go to nakedly political propaganda movie with an intent to focus very hard indeed to spot whatever clandestine and multi-layered lies they were trying to sell me; the exact same way I read posts by "anonymous."

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 10:39 am

by your argument, we should be very wary of anyone advocating gun control.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 12:22 pm

Hitler banned some people from owning guns.

Posted by matlock on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 3:19 pm

No everyone. It was a general law. Only government officials could have guns.

Posted by Guest Marcy Fleming on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 3:58 pm

so strange, everyone seems to believe this for some political reason that I can't fathom.

Not that it matters, Germany was awash in guns under Adolph, most Freikorps members had them right from the start, there were hunting and shooting clubs, the Hitler youth spent hours monkeying around with guns and were encouraged to shoot all they could.

It was the Weimar republic in 1928 which enacted anti gun laws attempting to put a damper on street battles. The Nazi's loosened them and ignored them until 1938 with the weapons law that banned Jews, gypsies and the rest from owning guns.

The truth for both sides is bit off, neither the communists or the fascists turned in their vast number of weapons when the more liberal Weimar republic asked for the guns. Just as our thugs will not now.

Southern rightests had their own race laws around guns at various times, and even had their own militias to enforce them.

Why this has so much traction is odd.

Posted by matlock on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 8:51 pm

Sorry for my consistent error.

Posted by Eddie on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 10:05 am

You left out "self-righteous".

Posted by Guest on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 11:23 am

When even John McCain lashed out that it was too pro-torture, I figured that it was going to be shameless propaganda.

I did see "Hurt Locker" on DVD, and I have to say I was thoroughly unimpressed. They managed to make a movie about the greatest moral failing of our time in a way that was completely devoid of morality. You really have to try hard to accomplish that. In the end, it was a movie about nothing. It made me feel empty inside -not even angry at the filmmakers -just empty. I wanted my two hours back.

So when I heard that the same director did this one, I added that to the list of reasons not to see this movie.

Posted by Greg on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 9:18 am

Of course, the writer had been embedded with the military so he would bring some (maybe unconscious) bias to the project. But the main characters were complex. And I saw it in the theatre which almost always improves my opinion of a film.

I never discourage anyone from seeing a film. I only shared my opinion of "Zero Dark Forty" because someone else raised it as a topic.

Posted by Eddie on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 9:37 am

What does that mean, that they played the special forces people as being having feelings of an almost human nature?

I also puzzled as to what truth died?

Posted by matlock on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 3:23 pm

There are $6.50 matinees at the Century San Francisco Centre 9.

Posted by Eddie on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 3:36 pm

$6.00 matinees at AMC Van Ness.

Posted by Eddie on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 3:50 pm

Don't have a lot of interest in it either way.

rah rah who gives a shit?

Propaganda films need to be like 49th parallel, Sahara, Casablanca or involve Ray Miland somehow.

Posted by matlock on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 4:35 pm

It was Wednesday night at Joe's bar room, and the usual crowd was there. Buncha jibber-jabber on this site leaves me cold and I learned nothing from it, I don't even know why I'm bothering to comment here but I'll say this: Vogt has reinvigorated what was a putrid far right Examiner and also preserved the SFBG that many of us look to for its take on local news of importance as well as informed opinion. Now he's also rescued the Weekly from oblivion and what's bad about that? Say what you want about the Black conglomerate, about Bruce selling out his principles and blah blah blah. The result of these deals is preservation and reinvigoration of print journalism in SF, and it's all online as well. Would you have the field left to the Hearst Chronicle, with all its biases and baggage?
I think Todd Vogt is a hero and a public servant for his work in the Fourth Estate. I know him personally and I don't think he or the group he is part of is in it for the money or power or any devious motivation. The tired cynicism and in-group gossip of some commenters here is not amusing. It's appalling.

Posted by Barry Eisenberg on Jan. 09, 2013 @ 11:50 pm

counts for nothing, since we don't know you personally.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 7:05 am

The coverage of your paper has already been suffering.

For example, you call Wiener a "moderate" and Campos a "conservative."

They are rightwing conservative and corporate conservative respectively!

Posted by Richard on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 8:51 am

He could only appear right-wing to someone who is very left-wing. As such, your comments tell us more about your bias than Wiener's.

Posted by anonymous on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 9:09 am

Makes me wonder how you'd label, say, Jim DeMint. Not everyone to the right of Chomsky is "right-wing," you know.

Posted by Hortencia on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 9:10 am

ideology is predicated on identity polics and class warfare, then it's important to be able to classify people so you can self-servingly allocate them either to the "us" camp or the "them" camp.

Such a dismissive approach does not allow of subtlety or nuance. But rather you're "either wit' us or agin' us".

Posted by anonymous on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 9:31 am

To call Weiner "right-wing" makes as little sense, apparently, as calling Chomsky "left-wing." I'm beginning to wonder if those terms have any meaning, especially when applied in San Francisco.

Posted by Hortencia on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 5:29 pm

Though Chomsky's philosophy of personal freedom naturally abhors the power of the state being wielded to control people -- which means he is *not* right-wing -- I don't think you should look to him as the "far left."

That designation should be reserved for those more worthy to provoke the *greatest* fear amongst the monied and powerful; those whose Bolshevist plans would be more likely to involve massive blood letting.

An attempt to realize Chomsky's Anarcho-Syndicalism would doubtless *not* involve bloodshed.

Anybody who is interested in learning about a range of things such as a rationalist philosophy leading to world peace and individual happiness ought to read some of Noam Chomsky books and don't let some reactionary trolls' portrayal affect their view of the man.

He is one of the great intellectuals of our time.... unlike *all* of the trolls here

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 10:21 am

Chomsky is a libertarian socialist, that is not a leftist.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 10:34 am

but I've not seen him refer to himself as a "libertarian socialist."

His term is Anarcho-Syndicalist just as I said, though to be sure he would disparage the putting of emphasis on labels.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 11:03 am

illi, your brain can be so small sometimes. appeal to the google for ample evidence of Chomsky's libertarian socialist tendencies.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 2:23 pm

I'll just go with that.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 2:51 pm

I'll just go with that

Posted by marcos on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 4:55 pm

so it does have a degree of credibility, but that is all.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 5:03 pm

Even I know he is a libertarian socialist.

look up libertarian socialism on wikipedia and there is a picture of Chomsky.

I find Chomsky a bit much so haven't read any of his stuff in decades, even though I loath the US's foreign policy.

Posted by matlock on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 3:27 pm

but it won't work if people don't listen to you.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 4:35 pm
Posted by Anon on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 4:54 pm

Point being there are two broad schools of socialism, authoritarian and libertarian. The contemporary divide is exemplified by the division between the communists and the anarchists. Socialism in this context means an economic system that is centered on people rather than capital, not Marxism/Leninism/Trotskyism/Maoism.

Chomsky is in the anarchist or libertarian socialist school.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 6:15 pm

their protagonists seek to develop yet another subtley different and ultimately futile alternative. And that never works either.

Posted by anon on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 6:26 pm

philosphy. It's amazing that someone who tries to pass himself off as authoritative about politics can be so ignorant of basics.

Posted by Eddie on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 6:42 pm

Whatever they have to do or say to preserve rule of the elites, they'll do and say.

When they do that here, the editors allow them to pollute our discourse with their sabotage.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 7:02 pm

what is she? just a plain old Libertarian?

Posted by Guest on Jan. 14, 2013 @ 3:48 pm

Is libertarian socialism considered right-wing now? I must've missed a memo, or we have different definitions of "left-wing."

Posted by Hortencia on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 5:24 pm

how the "left wing" vs. "right wing" divide breaks down more and more the further you move away from talking about the seating of a bi-cameral legislative body, but I do agree that the statement that "Chomsky is not left wing" is questionable. My point was that he is not the most left wing.

I'm also not sure if that's the real marcos, but it may well be. I have gotten a sense that on occasion marcos may sense contradiction with those whom he should seem to naturally expect to find accord; but maybe its just me.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 5:38 pm

Even I, who haven't made a deep study, know that Chomsky isn't the most left-wing; I picked him as a spur-of-the-moment name that I thought everyone would know. My point about folks who would conflate Weiner with someone like Jim DeMint was sadly lost in the resulting debate.

Posted by Hortencia on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 5:51 pm

He's a Marxist-Leninist who favors high taxes, gun control, state control of medicine and always votes a New Deal Demo ticket, the exact opposite of libertarianism. Socialist libertarianism is an oxymoron and Chomsky's still denying Pol Pot's genocide of three million people, half of Cambodia, in three years.
He's only a legend in his mind and to his decreasing number of Cult followers.

Posted by Guest Marcy Fleming on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 4:03 pm

You said it sister!

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 4:18 pm

I never trust a guy who lives only in his head.

Posted by Anon on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 4:32 pm

There are intellectuals all across the spectrum, the left just tries to claim as loud as possible that reality has a liberal bent or some such thing.

I prefer Spiro Agnew's comment on the subject "an effete corps of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals." Intellectuals are often self defined or by their acolytes. Chomsky and Ayn Rand are both "intellectuals," while being batty and worshiped by acolytes.

You should read Paul Johnson's hilarious book "Intellectuals." A true feat of mish mashed far right crazy on the subject of intellectuals.

Posted by matlock on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 5:07 pm

and will blithely tell all manner of lies trying to discredit him.

I'd ask for a citation that Chomsky denied Pol Pot's crimes, except I *know* that is a goddamned lie.

Chomsky *has* pointed out that the crimes of the U.S.'s puppet in Indonesia committed comparable crimes practically without mention in the New York Times and other mainstream media outlets.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 4:55 pm

Oh, wait, what was I thinking?

Posted by Guest on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 5:03 pm

The crimes of Suharto were in no way comparable to the mass genocide practiced by the Khmer Rouge. You and your hero, the linguist-turned-political-critic Chomsky, are simply engaged in your favorite pastime - relativism.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 5:11 pm

to either listen to know-nothing anti-social troll Lucretia Snapples AKA Troll II AKA ??? or they could, like, read Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky's seminal work Manufacturing Consent to learn the particulars alluded to here.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 5:26 pm

Manufacturing something or another, he made a good case that there was good and bad victims.

But in the end the vast majority of his stuff is just finding some way to blame the USA for shit that people would have done anyways. The Ayatolla, Pol Pot, Suharto, etc... would have killed with or without the USA.

It always trips me out that people who think Castro and Che are OK get all worked up.

It makes me think of Karl Popper's observation that with some people there is no wrong answer, you just need to know how to read the tea leaves and do the correct intellectual incantations.

Posted by matlock on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 5:27 pm

Every situation has its own particulars, but in the case of Indonesia and East Timor, the genocide took place with American armaments and other assistance.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 10, 2013 @ 11:26 pm