Editor’s Note: This is part of a series of posts that never made it here when they were originally conceived. This post was written last November and posted at californiapatriot.blogspot.com.

A law in San Francisco is about take effect that will ban plastic bags in many grocery stores. The plastic bags, deemed a danger to the environment, will in many cases be replaced with paper bags. The San Francisco Chronicle has the explanation:

Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi then introduced legislation to ban the bags altogether, which passed the board and was signed by Mayor Gavin Newsom earlier this year.

“It was really the only choice,” Mirkarimi said. He said the resistance from grocers resulted from their being “creatures of habit.”

“Part of that habit is imposing the cost of convenience on customers and city governments,” said Mirkarimi, who added later that he is considering a “menu of possibilities” for further measures. He would not say what those are, though, because of the experience with the bag fee.

I would like to know if Supervisor Mirkarimi thinks this new policy of the city government is imposing any cost upon grocers and customers.

For some comparison, according to an NPR report from March of this year, South Africa, Taiwan, and Bangladesh have already banned the plastic bags, while Ireland has a tax on them.

If the city is going to engage in social engineering, they should at least do it right. If they really wanted to make a statement, they would outlaw all new paper and plastic bags. They would require people to bring their own bags or reuse boxes like they do at Costco. Paper kills trees, and as I have been told by many a person, trees are sacred and have feelings too.

The next time my housemates and I go to the Berkeley Bowl, we will bring some fine California Republican Party canvas bags. As we bag our organic produce, we will be saving the environment one paper or plastic bag at a time.

Wednesday was the fifth anniversary of the start of the Iraq war. The normal protesters were out to celebrate, with the usual yelling, lewd gestures, and even trying to burn our flags. If they were advocating for peace, they could have started by pacifying themselves.

I missed seeing the fun myself, as today also happened to be the day of my cosmology and high energy astrophysics midterm, the last Physics midterm of my undergraduate education. Luckily, the Patriot’s own News Editor Derek Yee was in attendance as well as Arnaud-Victor Monteux. I am pleased to present Derek’s first hand account of what happened in Berkeley and San Francisco.

Earlier today, the fifth anniversary of the war in Iraq, anti-war protesters gathered from across the Bay Area. As they converged on the Marine Recruiting Center on Shattuck, the Berkeley College Republicans took the opportunity to counter-protest. Code Pink and the World Can’t Wait were out in full force. “Soul,” of Berkeley Liberation Radio, a faithful protester, sported a cap with a medical marijuana pin. Though short in stature, she brandished the megaphone and belted out some of Code Pink’s anti-war ditties.

While I was holding an American flag, an elderly woman stuck out her tongue and her middle finger at me. I told her not to “disrespect our country.” She said that she was not American, but of the “universe.” Another protester, claiming to be a Native American, proceeded to call me a racist, and told me to get the f— out of the country.

Later in the afternoon, BCR joined forces with Leigh Wolf and the SFSU’s CRs at the Civic Center protest in front of San Francisco’s City Hall. Three BCR members walked through the center of the protest bearing American flags. One of the peace activists greeted us by attempting to set our flags on fire, and even tried to use her lighter on my friend’s clothing.

The anti-war activists were so dangerous the police asked us to move across the street to a secure place.

On this, the fifth anniversary of the Iraq war, may God’s comfort be with the families of those who have been killed in the conflict. May God’s strength gird those who are fighting for freedom in Iraq. May God Bless America.

Pictures courtesy of Arnaud-Victor Monteux, the Frenchman who loves American more then many Americans.

The San Francisco Chronicle, covers a new proposal to bring MUNI’s budget into the black. Unfortunately, a large chunk of the money for the bus and rail system would come from people who might never set food on MUNI.

The cost to park in San Francisco - legally or illegally - may be on the rise as city officials scramble for ways to close a projected two-year, $82 million deficit at the agency that runs the Municipal Railway.

The Municipal Transportation Agency’s chief financial officer has outlined in a new report a number of moneymaking options to help balance the budget, including hiking the price of parking fines, parking meter rates and residential parking permits.

The targets for more revenue are increased parking fines, higher meter rates, higher costs of residential parking permits, and an increased cost of a monthly bus pass. While the last of these ideas is sensible, the first three are not connected to the operation of a public transit system.

MUNI’s main cost of operation is from the bus and light rail lines. It would make sense, that the cost would be covered by the riders who actually use this service. The agency should start with a basic evaluation of the budget. If running bus and light rail lines is not fiscally sound, the reason why that part of their operations is failing should be evaluated. Taking money from drivers to fund a public transportation system they don’t use, as opposed to the riders who do use the buses, is a wrong and unsustainable move.

If everyone stopped driving cars in San Francisco tomorrow, which is something many people want, MUNI would still have this deficit.

I am not a transportation expert and I do not know the specifics of the MUNI budget or operations. However, I do see a pattern of ways the city is trying to to make life harder for drivers and take money from drivers to pay for public transportation they don’t use. A year ago I commented on a proposal to tax downtown businesses to fund MUNI more.

If the city can’t make public transportation a financially viable option to driving, without stealing money from drivers, it should not expect everyone to hop on board with them.

I was looking through the East Bay Express and came across a story they picked up from the Associated Press.

Welcome to Oaksterdam University, a new trade school where higher education takes on a whole new meaning.

The school prepares people for jobs in California’s thriving medical marijuana industry. For $200 and the cost of two required textbooks, students learn how to cultivate and cook with cannabis, study which strains of pot are best for certain ailments, and are instructed in the legalities of a business that is against the law in the eyes of the federal government.

I don’t think this is a good idea, it is teaching people how to run an illegal business. I already covered the take downs of some pot shops and brought up some legal questions last year.

It should be noted this thriving industry recently lost a quarter of its shops in San Francisco do to legal concerns. There is some information from an article in last month’s San Francisco Chronicle.

In late December, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration sent letters to landlords of buildings that housed medical cannabis dispensaries in the city, telling them they face the loss of their property and possibly prison if the businesses stay open.

[As of early February], seven of the city’s 28 dispensaries have closed or are on the verge of closing, according to medical marijuana supporters and activists. They fear more will follow.

If laws are important enough to be on the books on the federal level, they need to be enforced. Then they can be challenged in court and overturned if they should be.

The San Francisco Chronicle has the story:

Thanks to a maze of bureaucratic indecision and historic restrictions, taxpayers may shell out $100,000 per foot to make the Board of Supervisors president’s perch in the historic chambers accessible to the disabled.

What’s more, the little remodel job that planners first thought would take three months has stretched into more than four years - and will probably mean the supervisors will have to move out of their hallowed hall for five months while the work is done.

“It’s crazy,” admits Susan Mizner, director of the mayor’s Office on Disability. “But this is just the price of doing business in a historic building.”

Supervisor Jake McGoldrick said Tuesday that the issue went to the heart of liberal guilt that often drives the city’s decision making. He also choked on the price tag, and asked that the board take some more time to come up with an alternative, like maybe just getting rid of the president’s elevated seat.

This is a prime example of the waste and inefficiency of government. $1 Million for a ten foot ramp is absurd. Very few people will ever use this ramp. There have to a dozen cheaper ways of making the appropriate changes.

“I deserve equal access to every part of the chamber,” Alioto-Pier told her colleagues, adding that ending discrimination is worth the $1 million.

I don’t know the exact situation of when they updated the building in the 1990s, but I highly doubt the contractors got together and said “Hey, let’s discriminate by making everything except this one platform accessible.” I would hope elected officials would think of what is best for their constituents and prevent such a gross abuse of city resources.

If they want a slightly cheaper solution, they can use a big flat piece of metal that can be laid over the steps. I saw this implemented in a historic building to great effect when I visited the Griffith Observatory in Los Angeles several years ago. I guess fiscal conservatism and resourcefulness are in short supply in city hall.

Unfortunately, San Francisco City Hall is not fully wheelchair accessible, but it is 100% idiot accessible.

From the San Francisco Chronicle, a federal judge ruled earlier today the City of San Francisco can continue with its law providing universal health care for adults.

From the Chronicle:

A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted the city’s request to suspend a federal judge’s Dec. 26 ruling striking down a key funding provision of the ordinance. That provision requires large and medium-size companies to offer insurance to their workers or pay a fee to the city.

The appeals court said the city was likely to prove that U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White was wrong when he ruled that local governments lack the power to require employers to make financial contributions to a health care program. Today’s decision allows the city to enforce the entire ordinance while it appeals White’s decision.

While it has been talked about in the ruling, one of my first questions is what government body if any has the right to mandate and administer health coverage like this? I don’t think any of them do.

If the law is upheld after all the appeals are settled, what effect will it have upon San Francisco? While more employees will have some kind of health coverage, there will be other unintended side effects. If a company that does not offer health insurance suddenly has to pay fees, they will have to cut costs. Since it is money that is ultimately being spent on employees, some businesses will take this money out of the salary of their workers or even lay some off.

This requirement will also discourage companies from setting up shop in the city. If a business owner wants to open offices, he will have a reason to avoid San Francisco and find a nearby city without such a law.

As for the coverage itself, there is no guarantee of quality with any kind of government backed plan. While the current medical insurance industry has problems, companies or individuals that buy into it have the option of switching to a different provider. With the government backed coverage, there is no choice. Unless people can opt out of the program (from what I know they cannot), if the coverage quality nosedives they will still be stuck paying for bad insurance.

Health coverage is important and there will always be people willing to pay for it. The government should stay out of the process and let people and companies keep more of their money and make their own decisions.

The Bay Area is considering another wining idea. The San Francisco Chronicle answers the burning questions we all have about wood fires and the solution of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.

It would be illegal to use residential fireplaces on nights with poor air quality under a rule being considered by Bay Area air regulators.

Over the next three weeks, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District will hold workshops to gauge public opinion on the proposal, which would follow similar bans in Sacramento County, the San Joaquin Valley, and such Bay Area cities as Mill Valley, where people who disobey the city’s wood-burning law are already subject to stiff fines.

It is good the government is stepping up to combat the problem of wood fires. For thousands of years wood fires have plagued humanity. They have been used to light the darkness, cook meat, and even kept people warm. This winter as you gather round the central heating with your family, be thankful for the government and their boundless wisdom.

Here’s my photo-update from the Wednesday event. It got some coverage on Drudge report, Instapundit, Michelle Malkin’s blog, as well as others.

Here is Melanie Morgan and another woman singing patriotic songs.

(more…)

This week in San Francisco, an idea has been floating around to create and sterile place where drug users can safely use their drugs. The San Francisco Chronicle has a summary of the idea:

About 150 people gathered Thursday in the Mission District to discuss an idea that some say is crazy even for San Francisco: opening a city-funded, legal center where intravenous drug users can congregate, get free needles and inject themselves in a safe environment.

Momentum for such a center seems to be gaining strength among drug reform advocates and some public health workers, who say it will help stop the spread of HIV and hepatitis C, prevent deaths from drug overdoses and keep dirty needles off city streets.

A center like this exists in Vancouver and many have been operating in Europe for several years. However, the article reports no politicians are championing the idea.

I don’t like this safe drug use center idea. It tells people even though it is illegal to use drugs, we are going to make it as safe and easy as possible for you to do so. If drugs are going to be illegal, then the city should not encourage people to break the law.

I would also like to know who would pay for this center. I hope public funds will not be used to buy needles for people who chose to spend their money on drugs.

An anti-CodePink rally in favor of the troops took place today on Shattuck. It was promoted by Melanie Morgan and had a fairly large turnout, including Republican Women’s Federated groups, Move America Forward, vets, and current military members and their families. It got some coverage here, as well as here. I was also in attendance, and will have some photos of both sides up for you soon.

The front page of the San Francisco Chronicle covers two men who dressed as nuns and went to a Roman Catholic church for the purpose of ridiculing it. (As a point of disclosure, I am a Roman Catholic.)

From the paper:

It was a typical Sunday Mass until two men in heavy makeup and nuns’ habits received Holy Communion from San Francisco’s top Catholic official.

On Oct. 7, Archbishop George Niederauer delivered the Eucharist to members of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence - an activist group whose motto is “go forth and sin some more” - prompting cries of outrage from conservatives across the country and Catholics in San Francisco.

There is also this exchange of quotes:

Conservative Fox news commentator Bill O’Reilly, who has disparaged “San Francisco values,” called the latest flap another example of how the city is run by “far-left secular progressives who despise the military, traditional values and religion.”

On his Friday news show, O’Reilly called San Francisco “a disgrace on every level.”

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom dismissed O’Reilly’s comments.

“This debate really is about San Francisco values. The Bill O’Reillys of the world are threatened by San Francisco because we value diversity, universal health care and civil rights for all. They will exploit any controversy to attack our values.”

It is incidents like this that discredit the diversity so many people are proud to proclaim. Diversity as I know it involves a minimum level of respect for people, especially if they are different from you or you disagree with them.

The two men are the ones who should apologize. They chose to go into a church service for the reason of disrespecting and ridiculing it. In the same way it would be wrong for a person who disagrees with a gay person’s lifestyle to go into an LGBT meeting to disrupt it or make fun of those present.

Archbishop Niedarauer has nothing to apologize for. He did not withhold the Eucharist from anyone but instead trusted anyone who entered the church and approached him for Holy Communion did so with earnest and honest intentions in accord with the sacrament.

Sometimes when intentional disrespect of people or their beliefs occurs there is a call for hate crime legislation and diversity training. From what I have read online it is hard to say a majority of non-Catholic people condemn the actions of these two men.

Bay area officials have a “brilliant” idea: tax gasoline to stop global warming. The San Francisco Chronicle has the story:

Regional officials are taking a close look at trying to increase the Bay Area’s gasoline tax by as much as 10 cents a gallon and believe voters might agree to it as a way to help combat global warming, The Chronicle learned Thursday.

The idea is still in the early planning stages, but the money will probably end up going somewhere other then helping motorists. Aside from possibly improving roads, the article suggests the money might help BART or other forms of public transportation get money they have not secured on their own. This would be taxing one group of people to pay for stuff for another. It is the kind of social engineering the government has no right to be in.

People around the bay area already care about global warming. From the Chronicle:

“People will kill their puppies to stop global warming these days,” said Dave Snyder with a smile. Snyder is transportation policy director at the San Francisco Policy and Urban Planning Association, a think tank.

If this passes, I am going to gas up my car when I am just outside of the tax area. The next time I am driving home to Orange County the cents I would have spent in sales tax at a Berkeley station will go to an area where the global warming tax does not apply. If this is the result people want, they should pass the tax.

This morning an article in the Bay Area Reporter disclosed city council member Kriss Worthington’s future plans for elected office.

Berkeley City Council member Kriss Worthington will launch a bid for an East Bay Assembly seat next week. The openly gay Worthington told the Bay Area Reporter that he would officially announce his campaign for the 14th District Assembly seat Monday, September 24.

The average Berkeley political figure is very liberal and Worthington is no exception. However, he has a record of helping students, which makes him one of the better local elected officials in my view. The current holder of the 14th Assembly seat Loni Hancock is being termed out.

One of my friends is considering a run for the Assembly seat on the Republican side. While I hope he wins, his chances are very, very, very bad.

Yesterday UC Berkeley released a survey of its economic impact on Berkeley and the surrounding area.

From an ABC 7 KGO TV report:

The university calculates it infuses close to three-quarters of a billion dollars a year into the local economy.

$31 million is spent in Berkeley on goods and services.
$314 million in salaries are paid to Berkeley residents.
$117 million is allocated to capital projects, and $282 million in student spending.

They have a video if you want to see what Berkeley looks like on TV. There is also an interview with a Berkeley resident who said there were more important things than money, like values. Unfortunately, the report does not uncover what Berkeley values the University is corrupting.

From the Berkeley Newscenter:

As the largest employer in the city of Berkeley, as well as in the East Bay counties of Alameda and Contra Costa, the campus employs more people than the next nine largest employers in the city combined, providing jobs to 24,700 staff, including 9,700 students who work on campus.

I wish I could work out practical teleportation in one of my Physics classes. I would teleport the entire University to a different city. Then as the City of Berkeley fades into obscurity and loses the hundreds of millions of dollars dumped into its economy it can realize the error of its ways. Until that happens, I have to live here to attend the best public university in the country.