Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Heard it all before...

Two very different bloggers have taken on the discussion of a recent controversial statement signed by legislative leaders to encourage the movement of anti-bullying legislation in the next General Assembly.

John Deeth talks to the heart about his experience being bullied as a kid and makes almost no argument for or against the actual legislation. I assume he believes his experience -- a rather universal one for most slightly geeky middle school kids -- is enough to convince a reader about the correctness of the proposed legislation.

Krusty vents a little frustration at having to parse an issue that in Krusty’s mind shouldn’t be an issue. I know. The post reads more like an internal memo venting on the frustration at having a particular tactical game plan bent.

I think both these guys are missing some of the arguments.

I certainly understand J. Deeth’s visceral reaction to anything titled anti-bullying legislation, but look harder and you'll find another agenda. The less discussed agenda is to put gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, pansexual, monosexual rights into code and designate sexual orientation a protected class.

This anti-bullying legislation isn’t about the kid with developmental disabilities. And it’s not about the smart girl with no fear of being right. And it’s certainly not about the morbidly obese kid. (We have other fancy social engineering agenda items in the wings for that kid, somewhat along the lines of POW camp food monitoring at school & home.) No, this is a clever hijacking of an emotional policy issue that is couched in female friendly sound bites that cover up the long-term legal agenda.

On the same note, Krusty’s pissed off tirade slicing the minutia associated with the Republicans position on the anti-bullying legislation is lost on me. It never works to say things like: This proposed legislation is good but it is also bad for this and this and this reason therefore, even though I believe in the idea, we’re not going to do anything about it. The real question: if Republicans really believe bullying is a problem, then why didn’t they encourage their networks of activists to come up with another bill coupled with an aggressive lobbying effort?

Perhaps it just wasn’t an important enough issue, and that might be difficult to explain to worried mothers wandering into voting booths.

It’s almost the end; everyone’s playing their cards the way they want to play them. Republicans are betting on turning out their base like 2004, ignoring the fact that Republicans are losing voters like hair. The latest Rasmussen’s Party ID tracking poll from August 2006 shows Democrats with 37% and Republicans 32% nationwide, down from 38% and 37% November of 2004. While the Democrats end game is all about manipulating a few votes in the center with too clever soft sell agenda items that appeal to women and independents, note the Culver/Judge women’s agenda ... now,click over to State29 for your Chet Culver YouTube™ fix.

The Democrats happily marched into the center and set up camp while the GOP figured they could beat the b, err, roust the slumbering Republican monolith and move it to the polls. When you’re even, I’ll take the Republican bet, but with voters leaving both parties in numbers to big to ignore (I couldn't help it), I’ll hedge with the Democrats idea of camping in the center and might think that a Republican pitching a tent near the Democrats' camp doesn't want to cede that space in the middle.

I read the letter on the Safe Schools site. Do you have a link to the actual legislation that will be considered?
Thanks for the link love and the critique.

Yes, I know full well this is about the LBG-TG-TS agenda. As Seinfeld said, not that there's anything wrong with that.

And, to cite myself, would I have been as gay friendly if I hadn't been bullied?

PS. I wasn't "slightly" geeky. I was EXTREMELY geeky. :)
Anti-bullying legislation is just another effort to disintermediate (with the State) individual moral responsibilities. People who behave badly should be policed by their peers, families, and voluntary associations (e.g., a church they respect), not by the guys with the guns. Police have enough to do, I would think. Does the left prefer we hire more police, in order to staff the Manners detail?

Of course, let's not forget the importance of a little random cruel hazing on achievement later in life. This latter, capricious comment is offered only half in-jest.

Would there be less ennui and more enthusiasm for, at least, the Republican Party, if we stood for more as a party? I think so.

Its time we start drawing the real world distinctions between Republican governance and Democrat governance, because one of the two is going to win and the parties haven't been this far apart since the Civil War. The tragedy is our cyber/reality show TV culture is so utterly dependent on immediate and trivial gratification that they turn away from even the responsibilities of self government.
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Who Links Here