Wrong thing for the right reasons
Plastic bags are environmentally preferable to paper and even to reusables.
The way the law's written, the evils of paper (uses trees, useless when wet, tears easily, supports bacterial growth at home and landfills) won't matter because the fee should keep paper usage low.
People who want fewer bags used should loudly discourage double-bagging, not ban the bag entirely. The bags are incredibly strong if properly made, and markets will buy the good ones if we refuse double bagging.
Big plastic advantage is sanitation: We use them for everything from dog poo to shoes in suitcase to trash can liners.
Another disadvantage is slowing the checkout line: No one can pack reusable bags as fast as the checkout people with the thin plastic bags in stands.
Also important is the discouraging of large purchases at one time: Who's going to bring and pack 10 to 15 reusable bags? Therefore, people will make more trips to the market. It's been shown that moving a car's the biggest environmental cost, far more than bags or even the food packaging itself.
The public's so primed by their own fears of chemicals and corporations that they hate plastics, and politicians look good to voters if they appear to be defending them against this "necessary evil."
El Cerrito Griff is
We are all victims of mass deception
It's been said that if you tell a lie big enough and often enough, people will eventually come to believe it.
Today's commonly held ideas that homosexuality is normal, physically and psychologically healthy and unchangeable were considered ridiculous for most of human history, since these ideas are easily disproved for anyone who is willing to be the least bit objective and logical.
Sadly, though, most Americans today lack the ability to see the most obvious evidence or grasp the simplest logic if it doesn't fit the "politically correct" views that they have been taught.
These views, in turn, are based on the God-rejecting secular humanist philosophy. But secular humanism was admitted to be a religion by its leading early advocates, as the first humanist manifesto declared in the 1930s.
Wake up, people! You have been the victim of a massive deception and unwittingly indoctrinated into today's established (and, thus, unconstitutional) religion, a "faith" that is both self-contradictory and destructive.
Other 'offensive' names abound
This responds to Leonard Pitts' column, "Redskins is offensive word, period."
While we're at it, let's get rid of all offensive team names.
The Anglo-Saxons were slaughtered, raped, and enslaved by Vikings for centuries. Not only is this name hurtful to my people it also denigrates today's peaceful Scandinavians.
Pirates have been a scourge to humanity since ships first went to sea. An offense to all people, especially those who have recently suffered under Somali pirates.
The use of "Indian" in any context when describing American natives is an offense to Asian Indians. How dare the Spanish colonizers (Latinos) label peoples willy-nilly?
And on and on ...
Pitts could help repair the alleged damage to Native American self-esteem by volunteering on reservations: mentoring and teaching about journalism. He's a Pulitzer Prize winner. He could change lives.
The Redskins have been around for more than 75 years. Surely, Pitts has been aware of the team during his writing career. It's only bothering him now?
It's troubling that an accomplished journalist such as Pitts is so easily seduced by his own media's propaganda that he mistakes what he reads for his own ideas and ideals.