Vance Notice

It's in the news that Trump is “exhausted,” and that's supposedly why he's been canceling appearances.

Maybe.

There's a lot of attention paid to him seeming to nod off. But, you know, he's been doing that all along. and it's never been portrayed by him or his team as exhaustion. What is happening more often are incoherent rambles, which some of the media has tried to paper over. And that has led to accusations of “sanewashing.”

Numerous stories have suggested that his aids are hiding him. Such a story in The Wrap quotes political commentator Tara Setmayer from an appearance on MSNBC's The ReidOut as saying, “The more he’s out there, the more people are repelled by him, and his advisers are smart enough to know that.”

The Mental Decline Scenario

Let's consider, just for a moment, the mental decline hypothesis. We have two reasons to take this seriously. One is that he accused Biden of it, and he's long been accused of projection. But the other is that there's a lot of evidence that his campaign rallies are getting weirder and weirder, to the point where Harris is straight out suggesting that people watch or attend her opponent's rallies, just to see it for themselves.

Consider, for example, the recent town hall that he turned into a “musical fest” playing his Spotify favorites list after declaring “Let's not do any more questions, let's just listen to music. … Who the hell wants to hear questions, right?“ Yeah, at a town hall. Why would anyone expect questions there? Surely they just came to hear Pavarotti sing Ave Maria.

It probably won't surprise anyone that some artists have threatened legal action over the unauthorized use of their music. No, I didn't think so.

People, including medical experts, have credibly accused him of mental decline, not just because of this event, but for other reasons as well.

Around the same time as this musical incident, a story ran on CBS News saying that “More than 230 doctors, nurses and health care professionals, most of whom are backing Vice President Kamala Harris, are calling on former President Donald Trump to release his medical records, arguing that he should be transparent about his health ’given his advancing age.’” Of course, some will point to these being Harris supporters. But if you were a doctor alarmed about the mental health of one of the candidates, would you be still voting for him? So it's not clear that this statistic disqualifies those people. And it's not helpful that there isn't transparency of his medical records, which we've asked of other candidates and Presidents.

Prison Looms

But Trump is pending sentencing on the hush money case. And there are several other trials pending as well. It doesn't reliably work his favor to drop out of his candicacy. And it really doesn't help Vance either, because the GOP made the argument that if Biden dropped out, that invalidated the ticket. They suggested Kamala had never won a Presidential primary. Vance has never won a Presidential primary either. Both have been Senators. But Kamala has been on a winning ticket in the general election, and Vance has not. Would that sway GOP voters? Maybe not. OK, almost certainly not. But it's a bad look. It might influence some independents.

It's pretty clear that Trump's path to steering clear of jail is to get elected, turn the US into a dicatorship, and cancel anything that looks like a prosecution. And it's pretty clear that anyone else claiming to be a GOP leader is really just a sycophant. They want the power of a Republican presidency at all costs, and this is as close to “all costs” as one could really imagine. It may cost us the survival of democracy, and perhaps the survival of the human species on planet earth. But they want power that badly, so they're on board with what they hope is the Trump juggernaut.

After Election

If elected, he might serve 4 years and then gracefully step down. The Constitution would not permit him to run again. What are the chances he wouldn't try to overcome that?

He might live that long, but he's old enough that he could die of poor health during that time. I wouldn't bet money on it, but I also wouldn't bet money against it. Who ever knows?

But is he mentally agile enough to lead for four years? Again, we don't have the advice of a doctor who's examined him to really say. Though we do have reason to think we might never get the full story .

Reporters often mention that, behind the scenes, Republicans don't like or respect Trump. It seeems they just won't go on the record about it. Mitt Romney comments on this in his book. In a recent biography of Mitch McConnell, the book's author says the same of McConnell. The common theme seems to be that they recognize Trump as their ticket to power.

A Second Trump Presidency

It's no secret I'm hoping sanity prevails and that Harris is elected. But let's consider the case that Trump is.

Do the Republicans still need him? My guess is that even they would see strong grounds to remove him, sooner or later. Probably sooner, given that he toys with the idea of dispensing with the Constitution. After all, both the Impeachment Power and the 25th Amendment need the Constitution to still be in play.

I'm guessing you worry I'm exaggerating, but Newsweek fact-checked one such claim in 2023 and found Trump had indeed called to suspend the Constitution. Moreover, there is his claim that he wouldn't be a dicator “except for day one.”

Here's the thing, though. There is no procedure for becoming a temporary dictator. If he can pronounce himself a dictator on Day One, and get away with it, he can do it any day. At that point we'd just be relying on him to use self-control on all other days. Is that really something we can expect of him?

So let's take a moment to assess where we are, shall we? It's day one. The President wants to be a dicator. The same guy whose staff didn't think they could show him in public during the end of the election for fear people would see he was, perhaps, faltering mentally. At this point, the Constitution has a 25th Amendment. But he's planning strong-arm tactics to make the Constitution less effective. Republicans want to have power, but is that even meaningful in what's to come in this scenario? A few may imagine they'll have posts in a coming dictatorship, but I think most haven't thought that far ahead. The power most of them seek still relies on the Constitution.

After Trump's Presidency

But whether on Day One or some day soon after, I think its sufficiently possible that the 25th will get used that we dare not overlook that fact in considering the political consequences of this election.

In plain terms, the ordinarily-rare issue that a Vice President might take over seem unusually possible.

In even plainer terms, we had better be seriously contemplating the significance of a President Vance.

For example, if Vance becomes Acting or Actual President, would the world return to normal? I think not. I think it will just trade one source of dangers for another.

If you're thinking otherwise, perhaps you have missed a recent episode of The Rachel Maddow Show (TRMS) on MSNBC. Lately she's only doing it Monday nights, but it's really essential viewing. Set your DVR. In this case, I'm referring to an episode where she said this of JD Vance (and offered video to back up her claims):

«JD Vance says not only do conservatives need to, in his words, “wake up” but what they need to wake up to is the fact that most of American life and culture should be, in his words, “ripped out like a tumor.”»
  —Rachel Maddow on The Rachel Maddow Show (Sep 30, 2024)

Maddow goes on to say:

«When JD Vance says stuff like “we're in a late Republican period,” which is something he says all the time, he doesn't mean anything about the Republican Party, he means we're at the time right before the Roman Republic collapsed. And what happened after the Roman Republic collapsed? Well—whoo!—a dictator, Caesar, came in—and wasn't that better?»
  —Rachel Maddow on The Rachel Maddow Show (Sep 30, 2024)

The piece makes a decent case that he's not only comfortable with, but excited about, the idea of America having a dictator. Watch it in its entirety. Outtakes here cannot do it justice. It's well-researched and compellingly told. Typical Maddow.

There's so much more to be said from here, but I'll only sketch it. Project 2025, for example. It's a product of the Heritage Foundation, and Vance has in some forums tried to distance itself from it, as has Trump, but as Simon J. Levien, a political report for The New York Times, writes in an article titled What to Know About JD Vance and Project 2025:

«Mr. Vance … has connections to Project 2025 and its authors. Vance wrote the foreword for a book by Kevin Roberts, who oversaw Project 2025. “In the fights that lay ahead, these ideas are an essential weapon,” Mr. Vance wrote in the foreword for “Dawn’s Early Light,” a forthcoming book by Kevin D. Roberts, the leader of the Heritage Foundation and the man who oversaw Project 2025. The book was set for publication in September, but after Project 2025 drew national scrutiny, that was postponed until after Election Day.»

The ACLU also offers a summary of Project 2025's dangers. And the Center for American Progress (CAP) offers a useful comparison with how other dictatorships have taken hold.

It may also be worth a look at Timothy Snyder's book On Tyranny.

This long nightmare has seemed to be about Trump. With him lately ailing, maybe you thought it was over. But if Vance takes over, and that seems likely if the election goes “Trump's way,” this could just be the start of something even worse.

My point here is that you can't say you didn't know.
You've been given Vance notice.

 

---

Author's Notes:

If you got value from this post, please “Share” it.

If you'd like to read or listen to this warning in Seuss-style poetry form, check out my recent epic poem The Fraud Who Stole Freedom.

You might also like these recent posts by me:

• Political Terraforming
• A to-do list for repairing US democracy
• American Dictatorship
• The Pace of Political Evil

Also, although I count myself a political independent, not a Democrat, while democracy is hanging in the balance, I'm voting all-blue. If you're a US Citizen able to vote, I'm recommending the same for you. Please not sit it out. Please do not vote for a third party. Such actions leave the outcome to chance, which could have dire consequences this time around. This is not a normal election.

For the sake of Democracy,
please vote Democrat in 2024.

The graphic of Vance with the 25th Amendment in the background was created by me using a screenshot of text of the 25th Amendment to the US Constitution that I typeset in LibreOffice with a mix of Papyrus and Goudy Old Style fonts, then overlaid with the public domain photo of Vance from Wikipedia, and blended with layer effects using Gimp.

Green AI

I don't believe in “Green AI.”

It's not that it's impossible to do the things people are calling Green AI. Rather, it's that I'm not willing to call those things “green.”

Some of the most technologically capable people in the world see the environmental challenge that Large Language Models (LLMs) pose and think “I should make a green data center for this new project.” Then they buy offsets—a horror I'm not going to address here—or they actually invest money to make a new and allegedly green data center.

The thing is, humans didn't—and don't—really need AI. Human society worked fine without it. And those technologists could be solving preexisting problems that are still there but now perceived as someone else's problem.

New ‘green data centers’ for AI represent both the creation and the solution of a problem that didn't exist, leaving the world with as many probiems as before but also leaving the world with fewer technologists focused on the problems human society faces because those technologists are resting on their laurels—as if solving these problems—problems that needn't have existed—helped something other than their consciences.

AI and its associated effort has a big opportunity cost, stealing from the body of people who could solve others' problems. Myriad companies around the world are diverting effort from what they normally do to explore how not to have AI leave them behind. That effort and cost isn't solving the Climate Crisis either. It is plundering our best and brightest for noncritical problems.

Meanwhile Climate Change is killing us. We have real and immediate problems that LLM-style AI can't solve.

I say it can't because, as Chomsky so aptly puts it, it's a “plagiarism” engine. If, like me, you think Chomsky is right, then it's easy to conclude that if a solution was there to plagiarize, that solution could have already saved us. LLMs are not performing new and immediately trustable computation of the kind we need for Climate, they're just blurring and regurgitating already-existing, often even already-tried, thought.

Makework and waste and distraction are the key elements here, and none of that is helping. And, yes, enormous resource use makes it worse. But my point is that the resource spent isn't just on a problem we needn't have sought to solve, which would be bad enough, but addressing that steals human resources from problems we do need to solve.

There's a denialist belief that down the road things will pay off. But human civilization may not have that long to wait. The climate crisis is now. It will not wait. We need all hands on deck solving that, not distracted by a problem that, while intriguing, isn't yet mature enough to help.

Big Tech needs to solve existing problems, not make new ones, solve those new ones, and then collapse exhausted, leaving everyone else out here in the land of Little Or No Tech to solve the existing problems that were here in the first place, but without any help.

 

---

Author's Notes:

If you got value from this post, please “Share” it.

This post began as a post on Mastodon. I did light editing to re-host the essay here. Think of that one as a rough draft.

I created the graphic in Gimp, starting from a circle with a line through it that began as an SVG image that one of the chatbots at Abacus.ai made for me one day when I was exploring how to use it. The code for that is just:

<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" viewBox="0 0 100 100">
  <circle cx="50" cy="50" r="45" stroke="red" stroke-width="10" fill="none" />
  <line x1="15" y1="85" x2="85" y2="15" stroke="red" stroke-width="10" />
</svg>

Political Terraforming

This observation by David Roberts helped me crystalize some thoughts. I wrote them originally as a reply thread, but have included a tidier and slightly expanded form below that for easier reference.
   —Kent Pitman

My reply to David:

Rachel Maddow, over the last few weeks, has run some great pieces. In one of them, I recall her quoting one of Vance's idols saying something about just needing to rip out government agencies and install a smart guy who innately knows what needs doing. Your remark on libertarians matches that.

What they propose is utterly self-serving, not defensibly fair. It's full of bias and subject to corruption and degradation. No notion of oversight, like the current Supreme Court overseeing itself. But they soothe themselves that bludgeoning democracy into collective unconsciousness is ‘minimal,’ indulge the claim it's therefore a principled action, and then—in the safety of their own minds—call it a win.

This is why they dislike diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). If everyone were just like them—not diverse, if they had no obligation to include anyone not like them, then equity and fairness would come for free and there would be no one to include.

A need to satisfy someone other than oneself creates a problem they can't solve. They've given it no thought. In that light, it's easy to see why narcissists find DEI troubling. To them it is just an irritating inefficiency to be forced into having a mechanism for dealing fairly with anyone other than themselves.

Attacks on DEI aren't random. Just as attacks on women are not. Nor racial attacks. Nor those related to sexual preference or gender identity. And so on. It isn't just that they disdain these groups, though they do. It's that they want no rights at all. Rights are potential barriers to them. And barriers to them are the only ones they want to remove.

They want no rules. That's the kind of ‘libertarianism.’ they seek. But as I've long said:

“Where there are no rules, bullies rule.”
—me

They, these bullies, are terraforming our world to be habitable to them—at the expense of our pre-existing forms of life, which had previously thrived but which they have no use for.

Author's Notes:

If you got value from this post, please “Share” it.

The graphic was produced at abacus.ai using Claude Sonnet 3.5 and Flux.1. The prompt was “Draw a black and white sketch of a bulldozer mowing down the supreme court's building with a crane and a wrecking ball.”. Using Gimp, I made some adjustments to the image it generated, flipping which side of the “T” the ball was on, adding a public domain image of the scales portion, adjusting the rubble and taking a small bite out of the columns.

Still imaginable

“Don't wear your heavy coat yet,” my mom used to warn me. “You'll need it when it's colder.” She knew I had no heavier artillery for holding the cold at bay and felt somehow it was best to have a sense of proportion.

I mention that because news reports are describing Hurricane Helene's aftermath described as “unimaginable.” It's not. It's very, very painful to imagine because all death and destruction is painful, but we can imagine this much if we try.

Of course, if you have to go through it, even a single death—a single building falling in, a single shooting, a single cancer—is, in some sense, unimaginable. Words will never capture the horror. But, collectively, when doing news reporting, we don't use the word “unimaginable” for that. And it's not because it isn't severe. It's just because, horrifying as each individual bit of death and destruction is, we still need words left over to describe bigger events, those with more people, those that will take communities a longer time to recover from, if at all.

Maybe let's dial the language back. We probably shouldn't use up these extreme words yet. Save them for later. Climate's wrath has barely even given a hint of where it's going, and it's not going to relent until we start taking meaningful action. So far we're still mired in denial and daring Climate to do its worst.

So, yes, every death matters, and I hope not to trivialize a couple hundred deaths. What Helene did was horrible. And yet… And yet, let's be clear: The possibility of billions of deaths hangs now tangibly in the balance, or should. If you don't see that as a possibility, consider that you might be engaged in Climate denial.

The problem is that Climate is bigger. It's hard for us to see, but if there were a thousand deaths, even a million, that could still be comparatively small compared to what is very likely coming. Implicitly, by using superlative terms like “unimaginable” we send the subtle cue “this is it, this is finally an example of what we've been talking about.” It is not. A thousand instances of a million people dying is closer. Or a million instances of a thousand people dying. Or ten million situations like Hurricane Helene if it helps you visualize the magnitude of the pain—if it helps you imagine it.

We'd be alarmed about a thousand traffic accidents—we'd have trouble imagining even that because we'd want that to be an upper bound. But a couple hundred people dying due to a climate-related event (a storm, a flood, a fire, a famine, etc.) is not an upper bound on how bad things can get. It's not even a rounding error. I'm not saying it's small if you're living it, but I am saying Climate is big in a way that we're not used to talking about. So that's why I'd like to hold a few words in reserve. Otherwise, we'll be reaching for phrases like “unimaginable squared“ to compensate for the wasteland of available terminology.

We'll look back and wish for events so small as Helene, if there are any of us left to look back. Even that is not clear. If there is something for which the term unimaginable is warranted, it is that. And yet even for that, we must try to imagine it, because otherwise we're not going to fear it enough. We already don't.

 

---

Author's Notes:

If you got value from this post, please “Share” it.

This essay began with a post on Mastodon. On a first pass, I did very light editing here, mostly to add fonting and a graphic, a few small wording changes. Later in the day, after publishing and before doing any broad advertising, I decided to expand this a little, so this version ended up more elaborated than the original.

I'm worried people will interpret my remark about 20 million such events literally. It might be fewer but larger events. They might not be hurricanes but floods, fires, famines.

The graphic was produced at abacus.ai using Claude Sonnet 3.5 and Flux.1. The prompt was “Draw an image of a meter that is a semi-circle with a range of measurement that is normal, a range that is marked in yellow as indicating concern, and a range that is marked in red as an active problem. Show the meter pointing into the yellow area.”. Using Gimp, I made some adjustments to the image it generated, removing some lettering and changing where the dial pointed to.

Confronting New Ideas

A matter of Life and Death

I've given some thought to the meaning of death as it applies to those who have posted frequently on the internet. We often don't see people's writings in the order that they write them, and that means we can see new posts from them after they die.

Even without the internet this happens. I was in a bookstore recently and saw a book by Michael Crichton and asked the shopkeeper, “Isn't this his third posthumous book?” “Yeah…” he sheepishly responded. Someone is plainly raiding his basement for rejected works and projects that were far enough along that someone else can complete them and claim to have been co-author. His heirs are probably happy for the income, even if the publishing timeline is confusing to some readers.

Perhaps it's even possible for a prolific writer to write so much that readers never really perceive them as dead because they just keep seeing new stuff. So in what sense are they dead? Most readers were perhaps never going to meet them, and so in some sense—of observables—these writers are doing the same things that live ones are.

The elusive nature of intelligence

The big thing dead authors cannot do is the same thing GenAI/LLMs cannot do: competently respond to a new situation, question, or idea.

Oh, sure, the prompt topic might be something someone has speculated on before, so these engines can regurgitate that. Or the topic idea might be enough similar to a previous idea that the probabilities of guessing something acceptable to say based on just assuming it was really just an old idea is high enough that it escapes scrutiny that the topic idea was not really properly understood.

As I imagine—or perhaps just hope?—the makers of standardized tests like the SAT would tell you, there's more to competence than statistically guessing enough right answers to get a passing grade. The intent of such tests is not to say that if you know these things, you know the topic. It is to assume you have a mental model that lets you answer on any possible aspect of that model, and then to poke at enough randomly chosen places that you can hope to detect flaws in the model.

But these so-called AI technologies do not have a mental model. They just hope they've read enough standardized test preparation guides or pirated actual tests that they can fake their way. And since a lot of the things that they're claiming competence in are things that people have already written about, the technology manages to show promise—perhaps more promise than is warranted.

Real people build a mental model that allows them to confront not just the present but the future, while these technologies do no such planning. The models real people make probably hope the future is a lot like today, but people hopefully can't—and anyway shouldn't—get by on bluffing. Not the kind of bluffing today's “AI” tech does. That tech is not growing. It is dead. It has no plan for confronting a new idea other than to willfully ignore the significance of any real newness.

Just like my example of publication and death on the internet, the “AI” game is structured so it takes a long time for weakness to be recognized—unless just the right question is asked. And then, perhaps, the emperor will be seen clearly to have no clothes.

The dynamic nature of ethics

Which is also why it troubles me when I'm told that people are incorporating ethics. It troubles me because ethics itself has to be growing all the time, constantly asking itself, “How might I not be ethical?”

Ethics is not something you do on one day and are done with. Ethics is a continuing process, and one that needs its own models.

Worse, the need for ethics is easily buried under the sophistry of how things have always been done. The reason that bias and stereotypes and all that have survived as long as they have is that they do have practical value to someone, perhaps many people, even as they trod on the just due of others.

The sins of our society are deeply woven, and easily rediscovered even if superficial patches are added to hide them. Our whole culture is a kind of rationalization engine for doing things in biased ways based on stereotype information, and AI is an engine ready to reinforce that, operating at such high speed that it's hard to see happening, and in such volume that it's economically irresistible not to accept as good enough, no matter the risk of harm.

Where we're headed

Today's attempts at “AI” bring us face to face with stark questions about whether being smart is actually all that important, or whether faking it is good enough. And as long as you never put these things in situations where the difference matters, maybe the answer will seem to be that smart, in fact, doesn't matter. But…

There will be times when being smart really does matter, and I think we're teaching ourselves trust in the wrong technologies for those situations.

 

---

Author's Notes:

If you got value from this post, please “Share” it.

This post began as a post on Mastodon. It has been edited to correct myriad typos and to clarify and expand various portions in subtle ways. Think of that post as a rough draft.

The graphic uses a lightbulb drawn by abacus.ai's gpt-4o engine with flux.1. The original prompt was “draw a simple black and white image that shows a silhouette of a person thinking up an idea, showing a lightbulb near their head” but then I removed the person from the picture and overlaid the circle and slash ‘by hand’ in Gimp.

Unhelpful Paywalls

It happens quite often—sometimes many times a day—that someone gives me a link to information somewhere that they think I should read. Many of those those links don't actually take me where the person referring me meant for me to go. There's an intermediate stop at a paywall, a chance to subscribe to someone's information source.

Another time I'll talk about what's wrong with news pricing, but for today I hope we can agree that some news subscriptions are too expensive for mere mortals, and even free subscriptions aren't really free—they take time to sign up for, and they promise cascades of unwanted email. So when people reach one of these paywalls, there are various reasons why they often either can't or don't go beyond it. If not out-and-out barriers, paywalls are major impediments to obtaining timely information.

They are also more likely to be actual barriers to someone who is poor than someone who is rich, so they create a stratification of information availability by class in our society, dividing us along familiar lines into “haves” and “have nots,” informationally speaking.

Sometimes the downstream effects of that information imbalance just seem very unjust.

Insisting on a “Paywall Exception”

While I'd like to propose a wholesale rethinking of how we fund our news industry, for now I'll propose something simpler—a “Paywall Exception” for some topics: that are just so important that it isn't in the public interest for them to enjoy intellectual property protection. I just don't want to see paywalls keeping the public from knowing about and sharing important categories of information:

• For impending storms, lives are on the line. Advance notice could make the difference between life and death. If there is information about where those storms are going or how to prepare, that information should be freely available to all. Anyone who wants to profit on such information is guilty of sufficiently immoral behavior that we need a strong legal way to say “don't do that.”

• For pandemics, a lack of information is a danger not just to each citizen's own personal health, but to the health of those impacted by people making poor decisions that might lead to transmission. It is a moral imperative that everyone in society have access to best possible information.

• For existential threats to democracy or humanity, we cannot afford to close our eyes. The stakes are far too high. Democracy is under active assault world-wide, but especially in the United States right now. Climate is similarly urgent, and aggravated by how societally mired we are in deep denial, unwilling to even admit how very serious and rapidly evolving the problem is. Disinformation campaigns are a big part of both situations. Those peddling misleading information are most assuredely going to make their propaganda as freely available as possible. Truth can barely keep up. We don't need further impediments like paywalls on top of that, or else, soon enough, there won't be any of us left to matter.

I get that news outfits need to make money, but when I see critical information about an upcoming storm, or a possible pandemic, or assaults on democracy or climate change, I get more than average frustrated by seeing that such information is stuck behind a paywall.

There must be no secret storms, no secret pandemics, and no secret existential threats to democracy or humanity.

They should make their money another way.

 

---

Author's Notes:

If you got value from this post, please “Share” it.

It's beyond the scope of this essay, and would have complicated things too much to mention it in the main body, but there is also the issue of how to implement this exception. It could be voluntary, but I doubt that would work. Or people using the information could assert fair use, but that's risky given the economic stakes in copyright violations. Three strategies occur to me that perhaps I'll elaborate on elsewhere. (1) We could expressly weaken copyright law in some areas related to news, so that it exempted certain topics, or shortened their duration to a very small amount measured in hours or days, depending on the urgency of the situation; (2) we could clarify or extend the present four criteria for fair use; or (3) we could (probably to the horror of some of my lawyer friends) extend intellectual property law to have the analog of what real estate law calls an easement, a right of non-property holders against property holders to make certain uses. I kind of like this latter mechanism, which leaves copyright per se alone and yet could be better structured and more reliable to use than fair use. (One might even sue for such an easement where it didn't occur naturally.) But that's topic for another day.

The graphic was generated at Abacus.ai using Claude Sonnet 3.5 and variously either Dall-E or Flux.1. There are many reasons I'm not entirely sure I'm happy with so-called “AI”—or Large Language Models (“LLMs”)—but for now I am using graphics generation to experiment with the technology since, like it or not, we don't seem to be able to hold the tech at bay. The prompts used were, respectively:

1. (Flux.1) «Design a 500x500 image of a fancy signpost, with text on a brown background and white gold trim, that bears the words "Entry Restricted" with a horizontal line below that text and above additional text that says "Critical Info Beyond Only For The Rich".»

2. (Dall-E) «Design a color image of photocopier under glass with a sign attached that says "In case of societal threat, break glass." A small hammer is affixed, attached by a chain, to help in the case that the glass needs to be broken.» (But then the hammer was not correctly placed in the picture. It was detached from in the chain and in a strange place, so I had to fix that in Gimp.)

3. (Flux.1) «Draw a 1000x500 image of an elegant sign, with a brown background and white gold borders and lettering, in copperplate font, that has three messages, each on a separate line which are "No Secret Storms", "No Secret Pandemics", and "No Secret Existential Threats", but make these messages share a single use of the word "NO" in the left hand column, tall enough that the rest of the phrases can appear stacked and to the right of the larger word "NO".»

A to-do list for repairing US democracy

 

If we're lucky enough  not to spiral down into dictatorship during this fall's Presidential election in the US, we need to have a ready-made to-do list for repairing democracy.

To start off a conversation on that, here's my current thinking…

Draft Proposed “Freedom Amendment” to the US Constitution

(Rationales, in green, are informational, not part of the amendment.)

In order to solidify and preserve democratic rule within these United States, these changes are hereby ordered to all United States policies and procedures:

1. Voting

1. No Electoral College. The Electoral College is hereby dissolved. Presidential elections shall henceforth be determined directly by majority vote of all United States citizens who are eligible to vote.

2. No commercial interference in elections. No for-profit corporation or company, nor any non-profit corporation or company that as their primary business offers products or services for commercial sale, may contribute to campaigns or other activities that could reasonably be seen as trying to affect election. (The ruling in Citizens United v. FEC is vacated.)

3. Restore the Voting Rights Act. The ruling in Shelby County v. Holder that voided section 4 is hereby reversed, restoring this Act to its full form and asserting full Constitutional backing to the Act. Preclearance is hereby required for all 50 states equally.

4. No “gerrymandering.” The practice of gerrymandering while drawing district boundaries at the federal and state levels is hereby disallowed.

5. Ranked-choice voting. All federal elections shall be handled via a ranked-choice voting process.

2. Ethics & Oversight

1. Supreme Court Ethics Code. The Supreme Court shall henceforth be governed by the same ethics code that binds all federal courts.

2. Congress and the Supreme Court shall be subject to term limits.

   1. Senators may be elected to no more than 3 terms.
   2. Representatives may be elected to no more than 5 terms.
   3. Supreme Court Justices may serve no more than 18 years.

3. No one is above the law. Elected members of all three branches of government are subject to all laws, just like any other person, even though prosecution of such a person for crimes must wait until that person leaves office. In cases where immediate prosecution might be important, impeachment is an option.

4. Senate impeachment votes are not optional. If the House impeaches someone, the Senate must immediately perform all business necessary to assure a timely vote on that impeachment; this process is not optional and may not be postponed. Once an actionable concern has been raised that a public official might have committed a crime, the public has an interest in swift resolution.

5. House and Senate impeachment votes are temporarily private. Impeachment votes by both House and Senate will be recorded and tallied privately, preferably electronically, with only the aggregate result reported immediately. Individual votes will be held securely in private for a period of ten years, at which time all such votes will be made a public part of the historical record.

6. Public office is not a refuge to wait out the clock on prosecution. Any clock for the Statute of Limitations does not run while prosecution is not an option. This applies for all elected persons for whom indictment or prosecution is locked out due to participation in public office, but in particular for POTUS. It may be necessary to the doing of orderly public business not to prosecute a President while in office, however public office is not a refuge in which someone may hide out until the clock runs out on otherwise-possible prosecutions, whether that clock began before or during time in office.

7. Pardon power is subject to conflict-of-interest (COI) restrictions. It is necessary to the credibility of all public officials in a free society that there be some reasonable belief that rules of law do not create options for corrupt officials to abuse the system. Presidents and other state and federal officials embued with the pardon power may never apply such power to themselves, their families, or any other individuals with whom there is even an appearance of conflict of interest. No such person may solicit any action by anyone on promise of a pardon. Any single such action, attempted action, or promise of action where there is a conflict of interest that is known or reasonably should have been know to the party exercising pardon power is an impeachable offense and a felony abuse of power subject to a penalty of ten years in prison.

8. Independence of Department of Justice. The head of the Department of Justice shall be henceforth selected by a supermajority (2/3) vote of the House of Representatives, without any special input from or deference to the Executive.

   Rationale: Assure DOJ operates independently of the Executive, its mission being to fairly and impartially uphold Law, not to be a tool of partisan or rogue Presidential power.

9. Independence of the Supreme Court. Justices of the DOJ shall be henceforth selected by a supermajority (2/3) vote of the House of Representatives.

   Rationale:

   1. When SCOTUS must rule on the validity of Presidential action, a conflict of interest is created if those Justices might be appointed by that same President or even a majority party.

   2. Since the Constitution requires a supermajority to change its intent, an equivalent degree of protection is essential for choosing those will will interpret that intent. Recent history has suggested that it was easier to change the Court than to change the Constitution, with catastrophic effect decidedly unfair to the majority of citizens.

   3. A President is more than Appointer of Justices, yet that singular capability is so powerful and lasting that it often dominates election campaigns. Citizens need to be free to hire Presidents for other reasons more unique to the moment, such as good judgment; logistical, management, or negotiating skill; expertise in technical or scientific matters; or even just empathy with public issues.

3. Rights of People

1. Corporations are not people. Corporations are legal constructions, nothing more.

   Rationale: To say that they are independent people, is to give some actual people (those who own or control them) unequal, magnified, elitist, or otherwise distorted power over others. There is no place for this in a democracy that purports to speak of all people being created as equals.

   1. No Implicit Rights of Corporations. Any powers and duties of corporations must be explicitly granted to them, as coporations, whether by the Constitution or by legal statute, and henceforth must never be derived from any implication of imagined personhood.

   2. Explicitly Enumerated Rights of Corporations. Long-standing legal powers and duties of corporations such as the right to sign contracts, the right to own property, the responsibility to pay taxes, and any legal responsibility under tort law are hereby acknowledged by express enumeration in support of demonstrated corporate need and are no longer intended to be inferred as part of any preposterous fiction that corporations are just another kind of person.

   3. Non-Rights of Corporations. Alleged rights such as, but not limited to, rights of free speech and religious rights for corporations are hereby clarified to be nullified and without basis. A corporation has no automatic rights of people extending from any metaphor of being person-like. Politics is the province of individual persons, not corporations. Corporations exist for sales, subject to the rules of laws made by individuals, not vice versa.

2. Bodily autonomy right. All mentally competent people have a right to autonomy over choices of medical procedures affecting their own body.

   1. No Forced Pregnancies. From the time of conception to the time of birth, no government nor any other person may have a superseding say over a pregnant person as to any matter relating to a fetus.

      Rationale: This should already follow from the Religious Freedom Clarification, but it is too important to leave to chance. To say that any other person could make such choices would be to allow their religious freedom to infringe the religious freedoms of the pregnant person.

      Also, the term “pregnant person” is used here intentionally to include that adulthood is not a requirement of bodily autonomy. In general, any person who has not been legally ruled mentally incompetent is entitled to self-determination on matters like this. Not even a parent should have superseding control, since a parent will not have to live a lifetime with the consequences.

   2. Fetal Disposition is a Private Matter. Whether a pregnant person wishes to refer to a fetus as simply a fetus, a potential life, an unborn child, or an actual child is a personal religious choice to be made by that pregnant person. No law shall impose a policy on this.

      Rationale: To say otherwise would be to deny the obvous fact that people simply differ on this matter. To assume there were some single right way that everyone must adhere to would be to give dominance to some religious philosophies over others.

      It's a compromise, but the only one that it allows each person the best guarantee of at least some autonomy in a society where not everyone agrees and we are not likely to change that fact by fiat.

      Also, and importantly, some pregnancies are not successful and even in a society where we permit abortion for those who weren't wanting to be pregnant, it would be callous and undignified not to acknowledge the legitimate loss to others who sincerely wanted to carry a pregnancy to term but were unable. It is possible to be respectful in both situations, by feeling the grief of someone who wanted a child and not manufacturing grief for someone else who did not.

3. Right to Choose a Marital Partner. Among consenting adults, the choice to choose who to marry must not be restricted due to race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

   Rationale: This has been accepted already and it is not appropriate to roll that back. It was a good idea anyway, though, because happy families add an extra level of safety net protection to society. Family members try to take care of one another during sickness and other hard times, and this hopefully reduces some amount of stress on public safety nets.

4. Religious Freedom Clarification. The right to religious self-determination is a basic human right.

   1. Religious Choice. All people have the right to explore religous choice on their own timeline and terms. No one is required to pick any particular philosophy, or any philosophy at all, or even to make a choice.

   2. Religious Equality. Religious protections span all religious choices (and non-choices), and hence are accorded equally to all people. No person may be accorded second-class legal status on the basis of their religious philosophy—or lack thereof.

      Rationale: So atheists, agnostics, etc. are still due religious freedom protection. Answers to “Is there a God?” are still due religious protection if the answer is “no” or “I don't know” or “I haven't decided” or “I don't know what that means” or “This is not a binary question.”

   3. No State Religion. The so-called “establishment clause” of the First Amendment is hereby clarified to mean that the United States takes no position that might give the appearance of preferring one religon over another.

      Rationale: We are not, for example, a Christian nation. Nor a Jewish nation. And so on. And yet the US is a nation that intends to treat each religion and non-religion in the same supportive and respectful way, and expects each of these religions to be respectful of others. This is how balance is maintained in pluralistic society.

   4. Religion is not a Popularity Contest. The fact that one religious philosophy might at any given point be more common than another does afford that philosophy a greater or lesser status.

   5. No Bullying in the name of Religion. The freedom of religious choice is not a right to bully or coerce, nor to violate law. Each person's right of religious choice extends only to the point where it might infringe on the equivalent rights of others.

Yes, this could be done by separate amendments. But it would be a lot of them, and the discussion would be much more complex. I say do it all at once because every one of these things is absolutely needed.

If anything, there might be a few things I left out.

 

---

Author's Notes:

If you got value from this post, please “Share” it.

This post was catalyzed by a single tweet by me on ex-Twitter, but it has been hugely elaborated since, after all, this venue does not have a 280 character limit.

The odd graphic of the scales of justice under repair was created by Abacus.AI's ChatLLM facility, using Claude Sonnet 3.5 and Dall-E and the prompt:

Draw a picture of a grayscale statue of a woman holding the scales of justice in one raised hand and a small wrench and a pair of needle-nose pliers in the other hand, lower, at her side. part of the statue should include a toolbox next to her feet that is open and presumably where she's taken the wrench from. the woman should be wearing a flowing gown, as is traditional for this kind of statue, but she should have a pair of goggles on her head, as one would use in a metal shop to protect one's eyes. The woman should have a pair of protective goggles, like one would use for metal working, over her eyes.

And, yes, I'm aware I did not get the needle-nose pliers got left out. And on this iteration I didn't ask for her to be seated, though I had been thinking of requesting she be seated at a work bench to resolve some unwanted aspects of previous attempts, so I went with this as the best of several tries.