Friday 16 September 2011

Friday: Laugh At California Day Postponed

We've had a bit of fun at California's expense in the past couple of weeks and, believe me, there'll be more where that came from, without doubt.

But credit where it's due, you've got to applaud when they get something right. This is pretty special from Governor Jerry Brown himself in relation to a bill which would make the wearing of helmets compulsory for kids.

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 105 without my signature.

This measure would impose criminal penalites on a child under the age of 18 and his or her parents if the child skis or snowboards without a helmet.

While I appreciate the value of wearing a ski helmet, I am concerned about the continuing and seemingly inexorable transfer of authority from parents to the state. Not every human problem deserves a law.

I believe parents have the ability and the responsibility to make good choices for their children.


Edmund G. Brown
OK, the fact that the bill got so far as to require veto by the Governor is further proof of the west coast's out-of-control authoritarianism, and Brown is as much a fully signed-up member of the bansturbulary as anyone else in the sun-addled state, but every dog has its day, I suppose.

For once, you did good Guv'nor.



Sam Duncan said...

I've long said that the first British Cabinet Minister to answer a question in the House with the words, “With respect to the Honourable Member, that is none of the Government's business” will have my vote for life.

Fortunately, Brown isn't a British Cabinet Minister, 'cos he wasn't really the sort of bloke I had in mind. Unfortunately, I'm still waiting...

Ian R Thorpe said...

Everyone has limits beyond which they cannot be pushed. Good for Jerry.

Mark Wadsworth said...

This is the guy who was mentioned in California Über Alles, he came back after thirty years and just kept going where he left off. He's seems like a decent bloke to me.

He's socially liberal but fiscally conservative, what's not to like?

banned said...

What Mark says, he was firmly in the saddle three decades ago, where has he been hiding?

"Your kids will meditate at school", seems to have changed his tune.

Angry Exile said...

I didn't know Arnie had gone. Hopefully he won't be back since this bloke seems pretty sensible.

smokervoter said...

As one of those sun-addled natives I must say I'm in a state of shock from reading this.

I was one of Jerry's Kids back in 1975 when Democrats were still social liberals. I applauded him when he lowered pot possession from a felony to a misdemeanor. Then he got on the wrong side of a very infamous property tax law and went enviro-whacko on us. That marked the last time I ever voted for a Democrat. Just give him some more time, he'll thwart your optimism.

Arnie vetoed the smoking ban at state beaches.

Anonymous said...

I thought it was Brown who allowed government workers to organize into a union and thus created the red ink that California has due to runaway budgets for pensions and health care to the grave for early state retirees, some of whom double-dip, taking a new state job after leaving the first one at an early retirement age. To me that's not fiscally conservative, if that was his doing the first time around. I wouldn't give Moonbeam too much credit just yet. When he comes out and says the state should get out of the nannying business and pushes for a bill outlawing all their ridiculous smoke-bans, indoors and out, then I'll believe that Brown is liberal again. Until then, he's still a Moonbeam, whacko environmentalist, illiberal smoke-banner, tax and spend, limosine liberal, career politician. And the make-up of the state senate and assembly is even worse, as are the courts. What he did might just be for show, to give the impression to Californians that someone is on the side of individual liberty, but behind closed doors might be just as plotting and planning with the rest of his one-party colleagues, more of the same.

Michael J. McFadden said...

Sheeesh. I used to make jokes about how someday they'd simply require kids to wear helmets ALL the time outside ... not so much of a joke anymore, eh? After all, if you apply their cost/benefit and "years of life lost" sort of statistics the helmet wearing makes sense: there are probably at least dozens, perhaps hundreds of 5 to 15 year old kids out there who die from head injuries due to falls and traffic accidents every year who'd have been saved if they were forced to wear helmets outside 24/7.

Come to think of it, what about all the adults who fall down stairs and slip in tubs and such? Why should the rest of us conscientious citizens have to pay for their health care just because they think they can run around their homes with the brain bins hanging out in the open? Not only do I end up having to pay for their carelessness, but my life is put at risk when the ambulances go speeding along the streets to save their worthless hides.