Here’s another analysis on which we can agree. Another flap of the flat cap to Jim Crawford:
Here are some comments I sent to the Senate Rules Committee for hearing on 2-22.
|Subject:||Oppose SB 66 Create Office of Peace|
|Date:||Thu, 21 Feb 2013 09:59:43 -0700|
|From:||James Crawford <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|To:||Linda Lopez <email@example.com>, Daniel Ivey-Soto <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Jacob Candelaria <email@example.com>, Stuart Ingle <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Mark Moores <email@example.com>, Gerald Ortiz y Pino <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Cliff Pirtle <email@example.com>, Sander Rue <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Clemente Sanchez <email@example.com>, Michael Sanchez <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
I oppose SB 66 Create Office of Peace. This bill creates a new executive branch office (Office of Peace) and a new Citizen’s Peace Advisory Council. The purpose and duties of the department are so ill defined that the Fiscal Impact Report only estimates the cost as “substantial”.
The Office of Peace Act is another social justice and environmental justice bill that is so convoluted, vague, and poorly written there is no way to know what the Office of Peace is supposed to do except spend taxpayer money. The definition in the bill is “The purpose of the Office of Peace Act is to establish an office dedicated to peacemaking, social justice and human rights; training that will enable the prevention, management and resolution of conflict without violence; and the study and implementation of appropriate educational curricula at all levels and of conditions that are conducive to a culture of peace.”
The bill contains several “definitions” that are so convoluted that I feel the need for a definition of the definition. The following two are a couple of examples. “B. “dialogue” means a facilitated process of a group of people taking turns talking and listening to each other to allow an exchange of diverse ideas, information, opinions and experiences to foster greater understanding between people;” “E. “restorative justice” means a facilitated process that allows everyone involved in a conflict to be heard and take responsibility for any harm caused, seeks ways to repair the harm and make things right as much as possible and restores relationships and community.”
The rest of the bill contains more of the same convoluted meaningless mumbo jumbo as illustrated in the above examples. It basically boils down to promoting a “progressive” social and environmental justice indoctrination program for school students, teachers, and community organizers.
This is nothing more than state directed behavior and mind control to create more socially compliant sheep.
I have reviewed all the bills introduced in this session of the legislature. In my opinion this has to be the worst one I have seen. It is incomprehensible, expensive, and with no clearly defined purpose.
Please do not pass SB 66.