Soviet State of California

[Someday]

A Judge in California has made an interesting decision. He has brought the eventual fascist control of the state ever so much closer. California has decided parents do not have the constitutional right to teach their children at home. It reminds me of a great Leader in Europe who made a similar decision. Adolf Hitler outlawed home schooling in Germany in 1938. In fact, home schooling is STILL illegal there.

Interestingly, I liked reading the logic that was put forth in this ruling. To quote this judge, he said: "Keeping the children at home deprive them of situations where, one, they could interact with people outside the family; two, there are people who could provide help if something is amiss in the children's lives; and three, could help develop emotionally in a broader world than the parents' cloistered setting."
Brilliance!
He was wise to never mention education. Tests data clearly shows that home schooled students get a better education. He mentioned the social aspects only. You know, the so-******t/fascist approach to prying children away from their parents.
Parents who homeschool their kids have absolutely no friends that their kids can interact with. We all know that interaction takes place exclusively at school, doesn't it? Never at church. There's nobody to talk to, no friends within the family or extended family or at church. They never join Boy/Girl/People scouts or take karate or join sports leagues or play with the neighbor kids. They are deprived of social settings. Deprived and cloistered and locked away.
And we know, we have evidence that no teacher has EVER harmed a student. Never happened. There has never ever even once been a case of a teacher that abused a student. Could never happen. In fact, there has never ever been a case of a teacher mistreating their own kids because you see, we all know that the only people who love children can only be found in school. The ones who love children, who are the most compassionate are only in school. Who else would ever think of reporting something "amiss in a child's life"? Not the neighbors. They might be homeschoolers too! Not the churches, we all know what goes on there, they teach abuse don't they? Aunts Uncles and grandparents would never say a word either. They don't love their family like the people at school do. The ones that have never once harmed or exploited a child.
And where will these kids get condoms? They will all be pregnant and have every STD in the book without the state caringly teaching them about sex and giving them the means to protect themselves. never mind the recent report that came out about 1 in 4 teenage girls in the US having an STD. Three out of four homeschoolers must have an STD!

Yes comrades, parents have no constitutional right to prevent a public school from providing its students with whatever information it wishes to provide, sexual or otherwise, when and as the school determines it is appropriate to do so. Not just sex but anything. The Sixth Circuit held that parents do not have the fundamental right generally to direct how a public school teaches their child. This is good for all!

All of this is good. We are wise to praise the State.

In 2007 there was a Heritage Survey that found the percentage of members of the 110th congress who practice private school choice is disproportionate to the general populous. 11.5% of the American students attend private schools but over 37% of the House members, 45% of the Senators either send or sent their kids to private school. Why is that? We must stop this practice. This is not good.
Oh wait, I have almost forgotten...It is the so-******t Progressive, communist prerogative of our officials. "I know better than you." The people will thank us, truly they will.
I am glad we are following history. I am glad we are wise to look to our founding fathers who preceded us. The Soviet state. The German state. The Italian state. The Fascists, the communists, they recognized correctly that if you control education, you can control the future. We are wise to follow them.

Comrade Someday

[Mycernius]

Methinks you are confusing Communism with Nazism. California would either become a facist state (extreme right wing) or a Soviet (communist) state (extreme left wing).

[One-Lamb-of-God]

Originally Posted by Someday

A Judge in California has made an interesting decision. He has brought the eventual fascist control of the state ever so much closer. California has decided parents do not have the constitutional right to teach their children at home. It reminds me of a great Leader in Europe who made a similar decision. Adolf Hitler outlawed home schooling in Germany in 1938. In fact, home schooling is STILL illegal there.

Interestingly, I liked reading the logic that was put forth in this ruling. To quote this judge, he said: "Keeping the children at home deprive them of situations where, one, they could interact with people outside the family; two, there are people who could provide help if something is amiss in the children's lives; and three, could help develop emotionally in a broader world than the parents' cloistered setting."
Brilliance!
He was wise to never mention education. Tests data clearly shows that home schooled students get a better education. He mentioned the social aspects only. You know, the so-******t/fascist approach to prying children away from their parents.
Parents who homeschool their kids have absolutely no friends that their kids can interact with. We all know that interaction takes place exclusively at school, doesn't it? Never at church. There's nobody to talk to, no friends within the family or extended family or at church. They never join Boy/Girl/People scouts or take karate or join sports leagues or play with the neighbor kids. They are deprived of social settings. Deprived and cloistered and locked away.
And we know, we have evidence that no teacher has EVER harmed a student. Never happened. There has never ever even once been a case of a teacher that abused a student. Could never happen. In fact, there has never ever been a case of a teacher mistreating their own kids because you see, we all know that the only people who love children can only be found in school. The ones who love children, who are the most compassionate are only in school. Who else would ever think of reporting something "amiss in a child's life"? Not the neighbors. They might be homeschoolers too! Not the churches, we all know what goes on there, they teach abuse don't they? Aunts Uncles and grandparents would never say a word either. They don't love their family like the people at school do. The ones that have never once harmed or exploited a child.
And where will these kids get condoms? They will all be pregnant and have every STD in the book without the state caringly teaching them about sex and giving them the means to protect themselves. never mind the recent report that came out about 1 in 4 teenage girls in the US having an STD. Three out of four homeschoolers must have an STD!

Yes comrades, parents have no constitutional right to prevent a public school from providing its students with whatever information it wishes to provide, sexual or otherwise, when and as the school determines it is appropriate to do so. Not just sex but anything. The Sixth Circuit held that parents do not have the fundamental right generally to direct how a public school teaches their child. This is good for all!

All of this is good. We are wise to praise the State.

In 2007 there was a Heritage Survey that found the percentage of members of the 110th congress who practice private school choice is disproportionate to the general populous. 11.5% of the American students attend private schools but over 37% of the House members, 45% of the Senators either send or sent their kids to private school. Why is that? We must stop this practice. This is not good.
Oh wait, I have almost forgotten...It is the so-******t Progressive, communist prerogative of our officials. "I know better than you." The people will thank us, truly they will.
I am glad we are following history. I am glad we are wise to look to our founding fathers who preceded us. The Soviet state. The German state. The Italian state. The Fascists, the communists, they recognized correctly that if you control education, you can control the future. We are wise to follow them.

Comrade Someday

45% Senators, wow. But you know what God's got it and a disciple can be at peace. He's just allowing that Revelation 18:6 Cup to be filled.

Rev 18:4-10

4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.

6 Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double.

7 How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow.

8 Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her.

9 And the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication and lived deliciously with her, shall bewail her, and lament for her, when they shall see the smoke of her burning,

10 Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come. KJV

I would pm this to you but it's restricted: Praise God you found the Bible to be 'The Truth' also. So, do you Love Jesus with all your heart also?

[Someday]

Methinks you are confusing Communism with Nazism. California would either become a facist state (extreme right wing) or a Soviet (communist) state (extreme left wing).

Please enlighten me comrade. They seem exactly the same. They are both s o c i a l i s m. National S o c i a l i s t German Workers Party and Soviet S o c i a l i s t Republic. Two sides of the same coin are they not? The state must have absolute power over every man and over every sphere of human activity. Long live the state!! What is the difference? Please. Enlighten me.

[Commodore Angryy]

Someday, fascism is evil for the good of the nation, communism is evil for the good of the people. However ... they;re both evil, so i'm not entirely sure of the point. Both of them do seem to have a great advantage in getting a country out of an economic depression though.

[Someday]

Ahhh Comrade, I see. I was confused. They are so....so different! SO California is not Soviet. California is Fascist! We are fascists then! Very good. Very good.
Now to change the name.......

[Mycernius]

Meehh, I'm just being picky. They are similar in oppression of the people, but as Commodore said, one for the state, one for the people.

On the actual subject in hand. From what I have heard about the American school system home schooling sounds like a good idea. Either that or private education. The line between rich and poor in the US is getting wider. Good job there are wars to take the populations mind off its own problems, plus it is a good place to send the poorly educated. Didn't the same thing happen with Veitnam, or come to that, a majority of wars?

[friendly hardline atheist]

Hello people,

(hyphens in socia-list are there to prevent the server software from thinking of arousing drugs and censoring it out)

Ok, some useless academic formalities. There is the meaning that most people give to terms like communism and fascism, which is not necessarily the formal correct one.

Originally Posted by Commodore Angryy

Someday, fascism is evil for the good of the nation, communism is evil for the good of the people. However ... they;re both evil, so i'm not entirely sure of the point. Both of them do seem to have a great advantage in getting a country out of an economic depression though.

The USSR was never a communist country, it always claimed to be in the process of becoming one. It was in what was supposed to be its socia-listt transition period. Note that USSR stands for Union of Socia-list Soviet Republics. According to Marxist ideology, there would first be a revolution to overthrow the old regime. There was, in 1917. Then there would be a period of socia-lism, the dictatorship of the proletariat. This was the USSR. After a while, when some things had been settled, the state would disappear. Things would all be governed on a local level. For instance, there would be no national army, there would just be people who could be called upon to form a militia to defend the neighbourhood if trouble arose.
Of course it never happened. The apparatus of state in the USSR grew to frightening size with its huge army, bureaucracy, etc. Towards the end of the experiment, under Brezhnev, it was bigger than ever before. And then it collapsed from the inside under his successors.

So I will disagree with Commodore Angryy. Socia-lism is the dictatorship of the people, with plenty of room to be evil in its 20th century implementations. Communism, while reviled so much, has formally never been the form of state (a somewhat contradictory concept in itself, a communist state) in any country. Would it be evil? It's not supposed to be in its doctrine. And lacking any implementation of it, I think it's hard to say.

I'll also attach an extra condition to the notion of communism (where I think you mean socia-lism) being helpful in getting a country out of economic depression. I think it's only so when socia-lism is combined with great terror. Stalins method of 'Meet the target or you'll end up in Siberia' was effective. But give people any freedom, and the first thing they'll do is to defect from the workers ideal of selflessly working together for the good of all.

greets,
Peter

[Commodore Angryy]

You're right, FHA. Yeah, i acknowledge that there hasn;t really been a communist country. They all end up with sub-brances of pseudo communism ie, leninism, maoism etc. But still, can the point possibly stand that any country attempting to become communist winds up being a totalitarian and completely evil dictatorship?

[friendly hardline atheist]

Hi Commodore,

Originally Posted by Commodore Angryy

You're right, FHA. Yeah, i acknowledge that there hasn;t really been a communist country. They all end up with sub-brances of pseudo communism ie, leninism, maoism etc. But still, can the point possibly stand that any country attempting to become communist winds up being a totalitarian and completely evil dictatorship?

That certainly is the unbroken pattern sofar, yes. And my expectations for a communist state to ever arise are low. And if it did, it wouldn't last long. For instance, the moment there would be no more government, what is to stop criminals from taking over the country? Or foreign armies?

I don't know if you read The Selfish Gene? In it, it is explained why 'a conspiracy of doves' (i. e. everyone agreeing to be good) won't work. Apply the ideas of genetics to nations, and the picture is the same. If a country ever became communist, it wouldn't last for long. Those neighbouring nations that acted selfishly and plundered the communist nation, would be more successful at the expense of the communist nation. I don't see how communism would ever be a viable survival strategy, even if it could be temporarily achieved in one country.

greets,
Peter