Welcome to the Socialist Republic of California

Just a sneak peek at what life will be like under Herr Obamasiah:

From SFGATE


Fireplace police on patrol; smoke can draw fine

11-19) 16:21 PST SAN FRANCISCO --

The fireplace police descended on the Bay Area on Wednesday.

For the first time ever, residential fires are illegal under a new law, passed in July, that bans home burning on winter season Spare the Air days.

The first such ban took effect at noon. Seventy inspectors from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District planned to spend the day and evening patrolling residential neighborhoods, looking for telltale chimney wisps.

Violators will get warnings by mail. Repeat offenders face fines of as much as $2,000.

The fireplace police say they are determined to keep law and order in the living room.

"We're serious," said district spokeswoman Kristine Roselius. "This is a major health threat. The weather conditions are such that smoke is trapped closer to the ground and anyone with respiratory problems will have a hard time breathing."

With 1.4 million fireplaces in the Bay Area, Roselius said the district is hoping for voluntary compliance. It notes that wood burning produces about one-third of the particulate pollution on a typical winter night.

The district predicts as many as 20 Spare the Air days during the winter season, which air quality officials define as Nov. 1 through Feb. 28. That means it could be illegal to fire up the fireplace as often as one day in every six.

Similar bans have been in place in the San Joaquin Valley and in the Pacific Northwest for several years.

After the initial warning, repeat violators will face fines, some as high as four figures. In other no-burn districts, offenders have been permitted to do penance by attending "smoke school," similar to traffic school. But the Bay Area is a no-school zone.

The air quality district declared its Spare the Air Day because of what it called moderate levels of pollution all around the Bay Area. Moderate pollution is expected to remain today in the East Bay, the South Bay and the Santa Clara Valley regions, with good air quality in the North Bay and coastal regions. The district will decide by noon whether to extend the wood-burning ban.

The fireplace industry was seeing red about the prospect of more smoke-free days and nights.

"This is obviously something we're very concerned about," said Chris Caron, vice president of Duraflame, the Stockton-based purveyor of sawdust fireplace logs.

He said he hoped the new ban would not affect the fire log business and that Bay Area residents would burn even more logs on non-Spare the Air days.

"After (the district) gets through trying to scare everyone to death, we expect they will realize that people still want to burn in their fireplaces," Caron said.

He also said it was unfair to lump cleaner-burning sawdust-based logs with ordinary wood. And he said he was hoping for lots of cold, rainy, windy and miserable weather this winter.

"Bad weather is good for us," he said. "And good for air quality."

Rich Ventura, proprietor of Rich's Firewood of San Carlos, called the ban "a little excessive." Ventura sells oak fireplace wood for $400 a cord, a quantity of stacked wood that measures 4 by 4 by 8 feet.

"They should try education first - that would be a better way to go," he said. "If you build a fire properly, and get it really hot in a wood stove, there's very little smoke."

Tim Regan of San Francisco said he had already gotten his education and wouldn't be spending Wednesday night burning any of the firewood he was buying at the Safeway on Market Street for $18.

"The environment has to trump comfort," Regan said. "I'm sentimental about these things. A fireplace is so romantic, the curl of the smoke rising up - it's like Norman Rockwell. But I'm willing to make a concession to the planet's health and survival."

Receive air alerts

For more information on wintertime Spare the Air Days, check the air quality district's Web site, www.baaqmd.gov, or call (877) 466-2876. Residents may also sign up to receive automatic notification of no-burn days, by e-mail or recorded telephone messages.
______________________________

Welcome to the Golden State, they have found a way into your living rooms.

Don't you just feel all warm and fuzzy now?

Heil Obamasiah

Welcome to the Socialist Republic of California, Part Deux

From AZStarnet

Poor L.A. area gets moratorium on fast food
By Christina Hoag
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 07.30.2008

LOS ANGELES — City officials are putting South Los Angeles on a diet.

The Los Angeles City Council voted unanimously Tuesday to place a moratorium on new fast-food restaurants in an impoverished swath of the city with a proliferation of such eateries and above-average rates of obesity.

The yearlong moratorium is intended to give the city time to attract restaurants that serve healthier food. The action, which the mayor must still sign into law, is believed to be the first of its kind by a major city to protect public health.

"Our communities have an extreme shortage of quality foods," City Councilman Bernard Parks said.

Representatives of fast-food chains said they support the goal of better diets but believe they are being unfairly targeted. They say they already offer healthier food items on their menus.

"It's not where you eat, it's what you eat," said Andrew Pudzer, president and chief executive of CKE Restaurants, parent company of Carl's Jr. "We were willing to work with the city on that, but they obviously weren't interested."

The California Restaurant Association and its members will consider a legal challenge to the ordinance, spokesman Andrew Casana said.

Thirty percent of adults in South Los Angeles are obese, compared with 19.1 percent for the metropolitan area and 14.1 percent for the affluent Westside, according to the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health.

Research has shown that people will change eating habits when different foods are offered, but cost is a key factor in poor communities, said Kelly D. Brownell, director of Yale University's Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity.

"Cheap, unhealthy food and lack of access to healthy food is a recipe for obesity," Brownell said. "Diets improve when healthy-food establishments enter these neighborhoods."

A report by the Community Health Councils found 73 percent of South Los Angeles restaurants were fast food, compared to 42 percent in West Los Angeles.

South Los Angeles resident Curtis English acknowledged that fast food is loaded with calories and cholesterol. But since he's unemployed and does not have a car, it serves as a cheap, convenient staple for him.

On Monday, he ate breakfast and lunch — a sausage burrito and a double cheeseburger, respectively — at a McDonald's a few blocks from home for just $2.39.
"I don't think there's too many fast food places," he said. "People like it."
Others welcomed an opportunity to get different kinds of food into their neighborhood.

"They should open more healthy places," Dorothy Meighan said outside a Kentucky Fried Chicken outlet. "There's too much fried stuff."

Councilwoman Jan Perry said that view repeatedly surfaced at the five community meetings she held during the past two years. Residents are tired of fast food, and many don't have cars to drive to places with other choices, she said.

Los Angeles' ban comes at a time when governments of all levels are increasingly viewing menus as a matter of public health. On Friday, California became the first state in the nation to bar trans fats, which lower levels of good cholesterol and increase bad cholesterol.

The moratorium, which can be extended up to a year, affects only stand-alone restaurants, not eateries in malls or strip shopping centers. It defines fast-food restaurants as those that do not offer table service and provide a limited menu of pre-prepared or quickly heated food in disposable wrapping.

The definition exempts "fast-food casual" restaurants such as El Pollo Loco, Subway and Pastagina, which do not have heat lamps and prepare fresh food to order.
The ordinance also makes it harder for existing fast-food restaurants to expand or remodel.

Rebeca Torres, a South Los Angeles mother of four, said she would welcome more dining choices, even if she had to pay a little more.

____________________________________

OH THANK YOU NANNY STATE! THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Has anyone ever seen the demolition man? Sylvester Stallone has a line in the movie that says, "I want to eat a fat burger with a glass of beer while smoking a cigarette if I want"

Of course we all remember that the nanny state had put into place a ban on anything not healthy for you, the result was a black market that served rats.

Anyway, I digress

I will tell you the truth. I have 5 kids...those kids are healthy and in good shape.

Why? I make sure they excercise by playing outside.

I make sure they eat right by buying the right things from the store.

I LIMIT their fast food intake to once every 2 weeks.

I TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MY HEALTH AND THE HEALTH OF MY KIDS.

I DON'T want the state or city telling me that I can or can not eat fast food...ITS MY DAMN CHOICE ... and last time I checked ... This is the United States of America, where individual choice is guaranteed to me in the constitution.

Of course, what the city isnt thinking of is that in this impoverished section of Los Angeles, there are those who rely on fast food for work, and often times is the only choice they have if they cant afford the high cost of owning a car to be able to commute to a job that actually pays.

So what is the city doing?

Keeping the poor reliant on the government.

Oy

Welcome to the socialist republic of California

From Yahoo News:

California bans restaurants from using trans fats

Fri Jul 25, 4:26 PM ET


SACRAMENTO, Calif. - California is joining the health crusade against artery-clogging trans fats.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed legislation Friday that will prohibit restaurants and other "food facilities" from using oil, margarine and shortening containing trans fats.

Violations could result in fines of $25 to $1,000. Food sold in their manufacturers' sealed packaging would be exempt.

New York City and Philadelphia have ordinances banning trans fats, but Schwarzenegger's office says California is the first state to adopt such a law.

__________________________________________

Yep....nasty ole restaurants ... actually giving you choices....SHAME ON THEM

Enter the Nanny State

Now you see what socialism looks like.

Welcome to The Socialist Republic of California......

Where your vote doesnt matter according to the legislators on the bench (read judges)

From Yahoo News:



By LISA LEFF, Associated Press Writer 1 minute ago

SAN FRANCISCO - In a monumental victory for the gay rights movement, the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage Thursday in a ruling that would allow same-sex couples in the nation's biggest state to tie the knot. Domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage, the justices ruled 4-3 in striking down the ban.

Outside the courthouse, gay marriage supporters cried and cheered as the news spread.

Jeanie Rizzo, one of the plaintiffs, called Pali Cooper, her partner of 19 years, and asked, "Pali, will you marry me?"

"This is a very historic day. This is just such freedom for us," Rizzo said. "This is a message that says all of us are entitled to human dignity."

In the Castro, historically a center of the gay community in San Francisco, Tim Oviatt started crying while watching the news on TV.

"I've been waiting for this all my life," he said. "This is a life-affirming moment."

The city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples and gay rights groups sued in March 2004 after the court halted the monthlong wedding march that took place when Mayor Gavin Newsom opened the doors of City Hall to same-sex marriages.

"Today the California Supreme Court took a giant leap to ensure that everybody — not just in the state of California, but throughout the country — will have equal treatment under the law," said City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who argued the case for San Francisco.

The challenge for gay rights advocates, however, is not over.

A coalition of religious and social conservative groups is attempting to put a measure on the November ballot that would enshrine laws banning gay marriage in the state constitution.

The Secretary of State is expected to rule by the end of June whether the sponsors gathered enough signatures to qualify the marriage amendment, similar to ones enacted in 26 other states.

If voters pass the measure in November, it would trump the court's decision.

California already offers same-sex couples who register as domestic partners the same legal rights and responsibilities as married spouses, including the right to divorce and to sue for child support.

But, "Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," Chief Justice Ron George wrote for the court's majority, which also included Justices Joyce Kennard, Kathryn Werdegar and Carlos Moreno.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Marvin Baxter agreed with many arguments of the majority but said the court overstepped its authority. Changes to marriage laws should be decided by the voters, Baxter wrote. Justices Ming Chin and Carol Corrigan also dissented.

The conservative Alliance Defense Fund says it plans to ask the justices for a stay of their decision until after the fall election, said Glen Lavey, senior counsel for the group.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has twice vetoed legislation that would've granted marriage rights to same-sex couples, said in a news release that he respected the court's decision and "will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."