the ladybug and the lion

Ask Who?

I've now submitted two questions to the "Ask Hillary" website.  One, which I submitted a few weeks ago before Bill started making his questionable comments, is regarding what she learned from her husband's presidency and how she was going to separate herself from him; and the second is about the Clinton library and how she is planning to defend herself if nominated and once Republicans get their hands on all the material there.  The library situation is detailed in Frank Rich's latest column if you care to read it.  I was genuinely hoping I was going to get a response to the first question (she responds via YouTube videos), but given recent events I can see why I didn't.  To the second question, I'm sure I won't get a response.  But at least I can say I tried.

One Person, One Quarter Vote?

Burdett Loomis, professor of political science at the University of Kansas, spoke today on NPR's All Things Considered about the role of delegates in presidential candidate selection process.  Apparently, according to Loomis, about 20 percent of the delegates going to the Democratic Convention are "Super Delegates" (although it's more like 40 percent according to MSNBC).  These "Super Delegates" aren't tied even loosely to any vote participated in by party members or otherwise, but instead get to make up their own minds.  (In other words, your vote in whichever primary election or caucus you participate in doesn't affect who these super delegates end up supporting, so your vote, at best, is really four fifths as powerful as you thought.)  It really makes one wonder what the point is in voting.  Especially when, according to MSNBC, one of these "Super Delegates" is Bill Clinton.  And we all know who he's going to vote for. 

I understand that political parties are private organizations, but this is just bordering on ridiculous.  Beyond that, with the way the Democratic Party assigns delegates at caucuses Obama managed to come away 13 delegates out of Nevada while Clinton only got 12 even though she won the majority of votes.  This isn't the general election, I realize that, but can't we at least pretend to honor the one person, one vote ideal? 

Considering how this system works, it's no wonder voter turnout is so low.  Even I, after learning of this, am wondering whether voting is really worth the effort.  And I coordinated the UCLA section of a voter registration and get-out-the-vote campaign while a college sophomore.  I get seriously mad at people when they don't vote, especially when they seem to care about some issue.  My argument always was: If you get out there in big enough numbers politicians will start listening; just look at what's happening with evangelical Christians.  But the actuality of that statement is a lot further from the truth than it should be, and that's just sad. 

Although as sad as it may be, and as mad as it makes me, the only way any political party is going to listen to me is if I vote.  But that's the paradox of politics; Boycotting just isn't an option.

Whoah.

This presidential campaign is becoming really cutthroat, and not just between the candidates themselves.  Just check out the comments following this post on the LA Time's Top of the Ticket.  Yes, all the candidates have shading dealings in their pasts, but we all knew that right?  These are politicians. 

But maybe that's exactly it.  Maybe people were so excited to finally have a candidate (Obama) to rally behind that appeared to have a stronger moral compass than his opponents.  Unfortunately, that's exactly where experience comes into play: Obama hasn't been under a strong enough spotlight to uncover all of his moral ambiguities.  Let's just hope there aren't even more to come.

Quote Of The Day.

"With all the talk about how to stimulate it, you'd think that the economy is a giant clitoris."
-Barbara Ehrenreich

If that opening sentence doesn't make you want to read the rest of her blog post on HuffPo about what's wrong with our so called stimulus plans, I don't know what will.

The Economics of Prostitution

This is an interesting paper on the economics of prostitution.  I especially like the footnote on the title page (duly noted), but it's a good read nonetheless.  One find?  "That prostitutes earn about twice the weekly wage of a typical non-manual female worker and three times that of manual workers."  Anybody in need of a career change?

Although, on a more serious note: "While the wage of a prostitute is four times greater than the non-prostitution earnings these women report (approximately $7 per hour), there are tremendous risks associated with life as a prostitute.  According to our estimates, a woman working as a prostitute would expect an annual average of a dozen incidents of violence and 300 instances of unprotected sex."   

(via Marginal Revolution)

Caucus, Fraucus.

I have one word for the Democratic Party caucuses: Stupid.  For those who don't know how the system works, the few states that still hold caucuses (as opposed to primaries, which are just standard elections) have precincts.  All the Democrats and Republicans that care enough in one precinct get together on the specified day at the specified location for their respective caucus (Those that can't make it because they, say, work aren't allowed to have any say in the process.).  Caucuses are usually held every two years, but the only ones that get any media attention are those involved in selecting a presidential candidate.  In a GOP presidential caucus they usually debate the candidates and then have a blind vote (more specifically, everybody writes the name of the person they're voting for on a piece of paper), meaning nobody knows who voted for who.  Considering how much people are affected by group dynamics this system makes sense when voting for anything important, but somehow the Democrats missed that. 

In a Democratic Party caucus people stand in the section of the room that is designated for people that support a specific candidate.  As in people who support Obama stand in one corner, those for Hillary in another etc.  There's also sometimes a place for people that are undecided.  Then they have two choices:  Either they have a respectful and informative session where they walk around and try convince each to come to their side, and more importantly the people who have yet to decide can walk around and ask questions, or they start yelling at each other.  From what I've heard these gatherings usually resort to the latter.  Consequently, the entire process turns into a grown up version of red rover where the winner is decided by a head count. 

I can only imagine the one or two people standing in the corner marked Edwards, looking shifty eyed and wondering if they made the right decision before finally deciding to join a bigger camp.  We can't blame people for being affected by social situations, it happens to the best of us.  What we can do, however, is to try and minimize the impact that affectation has by providing people with anonymity.  The GOP seems to have got it.  The Democrats?  Stupid.

Oh, Money, Money.

Here are Hillary Clinton's campaign contributions organized by employer, and here are Obama's.  I wanted to post them because campaign finance doesn't receive enough publicity considering the amount of election coverage.  And when Obama starts implying that he's more honest than other candidates because he admits that his desk is messy (when a more appropriate fault would be "I accept too much money from Wall Street") I start realizing how easily one can get fooled into trusting any front runner for the presidential candidacy.  But the nature of politics is hypocritical, I should know that by now.  And I do.  But the fact that candidates aren't pointing out how people responsible for our possible recession are walking away with pockets full of cash (because if they do Wall Street will close up its wallets) enrages me.  And rightfully so.  Note how much money Merrill Lynch and Goldman Sachs each contributed to both Clinton and Obama.  Remember that these are the numbers for one quarter and do not include any soft money contributions, anything that slipped by in the "no employer supplied" section, or extra perks delivered behind the scenes.  Dollar amounts from past quarters can also be viewed at the Federal Election Commission's website.  If only the FEC had a podcast.

Commenting on Commentators.

Diana Nyad of The Score did a great four minutes today on KCRW.  She commented on the accountability of commentators in response to an email she had received from a listener, and concluded that stating her opinion -- that Roger Clemens has probably taken steroids -- on public radio was fair even though he had not yet undergone due process.  I've been bothered by this issue before, most notably during high profile rape cases where people tend to develop strong opinions with no factual basis.  Can you really state your opinion (call someone a rapist) in a public forum without feeling a little guilty that you're perpetuating gossip about a person that hasn't been fairly tried?  Rape, as I'm sure many will argue, is a special case because of its low prosecution rates and the need to show public solidarity with a survivor.  But rape is still not a light accusation to make.  Nyad's argument in defense of her decision highlights the thin line between gossip and solid opinion and I think it applies even in rape cases where often the only evidence is one person's word against another's.

Regarding Hillary Hatred, A Short Rant.

While in Italy I had the "pleasure" of listening to a certain someone rant about their extreme dislike of Hillary.  Not being in a position where I thought it appropriate to respond strongly I mainly sat and listened.  After all she might have had something valid to say and I've had an unfair exposure to the opposing view.  My parents are huge Clinton fans (previous and current) and from what I can gather most  H haters are of the older generation which, by the nature of social circles, I don't tend to mingle with.  And while I've met other haters this one seemed a little more knowledgeable than the rest.  She'd held a public office at a point in her life, was a regular voter, and had rational views on other subjects.  But even with her apparent interest in and knowledge of politics, nothing she said about Hillary provided justice for her hatred.  And when asked, she simply directed me to watch or read Primary Colors which, she said, was written by a journalist who had studied the Clinton campaign.  True, but it's fiction. 

A Roman Holiday.

Just a picture of my favorite pit stop from my recent Italy travels: Capri, an island just by the Gulf of Naples.  We only went because of Jean-Luc Godard's Contempt, which is one of those movies that I didn't enjoy when I first saw but can't stop thinking about.  The latter half is set on Capri, and it really is worth seeing if only to spend a couple hours looking at Brigitte Bardot.  As for Capri, well, it's definitely worth a visit.