SF Chronicle's D8 Supervisor Forum on Sept 25th
By Todd Swindell and Michael Petrelis

(We got ahead of ourselves with the post a few days ago about the D8 incumbent waffling on joining this forum. Here's the post about the invitation from the paper.)

John Diaz is one of the top editors for the San Francisco Chronicle and today we received this invitation for him, which we quickly replied to and stated our willingness to participate in the democratic process with the paper:

"Hello Candidates:

"As part of its endorsement process, the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board is inviting District 8 candidates to a 1-hour forum at our offices, 901 Mission Street, on Thursday, Sept. 25, at 11 a.m.

"Each candidate will be allowed a 60-second opening statement, and then we will go with several rounds of questions, to be followed by a 60-second closing statement.

"We would appreciate your participation. Please RSVP via email to Jillian Sullivan of our staff, [addy deleted].

"John Diaz, editorial page editor

"P.S. We also will be sending you a questionnaire (12 question) by the end of this week. We intend to post your responses online for the benefit of voters."

We were especially pleased with those last four words: for the benefit voters.

San Francisco democracy will be tremendously enhanced with this forum and of huge value to District 8 voters. The #ILikeMikeSF team is pleased with this invitation, needless to say.

While the Chronicle's forum is not open to the public and, as far as we know won't be streamed on the web, it's still the only debate any entity in this town is organizing before the election.

In our response, we explained that a stay-away order is in place and Judge Sam Feng has modified exactly for purposes of such newspaper-sponsored group interviews and asked for a few details to present to the judge beforehand, at his request. The paper has agreed to provide us with those details (layout of the room, seating arrangement, etc) tomorrow.

Thank you, Chronicle editors, for this opportunity to bring all of the District 8 candidates together for the September 25th forum.

Wiener Waffles on SF Chron Endorsement Forum
By Todd Swindell and Michael Petrelis
(Cross-posted at our campaign site.)

The San Francisco Chronicle on Aug. 28th called out Gov. Jerry Brown for long refusing then finally relenting to debate his GOP challenger Neel Kashkari, and issued a few grand pronouncements about democracy and incumbents (tinyurl.com/Chron-Democracy-Needs-Debates):

"Face-to-face debates between candidates are central to a healthy democracy. Politicians may want to avoid them - especially incumbents with big leads and hefty war chests - but voters deserve to see a side-by-side comparison between candidates who want to attain or retain key public offices. [...] Voters should be wary of candidates who are reluctant to subject themselves to real scrutiny."

On Monday, we accepted the Chronicle's invitation to participate in an editorial board forum scheduled for Sept. 25th with the District 8 Supervisor and all of his challengers, and we told the paper about a stay-away order that a judge has modified allowing for the incumbent to appear at debates with Michael. The Chronicle didn't keep its promise to provide us with layout and seating details by Tuesday, to present to the judge.

The Bay Area Reporter tonight notes the incumbent's stand on joining the Chronicle's forum (tinyurl.com/BAR-Wiener-Debates):

"Wiener has repeatedly said he will not participate in any forums that include Petrelis. But when asked this week by the B.A.R. if he would skip the Chronicle endorsement meeting should the judge allow Petrelis to attend, Wiener was noncommittal. 'It's too soon to say,' he said. 'The Chronicle is aware of the situation.'"

Yes, we agree with the Supervisor that the paper is aware of the sticky situation and may now be trying to wiggle out of the invitation to us and the editorial board forum, which is why the Chronicle has broken its promise to get back to us yesterday.

Could it be that the Chronicle was ignorant of their favorite Supervisor's adamant refusal to engage in the democratic process of debates with all of his electoral opponents?

Permit us to state we also concur with the paper's contention that voters should be skeptical of politicians unwilling to debate and be scrutinized. It will be very interesting, to say the least, to hear what the Chronicle has to say about the incumbent's reluctance to join a forum with Michael at the table.

Human Rights Commission Debates Hostile HIV Prevention Ads

The Bay Area Reporter ran an insightful and well-rounded front-page article in the first week of 2007, all about promises from leaders of the HIV Prevention Planning Council, the SF health department and community groups to hold debates about needlessly offensive HIV/STD prevention ads.

The debate was supposed to address the hostility of the ads, like the one featuring a young black male in the cross hairs of a sniper's gun, and look at if they've been effective at reducing infections. As is the habit of AIDS Inc, the promise was broken and no debates have taken place and none are likely to happen any time soon.

But I recently went to the SF Human Rights Commission and its gay committee and asked them to address the tone, messages and effective of the ads, and I'm please to report the committee is looking at how to debate this issue.

The commission's gay committee earlier in May posted the minutes from the March meeting, where I raised my concerns about the some of the ads.

Here is the pertinent excerpt from those minutes:

5. Presentation by Michael Petrelis regarding DPH Viagra campaign discussion and possible action item:

Michael Petrelis said that he's been concerned about Dr. Jeffrey Klausner with the S.F. Department of Pubic Health's STD Control Unit for a number of years.

In 1999 a public health ad regarding syphilis described people with the disease as "walking, ticking time bombs," as dangerous things. He feels that this adds stigma to people with the disease and those who are at risk for contracting it, especially sex workers. He's afraid that this would create barriers for people with syphilis in receiving care.

He also referred to an article printed in The Washington Monthly in 2000 in which Dr. Klausner was quoted as saying that people with HIV and AIDS need to be quarantined, that club goers need to be tested for party drugs, and that sex establishments should be closed.

He points out that Dr. Klausner had supported a lawsuit against Pfizer, the manufacturer of Viagra.

Also in February 2007, the Bay Area Reporter printed an editorial in which they said that many gay activists have major issues with Dr. Klausner's repeated attempts to stigmatize gay men for leading irresponsible sex lives. Mr. Petrelis feels that this stigmatization drives people away from health care.

He would like to see the Commission weigh in on these proposals and ads and point out that it is not good public health to convey negative messages and images for sex related diseases.

He expressed his disappointment that others in the STD Control Unit, particularly LGBT people, did not attend tonight's meeting to talk about the thinking behind the ads.

Commissioner Chung said that Dr. Klausner was invited to attend tonight's meeting to respond, that he was unable to attend because he's currently out of town, but he sent an email with attachments explaining his position. She added that there are things we can/cannot do within our purview: we cannot tell another person or office how perform their job, but it is our responsibility to constructively articulate our concerns.

Mr. Petrelis entertained questions from the Committee.

Mr. Brinkin suggested that the Committee either take a more in-depth look at this subject or request that the Commissioners write a letter of concern to the Health Commission about the possible effects these ad campaigns have on one of their constituent communities. Ms. Ulrich asked that the Committee focus on the issue of stigmatization rather than the scientific facts of high-risk behavior and correlations of it.

Let's see how the debate goes forward at the Human Rights Commission. Of course, it would be fantastic if the HIV Prevention Planning Council got around to scheduling its long-promised debate on the ads, and even if both bodies are soon discussing HIV/STD prevention ads, we'll all have much to learn about how the ads are created and evaluated. Who could object to that?

BAR: HRC Should Organize a Presidential Debate on LGBT Issues

There's an excellent, thought-provoking editorial in today's Bay Area Reporter:

The Human Rights Campaign has been under fire in recent weeks from gay bloggers and media (including this space) for wide ranging issues like failing to publicly acknowledge Republican state lawmakers who are supportive of same-sex marriage; the golden parachute given to former President Cheryl Jacques; and the methods it uses to count its members. As arguably the largest LGBT organization in the country, HRC wields political clout, even if that power has been underemployed during the Bush administration.

Now, however, there is a prime opportunity for HRC to flex its muscle and get its groove back: it should urge the 2008 presidential candidates to agree to a debate that would focus primarily on LGBT issues. With the first debate for the Democratic candidates coming up at the end of the month, and more scheduled, now is the time to create such a forum. And we're not talking about campaign surrogates or the candidates' gay staffers – we want to hear from the candidates.

Beyond hosting pricey dinners and closed-door meetings for its members (like when it gave political cover to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who addressed the group but whose visit was announced only after her appearance), HRC should demand the candidates attend a public forum where our issues are debated. The candidates – at least the Democrats, from what we've seen so far – want our vote ...

Will the leaders at HRC heed the advice of this editorial and organize a gay debate for the candidates? If they do, it would benefit all gays and such a debate might even advance an agenda for equality.