(no subject)

Dogbert/Dilbert 2012!

Apparently Scott Adams has announced his candidacy for the U.S. presidency. Not seriously, of course, but he unrolled a pretty interesting agenda, in a thought-provoking kind of way.

I (basically) agree with most of it, but the Supreme Court bit threw me for a loop:

For my Supreme Court appointments, I'd pick qualified candidates whose opinions map to the majority of Americans. If you don't like where the majority is at, change the minds of your fellow citizens. If you succeed, and I'm still in office, I'll pick the next candidate to reflect that change in public opinion. The Supreme Court works for the country, not the President. My opinions shouldn't matter. I'd only act as a safeguard in case the majority decided to discriminate against some group in particular. I don't like bullies.

There's an obvious misunderstanding on judicial review toward the end (the courts are supposed to safeguard against the president, not the other way). But what really tripped my bad-idea radar was the idea that the Supreme Court should represent the majority of Americans. I get that Mr. Adams is saying that's instead of representing his own ideology (or his party's), but the goal shouldn't be to have nine justices who all represent the majority. If they were more or less identical then eight of those justices would be redundant. :-) Rather, you want a variety of judges. Each representing a different bias b/c biases are inevitable, doing their best to account for the bias and balancing each other out when they can't.

(Aside: It's amazing how much I see Hume's aesthetics in far-flung topics, like this. Because this is just how he thinks we get rules about what's beautiful...)

I'm also not so sure about this "play the center" approach. I wish it would work, but it's a little like disamament: it only makes sense if both sides are willing to give it a go...


I'm curious - which of these ideas would you disagree, and why?

adventures in cultural empathy

On the bus ride back from the subway, I was sitting next to a high school girl, Zari. (We talked a bit when I complemented her on her head-dress.) She was wearing the most beautiful hijab. Most of it was a teal green wool half-hood, but with tassels and silver-brocade clips, and her forehead was covered with a satiny brown counterpane with silvery embroidery. Her face was completely shown, and the rest of her clothes weren't unlike what you'd see on a Western high school girl: scarf to match the hijab, bomber jacket, long sweater over the hips, jeans, and thigh-high boots.

But what struck me was how well she worked the outfit, and how the hijab was a part of it. She was actually quite beautiful - I say that objectively, of course - and the hiddenness of the hijab gave her a sort of mystique. But she was not hiding, nor was she "frumpy" buried under layers and layers of clothes. I tend to respect women's rights to choose the hijab because I am all about freedom of expression and of religion, but usually it always strikes me as a symbol of repression. Partly because it is only worn on going out (which always suggested a kind of ownership to me), and partly because the male equivalent isn't nearly as conspicuous or restrictive. But Zari wore the garment with pride and confidence and her smile was only enhanced by the modesty.

So I think I will remember her the next time this topic comes up. I know women wear the garment for a variety of reasons, and some of those reasons are family/state coercion. But I think this was an important part of the experience that I personally was missing before today.

Off to bed now. I couldn't sleep last night, and counseling was particularly haggard, so I'm turning in early.