Speaking of PG&E funding, at the school that I'm going to, I found a sign next to the room number saying that the classroom was being provided by PG&E. The same was done for all the other rooms in the building.

By the way, I wonder if Newsom is going to bring up the fact that he is attacking San Francisco's sanctuary ordinance with the President of Mexico or any of the other dignitaries there.

By the way, I met a couple of pimps pushing that PG&E ballot measure on campus today. Before I sign any petition I always ask the pushers how much they are being paid and who is supporting this measure. I was quite surprised that the woman admitted that PG&E was pushing it. At the same time, she said that she wasn't getting paid.

In any case, it also became clear to me she didn't really understand the ballot measure itself and, once I'd established that, her partner swooped in and took over. Her partner was intensely aggressive about the whole thing -- a real blabbermouth. He kept saying that people should be given a choice and that it was going to get on the ballot anyway ... at least I think that was what he was saying.

This article is sooooo irritating. Yet another obsessively focused piece on the mayor. The Guardian cannot seem to accept the results of the past two elections. Their candidates lost and they keep losing - district elections are good in that they feed into the system supervisors who would never be elected otherwise but any citywide election demonstrates that the priorities of the Haight aren't those of the city. And that drives the writers of these articles insane. Hence the "sooooo annoying" comment. I imagine the writers and editors at the Guardian are constantly "sooooo annoyed these days." LOL.

Lucretia Snapples? What an utterly fascinating and unbelievable name.

The question, Lucretia (or should we call you Shane?), isn't why we're obsessed with the mayor. The Guardian has covered San Francisco mayors since 1966, and we're critical when they avoid accountability or waste scarce public resources on their personal ambitions. The question I'm curious about is why you're so obsessed with the Guardian and San Francisco progressives, why you obsessively post belittling conservative comments on Bay Area blogs, and whether you're actually getting paid to shill for Newsom. C'mon, Lucretia/Shane, fess up.

I find the progressive very interesting, they insist that they have deep and nuanced views. they also torture us with these views written in style that if you don't agree them you are an awful awful person.

There is really no tolerance in the progressive, its "agree or we will demonize you" while they complain about Fox news harassing Obummer.

I have enjoyed Lucretia's post and wish that the Guardian had a rating system so that I could rate them. I have never read where she/he/Shane(?) defended Newsom, just that the Guardian and Steve Jones (sadly not of the Sex Pistols) obsession with him is pathetic.

...and Steve who in their right mind would pay anyone to write about how ridiculous the Guardian and progressives are, progressive's in this city border on a cult, who cares what progressives have to say but other progressives?

The reason people don't belittle conservatives is that in the mono culture of San Francisco there are few of them, besides the progressives make a good FOX news substitute here. The progressives are just as coherent, rational and open minded as anyone on FOX news, the nearness of the progressives just make them and their cult more annoying.

We can't just turn off the progressives failed policies like we can FOX news. Step outside and see the progressive handy work in action.

LOL - I wish I were being paid to "shill for Newsom." Nope, sorry Steven, I'm doing it for free!

Matt why would the leadership of Mexico care what the mayor of SF is doing around illegal immigration?

They probably are laughing at him behind his back(and the rest of the USA), the leadership of Mexico doesn't let people into Mexico to do whatever they want when they want, they take a dim view of illegal immigration down there in Mexico.

Jason Grant Garza here ... ha, ha , ha The Mayor and this continuing evading Sunshine Issue (where's the DA or AG who by the statue enforce ... ha, ha, ha) since the Ethics Commission, the Sunshine Commission, the City Attorney's Office, DPH and SFGH are only doing their JOBS in order to retire and HAVE THE GOOD LIFE while continuing the illusion. Let me tell you a story ... let's suppose someone is in EMERGENCY and goes to SFGH (2001) and is denied services and arrested. What can a poor person do ... go to the Sunshine Commission request correct complete and accurate records to defend ... he then receives a "RN RATCHED" response (read about it in SF Bay Guardian) and then goes to court by himself since JUSTICE is for the rich;however, at his deposition (prior to court is 5150'ed ... interestly released 4 hours later since it was NOT valid)- some might consider Witness Intimdidation) ... then our VICTIM has his case thrown out by the city claiming it had complied with the law. The VICTIM was not allowed to testify however his paperwork states the word playing duplicitous misrepresentations ... anyway, he continues ... goes to Washington gets a settlement where the city admits fault and liability ... NOW WHAT? Will the court, the city or any government offical investigate the failures ... what about the VICTIM? Why will NO ONE BE ACCOUNTABLE even now when the VICTIM has a signed confession ... HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN unless it is all an illusion ... type my name into a google search engine ... read an article entitled "CRAZY" in regard to getting legally mandated services.
Ethics ha,ha, ha ... how can this be claimed when THOSE IN THE CITY WON'T COME CLEAN OR BE ACCOUNTABLE; unless of coarse the ethics of a continued illusion of (sunshine, laws, and morality) outweigh the civil unrest they would create if the SHEEPLE woke up. "In an age of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." George Orwell
P.S. As far as the Board of Supervisors investigating ... I still await my investigation with a signed confession after having gone to different Supervisors ... I have THAT paperwork too; however, NO ONE will investigate ... where's the ethics behind admitting fault and guilt (for having BROKRN the law) if you don't have to come clean or have an investigation in order to remedy and explain. Remember my case has been ongoing since 2001 ... here's the link www.sfbg.com/entry.php?entry_id=3956&catid=4 - read, question and know that it is ALL UNACCOUNTABLE LIES in order to RETIRE an HAVE THE GOOD LIFE ... while leaving someone (THEIR VICTIM) to DIE! Ah, the audacity of FALSE HOPE dispensed by FALSE LEADERS enabled by FALSE AGENCIES. My wasn't there an article in May in the SF Bay Guardian about the ETHICS commission and how 14 times they failed .... the article I believe stated that this was the most important open government issue and asked which Supervisor wanted to take it on? Now there are Supervisors willing ... ha, ha, ha ... what about JUSTICE delayed ... JUSTICE denied ... oh, in order to fix they would have to expose their "risk management, negligent, and unaccountable" ways ... look at my case that exposes all ... where's the ETHICS or Supervisors with my OPEN and SHUT case regarding COMPLIANCE? So if you are still awaiting as I have been for more than eight (8) years you might ask ... if Sunshine were so CRUCIAL as articles have appeared in the Bay Guardian concerning this issue ... with the author of the articles challenging a Supervisor to take this on ... WHY HAVEN'T THEY? Only now they are interseted in a leaked memo ... oh, I can't stop laughing at the obvious insincerity and inhumanity ... line up folks ... you're NEXT! Granted they have a much better chance at whitewashing the leaked memo than explaining a SIGNED CONFESSION ... INTEGRITY IS AS INTEGRITY DOES ... so where is it?