Tag Archives: San Diego

Actor Chris Hemsworth is an environmental warrior hypocrite

chris hemsworth

Chris (center) and his buddies flying a private jet…

Chris Hemsworth is an Australian actor who is probably best known for his role in Thor. He also claims to be an environmental warrior, especially for the oceans. From One Green Planet:

Australian actor Chris Hemsworth recently posted a photo on Instagram while collecting plastic waste from a beach. The image was also captioned with an important message about the problem. Hemsworth is now the Ambassador of the #100Islandsprotected project by Corona X Parlay and is “thrilled to be a part of this program.”

The actor stressed that he’s spent a great part of his life around the ocean. In the presence of this enormous natural body, he always felt calm, happy, and present. This proximity to the ocean and the big part it has played in Hemsworth’s life made him realize all the more our need to protect it. “My experience in the Maldives made it obvious how our short-term use of plastic has a long-term damaging effect on our oceans,” he wrote.

As the Ambassador of the project, he will focus on educating people about the negative effects plastic waste has on the oceans.

This is not, however, the first time the actor spoke up about the environmental issues. Earlier this year, he posted a picture with a member of the Sustainable Coastlines Hawaii who runs large-scale beach clean-ups. Before that, Hemsworth posted about vaquitas, a marine species that is now severely endangered due to illegal fishing and on the verge of total extinction. He also spoke against whaling back in 2015.

Guess what the ambassador of the oceans did on Saturday to get to the Comic Con festival in San Diego? He flew via private jet to the event. The picture above is from his Instagram account.

From the web site of the private jet company Chris was on, Zetta Jet:

We at Zetta Jet are dedicated to putting the luxury back into private travel, to personalizing private flight again.

I know that plastic in the oceans is a big problem and commend him for supporting that issue.

Chris wants us to believe he understands the solution to protect the world’s oceans yet he flies a private gas-guzzling and –emitter jet which contributes to climate change (and he frequently flies via this mode). If you’re going to talk the talk, walk the walk (or fly commercial).

Course I’m sure Leo is proud of him.

DCG

Advertisements

Judge blocks California’s high-capacity magazine ban

second amendment3

Score one for the Second Amendment.

From ABC News: A federal judge on Thursday blocked a California law set to take effect Saturday that would have barred gun owners from possessing high-capacity ammunition magazines.

The judge ruled that the ban approved by the Legislature and voters last year takes away gun owners’ Second Amendment rights and amounts to the government taking people’s private property without compensation.

California law has prohibited buying or selling the magazines since 2000, but until now allowed those who had them to keep them.

“Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of otherwise law-abiding citizens will have an untenable choice: become an outlaw or dispossess one’s self of lawfully acquired property,” San Diego-based U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez wrote. (Judge Benitez was appointed by George W. Bush.)

He issued a preliminary injunction blocking the law from taking effect while he considers the underlying lawsuit filed by the National Rifle Association-affiliated California Rifle & Pistol Association.

Meanwhile, a Sacramento-based judge on Thursday rejected a similar challenge by several other gun owners’ rights organizations, creating what Ari Freilich, staff attorney at the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, called “dueling opinions” that may be sorted out on appeal. “Unfortunately this law will be delayed but we are confident it will go into effect, and soon,” he said.

He called the San Diego lawsuit and ruling part of an effort by the NRA “to delay and dismantle California’s law brick by brick.”

Had the ban taken effect, owners would have been required to get rid of their magazines by sending them out of state, altering them to hold no more than 10 bullets, destroying them or turning them into law enforcement agencies. Possession could have been punished by $100 fines or up to a year in jail.

Owners can now keep the magazines until a final ruling by Benitez or if an appeals court overturns his injunction, said Chuck Michel, attorney for the NRA and the California Rifle & Pistol Association.

“This court recognized that the Second Amendment is not a second-class right and that law-abiding gun owners have the right to own these magazines to defend themselves and their families,” Michel said.

State lawmakers approved the ban last year as part of a package of bills adding to what already were some of the nation’s strictest gun laws. Voters agreed in November when they approved Proposition 63, a measure that toughened the penalties by allowing violators to be fined or jailed.

Benitez said he was mindful of voters’ approval and government’s legitimate interest in protecting the public but added that the “Constitution is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.”

Gun owner’s constitutional rights “are not eliminated simply because they possess ‘unpopular’ magazines holding more than 10 rounds,” he wrote in a 66-page decision.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra criticized the decision but did not say what he will do next. “Proposition 63 was overwhelmingly approved by voters to increase public safety and enhance security in a sensible and constitutional way,” Becerra said in a statement. “I will defend the will of California voters because we cannot continue to lose innocent lives due to gun violence.”

Supporters say that magazines often holding 30 or 100 bullets are typically used in mass shootings and aren’t needed by hunters or civilian owners. “Clearly it escalates the lethality in any mass shooting when high-capacity magazines are involved,” said Amanda Wilcox, a spokeswoman for the California chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence whose daughter was fatally shot.

Forcing assailants to change magazines more frequently gives victims time to flee or subdue the shooter, Becerra argued in court filings.

He listed as examples the shooting in Orlando, Florida, that killed 49 people and injured 53; the terrorist assault that killed 14 and injured 22 in San Bernardino; the massacre of children and teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut; and the Arizona attack that killed six and wounded 13 including former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

Moreover, the government wouldn’t own the magazines in the way it would property seized for a new highway or public building, he argued, since the magazines would be destroyed by law enforcement agencies.

Becerra said opponents’ Second Amendment challenge has repeatedly been rejected by other courts, allowing at least seven other states and 11 local governments to already restrict the possession or sale of large-capacity ammunition magazines.

DCG

Woman, 45, claims she is ‘married’ to a train station

train station freak

Carol and her “wife,” the train station.

Hey, #LoveIsLove, or something like that…

From Daily Mail: A woman has ‘married’ a train station and claims they have spent 36 years in love with one another. Carol Santa Fe, 45, from San Diego, California, says she fell for Santa Fe train station when she was nine years old. Although the union is not legally binding, she ‘tied the knot’ with the building in 2015 – and celebrated their one year anniversary last Christmas.

Ms. Santa Fe says she has ‘sex’ with the station mentally and identifies herself as an objectum sexual – a person who is sexually attracted to inanimate objects and structures.

It is a worldwide debate whether the phenomenon is a sexuality, fetish or mental condition.

Ms. Santa Fe said: ‘I am married to the Santa Fe train station – her name is Daidra. We didn’t start a relationship until 2011 but I had been in love with the station since I was a young girl. When we got married, I stood there and I told her that I take it as my partner. It was the happiest day of our lives.

Every day the volunteer support worker takes a 45 minute bus ride to the station to spend time with the building. She said: ‘When I get there I say hello to her – I then walk around the block circling around her, trying not to let anyone notice I am talking. There is a private bit where two walls meet, I go there to touch her, which I do by leaning against her with my clothes on. When I’m touching her, I feel as though it actually holds me and kisses me.’

‘I don’t have physical sex with the station in public, I want to be respectful. I wouldn’t do that with a human in public so why would I do it in this case. I do have sex with Daidra in my mind when I stand there. I especially like when I hear the trains rev up their engines – it turns me on.’

Ms. Santa Fe – who has lived in California since she was three – claims the train station is the love of her life despite being in a previous relationship with a man.

She added: ‘I loved a human once before, his name was Tom and we were together for 18 months. But it didn’t work out and I felt amazing when I got into a relationship with Diadra because she told that she would never leave me. I love her so much, she is so romantic.’

‘We first consummated our love a few years ago when I felt the wall behind me, and I felt this energy. I came close to an orgasm and I was scared I’d get caught by the station staff. I don’t ever want the security guards to find out – I am a closeted objectum sexual.’

Ms. Santa Fe discovered she was an objectum sexual after she searched online ‘I am in love with a building’.

She is not the first to confess her love for inanimate objects. Erica Eiffel, an objectum sexual, famously married Paris’s Eiffel Tower in 2007. Another well-known objectum sexual is Eklöf Berliner-Mauer, who married the Berlin wall in 1979 and was the first person to come forward with objectum sexuality.

Ms. Santa Fe hides her attraction while at the building because she fears she could be banned from the site. She added: ‘It’s not at all because I am ashamed. Erica Eiffel got banned from the Eiffel Tower for kissing it and straddling it – so I don’t want to get banned like she did. I don’t like to publicly show anything between me and Daidra as I have more respect than that.’

Carol has been working as a volunteer for emotional support groups for years.

Carol said: ‘Objectum sexuality is not a mental illness like the media always makes out. It is our sexuality, just like being lesbian or bisexual – we are not crazy. People just don’t understand. I feel really lonely not having anyone to talk to about it.’

Daidra has been the most stable partner I have ever had. I have had the time of my life being her wife. I used to be scared of being in love with humans, but I’m not scared with Daidra. I can never leave San Diego, because my lover is here. I could never love another train station – she is the one.’

DCG

The price tag on universal health care in California is bigger than state’s budget

government solve all problems

Shocker, not.

From Sacramento Bee: The pricetag is in: It would cost $400 billion to remake California’s health insurance marketplace and create a publicly funded universal health care system, according to a state financial analysis released Monday.

California would have to find an additional $200 billion per year, including in new tax revenues, to create a so-called “single-payer” system, the analysis by the Senate Appropriations committee found. The estimate assumes the state would retain the existing $200 billion in local, state and federal funding it currently receives to offset the total $400 billion price tag.

The cost analysis is seen as the biggest hurdle to create a universal system, proposed by Sens. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, and Toni Atkins, D-San Diego.

It remains a longshot bid. Steep projected costs have derailed efforts over the past two decades to establish such a health care system in California. The cost is higher than the $180 billion in proposed general fund and special fund spending for the budget year beginning July 1.

Employers currently spend between $100 billion to $150 billion per year, which could be available to help offset total costs, according to the analysis. Under that scenario, total new spending to implement the system would be between $50 billion and $100 billion per year.

“Health care spending is growing faster than the overall economy…yet we do not have better health outcomes and we cover fewer people,” Lara said at Monday’s appropriations hearing. “Given this picture of increasing costs, health care inefficiencies and the uncertainty created by Congress, it is critical that California chart our own path.”

The idea behind Senate Bill 562 is to overhaul California’s insurance marketplace, reduce overall health care costs and expand coverage to everyone in the state regardless of immigration status or ability to pay. Instead of private insurers, state government would be the “single payer” for everyone’s health care through a new payroll taxing structure, similar to the way Medicare operates.

Lara and Atkins say they are driven by the belief that health care is a human right and should be guaranteed to everyone similar to public services like safe roads and clean drinking water. They seek to rein in rising health care costs by lowering administrative expenses, reducing expensive emergency room visits and eliminating insurance company profits and executive salaries.

In addition to covering undocumented people illegal aliens, Lara said the goal is to expand health access to people who, even with insurance, may skip doctor visits or stretch out medications due to high co-pays and deductibles.  “Doctors and hospitals would no longer need to negotiate rates and deal with insurance companies to seek reimbursement,” Lara said.

Insurance groups, health plans and Kaiser Permanente are against the bill. Industry representatives say California should focus on improving the Affordable Care Act. Business groups, including the California Chamber of Commerce, have deemed the bill a “job-killer.”

“A single-payer system is massively, if not prohibitively expensive,” said Nick Louizos, vice president of legislative affairs for the California Association of Health Plans. “It will cost employers and taxpayers billions of dollars and result in significant loss of jobs in the state,” the Chamber of Commerce said in its opposition letter.

Underlying the debate is uncertainty at the federal level over what President Donald Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress will do with Obamacare. The House Republican bill advanced earlier this month would dismantle it by removing its foundation – the individual mandate that requires everyone to have coverage or pay a tax penalty.

Republican-led efforts to repeal and replace Obamacare is fueling political support for the bill, Atkins said at a universal health care rally this past weekend in Sacramento hosted by the California Nurses Association, a co-sponsor.

“This is a high-ticket expense…We have to figure out how to cover everyone and work on addressing the costs in the long-term — that’s our challenge,” Atkins said. “I’m optimistic.”

The bill has to get approval on the Senate floor by June 2 to advance to the Assembly. A financing plan is underway, which could suggest diverting money employers pay for worker’s compensation insurance to a state-run coverage system.

Lara said he believes California can and should play a prominent role in improving people’s lives. “We can do better,” he said.

DCG

California Democrats flip off Donald Trump and Shout “F*ck Donald Trump”

john burton and nancy pelosi

Pelosi and her foul-mouthed buddy, John Burton

Remember, “Love Trumps Hate.”

From Sacramento Bee: The anti-Trump fervor at California’s Democratic Party convention this weekend can be summarized in choice words from outgoing chair of the California Democratic Party, John Burton: “F*%! Donald Trump.”

The always foul-mouthed Burton, 84, stood before thousands of Democratic delegates at Saturday’s general assembly, and as a rallying cry asked the crowd to join in. He then shoved two fists in the air, flipping the bird. Across the room at the Sacramento Convention Center, many in the audience followed suit.

On stage were House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, Rep, Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, state Sen. Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, and others.

Democrats over the weekend were fired up about Donald Trump’s presidency, investigations into Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. election and possible collusion with the Trump campaign and the heated health care debate in California. Nearly every politician who took the stage at Saturday’s convention denounced Trump and his agenda.

“We are President Trump’s worst nightmare,” California Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León said in a speech.

Burton, who took over as chairman of the state Democratic Party in 2009, fired off expletives throughout the three-day convention.

“Put your f*&#! sign down man, we’re all for it,” Burton said to a crowd of nurses urging fellow Democrats to support a bill in the Legislature that would create a publicly funded, universal health care system for California.

Friday night, hecklers shouted down Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg moments before Democratic National Party Chairman Tom Perez took the microphone, chanting in support of single-payer health care. “Hey shut the F$@# up or go outside alright?” Burton said.

h/t Gateway Pundit (See the video there.)

DCG

Second Amendment case Peruta vs. California may be heading to Supreme Court

erwin chemerinsky

Dean Erwin Chemerinsky: No right to have concealed weapons

If this does make it to the Supreme Court, I’m certainly hoping for an outcome which favors legal firearm owners.

From Fox News: The Second Amendment is only 27 words, but Americans have used millions of words arguing over what it means. It guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” But which people, what arms, and under what circumstances?

Two milestone cases involving the Second Amendment that reached the Supreme Court are District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), declaring an individual has a right to own a firearm, and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), affirming the Second Amendment applies to state law.

Now, if the Supreme Court decides to hear it, there may be a third major case in a decade: Peruta v. California.

At issue is the right to keep and bear arms outside the home. The Heller case specifically applies to situations within the home. Those who have petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case are hoping the justices will see it as a logical extension of their earlier opinions.

The case arose when Edward Peruta and other gun owners who lived in or near San Diego, Calif., couldn’t get concealed-carry permits in their county. The Sheriff’s Department handles permit requests and requires “good cause” to carry a gun outside of the home. This does not mean a generalized concern for safety, but something specific, such as fear of domestic violence or a regular need to move large amounts of money.

There were two separate lawsuits challenging the interpretation of “good cause,” but the district courts found no violation of the Second Amendment.

Then, in 2014, a three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the policy did indeed violate the right to bear arms for self-defense. The state, however, got a new hearing in front of 11 9th Circuit judges, who decided 7-4, the restrictions for concealed-carry permits were allowable.

The case has now been appealed to the Supreme Court and though the Justices have rescheduled its consideration several times, some experts feel the court is finally ready to hear Peruta.

“I suspect they’re going to grant it,” said John Eastman, former law dean at Chapman University and the director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence. Eastman told Fox News, “it’s percolating all across the country.”

He also feels the justices may have put it off while waiting for a full complement on the court, which they got when Neil Gorsuch was confirmed last month. Gorsuch, in fact, may be the justice to tip the opinion in one direction or the other, as previous Second Amendment cases were determined in a 5-4 ruling.

According to Eugene Volokh, professor of law at University of California at Los Angeles, this case is primed for the Supreme Court, as it deals with a basic constitutional right and “the lower courts are split on the issue.”

It would be a good time for the highest court to step in and settle the controversy. He also feels that while no one is sure how Gorsuch will vote, there is a “sense that he’s sympathetic to a broader view” of the Second Amendment.

The case may turn on how the court frames the issue. To Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California Irvine School of Law, the legal question to be settled is whether a state like California may determine its own rules on concealed-carry permits.

“The Second Amendment isn’t an absolute right,” Chemerinsky notes. Throughout British and American history, “there’s never been a right to have concealed weapons.”

But Eugene Volokh believes there’s a bigger issue at stake. If the state of California, which essentially bans open carry of a gun, makes it next to impossible for a typical citizen to get a concealed-carry permit, this is “tantamount to banning” the right to bear arms “except for a few favored people.”

Experts agree on one point. As Chemerinsky puts it, if Peruta is taken up, “no matter what the Supreme Court says, it will be a landmark decision.”

DCG

‘Babies before booze’ CA bill would raise liquor tax to pay for tax-free diapers, tampons

lorena gonzalez

Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher

The woman who wants you to put “babies before booze” is also a big supporter of abortion mill and baby parts harvester/seller Planned Parenthood. I question Ms. Fletcher’s values.

From Sacramento Bee: After Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed their bills last year to exempt diapers and feminine hygiene products from sales taxes, citing the cost to state and local revenues, Assemblywomen Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher and Cristina Garcia went looking for a way to pay for the measures.

Their solution: Raise the excise tax on distributors of hard alcohol when they buy their product from manufacturers, which hasn’t increased since 1991.

“This is a question of values,” Gonzalez Fletcher, D-San Diego, said. “We should be putting babies before booze.”

The assemblywomen unveiled their proposal, Assembly Bill 479, at a press conference on Thursday. It would raise the liquor tax by about a third – to $4.50 from $3.30 per gallon – which they said equates to less than 2 cents per drink. That revenue would offset the cost of exempting diapers and products like tampons and pads from sales taxes, estimated by state officials last year at $55 million, half of which goes to the general fund.

Because it proposes a tax increase, the bill would require a two-thirds vote of the Legislature. Gonzalez Fletcher and Garcia, D-Bell Gardens, urged their colleagues to prioritize “basic necessities” over a luxury item, pointing to significant potential savings for women, families and senior citizens – as much as $100 annually on diapers, for example, enough to pay for a month’s supply.

“No one claims liquor is a basic necessity of life. My period is not optional,” Garcia said. “There is no happy hour for menstruation.”

DCG