America's Palme D'Or Winners

So I realized a little while ago that I'd seen many, but not all, of the American films to win the Palme D'Or: the prestigious, international award for Best Film.

As such, I went ahead and watched the ones I'd not seen, and have now ranked them, for your convenience.

American Winners

A/A+  The top caliber of film - should be viewed by most people on the planet:

Taxi Driver (1976). Dir. Martin Scorsese. A shocking tale of New York, from the perspective of a sociopath Robert De Niro.

Apocalypse Now (1979). Dir. Francis Ford Coppola. One of the great war films, a tour de force of cinematography, and outstanding acting by Martin Sheen and Marlon Brando.

Pulp Fiction (1994). Dir. Quentin Tarantino. The atypical narrative structure, the all-star cast giving their best work, the remarkable dialogue and visuals all coalesce into a great vision of 70s gangsters.

A- An otherwise excellent, but slightly flawed, film:

All That Jazz (1980). Dir. Bob Fosse. Visually mesmerizing, autobiographical, account of Bob Fosse's career, starring Roy Scheider.

Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004). Dir. Michel Moore. A documentary (?) about the Iraq War and the Bush years, which has held up pretty well, and is still important viewing, if not Moore's strongest.

B+ A film that you should definitely see, regardless of small flaws:

The Lost Weekend (1946). Dir. Billy Wilder. A sobering, ruthless portrait of an alcoholic's fight with addiction.

B A memorable film probably worth your time:

Barton Fink (1991). Dir. Joel and Ethan Coen. John Turturro and John Goodman give nice performances in a Kafkaesque vision of early Hollywood.

B- An otherwise good film, with some notable flaws:

Sex, Lies, and Videotape (1989). Dir. Steven Soderbergh. An interesting indie classic about the intersection of sex and video, but the lead actor doesn't quite pull off his performance.

C+ A bit better than the average film, not a bad use of viewing time:

Friendly Persuasion (1957). Dir. William Wyler. A truly odd concept: A telling of the Civil War from the perspective of Quakers, starring Gary Cooper.

C An average film with nothing particular to recommend it:

Marty (1955). Dir. Delbert Mann. The story is that Ernest Borgnine wants love, but is homely.

Elephant (2003). Dir. Gus Van Sant. A long, meditative, slow-paced reflection on Columbine.

C- Not quite as good as an average film, potentially worth a watch, with conditions:

MASH (1970). Dir. Robert Altman. A comedy about the Vietnam Korean War from the perspective of some goofy, rule-breaking, scamps.

The Conversation (1974). Dir. Francis Ford Coppola. A whodunit focused on bugging and recording, which, despite the San Francisco locale, is not particularly entertaining.

D+ Not a good film, but may have one or two slight redeeming aspects:

Scarecrow (1973). Dir. Jerry Schatzberg. Take 'Midnight Cowboy' and put it on the road with Al Pacino for Dustin Hoffman, and Gene Hackman as himself.

Wild at Heart (1990). Dir. David Lynch. A vaguely compelling train-wreck of a film, starring a Nicholas Cage and Laura Dern as young lovers trying to escape Dern's violent mother.

D An entirely forgettable, unpleasant to watch film:

Union Pacific (1939). Dir. Cecil B. DeMille. A boring film about the 1876 railroad.

D- A very unpleasant film:

The Tree of Life (2011). Dir. Terrence Malick. I hate most all of Malick's work. Pointless, cinematographic wanking-off, with a dumb plot, and bad acting.

F Unwatchable:

The Tragedy of Othello: The Moor of Venice (1952). Dir. Orson Welles. Despite the attempts at camera work, the flatness is truly unwatchable - not to mention Welles' blackface as the moor.

American Congressional Academy Update

Back in 2016 I proposed an American Academy - modeled somewhat along French lines. Since then, some of the luminaries have died, notably I.M. Pei. Another, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, has been credibly accused of sexual misconduct, and until such a time as his name is cleared, I'm replacing him with the great Kip Thorne. Another, Sandra Day O'Connor, has retired from all public positions.

And so I have updated the positions, below, along with their ages while I was at it. A few new seats have also been added, upon further reflections. Another new feature is the name listed, italicized, of the memorial dedication of the chair. For example, Seat 1 would be the "Jonas Salk Memorial Seat for Medicine".

American Congressional Academy

Membership requirements: 1) American Citizen and adult resident for at least 10 years. 2) Significant innovation or influence in the field. 3) Not currently serving in the United States Legislature, Judiciary, or Executive branches of government in an elected position. 4) Must be able to attend the three annual meetings in person.

Foreign membership requirements: 1) Significant innovation or influence in the field, of global recognition. 2) Must be able to attend at least one of the three annual meetings in person.

Purpose: To make an annual report to Congress and the public of the areas in which the United States should direct its energies, financial, intellectual, and professional, with a focus on problem-solving.

Organization: The Academy consists of thirty permanent Seats, each representing a different facet of American life. One individual serves as Secretary General, whose position must also reflect a significant contribution to the field of Activism. All of the Academy Membership requirements apply to the Secretary General. The Seats, initially filled by Congress, are lifetime appointments, allowing for an Academy Member to resign at any time, with possibility of reappointment. Seats are appointed by a 2/3 majority of the sitting Academy Members. The Secretary General is also appointed by 2/3 majority of the Academy Members. In addition, five International Seats will also be appointed by the Academy Members, by 2/3 majority. Being an International Member provides the same contribution privileges, however they do not vote on new membership of any type except Secretary General. As with Academy Membership, International Members are lifetime appointments, but may resign with possibility of reappointment. The Secretary General may be recalled from the post by a 2/3 majority vote of the entire Membership, consisting of both the Academy and International Seats. If recalled, the individual may be appointed to a vacant Seat, if they fulfill the facet represented, or later reappointed as Secretary General, or Academy Member. A memorial designation may also be re-designated by a simple majority vote, not including International Members. The new memorial designation must have equaled or exceeded the stature and influence in the field of the previous title holder.

Inaugural 2016 Academy Membership:

Seat 1, Health (Jonas Salk): Louis Wade Sullivan, 85

Seat 2, Physics (Josiah Gibbs): Steven Weinberg, 86

Seat 3, Prose (Mark Twain): Toni Morrison, 88

Seat 4, Mathematics (John von Neumann): Persi Diaconis, 74

Seat 5, Poetry (Emily Dickinson): Lawrence Ferlinghetti, 100

Seat 6, Chemistry (Linus Pauling): EJ Corey, 90

Seat 7, Law (James Madison): Audrey B. Collins, 73

Seat 8, Education (Booker T. Washington): Sal Khan, 42

Seat 9, Technology (Benjamin Franklin): Elon Musk, 47

Seat 10, Music (Bessie Smith): Wayne Shorter, 85

Seat 11, History (WEB DuBois): David McCullough, 85

Seat 12, Architecture (Frank Lloyd Wright): Frank Gehry, 90

Seat 13, Journalism (Ida B. Wells): Gloria Steinem, 85

Seat 14, Human Rights (Frederick Douglass): Dolores Huerta, 89

Seat 15, Economics (John Kenneth Galbraith): Amory Lovins, 71

Seat 16, Anthropology and Sociology (Franz Boas): Jared Diamond, 81

Seat 17, Astronomy and Cosmology (Edwin Hubble): Kip Thorne, 78

Seat 18, Biology (Rachel Carson): E.O. Wilson, 89

Seat 19, Design (Muriel Cooper): Paula Scher, 70

Seat 20: Philosophy (Thomas Dewey): Saul Kripke, 78

Seat 21, Two-Dimensional Art (Georgia O’Keefe): Kara Walker, 49

Seat 22, Three-Dimensional Art (Alexander Calder): Maya Lin, 59

Seat 23, Psychology (William James): Elizabeth Loftus, 74

Seat 24, Theater Art (Paul Robeson): Lin-Manuel Miranda, 39

Seat 25, Film and Television (Thomas Edison): Spike Lee, 62

Seat 26, Labor and Business (Walter Reuther): Bill Gates, 63

Seat 27, Theology (Paul Tillich): Pema Chodron, 82

Seat 28, Military and Intelligence (George Washington): Michael Mullen, 72

Seat 29, Politics (Abraham Lincoln): Barrack Obama, 57

Seat 30, Secretary General - Activism (Martin Luther King): Angela Davis, 75

Inaugural 2016 International Members:

Art (Frida Kahlo): Ai Weiwei, 61, China

Science (Charles Darwin): Jane Goodall, 85, United Kingdom

Social Science (Antenor Firmin): Muhammad Yunus, 78, Bangladesh

Politics (Sun Yat-Sen): Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, 80, Liberia

Law and Journalism (Nelson Mandela): Tawakkol Karman, 40, Yemen

Life Update 2019

So, approximately a year ago, I started dating a really nice young woman from my work.

We hit it off, and by mid-summer we were an official couple. By Christmas we'd met each other's families, and a month or so later she mentioned to her parents we wanted to move in together.

Somewhat surprisingly, her parents, who own some properties, offered her a soon-to-be-vacated house. And by next Sunday, we should be all moved in.

This relationship has marked a whole new stage of my life. Last year, for example, I read a record-low number of books - because I was busy going to museums, camping trips, and Hearst Castle with my girlfriend. I saw fewer movies than usual - because she was being introduced to Lord of the Rings, West Wing, Firefly, and other shows and movies. And, of course, I've been posting on here less. Especially this past month - I've been focused on all the craziness that goes into a move (even if it is only about ten miles away, as the crow flies).

I love the new house. Like any big step, I expect, there's some apprehension. But so far the excitement is keeping the worry at bay.

And I'm building a Zen garden, which is making me practically giddy.

My school, meanwhile, gave me my contract for next year, and my salary is going up, slightly. It's still a great place to work, so that's good. Family is doing well. Life, in general, is in a really good place. And I still *am* reading and watching new movies, and such. I'm paying attention to politics (sorry to see Biden enter the race) and other interests (yay Dave Chappelle getting the Twain Award!). But real life is more important to me, now.

Anyways, that's why there's been so little on here, and why it may remain a bit lessened in output moving forward. Thanks to whoever is still out there reading this - I'll keep posting for you.

Godel, Escher, Bach: A Scathe

I very, very rarely put down books. It's unusual for me to encounter a book that's so unreadable that I'm forced to abandon the project. And so I figure it's worth mentioning and explaining the case that afflicted me at the start of this year.

The first time I gave up on a book, it was Pilgrim's Progress. The work was, at one point in time, one of the most widely-read stories in the Western World. I wasn't interested in the heavy-handed Christian allegory, but rather the historical impact and import - yet it was so bad I couldn't get through it. Another case: Uncle Tom's Cabin very nearly was too awful (but since I thought I was about to be teaching a class on it, I managed to persist). Again, for historical purposes, I tried to get through Mein Kampf - to try to understand how so many allowed themselves to fall victim to such monstrous ideas - but the first chapters were so terrible I couldn't keep going.

Godel, Escher, Bach is, thankfully, not Nazi propaganda, nor racially troubling, nor heavy-handed allegory. So those are pluses. But, in the minus column, it is the only one of the aforementioned books I actually began punching while reading.

One main problem is that Douglas Hofstadter's work is perhaps the most self-satisfied thing I've ever encountered. It's smug and self-congratulatory tone was overwhelmingly obnoxious. But that, alone, wouldn't necessarily be a death-knell. I've read Nietzsche - egotistical odiousness I can handle if need be.

Thematically, I should have loved this book. I have books on Escher, love his work, and have one of his lithographs on my wall next to my desk as I type this. Bach is another favorite - 19 hours of his works, major and minor, are on my iTunes. His work, St. Matthew's Passion, was a gateway to classical music literacy for me. And Godel I find fascinating. I've looked at his Incompleteness Theorem papers, studied logic in college, and am familiar with the progression of logical concerns in Analytical Philosophy (and Mathematics) at the turn of the century.

Secondary characteristics of the book, including references to Lewis Carroll (whose work I enjoy immensely) and Zen (I used to live in the San Francisco Zen Center monastery) should have also made this a slam dunk.

Logic is wonderful, and once you tune your brain to it, it allows you to process the world in a whole new way. But Hofstadter's treatment of elementary logic if so convoluted, so needlessly obfuscated - so just plain damn stupid - that I violently was attacking the 700+ page tome by 250 pages in. The pointless layering of terminology and a staggering collection of his own made-up jargon was a bridge too far.

Godel's mathematics and the logic that underpins them are mindbogglingly complex - it is downright despicable to, while purporting to make them more clear and elucidate interesting connections and patterns, do exactly the opposite. And then have the nerve to be self-congratulatory - as he decides to heap utterly useless jargon on the reader - is infuriatingly bad writing. Which, ironically, is another area he thinks he excels.

Hofstadter thinks he can write in a variety of styles, and he is wrong. He apes Lewis Carroll so poorly as to be painful, especially as his attempted Carroll-style dialogues bookend every chapter. In his anniversary introduction (the sort of thing I usually avoid, but out of desperation turned to, to see if my assessments were shared with a more mature author) he admits that his invocation of Zen at the time of writing was modish intellectual posturing. Any actual resemblance to Zen is purely coincidental and owes not to Hofstadter's confused attempts of invocation.

Beyond disappointing, beyond boring - and it's both - reading this work is like watching a kid you know who cheated on their essay winning an academic prize for honesty: it's just upsetting and angering. So if you don't get bored or aren't disappointed, then you'll likely be upset. THAT SAID - I gave up hope after 250 pages. Maybe it gets better further on.

But I doubt it.

My Global Literacy

I've read a lot of books. Many, however, are nonfiction - science, philosophy, history. So the other day, when I finished Madame Bovary, I began to wonder just how many French works of literature I'd read. One thing led to another and...

...here's my breakdown, by nationality, of the literature I've read. (Note: This was made much easier by the existence of Goodreads. Works I don't recall having read are not included (selections of anthologies which didn't stay with me, for example) nor are graphic novels - as attributing nationality might prove too difficult in those cases. I also didn't include YA or children's authors.)

For the sake of the list a 'work' can be anything from a collection of short stories, to an epic novel, to a single story, to a poem collection. It's relatively arbitrary. For example, Ursula K Le Guin's in there for a single short story, and Flannery O'Connor's entire collection, "A Good Man is Hard to Find" also gets one entry - based on how I encountered the works.

Ancient Greece

8 authors, 17 works

Ancient Rome

3 authors, 3 works

India

6 authors, 7 works

China

13 authors, 13 works

Japan

7 authors, 9 works

Medieval Middle East

4 authors, 4 works

Lebanon

1 author, 1 work (Issam Mahfouz)

Egypt

1 author, 1 work (Naguib Mahfouz)

Sudan

1 author, 1 work (Tayeb Saleh)

Nigeria

2 authors, 2 works

Kenya

1 author, 1 work (Ngugi Wa Thiong'o)

South Africa

2 authors, 2 works

Russia

12 authors, 20 works

Greece

3 authors, 3 works

Serbia

1 author, 1 work (Ivo Andric)

Romania

1 author, 1 work (Eugene Ionesco)

Hungary

1 author, 1 work (Emre Kertesz)

Austria

1 author, 1 work (Elfriede Jelinek)

Czechia (*includes Bohemia)

2 authors, 2 works

Poland

4 authors, 4 works

Germany

10 authors, 10 works

Belgium

1 author, 1 work (Maurice Maeterlinck)

Denmark

3 authors, 3 works

Finland

1 author, 1 work (Frans Sillanpaa)

Norway

3 authors, 4 works

Sweden

9 authors, 10 works

Iceland and Greenland

5 authors, 5 works

Britain

68 authors, 125 works

Ireland

10 authors, 18 works

Switzerland

1 author, 1 work (Carl Spitteler)

Italy

12 authors, 15 works

France

32 authors, 41 works

Spain

9 authors, 10 works

Argentina

1 author, 1 work (Jorge Luis Borges)

Chile

2 authors, 3 works

Brazil

2 authors, 2 works

Colombia

1 author, 3 works (Gabriel Garcia Marquez)

Guatemala

1 author, 1 work (Miguel Asturias)

Mexico

2 authors, 3 works

Dominica

1 author, 1 work (Derek Walcott)

Canada

3 authors, 3 works

United States

98 authors, 132 works

Graphically:

Western Thought: Keepers

In personal news, I am planning on moving in a few months (20 min closer to work - not a huge move). This has meant looking around and seeing what I own that I may not need.

So, while rummaging through my stuff, I found a very interesting doc I'd forgotten about, where I justify which selections to include in my Western Tradition Compendium.

In a way it serves as a catalogue of the important contributions of Western Thought to the globe. What ideas, discoveries, ideals, histories, and epochs have been of value to the world, or, if not of value, have had a significant impact?

Many authors are outside of their comfort zone. Tolstoy is not presented in literature, as my selection of his work, War and Peace's second epilogue, is included as a work of historiography. So into the 'Social Sciences' it goes. While Austen's Pride and Prejudice is, undoubtedly, a great Regency novel, the reason it has a place in my compendium is to show, through literature, the arrival of The Middle Class in Europe. Many other examples follow.

The list was written some time ago, and is an interesting insight into the historical value of these selections. Below, I've grouped it based on category (which is not the case in the original list) and by date (which, again, is not original). I have also struck out those on the list which did not make the final cut, and highlighted those additions. Here goes:

Literature

Initial Epic Poetry - Homer
Initial Drama - Sophocles
Initial Comedy - Aristophanes
National Epic - Virgil
Saga - "Beowulf"
Chivalric Literature - "Sir Gawain and the Green Knight"
Vernacular - Chaucer
Elizabethan Drama - Shakespeare
Initial Novel - Cervantes
Metaphysical Poetry - John Donne
Satire - Swift
Romanticism - Wordsworth
Symbolic Poetry - Rimbaud
Philosophical Novel - Dostoevsky
Modern Prose - Joyce
Graphic Novel - Ernst
Modern Drama - Beckett
Modern Poetry - Ginsberg

Mathematics

Geometry - Euclid
Quantification - Archimedes
Algebra - Viete
Pure Mathematics - Hardy

Science (Physics, Biology, and Astronomy)

Epicurean Atomism - Lucretius
Modern Astronomy - Copernicus
Scientific Method - Bacon
Anatomy - Harvey
Kinematics - Galileo
Chemistry - Boyle
Classical Physics - Newton
Modern Atomism - Dalton
Electromagnetism - Oersted
Evolution - Darwin
Genetics - Mendel
Germ Theory - Pasteur
Radiation - Rutherford
Relativity - Einstein
Quantum Physics - Heisenberg
Modern Cosmology - Hubble
Thermodynamics - Schrodinger
Computing - Turing
Environmentalism - Carson

Social Science (Politics, History, Sociology, Economics, and Psychology)

Initial History - Herodotus
Historical Method - Thucydides
Political Speech - Cicero
Initial Biography - Plutarch
Julio-Claudians - Tacitus
The Crusades - Comnena
Initial Feminism - Pizan
'The Renaissance Man' - Castiglione
Renaissance Politics - Machiavelli
Exploration and Colonization - Las Casas
Monarchism - Hobbes
Colonial Evangelism - Ines de la Cruz
Civil Society - Rousseau
Capitalism - Smith
Federalism - Hamilton, Jay, and Madison
Modern Historical Narrative - Gibbon
Women's Rights - Wollstonecraft
The Middle Class - Austen
Irrationality - Mackay
Communism - Marx
Civil Disobedience - Thoreau
Defense of Democracy - Lincoln
Libertarianism - Mill
Historiography - Tolstoy
Abolitionism - Twain
Zionism - Herzl
Civil Rights - Du Bois
Crime and Punishment - Kafka
Psychology - Freud
Child Development - Piaget
Modern Economics - Keynes
Industrialism - Benjamin
Anti-Totalitarianism - Orwell
Second Wave Feminism - de Beauvoir

Philosophy and Theology

Judaism and Christianity - "The Bible"
Madness - Euripides
Initial Philosophy - Plato
Logic - Aristotle
Stoicism - Seneca
Autobiography/Confessions - Augustine
Monasticism - Benedict
Theology - Aquinas
Medieval Theology - Dante
Protestantism - Luther
Moral Relativity - Montaigne
Modern Philosophy - Descartes
Cynicism - La Rochefoucauld
Catholic Apologism - Pascal 

Empiricism - Hume
Enlightenment - Kant
'Progress' - Hegel
Self-Reliance - Emerson
Existentialism - Kierkegaard
Mathematical Logic - Carroll
Will Power - Nietzsche

Metaphysics and Ontology - Heidegger
Infinity - Borges
Absurdity - Camus
Linguistic Philosophy - Wittgenstein

Art

Art of Painting - Da Vinci
Art Criticism - Sontag

The Biggest Political Problem

In twenty years, 75% of the US population will live in only 15 states.

And that, sobering as it may be for real-estate, manufacturing, or our culture, is particularly terrifying with regards to our political system. By 2040 those 15 states will have 30 Senators – and 30% of this nation will have 70% of the Senators.

So if you think Mitch McConnell is a master obstructionist, just wait and think what tomorrow will bring…

The Senate is a particularly difficult knot to untangle, thanks to a particularly stupid aspect of our Constitution: Article 5. 

The brilliance of a nation founded in law is that our Constitution can be amended, with the founders recognizing that there was no way their document could be the final word in a changing world. Yet Article 5 has become a ticking time bomb, with no fuse or wires to cut to disarm it, with regards to those scary population projections in the next twenty years. The text of Article 5 states:

“…and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

In other words, unless Wyoming agrees to it, they get to have two Senators, despite a state population that is less than that of San Francisco (and 30 other cities, ranging from Indianapolis to Louisville). This section, Article 5, is the only part of the Constitution which cannot be amended.

And in the next two decades that’s going to be a staggering problem. 1/3 of the nation will be able to determine the legislative agenda of the United States over the protests of the other 2/3. Or at least stymie it. A great example of this growing disparity came up recently, actually, with Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation process in the Senate. The 11 Senators on the Judiciary Committee who voted for Kavanaugh – combined – represent 65 million people. The other ten Senators? The Democrats? They represented the will of nearly 10 million more people than the 'aye' votes. This played out again in the floor vote, with a majority of America, by population, not wanting Kavanaugh on the bench - and their Senators, despite their votes, were drowned out by a minority with outsize say in our government.

How do we fix this sort of minority rule, especially when it can have generational consequences?

Why not call a new Constitutional Convention?

The legal grounds of this are shaky. Our old friend Article 5 provides a couple of ways to do this, originating either in Congress or the Statehouses. But the language in those provisions deals with amendments – not a new convention, per se. The founders, though, didn’t seem to mind meeting purportedly to discuss the Articles of Confederation, merely to throw them out and create a new foundational document. That act does provide a precedent.

Once we have a Democrat in the office of the Presidency, and a Democratic majority in the House (and ideally Senate), you could take the following steps:

The President announces to a joint session that they have 60 days to pick their delegates for a new Constitutional Convention. Each member of the House and Senate (including the Territories) gets to pick at least one delegate – with each state having a proportional number of delegates based on population. This would roughly mean 680 or so delegates. As for the Senate, their chosen delegates would be the only ones eligible to be Chair, so they have that. This choosing of the delegates would fulfill any current Constitutional qualms about Legislative oversight.

The delegates would have a low threshold of entry to serve: 1) Having been found guilty of no high crimes, felonies, misdemeanors, or treason, 2) Having not worked in the service of any foreign nation’s government or military interests, excluding in diplomatic service, and 3) Not currently serving in an elected or appointed capacity in any Federal or State government. (If a Representative, say, wanted to resign to serve in the Convention, though, that’s totally fine.)

In another special joint session, overseen by the VP and once the 60 days were up, the Representatives and Senators would have 30 seconds to announce each of their nominated delegates on the floor – with full biographies being posted in a single, online, government site for in-depth analysis. The document of delegates would be sent to the President, who could veto the list in toto or could veto specific State delegations – but only if:

1)      The delegates submitted did not fit the criteria listed above (eg. a felon from Georgia or a current Senator from Delaware)

2)      The delegate list of a state is not proportional to the State’s population on a basis of gender and ethnicity.

In general, there should be a push to get a broad coalition of folks. Delegates should represent agriculture and law, commerce and education, faith and science, medicine and the armed forces, diplomacy and technology, and all other major walks of life.

Assuming the President signs off on the list, then the delegates have a month to pack their bags and head to Philadelphia. Or maybe Denver. Wherever. The Chair will be voted on by the Senate-nominated delegates, and have a single vote, as well as a paid staff. Every delegate, including the Chair, will be paid $75,000 for a term of one year, starting with the Convention’s being gaveled to order. No other paid or contract work of any kind can be done during their service as delegates, nor can they take any positions lobbying at the State or Federal level for a period of ten years after their service.

Whatever document they come up with will require a simple majority to ratify, and must contain the following three aspects:

1)      Equitably handle the problem of the Senate, with a solution on the grounds of a proportional-to-population basis.

2)      Keep all laws not directly repealed by the new Constitution. (We don’t want to rewrite all of America’s laws, after all – so a provision is needed that states all US laws that were passed, both at the State and Federal level, including the First Constitution, still apply unless directly contravened by the provisions of the new Constitution.)

3)      Protect human dignity for all.

This document would be presented to the President to sign off on. If the President vetoed the new Constitution, or the Convention was unable to create a document in the year assigned, then the process begins anew automatically, with the selection of an entirely new set of Delegates, including Chair. Assuming that doesn’t happen, though, and the President signs off on it, then it goes to the Statehouses to ratify, requiring 2/3 to ratify (34 in total) to become law – and with no stated time limit in which to do so. Then it would be up to the American people to compel their statehouses to ratify the new Constitution. 

Then, and only then, we would have fixed the problem, quick approaching in the next twenty years, of a Nation even more divided and more partisan than our current mess.