Man, I’d hate to be renting a car by the hour whilst driving from Arizona to the Bay Area.
Anyway, as seen in the 94117:
Click to expand
Anything to save a buck, huh Zipcar?
I don’t know what to make of this image below.
Is it a portion of yesterday’s Sing Tao Daily? (And, if so, wouldn’t that please Caroline Chen of the SF Weekly?)
And does it have some bons mots from Chinatown ward healer Rose Pak and former Mayor Willie Brown?
As always, You Make The Call.
Exhibit A, from Rose Pak, on the topic of the recent statements from San Francisco Ethics Commission Executive Director John St. Croix:
“He doesn’t even know the U.S. Constitution. I don’t know how he does his job. How can you deprive people of their rights to volunteer for a campaign? It is unheard in history that if someone enters the race, those who helped him before are not allowed to help him again,” said Pak.
And Exhibit B, from His Willieness*:
“Former Mayor Willie Brown said St. Croix obviously does not understand what democracy is about. His anti-Ed Lee position has disqualified himself for his post. “When you announce your candidacy, I will not be able to support you. This is just unbelievable,” said Brown.”
(Keep in mind when you hear allegations of constitutionality and whatnot, that Willie Brown went to UC Hastings School of Law and Enrique Pearce and Mayor Ed Lee both attended UC Berkeley’s Boalt Hall.)
See? Read it for yourself:
Oh, how about this crude translation? It’s the best I can do right now:
“In response to the letter from San Francisco Ethics Commission Director John St. Croix, supporters of Ed Lee for Mayor reprimanded St. Croix for actions being based on nothing. They also questioned his qualification for the position.
Chinese Chamber of Commerce consultant Rose Pak described it the biggest joke of the world. She said it is full of nonsense. He didn’t know what he’s talking about. “He doesn’t even know the U.S. Constitution. I don’t know how he does his job. How can you deprive people of their rights to volunteer for a campaign? It is unheard in history that if someone enters the race, those who helped him before are not allowed to help him again,” said Pak.
Enrique Pearce had consulted St. Croix. However, the latter said differently afterwards. Besides, he didn’t provide written replies to questions that Progress for All raised or gave explanations, said Rose Pak. “I will be the first one not to comply. You don’t have the authority to formulate the law, which is not free to go by your interpretation.”
Former Mayor Willie Brown said St. Croix obviously does not understand what democracy is about. His anti-Ed Lee position has disqualified himself for his post. “When you announce your candidacy, I will not be able to support you. This is just unbelievable,” said Brown.
Hey, what do you think? Is this an accurate translation? Tell me, tell me if you think the translation isn’t good.
*Speaking of Willie Brown (who still writes for the San Francisco Chronicle) and Rose Pak (who used to write for the San Francisco Chronicle), here’s a bit (in the San Francisco Chronicle) from Willie on Rose circa April 2011:
“Holding court at the party for the opening of the new airport terminal, Rose was seated at the table with interim Mayor Ed Lee and his wife, Anita, and a host of other local officials.
“I want every one of you to call his office and tell him he should run for mayor,” Rose told the table. “And do it right away so that there’s no misunderstanding.”
Then she turned to the architect David Gensler.
“Didn’t you do this terminal?” she asked.
“Yes,” he said.
“Didn’t you remodel this terminal before?”
“Yes,” he said.
“Then your firm should raise a million dollars for his election campaign.”
Poor Gensler, he didn’t know what hit him.”
Oh, it’s on. It’s on the agenda for the next meeting of the San Francisco Ethics Commission:
“Consideration of the Status of “Progress for All,” an entity registered as a General Purpose Committee in San Francisco. This organization is responsible for the “Run, Ed, Run” campaign and claims its primary purpose is to convince Mayor Ed Lee to run for election to the office that he currently holds. The Executive Director has instructed Progress for All to refile as a “Primarily Formed Committee” as its independent expenditures have the effect of promoting an Ed Lee candidacy to the voters. As a matter of policy, the Commission will discuss the status of Progress for All and possibly determine what, if any, policy and regulatory changes are necessary to address similar situations in the future. The Commission may also discuss whether to redraft, withdraw or update a prior informal advice letter to the Progress for All Committee. (Discussion and possible action.)”
It turns out that some of these unenthusiastic people were getting paid $11 an hour? That would explain a lot:
Click to expand
The gritty nitty:
“During the current Mayoral election cycle, two committees formed with the stated
intention of convincing Mayor Ed Lee to run for the office which he now holds. The
first, called “Progress for All” registered as a committee on May 18, 2011 (and refiled
on June 23) and is the sponsor of the “Run, Ed, Run” campaign. The second, called
“Support Drafting Ed Lee for Mayor 2011” registered as a committee on July 19. A
third group was also formed, but reportedly did not raise or spend any money and
therefore did not qualify as a committee.
State and local law provide definitions of types of committees and their filing
responsibilities. Initially, the scope of the activities of these committees was unclear.
In an informal advice letter date May 17, 2011, the Commission answered a
hypothetical question from Enrique Pearce, who would become a hired consultant for
Progress for All. However, the question posed in that letter is only tangential to the
policy question before the Commission. While it is clear that the citizens expect
political activity, particularly fundraising and spending, to be regulated, under which
state and local regulations are committees such as the two mentioned above most
It goes on and on…
Since all the mayoral candidates are turning in signatures* at City Hall by the July 28, 2011 deadline, it’s a good time to review the difference between bona fide signatures and the other kind.
Here’s a box of (mostly) bona fide signatures from registered San Francisco voters, as seen on Van Ness last week. Each one has a (purported) San Francisco street address:
Click to expand
Compare that with this.
This is garbage:
BTW, the people collecting Run Ed Run signatures say stuff like, “Oh, sign for your brothers and sisters too!”
So, yes, RER, you have 30k sigs, but You Aint Bona Fide, that’s the problem.
Or rather, that’s one problem.
*Or paying $$$ in lieu of signatures, whichever.
I’ll tell you, the reason why the home county of the exchange student who was recently sexually asaulted in San Franciscois resting easy these days is that the media of said home country isn’t aware of the attack. And why’s that? Apparently, it’s the policy of San Francisco to not give out that kind of information. Per the SF Appeal:
“Police are not releasing information about the country the alleged victim is from in order to protect her identity, Tomioka said.”
I’m wondering how small a country has to be such that saying its name discloses the identity of any particular tourist in San Francisco.
Like if there’s a famous exchange program in Monaco (population 30k) and they send ten students a year to the States? That would seem to fit the bill, fair enough.
But what if the exchange student is from one of the following Big Ten tourist-producing countries (countries avec concomitant robust, aggresive media, of course)?
If the student is from one of these countries, I’d be hard-pressed to see how saying the name of the country would identify any particular person from that country. Maybe there’s a written policy, or maybe there’s an unwritten rule, the way the MSM won’t report routine cases of Golden Gate Bridge jumpings?
That is all.
The American Kennel Club released its stats of most popular dogs for 2008. (Sadly, if your pup didn’t come with papers, it might not have been counted. Moving on…)
What were the trends for 2008?
“San Franciscans seem to be moving their preferences from petite pooches to larger breeds,” said AKC Spokesperson Lisa Peterson. “The city by the bay added the German Shepherd and Rottweiler to its Top Ten while smaller breeds, such as the Pug and Dachshund, dropped in popularity.”
You see these Puli dogs all over town these days. When will they crack the top ten?
The results for 2008, here are your most popular San Francisco doggies:
1. Labrador Retriever
2. Yorkshire Terrier
4. Golden Retriever
5. French Bulldog
6. Cavalier King Charles Spaniel
8. German Shepherd Dog
9. Rottweilers (tied)
Sorry Labradoodle, even though Brad Pitt gave one of you guys to Jennifer Anniston a while back, you’re still not respectable enough to be considered a breed of your own. Maybe next century.
More deets after the jump. Congratulations to the winners.