February 23. - Theories of Democracy, 2

Where did we leave off last Thursday? We had gone into democracy. Did I start going into the chart on equality? We talked about the chart and how it's usable for any exam that you take. Correct? Then we talked about people. And who were people and who aren't. 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. Historically, although 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.

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 a difference in the sense that the slavery that we're talking about was not something forced by the U.S. Government, although they supported it. 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 were brought over as slaves. However they were able to get freedom as an ancient Greece. They could buy their way free and many did. Many owned plantations and actually owned slaves. However, within about 50 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 all created equal and since they declared that blacks were people, therefore, slavery was illegal in Massachusetts 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. But the horror of the situation was even the attitudes of getting tattoos showing lynchings on their body and those kind of racist 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 of proving that he was still alive when they put him behind the car. Just so that they could say that he was kidnapped. And get him the death penalty. And that certainly does make sense.

Well, the north was able to get a compromise. They were able to put into the constitution that they could end the slave trade in 20 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 3/5 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, shanghaied 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 separate 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. 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., 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, 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. 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 9-0 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 15 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, films and stuff from back then when you talk about Martin Luther King and it says whites and colored. Is it -- are they just saying blacks -- are they saying, black and white -- 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. 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. 10 or 11 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. That was 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 9 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 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 blacks wanted to vote. Mississippi was -- actual population is more black than white so they had a majority down there and I think 3 or 4 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 dam.

The three that died from Mississippi buried them in a dam area and their 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 period of time is an interesting period and finally in 1964, civil rights legislation was passed 1963 I believe it was Martin Luther King gave "I have a dream" speech. Civil rights legislation demanded equality 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 racists 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 a 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. Filibuster's usually get a bunch of people talking, but he himself talked for 24 hours and 6 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 2 of Clinton's cabinet members have been indicted for contempt of court, because for the last 100 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-- There are no real records and they said they've lost the records. This has been going on for 100 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. 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 Massachusetts in 1636, he consoles a friend of his organizing the roll - his wife is such a bad wife and doesn't clean the house 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, a 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 role in that sense. Women had one role 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 Seneca Falls, New York, and demanding the right to vote, equality, 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 Seneca Falls and the women who came from that area, lived nearby Indian tribe lands of -- and in the Indian tribe the Iroquois had given women the right to determine certain kinds of laws. 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. Very interesting. And that may have lead to Seneca Falls. Probably did. Certainly influenced some of the women leaders from Seneca Falls. Very interesting study that I had not heard. Many of the women who were there at Seneca Falls pushing for women's rights got way laid into the abolition movement.

What do we mean by 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 II 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 Friedan 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 18.

Q But the fact is that another major 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 80 cents to the dollar which is quite reasonable comparatively to what it was, but it's still not $1 for $1 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 worth. 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 type and take short hand and all of that, but they should go, you know, hazardous job compensation. Did you -- you could electrocute yourself. Yeah, and that was the argument. You're perfectly right. Hazardous payment that was, 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. But unions certainly began to fight for it under the circumstances. Again, these are thing that most of you have benefited from because you were 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." I don't know if you've been to San Francisco. I 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 I 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 I couldn't tell by the voice and it 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 -- , 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. I 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 I 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.

Minors. I 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. The school could suspend you without due process of law if they felt they wanted to. For things that you would need due process of law external to the school. 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 14. However it is 19 in Wyoming. 19 in Wyoming. That's the highest. Most states it's 18. But I don't know why Wyoming set it at 19? I
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 I 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 20 and in most it's 18 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. I think only Louisiana boycotted it or refused with the limitation. it's interesting because 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. I 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? I know the insurance is less I don't remember what it was for -- well that was a little history of what we would call democracy America and yet as I 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 legally 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? I'll go over them later. I want to finish up. I did with passive and active, I'll get liberty and equality Thursday. So let's pull out the interfaces. First question was 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 I 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 I put I wasn't sure exactly the difference, but I put that it was of the people because the people want the president of the United States was not just a regular citizen.

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 I think that certainly is a valid argument, one I would make and no matter what color your skin or there skin be you should have equal opportunity. if shouldn't matter. Otherwise, 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 stopped them from that and they could have helped all people.

I had something else I want to say -- oh, I know. A while back I 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 2-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 and by the way, you remember the man Alexis be Tocqueville 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, I 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.

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 I just haven't had the guts to put it on my car, but I 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, I think. if you don't know what procreation means -- that just explained it to you. See, I had to define the term but I do it in my own way. One could say it fits under the right to pursuit of happiness. I would think. Self expression? Again, liberty. Pursuit of unhappiness? The right to be unhappy? That's liberty, again. I think that's brilliant 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 I think that I pointed was that they seem to fit so nicely into life, liberty -- we then went onto various kinds of government.
The first one, , somebody got a copy so I 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 I forgot. I 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 I 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? I didn't see any of you look at your chart. Now isn't that what I told you to do. Any time the word democracy appears in the question, didn't I 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.
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. 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.