#555 Musings Beyond the Bunker (Thursday January 12)
,
Good morning,
HAPPY BASEBALL SOLSTICE!
I am informed that last Friday marked the “Baseball Solstice.” This is defined as the mid-point between the end of the World Series and the beginning of Spring Training. From here on out, we get to count down the days before “pitchers and catchers report.”
This reminds me of one of my favorite baseball quotations (particularly during the “dark days” of no baseball). This comes from the great Rogers Hornsby, one of the greatest players of the early 20th century (he was an infielder who won the Most Valuable Player award twice and who has the third highest career batting average in history):
“People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring.” —Rogers Hornsby
A FRIEND ARGUES AGAINST CHANGING THE “SYSTEM”
After my Musings regarding changes I would make to make our system political system fairer and more representative, a good friend raised two comments:
1. His first complaint is against my suggestion to increase the size of the Court and impose some limit on the duration of terms. “You have written some interesting Musings about the importance of protecting our democracy. I don't agree with your concept of stacking the Supremes with additional justices or term limits. RBG didn't agree with you either, adamant about preserving the Court at nine and with lifetime appointments.”
First, it is a logical fallacy to reach a conclusion based upon the seeming authority of a speaker. That RBG didn’t think the Court should be expanded or that there shouldn’t be term limits doesn’t mean she was right. Further, Justice Ginsberg assumed the good faith of the Senate in fulfilling its legal obligation of advise and consent (in the case of the Merrick Garland appointment by Obama) and wouldn’t accelerate the approval of President Trump’s appointment of Amy Coney Barrett upon RBG’s death (clearly, she was unaware that Senator McConnell would use her death as a means of packing the Court on a rushed basis).
To be clear, my proposal to increase the size of the Court is a response to McConnell’s court packing, as well as an attempt to reduce the importance of each confirmation. As to term limits for justices, that also is a response to new facts. Back when lifetime appointments were established, the average life expectancy (assuming someone survived the first year of life) was 46 years, and 60 years if one survived the first 20 years of life. Because of the short life spans, alzheimers and other forms of dementia were not a factor. Couple this with the fact that presidents, in an effort to extend their choices for generations are nominating younger and younger Justices. This “ties up” the seat for generations.
2. His next argument is: “I don't agree with your stacking the Senate with four certain Dems by adding two new states.”
As to this point, saying one should deny representation in the Senate to both the District and Columbia and Puerto Rico because they might vote Democratic is not justification for refusing them the representation they deserve. I still maintain that denying them representation cannot be defended: First, it smacks of racism to single out these two groups, which are majority minority, from representation. Second, it defies history (which we are told by Justice Alito is dispositive). The history of statehood is the conversion of territories into states. At one point it was quite common. That it hasn’t been done recently is hardly justification for not continuing this progression from 13 states to 50 (so far) to include the currently disenfranchised. Third, it is disingenuous to argue that two legitimate candidates for statehood should be denied because their admission might alter the political landscape. After all, the landscape changes whenever a state is admitted. Any argument that “fairness” is subverted by the addition of these states ignores the inherent “unfairness” of having previously admitted states with tiny populations, such as Wyoming, Montana, Alaska, the Dakotas, and Vermont.
If the Republicans are worried about a Democratic majority, perhaps they should consider moving their positions a bit toward the middle, so as to attract more independents and increase the number of swing states. After all, aren’t political parties supposed to do precisely what Republicans fear—moderate toward sensible middle ground?
ALGORITHMS FOR GOOD
All this talk of algorithms driving people down the rabbit hole based upon their preconceived notions and confirmation bias makes my head hurt. But I get they have a remarkably sophisticated system. So the question is:
Why can’t the algorithm be modified to stay away from certain types of information that is demonstrably false, racist, incendiary, or prone to encourage violent thoughts or actions?
If this system is destined to manipulate what people see, why not manipulate toward education and enlightenment, rather than confirming biases, feeding falsehoods, spreading hatred and invective, and propounding conspiracy theories?
INSPIRATION
One can’t quote great minds enough. Here are two of my favorites from guys who were excellent observers of the human condition:
“Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't.” –Mark Twain
“We're all born a genius, but life has a way of de-geniusing you.”—Buckminster Fuller
Have a great day,
Glenn
From the archives: