As seen in SoMA:
Click to expand
It’s probably powered by gasoline though…
Especially in SoMA during convention time.
Why? Because of The Constitution. Or a constitution. Or one of them. Or both. (If a Scott Wiener-type really worked on this issue, it might have an effect, IDK.)
And oh yeah, these trucks all have Nevada license plates, ever more insulation from the long arm of SFGov
Click to expand
Look for more of these trucks during next month’s “March of Life” 2014 on the Embarcadero
“We would circle and we’d circle and we’d circle to stop and consider and centered on the pavement stacked up all the trucks jacked up and our wheels in slush and orange crush in pocket and all this here county, hell, any county, it’s just like heaven here, and I was remembering and I was just in a different county and all then this whirlybird that I headed for I had my goggles pulled off; I knew it all, I knew every back road and every truck stop…”
The problem with the 49 Square Miles Project is that nobody checked to see if San Francisco is actually that big.
Here’s the answer from Wikipedia:
Now, did they include the Farallon Islands? Hell yes, plus tiny parts of the North Bay and the East Bay that we also have, through Accident of History:
“Several islands—Alcatraz,Treasure Island and the adjacent Yerba Buena Island, and a small portion of Alameda Island, Red Rock Island, and Angel Island are part of the city. Also included are the uninhabited Farallon Islands, 27 miles (43 km) offshore in the Pacific Ocean.”
So, having proved that, let’s fix the Chron’s graphic:
You know Chron, you could have rounded up to 47 and you could have even rounded up to 50, if your ardor for California’s Fourth-Largest City demanded it.
But you can’t round up to 49.
Wiki wins again.
Step One: Amend San Francisco Police Code section 680 to make it look more like the City of West Hollywood’s Municipal Code section 11.441. Basically, that would mean, instead of banning “commercial advertising” on vehicles, we’d be banning all advertising, banning all mobile billboards.
Step Two: Start writing tickets.
What’s that you say, what about the First Amendment ‘n stuff? Well, let’s read up on a recent case from the California Court of Appeal called Showing Animals Respect and Kindness, et al. v. City of West Hollywood (B201721). You see, this animal-loving guy from S.H.A.R.K. got busted for driving his animal-rights mobile billboard advertising truck around town. He sued West Hollywood after he got cited but he lost. Why?
Here Come Da Judges (the bulk of them, anyway):
“The city concedes that SHARK was engaged in noncommercial speech but maintains its ordinance applies to both commercial and noncommercial speech. SHARK, however, argues that the term “advertising” applies only to commercial speech. We agree with the city that the ordinance applies to both commercial and noncommercial speech.
“The term “advertise” is not limited to calling the public’s attention to a product or a business. The definition of “advertise” is more general: “to make something known to[;] . . . to make publicly and generally known[;] . . . to announce publicly esp[ecially] by a printed notice or a broadcast…”
So it looks like West Hollywood has a green light to stop both commercial and non-commercial advertising trucks from roaming its streets. What’s preventing San Francisco from doing the same thing?
Click to expand. On the Embarcadero:
And Market Street:
(Brace yourselves, more these trucks like these are on their way. Get used to it…)
How West Hollywood does it, after the jump
These mobile billboard trucks, in town for today’s West Coast Walk for Life, don’t appear to constitute “commercial advertising” so the people responsible for them don’t appear to be violating San Francisco law.
Click to expand. On the Embarcadero:
And Market Street:
Anyway, this is what’s roaming the streets today…
Let’s see here, that was a big march the anti-abortion people put on today, huh? The Chronicle (or what I’m actually looking at - SFGate, San Francisco’s online newspaper) was on the scene today and reports that “several thousand“ were at the West Coast March for Life on the Embarcadero.
On the other hand, the organizers themselves have the number at “at least 35,000.”*
My count was 22,000+ so 35k sounds, how shall we say, optimistic, unless they’re counting people who didn’t march and were hiding somewhere. PipeLineNews (“the RIGHT news… RIGHT now”) comes in with a guess of “23,000 – 25,000,” which I’m thinking is their good-faith effort to be objective.
But, as always, You Make The Call. If you think this video shows the crowd passing any given point at more than one person per second, then you’ll think an estimate of several thousand is too low. So much for crowd estimates….
UPDATE: The Chronicle’s Joe Garafoli discusses yet another estimate of precisely 22,809 marchers. And the SFPD weighs with more than 10,000 all told. Here’s an IndyBay report that indicated the crowds were smaller this year (they weren’t) and here’s another with five glaring errors in the first three sentences. Oh well. Lastly, here comes the Catholic News Agency with an estimate of 25,000, which sounds perfectly cromulent to me.
Click to expand
Read all about it, after the jump
*And when you tell lies/ An angel dies. Remember that for next year, Dolores.
The A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition organizes a lot of protests here in the Bay Area, as is their right. And they seem to consistently exaggerate the number of souls who participate in their marches, as is their right. O.K. fine. But Saturday’s march down Market Street on the sixth anniversary of the start of the Iraq War had such small numbers compared to the big antiwar marches of 2003 that a person could have easiy tallied up an accurate estimate, if only to see how much the ANSWER Coalition exaggerates.
The “answer” is this: they overestimate by 200%. It’s the Rule of Three, just like in the movie American Pie 2. So, take the “official” estimate of 4000 marchers, divide by three to get 1333 and there you have it. Bingo bango.
Here’s Saturday’s march from above. The 440 or so people marked with white circles represent a third of the total number. (It took about 4 minutes to tally this shot and another ten minutes to tally folks in other photos.) Click to expand:
(Of course lots of people want to give President Barack Obama some time to have a chance to deal with matters, and it was raining, and yada yada yada. The point is that it shouldn’t be so hard to say that the crowd was slightly bigger or smaller than last year – there’s no reason to lie about it, is there? Moving on…)
Kudos to the Socialist Worker, which came a bit closer with an estimate of 2500 people. Perhaps they use the Rule of Two.
Double kudos to local journalist and photographer Josh Wolfe, who came in with “maybe 1000 people” as his honest estimate. Bay City News kept it conservative with “hundreds,” which is literally true, but that word could also suggest 200 or so. Oh well. The San Jose Mercury News played it safe with no estimate at all.
And SFGate / San Francisco Chronicle? Well, they originally went with “massive” as a description of the masses (which was particularly inappropriate given that similar marches six years ago had numbers about 50 times greater), but then pulled back a bit later to just talking about the “crowds.” All of this is ably documented by Robert B. Livingston here on the IndyBay.
Check it, before:
Originally posted by Mr. Livingston, I presume.
Robert Livingston is also correct in stating that writers Heather Knight and Steve Rubenstein produced a bit that was “well composed, accurate, and captured much of the essence” of the event, so that’s a good thing. It’s not clear who came up with the boner “massive.”
Chronicle Editor-at-Large Phil Bronstein has recently opined on these kinds of issues – here’s a re-hash of a count controversy back in 2003.
Anyway, the correct estimate is 1330 marchers, mas o menos, depending whether you include the cops, the undercover cops, the people who didn’t have the chance to march because they were setting up in Civic Center, the people who left early, the people who arrived late, the marchers without signs who happen to be on the sidewalks, the photographers, the videographers, etc.
The Rule of Three has been tested and proven. Would certain people have more credibility if they didn’t spin so much? Yes, yes they would.
Jessica: “If a guy tells you how many girls he’s hooked up with, it’s not even close to that. You take that number and divide it by three, then you get the real total. OK, so if Kevin is saying it’s been three girls it’s more like one or none.”
Jessica: “The rule of three. It’s an exact science. Consistent as gravity.”
Of course any group of protesters naturally wants to believe they are great in number. So when turnout is hard to determine, people tend to get a little optimistic. Now let’s take a look at what the San Francisco Chronicle’s C. W. Nevius has to say about last year’s March for Life West Coast:
“They claim huge numbers for this walk – their estimate last year was 25,000 walkers, although The Chronicle story had the total at 10,000.”
“At least 10,000 abortion opponents were bused into the city from all over California, and from outside the state, for a morning rally in Justin Herman Plaza.”
Now, it’s not exactly clear what the reporters actually think in this case – it could be they just punted the issue and focussed on other matters. So it’s fairly weak support for an allegation of excessive International A.N.S.W.E.R-style overcounting.
This was the vanguard today – it took 40-something minutes for them to all pass through. Click to expand
The people at March for Life West Coast appear to be generally more realistic than the average protest group, anyway. For 2009, they’re claiming more than 30,000, and one booster is saying precisely 32,200.
This number isn’t impossible, but that’s not the point. The point is that C.W. Nevius could have made his point about ignoring this large event without being devius.