California goes full ‘Demolition Man,’ seeks ‘yes means yes’ sexual consent laws for college students

Stallone Demolition Man

Lawmakers in California must love 1993’s Sylvester Stallone flick “Demolition Man,” because they’re now looking into ways to pass “yes means yes” sexual consent laws. For those who are a bit younger, the film includes a scene where Stallone’s John Spartan is awkwardly asked by Sandra Bullock’s Lenina Huxley if he would like to have sex. The two then use a virtual reality headset to refrain from touching during the process. Just give California ten years and the virtual reality technology will be ready for prime time…

The Associated Press reported:

SAN DIEGO (AP) — College students have heard a similar refrain for years in campaigns to stop sexual assault: No means no.

Lawmakers are considering what would be the first-in-the-nation measure requiring all colleges that receive public funds to set a standard for when “yes means yes.” …

Legislation passed by California’s state Senate in May and coming before the Assembly this month would require all schools that receive public funds for student financial assistance to set a so-called “affirmative consent standard” that could be used in investigating and adjudicating sexual assault allegations. That would be defined as “an affirmative, unambiguous and conscious decision” by each party to engage in sexual activity.

Silence or lack of resistance does not constitute consent. The legislation says it’s also not consent if the person is drunk, drugged, unconscious or asleep. …

After some interpreted that as asking people to stop after each kiss to get a verbal agreement before going to the next level, the bill was amended to say consent must be “ongoing” and “can be revoked at any time.”

John F. Banzhaf III, a George Washington University’s Law School professor, rightly says in the piece that the bill, if passed, would “very, very radically change the definition of rape.”

Indeed. We now live in a world where not only do officials believe they should be able to tax you per teaspoon of sugar you consume, but that they should be able to manage your sex life — down to the point where you must get “affirmative, unambiguous” consent while the process is “ongoing.”

At this point it would be easier if California just mandated that everyone have digital “sexual contracts” on hand that could be signed via cell phone apps and revoked by voice command.

The sad thing is, cultural air raid sirens are going off all around us, and the response by politicians is to create more laws.

Take the case of University of California at Berkeley student Meghan Warner, from the AP piece, for instance. She supports the legislation:

She said she was sexually assaulted during her freshman year by two men at a fraternity but didn’t report it because she believed “that unless it was a stranger at night with a weapon who attacked you when you were walking home, that it wasn’t rape. It’s just a crappy thing that happened.” She now runs campus workshops to teach students what constitutes consent.

“Most students don’t know what consent is,” she said. “I’ve asked at the workshops how many people think if a girl is blacked out drunk that it’s OK to have sex with her. The amount of people who raised their hands was just startling.”

If what Ms. Warner says is true, and a “startling” amount of kids on the Progressive UC Berkeley campus think it’s okay to have sex with a woman who blacks out during a party, then that is a problem that can not be adequately addressed by writing “yes means yes” laws; that is a cultural implosion, which requires the kind of spiritual training that is mocked and ridiculed on college campuses.

As G.K. Chesterton wrote in “Orthodoxy”:

“Not only is faith the mother of all worldly energies, but its foes are the fathers of worldly confusion. The secularists have not wrecked divine things; but the secularists have wrecked secular things, if that is any comfort to them. The Titans did not scale heaven; but they laid waste the world.”

Perhaps one day California will come to its senses. If not, they will have only themselves to blame for the creation of a cultural wasteland littered with laws that fail them.

Soda Pop guru John Nese makes the case for limited government

John.Nese

John Nese of Galcos Soda Pop in Los Angeles has an infectiously optimistic vibe to him. He started working there with his father when he was five years old and still has a childlike charm. The store he works for has been around since 1897, so it’s a good bet that he knows a thing or two about running a business.

First things first: he’s able to establish that there is indeed a difference between capitalism and crony capitalism:

About ten or eleven years ago the Pepsi Cola salesman came in. And he said, ‘I got the best buy you’re ever going on a pallet of Pepsi Cola cans. I’m only going to charge you 5.59 a case.’ I said, ‘Thank you, but no thank you. I’m going to send my customer’s down the street to Ralph’s because they’re going to be on sale down there for $1.99 a twelve-pack.’

And he says, ‘Well, you can’t do that. Pepsi Cola is a demand item and your customers are going to demand that you carry Pepsi Cola.’ And I said, ‘My customers are going to be happy I was honest with them and sent them down the street. They can buy them cheaper than I can buy them.’ And after two weeks of really being upset I said, ‘Thank you very much Pepsi Cola for reminding me that I own my shelf space and I can do anything I want.’ …

So I immediately went out and found 25 little brands of soda. Gee whiz, they’re still in glass bottles. I put them on the shelf and people would come in and look at them and say ‘What are you doing with all those old things that don’t sell?’ And when I got to 250 it was ‘Where are you finding them?” So now we have about 500 different kinds of sodas. …

When the American public has a choice, they’re going to try it. … Big Business loves Big Government. They just take the marketplace up, eliminate all the little guys — they run them out of business and then they jack the price ups and control the market. But you look at the candy section it’s Nestle’s, Hershey’s and Mars. Or you look at the soda pop market it’s Coke and Pepsi. My thought had always been that what I wanted to do was to do business with other businesses my size — to make them become unique businesses.

The more expansive the government, the more capitalism is replaced with crony capitalism. People always think that business don’t like government interference, but that’s not true because many times big companies love seeing new laws passed — as long as it benefits them.

Moxie.1884

That dovetails nicely with Mr. Nese’s experience with California’s “Refund Value” laws, which are billed as being necessary to help make a greener world. Is that true?

California.Refund.Value.CRV

Perhaps, to some extent — but consider this:

Who do you think passed the RV laws? You’re going to get me on my soapbox again and then you’re going to have to point the camera up. It wasn’t written for the consumer and it certainly wasn’t written to keep this country green. It was written so Coke and Pepsi wouldn’t have to wash a bottle and they wouldn’t have to make recyclable bottles and they could transfer the cost to the consumer.

I called the recycling center when I got started and said, ‘Listen, I want to put a recycling center in. They bring them back to me and I’ll give them the money and I’ll sell them some more sodas.’

‘Oh, I’m sorry, you can’t do that because you have a recycling center two blocks away.’ I said, ‘Yeah, but they don’t give the full price. I want to give the full price to the customer to get them back to sell them some more!’ And he says, ‘Well, if you did anything like that you’d be in restraint of trade and you can probably get sued by the state.’ If we really cared about the state we would have reuse — not recycling.

So a business owner wants to install his own recycling center in his building, but he can’t because it will somehow be in violation of “restraint of trade” laws? Unbelievable.

How much more green could you get than a guy who sells soda in glass bottles to his local community, who then return those glass bottles to him — so that he could in turn wash them — and sell more? You can’t. And yet, the state of California would likely sue him if he went there.

Finally, John Nese makes perhaps the most important point of all, and it has nothing to do with politics. It’s about life.

People say, ‘Well, you’re here and you’re working all the time.’ And I’m saying, ‘I don’t work. I just play all day long.’ I come in and play.

Do what you love to do, and it won’t seem like work for you. When you do what you love — when you do what you believe you were born to do — getting up in the morning will be a joy. When you do what you love, it shows. It creates a positive feedback loops whereas you contribute more to your area of expertise, coworkers and customers are happy, they reward you, you’re happy and the process begins anew.

Cucumber Soda

Years ago I left a job that I felt in my heart was not in line with where I wanted to be. I took a leap of faith (and a pay cut) to do what I thought would get me there and I couldn’t be happier. There were bumps and bruises along the way, but I know that even if it didn’t work out that I’d have one less regret on my death bed. (I hope to have none.)

If you’re not happy with where you’re at, try and figure out what job you could envision yourself performing that you wouldn’t take a dime to do. When you figure it out, start working toward that goal and years down the road you’ll be one of the few who could say that their job is to “play all day long.” 

‘Hope and Change’ sticker shock hits America: ‘I was all for Obamacare until I found out I was paying for it’

As the sticker shock for Obamacare hits the hordes of people who voted for the president, it is hard to contain the schadenfreude. One way to rein in those feelings and get some perspective is to realize that all Americans will eventually feel the pain of the Affordable Care Act (soon to be referred to as the Not-so Affordable Care Act).

The Los Angeles Times swallows its pride and reports:

Thousands of Californians are discovering what Obamacare will cost them — and many don’t like what they see. …

Fullerton resident Jennifer Harris thought she had a great deal, paying $98 a month for an individual plan through Health Net Inc. She got a rude surprise this month when the company said it would cancel her policy at the end of this year. Her current plan does not conform with the new federal rules, which require more generous levels of coverage.

Now Harris, a self-employed lawyer, must shop for replacement insurance. The cheapest plan she has found will cost her $238 a month. She and her husband don’t qualify for federal premium subsidies because they earn too much money, about $80,000 a year combined.

“It doesn’t seem right to make the middle class pay so much more in order to give health insurance to everybody else,” said Harris, who is three months pregnant. “This increase is simply not affordable.” …

Pam Kehaly, president of Anthem Blue Cross in California, said she received a recent letter from a young woman complaining about a 50% rate hike related to the healthcare law.

“She said, ‘I was all for Obamacare until I found out I was paying for it,'” Kehaly said.

Nearly 2 million Californians have individual insurance, and several hundred thousand of them are losing their health plans in a matter of weeks.

If the vast majority of Americans had health insurance years ago — and they were happy with it — why did the federal government have to ostensibly take over 1/6 of the U.S. economy and reinvent the health care wheel? Answer: it didn’t.

Years ago I didn’t have health insurance through my employer and had to buy it on my own. Why couldn’t the tax code be reformed so individuals who have to pay out of pocket get the same sort of tax relief that employees getting health care through their workplace receive? Why couldn’t health care be reformed so that people who leave a job aren’t automatically dumped from their coverage? If health insurance isn’t portable, why didn’t Congress hone in on that?

Instead of breaking down the health care conundrum down into smaller manageable pieces, Congress created a monster bill that was so vague it required Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to defend it as follows: “[W]e have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what’s in it.”

So Nancy Pelosi didn’t know what was in the bill, and her constituents were like the woman who recently wrote to Anthem Blue Cross in California: “I was all for Obamacare until I found out I was paying for it.”

Sounds like a recipe for disaster, doesn’t it? That’s because it is.

[M]any are frustrated at being forced to give up the plans they have now. They frequently cite assurances given by Obama that Americans could hold on to their health insurance despite the massive overhaul.

“All we’ve been hearing the last three years is if you like your policy you can keep it,” said Deborah Cavallaro, a real estate agent in Westchester. “I’m infuriated because I was lied to.”

Yes, you were lied to. How does it feel?

To recap:

  • Congress passed a bill that turned over vasts amounts of power to the federal government.
  • Its members were ignorant of the specifics.
  • Voters were led to believe someone else would pay for it.
  • Voters were told  that they could keep their policies if they liked them.
  • Voters are now finding out that they are paying for it and that the policies they’re happy with are not safe at all.
  • Voters are now being told that the individuals who predicted all of this from day one are “extremists” who should not be listened to.

Feeling sick to your stomach, California? Good. You should. I suggest taking Economics 101 and then doing something about it.

Related: Obamacare website like ‘Sloth’ death from Brad Pitt’s ‘Seven’ — and no one gets fired

California rolls out ‘slow cameras’ despite driver protests

Californians are livid over many of the new 'slow cameras' that will see the light of day before the year is up, thanks to new legislation by liberal members of its state legislature. Driver's will face up to a $100 fine for driving too slowly, although supporters contend that it's actually a deal, as fines for driving too quickly usually deliver citations above $250.

As the San Francisco Gate reported not long ago, Californians are no stranger to red light and speed cameras. In fact, the Golden State has the most expensive red light camera in existence, generating $3 million for the city of Oakland each year.

Now, in addition to speed camera’s, California’s liberal politicians recently gave the green light to “slow cameras,” which they claim will a.) make the roads safer and b.) raise much-needed cash for a number of municipalities. According to the laws, any driver snapped going too slow on a given road will be fined $100 dollars, although points will not be added to their license and the infractions will not affect their car insurance premiums. Critics complain that in the few areas that already have the devices that ‘slow traps’ have been created in such a way that nervous drivers have been tricked into setting off ‘speed traps’ placed suspiciously up the road—a clear indicator that it’s cash, and not safety, that was the inspiration for the bill.

State representatives were unwilling to talk, but House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-C.A.), said she would go on record:

California has always led the way. It’s been the vanguard of Progressive thought from its inception. Sure, most Americans associate California with perpetual debt, brown outs and earthquakes, but all of those can be traced back to Republicans—including the earthquakes; geologists speculate that the GOP’s environmental policies have adverse repercussions on dip-slip and strike-slip faults.

Just as Americans will one day see the unreliable nature of wind power as an asset, I believe even the reddest of red states will see the value of slow cameras along our nation’s roadways. Ultimately, we plan to have cameras that will ensure drivers keep their speed consistent with what regulators deem the most fuel-efficient for any given stretch of road, which would save money, the environment and lives.

Critics of California’s slow cameras note that it was just a year ago that ‘light camera’ legislation was narrowly defeated, a bill that would have ensured residents turned off lamps and televisions when they exited rooms within their home. Conservatives see such efforts as further attempts by central planners to control the daily activities of free people, a charge Democrats vehemently deny.

According to an unnamed sources involved with the unionized, slow-light contractors hired by the city, 400 cameras will be in place throughout the state by the end of 2012.