Contributor
Ray
Haynes
Mr.
Haynes is an Assembly member representing Riverside and Temecula.
He serves on the Appropriations and Budget Committees. [go to
Assembly Member Haynes
website at California Assembly]
The
Second Annual Nosey Awards
Dumb and dumber excesses of power in Sacramento...
[Ray Haynes] 11/04/03
With all
the problems we have in this state, what key issues did the
Legislative majority tackle? Banning Jello shots and soda on
our school campuses. I began
the Nosey Awards last year to recognize the most intrusive legislation introduced
and pursued in the Legislature. Protecting individual liberty is the most important
thing a legislator can do. Exercising power is easy; restraining the exercise
of power is hard. Legislators therefore have a tendency to exercise power in
strange and intrusive ways. The “Noseys” were designed to call
attention to the stupid exercise of power in the California Legislature.
With
that in mind, here are this year’s winners:
10 AB
732 (Hancock): Drawing on her personal experiences in the hog
farming communities of Berkeley and Oakland within her
Assembly District, Loni Hancock has decided that protecting
pregnant sows in the manner sanctioned by the American Veterinary
Medical Association isn’t good enough. She is now attempting
to criminalize farmers who provide anything less than the finest
private labor and delivery rooms to their pigs. For good measure
(or feel-good measure), she is also trying to criminalize certain
veal calf procedures, despite the fact that there isn’t
a single full-time veal calving operation in the state that
uses the system she wants to ban. I just hope all those pig
farms in Berkeley and Oakland don’t target her for sticking
her nose into their hog businesses.
9 AB
210 (Nation): Not content with having banned tobacco smoking
from every job-site, restaurant and bar in California, Assemblyman
Nation has now turned the crusade to private homes and the
outdoors! AB 210 would prohibit smoking tobacco in your own
apartment or condo if it could result in smoke being detected
by a sensitive neighbor. It would also prohibit the practice
of leaving your home to take a smoke break, as any outdoor
smoking that could go in someone else’s window would
be declared a “nuisance” and be banned as well.
I note that the bill is very particular about tobacco smoke,
and says nothing whatsoever about marijuana smoke – perhaps
in deference to his Marin and Sonoma County constituents…
8 SB 868
(Dunn): In the truest spirit of the nosey awards, this bill
would specifically allow personal information about when
you work and how much you were paid to be made available to
union organizers if you are on a public works project. SB 1
prevented business from disclosing this information, but this
law requires government to hand it over to unions, who are
not prohibited from using it any way they please. I’m
confused – why were we worrying about privacy protections,
again?
7 SB 1009
(Alpert): How much money did you spend on E-bay this year?
How many books did you buy from Amazon? Have you been
purchasing cigarettes from out-of-state Indian reservations?
Senator Dede Alpert wants to know, and wants you to tell the
government.
6 AB 45
(Simitian): Assemblyman Simitian’s bill would require
the use of hands-free devices on cell phones while driving a
motor vehicle. This might be good for manufacturers of hands-free
devices, but is a questionable imposition on drivers. Attempts
to amend the bill to target all dangerous instances of inattentive
driving, whether caused by cell phones, eating, reading, shaving,
applying make-up, etc. were rejected.
5 AB 202
(Corbett): This bill seems to require that pet shops sell birds
by the pound-or at least that you mark their weight on
the sales receipt. It also requires birds to be weaned before
they can be sold by a pet store. To be honest, I didn’t
even know parakeets had nipples, much less that they could
breastfeed, but you learn something new every day in Sacramento.
Sticking the state’s nose into the pet shops’ business
earns this bill a spot on this list.
4 AB 1555
(Nakano): Have you ever had a day at the beach ruined by fog
or cold wind? By teenagers with their radio playing
too loud? By drunks swearing profusely two blankets away? Most
of us have. How about by loud boats? Apparently that is a problem
for someone, somewhere, because Assemblyman Nakano wants to
ban the sale of loud ocean going boats and prevent the operation
of loud boats within a mile of the coast. Now if someone could
just do something about the dang seagulls, I could enjoy the
beach in peace…
3 AB 1657
(Chan): This bill would prohibit manufacturers from professionally
packaging alcoholic jello shots and selling them in liquor
stores. On the floor, one Assemblymember asked, “What
if I accidentally bought these alcoholic jello shots and brought
them home to my children and gave them to the kids?”.
The obvious answer is that you’d be an idiot. In fact,
if government bans legal jello shots, it will lead to back
alley, unmarked jello shot manufacturing, increasing the chance
of damage to kids…They’ll get my jello shots when
they pry them from my cold, inebriated fingers.
2 AB 858
(Goldberg): Sticks and stones may break my bones, but the Minnesota
Vikings really offend me with their negative
Caucasian stereotype. Actually, I’m just going to have
to accept that, because even though this bill will ban other
allegedly “racially derogatory or discriminatory school
or athletic team names, mascots, or nicknames” from California
public schools, it appears to only deal with Native American
names, and not white guys who wear dopey hats like the Vikings
and Minutemen.
The Winner
of the 2003 Nosey Award:
1 SB 677
(Ortiz): Having failed at her efforts last year to pass a soda
tax,
the obsessed Senator
Deborah Ortiz is back harping
on the evils of soda in schools. Nosing into what ought to
be the jurisdiction of locally elected school board members
and parents, SB 677 will further restrict the time, place
and manner in which our children will be allowed to purchase
certain
drinks on campus. With all the things we ought to be worrying
about in our schools, somehow this bill seems to miss the
mark. Perhaps she figures if she starts with the nanny-state
regulations
on children while they’re young, they’ll be less
likely to object to stupid, interventionist rules later in
their lives when they’re adults.
The Legislature
is no longer in session, so you are safe again for now. But
I’m sure you can’t
wait until next year to see just how nosey the Legislature
can get.
§
|