The polity that is California

From a recent UCLA email:

Dear Colleagues:

As indicated in the attached letter from UCOP, Governor Brown signed into law AB 1887 which prohibits state-funded travel to a state that has passed a law that (1) authorizes discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression, or (2) voids or repeals existing state or local protections against such discrimination. The law expressly identifies the University of California as an entity covered by the law.

As of the date of this notice, the States of Kansas, Mississippi, North Carolina and Tennessee are on the prohibited travel list. The list of states may be updated on the Attorney General’s website found here: https://oag.ca.gov/ab1887.

Please note that the law does not prohibit travel that is paid for or reimbursed using non-state funds.

File under “Blue state overreach,” a growing dossier.  How about not discriminating against people — co-authors, conference organizers, etc. — on the basis of the states they live in and the polities which rule over them?

For the pointer I thank E.

Comments

Finally a California initiative that I can get behind!

You mean all we have to do to not be hectored and preached to by these insufferable twits is to have a Men's and Women's sign on our bathrooms?

+100

I'm a Bath-room Hero
With Stars in my eyes
A Bath-Room Herroooo

I've got a wide stance, too!

I have nothing to do but complain about bed sores and stalk people on the internet.

Also, I'm a huge cuck! I love BBC! Oh god please cuck me!

What about travel to foreign countries that aren't as tolerant as California? Better cancel that trip to the volleyball coaches convention in Riyadh.

From the act: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1887

> "any state that, after June 26, 2015, has enacted a law that voids or repeals existing protections against discrimination"

Places like Saudi Arabia haven't repealed their non-existent anti-discrimination legislation, so they're fine. In theory it's possible that the UK will fall foul of this law when they withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights, as part of the Brexit process.

Clever loophole! So it's not the discrimination that's the problem, its the going against the popular tide (progress) that angers them so much.

That is correct. Very little changed on the ground in say NC (which is where I am most familiar) from say two years ago.

If the actual level of discrimination was the issue they should have been boycotting a long time ago. This is punishment for failing to enact or standing in the way of change.

And generally punishes those who were in favor of change as well.

"punishes those who were in favor of change as well"

Banning travel hurts people employed in the hospitality industry which is likely heavily black and Latino.

Well paid California legislators hurt low paid minorities. Very progressive!

And folks in big cities
And academics

Doesn't move the needle at all for rural voters who support the bills. They could give a rats ass if someone comes to the state on CA government business.

This subject ought to be of particular concern to Professor Cowen, given that he teaches in Virginia.

What about traveling to a gay rights conference in North Carolina?

The state probably shouldn't pay for that, either.

Those crafty buggers have figured out a legal way to keep government officials from California out! Well played.

Sorry, Tyler: this is too little, too late.

If this works on Massholes as well as it works on Californicators, it is like garlic encased in a silver bullet.

Californians are so ungrateful, as TRUMP ends their drought.

CNN is wrong! The atmospheric river calls TRUMP and asks where to go.

This can't be true.

Yes. I am all for using social exclusion to marginalize bigots, but you have to be careful not to exclude so many people that you end up marginalizing yourself.
The progressive left is really starting to veer into this territory, where it classifies, really 80-90% of the rest of the country, as socially intolerable reprobates who must be isolated and cast out until they are brought to heel. The worst part is the guilt-by-association and collective punishment aspects of policies like this. When you start socially excluding everyone in a state with a law you disapprove of, you're really going to start ratcheting up the percentage of the population you're attempting to marginalize.

It's a play to the vacuous Chamber-of-Commerce types.

I'm a Bath-Room Hero with stars in my eyes

Would people call an undertaker or a dump truck if they found my corpse?

Seriously, why won't anyone tell me? I'd better go watch my wife get rogered by another man again.

Rogered? Only a true Cuck like Art Deco would say that.

"Social exclusion" often seems to take the form of "try to destroy their livelihood" at present. At which point, I fail to see how someone can think it is inappropriate for the government to fine or jail people for being bigots, but perfectly acceptable for society to try to prevent them from supporting themselves for the same. But perhaps most people who think destroying a livelihood is fine would happily throw all the racists or transphobic people in jail if they could.

Are you calling for a social tyranny of the majority, and just noting that progressives are making the mistake of trying to establish their tyranny before they are actually in the majority on an issue?

I'm fine with bigots being unable to earn a living because people don't wish to associate with them. It's sort of ironic that bigots are the ones going around insisting that their free association rights are violated by anti-discrimination laws, but then they have a huge problem with other people exercising their free association rights by avoiding them. Apparently they want black people to be socially obligated to patronize their restaurants so they can have the pleasure of denying them service.

Do you apply this standard only if they regularly express bigoted views openly, in public, or even if they are a quiet bigot, and the knowledge of their bigotry is a product of other people (say anti-bigots) publicly blasting the person as a bigot? Say someone admitted in a supposedly anonymous survey that they didn't vote for Obama because he's black, or didn't vote for Clinton because she's a woman. Somehow the survey is improperly stored and hacked, and this person's identity and statements are released to the wider world. You now fully support this person being unable to earn a living? If so, I am frightened by your vision for society.

Didn't Clinton's ability to earn a living as president just get upended by exactly this? Sorry, couldn't resist :-)

Maybe your hacked bigot could earn a living just working with like-minded bigots?

I think we're playing games here mostly. In real life there are cultural norms, which evolve. The government has no right to police your words or thoughts no matter how vile, but people can choose to not hire you or buy things from you based on nothing more than not liking you, including if they don't like your bigotry. If you've managed to hide that from the public and then are found out, there are consequences.

Similarly, you may not discriminate your own selling of goods and services or hiring decisions based on a person's membership in certain categories. But if it bothers you that much to work with those you abhor purely because of their race or religion or where they put their genitals, you'll just have to suck it up. It's the price of being an American. And let's be honest, it's not hard for bigots to avoid working with those they are bigoted against, you just have to be subtle in your hatred. Sorry.

What you and Hazel Meade are failing to address is that the main way social exclusion of bigots is and will be accomplished isn't through the independent actions of a bunch of people who just don't like bigotry, or don't like having bigots at their parties. It is through the concerted action of networks of people who try to get others not to employ an individual who they consider a bigot, or to boycott them or their companies. It is the application of concerted social pressure, not just individuals making independent choices about who they associate with.

"The government has no right to police your words or thoughts no matter how vile, but people can choose to not hire you or buy things from you based on nothing more than not liking you, including if they don’t like your bigotry."

By what moral principle can you consistently say that it is wrong for society, through its government, to fine or imprison an individual for their bigotry, but that it is fine for society, organized in non-governmental associations or the like, to destroy the ability of that person to make a living?

All's fine until it turns out that society moves in the direction of considering your views bigoted or morally reprehensible, and your fellow citizens righteously destroy your livelihood.

It's called a society of private actors. Freedom of association. If you are an asshole, people are allowed to treat you like one. They don't have to hire you or buy your stuff. If lots of people think you being bigoted makes you an asshole, that's their right. What exactly are you proposing? Forcing customers to shop from bigots, or hire them? People can do what they want.

And you are taking this to absurd levels. In the real world if some dude in NC says he has a problem with transgendered people picking their bathrooms, some folks will say 'don't hire this guy' while most won't care and many will agree with him. His livelihood won't be destroyed.

If you work at a place where bigoted attitudes are not welcome, keep them to yourself. What's so hard? The world doesn't owe you a job. You gotta do what it takes to get hired or attract buyers. If that means not being a bigoted asshole, that's the market isn't it?

Now anticipating the objection of "if people can do what they want, why do they have to serve black people?"....that's because your race is a protected class, and in America we respect others no matter their color or creed. At the tiniest margins you get the gay wedding cake bakers. I'm actually a pragmatist here. I think the gay couple forcing someone to bake them a cake who doesn't want to is reprehensible, and I can't imagine there's a wedding so far from another provider that they can't figure it out. This is because to me there's a religious objection by bigoted idiots to gayness, and we have to respect that. It's a tough one but thankfully a rounding error of real world problems.

Back to our argument....if you are bigot and want to keep your job or customers, keep it to yourself.

How is concerted social pressure supposed to work if not because individuals choose not to associate with the bigot?
I've already said I don't support excluding people merely because they aren't going along with the exclusion effort. Everyone needs to make their own individual choice whether or not to exclude a person. I don't like bandwagons and I really don't mobs with pitchforks. I do like people publicising who they think is a bigot and letting everyone else make up their own minds.

Individuals can make up their own minds not to associate without creating concerted social pressure.

By concerted social pressure I mean people coming together and deciding to exclude a bigot, or to try to get them fired. I don't mean a bunch of people independently deciding they don't want to interact with someone.

The idea of being fine with publicizing rhat you've decided someone is a bigot so that people can decide scares me. I can guarantee that if all views you have expressed to others, verbally or in print, were collected and associated with your name for public consumption and evaluatuon, there would be a lot of people who would find highly objectionable things in there.

Oh, ok, so both of you disgusting animals are in favor of restoring unconditional freedom of association forthwith? Just want to make sure I understand your disgusting brand of bigotry.

Yeah, but imagine how awesome it must feel to do something so righteous and on the right side of history.

I also wonder if there is any evidence that using social exclusion to marginalize bigots actually leads to a reduction in bigoted beliefs, or if it does so, if it is the best means to achieve that end.

I would think that civil social interaction with people holding different beliefs would be more likely to change minds. Exclusion seems more likely to harden hearts and perpetuate the disfavored viewpoint.

What if people just don't feel like interacting with bigots because, say, it's boring, not fun, annoying, or otherwise bothersome. Not because they are trying to change their minds? What if I just don't feel like having friends who are bigots? Am I obligated to be inclusive of bigots in some way? And what if that creates conflicts between bigots and the targets of their bigotry? Which group of people should I disinvite from my parties: A) the bigots, B) the blacks, transsexuals, gays, or other minoritiies?

One of the luxuries of being a bigot relative to being a minority is being able to hide it in the company of others. One of the downsides of shaming bigots into silence and secrecy is not knowing how many there are or having an input in their thought processes. Then you may wind up with surprising election results.

Right wing Taqiya

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiya

This combined with your prior response makes me think you are thinking of "bigots" only as those who are very vocal about their biases. Most bigots, like most people, are pretty quiet, so I'm really not sure how bigots could generally be boring, not fun, annoying, or otherwise bothersome, since they probably won't say anything related to their bigotry at your party.

The odds are quite good that at least one of your beliefs is considered morally reprehensible by a significant portion of people, akin to the moral reprehension you feel toward bigots. The odds are also quite good that some of the people you'd invite to your party, who you do not currently consider bigots, hold at least one view you would consider to be morally reprehensible (even some of the black, transsexuals, gays, and other minorities).

If they keep it secret, what's the problem exactly?

The day it somehow slips out, and you now feel justified in trying to destroy a former friend's livelihood?

I would definitely re-evaluate my friendship if I didn't realize they were racist and I found out. Wouldn't you?

And as I said above, 'destroying livelihood'? That's an exaggeration. Also more incentive to not let it slip out. Or even better, how about not being a bigot in the first place? Our society is increasingly disdainful of those attitudes. So they have to be hidden, and that's a good thing. If you just can't bother to keep your mouth shut about it, find like minded people and work for them.

One thing I have found is that most bigots really have a hard time keeping it a secret. Unless it's totally the subtle unconscious bigotry which everyone is guilty of and should try to suppress anyway. The problem is that bigots who know they are bigots and aren't ashamed of it tend to have a hard time doing things like not making racist jokes or not laughing when other people make racist jokes. They also have a tendency to get in arguments in which they start insisting things like black people are less intelligent than whites, or hispanics are all a bunch of socialists so we need to keep them from immigrating.

Why would suppressing unconcious bigotry be the way to go? Seems better to have it aired out and have someone point out why it doesn't make sense.

So does noting different average IQ scores between races make one a bigot?

I also have no clue how you could know that most bigots can't keep it a secret. You would, by definition, not know about their bigotry if they successfully keep it a secret. So I don't see how you can possibly have a sense of what the ratio of one to the other is in the population.

Also, as I say above, the actual way "social exclusion" tends to happen isn't through independent choices not to interact with bigots or invite them to parties, but through concerted efforts by networks of people to socially punish these people, including through applying social pressure to end or prevent their employment or to destroy their business.

I think people should freely associate with people they like. Ideally, it won't matter what that persons political, social or religious views are, and you can get along civilly all the same. Of course a bigot could become annoying, but so could someone you agree with on every issue. Avoid hanging out with annoying people, but don't automatically say that anyone with some views you find reprehensible is annoying. I wouldn't personally avoid doing business with someone or going to their store because I find a view of theirs morally reprehensible, unless they became annoying about it. I go to lots of stores run by Christians who I am fairly certain would believe I am destined for Hell. I'd probably stop going if they put a sign out in front telling me so.

I think once people start to organize as groups to punish or suppress speech or viewpoints, whether through the State or through other non-governmental groups or networks of people, that is improper, and I oppose it.

In other words, I suppose I tend towards the absolutist in my views on freedom of speech, expression, and viewpoint. I am sure there are those who would find this view bigoted in some way.

Exactly, and to be honest most people are like you, they wouldn't stop shopping from a place just because they heard the guy make a rude racist comment. Some would. That's called consequences.

If you oppose bigot-fighting groups, fight back by organizing bigot-supporting (or -tolerating) groups. Or just shop there to make your point (Chick Fil-A). People have the right to do it, you have the right to oppose it. Not really a conflict here.

I don't think we are disagreeing much here. Your example of the Christian-run store is a good example. Because they keep it uiet, you shop there uncaring about their views. If they advertise them, you shop somewhere else. What's the problem here?

You could similarly say that if the government makes a law punishing bigots (or any speech or viewpoint) that I can just organize a counter-group or work to elect officials who can redress my grievances.

I think collective social pressure applied to punish speech, expression or viewpoints is just as deplorable when done through the State as when done outside the State. This is not purely a theoretical matter. It happens. With the ready availabiity of an internet outrage machine it appears to happen more often.

My issue is when it moves beyond individual choices about who to interact with to collective social pressure.

No doubt the internet has some downsides, including enabling mobs. But that's the world we live in. Again, 'collective social pressure' is the world around you. There are norms, those norms evolve, and adults have to conform to their society. Anarchists and libertarians often have a problem with this, but that's childish.

The bigots can find each other on the internet too, they'll be ok.

Also, and once again, we aren't very far apart here. I don't like outrage mobs either, but they are legal and they are out there. Act accordingly. Keep your bigotry quiet, and if you need an outlet post it anonymously on the net, and avoid those you hate. Many here are already doing that.

And I am proposing we evolve towards the norm I have described. If we can apply that norm to government, why not to non-government group action?

Indeed, if the norm I describe doesn't exist or further decays, it seems unlikely that the prohibition on government action will survive.

"Adults have to conform to their society" and saying otherwise is childish? Interesting. So in a society that executes gays and enslaves blacks, you're all good conforming to those norms? You may want to think through that some more, rather than lazily labeling an alternative view as childish. The need for strict adherance to social conformity seems like more of a high school thing than an adult thing to me anyway, but whatever you say.

What is the point of noting it is legal? Do you think I am arguing it isn't?

I am arguing for what I believe to be a superior and more consistent set of norms around freedom of speech, expression, and viewpoint. You have responded repeatedly with statements about how things currently are. I don't understand why. It's like if I said "marijuana should be legal" and you responded "marijuana is currently illegal at the federal level and in most States."

A fair point, some norms are wrong and should be opposed. Thankfully there are fewer and fewer of those, that's one definition of progress.

Surely though you see a difference between cultural norms and government rights? It's not that the government norm is to value free speech, it's that our government literally has no right to abridge it. But your neighbors and customers and friends? You have the right to think and say anything you want. And they have the right to react to that.

I'm still trying to find where we disagree. If all you are saying is internet shaming mobs are bad, I agree. But they are a thing, and they are legal. My comment on childishness is simply that we all live in a world with rules that we did not create. An adult acts accordingly and accepts the consequences if he resists. And if you can get enough others to agree the rule is bad, you can get it changed. A child cries 'no fair, I want what I want!'

Re legal vs illegal, I'm saying the norms are legal. You say let's change the norms (not the law). I say I agree, internet mobs are bad. Not sure how much you and I can do about it, but we agree.

Laws and rights don't exist independent of norms. Constitutional rights can erode as our norms supporting those rights erode or shift. If the large majority of the populace no longer believes in the norm of free speech, the government will be able to limit speech, text and precedents be damned.

Yes, agreed. I support free speech.

It depends if the people we are excluding are Cuba.

Pretty crazy, and I do not approve.

And with a handful of exceptions for essential out-of-state travel, AB 1887 prohibits all taxpayer-funded trips from California to Kansas, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Tennessee—including, as the Sacramento Bee reported, future away games for public university sports teams like the UCLA Bruins.

When the Golden Bears meet the Jayhawks in Lawrence the team will fly to Kansas City and then ride a bus hired by a donor for the rest of the trip.

Truly? Seems obvious the state funds are going for a trip there even if the flight stops just outside. I would think they should take their medicine and forfeit.

Clever to avoid Kansas, North Carolina and Duke in basketball.

Maybe Kentucky under its new GOP majority will also get on the banned list so UK and Louisville can be avoided.

To bad Connecticut won't --help out the women's team a lot.

"And with a handful of exceptions for essential out-of-state travel": who decides which trips are essential? Who is going to make those trips? State politicians, perhaps?

College administrators, who are far worse than state pols, if less corrupt in a pecuniary sense.

Tyler - some very good posts in the last few days.

Agreed. I get stuff here I can't find anywhere else.

While so many suffer under mass delusion that gender is what ever you say it is the vast majority of us are either male or female. It is irrational, illogical and dangerous to allow men in woman's bathrooms and arguably irritating at worst to allow women in men's bathroom. But the PC mafia demands it and they represent a voting block that the left depends on to retain power. So the hell with logic and safety let the pervs go where they want and punish anyone who doesn't agree. This is a dangerous and stupid path and the state shouldn't be making it worse.

You want to force this person to go in the women's room?

http://www.advocate.com/transgender/2016/2/08/meet-first-trans-man-cover-mens-health-europe

I'd go a couple of steps back and tell this person we're not going to cut off her breasts, eviscerate her genitals, and feed her daily synthetic hormones in a futile attempt to override the XX chromosomes in every cell in her body. Then the bathroom issue doesn't come up.

Paul McHugh managed to persuade Johns Hopkins Hospital to shut down John Money's clinic a generation ago. The medical profession and the legal profession have been regressing ever since.

Who is "we"? Are you on the board of some major hospital group or physicians association?

Before this was an issue this man/woman had an option. If you pee like a man and look like a man then you go in the men's room. All of the "force" came from the other side of this issue.

I'm not an expert on pervs and/or bathrooms as you seem to be, but prior to such laws, did men frequently go into women's bathrooms and do pervy stuff?

Let's not allow a member of the Democrat coalition to be so modest about their knowledge of perverts.

We Republicans need to take a WIDE STANCE on Bathroom issues

It should be noted at least in NC that the new law essentially just formalized the laws as they had been in NC before hand. It just said that a city can't pass its own discrimination law. It did strike down a few existing city ordinances, but mainly was aimed at a just passed Charlotte ordinance that said that private businesses had to allow transgenders the right to use the facility of their choice.

In most places, prior to the new laws a person who did not suitably look like a woman would have been asked to use the men's facility and if they did not comply they would be asked to leave. And if they did not leave they would be trespassing. The Charlotte ordinance took the discretion away from the the business owner and the State law gave it back.

The State law also said that if the facility is government owned and has men's and women's restrooms then then you have to use the one that matches your birth certificate. But in practice this would never be enforced unless the person was obviously of the other gender. The bill also allows for unisex facilities if a government entity wishes to designate it as that.

So as long as no one was causing a scene, nothing really changed from the way it had been for years.

gab; You gotta pay attention. It's in the news.

"As of the date of this notice, the States of Kansas, Mississippi, North Carolina and Tennessee are on the prohibited travel list."

The Bathroom Bill in TN was withdrawn without a vote (ie it failed). Apparently just considering the idea is enough to get the CA ban.

The only possibly relevant law in Kansas was a law protecting the right of students forming religious groups to choose their own members--a right that at the time four members of the Supreme Court believed was required by the 1st Amendment. It seems entirely fitting that this law, which in this instance serves as a restriction on the academic freedom of the faculty of California state universities, also is an attack on associational freedom at Kansas universities.

States of Kansas, Mississippi, North Carolina and Tennessee are guilty of suppressing free expression so aren't they guilty of red state outrageous overreach?

Note California explicitly supports individual free expression - anyone is free to spend their money supporting the suppression of expression of States of Kansas, Mississippi, North Carolina and Tennessee.

Lol. A law mandating that private businesses have unisex bathrooms ia free expression in the warped and twisted lefty mind.

"Blue state overreach"? What if the state law in North Carolina authorized discrimination against white people, or people of German descent, or overweight college professors, or members of the Republican party, or blowhards who work for Fox News? Would it be okay in that case for a state law in Virginia that prohibited use of state funds to pay for travel to North Carolina? Discrimination of any kind should be attacked at its core, which means in the pocket book. As for the gender benders, I will admit that I don't get it. But do gender benders actually choose to be gender benders? Why? Do overweight college professors choose to be overweight? Of course, the legal issue is a narrow one: can the state regulate purely personal conduct? And that includes discrimination against overweight college professors as well as gender benders.

"Discrimination of any kind should be attacked at its core"

Basically all preferences in human relationships, including sexual relationships, involves discrimination. A heterosexual male discriminates against men who might want to have sex with him, a homosexual male discriminates against women who might want to have sex with him, and a woman who likes taller guys discriminates against shorter guys who might want to have sex with her.

Discrimination in sexual relations is not really anything like commercial and political discrimination, but you knew that.

I believe I specifically quoted and replied to the statement that "“Discrimination of any kind should be attacked at its core.” But you knew that.

NC set its protected classes to match the federal definition of protected class. Boycott the USA? And by the way most of that had always been legal under NC law. If folks were upset about that they should have been upset a long time ago.

This isn't discrimination you twit.

I'm a bath-room warrior with fire in my eyes

The left enshrines violations of "normal" behavioral in law, then pretends that people who oppose the positive encroachment on society are the "warriors". Lol

The equivolent would be the right mandatong the naacp rent facilities to the Klan or PETA rent facilities to a BBQ compeition. This BS is the #1 reason for Trump.

You don't even understand the legal issue at hand, which is embarassing considering you claim to be a lawyer. Hint: a municipality enacted a law requiring there be no seperate sex bathrooms in any private business or government building.

Since none of the legislators in those states give a darn about travel by California employees, this may be the ultimate virtual signalling.

Restaurant and hospitality industry groups may well care and those groups have been known to lobby and donate to legislators at the state level. Since California has the largest population and largest economy of any state in the country, I suppose their hope is that national academic, scientific, or public-policy oriented conferences involving any state and/or public university employees would be likely to avoid these states. Conference business is fairly important to the restaurant and hospitality industry so I don't think this law will go completely unnoticed.

Those states should sue under interstate commerce. Trump's SCOTUS will rule the right way. Hundred billion dollars would be an appropriate settlement.

I have no idea how SCOTUS would ultimately rule on this question, but it does seem like it might raise an interstate commerce issue.

Doesn't this run afoul of constitutional bars on interstate trade restrictions?

I don't think so. It just about the use of the money owned by the state of California, not interstate trade.

There is no law in SCOTUS anymore. Trump's SCOTUS will rule the right way.

Is there really a distinction? If it forbade public agencies purchasing goods produced in or transported through those states, would the reasoning be the same?

It seems that there is a distinction. The commerce clause would prevent a state to make a law forbidding its residents to travel or trade with an other state, but it leaves (it seems) the state free to do whatever it wants with its money, for instance to offer free or reduced-rate college tuition in public college to residents of the state only: this is done frequently and has not caused any serious judicial problem.

This actually might be one of the few legitimate uses of the Commerce clause.

Sanctions for the states of Kansas, Mississippi, North Carolina and Tennessee! Their officials should not be allowed to enter California, their account in Californian banks frozen... Bring the popcorn!

"Blue State Overreach"?

From someone in California myself, the interesting thing is that if you talk or listen to UCLA professors, this isn't going far enough.

It is going to take the left to stop this overreach. What becomes the tipping point for it to happen when the incentives are to run further and further to the left?

Probably when the States that are the subject of another State's boycott implement counter-boycotts - banning all non-essential, public-funded travel to States that have enacted boycotts of their own State.

I would guess that, even with the population disparities, the general flow of funds is more in the direction of California from these States. If I were organizing a conference, I'd probably choose San Diego as a destination over Lawrence if I could.

The potential for this kind of tit-for-tat retaliation is one reason I can imagine it becoming an interstate commerce issue. It would not be so hard for political virtue signaling inside very red and very blue states to cause a hell of a lot of damage to the whole country.

"if you talk or listen to UCLA professors"

My baseball oriented buddy does not approve, but I don't think he should be so dumb as to die on this hill.

These things self-correct. It might take a Republican Governor, but that has happened before.

I hope you're right. I don't see any trace of a beginning of a self-correction in the leftist universities on both coasts I frequent.

I know of several UC academics who have long running research projects in affected or soon to be affected states. This is a recruitment opportunity!

Of course at the top Texas will win this game, but maybe we can pick up the people they would have hired...

And in biomedical I bet they would rather be cut off from California than Texas or even North Carolina.

Come on Dan Patrick you can do it!

As you've often written about, people are free to move. Labeling this (or anything else) as discrimination based on state diminishes the notion of discrimination.

Obviously you're not familiar with the concept of discrimination then

Why stop there California, why not discriminate against states that don't have an assault weapon law, or that do not pursue a strong enough climate change policy, or put restrictions on abortion, or simply voted for Donald Trump !
CA a Democratic state is probably the most expensive state to live in the nation. gasoline ( only second to Hawaii), electricity ( twice the median average),water, housing. There is a net out flux of people. The ones who are coming in are poor immigrants.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/uncomfortable-truths-behind-californias-economic-surge-1483747393

There may be a "net out flux of people" but the population is growing by half a million people a year nonetheless. And part of the reason California is so expensive is that there are so many people living here. So that "net out flux" may not be such a problem after all.

It's a problem in that it's indicative of bigger problems.

You mean the problem that there are too many people in California is indicative of a bigger problem? Like so many people want to be in California?

Cali has nice weather. Cali is a third world of income inequality.

There are not too many people in California, there are too many restrictions on doing business ( high taxes, zoning, environmental regulations, green energy mandates)

California now has the highest poverty rate in the country (adjusted for PPP). That looks like a significant and growing problem.

And a very good reason that people who are poor should leave for greener pastures. My proposal (should I run for governor) is to pay people to leave and never come back. My goal (when elected) is to get 10MM people (ideally children) to leave. That would ease pressure on housing prices and especially important, get those a*#@holes off the freeways!

Next, states where marijuana is still illegal will ban using state funds to travel to marijuana states. After all, some of them already sued Colorado to recoup some of their law enforcement costs.

It's great not to have to do business with people with whom you disagree.

It is outrageous to not fund travel to some states and not others. Let's not fund travel to such states.

This is actually a good law, since the state should not fund travel anywhere and in fact should not spend money on anything. It is unfortunate that this is the only way they can rein in spending, but for the time being all academic conferences should be held in one of those states.

How does this apply to sports travel/recruiting? Would love to see some arbitary exemption for the breadwinners.

I don't understand why North Carolina Republicans didn't market the law as"The Protection of our Women and Daughters Act". Men in girls locker rooms/bathrooms, what could possibly go wrong?

Budget concerns in the Department of Defense a few years ago led to all travel approvals including a line to sign off explaining why the travel is necessary. That's how it will be for California as well. "Is this travel to North Carolina necessary?" "Yes, that's where the meeting/conference/basketball game is being held."

Funny how many criticisms of California boil down to it being big and diverse. Should it be six states as was once proposed?

Combne the Virginias and inequality rises, without anyone gaining or losing a cent. Divide California and inequality falls, for the same reason.

Here's a question: will CA itself be a prohibited-travel state if the democratic majority succeeds in its goal of repealing Prop 209? Will the CA state government then cease to function as a result of its own internal contradictions?

Can't wait until these states stop buying Apple equipment for education. That's a huge market that Brown could destroy almost overnight. Remember that most states are run by conservative governors and state and local education departments and IT departments can do things like block iPhone security access, block purchases of iPads, Macs, etc. This could escalate very quickly.

I don't know what the big problem is with this law. CA simply doesn't want to funnel money to states that have passed recent discrimination laws. If states rights gives NC, MS, KS, and TN the freedom to pass discriminatory laws, states rights also gives CA the freedom to deny their business, where possible, to those states. As it should be.

No one is disputing whether California has the "right" to pass this law.

Jerry Brown, California governor that signed the bill, is a 78 year old millionaire that probably can't drive or balance his checkbook. Being a sachem in politics is easier than some occupations, however. His one time heart throb Linda Ronstadt is no longer physically able to sing as she once could. Brown only requires the energy and coordination to scribble his mark on a bill, making it a law. http://nailheadtom.blogspot.com/2012/12/californias-most-prominent-politicians.html

https://norcalnews.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/jerrys-car-6.jpg

I pointed out back in May 2013 that World War T looked like next on the Establishment's agenda when the NYT started running articles on topics like it was horrible that an ex-man MMA fighter wasn't allowed to beat up women for money.

Net, World War T likely cost the Democrats the White House. What was the thinking behind the Democrats' strategy, anyway?

There aren't many ex-men, but the late in life ones tend to be very high IQ, like the fellow I went to MBA school with who is now listed as the highest paid "female" executive in America. Did one of them promise a lot of money to Hillary? I really am baffled by what the Democrats' thinking, if anything, was on this topic.

If this saves California taxpayers from having to pay for pointless travel by the bureaucrats, then I'm all for it.

The first exception is for trips to collect overdue taxes. I laughed

Seriously California? No one wants those moon-bats in our states anyway. You keep them. They are what you are known for.

Comments for this post are closed