The Venus Project

A few months ago, a friend of mine introduced me to the work of renowned futurist, Jacque Fresco. Over the years, he has developed a number of amazing theories about how to structure our global human society in ways that are much better -- on so many levels -- that our current systems.

To showcase his work, he started creating a microcosm community in Venus, Florida. The culmination of his life's work has taken the shape of The Venus Project, which I hope to visit later this year.

Since Jacque is about to turn 98, I want to get there soon. In the meantime, here are some images of the amazing buildings and communities he has designed:

"Newsroom" -- Opening Scene

First, let me say that I have been a huge fan of Aaron Sorkin ever since I fell in love with West Wing. His writing style is unmistakable, providing rapid-fire inspirational and insightful dialogues among various intelligent characters. And he is unafraid to be honest.

This was on display in spades with last year's opening scene of his latest creation, Newsroom, an HBO series. I believe every American should watch this scene, especially starting at 3:07.

Tax System Explained ... in Beer

A friend recently sent me this article attributed to David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D., Professor of Economics.


Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing
The fifth would pay $1
The sixth would pay $3
The seventh would pay $7
The eighth would pay $12
The ninth would pay $18
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men ? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? 

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Death and Taxes

A while back I was looking for a breakdown of the U.S. Federal budget, just so I could figure out where NASA's budget fit into the big scheme of things. I came across this incredibly useful visualization.

click for larger image
or here for more interactive version

Common Craft

Since I'm such a visual person, I'm always impressed by people who are creative enough to visually explain complex concepts. The folks at Common Craft are exceptionally adept at this, as evidenced by this sample video:

Obama and the Inauguration: Parting Shots

I can't believe it's been less than 2 weeks since the inauguration ... it seems like ages ago! Here are a couple of final items from all of the images that bombarded us on that day:

First, check out this ingenious mosaic of Obama created from images of front pages from all over the world.

Second, the Denver Post's photoblog, Captured, posted a number of terrific inauguration images, including two of my favorites (click for larger images):

GeoEye's Inauguration Satellite Image

Our friends at GeoEye released this now-famous satellite image of the Obama inauguration. Their site has many more close-up shots, and it is simply amazing to see the tremendous number of people ... even hours before the ceremonies began (and the crowds got REALLY big!).

click for larger image

The Decline of the American Empire

As my wife will readily attest, I've been predicting the decline (if not outright collapse) of the United States (aka "the American Empire" or "the Great Experiment") by the year 2020. Depending on other world events (and on the precise definition of "decline" or "collapse"), I believe that this could happen much sooner but regardless no later than 2030. This position has been variously supported--either directly or indirectly--by many others, including Warren Buffett, John Sculley, and ... Igor Panarin, a Russian academic who made news recently by predicting the collapse of the U.S. by 2010.

My thoughts have been primarily focused on basic private concerns like, "if the U.S. is indeed collapsing, where should I raise my kids in order to position them (and their kids) for success in the new world order?" However, Panarin understandably takes a much more academic approach, and he even predicts how the U.S. will ultimately be divided among the remaining world powers.

click on the image for a larger view

Given the fundamental economic breakdown in the U.S., the renewed (ongoing/heighened) tensions in the Middle East and India/Pakistan, and a rookie administration about to take over the White House, who knows what the next couple of years will bring? I often wonder what it would've been like to live in Rome (or in the outskirts of the Roman Empire) in the middle of the 5th century.

Qatar's Sheikah Mozah

During a recent consulting engagement, I had to opportunity to learn more about Qatar, a Middle Eastern country about which I had previously known very little. As impressed as I've been with the accomplishments of the current Emir, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, I must say that I've been even more impressed by those of one of his wives, Sheikha Mozah bint Nasser Al-Missned.

She has been a powerful force for social and economic change in her country. She spearheaded efforts to give Qatari women the right to vote, to hold public office, and to dress as they please. She has been at the forefront of Qatar's push to become a global center for education, innovation, and media. She has been recognized as one of the most powerful women in the world and as one of the most influential business leaders in the Middle East. All of this would be impressive on its own, but taken in the context of Qatar's adherence to traditional Muslim notions on the role of women, it is that much more impressive.

Here are a couple of interesting pieces on Her Highness:

Dems v. GOP

At dinner a few weeks ago, one of my close friends mentioned something about the size of each party’s convention delegations corresponding to the relative size of each party’s voter registrations. I thought it was an excellent point, so I dug up the numbers. I actually found that she was not entirely correct, but in the process I found something else that I thought was interesting.

As of the 2004 elections, there were roughly 72M registered Democrats and 55M registered Republicans. She was right: the Democratic Party *is* bigger than the GOP.

However, the 2008 conventions will consist of 4,049 Democratic delegates and 2,380 Republican delegates. While the Democratic Party had only 31% more registered voters in 2004, it will bring 70% more delegates to its convention in 2008. Therefore, the larger convention size does NOT seem to correlate directly to the larger base of registered voters.

That being said … I think that these numbers show something much more fundamental about the Democratic Party. They don’t just believe in “Big Government” (as the GOP would have us think), but they believe in more “directly representative” government. Why do I say that? Well, according to these numbers, the Democrats will bring one convention delegate for every 18,000 registered Democratic voters while the Republicans will bring one convention delegate for every 23,000 registered Republican voters. One could interpret these numbers as supporting the notion that Democrats are 22% more “directly representative” in their convention than the Republicans.

I just love statistics … you can manipulate them to support just about any notion! ;-)

The 27th Amendment: What a Long, Strange Trip it Was!

Most Americans know that the "Bill of Rights" consists of the first 10 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Some may even know that there have subsequently been 17 additional Amendments approved by Congress and ratified by the States. Unfortunately, very few people actually know the connection between this last Amendment (the 27th) and the original Bill of Rights. However, I find it to be a fascinating story, both of from the perspective of political history but also from the perspective of how the American system of government was created and operates.

When the U.S. Constitution was originally adopted in 1789, there was significant concern that the newly created central (Federal) government would become too powerful if left completely unchecked. Therefore, twelve amendments were proposed specifically to create limitations and safeguards to protect individual citizens. Yes, that's right: 12. Ultimately, only the last 10 were ratified by the States during that early part of our country's history and became what we know today as the "Bill of Rights." The first two proposed Amendments were not ratified ... at least not then.

The first proposed Amendment pertained to the apportionment of the House of Representatives after each decennial census. Even though it was never ratified by the States, it is still technically pending ratification.

The second proposed Amendment pertained to the delay in effecting pay raises for Congress, providing that changes in salaries could only take effect after the next general election. Even though it was not ratified along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, it ultimately DID get ratified as what we now know as the 27th Amendment. As you can imagine, it was a very long (202 years!) strange trip.

Initially, the Amendment was ratified by only 6 States, which left it short of the 11 needed to be included in the Bill of Rights. Except for fluke ratifications by Ohio in 1873 and Wyoming in 1978, the proposed Amendment lay in a state of pending ratification until it was discovered by a Texas legislative aide named Gregory Watson. He made this the subject of an academic paper at the University of Texas at Austin (his professor gave him a "C"!), and then he later began a letter-writing campaign to get the Amendment ratified. When Alabama became the 38th State to vote for ratification on May 5, 1992, the Constitution gained its 27th Amendment. Subsequently, seven other States ratified the Amendment.

Yes, this could be seen as further evidence of how convoluted and bureaucratic the U.S. system of government can be. However, it also shows how flexible it can be and how much influence a single "common citizen" can have in shaping our democratic system.

"Open" Presidential Elections -- Part II

Following up from the last question in my prior post, how critical (really) are "open" elections--where neither the sitting President nor the sitting Vice President runs as a candidate?

Another way to look at this issue to examine the effects of the only 4 "open" elections since 1900:

• In 1908, William Howard Taft, the sitting Secretary of War, defeated William Jennings Bryan, a former Representative from Nebraska. Since Taft was former President Theodore Roosevelt's hand-picked successor, his election did not lead to any immediate changes in policy. However, his later turning against Roosevelt's prior initiatives led to the former President running as a third party against his old friend in 1912, splitting the vote and effectively allowing Woodrow Wilson, the sitting Governor of New Jersey, to quash Taft's re-election bid.

• In 1920, Warren Harding, a sitting Senator from Ohio, defeated James Cox, the sitting Governor of Ohio, in an all-Buckeye election that made Harding one of only two legislators since 1900 to be elected President (the other was Massachusetts Senator John F. Kennedy in 1960). Given the immense unpopularity of his predecessor's involving the U.S. in World War I, Harding stormed into office on a promise of "return to normalcy." However, he is generally considered one of the most ineffective Presidents, and he died of a heart attack half-way into his term.

• In 1928, Herbert Hoover, the sitting Secretary of Commerce, defeated Al Smith, the former Governor of New York. A former businessman with little charisma or political skills, his single term was defined primarily by the Stock Market Crash of 1929, the advent of The Great Depression, and public backlash against Prohibition.

• In 1952, Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Supreme Commander of NATO, defeated Adlai Stevenson, the former Governor of Illinois. Eisenhower served two terms as President, but his election marked a number of significant milestones: he helped Republicans re-gain the White House after 20 years of Democratic control; he was the first general to be elected President since Ulysses S. Grant in 1868 (and the only one since); and he was the first President subject to the term limits imposed by the 22nd Amendment. He served a full two terms providing steady leadership, and is generally well-regarded by historians (despite a temporary reputational setback during the liberal activism of the 1960's and 1970's).

So, let's see ... since 1900 we've had 4 "open" elections, which have led to: the dismantling of Theodore Roosevelt's environmental policies and the eventual election of the man who pulled the U.S. into WWI; the election of a man generally regarded as one of the worst Presidents in U.S. history; and the election of a man who oversaw one of the greatest economic collapses in U.S. history. Granted, Eisenhower's victory in 1952 and his two-term Presidency were probably the exact right solution for a nation weary of WWII, the Korean War, and the Cold War. However, that still leaves "open" elections with a dismal 25% success rating.

I guess only time will tell how the 2008 "open" election will ultimately affect this country, but if recent history is any indication the outlook is not too promising.

"Open" Presidential Elections

Much has been made of the fact that the 2008 U.S. Presidential election will be the first one in recent memory to be completely "open"--meaning that a sitting President or Vice President will not be one of the candidates. So it naturally begs some questions ...

How rare are "open" elections?

Since 1900, there have been 27 Presidential elections, and only 4 have been "open." The 2008 election (the 5th of 28) will be the first one in 56 years, since Dwight D. Eisenhower defeated Adlai Stevenson in the 1952 "open" election.

What causes an "open" election?

The 2008 election will be "open" because the sitting President (George W. Bush) is precluded from running for a third term by the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the sitting Vice President (Dick Cheney) is sticking to his vow from early in his first term that he would not seek the Presidency. The prior 4 "open" elections were caused by a variety of issues:

• In 1952, President Harry S. Truman withdrew his re-election bid after losing the New Hampshire primary (he was eligible for a third term because he was grandfathered into the 22nd Amendment), and the Democratic Party considered the Vice President (Alben Barkley) too old at the age of 74.


• In 1928, President Calvin Coolidge decided to retire and not seek re-election, and the Vice President (Charles Dawes) had a long-standing feud with Coolidge which caused the President to block his bid for the Republican nomination.


• In 1920, President Woodrow Wilson was unable to seek re-election due to being incapacitated by a stroke, but it is not entirely clear why his two-term Vice President (Thomas Marshall) did not seek the Presidency himself. Perhaps it was since the Wilson Presidency had become immensely unpopular over the United States' involvement in World War I.


• In 1908, President Theodore Roosevelt decided to retire, and the Vice President (Charles Fairbanks) was surprisingly overlooked by Roosevelt, who instead supported his friend and Secretary of War, William Howard Taft, as his successor Republican nominee.
  

How critical are "open" elections anyway?

It has been suggested that incumbent Presidents and Vice Presidents have unfair advantages heading into election years, so that "open" elections tend to "level the playing field" a bit. I guess one way to gauge whether an "open" election is critical at all would be to look at all of the elections that have NOT been "open."

In the 23 Presidential elections since 1900 where a sitting President or Vice President has been a candidate, the incumbents have won 15 times, which seems to suggest an impressive 65% winning percentage and a definite advantage. However, this is a little misleading, since 13 of those victories were re-election bids by sitting Presidents (and 3 of those were by Franklin D. Roosevelt alone and led to the passage of the 22nd Amendment). While this does suggest that unseating an incumbent President is difficult, it does not necessarily follow that ALL incumbents have unfair advantages in an election that is not "open."

Since 1900, there have been 5 elections in which the incumbent candidate was the sitting Vice President, and only 2 have been able to gain the Presidency: in 1924, Vice President Calvin Coolidge succeeded President Warren Harding; and in 1988, Vice President George H.W. Bush succeeded President Ronald Reagan. Otherwise, incumbent Vice Presidents actually have a not-so-great 40% winning percentage and therefore not really a distinct advantage.

So, what's the lesson learned here? I guess we can see that there's a BIG difference between a non-"open" election where the incumbent candidate is a sitting President and a non-"open" election where the incumbent candidate is a sitting Vice President. Therefore, the issue is not really whether an election is "open" or "not open" but rather whether an election includes a re-election bid or not, since it seems like the incumbent President (and not the incumbent Vice President) may have distinct advantages in election years.

Clinton in 2008: "Executives" v. "Legislators" in U.S. Presidential Elections

As we gear up for the party primaries heading into the 2008 elections--the first fully contested Presidential election in recent memory--I'm struck by how many U.S. Senators are jumping into the campaign fray on both sides of the aisle. Especially since all of the buzz surrounds the possibility of Sen. Hillary Clinton potentially becoming the first female U.S. President, it got me thinking about whether--gender, experience, political issues, and her husband's prior record aside--the U.S. is ready to elect a legislator to its highest executive office.

After all, the executive branch--by definition--is one based on decision-making, accountability, and the ability to execute ... in other words: leadership. On the other hand, the legislative branch--by definition and organizational structure--is one based on consensus-building, politicking, and the ability to legislate ... in other words: compromise.

Would American voters elect a legislator to its highest executive office?

Reviewing all of the Presidential elections since 1900 provides some interesting insights:

• Since 1900, there have been 27 U.S. Presidential elections.


• Of the 27 winners, only 2 were legislators (Warren Harding won the 1920 election as a sitting Senator from Ohio, and John F. Kennedy won the 1960 election as a sitting Senator from Massachusetts). The rest were executives of some sort: 13 sitting Presidents, 3 sitting/former Vice Presidents, 6 sitting/former Governors, and 3 others (William Taft won the 1908 election as the sitting Secretary of War, Herbert Hoover won the 1928 election as the sitting Secretary of Commerce, and Dwight D. Eisenhower won the 1952 election as the sitting Supreme Commander of NATO).
  


• Of the 27 losers (major parties), only 6 were legislators. However, 4 of those 6 losses came in the 11 elections since Kennedy's win in 1960: Barry Goldwater lost the 1964 election as a sitting Senator from Arizona, George McGovern lost the 1972 election as a sitting Senator from South Dakota, Bob Dole lost the 1996 election as a former Senator from Kansas, and John Kerry lost the 2004 election as a sitting Senator from Massachusetts.
  

I'm not sure why it's so difficult for a legislator to become U.S. President. I would like to believe that the system works so well and American voters are so savvy that they recognize true leadership and always match the best candidate for the job. I've heard theories that focus on the track records of various candidates: executives tend to have records of bold decision-making while legislators have records of waffling and compromise. I've also heard theories related to career cost-benefit analysis: once you've been a Governor, Vice President, or President, there's nowhere else to go so you'll fight like hell to get the job, whereas a legislator (especially a U.S. Senator) could have employment for life so why take the risks of potentially getting a job with a term limit?

As for the recent trend of the major parties running more legislators (in a losing cause), perhaps the advent of television and the Internet since Kennedy's 1960 victory have contributed to Senators being able to command a national following with relatively little effort? I don't know.

However, here's an interesting observation that bodes well for Sen. Clinton: most of the talk surrounding her has focused more on two intangibles (her gender and her husband) than on pure experience, capabilities, or political issues, but the exact same was true of the only 2 legislators to win Presidential elections since 1900. Warren Harding has drawn continual criticism for winning elections based on his "Presidential" looks (he hardly even campaigned for his successful Presidential bid), and John F. Kennedy was more popular for his youth, good looks, and pedigree than for anything else.

Regardless of whether American voters are ready to elect a legislator to the country's top executive post, perhaps history, human nature, and the power of technology will run in favor Sen. Clinton next year? Only time will tell.

Who's On First? Then and Now

There's nothing like the original (below), but when you're ready check out this very clever parody starring President Bush and Condi Rice, as well as this version set in a movie rental store.