“The British Consul General, Ms Priya Guha, requests the pleasure of your company at a reception prior to a screening of “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” November 16, 6:00-7:15pm”
O.K. then. And that’s not at all a typical kind of thing for San Francisco’s consular community, really, but our BritishConsulate-General is out there in the Bay Area promoting the heck out of Britain. (Cool Britanniathey used to call it.) And actually that’s not a hard job when you have Kate Middleton’s Royal Wedding this year (and her recent California visit, dropping by just to say “hi”) and the upcoming 2012 Summer Olympics and whathaveyou.
“Based on the classic novel of the same name, the international thriller is set at the height of the Cold War years of the mid-20th Century. George Smiley (Gary Oldman), a disgraced British spy, is rehired in secret by his government – which fears that the British Secret Intelligence Service, a.k.a. MI-6, has been compromised by a double agent working for the Soviets.”
So last night, San Francisco’s first female British Consul General, Ms. Priya Guha, introduced this film at the Century 9 in Westfield’s San Francisco Centre. She pointed out that Britain is quite big in the movie biz, having over 100 film studios and 2500 post-production companies.
And then it was on with the show.
And then, who popped up as the curtain dropped but Gary Oldman and Director Tomas Alfredson. (Or so I’m told.) This very same crew was up in San Rafael two days ago and who knows where they’ll be tonight:
INSERT PHOTO OF MSSRS. OLDMAN AND ALFREDSON WITH CONSUL GENERAL HERE
But I do have shots from last night of people who may or may not have wanted their photos taken, so I’ll leave them caption-free. (I’ll note that CBS Channel 5 was def. in the house with famous Liam Mayclem and Beth Spotswood (she’s earned a page on Wiki now? Wow) on hand.)
“CTIA-The Wireless Association® Files Challenge to San Francisco’s “Cell Phone Right-to-Know” Ordinance
WASHINGTON, Oct. 4, 2011 – Today, CTIA-The Wireless Association® asked a federal court to block the enforcement of San Francisco’s “Cell Phone Right-to-Know” ordinance. CTIA’s challenge argues that the Ordinance is barred under the First Amendment and conflicts with federal law governing the safety of wireless devices.
As CTIA explains in its motion, the Ordinance requires retailers to distribute misleading statements and graphics that send the false message that cell phones approved by the FCC are not safe. In fact, the FCC limits radiofrequency emissions from cell phones to ensure that phones sold in the U.S. emit RF energy far below levels shown in scientific testing to have any adverse health effects. The FCC’s standard includes a wide margin of safety for all users. Last year the FDA categorically concluded that there is “No Evidence Linking Cell Phone Use to Risk of Brain Tumors,” and earlier this year the Chairman of the FCC, Julius Genachowski, said that he was “confident that [the FCC's] standards are protecting the health of people.”
CTIA-The Wireless Association Vice President of Public Affairs John Walls released the following statement:
“The materials the City would require be posted and handed out at retail stores are both alarmist and false. The FCC and FDA have repeatedly found that cell phone use does not pose a danger to human health. The Ordinance recommends such things as turning the phone off when not in use, a suggestion that would render critical emergency communications unavailable to San Francisco residents.”
“The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA) may explore ways to get a share of taxi advertising revenues in the future.
Recently, the United Taxi Workers (UTW) filed a public information request, and obtained materials regarding the City’s regulation on 5% credit card fees, rear seat Passenger Information Monitors (PIMs), and electronic waybills.
Included in the material was a copy of an email sent by MTA Deputy Director of Taxi Services Christiane Hayashi dated March 25th, 2011, and addressed to Sonali Bose, the agency’s chief financial officer, and other recipients.
In that email, Hayashi responds to two questions being posed at her by Nathaniel Ford, who was the MTA chief at the time, and backed up by Sonali Bose, regarding the distribution of ad revenues generated by rear seat PIMs.
Bose’s first question to Hayashi was, “Who negotiated the 90%-10% split and under what authority?” Her second question was, “Why isn’t the MTA getting a portion of the ad revenue?”
The following is an excerpt from the email in which Hayashi answers Bose’s two questions…
“As to the question of ‘who negotiated the deal,’ I guess my response is that it’s not a deal so much as a regulation – while I did my due diligence and circulated a draft memo to the TAC, it comes from a place of regulatory authority, not negotiation. The SFMTA has no privity of contract with the equipment providers – Veriphone, Wireless Edge and CMT have contracts with the taxi companies.
Why 10% to the Driver Fund? Because, like the medallion sales program, I felt it important to be able to point to some benefit to drivers in order to make the very unpopular change go down more smoothly.
If he question is why not a share to the SFMTA, I guess my answer is that this is equipment that is owned by third party vendors and being installed at no cost in privately-owned vehicles driven by independent contractors. We come at it as a regulator, and the permit fees we receive are supposed to cover the cost of administrating our program. I think that I would have gotten tremendous resistance from both companies and equipment vendors if I tried to demand a slice of advertising revenues for the SFMTA as part of the price for a company to get a waiver from the regulator. It would be like granting a building permit on the condition that the Planning Department could have a share of the advertising revenues from the building.
Of course, as we have discussed previously, there may be a place for bringing taxi advertising generally into the SFMTA, but if we do it would have to be a cooperative situation with the companies, where we agree to bear the administrative burden and use our greater negotiating power to increase their revenues in exchange for a share. That is a distinct possibility that we can continue to explore. I think the companies would embrace it if we can improve their advertising yield and reduce their administrative costs. I think I mentioned to you that the good time to broach this would be when we propose uniform top lights for all taxis with uniform advertising space that we could manage on behalf of the companies. That is something we accomplish during the next fiscal year if that is the policy direction.
I hope I have explained a very messy situation. Let me know if you have further questions.”
A scanned version of the emails text (sometimes hard to read because it’s scanned) is available and can be viewed by CLICKING HERE“
And somebody got arrested because Mayor Lee is an “oath breaker?” Didn’t see that. (Hope it wasn’t David Chiu!) Here are some peace officers outside of City Hall dealing with the aftermath of that little scuffle:
Here’s the audio of heckler Charles Kalish, addressing the Mayor: “Sir, are you going to step down?” Well, Chuck got carried away by six Sheriff’s deputies, I heard.
Anyway, it was over in a flash, with Ed journeying up to Room 200:
And, oh look, here’s a fresh statement from Senator Leland Yee:
“I have always said that whoever wants to run should run. I look forward to discussing the important issues facing our city with the interim mayor and finally seeing him at the candidate debates. While Ed Lee entering the race today is newsworthy, I am more focused on our campaign’s message to voters and continuing the dialogue we have had over the past 8 months. What I hear from the people of San Francisco is that we need to clean up City Hall and have a mayor who is independent of the power brokers. That is why I have released a 21-point ethics plan to restore the public trust and return city government to the people of our great city. Fighting for them is a promise I will keep as mayor.”
One of those “power brokers” referenced must certainly be Chinatown ward healer Rose Pak, but she wasn’t on the scene today in the basement of City Hall.
“Today there are many San Franciscans who are disappointed that Ed broke his promise,” he said. “For many months Ed Lee told San Franciscans one thing but it’s clear now he’s going to do just the opposite.”
Here are the two shots I have from them. I would assume that these show Game 2 and Game 5, respectfully, but I couldn’t find the first one in the Game 2 section so I gave up.
But anyway, the thumbnail shots they have are a library in themselves.
MAYOR NEWSOM ANNOUNCES PARADE AND CIVIC CELEBRATION FOR THE WORLD CHAMPION SAN FRANCISCO GIANTS
City to Honor Returning World Series Champions with Ticker-tape Parade Wednesday at 11 a.m. from Financial District to Civic Center Plaza
San Francisco, CA–Mayor Gavin Newsom announced tonight that San Francisco will host a ticker-tape parade and civic celebration in honor of the 2010 World Champion San Francisco Giants on Wednesday, November 3, 2010. The parade will begin on Montgomery Street at Washington Street at 11 a.m. and go southbound on Montgomery Street to Market Street, before continuing westbound on Market Street to Civic Center Plaza. Following the parade, on the steps of City Hall, Mayor Newsom will present the team with the key to the City and honor the World Series Champions in a civic celebration. The parade route will replicate the route taken by the team when they first came to San Francisco from New York in 1958.
“San Francisco could not be prouder of its hometown San Francisco Giants tonight,” said Mayor Newsom. “Congratulations to every player on the roster and to the entire San Francisco Giants organization. You have earned this historic World Championship through your talent, determination and teamwork, defying the odds and bringing the entire City together throughout this remarkable season. San Francisco eagerly awaits your return, and we cannot wait to celebrate your triumph in Texas with a ticker tape parade and civic celebration to welcome you home.”
The sidewalks lining Wednesday’s ticker-tape parade down Montgomery and up Market Street and the celebration at Civic Center Plaza are open to all members of the public. Those viewing the parade and who wish to attend the celebration in Civic Center Plaza are advised to arrive early and take public transportation.
“S.F.’s arguments, evidence lent key assist to federal ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional
Failure to relate ‘a legitimate state interest’ pivotal to U.S. District Court finding that Prop 8 violates U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment
SAN FRANCISCO (Aug. 4, 2010) — A federal court decision that today found Proposition 8 in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses relied on key arguments and evidence presented by City Attorney Dennis Herrera’s office about the adverse governmental consequences of the 2008 ballot measure, which eliminated fundamental marriage rights for same-sex partners in California.”
San Francisco’s Happy Warrior, DJH:
“Herrera’s motion to intervene in the case originally brought by the American Foundation for Equal Rights on behalf of two California couples was granted by Judge Walker nearly a year ago. In doing so, the court held that the City and County of San Francisco was the only party in the case — including the Governor and State Attorney General — then willing to represent a public sector interest on the question of the initiative’s validity. At trial, Herrera’s office provided extensive evidence that state and local governments derive societal and economic benefits when same-sex couples enjoy equal marriage rights — and, conversely, that denying such rights inflicts grave harm on lesbians and gay men, which in turn imposes significant costs on government and society. The City’s case made a showing that when governments participate in discrimination against their own citizens, there can be little hope of eradicating private discrimination.
But first, let’s hear from San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom. Via Chief Deputy Communications Director Francis Tsang comes this:
MAYOR GAVIN NEWSOM’S STATEMENT ON CTIA LEGAL CHALLENGE AGAINST SAN FRANCISCO’S CELL PHONE DISCLOSURE LEGISLATION
Mayor Gavin Newsom today issued the following statement in response to the lawsuit by the Cellular Telephone Industries Association (CTIA) to block enforcement of San Francisco’s cell phone disclosure ordinance:
“I am disappointed that the association representing the wireless communication industry has decided to challenge our landmark consumer information law in court.
This law is not an attack on the wireless industry or their products. San Francisco is proud to be a magnet for technological innovation and an early adopter of cutting-edge communications devices. This is a modest, common sense measure which merely takes information already made available by these companies and makes it more accessible and easier to find by the point-of-sale consumer.
I am surprised that industry representatives would choose to spend untold sums of money to fight this in the courts, instead of cooperatively working with San Francisco to comply with a reasonable law that provides greater transparency and information without putting any undue burdens on small businesses or discourage cell phone use in any way.”
O.K. then. Now, all the deets from CITA:
CTIA-The Wireless Association® Filed Lawsuit Against San Francisco for the So-Called ‘Cell Phone Right-to-Know’ Ordinance
WASHINGTON, July 23 /– Today, CTIA-The Wireless Association® filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court Northern District of California San Francisco Division to block enforcement of the San Francisco “Cell Phone Right-to-Know” ordinance. The ordinance challenges the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) determination that all FCC-compliant wireless handsets are safe by mandating that retailers post Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) values. The ordinance misleads consumers by creating the false impression that the FCC’s standards are insufficient and that some phones are “safer” than others based on their radiofrequency (RF) emissions.
All phones sold legally in the United States must comply with the FCC’s safety standards for RF emissions. According to the FCC, its standards limit RF exposures well below the level where RF emissions are potentially harmful and thus all wireless phones are safe as measured by these standards. The scientific evidence does not support point-of-sale requirements that would suggest some compliant phones are “safer” than other compliant phones based on their RF exposure test results. San Francisco’s attempt to regulate the sale of wireless handsets improperly intrudes upon the FCC’s exclusive and comprehensive regulation of the safety of wireless handsets. The ordinance is thus not only scientifically unsupported, it violates the Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the United States Constitution and must be stricken.
