1st Annual Best Blogger Award -- 2016

Who's The Most Interesting?

Putting on my objective reader's hat, I rate the following bloggers, starting with #10 and ending with the award winner at #1.  And then I link to the specific pieces that demonstrate why deciding on this year's #1 was fairly straightforward:

#10: Alison Tyler.  My favorite writer, she recently moved her blogging behind a paywall.  However, her tweets are simply 'testifying' you won't find elsewhere.

#9: Martin Longman.  Writes on politics for The Washington Monthly.

#8: Jamelle Bouie.  Writes on public policy for Slate.

#7: Josh Marshall.  His website, TPM, is notable for its humorous take-downs.  A trained historian, Mr. Marshall is occasionally first with a smart take.

#6: Sarah Kliff.  Writes for Vox, usually on health care.  Blockbuster pieces, like her recent interviews with ObamaCare enrollees in Kentucky who voted for Trump.

#5: Paul Krugman.  A columnist for The New York Times, Mr. Krugman has recently focused on twitter.  Nevertheless, his occasional blog posts are almost always classics.

#4: Alex Voltaire.  His website, The Northumbrian Countdown, is ambitious.  He recently rated, in-depth, the top 100 eligible acts that have yet to make it into the Rock 'N Roll Hall of Fame.

#3: James Fallows.  Writes for the Atlantic.  His 150+ post series called out Trump for stepping over the line during the '16 campaign.  A likely 'senior advisor' in any serious presidency.

#2: Nancy LeTourneau.  Writes with calming illumination for The Washington Monthly.

#1: Kevin Drum.  Writes with unmatched insight, appearing on the Mother Jones website.  I've been following Mr. Drum since his days as Calpundit, prior to his move to The Washington Monthly, and now Mother Jones.

A few recent gems:

On December 16th: A brief, but in-depth look at what FBI director James Comey did.

Also on 12/16: a very brief piece on why Bernie would have lost against Trump.

And 12/17: whose income rose and whose fell under Obama years tax policy?  Answer: poorest 20%: +17% rise;  next poorest 20%: +6% rise;  middle 20%: +1% rise; second highest 20%: no change; top 80%-90%: 1% decline;  95%-99%: 2% decline;  99%-99.9: 5% decline;  99.9-100%: 10% decline.  This, a recipe for economic growth, effectively kept lackluster by Republicans in congress.

Plus, perhaps Mr. Drum's most famous blogging, concerning the link between leaded gasoline and crime:  This article and a brief follow-up is the deciding factor in why Drum's blogging takes the 1st Annual Best Blogger Award here at Uncut.

Another Start-Up Idea

Poetry In Voting

I was enjoying Amanda Nadelberg's musings about how society might pay poets, when several related thoughts merged into one:

* As Ms. Nadelberg notes, we compliment something for being "poetic", but very few of us buy poetry.

* Furthermore, poetry has merged with life like never before.  Dylan's Nobel Prize for literature; the prevalence and cachet of slang; the compacting of a Twitter-ized world's words.

* What would an online poetry start-up look like?

Something clicked in my head, namely the ranked voting idea used in Ireland and Australia, among other places, and recently adopted by Maine's voters.

Suppose 100 poets each pay $10 to enter a poetry contest.  They're divided up into ten teams.  Each team member's poem is posted and read by the other nine team members.  Members then rank the poetry, including their own, from 1-to-10.  Points are awarded for rank received (the average: a 50 score).   Winners from each team (perhaps the top three) are then part of two larger teams of 15 members who again rank poems.  This time the top four in each team meet for a final time.  The overall winner, and perhaps three runner-ups, have their poems published.  Prize money is $750 ($250 to the house), divided $500, $150, $75, $25.  Or, no house take if done by a large website.  Or, even no prize money.

Many objections arise.    

#1: Wouldn't entrants game the system by ranking their own poem at #10, the next best at #1, then #2 and so on?  Ok, a simple twist removes this problem, and this is where the ranked voting system comes in handy.  Rank the rankers, themselves, as to their acuity, then rerank, subtracting the first 1 - to - 10 scale by the second.  The ability to judge is then applied to the original rankings.  Voila, a system that rewards the most perceptive poets' opinions, and penalizes any gamey tendencies.

#2:  Wouldn't this elevate mushy, overly pleasing poetry, rather than the best?  No, because like the art world, the most appreciated and attuned voices have the most say.  We might even claim that art is made.

#3:  And shouldn't the entry fee be $100 so that the winner actually wins something?  Maybe, but aren't many poets so poor that even $10's a stretch?  Besides, the publicity from winning is probably more important.  And, if there were more like 1,000 entries, the more profound monetary effect could be had.

Just for fun, here's an example that uses a mere five poems (all very, very short, mind you.)  Note: judging (the second ranking) is based on how many places away each member's judgement is from the 1st set:

The Contestants and their Poems
1. Lisa:    Spontaneous Bust
2. Dave:    Exxon Bubble
3. DeVaughn:    Virtual Fealty
4. Noki:      Bygones Fee
5. Shalomar:      Truss Me

Rankings
Lisa likes 2 and 3.  She votes 3,1,2,4,5
Dave likes 1, 3 and 5.  He votes 2,5,1,3,4
DeVaughn likes 1.  He votes 3,1,5,4,2
Noki likes 1 and 5.  She votes: 4,5,1,3,2
Shalomar likes 1.  They vote: 1,5,3,2,4

The initial ranking totals (5 points for a 1st place vote, 4 for 2nd, etc.):
1. 19
2. 12
3. 17
4. 11
5. 16

Judging
Now we compare each member's ranking with the end result.
Lisa was one off on her #1 pick; again one off, again -1, -1 and -2 = -6
Dave: -3, -1, -2, -2, 0 = -8
DeVaughn: -1, -1, 0, -1, -1 = -4
Noki: -4, -1, -2, -2, -1 = -10
Shalomar: 0, -1, -1, 0, 0 = -2

Subtraction gives us:

Lisa: 19 - 6 = 13
Dave: 12 - 8 = 4
DeVaughn: 17 - 4 = 13
Noki 11 - 10 = 1
Shalomar: 16 - 2 = 14

Ranking Based On Judging
Lisa for DeVaughn: 65, for herself: 52, for Dave: 39, for Noki: 26, for Shalomar: 13
Dave for himself: 20, for Shalomar: 16, for Lisa: 12, for DeVaughn: 8, for Noki: 4
DeVaughn for himself: 65, for Lisa: 52, for Shalomar: 39, for Noki: 26, for Dave: 13
Noki for herself: 5, for Shalomar: 4, for Lisa: 3, for DeVaughn: 2, for Dave: 1
Shalomar for Lisa: 70, for themselves: 56, for DeVaughn: 42, for Dave: 28. for Noki: 14

Totals:
Lisa: 189
Dave: 101
DeVaughn: 182
Noki: 75
Shalomar: 128


Result: Lisa wins 1st, then DeVaughn, then Shalomar, then Dave, then Noki.

We see that Shalomar was the best judge of others' work, but wasn't thought to be as poetic.  Meanwhile, Lisa, despite ranking herself second, and not being particularly good at judging others, won, because she had the best poem.

Internet 2.0

Starting Again, Fresh

Walter Isaacson writes on the Atlantic website that if we wanted to, we could build a second internet based on verifiable addresses.

Essentially, the system would trade sender anonymity, at the core of the present system, for the following:

   * a way to handle small monetary transactions without cc numbers/passwords

   * this would include single-click small amounts paid content creators

   * security, including the near absence of fake news, bullying and worse

The possibilities for online voting and democratic deliberation interest me, as anyone might guess from my political proposals.  Perhaps Internet 2.0 could be built with assistance form the government to enable online voting, and could then expand to include more and more content from those tired of all the young men in their parents' basements throwing anonymous insults and worse at others.  Eventually, it might voluntarily win over a good part of the original internet.

Secondly, this would make possible a 'tip jar' atmosphere for content that blooms into new businesses and art forms.  I know, this is already possible, but not nearly as likely, due to time and security constraints.

   

Promising, if done as a voluntary opt in.   Article also available on LinkedIn with more in-depth comments.

Why Blue's Ahead Of Red

Truth Bears Fruit

Just a brief reminder that Democratic presidents tend to increase incomes among the poor and middle class, due to higher taxes on the rich.  This, in turn, makes for faster economic growth than under Republican presidents, who tend to do the opposite.

Why is this truth and not opinion?  Because it's easy to understand.  Compare these two uses for the same money:

  * A Republican tax break allows a rich person to buy a very expensive Christmas ornament to hang on their tree.
  * A Democratic tax credit helps five poor people buy things like a car, health insurance, or college tuition.

See?  The ornament produces the same GDP bang for the buck, initially, since buying it uses the same amount of money.  But after that?  Nothing.  It just hangs on the tree for a few weeks a year.  Meanwhile, there's add-on economic benefits if a car means getting to a better paying job, health insurance means staying at the job (and off medicaid), and a college education means access to that better job.  The better-suited job could mean leaving a lower level job for someone else; maybe even gaining enough experience to open one's own business.  And then there's future car-related maintenance, the productivity gained with the right person in the right job, and the additional benefits of a college experience--all economic pluses.

Though our example is something of an exaggeration (since the ornament really is an extreme case), it nevertheless gets at why Democratic policy bears fruit (Clinton's and Obama's economic upswings) and Republican prescriptions tend to end in recessions (Reagan/Bush in '83 and '91; Bush  in '08).

And is Blue generally ahead of Red?  Yes.  Check out the year-by-year chart here.  And note that the US economy did its best when taxes were generally higher on the wealthy ('50s, '60s) than when they were much lower ( '00s).
The top tax rate under various presidents:
Eisenhower: 92%-91%
Kennedy & Johnson: 91%
Nixon: 77% --> 71%
Ford & Carter: 70%
Reagan: 69.125%
Bush: 31%
Clinton: 39.6%
Bush & Obama: 35%

Assignment: Pure Pessimism

Trump Tumbles 

I've had a few requests for a bad-news scenario, to go with post #99's upbeat case.  Ask and ye shall receive...here's this blog's 100th post:

1. This short New Yorker article by John Cassidy suggests a reason why Trump is picking such right wing hacks and anti-government types.  Namely, there's the untidy matter of Trump's conflicts-of-interest that might draw congressional hearings..., if it weren't for all the right-wing candy raining down on a congress controlled by Republicans.

2. But what if the bad news is even worse?  This Josh Marshall piece at TPM wonders whether Trump is so short of cash that he can't divest; that his conflicts-of-interest are something he'll have to live with.  Thus, the pass-it-on-to-the-kids strategy.

3. But this can be made even worse.  What if the operative word here is 'blackmail'?  If all the above is indeed correct, plus, since we know how sensitive Trump pride is, anyone who's owed Trump cash has power over him.

4. And one last step: What if it's a government that has that kind of control?  What if the Russians know they can count on their 'friend' because they have the goods on him?  This all but removes NATO as a deterrent.  This makes it easier for oil prices to rise.  This allows Russia to have its way in Syria, not to mention Ukraine and perhaps the Baltics, etc.   This may even be why Russia's been so eager to usher in a Trump presidency.

5. From Trump's perspective, his only chance is to be joined at the hip with right-wingers, certain military brass, and fat-cat corporate power.  They'll stick with him if the alternative is to miss out on their once-in-a-lifetime chance at getting everything they ever wanted.

6. Hard to know how this would play out, but there'd be one certainty: the Obama presidency would look mighty good, in retrospect, once the inevitable leaks reveal how bad things could, and perhaps have already gotten.

Assignment From Above: The Most Optimistic Case Possible For Blue

Pollyanna Delivers For The Democrats

As of late November, 2016:

1. The odds against a recount victory in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania?  Maybe 99%.

2. So, best case, realistic scenario, given Trump's our 45th president:

    a. the ruckus raised against Trumpish floundering, now, will turn into a huge, bellowing roar by 2018

    b. this'll sweep out the House, leaving Democrats with a way to stymie the worst of Republican instincts

    c. it'll also bring Democrats back into governors' mansions in states that are currently gerrymandered, setting up a more equitable drawing of House districts after the 2020 census

    d. the signature "You're fired!" line will be uttered repeatedly as Trump tries to right his ship of state, buffeted by the aforesaid Trumpish floundering

    e. since the President-elect started by appointing hard-line right-wingers, his firings will likely target the Neanderthal, astro-turf crowd, with future appointments being more competent middle-roaders

3. Contrast that with a Hillary Clinton presidency--still preferable mind you--that would've been severely constrained by a Republican House and Senate.  In fact, rather than drowning in a red tide in 2018 (the Senate class of 2012 being mainly blue), Democrats might be able to hold their most vulnerable seats, after all.

4. The optimistic case for 2017 and 2018, prior to the brakes being applied in November '18, would be for obvious ineptitude that did little damage to individual Americans: a sequence of petty blunders that generate so intense a brouhaha that even low information voters flee the wreckage.

5. Then, in 2020, the limp, unpopular president would take the Republican party down with him, as four years of disaster are left, curbside.  With House, Senate and presidency now blue, and re-districting having reversed most of the Republican advantage of 2010-2020, the Democratic party would be in fine fettle.

Recount And Relax

Always Take A Second Look

The case for always double-checking election results is easily made: once we conduct audits, for all elections, more expensive recounts won't be necessary because hacks will be discovered.  And if hacking won't work, it won't be done.

Sure, if an election is close, we'll occasionally have to conduct a full recount, but in 99% or perhaps 98% of cases, a simple, statistically relevant audit that samples the paper ballots in question will do.

Okay, you say, but is there really a likelihood of hacking that we need to address?  Can't we just trust election results?

No, we can't trust, and yes, there really is a likelihood.  There are some very deep dives on this subject that you can find by googling "hacking election threat" or something similar.  Here's the much shorter version:

* voting machines that do not use re-countable paper ballots should be replaced

* even if a tabulating machine that is fed paper ballots is not connected to the internet, it can be infected with malware when the state installs the paper ballot template prior to an election

* thus, an entire state's voting tabulators, or just a few, could be instructed to change every 30th vote, or to undercount when reporting the result, or whatever the hacker is aiming for

It's Simple

The Surprising, Mundane What-Happened-In-'16, Explained

Along with just about every other political observer, I thought Hillary Clinton was heading for victory.  And as soon as that eventuality was upended, the theories to explain it were many and usually involved charts.

If you ask me, the explanation is simple:

1.  There were 10-15% undecided voters as late as a week before the election.

2.  The momentum at that point was moving in Trump's favor.  There were the Russian hacks dribbling out of Wikileaks involving past minor embarrassments, as well as other irritants.  But the big blow came from the FBI, which announced that new e-mails had been found that could possibly implicate Clinton after all--though of course they didn't.

3.  The undecided voters were looking for a reason to vote one way or another.

Who are these undecided voters?  Probably "low-information" voters who don't have terribly strong opinions one way or another.  They likely don't live in urban areas where residents are forced to interact with people unlike themselves, and where views rarely go unchallenged.  They're also likely to have an average, or less-than-average educational background, so that unrealistic campaign promises are more easily believed in.

Now add in the finding that Americans wanted 'change' in '16.  Sure, there are many unemployed and under-employed, mainly blue-collar workers, who voted for Trump.  Except, the fact that Republicans have thwarted reasonable fixes to the nation's problems over the past eight years means they are the cause of the problem, not the solution.  But, to many out in the rural areas of the country who don't care all that much about reading the newspaper, let alone seeking out different opinions, all that matters is that a change is needed.    

If'n You Didn't Know By Now

3 Losers and 1 Winner On November 8th

There's not much left to say in this presidential election.  A neglected tidbit for each candidate:

* When objective historians look back on 2016, I predict the thing that'll amaze will be the degree to which ever-so-slight sexism went undetected.  We've gotten used to dog whistles used to egg on racism, but perhaps because a female presidential candidate is so new to us. words like "secretary" have become popular, with its potential whip-saw of the 'secret' contained therein (a secretary of State being unavoidably secretive in order to keep the nation's secrets safe; and the error of secrecy when being a transparently public figure is expected).  Another such word is "e-mail" with its potential reference to the male sex (or the absence of the 'f' of 'female).  Thus, the anti-Clinton forces constantly refer to "secret e-mails".  And this, when the top secret "classified" material at issue could, at the time, be found in the public realm (essentially, news reports of our use of drones).  This sort of thing will be seen as harassment, in minor irritant form.  The fact that Hillary can be calculating and awkward in public is a direct reflection of the immense amount of unwarranted bile secreted in an effort to smear her.

* Another thing that historians will notice, in hindsight, is the degree to which Donald Trump's star fell.  I can remember the fascination with which his speech patterns, hand gestures and disarming frankness were met, despite the content of his speeches, in the first few months of his campaign.  Then gradually, the crazy uncle's fun became stunningly and decidedly gauche.  By the end of the campaign, the inherent sexism in his bossiness couldn't be ignored, and most reporting reflected this.

* Gary Johnson's hair.  I'm surprised I didn't hear or read about how off-kilter his hair usually was.  Of course, so was Bernie's.  But Senator Sanders' expression didn't reinforce thoughts of imbalance.

* Jill Stein's absence.  I don't believe I ever saw the Green Party candidate being interviewed on national TV.

Quiz: How Long Will You Live?

To A Longer Life

                                                                                                                Me
*** Start With Average Life-Expectancy
Female:   81       Male:   76                                                                      76


*** Definite Additions and Subtractions:

Cigarette Smoking, light (irregular, 4 or fewer years) = -1 year              75 (college years)
       "            "          heavy (regular, 5+ years) = -3 years

Alcohol Consumption, light (irregular) = +2 years                                  
       "             "              medium (regular) = +1 year
       "             "              heavy (uncontrolled) = -4 years

Caffeine (tea, coffee, chocolate), light (irregular) = +1 year                    
       "                                            medium (regular) = +2 years                 77
       "                                            heavy (obsessive**) = 0 years

Diet of few fruits and veggies = -4 years
  "    of only some fruits and veggies = -1 year
  "    of mainly fruits and veggies = +4 years                                             81
        extras:
  "    heavy on the carbs = extra -1 year                                        
  "    95%+ organic = extra +1 year                                                            82
  "    vegetarian = extra +2 years
  "    vegan, first 1-3 years = extra +1 year
  "    vegan for 4+ years*** = extra -4 years

Worklife (sitting, except for breaks) = -2 years
       "      (moving on feet, repetitive) = -1 years
       "      (moving, non-repetitive) =  +5 years                                            87


*** Subjective Additions and Subtractions (pick a number)

Social Life, meager (always wanting a companion) = -3, -4, -5 years
        "        , limited (rarely wanting companion) = +2, +3, +4 years          90
        "        , robust (engaged with companions) = +2, +3, +4 years
        "        , overwhelmed (can't get away) = -3, -4, -5 years

Movement, Spare Time (couch potato) = -3, -4, -5 years
        "                             (light movement & rest) = -1, 0, +1 years             90
        "                             (vigorous move. & rest) = +3, +4, +5 years        

Sleep, interrupted (by pet, companion, work, worries) = -2, -3, -4 years
   "     , uninterrupted, but tired during day = 0, -1, -2 years
   "     , uninterrupted, rarely tired  = +1, +2, +3 years                                  91
   "     , uninterrupted and deep, using sleep aid = extra +2, +3, +4 years     95 (melatonin)

Drug Use, marijuana (regular, irregular, never again) = -2, 0, +4 years
          "    , addiction = -3, -7, -11 years
          "    , non-addictive, positive experience = 0, +2, +4 years

Air, city = 0, -2, -4
 "  , country = -1, 0, +1                                                                                 95


Highest Possible Score: 118/123 (male/female)       Lowest: 27/32 (male/female)


*** Your Score:
27 - 49 = Hey dude, lighten up
50 - 89 = Come on, you can do it
90 - 123 = She's got it

Me at 95 = Wow, that's a long life.  I'd be on the train to Luckytown if this played out.

If you're in the 50-89 zone, there's probably room for additional nuance, and it likely boils down to three questions:

1. Do you have trouble sticking to a decision you know to be right?  For example, "Potatoes are vegetables, riiiight?  So double my fries."  That is, there's a constant fight inside your head between what's the right, hard path, and the wrong, easy path?  Fight: subtract 3-5 years.  No fight: add 1-2.
2. Do you value intent in your life?  Is there a reason why you choose to do something one day and not another?  Yes: add 6-8 years.
3. Do you look forward to the future?  Are there people and projects in your life that you eagerly look forward to engaging with?  Yes: add 3-4 years.


** Caffeine to excess almost certainly impacts sleep

*** Apparently, a vegan diet will exhaust the liver's stored supply of certain key nutrients after about 4-5 years, and in subsequent years health may gradually suffer accordingly.  

In Brief -- Workable Online Voting

21st Century Voting -- Easy, Meaningful and Comprehensive

For this proposal's long version with all the details, read this.


* Wanna vote?  Go online, watch a video on a random issue, comment, rank, vote.  Vote on as many issue videos as you want.

* You receive a confirmation for each vote.

* The website's raw data is analyzed by several polling firms that, using census and socio-economic data, generate constituent opinion on each issue.  Firm results are averaged.

* Your congressional representative can cite constituent opinion when voting, or during an election can pledge to abide by it.

* Any representatives who don't reflect their constituent opinion are liable to be defeated in the next election.  Voters become better educated.  Topics expand from an initial 1-2-3 to cover every policy question.

* Unless voters opt out, they're signed up for a lottery that pays out ten $10,000 voting incentives (savings bonds) per congressional district.  Annual cost: $523 million.

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

This isn't voting you say?  But it makes the act itself part of a much larger process that is the political hive mind.

What Young People See in 3rd Party Candidates

After Reading 'Comments' In Radical Websites

Here's a typical comment:  "Lesz see..., angry, loud-mouth entertainer vs. hider of ties to big business...; and they're surprised I'm voting for Gary or Jill?  Come on." ***

Let's take a look at some of the reasons Hillary Clinton--and Donald Trump--are having trouble attracting young voters.  I list five, most-to-least important, and for Clinton, since her case is the more nuanced.   I then rate each as a percentage of the problem faced.

1.  Republicans in Congress refuse to cooperate (2009-2016).  On the day that Barack Obama's inauguration in Jan. 2009, Mitch McConnell (R - KY) secretly met with other leading Republican senators to agree on a blanket policy of obstruction to everything Obama.  And that strategy worked.  With the help of the press, which likes to blame both parties for disfunction, the ill-repute of 'politicians' has been turned into a vague frustration with the status quo, with 'change' the obvious antidote.   Clinton: 30%

2.  Many young voters are well enough off not to think twice.  Wealthier, and often non-minority voters, who have a cushion to fall back on, needn't worry too long about another financial collapse, about unaffordable health insurance, or about being discriminated against, should Trump win.  This is usually an unconscious reason.    Clinton: 20%

3.  Some younger voters enjoy feeling superior by rejecting 'compromise'.  "Only wimps vote establishment."  Especially when a voter only remembers seven years of lefty compromise, the frustration with such a slow pace outweighs any downside from the potential loss to a rightist candidate.   Clinton: 20%

4.  To commit, marginal voters need excitement.  Though most polls screen out registered voters who aren't likely to vote, in a race with one candidate of mixed popularity, and another who's all but toxic, third party allegiance is a logical 'escape hatch'--a place to park a vote that never quite gets cast.   This is why 3rd party polling is invariably so disappointing relative to the eventual outcome (if a 3rd party candidate at 4% in the polls they're likely to get 1% or less).  Trump: 40%   Clinton: 15%

5.  Many young voters have key issues that rule out both candidates.  For example, a vehement believer in never-abortion can't vote for Clinton.  But, Trump's boorish, profane, bullying campaign has given the hesitant voter many 'no-go' turn-offs: sexism being the most obvious barrier.   Again, with the parking of votes that will never be cast, or, especially for Republicans, voting for the other party.  Trump: 60%   Clinton: 15%

My own vote history as a 20-something was that I was too young to vote in '72, but campaigned anyway (for McGovern over Nixon), then voted in '76 (for Carter over Ford), 'parked' my vote for the 3rd party candidate, John Anderson, early on in '80, but ended up not voting (Carter-Reagan-Anderson).  Finally, I voted for Mondale over Reagan in '84

*** Actually, since I first started writing this in late September, Hillary has advocated: 1. a significant scaling back of the planned upgrade of our nuclear arsenal; and 2: a stiffening of anti-trust law and enforcement.  Both indicate a progressive candidate, rather than a closet corporatist, since both positions would shut down corporate profit in an extraordinary way.  In the first instance, this position was exposed in a WikiLeaks secret tape recording, which means it's not what she intended for people to hear--likely because it's a vote loser prior to the election (especially in areas with big defense contractor workforces, like Virginia).  The plan, likely, had been to whip out such a radical re-thinking during budget negotiations with Republicans, as the enormous cost savings would go a long way to paying for various other priorities--both Republican and Democratic.

Joel W. Scarborough August 26th, 1926 - October 6th, 2016

My Dad

Photo by Jared Scarborough, Dec. 12th, 2012

We had just finished decorating with bell ornaments and freshly cut holly.  Looking very good for 86 in black denim jacket, brown carpenter-style pants, and green swish Patagonia shoes.

The Science In Political Science

The Quest To Know The Future

As much as it seems absurd to predict the future, there are those who can't resist.  This election season, American University professor Allan Lichtman and his 13 Keys To The White House, which have been curiously correct since 1984, foresee a Trump victory--although last month it was Clinton.

Here's what his prediction is based on (if six or more of these factors are false, the incumbent party will lose)

1 Party Mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections.

2 Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination

3 Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president

4 Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign

5 Short-term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.

6 Long-term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.

7 Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.

8 Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term

9 Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.

10 Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.

11 Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.

12 Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.

13 Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.

Blue numbers are those that Lichtman thinks point to Clinton.  Red point to Trump.  The incumbent party needs eight.

Except, ...this is awfully subjective.  Just for kicks, here are the keys that could easily turn the other way (depending on the election outcome):

1. (most likely): 4. Third Party.  Gary Johnson currently has around 9% in most polls.  Jill Stein has around 4%.  In order for these numbers to mean a red key, they have to be 5% or more on Nov. 7th.  That's a tall order, since most 3rd Party candidates lose their altitude as the election nears.

2.  7. Policy Change.  The problem here is how does one determine what constitutes "major national policy change".   Lowtechcyclist, a commenter on the Political Animal blog makes the point  that ObamaCare only took effect--with a falling uninsured rate--in 2014, meaning it was part of the incumbent party's most recent term.  Another point: most Americans know that Climate Change is a serious problem, perhaps the most serious one we face.  And who got the ball rolling, with executive orders on car mileage, emissions from power generation, etc.?  Obama, in his second term.

3. 1. Party Mandate.  Speaking of executive orders, there's the question of whether aggressive opposition to all Obama initiatives in Congress has meant that the natural flow of accomplishments can't be accurately gauged.   In fact, if one looks at the percent of the raw vote that the Democrats won, as opposed to the number of seats they held, they actually did better in 2014 than in 2010, which would turn key #1. 

4. 11.  Foreign Policy Success.  Again with Climate Change.  There's also the gradual drawdown of troops overseas, the rehabilitation of American standing in the world, even the Iran nuclear proliferation deal.

5. (least likely) 12. Incumbent Charisma.  If one looks at this from the perspective of voters who'll be eager to elect the first woman president, that may be something akin to charisma.  

In fairnesss, the professor has predicted the outcome ahead of time in each case, beginning in 1984.  I can remember reading his book in the late '80s. 

















ccccccc

Me, Reading

Photo From April 23rd, 2016

When I've finished that book on the living room table, I'll update this.  Actually, I haven't even started reading "Huck Finn's America".  I'm currently reading the Annotated Huckleberry Finn (about 20% in).  So, a work in progress. 

,

Chin Strokers -- Clinton, Trump

A Few Ideas

1. Clinton's Likely Pivot 

As a rule, we find it easy to learn lessons from the recent past.  The Iraq war, for example, followed the no-US-casualties contest in the Balkans, and the relatively easy success of the Kuwaiti push-back in '91.  So, given President Obama's skillful skewering of his opponent, early on in the summer of 2012 (the ads came early and hit hard, pointing to Mitt Romney's having laid off middle-class bread winners), Hillary's ad campaign this summer made sense.  Donald Trump was unacceptable, and here's why.

Was that a smart thing?  I certainly don't know.  But one could make the point that Romney was a relatively mainstream candidate, so that a campaign that pointed out his unacceptability made sense.  Given a candidate like Trump, though, who is obviously winging it, the crucial point might instead be: Is Clinton exciting enough?

Pundits keep returning to the old saw that 2016 is a 'change election', suggesting that Clinton is too much a member of the establishment and that perhaps voters will turn to Trump as a result.  Sorry, but the power of a female--the first, will mean a dramatic 'change' that we haven't even begun to grasp.

Meaning there's a likely pivot for Clinton to make: away from the male-oriented compare-this-guy-to-that ad.  Ideally, her new ads would paint quick pictures using real-life human experience--showcasing what could be done to improve individual circumstances.  Together, these problem solving vignettes would implicitly make the case that Hillary represents progress and a remarkably progressive agenda.  Inspiration is what'll make the difference when several million half-hearted voter efforts either succeed or fail on Nov. 7th.

2. Birther Bungle

The birtherism debacle of a week ago is the sort of win-win-win for Clinton that can allow her to overcome just about any minor flub, like her 3-days off the campaign trail after falling ill.  How was it a win-win-win?  Trump was defined as wildly unreasonable, and way outside the mainstream.  Obama fans were reminded why they needed to vote.  And the media got a major reminder of how Trump would wrap them around his little finger if they let him.

3. The Unexpected

Hillary has an opening that she may or may not notice--we shall see.  With attention focused on Trump recently (aside from Clinton's illness and her "basket of deplorables" jibe), she hasn't received much attention.  She could make a huge splash that yanks attention away from Trump's patter. What if she said: 
"People think I'm untrustworthy, and that I lie.  But, you know what?  That's because I have to think twice about what I say.  I hesitate when I speak.  And you know why that is?  Because ever since I entered public life I've been hounded by a few unscrupulous manipulators of the truth.  Well, I'm not going to let them get the better of me.   At the end of this press conference my campaign will release a blow-by-blow explanation of how my detractors over the years have convinced the press that I am "untrustworthy".  In actuality, compared to my opponent, you know exactly where I stand on the issues.  And as a mother (pause) and a woman (pause), you can trust that I'll put your interests ahead of my own.  That is trust."

It's True, I Started Blogging in 1983

My Paper-And-Ink Newsletter: Treetop Panorama

If you told me, 33 years ago, that in a quarter century I'd still be publishing my own writing, but breaking even, and could read other writers who I admired, also for free, I'd think that a wonderful thing.

The photos below, showcasing my Spring 1987 issue, give you a sense of how good I got by the time I quit, a few years later.  I employed artists, writers, even a calligrapher--though all on a very small scale, of course.  My two issues a year each cost about $500 to put out, with subscriptions ($3.25 per year) paying for anything beyond that.   I wrote nearly all the copy, then glued the available artwork and poetry I'd commissioned onto my typewritten pages, added some layout touches, then left off my manuscript at P.A.M. Printers in town.  I'd then pick up the double pages, collate, staple, fold and stick the assemblage together with a adhesive dot, add a stamp, an address, and mail them.  At one time I even rented a mailing list.

                                                                    Front page

                                       A poem & drawing

                              A taped interview with a neighbor

                                 An American history quiz

             Back Page (poem is riff off commissioned artwork)

Writing for fun--as opposed to trying to get people to subscribe--is a lot more enjoyable.  I think I'd be quite pleased, back then, with how things turned out.  I miss the poetry, illustrations and layout work, but I can now access full color--if I want; I've no deadlines (my 8/31 post was worked on for a good ten days); and there's even space for comments if things get outrageous enough to warrant them.  And I haven't had to cut back on the prescriptive politics--which drove me to 'blog' back in '83: I believe it was President Reagan's invasion of Grenada that fired up the pen back then.

And while I find my younger self's writing embarrassing at times, that's how most people would feel. 

And in case you're wondering, no, that's no longer my address, above.  

Local Pics

                               Celebrating a 100-year-old school and its community

                           A photo collection from September 10th, 2016, and as noted when otherwise:

                                       100-year-old grade school (orange roof) at a distance (8/29/14)

                              Dawn, on my way to work, 8/30/16; school 100 yards on left

Dad speaks with grandsons of Elizabeth and Mary Seymour, sisters of Charles, school's namesake (Alex on left and Barr on right).

    

Dad in the Nancy Scarborough house, when it was for sale (4/29/15).  Built in 1838, with wood                        bought in Cincinnati by the original Jared Scarborough.

                                                  Dad at the stone arch bridge, 11/4/2014.

                              Me, further downstream, 7/24/2015, photo by niece Charlotte.

                                                          Dad, at cemetery, 8/20/2016

                   Brother Tad / cousin Leslie, decorating mother's / aunt's tombstone, 8/20/16

                                           Dad, greeting visitors at Congregational church.

                 Dad with 19th century maple and town square bandstand (built by Seymours)

                                                  Church interior.  Notice spare decor.

                                            Dad with 19th century organ--excellent sound.

                                                         Mullein on stairs, 7/22/2016

                                                             Ironweed,  8/7/2016

                                                       Volunteer strawberry, 8/7/2016

                                               Pawpaw foliage with tiger lilies, 7/20/2016

Handicapping -- 2016 Presidential Candidates

Hard To Beat

Since this summer's political conventions, the Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, has enjoyed something like a 4 - 8 point lead over the Republican candidate, Donald Trump, a pattern I think is likely to continue.  And since I follow the electoral process fairly closely, I feel fairly confident in handicapping the election in extended detail.  I'll use a scale of 1 - 10 with ten being best:

Gravitas
Clinton: 5  (knows when to be serious, when to be amused)
Trump: 4  (his 'serious' is almost always over-the-top)

Preparation
Clinton: 8 (fluent with positions, hedges where minefields threaten)
Trump: 4 (own intuition is risky strategy, but it conveys certainty)

Inspiration
Clinton: 5 (historical first will provide some lift)
Trump: 7 (if he were informed, with discretion, his charisma = huuge thing)

Surrogates
Clinton: 8 (Bill, Barack, Bernie, Biden, Elizabeth and Michelle)
Trump: 3 (Mike Pence, Ivanka, and... Chris Christie)

Finances
Clinton: 8 (she won't be denied)
Trump: 5 (he hasn't used his own money--perhaps a good move)

Organization
Clinton: 9 (using Obama's targeting approach)
Trump: 5 (setting expectations low, relying on rallies, free media)

Campaigning
Clinton: 3 (admits she's not particularly good at it)
Trump: 9 (his rallies energize the faithful, attract free media)

Debating
Clinton: 5 (experience and focus; but a hesitant, careful speaker)
Trump: 9 (being 'unprepared' just a fake to set low expectations)

Add 'em up and you have:

Clinton: 51
Trump: 46
plus,
Johnson: 3
Stein: <1

If Homer Framed Marge

"But In The End Truth Will Out" - William Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice

If you've watched The Simpsons as much as I have, the idea that Marge Simpson (the show's mom) would be guilty of anything beyond a petty mistake is preposterous.  She's as normal a character on the show as any.  And she almost always plays by the rules.

Imagine: Hillary Clinton as Marge.  Can you?  Why not?  Most people would probably say that Hillary can't be trusted the way Marge can.  But what if Homer were to frame Marge, and the evidence seemed impossible to ignore... until the program's final few minutes when all's revealed.

If Hillary's public career were equivalent to such an episode of The Simpsons, Hillary's untrustworthiness would build from 1991 to 2016, but would then evaporate in a mighty flash about now (26 years plus another 4 years as president = 30-year career = 30-minute show).

I herewith expose the unfair framing that drove Hillary's trustworthy numbers into the ground.  And that issue is of course the e-mails on her personal server from when she was Secretary of State.  The latest revelations from that 'scandal' exonerate her completely in my mind, and furnish us with the ultimate Marge Simpson plot twist:

  *** When she apologized for using a private server she claimed that this happened 

          because she wanted to carry only one device, rather than two--one for official 

          business and one for personal calls.  At the time, this sounded fishy to me; but,

          if you click the above link, it pans out.
  *** And the multiple phones it turns out she used?  She used 16 phones over the course
          of four years, but they were used consecutively, perhaps as a precaution to avoid
          bugging  

  *** The 'classified' e-mails at the heart of the matter?  They were messages her
          subordinates were sending her.  Most were being written in real time (with the
          sender omitting any perceived secrets) and had not yet been deemed classified
          or not.
  *** The one except to this, in over four years of messages, was at the lowest level
          of classification, had already been classified prior to sending, and was indeed
          improperly sent.  But to my mind, it was the exception that proves the rule:
          every human will goof occasionally.

This e-mail 'scandal' turned out to be a nothingburger, but only after seriously compromising Hillary Clinton's public standing.  And that, of course, is the pattern.  Because her husband did in fact engage in unfortunate personal behavior when president, and because that behavior only came to light because of an investigation into yet another 'scandal' that wasn't, the press is inclined to look closely into the Clintons' affairs, even if Hillary herself has never been found to be seriously wanting.

Where might all this lead?  Because her formative years were spent as a lawyer, she is very unlikely to  have seriously slipped up--since there was so much at stake.  So, there's likely little more for her detractors to hit her with.  More likely is a gradual realization on the part of our most prominent journalists that this pattern of false accusations not only plays into a charge of sexism, but is unfair in a political sense, and must be idled.    

Looking At The Loser Candidates -- 2016 Edition

Patriarchy Watch

If we vote Hillary Clinton into office as our 45th president, several alternative candidates will be left by the curb for pick-up.  What happened to them?  What would explain the ruins of their campaigns?

1.  Gary Johnson / William Weld, Libertarian.  The one candidacy that could conceivably still win for losing is the Libertarian ticket.  If their usual 1% in elections past becomes 5% or more, they have automatic ballot access in the 2020 contest: a win.
Optimistic Outlook: If the Republicans (see below) opt for a hollowed out rump, casting off all but the pure ideologues who 1) fear God, 2) carry guns, and 3) see conspiracy to their left, the cast out refugees from the Republican fever swamps would likely become Libertarians--absent any centrist alternative.  So, building on a 5+% result in 2016, the party could then nominate a William Weld in 2020 on a modified platform emphasizing realistic goals.  This would mean the party could conceivably vie to become second-most popular, matching the Republicans' 30% slice of the electorate, and, as a result, would become a key source of innovation in politics.
Pessimistic Scenario: the Republican party leaves its recent past behind, returning to a Jack Kemp centrism.  The Libertarian tendency to embrace simplistic solutions (open all borders, decriminalize all drugs, privatize Social Security, eliminate environmental regs) results in their usual 1-2% in 2020.

2.  Jill Stein / Ajamu Baraka, Green.  Paradoxically, the Greens are the most dependent on how the other parties shake out, even more so than the Libertarians.  A large majority of their natural base sees the folly of throwing away votes on a party likely to get at most 1%, and instead vote Democrat.
Optimistic Outlook: If the Libertarians or some other third party were to break open the duopoly of Red/Blue in American politics, the Greens could conceivably become competitive.  Let's say the Libertarians became a relatively centrist alternative to the Democrats and the Republican rump circled the wagons on the right.  The left would then, conceivably, open up.
Pessimistic Scenario:  Same old same old.  Doomed to marginal results at best; spoiler status at worst.

3.  Donald Trump / Mike Pence, Republican.  If the election were an episode of The Simpsons titled 'Bart v. Lisa', the cowabunga dude would talk a good game, but would fritter away his time cleverly pranking Moe's Tavern ("I need to talk to Amy Hurl, please").  Meanwhile, Lisa would have many thoughtfully prepared positions all ready to go, and would be the obvious choice.
Sure, Bart--like his dad--sees the light once in a while, but time and again just can't let go...of boyhood.  Likewise, no matter how many campaign managers tell him what to say, Trump simply can't let the trickster go.  Like Bart, his cleverness revels in the neato sleight-of-hand and turn-of-phrase that attract attention.
Optimistic Outlook: As I 'll explain below, Republican chances for redemption are discouraging.  A best case would be a sound thrashing for Trump, and for the Republican graybeards to organize around a much more centrist candidate for 2020.  Unlikely, since those out of touch with reality are prone to repeat the same mistakes.
Pessimistic Scenario: Due to a rousing debate performance, plus opposition research, Trump is able to salvage a relatively close, Romney-esque defeat, or do even better.  This leads to yet another boner-prone wannabe strongman to re-mix the drunk skunk recipe.

Conclusions
What all three loser parties will have in common, post-election--assuming Hillary victorious--is an inferior grasp of where a winning strategy lies.  And if we revisit the male and female archetypes we've been discussing over the past three posts, we'll see where each party likely fails.
   * Male: comparative, leading to an ideal
   * Female: positive, contextual networking

Patriarchy can be obvious.  For example: Trump's reliance on the male mindset to the exclusion of positivity (belittling as a tactic), context (his rallies could occur anywhere, as opposed to Hillary's thematic campaign stops), and networking (generally, he doesn't mix with supporters, and has a hard time listening to others' opinions).  Instead, he likes to compare his performance (polls, crowd size, zingers) and supposed winning streaks (wealth, conquests, brand).

Patriarchy can be much less obvious, in fact hidden--even taking the feminine form.  For example: Jill Stein is a woman, but the Green platform is comparative, identifying ideal positions, irregardless of political context.

Likewise, the Libertarians identify ideological answers, then apply them to contexts in which they won't fit in a politically successful way.

Here, then, is the big surprise.  Hillary Clinton represents feminism, not because she advocates the most radical approach to rectifying the injustice of sexism (what most people think of as 'feminism'), but because her positive, contextual, networking campaign is feminist in spirit.




  

The Press, The Clinton Foundation, & The Female Mind

For The Love of Good--a follow up to our previous two posts

Was Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, engaged in 'pay to play' as her detractors allege?  Or, can donations received by the Clinton Foundation during her tenure at Foggy Bottom be seen in a different light?

Let's first remind ourselves of the male and female archetypes we've discussed in the past two posts: men, generally, focus on comparative worth, a process that selects for the best; women, generally, tend to organize positive networks that are inclusive.

And what is The Clinton Foundation but an inclusive, positive network?  Over the past two decades it claims to have "improved the lives of over 430 million people in more than 180 countries".  Randomly accessing the efforts it helps fund, we find crucial projects like educating girls, providing micro-credit, fighting climate change, etc.  Each year the foundation's quarter billion dollar budget leverages billions in public sector spending, relieving those--who probably don't need it--of their money; a modern-day Robin Hood whose victims give willingly.

Contrary to the charge that donations to the Clinton Foundation are another form of political lobbying --where legislative favors are traded for campaign cash, charities do unequivocal good.  The only gain on the part of the Clinton family has been the arguable prestige accrued.  In fact, the Clintons receive no salary; plus, they donated $1 million to the foundation in 2015.  And if no favors were granted--aside from handling queries in a professional manner, what's the harm?

The standard answer is an allusion to public policy perversion: a rich donor can at least make his case, whereas those without a donation can't.  But if it's important charity work rather than personal or political gain, should the media have made such a big fuss?  Unless donors influence decisions, isn't the foundation's mission more important than keeping up appearances?  And one can be sure that if the Clintons completely removed themselves from the foundation its budget would shrivel precipitously.

Here, then, is the alternative, female way of looking at this issue:
   * The Clintons were reaching out to anyone who wanted to join their team.
   * There was friendship, communion, selflessness.
   * Those donors who acted out of line were blown off or ignored.
   * The world is about to get very troubling, so minimizing catastrophes as the entire planet is brought into the fold is more important than dealing with pearl-clutchers.
   * If the world is a family that must be protected, with no time to lose, the Clintons did the feminine, motherly thing, and those who denounce them are simply prejudiced against the female mindset.

And if the media's stumble in this case is indeed prejudice, we can see the first female presidency in yet another light.  Perhaps over the past 25 years the Clintons have been subject to bad press simply because they've represented a more feminine political style--this, by the way, likely due to Hillary, a feminist, being a driving force in the Clinton relationship.  History may well be amazed that it took so long for the media to fully realize this.  For example, Matthew Yglesias writes in Vox today about the way the media ignored former Secretary of State Colin Powell's arguably more questionable use of a charitable foundation.  But of course he was an avuncular, respected... man.

And if that doesn't convince you that charity work--if professionally and transparently run--should be encouraged, no questions asked, well, let's remember that the only alternative to voluntary donations is ...paying taxes.

Photographing A Woman President

Getting Used To A New Figurehead

Adding to my post from a month ago, here's another way to look at the same subject:

The first time I see a photograph of Hillary Clinton these days I experience a slight shock as I adjust to the new face of national leadership.  Maybe I experienced something similar when Barack Obama was about to become president; I don't remember.

The reason I think it might be different this time around is because, generally speaking, women have contextual, rather than abstract minds.  We expect them to be living in-the-moment, at least more so than men--again generally speaking.  Meanwhile, photography is abstract experience.  We could be handed a photograph of people getting wet in a rainstorm, and we're sitting in the sunshine wishing it would hurry up and rain.  So, in adjusting to a new figurehead, who's a woman, and someone we'll eventually become quite used to seeing, there's perhaps an extra hurdle to overcome.  Thus the slightly jarring, out-of-context shock we get when we see Hillary and realize she's likely to become president.

Could it also work the other way?  Once Hillary is elected, as is thought likely to happen, could the real Hillary appear, relaxed and in-the-moment?  One might think so, as the context in that case would be manifest victory; while beforehand, seeming confident, prior to the election, would be non-contextual.

If a change is truly going to come this November, we might then see a bit of this Hillary.

The First Woman To Be President

That Different Style

I posted my 337th tweet on April 6th, 2016:

Unexamined assumptions department: a female Presidency will be visually stirring, rhetorically exciting, diplomatically unambiguous.

My point, of course, being that we've always had men as presidents, so we assume that the visually stirring image, the rhetorical thunderclap, and the unambiguous declaration are part of being president, when of course they're not...necessarily.

So what might be stylistic differences that we could expect in a woman president?

Ezra Klein had a long essay in Vox (with accompanying Hillary interview) that raised this topic.  He was trying to reconcile the Hillary that her friends and associates know (funny, at ease, well liked) with the public image of a somewhat uncomfortable politician who has high negatives in public surveys.

Klein came to the conclusion that Hillary's style accentuates the feminine networking that links friends together, as opposed to the masculine focus on status that sends the best to the top.  In other words, the power of positive outreach, rather than the power of comparative striving.

The feminine answer to the projecting of dominance, then, might be to have cabinet officers take on a greater role in dealing with the public.  And, instead of 'talking head' media presentations from the Oval Office that involve citizens watching their leader, a feminine approach might be to have more town hall, roundtable, and panel discussions that showcase cooperation, listening, and attempts at consensus.

Hillary's productive relationships with her fellow senators when she was in the Senate might also suggest a higher priority being given relationships and constructive negotiations with the legislative branch.  

As for outreach to the public, perhaps she'll have fewer press conferences, and instead, once a week, invite everyday Americans to the White House in order to listen to their concerns, to suggest ways government can address their problems, and to give the public a sense of how she governs--all recorded and the video made public.

Personally, I find the ceremonial duties of the presidency to be much too time-consuming for things that could easily be left to underlings.  Hillary's known for her policy expertise, so instead, why not focus on that, and let the pardoning of the Thanksgiving turkey fall to the Vice President.

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

[8/16/16 update: the remainder of this piece was written prior to her Veep pick,  and can now be skipped]

Extra points from me: if she explains to the American public when announcing her vice presidential pick that the office of president has become so demanding that she'll have an assistant veep, who, with the V.P., will take on most of the ceremonial duties she'd normally perform.  Her Veep team would thus be:

Vice President: ask Joe Biden to stay on for another four years (serving as her legislative bridge-builder)
Assistant Vice President (serving mainly overseas): Julian Castro
In-country Special Assistant: Bill Clinton (for all the schmoozing done in this country)

A lineup like this would emphasize both past experience and set up a veep step up in the future.