Wacky San Francisco Bay Area News

It's attacking the service they offer. Actually it is more like attacking the regular folk who depend on BART to go to work and return home, rather than attacking BART itself. Not surprisingly, most BART riders are really pissed off at the demonstrators.

The kind who purposely disrupt the lives of innocent people with their idiotic antics and don't give a shit about them. They apparently don't give a shit about the people who cannot afford cars and depend on public transportation to be able to work and live their lives. For this reason, I think trying to stop trains is even more despicable than trying to stop cars on the freeway. At least drivers have more options.

Plus, there's the environmental angle. I don't use BART because I have to or because it's convenient for me. I use it because I want to do my bit for the environment. But if these assholes keep blocking it, then I guess my alternative is to drive and pollute.

Look, as much as I really don't like to ride without my i-phone working, I think that's a very small problem, compared to not being able to ride at all because some idiots want to demonstrate by blocking the trains, and I'm sure most BART riders feel the same way.

If you feel that an unjustice was made by BART cops, take it to the justice system, or stand by the BART stations holding signs if you must, but don't block the ********ing trains!

Exactly. I'm not as eloquent as you, so I have to resort to lots more words.

KQED Radio with a brief report on the BART station closures.

I'm posting this because it includes nice, quick interviews with a UCLA School of Law professor (who specializes in free speech law) and the local ACLU Technology and Civil Liberties policy director.

Far from exhaustive, but a nice short primer on the ideas at play. The whole thing is less than 5 minutes.

http://www.kqed.org/a/kqednews/RN201108151730/a

To me this analysis makes a lot more sense than the other links provided earlier. But I'm talking from a common sense point of view, I'm not a lawyer.

Apparently the protesters did disrupt service again yesterday.

*At least I hope they did, because that's the reason my wife gave for arriving home late. Funny, I took BART at 4:00 PM and didn't see any protesters.

On another topic, I knew San Franciscans suffered from Bush-ofobia, but this is funny:

'Bush-o-meter' ranks SF mayoral candidates

http://californiawatch.org/dailyreport/bush-o-meter-ranks-sf-mayoral-candidates-12072

Lucky. I recently moved to Millbrae, so walking is not a realistic option.

Yeah, I find it an awesome place to live, at least so far. Definitely multicultural -although way more Asian flavour than Latino, not that I mind- cool summer weather, and a bunch of cool little restaurants that I can walk to. And I'm a couple of blocks from BART, so I have easy access to the city, at least when there are no protests going on.

But it's not exactly walking distance from the financial district.

Bring it on protesters!

Actually, don't bring it on. Just go away.

This is not good. They were quite overwhelmed already.

Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/201...-court-cuts-67-workers-services#ixzz1Zm8JY25f

MC Hammer still exists? LOL!

Thanks for resurrecting this thread, the city is not getting any less wacky.

I guess the wise city leaders wanted cellular phone providers to warn us with huge posters that they are selling us a product that causes cancer, but a judge says the law goes too far.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/10/28/BACT1LNAHE.DTL

but...

The city will appeal.

Maybe they should put up a huge banner in front of City Hall stating that stress caused by overzealous city leaders exaggerating health hazards may result in cancer and other health problems.

Nude people in San Francisco must now follow rules of conduct:

http://www.sfexaminer.com/blogs/und...e-san-francisco-must-now-follow-rules-conduct

So what's your supervisor Wiener's position on nudity?

Sorry. I found that funny for a minute.

Ed Lee wins.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/11/09/MNBT1LSR24.DTL#ixzz1dGoSkn5F

Good news for San Francisco. Lee is a voice of reason in a crazy city.

McDonald's will charge for Happy Meal toys in SF to get around city regulation

http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-11-30/news/30461494_1_happy-meals-toy-sales-ronald-mcdonald-house

Stupid, stupid, stupid. I guess idiotic regulations require idiotic solutions. If the city doesn't want kids to go to McDonald's, why doesn't it just ban McDonald's?

And as for McDonald's, why the hell don't they make their food at least a little bit nutritious. Now that would be a truly creative way around the idiotic regulations.

Not that I'd ever step in a McDonald's anyway.