Corn, Ethanol, Farms, Food and the Logic of the Granary

I haven’t said much political in a while. Moreover, amid all the talk of budget balancing and sequesters, I’d like to shift attention to a topic that may – at first sight – seem a bit wonkish and detached: farm subsidies.  In fact, they are an area where Blue America remains frightfully ignorant and where the flood of entitlement spending merits closer attention, in times of near bankruptcy.

Are we entering a new era of negotiation?

Amid the flux of rapid change, new alliances and alignments are being made, as we speak.   Some conservative pastors are reversing what had been standard dogma, speaking out for “creation-tending” and action on climate change. Meanwhile, the Sierra Club and other environmental groups are cautiously easing (even in the wake of Fukushima) their once-rigid opposition toward nuclear power. While Barack Obama and the democrats show flexibility toward cautious offshore drilling, a few Republican legislators showed a willingness to pursue more stringent gas mileage standards and cap-and-trade methods for curbing greenhouse gases.

Of course, in some of these cases, what we’re seeing is another example of “leaders” following the public, rather than the other way around.  Still, after the century’s first decade (the Nasty Oughts) featured intransigent Culture War,  is it possible we are witnessing a gradual return to the other, classic American pattern?  That of even-tempered pragmatism? Finally shaking off a bad case of Future Shock that swept America, along with that fearsome “2″ in the millennium column.  I guess we’ll find out, if (as predicted by my friend, the renowned business pundit John Mauldin) Democrats and republicans astonish everyone with a sensible compromise budget deal.

If so, it has to be only the beginning. After immigration reform and modest sensibility on assault weapons, there are some other sticky matters badly in need of a fresh look.

(Note: this posting is an updating of a “classic” that got a lot of buzz some years ago.)

The History and Common Sense of Farm Subsidies… and What Happened

Let’s zero in on one area where logic and pragmatism have been in short supply — the question of farm subsidies, and how they lately spurred a giant biofuels industry — one that could have been set up sensibly, but for the simplemindedness of all sides, leaving in place little more than a wasteful scam.

First a little history, of the biblical kind. Remember Joseph? He of the technicolor coat, who wandered into Egypt and interpreted a Pharaoh’s dream? Seven fat cows, followed by seven skinny ones.  These, Joseph announced, forecast a time of bumper harvests, followed by one of devastating famine. That is, unless sufficient stocks were bought and stored away. Which the forewarned Pharaoh did, whereupon he ultimately thanked Joseph for saving the nation.

Historians now verify that the Egyptian state used to do this sort of thing often, in a routine and simple way. Whenever crops grew abundant and grain prices were low, the government bought and stored grain, both assisting farmers hit by low prices and creating a stockpiled reserve. When supplies ran thin and prices ran high, the caches were opened and stores sold, softening price swings, letting both farmers and consumers have a little predictability in life. Any resulting profit to the government helped to maintain to the granaries. A simple system. Everyone benefited. Farmers weren’t bankrupted by too-good harvest years. The people weren’t starved and taken advantage of in lean times. Taxpayers got their money’s worth. The state’s useful role paid for itself.

Now, there were a few special circumstances that helped Pharoanic Egypt master this trick. The dry climate allowed grain storage for extended periods. Also, there are a few things that simple-minded kingdoms do really well, such as repeating the same working pattern, over and over. Pivotally, those ancient farmers did not have a powerful voting bloc, able to sway government policy and alter the arrangement in shortsighted ways — a failure mode of later, more sophisticated nations.

Take the U.S. Great Depression, a time when urban populations went hungry, while farmers poured excess milk into sewers, because the price was too low to be worth shipping. Under the New Deal, various methods were tried, for helping rural populations hard beset by market ructions… as well as dust bowls, foreclosures, bank failures, disease and bad land mismanagement. Some of the solutions — e.g. roads, schools, electrification, farm-science and thousands of farm bureau offices, subsidized post, phone and internet — seem proper tasks for government, even from a conservative perspective. (Now, that is; though all of these sensible measures were bitterly fought by the same shortsighted folks who today equate FDR with Satan.)

Notably, urban taxpayers never demanded payback for a cent of all that rural infrastructural support — a tradition that continues today, as rivers of tax dollars continue to flow from Blue to Red. Nor should they. (Nor should rural folk brag about how “independent” they are.) We need each other. E pluribus unum.

How did Farm Policy Leave Common Sense Behind?

Infrastructure is an easy decision, but how to damp those pesky swings in market price? Of course, a direct approach for achieving rural assistance, and one that involves the most market-meddling, has been direct farm subsidy payments and price supports. And, way back in the 1930s, the first recourse looked pretty darn traditional. The government simply bought up extra food and gave it to poor people. Some of the grain and milk got turned into storable items, like flour and cheese, to serve as a national reserve before getting recycled through food stamps and school lunch programs. And, yes, the government bought grains when they were cheap and sold them later, when the price was high. All very logical. Almost Egyptian.

Only progress follows progress. With all that education and infrastructure and investment, farmers got a whole lot better at their business. There came a time when US agriculturalists could not be stopped from producing too much! Domestically, at least, there was no longer a “famine” side of the cycle, for the government to dump its stockpiles into. And sure, the government tried making this a win-win by sending massive amounts of food overseas, as foreign aid. But, while some of this was genuinely life-saving, we now know that another result was — just as often — to undermine local agricultural systems and wreck a developing nation’s ability to feed itself. Beware of unforeseen consequences.

So the idea arose simply to pay farmers not to produce on some of their land. On occasion this has been done, in some countries, by purchasing some of the farmland outright, leaving it fallow or converting it to other uses, even parks. Farmers benefit from higher prices or collateral value for their land. Farmers also get higher income from their crops, since less land is in production overall. And taxpayers get something tangible, in return for this help. They get that land. It can be banked, just like that Egyptian grain. Only much better-preserved and with ecological benefits, too,

But then, we are a nation where political power was deliberately tilted, from the beginning, toward rural states. And, as one might expect, there came pressure for change. It began to occur to clever people that governments can be arm-twisted into giving, without getting anything in return. (After all, look at the dams and highways and schools.) So, polemical tricks were used. For government to buy land and surplus produce was “socialistic.” On the other hand, simply paying farmers to keep their land, but not to grow anything on it, well, that somehow made sense and was not socialistic at all!

This is an old, old argument, and I am neither qualified, nor interested in getting down to the actual fight over farm supports, per se. Or the way giant agribusinesses now collect the lion’s share of subsidies that were designed to preserve family farms. Or the way opponents of socialism nevertheless have managed to rationalize demanding that the taxpayers’ government never get anything direct and tangible, in return! (Socializing and externalizing costs while privatizing profits — that’s the new version of “capitalism.” And Adam Smith is spinning in his grave.)

Only let’s get back to Joseph; note how the second half of the ancient cycle is now almost completely missing. When the government used to stabilize low prices by buying something material (grain or land) it acquired a palpable reserve that it could then use in emergencies, or sell when prices were high. But, today, there are no large federal stocks of food pouring forth to ease the skyrocketing supermarket prices, nor stocks of reserved land being nurtured in fallow-recovery, or else offered to young, suburban couples to try their hand, as new farming pioneers. Nor are the direct-payment subsidies being cut back, now that floods of profit are pouring into agribusiness.

It is no longer a matter of cycle balancing. It is an entitlement.  Indeed, one sees some very “non-egyptian” things going on… like a US government hurrying to fill the National Strategic Petroleum Reserve with high priced oil. The same government that (does anybody at all recall?) sold out of the reserve, years ago, when prices were low.  Buy high and sell low.  Very “non-egyptian,” indeed.

(Note, that particular scandal happened under the George W. Bush Administration, when this article first posted. Nor was it alone.  The Bushes sold off most of the US helium reserve – to friends at low prices – and now a helium scarcity is growing dire. We all need to become better at detecting such scams.)

What Does Any Of This Have To Do With Biofeuls And Ethanol?

Good question. First, some more historical perspective, provided (in 2008) by economic analyst John Mauldin:

“North America has experienced great weather for the last 18 consecutive years, which, combined with other improvements in agriculture, has resulted in abundant crops. According to Donald Coxe, chief strategist of Harris Investment Management , you have to go back 800 years to find a period of such favorable weather for so long a time. Yet food stocks in corn, wheat, rice, etc. are dangerously low. We are just one bad weather season from a potential worldwide food disaster. And Dennis Gartman has been pointing out almost daily how far behind US farmers are in getting their corn crops planted, due to bad weather:” Further. “… the corn crop really is behind schedule. Corn is not like wheat. Wheat can survive drought; it can survive cold; wheat, as we were taught by our mentor, Mr. Melvin Ford, many years ago, is a weed. It is an amazing, resilient plant. But corn is temperamental; it needs rain when it needs rain; it needs dry conditions when it needs dry conditions. It needs to not be hit by early season frost, or it will suffer, and it needs a rather archly set number of days to grow. Each day lost at the front end of the planting/growing season puts pressure upon the corn plant to finish its job before the autumn frosts, and puts increased soybean acreage and decreased corn acreage before us. Meanwhile, ranchers are reducing their herds, as they cannot afford to feed them due to high grain prices.The same thing is happening with chickens. This means sometime this fall supplies of meat of all types are going to be reduced. Maybe someone will point out that using corn to produce ethanol has the unwanted and unintended consequence of driving up food prices all over the world.”

As usual, economic wisdom from one of the best analysts in our generation. (Note that in the years since, our US grain belt has been struck by a devastating, multi-year drought.)

So, then, let’s bring in ethanol.

In recent years, a heavy and generous federal subsidy has created a vast corn-to-ethanol industry whose effects are causing a lot of public debate. Environmentalists claim that it takes more than a gallon of imported oil to actually create a gallon of ethanol fuel. The greenhouse gas benefits are negligible and possibly negative. According to Mauldin, the price and energy balance would be much better if we imported Brazillian sugar cane, which seems made for ethanol production. But farmers in Idaho apparently have a veto over anything sensible like that.

Of course, never mind the blatant silliness of pouring food into our gas tanks, while poor people around the world riot over skyrocketing prices and we, here, feel a sharp pinch in the store.  Clearly, we are witnessing democracy at its almost-worst. (Wherein hypocritical oligarchs who keep citing the infamous “largesse” diss upon the common citizen, are by far the worst offenders.)

Today, the special interests are vast and well-entrenched, so don’t expect them to enter into negotiations to find a logical way out of this mess. Indignant rationalizations abound, and every person seems convinced that their own version of government-suckling is not socialism. It is patriotism.

The Right Way to Apply Hard Liquor…

But now I plan to surprise you. I will speak up not only for government price intervention to help farmers, but also for subsidized biofuel alcohol!
Though not as it is being done today.

Perhaps it is time to take a look back at the Egyptians of old, and go back to the root of the problem, so to speak. Farmers (especially giant agribusinesses) do not deserve automatic subsidies as some kind of birthright. On the other hand, the ancients were onto something. We are all better off if farmers are cushioned from wild market swings and get the kind of predictability that can let them invest in what is, after all, a business vital to us all.

Back when the New Dealers and Great Society folks tried to balance the cycles by buying cheap-excess bumper crops and storing for lean days, they ran into a problem. A vast, continental nation can only store up so much grain and cheese. In part, the move to simple cash grants came out of despair over how to do the job effectively, the Egyptian way.

But here is where alcohol comes in! Because alcohol can be stored.

In fact, it can be stocked away indefinitely, cheaply and beautifully.What was done poorly under Lyndon Johnson… turning excess farm production into mountains of wasted cheese… can now be accomplished logically and efficiently…. if we make biofuel ethanol a seasonal or occasional way to absorb and store, and later use, surges in excess grain production.

What should we do?  Let the ethanol subsidy go away. It is an insane market interference, choosing a market winner and a dumb one, at that.The money could be far better used making up for years of deliberately-sabotaged research into energy independence. Stop the gasohol mandate now!  But don’t shut down the gasohol plants completely.

Instead, let the taxpayers buy excess corn whenever its price is worrisomely low, convert the surplus into storable form, and sell the alcohol later, when the price seems right. That is the exact equivalent of the Pharaoh’s storehouse. And let the government’s profit go to maintaining this reserve capacity, when it is un-needed. 

We need to stop thinking of ethanol as an alternative to imported oil. That’s just silly and a crutch for those diverting us from real solutions for energy independence. Nevertheless, ethanol can be viewed as a wonderful way to store the excess produce of America’s fertile fields, in a form that will be easily convertible, at some future date, into fuel or money… and thus even back into food.

And yes, chuckle at the image that is brought to mind.  Nearly all of the American founders – especially George Washington – distilled their own moonshine. It often served as cash and currency for farmers, when money was scarce. Alcohol flows through our national blood, in a sense.  And if we view it properly, it can answer the modernized Riddle of Joseph, offering a way to damp the waste of fat years and help us prepare for the lean one that will surely come.

Things only a zillionaire could do to save America

Mention George Soros anywhere on the far-right and you’ll get fulminations.  To Republicans, Soros is an aristocratic mastermind who swore to “spend whatever it takes” to end the Bush-Neocons’ grip on political power in America… a vile plutocrat, striving to trample the will of plain-folks, along with the populist GOP that protects them. Glenn Beck railed to his audience, calling Soros the “Great Oligarch” and a master manipulator “who toppled eight foreign governments.” (The one thing Beck never mentioned, and that – tellingly and symptomatically – not one member of Beck’s vast following ever asked, was “which eight foreign governments did George Soros help to topple?” Tune in at the very end for the amazing answer.)

Okay, after wiping away tears of ironic laughter, one is left wondering.  If George Soros – and other rich liberals – are so potent and determined, why have they accomplished so little?

On the right, you see plenty of men and women who have proved ruthlessly effective at translating money into power, directing vast resources toward politically effective ends. There’s Rupert Murdoch, controlling — along with his Saudi co-owners — much of the world’s mass media, from Fox News to the Wall Street Journal. His deep-pocket interests have been highly effective, funding everything from “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” (remember them?), to Carl Rove’s Super-PAC empire, to the war on science.

David and Charles Koch, a pair of wealthy and politically radical brothers have leveraged millions from likeminded investors, to wrest control over most of the nation’s voting machines and funded (with several hundred million dollars) the campaign to delay, obfuscate and render impotent any determined action to mitigate global climate change.  Not to mention foreign commodities moguls who have used deep fingers of influence to fare best of all, in recent years.  The list goes on and on.

Now, mind you, I am less enraged by all of this than you might think, simply because I view such behavior as the most natural thing imaginable!  We’ve had at least a million years in which human reproductive success was partly determined by males jockeying for status in tribal settings… followed by 6000 years in which 99% of all agricultural societies wound up being dominated by inheritance oligarchies, who strove above all to keep the masses in their place, ensuring that their sons would own other peoples’ daughters and sons.  The chief outcome — suppression of competition and free-flowing criticism — resulted in the litany of horrifically awful statecraft that we call “history.” Adam Smith and the American founders decried the toxic effects of oligarchy, which has always been the chief enemy of markets, enterprise, science, truly-competitive capitalism and freedom. Populist or elected “government” – in sharp contrast – has almost no track record at actually harming those things.

Nevertheless, it is easy to see why we’re attracted to tales about kings and wizards and such, and why so many of the rich strive to re-create feudalism. Isn’t it what you’d do?

We are, indeed, all descended from the harems of guys who pulled off that trick.  We carry their genes. Wanting all of that is the most natural thing in the world.

No, to me the amazing thing is what a high fraction of the new billionaires actually “get” the enlightenment… the modern civilization that gave them all of their opportunities and to which they owe absolutely everything.  Maybe 50% of them — the Musk-Gates-Buffett-Bezos-Page-Brin-Soros-types — grasp the enormous goodness and clever dynamics, based upon relative-equality of opportunity, that brought them their great fortune! Half of them seem to get it; this is wonderful.  It gives me hope there’ll be an ambitiously accomplished and exciting civilization for our grand-kids.

Can the Good Billionaires be as effective as the would-be lords? 

I explore this on the pages of Existence, wherein you attend a gathering of rich clans in the year 2048 and view them weighing how much of their gratification to defer, in order not to kill the golden-egg-laying goose.

All right, it’s hard to envision Steven Spielberg pulling shenanigans anywhere as effective — in the short term — as the Foxite war on science.  His films are designed to provoke thoughtful conversations, not reinforce bilious hatred of your neighbors.  It’s a more wholesome endeavor, but those seeds take time to germinate. The Fox-approach is quicker.

Of course, the top endeavor for a rich person who wants to change the world for the better is simple.  Keep getting rich by delivering excellent goods and services. And when you’ve reached a certain, sane level of satiability with wealth itself, you can either give a lot of it away (your kids will never starve) — or else start investing in new endeavors that are risky!  Then riskier still.

For example, several of the tech-wave billionaires have invested heavily in the privatization of space exploration. Prime examples include Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic, Elon Musk’s SpaceX, Jeff Bezos’s mysterious Blue Origin project, Paul Allen’s Stratolaunch System, and Sergey Brin’s Space Adventures. Recently, Peter Diamandis, Larry Page and Eric Schmidt and others have teamed up to launch Planetary Resources aiming to mine resources from asteroids… a topic I happen to know a thing or two about.

Yes, that’s the top thing they can do. Innovation.  Risky entrepreneurship.  That and setting an example with real philanthropy, by signing the Gates Pledge.  Nevertheless, given that so much of our future depends upon the political process, can we afford to leave that arena to be meddled in by just the New Feudalists?

Do Friendly Billionaires Matter in Politics?

Let’s be clear.  Our present electoral divide won’t depend on the whim of a few  moguls.  Nor is Culture War all about “rich vs poor” – not yet. Historically, most nations were wracked by class struggle – and we may yet revert to that age-old pattern – which could become an especially dangerous schism, when the poor will be technologically empowered.  (It’s an IQ test for the uber-wealthy: do you actually believe you can rebuild lordship in the coming era, when the prols will have smart drones and desktop bio labs and all that stuff? Really?) But such times may be averted.  Indeed, many of today’s affluent are loyal to the mobile, competitive, egalitarian and rather-flat society our parents made, after World War II.  One that rewarded innovative commerce, without entrenching permanent castes.

So, let’s suppose there are a lot of wealthy, frustrated enlightenment fans out there.  With so much hanging in the balance, what’s a rich dude to do? Heck one great option would be to start a competing company to, say, make honest voting machines. Surely you can get that ready in time to win some contracts for 2016? Or else, organizations that perform poll watching and electoral process-checking could absorb large donations, in time to do a lot of good.  Though these groups are officially neutral, we know who would benefit, if elections proceed transparently and fair.

Likewise, the political caste will never rouse itself to do anything about gerrymandering. But a privately funded campaign against that foul practice, even as little as 20 million dollars, could start an avalanche of public anger over this blatant crime. In the short term, this would help both parties to back away from radicalization and elect more rational pragmatists. Kill gerrymandering and you will be well-remembered as a dragon-slayer.

But it’s my role to look in directions that are more, well, unconventional.  So let me bring up one idea, from a general compilation of Concepts for Billionaires: Horizons and Hope: The Future of Philanthropy, that’s been in circulation for some time.

A Henchman’s Prize

I’ve long wondered why some billionaire who is worried about our open society doesn’t pony-up and offer truly substantial  whistleblower rewards. One action that could be especially well-targeted, during the next month or so — while having immense publicity value — would be to announce a great big prize for proof of massive cheating or dirty tricks, in time for the evidence to matter, before the next round of elections.

For best effectiveness, one would couch the idea in nonpartisan terms.  Offer a million dollars to any conspirator who turns coat and steps forward with – say – solid evidence that either party has engaged in a systematic effort to deny the vote to a thousand or more people in any political constituency.  Plus five million if the evidence leads to rapid, public plea bargains or convictions.

Yes, five million dollars is a lot of money.  But note that the larger sum is paid upon conviction, in which case it’s a small amout to buy a scandal-tumult of huge proportions. Perhaps big enough to transform politics in America.

Sure, people will see through couching it in nonpartisan terms.  (Though a Republican co-sponsor could be found.)  But even that implication would be useful, highlighting what everybody knows — where that kind of cheating is coming from.

Why emphasize “conspirator”?

This is where the word henchman comes in.  Those most likely to have the goods — real evidence — will be people already deep inside.  Ironically, a henchman is probably venal and psychologically primed to jump ship, if offered the right combination of inducements — both cash and introduction to people who can offer some immunity.  (Rep. Henry Waxman has been responsible for recent strengthening of whistleblower protections, for example.)  This qualifier also keeps out a flood of mere rumor-mongers, who have other places to go.

There are many other possible whistleblower prizes.

But there’s a catch.  Any such program must be carefully phrased. A billionaire will have to fight past his or her own attorneys, in order to do something like this.  One doesn’t want to be held liable for enticing unproved or false allegations, or slander.  (There might be a discreet application process and a committee to vet claims, while police and prosecutors are given their full due.)

Still this sort of thing has one advantage — it could be set up and unleashed quickly.  And it appeals to the avaricious spirit that has driven so many dirty tricks operatives, ever since the days of Nixon and Donald Segretti.  Remember, tempting rats to betray each other ought to be easy, if you use the right cheese.

And all it might take is just one.

===============================================================

FOLLOWUP:  Have you guessed yet (or looked up) the eight foreign governments that master-mogul-manipulator George Soros “toppled”? How telling that (to my knowledge) none of Glenn Beck’s viewers or listeners even roused themselves with God’s greatest gift – curiosity – to ask which governments those were.  But you know, by now, what those toppled governments were, right? They were…

… the communist dictatorship of Poland … the communist dictatorship of Czechoslovakia … the communist dictatorship of Soros’s birthplace Hungary … the communist dictatorship of Lithuania … the communist dictatorship of  Estonia … the communist dictatorship of  Latvia … the communist dictatorship of Romania … the communist dictatorship of  Bulgaria…

… and that’s erring on the low side. Some credit Soros with having major effects in Yugoslavia, Belarus, Ukraine….  Yep.  It is pretty clear why Glenn Beck never likes to get specific.  Facts kind of interfere with the narrative.

This is a heavily revised version of a posting from  roughly 2004.

Why a Transaction Fee Matters to You

Elsewhere I’ve long pushed the idea of a financial transactions fee to rebalance the playing field in securities markets, so they will no longer lean so hard in favor of giant Wall Street brokerage houses, now running a scandalous scam called commission-free High Frequency Trading (HFT).  Extremely modest in scale, the transaction fee would not even slightly inconvenience normal traders, like you and me. But it could prevent disastrous bubbles and other calamities.

Indeed, recent months have shown dramatic moves toward this metric of sanity. Eleven Eurozone members, including France and Germany, will use it to discourage speculative trading. Also known as a Tobin tax after the economist who originally came up with it 40 years ago – the fee will charge 0.1% of any trade in shares or bonds, and 0.01% of any financial derivative contract.

Now, following the Europeans’ lead, Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa  and Rep. Peter DeFazip of Oregon have introduced a bill to institute a U.S. version of the transaction fee.  By raw extrapolation, this zero-point-zero-three-percent (o.03%) fee  could raise a whopping deficit-curbing $352 BILLION dollars in ten years, while helping capital markets to settle down, avoid bubbles and computer runaway-meltdowns, while returning to both individuals and regular companies a fighting chance to participate in capital markets on an equal footing.

Question: at three cents for every $100 traded, who among us would notice?  Only those who pour billions each year into shaving off microseconds in computerized systems that sense when any of us are about to make a buy or sell order and pounce before we can act. And pounce hundreds or thousands of times per second. These predatory HFT trades now constitute the vast majority of transactions on today’s exchanges. How did that happen?

Only the fact that they are participants in a cartel — “seated members” of exchanges like the the NYSE or NASDAQ — lets them get away with an activity that none of the rest of us could engage in.  Even a savvy billionaire would soon be wiped out by commissions if he or she tried to do HFT from outside the cartel — a blatant case of insider manipulation and restraint of fair competition that ought rightfully to be broken up under anti-trust laws.  (In this computerized day and age, why not have a hundred times as many “seats” or exchange members competing with each other? Indeed, though it be blasphemy, let me ask: why have “seats” at all?)

Have a look at  the vast amounts of data now handled by huge, fantastically well-funded HFT systems (they recently laid their own fiber cable across the Atlantic, to shave a few more milliseconds), making NASA’s space probe data crunching look pale in comparison.

== Why you should want – and help – this to happen ==

A couple of points:  First – all right – we would not actually get $320 billion; because the fee would succeed in its goal of reducing volatility.  Still, lots of income would come in from those who caused the Near Depression and seem bent on provoking another. At minimum, the new fee would pay all costs of running the SEC and other agencies charged with maintaining transparency and accountability in Wall Street, removing those burdens from the taxpayers. It could also serve as an alternative funding source for the bond rating agencies, like Standard & Poors, freeing them from the present incestuous conflict of interest — rating the bonds of those who pay their wages.

Note that under Harkin’s bill,  initial stock offerings  – the “best” and most truly useful trades – would be exempt, along with other exceptions, like the first hundred trades you and I make any year, to ensure that HFT speculation will carry the main load.

If you talk to a “quant” — one of the high-IQ dopes who have done the boffin work for High Frequency Trading — you will hear them howl that HFT serves a valuable function toward “efficiently finding correct prices” and eliminating the differential between perceived value of buyers and sellers.  They actually believe this promotes market health, despite the sickness that has pervaded the capital markets ever since they took us down this road. Even though it can be proved, under basic thermodynamic and biological principles, that this incantatory premise of theirs is completely insane, a self-hypnosis mantra that’s diametrically opposite to true.  (Engines and organisms and markets operate healthfully upon gradients, which HFT happily and eagerly and parasitically eliminate.) They need to go back to math and physics, where nature corrects delusion.

As the author of The Transparent Society, I like the way a Tobin fee would create a continuing open-audit of the giant banks and brokerage houses, a side benefit, letting us all see what they are doing. (Do you trust them, after decades of cheating and outrageously stupid behavior?)

Of course, wearing my other hat as a science fiction author, I have my own “terminator” reasons for wanting to see the Tobin enacted.  But you’ll have to follow your curiosity to this older article: A Transaction Fee might save Capital Markets and protect us from the Terminator… in order to find wry/scary amusement in a “far-fetched” danger that could be very real.  One that only a sci fi author would think of! (That too is where you’ll find the “thermodynamics” arguments explained.)

Now it’s your turn. Please, despite its dry tech-speak, this reform really, really matters. If you can get up out of Facebook torpor enough to take the effort, write to your congress-critters and news-sites in support of Sen. Harkin and the Tobin Fee proposal!  You should have all the email addresses already on hand and ready for messages like this one, right?  If you don’t, pause now to create a little file containing your standard opening and closing, plus the email addresses of both senators, your representative, the president and favorite media.   (Check the website: Find Your Representative. ) A little work this time… will empower you to speak up easy and quick, the next time some issue raises your ire.

Or the next time I ask it of you!

== Political-economic Miscellany ==

Compiled at last: Brin articles about emergency readiness, civil defense, citizen resilience — how to make yourself – and civilization – more robust against the dangers and inevitable calamities that will strike us in this century.

Watch this excerpt from “Chasing Ice” - an amazing documentary of time-lapse photographers tracking the retreat of the world’s glaciers. Watch a mass the size of Manhattan break off Greenland and flip with staggering violence! Then watch the whole film. Take your crazy uncles along.  The images are convincing.

A secretive funding organization in the United States that guarantees anonymity for its billionaire donors has emerged as a major operator in the climate “counter movement” to undermine the science of global warming,  The Donors Trust, along with its sister group Donors Capital Fund, based in Alexandria, Virginia, is funneling millions of dollars into the effort to cast doubt on climate change without revealing the identities of its wealthy backers or that they have links to the fossil fuel industry. However, an audit trail reveals that Donors is being indirectly supported by the American billionaire Charles Koch who, with his brother David, jointly owns a majority stake in Koch Industries, a large oil, gas and chemicals conglomerate based in Kansas.  Millions of dollars has been paid to Donors through a third-party organisation, called the Knowledge and Progress Fund, with is operated by the Koch family but does not advertise its Koch connections.

Now some context. A cool interactive site lets you sift and explore the world’s top billionaires and sort them by self-made vs inherited or by gender or nationality.

David Ignatius on why America and Europe are seeing good reasons to start cheering up. That is… if we keep confidently investing in our strengths.

The rise of volunteerism in Russia is seen by folks-like-us as a hopeful sign. of an optimistic, can-do culture beginning to ferment in a land long dominated by dour cynicism. Alas, the older tradition is fighting back, as the powers-that-be have been clamping down hard on nonprofits and volunteer groups, even those with no political agenda at all.

Speaking of which… While the global nature of cyber-crime means the criminals can be anywhere, we tend to think of Eastern Europe and Russia as the hotbed of criminal activity. Trend Micro believes criminals will increasingly shift their operations over to Africa in 2013. 

Now and then we see proposals to remove tax exemption from churches. A measure came close to passing in Colorado some years ago. And now comes this We The People petition to the White House. I’ve long held that such proposals should offer a “floor” exemption. Say $100 per parishioner and ten sq ft per member, also the first $40K of pastor wages, all of it baseline tax-free. This would safeguard all poor churches and clearly distinguish basic from lavish. True charitable work would also be exempt. It would also make the measure one that might actually pass, someday, while a complete removal of tax-exemption won’t.

The blanket exemption has been justified by the expression “the power to tax is the power to destroy.” But nobody is out to destroy churches and the tax-free floor that I propose would end such talk and would remove that justification, allowing us to say: “you use our roads and cops and defense, same as anybody. Please help pay for them.”

David Brin

http://www.davidbrin.com

Twitter                Facebook

 

Electoral votes, gerrymandering and politics redux… what you can do

== Citizens can fight back without waiting for courts or politicians ==

Yes I am talking about you.  And you don’t have to agitate or march or petition or write your Congress-critter.

Here’s my one final point about gerrymandering and all of that. As I have said repeatedly, there is a way that citizens can rebel against the foul crime committed by both parties against our right to vote. Sure, try all the methods I described last time. Push for other blues states to follow California and Washington by going to neutral (and sane) districting.  Push ballot initiatives. Make a major issue out of the fact that all red states adamantly refuse to stop blatantly cheating. Take it to court… but while all of that is simmering, there is something each of us can do, as individuals. A simple but effective measure.

Re-register to be a member of whatever party rules your district.

Think.  Except in a few blessed states where citizens rebelled, the politicians have rigged electoral maps so you’re in district that’s overwhelmingly either democratic or republican. This is why especially GOP office holders only care about primaries and their radical base, not the average citizen. But this scheme will fall apart if all the democrats in a republican-gerried district simply re-register as republicans!  (Or vice versa in Dem-gerried districts.)

What will you lose?  Nothing. In fact, you may get a giggle out of shocking your friends with your official party ID!

It does not commit you to that party’s agenda.  In merely allows you to vote in the only contest that matters, the primary.

And suddenly, you gain clout! You might make a difference between (say) two republicans, one of them a screeching dogma-harpy and the other a somewhat reasonable Goldwater-type who believes in science and pragmatism, along with a creative free market.  Even if you disagree with the latter candidate over a million matters, she or he is more likely to negotiate.  And possibly even listen to folks like you. Heck, if enough folks re-register, like you, that might encourage the Goldwater types to step up.

This assertion was proved absolutely true when California switched to non-partisan elections, and suddenly two dems were fighting it out in liberal leaning districts. (Gerrymandering as it declines: Surprising results!) And lo… both dems suddenly discovered: “We got a lot of republicans here. If I talk to them, they might help me win.” Suddenly, in lefty Santa Monica, long time conservatives who thought their vote would never count woke up to find candidates eager to shake their hands,

Seriously. This is the short term solution.  If the pols rig things so that one party owns a district, then join that party! All you will do is expand the power of your vote and undermine their vile scheme. You’ll throw all the connivers’ calculations into a cocked hat.  It’s called jiu jitsu. We need to become good at it.

And now…

…I had allowed a fair number of political matters to pile up.  So let me follow that last posting with a potpourri of items.

== A sober assessment of 2030 ==

According to a new report, Global Trends 2030, prepared by the National Intelligence Council, comprising the 17 U.S. government intelligence agencies. “We are at a critical juncture in human history, which could lead to widely contrasting futures.”

Much of the 2030 report highlights potentially positive developments, anticipating a healthier, more educated and more prosperous global population and a trend toward greater democracy. The report also warns about resource conflicts, the danger of nuclear war and global political gridlock. But its writers have nevertheless faced some criticism for an overly “optimistic” perspective….

On the other hand, as I forecast a decade ago in a report to the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (http://www.slideshare.net/davidbrin/war21brin-part1 ), the intelligence community is coming awake to non-state and non-terrorist dangers.  “With more access to lethal and disruptive technologies, individuals who are experts in such areas as cybersystems might sell their services to the highest bidder.” The emphasis on individual empowerment was not highlighted in earlier NIC reports. The geopolitical shift from West to East did get attention previously, but one author said in hindsight it could have been given greater emphasis.

Should no group of countries prove capable of that cooperative leadership, the world could suffer, according to one author of the report. “You probably don’t want to live in [that world].”

== CALLS FOR SECESSION! ==

Lest we forget: there’s an America that hates the rising nerdish era. It isn’t taxes but the growing influence of scientists and all manner of geeks, that is behind Culture War, as stoked by certain media chains. One surface manifestation? You’ve all heard of the petition drive by some mostly southern-red malcontents to secede from the union. Now now… the numbers are small and bearable…. Still, I would love to ask their neighbors for pictures of these folks just a few years back, waving U.S. flags with fevered patriotic gusto while shouting “Yew-Ess-Hay!”

They are the “summer soldiers” Thomas Paine wrote about. They are Jefferson Davis, who led the cadets at West point in swearing undying oaths to their nation “right or wrong,” then scampered off in indignation when his “grievances” amounted to whining that his side lost an election for the first time in 30 years. Schoolyard whining whenever the other team gets its turn at-bat. I am not afraid.

A side note. The American Christian communities and seminaries weren’t always so doctrinaire on abortion.

Revenge of the Reality-Based Community: This interesting commentary comes from Bruce Bartlett, former Reagan aid and Heritage fellow, now a contributor to the American Conservative. Other dissident conservatives such as David Frum and Andrew Sullivan have joined Bartlett in condemning “epistemic closure” or the fact that today’s American right is all about telling itself incantations and stories, with no remaining points of contact with science, pragmatism or reality-based thinking.  I have long predicted the rise of The Adults on the right — the Buckley and Goldwater types — finally angry enough to try taking back the conservative movement.

Ah but frankly, though I welcome Bartlett’s migration toward the light… and admitting that President Obama is center-right by any rational view of things… I can’t help feeling a bit cold.  His missive, while interesting,  comes across as self-referential and you must skim a dozen paragraphs listing his past conservative credentials before getting to the meat, including his concession that Paul Krugman has been right far more often than anyone else on the national scene.

== Will the next Bubble/Crash come from “stuff”? ==

Mark Anderson of the Strategic News Service warns: Because of staggering levels of excess inventory: Like a global tsunami, world markets are about to be hit with a supply of any-price goods in almost every category, from commodities to high-end electronics. Personal computers from champion Lenovo, today, are generating about .5% margins, with Dell and HP reeling. Lenovo doesn’t care. Telecoms equipment is going for half price already, and likely will drop from there, via ZTE (whose profit fell 48.5% over the last half-year, and 85% YTY in the last quarter) and Huawei (with only a 22% drop).

Container ships that leased for over $100,000 a day on the world market four years ago, today – thanks to a huge over-buildout by China – are going for $2,000.  Watch out.  This could be the next big bruise.

== Puerto Rican Statehood? ==

Another statehood referendum forPuerto Rico … and this one passed. Other votes failed in 1967, 1993, and 1998. Though in fact it seems that while the State initiative won the most votes… only 46 percent of people voted in favor of it. A number left it blank. Thus they may require a second ballot initiative asking just if they want to become the 51st State in the Union. Then congress must pass a bill.

I let others list reasons why Puerto Rico won’t be the 51st state. My own is the simplest of all and has no implications having to do with ethnicity or language or poverty or any of that.

It is simple. What if they later change their minds? Seriously, we fought a civil war over that and we do not need the kettle re-opened. (Despite occasional fantasies of spinning off Charleston SC as a new Hong Kong. Ah, if only.)  I am perfectly fine with Puerto Rican statehood.  But I want the word “irrevocable” to be on the ballot and it has to pass by 75% or more! Decide you plan to stick with it.

== Political Potpourri ==

Might open source methods do a far better job of running smooth U.S. elections, rather than the deeply suspect voting machine companies now contracted in so many states?

Articles and speculations by David Brin about Taxes, economics and markets… especially pertinent as the House and Senate start negotiating the Big Budget Deals.

Virginia lawmaker: Children with disabilities are God’s punishment to women who previously had abortions.

For a variety of reasons, the best computer models suggest that – even if culture war ends and the dems and gops negotiate a sensible budget agreement, and many other good things happen — the US unemployment rates will be stuck well above the Pre-Bush rates, for the foreseeable future.

Ah well.  Let’s put politics aside for a while longer.

When villains propose a really good idea… in vile ways…

For a while, I gladly put politics aside — except for an unusual way out to solve the Great Big Battle over Guns.  

Alas, now I feel behooved to weigh in again, as liberals and conservatives commence another thrashing match… and both sides get it wrong.

The newest fury involves a proposal in GOP circles to take advantage of  the fact that Republican legislatures and governors currently run several “blue states” that gave Barack Obama their re-election nod. These state GOP pols did manage to gerrymander their way into keeping power, despite getting fewer votes than democrats in statewide and assembly races.

Now, under a plan broached by RepWhen villains propose a really good idea… in vile ways…ublican Party chairman Reince Priebus, GOP governors and legislators would take matters beyond mere gerrymandering. They will act in a few chosen states to change state rules for distribution of Electoral College votes.  

“Under the Priebus plan, electoral votes from battleground states such as Florida, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and others that now regularly back Democrats for president would be allocated not to the statewide winner but to the winners of individual congressional districts. Under the most commonly proposed district plan (the statewide winner gets two votes with the rest divided by congressional district) Obama would have secured the narrowest possible win: 270-268. Under more aggressive plans (including one that awards electoral votes by district and then gives the two statewide votes to the candidate who won the most districts), Romney would have won 280-258.” 

 And now… seven Pennsylvania Republican state representatives introduced a bill to make this vote-rigging scheme a reality in their state.  

As you might expect, this gambit raised mockery and ire from both the liberal and the moderate press. In “If you can’t win elections, rig them,” Rachel Maddow’s response was especially biting and well worth watching. Her report is informative, funny, outraged, and correct as far as it goes… 

 … only it is also short-sightedly foolish and – at a deeper level – utterly wrong.

 == a heinous context ==

First: Maddow rightfully points out that gerrymandering in Red States is the only reason why the GOP held onto their control over the US House of Representatives this round, despite one million more citizens voting for Democratic candidates. The Republican Party openly admits this.  Maddow never mentions the term Gerrymandering, but I have long pushed for a new look at this fiendishly evil practice.  

Note that gerrymandering is not only about partisan advantage.  It has also worked to radicalize our politics and it functions as a job-preservation scheme for entrenched politicians in both parties. That is, it worked for both sides until California voters  rose up to banish gerrymandering,

At first, I opposed the measure, because I hoped for a negotiated deal — to balance California against an equalizing move toward fair districts in – say – Texas and Michigan.  But I was foolish and my neighbors were wise.  California’s reforms — duplicated in a few other blue states – had astonishing outcomes that you really need to understand. 

Worth noting: this voter uprising has not occurred in even one red state. (So much for the vaunted fairness and independence of rural folk.)  We’ve already seen that, without this blatant cheat, the peoples’ will would have wrested control of the US  House from the GOP. Indeed, Republican lawmakers in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are desperate not to let it end. For if the district maps are ever re-drawn by non partisan commissions, or even randomized, their party will go extinct in those states. 

It is in this context that the Republican Party now hopes to pull another fast one, with their plan for proportional allocation of electors in three or more bluish states.  At one level, Maddow and the liberals… and all decent people with any sense of fairness and patriotism… should be outraged by a scheme of truly desperate villainy…

 == When villains push a good idea, in an awful way ==

 …but at another level, Maddow and company are way off-base. Dullards who are almost 5% as dogmatic as their opponents (yes, that bad), they exhibit no sense of history, proportion or strategy.

 Because the villains in this piece are actually putting forward a very good idea! 

There is no question that the “reform” they propose would be a vast improvement over today’s standard electoral tradition of winner-takes-all, for allocating presidential electors.  In fact, I have been campaigning for this reform for decades, shouting in the wilderness!  (See: The Electoral College: A Surprisingly Easy Fix.)  

Indeed you should note a fact that I have not seen any media report – that proportional allocation of electors is already used by Nebraska and Maine.  

Do democrats have any memory?  Recall the 2000 election?  When their candidate Al Gore won the popular vote, and yet lost the electoral college (in highly dubious ways)?  Winner-takes-all makes those travesties far more likely to happen, distorting Electoral College results and skewing them away from the popular vote.  Moreover, winner-takes-all contorts and twists the whole election campaign, forcing the candidates to focus on just six or seven crucial “battleground states” instead of aiming their appeals nationwide.    

There are no justifications for winner-takes-all.  And hence, by proposing to end it in favor of a proportional or district-based alternative, the Pennsylvania and Wisconsin GOP are not suggesting an evil thing. 

No, what makes what they are proposing an evil thing is when they say “let’s only do it here!”  Only in those few blue-tipping states where the GOP can impose its gerrymandered will. Only where it would reduce the totals of Democratic candidates. But heaven forbid we also do it in Texas and Utah and Indiana and Kentucky! Just as every single red state is gerrymandered up the wazoo, every one of them will hold fast to winner-takes-all. 

The thing Rachel Maddow should be mocking is not proportional distribution of electors, which is a good idea. What merits utter scorn is a blatant effort to say “one set of rules for us and a harder set for you.”  They are cheaters.  Simple and plain.

Moreover, thanks to California and some other blue states, the GOP can no longer claim “everybody cheats.”  No, it is you guys.  Top to bottom.  Cheaters. 

== Will the be a solution? ==

In the sort term, there are palliative measures to try. In 2014 the whole nation’s attention should go to elections in half a dozen states. The people in those states must rise up, seize back their rights. End gerrymandering. And not just Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and other electoral tipping points. 

It must happen in New York and the rest of Blue America! The Democrats’ totals improved after neutral redistricting in California, which showed that giving up this immature and vile cheat need not hurt them in their bastions. Then, once it becomes a truly red vs blue distinction – with only one party standing up for gerrymandering - take the matter to the people.

And take it to Court.

 We can hope that by then President Obama will have a couple of more Supreme Court appointments.  If so, then these travesties will end, at long last. As they should, when decent and genuinely constitution-loving justices face the plain fact that gerrymandering is a crime, a direct violation of our civil rights.  Indeed, it is nothing less than clear and knowing treason.

 When that day comes, the radicals (at both partisan extremes) will lose and we may restore a republic run by pragmatic, moderate women and men, capable of reason and science and negotiating with one another.

 == Other Political Matters ==

Aaaaaaaand they’re off!  The 2016 race for presidential nominations has begun. Folks are calling Florida’s Marco Rubio a front runner with a lot of plusses — bright, handsome, articulate and popular in pivotal Florida… and hispanic.  The last part is a biggie, as Bill O’Reilly and others finally admit “we have a major demography problem.”

 Oh, but let’s not be dazzled.  Rubio is still a 21st Century Republican, which is a very different species from Goldwater or Buckley. Thus even over so simple a matter as how old the Earth is, he says the words “I’m not a scientist” as if they mean ”science is arcane and irrelevant.”  This is the country on Earth that has by far the highest level of adult science literacy — yes, the United States of America –  where the highest fraction of adults know basic things… like the fact that the Earth is over four billion years old, a fact that Rubio called open to question. Eventually, we will wake up and start laughing at such dopes. And their “base.” That is when the grownup Republicans might finally re-emerge.

Oh, but not for a while, yet. You have it from me here and now. Two words. Mike Huckabee. 

Charming, humorous, self-effacing, smart, slippery, friendly, affably likable, and sincere. Blatantly sincere. Terrifyingly sincere. He sat this one out… the surest IQ test for any GOP politician. Do I need to remind you the list of whack-a-moles who Mitt Romney successively stomped, or who assassinated themselves with their own mouths, during the 2012 primaries? A field of morons that has now been swept aside for the real comers to have their turn in 2012, when the rhythms and odds will be harsh for any democrat? 

Yes, watch Rubio, Martinez, Christie and others.  Each of them much smarter than all of the 2012 aspirants. And let’s hope they spend the next four years loosening Rupert Murdoch’s grip on the GOP, veering it from the Cliffs of Insanity, back toward the conservatism of Goldwater and Buckley. It will make them harder to beat! But I am still rooting for them to succeed anyway. Because some of us do remember Nehemia Scudder. And Mike Huckabee can (I believe) charm his way right into the White House. At which point nobody (not even Rupert Murdoch) has the slightest idea what he would do.

 As for the Old Guard?  Read about how poleaxed and surprised Mitt Romney and especially his Wall Street supporters were, that he lost.  The interviewer asks a very good question: “All the polls, all the models, all the betting markets said he was likely to lose. How did a group of people who, in their jobs, have to be willing to read and respond to disappointing data convince themselves to ignore every piece of data we had?”  The implication is either that (1) these guys are nowhere near as smart as they think they are, or that (2) they truly believed that polls and voting patterns were irrelevant.  That they had an ace in the hole.

 Possibility #1 is truly scary, since these fellows run the economy… though we’ve seen ample evidence for it across a decade or more of incompetence.  Still might #2 belong on the table? Given that several vital electoral swing states used electronic voting machines, made by GOP operatives, without the slightest ability to audit results?

Did some operative chicken out, or discover patriotism? (As I publicly called on “henchmen” to do?)

 == Science weeps = 

Tea Party senatorial candidates (and troglodytes) Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock were not anomalies, alas. It seems that every anti-science cultist in the U.S. House of Representatives GOP Caucus is eager to join the House Science Committee, packing it not only with Climate Change denialists, but men (entirely males) who proclaim the Earth to be six or nine thousand years old, who repeat bizarre theories about rape, who decry vaccination, who rail against genetic research and who denounce sciences as diverse as geology, ecology and meteorology. Do not blame the people. As we saw above, the total number of national votes for the two major parties’ congressional  candidates was not won by the GOP.  Blame Gerrymandering. Then get mad and do something. 

But there is movement elsewhere.  That core institution of international capitalism, the World Bank, has issued a major report examining the likely economic outcomes (mostly disastrous) expected from Global Climate Change. 

== So, is Obama actually as science-friendly as he sounds? ==

“If, in fact, you do make contact with Martians, please let me know right away,” he said in the call. “I’ve got a lot of other things on my plate, but I suspect that that will go to the top of the list. Even if they’re just microbes, it will be pretty exciting.” 

“What you’ve accomplished embodies the American spirit, and your passion and your commitment is making a difference,” he said.”‘Curiosity’ is going to be telling us things that we did not know before and laying the groundwork for an even more audacious undertaking in the future, and that’s a human mission to the Red Planet.” 

– President Barack Obama during a congratulatory telephone call to the NASA team behind the Mars “Curiosity” rover.

Well. That sounds tentatively science friendly.  At least in comparison to…

Last-minute breakthroughs and remembrances, before the “end of the world”

== Can we predict the future? ==

First, the National Intelligence Council has issued its quadrennial 160 page Global Trends report, this time peering ahead toward the year 2030.  My favorite territory. This set of world forecasts and scenarios appears, at last, ready to break from the transfixing obsessions of the past — vast blocs of supranational ideology or else ideology-driven terrorists.

Instead, the NIC examines deeper drivers that might affect whether Earth Civilization prospers or not, and what role the United States and the West will continue to play, as Pax Americana gradually eases out of its historic mission. Indeed, it looks as if some folks who have attended my Washington talks about the future may have heeded or cribbed-from my report from almost a decade ago, to the Defense Threat Reduction Agency DTRA, about non-state and non-terror threats.

Compare the NIC Global Trends document to those earlier slides attempting to get folks to think more broadly about the future.

Meanwhile, the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk is being co-launched by astronomer royal Lord Rees, one of the world’s leading cosmologists. It will probe the “four greatest threats” to the human species, given as: artificial intelligence, climate change, nuclear war and rogue biotechnology. Lord Rees, who has warned that humanity could wipe itself out by 2100, is launching the centre alongside Cambridge philosophy professor Huw Price, and Skype co-founder Jaan Tallinn.

Interesting that the four threats they chose happen to be chief topics featured in Existence.

Also of interest: a rebuttal on the Da Vinci Institute site takes on Nassim Taleb, author of the bestseller The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable, who ridicules the idea of predicting the future. Instead, he argues that the world is dominated by the impact of rare, unforeseen, random, highly improbable and yet influential events. “These Black Swans, he says, happen abruptly, coming from outside the range of our vision.”

I found the rebuttal interesting- at times on target – yet in the end just as quasi mystical as Taleb’s book.  Because neither of them offer challenging ways to assess and appraise and improve (pragmatically) the process of prediction.

At risk of (typical) self-promotion, I do believe there’s an approach that — if even marginally funded — could help move the whole field forward via means of predictions registries and fora. How I am tempted, after all these years, to try to fund it myself… if college bills weren’t such a big deal .

More efforts at prediction can be found in the annual forecast list of the World Future Society.  The plausible ones seem rather likely… new dust bowls, a rapid rise in commercial space tourism, eyesight-restoration, teaching based in games, deep-geothermal power,   Others, like garbage purifying robot earthworms and lunar colonies, fall more into the sci fi zone and are not as near future as they seem to think. Have a look and join the WFS.  Though… alas… I’d still expect just a few “futurists” to survive long under scrutiny of a registry. Whereupn, the best would learn and adapt!

== Genetic “variability” and our future evolution ==

Recent studies indicate that humanity is now very, very rich in genetic variability, the grist of future evolution. (Exactly opposite to the problem faced by inbred cheetahs, for example.) “Humans today carry a much larger load of deleterious variants than our species carried just prior to its massive expansion just a couple hundred generations ago,” said population geneticist Alon Keinan of Cornell University, whose own work helped link rare variation patterns to the population boom.

From the article: The inverse is also true. Present-day humanity also carries a much larger load of potentially positive variation, not to mention variation with no appreciable consequences at all. These variations, known to scientists as “cryptic,” that might actually be evolution’s hidden fuel. Indeed, the genetic seeds of exceptional traits, such as endurance or strength or innate intelligence, may now be circulating in humanity. “The genetic potential of our population is vastly different than what it was 10,000 years ago,” Akey said. How will humanity evolve in the next few thousand years? It’s impossible to predict but fun to speculate, said Akey.

 A potentially interesting wrinkle to the human story is that, while bottlenecks reduce selection pressure, evolutionary models show that large populations actually increase selection’s effects. 

My own comment: In nature, evolution is based not only upon genetic variability (in which this research suggests we are rich) but also on death, culling some and allowing others to breed.  A crude, brutal method that is inherently un-interested in “fairness” … but time tested by nature. This will change though. We will choose instead to steer the process via culture and technology while continuing to develop our capacity to collaboratively evade death – the old engine of evolution. What replaces death? The article’s authors suggest that widespread use of reproductive technologies like fetal genome sequencing might ease selection pressures, or even make them more intense.  But in his novel Beyond This Horizon, Robert Heinlein showed us how to grab ahold of our variability and use it in a campaign of self-improvement that has none of the creepy aspects of direct genomic meddling.

Ponder that finding… that humans have max’d-out genetic diversity… and nowhere more so than in my California… almost as if we were a flower, getting ready to cast forth seeds…

Meanwhile, there’s an interesting article with huge implications for the future of anthropology. In an essay by George Dvorsky: Over at the Edge there’s a fascinating article by Thomas W. Malone about the work he and others are doing to understand the rise of collective human intelligence — an emergent phenomenon that’s being primarily driven by our information technologies.  Malone, who is the Director at MIT’s Center for Collective Intelligence, studies the way people and computers can be connected so that — collectively — they can act more intelligently than any single person, group, or computer. Good stuff, but I’d have liked more attention to the older methods that have leveraged individual intelligence into group intelligence. The positive-sum enlightenment methods of markets, science, democracy etc.

== Wondrous and Puzzling Science ==

NASA’s Cassini orbiter spots river system on Titan … but filled with liquid ethane and methane instead of water. The Titanic Nile shows up on a black-and-white picture from Cassini’s radar imager, which can look through Titan’s thick, smoggy atmosphere to map the surface features beneath.

A U.S. start-up has turned to nature to help bring water to arid areas by drawing moisture from the air.

Ah, progress. Soon anyone with a good home-maker unit will be able to print the parts to make their own firearms. Reminds me of Van Vogt’s The Weapon Shops.  I guess we’ll find out if John W. Campbell was right that “an armed society is a polite society.”  I imagine we’ll all get more polite… after twenty generations of culling.

Speaking of which, a use of such devices that will be both more useful and creepier, illustrated cartoon style! Frankentissue: How to print an organ on your inkjet.

Weird…time reversal research: When a signal travels through the air, its waveforms scatter before an antenna picks it up. Recording the received signal and transmitting it backwards reverses the scatter and sends it back as a focused beam in space and time.

Bothered by negative thoughts? Throw them away.

Large scale melting of Permafrost may be underway.

Some recent studies indicate glucosamine (used by millions for slight joint pain reduction)  was associated with a significant decreased risk of death from cancer and with a large risk reduction for death from respiratory disease.

Late last year, a Russian team drilled through to Lake Vostok, an even larger lake covered by some 4km of ice. But preliminary analyses of lake water that froze on to the drill bit showed scant evidence for the presence of living organisms. Now researchers at the shallower McMurdo lakes have found a diverse community of bugs living in the lake’s dark environment, at temperatures of -13C. Some think this a possible analog for ice-roofed water moons like Europa.

Ten things that will disappear in thirty years.

== Space!!! ==

Know the difference between radioisotope nuclear power for spacecraft and nuclear reactors for spaceflight? The distinction is fascinating. Have a look at DUFF, a new reactor for space travel.

Some parodies are better than the originals! A takeoff of “Dumb Ways to Die” … starring NASA’s Curiosity rover…”Cool Things to Find.” –

Water ice discovered on Mercury. NASA’s Messenger spacecraft has spotted vast deposits of water ice around the shade-protected poles on the planet closest to the sun. Not unexpected, since radar beams from Arecibo in the 1990s had suggested this, confirming a hypothesis made by my doctoral advisor, Dr. James Arnold, that comets would have delivered volatiles to safe dark areas at the poles of both Mercury and our Moon.  Still, Messenger’s neutron spectrometer spotted hydrogen, which is a large component of water ice. But the temperature profile unexpectedly showed that dark, volatile materials – consistent with climes in which organics survive – are mixing in with the ice. And waiting for us?

NASA seeks concepts for two Hubble-sized telescopes. Last year, two big space telescopes, equivalent to NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope in aperture, but designed to have a much wider field of view, were transferred from one of America’s super secret spy agencies to NASA. ”Because there are two telescopes, there is room for projects that span the gamut of the imagination,” and indeed, NASA is now seeking suggestions what to do with these gifts. (Viewed from another angle, one has to realize and ask: was the Hubble itself primarily a way to provide cover for a program to develop spy devices?  I’m not complaining… or even asking! I wouldn’t be told, despite my clearance.  Still, one wonders. If these are now cast-offs… what do they have now?)

How NASA might build its first warp drive.

== And finally … ==

Late puzzler!  The earliest large life forms (ediacaran) may have appeared on land long before the oceans filled with creatures that swam and crawled and burrowed in the mud.

Finally… followup in the spirit of giving: My friend Lenore Ealey —  a sage in the field of philanthropy theory – kindly wrote about my “proxy power” proposal – that middle class folks can maximize their future impact on the world by joining perhaps a dozen groups/organizations that pool dues and numbers to pursue specific positive goals.  Lenore’s appraisal compares my approach to those of Boulding and Cornuelle with some Baconian philosophical perspective thrown in! Also, she adds a list of favorite NGOs of her own for consideration.  Go Proxy Power.

=====

Late addendum: The Friday 13th tragedy in Connecticut has us all horrified.  If only we could mature enough to have a society that foremost looks to help the troubled to get the help they need. Alas, this will become another frenzy over “gun control” that sheds no light, only heat. I once attempted to offer a non-partisan, off-angle compromise that would satisfy both those wanting sanity and those seeking to preserve a fundamental American right. It is as cogent as ever. See “The Jefferson Rifle.”  

 But at this point, there is something even simpler.  A matter of cause and effect.  Not one mass shooter was ever brought down by an armed bystander, but most were tackled by heroic citizens who were UNARMED, who waited till the SOB had to change clips or magazines, then bravely tackled the guy. That is the window of heroism! Hence, there is no excuse for legally allowing the sale of giant ammo clips. You do not need em for hunting or self-defense. There is no slippery slope, so please check your reflex. See the reason in this.  Join us and don’t make that a fight.  Just give it to us, this one small but crucially pragmatic reform. Now, show us this much flexibility.  For the victims.  Please, just be reasonable this once.

A call to new public officials, representatives etc… beware of blackmail!

This is an open message to all incoming Representatives, Senators, state and federal officials.* If you know any folks who fit that description, pass this warning on to them!

First, congratulations on your achievement, drawing enough votes to be deemed the lawful delegate of your state or district, or winning appointment to an office of public trust. That trust is worth discussing. In an era that’s awash in money and special interest groups, there’s been a rising sense of cynicism.  Crimes like gerrymandering make us feel that its not so much a contest between parties or doctrines as it is between the political caste and the rest of us.

No doubt you are heading to Washington (or your state capital) stoked by righteous eagerness to end all of that!  Brimming with determination to restore both honesty and common sense, you see the path ahead as crystal clear, free of complexity or compromise with evil forces. Some will call that naive and at one level… it is! Life is complicated and if you truly want to govern, it will involve give and take. Negotiation, even compromise…

…but that’s not what I’ve come to warn you about. Nor about the temptations or flattery, or campaign contributions, or promise of higher office, or even outright bribery.  Either you are a person of character, or you aren’t.  If you are one, then you will strive to reduce the role of money in politics. You will cultivate arguments that are fair and complex and that involve listening — maybe even a little attention to scientific fact — no matter what party you are in.

No. I am not here to warn you about traps that a person of good character can struggle against and generally (despite some lapses) avoid. I’m talking about something far more insidious that can reach out and snatch you in a single moment, permanently transforming and wrecking all your idealistic goals, your career, even your life.  A failure mode that we can see before us right now, illustrated in the news.

Blackmail.

I describe this calamity elsewhere in much more detail. But here’s the distilled gist:

There are powers out there who would love to own their own politicians, legislators, bureaucrats. Name whichever side of the political spectrum that you loathe. Now name one that you like. It doesn’t matter! There’s somebody at the extremes, or some foreign power, or some mercenary or criminal interest, who will seek to collect their own secret-servants in Washington.  The methods that get the most attention are lobbying, campaign donations and outright bribery. But there’s a problem with all of these methods. A drawback for those use use them.

Satiation. A representative or senator or civil servant might accept some lobbyist favors, even some contributions, then draw a line: ”I’ve helped you up to this point, but no further. That’s enough for this year.”

You might say no out of a sense of honor, or self-preservation, or to avoid the stain being too obvious. Or not wanting to admit it to yourself. Or cynically, in order to keep your price up.

Blackmail is different. Blackmail is forever. And once you give in to it – even once – they can blackmail you over that!

Do you think I am the first to think of this? Imagine how it often gets started. Take some starry eyed idealist, newly arrived in DC and determined to clean up the town. Invite him or her to a high-class party on a yacht.  Flattery, movie starlets. Slip him some drugs or cater to some brief-bad impulses, snap some incriminating images, and you’ve got him in your pocket!

== Examples in the News ==

Are you saying it can’t happen to you? Why do you think General David Petraeus had to swiftly resign as director of the CIA, after it was revealed that he had a minor, brief, consensual sexual affair with his biographer?  By 21st Century standards, if you confess that in public and if your wife, standing next to you, conveys genuine forgiveness, then your chances of political survival aren’t zero! Such redemption may lie in the general’s future…

…but not for the job of CIA Director. The intelligence community is extra, extra sensitive about the possibilities of blackmail. That was the sub-text speeding things along. And note, in this case there wasn’t any actual blackmail going on!

The lesson?  If a super-straight arrow can get in trouble like that, you had better take this seriously. Guard your back and front. Hire a staff whose advice about these things is wise, experienced and listened-to. Take your spouse along.

== The worst case? It’s widespread! ==

Truly, envision the forces in this world that you consider to be evil. Why would they not try to do this? And what’s to stop them from having succeeded, time and again, in a climate as florid, egotistical and money drenched as Washington? Shouldn’t you stay alert for signs that it has already happened to some of your comrades?

Moreover… if the blackmail gambit really is being used heavily, by many nefarious forces, then envision three things:

1) how it fits what has happened to American Politics in the last generation, and

2) how they must be wringing their hands over the recent arrival of so many middle-aged women in high elective offices! and

3) how desperate they must be to hold on to gerrymandering. (But I cover that crime elsewhere.)

== If this happens to you, don’t give up! ==

All right, that’s my warning to newcomers, the freshman congressfolk and all, coming to town brimming with zeal and suddenly invited to every sort of party.  Be wary. Be circumspect.  Don’t drink strange beverages at “discreet” galas thrown by powerful interests or let yourself be suckered into that hot tub or that orgy. And if you suspect something, there are FBI and other agencies who have skills to help you.

You wanted power? Wield it as an adult.

But what if it’s too late?

Too late? Yes, I’m talking to you. Not my regular readers, but you, the one who feels a burn of shame, while reading these words.  Yes, you, the already-fallen.

Here’s some good news.  There is probably still a away out. A hard and risky path to redemption. Above all, it is vital that you realize that you are very probably not alone!

They want you to envision yourself not only trapped and helpless but isolated. Only, think about it. What if you are but one in a house of cards… and you were the one to bring it down? Imagine how the country would feel about a sullied person… who then tore the masks off villains far worse than himself. The first person to do that… well… he’d earn a lot of forgiveness.

I go into more detail in my earlier posting about blackmail.  I hope you’ll read it carefully and consider how great you’ll feel, if a way can be found to turn the tables on your Masters!

A way to escape the Prisoners’ Dilemma and come out the other end of a sewer, almost clean.  Not only a partial winner, but a kind of hero.

Perhaps even with honor and the thanks of a country that truly does often forgive flawed characters.

Especially when — in the long run — they finally do their duty.

=====

* This is the first of a series of “Suggestions for Congress and the President.” In the effrontery and delusion that perhaps something found on these pages might be useful, worthwhile, noticed, or even seen by those who could use some fresh ideas in helping to guide civilization back on track.

Gerrymandering: as it declines – surprising results

Gerrymandering - I appraised it back when most blue and Red states shared equally in this crime against democracy. Now, big changes are afoot, at long last, and reform has veered in unexpected ways. Prepare for several surprises.

First a little background. Post-election, shallow rationalizations fingerpoint at California, where Democrats increased their control over the legislature to a 2/3 majority in both houses. Many Republican friends bemoan this, attributing the partisan tsunami to everything from demographic shifts away from white-male supremacy to a growing “culture of dependency.”

== Rule by the Takers? ==

Bill O’Reilly leads the sour grapes refrain — that a majority of voters, lacking any concept of citizenship or deferred gratification, are interested only in “voting themselves stuff…”

…which is another grumbled version of the Tytler Calumny… (O’Reilly only replaces a smartypants word “largesse” with “stuff.”) This slander against democracy has been dogma in grouchy circles for 90 years, even though it lacks a single actual example from all of human history.

Grouches call the Tytler Calumny an iron law – that democracies are all doomed as citizens become greedy, lazy and decadent, causing collapse, followed by the inevitable return of oligarchy and tyranny. They call Abe Lincoln a fool to hope – “that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”  

Whiney, disloyal… and wrong.

Sure, demographic shifts have some effect. (Watch Jon Stewart remind O’Reilly of times when “white America” fretted about unclean immigrants called “the Irish.”) But that’s not the real explanation for what happened in California.

There is news under the news, a political revolution that ignores the chattering caste and the lobotomizing “left-right political axis.” It does bear on real differences between Red and Blue America, but not those that you think.

Care to explore what really happened?

== California’s three-part citizen rebellion ==

The stunning event was a triple whammy that swept California a few years ago, when voters rose up and voted-in a trio of constitutional changes that would:

(1) end gerrymandering and require impartial redistricting

(2) turn the general election into a run-off between the top two vote-getting candidates in the primaries, regardless of parties

(3) make those primaries open, so that all voters could pick among all candidates, choosing the pair in each race who would run-off in the fall.

2012 was the first year with clear results, which were unexpected and epochal because of how the three reforms interplay. I’ll get to all that in a minute.

Only first note this.  The anti-gerrymandering initiative was originally authored and pushed by the Californian Republican Party (CA-GOP). An act of hypocrisy, since every Red State indulges in the foul practice far more vigorously – - from Texas to Georgia to Alaska — to a degree that would embarrass even a Chicago ward heeler!  No problem. CA-GOP figured they’d take advantage of Blue Staters’ penchant for reasonableness and low levels of party loyalty, plus their ability to see how wretchedly unjust the old system was. For purely self-interested reasons, CA-GOP urged state voters to do the right and logical thing! Of course, CA-GOP’s true aim was more conniving — to rob their adversaries of an advantage in the biggest blue state.  (In fairness, the Democratic Party has tried to talk Red State voters into doing this… with zero results.)

Now I confess – I voted against the referendum, despite my long record inveighing about Gerrymandering!  I still hoped for a multi-state deal, with California dropping the practice in exchange for (say) Texas and Indiana.  That would leave neither party disadvantaged and thus…

… but of course, that never would have happened. I was wrong and the people were right. Someone had to do it first. And, in fact, California voters proved stunningly wise.

== The wisdom of three ==

Think about those triple reforms I listed above. The combined effects of the triple whammy are stunning:

1) No longer able to arrange purely safe districts for themselves, nearly all state legislators and congressfolk now have to work harder in the general election than before. Aw. Too bad.

2) Radicals of both parties were robbed of influence because now republicans in largely democratic districts can vote in the primary, the election that matters, and vice versa in GOP majority districts. Moderation was the huge winner. (And would be in Red America, if this happened there. Think about what that would mean to the radicals in the current GOP U.S. House delegation.)

3) In many cases, the result has been a general election in which two republicans face off against each other, or two democrats!  Suddenly they are interested in, and are listening to and trying to please folks who are the minority in their district. That minority transforms into tie-breakers, the king-makers.

Ponder that. For the first time, if you are in the minority party of your district, someone will listen to you anyway. Your vote will actually matter. If you are a republican in a largely democratic district, you may never have a conservative representative. But you’ll be able to tip the balance between two liberals. And they’ll know that fact. They’ll talk to you.

4) And finally, the big surprise result that no one expected. The dems picked up more seats in the Assembly, State Senate and Congress.

But… but how did the democrats do even better without gerrymandering?  That shouldn’t happen, because the districts are now fair! I will tell you how, and it should have been obvious all along.

== The surprise outcome, and what it means ==

Under gerrymandering, the ruling party jiggers districts to their own advantage. In Texas, not long ago, some were more than a hundred twisty miles long with necks less than one mile wide. (Be proud, you Republicans, be very proud.) They arrange boundaries so that there are a few tortuous districts with 90% or more democratic voters and a lot more districts with 65% republican voters. The result, in theory, should be more republican seats. That is the logic and it is why republican voters in the state go along with such a blatantly cynical and rapacious scheme. Out of partisan loyalty.

But it’s a lie!

In California, the new redistricting law replaced this system (though it had never been as horrific as Texas) with sensible, compact districts… a whole lot of which happened to be merely 55% democratic.  This meant that the local politicians could not take victory for granted, they had to work hard and woo some republicans… but the odds were still slightly in their favor, since CA has an overall demo-tilt. And this showed in a year when democrats were highly motivated to vote. They worked harder… and their party gained seats.

Now think about this result.  What it means is that gerrymandering was never what the politicians claimed it to be! A way for democrats in California or republicans in Texas to eke out a few more seats for their side.  That justification, after all, might persuade your radical Tea Party voter to shrug and go along, because Fox has him so riled up he will forgive an obvious scam (gerrymandering) because it hurts the hated other side.

But no, gerrymandering is not about party advantage, at all!

It is about reinforcing radicalism and — above all – it is a job protection racket for elected politicians. Designed to preserve safe seats and ensure that the pol needn’t ever fear a threat that voters might actually judge him, consider alternatives, or even fire him.  Just look at the results! Congress as a whole has a national approval rating of just 9%!  Yet, individual representatives in safe districts get returned again and again. This is the biggest reason.

== The key come-away lesson ==

It is possible to do everywhere what Californians have done. Banish a foul and disgusting crime against democracy that’s been committed by the entire political caste, regardless of where they stand along the largely irrelevant left-right “axis.”

Yes, there is a partisan tint to all this… voters have risen up against gerrymandering in several blue states but not a single red one, and this shows in the radical, never-compromise, manichean dogmatism of the Republican House. It shows in the fact that the not-gerrymandered U.S. Senate shifted left this election along with the overall electorate re-picking President Obama, while the gerried House only nudged a little, even in the face of 9% approval ratings for the institution.

But the partisan tint does not matter.  By any standard, gerrymandering is filth. It is crime. Its nineteenth century vileness is indefensible in the 21st. It doesn’t even make logical sense in the terms used by its defenders!

And we will all have a better America when it’s gone.

== Can we get rid of it? ==

Given the entrenchment of both partisanship and job-protection thinking among the politicians in some parts of the country, it’s hard to see this obscenity ever being negotiated away.  I am hoping that a few more blue states — notably Maryland, New Jersey and Illinois — will see citizen uprisings against gerrymandering. But the GOP has probably learned its lesson from the surprising way things turned out in California. They will be tepid, at best, and possibly help to oppose such reforms in states like New York.

No, there is just one locus for salvation and hope — one that should have stepped in ages ago to save us. The courts. Because gerrymandering is blatantly, despicably an outright effort to steal elections and votes – a guild-protection racket by a profession against its customers, deliberately repressing competition in restraint of fair trade. A scheme to disenfranchise 40% of the electorate in any state, denying them the chance, ever, of voting for a person they feel actually listens to them or might represent them.

It has exacerbated partisan radicalism, fury and impracticality in American political life. And it does even more foul things that you can read about in my older essay on the subject.

Will the courts ever throw out this blatant violation of the principle of one person, one vote?

Not while Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts and Kennedy sit on the high bench. Which is why we may just have to wait. Maybe quite a while.  Even though this whole issue has nothing to do with classic left-right, or capitalism/socialism, or liberal-conservative or any other legitimate political matter. Nor is it even about the Republican Party, whose health would likely improve a lot if California-style reforms took place across Red America.  (They are currently unable to adapt to their shellacking in the 2012 elections, because gerrymandered radicalism stands in the way of pragmatic re-evaluation.)

No, this Court won’t rule in favor of the people because… because…

…well… I honestly can’t figure any clear or logical or cogent reason why. As I’ve shown, only short-sighted fools believe anymore that gerrymandering is actually about partisan advantage. One can picture the clever – if biliously partisan – Justice Scalia finally realizing this. One can envision him accepting that there’s no justification – not even a cynical one – for the outrageously unjustifiable, and at last voting to end the crime, bringing Thomas and Alito with him. Yes, one can picture it.

Still, you know they won’t do it, as sure as day. A future court, honored by posterity, will erase this felony, a crime in which history will judge this court to be complicit.

And so — we’ll wait.

===

===

After-notes: 

1. See the same California transition and realization, told interestingly from a more partisan democratic perspective.  As I said, the real victor in California was moderation. Hence, although the California legislature is now 2/3 democratic, the big surge came among moderates. Don’t expect compulsory Druid-worship. Or broccoli-eating mandated by Jerry Brown’s denim-levi secret police. I’ll take wagers on this.

2.  If you live in a still-gerrymandered state, you aren’t helpless! Try a lovely judo tactic. Register in whatever party “owns” your district! All democrats in republican districts should talk fellow democrats into registering republican! And vice versa for you republicans in democrat-gerried districts.  Forget labels, or which party has your loyalty nationally or by doctrine.  The election that matters to you is the primary! If enough of your neighbors do this, you’ll be able to help a moderate republican take on the radical republican incumbent. (Or the same thing in a dem-held area.) You and others who pull this trick – you will become the swing voters, the king-makers. Your vote will matter again.

Post-Election Roundup – The Road Ahead

While I am relieved to have the U.S. election behind us, I’ll be disengaging from politics in stages. As a contrarian gadfly, I’m expected to toss some unusual, off-angle suggestions at both winners and losers.

 (My level of “influence” as a futurist and public figure is just barely large enough to encourage this habit, alas! Still, I hope folks will find items amusing or thought-provoking.)

But first… a mere tad of gloating, plus some riffs about libertarians, marijuana, gay marriage, science and etcetera!

1) Yes yes, the real winner was Nate Silver — our new national demigod. What I don’t get is how he compensated for pollsters’ obsolete definitions of “likely voter.”  The Obama ground game changed the meaning of that term. They found ways to shame both former slackers and fresh first-timers to the polls. Expect those methods to be used with a vengeance in the 2014 by-elections.

This will be doubly effective if the democrats (and or their allies) first concentrate on early recruitment of fresh candidates. Hint: go after retired Army colonels and navy captains, vet them to pick the super-educated, level-headed kind – I know the type! – and hurl them into the 2014 primaries, all over the map. Primaries are now the navel of American politics, especially in red counties. This invites innovative thinking, especially in gerrymandered districts, finding ways to promote moderate, science-friendly pragmatists. Find fresh ways to contest them all!

2) Congratulations to all our LGBT friends. You’ve taken major strides and this time victory was helped by a calming decorum. Both the method and the outcome bode well for you. As inevitable as the final goal is, the road must still be taken step by step into a headwind.

Some of that wind will break in new directions! Expressing despair, a couple of my redder pals talk of emigrating! Alas, Canada (“bluer than New York”) just won’t do, so they’re looking farther afield. Ah, but to quote an amusing tweet that’s gone viral:

@RedRefugee: you say “if Obama wins I’m off to Australia” but our PM is a single atheist woman & we have universal health care & mandatory voting. 

Sorry. Looks like they’re everywhere. On this planet, that is. Push for a bigger NASA budget. Get rich in asteroid mining.  Stop whining.

3) Speaking of schadenfreude, pity poor Karl Rove. Not only was he trampled underfoot by his own people at Fox, but his Crossroads operation spent nearly $300 million against President Obama and other Democrats. Separately, Sheldon Adelson, the casino magnate, spent similar amounts all by himself, backing loser after loser. Astonishingly, somehow, the dems always drew enough small donations to keep up! Almost as if the oligarchic putsch was drawing a popular immune response, a reaction worthy of heirs of the original American Revolution.

Which raises the question: what good is unlimited money if you can’t buy a country?

4) Science, the central enemy of Culture War, stood up for itself in several ways, during the election.  Shawn Otto’s ScienceDebate.org forced both campaigns to answer piercing questionnaires and Scientific American scrupulously examined the answers.  Now see the post-election editorial at Popular Science handing a stiff set of firm requests for the re-elected president, above all that he stand up for the one trait most responsible for our flourishing across the last 70 years — the innovation and constant re-evaluation that arises out of curiosity.

5) Mark Newman has resized the electoral map (top image on right) to adjust for population: popular votes (middle), electoral votes (bottom). Read the article in Science News.

6) Above all,  this election result means that Dick Cheney’s gang – who surrounded Romney - won’t get their hands on the US military again, any time soon. Cheney’s crew did more harm to America than anyone else in a human lifetime, including the Soviets and Viet Cong. Our brave men and women deserve to rest and rebuild — while taking on occasional daring tasks with stunning courage and skill — without being plunged into any more draining, multi-trillion dollar, futile quagmires. Perhaps, with another four years in exile, the GOP will finally purge itself of Cheney’s loony “brain trust” and bring in adults to represent their side of the conversation.

== Maddow appeals to conservatives: use facts and we’ll listen ==

Is Rachel Maddow gloating over the election results? Well, sure. But I still hope earnest conservatives will grit their teeth and watch this cogent appeal directed at them. Asking them to rejoin the conversation. To compete with liberals in the realm of reality, and not the fantasy land concocted by Fox delusion merchants. Those cynical hypnotists have had a long run, peddling narratives that — though truth-free — make the viewer nod and feel good, blissfully sure that their foes are orcs or trolls or commie-satanists or… democrats.  Only now it’s time to put away childish things.

There will still be plenty to argue about, after all the birther-climate-denier-black-helicopter silliness is put aside – really interesting competition over testable theories about governance and practical problem solving. Those reality tests will sometimes rule in favor of grownup conservatism! Maddow appeals for a restoration of fact-friendly, science-loving conservatism not because she will then agree with it, but because we’ll all be better off if there are two sane sides bringing reasoned, testable ideas to the table.

Look, I don’t agree with all Maddow rants. Sometimes she brings out my latent Buckley! But this time? She is spot-on.

Restoring conservatism to its roots won’t be easy. Hannity and Limbaugh are more fun - in their indignant lie-extravaganzas – than nerdy Bill Buckley ever was, arguing calmly with every bright opponent he could find. But Hannity, Limbaugh and Murdoch are crazy men who avoid ever facing questions or accountability. They’ll lead conservatism to rigidity, demographic irrelevance, hallucination and extinction. Take a hint from the election. We’ll all be richer and better if bright conservatives pass this test of courage.

== Libertarians, Marijuana and Cheetos ==

 While my main goal was to avoid a calamitous Bush III return of Dick Cheney’s gang of 1000 gremlins — and thank heavens that doom was evaded — I did divide my support a bit, by also sending money to Gary Johnson,then going online to urge that both Hawaiians and Alaskans turn out their votes for him!

I hoped Johnson would make his 5% goal and that real momentum would (1) give his moderate wing real clout in the libertarian movement, helping draw down the fevered infection of Rand-Rothbard cultism, and (2) that smart, sincere, socially relaxed fiscal conservatives who despair of the GOP’s present madness would then have a place to which they might flee. A party to call their own. A new base from which to rejoin the conversation.

Well, there was bad news and good news.  Falling well short of 5%, Johnson did sharply better than any other LP candidate, with nearly 1.3 million votes nationwide, representing about 1.2 percent of the total popular presidential vote in the 48 states where he ran. Real incremental improvement…

… only now it seems that libertarianism is moving forward, not via candidates, but ballot initiatives!  The Drug War was dealt a heavy blow in Washington and Colorado, where citizens approved measures legalizing, regulating and taxing marijuana. Across America 50% poll ready for this change. And now President Obama has the cover he needs in order to take a step forward, nationwide.

Instead of pushing to legalize marijuana at a national level, he could declare an “experimental moratorium” on enforcement of federal pot possession laws in those two states, while still helping Colorado and Washington crack down on illegal importation.  This would seem a measured step, in keeping with the principle of states’ rights that Republicans could hardly object-to! Well, we can hope.  He does owe the young people of those two states. Big time.

Only now… let me take one of my patented contrarian veers! While I am hugely in favor of experiments to escape the infinity-damned Drug War and to emphaisize personal responsibility, I’m also aware of certain drawbacks.  For example:

1) THC remains detectable in your blood for days after all symptoms of use are gone. To establish DUI rules you can’t simply adopt the alcohol standards. We’ll need research, patience and innovation.

2) Those who call marijuana “completely harmless” are liars and they know it.  The thing every honest person admits? It is an ambition-wrecking drug. In many, though not all users, pot fosters torpidity and mellow harmlessness. Unless you include the “harm” of many users failing to get up off their giggling-cynical-mellow asses!  I predict we’ll drift toward a new approach to such quasi addictive drugs, allowing personal choice… but with an expanded right of families to intervene and even impose guardianship, if the user can’t hold a job or want more than the next bag of Cheetos. **

That will satisfy no one.  But it may soften opposition just enough to make this a national movement away from a prohibition insanity that spanned all of our lifetimes.

== Puerto Rican Statehood? ==

Wow, another sea change that I’ll weigh in on, some time.  One member of my blogmunity said:

“My concerns about Puerto Rico: There is a large part of the population that does not want to be a U.S. State. Do you want to start with a Quebec-like situation? Also, their existing political parties are not associated with the mainstream parties, though they could align themselves quickly, I guess. There could be accusations of U.S. imperialism — or other poor small countries across the world might decide to apply to join in turn…”

Yep. Plenty of parameters to consider. Such as how the Republicans can oppose this new state — with its inevitable Democratic majority — and not thereby offend U.S. hispanics even more. Then there’s another matter far more important… how do you sort 51 stars on the flag? Let’s see: 3 x 7 and 3 x 10… too rectangular!  3×8 + 3×9  same problem! I suppose 3×7 and 5×6… Um… Hey South Carolina.  Wanna secede again? Maybe this time we won’t put up such a fuss.

As you might expect, my own worry about Puerto Rican Statehood is unique and original (though I just offered a hint.) Remind me in a few months and I’ll explain. 

Interesting times. Onward for now… 

** Oh, and any letters about marijuana should be sent not to me but to Stephen Colbert.  He can use the material — and samples.  Tell him David – friend of the show – Brin sent you. 

A Pennsylvania Surprise?

My last official campaign entry “Election 2012: What’s the fundamental issue?” is still posted below. But it seems I must do one more.

You see… I’m worried about Pennsylvania.  Mitt Romney just campaigned there and many in the press wondered why? Why take time from crucial swing states like Florida, Virginia, Ohio and Colorado, to campaign in a state President Obama has apparently sewn up? There’s a chilling hypothesis, related to my recent posting about potential fraud with e-voting machines.  (NEW: see how easy it is to hack the voting machines!)

So, in that context, why might Mitt go to Pennsylvania? To give fig leaf cover for a Big Surprise?

Consider. The real potential for fraud lies in states that use electronic voting machines without accompanying paper ballots that can be audited. These are mostly red states where stuff like this — and gerrymandering — is apparently just fine. Expect Mitt’s popular vote tally to be boosted even higher than plausible in those states, in order to give him a plurality sheen.  Those states won’t shift the Electoral College…

…but Virginia and Pennsylvania are two swing states that also have no-audit electronic voting! Moreover, they have people in the right places. Carol Aichele is Secretary of State in Pennsylvania, and also a member of the Republican State Committee. Janet Vestal Kelly, Secretary of Virginia, is a veteran partisan operative. And all the voting machine manufacturers have deep connections to right wing politics.

If there’s a Pennsylvania surprise, remember you heard it here first.  Expect Supreme Court Madness! Ah, but if it happens, here are some things Ms. Aichele and Ms. Kelly may not expect –

– for good billionaires to come out with huge whistle blower rewards. For some henchmen to die then, in mysterious plane and car crashes. Whereupon one will blab and the rest go to prison.

Aw heck… expect that I’m being paranoid and it’ll all work out and we’ll prove wise and good and live up to the investment that our ancestors devoted to us.

Be sure to vote.