The University’s revised student group naming policy has generated some more attention. While the story was first broken by Yaman and followed up by Beetle two weeks ago, it only made it to print in the Daily Cal Monday. If you missed all those and the latest on Beetle, here is the short version.

The University will not allow any new student groups to have names that contain UC Berkeley, Berkeley, Cal, or California unless it is a reference to the geographical place of Berkeley. The reasoning I gathered is the University does not want to give the impression the University is in agreement with or endorses anything such a named group says or does. Established groups with now illegal names will not be affected (yet). Considering the University was rather touchy about Calstuff and their use of Cal written in script, they have a history of being protective of what they see as their name.

This should help you register groups that do not conflict with the new rules.

I thought of an interesting turnaround. If the University does not want the public to possibly think student groups speak for the University, then the public should not be tempted to think the University administration speaks for students. If students can’t use UC Berkeley, then neither should the Chancellor when he writes an opinion piece like this.

Intelligent people understand the words of student groups only express the opinions of the student groups that said them, even if their name is Berkeley or has Cal in it. One thing is clear, the University has no claim at all on regulating the use of California or Berkeley.

Update: As as happened so many times before, if I wait long enough Beetle will have something good to say. Here he explains how to effectively fight this. Some people will not like it, as whining is not allowed.

I came across a story in the San Francisco Weekly. It moves me to sadness and anger. The article follows the lawyer Tom Frankovich who sues and threatens to sue small businesses over Americans with Disabilities Act violations. His clients claim establishments are not accessible and difficult if not impossible for people with disabilities to navigate.

There are a few general concerns I brought out of this article by Ron Russell.

The abuse of lawsuits. Frankovich has a few “frequent fliers,” disabled people who have filed cases with him multiple and even hundreds of times against business owners for providing inadequate faculties for people with disabilities. One of the people is reported to have visited four different places in less then 24 hours and subsequently filed suits against all of them. If these people really wanted to affect change, they would have brought their problems to the owners’ attention before starting litigation. A manager can start changes on that day, while the courthouse is a long walk or ride away.

The conflict between different laws. A federal disability law and a state law are in conflict and compliance with both is sometimes impossible.

People can get away with nonsense and even crimes by claiming to represent the voiceless and helpless. Every time a frivolous lawsuit is filed in the name of greed, the real concerns of the minority are hurt. A few bad apples can sour the whole batch of ADA cases and ruin the important ones.

The article relates how Frankovich sees people who do not comply:

He sees non-ADA compliers as “scofflaws” who merit no sympathy. “Lawsuits are the only language these people understand,” he says. “Unless you pound them into submission, nothing will ever change.”

However, if a person who used a wheelchair were to visit the office of Frankovich, s/he would be out of luck. From the SF Weekly again:

Nineteen steps above the street and without an elevator, the yellow three-story building that has served as the nerve center for countless ADA lawsuits is itself inaccessible to the disabled. The man who’s built a career tormenting the law’s non-compliers as scofflaws — and making them pay — must arrange off-site meetings to confer face-to-face with anyone in a wheelchair.

If the impression I get from the article is correct, there is a very hot place in hell prepared for people like Frankovich.

A crime has been committed in Berkeley. No one got injured or killed. However, someone was just robbed. They don’t know exactly what was lost, but it could be in the millions of dollars. Everyone in town knows who did it. There is no mystery about the facts of the case. It happened at a public meeting with official notes being transcribed. It was vigorously cheered by many community members. This notorious gang has victimized people before and will probably strike again. Word on the street is the victim had a plan that would led to a youth center. But the future is in doubt. The unfriendly gang that did the deed was none other then the Berkeley City Council. The story is from the San Francisco Chronicle and Beetle’s collected comments are available.

Berkeley Iceland was designated a landmark by the Berkeley City Council last night. This effectively freezes any major plans to modify the building. While this might be ok if the old ice rink was in use, it was closed earlier this year because its cooling system was not considered up to date and renovation would have been too expensive for the owners. The ice rink was put up for sale. A group called Save Berkeley Iceland organized a drive to keep it open and even put in a bid to buy the property. However, they did not have enough money so a developer bought it.

Now after the sale has happened, some people are very sentimental. They have such fond feelings of the old Iceland, they don’t want anything to happen to it. So it has been landmarked. For the foreseeable future, Berkeley Iceland will be an old building that houses an unused ice rink that has an outdated cooling system no one has the money to fix. According to the Chronicle, the owner was going to lease the renovated building to YMCA for youth activities.

While there can be compelling cases to landmark structures to preserve historical heritage, Berkeley has a history of abusing the process. The East Bay Express examined one such case a few years ago. For Berkeley Iceland, the timing of the designation is questionable. It was not during its many years of operation or even when the property was put up for sale, but only after the property was sold that its status was declared.

I thought there were laws and common sense that would stop this kind of interference of a person’s property. However, I guess those only apply when convenient.

In many cities in Orange County, private use of firework is banned. If you want to buy some legally, you have to travel to a neighboring city. In the five cities that allow the sale of fireworks, merchants are ready. Temporary shops made of plywood and paint pop up in plaza parking lots, ready to dispense colorful pyrotechnics. Anyone who wants fireworks can easily get them.

Should cities be allowed to ban fireworks? I say no. There are a couple of letters addressing the point in the Orange County Register. Basically, the use of fireworks is dangerous, can cause fires, and hurt people. As an opposing letter points out, they are not the only items to do so:

It is only a matter of time before barbeques will also be banned because one or two drunken boneheads burn themselves. It seems our Nanny State government is out to protect absolutely everyone from everything for our own good.

This is a realm where government is exceeding its limits. When I was growing up I heard, “Don’t play with matches.” I think don’t play with fireworks (or at least know it is dangerous) is a reasonable extension. The responsibility lies with each person to use sensible judgment.

Happy Fourth of July to you and your family. Enjoy your freedom responsibly.