The folks at Levi's should stick to dungarees, because they don't seem to be able to make underwear. I bought some Levi's boxer briefs a few months ago, and I have been meaning to throw them away since week one. I don't know why I don't think of it until I'm wearing the damned things, but I don't. I forget all about them and wear them over and over and experience the same problems over and over. I'm an idiot.
These briefs are cut in a way that after you have been wearing them a few hours the short leg part curls up and starts to constrict the scrotum and chafe the insides of the thighs. And if that weren't bad enough, the back end simply will not stay out of the gluteal cleft. The most uncomfortable undershorts ever is what they are.
And another thing. The slit in the front that let's you urinate without pulling down your shorts is horizontal instead of vertical and is practically unworkable without wetting yourself.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Empire Starts at Home
So we've got this huge military and are intent on building an empire, but we're going about it all wrong. Why would we want Afghanistan as a possession? It's a dung heap, and it's on the other side of the planet. Iraq at least has oil, but we can buy Iraq's oil the same as anybody else and don't need to occupy the country, an expensive proposition, to get it. The Romans didn't run off conquering distant lands until they had conquered nearby lands, and we should follow their lead.
Let's take Canada and Mexico for starters. And the Bahamas. That way, we would save money on transportation and logistics and wouldn't have so much of a problem with the language and culture. We'd still get practice for our youth as bullet stoppers, and military contractors and suppliers would still be fed. Better yet, we'd get to practice fighting in all kinds of climates and terrains instead of just all desert, all the time. The Navy might even see some action.
Americans could colonize and Americanize the conquered territories as they are pacified.
Eventually we'd take over the whole hemisphere at which point we should probably just stop for a while and consolidate our gains.
Let's take Canada and Mexico for starters. And the Bahamas. That way, we would save money on transportation and logistics and wouldn't have so much of a problem with the language and culture. We'd still get practice for our youth as bullet stoppers, and military contractors and suppliers would still be fed. Better yet, we'd get to practice fighting in all kinds of climates and terrains instead of just all desert, all the time. The Navy might even see some action.
Americans could colonize and Americanize the conquered territories as they are pacified.
Eventually we'd take over the whole hemisphere at which point we should probably just stop for a while and consolidate our gains.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
The Manifesto « The Dark Mountain Project
I heard about this on the BBC radio news this morning and had to check it out.
The Manifesto « The Dark Mountain Project
"It is, it seems, our civilisation’s turn to experience the inrush of the savage and the unseen; our turn to be brought up short by contact with untamed reality. There is a fall coming. We live in an age in which familiar restraints are being kicked away, and foundations snatched from under us. After a quarter century of complacency, in which we were invited to believe in bubbles that would never burst, prices that would never fall, the end of history, the crude repackaging of the triumphalism of Conrad’s Victorian twilight – Hubris has been introduced to Nemesis. Now a familiar human story is being played out. It is the story of an empire corroding from within. It is the story of a people who believed, for a long time, that their actions did not have consequences. It is the story of how that people will cope with the crumbling of their own myth. It is our story.
This time, the crumbling empire is the unassailable global economy, and the brave new world of consumer democracy being forged worldwide in its name. Upon the indestructibility of this edifice we have pinned the hopes of this latest phase of our civilisation. Now, its failure and fallibility exposed, the world’s elites are scrabbling frantically to buoy up an economic machine which, for decades, they told us needed little restraint, for restraint would be its undoing. Uncountable sums of money are being funnelled upwards in order to prevent an uncontrolled explosion. The machine is stuttering and the engineers are in panic. They are wondering if perhaps they do not understand it as well as they imagined. They are wondering whether they are controlling it at all or whether, perhaps, it is controlling them."
"And over it all looms runaway climate change. Climate change, which threatens to render all human projects irrelevant; which presents us with detailed evidence of our lack of understanding of the world we inhabit while, at the same time, demonstrating that we are still entirely reliant upon it. Climate change, which highlights in painful colour the head-on crash between civilisation and ‘nature’; which makes plain, more effectively than any carefully constructed argument or optimistically defiant protest, how the machine’s need for permanent growth will require us to destroy ourselves in its name. Climate change, which brings home at last our ultimate powerlessness."
We won't stop growing our economy until the planet starts killing us.
The Manifesto « The Dark Mountain Project
"It is, it seems, our civilisation’s turn to experience the inrush of the savage and the unseen; our turn to be brought up short by contact with untamed reality. There is a fall coming. We live in an age in which familiar restraints are being kicked away, and foundations snatched from under us. After a quarter century of complacency, in which we were invited to believe in bubbles that would never burst, prices that would never fall, the end of history, the crude repackaging of the triumphalism of Conrad’s Victorian twilight – Hubris has been introduced to Nemesis. Now a familiar human story is being played out. It is the story of an empire corroding from within. It is the story of a people who believed, for a long time, that their actions did not have consequences. It is the story of how that people will cope with the crumbling of their own myth. It is our story.
This time, the crumbling empire is the unassailable global economy, and the brave new world of consumer democracy being forged worldwide in its name. Upon the indestructibility of this edifice we have pinned the hopes of this latest phase of our civilisation. Now, its failure and fallibility exposed, the world’s elites are scrabbling frantically to buoy up an economic machine which, for decades, they told us needed little restraint, for restraint would be its undoing. Uncountable sums of money are being funnelled upwards in order to prevent an uncontrolled explosion. The machine is stuttering and the engineers are in panic. They are wondering if perhaps they do not understand it as well as they imagined. They are wondering whether they are controlling it at all or whether, perhaps, it is controlling them."
"And over it all looms runaway climate change. Climate change, which threatens to render all human projects irrelevant; which presents us with detailed evidence of our lack of understanding of the world we inhabit while, at the same time, demonstrating that we are still entirely reliant upon it. Climate change, which highlights in painful colour the head-on crash between civilisation and ‘nature’; which makes plain, more effectively than any carefully constructed argument or optimistically defiant protest, how the machine’s need for permanent growth will require us to destroy ourselves in its name. Climate change, which brings home at last our ultimate powerlessness."
We won't stop growing our economy until the planet starts killing us.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Majority Of Americans Think Afghanistan 'Not Worth It,' Poll Finds
Majority Of Americans Think Afghanistan 'Not Worth It,' Poll Finds
And they are absolutely right. This is unwinnable unless you define winning as mucking around in a barbaric hell hole for no apparent reason. Afghanistan is not governable.
And they are absolutely right. This is unwinnable unless you define winning as mucking around in a barbaric hell hole for no apparent reason. Afghanistan is not governable.
Sarah Palin: American Law Should Be 'Based On The God Of The Bible And The Ten Commandments'
Sarah Palin: American Law Should Be 'Based On The God Of The Bible And The Ten Commandments'
Sarah Palin is a crazy person. I used to think she was kind of an undereducated grifter, but now it seems clear to me that she's a nut.
American law is based on (a) the common law as it had developed in England over the centuries, and (b) the Constitution. It is not based on the Bible or the Decalogue or the Law of Moses. The Founders, not being ignorant and crazy, knew that, and those of us who are not ignorant and crazy know it now.
At least she allows for a quick diagnosis of idiocy in anyone who is a Palin follower or voter.
Sarah Palin is a crazy person. I used to think she was kind of an undereducated grifter, but now it seems clear to me that she's a nut.
American law is based on (a) the common law as it had developed in England over the centuries, and (b) the Constitution. It is not based on the Bible or the Decalogue or the Law of Moses. The Founders, not being ignorant and crazy, knew that, and those of us who are not ignorant and crazy know it now.
At least she allows for a quick diagnosis of idiocy in anyone who is a Palin follower or voter.
Sunday, May 09, 2010
Screw Global warming; It Will Screw Us Soon Enough
What can be done about Global Warming? At this point, probably not much. We should have started working on this 30 years ago, but we didn't and now it is too late to prevent disastrous climate change. About all we can do is to hope to slow it down, ameliorate its impacts, and adapt to a hotter and less human friendly planet.
There is likely to be extensive desertification and a breakdown of the Monsoon Cycle with resultant widespread famine, war and misery. Africa, already as miserable as one would think it could get, is going to get even worse.
On the plus side, that American obesity problem is going to go away with food shortages. And Social Security won't need as much money because folks will die a lot sooner. Good news for "family values" Republicans! Families will be strengthened because we'll have to pool our resources and cooperate for our very survival. The Middle East won't hate us for our freedom anymore, because we won't really have any.
It may be a good time to invest in the things that folks will need in the postapocalyptic dystopia. I'm thinking old timey farm implements and draft animals and kits for making bullets.
There is likely to be extensive desertification and a breakdown of the Monsoon Cycle with resultant widespread famine, war and misery. Africa, already as miserable as one would think it could get, is going to get even worse.
On the plus side, that American obesity problem is going to go away with food shortages. And Social Security won't need as much money because folks will die a lot sooner. Good news for "family values" Republicans! Families will be strengthened because we'll have to pool our resources and cooperate for our very survival. The Middle East won't hate us for our freedom anymore, because we won't really have any.
It may be a good time to invest in the things that folks will need in the postapocalyptic dystopia. I'm thinking old timey farm implements and draft animals and kits for making bullets.
Friday, May 07, 2010
Nothing is Beyond the Reach of the Commerce Clause
For those who reckon that the federales are powerless to regulate health insurance, let me remind them of Gonzales v Raich, wherein the conservative SCOTUS held that the federales had the power under the interstate commerce clause to criminalize home grown cannabis for medicinal use. From the concurrence of Fat Tony Scalia:
"And the category of 'activities that substantially affect interstate commerce'... is incomplete because the authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws governing intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce." (emphasis added).
"And the category of 'activities that substantially affect interstate commerce'... is incomplete because the authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws governing intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce." (emphasis added).
Thursday, May 06, 2010
Freedom Lovers do not Discriminate on Irrational Bases
In a perfect world, as I envision it, no person would be hated or discriminated against on account of race, gender, age, disability, national origin, religious affiliation or sexual orientation. I embrace non-uniformity and non-conformity. I love freedom, and a truly free society is bound to be diverse. In my freedom loving value system, it is immoral to deprive anyone of the means to earn a livelihood, housing, and access to public facilities on the basis of the categories or attributes I have listed. One may loathe Baptists and all that they stand for, but one ought not to treat Baptists differently in employment, housing or access to commerce that is generally open to the public.
The religious beliefs of Baptists, however misguided one may consider them, do not do anyone other than possibly the believers any harm, and the performance of Baptist rituals is generally not a nuisance. Behavior by Baptists which is predicated on or justified by Baptist religious beliefs is for the most part peaceful. To interfere with a Baptist's exercise of his religion where that exercise is harmless and does not infringe on the rights of others would be arrogant, immoral and uncivilized. Of course, one may choose not to associate with Baptists socially as long as one does not undermine their livelihood, shelter or ability to trade in the open market.
Despite their misguided protestations to the contrary, Baptists did not choose their irrational beliefs about the supernatural any more than they chose their race or sexual orientation. Although it may be argued that Baptists can choose not to express their beliefs or practice their religion, what purpose would be served by requiring them to deny their identity and suppress their true selves? Inasmuch as they do no harm and their happiness is increased by professing and practicing their religion openly and freely, it is incumbent on freedom lovers to avoid interfering with them. In fact, a true spirit of freedom requires affirmation of the Baptist in his faith.
Some may argue that their own religious views differ from those of the Baptists and that their faith requires them to despise Baptists, perhaps even kill them. Shouldn't those persons be entitled to practice their religion freely and to express their hatred of Baptists in any manner they choose? There are limits to the privileges conferred on the faithful in the freedom loving value system. If religion leads one to harm others, perhaps by discriminating against them, then it becomes a legitimate basis for complaint and discrimination against those who harbor the harmful belief. Clothing wrongdoing in religious garb does not exempt it from punishment.
Some may argue that their own happiness is diminished by the existence of Baptists and the open practice of their religion because they have a subjective preference for a world that is Baptist-free. Those with such preferences must subordinate them to the more important principle of love of freedom. It is not merely one's own freedom that one loves but the freedom of everyone.
The religious beliefs of Baptists, however misguided one may consider them, do not do anyone other than possibly the believers any harm, and the performance of Baptist rituals is generally not a nuisance. Behavior by Baptists which is predicated on or justified by Baptist religious beliefs is for the most part peaceful. To interfere with a Baptist's exercise of his religion where that exercise is harmless and does not infringe on the rights of others would be arrogant, immoral and uncivilized. Of course, one may choose not to associate with Baptists socially as long as one does not undermine their livelihood, shelter or ability to trade in the open market.
Despite their misguided protestations to the contrary, Baptists did not choose their irrational beliefs about the supernatural any more than they chose their race or sexual orientation. Although it may be argued that Baptists can choose not to express their beliefs or practice their religion, what purpose would be served by requiring them to deny their identity and suppress their true selves? Inasmuch as they do no harm and their happiness is increased by professing and practicing their religion openly and freely, it is incumbent on freedom lovers to avoid interfering with them. In fact, a true spirit of freedom requires affirmation of the Baptist in his faith.
Some may argue that their own religious views differ from those of the Baptists and that their faith requires them to despise Baptists, perhaps even kill them. Shouldn't those persons be entitled to practice their religion freely and to express their hatred of Baptists in any manner they choose? There are limits to the privileges conferred on the faithful in the freedom loving value system. If religion leads one to harm others, perhaps by discriminating against them, then it becomes a legitimate basis for complaint and discrimination against those who harbor the harmful belief. Clothing wrongdoing in religious garb does not exempt it from punishment.
Some may argue that their own happiness is diminished by the existence of Baptists and the open practice of their religion because they have a subjective preference for a world that is Baptist-free. Those with such preferences must subordinate them to the more important principle of love of freedom. It is not merely one's own freedom that one loves but the freedom of everyone.
Wednesday, May 05, 2010
I Kvetch About How the Suffering of Others Causes Me Pain
I have become increasingly aware in the last year of a lot of horrific things. There is a holocaust in the Congo as well as mass murder in Sudan. Young boys are sold into sexual slavery in Afghanistan. Girls are being raped to death by their husbands in Yemen. Life still sucks in Haiti and in other areas devastated by earthquakes and other disasters both natural and man made.
The US is still in Afghanistan and Iraq with no apparent schedule to withdraw and no mission that is remotely feasible. The Middle East is rife with abuses of women and exploitation of children.
I could go on, but it is wearing on the soul. I can't seem to keep up with all the things I am supposed to feel compassion for and to remember in my prayers. What can be done? What can I do? What can my rulers do? What should my rulers do, if anything? Where do I give money? Whom do I boycott? How do I change the way I live so that I make any kind of difference for good or at least avoid contributing to the evil in the world?
Of course, suffering from compassion fatigue is way better than suffering from any of the evils for which I feel compassion, and I feel like a douche for kvetching about it. Great, now I'm fatigued and full of self loathing. Are you happy now, suffering masses?
The US is still in Afghanistan and Iraq with no apparent schedule to withdraw and no mission that is remotely feasible. The Middle East is rife with abuses of women and exploitation of children.
I could go on, but it is wearing on the soul. I can't seem to keep up with all the things I am supposed to feel compassion for and to remember in my prayers. What can be done? What can I do? What can my rulers do? What should my rulers do, if anything? Where do I give money? Whom do I boycott? How do I change the way I live so that I make any kind of difference for good or at least avoid contributing to the evil in the world?
Of course, suffering from compassion fatigue is way better than suffering from any of the evils for which I feel compassion, and I feel like a douche for kvetching about it. Great, now I'm fatigued and full of self loathing. Are you happy now, suffering masses?
Monday, May 03, 2010
Democratic Republic of Congo | Genocide Intervention Network
Democratic Republic of Congo Genocide Intervention Network
5 million civilians have been murdered since 1996 by government forces and rebels in the eastern Congo.
Would it make sense to raise a force of volunteers/mercenaries to keep the peace and protect civilians?
5 million civilians have been murdered since 1996 by government forces and rebels in the eastern Congo.
Would it make sense to raise a force of volunteers/mercenaries to keep the peace and protect civilians?
We Can't Decriminalize Cannabis Because...
I have been trying to come up with an argument against decriminalizing cannabis, and the only one I can think of is that criminalization justifies a lot of police powers and spending on police. Also, it provides cover for surveillance and harassment of poor people.
Er...those don't sound like very good reasons, either.
Er...those don't sound like very good reasons, either.
Balloon Juice » Blog Archive » Freakonomics
Balloon Juice » Blog Archive » Freakonomics
From DougJ comes the threat of Wall Streeters to come to our towns and take our jobs and live on $85K a year.
"So now that we’re going to be making $85k a year without upside, Joe Mainstreet is going to have his revenge, right? Wrong! Guess what: we’re going to stop buying the new 80k car, we aren’t going to leave the 35 percent tip at our business dinners anymore. No more free rides on our backs. We’re going to landscape our own back yards, wash our cars with a garden hose in our driveways. Our money was your money. You spent it. When our money dries up, so does yours."
Can anyone be that big a douche?
From DougJ comes the threat of Wall Streeters to come to our towns and take our jobs and live on $85K a year.
"So now that we’re going to be making $85k a year without upside, Joe Mainstreet is going to have his revenge, right? Wrong! Guess what: we’re going to stop buying the new 80k car, we aren’t going to leave the 35 percent tip at our business dinners anymore. No more free rides on our backs. We’re going to landscape our own back yards, wash our cars with a garden hose in our driveways. Our money was your money. You spent it. When our money dries up, so does yours."
Can anyone be that big a douche?
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Reducing the Number of Governments a Step in the Right Direction
I'm an anarchist, so eventually I'd like to see the government go away. I'm not interested in moving government powers from one level of government to another because I don't think that helps. Having a relatively more powerful gang in Albany would not be a step in the direction of anarchy. Neither would a relatively more powerful gang in Poughkeepsie or Hopewell Junction or the Carmel Central School District. That's just rearranging the furniture.
In fact, the more local the government, the more meddling it does in my day to day life. My neighbors have shown no compunction about taxing the crap out of me to pay for schools, recreation facilities, wreaths on every power pole at Christmas, and American flags on them in July. There is nothing that the Town of East Fishkill and Dutchess County consider off limits when it comes to regulating my life. My best friend when it comes to checking local and state government is, I have to admit, the federal government.
All the layers of local government result in costly inefficiencies. Every local school board has its own administrative apparatus when it would be far cheaper to share administrative functions. Every town has its own police and functionaries in town halls when it would be far cheaper to consolidate them. This could be done without the subjects of these entities' sacrificing a single iota of freedom. I reckon we'd be more free since we'd have to pay less for the same services due to economies of scale and synergies we'd enjoy.
This applies likewise to states. Who needs them? Fifty legislatures, state executive departments, attorneys general, judicial systems and what have you represent a monumental waste of resources. Consolidate them and get them off our backs. Why does anyone think it is a good idea to have fifty sets of laws, especially nowadays when so much commerce and interaction is interstate, indeed international?
Let's have one government in America. That's a true step in the direction of anarchy since we now have thousands of governments to contend with.
Frankly, I like my government to be remote. Having it right here in Kent and Hopewell Junction is a little close for comfort. Did you know that they actually expect me to license my freaking dogs? And heaven forbid I should decide to erect a shed on my property without their approving it. But I digress. I would like to see all my government in Washington, DC, remote and too overwhelmed with the big picture to mess with me that much.
The next step would be One World Government.
In fact, the more local the government, the more meddling it does in my day to day life. My neighbors have shown no compunction about taxing the crap out of me to pay for schools, recreation facilities, wreaths on every power pole at Christmas, and American flags on them in July. There is nothing that the Town of East Fishkill and Dutchess County consider off limits when it comes to regulating my life. My best friend when it comes to checking local and state government is, I have to admit, the federal government.
All the layers of local government result in costly inefficiencies. Every local school board has its own administrative apparatus when it would be far cheaper to share administrative functions. Every town has its own police and functionaries in town halls when it would be far cheaper to consolidate them. This could be done without the subjects of these entities' sacrificing a single iota of freedom. I reckon we'd be more free since we'd have to pay less for the same services due to economies of scale and synergies we'd enjoy.
This applies likewise to states. Who needs them? Fifty legislatures, state executive departments, attorneys general, judicial systems and what have you represent a monumental waste of resources. Consolidate them and get them off our backs. Why does anyone think it is a good idea to have fifty sets of laws, especially nowadays when so much commerce and interaction is interstate, indeed international?
Let's have one government in America. That's a true step in the direction of anarchy since we now have thousands of governments to contend with.
Frankly, I like my government to be remote. Having it right here in Kent and Hopewell Junction is a little close for comfort. Did you know that they actually expect me to license my freaking dogs? And heaven forbid I should decide to erect a shed on my property without their approving it. But I digress. I would like to see all my government in Washington, DC, remote and too overwhelmed with the big picture to mess with me that much.
The next step would be One World Government.
Remote Area Medical and Licensing
I listened to Stan Brock of Remote Area Medical on WBAI this morning and was appalled to learn that the mission of that organization, which provides free medical care to remote areas and within the US, is obstructed by licensure requirements. California has a bill pending in its legislature to exempt medical, dental and optical professionals licensed in other jurisdictions from state licensing requirements when providing free services within California. Good for California if it passes.
Until it does, a dental hygienist licensed in New York is not lawfully permitted to volunteer to go to Fresno and give free cleanings to poor people. An eye doctor licensed in Illinois cannot give exams and prescribe eyeglasses to poor folks in Appalachia. A physician licensed in Florida can't treat a charity case in Idaho.
The system of state licensure for these professionals is a preposterous and unnecessary restraint of trade. Teeth, eyes and human bodies don't change when state lines are crossed. A root canal in New Mexico is the same as a root canal in Maine. A colonoscope in Vermont takes the same route in Minnesota. It is time to develop a system of national or even international recognition of professional licenses so that professionals may move freely over borders and their clientele will have more choices.
I cannot think of a good reason for maintaining the present system. It protects local professionals from out of state competition, but I consider that a bad reason.
I would extend this reasoning to engineers, teachers, accountants and lawyers as well. Numbers don't change from state to state, and laws are not all that different across the country. Educational and engineering theory and practice is the same everywhere.
I would also advocate taking a good, hard look at the proliferation of occupational licensing requirements across the country and eliminate them where they serve no useful public purpose. Flower arranging, hair braiding, and any number of other occupations have been saddled with onerous licensing requirements that serve only as obstacles to entry into trade.
Until it does, a dental hygienist licensed in New York is not lawfully permitted to volunteer to go to Fresno and give free cleanings to poor people. An eye doctor licensed in Illinois cannot give exams and prescribe eyeglasses to poor folks in Appalachia. A physician licensed in Florida can't treat a charity case in Idaho.
The system of state licensure for these professionals is a preposterous and unnecessary restraint of trade. Teeth, eyes and human bodies don't change when state lines are crossed. A root canal in New Mexico is the same as a root canal in Maine. A colonoscope in Vermont takes the same route in Minnesota. It is time to develop a system of national or even international recognition of professional licenses so that professionals may move freely over borders and their clientele will have more choices.
I cannot think of a good reason for maintaining the present system. It protects local professionals from out of state competition, but I consider that a bad reason.
I would extend this reasoning to engineers, teachers, accountants and lawyers as well. Numbers don't change from state to state, and laws are not all that different across the country. Educational and engineering theory and practice is the same everywhere.
I would also advocate taking a good, hard look at the proliferation of occupational licensing requirements across the country and eliminate them where they serve no useful public purpose. Flower arranging, hair braiding, and any number of other occupations have been saddled with onerous licensing requirements that serve only as obstacles to entry into trade.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Jonathan Haidt on the moral roots of liberals and conservatives | Video on TED.com
Jonathan Haidt on the moral roots of liberals and conservatives Video on TED.com
This is an extremely interesting talk (about 18 minutes but worth it).
This is an extremely interesting talk (about 18 minutes but worth it).
Friday, April 23, 2010
This is the Friday that the Lord has Made
Friday evening on a beautiful spring day, a glass of Luksusowa vodka and tonic in my hand (another already in my system), and birdsong. A man would have to be a blockhead to want more.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
What billmon said
The "Epistemic Closing" of the Conservative Mind
This is worth reading. This is why engagement with wingers will accomplish nothing and why it is more effective to be dismissive.
Posted using ShareThis
This is worth reading. This is why engagement with wingers will accomplish nothing and why it is more effective to be dismissive.
Posted using ShareThis
Monday, April 19, 2010
Yemen is a Hellhole
I heard on NPR this afternoon about Yemeni girls as young as 9 being forcibly married and raped by their older husbands. Recently, a 13 year old child bride was raped to death by her 23 year old husband. I suppose "rape" isn't really the right word here. After all, in Yemen, as in some states of the US not so long ago, a man has a right to have sex with his wife and to use the force necessary to enforce that right.
Places like Yemen will always be hellholes as long as women are this unempowered. It seems to me that there is a direct correlation between the status of women and the degree of civilization in a place. The more equal women are to men and the more opportunities they have, the better the place is to live for everyone. The creativity and ambition of women, once released from repression, enriches society in manifold ways.
I pledge to avoid doing business or spending tourism dollars in any place that allows women and little girls to be treated so badly, and I urge others to do the same unless such spending or consumption benefits women. Not that I was planning a trip to Yemen. I just aim to be more mindful of this issue.
Places like Yemen will always be hellholes as long as women are this unempowered. It seems to me that there is a direct correlation between the status of women and the degree of civilization in a place. The more equal women are to men and the more opportunities they have, the better the place is to live for everyone. The creativity and ambition of women, once released from repression, enriches society in manifold ways.
I pledge to avoid doing business or spending tourism dollars in any place that allows women and little girls to be treated so badly, and I urge others to do the same unless such spending or consumption benefits women. Not that I was planning a trip to Yemen. I just aim to be more mindful of this issue.
Senatorial Revisions
I have given some more thought to the question of the Senate and figure that as long as we are overhauling the legislature we should take a hard look at what we want a Senate to accomplish and how best to select Senators to achieve those ends. Unless our goal is to have an utterly corrupt body primarily beholden to moneyed interests, we can agree that direct election of Senators is preposterous.
It may be argued, by those who have not given it much thought, that selecting Senators by means other than selecting among candidates robs citizens of real representation. This is far from the truth. Half of eligible voters wisely decline to vote in most elections. Are they represented by the person whom the fools who voted selected? If your candidate loses, are you represented by the guy you hated? Are the two choices put up by the political parties a genuine exercise of choice? And for every informed voter, there are a thousand uninformed and misinformed sheep to drown out their voices with their imbecilic bleating. No, electing Senators directly is wrong for America.
What is the point really of a less representative upper house? Is it a vestige of the House of Lords designed to safeguard the interests of the propertied classes from the rapacity of the mob? No, that was buit into the system in other ways by limiting the franchise to propertied white men. Is it to safeguard regional interests? Originally, the idea was to assure small states of a voice when the larger states overwhelmed them in population and House seats. That was a political compromise that made some sense back in the 1780s when a constitution had to be sold, but it may no longer serve in the present context in which states are more or less political subdivisions with a few vestiges of sovereignty.
Perhaps there are other regional and minority interests that we reckon should be protected from majoritarian tyranny. And if there are such interests, such as rural concerns in an overwhelmingly urban and suburban country, we should determine how much of a power imbalance to adopt to achieve our goals. In the present system, sparsely populated states in Flyoverstan control far too much of the Senate in comparison to populous coastal states and do nothing to serve regional interests. Rather, they provide convenient venues for moneyed interests to invest in Senate campaigns and buy influence relatively cheaply. A Wyoming Senate candidate needs to buy many fewer votes than a candidate in California or New York. This imbalance results in the kind of GOP Senate caucus that we suffer from now and is bad for America.
I propose that we slant things somewhat but not so crazily to rural interests by consolidating a number of sparsely populated, rural states and rural areas of nearby urban states into a number of Senate Districts which is equal to the number of Senators that would be chosen on a proportional basis plus a premium of seats to be determined by how much we really care about this social divide.
Senators would then be chosen by lottery from a pool of eligible individuals (30 plus years old, domiciled in district, no felony convictions, no receipt of government funds for ten years except legislative pay) who have previously served in the House of Representatives or the Senate. The experience requirement would help to make the Senate a more deliberative body. Terms would be for 12 years. I estimate that our consolidation program would result in 30 Senate Districts, and since we have already increased numbers in the House I propose that each District select three Senators for a total of 120 seats.
I would still prohibit the Senate from proposing legislation or offering amendments and would require it to act promptly on affirmations and ratifications.
A Senate chosen by lot would look like America and would be likely to work for America rather than for itself.
It may be argued, by those who have not given it much thought, that selecting Senators by means other than selecting among candidates robs citizens of real representation. This is far from the truth. Half of eligible voters wisely decline to vote in most elections. Are they represented by the person whom the fools who voted selected? If your candidate loses, are you represented by the guy you hated? Are the two choices put up by the political parties a genuine exercise of choice? And for every informed voter, there are a thousand uninformed and misinformed sheep to drown out their voices with their imbecilic bleating. No, electing Senators directly is wrong for America.
What is the point really of a less representative upper house? Is it a vestige of the House of Lords designed to safeguard the interests of the propertied classes from the rapacity of the mob? No, that was buit into the system in other ways by limiting the franchise to propertied white men. Is it to safeguard regional interests? Originally, the idea was to assure small states of a voice when the larger states overwhelmed them in population and House seats. That was a political compromise that made some sense back in the 1780s when a constitution had to be sold, but it may no longer serve in the present context in which states are more or less political subdivisions with a few vestiges of sovereignty.
Perhaps there are other regional and minority interests that we reckon should be protected from majoritarian tyranny. And if there are such interests, such as rural concerns in an overwhelmingly urban and suburban country, we should determine how much of a power imbalance to adopt to achieve our goals. In the present system, sparsely populated states in Flyoverstan control far too much of the Senate in comparison to populous coastal states and do nothing to serve regional interests. Rather, they provide convenient venues for moneyed interests to invest in Senate campaigns and buy influence relatively cheaply. A Wyoming Senate candidate needs to buy many fewer votes than a candidate in California or New York. This imbalance results in the kind of GOP Senate caucus that we suffer from now and is bad for America.
I propose that we slant things somewhat but not so crazily to rural interests by consolidating a number of sparsely populated, rural states and rural areas of nearby urban states into a number of Senate Districts which is equal to the number of Senators that would be chosen on a proportional basis plus a premium of seats to be determined by how much we really care about this social divide.
Senators would then be chosen by lottery from a pool of eligible individuals (30 plus years old, domiciled in district, no felony convictions, no receipt of government funds for ten years except legislative pay) who have previously served in the House of Representatives or the Senate. The experience requirement would help to make the Senate a more deliberative body. Terms would be for 12 years. I estimate that our consolidation program would result in 30 Senate Districts, and since we have already increased numbers in the House I propose that each District select three Senators for a total of 120 seats.
I would still prohibit the Senate from proposing legislation or offering amendments and would require it to act promptly on affirmations and ratifications.
A Senate chosen by lot would look like America and would be likely to work for America rather than for itself.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Congressional Lottery Redux
I've mentioned the idea of selecting Congress by lottery instead of elections as a way of eliminating campaign finance corruption. On further consideration, I find that my idea also helps curtail some of the serious problems inherent in the two party system.
To recap my earlier argument, the problems with campaign finance would go away if we no longer had campaigns. One way to do away with campaigns is to do away with elections. We could just as effectively choose Congress in a lottery. That way, anything that anyone gave to a Congressperson would be a transparent bribe.
Another benefit of the Lottery System is that political parties would no longer be primarily concerned with electioneering and winning elections. We would doubtless still have factions but these would be concerned first and foremost with governance rather than campaigning. We would likely avoid the dangerous situation that we have now where one of the major political parties, the GOP, is incompetent to govern effectively when it gets power and invariably makes a mess of things.
The current system has led to a duopoly of two parties which exclude all other factions or potential factions from meaningful participation in the political process. The Lottery System would smooth the way for multiple parties and shifting alliances and coalitions with less potential for polarization into two hostile camps intent on thwarting one another. Congresspersons would be able to form coalitions for special purposes rather than toeing strict party lines. They would be able to remain independent from parties altogether if it suited them. The Lottery System would permit a broader range of views to be represented in Congress.
While we are changing the system to eliminate corruption inherent in political campaigns, let us also make Congress more representative. 435 members is way too few for a population in excess of 300 million. Let's double the number of Congressonal districts to 870 to bring Congresspersons closer to their constituents and to allow for greater diversity of opinions, backgrounds, and perspectives. Better yet, let's triple them to 1,305.
Under the Lottery System, Congresspersons would be selected at random from the residents of each district. The only disqualifications would be youth, felony convictions and receipt of money from any governmental source during the previous ten years, including government contracts. I propose that their terms in office be at least 6 years so that they are not cycled out just as they are learning the ropes. No person would be required to serve if they were unwilling to do so. If the selectee declined to serve, the next name would be drawn until a selectee accepted the position. If we are careful about how districts are drawn, the resulting Congress will invariable look like America. About half of the members will be women. A wide range of age cohorts would be represented, and the distribution of classes in Congress would largely mirror those in the country. In short, we would have a truly representative body.
The Senate, if we decide to keep it at all, could be returned to the original system where its members were selected by state legislatures or it could be chosen by random lottery. I propose that the powers of the Senate be significantly curtailed and that it be limited to voting on legislation passed by the House rather than advancing its own legislation and to advice and consent. In the case of advice and consent, the Senate should be obliged in all instances to give an up or down vote on every nominee within 60 days of nomination and on every treaty within 180 days of submission to the Senate. If it does not, the nominee or treaty should be deemed confirmed or ratified.
To recap my earlier argument, the problems with campaign finance would go away if we no longer had campaigns. One way to do away with campaigns is to do away with elections. We could just as effectively choose Congress in a lottery. That way, anything that anyone gave to a Congressperson would be a transparent bribe.
Another benefit of the Lottery System is that political parties would no longer be primarily concerned with electioneering and winning elections. We would doubtless still have factions but these would be concerned first and foremost with governance rather than campaigning. We would likely avoid the dangerous situation that we have now where one of the major political parties, the GOP, is incompetent to govern effectively when it gets power and invariably makes a mess of things.
The current system has led to a duopoly of two parties which exclude all other factions or potential factions from meaningful participation in the political process. The Lottery System would smooth the way for multiple parties and shifting alliances and coalitions with less potential for polarization into two hostile camps intent on thwarting one another. Congresspersons would be able to form coalitions for special purposes rather than toeing strict party lines. They would be able to remain independent from parties altogether if it suited them. The Lottery System would permit a broader range of views to be represented in Congress.
While we are changing the system to eliminate corruption inherent in political campaigns, let us also make Congress more representative. 435 members is way too few for a population in excess of 300 million. Let's double the number of Congressonal districts to 870 to bring Congresspersons closer to their constituents and to allow for greater diversity of opinions, backgrounds, and perspectives. Better yet, let's triple them to 1,305.
Under the Lottery System, Congresspersons would be selected at random from the residents of each district. The only disqualifications would be youth, felony convictions and receipt of money from any governmental source during the previous ten years, including government contracts. I propose that their terms in office be at least 6 years so that they are not cycled out just as they are learning the ropes. No person would be required to serve if they were unwilling to do so. If the selectee declined to serve, the next name would be drawn until a selectee accepted the position. If we are careful about how districts are drawn, the resulting Congress will invariable look like America. About half of the members will be women. A wide range of age cohorts would be represented, and the distribution of classes in Congress would largely mirror those in the country. In short, we would have a truly representative body.
The Senate, if we decide to keep it at all, could be returned to the original system where its members were selected by state legislatures or it could be chosen by random lottery. I propose that the powers of the Senate be significantly curtailed and that it be limited to voting on legislation passed by the House rather than advancing its own legislation and to advice and consent. In the case of advice and consent, the Senate should be obliged in all instances to give an up or down vote on every nominee within 60 days of nomination and on every treaty within 180 days of submission to the Senate. If it does not, the nominee or treaty should be deemed confirmed or ratified.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)