JUNE 5, 2000
Protecting children from bad law
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com

In the arena of global cyberspace California is often laughed at as being either another planet or a trendy micro-culture that is an oddity unique unto itself. The unfortunate reality is that California is often a bellwether for what can and often does spread across the country and not infrequently the globe. The good, the bad, the ugly and just plain strange stuff that finds a genesis in California has the potential to become ubiquitous. Hair styles and fashion are insignificant in the larger scheme of things. However, bad legislation, political correctness, and incremental reconditioning are all elements that should not be ignored. Forewarned is forearmed.

Recently the topic on my radio talk show was a specific and significantly onerous California bill entitled AB 2068. Why should you care? Because this real bad Assembly bill has already PASSED the Assembly. That embarrassing reality sparked Assemblyman Tom McClintock to observe, "This bill passed Thursday with a bare minimum of votes. I served notice of reconsideration because of serious issues that were suggested in the debate, that I feel require further elaboration."

Incrementalism, bureaucrats and camel's noses all immediately came to mind. After reviewing the bill I was reminded of two old items I have had on my Web page for years. The first item is "How Specifications Live Forever" and like so many significant items floating in cyberspace, the author is unknown.

AB2068 establishes new specifications and tangentially requires new bureaucracies. It changes the law to require the screening of children not just for their medical condition, but also for their "development history." OK, slow down. What the hell is THAT? What does "development history" MEAN? Who creates this new standard, and who becomes the new "Child Development History Sheriff"? This bill specifically defines it as recommendations set forth in policy paper No. "RE9832," of the American Academy of Pediatrics, dated January 1999.

Please note that ostensibly what the dunderheads in California's bill mill are doing is attempting to LEGISLATE a specific magazine article into LAW.

Some of you may be nonplussed and figure magazine articles are often better crafted and better researched than some of the silly laws that get passed so hey, why not? The "why not" is in what the paper says. Pay attention because there will be a test.

This bill establishes criteria in which physicians are REQUIRED to inquire of KINDERGARTNERS the following:

THEN, according to the paper, physicians are apparently required to REFER these families to the appropriate authorities for "treatment." HELLO? Who are the "appropriate" authorities and who says so? What kind of treatment/re-education/conditioning?

Remember that this has ALREADY passed the California Assembly. However, as onerous, noxious and bloody nosey as this is, it is not new. Goals 2000 and Outcome Based Education included an element called "Parents as Teachers." Sounds pretty tame and positive. However THAT program consists of an in-home visit to determine if your child is "at risk." Again, if the rigged questionnaire establishes your child as being "at risk," some big brother bureaucrat will "intervene" to mitigate the risk. I recall that when I first reviewed the program there was a long list of broadly phrased questions, which seemed to be designed to establish EVERY child "at risk." The federal questionnaire was even more intrusive than this recent California effort.

The Department of Education apparently hasn't gotten around to updating their web page but you can gain some insight into the pretensions of your federal educrats by reviewing the site.

McClintock noted that "history offers us too many examples of what happens, sometimes very rapidly; children are used by the state to report on any suspicious activities of their families or neighbors."

He goes on to note: "This bill in its original form, would have imposed this program on the public schools. It was narrowed to children in public health programs, BECAUSE their parents depend on county health services and can't complain. But the INTENTION to expand this to every child can be clearly found in the original draft of this measure, and no doubt we will soon be presented with legislation to expand what then will be an existing program." This isn't paranoia, it is reasonable analysis based on standing operating procedures. We see big government do this all the time. It is the finesse of incrementalism. Get the camel's nose in the tent, nibble around the edges, settle for a little now, a little more later, until eventually, inevitably, the ultimate large scale objective is realized.

McClintock concluded by saying, "This bill has already passed this house. But sometimes we make mistakes, and that is why we have the motion to reconsider actions that may have been taken too hastily.

"Sometimes we make mistakes ..." talk about a grossly inadequate means of articulating a stark and damning reality.

This kind of incremental conditioning reminded me the oldie but goodie. Time and space preclude my pasting in the whole story, but those of you so inclined, please read 'The Wild and Free Pigs of the Okefenokee Swamp.'