February 23.
Where did we leave off last Thursday? We had gone
into democracy. Did I start going into the chart on equality
and -- I don't think so. No, I didn't. We talked about the
chart and how it's usable for any exam that you take. Correct?
And then we talked about people. And who were people and who
aren't. And did I go into the history of African Americans and
racism in the United States? I did talk a little bit about
Athens, So my point is that how you define people therefore I
guess you could call it a democracy. And historically although
perhaps the framers didn't refer to ourselves as a democracy,
the United States has considered itself one and we have groups
that have not been considered full people from African
American, women, Asians from our nation.
And recently, a woman is suing the U.S. Government
again for the fact that she was born in one of the camps that
Japanese Americans have been isolated to during World War II
that the courts later ruled that executive order nine of six,
six was illegal, and she although all of the people who had
been incarcerated that were still alive, did receive at least
some compensation. It doesn't compensate for lives, even
$20,000, considering the amount of time spent.
Obviously there are those African Americans who
had been pushing for compensation for slavery and that
certainly hasn't gone very far. I don't think if they were to do
so -- we run into some problems there. The question then arises,
would we not bankrupt the United States when we have about 25
million African Americans in the country today. But more to the
point, there may be different in the sense that the slavery that
we're talking about was not something forced by the U.S.
Government although supported.
Translation, the placing of Japanese in relocation
camps was something the U.S. Government did. The government to
the best of my knowledge did not own slaves, however, certainly
court decisions recognized slavery and certain court decisions
later recognized inequality. So I do want to talk about it since
I do have a historical background. We identified perhaps that in
the first years of our colonization Africans who brought over as
slaves. However they were able to get freedom as an ancient
Greece. They could by their way free and many did. Many owned
plantations and actually owned slaves. However, within about
fifty years of colonization and about the middle of 1850 in the
middle of Virginia and other southern states it was determined
that Africans cannot be free. That anybody was automatically a
slave. Period. So there was no way you could free your slaves.
Thomas Jefferson who wanted to free his slaves, but talk about
hypocrisy. He never did. To do so, meant one person took all of
his slaves and moved west to free territory and he set them free
there. But, at the
time of the revolution, the state of Massachusetts ruled in
1783, that slavery was illegal because our principles of
revolution said that all men, all people, are create equal and
since they declared that blacks were people, therefore,
slavery was illegal in Massachussetts which was pretty much
the rulings of most of the northern states.
However, in the south it was very simply handled.
Since blacks were not considered people and as we
know, in Jasper, Texas they're still not considered people to
some living there. That's that tragic city where that African
was dragged through the streets behind the car. Ended up being
decapitated. If you'd been reading, but the horror of the
situation was even the attitudes of getting tatoos showing
lynchings on their body and those kind of racist kind of things
still exist. I thought it was very weird reading the stuff in
the paper about it because in Texas if someone received the
death penalty, to broken laws have to be proved, so the first
three days of the trial were focused on the simple fact that
proving that he was still alive when they put him behind the
car. Yeah. Just so that they could say that he was kidnapped.
And get him the death penalty. And that certainly does make
sense.
Well, in any case, um, at the time -- in fact, even
though it exited the north was able to get a compromise many
they were able to put into the constitution that they could
ends the slave trade in twenty years.-,However, to do
so, they had to agree that all slaves, blacks, could actually be
counted in the population, but rather than a full person -- as
most of you know the constitution counted them as three fifths
of a person, which has always been an issue. Translation, they
are not full people. Well, the slave trade was ended, but at
that point that it ended slavery was now a living growing
institution again and the reason was the invention of the cotton
gin. The need for labor on the new cotton plantations meant that
slaves were began to be illegally. Yet, also, free blacks many
who had been born free were actually being high jacked,
kidnapped, shang hai in the north. Slave traders would go north,
hit somebody on the head, and take them down south. Under those
circumstances, any black in the south was a slave and there was
no way of proving that you were high jacked and I'm sure the law
didn't care whether you were or not. And so many free blacks
were returned to slavery during the period before the Civil War.
We're not going to go through the whole history
obviously, the Civil War at least brought an end legally to
slavery in the United States, but it didn't bring an end to
legal separation. Within a short period of time the South
developed what we call Jim Crow Laws, which prevented African
Americans freed slaves from participating freely in society.
They were segregated and began short rapid history in 1896 the
Supreme Court of the United States recognized
segregation. It allowed for separate bathrooms. It allowed
for separate drinking fountains. Separate stores. Why it
ruled that is as long as facilities were equal you could
segregate. And that was in Plessy v Ferguson, 1896. Ruled
that separating, but equal, was okay. In other words, we
created legally in 1896 what when South Africa was called
apartheid. Obviously there were movements for equality.
The organization we probably know best the National
Association For The Advancement Of Colored People. The
NAACP was formed in 1911. Yet, once again, segregation
continued not just in the South, but in places in the
North. There were some attempt at civil rights most failed.
It wasn't until after World War II that the first major step
in this country to end segregation occurred and that was by
President Harry Truman in 1948. He ordered the integration
of the military. Up until then, blacks were segregated in
the U.S. Army. In the U.S. Navy where there weren't any
blacks probably, but in the Army they were in separating
units under white commanders.
Not far from here in Concord, in World War II, it
was we referred to as Port Chicago incident and mutiny. What
happened up there was that the blacks who were not allowed to
go to combat was used to load ships those in the service black
were drafted they were placed to load the munitions aboard the
ships. And a ship blew up killing African American soldiers and
at that point when they were
after the damage was cleared and the bodies were cleared the
Africans were told to once again load the ship and they
refused. And that created a mutiny and they were sent to
prison and called cowards. They are suing to have that
reversed. This was in the newspaper last week. Some of the
remaining are trying to get the U.S. Government to remove
that stigma from the record. So this is not something that
we're just talking about historical past, it's dealing with
it this month.
Q When was this?
A 1943, so fifty years later, 55 years later, a few
of the survivors of the mutiny, if you will, who went to
prison went to military camps, prisons are asking that the
record be purged Arguing that they were not cowards. They
were actually dealing with a real situation and that the
segregation in the military put them in and treated them
like animals. But in 1948, the commander in chief of the
armed forces told Truman he was wrong. They told him that
integration would not work. One of those was Dwight
Eisenhower. Later to be president. They told Truman who

interestingly, told them to go to hell. Which was typical Truman
because when they told him that it will kill the morale that
white soldiers wouldn't fight with black soldiers that they
wouldn't shower with black soldiers etc., etc., etc., Truman
said, I don't care. But that was Harry Truman. By the way, he
himself had been a member of the KKK
Truman in the 1920s. Of course today if somebody had been a
member there's no way they could have been elected president.
This was -- well, he wasn't actually elected the first time. He
followed when Franklin Roosevelt died in office. He did get
elected the second time. And if you recall, when he ran for
reelection there was a lot of the anti-Truman feeling in this
country, some of it because of his movement integrate.
When Clinton was confronted with his human
publicity, to he said he was going to integrate the military
with gays and the same arguments we used by the high command
morale would go down they wouldn't fight next to each other and
shower. Clinton did his usual thing; he waffled. He weaved; he
backed away. And he did not stand up for his values. That of
course was reflective of a different kind of presidency and
perhaps a different era. Some would say issue, but personally
if you were alive in 1948 which none of you were by any means.
It was just a strong issue. However, the real movement towards
integration in this country started in the 1950s. We're talking
45 years ago. In 1954, the Supreme Court came down unanimously
with a decision that the President of the United States hated.
In fact, he tried to convince the chief justice who he
appointed not to support the decision. But Earl Warren the
California governor at the time to have the executive order
nine of six, six who placed the Japanese in camps now moved
or integration. And the decision Brown v The Board of
Education of Topeka, Kansas. The Supreme Court ruled that
segregation was illegal in schools. It only dealt with
school. This was a reversal. It was a total reversal of
Plessy. Most of the time when the Supreme Court rules, it
doesn't reverse itself. It makes a change. Moderate,
sometimes dramatic, but never overturns itself. This was an
absolute overturn of Plessy. What they Supreme Court argued
in a nine zero decision that separation but equal was
inherently unequal because even if there was equal
facilities, blacks would feel the stigma making them feel
inferior and therefore could to the be a created equal
situation. And so the court ordered integration with all
deliberate speed. I moved to Pensacola, Florida in 1969 to
teach at the university there and that was the first year
they were integrating the schools in Pensacola. That's
fifteen years later. All deliberate speed was very very
slow process in this country. And certainly, even slower,
in the north.
Q So, is it, you see, you know, films and stuff
from back then when you talk about Martin Luther King and it
says like whites and colored. Is it -- are they just saying
blacks are -- are they saying, you know, black and white are
-- are they saying any other race too? And white?
A Well as she indicated the other day as far as
race is concerned, if you were Filipino or dark skinned, you
were considered to be black. So colored included all people
whose skin was not blond. Basically. Yeah. so yes. Obviously
there weren't many Filipinos living in the south certainly not
many Asians there. But we had segregation towards any group
there except whites. So yes the colored signs meant anybody of
dark skin. And I experienced going through the South when I was
young. My parents took a trip we went to Washington I think it
was about 1949 and this was before real movements of integration
coming from a liberal New York family I made wise cracks even as
whatever I was. Ten or eleven years old, but the fact was that
the process was sort of shocking to me to see black drinking
fountains, colored restaurants, colored gas stations, you could
not pull into a -- there was separate gas stations for blacks
and whites in the South and that's obviously part of the history
now. Law has changed. But it was due to a large extent to one
woman. Hero, in a sense just because she was tired that day and
she had had it and she is still alive. She appeared at the
convention recently. Clinton introduced her. Am, that was of
course Rosa Parks who just didn't want to go get in the back of
the bus. She sat there and we got the Montgomery going and
Martin Luther King came in and still it took nine years before
major civil rights legislation was passed. It's not that the
North didn't want it, but the civil rights movement in the early
60s was dynamic, but the South had enough senators to continue
to
control any passage through filibustering so when the North
introduced or other people introduced civil rights legislation
they would talk it to death. Because the senate allows them to
continue talking about though want to, you know, stop and that
meant nothing got done. Yet, you've seen some of the movies that
I have had some recent films out like Mississippi Burning, where
the churches were being blown up and burned by southerners
because wanted to vote. Mississippi was -- actual population is
more black than white so they had a majority down there and I
think three or four people who voted almost that were black.
They had their separating parties democratic wouldn't let them
in. The democrats from Mississippi were banned as protested
against it but people were going down there, Freedom Riders as
they were called. One woman was shot by an FBI informant, Viola -
- she was from Indiana. Two New Yorkers were killed along with
the black man. In Mississippi. And the sheriff and the other
people in the communities commented and this was direct quote,
"why are we concerned? All we did was get rid of two kikes and a
nigger." and they buried them in a damn. The three that died
from Mississippi buried them in a damn area and bodies were
later found by an informant told where they were buried and
members of community were very much involved. The daughter of
the sheriff won the Miss America pageant. That was quite -- for
but Miss America people. That those that peered of time is an
interesting
period and finely in 1964, civil rights legislation was passed
1963 1 believe it was Martin Luther King gave "I have a dream"
speech. And is that civil rights legislation demanded equally
throughout the country. And it was Johnson a southern president
who was able to push it through and they overrode the attempt
because he had connections among Southerners. The time was due.
Actually one of the top southern racist at the time who
actually ran for president against Truman in 1948 because he
broke off from the democratic party and won a couple of
southern states is still in U S senator he switched his name is
Strom Thurman he's 95 years old. He's never going to die and he
says he's going to run for reelection again. Strom Thurman has
the record as well for the longest filibuster on his own.
Filibuser's usually get a bunch of people talking, but he
himself talked for 24 hours and six minutes straight. During
his filibuster, or his attempt to block civil rights movement
or thereabouts he read from the Washington D.C. Phone book. He
just read the pages just to keep time going. And he's still
floating around. So it's obviously ancient history to most of
you, but it was a tremendous change.
Then in 1965 the voting rights act was passed.
Federal Marshal's were sent into 12 southern states later to
northern states to be sure that blacks were not being prevented
to voting or either by tests or gimmicks to allow
them to participate in the political process. As we indicated
the at day racism exists in our country but not legal racism.
Any questions? I mean I said rapid history, but certainly
interesting. Obviously the history of the American independence
is just as they faced the same kind of segregation, but they
faced the same kind who attempt to eliminate them. As you may
know, small pox infested blankets were given to the tribes to
wipe them out. The U.S. Army gave them blankets. That movement
and protested. How many of you have visited Alcatraz Island? I
had never had so many hands raised in my life. I feel much
better now. It must be just the evening class . I'm not sure, but if
you were there you know that in 1970 or thereabouts there was a
takeover by the American Indians movement and it was still
active and the laws today are quite different, yet the
constitution has never been amended. The constitution still says
Indians who were not taxed can vote. The Declaration of
Independence refers to them as savages. Yet, legally, are their
rights there? Perhaps? It's a good question. Because if you read
today's paper two of Clinton's cabinet members have been
indicted for the last hundred years, they've been indicted for
contempt of court, because for the last hundred years the U.S.
Government has taken money supposedly that was supposed to be
vested and given to Indians, they want to break up the tribal
lands and give them private property that money which amounts to
billions
of dollars has been abused apparently by and there are no real
records and they said they've lost the records. This has been
going on for a hundreds years. When the judge in Washington -
the Indians finally filed suit. When they demanded records so
he is now holding in contempt secretary of the interior
department and secretary Rubin who is the secretary of the
Treasury are you and they if those records do not appear he
will find them and imprison them. So the U.S. Government is
still holding back on providing information pertaining to the
Indians and what is justly theirs financial.
So this is today's paper. Indians. It is not the
past if it is in today's paper. Women. Governor of
Massachussetts in 1636, 1 have a -- I think it's historical, he
consoles a friend of his organizing the roll his wife is such a
bad wife and doesn't clean the house is because she does things
that woman shouldn't do like read books. And that made her
insane. Any woman who read books, their minds are too weak, he
said and this has been very traditional in the literature of men
who will have right through that women have smaller minds and if
they do any reading or studying, it takes them aside and they
can no longer be a true woman. Bare foot and pregnant in the
kitchen. That's why we have to open the door for them. We have
to protect them and provide them that's what the real men do.
Well, at the time of our independence, an Gail Adams married to
a John Adams
who became a second president tried to convince John Adams and
Thomas Jefferson to allow women the right to vote. Yet these
liberal revolutionaries did not see women's roll in that
sense. Women had one roll and that was to sew the American
flag. Betsy Ross, our hero of the American revolution.
The first rights conferences was held in 1848 in
Senaca Falls, New York, and demanding the right to vote,
equality, however, only one little girl who had been there with
her mother when women got the right to vote in 1920. It was
interesting because I was here last semester they brought this
woman here who has done some studies on the women's rights
thing. She identified something I was not Aware of is that
Senaca Falls and the women who came from that area, um, lived
nearby Indian tribe lands of -- and in the Indian tribe the
Iroquois had given women the right to determine certain kinds of
laws were you there at that particular when they spoke out. I
heard about it. And that perhaps they inspired women there to
realize that women had more rights because the Indian women also
would make determinations as to women for abusing women
physically or any other way. Okay? Very interesting. And that
may have lead to Senaca Falls. Probably did. Certainly
influenced some of the women leaders from Senaca Falls. Very
interesting study that I had not heard. Many of the women who
were there at Senaca Falls pushing for women's rights got
way laid into the abolition movement.
What do we mean by abolition? Abolition? Abolition
was the movement to free the slaves. To abolish slavery. Don't
confuse it with prohibition. Although I might point out that
women were for prohibition. Why? Because obviously the men were
abusing it and coming home and beating the heck out of them,
but the fact is that they also would be spending what little
money they would be making the factories before they got home
because they didn't have happy hours in those days. It was
expensive. The movement really took off again after the civil
war. And finally, as you know, women did get the right to vote
in 1920. However, that didn't provide equality. In 1923, there
was a push in some members of congress to introduce an equal
rights movement. It failed. During World War 11 many women took
over the jobs of men in the factories but right after the war
all of a sudden the woman's magazine said back to the home and
women returned to the home. It wasn't until a book was written
in 1968 perhaps by Betty Freedom called the feminine mystique
that a new feminist movement exploded in 1963. And by the end
of the '60s and the beginning of the '70s, women were demanding
equality as well as an equal rights amendment and actually
passed 35 states. But it needed three quarters of the states
which meant 38 and could never get the other three. It was not
very radical from my perspective it said that nobody based on
their color, creed,
gender would be separate. It demanded equal rights for
everybody. Yet, for many Americans even women, it was too
radical because it took away what they female it was take
away women who were week needed. More so there were other
problems. Men were often concerned it would mean that women
were drafted and served in the military and there is a fear
that if women are in the military all the men will be
concerned about is having sex and not protecting their
lives. We've had some action, but certainly they're not
subject to registration for the draft which you guys are at
eighteen.
Q But the fact is that irrelevant of the that another
major issue a real issue that really got me cracking up was
that people, men, were complaining that if you gave women
the equals rights amendment and then the men would have to
wait in line at the bathrooms like they do and men don't
want to wait in line. So obviously if you've been to many
of the concerts women get to use men's bathrooms anyway and
the reality is without the amendment most of the laws and
the court interpretations have provided equal rights. Most
of you today don't realize what kind of a battle it was
especially equal pay for equal work. Many of you may have
seen the Mary Tyler Moore show where she found out this guy
was making twice as much as she was despite that he had a
job equivalent to hers. It was common. Women made in the
early 1970s actually right through the '80s. it hadn't
really improved -- about 53 cents to a dollar to a male. Today
women make about eighty cents to the dollar which is quite
reasonable comparatively to what it was, but it's still not a
dollar for a dollar and certain jobs are men jobs and they pay
more. Women's jobs -- when men came into them, all of a sudden
the salaries jumped. So many times we talked about comparable
worse. We had that problem on the campus. Guy who went around,
the maintenance guy, maintenance men are men. His whole job was
to screw in light bulbs because, you know, men screw. Based on
that he was making more money than the skills secretaries. Now
it takes a lot more skill as far as I'm concerned to, you know,
type and take short hand and all of that, but they should go,
you know, hazardous job compensation. Did you -- you could
electrocute yourself. Especially if your Polish, right? Bad
Polish jokes, 1 know. I don't like ethnic jokes but that's the
kind of things that you hear. How many what? Does it take to
screw in a light bulb? Yeah, and that was the argument. You're
perfectly right. Hazardous payment that was, that a dangerous
job but if a woman stuck her finger in the wrong place that
doesn't count as hazardous pay; that was stupidity. So,
comparative worth never won the eight fully but unions
certainly began to fight for it under the circumstances.
Again, these are thing that most of you have
benefit from because you are not born when this revolution
occurred. So who in our society may be continued rights?
Well obviously homosexuals in many states in the country are
not given rights. in fact, in Colorado the people actually
passed what was proposition two which state that they should
not have equal rights basically. That was finally thrown
out by the Colorado Supreme court. Yet, at least in most of
the states, rights for gays have been protected and
lesbians. Once again while the legal rights may be
protected, that doesn't mean they can't be beaten up at a
high school. So the fact is that the attitude there and
certainly the gay guy that was what? Crucified to a fence,
in Wyoming, that obviously bias and prejudice still are
rapid in our society. But legally the law at least today
protects it and people don't accept it today as they did
thirty or forty years ago. Will times change? Well
hopefully we'll see. So, then who else does not have
rights? Convicted felons. Convicted of a felony, depending
on the state, you lose your citizenship rights. You lose
your human rights and in many states those rights are
permanently taken from you even after you served your jail
time. You have to petition to get them back. Maybe after
three strikes they should be permanently gone. But that is
the way it is and I understand taking rights from convicted
felons. if a person acts in a non human way then we don't
need to treat them as humans; it's a simple as that. Who
else? Well, partially insane people. if you commit yourself
to a mental institution -- not the ones on the streets,
their rights they have to yell in your year, ''Jesus will get
you." 1 don't know if you've been to San Francisco. 1
guess they do it in Fremont here. But in San Francisco, I
just in fact it was in Berkeley the other day 'this woman
was 1 think it was a woman. Well I couldn't tell. It
had it had on it wasn't and I'm not implying transsexual
or dress in nature, it was real indiscriminate kind of
outfits, sort of like an Arabic robe with -- it was wearing
makeup, but it wasn't a sexual kind of thing so I really
don't know if it was male or female and 1 couldn't tell by
the voice and it was wasn't a person who was trying to be
male or female. it was just a person yelling that we were
all deceived by Clinton and Jesus was going to get us
because we believe Clinton. So -- um, if the person is
committed to a mental institution, which in California there
haven't been many since Ronald Reagan's days. He closed
most of the mental institutions. When he was governor they
put them through homes or they were put out on the streets
and to save money and that has been a major problem in
California since with the homeless and others. That just
doesn't seem logical to save a buck, you know, kick them out
in the street. Well the argument was also made that they
would function better because that they would have a chance
to grow in society. 1 guess you can rationalize anything
you want to too to safe, but there are people that feel it's
not their responsibility because since they don't confront
these people then they don't care. How many of you would rather
spend the buck to see people get the proper kinds of treatment?
Others argue and can make a good argument that these people
want to live that way, let them live that way on the streets or
wherever they want to live. if you're committed to a mental
institution or you lose your basic rights, but if you commit
yourself, the law seem to read that you're really not quite
that crazy and so you're going to lose your rights. Mental
retarded people are becoming people, but that determination is
to have full rights is usually made in the institution. Some
are functional. Like Corky. Remember that show? It was a good
show. Life goes on. Others don't function and perhaps therefore
they're not yet part of the society.
What about aliens? Well interestingly our country
has traditionally supported the rights of aliens except to vote
and run for office. They have the same human rights that you and
I have. The right to go to school. The right to sue in the
courts. They have the right of freedom of press. However,
illegal aliens do not because in a sense they're breaking the
law and therefore are not considered human because they're not
under the law. They had more rights, but after prop 187 as you
know, there was an attempt to remove those rights. It's still up
in the courts actually. So that if 1 knew that somebody in the
class was
illegal I was supposed to turn them in. Obviously police and
teachers and doctors do not want to be police. You check all
Irish people first. Only the on the east coast. We don't have
Irish illegal immigrants here, but in New York you do. The high
tech areas there have been a lot of Irish immigration. Most of
them coming from Mexico that the Irish immigrants 1 did not
realize it was that high. movie on when 1 came home from class
last night. with illegal immigration in the United States. the
film? it wasn't too bad from what 1 saw.

They had a

Dealing

Anybody see it was interesting because they touch on some very
sensitive issues and the fact that we tend to forget that these
are humans and human beings. Despite the fact that we may have
questions with having immigration should they be treated like
animals? Well, 1 think that covers the groups.
Minors. Yeah, minors. 1 didn't touch on minors.
Children have certain basic rights. It's an interest the courts
have often supported the rights of children, but they've given
schools the right to act as surrogate parents so that the rights
you would have outside of society you don't have in the school.
So the school could suspend you without due process of law if
they felt they wanted to. For things that you would need to
process of law external to the school. And that's different
kinds of cases like drinking on campus. They'd have to prove it
in a court of law if they challenge it. You challenged in the
school system.
During the '60s, many young people were given the right in the
schools to protest like wearing black arm bands during Vietnam
but the court was much more liberal in the '60s. The Supreme
Court. it is generally determined that there is the age of
consent and that varies from state to state. For example, in
Mississippi the age of consent is fourteen. However it is 19 in
Wyoming. Nineteen in Wyoming. That's the highest. Most states
it's eighteen. But 1 don't know why Wyoming set it at 19? 1
might note that Wyoming was the first state to give women the
right to vote back in the 1860s. (He said 1860s, not 1960s)
Obviously there weren't many women there just whores so 1 guess
they didn't care. it was also one of the first states to have a
coed college. But, what determines age of consent, mature, it's
fairly arbitrarily. in ancient Athens the age was twenty and in most
it's eighteen more voting for citizenship for people, however
for drinking became on statistics, according to insurance
companies, the age was raised by the federal government to 21 by
those states who had it less. The way they did it since they
can't force the states to make it 21 was to say this they will
not give any money for federal highways or highways in the 50s
if the state didn't raise to 21. 1 think only Louisiana
boycotted it or refused with the limitation. it's interesting
because there's on the same level of age is there's a suit in
the Supreme Court right now that's going to have to be settled.
A suit that's been
filed on discriminations, age discrimination and that's on the
rental companies who will not rent cars and that is going to be
decided sometimes. 1 think this year as to whether or not that
is age discrimination. Because it does make sense, but then
again based on insurance statistics you know, that your
insurance doesn't go down until you're 25 if your a male. it's
21 for women? On insurance? 1 know the insurance is less 1 don't
remember what it was for -- well that was a little history of
what we would call democracy America and yet as 1 say legally
today, many more rights legally. But while we have those
residuals let's face it, the problems that we're talking about
are not anywhere as severe although the people in those groups
they still see them as service because they lived through the
history of other problems and so those problems then became
severe and so I'm not trying to mitigate them or reduce the
impact of them, I'm just identifying that what the historical
perspective has been and to make it understood that legal 1 the
government is not support this although it may turn it's back on
it at times.

Okay let's move to the chart.

in

The principles and

practices of democracy. The first thing we see on the chart is
to the left moves from the principles to the practices and we
have active consent. if democracy is government of the people
then the consent of the people actively has to be part of the
system. How is it done is? Well, the active
consent comes through -- how do you express your preferences
through a free press or voting? See how it's following there if
you went from the left to the right of the chart? Now why active
not passive consent? Because in passive consent there is no need
to express. When somebody says passive, they're saying I'm the
embodiment of the people. He know what this wants. Democracy
entails the people saying themselves what they want.
What about the interfaces? When are they due?
Today? Yeah. I'll go over them later. Next time. I'll
collect them today. 1 want to finish up. Well, no, let's
go over some of it today. Okay. 1 did with passive and
active, I'll get liberty and equality Thursday. So let's
pull out the interfaces. Okay. First question was pretty
well asked, simply to make you think about how difficult
sometimes it is to define words that seem to have such
obvious meaning. Government of the people, by the people,
for the people. So simple, but when you had to break it
down 1 still have trouble defining the differences. For the
people wasn't too hard. The government of and by the people;
what did you put down for government of the people? Nobody
want to share?
A 1 put 1 wasn't sure exactly the difference, but 1
put that it was like of the people because the people want
like the president of the United States was not just a
regular citizen.
0 So the people in government are regular
citizens.
They're the ones that run it. They elect the people. They
participated in other words it's not just leader. Or at
least, wouldn't necessarily be the United States, but you
are using the United States as an example.
A Government by the people?
A They basically vote the people into government.
We make the determinations into what the government
policy
is and the government functions under the policy in a
democracy.
0 And for government for the people?
A Serves the people. The government provides
things. The Soviet Union used to argue that they were
truly
for the people. Their government did things for the
people
where the United States could argue that it was by or of
the
people, but they never did anything for the people. So we
get into semantics.
0 Then what was the second question?
A Thomas Jefferson said that you have certain
inalienable rights among -- that's the third one? Thomas
Jefferson said all men are created equal. What does that
mean to you? Okay what does that mean to you all men are
create equal? Doesn't mean anything?
A Well to me it means we should be all treated
equal, but it's not true that because some people are
smarter or better genes and some people are born and
they're
sick all their life, but they should be treated equal.
0 in other words, equal turn. Given the turn to be
equal and certainly treated equally under the law. Okay and
1 think that certainly is a valid argument, one 1 would make
and no matter what color your skin or there skin be you
should have equal opportunity. if shouldn't matter. Other
wise, you're cutting off a part of society and you can't be
a democracy because you're not allowing them full potential.
You can decide that Asians cannot decide to go to schools.
What about that person who might have gone to a medical
school and cured cancer? You've stop them from that and
they could have helped all people.
1 had something else 1 want to say -- oh, 1 know. 1
want back 1 gave the example of the different level of equality
absolute which maybe just as dangerous because it's cutting off
people by not recognized the difference in intelligence or
others and that was the story from Kurt Vonnegut between time
and Timbuktu was the show Monkey House whatever it's called,
the book was called Harrison on the short story which Show Time
did a two hour science fiction on it which I thought was very
good. You can rent it. The concept in -- have that the society
was to be equal. The Prima Ballerina had to wear weights. The
creative had electrodes in his brain to shock him so he
couldn't be anymore intelligent. We had to have to mediocrity
for true equality. You didn't bring them up. You brought them
down
nd by the way, you remember the man Alexis be Tocquiville
the person who wrote the two volume study in American
democracy? He was the one that said that Americans liked
joining associations and that's why democracy works. And he
also said the dangers of American democracy is that it could
easily lead people to mediocrity. That it be
refused to recognize talent. That people who couldn't
achieve on that level want to knock these people down. And
boy, 1 am convinced that that's the reason people love the
National inquirer. Why else watch Jerry Springer? Oh,
we're not like that, we're not trailer park people. We'd
never do that. it's American equality. it really is. I'm
joking here, but that's why, and, I'll talk more about that
sadly to say perhaps. Okay.
What besides life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness would you consider an inalienable right of all people?
The right to free speech? Isn't that liberty? Freedom? The right
to free speech? How about freedom of the press? Wouldn't that be
under the right to life, liberty? The right to express yourself?
What about the right to procreate? Hey, I've got this great
symbol at home -- sorry and 1 just haven't had the guts to put
it on my car, but 1 think it's great. it's a Darwin fish
screwing a Christian fish. And it's called procreation. I'll put
it on for you. You can blame me. Too biased, 1 think. if you
don't know what procreation means -- that just explained it
to you. See, 1 had to define the term but 1 do it in my own way.
One could say it fits under the right to pursuit of happiness. 1
would think. Self expression? Again, liberty. Pursuit of
unhappiness? The right to be unhappy? That's liberty, again. 1
think that's at brilliancy when we get down to it, that almost
anything we can think of it's within those three. They're so all
encompassing. Of course Jefferson changed one word and added the
pursuit of happiness. Lock had used life liberty and property.
Now property is an American value system for the pursuit of
happiness in our area, but the word property would have been
less all encompassing as the pursuit of happiness. There really
didn't a lot in the Declaration of independence or the
constitution that protect or property. We tend to believe in
property in the United States but not a lot in the documents
beside the right to a search warrant or things of that nature.
The right to not have it taken from you without due process of
law.
Any others that you can think of? Well, the ones you
thought of certainly would be individual rights, but 1 think
that 1 pointed was that they seem to fit so nicely into life,
liberty -- we then went onto various kinds of government and the
reason 1 didn't bring my book was basically because 1 have a
class Monday nights and 1 walk down the steps, took it into my
car, put it on my seat, it's sitting in my car downstairs, but 1
put it right on the seat
but then when 1 got home which was ten o'clock, my son was
working on a bio project and he drove his friend home and 1 I'm
sure he must have thrown it in the back of the car so make my
excuses my dog ate my paper, but in a case the fact is that, 1
have until tomorrow morning to get my book. Or 1 lose points.
The first one, um, somebody got a copy so 1 can
read? A form of government. Think. A woman rules who inherit
her position. But her decisions are limited by the vote of the
well this men in the country, what is it? Constitutional
monarchy and she put down part plutocracy what is a plutocracy?
So this is decided. A group of military leaders make the
decisions in this nation. Oligarchy rule. Now I forgot to give
you another word, but 1 forgot. 1 did it in my other class.
Rule by the military is often referred to as a junta, which is
a Spanish word for military rule. Basically. Togetherness or
whatever it is. The people vote for a president who must be a
priest and he has the final say in the passage of laws. That's
a theocracy. Now 1 ask this question on an exam this time why
isn't it a democracy and what was the first thing you would do
to answer this question? Why isn't this a democracy? The
legislation are one in the same. That is true here, but how
would you go about answering this question? Define what it is?
Then define how would you go about approaching what it is and
defining or you just define.. How else would
you do it perhaps? You'd look at your God damn chart. Or thing
about it. Right? 1 didn't see any of you look at your chart. Now
isn't that what 1 told you to do. Any time the word democracy
appears in the question, didn't 1 say look at the chart or use
the chart? And yet, you didn't say that, Paul. I'd think about
my chart. I'd go think about the aspects of the chart. So, why
isn't it a democracy? Do people vote for the president? Doesn't
that make it democratic? But he isn't the final say in the
passage of laws. Does that mean he may weigh your preferences?
You have a right to run for office? No, because you're not a
priest, the -- so you can go through the chart or respond to
this kind of question was the people vote in their respective
provinces the same, capital of the provinces and the capital of
the nation where the elected officials make the law. Power is
shared, wasn't the provinces and the central government. Well it
is a federal system. What is else might you call it? An indirect
democracy. Yeah. incorrect. Didn't say enough. You need the
extra word. Yeah it's a indirect democracy whichever term, but
federal system is fine too it's part of it. in this country the
head of the Schelepnick religion rules and has total control.
The people worship the God Schlep and call their system
Schlepism. You could say it was a theocracy, but the better
term, a theocratic society? It's, no, it's what's the better
term. Imperialism? No that's not.
I

Totalitarian? The philosophy is the theocratic, but theocracy so
it's a totalitarian theocracy because you have total control.
Imperialism isn't a form of the government. it implies one
nation controlling the other making like itself. In this nation
a former movie star appears on television every night and
reports after her report two actors train in debate techniques.
People then vote by pushing a special button on their television
and if a morality of those vote press the yes button the bill
becomes a bill. Probably got the shortest answer? Direct
democracy. This is them and I guess we'll hit on the rest of the
chart on Thursday.