LOCAL: Big Brother Activity Log

SLO County Bans Outdoor Smoking

UPDATE July 20, 2012: I just read in today's Tribune (page B4) that another exception to the smoking ordinance will be at the county's golf courses. Okay, so the Supervisors will let the affluent golfers smoke at their golf "parks", so where do the poor people get to smoke? Again, surprised that nobody brings up the disparate impact of this ordinance on low income folks and folks of color. I guess I'll have to raise this issue myself, and see if some "progressives" can stand up for the "downtrodden" in society. Okay, time to dig into some hard facts: Disparate Smoking Among those with Low Income. Basically this article comes to this conclusion: "The findings in this report indicate that although progress has been achieved in reducing disparities in cigarette use among certain racial/ethnic groups, less progress has been made in reducing disparities in cigarette use among persons of low socioeconomic status."
     UPDATE July 18, 2012: SLO County Board of Supervisors Bans Outdoor Smoking at Parks, Campgrounds and other Outdoor County Sites (State Parks in SLO County were not included in the ban). The ban includes structures owned or leased or concessioned by the county and all land near those structures, including walkways, landscapes, and patios. I wonder if it includes the county roadways, as smoking INSIDE a car is far more dangerous to the health of secondhand smokers than smoking done outside in a park?
     Exemptions were made (aren't they always?) for county airports and psychiatric health facilities: Apparently, the health of those just passing through (airports) and the mentally ill (psychiatric facilities) need not be protected from the toxic secondhand smoke? What ever happened to protecting the health of the innocent, weak, and infirm? Oh yeah, airports and health facilities are next (you would think that health facilities would have been FIRST, but that's another topic for another time).
     Statements were made (some paraphrased):
1) The wolf's freedom doesn't extend to the sheep's life (quote from Abraham Lincoln).
2) There is no level of safe exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke [when your are outside] (not in a structure).
3) They considered banning snuff, but decided against it, because that would increase public opposition to their cause.
4) Public Health is the primary consideration (I wonder what the other considerations were? Smoky smelling clothe, bad breath or yellow teeth?).
5) The ordinance intrudes on personal freedom (duh - that's the purpose of the ordinance).
6) The ordinance makes second hand citizens out of smokers (too late - that's already been done, or haven't they been getting out enough?).
7) What's next? Red meat, french fries, video games, bad political commercials?
8) Bans such as these reduce the number of people smoking. 
     TIM'S COMMENTARY: I don't smoke cigarettes, but do smoke an occasional cigar, but not in the places banned above, so this doesn't affect me directly (yet - eventually, the ban will get to my backyard or out backpacking, where I do smoke tobacco products). Once again, we are on the slippery slope of controlling our lives in new and different ways. I am shocked that nobody has had the courage to BAN smoking in this country, as it is a drug that should require a prescription, and there are no known medicinal reasons for tobacco of which I am aware. I doubt that there are any studies on OUTDOOR smoking and the health affect of secondhand smoke. If there were, it would show no effect, at least in SLO county where the wind always blows the smoke away. I am amazed that nobody brought up the disparate impact issue, as it is always brought up when dealing with conservative causes. As a smoking ban could safely be considered a liberal cause, does anybody have any issue with the disparate impact this ordinance will have on the poor, the homeless, veterans, and minorities, all of whom smoke in far greater numbers than the public at large? In my experience, the homeless and veterans smoke in far greater numbers, and statistics have born out that most or all non-white races (blacks, hispanics, indians, etc.) smoke at a far greater rate than caucasians.
     CAMPFIRE SMOKE has been proven to be the most toxic smoke of all to breath, yet I hear no quotes from campfire smoke studies or moves to ban camp fires, or hearth fires (i.e., burning wood in your fireplace in a living structure) in general from the county. Wonder when that will be voted on by the SLO County Board of Supervisors?
     HOW WILL THE BAN BE ENFORCED? How much will it cost to enforce the bad? My prediction is that this ban will accomplish nothing because it will NOT be enforced.  Smokers will continue to smoke in the parks.  All of this is for nothing, but at what cost?

Read more here: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2012/07/17/2146263/supervisors-narrowly-ban-smoking.html#storylink=cpy

City of Atascadero Bans Mural

July 8, 2012, Atascadero, Calif.: ARTery mural painted on the side of their business is created without a permit. City requires a payment of $460.00 from the business to appeal the city's decision to have it removed. When did we decide that what colors are painted on a wall of a business are subject to permit and destruction, if the permit is not granted. I've seen a lot of murals around our state of Calif., and few offended me, but the creative juices of the creators of those murals is representative of the human spirit that the powers that be want to crush. Yes, I know, offensive murals leading to the destruction of civilization would be created if we didn't have local bureaucrats to quash them. Also check out Free SLO,  Free SLO2,  Art Tyranny.

Offending Image (Click to Enlarge):

STATE: Lake Tahoe Crayfish (CA vs. NV)

I might just move to Nevada to retire. That way I can pay zero state income tax and be able to visit all those great places nearby, like Lake Powell, Lake Mead, Grand Canyon, Bryce, Zion, Canyonlands, Arches, etc. In the meantime, Gov. Brown is determined to raise our California taxes even further, while not denting the cash overspent on the Prison Guard Union. Stuff like this is a great head-to-head comparison of why California has it all, Nevada has nothing, but Calif. throws its advantages away, while NV does the best with what little it does have.

Just read the article below carefully, then weep for our California economy that will soon be experiencing even higher levels of taxation, plus environmental analysis every time we turn around, even if it is to remove an invasive species. The environmentalists seemingly play both sides of every issue: in favor of anything green, but trying to block anything green (solar power, invasive species removal, etc.) from actually happening.

Invasive Lake Tahoe Crayfish Banned by California. BACKGROUND: Nevada wildlife officials have issued the first ever commercial permit for crayfish harvest in Lake Tahoe, allowing the Tahoe Lobster Co. to go after some of the 220 million crustaceans living in the lake. The fishing is expected to be a boon for the economy, tourism, cuisine and lake clarity. Waste products from the nonnative crayfish – or crawdads – foster the shallow-water algae growth that clouds the lake's crystalline waters. The crayfish will be sold for local eating. Pulliam hopes to begin fishing this month.

Fishing will begin only in Nevada, but Assemblywoman Beth Gaines, R-Rocklin, would like to see it expanded to the California side [someday]. Current California code prohibits sale or purchase of any crayfish from Lake Tahoe, said Kevin Thomas, a senior environmental scientist for the state Department of Fish and Game. The possibility of exporting Tahoe crayfish to California is being explored. Fish and Game has taken the position that a full environmental analysis would be required to open fishing on the California side.

Wow! We can't import Crayfish from NV (because they are taken from Lake Tahoe), but we can import them from China. Hmmmmmmmmmm. How much global warming are we causing by shipping crayfish half way around the world, when we have 220 million crayfish surplus in our own state. Not to mention that these invasive crayfish are polluting what is perhaps the most pristine lake on the planet (prior to the crayfish invasion of the 1800s).

TECHNOLOGY: Battery Packs, People!

Nissan Leaf. Tesla Roadster. What's the name of that dopey $42,000.00 GM mostly-battery-but-has-a-motor thing? [Oh yeah -Chevy Volt - how could I forget?] Battery powered vehicles are city-only cars, thus ruling them out for the masses. How about standardized battery packs that can be changed at Service Stations - those same Service Stations that pump petrol into our "dirty" vehicles?

Pulling into a Service Station every 100 miles or so for a re-fuel (ie, replace the discharged battery packs with freshly charged ones), would still get me from San Luis Obispo to Los Angeles in just 2 "re-fuelings". I have never read about such a proposal in any print or on-line publication. The idea is so obvious to me, but apparently to nobody else?

I liked this discussion of the issue. I like the idea of standard sized battery packs, where each vehicle uses multiples of them. A small car (think Smart Car-sized) might have 4 standard SIZED (not power, but size) battery packs, and an electric SUV might have 16 or 20. Any given vehicle could be programmed to run on some of the packs, while leaving the others in reserve. For instance, let's suppose a sub-compact sized car has 4 packs. It could run on 2 of the packs until they are drained, then start using the remaining 2. When pulling into a Service Station, the 2 dead packs could be swapped out, with the remaining 2 packs continuing in service in the vehicle.

This also solves the problem of having a huge bill to replace all batteries down the road, and also lack of recycling the batteries - people might throw them in the trash. You would pay for the amount of energy in the battery you "rent" at the Service Station, and an on-board meter in the car would confirm the amount of electric power you have purchased (just like your fuel gage does now). You get credit for the amount of juice left in the battery pack that you swapped out. The Service Station would have plenty of space for continuously charging the drained batteries as they come in to be changed.

NATIONAL: Voters Required to Show ID Equals "Attack on Civil Rights?"

UPDATE JULY 7, 2012: In the July-August 2012 AARP Bulletin there appears the article: Longtime Voter, 93, Challenges ID Law. Ms. Applewhite, age 93, is challenging the requirement to provide an ID before voting, claiming it has a disproportionate affect on the elderly. Ms. Applewhite does not drive and has mobility issues. Gee, wonder how she's gonna get to the polls, then? She claims she can't get to the Social Security Office to get a new Pennsylvania ID card. She claims she lost her birth certificate and Social Security Card years ago, and for some unspecified reason, never saw the need to replace them. Failing to replace her Birth Certificate and Social Security Card sounds irresponsible or lazy to me, unless she was mentally ill at the time, or suffered from some other affliction that prevented her from functioning in society. Lots of things disproportionally affect the elderly - need I go into details? If you are elderly, you already know what those things are - wonder if all those things are unconstitutional, too? Here's another article on Voter ID Laws from the AARP - Remember to read the comments at the end for a more rational discussion of the issues than the article itself: Are New Voter ID Laws Fair?

UPDATE JULY 6, 2012: The San Luis Obispo Tribune newspaper ran a letter to the editor regarding those rascally Republicans and their desire to require a Photo ID in order to vote. Ralph Bush of Arroyo Grande simply listed all the activities that require such an ID. One would believe that most or all of these activities are required for modern human life in the United States, so one has to wonder what rock some people are living under that they engage in NONE of these activities. First, let's list them: 

- purchase liquor or cigarettes 

- board a plane or train 

- apply for insurance 

- donate blood 

- apply for a credit card 

- cash a check 

- visit someone in jail
- volunteer at the local public schools (you even have to get fingerprinted and criminal background check)
- volunteer at the local homeless shelter
- receive services at the DMV
- I would HOPE that you need to show ID to receive government benefits, such as Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment, Disability, etc. though I have no firsthand knowledge of such requirements
- Somebody also pointed out that you need a Social Security Number to collect Social Security, so somehow Ms. Applewhite had to provide her Social Security Card to receive Social Security, did she not? Who did she sue when she was required to do that? Surely that disproportionally affects the elderly as well?

Anyways, I'm sure there are many more. Some believe that those that object to showing ID to vote want to allow those who are not eligible to vote or have died to vote anyways. Its time for me to jump back in the ring.

The bottom line is that some political groups want those who are ineligible to vote or are dead to be able to vote one or more times. Voter fraud is statistically small but it does occur. Voting is perhaps our most sacred right in this country, and those who do not have the right to vote should not; those who do have that right do not consider it an inconvenience to prove it.

SHOULD VALID GOVERNMENT ID BE FREE: If that were the only objection to Voter ID, I'd say yes. However, this is a political issue, and those who are against Voter ID would still be against it, even if IDs were free. My answer would be no: government has costs, and to the degree possible and reasonable, people should pay for the government services they use. Should there be an exception for the poor? Okay, I'd go along with that, but it would not change the issue in any significant way, in my opinion.

ORIGINAL POST (DECEMBER 2011): Last night, both my boys were finally home from college, and I went to the local grocery store to pick up some last minute food supplies - young men in the 19 to 21 year age group like my boys love to eat more than they love us, so we make sure that when they are home, all the food groups are available. This time of year, that includes egg nogg and fudge! Surprise! At checkout, the grocer asks for ID - provided in the form of my driver's license - the same ID that I need to carry with me to drive to the store. This is no different than the 30-some-odd states that currently require some form of ID to vote.

Yet, the some politicos are up in arms up about the ID requirement, calling them a "tidal wave of assaults on the right to vote". Really?

For more, see this article: Holder's Voter ID Fraud

LOCAL: Prohibiting Sleeping in Vehicles Ruled Unconstitutional

July 3, 2012
A San Luis Obispo County Superior Court judge just issued a ruling against the City of SLO stating that the enforcement of regulations prohibiting people from sleeping in their vehicles is unconstitutional. The suit was filed earlier this year by the SLO Homeless Alliance - a group of homeless who have been sleeping in their vehicles and are being represented by Stew Jenkins and Saro Rizzo. The suit followed a concerted effort by the police department to enforce the regulation and discussions by the City Council on changes that are in the works regarding those regulations. The ruling means a preliminary injunction will now keep the City from being able to enforce their recreational vehicle as dwelling unit regulation – which states that no recreational vehicle, camper shell, or similar device shall be used for living or sleeping quarters except in a lawfully operated mobile home park, travel trailer park or campground. Businesses near the main enforcement area-Prado Road- have reported reduced amounts of health and safety violations since enforcement began. City staff will recommend that the City appeal the decision. City Council will decide the next step in closed session. The City Council is scheduled to evaluate the City's parking regulations later this year. The ruling may prompt moving up that action. 

This report was brought to you first by the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce.

STATE: California's Bullet Train to Nowhere

Governor Jerry Brown's foolish/ambitious plans to build the nation's first dedicated high-speed rail line is set for a vote by the Legislature this week to authorize $2.7 billion in voter-approved bonds for construction of the first 130 mile stretch, to be built in the middle of the California desert.

BACKGROUND 1: In 2008, California voters approved $9,000,000,000 in bonds for the first round of financing for the LA to San Francisco Bullet train. The bullet train is estimated to end up costing a total of $68,000,000,000 to construct [although I recently read that the estimate had ballooned to $177,000,000,000, but for political purposes, it was whittled back down to the $68,000,000,000 instead], but if you believe that number will not grow before it is finished, you haven't been paying attention. The first phase of the train is planned to travel from Madera to Bakersfield. In other words, the easy part will get built first. If this section is all that ever ends up getting built, we're looking at our bridge to nowhere. If you've been to Madera and Bakersfield, and seen all that lies in between, you don't need to ponder whether that is true or not.

LET'S KEEP THIS SIMPLE: If it ever does get started and completed, it'll end up costing way more than $68,000,000,000. Then, it'll run at a massive deficit each year, thus burdening the taxpayers even further. Amtrack runs at a deficit every year, and it runs on rails that have already been built. Checkout Five More Reasons Not to Build California's Bullet Train to Nowhere.

SO WHY IS CALIFORNIA PURSUING THIS? Good question. First, we're going to get a ton of federal dollars to build it, and that will push up hiring and jobs, though at a very steep price per job. First, Japan built their high speed rails, followed decades later by China. So if they can do it, why can't we? Answer: In California, we drive cars or fly - we don't take trains, even if they are fast. I don't see that changing.

ALTERNATIVES: Some California democrats have suggested the money go towards improving existsing rail infrastructure, and I could certainly get on board with that long before I would approve of this Bullet Rail project. How about putting the money towards closing the annual state deficit instead, by just not spending taxpayer dollars on this loser?

NATIONAL: Let's talk Electric Car Economics & the Environment

PLEADING WITH JOURNALISTS: Please use MARGINAL electricity rates when telling us how cheap it is to drive an All Electric Vehicle. It is DISHONEST to quote the cheapest possible rate for electricity, when they know that it is the MARGINAL rate that we pay when we add an Electric Car to the household electricity budget.

I was just reading an article today in the SLO Tribune about the new Electric Honda Fit. I am a huge Honda fan (1974 Civic, 1983 Accord, 1994 Accord), or at least I was until we recently replaced the '94 Accord (manual trani) with a 2010 Hyundai Elantra Touring (automatic - bought in November 2009). The article in the Tribune points out how the average buyer can save $1,000 to drive 12,000 miles per year in the All Electric Honda Fit compared to the All Gas Honda Civic. All good and well? Save $1,000, assumedly by charging batteries instead of buying gas.

Then the article goes on to quote an electricity rate of 12 cents per kilowatt hour (kwh). Pulling out my monthly electrical bill from PG&E, I find that I pay an AVERAGE of 19 cents per kwh. However, the marginal rate for the next kwh of electricity that I would pay, were I to own the All Electric Fit, would be 31 cents per kwh, or 260% higher than the rate quoted in the article. I'm sure that punitive marginal rate from PG&E would move the needle on the savings calculation from the article.

LITHIUM-ION BATTERY SUSTAINABILITY: Electric Honda Fit and Nissan Leaf Lithium-Ion type batteries are made from some pretty nasty materials that have to be mined out of the ground. I'll track down some scientific articles on this subject, but here's one I found in just a few minutes: Lithium Battery Sustainability Analysis. This article notes that the Lithium-Manganese battery used in the Nissan Leaf is composed of a number of chemical compounds and aluminum and polyethylene foils, copper foil, graphite, and lithium based salt brines. Last time I checked, mines used a lot of dynamite and diesel and electricity to come up with their desired end product (see the popular reality TV show Gold Rush, to see how much material and energy is expended to get an ounce of gold).

BACKGROUND: My family (2 parents, kids) are careful users of electricity, especially considering that my wife and I spend all day behind a computer for our work. We routinely spend less than our neighbors on electricity, despite the fact that we both work all day at home. In fact, that's the reason we temporarily decommisioned our All Electric Hot Tub until we could plumb a Natural Gas Heater up to it instead. Because of the punitive marginal PG&E rates, our Hot Tub (back when we used it), added AT LEAST $100 per month to our electrical bill. Had we been charged the same rate per kwh for the FIRST kwh as for the LAST, our hot tub would only be costing us $30 / month in electricity, and we would probably still be using it.

NOTE: I am not pro or con All Electric Vehicles. However, I am in favor of factual reporting about the economics and environmental impacts of competing technologies, such as gas vs. electric vehicles.