In an ironic twist indicative of our times, authors Joanna Ho and Caroline Kusin-Pritchard were about to go on stage to discuss their new kids’ book The Day the Books Disappeared at a San Ramon elementary school when they were told not to mention banned or queer books.

As KRON4 reports, the authors say their visit to Country Club Elementary School in the East Bay city of San Ramon on October 17 was cut short when they were told at the last minute by school officials that they couldn’t talk about certain themes in their presentation, which addressed scenarios surrounding the banning of books, including “uncomfortable historical truths, race or racism, and diverse family structures.”

As the site Book Riot explains, the authors frame the concept of book-banning in an age-appropriate manner in the book using individual preferences as an example. The main character uses his newfound ability at making books disappear to get rid of books on topics he doesn’t find interesting, and before he knows it, even the books he likes start disappearing.

Per Book Riot, the authors’ presentation consisted of 45 slides that mainly featured pages from the book along with a few informational graphics about books that have been banned nationwide.

When the authors refused to censor their presentation, they were asked to leave. ​​“Our book was literally written because of book banning; we could not leave that out of our presentation,” Ho told KRON4.

The school district released a statement saying the students who were attending the program — ages four to nine — were too young to understand the concept of book-banning. Per KRON4, the district claims that they contacted the authors’ management with the request in advance, which the authors dispute.

“We were not asked to adjust for younger audiences despite what the district statement says. They told us not to talk about book bans or mention queer books. We did not choose to leave, we were told to leave when we wouldn’t agree not to talk about book bans or mention gay books,” said Ho.

“Caroline was like this is completely out of our integrity like, we won’t be changing our presentation if we’re giving the presentation,” Ho added.

Book Riot notes that there’s an active chapter of Moms For Liberty in Contra Costa County where San Ramon is located, which puts political pressure on public schools and libraries to censor topics on race, sexuality, and gender. The outlet also writes that in 2023, a high school in San Ramon received backlash for including in its library the book Gender Queer and other LGBTQ+ themed books, along with various books by and about Black, Indigenous, and other people of color, which SFist covered at the time.

“Book banning is real, it’s happening everywhere, it’s happening in California,” Kusin-Pritchard told KRON4.

Image: ‘The Day the Books Disappeared’

Related: San Ramon Parents Want To Jump On The Public School Book-Banning Bandwagon

The Chronicle's Peter Hartlaub thinks that might be a good idea, at least for a couple of years. In the wake of yesterday's vomit-laced, booze-tinged Bay to Breakers fete, Hartlaub (smartly) suggests, among other things, to give San Francisco's annual race a much-needed rest.

In part, he writes:

From what I witnessed, the scene at the Panhandle has become too large and chaotic to practically enforce the law. Just clearing the crowds off Fell Street and into the park led to palpable tension with the police. Trying to force the issue in the Panhandle would lead to rancor, and at best would push the revelers back out, causing more problems in the neighborhoods.

The Bay to Breakers has become a gangrenous limb of a footrace. So take two years off — insert your own amputation line here — then try to bring the race back in 2017 with a strong campaign promising arrests of anyone drinking in any park along the racecourse. Actually follow up on that promise. Start the race at the crack of dawn, set up bands in the park (Sharon Meadow or maybe Kezar Stadium?) and hope people behave...

Meanwhile, KRON 4′s Stanley Roberts was at Bay to Breakers and caught some participants behaving badly…

Previously: Scenes From Bay to Breakers 2014

This is why we can't have nice things kegs. A year after Fourth of July festivities left Fort Mason's Great Meadow littered with empty 12-packs, glass bottles, and all manner of summer holiday jetsam, park officials have officially banned glass bottles and kegs from the area.

A National Park Service spokesperson cited the mounds of trash left behind last year for the reason, and said that there will be even more trash and recycle bins this to avoid a repeat problem. If you'll recall, last year's cleanup crew had to content with everything from raw meat, three abandoned barbecues, a couch, and terrifying mountains of trash. It was truly a disgusting display of human apathy.

No word on whether actual kegs were left behind at the scene, but we can only assume the ban has something to do with avoiding the blackout drunkenness that makes conscientious recycling a distinct challenge.

Although park officials note that barbecue grills and charcoal have never been allowed on the green, this reporter was on the scene last year and can confirm that the dozens of grills were only outnumbered by the cornhole sets, which made it difficult to navigate without being struck by a wayward bean bag. In light of this, it remains unclear how compliant tomorrow's revelers will be to the new rules.

And now, allow us a short PSA: If you're planning on spending Independence Day drinking and carousing with friends, more power to you. But don't be that dick who leaves mountains of trash behind (or even a few bottles -- still dickish!). Be prepared for that moment when most of your inebriated group has stumbled home and you're left holding the garbage bag. Our advice? Pack some Hefty bags before you get going to make cleanup easier, and gift each departing friend with a bag of trash or box full of empties to dispose of on their way out. A polite but firm, "Don't be a dick, bro" should do the trick.

Previously: Marina Garbage Trashes Fort Mason...Again

[SF Appeal]

Although his gastronomic reputation has, let's fact it, been marred due to his frozen food and canned soup lines, Spago founder and chef Wolfgang Puck still has some pull. So, he penned an open letter to California restaurants still serving foie gras. And the letter, sent by Puck in February, was intended to sooth the frayed nerves of chefs who don't like being told what they can and cannot serve at their spoons. (As you know, foie gras will be banned at the start of July this year.) Vegansaurus' wonderful Laura Beck (by way of SF Weekly) got her hot hands on the letter. Check it:

While Puck is against serving the fattened duck or goose liver, he does still continue to serve animals. Beck points out:

Of course, Puck still serves all other kinds of animals on his menus. He's included in a wave of restauranteurs who participate in "Meatless Monday" and is clearly thoughtful about where his food comes from, which is distinctly California. And, more specifically, San Francisco. After all, we already have an delicious animal-friendly foie gras on the market. Perhaps Puck will soon be serving that?

The foie gras ban, which initially provoked some interesting discussion regarding animal rights and the rights of diners, has dissolved into (if we may borrow a term from People's Court's Marilyn Milian) a round of ¿quien es mas macho? among local chefs. Russell Jackson of Lafitte hosted an aggressively all-foie gras dinner last October. And Bay Wolf in Oakland had a "Farewell to Foie Gras" blowout dinner on Sunday, which was met with protesters.

Over the past year, the San Francisco Health Department has tirelessly worked to shutdown the scourge known as hookah lounges. For those not in the know, hookah lounges are a rite of passage for anyone new to the Bay Area. At these cesspools of moral bankruptcy, one can partake in smoking innocuous, flavored tobacco (which violates the indoor smoking ban) while ordering a side of dolmas or hummus and pita triangles. They're as bad as Hitler.

According to the Chronicle, several of these business owners appeared at department hearing this week to find out that most of them will need to get rid of "all tobacco and tobacco products and discontinue smoking through tobacco pipes" at some point very soon.

Dream Hookah Lounge, Cafe Chanta, Cairo Nights, Marrakech Moroccan Restaurant and Kan Zaman, among others, all face severe changes in business plans if they don't stop the huffing and puffing right-quick.

[Chron]

In what could be seen as the continued Starbucks-ification of Valencia Street, brick-and-mortar coffee purveyors Ritual Coffee Roasters recently pulled the work of photographer Varese Layzer. It was considered "too serious" for the cafe's walls. While neither visually offensive nor too harrowing at first glance, the exhibit centered around the death of a the artist's mother. Upon reading the artist's statement after the show went live, Ritual owner Eileen Hassi later stripped the walls of Layzer's art and sent her a gracious (albeit somewhat perplexing) letter of explanation, which was then posted to Layzer's Flickr account. Here's what the letter said:

Hi Varese,
My name is Eileen and I'm the owner of Ritual. It's too bad that I haven't actually met you, as this would probably make more sense if you knew me. I asked one of my employees to take down your artist statement when I was in the cafe on Sunday. I needed to leave directly to go up to an event I was running in Napa and was away for the rest of the weekend.

I know that you're upset and you're going to think I'm the bad guy in this situation, but allow me to explain my position: Your art is serious work. It's too serious for the cafe. It's dealing with real stuff, real emotions, loss, attachment, family, death. It belongs in a real gallery, where people are in a space to contemplate these things. The art that belongs in a cafe is fluffier stuff, stuff that doesn't make people think about the tough questions in life: pictures of telephone poles, birds sitting on the wires, tapestries of heavy metal lyrics. Whimsical stuff.

The curator made a mistake, I fired him. I want you to take you[r] shown down as soon as possible. I know that you put a great deal of effort into the show, so it's not a total loss for you, I'd like to offer you $300. I have a great deal of respect for your work, and would not put it in jeopardy, it's just not the right art for the space. Your artist's statement is safe, just tucked away. It was just too intense for people looking for escapism with their coffee. I have another show ready to go, so please let me know when you'll be taking the show down.

Like I said, it should be in a gallery, where you can have a real opening, with wine and cheese. My boyfriend has a gallery -- give him a call -- [number redacted]. I have another friend who just took over a gallery space on 6th Street as well and is looking for work to show.

Like I said, I'm sure you think I'm being the bad guy in this situation, but really no one should have led you to believe this belonged in a coffee shop.

Best,
Eileen

Sure, it may seem odd to ban the work of an artist within the city's allegedly creative hotspot, but... it's her cafe. She can whatever she wants. Then again, the artist community is a fiercely loyal, not to mention vocal, gaggle. And any mention of "wine and cheese" in relation to their highly personal art is almost certain to make their blood simmer.

Following is the artist's statement:

In 2010, my mother died. As the last living member of my family, it fell on me to clear out the cluttered 1,100-square-foot rent-controlled apartment where I grew up and my parents had lived for 40 years. The process would take three months. During that time of work and grief, I also had to live there. I documented the process of making room for me at 5E.

After giving away thousands of pounds of belongings, I moved the remaining 4,000 pounds to a San Francisco storage space. Slowly, I made room to bring those objects into my world here: a painting, a clock, a lamp. I documented that process too.

Apartment 5E has since been bought and its walls demolished by a new owner. The objects and these pictures are all that remains.

Layzer's responds to the ban via her Flickr page:

The inflammatory work -- muted color pictures of furniture -- may be seen here: [link] . It consists of 11 professionally framed pieces and one artist statement. I asked permission about the work and the statement before I framed it and it was granted -- and a contract was signed by Ritual. It cost approximately $3,000 to create. When the show was found objectionable (as detailed above) I also offered to remove the statement, which was the only hint that the show was about "loss, attachment, family, death"

Opening in 2005 on Valencia Street, Ritual Coffee is one of several artisan roasters and cafes that have gained popularity with many foodies, along Blue Bottle and Philz. Their seemingly creative patrons are typically seen furiously typing away on laptops and iPads. And drinking the admittedly divine brew. (It's that good.) Very much a Mission experience.

What do you think, readers?

CONVERT MY GRILL! from Justin Barker on Vimeo.

Oprah Winfrey, ruler of the free world, is having a contest promising fame and fortune. It's called "Your Own Show: Oprah's Search for the Next TV Star," which will give birth to the greatest TV show ever. Or not. It's simple: Viewers upload their pitches -- falling under the genres of traditional talk show, cooking, interior design or fashion, health & well-being, and wildcard -- and then people vote for their favorites.

Local Oprah star wannabe Justin Barker, however, found his submission banned from the contest. Twice! Why? Well, for starters, he employed the use of booze in his vegetarian cooking show idea. Which, it seems, is a no-no. Also, he uses his friends in his beta show. Which, according to the fine folks at Harpo, is verboten.

In harrowing detail, Barker explains:

I submitted my vegetarian show idea to Oprah's "Your Own Show" contest and they banned it TWICE! My original edit included alcohol and it got rejected.. I edited out, blurred and dubbed the alcoholic parts and they rejected it again--for including my friends in the shoo! WHAT?! REALLY ? There's no way I am going to dub and blur my friends...

Watch the video and judge for yourself.

Well this just tears it. EXIT Theater announced today that it will replace the staged reading of Sean Owens’ Center Square, a one-man show based on the life of late comedian, Bye Bye Birdie star (Gah! Now "The Telephone Hour" will be crammed in our head day), and Hollywood Squares star Paul Lynde, after the San Francisco theater received a “cease and desist” letter last month from the licensee of the Lynde rights, Matzoball Entertainment LLC. Lynde, for those of you who don't know, was a homosexual B-list actor who, in 1965, was involved in an accident where his boyfriend fell to his death from the window of their hotel room in San Francisco's Sir Francis Drake Hotel.

Instead of Center Square, EXIT Theater will do a staged reading of Lee Kiszonas’, Capote’s Last Frontier, about the life of writer and drug/alcohol aficionado Truman Capote.

Remember when most of you lost your minds over whether or not it's OK for hipsters to sport Kaffiyehs. (The conclusion: it's fine to wear them, but they tend to overpower an outfit as an accessory.)

Well, scenesters, get ready to put down the straw, wipe your nostrils, and head over to Crossroads to sell your black-and-white Kaffiyehs. Sausage-fingered Food Network star, Rachael Ray love them. And she just had her Dunkin' Donuts ad yanked after several hundred or so mentally-estranged Americans complained after seeing her wearing the Arab headdress while hawking delicious Dunkin' Donuts pastries.

Michelle Malkin, mind-numbingly dumb FOX news commenter/hole, went nuts over Ray's scarf, saying, "the keffiyeh, for the clueless, is the traditional scarf of Arab men that has come to symbolize murderous Palestinian jihad." Or, as SFist already pointed out, it is/was a fashion trend.

This is too bad. Dunkin' Donuts are second to none.

In an effort to tame the trolls, SFGate's site (as well as a few others like ThinkProgress) use software from an outside company that implements a unique "block user" function. This feature blocks all comments made by a user from view by anyone but themselves (upon login). That is to say, whenever the quasi-banned user logs in to the site, they see their comments intact; but to everyone else, the offending comment is simply invisible. When we heard about this "deception" recently, we thought what most blog editors thought: genius. And heads up.

Investigate the Media broke the story -- its only story, in fact. (Hmm. Just who is this JimJams? Curious.) ITM broke it down like this:

Why would SFGate do such a thing? Because ever since public input was first allowed at SFGate, many commenters who had their comments deleted would come back onto the comment thread and point out that they had been silenced for ideological reasons -- i.e. they weren't sufficiently "progressive" -- or because they had pointed out ethical lapses at SFGate and the Chronicle.

"Silenced for ideological reasons?" Banned for not being "sufficiently 'progressive?'" (Do you hear that? That's the din of collective chortling by SF progressives.) And here we thought that this was simply a more gentle yet passive way of dealing with the gaggle of trolls that park under the bridges of any site with user comments. Admittedly, we do understand ITM's point of view here. But the issue here seems to stem from hurt feelings, not noble anguish over dastardly censorship as we're being led to believe. The blocked commenter is upset that their comments and thoughts simply haven't been read. We don't think censorship is the real issue here. He or she simply didn't know that they were banned.

Anyway, we asked former SFist Editor and current Deputy Managing Editor for Online, Eve Batey, just what in God's name is going on. (Full disclosure: Batey is a friend of the site and personal friend.) When asked whether or not commenters are banned for varying viewpoints, she told SFist that "neither The Chronicle nor SFGate would delete a comment based on an idealogical stance. ... Why would we bother to have comments on the site if we didn't want varying viewpoints to be expressed?" She goes on to tell us that "[w]e've stopped using the 'block user' function as of today, even at the risk of having comments 'disappear' and at having some article comment section conversations suffer as a result."

Batey's entire statement after the jump.