Most sentient human beings instinctively know that Kalifornia is a laughingstock when it comes to the mine field of insane laws and regulations in force there. An example would be the motorist who bought a bag of fruit in Susanville on route 395, continued south and is forced to throw it in the garbage at the "Inspection" station at Topaz, CA. All California bureaucrats "know" that the fruit's 2 hour sojourn into Nevada causes it to be "infected" with pests (Harry Reid?) not native to the Golden state.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs is illegal in california?
Banning unauthorized produce makes some sense. California doesn't need another medfly infestation.The validity of California's unconditional ban on any animal not listed as legal is debatable. If pet ferrets and skunks are a threat to wildlife, why are cats and dogs legal? Cats and dogs should be banned as well as they are a threat to wildlife.
On some level, or as some might say "in some parallel reality", all of California's regulations "make sense". Did the produce bans prevent the medfly panic? More damage has been done to agriculture in the state by the feds shutting off the water to the central valley to "protect" the delta smelt than the medflies could ever achieve. Unemployment in areas such as Modesto and Hanford is 40 percent. The Central Valley’s agricultural output is expected to decline by between $1 billion and $3 billion this year compared with 2008.
If my memory serves me correctly, the ban on wild animals as pets was attributed to the idea that evil entrepeneurs would capture the creatures in the wild and breed them for sale in pet shops. This was the "rationale" for determining that such pets were a "danger" to wildlife.Such is the "progressive" mindset.
AWWWWWW!!! What a great little picture of our weasely little Rosie!!! Our smelly, nearsighted, daft little Rosie!!!!
Comments are open, but moderated, for the time-being. Good luck.