White Squirrel 8-second Video

We Walk So Plain

Earlier this year (the afternoon of Halloween) I saw our friend here scampering about out in the front yard. 

So, I opened the door, quietly, and held up my phone for a few seconds.  Luckily, the squirrel made a preparatory hop or two before one long dash, which was unfortunately all the video I took.  

The sight of a white squirrel seems to coincide, in my experience, with the advent of a mystical experience: an epiphany out of the blue. 

The first white squirrel I ever saw was first spotted by my brother on January 1st 2000.

Are you ready for a miracle?

Where's the White Squirrel now?  We think he was here for our nuts.  So, next year we're hoping to see our friend once again.

Gamified Labor 'On The Clock'

My Own Pace

In June of 1991 I began my career as a rural letter carrier, working for the Post Office.

And what a lucky break that was.

Why lucky?  Rural carriers (as opposed to city carriers) are paid a daily salary based on the difficulty of their route.  Routes are periodically evaluated to determine how many boxes and miles are involved, and how much mail carried.  Mileage, boxes and quantities of various kinds of mail are fed into a spreadsheet that generates an expected number of hours a day.  But whether rural carriers take more or less time to deliver on a given day, they're paid for that evaluation.  Which means that work can become a game, with efficiency king.

What do I mean by efficiency?   Work is not recreation.  It is not what we would choose to do if we weren't being paid to do it.  So, the mind's natural reaction is to imagine ways to minimize work.  This is being efficient.  The unnatural reaction most work pushes us towards involves doing the least amount of actual work in the greatest amount of time; being inefficient.

We all know the psychology involved in being inefficient.  If waiting in the doctor's office, for example, the desire for time to pass is greater than the delight in exploring the present.  Work is similar.  If paid by the hour, there's no natural incentive to minimize work.  In fact, if our workload is increased when we're more productive, efficiency actually works against us.  Likewise, if paid by the hour to do a specific task, like fix a sink or toilet, the 'natural' reaction is to prolong the task.  Which means that because most people are honorable, they're constantly fighting the headwind of their own self-interest.

Placed in this context, a rural carrier's evaluated pay system, since it harmonizes the interests of worker and management, is wonderful indeed.   But there's more!   I've found that as a worker on the lookout for efficiencies I learn to be awake to opportunity, and this rubs off on home life, and some might say, on personality in general.  And this, in turn, allows us as humans, potentially, to progress.  When we're generally more aware and conscious of the choices we make, we all benefit.

If we can find a way to use 'evaluated' pay in other lines of employment, then, the game is afoot.

All of us have likely been in a Post Office, have stood in line, and been waited on by a postal clerk.  And most of the time we're likely too busy with our own experience to imagine what it's like to work behind the counter.  But for a moment, let's stand in a clerk's shoes and pretend that each transaction we complete, whether it's selling stamps, mailing a package or answering a question, is automatically recorded electronically.  Our 'transactions total' for the day is then compared to an evaluation based on engineered time studies that determine how long a particular duty takes.  If we complete 100% or less of our evaluation, there's no effect on our paycheck.  Anything over 100%, however, is added to paid vacation, which we use at a later date at our discretion.

We're motivated!  If we keep customers moving through the waiting line by seeking out efficiencies, we win.

Yeah, but what about the quality of our work?  Wouldn't we naturally want to rush customers through and treat them as mere figures on a flowchart?  Not if our evaluation included the quality, as well as the quantity of our work.  Mystery shoppers, who evaluate the postal window experience, have long been used by postal management to keep track of work quality.

And how does management benefit?  Simple, because many attempts by clerks to reach the 100+% zone would abandon 80 and 90% for 90 and 100%.  Plus, fewer hours are needed, if eight clerks can do the work of nine.

Would this work for other lines of employment that don't have a computerized record of every transaction?  Maybe.  It certainly could work for individual post offices, many of which are currently micro-managed from above.

Examples of management bloat in modern bureaucracy are not hard to come by.  Top-down yes-sir toadying is the bane of effective operations.  The antidote is localized decision-making.  And in an age of computerized analysis, where all statistics, including the mighty bottom line, are at a manager's fingertips, it should be a simple matter of setting guidelines, and progressively elevated expectations, then getting out of the way.  For the US Postal Service, this could mean that an individual postmaster who improves, overall, on a mix of performance measures is given greater autonomy.

This wouldn't be a namby-pamby lack of supervision (fewer periodic 'inspections'), but rather, things like allowing unions to self-regulate (keeping office-wide statistical records that are used to reform and reward); small-bore, but significant revenue sharing (bonuses for consistent improvement); and dramatic media --> community outreach (maybe contests to earmark a share of bonuses to charity and so encourage the use of post office products).

For all its attractions, the gamification of labor will likely take a while to catch on, so the more likely, early adopters, will probably have to convince the otherwise skeptical by example.  The Postal Service with its intense, internal record-keeping seems a likely place to start.

Where'd He Get That 'Cool'

My Kennedy Listicle

On this, the 50th anniversary of JFK's assassination, I jot down a list to answer the question: "Where'd he get that 'cool":

1. As a wealthy man from a prominent family he had those 'high hopes' upon which ambition feeds.
2. His wife, Jacqueline.  She had a serious, classically trained mind that must have challenged him to greatness.
3. He read and studied history.
4. The experience of war would be enough to remove any uncertainty of character resulting from his privileged background.
5. He was, for the most part, successful, politically.
6. His extramarital affairs, though they point to his downfall, meant that he thoroughly experienced life.
7. All the cool kids were Democrats when his time came.  Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt and then Adlai Stevenson led the way.  His elite Harvard education meant he was a player.
8. In his final years he took many drugs, some of which would have had psychoactive effects.  Which leads us to:
9. His health was terrible (very bad back, serious adrenal disease), but he was able to rise above the pain.  How could this not have been a source of strength?
10. Compared to what?  To the white bread banality of Nixon and Eisenhower.
11. His secret that he probably kept to himself: he didn't fear death.  

Presidential Aplomb

US Presidents -- From Forty To One

First, let's acknowledge the obvious: being president can't be easy.

Second, while it may be impossible to adequately know the historical constraints presidents face (foolish political allies, a hostile congress, belligerence overseas, prior catastrophes), a close enough approximation is possible.

Third, I'll be adjusting this ranking as I learn more about each man.

And fourth, I'm not considering presidents who died soon after taking office: W.H.Harrison, Taylor and Garfield.  And, of course, Cleveland's two non-consecutive terms are counted only once.

You may wonder what criteria I'm using to judge.  Well, Alex Voltaire has a good round-up.  One additional thing I will say is that as a progressive, I see being a slave owner or having imperialistic tendencies, to cite two examples, as more and more serious faults as time goes on.  While Washington was a slave owner, Tyler's slave owning came many decades later.  Likewise, Eisenhower and LBJ, not to mention Bush II, are marked down much more for overseas overreach, compared to a president like Polk.  In a similar vein, Grant is credited with surprisingly early attempts at social justice.

Washington - 5

Adams - 8                      

Jefferson - 10

Madison - 25                   

Monroe - 21         

JQA - 17                 

Jackson - 34            

Van Buren - 33       

Tyler - 28

Polk - 27

Fillmore - 30           

Pierce - 36

Buchanan - 39

Lincoln - 1

Johnson - 38

Grant - 7                 

Hayes - 19              

Arthur - 23                

Cleveland - 14       

Harrison - 31           

McKinley - 16

T. Roosevelt - 4

Taft - 15                   

Wilson - 18                         

Harding - 26           

Coolidge - 32         

Hoover - 22             

FDR - 2

Truman - 9              

Eisenhower - 20     

Kennedy - 6                           

LBJ - 11                           

Nixon - 37

Ford - 29                                

Carter - 13                

Reagan - 33            

Bush I - 24               

Clinton - 12              

Bush II - 40

Obama - 3
Trump -41     

Many rankings have Truman at #7 to #9, Buchanan near the bottom and Lincoln, FDR & TR at the top.  These presidents need no introduction to their ranking slot.  I will say a few words, however, about some of the more unusual rungs on the ladder:

#25: Madison: His presidency would likely have been much more successful if it hadn't been for the war of 1812, but by his own hand he had helped do away with national economic and military power (central bank, standing army) only to find the nation sliding into war.  D'oh!

#18: Cleveland: I'm giving Cleveland a pass on the economic stink in his 2nd term; this, since economic theory had yet to blossom (the Federal Reserve, monetary stimulus to fight recession) and it can be argued he inherited a mess from Benjamin Harrison.

#26: Harding: The scandals in his administration that are often cited when placing him in the dungeon did not implicate him, personally. 

#6: Kennedy: This is a rather high rating compared to most experts.  I think it deserved due to Kennedy's inspiring charisma alone, and the fact that much of his agenda was stalled in Congress.  Reckless in his personal sphere? Sure, but at the time not so far outside the norm.  And indications are that he was heading in the right direction in the final year or so of his life, both as regards policy and in his personal life.

#3: Obama: Here's the shocker, since as I write this (November, '13) Obama's legacy looks mighty bleak.  My bold predicition is that 'Bama's legacy will feature five major turnarounds: economy, war overseas, healthcare, the environment and higher education.  Each well underway by '17 when he leaves office.

Another couple mentions are in order: both Jackson and Reagan are placed in the low 30s zone (34 and 33), despite poor, high 30s performances.  This is because they presented a commanding presence that, rightly or wrongly, added to the country's stock of confidence.  Likewise, the records of presidents like Coolidge, Nixon, Ford, and Bush I are weighed down by their lack of gravitas.  In the case of Nixon, perhaps what we see is a feigned gravitas accompanied by the shaking of jowls.  Bush II could be added in here, except that I find no 'up' side to be weighed down. 

One last point about ranking.  What judging is all about is determining whether there is any slack between what's possible for a president to accomplish and what he / she actually accomplishes given the times lived in.  Clinton, for example, couldn't have passed most of the major progressive legislation that Obama enacted.  Did he need to 'triangulate', though, that much, separating himself from his own party?  Probably not, though this is debatable, since the U.S. population wasn't nearly as blue, demographically, then as today.  Likewise, was Wilson's backslide segregation of Washington DC, etc., something he had to do to garner votes from his native South and so pass his ambitious agenda?

Also, am I being too partisan?  My Democratic presidents look a lot livelier than do my Republicans of the past 100 years.  Hey, sorry, that's not my problem.  Essentially, Wilson grabbed the populist, progressive agenda from Teddy Roosevelt's Republicans, FDR and Truman spelled out the specifics, and the Democrats have been the more progressive party ever since, with perhaps Hoover, Ike, Nixon, and Bush I each bridging some of that gap.

.........................
Update: Presidents Day  --  2/19/18   ----     #41 -- Trump 
Okay, he's had a year and a month to show us he can't do any better than 'worst ever'. 

Nobody thought it would be this bad.  I can't think of a single thing President Trump hasn't managed to make worse--dramatically worse in most cases.

..........................

Also, here's an interesting ranking of presidents based on their health.  Obviously, it's hard to know much about our earliest leaders, but this list does a good job with what we know.

          

Reading Great Books: Absorb, Align or Awaken?

That Good-Books-Are-Good-For-You Study

A recent Huffington Post article summarizing a study published in Science suggests that reading literary fiction improves our ability to 'read minds' and so better navigate our inter-personal worlds.

The authors of the study "designed five related experiments.  In each...subjects...read 10-15 pages of either literary or popular writing" (Chekhov or Danielle Steel)  Then, "when participants finished their excerpts, they took tests designed to measure" mind reading.  "in one test...(readers) looked at a face for 2 seconds and decided whether the person appeared happy, angry, afraid, or sad."  In another, "they saw only a small slice of a face and picked from four complex emotions such as "contemplative" and "skeptical"."

"Those who read "literary" works scored significantly higher...than those who read popular selections."

But what are the tests measuring?  The absorbing of goodness, a mental realignment or the awakening of mindfulness?

One of the study's authors is quoted as believing the results "show that fiction's power doesn't hinge on exposing readers to foreign viewpoints or offering a persuasive, empathetic message. "For us, it's not about the content.  It was about the process.""  In other words, the ability to fathom or figure out an ambiguously sketched description or relationship.

But couldn't the study be proving something else?  That our minds are temporarily realigned by stories imbued with wonder and power.  And that this heightened mental state makes it easier to do well on just about anything, including tests that gauge our ability to 'mind-read'.  If this is the case, literary fiction's effect is generated by both process and content.

I'm reminded of a poorly designed piece of 'modern art' that reaches for the ambiguity sauce and comes away with a recipe devoid of the savory.

Which is why this study, and others that might be imagined, are at the mercy of well-chosen, powerful content.

As for whether literary fiction has a temporary or lasting effect on our minds, like everything else in life, the effect is probably most intense initially, wanes over time, but can be compounded.

Victuals For All

Nutrition Saves $$

If we all agree that everyone-getting-enough-to-eat is worth taxpayer dollars, what's the best way forward?  As it is now, SNAP provides 48 million Americans with free food.  And Republicans in congress want to reduce that number.  They say recent years have seen a dramatic increase in the number of people on what used to be called 'food stamps'--in 2000, the number was only 17 million.

A recent blog post by the economist Paul Krugman shows that this increase is nearly all related to the declining fortunes of the poor.  As the economy skewed in favor of the rich during the Bush years, and then collapsed, the increased use of SNAP benefits became a major part of society's safety net.  While there was an additional expansion beyond this, it was due to a legislative change that saw government agencies seek out those eligible for assistance, **  rather than wait for the needy to discover they qualified.
** Making sure kids get enough to eat reduces the need for future spending many times over.

The case for reduced spending now, on the other hand, points to a small loophole that could be tightened, and to the need to tie benefits to work requirements for able-bodied and childless working-age adults.

A slight tightening of eligibility, to screen out those with ample assets but little income, might be a legitimate point for congressional give-and-take, but without a strong economy, work requirements are simply cruel.

Another Republican plan to fix SNAP, proposed by Tennessee congressman Phil Roe, an MD, would be to limit recipients to healthier foods, using guidelines devised for the WIC (women, infants and children) program.  The thinking here is that healthier eating will reduce the need for spending on Medicaid, not to mention healthier lives led.

Under the Roe proposal, the list of excluded groceries under SNAP (alcohol, tobacco, pet food and other non-food items) would be expanded so that only the healthiest basics are covered: juice, milk, cereal, cheese, eggs, fruits, veggies, whole wheat bread, grains, tortillas, canned fish, legumes, soy products and peanut butter.

There are several potential problems with this 'fix':
   * higher quality foods can often be more expensive
   * cooking can be near-impossible for someone who works several jobs
   * many poor live in 'food deserts' where mainly low quality, processed foods are available

Yet another approach that seeks similar, healthier results is to reward recipients for buying fruits and veggies (a 30% rebate) rather than prohibiting the purchase of unhealthy foods. ** 
** see HIP article, below

All these ideas require buy-in from store checkout clerks.  This can be especially difficult for smaller stores whose inventory is not automated.  One way around this problem would be to use the existing label requirement for organic foods, so that any product with an organic icon would qualify.

My own take:
   * don't scale back benefits now, as the poor need all the help they can get
   * do limit SNAP benefits to WIC categories and foods labeled 'organic'
           * high quality food = more expensive -- sorry, a bag of rice and one of beans along with fresh fruits and veggies is going to be fairly cheap
           * grant waivers for those working more than 40-hour weeks
           * grant waivers for low-mobility recipients 
   * implement the 30% rebate for fresh fruits and veggies

Politically, there might actually be room for agreement on a package like this.  Democrats would succeed in retaining near-current funding levels and a new 30% off for produce.  Republicans would claim victory too; their expectation, most likely, would be that once eligible food is limited to the nutritious, there's sure to be a decrease in program participation.

The Problem
Background information
HIP article

In The Public Eye

Snoopsters Ahoy!

As I've mentioned previously, I work for the Post Office, and so handle other people's personal information on a daily basis.  This means I avoid looking at or telling others about the information I'm exposed to.  For example:

   * I don't read postcards

   * I avoid talking about what little information I do know; if a letter from the IRS requires a signature, for instance, I like to skate around the obvious when handling the transaction

   * If I leave a package at the door of an apartment building, I turn the label toward the wall so the neighbors aren't unnecessarily informed of a person's name

This all surfaced in my mind as the nation came to grips with government spying on our communications, both foreign and domestic.  We've recently learned that a record of all telephone calls, for example, is kept, that can be accessed, if needed, for national security purposes.

Which raises the question of what's more important, privacy and a faith in the direction history will take, or security and the likelihood of less violence--especially terrorism?

Actually, there is little choice, politically, since there are many in the public realm who choose to focus on security and in a way that willfully overplays the risk involved.  Which often results in voters who are afraid for their safety more than they are concerned about their privacy.

And yet the dialectic of history would suggest that gradually, as fewer terrorists acts flow from increased security, the pendulum will swing in the opposite direction.  We shall see.

Robot-istan

Where's My Robot Taking Me?

Kevin Drum, an unusually able blogger at Mother Jones, has written about the likelihood of artificial intelligence soon outperforming the human brain.

The article's first page suggests that this may be but several decades away.  In the second, Drum deals with the implications.

If robots of the future can do the work that humans can, faster and more accurately and just as easily, what becomes of a society organized around the idea that everyone works for a living?

Drum suggests that we can head in two different directions as super-smart robots do more and more of our work for us: either we ramp up the redistribution of wealth, so that even if only a few of us actually work, we still all enjoy the ride, or, all but the few who own robots will be unemployed.

Ah, but isn't their a third possibility?  That the economy bifurcates into two parts: the super-efficient, robot-run, money-making machine that pays for national security, the welfare state, etc., and a secondary, artisanal, more locally-sourced economy that crafts and creates, as opposed to mass produces.

This secondary scene would likely center around the arts in their broadest sense: in areas where the primary focus is on relaxation, entertainment, the natural world and artistic expression.  Much of the initial support for these areas might have to be from visitors, although wealthy patrons, foundations and inherited wealth would also likely play a part.  

Any takers?

Good For The Goose Is A Fattened Gander

Subsidized Elbow Grease

The Republican-controlled House recently passed a Farm Bill that expanded government assistance for most farmers (those that grow corn, soy, wheat, sugar, cotton, for the most part) and there have been fingers pointing at lobbying by corporate agriculture as the cause.

Several writers, including Brad Plumer of the Washington Post, wonder how farmers, who represent 1% or 2% of the population, can have such a large impact on public policy.  Here are a few reasons why, aside from corporate lobbying:

  * the farm economy is much larger than the total number of farmers; think workers for John Deere, ADM and Monsanto, not to mention the small-town stores and service providers whose customers are often farmers

  * if you live away from metropolitan areas, chances are you transit through agricultural areas, and the intuitive effect is to subconsciously judge farmland as taking up many times more geographical area than developed land, so that the importance of the farm economy is likewise seen as larger than it in fact is

  * there is something in our social fabric that identifies with the farmer and makes his case easier to make: not so long ago--maybe 100 years, maybe a little more--a majority of our ancestors were making a living based on what thet could grow and what thet could make from the things that were grown in their community

All of which happen to zero in on the Republican party's sweet spot: rural voters, especially those who own land or a business as a sole proprietor.  Little wonder, then.

Unbundling Pay TV -- An Exercise in Game Design

Progressivism Comes To TV Bills

I looked at my satellite TV bill recently and was surprised to see it had climbed another few rungs on its way to $100-a-month.

Like everyone else who pays for TV (cable or satellite), I'm essentially offered three or four levels of programming, with the cheapest not including one particularly watched channel and the most expensive shoveling every last unwatchable offering at me.

Lately, there's been talk in Congress of forcing pay TV to offer customers a la carte programming where consumers pick and pay for only those channels they watch.  This has seemed like a sensible change to most, until they hear about the consequences.  Only a few sadsacks would pay for channels like the Home Shopping Network, for example, meaning less revenue for channel bundlers and so, higher rates.  In other words, we'd likely lose the smaller, less mainstream channels and end up paying about the same price, but for less content.

So, why is this an exercise in game design?  Because both sides to the question assume it's either / or; that there's no middle ground.

And yet additional alternatives are possible.  For example, if subscribers were offered either 3/6/9/12, 15 or 'all', channels of their choosing, let's say, and at those levels cable / satellite companies were able to add in, say, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 channels of their choosing (essentially, these extras would be "Look at what you're missing."), everyone would get most of what they wanted.

Most importantly, consumers would feel like they were picking and choosing.

Perhaps just as important, the basic rate for picking just three channels would likely be lower than it is now for a basic package.  This would be a great boon for families that can't afford to pay for more.

And the cable and satellite companies would be able to offer channel companies they bargain with access to what would become the much desired 10, 20, 30... temporary, free slots.  These would then be juggled periodically, giving providers bargaining chips.

Ideally, a bite would be taken out of corporate profits, while those who can afford all the channels would pay more and those who are economizing would pay less.

Update: A contrarian take from the Atlantic

2nd Book Read

2nd In A Series: Citizenville, by Gavin Newsom

Here's another book I ordered--this time new--and have read with some interest.

The author, former mayor of San Francisco and present Lt. Governor of California, identifies a desired transparency in government and the eventual public participation this will engender, as a new way forward for politics.

For example, if a city posts online all the information it gathers, citizens can then make use of the elements that interest them, and like app developers, the most popular compilations and uses rise to the top (a list of the oldest trees in the city, for instance, would be big with me).  All without a top-down approach that does the compilation and distribution on the taxpayer dime.

An approach that should appeal to Republicans (Newsom is a Democrat)!

The book's title is a reference to the online game Farmville that sees players caring for their imaginary rural spreads.  The author reasons that such a popular game suggests citizens would be happy to do something of the same thing in their own neighborhoods if given the chance at stewardship.

Excellent, except that if you've read my take on the eventual hook-up of public and polling, you'll know that rewarding the best new idea to be generated by a given neighborhood doesn't come close to the potential behind the thinking public mind, which is what I propose.

Looking Back at the Architect

I'm about to read The Jesus Discovery; Another Look at Christ's Missing Years by Dr. A.T. Bradford.

Bradford, according to the material I've read on the internet, finds that Christ was in fact a highly regarded, carefully groomed figure within Judaism's 1st century priesthood and not the son of a poor carpenter.  All very intriguing, and yet I expect the key to what happened in those times will be found in Christ's female companionship, or as seems entirely likely, the lack thereof.

Carefully examining many religious organizations, from the Vatican to the Muslim Brotherhood, one is struck by the lack of a female presence.  And that isn't accidental.  Males with a fully engaged, educated, and most important, free, female presence in their life have little need for the tendency to consult an outside authority, which often constitutes religion.

Not that there isn't a need for culture and a normative framework.

But, I've yet to read the book.

.............. update

Hey, I'm really enjoying this book.  Am about half-way through (it's little more than a long essay) and can't believe how other scholars haven't stumbled onto the author's path.

At this point in the book the author has laid out his Golden-Boy-of-the-Jewish-Establishment theory and Jesus has now come under the influence of John-the-Baptist (his cousin--Mary's mother and John's mother, Elizabeth, were of the same family), which begs the question, what might have transpired if Jesus had had a female friend whose mind could have lead him towards a more realistic accomplishment than "God, why hast thou foresaken me?"

America's First Published Poet

Many thanks, Heather, for the inspirational bio-sketches that led me down this morning's path.  The link

I began by clicking on Anne Hutchinson and ended with insight into the female experience in earliest, historical America.

Initially, my curiosity asked: What was Anne (Marbury) Hutchinson getting at with her theological emphasis on Grace, rather than Works?  The one hint I came upon was this biographical detail: "...(she believed) that God had given her the power of clairvoyance, and that she had known in advance of the exact day of (her ship's) arrival in the colony".  

Simply put, she was applying Ecclesiastes, Chapter 3 ("To everything there is a season...") to her daily life--or perhaps doing so subconsciously.  Being educated and unencumbered by dogma, she realized she could devine the meaning in events, and history more broadly, in a more crystaline manner than could her male 'superiors'.  In a virgin land where everything was beginning anew, there must have been an overwhelming, compelling need to witness.

This led to my reading about Mary Dyer, Anne's friend.  Each resisted the male oppression in 1630s New England in her own way, and each died a violent death.  One, from abandonment, one could argue, and the other from martyrdom.

And finally, the pearl found, unexpectedly: America's first published poet, Anne Dudley Bradstreet, 1612-1672, who came to the same colony as Anne Hutchinson and Mary Dyer (in 1630) and left, arguably, an even greater legacy, her inner-most thoughts.

Here are parts of three of her poems, each a jewel, that speak to me over nearly 400 years:

  * From "In Honour of that High and Mighty Princess, Queen Elizabeth"  

"....

Now say, have women worth? or have they none? 

Or had they some, but with our queen is't gone? 

Nay Masculines, you have thus taxt us long, 

But she, though dead, will vindicate our wrong, 

Let such as say our Sex is void of Reason, 

Know tis a Slander now, but once was Treason."

[Note: Queen Elizabeth I reigned from 1558 to 1603]

   * From "Another"

"...

He that can tell the stars or ocean sand,
Or all the grass that in the meads do stand,
The leaves in th' woods, the hail, or drops of rain,
Or in a corn-field number every grain,
Or every mote that in the sunshine hops,
May count my sighs, and number all my drops.
Tell him the countless steps that thou dost trace,
That once a day thy spouse thou may'st embrace;
And when thou canst not treat by loving mouth,
Thy rays afar salute her from the south.

..."

[Note: her husband, who she loved passionately, was away on government business for long stretches of time.

Also, note the emphasis on God's ability to 'tell' or count.]

  * From "The Author To Her Book"

[Note: this is the self-aware poem of an author who was published without a chance to edit.  It describes how she wishes she could improve on her "Ill-formed off-spring...".  Note the piercing, many-storied allusions.]

"...
And rubbing off a spot still made a flaw.
I stretched thy joints to make thee even feet,
Yet still thou run'st more hobbling than is meet;
In better dress to trim thee was my mind,
But nought save homespun cloth, i' th' house I find.
In this array 'mongst Vulgars may'st thou roam.
In critic's hands beware thou dost not come,
..."

Is this genius? I think so.

Is it 'clairvoyance', akin to what Anne Hutchinson experienced?  Perhaps the answer can be read in the final lines of her "High and Mighty..." poem:

"...

No more shall rise or set such glorious Sun,
Until the heaven's great revolution:
If then new things, their old form must retain,
Eliza shall rule Albian once again."