Ivy League Cornell sides with Olbermann over Coulter

Last week, one of our favorite loud-mouth "conservatives" Ann Coulter decided to call into question her long-time rival Keith Olbermann's Ivy League credentials:

Indeed, Keith is constantly lying about his nonexistent "Ivy League" education, boasting to Playboy magazine, for example: "My Ivy League education taught me how to cut corners, skim books and take an idea and write 15 pages on it, and also how to work all day at the Cornell radio station and never actually go to class."

Except Keith didn't go to the Ivy League Cornell; he went to the Old MacDonald Cornell.

The real Cornell, the School of Arts and Sciences (average SAT: 1,325; acceptance rate: 1 in 6 applicants), is the only Ivy League school at Cornell and the only one that grants a Bachelor of Arts degree.

Keith went to an affiliated state college at Cornell, the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (average SAT: about that of pulling guards at the University of South Carolina; acceptance rate: 1 of every 1 applicants).

Olbermann's incessant lying about having an "Ivy League education" when he went to the non-Ivy League ag school at Cornell would be like a graduate of the Yale locksmithing school boasting about being a "Yale man."

Unfortunately, Ms. Coulter didn't do much fact checking, but since she went to Cornell herself, it seems that many Cornell alumni, who have responded to her article being posted on Digg and other sites, think that she knows she is lying and is up to her usual tricks (lying to and misleading the ignorant masses and hoping that they eat up her excrements like dog food). Fine examples of people eating up her poo without checking the facts are available at The Weekly Standard, Right Wing News, and of course Red Eye on Fox News. Are we surprised?



So, I emailed a short note to Cornell University and here was their response:

Dear Tammie,

Many people have contacted us about the false and negative statements about Cornell's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences being made by Ann Coulter in the media recently.

Cornell as a whole--and all of its colleges--are considered "Ivy League." The term "Ivy League" was initially used by sportswriters, and became the official name in 1954 of the NCAA Division I athletic conference to which Cornell belongs. The "Ancient Eight" are Cornell, Princeton, Brown, Yale, Dartmouth, University of Pennsylvania, Columbia, and Harvard. Additionally, CALS admits 1 out of every 5 applicants, as does the College of Arts & Sciences.

Please feel free to watch Mr. Olbermann's response on his Countdown show at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/vp/29539156#29539156

Thank you for your concern about the College.

Sincerely,

Ellen Leventry
Web Communications Specialist
College of Agriculture and Life Sciences
Cornell University

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

I already knew what the response was going to be since this information is readily available on the web, but whenever in doubt, it's not really that hard to get the truth straight from the horse's mouth. There are a few things that really disturb me about Ann Coulter's never-ending antics, however.

First, if this were the real world, this kind of stunt could ruin an innocent person's life. Accusing someone of lying about their education and resume padding is a huge deal. Even after all the facts have been brought out into the open and the controversy cleared up, the effort leaves a bad taste in people's mouths and that air of doubt can follow you for the rest of your life, especially when people like Fox News continue to perpetuate what they know are lies. Despite the "concerned" comments of some conservatives of those blogs, Olbermann isn't going to have much of an issue at work since "Ivy League" Cornell recognizes him as one of their alumni, and he has been invited to and has given their senior convocation speech as an alumni. Fortunately, people who have gone to a university know that they are all separated into colleges, and while each college generally has its own admission standards and breadth requirements, academically, they all tend to be similar. For my fellow Alumni, it would be like me saying that I went to the "real" Cal because I was in the College of Letters and Science and you went to the "fake" Cal and can't boast a true Berkeley education because you were in the College of Natural Resources. Yes, it's stupid, I know. Furthermore, Coulter takes advantage of the fact that the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences is a contract institution. All this means is that it is a private institution that gets part of its funding from the state. No, it does not mean that it is a public state college with lower admission standards that has a minor affiliation with Cornell. But Coulter, leaving the rest to your imagination, perpetuates that blatant lie. She loves taking advantage of the ignorant.

Second, I find Coulter's "Old MacDonald" comment incredibly offensive and elitist. I've known a few people who have gone to agriculture schools, and the science of growing food and feeding America and the world is really nothing to snub your nose at. Agriculture schools tend to be very heavy on the sciences, like biology, chemistry, and genetics. Just because the name of the college has "Agriculture" in it doesn't mean that you go there to become a farmer. The College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (CALS) is one of the best biological sciences institutions in the country and includes the disciplines of Biological Engineering and Applied Economics and Management. CALS is one of the few places in the Ivy League where you can get an degree in Communication, which is Olbermann's degree. Again, all of these can be found on Cornell University's web site. Of course, she doesn't mention any of this in her interview on Red Eye on Fox News and instead puts on a show that has the hosts rolling in her muck like pigs. They make fun of his one response to a slanderous attack on his credibility as "petty" while they are the ones continuing to drive the issue into the ground, allowing Coulter to continue to comment on the subject and mislead people. /rolling eyes

Lastly, "conservatives" like Ann Coulter spend an awful lot of time crapping on their own base, while their followers are quick to defend being crapped on. She basically insults much of middle America and our "Old MacDonald" farmers because she thinks that her Ivy League education is superior and mutually exclusive to the discipline of feeding our ever-growing humanity. And sadly, many conservative Americans just take in her garbage without question, as demonstrated by their delight in passing this story along, intent on flaming Keith Olbermann, rather than examining the facts behind her words or what she is really saying about some of our own people. In fact, many even make the effort to give thumbs down ratings to actual Cornell alumni and others' comments on YouTube who are trying to clear up her lies with facts. All it demonstrates is their aversion to the truth and their neverending quest to make sure as few people are exposed to it as possible.

Who are the champions of marriage equality? African Americans, Mormons, Jews, Christians, and the leaders of the Civil Rights Movement, of course

The day after the election, many people were jumping all over an exit poll statistic published on CNN that indicated that 70% of African Americans voted yes on Prop 8. In the weeks that followed, commentary on this particular statistic showed up all over the discussion boards. Some same-sex marriage supporters felt that African Americans, who had been subjected to discrimination themselves, should have recognized and rejected discrimination against other minorities. Then there were comments like this on the Facebook group discussions from African Americans who supported Prop 8, and who decided that this poll statistic gave them license to speak for their entire race:

Wondered why so many African Americans voted YES on prop 8? You thought we were going to vote NO because you thought we would somehow relate ourselves to the civil rights movement back in the days? Nope. This just shows that majority of African American agree gay rights movement is NOT a civil rights movement. Dont even try to relate the two. They are not the same. Thanks

I found this "equality for me but no equality for you" attitude incredibly alarming, and sadly, this one exit poll contributed to the many comments on blogs and forums from African Americans who felt that being African American gave them the authority to determine whether the fight for Marriage Equality and gay rights in general was legitimate. I personally didn't know any African American who voted yes on Prop 8, so it was hard for me to believe that this support was so overwhelming. Additionally, African American Clergy leaders had released an open letter to their fellow members about their opposition to Prop 8:

If Jesus’ ethic, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” means anything to us, wouldn’t we want to do the right thing for others that we want done for ourselves? Imagine this scene: when asked on the day of judgment to give an account of how you treated your lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgender sisters and brothers on earth, would you be honestly be proud in saying, “Lord, I changed the constitution to block their right, their pride and their dignity to marry?” And how would you feel when Jesus responds to you with the words from Matthew 25:40: “In as much as you’ve done it unto the least of these members of the family, you’ve done it unto me?”

I was seriously wondering, who were these people who thought it was okay to vote to take away a right that our fellow citizens already had? Meanwhile, no one seemed to bring up the fact that Jews overwhelming opposed Prop 8. In a poll of L.A. Jews, 78% opposed Prop 8, 8% supported it, and the rest declined to respond. If I were going to extrapolate any information from this, I would point out that while polls are not always accurate, it is quite significant that any random poll would show that 92% of Jews did not support Prop 8 and 78% outright opposed it. Now if we are going to compare minorities who have suffered from discrimination (and what minority hasn't suffered from discrimination?), I'm not sure which is worse: having your people enslaved for hundreds of years or having 6 million of your people exterminated from the earth? Not to mention that no one group has a monopoly on slavery... slavery still exists. Unfortunately, human trafficking still has a place in this world. I think the point is that you can't compare the experiences of one group to another. So to those who felt it was necessary to comment on the legitimacy of the opinion of a Black person who voted yes on Prop 8 "because they obviously know what discrimination is", how about the legitimacy of the opinions of the overwhelming majority of Jews who voted no on Prop 8? While there was a rift between the beliefs of orthodox Jews and mainstream and progressive Jews, many rabbis were outspoken in summarizing the viewpoint of most of the Jews in our state:

"We Jews have been the brunt of a lot of discrimination throughout our history," said Rabbi Elliot Dorff, rector at American Jewish University (AJU). "To vote now that another group should be discriminated against is not at all respectful of what freedom has meant for us as Jews."

Minority rights carry special resonance for the Jewish nation, said many Proposition 8 critics -- especially in light of the 70th anniversary of Kristallnacht last week.

"Jews understand what it means to eliminate rights -- that's what happened to us in Germany," said Rabbi Denise Eger, spiritual leader of Congregation Kol Ami in West Hollywood.

After several weeks of speculation about why African Americans seemed to have so overwhelmingly voted against equality, the Public Policy Institute of California released a study on actual voting data (not poll data) that indicated that the initial poll statistic was seriously overblown and that the number was probably closer to 57%. In summary, it says that it had more to do with socioeconomics and education, not race, and Prop 8's biggest support came from white conservatives, born-again Christians, and low-income voters. According to this study, in groups with higher income and education, Prop 8 failed across all races, including African Americans. In groups with lower income and education, Prop 8 passed across all races.

I was so relieved to hear that support for Prop 8 among any racial group, including African Americans, failed to exceed the 50's, period. The NAACP and other groups have already called for everyone to stop saying that "African Americans passed Prop 8." African Americans supporters of same-sex marriage were able to come out and decry those conclusions based on that flimsy statistic and rightly so. And if I was an LGBT African American, having been subjected to discrimination both as an African Americans and as a LGBT American, and who probably got the worst of it from both sides after the election, this might have provided some consolation. Maybe. (At least some apologies are in order, IMHO.)

What is the lesson to be learned from all this? For those of us fighting for marriage equality for our fellow Americans, one question we should always ask ourselves is "What would Martin Luther King, Jr. do?" Would he have posted comments in the discussion boards decrying all religion? Would he have encouraged any of us to show up at protests with signs that degraded our fellow Mormon and Catholic Americans? Would he have promoted an "equality for me but no equality for you" attitude? I don't think so. I believe Dr. King would have reminded us that LGBT Americans are Mormons, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Black, White, Asian, Latino, young, old... and that all their allies are equally diverse. He would have reminded us that what makes us American is our respect for diversity, and that we should celebrate and cherish what makes us different. He would have reminded us to praise those Mormons who support marriage equality, especially those like Andrew Callahan, the Mormon High Priest who is being excommunicated from the Mormon Church for speaking out against the Mormon Church's role in the Prop 8 campaign. When people like Andrew Callahan sacrifice for those they don't even know, it confirms to me what I know to be true: that this is something worth fighting for and that we are on the right side of history.

For anyone who continues to doubt that this is a civil rights issue, who thinks that Martin Luther King, Jr. would not support LGBT rights and same-sex marriage, I'd like to share some choice words from civil rights leaders who actually fought for civil rights with him, including members of his own family:

"I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice... But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King, Jr., said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere' ... I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King, Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people."
- Coretta Scott King, civil rights leader, widow of Martin Luther King, Jr., at 25th anniversary luncheon for Lambda Defense and Education Fund, March 31, 1998

"We are now at such a crossroads over same-sex couples' freedom to marry. It is time to say forthrightly that the government's exclusion of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters from civil marriage officially degrades them and their families. It denies them the basic human right to marry the person they love. It denies them numerous legal protections for their families.

This discrimination is wrong. We cannot keep turning our backs on gay and lesbian Americans. I have fought too hard and too long against discrimination based on race and color not to stand up against discrimination based on sexual orientation. I've heard the reasons for opposing civil marriage for same-sex couples. Cut through the distractions, and they stink of the same fear, hatred, and intolerance I have known in racism and in bigotry."
- John Lewis, civil rights leader, speaker and organizer of the 1963 March on Washington, where Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his "I Have a Dream" speech, Boston Globe, October 25, 2003

"We have spent most of our lives struggling against the oppression of African-Americans and other groups within our society who are the objects of discrimination and prejudice. And we consider our ministry with and for the GLBT community to be an extension of that life-long commitment."
- Rev. Bob Graetz and his wife Jeannie. Rev. Graetz was the only white minister to march with Martin Luther King, Jr. during the Montgomery Bus Boycott

"We have come a long way. And while the scars and stains of racism remain, the fact is, racial discrimination is no longer legal. However, discrimination under the rule of law still exists. If you are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender, you do not have the same rights as other Americans. You cannot marry. And while there has been some progress, thanks to the work this organization [Out & Equal Workplace Advocates] in the workplace, you still face discrimination in the workplace, and in our armed forces. For a nation that prides itself on liberty, justice and equality for all, this it totally unacceptable."
- Yolanda King, daughter of Martin Luther King Jr., at the 2006 Out and Equal Workplace Summit in Chicago

"Homophobia is hate, and hate has no place in the beloved community."
- Martin Luther King III, son of Martin Luther King, Jr., August 2003, at the 40th anniversary of the 1963 March on Washington

"Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the 'wrong kind of person' for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about."
- Mildred Loving, of Loving v. Virginia, the landmark U.S. Supreme Court that overturned all state bans on interracial marriage in 1967 and established the right to marry the person of one's choice as a fundamental right, in her statement "Loving for All", which marked the 40th anniversary of Loving v. Virginia

"No parallels between movements for rights is exact. African-Americans are the only Americans who were enslaved for more than two centuries, and people of color carry the badge of who we are on our faces. But we are far from the only people suffering discrimination -- sadly, so do many others. They deserve the law's protection and they deserve civil rights too. Sexual disposition parallels race -- I was born black and I had no choice. I couldn't and wouldn't change if I could. Like race, our sexuality isn't a preference -- it is immutable, unchangeable, and the Constitution protects us against prejudices based on immutable differences."
- Julian Bond, Chairman of the Board of the NAACP, civil rights leader who helped organize student protests at Atlanta University during the Civil Rights Movement, at the 2008 National Conference on LGBT Equality

"I'd be disappointed if we did not approve this resolution. I think it would be consistent with our historic spirit of fairness and justice. But it also would be consistent with the spirit of grace and mercy as the path to peace and that you judge not that you not be judged."
- Andrew Young speaking about a United Church of Christ resolution affirming same-gender marriage equality. Young, a close friend of Dr. King during the civil rights movement, is a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and mayor of Atlanta. UCC Article, July 1, 2005

"Gays and lesbians have a more difficult time than we did. We had our families and our churches on our side. All too often, they have neither."
- Rev. Dr. James Lawson is a distinguished United Methodist pastor who worked side-by-side with Dr. King training the young people who staged the lunch counter sit-ins and the Freedom Rides.

For many people who are ignorant around the history of marriage equality, as you can see, it was the African American leaders of the Civil Rights Movement who lead the way for marriage equality, long before Prop 8 ever came about. I think that the last quote from an African American reverend is so apropos, considering that 1 in 3 teen suicides is of an LGBT teenager, and teens whose parents react negatively to their coming out to them are 8 times more likely to try to commit suicide. For anyone who continues to think that the plight of LGBT Americans cannot be compared to those of other minorities, you are right, at least on that point. Just ask Matthew Shepard, Bobby Griffith, and Anna Wallner.

"Fidelity" puts faces to the people whose marriages are being invalidated by Prop 8

Courage Campaign created a video called "Fidelity" that puts some faces to the 36,000 people (and their families) whose marriages are being invalidated by Prop 8. I got all emotional when I watched this and so did my husband. Here are all these people who were finally able to fulfill a lifelong dream, an American dream, when they married their life partners in front of family and friends in beautiful ceremonies all over California. For those people who voted yes on Prop 8 and still insist that Prop 8 wasn't about hurting people, I have to ask, why are other families' happiness any of your business? How does their happiness affect you at all? The truth is, it's none of our business and it doesn't affect the rest of us at all, but the Prop 8 campaign did a heck of a job lying and convincing people that it does. But you know what? When there are people in this country who are hell bent on hurting our fellow Americans, that *is* my business. It is all our business as Americans. Please share this video and remember to sign the petition urging the California Supreme Court to preserve these marriages.


"Fidelity": Don't Divorce... from Courage Campaign on Vimeo.

To contrast the declarations of love, happiness, commitment, and family that so many people were able to make between June and November last year, I just wanted to share some actual footage of the hate and bigotry of the Prop 8 campaign. If this doesn't make you sick, then I don't know what else to say.

Here is a Prop 8 campaigner using the same hateful dialog Anita Bryant and her supporters did for California's Briggs Initiative and others like it:


This one offended and angered the Jewish Community. The Anti-Defamation League demanded an apology and of course, the Prop 8 folks refused:

"Prayers for Bobby" now available to watch on myLifetime.com

For anyone who saw my post on the Lifetime movie "Prayers for Bobby" but missed it or any of the encores over the last couple weeks, you can watch the full movie here:

http://www.mylifetime.com/on-tv/full-movies/prayers-for-bobby-coming-this-wed/video/6622754001

You can also download the full movie from iTunes. Based on the book Prayers for Bobby: A Mother's Coming to Terms with the Suicide of Her Gay Son, the first half of the movie deals with Bobby's coming out to his Christian family and especially the reaction of his devout mother, Mary Griffith, who is played by Sigourney Weaver. The second half deals with Mary coming to terms with Bobby's tragic suicide, her reconciling of her faith and her beliefs about homosexuality, and her journey to becoming a gay rights activist.

I hope that this movie will continue to be a powerful tool for us to engage and educate people about the consequences of religious bigotry, and I encourage everyone to pass this on to others who might benefit from watching it. Special thanks to Erica, one of the founders of the "Christians for Marriage Equality" group on Facebook for making sure that anyone who missed it knows that they can still watch it online.

Homosexuality, the animal kingdom, and same-sex marriage

A few weeks ago, I read an article about gay penguins at a zoo in Northern China that I thought was cute and meaningful. Apparently, the pair had been segregated from the colony for disturbing other couples during hatching time. They wanted to be parents so badly that they were trying to steal eggs from other couples by substituting them with rocks. Awww. /pat

After protests from zoo visitors, they were given a chance to act as foster parents and were found to be the best parents out of the lot:

In response, zookeepers gave the pair two eggs laid by an inexperienced first-time mother.

"We decided to give them two eggs from another couple whose hatching ability had been poor and they've turned out to be the best parents in the whole zoo," said one of the keepers.

"It's very encouraging and if this works out well we will try to arrange for them to become real parents themselves with artificial insemination."

In the wild, or at least as depicted in March of the Penguins,the conditions are so harsh for penguins when they are raising their offspring that sometimes the parents don't make it. I imagine that the orphans tend to get adopted by other couples of the group, most likely the ones who don't (or can't) have their own offspring. Same-sex penguin mates obviously can't have offspring with each other, but the urge to raise offspring is innate and strong. From an aspect of nature and survival, having as many offspring as possible make it to adulthood makes sense, and so it seems that there is a purpose to be found in having mates, who cannot have offspring with each other, adopt and care for other offspring whose parents cannot finish the work.

Researchers have known about the existence of homosexuality in the animal kingdom for decades. In recent years, we've had a scattering of news in popular media of homosexuality in the animal kingdom, including gay flamingos adopting and raising offspring to discussions about the sexual behaviors of some of our closest primate relatives, the bonobos. Several years ago, Central Park Zoo's gay penguins had sparked a debate on whether homosexuality in the animal kingdom could be extrapolated to humans:

Some scientists say homosexual behavior in animals is not necessarily about sex. Marlene Zuk, a professor of biology at UC Riverside and author of "Sexual Selections: What We Can and Can't Learn About Sex From Animals" (University of California Press, 2002), notes that scientists have speculated that homosexuality may have an evolutionary purpose, ensuring the survival of the species. By not producing their own offspring, homosexuals may help support or nurture their relatives' young. "That is a contribution to the gene pool," she said.

That being said, in regard to human parenting, research has shown that the children of same-sex parents fare just as well as opposite parents, and as Dr. Judith Stacey says at this end of the following video, recent studies have shown that same-sex parents are often more committed parents, because like any other infertile couple, there are no accidents... their parenting is deliberate. She also clarifies James Dobson's distortions on her research that children fare better in a home with a mother and a father. She was comparing biological married parents with divorced and single parents, and since no same-sex couples were in her study at all, that research cannot be used to imply that children fare better in a home with a mother and a father as opposed to same-sex parents.

When a child ends up in the foster care system in our country, most likely they are orphaned, taken away from unsuitable parents, or given up by parents who can't or won't care for them. What a gift it is for those children to be adopted by parents who very much want to love, cherish, and care for them, especially if they had suffered abuse, were orphaned, or have some condition that makes them less desirable for some parents. Thankfully, a judge in Florida acknowledged this and overturned their decades-long ban on gay adoption. I believe that all children deserve to be raised in a loving and stable home, and if possible, in a family that is protected by the legal status, protections, and responsibilities of marriage. Considering that thousands of children are being raised by same-sex couples, the fact that we would force any children to be raised "out of wedlock" by denying their parents the right to marry makes no sense to me.

This leads into some important questions. Should marriage be based on the split second union of a sperm and egg, or should it be based the foundation required for the 18 years of hard work afterward (love)? If we observe, think, reason, and reconsider our beliefs, just as Galileo did when he observed the heavens and concluded that the earth moves when the Bible tells us that it doesn't (Psalms 104:5), is it possible to reconcile our observations and our understanding of the world with our religious beliefs? Procreation isn't all about uniting a sperm and an egg. As we've seen, the work does not stop there. For those people who feel that this is about "nature," I think that by observing nature and the world around us, the evidence speaks for itself.

Technology and the No on Prop 8 campaign

I just wanted to make a suggestion in the hopes that someone from Equality California, the Human Rights Campaign, and other organizations that are fighting for marriage equality might read this. The Protect Marriage folks seriously out-campaigned Equality California on the grassroots front AND on the technology front. Here is just one example. Before the election, when I wanted to get lawn signs, I couldn't for the life of me figure out how to get them. If you were running the No on Prop 8 campaign and your supporters Googled "No on Prop 8 lawn signs" and the first hit they saw was not *your* site with a title of "Where to get lawn signs," then you seriously screwed up there. As a matter of fact, I knew how to get those bright-yellow-shiny-happy-people Yes on Prop 8 signs before I figured out where to find No on Prop 8 signs. It was all over the discussion groups that other people were looking for yard signs too. There were many would-be activists wanting to help, but no one could find this basic information. You can't imagine how frustrating that was! Any political campaign that hopes to do well these days better have someone on their Technology team that is well-versed in the craft of Search Engine Optimization (SEO). I still have trouble finding resources I need from your sites. So please... do us all a favor and hire an SEO consultant, PLEASE.

California's broken and abused initiative process: Using direct democracy to take away rights

California's initiative process allows Californians to enact legislation directly through ballot initiatives. An initiative measure requires a certain number of signatures to quality (5% of the votes cast for the last gubernatorial election for a statute, 8% for an amendment) and then a simple majority to pass. Once a process that was meant to ensure that power be kept away from wealthy political machines controlling our state legislature, it has now become a process controlled by wealthy political machines, many from out-of-state, who have the financial resources to put self-serving initiatives on the ballot and shell out large amounts of propaganda to the masses. Without any controls on what kind of information those campaigns put out, they often misrepresent the impact of those initiatives in an attempt to woo voters, as so many of us witnessed during the Prop 8 campaign.

In the fight for marriage equality, we could have a measure that amends the constitution with a new definition of marriage whenever it gets enough signatures to qualify, which seems a little ridiculous to me. A legal status such as marriage, a status on which the validity of other legal documents is based, should never be put up to a popular vote. It undermines the stability of our government and our legal system, and because the right to marry the person of one's choice is a fundamental right that is aligned with our constitutional right to the pursuit of happiness, Prop 8 was nothing but an egregious attack on the dignity and happiness of our fellow Americans.

People have been complaining about California's initiative system for a while now and how it is easier to write discrimination into our constitution than to pass legislation that will help alleviate our crumbling infrastructure. It seems great in theory because it embodies "popular sovereignty," but it is one of the reasons why California has become so difficult to govern. Once government can no longer govern effectively and no longer works for the people, then this form of "democracy" truly fails, and the people become the victims of their own "tyranny," so to speak. Ironically, the initiative process violates the principles of republicanism, which was put forth by the Founding Fathers of our country and ingrained in the U.S. Constitution. According to Jules Tygiel, a professor of history at San Francisco State University and author of Ronald Reagan and the Triumph of American Conservatism,the initiative process was born out of liberal fears and frustration of elected officials and goes against true conservative ideals, as well as undermines our democracy:

At the behest of Progressive Gov. Hiram Johnson, the Legislature added the initiative, referendum and recall to the California Constitution in 1911.

As a rule, liberals, who feared corporate privilege and professed faith in the ability of the masses to govern, championed direct democracy. Conservatives, who advocated laissez-faire economics and feared the tyranny of the majority, opposed it. Johnson's father, Grove, derided supporters of direct democracy. "The voice of the people is not the voice of God, for the voice of the people sent Jesus to the cross," he admonished.

Many people are now coming to realize how broken and abused our initiative process is, including the Libertarian Party, who had this to say about Prop 8 on their official blog:

The Libertarian Party officially opposes marriage as an institution of government--both gay and straight marriages. "Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships," says the Party's platform. However, some Libertarians argue that until marriage ceases to become a government-licensed institution, there should be equality in it regardless of sexual orientation.

Regardless of the issue specifically with gay marriage, the problem with direct democracy in this case is that the people felt that they had a right to restrict, regulate, prohibit or limit the relationships of their neighbors, and in a system where the majority rule, it certainly was in their authority to do so.

This is not to say that direct democracy could never work, but it could only do so in a libertarian utopia that could also foster voluntarily socialism, societal anarchy or a number of other systems of order that rely on the perfect behavior of those governed. In order for direct democracy to work without violating the rights of others, those citizens who voted would have to have an absolute understanding of and dedication to property rights and individual liberty—something that is extremely unlikely to ever exist.

There is no place for any broad use of direct democracy in a free society because the majority does not always respect the rights of the whole. Even by a simple test against our platform, direct democracy does not stand up to the phrase: "No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government."

I have to agree that unless we live in a utopia where every single person respected each other as human beings and was informed and dedicated to upholding the rights of everyone else, direct democracy might not be a very good idea. I think our Founding Fathers had it right. So unless we want to continue down this path of our great state imploding on itself, maybe it's time for a little change.

Blue-eyes vs. brown-eyes: Honoring Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

I recently came across this gem, a link to a PBS documentary called A Class Divided, about an Iowa schoolteacher who did an exercise with her class by separating the blue-eyed kids and the brown-eyed kids in order to give the kids first-hand experience in the meaning of discrimination. My son and I watched the beginning of it yesterday before school, and being about the same age as the kids in the documentary, he was so intrigued that he wanted to skip school to finish watching it. /grin

My teachers did something similar when I was in grade school, although definitely not to that extent, but it still left an impression on me... it was a lesson in equality and discrimination I would never forget. When I started this blog, it was to my parents and those teachers that I dedicated these words to. (The dedication is in my sidebar, for anyone who wants to read it.)

Because Martin Luther King, Jr. Day is coming up, I hope that everyone remembers his legacy, what he did for all of us, and that his work is far from done.

"I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice... But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King, Jr., said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere' ... I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King, Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people."
- Coretta Scott King, civil rights leader and widow of Martin Luther King, Jr. at the 25th anniversary luncheon of Lambda Defense and Education Fund, March 31, 1998