San Diego – “As California goes, so goes the country” or so the saying goes. So where are we going? Well if you want to know what the so-called “Nanny” state is like then simply follow our politics. In addition to the bill just signed into law that i mentioned a post or so ago, several more have been signed by our progressive governor.
Now admittedly they were crafted and voted on by the legislature before he had a chance to sign them but he was on record as supporting them all the way through the process. Along with that previously mentioned Bill, allegedly about bullying, he wanted it to be known that he is all about protecting the children. So first of all he made sure they were safe from the evils of tanning salons and raised the legal age for receiving those “treatments” from 12 to 14.
I personally think the idea of someone living in sunny California and laying on a bed of harmful flourescent lights for a tan is right up there for the prize as the most idiotic idea to come down the pike in ages. Sort of like smoking. I would have lost a lot of money betting against it ever catching on. Nevertheless, people here are terrified of nearly everything and that includes the sun so they have flocked to these “salons” to get their ersatz tans ’cause, of course, they still want to LOOK like they live in California. And if you don’t have time or money to go to the specialty places that will airbrush a tan on your body (and no, I am not kidding) the place to go is one of these tanning salons. But of course, the State recognizes that 12 year olds are not really mature enough to understand the dangers involved, or the later-in-life complications that can arise from exposure to the harmful UV rays, so they are now protected from that. OK…
But at the same time another bill was signed dealing with 12 year olds. That age group may not be old enough or have sufficient life experience to know whether it is good to get tanned, but they are, apparently, old enough and mature enough to engage in sexual activity and know what is medically and psychologically good for them about it and whether or not they might have engaged in risky behavior that might expose them to danger. So, this Bill allowed them to be vaccinated against Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) without parental permission or knowledge.
Ignoring that only the parent would know their medical history and any issues that might be caused by the drug, and setting aside the idea that put together it is now State sanctioned that 12 year olds can engage in sex without parental knowledge but not in tanning even WITH parental authority, and ignoring that we still pretend to ask for parental consent to see certain movies but not to be given a medical procedure, I’m sure you all feel our children are ever so much more secure and safe than in those other places where parents are expected to be involved in their childrens’ medical procedures. And, as a by-product, I now know something about human development I was unaware of previously. The State has decreed by implication that pre-teenagers have the maturity to engage in sexual activity but not to engage in tanning activities.
The next step will probably be to start carding kids that want to go to the beach where they can cook themselves for free. but since they can find secluded beaches for more personal activities which are OK then that will put legislators between a rock and a hard spot.
But, of course it doesn’t stop there. Thanks to another bill signed during this bill signing onslaught, now the police can also legally search your cell phone without your permission. Personally, I don’t care; this doesn’t effect me because I rarely use my cell phone, always delete old calls, and knowing how easy it is to intercept cell phone traffic would not think of doing anything clandestine over a cell phone anyway. And generally I am one of those troglodites that thinks if you have nothing to hide why would you care if they looked… except of course for that nagging issue of the Constitution re searches and seizures.
But liberals have always held that the Constitution says whatever they think it ought to say, especially when it seems to go against their enightened view of things, so that is not an issue for them anyway. My problem, however, is the juxtaposition of the thinking that accompanies these recent bills when they are put side by side. It is clear that the State wants for traditional parental rights and responsibilities to be taken over by the State itself and it thinks in medical and emotional kids are better able to handle their activities than their parents are. But, what they cannot control themselves at is the tanning salon. The State, however, in its infinite wisdom in the person of the Governor and legislature, will be the ones to decide what is OK or not and will reduce parental rights and general adult rights in order to accomplish that.
“Why on earth would they do that?” you ask, “It makes no sense.” Well, not unless you read the sacred literature that forms the basis for modern liberal/progressive philosophies. If you will take the time to read Godwin, Rousseau, Marx, etc., not for the economic vision but now for their SOCIAL vision and how to accomplish it, or at least look at the examples of countries that DID read them and followed them, you will see clearly the pattern of removing parents from the mix, replacing them with a State sponsored and directed education system that determines, based on its political goals, the training and care and dispensation for its young charges all the while instilling in them a love, not of the parents, but of the state. They learn to be totally dependent on the State for everything from food to lodging to jobs to medicine. Which means even if the State still allows a sham of a voting event, the utterly dependent will vote to keep the goodies flowing. From that perspective it makes perfect sense. Machiavelli would be so pleased with himself to discover that hundreds of years after the last real princes and monarchs, his advice still finds an audience.
Now, let me be clear, I do NOT think everyone going along with these early stage programs is a died-in-the-wool Marxist wolf hiding in some we-just-want-fairness sheeps clothing. Rather I think most are our modern cadre of Lenin’s “useful idiots” that bought into the nice sounding rhetoric that is the dark underbelly of the inevitable results are so taken with the idea of being carried through life by the government they have turned over to it all requirements for thinking. They are true believers in the process but probably would not buy into the final conclusion which they do not see coming and probably would shrink from if they were allowed to think that much for themselves.
They are. however, sincere, they believe they are doing good, and they believe that anyone who is opposed to them is mean spirited and generally a bad person. Progressive re-education programs are stunningly successful. They have been trained well by a compliant academia and their political masters. They are good, well-intentioned people down in the trenches voting over and over for the cradle-to-grave security they are told will ultimately lead to complete equality for everyone and never look at history to realize that in every case the equality that resulted was essentially the equality of slavery or, at best, being a serf to the government’s will. The officially sanctioned historians give them a different history anyway.
These sincere, good folks do not see that every step they take towards that protected, secure, cared-for state takes them one more step away from a state of personal freedom. And the process is so insidious that when they reach that same place as reached by the citizens of the early Soviet Union they will, like them, wave flowers of gratitude to whoever is our equivalent to Uncle Joe Stalin and have no clue what they have thrown away.
I have written before about the “brilliance” of students who will cut classes to go to a rally about education. I’m sorry but if education is important don’t miss a moment of class. Now we have people in this whiner’s brigade occupying various venues that have said they quit their jobs to come protest about unemployment. Huh?
But that level of thinking is a perfect example of what drives the whole liberal/progressive behavior today. It was not always so. There was a time, back in the beginning with Rousseau and Godwin that serious intellectual discussions were being undertaken to throw a light on some very real inequities in the social order of Europe at the time, still staggering under the class-conscious remnants of monarchical systems.
Even Marx, though his premises have not proved out when placed in the spotlight of history and reality, tried to undertake a serious inquiry into economic history as it drove social history. He set the liberal model of arguing flawlessly from a flawed premiss, which, if you could simply keep people’s eyes on the conclusion and away from the foundational concepts, was sure to attract huge and lasting followings. It did and still does.
The same is true for the early stages of the other side of the aisle; John Locke, Edmund Burke, Thomas Jefferson, all engaged in serious discussions examining the social and economic history of various peoples and their successful attainment of freedom — or not — to arrive at their very different conclusions. One side thought what was needed was a system guaranteeing an equality of outcome while the other side thought what was needed was a system guaranteeing an equality of opportunity.
But all of them, in examining a wide variety of approaches and openly writing them all down to set the stage for discussion, created the unfortunate ability for modern spinmeisters to take sentences and even whole paragraphs out of context and make it seem like they were supporting ideas that would have made them ill to hear anyone would think that was what they believed or was the conclusion they had finally derived.
Even our founding fathers, who could come together to agree on a political masterpiece, were not monolithic in their ideas. Jefferson, Adams, madison, Hamilton, Washington, were constantly in each others’ faces going nose to nose over issues of the day. They knew the difference between ideological purity of thought which makes for exciting debate, and the need for open discussion and, dare I say it, compromise, on ALL sides to agree on legislation that was BOTH sound AND practical for the government to provide what it was promising to its people. And they all recognized that none of them had a pipeline to ultimate truth and that they had a long way to go to fully realize that dream.
Today, with a paucity of serious thinkers and intellectual chess players or, for that matter, even very competent philosophical checkers players, all we get is the bumper sticker cute phrases that pass for discourse excoriating and demonizing the other side. “Compromise” now means either (a) getting the other side to give in to your side, or (b) giving in to a complete shedding of one’s ethical and ideological skin. We are led on both sides by people who DO have the hubris to believe they have a pipeline to ultimate truth. I personally believe that intellectual shallowness and the resulting intellectual dishonesty is killing this country.
Surely. I try to tell myself, there are some of the original models of American firebrands out there who believe not in a security blanket but in a flag of freedom. But are there enough to change the tide now clearly rising by the parasitical and entitled class, or at least to slow it down? i used to be convinced there were, but now, honestly and sadly I’m no longer sure.
Nationally, I think we will find out next year. But here in Kalifornia the answer is clear and it is a resounding “No!” I can only hope the nation does not go along.