My Thoughts On The Nov. 2010 Election

Here is my preliminary decision for how I am going to vote on Election Day.
I am open (for the most part) to change my mind on some of the Props if provided with persuasive arguments.

PEOPLE:
Gov/Lt.Gov: Brown/Newsom
Senate: Boxer
Other Positions: A more-or-less party-line vote

PROPS:
19: No
20: Yes
21: Yes
22: No
23: No
24: Yes
25: Yes
26: No
27: No
(This means I agree with the Democratic Party on all but 2 Props: 20 and 27, with which I agree with the Republican Party. Furthermore, I align with the Republican Party on Prop 19, the one Prop the Democratic Party has stated no preference for).

P.S. I should add that my views on marijuana are complicated, but whatever the case, I think Prop 19 is not the right way to do it, with looming issues of federal vs. state powers.

On Ensuring Transparency and Accountability in Film Ratings

WHAT FOLLOWS IS A PAPER I WROTE FOR A FREE SPEECH CLASS AT UCLA. THE SUBJECT MATTER IS GOVERNMENT VS. PRIVATE FILM RATING/CENSORSHIP SYSTEMS. THE PAPER COULD ONLY BE 2 PAGES SINGLE SPACE, SO ITS PRETTY CRAPPY, AS I FELL IT NEEDED TO BE MUCH LONGER TO FULLY EXPLORE THE THEMES. TO BE HONEST, I DON'T AGREE WITH A GOVERNMENT SYSTEM AT ALL, BUT MY ADVOCACY OF IT IS MORE SO BASED ON A CONTEMPT FOR THE MPAA THAN FOR LOVE OF CENSORSHIP...

“Censorship” is a word that evokes strong reactions among most Americans. Add the word “government,” and the reaction will likely be even more pronounced. Perhaps at the heart of this is a general sense that speech should never be suppressed or limited, that access to the “marketplace of ideas” should never be closed off. Nevertheless, many industries have established various rating and guideline systems that serve as de facto (and at times de jure) censoring boards. Perhaps the most notable is the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), which founded its ratings board in 1968 and has since become the most recognized film rating agency in America. Despite its usefulness as a guide for parents, it has raised considerable controversy since its founding, and with the release of the documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated in 2006, questions of ethics and transparency have become even more pronounced. After seeing the film, Roger Ebert, a vocal critic of the MPAA, wrote that it leaves the viewer “thinking a government censorship board… isn't such a bad idea.” As much as that may leave a sour taste in many people’s mouths, there is much reason to believe a government system would be more effective.

According to the MPAA’s website, the goal of its ratings system is to “provid[e] clear, concise[,]… timely, [and] relevant information to parents.” Furthermore, the organization claims to be “a proud champion of… freedom of expression and the enduring power of movies to enrich and enhance people's lives.” Both are certainly admirable goals and values, but arguably the reality is far from the P.R.-friendly pronouncements of its website would lead one to believe.

The first stated mission of the MPAA, to provide guidance to parents about film content and suitability for minors, is certainly an important one. Many parents have, since the advent of the film industry, objected to its supposed corruptive ability, and the rise in graphic depictions of sex, violence, and drug use in recent years certainly makes the need for guidance even more pressing. Nevertheless, the reality is that the rating system goes beyond mere guidance to actively restraining both parents and children. For example, an R rating on a film requires that a child be accompanied by a guardian, which may not only be bothersome to both parent and child, but may actually supplant a parent’s permission. A guardian who wishes not to accompany their child to an R-rated film, but who has given full permission for them to view it, will essentially be ignored. Even worse, a parent who, having made an educated investigation, finds an NC-17 film unobjectionable will be forbidden from bringing anyone under 17 in to the theatre with them, despite their informed decision and approval. In that manner, the ratings system can effectively ignore parent’s wishes at the same time as it intends to protect their rights to make informed decisions.

Nevertheless, it could be argued that this is a minor problem, and that the benefits of protecting youth from objectionable material outweigh the incidental effects on free speech. That may be a valid point, but only if there was a way to insure that the system was not abused and that the ratings were applied in a more or less objective manner, with some form of oversight and transparency. Unfortunately, neither oversight nor transparency exists in the MPAA review board, the membership and deliberations of which remain a closely-guarded secret. In addition, independent studies and investigations, including some illustrated in This Film Has Not Yet Been Rated, have demonstrated inequities and inconsistencies in film ratings between individual titles, as well as between those produced by the six major film corporations and those produced by independent filmmakers. Furthermore, strong disparities have been found between treatments of sexuality and violence, with films showcasing the former being far more likely to receive an NC-17 rating than the latter. For example, the Passion of the Christ, a film Roger Ebert considered the most violent film he had ever seen received only an R rating, while the film Where the Truth Lies received an NC-17 for graphic depictions of lesbian sexual intimacy. An additional point raised by these particular examples is the rating disparities between films depicting or promoting Christianity and traditional values and those depicting homosexuality or nontraditional lifestyles.

The specter of government censorship understandably scares many people, but if one were to entertain the idea it may become clear that it is a better and more practical alternative to the current state of affairs. The MPAA was founded as a means of preventing and/or limiting government entanglement with filmmakers, thereby theoretically protecting the free speech rights and artistic license of filmmakers. Such is definitely the statement on its website. Nevertheless, its de facto censorship, absent any defined standards or oversight, has effectively limited speech more than a government censorship board would be likely to do. Unfortunately, because the MPAA’s decisions have no force of law (despite its de facto censoring powers), no First Amendment or other legal claims can be made against it. Its recommendations to filmmakers to edit or delete scenes therefore have considerably more sway, despite its supposedly voluntary nature. Was it a government-regulated system, filmmakers would have structures in place whereby they could appeal decisions to transparent boards or courts. Furthermore, the specific guidelines would have to be more effectively laid out, thereby limiting confusion on the part of studios and also discretion on the part of government boards. In addition, all regulations would be subject to constitutional muster, thereby making the threshold at which expression may be stifled significantly higher than in a system without oversight. In addition, the government system would (theoretically) not be controlled by the major studios as the MPAA is. Of course, the reality could be different given the significant lobbying powers of large corporations on Capitol Hill and in state legislatures, but the transparency and accountability of legislators to their constituency would at least serve as a buffer against egregious abuses. As such, independent films may have a greater chance of reaching larger audiences without significant censorship of their scenes, given the relatively relaxed and open government policy toward even pornographic films.

Perhaps the most effective manner of administering a government-instituted ratings system would be to create a two-tiered ratings agency, with the primary board as the first determining body and an appeals panel in the second tier, as in the current MPAA system. Both tiers could require executive nomination with advice and consent of the respective legislative body, thereby making the panels more transparent. Appeals of the second tier decisions could be made to the judicial branch, perhaps to a district court. This would ensure that decisions are separated from the legislative process, and that safeguards would be in place for all parties concerned. In addition, greater care could be taken to ensure that local theatres are not overzealous in their enforcement of ratings, ensuring that what is essentially a guidance system does not become a structure whereby exposure of minority viewpoints would be limited.

And what of the fate of films such as This Film Is Not Yet Rated, films critical of the prevailing structure, even of the film ratings system itself? They would be handled in the same manner as all other films, without prejudice or consideration of the subject matter at hand (when falling within protected speech, of course). If anything, the treatment would be less restrictive, as any objectionable material within this film is excerpted from other films and is intimately related to the purpose of the film, which is essentially educational.

These measures would hopefully help to remedy the current state of affairs as regards film ratings and censorship. Of course, no system is fool-proof, but a system with checks and balances, with oversight and transparency, is always preferable over a closed, secretive system with huge discretion in carrying out its goals. This is especially true when a system touches something so fundamental to our system as free speech and expression.

Happy Birthday Björn & The Most ABBA-esque Artists

Today is ABBA member Björn Ulvaeus' 65th Birthday, so I first wanted to say Happy Birthday!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Björn's contributions to ABBA's music is undeniable, as lyricist, guitar player, supporting vocalist, and lead vocalist on many songs.

I would also like to take a little time to write about the groups that are most like ABBA. As a crazily obsessed ABBA fan, I often find myself wishing for more. With only about 100 unique songs (by that I mean excluding the many non-English versions as well as remixes and live performances), ABBA's catalogue is rather small relative to those of other highly successful artists.
One of the side effects of this is that if I am in a particularly ABBA-ey mood, I often must listen to similar artists in addition to their music because 8 studio albums are easy to cycle through and even become tired of. There, I said it in print: Sometimes I get tired of ABBA's music. Not because it is bad, but because one could easily listen through most or all of their 8 albums in a single day, leaving one with the option of listening to the same songs over and over if one wants to relive the ABBA experience.

So, on to the most ABBA-like artists (all are more or less contemporaries of ABBA):
Brotherhood of Man (UK, 1974-1980, Pop) <= Actually 1969-Pres, but these were their years of success in their second, more ABBA-esque, lineup
Boney M. (Germany, 1975-1986, Disco, Pop)
Baccara (Spain, 1977-1981, Disco)
Silver Convention (Germany, 1974-1979, Disco)
Arabesque (Germany, 1977-1984, Disco)
Carpenters (America, 1969-1983, Pop)
Champagne (Holland, 1977, Pop)

All of the artists above attained some measure of success, although none (with the possible exception of Boney M.) even approached the level of popularity internationally as ABBA. Of course, the Carpenters were far more successful stateside than ABBA, but ABBA's sheer chart dominance throughout Europe, Africa, Australia, and Japan was unrivaled.

Boney M., my second favourite group (only behind ABBA), were a German disco group produced by Frank Farian. Their music, most of which featured lead vocals by Liz Mitchell, often had a Jamaican sound blended with the disco style common in Germany at the time. Many of their songs, especially El Lute, have been likened to ABBA. Boney M.'s years of greatest success were 1975-1979, which means their success was eclipsed by ABBA's in terms of the number of years, with ABBA's main success spanning from 1974-1981.

Brotherhood of Man was in many ways the British answer to ABBA. They won the Eurovision Song Contest in 1976 (as ABBA had done in 1974), and one of their hit songs, "Angelo," is essentially a knock-off of ABBA's Fernando. I should admit, however, that I actually prefer "Angelo" to the ABBA song. Champagne was essentially Holland's answer to ABBA.

Both Baccara and Silver Convention competed in the Eurovision Contest in the years following ABBA's rise to fame after having won in 1974, but neither won. Nevertheless, both entries were very ABBA-esque, especially Silver Convention's "Telegram." Baccara's music was very Spanish flamenco-ey disco, kind of a cross between ABBA and Santa Esmeralda, while Silver Convention's music was firmly in the Munich sound, with its heavy string and orchestral sound.

Arabesque also had sounds in the same vain of these two artists and of ABBA. Arabesque are probably the most ABBA-esque and the least original, as unlike the others, their music seemed to have very little regional or stylistic uniqueness.

The Carpenters were quite ABBA-esque in their own way, although it should be recognized that they had their first hits prior to ABBA's formation. The sheer intricacy of their vocal harmonies and care taken to create a layered sound is highly reminiscent of ABBA, but the Carpenter's instrumentation tended to be less complex than ABBA's.

One thing that should be recognized is that all of these artists are regularly compared to ABBA (whenever I read reviews of many other pop and disco artists of the time, I see similar references to ABBA), and not the other way around. I never see comparisons of an ABBA song to, say, a Boney M. or Carpenters song. Not that both of those artists didn't create highly unique music, but ABBA were in many ways the trend-setters of European Pop in the 1970s, and are therefore the yardstick by which other artists are compared.

UPDATE (2 June 2012): See my recent post featuring a 2-disc compilation of ABBA-esque songs :)

A Brief History of the US Supreme Court

This is by no means meant to be an exhaustive or detailed history of the Supreme Court of the US (hereafter referred to either as The Court or SCOTUS), but rather a general overview. As such, there will likely be many blanket statements about a period of SCOTUS history/jurisprudence that may not hold true for all cases or justices during that time. Nevertheless, I feel that I am correctly and accurately representing the subject matter at hand.

The Court in its earliest days lacked any real prestige. The current sense that the judiciary is a coequal branch with equal powers to check and balance the other two branches was not exactly settled at the time.
* In fact, the Court was completely overlooked when it came to a physical building, so while the Congress and Presidency had their own buildings, the Court had to meet in a basement of the Capital building, and never had a structure of its own until the 1930s.
* At least one justice in the first Court resigned to accept a much more prestigious job (an ambassadorship, I believe).
* To make matters worse, the Court's decision in Chisholm v. Georgia, decided just two years after the Court began meeting and generally considered the most important of the first ten years, was overturned by the passage of the Eleventh Amendment in 1795.

It wasn't until John Marshall became the Chief Justice in 1801 that the Court gained its current place in the American system. Marshall served until 1835, and remains to this day the longest-serving Chief Justice and the third longest serving Justice.
* The Court's decision in Marbury v. Madison (1803) declared the power of judicial review, and over the next 30 years Marshall and his Court reached decision after decision that strengthened the federal government and limited the powers of states to act against federal law.
* Examples of this include the famous cases of McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) and Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), which recognized that Congress had implied powers and protected Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce, respectively.
* In the last years of Marshall's service, the Court's power was undermined when their decisions in the Cherokee Nation and Worcester v. Georgia cases protecting the sovereignty of Native Americans were ignored by President Jackson, leading to the Trail of Tears.

Marshall's successor, Roger B. Taney, presided over a Court that reached many important decisions as well, but his tenure is perhaps best remembered by the Dred Scott decision.
* Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) remains among the most infamous decisions of SCOTUS. The central component of the ruling was that blacks were inferior and could never be US citizens and that the Missouri Compromise, which had outlawed slavery in the territories, was unconstitutional. It is interesting to note that this was only the second time the Court had declared an act of Congress unconstitutional (the first time being in Marbury 54 years earlier). The Dred Scott decision tarnished the Court's reputation for many decades and in many ways contributed to the outbreak of Civil War.

The Courts of the next few decades had an equally weak record with Civil Rights issues, as the Court ruled in the Slaughterhouse Cases that the newly-passed Fourteenth Amendment was essentially unenforceable against state action, thereby basically making it useless as law. Later, in the Court's now infamous 1896 decision in Plessy v. Feruson, SCOTUS held that racial segregation was constitutional, so long as the separate accommodations were essentially equal.

With the dawning of the 20th century, the question remained as to what would be the direction of the Court. Was it to continue its thus far dismal record on rights and constitutional enforcement or was it to take an active role in enforcing individual rights? In the early years of the century, the answer to that would have been that yes, SCOTUS was to take an activist stance, but arguably not in a positive manner. During what has become known as the "Lochner Era" (named for the 1905 case Lochner v New York) beginning in 1897 and continuing until 1937, the conservative Court struck down (usually by 5-4 margins) socially progressive legislation one by one. Laws they struck down included minimum wage laws, maximum work hour laws, protections for child and women labourers, etc. It seemed that the Court would forever be the enemy of liberty, despite its claims that these laws were being stricken down on account of an unenumerated Freedom of Contract.

This all changed with what has become known as the "Switch in time to save nine." It has been suggested that this was a result of Roosevelt's threats to "pack the Court" with liberals, but for whatever reason, the majority became 5-4 in support of upholding socially progressive laws, and with the appointment by Roosevelt of a number of justices, a new era in the Court's history began.
* Known as the Constitutional Revolution, the Court began what is known as the process of Selective Incorporation, whereby the Bill of Rights protections began to be applied to state action through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Essentially, what that means is that the Court began to take Civil liberties and Rights issues seriously.
* Perhaps the most important decision of the early Constitutional Revolution was West Virginia Board of Ed v. Barnette (1943), in which the Court declared that one could not be required to say the Pledge of Allegiance, ruling that the Freedoms of Religion, Speech, and Conscience are central to the American system.

The Constitutional Revolution reached its maturity, and arguably its high point, with Eisenhower's appointment of Earl Warren, the Republican Governor of CA, as Chief Justice.
* The Warren Court is often considered the greatest period in the Court's history by liberals, while it is deeply hated by many conservatives.
* The Warren Court's first majour decision was in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), in which SCOTUS ruled that "Separate But Equal is never equal," thereby striking down segregation as a legally enforceable institution. Unfortunately, the de-segregation order met with considerable resistance in the South, an example of which was the "Little Rock Nine" incident in 1957.
* Earl Warren considered the Reapportionment cases (Baker v. Carr [1962] and Reynolds v. Sims [1964]) to be his Court's most important decisions. In these cases, the Court declared that states could not have legislatures apportioned on an unequal basis, and that the Constitution required "One Man, One Vote."
* The Warren Court also reached decisions striking down school-sponsored prayer and bible study (Engel v. Vitale [1962] and Abington v. Schemmp [1963]), declaring a Right of Privacy (Griswald v. Connecticut [1965]), strengthening the rights of the accused (Miranda v. Arizona [1966] and Gideon v. Wainwright [1963]), etc.

As I mentioned earlier, not everyone agreed with the Warren Court's decisions, some decisions of which admittedly resting on unstable legal grounds.
* When Warren retired, Nixon was able to appoint his successor, as well as a number of other justices in an attempt to shift the Court further to the right. He only somewhat succeeded, as many of his own nominees joined in some relatively liberal decisions, including Roe v. Wade, declaring a Right to Abortion (written, in fact, by a Nixon nominee [Justice Blackmun] and decided by a 7-2 margin), as well as the case declaring that Nixon did not have executive privilege to do anything he so desired.

Despite the few liberal precedents of the Nixon era, SCOTUS became markedly more conservative, and with the election of Reagan as president and through to the Obama administration, the Court has become consistently more conservative.
* The Court has always had liberal and conservative factions, but the current Court's conservative and liberal factions are more conservative than in the past. I plan to devote an entire blog post to this issue in the future, so I don't plan to go too deep into this now, but what I mean is this:
* The Conservative faction is made up of 4 Ultra-Conservatives and one moderate (but still quite conservative) swing-vote justice. The Liberal faction is made up of liberal justices, but the liberal justices of today are far more moderate than in, for example, the Warren Era. The retirements/deaths of the remaining "Strong" liberals in the late 1980s and early 1990s, who were replaced by moderate liberals, and the rise of moderate Justice Stevens as the foremost liberal on the Court has helped to buttress this shift in the Court.

As I said, I will soon devote a post to the shifts in the Court during the modern era as well as a compare-contrast between the concepts of liberal and conservative in the Warren Era v. the Roberts Era, so I will end here for now. Thanx for reading!

UPDATE: See Here for the SCOTUS Compare-Contrast Post!

My Favourite Madonna Songs

So yeah, I've been listening to Madonna a lot more recently. I've loved her music for years, but there was a period when I didn't listen to her as much as I once did. Because I am bored, procrastinating, and listening to Madonna, I felt like making this list of my favourite songs by her, more or less in order:

CLICK ON ANY SONG TO SEE A YOUTUBE VIDEO, MOST OF WHICH ARE THE ORIGINAL MUSIC VIDEOS

01. Borderline
02. Vogue
03. Dress You Up
04. Like A Prayer
05. Into The Groove

06. Take A Bow
07. Deeper & Deeper
08. Hung Up
09. Papa Don't Preach
10. Words

11. Open Your Heart
12. Material Girl
13. Like A Virgin
14. Thief Of Hearts
15. Sorry

16. Crazy For You
17. Ray Of Light
18. Music
19. Easy Ride
20. Causing A Commotion

It goes without saying that Madonna is a legend, and a goddess in every meaning of the word!!!!!!!!!!!

Digression #1: First Post! :)

Hello,
welcome to my blog. This is my very first post, and I don't know exactly what to say, but thank you for stopping by...
I have had this blog account for a couple of months, but this is my first time actually using it...
I have quite a few ideas on upcoming blog posts. That said, most of my posts won't be very entertaining or insightful; they'll be very Steven though, indiosyncratic and loser-ish :)

Some topics I will likely cover:
-Constitutional law and responses to Supreme Court and lower court cases
-Current events
-LGBT Rights issues
-Religion, Philosophy, Atheism, Skepticism
-Architecture
-Music
-My life
-Various random thoughts
-etc.