It takes effect Thursday, but, as some had predicted, the hamburger chain seems to be evading its reach fairly easily just by assigning a separate price to the toy. [SF Weekly]
{ 9 comments }
Chronicling the high cost of our legal system
Posts tagged as:
It takes effect Thursday, but, as some had predicted, the hamburger chain seems to be evading its reach fairly easily just by assigning a separate price to the toy. [SF Weekly]
{ 9 comments }
The San Francisco board of supervisors will consider a measure that would ban the sale of all pets in the city [L.A. Times, Outdoor Life, Telegraph (U.K.)] (& welcome Above the Law readers)
{ 3 comments }
{ 1 comment }
Eugene Volokh has a legal analysis of the ballot proposal, which includes no religious-belief exemption. More: Dave Hoffman.
{ 18 comments }
San Francisco’s public contracting requirements could drive both taxpayers and vendors batty: “[C]ity purchasing policies, if followed, would mean paying about $240 for getting a copy of a key that actually cost a worker $1.35 to get done at a hardware store on his break,” according to one whistleblowing employee. [SF Chronicle via Matt Welch]
“The Electronic Frontier Foundation joined civil liberties and privacy groups in criticizing a proposal from the San Francisco Entertainment Commission that would require all venues with an occupancy of over 100 people to record the faces of all patrons and employees and scan their ID’s for storage in a database which they must hand over to law enforcement on request. … Events with strong cultural, ideological, and political components are frequently held at venues that would be affected by these rules.” [EFF]
{ 5 comments }
I’m scheduled to be a guest on two of the nation’s leading radio programs, both California-based: Dennis Prager’s today (Tuesday) (broadcast times vary; find a station), and Ronn Owens at San Francisco’s KGO AM 810 tomorrow (Wednesday) at 11 a.m. Pacific. Tune in and listen!
P.S. Both shows were a pleasure; host Prager generously singled out the book as “so devastating” and “mandatory reading,” and said it was “difficult to overstate the importance of this book.”
{ 1 comment }
{ 5 comments }
Displaying a healthy sense of the absurdity of it all.
{ 1 comment }
A nation laughs, even if many kids don’t. [CNN, earlier] More: “Why the government has no business banning Happy Meals” [Steve Chapman] “Banning Happy Meals Could Be Bad for Kids” [Atlantic Wire]
{ 3 comments }
Carrying out its previously reported threat. [L.A. Times] More: Atlantic Wire; BoingBoing (with “fatwa” Photoshop); Lowering the Bar.
{ 10 comments }
San Francisco considers following Santa Clara County’s ban on most Happy Meals [Ken at Popehat] There’s also a new protest website entitled Free To Choose Our Meals.
{ 1 comment }
{ 3 comments }
Study after study finds no health effects to worry about, but the city by the Bay wants warnings anyway. [Bruce Nye, Ted Frank/PoL]
{ 3 comments }
“For several years, [defendant Susana] Chung ‘acted as the conduit’ of fraudulent insurance claims filed in connection with staged crashes in Northern California, said Larry Blazer, an Alameda County assistant district attorney.” Nearly 100 persons, mostly “victims” of bogus accidents but also including three chiropractors, have been found guilty in the scheme. [San Francisco Chronicle, Oakland Tribune via ABA Journal]
{ 3 comments }
San Francisco warns against infused bitters, the New York City health department cracks down on raw egg whites, and Virginia’s ABC state commission keeps many exotic spirits out of reach (Reason.tv via Reason “Hit and Run”).