Artists say vote for Campos

|
(54)

By Sara Jean Yaste

OPINION David Campos stands up for the underdogs. And in this current state of capitalism U$A, we the people need to give power only to leaders who won't abuse it for personal profit. Foucault once said "society must be defended." Campos defends that society, and was granted a valid power from the people of San Francisco, based on actually helping us and being trusted, not just being a political yes person, like so many other modern politicians seem to be. Most politicians are all too eager to grant favors in exchange for shiny objects.

As some of you may or may now know, Campos is running for the 17th State Assembly District seat, which would enable him to create legislation at the state level. Campos shows that he is a man of the people by creating legislation that increases payouts for folks unjustly displaced by Ellis Act evictions, as well as giving displaced residents priority for affordable housing units as they become available. He champions the underdogs of the art scene by supporting legislation that enables emerging promoters to continue operating, without having to purchase $1 million insurance policies that are currently required of larger concert promoters. Basically, Campos is on the side of ensuring good times may still be had in SF, and that we don't fall into the culturally disadvantaged realms of whitebread blandness that strangled vitality in suburbia for decades.

Campos is running against Divide Chiu for this seat. Seemingly, both candidates uphold progressive ideals, but in today's tepid political waters, trying to stay informed often feels more like watching a bloated puppet show with talking heads, rather than participating in a genuine process of civic engagement. The solution? In my humble opinion, in order to really separate the fakers from the real, one must follow the money. Case in point, Campos proves his integrity and commitment to everyday people from all walks of life, in his refusal to accept cash from the financial industry (read: banks). He also has accepted only $82,000 from locally based real estate developers, who have committed to building affordable housing as well as market-rate housing (ex: the old Mission Theater project). Chiu, on the other hand, shows his true colors (they always say "money talks" right??) by accepting $34,000 from the finance industry, and $143,000 from out-of-state real estate developers.

Chiu promotes himself as being someone who can "get things done" in office. But that's a pandering tired cliché at this point and it's offensive that someone would insult our intelligence by using such tired rhetoric as a means to gain our trust and confidence. Yet Campos' background alone (he was an undocumented immigrant from Guatemala's civil war, who arrived speaking no English as a child, then later went on to graduate from Stanford University and later Harvard Law), shows that he is a true underdog who overcame adversity and has the capacity, resolve, and integrity to continue fighting on our behalf (yes, this writer identifies as a non-commodified emerging artist, aka underdog).

Campos represents those who actually pulling themselves up by their boot straps, as the saying goes, in reality. He demonstrates strength of character and values in not accepting funds from shady interests (unlike Chiu) and continues to help the people who truly need it, those who are unjustly displaced and in desperate need of housing in the community that is their long-term home.

Comments

Your rationale for voting for Campos is that he has "only" accepted $82,000 from real estate developers while Chiu has accepted $143,000?

Posted by The Commish on May. 28, 2014 @ 7:47 am

Lol. They're artists not mathematicians.

Posted by Guest on May. 29, 2014 @ 9:56 pm

please mind the context that the $82K Campos accepted came "from locally based real estate developers, who have committed to building affordable housing."

whereas Chiu's campaign donations from real-estate developers are mostly, if not all, out of state...then there's the amount of $$ he's accepted from big banks, of which Campos has accepted ZERO

Posted by Jean on May. 30, 2014 @ 12:31 pm

Don't be willfully ignorant, the type of developer is critical. Local ones who do community benefit agreements and have ample affordable units, vs out-of state luxury developers with no CBAs and insufficient affordable units.

Posted by Guest on May. 30, 2014 @ 7:44 pm

I am an artist who will NOT be voting for Campos.

How are we supposed to ignore his vote which allowed an admitted domestic abuser to continue to be the Sheriff of San Francisco?

Posted by SF Artist on May. 28, 2014 @ 11:34 am

Hi SF Artist, thanks for weighing in. What kind of art do you make? Have you shown anywhere recently?

Re: your comment & domestic abuse, I too am a domestic abuse survivor, and feel I can speak to this issue with some clarity, from multiple perspectives. The main issue with the sheriff vote on behalf of Campos, was about not extending unlimited power to the mayor to remove officials from office, that the people elected. Of course what the sheriff did was wrong, but using that issue as a tool to give unprecedented power to the mayor, would be a grave mistake.

In effect, what Campos did was risky, as he knew it would make him less popular and vulnerable to attacks from other less scrupulous politicians....but he risked his political popularity to limit power of politicians, which I wholeheartedly stand behind.

Posted by Jean on May. 28, 2014 @ 11:50 pm

For me it's a matter of common sense and equal justice - not an abstract notion of mayoral power. Would you making this argument if Scott Weiner admitted to domestic abuse? Be honest.

I am primarily a painter in acrylics. My last (group) show was about 2 years ago. I have a studio in the Mission.

Posted by SF Artist on May. 29, 2014 @ 9:17 am

thanks SF Artist, fwiw, I believe the entirety of politics is an abstract constructed by human society...so abstraction is always what is being considered....when dealing with politics specifically....

the reality is, that the sheriff vote is not black & white, much like hardly anything is, but rather steeped in nuance, and to really examine these issues in the light of TRUE REALITY, nuance must be acknowledged.

Posted by Jean on May. 30, 2014 @ 12:28 pm

If it were Wiener instead of Campos/Mirkarimi, the SFBG would have run a story today (election day) similar to this one about domestic abuse:

http://www.thebolditalic.com/articles/5012-i-survived-an-abusive-relatio...

Posted by Guest on Jun. 03, 2014 @ 1:51 pm

You are totally full of sh*t, from multiple perspectives.

So really who gives a cr@p that Mirkarimi admitted domestic violence, Composts vote was about culling the ruthless power of the Mayor (power specifically granted to him by the city charter)

I have a hard time understanding how a victim of domestic violence gives a pass to a politician so they can feel better about "the limitless power of politicians"
I think you are lying.

Posted by Becky Backside on May. 30, 2014 @ 1:58 pm

Primarily it is your half-assed lie that "Mirkarimi admitted to domestic violence," but your attempt at confusion concerning the point made that Mayor Lee and his cronies illegally sought to overturn an election is a close runner-up.

It seems that I've seen cogent points made by you on other issues, but you seem to have a blind (rage) spot with regard to DV; it appears that actual guilt or innocence does not figure into your thinking.

Posted by lillipublicans on May. 30, 2014 @ 2:19 pm

Becky, you seem to be contradicting yourself. Are you saying that it doesn't matter about the domestic violence on behalf of the sheriff when you say "so who really gives a crap that Mirkarimi admitted domestic violence" ? For me personally, the reason I am pardoning Campos' vote is because I feel that personal tragedies should not be used as an excuse to extend "limitless power" to a politician. I for one, despite my personal history, am trying to separate my personal tragedies for what is ethical for society on the whole. Women are victimized and used by the power elite all too often to advance unjust causes; for example: see Chiu's use of someone's private life to promote his political agenda, or see certain politician's abuse of power regarding reproductive rights, etc.

All I'm saying, is that the sheriff vote is not a black & white issue, and Chiu is unethically trying to oversimplify it in order to garner more votes. He doesn't seem to care at all about the feelings of the woman, who is still being made to suffer publicly, for something that i'm sure she would much rather move on from, as evidenced by Chiu dragging her name and story, through the public mud, again and again.

Posted by Jean on May. 30, 2014 @ 2:19 pm

I'm trying really hard to figure out whether you are real, or you are parody of the typical progressive response. When I say "who cares", I am mocking you.
If you are not a parody, I maintain that you are a liar regarding your own "personal tragedy". At what point does your willingness to excuse illegal behavior trump your obsession with sticking it to the mayor? If mirkarimi had pushed his wife off a cliff, would you still oppose the use of "limitless power" (again, hyperbole, as the power is specifically granted and limited by the city charter) due to a personal tragedy?

Domestic violence is never a personal affair

Posted by Becky Backside on May. 30, 2014 @ 6:39 pm

There would be no extrajudicial mechanism to remove him from office! What if some of Lee's political enemies--mind you, in actuality they all play surprisingly nice!--made up lies saying the Lee had pushed his wife off a cliff?

Here, check it out. It would go like this: Lee has pushed his wife off a cliff! Land's End! It's true and he *admitted* it!

Sure does make a compelling case for extra-legal reversal of an election, doesn't it? But no! It wouldn't be necessary because if Lee actually did admit to pushing his wife to her death--if Lee actually were convicted of murder--then his incarceration would likely be all the impetus necessary for him to resign.

See? The difference in regard to Ross Mirkarimi is that he didn't confess and was not convicted of any domestic violence. Ross Mirkarimi was convicted of turning the van around.

When Ross Mirkarimi hung that U-turn in order to avoid having a public argument with his spouse, he committed "false imprisonment" according to the phenomenal stretch put forward by the Boy Wonder from Mesa Arizona George Gascon.

Posted by lillipublicans on May. 30, 2014 @ 9:57 pm

Oh, becky-ass!

You keep on telling yourself that.

Posted by marcos on May. 31, 2014 @ 9:29 am

Oh Marcos, isnt there some random stranger that you need to take an unprotected load from?

Posted by Becky Backside on May. 31, 2014 @ 10:00 am

She isn't driven by bitterness and envy, like some others I could mention.

Posted by Guest on May. 31, 2014 @ 10:03 am

Just homophobia.

Posted by marcos on May. 31, 2014 @ 11:08 am

please. calling out your rampant promiscuity is not homophobia. I'm a homo myself.

Posted by Becky Backside on May. 31, 2014 @ 11:33 am

As pejorative it is homophobic, ass hat.

Posted by marcos on May. 31, 2014 @ 12:08 pm
Posted by Kurt Loader on May. 31, 2014 @ 3:12 pm

--which follows on to the "gender liberation" and "gender-liberated" terms I also did not invent--is a more useful term?

In any case, the comment advertises the truth that one may judge a person by the enemies he keeps, and the depths to which they will sink; and also conveys the suggestion of a cloyingly suppressed self-hatred.

Posted by lillipublicans on May. 31, 2014 @ 12:15 pm

Jane Kim also LOVES domestic abuse but she brown noses the tech overlords! So she has nothing to fear. We already know that TECHIES don't hire brown people so Campos is out of favor with Chiu's techie Republican friends.

Posted by GuestAmy Wong on May. 30, 2014 @ 7:41 pm

in these laws who did less than what loudmouth Mirk did, and doesn't have the cash and sycophants to get by.

Progressives wrote these laws and now complain when they are used on one of their own?

Posted by Guest on May. 31, 2014 @ 11:55 am

Jane Kim also voted for the admitted domestic abuser to continue to be sheriff. But no outrage from David Chiu and his band of billionaire Republicans. Chiu will say anything and do anything to win.

Posted by GuestAmy Wong on May. 30, 2014 @ 7:38 pm

Campos' camp keeps bringing up Chiu's Jane Kim endorsement like it's a strong counter argument for Campos' vote to keep his friend in office.

Chiu endorses Jane Kim in her election because who is she running against? She's the best candidate in her race. Obviously, Chiu doesn't feel the same in his OWN race against Campos.

That doesn't mean he endorses her Mirkarimi vote. In fact, he's stated that he vehemently disagrees with her on it.

As far as the dumb conspiracy theory that it would have been a mayoral power grab, the BOS would still be allowed to vote in future cases to determine whether an ouster is appropriate. The FAR LEFT will do anything to excuse Campos' Mirk vote.

Posted by Guest on May. 31, 2014 @ 11:07 am
Posted by Guest on May. 28, 2014 @ 12:05 pm

in capitalist America, and other societies that critically under-appreciate making time for the expression of individual and collaborative reflection (i.e. art), yes, I believe "art" is viewed as something for the leisure class, and thus constitutes something of privilege. However, I think this is a distorted view, and do not personally think of artists as "privileged," as myself and my contemporaries make great material sacrifice in order to live a less commodified and more reflective lifestyle. However, I'm a musician, so commodifying my art is (thankfully, regretfully...?) is no longer much of an option anyway....

Posted by Jean on May. 30, 2014 @ 12:35 pm

over and above who any other class of workers vote for.

What makes artists special in that regard?

Posted by Guest on May. 30, 2014 @ 12:59 pm

Ah, I see. Please forgive me if you got that impression. In no way do I feel that artists should be prioritized over anyone. The "artist vote" is simply relevant to this particular piece, because it's written by an artist who supports David Campos; largely due to the legislation he is currently writing re: helping smaller promoters and emerging artists maintain traction in highly monetized arenas, basically by not requiring small promoters to pay for $1 million insurance policies in order to put on smaller events (attendance less than 100).

Posted by Jean on May. 30, 2014 @ 2:25 pm

In case you have any doubts to the contrary, please believe me when I tell you that you had and have nothing to apologize for. The problem is not with your writing style or content. The problem is with the nature of commentary here on the SFBG forum.

See, the forum is saturated with these critters we refer to as "trolls." Think of them as evil and dishonest art critics who misrepresent the nature of your art and what you've said about your art in order to attack you for no other reason than to express their "will to power."

Of course, you may have cannily hit on a good tack by simply playing them at face value, because it afforded you an opportunity to drive home your meaning once again; anyhow, the trolls typically descend from intentional "misunderstanding" into full-bore personal invective once you attempt to "straighten them out."

Posted by lillipublicans on May. 30, 2014 @ 3:21 pm

Let me get this straight. The person who has:

A) gotten booted from THIS site for putting up his dumb shit "troll barriers" whenever someone made a point he disagreed with and was more prolific than those Nigerian spammers telling people how to get their exes back. This site lets people say almost anything and you have to be a real turd in the punch bowl to get booted
B) calls out someone he doesn't like for posting under "Guest" and then promptly goes on to write several posts under "Guest"
C) thinks his banning from the SFGate website was all some evil conspiracy against him that manipulated the "flag comment" when in reality it was because he was an arrogant, pompous, obnoxious asshole who insulted anyone he disagreed with and people got fed up with his bullshit
D) thinks the evil conspiracy wiped out all his previous posts because they felt he was a "threat to their power" when in reality it's SFGate's policy to erase all content from an account that has been banned
E) thinks so highly of himself that he feels he should've been paid for all the claptrap nonsense he posted on SFGate
F) refers to himself in the third person. How big of a douchebag does a person have to be to do that? But the people who do that have usually accomplished SOMETHING. Lilli's sole accomplishment is to irk both sides of the political spectrum by being such a jagoff. He's such a dickhole that there are some on the left who have speculated that he's a conservative plant to make progressives look bad.

is trying to teach people about "troll behavior" and how evil they are. Well I suppose you are THE expert on trolling. So there's that...

Posted by Guest on May. 30, 2014 @ 3:56 pm

decency that it is perhaps entirely possible that he can suspend credible disbelief and actually believe that he is the focal point of a vast right-wing conspiracy.

Oh, and a left-wing conspiracy too, since SFBG also banned him for trolling.

Posted by Guest on May. 30, 2014 @ 4:29 pm

Wow, you completely proved Lili's point with this. Congrats.

Posted by Guest on May. 30, 2014 @ 4:33 pm

Oh wait, you are Lilli, posting as Guest.

Ha.

Posted by Guest on May. 30, 2014 @ 5:08 pm

Thanks for doing the scut work of reading the whole thing over and synopsizing.

Posted by lillipublicans on May. 30, 2014 @ 8:09 pm

Can you refute ANYTHING that I called you out on Lilli? Did you not do anything that I wrote?

Posted by Guest on May. 31, 2014 @ 1:49 am

you attack Chiu in one sentence for using cliches, and then follow it up by saying that Campos pulled himself up by his bootstraps?

Posted by guest on May. 29, 2014 @ 10:15 am

Lol, that's some oddly Republican-esque rhetoric there too.

Posted by Guest on May. 29, 2014 @ 9:57 pm

Point taken. The absurdity/banality of it all is what I was trying to point out.

Posted by Jean on May. 30, 2014 @ 12:38 pm

despite the fact he and his family had been in the United States (illegally) for years and that he graduated from a Los Angeles-based high school. He took the spot of a deserving third-world person-of-color, someone for whom attending Stanford could have changed their whole lives. That was the first but not the last time he made clear that it's really "All about David."

Posted by Guest on May. 30, 2014 @ 12:54 pm

"Writer, musician, and creative social interventionist"?

Funny, her linkedin says Writer / Educator / Strategist.

http://www.linkedin.com/in/sarajeanyaste

Posted by Guest on May. 29, 2014 @ 9:59 pm

Campos is a total idiot.
I'm an artist - there is no way I'd vote for him.

Posted by SF Resident on May. 29, 2014 @ 10:35 pm

tip-top, my good man. I too am an artiste. of course I'm speaking of the Art of the Deal. do you read Trump? you simply must.

Posted by ChristianPatriotLandowner on May. 29, 2014 @ 11:04 pm

Campos will not get my vote solely because he stood behind Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi and his right to abuse his partner and keep his job. Campos can mewl all the mealy-mouthed excuses he wants but in the end he enabled a spousal abuser.

Posted by Guest on May. 30, 2014 @ 12:51 pm

sounds like a perfect reason for a one-issue voter such as yourself to vote against him or at least abstain from voting, but there's another way of looking at it isn't there?

Oh yes, there's *quite* a bit of nuance that your one-issue/one-dimensional assessment remains willfully blind to.

Because Ross Mirkarimi was never shown to have abused his wife. His long-time ex-girlfriend wrote a long Op Ed--one which the sherrif's enemies at the San Francisco Chronical refused to run--explaining how he was markedly different from what his detractors were trying to portray.

No, what Campos did was not "enable a wife abuser," but rather he stood against a political connivance orchestrated by Willie Brown's cabal of anti-progressive politicians and political operatives. Campos stood with the people and stood for justice.

The longer Eliana Lopez and Ross Mirkarimi maintain their amicable relationship--and I have no personal knowledge, but I'd imagine his enemies would love to find the least thing to talk about in that regard--the more those who clamored for his ouster have egg on their faces. I think that really irks them.

I was never the huge fan of Ross Mirkarimi that I found myself becoming once hardball power politics sought to divide him from his wife and his preciously young child; and to nullify his election as sheriff by stripping him of his income and putting a mayoral appointee in his place.

San Francisco's power elite sought to overturn a popular election they didn't like on the pretense of being tough on domestic violence, but most progressives keenly sense truth behind that lie when we consider the case of still-serving Joane-Haynes White.

Campos refusal to sustain the illegal judgment by an Ethics Commission acting in contravention of past policy and stacked with insiders was not just the right action and a proper representation of law. It was courageous precisely because of the sort of duplicitous attacks he is not subjected to: every hit against him actually serves as a feather in his cap.

Thank you David Campos.

Posted by lillipublicans on May. 30, 2014 @ 2:06 pm

"courageous" a vote to allow an admitted wife beater to keep their law enforcement job. That's what passes for progressive courage these days.

When has Campos ever defied the wishes of the progressive junta as enunciated by fuhrer Steven Jones? Doing so would define "courage." His vote on the Mirkarimi saga was nothing more than cowardice.

Posted by Guest on May. 30, 2014 @ 2:42 pm

trumps "his admissions" you lyingly claim he's made.

Posted by lillipublicans on May. 30, 2014 @ 3:11 pm

So amiable, that she left for Venezuela the minute she could

Posted by Becky Backside on May. 30, 2014 @ 6:48 pm

I mean, do you think that the foreign-born wife should have eschewed all travel to her native country as proof of her committment to her American husband and family--even if her father was ill? Not exactly a feminist, are you?

I don't suppose you are willing to register the fact that Eliana Lopez has been quite visibly active in the local art scene over the past year? Perhaps you'd like to pretend she's phoning that in?

Not sure what your angle is on Mirkarimi, but I am convinced that a substantial component of the animosity shown towards him is simple and pure anti-progressive hatred.

Ross Mirkarimi's life experiences as an underdog and outsider and fighter for the common man just doesn't fit into the Gascon/Lee/Brown mold of insiders and their sychophants. That *is* the right wing in San Francisco, and their derangement against that which is to the left of them--that which they do not control or understand--is the same derangement exhibited on the right wing website I frequent.

You can't hate that much and maintain any appearance for rational capacity.

It simply doesn't seem possible to have that much animosity against the man without you being a sort of a right wing nut.

Posted by lillipublicans on May. 30, 2014 @ 7:54 pm

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.