#262: Climate Timeline 2020-2030
...............
Kevin Drum, in Mother Jones magazine, makes the case for massive spending on research and development to find new and improved technologies that will be no-brainers to adopt--as opposed to the 'take-your-medicine' approach: persuading Republicans to tax carbon, for example.
Starting next year I may promote my own 'easier' solution: a worldwide reduction in military spending, redirected to fighting Climate Change (the logic here is that both sides to a conflict can come out ahead if they both spend less on their military; and everybody wins if that extra is redirected to fighting Climate Change).
If I do, here's the worldwide military-reduction solution in brief, that I can then link to:
1. Focused Protests. In addition to aiming for small, local victories, we should harness global protests to address a specific, comprehensive process. For each year in the 2020s, divert first 1%, then 2%, etc., of each nation's military spending to fighting Climate Change. So, referring to the first year's 1%, 'One for Climate' could be a handy slogan. Given that 2018 global military spending was $1.8 trillion, this would mean $18 billion the first year, and a total of roughly a trillion by 2030--a start, with much more from other sources as the process gets underway.
2. Initial Leadership. With a focus on individual nation-states making the minimum 1% commitment, diplomacy and leadership are at a premium. European and East Asian countries would be expected to lead the way, initially, and to assist developing nations.
3. The US. Because we account for nearly half of all military spending, the US joining the 'One for Climate' process would likely be the clincher, allowing hope to bloom, and accelerating the process. While this is unlikely to occur before the next US election, the broad authority given the US president on foreign policy makes this diplomacy-based approach possible, given the constraints of the US political system. As for the US Senate, where legislation to implement 'One for Climate' would normally need a steep 60-vote majority, if we assume a Democratic majority, then senators could adopt a 50+1 majority policy for any legislation based on overwhelming scientific evidence (existing scientific advisory panels could confirm the science on any legislation being considered). This would allow the next president to successfully shepherd One for Climate legislation through Congress.
Wednesday, December 25, 2019
Sunday, December 22, 2019
Enough: The Senate's Secret Ballot Vote
#261: Secrecy: Why The Senate, Now
..................
Societies in which voting is less than purely private are susceptible to the politics of strong-arm tactics. The individual amassing the most power in such societies keeps weaker individuals in line with subtle 'enforcement' ("You're still part of our team, aren't you?"), threats ("Vote for me or you'll be sorry"), and violence (unrelated attacks on a voter's personal interests, family members, etc.)
The beauty of the secret ballot is that the strong-arm enforcer is out of luck. This is the foundation for equality in the modern world--we each have an inviolate strength, the right to vote in secrecy.
Under a representative democracy, however, there's an opposite need for transparency, because voters need to know that their will is being expressed accurately.
Voting in a representative democracy is thus best a mix of secrecy and transparency. Which is what our founding fathers created: a House of Representatives to convey the raw desires of the electorate, and a Senate, to cool any hot-headed impulse.
Which brings us to the weakest link in the US system's mix of transparency and secrecy: the Senate's loss of mystique: its become yet another transparent political body, susceptible to 'enforcement'.
Exactly how is that? Well, our Constitution allows a mere 20% of senators the right to request a recorded vote. And though this may have seemed reasonable in the 18th century, there's simply no way our founding fathers could have foreseen the take-your-clothes-off political theater that has allowed every tuned-in citizen to follow every move their senator makes. There's nowhere for conscience and discretion to hide, so almost every senator has gotten in line--the party line; this is especially true of Republicans, who tend to be hierarchical in disposition. Before the days of instant media coverage, the legislative record was known to congressional insiders, but few others. Instead, a candidate's reputation would be buttressed by endorsements from men of stature. In other words, the world has changed so dramatically that there's literally nothing left of it. All politicians are naked unto the electorate.
Yet this is an obvious disaster, leaving senators fearful that if they step out of line, the strongman and his minions will know how they voted and remove them from power. So, they instead vote the way they feel they 'should' to please the party boss, meaning that there's nothing left of the 'objective', above-it-all role that the Senate formerly played.
Forgetting the importance of secrecy, as we've done, is easy. But, once the secret ballot is identified as the key to balancing our politics, the remedy is obvious: its occasional use in one of our two deliberative bodies, namely the Senate. And to satisfy constitutional law, senators would conduct a recorded vote while also voting in secret.
* Senators, one-by-one, walk up to the presiding officer, announce their vote, and cast their folded paper ballots (one printed 'yea' and one 'nay') in either the 'Active Vote' or 'Discard' basket.
* Next, the presiding officer counts the paper ballots by hand, with witnesses present to confirm the results.
* If the result is different from the verbal vote, senators are offered the chance to change their verbal vote. It is unlikely any would.
And for those who enjoy the theater of roll-call votes, a secret ballot would involve the Senate's presiding officer reading each folded piece of paper, one-at-a-time, taken from the Active Vote basket. With the country watching from afar, the announced votes, one-by-one, would be tallied on our screens, with the 100-count vote gradually revealing itself.
But is implementing a tradition of secret voting possible? All it takes is the recognition that this is the time and the opportunity to return secrecy to one of our two governing bodies, and in so doing, fix much of our current political ill humor. Party bosses, "Take a hike."
The reasoning here is that allowing for a secret ballot in the Senate on particularly sensitive issues (a vote threshold of possibly 5/9--56 or more out of 100) will set a precedent that encourages great minds to become senators. It would underline the trust that voters place in their senators to vote their conscience, and would erase some of the partisanship that has poisoned American politics. Most importantly, it would redeem the promise that is secret ballot voting--democracy's beating heart.
In the future, when senators are under pressure to tow the line regarding 'special interests', they would always have the option to call for a secret ballot, assuming their case was strong enough to garner 56 votes. For example, in this article on using wood burning pellets to qualify for green energy credits, the science is obviously against home state interests, and yet the two moderate senators from Maine couldn't possibly vote against their state's forest industry, unless they were voting by secret ballot, in which case they could then heed common sense and scientific consensus.
Even the Constitution itself calls for some secrecy. Article I, Section 5, Clause 3: "Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the journal." Thus, the Senate, led by a majority leader, could conceivably implement an informal 56-vote threshold for a secret ballot, that would see a verbal vote recorded (to satisfy the above clause in the Constitution), while a written vote is counted and becomes the definitive decision.
Furthermore, in any given case, passing an initial decision to vote by secret ballot (56 or more out of 100) would not be easy. There would be many senators who might vote their conscience if given the opportunity, but who wouldn't dare vote for a secret ballot on a question, since this would tip their hand (though alliances between trusting senators would form: "Call for a secret ballot on this, and I'll return the favor some day"). So, secret ballots, yes, but only on rare occasions.
..................
Societies in which voting is less than purely private are susceptible to the politics of strong-arm tactics. The individual amassing the most power in such societies keeps weaker individuals in line with subtle 'enforcement' ("You're still part of our team, aren't you?"), threats ("Vote for me or you'll be sorry"), and violence (unrelated attacks on a voter's personal interests, family members, etc.)
The beauty of the secret ballot is that the strong-arm enforcer is out of luck. This is the foundation for equality in the modern world--we each have an inviolate strength, the right to vote in secrecy.
Under a representative democracy, however, there's an opposite need for transparency, because voters need to know that their will is being expressed accurately.
Voting in a representative democracy is thus best a mix of secrecy and transparency. Which is what our founding fathers created: a House of Representatives to convey the raw desires of the electorate, and a Senate, to cool any hot-headed impulse.
Which brings us to the weakest link in the US system's mix of transparency and secrecy: the Senate's loss of mystique: its become yet another transparent political body, susceptible to 'enforcement'.
Exactly how is that? Well, our Constitution allows a mere 20% of senators the right to request a recorded vote. And though this may have seemed reasonable in the 18th century, there's simply no way our founding fathers could have foreseen the take-your-clothes-off political theater that has allowed every tuned-in citizen to follow every move their senator makes. There's nowhere for conscience and discretion to hide, so almost every senator has gotten in line--the party line; this is especially true of Republicans, who tend to be hierarchical in disposition. Before the days of instant media coverage, the legislative record was known to congressional insiders, but few others. Instead, a candidate's reputation would be buttressed by endorsements from men of stature. In other words, the world has changed so dramatically that there's literally nothing left of it. All politicians are naked unto the electorate.
Yet this is an obvious disaster, leaving senators fearful that if they step out of line, the strongman and his minions will know how they voted and remove them from power. So, they instead vote the way they feel they 'should' to please the party boss, meaning that there's nothing left of the 'objective', above-it-all role that the Senate formerly played.
Forgetting the importance of secrecy, as we've done, is easy. But, once the secret ballot is identified as the key to balancing our politics, the remedy is obvious: its occasional use in one of our two deliberative bodies, namely the Senate. And to satisfy constitutional law, senators would conduct a recorded vote while also voting in secret.
* Senators, one-by-one, walk up to the presiding officer, announce their vote, and cast their folded paper ballots (one printed 'yea' and one 'nay') in either the 'Active Vote' or 'Discard' basket.
* Next, the presiding officer counts the paper ballots by hand, with witnesses present to confirm the results.
* If the result is different from the verbal vote, senators are offered the chance to change their verbal vote. It is unlikely any would.
And for those who enjoy the theater of roll-call votes, a secret ballot would involve the Senate's presiding officer reading each folded piece of paper, one-at-a-time, taken from the Active Vote basket. With the country watching from afar, the announced votes, one-by-one, would be tallied on our screens, with the 100-count vote gradually revealing itself.
But is implementing a tradition of secret voting possible? All it takes is the recognition that this is the time and the opportunity to return secrecy to one of our two governing bodies, and in so doing, fix much of our current political ill humor. Party bosses, "Take a hike."
The reasoning here is that allowing for a secret ballot in the Senate on particularly sensitive issues (a vote threshold of possibly 5/9--56 or more out of 100) will set a precedent that encourages great minds to become senators. It would underline the trust that voters place in their senators to vote their conscience, and would erase some of the partisanship that has poisoned American politics. Most importantly, it would redeem the promise that is secret ballot voting--democracy's beating heart.
In the future, when senators are under pressure to tow the line regarding 'special interests', they would always have the option to call for a secret ballot, assuming their case was strong enough to garner 56 votes. For example, in this article on using wood burning pellets to qualify for green energy credits, the science is obviously against home state interests, and yet the two moderate senators from Maine couldn't possibly vote against their state's forest industry, unless they were voting by secret ballot, in which case they could then heed common sense and scientific consensus.
Even the Constitution itself calls for some secrecy. Article I, Section 5, Clause 3: "Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the journal." Thus, the Senate, led by a majority leader, could conceivably implement an informal 56-vote threshold for a secret ballot, that would see a verbal vote recorded (to satisfy the above clause in the Constitution), while a written vote is counted and becomes the definitive decision.
Furthermore, in any given case, passing an initial decision to vote by secret ballot (56 or more out of 100) would not be easy. There would be many senators who might vote their conscience if given the opportunity, but who wouldn't dare vote for a secret ballot on a question, since this would tip their hand (though alliances between trusting senators would form: "Call for a secret ballot on this, and I'll return the favor some day"). So, secret ballots, yes, but only on rare occasions.
Monday, December 16, 2019
Why Trump's Removal Is As High As 25% Likely
#260: Impeached and Removed
................
My #256 post, "The Exit Trump Scenario" lays out what I believe to be the 1-in-4 or lower odds that the Senate will vote to convict our current president. The reason the odds are that high is that a secret ballot, if used, could free Republican senators from the retaliation of their deep Red constituents, and would thus allow true opinion to prevail.
I note, though, in my post, that a secret ballot is "iffy". This is because the US Constitution specifically says that 'aye' and 'nay' votes must be recorded, should at least 1-in-5 senators wish. This would seem to doom any chance of a secret ballot. Except..., what if there was, indeed, an 'aye' and 'nay' vote as part of a secret ballot vote.
So, given a spike in pro-conviction sentiment (perhaps brought on by testimony from former National Security Advisor John Bolton), a group of half-a-dozen or so Republicans could join with most Democrats in demanding a secret ballot (each senator receives two pieces of paper ('convict' and 'exonerate', folds them, and places one in the 'active vote' bowl, and the other in the 'discard vote' bowl) after verbally recording his/her vote (verbal, probably 45-55--failing to convict), paper (perhaps 68-32--to conviction).
................
My #256 post, "The Exit Trump Scenario" lays out what I believe to be the 1-in-4 or lower odds that the Senate will vote to convict our current president. The reason the odds are that high is that a secret ballot, if used, could free Republican senators from the retaliation of their deep Red constituents, and would thus allow true opinion to prevail.
I note, though, in my post, that a secret ballot is "iffy". This is because the US Constitution specifically says that 'aye' and 'nay' votes must be recorded, should at least 1-in-5 senators wish. This would seem to doom any chance of a secret ballot. Except..., what if there was, indeed, an 'aye' and 'nay' vote as part of a secret ballot vote.
So, given a spike in pro-conviction sentiment (perhaps brought on by testimony from former National Security Advisor John Bolton), a group of half-a-dozen or so Republicans could join with most Democrats in demanding a secret ballot (each senator receives two pieces of paper ('convict' and 'exonerate', folds them, and places one in the 'active vote' bowl, and the other in the 'discard vote' bowl) after verbally recording his/her vote (verbal, probably 45-55--failing to convict), paper (perhaps 68-32--to conviction).
Tuesday, December 10, 2019
We'll Chuckle When Remembering Today's Simplistic "Social Media"
#259: Truly Exciting Social Media
....................
In a recent opinion piece for the New York Times, Annalee Newitz laid out several scenarios describing what future social media might look like. I'll present and discuss them, but first, this is what social media will eventually look like, once we've tried various designs, and settled on the best:
*** Simply put, the American promise: that the best ideas will be recognized and rise to the top.
Newitz's five scenarios (with my commentary in green):
Basic Question: What will replace social media (the way the internet replaced television)?
If Facebook/Twitter are flashes in the pan, I'll surrender my pundit's chair, but I'm guessing this is the wrong question (see my final paragraph).
1. Do away with ad networks that are parasitic, that feed off of human connection.
This idea requires a replacement for ads. Possible, but not likely.
2. Resolve the choice between Facebook and WeChat (the Chinese equivalent) by allowing some state control.
Much more likely that state control withers.
3. Begin with 'opt out' as default. We would each, instead, choose what content to admit into our world.
Creative, but too complicated. Most internet users just want to have fun, and would uncritically open the floodgates. Worth considering, though.
4. A 'slow media' solution: while curating takes time, all posts will have met standards
In boutique settings this could work, but likely an intellectual's dream.
5. Allow face-to-face proof of member authenticity.
Maybe, if your first priority is countering fake accounts.
The reason why "What will replace social media...?" is the wrong question can be summed up with mathematical formulas.
* Facebook is simply 1 + 1 = 2 (we agree to be friends)
* Twitter is simply 2 + 1 = 3 (I follow you in a social context)
This simple math was enabled by the internet. The formulas themselves won't ever change. What can change is our engineering ability. If, for example, a simple adjustment (like ranking our favorite posters) allowed talent to rise, ho-hum mediocrity to fail, and the opinions of those so recognized was tabulated, an organic popularity might begin to replace our pop culture wasteland.
* This would be 3 + 1 = 4 (I promote you as my favorite)
....................
In a recent opinion piece for the New York Times, Annalee Newitz laid out several scenarios describing what future social media might look like. I'll present and discuss them, but first, this is what social media will eventually look like, once we've tried various designs, and settled on the best:
*** Simply put, the American promise: that the best ideas will be recognized and rise to the top.
Newitz's five scenarios (with my commentary in green):
Basic Question: What will replace social media (the way the internet replaced television)?
If Facebook/Twitter are flashes in the pan, I'll surrender my pundit's chair, but I'm guessing this is the wrong question (see my final paragraph).
1. Do away with ad networks that are parasitic, that feed off of human connection.
This idea requires a replacement for ads. Possible, but not likely.
2. Resolve the choice between Facebook and WeChat (the Chinese equivalent) by allowing some state control.
Much more likely that state control withers.
3. Begin with 'opt out' as default. We would each, instead, choose what content to admit into our world.
Creative, but too complicated. Most internet users just want to have fun, and would uncritically open the floodgates. Worth considering, though.
4. A 'slow media' solution: while curating takes time, all posts will have met standards
In boutique settings this could work, but likely an intellectual's dream.
5. Allow face-to-face proof of member authenticity.
Maybe, if your first priority is countering fake accounts.
The reason why "What will replace social media...?" is the wrong question can be summed up with mathematical formulas.
* Facebook is simply 1 + 1 = 2 (we agree to be friends)
* Twitter is simply 2 + 1 = 3 (I follow you in a social context)
This simple math was enabled by the internet. The formulas themselves won't ever change. What can change is our engineering ability. If, for example, a simple adjustment (like ranking our favorite posters) allowed talent to rise, ho-hum mediocrity to fail, and the opinions of those so recognized was tabulated, an organic popularity might begin to replace our pop culture wasteland.
* This would be 3 + 1 = 4 (I promote you as my favorite)
Sunday, December 1, 2019
Easily Rebutting The Climate Deniers
#258: Climate Cranks Exposed
..................
A while back, in my local newspaper, I remember reading an angry letter-to-the-editor written by an amateur 'expert' on the matter, who contended that Global Warming was a hoax. He made the point that over the eons, our planet has heated up and cooled down, and that our era was no different. Where he failed, was in falling for disingenuous 'facts', rather than seeking out both sides of the issue.
I knew he was in error, and now I know why. Here are the charts, commentary and discussion (it's Quora, so scroll down for answers) to show why the low-information voter, wanting to believe a falsehood, could conceivably do so.
Makes one wonder how the creator of the original, deceptive graphic, after raking in his payoff from the fossil fuels industry, could have slept at night.
..................
A while back, in my local newspaper, I remember reading an angry letter-to-the-editor written by an amateur 'expert' on the matter, who contended that Global Warming was a hoax. He made the point that over the eons, our planet has heated up and cooled down, and that our era was no different. Where he failed, was in falling for disingenuous 'facts', rather than seeking out both sides of the issue.
I knew he was in error, and now I know why. Here are the charts, commentary and discussion (it's Quora, so scroll down for answers) to show why the low-information voter, wanting to believe a falsehood, could conceivably do so.
Makes one wonder how the creator of the original, deceptive graphic, after raking in his payoff from the fossil fuels industry, could have slept at night.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)