whatever it is, i’m against it October 31, 2008
Posted by KC in life, politics.add a comment
I’m not a big fan of California’s proposition system. I know some folks like it as a way for average citizens to participate in the democratic process, but I’m not entirely convinced that’s always a good thing. Writing legislation is tricky business. Or rather, writing good legislation is tricky business. And determining whether a piece of legislation is good or not is equally tricky.
My beef with the proposition system is that it puts me in a position of having to sort the good, the bad, and the ugly. Isn’t that what we pay legislators for? I feel like this legislation by referendum is just a dressed-up way of subverting the democratic process. Think schools get way too much money? Put it on the ballot. Hate immigrants? Put it on the ballot. Think minorities are getting too “uppity”? Put it on the ballot.
proposition hate October 16, 2008
Posted by KC in life, politics.13 comments
I hear that there are quite a few of you out there thinking about voting for California’s Proposition 8, the so-called “California Marriage Protection Act,” which would effectively write a ban on same-sex marriage into the state constitution.
I have to admit, though, that I’m having trouble understanding why you’d vote for something like that. I’ve been in a heterosexual marriage for over 14 years, and that’s long enough to have experienced marriage both before and after the advent of legal same-sex marriage. I can honestly say that same-sex marriage hasn’t had much of an effect on my own marriage. If anything, the fact that same-sex couples want to get married is a kind of validation. It can’t be all that bad if everyone wants to do it.
If same-sex marriage has negatively affected your marriage, then I suggest that perhaps your marriage isn’t as resilient as it could be. Seek marriage counseling.
“Ah,” you might say, “but homosexuality is wrong.” I don’t agree, but it’s certainly your prerogative to feel that way. You might have deeply felt beliefs about which sexual organs should go where, based on what some really old book or really old guy in a pointy hat says.* Fine. So don’t get married to someone who’s got the same parts as you. That seems like a pretty easy-to-follow rule. You don’t need a constitutional definition to keep you from accidentally marrying the wrong person, do you?
What it comes down to is this: You’ve only got one reason to vote for Proposition 8, and that’s because you like to tell other people what to do. There’s a strong puritanical tradition in this country of poking our noses in other people’s business, but it’s always run counter to the value we (claim to) place on freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The truth is that, if you’re a heterosexual, same-sex marriage doesn’t affect you.
Or rather, it only affects you to the extent that you let it. If the mere fact that loving, same-sex couples can express their commitment and devotion to each other through marriage fills you with fear and disgust, then I think that’s your problem, not theirs.
* I am not, of course, referring to Dumbledore.
illinois ethics and politics October 3, 2008
Posted by KC in academia, politics.add a comment
As you might have already heard, the University of Illinois recently told its faculty that they are not permitted to engage in political activity on campus, such as wearing candidate buttons, sporting bumper stickers, or attending rallies. As you can imagine, this hasn’t gone over well.
When I was an instructor at Illinois, I was forced every year to complete what was called an “ethics module,” or an on-line training course designed to make sure we state employees were being careful stewards of taxpayer money. There’s nothing inherently wrong with this, but the topics covered by the module tended to focus on the awarding of state contracts or the taking of bribes. A significant portion of the module also focused on forbidding us from using state property to engage in political activity.
I always understood this module as attempting to create the appearance of ethical behavior, rather than actually encouraging good conduct. Moreover, the scenarios presented in the module had little to do with the real ethical issues of university work, such as academic dishonesty, capricious grading, sexual harassment, or accommodating disabled students. Instead, the module focused on the sorts of violations with which Illinois politicians have had a long and illustrious history — corruption, graft, and using state resources for political gain.
