Thursday, February 26, 2009
The Tenderloin National Forest
The Tenderloin National Forest
We were at a North Beach Neighbors dinner at Lichee Garden on Powell last night. (Terrific dinner. $28, including tax and tip, for a ten-course dinner. No-host beer and wine, if desired. Fun time was had by all. Interesting conversations. Good food.)
Rigo was with a group at our table at dinner that included Fernando [last name?], from Portugal. Fernando was sitting between Rigo and me and only spoke Portuguese. Although I know Brazilian Portuguese is a far cry from Portuguese, I wished it had been less than fifty years since I last had a conversation in Portuguese. There are not many words I remember.
Talked with Rigo about ONE TREE and TRUTH, two of my favorite Rigo public works, and about what he's up to. Turns out he and Fernando are currently working on a mosaic for the Tenderloin National Forest on Cohen Alley, off Ellis.
(photos of the Tenderloin National Forest from Dave Schumaker on flickr)
I plan to wander by some day soon and see how it's coming along.
posted by Sal Towse at 9:53 AM|
|
|
We were at a North Beach Neighbors dinner at Lichee Garden on Powell last night. (Terrific dinner. $28, including tax and tip, for a ten-course dinner. No-host beer and wine, if desired. Fun time was had by all. Interesting conversations. Good food.)
Rigo was with a group at our table at dinner that included Fernando [last name?], from Portugal. Fernando was sitting between Rigo and me and only spoke Portuguese. Although I know Brazilian Portuguese is a far cry from Portuguese, I wished it had been less than fifty years since I last had a conversation in Portuguese. There are not many words I remember.
Talked with Rigo about ONE TREE and TRUTH, two of my favorite Rigo public works, and about what he's up to. Turns out he and Fernando are currently working on a mosaic for the Tenderloin National Forest on Cohen Alley, off Ellis.
(photos of the Tenderloin National Forest from Dave Schumaker on flickr)
I plan to wander by some day soon and see how it's coming along.
Labels: art, causes, life, people, San Francisco
posted by Sal Towse at 9:53 AM|
|
|
Monday, February 02, 2009
Mormons donated more to California's Prop. 8 campaign than they'd previously copped to
Mormon church reports $190,000 Prop. 8 expenses.
Mormon church officials, facing an ongoing investigation by the state Fair Political Practices Commission, Friday reported nearly $190,000 in previously unlisted assistance to the successful campaign for Prop. 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California.
Now there's a huge surprise.
Up until Friday, the Mormon church had denied any direct financial support for the campaign beyond a reported $2,078 spent for bringing church Elder L. Whitney Clayton to California.
Church officials complained that Karger's complaint was full of errors and that the church had "fully complied" with California law.
The report filed Friday contained few details about how the money was spent.
[...]
While the deadline for the report, which covers the period from July 1 to Dec. 31, is Monday, many campaign contributions by major donors and independent committees must be reported within days after they're made.
The final reports are due today, because U.S. District Judge Morrison England late last week refused to exempt the yes-on-8 campaign from making their filings today.
If the Prop. 8 campaign was exempted from disclosure because of reports of harassments of individual donors, said Deputy Attorney General Zackery Morazzini, the same case could be made for any controversial initiative. Courts would have to "keep the entire California electorate in the dark as to who was funding these ballot measures," he said.
England agreed.
He noted that some of the reprisals reported by the Prop. 8 committee involve legal activities such as boycotts and picketing. Other alleged actions, such as death threats, mailings of white powder and vandalism, may constitute "repugnant and despicable acts" but can be reported to law enforcement, the judge said.
Even if there have been illegal reprisals, that would be insufficient reason to grant a wholesale exemption for a multimillion-dollar initiative campaign, England said. He also rejected the Prop. 8 campaign's argument that the $100 disclosure limit established in 1974 should be increased for inflation, saying some states require reports of contributions as low as $25 and the Supreme Court has never invalidated them.
[ref:Prop. 8 campaign can't hide donors' names]
Interesting to see what comes out today that the yes-on-8 campaign was so anxious not to have come out.
posted by Sal Towse at 9:52 AM||
|
Mormon church officials, facing an ongoing investigation by the state Fair Political Practices Commission, Friday reported nearly $190,000 in previously unlisted assistance to the successful campaign for Prop. 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California.
Now there's a huge surprise.
Up until Friday, the Mormon church had denied any direct financial support for the campaign beyond a reported $2,078 spent for bringing church Elder L. Whitney Clayton to California.
Church officials complained that Karger's complaint was full of errors and that the church had "fully complied" with California law.
The report filed Friday contained few details about how the money was spent.
[...]
While the deadline for the report, which covers the period from July 1 to Dec. 31, is Monday, many campaign contributions by major donors and independent committees must be reported within days after they're made.
The final reports are due today, because U.S. District Judge Morrison England late last week refused to exempt the yes-on-8 campaign from making their filings today.
If the Prop. 8 campaign was exempted from disclosure because of reports of harassments of individual donors, said Deputy Attorney General Zackery Morazzini, the same case could be made for any controversial initiative. Courts would have to "keep the entire California electorate in the dark as to who was funding these ballot measures," he said.
England agreed.
He noted that some of the reprisals reported by the Prop. 8 committee involve legal activities such as boycotts and picketing. Other alleged actions, such as death threats, mailings of white powder and vandalism, may constitute "repugnant and despicable acts" but can be reported to law enforcement, the judge said.
Even if there have been illegal reprisals, that would be insufficient reason to grant a wholesale exemption for a multimillion-dollar initiative campaign, England said. He also rejected the Prop. 8 campaign's argument that the $100 disclosure limit established in 1974 should be increased for inflation, saying some states require reports of contributions as low as $25 and the Supreme Court has never invalidated them.
[ref:Prop. 8 campaign can't hide donors' names]
Interesting to see what comes out today that the yes-on-8 campaign was so anxious not to have come out.
Labels: California, causes, election2008, legal, politics
posted by Sal Towse at 9:52 AM|
|
|
Monday, December 22, 2008
Melissa Etheridge: The Choice Is Ours Now
Melissa Etheridge: The Choice Is Ours Now
Melissa Etheridge on the Rev. Rick Warren.
[...]
On the day of the conference I received a call from Pastor Rick, and before I could say anything, he told me what a fan he was. He had most of my albums from the very first one. What? This didn't sound like a gay hater, much less a preacher. He explained in very thoughtful words that as a Christian he believed in equal rights for everyone. He believed every loving relationship should have equal protection.
[...]
She tells everyone to chill.
[...]
Maybe if they get to know us, they wont fear us.
I know, call me a dreamer, but I feel a new era is upon us.
I will be attending the inauguration with my family, and with hope in my heart. I know we are headed in the direction of marriage equality and equal protection for all families.
Happy Holidays my friends and a Happy New Year to you.
Peace on earth, goodwill toward all men and women... and everyone in-between.
posted by Sal Towse at 6:55 PM||
|
Melissa Etheridge on the Rev. Rick Warren.
[...]
On the day of the conference I received a call from Pastor Rick, and before I could say anything, he told me what a fan he was. He had most of my albums from the very first one. What? This didn't sound like a gay hater, much less a preacher. He explained in very thoughtful words that as a Christian he believed in equal rights for everyone. He believed every loving relationship should have equal protection.
[...]
She tells everyone to chill.
[...]
Maybe if they get to know us, they wont fear us.
I know, call me a dreamer, but I feel a new era is upon us.
I will be attending the inauguration with my family, and with hope in my heart. I know we are headed in the direction of marriage equality and equal protection for all families.
Happy Holidays my friends and a Happy New Year to you.
Peace on earth, goodwill toward all men and women... and everyone in-between.
Labels: causes, commentary, culture, election2008, life
posted by Sal Towse at 6:55 PM|
|
|
Saturday, August 02, 2008
Garbage (and recycling and more!) redux
The trash police: Gavin Newsom is proposing the nation's first-ever mandatory recycling and composting law. Be prepared to pay hefty fines if you toss coffee grounds in with the newspapers.
Read the article.
Read the comments.
People can be such whiners. Gestapo! It's so hard to recycle. &c. and so on.
Yes, proposing outrageous fines if people don't sort their garbage (and maybe cutting off their garbage service ... that'll teach them!) is nonsense, but the City pays a fortune to truck garbage to the dump over by Altamont and with gas prices rising not only is the dump filling (and where will we put trash then?) but costs are rising too.
Our field trip to the dump -- AKA "Norcal Waste System, Inc's Solid Waste Transfer and Recycling Center" -- last October was enlightening.
Read the trip report with piccies to see why getting people to separate out their recyclable stuff AND ESPECIALLY THEIR GREEN CYCLE is a must if we're going to control the garbage stream (and the fuel costs and the personnel costs and ...)
That said, my comment on the Chron article:
Dear Mayor Newsom.
Come visit. I'll invite some neighbors over. We'll explain how difficult it is to recycle at all when you live off the Filbert Steps.
(1) NorCal won't pick up blue bins here. Paying extra isn't even an option. We FINALLY got a locked bin -- locked so tourists won't throw trash in -- that the immediate neighbors share up at Montgomery and Filbert, but neighbors who live at Filbert and Montgomery bitch and complain about us parking our recycling bin anywhere near their buildings. Add a green bin? As if.
(2) I have a dish on the counter for green-bin scraps. From there, the scraps go to a covered compostable-bag-lined re-purposed menudo pot over by the 'frig. Every 4 days or so -- MAX ... any more than that and the bag will disintegrate and maggots and crud grow -- we tie up the bag, put it in ANOTHER bag, walk it three-plus blocks to our car and DRIVE to drop it off in a large green bin we have access to.
We try, Mr. Mayor. 'tain't easy. Make it easier for us.
His nibs said, why didn't you write about people putting non-greencycle stuff in bins left out for pickup and the greencycle people refusing to pick up the bins? Why didn't you write about neighbors getting upset about people picking through blue bins for cash-refund recyclables and the bratty neighbors kicking the full bin and contents down the stairs, spreading recyclables down the steps to the next landing? Why didn't you write about ...
I told him that the SFChron allows you 1000char for comments and I was down to my last ten or so. ...
posted by Sal Towse at 12:42 PM||
|
Read the article.
Read the comments.
People can be such whiners. Gestapo! It's so hard to recycle. &c. and so on.
Yes, proposing outrageous fines if people don't sort their garbage (and maybe cutting off their garbage service ... that'll teach them!) is nonsense, but the City pays a fortune to truck garbage to the dump over by Altamont and with gas prices rising not only is the dump filling (and where will we put trash then?) but costs are rising too.
Our field trip to the dump -- AKA "Norcal Waste System, Inc's Solid Waste Transfer and Recycling Center" -- last October was enlightening.
Read the trip report with piccies to see why getting people to separate out their recyclable stuff AND ESPECIALLY THEIR GREEN CYCLE is a must if we're going to control the garbage stream (and the fuel costs and the personnel costs and ...)
That said, my comment on the Chron article:
Dear Mayor Newsom.
Come visit. I'll invite some neighbors over. We'll explain how difficult it is to recycle at all when you live off the Filbert Steps.
(1) NorCal won't pick up blue bins here. Paying extra isn't even an option. We FINALLY got a locked bin -- locked so tourists won't throw trash in -- that the immediate neighbors share up at Montgomery and Filbert, but neighbors who live at Filbert and Montgomery bitch and complain about us parking our recycling bin anywhere near their buildings. Add a green bin? As if.
(2) I have a dish on the counter for green-bin scraps. From there, the scraps go to a covered compostable-bag-lined re-purposed menudo pot over by the 'frig. Every 4 days or so -- MAX ... any more than that and the bag will disintegrate and maggots and crud grow -- we tie up the bag, put it in ANOTHER bag, walk it three-plus blocks to our car and DRIVE to drop it off in a large green bin we have access to.
We try, Mr. Mayor. 'tain't easy. Make it easier for us.
His nibs said, why didn't you write about people putting non-greencycle stuff in bins left out for pickup and the greencycle people refusing to pick up the bins? Why didn't you write about neighbors getting upset about people picking through blue bins for cash-refund recyclables and the bratty neighbors kicking the full bin and contents down the stairs, spreading recyclables down the steps to the next landing? Why didn't you write about ...
I told him that the SFChron allows you 1000char for comments and I was down to my last ten or so. ...
Labels: causes, environmentalism, San Francisco, urban
posted by Sal Towse at 12:42 PM|
|
|
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Prop 8 update
Prop. 8 backers sue to change ballot wording
Seems Jerry Brown (formerly Governor Moonbeam, currently State Attorney General perhaps Governor again after the next election, who knows ...) has authorized the following ballot language for Proposition 8: "eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry."
Says he, since the time the petition signatures were collected, the court confirmed the right of same-sex couples to marry. Therefore, Prop 8, which reads "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." would disenfranchise those who just May 15th got the right to marry and his wording is fine and good and valid.
Prop 8 proponents claim Brown's verbiage is "inherently argumentative and highly likely to create prejudice" and they aren't eliminating anyone's rights. They're simply trying to reinstate the definition of marriage that existed in California before the judicial decision in May.
Ya. Right.
Yay! hooray! for Jerry Brown. You go, guy!
posted by Sal Towse at 11:42 AM||
|
Seems Jerry Brown (formerly Governor Moonbeam, currently State Attorney General perhaps Governor again after the next election, who knows ...) has authorized the following ballot language for Proposition 8: "eliminates the right of same-sex couples to marry."
Says he, since the time the petition signatures were collected, the court confirmed the right of same-sex couples to marry. Therefore, Prop 8, which reads "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." would disenfranchise those who just May 15th got the right to marry and his wording is fine and good and valid.
Prop 8 proponents claim Brown's verbiage is "inherently argumentative and highly likely to create prejudice" and they aren't eliminating anyone's rights. They're simply trying to reinstate the definition of marriage that existed in California before the judicial decision in May.
Ya. Right.
Yay! hooray! for Jerry Brown. You go, guy!
Labels: California, causes, culture, life, politics
posted by Sal Towse at 11:42 AM|
|
|
Thursday, May 15, 2008
California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban
California Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban
Yay! Hooray! Equality!
Now onward to November when the California Protection of Marriage Act (a constitutional amendment) will probably be on the ballot to read:
SECTION 2. Article I. Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution. to read:
Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
Bah.
Today's California Supreme Court decision [PDF]
posted by Sal Towse at 10:25 AM||
|
Yay! Hooray! Equality!
Now onward to November when the California Protection of Marriage Act (a constitutional amendment) will probably be on the ballot to read:
SECTION 2. Article I. Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution. to read:
Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
Bah.
Today's California Supreme Court decision [PDF]
Labels: California, causes, legal, life, politics
posted by Sal Towse at 10:25 AM|
|
|
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
This Is How We Lost to the White Man
'This Is How We Lost to the White Man'
Article in the May Atlantic about Bill Cosby's activism and his path from I Spy and the Huxtables to his Pound Cake speech and on.
The Web article includes a link to a vid interview with Ta-Nehisi Coates, who wrote the article. Both the article and the Coates interview are time well-spent.
Link: The Pound Cake Speech - Bill Cosby, speaking 17 May 2004 in Washington, DC, at the NAACP's 50th anniversary of Brown v Board of Education (text and audio)
posted by Sal Towse at 1:45 PM||
|
Article in the May Atlantic about Bill Cosby's activism and his path from I Spy and the Huxtables to his Pound Cake speech and on.
The Web article includes a link to a vid interview with Ta-Nehisi Coates, who wrote the article. Both the article and the Coates interview are time well-spent.
Link: The Pound Cake Speech - Bill Cosby, speaking 17 May 2004 in Washington, DC, at the NAACP's 50th anniversary of Brown v Board of Education (text and audio)
posted by Sal Towse at 1:45 PM|
|
|
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Cypresses redux
Another shot of the post-pruning cypresses.
Click on the picture to get a better look. Some of the parrots were back yesterday to check out the pruned trees. They stayed longer than they usually do before heading off.
Labels: causes, environmentalism, life, politics, San Francisco, Telegraph Hill
posted by Sal Towse at 9:50 AM|
|
|
Thursday, November 15, 2007
San Francisco Food Bank's 2007 holiday cards
San Francisco Food Bank's 2007 holiday cards are available for purchase over the Web. Three designs are available. The Christmas ornament card drawn by Paul Madonna is my fave.
Go there.
Purchase holiday cards.
Support San Francisco Food Bank
posted by Sal Towse at 6:21 PM||
|
Go there.
Purchase holiday cards.
Support San Francisco Food Bank
Labels: causes, design, San Francisco
posted by Sal Towse at 6:21 PM|
|
|
The cypress grove on Telegraph Hill before, during, after.
As promised, befores and afters.
BEFORE: (18 Jul 2004)
[note: added another before: Dec 2003]
I rummaged through my photo bins to find photos of the trees as they were. These two show the north and south ends of the cypress grove on 18Jul2004. Imagine, if you will, a large clump of green between what these two photographs show.
I obviously didn't take a lot of shots of the trees standing alone.
DURING: (October 2004)
Later that year, in October, a large chunk of tree came down.
In October 2005, another tree was taken out before Mark threw himself between the trees and the tree cutters and successfully halted the project.
We all know the result: a Landmark Tree ordinance. After much negotiation, in February 2007 the City agreed to indemnify the remaining trees' owner from any liability arising from the fact he wasn't allowed to take the "rotten" (his description) trees down.
The City also agreed "to hire a special arborist who has the skill to delicately prune the trees and preserve them for at least three years -- long enough for new ones to grow to shelter the parrots. The two trees are all that remain from what was once a larger grove." [n.b. Three years to grow trees this tall? Really?]
The Northeast San Francisco Conservancy (president: Nancy Shanahan) pledged $5,000 to the City to cover the cost of pruning and care.
BEFORE: (December 2003)
AFTER: (15 Nov 2007)
What can we see that's different? (Gee, this is like those picture puzzles: find six ways this picture is different from the ones above.)
In 2004, the cypress grove obstructed the view of most of the green building you can now see to the northeast of the trees. We can now see the tennis courts on top of the Bay Club.
The trees in 2004 were considerably taller than the trees that remain. We have an uninterrupted view of Treasure Island instead of having trees obstructing our views of the northernmost third of the island. We can also see more of Teatro Zinzanni -- those tents down at Pier 29 -- and twice as much of the rooftop of the condo building to the north of the green building.
I'd taken this shot to show the tidal bore on a very boring day, but it also shows what our view of Treasure Island was in May 2004. That's a whole lot o' tree that's been taken down in the last three years.
I have mixed feelings about all this. I love trees. I miss the green stuff -- I much prefer green stuff to views of the neighbors' roofs -- but I think there was far more agitation over the poor parrots and this privately-owned cypress grove than there needed to be. I think the City spent more time and effort -- when they don't seem to have time to worry about some critical problems -- than the situation warranted. I know Mark loves the parrots and I know he made them famous with his book. If someone had said we should spare the trees, if at all possible, because they're right outside Mark's door and he wants to have the parrots right there, well, I could understand that, but that's not how all the agitation and public spin came down before the City set about changing rules, trimming trees and indemnifying the owner.
"The parrots are fine," I tell worried friends who have read the tales of woe and crisis and parrots. This bit of greenery is not what it was, but the parrots still flock to trees on Telegraph Hill. We still hear them yackyackyack yackyackyack yackyackyackyacking. They still amuse the tourists and scare the cat.
May the flock prosper and increase.
posted by Sal Towse at 3:48 PM||
|
BEFORE: (18 Jul 2004)
[note: added another before: Dec 2003]
I rummaged through my photo bins to find photos of the trees as they were. These two show the north and south ends of the cypress grove on 18Jul2004. Imagine, if you will, a large clump of green between what these two photographs show.
I obviously didn't take a lot of shots of the trees standing alone.
DURING: (October 2004)
Later that year, in October, a large chunk of tree came down.
In October 2005, another tree was taken out before Mark threw himself between the trees and the tree cutters and successfully halted the project.
We all know the result: a Landmark Tree ordinance. After much negotiation, in February 2007 the City agreed to indemnify the remaining trees' owner from any liability arising from the fact he wasn't allowed to take the "rotten" (his description) trees down.
The City also agreed "to hire a special arborist who has the skill to delicately prune the trees and preserve them for at least three years -- long enough for new ones to grow to shelter the parrots. The two trees are all that remain from what was once a larger grove." [n.b. Three years to grow trees this tall? Really?]
The Northeast San Francisco Conservancy (president: Nancy Shanahan) pledged $5,000 to the City to cover the cost of pruning and care.
BEFORE: (December 2003)
AFTER: (15 Nov 2007)
What can we see that's different? (Gee, this is like those picture puzzles: find six ways this picture is different from the ones above.)
In 2004, the cypress grove obstructed the view of most of the green building you can now see to the northeast of the trees. We can now see the tennis courts on top of the Bay Club.
The trees in 2004 were considerably taller than the trees that remain. We have an uninterrupted view of Treasure Island instead of having trees obstructing our views of the northernmost third of the island. We can also see more of Teatro Zinzanni -- those tents down at Pier 29 -- and twice as much of the rooftop of the condo building to the north of the green building.
I'd taken this shot to show the tidal bore on a very boring day, but it also shows what our view of Treasure Island was in May 2004. That's a whole lot o' tree that's been taken down in the last three years.
I have mixed feelings about all this. I love trees. I miss the green stuff -- I much prefer green stuff to views of the neighbors' roofs -- but I think there was far more agitation over the poor parrots and this privately-owned cypress grove than there needed to be. I think the City spent more time and effort -- when they don't seem to have time to worry about some critical problems -- than the situation warranted. I know Mark loves the parrots and I know he made them famous with his book. If someone had said we should spare the trees, if at all possible, because they're right outside Mark's door and he wants to have the parrots right there, well, I could understand that, but that's not how all the agitation and public spin came down before the City set about changing rules, trimming trees and indemnifying the owner.
"The parrots are fine," I tell worried friends who have read the tales of woe and crisis and parrots. This bit of greenery is not what it was, but the parrots still flock to trees on Telegraph Hill. We still hear them yackyackyack yackyackyack yackyackyackyacking. They still amuse the tourists and scare the cat.
May the flock prosper and increase.
Labels: causes, environmentalism, life, politics, San Francisco, Telegraph Hill
posted by Sal Towse at 3:48 PM|
|
|
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Tree trimming ... and it isn't even Christmas!
Talk about a job I wouldn't want! I can't even stand at the edge of the roof without getting shaky knees.
Tree trimmers are trimming the trees down the hill from us, trees which caused such political uproar a year ago or so and resulted in new rules regarding tree cutting on private property. Siblings of the trees were taken out three years ago. These remaining trees are supposed to remain in place and be taken care of until they can't be maintained. The City's indemnified the owner from any lawsuits that might arise should the trees topple over or break a limb.
The guy up in the tree checks his knots frequently. He has an ally on the roof of the building just east of the trees and an ally on the ground, who is cutting the fallen branches with a chain saw. The guy in the tree has done most of his work with a tree saw on a long pole but just now switched to a chain saw.
Earlier today, the neighborhood e-mail list flashed with a "someone's cutting the cypresses" note, followed by a note from Mark Bittner that the cutting was all in order.
The neighbors are watching. The parrots are sitting on someone's railing to get a better view of what's going on because their usual tree perch doesn't have a good line of sight for the trees being trimmed.
When allz done, I'll post before and afters.
Update: Gone for the day. Ropes still in trees.
Labels: causes, environmentalism, life, politics, San Francisco, Telegraph Hill
posted by Sal Towse at 2:14 PM|
|
|
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Garbage, waste, trash, oh my!
This morning we spent two [stenchy] hours getting a tour of The Dump
[ahem]
I mean ...
"Norcal Waste System, Inc's Solid Waste Transfer and Recycling Center" at the border of San Francisco and Brisbane, San Francisco County and San Mateo County (which causes problems, you betcha)
with our buds from SPUR.org.
I hadn't been on an educational field trip to the dump since the younger younger one was in Tiger Cubs.
Twenty years later ... Different dump. Still as fascinating. More, maybe.
Field trip report to follow.
Update: As promised, a field trip report about my morning at the dump. Caution: long.
Labels: causes, environmentalism, photographs, San Francisco, urban
posted by Sal Towse at 5:39 PM|
|
|
Sunday, October 21, 2007
When the lights go down in the City*
Watching the lights go off on the Bay Bridge last night.
That blaze of lights on the other side of the Bay is the Port of Oakland, destination of most of the shipping traffic that we see from our perch.
Lights Out SF was a feel-good event that got people involved who hadn't been involved. I'm not sure whether anyone said to themselves, dang, I can make-do with only one lamp burning at night, not the seventy-seven I turned out for an hour on Friday.
I swopped out three incandescent light bulbs with three CFLs. Consuming less energy bit by bit, but nowheres near being a cragger.
For those who can (those who have individually metered electric and have been living in their place since at least last October and who, unlike us, don't have solar and a meter running backwards and so don't have any way of knowing how much energy we used last October or this), you have until Wednesday to sign up for the San Francisco Climate Challenge. Challenge kicks off Thursday.
[* Journey. LIGHTS]
Labels: causes, environmentalism, life, photographs, San Francisco
posted by Sal Towse at 12:36 PM|
|
|
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Google joins Lights Out SF
Google
Turn those lights off tonight from 8-9p and replace (at least) one incandescent bulb with a compact fluorescent light bulb
Lights Out SF
Update: Pictures to follow.
Needless to say, not all the lights in SF went out.
Our neighbors downhill, the ones we thought were the most green, the most tree hugging, the ones... who were the most logical ones to turn out their lights didn't.
Aaron, our guy, our supervisor, our Chair of the Board of Supervisors, had no lights on at his place. Was he home? I don't know. But (luckily for him, with all the neighbors watching) he didn't have a peep of light shining out of his windows.
We didn't turn ours out until :10 after because ... well, because we were on the other side of the bay and the meeting went on and on and on and...
We got home ... whipped up a quick dinner. Turned our lights out at :05 or, maybe, :10 after.
And kept them off for over an hour.
Are we forgiven?
The Bay Bridge lights took =forever= to be turned off. We watched the crew with their blink-blink-blinky lights on their vehicle stop and turn off lights, stop and turn off lights, stop...
Obviously, the system had =not= been set up to turn off all the lights on the Bay Bridge rigging at once.
Oh.
Well.
We =did= discovered that we had all sorts of earthquake-what-if lighting available but we had =no= (and I mean =NO=) candles here, at this address.
So, no romantic dinner by candlelight. We managed with other illumination.
I =will= be moving some candles here.
posted by Sal Towse at 12:08 PM||
|
Turn those lights off tonight from 8-9p and replace (at least) one incandescent bulb with a compact fluorescent light bulb
Lights Out SF
Update: Pictures to follow.
Needless to say, not all the lights in SF went out.
Our neighbors downhill, the ones we thought were the most green, the most tree hugging, the ones... who were the most logical ones to turn out their lights didn't.
Aaron, our guy, our supervisor, our Chair of the Board of Supervisors, had no lights on at his place. Was he home? I don't know. But (luckily for him, with all the neighbors watching) he didn't have a peep of light shining out of his windows.
We didn't turn ours out until :10 after because ... well, because we were on the other side of the bay and the meeting went on and on and on and...
We got home ... whipped up a quick dinner. Turned our lights out at :05 or, maybe, :10 after.
And kept them off for over an hour.
Are we forgiven?
The Bay Bridge lights took =forever= to be turned off. We watched the crew with their blink-blink-blinky lights on their vehicle stop and turn off lights, stop and turn off lights, stop...
Obviously, the system had =not= been set up to turn off all the lights on the Bay Bridge rigging at once.
Oh.
Well.
We =did= discovered that we had all sorts of earthquake-what-if lighting available but we had =no= (and I mean =NO=) candles here, at this address.
So, no romantic dinner by candlelight. We managed with other illumination.
I =will= be moving some candles here.
Labels: causes, environmentalism, San Francisco
posted by Sal Towse at 12:08 PM|
|
|
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Fall into autumn
Yesterday was Garden Feast, a benefit gala luncheon on the grass at the Strybing Arboretum. Benefiting the San Francisco Botanical Garden. Honoring Richard Goldman. Speaker: Julie Packard.
A dinner tonight marks the twentieth anniversary of the San Francisco Food Bank.
Saturday is the Waves-to-Wine bike tour to benefit the National Multiple Sclerosis Society.
Sunday is the Bridge-to-Bridge run benefiting Special Olympics Northern California.
Sunday is also the CUESA fundraiser @ Ferry Plaza Building to benefit CUESA and sustainable agriculture education.
I'm not going to all of those. I can't go to all of those. And I stopped listing all the things I could go to because the list is LOOOOOOOOONG.
Yes, we have fallen into autumn and the benefit luncheons, dinners, runs, bike rides, sails, swims and fashion shows have kicked into high gear here, now that most everyone's home from their wanderings.
You can also just stay home and read a good book. The non-profits who benefit from all this gaiety and extroversion will happily take your check and wish you a peaceful evening.
posted by Sal Towse at 4:31 PM||
|
A dinner tonight marks the twentieth anniversary of the San Francisco Food Bank.
Saturday is the Waves-to-Wine bike tour to benefit the National Multiple Sclerosis Society.
Sunday is the Bridge-to-Bridge run benefiting Special Olympics Northern California.
Sunday is also the CUESA fundraiser @ Ferry Plaza Building to benefit CUESA and sustainable agriculture education.
I'm not going to all of those. I can't go to all of those. And I stopped listing all the things I could go to because the list is LOOOOOOOOONG.
Yes, we have fallen into autumn and the benefit luncheons, dinners, runs, bike rides, sails, swims and fashion shows have kicked into high gear here, now that most everyone's home from their wanderings.
You can also just stay home and read a good book. The non-profits who benefit from all this gaiety and extroversion will happily take your check and wish you a peaceful evening.
Labels: causes, San Francisco
posted by Sal Towse at 4:31 PM|
|
|
Thursday, July 19, 2007
The City of San Francisco STREETS LITTER AUDIT 2007
The City of San Francisco STREETS LITTER AUDIT 2007 [PDF]
The first ever audit of the City's litter problems. Released a couple weeks ago. Some interesting findings.
Note: "large" litter -- items over 4 sq in. "small litter" -- items under 4 sq in. Litter was categorized into eight-four sub-categories.
105 sites were audited in April. Average of thirty-six "large" litter items per site. "Small" litter clocked in at an average 23 items/site.
"Non-branded paper napkins and paper towels" were 13% of total litter. Of "branded" printed material litter, MUNI tickets and transfers were a significant factor.
Miscellaneous plastic litter accounted for 9% of total litter and 20% of "large" litter items.
The study compares San Francisco's litter to litter audits for other cities dated 2002-2006. On average, 27% of San Francisco 's litter is printed & fiber material (paper, cardboard, books, &c.) while the average in other large cities over the past five years hovers around 19%. Why?
On a positive note, San Francisco has less "small" litter than other large cities and is about on par with Toronto which has been focusing on litter for several years. "Small" litter clocked in at an average 23 items/site and included bottle caps, straws, gum, busted sporks, cigarette butts, &c.
When they broke down the type of small litter (wouldn't you have loved to have been one of the auditors?), they found that chewing gum was 39.5% of the small litter, small glass was 29.7% and cigarette butts were 5.6%. Comparing this to Toronto's audit last year, Toronto had 21 "small" items per site of which 30.9% was chewing gum, 15.4% small glass, and 14.8% cigarette butts.
Maybe we just don't smoke as much ...
I found an interesting note on page 33/Bag Litter Summary. Bag litter (paper and plastic, retail and non-retail) accounted for 4.45% of total litter. Retail plastic bags account for 0.6% of total litter. Now, plastic bags are not good for the garbage equipment and they're not good for the gulls and they aren't good for the environment in the long run but why cantcha just say that that is why you want to ban them from this fair city? Why all the nonsense about what a litter menace they are?
I don't know what Gav plans to do with the study. Gav has pledged to reduce litter by 50% over the next five years and it's interesting to have a notch marked so that we can see whether efforts to combat litter are working.
I'd like to encourage everyone whether they live in this fair ville or in a bucolic ville in Iowa to pick up at least one piece of orphaned trash a day and dispose of it properly.
We were out to dinner with neighbors a couple Fridays back. On the way to the restaurant, T. started picking up papers that were blowing on the sidewalk. Hot jam, I thought. Someone else picks up litter. We walked down the hill to Nua, collecting papers along the way, which we then tossed into a City trash bin before reaching the restaurant. (And remembered to wash our hands before dinner!)
On a similar if-it-bugs-you-do-something-about-it, we bumped into Aaron Peskin, our fearless President of the Board of Supervisors, on the steps last Saturday as we headed out to dinner. He was scrubbing (with an earth-friendly cleanser), removing graffiti that some yog-for-brain had tagged on the wall of 1360 Montgomery as you head down the Filbert Steps.
"Bless you," I said. "That really bothered me but I hadn't got my act together enough to come out here and scrub."
"Bothered me too," he said. "Tagging begets more tagging, so it had to go."
Make the Earth a cleaner place.
posted by Sal Towse at 12:18 PM||
|
The first ever audit of the City's litter problems. Released a couple weeks ago. Some interesting findings.
Note: "large" litter -- items over 4 sq in. "small litter" -- items under 4 sq in. Litter was categorized into eight-four sub-categories.
105 sites were audited in April. Average of thirty-six "large" litter items per site. "Small" litter clocked in at an average 23 items/site.
"Non-branded paper napkins and paper towels" were 13% of total litter. Of "branded" printed material litter, MUNI tickets and transfers were a significant factor.
Miscellaneous plastic litter accounted for 9% of total litter and 20% of "large" litter items.
The study compares San Francisco's litter to litter audits for other cities dated 2002-2006. On average, 27% of San Francisco 's litter is printed & fiber material (paper, cardboard, books, &c.) while the average in other large cities over the past five years hovers around 19%. Why?
On a positive note, San Francisco has less "small" litter than other large cities and is about on par with Toronto which has been focusing on litter for several years. "Small" litter clocked in at an average 23 items/site and included bottle caps, straws, gum, busted sporks, cigarette butts, &c.
When they broke down the type of small litter (wouldn't you have loved to have been one of the auditors?), they found that chewing gum was 39.5% of the small litter, small glass was 29.7% and cigarette butts were 5.6%. Comparing this to Toronto's audit last year, Toronto had 21 "small" items per site of which 30.9% was chewing gum, 15.4% small glass, and 14.8% cigarette butts.
Maybe we just don't smoke as much ...
I found an interesting note on page 33/Bag Litter Summary. Bag litter (paper and plastic, retail and non-retail) accounted for 4.45% of total litter. Retail plastic bags account for 0.6% of total litter. Now, plastic bags are not good for the garbage equipment and they're not good for the gulls and they aren't good for the environment in the long run but why cantcha just say that that is why you want to ban them from this fair city? Why all the nonsense about what a litter menace they are?
I don't know what Gav plans to do with the study. Gav has pledged to reduce litter by 50% over the next five years and it's interesting to have a notch marked so that we can see whether efforts to combat litter are working.
I'd like to encourage everyone whether they live in this fair ville or in a bucolic ville in Iowa to pick up at least one piece of orphaned trash a day and dispose of it properly.
We were out to dinner with neighbors a couple Fridays back. On the way to the restaurant, T. started picking up papers that were blowing on the sidewalk. Hot jam, I thought. Someone else picks up litter. We walked down the hill to Nua, collecting papers along the way, which we then tossed into a City trash bin before reaching the restaurant. (And remembered to wash our hands before dinner!)
On a similar if-it-bugs-you-do-something-about-it, we bumped into Aaron Peskin, our fearless President of the Board of Supervisors, on the steps last Saturday as we headed out to dinner. He was scrubbing (with an earth-friendly cleanser), removing graffiti that some yog-for-brain had tagged on the wall of 1360 Montgomery as you head down the Filbert Steps.
"Bless you," I said. "That really bothered me but I hadn't got my act together enough to come out here and scrub."
"Bothered me too," he said. "Tagging begets more tagging, so it had to go."
Make the Earth a cleaner place.
Labels: causes, environmentalism, politics, San Francisco
posted by Sal Towse at 12:18 PM|
|
|
Saturday, June 02, 2007
The Center for Justice and Accountability
Had dinner with friends last night.
Asked one, "So how long have you been at the new job?"
"A year and a half, almost two years."
"So what is it again that your nonprofit does?"
She answered with an impassioned explanation of what they do and who they do it for and what they accomplish. Check out the Web site. Good cause: The Center for Justice and Accountability
The Center realized it could use the Alien Tort Statute (1789) to accomplish its goals. Who knew?
The Alien Tort Statute (ATS), adopted in 1789, gives survivors of egregious human rights abuses, wherever committed, the right to sue persons responsible for the abuses in U.S. federal court. Since 1980, the law has been used successfully in cases involving torture (including rape), extrajudicial killing, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and arbitrary detention. The Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA), passed in 1991 and signed into law by President Bush in 1992, gives similar rights to U.S. citizens and non-citizens alike to bring claims for torture and extrajudicial killing committed in foreign countries. The perpetrator generally must be served with the lawsuit while they are present in the United States in order for the court to have jurisdiction.
posted by Sal Towse at 11:19 AM||
|
Asked one, "So how long have you been at the new job?"
"A year and a half, almost two years."
"So what is it again that your nonprofit does?"
She answered with an impassioned explanation of what they do and who they do it for and what they accomplish. Check out the Web site. Good cause: The Center for Justice and Accountability
The Center realized it could use the Alien Tort Statute (1789) to accomplish its goals. Who knew?
The Alien Tort Statute (ATS), adopted in 1789, gives survivors of egregious human rights abuses, wherever committed, the right to sue persons responsible for the abuses in U.S. federal court. Since 1980, the law has been used successfully in cases involving torture (including rape), extrajudicial killing, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and arbitrary detention. The Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA), passed in 1991 and signed into law by President Bush in 1992, gives similar rights to U.S. citizens and non-citizens alike to bring claims for torture and extrajudicial killing committed in foreign countries. The perpetrator generally must be served with the lawsuit while they are present in the United States in order for the court to have jurisdiction.
Labels: causes, San Francisco
posted by Sal Towse at 11:19 AM|
|
|
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
May is National Foster Care Month
This eye-opening article from the Casey Journalism Center on Children and Families takes a look at some of foster children and their circumstances and asks why.
The San Francisco Chronicle has an on-going campaign for foster children, both those in California and nationwide. Latest addition: an editorial 22Apr2007. The editorials/articles listed go back to September 2005.
California has 80K children in foster care. Their stories are damning for a nation that claims dedication to family values. What are children, if not family. If they have no family, aren't they ours?
There is some encouraging news, however.
For more information on National Foster Care Month: FosterCareMonth.org
posted by Sal Towse at 10:47 AM||
|
The San Francisco Chronicle has an on-going campaign for foster children, both those in California and nationwide. Latest addition: an editorial 22Apr2007. The editorials/articles listed go back to September 2005.
California has 80K children in foster care. Their stories are damning for a nation that claims dedication to family values. What are children, if not family. If they have no family, aren't they ours?
There is some encouraging news, however.
For more information on National Foster Care Month: FosterCareMonth.org
posted by Sal Towse at 10:47 AM|
|
|
: views from the Hill
Bertold Brecht:
Everything changes. You can make
A fresh start with your final breath.
But what has happened has happened. And the water
You once poured into the wine cannot be
Drained off again.
Everything changes. You can make
A fresh start with your final breath.
But what has happened has happened. And the water
You once poured into the wine cannot be
Drained off again.
