Tag Archives: judge

San Bernardino Police Chief Says Shooter’s iPhone May Hold "Nothing of Any Value"

by AngelikFosbery Posted on February 26, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The police chief of San Bernardino, California, said Friday that the iPhone at the heart of a massive civil liberties and security debate may not actually contain any critical information, despite the FBI’s insistence that the phone may unlock the secrets of how the San Bernarndino shooters carried out their attack.

“I’ll be honest with you: I think that there is a reasonably good chance that there is nothing of any value on the phone,” Chief Jarrod Burguan said in an interview with NPR. The phone in question is an iPhone 5c used by Syed Farook, one of the two shooters who killed 14 people in a terrorist attack in the Southern California town last December.

A federal judge in Los Angeles ordered Apple last week to write new software that would help the FBI unlock the phone because the Bureau believes it may contain data critical to understanding how Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, planned the attack and with whom they communicated. The FBI was able to retrieve data from the phone that was backed up using Apple’s iCloud service, but Farook stopped using iCloud on October 19, six weeks before the attack itself. But Apple is seeking to throw out the order, arguing in a court filing on Thursday that complying would give the government “a dangerous power that Congress and the American people have withheld: the ability to force companies like Apple to undermine the basic security and privacy interests of hundreds of millions of individuals around the globe.”

While Burguan’s opinion will give those opposed to the court order some ammunition, BuzzFeed tech reporter Hamza Shaban pointed out that the FBI’s opinion is really what counts in this case:

Taken from:

San Bernardino Police Chief Says Shooter’s iPhone May Hold "Nothing of Any Value"

Posted in Anchor, Casio, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on San Bernardino Police Chief Says Shooter’s iPhone May Hold "Nothing of Any Value"

Ted Cruz holds Flint water crisis money hostage

by MistyBrookman68 Posted on February 26, 2016

Ted Cruz holds Flint water crisis money hostage

By on 25 Feb 2016commentsShare

Stage fright is a real affliction that affects us all in different ways. For Ted Cruz, on the eve of a presidential debate in his home state of Texas, stage fright apparently involves withholding disaster funding for a community that’s endured an enormous injustice.

On Thursday, the Senator from Texas and Republican presidential candidate put a so-called “soft hold” (a temporary delay) on the aid package meant to deliver $850 million in aid to help the victims of the water crisis in Flint, Mich. The money would go to repairing faulty water infrastructure in Flint and other cities, namely those facing similar lead crises. Politico reports that Cruz said he needed more time to study the proposal’s details, while Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) also confirmed that the deal was on hold, just hours before the GOP presidential debate.

Senate Democrats involved with the proposal were irked by the holdup, saying that they had made several cuts to appease Republicans and push the program through. The bipartisan bill, reportedly supported by Democrats and Republicans alike, would devote $100 million in loans to address drinking water emergencies, $70 million in credit subsidies for upgrades to water infrastructure, and $50 million for public health and education efforts. Some Republicans, Cruz likely among them, fear the bill could set an expensive standard for how the government deals with other crises, like the Zika virus outbreak.

Advertisement

Cruz in particular has been intentionally, unabashedly selective in his distribution of aid to the victims of Flint’s poisoned water. Last month, after publicly stating that “every American is entitled to have access to clean water,” Cruz’s presidential campaign began handing out water bottles to Flint’s thirsty residents — well, those who visited one of the city’s four crisis pregnancy centers, which are essentially just anti-abortion organizations. It was a PR stunt meant to call attention to what Cruz’s Michigan campaign leader Wendy Lynn Day called a demonstration of “the pro-life values of Senator Cruz.”

But to judge by history, Cruz isn’t against using federal aid to help communities facing environmental disasters at all — at least, not when that use can benefit him politically. In 2015, Cruz asked for federal money to help people in his home state of Texas after a series of damaging floods. When it came to aiding his own constituents, he said, “the federal government’s role, once the Governor declares a disaster area…[has] statutory obligations in stepping in to respond to this natural disaster.”

Lead poisoning, which causes neurological, behavioral, and physical impairments, is already rampant in Flint. It’s shocking that Cruz continues to block a remedy for a dire situation — but then again, coming from a man who contributed less than 1 percent of his income to charity, perhaps it shouldn’t really come as a surprise.

But withholding disaster relief funding may come at a cost for Cruz. The Republican presidential primary in Michigan on March 8 is fast approaching, and residents without clean water in Flint now have one candidate on whose padded shoulders to squarely place the blame.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.Climate on the Mind

A Grist Special Series

Get Grist in your inbox

Read original article:  

Ted Cruz holds Flint water crisis money hostage

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Ted Cruz holds Flint water crisis money hostage

A Guide to the Scalia Assassination Conspiracy Theories

by AntonettaSchrein Posted on February 17, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Within a few hours of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s death at a West Texas resort over the weekend, conservative talk radio hosts and bloggers began to question whether the 79-year-old justice in ill health had really died of natural causes—or if something more nefarious was afoot.

According to media reports, Scalia was found dead in his room at the Cibolo Creek Ranch on the morning of Saturday, February 13. Presidio County Judge Cinderela Guevara pronounced Scalia dead of natural causes over the phone, after hearing from local law enforcement officers who assured her that the justice was in a state of repose and there were “no signs of foul play.” Guevara also heard from Scalia’s doctor in Washington, who relayed that the justice had several chronic health conditions. Pronouncing a death over the phone is permissible under Texas law.

But like all conspiracy theories, the facts leave just enough room for speculation. Scalia had declined a security detail by the US Marshals Service during his trip, so marshals were not present. No autopsy was performed—Guevara did not order one and Scalia’s family made clear that it did not want one. And Scalia was found with a pillow over his head. (The owner of the resort who found Scalia, John Poindexter, later clarified to CNN, “He had a pillow over his head, not over his face as some have been saying…The pillow was against the headboard and over his head when he was discovered.” Presumably, few professional killers suffocate their targets and then forget to remove the pillow afterward.)

Add it all up, and there’s plenty of fodder for conspiracy theorists who claim Scalia was killed. And the culprit, according to much of the speculation, is the Obama administration.

Here is a field guide to the theories so far.

Continue Reading »

Continue reading: 

A Guide to the Scalia Assassination Conspiracy Theories

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on A Guide to the Scalia Assassination Conspiracy Theories

Why Did Sheldon Adelson Buy Nevada’s Biggest Paper?

by ChandaFrederick Posted on February 16, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

In December, journalists at the Las Vegas Review-Journal were told that their paper had been sold—and that they wouldn’t be told who the new owners were.

The move touched off a nationwide guessing game, with speculation soon turning to local billionaire Sheldon Adelson. At first, the casino magnate rebuffed questions, before finally confirming his involvement.

That put an end to that mystery, but plenty of others surrounding the sale remain: How did a group of Review-Journal reporters end up tasked with an unorthodox investigation into a local judge trying a case vital to Adelson? And how did an article critical of that judge end up running in a Connecticut newspaper under a fake name?

But the most important question of all is why, exactly, did the political megadonor made the purchase? His family maintains it was an investment, but hardly anyone would argue the American newspaper industry is a safe financial bet in 2016. Was it to push his agenda in the 2016 presidential race? Or was it to take control of a local watchdog that has often been an irritant?

Adelson and his company, Las Vegas Sands, are major players in the city’s economy and politics, and since the mogul purchased the Review-Journal, the paper has wrestled with how to fairly cover its owner and disclose his many interests. Read all about it below, and make sure read our accompanying cover story on Adelson, too:

Spring 2015

An emissary quietly approaches GateHouse Media, the owners of the 106-year-old daily Las Vegas Review-Journal, on behalf of Sheldon Adelson.

David Becker/Zuma Press

September 21

News + Media Capital Group forms as a Delaware corporation. The paperwork lists Michael Schroeder, the publisher of a small chain of Connecticut newspapers, as the company’s manager. It will be three months until Adelson admits his family controls the company.

September

Schroeder offers a freelance reporter $5,000 to write an article on Nevada judges for one of his Connecticut papers. During the meeting, Schroeder mentions Adelson’s name and provides a 40-page “dossier” of court documents and newspaper clips. The reporter turns down the assignment, later telling the Huffington Post that it sounded too unorthodox.

Early November

A GateHouse executive calls a top editor at the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, another GateHouse paper, with a story tip involving Las Vegas judges. The editor refuses to have his reporters investigate. “We just didn’t have the resources,” he later said. “There were too many questions that still needed to get resolved.”

November 4

The Nevada Supreme Court denies Adelson’s push to have Judge Elizabeth Gonzalez removed from former Sands executive Steve Jacobs’ wrongful-termination lawsuit against Adelson. Gonzalez had clashed with Adelson when he refused to answer questions on the stand: “Sir, you don’t get to argue with me,” she said. “Do you understand that?”

Jeff Scheid/AP

November 6

Over editors’ protests, GateHouse orders a group of Review-Journal reporters to drop everything and investigate several Las Vegas judges. The reporters eventually file 15,000 words of notes on three judges, including Gonzalez.

December 1

While none of the team’s reporting ever appears in the Review-Journal, two small Connecticut papers owned by Schroeder publish an article under the byline of Edward Clarkin that excoriates Gonzalez’s handling of the Adelson case.

December 10

GateHouse sells the Review-Journal to News + Media Capital Group for $140 million. The price is two to three times the paper’s estimated value, driving speculation that Adelson is the purchaser. Schroeder tells the newsroom that the new owners “want you to focus on your jobs…Don’t worry about who they are.” That night, according to the Huffington Post, publisher Jason Taylor stops the presses as an article on the sale is revised to deemphasize questions about the mystery buyer.

December 15

Adelson sits in the front section as his Venetian resort hosts a Republican presidential debate. He denies to CNN’s Brian Stelter that he’s bought the paper, saying he has “no personal interest.”

December 16

Adelson and his family are finally revealed as the Review-Journal‘s new owners but insist in an open letter that they always intended to come forward and had bought the paper as an investment with no plans to meddle in its management. Despite these assurances, Taylor requires reporters and editors to get approval before covering Adelson or the sale.

December 18

The Review-Journal publishes an article detailing how its reporters were tasked with the judicial investigation. The article also explores ties between Schroeder, the newspaper group’s manager, and the Edward Clarkin article slamming Gonzalez. It notes that Clarkin’s byline previously only appeared as a restaurant reviewer.

December 22

After five years on the job, the Review-Journal‘s top editor accepts a buyout offer, citing concerns about the new ownership.

December 23

The Hartford Courant reports it can’t find anyone named “Edward Clarkin” in Connecticut, and that sources quoted in his article say they’ve never heard of him. The Courant also reports that major passages in the Clarkin article are “nearly identical to work that previously appeared in other publications.” Another Connecticut journalist tweets that Schroeder’s middle name is Edward and his mother’s maiden name is Clarkin.

Gregor Cresnar/The Noun Project

Around December 28

Schroeder is removed from his post overseeing the Review-Journal. “It just seemed like the right thing to do under the circumstances,” an Adelson spokesman later says. “I’ll leave it at that.”

January 4, 2016

The Review-Journal’s managers bring in an adviser to work out guidelines for covering Adelson’s many interests. An editor live-tweets the contentious meeting. “You’ve got to ease up here just a little,” the adviser says, “so everyone doesn’t blow their cork.”

January 5

Michael Schroeder publishes a note to readers, taking “full responsibility” for the Clarkin article, which he says failed to meet his papers’ standards, and conceding that the byline was a pseudonym.

Stephen Dunn/The Hartford Courant

January 6

Editorial writer Glenn Cook is appointed interim editor. He issues guidelines requiring a standing disclosure on the Adelsons’ interests and ownership of the Review-Journal in the print edition and on the paper’s website, and additional taglines mentioning Adelson’s ownership on “all relevant” stories. The guidelines preserve the publisher’s right to review “significant stories about the newspaper’s ownership.”

January 11

During a deposition, one of Steve Jacobs’ lawyers asks Adelson’s son-in-law, Patrick Dumont, if he discussed Jacobs’ lawsuit with Schroeder or participated in drafting any articles on the trial. Dumont declines to answer.

January 13

Las Vegas Sands lawyers file a new motion to remove Gonzalez from the Jacobs case, arguing that she showed bias against Sands by giving interviews to the press amid “recent intensified media coverage of the lawsuit.” Gonzalez denies any “bias toward or prejudice against” Las Vegas Sands.

January 27

Press critic Jay Rosen outlines a series of unanswered questions about the Review-Journal transaction. “By failing to address the very serious questions left hanging by the sale,” he writes, “the people who run GateHouse Media are, I believe, playing havoc with its reputation.”

January 28

The Review-Journal announces that Craig Moon, former publisher and president of USA Today and executive vice president of Gannett, will replace Taylor as publisher. Moon immediately removes the standing disclosure statement, calling it “overkill.”

January 28

Las Vegas Sands proposes building a $1.2 billion domed stadium, to be shared by the University of Nevada-Las Vegas football team and a potential NFL franchise. Sands had previously opposed plans to redevelop the site as an improvement project for the Las Vegas Convention Center—a direct competitor with Adelson’s Sands Expo and Convention Center.

January 30

The Review-Journal editorial board praises the plan for a new stadium: “This stadium is the missing piece of tourism infrastructure in Las Vegas, more important than any other proposal, including the expansion of the Las Vegas Convention Center.”

February 4

Gatehouse CEO Mike Reed tells Politico that there was no “specific mandate” for Review-Journal reporters to investigate Las Vegas judges, and he accuses the newsroom of spinning “untruths” about the judicial investigation. Since Moon was hired, Politico reports, stories involving Adelson have been “reviewed, changed or killed almost daily.”

February 5

J. Keith Moyer, a veteran of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, the Fresno Bee, and several Gannett papers, is named editor of the Review-Journal. On the same day, sources close to Adelson tell Politico that the billionaire is nearing an endorsement of Marco Rubio, the Review-Journal endorses Rubio. “The Adelsons have detached themselves from our endorsement process, and our endorsement of Sen. Rubio does not represent the support of the family,” the editorial board writes.

February 8

Moyer tells USA Today that Adelson “told me directly he would be staying out of the newsroom,” and shares that the new owners have aspirations to make the Review-Journal “a Western regional powerhouse.”

“People will be watching, and they should be,” Moyer says.

View this article:

Why Did Sheldon Adelson Buy Nevada’s Biggest Paper?

Posted in Anchor, Brita, Everyone, FF, GE, Jason, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why Did Sheldon Adelson Buy Nevada’s Biggest Paper?

The Feds Are Finally Investigating the San Francisco Police, But Here’s the Catch

by BessMEIF Posted on February 2, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Nearly two months after San Francisco police officers shot and killed a 26-year-old black man named Mario Woods, officials at the US Department of Justice have announced that they will launch a comprehensive review of the department’s policies and practices.

The federal review will “help identify key areas for improvement” in the department’s operational policies, training practices, and accountability procedures, Attorney General Loretta Lynch said in a statement released Monday.

The announcement comes amid a public outcry over Woods’s death last month, which sparked protests and prompted city officials to call for an independent investigation into the incident. On December 2, officers surrounded Woods on a sidewalk in the Bayview district neighborhood after identifying him as a possible suspect in a stabbing that took place earlier that day. The incident was recorded by several onlookers who uploaded cell phone footage to social media, attracting widespread attention.

Push for review

One video showed Woods standing with his back against a wall, facing at least six officers pointing their guns at him. They ordered him to drop the knife. When Woods did not comply, officers fired bean bag pellets and pepper-sprayed him. At one point, Woods appeared to walk away from the officers, and seconds later multiple shots rang out. A total of five officers opened fire, San Francisco Police Chief Greg Suhr later told reporters. Woods was pronounced dead at the scene. The officers who fired their guns were placed on leave after the shooting, but have since returned to desk duty. Woods’ family and supporters have demanded the firing of Suhr, who formerly headed the Bayview police station. Family members, who say Woods had struggled with mental health issues, have also filed a federal wrongful death lawsuit against the city.

Several members of San Francisco’s board of supervisors, community leaders, and civil rights advocates have called for an independent investigation into Woods’s death and the department’s use of force policies. Suhr and San Francisco’s Mayor Ed Lee also jointly requested the federal review, according to the DOJ statement, and “have publicly committed to providing the resources necessary for its successful completion.”

Protesters march toward Super Bowl City in San Francisco, Jan. 29, 2016. Jaeah Lee

The Justice Department’s review into SFPD, however, differs significantly from the “pattern and practice” investigations into police departments such as Ferguson and Cleveland. Pattern-and-practice investigations, handled by the Civil Rights Division and meant to identify department-wide civil rights violations, typically result in court-ordered reforms that are monitored by a judge or a third party, and sometimes last more than a decade. The SFPD review, led by the Office of Community Oriented Policing, will result in a report laying out recommended reforms as well as progress reports on their implementation. But those reviews tend to take place in a shorter time period, and the reforms are not legally binding.

Other cases

Woods’s death is the latest in a long line of controversies involving the San Francisco police and their use of force against citizens, particularly those suffering from mental health issues, and communities of color.

More than 60 percent of all fatal police shootings by SFPD cops since 2010 involved people who had a history of mental health problems, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.
Last February, 20-year-old Amilcar Perez-Lopez was shot to death by two plain-clothed SFPD officers in the Mission District neighborhood. Officials said he was carrying a knife.
A month later, a judge cleared four other cops for their involvement in the March 2014 death of 28-year-old Alex Nieto, who allegedly pointed a Taser at police officers. District Attorney George Gascon said the officers, who fired a total of 59 shots, reasonably mistook the Taser for a pistol.
SFPD also came under heightened scrutiny last April, when Suhr moved to fire 8 officers over their 2012 exchange of racist and homophobic text messages. In December, a judge ruled that the officers could not be fired or otherwise disciplined because the department waited too long to address the case, allowing a one-year statute of limitations for any personnel investigations—set by the Peace Officer Bill of Rights—to lapse.

Some experts have already expressed concern that the DOJ’s current review of SFPD does not go far enough.

“It doesn’t have the teeth that the Civil Rights’ Division investigation does,” Aaron Zisser, a former attorney for the division told the San Francisco Examiner on Monday. The current review, Zisser said, was a strong indicator that there will not be a broader civil rights investigation.

Continue at source:  

The Feds Are Finally Investigating the San Francisco Police, But Here’s the Catch

Posted in Anchor, ATTRA, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, Mop, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Feds Are Finally Investigating the San Francisco Police, But Here’s the Catch

Here’s the Latest Reason Republicans Are Afraid of a Hillary Clinton Presidency

by AnnmarieE89 Posted on January 29, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Supreme Court nominations, thanks to a lifetime appointment if confirmed, are always one of the most important parts of presidential administrations elections but rarely get much attention on the campaign trail. But at a campaign stop in Iowa City Friday afternoon, Ben Carson suggested to caucus voters that they had a new reason to fear Hillary Clinton becoming president: put her in the White House and you’ll end up with Barack Obama on the Supreme Court.

If there’s “another progressive president,” Carson said, “and they get two or three Supreme Court picks—one of them being Obama—America’s toast. Your children and grandchildren, they’re toast.”

Carson isn’t the first candidate to suggest this possibility—from either party. Earlier this week, Hillary Clinton said she would consider nominating Obama to the Supreme Court when she was asked about putting Obama on the bench at a town hall in Iowa. “I mean, he is brilliant and he can set forth an argument,” she said. That proved to be fodder for Sen. Marco Rubio at Thursday night’s debate. “Hillary Clinton this week said Barack Obama would make a great Supreme Court justice,” Rubio said. “The guy who systematically and habitually violates the constitution on the Supreme Court? I don’t think so.”

In terms of campaign trail fear mongering, it’s actually not a crazy suggestion. Obama did, after all, teach constitutional law classes before entering politics full-time. And he wouldn’t be the first president-cum-justice, though it’s been quite a long while since the last one, nearly a century. Only William Howard Taft has made that transition, appointed in 1921. But, as MSNBC’s Steve Benen noted, Obama told The New Yorker in 2014 that being a judge would “a little bit too monastic” for him. The White House also shot down the idea earlier this week.

Read the article – 

Here’s the Latest Reason Republicans Are Afraid of a Hillary Clinton Presidency

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s the Latest Reason Republicans Are Afraid of a Hillary Clinton Presidency

Why San Francisco’s "Frisco" Debate Will Never, Ever Die

by LesterCard Posted on January 29, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

When they’re not arguing about lettuce in burritos or their love-hate relationship with tech, San Franciscans are duking it out over “Frisco”—the 165-year-old nickname for The City that inspires a remarkable amount of vehemence. For many years, “Don’t call it ‘Frisco'” was a kind of shibboleth for SF natives. But a backlash to anti-“Frisco” hegemony has been growing, culminating with today’s Buzzfeed-sponsored Call It Frisco Day. In the interests of teaching the controversy, here’s a timeline that will provide plenty of ammo for partisans on both sides of the “F word” debate.

Late 1840s:

The earliest recorded uses of “Frisco” in writing. Folk etymologist Peter Tamony theorized that this syncope was in widespread use during the Gold Rush, having originated as “an Americanization of ‘El Fresco,’ the name of Mexican gold seekers for the ‘refreshing, cool’ city to which miners sojourned after long, hot months in the Sierra foothills.” (Though he also speculated that it’s related to the Old English term frip-socn, meaning “refuge of peace.”)

1872
Beloved local eccentric/crank Emperor Joshua Norton I bans use of the word “Frisco.” Or not: See below.
The Emperor strikes back

Wikipedia

Emperor Norton supposedly declared “Frisco” off-limits with this 1872 decree: “Whoever after due and proper warning shall be heard to utter the abominable word ‘Frisco,’ which has no linguistic or other warrant, shall be deemed guilty of a High Misdemeanor, and shall pay into the Imperial Treasury as penalty the sum of twenty-five dollars.”
Disappointingly for anti-“Frisco” purists, this decree is likely apocryphal. The earliest citation I could find is in David Warren Ryder’s 1939 biography of Norton, which offers no sourcing.

1877

The Dictionary of Americanisms says that “Frisco” is used “throughout California.”

1882

The “feverish campaign against ‘Frisco'” can be traced back to this year, according to lexicographer Allen Walker Read.

1895

The New York Sun relates a humorous anecdote about a San Franciscan with a complaint:

“Easterners call my city out of its name with malicious purpose, and that none of them have been hanged for it shows that we are forbearing people beyond all others. They call my city”—the speaker choked at the word—”they call it ‘Frisco!’…Ding ’em sir, they seem to think they are doing something pleasant and smart; yet every San Franciscan loathes, with a murderous loathing, to hear his city so called.”

1904

“No, we don’t call it Frisco, that’s tenderfoot talk,” states an old-timer in an article in The Reader.

Digital Sheet Music Collection

1906

“Anyone who goes about the country asserting that his home is in ‘Frisco’ may at once be set down as an imposter,” says The Advance.

1908

“There never was and never will be a ‘Frisco,'” asserts the San Francisco Call: “Neither before the fire nor since has this shabby abbreviation, born of vulgarity and laziness, ever been tolerated in this neighborhood. Of course, the name is applied in a merely heedless spirit; but to the ears of the true San Franciscan it is offensive.”

1912

The federal government decides not to refer to the city by “the flippant ‘Frisco'” anymore: “The term ‘Frisco’ as a name for San Francisco, employed by nonresidents, is objected to by a majority of the citizens of San Francisco and is never used by them. The term has been condemned by the press and civic organizations…” • The Arizona Republican ascribes “Frisco” to telegraph operators and traveling salesmen who condensed “a pretty long name for one who is in a hurry.” (It also claims that Los Angeles is known by the shorthand “Loss.”) • The San Francisco Chronicle editorializes, “There is only one San Francisco in the country, and to call it ‘Frisco’ is not only erroneous, but substitutes a rather ordinary name for a very beautiful one.”

1913

Poet Berton Braley takes to verse to question San Franciscans’ aversion to the term:

Why not call her “Frisco?”
Brethren, what’s the harm?
Good old San Francisco
Will not lose her charm,
Just because you name her
With a nic-name brief;
How can “Frisco” shame her,
Pain or cause her grief?
…
Why not call her “Frisco?”
She’ll be still the same
Gay old San Francisco
Under any name.

1915

Digital Sheet Music Collection

California Outlook reports: “The influx of eastern visitors who have ‘come to see the ‘Frisco exposition’ is causing the native San Franciscan to boil with wrath.” • The same year, a traveler to the city confirms that he was warned “time and again not to refer to it as ”Frisco.'”

1920

“San Francisco is all puffed up with itself,” declares the editor of Reedy’s Mirror. (What’s new?) Also: “Worse than saying ‘Earthquake’ is to call the city ‘Frisco.’ The word invites physical assault.”

1938

A resident observes, “I think we are comfortably informal—although we do insist on the full name San Francisco rather than Frisco.” • An almanac published by the Federal Writers Project offers this advice for tourists:

If you want to be liked in San Francisco,
Remember not to call it “Frisco.”
If you’d rather not arouse our ire,
Remember the earthquake was “the fire.”
If you want to earn our friendliness,
Remember to knock Los Angeles.

1943

Time reports: “Because ‘Frisco’ is a contraction abhorrent to all San Franciscans, roly-poly Mayor Angelo Rossi sped to Hollywood to take issue with 20th Century-Fox, about to release a picture called Hello, Frisco.” Rossi reportedly convinces the movie’s producers to promote it as Hello, San Francisco, Hello within city limits.

1946

“If you want to win friends and influence people there, don’t call it Frisco,” a guide to California advises visitors to the city.

Herb and legend

Legendary San Francisco columnist Herb Caen had an odd relationship with “Frisco.” In 1941, he insisted that “It makes you feel good all over once in a while to say ‘Frisco’ right out loud.” Then in 1953 he wrote a book called Don’t Call it Frisco. He flipped-flopped a lot. In 1993, the three-dot scribe praised “the F word” as “a salty nickname, redolent of the days when we had a bustling waterfront.” Yet in another column that year, Caen observed, “I no longer hear people say either ‘Frisco’ or, in automatic reproof, ‘Don’t call it Frisco.’ An ominous sign…” But then: “Adolescence is believing that ‘Frisco’ is a racy nickname for a city; senility is automatically saying ‘Don’t call it Frisco’; maturity is figuring it doesn’t matter all that much…”

1954

Hells Angels Frisco motorcyle club opens. They seem like nice guys.

1956

Future San Francisco Chronicle scribe Stanton Delaplane explains to delegates coming to the city for the GOP Convention, “You can call Los Angeles ‘L.A.’ You can call chicago ‘Chi.’ But if you call San Francisco ‘Frisco,’ they cut your Republican buttons off and drum you out of town.”

1957

“We wished each other luck,” writes overrated khaki-wearer Jack Kerouac in On the Road, “We would meet in Frisco.”

1967

A headline in Life magazine that mentions “Frisco” draws angry letters. Cynthia Woo demands, “What made you think you could get away with ‘Frisco’…? No San Franciscan uses or likes the name.“

1968

“I left my home in Georgia / Headed for the Frisco Bay,” sings Otis Redding in “(Sittin’ On) The Dock of the Bay.” You can’t argue with Otis Redding.

Digital Sheet Music Collection

1974

Visiting journalists receive an official city press kit titled “Don’t Call It ‘Frisco’.” (The visitors’ bureau still issues this advice.)

1977

Bette Midler plays Bimbo’s: “They told me, ‘Don’t call it Frisco, don’t call it Frisco… It’ll upset the natives.’ Well, FRISCO, FRISCO, FRISCO!” The Los Angeles Times reports that the audience loved it.

1981

A mock trial is held for the F-word. Despite pro-“Frisco” testimony from Peter Tamony, the judge rules against the syncope, arguing that it demeans the city’s namesake, St. Francis. (The same judge later heard a moot case on whether there is any there in Oakland.)

1989

Herb Caen observes San Franciscans backsliding: “Two hallowed precepts of my childhood—that you never call it Frisco and that you always call the 1906 earthquake ‘The Fire’—seem to have become outmoded. It is now accepted that Frisco suffered a quake in Ought Six…”

1995

Caen covers his bases again: “It’s San Francisco…Not Frisco but San Francisco. Caress each Spanish syllable, salute our Italian saint. Don’t say Frisco and don’t say San-Fran-Cis-Co. That’s the way Easterners, like Larry King, pronounce it.” He also notes that reminding people to not call it Frisco is “a conditioned reflex that is wearing out.”

2014

Writing about the proud use of “Frisco” by black San Franciscans, the SF Weekly‘s Joe Eskenazi writes that “the only people driven to complain about ‘Frisco’ appear to be aging Caucasians.”

2015

Nearly 80 percent of respondents to the second semiannual unscientific Blue Angels survey say that it is not okay to say “Frisco.”

2016

A digital media company valued at $1.5 billion encourages San Franciscans to “reclaim ‘Frisco'” to honor “the vital blue collar core of our city” and because it “pisses off tech bros.”

Continue reading – 

Why San Francisco’s "Frisco" Debate Will Never, Ever Die

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Oster, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why San Francisco’s "Frisco" Debate Will Never, Ever Die

New Science Tells Us That Men In Politics Are Blowhards

by Kristi23Gay Posted on January 28, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

A couple of researchers in Switzerland wanted to judge how confident students in different career paths were. First, they split them into groups of 12 and gave each a short test:

  1. In which year was the Nobel Prize in physics awarded to Albert Einstein?
  2. In which year was pope John Paul I (the direct predecessor of John Paul II) elected Pope?
  3. In which year did the reactor accident happen in Chernobyl?
  4. In which year was Elvis Presley born?
  5. In which year did the first flight with the supersonic jet Concorde take place?

The answers are 1921, 1978, 1986, 1935, and 1976. My guesses were 1920, 1979, 1986, 1940,1 and 1973, so I was off by a total of 10 years. How do I think this compared with the rest of my group? I’m going to say I was third best. If it turns out that I was, in fact, only fifth best, I was overconfident by two ranks.

So how did everyone do? The first answer is simple: as you’d expect, men were vastly overconfident in their results and women were vastly underconfident. The chart on the right shows the second answer: political scientists were way overconfident and humanities students were way underconfident. Buck up, history majors! You know more than the budding politicians even if they’re oh-so-sure they know everything.

Bottom line: Science™ says that men in politics are blowhards. Ignore them. Women with English degrees know more than they think. Listen to them. That is all.

1This means that Elvis was drafted into the army at age 23. Doesn’t that seem a little late?

View article:  

New Science Tells Us That Men In Politics Are Blowhards

Posted in Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on New Science Tells Us That Men In Politics Are Blowhards

Here’s Why the Ted Cruz Birther Story Isn’t Going Away

by KathleneT54 Posted on January 15, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

During the memorable clash between Donald Trump and Ted Cruz at last night’s Republican presidential debate, the real estate mogul explained why he has persistently raised questions about his Canadian-born rival’s eligibility to serve as president.

“If for some reason…he beats the rest of the field, I already know the Democrats are going to be bringing a suit,” Trump said. “You have a big lawsuit over your head while you’re running. And if you become the nominee, who the hell knows if you can even serve in office?”

As it turns out, Trump’s concerns over a lawsuit weren’t unwarranted. In fact, one was filed that same day by Houston lawyer Newton Boris Schwartz Sr. The suit asks a federal judge to define the “(1) status (2) qualifications and (3) eligibility or ineligibility of defendant for election to the office of the President and vice President of the United States.” In the poorly written, 28-page complaint, Schwartz noted that this question is “now ripe for decision,” and then invoked the so-called birther arguments used against President Barack Obama (see the full complaint below):

If all that was and is required for Defendant’s eligibility for the election to the office of the President and Vice President of the United States is that one of his biological parents be a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth in Canada outside the 50 United States…then why have the “birthers” or “doubters” and questioners of the place of birth of the 44th President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama have persisted to this date and prior to his 2008 elections in 2008 and 2012? When undisputedly: (1) he was born in the U.S. state of Hawaii after its admission on August 21, 1959 and is documented by his birth records…”

It’s unclear what will come of this complaint, but this isn’t the only birther action that Cruz is contending with. Also on Thursday, the Arizona Republic reported that Rep. Kelly Townsend, a Republican state legislator from the Phoenix suburb of Mesa, is “circulating a measure at the Arizona legislature that would call a U.S. constitutional convention to outline what it means to be a natural-born citizen.” The paper notes that Townsend hopes to get her Legislature on board before reaching out to other states, since, after all, “it will take 34 states to convene such a meeting, something that hasn’t happened since 1787.”

This legislative effort—like the lawsuit—appears quixotic. But Trump has ensured this question of his natural-born citizenship status will dog him. As seen in last night’s debate, Trump’s questioning of Cruz’s eligibility has marked a turning point in relations between the two candidates, who have previously refrained from attacking each other throughout the campaign. But, as Trump told CNN’s Dana Bash after Thursday’s debate, “I guess the bromance is over.”

Originally posted here: 

Here’s Why the Ted Cruz Birther Story Isn’t Going Away

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s Why the Ted Cruz Birther Story Isn’t Going Away

Scott Walker Corruption Case Threatens to Implicate Wisconsin Supreme Court Justices

by Bradly2804 Posted on December 22, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

It’s the campaign scandal that just won’t die. For three years, prosecutors in Wisconsin tried to investigate what they believed was illegal campaign coordination between Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and conservative outside groups. The investigation has become a political flash point in the state: Walker and conservatives claim it is a witch hunt led by liberal prosecutors, while liberals believe it is about the power of dark money in Wisconsin politics.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court dismissed the case, but on Friday, the case moved to the national stage when prosecutors signaled their intention to take it to the US Supreme Court. And the focus is now set to shift from the actions of Walker and his allies to potential ethical violations by the Wisconsin Supreme Court justices themselves.

Continue Reading »

Read more: 

Scott Walker Corruption Case Threatens to Implicate Wisconsin Supreme Court Justices

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Scott Walker Corruption Case Threatens to Implicate Wisconsin Supreme Court Justices