The state knows. . .
08/03/2008 @ 12:00 pm
The following is an image of a tag affixed to a power cord of an appliance from the U.S.
What I want to know is if it is known to the State of California, why in the heck aren’t they telling anyone about it?
Ah California, The Trailmix state. Full of fruits and nuts. A nice place to visit but I wouldn’t live there.
August 3rd, 2008 at 12:40 pmSuprisingly the internet station I’m listening to is
playing a song called Day after day by Shango where the
state of California sinks into the ocean.
Get ready to tie up the boat in Idaho. LOL
Obviously you’ve never heard of the California “Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_65_(1986)
California has the most stringent policies of any state on labeling of toxic content, no other state requires this sort of label. The specific language referencing the State of California on the label is fixed by law.
August 3rd, 2008 at 2:28 pmIt’s the law? Well, that explains everything.
Obviously you are unaware of the fact that it is the laws on the books in California that make most normal people think the place is weird.
August 3rd, 2008 at 2:59 pm> Obviously you are unaware of the fact that it is the laws on the books in California that make most normal people think the place is weird.
That’s enormously subjective. As it happens, California is often out in front of trends which eventually become mainstream. And if people think it’s such a strange place why do people flock there by the millions making it the biggest state in the U.S. with 36 million people (over 10% of the U.S. population) and has an economy that if it were it’s own entity would rank 9th in the world? Plus sun, mountains, beaches, national parks. Sounds like a horrible and weird place.
August 3rd, 2008 at 4:42 pmA place can have nice scenery and still be weird. As far as California being “often out in front of trends which eventually become mainstream,” I think that remark is just as enormously subjective as calling it weird.
August 3rd, 2008 at 5:56 pmSo true, whether or not something becomes a trend elsewhere doesn’t have any bearing on whether it’s a good trend or not.
Why do people flock to California? Maybe because it’s not all that different from Mexico. Nice weather, lots of Spanish spoken and, unlike back home, jobs. California’s population increase is almost entirely due to Hispanic economic migrants. They are not attracted by the same silly laws and trends that I think you are talking about here.
Major companies are leaving California. Toyota cancelled its plans for a hybrid car plant there, and moved the whole thing over to….Mississippi (however that’s spelled). Why, because of the increase in laws like this and other anti-business taxes.
Naturally, California is blessed, sure. But it has enormous problems, and this picture is one of them.
August 3rd, 2008 at 10:58 pmOh snap! All this snark and anti-Mexican racism has devastated my argument!
Let’s make it perfectly clear what you’re arguing: you say that “normal people” think it is weird to have laws preventing the release of toxic chemicals into the environment. You say that a law preserving clean drinking water is one of the reasons businesses avoid investment in California. Do you actually think about what you’re saying before you publish it? Or are you deliberately trying to make yourselves look silly?
August 4th, 2008 at 3:31 amHaha, this reminds me of seeing similar signs at major hotels in Cali. After a while I found out it was because of smoke detectors (which contain a tiny amount of radioactive substance necessary to function).
August 4th, 2008 at 6:28 amSo, Chas…your argument is basically “Those who disagree with me are racist and want to destroy the environment.” And that’s not silly at all.
It couldn’t be that, since the immigration statistics demolish the claim that people flock to California for its goofier aspects and its abundance of safety tags, it’s easier to dismiss that argument as “racist?”
And, of course, any law that may have any possible beneficial effect, regardless of the potential for detrimental effects or that it may even make the problem addressed by the law worse, is good.
LA just banned fast food restaurants in poor areas. Let them eat tofu! They are poor and we in the government must enlighten them, by force if necessary.
It’s really quite amazing how eagerly people embrace government control of every little aspect of their lives. California is 24 years behind schedule, but they are catching up fast.
August 4th, 2008 at 8:42 amActually, the ONLY thing Prop 65 does is require *warnings* about *potentially* toxic chemicals. It does nothing about *preventing* the release of toxic chemicals. Big difference.
August 4th, 2008 at 9:58 am