Not a chance. The lawyer lobby would never allow it. However, the social satire stunt meant to mock marriage defenders is getting loads of MSM attention. I take a look at Los Angeles Times column on the matter and the comments on the column over at The Opine Editorials.

Michael Berliner of Los Angeles got it right when writing in to the Los Angeles Times about increased fees for University of California students:

Fees are being raised because the state is in debt. And why is it in debt? Because it spends more than it takes in. And why does it spend more than it takes in? Because it refuses to cut spending. And why does it refuse to cut spending? Because of entitlements -- i.e., the belief that people have a right to the wealth of others in the form of education, healthcare, etc.

And what's the source of the altruist morality of entitlements? The university classrooms.

It's a cycle, too be sure. Public education in general, staffed with Big Labor union members, churns out students who expect to rely as much as possible on the government. This helps swell the ranks and compensation of government employees, who are... ta-da... unionized!

Previously: A False Promise of a Cheap University Education

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.

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.

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.

Yes, in case you haven't heard, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom pulled out - of the race for California Governor. His arrogant declaration that marriage would be neutered "whethah ya like it or not!" was caught on video and helped boost the California Marriage Amendment at the polls. Newsom has been part of the effort to subvert the will of Californians on the matter from the start.

It was hard to overcome that, some of his publicized mistakes, and that his rival for the Dem nomination is former California Governor, and current Attorney General, Jerry Brown. Yes, Jerry Brown - who refused to defend the California Marriage Amendment and argued against it, despite his elected role.

I'm really hoping a true Republican wins in 2010. One that isn't married to a famous Democrat.

In an interesting move of political satire, there's a guy collecting signatures to get a divorce ban on the California ballot. If the comments on this Los Angeles Times blog  are any indication, a lot of people mistakenly assume that this guy is part of the "traditional values" political crowd. He isn't but, he claims to adapt the arguments of the campaign in favor of the California Marriage Amendment towards his "movement" to ban divorce in California.

As a married California man who is the sole income earner in my family, a divorce ban would be to my benefit. I don't focus on that, though, in the two blog entries I posted today at The Opine Editorials. First, I wrote in general about the situation here, and then I get into some of the reasons why an ardent supporter of the California Marriage Amendment is not obligated to support a ban on divorce, especially as proposed by this guy, though we could probably do well with some legal reforms in family law.

I turn the question back around, though.

Come to think of it, is there a single prominent voice against divorce that the marriage neutering advocates have ever been anything but hostile towards?

Joe Mathews, an Irvine senior fellow at the New America Foundation, is the latest voice in the Los Angeles Times calling for changes in California’s voter initiative system. He cites recent comments for California Chief Justice Ronald M. George, before going on to write...

With ballot initiatives, voters can set in cement laws and constitutional amendments that will govern the state long after they are dead or have moved away, even if a new majority of Californians would like something different.

Uh, that's what subsequent ballot initiatives can address, or even old-fashioned legislation by the state legislature.

Such a direct democracy isn't worthy of the name. It isn't very direct, and it isn't particularly democratic.

Huh? All registered voters can directly vote on something. You can't get more of a direct democracy than that.

Bowing the public sentiment which favors keeping the system, he calls for reforming the system rather than abolishing it.

Successful reform in this area should not restrict voters or lawmakers. It should seek to free them, and give them more power and discretion -- but it should do so in ways that allow better checks and balances. This could be accomplished with four changes to the current system: Make initiatives subject to the same rules as legislation.

This would mean that, like bills in the Legislature, initiatives would be submitted to the legislative counsel's office for vetting. The drafter of any initiative that added to state or local budgets would have to convince that office that the measure proposed enough revenue to cover those costs.

No. Opponents of the ballot measure can point out the lack of revenue source as a reason to vote no.

More important, initiatives would no longer be immune from legislative amendment. Any initiative that passed could be amended or eliminated by the Legislature after being in place for two years -- the length of a legislative session.

This defeats the whole purpose.

As a corollary, any initiative that seeks to impose supermajority requirements would itself have to pass by a supermajority.

Really? We don't have those kinds of stipulations for other aspects of laws.

Currently, an amendment may be added with a simple majority vote of the people. But the constitution cannot be revised except by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature and a vote of the people. This dynamic -- making it easier to add than to edit -- is one reason California's Constitution has grown so long.

Why aren't these critics complaining about how many laws there are in general? New laws are always being added. So why is having a long constitution bad?

Again, he calls for the legislature to have more involvement, defeating the purpose:

Under the current system, the Legislature holds hearings on each initiative, but there is no formal mechanism for negotiations between initiative sponsors and lawmakers. There should be. An initiative that gains enough signatures should first be put to an up-or-down vote by the Legislature. In addition, lawmakers should be able to offer amendments that an initiative sponsor may accept or reject.

No.

Reform to the initiative process must also address an oft-neglected tool of California's direct democracy, the referendum -- a measure that permits voters to undo an act of the Legislature.

I agree, but wouldn’t that mean it would be easier for voters to "take away rights" the legislature just granted someone?

The signature-gathering standard for a referendum should be lowered substantially, perhaps to 1% of the number of votes cast in the most recent gubernatorial election.

Eh... I don't see a need for this.

As I have said here, here, here, here, and here, California needs to be split up. All of this other talk amounts to arguing over how the deck chairs should be arranged on Titanic.

Two columns in the Los Angeles Times caught my eye. The second one is on a "student loan bailout". In this first one, though, Tim Rutten bandwagons with his bemoaning of California's voter initiative process. He cites Chief Justice Ronald M. George's statements before continuing...

Serious political historians also agree...

So you are a moron if you disagree, you see.

that, as currently utilized, the California initiative process is a perversion of what the Progressives intended when they inserted these direct-democracy provisions into the state Constitution.

Let us, for the sake of argument, grant that as true. So freakin' what? We all have to play by the same rules. Maybe the "Progressives" were hoping that only their pet initiatives would pass a direct vote, but that's not the way law works. Ain't equality great?

Just because it isn't being used the way those folks wanted way back then is not a good reason to scrap it now.

Moreover, Californians are not particularly unhappy with the initiative process.

Ah, but we’d better find a way to chuck it anyway, right (but only after using it to repeal the California Marriage Amendment, of course)? I'm open to refining the initiative process, but only if California is broken up.

David Lazarus has a column entitled, "How About a Bailout for Student Debtors?"He cites rising fees/tuition costs for higher education. Doesn't he realize that more government involvement, especially in the form of bailouts, will raise those costs? The institutions note that people "have more money to spend" and so they will charge them more. It is called supply and demand.

The Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (HR 3221) passed the House last month pretty much along party lines. It's now working its way through the Senate.

The bill would eliminate the Federal Family Education Loan Program, thus making student loans much riskier (and hence unattractive) for banks. The Education Department would continue offering direct loans and would presumably dominate the market.

Democrats say the legislation would free up more funds for Pell Grants and other financial aid. Republicans say the federal government would be playing too large a role in higher education.

The Republican’s are wrong. The federal government already is playing too large a role in higher education.

I have no problem with the government, rather than banks, deciding who gets a college education and who doesn't, just as it's the government's responsibility to ensure that everyone gets at least a high school education.

Gotta love incrementalism. Maybe it is time for government to get out of high school education? Banks don't decide. Students and admissions staff decide.

I'm sympathetic, but only because the government has already shown itself to be a soft touch for banks, insurers, carmakers and especially for homeowners, who in many cases had no business taking out loans they couldn't repay.

In that context, I think it's perfectly reasonable for college students and recent grads to seek a little bailout of their own.

Of course! It's a version of the domino theory at work. Government intrusion into one area justifies having it intrude into others. "They got paid!" means everyone else should get "paid", too.

So what about recent grads who did what I did and purposely choose an institution they can afford? Are they just suckers? They sure are, if they could have gone to a more expensive (and thus, more prestigious) university, and had taxpayers pay the entire bill. Boy, I went to school at the wrong time. I bought my house at the wrong time. I bought my car the wrong time. In each case, I missed handouts from other taxpayers. I guess I’m a sucker.

I recently blogged here about misguided attempts to reduce obesity in South Central Los Angeles by banning new fast food eateries. In the wake of a Rand study that shows the folly of this plan, there are now calls to... "limit" convenience stores in the 'hood. You can’t make this stuff up, folks. These self-imagined do-gooders won't rest until no new private businesses are able to start up in that area. Also, below, I talk below about the likely big screen television ban in California. Yup - you read that right.

Jerry Hirsch of the Los Angeles Times reports on the misguided attempts to prevent obesity.

Separately, researchers looking at the shopping patterns of schoolchildren in urban Philadelphia found that more than half the 800 students they surveyed reported that they shopped at a corner store at least once a day, five times a week. Almost a third visited a store both before and after school.

On average, the students spent about $1 and purchased 356 calories of snack foods and drinks each visit. Chips, candy, sugary beverages and gum were the most frequent purchases, according to a study published online today. It also will appear in the November edition of Pediatrics, a medical journal.

How to curb such purchases is a top priority for policymakers attempting to reduce the obesity rates in poor communities.

What about free enterprise? What about freedom of choice?

"We need to look at a moratorium on these convenience stores," said Lark Galloway-Gilliam, executive director of Community Health Councils Inc., a nonprofit health policy and education organization in South Los Angeles.

The Los Angeles City Council is set to consider a proposal that would limit the density of these small food stores in South Los Angeles, said Councilwoman Jan Perry, a proponent of regulations adopted last year establishing a moratorium on new openings of fast-food restaurants whose 9th District includes much of South Los Angeles.

I know a sure-fire way to reduce obesity rates in that area: ban fat people from the area.

Marc Lifsher at the Los Angeles Times reports on the TV ban.  The industry, of course, is asking lawmakers to let consumers vote with their wallets.

But those pleas didn't appear to elicit much support from commissioners at a public hearing on the proposed rules that would set maximum energy-consumption standards for televisions to be phased in over two years beginning in January 2011. A vote could come as early as Nov. 4.

The association's views weren't shared by everyone in the TV business. Representatives of some TV makers, including top-seller Vizio Inc. of Irvine, said they would have little trouble complying with tighter state standards without substantially increasing prices.

So Vizio is happy that they'll have less competition. That's no surprise.

If all TVs met state standards, [Ken Rider commission staff engineer] added, California could avoid the $600-million cost of building a natural-gas-fired power plant.

And that’s what this is really about, right? Trying to avoid building new power plants. Sorry, but we're going to need new power plants. Start building!

Well, maybe. But there's a big catch.

Word was filtering out to the concerned public that a new tax plan for California was going to be proposed, and today was the day Governor Schwarzenegger formally unveiled it. I caught Eric Bailey’s initial report at LATimes.com, and I expect the article will be filled in with more details and quotes for tomorrow's print edition.

Under the proposal, the income tax would be flattened from the current half-dozen rates to just two - a 2.75% levy on income up to $56,000 for a married couple, and 6.5% for taxable income exceeding that threshold. Critics have attacked the proposal as a giveaway to the rich, with millionaires on average paying $109,000 less.

The fact the millionaires would be paying “$109,000 less” means they are currently paying hundreds of thousands of dollars now, on top of whatever federal income tax they are paying. But in reality, millionaires would still be paying a lot of that "$109,000 less" to the new tax...

To offset the reduction in income tax, the commission called for a revolutionary new tax for business and consumers.

The current retail sales and corporation taxes would be eliminated, replaced by a broader business tax that would tap practically every type of free enterprise, including service sector firms like lawyers and business consultants currently not hit by the sales tax.

This means that "millionaires" would be paying taxes on their use of lawyers, accountants, security, personal trainers, gardeners, drivers, plastic surgeons, consultants, etc.

Everyone would be paying taxes on things like theme park/sports/concert/movie tickets and other things that sales taxes haven't touched before.

As the article notes, the "selling point" is that this would bring stability to the state's revenue stream, but I'm not so sure it would. Also, labor unions, business groups, and even some of the people involved in the report have criticized the plan. All it takes to get something killed in California is union opposition.

A better way would be privatizing more of the functions that currently fall under the state government and going with user fees wherever possible.

One reasonable concern is that the income taxes will be raised back up and the new taxes will be kept in place as well, and perhaps increased. Currently, California not only has the personal income tax and business tax, but a high sales tax, a gasoline tax, property taxes, utility taxes, an extra tax on seven-figure income, and all sorts of other taxes in addition to fees and assessments.

Carlos R. Moreno was the only member of the California Supreme Court to vote to overturn the duly adopted California Marriage Amendment. He was rumored to be under consideration for SCOTUS before a "wise Latina" got the spot. Maura Dolan of the Los Angeles Times has a profile piece on him, and I take a look at it over at The Opine Editorials.

Not to be confused with Billy Mays, Bill Maze has a real idea about how to deal with California, the "ungovernable" state. Gregor Washinski has the story in the Orange County Register.

Maze leads the group Downsize California Now that is preparing a ballot initiative for a two-state solution. According to their plans, 13 counties on the coast, ranging from Los Angeles to Marin, just north of San Francisco, would be split off and be named Coastal California, West California or whatever they please. The remaining 45 counties, including Orange County, would become the "real" California.

This is exactly what I have been calling for on this very blog.

The movement was formed at the end of last year, when angry farmers in Central Valley rallied against Proposition 2, a ballot measure banning the tight confinement of farm animals. Originally called "Citizens for Saving California Farming Industries," the non-profit group has grown into a broader platform for those who cherish limited government. They hope to see the two-state initiative on the ballot by November 2010.

Marriage and "divorce" on the same ballot? Could be.

Convincing Californians to vote for the division of their state will be a difficult task, though. A poll by the Field Research Corporation earlier this year found that 82 percent of registered voters opposed the idea of splitting California into an eastern and western state. Also, such a plan would require approval by the U.S. Congress.

Yes, and you can be sure that the unions and other socialist groups from Los Angeles and San Francisco will be running ads in opposition, claiming that children will be starved to death and, even worse, prevented from going to school. These groups don’t want to lose the tax money.

Since California became a state in 1850, there have been about 220 documented attempts to divide it, says Kevin Starr, a professor at USC and author of a multi-volume series on the history of California. "And none of them have gotten anywhere."

Maybe, just maybe, things will be different.

Rob Pierson oversees the petition drive at the headquarters of Downsize California Now in Fresno. After a successful secession, he explains, both states would hold a constitutional convention. The ideal California would feature a single-house legislature that would be in session only three months a year. Income taxes would be abolished and a balanced and an on-time budget would become mandatory.

Again, this is exactly the kind of thing I have been advocating. I hope this gets somewhere. Let the Leftists have their overregulation, overtaxation (they won't have a Prop 13), overspending, their sanctuary cities for illegal aliens, and gender confusion. They can have "any" two, three, four or more people getting marriage licenses. They won't have to be offended by those of us who resist such "progress".

Downsize California's website: http://downsizeca.org/