Scaling up the constitution

Among the myriad problems American have because of their obsolete constitution, one of the most annoying is the utter lack of scalability of our system of representative democracy. Try to imagine this if you will: when the Constitution was composed, there were only 26 Senators and 65 Representatives. There were around four million American in the first census of 1790, which means that each Representive, on average, represented a little more than 60,000 Americans; after the census, the number of House seats was increased to 106, or about 38,000 citizens per Representative. At present, there are 100 Senators (still not too bad a number, and of course in the same relation to the number of states as in 1790), and 435 Representatives. However, the population has increased to around 300,000,000, so each Representative now represents 690,000 people, an increase of over 18 times from the number set after the first census.

Furthermore, the number of representatives per citizen varies a great deal by state. Oregon, whose population is roughly equal to that of the United States in 1790, has five representatives, compared to 106 for the same number of citizens in the beginning. The least populous state, Wyoming, has one representative and 521,000 citizens; another sparsely populated state, Montana, has one representative and 958,000 citizens, almost twice as many.

Let's Remake the Vice Presidency

 Everyone likes to knock the position of Vice President in the American governmental system. They have two basic powers: they replace the president under certain circumstances, and they can preside over the Senate, but can vote only to break a tie.

In perusing the Federalist papers, it seems that it was considered all-important that the VP be elected in the same manner as the president, in case he would be required to stand in for the president. In fact, that makes sense as a goal (but note that in a worst-case scenario, further presidential succession would violate it).

Furthermore, since the Senate would have so few members in the 1790s, the specter of gridlock due to tie votes was very real. So having a president of the Senate who could vote only to break ties, but not to create a tie, was a way to avoid them altogether (unless the VP declined to vote, of course).

They did not think it at all important that the VP should have a genuine voice in the Senate, or to have any actual job to do on an everyday basis. The experience of the first VP, John Adams, established the futility of a VP attempting to participate fully in the senatorial legislative process. As he put it, the Vice Presidency was “the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived”.

Now, with two and a half centuries of hindsight, I think we could do much better (although I am perfectly aware that since so many Americans consider the constitution to be holy writ and replacing it as rank heresy, making major changes such as I will suggest are extremely improbable).

If we were redoing the constitution, there are many even more fundamental changes that have more urgency than fixing the presidency of the Senate, but in this post I consider only that one.

Original version:

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.  The Senate shall choose their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.

New version:

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, and shall have one vote on all matters. The Senate shall choose their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States. In the event the Senate be equally divided, the President of the Senate (or the President pro tempore) may cast a second vote.

This is a rather small change to the text, yet it would vastly improve the lot of vice presidents, since they would be active members, rather than largely passive nonmembers of the Senate over which they preside.  In fact, they would be the Senate's most powerful member.  Furthermore, this change would retain the ability to break ties in the Senate, thereby neatly avoiding that particular type of gridlock.

One issue that this change would address is that of determining whether the VP is in the Executive Branch or the Legislative Branch. Under the original constitution, this is vague, since neither the executive or the legislative function is exercised often. Under the revision, the VP would be a full member of the Senate, just as much as any ordinary senator, only rarely standing in for the president. Therefore, the position would be more legislative than executive. Also, presidential elections would surely begin to focus almost as much on the VP as on the president, since the VP would be much more powerful. The election would be about choosing two rather than one president.

Probably the most controversial new vice-presidential power would be that of casting a second, tie-breaking vote. If the ability to avoid gridlock by casting an additional vote is to be maintained, then we have to decide, who will cast that vote? There is no one more obviously suited for this than the VP, since although each of the other senators represent a single state, the VP, like the president, represents every state.

I had originally favored empowering the president to break ties. This would have avoided giving the same individual two votes. However, requiring active presidential participation in the Senate could create time and attention demands that could interfere in a potentially dangerous way with the presidency. The VP would already be a participant, and the power to break ties is a natural extension of the position of President of the Senate.

Automatic Sharing of Seats in Close Elections

I haven't posted here is quite a while, but I had this odd idea and thought I'd reactivate this blog to post it.

The idea was triggered by the observation that in a democracy, elections are often close. This means that almost as many voters favor each option, with only a slight difference among the support. To the extent that our democratically elected representatives are supposed to represent all voters, the frequency of close elections undermines democracy itself.

That is, a voter whose option loses by, say, more than 20% of the votes (60% to 40% in a two-option system) understands that their position is in a true minority, larger than the random variations we often see in elections. However, if the difference is 2% (51%-49%), then the reaction is very different. Except in the sense of the “rules of the game”, there was no practical difference in the degree of representativeness of the two camps.

This principle also applies in three-way or other nonbinary elections: if the winner's vote count is 20% of total vote greater than any of the losers (e.g., 47% to 27% to 27%), once again there is no question about the victory. Furthermore, the generally good solution of doing a run-off between the two highest if there is no majority is also vulnerable to this complaint: imagine 35% to 33% to 32%: is a runoff between 35% and 33% significantly more democratic than between 35% and 32%? I don't think so. The two-person run-off will indeed find a majority winner, but very often up to a third of all voters will abstain in protest, on the grounds that their position is, for all practical purposes, just as representative as the two in the runoff.

Here's another, more democratic but more complicated approach.

First, set a hard criterion for “significant difference” in the electoral outcome. This could anything, from a percentage difference relative to all registered voters, a percentage difference relative to all who voted, even an absolute difference in the number of voters based upon some agreed-upon criteria.

In order for an individual to win an election, they would need to obtain (1) a majority of all votes cast, and (2) a number of votes greater than the criterion different from the next highest number of votes. If this occurred, then the seat would be occupied by that individual. For example, given a criterion of 20%, 60% of the votes would guarantee that candidate a seat. If a candidate received, say, 59% of the vote and the second place candidate received 39% or less, that would also give the seat to the one with 59%. However, if the leading candidate received 59% and the second place candidate received 40% (with the remainder going to lesser candidates), then no individual would occupy the seat.

In the case where no candidate received a significantly greater number of votes than the next highest candidate, the seat would be shared.

A shared seat would operate as follows: the candidate with the greatest number of votes would be the principal occupant of the seat, and would decide who would speak first for the seat during debates or to the public (however, each occupant will also be allowed to speak). However, every action of the seat would require the concurrence of a simple majority of its occupants; otherwise the seat would abstain or take no action.

For presidents, this would mean that before any routine action (e.g., an executive decision, approval of a rule, nomination of a judge, and so on), a majority of the co-occupants would need to agree. And whenever physically possible, each co-occupant is expected to weigh in on every matter—abstentions lower the N of the co-occupants, so would hand over the decison-making power on that issue to the remaining co-occupant(s).

For obvious reasons, the principal occupant of the presidency would have the power to act alone in grave emergencies; however, misusing this power would explicitly be grounds for impeachment and removal; this process could be begun not only by Congress, but also by a voter referendum or by any co-occupant of the presidency. Furthermore, the principal co-president would be required to confer with the other co-president(s), if possible, even in emergent situations.

In Congress, the general principle of majority rule among co-occupants of a seat would apply. For example, in the Senate, if a seat were occupied by two co-occupants who disagreed vehemently with each other, it is likely that that seat would abstain from many votes, perhaps voting only on trivial matters or on the rare occasions of agreement among or between the co-occupants.

That's the basic idea. In effect, when an election is split, the seat is split. We could have two or even three presidents, for example, and the same for every seat in Congress. Obviously, seats occupied by a single individual could be more efficient than split seats. But in the winner-takes-all system, a large number of voters would be represented by someone whose positions they disagree with. The question is whether in a democracy hugely greater representation is better than greater efficiency.

The same principle could be applied to votes on policy, but since there can be no “shared occupancy” in that case, the effect would simply require a threshold difference of a certain size between the winning versus losing position (i.e., a supermajority); a smaller difference would nullify the vote. This would apply to votes in Congress and to voter referenda.

Bilateral “Valkyrie” breathing in freestyle swimming

I recently decided to go back to swimming laps after at least two decades of not doing it. I'm slowly getting a bit more in shape. I swim mostly freestyle (a.k.a. the crawl).

Along the way, I read about something I never considered before in the freestyle stroke: bilateral breathing. This is simply a way to develop a stroke rhythm in which you breath the same number of times on each side.

Note that in many other strokes (e.g., breast stroke, butterfly, backstroke), the issue doesn't arise because you breath in the center; in other strokes (e.g., sidestroke), it also doesn't arise because the entire body is in an asymmetric configuration. But in freestyle, the body is in a perfectly symmetric configuration, it's just that I had always been taught to breath on one side.

In my old stroke, I used three kicks per arm stroke, creating a cycle of six kicks/two arms/one breath. This is a very standard freestyle stroke.

In the new stroke, there are still three kicks per arm, but now there is a breath on every third arm stroke, resulting in a cycle of eighteen kicks/six arms/two breaths. I found this a little hard to visualize.

Something that helped me immensely in visualizing how this works is the animation on the main page of Swim Smooth, who sell an iOS app designed to help people do exactly that: visualize the bilateral breathing freestyle stroke.

As I observed this animation, I started thinking about it as a movement pattern, which made my background in choreography and music kick in. I realized that in fact, this was simply a pattern in 9/8 time, also known as “compound triple time”. The arm stroke rhythm would be represented by the main beats (one, two, three) while the kicks would be the three eighth notes per beat (one and uh, two and uh, three and uh). Breathing would occur on the down beat (beat one) of each measure; that is, it would take two 9/8 measures (six counts) for the entire pattern.

Well, when it comes to counting out a movement pattern, there is nothing better than music that fits the pattern. In this case, music in 9/8 time. This is a fairly unusual meter, but it certainly does exist.

The best example I could find was the famous theme to Wagner's The Ride of the Valkyries. Listen to it here (there is some introductory material before the theme is played by the horns). This famous melody conforms perfectly to the bilateral freestyle.

This morning, I tried it out at the pool. It worked perfectly. I was able to swim a fairly smooth, rhythmic bilateral crawl while “playing” the Valkyrie theme in my head, taking a breath on each downbeat (and therefore on every third arm stroke and every ninth kick).

I think this little trick could be used to good advantage by others to learn patterns of movement that have a regular rhythmic structure, and I certainly recommend that it be used by swimmers wanting to learn bilateral breathing. It also helps to see the movement while mentally playing the melody, and for this, the animation I mentioned above was very helpful (their app turns out to be even better, since it allows the stroke to be seen from different angles).

Jamba-lo-no

I'm not sure what to call my approach to single-dish cooking. It's what I've used probably 5-6 times per week for many years, with considerable variations. In the past, I called it, jokingly, “slop”.

Today, I did some Google research, and found that while it is similar to pilaf and risotto, it is most similar to jambalaya, so that's what I think I'm going to call it henceforth. But it's pretty far removed from your conventional jambalaya. In my version, it is cooked using the no-oil method (it is “water-fried”). It is also low sodium and relatively low in carbohydrates. Because of its no-oil and lo-carb nature, maybe I'll call it “jamba-lo-no”, if I can stand it.

There are many varieties of this, mostly depending on what kind of stuff I have around. Here is the version I just ate today for lunch; it's fairly typical.

I took some little mushrooms and washed them and then sprinkled them with Fiesta seasoning and some garlic powder while they were still wet, and set them aside.

I scrubbed a carrot and a couple of fingerling sweet potatoes and cut them into 1/2 inch chunks.

I washed some broccoli and some collards and cut the broccoli into florets and tore the collards into chunks roughly 1 inch square.

I smashed a clove of garlic, chopped up some onion, and washed and chopped up a serrano pepper.

I opened a can of water-packed sardines and drained off the excess water. (The sardines are not a requirement at all. Sometimes I use tempeh or tofu, for example, or rinsed pre-cooked black beans.)

In a small bowl, I mixed 1/8 cup of soy grits, 1T of oat bran, 1T mixed grain cereal, and 1t wheat bran.

In a skillet, I put in 1 c of drinking water and the carrots and sweet potatoes, brought the water to a boil, and then reduced heat and simmered, covered, for a few minutes.

I added the broccoli and collards, raised the heat briefly, and then let it simmer a while more.

Now I added 4T of low-sodium, no oil marinara sauce; the sardines; the garlic; the onions; and the serrano pepper. I sprinkled the sardines and vicinity with both Fiesta and a bit of cayenne pepper. I turned the heat up all the way, mixed this around a bit, then put the mushrooms on top, and mixed briefly. Then, I distributed the grain mix around on top of everything, then stirred it together, watching until there was only a bit of liquid left (this only takes maybe 10 s).

I put on the cover and turn the heat all the way off (I have an electric stovetop; with a gas stove, make sure you use a heavy skillet that will retain the heat for a while).

I then go off and do something else for a while. When I come back 10-20 minutes later, the liquid has been absorbed almost completely by the grains. Pour onto a plate and sprinkle on some Parmesan cheese.

The way this dish evolved was through a number of variations, many involving some initial frying of the the veg, then liquid and grains added to it. But the frying, which I tried always to do with a minimum of oil, was sometimes difficult to do, so I hit upon the idea of just using water, putting in the hardest/longest cooking ingredients first, and the grains last. I liked the results so much that I decided I needed a more respectable name for it.

Sorry there's no picture, I ate everything.

Is my French level appropriate for a French conversation group?

Given my level of ability in French, would it be appropriate for me to participate in a conversation group?

There exist various groups that meet regularly (e.g., weekly or monthly) to speak French. The purpose is partly social, but mostly is centered on practicing French. Sometimes the groups meet in a public restaurant or café, or sometimes they meet in such places as a library conference room, a meeting room in a school or some other organization, or less often in members' homes.

Everyone is generally welcome as long as they want to speak French with other people, but these groups are more appropriate for some than for others.

If you are a native speaker of French, you will always be very welcome, even (or perhaps especially) if your French is rusty after many years in Anglophonia. These groups are always much more successful if there is at least one native speaker participating.

If you a native French-speaking recent arrival in Anglophonia, and you want to practice your English or have questions about how things work here, you will almost always find what you need, either directly or indirectly, if you participate in a local French conversation groups.

If you are not a native speaker of French and have never participated in a conversation group before, then the question becomes more difficult. If you are not capable of fairly easy conversation in French, then the conversation group format is obviously not what you need. But how to know if you have sufficient command of the French language in order to have a satisfactory experience in a conversation group?

First, some background. In 2001, the Conseil de l'Europe published a document known as the “CECR” or the “Cadre” (Le Cadre européen de référence pour les langues — Apprendre, Enseigner, Évaluer). Part of this document is a scale used to classify the ability level of language learners. Here is a description of the standard ability levels in this system.

There are many sites on the Internet that offer free online tests of French ability using the Cadre. Note that these are only approximations of the “real” tests, which are not free and are generally given by governments, schools, or by organizations such as the Educational Testing Service (http://www.ets.org/tfi/about). Some but not all of the free online tests include a listening (audio) segment. Since no humans are involved, none include tests of speaking ability. You can find these tests with Google using searches such as test de niveau français en ligne gratuit. Here are some examples:

http://www.campus-electronique.tm.fr/TestFle/
http://www.france-langue.fr/cours-de-francais/test-de-francais.html
http://www.campuslangues.com/apprendre/test-francais-en-ligne
http://www.ef.com.fr/olt/french/?prog=ls-ils
http://www.altissia.com/fr/lp/test-de-niveau-francais-en-ligne-altissia
http://www.institutrichelieu.com/f/test-connaissance-de-francais/quiz.asp

If you are wondering about your overall level in French, it could be worthwhile for you to take several different online tests (emphasize those that include a listening segment). It is unlikely that you will be at exactly the same level for each test, so you will get some idea of the range of your ability level (within the limitations of online testing). For example, if you score A2,B1,B1, you could think of yourself as roughly a B1-; A2,A2,B1 could be roughly an A2+.

The key here is the oral level. Sometimes, groups will discuss things that participants have read or written, but reading and writing ability is generally much less important than the ability to converse. So, if you tended to have a lower level on tests with relatively more reading and writing, then you might want to weight more highly the scores associated with tests that had a stronger speaking element (and vice versa, of course). Also, if you are a “good test taker” (or “bad at tests”), you should probably lower (raise) your score a notch, since you might have scored higher (lower) than your actual ability level.

If you are at level B2 (Avancé/Indépendant) or higher, then a conversation group will be ideal for you. That said, a motivated B1 (Seuil) or even an A2+ (Intermédiaire/de Survie) with strong conversational ability should be reasonably successful in many conversation groups. If you are A2 or lower, then perhaps you should wait a while before trying a conversation group. If you are at level C1 (Autonome) or higher, then you might find many conversation groups somewhat slow, depending on the levels of the other participants (but you already know that).

Crime and Terrorism

Everyone seems to have some ideas about how terrorism is or isn't a kind of crime, and whether it should be pursued by law enforcement or by the military. For a long time now, faced with the very negative results of America's military pseudo-war against terrorism, I have fallen pretty squarely in the law enforcement camp.

My feeling has been that if, after the attacks in 2001, we had used domestic and international law enforcement to pursue those who attacked us as mass murderers, we would have caught them sooner, caused much less damage, and without making us international pariahs as we became during the Iraq travesty. I still think that.

However, I just had a thought today, after reading an interesting article comparing the American and French approaches to the problem, that has modified my position somewhat (the modification doesn't really have anything to do with the current French versus American approaches, the article was just a trigger).

Here's the thought: if we were to classify acts of terrorism in the same domain as other crimes, where would they fit? Clearly, if we ignore psychology and sociology, they would be right at home with other kinds of mass homicides and gross vandalism. And even if we were to include some psychology, they would still find a seemingly natural fit with the various hate crimes that currently adorn our statutes. But although this looks like a natural classification on the surface, it is not at all satisfying, and it is in exploring the reasons behind this dissatisfaction that my new way of thinking has emerged.

When you consider crime, simple actions, while relevant, are never determinative. Any action associated with a crime can be performed with no criminal liability or implication, depending on the motive. That is, the why of an action is just as important as the action itself when it comes to criminality. This is equally true for terrorist acts. However, the goals that motivate terrorism do not match any other crime.

Instead, the goals of terrorism (destabilizing the state, trying to change or to overturn governments, harming the economy, or persecuting a specific group within a state) are much more naturally associated with warfare, not crimes.

And yet, they do not fall naturally in the realm of military activity either. Wars are battles between states, or in the exceptional case of a civil war, between two strong factions within a state who are battling for the control of that state. This is not what terrorists do. In fact, we make a strong distinction between sabotage and guerilla warfare versus terrorism; the difference is primarily that in the latter case, there are no countries at war with each other.

So terrorism doesn't really fit nicely into either the criminal or the military domain. In other words, the answer original question as to whether terrorism is criminal or military, is “yes”. Or “no”. That is, it is neither and both of the above.

I continue to believe, however, that traditional police methods, including international police methods, are better suited to the pursuit of terrorists than military methods, mostly because the scale and the tactics of terrorists are much more similar to those of criminals than to those of armies. On the other hand, since the whole purpose of terrorism is to threaten a state; that is, terrorism is an attack on the state, qualitatively similar to an attack by another nation's army, the normal rules governing law enforcement may not be appropriate; instead, the rules governing warfare are probably more appropriate.

What I would like to see is a removal of the military from our efforts to protect and defend the nation against terrorism, to be replaced by a strong, special branch of law enforcement at the national level that operates using a blend of civil and military procedures. Obviously, we are still fighting down our invasion of Afghanistan, so our military can't just walk away from that war. But it is winding down and will end soon. When it does end, then we need to get our military back on track as a war-fighting force, not a police force.

The United States will be far more hampered that most countries in any effort to make this particular change, because in the US, law enforcement is usually a local or statewide affair, with federal law enforcement applying only in certain restricted types of cases (crimes taking place across state lines, kidnappings, crimes involving the military or federal personnel or property, and so on). It's a matter of limited jurisdiction resulting from our out-dated constitution, that constitutes 51 sovereign states sharing and competing within a single nation. It should be mentioned that the military (which is controlled by the federal government) is similarly restricted in its operations within our borders. Therefore, a new force that was created to fight terrorism using law enforcement techniques but bound by military-style rules regarding procedure would be a considerable extension of the federal government, and would probably be objected to by our states-rights zealots.

Now, in the early Bush years, a new department of Homeland Security was created with the purpose of unifying law enforcement against terrorist threats. The so-called PATRIOT act did, in fact, alter procedure by reducing some civil protections. However, I think that much more than this is necessary.

First, this should be separated from normal law enforcement, because of the differences in procedures. As it is now, the PATRIOT act has opened the door for civilian law enforcement to use new techniques for matters not related to terrorism, for example, drug enforcement. If the new laws applied only to the new law enforcement branch, not to ordinary civilian law enforcement, those kinds of erosion of civil rights would be much less. (On the other hand, there would be definite erosions of civil rights in anti-terrorism enforcement.)

It would all come down to whether those erosions would be justified by the threat of terrorism in ways they are not justified by the threat of criminal violence. I think some changes could in fact be justified on the grounds that an attack on the state itself rather than on persons and property merits a much stronger, more military-like response. However, there is a danger of abuse and so we need to have protections built in, just as there are protections built into the military system: strict rules of engagement, an explicit military code of conduct, and an independent judicial system designed to keep efforts within bounds.

BigPic comment archive

Si vous êtes un lecteur du blog Big Picture de Corine Lesnes sur lemonde.fr, la possibilité existe que vous avez remarqué que les commentaires ont la mauvaise habitude de disparaître. Ce n'est pas du tout amusant. Je ne sais pas la raison, si c'est à cause d'une politique du journal ou d'une faille technique du logiciel. J'ai décidé d'inventer un contournement.

C’est pour Macintosh seulement, et c’est inélégant. Mais ça marche.

Il faut premièrement installer un petit script dans votre dossier Sites. Je l’appelle « curlBigPic.ksh ». C’est comme suit :

#!/bin/ksh

# keep an archive of the last NSAMP BigPic comments

NSAMP=200 # a little more than a two days worth of 15 minute samples

DB=~/Sites/bigpicdb

mkdir -p $DB

cd $DB

newf=`date -u +"%Y.%m.%d-%Hh%M"`

prev=`ls | head -1`

if [[ -e "$prev" ]] ; then

rm -f `ls -r *.xml | tail -n +$((NSAMP-1))`

fi

if ! curl --connect-timeout 20 --max-time 30 --silent \

http://clesnes.blog.lemonde.fr/comments/feed/ > /tmp/curlBigPic.$$ ; then

exit $?

fi

if [[ -e "$prev" ]] ; then

if ! cmp -s "$prev" /tmp/curlBigPic.$$ ; then

mv /tmp/curlBigPic.$$ $newf.xml

else

rm -f /tmp/curlBigPic.$$

fi

fi

Il ne faut que copier-coller ces lignes dans un fichier de ce nom, mais faites attention : il faut être « texte seulement », pas de rtf, doc, ou quoi que ce soit d’autre.

Après l’installation, il faut exécuter une commande dans Terminal :

cd Sites ; chmod +x curlBigPic.ksh

Finalement, il faut créer un crontab, avec la commande suivante :

crontab -e

Une sorte d’éditeur ouvrira ; il faut y mettre la ligne suivante :

0,15,30,45 * * * * ~/Sites/curlBigPic.ksh

NB : il n’y a pas d’espaces dans cette ligne, ce sont des tab. Les chiffres sont les minutes de téléchargement, par exemple 10h00, 10h15, 10h30, 10h45.

Pour éviter les blocages, je suggère que chacun choisisse une compensation de 1-14 minutes, par exemple :

3,18,33,48 * * * * ~/Sites/curlBigPic.ksh

Dans les Sharing Preferences, activer « Web Sharing ». J’ignore les noms en français, désolé. C’est pour activer le serveur web de votre compte.

Toutes les 15 minutes, votre ordinateur va télécharger un fichier XML avec un sommaire des commentaires le plus récents.

Dans Safari, ouvrez l’URL « http://localhost/~VOTRENOM/bigpicdb ». Par exemple, j’utilise « http://localhost/~greg/bigpicdb/ ».

Une page ouvrira qui dit « Index of /~VOTRENOM/bigpicdb ». Dans cette page, tous les fichiers XML seront montrés. Les noms des fichiers sont la date et l’heure du téléchargement (en UTC). Notez bien que si un fichier est égal au précédent, il n’est pas installé. Safari comprend les RSS en format XML, donc, si vous cliquez sur l’un des liens, il ouvrira avec les plus récents commentaires à l’heure de téléchargement. De cette manière, vous pouvez chercher parmi tous les commentaires des derniers jours. Il est possible que ce script manque un commentaire, si HAL est très rapide. Si cela arrive trop souvent, on peut télécharger les XML plus fréquemment.

Je crois qu’il serait mieux pour le script d’être sur un seul serveur où tous peuvent aller chercher leurs commentaires perdus, mais je ne le veux pas sur les miens. Désolé encore. Mais, si quelqu’un a le contrôle d’un serveur et la volonté de se joindre à la lutte contre les abus de HAL, ce serait la bienvenue.

The United State of America

I'm fed up with the idea of a “50 sovereign states” all within a single “sovereign nation”. I think that having states is really very bad for the nation. What if all of the states in the US were combined into one? How would the constitution scale? There would be some things that would be improved, and some things that would be strange. Let's see.

First, of course, we would be the United State of America: “We the People of the United State, in Order to form a more perfect Union, etc.”. That would be a little strange, but it would be perfectly meaningful historically. In fact, we would be the former united states repackaged into a much more united state, in fact, literally a United State.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the State. That works the same: the House would be a much better place, much more evenly distributed, a true House of the People. However, the constitution assumes that each state has a legislature, which means that there would be a single shadow state legislature and a legislature of the United State. That would be strange. Let's keep track of the responsibilities of the state legislature as we go.

Another improvement: since all of the US would be a single state, the rule concerning residence in a particular state would only mean that no Representative could be a resident of a territory or of a foreign country, since all residents of the USA would be residents of its state.

The Senate, of course, is where things get really interesting: it would become a co-senatorship. There would be two Senators (but see below), who, with the Vice President as chair, would have the responsibility of the existing body, including creating and passing legislation, the power to advise and consent to presidential appointments, and trying impeachments. The role of the Vice President would obviously become much more important. Also, rules requiring 2/3 votes of the Senate would require a unanimous vote of the two Senators OR a tie vote of the two Senators plus the Vice President's tie-breaking vote, which would create a 2/3 majority. The House would still have the responsibility to originate spending bills.

So let's pause a bit. With a single state, there would be two legislatures. One, the House of Representatives, would concern itself with those things assigned to the federal government by the constitution. The other, let's call it the State Legislature, would concern itself with all other laws. In fact, there could still be a state constitution created by the State Legislature, and a State Judiciary to interpret it, just as there is now. At the federal level, there would also be a kind of Senatorial panel consisting of two senators and the presided over by the President of the Senate, who would also serve as the Vice President. This panel would have all of the duties of the current Senate.

I actually think that this would be a tremendous improvement over what we have now. For one thing, while there would still be a body of state laws, there would be no differences among the states as there is now. The state law would apply to all citizens of the United State living in the state. As for the House, the existing process of census and districting could be made to create equally representative districts across the whole country. The error in size among districts would be negligible, since the error could be distributed across the whole country. This would be true for both legislatures, although there would be no requirement that there be equal districting at the two levels. This would be a decision for the Legislature to make. When it comes to the Electoral College, we would receive the same benefit: the number of Electors would be basically the number of Representatives plus the number of Senators (2). As for the District of Columbia, I can see no reason why it shouldn't be incorporated into the state, and I'm sure it would be. But if it were not, then it would be treated more or less as a territory except that Congress would control its government as it does now. There would be no real change from what it is now.

When it comes to the Executive Branch, there would still be a President, but there could now also be a Governor. Their responsibilities would be divvied up as the are now, but obviously the position of Governor would become tremendously more important than it is now. The President would still have the constitutional duties and powers that past presidents have had, but I think that it would end up that the President would be Commander in Chief, would be in charge of all foreign affairs such as trade and the like, and of course signing, implementing, and enforcing federal laws. The Governor would have much more of a role in things affecting people's everyday lives though.

This leads us to a very large difference that would affect all aspects of the US system of government: it would be the end of all interstate laws. Under the current system, with so-called “sovereign states”, it has been up to the federal government, all three branches, to be in charge of interstate commerce in all its ramifications. This entire body of law and of control would be instantly obsolete with only one United State. Instead, the Legislature, Governor, and State Judiciary (or whatever or however this evolves--for example, whether to have both upper and lower bodies in the Legislature) would have complete control over all of those things. Although no conservative is likely to embrace or even comprehend the change we are contemplating here, I think it is likely that the demise of interstate commerce as a way for the federal government to exercise control over matters not originally envisaged by the Founders is something that they could support.

Along with interstate commerce, there would also be an entire segment of American life that would disappear, and good riddance. Some examples: differences in licensing for practitioners of various professions or trades (only one license would exist for the whole State); differences in state tax laws (for example, sales tax would apply equally everywhere, thereby ending the Internet loophole that is costing many states a lot of revenue); different automobile license requirements; different textbooks in schools; different educational standards; different consumer and environmental protections. This list could go on and on.

Of course, there could still be regional differences in many things, just as there are now within individual states. I'm sure that within the State, which would be huge, there could be regional differences. None of this would go against the US Constitution unless it violated, e.g., the Bill of Rights. However, I think that the tendency would be toward greater unification of our laws, partly because it would be simpler and easier to be unified than to be divided, within a single State. Under the current scheme, it is often simpler for each state to go its own way.

The State Militia or National Guard would be a single body, with a purely domestic role except when called up for foreign duties in an emergency. Obviously, the old state units would continue for some time to be a convenient way to divide this up, but there would be a much more unified chain of command; all units would have the same standards and the same support resources.

Probably the most problematical aspect of all this is the Senate. This should be no surprise, since the Senate was intended to be the States' house, in contrast to the People's house. With all States unified into one, it would be questionable whether the Senate would still even be needed, especially with so few members and with no real constituency apart from that of all the people, in contrast to the House, in which each member has a separate constituency. I think that probably what should happen in the Senate is that the Constitution be amended to allow a reasonable number of Senators, perhaps 30 of them, all to be elected (10 of them every two years) by the entire national electorate. If this change were made, then the traditional role of the Senate could be continued much more naturally. The difference between the bodies would be in the length of the term and the scope of members' constituencies. Under this system, the Senate would be the global body and the House would be the local body. This same distinction would exist even if we actually had only two Senators, but I think a somewhat larger body, but still much smaller than the existing one, would be much better. Of course, with an expanded Senate, the Vice President would go back to being pretty unimportant.

In conclusion, I think that on balance, this change would be very good for the nation. It would make it much more fair, much more efficient, and much more logical. It would unite us emotionally in a way that the multi-state system has not. People would continue to use the names of the old states, probably forever. I'm from California or Virginia would still have meaning. However, it would cease to have any significance regarding civil rights, the degree of representation, national taxation law, criminal law, educational resources, and so on. I think this would be a good thing.

Greg Shenaut

Complementary beverages

This is just a random thought based on a fantasy. No truthful content here.

Here's the idea. I love green tea, especially the Longjing (Dragon Well) varieties and I love red wine, especially that from pinot noir grapes. However, I don't love the effects of caffeine or the effects of alcohol. That is, I wish there were a way to nullify or to eliminate the effects of caffeine and alcohol from the body.

Sure, they have no-caffeine green tea and no-alcohol red wine. The problem is, they don't taste or feel right. They are both reminiscent of the real thing, but not good enough really to enjoy on any kind of regular basis.

My wife and I were discussing how green tea is a great part of the morning and red wine is a great part of the evening. This dichotomy is partially due to the effects of alcohol and caffeine, in that alcohol interferes with thought and movement but in moderation can facilitate rest and sleep, while caffeine just does the opposite.

The complementary effects of the psychoactive components of these two beverages is what gave rise to the fantasy that through selective breeding, a variety of pinot noir grape could be developed that in addition to everything else, contained a healthy dose of the enzyme that the body uses to break down caffeine and eliminate it. Similarly, a variety of longjing tea might be developed that would contain the enzyme that breaks down and eliminates alcohol. This is completely imaginary, but it could be really excellent if it were true.

One could enjoy a second or even third cup of green tea in the morning, and if the unpleasant effects of too much caffeine began to be felt, counter them with, say, a little cheese and a glass of Burgundy wine. Later on in the day, if after a bit too much wine with dinner one began to feel a bit out of it, a cup of longjing tea would set things straight.

It's a bit like Alice's two famous pills, one for growing, one for shinking. I suppose the challenge would be to get the balance exactly where you want it, depending on one's mood and the time of day.

Dare we call it treason?

It appears that no one knows quite what to make of the vicious attack at Fort Hood allegedly committed by US Army Major Nidal Hasan, resulting in the deaths of at least 13 individuals. The main debate appears to be between two camps: (1) those who see this as an act of mass murder, possibly due to mental illness of some kind or to a mind confused and corrupted by extreme Islam; and (2) others who see this as an act of Islamic terrorism. As a random philosophizer, I'm not real happy with either of these analyses, and I want to give my reasoning as to why Hasan should not be charged either with terrorism or with murder, but instead should be charged with treason.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted. -- US Constitution (1791), Article III, Section 3.

The key element of treason (which is the only crime actually defined in our constitution) is levying war against the United States. Let that resonate in your mind.

A critical element in deciding what crime, if any, to charge someone with has to do with the concept of intent. What was Hasan trying to accomplish by authoring the attack? I believe that at least partially, he was fulfilling a key admonition of the Quran, the sacred text of his religion of which he was a devoted adherent. As I understand this admonition, Islam distinguishes between violence toward fellow Muslims versus violence toward non-Muslims. (For comparison, there are several traditional Jewish laws and a host of obsolete Christian ones that make a similar distinction.) In particular, a Muslim is not to attack another Muslim (he may defend himself). In the case where there is a conflict between Muslims, it is the duty of other Muslims to intervene in an attempt to restore peace. However, in the event of a conflict where non-Muslims attack or invade a Muslim land, it is the duty of other Muslims to fight against the infidel aggressors. It is this last admonition that was causing (I think) extreme conflict for Hasan: he was wearing the uniform of the US Army, a group actively involved in aggression against two Muslim countries, yet, as a Muslim, he had a duty to fight *against* the aggressors, against himself. In the case of Afghanistan, it is much easier than for Iraq to make the case that we were defending ourselves in some way against an attack, and this probably accounts for why Hasan was apparently more willing to serve there than in Iraq. As long as he was willing to use the argument of defense against aggression, I believe that he was willing to continue to serve loyally in the Army at a distance. However, two things have happened since the two wars began in 2001 and 2003: (1) It has become less and less clear that we are engaged in response to an attack. Instead, our involvement has become more of a "nation building" exercise in which we are attempting to impose at least some aspects of our culture on the native culture. (2) Hasan was about to be sent right into the combat zone, and he would then be much more directly involved in the fighting, much more of an actual combatant rather than a purely noncombatant sitting in a doctor's office thousands of miles away. If you read about what he said, wrote, and did during the latter part of the period leading up to the attacks, I believe that you will see ample evidence of an inner conflict between two paths of warfare: to continue to fight with the Americans and to suppress the religious admonitions or to ignore his oath and allegiance to the US Army, and fight on the side of the Islamic resistance to the invaders.

Basically what happened in Fort Hood was that he finally made up his mind that his true loyalty was to his fellow Muslims who were combatting the army whose uniform he wore. At that point (and not before, I believe), he began to consider what kind of military action he could take against the Americans, and he decided on the attack that he actually made, very successfully.

So why wasn't this murder? Well, if we accept that idea that he was acting as a mujahideen, an Islamic soldier, then the attack was an act of war. Homocides resulting from acts of war are not considered murder. If they were, then every soldier who kills an enemy would be a murderer. Although some would accept this principle, the law does not: killing an enemy soldier in war is not murder.

Well, why wasn't it terrorism? Primarily because acts of war committed against enemy combatants, as opposed to civilians, are not considered terrorism. This is clearly a purely military attack, on (mostly) uniformed soldiers on a military installation. If such an act is terrorism simply because it was sneaky and resulted in numerous deaths, then a large number of acts of war, for example the famous drone attacks we are conducting right now, would be terrorism. This is a much murkier matter, because people seem to make up definitions of "terrorism" to suit their needs and prejudices, but I assert that since this was an act of war carried out against uniformed combatants, it does not qualify as terrorism.

On the other hand, Hasan is a US citizen and a member of the US Army. Both of these factors reinforce the constitutional rule that it is clear, unmitigated treason for him to make war against the US, which I am saying he did, both overtly by the attacks and covertly by the chain of reasoning that led him to it. Hasan is, above all, a traitor to the land in which he was born and which nurtured him and supported him, and to the uniform and the oath of allegiance that he swore in the Army.

Therefore, I believe that the best way to deal with Hasan is by not trivializing his offense by calling it murder, or politicizing it by calling it terrorism, but to invoke the full weight of the consitution against him and charging and convicting him of the most serious offense it is possible for one of our own to make against us all: treason.

This doesn't let him off easy, by the way. Current federal law says this about treason: whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States (United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381). That is, although the laws regarding terrorism and murder are somewhat variable, federal law has clearly defined treason as a capital offense, with the possibility of the death penalty. In fact, in this random philosopher's view, treason is an even more serious offense (especially overt treason involving explicit "levying of war" against us) than murder or terrorism.

By the way, for those individuals that think it treasonous for President Obama to have bowed during the ceremony in Japan with the emperor, compare that to the actual treason Hasan did. See the difference?

Greg Shenaut

Missouristan

I recently read a column by Tom Friedman that asked, "Where did the 'we' go?" in America. This was in reference to the perceived splintering of our ideology, since (in the view stated in the column) the presidency of Bill Clinton. This led me to ponder the fact that in many other countries around the world, there are essentially "official splinters" among the population. There is often a dominant splinter, or at least one that remains dominant most of the time, and a number of minority splinters. One good example among many others is Lebanon, where the constitution requires that certain governmental positions are reserved for members of certain official splinter groups. In other countries, there are splinters that inhabit certain regions; within that region the national minority is in the majority, and the laws of that region reflect the fact. Finally, another way that various countries deal with these official fragments of their society is by having different laws for different splinters, generally based on religious affiliation as far as I know. We have seen many cases of this in the East (e.g., the recent case of the Muslim woman sentenced to a whipping for drinking a glass of beer, a law that doesn't apply to nonmuslims--mostly rich foreign tourists), but in Europe, for example, governments have collected tithes that are in turn rendered to churches as part of their normal tax collection activities, and we have even recently seen in England a statement by a judge that Sharia law might be applied by the British government to Muslims living in that country. Given how widespread these practices are around the world, perhaps they have some value in allowing the nation to live in peace in spite of the formidable ideological, cultural, and religious divides that they contain.

Whether they have any value or not, in this country, it would be almost impossible for us to use any method that officially recognized any of our splinter groups. The closest we get to this is our system of states, each which has a somewhat separate set of laws and courts. However, even from the very beginnings of our nation, every one of our states has contained significant minorities that exist across state boundaries. That is, while the creation of states from the former colonies respected the property holdings and power structures that existed before the Revolution, states have never done a very good job of facilitating the official expression of minority preferences in the nation as a whole.

But wait a minute (you might interject): what about democracy? Doesn't democracy itself automagically respect the rights of minority groups?

Well, not at all. In fact, one of the concerns of the Constitution and Bill of Rights was to set up a system of explicit rights and checks and balances that would not allow the "tyranny of the majority". By its majoritarian nature, democracy is inherently a "clumper" rather than a "splitter", when it comes to allowing the official expression of minority positions in policy and law.

One of the clearest examples of where our insistence on an unfragmented national policy is the animosity between North and South over slavery and other matters that led to our second revolution, the Civil War. Many in the South (John C. Calhoun being perhaps the prime example) attempted to get the national government to allow fragmentation of our laws (beyond that regarding slavery per se), by allowing states to disregard Federal laws that they did not agree with, substituting their own. If they had been allowed to do this, who knows what the course of history would have been? Perhaps there would have been no Civil War; perhaps there would now be more than one country instead of a single USA. But regardless of that, a terrible war was fought over the matter, and as a result, it is now almost unthinkable to allow the kind of fragmentation in our laws that was contemplated in the past by the Calhouns, the Wallaces, and the Thurmonds.

But what if there could be? What if there could be different laws for different religions? Or states set aside, with their own local laws that reflect the preferences of a national minority?

Some have stated that there are around 6 million Muslims currently living in the US. Well, that is about the number of people living in the "average" US state: the state of Missouri has around that number of residents. What if there was a national Islamic homeland, with Sharia laws even (applying only to Muslims!)? "Missouristan"? Would there be any benefit to that? Would it increase or decrease discrimination towards Muslims in our country? Certainly within "Missouristan" there would be less discrimination; in fact, there would inevitably be a certain degree of discrimination toward nonmuslims. Would this be any more strange than the situation in the state of Utah? And what if Utah was allowed to drift further towards a truly Mormon state? Would Glenn Beck finally find the validation he appears to seek?

But using territory is only one method to deal with splintering, and it is very limited. The question is, how much room do we have to create splinter territories? And it's also important to remember that individuals can belong to more than one splinter group, but can reside in only one state at a time. The second method, which is probably more radical from the standpoint of the USA, is to have a fragmented legal system. That is, for members of certain churches or other groups, abortion would be murder; for members of other groups, it would be a protected right. For certain groups, same-sex marriage would be forbidden, for others it would be allowed. Other possible issues: multiple marriage, use of certain drugs, even laws regarding personal attire (head covering, face covering, leg covering) and the content of education (Bible or Koran classes, sex education classes, biology classes).

Probably they best way to do this official splintering would involve both of these things: territory splits for large, relatively homogenous groups (this would give full meaning to "solid red" and "solid blue" states, among other things), but also a system of laws that reflected one's personal identification with a minority, in the context of a splintered environment. That is, individual states as well as the federal government would have a set of "default" laws that applied to all, but also a set of identity-specific laws that applied only to those that had declared themselves to be a member of that identity group. The main thing that would happen from state to state is that one state's default law would be another state's special identity law.

So right now, I'm pondering a USA which has embraced its fragmentation and institutionalized its diversity. Along with Missouristan and Utah, there would be a large Fundamentalist region, probably mostly rural and Southern. Maybe there would be a secular region along both coasts. My identity as a Humanist would free me from such laws that would apply to my Baptist neighbors as tithing, prohibition of alcohol, and porn, but would not allow me to take religious holidays or be married by a minister. It would be a very strange place indeed.

It would be the end of the "melting pot", but maybe (at least according to Friedman) the pot may have been cooking too long, and the sauce, once nicely melted, has begun to curdle and to separate into chunks. As most cooks know, once that starts, further cooking will only make things worse. Maybe if we are to survive as a nation, it is time to reconsider our fondu metaphor and pick up another one--for example, the Canadian "salad bowl" might serve. And if we do this, then perhaps we might also reconsider our Constitution and legal structure in order to facilitate the transition. Hopefully, this time, we would be able to do it without an actual Civil War.

Greg Shenaut

The Public Option Versus Enhanced Medicaid

I support full-bore single-payer healthcare. The French model looks good to me, but the British or Canadian systems would be fine. But at my age (61) I'm beginning to doubt that I'll ever see that in superstitious, fearful, hateful America. So I want to ruminate randomly about what is known as the "public option" in the current (mid-2009) healthcare debate.

The so-called public option has been proposed for two reasons by Democratic policymakers. First and most importantly, it serves as a political wedge into the private healthcare system. It does this by providing a publically-funded, nonprofit alternative to private insurance plans. The idea here is that in the short run, it will competitively lower private insurance premiums by offering lower premiums in the public plan (what Obama characterizes as "keeping the insurance companies honest"); in the long run, though, the plan is designed to minimize the role of private insurance and leading the country to a single-payer system. This is very desirable to me, and I believe that were it to go forward, we would eventually plaud it on the left and on the right. However, it is very undesirable to conservative theorists, and it is because of that that the debate has become so fierce. An indicator of this is that protestors on the right rarely complain about the public option per se: they are more likely to complain about things like socialism in general or the Canadian or British "socialized medicine" systems in particular. This is because even though nothing like that is on the table now, both conservative and progressive propaganists understand full well the long-run purpose of the public option.

The second reason for a public option is to make good healthcare available to everyone regardless of their ability to pay. The idea here is that the public plan, being operated by the government, would subsidize the premiums of the poor by the payments of those who are better off, and if need be, by taxes on the wealthiest in the land. Protestors on the right do not say much about this, but as the fortunes of the public option wax and wane, this is what progressive activists focus on the most. For them, there is a clear and obvious need for healthcare for the millions of individuals and families who are not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid, but who cannot get healthcare coverage from their jobs and cannot afford individual coverage, possibly because their poor health puts them into very high premiums or even ineligibility for coverage at any price. And this is in fact the worst thing about American healthcare, that so many people who need it, simply do not have access to it.

However, the political and practical aspect of the public option are actually two very different things, that can be separated from each other rather easily. As much as it hurts me to say it, there are other, much less radical ways to resolve the lack of coverage issue than putting us on the path toward single-payer. I want to propose one of them here and to discuss it a bit.

In fact, America's existing healthcare system is a mixture of private and publically funded programs. There are five major federally-funded, single-payer healthcare systems, each serving millions of Americans. First is the system I was born into and had access to until I was an adult: the military healthcare system, now known as TriCare. Active-duty and retired servicemembers and their dependents have access to the full range of medical care at public expense, and have had this coverage at least since 1947, when I was born in the US Naval hospital in Quantico, Virginia. This was and by all accounts still is a great healthcare system for families with kids. The second system is the VA healthcare system, which is for those who have served in the military but who are no longer eligible for TriCare. This is also a first-rate system, but it has been the object of bean-counting and while this has resulted in a very efficient system in some ways, it has also reduced the number of former servicemembers who are eligible for treatment. The third federally-funded system is the healthcare plan for federal employees, which is basically similar to the employee healthcare plans of any large organization, but since it is for federal employees, it is paid for by the government. This plan, unlike TriCare and VA, consists of payments to private insurance companies: there are no federal hospitals or physicians (with some very minor exceptions such as clinics or physicians attached to specific federal bodies such as the US Congress and the White House). The fourth public healthcare system in the US is Medicare. This is part of the Social Security system and therefore is targeted at retirees, or those over age 65. There are some relatively minor exceptions such as disabled children or adults who under some circumstances qualify for Medicare. Medicare is similar in some respects to a very large insurance organization, in that it makes payments to physicians and hospitals according to a fixed schedule. It is theoretically funded by the SSI payments by employers and employees. Medicare tends to cover only the essential subset of what private plans cover, and there is a lucrative market in so-called MediGap private insurance intended to supplement Medicare coverage. The fifth existing publically funded healthcare system in the US is Medicaid. Medicaid is a joint state and federal plan that is aimed at the poor. It is similar in many ways to conventional private insurance, but the amount of coverage and the amount of reimbursement for physicians varies from state to state, and in recent years it has become a target for balancing state budgets (for example, MediCal, the California version of Medicaid, has recently made huge cuts in "optional" coverage such as dental, vision, and mental health). In order to qualify for Medicaid, there are severe means tests: it really is targeted at the very poor. However, once you qualify for it, there is a decent level of care in many cases.

The reason I went over the existing systems is to try to place the propose public option into perspective. As proposed in HR3200, the most fully-detailed current plan, the public option would essentially replace the existing Medicaid system, and modify the existing Medicare system. It would be available to all US citizens and legal residents as an option. The coverage would be at various levels, from the guaranteed minimum "basic" coverage, free to the very poor, up to what is known as "premium plus" coverage, which would be similar to Medicare+MediGap coverage. For those who could afford to pay their premiums, the plan would be self-supporting, but those who are unable to pay would be subsidized at the "basic" level. There are no plans for government physicians or hospitals under the public option. In terms of its similarity to private plans, it would be very similar to those who can afford a private plan, although it could be less expensive than some private plans, and there could be "premium plus" private plans that had more extensive coverage. Under HR3200, limits would be imposed on both public and private plans, including: (1) all applicants would be accepted regardless of any pre-existing condition; (2) there would be a limit--currently very debatable--on the ratio of the highest and lowest premiums for a certain level of coverage, for example, 3:1 or 7:1 (the lower the better for patients); (3) two levels of coverage (basic and medium) would be standardized across all public and private plans; (4) the amount of profit would be controlled in private plans; (5) the cost of treating specific conditions would be controlled geographically to a standard of medical consensus. All these controls and limits are necessary to prevent possible abuses by the private companies, such as for example refusing to cover the sickest people and forcing them into the public plan, keeping just the more profitable healthy people. There are other innovations in HR3200 that are also needed, such as the standardization of digital medical records that will hold down costs, allow much better tracking of costs at the national level, and also allow much easier and rapid transitioning between different healthcare systems and plans.

Here finally is my proposal. It seems to me that if limits and controls on private insurers such as those already in HR3200 are part of the reform legislation, then the public option is not really necessary in order to provide coverage to all. Instead, three changes would need to be made to the existing Medicaid program: (1) a change in means testing to permit coverage and/or subsidization not only of the poor, but of everyone who for any reason cannot afford private health insurance; (2) higher national standards on what must be covered by Medicaid in every state; and (3) higher rates of federal funding for Medicaid to alleviate the burden of states and to make the level of reimbursement to healthcare providers match that paid by private plans. This would be paid for by a small tax on private premium/premium-plus insurance plans (these are the highest "deluxe" plans enjoyed by a substantial minority of Americans). Additional revenues, if necessary, can come from restoring income tax brackets to the more equitable 1950s levels.

As I see it, the main disadvantage of this plan is that it will not provide pressure toward a national single-payer healthcare plan. Instead, it merely patches the existing system. However, it does so in several important ways: it provides coverage to all Americans, it will prevent the worst abuses by private insurers, it will reduce healthcare costs, and most importantly, since it has no new publically-funded plan, relying instead on a "fixed" Medicaid, it may actually have a chance of passing.

Statistical Sampling and the Census

We have a census coming up next year. And of course our political leaders are doing their best to turn that fact to their own parties' political advantage. Since relatively poor people tend to vote Democratic, and since relatively poor people are the ones who are most often missed during census-taking, Republicans basically want to ignore their existence, while Democrats want to figure out ways to include them.

The political dimension of this is easy to understand, but there is a problem: the Republicans state that the reason why they want to ignore people who aren't counted in the census is because they feel that the numbers will then be more "real" or more accurate, than if statistical methods are used to estimate them, as Democrats and most statisticians want to do. The problem with this is that in fact, ignoring these people is less real and much less accurate than using valid statistical techniques to estimate their numbers.

The reason for this is that the undercounts are not randomly distributed. That is, there is a systematic bias that causes potential Democratic voters to be undercounted more frequently than potential Republican voters. An example might help.

Suppose that Farmer R. is paying Worker D. to pick strawberrys, a penny per berry. At some point, the fruit will have to be counted before D. can be paid. However, counting every berry would take much too long, so instead, they are counted by boxes. Each box holds nominally 100 berries, so in the absence of any additional information, it is reasonable simply to count boxes and pay $1 per box.

However, D. decides that he is doing more work than he has been paid for, so, out of hundreds of boxes of berries, he takes a randomly selected 20 boxes and actually counts all the berries. He discovers that there were 2100 berries in the 20 boxes, or 105 per box on average. The actual count ranged from 90 to 110 in the sample boxes.

Worker D. then goes to Farmer R. and says that he wants to apply the results of his experiment to getting paid: he wants $1.05 per box instead of $1. Farmer R. refuses, since the boxes are plainly marked "100 ct.", and so they must hold 100 berries each, and in any case, why is D. so concerned about a mere 5¢ difference?

Clearly, based on probabilities, since we now know based on the result of our empirical sampling that the expected number of berries per box is 105, then it is most likely that the actual, underlying count of all berries picked is going to be about 105% of the number estimated by counting boxes. That is, it is very likely that using statistical estimation will be more accurate than simply using the nominal counts, even though the number is derived mathematically rather than from a direct count.

Although this is by no means a perfect analogy with the census, the point I wanted to make was that the purpose of statistical estimation is not to favor one side or the other, but rather to reduce the amount of systematic bias in the data.

Let me add that Farmer R. could do his own empirical study, and if he did it correctly, and found a lower count than D.'s study did, then he could promote, and defend, an alternative, lower statistical estimate. The Republicans could absolutely do the same thing for the census data: instead of trying to eliminate statistical estimation, if they think that the Democratic-supported estimates introduce a new source of bias (e.g., overcounting certain potential Democratic voters), then they should do their own empirical studies and use them to support a modified estimate. In fact, if they don't do this, and continue simply to argue for not using statistical estimation at all, then it seems pretty clear to me that they basically accept the premise of systematic pro-Republican bias in the raw counts, and are just trying to preserve an error that benefits them.

Greg Shenaut

Unpacking the Supreme Court

We currently have to wait for a Supreme Court justice to die or retire before a new one can be appointed. The idea is to keep the size of the court relatively constant and to avoid FDR-style "packing" of the court to favor one side or the other of the ideological spectrum. Your Random Philosophizer has a different idea.

Yes, we shouldn't let the Supreme Court get too small. I would say that there should be at least one justice for every federal circuit, currently thirteen. If the number of justices should fall below that number, then the current president should appoint one. If the appelate court system ever gets modernized so that there is a more reasonable number of circuits, then the number of justices would rise. The reason for this is that since the "business" of the court comes primarily from the appeal courts, the court could assign one justice to handle preliminarily one circuit court's output. However, the minimum could be tied to some other factor, such as one justice for each 50 million US citizens, or one justice for every four states. It could even be set at the current number of justices (nine). I like using the number of US circuit courts because it is a number that will necessarily vary, but conservatively, and because there is a functional relationship between the circuits and the Supreme Court.

However, I think that regardless of the size of the court, each presidential term should see the appointment of one justice. That is, one of the duties of each president, during each term, would be to appoint a new justice to the Supreme Court. Two-term presidents would obviously get two turns at bat. In fact, this may be about average for presidential terms, or at least in the same ball park.

It's a simple idea really. Every term, the president will appoint a Supreme Court justice. If, due to death or retirement, the number of justices should fall below the number of federal circuit courts, the current president will appoint a replacement. If a death or retirement in the court should occur before the president has appointed a justice during the term, bringing the number below the minimum, then the standard appointment for that term would come first. That is, the appointment would replace the retiring justice and restore the minimum. However, if after making his or her appointment for the term, the number is still lower than the number of federal circuits, then the president will continue to make appointments until the minimum is restored.

Under this system, the court could grow at the rate of about one justice every four years if relatively young, healthy justices were appointed, and the composition of the court would tend to reflect the recent history of electoral trends. Since the court would be larger, the results of the court on decisions would have more "dynamic range", and, possibly, be more just and more reflective of the will of the People. While it is true that every president would, under this system, leave his or her mark on the court, since the size would be larger, the impact of any given president would be, on average, less than what we have seen recently where some presidents have made two appointments (2/9) of the court. Each president, under the new system, would have an impact of 1/N, sometimes 2/N, where N would currently be at last 13; this is generally smaller than is currently the case. Since the court would usually be larger than the minimum, it would be possible for justices to die or retire without triggering a political frenzy, since they would not need to be replaced. If there are more justices than circuits, assignments to different circuits could more accurately reflect differences in the activity level in each circuit.

There would be an interesting political dimension to this: since after each presidential election, a new justice would join the court, presidential candidates could speak openly about their philosophy regarding the court. It would become a new element of presidential elections, one that I think deserves to be given a higher profile.

Greg Shenaut

Voodoo neuroscience

OK, here's another in a long stream of published experiments that take a well-known psychological phenomenon X, scan people's brains somehow (in this case, fMRI), and say "Look: brain waves or cerebral blood flow or whatever has a pattern that correlates with X, so we now understand why X occurs!" However, no new understanding of why X occurs has resulted from the brain information. Instead, we simply know another fact about the phenomenon, and a rather insignificant one at that, because if you accept that brains underlie all psychological phenomena, then the important news would be a well-tested null result, that there was no brain correlation with a given psychological phenomenon. Let me expain.

The reported study follows up a phenomenon regarding the behavior of gamblers that is so well-established that the entire slot-machine industry builds and programs their machines to take advantage of it: near misses (two lemon and a strawberry) and machine that allow the gambler to control the process partially (e.g., to make one of the spinning columns stop at a certain point) motivate certain gamblers to keep playing almost as much as consistent wins. They measured fMRI bloodflow and found that, indeed, the brains of gamblers respond similarly to wins and near misses. However, nothing in their research explains why the brains of gamblers respond in this parallel fashion, or even if perhaps the similarity in the blood flow pattern is present because the gamblers perceive winning and near misses as similar, that is, reverse causality.

Yet, a purely behavioral study of the phenomenon, one that perhaps measured the effects of things like task complexity, intelligence, income level, and so on, would be much less likely to excite readers, and, even though the research would be much less expensive to run (fMRI machines are expensive!), it would probably be much less likely to be funded.

Why? My explanation is what I will call "voodoo neuroscience". The experiment I linked to above is a perfect illustration. You just take expensive technology and apply it to find some new correlation or enhanced precision of measurement, even though it adds nothing or very little to our understanding of the underlying phenomenon, and it is viewed as exciting, revolutionary, and important. A linguist I knew used the expression "physics envy" for such voodoo scientific endeavors.

I'm not saying that we should not do the cognitive fMRI experiments, but I am saying that in terms of costs and benefits, the magnitude of the benefits should not be inflated as they currently are, and as they were in the fMRI slot machine study.

Greg Shenaut

Another screwy tax proposal

Well, I don't know about you, but when it comes to taxes, I think I'm bothered as much by the complexity of our current system as I am by paying the actual taxes. The recent disgrace of Tom Daschle et al. hasn't made me change this idea. I mean, take the money but don't make it so difficult and stressful.

One perennial idea to simplify taxes is the consumption tax, basically a national sales tax. When you buy something, you pay taxes, and you don't pay any other taxes. This is definitely simpler, and no one has denied that it could be used to raise all necessary revenues. The problem is that in all forms of it I have heard of, it is horribly regressive, in that poorer people would end up paying a much greater portion of their income in taxes than wealthier people.

So, the screwy idea I came up with this morning is that by default, a national sales tax rate -- possibly with per-locality or per transaction-type adjustments -- is set to a universal amount. For the moment, let's say 15%, just to pick a number. 15% of all normal transactions would go to the tax collector. Yes, the rate could be modified to get some state taxes in there, and also there could be lower rates on things like carrots and bread and higher rates on things like television sets and cigarettes. But the nominal rate would be a standard 15%. However, people could apply for something called a "tax discount card", which would contain ID information and electronically coded information that could reduce the tax rate applied to a certain transaction. This would be the means to implement progressivity in the sales tax.

From the retailer's point of view, the tax discount card would simply be swiped just like a credit card, and the tax rate of the transaction would be adjusted accordingly. It would really be no extra work for them. All of the necessary information to document the tax would be supplied automatically.

What about privacy? Well, use of the tax discount card would be optional. If you didn't want to use your card (or if you don't qualify for any discounts), you can do an undocumented transaction and be taxed at the full nominal rate for the transaction type and locality. Basically, if you want to pay less taxes and if you have low income, lots of kids, or some other reason why your taxes should be reduced, you can apply for and use a card.

In terms of simplicity, the process of applying for and renewing the discount card could be complex, no question about it. But what this plan does is to separate out the complexity from the taxation itself. And, except for people whose circumstances change rapidly, once the first card is acquired, renewal cards would be less complex.

Families could get "family rate" cards instead of having each individual apply for their own.

One interesting twist is that tourists and other transients would pay the full rate, and people from out of state would not pay the local state supplementary tax.

Well, that's the idea.

A small suggestion for Israel

First, let me say that I have no idea about who is right or wrong in Palestine. It seems to me that all sides there are in an impass. This note isn't about the big picture, it's just a small suggestion for a possibly very useful policy for Israel to adopt if it intends to continue violent action against Palestinians.

Reparations. It's really very simple. Suppose the Israelis decide to take out someone who they believe supplies and trains suicide bombers. They know where he is, and they target that location as precisely as possible, and as a result, 3 civilians are killed, 10 are seriously wounded, and three houses are destroyed. It doesn't matter for the purposes of this essay whether their actual target was killed or not, those civilians and their property would never have been legitimate targets, and, I believe, would never be of interest to the Israelis as targets. Yet, they were blown up.

I think that Israel should pay the survivors. They should pay so much for a death, so much for an injury, and they should pay to treat the injuries. They should also pay to rebuild any structures they destroy. The amounts should not be unlimited, but they should be more than simply adequate, they should be "moderately generous". And, they should be accompanied by a formal, sincere apology for the harm caused. The IRCRC could act as an intermediary, if the victims were reluctant to accept payments directly from Israel. Furthermore, if the act was illegal in some way--negligent, malicious, or premeditated--then the Israelis should make sure that criminal prosecution against the perpetuators is pursued with no interference from the government.

Hamas understands the political benefit of victim payments perfectly well, which is why they are making them to families of Gazan casualties after the recent conflict.

I think that Israel can afford this generosity, and I think that it would do three things: (1) it would demonstrate the difference between an actual military target and collateral damage, in a very tangible way; (2) it would have an effect on Israelis as well: they would better understand that they should be more careful, and that they are responsible for civilian casualties and damages; and (3) the most obvious effect is that it would mitigate to some degree the suffering of innocent Palestinians caught in the crossfire.

By the way, it would also provide an example that other countries could well afford to follow, including the USA. As for the Palestinians echoing this for Israeli civilians, well, one can only hope.

Greg Shenaut