Many southerners see the Confederate defeat of 150 years ago as a defeat for a form of civilization that they admire--chivalry, graciousness, hospitality, independence and self sufficiency. These are laudable traits, but that's not what the Civil War was about. The wealthy southern landowners portrayed their cause as being that, as part of the pro-war propaganda. It was indeed about a way of life--the wealthy landowners could not see a way of maintaining themselves in the style to which they had become accustomed without slavery and the repression of the black race. When the ugly truth about what the war was really about was brought to the fore, they of course did their best to revise history, change the subject, and find new ways of getting extremely cheap labor, many of which continue to involve repressing poor blacks, and other poor people.
50 years ago at the height of the civil rights movement and the centenary of the Civil War, many of these repressions were blocked by federal action. The confederate battle flag, of which there had been only a handful during the war itself and had been called "the southern cross", had become a symbol for the Ku Klux Klan, and was re-purposed to represent resistance to the civil rights movement. And of course the good things about the southern way of life. Most southerners believed the happy lie, but southern blacks and educated others knew exactly what it really meant, and cringed when they saw it. Most of the ex-confederate capitols flew some version of it for a time, and a few incorporated it into their state flag.
There are some good southern values and history worthy of preservation. But the flag does not represent them. Revisionism and denial of the horrors of history is not a cause worthy of defense. That is what the confederate battle flag represents, and since Appomattox, always has. Those that died serving the confederacy were victims of an evil regime, just as slaves were. All deserve to be mourned, even if they were deluded during their lifetime.
There are lots of causes that seem lost but are worth fighting for. Until last week, getting the flag off of government properties seemed hopeless, but today it seems inevitable. (I worry though, that pro-gun advocates are using it as a stalking horse to stop the conversation we should be having about gun control) Theodore Roosevelt tried to get universal public health insurance for Americans, more than a century ago. It took more than a century. We don't quite have it yet, but we're a lot closer than we were 7 years ago. There are lost causes worth continuing to fight for. There are others that need to go to the ash heap of history.
I hope that someone does come up with a symbol that represents the good parts of southern values and heritage, without the burden of slavery and oppression. It's even possible it might be one of the other confederate battle flags, one that was not used by the Ku Klux Klan to incite repression of blacks.
As for the flag itself, I think we need to treat it as free speech and not be banned, but deprecated as offensive. I think we have a good prototype in religious speech: representatives of government must not display it, including public school teachers, elected officials and other public employees, and it should be kept off of state or federal property, except for museums. But several stores and flagmakers have announced that they will no longer make or sell it. I think this is a violation of free speech. I want it to go away because nobody wants to express what it says, not because the expression itself has been banned.
25 June 2015
11 June 2015
Gerrymandering and Undrerrepresentation
A lot of people have come to recognize that Gerrymandering (the chopping up of political districts such that a favored party has a dominant majority) is a big problem in a lot of states. A few states have tried to address this with nonpartisan or bipartisan districting commissions, with rules about irregular border and a few other things, but nothing really works.
A separate but related problem is that the present two party system strongly protects those two parties and does not allow third parties. The libertarian and green party both have several percent of the voters, but do not hold a single seat of the 435 in congress.
My idea is that the delegation that each state sends to the congress must contain a partisan mix corresponding to the actual party vote in that state's US congress elections. So, for example, a state has 10 districts, and the statewide vote is 40% Democrat, 40% Republican, 10% Libertarian, 10% Green, the states delegation must be 4Ds, 4Rs, 1L, 1G. How the state chooses to implement this is up to the state. Fixing Gerrymandering would be a start, but it does nothing for the parties that have significant votership, but no clear plurality anywhere. My thinking would be to reduce the number of districts to 8 and have two "at large" candidates for the two smaller parties.
Perhaps a better option would be to have even fewer districts--say, 5--and have the other 5 selected at large based on getting fair representation. If some of those districts are severely gerrymandered, one of the two majorities may be getting severely underrepresented, and at-large representatives could be used to fix the balance.
The way voting would work would be you'd have your district elections as always, and there would also be an at-large election. Candidates for the districts would also be allowed to run in the at large. You specify (vote for) your party, and then you vote for a district candidate, and some number of at-large candidates according to the number at large seats available. If a party needs at-large representatives, the at-large votes from voters matching that party would be tallied to select the candidate--the top vote getter from voters of that party would get the seat. This would allow voters to cross party lines.
A separate but related problem is that the present two party system strongly protects those two parties and does not allow third parties. The libertarian and green party both have several percent of the voters, but do not hold a single seat of the 435 in congress.
My idea is that the delegation that each state sends to the congress must contain a partisan mix corresponding to the actual party vote in that state's US congress elections. So, for example, a state has 10 districts, and the statewide vote is 40% Democrat, 40% Republican, 10% Libertarian, 10% Green, the states delegation must be 4Ds, 4Rs, 1L, 1G. How the state chooses to implement this is up to the state. Fixing Gerrymandering would be a start, but it does nothing for the parties that have significant votership, but no clear plurality anywhere. My thinking would be to reduce the number of districts to 8 and have two "at large" candidates for the two smaller parties.
Perhaps a better option would be to have even fewer districts--say, 5--and have the other 5 selected at large based on getting fair representation. If some of those districts are severely gerrymandered, one of the two majorities may be getting severely underrepresented, and at-large representatives could be used to fix the balance.
The way voting would work would be you'd have your district elections as always, and there would also be an at-large election. Candidates for the districts would also be allowed to run in the at large. You specify (vote for) your party, and then you vote for a district candidate, and some number of at-large candidates according to the number at large seats available. If a party needs at-large representatives, the at-large votes from voters matching that party would be tallied to select the candidate--the top vote getter from voters of that party would get the seat. This would allow voters to cross party lines.
08 June 2015
What's Next for Tesla?
Tesla has 3 cars in the product pipe, a new battery for home use and a gigafactory under construction. They plan to be a BIG car company and do some other things too.
The three cars that are already in production:
The roadster: two seater, two door, convertable Wheelbase = 93", Length = 155", Width = 73", Track = 59", Curb Weight 2723 lbs. No longer manufactured.
The Model S: 5 seat 4 door sports sedan, Wheelbase 116.5", Length 196", Width 86", Track 67", Curb Weight 4647 lbs.
The Model X: 7 seat 5 door station wagon/sports utility vehicle. First delivery in 2016. It looks like a taller version of the model S. I bet it uses the same chassis. the BMW X5 that it will compete with has slightly smaller chassis dimensions than the model S.
The Model 3: Smaller and half the price of the model S, but it's promised to have similar range and will be "less adventurous". My guess it will closer to the market niche of the Camry or Leaf. No real announcements will be made until at least 2016 but tesla employees seem to be very excited.
Tesla has also suggested that there may be a revival of the roadster. My guess is that this will use the same chassis as the model 3 with body styling reminiscent of the roadster. there's lots of precedent for this sort of thing: think Honda Civic and CRX.
So what else can be built on these two chassis?
A van: ford's E series van is 217x80" with a 138x70" wheelbase. less than 2 feet longer, and about the same width than the model S. There's no engine in a tesla so the cab could be quite a bit farther forward. This would be very practical as a delivery van, a work van for an electrician or plumber, etc, a family hauler, a class B motorhome
A truck: The ford ranger is 189-206 inches long by 70 inches wide: narrower and about the same length as a model S. the ford 150 is about as wide and 2-4 feet longer, so I'm thinking somewhere between. The major changes required would be an elevated, long travel suspension for rougher terrain, and towing. they already have the beginnings of the truck suspension with the air suspension, although it needs to be higher than that.
A family sedan/taxicab: the model X still has a very "fastback" roofline. by extending the high roofline even farther back, this would make it more suitable for carrying grownups in the back.
The three cars that are already in production:
The roadster: two seater, two door, convertable Wheelbase = 93", Length = 155", Width = 73", Track = 59", Curb Weight 2723 lbs. No longer manufactured.
The Model S: 5 seat 4 door sports sedan, Wheelbase 116.5", Length 196", Width 86", Track 67", Curb Weight 4647 lbs.
The Model X: 7 seat 5 door station wagon/sports utility vehicle. First delivery in 2016. It looks like a taller version of the model S. I bet it uses the same chassis. the BMW X5 that it will compete with has slightly smaller chassis dimensions than the model S.
The Model 3: Smaller and half the price of the model S, but it's promised to have similar range and will be "less adventurous". My guess it will closer to the market niche of the Camry or Leaf. No real announcements will be made until at least 2016 but tesla employees seem to be very excited.
Tesla has also suggested that there may be a revival of the roadster. My guess is that this will use the same chassis as the model 3 with body styling reminiscent of the roadster. there's lots of precedent for this sort of thing: think Honda Civic and CRX.
So what else can be built on these two chassis?
A van: ford's E series van is 217x80" with a 138x70" wheelbase. less than 2 feet longer, and about the same width than the model S. There's no engine in a tesla so the cab could be quite a bit farther forward. This would be very practical as a delivery van, a work van for an electrician or plumber, etc, a family hauler, a class B motorhome
A truck: The ford ranger is 189-206 inches long by 70 inches wide: narrower and about the same length as a model S. the ford 150 is about as wide and 2-4 feet longer, so I'm thinking somewhere between. The major changes required would be an elevated, long travel suspension for rougher terrain, and towing. they already have the beginnings of the truck suspension with the air suspension, although it needs to be higher than that.
A family sedan/taxicab: the model X still has a very "fastback" roofline. by extending the high roofline even farther back, this would make it more suitable for carrying grownups in the back.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)