What does the state of California know and when did it know it.

Last week my wife reminded me that it was time to change the 6-months’s tick collars on our dogs. Although she doesn’t change tick collars herself, she is good about reminding me to do it. So off I went the friendly vet’s office and bought a twin-pack of tick collars. Yesterday when I started to apply the collars I noticed an ominous warning posted right on the top of the box. It read “WARNING: This product contains an ingredient known to the State of California to cause reproductive toxicity. Wash hands thoroughly after applying this product.”

I found this to be a chilling warning and my mind raced with questions about it. For instance—How did the State of California come to posses this knowledge? Why didn’t California tell Oregon or Nevada? They’re right next-door. Does this reproductive toxicity affect the recipients of the collars (dogs) or the appliers (me and others) or both? Will simply washing one’s hands prevent reproductive toxicity in both humans and/or dogs? Does the State of California know other stuff that is not sharing with the rest of us?

Although I’m not a conspiracy theorist, I do wonder what the State of California knows that might be of vital importance to the rest of the country. How does one find out about such things? One does research, that’s how. One looks up the regulations and laws of the State of California because when the state comes to know something, the state legislature or city and county governments will generally pass ordinances to protect the local citizens but ignore the rest of us who might suffer because we don’t know what the State of California knows.

Here’s what I found out about the State of California.

By state ordinance—Sunshine is guaranteed to the masses. Obviously the State of California knows something about sunshine that is either unknown or ignored by other states. Is this guarantee made for health reasons—the prevention of rickets, for instance—or for some other reason? If a health issue is involved, why doesn’t Texas guarantee its citizens and visitors sunshine? I don’t want rickets or even scurvy. The State of California should level with us. Why sunshine?

Animals are banned from mating publicly within 1500 feet of a tavern, school, or place of worship. This ordinance has profound implications. For instance what do a tavern, school, and a place of worship have in common? Perhaps each has people experiencing some kind of altered state attributable to alcohol, drugs, or rapture that would be negatively impacted by mating animals. Also, does this ban apply equally to all animals? What about slugs and fruit flies? How do slugs mate anyway? Who pays the penalty for the violation of this ban? The lascivious animals themselves or their owners? Who owns a slug? (Actually a slug is a type of snail and in California it is illegal to own a snail as a pet. It is also illegal to own sloths and elephants as pets. State Law.) If this knowledge were made available to the State Of Texas and Texas passed similar legislation, what impact would it have on our animal population? Given the fact that Texas has taverns, schools, and churches on every corner, and given that Texas has a much larger land area than California, many of our animals might have no convient place to mate. If the ordinance applied to only mosquitoes and fire ants, that’s OK, but what about the cute things, like squirrels. I’m pretty sure they mate right in church yards and I know for a fact that they mate right on the campus of our local university. I’ve watched them through my office window. When I would see a mating about to be consummated I would always shout to me secretary, “DON’T LOOK, ETHEL.”

In California, “No vehicle without a driver may exceed 60 miles per hour.” I wonder how many vehicles without drivers are traveling between 55 and 59 mph just to avoid the penalty of this law? Also who would be penalized if the vehicle exceeds 60 mph and has no driver? I suppose there might be a passenger in the vehicle, but you could hardly penalize the passenger, who is obviously crazy to be riding in a vehicle without a driver, traveling more than 60 mph. Penalizing crazy people is politically incorrect.

“It is a misdemeanor to shoot at any kind of game from a moving vehicle, unless the target is a whale.” This law was obviously passed when the conservative Republicans were in control at the statehouse. Now California is a pretty liberal state and its citizens will often conduct marches and demonstrations to save the whales. There is a fairly small minority of the ultimately conservative Republicans who will hold counter-demonstrations and carry the ultimate right wing placards, “NUKE THE GAY WHALES.”

Such a law would devastate the hunting community in Texas. In fact, if all animals except whales were suddenly no longer fair game from a moving vehicle, some enterprising soul would import a bunch of whales, confine them behind an 10-foot high game fence and charge hunters thousands of dollars to shoot them from a moving vehicle.

I was absolutely amazed at the information being hoarded by the State of California. I think all of us should start a letter writing campaign to attempt to get the State of California to share its knowledge with us lesser mortals who are also very concerned about reproductive toxicity.