] The Hollywood Bowl indicates the cultural activities,
] while the two stars represent the County's motion
] picture and television industries.
]
] The cross represents the influence of the church and the
] missions of California.

The right wing is hopping mad right now because the ACLU of SoCal has gotten the board of LA County, under threat of suit, to agree to remove the cross from their seal.

The argument that they are making is that the seal represents the influence of the Spanish Missions on the history of California. That makes sense to me. Los Angeles was founded by Spanish Missionaries (along with San Francisco, San Diego, and everything in between).

To be sure, the Catholic Church is hardly "established" in the LA government. Regardless of the facts of this case, I don't believe that the ACLU ought to be going around suing crosses off of public land and city seals. There are simply more important civil liberties battles to be fought, especially in a place like L.A.

I like the ACLU because they defend my civil liberties. I like them because they uphold the Constitution. We need an institution in this country that defends the people against civil liberties encroachments by the U.S. Government. People don't have the resources to defend themselves as individuals. Only an independent organization can do that effectively.

When I first saw the right smear them as "liberal radicals" I was a little surprised. Aren't constitutional rights something that all sides of the political spectrum have an interest in? Haven't I seen the ACLU defend far right interests? Why does this perception exist?

The right has three problems with the ACLU, all three of which I suppose they must care about more then any other civil liberty which the ACLU must defend. Two of these problems are expressed in a popular joke:

"How does the ACLU count to ten?"
"1,3,4,5,6,7,8"

This thing spreads around the right wing. People laugh because they think they are supposed to make fun of the liberal radicals at the ACLU. They understand the part about 2, but not about 9 and 10. They don't even know what the 9th and 10th amendments are, anyway. So they pass the joke on. Har Har

9 and 10 are omitted in this joke for a very sinister reason. 9 and 10 have to do with unenumerated rights being held by the states and the people. States Rights. People often talk in philosophical terms about states rights and come to the conclusion that they make sense. What is good for Tennessee is not necessarily good for California. Furthermore, states serve a useful role as laboratories of democracy, where new policy ideas can be evaluated on small scales.

Unfortunately, what the right means when it takes about states rights is segregation. The federal government came into the South in the 50's and 60's and forced them to stop discriminating against black people. Older conservatives are still fighting that battle, with subtle wording that they rally quietly around because overt statements bring widespread outrage.

Segregation advocates do not understand freedom nor civil liberties, and frankly, I don't care what they think. The ACLU certainly does defend my 9th and 10th amendment rights. Ask them what they are doing about privacy.

So lets go on to issue 2... The ACLU doesn't believe that the Second Amendment protects an individual's "right" to own a gun. Neither does the Supreme Court. Now, ask yourself if you really believe that the National Guard serves as a check upon the power of the federal government?

Gunfree.org argues that the need for a militia to act as a check is historical, and that non-violent protest has proven to be an effective means of resistance against tyranny in recent years. Would you agree that Gandhi's protests would have been effective if he had not overtly threatened to use of violence and possessed the means to make good on those threats? Do you believe that Martin Luther King's movement would have been effective had there been no real strength behind those peoples' expression of will?

I don't. These people chose non-violent protest as a humane means of demonstrating strength to opponents who were smart enough to see the strategic implications without requiring a demonstration in blood. This is a mature and proper way to communicate, but it does not change the fact that a disempowered population is easy to control.

For these reasons I can't say I agree with any side of the "gun" debate. Including the one taken by the Supreme Court. This is not a simple issue. Some people are not responsible enough to have guns. Some people would become irresponsible if they had an absolute monopoly on the use of force. Some people are going to get guns no matter what you do. Ultimately there is no simple way to create a less violent society. We ought to strive for that as a central goal. Breaking it down into constituent parts washes out the real message and gets us bogged down in messy details.

Is the ACLU's position a position? Maybe they are merely attempting to uphold established law. The established law really does say that the National Guard is the embodiment of the Second Amendment. Then again, maybe they are unwilling to fight harder because they have a liberal bias. I'm not sure. I'm also not willing to give up on everything else the ACLU does over this question. If I want I can join the NRA.

The third reason the right has a problem with the ACLU is that the right wants to establish religion in the United States, and the ACLU frequently stands in their way. In this respect I strongly agree with the ACLU, but as this is a much more widespread concern, on the part of the right, then the preceding issues, it is inevitable that there will be tension here.

The general perception, that the ACLU are liberal radicals, is one that I believe the ACLU ought to be fighting. The ACLU ought to present itself as an institution that defends individuals against civil liberties encroachments regardless of their politics. They ought to take as politically agnostic an approach as possible to what the actual law they are defending consists of. The fact is that individual rights are things the right cares about, and the ACLU would be much stronger if they had better bipartisan support. The ACLU defends the right's rights, and the right ought to be aware of it.

The ACLU also ought to choose their battles carefully. The right lies about the first amendment. They intentionally confuse prayer in school, and organized prayer in school. They falsely claim that first amendment advocates seek to remove people who practice religion from the government. In 1995 they proposed, and passed, a federal law which would fine people $100,000 for saying fuck on the internet and claimed they were "fighting pornography."

By focusing on minor issues like the LA county seal you create opportunities for the leadership of the right to propagate their lies about their intentions with respect to religion in society by creating a questionable case upon which they can focus their arguments. If they plan to destroy my life for saying a dirty word, control my practice of religion, or brainwash my children, then yes, the ACLU ought to step in. But a little cross on a seal that no one really notices or cares about? It never did me any harm. I really don't care.

The pain that seal causes me, which is nothing at all, pales in comparison to the pain that is caused by millions of Americans who will tune into right wing broadcasts this month and be taught to act against the defense of their own civil liberties... Taken advantage of by liars who truly seek to establish their faith and cram it down everyone else's throats and can spin listeners into becoming their army of useful idiots. Those idiots will fund pro-establishment legal teams, vote against politicians who defend their rights, and teach their children to shun the ACLU.

I was going to post in defense of the right's position on this issue, but I was digging around for a really good version of the story to meme. I had trouble finding one. So I figured I'd pull up the actual website of L.A. County and meme their explanation of the seal and the meaning of the symbols in the seal.

Here it is. Yes, Spanish missionaries are listed. But the spin here is hard to hide. Each section of the seal gets its own sentence, except for the offending section, which gets two, separated by a blank line. The mention of missions is added onto the end of the explanation for the cross. Its clearly an attempt to draw your attention away from what we see illustrated here:

The cultural products of Southern California. The Hollywood hill, with two stars above it, one representing television, and the other representing movies, and right next to those stars, a cross representing the church.

This logo does not present Christianity's historical influence on the development of California. It presents Christianity as a cultural product of Los Angeles, and places it next to television and the movie industry in importance. It presents the Christian church as an establishment of California industry.

Is this legal? Is this establishment? We're saying the Christianity is an important part of what we do here. Thats an observation of fact. Is it illegal to make that observation? If not, they why try so hard to divert attention for the obvious meaning of this symbol? Need they be fair in making such observations? Why doesn't the music industry get a star? What about the Goddess Pomona? What is the intent there?

I'm not sure. I'm not sure if this is legal or not. Both sides seem to be playing a little fast and loose here. What I am sure of is that this seal is not the greatest threat to my civil liberties today. I'm also fairly sure that all this fuss is doing more harm then good.

Seal - Los Angeles County