Posts Tagged ‘doll’
Sacramento, Sacramento, Where You At? Presenting the “Barbie Edition” Jeep Wrangler Unlimited – A Pink and Cream DreamTuesday, June 24th, 2014
For sale, BTW:
Click to expand
I ask myself this question all the time anyway, but, man, this ride would really make me ponder the question of:
Is This Trip Really Necessary?
I can’t imagine driving this rig around – perhaps in an emergency and somebody needed a lift to the hospital…
Oh, and I question whether this paint scheme / logo combo is authorized by Mattel, Inc. and/or Fiat S.p.A..
You know, in an SFGov building somewhere on Polk Street, for tout le monde to see:
Click to expand
Solar powered, anyway.
Why is McDonalds Charging Sales Tax on Donations? Anyway, the New San Francisco Happy Meal is Exactly the Same as the OldThursday, December 1st, 2011
Well here it is, the before and after of the San Francisco Happy Meal from McDonalds.
Today’s the day that the San Francisco’s Healthy Meal Incentives Ordinance kicks in. The upshot is that now you have to donate 10 cents to Ronald McDonald House in order to get the toy.
Click to expand
(Note the apple slices in the upper right. They’ve been around for a while.)
But uh oh, is Micky Dee’s charging sales tax on the donation? Yes it is. I cry foul.* (Uh, San Francisco McDonaldses, can you do that? Do you need to rejigger your registers?)
This sign was just put up. It’s all “10 cents adds a toy.”
Now I’ll tell you, I can recall buying a Hamburger Happy Meal in Palo Alto last year for exactly two-fitty ($2.50). It had more fries plus the free toy (but it didn’t have apple slices or a slice of cheese for the burger.) Anyway, prices be going up, it seems.
*So, the only reason to charge sales tax is if the 10-cent purported “donation” is actually for the “retail sale of tangible personal property,” right? So which is it, a donation or a sale? I mean if I donated money to Ronald McDonald House on Scott Street, they sure as Hell wouldn’t tack on sales tax, would they? Mmmm… I paid ten cents extra to get a toy, right? Thinking out loud here, could it be that, as far as San Francisco is concerned, the 10 cents shows that the toy isn’t included “for free” and therefore the sale need not comply with the HMIO, but as far as the state of California is concerned, McD’s is just selling the toy for 10 cents, so therefore, obviously, a penny needs to be collected and forwarded to Sacramento for each sale? (But of course, if you walk up and offer your 10-cent donation for just the toy, they’ll say, “No dice.” They used to charge $2 for toy only purchases). Have the legal advisers for area McDonalds restaurants thought this through? I don’t know. Anyway, the approach they’re taking appears to be a giant F.U. to the City and County of San Francisco. I’ll tell you, the path they’re on is full of rusty nails and garbage pails. Just saying. But hey, what about McDonalds Corporation in Oak Brook, Illinois? Did they sign off on this? I wonder. (Did they indemnify the local owners? By contract, or, you know, some other way. I’m just curious about who came up with this ten cent idea.) Anyway, this is me thinking aloud, just raising issues. I can’t wrap my head around “ten cents adds a toy” and how that relates to state tax law. Like when I got my Android phone plus two-year contract for $50, I had to pay another $50 or so in sales tax because the phone is worth far more than $50. For example…
You kids are too young to remember the 1980’s, but this is exactly what it looked like.
Note TSV (triangular side vent) windows and tiny, tiny (by today’s standards) stock wheels:
Click to expand
Don’t ever change, BMW 3-series E30.
As seen in the West Bay on a dread sunny day.
(You certainly couldn’t call it Inclement Street yesterday, that’s for sure…)
As seen on Market Street:
Click to expand
Now, where have I seen these dolls before?
Typical Happy Meal Banned in San Francisco – Eric Mar’s Legislation Passes With Veto-Proof SupermajorityTuesday, November 2nd, 2010
The typical Happy Meal (or Kids’ Meal or what have you) with an included toy has just been banned in the City and County of San Francisco. Check it:
“This legislation is aimed at promoting healthy eating habits and to address issues related to childhood obesity. The legislation encourages restaurants to provide healthier meal options. To provide an incentive item, meals must contain fruits and vegetables, not exceed 600 calories, and must not have beverages that have excessive fat or sugar.”
Today’s vote at the Board of Supervisors was 8-3, which means that any veto from Mayor Gavin Newsom would get overridden with a quickness, one would presume. Robble robble, indeed.
Legislation author and District One Supervisor Eric Mar is aiming to “challenge the restaurant industry.” Well, mission accomplished.
Get all the deets from this uploaded doc: Healthymlsdig3
So, either McDonalds will alter its menu accordingly or you won’t be able to get the likes of these Barbie dolls, these “Youth-Focused Incentive Items” in the 415 come December 1, 2011:
The upshot is that McDonald’s es infeliz. Muy infeliz. See?
“Just after the vote, McDonald’s spokeswoman Danya Proud said, ‘We are extremely disappointed with today’s decision. It’s not what our customers want, nor is it something they asked for.'”
So there you go.
All the deets:
“Supervisor Eric Mar’s Healthy Meal Legislation passes with a supermajority
The Healthy Meal Legislation sets nutritional standards for restaurant food that is accompanied by toys or other youth focused incentive items. Supervisor Eric Mar’s legislation is co-sponsored by Supervisors Campos, Chiu and Avalos and was supported by a broad coalition of grassroots community organizations, parents and health professionals. Supervisors Avalos, Campos, Chiu, Daly, Dufty, Mar, Maxwell, and Mirkarimi voted in support of the legislation.
This legislation is aimed at promoting healthy eating habits and to address issues related to childhood obesity. The legislation encourages restaurants to provide healthier meal options. To provide an incentive item, meals must contain fruits and vegetables, not exceed 600 calories, and must not have beverages that have excessive fat or sugar.
“This is a tremendous victory for our children’s health. Our children are sick. Rates of obesity in San Francisco are disturbingly high, especially among children of color,” said Supervisor Eric Mar. “This is a challenge to the restaurant industry to think about children’s health first and join the wide range of local restaurants that have already made this commitment.”
The effective date of the legislation is December 1, 2011.
What the suits had to say about this plus Your Amended Legislative Digest, after the jump.
To review, here’s the original ad, as seen on the Streets of San Francisco. (Ignore that white oval, it’s vandalism, possibly from a Women’s Studies major, srsly.)
See? It went, “Boring bus ride today, bareback in Brazil tomorrow. SFO nonstop to South America.”
Which, I don’t know, if you’re trying to do the whole alliteration thing, that’s not too bad. (I mean what other words starting with the letter “B” can you think of?) Anyway, that bit of double entendre met with a bit of controversy. So LAN got all corporate and said they would set things right.
And here’s the result:
Traffic today. Tango tomorrow.”
Click to expand
Anyway, looks like this brouhaha has been put to bed.
So, all you can do is start saving your pennies to get your ticket. Then you grab your dollies…
…and put up your feet for the long trip south: