Californianing: Nightmare #8
Comrade! It is lovely day in worker's paradise!
[It is common for me to write these “Californianing” posts while murmuring a quiet prayer that my state is quite unlike most other states, well, at least states outside of the Glorious People’s Socialist Republic of New England.]
I had a strange dream; and in my dream, I was in a dense
fog, able only to see a few feet in any direction. But in this, I received news
occasionally from the places beyond the fog.
I dreamed the state’s Supreme Court was going to entertain arguments over whether or not the word “marriage” should be redefined, after the people of the state defined it and the legislators then ignored the people they purport to represent. This part of the dream has been dealt with separately; it was too fantastic on its own and needed further detailing!
And I dreamed that, hot on the heels of the State’s Energy Commission proposing Remote Controls being built into all new “smart” thermostats so the State can control your house’ temperature, local authorities in Southern California were contemplating restricting the use of fireplaces. Evidently, none of the government officials allegedly concerned with pollution spent any time in the Los Angeles area in the 1970’s, as I did.
And further, I dreamed that an appellate court reaffirmed that parents have no constitutional right to educate their own children at home, but rather must subject children between the ages of 6 and 18 to public education. Must. Unless they are enrolled in a private school, or tutored by accredited tutors.
And this seemed good to me, because I have dealt with home-schooled children who have deficient math skills (and the legal paper cited, above, is a good read because of the telling use of quotes from the parents, which adds a certain layer of ironic humor to the writing). But I also know that the competent home-school parents outnumber the incompetent ones.
But, in my dream, I could only see hundreds upon hundreds of competent parent-teachers scrambling to obtain a teaching credential to teach the 166,000 or so home-schooled children, and thousands upon thousands of dollars flowing into the teachers’ union coffers, while the teachers’ union treated the new credentialees like third-class citizens at best… But then I thought, well maybe – just maybe – the new credentialees will form a large enough majority within the union to really mess it up and effectively
crippleer, “otherwise-enable” its ability to promote its own social agenda.I believe I may have smiled, a little, in my sleep.
And then I awoke and, realizing I had been sleeping with the television on. And all of the hallucinatory and impossible and fantastical news I had been receiving in my dream was happening, in real life.
I screamed in horror.
Categories: The Left, Re-edjication, Global Warming, Socialists, Californianing, Bags of Crap, Environment, Bureaucracy
Gee, Wry, I'm sorry your restful slumber is being so adversely affected by California state law and court findings older than you are. According to the appellate court decision, their decision in this case rests on precedent in Pierce v Society of Sisters (1925), People v Turner (1953) and in re Shinn (1961). And of course the relevant provision in the California Educational Code, which is referred to in Turner.
And I'm admittedly not conversant in California labor law, but I don't see where the requirement for parents to obtain a teaching credential necessarily implies forced membership of such a credentialed tutor in the CTA or other union. But then, how could one work up a good frothy libertarian outrage were it not true?
Too bad there isn't some kind of citizens' initiative process so laws like that could be amended as the public sees fit. Wait a sec...
Reply to this
Ah; back from the shadows again!
Indeed; it's hard to froth libertarianishly in the face of well-established law, but I feel I can do so, even if the laws are older than I. What; is the some sort of statute against arguing the libertarian position if the law predates you? Heh. And you'll note, I hope, that I referenced the actual court document -- even encouraged a look at it. I'm not hiding anything from anyone here. I'll take the lumps from my position.
As to the citizens' initiative process and how well it works in our Glorious Republic, see paragraph 1 of the nightmare, above (passed over by yourself, I see), and also the not-mentioned-here kerfuffle over our proposition 187 (1994), refusing state services to illegal occupants of the state.
I'm actually not a big fan of the citizens' initiative process, as abused in California*, but by golly if you're going to say there is such a process it would be nice if the State legislators would actually give the process some due.
You were saying?
* that is, it is almost never used to strike down wads of unnecessary law and services, but rather almost always used to ADD to the weight of laws of the state, and the taxpayer burden.
Reply to this
There's no statute of limitations, wrymouth, be upset about whatever you like. I'm just surprised that such well-established law and precedent is causing a sudden spasm of distaste. What's the refrain I often hear (and by the way, agree with)? "Just enforce the laws already on the books." Well, here we go then.
Surprisingly, perhaps, I agree with you on the Cal initiative process. I've never liked it.
1) There is no legal review of the content of such populist legislation, which results in the passage of unconstitutional public tantrums like Prop 187. 2) No budgetary impact analysis or PAYGO provisions, which means a lot of mandated spending with no specified way to pay for it.
I have the same problem with legislation by direct democracy as I do with direct election of the MLB All-Star teams: uninformed, rabidly partisan electors = almost uniformly bad results. That, coupled with the free-market approach to politics (most money = right) makes for horrible policy in the aggregate.
Reply to this