Eco-lawyers sue San Francisco. Case is dismissed. Losing lawyers demand $1.3 million in legal fees anyway. They may get it. Coming soon to a city near you.

In December U.S. District Judge Susan Illston dismissed a lawsuit filed by the W.E.B.L.E.E.D.U. Axis (Wildly Equitable Biodiverse Litigants for Ecological Extortion and Deep Untruths) to shut down the City's landmark Alister Mackenzie public golf course - Sharp Park.  This led some to wonder whether the long running Battle for Sharp Park might finally be over.  Spoiler alert: No.

 I've been covering this story here and on my other blog and was laboring under no such illusion. On Friday February 8, 2013 the WEBLEEDU's filed a pleading with Judge Illston that demonstrates exactly why these lawsuits will never end:

Anti-Golf Activists Now Want San Francisco to Pay $1.3 Million Legal Fees

"In a curious twist in the long-running fight between anti-golf activists and San Francisco over the fate of the city’s historic public Sharp Park Golf Course, the Tucson-based Center for Biological Diversity, Wild Equity Institute, and a handful of other groups filed a motion here today in Federal Court, asking the same Federal Judge who dismissed their lawsuit in December, 2012 to order the City of San Francisco to pay their legal bill of more than $1.3 Million... The Plaintiffs’ fee motion was filed under a provision of the Endangered Species Act that authorizes the Courts to award legal fees “whenever the Court determines such award is appropriate”.  Plaintiffs seek payment for more than 2,000 hours of attorneys time, most of which are billed at hourly rates between $550 and $750."

The press release quotes Bo Links of the San Francisco Public Golf Alliance echoing the feelings of most people hearing this story - with bemusement and incredulity:  “It’s a head-scratcher... This is environmental litigation in Wonderland... they lose every motion they file, and their case is thrown out.  And now they want the Court to order the City to pay their attorney’s fees?”

 Of course it makes no sense. But that does not mean the WEBLEEDU's won't get paid.  It is very possible that the people of San Francisco will be forced to pay some or most of their attorney fees.

Welcome to the Looking Glass World of Equal Access to Justice Act legal fee reimbursements.

Ten reasons San Franciscans should support the Baltimore Ravens in the Superbowl

We interrupt this political blog to bring you some perspective on today's game.

Full Disclosure: I've lived in San Francisco for 30 years. However, as I originally hail from Chicago,  Da Bears, Cubs, Bulls, and Blackhawks will always command my sporting loyalties.  Still, I have made a sincere effort to get behind the local teams as my second choice. They've not made it easy.

Look -  I am enormously grateful to the Niners for knocking the Green Bay Packers out of the playoffs. After the Packers lay down against the Vikings to keep the Bears out of the playoffs, watching Green Bay go to the Superbowl would have been too painful to bear. Since then, I have enthusiastically cheered the Niners throughout the playoffs. But the Superbowl  is another matter. There is a very good case for my fellow City citizens to follow my lead and pull for a Ravens win.

Here the top ten reasons why every San Franciscan should reconsider their support for the Niners:

Defense Secretaries Past, Present and Future - Robert Gates at the MPSF Speaker Series

During Steve Croft's softball 60 Minutes interview with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the President reflected on advice he received from Robert Gates shortly after coming into office:

"I remember Bob Gates, you know, first thing he said to me, I think maybe first week or two that I was there and we were meeting in the Oval Office and he, obviously, been through seven presidents or something. And he says, "Mr. President, one thing I can guarantee you is that at this moment, somewhere, somehow, somebody in the federal government is screwing up."

I expect that Gates was cautioning the new President about the inevitable surprises and disappointments of governance as opposed to how the President used the anecdote in this interview. To whit -  the President used it as a fig leaf to dismissively hide and deflect attention from the politically convenient disinformation campaign orchestrated in his administration and delivered via Susan Rice a few days after the attack on our embassy in Benghazi, Libya. Might have been a good opportunity for a follow up question from Steve Croft as opposed to simply accepting the popular "mistakes were made" non-answer. But I digress...

Regardless how his advice was misused, one of President Obama's best decisions was to keep Robert Gates on as Secretary of Defense and avail himself of the benefit of his experience.

Gates has an extraordinary history of public service, including leadership roles in the Air Force, CIA, and serving in the administration of seven presidents. I had an opportunity to hear the former secretary of defense Robert Gates speak in Marin at the invitation of the MPSF Speaker Series. I've been to a few of these events over the last couple of years and always come away impressed (although some more than others).  He spoke for about an hour and then responded to questions gathered from audience.

I thought some of his more interesting comments came during Q&A and I'd share them here.  I do not have the benefit of a recording or transcript - so the comments I am attributing to Gates are from memory and paraphrased.  In no particular order a  few of his thoughts on our presidents, the presidency and challenges that face us:

Chuck Hagel was thinking "out of the mainstream" in February 2003

President Obama stuck to his guns and nominated Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense setting the stage for a bipartisan nomination fight.  As noted in a previous post, some who opposed the nomination are continuing to smear him with unfounded and despicable charges of antisemitism. Of those limiting objections to policy differences, the criticism of choice is that his views are far out of the mainstream of American thought on Foreign Policy:

Senator Lindsey Graham on CNN's "State of the Union":

“I like Chuck Hagel,” Graham began. “He served with distinguish in Vietnam as an enlisted man — two Purple Hearts. But quite frankly, Chuck Hagel is out of the mainstream of thinking, I believe, on most issues regarding foreign policy."

Bill Kristol:

"In any case, Friedman confirms that on Israel as well, Hagel's views place him out of the policy-making mainstream. Tom Friedman came to praise Chuck Hagel. He may have ended up burying him."

Jennifer Rubin

"He is far out of the mainstream of both parties on everything from Russian anti-Semitism to Hamas to Iran sanctions."

This criticism reminds me of another time that Chuck Hagel was thinking "out of the mainstream" of Foreign Policy thought.  On February 20, 2003 Chuck Hagel spoke at the Landon Lecture Series at the University of Kansas. It is instructive to consider what constituted "mainstream thought" at that moment in time.

Hagel for Defense

Chuck Hagel in Vietnam

I'd like to think that a nomination of Republican Chuck Hagel for Secretary of the Defense would be considered on its merits. I'd like to think his nomination would be deliberated in the Senate where his record, his qualifications and the policies he advocates would be subject to scrutiny in a public confirmation hearing. We may never get the chance to see that hearing. After the administration floated a trial balloon indicating that Hagel was on the SECDEF short list, the very same neocons who brought us the Iraq War launched a smear campaign as a preemptive strike to head off the nomination. Robert Wright at The Atlantic sums it up:

12 Election Observations For 12/12/12

FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS!

The Dividist cannot let this date slip by without a post. We were out of the country in November, watching the election unfold from afar. Since then we neglected the blog. But we are back now, we have no excuses, and using this semi-mystical date for motivation, time to weigh in on what the election wrought.  Here for your reading enjoyment on 12/12/12 - a dozen observations on the election just past, sprinkled with some predictions for the election to come.

Obama's been a terrible President. I voted for him anyway. Here's why.

 The Dividist casts his not so secret ballot.

Last week the Dividist walked into City Hall and cast an early ballot. He voted to reelect Barack Obama.  In this post we will strive to emulate Nate Silver and offer this simple explanation:

The Dividist voted for Barack Obama to ensure the federal government remains divided between the two major parties with each controlling at least one branch of the government.

And now, the somewhat more complicated explanation:

Neocon Stooge Endorses Obama

As he did in 2008, Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama for President. John McCain is not any happier about his endorsement than when Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama for President over John McCain four year ago.   It is an open question whether the endorsement will sway any votes, but one should not underestimate the salesmanship of Colin Powell. Recall he was very persuasive in his 2003 presentation to the United Nations General Assembly:

"My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence... Indeed, the facts and Iraq's behaviour show that Saddam Hussein and his regime are concealing their efforts to produce more weapons of mass destruction... Leaving Saddam Hussein in possession of weapons of mass destruction for a few more months or years is not an option. Not in a post-September 11th world."

Regardless, the Dividist is delighted with Powell's endorsement. This endorsement means we can take the same post we wrote four years ago, and run it again with only minor edits.

Live Blogging the Live Bloggers Final Presidential DebateBinder Full of Bloggers Edition

UPDATED: 23-Oct-2012

Welcome to the The Final Presidential Debate of the 2012 Election and the latest edition in the continuing saga of "Live Blogging the Live Bloggers blogging the Debates!"   The Dividist fondly recalls when he conceived this series to cover the first 2008 Republican debate, lo those many years ago, and first asked the question:

"There are plenty of live-bloggers covering the debate tonight, but who is covering the live bloggers? The Dividist rushes in where other, more sensible bloggers, fear to tread."

Tonight's debate is scheduled for 8:00 PM EST at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida. But that is not important. This will be the last debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney before the election two weeks from now. That is not important. It is going to be focused on foreign policy. Not important.  The second debate went to President Obama on points. The first debate was forfeited to Romney when the President failed to show up due to a scheduling conflict.  The VP debate happened in there somewhere and Joe Biden smiled a lot. Tonight is the rubber match. None of that is important. The debate will be competing directly with the 7th game of the National League Championship Game between the San Francisco Giants and the St. Louis Cardinals (Currently no score after one inning).  Not important.

What is important is that my Chicago Bears are playing the Detroit Lions on Monday Night Football during the debate.  So... in aggregate we can expect no one in California, Michigan, Illinois, Missouri, Minnesota, Wisconsin, nor any real NFL or MLB fans will be watching this debate.What is wrong with these people? Can they not read a football schedule?   Do they not want people to watch these debates?  Wait... I wonder...

FULL DISCLOSURE:  The Dividist will be pretending to watch the debate, will try to live blog the live bloggers blogging the debate, but will really be watching the Bears game. So this is likely to be more lame than usual. Proceed at your own risk.

As always, we select a variety of bloggers from across the political spectrum,and attempt to live blog their live blog efforts. I don't know who we will include, in the past we've used used  Daily Kos from the left, VodkaPundit or HotAir from the right, look to either Reason or Cato for a libertarian point of view and the Moderate Voice, and/or Donklephant as a centrist blog.  Andrew Sullivan is  a reliable live-blogger, as is Chris Cillizza's Fix. Since this one has a foreign policy focus, we'll also monitor the Economist.

If past is prologue we will likely guess wrong about which blogs to monitor and will be scrambling once things get started. Refresh your browsers for latest content once the debate is underway. Because of the derivative nature of this enterprise, I do run quite a bit behind the actual debate. Just setting expectations to lower the bar.

The Dividist has not bothered to look up the polling on the expectations game.   The President has all the experience in Foreign policy in this debate. He killed Osama Bin-Laden. The expectation is there is no way he can lose a foreign policy debate. So he probably will.

Da Bears & Da Candidates have taken the field ...

Live Blogging the Live Bloggers 2nd Presidential Debate Crowleytown Hall Edition

Welcome to the 2012 Election Edition - 2nd Presidential Debate in the continuing saga of "Live Blogging the Live Bloggers blogging the Debates!" 

The Dividist fondly recalls when he conceived this series to cover the first 2008 Republican debate, lo those many years ago, and first asked the question:

"There are plenty of live-bloggers covering the debate tonight, but who is covering the live bloggers? The Dividist rushes in where other, more sensible bloggers, fear to tread."

Actually I never said that. Although I am pretty sure I said something similar. Just don't want to be fact-checked on this.

Whew. It's the hump debate. As soon as it starts we are halfway through the final four debate schedule. So far, so good. The first debate was forfeited to  Romney when the President failed to show up due to a scheduling conflict.  The VP debate went to Biden on points, but he did not recover the momentum lost by the Democrats after the first. On to round three. This debate will be a Town Hall format, where the questions will be asked by semi-random voters (only God can make a truly random voter), and moderated by Candy Crowley.

The Memorandum of Understanding between the campaigns specified that the moderator will not coach or follow-up on the questions from the audience. Candy Crowley will be ignoring the MOU.