Vote Tomorrow

There is a town election in Brookline tomorrow. On the ballot is a two-part override question regarding an increase in real estate and personal property taxes. The increase will go toward additional funding for police and fire departments, the public library, schools (including a longer school day), and maintenance of parks, streets, sidewalks, and town buildings. Part 1B of the question involves a slightly higher tax increase, which will also fund the World Language Program for grades K-6.

I know that by voting for higher taxes, I am totally losing whatever libertarian credibility I may ever have had. I still, in theory, would prefer low taxes for bare necessities and pay-per-service assessments for most other things. On the other hand, I really like my local library and plan to take advantage of the children's programs offered there for many years to come. I also appreciate this opportunity to participate in local politics, to be part of the process of deciding whether to raise taxes and where to spend the money. Tomorrow I plan to take advantage of this opportunity by voting YES to both parts of the override question.

The neverending Democratic primary season is slowly making me disenchanted with the political process - not that I was a huge fan to begin with. But politics, and government, don't exist only on the national level. Local elections bring about local results. There are real effects in our schools, our crime rates, our safety, and the beauty of our environment. If we don't participate, we lose credibility when we complain. Learn about and take part in your local government, and vote in every election for which you are eligible to do so. And if you live in Brookline, go out and vote tomorrow.

one nation, indivisible

For those who haven't been reading the news, Supreme Court decided yesterday that Newdon did not have standing in his Pledge of Allegiance case, thereby neatly skirting the constitutional issue that held my interest (and the interest of many others, I would assume) for at least the past several months. I can't be the only one who noticed the irony of them deciding this case on Flag Day. Anyway, only three Justices, Rehnquist, O'Connor, and Thomas, wrote opinions--under different analyses--on the merits, all stating that the "under God" addition 50 years ago was constitutional. For those of you who need me to back up a step further: some guy in California brought a case claiming the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional (under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment) with the inclusion of the phrase "under God." He brought the case on behalf of his school-aged daughter, but there was some question of standing because he and the mother are divorced, and the mother is the custodial parent.

Well, at least we've cleared up a tiny little area of family law. Apparently, noncustodial parents can't bitch to the judicial system about their children being made to say the Pledge in school.

But let's set aside for a moment the Supreme Court's actual decision (or lack thereof) on the Pledge of Allegiance case yesterday. I don't see why I can't have my own little argument right here. Sometimes I feel like I'm the only (monotheistic) religious person who is actually offended by the inclusion of "under God," rather than just understanding of why some other people might be. I never gave much thought to it in school when I was growing up--and that is the problem. Invocation of a deity--whether you believe in that particular deity or not--is disrespectful when said without reverence or even mere consideration of your words.

Of course I am also deeply troubled by the devisiveness of requiring schoolchildren to say the Pledge with an "opt-out." I remember one girl in my class in elementary school who sat out the Pledge every day; even after someone explaiined to me that it was because of her religion (Jehovah's Witness), I thought it was W-E-I-R-D...because that's how may kids think. (Of course, she also didn't bring in cupcakes on her birthday, which I thought was M-E-A-N. On the other hand, I'm sure people thought many odd things about me for never eating hot dogs and hamburgers in the cafetaria or on school trips.)

And beyond the JW, who sit out the Pledge because they find it to be an inappropriate form of prayer (giving allegiance to the nation), there's also the many atheists in this country who do not believe in God. Oh, and also those funny people who belong to those odd little polytheistic, pagan, or animistic religions that have only been around on this planet for about twice as long as Christianity. But they, of course, are insignificant. (Need I actually invoke the sarcasm tag?)

Someone else pointed out, even if you are a monotheist who's cool with the God thing, the arrogance of thinking that God particularly favors our country. Heh.

Finally, the "historical" argument frustrates me because the original Pledge did not have "under God" in it. (It was added during the Communists-Are-Evil era as a way of scaring off those atheist pinko bastards.) Yes, a generation and a half (or so) of us grew up saying the Pledge this way, and it would sound funny to our ears if we relearned it. So what? A while ago, when this case was argued before the Court, William Safire wrote a NYTimes column complaining about the very same thing--in the other direction. Having learned the original Pledge growing up, he thought the phrase "under God" disrupted the flow of the thing.

What will I do when I have children of my own? Well, first of all, let's keep in mind that I only get about 50% of the decision-making power when it comes to raising the kids. If it were up to me, I'd like to tell them to recite the Pledge along with their classmates, omitting the phrase "under God." I would teach them that this was the original form of the Pledge, and explain the many reasons why the addition of that phrase was troublesome to many people and rather unnecessary althogether. Of course, I'll be doing this while sending them to a religious school (or after? Do they even say the Pledge at Orthodox day schools, or do they go straight froom Shacharit to Social Studies?), so that will look pleasantly hypocritical. Oh well. So I'm a hypocrite. I can live with that.

the numbers game

Tangental to another conversation, my friend N asserted that while a candidate could win the presidency with less than 50% of the popular vote, s/he would still need "close to half" in order to get the requisite 270 electoral votes. I set out to prove her wrong. For those of you who are not familiar with my country's electoral system (and since most of my readers are U.S. citizens, I hope that's not too many of you), here's the quick explanation: Each of the fifty states are assigned a number of electoral votes equal to the number of the state's U.S. Senators (always two per state) plus the number of the state's U.S. Representatives (apportioned by population, minimum one per state, total 435). The District of Columbia, which has no representation in Congress (a rant for another day) receives 3 electoral votes as well, bringing the total number of votes in the Electoral College to 538. A candidate needs 270 electoral votes in order to win the presidential election. Each state's electoral votes are granted as a block to the winner of that state's popular vote.

That doesn't sound too bad, until you consider that electoral votes in some states (generally speaking, the least populous) are worth more than those in others.

How so? Well, for starters, two of the electoral votes in each state are granted regardless of that state's population, meaning that in Vermont (1 Representative) these votes triple the state's electoral voting power, whereas in California (53 representatives) they add less than 4% more voting power to the state. Furthermore, since every state must have at least one U.S. Representative, and of course no state can send half a Representative to Washington (pity, that), in some states (such as Rhode Island) there are a mere half-million people for each Representative, whereas in other states (like Delaware or Montana) there are closer to 800,000 or more. It all boils down to an electoral vote in Wyoming weighing more than four times as much (in terms of population behind the vote) as one in California.

Don't believe me? I did the math and it's all in this nifty little spreadsheet.

"Ah, but wait--" you say, "you used total population! Obviously not all these people are registered to vote!" OK, then. You give me the number of registered voters in each state, and I'll use those. In the meantime, I'll settle for assuming that the proportional amount of registered voters to total population in each state is roughly the same.

Anyway, the second sheet of that Excel file is set up so you can play some electoral math games. It is currently sorted so the states with the highest weight electoral votes (fewest voters behind each vote) are at the top, and the lowest-weight states are at the bottom. In the scenario I have set up in the saved file, Party A has garnered 271 electoral votes (more than the required 270) with less than 22% of the popular vote! Of course, I finagled this by having Party A win by one or two votes in the 39 most heavily-weighed states, and having Party B sweep the other 12. I agree that this scenario is highly unlikely (given the nature of elections in general and the groupings of states' politcal leanings in particular), but it does show just how misrepresentative our electoral system really is. I suspect (though I haven't played this out yet) that in an election with three candidates, with states that give their electoral votes to the candidate who garners a plurality of votes in that state (rather than a majority), the popular vote percentage necessary to win would be close to 15%.

Feel free to play with that set-up and come up with more realistic projections that still have one party winning with far less than 50% of the popular vote. You should enter only the votes for Party A (column E); everything else will calculate itself out.

goin' to the chapel

Congratulations to the hundreds of same-sex couples who will celebrate their marriages--full on marriages--today, this week, this year. I have never been so proud to be a Massachusetts resident; I spent the past 20 minutes reading the news and grinning like an idiot. It's almost enough to make me a Red Sox fan.

Also, Governor Romney: Shut up.

Stupid FDA

We're going to ignore how much hell they put my father through at work. Today I read this. It's just such a brilliant idea to deny OTC status for Plan B. Of course making emergency contraception readily available to scared and embarrassed teenagers is just going to make them have more sex, right? We'd best pull the condoms from the shelves and make abortions even harder to get while we're at it. Gotta make sure those silly little girls mess up their lives damn good in case they're stupid enough to have sex, especially if, I don't know, they were raped or something.

(Really, if you couldn't detect the sarcasm in that last paragraph, you should probably stop reading my blog. Do I even know you?)

Look, I'm all in favor of "delayed" sexual activity; it's not a bad idea to wait until you're 16 or 18 before you start having sexual intercourse. I promise your penis won't rot off, or your vagina won't shrivel up and wither away to nothing. I'm also not a huge fan of abortion, but you will never catch me denying a woman her right to choose what happens to her body. This, though? Not abortion. Not even close. Halachicly speaking (that is, according to Jewish law), the product of conception is "like water" until 40 days gestation. Whether you count from fertilization or from last menstrual period, I'm pretty sure that Plan B falls squarely in the 40-day time frame. Setting aside my religious beliefs, though (becuase I'm not one to impose my beliefs on others, or to be particularly thrilled when others try to do that to me), I'd like to point out that Plan B affects ovulation and implantation. Once a zygote has implanted, it doesn't work anymore. If you have a problem with that, I hope you don't use any sort of hormonal birth control or an IUD. (Also, if you have a problem with that, email me. I honestly want to know why.) But the way in which Pan B works is why it's so damn important to make this treatment available to women who need it as quickly and conveniently as possible. The sooner you take it, the more likely it it to be effective. I promise you, with all the fun nausea and vomiting and possibly heavy bleeding that comes with Plan B, people are not going to be using this as their regular form of contraception.

OK, end rant.