With news that Castro is stepping down, it's well to note what his adversaries have achieved in 50 years of opposition. They've made themselves obnoxious to two countries. They've wagged the dog as a lobby, distorting and damaging US foreign policy, squandering our goodwill, resources, and opportunities for trade. They've kept Cuban families apart, brought violence and terror into the exile community, placed a wedge between generations, stifled remittances and stimulated deaths at sea from crossings made illegal by the US refusal to grant visas. They've stymied cultural and professional exchanges, and weakened human rights on both sides: therough the travel ban stateside, and by stimulating and helping justify repression in Cuba. More than anything they've impoverished Cuba by the useless blockade. They even had their role in priming the world for a World War III that nearly commenced during the Missle Crisis.
In exchange for all this loss, they've managed to promote a few bigshots, place Miami's other ethnic groups under a corrupt exile regime, and make Miami an international haven for terrorists, generals and dictators from the whole hemisphere.
But Castro, he was never weakened. He is more lionized now in the Americas than ever. The success of his regime in converting masses of poor farmers into skilled but underpaid professionals, while holding off a superpower just offshore, and intervening to decolonialize Africa, hence keeping the island afloat, exporting hope and rocketing national pride, has earned him a permanent place in the pantheon of heroes for the Western and Southern hemispheres. He has survived, perservered, prospered, and lived to see the Continent flourishing with figures like Chavez, Morales, Lula, and Ortega in most of the Americas. Colombia and Paraguay are virtually alone standing against the trend. Castro retires without having been assassinated or captured.
The point is: not what the exiles in Miami intended. So their message today is, we have to keep up our efforts because nothing has changed. Logical if the policies had succeeded so far. Utterly delusional in reality. For 50 years policies intended to oust Castro, end Castroism, and reverse the Cuban Revolution have done nothing of the sort. Maybe 2059, when we mark its centennial, they will reassess.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Just like a real court
I have not looked lately at the rules created under the Military Commissions Act to conduct trials for the 9.11 accuseds. I do remember, though, that the original executive order appeared to leave open the prospect that George Bush could personally order the executions of anyone tried by military commission regardless of the verdict. Yes, it said that he had the power to issue judgment notwithstanding the verdict of the commission, and did not limit that to clemency for those found guilty. He could kill people cleared by judicial process, initiated in the first place by his own finding. It may have been the single most obscene order ever issued by a U.S. president, amid stiff competition.
At any rate, it is clear that the Pentagon has sent out its talking points memo to all the spokespersons speaking on behalf of the military commissions and there is only one talking point: this is just like a real trial. Look, there's a judge. There are rules. There are burdens of proof and objections and stuff like that. There are tables and chairs just like in a real courtroom.
I sit and listen to these guys and I think: there are rules just like in a real trial (just different rules), and objections (only difference is the judge rules differently on the objections), there's a verdict just like in a real trial (only difference is, this verdict is always guilty). Like the rules themselves make no difference beyond the broad strokes?
I know some of the protections are really important: there's a presumption of innocence (odd, though, that you can hold a person for six years and torture them while presuming them innocent), the state has the burden of proof by a reasonable doubt (but I wonder if that will mean the same thing as in a real court). The real problem is that there's no such thing as your basket of rights being half full. You have to eliminate every possible means for the prosecution to unfairly screw you, or they just pick another way. It's like setting to sea in a boat with a big hole in the starboard bow and saying, look, it's just like a real boat, it's got an intact portside hull and everything. Wink, wink, see you at Davy Jones' locker.
At any rate, it is clear that the Pentagon has sent out its talking points memo to all the spokespersons speaking on behalf of the military commissions and there is only one talking point: this is just like a real trial. Look, there's a judge. There are rules. There are burdens of proof and objections and stuff like that. There are tables and chairs just like in a real courtroom.
I sit and listen to these guys and I think: there are rules just like in a real trial (just different rules), and objections (only difference is the judge rules differently on the objections), there's a verdict just like in a real trial (only difference is, this verdict is always guilty). Like the rules themselves make no difference beyond the broad strokes?
I know some of the protections are really important: there's a presumption of innocence (odd, though, that you can hold a person for six years and torture them while presuming them innocent), the state has the burden of proof by a reasonable doubt (but I wonder if that will mean the same thing as in a real court). The real problem is that there's no such thing as your basket of rights being half full. You have to eliminate every possible means for the prosecution to unfairly screw you, or they just pick another way. It's like setting to sea in a boat with a big hole in the starboard bow and saying, look, it's just like a real boat, it's got an intact portside hull and everything. Wink, wink, see you at Davy Jones' locker.
The Press Role in Legitimacy
Continuing thoughts on the local news and what it's doing to us rather than for us. Updating my post from yesterday, one of the things that annoys me is that the standard for an "investigative" report is to uncover a fact or two, construct an argument around them, and apparently not bother to even ask, much less answer, any of the fairly obvious relevant questions about them. In the legal field, we learn to ask lots of questions. One thing I learned early on is that it is often profitable to ask even apparently irrelevant questions, because they turn up answers concerning what Rumsfeld called unknown unknowns: things that you didn't even consider even though you were trying to exhaustively go through every potentially relevant thing.
The media needs to attack the government for being venal and stupid when it is venal and stupid, but it also needs to shore up the legitimacy of our institutions when they serve the common good and come under attack from venal and stupid arguments. The test should not be pro- or anti- government, but pro-smart, pro-wise, pro-moral. Not that their brand of wisdom or morality should be imposed, but questions can be raised, and they should be raised in a manner that allows for some even-handed discussion and not loading towards a predetermined answer.
Legal reporting tends to be bad. A lot of reporting is simplistic, shallow, and confused. Some policy reporting is the same way. Is it bad law that foreigners held in Guantanamo are ruled to lack the rights of "the People" under the Constitution while corporations are persons? Maybe, but let's hear the rationale for those rulings. There is almost always some good reason for the quirky things the Courts do (but not always). The reasons need to be explicated because most of the time that will shut up critics quickly, and on the other occasions, it will expose the existence of rules that fundamentally lack a reasonable purpose. Why is there a residency requirement for local schoolteachers? I can speculate as to what some of the reasons might be. I have not heard any of them during the recent reporting on the issue. I suspect someone more knowledgeable about the topic could tell me if those reasons were valid or not. They might have some horror stories about past problems involving nonresidents. It's true that housing patterns have changed and that residency requires something that was once more common than it is now, after so many people have fled the city. I can see the city wanting to keep this population. I can see it wanting teachers who are connected to the students and parents through residence in a shared community. I can see it being used as a back door to introduce more minority role models without a racial quota (and this would be a portentially more accurate mechanism because the line would not be purely race but rather shared community). But I'm not an expert. I just know that when I give a second's skeptical thought to the reporting I see, I instantly generate questions about potential explanations that are not even asked.
I guess I should be glad that the local news is reporting on local elected officials and local policy choices. I just wish the focus were not on internet usage in one case and just so complacently uninquisitive about the real issues in boh cases.
The media needs to attack the government for being venal and stupid when it is venal and stupid, but it also needs to shore up the legitimacy of our institutions when they serve the common good and come under attack from venal and stupid arguments. The test should not be pro- or anti- government, but pro-smart, pro-wise, pro-moral. Not that their brand of wisdom or morality should be imposed, but questions can be raised, and they should be raised in a manner that allows for some even-handed discussion and not loading towards a predetermined answer.
Legal reporting tends to be bad. A lot of reporting is simplistic, shallow, and confused. Some policy reporting is the same way. Is it bad law that foreigners held in Guantanamo are ruled to lack the rights of "the People" under the Constitution while corporations are persons? Maybe, but let's hear the rationale for those rulings. There is almost always some good reason for the quirky things the Courts do (but not always). The reasons need to be explicated because most of the time that will shut up critics quickly, and on the other occasions, it will expose the existence of rules that fundamentally lack a reasonable purpose. Why is there a residency requirement for local schoolteachers? I can speculate as to what some of the reasons might be. I have not heard any of them during the recent reporting on the issue. I suspect someone more knowledgeable about the topic could tell me if those reasons were valid or not. They might have some horror stories about past problems involving nonresidents. It's true that housing patterns have changed and that residency requires something that was once more common than it is now, after so many people have fled the city. I can see the city wanting to keep this population. I can see it wanting teachers who are connected to the students and parents through residence in a shared community. I can see it being used as a back door to introduce more minority role models without a racial quota (and this would be a portentially more accurate mechanism because the line would not be purely race but rather shared community). But I'm not an expert. I just know that when I give a second's skeptical thought to the reporting I see, I instantly generate questions about potential explanations that are not even asked.
I guess I should be glad that the local news is reporting on local elected officials and local policy choices. I just wish the focus were not on internet usage in one case and just so complacently uninquisitive about the real issues in boh cases.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
McCain, Experience, the Campaign, Iraq
Briefly, McCain, I don't like him. He's got his plusses at times but I consider him mostly a fraud. I think singing "Bomb, Bomb Iran" virtually by itself shows him unfit for the presidency. I don't understand why he's considered a hero.
However, I think it's intellectually dishonest to attack him for wanting to stay in Iraq 100 years. I think his point was fair. It's not how long you stay, it's how long you stay at alert, with a bullseye painted on you, knocking down doors and getting shot at. If you could stay but successfully pacify the country, the American public would not care. I think it's ridiculous to think Iraq will quickly become a safe place, but he's right that most Americans would not care if it were not for the US casualties produced by the stay.
No one will say it but McCain has more experience because he is a white boy from a notable family. He's been in the Senate 20 years. When he got there, there were two women serving (one the daughter of Alf Landon) and zero African Americans (only one African American had ever been elected to the Senate by that point). So his experience is largely of a sort simply unavailable to women and blacks.
I continue to be amazed at all the talk about candidates allegedly positioning themselves with respect to the all-important issue of their own status as frontrunner or insurgent or whether they have "momentum" which is all malarkey. I remember G.H.W.B.'s "big mo" got him about as far as Joe got on "Joementum." Apparently, the response to, cover the issues and the candidates and not the horserace, is that the horserace is the important issue. However, I seem to note that most polls show Americans are more concerned about the economy and the war than momentum or frontrunneriness.
I have to say, I am really impressed by all the Obama media out there. I've heard that he's got campaign ring-tones going out there, all sorts of merchandising, and viral media. There was the "Obama Girl" video and now the will.i.am "Yes, We Can" video with something around five million hits on youtube, and Slate has that wonderful "Hillary's Inner Tracy Flick" video, and the john.he.is video mocking McCain (although a little unfairly) is just great. He hasn't always impressed me much with his policy positions, but to the extent that running a campaign successfully is any indication of how one would run a country, the man is surely uber-capable. And that's very appealing after 8 years of rank incompetence. And being the opposite of Bush's ideological stridency is, although not for me, apparently a hugely appealing contrast for the rest of the nation. Short summary of the Obama strategy: look for a president with a 25% approval rating and do the opposite.
A positive word for Ron Paul. The Nation put in a good word for Chris Dodd a while back, saying he was good on civil liberties and foreign policy, which is after all where the president's power is least checked by Congress and must be the best for a candidate. By that measure, Ron Paul is not bad. As a libertarian wacko, he will respect civil liberties, and he's got that good old isolationist streak that makes him a stronger anti-war candidate than either of the democrats. Now if only we could get him to appoint some liberal justices. Hmm, maybe a crossover veep? Obama-Paul?
And the disaster that is Iraq. It really is staggering whenever you look at the statistics afresh. A million dead, millions displaced, millions wounded, millions in dire poverty, constant violence, sectarian division, no electricity, an illegitimate and ineffective government, sub-prewar oil production, women subjugated, emerging drug production, no drinkable water, hospitals destroyed, professionals driven off, the people under biometric lockdown, other countries invading at will, the historical, archeological and cultural heritage of the cradle of civiliazation continuing to be blown to bits. Please remember that the surge was intended to create a temporary increase in security to allow the resumption of all the sorts of normal life necessary to come back and make the increased security permanent without the surge. What happened was that there was very little surge: other countries decreased their commitments as the US filtered in troops who were worn out or used up, brain-injured, demoralized and suicidal, scraped the bottom of the barrel to bring in troops that would normally have been rejected as unfit. Petraeus created an illusory surge mostly by systematic surrender, giving up Anbar and leaving Basra abandoned, reallocating forces, and making heavier reliance on air-power which kills indiscrimately and creates generations of new enemies. Along with the burning out of the ethnic cleansing in Baghdad, this led to a salable domestic PR victory, but led to none of the strategic objectives of the surge. The place is still hell. There's nothing you couldn't do before that you can do now. Everyone is still doing what they were doing before: positioning themselves for the inevitable US departure.
Finally, checks and balances. Who says they have to be internal? We here a lot of talk about rebuilding America's image in the world, shoring up its economic strength, repairing its burned out military, and restoring America to international strength and presige. Of course, as your future president, I agree wholeheartedly. But as a current citizen who cares about the rest of the world and about limiting the power of the executive, especially in the face of a supine Congress and accommodating courts, I see the glass as more than half full. So the rest of the world is finally wise to our bullshit? Good for them! If Congress won't stop the President from making unconstitutional foreign policy, maybe the united nations of the world will step in and do their job for them. We don't have the forces free and up to strength to augment covert operations in South America? Well then, they will be better able to impose the check that Congress won't. Hooray for the sovereignty of our South American brothers, truly the successors to Congressman Abe Lincoln!
However, I think it's intellectually dishonest to attack him for wanting to stay in Iraq 100 years. I think his point was fair. It's not how long you stay, it's how long you stay at alert, with a bullseye painted on you, knocking down doors and getting shot at. If you could stay but successfully pacify the country, the American public would not care. I think it's ridiculous to think Iraq will quickly become a safe place, but he's right that most Americans would not care if it were not for the US casualties produced by the stay.
No one will say it but McCain has more experience because he is a white boy from a notable family. He's been in the Senate 20 years. When he got there, there were two women serving (one the daughter of Alf Landon) and zero African Americans (only one African American had ever been elected to the Senate by that point). So his experience is largely of a sort simply unavailable to women and blacks.
I continue to be amazed at all the talk about candidates allegedly positioning themselves with respect to the all-important issue of their own status as frontrunner or insurgent or whether they have "momentum" which is all malarkey. I remember G.H.W.B.'s "big mo" got him about as far as Joe got on "Joementum." Apparently, the response to, cover the issues and the candidates and not the horserace, is that the horserace is the important issue. However, I seem to note that most polls show Americans are more concerned about the economy and the war than momentum or frontrunneriness.
I have to say, I am really impressed by all the Obama media out there. I've heard that he's got campaign ring-tones going out there, all sorts of merchandising, and viral media. There was the "Obama Girl" video and now the will.i.am "Yes, We Can" video with something around five million hits on youtube, and Slate has that wonderful "Hillary's Inner Tracy Flick" video, and the john.he.is video mocking McCain (although a little unfairly) is just great. He hasn't always impressed me much with his policy positions, but to the extent that running a campaign successfully is any indication of how one would run a country, the man is surely uber-capable. And that's very appealing after 8 years of rank incompetence. And being the opposite of Bush's ideological stridency is, although not for me, apparently a hugely appealing contrast for the rest of the nation. Short summary of the Obama strategy: look for a president with a 25% approval rating and do the opposite.
A positive word for Ron Paul. The Nation put in a good word for Chris Dodd a while back, saying he was good on civil liberties and foreign policy, which is after all where the president's power is least checked by Congress and must be the best for a candidate. By that measure, Ron Paul is not bad. As a libertarian wacko, he will respect civil liberties, and he's got that good old isolationist streak that makes him a stronger anti-war candidate than either of the democrats. Now if only we could get him to appoint some liberal justices. Hmm, maybe a crossover veep? Obama-Paul?
And the disaster that is Iraq. It really is staggering whenever you look at the statistics afresh. A million dead, millions displaced, millions wounded, millions in dire poverty, constant violence, sectarian division, no electricity, an illegitimate and ineffective government, sub-prewar oil production, women subjugated, emerging drug production, no drinkable water, hospitals destroyed, professionals driven off, the people under biometric lockdown, other countries invading at will, the historical, archeological and cultural heritage of the cradle of civiliazation continuing to be blown to bits. Please remember that the surge was intended to create a temporary increase in security to allow the resumption of all the sorts of normal life necessary to come back and make the increased security permanent without the surge. What happened was that there was very little surge: other countries decreased their commitments as the US filtered in troops who were worn out or used up, brain-injured, demoralized and suicidal, scraped the bottom of the barrel to bring in troops that would normally have been rejected as unfit. Petraeus created an illusory surge mostly by systematic surrender, giving up Anbar and leaving Basra abandoned, reallocating forces, and making heavier reliance on air-power which kills indiscrimately and creates generations of new enemies. Along with the burning out of the ethnic cleansing in Baghdad, this led to a salable domestic PR victory, but led to none of the strategic objectives of the surge. The place is still hell. There's nothing you couldn't do before that you can do now. Everyone is still doing what they were doing before: positioning themselves for the inevitable US departure.
Finally, checks and balances. Who says they have to be internal? We here a lot of talk about rebuilding America's image in the world, shoring up its economic strength, repairing its burned out military, and restoring America to international strength and presige. Of course, as your future president, I agree wholeheartedly. But as a current citizen who cares about the rest of the world and about limiting the power of the executive, especially in the face of a supine Congress and accommodating courts, I see the glass as more than half full. So the rest of the world is finally wise to our bullshit? Good for them! If Congress won't stop the President from making unconstitutional foreign policy, maybe the united nations of the world will step in and do their job for them. We don't have the forces free and up to strength to augment covert operations in South America? Well then, they will be better able to impose the check that Congress won't. Hooray for the sovereignty of our South American brothers, truly the successors to Congressman Abe Lincoln!
More Idiocy from Local News
Two stories draw my attention.
Let's start with tonight's report from Aaron Diamant. This is fresh so the only link I can give is for the teaser. (Update or Correction: try this.) This is a typical example of a news report seeking to generate outrage over a sensationalized big zero. The charge is that taxpayers are forced to pay for county officials using the internet for private matters while at their offices. The facts given in the report:
1) Some county residents feel (rightly, according to the reporter) that being an elected county official is more or less the same as being a barista at a coffee shop and that they should spend their time at work actually working.
2) There is a county policy that allows county workers to use the Internet service provided for their jobs for private matters, so long as it is not excessive.
3) They looked at internet logs and found that officials like various county supervisors and the county executive visited social networking sites, checked on investments, and shopped online from work. The County Clerk spent at least 24 hours over a period of four months, before during and after work, planning a wedding online. (That's about 18 minutes per average workday, including time before and after work and while on break.)
Facts that were not given:
1) Are these employees paid by the hour?
2) Did they do as many hours or as much work as the position expects? (Actually, one person did say they sometimes put in 10 to 15 hour days, so in at least one case, the answer appears to be yes.)
3) Did the time spent on the Internet add any cost to the taxpayer over what they would pay otherwise?
4) Did it cause any decline in service, or did any public business not get done?
5) Were any of these people engaged in private business when they were needed urgently for public business?
6) Might permitting officials the convenience of not having to leave their offices in order to attend to their private lives actually improve their productivity or help attract higher quality candidates?
7) What is the comparable standard in the private sector (for professionals and administrators, not waitstaff)?
8) What limitations are there in the monitoring system that appears to reflect this amount of time spent online? Might the actual time burden on the employees have been less than is apparent from the monitoring? (I had a client who was a public employee discharged for excessive Internet use and we discovered that the reports based on the monitoring dramatically inflated the apparent time spent online, because it assumed that whenever two sites were visited a half hour apart, that the user was sitting glued to the screen for that half hour and not, say, taking a business call while the computer went to screensaver.)
9) Is there evidence that any of these people violated any policy, sought payment for hours not spent working, or commited any legal or ethical offense related to their online time?
I conclude that his was a stupid report. It does not tell us whether these elected representatives are doing their jobs or whether allowing them to use their computers for private matters is good policy. It does recite uninformed opinion that executives should be bound by the same rules as baristas, as if they had no authority to exercise discretion, power to delegate, and as though their jobs are merely a matter of serving time. I would submit that this kind of myopic, pandering report is a particular disservice in the midst of a major national election, where voters should be guided to some practical understanding of what they are voting on. Which is not a barista. (Mike Huckabee would probably be slow on orders because he'd be chatting up the customers, but you's still like him; Obama would always get your order right and serve you with a bright smile; Hillary would be the best able to advise you on the merits of Tanzanian Peaberry over Kenya AAA or the Decaf Haraar; McCain would be a lousy barista.)
On to the next report, from John Mercure again. Do not confuse this similar report. The story here is that a priest ministers to an old woman in ill health, visits her every day as a hospital chaplain, and she decides to leave him all her worldly possessions. Her family, who is cut out and gets nothing, not even the family photos and historical records, finds out later and is upset, and calls the priest a con man and throws around a lot of insults and speculation that he took advantage of the old gal, saying that she had previously expressed her wishes to make specific legacies to various family members.
Now of course, just because I think Mercure's reporting is garbage does not mean that Father Ryan is a saint. He may well be "heinous" scum just as labeled in the broadcast. But the facts are really questionable, and the report leads me to consider how much different it would have been if news reports followed more of the standards applicable to courts.
In Mercure's reporting we have this sequence: (1) The accusation is made; (2) The accusation is supported by lots of insults, hearsay and speculation, but not one document, eyewitness report, or piece of physical evidence of any wrongdoing; (3) Mercure confronts the priest who denies the charges and states that the decedant expressed her desire that the matter remain confidential, and although he looks a little squirrely, he reacts far more calmly and addresses the matter more straightforwardly than anyone else I've seen subjected to one of Mercure's ambushes; (4) More hearsay and speculation, and a statement that the Archdiocese claims that the estate was mostly given to charity but has not produced proof. Then it is said that the priest had sent a letter claiming to have a note from the decedant to show that she did express a desire for confidentiality, and pointed out by the reporter that the priest's letter does not prove anything about the distribution of the estate. The lawyer for the decedant also refuses to divulge any documents.
In court, both sides get an opening statement up front, so that the beginning of the report is not entirely loaded down with one side of the story, and the defense relegated to the end. Actually, that's standard for news reports too, something that is routinely done in the ledes of inverted pyramid style reports, but apparently not something Mercure worries about.
Then the party with the burden of proof must present evidence. Not, oh, I'm so shocked, how could he do this, he must have taken advantage of her. Something like, the priest has done this before, the old lady had dementia, she expressed a contrary intent after the will was changed, the proper probate procedure was not followed. But here we get nothing of the sort. We're told she would do anything a priest said. Okay. Would she do that of sound mind because it's what she really wanted in her heart? Then she's getting her wish. Sorry, family. The old lady is responsible for screwing you. Bad form, but it's her property, and if she wants to give it to the priest with instructions to distribute to charity, that's legally her business. I think it's bad, but that's what a lot of old people want when they're very religious and fear death and want to bribe Saint Peter. I think the old lady was thoughtless toward her family, specially with regard to the photos and documents, but maybe she felt abandoned. How do we know?
Then the other side gets to put in its evidence, but has the right to be silent if it thinks the other side has not given it anything to disprove. In this case, it does not. It cites confidentiality and relies on the adverse case being weak.
Then both sides get a summation. Each can point to the other's lack of evidence, not just the prosecution.
There may have actually been a legal action in this case, but I do not see one recorded in Wisconsin. The old gal had moved to Illinois, and I don't think Lake County of Illinois as a whole has an online database of its circuit court cases like Wisconsin does. When she died, assuming Father Ryan is not her long lost son or brother, her heirs at law would have received notice and the opportunity to challenge the will. That was either not done, or the challenge was unsuccessful. The previous executor was not notified because he was not an heir or beneficiary, being only a great nephew. So this raises the question: if there were a basis to suspect illicit influence on the part of Father Ryan, why not raise it in that forum?
Other things that kind of bug me here. First, since Mercure knows from his previous reporting that some dioceses have considered restrictions on gifts to priests, one wonders if this diocese has any. If so, is that the only reason the estate is going to charity? If not, then shouldn't the church come in for some shame in all this? After all, it was the church and not the priest that pumped all these beliefs into the gal all her life that probably had more to do with her decision than this one priest who tended to her near the end. It was the church that gave him is collar and thus his influence and authority with this deeply religious woman. What charities are being supported? I have identified one: Guest House, a center in Michigan for alcoholic and drug-addicted priests and nuns to dry out for a while before going back to their parishes.
Second, there's an odd schizophrenia about the piece, on the one hand titling it "pay to pray" which sounds like a cavalier profanity, disrespectful of religion, that takes in vain the notion of prayer while going for cheap alliteration and not actually describing the story, and yet treating the whole concept of a bad priest as shocking and unthinkable. Which is crazy, unless you think that the thousands of victims of clerical pedophilia are making it all up.
Third, I think lots of old people near the end upset the settled expectations of their families and make really bad decisions regarding their final bequests. They also just, outside of a will context, despoil the sentimental fortunes of their estates, giving away or allowing to be taken or destroyed those things precious to their families. The intervention of interlopers is often blamed, but frequently the amount of intercession required to get the old folks to give up the goods is frighteningly trivial. Not that interlopers don't exist, but I know various elderly people who have thought about disposing of heirlooms without any conniving voices in their ear, so that clearly is not the only problem. I therefore think that putting all the blame on the priest here, while it might turn out to be correct if all the facts were known, is a pretty cheap and easy out that avoids looking at the state of probate law, the increasing problems that we have with an aging population many of whom make dreadful and thoughtless end-of-life choices all on their own, and, as I've hinted above with reference to the Catholic Church, the broader cultural influences that affect people near the end of life and lead them to screw over their families in favor of strangers and new suitors: religion being one of the worst, but also ideals of "tough love" and independence, general neglect of family, and, especially, materialism. I don't think family members necessarily should have dibs on the money. I'd be happy with a very high estate tax. But I think there's a lot of family stuff that would have historical or sentimental value. When we start thinking only of money, we forget that stuff. Lots of old people seem to assume their kids don't care about that stuff but a lot do.
Can we get some deeper discussion of these issues rather than a hit piece on one priest? The focus on him may or may not help create some justice on the retail level, but there are broader problems implicated here that affect thousands of people and singling out an easy fall guy diverts discussion from the real problems. If old people have a grace period now under federal law for rescission of their contracts, perhaps wills should not be immediately effective without cause or some oversight? Maybe family heirlooms should be placed under a different legal regime from fungibles like money. Maybe groups other than priests should start to erect restrictions on gifts from those they serve.
Let's start with tonight's report from Aaron Diamant. This is fresh so the only link I can give is for the teaser. (Update or Correction: try this.) This is a typical example of a news report seeking to generate outrage over a sensationalized big zero. The charge is that taxpayers are forced to pay for county officials using the internet for private matters while at their offices. The facts given in the report:
1) Some county residents feel (rightly, according to the reporter) that being an elected county official is more or less the same as being a barista at a coffee shop and that they should spend their time at work actually working.
2) There is a county policy that allows county workers to use the Internet service provided for their jobs for private matters, so long as it is not excessive.
3) They looked at internet logs and found that officials like various county supervisors and the county executive visited social networking sites, checked on investments, and shopped online from work. The County Clerk spent at least 24 hours over a period of four months, before during and after work, planning a wedding online. (That's about 18 minutes per average workday, including time before and after work and while on break.)
Facts that were not given:
1) Are these employees paid by the hour?
2) Did they do as many hours or as much work as the position expects? (Actually, one person did say they sometimes put in 10 to 15 hour days, so in at least one case, the answer appears to be yes.)
3) Did the time spent on the Internet add any cost to the taxpayer over what they would pay otherwise?
4) Did it cause any decline in service, or did any public business not get done?
5) Were any of these people engaged in private business when they were needed urgently for public business?
6) Might permitting officials the convenience of not having to leave their offices in order to attend to their private lives actually improve their productivity or help attract higher quality candidates?
7) What is the comparable standard in the private sector (for professionals and administrators, not waitstaff)?
8) What limitations are there in the monitoring system that appears to reflect this amount of time spent online? Might the actual time burden on the employees have been less than is apparent from the monitoring? (I had a client who was a public employee discharged for excessive Internet use and we discovered that the reports based on the monitoring dramatically inflated the apparent time spent online, because it assumed that whenever two sites were visited a half hour apart, that the user was sitting glued to the screen for that half hour and not, say, taking a business call while the computer went to screensaver.)
9) Is there evidence that any of these people violated any policy, sought payment for hours not spent working, or commited any legal or ethical offense related to their online time?
I conclude that his was a stupid report. It does not tell us whether these elected representatives are doing their jobs or whether allowing them to use their computers for private matters is good policy. It does recite uninformed opinion that executives should be bound by the same rules as baristas, as if they had no authority to exercise discretion, power to delegate, and as though their jobs are merely a matter of serving time. I would submit that this kind of myopic, pandering report is a particular disservice in the midst of a major national election, where voters should be guided to some practical understanding of what they are voting on. Which is not a barista. (Mike Huckabee would probably be slow on orders because he'd be chatting up the customers, but you's still like him; Obama would always get your order right and serve you with a bright smile; Hillary would be the best able to advise you on the merits of Tanzanian Peaberry over Kenya AAA or the Decaf Haraar; McCain would be a lousy barista.)
On to the next report, from John Mercure again. Do not confuse this similar report. The story here is that a priest ministers to an old woman in ill health, visits her every day as a hospital chaplain, and she decides to leave him all her worldly possessions. Her family, who is cut out and gets nothing, not even the family photos and historical records, finds out later and is upset, and calls the priest a con man and throws around a lot of insults and speculation that he took advantage of the old gal, saying that she had previously expressed her wishes to make specific legacies to various family members.
Now of course, just because I think Mercure's reporting is garbage does not mean that Father Ryan is a saint. He may well be "heinous" scum just as labeled in the broadcast. But the facts are really questionable, and the report leads me to consider how much different it would have been if news reports followed more of the standards applicable to courts.
In Mercure's reporting we have this sequence: (1) The accusation is made; (2) The accusation is supported by lots of insults, hearsay and speculation, but not one document, eyewitness report, or piece of physical evidence of any wrongdoing; (3) Mercure confronts the priest who denies the charges and states that the decedant expressed her desire that the matter remain confidential, and although he looks a little squirrely, he reacts far more calmly and addresses the matter more straightforwardly than anyone else I've seen subjected to one of Mercure's ambushes; (4) More hearsay and speculation, and a statement that the Archdiocese claims that the estate was mostly given to charity but has not produced proof. Then it is said that the priest had sent a letter claiming to have a note from the decedant to show that she did express a desire for confidentiality, and pointed out by the reporter that the priest's letter does not prove anything about the distribution of the estate. The lawyer for the decedant also refuses to divulge any documents.
In court, both sides get an opening statement up front, so that the beginning of the report is not entirely loaded down with one side of the story, and the defense relegated to the end. Actually, that's standard for news reports too, something that is routinely done in the ledes of inverted pyramid style reports, but apparently not something Mercure worries about.
Then the party with the burden of proof must present evidence. Not, oh, I'm so shocked, how could he do this, he must have taken advantage of her. Something like, the priest has done this before, the old lady had dementia, she expressed a contrary intent after the will was changed, the proper probate procedure was not followed. But here we get nothing of the sort. We're told she would do anything a priest said. Okay. Would she do that of sound mind because it's what she really wanted in her heart? Then she's getting her wish. Sorry, family. The old lady is responsible for screwing you. Bad form, but it's her property, and if she wants to give it to the priest with instructions to distribute to charity, that's legally her business. I think it's bad, but that's what a lot of old people want when they're very religious and fear death and want to bribe Saint Peter. I think the old lady was thoughtless toward her family, specially with regard to the photos and documents, but maybe she felt abandoned. How do we know?
Then the other side gets to put in its evidence, but has the right to be silent if it thinks the other side has not given it anything to disprove. In this case, it does not. It cites confidentiality and relies on the adverse case being weak.
Then both sides get a summation. Each can point to the other's lack of evidence, not just the prosecution.
There may have actually been a legal action in this case, but I do not see one recorded in Wisconsin. The old gal had moved to Illinois, and I don't think Lake County of Illinois as a whole has an online database of its circuit court cases like Wisconsin does. When she died, assuming Father Ryan is not her long lost son or brother, her heirs at law would have received notice and the opportunity to challenge the will. That was either not done, or the challenge was unsuccessful. The previous executor was not notified because he was not an heir or beneficiary, being only a great nephew. So this raises the question: if there were a basis to suspect illicit influence on the part of Father Ryan, why not raise it in that forum?
Other things that kind of bug me here. First, since Mercure knows from his previous reporting that some dioceses have considered restrictions on gifts to priests, one wonders if this diocese has any. If so, is that the only reason the estate is going to charity? If not, then shouldn't the church come in for some shame in all this? After all, it was the church and not the priest that pumped all these beliefs into the gal all her life that probably had more to do with her decision than this one priest who tended to her near the end. It was the church that gave him is collar and thus his influence and authority with this deeply religious woman. What charities are being supported? I have identified one: Guest House, a center in Michigan for alcoholic and drug-addicted priests and nuns to dry out for a while before going back to their parishes.
Second, there's an odd schizophrenia about the piece, on the one hand titling it "pay to pray" which sounds like a cavalier profanity, disrespectful of religion, that takes in vain the notion of prayer while going for cheap alliteration and not actually describing the story, and yet treating the whole concept of a bad priest as shocking and unthinkable. Which is crazy, unless you think that the thousands of victims of clerical pedophilia are making it all up.
Third, I think lots of old people near the end upset the settled expectations of their families and make really bad decisions regarding their final bequests. They also just, outside of a will context, despoil the sentimental fortunes of their estates, giving away or allowing to be taken or destroyed those things precious to their families. The intervention of interlopers is often blamed, but frequently the amount of intercession required to get the old folks to give up the goods is frighteningly trivial. Not that interlopers don't exist, but I know various elderly people who have thought about disposing of heirlooms without any conniving voices in their ear, so that clearly is not the only problem. I therefore think that putting all the blame on the priest here, while it might turn out to be correct if all the facts were known, is a pretty cheap and easy out that avoids looking at the state of probate law, the increasing problems that we have with an aging population many of whom make dreadful and thoughtless end-of-life choices all on their own, and, as I've hinted above with reference to the Catholic Church, the broader cultural influences that affect people near the end of life and lead them to screw over their families in favor of strangers and new suitors: religion being one of the worst, but also ideals of "tough love" and independence, general neglect of family, and, especially, materialism. I don't think family members necessarily should have dibs on the money. I'd be happy with a very high estate tax. But I think there's a lot of family stuff that would have historical or sentimental value. When we start thinking only of money, we forget that stuff. Lots of old people seem to assume their kids don't care about that stuff but a lot do.
Can we get some deeper discussion of these issues rather than a hit piece on one priest? The focus on him may or may not help create some justice on the retail level, but there are broader problems implicated here that affect thousands of people and singling out an easy fall guy diverts discussion from the real problems. If old people have a grace period now under federal law for rescission of their contracts, perhaps wills should not be immediately effective without cause or some oversight? Maybe family heirlooms should be placed under a different legal regime from fungibles like money. Maybe groups other than priests should start to erect restrictions on gifts from those they serve.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Update 2: Mike McGee
Another update I wanted to make concerns the incarcerated alderman from the district next door. I've recently seen this, this, and this. The first is a pretty good article in our alternative weekly. The last two are op-eds in the mainstream daily...
Let's address the second first. It's from Gary Krager, a Wind Lake real estate appraiser and community columnist for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, entitled, "Some brotherly advice for Milwaukee's inner city residents." The first line is, "Let me lay it out there. Here's what black people should do. Reject Milwaukee Ald. Mike McGee Jr." Can you count the problems here?
Krager is white. He does indeed end his piece by addressing the reader as "my brother." This is in itself , let's just say, a bit presumptuous. I don't ususally address blacks as brother or sister until they've addressed me that way. (Usually brother, when it happens.)
It's also obviously condescending to offer unsolicited advice, but that might be forgiven if the advice is thoughtful and draws on some basis other than "white knows best." Krager writes, "since I'll be told I don't know what it's like to be black, I guess I get to be an expert on white people." He doesn't give any credentials there.
And I know Milwaukee is hypersegregated, but the piece appears to be premised on all inner city residents being black and all blacks living in the inner city.
Maybe Krager is an expert on the view from Wind Lake. The only other time I've ever heard of Wind Lake was in reading another community columnist, this one blaming homeowners for being victims of predatory lenders. (In a way, my response to that included the idea that real estate appraisers like Krager were collective experts in having their heads up their asses.) The Journal seems to like white people from Wind Lake. I looked it up on City-Data.com. The median home price is twice that of Milwaukee, but that's reasonable since the median income is also twice that of Milwaukee. The population of 5202 is 97.1% white. Of the remaining 150 or so others, are 86 Hispanics, 32 mixed, 26 native americans and a total of 6 divided between blacks, asians, and rounding error. It's not even in Milwaukee County.
Since I'm a lawyer, let me mention the argument Krager makes regarding the standard of proof:
I don't want to hear "innocent until proven guilty," either. That's the standard for criminal court - and for good reason. It's not the standard anyone uses in his or her own life. Your kid's baseball comes through the window, and he's outside with a bat; I don't think you're going to Mirandize him. He lies about it, and it's going to be worse. Read the criminal complaints against McGee. He's holding a Louisville Slugger.
I think Krager may just be stupid. The presumption of innocence is normal in everyday life. I'm right now in a room full of people. Any one of them could be guilty of any thing. What should I presume: innocent or guilty? When should I shift my presumption? When someone makes an accusation? That does not work. It doesn't work in real life and it doesn't work in the criminal law. I've heard far too much bullshit in court. But Krager does not really believe in the principle of presuming guilt either:
People will say I'm excusing racism. Nonsense. Of that I should be innocent until proved guilty. Racism is stupid. Why does anyone care what someone's skin color is? I want all honest, hard-working people to thrive.
So exactly why is McGee presumed guilty and you are presumed innocent? If anything, the law if the opposite. Since racism is inherently hard to prove, the standards of proof are usually less strict. Since it is embarassing but not a crime, and because the accuser lacks the resources of the state, there is less reason not to presume it. Particularly when you're a white guy from Wind Lake making condescending and presumptuous remarks to blacks whom you've stereotyped.
Let me jump to one of the other articles, where a candidate for McGee's seat says the same thing:
Even Jordan says that the case has dragged on too long, and she believes that McGee should have been kicked out of office after charges were brought so that the district could have a voice on the Common Council. She called it “taxation without representation,” and dismissed the argument that McGee is innocent until proven guilty. “I don’t understand how they sit there and let it go on like this,” Jordan said. “This is a mockery of democracy. This man is in jail. Why did the Common Council not get rid of him?”
I guess that is not surprising. Here's a reduced excerpt of the rest of Krager:
Do not care only about McGee and not his alleged victims. Do not take an "us vs. them" posture... If you want McGee to represent you, of course that's your business. The problem is that it says something to the larger community about your district. If you think that something is that you stand up for a man being persecuted, think again. To many, it says his behavior is acceptable.... That scares a lot of white people.... Many of them avoid the inner city and believe they can live a fine life doing so. The residents of the inner city are the only ones who can make the draws there outweigh the real or perceived dangers...We can pass all the laws against discrimination that we want. We even can enforce them effectively...What we can't do is make people go where they are afraid to go.... Fear will win out. Just try telling someone who's claustrophobic that he or she shouldn't be. If an area excuses and accepts crime, companies won't want to operate there. Rejecting McGee would be a baby step toward setting the bar higher for what's acceptable behavior in his district, which is the only way to attract people to it.
So the argument, in reduced form is:
You need white people to come rescue your area with investment. They want to come and help exploit the area, but they hear you blacks defending McGee and say, "oh, no, those black people have no values. They defend McGee that means they like crime, and if I go there they will come and kill me or rape me." Hence blacks must do whatever they can to sacrifice any black person accused by white people of any crime, so that whites will come to see them as having the same values as we have in Wind Lake, and then we will come and open up restaurants on cheap properties in your area, hire you for slave wages, take all your money, and eventually drive you out, which is what you need and we know best because we're white and you're just dumb n....s and by the way, I'm not racist, because racism is stupid. I just happen to think most of you are lazy and stupid.
Do I need to refute all this? Well, lets look at that last link. It's a response to Krager, and points out that most residents in the area have reasons not to be so flippant about due process, that the area is diverse, that black investment in the area would be at least as good as white investment, and that he is not sincerely seeking to help.
That's where my perspective differs. I'm a white guy and drawing on my expertise, let me tell my black friends that a lot of white people are more stupid than you seem to believe. Of course, Krager could be writing out of hate, but I presume it's just the stupid doing the talking. Because I understand the power of Stupid, I would have concentrated more on the other big defect of Krager's argument: If white people are fearful because they are stupid, the solution is not to appease their stupidity. If they fear something because of a wrong belief, why not just correct that belief? How would you react if your child developed a fear based on a false belief?
I think there's a proper role for racial mediators. Enlightened whites can legitmately lecture receptive blacks, and vice versa, under appropriate circumstances. Krager would find his black audience more receptive if (1) he had anything useful to say, (2) he did not come off as ignorant and racist, (3) he had at least acknowledged that the whites who held these stupid fears were wrong, and (4) he had directed most of his lecture to the white people who are being stupid, rather than black people whose positions he does not even claim to understand.
I hope to more thoroughly address the first link later.
Let's address the second first. It's from Gary Krager, a Wind Lake real estate appraiser and community columnist for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, entitled, "Some brotherly advice for Milwaukee's inner city residents." The first line is, "Let me lay it out there. Here's what black people should do. Reject Milwaukee Ald. Mike McGee Jr." Can you count the problems here?
Krager is white. He does indeed end his piece by addressing the reader as "my brother." This is in itself , let's just say, a bit presumptuous. I don't ususally address blacks as brother or sister until they've addressed me that way. (Usually brother, when it happens.)
It's also obviously condescending to offer unsolicited advice, but that might be forgiven if the advice is thoughtful and draws on some basis other than "white knows best." Krager writes, "since I'll be told I don't know what it's like to be black, I guess I get to be an expert on white people." He doesn't give any credentials there.
And I know Milwaukee is hypersegregated, but the piece appears to be premised on all inner city residents being black and all blacks living in the inner city.
Maybe Krager is an expert on the view from Wind Lake. The only other time I've ever heard of Wind Lake was in reading another community columnist, this one blaming homeowners for being victims of predatory lenders. (In a way, my response to that included the idea that real estate appraisers like Krager were collective experts in having their heads up their asses.) The Journal seems to like white people from Wind Lake. I looked it up on City-Data.com. The median home price is twice that of Milwaukee, but that's reasonable since the median income is also twice that of Milwaukee. The population of 5202 is 97.1% white. Of the remaining 150 or so others, are 86 Hispanics, 32 mixed, 26 native americans and a total of 6 divided between blacks, asians, and rounding error. It's not even in Milwaukee County.
Since I'm a lawyer, let me mention the argument Krager makes regarding the standard of proof:
I don't want to hear "innocent until proven guilty," either. That's the standard for criminal court - and for good reason. It's not the standard anyone uses in his or her own life. Your kid's baseball comes through the window, and he's outside with a bat; I don't think you're going to Mirandize him. He lies about it, and it's going to be worse. Read the criminal complaints against McGee. He's holding a Louisville Slugger.
I think Krager may just be stupid. The presumption of innocence is normal in everyday life. I'm right now in a room full of people. Any one of them could be guilty of any thing. What should I presume: innocent or guilty? When should I shift my presumption? When someone makes an accusation? That does not work. It doesn't work in real life and it doesn't work in the criminal law. I've heard far too much bullshit in court. But Krager does not really believe in the principle of presuming guilt either:
People will say I'm excusing racism. Nonsense. Of that I should be innocent until proved guilty. Racism is stupid. Why does anyone care what someone's skin color is? I want all honest, hard-working people to thrive.
So exactly why is McGee presumed guilty and you are presumed innocent? If anything, the law if the opposite. Since racism is inherently hard to prove, the standards of proof are usually less strict. Since it is embarassing but not a crime, and because the accuser lacks the resources of the state, there is less reason not to presume it. Particularly when you're a white guy from Wind Lake making condescending and presumptuous remarks to blacks whom you've stereotyped.
Let me jump to one of the other articles, where a candidate for McGee's seat says the same thing:
Even Jordan says that the case has dragged on too long, and she believes that McGee should have been kicked out of office after charges were brought so that the district could have a voice on the Common Council. She called it “taxation without representation,” and dismissed the argument that McGee is innocent until proven guilty. “I don’t understand how they sit there and let it go on like this,” Jordan said. “This is a mockery of democracy. This man is in jail. Why did the Common Council not get rid of him?”
I guess that is not surprising. Here's a reduced excerpt of the rest of Krager:
Do not care only about McGee and not his alleged victims. Do not take an "us vs. them" posture... If you want McGee to represent you, of course that's your business. The problem is that it says something to the larger community about your district. If you think that something is that you stand up for a man being persecuted, think again. To many, it says his behavior is acceptable.... That scares a lot of white people.... Many of them avoid the inner city and believe they can live a fine life doing so. The residents of the inner city are the only ones who can make the draws there outweigh the real or perceived dangers...We can pass all the laws against discrimination that we want. We even can enforce them effectively...What we can't do is make people go where they are afraid to go.... Fear will win out. Just try telling someone who's claustrophobic that he or she shouldn't be. If an area excuses and accepts crime, companies won't want to operate there. Rejecting McGee would be a baby step toward setting the bar higher for what's acceptable behavior in his district, which is the only way to attract people to it.
So the argument, in reduced form is:
You need white people to come rescue your area with investment. They want to come and help exploit the area, but they hear you blacks defending McGee and say, "oh, no, those black people have no values. They defend McGee that means they like crime, and if I go there they will come and kill me or rape me." Hence blacks must do whatever they can to sacrifice any black person accused by white people of any crime, so that whites will come to see them as having the same values as we have in Wind Lake, and then we will come and open up restaurants on cheap properties in your area, hire you for slave wages, take all your money, and eventually drive you out, which is what you need and we know best because we're white and you're just dumb n....s and by the way, I'm not racist, because racism is stupid. I just happen to think most of you are lazy and stupid.
Do I need to refute all this? Well, lets look at that last link. It's a response to Krager, and points out that most residents in the area have reasons not to be so flippant about due process, that the area is diverse, that black investment in the area would be at least as good as white investment, and that he is not sincerely seeking to help.
That's where my perspective differs. I'm a white guy and drawing on my expertise, let me tell my black friends that a lot of white people are more stupid than you seem to believe. Of course, Krager could be writing out of hate, but I presume it's just the stupid doing the talking. Because I understand the power of Stupid, I would have concentrated more on the other big defect of Krager's argument: If white people are fearful because they are stupid, the solution is not to appease their stupidity. If they fear something because of a wrong belief, why not just correct that belief? How would you react if your child developed a fear based on a false belief?
I think there's a proper role for racial mediators. Enlightened whites can legitmately lecture receptive blacks, and vice versa, under appropriate circumstances. Krager would find his black audience more receptive if (1) he had anything useful to say, (2) he did not come off as ignorant and racist, (3) he had at least acknowledged that the whites who held these stupid fears were wrong, and (4) he had directed most of his lecture to the white people who are being stupid, rather than black people whose positions he does not even claim to understand.
I hope to more thoroughly address the first link later.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Update 1: Imaginary Primary Races
First, on the primary race. Last night I was watching the News Hour and one of the guests reminded me of another complaint I have. This person was talking about the expected bounce that would accrue to the symbolic winner of a primary, such as California, irrespective of the number of delegates received, even if less than his or her adversary. What this points out is that the whole talk about the "winner" of this or that race is largely an imaginary construct that the media, rather than informing us to be skeptical of it because it is imaginary, has promoted moreso even than the campaigns themselves.
The way it works is that a state has rules for apportioning delegates. Some go to officeholders or former officeholders and thus in effect were voted upon in advance of the primary date by the general electorate of the state, district, or even the country. Others are apportioned, or go on a winner-take-all basis by subunits of the state, like counties, wards, or congressional districts. So those are district-wide individual races that may be won or lost, but in most cases, being apportioned, the stakes are incredibly small and in a close race at best a candidate may come out with one delegate more than the rival. Other delegates are at large by state, but if the number to be selected at large is not all the state's delegates but just a handful, or if they are apportioned, this makes the actual stakes of a "win" or "loss" insignificant. A few states have caucus systems, such as Iowa's elimination derby. And in some states the delegates are wildly maldistributed.
So the prize of "winning" a state is usually nothing. In most cases, it has a small or nonexistent effect on delegates. And the popular vote for the state, owing to the fact that the rules have little or nothing to do with the popular vote, is really irrelevant.
Now take a step back. I think the media should be telling us how candidates would actually govern if elected, rather than giving us reports of who's ahead and why.
But now add to this that when it comes to giving the horserace coverage, the media do not even focus on the actual delegate contest that will determine the winner. Instead, they focus on the issue of who will "win" this or that state. So Candidate X "carries" state Z, winning 15 delegates to the opponent's 14. (Or maybe 15 to the opponent's 16: It's a mandate!) But X is not going to be governor of Z, or senator from Z. He or she will be the party nominee for a national office where the state of Z may well go to the other party anyway.
So why should the media bother to report who "wins" Z, which is not a real contest with anything officially at stake? How is winning Z any more significant than winning, say, males 18-25, or unitarians, out lesbians that describe themselves as strongly anti-war? The reason, we were politely informed, is because although the mythical race for Z means nothing in itself, the declared "winner" will receive a boost in later races. It's horserace coverage one step removed. While actual race results at least tell you what the voters decided. Just saying who "won" the unofficial contest for most votes tells you only what the candidates will be able to argue to future funders and voters regarding whether they are winning.
Moreover, one must question various things here. Does it make a difference? There's no question that both the major candidates are viable. (How does winning a nonexistent contest prove viability if one lost, tied, or barely won the real contest?) Predictions on this score have repeatedly been wrong. More importantly, one suspects this effect is largely artificial and media driven. Do candidates really have a profound inclination to go out and pitch the fact that they won nonexistent contests? Or do they do it, if at all, mainly because they are aided by being able to say, "if you've been watching the news, you know that we just won Z?"
I think the role of the media is to warn people that the pitch "we just won Z" is misleading because the race for Z is not real, and should not matter much to voters anyway. But in fact, the race for Z is something the media has invented and promoted.
I think there is a word for the media manufacturing ways to look at events in order to report on how the same media-manufactured way of looking at events will affect media-conscious viewers in the future. That word is "masturbation." Thanks for sharing, News Hour.
The way it works is that a state has rules for apportioning delegates. Some go to officeholders or former officeholders and thus in effect were voted upon in advance of the primary date by the general electorate of the state, district, or even the country. Others are apportioned, or go on a winner-take-all basis by subunits of the state, like counties, wards, or congressional districts. So those are district-wide individual races that may be won or lost, but in most cases, being apportioned, the stakes are incredibly small and in a close race at best a candidate may come out with one delegate more than the rival. Other delegates are at large by state, but if the number to be selected at large is not all the state's delegates but just a handful, or if they are apportioned, this makes the actual stakes of a "win" or "loss" insignificant. A few states have caucus systems, such as Iowa's elimination derby. And in some states the delegates are wildly maldistributed.
So the prize of "winning" a state is usually nothing. In most cases, it has a small or nonexistent effect on delegates. And the popular vote for the state, owing to the fact that the rules have little or nothing to do with the popular vote, is really irrelevant.
Now take a step back. I think the media should be telling us how candidates would actually govern if elected, rather than giving us reports of who's ahead and why.
But now add to this that when it comes to giving the horserace coverage, the media do not even focus on the actual delegate contest that will determine the winner. Instead, they focus on the issue of who will "win" this or that state. So Candidate X "carries" state Z, winning 15 delegates to the opponent's 14. (Or maybe 15 to the opponent's 16: It's a mandate!) But X is not going to be governor of Z, or senator from Z. He or she will be the party nominee for a national office where the state of Z may well go to the other party anyway.
So why should the media bother to report who "wins" Z, which is not a real contest with anything officially at stake? How is winning Z any more significant than winning, say, males 18-25, or unitarians, out lesbians that describe themselves as strongly anti-war? The reason, we were politely informed, is because although the mythical race for Z means nothing in itself, the declared "winner" will receive a boost in later races. It's horserace coverage one step removed. While actual race results at least tell you what the voters decided. Just saying who "won" the unofficial contest for most votes tells you only what the candidates will be able to argue to future funders and voters regarding whether they are winning.
Moreover, one must question various things here. Does it make a difference? There's no question that both the major candidates are viable. (How does winning a nonexistent contest prove viability if one lost, tied, or barely won the real contest?) Predictions on this score have repeatedly been wrong. More importantly, one suspects this effect is largely artificial and media driven. Do candidates really have a profound inclination to go out and pitch the fact that they won nonexistent contests? Or do they do it, if at all, mainly because they are aided by being able to say, "if you've been watching the news, you know that we just won Z?"
I think the role of the media is to warn people that the pitch "we just won Z" is misleading because the race for Z is not real, and should not matter much to voters anyway. But in fact, the race for Z is something the media has invented and promoted.
I think there is a word for the media manufacturing ways to look at events in order to report on how the same media-manufactured way of looking at events will affect media-conscious viewers in the future. That word is "masturbation." Thanks for sharing, News Hour.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
