Time for Additional Constitutional Amendments

Faith in our institutions are at an all time low. This is a bipartisan problem that is felt most acutely in the federal government. Whether it’s the Presidency, Congress, or the Supreme Court, over the last 75 years Americans have slowly felt as if they can't trust their government. However, this is not a unique problem in American history. Think of the chaos of the 1960’s and the upheaval of the industrial “Gilded Age” followed by the Great Depression. The Civil War and Reconstruction easily mark the most divided time in American history (after all we were literally divided into two governments). Even the original ratification of the Articles of Confederation and Constitution itself was incredibly contentious (and sometimes violent).

The solution then, is the same as the solution we need now. The United States already has a system to improve the federal government. I suggest we make small modifications to our federal Constitution to better handle the problems of this millennium. This has been the pattern of response to national crises roughly every 50 years. Here’s a quick breakdown of the previous 27 Constitutional Amendments:

• 1791-1804: Bill of Rights and 11th and 12 amendments laid out essential rights and corrected blind spots in our judicial and legislative system. 
• 1865-1870: Three Post-Civil War amendments finally ended slavery, made all born in America citizens, and gave all male citizens the right to vote*
• 1913-1920 and 1933: Four Progressive amendments that created a more equitable tax system, direct election of Senators, women’s suffrage, and then two more after the Depression adjusted inauguration dates and repealed the 18th Amendment.
• 1951-1971: Five Civil Rights amendments adjusting presidential terms, DC representation, poll taxes, presidential succession, and voting age.
• 1992: This largely ceremonial amendment to limit congressional pay was one of two originally proposed in the Bill of Rights, but were not ratified then (go here for the delightful story of how it passed).

*It’s important to recognize that these 27 amendments did not solve all of America’s problems or even completely solve the problem they were trying to fix. However, they were instrumental in eventual success. For example, the Civil Rights movement of the 1950’s/60’s was successful because the federal government finally agreed to uphold the intent of the post-Civil War amendments. And ignoring the one off impactless amendment from 1992, we haven't had a meaningful Constitutional amendment in 51 years.

It’s also important to note that these successful amendments were structural changes to how our government works and who it works for, NOT largely hot button issues of the day (like abortion, guns, or in the case of the 18th Amendment, the prohibition of alcohol). Instead, amending the Constitution is best suited for fixing outdated structures so the now improved government can deal with those hot button issues. 

So in what ways is the structure of the U.S. Constitution failing to handle the problems of the 21st century? I believe America’s primary issue is that the political fringes of each party have become the dominant voice. Both in elections and the media and especially on the internet). This has pushed a moderate majority into the corners of their own political institutions. Here are a few examples of how most Americans actually stand on a few of our most tense political issues:

• “85 percent of American voters think abortion should be legal in some or all circumstances“ and a majority of Americans fall in the middle
• “a large majority, 83%, supports supplying the Ukrainian army with military equipment”
• “More than two in three Americans (68%) support legalizing marijuana”
• “U.S. support for legal same-sex marriage continues to trend upward, now at 70%”
• “91% welcome immigration, including 68% who favor a “low level”’

To put those numbers in context, only “60% of U.S. adults drink alcoholic beverages”. If you’ve ever tried to pick a restaurant with a large group of people then you know it’s hard to get a majority of people to agree on anything. So that means our political institutions and the conversations surrounding them are being overrun by the loudest and the most extreme. And I don’t even mean extreme in a negative way. Just in a way that doesn’t represent the majority of Americans' perspectives. This does not work in an “infinite game” where our primary goal is to ensure the political game keeps going as we make this a “more perfect union”.

So here I submit 5 proposed amendments to the United States Constitution (each with a few Sections). 1st is on improving federal elections, mostly for Congress. 2nd on trying to balance the power of large corporations in private and public life. 3rd proposed amendment to improve the federal court system. 4th to improve the executive branch. And finally the fifth is a wildcard idea that would probably have the biggest impact on balancing how government power. I even organized them by priority in which I think would be most easily passed and have the most positive long term impact. However, all 5 do not need to pass for there to be significant improvement.

1st Amendment Proposal: Gerrymandering, Ranked Choice Voting, and Campaigns in Federal Elections

Section 1: Districts represented by members of Congress, or by members of any state legislative body, shall be compact and composed of contiguous territory. The state shall have the burden of justifying any departures from this requirement by reference to neutral criteria such as natural, political, or historic boundaries or demographic changes. The interest in enhancing or preserving the political power of the party in control of the state government is not such a neutral criterion.’

Section 2: All federal elections will move from a “first past the post” to an “instant runoff” structure. If a candidate receives more than half of the votes in an election, that candidate wins. However, if no majority winner is found, the race is decided by an "instant runoff." The candidate with the fewest votes is removed, and voters who picked that candidate will have their votes count for their next choice. This process continues until there’s a majority winner.

Section 3: All Federal campaigns or electioneering are limited to take place 3 months before Election Day, which will now be a Federal holiday. This includes organizations or individuals. 

This first proposal is the most important. Section 1 is the most needed Constitutional amendment. Gerrymandering allows elected officials to draw the lines for who elects them. This has been done since the beginning of our country, but modern technology allows it to be dangerously precise. More and more districts are drawn to ensure victory of the incumbent party. This means general elections between both parties have an assumed winner and the party primary is the real contest. So politicians move to the middle of their party (organizations not only absent in the Constitution, but actually warned against by our framers), instead of the middle of their constituents. The right moves farther right and the left moves farther to the left. In fact, I actually took the exact language proposed by former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens in his book on the topic of amendments.

Section 2 implements ranked choice voting and removes the concerns that you're stuck between 2 candidates you don’t like. It also removes the cost and complication of runoff elections. This is already used in a few states and I think it would be adopted more locally once it’s Constitutional nationally. I don’t expect this will totally shake up the two party system (an overstated concern in my opinion). Instead, what it will do is, in combination with Section 1, give politicians more specific information from their constituents and hold them accountable to them.

Section 3 is more straightforward. The goal is to limit what has now become a continuous election cycle; where the next campaign season begins immediately after election day. This not only exhausts voters and decreases the quality of discourse, it favors candidates with deep pockets and big donors. It also finally makes Election Day a federal holiday.

It’s also important to note that these structural changes could be, but never will be implemented by Congress itself. This Amendment restricts the power of entrenched interests and opens them to more political and ideological competition. Therefore these must be done by Constitutional Amendment.

2nd Amendment Proposal: Antitrust and Campaign Finance

Section 1: No provision of the Constitution shall be construed to prohibit the Executive and Legislative Branch from fulfilling their obligation to limit or break-up any national business monopolies or trusts (group of businesses).

Section 2: Neither the First Amendment nor any other provision of this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit the Congress or any state from imposing reasonable limits on the amount of money that candidates for public office, or their supporters, may spend in election campaigns.

Section 1 tries to codify into the Constitution a century old series of laws that created the Federal Trade Commission and our antitrust system. However, those laws sometimes rub up against interpretations of other parts of the Constitution. Those old laws also require the branches of government to choose to be active and I’m hoping the phrasing of “obligation” will require action. I’m also hoping these changes will then make it easier for Congress to help deal with America’s growing inequality problem.

Section 2 is another one I borrowed from Justice Stevens. It essentially prevents courts from overturning reasonable campaign finance controls. These two sections together would make it easier to restrict the growing power of big business over politics.

3rd Amendment Proposal: Clarifying and Updating the Federal and Supreme Courts

Section 1: No Person shall be a federal judge who shall not have attained to the age of forty years, and been ten years a Citizen of the United States.

Section 2: A term maximum of 15 will be set for each justice appointed after the ratification of this amendment.

Section 3: The number of Supreme Court justices shall be set at 15. A new justice seat will be added every 4 years until that number is reached.

Section 4: New seats must be filled by the president in office when the seat is vacated.

The Constitution is surprisingly silent on the federal courts. Unlike the other branches there is not an age or even citizenship requirement. Article 3 which lays out the Court’s powers has less than 400 words. It wasn’t until Marbury v. Madison (1803) when it was even exactly clear what the role of court would be. As the other 2 branches have increased in dysfunction, more and more pressing issues have had to be solved in the courts. That has resulted in the same kind of political dysfunction there.

Section 1 is borrowing language from the other age and citizenship requirements in the other branches. To my knowledge this would only have excluded a dozen or so judges in American history (and just by a few years).

Section 2 gives a specific limit on the number of years a justice can serve. Right now it is life, but the average is about 16. Recently there has been a race to nominate younger and younger justices so they can stay longer. This would have required Roberts and Alito to retire soon. It would have required Clarence Thomas to retire 15 years ago. However, I do think it’s important this only be applied to future justices so as to decrease its controversy (this was also done with the 22nd Amendment limiting the president to 2 terms).

Section 3 almost doubles the current number of justices, but over a 24 year period. The number of justices fluctuated between 5-10 until it was stabilized at 9 after the Civil War. However, I believe 15 justices decreases the pressure of each new nomination without making group deliberation too onerous. It would also allow them to break into sub-committees if that process was found helpful to take on more cases.

Section 4 prevents any more partisan delays like we saw in 2016.

4th Amendment Proposal: Altering the Only Elected Position in the Executive Branch

Section 1: The position of the presidency will be divided into 3 separately elected positions to replace the position of Vice President. All three positions will retain the same requirements and accountability currently held for the position of President.

The President will retain the domestic responsibilities and appointments laid out in the Constitution other than those prescribed to the other two elected positions. 

The Secretary of State will oversee foreign affairs and Ambassadors of the United States. All military appointments will be done by the Secretary of State with the approval of the President and then confirmed by the Senate.

The Attorney General will oversee the Department of Justice as the chief law enforcement officer as well as advise the heads of federal executive departments on legal matters. All appointments to leadership and division head positions will be done by the Attorney General with the approval of the President and then confirmed by the Senate.

All 3 elected members of the Executive Branch must agree to use any weapons of mass destruction and only in response to those weapons used against the United States.

Section 2: The elected positions of the Executive Branch will continue to be chosen by the Electoral College, though all states must transition to a proportional model in which the number of electors each state awards is equal to the percentage of the popular vote the candidate received. 

Section 1 solves a problem that the modern presidency has created. If there is one part of our federal government the founding fathers wouldn't recognize it’s the power of the Executive. The President now appoints or oversees 4 million government employees. This is how most states (including my home state) elect their Executive Branches. It also removes one of the biggest structural flaws in the Constitution, the useless Vice President. As the power of the presidency has grown, it has become more and more alarming that the person set to take over if the president is unable, is an otherwise powerless position. And it assures the Justice Department remains independent. The last part of Section 1 alters what is now a unilateral nuclear decision maker. 

Section 2 keeps the intention of the Electoral College without the exaggerated effects we see now thanks to a larger divide between urban and rural America. This would prevent Presidential elections from being decided in essential 5 swing states. It also prevents voters in states like Wyoming and Vermont from having their vote count almost 4 times more than Florida or North Carolina. It’s important to note that the current “winner take all” strategy was not always the case.

5th Amendment Proposal: Making it Easier to Increase the Number of States

Section 1: U.S. territories and regions within states may apply for statehood without Congressional or Presidential Approval once they have reached a population of 1 million residents.

Section 2: Contiguous regions within states may apply for separate statehood without Congressional or Presidential Approval once they have reached a population of 1 million residents.

Section 3: The number of states shall be capped at 250.

Section 1 allows for something that should have been done a century ago. If there is one thing that most Americans throughout history would recognize is the addition of new states. In 200 years we grew from 13 original colonies to a continent full of 50 states (about one state every five years). However, due to race (most non-state territories are suspiciously brown) and a love of round numbers we have not increased the number of states even as we kept them as U.S. territories. The Amendment would also prevent the U.S. from oppressively adding new territory because the local population could quickly become a voting state. Simply, the Constitution should follow the flag.

Section 2 essentially removes Article 4, Section 3 of the Constitution which requires Congressional approval before a state can split. If we truly trust American Federalism then having large states (either by land side or population) just doesn’t fit with the original blueprint for our American republic. Imagine how much less controversial the recent Supreme Court decisions would be if moving to a new state was as easy as moving to a new county.

Section 3 prevents states from gaming the system and creating an unmanageable number of states. 250 may seem like a lot, but Virginia, by far the largest state in 1790, had a smaller population than even the smallest state Wyoming today

---

The goal of all 5 of these amendments is to increase “state capacity”. To increase the quality of our government while also binding the country closer together. I have heard concerns that our Constitution is just too old and too flawed to be fixed. But do you think the political leadership that you are so unsatisfied with could remake something better from scratch? If we can’t pass and execute good laws, how could we trust anyone to create a whole new system?

The founding fathers assumed we would make structural changes to the Constitution as we saw structural changes to our country. They themselves passed 12 amendments. James Madison, the primary writer of the Constitution, helped oversee the passage of all 12 even before he became President. He understood the document would need to be updated. It has been done 27 times. We’ve since seen every other generation pass 3-5 amendments to deal with mounting crises. I believe we can and must do it again.

In many ways you wouldn’t even recognize the way our country first functioned under the original Constitution. No protections for citizenship or voting rights (for even landless white men). Non-functioning presidential election system. Not even an assumption that the Constitution even applied to the state governments. No direct election of senators and taxes to cast a ballot.

The final question is, how do we actually pass an amendment? Although there are two ways to amend the Constitution, all 27 amendments have followed the same path. 2/3 of Congress must approve the amendments and then 3/4ths of the states must approve them. It’s a difficult road, but it doesn’t have to be done in one sweeping reform. Americans are not uniquely broken, but an unaltered Constitution has been. It has improved before, it can be again.

Last Minute Voting Guide

"Remember, remember, the 5th of November, the blog post of treason and links." I've put a lot less energy into blogging lately, but I did give some thought about tomorrow's election and if I had anything new to say. It's turns out I don't. So here's a quick summary what I have said over the last 4 years:

1) It's okay NOT to vote. In fact, with the general lack of useful knowledge on the issues, it may be best not to.
2) It's okay TO vote, but be honest with yourself, statistically your vote doesn't matter. It's because it makes you feel good to get out and do something to support your team.
3) The BEST reason to vote is to push the political discussion in your preferred direction. It's not about the winning vote, it's about the marginal vote towards a bigger idea.
4) Your political perspectives are always SHIFTING. Who knows, in 4 years I may be voting for someone who actually wins.

I won $20 from dad in the last election betting on Obama. It looks like I'll win another $20 on him in this election from my brother. God bless America.

Time to End Daylight Savings Time

Diversified New Year's Resolutions, 2012 Edition

For 2010 and 2011 I made several New Year's Resolutions. Both years I was only halfway successful. But as I was sitting down evaluating my past goals I noticed something. They haven't really changed. Here they are, originally from December 30, 2009:

1) Moderate exercise for 20 minutes a day, 3 days a week. From what I have read this is the minimum time needed to remain nominally healthy. Hopefully I will work my way up from here, but it's good to start small. 

2) Drink 0-1/2 a soft drink daily in my home. Again, the plan is to work down to zero, but there's a good chance I'm addicted to caffeine. 

3) Read the Bible every weekday. Not many exact parameters on this one yet, but I would like to open and read a portion of the Bible 5 days a week. I claim to believe it's valuable, but my actions say otherwise. (here's the blog I intend to keep up) 

4) Pray regularly. Same details as the previous one. 

5) Allow my wife to pick one for me. She knows my flaws better than anyone and I trust her more than anyone. Who better to help me improve? (she choose for me to do 10 minutes of house cleaning a day)

And this year I'd like to add one more: 6) Be on time. I've come to the conclusion that in order to be on time for everything you have to be early for most things. And thanks to my new smart phone I'll have something to do while I'm waiting.

Oh and just to be sure I don't feel like I've accomplished anything by posting this, assume I've failed.

How to Make a Twentysomething Have a Midlife Crisis

Read my old post about how our perception of time changes then have them read this:

We all know that time seems to speed up as we grow older - but according to studies at the University of Cincinnati in the 1970's, this effect is so pronounced that if you're 20 today, you're already halfway through life, in terms of your subjective experience of how time passes, even if you live until you're 80. And if you're 40 - again, assuming you live to be 80 - your life is 71% per cent over. Basically, if you're older than about 30, you're almost dead.

Happy New Years...

Holiday Card from a Reader

By listening to my holiday advice on getting people exactly what they ask for he got me just what I asked for. From Justin from here.

Avoiding Xmas Deadweight Loss, Part VI

Okay, last one (for this year at least):

You’ve found that perfect, pricey gift for your significant other. Now, you decide to pick up a little something else. But wait! The second smaller gift can actually take away from the powerful impression of gift number 1. That’s according to an analysis in the Journal of Consumer Research. [Kimberlee Weaver, Stephen M. Garcia and Norbert Schwarz, The Presenter’s Paradox] 

The researchers call it the “presenter’s paradox.” The person presenting the gifts thinks more is better. But the receiver unconsciously averages the two – so a cheaper addition makes the bigger gift seem, surprisingly, cheaper itself. 

The researchers evaluated seven test situations. In one, subjects were asked to assign a value for a gift iPod. Others were asked to value an iPod plus a free mp3. The participants assigned a significantly higher value on just the iPod. 

And this occurs in other facets of life. Participants in another trial were asked to rate the severity of a littering punishment. And they rated a fine of $750 as a more severe punishment than a fine of the same $750 fine plus two hours of community service. 

So, to avoid the averaging effect, keep it simple with gifts. It’s the thought that counts. The one thought.

Emptying the Bottle: Late December '11 Links

Here is the best of what I've shared on Twitter recently:

• Tyler Cowen on Freakonomics on why American food is "so bad".
• 99designs.com, an awesome way to get design work done.
• There are no mistakes in the bandstand (and in improv) [video].
• Creativity related to rule breaking [audio].
• Roman Empire more equal than modern day United States.
• Not surprisingly, don't give cash for Christmas. Exception?
• Why are chili peppers spicy? To protect against fungus [audio].
• Long, but good old (1928) essay on the implications on animal sizes.
• College football victories = worse grades [video].
• How Martin Luther went viral using the printing press.
• How to fool people into thinking you like their gift.
• Scrooge was related to Adam Smith.
• Ron Paul literally puts his money where his mouth is [video].
• How retailers trick you into buying more [video].

As always, feel free to email me anything interesting you come across.

Avoiding Xmas Deadweight Loss, Part V

Just in case you haven't finished up your shopping yet, here's some more holiday saving (ruining?) advice on gift giving:

my first guideline for efficient giving: Gift-giving should be redistributive. Reciprocity is a lovely sentiment, but the holidays are an excellent time to rebalance the overall family or friend group portfolio in favor of its needier members.

Not sure if I agree with the desirability of that, but I think it is definitely true. Here's another:

When you step outside the circle of things you know for sure your gift-getter likes, you risk creating a massive deadweight loss. (You give her a ticket to Las Vegas, without knowing that she hates gambling.) But with the greater risk comes a greater potential reward.

And once you've decided to give a gift, you should give an experience:

In particular, people consistently overrate the extent to which money in general and material possessions in particular will make them happy, underweighting interpersonal relationships and new experiences in the process. So try to give your loved ones the opportunity to go do something new, ideally with other people.

Here's part one, two, three, and four of the series.

Legality of Santa Clause

Santa's not real. If you're reading this and you didn't know that, I'm sorry. In fact, if you're reading at all and you didn't know that, I'm very sorry. But if Santa was real, would he be an international criminal?:

I. Trespass and Consent  

At first glance it might seem that Santa Claus is liable in tort and criminal law for trespass, but the homeowner’s consent negates both charges. Sending letters to Santa, hanging stockings with care, setting out milk and cookies, and the like are all clear manifestations of consent for Santa Claus to enter one’s home and deposit presents (or coal, as the case may be). Indeed I suspect it would be quite difficult to find someone who received a present from Santa Claus yet could honestly claim that he or she did not consent to its delivery. 

II. Airspace Restrictions 

Another potential problem with Santa, as with many superheroes, is the issue of air travel regulations. In Santa’s case however, the fact that he is tracked by NORAD suggests that he has clearance from the US and Canadian militaries to travel through US and Canadian airspace essentially unrestricted. 

III. Customs and Immigration 

Santa may be cleared to travel through US and Canadian airspace, but what about entering the countries in the first place? As it turns out, Canada has extended Canadian citizenship to Santa Claus, so the answer is trivial for Santa’s travels through Canada. Furthermore, as a Canadian citizen his entry into the US is fairly straightforward because he’ll only be in the country for a few hours; there is no need for a special visa. One brief stop at a border crossing when he enters the US is all he needs. If he can visit millions of homes around the world in one night, that small delay is unlikely to present a problem. 

Customs is a bit trickier as Santa Claus ordinarily would have quite a lot to declare. It seems clear, though, that Santa does not actually physically possess all of the presents to be delivered in his sleigh (obviously that would be impossible!). Instead his sack of toys functions as a kind of teleportation device, allowing him to pull out presents as needed, as depicted in this well-known documentary. That would seem to neatly skirt the problem of filling out the world’s longest customs form.

Though he may be breaking some European labor laws:

The Experience Bank

Everything either brings net positive emotions (happy) or negative emotions (sad). They also bring varying amounts of happiness or sadness. For example, the night I got engaged was one of the happiest days of my life. Let's just label that 100 (happiness) points. My recent move on the other hand, has been fairly difficult. Let's label that -25 (sadness) points. Positive experiences add a finite amount to our life satisfaction and negative ones subtract a finite amount from it. The balance of those events are the measure of how we feel about our lives.

Although this seems obvious there are some interesting implications when you start to consider that experiences, like money, can be borrowed. Upcoming events, both and good and bad, have expectations. Those feelings are you taking some of those points out before they are earned. Here are three scenarios:

Neutral: Imagine you have a holiday coming up. The entire week before you imagine all the great experiences you are going to have. When the day arrives, it goes exactly how you thought it would. But when things go exactly like we think, even when they are great, we aren't ecstatic. It's because we consumed a lot of the positive happiness points before the event even happened. We borrowed from future happiness. This Louis C.K. bit describes it perfectly.

Deficit: But like real debt, sometimes we can predict our future earnings incorrectly. Imagine that same holiday is coming up and we have the same expectations. But nothing happens. No one shows up to your get together. No one calls. Nothing. Then you are sad. You're not sad because nothing special happened. Nothing special happens all the time. You're sad because all week you borrowed from the experience bank and your Christmas bonus didn't come.

Surplus: Now imagine a third scenario. The holidays are coming up, but you have no expectations of fun. All week you dread the day because you just know it is going to be miserable. Then suddenly all your friends and family arrive for some amazing holiday fun. You explode with joy. You hadn't consumed any of the experience value until that very moment and now you get to gorge.

So which situation is best?Neutral account? Deficit account? Surplus account? Well clearly the deficit is worst. No one likes to be let down. Except I see a lot of people who live their life like this. They have unrealistic expectations for the future. They live rich in the present, but will suffer in the future. A surplus account also has it's problems. Sure you get the explosion of joy when things turn out great, but in the meantime you are miserable.

That why I personally prefer a neutral account. You get to spread out the joy (or pain) of events over a long period of time. It's not about being optimistic or pessimistic. It's about being right. It's giving the gift people want for Christmas is best, even if you were able to accurately guess what they wanted. And why having a loved one die suddenly is worse than having them die slowly (unless they die too slowly which creates a whole different experience). This is what happened with my recent life transition. The experience itself wasn't that terrible. I had just not expected my life to ever get worse. I had been borrowing from my "imaginary eternal spiral upward, into a bigger and better future".

But here's the kicker. I started this post assuming my preference was the right answer. But I broke one of my own presuppositions that people have wildly different preferences. It turns out some people do like to play the lottery. Conversely, other people fear change so much they would rather be a little more sad in the present than ever be really sad in the future. I expect that there are different discount rates for happiness like there are for money. Perhaps being experientially patient results in more wealth just like being economically patient results in more real wealth. I know I often tend towards preferring the present too much. So feel free to get your hopes up or down, just know there is no so such thing as a free hope.

Avoiding Xmas Deadweight Loss, Part IV

In parts one, two, and three of this series I've discussed how to prevent the efficiency loss of Christmas. I've suggested giving guilty pleasures, giving in your expertise, exchanging names and buying less gifts, and using Amazon's patented auto-return policy. But perhaps the easiest (and most efficient) way is to just get exactly what they asked for:

Five studies show that gift recipients are more appreciative of gifts they explicitly request than those they do not. In contrast, gift givers assume that both solicited and unsolicited gifts will be equally appreciated. At the root of this dilemma is a difference of opinion about what purchasing an unsolicited gift signals: gift givers expect unsolicited gifts will be considered more thoughtful and considerate by their intended recipients than is actually the case (Studies 1–3).

And here's how you ensure this:

In our final two studies, we highlight two boundary conditions for this effect: identifying a specific gift and using money as a gift. When gift recipients request one specific gift, rather than providing a list of possible gifts, givers become more willing to purchase the requested gift (Study 4). 

And then there's always cash:

Further, although givers believe that recipients do not appreciate receiving money as much as receiving a solicited gift, recipients feel the opposite about these two gift options (Study 5).

This is why this year I'll be exchanging names with my siblings and I asked for 1) Greenville event/activity tickets (expertise), 2) Apple gift card (guilty pleasure=cash), and 3) a thin mouthed gray Nalgene bottle (very specific). Though the more I consider the idea that giving is better than receiving, I wonder if doing neither is best.

One More Reason to Get a Real Tree

As I am unable to get a tree this year (can't have a tree without a home), I can be comforted that no tree may be better than a fake tree:

In 1930 the U.S.-based Addis Brush Company created the first artificial Christmas tree made from brush bristles. The company used the same machinery that it used to manufacture toilet brushes. The trees were made from the same animal-hair bristles used in the brushes, save they were dyed green.

Difference Between Humans and Animals, Part XXVII

Christmas present edition:

Male nursery web spiders often woo potential lady-friends with gifts wrapped in silk. Mating may ensue, during which a female unspools the present, expecting to find a tasty treat. But the males can be unscrupulous. Some offerings contain inedible plant seeds or empty insect exoskeletons.

But he won't stop skimping until she starts noticing:

Females clearly prefer males bearing edible presents. But some males know they can get limited action without expending the energy on a real gift. And the females laid almost the same amount of eggs fertilized by males bearing real or phony gifts. With both strategies successful, the behavior gets maintained. And the species stays stocked with deadbeat dads.

The difference for humans is we have posters:

But don't worry gentlemen, the ladies of the animal kingdom can be cheaters too:

The Scientific American blog post (based on this paper) makes it sound as if the males are the only ones using deception and dirty tricks. But why do the males silk wrap their gifts? Why not just present the females with food? 

Females presented with food will often grab the food and run, leaving the males doubly hungry. A wrapped package is harder to steal (the males have a better grip on the silk) and as the females slowly unwrap their potentially delicious presents the males copulate.

Sounds kind of like engagement rings.

The Late Andy Rooney on Veterans

As a 60 Minutes fan, I didn't care much for Andy Rooney's everyday complaint journalism. But I did come across this Andy Rooney column from 2004, and I think there is some substance to it:

Most of the reporting from Iraq is about death and destruction. We don't learn much about what our soldiers in Iraq are thinking or doing. There's no Ernie Pyle to tell us, and, if there were, the military would make it difficult or impossible for him to let us know. It would be interesting to have a reporter ask a group of our soldiers in Iraq to answer five questions and see the results:  

1. Do you think your country did the right thing sending you into Iraq?
2. Are you doing what America set out to do to make Iraq a democracy, or have we failed so badly that we should pack up and get out before more of you are killed?
3. Do the orders you get handed down from one headquarters to another, all far removed from the fighting, seem sensible, or do you think our highest command is out of touch with the reality of your situation?
4. If you could have a medal or a trip home, which would you take?
5. Are you encouraged by all the talk back home about how brave you are and how everyone supports you? 

Treating soldiers fighting their war as brave heroes is an old civilian trick designed to keep the soldiers at it. But you can be sure our soldiers in Iraq are not all brave heroes gladly risking their lives for us sitting comfortably back here at home.  

Our soldiers in Iraq are people, young men and women, and they behave like people - sometimes good and sometimes bad, sometimes brave, sometimes fearful. It's disingenuous of the rest of us to encourage them to fight this war by idolizing them.  

We pin medals on their chests to keep them going. We speak of them as if they volunteered to risk their lives to save ours, but there isn't much voluntary about what most of them have done. A relatively small number are professional soldiers. During the last few years, when millions of jobs disappeared, many young people, desperate for some income, enlisted in the Army. About 40 percent of our soldiers in Iraq enlisted in the National Guard or the Army Reserve to pick up some extra money and never thought they'd be called on to fight. They want to come home.  

One indication that not all soldiers in Iraq are happy warriors is the report recently released by the Army showing that 23 of them committed suicide there last year. This is a dismaying figure. If 22 young men and one woman killed themselves because they couldn't take it, think how many more are desperately unhappy but unwilling to die.  

We must support our soldiers in Iraq because it's our fault they're risking their lives there. However, we should not bestow the mantle of heroism on all of them for simply being where we sent them. Most are victims, not heroes.  

America's intentions are honorable. I believe that, and we must find a way of making the rest of the world believe it. We want to do the right thing. We care about the rest of the world. President Bush's intentions were honorable when he took us into Iraq. They were not well thought out but honorable.

Here's me on the topic last year.

Hyper Halloween?

Good news from The Incidental Economist:

Let’s cut to the chase: sugar doesn’t make kids hyper. There have been at least twelve trials of various diets investigating different levels of sugar in children’s diets. That’s more studies than are often done on drugs. None of them detected any differences in behavior between children who had eaten sugar and those who hadn’t. These studies included sugar from candy, chocolate, and natural sources. Some of them were short-term, and some of them were long term. Some of them focused on children with ADHD. Some of them even included only children who were considered “sensitive” to sugar. In all of them, children did not behave differently after eating something full of sugar or something sugar-free. 

Personally, I think there are so many studies on this issue because after each was completed, the results were met with such skepticism that researchers felt the need to do another. This myth, perhaps more than any other, is met with disbelief when we discuss it, especially among parents. 

In my favorite of these studies, children were divided into two groups. All of them were given a sugar-free beverage to drink. But half the parents were told that their child had just had a drink with sugar. Then, all of the parents were told to grade their children’s behavior. Not surprisingly, the parents of children who thought their children had drunk a ton of sugar rated their children as significantly more hyperactive. This myth is entirely in parents’ heads. We see it because we believe it.

Then why does the myth continue?

Even when science shows time and again that it’s not so, we continue to persist in believing that sugar causes our kids to be hyperactive. That’s likely because there’s an association. Times when kids get a lot of sugar are often times when they are predisposed to be a little excited. Halloween. Birthday parties. Holidays. We may even be causing the problem ourselves. Some parents are so restrictive about sugar and candy that when their kids finally get it they’re quite excited. Even hyper.

HT to Marginal Revolution

World Trade Center Tribute

Couldn't think of a better way to say goodbye:


And here they are 9/11/01.

Europe/Africa Trip in Pictures

In late June my wife and I put all our belongings in storage and set off to visit family in Europe and North Africa. Like last year's trip to NYC, I'll just give the highlights:

The Transatlantic Flight

My new rule in flying is never assume anything. Since our first honeymoon flight together my wife and I have created a bad habit of running in airports. Apparently in Boston Logan, no gate number doesn't mean to wait, it means it's an international flight (which is on the other side of the airport).

Madrid-Barajas Airport

My favorite airport of the trip was easily Madrid. It was one of our longest layovers, which shouldn't be underestimated. One of the things I noticed on the flight over is that I had a very hard time telling who was an American and who was not. It seems the entire West looks American to me.

Granada, Spain

We came to this medium sized city in Southern Spain to visit Traci's brother, his wife, and their adorable son.

Better than any picture I took

 We saw the Granada Cathedral (above) and the once-Muslim-later-Catholic palace The Alhambra (below).

It's interesting to be in a city that was once devout Catholic, then taken over by the Moors (Muslims), then taken back over back Catholics, only to be ruled by the fascist dictator Francisco Franco during WWII. It's created a nation of people who seem to be done with religion and done with work. Though not entirely.

This was one of the most fascinating people we met. He's the owner of a small but successful olive oil shop. He reminded me how important personality is for entrepreneurship.

Every American city needs one of these!

Spain was a wealthy Western European nation that seemed in most ways similar to the US. The main difference seemed to be the difference between rural and city culture more than American and European culture. Unlike our next destination.

Tangier, Morocco

We came to this large Muslim city in North Africa to visit another of Traci's brother, his wife, and their two equally adorable children.

View from their porch

With a larger language, cultural, and fashion barrier than Spain, we spent more time indoors.

Playing cards.

Reading The Boxcar Children (did you know they get out of the Boxcar?).

And playing musical chairs.

I'm not afraid to win

Amsterdam, Netherlands

The last leg of our trip was spent to visit my sister and her new husband.

As you can see the weather in Amsterdam is quite colder, even in July. Every imaginable mode of transportation exists here. Cars, mopeds, trams, and...

Boats! And...

Bikes! 

Cologne, Germany and Bree, Belgium

While in the Netherlands we took a day trip to Cologne and Bree. Here's my favorite thing we saw all trip.

The Cologne Cathedral

Like something out of a fairy tale.

We walked all the way to the top!

Madrid, Spain

Twice on our 3 1/2 week trip we had an overnight connection in Madrid. What started as a costly annoyance turned out to be one of my favorite cities. Not only was Madrid clean and safe, it was extremely easy to get around. For 1 Euro you can get anywhere in the city on the subway.

Despite a 7 1/2 layover in Tangier and getting called an asshole by a old Dutch woman, the trip went off without a hitch. The whole experience helped me better understand European and Arab culture. How similar (cultural religion isn't just a thing of the American South) and how different (like how old women and children are on the streets in Spain at 2am) people can be. Thanks again to all the family and friends who showed us around!

Diversified New Year's Resolutions Redux

Last year I attempted five different New Year's Resolutions and pretty much failed on all of them. Even though knowing when to quit is important, I'm not yet convinced to give up. The main reason I've decided to give it another go is because my goals haven't really changed much. If I still think they are a good idea, then they must be. Just to remind you, here are the goals:

1) Moderate exercise for 20 minutes a day, 3 days a week. From what I have read this is the minimum time needed to remain nominally healthy. Hopefully I will work my way up from here, but it's good to start small.

2) Drink 0-1/2 soft drink daily in my home. Again, the plan is to work down to zero, but there's a good chance I'm addicted to caffeine.

3) Read the Bible every weekday. Not many exact parameters on this one yet, but I would like to open and read a portion of the Bible 5 days a week. I claim to believe it's valuable, but my actions say otherwise. (update)

4) Pray regularly. Same details as the previous one.

5) Allow my wife to pick one for me. She knows my flaws better than anyone and I trust her more than anyone. Who better to help me improve? (update)

The only difference is this year I'm going to put my economics skills to work. This year I'm going to try a very specific commitment device. I hope to put in place a future incentive to keep my future self just as motivated as my current self. Last year a reader recommended that I put money on the line using the website stickK.com. The only problem with that is my wife is cheaper than me, so she would be punished more for my failure. Not a recipe for a happy household. Instead, I've made her my commitment device. One of our big financial debates is whether I got out with friends after improv practices and shows. So here's what we've agreed to:

For each of the five goals completed, I will earn $1 to go out with friends every week.

It's not much, but maybe it will be that little nudge I need.

Merry Christmas from Google Ngram

This graph represents the usage of Merry Christmas in library books over the last 500 years:

 Try your own searches at Ngrams.GoogleLabs.com.