State Senator Bill Monning, D-Carmel, and seven of his Democratic colleagues have proposed the Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Safety Warning Act, which would prevent sodas from being sold in California, unless they include a warning label on the potential health hazards. The proposed warning label would read:

“STATE OF CALIFORNIA SAFETY WARNING: Drinking beverages with added sugar(s) contributes to obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay.”

That’s not a formatting error. The bill mandates the first five words be all caps and that the entire notice appear in bold type.

Senate Bill 203 would require all “sugar-sweetened beverages” to include the warning label on its packaging and brandish the same disclaimer on all vending machines and soda dispensers that sell “sugar-sweetened” beverages. Violators would be fined anywhere from $50 to $500 per offense, with the proceeds going to a new bureaucracy, the Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Safety Warning Fund.

Warning label to combat diabetes epidemic

Proponents contend warning labels on sodas and other beverages will help stem the state’s growing diabetes epidemic.

“Given the rock solid scientific evidence showing the dangers of sugary beverages, the state of California has a responsibility to inform consumers about products proven to be harmful to the public’s health,” Monning said in a press release. “This bill will give Californians the at-a-glance information they need to make more healthful choices every day.”

The legislation pegs the state’s cost of diabetes at roughly $24.5 billion per year and puts the blame squarely on sodas.

“California adults who drink one soda or more per day are 27 percent more likely to be overweight or obese, regardless of income or ethnicity,” the legislation declares. “A 20-ounce bottle of soda contains the equivalent of approximately 17 teaspoons of sugar. Yet, the American Heart Association recommends that Americans consume no more than five to nine teaspoons of sugar per day.”

Bill only targets ‘sugar-sweetened,’ not all sugary beverages

While the bill singles out sodas and sugar-added drinks, it ignores other beverages with similar sugar content. Excluded from the definition of “sugar-sweetened beverages” are drinks containing 100 percent natural fruit or vegetable juice with no added caloric sweeteners as well as dietary supplements, infant formula, milk and milk substitutes.

“We oppose singling out sugar-sweetened beverages for this warning label,” Robert Achermann, executive director of the California/Nevada Beverage Association, told the Santa Cruz Sentinel.

A recent study in the British Medical Journal found milk drinkers at a greater risk of cancer and heart disease. According to Forbes, “The good milk drinkers were more likely to die from heart disease and cancer, and among the women, the milk drinkers suffered more overall fractures and hip fractures.”

Some nutrition experts have encouraged school districts to ban flavored milk, which can contain as much sugar as Coca-Cola.

“Chocolate milk is soda in drag,” Ann Cooper, director of nutrition services for the Boulder Valley School District, told the Associated Press. “It works as a treat in homes, but it doesn’t belong in schools.”

Stomach can’t differentiate between fruit juice and soda

Health experts have raised concerns about sodas because of their sugar content, not carbonation. And the human body doesn’t distinguish between liquids with natural sugars and those with artificially added sugar.

Last year, Susan Jebb, who leads a nutrition and obesity unit at Cambridge University, urged the British government to drop fruit juice from its recommended five-a-day servings of fruit and vegetables, according to The Guardian.

“Fruit juice isn’t the same as intact fruit and it has as much sugar as many classical sugar drinks,” said Jebb, a nutrition expert. “It is also absorbed very fast, so by the time it gets to your stomach your body doesn’t know whether it’s Coca-Cola or orange juice, frankly.”

That’s backed up by 2014 research from Glasgow University which, according to the Daily Mail, found fruit juice is “potentially ‘just as bad for you’ as sugary, sweetened drinks.”

“Fruit juice has a similar energy density and sugar content to other sugary drinks,” said Naveed Sattar, a Glasgow University professor of metabolic medicine and one of the study’s co-authors. His example: 250 milliliters of apple juice typically contains 110 calories and 26 grams of sugar; and 250 milliliters of cola typically contains 105 calories and 26.5 grams of sugar.”

Researchers concluded drinking fruit juice is “probably counter-productive” and “fuels the perception that drinking fruit juice is good for health.”

Proposed warning label misleading

Even members of the medical community that back the measure attack “sugary drinks,” not sugar-sweetened drinks.

“When you have medical professionals, public health officials and an overwhelming body of science all pointing to sugary drinks as the leading contributor to the skyrocketing diabetes epidemic, California must take action,” said Dr. Harold Goldstein, executive director of the California Center for Public Health Advocacy, which is sponsoring the warning label mandate.

If the concern is diabetes, the legislation could have the side effect of encouraging more people to switch to beverages without the warning label, such as fruit juice. Obesity expert Dr. Robert Lustig told NPR News that “calorie-for-calorie, 100 percent orange juice is worse for you than soda.”

“High-fructose corn syrup is only available in the United States, Japan, Canada and very limited exposure in parts of Europe,” Lustig told NPR’s Science Friday host Ira Flatow. The corn syrup is a common sugary additive in drinks and food. “And guess what? The whole world now has obesity and metabolic syndrome. So it’s not about high-fructose corn syrup per se.”

In addition to Monning, the bill is co-sponsored by Democratic Sens. Mark Leno of San Francisco, Holly Mitchell of Los Angeles, Dr. Richard Pan of Sacramento and Fran Pavley of Calabasas; as well as by Democratic Assemblymen David Chiu of San Francisco, Das Williams of Santa Barbara and Jim Wood of Healdsburg.

But when you try to make people live by these ideals, a lot of them don’t like it — including those normally sympathetic to the left. This very much includes the young people inspired by America’s first nonwhite president, whose 2008 and 2012 campaigns evoked idealism and devotion to the greater good.

I appreciate the “tyranny of the anecdote” theory that holds that vivid personal experiences shouldn’t lead someone to exaggerate their relevance. I have to a degree discounted my exposure to how much students and parents don’t like how their local school districts are following an Obama administration edict to make school lunches more healthy.

But ever since the L.A. Times had a story in late 2011 in which students compared their lunches to “dog food,” I’ve paid close attention to the reaction around the nation. Recently, when I did a Google search of such stories, I was struck by their uniformity.

The lead paragraph is almost always about a really meager, unappetizing portion that a school district is offering, with the accompanying photo showing what the gripes are about. The second is usually about a district official defending the lunches and/or saying the Obama administration left it no choice.

And the third paragraph? Usually, it’s a student declaring the lunches were ridiculously small or unappetizing or both.

Journalism convention would be to later return to the question of student perspective and cite a student who defends the Obama policy. But that only can take place if such a student exists.

I’m now read 100-plus stories about school lunch complaints, and I’ve never seen one student defend the administration.

A think tank that likes the Obama policy says evidence suggests complaints are dwindling. But I still haven’t heard a parent or a student stick up for the policy.

This just might have long-term political effects. Consultants from the mid-1960s to 1972 used to say there was nothing like the military draft to focus the the attention of high school kids. Just about nothing since has caught students’ attention as the Selective Service System has faded from relevance.

Obviously, the stakes aren’t comparable in the student lunch fight. It isn’t about kids possibly dying in a pointless war. But people who focus on the size of the stakes don’t understand how even issues that seem minor can generate intense feelings. There are people who have literally no complaints about Obama besides how their kids hate lunch. There are also people who have no strong feelings about politics but hate the Obama lunch policy because of what their kids say.

Their children seem unlikely to be future voters who will have good feelings about Barack Obama and the Democratic Party.

When I was a student at a well-regarded public high school, there was nothing we griped more about than lunch. The pizza was so awful it seemed like a personal violation. If I thought it was Jimmy Carter’s fault, I would have soured on him sooner than I did.

That’s why one of my favorite stories in many years was this December 2011 L.A. Times account of the student revolt over school lunches forced on them by Nanny State food fascists:

“It’s lunchtime at Van Nuys High School and students stream into the cafeteria to check out the day’s fare: black bean burgers, tostada salad, fresh pears and other items on a new healthful menu introduced this year by the Los Angeles Unified School District.

“But Iraides Renteria and Mayra Gutierrez don’t even bother to line up. Iraides said the school food previously made her throw up, and Mayra calls it ‘nasty, rotty stuff.’ So what do they eat? The juniors pull three bags of Flamin’ Hot Cheetos and soda from their backpacks. ….

“For many students, L.A. Unified’s trailblazing introduction of healthful school lunches has been a flop. Earlier this year, the district got rid of chocolate and strawberry milk, chicken nuggets, corn dogs, nachos and other food high in fat, sugar and sodium. Instead, district chefs concocted such healthful alternatives as vegetarian curries and tamales, quinoa salads and pad Thai noodles. ….

“’It’s nasty, nasty,’ said Andre, a member of InnerCity Struggle, an East L.A. nonprofit working to improve school lunch access and quality. …. ‘Like dog food,’ said Christian Campus, 14.”

A form of massive civil disobedience

Now a government report says LAUSD-style school-food policies championed by first lady Michelle Obama and the public-health establishment have triggered what can be called massive civil disobedience:

“Intimidation tactics targeting the employees of major corporations are nothing new and have a history of success: Indeed, animal rights activists achieved some major victories in securing the closure of animal testing facilities in the ’90s and early 2000s through the intimidation of key investors. This intimidation was deemed terrorism, but, hey, it worked. The Google protesters appear to be paying homage to this model. Their manifesto ends, ‘We’re coming for you next,’ and echo the Animal Liberation Front’s haunting slogan, ‘We are everywhere.’ …

“Whether targeting individual Google employees is an effective tactic is not really my interest here. Certainly, I concede that it will hardly uproot Google’s hegemonic position, nor will the surveillance state be dismantled. Andrew Leonard cited one Bay Area resident describing the latest militant anti-Google  protest as ‘a group of people violently broaching civic norms.’ I say: precisely. Civic norms in our current epoch entail the forgoing of privacy, the enabling of a totalized surveillance state, the steady displacement of poor residents by wealthier implants in all major metropolises. The world’s richest 85 people has as much wealth as half the world’s population put together. These are our current civic norms; they deserve some violent broaching.”

What’s striking about this isn’t just Lennard’s endorsement of terrorism. It’s her righteous tone — her confident presumption that she holds the moral high ground.

It may be far more excessive, but her prose shares the tone of the Nanny Staters who want to tell people how to live.

I’m appalled by this. But I also welcome it. What’s happening in San Francisco is only likely to further the tech community’s embrace of libertarian values.

If the biggest wealth creators in the 21st century strongly believe in individual liberty and value the entrepreneurial spirit more than the glories of government, that’s a good thing.

By Chris Reed

As a libertarian who supports gay marriage, I’m not a social conservative cultural warrior. That said, I still think there’s something extremely troubling about government power being used to punish those whose views are different than the California political mainstream. That’s just what state Sen. Ricardo Lara wants to do, AP reports:

“SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — California lawmakers are considering taking some tax exemptions away from youth groups that do not accept gay, transgender or atheist members — a move intended to pressure the Boy Scouts of America to lift its ban on gay Scouts and troop leaders.

“Some cities have withdrawn free rent and other subsidies from the Boy Scouts over the years, but legislation introduced by state Sen. Ricardo Lara would make California the first state to target the Scouts for its anti-gay policy.

“The Long Beach Democrat’s bill, SB 323, is scheduled for its first committee hearing on Wednesday. …

“The legislation, also known as the Youth Equality Act, would deny tax-exempt status to nonprofit youth groups that discriminate on the basis of gender identity, race, sexual orientation, nationality, religion or religious affiliation.

“As a result, it would require those organizations to pay corporate taxes on donations, membership dues, camp fees and other sources of income, and to obtain sellers permits and pay sales taxes on food, beverages and homemade items sold at fundraisers. Because all tax returns are private in California, supporters do not know how big a tax hit the Boy Scouts would take if the proposal passes.

“Churches that sponsor Boy Scouts troops would not lose their underlying tax-exempt status, but an array of nonprofits, ranging from the Young Men’s Christian Association and Pop Warner football to the American Youth Soccer Association and 4-H clubs would have their tax returns and membership policies scrutinized by the state Franchise Tax Board, according to an analysis by the Senate Governance and Finance Committee.”

So much for tolerance of divergent views. The authoritarian impulse on the left seems to grow stronger by the day. The left knows what’s best, and you’d better agree — or else.

By Chris Reed

This Associated Press story about student uprisings against federal school-lunch rules is one more reminder of how oblivious the statist left is about how people think. Of course kids want filling meals — not meals that Michelle Obama would adjudge as sufficient and character-building.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Agriculture Department is responding to criticism over new school lunch rules by allowing more grains and meat in kids’ meals.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack told members of Congress in a letter Friday that the department will do away with daily and weekly limits of meats and grains. Several lawmakers wrote the department after the new rules went into effect in September saying kids aren’t getting enough to eat.

School administrators also complained, saying set maximums on grains and meats are too limiting as they try to plan daily meals.

But nothing will top the L.A. Times story from November 2011 over the student revolt against the glop served by L.A. Unified:

“It’s lunchtime at Van Nuys High School and students stream into the cafeteria to check out the day’s fare: black bean burgers, tostada salad, fresh pears and other items on a new healthful menu introduced this year by the Los Angeles Unified School District. But Iraides Renteria and Mayra Gutierrez don’t even bother to line up. Iraides said the school food previously made her throw up, and Mayra calls it ‘nasty, rotty stuff.’ So what do they eat? The juniors pull three bags of Flamin’ Hot Cheetos and soda from their backpacks. ….

“For many students, L.A. Unified’s trailblazing introduction of healthful school lunches has been a flop. Earlier this year, the district got rid of chocolate and strawberry milk, chicken nuggets, corn dogs, nachos and other food high in fat, sugar and sodium. Instead, district chefs concocted such healthful alternatives as vegetarian curries and tamales, quinoa salads and pad Thai noodles. ….

“’It’s nasty, nasty,’ said Andre, a member of InnerCity Struggle, an East L.A. nonprofit working to improve school lunch access and quality. …. ‘Like dog food,’ said Christian Campus, 14, adding that he and his football teammates eat the lunches only to sustain them through practice.

Like dog food!

By Steven Greenhut

SACRAMENTO — The main problem with the California Legislature is not that it spends your money far faster than it comes in, or that much of it is squandered on absurd programs and on the enrichment of those Californians who work for the state. Those are symptoms of the real problem, which is that the Legislature recognizes no natural limits on its power.

If a legislator doesn’t like something, expect a proposal to ban it. If a legislator likes a particular idea, expect plans to build a bureaucracy to implement it.

The only issues off the table involve fixing those budgetary and governmental problems that the state government is legitimately tasked with handling.

When you see supposedly serious efforts to address a problem, such as the Legislature’s last-minute embrace of public-employee pension reform, a closer look reveals such reform is just a fig leaf covering something else.

This particular reform package does little but was passed after polls showed the governor’s tax-increase initiative (Proposition 30) for November was on thin ice. The pension bill is designed to help a political campaign — “Look, voters, we are serious about reforming government, so go ahead and vote yourself (or your wealthier neighbors) a hefty tax hike!”

So another legislative session comes to a close, and a load of new rules and regulations is headed to Gov. Jerry Brown for his signature or veto. California bans and regulations, including those emanating from local governments, have gotten so out of hand that regulation-happy New Yorkers at the New York Times now are making fun of our state.

“Once known for its sunny, freewheeling disposition — a live-and-let-live sensibility rooted in Western ideals and relied upon by generations of surfer dudes and misbehaving Hollywood stars — this region has long been as regulated as anywhere,” the Times reported recently. “Lately, however, cities, school districts and even libraries have been outlawing chunks of what used to pass here for birthright at a startling clip.”

The article focused on new local bans on everything ranging from fire pits on the sand at Newport Beach to the wearing of obnoxious perfumes in libraries in Southern California. But the Times also mentioned the Legislature’s recent “ban on psychotherapy aimed at making gay teenagers straight” as a glaring example of the Capitol’s ban-it mentality.

Invading bedrooms

One of the very few benefits of having liberal Democrats running everything in California, as the cliché goes, is that they won’t be meddling in our bedrooms. But the ban on gay-conversion therapy shows that liberal activists can be even more meddlesome in people’s personal lives than conservatives.

If I were a gay teenager and wanted to become straight, why shouldn’t I be able to go to a licensed psychologist to try out the therapy? Are families incapable of making personal decisions without the oversight of regulators and legislators?

As one psychologist told the Wall Street Journal with regard to the anti-gay therapy, “People report that the therapies exacerbate their own struggles and distress.” He said it can hurt teen’s self-esteem and sense of well-being.

Lots of things can harm our self-esteem, but that doesn’t mean the Legislature should ban them. Huge budget deficits and pension liabilities hurt my psychological sense of well-being — but I don’t expect the Legislature to assuage my feelings by dealing with those matters, even though they are issues that legislators urgently should be handling.

Another psychologist quoted by the New York Times got it right when he called the ban an attempt to intimidate therapists and undermine parental rights.

Sen. Ted Lieu

Sen. Ted Lieu, the Torrance Democrat who authored the gay-conversion therapy ban, called the therapy “quackery,” but now teens and parents are more likely to head to real quacks — shamans without licenses or training.

Or they will turn to religious practitioners. Even California’s legislators don’t have the power to ban therapy in those settings, thanks to religious freedoms.

Lieu’s office recently sent out a statement boasting of the 17 bills he authored that have been approved by the Legislature. But Lieu, who apparently is competing for the title of “California’s Ultimate Nanny,” is sadly typical in Sacramento.

In addition to the gay psychotherapy ban, Lieu is proud of his bills that crack down on used-car dealers who offer high-interest-rate loans to their customers, and forbid landlords from requiring tenants to pay their rent online. Is there no area of life, not matter how petty, that willing buyers and willing sellers can’t negotiate without governmental interference?

Lieu also authored a bill to speed up state payments to people who are victims of corporate fraudsters — “smooth-talking hustlers,” as Lieu refers to them. I see nothing in his list of bills that protects California residents from the smooth-talking hustlers who run the Capitol, and promise us every good and noble thing known to mankind, but can’t even deliver us an honestly balanced budget.

Last December, Lieu threatened legislative action against the Lowe’s home-improvement chain after it pulled its ads from a TV show called “All American Muslim.” Even if you accept the always politically correct Lieu’s contention that pulling the ads was bigoted, shouldn’t private companies have the right to pick and choose where they advertise?

Lieu did author one good bill, which celebrates the anniversary of the signing of the U.S. Constitution. That makes it even more ironic that he and his allies spent most of the legislative year shredding the values in the document they want to celebrate.

The Constitution was designed to put boundaries around government so that it protects our life, liberty and property without intruding on our freedoms. California’s government, in its hubris, recognizes no such limits. Until Californians rediscover the importance of limiting their government, we will be at the mercy of the petty totalitarians who run the Capitol.

Steven Greenhut is vice president of journalism at the Franklin Center for Government and Public

Integrity; write to him at steven.greenhut@franklincenterhq.org.

By Katy Grimes

With cities all over the state closing community swimming pools because of budget cuts, a California lawmaker is pushing a bill requiring owners of public swimming pools to employ a “pool operator.”

California politicians have made it very clear that the residents of the state are not capable of managing their own affairs or those of their children and families. Consequently lawmakers have passed bans on smoking and plastic bag use, require fitted sheets in hotels, demanded mandatory breaks periods for babysitters, imposed regulations on fast food, required California public schools to serve breakfast, lunch, snacks, and dinners, and have even written laws requiring mandatory spaying and neutering of pets.

The pool police

AB 1726, by Assemblyman Michael Allen, D-Sonoma County, “establishes the Public Pool Health and Safety Act of 2012 which requires an owner of a public swimming pool, to employ at least one qualified pool operator,” according to the bill analysis.

But hiring a pool operator isn’t enough; the so-called pool operator must complete and pass a 14-hour pool health and safety course, register with a state agency, and pay a fee to that agency.

The “agency” referred to in AB 1726 is the State Department of Public Health, which already is tasked with supervising the sanitation, healthfulness, and safety of public swimming pools. Existing law already requires county health officers to enforce the public health department regulations.

In a not-so-subtle attempt to expand state government even more, the bill states that because “every year thousands of swimmers become sick from contaminated water, are injured from improperly maintained pools, or drown because of inadequate or unenforced pool safety measures,” more regulation is needed for the 65,000 swimming pools, wading pools, water attractions and interactive fountains in California.

The 14-hours of “pool operator” instruction must include training about “disinfection, water chemistry, water clarity, water temperature, operation and maintenance of mechanical systems, health and safety, including recreational water illness prevention, risk management, record keeping, chemical safety, entrapment prevention, electrical safety, rescue equipment, injury prevention, drowning prevention, barriers, signage and depth markers, facility sanitation, and emergency response; and, regulations, aquatic facility types, daily or routine operations, preventive maintenance, weatherizing, aquatic facility renovation and design, heating, and air circulation.”

When the training is completed, the pool operator will be a qualified Emergency Medical Technician, engineer, pool building contractor, chemist and lifeguard.

Lawmakers must be desensitized to even consider this bill at a time when the state has a $16 billion budget deficit and 11 percent unemployment. And California lawmakers continue to receive highly negative job ratings. According to the February 25 California Legislature approval ratings by Field Poll,  “[T]hree times as many voters disapprove (64 percent) of its performance as approve (22 percent).”

AB 1726 originally would have established new state regulations only for the operation of swimming pools in rental housing communities, but was amended after Apartment Association groups opposed being singled out by the bill.  The recently adopted amendments now exempt rental housing from its provisions, and define a “public swimming pool” as:

a) It is not a private pool.
b) It is operated by a public entity or is a place of public accommodation.
c) It is not a pool that is located within a public lodging providing no more than 15 rooms for public accommodation.

The California Hotel and Lodging Association and the California Association of RV Parks and Campgrounds oppose AB 1726 and see it as unnecessary “as both the market and current practice police the sanitary conditions of pools.” The RV Association also points out the certification course is costly at more than $400, and that the bill’s sponsor, as a certification training course provider, stands to financially benefit from the new training requirement.

The sponsor of the bill is the National Swimming Pool Foundation, which claims that AB 1726 “is necessary to help prevent drowning, injuries and the spread of  illnesses at public swimming pools and spas by ensuring that all public pools are maintained by well-trained pool operators.”

The National Swimming Pool Foundation offers the required 14-hour pool operator training and certification course.

Implications of the bill

Looking deeper into the bill reveals a much larger issue than just clean pool water. Taken out of the bill’s definition of a public swimming pool was federal Americans With Disabilities Act language: “‘Public swimming pool’ means a pool that complies with all of the following characteristics: (A) It is not a private pool.  It is operated by a public entity or that is a place of public accommodation to which the federal Americans with Disabilities Act applies .

David Miller with Allen’s office said that the ADA protections still apply, and they only removed the language from this bill because protections are always changing.

This is true.

The Washington Examiner recently reported that the Obama Administration’s Department of Justice issued a new guideline on January 31 interpreting a provision of the ADA, that now requires all operators of publicly accessible swimming pools—including cities, homeowners’ associations, hotels, spas, and gyms—to install a permanent fixed lift for the disabled, estimated to cost between $8,000 and $20,000 each.

“All 300,000 public pools in the United States must install a permanent fixed lift,” the Examiner said. “The deadline for compliance is tomorrow, March 15. Call it ‘Poolmageddon.'”

This is very interesting because last week the the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing about a bill to curb ADA lawsuit abuses. A long line of ADA activists testified in opposition to SB 1186, and several told about being denied access to hotel and public swimming pools.

Sen. Bob Dutton, R-Rancho Cucamonga, and Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, joined forces and coauthored SB 1186, designed to curb abusive ADA lawsuits in California. Most of the ADA activists were opposed to the bill. And as distressing as much of the personal testimony was, it seemed carefully scripted.

The Examiner reported, “Compliance with the rule requires pool owners to have a lift for each ‘water element’ in their facility. So if your local community pool also has a spa, both the spa and the pool must be ‘accessible.’ But if you have two spas, don’t worry, only one lift is required.”

Apparently, most of the businesses with swimming pool pools were led to believe that, as long as they had one portable lift available, they were in compliance. “Pool owners claim they were led to believe that, as long as they had one device that could be wheeled out whenever someone needed help getting into or out of a pool or spa, there would be no need intrusive permanent fixtures,” the Examiner reported.

But then the proverbial organic substance hit the electric wind machine when the Department of Justice more narrowly defined the ADA requirements, leaving as many as 300,000 swimming pools potentially out of compliance this summer.

Hotels, public swimming pools, gyms and all public pools, with only one lift for the disabled, are fearful of more “drive-by” ADA lawsuits. Ironically, these lawsuits are what Steinberg and Dutton are trying to put an end to.

You know how regulated the people of California are when the federal government, the state, and millions of hungry trial lawyers go after swimming pools.

Songs and books have been written about the importance of living every day as if it will be your last. While a seemingly noble concept, living out each day indulging in special moments and treats instead of addressing responsibilities could be seen as a little self-indulgent.

However, living as a liberal would be much more accepted and easier, far more self-satisfying and approved by the mass media.

Being a conservative in California is just too much work.

But before I fully tap into my inner liberal, I will need to practice dropping the f-bomb in casual conversation more frequently, brush up on making stinging personal attacks against people I dislike or disagree with and watch more vile television programs like “Two and a Half Men.”

Living like a liberal is going to be easy and fun, but the To-Do list is long.

It’s Time To Demand A Free Education

Because California needs one more smarmy, liberal lawyer, I plan on signing up for law school. To pay for tuition and books, as well as my considerable personal expenses while I attend, I will need massive student loans and all of the Cal-Grants I can get my hands on.

In order to qualify for the grants, I will have to dump my husband and quit my job. Life will be more enjoyable going to school instead of working, while maintaining a well-deserved and very active social life. The divorce will help seal the necessary indigence requirement for loan and grant qualification, since I am not considered part of a protected minority class.

Meet Your New Neighborhood Nanny

Because I know what’s best for all of my neighbors, friends and family, I will practice being everyone’s neighborhood nanny, beginning with turning in all of the fireplace-users and water violators in my neighborhood.

Next, I will lead the fight for water meter installation on every home in the city, usage limiters on the heating and air conditioning systems in each of the 6,000 homes in my neighborhood, as well as the requisite solar systems on the rooftops, and home water storage and recycling systems.

Every neighbor should be composting, as well.

While I will work to make sure that tiny, white twinkle lights are still allowed on homes during the generic winter holiday, no Nativity scenes, plastic Santas or Frostys will be allowed.

This neighborhood nanny will work to ban all political signs from neighbors’ lawns, because isn’t everyone who matters already liberal?

It’s All About ‘Green’

I will buy a Chevy Volt — no, I’ll buy a Tesla. I am worth the best. I will just add the $109,000 onto my student loans. The carbon offset credits from the purchase should cover me until 2050.

I will shame my “ex-husband” into dumping his SUV. He can drive a Prius like everyone else in the neighborhood.

The Journalist In Me

I will subscribe to the New York Times and the Washington Post, and start out every day listening to NPR for daily liberal talking points, and voting tips.

I will no longer need to do my own research on important economic trends, energy independence, social issues or global warming.  Like all other liberals, I will be able to get up every morning and get my fill of liberal politics fed to me as I eat my daily ration of organic multi-grain cereal with pesticide-free banana slices.

Tapping My Inner Vegan

Since I am already a vegetarian, it’s time to force my righteously healthy eating habits on everyone I encounter. It is not enough to make a scene in a restaurant when demanding special preparation of my food orders, it’s time to demand that restaurants feed everyone the way I eat.

Dreamy Social Issues

As a soon-to-be-liberal-lawyer-in-training, I plan on practicing manipulation of the law, and will demand that the government take care of everyone who wants or needs all social services.

The environment — especially the coast — will take precedence over the people of California.  We must save the ocean, save the whales, save the spotted owl, save the desert tortoise, save the Delta Smelt, save the Redwoods and Sequoias and save Malibu and Carmel while we’re at it.

Animals and prisoners have rights too. And state employees deserve their own Bill of Rights.

The Occupier In Me

Note to self: Meet up with local Occupiers to protest for a free education, free healthcare coverage, a free home, free transportation and free coffee from Starbuck’s.

Removal of the Conservative Outer Layer

The need to liberate my stodgy, conservative self is overpowering. I vow to give away my sensible dresses and slacks in exchange for more grungy, man-of-the-people clothes. Then I will stop wearing makeup, nail polish and hair products that are tested on laboratory animals. I will replace my fascist gold earrings with grommets. I’ll pierce my nose, lip, and cheek and get a sleeve of tattoos on my left arm … because I am left-handed.

The best part of this fashion change is that I won’t have to do laundry as frequently, and jewelry changes will be nil.

Liberal Mom Redux

I am going to need to talk my son into quitting the Navy. I don’t know how a kid who attended Montessori School in kindergarten found his way into the Navy.

I must have fed him too much meat when he was a child.

Rebirth As A Feminist

Becoming a card-carrying feminist should be the most fun part of being liberal: 1) Always play the victim; 2) Attack conservative women for their lofty morals and disciplined work ethic; 3) Be mean to other women; 4) Be meaner to men; 5) Hate myself for having a uterus; 6) Turn my boy children into wimps; 7) Replace husband with a girlfriend.

Tax The Rich

As an angry, activist, feminist lawyer, I will pursue changes to the tax code requiring the 1 percenters to pay more than their fair share of taxes. The rich have been enjoying their money for too long, and need to spread some of that love around.

Crass Is Cool

Lastly, I am going to contact talk radio hosts across America, and convince them to become comedians — or at least call themselves comedians. Once everyone knows they are comedians, they can say anything they want — crass, gross, disgusting, distasteful and vulgar things — and get away with it. They wouldn’t even have to be funny.

As a liberal, I’ll be able to talk like a sailor anywhere I want. I might even start watching Bill Maher without recoiling in disgust.

Rebirth as a liberal is going to be fun and easier. And maybe, just maybe, some of my old friends and dinner party acquaintances will start talking to me again. Sometimes I miss being part of the über-popular crowd.

— Katy Grimes

By DAVE ROBERTS

A food fight has broken out between a liberal Democratic assemblyman and a liberal Democratic San Francisco supervisor over the banning of food vending trucks near schools. It’s a battle of nanny government officials — with the collateral damage being the livelihoods of mostly minority business people and the appetites of kids who just want something tasty to eat.

Last month Assemblyman Bill Monning, D-Carmel, introduced AB 1678, which keeps food trucks at least 1,500 feet away from elementary and secondary school campuses from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. when school is in session. The bill’s argument states that food and beverages from the trucks “are calorie rich, nutrient poor, and contribute to negative health outcomes like being overweight and obesity.” The trucks should not be allowed to compete with school-provided breakfasts and lunches, “which are often more nutritious than meals brought from home or served elsewhere.”

In a press release Monning said, “All students deserve access to healthful food. The mobile vending of unhealthful snacks like ice cream, chips and sugar-sweetened beverages near school campuses undermines efforts to provide students with the nutrition they need. At a time when childhood obesity is at epidemic levels, we must ensure that our school environments foster student wellness.”

AB 1678 will likely go before the Assembly Health Committee, which Monning chairs, in late March or early April.

Opposition

Normally such legislation would be wholeheartedly embraced by San Francisco politicians, who made national headlines in 2010 for banning McDonald’s Happy Meals. But this week Supervisor Scott Wiener, who became a minor sensation himself last year with legislation requiring nude San Franciscans to place a towel under themselves before sitting in public, introduced a resolution opposing AB 1678.

The resolution points out that food trucks contribute to the diversity of San Francisco’s “thriving food scene,” and provide “a way for people without access to significant capital to enter the food industry,” particularly women and immigrants. It notes that in a densely populated city with numerous schools, the 1,500-foot ban, which is about three city blocks, “would dramatically reduce the locations available for food trucks,” placing some neighborhoods largely off-limits and result in a concentration of food trucks in a few areas like the downtown.

The resolution also points out that the 1,500-foot no-food-truck zone is 2½ times larger than the 600 feet that state law requires medical marijuana dispensaries to be away from schools.

“We should be making those decisions locally in San Francisco based on the needs of our urban, dense city,” said Wiener at Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors meeting. “Sacramento should not be imposing a one-size-fits-all solution that applies equally in San Francisco, Orinda, Anaheim. Eighty to 90 percent of the city would be off limits to food trucks if AB 1678 were to pass. It’s critically important that San Francisco make clear that the current form of the legislation is not acceptable to us.”

Wiener decided to postpone consideration of his resolution to March 13, however, to allow time for school officials to weigh in. No school officials spoke at the meeting, but a number of food truck owners, most of whom have Hispanic or Asian accents, did. A woman, who owns what she called “an organic and sustainable food truck,” said, “We do give healthy options. AB 1678 unfairly points out that we are not helping the children and contribute to obesity. I don’t feel that that’s the case. San Francisco needs to be able to make its own choices. This bill does not fit what San Francisco needs.”

San Francisco already has a 1,500-foot no-food-truck zone around middle and high schools. AB 1678 would expand that to include elementary schools. Wiener said he is considering legislation to reduce the distance from high schools to about 500 feet or one city block. He also questions why middle schools should have a no-food-truck zone because they are all closed campuses.

Possible Compromise

Some compromise may be found. Wiener’s resolution, which calls for the state Legislature to reject AB 1678 or at least allow San Francisco and other cities to opt out, may be watered down before it comes back to the board. And Monning, who told the San Francisco Chronicle, “The goal here is not being food Nazis,” said he’s open to tweaking his proposal.

While the fate of AB 1678 has yet to be determined, the larger question is why food trucks, which charge for their food, are viewed as so much of a threat to school breakfasts and lunches, which are provided for free or at minimal cost. The reason is that for several years there has been an effort in California — and now nationwide, thanks to Michelle Obama and the nutrition elite — to force kids to eat “healthy” food, which doesn’t always mean tasty food.

Hot dogs and hamburgers on white buns, pizza with white dough and fatty cheese, baloney sandwiches on white bread, chicken nuggets, corn dogs and nachos — all washed down with chocolate milk — are either verboten or on the endangered food list. Soft drinks and candy have, of course, been illegal on most campuses for years.

Instead the kids must make do with the likes of whole wheat pizza with low-fat cheese and low-sodium sauce, whole wheat spaghetti, whole grain fish nuggets, black bean burgers, jicama, broccoli, kiwi, cauliflower, green beans, carrots and tofu.

Student Rebellion

There was a student rebellion in Los Angeles schools last fall when jambalaya, vegetable curry, pad Thai, lentil and brown rice cutlets, and quinoa and black-eyed pea salads were introduced, according to a Los Angeles Times article. Participation in the school lunch program reportedly dropped by thousands of students and underground markets in chips, candy and fast-food burgers sprung up. The article said that as a result of the uprising, the menu was being revised, eliminating some of the more exotic fare and bringing back pizza and daily hamburgers.

The article was inaccurate and overblown, according to Los Angeles Unified School District Food Services Director Dennis Barrett. He acknowledged there were problems early in the fall getting delivery of meat dishes from the district’s food suppliers, resulting in a predominance of vegetarian offerings. The rollout of more exotic fare went through extensive testing and only those dishes receiving 75 percent approval from 30,000 tasters were approved.

“I have never had a year go by that a couple of times a year a group of student say ‘We want this,’” said Barrett in reference to fast-food type offerings. “We really try to work with kids and give them what they want. The number one thing we are working on now is staying with very healthy meals, that’s a direction we will maintain.”

Tasty Food

Most kids, of course, prefer tasty food to healthy food. In addition to the common criticism that whole wheat pizza tends to taste like cardboard, there’s the problem that most school food is prepared in a factory, frozen, stored in a warehouse, shipped to the schools and then heated up to eat. No matter how well done, it’s bound to have less flavor and texture than fresh food made with fresh ingredients, even if it’s provided out of a truck.

So, unless they bring their own food from home, if AB 1678 passes, many students will be forced to eat food they don’t like in the school cafeteria, or buy from an underground candy/fast-food dealer, or walk the three blocks off campus (assuming they’re allowed to leave) in an attempt to find a food truck. If food trucks are banned from school zones, will fast-food restaurants be next?

Nanny Michelle

None of which appears to be a concern of Michelle Obama, et al. Last month the federal government finalized new nutrition standards starting in the 2012-2013 school year for nearly 32 million students. They require schools to serve more fruits and vegetables (including legumes, dark green and orange vegetables every week), switch to whole grains and limit the sodium and calories in each meal.

“As parents, we try to prepare decent meals, limit how much junk food our kids eat, and ensure they have a reasonably balanced diet,” said Michelle Obama. “And when we’re putting in all that effort the last thing we want is for our hard work to be undone each day in the school cafeteria. When we send our kids to school, we expect that they won’t be eating the kind of fatty, salty, sugary foods that we try to keep them from eating at home. We want the food they get at school to be the same kind of food we would serve at our own kitchen tables.”

But it’s likely that many students will not stomach the changes. When the requirements were being drafted, 430 people registered their opposition, predicting the following:

* They would result in decreased participation in the meal programs because the food offered would not be acceptable to students. Decreased participation rates would lead to decreased revenues, which could lead some schools to stop offering meal service.

* They would result in increased plate waste because of increased portions and the proposed requirement that a reimbursable meal must include a fruit or a vegetable.

* Increased plate waste, increased produce requirements and increased whole grain requirements would result in increased costs for schools which would result in schools having to raise meal prices, which may impact participation rates.

Whether the nannies are in San Francisco, Sacramento or the White House, the governmental meddling in people’s lives — right down to what they put in their mouths — will continue to escalate. You might want to stock up on those Snickers bars before they go the way the way of the incandescent lightbulb.