RSS

Tag Archives: government

Why the Electoral College is Relevant Today

tumblr_lnpvew8iMn1qzt1yyo1_500.png

Ms. Ginny Stroud

No one cares one bit about the electoral college until they suddenly pivot to extremely caring about the electoral college. That happens around the time a close election teases out the distinction between popular election and the buffer against the masses we call the electoral college.

 

A common argument against the current system is straightforward: it is in place to prevent the will of the people from overriding the will of the elite. That’s not very democratic now is it? The electoral college  is the inverse of universal suffrage, which is the direction the United States has been heading for most of its existence (slowly). On the one hand, ‘No taxation without representation’ was part of the rationale for the revolution against the English Crown (I know what you’re thinking D.C., sit down and be quiet).

The 15th amendment in 1869 prohibited the denial of the right to vote based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The 19th amendment in 1919 prohibited the denial of the right to vote based on sex. In 1971, the 26th amendment reduced the voting age from 21 to 18, in large part to ensure that draft age men could have a voice.

Yet, don’t forget what Ms. Ginny Stroud, the Civics teacher in Dazed and Confused, reminded her students about July 4th as they finished their last days of school before Summer:

Don’t forget what you’re celebrating and that’s the fact that a bunch of slave-owning aristocratic white males didn’t want to pay their taxes.

And if there’s one thing that slave-owning aristocratic white males wanted, it was to keep their position of being slave-owning aristocratic white males safe. Hence, the electoral college. Or, to put it in a more Hamiltonian manner (from The Mode of Electing the President. From the New York Packet. Friday, March 14, 1788.):

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.

The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes.

That’s right, don’t convulse the community with extraordinary or violent movements. That’s been one of my primary reasons for being a supporter of Hillary this whole election cycle, because the older I get, the more unsettlingScreen Shot 2016-05-07 at 9.27.53 PM.png a revolution sounds. And this is not because I don’t think that the country could be better. It’s because I also think that it could be a lot worse.

A little taste of what convulsing the community will get you can be had in reading The Economist‘s article ‘Tethered by History’ recounting the failings of the Arab Spring in bringing about change in the middle east. Maybe I’m over-reacting, but the last time I looked, the world economy has yet to find its footing again after the recession beginning in 2008. Fortunately, many of the aftershocks of that quake were dulled by the stabilizing influence of the EU in keeping countries like Greece and Portugal from becoming failed states. After all, nothing puts pressure on a marriage like financial problems.

That all said, the Presidential primaries have been a good, safe place for the parties to work out their own problems and figure out what they believe in.

With that in mind, the greatest good I see coming from the Bernie Sanders Campaign is that it has shown that a substantial portion of Democratic voters are further to the Left than where the Democratic Party has drifted in recent decades. Sanders is a sign to Hillary that moving to the Right, as many Democratic Nominees have done, is not the only way to garner more votes.

The good that I see coming from the Donald Trump Campaign is much the same. The Republican have been moving to the Right and building grassroots support especially amongst social conservatives since the time of Ralph Reed. Ted Cruz was an excellent example of this in the current election cycle, which had nothing but party non-conformists for Republicans to choose from with the exceptions of Rubio and Bush.

The harm of these candidates is that the only way to move the parties was to unmoor the safety lines and push. My only hope is that if either of these outsiders gets into office,  the governmental ground game that has resembled trench warfare for the past decade will continue to spend time doing nothing until we can put saner minds in control again.

Which brings me back to my initial position, that separating the fickle will of the people from the actual reigns of power may be the only thing that keeps the US from turning directly into the tempest. I’ve been accused before of being an elitist when it comes to government, but frankly, it’s because I would much rather have the best person in office than the loudest. Isn’t that what being an elite is about? Not being subject to the wind, but still sensing its influence and understanding what it means?

Just like so many other multiple choice questions, when none of the answers look correct, select the best from what you have. And if you can’t see which is the best available, don’t vote.Cthulhu 2016.jpg

 

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on May 7, 2016 in Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Why is torture so bad anyway?

Apparently Donald Trump does speak for most Americans, or at least the folks at Unfiltered Patriot would have you think so. The Donald has been taking some heat for expressing his opinions on Torture. “We have to play the game the way they’re playing the game. You’re not going to win if we’re soft and they’re, they have no rules.” He has repeatedly stated that waterboarding is the least of the measures that he would use to extract information from terrorists / enemy combatants. Here Trump is following advice often attributed to Sun Tzu: “To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” However, this quote is a misattribution, appearing nowhere in The Art of War. Probably because it’s a bad idea. Michael Prescott explains why this is so very clearly in his short essay, Becoming your Enemy, where he explains that, “fighting the enemy is what the enemy wants.”

Vladmir Lenin knew this. He is quoted as saying that, “the purpose of terrorism is to terrorize.”The blogger, Gowdey, succinctly describes this purpose, and how it realizes the flaw of the ‘Become your Enemy’ quote, in this 2007 Common Sense essay as…

Although terrorism employs violent means, and often uses military weaponry to execute attacks and massacres – the objective of a terrorist act isn’t military victory. In fact, military forces are almost never the target of terrorist attacks. The objective of a terrorist attack is political reaction. The strategy behind such attacks is for them to be the catalyst, direct or indirect, for political change that weakens the enemy.

In classic political/strategic theory, the purpose of terrorism is to create a political psychology of fear and anger that persuades a government to undertake repressive and violent activities against its own populace, gradually losing their support, and eventually causing its own demise.

In the aftermath of the terrible events of terrorism committed on September 11th 2001, President Bush addressed America in a joint session of congress nine days later to voice a response to the attacks. In this response, the President outlined what we knew about Al Qaeda at the time. We knew it was led by Osama bin Laden and that it had been responsible for previous attacks on western targets including, the truck bombing of the World Trade Center, a suicide attack on the USS Cole, and a number of Embassy bombings. They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.

Then, as if to assure us that the U.S. would not stumble blindly into becoming our enemy, he explained the motive of the terrorists. “They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.” He also attempted to quell any potential anti-Islam reactionary response by clarifying that these terrorists, “practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism that has been rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics; a fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam.”

However, three days later, on 14 September 2001, Congress passed the Authorization to Use Military Force, stating:Screen Shot 2016-04-04 at 10.56.40 PM.png

Section 2 – Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

This gave the President what one might arguably call unrestricted right to do anything he (or she) pleases. Furthermore, the only time restriction mentioned is ‘future,’ so, for as long as there exists time, the President maintains these powers.

On 26 October 2001, the President signed the USA Patriot Act, which made a number of changes to U.S. law. Changes were made to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978  (FISA), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA), the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986, the Bank Secrecy Act, and the Immigration and Nationality Act, all for the purpose of loosening restrictions on government agencies that had prevented them from spying on, well, everyone. America had changed. With one (rather large) Act, we ensured that the freedoms that Al Qaeda hated us for were much fewer in number.

Soon came the realization that by fighting a non-governmental, terrorist group, we were in untested waters, and we changed again. This time, we abandoned our position of moral superiority by opening the prison in Guantanamo Bay to house ‘enemy combatants.’

The 1949 Geneva Conventions defined ‘enemy combatants‘ as

Any person in an armed conflict who could be properly detained under the laws and customs of war.” In the case of a civil war or an insurrection the term “enemy state” may be replaced by the more general term “Party to the conflict.”

Of course, it’s hard to say what goes on in Gitmo. However, it was learned that one strategy involved the use of what came to be known as ‘enhanced interrogation techniques.’ The BBC provides an excellent look into how the US government distinguishes between torture (which it says it does not engage in) and enhanced interrogation (which is just fine).

The exemplar of enhanced interrogation is waterboarding (also see the BBC article above). Arguments about whether waterboarding represents torture or not have gone on for several years now.

On Saturday, 5 March 2016, Presidential Candidate, Donald Trump revisited the discussion saying repeatedly that, as President, he would seek to “broaden” U.S. laws to allow torture, including but not limited to waterboarding. In justification, Trump vowed to “strengthen the laws so that we can better compete” with ISIS‘ brutal tactics. “Did somebody tell ISIS, ‘Look, we’re going to treat your guys well. Will you please do us a favor and treat our guys well?’ They don’t do that. We’re not playing by — we are playing by rules, but they have no rules. It’s very hard to win when that’s the case,” Trump said, adding that the United States’ ban on waterboarding is a sign of weakness.

Providing some clarity, Trump returned to his win/lose view of world politics:

Did somebody tell ISIS, ‘Look, we’re going to treat your guys well. Will you please do us a favor and treat our guys well?’ They don’t do that. We’re not playing by — we are playing by rules, but they have no rules. It’s very hard to win when that’s the case,”

“I think we’ve become very weak and ineffective. I think that’s why we’re not beating ISIS. It’s that mentality… [ISIS] must think we are a little bit on the weak side.”
This brings me back to the Unfiltered Patriot. In reporting the results of a Reuters survey, they find that Americans are actually quite comfortable with the use of torture.
[T]he poll asked respondents if they could justify torture “against suspected terrorists to obtain information about terrorism.” 25% said that such torture was “often” acceptable and another 38% said it was “sometimes” justified. Only 15% of respondents said it was never okay.
More scientific polling on the question by Gallup has found that Americans are not as eager to support torture when they are asked at times other than immediately following an attack.
Screen Shot 2016-04-04 at 11.22.22 PM.png
For a more comprehensive look into how Americans feel about specific acts of torture (relevant to Islamic enemy combatants):
Screen Shot 2016-04-04 at 11.26.17 PM.png
Further, a majority of Americans believe that the U.S. government should abide by the Geneva Conventions – although, at 57%, I find this to be a much smaller majority than I would have hoped for.
Going beyond just the terrorists, Trump has also suggested, “I would be very, very firm with families … Frankly, that will make people think, because they may not care much about their lives, but they do care, believe it or not, about their families’ lives.”
One last thought (again, from Gallup 2011):
Of 2,482 Americans asked whether violence resulting in the death of civilians is never justified…
Results were broken down by religious affiliations including Muslims, Catholics, Protestants, and atheists.
Screen Shot 2016-04-04 at 11.40.40 PM.png
 
Leave a comment

Posted by on April 4, 2016 in Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

I’ve been away, but now I’m back.

2905f5c4f4fb0354cfc774fa213cd9bf-1Life is funny. If you were to ask me, anytime during my entire life, whether I would ever work in a law firm dealing with details, I would say that you were crazy to even ask that. Details just aren’t my thing.

Not only that, I’ve always been more that a little jaded in my view of the law and those who practice it. On the other hand, I have always thought that the Supreme Court was the most interesting part of our political system and where the more intelligent, thoughtful members of the government find themselves (even if I don’t agree with them — I’m looking at you, Anton!).

But here I am, working at a Patent Firm as a technical analyst. I wish I got to be more of a technical analyst day to day, actually. Unfortunately, that’s only part of the job. The rest is just legal office work, which amounts to a very expensive service industry where you don’t want to make anything shy of the best impression on your clients.

I couldn’t do this job if I didn’t see it as a kind of experiment though. So, if it’s an experiment, what’s the question?

The purpose of Patent Law  comes directly from the Constitution:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, of the United States Constitution grants Congress the power “To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”

The idea behind the law is that inventors exchange a detailed description of their inventions in a clearly defined way that would enable one of ordinary skill in their art to repeat the invention for monopoly over the use of the invention for a period of time in order to capture the financial benefit (20 years).

So, my question is, is this what patent law achieves? Is the progress of science promoted? Do inventors receive the benefit the law claims to provide? Does the public benefit from this exchange?

It’s easy to have a feeling for this, but how can one measure it? I’ve got to mull this over and come up with a list of possibilities and then start collecting some data. Ideas?

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on February 10, 2016 in Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , ,

An interesting question

Image

                  Follow Me

Paul Offit’s Vaccines course recently started up on Coursera.org and I intend to follow it through this semester an possibly use elements of this course and the discussions I find there in my own class (esp. Microbiology, but perhaps also in General Biology).

In the discussion forums someone, using the pseudonym, Amy Pond, posed a great question. “How do you decide what constitutes a reliable source of information?”

It is deceptively difficult to answer. If the question regards science, should everyone be expected to track down primary publications and review the data for themselves? If so, how do you even decide which sources to get your data from? If you admit that you do not have the time, ability or inclination to go to the data, is there anyone you can trust to give you the straight dope?

We live in an interconnected world with a surfeit of information. How can we avoid confirmation bias in our online ‘research’? Does the popularity of an opinion (The bandwagon effect) make it more or less believable? How do the search terms you use bias  the answers you receive when ‘asking google’, i.e. what about the framing of an argument?

So, how do you decide what sources to listen to? 

 
5 Comments

Posted by on September 4, 2013 in Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,