The Nanny State marches on. Now the controllers are coming after your big screen televisions in the name of saving the planet.

The leaders of California decided long ago that just about anyone in California, including illegal aliens, who wants to get a university degree, should have relatively easy (in terms of availability and tuition/fees) access to a university education. Thus, a two-tiered state university system was built - University of California, and California State University, the landscape was flooded with community colleges, and the word went out that a quality "affordable" university education was being promised to the people of California (and Mexico, and...).

So now we've created a situation where a heckuva lot of people assume they have a "right" to this, without having to pay the full costs of it. Whenever there is mere talk of raising the amount that the students have to pay, there are protests. So when the University of California Regents took a vote yesterday to raise the amount by close to a third per year, there were very angry and noisy protests. Listening to some of the protesting students in news coverage, it is quite clear that a lot of them have already been thoroughly indoctrinated into Leftist victricrat mentality... I heard one say, for example, "This is a bunch of rich white men trying to kick minorities and the the poor out of the education system!" Never mind that everyone in California is a "minority". Many of these protesters believe they have a right to a university education without paying more for it.

I do have some sympathy for most of the students impacted by this. It was foolish of the state to make promises to them we couldn't keep. If these students were raised in California, then their parents (at least the ones who actually pay taxes, instead of having it all refunded) have been paying for the university system in their taxes. They planned on their education costing a certain amount of money, and now it going to directly cost them significantly more.

This is the problem when government promise things they can't deliver. California is facing something like a 20+ billion dollar deficit. Either the students are going to pay more or taxpayers, many of whom do not use the state university system, are going to have to pay all of the cost increases.

Perhaps the UC system should institute a policy that freezes rates for continuous students. I'm not talking about the kind of student who stays in college forever (yes, I have seen that). But especially for students who make it through in four or five years, how can they possibly plan and budget when they have no idea if the increase is going to be five percent or thirty percent? Of course, this would force the UC system to either get more tax money or charge incoming students more, and I would opt for charging incoming students more. That might mean that students have to put off going into the university system another year as they work to save up the money, but it simply isn't moral or in the spirit of our Constitution to force me to pay even more in taxes so that people I don't know can get a UC degree.

U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Reinhardt ordered compensation for a same-sex couple to correct what the court considered an injustice. One of the two men works for the federal government; he and his partner got a neutered marriage license during California's five month window before the California Marriage Amendment was adopted. Benefits were not extended by the employer (the federal government) to the partner. They sued. I discuss this and the LATimes.com blog entry reporting it - over at The Opine Editorials.

I frequently criticize The Los Angeles Times in my blog postings, and often disagree strongly with the editorial board. But I do have some praise for them in this specific case. They have a blog called Top of the Ticket, billed as "Politics and commentary, coast to coast, from the Los Angeles Times". One of the two bloggers is Andrew Malcolm. In addition to informative, I find his entries to be entertaining.  Adding to the fun are some of the comments by readers after certain entries. Most of the comments indicate that the people commenting have completely missed the tone of Mr. Malcom's blog entry. Conservative who do so blast his entries as Leftist and typical of the MSM, though the entries are anything but typical for site like LATimes.com. Leftists who don't get it call him "dumb" and try to enlighten him. It's great stuff, and you should check it out, especially if you like satire, parody, irony, and sarcasm.

Of course, now that I've posted this, the blog will probably fold.

Surprise! A U.N. report says we need to control our climate, and do so by controlling our population. I think that only thing missing in this article by Richard Ingham is a specific demand that we all be taxed for pay for abortions and for the U.N. to regulate births and childrearing - oh, and a call to get rid of undesirables. This kind of dung is all too typical of the U.N.

Braking the rise in Earth's population would be a major help in the fight against global warming, according to an unprecedented UN report published on Wednesday that draws a link between demographic pressure and climate change.

Fine. All of you environmentalist whackos should stop reproducing. But I'm not going to let you parent my children in an effort to pass along your suicidal idealogy. You want to parent a child? Have your own.

"Slower population growth... would help build social resilience to climate change's impacts and would contribute to a reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions in the future," the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) says.

But don't we have "reproductive rights"? Or does that only work one way – toward a dead baby?

"It really is the first time that a United Nations agency has looked hard at the connections between population and climate change," lead researcher Bob Engelman, vice president for programmes at the green group Worldwatch Institute, told AFP.

"People are at the root of the problem and at the solution of it, and empowerment of women is the key."

People are the problem, eh? Are you planning to do the planet a favor and kill yourself?

The report, the 2009 State of World Population, paints a grim tableau of the peril of climate change and the likely impact on humans, in terms of floods, drought, storms and homelessness.

Well of course – and the only way to avoid catastrophe is to give world government much more control over our lives, right? Oh, and shifting as much money from American taxpayers to tyrants and criminals around other world.

"Each person in a population will consume food and require housing, and ideally most will take advantage of transportation, which consumes energy, and may use fuel to heat homes and have access to electricity."

I'm still waiting for these alarmists to go live in caves, using only what is immediately available close to the cave without heat-and-waste generating activities.

"The growth of population can contribute to freshwater scarcity or degradation of cropland, which may in turn exacerbate the impacts of climate change," says the report.

Socialism, statism, crime, and corruption do much more damage in these areas. Private property and free markets generally improve conditions in these areas.

"So too can climate change make it more difficult for governments to alleviate poverty and achieve the Millennium Development Goals."

Governments can't alleviate poverty, though they can foster conditions that encourage free markets to alleviate poverty by cracking down on crime.

Why do we waste our resources on this junk?

The Los Angeles Times editorial board correctly notes, looking at the situation in Washington, D.C., that neutering marriage law does have impacts beyond simply allowing Chuck and Larry to get a marriage license without a bride. The Catholic Archdiocese says it will not be able to continue providing social services on behalf of the local government if marriage neutering happens as planned. I analyze the paper's editorial over at The Opine Editorials.

The editorial board is essentially noting in this commentary that common government should not be held hostage to the feelings or convictions of a minority segment of the represented. It is too bad that they can't recognize this principle when it comes to the demands of marriage neutering advocates.

To me, this dispute clearly goes into the larger issues of what the government's role in our lives should be in addition to marriage licensing. It goes into charity, social care, and employer-employee relationships. The move involved in our lives the government becomes, the more we have an interest in laws and court decisions that don't appear to have a direct connection to us.

The Los Angeles Times, analyzing a poll they did with USC, notes certain divides in California, though a general agreement on pessimism. Cathleen Decker reports.

One always presumes a fair amount of communal thought in a state, even one this large. But apart from a shared disdain for the governor and the Legislature, there is hardly anything communal anymore in California politics.

I've said it here many times before, and I’ll say it again – the state needs to be split up.

"There are dozens of different Californias -- hundreds, demographically -- and every single one of those Californias thinks the rest of them are wrong about everything," said Dan Schnur, head of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at USC, whose College of Letters, Arts and Sciences co-sponsored the poll with The Times.

Actually, the paper goes on to detail a noticeable split between the coastal area and in the inland area in various demographic and idealogical indicators.

I maintain that a if San Francisco and Los Angeles County, and the coastal counties between them, and perhaps a couple of others in the Bay Area were to split off from the rest of California, the remainder of California would be better off - either staying together, as one, or further dividing, perhaps with the areas being annexed to neighboring states. (Those states would not only gain some fine resources, but they wouldn't have their Senatorial representation diluted if the number of states remained at fifty, and they would have a larger House of Representatives presence.

Will it happen? Not without a miracle. Most likely, we're just going to continue to see California kill itself financially, and the would-be social engineers on the Left grow increasingly bitter as the rest of us fight to keep them from dragging the state too far into the cultural dump.

A group has formally kicked off their effort to collect signatures to place a repeal of the California Marriage Amendment on the ballot. LATimes.com tells everyone where they can sign up. My analysis of their blog entry and comments is up at The Opine Editorials.

So why didn't the activists put a marriage neutering amendment on the ballot in the first place? I think we have 31 answers to that question, don't we? It will be interesting to see if the vote goes differently in 2010, without Obama voters and increased conservative activity.

I'll keep writing about it as long as the advocates and the MSM make it an issue.

Something is wrong with this headline from David Morgan's Reuters article:

U.S. Labor Group Unveils Plan to Tackle Joblessness

You know how to really tackle joblessness? 1. Encourage people to work; 2) Let the marketplace create jobs.

Usually, Big Labor does plenty that works against those two things.

The head of the largest U.S. labor federation urged President Barack Obama on Tuesday to use the $700 billion Wall Street bailout fund to help cash-starved small businesses as a way to stem rising joblessness.

So – take money from taxpayers and hand it out to businesses? I have a better idea. Let people, including business owners, keep more of the money they earn instead of sending it to D.C. as taxes, and we'll use that money to create jobs. One-time payouts by the government do not create lasting jobs.

In a preview of labor's contribution to Obama's December jobs summit, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program could be lent directly to small- and medium-sized businesses at commercial rates.

"Lent". Like the money that was "lent" to pay off the autoworker unions via GM?

The AFL-CIO jobs plan also calls for extended unemployment benefits, food assistance and healthcare for the unemployed, more money for infrastructure projects and state and local governments, and job creation aimed at distressed communities.

Ah, yes. Pay people not to work using money from people who do work, and throw money at failing neighborhoods.

Rising unemployment poses a political danger to Obama as his fellow Democrats in Congress approach the 2010 election with voters increasingly dissatisfied with incumbents.

I'm surprised they don’t make it simpler and call for a "Jobs Corps", where people are "employed" in a government job that involves watching their own stuff, in which they simply issued a regular "paycheck", and thus those people are no longer "unemployed". Problem solved!

"If small businesses can get credit, they will create jobs. And we need jobs now," Trumka said in a speech to the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning Washington think tank.

If small business can do more of what they want to do with their own resources, and keep more of their own resources to begin with, they will add jobs as the market creates them. But that would mean that the Big Labor leaders wouldn't have as much power, so we can’t have that.

Sometimes, reading the letters printed in the Los Angeles Times is like watching a clumsy, arthritic, stoned clown breakdance in a funhouse mirror.

Brad Scabbard of Woodland Hills actually brings up some good points:

Judith Miller and David Samuels contend that it is not Islam but Islamic heretic extremists who are our enemies. Are they really saying that they know Islam better than the millions of Muslims who follow the Koran's injunctions regarding the infidel? Can they cite any influential non-jihadi imams who have publicly condemned the "extremists"? Have they read the Koran?

I've read up a little on Islam – mostly I did it before 9/11. But I can't tell you with any confidence who is practicing "real" Islam. Clearly, the majority of people identifying themselves as Muslims are not engaging in terrorism.

I can tell you that someone who tries to spread Christianity by the sword is not in line with Christian doctrine.

Frederic E. Bloomquist of San Pedro wrote:

When the George W. Bush administration decided to unilaterally invade Iraq based on a falsehood, we also acted as an extremist group, killing thousands of innocents.

Are you for real, Bloomquist?

The Bush administration, with the approval of Congress including Democrats, and the U.N., led a coalition into Iraq, as the existing regime there had demonstrably violated terms of the Gulf War cease fire. And yes, innocents died. That's war. We take steps not to kill innocents. Our enemies do not.

You have to check out the rest of his letter.

John C. Nangle of West Hollywood tries to equate Sharia law with our Constitutional system coupled with the presence of Roman Catholicism in our nation.

Governments should pursue the common good so that public order prevails despite differing opinion, even on theological issues.

Nangle says we should do something. From where does that obligation arise?

In the U.S., one such issue is availability of abortion, shaped by the religious views of a minority who dismiss factors that should guide public policy.

Really? Abortion isn't available? When was the last time Nangle tried to get one and had trouble? One need not be "religious" to oppose abortion, either. In addition, a majority of Americans want more restrictions on abortion.

It seems to be of little concern to them that the number of abortion-related injuries would increase by making abortion less available.

Would it really? Even so, it would reduce the number of slaughtered babies. Murder is a lot worse than self-inflicted injury.

On the contrary, we ought to base law on good public policy and shame those who would use religious coercion to try to get legislators to do otherwise.

It is up to each and every individual legislator which religion, if any, to practice.

Frank Ferrone of El Cajon wrote:

Ah, the joys of the "let the marketplace take care of itself" school of government. About 22 million Americans are suffering with the H1N1 virus, and one-third of the nation's workers don't have paid sick days. In other words, the sick must come to work or lose pay and be disciplined.

Mr. Ferrone, why do you assume that the service these workers provide is so worthless that employers won't want to retain them by coming up with a solution to this problem?

Joyce Moran of San Clemente wrote:

A vomiting food and beverage concierge was docked and disciplined by the Disneyland Hotel for leaving her shift early. I will never, ever set foot in that place again. I hope thousands of other people feel the same after reading this.

Mike Villano of Lake Balboa wrote:

That the Disneyland Hotel would deny sick days to its employees is not just morally reprehensible, it should also be criminal.

I suppose it is mere coincidence that the Disneyland Hotel is currently involved in a labor dispute with people who act like Disney kidnaps employees and forces them to work at gunpoint… I'm sure this has nothing to do with that story being included in the article or these letters being written. Nah, not at all.

I happen to know that Disney is ridiculously generous with sick days and attendance. The people who show up to work sick do so because they take so many other days off as "sick days" when they really aren't sick, that they run the risk of losing their jobs. If they wouldn't do that, they could easily call in sick when they really are sick.

Listen up, people. You apply for your jobs in this country. Don’t like it? Go somewhere better. Or create your own job.

Matea Gold has a piece on actor Ian McKellen in the Los Angeles Times because of new project in which he appears. Previous articles on McKellen have noted his ongoing defacing of the Holy Bible, and that is brought up again here.

"I increasingly see organized religion as actually my enemy. They treat me as their enemy," said the British actor, who came out 20 years ago. "Not all Christians, of course. Not all Jews, not all Muslims. But the leaders. . . . Why should I take the judgment of a declared celibate about my sexual needs? He's basing his judgment on laws that would fit life in the Bronze Age. So if I'm lost to God, organized religion is to blame."

This is the experience of far too many, I’m afraid.

I know Roman Catholic priests are required to remain unmarried and celibate, but most Christian denominations allow - even expect - that their leaders will marry.

McKellen may have been treated poorly by people being lousy ambassadors for Christ. But if he had always been treated with respect by all he encountered who identified themselves as Christian, would he then have no problem with "organized religion"? Somehow, I think the larger problem here is the Bible's teaching that sex is for marriage and that marriage unites the sexes.

I noticed one of the other actors in his recent project is Jim Caviezel, the Christian actor who portrayed Jesus in "The Passion of the Christ". I wonder how those two got along?

McKellen revealed his sexuality at age 49 on a British radio show during a debate about anti-gay legislation. He says it's the most important thing he's ever done, and when he's not acting, he spends much of his time lobbying for gay rights. He visits schools in England as part of a program to prevent gay bullying. When he finds a Bible in a hotel room, he rips out the passage in Leviticus that condemns homosexuality.

The problem with this approach is that the whole of the Bible teaches that sex is for marriage, and that marriage unites the sexes. There are also other passages that specifically note that homosexual behavior goes against the holiness of God, as does any other sex or sex-like behavior outside of marriage.

In his view, Hollywood still hasn't come that far in its attitude toward gays.

I think part of this has to do with Hollywood often trying to be all things to all people. Producers are afraid that too much of the audience will not be able to suspend disbelief when it comes to an actor’s sexuality. Even though audiences can believe McKellen is a wizard, they can’t believe him carrying on a romance with a woman – at least, that’s what the producers seem to think. I think they underestimate their audience.

"There are still times in my life where I pull back from being totally honest," he said quietly, "and I can't imagine a single straight person who would understand that."

There are a lot of Hollywood Christians who would definitely understand that.

Well, McKellen may deface the Holy Bible, Viggo Mortensen may be a Lefty whacko, and Sean Astin may be somewhat of a Leftist (and who knows about most of the rest of the cast and crew?), but I still love Peter Jackson's "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy. J.R.R. Tolkien's Christian worldview shines through, and John Rhys-Davies is enough to offset the politics of his outspoken Leftist co-stars.

Patrick Collins, director of the Claremont Institute's Golden State Center for State and Local Government, responded to a recent Los Angeles Times editorial by making the case that a California constitutional convention isn't likely to work. You can read it here.

Californians should not mistake a widely shared dislike of our political situation with shared agreement on what constitutes the common good.

I have written about this already. Just click on my California tag below. I agree that a convention isn't going to work. We need to split the state.

I thank God we live in a country with brave men and women who have stood up and defended us. Thank you to all military veterans! I also thank your families for the sacrifices they have made.

What is that that saying? "Don't like abortion, don't have one"?

Yeah, well we don't want to pay for them, either.

So how about... "Want an abortion? You pay for it."

Or at least get other people who don't mind killing innocent human beings to pay for it.

Carrie Prejean is back in the news. Andrew Malcolm has a hilarious blog entry at LATimes.com about the latest. Be sure to click through to read the whole thing.

Carrie Prejean, some might remember, is the California beauty queen who gained instant ignominy in some circles by agreeing with President Obama's ridiculous notion that marriage is a union between one man and one woman.

I suspect Malcom is being sarcastic here.

This was said to make Prejean outrageously conservative although Obama, who is a male and said the same thing throughout the endless presidential campaign, was ranked as the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate a year ago now. That must be what passes for progress nowadays.

Wow. And this on a Los Angeles Times blog.

Both liberals and conservatives have been bickering and chuckling and pointing fingers of hypocrisy ever since.

Yes, I will talk about that further down.

Also, Prejean had breast augmentation, some keen-eyed critics noted, which is certainly unimaginable for any American female let alone ones successfully participating in the beauty business.

He keeps it coming. Click over to read the entry. Funny stuff.

Prejean replied -- insert teasing pause here -- yes, there was a tape she had done as a teenager.

She was 17, if reports are true. That makes everyone in possession of that video a criminal, doesn’t it?

She made it for a distant boyfriend whom she loved at the time.

You know, I was recently reading from Leftist types that we should consider that okay, or at least not get upset about it. But that was before news of her video.

Prejean said it was the "biggest mistake" she'd ever made in her not-yet-lengthy life. She regretted it. She felt mortified talking about it, but it was her own fault. And that as a Christian she'd never claimed to be perfect.

Yes, she's handling it well. If she was a Leftist, it would be "none of your business" and "everyone does it" and "who are you to judge?"

Additionally, we should note that, as reported here last week by The Ticket, someone named David Plouffe was also on Fox News last night, also selling a book. Plouffe, some might remember, was the manager of the Obama presidential campaign that hasn't really ended yet.

ZING!

Check out the comments. Some people don’t get it, or they have no sense of humor.

"Scott" wrote November 10, 2009 at 05:46 AM:

She is the typical do as I say not as I do Christian.

Hey Scott - one of the requirements of being a Christian is admitting to being a sinner. Thus, Christians, while they promote holy living, are not perfect, and readily admit this. We say "Do as Jesus would" not "do as I did". See my comments below.

"Jack" wrote November 10, 2009 at 09:21 AM

If she is alone, I wouldn't really call it a "$ex tape" - but maybe I should not be asking President Clinton about these definitions.

Good one.

Let's get real here. She is being continually attacked because she dared to express the same opinion as Obama and the voters of the state she represented. Naturally and historically, and in most places, legally, marriage unites the sexes. That people feign outrage over such a notion is laughable. What isn't laughable is homofascism. I've seen people refer to her as a gay-basher simply because she affirmed marriage in her pageant answer. She did not criticize homosexual people in her answer.

There's a lot of confusion over the word "hypocrisy". What it really is: saying one thing while believing another. While we can't really know what someone else believes in their heart for sure, we can guess based on what they do.

Let's look at an example of hypocrisy. Let’s say someone says "I believe it is wrong to make adult movies", but they are, at that very time, involved in ongoing production of adult movies. That person would be a hypocrite. They would NOT be a hypocrite if they were making "regular" movies. They would not be a hypocrite if they had previously made adult movies and had since repented. They wouldn't be a hypocrite if they had previously made adult movies, repented, and now criticize, say, smoking. Furthermore, if someone added to the original statement to say "I believe it is wrong to make adult movies for public distribution", all the while making private videos alone with her spouse for viewing by herself and her spouse only – that would not be hypocrisy.

We look for evidence of a hypocritical statement in someone’s actions. But even so, PAST action does not indicate CURRENT belief. Even more so, the problem is the past or current wrong action, not speaking out against what is wrong.

The immoral will use charges of hypocrisy - implying that hypocrisy is wrong - to try to get other people to stop saying that something they like to do is wrong. Whether or not someone is a hypocrite does not make wrong actions good or okay or honorable.

In this case, even if Prejean was proven to be a hypocrite, it would not negate the truth of what she said when she gave her answer in the pageant, and it does not make it okay to neuter marriage. But that's not really the point, is it? What's really going on here is an attempt to silence those opposed to a radical agenda. It's not working - at least not in her case. Prejean appears to be handling the situation in the best way possible, by using the media interest in her to warn others against making the same mistakes she made, but also to stand by their convictions.