The hell it isn't.

I sound like a conspiracy theorist?

In the 1960s, Heinlein and his wife visited the Alma Ata collective farm in the Soviet Union. The schoolchildren there put on skits for the tourists. Some recited poems, some sang songs... Heinlein's wife spoke Russian; every last one of them dealt with the need to protect the revolution, or with the next five year plan.

The children started school at 15 months of age, and afterwards saw their mothers perhaps 2 hours a day thereafter.

While they were there, the U2 incident happened. Before the incident, everyone was relatively friendly and open with them. The night after, they were given the cold shoulder and treated rudely....
Then the next day, after the government adopted the tolerant regret official response, everyone became friendly again.

One night on the way to the opera, a group of Red Army cadets accosted them, all excited over the man they put in orbit.

The next day, there were news reports of the unmanned capsule the Soviets lost, and their intourist guide looked them up to assure them that the cadets were wrong, that it was an unmanned capsule.

Time and again governments have tried to control the minds of the population, from ancient times to present. This isn't conspiracy theory; this is just history.

It's just that it's now our turn in the barrel.

As I understand the story, he was going to stick her in preschool, where the indoctrinaires would molest her mind.

Desperate people do desperate things. Don't judge too quickly, and without sufficient information.

Not sure what your comment is about.

Should a parent allow others to determine what their children are subjected to? Including putting foreign substances in their bodies and foreign thoughts in their minds?

Please don't misconstrue that as bigotry or racism. But don't parents have the right to choose to what their children are exposed? And if not, then who gets the right to determine? If you say the "state" then aren't you just another collectivist?

How is the government creating racist propaganda? The woman was the one who made the racist remarks...

Probably right.

That's idiotic. Preschool is not indoctrination. You're seriously starting to sound like one of those conspiracy theorists.

And the mother's motivations are irrelevant. Even if she took the child away for reasons that had nothing to do with preventing the child from seeing her father, if the result is that the child doesn't see her father, then the mother is violating the terms of the court order, as well as the rights of the father.

Going purely off the basis that this woman is clearly crazy, I would actually say the parents should not have been given joint custody. The father should have been given full custody.

What are you talking about?

Someone's been going around down voting all my posts, regardless of their content. I'm not sure who's doing it, though I do have a couple suspects.

She didn't. The father was going to turn the child over to molesters.

My only anecdotal evidence against vaccines is that my aunts every year got the flu vaccine, and every year they got the flu...

Meanwhile, my mother, their sister, didn't, and didn't.

(aside: My aunts were also convinced that their seatbelts rubbing against their (brassiere-encased) breasts gave them breast cancer... new studies show that some of the chemicals in support bras can cause cancer...)

But the mother didn't take the child away so the father couldn't see the child; she took the child away so it couldn't be subjected to indoctrination at too early an age.

She would have been just as justified if the father had been molesting the child; in a way, he was, by sticking her in preschool, he was molesting her mind.

It seems that she did, because there was a decision on parental custody. I'm not saying that she was right, or had a valid reason for doing so, just that we don't know. There have been too many cases where the legal system got it wrong.

Your assumption is that the court made the correct decision in awarding joint custody. In general I would agree, but I don't know the specifics of this case. Courts have been wrong in the past.

Your assumption is that the court got the decision correct. I'm not willing to make such an assumption. Look at the case of the NH girl who the court wrested guardianship from because some neophyte doctor said they weren't giving adequate care. Even though world renowned doctors were giving that care, just in a different state.

If a sufficiently high percentage of the population is not vaccinated, its puts the rest of the population at risk. This is what's called "herd immunity."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immuni...