Et tu, Donna?

Well, what a surprise, maverick City Councilwoman Donna Frye provided the NO vote to prevent the City of San Diego from joining an amicus brief to the California Supreme Court in support of marriage equality. Democrats Toni Atkins, Scott Peters and Ben Hueso, were joined by independent-Republican Jim Madaffer in voting for the resolution. Frye made some comments about process to explain her vote. But, true blue progressive democrats have to wonder: whose side is she on anyway? This was not a shock to many activists who saw a similar betrayal a few months ago when Frye reversed her position on the Wal-Mart ban and voted to sustain a mayoral veto at the 11th hour. Is Frye plotting a run for Mayor? And if so, who does she plan to attract to her camp with these votes?

On another note, who would think that the progressive block on the City Council – on any vote – would be Atkins, Hueso, Madaffer and Peters?

It must be the heat wave!

When Leadership is Lacking….

You can’t smoke at the beach, but it is okay to get drunk and start a riot. Courtesy of the UT today: “A melee broke out on the beach yesterday afternoon as people started throwing plastic bottles and cans at police officers who were called to break up a large fight.” Here is my favorite part, “Councilman Kevin Faulconer came to the beach and, after speaking with police officials, said he will re-examine the city’s policy governing alcohol consumption at the beach, including restricting it or possibly banning it.”

Too bad, Councilman Faulconer didn’t show any real leadership earlier this year with his Beach Alcohol Task Force. Maybe, yesterday’s unfortunate events could have been avoided had some leadership been demonstrated. Councilman the voters elected you to lead! Not just to show up for photo ops and quotes in the UT after the police had to quell a riot.

Keeping on the Labor Day Theme

Jerry Butkiewicz, secretary-treasurer of the San Diego-Imperial Counties Labor Council, wrote a great op-ed piece about the continued need for workers’ rights to organize in Sunday’s U-T.

Of course, they refused to run it on Monday and burried it in the Insight section, but at least they printed it.

Some Food for Thought on This Morning After Labor Day

VIA Altercation: Here’s a letter to the editor from this morning’s New York Times discussing what the bare minimum to achieve the “American Dream” actually costs today’s economy. Note the person who wrote the letter lives in Wisconsin. Now image what that cost is for a person living here in San Diego.

To the Editor:

Yesterday I was offered a tech-support job for a publicly traded company. It pays a paltry $9 to $10 an hour. When I squawked that this is not a livable wage, I was hesitantly offered $11.75.

There are no benefits, other than the fact that this is a “great company” and would look “good on my résumé.” Oh, did I forget to mention a company picnic each summer?

I added up the cost of the two-hour-a-day commute, a mortgage on an average home, health insurance that kicks in only if I am at death’s door, home and auto insurance and utilities. The break-even point was $10.35 an hour. Take into account laundry, groceries, clothing and other basic expenses and I am working at a deficit. No more movies, concerts, sporting events, family or friends because I simply cannot afford them.

Why are some in this prosperous nation of ours so challenged when it comes to comprehending something as simple as paying workers a livable wage? Pay workers sufficiently and they will be loyal and dependable. Stiff them with low wages and they immediately begin to look for something better. Workers are this nation’s greatest asset.

Or is this all a ploy to hold workers hostage between their low-pay jobs and debt so they don’t interfere with the lifestyles of those who have more?

Charles McEniry Stoughton, Wis., Aug. 29, 2007 [Link]