From LATimes.com comes word that Democrat California state senator Mark Leno, representing San Francisco, is:

proposing legislation that would require textbooks used in California include "historical contributions" made by gay people.

Emphasis mine.

The hope, he said in a statement, is that information would reduce bullying of lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender people.

Sure, right. "Hey, normally I beat up on homos, but I won't today because our textbook points out your contributions to Hollywood." Do the bullies even read?

We all know that kids get bullied for anything about them that deviates from the majority. It could be their red hair or for an accent or for identifying as homosexual. And some kids, bullied or not, commit suicide. Bullying and suicide are both morally unacceptable, and we should discourage both. But this isn't the way to do it.

"Most textbooks don’t include any historical information about the LGBT movement, which has great significance to both California and U.S. history," Leno said in a statement.

You mean the higher rates of mental illness, substance abuse, STIs, domestic violence? Are those the kinds of historical information you want to include?

Hey, how about we break the textbooks down into the various categories to make sure every personal trait gets noted we’ll have sections for the contributions of Christians, military veterans, gun owners, redheads, alcoholics, lefties, the double-jointed, and cutters. Oh, of course. The first four would never be pointed out.

"Streets" December 15, 2010 at 08:58 AM:

People should be judged on thier character not sexual orientation. To point out sexual orientation in history then opens the door to critizise based on sexual orientation. BAD IDEA!

Agreed.

"TrueFreedom" December 15, 2010 at 09:37 AM:

Seriously? How about this: let's find historical events that are of primary historical significance... and put those events in the textbooks. If the events happen to include gays, blacks, women, white guys, etc... then so be it.

Hey, now there's an idea.

"Does it Matter" December 15, 2010 at 10:42 AM:

Why does it matter what a persons sexual preference was in determining thier contributions to history? So does this mean we are going to now label each historical figure according to sexual preference...
"George Washington, a straight man, was the 1st president of the US"

This would be one more thing to fight endlessly about. "So-and-so should be listed as gay!" "No he shouldn't." Sheesh.

This kind of nonsense is a good example of why California is in trouble.

Yes, someone's morality is going to be law. The question is whose. And who decides? The people should decide if licenses issued on their behalf should be changed. We have voted that the licenses should require inclusive participation of both sexes.

Read more at The Opine Editorials.

When someone mocks Jesus Christ, calls it art, and it is supported by taxpayer dollars, that's just fine by many who are now complaining about a project to build a "Noah's Ark" attraction. Some of these people support using taxpayer money to teach New Age and Secular Humanist and Islamic religious concepts. Paul Thornton reports on the LATimes.com opinion blog.

One can only hope the bulk of whatever taxes this absurd tourist attraction generates go toward improving science education to mitigate the simple-mindedness this inflicts on Kentucky children.

Why does building this inflict simple-mindedness?

But if it's jobs even at the expense of science that desperate governors crave, they ought to be equal-opportunity panderers.

Where is the cost to science in all of this?

I would encourage him to steer clear of the Bible's widely disseminated creation story.

Uh, the story of Noah isn't a creation story.

Instead, my vote goes to the Church of Scientology, whose Earth-insemination myth-- that Galactic emperor Xenu flew billions of his people in DC-8-like spacecraft to our planet and blew them up in volcanoes -- lends itself nicely to flashy amusement park entertainment.

It just might. But these are not cultural equivalents.

"bob murrell" at December 07, 2010 at 05:10 PM had a problem. He says the ark was bigger than will be represented:

Its a shame that they are going to build the Noah's Ark in ky. and they are using the wrong 18 inch cubit . Noah Ark was 515 feet long not 450.moses wrote the first 5 books of the bible and he was educated in the royal Egyptian cubit that is 20.6 inch means it was 86 ft. wide and fifty ft. high

"realist" at December 08, 2010 at 06:24 AM:

there are enough government programs wasting taxpayers money to have you build a replica of a fake "boat" that never existed.

How would anyone know for sure that the ark never existed?

consider the billions of animals in the world that have evolved over the billions of years the earth has been in existence, no one structure made out of wood could a: float, or b: house all of them considering the bio-diversity required to maintain a gene pool.

This person hasn't even bothered to read what these people actually believe. I'm not saying that they're right, but this critic doesn't address their contentions, instead knocking down strawmen.

"Michael Simons" at December 08, 2010 at 07:53 AM:

Can I get some government funds to build an amusement park which acts out all the stories in the bible about God committing or ordering violent acts of murder and rape?

Notice that this person does not cite chapter and verse, let alone wholistic context. Wonder why?

"Robinson Walsh" at December 08, 2010 at 09:47 AM:

There was no Noah.

How does this person know this for sure?

Just for the record, I don’t want taxpayer funds spent on private projects. But the skeptics should be happy to see this project built with private funds so they can use it to point out exactly how the story of Noah is impossible, right?

Previously:

Hit and Run Bible Mockers

The Religious Right on Church and State

Time For Education to Evolve

Joe Siler of Seal Beach wrote in to the Orange County Register with a letter that is a very good representation of my own thoughts on DADT.

Clearly, homosexuals deserve the same rights as everyone else.

This is very important. I sincerely believe that every citizen deserves to have his or her rights defended by the government rather than infringed upon by their government. Every person, heterosexual or homosexual, should have the same opportunity to use their resources in voluntary exchanges with others. Nobody should be assaulted or have their property vandalized. Nobody should be unduly bothered by government agents. But what about government employment, specifically in the military?

But this military stuff is complicated. The military is 24 hours a day, with common barracks and showers. Youthful hormones and sexual tensions are at a peak. We acknowledge this by separating the men and women. But what about gays? Do we put them all together in a fun barracks? Or do we scatter them around so a few “couples” can carry on in each barracks? Some straights fear being ogled in the shower.

Here is a good test of your view. Should military men and women share the same barracks and showers? If you answer “yes,” you may have a lot of young military support. If you answer “no,” how is that different from the gay situation? Maybe, “don’t ask don’t tell” is very wise.

That's a very good letter.

The stupidity continues. Patrick J. McDonnell reports at LATimes.com that the City Council of LA has again voted to prevent new fast-food restaurants in "South-Central". See what I wrote before about this.

Among other restrictions, the lawmakers voted to ban the opening of new fast-food concerns within a half-mile radius of similar eateries.

Now, it is typical for businesses of the same sort to pop up near each other. Why? Because their research shows that is the location where that type of business will do best, and zoning. I wonder if existing owners have paid off councilmembers so the owners can avoid having to deal with new competition?

The council’s unanimous vote was the culmination of years of effort to bring greater dietary choice and an improved aesthetic to an area that suffers from both slapdash development and a high rate of diet-related health problems -- including obesity and diabetes -- that some researchers have linked to fast foods.

How does having more restrictions bring greater choice?

“For a community to thrive, it is important to have balance, a full variety of food, retail and service providers,” said Councilman Bernard C. Parks, who spearheaded the measure along with Councilwoman Jan Perry.

It isn't your place to make business decisions or decisions about markets. You are there to legislate to prevent violation of rights, and to budget, and manage certain city functions. Instead, you're infringing on property rights, reducing employment options, and reducing your revenue potential.

Two years ago, the council slapped a moratorium on many new fast-food establishments in the densely populated area in a bid to encourage alternatives such as sit-down restaurants, full-service grocery stores and healthy food outlets.

No examples of alternatives materializing is given in the article. Wonder why?

The new guidelines, which seek to improve landscaping, trash storage, parking and other factors, apply only to so-called “stand alone” eateries, not those situated in malls and other sites considered “mixed use”  developments.

I wonder how much mall owners have paid to the councilmenbers?

In a bow to concerns from the fast-food industry, existing fast-food establishments seeking to remodel or expand would be exempt from some of the new requirements.

Interesting. It must be nice to beat your competition before they have a chance to even try.

"Bt0" December 08, 2010 at 04:11 PM:

Gee thanks city council.. Ill sleep better tonight now that i know the streets are safer from fast food boogie man...

"IvanG" December 08, 2010 at 05:33 PM:

If "there are far too many fast food outlets in general, and many areas are saturated with them" then why would you need to prohibit the opening of more of them? If there are too many, opening more will be unprofitable. In truth, the problem is that residents of those areas want fast food, either because they like it or because it is cheap or convenient.

Exactly.

"greg" December 08, 2010 at 05:36 PM:

Hooray, now they can legislate that Gelsons or Whole Foods has to open a store there. That will fix everything wrong in the community. Well done, rainbows and unicorns all around! This is just more PC nonsense. Fast food outlets bring money and JOBS into the community. If people don't want to eat there, they close shop. That's the risk the franchise owner takes, it should not be legislated for or against. More slippery slope stupidity, where does it stop?

Maybe the City Council should vote to create city-run "healthy" restaurants?

"DavidinLA" December 08, 2010 at 06:04 PM:

No one is preventing a healthier food alternative from opening its doors...but there has to be a demand.

Don't confuse the City Council with reality!

Walt Nobrega of Lake Forest wrote in to the Orange County Register:

I am upset with Lisa Benson’s political cartoon. Her depiction of Nancy Pelosi as a mentally challenged political student was an affront to the mentally challenged citizens of the United States.

Mentally challenged citizens are happier and have more common sense than Nancy Pelosi.

Shame on you, Lisa Benson.

There's nothing to add.

Even if a court says it is.

I explore this analogy over at The Opine Editorials.

Here are a couple of great letters printed in the Orange County Register on extending the existing tax rates for all, and the charge of "tax breaks for the rich". Ken Haringa of Costa Mesa:

Enough with the irrational, parroted leftist phrase “tax breaks for the rich.” To punish those who pay far more, percentage-wise, in taxes, who fuel the economy, who provide jobs and allow for generations of Americans to move up the career ladders to prosperity is not only an envious, emotionally based useless phrase, but it’s a notion which has hoodwinked enough citizens to harm their own respective futures.

It is also based on coveting what you neighbor has, thus a violation of one of the Ten Commandments. That may not mean anything to someone who doesn't care about the Ten Commandments, but those who claim to care should take note.

The economically challenged, mindless collectivist leaders in academia and politics have raised a generation of helpless, government-dependent robotic whiners who are so deeply indoctrinated with reliance on a government silver spoon to feed, employ and provide their every need all they can do is shake their fists and wail at those who’ve worked extremely hard to get through college, struggled to pay off their student loans, began their careers at the bottom, kept acquiring skills and experience, invested what they could save, bought a house, raised a family, took risks to begin and build up a business, and employed people which provided them with careers.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Free-market forces, without government involvement, manipulation or legislated advantages, i.e. welfare, will fairly allow businesses to fail or succeed on their own merits. America’s living standards became the world’s highest before the cancerous 20th century ideology called socialism came along to bring us to today’s brink of disaster.

Excellent, Mr. Haringa. Kudos to you.

Michael Granek of Yorba Linda:

As an example, a “rich” married couple earning $250,000 pays income taxes of $59,177. A “poor” married couple earning $25,000 pays income taxes of $3,647. The “rich” couple makes 10 times as much as the “poor” couple, yet pays 16.2 times more in income taxes. Just how exactly, is that not “paying their fair share?”

Isn't it obvious? "Fair" is Leftist talk for "Whatever I say."

Most people inherently know there is a difference between marriage and nonmarriage, even the kind of nonmarriage that two people of the same sex can have over a lifetime. So trying to explain it to someone who claims not to see a difference is like trying to explain that "blue" and "green-with-red-polka-dots" are not the same. How do you argue that in court? It is tempting to call the person color blind, but then you notice that the person behaves in a way that indicates they see the difference. Judge Walker, for example, is attracted to men, not women. So clearly he knows there is a difference between men and women in personal relationships, despite what he wrote in his decision.

As error begets error, the legal system moves further away from truth, and as such, loses more and more moral authority. It will only retain authority by pointing guns. Does the government have a people, or do the people have a government?

More over at The Opine Editorials.

Attention people of any state considering domestic partnerships or civil unions:

The California domestic partnership law treats same-sex couples as if they are a spouses. Rather than pleasing the very activists who pushed for this law, they now claim it is an insult, and now it is clear that lawyers are using the law as a Trojan Horse to neuter state marriage licensing against the will of the people.

I'd like to be nice, but I care about marriage too much - so I can't support domestic partnerships.

More about this and other issues in the Proposition 8 trial over at The Opine Editorials.

In order to call California's constitutional amendment voted in as Proposition 8 a "gay marriage ban", as the MSM does repeatedly, you have to call all of your gay friends who had "marriage" ceremonies where and when they didn't get state licenses together liars. Because if they really got married and really are spouses, then marriage means something independently of state licensing doesn't it? And there was no law against their ceremony or commitment to each other. For Pop 8 to be a "gay marriage ban", it would mean that only state-licensed marriages are marriages, and so all of those other gay couples calling each other spouses are liars.

So which is it? Is marriage something that exists whether or not it has a state license, or is it only what the state says it is?

Also, to argue that a state can't distinguish between men and women and between the pairing of a man and a woman and the pairing of two men or two women and is compelled to recognize a brideless or groomless pairing as marriage, you have simultaneously argue that there is no difference between men and women AND that there is a difference, because a homosexual man "can't" marry a woman and a homosexual woman "can't" marry a man.

So which is it? Is there a difference or not? If there is no difference, then any homosexual man can just as easily marry a woman, and any homosexual woman can just as easily marry a man. Here's a hint to the answer: Federal law treats men and women differently in multiple ways.

I bring this up because today three federal judges, based on the previous intrusion of one federal judge, are considering today intruding into California's constitution based on these topics.

As always, you can find thorough analysis over at The Opine Editorials.

1) Men and women are different. Even most of the people who try to deny this demonstrate that they understand this to be true. After all, if men and women were not different, all, or at least three, of the terms in "LGBT" would have no meaning.

2) The pairing of a man and a woman is different than the pairing of two men or two women. It is the only kind of pairing that is able to naturally produce new citizens (who, unlike the adults, do not consent to the relationship), even if not all do. This alone is enough to give the state more interest in the pairing of a man and a woman.

3) Men and women are different in personal relationships. If that difference matters enough to someone in picking a lover, how can it not matter when it comes to the parent-child relationship?

4) State licensing of bride+groom pairings provides children with a role model, guardian, and bonding partner from each of the two sexes that comprise all of society, legally bound to each other as well as the children; generally, this is good for children.

5) It is constitutional, moral, common, and necessary to treat different kinds of relationships differently.

6) One need not believe homosexual behavior, relationships, or people to be harmful, sinful, or inferior to accept any or all of #1-5.

I mentioned a Los Angeles Times sob-story on illegal aliens who were brought here as minors by their parents, and their entitlement attitude, especially when it comes to higher education. The Los Angeles Times printed some letters in response to their article. Kee Kim of La Habra wrote:

There's a Korean folktale: A good Samaritan rescued a drowning man, risking his own life, only to face the man's angry demand of the knapsack he lost in the process.

Being of Korean descent, UCLA student David Cho probably can relate to it. Contrary to how he feels, he clearly owes something to what he calls a "broken system," which allowed him to attend a world-class school despite his status, denying thousands of otherwise qualified children of legal California residents.

Don't forget all of the previous education and other public services.

If Cho wants to find blame, it belongs to his parents, not the system.

Exactly.

Gretchen Hays of Pacific Palisades wrote:

If the DREAM Act does not pass, it will show a remarkable degree of unenlightened self-interest. The undocumented students in this article demonstrate all the qualities we want in our students.

Of course they do. That was the agenda of the Los Angeles Times. The handful of students in the article are the best of the millions of illegal aliens. What about all of the illegal aliens who remain uneducated and dependent on taxpayer subsidies the rest of their lives? Or join gangs, or engage in violent and destructive crimes? We should not go out of our way to make illegal aliens comfortable.

A San Francisco Democrat who can't bring herself to admit that all other thing being equal, it is better or a child to be raised with a mother and father instead of a motherless or fatherless home – has finally been determined as the winner of the race for California Attorney General.

Kamala Harris, as D.A. for San Francisco, was quick to announce she would not seek the death penalty against a cop killer – so quick, she made the announcement before the murder victim's funeral.

Here's what Harris' election means, especially given the state legislature, judiciary, and Governor-elect:

1. California will grow even more hostile to private property owners and businesses.
2. California's new lethal injection facility to peacefully put cold-blooded verified murders to a gentle death will never be used (at least for the next four years).
3. The state constitution and the will of the voters will not be defended in federal court by the state government.
4. On the bright side, Los Angeles retains a good D.A.

Here's the Los Angeles Times article by Seema Mehta.

Four weeks after election day, Democrat Kamala Harris declared victory in the race for attorney general on Tuesday, claiming a narrow but historic win that makes her the first woman and the first minority to be elected the state's top law-enforcement official.

These people are race obsessed, and for people who try to pretend there is no difference between men and women when it comes to most things, they sure focus a lot on whether someone is male or female.

"I pledge and make a pledge to work hard every day to make sure the law of this state is on the side of the people of this state."

Okay. Defend Proposition 8 then.

"wrath of god" at 9:12 AM December 1, 2010:

As a woman, African American and Native American, Kamala Harris has overcome some really amazing history.

Huh?!? California has two women as our Senators, and numerous women elected to Congress, the state legislature, and local offices. California voted for Obama.

In the 1850s there was a slave market in LA near Olvera Street where African Americans and Native Americans were sold to the highest bidder.

Wow, I didn't realize that Harris was that old. Hey, did you know there is still slavery in the world?

With the Democrats in total control of California, the Presidency, and the Senate, watch the Leftists blame California's woes on Bush and the House of Representatives.

The Leftist Southern Poverty Law Center decided it would get itself some free publicity by calling the Family Research Council a hate group. Los Angeles Times columnist Tim Rutten applauds like a trained seal. Such a bold move for a columnist at that paper.

The Southern Poverty Law Center is an organization with deep roots in the civil rights movement.

And what civil rights exactly are left to gain, or are being threatened right now? Will they stand up for my right to vote? If the organization really wants to fight poverty, they will do everything they can to encourage people to make sure children are raised within a marriage – a good, stable marriage between a bride and a groom.

Its ingenious lawsuits helped break the back of the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacist factions, and in recent years, it has joined the Anti-Defamation League as a reliable monitor of hate groups.

I'm all for monitoring hate groups. I wonder if they has Jeremiah Wright on their list? Hmmm.

In recent years, the council has given an increasing share of its attention to opposing marriage equality and open military service by gays and lesbians.

Marriage equality? It’s marriage neutering. The pairing of two men or two women is not equal to the pairing of a bride and a groom, and the law should be able to deal with that reality instead of attempting to deny that reality. If the FRC has given an increasing share of its attention to defending marriage and the military, it is because the advocates for change have been more active. Who was talking about neutering marriage 20 years ago?

Last week, the law center added the Family Research Council to its list of more than 930 active hate groups, citing the anti-gay rhetoric of its leaders and researchers, which have included calls to re-criminalize consensual sex between individuals of the same gender.

Quotes please. The SPLC has further lost credibility by attacking the FRC.

The Southern Poverty Law Center defines a hate group as one with "beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics."

Funny, I only recall the FRC noting the negatives of certain behaviors, not attacking or maligning people for immutable characteristics.

Over the years, it has published statistical compendiums purporting to quantify the "evils" of homosexuality. One of its pamphlets is entitled, "Dark Obsession: The Tragedy and Threat of the Homosexual Lifestyle."

What’s wrong with noting the data reflecting negative conditions that correspond to homosexual behavior?

At various times, its spokesmen have spuriously alleged that the gay rights movement's goal "is to go after children" and that child molestation is more likely to occur in households with gay parents.

And this is not true? Or is noting the truth considered hateful? So homosexuality advocates don't want to push homosexuality in schools and childrens' programming? Then why have they already done so?

Last week, one of its senior fellows, Peter Sprigg, told reporters on a conference call concerning repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that "homosexuals in the military are three times more likely to commit sexual assaults than heterosexuals are relative to their numbers."

What are your stats? Would you support putting heterosexual men in bunks and showers with women? Why not?

Such rhetoric is eerily reminiscent of that with which religiously affiliated opponents of African American equality once defended segregation.

Oh, here we go. Let's play the race card. Well, then, the SPLC’s attack on FRC sound eerily reminiscent of Nazi attacks on Jews. How about dealing with the issues?

Exhortations against "race mixing" were commonplace pulpit messages short decades ago, though we now recognize them as hate speech.

Racism clearly goes against the Bible, which doesn't even recognize racial categories. But what also goes against the Bible is sex outside of marriage and mocking marriage by pretending that anything other than the uniting of a bride and groom is marriage. To pretend that Bible-believing churches are going to give up on that the way the racist ones gave up on racism is folly.

Our churches are free to order their internal affairs as they will - to set the terms of sacramental marriage as they see fit, to discriminate in the selection of their clergy, to racially segregate their membership or to separate the sexes in their schools or places of worship.

For how long?

Hey, guess what Mr. Rutten – one need not be religious to see a value in the bride+groom requirement in marriage licensing and DADT.

"sandss1151" at 8:21 PM November 30, 2010:

Mr. Rutten, you state that you have no problem with religous people practicing their beliefs in private so long as they do not bring them into the public square.  Well, how do you define "religous people"?  EVERYBODY has a belief system based on strongly held personal beliefs. You would exclude folks from the public debate simply because they hold an opposing view to yours.  You might call protestant Christians "evil", is that hate speech?

"TDCJPS" at 6:53 AM December 1, 2010:

RELIGION KILLS.

Actually, atheist dictators in the previous century killed far more people than any major world religion.

Why are they so intrigued and absorbed with homosexuality?

They care about marriage and the family, and one of the most organized and persistent attacks on marriage and the family are coming from some homosexuality advocates. Stop trying to force everyone to stand up and cheer about homosexual sodomy and subsidize it, and I guarantee the FRC and others will greatly reduce their focus on it. So what is next, accusing firefighters of being obsessed with arson and being closeted arsonists?

"Briony James" at 9:07 AM December 1, 2010:

Did the big bad GayMonster scare you?  Or is it just that closet you're in?

It is so predictable that people who supposedly think homosexual behavior is a good thing will accuse others of it as a slur to try to get them to shut up. Is Briony James a closeted FRC supporter?

Previously: On Jesus, The Bible, and the Religious Right

The Los Angeles Times is chronicling the demise of California. Will the paper survive long enough to provide a full final account? That question presumes it is providing a full account right now. Three stories come to mind.

First is Diana Marcum's submission to the paper about a bunch of illegal aliens students who want their education further subsidized by Californians. I do feel for these kids on the one hand, as their parents are the ones who did this to them. Of course, it is hard for them to be angry with their parents given that their parents were fleeing corrupt hellholes (that some of those parents still like to celebrate) in search of a better life or government programs. But I don't think the rest of us should continue to make accommodations for the choices of their parents.

Maria Duque, 19, student body vice president at Fullerton College, has always been open about her illegal immigrant status. It was part of her platform when she ran for office.

Yeah, sounds like illegal aliens are really "in the shadows".

The LAUSD is considering and earlier start to the school year, as detailed in this Howard Blume story. Hey, if it helps them turn out more government-dependent people and more government union members, why not?

District officials had touted the advantage of having three more weeks to prepare for the state's high-stakes standardized tests in May. Those results are used to judge the overall success and improvement of schools and school districts — and soon may be used to evaluate individual teachers as well.

But the state Education Code specifies that those tests must take place 85% of the way through the school year, plus or minus 10 days. So if students start sooner, they will take the tests sooner.

And last we have columnist George Skelton once again taking a shot at Proposition 13.

Prop 13 isn't perfect, but it shouldn't be weakened without more solid taxpayer protections in place first. And how is that going to happen with Jerry Brown and the "grow government" legislature?