Marc Perkel Rantz

I'm tired of San Francisco Parking Tickets

I'm starting a Web Site and Discussion Forum for people who are wanting to organize to fight San Frsncisco Parking Tickets.

San Francisco is the most inefficient city government on the planet. Kind of a welfare state for the politically correct who seem to think that the evil people who drive cars should be taxed to death. It's not enough that we pay gas taxes, huge license plate taxes, and it's 5 bucks to drive across the Golden Gate bridge. There's no parking in San Francisco and the racket is to pass out as many parking tickets as possible in a manner that is really a tax and not a civil penality.

I'd love to find a lawyer who wanted to bring a case against the city on the basis that this is really a tax and an illegal one at that. I am working on one loophole in the system though - the requirement that the VIN number be on the ticket. It only requires the last 4 digits - but San Francisco tickets don't have that. They always put NV (not visible) when in fact it is visible.

The law ays that they shall put the VIN number on the ticket and if I have to comply with the law - so do they. So I'm contesting every ticket I get that fails to comply with the law.

California Vehicle Code - Section 40202

(a) If a vehicle is unattended during the time of the violation, the peace officer or person authorized to enforce parking laws and regulations shall securely attach to the vehicle a notice of parking violation setting forth the violation, including reference to the section of this code or of the Public Resources Code, the local ordinance, or the federal statute or regulation so violated; the date; the approximate time thereof; the location where the violation occurred; a statement printed on the notice indicating that the date of payment is required to be made not later than 21 calendar days from the date of citation issuance; and the procedure for the registered owner, lessee, or rentee to deposit the parking penalty or, pursuant to Section 40215, contest the citation. The notice of parking violation shall also set forth the vehicle license number and registration expiration date if they are visible, the last four digits of the vehicle identification number, if that number is readable through the windshield, the color of the vehicle, and, if possible, the make of the vehicle. The notice of parking violation, or copy thereof, shall be considered a record kept in the ordinary course of business of the issuing agency and the processing agency and shall be prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein.

(b) The notice of parking violation shall be served by attaching it to the vehicle either under the windshield wiper or in another conspicuous place upon the vehicle so as to be easily observed by the person in charge of the vehicle upon the return of that person.

(c) Once the issuing officer has prepared the notice of parking violation and has attached it to the vehicle as provided in subdivisions

(a) and

(b), the officer shall file the notice with the processing agency. Any person, including the issuing officer and any member of the officer's department or agency, or any peace officer who alters, conceals, modifies, nullifies, or destroys, or causes to be altered, concealed, modified, nullified, or destroyed the face of the remaining original or any copy of a citation that was retained by the officer, for any reason, before it is filed with the processing agency or with a person authorized to receive the deposit of the parking penalty, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

(d) If, during the issuance of a notice of parking violation, without regard to whether the vehicle was initially attended or unattended, the vehicle is driven away prior to attaching the notice to the vehicle, the issuing officer shall file the notice with the processing agency. The processing agency shall mail, within 15 calendar days of issuance of the notice of parking violation, a copy of the notice of parking violation or transmit an electronic facsimile of the notice to the registered owner.

(e) If, within 21 days after the notice of parking violation is attached to the vehicle, the issuing officer or the issuing agency determines that, in the interest of justice, the notice of parking violation should be canceled, the issuing agency, pursuant to subdivision

(a) of Section 40215, shall cancel the notice of parking violation or, if the issuing agency has contracted with a processing agency, shall notify the processing agency to cancel the notice of parking violation pursuant to subdivision

(a) of Section 40215. The reason for the cancellation shall be set forth in writing. If, after a copy of the notice of parking violation is attached to the vehicle, the issuing officer determines that there is incorrect data on the notice, including, but not limited to, the date or time, the issuing officer may indicate in writing, on a form attached to the original notice, the necessary correction to allow for the timely entry of the notice on the processing agency's data system. A copy of the correction shall be mailed to the registered owner of the vehicle.

(f) Under no circumstances shall a personal relationship with any officer, public official, or law enforcement agency be grounds for cancellation.

Next California Governor?

Will this be California's new governor? The kind of guy the Christian religious right can get behind. Arnold is a briliant man with briliant ideas. But just exactly what they are is somewhat illusive. As with all Republicans it's all about power and money. Arnold doesn't have to have any ideas because the moonies are already working on his script - as well as the script for the news media's journalist actors. Arnold is an actor - not a writer!

Bush Says Schwarzenegger Would Be 'Good Governor'. Boy - that's reassuring! The shame of it all is that Grey Davis really is a good governor. But after Bush's buddies - like Kenny Boy from Enron - started gaming the energy market by creating artificial energy shortages destroyong the economy of the western states, it's amazing Gray Davis managed to keep the lights on at all. And then there's good ole Ross Perot who sold the software to the energy companies to create the shortages in the first place - and he's talking about running for president again. What a world!

I'm voting to keep Davis - but in the alternative I'm leaning towards Larry Flint. He's the free speech candidate.

Episcopalians Elect Gay Bishop

This shouldn't be a big deal - but it is. What difference does someone's sexual preference matter in the worship of mythical beings? If God really objected to homosexuals then he should come out of hiding and say so. Of course - there is a certian hypocracy in that if you say you believe in the Bible then any sex outside of marriage is sin - and - the Bible doesn't allow marriage between people of the same sex even if the state did.

But - Christians can justify anything. The Bible is so poorly written that it can easilly be twisted into meaning anything you want it to mean. So - I don't really fault Christians for not following the Bible because it's impossible to follow. And - the world would be a scary place if people actually took it more seriously than they already do.

The most amazing hypocracy though is the Catholic church coming out so storngly against homosexuals while at the same time being soft on priests who have sex with children. Preists are supposed to be celebate so if thet are celebate then they aren't having sex with anyone. So what difference does it mattter who they aren't having sex with?

I believe in freedom and that includes sexual preferences. I don't care what gay people do as long as they leave me alone about it. Hell - I think Black people should be allowed to join the KKK if they want to. That isn't much different than being a gay Republican. Join a group that hates you or a group that defines who you are as a sinner? I fail to see why gays would want to be Christians in the first place?

As to religions who accept gays, there is only one religion that truly accepts gays 100% without any regard whatsoever as to sexual orientation. And that is the Church of Reality. The Church of Reality is a church based on believing in everything that's real. The Church of Reality has it's Sacred Principles which includes the Principle of Inclusiveness which states:

"The pursuit of the reality as it really is and the understanding of understanding is available to everyone. We are not an exclusive club and we do not discriminate based on minor genetic differences, cultural background, political affiliation, religious history, the geography of your birth location, sexual preferences, lines on a map. your gender, the shape of your body, or what frequencies of light are reflected off the surface of your skin. Although some people are smarter than others, everyone can improve themselves. So if you have two brain cells and are tired of living the lie, the Church of Reality is available to you."

Comparing the Presidents on Job Creation

What a difference a president makes. This chary outlines the number of jobs created (or lost) under the last three presidents. Each president is started at sero at the beginning of their term.

For those who say that it doesn't matter who is president and that the president doesn't make a difference - here's the chart. Looks to me like who the president is makes a difference. I remember when Clinton was president Greenspan was hiking the interest rates to slow down the economy that was "overheating" and that the jobless rate was too low. Now look where we are. That's what happens when America accepts a pathetic loser as president who was never elected in the first place.

Berlin Wall now in Israel

Are the Jews becoming what they hate?

The Berlin wall represented terror and oppression. It was a relic of World War II and the world cheered when it came down. Now Israel is building one and it is an abomination to peace and a shame to the Jewish Religion. This wall represents the failure of peace and is a monument to everything that is wrong with religion.

It is called a "security fence" which is a lie. The fact that the news media won't call it what it is reflects the amount of control that Israel has over the Bush administration and the amount of control Republicans have over the American press. What do you see here? Is this a fence or a wall?

This is disturbing on a number of levels. First - you would have thought that the Jews would have learned something from the Holocaust, but apparently they did not. Those who have been preaching "never forget" have already forgotten. And if they have forgotten - then why should anyone else remember? Well - we should remember - because the Holocaust was wrong - but this is wrong too in much the same way because it's roots come from the same place.

The Jews think that they are God's chosen people. but they aren't. Jews are just people just like everyone else. What they haven't grasped is that it's not OK for them to persecute others and that they have to show respect for other people's rights and beliefs if they expect to have their bizzare rights and beliefs respected.

Sure - the Palistinians are as bad or worse than the Israelies. But that doesn't justify Israel building a Berlin wall. I personally consider this wall to be a crime against humanity and I call for its removal. Furthermore, Israel has far too much influence in the United States and not in a positive way. It used to be positive intil the extremists siezed control of Israel by fanatical right wing Jews who want war because they are better than everyone else.

I don't support Gay Marriage

But I do support civil unions - somewhat

There are several reasons for this and I'm not going to go into them all here. I do believe in civil unions for gay couples who want to bring the state and lawyers into their relationship (be careful what you ask for as they say - you might get it) - but marriage? No.

What's happening in the debate is the battle of the fuzzy lines. And it takes little effort to make the lines fuzzy. For example - a heterosexual couple gets married and one gets a sex change - are they still legally married? Yes. Or - why should non-reproducing heterosexuals be allowed to marry but gays aren't? Why shouldn't I be allowed to marry my sister if I've had a vasectomy? Or marry my father? Or marry my sister and my father? Where do you draw the line?

I draw the line where the line has always be drawn. A marriage is between heterosexuals. Even though I am a non-reproducing male, there really is a biological reason that people get married and everyone on the planet (well - science has blurred that line too) is a result of heterosexual relationships. So the concept of marriage is rooted in reproduction and raising children. Quite frankly - if I were to move the line on marriage - it would be the other way - to restrict it to families with children.

There is more of an agenda here in the gay marriage issue than just gay marriages. There is the question of - is a gay relationship "normal". And the answer to that is clearly no - it is not normal. It is in fact abnormal. And that's what a lot of this debate is all about - the issue of what is normal and what is not.

Having said that it's abnormal - how abnormal is it? Well - it's not really very abnormal. For those who were "born gay" which I do believe that most gays are born that way - it's a physical birth defect. It's equivalent to a hormone imbalance. It's less serious that something like juvenile diabetes. It is far less socially deviant that someone who is a cigarette smoker for example. So - on the scale of what is normal - it's somewhat abnormal but not as abnormal as smokers.

Back to the politics and the fuzzy lines. The real issues behind the issues of gay marriage and gays in the military (something you don't hear about since Bush became president) is how do we treat these people and how do we all get along together in society? Gay people have relationship - fall in love - and want to be together and feel normal - or relatively normal - without being harassed for who they are. The problem is that everyone - including gay - wants to treat it as a right or wrong issue. For both sides it all or none and both sides are dead wrong on that point.

Sexuality is a fuzzy line problem. Both sides of the debate are going to have to lighten up. Yes - it is abnormal. If you are gay and you are arguing that there is no difference between a gay relationship and a straight relationship - you are wrong. However - if you are anti-gay and you think that anyone who engages in sodomy should be put in prison - you're dead wrong too. I can't seem to make a good argument that anal sex between a man and a woman is morally different than anal sex between two men. The bottom line is - being gay is a defect - but it's not a serious defect. It abnormal - but not so abnormal to make a big deal over.

One of the big problems in this debate is the politics of it. The issue of gay marriage for gays caries symbolism. They were persecuted as children and have felt that they are inferior. Now they are coming back and declaring that they are not inferior that they are the same as everyone else and that the marriage issue has become a metaphor for getting society to declare them normal. That somehow if they are allowed to get married that all their self doubts and self image problems will go away.

On the other hand - heterosexuals are concerned that once gay marriage is allowed then children are going to be raised thinking that there's no difference between heterosexual and homosexual relationships and that straight kids will be taught to be gay. And they have somewhat of a point here. What we teach children is an issue and what the extremists on both sides are promoting is dead wrong. But that's a different rant.

So - I do have to agree however that gay marriage dilutes the meaning of marriage and denies the reality that there really is a distinction. For the purposes of equality however - and in recognition that although it's abnormal it's not that abnormal - that civil unions be allowed so that gay couples can adopt children - make medical decisions for their spouse - and have survivors rights and such.

Having said that - there really is no such thing as marriage anymore really. The institution of marriage is a fraud. Marriage is supposed to be a lifelong commitment to a relationship and if you get divorced - you're breaking that commitment. You can't go to the government and have the court enforce the lifelong commitment part of the marriage contract - but they will enforce the mutual property part - taking away everything you both own and giving it to a pair of greedy lawyers.

Marriage is really just a really bad property contract. If you've ever been through the divorce process you would never want to be married. And the bottom line is - gays are lucky they are protected from government abuse. If you have never experienced it - divorce lawyers and judges are corrupt beyond belief. If I told you how bad it really is - you would not believe me. If you look at it objectively it as bad as being in the military under Bush. Is this something you really want if you really knew what it was your asking for? It's not.

You don't need the approval of the government to have a relationship. If you want to have a relationship that the government or the church doesn't approve of then just do it and tell everyone who doesn't like it to get fucked.

My advice to gays is - don't depend on others for your sense of self approval because it just doesn't work. Just decide - so - I'm a little abnormal - so what. Why make it a big deal? Don't complain and don't explain.

In fact - if you really want to know why it is that straight guys don't like gay guys - it's not the sexual behavior - it's the god damn whining. Yes - gays are oppressed but not nearly as much as blacks and women are and the more you whine about it - the more irritated people become with you. I can accept bizzare sexual conduct because I really don't give a damn about what other people do sexually. It really doesn't bother me. But it's the whining about it. I can't deal with that. I don't want to be part of your self acceptance problems.

Conversely - those who judge gays as immoral based on their religious beliefs have a far more serious problem to deal with because extreme religion is a serious form of mental illness and is a far more serious problem than being gay.

Summary of Points:

1) Marriage is based on our heritage of reproduction and family gay marriage makes the definition of marriage meaningless.

2) Being Gay is abnormal - but not as abnormal as smoking or extreme religion.

3) Gays should not use this issue as a metaphor for their own self acceptance issues.

4) The institution of marriage is a fraud and not sane person who truly understood how corrupt the courts are would ever get married in the first place.