Thanks J.Mad and A.Ham

Re: your reasons for upholding Prop. 8 as expressed in this San Francisco Chronicle article.

Dear Mr. Kenneth Starr,

You are confused about the role of the judiciary branch of the government.  If judges were put into place to, as you say "to bow to the will of those whom they serve," we wouldn't have much need for them.  True, judges are "servants of the people" and to quote James Madison, "the people are the only legitimate fountain of power."   Madison also said that the judiciary has the duty to "guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part."  In simpler terms, Mr. Starr, the Judiciary branch protects minority rights.  Our founding fathers believed that there are times when the majority can be swept away by passions and act on those instead of on reason.  The Constitution and the Judiciary branch work to protect all of the people and all of their individual rights, for ours is a government of the people for the people, and that includes minorities.

Despite our founding fathers insisting on the importance of protecting minority rights, you might be thinking, why? Many decisions of a democracy like ours is decided by a majority ruling.  Madison said it much better than I could: "In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger."  Alexander Hamilton also made the point that "no man can be sure that he may not be tomorrow the victim of a spirit of injustice, by which he may be a gainer todays."  In  other words, there will be a day when you are part of the minority and with be thankful you live in a democracy such as ours which protects your individual rights despite a majority against you.

I leave you with one last sentiment from Madison.  "The private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public trust."

Sincerely,

A concerned citizen of California who has faith in the system yet.

Throwing our Shoes

You've probably seen this video by now...a few points below.

1. Bush ducks, but gets back up in time for the second shot. I would have hit the floor and stayed down.
2. Wait, Bush ducked? That's right, he's got some good reflexes, actually.
3. Cameras, not guns were drawn on the shoe-throwing journalist. Is that because the press conference was safe, and no guns were in the room, or because everyone was more concerned about getting the hot picture than safety?

Reason #17 Why the song "Baby It's Cold Outside" is not a family friendly Holiday Song

So really I'd better scurry 

(beautiful please don't hurry)

well maybe just a half a drink more

(put some records on while I pour)

the neighbors might think

(baby it's bad out there)

say what's in this drink

(no cabs to be had out there)

I wish I knew how

(your eyes are like starlight now)

to break this spell

I'd say a date rape drug is "what's in this drink."

Despite the rest of the lyrics being pretty sketchy as well, I still enjoy this song.  Christmas songs in general are very pleasing to the ears.  Though not so much when it's not December.  Funny how that works.

Moral Dichotomies

When I was a kid, I used to get the magazine Highlights for Children. I don't remember much about it, except for the comic Goofus and Gallant, featured monthly. The 2-pane, captioned, strip was a snapshot into the lives of two boys, Goofus and Gallant, as they respond to the same situation. Goofus was forever doing something wrong (Goofus starts eating before others come to the table), while Gallant was a perfect child (Gallant waits for everyone to come to the table before taking food). Goofus and Gallant was my favorite part of the whole magazine, but I must confess, I remember it as a guilty pleasure. I couldn't wait to see what Goofus would do wrong next, mentally rebuking him while I read. But at the same time, I couldn't stand Gallant. Secretly, I loathed his character, waiting for him to slip up on page 6 every month. Clearly, I identified more with Goofus. He was much more interesting (how's he going to break the rules this time?), and got to wear his hair messy. Gallant was annoyingly predictable and an unwavering goody-two-shoes.

Anyway, a few other things that are interesting about this comic strip:
1. The author never explicitly states which boy is in the right. We are to infer that from their names alone. This is a bit like Galileo's use of Simplicio in his pope-angering publication, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, published in 1632. The character Simplico defended the Aristotelian Geocentric notion of the universe and often came across as a fool. The characters Salviati and Salgredo represented a heliocentric position and quite convincingly won the argument.
2. Goofus and Gallant have been consistent in behavior as long as the comic strip has been published, more than 50 years. Of course, this is not a realistic example for any actual person. No one is as good as Gallant, no one is as bad as Goofus. But the fact that the boys are reliable moral constants is still interesting. It is exactly the opposite of many characters in the literary world that are remembered as our most beloved. From Hamlet to Harry Potter, the tragic flaw in the hero is an essential element of their appeal. The mixture of good and bad is necessary for the story, as well as our acceptance of the character.

Read up on Goofus and Gallant here.
Follow along in a story adventure.
A quick google search will provide examples for you to peruse, as well as a few spin-offs and parodies.