Pablo Peniche and the SF10x boys have blown the whistle on SF's huge SNAP-to-cash fraud problem by which fent addicts get their dope paid for by the government. Basically it works like this:
> fent-walk down to the local farmer's market (heart of the city farmer's market) with your EBT card > old chinatown ladies in masks and dark glasses approach > "you sell you sell get in line" > you stand in line to swipe your EBT card for up to 3x the value paper vouchers redeemable for "vegetables" > thanks to Market Match (tm) and other sponsors > go back to asian ladies and sell your 3x coupons for 50c on the dollar > mission accomplished. go get your fix "yeah I buy dope, man" > meanwhile the canto ladies sneak their coupons back into the system somewhere > some highly profitable farm stand cashes them in for a fat check > just another hard day at work for Gavin Newsom
Let's look at this from an NRx perspective. All of the above has long been well-known to San Francisco's Democratic establishment, and the San Francisco electorate is indifferent to it, as it is to fentanyl use and the homelessness industrial complex more generally. (Perhaps "indifferent" is imprecise: more like mildly supportive because something something social justice.) In other words, these things are viewed in San Francisco not as "scams" or "theft" but as the system working as it should.
In this concrete local context, exactly what is this sort of "exposing what we, but not they, consider bad things" supposed to accomplish? What energy does it generate for subsequent action? And what will be the locus of agency for that subsequent action?
The DA was recalled, the 'progressive' majority in the BoD was replaced with a 'moderate' majority. We have a new 'moderate' mayor. Crime and disorder markedly decreased since hitting rock bottom post-covid, even though it's still unacceptably high. It's simply not true that the electorate is mildly supportive of SNAP fraud. 3/4 candidates for mayor ran on being moderates, and against disorder and crime. The electorate is supportive of social justice in the abstract, but don't often like how it is operationalized by the progressive clique. Frustratingly, they fall in line too easily, or otherwise vote for faux-change. The 'moderates' and 'abundance' libs don't confront the progressive clients. So there's plenty to criticize but your characterization of SF politics is just wrong.
>>5342 > ... but your characterization of SF politics ...
My characterization of SF politics is stated with rhetorical exaggeration to press a key point. I know all about the "moderates" in SF. The question is, how do they actually work out in practice? But more importantly, what are the possibilities for subsequent action on our part, in the wake of these exposures? Who will do what, to what end?
>>5341 this is just stupid defeatism. You have made a false inference from the disorganization of your allies to their willing participation in corruption. The point of exposing and talking about these things is to put forth a strong narrative of corruption vs justice to rally those who still believe in justice and demoralize the corrupt by the specter of investigation.
If you were an enemy agent and not just possessed by a momentary foolishness, the purpose of your post would be to demoralize agents of justice by trying to convince them that they are alone and hated against a world of corruption. This is just not true.
>>5365 Is it really credible to claim that the problem with politics and governance in SF is merely the "disorganization of our allies" who "still believe in justice" and would be successfully rooting out corruption if only they were better organized?
Is it really "stupid defeatism" and "foolishness" to doubt that this is an accurate description of SF politics?
> If you were an enemy agent ..., the purpose of your post would be ...
This is very odd psychologizing ... and even worse political analysis. I am trying neither to demoralize nor to rally. What I'm insisting is that any political cause is best served by a clear grasp of reality, not by telling stories of a desired emotional valence.
Once again, I return the jugular question, which no one has yet addressed: What are the possibilities for subsequent action on our part, in the wake of these exposures? Who will do what, to what end?
>>5366 >Who will do what, to what end? we and our friends will have a beer, having won more glory for ourselves moralizing our friends and embarrassing our enemies. Then we will move on to the next fun project. You will go go back to seething on the internet. >oh no you didn't save the world with one video so it's all worthless don't be that guy who never does or supports any first steps because they don't immediately accomplish the most ambitious goals.
>>5374 Good response, unlike the agro butthurt response from anon_qobo.
I have nothing against SF10x. It makes sense to engage in visible activism alongside of other forms of political organizing. The activism can build skills and networks, which is all to the good. If someone said, "That skill & network building is the point, and we totally get that it's only one piece of a larger, long-term project," I'd have no quarrel with that.
My question was about the follow-ons: "What are the possibilities for subsequent action on our part, in the wake of these exposures? Who will do what, to what end?" Maybe the answer is "We honestly don't know, at least not yet, but we trust the activism has benefits of its own." I wouldn't bash anyone for that, but I would say it points to what people should be thinking pretty hard about.
>>5376 I'll take the implied tone reset here and respond without snark. The skill building and marginal activism is a good chunk of the point. It moralizes allies and demoralizes enemies. It builds the network. I wish you had clarified that you already understand this instead of implying there's no significant constituency for anticorruption in SF, which is just false. My apologies for not understanding your intent.
I don't think there is any immediate follow-on from these exposures. It's a shot on goal and ammo for the next guy. The point of these things, like Nick Shirley's higher-impact Minnesota reporting, is to see what's there and help on the margin. Sometimes you land a big one that's obviously actionable and kicks off big things, sometimes it's smaller and just becomes another bullet point for a guy like Spencer Pratt. But the internal network-organizing win is much more reliable. The people who did this are stronger than when they started as a result of doing it.
The next move is another project targeting a different fraud case, or a different domain, looking for weaknesses and opportunities, sharpening the implied or explicit platform, gathering goodwill and organizing networks for anticorruption politics in SF.
That's my point with the beer comment. You land a fish, have a beer, do it again with more friends next time. The appropriate response is to either get involved, cheer it on, or offer better ideas.
