Watering down qualifications in California

Just like water can dilute the taste of good coffee, ruin a tank of gasoline in a car, or-- render a walk in the park a slippery experience, California lawmakers are proposing a couple of new laws which will have the same affect on the quality of life in the golden state.

The first has to do with a proposal that would allow highschools to issue diplomas to those who failed the test needed to determine whether a student actually has learned enough to graduate. After completing all required classes and receiving credits needed to take this one last test--the student must pass a very simple test. It actually is based upon what an 8th grade student should resonably know.

But--since California has failed so miserably in public education--the legislature wants to now pass a bill which will act as a magic wand annoiting all that it touches with a diploma. What a student could use instead of knowledge would be other forms of achiements such as class participation--or maybe taking the teachers briefcase to her car each day of the semester.Now I don't actually know what these other items might be--but they are definitly not proving you actually know the required subject material.

I feel for these students. However--is this a good way to begin adult life--with a bogus diploma? Will the next effort be to use legislation to enable medical school students a free pass from learning what is required to be a doctor?

The second bit of legislation being discussed is the 7th attempt to get a bill passed which allows illegal immigrants the right to get a drivers license. Since most of them can't read or write--I will leave it up to the readers immagination how they would ever pass a test.

I won't bore the reader with my take on this. Let's just say--I'm against rewarding crimminals with priviledges. Oh--I'm sorry for forgetting to include this basic fact. In Washington state where I come from--driving is considered a priviledge not a given right.

I'm glad that Yodi does not have the reasoning apptitude of some california legislators. I could just see him insisting that going potty in the house is ok some of the time--as long as he goes potty outside some of the time too. How is that for reasoning and solving the problem?