I don't think that government needs to be in the business of providing higher education. Or childcare or welfare or medicaid, for that matter. But the government is. Call it the war on poverty or whatever you will, state governments, especially blue state governments, see it as their job to crusade against poverty, homelessness, etc. So California's new law promoting a PC agenda is an extension of their nanny state policy. This is not about education and college choice. Plain and simple, the money for college is federal money so the hysterics about religious colleges getting cut off is not going to happen. Much of the money for housing and other programs comes from the feds. This is about "faith based programs" like church sponsored child care, feeding the homeless, etc. The problem exists because blue staters created these bloated state agencies to dole out money to fix poverty in the first place.

Now California wants to dry up the breast of the nanny state. But only for Churches that don't fall in line with their PC agenda. So why would California take such drastic action? Let's try this on for size--President Bush bans federal money for new lines of stem cell research... California passes a law to fund $1B for stem cell research. President Bush supports "Faith Based Initiatives"... California supports getting rid of Church programs completely. So what is the opposite of "Bush"? Why "California."

There was an episode of Seinfeld where George does the opposite of what he thinks he should do and everything goes perfectly for him. California simply wants to try that policy with Chimpy McHitlerBurton. President Bush hates child molesters. California invites the NAMBLA conference to meet for their annual love fest. President Bush wants to cure cancer. California pours nuclear waste into the water system. President Bush likes puppies. California likes kittens and drowns all puppies in the glowing nuclear waste water. Hell, even PETA helps because screw puppies if it allows them to hate Bush. This is what leadership is about to the Democrat Party. Bush goes to Church on Sundays. Then the Democrats and California and the ACLU try to get churches put out of business. I am surprised that they are not using eminent domain to simply take churches away and build strip malls in their place.

It is not leadership to simply be adversarial. Leadership means proposing new ideas. That is something lacking in California. Huge health care problems with illegal immigrants. Skyrocketing vehicle and real estate taxes. High income taxes. Not enough electric power. Mayors sanctioning illegal gay marriages. Hit and runs on the streets. Problems with teachers and prison workers and health care unions needing major reforms to contracts that are plunging the state into economic hell.

I just wonder how promoting transsexuals and homosexuals and bisexuals and inter-species erotica helps solve the real problems in California. And there are some major ones with taxes, government spending, and failing social programs. Hell, before we worry about gays and their rights, how about worrying about keeping the flipping lights on during the summer and not having rolling blackouts?

This demonstrates the nature of the Democratic Party. It is all sleight of hand. Ignore real problems and pass token legislation to do something PC in an election year, and at every turn take a stab at conservatives, Christians, Bush, and the right. Ahnold had a chance to stand up and call this what it is, but instead simply signed it. That is not the kind of leadership we need. And dare I say it, that is the kind of leadership John McCain promises too. This is what being a "moderate" is all about.