U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker refused Wednesday to dismiss a desperate, grasping-at-straws legal challenge to the California Marriage Amendment, which means a trial is still planned. My analysis is over at The Opine Editorials.

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!

What has your government school student been taught in the last week or so about Christopher Columbus? Associated Press writer Christine Armario had an article about that, called "A Darker Side of Columbus Emerges in US Classrooms". Oh brother... er, uh,... oh sibling-or-anyone-at-all-because-isn't-it-all-the-same?

TAMPA, Fla. – Jeffrey Kolowith's kindergarten students read a poem about Christopher Columbus, take a journey to the New World on three paper ships and place the explorer's picture on a timeline through history.

Kolowith's students learn about the explorer's significance - though they also come away with a more nuanced picture of Columbus than the noble discoverer often portrayed in pop culture and legend.

"Nuanced" is codeword for "Leftist trashing of someone who actually did something". Leftists should note... Columbus was working for government! A European government, no less.

"And we talked about how he was very, very mean, very bossy."

Yeah, he didn’t even allow his sailors to unionize. Didn't give them MLK Day off, either.

Although lessons vary, many teachers are trying to present a more balanced perspective of what happened after Columbus reached the Caribbean and the suffering of indigenous populations.

They never suffered before, you see.

"The whole terminology has changed," said James Kracht, executive associate dean for academic affairs in the Texas A&M College of Education and Human Development.

"You don't hear people using the world 'discovery' anymore like they used to. 'Columbus discovers America.' Because how could he discover America if there were already people living here?"

How about he "kick-started America"? Let's face it. It was the start of a new direction in history and eventually led to the rise of the greatest nation on God's green Earth.

In Texas, students start learning in the fifth grade about the "Columbian Exchange" - which consisted not only of gold, crops and goods shipped back and forth across the Atlantic Ocean, but diseases carried by settlers that decimated native populations.

Well maybe the natives should have offered free universal health care to the illegal aliens?

In McDonald, Pa., 30 miles southwest of Pittsburgh, fourth-grade students at Fort Cherry Elementary put Columbus on trial this year - charging him with misrepresenting the Spanish crown and thievery. They found him guilty and sentenced him to life in prison.

Let's throw Thomas Jefferson in prison too - that slavedriver.

The day is an especially sensitive issue in places with larger native American populations.

Okay, how about we renamed it International Tobacco Day, to recognize a major accomplishment of the natives?

"We have a very large Alaska native population, so just the whole Columbus being the founder of the United States, doesn't sit well with a lot of people, myself included," said Paul Prussing, deputy director of Alaska's Division of Teaching and Learning Support.

Yeah, because life under the Soviets would have been so much better.

Patrick Korten, vice president of communications for the Catholic fraternal service organization the Knights of Columbus, recalled a note from a member who saw a lesson at a New Jersey school.

The students were forced to stand in a cafeteria and not allowed to eat while other students teased and intimidated them - apparently so they could better understand the suffering indigenous populations endured because of Columbus, Korten said.

I guess reenacting human sacrifice - as practiced by some native civilizations - just wasn't practical?

In Kolowith's Tampa class, students gathered around a white carpet, where they examined a pile of bright plastic fruits and vegetables, baby dolls, construction paper and other items as they decided what would be best for their voyage.

"Do you think it would be good to take babies on a long and dangerous boat ride?" he asked the class. "No!" they replied.

Did he then turn it into an abortion lesson?

Meanwhile, Crawford's Pennsylvania class dressed up as characters from the era, assigned roles for a mock trial and put Columbus on the stand. Out of a jury of 12 students, nine found him guilty of the charges.

Did they then learn that means a mistrial, and the defendant gets to either get a new trial or goes free?

Will California schools present a "balanced" portrayal of Harvey Milk? After all, every human being who every accomplished anything has been a flawed person (there's only one exception).

This kind of thing is yet another reason not to send your kids to the Leftist-controlled government schools. The schools should be focusing on accomplishment and positive examples to emulate, and handing down American culture.

When different cultures collide, especially when one is more technologically advanced that the other, it isn't pretty. Find me an example of where is has even been (all those hoping for aliens from a distant planet to come here take note)? I do not excuse any form of theft or assault, but how about some context? Were Europeans supposed to never ever go anywhere because of smallpox? They didn't really understand how it was transferred, nor immunity.

Why not use Columbus Day to teach the importance of having a good immigration and border control system?

There was a lot of coverage over the last several days of the homosexuality and gender confusion advocacy events in the USA's capitol, and President Obama's action - or lack thereof. The themes seem to focus on marriage law and military service. Even the Los Angeles Times editorial board recognizes the importance of prioritizing, even as they say that Obama "owes gays more support".

As anxious as we are to see gay rights recognized throughout this country, it also is important for the administration to set priorities and make progress in a politically strategic way.

Still, they call on him to offer a timeline.

Then they go on to bemoan confusion of marriage laws from state to state, citing the Texas divorce case. Whose fault is that? Most states affirm bride+groom marriage. If we're going to make everything the same, let's go with the majority.

Then they go on to dismiss the concerns of the "Yes on 1" campaign in Maine, before going on to a general plea for Obama to do the bidding of homosexuality advocates.

Here is the paper's Katherine Skiba previewing Obama’s speech to the (LGBT) Human Rights Campaign at a fundraiser.

And here is her article reporting on the speech afterwards.

He acknowledged in his remarks that some gays have been dissatisfied with the pace of his reforms.

There will always be a contingent that is "dissatisfied", no matter what. It is how they make their living.

In an address that was at times poignant and reflected on the sometimes "painful and heartbreaking" experiences gays face, Obama said he recognized that a gay relationship was "just as admirable as a relationship between a man and a woman."

This is his opinion, but he doesn't back it with anything. It is a mere assertion. However, it is demonstrable that both-sexes relationships contribute to society in ways that no same-sex pairing can.

The uneven track record to date has Cleve Jones, 54, a former aide to late gay rights leader Harvey Milk, fed up with what he termed "incrementalism" and tired of politicians telling activists to prioritize their demands.

Well, yes, how dare legislators focus on war, terrorists getting nuclear weapons, and major investment fraud when they could be focusing on whether or not the laws make someone get all tingly inside?

On Thursday the House passed a bill that would broaden the federal hate-crime law to cover violence against gays.

Really? Just "gays"? Or anyone of any sexual orientation targeted due to their perceived sexual orientation? And if so, will it protect a husband with a polygamist orientation from assault by his lawful wife? if she throws something at him, will that be a hate crime?

Obama noted Saturday that the bill was named after Matthew Shepard, the gay college student whose killing in Wyoming in 1998 galvanized the gay rights movement.

I condemn murder for any reason, but notice this was back in 1998. So has there been no other murder of a homosexual person in our union motivated by their sexual orientation in 11 years (I mean by someone other than another homosexual, committing what has been referred to as "homocide")? Then I'd say things are good, and a much bigger threat to deal with would be substance abuse in the "community". But for comparison, I note there have been Christians killed this very year here in the USA due to their religion.

Associated Press writer Brett Zongker reported on the march, pointing out...

The weekend also included political training at several D.C. universities for young activists to learn how to build support and lobby lawmakers at home.

This is why we can't let up. We can't let a tiny minority dictate the terms of our lives. We must continue to demonstrate what is and is not marriage, why marriage is important, and that both mother and fathers are important.

And here is Katherine Skiba again, reporting on the march.

They are seeking "full federal equality" and singling out issues pertaining to marriage, adoption, military service and the workplace.

I really can’t see where any individual is a lacking federal equality, except when it comes to being able to be in the military and engage in homosexual sodomy without keeping it private. Do all of these people really want to serve in the military that badly?

A pair of young women wore T-shirts exhorting: "Legalize gay."

Where in the union is being gay illegal?

A subsequent article by her added more coverage.

Later, at the Capitol rally, Rosendahl told the crowd that 36 states allow housing discrimination based on sexual orientation and 29 states permit firings on those grounds.

I tend to side with property owners and employers being able to run their businesses as they see fit. But I also tend to agree that as long as the government is going to get involved to protect renters and employees from discrimination based on certain behaviors (such as religious practice), then there is an argument to be made to protect them based on certain sexual behaviors. However, the Bill of Rights specifically mentions freedom of religion.

Depriving gays of the right to wed, Rosendahl said, deprives them of 1,100 rights.

Yet again: People have access to legal marriage regardless of their sexual orientation.

The rally drew impassioned speakers, including NAACP Chairman Julian Bond

Yes, because the NAACP has outlived its purpose when it comes to law and government, anyway - so now it is involved in unrelated issues. These groups never go away. When they get what they want, they simply move on to another problem, even if it isn’t really a problem. The best thing the NAACP can do for the "ACP" would be to encourage "C" men and women to marry before having children, then stay married at least until the children are raised. Encouraging them to engage in homosexual behavior and tear down heteronormative structure won't help with the "ACP".

Bond linked gay rights to civil rights.

"Black people of all people should not oppose equality, and that is what marriage is all about," he said.

We should all be treated equally by the government as human beings – regardless of circumstances of our birth or characteristics we are born with. However, the law often treats different behaviors differently. That is what law is all about.

"We have a lot of real and serious problems in this country, and same-sex marriage is not one of them."

And yet there you are rallying for it. So you are giving a speech about something you don't consider to be important?

You can read what I wrote about what has been going on in California over at The Opine Editorials.

There was a lot of news coverage over the last several days in regards to homosexuality advocacy and marriage neutering advocacy. So, I'm writing a lot about those things. I'll do so as long as MSM editors see fit to focus on (promote) these issues. My latest blog entry over at The Opine Editorials analyzes an Associated Press article looking at the fight over marriage in Maine.

Despite the "separation of church and state", a government court battle has resulted in breakaway "conservative" Episcopalian congregations having to hand over the property they’ve held for decades to the local diocese. The Los Angeles Times ran two stories in recent days on this happening with St. Luke’s Anglican Church in La Crescenta, in Los Angeles County. Duke Helfand had the "before" story, on the upcoming transfer of the property.

The diocese sued to retain St. Luke's property after the congregation voted overwhelmingly in 2006 to leave it and the national Episcopal Church over theological differences, including the consecration of a gay bishop in New Hampshire.

It is more than that. It is the refusal to adhere to clear Biblical authority and teaching when it comes to sexual behavior. By placing those who unrepentantly engage in homosexual behavior in power, and celebrating homosexual behavior with ceremonies, the denomination is going against what it has considered Scripture, as well as tradition. The Bible teaches that sex is for marriage, and that marriage unites a bride and a groom. That may be inconvenient for a lot of people, but convenience should not determine church teaching.

Oh, and if Scripture doesn't have authority, then why should I get up out of bed on a Sunday morning to make it to church? I should do what I feel like doing, right? And most of the time, I feel like sleeping in. This is exactly how a lot of denominations lose people.

The dispute at St. Luke's is part of a larger conflict in the national Episcopal Church that has pitted theological liberals and conservatives against one another over issues of biblical authority and the role of gays in the church.

Last year, four breakaway Episcopal dioceses and dozens of parishes formed the rival Anglican Church in North America. St. Luke's joined the new church last summer.

The exodus of traditionalist congregations has produced similar property disputes around the country, among them one in Fallbrook in the Episcopal Diocese of San Diego.

It is too bad that these congregations can't get some "alimony" in this "divorce", seeing as how they have contributed over the years.

Here is the "after" story, reporting on how it went on Sunday, by Ari B. Bloomekatz.

Holman told the congregation that fighting for their principles is more important than a building, and that God has greater plans in store for them.

Amen. Look, there are churches out there who start our meeting in the buildings of other churches, or in a local strip mall, or a home. And they grow and either buy a campus (usually from a shrinking "liberal" church), or build their own. This has happened over and over again, because they stick to their principles. So this congregation can definitely continue, and thrive, and the diocese can figure out what they're going to do with their empty buildings.

I do not belong to any Anglican organization. But I observe all of this with keen interest, as you can tell from some of my previous coverage.

I apologize for my lack of blogging yesterday. I celebrated Columbus Day by going to an Indian gaming casino with a Leftist friend, who was busy enjoying tobacco while explaining to me how evil Columbus was. Meanwhile, this person thinks we don't need a strong immigration/naturalization policy. Go figure.

I suppose when people blame Columbus for bringing disease to the natives, we should ask why the natives didn't recognize that Columbus, as an illegal alien, had a right to free health care on the dime of the natives? Those natives should have cured the Europeans of their diseases.

goes to me!

I'd like to thank Mr. Nobel for developing a class of explosives - which we can use to ensure we do NOT get a Nobel Peace Prize.

In light of what is going on in the battle for marriage in Maine and the discussion of how schools will be impacted, here's and entry I wrote on the issue when the California Marriage Amendment was up for a vote.

"Schools Aren't Required to Teach Marriage"

The burden of proof is on those who want “change” to show that there is a problem in the first place, and that the problem can and should be addressed by some level/branch of government.

Leftists call themselves “progressives”, because they want you to believe that their proposals bring positive progress to society.  What I see in their actions, though, is an attempt to centralize as much power in the federal government as possible. That’s not progress. That has been tried over and over again in history, and the results range from societal stagnation to genocide.

If they were to get everything they want as far as nationalizing and socializing health care and the funding thereof, they would discover some new “right” that is being denied to us, and call on some government program for that, too.

Our plan is not "don't get sick"  and "die quickly if you do".  Our plan is to let people make their own plans through voluntary arrangements - with their co-op, their temple, their union, their doctor, their neighbors, or their insurance company or anyone  else who voluntarily gets involved. That's called liberty. Yes, people will still have problems, but they're going to have problems either way. Individual liberty, whenever possible, is better than expanded government.

Can someone please help me out? I want to be informed about these things. I’ve heard so many different things, so please tell me... what’s really causing the rise in autism diagnoses?

a) Cell phones/towers
b) Fluoride in tap water
c) Pesticides
d) Vaccines
e) Mold
f) Hormones forced upon cows
g) Global warming
h) Alien abductions
i) CIA operatives
j) More then one of the above
k) All of the above

If you could tell me which of these are causing ADHD and Bipolar Disorder, that would also be very helpful.

Thanks.

When it comes to their fight to redefine marriage into meaningless, homosexuality advocates have met opposition from the people unlike anything they have encountered before. My analysis is over at The Opine Editorials.

Sorry for the light blogging here today. Life happens. But I know as long as I write on this subject, I'll get links.

Looks like we should all want Obamacare because it will help women at the expense of men. At least, that is what I picked up from this article by David Lightman of McClatchy.

Women of child-bearing age routinely pay more for health care because they're women.

Guess what? Men and women are different. They have different health needs, and thus different costs.

If they're pregnant, they can be legally denied coverage.

Pregnancy is a choice, right? That’s what the feminist groups and the abortionists have told us. There is abstaining from intercourse, there are numerous forms of contraception, there are different kinds of abortion, there is also tubal ligation and hysterectomies.

Women face other problems in today's insurance market: They tend to need more preventive care and therefore are subject to more co-pays and deductibles,

Like I said, men and women are different.

and single heads of households are often women, meaning they're responsible for the family's health care bills.

Well, yes, Remember pregnancy is a choice. And aside from rape (where there is still the legal options of abortion, safe surrender, and various forms of adoption), women choose who to let into their bodies and when. Being a parent is a choice. Women also tend to be much more likely to file for divorce than men, and more likely to get custody. So, this is largely a self-inflicted situation. Isn't feminism great?

Legislation now being considered by Congress to overhaul America's health care system would dramatically change the rules, and there's general agreement that this is a problem that needs fixing.

Huh? General agreement? Maybe in certain socialist (especially female) circles. This sounds like yet another way to force men to pay for the decisions of women.

Bills moving through Congress would end the longstanding practice of basing rates on gender, which is allowed in most states.

Well, hey, why not? If we're going to prevent taking other preexisting conditions into account, why would we pay attention to the differences between the sexes?

Legislation also would eliminate co-pays and deductibles for preventive care, require maternity coverage to be offered at reasonable rates and provide financial help for those who couldn't afford coverage.

Who determines what is "reasonable"?

Younger women are usually charged more for coverage because they tend to use more health services than men. The National Women's Law Center found that women ages 15 to 44 spent 68 percent more on health care than men during those years.

Oh, but who cares? Let men pay! It makes sense to charge a man who has intentionally remained unmarried and childless more to cover for a woman he doesn't even know and her kids, right?

More women are in lower income brackets, making it hard for them to get coverage.

It isn’t because a lack of opportunity. Women outnumber men in higher education, especially in higher degree programs, and businesses have had outreaches to recruit women to higher paying careers.

"Women are in double jeopardy," said Rep. Jan Schakowsky , D- Ill. "They earn less than men, so even if we were charged the same premiums they would pay a bigger percentage of their income, and women are usually charged more."

Oh, so why don't we reverse the situation and make men pay MORE than women, since "men earn more", and thus can pay more? C’mon – you know you want to, "equality" not withstanding. It's "fairness", right?

This smacks of another instance of "Women don’t need men, except it comes time to pay bills."

My wife worked hard to get through school and get a career that would provide health insurance. She didn't get knocked up. She married me - someone else who had taken the steps to have a career with health insurnace - and only after we married did we go ahead and have kids and she joined my health insurance. Does my wife have some magical power? Well, she is not your average gal, that's for sure. But any women could do what she did if she just puts her mind to it.

This kind of Obamacare will punish responsible men and women - especially men.

The Rand Corp says that the Los Angeles City Council's vote restricting fast food establishments in "south central" Los Angeles is unlikely to curb obesity rates. Jerry Hirsch of the Los Angeles Times brings us the update on this, which I wrote about here and here.

The study was based on InfoUSA business data and a survey of 1,480 Los Angeles County residents. It was funded by the National Institutes of Health, with no financial support from the fast-food industry, Sturm said.

Contrary to "conventional wisdom," the density of fast-food chain restaurants per capita is actually less in South Los Angeles than in other parts of the city, said Sturm, a Rand senior economist.

Uh oh! Now the companies are going to get sued for not being there!

They found that the far wealthier West Los Angeles has 29 fast-food chain establishments, 14 small food stores and 10 large supermarkets per 100,000 residents. South Los Angeles, by comparison, has 19 fast-food chain restaurants, 58 small food stores and three large grocery stores.

The authors said those data were at odds with "media reports about an over-concentration of fast-food establishments" in South Los Angeles.

Imagine that.

Among those reports, the study cited a chart that accompanied a July 30, 2008, story in The Times. The chart said fast-food establishments represented 45% of all restaurants in South Los Angeles. That was a higher percentage than in any other section of the city.

But what that means is that there are not as many establishments in general. This is not surprising, given crime, lack of spending, and the fact that the population density is higher in South Cental.

Councilman Bernard C. Parks, whose 8th District includes part of the area where the moratorium is in force, took exception to the Rand report.

He's not one to let facts get in his way.

However, the study found no difference in fruit and vegetable consumption between residents of South Los Angeles and people in other areas. Likewise, there was no difference in the proportion of people who participate in 300 minutes of exercise or more per week.

Residents of both West and South Los Angeles tend to eat out about 3.5 times a week, though South Los Angeles residents are more likely to obtain food from a food cart or truck rather than a sit-down restaurant, the study said. South Los Angeles residents also were likely to watch more television.

Radio reports are also citing convenience stores.

Like I said in my previous messages – let the free market work.