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.
Monday, December 26, 2016
Sunday, December 18, 2016
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.
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%
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%
Sunday, December 11, 2016
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)