This post will be much shorter. In fact, it is a couple of links to articles about a story. The first on BusinessWeek.com, the next on Reason.com. Two pretty short articles you can read quickly.
The reason for the post? Do you think this is acceptable corporate behavior? Scott Rodrigues was fired for testing positive for nicotine, in violation of a policy he agreed to when hired. Now, let us forget that nicotine itself is not dangerous but the way of ingesting it typically is, and just think about the health aspects. Should a company be allowed to hire and fire because of health care costs?
I see no problem with this. It is no different than not hiring someone because they have piercings all over their visage or visible tattoos. If it is in conflict with the image of your private company, why should you have to hire that person? Also, if it makes running your company more difficult or expensive fire the fatty! Theft is a terminable offense in the workplace - and eating yourself to death is essentially stealing money from your healthier co-workers. I like it!
Rodrigues lost his case in US District Court on essentially a technicality.
Also, this was a perfect case of 'headline does not give you an accurate idea of the story.' When I read the headline I was amazed that someone could be fired for testing positive for nicotine - or that a company tested for it. Indeed, if my company tested me for it today I would be upset because they did not lay down the law from the outset.
This is the kind of reform that would actually change the health care system. One payer, multiple payers, public or private - it will not matter if we are still a bunch of junk food eating, smoking, sedentary slobs. Forcing people to be accountable, and pay more for their bad habits, seems to make the best sense in a free economy. Why should Ethan and I pay more for health care because Dan and Ian like to hork down chili cheesedogs for breakfast?*
*names used for illustration only and any resemblance to actual persons or places is purely intentional.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Friday, July 3, 2009
Reverse What?
As the SCOTUS(Supreme Court of the United States) wrapped up its session before taking a summer hiatus and the Sotomayor fracas heats up, it issued a couple of pretty cool opinions. In 'Safford Unified School District v. Redding' the court held that strip searching a 13 year old girl to find prescription strength ibuprofen based on one other teen's testimony was unconstitutional. I am glad the SCOTUS had to be brought into that one. Was there nobody in the principal's office saying 'Should we really be pantsing this girl to find headache medicine?' No way that could have been decided in a lower court? I guess school kids do have some limited rights, after all. They can still be tested for steroids, though! YAY!
What I want to really talk about, though, is a much more controversial decision that, in my review, is not nearly as clear cut and therefore lends itself well to our oft neglected forum. The case I bring before you, ladies and gentlemen, is Ricci v. DeStefano. No, this case does not involve the mob or a secret recipe for Ragu(just what IS in there?). Ricci v. DeStefano is the horribly dubbed 'reverse discrimination' case.
First, I am going to attack that phrase: there is NO such thing as reverse discrimination. Unless you are talking about not discriminating, in which case that is reverse discrimination, I guess. Discrimination is not directional. It is the subjugation/dismissal/overlooking of one group in favor of another based on arbitrary criteria. How do you reverse that? It ruffles my tail feathers when that phrase gets bandied about. And I am part of the only group that can be 'reverse discriminated' against! I know, I know. Semantics. But I digress.
R v. S is the romantic tale of the New Haven Fire Department and its desire to fill vacant officer positions within its ranks. To do so they created a test in 2003 for their firefighters to see if they were the right stuff for captaincy or lieutenancy. One hundred and eighteen sat for the exam, 56 passed - 41 white, 9 black, 6 hispanic. This in a community that is 40% black and 20 % hispanic. The firefighter community is still below those level of diversity. I think the image below goes a long way to explain the results: if you cannot stay awake at a press conference about the decision, can we expect you to have studied hard enough to pass?
Is this racist?
Anyway, when the results came in New Haven, with a proud history of under-representing minorities in its FD, withheld certifying the results to examine the test to see if it was, by its very design, discriminatory. They did not have these concerns when they drafted the exam, a 60% written/40% oral design, which was essentially approved by the board and the firefighters union, prepared by a third party contractor and reviewed by an independent firefighting consultant. The sole reason for reviewing the exam was the appearance of discrimination based on results and wanting to avoid a possible lawsuit because of it. Through five hearings and much testimony the board split 2-2 on whether to certify, with one abstaining. That meant they could not certify.
The result: those 19 firefighters who scored high enough to be considered for promotion, 17 white and 2 hispanic, wasted months and hundreds of dollars studying for an exam they were told would determine if they would be promoted. Bring on the law suit.
SCOTUS ruled in favor of those 19 in a close 5-4 decision. Predictably, all five in favor of the petitioners were white male Republicans: Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas - bazing! Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer and the outgoing Souter dissented.
What SCOTUS was deciding on was Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (How odd to think that I was born a scant 14 years after this country officially decided we are truly all 'created equal.') Title VII has two parts. The obvious part "prohibits the intentional acts of employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin", referred to as 'disparate treatment.' Nowhere in there is protection for the body art or homosexual communities. I guess your tattoos have to be Samoan or Maori tribal tats - not those douchey arm bands. The second part prohibits "policies or practices that are not intended to discriminate but in fact have a disproportionately adverse effect on minorities," or 'disparate impact.' In question here is the second part, disparate impact. Nobody is contending the test was set up to discriminate, only that because the test results were so lopsided it could be open to lawsuit. It was the threat of lawsuit, not any internal strife that what they did was discriminatory, that led to the non-certification of the exam. The majority decided that this threat alone could not be enough to justify discriminating against those that passed the exam. They found the process observed to create the exam was sufficient to expect a legit result. Even during the review nobody said 'this test is going to discriminate.' There were some who said there are better designs, but none that said what New Haven did was blatantly wrong. Based on those points, the court reversed the lower court decisions and ruled that New Haven did not have a firm basis to assume it would have faced a lawsuit for discrimination, pursuant to part two of Title VII, thereby justifiably not certifying the results. By not certifying, they essentially ran afoul of part one of Title VII. It was only because the passing group was not sufficiently minority that the test was not certified.
In dissention, Ginsburg, et al., make some very good points. The dissenter's strongest points also deal with the 'disparate impact' portion of Title VII. Essentially, if you have a policy or practice that has an adverse effect, even if not intentional, you must make sure that a reasonable alternative to the practice in question did not exist that would not have produced the discriminatory results. Ginsburg focused on the testimonies during New Haven's own hearings from other FDs that ran their promotion tests differently. For every expert that said there was nothing 'wrong' with New Haven's test, another expert was found that said "I do it such a way and the results are not adverse like yours." In light of this, the dissenters felt that there was adequate reason for New Haven to not certify the test because the results actually did violate part two of Title VII. It was not simply, as the majority states, "because the higher scoring candidates were white." In addition, Ginsburg stressed that "[i]n assessing claims of race discrimination, '[c]ontext matters.'" If you look at New Haven's history, and that of most of our nation's FDs, there is a long history of discrimination. As I mentioned above, the current New Haven FD make up is still not in line with the population at large. The lower ranks of fighters in the city are 30% black and 16% hispanic. Close, but not quite. Officers are even more lopsided, with only 9% of each black and hispanic fighters at captain or higher. In this context, the results of the test take on a different flavor.
After reading a good portion of the decision, not all mind you, I am still left wondering if they made the right decision for this particular case. You can find it here if you want to peruse. As is often the case with 5-4 decisions, the answer is not clear cut. Heck, I think with most discrimination cases these days the answers are not going to be clear cut. I do feel the majority, despite the many good points Ginsburg raises in writing the dissent, got it right in general, if only for one simple reason: lawsuits. Do we really want to live in a country where the result of every exam, every promotional review is in doubt and/or subject to potential discrimination lawsuits if one group does not like the results? Many of you reading this remember taking the SATs back in the day. I think we were one of the first classes to be given the 'multicultural' SAT because of complaints that because minority children did worse than whites on the test there must be a problem with how it was written. Personally, I have NO clue how reading comprehension and math has a cultural underpinning. Perhaps the schools that poor and minority children go to are not as good, but that is not an issue with the SAT. Cover up the symptom, don't treat the disorder. I remember distinctly that there were a few reading comprehension passages about American Indians and Mexicans. It did not make it harder for me, as a whitey white white French Canadian American, to comprehend the passage. Nor do I think a Mexican American student scored 100 points higher because the character's name was Jose. By taking an otherwise decently designed exam and subjecting it to this kind of standard or have it face lawsuits, you compromise the entire process.
We are the first generation that was expected to attend and complete a four year college education. Each generation into our history had fewer and fewer that completed, let alone attended, university. As a result, most tests of IQ, whatever you want to say about IQ, show a trend toward higher IQ in each generation. Thankfully, they do not test 'Where is Washington DC?' on IQ tests. Many of the black and hispanic firefighters were first generation firefighters. Would we not expect them to perform a little less well than a white firefighter that had an uncle and father on the force to use as a resource? That difference, however, will disappear a little bit as generations pass. You cannot legislate or litigate that rate any faster than the natural order. Therefore, you have to say 'enough is enough' at some point. Kennedy and the majority did just that in Ricci v. DeStefano. They saw a city being forced into an action because an innocent result from a test they administered. Their decision adversely affected firefighters who would have reasonably expected to received promotions. New Haven did not think their test was bad - only that others would think they were discriminating against minorities. Should we allow fear of litigation motivate our decisions?
So, let's see what you think. Our panel consists of what? Five white men, one white woman and one mixed race woman. We should get a good cross section of opinions here. I do fear that this website will be blocked pursuant to part one of Title VII, though.
What I want to really talk about, though, is a much more controversial decision that, in my review, is not nearly as clear cut and therefore lends itself well to our oft neglected forum. The case I bring before you, ladies and gentlemen, is Ricci v. DeStefano. No, this case does not involve the mob or a secret recipe for Ragu(just what IS in there?). Ricci v. DeStefano is the horribly dubbed 'reverse discrimination' case.
First, I am going to attack that phrase: there is NO such thing as reverse discrimination. Unless you are talking about not discriminating, in which case that is reverse discrimination, I guess. Discrimination is not directional. It is the subjugation/dismissal/overlooking of one group in favor of another based on arbitrary criteria. How do you reverse that? It ruffles my tail feathers when that phrase gets bandied about. And I am part of the only group that can be 'reverse discriminated' against! I know, I know. Semantics. But I digress.
R v. S is the romantic tale of the New Haven Fire Department and its desire to fill vacant officer positions within its ranks. To do so they created a test in 2003 for their firefighters to see if they were the right stuff for captaincy or lieutenancy. One hundred and eighteen sat for the exam, 56 passed - 41 white, 9 black, 6 hispanic. This in a community that is 40% black and 20 % hispanic. The firefighter community is still below those level of diversity. I think the image below goes a long way to explain the results: if you cannot stay awake at a press conference about the decision, can we expect you to have studied hard enough to pass?
Is this racist?The result: those 19 firefighters who scored high enough to be considered for promotion, 17 white and 2 hispanic, wasted months and hundreds of dollars studying for an exam they were told would determine if they would be promoted. Bring on the law suit.
SCOTUS ruled in favor of those 19 in a close 5-4 decision. Predictably, all five in favor of the petitioners were white male Republicans: Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas - bazing! Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer and the outgoing Souter dissented.
What SCOTUS was deciding on was Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (How odd to think that I was born a scant 14 years after this country officially decided we are truly all 'created equal.') Title VII has two parts. The obvious part "prohibits the intentional acts of employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin", referred to as 'disparate treatment.' Nowhere in there is protection for the body art or homosexual communities. I guess your tattoos have to be Samoan or Maori tribal tats - not those douchey arm bands. The second part prohibits "policies or practices that are not intended to discriminate but in fact have a disproportionately adverse effect on minorities," or 'disparate impact.' In question here is the second part, disparate impact. Nobody is contending the test was set up to discriminate, only that because the test results were so lopsided it could be open to lawsuit. It was the threat of lawsuit, not any internal strife that what they did was discriminatory, that led to the non-certification of the exam. The majority decided that this threat alone could not be enough to justify discriminating against those that passed the exam. They found the process observed to create the exam was sufficient to expect a legit result. Even during the review nobody said 'this test is going to discriminate.' There were some who said there are better designs, but none that said what New Haven did was blatantly wrong. Based on those points, the court reversed the lower court decisions and ruled that New Haven did not have a firm basis to assume it would have faced a lawsuit for discrimination, pursuant to part two of Title VII, thereby justifiably not certifying the results. By not certifying, they essentially ran afoul of part one of Title VII. It was only because the passing group was not sufficiently minority that the test was not certified.
In dissention, Ginsburg, et al., make some very good points. The dissenter's strongest points also deal with the 'disparate impact' portion of Title VII. Essentially, if you have a policy or practice that has an adverse effect, even if not intentional, you must make sure that a reasonable alternative to the practice in question did not exist that would not have produced the discriminatory results. Ginsburg focused on the testimonies during New Haven's own hearings from other FDs that ran their promotion tests differently. For every expert that said there was nothing 'wrong' with New Haven's test, another expert was found that said "I do it such a way and the results are not adverse like yours." In light of this, the dissenters felt that there was adequate reason for New Haven to not certify the test because the results actually did violate part two of Title VII. It was not simply, as the majority states, "because the higher scoring candidates were white." In addition, Ginsburg stressed that "[i]n assessing claims of race discrimination, '[c]ontext matters.'" If you look at New Haven's history, and that of most of our nation's FDs, there is a long history of discrimination. As I mentioned above, the current New Haven FD make up is still not in line with the population at large. The lower ranks of fighters in the city are 30% black and 16% hispanic. Close, but not quite. Officers are even more lopsided, with only 9% of each black and hispanic fighters at captain or higher. In this context, the results of the test take on a different flavor.
After reading a good portion of the decision, not all mind you, I am still left wondering if they made the right decision for this particular case. You can find it here if you want to peruse. As is often the case with 5-4 decisions, the answer is not clear cut. Heck, I think with most discrimination cases these days the answers are not going to be clear cut. I do feel the majority, despite the many good points Ginsburg raises in writing the dissent, got it right in general, if only for one simple reason: lawsuits. Do we really want to live in a country where the result of every exam, every promotional review is in doubt and/or subject to potential discrimination lawsuits if one group does not like the results? Many of you reading this remember taking the SATs back in the day. I think we were one of the first classes to be given the 'multicultural' SAT because of complaints that because minority children did worse than whites on the test there must be a problem with how it was written. Personally, I have NO clue how reading comprehension and math has a cultural underpinning. Perhaps the schools that poor and minority children go to are not as good, but that is not an issue with the SAT. Cover up the symptom, don't treat the disorder. I remember distinctly that there were a few reading comprehension passages about American Indians and Mexicans. It did not make it harder for me, as a whitey white white French Canadian American, to comprehend the passage. Nor do I think a Mexican American student scored 100 points higher because the character's name was Jose. By taking an otherwise decently designed exam and subjecting it to this kind of standard or have it face lawsuits, you compromise the entire process.
We are the first generation that was expected to attend and complete a four year college education. Each generation into our history had fewer and fewer that completed, let alone attended, university. As a result, most tests of IQ, whatever you want to say about IQ, show a trend toward higher IQ in each generation. Thankfully, they do not test 'Where is Washington DC?' on IQ tests. Many of the black and hispanic firefighters were first generation firefighters. Would we not expect them to perform a little less well than a white firefighter that had an uncle and father on the force to use as a resource? That difference, however, will disappear a little bit as generations pass. You cannot legislate or litigate that rate any faster than the natural order. Therefore, you have to say 'enough is enough' at some point. Kennedy and the majority did just that in Ricci v. DeStefano. They saw a city being forced into an action because an innocent result from a test they administered. Their decision adversely affected firefighters who would have reasonably expected to received promotions. New Haven did not think their test was bad - only that others would think they were discriminating against minorities. Should we allow fear of litigation motivate our decisions?
So, let's see what you think. Our panel consists of what? Five white men, one white woman and one mixed race woman. We should get a good cross section of opinions here. I do fear that this website will be blocked pursuant to part one of Title VII, though.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
How's your pocketbook?
I wanted to post a quick little thought exercise for everyone today. In light of this unprecedented catastrophe, at least since the last catastrophe, in our economy I want to talk a bit about wage and price controls.
Since we are comparing today with the Great Depression and FDR's New Deal, let us look back a bit. One of the pillars of the New Deal were wage and price controls in industry. FDR, the good capitalist he was, thought that competition between firms was a bad thing. It brought prices and wages down as firms competed for business. For a current example, see WalMart of today and the outrage that company causes. He passed the 'National Industrial Recovery Act,' a "package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces." This, according to a paper by Lee Ohanian and Harvey Cole, two UCLA economists, prolonged the recovery of that first Great Depression.
Just last year a higher minimum wage was passed for the nation. We in California have an even HIGHER one. The timing of that wage increase could not have been better, it seems. We are now also in a position where the Federal Government bailout program is set to artificially keep the price of a good higher than the market is obviously able to bear, i.e. housing. (A quick aside. When M and I moved out here we looked at potential places to live and maybe buy somewhere. There was a development of loft condos in downtown LA that were interesting but the starting price was about 400k. This was for a small condo, maybe 1br or a studio. They just did an auction for these same condos: cheapest condo went for 207k and the penthouse, which was originally thought to be a million dollar property, sold for about $500k. Gotta love a sale.)
Now, some of you may feel that minimum wages are a good thing. Why should someone work for what is a 'non-living' wage? It is intuitive and it just feels good to think of minimum wages. We must do something so a person dropping fries into oil gets 8 bux an hour, even if it is not worth that much nor take 8 dollars worth of skill, because that person might have a kid or something. But, if you accept that you have to accept the ability to set price floors. They are the same principle on either side of the equation. Who among us would be okay with Best Buy, Circuit City(well, maybe not them), Target, Costco, etc. having the same price for the same merchandise? That seems strikingly counter-intuitive but the logic is the same as wage floors.
Are we set for another prolonged recession because the government feels it has to do something? Housing prices cannot go down, we hear. You can be damn sure any job funded by the recectly passed Trillion Dollar Blank Check Bill will have a floor to what can be paid to workers. The recent change to the Fannie/Freddie mortgage limit from $400k to $700k is essentially a price floor for housing. You don't think home values would seek that level of support?
How do you see this shaking out? What do you think of the UCLA economists take on FDR's policies? It certainly is not popular right now. The article was, in fact, written in 2004. It references the unemployment rate of 2003 being 6.1% - a then 9-year high. Didn't we get all panicked when it hit 6%? Funny how soon we forget.
Since we are comparing today with the Great Depression and FDR's New Deal, let us look back a bit. One of the pillars of the New Deal were wage and price controls in industry. FDR, the good capitalist he was, thought that competition between firms was a bad thing. It brought prices and wages down as firms competed for business. For a current example, see WalMart of today and the outrage that company causes. He passed the 'National Industrial Recovery Act,' a "package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces." This, according to a paper by Lee Ohanian and Harvey Cole, two UCLA economists, prolonged the recovery of that first Great Depression.
Just last year a higher minimum wage was passed for the nation. We in California have an even HIGHER one. The timing of that wage increase could not have been better, it seems. We are now also in a position where the Federal Government bailout program is set to artificially keep the price of a good higher than the market is obviously able to bear, i.e. housing. (A quick aside. When M and I moved out here we looked at potential places to live and maybe buy somewhere. There was a development of loft condos in downtown LA that were interesting but the starting price was about 400k. This was for a small condo, maybe 1br or a studio. They just did an auction for these same condos: cheapest condo went for 207k and the penthouse, which was originally thought to be a million dollar property, sold for about $500k. Gotta love a sale.)
Now, some of you may feel that minimum wages are a good thing. Why should someone work for what is a 'non-living' wage? It is intuitive and it just feels good to think of minimum wages. We must do something so a person dropping fries into oil gets 8 bux an hour, even if it is not worth that much nor take 8 dollars worth of skill, because that person might have a kid or something. But, if you accept that you have to accept the ability to set price floors. They are the same principle on either side of the equation. Who among us would be okay with Best Buy, Circuit City(well, maybe not them), Target, Costco, etc. having the same price for the same merchandise? That seems strikingly counter-intuitive but the logic is the same as wage floors.
Are we set for another prolonged recession because the government feels it has to do something? Housing prices cannot go down, we hear. You can be damn sure any job funded by the recectly passed Trillion Dollar Blank Check Bill will have a floor to what can be paid to workers. The recent change to the Fannie/Freddie mortgage limit from $400k to $700k is essentially a price floor for housing. You don't think home values would seek that level of support?
How do you see this shaking out? What do you think of the UCLA economists take on FDR's policies? It certainly is not popular right now. The article was, in fact, written in 2004. It references the unemployment rate of 2003 being 6.1% - a then 9-year high. Didn't we get all panicked when it hit 6%? Funny how soon we forget.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
I got a beef with the way things are run around here!
As generally happens when looking for new work, I am having an existential crisis. You see, I don't get a lot of things about the way the world is right now. For instance, why don't we drive on driveways and park on parkways (just kidding).
My problems lie in the working world. And the root of it is this: If the world is basically a construct that we all in a society decide to believe in, why is it so hard to change things? I work, yet again, in a field where it would be mind-numbingly easy to work from home: it's a tiny company, and I end up barely speaking to anyone during the day anyway. Yet, it's against company policy to work from home on a consistent basis. To which I tend to respond: why why why?!?! causing tension and annoyance in the office.
Most of the people I know are generally miserable about some aspect of their job, from the peons that serve fast food, to big timey executives. So why do we keep doing it? Surely the economy wouldn't fall apart if we gave people some leeway for certain things, right? It's as if we believe there is some uber-boss sitting in the sky, just waiting for us to mess up, to work 9-2 instead of 8-5 (because, let's be honest, not many people really need to work for 8 hours a day).
We created all this - the working day, the internet to keep us company while we are bored out of our skulls, and (gasp) we created cubicles too. So I ask again, if we created all this, why can't we disestablish it when it no longer suits us?
My problems lie in the working world. And the root of it is this: If the world is basically a construct that we all in a society decide to believe in, why is it so hard to change things? I work, yet again, in a field where it would be mind-numbingly easy to work from home: it's a tiny company, and I end up barely speaking to anyone during the day anyway. Yet, it's against company policy to work from home on a consistent basis. To which I tend to respond: why why why?!?! causing tension and annoyance in the office.
Most of the people I know are generally miserable about some aspect of their job, from the peons that serve fast food, to big timey executives. So why do we keep doing it? Surely the economy wouldn't fall apart if we gave people some leeway for certain things, right? It's as if we believe there is some uber-boss sitting in the sky, just waiting for us to mess up, to work 9-2 instead of 8-5 (because, let's be honest, not many people really need to work for 8 hours a day).
We created all this - the working day, the internet to keep us company while we are bored out of our skulls, and (gasp) we created cubicles too. So I ask again, if we created all this, why can't we disestablish it when it no longer suits us?
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Happy Christmas!
I hope you all have an intelligently designed and/or Darwinianly evolved Christmas!
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Democracy Does Not Work
It turns out that this election did turn out to be the most important election in history. It proved, or showcased on a national level anyway, that Democracy does not work.
No. I am not talking about Barack Obama becoming the first non-100%-white man elected as president. That is a seminal moment in its own right. What I am talking about are the three, maybe more but I remember seeing three, propositions or ballot initiatives banning gay marriage or defining marriage as man-woman being passed. In California, the ballot initiative was in response to the State Supreme Court ruling earlier this year that not allowing gays to marry was unconstitutional. Some 12,000 couples have been married in California courts since the decision, including (Heeelllloooo) George Takai and Ellen Degeneres. Lead pipe lock to stay legal, right? Supreme Court say so. Not quite.
The Prop 8 measure that was voted in by a 52-48 was a campaign run primarily by two special interest groups, Mormons (WhAT?) and the Knights of Columbus, to amend the CA state constitution to define marriage as between a man and woman. I can understand that some people are a little uneasy about gays marrying and possibly adopting kids. I won't be mean about what they believe. I believe some things that others might think are crazy, like leaving people alone to live their lives when nobody else is affected. What enrages me is the shortsightedness and lack of American spirit anyone who voted for this ban exhibit. Again, I am not speaking to personal feelings. We have always been taught that all people are equal under the law in this country. No group can have rights withheld, or extra rights bestowed, because of who they are. I thought that in a year that we finally shed the 'only white guys finish first' stigma, in the presidency anyway, we might move forward.
We live in a country where personal feelings, religious and the like, are NOT a matter of law. I think it is in our Constitution, or at least was at some point. The law is supposed to be the protector of the little guy. The billionaire owner of a company cannot smack around employees and pinch their female employes nips. Children are protected from exploitation in a number of areas. Women and minorities are no longer stripped of full citizenship by archaic and un-American laws. Apparently, these principles do not apply to everyone equally. All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others. This ban on gay marriage is nothing but an attempt to inject religious beliefs into law. Please do not throw the 'state's rights' argument at me on this one. THE CONSTITUTION is the supreme law of the land and I think in this case would have the final say.
What I fail to understand is why religious people are threatened by this. Signs posted on lawns and cars sported the slogan "Restore Tradiational Marriage." Wha? How does allowing two committed people have the LEGAL benefits of everyone else diminish marriage? First off, traditional marriage is not the lovey dovey version we have now. Traditional marriage was a power and land grab arrangement. Sometimes it was used to end wars, too. What we have today is relatively new so that 'tradition' argument really proves history means nothing to people. If your argument in favor of 'tradition' is the ceremony in the church with your priest and the blessing of your God I have good news for you. This has NOTHING to do with that. The only building involved in these marriages would be the state house, a decidedly secular edifice.
The restoration of tradition also reveals another fatal flaw in the understanding of the citizenry of this country, and perhaps the world. Not everythign is a zero sum game. Giving rights or benefits to another group or person does not mean your rights are diminished. As many people thing that a trade imbalance, say with China, is a bad thing they also exhibit the 'zero sum' mentality. China makes cheap plastic things more cheaply than us so we pay them to do it. We both benefit. They get money to raise their standard of living and we get cheap products to decrease our expenditures on such trifles. Win freakin Win. Nobody loses. Nobody loses if two men or two women are allowed to marry.
Maybe it all hinges on the word 'marriage.' I know I have heard a lot about using the term 'marriage' instead of 'civil union.' I have even made the argument that if 'marriage' is such a hot button issue, then get the state out of marriage altogether. Now, the state will not get out of marriage, we all know that so let's rename the arrangement. Currently you have marriage licenses which must be obtained to have any rights as a married couple. Then you can choose to have a ceremony in your house of worship, be it Muslim, Jew, Christian, Wiccan, whatever. What if we changed the 'marriage license' to a 'domestic contract.' I also say that we can remove all barriers to a domestic contract. Any two people should be able to enter into a domestic contract. I would even allow more than two, but I am just nuts. A domestic contract allows any two people to enter into a mutually beneficial arrangement in the eyes of the law. Benefits can be shared, beneficiaries of an estate are more binding, etc. Everything that a current 'marriage' affords a couple. We therefore get rid of the hang up over marriage. A couple can get married ina church with or without this contract but they get none of the legal benefits without it. Seperation of church and state, I think they call it. Now, to justify my 'any two people or more' statement I offer this: two spinster/male spinster friends never marry and are not a 'couple' but share everything. When one dies, there are no rights for the other. They should have the ability to have a legal contract between the two to protect their assets and control their estates. Why not? Also, in many jurisdictions in this country there are restrictions on who can live in residence together. They actually evict people or force them to sell property because an unmarried couple moves in together with kids. People have their reasons for marrying or not marrying. Why should they be discriminated against and not allowed to own property and provide for their family because of that?
I know this is long and probably rambling. I will cut it off here. I cannot say how truly disappointed I am with this Prop 8 being voted in. The slim margin only enrages me more. Democracy failed because the system can be used to inflict damage upon minorities. There was an add run against Prop 8, narrated by Samuel L. "I have had it with these Mother Fuckin' Yes on Prop 8's on this Mother Fuckin' lawn' Jackson, which ran clippings of the various discriminitory laws in California's history. How can somebody not be offended by that history and then vote for more of the same? Sometimes I think voters just get it wrong all the time. They are a leading, negative correlating indicator to what is right.
Vote YES on personal Freedom.
No. I am not talking about Barack Obama becoming the first non-100%-white man elected as president. That is a seminal moment in its own right. What I am talking about are the three, maybe more but I remember seeing three, propositions or ballot initiatives banning gay marriage or defining marriage as man-woman being passed. In California, the ballot initiative was in response to the State Supreme Court ruling earlier this year that not allowing gays to marry was unconstitutional. Some 12,000 couples have been married in California courts since the decision, including (Heeelllloooo) George Takai and Ellen Degeneres. Lead pipe lock to stay legal, right? Supreme Court say so. Not quite.
The Prop 8 measure that was voted in by a 52-48 was a campaign run primarily by two special interest groups, Mormons (WhAT?) and the Knights of Columbus, to amend the CA state constitution to define marriage as between a man and woman. I can understand that some people are a little uneasy about gays marrying and possibly adopting kids. I won't be mean about what they believe. I believe some things that others might think are crazy, like leaving people alone to live their lives when nobody else is affected. What enrages me is the shortsightedness and lack of American spirit anyone who voted for this ban exhibit. Again, I am not speaking to personal feelings. We have always been taught that all people are equal under the law in this country. No group can have rights withheld, or extra rights bestowed, because of who they are. I thought that in a year that we finally shed the 'only white guys finish first' stigma, in the presidency anyway, we might move forward.
We live in a country where personal feelings, religious and the like, are NOT a matter of law. I think it is in our Constitution, or at least was at some point. The law is supposed to be the protector of the little guy. The billionaire owner of a company cannot smack around employees and pinch their female employes nips. Children are protected from exploitation in a number of areas. Women and minorities are no longer stripped of full citizenship by archaic and un-American laws. Apparently, these principles do not apply to everyone equally. All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others. This ban on gay marriage is nothing but an attempt to inject religious beliefs into law. Please do not throw the 'state's rights' argument at me on this one. THE CONSTITUTION is the supreme law of the land and I think in this case would have the final say.
What I fail to understand is why religious people are threatened by this. Signs posted on lawns and cars sported the slogan "Restore Tradiational Marriage." Wha? How does allowing two committed people have the LEGAL benefits of everyone else diminish marriage? First off, traditional marriage is not the lovey dovey version we have now. Traditional marriage was a power and land grab arrangement. Sometimes it was used to end wars, too. What we have today is relatively new so that 'tradition' argument really proves history means nothing to people. If your argument in favor of 'tradition' is the ceremony in the church with your priest and the blessing of your God I have good news for you. This has NOTHING to do with that. The only building involved in these marriages would be the state house, a decidedly secular edifice.
The restoration of tradition also reveals another fatal flaw in the understanding of the citizenry of this country, and perhaps the world. Not everythign is a zero sum game. Giving rights or benefits to another group or person does not mean your rights are diminished. As many people thing that a trade imbalance, say with China, is a bad thing they also exhibit the 'zero sum' mentality. China makes cheap plastic things more cheaply than us so we pay them to do it. We both benefit. They get money to raise their standard of living and we get cheap products to decrease our expenditures on such trifles. Win freakin Win. Nobody loses. Nobody loses if two men or two women are allowed to marry.
Maybe it all hinges on the word 'marriage.' I know I have heard a lot about using the term 'marriage' instead of 'civil union.' I have even made the argument that if 'marriage' is such a hot button issue, then get the state out of marriage altogether. Now, the state will not get out of marriage, we all know that so let's rename the arrangement. Currently you have marriage licenses which must be obtained to have any rights as a married couple. Then you can choose to have a ceremony in your house of worship, be it Muslim, Jew, Christian, Wiccan, whatever. What if we changed the 'marriage license' to a 'domestic contract.' I also say that we can remove all barriers to a domestic contract. Any two people should be able to enter into a domestic contract. I would even allow more than two, but I am just nuts. A domestic contract allows any two people to enter into a mutually beneficial arrangement in the eyes of the law. Benefits can be shared, beneficiaries of an estate are more binding, etc. Everything that a current 'marriage' affords a couple. We therefore get rid of the hang up over marriage. A couple can get married ina church with or without this contract but they get none of the legal benefits without it. Seperation of church and state, I think they call it. Now, to justify my 'any two people or more' statement I offer this: two spinster/male spinster friends never marry and are not a 'couple' but share everything. When one dies, there are no rights for the other. They should have the ability to have a legal contract between the two to protect their assets and control their estates. Why not? Also, in many jurisdictions in this country there are restrictions on who can live in residence together. They actually evict people or force them to sell property because an unmarried couple moves in together with kids. People have their reasons for marrying or not marrying. Why should they be discriminated against and not allowed to own property and provide for their family because of that?
I know this is long and probably rambling. I will cut it off here. I cannot say how truly disappointed I am with this Prop 8 being voted in. The slim margin only enrages me more. Democracy failed because the system can be used to inflict damage upon minorities. There was an add run against Prop 8, narrated by Samuel L. "I have had it with these Mother Fuckin' Yes on Prop 8's on this Mother Fuckin' lawn' Jackson, which ran clippings of the various discriminitory laws in California's history. How can somebody not be offended by that history and then vote for more of the same? Sometimes I think voters just get it wrong all the time. They are a leading, negative correlating indicator to what is right.
Vote YES on personal Freedom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)