More Outrageous Hillary Arguments:

Hillary argues that ALL the delegates from Michigan should go to her BECAUSE Obama wasn't on the ballot there.

from the AP:

"The sticking point was Michigan, where Obama's name was not on the ballot.

Clinton's camp insisted Obama shouldn't get any pledged delegates in Michigan since he chose not to put his name on the ballot, and she should get 73 pledged delegates with 55 uncommitted. Obama's team insisted the only fair solution was to split the pledged delegates in half between the two campaigns, with 64 each."

thats so fair! lets nominate this woman to the Supreme Court!

nice to live in a democracy eh?

I blogged about what I thought were some bad arguments Hillary supporters making before:

But how about this argument: The Obama camp is so intent on stressing the rules of the DNC, particularly the ones that currently disallow Florida and Michigan from counting becuase of their too early primaries, and even more particularly, if that could make a difference to superdelegates-many of whom simply vote for the one they think will win. See e.g. Obama's compromise position of allowing the states in but mandating they split half and half as a symbolic gesture.

So why not be even more strict with the rules?

Namely, why not invoke the (basically true) argument that most states do not require their pledged delegates to vote for whom they pledged for nor does the DNC require them to do so. technically, it seems, all delegates seated may vote for whomever they want-regardless of who won the votes in the primary that put them there! Indeed, if this is the case-Obama does not really have much of a lead-since nearly all the pledged delegates could vote for whomever they wanted to. Hillary has been stressing that pledged delegates were up for grabs since at least March. True this would use the rules to the point of making the entire primary election process irrelevant but after all-wouldn't that be the rules that all parties agreed too?

Indeed, if I didn't know better, I would say that arguing the Florida and Michigan votes should count-(in order for people to stress the rules) and then invoking this argument about the technical rules of pledged delegates would be a brilliant strategy. All the Clinton campaign need do is to agree the rules be followed (which would look like a generous concession at this point)-then go after his pledged delegates! Sneeky.

Both of these bad Hillary arguments are linked by the same theme and the same flaw.

The theme is that they both point to is that in any dispute, the party whom the rules help (assuming the rules are clear) will stress the importance of the rules, and the party that the rules hurt will stress that rules were only created to create fairness, and that rules must be set aside when they are unfair under the circumstances. The flaw is that both arguments ignore those circumstances.

The one arguing for Florida and Michigan to count argues the rules must be set aside so "the voices of those states can be heard. In the previous post I mentioned that this argument overlooks that its not just the rules that would be offended by the

The one trying this new argument, then points out how even if the rules are so important, and that the Obama campaign, who would invoke the rules with regard to Florida and Michigan, would of course be loath to invoke the rules allowing every delegate to vote for whomever they want.

The problem with the first argument, that Florida and Michigan should be counted against the rules, is that it ignores the facts that counting Florida and Michigan is unfair becuase of the ways those elections were conducted. Counting the delegates there gives an advantage to Clinton candidate who did not to campaign in Florida or have his name on the ballot in Michigan. Clinton agrues that this was his choice-but in fact-it was the rules that made it not his choice. It isn't the rules themselves that make it so unfair to count Florida and Michigan-its the facts those rules created.

Similar is the problem with pledged delegates. Insisting on archaic rules allowing delegats to vote for whomever they want to and disregard the entire primary process does indeed invoke the rules. But it ignores the facts-the facts that that disenfranchising not just tow states-but the entire voting population. The fact that both candidates campaigned in reliance on the fact that those pledged meant something.

The party has made huge mistakes with its rules. Obviously the rules should force whomever the pledged delegate has pledged for to vote for that person. Obviously the rules should not have been used as a penalty against Florida and Michigan's voters-who had no real hand in the date the primary was set. (there are plenty of other ways of controlling the ever incrementally earlier primary disease-like having all states-including the spoiled New Hampshire and Iowa- simply agree to have all the primaries the same day so as no state would gt more or less attention). But the key when rules are bad is to look to the facts to provide...and the facts seem to support Obama. (note to DNC-the other key when rules are bad is to correct them for next time)

Hillary may still try to offer as a fact that she has won the popular vote-but that's still in dispute (due to the question of counting Florida and Michigan and the impossibility of counting caucus goers).

I will be the first one to admit that the Hillary campaign does seem to have some strong ways of confusing that issue ("do you want to follow the rules or don't you? hmmm?")-and if she has enough clout among party elites-it seems like she could still win this thing-even if she pisses off everyone else in the process. Indeed, if she is somehow able to establish that she won the 'popular vote' it would seem then we are in a real pickle-with rules allowing pledged delegates to choose whomever the want-and facts which support both candidates' claims to the nomination.

By the way-to those republicans thinking only the DNC could be so screwed up-I bet a bundle that the RNC has similar rules about their delegates being able to technically vote however they want. Also I would point out that in the general Electoral college system, nothing stops the electors from not voting according to which candidate selected them. In fact it happened in 2000 and many other times-and it hasn't yet made a difference -but what if it did? It is ironic that this all started with two states wanting to get more political clout and on based on the conventional wisdom, which held at the time that only the early primaries really mattered as candidates would drop out quickly. This attempt to inflate political influence over other states and gaming of the political system has not only hurt those states-it has now has brought attention to the flaws in our entire electoral system.

The ever aggravating DNC

First I heard some people complaining that having superdelegates in the democratic presidential primary at all was pretty silly. But I also heard the answers that superdelagetes are part of the agreed to system, and that there have to be objective leaders in the party

But then we hear of Clinton and Obama's massive campaign contributions to suerdelagets running elsewhere. (Pointed out in the Boston's Globe article just liked to is that giving money to a single voter to vote for a candidate would be ridiculous-but that we seem tolerate it at the level of superdelagtes-which count many many many more times than a single vote) How objective these superdelagtes must be!

And then I hear that Hillary Clinton's position is for the Florida and Michigan delagates to count normally, despite her violation of the rules in both states by campaigning there, and despite Obama not being on the ballot in Michigan and not campaigning in Florida pursuant to the same rules which she broke, and despite prior rulings by the DNC that the delegates there would not count becuase of violations of party rules.

So much for rules. The possibility, however slight, that these delegates could be the deciding factor (or indirectly deciding factor- as counting Florida and Michigan will have an effect on superdelagates) makes a mockery not only of democratic principals-but of fundamental principals of reliance on agreements between parties.

I even hear that it seems like a political possibility given that most democrats, even Obama, do support counting Florida and Michigan in at least some way-yet virtually nobody is thinking of paying for a revote. I also understand that the party has the right to nominate anyone it wants reagraless of any rules-because it has first amendment rights to support whoever they want-so the courts could not fix this unfairness.

All that alone is pretty aggravating to me.

I didn't need then, for Hillary to make the situation look more ridiculous, by today coming out with a statement comparing the need to count these delegates to freeing the southern slaves. No, I'm not joking, click on the link.

So how could it be worse?

How about talk, in the Washington Post, of a future President Obama nominating this same Hillary Clinton to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States? Forget about the fact that she has no judicial experience nor has even showed interest-her statements today virtually prove that she has no concept of fairness.

A while back I predicted that Florida and Michigan would count and Hillary would win by that and Obama would have no remedy-that seems unlikely now.

New prediction: someone finds a loophole in the DNC "rules" which allow even "pledged delegates" to vote however they want according to the 'technical rules" -wouldn't that be just hilarious?

EDIT: oh wait-its already being talked about here... i suppose this is what happens when you have no real rules

via drudge..possible florida/michigan deal

Just as I predicted after seeing the "campaign contributions" of the candidates to the superdelegates (and others predicted along he way):

Clinton is negotiating a possible deal to seat Florida's delagates without a redo..(with a half penalty)

even at half penalty-this gives Clinton an outrageously unfair advantage (as she won Florida by a lot because Obama didn't campaign there pursuant to the rules-and Clinton broke the rules and did campaign there.)

so the deal is..we reward Clinton for cheating in the election??? how can anyone pretend this is a fair system after this kind of deal?

and of course-I can't even imagine Obama has a legal remedy-parties have a right to nominate whoever they want however they want-probably even breaking the preset rules..even if they didn't the courts would probably find it a non justiciable political question.

at least they are just going to divide Michigan evenly-since Obama wasn't even on the ballot in that state

Thoughts on Daylight Savings Time

This article, the subject matter of which I found out about long ago but never wrote about, is an interesting glimpse into the politics of daylight savings time.

The current law that determines the dates for daylight savings time in the US, (the new version of which-which calls for the start of DST for on the first Sunday in March-just had its first effect this weekend) was actually a compromise between the lobbies of the retail industry and the environmental groups on the one hand-who wanted more daylight savings time because it would allow retail shops to use less electricity for the purposes of lighting the shops-and the orthodox jewish and educational lobbies on the other hand (who wanted less daylight savings time).

The retail industry understands that people tend to go shopping in the afternoon after work, as opposed to the morning before work. Thats why shops often don't open till 9-but stay open late. If they stay open late but don't open early-then they would rather have the daylight be during that period-so they don't have to spend as much on lighting. The environmental groups are with them on this-since they want a reduction in electrical use as well.

The reason the orthodox jewish lobby wanted less daylight savings time was that, if the clocks flipped forward too early, sunrise wouldn't occur until nearly 800am some days in some localities-making it impossible to daven before you went to work.

According to Shulchan Arurh and Mishna Berurah you can daven before sunrise in certain extreme situations-but under no circumstances can you daven shacharit before 72 minutes before “dawn”. Whether “dawn” means 72 minutes exactly-or the time it takes the sun to move the same amount the sun moves in 72 minutes in Jerusalem at equinox-is subject to dispute). Its also disputed whether its better to daven before sunrise (but after "dawn"), but with a minyin, or better to go to work, and daven alone right before starting work (so as to daven after sunrise).

For example- in DC this year, sunrise was at 7 am eastern standard time on Feb 15. Had that been the first day of daylight savings, then sunrise would have been at 8am local time. Then, the first time you could have davened shacharit then, even under extreme circumstances, would be 6:48 am (according to the exactly 72 minutes before sunrise opinion.) If you were at minyin, by the time you finished davening and got your Tifillan off, if you have a 1 hr commute-you just might make it to work on time if work starts at 8:30-assuming no accidents or other traffic problems-which are of course guaranteed to happened from time to time.

Of course, with a really early daylight savings time switch, such as a switch in february, there would also be fewer days that had no problems at all- (says when you could daven with a minyin and after sunrise).

Now clearly its true that, had the law called for a daylight savings switch in February, there would be more days when there would be no possibility of davining a) with a minyin, and b) after sunrise and c) still making it to work. Indeed, this is unfortunate for orthodox jews...but were already some days like this even under the older systems,

As for the possibility of days when you cant even daven with a miniyin before the exigent circumstances "dawn" deadline, and still make it to work (which would have happened for the first time had the law called for a switch in February) - it should be noted that its not even clear whether davining before sunrise (but before "dawn") with a minyin (what you wouldnt be able to do some days if the switch occurred in February) is preferable to davining alone, but after sunrise. (i.e. alone in the office right before work starts).

Thus, even under a February switch, it wouldn't be that harmful to orthodox jews.

So for this and other reasons, when I first heard that the orthodox jewish lobby had influenced the law-I felt a little annoyed.

Though it obviously happens often in America regardless of the fairness, why should a small group, that made up an insignificant portion of the vote, have influenced such an important law effecting everyone? Just because its everyone else does it does that mean we should? I am a very big anti earmark spending person- and get annoyed by special interest projects and issues that run contrary to the benefit of the majority-how could I support the orthodox jewish position and not be a hypocrite?

Further, as someone who supports law that both simultaneously helps the economy and lessons dependence on foreign oil, (another very jewish issue) I supported an earlier start to daylight savings period to help save energy.

So its now interesting to see that not all non jewish people regular citizens love the fact that daylight savings time has gotten earlier in the year- see here (which also has an interesting sort of history of DST.)

Of course, to be fair, its not just the orthodox jewish lobby that prevented the DST from starting even earlier in the year then the new first Sunday in march rule.. The educational lobbies are also against an earlier in the year DST, since they were concerned by the fact that children would be waiting for the school bus in darkness if daylight savings was to early. This is of course also a legitimate concern.

executive branch too enticing?

This is a post from the Times UK about a stratgy Obama may try. Namely, he is thinking of offering republicans spots in a prospective Obama administration in order to get republican votes.


Ok so what right?

Well, a few of the people hes thinking of using are currently US senators.

Now, it may be just me, but it seems to me that US senator is probably the most prestigious elected office in the federal government next to US president-the latter being the most powerful job in the world. Thus, it seems to me that he is assuming a person would be willing to leave the Senate, in order to join the Cabinet of a president.

Last time I checked, elected officials were supposed to be more influential and powerful than appointed ones. Yet, this seems to indicate people would rather hold some relatively benign cabinet post (say-secretary of the interior) then be a elected official of the highest caliber in the federal government.

swiss high court allows assisted suicide for mental illness

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/feb/07020206.html

disclaimer:
this is an older article from my old facebook notes and things may have developed since then

mentally ill students and danger to self/others

(this is one of the many old facebook notes i had on m profile prior to staring this blog..so the date of the post is not really connected to the date of the incident or the issue particularly timely..but its an issue i feel strongly about)

i have written about this issue many times before on online forums and such. once after the GW incident (where a student was kicked out of school for simply requesting a voluntary hospital and and eventually settled a lawsuit with the university...see http://www.bazelon.org/newsroom/2006/10-30-06NottSettle.htm)



and again after the VT tragedy..in which a student who had been previously adjudicated by the court as having been a danger to himself or others..was allowed to purchase a handgun and attend classes...these facts are here: http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/21/news/web-gun21.php)


what people sometimes fail to realize about this issue is what a black hole this is...there really are no concrete rules a university has to or can follow... there are just..lawsuits...lawsuits when the university kicks people out..and lawsuits when they don't and something happens.

so my position all along (and in these posts) has been that there should be legislative guidance. If you go to a doctor and he butchers you...you can win a suit if he hasn't acted reasonably according to procedure...you loose if he has..even if he makes you a vegetable.

why shouldn't it be the same for mental health at university? why shouldn't there be concrete guidance by which the universities act. they act one way if the facts are such (maybe hes just depressed) they act another if the facts are another way (he is suicidal)..they act a third way if hes obsessed with guns...if hes stable or on medication that might be a consideration etc..)

unfortunately...thats kinda similar to asking why doesn't congress adsress the coke/crack discrepancy in sentencing.. ***UDPATE..shows how old this note is--before the recent supreme court and sentencing guideline remedial decisions about crack/coke***

the issue is a loose politically..nobody wants to touch it...nobody wants to LOWER drug penalties..even if its to make them fair with other drug penalties...and nobody wants to be responsible for the law that caused a massacre..or a unfortunate premature university dismissal.

its much easier for the state or federal legislatures to debate gay marriage..and let the lawyers and courts litigate the issue to death using laws that only tangentially discuss the issue

i understand there cant be a rulebook to tell you how to move in every situation.

but there can be rules that tell you not to throw the GW guy out simply for just seeking treatment and nothing else.
and there can be rules requiring either counseling or expulsion (if counseling refused) for someone who had a court document saying he was a danger to self or others (like the VT shooter had)

in many cases..even rules that are controversial...and even arbitrary compromises are better than no rules at all.

of course..i realize some people might feel differently...but let me tell you what i do know..anyone who says that the Americans with disability act permits X regarding students with mental problems or prohibits X...is probably stretching the truth..courts are very far from deciding whats what...partly because these cases are settled before trial..or just end at trial..never getting to the appeal stage where case president is set.

update-Bazelon mental health policy center (the same people who represented the GW student above) has put together a responsibly sound model policy for universities..maybe somebody will listen.

zero tolerence to the stupidith degree

Girl tires to get out of fight...bullies keep going...camera shows bullies hit her first....victim suspended along with bullies because of zero tolerance policy.

http://www.wkrn.com/nashville/news/was-student-wrongfully-suspended/133451.htm


this sort of thins happens all the time in many school districts:

http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/legal_features.asp?article_id=71

GAO report and congreesional investigation of one of my pet peeve US human rights issues

this has been going on for over a decade: private residential treatment facilities claiming to use tough love on teens...and charging exorbitant tuition: only to essentially neglect and abuse many of the children sent to the programs. It' has received sporadic media attention..butt its never really caught the eye of the government.

thankfully GAO will produce another fuller report soon (this preliminary one was in oct of 07) and there has already been a congressional investigatory hearing.

DOJ has been asked to do this investigation repeatedly by the congressmen who requested this report..and has turned it down again and again...maybe this will convince them.

very interesting reading..reports and allegations based on testimony at the hearing, civil and criminal cases include deaths from neglect and malnourishment while being forced to do strenuous exercise...to forcing children to eat own vomit and use toothbrushes used to clean toilets for their own mouths.

as the GAO investigator said at the hearing..

if you start reading in the middle of the report..you'd probably think its a human rights investigation of 3rd world countries. but its actually an investigation of what thousands of "rebellious" teens go through every day here in the US.
preliminary report is here. The full report has been late for a while-maybe they are planning something even bigger.

major hub with lots of news and such on related issues at www.caica.org

One of the more startling things about all this (as explained in the reort) is that many states have no regulation of teen residential facilities (no license necessary), and the federal government, rightly to some extent, believes its the states responsibility to regulate, and doesn't regulate either.

The investigation by GAO was done at the request of George Miller (D) California.

"Contributions" by canadates to the campaigns of superdelgates

unsurprising, probably constitutionally protected, but annoying nonetheless,

Obama and Hillary giving "contributions" to the campagns of superdelegates that are running for various offices in the future.

my prediction: Hillary convinces the DNC that Florida and Michigan should count..even though they broke the pledge not to have their campaigns before super Tuesday..and even though Hilary broke the rules and campaigned in Florida and left her name on the ballot in Michigan.

Obama sues but the courts will say they can’t get involved in a political question.
Proving that in politics..Cheaters usually prosper.