Monthly Archives: September 2016

a lie built right into the name

So the opponents of Prop. V have almost convinced me to support it.

Let me back up a bit.

Proposition V is going to be on the ballot this November here in San Francisco. It’s a city-level tax on sugar-sweetened beverages, which for this purpose is being defined as “a beverage that contains added sugar and 25 or more calories per 12 ounces.” When you look at the list of things that are exempt it becomes quite clear that this is specifically targeting soda pop (I don’t even remember the last time I saw those two words together, let alone wrote them myself. Weird.) and other junk-food drinks. Diet soda, alcohol, and probably anything you think of as a healthy soft drink are not subject to it.

There are a lot of valid and interesting points of discussion to this proposal, and I think some good conversations could be had about it, but that’s not what I’m here to talk about. I’m here to talk about the campaign against it, specifically the mailings I’ve been getting that were paid for by No on V, Enough is Enough: Don’t Tax Our Groceries, with Major Funding by American Beverage Association California PAC.

That’s seriously what it says. Take a moment to appreciate that at some point there had to be a committee meeting in which people deliberately chose that name. On purpose. Read the rest of this entry

Article 1: Section 7

Welcome back! This took quite a bit longer than expected, things have been busy. Sorry about that.

Section 7 is getting its own post, partly because big things are happening in it, and partly because I’m getting tired of digging into the last post to see where I am. Maybe I’ll just start doing one post per section.

As usual, I am not an expert or a legal scholar, or even particularly bright. No law student should be using this as research, and any who do deserve the grade they get for it.

Anyway, here we go!  Read the rest of this entry

%d bloggers like this: