"Forget the PIIGS; the U.S. is in worse shape."

There's been so much talk about the PIIGS--Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain--all of which (though Greece, primarily, in the recent past) have received special attention for being the weak links in the euro zone--potential sources of the collapse of the euro as a currency.

Really? asks Chuck Butler, president of EverBank's World Markets, in the lead story of the April Currency Capitalist newsletter.

You're afraid of Greece defaulting and causing the collapse of the euro? "It doesn’t make sense. Greece’s total contribution to the total Eurozone GDP is just 2%. If you remove 2% of the total Eurozone’s GDP, do you really think the EU will collapse? That’s like saying the U.S. GDP would collapse if Idaho left."

Add up all five of the PIIGs, and they account for just 14% of the total Eurozone GDP.

Here's what you and I ought really to be worrying about, Butler says: all the deadbeat states in the American federal union. "The list of deadbeat states includes the 'great states' of California, Michigan, New York, Massachusetts and even Obama’s territory, Illinois. Count up all these states’ debt and the 'hit' to the U.S. total GDP is more than 30%!"

Any one or all five of the PIIGS could leave the Eurozone--or be kicked out--and the hit to the states that remain would be relatively negligible.

But what can the United States of America do about any one--or all five--of the states that Butler mentions?

Absolutely nothing. "So the U.S. is saddled with these defaulted states’ deficits, whereas the Eurozone could very well say, good riddance to the PIIGS, and move on as a stronger entity!"

********

I have heard plenty about California's economic problems. I assume Butler knows this. So in his article, he takes on Illinois. Just to make sure we are listening.

“The state is in utter crisis,” said Representative Suzie Bassi. “We are next to bankruptcy. We have a $13 billion hole in a $28 billion budget.”

“The state has been paying bills with unfunded vouchers since October. A fifth of buses have stopped. Libraries, owed $400 million, are closing one day a week. Schools are owed $725 million. Unable to pay teachers, they are preparing mass lay-offs. ‘It’s a catastrophe,’ said the Schools Superintendent.”

I was reminded of Butler's article because of something I just read about Los Angeles being bankrupt today . . . though, apparently, the city may be able to hide the full depth of its problems until May 5th.

See the full sad story here.

I think I've had my head in the sand or something . . .

News about a transgendered United Methodist minister led me, eventually, to some articles about what is happening in the area of s*x ed in California . . . and to further disturbing realities concerning our country's public school programs.

For instance, check out the second clip on this page from the movie "It's Elementary": "Role-playing in the third grade."

How are third graders supposed to form any moral judgments on their own concerning the issues the teacher raises? How is anyone supposed to oppose the obvious direction that the teacher has sought to establish in his classroom? How would or could any conservatively inclined parent, who has sent his or her child into such a classroom, prepare that child to counter such "arguments" (or, rather, "presentations") on the part of the teacher?

Oh. And then I saw notices about what's going on in California with Senate Bill 777:

SB 777 requires textbooks, instructional materials, and school-sponsored activities to positively portray cross-dressing, sex-change operations, homosexual "marriages," and all aspects of homosexuality and bisexuality, including so-called "gay history."

The article continues: "Silence on these sexual lifestyles will not be allowed." --True?

Well. . . . Not formally. The pertinent portions of the law, apparently as it was passed (this is the most recent version I was able to find), actually read:

SEC. 29. Section 51500 of the Education Code is amended to read:
   51500. No teacher shall give instruction nor shall a school district sponsor any activity that reflects or promotes a discriminatory bias against any person because of a characteristic listed in Section 220.

SEC. 30. Section 51501 of the Education Code is amended to read:
   51501. No textbook or other instructional materials shall be adopted by the state board or by any governing board for use in the public schools that reflects or promotes a discriminatory bias against any person because of a characteristic listed in Section 220. . . .

SEC. 32. Section 60044 of the Education Code is amended to read:
   60044. No instructional materials shall be adopted by any governing board for use in the schools that, in its determination, contains:
(a) Any matter reflecting adversely upon persons because of a characteristic listed in Section 220. . . .

SB 777 proposes to modify Section 220 of the Education Code to include "sexual orientation" and "gender" among the "characteristics" on the basis of which "[n]o person shall be subjected to discrimination."

SB 777 also defines these "characteristics":

SEC. 4. Section 210.7 is added to the Education Code, to read:
   210.7. "Gender" means sex, and includes a person's gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth.

SEC. 9. Section 212.6 is added to the Education Code, to read:
   212.6. "Sexual orientation" means heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.

Someone wrote: "No one is being forced to speak positively about these things."

And someone else replied:

If a history textbook contained only references to white people and never mentioned black people in history, that could "reflect a discriminatory bias against" black people. The threat here is of textbook publishers including references to the sexual orientation of individuals in order to avoid [being charged with] reflecting a discriminatory bias against homosexuals. The purpose of the law isn't to end discrimination in textbooks (how many public school textbooks even mention homosexuality, let alone openly criticize it?); it is to indoctrinate children that homosexuality is normal.

It would be worthwhile, I think, to discuss that word "normal." It is outside the scope of this post. (Among the issues someone should address: the distinctions in meaning between words like "normal," "normative," "existent/exists/occurs," "occasional/common/frequent/usual," "expected," "desirable," and so forth.)

Without touching that discussion, I would simply like to note that, due to its size, what California mandates and approves, becomes, de facto what textbook publishers publish for students in all states.

And are these subjects either appropriate or appropriate for mandate in, for example, early elementary school education?

My opinion: no.

Obviously, others--like the producers of the "It's Elementary" film--disagree.