The 2020 Dems -- Who Should Drop Out
.................
Rolling Stone recently published a Leaderboard of likely Democratic presidential candidates (link). I've used the same names, but reimagined it as a list of who should drop out.
I first list the half who've a bigger downside than up; then the other way round.
.................
Ranking. Name. Reason they should drop. Discussion. (Rank on R.S. leaderboard)
#29: John Kerry. His loss. His role as an elder statesman is assured; he'd make an excellent choice as Secretary of State, Defense, or even UN ambassador. But, he has Hillary’s retread baggage, and age, but without the popular vote win. (14)
#28: Bernie Sanders. His age. He’d be 80 in his first year on the job. And as much as we all may love him, it'd be asking an awful lot of Democrats to have to commit to a single term in office, or worse, face the prospect of serving till he was 87. (4)
#27: Sherrod Brown. His Senate seat. Any way you slice it, Democrats need that seat to ever have a chance at passing a progressive agenda—at least for another 4-6 years. (6)
#26: Howard Schultz. His story. Democrats are not going to want to follow the Trump model of electing a moneybags CEO who's never been elected. (24)
#25: Tom Steyer. His story. Again, rich white guy never elected to office. (13)
#24: Eric Holder. Lack of wins. Holder’s fame involved appointed, not elective, office. (17)
#23: Tulsi Gabbard. Her Syrian problem. Sorry, but dictators cannot be visited in the middle of a war without a clear, workable peace agenda that has some chance at success. (25)
#22. Eric Swalwell. His lack of experience. Democrats need a tested figure in as critical a contest as president. (26)
#21. John Delaney. Same as above. (28)
#20. Tim Ryan. Again. (23)
#19. Richard Ojeda. Ditto. (27)
#18. Pete Buttigieg. Yet again. (15)
#17. Stacey Abrams. Her future. She'd be a much stronger candidate as a sitting US senator or governor. (5)
#16. Eric Garcetti. His prominence. While being a mayor does involve executive experience, and L.A. is the bigtime, the step up to US president is all but impossible for a mere mayor. (16)
……………………
And now the half who've something to offer. I first mention their strength.
#15. Terry McAuliffe. Well-connected. A Clinton ally and money-raiser, but in an age when big money in party politics is sometimes frowned on. (22)
#14. Jeff Merkley. His mild-mannered compassion. Just think: having a calm, engaging, friendly president. But, is there ‘fire-in-the-belly’? (18)
#13. Joe Biden. His winking charm. A smile in the White House would be quite the change. But, he faces the same age-related issues as Bernie. And let’s not even discuss his previous runs for president. (2)
#12. Kirsten Gillibrand. Her fighting spirit. Only a few women candidates have the determination to win. But, her background as a public figure is mixed, and she has a tendency to act without full consultation. (9)
#11. Steve Bullock. Dem. red state winner. Plus, he’s diverse—geographically, being the governor of Montana. But, his chances are low with an electorate that'll probably want ambition in a progressive direction. He might do best by avoiding a bad loss in a contest where the odds are long. (19)
#10. Michael Bloomberg. His perceived competence. Focusing on several key issues, and sufficiently funding them, has built up a reputation for actually getting to success. But, his age and a story similar to Trump’s doesn’t bode well. (21)
#9. Beto O’Rourke. His excitement. Candidates who have a ‘wow’ factor exciting their supporters, especially young supporters, have a leg up. But, he’s young. He has great potential. Why rush? (3)
#8. Hillary Clinton: Her popular vote win in ’16. She’s experienced and has a ‘next step’ agenda, which is not the risky big ticket promises that could easily get some candidates in trouble. But, at age 71, she'd be asking Democrats to vote for someone who'd be 81 after two terms. (wild card)
#7. Jay Inslee: His focus on Climate Change and the environment. This is a winning issue as the share of concerned voters gradually increases with the drumbeat of warnings. But, he's little known and his state has twice failed to pass legislation that would've fought climate change. (20)
#6. Julian Castro: His charisma. Seeing him on Colbert recently, I added him to my short list of those who have it. And being Hispanic, with Texas possibly in play, would be all the Democrats would need to win. But, he has relatively little experience. (10)
#5: John Hickenlooper: His impressive track record. A two-term governor, and before that a successful small business owner, he has the executive experience to make a good president. (12)
#4: Elizabeth Warren: Her take on the economy. Her recipe for middle class wage growth is sophisticated and easily understood: make corporations value things other than profit. But, she’s 69, meaning she'd be in her late 70’s at the end of two terms. (8)
#3: Kamala Harris: Her odds. Many pundits rate her in the top tier of candidates for the presidency. Her youth, appeal for people of color (including Asian Americans), her experience in law enforcement, even her reported aura of Obama-deja vu, suggest she may be a winner. But, can a liberal Californian win nationwide? (1)
#2: Cory Booker: His personality. A take-charge, hustling, let’s get this done attitude, is what people like to see in their politicians. And Booker has the gushing energy that appeals to those who don’t particularly care about issues, but are drawn to likable personalities. But, is this his time? He’s young enough to wait. (11)
#1: Amy Klobuchar: Her focus. Appealing to those who don’t agree with you takes something close to trust; a sense that the candidate is a steady, calm hand that'll do most things right. Cultivating this normalcy takes careful engagement; Klobuchar is good at it. But, her’s would be a stronger candidacy if she were part of a team. (7)
That’s right. The Democrats would surely do better if they joined forces, with perhaps six candidates agreeing to serve in a successful Democratic administration, either as President / Vice President or as cabinet members. Here’s my dream team, in reverse order, and based on a reorganized government that emphasized consolidation and cost reduction:
Joe Biden: all military matters
Hillary Clinton: all foreign affairs
Jay Inslee: all interior related
Julian Castro: all benefits and services
John Hickenlooper: all business promotion
Elizabeth Warren: all economic policy
Kamala Harris: all law enforcement
Cory Booker: Vice President
Amy Klobuchar: President
There'd be six candidates contesting the nomination (all but Biden, Clinton and Inslee). If Harris won, for example, she and Klobuchar would trade places. If Castro did better than Booker, the two would trade jobs. As I've written before (here and here), this takes the animosity out of the primary battle. Plus, it puts the idea of a super-efficient government, based on spheres of influence, out for debate. And, most important, it presents a united, all-star team.
Sunday, December 23, 2018
Sunday, December 16, 2018
What If Fighting Climate Change Were Easy?
Here's One Quick, Easy-To-Understand Example
.......................
An article in Mother Jones, coupled with a comment on that article:
1. An Ohio farmer never tills his fields, always grows cover crops, uses less pesticides, has healthier soil, much less runoff, and returns carbon to the ground.
2. A comment from that article asks why federal assistance to farmers doesn't involve help in converting to this no-till, cover crop method as a pre-condition.
3. If all farms were so converted, each year would see 100 million metric tons of carbon removed from the atmosphere, according to an Ohio State professor quoted in the article.
4. That's about 2% of all fuel-burning emissions; a good start to cutting carbon, good for so many other reasons, and an example of a simple switchover that would only take a decade or so to implement. Plus, such a changeover would be sucking 100 million metric tons of carbon out of the air every year, even when we eventually produce much less--meaning the percentage would then be much greater than 2%.
Here are the comments I mentioned. The first quotes and comments on someone who is using our cover crop system during a drought. The second is a reaction to the first.
...................
Handypants2
"...his yields were near the normal season average while other farmers saw yields drop 50 percent—or lost their crop entirely."
That has to be a major consideration and makes it all worth it.
DavidD --> Handypants2
I can see aspects of federal crop insurance hindering these methods if you are willing to mine the soil for a quick return and have Uncle Sugar pick up the tab if your gamble fails.
If the Feds said no crop insurance unless you adopt these methods then I think you would be right,it would be a major consideration and make it all work.
.....................
Note: the Mother Jones article I reference originally appeared in 2013, and was republished this week. It's age is betrayed by the use of the term "one weird trick", which I now realize I no longer see on the internet.
.......................
An article in Mother Jones, coupled with a comment on that article:
1. An Ohio farmer never tills his fields, always grows cover crops, uses less pesticides, has healthier soil, much less runoff, and returns carbon to the ground.
2. A comment from that article asks why federal assistance to farmers doesn't involve help in converting to this no-till, cover crop method as a pre-condition.
3. If all farms were so converted, each year would see 100 million metric tons of carbon removed from the atmosphere, according to an Ohio State professor quoted in the article.
4. That's about 2% of all fuel-burning emissions; a good start to cutting carbon, good for so many other reasons, and an example of a simple switchover that would only take a decade or so to implement. Plus, such a changeover would be sucking 100 million metric tons of carbon out of the air every year, even when we eventually produce much less--meaning the percentage would then be much greater than 2%.
Here are the comments I mentioned. The first quotes and comments on someone who is using our cover crop system during a drought. The second is a reaction to the first.
...................
Handypants2
"...his yields were near the normal season average while other farmers saw yields drop 50 percent—or lost their crop entirely."
That has to be a major consideration and makes it all worth it.
DavidD --> Handypants2
I can see aspects of federal crop insurance hindering these methods if you are willing to mine the soil for a quick return and have Uncle Sugar pick up the tab if your gamble fails.
If the Feds said no crop insurance unless you adopt these methods then I think you would be right,it would be a major consideration and make it all work.
.....................
Note: the Mother Jones article I reference originally appeared in 2013, and was republished this week. It's age is betrayed by the use of the term "one weird trick", which I now realize I no longer see on the internet.
Hiding In Plain Sight
Who Really Knows How To Fix Our Economy?
..............................
1. This article in Vox suggests that support is growing for a return to FDR's constraints on corporations.
2. Changing how corporations are run would mean they'd pay higher wages to employees, support greener policies, and cut back on greedy behavior in general.
3. Middle-class families would have more income, while the super-rich would take a hit.
4. In short, our country would begin to heal.
5. The possible presidential candidate behind this legislation is hoping to return Capitalism to a fairer footing, rather than upend it in favor of something else.
And who is the force behind what may be our best path forward? Senator Elizabeth Warren.
* The recent down-grading of her candidacy by various news organizations may involve the super-rich realizing what she is advocating, and starting a 'whisper' campaign against her.
* An ongoing kerfuffle over our president calling Warren "Pocahontas" caused her to release a DNA study that showed she did, in fact, have Native American ancestry. This happened just before she stood for election--a reasonable transparency that brought out the nay-sayers. Read the revealing details here (nay-sayers) and here (fact-checker with relevant revelation)--in short, she almost certainly has Native American ancestry (probably a grandparent's mother or grandmother), and no, she didn't try to use that fact to advance her interests.
* I haven't yet seen her in a 'live' setting (TV), so will withhold judgement beyond acknowledging her being right on this primary issue.
...........
Kevin Drum at Mother Jones has a question: "Why Not Just Powerful Unions Instead?" And here is a comment found in response to that post that sums up the best answer:
"wetzel
Unions are a wedge that divides the middle class. The problem isn't between 'workers' and 'management'. The problem is between the priority of stockholders and everybody in society, workers and management included. The goal is to create a form of corporate personhood where a broader perspective on the costs and benefits of decision-making is required by the charter. I think a less antagonistic relationship between workers and management regarding unionization would be a natural corollary."
..............................
1. This article in Vox suggests that support is growing for a return to FDR's constraints on corporations.
2. Changing how corporations are run would mean they'd pay higher wages to employees, support greener policies, and cut back on greedy behavior in general.
3. Middle-class families would have more income, while the super-rich would take a hit.
4. In short, our country would begin to heal.
5. The possible presidential candidate behind this legislation is hoping to return Capitalism to a fairer footing, rather than upend it in favor of something else.
And who is the force behind what may be our best path forward? Senator Elizabeth Warren.
* The recent down-grading of her candidacy by various news organizations may involve the super-rich realizing what she is advocating, and starting a 'whisper' campaign against her.
* An ongoing kerfuffle over our president calling Warren "Pocahontas" caused her to release a DNA study that showed she did, in fact, have Native American ancestry. This happened just before she stood for election--a reasonable transparency that brought out the nay-sayers. Read the revealing details here (nay-sayers) and here (fact-checker with relevant revelation)--in short, she almost certainly has Native American ancestry (probably a grandparent's mother or grandmother), and no, she didn't try to use that fact to advance her interests.
* I haven't yet seen her in a 'live' setting (TV), so will withhold judgement beyond acknowledging her being right on this primary issue.
...........
Kevin Drum at Mother Jones has a question: "Why Not Just Powerful Unions Instead?" And here is a comment found in response to that post that sums up the best answer:
"wetzel
Unions are a wedge that divides the middle class. The problem isn't between 'workers' and 'management'. The problem is between the priority of stockholders and everybody in society, workers and management included. The goal is to create a form of corporate personhood where a broader perspective on the costs and benefits of decision-making is required by the charter. I think a less antagonistic relationship between workers and management regarding unionization would be a natural corollary."
Sunday, December 9, 2018
Saw Bernie On Colbert
A Few Notes
....................
1. He seemed rushed, at first. But his style is crisp, cut-and-dried, just-a-spoonful, so maybe that accounts for it.
2. I liked that he emphasized an objective view of who'd make the best Democratic candidate. Hearing the cheers and encouragement from those around one will naturally make for an easy subjective case.
3. If a booming voice and unpolished, gnarly presentation is the key, he's got it.
4. Arriving on stage, he proceeded to sit in his chair as the band finished playing. A good sign, if a bit stiff.
5. His last words, I believe, involved jokingly inviting Colbert to be his Veep. This is an example of the "unpolished, gnarly..." letting go that likely appeals to most viewers. A more careful candidate probably wouldn't joke about such a momentous matter, since it might confuse some (Did he promise to say that in order to be invited?)
6. Is his age a factor? He appeared energetic, and though his delivery was a bit rehearsed--rather than conversational (a contrast with the 'in-the-moment' style that is Colbert), I thought I detected vim and vigor.
7. People I remember him name-checking (in response to a question about O'Rourke): Beto, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker. So, if he's seriously thinking about running, this may be a signal RE: his most likely opponents in the Democratic primaries. Or, possible running mates.
8. I don't think he'll be the Democrat's nominee, though I don't really care. At 77, he'd conceivably be running for re-election at 83 in 2024. Having to argue about an 87-year-old as president is too much of an ask, frankly. And the handicap of not running again in 2024 would also seem too much for his party. But, sometimes, the exception to the rule makes for an unexpected plus: Maybe most people's reaction was "He's old, but soon we'll all be; we love him!"
....................
1. He seemed rushed, at first. But his style is crisp, cut-and-dried, just-a-spoonful, so maybe that accounts for it.
2. I liked that he emphasized an objective view of who'd make the best Democratic candidate. Hearing the cheers and encouragement from those around one will naturally make for an easy subjective case.
3. If a booming voice and unpolished, gnarly presentation is the key, he's got it.
4. Arriving on stage, he proceeded to sit in his chair as the band finished playing. A good sign, if a bit stiff.
5. His last words, I believe, involved jokingly inviting Colbert to be his Veep. This is an example of the "unpolished, gnarly..." letting go that likely appeals to most viewers. A more careful candidate probably wouldn't joke about such a momentous matter, since it might confuse some (Did he promise to say that in order to be invited?)
6. Is his age a factor? He appeared energetic, and though his delivery was a bit rehearsed--rather than conversational (a contrast with the 'in-the-moment' style that is Colbert), I thought I detected vim and vigor.
7. People I remember him name-checking (in response to a question about O'Rourke): Beto, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker. So, if he's seriously thinking about running, this may be a signal RE: his most likely opponents in the Democratic primaries. Or, possible running mates.
8. I don't think he'll be the Democrat's nominee, though I don't really care. At 77, he'd conceivably be running for re-election at 83 in 2024. Having to argue about an 87-year-old as president is too much of an ask, frankly. And the handicap of not running again in 2024 would also seem too much for his party. But, sometimes, the exception to the rule makes for an unexpected plus: Maybe most people's reaction was "He's old, but soon we'll all be; we love him!"
Saturday, November 24, 2018
The 16 Greatest Things About The Millennial Age
I Pan For Gold In Millennial Era Streams
..............
Rolling Stone recently published a Millennial 100 list. That is, the biggest movers, shakers, memes, fads and shows in recent pop culture.
Here, I place all 100 into four categories: Flash-In-The-Fan forgettables, Can’t-Get-‘Em-Out-Of-My-Beds, Memorables, and Greats. And at the end I rank the ‘greats’.
And here’s a key to what each category represents:
1. Flash-In-The-Fan Forgettables: By 2050 they'll be forgotten by all but a few.
2. Can’t-Get-‘Em-Out-Of-My-Beds: They'll remain with us as frustratingly hard to forget regrettables.
3. Memorables: They'll be remembered by history, but not considered great.
4. Greats: The best from the Millennial era.
1. Total Request Live - Flash
2. Spice Girls — Flash
3. Jon Stewart - Great
4. American Idol - Can't
5. Music Piracy - Flash
6. 2008 Financial Collapse - Can't
7. Sex and the City - Memorable
8. Black Lives Matter - Great
9. Drake - Flash
10. Titanic - Memorable
11. Guitar Hero - Memorable
12. Rihanna - Flash
13. Spongebob Squarepants - Memorable
14. Amy Winehouse - Great
15. Lizzie McGuire - Flash
16. Tina Fey, Fallon, Poehler on SNL - Great
17. Video-Sharing Sites - Great
18. Bling Ring Thieves - Flash
19. Video Games - Great
20. Mariah Carey - Flash
21. Tech Pets - Flash
22. Olsen Twins - Flash
23. Pop Punk - Flash
24. Batman - Memorable
25. Will Ferrell - Memorable
26. Tattoos - Can't
27. Gossip Girls - Flash
28. Bernie Sanders - Memorable
29. Jonas Brothers - Flash
30. The Office - Memorable
31. SlutWalk - Flash
32. Lindsay Lohan - Flash
33. Harry Potter - Memorable
34. Clueless - Memorable
35. Janet Jackson - Flash
36. To Catch A Predator - Flash
37. Kardashian-Jenner Clan - Flash
38. Rom-Coms - Memorable
39. Lady Gaga — Memorable
40. ‘Twilight’ - Can't
41. Jennifer Lopez — Can't
42. Arrested Development - Great
43. Dating Apps - Great
44. Blink-182 - Flash
45. Pitbull - Flash
46. Suicide Girls - Flash
47. Selfies - Great
48. Taylor Swift - Memorable
49. Jennifer Love Hewitt - Flash
50 Toy Story - Flash
51. Grey's Anatomy: Memorables
52. LGBTQ - Great
53. Mean Girls - Can't
54. Space Jam - Flash
55. Beyonce´ - Can’t
56. C-list Celebrity Shows - Flash
57. Dawson’s Creek - Flash
58. “Mission Accomplished” - Can't
59. Warped Tour - Flash
60. AOL Instant Messenger - Flash
61. Daddy Yankee - Flash
62. Kanye - Can’t
63. Wes Anderson - Memorable
64. Stevie Nicks - Memorable
65. Friends - Memorable
66. Sofia Coppola - Great
67. Paris Hilton — Flash
68. Real Orange County - Flash
69. Outkast’s ‘Hey Ya!’ - Flash
70. Hot Topic - Flash
71. Molly - Memorable
72. Madonna - Flash
73. Evanescence - Flash
74. Perks - Flash
75. Emojis - Great
76. Freaks and Geeks - Flash
77. Miley Cyrus - Flash
78. Netflix and Chill - Great
79. Timberlake - Flash
80. Occupy Wall Street - Great
81. Emo - Can’t
82. Heath Ledger - Flash
83. Disney’s Domination - Memorable
84. 9/11 - Can’t
85. All That - Memorable
86. Cher as a Diva Live - Memorable
87. Vaping - Can’t
88. Kirsten Dunst - Flash
89. WB & UPN - Flash
90. Britney Spears - Flash
91. Serena and Venus Williams - Great
92. The Osbournes - Flash
93. Glee - Memorable
94. Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson - Can’t
95. Tumblr - Memorable
96. America’s Next Top Model - Flash
97. Dave Chappelle - Great
98. Zac Efron - Flash
99. Ryan Gosling - Flash
100. Veronica Mars - Flash
………………….
The 16 Greats:
16 LGBTQ
It really does take all kinds.
15 Emojis
🔄
14 Political Activism (Black Lives Matter, for example)
The truth will out.
13 Original Motion Pictures (Sofia Coppola, for example)
Moving.
12 Dating Apps
Think of all the unlikelihoods avoided....
11 Serena and Venus Williams
The Greatest Duo?
10 Populism, reborn (Occupy Wall Street, for example)
Short-cut to prosperity.
9 Selfies
Just me and my valley.
8 Humor, matured (Arrested Development, for example)
Better becomes.
7 Netflix and Chill
Just what you wanted.
6 Mixed Gender in Comedy (Tina Fey, Fallon, Poehler on SNL, for example)
Now the fun dart.
5 Video Games
Endless.
4 Golden Age of StandUps (Dave Chappelle, for example)
I think I get it.
3 Video-Sharing Sites
Show me.
2 Indie Music (Amy Winehouse, for example)
When pop went whack, these stars shone.
1 Comedy Mixed with Serious News (Jon Stewart, for example)
"You can't make this stuff up."
..............
Rolling Stone recently published a Millennial 100 list. That is, the biggest movers, shakers, memes, fads and shows in recent pop culture.
Here, I place all 100 into four categories: Flash-In-The-Fan forgettables, Can’t-Get-‘Em-Out-Of-My-Beds, Memorables, and Greats. And at the end I rank the ‘greats’.
And here’s a key to what each category represents:
1. Flash-In-The-Fan Forgettables: By 2050 they'll be forgotten by all but a few.
2. Can’t-Get-‘Em-Out-Of-My-Beds: They'll remain with us as frustratingly hard to forget regrettables.
3. Memorables: They'll be remembered by history, but not considered great.
4. Greats: The best from the Millennial era.
1. Total Request Live - Flash
2. Spice Girls — Flash
3. Jon Stewart - Great
4. American Idol - Can't
5. Music Piracy - Flash
6. 2008 Financial Collapse - Can't
7. Sex and the City - Memorable
8. Black Lives Matter - Great
9. Drake - Flash
10. Titanic - Memorable
11. Guitar Hero - Memorable
12. Rihanna - Flash
13. Spongebob Squarepants - Memorable
14. Amy Winehouse - Great
15. Lizzie McGuire - Flash
16. Tina Fey, Fallon, Poehler on SNL - Great
17. Video-Sharing Sites - Great
18. Bling Ring Thieves - Flash
19. Video Games - Great
20. Mariah Carey - Flash
21. Tech Pets - Flash
22. Olsen Twins - Flash
23. Pop Punk - Flash
24. Batman - Memorable
25. Will Ferrell - Memorable
26. Tattoos - Can't
27. Gossip Girls - Flash
28. Bernie Sanders - Memorable
29. Jonas Brothers - Flash
30. The Office - Memorable
31. SlutWalk - Flash
32. Lindsay Lohan - Flash
33. Harry Potter - Memorable
34. Clueless - Memorable
35. Janet Jackson - Flash
36. To Catch A Predator - Flash
37. Kardashian-Jenner Clan - Flash
38. Rom-Coms - Memorable
39. Lady Gaga — Memorable
40. ‘Twilight’ - Can't
41. Jennifer Lopez — Can't
42. Arrested Development - Great
43. Dating Apps - Great
44. Blink-182 - Flash
45. Pitbull - Flash
46. Suicide Girls - Flash
47. Selfies - Great
48. Taylor Swift - Memorable
49. Jennifer Love Hewitt - Flash
50 Toy Story - Flash
51. Grey's Anatomy: Memorables
52. LGBTQ - Great
53. Mean Girls - Can't
54. Space Jam - Flash
55. Beyonce´ - Can’t
56. C-list Celebrity Shows - Flash
57. Dawson’s Creek - Flash
58. “Mission Accomplished” - Can't
59. Warped Tour - Flash
60. AOL Instant Messenger - Flash
61. Daddy Yankee - Flash
62. Kanye - Can’t
63. Wes Anderson - Memorable
64. Stevie Nicks - Memorable
65. Friends - Memorable
66. Sofia Coppola - Great
67. Paris Hilton — Flash
68. Real Orange County - Flash
69. Outkast’s ‘Hey Ya!’ - Flash
70. Hot Topic - Flash
71. Molly - Memorable
72. Madonna - Flash
73. Evanescence - Flash
74. Perks - Flash
75. Emojis - Great
76. Freaks and Geeks - Flash
77. Miley Cyrus - Flash
78. Netflix and Chill - Great
79. Timberlake - Flash
80. Occupy Wall Street - Great
81. Emo - Can’t
82. Heath Ledger - Flash
83. Disney’s Domination - Memorable
84. 9/11 - Can’t
85. All That - Memorable
86. Cher as a Diva Live - Memorable
87. Vaping - Can’t
88. Kirsten Dunst - Flash
89. WB & UPN - Flash
90. Britney Spears - Flash
91. Serena and Venus Williams - Great
92. The Osbournes - Flash
93. Glee - Memorable
94. Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson - Can’t
95. Tumblr - Memorable
96. America’s Next Top Model - Flash
97. Dave Chappelle - Great
98. Zac Efron - Flash
99. Ryan Gosling - Flash
100. Veronica Mars - Flash
………………….
The 16 Greats:
16 LGBTQ
It really does take all kinds.
15 Emojis
🔄
14 Political Activism (Black Lives Matter, for example)
The truth will out.
13 Original Motion Pictures (Sofia Coppola, for example)
Moving.
12 Dating Apps
Think of all the unlikelihoods avoided....
11 Serena and Venus Williams
The Greatest Duo?
10 Populism, reborn (Occupy Wall Street, for example)
Short-cut to prosperity.
9 Selfies
Just me and my valley.
8 Humor, matured (Arrested Development, for example)
Better becomes.
7 Netflix and Chill
Just what you wanted.
6 Mixed Gender in Comedy (Tina Fey, Fallon, Poehler on SNL, for example)
Now the fun dart.
5 Video Games
Endless.
4 Golden Age of StandUps (Dave Chappelle, for example)
I think I get it.
3 Video-Sharing Sites
Show me.
2 Indie Music (Amy Winehouse, for example)
When pop went whack, these stars shone.
1 Comedy Mixed with Serious News (Jon Stewart, for example)
"You can't make this stuff up."
Friday, November 23, 2018
I Expose Possible Problems In Pew Research Study
Are Scientific Studies Always 'Right'?
.................
I'll admit, I'm prejudiced when it comes to organic food, food additives, and GMOs (genetically modified organisms). And when I saw the headline "The Less People Understand Science, The More Afraid Of GMOs They Are" in Pacific Standard I was looking to debunk. And I think I succeeded--at least in my own mind.
My first step was reading the study, done by Pew Research, a well-respected organization. One key to finding out whether the study was legit was knowing what questions they used to determine who understood science and who didn't. And, because Pew is an honest, trustworthy outfit, they included all the background information one needs to review their study.
So, overall, what's my problem with their finding? Three things:
* Organically grown food is unavoidably superior--though it's often more expensive
* "Food additives" is much too general a term; the FDA hasn't even studied some
* GMO foods are inherently risky
Plus, statistically, the difference between science-savvy and non-savvy respondents was just barely meaningful (see the study's footnotes).
Then there's the predisposition on the part of those who're scientifically trained to view reality abstractly. Of course they'll tend to follow abstract logic that wants to manipulate food.
Even the phrasing of the "additives" question seemed unfair: "Additives in the food people eat every day pose a serious risk to health". Even I would hesitate at "serious risk". That's a loaded word, in my opinion.
And what about unconscious group-think that favors conventional, rather than unconventional (organic) food, because most everyone eats the former? There's even the question of whether journalists who're advocates for GMOs, aren't actually, in the back of their minds, eager to be noticed by a powerful biotech company that might hire them for big bucks. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if our big ag and biotech companies have invested in promoting the "scientific" case for their side of the issue. Is this why the European Union bans GMOs and the US doesn't?
And perhaps the biggest problem with conventional food, especially GMO agriculture, is that much of it relies on chemicals whose effectiveness tends to disappear over time. New toxins are then needed to take over from those to which pests are now immune. This tends to nudge us into tolerating harsher and more powerful herbicides and pesticides. And of course organic agriculture has no problem here; that's because up until the early 1900s everything was organic, and relatively sustainable. And let's not forget that organic soils are inherently carbon sponges, not to mention nutrient rich when fed carbon.
.................
I'll admit, I'm prejudiced when it comes to organic food, food additives, and GMOs (genetically modified organisms). And when I saw the headline "The Less People Understand Science, The More Afraid Of GMOs They Are" in Pacific Standard I was looking to debunk. And I think I succeeded--at least in my own mind.
My first step was reading the study, done by Pew Research, a well-respected organization. One key to finding out whether the study was legit was knowing what questions they used to determine who understood science and who didn't. And, because Pew is an honest, trustworthy outfit, they included all the background information one needs to review their study.
So, overall, what's my problem with their finding? Three things:
* Organically grown food is unavoidably superior--though it's often more expensive
* "Food additives" is much too general a term; the FDA hasn't even studied some
* GMO foods are inherently risky
Plus, statistically, the difference between science-savvy and non-savvy respondents was just barely meaningful (see the study's footnotes).
Then there's the predisposition on the part of those who're scientifically trained to view reality abstractly. Of course they'll tend to follow abstract logic that wants to manipulate food.
Even the phrasing of the "additives" question seemed unfair: "Additives in the food people eat every day pose a serious risk to health". Even I would hesitate at "serious risk". That's a loaded word, in my opinion.
And what about unconscious group-think that favors conventional, rather than unconventional (organic) food, because most everyone eats the former? There's even the question of whether journalists who're advocates for GMOs, aren't actually, in the back of their minds, eager to be noticed by a powerful biotech company that might hire them for big bucks. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if our big ag and biotech companies have invested in promoting the "scientific" case for their side of the issue. Is this why the European Union bans GMOs and the US doesn't?
And perhaps the biggest problem with conventional food, especially GMO agriculture, is that much of it relies on chemicals whose effectiveness tends to disappear over time. New toxins are then needed to take over from those to which pests are now immune. This tends to nudge us into tolerating harsher and more powerful herbicides and pesticides. And of course organic agriculture has no problem here; that's because up until the early 1900s everything was organic, and relatively sustainable. And let's not forget that organic soils are inherently carbon sponges, not to mention nutrient rich when fed carbon.
Thursday, November 22, 2018
Pelosi In The House
An Outside-The-Box House Speakership
...................
The recent threat to Nancy Pelosi's return as House Speaker presents an opportunity. Rather than fret over dissension among its members, Democrats could embrace the chance to shake things up, and in the process, engage voters.
1. Make leadership a 'team', rather than a hierarchy.
2. Those who vote for the team can then legitimately claim they didn't vote for Pelosi (alone).
3. Embrace the chance to excite new, idealistic voters.
4. Appoint several young, tech-savvy members to be a fourth team member.
5. Make room for one more team player: members tasked with organizing a policy clearinghouse.
The Details:
1. A 5-member team that voted as equal members (in executive session) on party direction:
* Pelosi, nominally Speaker
* Hoyer, Majority Leader
* Clyburn, Party Whip
* Party Outreach (3 young, tech-savvy members)
* New Legislation Panel (3 up-and-coming leaders)
2. Though a bit of a stretch, the new 5-member executive can be seen as 'not voting for Pelosi'.
3. The recent midterm election brought out voters wanting a say in their country's direction. Not connecting with this opportunity would be a missed opportunity.
4. Social media allow members to connect with constituents, and to harvest and tabulate opinion. Voters, as a result, feel they're participating.
5. Having a 'new legislation' panel is the counterpart to #4's Outreach. Opinion is gathered, and used to propel new legislation. The circle is complete when new ideas are solicited, and then presented to voters to opine on.
The three members in the Outreach (#4) and New Legislation (#5) panels would each vote among themselves on matters before reporting their decision with the 5-member executive.
Those who've been reading this blog for a while will recognize where these ideas are heading: a House of Representatives that posts online videos presenting legislative alternatives for constituents to consider. I describe the idea behind these videos that voters watch, then 'vote' on (yes, on-line, because the interaction is 2-way--like a credit card transaction--rather than a 1-way secret ballot) in greater detail here.
My point in all this, aside from advocating for social media outreach, is that an outside-the-box approach might not only get Speaker Pelosi to the 218 votes she needs, but could also transform the House into a cutting-edge democratic institution and keep alive the participatory enthusiasm represented by the record voter turnout in 2018.
...................
The recent threat to Nancy Pelosi's return as House Speaker presents an opportunity. Rather than fret over dissension among its members, Democrats could embrace the chance to shake things up, and in the process, engage voters.
1. Make leadership a 'team', rather than a hierarchy.
2. Those who vote for the team can then legitimately claim they didn't vote for Pelosi (alone).
3. Embrace the chance to excite new, idealistic voters.
4. Appoint several young, tech-savvy members to be a fourth team member.
5. Make room for one more team player: members tasked with organizing a policy clearinghouse.
The Details:
1. A 5-member team that voted as equal members (in executive session) on party direction:
* Pelosi, nominally Speaker
* Hoyer, Majority Leader
* Clyburn, Party Whip
* Party Outreach (3 young, tech-savvy members)
* New Legislation Panel (3 up-and-coming leaders)
2. Though a bit of a stretch, the new 5-member executive can be seen as 'not voting for Pelosi'.
3. The recent midterm election brought out voters wanting a say in their country's direction. Not connecting with this opportunity would be a missed opportunity.
4. Social media allow members to connect with constituents, and to harvest and tabulate opinion. Voters, as a result, feel they're participating.
5. Having a 'new legislation' panel is the counterpart to #4's Outreach. Opinion is gathered, and used to propel new legislation. The circle is complete when new ideas are solicited, and then presented to voters to opine on.
The three members in the Outreach (#4) and New Legislation (#5) panels would each vote among themselves on matters before reporting their decision with the 5-member executive.
Those who've been reading this blog for a while will recognize where these ideas are heading: a House of Representatives that posts online videos presenting legislative alternatives for constituents to consider. I describe the idea behind these videos that voters watch, then 'vote' on (yes, on-line, because the interaction is 2-way--like a credit card transaction--rather than a 1-way secret ballot) in greater detail here.
My point in all this, aside from advocating for social media outreach, is that an outside-the-box approach might not only get Speaker Pelosi to the 218 votes she needs, but could also transform the House into a cutting-edge democratic institution and keep alive the participatory enthusiasm represented by the record voter turnout in 2018.
Wednesday, November 21, 2018
A Way Forward On Climate
What's To Be Done?
................
David Roberts presents yet another important Climate Change post. This time we're treated to an interview with Hal Harvey, the author of a book that busts several myths about stopping carbon accumulation in the atmosphere.
Highlights:
1. Harvey has developed software, the Energy Policy Simulator, that allows ID-ing the carbon strategies that are most effective.
2. Importantly, a full 80% of global carbon is produced by a mere 20 nations. So, worrying about how we’re going to herd over 200 cats is a non-issue. It’s really all about China, the US, India, Indonesia, Russia, Brazil, Japan, Canada, Iran, Mexico, South Korea, the Saudis, South Africa, Australia, the U.K., in that order, and you’re well over three-quarters there. The fact that France, Germany, Italy, Spain, etc., aren’t on the list means this focusing could actually work.
3. Plus, despite “experts” to the contrary, it isn’t R & D, mainly, that’s necessary in tackling our problem. Solutions already exist. What’s needed is implementation, where solutions become cheaper as a learning curve drives down the cost of mass-production. For example, as energy-storing batteries are deployed, they become cheaper, thanks to not only R & D, but performance standards and economic signaling (hey, these are cheaper!)
4. Performance standards that legislate a rate of increase (cars will get 4% more efficient every year) are much more effective than those focusing on a target: say a fleet average of 25 mpg by a given date.
5. If you price carbon without performance standards and R & D, there won’t be much of an effect. And if the price on carbon doesn’t ratchet up, or doesn’t ratchet up fast enough, the effect is minimal.
6. A price on carbon doesn’t work on buildings (about 5% of needed reductions). This is because those who design and build buildings are usually not the people who pay for the energy used in those buildings. This is why performance standards are needed.
7. Another example: the price of fuel is only a small part of the price of operating a vehicle. So, fuel efficiency standards are needed, too.
8. Carbon sequestration should be the dessert at the end of our meal, not our immediate first step. This seems counter-intuitive until one realizes that it now actually saves money to switch from coal to solar in some locations. Why pay money to build a sequestration plant (that sucks carbon out of the air and buries it), when you can save money with solar? Contrarian Note: the Rodale Institute identifies a long-term sequestration method, regenerative organic agriculture, that if begun sooner, rather than later, and if implemented far-and-wide, could absorb into farmland soils all the extra carbon we currently produce. It would take many years, though.
Interestingly, the interview mentions a book I’m still reading (on days when digits decline, like today: the 21st of November, or 2-1), Drawdown. Harvey thinks the ideas in that book (ranking the most likely solutions to climate change, with girls education and family planning being the most effective) are fine and worthwhile. The problem is that Drawdown is about comparing technologies, not about what is most likely, immediately.
................
David Roberts presents yet another important Climate Change post. This time we're treated to an interview with Hal Harvey, the author of a book that busts several myths about stopping carbon accumulation in the atmosphere.
Highlights:
1. Harvey has developed software, the Energy Policy Simulator, that allows ID-ing the carbon strategies that are most effective.
2. Importantly, a full 80% of global carbon is produced by a mere 20 nations. So, worrying about how we’re going to herd over 200 cats is a non-issue. It’s really all about China, the US, India, Indonesia, Russia, Brazil, Japan, Canada, Iran, Mexico, South Korea, the Saudis, South Africa, Australia, the U.K., in that order, and you’re well over three-quarters there. The fact that France, Germany, Italy, Spain, etc., aren’t on the list means this focusing could actually work.
3. Plus, despite “experts” to the contrary, it isn’t R & D, mainly, that’s necessary in tackling our problem. Solutions already exist. What’s needed is implementation, where solutions become cheaper as a learning curve drives down the cost of mass-production. For example, as energy-storing batteries are deployed, they become cheaper, thanks to not only R & D, but performance standards and economic signaling (hey, these are cheaper!)
4. Performance standards that legislate a rate of increase (cars will get 4% more efficient every year) are much more effective than those focusing on a target: say a fleet average of 25 mpg by a given date.
5. If you price carbon without performance standards and R & D, there won’t be much of an effect. And if the price on carbon doesn’t ratchet up, or doesn’t ratchet up fast enough, the effect is minimal.
6. A price on carbon doesn’t work on buildings (about 5% of needed reductions). This is because those who design and build buildings are usually not the people who pay for the energy used in those buildings. This is why performance standards are needed.
7. Another example: the price of fuel is only a small part of the price of operating a vehicle. So, fuel efficiency standards are needed, too.
8. Carbon sequestration should be the dessert at the end of our meal, not our immediate first step. This seems counter-intuitive until one realizes that it now actually saves money to switch from coal to solar in some locations. Why pay money to build a sequestration plant (that sucks carbon out of the air and buries it), when you can save money with solar? Contrarian Note: the Rodale Institute identifies a long-term sequestration method, regenerative organic agriculture, that if begun sooner, rather than later, and if implemented far-and-wide, could absorb into farmland soils all the extra carbon we currently produce. It would take many years, though.
Interestingly, the interview mentions a book I’m still reading (on days when digits decline, like today: the 21st of November, or 2-1), Drawdown. Harvey thinks the ideas in that book (ranking the most likely solutions to climate change, with girls education and family planning being the most effective) are fine and worthwhile. The problem is that Drawdown is about comparing technologies, not about what is most likely, immediately.
Monday, November 19, 2018
Campaign 2020 Update -- Gillibrand and Klobuchar
The Time I Watched Colbert Interviews Back-to-Back
....................
The other day I watched Colbert interviews from two weeks ago; two senators, DVRed several days apart, watched one right after the other. Here's my stream-of-consciousness reaction:
Gillibrand: I'm shocked to see a weak first minute. It begins with a controlled walk up to the stage, reminding me of the Mittster's inelastic gait; this is followed by Senator G.'s inaudible mumbling as Colbert begins a conversation. And yet, once Gillibrand warms up, she speaks with conviction and passion, being a 'comeback kid' in the end Her interview is just a single segment; is this due to the show running late, or does this reflect poorly on her performance?
Klobuchar: Senator K. gracefully sinks into her chair, in time with the band's music (this, importantly, proves she's a listener, and 'in the moment'). She's open, affable, and immediately engages with Colbert. There's a joking challenge about what she's doing in New York the day before her election in Minnesota. Another joking challenge involves her image being carved in butter at the Minnesota state fair. In both cases: laughter, with a strong comeback that's interesting. She sticks around for a second segment; is this telling or due to the need for fill? Here's a pro-K op-ed in Newsday discussing the Progressive winning tradition from over 100 years ago (West coast, East coast, MidWest) and suggesting Biden/Klobuchar. FWIW, I have Biden at Defense.
A previous update in this series discussed Klobuchar as a possible candidate for president in 2020, cementing a 3-way pact (with Booker and Castro) that ran as a team.
And the original multiple-candidate idea can be read here.
Saturday, November 17, 2018
The White Album's 50th
An Unabashed Appreciation
......................
In the New Yorker, Jordan Orlando praises "The Beatles" on its 50th anniversary. A few questions, RE: Beatles music:
* Was it intentional, or do the opening few bars of their Sgt. Pepper's recording just happen to sound Native American? Curious, when the opening lyric on their next effort is "Back in US, back in the US, back in the USSR".
* As for the White Album's best..., that clanging cowbell sound revving up "...Me and My Monkey"... isn't that an old-fashioned fire alarm?
* And isn't the real emergence of Beatle politics found in "Bungalow Bill"? It seems like a pure anti-imperialist, anti-war song to me. Whereas "Revolution" can actually be seen as the other side of the coin...or perhaps, both sides.
* Isn't "Sexy Sadie" perfect as a humming-to-oneself spirit booster? It's a patient locomotive that keeps pulling, no matter how grim one's circumstances.
* And finally, wouldn't the brash, aggressive, wasteland of rock 'n' roll excess yet to come, be a lot easier to listen to if it had followed the Beatles' mix of melody with climaxing sound, witness "Helter Skelter"?
......................
In the New Yorker, Jordan Orlando praises "The Beatles" on its 50th anniversary. A few questions, RE: Beatles music:
* Was it intentional, or do the opening few bars of their Sgt. Pepper's recording just happen to sound Native American? Curious, when the opening lyric on their next effort is "Back in US, back in the US, back in the USSR".
* As for the White Album's best..., that clanging cowbell sound revving up "...Me and My Monkey"... isn't that an old-fashioned fire alarm?
* And isn't the real emergence of Beatle politics found in "Bungalow Bill"? It seems like a pure anti-imperialist, anti-war song to me. Whereas "Revolution" can actually be seen as the other side of the coin...or perhaps, both sides.
* Isn't "Sexy Sadie" perfect as a humming-to-oneself spirit booster? It's a patient locomotive that keeps pulling, no matter how grim one's circumstances.
* And finally, wouldn't the brash, aggressive, wasteland of rock 'n' roll excess yet to come, be a lot easier to listen to if it had followed the Beatles' mix of melody with climaxing sound, witness "Helter Skelter"?
Monday, November 12, 2018
My Hobby
I Design Games
At work the other day I was asked whether, when I get home in the PM, I kick back and "watch a show". I started to say 'no'--I actually don't--then changed the subject; that's because describing what I do in my spare time is a challenge.
I design games. I honestly can't think of anything more fun these days than tweaking the rules to a game, playtesting them, then repeating this until the design really shines.
Even for game designers, I'm unusual. Most of us design video games, whereas I've settled on boardgames. And, yes, I am published.
Especially exciting for me are games that simulate history. My brother's and my current design, that we've been working on for about two years, is a simulation of the 2016 presidential election. Previously, we'd finalized a sister project: the Obama/Romney contest in 2012.
The two year period we've spent on 2016 has seen us play our game nearly every day. We've become so familiar with it that it feels like we're speaking a language that nobody else knows. "Mojo", for example, refers to a currency, you might say, that each side can own--maximum four per player. Mojo is spent to Fundraise in any one of five regions (moving east to west: East, South, Rustbelt, Frontier and West).
The 59 cards in the main deck have titles like Team Clinton (Blue's ability to use campaign surrogates twice per turn, rather than only once), Supreme Court List (Red removes Blue support in the South and Frontier), and One of the People (either player can Fundraise each round of play without paying Mojo).
Here's a selection of other cards from the main and News Cycle decks:
.
Exactly how do I handle the ennui of revisiting the 2016 election? Because my job places me under the Hatch Act's prohibition against direct campaigning--especially from work (for example: "Vote for Snodgrass, he's better than Tupman!"), I can't always say what I feel, politically. I can study, interpret and illustrate, and that's what I do here.
Plus, my brother and I plan a 2020 election game. It'll be much easier to learn, for those who'd like to check out our designs. 2012 will be the intermediary game: slightly more complex; and 2016 will be the most challenging. In 2016, for example, the Red player can hijack the flow of events with a Media Domination play of his Candidate card (sound familiar?).
Is the mapboard different for each election? We haven't revisited 2012 yet. It did have a different map. For example: Iowa was easier for the Blue player to win; Virginia was easier for Red. Likewise, the issues were Jobs, Gas Prices, Protest, and National Debt (most-to-least important); in 2016 it's Character, Jobs, Protest, and Immigration. How will we know when we're done? We'll see.
At work the other day I was asked whether, when I get home in the PM, I kick back and "watch a show". I started to say 'no'--I actually don't--then changed the subject; that's because describing what I do in my spare time is a challenge.
I design games. I honestly can't think of anything more fun these days than tweaking the rules to a game, playtesting them, then repeating this until the design really shines.
Even for game designers, I'm unusual. Most of us design video games, whereas I've settled on boardgames. And, yes, I am published.
Especially exciting for me are games that simulate history. My brother's and my current design, that we've been working on for about two years, is a simulation of the 2016 presidential election. Previously, we'd finalized a sister project: the Obama/Romney contest in 2012.
The two year period we've spent on 2016 has seen us play our game nearly every day. We've become so familiar with it that it feels like we're speaking a language that nobody else knows. "Mojo", for example, refers to a currency, you might say, that each side can own--maximum four per player. Mojo is spent to Fundraise in any one of five regions (moving east to west: East, South, Rustbelt, Frontier and West).
The 59 cards in the main deck have titles like Team Clinton (Blue's ability to use campaign surrogates twice per turn, rather than only once), Supreme Court List (Red removes Blue support in the South and Frontier), and One of the People (either player can Fundraise each round of play without paying Mojo).
Here's a selection of other cards from the main and News Cycle decks:
 |
| Hard to get this played, but a doozy. |
.
 |
| A minor card, but RCs are full at '4'. |
 |
| Debates are powerful, but treacherous. |
 |
| Will Blue play 'Putin Bromance' first? |
 |
| Key card for Red. |
Exactly how do I handle the ennui of revisiting the 2016 election? Because my job places me under the Hatch Act's prohibition against direct campaigning--especially from work (for example: "Vote for Snodgrass, he's better than Tupman!"), I can't always say what I feel, politically. I can study, interpret and illustrate, and that's what I do here.
Plus, my brother and I plan a 2020 election game. It'll be much easier to learn, for those who'd like to check out our designs. 2012 will be the intermediary game: slightly more complex; and 2016 will be the most challenging. In 2016, for example, the Red player can hijack the flow of events with a Media Domination play of his Candidate card (sound familiar?).
Is the mapboard different for each election? We haven't revisited 2012 yet. It did have a different map. For example: Iowa was easier for the Blue player to win; Virginia was easier for Red. Likewise, the issues were Jobs, Gas Prices, Protest, and National Debt (most-to-least important); in 2016 it's Character, Jobs, Protest, and Immigration. How will we know when we're done? We'll see.
 |
| Mapboard section |
Wednesday, October 31, 2018
2020 Presidential Candidates Update
Oct 31st, 2018
...................
My first post in this series appeared on the 4th of July.
...................
What I'm describing is an outside-the-box campaign for president that would include multiple candidates committing to serving together in a Democratic administration (a similar case could also be made for Republicans, if Trump is gone by 2020).
Why not a single candidate?
1) The modern presidency is arguably too big a job for one person.
2) Multiple candidates could build up the party brand during primary season, rather than come out the other end of a bitter nomination fight.
3) Usually, a single candidate has a difficult time appealing to, for example, small town Whites and urban Blacks; with multiple candidates on a team, each can speak to their own comfort zone.
In this update, I make the case for a limited, 3-candidate pact, with an additional four non-competing members assigned to overseeing the Economy, Justice, Defense, and Diplomacy. Plus, one moderator/spokesperson to handle the media and keep everyone united.
The 8-member line-up, beginning with the five non-candidates:
Oprah Winfrey: Moderator/Spokesperson
Hillary Clinton: Diplomacy
Joe Biden: Defense
Elizabeth Warren: Economy
Kamala Harris: Justice
Amy Klobuchar: candidate
Cory Booker: candidate
Julian Castro: candidate
The pact that Klobuchar, Booker and Castro agree to is:
1. The winner becomes the Democratic nominee for president
2. The runner-up becomes the nominee for vice-president
3. The second runner-up is appointed to a cabinet post
But why have I picked Klobuchar, Booker and Castro? The field would of course be open to any number of candidates, but being part of a pact might provide our three with an edge. And,
* they're each eloquent speakers
* they each have 'comfort zones': Midwest/Women, Urban/Black, and Youth/Hispanic, respectively
* they each seem 'nice' and upbeat
Freed from the daily news cycle (Oprah would handle that), and the need to run themselves ragged (they'd need only a third the campaign time, minimum) our candidates would instead feel energized and prepared ahead of appearances and press interviews, and able to talk at some depth with voters at town hall meetings and other public venues.
Even more importantly, there'd be no stature gap that comes when voters say: "Is that it?" after a field of candidates is whittled down to one. Plus, our candidates would have five older, respected, hands-on -deck to make their general election Republican opponents look like landlubbers who hadn't found their sea legs yet.
Which is how the current Republican administration comes across. And to appear as the adults in the room, it would surely be best to present voters with good ideas, rather than point out ineptitude; having experts on one's team would likely be enough of a reminder.
.....................
Response to Alex Voltaire:
Yesterday, Oct. 31st, my friend Alex tweeted this in reaction to the above:
"oh no...we've got to stop putting incumbent senators in cabinet spots...it only puts Senate seats in play that wouldn't otherwise be competitive, yes?"
In the past, he's suggested incumbent senators be named to cabinet posts, and I've bugged him about it (see his blog: The Northumbrian Countdown), so I have to admit that he may be right. But, with a very minor tweak, I think my suggested 3-candidate pact will withstand critical scrutiny.
And that's because Klobuchar and Booker, who are both senators, would be hard to replace as presidential candidates. Their personalities and their connection to community make them more valuable than other possibilities.
* Klobuchar has a calm but firm manner that plays well in rural areas (where, in Minnesota's hinterlands, she did surprisingly well in her 2012 re-election bid). This is what Democrats need to nail down mid-western states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, possibly even Iowa and Ohio, not to mention Minnesota.
* Booker has an effervescent manner that projects action. Getting the Black vote to turn out at 2012 levels is crucial in states like North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. And inspiring younger voters with a sportsman's hustle is a rare plus.
Actually, in my Fourth of July article, linked to above, I specifically say that the only senators I considered were from likely-D Blue states. The odds are that not only Booker, but Klobuchar as well, would be replaced by a Democrat (governorships in both states are Blue)
What about Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris? This is where my one tweak comes in. Let's say that both these non-candidate 'adults-in-the-room' could be switched out after the election. Their role would be to provide guidance in their respective area of expertise. After the election, Harris could be switched out for Eric Holder, for example; Warren, for Bloomberg, say. Or, more likely, they could simply 'oversee' their turf, while retaining their Senatorial responsibilities.
So, essentially, we'd be taking a single risk, with Cory Booker's seat (if he were Veep), or Klobuchar's (if she were). (Julian Castro is of course not a senator). A single risk, because if a Senator Klobuchar wins the presidency under normal circumstances, that's one senate seat in peril; so, making it two is adding only one, which seems doable if we're talking about New Jersey. Unless, of course, one has a policy of voting against all sitting senators in a primary election.
Now let's look at which 2020 candidates are getting all the attention. A Politico article from two days ago gives us this breakdown:
Bernie -17
Biden -12
Avenatti -11
Warren - 11
Harris - 8
Booker - 8
O’Roark - 5
Klobuchar - 5
Kerry - 4
Gillibrand - 4
Bloomberg - 3
Holder - 3
Garcetti - 2
These are just percentages of all media mentions, but it could be viewed as a proxy for likelihood as a candidate.
Interestingly, only Bernie remains as a potential challenger to our pact, assuming Biden, Warren and Harris take on the adults-in-the-room roles we've assigned them (Avenatti is assumed to be unelectable, and O'Roark could be a purple state senator). It's tempting to fit Bernie in somehow, but Warren could conceivably convince him to stay out--he may have deferred his bid in 2016 until he knew she wasn't running. That would leave only lower tier candidates, which would make our pact not all that unlikely.
Is a 3-candidate pact (with adults-in-the-room backing from an additional 5 non-candidates) in any way possible? It would probably take someone like former President Obama to get everyone on board, but a 'team' approach may make sense. If I were Obama, I might look into it.
...................
My first post in this series appeared on the 4th of July.
...................
What I'm describing is an outside-the-box campaign for president that would include multiple candidates committing to serving together in a Democratic administration (a similar case could also be made for Republicans, if Trump is gone by 2020).
Why not a single candidate?
1) The modern presidency is arguably too big a job for one person.
2) Multiple candidates could build up the party brand during primary season, rather than come out the other end of a bitter nomination fight.
3) Usually, a single candidate has a difficult time appealing to, for example, small town Whites and urban Blacks; with multiple candidates on a team, each can speak to their own comfort zone.
In this update, I make the case for a limited, 3-candidate pact, with an additional four non-competing members assigned to overseeing the Economy, Justice, Defense, and Diplomacy. Plus, one moderator/spokesperson to handle the media and keep everyone united.
The 8-member line-up, beginning with the five non-candidates:
Oprah Winfrey: Moderator/Spokesperson
Hillary Clinton: Diplomacy
Joe Biden: Defense
Elizabeth Warren: Economy
Kamala Harris: Justice
Amy Klobuchar: candidate
Cory Booker: candidate
Julian Castro: candidate
The pact that Klobuchar, Booker and Castro agree to is:
1. The winner becomes the Democratic nominee for president
2. The runner-up becomes the nominee for vice-president
3. The second runner-up is appointed to a cabinet post
But why have I picked Klobuchar, Booker and Castro? The field would of course be open to any number of candidates, but being part of a pact might provide our three with an edge. And,
* they're each eloquent speakers
* they each have 'comfort zones': Midwest/Women, Urban/Black, and Youth/Hispanic, respectively
* they each seem 'nice' and upbeat
Freed from the daily news cycle (Oprah would handle that), and the need to run themselves ragged (they'd need only a third the campaign time, minimum) our candidates would instead feel energized and prepared ahead of appearances and press interviews, and able to talk at some depth with voters at town hall meetings and other public venues.
Even more importantly, there'd be no stature gap that comes when voters say: "Is that it?" after a field of candidates is whittled down to one. Plus, our candidates would have five older, respected, hands-on -deck to make their general election Republican opponents look like landlubbers who hadn't found their sea legs yet.
Which is how the current Republican administration comes across. And to appear as the adults in the room, it would surely be best to present voters with good ideas, rather than point out ineptitude; having experts on one's team would likely be enough of a reminder.
.....................
Response to Alex Voltaire:
Yesterday, Oct. 31st, my friend Alex tweeted this in reaction to the above:
"oh no...we've got to stop putting incumbent senators in cabinet spots...it only puts Senate seats in play that wouldn't otherwise be competitive, yes?"
In the past, he's suggested incumbent senators be named to cabinet posts, and I've bugged him about it (see his blog: The Northumbrian Countdown), so I have to admit that he may be right. But, with a very minor tweak, I think my suggested 3-candidate pact will withstand critical scrutiny.
And that's because Klobuchar and Booker, who are both senators, would be hard to replace as presidential candidates. Their personalities and their connection to community make them more valuable than other possibilities.
* Klobuchar has a calm but firm manner that plays well in rural areas (where, in Minnesota's hinterlands, she did surprisingly well in her 2012 re-election bid). This is what Democrats need to nail down mid-western states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, possibly even Iowa and Ohio, not to mention Minnesota.
* Booker has an effervescent manner that projects action. Getting the Black vote to turn out at 2012 levels is crucial in states like North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. And inspiring younger voters with a sportsman's hustle is a rare plus.
Actually, in my Fourth of July article, linked to above, I specifically say that the only senators I considered were from likely-D Blue states. The odds are that not only Booker, but Klobuchar as well, would be replaced by a Democrat (governorships in both states are Blue)
What about Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris? This is where my one tweak comes in. Let's say that both these non-candidate 'adults-in-the-room' could be switched out after the election. Their role would be to provide guidance in their respective area of expertise. After the election, Harris could be switched out for Eric Holder, for example; Warren, for Bloomberg, say. Or, more likely, they could simply 'oversee' their turf, while retaining their Senatorial responsibilities.
So, essentially, we'd be taking a single risk, with Cory Booker's seat (if he were Veep), or Klobuchar's (if she were). (Julian Castro is of course not a senator). A single risk, because if a Senator Klobuchar wins the presidency under normal circumstances, that's one senate seat in peril; so, making it two is adding only one, which seems doable if we're talking about New Jersey. Unless, of course, one has a policy of voting against all sitting senators in a primary election.
Now let's look at which 2020 candidates are getting all the attention. A Politico article from two days ago gives us this breakdown:
Bernie -17
Biden -12
Avenatti -11
Warren - 11
Harris - 8
Booker - 8
O’Roark - 5
Klobuchar - 5
Kerry - 4
Gillibrand - 4
Bloomberg - 3
Holder - 3
Garcetti - 2
These are just percentages of all media mentions, but it could be viewed as a proxy for likelihood as a candidate.
Interestingly, only Bernie remains as a potential challenger to our pact, assuming Biden, Warren and Harris take on the adults-in-the-room roles we've assigned them (Avenatti is assumed to be unelectable, and O'Roark could be a purple state senator). It's tempting to fit Bernie in somehow, but Warren could conceivably convince him to stay out--he may have deferred his bid in 2016 until he knew she wasn't running. That would leave only lower tier candidates, which would make our pact not all that unlikely.
Is a 3-candidate pact (with adults-in-the-room backing from an additional 5 non-candidates) in any way possible? It would probably take someone like former President Obama to get everyone on board, but a 'team' approach may make sense. If I were Obama, I might look into it.
Tuesday, October 30, 2018
Planning For A Distant Future
One Hundred Years? One Thousand?
.................
Dylan Matthews, at Vox, has a new free newsletter called Future Perfect (sign up here). Last Friday's issue features highlights from a paper written by Nick Beckstead about how we might "shape the far future", beginning with highly targeted ideas, then broadening out. Here are a few reactions I have (in dark green, small type):
• Do technical research which will help build a Friendly AI
Can't argue with this.
• Advocate for nuclear disarmament to prevent a nuclear war
Again, good point.
• Reduce carbon emissions so that climate change is a smaller problem
What's not to like.
Now some more moderately targeted proposals:
• Tell people about the importance of shaping the far future....
Let's do that.
• Tell people about the importance of helping animals....
This sounds rather arbitrary until one realizes that 'animals' are easier to identify with than "the environment"
• Do research on risks and opportunities from future technologies....
I'd be surprised if this isn't built-in to most tech research.
Now some very broad proposals:
• Help make computers faster so that people everywhere can work more efficiently
Though there's a need (high speed internet where it doesn't exist), speed is seldom a limitation
• Change intellectual property law so that technological innovation can happen more quickly
There is a good argument for this; the flip side is that patents, for example, encourage inventors and investors to get involved in the first place. Avoiding frivolous lawsuits and patents that rip-off the public are worthwhile goals of course.
• Advocate for open borders so that people from poorly governed countries can move to better governed countries and be more productive
Objectively, this makes sense: allow people everywhere to live productive lives. There are, however, several objections: some valid, some not.
Illegitimate objections involve racism and nativism, which have been resurgent in many more economically advanced countries, due to an acceleration in immigration.
Legitimate objections include the abandonment of countries gripped by undesirable leaders (removing a despot's critics), along with the crowding and environmental degradation that large increases in immigration necessarily involve.
Then there is the political question of whether 'open borders' is the issue to fight for when so many other concerns require our limited resources and political capital.
• Go work for Wikipedia to help improve the site’s overall functionality
Nothing to argue with here, though this seems like it belongs in a different category.
There are even broader items, but they are rather vague.
Any time one advocates for policy, future-oriented or not, one is making a political choice. Do the limited prospects for success outweigh the drag on resources and political capital? Most items in Mr. Beckstead's list are likely, some even very likely, but there is at least one that will doom any politician who adopts it. Frankly, there isn't much new here hanging on the concept of "the far future".
.................
Dylan Matthews, at Vox, has a new free newsletter called Future Perfect (sign up here). Last Friday's issue features highlights from a paper written by Nick Beckstead about how we might "shape the far future", beginning with highly targeted ideas, then broadening out. Here are a few reactions I have (in dark green, small type):
• Do technical research which will help build a Friendly AI
Can't argue with this.
• Advocate for nuclear disarmament to prevent a nuclear war
Again, good point.
• Reduce carbon emissions so that climate change is a smaller problem
What's not to like.
Now some more moderately targeted proposals:
• Tell people about the importance of shaping the far future....
Let's do that.
• Tell people about the importance of helping animals....
This sounds rather arbitrary until one realizes that 'animals' are easier to identify with than "the environment"
• Do research on risks and opportunities from future technologies....
I'd be surprised if this isn't built-in to most tech research.
Now some very broad proposals:
• Help make computers faster so that people everywhere can work more efficiently
Though there's a need (high speed internet where it doesn't exist), speed is seldom a limitation
• Change intellectual property law so that technological innovation can happen more quickly
There is a good argument for this; the flip side is that patents, for example, encourage inventors and investors to get involved in the first place. Avoiding frivolous lawsuits and patents that rip-off the public are worthwhile goals of course.
• Advocate for open borders so that people from poorly governed countries can move to better governed countries and be more productive
Objectively, this makes sense: allow people everywhere to live productive lives. There are, however, several objections: some valid, some not.
Illegitimate objections involve racism and nativism, which have been resurgent in many more economically advanced countries, due to an acceleration in immigration.
Legitimate objections include the abandonment of countries gripped by undesirable leaders (removing a despot's critics), along with the crowding and environmental degradation that large increases in immigration necessarily involve.
Then there is the political question of whether 'open borders' is the issue to fight for when so many other concerns require our limited resources and political capital.
• Go work for Wikipedia to help improve the site’s overall functionality
Nothing to argue with here, though this seems like it belongs in a different category.
There are even broader items, but they are rather vague.
Any time one advocates for policy, future-oriented or not, one is making a political choice. Do the limited prospects for success outweigh the drag on resources and political capital? Most items in Mr. Beckstead's list are likely, some even very likely, but there is at least one that will doom any politician who adopts it. Frankly, there isn't much new here hanging on the concept of "the far future".
Sunday, October 28, 2018
20th Century Books That Made America
...That I've Read
.................
First off, no, we're not counting comic books (Tarzan), movies (Gone With The Wind, The Color Purple) or just leafing through, reading a bit here and there (The Tin Drum).
Second, I remember reading these books to varying degrees (was it For Whom The Bell Tolls or another Hemingway book?) I'll note this, occasionally, and when I read the book after each entry.
Third, the entire list for each decade can be found here (00s), here (10's), (20s), (30s) (40s), (50s) (60s), (70s), (80s), and (90s).
Also, after the titles in bold (the top ten for each decade...that I've read), are the also rans that I've read.
1900s
L. Frank Baum, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (1900)
childhood
I have a high school English teacher, Mr. Dobbins, to thank for so much high school reading. He gave extra credit points for book reports--what a deal, though each did involve an oral presentation.
Also:
* I seem to be a product of the '50s and 60s.
* Shocking that I've yet to read any of the 68 books listed for the 1980s: ten finalists, plus also-rans. * Ok, maybe I read selections from Elizabeth Bishop, The Complete Poems, 1927-1979 (1983) in the 90s, making it 15 female-authored books, out of 72.
* Lonely books read within a year or so of being published:
- The Cat In The Hat
- Slaughterhouse Five
- Where The Wild Things Are
- The Outsiders
- The Godfather
- Jonathan Livingston Seagull
- Guns, Germs and Steel
otherwise, my reading hasn't been particularly 'in the moment'.
.................
First off, no, we're not counting comic books (Tarzan), movies (Gone With The Wind, The Color Purple) or just leafing through, reading a bit here and there (The Tin Drum).
Second, I remember reading these books to varying degrees (was it For Whom The Bell Tolls or another Hemingway book?) I'll note this, occasionally, and when I read the book after each entry.
Third, the entire list for each decade can be found here (00s), here (10's), (20s), (30s) (40s), (50s) (60s), (70s), (80s), and (90s).
Also, after the titles in bold (the top ten for each decade...that I've read), are the also rans that I've read.
1900s
L. Frank Baum, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (1900)
childhood
Joseph Conrad, Heart of Darkness (1902)
circa 1990 (part of a book club--I gave a presentation on this)
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, The Hound of the Baskervilles (1902)
childhood, again in 80s
Jack London, The Call of the Wild (1903)
high school
Henry Adams, The Education of Henry Adams (1907)
college
Baroness Orczy, The Scarlet Pimpernel (1905)
jr. high
Beatrix Potter, The Tale of Peter Rabbit (1901)
childhood
1910s
Sherwood Anderson, Winesburg, Ohio (1919)
college
Frances Hodgson Burnett, The Secret Garden (1911)
childhood
James Joyce, A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man (1916)
college
1920s
James Joyce, Ulysses (1922)
college
F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby (1925)
college
Thomas Mann, The Magic Mountain (1924)
high school
E. M. Forster, A Passage to India (1924)
high school -- did I really read it?
Herman Melville, Billy Budd, Sailor (1924)
high school
A. A. Milne, Winnie-the-Pooh (1926)
childhood
Virginia Woolf, A Room of One’s Own (1929)
All Quiet on the Western Front (1929)
high school
1930s
Pearl S. Buck, The Good Earth (1931)
high school
Aldous Huxley, Brave New World (1932)
college (did I read it all?)
P. L. Travers, Mary Poppins (1934)
childhood
William Faulkner, Absalom! Absalom!(1936)
college
Isak Dinesen, Out of Africa (1937)
80's
J. R. R. Tolkien, The Hobbit (1937)
high school
Thornton Wilder, Our Town (1938)
high school
T. H. White, The Sword in the Stone (1939)
high school (not sure about this one)
James Joyce, Finnegans Wake(1939)
70s - remember buying this; did I make it very far?
1940s
Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, The Little Prince (1943)
childhood
Margaret Wise Brown, Goodnight Moon (1947)
childhood
George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949)
high school
Ernest Hemingway, For Whom the Bell Tolls(1940)
college (not sure which Hemingway)
George Orwell, Animal Farm (1945)
jr. high?
E. B. White, Stuart Little (1945)
childhood
Albert Camus, The Stranger (1946, first English translation)
high school (French class, with some French, untranslated)
Arthur Miller, Death of a Salesman (1949)
high school
1950s
J. D. Salinger, The Catcher in the Rye (1951)
high school
Ralph Ellison, Invisible Man (1952)
college
Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451 (1953)
high school
J. R. R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring (1954)
college--summer
Vladimir Nabokov, Lolita (1955)
college
Leon Uris, Exodus (1958)
high school
C. S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe(1950)
childhood (may have been only partial)
Hermann Hesse, Siddhartha (first English translation, 1951)
high school
Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951)
college
Ernest Hemingway, The Old Man and the Sea (1952)
high school
E. B. White, Charlotte’s Web (1952)
childhood
Samuel Beckett, Waiting for Godot (1953)
high school
William Golding, Lord of the Flies (1954)
jr. high
Wallace Stevens, Collected Poems (1954)
college
Dr. Seuss, The Cat in the Hat (1957)
childhood
Jack Kerouac, The Dharma Bums (1958)
80s (did I read it all?)
John Knowles, A Separate Peace (1959)
high school
Strunk & White, The Elements of Style (1959)
80s
D. H. Lawrence, Lady Chatterley’s Lover (unexpurgated U.S. version released 1959)
high school
1960s
Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird (1960)
jr. high
Kurt Vonnegut, Slaughterhouse-Five (1969)
high school
Joseph Heller, Catch-22 (1961)
high school
Ken Kesey, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (1962)
high school
Madeleine L’Engle, A Wrinkle in Time (1962)
jr. high
Maurice Sendak, Where the Wild Things Are (1963)
childhood
Kurt Vonnegut, Cat’s Cradle (1963)
high school
Ken Kesey, Sometimes a Great Notion (1964)
high school
Anaïs Nin, The Diary of Anais Nin Vol. 1 (expurgated version) (1966)
70s
Thomas Pynchon, The Crying of Lot 49(1966)
high school
S. E. Hinton, The Outsiders (1967)
jr. high
Tom Wolfe, The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test (1968)
college
Mario Puzo, The Godfather (1969)
high school
1970s
- none
Boston Women’s Health Book Collective, Our Bodies, Ourselves (1971)
college
Richard Bach, Jonathan Livingston Seagull (1973)
high school
Studs Terkel, Working(1974)
70s
1980s
- none
- none
1990s
- none
Barack Obama, Dreams from My Father (1995)
2007
Jared Diamond, Guns, Germs, and Steel (1997)
90s
I have a high school English teacher, Mr. Dobbins, to thank for so much high school reading. He gave extra credit points for book reports--what a deal, though each did involve an oral presentation.
Also:
* I seem to be a product of the '50s and 60s.
* Shocking that I've yet to read any of the 68 books listed for the 1980s: ten finalists, plus also-rans. * Ok, maybe I read selections from Elizabeth Bishop, The Complete Poems, 1927-1979 (1983) in the 90s, making it 15 female-authored books, out of 72.
* Lonely books read within a year or so of being published:
- The Cat In The Hat
- Slaughterhouse Five
- Where The Wild Things Are
- The Outsiders
- The Godfather
- Jonathan Livingston Seagull
- Guns, Germs and Steel
otherwise, my reading hasn't been particularly 'in the moment'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)