Authored by Jeremy Portnoy via RealClearInvestigations,
Topline: The taxpayer-funded San Francisco Zoo "does not have a healthy or stable financial condition," according to a city audit released in May. The zoo has no written plans or budgets to guide its construction projects, and spent $12 million on them without city approval. Employees are also allegedly hiring their friends and relatives as contractors.
Key facts: The zoo is required to get approval from San Francisco's Recreation and Park Commission before paying more than $50,000 for a construction project. But employees never did so while spending millions on a new "Madagascar Center" and other huge projects, auditors found.
There is also a "widespread view among staff that [the zoo] has a toxic workplace environment," according to the audit. Employees were allegedly chosen for senior roles based on "discrimination and favoritism," not "professional qualifications."
The zoo spends more than $4 million on contracted services like security and advertising every year, but there is no evidence that any of them went through a competitive bidding process to find the best price. The zoo keeps no records of its contractors and was unable to tell auditors how much they are being paid, the audit found.
The audit also confirmed that former zoo CEO Tanya Peterson's fiancé was hired to perform concerts, and other relatives of zoo staff received more than $800,000 for construction projects. The San Francisco Chronicle first exposed the nepotism allegations in 2024, which eventually contributed to Peterson's resignation.
The City of San Francisco gives the zoo $4 million in funding every year, though that amount has not increased since 1993. Most of the zoo's revenue comes from tickets, but low attendance has caused the zoo to outspend its budget for at least the last eight years. The zoo hid this fact from the city by projecting "unrealistically high" attendance numbers each year and making purchases based on the inflated revenue that never materialized, according to the audit.
Oversight of the zoo has been difficult because employees are ignoring public records requests, according to the audit. They claim that because the zoo is a nonprofit, it is exempt from open records laws, but the zoo signed an agreement years ago to share all records as if it were a city agency.
Search all federal, state and local salaries and vendor spending with the world's largest government spending database at OpenTheBooks.com.
Background: The city plans to bail out the zoo with an $8.5 million loan after a city-commissioned report found that closing the zoo or finding a new operator would be more expensive.
The zoo is also planning to bring in pandas from China to fill a new exhibit that will cost $27 million to build. Activist groups like In Defense of Animals have opposed the proposal, arguing the zoo cannot properly care for new animals until it fixes its financial problems.
Summary: San Francisco's zoo has a responsibility to its animals and to taxpayers to manage its money through a carefully-planned budget, not endless deficits.
The #WasteOfTheDay is brought to you by the forensic auditors at OpenTheBooks.com.
Tyler Durden Fri, 06/05/2026 - 18:25Russian President Vladimir Putin has responded dismissively to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's open letter issued the day prior, which urged that the two leaders meet in order to finally forge a peace deal and bring an end to the war, now it its fifth year.
Putin made clear Friday that he sees no point in holding a personal meeting with Zelensky. He was asked directly about the letter while attending the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF). In response the Russian leader addressed not the "authors of the epistolary genre," but to Russian soldiers on the frontline: "The whole country is proud of you and is counting on you. Keep up the good work, brothers!" And then, per TASS:
Asked to clarify if this response means that he doesn’t plan to meet with the letter’s author, Putin said, "So far, I see no point in this."
He went on to reject the idea of "meeting just for the sake of meeting" - but did reveal for the first time that only last month he sent an informal envoy to Ukraine at Kiev’s request. Apparently that was the opening of a serious diplomatic overture.
But then, he noted, Ukrainian forces bombed a college dormitory in Lugansk merely soon after the Russian envoy arrived. The brutal attack killed 21 people, mostly teenage girls - and injured many dozens more. The Kremlin was outraged at the 'terrorist act' and the following week heavily bombed various Ukrainian cities, especially the capital.
State media featured more of Putin's response:
The letter is either "a means to create an environment for a personal meeting, or maybe is this letter meant to make sure that no personal meetings can take place at all,” he remarked, concluding: “I think it's the second.”
Zelensky's lengthy Thursday letter had said Ukraine is also ready for a "full ceasefire." Zelensky wrote: "Ukraine proposes ending this war through direct engagement between us - and you. I am proposing a meeting. Ukraine is ready for a full ceasefire for the duration of the negotiations," he added.
The letter also at one point said, "The choice is yours now. Enough of war" and then spells out that "Ukraine proposes to end this war."
"This must be done honestly, with dignity, and with guarantees that the war will not be reignited," Zelensky added. And then interestingly, "We see that the United States is fully focused on the issue of Iran, and it would be wrong to simply wait until the war in Europe returns to the center of its attention."
Despite the long appeal, President Putin and the Kremlin have demonstrated a willingness to allow a long war to drag on, and are unlikely to be moved. Putin has said there's no need for a truce unless a deal is already close or about to be signed. But the two sides aren't any closer to being at the negotiating table as yet.
Tyler Durden Fri, 06/05/2026 - 18:00Authored by Jonathan Turley via JonathanTurley.org,
Minnesotans are familiar with the perils of "snow blindness," a temporary blindness caused by overexposure to ultraviolet rays from the reflection from snow and ice. It appears that Minnesota politicians and prosecutors have a type of mob blindness, where they cannot see crimes committed in front of them by the far left. That condition appears to be tragically evident in St. Paul, where City Attorney Irene Kao made an absurd denial of any criminal activity at the demonstration in the City Church on Jan. 18th. While claiming that there were no observable crimes, Kao's decision just happened to be enormously popular with the mob-driven politics and polling in her state.
In January, dozens of anti-ICE protesters, and former CNN journalist Don Lemon, descended upon the church and disrupted a mass because a church official had connections to ICE.
The demonstrators could have been charged with such offenses as disorderly conduct, interfering with a religious observance, knowingly participating in a noisy assembly and making or continuing a disturbing or excessive noise.
There was a demonstrator who was able to get her misdemeanor charges dismissed earlier. However, Emily Phillips was arrested for her conduct outside of the church and actually responded to police demands that she stop using her bullhorn.
Her case is a good point of comparison. Protesting outside is vastly different from entering a church or event to disrupt it or shout down speakers.
These demonstrators entered a church, refused to leave when told to do so, and abused parishioners while stopping the services.
Kao offers little more than a shrug: "Following a careful evaluation of the video footage, investigative reports, and other available materials, prosecutors determined that the current evidence is insufficient to meet that standard for criminal charges under Minnesota state statutes."
There are 39 people still charged by the federal government under the FACE Act.
Kao insisted, "The right to peacefully protest is protected, as is the right to exercise one's religious beliefs. Balancing these equally important rights is paramount to our decision today."
This is not protected free speech. It is conduct. Indeed, it is criminal conduct.
While Kao stressed that there was no property damage, it is not required under these criminal charges.
What is missing is not the basis for criminal charges but the will to prosecute them. Once again, Democratic politicians are yielding to the mob and refusing to see the criminal conduct.
It is reminiscent of CNN national correspondent Omar Jimenez reporting live from Kenosha, Wis., with a raging fire in the background over a chyron reading, "FIERY BUT MOSTLY PEACEFUL PROTESTS AFTER POLICE SHOOTING."
These politicians and state prosecutors hope to ride this rage wave back into power in Congress and the White House. Indeed, some have told voters to "let your rage fuel you."
We have seen this pattern before in history. Establishment figures often try to harness the rage of the mob, only to be ultimately consumed by the rage themselves.
Irene Kao's decision is a cynical concession to the mob. It is a decision that will give the Minnesota mob a further sense of license.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of the bestselling books "The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage" and "Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution."
Tyler Durden Fri, 06/05/2026 - 17:40