You probably haven't heard many people say “Nobody would have been a better President than George W Bush”. But unless you are one of the 20% that think he's done a fine job, you are not parsing the sentence correctly. Today's po is “Having nobody as President would have been better than Bush.”

Read more...

As we approach the 2008 Presidential Election, many people will be relieved to see George W Bush's reign end.

Bush's approval rating is about 20%. A huge majority of the country think he is doing a lousy job. That's not the same as saying that he should be fired, but it is pretty close to it. No opinion poll that I have seen has asked the question “If you had the chance, would you vote Bush out of office?” but it seems that there is a good chance that many, possibly a majority, would. It is fortuitous, perhaps, that he is about to be replaced, but that is an accident of the system, not part of the system.

What if Bush still had another 3 and a half years before the next election? Today's po is “Shouldn't we be able unelect the president?”

If a majority of the people in a democracy wants the person who is President not to be their President any more, why should he remain President?

I'm sure many would answer “because that's what the Constitution says”, but I'm asking whether we need a better constitution – a better democratic process.

There have been times when a President-Elect did not have the support of the majority of the voters even on the day he won the election. Bush did not in 2000, because of the random anachronism of the Electoral College – which suggests a pretty obvious need for reform of the democratic process if we are to be serious about being a democracy. But even in Florida, Bush did not have a majority of the votes. Had the votes cast for any one of the five candidates coming third or worse gone to Gore, then Gore would have won (not only Florida, but the Presidency).

But why should someone be President of a democracy, when a majority of the people – even on day one – don't want him to be? Why should not a minimum job requirement of the President of a democracy be that a majority to the people want him or her to be their president – each and every day that he or she holds the office?

Because nobody would ever get a majority? That's clearly not true. Candidates have got a majority; Gore appeared to in 2000, and Bush appeared to in 2004. (I say “appeared to” because the electoral system doesn't produce a conclusive result for the popular vote. We never know how many people didn't bother to vote in states were the result was a forgone conclusion for their state).

But it would certainly be harder if the election wasn't over until one candidate had a majority. It would require a more sophisticated voting mechanism; one in which voters were able to change their votes, but that's not impossible. If we wanted, it's quite possible to have a voting system in which voters could change their votes – where voters could vote for who they wanted, when they wanted, and for just as long as they wanted.

I wonder what such an election would be like? Many of the conventions of the current system would have to remain. At some point, Hillary would have to concede that she can't win and withdraw – an attempt to concede specifically to Obama, passing her support to him. She might have to do it even though she held 20% of the “real votes” to Obama's 22%. But, unllike primaries, they would be real votes – not the votes of minority of voters in a minority of states, not pledges of super-delegates, but real votes placed by real voters anywhere in the US. She would do it to give a democrat (albeit her second choice) a chance of winning against a republican who might already have 42% of the real vote, and to give that democrat the chance to win over the 18% of voters who have not voted or voted for someone else.

In the system I envisage, Hillary would be able to “pass over” the votes she held to the candidate she chooses, so Obama might immediately jump to 42%, in this example. But the voters don't have to agree with her. Any voter whose vote Hillary passed to Obama could change that vote to any other candidate. (This action shows the need need for a “cooling off period” - enough time for voters to assess a situation and act, by changing their vote, if they choose to.)

What if the voters choose “none of the above”? What if they obstinately refuse to give anyone a majority. Is this an expression by the people that “Nobody” is better than anybody; that not having a president for a while might be a good idea? Some candidate may not agree and those are the candidates that might see the wisdom in stepping aside, in passing the support to another candidate, so that he might obtain an overall majority. Some voters might not agree either, and those voters would change their vote from their preferred, but hopeless, candidate to their preference from those who have a chance. Their preferred candidates obstinacy to surrender his ambition in the face of the voter's perceived need to agree on a president may be the stimulus to change the vote. And if enough of the people feel that the “least worst candidate” is better than “Nobody” then he or she will get a majority and the job.

What if voters changed their minds after the election? Let's assume that the election ends, not just when one candidate's votes momentarily exceed 50%, but when the candidate has maintained that position for a reasonable cooling off period. Perhaps 30 days; long enough for the Press to inform the voters, and the opposition to have their chance to dissuade the people. Long enough to provide convincing evidence that “the people have decided”. But what happens if “the people change their mind”. In the same spirit of providing convincing evidence of an informed, deliberate, and deliberated decision, suppose that a majority of voters not only think the current President is doing a poor job, not only do not support the incumbent as President, but also activity wish him fired, and that position has been maintained for 30 days, shouldn't he be fired?

Should we have a right – and a mechanism – to Unelect A President?

These comments relate to the DEIS assessment of the consequences of the release of pathogens from the NBAF and probability thereof, and omission of environmental impact of foreseen collateral development.

Logic Flaws in Determining the Worst-Case Scenario

The methodology of limiting the study to three pathogens in order to determine the worst-case scenario is invalid for these reasons:

1. It presumes that the answer is known in order to determine the answer. While it is plausible that professionals have an intuitive knowledge of “hardest” pathogen to handle, they cannot know the full consequences of the escape of any pathogen in order to determine, a priori, which has the worst consequences. In particular, they cannot know the result a priori for each of the possible sites in order to differentiate the relative merits of the possible sites. For example, Hendra may have worse consequences that Nipah where there is a high population of horses, since the former is transmitted from equines to humans. To say (DEIS Page 3-371) “HV raises no concerns that are not present for the Nipah virus”, ignores the fact that the equine density surrounding the possible sites is markedly different. It is possible, for example, that high equine density around the NC site, compared to Plum Island, combined with the higher risk to humans in contact with equines that Hendra represents could be the determining decision factor in site selection. Yet the issue has not been studied. The EIS is not complete unless the potential effect of each of the pathogens that may be present at the NBAF has been considered in the relation to the specific environmental situation at each possible site.

2. The logic of the DEIS is that the worst-case consequence of the release of pathogens from the NBAF is the consequence of the single worst-case pathogen. This logic is flawed. There is no reason to be certain an escape from NBAF would be limited to a single pathogen. On the contrary, there is every reason to believe that an intentional release (by hostile interests) would be a simultaneous release of as many pathogens as possible, particularly if a simultaneous release has not been studied and mitigated against. There is no a prior reason to believe that all consequences of the second and subsequent pathogens would be subsumed in the consequences of the first. While it is only necessary to kill an animal once, even for two pathogens, there is no a prior reason to believe that it would be the same animal that needed to be killed for all pathogens. There is a possibility that some consequences will be additive or worse. Response personal may not be available to handle the response to the second pathogen because they are occupied performing the (different) action required by the first. In the absence of a specification of, and study of, the response plan for each pathogen it is not possible to determine if the actions interact positively or negatively. In the worst case the response actions for one pathogen may be prohibited by the actual or possible presence of a second pathogen. Perhaps hunters would be unable to de-populate deer to control FMD because of actual or perceived personal danger from one of the other pathogens simultaneously released. History shows that many real unmitigated disasters stem from the failure to plan against a combination of factors. The combination of the consequences of all pathogens present at NBAF must be studied and evaluated.

Understatement of the Consequences of the Worst-case Scenario

The DEIS presumes that the worst-case consequences are completely determined and described by a dollar figure for US loses. This omits the consequences on the (unspecified) party that takes the loss, consequences that are not reversible by financial compensation, and the consequences of the actions on the world outside the US.

1. Losses borne by “the local county” or local farmers could cause hardships or other consequences that add to the worst-case consequences. For example, it may cause a permanent decrease of the scale of the agriculture industry or the inability of the local county to maintain essential services.

2. If, as many might assume but is not stated in the DEIS, the costs a borne by the federal government, which is already massively in deficient, it is likely that the consequences of increasing that deficit would be more than simply an increase the size of the national debt..

3. The consequences, even if fully financially compensated for, are not necessarily reversible. The genes of a bloodline wiped out by a de-population response action are gone forever, and cannot be recovered by financial compensation.

4. The consequences do not stop at the US border. Most of the consequences noted constitute a decrease in the food supply exported from the US. There is already insufficient food to feed the world’s population. As with the redirection of corn from food to bio-fuel, a reduction in the food exports from the US translates into starvation somewhere in the world. A 2003 Pentagon report documented the causal connection from deprivation and starvation to political and economic de-stabilization, that leads to regional wars and increased terrorism. Thus the worst-case scenario may be spiraling up in terrorism.

Understatement of the Probability of the Worst-Case Scenario

The DEIS significantly understates the probability of a pathogen escape, particularly the intentional simultaneous escape of many or all of the pathogens present. By creating the NBAF on mainland of the US with a “treasure trove” of 50+ of the worst pathogens, the DHS is creating a prime terrorist target, that could be attacked by means that completely bypass the protections presumed in the DEIS. Terrorists have as much time to plan how to defeat the protections as the DHS has to create them. Consider, for example, the consequences of terrorist sympathizers infiltrating the staff that designs, constructs or operates the NBAF. We may, unknowingly, have a bio-containment with a “back-door” or an intentional weakness that terrorists know how to exploit and plan to do so. Personnel who are rigorously trained in the procedure they must follow for safety are implicitly trained in a procedure to follow to create danger.  A “sleeper” terrorist sympathizer could become a pilot for American Airlines who could crash a 767 fully fueled for the flight to London into the NBAF just seconds after takeoff from RDU 20 miles away, without the possibility of intervention by passengers or the Air Force.

Such possibilities are easy to conceive – by us and our enemies – but impossible to estimate as probabilities. There is no a priori reason to believe the probability is low or consistent with the DEIS conclusion of a “Moderate” environment effect for biological, sociological or human.health and safety. The justification for the participation of the DHS is based on the likelihood of terrorists using these pathogens, which suggests that if DHS is justified in doing the project at all, the likelihood that terrorists would attack the treasure trove of pathogens should be considered high. The magnitude of the 9/11 disaster was amplified by the failure of the World Trade Center architects to conceive of the form of the attack, particularly as the weapon – a fully-fueled jet airliner of a size that did not exist when the buildings were designed. The buildings’ structure collapsed not because the creators did something wrong but because they did not attempt to defend against a problem they did not think of. To believe that we now know the probability of such an omission is foolish and dangerous.

The two major points above, the magnitude of the consequences and the likelihood of release caused by terrorists have a multiplicative effect on the differentiation between sites, particularly between the Plum Island site and mainland sites. The higher the possible negative consequences of a release, the more likely terrorists are to try to cause that release. Therefore the Plum Island site benefits twice: the consequences of a release are smaller because of the water separation from livestock and wildlife and the cooler climate reducing the transmission by mosquito. Because the consequences are smaller, it is a less enticing target for terrorists, and favorability of the island site over any mainland site increases quadratically.

Omission by pre-condition of potentially better options

Because of this quadratic benefit of island sites, the DHS should re-consider the pre-condition set on site selection that requires NBAF to be in the proximity of people (researchers and other workers), particularly if for some reason the Plum Island site is eliminated. “Proximity to research “ and “proximity to workers” are site variables that should be considered and evaluated along with other variables. Including them as pre-conditions eliminates consideration of more remote islands – which gain from the quadratic benefit described above. There are plenty of examples, from offshore drilling rigs, to the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay that demonstrate the feasibility of moving the resources to the desired location rather than locating where the resources are. There are equally good examples of research collaboration across distant locations, and indeed across the world. There are costs to isolation, but they should be evaluated and compared against the cost, severity and likelihood of the potential disaster scenarios, rather that taken as a predetermine stipulation biased against the security that the DHS was created to attain.

Omission of Environmental Impact of Collateral Development

The NC Consortium argues that the hosting community will benefit (economically) by collateral development, including further development required to fulfill DHS and USDA’s mission, and specifically a FMD vaccine manufacturing plant.  Currently any FMD vaccine required in the event of an outbreak in the US would be manufactured in the UK at the plant that is immediately adjacent to the UK’s equivalent of NBAF. The cycle time for shipping the vaccine strain, once identified by NBAF, to the UK and shipping the vaccine back to the US is considered unacceptable, even assuming that the US’s need is the UK’s top priority.

Once the NBAF has been built in the US the argument that an associated vaccine manufacturing plant should be collocated with NBAF will be made and will be undeniable. Therefore for all practical purposes the site decision for NBAF is the same as the decision to site the associated vaccine plant. Therefore the environmental impact of the vaccine plant and all other reasonably predictable collateral development must be included as part of the Environmental Impact Statement for the NBAF.

It makes no sense for the NC Consortium to justify the development and the costs to be borne by the hosting community on the basis of both the NABF and its collateral development, but to balance it against the environmental impact of only the first part of the development.

In particular, the NC Consortium argues that the quantities of pathogens at NBAF are too small to constitute an attractive terrorist target. However the quantities of live vaccine handled by the manufacturing plant are vastly greater, and therefore make the vaccine plant a significantly more attractive terrorist target, and well as a much more likely source of pathogen escape. It is suspected that the FMD escape in the UK came from their vaccine plant and not their NBAF equivalent.

In effect a decision to site NBAF on mainland US is a backdoor method of introducing large quantities of FMD virus into mainland US via a collocated vaccine plant, and therefore the decision to do so should be weighed against the significantly safer alternative of locating both NBAF and the vaccine plant on Plum Island or some even more remote island.

The above comments were submitted to the DHS as part of the Opportunity for Public Comment period for the draft EIS. I wonder if they will actually listen?

Today I attended a meeting of Butner Victims of Terrorism.

I doubt they recognized themselves as such – they were there to protest the building of NBAF in Butner - but the description is apposite.

War is a means of getting your own way by leveraging massive violence and destruction. Terrorism does it using a small amount of violence and destruction that is magnified out of all proportion in the minds and actions of the victims.

Scientists from DHS and USDA who listened to locals rant, cry, threaten and, occasionally, explain their opposition undoubtedly know that the locals have the risks and dangers of the NBAF blown out of all proportion. They are likely to dismiss the protestors as “ignorant nimbies”, although they did precious little to inform or allay fears. Unfortunately that means Butner residents’ protests are likely to be ineffective.

But Butner needs to recognize that it is being terrorized. The actions contemplated by its own government create, in the minds of residents, the same terror as the nightmare that terrorist create. It is quite possibly worse than any terrorist could produce. There is no terrorist organization in the world that is powerful enough to simultaneously deliver 55 deadly pathogens to Butner. Only the US Department of Homeland Security can do that. No matter how much Butner is treasured by its residents, I doubt that it’s on Bin Laden’s hit list … until they build the NBAF here. In the mental war of terrorism, the DHS has done to Butner what no terrorist could do.  “Has done”, not “will do”. The damage is done. Butner residents are already scarred out of the minds, they are already terrorist victims, and the terrorist is their own government.

Thomas Jefferson wrote about some unalienable rights – including the pursuit of happiness – and how We The People institute governments to protect those rights. Some state constitutions morphed the “Pursuit of Happiness” into the “Pursuit of Wealth” … North Carolina was not one of them. The residents of Butner are being denied both. Economically, they have nothing to gain and everything to lose from NBAF – and if you think they are getting “happiness”, you weren’t at the meeting. Apparently someone “up there” is working the algorithm “if it’s nasty, put it in Butner”.

It does not matter that Butner residents are wrong; that they have magnified the dangers out of all proportion. The proponents are wrong too. They massively understate the potential worse case scenario, and they are extraordinarily overconfident in their estimation of the probabilities of a pathogen escape. The worse case scenario goes right up to world-scale catastrophe because an escape might cause an appreciable reduction is the world food supply. Not exporting our beef may be a multi-billion dollar financial problem for the US, but, as there is already insufficient food in the world, it means starvation to somebody.  Estimating the risks of escape depends ultimately on the likelihood that some unknown person will be stupid, negligent, lazy, careless or just plain wrong. You can estimate the probability, but to be confident in your estimate is stupidity in itself.

These errors don’t matter because in the end every one agrees on the essence of the most important fact: there is a significant, but small, risk of very significant disaster. The probability is approximately like the risk of building your house a “100 year flood plain”, but the worst-case consequences are dramatically worse. Normally our government wont let us take risks as great as a 100-year-flood. In other parts of the world the lack of an alternative forces people to take such risks. We don’t, because we don’t have to.

There is a risk that we do have to take: we need research into these diseases, and that research entails risk. But we don’t need to plant a disease that kills cows in the middle of a field of cows. We don’t need to plant a disease that is amplified by pigs, in the state with the highest density of pigs. We don’t need to plant a disease that is transmitted by deer on a continent that has deer from coast to coast. These are simply risks that it are not necessary to take.

For decades federal law has prevented Foot and Mouth Disease – the most virulent pathogen currently contemplated for NBAF - from being brought into the mainland US. All research was legally confined to offshore islands. The mammoth Farm Bill recently passed by Congress contained a clause that surreptiously repealed that law. If FMD turns into the major disaster that it might – by transmission via deer that would have been unable to cross from an island to the mainland – we will be asking “what were we thinking about when we abandoned such an obvious and easily available barrier?” or was anybody thinking at all? Or were they only thinking about department budgets, consortium profits, or convenience? Those are the factors would have to outweigh safety in order for the DHS to choose the Butner site. Assuming, of course, the decision hasn’t already been determined by political pressure, lobbyists, campaign contributions and other forms of corruption that passes for government nowadays.

The issue comes down to the simplest point: putting NBAF on the US mainland is an unnecessary risk.

What should the people of Butner do about it? The people of Butner need to get its city government fully behind its opposition. I assume the majority is in opposition – certainly no one from Butner spoke in favor of NBAF, but a majority should not be necessary. If a minority of the people is terrorized by NBAF, it should be a duty of compassion for the majority to help them. The people and the city of Butner should make it clear to the DHS that they are going to be as uncooperative as possible. If the NBAF is going need something, it isn’t going to get it from Butner, and Butner will do everything it can to make it difficult to get it from anyone else. If the city government wont get behind the opposition and do everything in its power to make NBAF “go away”, as the residents so clearly demand, then change your government: vote them out, recall them, use whatever democratic process you have available.

And if you don’t have such democratic means, read The Declaration of Independence. It goes on to say “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [protecting the people’s inalienable rights], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

And when you have buried NBAF, Butner is owed a little balance for the “If it’s nasty, put it in Butner” syndrome. Since the state will have demonstrated that Umstead Farm site isn’t necessary for their purposes, you should get them to put something “nice” there. Something that helps, not hinders, your pursuit of happiness and perhaps helps your pursuit of wealth.

This post was published in The Butner Creedmoor News for August 7th, 2008.

 

‘Eminent Domain’ is the process by which government can take private property when it deems it necessary for the greater good. For example government may want to build a road, and uses ‘Eminent Domain’ to force owners of the land over which the road is to run to sell their land to the government.

I have never heard of Eminent Domain being used on any type of property except real estate, but there’s no reason why the process should not apply to any property. Certainly the 14^th amendment prevents the US government taking any property, not just real property, without due process, and Eminent Domain is the Due Process.

Would why there be a public interest in the public acquiring Intellectual Property Rights?

Suppose a pharmaceutical company discovered a pill that cured cancer or a biogenetic company invented a seed that could feed the world. The owners of the intellectual property rights of the pill or the seed would be obliged, at least as a public company, to set the price of their product so as to maximize their profits. Typically the profit they make, as a function of price, is a bell curve. At very low prices they would sell large quantities, but at low unit profit and so make low profits. At very high prices they would make high profit per unit but a low number of sales. Somewhere in the middle they make the maximum profit out of a somewhat high profit per unit and a somewhat high sales volume.

Typically the company would expend effort making sure that only those who paid their price, got the benefit. Those who could not afford the price must die of cancer or starvation.

Suppose government acquired the rights to the pill or the seed. Suppose they paid the company the same as it would make at the optimal price. Suppose government ‘sold’ the solution to the same people who would have bought it at the profit-maximizing price, but also ‘gave it away’ to everyone else.  This trick is possible to do for government, but it is not possible for a company to do. For example government could pay for the solution using general taxation (which is normally intended to be progressive: charging more tax to richer people), and give the solution away for free to everyone.

The result would be that the solution was available to everyone: everyone who had cancer could be saved by the drug; everyone who was hungry could get the seeds.

That is a better solution. The company and the rich people got the same benefits and some poor people got extra benefits. Why wouldn’t we do it?

Optimists look to human ingenuity to solve any problem that humanity confronts – including all those that it creates.

In the 1960’s there was great concern that the world couldn’t feed itself. Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Norman Borlaug’s Green Revolution did much to solve the problem.

Something has changed since Norman Borlaug’s: the rise of Intellectual Property rights. Nowadays the results of Human Ingenuity are protected by Patents and copyright, and other products of human ingenuity, such as terminator seeds, that ensure that the benefits flow mainly to a few.  Pills that cure diseases, such as AIDs, that can be manufactured for a pittance, must be price as high as possible so that the companies that own the patents must get as rich as they possibly can.

Just think, a brilliant scientist – a Norman Borlaug, an Einstein – might come up with a few seeds, like Borlaug’s dwarf Wheat Seeds, that can grow to thousands, to millions, to endless producing food for the world, but, with this extra human ingenuity, the farmers of the world can be forced to pay a tithe to the company that owns the patent. Poor farmers will be force to part with much of what little they have, so that rich people can get richer. The poorest farmers will not be able to afford the royalties and will starve.

It is the Big-men of New Guinea on a global scale. What does it matter if a few billion starve, as long as a few people make it to be billionaires?

Human Ingenuity is no longer the tool of Humanity’s progress; it was been hijacked, like everything else, for the benefit of a few.

According to Christianity Today - General Statistics and Facts of Christianity Today
there are approximately 38,000 Christian denominations in the world.

Why? This question got asked at www.gotquestions.org (which promises 'The Bible has the Answers, we'll find them for you') but I can't say I was impressed with the answer:

The point of these divisions is never Christ as Lord and Savior, but rather honest differences of opinion by godly, albeit flawed, people seeking to honor God and retain doctrinal purity according to their consciences and their understanding of His Word.

It's pretty obvious that if the "point of these divisions"  were "Christ as Lord and Savior" it wouldn''t be a Christian domination. I also assume that only 37,999 of these godly people are "albeit flawed". The remaining  one being the one that is right?

I can't help noticing that the evolution of Christian Dominations as pictured in wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denomination looks like ..., eh ..., evolution?

Why wouldn't it? For evolution you need only three things:

1. Variation
2. Selection
3. Inheritance

Religion is all about inheritance. Getting other people - your children, at the very least, or just any body, if you are an evangelical religion - to believe what you belief and to belong to your religion.

It has selection: if nobody believes and nobody belongs, it is dead.

And it has variation: "differences of opinion by godly, albeit flawed, people".

According to the ("just a") theory of evolution, given those three factors you must get evolution. Such as, for example, 38,000 different 'species' of Christianity.

This postorm presents a statistical analysis of occurrence of bad things - like abortions, homicides, Infant deaths and teen suicides in different western developed countries.

The results are damning for the US.

The countries are Australia Canada Denmark Great Britain France Germany Holland Ireland Japan Switzerland Norway Portugal Austria Spain Italy United States Sweden New Zealand.

The US is top in homicides (per capita). Not just top but way ahead of the nearest contender: Portugal, and more than treble every other country.

On Infant mortality, Portugal trumps the US, with Ireland coming in third, but the US is back on top for the number of teenage abortions.

The commonly held religious position in the US is that abortion should be illegal (which based on the US experince with prohibition has nothing to do with whether it happens, but merely with the status of those who do it, and the people who provide it.).

 The report makes an interesting correlation. There is a very clear correlation between abortions and believing in God, and  between infant mortality and believing in God. The more people who believe in God the more abortions occur, and the more infants die. The more people who pray the more abortions occur, and the more infants die. This correlation casts "In God We trust" in a very poor light.

Am I likely to hear support for "Reduce the abortions and infant deaths by stopping believing in God; and stopping praying"? I doubt it, but that's what the numbers say.