STATE: State Park Investigation Proves Fraud

*******************

UPDATE: 8/20/2012. Today's Tribune has a front page article updating the story of how our Calif. State Parks had millions hidden in secret funds, while trying to fool us into raising taxes to keep our State Parks open. A recent investigation involving more than 30 interviews found that:

1) Our State Parks Dept. routinely searched in June every year for ways to spend money to keep from losing it; all the while, park closures threatened, and maintenance on the 278 state parks was not done;

2) Parks Administrator Manuel Lopez illegally tapped the park funds to pay for cash buyouts for himself and dozens of other park employees (Lopez subsequently resigned or was fired) to the tune of $271,000;

3) The Parks Employees created a variety of forged documents, including those showing they had entered into contracts to spend money on computers and such, when no such agreements existed;

4) "Burning Down" budgets in June each year (i.e., spending just to get rid of money in the budget) is widespread THROUGHOUT Calif. state government departments, NOT JUST parks (hope nobody is surprised by this);

5) Parks Director Ruth Coleman resigned in July, claiming she didn't know of this Parks Slush Fund, though investigation testimony revealed that she did indeed know.

Here's what I think:

1) Gov. Brown must have known about this, yet continued on his crusade to use Calif. Park Closings to convince Californian's to vote this November to raise taxes;

2) I'm betting that Coleman and Lopez were able to resign and retain their full retirement benefits, when they should have been fired for their fraudulent role in this whole situation;
3) California voters voted for a democrat controlled legislature, a democratic governor, and spending that is out of control - well, we got what we wanted. Still want to give these buffoons more of your money through Calif. tax increases? November is coming...

Get more updates on the story in the Los Angeles Times or the Sacramento Bee.

*******************

UPDATE: 8/2/2012. Source: The Tribune, SanLuisObispo.com. It was reported that California Parks Department deliberately underreported $53.8 million in 2 accounts. State finance officials were alerted to this error fifteen (15!!!) years ago, as far back as 1997, said Jacob Roper, a spokesman for the State Controller's Office. This raises questions about basic state government account policies and procedures, or lack thereof. The $53.8 million surplus dates back at least 12 years, even though the state was threatening to shut down 70 state parks due to budget constraints. State Parks Director Ruth Coleman stepped down (I assume that means she QUIT), and her Deputy Chief, Michael Harris was let go (I assume that means FIRED). Director Coleman claims she was unaware of the secret hidden fund, thus leaving us to wonder why she quit?

To the many folks who stepped into the void with their own private money and effort to keep our beloved State Parks open, this is both a huge slap in the face, and a reason to not trust what our beloved State Government tell us. Things like this are really discouraging to folks who care about things like this. Our local SLO economy relies heavily on our state parks attracting tourists to our hotels and restaurants. SLO County has numerous state parks, though I could not put my finger on the number.

********************

UPDATE 7/30/2012: Who knows what to believe. Apparently, it is not clear whether the $54,000,000 even exists or not [Update 8/2/2012 - apparently the money DOES exist]. Due to lax accounting standards, the $54 mil may just be accounting errors. It has been show repeatedly that the government, in all its forms and at all its levels, cannot pass a standard accounting audit. They are not subject to audits, nor the discipline and scrutiny that goes with it. Sigh. California has a few billion in these "slush" funds, but doesn't really know how much. In the upcoming weeks, they hope to account for some of this money and then move on once it is out of the news. A few billion here, a few billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about a lot of money.

********************

ORIGINAL POST July 24, 2012: Again, another area where I am loath to dive in, but I must. From the beginning, Calif. Gov. Brown's threat to close 70 state parks that cost the state $22,000,000 per year unless we vote to increase taxes stunk up our state. Knowing that these 70 state parks generate far more than $22 mil in local and state tax revenues, I've been smelling a rat with this one for a long time. I will not be manipulated into voting for a tax increase - I hope you won't, either.

Then comes the lovely headline today on July 24, 2012 that the State Park Fund had $54,000,000 in unused but SECRET funds at their disposal. In the previous year, non-profit groups in Calif. have been scrambling to build organizations and donations to take over these 70 parks so they don't close. Heads have already rolled, with longtime State Park Director Ruth Coleman resigning, and Chief Deputy Michael Harris resigning. Though my view has been one of tricking the state voters into raising taxes, Nick Franco, superintendant of the San Luis Obispo Coast District of State Parks somehow sees it as an effort to energize non-profits into accepting the idea of privatizing the parks. Given our state liberal bent, privatizing ANYTHING, much less a state park, would seem to be the furthest from our state legislators minds. I will keep my eyes and ears open for ANY evidence that what Mr. Franco suspects holds any water. See the July 24, 2012 Tribune Article "Local Parks Supporters Feel Betrayed by Money Scandal". Silicon Valley Mercury News also had this to say about the issue.

There is some noise about the Sacramento Bee (who broke the story) has gotten it wrong, and that the $54,000,000, while State Park funds, cannot be used to keep them open. If that's so, then why have heads rolled?

NATIONAL: You Didn't Build Your Business & Earning Your Success

********************
UPDATE August 6, 2012: Obama is actually quite good at stirring the conservative pot. First he allows waivers to the requirement for state welfare recipients to "work", then he tells those of us who are working that no matter how hard we work, we didn't build our own business - the government did.

The WSJ article Obama and Earning Your Success, is quite the follow-up to "you didn't build your business". On July 25, 2012, in New Orleans, Obama (on the campaign trail), asserted that "America says we will give you opportunity, but you've got to earn your success."  Unknown to me at the time, on July 12, 2012, Obama ordered that the Department of Health and Human Services will issue waivers to federal work requirements for welfare recipients. This requirement was put in place during the Clinton Administration in 1996, and is credited with a decline in overall federal welfare by 54% between 1996 and 2004. The 1996 Clinton law required states to have at least half of all adult welfare recipients to be in qualified work activities, such as actual jobs, education or training programs. Its certainly now safe to say that if you're receiving welfare, you probably didn't earn that. Another take on this same subject comes from the National Public Radio website.

This has been Obama's mode of operation lately. Give up on getting anything through Congress, and just order your subordinates to ignore the law of the land and do what Obama says instead. Its not clear that Clinton's 1996 Welfare Law allows for waivers at the discretion of the President or the Department of Health and Human Services, yet that is the order that was given by our President.

********************
Here’s President Obama's full passage from July 13, 2012:

“If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

     So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for president — because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together.”

The green text underlined above is what everyone is quoting. The full context of the President's quote does not change the meaning of the green underlined text above. However, as I am wont to do, I have a different interpretation of the President's statement. When primarily white Europeans first came to the New World, they were either capitalists or they died (as many of them did). Later, when civilization eventually came along and taxed the capitalists, they used the taxes to build things for the common good of every citizen. The capitalists/workers provided the capital (i.e., money through taxes) to the government to build BETTER roads and bridges, as they do today. Remember that BEFORE the government built roads and bridges, the capitalists had already built them - what? you thought that before government nobody had seen a bridge or a road, and that the government had to invent it? So the capitalists built the roads and bridges by paying the government taxes to have them built. When the President says that "Somebody else made that happen", that somebody else would be our business owners and workers who made that happen - through paying the taxes to make it happen. Without taxes, it would never have happened. Which is easier to do: earn money (capitalists) or spend someone elses money collected through taxes (the government). So the business owner (the capitalists) had the hard job, while the government had the easy one. I would tell the president that private enterprise (capitalism) is what pays the taxes to make the government.

Let's look at the obvious truisms along with the inaccuracies that the President declared above:

1) If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. If you were a failure, somebody along the line gave you some help. This statement is always true. Duh.

2) There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Depends on how you define great. If you define great, like Michael Jordan or George Washington, then probably not. That's how I define great. This slobbery hero worship of public school teachers has got to end. There are good ones and bad ones, but we get to have both, since bad ones cannot be let go. We all know who the good ones are (if you are a parent), but all public school teachers get paid the same (if they have the same seniority). I'd rather pay the good ones more, and let the bad ones go on to do something they are better at doing. Looking back, its hard for me to recall having any great teachers. One does come to mind. At El Segundo High School in California, I had a Spanish teach named Mr. Real. Everyone agrees he was one of the best teachers ever. However, I SUCKED at Spanish, and got my 2 years in, as required for attending a University of Calif. School. However, no matter how great an instructor, I hated Spanish cuz' I sucked at it. So yes, I had a great teacher in my life, but it didn't inspire me to learn or improve at Spanish. My "great" teacher didn't inspire me to greatness, unfortunately.

3) Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. Not somebody, Mr. President. Taxpayers funded the American system of roads and bridges, from capitalist private enterprises (the same ones that you seem to despise, or at least see as a necessary evil). A private company built the Golden Gate Bridge, when the government couldn't get it done (the project was rescued by Bank of America, who bought virtually all of the bonds used to fund the building of the bridge - just read the link and educate yourself).

4) If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.  Wow. We have a business. We went to college, while working almost full time. Then we went to grad school. We studied and worked hard to build our careers. Then we worked for somebody else. Then we started our own business, which was (and continues to be) hard work. Mr. President tells me that we didn't build our business, but somebody else did it for us? Who was that somebody, President Obama? I'm waiting for an answer that will never come.

5) The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. Mr. Prez., please stop spreading the rumors that the U. S. government invented the internet. Okay, so who did invent the Internet? The lion's share of the credit should go to Xerox, as argued in this WSJ article. Also, my company does NOT make money off of the internet, even though the President says that ALL COMPANIES make money off the internet. I'm mad at myself for not making money off the internet, like apparently all other companies are doing except mine. UPDATE 8/14/2012: Apparently, the consensus is that Xerox technically DID NOT create the internet, but merely Ethernet, which is the primary communication method for distributing information off the internet to local internets. Sorry for not doing better research - I'll be better next time.

6) The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. Which is it? Do we succeed because of individual initiative, or because we do things together? I vote for individual initiative. When we started our company in 1998, I didn't see anybody doing this together with us - it was just my wife and I against the world. Nobody was going to help us - certainly not our competitors. It was all on our shoulders. I didn't notice a government worker there to help us - in fact, just the opposite. Most of the roadblocks we found to constructing our business were put up by that government that was just "here to help".

7) There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires. Ridiculous statement on its face. Similar to suggesting that we play a game of the President's beloved basketball with 10 teams of 1 instead of 2 teams of 5. No, we're not morons, Mr. President. I doubt anybody out there thought that we should fight fires as individuals, instead of with a taxpayer (capitalist) funded fire department.

8) So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. Duh. Another statement that is always true. Yes, there are some things (indeed, many things) that we do better together. Like playing ping pong. Hard to play without someone else. Your point? Also, the President speaks of the middle class like it was an invention, but the middle class emerged from certain economic convergence of ideas and opportunities.

9) We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for president — because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together. Another statement that is always true. We occupy the same spaceship planet Earth. However, though Reagan (and certainly others) did say that a rising tide raises all ships. However, some ships rise higher than others, and those with holes in them do sink. I do not agree that we rise or fall together in lockstep. More accurately, we are each our own ship, moving up or down as we will, and the health of our fleet of ships depends upon how all the ships, on average, are doing.

Yes, we get what the Prez was trying to say: nobody can succeed in a vacuum. However, I do not agree that is a true statement either. When the '49ers came out west for the Gold Rush, did the government build roads for the prairie schooners to cross? No. Private citizens banded together to make their own way across the wilderness. Did the government build the sailing ships to take the '49ers around Cape Horn and safely to San Francisco harbor? No. Were there roads, buildings, schools, stores, and roads in California in 1848? No. Did the government step in during the Gold Rush and build roads, stores and schools? Nope again. The hardy pioneers built it all without a single tax on gold being paid. They did it because they were self-sufficient and knew how to survive in the wilderness - indeed, even thrive in a wild California land without any infrastructure.

However, people do stand on the backs of others when it comes to inventions and achievements. It is said that every new invention only has 2% new ideas, with the other 98% already having been invented. But that's NOT what Obama is trying to say. Reading between the lines, the point of his ongoing "You Didn't Build That" commentary is that he is disparaging business as a necessary evil that must be tolerated as the engine that funds taxes so that he can spend those taxes to turn the evil of business into the good of government.

My prediction is that the President gets re-elected, and if he does, we all deserve what we get from him. If you are expecting more of the same, then your expectations will be met.

GOVERNMENT: Ever Greater Complexity Confuses Citizens

This is such a HUGE topic that I am loath to tackle it, but I shall indeed. Where to start? Government programs that provide various types of services to our citizens are growing ever more complicated that folks opt out of using them. Let's look at a few examples:

HIRING NEW WORKER INCENTIVES: Read this article from July 24, 2012 - Firms Pass Up Tax Breaks, Citing Hassles, Complexity. Politicians have used targeted tax breaks to try to influence the behavior of business, by essentially offering tax breaks for hiring more workers. But many small and medium size companies have found that participating in these programs to be confusing, time-consuming and not worth the effort.

SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE: Being an AARP member, I read articles on how and when best to apply for those mothers of all entitlements, Medicare and Social Security. These articles are LONG and COMPLICATED and leave me more confused than before I started to read them. Try reading this one (selected randomly). I pray that we have all of our mental faculties available to us when we reach this point, because you don't want to make a mistake with this one, believe me. The only conclusion that we have come to is that we should continue to work until we drop; that way, we won't have to find out if we pulled our various Medicare and Social Security triggers at the right times and in the right ways.

READ THE LAWS BEFORE VOTING: Our lawmakers pass ever more complicated laws, and why? I suspect that it is because they are not required to READ or more importantly, UNDERSTAND the laws they pass. They just have to vote on them, whether they make an sense or not. Also, there is the tendency to pass new laws while seldom repealing old ones, whether they need repealing or not. Nobody gets re-elected by repealing outdated laws, do they?

PUT THEM IN A ROOM AND MAKE THEM DO THEIR TAXES WITHOUT HELP: I've always believed in this one. Put all the lawmakers in one big room with a PC, a tax program, a calculator, and a phone. Make them do their taxes themselves, while dining on Mac & Cheese. Then have the IRS audit them before they leave, and fine them if they make any mistakes - just like the rest of us. Just like any good idea, it'll never happen. Or if it does, they'll find a way around it. Example: California legislators have recently been required to pass a budget by a certain date or they don't get paid. So do they pass the budget? Nope! At least, not a REAL budget. They get around the law by passing some BS budget that will never work, and was never intended to be the budget. It passes the letter of the law by being a budget, but in name only. Sigh.

INTERNATIONAL: Still Wrong - Al Gore Didn't Take the Iniative to Create the Internet

UPDATE 7/30/2012: First go see WeHelpedBuildThat.com. Then go see The Birth of the Internet. Both the government and the private sector had import roles in creating our modern day internet, and that focusing on one entity (i.e., government) to the exclusion or outright disparagement of the other elements (i.e., private enterprise) is simplistic, misleading and wrong. Obama's three points:
1) Government ALONE created the internet
2) Government built the internet to create opportunities for EVERYONE in private enterprise to make money
3) Internet companies are successful because of the government creating the internet for them to use to make money.
These 3 points are simply not true, except maybe the last one. Due to crony capitalism and favoritism, government does indeed pick some companies to succeed, and allows others to fail. One could argue that this condition of favoritism by the government is not desired, but the government is not the one who will be making the argument, I'm sure.

I'll start with my own opinion:

1) Government and private business funding created what we now call the "Internet". In what proportions is the credit meted out? It depends on how you define the question, and is hopelessly mired in a combination of politics and technology. Suffice it to say that government research ALONE did not create the internet.

2) What most people think of when they hear "internet" is really the World Wide Web ("www"). The story of the creation / invention of the WWW is complicated as well, but you can read about that here at Wikipedia and draw your own conclusions. There is no clear and compelling single answer.

President Barach Obama (in his own words on July 17, 2012):

"The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."

For some opinion, try reading this article from the Wall Street Journal on July 23, 2012. Who Really Invented the Internet? by L. Gordon Crovitz. Some believe that it's an urban legend that the government launched the Internet. The myth is that the Pentagon created the Internet to keep its communications lines up even in a nuclear strike. What is the truth? If the government didn't invent the Internet, who did? Vinton Cerf developed the TCP/IP protocol, the Internet's backbone, and Tim Berners-Lee gets credit for hyperlinks. But some believe that full credit goes to the company where Mr. Taylor worked after leaving ARPA: Xerox. It was at the Xerox PARC labs in Silicon Valley in the 1970s that the Ethernet was developed to link different computer networks.

Any article about facts in an opinion section is not to be trusted, so I searched for a more detailed and factual article on the Origins of the Internet. This is the article that I liked best. It is a rather lengthy bit of research, seems fairly unbiased, and comes to these conclusions about who were the creators of the internet.

Examining these various events, we come to some important findings.
1) There are a number of valid claims to origins of the Internet. [Note: none had Al Gore's name on them]
2) Although an original date and place might be obtainable for the first networked transmission that could be called an Internet, the result would need by definition to include more than one party or network, and is unlikely to be a satisfactory or useful conclusion.
3) Not only US projects were involved in the beginnings of the Internet.
4) Not only government funded US research programs were involved in the beginnings of the Internet.
5) Not only telcos and the commercial sector were involved in the beginnings of the Internet.
6) Neither Arpanet nor TCP/IP is present in all valid theories.

Educate thyself.

LOCAL: Follow-Up on Sleeping in Your Car in SLO

UPDATE July 20, 2012: Yes, the Tribune's fine articles on the homeless keep on coming. This one is by Carol Nelson-Selby. She points out the folly of ticketing the homeless for sleeping in their cars. Ticketing only serves to continue the downward spiral of the homeless family unit. The $400 ticket they cannot pay causes them to get hauled into court, and they lose their car/RV and all the possessions inside. Instead of prosecuting our poor, how about doing the hard police work of ticketing those who are committing the real crimes (I don't believe that sleeping in a vehicle on public property is a real crime). Those crimes include: public urination and defecation, littering, assault, rape, plugging their RV into a power outlet from a business, etc. Our well-paid SLO Police need to get down in the dirt and do the hard police work. Ticketing an RV is an easy way out, but does not further our humanity or civilization.

The San Luis Obispo Tribune newspaper had a fine article on the front page of the July 4, 2012 Tribune newspaper. Here's another, more detailed article on Judge Crandall's ruling in Cal Coast News. I'll discuss a few of the highlights.

Judge Crandall had grave concerns regarding the city law against sleeping in your privately owned vehicle on a public street, and great misgivings about the method of enforcement as well.

Because of the recession, more people are losing their jobs, and turning to sleeping in their vehicles. Rather than enforcing the act of sleeping in your own vehicle (which harms nobody), I encouraged Chief Gesell (earlier this year 2012) to enforce the violations that some of the homeless have committed, such as trash, assaults, trespassing, and not using restrooms, but instead going outdoors. He basically said that enforcing those laws was too much work for his officers, and essentially (not his words), it was much easier to scare them and fine them in the middle of the night. With this ruling, our overpaid SLO police officers might have to actually enforce the laws that actually damage the community, since sleeping will no longer be a violation (for the time being).

NOTE TO THE HOMELESS WHO SLEEP IN THEIR VEHICLES:  The homeless RV sleepers should be more vigilant about NOT breaking the aforementioned laws if they want to have the sympathy and support of the community. I recommend that they listen to this advice.

BACKGROUND 1: Earlier in 2012, during the initial escalation by the SLO Police Department and Police Chief Gessell, I received numerous reports from my homeless acquaintenances that they were being rousted out of their beds (in their RVs) in the middle of the night. In addition, other homeless I knew reported a similar escalation along the creekbeds, which the homeless without vehicles favor. In February - April 2012, I spent numerous evenings helping the homeless creekbed inhabitors move their camps, because they were receiving citations and orders to move. This is what initially got me involved in this process. 

BACKGROUND 2: This resulted in several long (multi-hour) discussions with the likes of CAPSLO officials, as well as Police Chief Gesell. Needless to say, we did not see eye to eye on this issue. This recent ruling that finds their enforcement unconstitutional will at least temporarily end this unnecessary action.

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).