no such thing as a presidential election

     The next few weeks will be full of election news. Presidential elections usually mean weeks of non-stop news items of one kind or another.  Most people know that there are other elections, but some would be surprised to discover that there is no such thing as an election just to choose the president. The elections that we have every four years, in which two sets of candidates run for president and vice-president, are also the elections for some congressional representatives, some senators, and at least a few state and local officials--state representatives and senators, some judges, and perhaps governors or mayors. There is no election or form of voting for someone who only wants to vote in the presidential election. Once inside the voting booth, you may "skip" some elections, or abstain from voting, by not pulling the lever for either candidate. But to get into the voting booth, you must be a registered voter in that particular district, since elections are as local as town or city council members. Town or city council members run in particular districts, and represent the people who live in them. The people in another district will be voting for a different set of candidates, even though they only live a few blocks away.
     If you want to know which elections are being held in your voting district, look for a sample ballot. To make sense of the sample ballot, you'll need to know which congressional district you live in, which state congressional district, which state senatorial district, and which city or town council district. You may live in other districts, depending on what goes on in your state or municipality--school boards are elected, as are some judges, county commissioners, county sheriffs, treasurers, city managers, and others.

randomness

     If something is really randomly assorted, for instance the numbers on a license plate, the colors on a quilt, or the cards in a deck of playing cards, each possible combination is no more or less likely than any other.
      If the numbers on the license plate are chosen at random from the digits 1 through 10, using every possible combination of 6 digits, some of the combinations will not appear to be random. Sooner or later, the number 111111 will come up, for example. Or the number 222222. If a programmer wants to set up a program to choose random sets of numbers, the programmer would have to deliberately remove combinations that didn't seem random enough.
     This is easy to understand if you play cards. If a computer program is devised to deal every possible combination of hands, sooner or later it will deal a hand that seems to come from an unshuffled deck--because that would be one of the possibilities. So the programmer would have to eliminate these combinations, or the shuffling and dealing program would not seem random to the players using it.
     If a quilter puts a lot of squares of different colors into a bag, and decides to choose them at random,without looking, some of them will be the same color as the square that went before--there will be two and three of the same color scattered in places throughout the quilt. Many quilt makers would put back the square of the same color and choose another, so that the quilt would look more random, even as it became less random.

in case you missed it

Which weighs more, a pound of feathers or a pound of nails?

literacy and democracy

     Americans may have been the first people who ever entertained the idea of universal education--of educating everyone.  This was a local idea at first. Some of the Puritans of New England, more than 300 years ago, thought that all children should have enough education to be able to read the Bible. To this end they began a school, attended by every child in the town. The school wasn't exactly free--everyone had to pay a small fee to the teacher--but the idea was revolutionary. No one had ever thought of educating every child, male and female, before. No one had even considered educating every male child.  Most people, even doctors and experts, believed that only some children could be educated, and that others--most others--simply had no talent or aptitude for education.
     Many people still believe this, doctors and experts among them.  Their belief seems reasonable, since we now have people who have supposedly spent years in school, who still can't read and write. But since this information upholds their beliefs, the experts haven't inquired into the facts of the matter.  They may find, if they do, that some of the people who supposedly spent years in school missed most of the first few grades, or attended only a few days per year, and never made up the missed lessons. They will find people who can't read and write because they never learned how--plain and simple.
     Literacy isn't a frill. It's a necessary life skill, and more. The people in medieval times who couldn't read all had jobs--jobs that don't exist today. The people who lived in medieval times were ruled by a king and his court. People today are expected to take part in the democratic process,which is impossible for the illiterate.  The rise of literacy made the rise of democracy possible--and democracy cannot prosper without it.
    
    
    

elections

     We are about to have another presidential election. Every four years we elect another president, or the same president to a second term. Although we don't all vote for the same candidate, the person who is elected becomes everyone's president. Even if you voted for the other guy. Even if you didn't vote at all. So let's have no more of "don't blame me, I voted for the other guy", or "don't blame me, I don't vote". Whatever the outcome of an election we all did it. That's right, all of us. If you had really wanted the "other guy" to win, you could have campaigned/volunteered/blogged/worked him into the White House. If you didn't vote at all, we can assume that you are pretty well satisfied with whoever is elected. Silence means consent. The number of people who don't vote at all is large enough to win almost any election. So no excuses.

stop me if you've heard this one

     I don't smoke, drink, or swear--dammit, I left my cigarettes at the bar.

a majority of one

     You may have encountered the phrase "a majority of one" in your reading.  A "majority", of course, is more than half of the total number of persons. "A majority of one" means the only one, or the one-and-only, for instance, someone who sticks to an unusual opinion or belief, even though no on else shares his ideas. The ideas may be good ideas, or ahead of their time, but the "majority of one" goes to political meetings alone.

law and the family

     The actual foundation of all law, including marriage laws, is the welfare, peace, and security of the citizens of a state or nation. Laws are meant to prevent feuds, duels, and violent forms of retribution. Laws protect people's bodies. Laws protect people's property. Laws protect people's reputations. Laws protect people's inventions. Laws protect people's homes. Laws protect people's privacy. And laws protect people's families. Families have special inheritance rights, some of which would override or render null and void the provisions of a will that are contrary to these rights. Families--husbands and wives--have the right to refuse to testify against one another. one spouse can't be held in contempt of court for refusing to answer questions about the other. Married couples have special rights in their children. For example, a child born to the married couple is legally theirs. No on can sue, claiming to be the father of a married woman's child. The law doesn't enter into marriages in this way. The law, in general, subscribes to the notion that the family is the building block of society, meaning peaceful and industrious coexistence. The law, in most cases, errs on the side of refusing to interfere in family or domestic matters. In this way the law attempts to uphold the family unit, which is presumed to uphold society, which is both the creator of the law, and protected by the law. Everyone is presumed to benefit through this arrangement.
   

veto

      One part of "how a bill becomes a law" is the presidential veto. To start at the beginning, a bill becomes a law when it is passed by both houses of congress ( the Senate and the House of Representatives ) and signed by the President. If a bill passes both houses of congress and the President doesn't agree with it, he may return the bill to the Senate or House of Representatives, and explain his objections to it. This is called a veto. It is described in the United States Constitution, Article I, Section 7, although the word "veto" isn't used.
    If the President "vetoes" a bill, the House and the Senate may alter the bill, and pass an amended version on to the President for his signature. Or, the House and Senate may override a presidential veto by passing the same measure, but by a 2/3 majority, instead of a simple majority. A 2/3 majority would mean 2 out of every 3 persons voting voted to pass the bill--for example, 20 for, 10 against, or 200 for, 100 against. . A simple majority means the side with 1 more vote wins--51 to 50, for example.
     Another way a bill might become a law is if the President ignores it when it is presented to him for his signature. If the President doesn't sign or return the bill within 10 days, it becomes law as if he had signed it, provided that Congress is still in session.
     If you're interested in reading more about this, see your local newspaper's section on "area votes in Congress", or check out the Congressional Record.

A Misspelled Tail

A little buoy said "Mother, deer
May Eye go out too play?
The son is bright, the heir is clear,
Owe! mother, don't say neigh!"

"Go fourth, my sun", the mother said;
His ant said: "Take ewer slay,
Your gneiss knew sled, awl painted read
Butt dew knot lose ewer weigh."

"Ah, know!" he cried, and sought the street
With hart sew full of glee--
The weather changed, and snow and sleet
And reign fell fierce and free.

Threw snow-drifts grate, threw wat'ry pool,
He flue with mite and mane.
Said he: "Though I wood walk by rule
Eye am knot write, 'tis plane

I'd like too meat sum kindly sole
For hear gnu dangers weight,
And yonder stairs a treacherous whole;
To sloe has bin my gate.

A peace of bred, a gneiss hot stake,
Eyed chews if Eye were home;
This crewel  fate my hart will brake'
I love knot thus too Rome.

I'm week and pail; I've mist my rode!"
Butt hear a carte came passed--
He and his sled were safely toad
Back two his home at last.

Elizabeth T. Corbett

the ivory tower

     The academy---the set of all of the college professors of the planet--is often referred to as "the ivory tower". This is meant as a criticism of academic life and academics, meaning college professors. Many people think that academics live in an ivory tower, apart from reality and any practical concerns of everyday life. When an academic does research on any subject, whether it is technology, science, or philosophy, the paper that he or she writes will be presented to a set of fellow academics, or professors. They will have read the paper beforehand, and will be ready with questions after hearing the author talk about his or her research. Any practical experiment has to be explained in such a way that other similarly qualified people can replicate it, expecting the same results. Any other research is open to seemingly endless dispute and discussion. There is no academic "pope", with the authority to end discussion when it begins to seem fruitless. One academic is as good as another, for most purposes, and some discussions have continued for generations. What good does it do? Aside form practical results, such as the computer you're using to read this, perhaps the idea that the truth is not a reachable "goal" is that important--that there can't really be an end to any human search for knowledge and understanding because humans are not omniscient, and never will be.

Amendment XVI

     Amendment XVI of the United States Constitution gives the federal government the right to tax our incomes--now one of the familiar deductions from our paychecks. The constitutional amendment was necessary because the constitution did not give the federal government the right to tax citizens directly. Article I, Section 9, of the U.S. Constitution prohibits any "capitation, or other direct, Tax, unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."  A "capitation", also called a "head tax" would mean taxing the states a certain amount for each citizen, or per "head".  Other taxes the federal government can collect are duties or "imposts and excises", also called tariffs. These are taxes on goods imported into the United States from another country or exported from the United States to another country.
     The income tax became law in 1913--nearly 100 years ago. The first income taxes were set to leave out most of the poorest people. In the past, income taxes have been more progressive than they are today, meaning that the richest people paid taxes at a much higher rate than the poor or middle-income people.

direct election of senators

     The United States Constitution  specifies, in the XVII Amendment, that each state shall have 2 Senators, elected by the people. Before the XVII Amendment was ratified, in 1913, Senators were not elected by the people. They were elected by the legislature of each state. The XVII Amendment provided  for the direct election of Senators by the people--anyone who can vote for a candidate for the state legislature, can vote for a candidate for the U.S. Senate. We don't need to be older, for instance, to vote in an election for the U.S. Senate in Washington. At the time this amendment was passed, it still meant males only, but the XIX Amendment, in 1920,  added women to the Constitution.

the electoral college

     It's that time of year again, almost, and we'll soon be talking about the Electoral College and why we still have one. The Electoral College gets together every four years to elect the President of the United States. Really. The Constitution of the United States, Article II, Section 1, describes the method of electing the President and Vice President. Each state chooses "electors", who will meet in their state and vote for the President and Vice President. Each state is entitled to a number of electors equal to the number of its representatives in Congress and the Senate, so more populous states have more electors.  The votes of the electors from each state are sent to Washington, where they are opened and counted in front of the Senate and the House of Representatives, combined.  The candidate having a majority of these "electoral" votes is the next president.  If no one has a majority, ( more than half , and not just the biggest portion, usually called a plurality ) the Constitution gives the House of Representatives the authority to settle the dispute by a vote, one vote per state, instead of per representative.This has not happened in nearly 200 years, but it remains the law just the same.
     The Constitution doesn't say much, if anything, about the popular vote for the President. In the past, a different candidate has  won a majority of the popular vote and of the electoral vote. In the election of 1876, one candidate won the popular vote, and another won the electoral vote. The election was settled in favor of the winner of the electoral vote, by a deal  made in Congress. In the election of 1888, again, the candidate who won the popular vote lost the electoral vote.
    So why do we still have an Electoral College? It would take a constitutional amendment to dismantle it.

ambassadors and consuls

     You have probably heard the term "ambassador"  on a newscast. An ambassador is the official representative of a country's  government, but in a foreign country. For example, the French ambassador to the United States works for the government of France, which sent him to the United States to represent France's interests here. If there are treaties or trade deals to be discussed, the ambassador is already here, in the French embassy in Washington.  The American ambassador to France is an American who works for the American government--but in the American embassy, in France. This can become confusing if you watch international news programs. When an American says "the French ambassador", he means ( or should mean ) the French person who works in America. If the newscaster says "the ambassador to France", or the "U.S. ambassador to France" he means ( or should mean ) the American who works in France. Newscasters are usually careful about this, to avoid confusion, but it sometimes happens anyway.
     "Embassy" can also be problematic. The French Embassy, to an American, is a building in Washington. French people work there. The American Embassy, to an American, is the building where our ambassador and his staff work--in a foreign country.
    American ambassadors work for the State Department, headed by the Secretary of State. In some countries this department is called the Foreign Ministry, and is headed by the Foreign Minister. This is the name of a secular government position, and not necessarily a religious term.
    One more--a consul is a representative from a foreign country assigned to work in a city other than the capitol. The consul works for the ambassador, and helps with trade deals, and with visas for travelers. A city that imports a lot of goods from a particular country may have a consulate--an office with a foreign representative, or consul, working for a foreign government. Philadelphia has a few consulates. New York has a lot of them. If your firm manufactures something, and wants to sell it in another country, you might want to speak to a consul about regulations or laws you need to be aware of, as well as taxes, customs ( a kind of  tax ) and duties ( another kind of tax ).

reinforcement

    You may have read that scientists use rats to study how people learn ( and unlearn ) things. A rat will press a lever to get food, for example. The food is a reward, or a form of reinforcement, meaning that the rat is  more likely to repeat the behavior. The food reinforces the act of pressing the lever. It is no longer an act of idle curiosity but has been rewarded--this is called positive reinforcement. The behavior reinforced in this way will be repeated, and may become a habit.
     Punishment, scientifically,  is another kind of reinforcement--called negative reinforcement. In some ways it makes it more likely that a  behavior pattern or action will be repeated. The negative reinforcement establishes a strong mental connection to the behavior, making it more difficult to forget.
     Scientists have also used rats to study how habits can be broken. Habits which have been formed through positive reinforcement ( rewards ) can be relatively easy to alter--called extinguish by psychologists. When the reward stops, the behavior usually stops fairly quickly.  Habits which have been formed through negative reinforcement ( punishment ) may stop nearly as easily. When the punishment stops, the behavior or habit stops soon after. 
    The hardest habits to extinguish are habits that were formed through off-and-on or intermittent reinforcement. When behavior was rewarded only once in a while, the rats with "habits" tended to keep trying longest before giving up the habit--even after the rewards stopped altogether.
    All of this happens in a laboratory, in a situation controlled by the scientists. In real life, behavior is sometimes punished and rewarded. Or rewarded unintentionally, until it becomes a habit. Real life is not as simple as a laboratory.