The Majority is Not Always Right

From the Guardian, a U.K. paper.

The above article reports that Oklahoma, in an effort to change (or establish?) their state fruit and vegetable, has passed a rather interesting bill. It declares the official fruit to be the strawberry, and the official vegetable to be the watermelon.

This bill has attracted some attention from the "minutiae police", who wander around the internet searching for stories where people decide to call fruits "vegetables" and vice versa. They're arguing that watermelons have seeds, therefore fruit, or that all fruits are vegetables, so no problem.

Then there are the governmental watchdogs, who complain that tax dollars shouldn't be spent over this, or that there are more important things to worry about, or that this makes the terrorists win, or whatever.

But the real story here (and the most worrying aspect for me) is that the legislature decided something that was ALREADY decided. Already decided the other way, even. As the Guardian article points out, the rest of the world acknowledges the watermelon as a fruit. A good definition of a fruit is an edible casing a plant produces for its seeds, which draws a fairly clear line between fruits and vegetables.

So the esteemed legislative apparatus of Oklahoma made an unfounded decision to benefit itself. Specifically, the lawmaker who sponsored the bill lives in a large melon-producing area. And this is what I worry about. I worry about the spreading idea that just because we "say" something, it somehow makes it true.

Granted, this vegetable/fruit thing is a harmless decision. But lets look at Terri Schiavo. She's been dead over two years now, but I bet you still remember the name. I know someone at my local library does: they have a bumper sticker saying "Terri was Murdered!". Mrs. Schiavo was mentally incapacitated; her husband wanted her feeding tube removed; her family objected. The federal government eventually got involved, believing that she was not in a vegetative state, despite most medical evidence to the contrary, including the opinion of Florida's own independent medical council (who was appointed to the case when Florida thought she wasn't in a vegetative state, either).

This all came to a climax with the "Act for the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo" (also called the "Palm Sunday Compromise"), a law passed by the United States Congress. Because it is worded towards her parents, not Terri herself, it allowed the Federal court to consider possible constitutional right infringements without considering any of the preceding 10 years of established precedence in state proceedings (which relate to court decisions concerning Terri herself. Isn't that a nice shortcut?). Effectively, the U.S. Government is saying "We think she's got hope of recovery, and that we know better than her legal guardian, in spite of all this bothersome medical and legal evidence to the contrary." The law passed at 12:41 am, and the president returned from vacation early to sign the bill at 1:11 am.

Don't get me wrong. Michael Schiavo was right to press his presentation of his wife's wishes. Her family was right to oppose him with as much strength as they can muster. After all, we are talking about the planned death of someone who was (at the time) alive. That is such a weighty matter that it must be considered exhaustively. But it's between them: the husband and the family. The Federal government has no need to get involved, certainly not to the extent of making a law that applies to only one person, for one brief moment. The government essentially decided "we don't believe your accumulated reasons and "drawn-over-years" conclusions, so we say you can't do this."

Similarly, saying "we don't care that everyone thinks the watermelon is a fruit; it's now a vegetable, by law," is an unsettling decision and process. I'm just not comfortable with the logic.