AUSTIN — The funeral for Susan Kay Knowlton will be at 2 p.m. Saturday at Crane Community Chapel in Austin, with the Rev. Dale Christiansen officiating. Interment will be in Oakwood Cemetery, Austin.
Susan Knowlton, 63, of Austin, died Sunday (Nov. 2, 2008) at Saint Marys Hospital in Rochester.
She was born Aug. 27, 1945, in Austin. She began her career as a Licensed Practical Nurse and later graduated as a Registered Nurse from Austin Community College.

She is survived by her son, Robert Haaland of San Francisco; three sisters, Marjorie Anderson of Inver Grove Heights, Minn., Mary Jane Knowlton of Rochester and Carol (Richard) Warfield of Austin; and three brothers, Richard (Nancy) Knowlton of Vail, Colo., Robert (Joan) Knowlton of Scottsdale, Ariz., and Gary (Mary) Knowlton of Prior Lake, Minn. Other survivors include nieces and nephews, Candace Fish, Cassandra Holmstrom, Peggy Swanson, Cindy Myers, James Flannery, Mark Warfield, Rich Warfield, Michelle Tomasulo, Jackie Lopez-Ona, Tom Knowlton, Debbie Hodge, Scott Knowlton, Kimberly Rice, Claudia Knowlton-Chike, David Knowlton, Julie Wham, Bill Knowlton and Steve Knowlton. She was preceded in death by her parents, Lyle and Rosella (Bothun) Knowlton.

Visitation will be an hour before the service at Crane Community Chapel.

Memorials are preferred to Mayo Clinic Development.

The corner happens to be a block and a half from the Eric Quezada for Supervisor office, and we could not let them spew hate unchallenged.

Over the next hour, No on 8 people showed up one by one and or two by two. By the time the bigots got tired and left, they were outnumbered by people with official and hand-made No signs.

There was a pretty sharp racial divide in both the two sides of the protest and the reactions of passing drivers. Many of the No protesters were white, but almost all of the Yes people and the drivers who honked in support were Latino or African American.

There were exceptions, of course, like Eric’s mom, a grandmother against Prop 8:

Unfortunately, the press of election work leaves us no opportunity to upgrade our software. The site may be flaky or inconsistent until after the election, at which point we will return with election analysis, new writers, and upgraded software.

In the meantime, Kim’s farewell post was ironically a casualty of the security flaws. I’ve reproduced it below, but we certainly wish Kim well in her new endeavor:

Uptopia-Read It Quick Before This Post Mysteriously Disappears

My posts have been disappearing for the last month. So I have created my own blog-here is the link: Link to Kim’s new blog

During the Depression, the federal government created over 100 planned settlements for people who were displaced due to the economic downturn. The first settlement was opened in 1937 in Greenbelt, MD-about 20 minutes from Washington D.C.

To celebrate their status, the City of Greenbelt holds the Utopia Film Festival each year. This year, the films included:

Alaska Far Away-One of Roosevelt’s planned communities were in Palmer, Alaska (which is not too far from Wassila). His administration recruited 200 families from upper Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin. The 200 families were given free passage to Alaska, 40 acres and a loan of $3,000. But when the settlers arrive, the tents were not set up. The settlers also found that many of the lots were not cleared-and a good portion of the first year was spent clearing the land for plowing. The Roosevelt administration also didn’t have a doctor at the site-and when children began to die from a polio-like disease, families began to move out. The historian in the film, Jim Fox pointed out that the families that survived were ones that were able to find a cash stream-either with a job in town, blacksmithing, greenhouses, etc. The filmmakers, Paul Hill and Joan Juster are from San Francisco. Peter Coyote is the narrator.

At Home in Utopia-A 750 family apartment cooperative called the “Coops” was created by a group of immigrants who wanted to create a workers’ paradise in 1929. They created clubs for themselves and their children. They created a library and field trips. There was even a section that housed primarily Communist members. The “Coops” was one of the first housing complexes in New York to integrate. Its decline began when the residents voted against a $1 per room per month rent hike in order to afford buying back the building from receivership. The primary focus of the film is given to three men who later grew up to be union organizers. The film was shown at the Castro this year as part of the San Francisco Film Festival.
Blood of Jesus-According to Kent Moore, recently retired Head of the Media Collection for Prince George’s Public Library System, the Blood of Jesus was the most financially successful “race” films. Filmed in the early 1940’s, it is a morality tale of a woman who must choose between sin in the Big City and living a virtuous life in the country.

Boyd Negro School-was created by the community of Boyd in upper Montgomery County. The film is a joyful film with the former students reliving their school days. The heroine of the film was Miss Gilles. Filmed before she died in the 1980’s. Miss Gilles recounted how she didn’t know where Boyd was when she accepted the job offer. Nor was she aware that she would have to teach children in grades 1-7 in an one room classroom. But Miss Gilles recounted, “I was there for 36 years and I loved it.”

Heaven On Earth-The film was supposed to be on permaculture. But it mainly focused on a lecturer who travels the Himalayas and India. Permaculture is briefly defined, but they provided very few examples of how permaculture is being applied in the farms that the lecturer is visiting throughout the film.

In the Panyard-is a delightful film about community steel pan bands in Trinidad. The filmmaker joins a local community band during a study abroad semester and then works with 20 of the musicians to perform two of his original compositions. It was enjoyable to see the musicians enjoy creating music

On the Trail of Jack Thorp-Susan Gervasi, a resident of Greenbelt, created this film about a cowboy who collected and wrote authentic cowboy songs. Even though John Lomax and others have gotten the lion share of attention, the film makes a good argument that Thorp was the originator of the idea of writing authentic cowboy songs down for the world to enjoy. Unfortunately, Mr. Thorp was never paid for his efforts.

Redemption Stone-The film recounts Tom Lewis’ struggle. He started out as one of 14 children with a father who Tom Lewis recounted “had a drinking problem” in North Carolina. After a stint in Army and New York, he became a police officer in Washington D.C. After retiring from the police force, Lewis started with $1,000 in 1990, the “Fishing School” which provides programs for the children in a high poverty area of D.C. President Bush used the facilities of “Fishing School” to announce his faith-based initiative program. Mr. Lewis answered questions at the end of the showing-and in the audience, his wife, his son, his daughter and his grandchildren were there to cheer him on. Mr. Lewis noted that the initial $1,000 came from his wife who ran a tailoring business.

This American Gothic-The film centered on Eldon, Iowa’s efforts to open a visitors’ center. The town is the location of the house in the “American Gothic” painting that was done by Grant Wood. Wood was teaching in Eldon when he saw the house on the outskirts of the town, He then used his dentist and his sister as the model for the man and the woman in the painting. The quality of the film was marred by lighting errors and editing mistakes.

When Kiran Met Karen-Manan Katohora wrote, produced and directed this feature length presentation. Kiran is a Bollywood actress who self destructs at a press conference in NewYork. She runs to her off-on fiancee who has this huge home in Long Island. (Part of the fun was seeing the house.) Kiran mets Karen, a journalist and after some bonding time, they fall into bed. Soon Kiran is betrayed by both the fiancee and the journalist-but ultimately ends up with the journalist.

On Thursday, CSPAN aired its first (and probably only) debate of third party candidates this year. The debate was held at the Mayflower with approximately 85 people in attendance.
The debate was between Nader and Charles Baldwin who is the Constitution Party candidate. Charles Baldwin noted that he was pro-life and against same sex marriage. Throughout the debate, Baldwin would say, “When Charles Baldwin is president…” Baldwin’s plans are to appoint Ron Paul as secretary of the treasury, and eliminate the Federal Reserve Bank, the Internal Revenue Service and deficit spending.
Nader recited statistics on how many citizens were dissatisfied with the two party system. Nader was more grounded in reality than Baldwin-he appeared to realize that he wasn’t going to win on Nov. 4. But Nader noted Nader/Gonzalez’s support of universal healthcare, withdrawal of troops in Iraq and impeachment of Bush and Cheney for war crimes.
It was great to see that CSPAN was airing a debate of third party candidates. It is unfortunately that they waited till the end of the campaign season.

Eric Quezada First Candidate to Run Live Streaming Debate Coverage – Forum this Wednesday

Finally: live streaming coverage of the District 9 Supervisorial race!

This election’s last District 9 Supervisor candidates’ forum, Wednesday 6:30 – 8:30 p.m., will be available live online for the first time, courtesy of Eric Quezada’s campaign. In an effort to increase voter access and awareness in the election’s final week, Quezada will stream the forum live on the campaign’s website, www.ericquezada.com, for all to see.

Using Kyte.tv, a web-based streaming video platform, Quezada’s website will feature the live debate, along with an online chat for viewers. Campaign staff will be available to interact and answer questions from viewers, who are also encouraged to chat and engage with each other as the forum unfolds.

The live web coverage is part of the Quezada campaign’s effort to increase voter access and awareness in the election’s final week, as people make their final decisions on candidates and ballot measures. Voters are also encouraged to attend the event, held at the Precita Center, 534 Precita (between Florida and Alabama).

This Wednesday’s forum comes amid a surging finish by the Quezada campaign, which has mounting support in its fundraising and volunteer/field campaign efforts. This week Quezada picked up the endorsement of the National Organization for Women’s San Francisco chapter, to go with a strong recent endorsement from the Bay Guardian (#2), Asian Week, and the New Bayview, among others.

—
Quezada for Supervisor www.ericquezada.com

For More Information:
415-285-2154
campaign@ericquezada.com

WHAT: The Harvey Milk Club, SF Pride at Work, and the Alice B. Toklas Club will be affirming their support of Clean Energy and Marriage Equality with a rally in the Castro in support of local Proposition H and against state-wide Proposition 8.

In addition to the millions that PG&E is spending to defeat prop H (the Clean Energy Act) the electricity giant has pumped hundred of thousands of dollars into the No on 8 campaign (to preserve marriage equality). PG&E’s cynical attempt to curry favor in the LGBTQ community has been overshadowed by the overwhelming support prop H has received from LGBT leaders, community members and democratic clubs.

WHO: Speakers will include:

Assemblyman Mark Leno,
Former PUC General Manager Susan Leal,
Supervisors Ross Mirkarimi, Tom Ammiano*, Bevan Dufty*, Aaron Peskin*
Representatives of Harvey Milk Club, SF Pride at Work and Alice B Toklas Club
(* invited)

WHEN: Sunday, October 26tt, 11am (program at 11:15am)

WHERE: Castro Street Muni Station, Castro and Market

Invite your friends. We will provide the wedding cake.

Protest & Picket at Board of Realtors, 301 Grove St. (corner of Franklin & Grove Streets), October 23 (a week from Thursday) 5:30 PM

This November, whether the Board of Supervisors remains pro-tenant, pro-labor, and progressive will be determined by what happens in the swing Supervisors Districts of 1, 3 and 11. These districts are open with current Sups. McGoldrick, Peskin & Sandoval termed out. These are moderate districts which could go either way—if we want to maintain our majority on the Board we can’t afford to lose even one (see analysis below). Rent control is at stake here—our rent control law is just a local ordinance which could be weakened or ended by a 6-5 vote of the Board of Supervisors!

Landlords & Realtors know this too. They’re spending hundred of thousands of dollars against the pro-tenant candidate in District 1 (Eric Mar), District 3 (David Chiu) and District 11 (John Avalos) trying to buy this election for their candidates: Sue Lee in D1, Joseph Alioto in D3 and Aasha Safai in D11.

Join us next Thursday, 10/23 as we protest & picket the realtors and landlords who are trying to subvert democracy. Gather at Board of Realtor at corner of Franklin & Grove Streets at 5:30 PM.

See the excellent article and chart in the Bay Guardian showing how this election is being bought. http://www.sfbg.com/entry.php?entry_id=7308&catid=&volume_id=398&issue_id=401&volume_num=43&issue_num=03

Analysis of district races from Tenant Times
With 3 Swing Districts Open This Fall, Board of Supervisors Could Turn Against Tenants, Endangering Rent Control & Other Renter Protections; Districts 1, 3 & 11 Key to Our Future Here
Having soundly defeated Prop 98 in June, we’ve all felt comfortable that rent control is safe. But an equally serious threat looms ahead. Rent control is simply a local ordinance, not a state law. As such it can be amended or repealed by a simple vote of the Board of Supervisors. A simple 6-5 vote would do it. For many years, tenants have enjoyed a pro-tenant majority on the Board, even if at times a slim majority. Right now, we can consistently count on 6 votes, can usually get 7 votes and can occasionally get 8 votes.
This November, 3 of our consistent Supervisors are termed out: Jake McGoldrick in District 1, Aaron Peskin in 3 and G Gerardo Sandoval in 11. It wouldn’t be such a big deal except that these three all represent “swing” districts which include a mixture of tenants and homeowners and high and low incomes and all analysis concludes that these districts (1 is the Richmond, 3 includes Russian Hill, Chinatown & North Beach and 11 is the Excelsior) could easily elect either a pro-tenant or pro-landlord Supervisor in any given year.
When District elections were brought back in 2000, tenants won a clean sweep of these 3 seats. But that was due largely to strong backlash against Willie Brown and his aggressive development policies. There is no similar dynamic this year so these seats are considered wide open. In each of the three, there are 2 candidates—one strongly backed by tenants (and labor and the Democratic Party) and one strongly backed by landlords, realtors & developers—who are running first and second in the polls (well ahead of any other candidates) so come November these seats will remain pro-tenants or radically change to pro-landlord.
Remembering that rent control can be amended (i.e. weakened) or even repealed, the stakes are really high and the pressure is on to win all three seats. Losing just one would be bad, losing two would be very, very bad and losing all three would be disastrous:
•If we lose just one seat, our majority on the Board becomes tenuous or disappears. We would have 5 solid votes and could sometimes muster up 6 or 7. We’d never be able to get enough to override a Mayoral veto and landlords would occasionally be able to pass measures weakening protections or raising rents.
•If we lose two seats landlords would have a solid majority. Tenants would have just 4 solid votes and probably could usually get 5 votes. Landlords would have 5 solid votes and would usually be able to get 6 votes and sometimes 7.
•If we lost all three seats, rent control as we know it would be gone. Tenants would then have just 3 solid votes and would usually get 4. Landlords would have 6 solid votes and would usually have 7 votes. Though a total repeal of rent control is probably unlikely, with such a strong majority it’s certain that there would be a major overhaul of rent control at City Hall and higher rent increases and easier evictions being the most certain outcomes.
The 3 key races:
District 1–The pro-tenant candidate is School Board Member Eric Mar, while real estate interests are backing Sue Lee. Mar has solid name recognition and of the three key races he’s probably in the best shape, though polls show he has just a slim lead (and this before a barrage of negative mailers and phone calls hit the district. The Richmond District is almost 50-50 tenants-homeowners and on tenant ballot measures usually votes pro-tenant by a slim majority.
District 3–David Chiu is backed by tenants while landlords are backing Joseph Alioto III. District 3 is a very diverse district in many ways with some parts of it similar to the Tenderloin while other parts are more like Pacific Heights & the Marina. Its neighborhoods include North Beach, Russian Hill, Polk Gulch & Chinatown; parts of the district are very pro-tenant and progressive while other parts are very conservative so there’s a real fight here. Alioto-Chiu are 1, 2 in the polls with all others far behind. What’s particularly scary about District 3: Joseph Alioto is Michaela Alioto’s brother and we all know how rabidly anti-tenant she is. This sister-brother team on the Supervisors would be deadly for tenants.
District 11–The candidate backed by tenants, labor and progressives is John Avalos while real estate interests are backing Aasha Safai; once again these two are 1-2 in the polls well ahead of all others. District 11, largely the Excelsior, is the toughest district from a tenant perspective as it is largely a homeowner district. It’s a working-class neighborhood and labor unions (who all endorse Avalos too) have much influence here.
Unsurprisingly, landlords, realtors and developers have been funneling thousands of dollars into these three districts trying to swing the election their way.
Get involved in these campaigns (even if you don’t live in these districts) if you want to keep ret control safe and spread the word about these key races.

Eric Mar for Supervisor
4328 Geary Blvd., SF, CA 94118
415/505.2961 http://ericmar.com/

David Chiu for Supervisor
1323 Polk Street, SF CA 94109
415-441-8393 http://votedavidchiu.org/

John Avalos for Supervisor
4802 Mission/Onondaga, SF, CA 94112.
415 585 3916 http://www.avalos08.com/

Despite Bernal having a reputation as Tom Ammiano’s club, the future assemblyman’s endorsed candidate, David Campos, did not get the endorsement. Eric Quezada was the overwhelming choice for District 9 Supervisor.

In addition, the club diverged from the what’s seen as “the progressive position” on a couple propositions, most notably Prop R (the George Bush Sewer Plant initiative), and Prop V, the JROTC initiative, both of which received no endorsement.

Bernal Heights Democratic Club Endorsements — November 2008

President of the United States — Barack Obama
United States Congress — no endorsement
California Senate — Mark Leno
California Assembly — Tom Ammiano
Superior Court Judge seat 12 — Gerardo C Sandoval
BART Board of Directors, District 9 – Tom Radulovich
Board of Supervisors, District 9 – Eric Quezada
Board of Education - Sandra Fewer, Jill Wynns, Norman Yee
Community College Board – Chris Jackson, Milton Marks, Bruce Wolfe

California Propositions:
1: Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act – Yes
2: Treatment of Farm Animals – Yes
3: Children’s Hospital Bond Act - Yes
4: Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy – No
5: Nonviolent Offenders. Sentencing, Parole and Rehabilitation – Yes
6: Criminal Penalties and Laws. Public Safety Funding – No
7: Renewable Energy - no recommendation
8: Limit on Marriage – No
9: Criminal Justice System. Victims’ Rights. Parole. – No
10: Bonds. Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Renewable Energy – no recommendation
11: Redistricting. Constitutional Amendment and Statute – No
12: Veterans Bond Act of 20008 – no recommendation

San Francisco propositions

A: San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center Earthquake Safety Bonds – Yes
B: Establishing Affordable Housing Fund – Yes bsp;
C: Prohibiting City Employees from Serving on Charter Boards and Commissions – no recommendation
D: Financing Pier 70 Waterfront District Development Plan upon Board of Supervisors’ Approval –Yes
E: Raising the Number of Signatures Required to Recall City Officials – Yes
F: Holding all Scheduled City Elections Only in Even-Numbered Years – no recommendation
G: Allowing Retirement System Credit for Unpaid Parental Leave – Yes
H: San Francisco Clean Energy Act – Yes
I: Creating the Office of an Independent Rate Payer Advocate – No
J: Creating a Historic Preservation Commission – Yes
K: Changing the Enforcement of Laws Related to Prostitution and Sex Workers – no recommendation
L: Funding the Community Justice Center – No
M: Changing the Residential Rent Ordinance to Prohibit Specific Acts of Harassment of Tenants by Landlords – Yes
N: Changing Real Property Transfer Tax Rates – Yes
O: Replacing the Emergency Response Fee with an Access Line Tax and Revising the Telephone Users Tax – Yes
P: Changing the Composition of the San Francisco County Transportation Authority Board – No
Q: Modifying the Payroll Expense Tax – Yes
R: Renaming the Oceanside Water Polllution Control Plant to the George W. Bush Sewage Plant – no recommendation
S: Policy Regarding Budget Set-Asides and Identification of Replacement Funds – No
T: Free and Low-Cost Substance Abuse Treatment Programs - Yes
U: Policy Against Funding the Deployment of Armed Forces in Iraq - Yes
V: Policy Against Terminating Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (JROTC) Programs in Public High Schools – no recommendation

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: October 10, 2008
Filed at 12:01 p.m. ET

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — Connecticut’s Supreme Court ruled Friday that same-sex couples have the right to marry, making the state the third behind Massachusetts and California to legalize such unions.

The divided court ruled 4-3 that gay and lesbian couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry under the state constitution, and Connecticut’s civil unions law does not provide those couples with the same rights as heterosexual couples.

“I can’t believe it. We’re thrilled, we’re absolutely overjoyed. We’re finally going to be able, after 33 years, to get married,” said Janet Peck of Colchester, who was a plaintiff with her partner, Carole Conklin.

Connecticut will join Massachusetts and California as the only state to allow same-sex couples to marry.

“Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice,” Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote in the majority opinion that overturned a lower court finding.

“To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others,” Palmer wrote.

Gov. M. Jodi Rell said Friday that she disagreed, but will not fight the ruling.

“The Supreme Court has spoken,” Rell said in a statement. “I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut. However, I am also firmly convinced that attempts to reverse this decision — either legislatively or by amending the state Constitution — will not meet with success.”

The lawsuit was brought in 2004 after eight same-sex couples were denied marriage licenses and sued, saying their constitutional rights to equal protection and due process were violated.

They said the state’s marriage law, if applied only to heterosexual couples, denied them of the financial, social and emotional benefits of marriage.

Peck said that as soon as the decision was announced, the couple started crying and hugging while juggling excited phone calls from her brother and other friends and family.

“We’ve always dreamed of being married,” she said. “Even though we were lesbians and didn’t know if that would ever come true, we always dreamed of it.”

——

Associated Press reporters Pat Eaton-Robb, Stephanie Reitz and Larry Smith in Hartford contributed to this report.

Each year, they sponsor the Baltimore Book Festival along the plaza of Baltimore’s Washington Monument (the residents of Baltimore like to point out that their Washington Monument was built earlier than the one “in a city south of us”.). This year, it was held the same weekend as the National Book Festival and during a rainy Saturday. Even the Washington Post noted that Baltimore’s Book Festival was hippier than the National Book Festival.

Even in steady rain, attendees listened to authors read from their work. The authors included Amy Goodman, Walter Moseley, Naomi Wolf and Jill Conner Browne. There was a Radical Writers theater with a tent of radical groups and bookstores selling their wares. One of Baltimore’s landmarks, Red Emma’s Coffeehouse was there to promote readings at their shop.

They also included 20-something authors who wrote financial books such as “Campus CEO,” “You Call the Shoots” and “You’re So Money.”

John Hopkins Press was there promoting their Baltimore-based books, including newly-released “Treasurer in the Cellar.” It is a non-fiction account how two young boys found a horde of coins in a basement and how the subsequent court battles and news stories negatively impacted their lives. I purchased books on “Walks Through Baltimore” and “Alley Houses of Baltimore.”

The Baltimore Chapter of the American Institute of Architects had a booth. One of their exhibits urged people to patronize local restaurants and stores that purchase their goods and services locally.

McSweeney Press and similar publishers had their tents surrounded two stages-one tent for hipster literature and another tent billed as the “Literary Salon” which included authors of urban literature. The two staff members from McSweeney Press was delighted to see someone from San Francisco-and noted that there had been a steady line of San Franciscans enjoying the charms of “The City that Reads.”

It was not even on the home page of the San Francisco Chronicle.

The question is why McCain is asking for a “pause” in the campaign 40 days from election day. Is it to duck from a scandal? Is it to avoid answering questions about the economy? Is it an attempt to trap the Obama Campaign in dismissing the economic woes in the credit crisis?

So much for the San Francisco Chronicle’s timeliness.