Greyparrot

"Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards."

This effectively ends the pedo ring of men dressing up as women for Kindergarten storytime to get a chubby around little kids.

The official line goes something like this: Russia is challenging NATO and the “international rules-based order” by invading Ukraine, and the Biden administration needs to deter Russia by providing more security guarantees to the Zelensky government. The official account seizes on Russia’s 2014 annexation of Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula as a starting point for US/Russian relations, and as evidence of Putin’s goals of rebuilding Russia’s long-lost empire.

Russia’s demand that NATO cease its expansion to Russia’s borders is viewed as such an obviously impossible demand that it can only be understood as a pretext to invade Ukraine. Therefore, the US should send weapons and troops to Ukraine, and guarantee its security with military threats to Russia.

The article goes on to describe how the IMF encouraged international corporations to invest in Ukraine, leading to massive amounts of Bribery, Extortion, and Corruption wholly against the interests of the Ukrainian people. Most  of this is well understood in western media.

On February 6, 2014, as the anti-government protests were intensifying, an anonymous party (assumed by many to be Russia) leaked a call between Assistant Secretary of State Nuland and US ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt. The two officials discussed which opposition officials would staff a prospective new government, agreeing that Arseniy Yatsenyuk—Nuland referred to him by the nickname “Yats”—should be in charge. It was also agreed that someone “high profile” be brought in to push things along. That someone was Joe Biden.

Weeks later, on February 22, after a massacre by suspicious snipers brought tensions to a head, the Ukrainian parliament quickly removed Yanukovych from office in a constitutionally questionable maneuver. Yanukovych then fled the country, calling the overthrow a coup. On February 27, Yatsenyuk became prime minister.

At the time the call leaked, media were quick to pounce on Nuland’s saying “Fuck the EU.” The comment dominated the headlines while the evidence of US regime change efforts was downplayed. With the headline “Russia Claims US Is Meddling Over Ukraine,” the New York Times put the facts of US involvement in the mouth of an official enemy, blunting their impact on the audience. The Times later described the two officials as benignly “talking about the political crisis in Kiev” and sharing “their views of how it might be resolved.”

The Washington Post acknowledged that the call showed “a deep degree of US involvement in affairs that Washington officially says are Ukraine’s to resolve,” but that fact rarely factored into future coverage of the US/Ukraine/Russia relationship.

The Washington-backed opposition that toppled the government was fueled by far-right and openly Nazi elements like the Right Sector. One far-right group that grew out of the protests was the Azov Battalion, a paramilitary militia of neo-Nazi extremists. Their leaders made up the vanguard of the anti-Yanukovych protests, and even spoke at opposition events in the Maidan alongside US regime change advocates like McCain and Nuland.

After the violent coup, these groups were later incorporated into the Ukrainian armed forces—the same armed forces that the US has now given $2.5 billion. Though Congress technically restricted money from flowing to the Azov Battalion in 2018, trainers on the ground say there’s no mechanism to actually enforce the provision.  Since the coup, the Ukrainian nationalist forces have been responsible for a wide variety of atrocities in the counterinsurgency war.

Far-right influence has increased across Ukraine as a result of Washington’s actions. A recent UN Human Rights council has noted that “fundamental freedoms in Ukraine have been squeezed” since 2014, further weakening the argument that the US is involved in the country on behalf of liberal values.

Among American neo-Nazis, there’s even a movement aimed at encouraging right-wing extremists to join the Battalion in order to “gain actual combat experience” in preparation for a potential civil war in the US.

In a recent UN vote on “combating glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fueling contemporary forms of racism,” the US and Ukraine were the only two countries to vote no.

The New York Times ran 228 articles that refer to Ukraine, but none of them reference the pro-Nazi elements in Ukraine’s politics or government. The same can be said of the Washington Post’s 201 articles on the topic.

Here is what confuses me about San Francisco.

We have the most liberal, left-wing government & population in the country. We have a $13B budget. And we have 8,000 people sleeping in the rain this week. Can someone please explain this to me?

What do progressives stand for, exactly? I thought it was about making things more fair. About standing up for the little guy. About human rights, equality (equity?), compassion. San Francisco (to me) looks like the least compassionate city on the planet.

The slums of Mumbai look cleaner than the streets of downtown SF. This isn't just the Tenderloin - it's SOMA, parts of the Mission, Dogpatch... We have thousands of people wandering around - looking like they are on the brink of death. This is why ppl use the term Zombie.

I've been a registered democrat for 18 years. I grew up in a Progressive family and went to a Progressive school, and have mostly Progressive friends. Yet what I see in SF - if this what Progressive stands for - I want the opposite.

The words used here: "harm reduction", "housing first", "criminal justice", "social justice", "equity" -- they don't align with what I'm seeing at all. Our strategy might as well be called "harm increased", "housing last", "victim injustice", "social injustice", "unfairness".

Where is our $13B going, exactly? How do we only have 3,000 shelter beds when 8,000 are unsheltered in the streets? How is this an American city.

I'm starting to develop a seriously dark view of the Progressive politicians in charge of our town. They have absolute power - act like a regime, and talk often of how "broken" the system is. Are the homeless their foot soldiers? Mascots? Mercenaries?

You have to wonder, with the funds we have as a city, state & nation - is this situation... on purpose? We saw what SF was capable of when pandemic hit. We had testing sites up in days. Hotels converted into shelter. Funds flowing. Yet here we are... Is this nefarious?

Progressives tend to blame Republicans for almost everything. Yet here we are - not a Republican in sight - and I think we may be the most deranged city on the planet. Nowhere is there such inequality. I have never seen destitution at this scale.

So here are my questions to Progressives -- + What do you stand for? + What do you believe? + What are your strengths as a political group? + Weaknesses? Why, after decades of Progressive rule in SF are 8,000 people in the streets? + Why do we have the highest overdose rate in the nation? + Why do we have the highest property crime rate? + Why do we have fewest children per capita? + What are the biggest "wins" of progressives in SF? + What are progressives most proud of here? + Who are the strongest public servants of the progressive party? + Why do you think we should continue on this path?

Recently I have been having flashbacks to Junior year when I ran for class representative and lost by five votes. My opponent promised candy vending machines, parties - all kinds of fun things. He won, and didn't do a darned thing all year.

Thought experiment -- what would San Francisco look like if Republicans were in charge? If moderates ran things? If we had two party rule instead of one?

Downtown is boarded up. The children of the Tenderloin are begging the Mayor to arrest drug dealers. Our school system is on the brink of state takeover. Our DA is completely over his skis and a defender at heart. We are in crisis. And - yes, we voted for this. We KNOW!

We probably have more "Black Lives Matter" signs up than any city in the nation. 40% of our homeless people are Black. Do their lives matter...? Or is this just about virtue signaling and moral grandstanding?

This past Thursday afternoon I dialed into the Board of Supervisors meeting about the emergency order to refund the police. Our board sat through 10 hours of debate & public comment. It was astonishing. Caller after caller saying "defund the police."

The #1 "advocate" for the homeless, Jennifer Friedenbach - called in to say "Vote no on black lives don't matter!" She is the head of @TheCoalitionSF -- and has for decades fought against shelters - saying they warehouse people. She is for "housing first". Well - here we are.

I would really like to know if @fbach4 stands by her advocacy. I personally believe she is the person most responsible for this tragedy unfolding in our streets. But we are all responsible. We are allowing this insanity.

I'd also like to know why the loudest voices right now against changing our approach are all white progressive women. We have Kate Chatfield from the DA's office, Jennifer Friedenbach from COH, Hilary Ronen of D8. All yelling about defunding the police. What is this about?

Meanwhile our Mayor, who grew up in the projects of SF - and our Chief of Police (@SFPDChief) - two of the most thoughtful, kind & pragmatic people in SF - are asking for funds & help. And they are getting shouted down as racists? This is nuts!

Many people in SF came here to "change the world". They start companies, fight for causes they believe in, recycle & compost, invest in "green" products. This is all wonderful, but what about the humanitarian crisis in our backyard?

I've been thinking a lot recently about the concept of "Civic Duty." What is our responsibility as a citizenry? What is "civil society"? What does it mean to "contribute" to your neighborhood, city, state, nation?

One of my friends recently woke up to find a homeless person sleeping on the front step of her multi-million dollar home. I asked her what she did. "We closed the blinds." I think this is such a metaphor for what's going on here. San Francisco is turning its head.

San Franciscans believe they are righteous because they pledge allegiance to the righteous tribe - Democrats. They believe they are moral because they believe in higher taxes. They believe they are virtuous because they believe in big Government.

I am just so confused. If Progressives believe in big government then why aren't they even doing the bare minimum - the minimum that even F.A. Hayek spoke of in "The Road to Serfdom" in 1944? He is a famous Libertarian, and believed in providing food, shelter & clothing.

I get messages almost daily from ppl who say they are afraid to speak up for fear of professional ramifications. Some say they are even afraid to like my tweets. I'm afraid to ask questions about the vaccine on Twitter... What kind of "freedom" do we stand for out here?

In college I studied totalitarian governments and how they came to power. The similarities I see to many elements of society today are harrowing. The cancel culture, the "wrongthink", the adulation of "experts", the cultishness towards "science", the blind support by party.

We're more worked up over gerrymandering than we are about people dying in our streets. My friends in SF read article after article about Trump - and don't even know who their supervisor is. Since when did local politics become so "pedestrian" so as to not warrant attention?

I've been critiqued for showcasing SF's problems - told that I'm "fueling" the "Fox News Narrative." Accused of using "Trump-like" messaging to rile people up. Am I traitorous for drawing attention to our issues? Is my critique of Progressives unwarranted?

I've been tweeting about SF for about two years now. For a long time people kept asking me what my "goal" was. That question died down a while ago. Perhaps it's become clear? In case it isn't - my goal is to inspire civic engagement & interest in local politics.

My goal is to draw attention to San Francisco's government, issues & policies - because I think we can do better. This is my hometown. I think it's a very special place. San Francisco used to mean something. It stood for something. I was proud to be from here.

But today I feel ashamed. I feel ashamed of our values. I feel ashamed of our group think. I feel ashamed of our lack of civic engagement. I feel ashamed of the inequality. Of our wasted budget. Of the corruption, the grift & the greed.

We have some of the most educated people in the world living here. We have some of the wealthiest most productive companies in human history. We have beautiful homes, views, nature, weather... This should be a beacon of liberalism. This should be a city on a hill...

I'm tweeting because I'm trying to understand how things went so wrong. How we earned ourselves the nickname "Gotham." How our downtown streets started to look like a scene out of a dystopian movie. How we labeled a class of destitute people "zombies."

I have a hunch it has something to do with political tribalism... Mark Twain wrote, "To lodge all power in one party and keep it there is to insure bad government and the sure and gradual deterioration of the public morals.” Is this what's happening here...?

I'm exploring these issues because I don't want to see the rest of our country look like SF. What's happening here should be a warning about what happens when people pick a side & hate-vote against others. I'm considering pivoting my company, to focus on "the middle path."

What does it look like to be "radically moderate"? What does it mean to put political tribalism aside & work together? Is it possible? What does it look like to study the other side? To challenge your beliefs?

Why have I never learned about the case for gun rights? Or about the values of Islam? What are the arguments against abortion? Why do so many people not want to take the vaccine? Why am I not allowed to ask these questions without being accused of "doing harm"?

This week I'm doing a lot of thinking, writing & reading. My friends are posting on Instagram from their luxury hotels in Mexico & ski resorts. I put them all on mute. Something called to me this week to hunker down. I've been driving in the rain and thinking...

I'm trying to figure out why I care so much about all this - and why I'm spending so much time on Twitter. I think it's because I am trying to work something out. Trying to figure out how this relates to my company. Trying to see if I can find a way to merge it all together.

I *think* it's something about moderate values or moderation. Perhaps it's about balance, or a "middle path". Civil society? Civic duty? Civilization? Free thinking? Contrarian thought? Discourse?

My mind is swirling a bit. Could use some help & insight. I'm clearly quite upset about what I'm seeing in my backyard - both here in SF - but also more broadly in our country. If you have any ideas, or you relate - please do share. 🙏

Thank you for reading.

* Kamala Harris: She's undoubtedly struggled as vice president but she's still the most likely Democrat not named Biden to wind up as the Democratic nominee in 2024.

* Phil Murphy: The record of New Jersey governors running for president isn't great of late (sorry, Chris Christie!) but Murphy could use the next few years of his governorship as a testing ground for some national policies for the party.

* J.B. Pritzker: Pritzker has two things going for him -- 1) He's the governor of a major Midwestern state (Illinois) and 2) he's very, very rich.

* Stacey Abrams: Abrams talked openly about running in 2020 before passing on the race; but she needs to win the Georgia governor's mansion in 2022 before thinking too much about 2024.

Who is your favorite horse?