Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Bullying Continues to be Official California State Policy
Once again, California adds to its program of bullying the residents of other states over issues that have no effect whatsoever on any resident of California.
The Golden State has demanded that Iowa residents submit to their demands on a policy that will have no effect whatsoever on any resident of California, and seeks to punish the residents of Iowa for not submitting. This is a textbook definition of “bullying.”
California wants Iowa taxpayers to pay for “gender transition” surgeries for other Iowans. Since Iowa voters have chosen otherwise, California has prohibited state-sponsored travel to the midwestern state. (The expectation is that there is so much travel from California, Iowans will suffer if it’s cut off.)
Some state governments, notably California and New York, have more frequently made such bullying official policy. They want to punish residents of other states who don’t submit to their demands. California and New York obviously think that they are so big that they can behave as typical bullies. Since bullying is official government policy, no one should ever believe a government anti-bullying campaign.
Published in Domestic Policy
However will Iowa survive?
What
California should ban travel to all states in the name of protecting Gaia from Global Warming.
The Los Angeles Times did a story last month showing how the ban is more virtue signaling than anything else — at least when it came to places where state officials (or state university athletic teams) from California could be regularly expected to have to go or want to go, including to locales outside of the United States:
The bullying effort goes only as far as to the point where it inconveniences the bullies. If they want or need to go to a state on the banned list, they find a way around it.
This would be downright funny – if it weren’t instead evidence of a state whose government has gone bat guano crazy.
The next US Civil War will be about forcing states like California to leave the Union.
And I say we build a wall around THEM while we’re at it.
Sad. Now Iowa will go the way of Chick-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby.
I hope the entire Democratic field of candidates acts in solidarity with California and refuses to campaign there.
Maybe Iowa ought to prohibit the sale of agricultural products to California.
As an aside, I think there’s a decent argument that California’s behavior is unconstitutional under the so called “dormant commerce clause.”
Hey, we won’t actually pay for it, but you can use that bull castration thing we have out in the barn . . . free of charge.
Leave a door for those of us who have relatives in Texas, OK?
Yes. The “private funds” dodge only speaks to the way the rule is written — “No state funds…” etc. So they are not violating the rule. But that assumes that most Californians would be offended if their tax money was used to travel to such places. Well, of course, most Californians would prefer they have less tax money to spend, period. Whether they travel to “backward” places is waaaay down on the priority list. So since it is the legislators themselves virtue signaling and not some groundswell of righteous anger by the California people, then use of private funds is no justification for their conduct, given their claimed sensibilities.
Cruz had an interesting observation on this move.
Courtesy of the Babylon Bee:
Didn’t my state of N.C. lose something (? Circ d’ Soliel performances along with some conventions) when there was the “no dressed up men allowed in women’s bathrooms” thing going on. After Obama, I don’t even know what happened to that. I think the governor changed but the replacement didn’t risk overturning established custom anyway. Only government buildings have the “any human” signs and only on door closing type single use restrooms. Iowa will survive.
They lost the ACC women’s basketball conference tournament. My daughter plays basketball in the ACC, and they had to have their tournament in a small facility in Myrtle Beach, if memory serves. She said it was completely inadequate for such a big tournament.
All because of virtue signaling over trans-gender bathrooms, which didn’t exist until a couple years before. So did those courageous virtue signaling politicians suffer? Of course not. Who did suffer? Girl’s basketball players and fans. What a steaming pile of virtue signaling…
Maybe the solution is (a) drop the triggering words “men” or “women” from the restroom doors and replace them with graphic images/icons of relevant genitalia. You must use the room the image for which your anatomical condition most closely matches; (b) you can use the other bathroom but only if you complete a federal background check. We will need a federal program to train and deploy federal bathroom attendants at all restrooms to enfored the policy but that is a small price to pay to achieve this civil rights breakthrough.
Does anyone know if anyone in Iowa has noticed yet?
I’ve suggested that for years – just change “Women/Men” to “Innie/Outie”.
When I lived in New York state, which is also one of the major bullying-is-official-state-policy states, it appeared that collegiate athletes were the people most affected by the travel bans. I think that may have been intentional, as a key part of the state bullying campaign seemed to be to get the athletic conferences to threaten to relocate their tournaments as the lever to force the other states to submit to the whims and wishes of New York.
Belly buttons?