Posts Tagged ‘Democracy’
Mr. Yoo and Gay Marriage
August 12th, 2010 | Author: JBH
Mr. Yoo, a law professor at Berkeley, wrote an opinion piece in today’s Wall Street Journal that makes me question his ability to teach law. He argues for a federalist approach to gay marriage, i.e. let the votes of each state decide. Though I agree with many aspects of federalism, to use it as a means to reduce the individual liberties of a minority (or a majority) seems illogical. And just not practical. I have the following questions for Mr. Yoo:
- Would you have used this same argument for slavery and women’s rights?
- Is a couple only to be recognized in the states that allow it?
- If one is hospitalized in a state that does not recognize gay marriage, is their spouse without visitation rights?
- How about if they move for a job to a state that doesn’t recognize them, are they no longer married?
In his article, he uses a quote from Hamilton ‘that the Constitution would never permit the federal government to “alter or abrogate” a state’s “civil and criminal institutions [or] penetrate the recesses of domestic life, and control, in all respects, the private conduct of individuals.”‘ I entirely agree with this point but it does not suggest that Hamilton would have accepted a state doing the same.
It has been stated many times here and elsewhere that the federal government was originally defined by its power to defend us and to protect our personal property, no matter if the threat was from outside our borders or within.
Tags: 
Giving It Up
July 28th, 2010 | Author: JBH
Yesterday, the Massachusetts Senate approved an act that takes away the MA citizens’ right to select our nation’s president. I find that very troubling. From my understanding, our nation was set up as a republic that gave more power to the states versus the federal government. The reason for this was to ensure as much individual freedom as possible by making government as large as desired locally, and the smallest to still be functional, nationally.
That is changing now. And not for the better, in my opinion. Massachusetts will become the sixth (as stated in the article below) state to give up the right for their citizens to vote for president. They have decided that no matter how your state votes, they will vote for the presidential candidate that the nation chooses. That’s called diluting one’s vote. It’s also called populism.
If the desire, as stated by those that vote for this type of legislation, is that it will be more fair and get people to think their vote matters more. They are wrong and illogical. Though the intent is nice, the path leads in the opposite direction. I, for one, will feel disenfranchised by this. I live in a state where the vast majority voted for Kerry in 2004, yet it’s electoral votes would have been given to George Bush. How is that empowering for the voters of this state? (Clue: It’s not).
If the intent was to ensure more weight for the individual, why not allow proportional voting where the states electoral votes mimic the outcome fo the state’s popular vote rather than the all-or-nothing method currently employed by the majority of states? In that way, you leverage your local community rather than being diluted by those in distant parts of the nation.
To win future elections, candidates will spend all the time in the most densely populated areas as that will be where the return on investment will be greatest. Is that fair? Our candidates platform will be built on the needs/desires of a select few that reside within the major cities, never finding it valuable to go to Iowa, Indiana, Louisiana, the Dakotas, Montana, or Colorado. They, as recognized states within this republic, will go unheard.
A Guest Blog Post
June 8th, 2010 | Author: JBH
I am copying below a blog post from Ron Wilson of EDN. He nails it. After you read, please click on his link to show your support for it. Nothing other than going to his site, that’s all I ask.
Blowouts, elementary school, and the future of democracy
The weekend edition of the Financial Times this week carried a story that gave me pause. It was a long piece of straight reporting, mostly from inside BP’s command center in Houston, on that company’s struggle to control the discharge from their now-infamous Macondo well. The piece is detailed, well-written, and timely, as one might expect from the Financial Times. But it made me realize just how technically vacuous has been the deluge of coverage on the Deepwater Horizon disaster, and how totally unprepared the citizenry of the USA is to deal with the questions today’s world thrusts before them.
For example, the general impression created by the US press is that BP has spent most of its time wringing its hands about the blowout, while consulting movie stars, letters from school children, and perhaps a psychic or two in the search for solutions, while occasionally taking a stab at some scheme or other. But the Times article suggests a reality more like the rescue of Apollo 13: hundreds of engineers, 160 companies including ExonMobile and Chevron, and some of the world’s leading sea-floor engineering contractors, driving themselves to exhaustion testing plans and directing a navy of remotely-operated submersibles.
In the litany of Web video, photos, and blurbs, and on the decrying of the evening news reports, this drama is simply missing. Where are the discussions of strategy, profiles of the leading engineers, descriptions of the ships and submersibles-even an accurate description of a blow-out preventer? Where a discussion of the communications network that links equipment, crews, and engineers with live video? The sad answer, I fear, is that all this is missing because the news providers either don’t understand it themselves, or because they assume their audiences wouldn’t understand it.
Unfortunately, on this count they are probably correct. An article in a local newspaper earlier in the week gloated that Oakland had become the only school district in California to require science classes below the high-school level. Kids who have no clear idea of science or the workings of the natural world at 14 are unlikely to become adults who can form a clear idea of a complex deep-water petroleum-engineering project, or for that matter of what is likely to be an equally complex problem in ecological engineering.
Therein lies a deeper issue. Our culture will continue to face complex choices that posit an obvious benefit-energy, health, employment-against a range of technical risks, and even more complex proposals to mitigate those risks. In our political system these challenging optimization problems will be set before the court of public opinion as emotionally-charged black-vs.-white choices. The ability of a woefully undereducated public to see through the oversimplifications into the richness of the problems, and at least not to obstruct the search for useful solutions, will influence the future of the republic. All we who have had the privilege of a technical education owe some thought to capping this gusher of technological ignorance that is poisoning not just our beaches or our wildlife, but the very bedrock of civil discourse upon which our system of government must rest.
Tzimtzum commented:
As an editorial in the latest issue of EE Times suggests, not only is the general public clueless in the scientific disciplines, Congress and the White House staff are also technically illiterate. Nonetheless, these pompous baffoons in D.C. still have the “audacity” (now where have I heard this word before) to ask idiotic, brainless, questions under the pretense of finding the truth. The fact is that the whole scenario becomes an exercise in self aggrandizing–”and Nero played on as Rome burned.”
Ron Wilson in his piece observes, “Americas solution to every problem is to declare war on it like somehow that is going to rally the foolish.” But this, too, is nothing new–it’s right out of the writing of William James, “The Moral Equivalent of War,” and one of the banners being held high by the Progressives now in Washington.
Has anything changed since the era of James? Hardly. Nonetheless, the current administration–just as others–will find some way to declare a struggle against something else. Currently, we have an ongoing war on poverty, fat, crime, drugs, smoking, pollution, cancer, diabetes, carbon dioxide, nuclear power, conventional power, McDonald’s Happy Meals, and of course, terrorism–and the list goes on and on.
I am not that afraid of a dumbed down public as I am of a government which attempts to manipulate the ignorant to further and to enable its own world view. Until we have elected officials who believe in following the US Consitution rather than an agenda which looks like its been penned by Geroges Sorel and Martin Heidegger, I would not expect things to improve anytime too soon.
