A compendium of random thoughts regarding politics, society, feminism, sex, law, and anything else on my mind. POST YOUR COMMENTS BY CLICKING ON THE TIME INDICATOR BELOW THE POST YOU WISH TO COMMENT ON. RSS FEED AVAILABLE AT http://feeds.feedburner.com/Dilanblogspotcom

RSS FEED
ACLU
Andrew Sullivan
Attorney Shopping Links
Bag and Baggage
Ernie the Attorney
Eve Tushnet
Gail Davis
Gnosis
How Appealing
Legaline
Lehrer NewsHour
National Law Journal
National Review
New Republic
Slate
Spinsanity
Talking Points Memo
TAPPED
Virginia Postrel
Volokh Conspiracy
War Liberal

 
THE ISSUE OF "INTENT OF THE VOTER" VS. "FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS" (AND WHY IT'S MORE COMPLICATED THAN THE SIMPLISTIC, PARTISAN ARGUMENTS OF 2000 MADE IT SEEM):
Down in San Diego, 120 miles south of where I am, it seems they are having a food fight a la Bush v. Gore to determine who the new Mayor will be. The incumbent, Dick Murphy, was forced into a three way race when surf-shop owner Donna Frye commenced a write-in campaign. (San Diego is one of the few cities in America-- all of which are concentrated in Hawaii and California-- where owning a surf shop is considered serious training for a politician.) The election resulted in a near tie, with Murphy carrying the city by several hundred votes.

However, the new optical-scan ballots used in San Diego clearly instructed voters to darken an oval next to the write-in line in order to cast a write-in vote. This was necessary so that the vote-counting machine would indicate that the ballot contained a write-in vote. Apparently, a state law requires that the oval be darkened for the ballots to count. The media inspected the ballots, and it turns out that if the undarkened oval/write-ins for Frye are counted she wins the election rather than Murphy.

You may remember similar issues in the Bush v. Gore Florida food fight in 2000. Ballot instructions in Florida-- as they did just about everywhere else where punchcard ballots were used-- stated that voters needed to remove the chips (the famous "chad") from the back of the ballot card before dropping it in the box. Nonetheless, ballots of voters who did not follow these instructions were nonetheless counted in some counties (and not in other counties, creating the alleged equal protection violation that was at the heart of the Supreme Court case that eventually stopped the recount). "Hanging chads" that were partially detached from the ballot, and "dimpled" and "pregnant" chads that were completely attached but appeared to have been contacted by the voting stylus, were counted by some counties.

There was, however, one big distinction between Florida 2000 and San Diego 2004. In the Florida recount, the governing law required that elections officials attempt to determine the intent of the voter. Under that standard, voters who disregard instructions can still have their votes counted.

San Diego thus presents the cleaner question-- under California law, the voter must follow the instruction and darken the oval. That instruction is clearly printed on the ballot, which the voter is supposed to read before voting. And the instruction has a legitimate basis, because it allows the City to save money and time and to obtain a more accurate and honest count by using machines to count the ballots rather than counting them by hand.

Nonetheless, we have absolutely no doubt that everyone who did not darken the oval but did write in Donna Frye's name intended to vote for Frye. So we have a clear conflict between the "follow the directions" standard and the "intent of the voter" standard.

I know this opinion goes against what is thought to be the "liberal" position on these issues, but I am in the "follow the directions" crowd. Not that I take any glee or pleasure in disallowing the votes of people who clearly manifested an intent to vote for a particular candidate. But an intent to vote is different than a vote. If you forget what day is election day, or accidentally leave the polling place with your ballot and do not discover the error until after the polls close, you may have intended to vote for someone, but you have not cast a countable vote.

And the fact of the matter is, Americans are way, way too cavalier about not reading instructions. We throw away instructions to appliances without reading them. We don't read the owner's manual when we buy a new car. We sign all sorts of contracts without reading the large print, much less the small print. And in all these circumstances, we can suffer harm, physical or financial, and yet we still do it-- though we sometimes ask the court system to save us from ourselves afterward.

So why, exactly, should we be solicitous with voters who don't read ballot instructions? We print the things in many different languages-- as well we should-- to ensure voters understand them. Yes, I know, the franchise is too important to compromise based on technical rules, but by the same token, the franchise is also too important to casually exercise without even bothering to read the directions. And remember, even under the liberal Florida standard, many votes weren't counted in 2000 (a fact liberals are painfully aware of)-- so it's not like applying liberal counting standards will ensure that everyone's intended vote gets counted. To the contrary, such standards may very well give voters a false sense of security.

If you want to make sure every vote counts, let's have educated poll workers who offer real assistance to voters as to how to ensure their ballots are properly marked. Let's have voter education projects and television and radio and print and billboard ads to remind voters to read the instructions and to vote carefully. Let's encourage political parties to let their members know how to fill out their ballots. And by all means, let's have the easiest-to-understand ballots we can possibly design-- the "butterfly ballot" was a true outrage. (In fact, all these things should be happening even if the counting standard is liberal, because as noted above, even where such standards prevail, it is still possible to have one's intended vote not be counted.)

But in the end, exercising the franchise requires real responsibility. Indeed, in a society that asks far less of its citizens than it once did, this is one of the few responsibilities of citizenship. It may seem like a pointless and silly exercise to require San Diegans to fill in that oval, but doing so would remind citizens of how important it is to take a few minutes to read the instructions before doing something important. Maybe it's a lesson that could carry over to other areas of life as well.

posted by Dilan at 4:48 PM

 
THE WAR AGAINST DONOHUE CATCHES ON:
Josh Marshall has now jumped in, calling Donohue "an extremist and a gamer". That works for me.

posted by Dilan at 11:50 AM

 
WILLIAM DONOHUE, CTD.:
Slate's Dana Stevens agrees with me: "William Donohue, the Catholic League president who was quoted last week as saying that 'Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular.' Donohue, who should have been persona non grata on the talk-show circuit after that disgraceful outburst, was back on Hardball last night, cross-talking with a rabbi and an atheist about something or other—I couldn't bring myself to watch."

I couldn't have said it better myself. Take this guy down.

posted by Dilan at 9:10 PM

 
3 OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE COMING DEBATE ON SOCIAL SECURITY:
1. Despite what Republicans say, it's impossible to avoid the transition costs caused by the switch to a system of personal accounts. The fact of the matter is that the money to be collected in the next 20 years in payroll taxes is committed to pay the benefits of retirees during that period. That is how the system works. Divert those payroll taxes, or some part of them, to private accounts and you create a shortfall that you have to make up with other governmental revenues.

There's a Republican talking point out there that disputes this, that says that there is no transition cost, but simply the "moving forward" of liabilities from the future into the present. Frankly, I do not understand this argument. Right now, current payroll taxes pay for current retirees. Future payroll taxes (and perhaps some general revenues to pay for shortfalls) will pay for future retirees. If you divert the payroll taxes, you now need another revenue source to pay for those future retirees. Either a spending cut or a tax increase will be needed to do it.

2. Personal accounts won't solve the Social Security crisis, if there is one. There is a big debate as to whether Social Security needs "fixing". However one wants to characterize it, the problem is that the class of retirees figures to increase in size (i.e., the baby boomers) while the class of workers figures to stay stagnant or decrease. Thus, there will be a smaller pool of payroll taxes to pay for a larger pool of retirees.

Everyone agrees that, in broad contours, that's the issue. So what the Republicans propose to do is dip into the pool of future payroll taxes that is supposed to pay for baby boomers' retirement, and use that money to pay for something else (essentially 401(k)'s for current workers). That, quite obviously, won't solve the problem; it will make it worse. The funny thing is that people don't see this. If Republicans proposed to take that money and use it to pay for a tax cut, or a war, or an elementary education program, everyone would understand that they were raiding Social Security. But because they are using it to pay for a program for a different set of future retirees, they are somehow able to pitch that diversion as "saving" Social Security.

Simply put, if there's a future shortfall of revenues, what the program needs is a larger revenue pool (such as a tax increase) or smaller payouts (i.e., benefit cuts, or means-testing, or raising the retirement age), or some combination of both.

Of course, the Republicans are the same party that thinks that it can balance the budget through huge tax cuts and spending increases, so I guess they are being consistent.

3. The problem with personal accounts is that they miss the point of Social Security. The purpose of the program is not the same as a private savings account. Social Security was conceived during the Depression-- when many people had lost a ton of money in the stock market (duh!). The purpose was to guarantee the elderly some minimal income, as a form of social insurance, to keep seniors out of poverty even if their savings was decimated, even if they lost their money in the stock market, even if life dealt them a bad hand. Social Security is not an investment program, but a form of social insurance. It also recognizes that poverty among the elderly can become a tremendous burden on relatives, friends, and society. To put it very cynically, we all have a strong interest in ensuring that senior citizens are not relying so much on the rest of us. Social Security also has a mild and proper redistributive function that rewards people for a lifetime of work, even in low paying jobs. Personal accounts can't accomplish that.

Bottom line-- personal accounts are a VERY bad idea.

posted by Dilan at 8:38 PM

 
I'M DREAMING OF A RIGHT CHRISTMAS:
The latest claim of persecution by the right wing is that Christmas is supposedly out of fashion. Evil secularists are devaluing the importance of the Lord and Savior by saying "Season's Greetings" and "Happy Holidays", the Salvation Army has been booted from in front of Target stores, and kids can't sing carols in school. The right wing media talks about this every day on every talk show, and Fox News features a discussion of it on every program, which indicates that Republican central handed this down as the party line. Obviously, tarring liberals as anti-Christmas would be the ultimate political masterstroke.

But even granting the right wing's premise (which the mainstream media has quite skeptically examined and found to be almost total BS) that Christmas is under attack, has anyone asked these guys about Santa Claus? If there's any single figure that has done more to destroy the "real" (i.e., religious) meaning of Christmas, it's the fat guy in the red suit. As is well known, Santa has nothing to do with the birth of Christ, the Virgin Mary, the manger, the three wise men, or any of the rest of it. Santa was created in the last 500 years, not 2000 years ago.

And Santa-- not liberals spouting inclusive messages of "Happy Holidays"-- is the main and central threat to the religious message of Christmas. Every child thinks of Santa coming down the chimney and bringing presents, every advertiser features red suits and hats in its Christmas ads, and every shopping mall has a Santa Claus. (How many malls have nativity scenes?) I'd say the average American sees 10 images of Santa or Santa iconography for every one image of Christ or Christian iconography this season.

Yes, Santa stands for good values-- gift giving, living a virtuous life, etc.-- as well as a few bad ones, like gluttony and residential burglary. But the point is, the Jolly Old Elf enjoys a stronger association with this holiday than the person whose birth is being celbrated.

In contrast, people who say "Happy Holidays" are being inclusive. They are saying, in shorthand, "Merry Christmas, Happy Channukah, Happy Kwanzaa, Happy Ramadan, and everything else". They aren't excluding Christians, they are including everyone else. (The spokespeople of the religious right pretend there's no difference between the two, but I hope they repent for the sin of dishonesty after they say such things.)

So I'm waiting for the right wing to turn its fire on the real reason people don't celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday-- Santa Claus. I am not holding my breath, however. The reason the right wing has chosen to go after schools that don't sing Christmas carols is because they are easy targets-- a form of over-the-top secularism. Santa Claus, on the other hand, is extremely popular. But if this issue were about principle and not politics, they would go after Santa, because Santa's vision of a secular Christmas-- with reindeer and stockings and presents under the tree-- is what is really standing in the way of a solemn, pious observence of the birth of Jesus.

posted by Dilan at 1:14 AM

 
TAKE DOWN WILLIAM DONOHUE:
If Hillary Clinton was right and there really is a vast right-wing conspiracy, William Donohue, who leads an outfit called the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, is a charter member. Donohue, whose organization purports to be a grass-roots association of Catholics, performs several useful functions for the right wing: (1) he articulates the fallacious argument that prohibiting the government from endorsing religion is the same thing as discriminating against Christians; (2) he is good at getting on television and getting his name in the papers, ensuring that the "spokesperson" for Catholics on many issues is a person with a very right wing perspective on Catholicism (i.e., Mel Gibson is a saint, abortion and gay rights are evil, the death penalty, war, and poverty are issues on which the Church has no definitive teachings and thus Catholics have every right and obligation to disregard everything the Pope says about them, and sex abuse by priests is either completely legally protected activity shielded by the First Amendment right of free exercise of religion or all the fault of homosexuals in the priesthood); (3) by complaining of anti-Catholic and anti-Christian bias all the time, usually with respect to rather unimportant things like art exhibits, he reinforces the feeling that many Americans have that Christians, rather than being a privileged majority, are put upon and face massive discrimination; (4) he promotes "The Passion of the Christ", a film almost designed to make liberals who object to its content look like anti-religious heathen; and (5) he keeps the media focused on issues of "decency" and "moral values", which plays to the Republicans' benefit because they are seen as the party more likely to restrict sexual expression in the media.

In other words, this guy is a hack-- obviously on assignment from GOP central-- and the media, which either has no appreciation of the difference between a hack and a serious conservative thinker, or, in the case of Fox News and right-wing outlets, actually works hard to blur that distinction, take him seriously as a spokesman for millions of American Catholics instead of taking him for what he is.

Here's the thing, though. Donohue, in defending "The Passion of the Christ" and in engaging in another current right-wing pet project, defending Christmas (I'll post something on this subject shortly), said some blatantly anti-Semitic things. Specifically, on cable television recently, he repeated the old canard that "the Jews control Hollywood", even singling out Harvey Weinstein when it was pointed out to him by another guest that there were all sorts of non-Jews who were major players in Hollywood. That would be bad enough, but Donohue managed to put his foot further into his mouth by remarking that the reason he thought "The Passion of the Christ" would not win Academy Awards was because Hollywood Jews didn't like the movie because these Hollywood Jews, according to Donohue, hate Christians and further because the movie is about Jesus Christ and is "about truth".

Now Donohue has gotten a fair amount of bad press for his statements. My local paper, the LA Times, has written about it (though the article is in the paid section of their website so I can't link to it), and this excellent Frank Rich column ran in the New York Times about the statements. Still, these comments aren't getting the buzz I think they should. I think this is a nice opportunity for my side to take Donohue down. He has, after all, clearly made anti-Semitic comments, but there's more to it than that. Taking him down would take down a guy who does very important grunt work for the right, as noted above. If Donohue becomes known as an anti-Semite or at least someone who has those leanings, the way Pat Buchanan is viewed, he may still get on cable television but never as the purported spokesman of all Catholics. The media would have to find someone else, and maybe that someone else won't be as much of a fascist hack as Donohue is.

But most importantly, making an issue of Donohue's statements will help to remind American Jews of something that they need to hear after over a decade of being courted by the religious right and the Republican Party in general. These people aren't your friends. At best, the religious right supports Israel because it wants to bring on the second coming of Jesus, which they believe will result in either the conversion or the death of all Jews. Hardly an agenda that Jews would want to sign on to. Further, conservatives may agree with some of the more conservative sects of Judaism on some cultural issues like gay marriage, and conservatives are willing to moderate their pitch to increase governmental endorsement of religion by invoking "God" rather than "Jesus" in public ceremonies, in order to be inclusive of Jews. But it wasn't that long ago that everyone understood the religious right and conservativism in general as having substantial anti-Semitic elements. Calling attention to Dononhue's statements should be a way for liberals to remind Jews that the Republicans have never purged these elements from their party and don't plan to, because they represent very important constituencies. In the same way, making an issue of Donohue will remind more moderate and mainline religious voters, and more tolerant evangelicals, that the Republicans still tolerate this stuff and that for significant segments of the Republican party, there is a very specific religious agenda that goes well beyond generic invocations of God at public functions.

I see this as a no-lose scenario for Democrats. So let's get on the horn and get this done!

posted by Dilan at 11:35 PM

 
GOD SAVE THE QUEEN:
I recently had occasion to rent the DVD for the Freddie Mercury Tribute Concert. If you don't know what this, this was a huge concert held at Wembley Stadium in London in 1992 in honor of Freddie Mercury, the golden-voiced lead singer of Queen. It was a charity benefit with the proceeds going to HIV research (Mercury, a flamboyant bisexual, died of AIDS). But this particular charity concert, in my mind, soars above any other such concert-- anyone who plans to get the DVD of the 1985 Live Aid concerts that is coming out should check out the Mercury Tribute as well.

The reason the Mercury Tribute worked so well is that it managed to both encapsule what was so great about Mercury while also being a great rock concert. As I said, Mercury was a flamboyant, outsized personality who also had a huge range. Queen's records ranged from quasi-opera ("Bohemian Rapsody") to R&B ("Another One Bites the Dust") to gospel ("Somebody to Love") to hard rock ("Hammer to Fall") to rock anthem ("We Are the Champions"). Other than Freddie Mercury, there was simply nobody who could sing all that stuff. So, the surviving members of Queen decided to invite many of the best rock and pop singers in the world to sing various songs in place of Mercury. This was a wonderful tribute to Mercury, because it stressed how unique his talent was, compared him favorably to some of the best in his profession, and made the show larger than life, just as Mercury was.

But the show also worked as rock and roll, because many of the choices were inspired. Axl Rose singing "We Will Rock You". Gary Cherone, later to join Van Halen, sang "Hammer to Fall" brilliantly. Brit-popper Lisa Stansfield sang "I want to Break Free". Elton John did "The Show Must Go On". Roger Daltrey made "I Want It All" sound like a Who song. And the show closed with Liza Minelli, of all people-- who was one of Mercury's personal favorites. She sang "We Are the Champions" like she meant it.

But there are two highlights to the concert that, in my mind, rank with any concert footage in modern pop music history. The first was "Under Pressure". This was a collaberation between Queen and David Bowie that was recorded for Queen's Greatest Hits set in 1981. Bowie obviously had to be there, but who would he sing it with? They chose Annie Lennox, who wore an outrageous Annie Lennox costume and black eye makeup, and who has a wonderful piercing voice that was perfect for the song. As the song neared its climax, with the two singers singing together about how the pressures of the world could be mitigated if we gave love a chance, Lennox clung closer and closer to Bowie, digging her fingers into the back of his neck. It was a tremendous, emotional performance.

The best performance of them all is one that George Michael is justifiably proud of. "Somebody to Love" is probably one of the most difficult songs in rock and roll to sing. (Try it some time if you don't believe me.) It goes way up and way down, but at the same time, the lyrics have to be delivered fast and conversationally, not operatically. That means the singer needs both range and breath control. Mercury, of course, had both. So does Michael, though he has often wasted his beautiful voice on the most insubstantial of pop songs in his own recordings.

But at the Mercury Tribute, Michael showed us all what he can do with a good song. It sort of came out of nowhere, because he came out to sing three songs, the first two of which were second-tier Queen songs. But when he launched into "Somebody to Love", he sang his ass off. He hit every note, loud and clear, and he sang the song with a great deal of passion. He got the crowd involved; they clapped along in unison and eventually sang the last notes in the song for Michael. And at the end, he let out a Howard Dean-like "Yeah!"-- he was really having a good time. Queen guitarist Brian May cheered him at the end of the song. Michael liked the performance so much he put it on his Greatest Hits album.

If you get the chance, check out the DVD of the Mercury Tribute. Freddie Mercury was unique, and the surviving members of the band created a fitting, unique tribute to him.

posted by Dilan at 6:25 PM

 
CAL HAS NO RIGHT TO GO TO THE ROSE BOWL:
Hey, I hate the Bowl Championship Series as much as anyone. (You'll have to scroll down to the item on the BCS.) But this idea that California is getting screwed because they aren't going to the Rose Bowl is silly. California did not earn a trip to the Rose Bowl this year. Yes, they had a great season, a couple of mistakes and hard-luck plays away from beating USC and going undefeated. But the only Pac-10 team that earns a Rose Bowl trip is the team that wins the conference. And USC won the conference. In the old pre-BCS days, California would have gone to a second-tier bowl-- or maybe, if they were lucky, to a top bowl like the Orange or Cotton Bowl. (It should be noted that a second Pac-10 team went to a major bowl something like once every 30 years.) The BCS creates the possibility that a second place team goes to the Rose Bowl when the first place team goes to the BCS championship game-- but it doesn't guarantee it.

When postseason rewards are keyed to conference championships, teams do get penalized for finishing second in tough conferences. But that doesn't mean that the system is unfair. In the days when only the conference champion went to the NCAA basketball tournament, USC once went 24-2 and was shut out of the tournament-- because its two losses were to conference (and eventual national) champion UCLA. But that system also had its advantages-- USC knew when the season began exactly what it had to do to make the tournament, and wasn't able to do it. In contrast, under the current system, every year the selection committee is criticized for its subjective judgments as to who to let in and who to leave out.

I can't wait for the day that we scrap the BCS and go to a playoff. As long as we have this stupid system, however, everyone knows the rules. If you win a BCS conference, you are guaranteed a BCS bowl slot. Otherwise, you aren't. California didn't win the Pac-10, and therefore can't complain. End of story.

posted by Dilan at 1:23 PM