12

It Takes a Village?

Posted by $ Abaco 7 years, 4 months ago to Government
39 comments | Share | Flag

This came to my attention yesterday. It was penned by the lawmaker who wrote the law that removes a child's right to a free public education if they don't take every vaccine the government eventually decides the kid needs (signed by the gubnor). I wanted to share this here to get your opinion on the language. Does this seem like an appropriate role for "the village" or does this give you the creeps?
SOURCE URL: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB18


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ rainman0720 7 years, 4 months ago
    Good post.

    I got as far as far as the seven bullet points of Section 1 Part A, and understood. The only word in those seven items that isn't 100% subjective is "safe".

    The 100% subjective terms:

    (1) best interest
    (2) healthy attachments with adults
    (3) healthy environment
    (4) social and emotional well-being
    (5) optimal cognitive, physical, and social development
    (6) appropriate, quality education
    (7) appropriate, quality health care

    Ask 50 people about each of those terms, and you'll probably get 10 or 15 or 20 different definitions for every one of them.

    Perfect leftist document, where the government gets to decide for us since they know better.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by mccannon01 7 years, 4 months ago
      LOL, rainman0720, I had the exact same take and didn't need to get much past that as well. I also wondered if the list "...regardless of gender, class, race,..., etc. blah blah blah..." missed any important PC groups.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ChuckyBob 7 years, 4 months ago
    Sooooo glad I left the PRC a couple of years ago and moved to Utah. The biggest mistake California made was to go from a part time to a full time legislature.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Mygood 7 years, 4 months ago
    I am homeschooling two kids in California, vaccination law is one of the reasons we chose homeschooling. It also made homeschooling here much more common.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Joseph23006 7 years, 4 months ago
    The scary part is when the government is to put forth research-based solutions, who's research is being used, what input will parents and children have in this matter, or will it be top down do what I say but my kids are in private schools!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 7 years, 4 months ago
    And just who decides what is for the children's
    "health" and "well-being"? The parents? Oh, no,
    perish the thought! The Almighty State, through
    its bureaucracies!!
    Are the people of California such irrational idiots as to let this thing pass?! (I'm afraid so.
    I hope not, but who can say what will happen
    there?--I'm just glad I live in Virginia, and not
    there.--But who can tell how far it will creep?)
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 7 years, 4 months ago
      The people have almost no say in this. A leftist drafts it, this particular one will see no committees, a majority under the dome votes for it and the governor signs it. And, he WILL sign this.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 7 years, 4 months ago
    So what we actually have here are competing values: the one that says that a provider offering a service gets to declare the terms of that service and that in this instance, it is the government offering the service. What the government is trying to obfuscate, however, is that ALL of their power is derived from the very people who are in this case their customers. So in reality, this is a case where a small group of people is trying to usurp power from the people and tell the people what they have to do. What's even more insidious is that these same government officials also mandate the education standards.

    This is purely a power play and should be rejected and the propositioners smacked down in the most obvious and public manner.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 7 years, 4 months ago
    Oh, good grief!
    Can California please become a separate country? Enough, already with the laws, regulations, and such. Must they lay out every moment in the life of a child?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Susanne 7 years, 4 months ago
    The "village" according to this Senator Pan is, apparently, the government, and their enforcement minions.

    My question is this - Senator Pan - is the first name "Peter" or "Bed"? (Perhaps "Frying"???)\

    Just so you know (and I've seen many, MANY Senate and Assembly bills from out here in the PDRK) aI have seen a LOT of bills that start out sounding innocuous (or even inane) and being amended 99+% to something absolutely different - one started out as a bill to regulate Waste Discharges of Chicken "byproducts" within 150 feet of certain types of geographic formations, and was amended in committee to prohibit the restriction against adding "at will" employees (classified to have "open" salaries) appointed by certain lawmaker committees, and including a nice bonus addition to said committee members.

    All perfectly legal under our fine liberal people's free state's rules to do this.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 7 years, 4 months ago
    So if you refuse vaccination you also get out of the propaganda indoctrination requirements?
    Hmmmm. Now if it could also rebate the "school" taxation to the parents it would be a good start.

    (I did not read the legislation, Abaco, just reacted to your comments;^)
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by mminnick 7 years, 4 months ago
      You should read the bill. It is not bvery long but it contains a mountain of potential expensive things and potentially things that attempt to overturn any federal immigration laws and rules (my opinion on one read of the bill).
      If one believes in states rights, this bill is a declaration of open borders and more social engineering for the state of California.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ 7 years, 4 months ago
        That's right - "All" children. Good catch.

        First they say, "We're doing this for you." Then, you say, "No thanks." Then they say, "Do this. It's for the greater good. Don't you care about the herd?" And, again you say, "No thanks. I'll take my chances." Then, they threaten you with what's most valuable to you, hold a gun to your head and say, "You're going to do this now."
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by mminnick 7 years, 4 months ago
          More importantly, they hold a gun to your childresns head. There are several passages in the bill that lead me to believe if the parents don't toe the line on a lot of issues, they will be declared Unfit and not appropriate parents and given over to others who fit the PC bill as to how parents should act. Just try to home school a child in that environment.
          But I have been told I tend to be a little paranoid in my thinking. I just say to that;" Just because your paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get you."
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Dobrien 7 years, 4 months ago
          It says regardless of immigration status. This struck me : that a child has a right to parents.
          Good grief I didn't see that the child had a right granted by the state to breathe.Quick amend that bill.
          I would add the child's right to flip off these kakistocrats
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Flootus5 7 years, 4 months ago
    Not surprisingly, they fail to understand that inherent rights do not come from government. Inherent rights are those that nobody else must be forced to pay for the provision of such "services" through government. Inherent rights are those it is the limited function of government to protect - not provide.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by bassboat 7 years, 4 months ago
    I don't like the government making me do anything, period. I don't mind information that can be trusted but that should come from private hands, not public hands. Only the best information will rise to the surface and not some government study that was funded to achieve a result.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ FredTheViking 7 years, 4 months ago
    I don't think that government should force you to pay for public school. Having said that I think the vaccination mandate is something the government should be allowed to do in the case it is necessary for public safety. In this particularly case it's debatable whether or not the mandate is necessary for public safety.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 7 years, 4 months ago
      Well, many latch on to the vaccination facet here. Note that it isn't specifically spelled out - just medical care.

      I have dedicated a decade of my life to studying vaccines. I have worked in two different health organizations, been involved in the premier autism research group in the world (happens to be located 10 miles from my home) as both a researcher and a subject (that was interesting), looked at the CDC's own data from their studies on vaccines, and spoken with many pediatricians on this (including at least one that everybody here has heard of). I no longer offer my opinion on vaccines. This is because my opinion was forged over all this time and effort. What I have found is that almost nobody knows anything about vaccines (both ingredients and "mandated" application programs). But, I will share this here, as I think it's appropriate. Forced vaccination violates Objectivism. Take a moment to think about why that may be. It actually takes some deep thought so pour yourself a glass of wine, sit on the porch and watch the sunset while mulling that over...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 7 years, 4 months ago
    I think "a village" and vaccines are hugely helpful for children, BUT it's completely bogus to take people's money and give it back to them for education only if they do what I think is the right thing. In WI you can home school and get gov't provided curricula and educational software. Kids can get an education without putting other kids at risk with their parents' bad decisions.

    I didn't dig into the bill deep enough to know if it applies to home schooling. It's really shame if it does. CA is an anti-vaxer hotbed. Does their statism overpower their anti-vax tendencies?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Dobrien 7 years, 4 months ago
      A lesson to you CG . This paragraph explains the absurdity of it takes a village to raise a child . Please read carefully“For the development of personality, then, strict differentiation from the collective psyche is absolutely necessary, since partial or blurred differentiation leads to an immediate melting away of the individual in the collective. There is now a danger that in the analysis of the unconscious the collective and the personal psyche may be fused together, with, as I have intimated, highly unfortunate results. These results are injurious both to the patient’s life feeling and to his fellow men, if he has any influence at all in his environment. Through his identification with the collective psyche he will infallibly try to force the demands of his unconscious upon others, for identity with the collective psyche always brings with it a feeling of universal validity – “godlikeness” – which completely ignores all differences in the personal psyche of his fellows. (The feeling of universal validity comes, of course, from the universality of the collective psyche.) A collective attitude naturally presupposes the same collective psyche in others. But that means a ruthless disregard not only of individual differences but also of differences of a more general kind within the collective psyche itself, as for example differences of race. This disregard for individuality obviously means the suffocation of the single individual, as a consequence of which the element of differentiation is obliterated from the community. The element of differentiation is the individual. All the highest achievements of virtue, as well as the blackest villainies, are individual. The larger a community is, and the more the sum total of the collective factors peculiar to every large community rests on conservative prejudices detrimental to individuality, the more will the individual be morally and spiritually crushed, and, as a result, the one source of moral and spiritual progress for society is choked up. Naturally the only thing that can thrive in such an atmosphere is sociality and whatever is collective in the individual. Everything individual in him goes under, i.e., is doomed to repression. The individual elements lapse into the unconscious, where, by the law of necessity, they are transformed into something essentially baleful, destructive, and anarchical. Socially this evil principle shows itself in the spectacular crimes – regicide and the like – perpetrated by certain prophetically inclined individuals; but in the great mass of community it remains in the background, and only manifests itself indirectly in the inexorable moral degeneration of society. It is a notorious fact that the morality of society as a whole is in inverse ratio to its size; for the greater the aggregation of the individuals, the more the individual factors are blotted out, and with them morality, which rests entirely on the moral sense of the individual and the freedom necessary for this. Hence every man is, in a certain sense, unconsciously a worse man when he is in society than when he is acting alone for he is carried by society and to that extent relieved of his individual responsibility. Any large company composed of wholly admirable persons has the morality and intelligence of an unwieldy, stupid, and violent animal. The bigger the organization, the more unavoidable is its immorality and blind stupidity. (Senatus bestia, senatores boni viri). Society, by automatically stressing all the collective qualities in its individual representatives, puts a premium on mediocrity, on everything that settles down to vegetate in an easy, irresponsible way. Individuality will inevitably be driven to the wall. This process begins in school, continues at the university, and rules all departments in which the State has a hand. In a small social body, the individuality of its members is better safeguarded, and the greater is their relative freedom and the possibility of conscious responsibility. Without freedom there can be no morality. Our admiration for great organizations dwindles when once we become aware of the other side of the wonder: the tremendous piling up and accentuation of all that is primitive in man, and the unavoidable destruction of his individuality in the interests of the monstrosity that every great organization in fact is. The man of today, who resembles more or less the collective ideal, has made his heart into a den of murderers, as can easily be proved by the analysis of the unconscious, even though he himself is not in the least disturbed by it. And in so far as he is normally “adapted” to his environment, it is true that the greatest infamy on part of his group will not disturb him, so long as the majority of his fellows steadfastly believe in the exalted morality of their social organization. Now, all that I have said here about the influence of society upon the individual is identically true of the influence of the collective unconscious upon the individual psyche. But, as is apparent from my examples, the latter influence is as invisible as the former is visible. Hence it is not surprising that its inner effects are not understood, and that those whom such things happen are called pathological freaks and treated as crazy. If one of them happen to be a real genius, the fact would not be noted until the next generation or the one after. So obvious does it seem to us that a man should drown in his own dignity, so utterly incomprehensible that he should seek anything other than what the mob wants, and that he should vanish permanently from view in this other. One could wish both of them a sense of humor, that – according to Schopenhauer – truly “divine” attribute of man which alone benefits him to maintain his soul in freedom.”

      — C.G. Jung, Phenomena Resulting from the Assimilation of the Unconscious, Relations Between the Ego and the Unconscious, Collected Works Vol. 7
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 7 years, 4 months ago
      It certainly applies to home schoolers. In fact, I'm pretty sure they were a main target, as they escaped Pans last big bill, SB277. He didn't like that one bit.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • -1
        Posted by CircuitGuy 7 years, 4 months ago
        "It certainly applies to home schoolers. "
        Wow. That makes no sense. Then it really has nothing to do with school at all. That's just the fig leaf under which the gov't tries to make decisions for people's children.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 7 years, 4 months ago
          It has to do with two things: selling drugs and getting access to your kids. In order to do that they must attack the parent/child bond. Very simple. Hand your kids over so that they may form "healthy attachments with adults".
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CircuitGuy 7 years, 4 months ago
            " Hand your kids "
            My point is their applying it to kids who do not even physically go to a school shows it's not really about school.

            I suspect most people who support this are motivated by child welfare, not a desire to destroy the parent/child bond. But they start with the underlying question "should people be allowed to do X?" It's up to citizens, according to this bad line of thinking, to demonstrate their choices are valid to be able to make them.

            It would almost be an easier problem if there were one evil person twirling his mustache while planning to destroy the parent/child bond. It's not true. They want to take away the right to refuse a proven medical protection or eat Taco Bell and drink big gulps because I can't show those things are good ideas.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo