The Bill of Rights for the Twenty First Century

1. Government shall make no law respecting the establishment of a Starbucks on every corner, a McDonalds in every city, prohibiting the free consumption thereof, or abridging the freedom of weight gain, or of inactivity; or the right of the people to peaceably demand more of said McDonalds and Starbucks, and to petition such companies for a redress of consumer feedback.

2. A well-regulated army of overweight citizens being necessary to the security of a free capitalist society, the right of the people to bear as much weight as possible shall not be infringed upon (said right does not confer the right to medical treatment resulting from such weight; this would be socialized medicine).

3. No citizen, in a time of peace, should be forced to abide by any rationing or sacrifice of basic needs, nor in a time of war, but in a manner prescribed by law.

4. The right of people to be secure in their three-car garages, bonus rooms, master bedrooms, and island kitchens against reasonable calls for good taste and moderation will not be infringed upon.

5. The right to be able to purchase 500 channels of television, including all sports and entertainment packages, and the right to purchase digital video recording systems with said 500 channels shall not be infringed upon.

6. The right to a warm shower.

7. The right to express righteous indignation on behalf of charitable causes the world over shall not be infringed upon.

8. Excessive critical thinking shall not be required of any citizen, nor excessive intellectual standards imposed on any candidate for public office.

9. The enumeration in this bill of rights of certain consumptive privileges shall not be construed to deny or disparage others of their rights to purchase any other goods or services, no matter how excessive or prodigal.

10. The rights to purchase products and services not delegated by this bill of rights, nor prohibited by the states, are reserved to consumers upon completion of customer satisfaction surveys.

Tyranny of the Majority

In 1910 California became one of a handful of states to allow the initiative and referendum process, a political reform designed to make democracy more direct and bring citizens closer to the process of legislation. In its nearly 100 year history, the process has resulted in a variety of new legislation.

Several weeks after the passage of California's contentious proposition 8 restricting marriage to "between a man and a woman" activists are suing in the state supreme court on the grounds that the proposition amounted to such a large change in the constitution that it constituted a revision. If indeed it is a revision than it must be approved for the ballot by 2/3 of the legislature or a constitutional convention.

Only twice has the court struck down an initiative: the last time was in 1991 when the court invalidated the results of a proposition that would have restricted the granting of greater rights to criminal defendants beyond those allowed by federal laws. In 1948 the state struck down a ballot initiative that would have made wholesale constitutional alterations in a number of areas. But these propositions are just two examples of the often overreaching, unwise, and tyrannical power of special interests and/or the majority. The 1978 proposition 13, which limited the revenue that could be gained from real estate tax, has placed a huge financial burden on local governments, weakened schools, and fire departments. Proposition 187, designed to prohibit illegal immigrants from social services and ultimately ruled unconstitutional by a federal court is yet another example of the often discriminatory and reactionary intent of California's popular initiatives.

Direct democracy, as envisioned in its purest form, is impossible in a nation of over 300 million individuals and even in a state of over 30. The Ancient Athenian city state is often cited as the only historical example of a true direct democracy, but even this imagined golden age was restricted to free citizens with property and excluded women, slaves, and youth. The initiative and referendum as it functions in California today is direct democracy gone awry. Every election a new slate of propositions are put before the state, voted on by an electorate generally ignorant of the policy details and knowledge that they ought to have to make sound decisions. Sometimes, it is true, these measures turn out to do good: to extend rights, provide needed funds, or revise outdated restrictions. But this year's proposition 8 sadly falls into a much more shameful category: a step backward for civil rights and direct democracy. Proposition 8 is an example of the flawed democracy that French observer Alexis de Tocqueville described in his 1830's Democracy in America, a "government exposed to the whims of the majority." This was also the very type of populist excess that founding father James Madison cautioned against in his Federalist Papers.

As the old adage goes, "what is popular is not always right, what is right is not always popular." I do not contend that the will of the people should be superseded by the minority, but too often in contemporary America it is in fact a loud and vocal special interest minority who controls political discourse and can pass through wedge issues with little oversight. The authors of proposition 8 were required to gather signatures of merely 8% of the voters who voted in the most recent gubernatorial election. This is indeed a minority.

California's flawed system must be fixed. Not being a seasoned legal scholar I can only assume some possible options include raising the number of signatures required, limiting the number of propositions allowed in a given election, or perhaps prohibiting initiative for constitutional ammendments. Because, the last time I checked, a constitution was supposed to guide the governing structure of a state and ensure its residents's basic freedoms, not take them away.

Orange County, Now Playing at a Developer's Office Near You

Brought to you by:

This day labor hiring area just a mile away from gated homes of Laguna Woods and Laguna Beach

The goiter makes its fashion debut...

Designer Junya Watanabe
Tuesday: Paris Fashion Week from the New York Times website: http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2008/02/26/fashion/shows/0226-FASH_13.html

Master Planned Urban Community?

In my lovely master-planned hometown of Irvine, CA. a new housing development is sprouting up called Central Park West, touted as Orange County's first "urban master planned community," according to the developer Lennar's website.

I grew up in Irvine and I am quite used to seeing new housing developments being built almost continually. But until recently most of those developments were the traditional suburban neighborhoods comprised primarily of single family homes, and designed with close oversight by the Irvine Company, which owns most of the land the city is located upon. CPW is one of several (but certainly the largest) complexes being built along Jamboree Road that advertises itself as "urban" or "mixed use." The area, which has for most of its developed history been home to commercial buildings and a few shopping centers, is now the site of intense residential construction. While I applaud the construction of higher-density, pedestrian-friendly housing in a region whose leaders have often trumpeted single family homes with almost religious middle-class suburban zeal, it is important to understand just how urban these new apartment/condo developments are.

What comes to mind when you hear the word urban? Crowds of pedestrians, mass-transit, loud noises, a diversity of shops and restaurants, people, and environments, unique cultural attractions, right? Not a grouping of 8 apartment/condo complexes around a circular street, with names like "The Belvedere," "Astoria," "Chelsea." The names of small pocket parks wedged between housing further reference New York: Delancey, Tribeca, Rockefeller. It's not the urban I imagine but it is what Lennar Urban, the subgroup of massive home builder Lennar Corp (that recently purchased most of the land of the former El Toro Marine Corp Air Station) envisions. Or at least it's what they think will lure customers to an environment that offers all the convenience and density of urban living without the strange people, the uncertainty, the randomness...the charm.

The small "central park" being set aside in the middle of this block-sized development is the last reminder, if the cute historicized names referencing New York City were not enough, that this "master-planned community" is not an urban community at all, but a gimmicked, theme-parked reincarnation of it in a sunny suburban wonderland. Central Park West is no more an urban community than Disneyland's Main Street is an actual small town. And if we really are going to get serious about designing sustainable cities and communities and restoring public space and public life, we're going to have to stop deluding ourselves that developments like Lennar's Central Park West are really urban communities.

See for yourself: http://cpwliving.com/

Picture: http://www.cpwliving.com/tours.php?c=chelsea

Writers for Obama: The Article

Sipping wine as the rain came down outside, a group of writers, best-selling authors and academics gathered Sunday evening (Jan. 27th) to talk about how the words of another author have inspired them...

As a UC Berkeley student I was the youngest in attendance among about 100 supporters of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. On the day after Obama’s landslide win in South Carolina, and just nine days before the Super Tuesday primaries in California and 21 other states, those who paid $1000 to attend ‘Writers for Obama,’ which featured local luminaries such as Michael Chabon and Dave Eggers, were almost ebullient with hope.
Chabon, who along with his wife and fellow author Ayelet Waldman, has been a strong supporter of Obama, spoke about the senator’s commanding use of language to inspire, noting that his words bespoke deeper ideals and beliefs than some critics have given him credit for.
“It is not mere rhetoric,” Chabon said of Obama’s speeches, “It is a reflection of the fact that he thinks for himself.”
A significant majority of my peers are supporting Obama. At this event, members of the larger community expressed in eloquent words and detailed outlines of policy why they supported the candidate. As one of the few students in attendance, it was revealing to hear professors and authors express reasons for supporting Obama that were often quite similar to those expressed by my friends and fellow classmates.
Dave Eggers, a bestselling author who founded 826 Valencia, a San Francisco-based writing workshop for youth, talked about students he tutored and their unique support of Obama.
“These young students see Obama as themselves,” he said. “He speaks about the limitless potential of America and it resonates with young people.”
Later I spoke with Eggers and reminded him of a passage from his bestselling novel A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius in which his younger brother reaches out to shake Bill Clinton’s hand when the former president was dining one night in Berkeley at the well-known restaurant Chez Panisse.
“That’s funny,” he said. “Back in the 90’s Clinton was the candidate that inspired that type of hope among people, especially youth. Today Obama seems to be that man.”
In addition to explaining the enthusiasm on part of young voters for Obama, writers in attendance suggested why Obama might have appeal to artists.
“Creative people are perhaps particularly attuned to the need for change,” said Jesse Nathan, a Berkeley resident and writer for literary journal McSweeneys. “Writing is always a political act.”
Though guests expressed support for Obama as a leader who could inspire and bring change, the event also featured Berkeley professors such as Dan Kammen of public policy and environmental sciences, who spoke about the Obama campaign’s environmental platform.
At a recent campus event sponsored by the Cal Berkeley Democrats student group called the 'Mockus', in which supporters of Clinton and Obama debated and then caucused, most of those on either side agreed that the policy platforms of each were only slightly different. But the professors who spoke Sunday made it clear that Obama does in fact have unique ideas that set him apart.
“Obama seeks to make green energy good for everyone,” Kammen said. “We need to turn blue collar jobs into green collar jobs.” He noted that California counties that invested in green businesses have seen large increases in job opportunities.
Public policy professor Michael Nacht, a former member of the National Security Council, spoke about Obama’s foreign policy vision, and his plan for a gradual troop withdrawal from Iraq.
“Bush is so reviled in every NATO country,” Nacht said, “Obama has the ability to turn that around.”
Though the mood was upbeat and optimistic, San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris, who gave introductory remarks, reminded those in attendance that there was much more work to be done to convince others around the nation and California, that Obama would be the best candidate.
“So many people don’t want to have hope because they don’t want to be disappointed,” she said. “We need to make sure everyone we know votes, writes to friends from their heart, and acts inspired.”
As a student I know that young people, no matter whom they are voting for, are more inspired by and interested in this election than they have been in quite a while. Hopefully that interest will translate into votes.

-Andrew Stokols, Contributing Writer. Andrew covers just about anything. Feel free to let him know what you think at: astokols@berkeley.edu

---

PostScript: While he did not win California, Obama did come in first place in Alameda County (where Berkeley is and where I am) by a substantial margin.

California Sublime

From this weekend in Santa Cruz, CA: The rewarding experience of happening unexpectedly upon a scene of utter poignancy. Welcome to California.

Writers for Obama...

Yes, I must admit this posting is a bit too late to be considered newsworthy. But since the Clinton-Obama race is still the media's chief attraction I feel that it would be appropriate for me to recall two very different political experiences I had last week: a fundraiser for Barack Obama held in Berkeley, CA. (where I go to school) and the state of the union address:

Two weeks ago I attended an Obama fundraiser Writers for Obama at a cozy Berkeley craftsman house just down the street from my house on Benvenue, where prominent authors such as Michael Chabon (far left), Dave Eggers (2nd from left), and Daniel Handler (middle) all spoke about their support for the candidate and their hope for change. It was a $1000.00 per head fundraiser. Myself (as a reporter) and my roomate Omar (as my photographer) showed up to the home of Linda Schacht and John Gage, the youngest people there amongst an aged crowd of the Berkeley intelligentsia and larger Bay Area intellectual community. Mixing and mingling, I made sure to speak to Michael Chabon, whom I asked at the end of a brief interview, "I don’t want to be amateurish but would you mind taking a picture with me?" He obliged warmly if not enthusiastically. Then I managed to catch Dave Eggers on his way out the door and mentioned that a passage from his A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius in which he shows up at Chez Panisse restaurant to meet Bill Clinton reminded me of what he said earlier in the evening about Obama’s appeal towards young people. He chuckled and said something about how Obama today is what Bill Clinton represented back in the early 90’s: hope, change, youth, etc.

All in all it was a unique political experience (at least for me) to hear members of the Berkeley community speak about the election in a beautiful old Arts and Crafts style house, sipping wine as the rain came down outside. Later in the evening I typed up an article on the event and went to the Daily Californian office to try and see if they would want to publish the piece. However, according to the bureaucratically regimented by-laws, the paper cannot publish my work unless I am officially a reporter, in other words I am coming in according to their schedule twice a week and reporting on stories they deem fit to print.

Later that week I was watching Bush address an assembled Congress for the last time (it’s about time). I cannot but comment on how staged and plastic the whole affair seems. I don't want to discuss the actual speech for that has been done ad infinitem already, but beyond mere politics, I found it both awing and also eerily sinister. The reactions of each and every congress member: carefully premeditated; the blank countenances of Nancy Pelosi and Dick Cheney sitting behind him: not daring to let their guard down for fear of making a national fo-pa that would inevitably be replayed again and again on networks, on you-tube, on the Daily Show.
The mechanical smiling and shaking of hands, donors, party members, lobbyists, congressmen, armed forces generals, and supreme court justices…the speech is over and now the pundits can start spinning, away they go, they’re off and running...President Bush as he makes his way out, signing autugraphs for smiling blonde supporters, housewives…and then CNN decides to eavesdrop on what he’s saying...more old white men in suits looking on adoringly as he signs autographs and soaks it all up.
Is it really a State of the Union address? Or is it something entirely different? An exercise in civic rituals, of national pride, of Americanism, of democracy, of republicanism? Is it simply an image, a powerful symbolic drama acted out on Capitol Hill to remind Americans that behind the scandals, dashed hopes, mired economy, battered international image, and tanking consumer confidence there remains a permanent American way: of governance, of ideology, of values. I can’t help but recall cultural theorist Paul Virilio’s assessment of the First Gulf War: ‘It didn’t occur.’ For him the Gulf War, history’s first “clean war,” (as it was billed) was not a war at all. It lacked significant combat between sides and casualties on the allied side. It could be viewed as an exercise in dominance, imperalism, even national pride. But it was not a war. Is it fair to say that the State of the Union, a chance for the president to articulate his hope for salvaging the last year of his office, is not really a State of the Union Adress, but rather a play titled The State of the Union? An exercise in political theater, national identity, return to lost values, etc.
These two events occured in the same week and in the same election season, but it is safe to say that they occupied two entirely different political worlds, and two entirely different national visions.