http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=58130

Califonia has once again gone beyond all reason! No saying mom or dad in school, same restrooms, S3X education banned?

What is wrong with Schwarzenegger signing that bill? Not to mention the legistlators writing it. We have checks and balance for a reason.

I am all for stopping the discrimination of LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender), but this is too far. Being a liberal, I'm appaulled. This is what happens when you have extremists running stuff. Banning the words mom and dad ... horrible. Allowing kids to use the restroom of the sex they choose to identify with ... how much abuse is that openning up? This is a call to all the "male lesbians (or guys who like to see girls change)" who would like to go into the women's locker room. Co-ed is different in college, as people are (should be) more mature.

Also, banning text that says that people are either born male or female ... wtf? People are born one or the other (unless they are hermaphrodites), if they don't identify with what society deems them to be, they CAN CHANGE, I've got no problem with that, but to tell a boy/girl that ...grrrr. Stupidity makes me want to hurt stupid people.

dro tone it down a bit, a little more off the edge and that could be deemd as flaming... and thats baaad.

In my opinion this is taking political correctness waaaaaay to far, so far that your inhibiting people with your laws that are supposed to free them. But then you deserve this.

You voted in an actor. A BAD actor. Remember what happened with Ronald Regan?

You vote in an actor and you REALLY expect anything better? you people are silly, dont bitch when he makes a bad descision, its not his fault...

...his brain is just that little bit to small to decern what is a good descision from whats a bad descision... come on the man has had people telling him what to say for the past 50 years...

...i withdraw my statement he makes an EXCELLENT politician.

...

Actually, it IS his fault when he makes a bad decision. It's not California's fault for voting him in. We voted in Bush 6 years ago, so are you going to blame all of America?

I really don't think you can have a proper stand on this matter, since you don't even live in the USA.

now that there is where you are wrong guh? you see to bar me from a discussion simply because i am not american is wrong, very wrong, infact im insulted by you, i withdraw my offer to wax your horns. *goes off in a hump*

Im meerly pointing out that if you expected great decisions perhaps voting in a failed actor wasnt a wise choice. There is also the fact that every politician screws up once in a while. Perhaps he might revoke the bill? you never know.

My final point is that i study politics, both EU and american, so i CAN create a standpoint on this. I do not like being discriminated against purely because i dont live in the same country as you.

I'm not from CA, but I do know that he was originally voted in as a Republican, but has since changed to the Dems. So now who can you blame? Basically he was elected under false pretense.

its an interesting situation, infact his changing of party can effect his legitamcy of rule. you should check your laws he might not be an eligible governer anymore.

Actually, I never sought out to bar you from a discussion. The fact that you said it's the american people's fault for all of this pissed me off and made me think 'If that's what he thinks, then what else does he think goes on here?'.

It looks like Larry Craig is probably going to become a highschool student again.

lol okay i appologise for how it came out, i was just trying to say my second post really but more eloquently

well, from what I can see from the outside looking in, California just got a little weirder. Nothing new there, but holy crap... that is one fubar bill.

And, just to give the opinion of most canadian: Bush is a moron.... sorry, but it's how most of us feel. The man (without meaning to) created a whole new 'ism'!, Bush-ism's!

*Looks* Damnit I guess Cali is going to be sued some more so it still can't pay BC back for all the water, power, and lumber we have sold over the years.

His political aligning does not change his legitamcy of rule. Politicans have changed their political views while in office in the past. You vote the person in, not the party.

This bill is ok in principle, but is a little bit over the top. Tone it down a little bit, and it will be better.

I gotta say, even though I don't agree with the Govenator's decision that article could have reported it in a less homophobic way...

.....Retarded is all i have to say. Its because of shit like this that so many other cultures look down us.

I don't understand why every State in the USA has it's own laws. It's...confusing. Plus lots of 'em are idiotic.
There should be polls if people would actually want a law, so it really is what the people want, an not something some governer wants.

You see democracy is a wonderful idea as a system but it runs into problems as the population grows.

You mean that there are so many people but only a handful who make the decisions?

In the ideal democratic system the people collectively make the decisions. However, as it is with our case, the founding fathers realized that getting a country with as many people as we had, derived a system in which the people would elect representatives that shared their views thus reducing the hardships of getting everyone together to make decision, and speeding up the decision making process (i mean look how hard it can be to just get a couple hundred people to agree on things let alone millions.) But now, that number of different views and opinions have even outgrown what they saw possible and we find that only a handful of people making decisions for us has no possibility of carrying what all of us believe.

the reason is because we started off as a series of (13) colonies. Each colony had its own rule, and no one wanted to give that up, so they set up a federal government that works under the guildlines of the US Constitution, which sets a few laws across the board, and allows the states to determine their own laws. That was the main reason for the US Civil War (not slavery), the Southern States believed that the federal gov't had extended its powers too far, so they succeeded forming the Confederate States of America. The Confederates had a much looser government which allowed the states to have more freedom.

Slavery actually became a bigger reason later on in the war. I like Canada because we actually seen how fucked you were so we had it so that the federal government had more power than the provinces. But I'm no expert in American history and actually have no interest to get into it that much either.

I don't support homos... But I am all for their rights. I am a firm believer in Democracy, no matter. Unless the people of our country are acting as retarded about it as usual...

haha people are always going to be retarded, kind of why Plato has his crazy idea for an Ideal Society.

Exactly.
Exhibit A of Stupidity? Most of the people around me on a daily basis.

I live right in Southern California, and I haven't heard a thing about this... I'll buy a local paper tomorrow and see if I can dig anything else up. I live in a rural, fundamentalist community that will probably have a biased opinion even less in favor than I am, but it'll be another form of information nonetheless.
At first that's what I though the website was, a religious-right focused news site, but I read a couple other articles and they seem to be very moderate, leaning Conservative.

I have to agree with Rae. I happen to live in Southern Cali [I can spit on Tijuana] and this has yet to reach my ears. I was intrigued at how such a thing could have been passed without the voter's consent. Usually when a bill like this is drawn up, they put it before the voters and get their stand on the matter. Some bills never make it to the voters and are simply accepted or vetoed [usually in the case of that damnable budget], however, I can guarantee you that if this was the case there would be flocks of angry citizens rioting in the streets of Sacremento in hopes that they could save a tradition. I wholeheartedly agree that we should retain the use of the words 'mom' and 'dad' in our school system. Whether we want to accept it or not: each one of us had to have a mother and a father in order to be placed in this world. Families, however, can be subjected to difference. There are a whole slew of different combinations of families. The Universe created a male and a female and those are the only two genders you can choose from. Even hermaphrodites stick to that code. While they are a little bit of both - they are still male and female. Not male, female and... Bob. Although the idea of being a 'Bob' might be pretty amusing.

Quickly we jump to conclusions about how our system is run without actually seeking out the facts. If we hear a story on the ten o'clock news, it can be squashed on the eleven o'clock news and then twisted again the next day. The media is basically a group of opinionated people who, whether by accident or purposefully, twist the truth and their own scope of the situation. I believe it was said best: "...all life is within the artist's scope." This could very well mean that what one newspaper says, another could be giving the same facts with a different opinion. How we view our world is how they tell it to us. Like a Bard.

*koff1984koff*

That was just way too creepy, Rae.

The comparison or...? Any new copy of the book compares it to the deteriorating condition of the U.S.

Both, to be quite frank with you. I just think its a valid point about the media. We take our information from the first source it comes from and then run with it - assuming that anything written in the paper or said on television is exactly what is going on.

And how easily even the most recent history can be rewritten without objection?

Exactly. It is almost mind-blowing how we can absorb a single source of information and take it verbatim. While I am sure that our political arena is run by a lot of conservative hypocrits, I would really consider looking into this further before having a total argument about it. I must digress, however, that while these specific facts might prove false - the fact of the matter remains that our country is becoming so politically correct that we're becoming politically incorrect. We're allowing the foundation of our traditions to slip to the wayside simply to "accomodate" for others. This doesn't mean that I don't think we shouldn't incorporate the ideas of others - that was how this country came to be. After all, the Fench created democracy, not us. With all of these "accomodations" we're turning our mosaic into an acutal melting pot.

Sayuri's concept of "melting pot": we are so blended with making sure no one is offended that we actually become drones to the system - ultimately becoming all identical and forgetting the things that make us all colorful.

I've noticed that most "good" policies seem to take longer to establish than something that sounds absolutely ridiculous, yet is supported by a corrupt political figure.
French Revolution - First deal with usurping the richer classes, then going through near-anarchy and accusatory period under Robespierre before finally establishing something close to a modern democracy.
Evolution and Science in the Classroom - Scopes Trial. Even Charles Darwin was harassed in his time, and he's the one that did the firsthand observations!

Anyways, there comes a point where we try to give one group so much freedom that we invade upon someone else's.

Well, there is no way around it. Somehow, someone's "rights" are going to be trampled. I think somewhere along the line, people forgot the real meaning of what a right is. We assume that because we are here and the possibility is open to an idea - it is automatically a right rather than a privilage with a hefty responsibility. Because of the faddish definition of "right," we have put everyone's feelings on a pedestal without actually thinking how it would affect the populus. So, when it comes down to actually writing the ridiculous laws, we see it for how right it is in the moment - but not in the long run.

We should start looking at laws for their purpose. Laws, policies, and other mumbo-jumbo are created to establish order and not play favorites. Politicians are more concerned with appeasing the people that voted them rather than leading them.

I really think we ought to find a man who resides somewhere between Vlad the Impaler and Ghandi. Someone who is understanding to the nature of humanity but will tear your lower intestine out through your left nostril if you step an inch out of line.

Impending fear like that'll definitely keep folks in line.

Think about it for a moment. If you knew the consequence of you stealing a pack of gum was having your eyelashes plucked out with tweezers versus having the police tell your parents and they ground you... I'm certain you'd prefer the police tattling on you. However, if the latter wasn't the case - how often would you be tempted to steal gum; no matter how hungry you truly were. It is sometimes the fear of true, unquestioned consequence that can straighten someone out. For the select few who choose to ignore it... well... they are the ones who just won't live long. Kill off the stupid, you know?

True, but that also makes you realize that very few people will actually be law-abiding because they believe it's right thing to do. Most only do because they don't want to be severely punished.

That is just a sad fact of life. In the end, however, you'll have law-abiding citizens and a lower crime rate. At the same time, you have to imagine that the people would be deciding on the laws that ought to go into effect. They would put more thought in how a law is written and enforced rather than how it looks on glitter paper to make someone look good.

Spyder- Eh? French Revolution 1789-1799, America established 1776. Not that Americans created the concept either, but the French Revolution happened after, not before the establishment of The United States of America. We claim to be a democracy, but in practice we are a republic. The people elect representatives to our interests who are granted the power to deal with governmental matters. The U.S.A. is the new Rome and , imo, likely to one day share its fate. As to the law, wow. I am waiting to see now if it is actually on the table and/or passed. My own view is like many others on this thread, it is going a little too far.

In fact the Greeks invented democracy. Though women, foreigners, slaves 'n poor people weren't allowed to vote.

Spyder- Yes, sir. The U.S. didn't get on that band wagon (equal citizenry for everyone) til relatively recently, either.

Well, the original thought was derailed. In truth, my point was that the information given in that article might be false. Like Rae and I stated - we live in the state and have yet to hear about it. If our little monkey was doing something that drastic, it'd be more likely that we would catch wind of it before anyone else. For whatever reason, I have yet to hear it being discussed anywhere. Something this heavy would spark discussion all over the news - but of course, the news networks are spammed with Britney Spears' latest screw-up. Just because one article claims this is how it happened doesn't inherently make it true. We can base a strong opinion about the foundation of political correctness, but to give an example of something that might not be founded is a little hasty.

As far as this being false, I have found Web news articles about this all over the place. I have seen articles with both sides of the story, and I have found some who were so for the bill that they censor any comments against it. So if it is "fake like you think it might be, it is an extremely elaborate hoax.

Where would I be without google? Here's the bill in question. From what it looks like, they're just trying to prevent any group being "talked down" upon in schools. Teachers can't go spewing out homophobic material, like a lot do around here in my rural little hell.

Oh super fun, at that point you stand up and tell the teacher that their biased opinion is not wanted or healthy, if they keep going off about it just call them out as ignorant hicks and should leave their so called profession at once.

wow. Uhh, no?

Oradow DOES NOT WANT.

I like the idea behind the bill, and I don't see much wrong with the wording thereof. I'm more concerned with interpretation and implementation. Political movements such as this tend to swing like a pendulum. In the 50's conservatism and conformity were the order of the day. Today, the pendulum is increasingly swinging liberalism and individuality. (I'm of the opinion anything taken to it's farthest extreme is bad, but when your near the middle ground good things can happen.) Our culture has changed a great deal a great many times. The group mind has shifted focus. Our politics reflect that. In the past, focus was on the group as a whole. People were willing to accept limitations for the sake of society in general. As time went on, people began to change, began to feel that too much was being asked of them for the sake of society. Now the focus is more on the individual.
In an effort to right the wrongs of the past, we are beginning to (if we haven't already) over-compensate. Society as a whole is being asked to sacrifice more and more for the sake of individuals (the minorities and interest groups previously ignored).

Keeping all of this in mind, we:
1. Should not be surprised by this bill
2. Should also realize that in time, the political climate will change and the bill will be amended.

This screws the marijuana movement.... since Cali made it legal, everyone's going to blame it for this absurd law.