Another Minority President

Right now the polls show a very tight race. That raises the possibility, again, of a President being elected with a minority of votes cast. If that's the outcome, how do you think people will react? How would the Dems react, if they were robbed again? How would the Reps react, if they were in Gore's position in 2000?

David Sirota Sees Us for What We Are

After a week's vacation:

What's amazing to me after coming back from vacation is how obviously insular and silly this supposed "national" conversation really is, when you just step back for one week and look at it. Whether on blogs, email, radio or television, a small group of us is basically screaming at ourselves, the rest of the public be damned. It's quite tragic, really.

Of course, when you look at the picture of where he spent his vacation, you completely understand.

Achenbach on Vice Presidency

I fancy myself to have a good knowledge of American history and government, but I never realized the logic behind the Vice Presidency which Joel Achenbach unveils in today's Post:

"The Framers never for a moment thought the president needed a Mondale-like adviser or a Cheney-like super-deputy. Their main concern was that they wanted electors from the states to be forced to vote for two people, and not from the same state. The reasoning, historians surmise, is that states would habitually throw their support behind a favorite son as the presidential candidate. Virginians would vote for a Virginian, New Yorkers for a New Yorker, etc. But if they had to cast a second ballot, that second choice, under the Constitution, couldn't be another favorite son.

Follow this logic to its conclusion: The Framers were thinking that the No. 2 pick of many of the electors would be a nationally recognized figure who would wind up with more votes, total, than any of the No. 1 picks. It's kind of like they wanted the vice president to be president."

Makes sense--in today's world the idea of a "favorite son" has faded, but that was a real fear in 1787.

Google Government

The Post has a piece by a man who tries to go 24 hours without Google. (He succeeds in not using Gmail, but he does contact pieces of Google.) He's suspicious of Google's accumulation of data. He concludes:

I went into this experiment fairly certain that it would require the cursory change of an odd habit or two. I learned that my dependence on Google runs deeper than that, encompassing not only my personal Internet use but the nested dependencies of the people and institutions surrounding me. This is perhaps less a celebration of Google's tenth birthday than it is the harrowing revelation of our tenth anniversary. So goodnight, dear Google -- congratulations, and sweet dreams.

It led me to some other thoughts. Googling yourself may be a reason Google isn't as fearsome as it might be. You're on a par with all other users of Google--it doesn't play favorites. And that's somewhat true with the historical stuff--you can see your own web history, at least for a while. Granted there's stuff Google stores I can't see, but they claim, at least, the data is depersonalized--no connection to my name and ID.

Moving on to government--why shouldn't government operate like Google. Why shouldn't it be a principle: you can see anything the government has on you.

Speculation in the Commodity Markets

The Post carried this AP story on a commodity investment fund which was closing down--it had suffered big losses because of the recent declines in commodity prices (oil, corn, etc.). IMHO that settles the question of whether the rise in commodity prices was speculative. Of course it was, it was a bubble just like the housing bubble and the tech bubble and the railroad bubble (couple centuries ago). A bubble means speculation. Now I'd agree there were real market forces at work and it may well be impossible to curb speculation as some might like; people are people after all.

But those right wing blogs/economists who denied the speculation went too far.

Total Loss Farm, Revisited

For those who weren't living in the '60's, this book review covers some of the communal living farms which received press back then. I'm probably unjust, but I get a little whiff of the same romanticism now from some of the advocates of "biodynamic farming" and related themes.

"Unassuming"--You Break My Heart

I've liked Keira Knightley since "Bend It Like Beckham", so this line was a surprise (from an LATimes article on her new movie, on Georgiana Cavendish, the 18th century dish.)

"Keira is quite unassuming-looking in real life,"

What Is Farming in China?

Terrace farming
Originally uploaded by Klobetime

This photo from Klobetime at Flickr says a lot about Chinese farming, at least traditional Chinese farming. Lots of manual labor went into this. You can't use machines, not big machines well. And it makes maximum use of the land.

Why McCain Can't Do Away with Earmarks

From a good Slate piece summarizing various Palin controversies:

Does she oppose federal earmarks?

Alaska has long been the recipient of astounding amounts of federal funding. While Palin slashed pork requests in half during her tenure, the state still requested $550 million in Palin's first year in office. This year she has requested about $198 million—$295 per person—which is still the highest amount per-capita in the country, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense. And when she was the mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired an Anchorage-based firm to secure $27 million in federal earmarks for the town.

Now the McCain camp will defend this by saying she was only acting on behalf of Alaskans, doing just what we'd expect any elected official do to. Which is true. There are very, very few people who can retain elective office without bringing home the pork, I mean bacon.

The problem is similar to the base closing problem--the idea that every federal installation (i.e., military base, USDA office) must be retained because it benefits the local economy. DOD has bypassed the problem by setting up the periodic base closing commission, which makes recommendations which get an up or down vote in Congress. I'm not sure what you can do for earmarks that would work similarly.

A Lack of Form Design Bureaucrats

Technically, forms designers are bureaucrats at a remove; they design the systems by which bureaucracies interface with real people. This post on The Hill Blog on ballot blunders notes the failure of our society to produce enough good forms designers (and now we've moved to computer-based voting, user-interface designers), which screws up our elections.