http://www.examiner.com/…

Six parents of chronically truant San Francisco schoolchildren - each of whom missed more than 50 days of class - were arraigned Tuesday before a superior court judge on infractions that charged the guardians with failing to make sure their kids receive an education.

The infractions, pursued by District Attorney Kamala Harris, carry a $100 fine. If the truancy continues, the next step would be misdemeanor charges of neglecting a child’s education, charges that could land a parent in county jail for up to a year with a fine up to $2,500, Harris said Tuesday.

The parents - Connie Wilson, Jamelia Kellom, Shanae Seastrunk, Kenneth Reed, Chanell Brown and Joshua Pomar - were the first to be prosecuted under stricter enforcement guidelines announced by Harris at the beginning of the school year.

The number of students skipping school in San Francisco has long been above statewide averages and costs the already cash-strapped district more than $5 million in state funding every year. One absence costs the San Francisco Unified School District about $42, according to district data.

Among the most common reasons for truancies, especially among elementary school children, are child care issues, drug abuse by parents, lack of transportation, family abandonment and the students ditching classes, according to school district Superintendant Carlos Garcia.

“You know, little kids, what rights do they have? I think we as a society need to stand up for their rights, the right to an education,” Garcia said.

1. Education is not a right. You don’t have a right to other people’s labor. Your existence doesn’t create an obligation for others to provide you with anything. Taxation is theft, period. 2. The absence wouldn’t cost anyone anything if there wasn’t compulsory government schooling. This whole “your actions cost us all” “problem” only exists because these power hungry, megalomaniacs who think they know better than everyone one else use guns to force people into participating in things they could be doing voluntarily. If the service was so important as these people like to claim why then wouldn’t the free market be able to provide it? If you look at it historically it could… what has changed? Could it be that religious and socialist idealists wanted to control the populous? Could it be that compulsory education was instituted not for the children but those in power who wish to propagandize their utopian values?

http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSN0952458820080511?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

A California man who has defaulted on nine homes and expects banks to foreclose on all of them, forcing him into bankruptcy, says he now considers it a mistake to have invested in the real estate market.

Shawn Forgaard, a 37-year-old software company project manager, bought one home for his family to live in and nine more as investments. He stands to lose all the investment houses in the mortgage meltdown but says he has come away wiser from the experience.

“Everyone stumbles. I’m not going to hide or run or live in denial, or with regrets,” Forgaard told Reuters in an interview. “On the surface it looks like total devastation but it’s just the opposite. I’m confident our lives will be much, much richer as a result.”

Forgaard bought a house in Santa Cruz, about 60 miles (100 km) south of San Francisco, in 2000. Four years later, using $800,000 in stock options, he began snapping up investment properties, putting 10 percent to 40 percent down on negative amortization loans — in which payments do not cover the interest so that a borrower’s balance grows over time.

It was those “neg-am” loans, which include triggers causing payments to balloon if the debt reaches a certain percentage of the original balance, that would come back to haunt him.

“I knew I was sitting on time bombs,” Forgaard said. “I knew the market was going to go soft and I knew that property values would decline. But I figured that I had enough equity to survive the storm and sell or take the loss and refinance.

“I didn’t anticipate a downturn of epic proportions such that home values are 40 percent less than they were,” he said.

That’s because you’re a fucking idiot.

While this type of scenario is very rare… having one or more investment homes was not and just as many primary homes are foreclosed so too are many many of these investment homes. They will all be counted in those numbers you see on TV when they report how many homes are in foreclosure. I’ve never seen them seperate it down into primary and secondary homes.

http://www.reuters.com/…

A roommate-finding site cannot require users to disclose their sexual orientation, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Thursday, in the latest skirmish over whether anti-discrimination rules apply to the Web.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said Roommates.com, which obliges users to list their sexual orientation, was different than Internet sites where people can volunteer or withhold personal information.

To inquire electronically about sexual orientation would not be different from asking people in person or by telephone if they were black or Jewish before conducting business, the panel said in an 8-3 ruling that partly overturns a lower federal court decision.

“If such screening is prohibited when practiced in person or by telephone, we see no reason why Congress would have wanted to make it lawful to profit from it online,” 9th Circuit chief judge Alex Kozinski wrote. “Not only does Roommate ask these questions, Roommate makes answering the discriminatory questions a condition of doing business.”

Can someone please tell me why sexism is allowed and orientationism is not? How exactly are these people “obliged?” oblige: 1. To constrain by physical, legal, social, or moral means. 2. To make indebted or grateful. 3. To make indebted or grateful. No one is requiring them to use the service. There is craigslist and dozens of other roommate sites. Are they going to outlaw people from asking each other in person next? Or making a descision on that information?

http://www.sfgate.com/…

San Francisco’s 68 controversial anti-crime cameras haven’t deterred criminals from committing assaults, sex offenses or robberies - and they’ve only moved homicides down the block, according to a new report from UC Berkeley.

Researchers found that nonviolent thefts dropped by 22 percent within 100 feet of the cameras, but the devices had no effect on burglaries or car theft. And they’ve had no effect on violent crime.

Mayor Gavin Newsom called the report “conclusively inconclusive” on Thursday but said he still wants to install more cameras around the city because they make residents feel safer.

“When I put the first cameras in, I said, ‘This may only move people around the corner,’ ” he said. “But the community there said, ‘We don’t care, we want our alleyway back.’ No one’s actually had a camera up that they wanted torn down in the community.”

But not all city officials think it’s wise to spend money on public safety measures if the best thing that can be said about them is they have a placebo effect for worried residents.”In their current configuration they are not useful, and they give people a false sense of security, which I think is bad,” said Police Commissioner Joe Alioto-Veronese. He added that previous studies of security cameras in other parts of the country have also shown that they do not deter violent crime.

I’m amazed such logic came out of a police commissioner. You don’t get that very often.

The cameras have contributed to only one arrest nearly two years ago in a city that saw 98 homicides last year, a 12-year high. The video is choppy, and police aren’t allowed to watch video in real-time or maneuver the cameras to get a better view of potential crimes.

The only positive deterrent effect was the reduction of larcenies within 100 feet of the cameras. No other crimes were affected - except for homicides, which had an interesting pattern.

Murders went down within 250 feet of the cameras, but the reduction was completely offset by an increase 250 to 500 feet away, suggesting people moved down the block before killing each other.

That stat about the murders is just wonderful. You can be sure that some pols are just going to twist that to push for 100% camera coverage.

Public Defender Jeff Adachi, who has long been a critic of the cameras, said the report is further proof they’re not improving public safety.

He said they’re no substitute for attacking the causes of crime and said money would be better invested in community-based policing, anti-violence projects in schools, and services that help ex-prisoners readjust to life in society so they don’t commit more crimes.

How about looking at why they commit crimes in the first place? How many of those crimes are a result of the black market and prohibitions?

I like some of the comments:

newcastle wrote:

Actually fatsengalla - they DO work - I have first hand experience of this from the UK…… BUT and it’s a big one… THEY HAVE TO BE USED PROPERLY, which appears to be the problem, and not have their use hampered by bogus claims about privacy and other such rubbish.

froggy_08 wrote:

The fact that the cameras are stopping crime in the areas in which they are located indicates that, contrary to the story’s headline, they are working. The big problem with the way SF is using the cameras is that they are much too visible, the police are not allowed to view them or change their direction which is idiotic and there aren’t enough of them. The idea that cameras that are in public places somehow violate ones right to privacy is madness. How about all the cameras in banks, stores and other public places?

I know… we should put cameras in newcastle’s home just in case he commits a crime. Those UK cameras worked so well in helping stop those guys who blew up those buses a few years back. Oh and catching that Brazilian terrorist plumber the London police decided needed bullets implanted in his skull. Same goes for froggy_08. Obviously since people come and go in their home it’s a “public” place. At least one pointed into the yard. It’s not like banks and stores are private property or anything and those in their are volunteering to be seen on camera and pay for their operation.

Really what we should do is a setup a network of cameras which cover every inch of land which a crime could be committed on. We link them all up to high powered computer farms which use facial and movement recognition software to track every single object in the cameras view. We feed that into a giant database which is analyzed in realtime for suspicious individuals and alert the police. It can watch what you get at the store or what food you’ve purchased and if anything bought could be used for malisious actions you will be flagged. If you have ingested too many calories or fatty foods the NHS will be alerted and you’ll receive a fine for possibly costing the government more than your share of healthcare costs.

At some point criminals will just start wearing clothing with surface mount IR LEDs on them which will blind the cameras.

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/…

The California State Court of Appeals announced today their decision to overturn one of the most restrictive gun bans in the country, following a legal battle by attorneys for the National Rifle Association (NRA) and a previous court order against the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. “Today’s decision by the California State Court of Appeals is a big win for the law-abiding citizens and NRA Members of San Francisco,” declared Chris W. Cox, NRA’s chief lobbyist.

In 2005, NRA sought an injunction against the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to prevent them from enacting one of the nation’s most restrictive gun bans. NRA won the injunction, but the City’s mayor and Board of Supervisors ignored the court order and approved a set of penalties, including a $1,000 fine and a jail term of between 90 days and six months, for city residents who own firearms for lawful purposes in their own homes.

Good to hear that even in California laws like this can be shot down. It amazes me how people can willfully ignore moral and practical aspects of gun ownership. Gun prohibition does not work any better than drug prohibition. Those who wish to do harm with a gun will usually have to motivation to acquire one. I’ve met several people who advocated gun prohibition and when I bring up the ease of acquiring one they dismiss it, assuming that it is difficult to obtain one. They have no evidence, they have no reason to think this way besides they don’t know anyone who they could get one from. Or they don’t realize they don’t. They always admit that while they may not know a drug dealer explicitly they could acquire pot in less than a day of trying. Guns aren’t much different. Then you have the statistics on gun ownership and crime. New Hampshire having some of the least restrictive gun laws has some of the lowest crime. This is true for many other states with lax gun restrictions. Correlation does not indicate causation of course but many gun prohibition advocates talk as if it’d be Hollywood Wild Wild West if people were allowed to have and carry guns. I was at the Liberty Forum last weekend with many people open carrying, there were plenty of heated arguments and not a single gun drawn in anger or shot (except on Thursday when they went to the shooting range.) People have the right and in some cases the obligation to protect themselves from individuals who would do them harm. A gun is a tool to help perform that self defense. You can read Rational Review for a few days to see the number of people who do that every day.

http://www.kcbs.com/…

For years, the idea of taxing soda to beat back obesity has been tossed around in medical circles. But now, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom is proposing a tax on beverages high in fructose corn syrup.

Newsom says obesity accounts for tens of millions of dollars in city health care costs. He cites a recent San Francisco Health Department survey that found nearly a quarter of the city’s 5th, 7th and 9th graders were overweight and that high sugar drinks make up a tenth of a kid’s daily calorie count.

Newsom reportedly wants all big box retailers and chain drug stores to pay into his new “Shape up San Francisco” program, which started this past summer with a walking regimen.

This comes as the state of California is considering slapping caffeine-infused sodas, and energy drinks with warning labels, saying consumption can contribute to diabetes.

This isn’t about obesity. They outright admit it’s about money. They don’t want to or can’t continue to mandate required city health care if the costs keep rising. Lets look at the entirety of this situation. The federal government steals your money through income taxation. They use some of that money to subsidize the corn industry and the fructose corn syrup industry in particular. In addition to that there are import quotas and tariffs on sugar. Those force the domestic price of sugar to more than twice the world price and lowers the cost of high-fructose corn syrup. According to Wikipedia Coca-Cola uses sugar internationally but HFCS domestically. Some believe that HFCS has greater health risks than sucrose. So here we have you paying for a possibly dangerous sweetener to be used in food which San Fran would like to then tax you for consuming. They want to tax you at the cash register so they don’t have to tax everyone else for your greater use of the mandatory health system. Of course the soda companies have something to say about this.

“It makes no sense to single out any one single cause of obesity, which is a complex problem,” said Kevin Keane, a senior vice president of the American Beverage Association, the trade group for $105-billion-a-year nonalcoholic beverage industry.

Keane said that if Newsom really wanted to fight the fat, he would take on computer and video game companies, which Keane said lured children inside when they should “be outside burning calories.”

Another person passes the blame. Lets see who has more sway in the California and San Francisco government: the beverage or videogame companies. Will they start placing “no fatties” taxes on Pepsi or Nintendo? Why can’t these people place blame on those who cause the obesity? The fat asses who eat and drink these things in excess and in the case of children their parents. Why not be honest and say that the reason they want to implement this tax is because people don’t want to actually pay for the socialist single payer health system pipedream they claim they want?

The soda proposal will be introduced to the Board of Supervisors early next year, Ballard said, and would affect only large retailers, not mom-and-pop stores. As for levies on other child-friendly delicacies, Ballard added, “The mayor has no intention of imposing a fee on pizza.”

Yet. Not as if the pizza is worth eating in San Fran.