California To Drop State Rock Over Asbestos Concerns 256
Diamonddavej writes "The LA Times reports that Californian legislators are close to dropping the translucent green rock Serpentine as the state rock of California because of its tenuous association with chrysotile asbestos. Sen. Gloria Romero declares in her bill (SB 624) that Serpentine should be dropped as California's state rock because it 'contains the deadly mineral chrysotile asbestos, a known carcinogen, exposure to which increases the risk of the cancer mesothelioma.' The bill has backing from mesothelioma support groups. Critics point out that Serpentine is a group of 20 different minerals, and Californian Serpentine rarely contains much chrysotile, never mind its dangerous fibrous asbestos form. Its is suspected that lawyers involved in asbestos compensation claims and cleanup companies will profit from the bill. Vast tracts of California where bedrock is made of Serpentine could be declared hazardous to health... even if it contains no crysotile at all! It looks like SB 624 will be passed; it won unanimous bi-partisan support from an Assembly committee last week."
Seriously (Score:5, Insightful)
I find it amusing that a state rock even exists, let alone the fact that it's causing such a ruckus! You Americans!
*ruffles hair*
It's strange (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought California was bankrupt or something. But I guess this is the biggest problem.
Re:Should be banned from even being considered (Score:3, Insightful)
Distraction (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:In other news... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is precisely the sort of thing that politicians do when the economic and financial situation pretty much destroys any capacity at meaningful change. It's a classic stunt, where they ban things or make pointless proclamations, because these sort of actions are cheap, allow them to look populist and all governmental, even as, as you point out, Rome burns around them.
How about Pyrite... (Score:5, Insightful)
Fools Gold seems appropriate for California these days.
I lived in California for 25 years (Score:2, Insightful)
To anyone wondering why the state is in so much financial trouble perhaps this story will explain why. Most state legislatures have their heads up their own asses. In California they can see daylight and teeth.
Re:this is why we need a part time legislature (Score:3, Insightful)
"The people who run California are doing a terrible job."
The public of California are doing a terrible job. The price of freedom is vigilance.
Inaction is consent to incompetence, tyranny, and incompetent tyranny.
Re:Unanimous bi-partisan support... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is akin to the "all puppies are lovely act" - anyone who doesn't vote yes on it is a communist.
Seriously - doesn't California have bigger problems to tackle? It really is a testament to how broken government is when the only thing they can pass is a change to the state rock.
More than a testament to broken government, it's a reflection of the state and its people too. This is yet another sign of how California, once the greatest most glamorous state in the union, has become the nation's laughingstock. California looks more and more like Rome at the end of its life. Unfortunately, what happens to California is often a precursor of where the rest of the country is going.
Re:In other news... (Score:3, Insightful)
Also coming up: White Star Line [wikipedia.org] deckchair arrangements may have been less than optimal, claims report.
Re:Next up on the PC list of banned items .. (Score:3, Insightful)
Referendums (Score:3, Insightful)
Seems like a large part of the problem has been the prevalence of referendums, rather than laws passed by the legislature. No one votes to raise taxes and everyone votes to create a new program to save the rattlesnakes or whatever. There is a reason we have a representative democracy, we can't all be expected to be informed on every issue or bill. We aren't even supposed to worry so much about whether we agree with the positions a politician takes, but rather whether we think they are keeping themselves informed and are honest and difficult to corrupt. If we all voted for honest and intelligent people that have the talent of spotting when they are being BSed, then we would see change. Instead we let ourselves be manipulated by dishonest and intelligent people, who use issues we don't fully understand to convince us to vote for them or their bill that reaches into our pockets. The problem is scale. How can you tell if that guy on TV is honest using sound bytes? The only solution I can think of is a hierarchical vote sort of like super voters at party conventions, but that still isn't a very good one.
Re:Which leaves one question: (Score:1, Insightful)
According to an editorial linked from TFA, it was made the state rock in the 60s to promote the asbestos industry.
I don't know much about this issue, but I'm going to guess the legislature doesn't think that stripping the rock of its designation will protect anyone. It's probably a symbolic measure, just as when the state rock was named in the first place, to indicate that the state no longer promotes that industry. Given that history, I'd probably vote for the bill if it came up (unless it contained provisions that actually did something -- if so, I'd judge them on their merits). This may be a case of the public failing to understand the relevant history, not of the legislature failing to understand the relevant science.
From what I can tell, the bill doesn't appear to do much of anything but reverse the rock designation. It's probably not really taking much of anyone's time. But now we're all reading about it, and not about important things that the legislature might be doing. As the bill can easily be portrayed as silly to people that don't understand its history, and people are already angry at the legislature, it's easy to turn this story against the legislature and especially against the senator that introduced it. So... I'd guess the fact we're hearing about it at all is thanks to some PR work by someone's political enemies.
Re:Seriously (Score:3, Insightful)