Via Tara Moriarty, of KTVU-TV:
@KCBSNews reporter Holly Quan: early signs garbage truck/cyclist both on 16th St. Truck made R turn onto S Van Ness; bike went straight.
If you want, you can compare what the SFFD has said about last year’s disaster with what independent federal investigators have recently said:
“A Career Lieutenant and Fire Fighter/Paramedic Die in a Hillside Residential House Fire – California“
During this incident, the E26 officer knew the fire was below him but he was unaware of just how many floors. If an adequate size-up had been conducted, or had the E26 officer obtained more intelligence information from the resident of the home that he spoke to briefly upon arrival, it may have facilitated a more rapid determination of the location of the fire floor.
In this incident, if an effective size-up would have been conducted several factors may have changed the first arriving companies’ tactics. The B side door would have been an option for initial entry. If the small window below the front door would have been noticed perhaps the fire could have been seen on the basement floor; or if more intelligence information would have been gathered from the occupant initially they could have identified that the fire was on the basement floor and how to access the floor.
During this incident, E32 was originally assigned as RIC then re-assigned fire fighting duties to back up E11. E20 was dispatched as RIC but did not arrived on scene until after the victims were recovered.
In this incident, BC6 and the IC tried to radio E26 with no response and it was assumed they were with BC9 or that BC9 knew what they were doing. An additional supporting component to fireground accountability is frequent progress reporting. When the IC fails to get a response after 3 attempts, or he receives a garbled response, action must be taken to determine the crew’s status. A worst case scenario must be assumed until their status can be confirmed.
At this incident, the officer on E26 realized that they had a fire somewhere in the structure, probably underneath them. The victims from E26 had deployed a 1¾” hoseline to the ground floor of the structure attempting to locate the fire. BC9 came into the structure and met them during their investigation of the ground floor. Victim #1 advised BC9 that the fire was underneath them. BC9 agreed to this and decided to take a crew down side B and attack the fire through the exterior doorway on side B at the basement level. BC9 and the IC discussed and agreed on this tactic. E26 did not receive any further instructions and did not leave the structure but attempted to go to the basement via the interior stairs. E26 did not provide any radio reports to the fire attack group supervisor (BC9) or the IC of their location or actions.
When an incident transitions from an investigation mode to an offensive fire attack mode, the IC should ensure that all companies have and understand their assignments, and are accounted for in the Personnel Accountability System. This information should be collected on a tactical worksheet to ensure that all companies have an assignment and are accounted for.
In this incident, a chief’s aide may have helped the IC to establish and manage the tactical worksheet early in the incident, track the deployment location of the E26 crew, and monitor transmissions on the fireground channels.
In this incident, for the size of the fire department and responsible coverage area, there is an insufficient number of incident safety officers (ISO) and/or qualified personnel (certified to NFPA 1521) to act as an ISO within the fire department. The ISO should be of a rank worthy of the significant responsibility.”
I don’t know, PG&E. Don’t you know by now that you’re a loser organization?
So how does it help to have your spokesmodels Blame the Customer First?
“Right now, we’re actively investigating the cause,” PG&E spokesperson John King said shortly after the outage. “It could be a number of things, from customer-owned equipment to PG&E equipment…”
Oh, I know. The answer is that it doesn’t help.
It doesn’t help at all.
Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job:
Via David Yu - click to expand
Here’s the latest:
“PG&E and the City and County of San Francisco Investigate Power Outages at Candlestick Park
SAN FRANCISCO, Dec. 19, 2011 — Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) issued the following statement from Geisha Williams, executive vice president of electric operations, about the power outages that impacted Candlestick Park this evening:
PG&E is working closely with the City and County of San Francisco, owner and operator of Candlestick Park, to determine the cause of tonight’s power outages. The first priority for both PG&E and the City and County has been to get the power restored as quickly and safely as possible and keep the power on through the rest of the game. Determining exactly what happened and working to prevent something like this from happening again is very important to everyone involved.
SOURCE Pacific Gas and Electric Company”
And from SFGov:
“MAYOR LEE’S STATEMENT ON POWER OUTAGES AT CANDLESTICK PARK
Mayor Edwin M. Lee today issued the following statement on the electric power outages at Candlestick Park at tonight’s San Francisco 49ers vs. Pittsburgh Steelers Monday Night Football game:
“Following the loss of electric power to Candlestick Park before kickoff this evening, I directed our Police, Fire and Recreation & Park Departments and our Public Utilities Commission to work closely with the 49ers and PG&E to ensure that maintaining public safety and restoring power to the stadium were the top priorities. City staff worked immediately to deliver backup power and support PG&E staff in their repairs.
I have directed Fire Chief Joanne Hayes-White and SFPUC General Manager Ed Harrington to conduct a full investigation into the cause of both outages and, with PG&E, identify immediate actions that must be taken to prevent incidents such as this from happening again.
Tonight we all share in tremendous pride for our San Francisco 49ers. We must make every effort to support continued victories for the team and fans across the Bay Area in the weeks ahead.”
And from Mayor Ed Lee on September 1, 2011, during the one-year anniversary of PG&E’s incompetance killing eight people in San Bruno:
“They’re a great company that gets it.”
Uh, nope!
[UPDATE: Andrea Koskey has more deets on this collision, as does RedditSF - it has a shot from just afterwards. ]
The driver of this car was taking Oak to get back to the Peninsula this afternoon but she ended up flipping her Honda Civic just before Divisadero.
See?
Click to expand
So as traffic backed up for miles along Oak, the SFPD began its investigation:
The Honda Shadow:
San Francisco’s “Comeback Neighborhood of the Year” is the host of this scene, betwixt abandoned sidewalk sofas and the LaunderLand:
Now I’ll tell you, we were supposed to get a freeway to link up the terminuseses of 101 and 280 with the Golden Gate Bridge, but what we got instead was Fell and Oak with three or four one-way lanes each way timed for 35 MPH. But these days, for various reasons, the Fell/Oak twins don’t play the substitute freeway role as well.
Recently, this intersection at Divis. has become a bottleneck owing to the inefficient* left arrow phase for southbound traffic on Divisadero to allow drivers to get on eastbound Oak. I’m not sure, but this configuration might have confused or upset the Civic driver, who was driving “all squirrelly” near Broderick shortly before this accident.
LBCOT
*Hey, how about a big fat “NO LEFT TURN” sign for southbound drivers on Divisadero? This intersection wasn’t made “for the neighbors,” so there’s no reason for the people who live in this area to have more of a say than those poor, wretched souls who live way out there in the West Bay, you know, the Sunset and the Richmond. This new left turn phase, like the one at Octavia for inbound Market Street drivers, appears to be a sop for DivCo / NoPA / EaPA locals…
Sometimes, I just don’t know.
Let’s see here, “controlled demolition,” “Building 7,” “just asking questions,” “Architects & Engineers” – nothing’s changed since 2001.
But fresh lingo from 2011? Check.
“September 11, 2001 - the day our country was hijacked and a permanent war was launched that will not end in our lifetime unless we the 99% stop it.
Building 7, which most people don’t know about, came crashing to the ground at 5:20pm on September 11th. Today, millions of citizens and 1,600 courageous architects and engineers are demanding an investigation into the suspect destruction of this skyscraper.
The government’s absurd story that “normal office fires” felled this 47-story skyscraper is only the tip of the iceberg of the anomalies and inconsistencies we’ve been given about 9/11.
Today we are taking our country back. We will not rest until those responsible for the death of 3,000 innocent people on 9/11 are brought to justice, and the war dollars are brought home.”
Enjoy your religion, Truthers.
[UPDATE: Word on the street this Election Eve 2011 is that Secretary of State Debra Bowen is sending election monitors to town for Our Big Day tomorrow.]
Candidates Bevan Dufty, Tony Hall, Phil Ting, and Ed Lee took a pass on signing this particular letter, but everybody else is on-board, looks like.
(Sure is odd having the City Attorney calling in the Feds, non?)
Anyway, check it, below.
Open-air voting booth tent, Chinatown, San Francisco, USA – Ed Lee Gets It Done:
Adithya Sambamurthy, The Bay Citizen
Here it is: USDOJ-CASOS-LETTER
“October 23, 2011
The Honorable Thomas E. Perez
Assistant Attorney General
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Attn: Civil Rights Division, Voting Section
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
Transmitted by fax: (202) 514-0293
The Honorable Debra Bowen
CALIFORNIA SECRETARY OF STATE
Attn: Election Fraud Investigation Unit
1500 11th Street, 5th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
Transmitted by fax: (916) 653-3214
Re: Request for federal observers and election monitors in San Francisco
Dear Assistant Attorney General Perez and Secretary of State Bowen:
We write to bring to your attention news reports and accompanying videos that may indicate violations of federal and state laws intended to protect voting rights and to assure the integrity of our electoral process.
In light of published accounts in the San Francisco Chronicle* and Bay Citizen** about electioneering activities by the SF Neighbor Alliance for Ed Lee for Mayor 2011, we request that your respective offices immediately detail federal observers and state election monitors for San Francisco’s mayoral election, which is currently underway.
According to these published accounts, these electioneering activities target Cantonese speaking voters in San Francisco, and may potentially impinge on their federally protected voting rights, and also violate provisions of the California Elections Code and other laws.
These suspect activities include the following:
• Testimony by independent witnesses that SF Neighbor Alliance for Ed Lee for Mayor 2011 staff were completing ballots for voters.
• Testimony and video evidence that SF Neighbor Alliance for Ed Lee for Mayor 2011 staff employed plastic stencils and handled absentee ballots in such a manner as to prevent voters from marking their ballots for other mayoral candidates.
• Testimony that SF Neighbor Alliance for Ed Lee for Mayor 2011 staff, as apparently ineligible third parties, received and collected into plastic bags voted ballots from voters, taking ballots into their possession.
• Testimony and video evidence that SF Neighbor Alliance for Ed Lee for Mayor 2011 staff interfered with the secrecy of voting. If true, these allegations and other conduct may violate the U.S. Voting Rights Act of 1965, and California Election Code provisions pertaining to electioneering, corruption of voting, the Voter Bill of Rights, and other laws.
Given their gravity, the importance of protecting voting rights, and assuring voter confidence in our electoral processes, we believe federal observers and election monitors are immediately warranted, and that further investigation by your respective offices would be well advised.
Sincerely,
Jeff Adachi, Public Defender
Michela Alioto-Pier, Small Businesswoman and Mother
John Avalos, Supervisor, District 11
David Chiu, President, Board of Supervisors
Dennis Herrera, City Attorney
Joanna Rees, Entrepreneur/Educator
Leland Yee, State Senator
cc: U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag San Francisco District Attorney George Gascón
*“Witnesses: Ed Lee supporters mark others’ ballots” by John Coté, San Francisco Chronicle, Oct. 21, 2011, http://bit.ly/o3rB9C; and “Ed Lee backers said to fill in ballots for others” by John Coté, San Francisco Chronicle, Oct. 22, 2011, http://bit.ly/mPvarB
**“More Fraud Accusations for Lee Supporters” by Gerry Shih, Bay Citizen, Oct. 22, 2011, http://www.baycitizen.org/sf-mayoral-race/story/mayor-ed-lees-campaign-supporters-1/”
Get up to speed on this issue right here, courtesy of The Bay Citizen writer Gerry Shih, who’s been nosing around our somewhat-corrupt SFO airport lately.
And here’s the version of the same story what’s in the National Section of today’s New York Times:
“Contributions to Mayor Raise Issue of Legality“
Ouch.
Your City Attorney Dennis Jose Herrera:
Via Luke Thomas of Fog City Journal
And here they are – Interim Mayor Ed Lee and Mayoral Spokesmodel Tony Winnicker along with the Fourth Estate (including feisty Gerry Shih and feisty Luke Thomas) at San Francisco City Hall:
And here’s “City Family” member GO Lorrie’s Airport Shuttle:
All the deets:
“Herrera calls for criminal investigation of laundered campaign donations to Ed Lee
Letter to U.S. Attorney, State A.G. and San Francisco D.A. says only investigators with authority to subpoena records, question witnesses under oath can resolve questions
SAN FRANCISCO (Oct. 7, 2011) — City Attorney Dennis Herrera today called for a formal criminal investigation into allegations first reported late yesterday afternoon that donors to interim Mayor Ed Lee’s campaign conspired to exceed contribution limits by laundering money through business associates. Herrera’s three-page letter to U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag, California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris, and San Francisco District Attorney George Gascón noted that the published admissions by employees of Go Lorries Airport Shuttle may indicate felony and misdemeanor violations of state and local laws. The California Fair Political Practices Commission has already announced a civil investigation into allegations that donors were reimbursed cash to make campaign contributions to Lee.
Further heightening concerns about the apparently illegal contributions, Herrera wrote, is that the donations closely followed official actions by mayoral appointees that significantly benefited the purported donors’ employer. Those actions include altering shared-ride the loading zone configurations at San Francisco International Airport to favor Go Lorries Airport Shuttles “due to feedback” from unspecified parties. Lee’s campaign has reportedly returned some $8,500 in donations that were questioned yesterday.
“Investigations are warranted when credible allegations risk undermining public trust in our local government — and we’ve certainly reached that point here,” Herrera said. “Only independent investigators with authority to subpoena records and question witnesses under oath can adequately resolve questions to which San Franciscans deserve answers. A formal investigation will best assure justice while protecting innocent parties. I hope interim Mayor Lee’s campaign joins in calling for such an inquiry, and cooperates with it fully.”
Herrera’s letter noted that multiple political endeavors on interim Mayor Lee’s behalf for much of the year have been plagued by ethical and legal questions, including political activities by city contractors, and the advent of a controversial “general purpose committee” that advanced Lee’s candidacy throughout the summer while sidestepping legal restraints that normally apply to candidate committees.
Urging “a full, fair and speedy investigation,” Herrera’s letter to federal and state criminal prosecutors concluded: “Allowing these questions to remain wholly unanswered can only serve to betray San Franciscans’ confidence in the integrity of their public institutions, and potentially diminish the legitimacy of their elected leadership.”
[UPDATE IV, Jason Lives: I guess we have closure now, excepting for Monday morning's FORUM from Michael Krasny on the KQED-FM. Leave us downgrade this Cat 5 contretemps all the way to unnamed tropical depression:
"FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
LGBT DISPUTE WITH ANONYMOUS TENTATIVELY SETTLED. COUNTER-DEMONSTRATION CANCELLED.
San Francisco, CA August 28, 2011
Monday’s counter-demonstration against Anonymous by members of the LGBT Community has been cancelled after Anonymous made assurances that they have no malice against LGBT people.
While many people speak for Anonymous we have been told the group was largely against the release of the Linton Johnson photos, and that they are not planning any similar tactics (sexual images) in the future.
Some community leaders, such as La Mesha Irizarry of the Idriss Stelley Foundation are skeptical but had grave safety concerns for demonstrators. “A counter protest pinning commuters against protesters is itself a dangerous, unstable mix” said Irizarry.
The LGBT group had planned to demonstrate alongside the “Commuters Take Back Bart” group, which is still planning to demonstrate.
Lead organizers will be at the Civic Center in the event community members who aren’t aware of the cancellation show up to demonstrate.
Contact:
Chris Andoe
[See Comments if you want the email address]
[UPDATE: I'm a little surprised that one irate person can get so much attention from the MSM before he's actually done anything. Linton Johnson's repeated, numerous, high-profile misstatements of law have ceased, for whatever reason [cough, when you’re on camera all the time you’re not always going to say the best thing, cough], so I don’t think that he’s the focus of anything anymore. Here’s one recent manifesto from one person – note that it has nothing to do with LGBT whatever. Note that it has 3000 (or, in the parlance of the day, over 9000) views already. How many followers does organizer Chris Andoe have to organize? We’ll see.]
[UPDATE II, Electric Boogaloo: Oh, I see, it's Linton's friends and acquaintances behind this. Makes sense now. Fair enough.]
[UPDATE III, Tokyo Drift:
"This is ridiculous, whoever told the GLBT community that Anonymous released photos of Linton is a flat out liar. Linton released them himself, perhaps they should be protesting outside of Linton's house."]
Let’s see here, it looks like Anonymous will have have a little competition at the next OpBART, which is OpBART III: Tokyo Drift coming up on August 29th, 2011.
So, get ready for two new factions competing with Anonymous for attention:
1. Commuters Take Back BART (Heh.)
2.“Organizer” Chris Andoe’s Leaked Linton Johnson Photos Gay-Baiting Counter-Protest (Heh.)
Throw in the newly-energized SFPD and the BART Police and this one could end up just like that historic Battle of the Five Armies.
Comes now website-free, non-BART rider Chris Andoe (who?) to say:
“Long before becoming Bay Area Rapid Transit’s chief spokesperson, Linton Johnson worked as a television reporter in St. Louis. In the late 90’s he was regularly seen dancing shirtless, with much fanfare, at the Complex.”
All right, how does this help us? It tells us that self-proclaimed Constitutional scholar Linton Johnson was not boning up the law back then, and maybe you’re reflexively defending your friend from Flyover Country, but that’s about all that we can learn from that.
Here’s more, complete with an edited quote.
Oh, and here’s the full quote, where a BART dude apologizes for recent statements:
“Linton is doing a great job,” Franklin said. “When you’re on camera all the time you’re not always going to say the best thing. Linton is doing a great job and it’s a tough job. So the organization is going to stand behind Linton.”
I’ll just say this: It wasn’t a group of hackers what posted those photos, it was one dude (who actually didn’t need to do any hacking) who posted those photos.
“I think the purpose was to humiliate him. the guy is the public face of bart. don’t pull the homophobe card just because he’s happens to be gay and embarrassing pics were leaked.”
All right, let’s see how many people actually show up on Monday at 5:00 PM. (There will be loads of media there regardless…)
UPDATE: KGO-TV is doing a good job with a live feed this afternoon, but it probably won’t be all that interesting after 6:00 PM PDT, August 22, 2011]
All right, let’s start with the Feds. In addition to the ongoing Federal Communication Commission’s probe into BART’s unprecedented actions on August 11th, 2011, we now have beloved* Congresswoman Jackie Speier** getting into the act.
See?
“BART is learning a lesson that requires closer examination,” said Speier, who represents part of San Francisco and San Mateo County. “I believe BART needs to work harder to understand the ever-changing relationship between security and liberty. And to this end, we should replace finger-pointing with constructive dialogue that addresses security measures that go too far.”
Helloooo, BART? This isn’t a pat on the back, you know?
We’re not in Tahrir anymore, are we?
Via Artificial Eyes/exiledsurfer
Indeed, you now have a local Congresswoman, into addition bunches of other people, “bitching and complaining” about BART turning off its cell phone repeaters on August 11th.
Oh my, we’re getting close to obscene gerund territory, right? Well, let’s get the exact quote then:
“[BART's $170k per year spokesmodel Linton] Johnson’s exact words, as reported by the Bay Citizen, were: “It is an amenity. We survived for years without cellphone service … Now they’re bitching and complaining that we turned it off for three hours?”
So I guess the B-word is in the BART communications plan now? O.K. fine.
Moving on…
Hey, was that whole inchoate protest thing on August 11th just a test to see who’s an informant for the BART Police?
[Well, I had something here that was pretty much the whole point of this post - it had support for the idea that there was no protest planned. But I no longer have anything to link to. So oh well... 
]
Well, that’s plausible.
Via Artificial Eyes/exiledsurfer – click to expand
And here’s BART’s CYA letter from this AM, you know, for the record. It sounds quite different from Linton Johnson’s laughable misquotations of the law, exaggerations, spin, tall tales, whatever you want to call what we’ve been getting the past ten days. So that’s refreshing.
(Now when did the term “passengers” become “customers?” Does it sound better to say, “One of our poorly-trained ‘newbie’ officers once again just shot and killed yet another ‘customer’ unnecessarily,” as opposed to, you know, ‘passenger?’ I don’t know.)
Oh, and I should note the screed below has been signed by merely $160-per-hour, BART Lawyer*** for Life / ”Interim Manager” Sherwood Glen Wakeman and supercracker / BART Director Bob Franklin (you know, the guy what represents the rich, lily-white Piedmont, Berkeley hills, and Oakland hills areas, among others.
(Of course, the following would be a stronger message if it had signatures of any of the other eight directors on it, but who knows how all those people feel…)
Anyway, die Postkarte vom Das Führerbunker:
“08.20.2011
A letter from BART to our customers
Dear Customers,
BART’s top priority is to ensure the safety of its passengers. Prior to a planned protest on August 11, 2011, BART obtained credible information that led us to conclude that the safety of the BART system would be compromised. Out of an overriding concern for our passengers’ safety, BART made the decision to temporarily interrupt cell phone service on portions of its system. We are aware that the interruption had the effect of temporarily preventing cellular communications for many BART passengers and their families; and we regret any inconvenience caused by the interruption. We want to take this opportunity to share some of the information that led to this decision.
Imminent Threat of Unlawful and Dangerous Activities on BART Platforms
July 11 Protest
On July 11, a group gathered at the BART Civic Center Station in San Francisco to protest the fact that, on July 3, a BART Police Officer shot and killed Charles Hill at that station.
During that protest, one person climbed on top of a train and many other individuals blocked train doorways and held train doors open. During the course of the event, which occurred during the peak of rush hour, individuals used BART trains to move between stations, and caused the shutdown or partial shutdown of other stations.
These actions violated the law by creating a serious threat to the safe operation of the BART system, disrupting the service of 96 BART trains (approximately two-thirds of the trains operating during the rush hour), causing the closing of stations, and putting at risk the safety of thousands of passengers and BART employees.
When trains are not able to move or pick up passengers, the platforms can quickly become overcrowded. This is very dangerous due to the increased possibility that people will fall from the platforms onto the trackway. The trackway is five feet below the platform edge and contains the electrified 3rd rail.
Also, when one train stops, all trains behind it must stop. In some cases, trains must stop in tunnels, which delays the arrival of emergency medical help for passengers in need of assistance. Additionally, self-evacuation by passengers in underground tunnels is another potential dangerous outcome of interference with BART service.
Planned August 11 Protest
Early in the week of August 8, the BART Police Department received credible information that individuals were planning a surprise demonstration against BART police shootings at specific BART station platforms on August 11. On August 10, BART Police obtained further information regarding the individuals’ plans for color-coded teams to conduct lawless activity on the platforms. The additional information disclosed detailed organizational coordination among multiple “affinity groups” in addition to the organization that had sponsored the July 11 disruption.
The August 10 intelligence revealed that the individuals would be giving and receiving instructions to coordinate their activities via cell phone after their arrival on the train platforms at more than one station. Individuals were instructed to text the location of police officers so that the organizers would be aware of officer locations and response times. The overall information about the planned protest led BART to conclude that the planned action constituted a serious and imminent threat to the safety of BART passengers and personnel and the safe operation of the BART system, at a level that could far exceed the protest of July 11.
Based on that assessment, BART decided to interrupt cell phone service at targeted portions of its system for up to 4 hours, beginning at 4:00 p.m., the time that the individuals were scheduled to assemble. BART notified the affected cellular service providers shortly before it implemented the temporary interruption. Service was turned back on at 7 p.m., earlier than planned, when safety concerns abated.
At the affected portions of the BART system, there was no cellular service on the platform level, and service on the concourse level was also affected in some areas. Cellular service was fully available at the street level and at all above-ground BART stations and trackways.
BART took prudent measures to protect passengers during the time that cell phone service was unavailable. More than 120 extra BART uniformed Police Officers and Operations personnel carrying radios and wearing reflective vests were assigned to be in the four downtown San Francisco stations and on trains traveling between those stations. Additionally, passenger courtesy phones on the platform were available to provide direct communication with Station Agents. BART also has intercoms at each end of each train car, allowing passengers to contact the operator for assistance. No passenger emergencies were reported to BART during the period of the cellular service interruption.
First Amendment Issues
For more than 25 years, BART has had a policy regarding the exercise of First Amendment free speech rights in areas of its stations where it can be done safely and without interference with BART’s primary mission of providing safe, efficient and reliable public transportation services. To implement this policy, BART has designated the areas of its stations that are accessible to the general public without the purchase of tickets as unpaid areas that are open for expressive activity upon issuance of a permit subject to BART’s rules. To protect public safety and provide safe and efficient public transportation, BART has restricted access to the “Paid” and “Platform” areas of its stations to BART station employees and ticketed passengers who are boarding, exiting or waiting for BART trains.
BART’s temporary interruption of cell phone service was not intended to and did not affect any First Amendment rights of any person to protest in a lawful manner in areas at BART stations that are open for expressive activity. The interruption did prevent the planned coordination of illegal activity on the BART platforms, and the resulting threat to public safety.
BART’s Future Plans
At a special Board meeting on Wednesday, the Board will discuss the temporary interruption of cell service on portions of the BART system that occurred on August 11, and we invite the public to participate in this discussion.
Thank for your patience and we value your continued support.
Bob Franklin, BART Board of Directors President
Sherwood Wakeman, Interim General Manager”
All right, see you on Monday!
*She had a bet with her husband that she would get less than 80% of the vote (he was confident that she would get 80-something(!) percent) what ascended her to Congress for the rest of her life. She only got 79% of that vote, IIRC, so she won twice in one day.
**You know, the elected official that former KNTV weekend news anchor Linton Johnson didn’t give money to when he was working for that NBC affiliate. Was that against station policy? You Make The Call.
*** Currently inactive, BTW.
So let’s take a trip down memory lane to check out what that Run Ed Run website, you know, looks like, see whazzup these days:
Uh, but website, you do exist. You’re right there. How can you be able to say that you don’t exist if you don’t exist?
This one’s a stumper.
It’s like saying, “This photo of a MUNI underground entrance no longer exists.”
And yet, it does exist.
(What did the Run Ed Run people change the website for? To kill the cached images of the site?)
Oh well.
Here’s my version:
All right, I’m off to make a $5000 political donation, you know, under someone else’s name.
May I borrow your checkbook? I’ll pay you back up front…
