'There is overwhelming evidence that the University of Wisconsin in engaging in racial and ethnic discrimination, and it should stop'

Says Roger Clegg from the Center for Equal Opportunity, speaking yesterday at the University of Wisconsin. State Assemblyman Mark Pocan, a Democrat, attacked Clegg pretty agressively, according to Althouse:

Whether the University complies with the standard laid down in the Supreme Court case law is, of course, crucial, but the state legislature has the power to impose a stricter standard on the University (if it thinks that's a good idea). In addition, it's possible that the CEO plans to use this case to get affirmative action back into the Supreme Court with the hope of changing the legal doctrine.

RTWT for the context.

Elizabeth Eckford and Hazel Bryan

I showed Herman Cain's "Water" video to my classes last week. After my 9:00am class, a student stayed after to ask me about the scene from Little Rock, Arkansas, where black student Elizabeth Eckford was violently heckled as she tried to integrate at the school. And now, wouldn't you know it, but Telegraph UK has an update on the story, on the reconciliation between Eckford and the woman most infamously remembered from the photograph, Hazel Bryan.

See: "Elizabeth Eckford and Hazel Bryan: the story behind the photograph that shamed America."

I think I'll show this article to my students this week.

Herman Cain, America's Candidate, Catchin' the Big Mo'

Hermain Cain's catchin' some big momentum, and he deserves it.

For example, Michael Barone gives him a huge shout out: "Time to raise Cain to contender status" (at Memeorandum). And Barone points us to Daniel Henninger's piece this week, "Taking Cain Seriously":

Conventional wisdom holds that this week's Chris Christie boomlet means the GOP is desperate for a savior. The reality is that, at some point, Republicans will have to start drilling deeper on their own into the candidates they've got.

Put it this way: The GOP nominee is running against the incumbent president. Unlike the incumbent, Herman Cain has at least twice identified the causes of a large failing enterprise, designed goals, achieved them, and by all accounts inspired the people he was supposed to lead. Not least, Mr. Cain's life experience suggests that, unlike the incumbent, he will adjust his ideas to reality.

Herman Cain is a credible candidate. Whether he deserves to be president is something voters will decide. But he deserves a serious look.

PREVIOUSLY: "Signs of Rising Momentum for Herman Cain." Linked there is The Other McCain, who continues his outstanding Herman Cain coverage. See, "Herman Cain Rhymes With Hurricane: Fund-Raising Surges in Third Quarter." And click "home" over at McCain's to get his commiserations on the lack of recognition for his Cain coverage.

BONUS: From Jonathan Tobin, "Re: Herman Cain?"

Also, at WaPo, "Presidential candidate Herman Cain says Christie is too liberal for Republican conservatives."

Zombie Covers Berkeley Affirmative Action Bake Sale

One of his best ever!

See: "Racist Cupcakes? Berkeley Erupts over Affirmative Action Satire."

Zombie says that the "privilege" line is actually a class issue, not race. But not really, not for progressives. Race is class. Just look at those signs. Indeed, racism is all progressives have. Well, they had the antiwar movement too, but --- except for perhaps the most hardened communists --- they hypocritically abandoned it when the first black president took office. Amazing consistency. ASFLs.

Soldier Stephen Hill Honors America: Gay Progressive Hate-Mongers, Not So Much

Okay, let's put some things in perspective.

As I reported last night, there were literally just a couple people who booed at soldier Stephen Hill, according to Sarah Rumpf, who was on hand and responded to the controversy on Twitter. And Sarah expanded on her tweet with a full blog report, "The Truth About the Booing at the Debate," where she indicates:

The debate included video questions that were submitted on YouTube, and one came from a soldier serving in Iraq who is gay and asked about the candidates' opinions on don't ask don't tell. There was audible booing after his question...however, please note that it was not the crowd booing. It was only one or two people.

I was at the debate, in the audience on the right hand side about halfway back (here's my tweet of the video screen that was right in front of us). The person who booed was just a few rows in front of us. The booing got an immediate and angry reaction from nearly everyone sitting around him, who hissed and shushed at him. Lots of loud gasps, "Shhhh!" "No!" "Shut up, you idiot!" etc.

So, not only was it just "one or two people," their boos were immediately repudiated by those sitting nearby.

Now, this episode is getting a lot of attention online, and as is usual with progressive extremists, the commentary is both dishonest and hysterical. Excitable Andrew Sullivan is particularly over the top, at "The Anger Builds." Sullivan's post is ugly on a number of counts. He attempts to slur the GOP as "a religion." He attacks Rick Santorum's comments as a "despicable lie." And he claims that "Republicans don't actually deep down care for the troops, if that means gay troops. Their constant posturing military patriotism has its limits." And on top of that:

The shocking silence on the stage - the fact that no one challenged this outrage - also tells me that this kind of slur is not regarded as a big deal. When it came to it, even Santorum couldn't sanction firing all those servicemembers who are now proudly out. But that's because he was forced to focus not on his own Thomist abstractions, but on an actual person. Throughout Republican debates, gays are discussed as if we are never in the audience, never actually part of the society, never fully part of families, never worthy of even a scintilla of respect. When you boo a servicemember solely because he's gay, you are saying he is beneath contempt, that nothing he does or has done can counterweigh the vileness of his sexual orientation.

This is completely decontextualized and patently absurd. Not only do we have Sarah Rumpf's first hand report of the audience reaction to the (one or two) boos, but it turns out that Rick Santorum didn't even hear them. He's interviewed by Megyn Kelly at the clip. She correctly observes that there were just a couple of people who booed, and Santorum responds that he didn't hear booing, and "when you're in that kind of environment, you're sort of focusing on the question and formulating your answer..." And Santorum repeatedly notes that "this man is serving our country" and he thanks him for his service.

So, contrary to Andrew Sullivan, it's simply not true that Republicans deem gay soldiers "never worthy of even a scintilla of respect." If Santorum is to be faulted, it's simply that he didn't acknowledge the soldier for his service. But that's a question of Santorum's personal decorum, and upon reflection, he clearly regrets how he came off and has corrected the record in his interview with Megyn Kelly. But what's key is the progressive left's willfully false attacks on Republicans. David Nir does the same thing at Daily Kos, "In face of boos for gay soldier, Republicans stay silent." And Greg Sargent attacks Republicans along these lines while fully cognizant that the outrage is bogus:

It would obviously be unfair to use this episode to tar all Republicans. Some, to their credit, have already registered their dismay about what happened. Even audience members reacted badly and told the hecklers to shut up. But it’s perfectly fair to see it as representative of the caliber of the candidates that stood on the stage last night.

No, it would not be fair, for the reasons that Rick Santorum indicates. The debate environment is basically a high stakes performance. The boos might not have registered with the candidates. And they likely were trying to anticipate the line of questioning and the direction of the debate rather than the appropriate salute to a soldier who submitted a question via YouTube. That's not fair, perhaps, but it's a long way from indicating that the Republican Party is filled with hordes of anti-gay bigots whose "posturing military patriotism has its limits." The truth is, as I've pointed out many times, the gay progressive left is a hate-cult powered by intolerance of difference. What bigotry we learned out this episode came from those on the radical left. And the outrage is especially rich in Andrew Sullivan's case, considering he's probably the last person who should be lecturing others on "gay sexual misconduct."

Crowd Boos Gay Soldier's Question on 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'?

Actually, Sarah Rumpf on Twitter says, "Only a few booed." But see GOProud, "Rick Santorum Owes Gay Soldier an Apology."

Towleroad has the transcipt: "GOP Debate Crowd Boos Gay Soldier Serving in Iraq: VIDEO":

And at Memeorandum.

Santorum doesn't owe anyone an apology. That said, I'd be surprised if restoring DADT became a plank in the GOP platform. We're at war and gays are serving honorably. Let's see how things go for a while.

Besides, I have much more respect for a guy like Stephen Hill than I do for folks like Dan Savage. The former's willing to lay his life on the line for his country. Dan Savage just makes freaked out butt-lube slurs against conservatives. ASFL.

Georgia Executes Cop Killer Troy Davis: Progressive Heads Explode

I went to bed last night upon hearing the news that the Supreme Court was granting an 11th hour review. I didn't hear anything more until I was in my office this morning reading the Los Angeles Times, "Georgia puts convict to death despite protest." And then also at New York Times, "In Death-Penalty Debate, Execution Offers Little Closure."

And see the very even-handed piece from Associated Press, which notes that all the second thoughts on witness testimony were presented to jurors at the time of the trial, "Counting down, Ga. inmate nears execution in policeman’s killing despite pleas in US, Europe."

But the best piece on this is from Ann Coulter, "COP-KILLER IS MEDIA'S LATEST BABY SEAL":

It's nearly impossible to receive a death sentence these days -- unless you do something completely crazy like shoot a cop in full view of dozens of witnesses in a Burger King parking lot, only a few hours after shooting at a passing car while exiting a party.

That's what Troy Davis did in August 1989. Davis is the media's current baby seal of death row.

After a two-week trial with 34 witnesses for the state and six witnesses for the defense, the jury of seven blacks and five whites took less than two hours to convict Davis of Officer Mark MacPhail's murder, as well as various other crimes. Two days later, the jury sentenced Davis to death.

Now, a brisk 22 years after Davis murdered Officer MacPhail, his sentence will finally be administered this week -- barring any more of the legal shenanigans that have kept taxpayers on the hook for Davis' room and board for the past two decades.

(The average time on death row is 14 years. Then liberals turn around and triumphantly claim the death penalty doesn't have any noticeable deterrent effect. As the kids say: Duh.)

It has been claimed -- in The New York Times and Time magazine, for example -- that there was no "physical evidence" connecting Davis to the crimes that night.

Davis pulled out a gun and shot two strangers in public. What "physical evidence" were they expecting? No houses were broken into, no cars stolen, no rapes or fistfights accompanied the shootings. Where exactly would you look for DNA? And to prove what?

I suppose it would be nice if the shell casings from both shootings that night matched. Oh wait -- they did. That's "physical evidence."

It's true that the bulk of the evidence against Davis was eyewitness testimony. That tends to happen when you shoot someone in a busy Burger King parking lot.

Eyewitness testimony, like all evidence tending to show guilt, has gotten a bad name recently, but the "eyewitness" testimony in this case did not consist simply of strangers trying to distinguish one tall black man from another. For one thing, several of the eyewitnesses knew Davis personally.

The bulk of the eyewitness testimony established the following...

Continue.

Of course, the progressive left latched onto this case as a way to bring an end to capital punishment in the United States. It's just routine leftist conformity to be against the death penalty, even when the inmate's the classic poster boy for it. Progressives are stupid that way.

RELATED: At The Other McCain, "The Death of a Cop-Killer." And the reactions at Memeorandum.

Gay Extremist Dan Savage Organizes Hate Campaign Against Rick Santorum on Google

This is the progressive, tolerant homosexual left in action.

At Politico, "Rick Santorum contacted Google, says company spreads 'filth'."

And Dan Savage is apparently behind this: "That frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex..."

Yeah, I know. You're ready to puke. Gay "rights" will do that to you.

See also, TPM, "Search Engine Expert: Rick Santorum’s New Crusade Against Google Is Total Nonsense."

These people are the dregs of the dirtbag progressive homosexual dregs.

PREVIOUSLY: "Gay Sexual Abandon and the Perverse Inversion of Values by Same-Sex Extremists."

'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Repealed

At LAT, "'Don't ask, don't tell' repeal lets gays, lesbians serve openly."

Cartoon Credit: Matt Bors.

RELATED: From David Horowitz, "Issues That Dare Not Speak Their Name":

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is a way of containing the destructive force of sex on a combat capability called “unit cohesion.” To create the perfect killing machine, the military works hard to drain recruits of their individuality and their self-interested desires in order to make them think like cogs, well, in a machine. An essential part of the military mind is that the members of a fighting unit don’t think for themselves, but do as they are told. They work as a unit in which each performs an appointed task. The mission objective – not personal consideration – guides their actions. Suppose a commander were faced with the choice of risking his unit or risking the life of his own son, for example. Suppose the life of his son were threatened, but to save him would risk the military objective his superiors had set. Suppose he let the human override the imperatives of the machine. He would be doing what was natural, but the military objective he sacrificed might cost the lives of hundreds or thousands.

To avoid such breaches of military discipline, military policy does not allow family members to fight in the same unit. The same principle underlies its policy towards gays. Sacrifice of unit cohesion and military order is the threat that sex between soldiers poses for any combat force. The open inclusion of gays in the military is regarded by military men who oppose it a threat to effectiveness of the military as a fighting force.

Also, Mackubin Thomas Owens, "The Case Against Gays in the Military":

Winning the nation's wars is the military's functional imperative. Indeed, it is the only reason for a liberal society to maintain a military organization. War is terror. War is confusion. War is characterized by chance, uncertainty and friction. The military's ethos constitutes an evolutionary response to these factors—an attempt to minimize their impact.

Accordingly, the military stresses such martial virtues as courage, both physical and moral, a sense of honor and duty, discipline, a professional code of conduct, and loyalty. It places a premium on such factors as unit cohesion and morale. The glue of the military ethos is what the Greeks called philia—friendship, comradeship or brotherly love. Philia, the bond among disparate individuals who have nothing in common but facing death and misery together, is the source of the unit cohesion that most research has shown to be critical to battlefield success.

Philia depends on fairness and the absence of favoritism. Favoritism and double standards are deadly to philia and its associated phenomena—cohesion, morale and discipline—are absolutely critical to the success of a military organization.

The presence of open homosexuals in the close confines of ships or military units opens the possibility that eros—which unlike philia is sexual, and therefore individual and exclusive—will be unleashed into the environment. Eros manifests itself as sexual competition, protectiveness and favoritism, all of which undermine the nonsexual bonding essential to unit cohesion, good order, discipline and morale.

We'll of course see how these arguments play out in real life.

Gender Equality Elusive at Top?

That was the headline at yesterday's Los Angeles Times business page, although I've added the question mark.

See: "Women on Wall Street: Small group at the top gets smaller."

"While the ouster of a number of top Wall Street women cannot necessarily be tied directly to the glass ceiling or sexism per se, the numbers aren't good," said Deborah Ancona, a professor of organization studies at the MIT's Sloan School of Management. "Women fill a minority of top leadership positions in corporate America."

But RTWT.

Actually, I don't think we'll ever have exact equality in that department, and I don't know if it was God's plan to do so, in any case. As James Taranto has written:

Men and women are intrinsically unequal in ways that are ultimately beyond the power of government to remediate. That is because nature is unfair. Sexual reproduction is far more demanding, both physically and temporally, for women than for men. Men simply do not face the sort of children-or-career conundrums that vex women in an era of workplace equality.

That said, see Patricia Sellers, at Fortune, "Carol Bartz exclusive: Yahoo "f---ed me over..." (At Memeorandum.)

'I Have a Dream'

Today's the anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s, speech:

I'll try to put something up on this later, but check USA today, "Prayer service pays tribute to Rev. Martin Luther King."



And check Linda Valdez, at Arizona Republic, for just how screwed up the left's vision of Dr. King is today: "Today's Dems, progressives would disappoint Rev. King."



The dream is alive. Blacks have squandered much of it, IMHO. Not all of them, but an awful lot have no clue on how much equality they enjoy today. But more later ...

Black Flash Mobs

Some news agencies refuse to report the racial identity of those committing flash mob violence around the country, and political correctness prohibits a frank discussion of the issue among civic leaders and national policy makers. Seriously. Roland Martin on CNN's bumbling and blathering about "no matter if it's black or white," blah, blah. Freakin' asshat black criminal apologist. These are black mobs dick! Yet another example of how progressivism is kicking this country to the curb. See Ward Connerly, "Flash Mob Racism":

Earlier this year, the Justice Department of the Obama administration announced its objective to aggressively monitor the police departments of major urban cities. The purpose of this effort is to determine whether such departments are involved in racial profiling of blacks and Latinos and whether they are engaged in police brutality. Since that announcement, events have unfolded in some of those cities that reveal how misplaced that policy initiative actually is.



In Chicago, the District of Columbia, Milwaukee and Philadelphia, a group of “flash mobs” have unmercifully terrorized residents of those communities – attacking citizens, breaking windows of business establishments and stealing merchandise, and committing other random acts of violence. In each instance, the mobs have been overwhelmingly, if not exclusively, black youth. This fact has accounted for the failure of most of the news media to report either the events themselves or the racial background of the perpetrators. Several news sources have readily admitted that it is their practice not to mention the racial identity of those involved in criminal activity. Jim Stingl, a columnist for the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, recently wrote, “This newspaper normally avoids mentioning the race of people involved in crimes, unless it’s part of a description to help apprehend someone at large.”



Philadelphia Mayor Michael A. Nutter is not afflicted with the same disease of political correctness as many in the media. In a recent 30-minute sermon delivered from the pulpit of his Baptist church, Nutter confronted the culture that many of us believe drives the behavior of these individuals when he said, “You have damaged your own race…Take those God-darn hoodies down, especially in the summer. Pull your pants up and buy a belt ‘cause no one wants to see your underwear or the crack of your butt.’’



“If you walk into somebody’s office with your hair uncombed and a pick in the back, and your shoes untied, and your pants half down, tattoos up and down your arms and on your neck, and you wonder why somebody won’t hire you? They don’t hire you ‘cause you look like you’re crazy,” the mayor said.



Mayor Nutter is correct. When we have young people burglarizing stores and neighborhoods and beating up bystanders without provocation, there is obviously a widespread cultural problem in the group committing these acts. That reality must be faced and the thugs responsible for these acts should not be ignored or coddled. They and their parents, if there are parents in the households, should be held accountable for their behavior.

It's racist violence. Black racist mobs attacking whites. See, "Teen girl gang assaults woman in brazen daylight attack outside Philadelphia City Hall." (At Memeorandum.) And also, "More flash mob mayhem for DC-area as band of female looters storms convenience store."

Homosexuality Is Not a Civil Right

Well, the gay extremists have Tony Perkins in the crosshairs. Bunch of ASFLs.



Turns out that the Family Research Council issued a press release hammering the Obama White House for promoting childhood homosexuality. I especially like the point about Dan Savage, who is identified as "a homosexual extremist who built a career on hatred of Christians and our values." Word.



And see this from FRC, "Homosexuality Is Not a Civil Right":

Because of our national shame at the historic legacy of racial discrimination against blacks, many people have come to think of “discrimination” as inherently evil. However, the basic meaning of “discriminate” is simply “to make a distinction.” To compare and evaluate candidates based on their education, experience, intelligence, and competence is inherently “discrimination.” The question, therefore, is not whether “discrimination” will take place—it can, it will and it must. The question for public policy is: which forms of “discrimination” are so profoundly offensive to the national conscience that they justify government action that interferes with the rights of employers and other private entities and gives special protections to certain classes of people?



In the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Congress answered that question by including only five categories of protection. As noted above, those categories were: “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” For instance, a banker could deny an applicant a loan because the applicant was not credit-worthy, but not because he or she was Jewish or black. What do these protected categories have in common?



While there is no definitive legal answer, the most logical answer would seem to be that the case for granting legal protection against “discrimination” is strongest when based on a personal characteristic that is:



* Inborn, involuntary, and immutable (like race and color);

* Innocuous (because it does no harm to the employer, to the individual, or to society as a whole); and/or

* In the Constitution.



Is “sexual orientation,” like race and sex, a characteristic that is inborn, involuntary, immutable, innocuous, and in the Constitution? Is it, like religion (which is not inborn, involuntary, immutable, or necessarily innocuous, but is in the Constitution), a characteristic that meets even one of these criteria?



The only truthful answer is no.

RTWT.



PREVIOUSLY: "Gay Marriage is Not a Civil Right."

Gay Barbarians

Turns out they've embraced the barbarian identity. Hey, if the shoe fits.

At Columbus Go Home, "Horde of Gay Barbarians Demand to be Disciplined at the Bachmanns’ “Pray Away the Gay” Clinic." (At Memeorandum.) Glitter today, high-grade ammonium nitrate fertilizer tomorrow.

Save California, Campaign for Children and Families, News Release, July 14, 2011

The press release from Save California, "Pro-Family Response to Jerry Brown's Signing of SB 48":

Sacramento, California -- One of California 's top opponents of placing "LGBT" personages in school textbooks is speaking out on the unfortunate signing of SB 48 by Gov. Jerry Brown today.

"Jerry Brown has trampled the parental rights of the broad majority of California mothers and fathers who don't want their children to be sexually brainwashed," said Randy Thomasson, president of SaveCalifornia.com, which helped lead the opposition to SB 48. "SB 48 has no parental opt-out. The only way parents can opt-out their kids from this immoral indoctrination is to opt them out the entire public school system, which is no longer for morally-sensitive parents and their children." (Source: RescueYourChild.com and SaveCalifornia.com SB 48 veto request letter)

In 2009, a KPIX/SurveyUSA poll found that four out of five Californians did not support giving homosexual activist Harvey Milk a statewide day of significance. "With the signing of SB 48, even more California parent will be shocked to see the glorification of Harvey Milk and other homosexual-bisexual-transsexual role models in school textbooks," Thomasson said. "SB 48 is the eighth school sexual indoctrination law forcing immorality on kids in California K-12 schools. It's time for parents who love their children to match their words with deeds and do what's necessary to get them out of the immoral government schools and into the safe havens of homeschooling and church schools."

*****
"It's ridiculous that Jerry Brown says he's making history 'honest,'" Thomasson added. "The bill he signed prohibits teachers and textbooks from telling children the facts that homosexuality has the highest rate of HIV/AIDS and other STDs, higher cancer rates, and earlier deaths. These important facts about lifestyles children will being forced to admire will be omitted. And Brown calls this 'honest'? This revisionist history will actually make more children believe a lie -- that homosexuality is biological, which it's not, and healthy, which is isn't." (Source: "Not Born This Way")

Brown signed SB 48 despite it being completely unnecessary to deal with school bullies. There are existing laws that already strongly address this issue, such as: AB 1785 (2000) requires public schools to coordinate with local law enforcement to suppress and report both "hate crimes" and "hate-motivated incidents"; AB 394 (2007) requires K-12 schools to "post antidiscrimination and antiharassment policies in all schools and offices, including staff lounges and pupil government offices" and requires the State Department of Education to "display information on curricula" relating to "antidiscrimination and antiharassment" in regards to "sexual orientation" (homosexuality and bisexuality) and "gender" (cross-dressing and sex changes); ACR 82 (2010) permits participating schools - pre-kindergarten through higher education - to become official "Discrimination-Free Zones" that "enact appropriate procedures that meaningfully address acts of discrimination that occur on campus."

"These existing laws, in addition to other campus anti-bias and anti-violence laws, are certainly strong enough to quell physical and verbal bullying, rendering SB 48's broad curriculum indoctrination unnecessary even to satisfy the stated anti-bullying goals of the bill's sponsors," Thomasson said. "SB 48 is a revisionist history, sexual brainwashing bill, not an anti-bullying bill."

Continue reading.

See also, Rescue Your Child, "The Problem Facing California Public School Parents":

What your child is guaranteed in California public schools -- Because of bad laws, lack of pro-family laws, and politically-correct trends, here's what kids are guaranteed to receive in California public schools:

1. Homosexual-bisexual-transsexual indoctrination
2. Pro-abortion indoctrination, "confidential” abortion referrals and off-campus "counseling", without parental consent
3. Condom/birth control pills indoctrination and distribution without parental consent; no teaching children how to truly avoid STDs; "abstinence-only" education prohibited
4. Anti-God, pro-evolution indoctrination
5. Political correctness
6. Dumbed-down academics, less academic success, on average, than private or home school
7. Negative socialization and peer pressure
8. Less safety, on average, than private school
9. Anti-Christian indoctrination and widespread rejection of religious and moral values
10. Anti-parent sentiments

More at that link.

Pat Dollard Slams California Gay History Law

On Twitter:

PREVIOUSLY: "California Textbooks to Include Gay Achievements."

Pat Dollard's page is here.

California Textbooks to Include Gay Achievements

Governor Brown has signed the bill.

At Los Angeles Times, "New state law requires textbooks to include gays' achievements":

Reporting from Sacramento

Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation Thursday making California the first state to require that school textbooks and history lessons include the contributions of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans.

Brown took the action as lawmakers sent him scores of bills, including one that would allow undocumented immigrants access to privately financed student aid at state universities and colleges.

Before adjourning for a monthlong summer recess, the Legislature also proposed changing the way California holds presidential primary elections and awards its electoral votes.

In accepting a mandate that California students be taught the accomplishments of gays and lesbians, Brown said that "history should be honest." The bill, he said in a statement, "revises existing laws that prohibit discrimination in education and ensures that the important contributions of Americans from all backgrounds and walks of life are included in our history books.''

The measure had sparked hot debate in the Legislature, where Republicans argued that it would force a "gay agenda" on young people against many of their parents' wishes. State Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) said the new law, which he wrote, will reduce the bullying of gay students by showing role models in lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender citizens.

"Denying LGBT people their rightful place in history gives our young people an inaccurate and incomplete view of the world around them," said Leno, whose bill, SB 48, also covers the role of the disabled in history.

The governor's action drew criticism from conservative groups.

More at that link above.

And in related news, "Many options for parents who want to homeschool kids."

New York Minority Parents Protest National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the United Federation of Teachers (UFT)

Hopefully we'll be seeing more protests like this.

At Big Government, "Inner City Parents Protest Teachers’ Union, NAACP Over Charter School Lawsuit" (via News Alert):

New Tracy Morgan Comedy Rant Slurs Mentally Disabled

I didn't think he was all that funny back in the day, when he was on SNL. He came under fire for homophobic rants previously, and even after apologizing, is at it again. At Los Angeles Times, "Tracy Morgan apologizes, then tries out a different offensive rant":

Also at TMZ, "Tracy Morgan ... From Gays to 'Retards'."

Male Being and Unhappiness

An excerpt from a rant by Scott Adams, the creator of the Dilbert cartoon (via Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology):

The way society is organized at the moment, we have no choice but to blame men for bad behavior. If we allowed men to act like unrestrained horny animals, all hell would break loose. All I’m saying is that society has evolved to keep males in a state of continuous unfulfilled urges, more commonly known as unhappiness. No one planned it that way. Things just drifted in that direction.

Adams' blog is here.

I'm interested in this primarily in that I've been following the Thomas Ball suicide. I'm politically incorrect. But I'm also happily married. Society develops normative regimes to control and satisfy men and their desires. There's something about Adams that's extremely discomfiting, and that's saying a lot. That said, Adams' rant bothers me less than Amanda Marcotte's response to Tom Ball's self-immolation. It's all wrenchingly interesting, in any case.

And here's a radical feminist take, FWIW: "Scott Adams' defense of rape mentality."