Parody Project – Corruption: Parody of Truckin’ (This really is unfair to Democrats, both in the White House and Congress, who are working so hard to keep democracy.)
Pretty Leopard Gets Stuck In Tight Spot
Beau – Let’s talk about 2 things falling in Russia….
Yesterday, it was still cool – a high of 73F. It’s supposed to be warmer today, but still only in the high 80s. Also yesterday, Andrew Weissman said this on MSNBC: “The exact words because this is the provision that the court has to find to release someone on bail in Georgia, is that the defendant poses no risk of intimidating witnesses.” The reference is to the specific lehal language used in the Georgia criminal code. Federally and in most states, the burden of proof is on the government, but Georgia is different. I can tell you this caused a virtual party at Democratic Underground, with a plethora of jokes of various degreess of taste. And also yesterday – last night, really – after 9 p.m. my time – an alert came in that Trump** and 18 others had been indicted by a grand jury in Georgia. (I had heard earlier that they didn’t keep a 5:00 quitting time, but sent everyone to dinner and then re-convened into the night.) The alert didn’t name the 18 others, nor were they listed in the linked story at the time, but Axios usually develops these stories, so they may (or may not) be there now.
Cartoon –
Short Takes –
CNN – Exclusive: Georgia prosecutors have messages showing Trump’s team is behind voting system breach
Quote – Investigators in the Georgia criminal probe have long suspected the breach was not an organic effort sprung from sympathetic Trump supporters in rural and heavily Republican Coffee County – a county Trump won by nearly 70% of the vote. They have gathered evidence indicating it was a top-down push by Trump’s team to access sensitive voting software, according to people familiar with the situation. Trump allies attempted to access voting systems after the 2020 election as part of the broader push to produce evidence that could back up the former president’s baseless claims of widespread fraud. Click through for details. The nitty-gritty details of evidence are almost never anywhere near as much fun as the sweeping descriptions of the crime. But in order to prove stuff- prosecutors must dig through them.
Daily Kos (MargaretPOA) – Of Course Republicans are Angry. They Have Been Out Gamed… AGAIN.
Quote – As usual, Republicans acted on the assumption that Democrats would behave as dishonestly and unethically as they, themselves and so would never in a million years appoint a Special Counsel, even though the Democrats are as aware as anybody else that there is no evidence of wrongdoing because there was no wrongdoing. Republicans thought that they were safe to loudly and publicly demand a Special Counsel because they would never get one because they, themselves would never grant that if their positions were flipped. The fact that Republicans have long used a partisan DOJ to do their dirty work means that they can’t imagine an independent DOJ. Click through for all the reasons – the quote is the first one. I like it because we all know it’s so, but it’s said so concisely and still in enough detail to be satisfying.
Yesterday, I saw Virgil and we were able to play cribbage. I think I’ve mentioned that the deck is not new, so it’s sticky, and there are at least a half dozen cards, 0maybe as many as 10, that bend in half, both of which make it hard to shuffle and also hard to deal, which can result in some strange happenings. For example, I had a hand with two 7’s, two 3’s and one 5 (including the starter.) Well, that’s a nice hand, but I don’t recall seeing anything quite like it before. But several hands later, I got the exact hand again, And several hands after that, I got a hand with two 9’s, 2 aces, and a five – which is essentially the same hand, just different denominations. And a few hands after that, I got that exact same hand again. Very strange. All in good fun, of course. I guess a little weirdness never hurts.
Cartoon –
Short Takes –
The New Yorker – Can “Cop City” Be Stopped at the Ballot Box?
Quote – I reached out to Mayor Dickens to ask whether he believes that Atlanta voters should be able to decide, after all the conflict and concern expressed in the past two years, whether to build the training center in the South River Forest. A spokesperson, in an e-mail, disputed the notion that a referendum could repeal a city ordinance. This initiative, he wrote, “would violate the constitutional prohibition on the impairment of contracts. That said,” he added, “we welcome public dialogue and engagement around our goal to build the most progressive Public Safety Training Center in the nation.” Click through for story, of which, if you aren’t aware, it is not Freya’s fault. I would point out that “”progressive” does not mean the same thing in training police that it does in politics. In police training, it appears to mean something like all the latest gadgets to more effectively vcontrol people. Also, IANAL, but the theory that a referendum cannot revoke a city ordinance appears to me to be in violation of the people’s right to petition the government for redress of grievances, a right guaranteed by the First Amendment. It’s an empty right if the government in question claims in advance that there can be no redress.
al dot com – ‘Get them off their fannies:’ Gov. Kay Ivey on how to grow Alabama’s workforce
Quote – According to the U.S. Department of Labor, Alabama has a labor participation rate of 72.1 percent. Only three states rank lower even as the state’s workforce of about 2.3 million represents a new high mark. Still, ranking near the bottom nationally in labor participation somewhat offsets the fact that Alabama is 7th nationally with a 2.2 percent unemployment rate. The unemployment rate, of course, only includes those looking for jobs. “Today, over 2.1 million people are employed in Alabama,” Ivey told the chamber audience. “That’s the most in state history, y’all. Click thrugh for details. If you have so many job openings that you can’t fill them all, even with people who are not looking for work (and probably NOT “sitting on their fannies”), woudln’t it be a good idea to make your state more friendly to potential workers? Like with reproductuve rights and other health care, and diversity and friendliness? What am I missong? (Heck, they can’t even keep both Senators in the state. Tuberville has moved to Florida – not that he isn’t a good fit there.)
Experts in autocracies have pointed out that it is, unfortunately, easy to slip into normalizing the tyrant, hence it is important to hang on to outrage. These incidents which seem to call for the efforts of the Greek Furies (Erinyes) to come and deal with them will, I hope, help with that. As a reminder, though no one really knows how many there were supposed to be, the three names we have are Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone. These roughly translate as “unceasing,” “grudging,” and “vengeful destruction.”
Originalism. It’s become associated with people like Scalia, and Alito, and the Federalist Society – and, accordingly, with racism, misogyny, and plutocratic capitalism. Not that all the Founders thought that way – and even fewer would have thought that way had it occurred to them to examine that thinking. Just as they didn’t live in ancient Athens, or pre-conquest Anglo-Saxon England – or the Aztec Empire – or the Ottoman Empire – you get the point, I’m sure – they also did not live in the 21st century. What might they have done differently if they had, or if they could have foreseeen it? Might we benefit from the thought experiment of trying to design a more perfect union as if we had no constitution in place and no precedents of any kind, just us and our principles (and technology)? That’s the question the author of this article and his colleagues continue to address.
==============================================================
Re-imagining democracy for the 21st century, possibly without the trappings of the 18th century
Imagine that we’ve all – all of us, all of society – landed on some alien planet, and we have to form a government: clean slate. We don’t have any legacy systems from the U.S. or any other country. We don’t have any special or unique interests to perturb our thinking.
How would we govern ourselves?
It’s unlikely that we would use the systems we have today. The modern representative democracy was the best form of government that mid-18th-century technology could conceive of. The 21st century is a different place scientifically, technically and socially.
For example, the mid-18th-century democracies were designed under the assumption that both travel and communications were hard. Does it still make sense for all of us living in the same place to organize every few years and choose one of us to go to a big room far away and create laws in our name?
Representative districts are organized around geography, because that’s the only way that made sense 200-plus years ago. But we don’t have to do it that way. We can organize representation by age: one representative for the 31-year-olds, another for the 32-year-olds, and so on. We can organize representation randomly: by birthday, perhaps. We can organize any way we want.
U.S. citizens currently elect people for terms ranging from two to six years. Is 10 years better? Is 10 days better? Again, we have more technology and therefor more options.
Indeed, as a technologist who studies complex systems and their security, I believe the very idea of representative government is a hack to get around the technological limitations of the past. Voting at scale is easier now than it was 200 year ago. Certainly we don’t want to all have to vote on every amendment to every bill, but what’s the optimal balance between votes made in our name and ballot measures that we all vote on?
Rethinking the options
In December 2022, I organized a workshop to discuss these and other questions. I brought together 50 people from around the world: political scientists, economists, law professors, AI experts, activists, government officials, historians, science fiction writers and more. We spent two days talking about these ideas. Several themes emerged from the event.
Misinformation and propaganda were themes, of course – and the inability to engage in rational policy discussions when people can’t agree on the facts.
Another theme was the harms of creating a political system whose primary goals are economic. Given the ability to start over, would anyone create a system of government that optimizes the near-term financial interest of the wealthiest few? Or whose laws benefit corporations at the expense of people?
Another theme was capitalism, and how it is or isn’t intertwined with democracy. And while the modern market economy made a lot of sense in the industrial age, it’s starting to fray in the information age. What comes after capitalism, and how does it affect how we govern ourselves?
Many participants examined the effects of technology, especially artificial intelligence. We looked at whether – and when – we might be comfortable ceding power to an AI. Sometimes it’s easy. I’m happy for an AI to figure out the optimal timing of traffic lights to ensure the smoothest flow of cars through the city. When will we be able to say the same thing about setting interest rates? Or designing tax policies?
How would we feel about an AI device in our pocket that voted in our name, thousands of times per day, based on preferences that it inferred from our actions? If an AI system could determine optimal policy solutions that balanced every voter’s preferences, would it still make sense to have representatives? Maybe we should vote directly for ideas and goals instead, and leave the details to the computers. On the other hand, technological solutionism regularly fails.
Choosing representatives
Scale was another theme. The size of modern governments reflects the technology at the time of their founding. European countries and the early American states are a particular size because that’s what was governable in the 18th and 19th centuries. Larger governments – the U.S. as a whole, the European Union – reflect a world in which travel and communications are easier. The problems we have today are primarily either local, at the scale of cities and towns, or global – even if they are currently regulated at state, regional or national levels. This mismatch is especially acute when we try to tackle global problems. In the future, do we really have a need for political units the size of France or Virginia? Or is it a mixture of scales that we really need, one that moves effectively between the local and the global?
As to other forms of democracy, we discussed one from history and another made possible by today’s technology.
Sortition is a system of choosing political officials randomly to deliberate on a particular issue. We use it today when we pick juries, but both the ancient Greeks and some cities in Renaissance Italy used it to select major political officials. Today, several countries – largely in Europe – are using sortition for some policy decisions. We might randomly choose a few hundred people, representative of the population, to spend a few weeks being briefed by experts and debating the problem – and then decide on environmental regulations, or a budget, or pretty much anything.
Liquid democracy does away with elections altogether. Everyone has a vote, and they can keep the power to cast it themselves or assign it to another person as a proxy. There are no set elections; anyone can reassign their proxy at any time. And there’s no reason to make this assignment all or nothing. Perhaps proxies could specialize: one set of people focused on economic issues, another group on health and a third bunch on national defense. Then regular people could assign their votes to whichever of the proxies most closely matched their views on each individual matter – or step forward with their own views and begin collecting proxy support from other people.
This all brings up another question: Who gets to participate? And, more generally, whose interests are taken into account? Early democracies were really nothing of the sort: They limited participation by gender, race and land ownership.
We should debate lowering the voting age, but even without voting we recognize that children too young to vote have rights – and, in some cases, so do other species. Should future generations get a “voice,” whatever that means? What about nonhumans or whole ecosystems?
Should everyone get the same voice? Right now in the U.S., the outsize effect of money in politics gives the wealthy disproportionate influence. Should we encode that explicitly? Maybe younger people should get a more powerful vote than everyone else. Or maybe older people should.
Those questions lead to ones about the limits of democracy. All democracies have boundaries limiting what the majority can decide. We all have rights: the things that cannot be taken away from us. We cannot vote to put someone in jail, for example.
But while we can’t vote a particular publication out of existence, we can to some degree regulate speech. In this hypothetical community, what are our rights as individuals? What are the rights of society that supersede those of individuals?
Reducing the risk of failure
Personally, I was most interested in how these systems fail. As a security technologist, I study how complex systems are subverted – hacked, in my parlance – for the benefit of a few at the expense of the many. Think tax loopholes, or tricks to avoid government regulation. I want any government system to be resilient in the face of that kind of trickery.
Or, to put it another way, I want the interests of each individual to align with the interests of the group at every level. We’ve never had a system of government with that property before – even equal protection guarantees and First Amendment rights exist in a competitive framework that puts individuals’ interests in opposition to one another. But – in the age of such existential risks as climate and biotechnology and maybe AI – aligning interests is more important than ever.
Our workshop didn’t produce any answers; that wasn’t the point. Our current discourse is filled with suggestions on how to patch our political system. People regularly debate changes to the Electoral College, or the process of creating voting districts, or term limits. But those are incremental changes.
It’s hard to find people who are thinking more radically: looking beyond the horizon for what’s possible eventually. And while true innovation in politics is a lot harder than innovation in technology, especially without a violent revolution forcing change, it’s something that we as a species are going to have to get good at – one way or another.
+============================================================== Alecto, Megaera, and Tisiphone, this is really radical – radical in the best, the original, sense – go all the way to the root because everything stems from it. I invite y’all to try it – empty your minds of present politics – how would you design the system? For instance, I know I would not want one suggestion – AI voting for me on a minute-by-minute basis, based on analysis of my actions. Because, for one thing, my actions are not always my best self. If it were going to vote on my behalf based on my principles, I might consider it. But then I’d hve to figure out how I wanted my principles to be determined by the AI. And then there’s the fact that I change my mind when I learn I am wrong. Not everyone does. And there are a number of radical thoughts here – for example, haveing representation, but having it be on a different basis than geography – for example, by birth year. Maybe you have ideas that are completely different from anything mentioned.
Yesterday, the radio opera was “La Sonnambula,” by Vincenzo Bellini. Bellini, along with Donizetti was at the top of composers working in the bel canto style, and this is an opera full of beautiful ornaments, and beloved by both Maria Callas and Joan Sutherland – both of whom had ranges which included solid low ranges, which is the kind of singer for whom the star role was written (when it’s sung by those who basically just sing soprano, some of the low notes are adjusted a bit.) I’m not familiar with the soprano in this production, which was recorded in Liège, Belgium; the only name I recognize is that of René Barbera, whom I heard in Santa Fe years ago – maybe as many as ten years ago. The story is easier to wrap your head around if you can get into the frame of mind at the time – sleepwalking? What’s that? The plot turns on the heroine sleepwalking into and collapsing in the hotel room of a man not her fiancé, being found there by her fiancé’s jealous ex-fiamcée, and almost losing him as a result. But it does end happily. A phrase from this opera is the epitaph of Bellini, who died young: “Oh, lovely flower, I did not think that you would fade so fast” (but in Italian.) Off to see Virgil now, will let y’all know when I get back.
Cartoon –
Short Takes –
SPLC – Florida sets up formerly incarcerated people to vote, then arrests them
Quote – [John Boyd Rivers] was among 41 formerly incarcerated people, also known as returning citizens, who were arrested in 2022 and 2023 for voter fraud in Florida following the 2020 election. Nearly half took plea deals, fearful of facing the unknown of a jury trial and guilty verdict. To date, only Rivers and one other have been tried in court. He drew a split verdict: not guilty of knowingly registering to vote while ineligible but guilty of willful, fraudulent voting. Click through for story. Administrative incompetence is one thing. A deliberate set-up is quite another. As always, the cruelty is the point.
Robert Reich – Donald Trump, Samuel Bankman-Fried, and the rule of law
Quote – A prominent billionaire is arrested on criminal charges. At his arraignment, the presiding judge releases him pending trial on condition he not to try to influence potential witnesses and orders him not to speak with the media about the pending trial. He repeatedly violates the order. Eventually, the judge has had enough. He revokes bail and orders him jailed pending trial. I’m not referring to Donald J. Trump…. No, the person I’m referring to is Sam Bankman-Fried, the founder of the collapsed cryptocurrency exchange FTX. Bankman-Fried — whose wealth had soared to $28 billion before the collapse — had been under house arrest at his parents’ home in Palo Alto, California since his arrest in December on fraud charges stemming from FTX’s implosion. Click through for full article. Yes, I realize if Trump** is put into pre-trial detention, there will likely be some violence. And I’m in favor of preparing for that as much as necessary to minimize the damage. I’m not in favor of just letting it go. Letting it go would be neither just nor prudent.
