SF Weekly Letters

No Party Poopers

Go, Gonzo: Matt Smith hit the nail on the head with his article about Matt Gonzalez ["Gonzo Candidacy," March 5]. Gonzalez will add a needed voice to the problems with a two-party system and the need to reform the U.S. electoral process, as we have done here in S.F.

David Tornheim

San Francisco

You are morally compelled and ethically obligated to read this letter: I was one of the "starry-eyed enamored" supporters of Matt Gonzalez' run for mayor who Matt Smith wrote about in his account of that groundbreaking event.

In that article, Smith referenced two of my e-mails featured on an open-government discussion list. He dismissed as "preposterous" my theory that Matt Gonzalez — a Latino male born and raised in Texas — entered the presidential race in advance of the Texas primary in a politically calculated and strategically timed move to influence a racial divide between black and Latino voters who were shown, in the California primary, to disfavor Barack Obama as a black candidate.

I hope you feel morally compelled and ethically obligated to print my response to Smith's opinion. I have conducted a thorough Web search combining Ralph Nader and John McCain. That search yields more than five pages of URLs that support my opinion that Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez have heeded the "higher calling" of the Republican Party and are running — as independents — on a ticket with Republican presidential nominee Senator John McCain. Further substantiation of my opinion is evident in analysis of the campaign platform issued by Nader and Gonzalez that appears to willfully omit as a top priority ending the war and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan — a stance for which I am sure Senator McCain serves as inspiration.

In conclusion, while I sympathize with Smith's need to carry the banner of the Matt Gonzalez legacy, I urge him to snap out of it!

Dr. Ahimsa Porter Sumchai

San Francisco

Isn't That Special?

And now, for 15 uses of the name "San Francisco Patrol Special Police Officer": Ron Russell reported on an incident where a San Francisco Patrol Special Police Officer allegedly evicted Jonathan Rodgers, a resident of a single-room-occupancy ["Special Eviction," Sucka Free City, March 5].

The San Francisco Patrol Special Police Officer in question did not conduct an eviction. The San Francisco Patrol Special Police Officer was summoned on behalf of the owner of the hotel, just in case violence erupted. It was the managers at the city's HOT program and the owner of the hotel who made the decision to remove Rodgers from the unit, not the San Francisco Patrol Special Police Officer.

Furthermore, San Francisco Patrol Special Police Officers are not "some private citizen," as Rodgers told Russell. While San Francisco Patrol Special Police Officers own beats within the city and county of San Francisco and are hired by merchants and residents, what wasn't reported in the article is that San Francisco Patrol Special Police Officers are trained at the San Francisco Police Academy or its equivalent, and the police chief provides the stamp of approval for hiring San Francisco Patrol Special Police Officers after a thorough background check.

It dismays me that the article seemed to be slanted against the San Francisco Patrol Special Police Officer, who did nothing wrong. Russell used phrases such as being "confusingly named" and "enjoy[ing] special privileges" in his description of San Francisco Patrol Special Police Officers and the 1932 city charter. I find it difficult to confuse the name "San Francisco Patrol Special Police Officer" with "police officer," especially when we identify ourselves as San Francisco Patrol Special Police Officers to the public. Also, San Francisco Patrol Special Police Officers are a trained SFPD community peacekeeping service protected in the city charter as police officers regulated by the Police Commission, which the organization has done since the Gold Rush days. This is no different than the SFPD, which is also in the charter. How can that status be a "special privilege"?

With a police force facing retirements, low recruitment, and pressure to keep San Francisco safe, this article is a disservice to San Franciscans. It is another assault upon a vital and unique community policing force that merchants and residents have used as an addition to the SFPD to keep their communities safe for more than a century.

Jane Warner

San Francisco Patrol Special Police Officer — Castro

President, San Francisco Patrol Special Police Officer Association

San Francisco

Bruce-ster's Millions

Can't we all just get along?: I really do not understand why you hate the San Francisco Bay Guardian ["Ka-Ching!", March 12]. I moved to San Francisco from New York and found that it's a very interesting newspaper in the Bay Area. I am a psychiatrist, and maybe jealousy is the main reason of it.

Okay, let's talk: You have "bread and butter" every day, so why be jealous of someone who has it too? I am your reader and will be your reader in the future, despite what happened between you and the Guardian, and like a doctor I'll tell you what: We're all gonna die one day — it is not the point. The POINT is HOW TO BE A HUMAN BEING IN THIS LIFE! Thanks.

Georgy Prodorov

San Francisco