The outcry we've been waiting for. Very cool:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10900478
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Thursday, August 5, 2010
The latest on Prop 8
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/us/05prop.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp
Federal Judge Vaughn ruled on Wednesday that California's Proposition 8 was unconstitutional, saying in his decision that "tradition alone... cannot form the rational basis for a law". The decision, which Walker immediately stayed pending appeals, represents a much-needed volley in what is sure to be for politics what Isner v. Mahut was for tennis. Except that people will care who wins, as same-sex marriage is a cornerstone of the fight for civil rights for non-heterosexuals.
I'm going to post more on the broader subject of civil rights soon, but this ruling in particular is interesting because it serves as a reminder that the United States is not a democracy: it is a republic. In a true democracy, the referendum in which the California electorate voted Prop 8 into law would have been the last word (at least in California). In real life, the will of 30 million people has just been superseded by a single elected official with an opinion, if not an agenda.
The long, arduous, and complicated story of civil rights for gays in California (it really is long, arduous, and complicated. Check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_California#Legislation) will likely end with a ruling by the Supreme Court of California, a body of seven individuals. These seven individuals not only comprise a tiny fraction of the population they represent, but they can barely even be said to have been elected. California Supreme Court justices are appointed by the governor, who in turn is elected by popular vote.
Clearly, "true democracy" is tantamount to "tyranny of the majority". We need the checks and balances afforded by, for example, a judicial branch that is empowered to strike down unconstitutional laws. But one of the great selling points of our form of government is that individuals have voices, as in theory, one vote could determine the presidency. Where is the comfortable balance?
Federal Judge Vaughn ruled on Wednesday that California's Proposition 8 was unconstitutional, saying in his decision that "tradition alone... cannot form the rational basis for a law". The decision, which Walker immediately stayed pending appeals, represents a much-needed volley in what is sure to be for politics what Isner v. Mahut was for tennis. Except that people will care who wins, as same-sex marriage is a cornerstone of the fight for civil rights for non-heterosexuals.
I'm going to post more on the broader subject of civil rights soon, but this ruling in particular is interesting because it serves as a reminder that the United States is not a democracy: it is a republic. In a true democracy, the referendum in which the California electorate voted Prop 8 into law would have been the last word (at least in California). In real life, the will of 30 million people has just been superseded by a single elected official with an opinion, if not an agenda.
The long, arduous, and complicated story of civil rights for gays in California (it really is long, arduous, and complicated. Check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_California#Legislation) will likely end with a ruling by the Supreme Court of California, a body of seven individuals. These seven individuals not only comprise a tiny fraction of the population they represent, but they can barely even be said to have been elected. California Supreme Court justices are appointed by the governor, who in turn is elected by popular vote.
Clearly, "true democracy" is tantamount to "tyranny of the majority". We need the checks and balances afforded by, for example, a judicial branch that is empowered to strike down unconstitutional laws. But one of the great selling points of our form of government is that individuals have voices, as in theory, one vote could determine the presidency. Where is the comfortable balance?
The Oliver Stone Controversy
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-cooper-stone-20100730,0,4387598.story
The article is well-written, but it seems to contain a serious flaw in its argument: what if the Stone documentary ends up being a factual, balanced account? No one is denying that the political dealings of these men were fraught with pure evil: the death tolls and ruined lives speak for themselves. However, I'm not sure what Stone is planning to tell us, but I'll suspend my disbelief and allow for the possibility that Joe McCarthy was a good father, or that Mao had a soft spot for orphaned puppies. What's the danger in showing that side?
The article is well-written, but it seems to contain a serious flaw in its argument: what if the Stone documentary ends up being a factual, balanced account? No one is denying that the political dealings of these men were fraught with pure evil: the death tolls and ruined lives speak for themselves. However, I'm not sure what Stone is planning to tell us, but I'll suspend my disbelief and allow for the possibility that Joe McCarthy was a good father, or that Mao had a soft spot for orphaned puppies. What's the danger in showing that side?
According to Cooper, the danger is that it undermines what, by his own description, is a benevolent propaganda machine. Cooper is basically saying that people are too stupid to be granted a balanced and complete account of anything, and must be spoon-fed the correct opinions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)