#262: Climate Timeline 2020-2030
...............
Kevin Drum, in Mother Jones magazine, makes the case for massive spending on research and development to find new and improved technologies that will be no-brainers to adopt--as opposed to the 'take-your-medicine' approach: persuading Republicans to tax carbon, for example.
Starting next year I may promote my own 'easier' solution: a worldwide reduction in military spending, redirected to fighting Climate Change (the logic here is that both sides to a conflict can come out ahead if they both spend less on their military; and everybody wins if that extra is redirected to fighting Climate Change).
If I do, here's the worldwide military-reduction solution in brief, that I can then link to:
1. Focused Protests. In addition to aiming for small, local victories, we should harness global protests to address a specific, comprehensive process. For each year in the 2020s, divert first 1%, then 2%, etc., of each nation's military spending to fighting Climate Change. So, referring to the first year's 1%, 'One for Climate' could be a handy slogan. Given that 2018 global military spending was $1.8 trillion, this would mean $18 billion the first year, and a total of roughly a trillion by 2030--a start, with much more from other sources as the process gets underway.
2. Initial Leadership. With a focus on individual nation-states making the minimum 1% commitment, diplomacy and leadership are at a premium. European and East Asian countries would be expected to lead the way, initially, and to assist developing nations.
3. The US. Because we account for nearly half of all military spending, the US joining the 'One for Climate' process would likely be the clincher, allowing hope to bloom, and accelerating the process. While this is unlikely to occur before the next US election, the broad authority given the US president on foreign policy makes this diplomacy-based approach possible, given the constraints of the US political system. As for the US Senate, where legislation to implement 'One for Climate' would normally need a steep 60-vote majority, if we assume a Democratic majority, then senators could adopt a 50+1 majority policy for any legislation based on overwhelming scientific evidence (existing scientific advisory panels could confirm the science on any legislation being considered). This would allow the next president to successfully shepherd One for Climate legislation through Congress.
Wednesday, December 25, 2019
Sunday, December 22, 2019
Enough: The Senate's Secret Ballot Vote
#261: Secrecy: Why The Senate, Now
..................
Societies in which voting is less than purely private are susceptible to the politics of strong-arm tactics. The individual amassing the most power in such societies keeps weaker individuals in line with subtle 'enforcement' ("You're still part of our team, aren't you?"), threats ("Vote for me or you'll be sorry"), and violence (unrelated attacks on a voter's personal interests, family members, etc.)
The beauty of the secret ballot is that the strong-arm enforcer is out of luck. This is the foundation for equality in the modern world--we each have an inviolate strength, the right to vote in secrecy.
Under a representative democracy, however, there's an opposite need for transparency, because voters need to know that their will is being expressed accurately.
Voting in a representative democracy is thus best a mix of secrecy and transparency. Which is what our founding fathers created: a House of Representatives to convey the raw desires of the electorate, and a Senate, to cool any hot-headed impulse.
Which brings us to the weakest link in the US system's mix of transparency and secrecy: the Senate's loss of mystique: its become yet another transparent political body, susceptible to 'enforcement'.
Exactly how is that? Well, our Constitution allows a mere 20% of senators the right to request a recorded vote. And though this may have seemed reasonable in the 18th century, there's simply no way our founding fathers could have foreseen the take-your-clothes-off political theater that has allowed every tuned-in citizen to follow every move their senator makes. There's nowhere for conscience and discretion to hide, so almost every senator has gotten in line--the party line; this is especially true of Republicans, who tend to be hierarchical in disposition. Before the days of instant media coverage, the legislative record was known to congressional insiders, but few others. Instead, a candidate's reputation would be buttressed by endorsements from men of stature. In other words, the world has changed so dramatically that there's literally nothing left of it. All politicians are naked unto the electorate.
Yet this is an obvious disaster, leaving senators fearful that if they step out of line, the strongman and his minions will know how they voted and remove them from power. So, they instead vote the way they feel they 'should' to please the party boss, meaning that there's nothing left of the 'objective', above-it-all role that the Senate formerly played.
Forgetting the importance of secrecy, as we've done, is easy. But, once the secret ballot is identified as the key to balancing our politics, the remedy is obvious: its occasional use in one of our two deliberative bodies, namely the Senate. And to satisfy constitutional law, senators would conduct a recorded vote while also voting in secret.
* Senators, one-by-one, walk up to the presiding officer, announce their vote, and cast their folded paper ballots (one printed 'yea' and one 'nay') in either the 'Active Vote' or 'Discard' basket.
* Next, the presiding officer counts the paper ballots by hand, with witnesses present to confirm the results.
* If the result is different from the verbal vote, senators are offered the chance to change their verbal vote. It is unlikely any would.
And for those who enjoy the theater of roll-call votes, a secret ballot would involve the Senate's presiding officer reading each folded piece of paper, one-at-a-time, taken from the Active Vote basket. With the country watching from afar, the announced votes, one-by-one, would be tallied on our screens, with the 100-count vote gradually revealing itself.
But is implementing a tradition of secret voting possible? All it takes is the recognition that this is the time and the opportunity to return secrecy to one of our two governing bodies, and in so doing, fix much of our current political ill humor. Party bosses, "Take a hike."
The reasoning here is that allowing for a secret ballot in the Senate on particularly sensitive issues (a vote threshold of possibly 5/9--56 or more out of 100) will set a precedent that encourages great minds to become senators. It would underline the trust that voters place in their senators to vote their conscience, and would erase some of the partisanship that has poisoned American politics. Most importantly, it would redeem the promise that is secret ballot voting--democracy's beating heart.
In the future, when senators are under pressure to tow the line regarding 'special interests', they would always have the option to call for a secret ballot, assuming their case was strong enough to garner 56 votes. For example, in this article on using wood burning pellets to qualify for green energy credits, the science is obviously against home state interests, and yet the two moderate senators from Maine couldn't possibly vote against their state's forest industry, unless they were voting by secret ballot, in which case they could then heed common sense and scientific consensus.
Even the Constitution itself calls for some secrecy. Article I, Section 5, Clause 3: "Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the journal." Thus, the Senate, led by a majority leader, could conceivably implement an informal 56-vote threshold for a secret ballot, that would see a verbal vote recorded (to satisfy the above clause in the Constitution), while a written vote is counted and becomes the definitive decision.
Furthermore, in any given case, passing an initial decision to vote by secret ballot (56 or more out of 100) would not be easy. There would be many senators who might vote their conscience if given the opportunity, but who wouldn't dare vote for a secret ballot on a question, since this would tip their hand (though alliances between trusting senators would form: "Call for a secret ballot on this, and I'll return the favor some day"). So, secret ballots, yes, but only on rare occasions.
..................
Societies in which voting is less than purely private are susceptible to the politics of strong-arm tactics. The individual amassing the most power in such societies keeps weaker individuals in line with subtle 'enforcement' ("You're still part of our team, aren't you?"), threats ("Vote for me or you'll be sorry"), and violence (unrelated attacks on a voter's personal interests, family members, etc.)
The beauty of the secret ballot is that the strong-arm enforcer is out of luck. This is the foundation for equality in the modern world--we each have an inviolate strength, the right to vote in secrecy.
Under a representative democracy, however, there's an opposite need for transparency, because voters need to know that their will is being expressed accurately.
Voting in a representative democracy is thus best a mix of secrecy and transparency. Which is what our founding fathers created: a House of Representatives to convey the raw desires of the electorate, and a Senate, to cool any hot-headed impulse.
Which brings us to the weakest link in the US system's mix of transparency and secrecy: the Senate's loss of mystique: its become yet another transparent political body, susceptible to 'enforcement'.
Exactly how is that? Well, our Constitution allows a mere 20% of senators the right to request a recorded vote. And though this may have seemed reasonable in the 18th century, there's simply no way our founding fathers could have foreseen the take-your-clothes-off political theater that has allowed every tuned-in citizen to follow every move their senator makes. There's nowhere for conscience and discretion to hide, so almost every senator has gotten in line--the party line; this is especially true of Republicans, who tend to be hierarchical in disposition. Before the days of instant media coverage, the legislative record was known to congressional insiders, but few others. Instead, a candidate's reputation would be buttressed by endorsements from men of stature. In other words, the world has changed so dramatically that there's literally nothing left of it. All politicians are naked unto the electorate.
Yet this is an obvious disaster, leaving senators fearful that if they step out of line, the strongman and his minions will know how they voted and remove them from power. So, they instead vote the way they feel they 'should' to please the party boss, meaning that there's nothing left of the 'objective', above-it-all role that the Senate formerly played.
Forgetting the importance of secrecy, as we've done, is easy. But, once the secret ballot is identified as the key to balancing our politics, the remedy is obvious: its occasional use in one of our two deliberative bodies, namely the Senate. And to satisfy constitutional law, senators would conduct a recorded vote while also voting in secret.
* Senators, one-by-one, walk up to the presiding officer, announce their vote, and cast their folded paper ballots (one printed 'yea' and one 'nay') in either the 'Active Vote' or 'Discard' basket.
* Next, the presiding officer counts the paper ballots by hand, with witnesses present to confirm the results.
* If the result is different from the verbal vote, senators are offered the chance to change their verbal vote. It is unlikely any would.
And for those who enjoy the theater of roll-call votes, a secret ballot would involve the Senate's presiding officer reading each folded piece of paper, one-at-a-time, taken from the Active Vote basket. With the country watching from afar, the announced votes, one-by-one, would be tallied on our screens, with the 100-count vote gradually revealing itself.
But is implementing a tradition of secret voting possible? All it takes is the recognition that this is the time and the opportunity to return secrecy to one of our two governing bodies, and in so doing, fix much of our current political ill humor. Party bosses, "Take a hike."
The reasoning here is that allowing for a secret ballot in the Senate on particularly sensitive issues (a vote threshold of possibly 5/9--56 or more out of 100) will set a precedent that encourages great minds to become senators. It would underline the trust that voters place in their senators to vote their conscience, and would erase some of the partisanship that has poisoned American politics. Most importantly, it would redeem the promise that is secret ballot voting--democracy's beating heart.
In the future, when senators are under pressure to tow the line regarding 'special interests', they would always have the option to call for a secret ballot, assuming their case was strong enough to garner 56 votes. For example, in this article on using wood burning pellets to qualify for green energy credits, the science is obviously against home state interests, and yet the two moderate senators from Maine couldn't possibly vote against their state's forest industry, unless they were voting by secret ballot, in which case they could then heed common sense and scientific consensus.
Even the Constitution itself calls for some secrecy. Article I, Section 5, Clause 3: "Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the journal." Thus, the Senate, led by a majority leader, could conceivably implement an informal 56-vote threshold for a secret ballot, that would see a verbal vote recorded (to satisfy the above clause in the Constitution), while a written vote is counted and becomes the definitive decision.
Furthermore, in any given case, passing an initial decision to vote by secret ballot (56 or more out of 100) would not be easy. There would be many senators who might vote their conscience if given the opportunity, but who wouldn't dare vote for a secret ballot on a question, since this would tip their hand (though alliances between trusting senators would form: "Call for a secret ballot on this, and I'll return the favor some day"). So, secret ballots, yes, but only on rare occasions.
Monday, December 16, 2019
Why Trump's Removal Is As High As 25% Likely
#260: Impeached and Removed
................
My #256 post, "The Exit Trump Scenario" lays out what I believe to be the 1-in-4 or lower odds that the Senate will vote to convict our current president. The reason the odds are that high is that a secret ballot, if used, could free Republican senators from the retaliation of their deep Red constituents, and would thus allow true opinion to prevail.
I note, though, in my post, that a secret ballot is "iffy". This is because the US Constitution specifically says that 'aye' and 'nay' votes must be recorded, should at least 1-in-5 senators wish. This would seem to doom any chance of a secret ballot. Except..., what if there was, indeed, an 'aye' and 'nay' vote as part of a secret ballot vote.
So, given a spike in pro-conviction sentiment (perhaps brought on by testimony from former National Security Advisor John Bolton), a group of half-a-dozen or so Republicans could join with most Democrats in demanding a secret ballot (each senator receives two pieces of paper ('convict' and 'exonerate', folds them, and places one in the 'active vote' bowl, and the other in the 'discard vote' bowl) after verbally recording his/her vote (verbal, probably 45-55--failing to convict), paper (perhaps 68-32--to conviction).
................
My #256 post, "The Exit Trump Scenario" lays out what I believe to be the 1-in-4 or lower odds that the Senate will vote to convict our current president. The reason the odds are that high is that a secret ballot, if used, could free Republican senators from the retaliation of their deep Red constituents, and would thus allow true opinion to prevail.
I note, though, in my post, that a secret ballot is "iffy". This is because the US Constitution specifically says that 'aye' and 'nay' votes must be recorded, should at least 1-in-5 senators wish. This would seem to doom any chance of a secret ballot. Except..., what if there was, indeed, an 'aye' and 'nay' vote as part of a secret ballot vote.
So, given a spike in pro-conviction sentiment (perhaps brought on by testimony from former National Security Advisor John Bolton), a group of half-a-dozen or so Republicans could join with most Democrats in demanding a secret ballot (each senator receives two pieces of paper ('convict' and 'exonerate', folds them, and places one in the 'active vote' bowl, and the other in the 'discard vote' bowl) after verbally recording his/her vote (verbal, probably 45-55--failing to convict), paper (perhaps 68-32--to conviction).
Tuesday, December 10, 2019
We'll Chuckle When Remembering Today's Simplistic "Social Media"
#259: Truly Exciting Social Media
....................
In a recent opinion piece for the New York Times, Annalee Newitz laid out several scenarios describing what future social media might look like. I'll present and discuss them, but first, this is what social media will eventually look like, once we've tried various designs, and settled on the best:
*** Simply put, the American promise: that the best ideas will be recognized and rise to the top.
Newitz's five scenarios (with my commentary in green):
Basic Question: What will replace social media (the way the internet replaced television)?
If Facebook/Twitter are flashes in the pan, I'll surrender my pundit's chair, but I'm guessing this is the wrong question (see my final paragraph).
1. Do away with ad networks that are parasitic, that feed off of human connection.
This idea requires a replacement for ads. Possible, but not likely.
2. Resolve the choice between Facebook and WeChat (the Chinese equivalent) by allowing some state control.
Much more likely that state control withers.
3. Begin with 'opt out' as default. We would each, instead, choose what content to admit into our world.
Creative, but too complicated. Most internet users just want to have fun, and would uncritically open the floodgates. Worth considering, though.
4. A 'slow media' solution: while curating takes time, all posts will have met standards
In boutique settings this could work, but likely an intellectual's dream.
5. Allow face-to-face proof of member authenticity.
Maybe, if your first priority is countering fake accounts.
The reason why "What will replace social media...?" is the wrong question can be summed up with mathematical formulas.
* Facebook is simply 1 + 1 = 2 (we agree to be friends)
* Twitter is simply 2 + 1 = 3 (I follow you in a social context)
This simple math was enabled by the internet. The formulas themselves won't ever change. What can change is our engineering ability. If, for example, a simple adjustment (like ranking our favorite posters) allowed talent to rise, ho-hum mediocrity to fail, and the opinions of those so recognized was tabulated, an organic popularity might begin to replace our pop culture wasteland.
* This would be 3 + 1 = 4 (I promote you as my favorite)
....................
In a recent opinion piece for the New York Times, Annalee Newitz laid out several scenarios describing what future social media might look like. I'll present and discuss them, but first, this is what social media will eventually look like, once we've tried various designs, and settled on the best:
*** Simply put, the American promise: that the best ideas will be recognized and rise to the top.
Newitz's five scenarios (with my commentary in green):
Basic Question: What will replace social media (the way the internet replaced television)?
If Facebook/Twitter are flashes in the pan, I'll surrender my pundit's chair, but I'm guessing this is the wrong question (see my final paragraph).
1. Do away with ad networks that are parasitic, that feed off of human connection.
This idea requires a replacement for ads. Possible, but not likely.
2. Resolve the choice between Facebook and WeChat (the Chinese equivalent) by allowing some state control.
Much more likely that state control withers.
3. Begin with 'opt out' as default. We would each, instead, choose what content to admit into our world.
Creative, but too complicated. Most internet users just want to have fun, and would uncritically open the floodgates. Worth considering, though.
4. A 'slow media' solution: while curating takes time, all posts will have met standards
In boutique settings this could work, but likely an intellectual's dream.
5. Allow face-to-face proof of member authenticity.
Maybe, if your first priority is countering fake accounts.
The reason why "What will replace social media...?" is the wrong question can be summed up with mathematical formulas.
* Facebook is simply 1 + 1 = 2 (we agree to be friends)
* Twitter is simply 2 + 1 = 3 (I follow you in a social context)
This simple math was enabled by the internet. The formulas themselves won't ever change. What can change is our engineering ability. If, for example, a simple adjustment (like ranking our favorite posters) allowed talent to rise, ho-hum mediocrity to fail, and the opinions of those so recognized was tabulated, an organic popularity might begin to replace our pop culture wasteland.
* This would be 3 + 1 = 4 (I promote you as my favorite)
Sunday, December 1, 2019
Easily Rebutting The Climate Deniers
#258: Climate Cranks Exposed
..................
A while back, in my local newspaper, I remember reading an angry letter-to-the-editor written by an amateur 'expert' on the matter, who contended that Global Warming was a hoax. He made the point that over the eons, our planet has heated up and cooled down, and that our era was no different. Where he failed, was in falling for disingenuous 'facts', rather than seeking out both sides of the issue.
I knew he was in error, and now I know why. Here are the charts, commentary and discussion (it's Quora, so scroll down for answers) to show why the low-information voter, wanting to believe a falsehood, could conceivably do so.
Makes one wonder how the creator of the original, deceptive graphic, after raking in his payoff from the fossil fuels industry, could have slept at night.
..................
A while back, in my local newspaper, I remember reading an angry letter-to-the-editor written by an amateur 'expert' on the matter, who contended that Global Warming was a hoax. He made the point that over the eons, our planet has heated up and cooled down, and that our era was no different. Where he failed, was in falling for disingenuous 'facts', rather than seeking out both sides of the issue.
I knew he was in error, and now I know why. Here are the charts, commentary and discussion (it's Quora, so scroll down for answers) to show why the low-information voter, wanting to believe a falsehood, could conceivably do so.
Makes one wonder how the creator of the original, deceptive graphic, after raking in his payoff from the fossil fuels industry, could have slept at night.
Saturday, November 30, 2019
Twitter's Next Moves: My Assessment
#257: Twitter's Unrealized Potential
...............
I regularly read Casey Newton's newsletter (it's free!) covering digital news. Several weeks ago I saved a particularly interesting opinion for later. Here it is, with my commentary, in green.
I've written about civility on Twitter here. And, about ranking, here. A simple ranking would allow followers to note the accounts they enjoy the most. This would mean I could surf from one recommendation to the next, until I found someone to follow, someone who I didn't even know I was looking for.
...............
I regularly read Casey Newton's newsletter (it's free!) covering digital news. Several weeks ago I saved a particularly interesting opinion for later. Here it is, with my commentary, in green.
"...At Twitter, good ideas languish for years. The expansion of a tweet from 140 to 280 characters required such bruising internal battles that the designer responsible quit in exhaustion after shipping it, I’m told...."There was significant blowback from users, so I can imagine how difficult that decision was. Good, though, as it turned out, as we've all gotten used to it now, and routinely run over 140.
"At Twitter, no idea has languished for quite as long as a feature that would let users follow areas of interest in addition to regular accounts. One reason people have historically abandoned Twitter is the difficulty in figuring out which accounts to follow.I would describe the problem in a slightly different way. I recently checked out the Topics feature, and felt my options were almost all crass, pop culture hype, and sports. And yet I'm sure there are excellent, opinionated writers who I'd enjoy reading and/or viewing, if I knew who they were.
"A “topics” feature, if it were properly implemented, could take the guesswork out of building a list of such accounts. Instead of finding the best accounts that cover the NBA, for example, you could just follow “NBA” and let Twitter do the work.Except, this look-it-up functionality wouldn't highlight the quality account I might want to follow, so much as--it would seem--follow commercial logic. The dull writers on a subject I'm interested in won't make my cut. Meanwhile, an excellent writer on a subject I know nothing about would turn me into an interested party.
It’s an idea that dates back to the company’s earliest days, and has long been in development. (“They were definitely working on this idea when I was there in 2016,” one exasperated ex-Twitter employee tweeted at me today.)"
"Recently, Twitter invited me to its headquarters to let me know that the feature is now ready to launch, and will be available globally on November 13th. I wrote about it today at The Verge:"That have credibility on these subjects" is the key phrase. Is this popularity based on critical acclaim, or will it be more of a pop cultural nod to the broad and the loose.
You will be able to follow more than 300 “topics” across sports, entertainment, and gaming, just as you are currently able to follow individual accounts. In return, you’ll see tweets from accounts that you don’t follow that have credibility on these subjects."
"Twitter executives hope that Topics will make the platform more approachable for new and intermittent users and make it easier for heavier users to discover new accounts and conversations."OK, I'll check it out.
"...Generally speaking, the more heavily you use Twitter, the less valuable you may find Topics — power users tend to be really good at curating a perfect list of accounts to follow. But for new, casual, and lapsed users, I expect Topics to be a powerful tool for Twitter that could help the company grow its user base."Hard to disagree, then.
"It’s the latest overdue but welcome feature that Twitter has shipped in recent months. Under the leadership of head of product Kayvon Beykpour, the company began removing abusive tweets faster; shipped a native app for MacOS; added a search feature to direct messages; turned its lists into swipeable timelines; and began letting you hide replies to your tweets. And that’s just what the company has shipped since September.Sounds good.
It appears that much more is on the horizon."
"[Recently], Dantley Davis, Twitter’s vice president for design and research, raised eyebrows with a tweet in which he said he is “looking forward to” the launch of several new features next year. They include: letting users remove themselves from conversations; preventing their tweets from being retweeted if they choose; preventing people from mentioning their user names without permission; and sending tweets only to a specific hashtag, interest, or group of friends."More goodness, it would seem. Hopefully these changes will reduce the attack dog atmosphere that some have complained about.
"In a follow-up tweet, Davis also suggested the company would begin labeling multi-tweet threads automatically."Another winner.
"On one hand, this is classic Twitter: lots of talk ahead of actions that could be months, if not more than a year, away. But thanks to the company’s recent track record, I’m much more inclined to believe it will follow through on that talk. For the first time in many years, the company is backing up its talk with action. Here’s hoping that it’s one Twitter trend that is here to stay."From my perspective, all would be well if Twitter enabled a system for ranking writers (aside from 'likes'), perhaps within specific topics; this, to enable the best to rise up and be followed.
I've written about civility on Twitter here. And, about ranking, here. A simple ranking would allow followers to note the accounts they enjoy the most. This would mean I could surf from one recommendation to the next, until I found someone to follow, someone who I didn't even know I was looking for.
Thursday, November 28, 2019
The 'Exit Trump' Scenario
#256: If It Happens, It'll Likely Be Along These Lines
..................
On Quora, I posted this answer to the question:
Is it at all within the realm of possibility that enough Senators will grow a spine, defy McConnell and vote to convict? Perhaps Senators from purple states? What about retiring Senators?
Yes, though the percentage is probably 25% or less. Here’s the scenario:
* The Democrats’ best chance is to have Bolton, and other independently-minded witnesses make dramatic appearances in the Senate trial.
* Because Chief Justice Roberts will be the presiding officer at that trial, the Ds have no reason to drag things out (waiting for months for the Supreme Court to force Bolton and others to testify), since Roberts would be the likely swing vote in such cases, and his decisions at the trial will be final, as well (Will Bolton testify? Yes or no?).
* And with Bolton et al providing the fireworks, there’s certainly a chance that public sentiment favoring impeachment will spike.
* Next, as has been noted by John Richards in another answer to this question, there’s the possibility that 51 senators would want a secret ballot (for obvious reasons). If so (let’s say Mitt Romney, Susan Collins and Cory Gardner convince several retiring members to allow this, and join all Dems except Joe Manchin and Doug Jones) the result would be totally unpredictable—easily a 50/50 proposition.
* Since Trump (sensing defeat) might want to get out before conviction, a voluntary retirement and Federal pardon by President Pence might even obviate the need for a secret ballot—which is arguably in iffy territory.
* Considering how close to the vest senators would want to keep their hands, it might be that the public never hears about the above, but instead witnesses a White House departure for Mar a Largo in early January. No trial, no secret ballot controversy, just the hidden hand of Mitt Romney and associates letting McConnell know the jig is up. In fact, senators like Collins might want to hint darkly about her involvement, in the hopes of averting a loss next November. Maybe Manchin would join her at a presser, making the point that he was on the other side, but that both sides were bi-partisan in make up.
..................
On Quora, I posted this answer to the question:
Is it at all within the realm of possibility that enough Senators will grow a spine, defy McConnell and vote to convict? Perhaps Senators from purple states? What about retiring Senators?
Yes, though the percentage is probably 25% or less. Here’s the scenario:
* The Democrats’ best chance is to have Bolton, and other independently-minded witnesses make dramatic appearances in the Senate trial.
* Because Chief Justice Roberts will be the presiding officer at that trial, the Ds have no reason to drag things out (waiting for months for the Supreme Court to force Bolton and others to testify), since Roberts would be the likely swing vote in such cases, and his decisions at the trial will be final, as well (Will Bolton testify? Yes or no?).
* And with Bolton et al providing the fireworks, there’s certainly a chance that public sentiment favoring impeachment will spike.
* Next, as has been noted by John Richards in another answer to this question, there’s the possibility that 51 senators would want a secret ballot (for obvious reasons). If so (let’s say Mitt Romney, Susan Collins and Cory Gardner convince several retiring members to allow this, and join all Dems except Joe Manchin and Doug Jones) the result would be totally unpredictable—easily a 50/50 proposition.
* Since Trump (sensing defeat) might want to get out before conviction, a voluntary retirement and Federal pardon by President Pence might even obviate the need for a secret ballot—which is arguably in iffy territory.
* Considering how close to the vest senators would want to keep their hands, it might be that the public never hears about the above, but instead witnesses a White House departure for Mar a Largo in early January. No trial, no secret ballot controversy, just the hidden hand of Mitt Romney and associates letting McConnell know the jig is up. In fact, senators like Collins might want to hint darkly about her involvement, in the hopes of averting a loss next November. Maybe Manchin would join her at a presser, making the point that he was on the other side, but that both sides were bi-partisan in make up.
Saturday, November 23, 2019
Top Ten Steps To Fighting Climate Change
#255: The Most Effective Things One Can Do
....................
Kayleen Schaefer, in Curbed, has constructed a lengthy list describing the big and little things that, together, amount to Living Sustainably.
Since we're all looking for ways to save energy, money, and the planet, here's my top ten version, a weighted mix of cheapest, easiest, and most important. I'll also note whether I, personally, have made any headway on an item (score 0-100). And, hopefully, I'll have something to say about each.
First, though, it should be noted that some pundits dismiss personal responsibility, insisting that without direction from above (government putting a price on carbon; corporations offering green options) the actions of individuals amount to mere drops in the bucket. But choice itself requires practice (am I buying things out of habit, or because I've actually thought through my actions and choices?), which suggests there's no downside to this list.
Top Ten Actions For Living Sustainably, Fighting Climate Change
#10: Fly Less -- 70% I am at 6 years without flying, though there was much jetting about in my younger days. Direct flights and carbon offsets are ways to feel better, as are trains and other public transport.
#9: Change Lightbulbs to LEDs or CFLs -- 95% Easy and relatively cheap (these slightly more expensive bulbs pay for themselves, many times over, in energy savings).
#8: If You Build New, Construct A Passive Energy House -- 0% Passive energy is when the house heats up or cools down naturally--by allowing the sun, for example, streaming in windows, to heat things up in a super-insulated home, rather than using energy to run a furnace.
#7: Renovate An Old Home -- 35% We shared the cost of energy saving upgrades with our local utility 5-10 years ago; but, there's so much more to be done.
#6: Go Electric -- 35% Recent: mower, weed eater, power saw. Big ticket item still to go: car.
#5: Downsize -- 75% I lead a comfortable life, but there are many things I do without. Just one: I buy perhaps 50% of clothes at thrift stores, paying steeply reduced prices.
#4: Install Solar Panels -- 5% I asked a contractor to complete the work, but after emailing me a cost estimate, he couldn't find time (back then there was nobody locally).
#3: Avoid Bad Corporations -- 95% Here's the link that Schaefer provides. I narrow down the list to a 'dirty thirty' (scroll to bottom of this page) that are the more recognizable. Avoid them, if possible. Also, if you can afford it, buy local, from small businesses, and those that value sustainability.
#2: Promote Renewables (by easily switching to Wind/Solar) -- 100% We use our local electric utility, but the electricity itself is supplied by a company called Arcadia Power, which charges a small premium for wind energy. I have also been offered a solar equivalent, 'community solar', by the same company.
#1: Elect Candidates With Good Climate Plans -- 100% This is a top concern when I vote. But, it gets tricky when one considers which candidates are broadly popular enough to have a healthy Senate majority with which to work (otherwise, stalemate).
Another 20 Suggestions -- from the original list of 101
Buy Sustainably Harvested Wood Furniture (so carbon-sequestering forests aren't lost)
Purchase Fair Trade Products (don't support human misery and environmental loserdom)
Weatherproof Your Windows
Hang-dry your clothes (if, like me, you live in a 'dry' house)
Clean/Replace Air Filters in heating/AC systems (saves $$)
Plant Your Own Veggies
Ditch Your Lawn (if your town's rules allow)--or try a lawn that's fed grass clippings
Use Washable Cloths Instead of Paper Napkins/Towels
Plant Trees
Push Your City To Move To Clean Energy
Subscribe To A CSA (farmer's produce sign-up plan)
Back Transit-Oriented Development (light rail, etc.)
Plan Mindful Itineraries (combine errands for a single 'run')
Say “No” To Over-Laundering (your clothes/sheets will last longer, for one)
Stay in Sustainable Lodging (or, try requesting no room service: "do not disturb")
Stop Drinking Bottled Water (I am currently using a one-time salsa jar)
Disinvest From Fossil Fuels (if you're that wealthy)
Buy New Appliances With The Energy Star Label (google relevant reviews, looking for efficiency)
Don’t Use One-Day Shipping (ask for USPS -- no extra emissions with the same daily route)
Cook At Home (big batch cooking lasts for days, and is much cheaper)
Eat Less Meat (canned salmon that's 'wild caught' is relatively benign)
Compost (if you have the space)
Recycle Better (google your community's recycling rules)
Bring Your Own Shopping Bags (it becomes second nature)
Learn From Greta (young adult = inspiring)
The 'Dirty Thirty' List
American National Insurance
Amerco
Black Knight
Chemed Corp
Chipotle Mexican Grill
Cinemark Holdings
Cintas Corp
Dish Network
Dollar General
Dollar Tree
Domino's Pizza
Dunkin Brands
Extended Stay America
Flowers Food
Herbalife Nutrition
Kirby Corp
Madison Square Garden
McDonald's
Michaels Cos
Monster Beverage
Pilgrim's Pride Corp
Servicemaster Global
Six Flags Entertainment
Sprouts Farmers Market
Stericycle
Tesla
Trinity Industries
US Steel
Wendys
WR Grace
....................
Kayleen Schaefer, in Curbed, has constructed a lengthy list describing the big and little things that, together, amount to Living Sustainably.
Since we're all looking for ways to save energy, money, and the planet, here's my top ten version, a weighted mix of cheapest, easiest, and most important. I'll also note whether I, personally, have made any headway on an item (score 0-100). And, hopefully, I'll have something to say about each.
First, though, it should be noted that some pundits dismiss personal responsibility, insisting that without direction from above (government putting a price on carbon; corporations offering green options) the actions of individuals amount to mere drops in the bucket. But choice itself requires practice (am I buying things out of habit, or because I've actually thought through my actions and choices?), which suggests there's no downside to this list.
Top Ten Actions For Living Sustainably, Fighting Climate Change
#10: Fly Less -- 70% I am at 6 years without flying, though there was much jetting about in my younger days. Direct flights and carbon offsets are ways to feel better, as are trains and other public transport.
#9: Change Lightbulbs to LEDs or CFLs -- 95% Easy and relatively cheap (these slightly more expensive bulbs pay for themselves, many times over, in energy savings).
#8: If You Build New, Construct A Passive Energy House -- 0% Passive energy is when the house heats up or cools down naturally--by allowing the sun, for example, streaming in windows, to heat things up in a super-insulated home, rather than using energy to run a furnace.
#7: Renovate An Old Home -- 35% We shared the cost of energy saving upgrades with our local utility 5-10 years ago; but, there's so much more to be done.
#6: Go Electric -- 35% Recent: mower, weed eater, power saw. Big ticket item still to go: car.
#5: Downsize -- 75% I lead a comfortable life, but there are many things I do without. Just one: I buy perhaps 50% of clothes at thrift stores, paying steeply reduced prices.
#4: Install Solar Panels -- 5% I asked a contractor to complete the work, but after emailing me a cost estimate, he couldn't find time (back then there was nobody locally).
#3: Avoid Bad Corporations -- 95% Here's the link that Schaefer provides. I narrow down the list to a 'dirty thirty' (scroll to bottom of this page) that are the more recognizable. Avoid them, if possible. Also, if you can afford it, buy local, from small businesses, and those that value sustainability.
#2: Promote Renewables (by easily switching to Wind/Solar) -- 100% We use our local electric utility, but the electricity itself is supplied by a company called Arcadia Power, which charges a small premium for wind energy. I have also been offered a solar equivalent, 'community solar', by the same company.
#1: Elect Candidates With Good Climate Plans -- 100% This is a top concern when I vote. But, it gets tricky when one considers which candidates are broadly popular enough to have a healthy Senate majority with which to work (otherwise, stalemate).
Another 20 Suggestions -- from the original list of 101
Buy Sustainably Harvested Wood Furniture (so carbon-sequestering forests aren't lost)
Purchase Fair Trade Products (don't support human misery and environmental loserdom)
Weatherproof Your Windows
Hang-dry your clothes (if, like me, you live in a 'dry' house)
Clean/Replace Air Filters in heating/AC systems (saves $$)
Plant Your Own Veggies
Ditch Your Lawn (if your town's rules allow)--or try a lawn that's fed grass clippings
Use Washable Cloths Instead of Paper Napkins/Towels
Plant Trees
Push Your City To Move To Clean Energy
Subscribe To A CSA (farmer's produce sign-up plan)
Back Transit-Oriented Development (light rail, etc.)
Plan Mindful Itineraries (combine errands for a single 'run')
Say “No” To Over-Laundering (your clothes/sheets will last longer, for one)
Stay in Sustainable Lodging (or, try requesting no room service: "do not disturb")
Stop Drinking Bottled Water (I am currently using a one-time salsa jar)
Disinvest From Fossil Fuels (if you're that wealthy)
Buy New Appliances With The Energy Star Label (google relevant reviews, looking for efficiency)
Don’t Use One-Day Shipping (ask for USPS -- no extra emissions with the same daily route)
Cook At Home (big batch cooking lasts for days, and is much cheaper)
Eat Less Meat (canned salmon that's 'wild caught' is relatively benign)
Compost (if you have the space)
Recycle Better (google your community's recycling rules)
Bring Your Own Shopping Bags (it becomes second nature)
Learn From Greta (young adult = inspiring)
The 'Dirty Thirty' List
American National Insurance
Amerco
Black Knight
Chemed Corp
Chipotle Mexican Grill
Cinemark Holdings
Cintas Corp
Dish Network
Dollar General
Dollar Tree
Domino's Pizza
Dunkin Brands
Extended Stay America
Flowers Food
Herbalife Nutrition
Kirby Corp
Madison Square Garden
McDonald's
Michaels Cos
Monster Beverage
Pilgrim's Pride Corp
Servicemaster Global
Six Flags Entertainment
Sprouts Farmers Market
Stericycle
Tesla
Trinity Industries
US Steel
Wendys
WR Grace
Saturday, November 16, 2019
What If The 'Fountain of Youth' Is ... Sleep?
#254: Sleep As A Step Back In Time
...................
Previously, in my series on sleeping:
* Timing: my system
* Exertion: staying asleep
Now:
* Sleep: The elusive 'fountain of youth'?
It was just this year that new research showed deep sleep clears the brain of toxins associated with Alzheimer's. Which suggests that developed sleeping skills enable us to, each night, rewind the clock. Failing to do so, the study points out, is cumulative, in that the uncleared brain gets less deep sleep, which means less clearing in the future.
So, perhaps, a 'natural' human life-span is 100-200 years, and it's only the befuddlement of sleep deprivation that shortens that span by half.
If so, it might be a good idea to teach sleep fundamentals in school. Like the frankly amazing results from teaching 'character', a periodic reminder of sleep 'hacks' every month or so in a student's PE class might bear fruit.
...................
Previously, in my series on sleeping:
* Timing: my system
* Exertion: staying asleep
Now:
* Sleep: The elusive 'fountain of youth'?
It was just this year that new research showed deep sleep clears the brain of toxins associated with Alzheimer's. Which suggests that developed sleeping skills enable us to, each night, rewind the clock. Failing to do so, the study points out, is cumulative, in that the uncleared brain gets less deep sleep, which means less clearing in the future.
So, perhaps, a 'natural' human life-span is 100-200 years, and it's only the befuddlement of sleep deprivation that shortens that span by half.
If so, it might be a good idea to teach sleep fundamentals in school. Like the frankly amazing results from teaching 'character', a periodic reminder of sleep 'hacks' every month or so in a student's PE class might bear fruit.
Monday, November 11, 2019
Deciding On My New Avatar
#253: The Case For Each Option
..................
My five options, a Snoopy cameo, and which I'm likely to pick, in countdown order:
#5: The in-your-face option:
#4: The lesser hidden image:
#3: The greater hidden image:
Just for fun: Snoopy-like figure:
#2: The heartbeater:
#1: The lone alternative:
..................
My five options, a Snoopy cameo, and which I'm likely to pick, in countdown order:
#5: The in-your-face option:
 |
| Reminds me of a dog barking. Radical. And not at all likely to be picked. |
#4: The lesser hidden image:
 |
| Crow's Beak. 99% wouldn't see it. Flashy yellow, but overall a dull wallflower aspect. |
#3: The greater hidden image:
 |
| Vaguely Meso-American. I like the leaf stem pointing to the figure's eye, but requires up-close scrutiny. |
Just for fun: Snoopy-like figure:
 |
| Red Baron (shakes fist)! |
#2: The heartbeater:
 |
| My original favorite, and maybe return champ. Spectacular color, plus upper right and lower left yellow seem to be pointing towards each other, so I 💛 this. |
#1: The lone alternative:
 |
| A dazzler, with a boxed-in brown leaf border --on closer inspection--above right, above left, and center left. The white snow is as perfect as wilderness. Plus, there's one fanned ginkgo leaf in the lower right corner. |
Thursday, October 31, 2019
Getting To Consensus
#252: A Taiwanese Model
..................
The BBC website posted an article recently describing a new process the Taiwanese government uses to get to consensus on issues:
Process:
1. Crowdsource objective facts from stakeholder factions about a specific issue
2. Communicate via dedicated social media: statements aimed at resolving the issue are drafted within each faction, after pro- and con- suggestions are offered
3. A rough consensus is reached between factions, followed by hammering out detailed recommendations
Tweaks to a normal discussion:
* no 'reply' button (so no person-to-person vitriol)
* most messages within factions regarding their own drafts are not shared with other factions
* instead, messages that find support across different groups, as well as within them, are highlighted for all to see
* thus, rather than fostering negativity, the process is gamified in a way that tilts toward consensus
First, is adopting this system possible here in the US? And second, could there be problems with the process?
Could it be adapted for our government?
1. What if a new president held monthly televised town halls on different topics. If a subject were announced well in advance, stakeholders could develop draft resolutions, and reach a rough consensus, which the president could then present to the town hall audience as he/she answered questions. Or, if the president didn't agree with the consensus, it could be sent back for further tweaking. The initial discussion and negotiating would take place on a dedicated social media platform that tilted the process towards consensus as above.
2. Alternately, the process could be decentralized, and instead handled through the House of Representatives, with congress members playing the president's role, and the audience being online. I've described something like this here. Representatives would then decide whether to follow the will of the voters, and the president would weigh in only to initiate discussion, and, once legislation passes both the House and Senate, to either sign or veto the 'consensus' produced.
Any problems?
* The Taiwanese example cited was a conflict between Uber drivers, their customers, and traditional taxi drivers. This is a clear cut case with defined stakeholders. Are most issues so easily squared off? Probably not, but there's no harm in trying to resolve conflicts of interest.
* Do fundamental conflicts fester, after being papered over? Likely no more so than in any other method used, though again, only experience will speak to this.
* Are innovative ideas, that might otherwise emerge, drowned out by the urge to bridge the gap between factions? It wouldn't seem so at first glance, since the initial discussion is within factions, where innovation would have room to appear. But, again, we won't know till we experiment, though there may be a problem of defining factions at the beginning of the process that leaves some interested parties outside looking in.
Our next president would do well to increase transparency and consensus building, and the above would seem a good place to start.
..................
The BBC website posted an article recently describing a new process the Taiwanese government uses to get to consensus on issues:
Process:
1. Crowdsource objective facts from stakeholder factions about a specific issue
2. Communicate via dedicated social media: statements aimed at resolving the issue are drafted within each faction, after pro- and con- suggestions are offered
3. A rough consensus is reached between factions, followed by hammering out detailed recommendations
Tweaks to a normal discussion:
* no 'reply' button (so no person-to-person vitriol)
* most messages within factions regarding their own drafts are not shared with other factions
* instead, messages that find support across different groups, as well as within them, are highlighted for all to see
* thus, rather than fostering negativity, the process is gamified in a way that tilts toward consensus
First, is adopting this system possible here in the US? And second, could there be problems with the process?
Could it be adapted for our government?
1. What if a new president held monthly televised town halls on different topics. If a subject were announced well in advance, stakeholders could develop draft resolutions, and reach a rough consensus, which the president could then present to the town hall audience as he/she answered questions. Or, if the president didn't agree with the consensus, it could be sent back for further tweaking. The initial discussion and negotiating would take place on a dedicated social media platform that tilted the process towards consensus as above.
2. Alternately, the process could be decentralized, and instead handled through the House of Representatives, with congress members playing the president's role, and the audience being online. I've described something like this here. Representatives would then decide whether to follow the will of the voters, and the president would weigh in only to initiate discussion, and, once legislation passes both the House and Senate, to either sign or veto the 'consensus' produced.
Any problems?
* The Taiwanese example cited was a conflict between Uber drivers, their customers, and traditional taxi drivers. This is a clear cut case with defined stakeholders. Are most issues so easily squared off? Probably not, but there's no harm in trying to resolve conflicts of interest.
* Do fundamental conflicts fester, after being papered over? Likely no more so than in any other method used, though again, only experience will speak to this.
* Are innovative ideas, that might otherwise emerge, drowned out by the urge to bridge the gap between factions? It wouldn't seem so at first glance, since the initial discussion is within factions, where innovation would have room to appear. But, again, we won't know till we experiment, though there may be a problem of defining factions at the beginning of the process that leaves some interested parties outside looking in.
Our next president would do well to increase transparency and consensus building, and the above would seem a good place to start.
Wednesday, October 30, 2019
Republican Lockstep And The Myth Of Pop Music
#251: The Herd
..................
Aside from politics, my 'most read' blog post has been What Corrupted Pop Music? In it I count down the ten reasons contemporary popular music has declined in quality.
Of course I find some artists worth it. In watching 30 minutes or so of DVRed late night comedy with my dinner most nights, I've recently enjoyed Taylor Swift on SNL, The Roots on Jimmy Fallon, Jon Batiste & Stay Human on Colbert, and (can't remember name) on Seth Meyers. After all, there's such enormous variety that eventually you'll find something.
Routinely, though, I quickly fast forward through yet another failure.
What inspired this post, however, is the similarity between the circumscribed pop music industry, and the allegiance required of Republican politicians. Will there ever come a time when individualism is ascendant ("From now on, I'm not pretending...."), and toadying is laughed at?
I'd like to think so. The more likely outcome, though, barring greater music exposure in schools, and greater civic participation in politics, is for low-information listeners / voters to continue to fall under the sway of artifice. The fall-back of finger jabbing that accompanies borderline violent music isn't, after all, that different from the attention-getting that comes from sensationalizing the border 'crisis' **; in both cases there's aggression or distortion to serve personal ends. And the syrupy formula of unthinking, pretty faces on TV endorsing a party line isn't that different from formulaic music produced by industry professionals, then presented as the latest 'popular' fare by interchangeable celebrity frontmen and -women.
Most likely, all we can hope for is the gradual decline of schlock, whether it's political or musical. So, in the case of politics, we can likely expect a vote not to remove an impeached president, followed by negative repercussions for that president's party in the next election. In music, this might involve the further decentralization of the industry, and a groundswell of voices noting that the emperor has no clothes.
Or, in both cases, there just might be a profound way forward.
Music: as a first step, a 'union' of sorts, that constitutes artists who write their own material, for starters. Not a member? Why not? Second step: union members voting, anonymously, on which artists are making their favorite music.
Politics: a compromise within the Republican party, between die-hard apologists, who'll support their president no matter how absurd the arguments, and the large number of senators with private concerns about impeachable behavior. Instead of senate Republicans confronting the president, as with Nixon in the Watergate Era, they could simply conduct an anonymous vote ***. This would avoid tying any individual senator to the inevitable tornado of anger from the Republican base. If done prior to the House's expected impeachment vote, like Nixon, Trump wouldn't be formally impeached. Would he see the writing on the wall, assuming the necessary votes were cast, and get out with minimal dignity? Maybe not, but from Senate Majority Leader McConnell's perspective, an anonymous vote is probably the least bad option.
** Border crisis? Most undocumented migrants come through border crossings, legally, on limited visas. They overstay, and find work. So, either employers, like hotels and golf courses, use a solid e-verify system to hire only American citizens, or we continue as we are. Building a militarized border wall will do relatively little besides ruin natural areas.
*** Anonymous vote? Here's how it might work: Each Republican senator would receive three slips of paper (labelled "removal", "present", and "no! removal") that looked identical when folded. In plain sight, in front of rolling cameras, each senator would, one by one, walk up to two spinning cages (like those used for lottery drawings). The first would be for the senator's vote, the second for the two discards. Once voting was over, the slips would be counted, with the world watching.
..................
Aside from politics, my 'most read' blog post has been What Corrupted Pop Music? In it I count down the ten reasons contemporary popular music has declined in quality.
Of course I find some artists worth it. In watching 30 minutes or so of DVRed late night comedy with my dinner most nights, I've recently enjoyed Taylor Swift on SNL, The Roots on Jimmy Fallon, Jon Batiste & Stay Human on Colbert, and (can't remember name) on Seth Meyers. After all, there's such enormous variety that eventually you'll find something.
Routinely, though, I quickly fast forward through yet another failure.
What inspired this post, however, is the similarity between the circumscribed pop music industry, and the allegiance required of Republican politicians. Will there ever come a time when individualism is ascendant ("From now on, I'm not pretending...."), and toadying is laughed at?
I'd like to think so. The more likely outcome, though, barring greater music exposure in schools, and greater civic participation in politics, is for low-information listeners / voters to continue to fall under the sway of artifice. The fall-back of finger jabbing that accompanies borderline violent music isn't, after all, that different from the attention-getting that comes from sensationalizing the border 'crisis' **; in both cases there's aggression or distortion to serve personal ends. And the syrupy formula of unthinking, pretty faces on TV endorsing a party line isn't that different from formulaic music produced by industry professionals, then presented as the latest 'popular' fare by interchangeable celebrity frontmen and -women.
Most likely, all we can hope for is the gradual decline of schlock, whether it's political or musical. So, in the case of politics, we can likely expect a vote not to remove an impeached president, followed by negative repercussions for that president's party in the next election. In music, this might involve the further decentralization of the industry, and a groundswell of voices noting that the emperor has no clothes.
Or, in both cases, there just might be a profound way forward.
Music: as a first step, a 'union' of sorts, that constitutes artists who write their own material, for starters. Not a member? Why not? Second step: union members voting, anonymously, on which artists are making their favorite music.
Politics: a compromise within the Republican party, between die-hard apologists, who'll support their president no matter how absurd the arguments, and the large number of senators with private concerns about impeachable behavior. Instead of senate Republicans confronting the president, as with Nixon in the Watergate Era, they could simply conduct an anonymous vote ***. This would avoid tying any individual senator to the inevitable tornado of anger from the Republican base. If done prior to the House's expected impeachment vote, like Nixon, Trump wouldn't be formally impeached. Would he see the writing on the wall, assuming the necessary votes were cast, and get out with minimal dignity? Maybe not, but from Senate Majority Leader McConnell's perspective, an anonymous vote is probably the least bad option.
** Border crisis? Most undocumented migrants come through border crossings, legally, on limited visas. They overstay, and find work. So, either employers, like hotels and golf courses, use a solid e-verify system to hire only American citizens, or we continue as we are. Building a militarized border wall will do relatively little besides ruin natural areas.
*** Anonymous vote? Here's how it might work: Each Republican senator would receive three slips of paper (labelled "removal", "present", and "no! removal") that looked identical when folded. In plain sight, in front of rolling cameras, each senator would, one by one, walk up to two spinning cages (like those used for lottery drawings). The first would be for the senator's vote, the second for the two discards. Once voting was over, the slips would be counted, with the world watching.
Sunday, October 20, 2019
Tribute: Lyricist Robert Hunter
#250: Leonardo Words
...................
As I recently wrote on Twitter, the difference between two random people working on a project, and two collaborators meant for each other, is 9+9, as opposed to 9x9. With the passing of lyricist Robert Hunter, who wrote the words to a good many Grateful Dead songs, we are reminded of that difference (81 - 18) by the peak synergy that flowed from Hunter's lyrics and Jerry Garcia's music during the late '60s and '70s.
Below, I'll quote what I consider to be Hunter's best, leaving it to the reader to actually listen to the marvel that is Garcia et al.'s adaptive revelation (Note: I've read that in some instances--like our #5--the music came first). I'll indicate a date on which the first live performance occurred, and also which of the song's verses I'm quoting. My commentary then appears in green.
In chronological order:
#1 "Dark Star", first performed Dec 13th, '67
(chorus)
Shall we go,
you and I
while we can?
Through
the transitive nightfall
of diamonds
[I imagine two lovers thinking this as they pledge themselves.]
#2 "China Cat Sunflower", first performed Jan 17, '68
(2nd verse)
Krazy Kat peeking through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire
like a diamond-eyed Jack
A leaf of all colors plays
a golden string fiddle
to a double-e waterfall over my back
["...of all..." later becomes "...waterfall...". Here we have, what? Flowing hair?]
#3 "St. Stephen", May 24th, '68
(6th verse)
Did he doubt or did he try?
Answers aplenty in the bye and bye
Talk about your plenty, talk about your ills
One man gathers what another man spills
[Quiz: Famously, at one concert, the last line here coincided with what?]
#4 "Black Peter", Dec 4th, '69
(2nd verse)
Just then the wind
came squalling through the door
but who can the weather command?
[Would you close the door?]
#5 "Uncle John's Band", Dec 4th, '69
(first verse)
Well the first days are the hardest days
don't you worry anymore
When life looks like Easy Street
there is danger at your door
Think this through with me
Let me know your mind
Whoa-oh, what I want to know,
is are you kind?
[A fair approximation of a then nascent '60s philosophy.]
#6 "Sugar Magnolia/Sunshine Daydream", June 7th, 1970
(near end)
Light out singing
I'll walk you in the morning sunshine
[Singing at night about tomorrow morning.]
[Note: music by Bob Weir]
#7 "Ripple", August 18th, 1970
(chorus)
Ripple in still water
when there is no pebble tossed
nor wind to blow
[Enigmatic, but once solved, the riddle be deep...if God is there.]
#8 "Box of Rain", October 9th, 1972
(penultimate verse)
Just a box of rain
wind and water
believe it if you need it
if you don't just pass it on
[That last line, in the final verse, becomes "or leave it if you dare"]
[Note: music by Phil Lesh.]
#9 "Bertha", Feb 18th, '71
(second verse)
Dressed myself in green
I went down to the sea
Try to see what's going down
Try to read between the lines
Had a feeling I was falling, falling, falling
Turned around to see
Heard a voice a-calling, calling, calling
You was coming after me
Back to me
["went down", "going down", "falling", rather than, ...well, Bertha]
#10 "Wharf Rat", Feb. 18th, 1971
(second verse)
My name is August West
and I love my Pearly Baker best
more than my wine
[even in our blind despair, the way forward beckons]
[Note: the contrast of triumphal music, with empathy for 'the least among us', is Garcia genius]
#11 "Bird Song", Feb. 18th, 1971
(first verse)
All I know is something like a bird
within her sang
All I know, she sang a little while
and then flew on
(beginning, second verse)
If you hear that same sweet song again
will you know why?
[The key to a wise choice: the happiness of knowing why]
#12 "Brown-eyed Women", August 23rd, 1971
(last verse)
Daddy made whiskey and he made it well
Cost two dollars and it burned like hell
I cut hick'ry just to fire the still
Drink down a bottle and you're ready to kill
[The hardscrabble life of a hundred years ago, axing timber and animals.]
#13 "Tennessee Jed", October 19th, 1971
(last verse)
I woke up a-feeling mean
Went down to play the slot machine
The wheels turned 'round and the letters read:
Better head back to Tennessee, Jed
[An old-timey, extraordinary vision]
#14 "Jack Straw", October 19th, 1971
(fifth verse)
We used to play for silver
Now we play for life
One's for sport and one's for blood
At the point of a knife
Now the die is shaken
Now the die must fall
There ain't a winner in this game
Who don't go home with all
Not with all....
[Alternating voices sing, first of immorality, then condemnation, then our quote]
[Note: music by Bob Weir.]
#15 "Ramble On Rose", October 19th, 1971
(second half, first verse)
Just like New York City
Just like Jericho
Pace the halls and climb the walls
Get out when they blow
[Hard to beat Garcia's exciting music here; excellent poetic path, as well.]
#16 "Mississippi Half-step Uptown Toodleloo", July 16th, '72
(chorus)
Halfstep
Mississippi Uptown Toodleloo
Hello baby I'm gone, goodbye
Half a cup of rock and rye
Farewell to you old Southern sky
I'm on my way--on my way
[Upriver, where the paddle wheeler stopped.]
#17 "Eyes Of The World", February 9th, 1973
(first verse)
Right outside this lazy summer home
you don't have time to call
your soul a critic, no
[The band's music, fully mature.]
#18 "U.S. Blues", Feb. 22nd, 1974
(second verse)
I'm Uncle Sam / that's who I am
Been hiding out / in a rock-and-roll band
Shake the hand that shook the hand
Of P.T. Barnum / and Charlie Chan
[Big-hearted, inclusive.]
#19 "Scarlet Begonias", March 23rd, 1974
(fourth verse)
Once in a while
you get shown the light
in the strangest of places
if you look at it right
[Once, that is, like at a GD concert, when you're playing, like everyone else, in the "Heart of Gold Band"]
#20 "Fire On The Mountain", March 18th, 1977
(second verse)
If mercy's in business I wish it for you
More than just ashes when your dreams come true
[Warning: throw away your matches.]
[Note: music by Mickey Hart.]
#21 "Althea", August 4th, 1979
(first verse)
I told Althea I was feeling lost
Lacking in some direction
Althea told me upon scrutiny
my back might need protection
[Early precursor of the 'I've got your back' concept, except back-to-back?]
#22 "Alabama Getaway", November 4th, 1979
(2nd verse)
Reason the poor girls love him
Promise them everything
Why they all believe him?
He wears a big diamond ring
[Succinct.]
#23 "Standing On The Moon", February 5th, 1989
(last verse)
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I'd rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up at heaven
At this crescent in the sky
In the sky
[High flying spaceman's regret.]
Encore, #24 "He's Gone", April 17, 1972
(first verse)
Rat in a drain ditch
Caught on a limb
You know better but
I know him
[The alternative meaning that is simply wrong (first line). Also, 3rd and 4th lines nail the wrong-headed ugliness of celebrity.]
Second Encore, #25 "Here Comes Sunshine", Feb. 9th, 1973
(Second part, second verse)
Good to know
you got shoes to wear
when you find the floor
Why hold out for more?
[Once one wakes up, why keep on sleeping?]
Third Encore, #26 "Cosmic Charlie", October 19th, 1968
(most of the way through)
Calliope wail like a seaside zoo
The very last lately inquired about you
It's really very one or two
The first you wanted, the last I knew
[Delicious second meaning: "the last I knew".]
And probably Hunter's most famous words:
Lately it occurs to me
What a long strange trip it's been
[Dry humor that suddenly turns otherwise on closer scrutiny.]
...................
As I recently wrote on Twitter, the difference between two random people working on a project, and two collaborators meant for each other, is 9+9, as opposed to 9x9. With the passing of lyricist Robert Hunter, who wrote the words to a good many Grateful Dead songs, we are reminded of that difference (81 - 18) by the peak synergy that flowed from Hunter's lyrics and Jerry Garcia's music during the late '60s and '70s.
Below, I'll quote what I consider to be Hunter's best, leaving it to the reader to actually listen to the marvel that is Garcia et al.'s adaptive revelation (Note: I've read that in some instances--like our #5--the music came first). I'll indicate a date on which the first live performance occurred, and also which of the song's verses I'm quoting. My commentary then appears in green.
In chronological order:
#1 "Dark Star", first performed Dec 13th, '67
(chorus)
Shall we go,
you and I
while we can?
Through
the transitive nightfall
of diamonds
[I imagine two lovers thinking this as they pledge themselves.]
#2 "China Cat Sunflower", first performed Jan 17, '68
(2nd verse)
Krazy Kat peeking through a lace bandana
like a one-eyed Cheshire
like a diamond-eyed Jack
A leaf of all colors plays
a golden string fiddle
to a double-e waterfall over my back
["...of all..." later becomes "...waterfall...". Here we have, what? Flowing hair?]
#3 "St. Stephen", May 24th, '68
(6th verse)
Did he doubt or did he try?
Answers aplenty in the bye and bye
Talk about your plenty, talk about your ills
One man gathers what another man spills
[Quiz: Famously, at one concert, the last line here coincided with what?]
#4 "Black Peter", Dec 4th, '69
(2nd verse)
Just then the wind
came squalling through the door
but who can the weather command?
[Would you close the door?]
#5 "Uncle John's Band", Dec 4th, '69
(first verse)
Well the first days are the hardest days
don't you worry anymore
When life looks like Easy Street
there is danger at your door
Think this through with me
Let me know your mind
Whoa-oh, what I want to know,
is are you kind?
[A fair approximation of a then nascent '60s philosophy.]
#6 "Sugar Magnolia/Sunshine Daydream", June 7th, 1970
(near end)
Light out singing
I'll walk you in the morning sunshine
[Singing at night about tomorrow morning.]
[Note: music by Bob Weir]
#7 "Ripple", August 18th, 1970
(chorus)
Ripple in still water
when there is no pebble tossed
nor wind to blow
[Enigmatic, but once solved, the riddle be deep...if God is there.]
#8 "Box of Rain", October 9th, 1972
(penultimate verse)
Just a box of rain
wind and water
believe it if you need it
if you don't just pass it on
[That last line, in the final verse, becomes "or leave it if you dare"]
[Note: music by Phil Lesh.]
#9 "Bertha", Feb 18th, '71
(second verse)
Dressed myself in green
I went down to the sea
Try to see what's going down
Try to read between the lines
Had a feeling I was falling, falling, falling
Turned around to see
Heard a voice a-calling, calling, calling
You was coming after me
Back to me
["went down", "going down", "falling", rather than, ...well, Bertha]
#10 "Wharf Rat", Feb. 18th, 1971
(second verse)
My name is August West
and I love my Pearly Baker best
more than my wine
[even in our blind despair, the way forward beckons]
[Note: the contrast of triumphal music, with empathy for 'the least among us', is Garcia genius]
#11 "Bird Song", Feb. 18th, 1971
(first verse)
All I know is something like a bird
within her sang
All I know, she sang a little while
and then flew on
(beginning, second verse)
If you hear that same sweet song again
will you know why?
[The key to a wise choice: the happiness of knowing why]
#12 "Brown-eyed Women", August 23rd, 1971
(last verse)
Daddy made whiskey and he made it well
Cost two dollars and it burned like hell
I cut hick'ry just to fire the still
Drink down a bottle and you're ready to kill
[The hardscrabble life of a hundred years ago, axing timber and animals.]
#13 "Tennessee Jed", October 19th, 1971
(last verse)
I woke up a-feeling mean
Went down to play the slot machine
The wheels turned 'round and the letters read:
Better head back to Tennessee, Jed
[An old-timey, extraordinary vision]
#14 "Jack Straw", October 19th, 1971
(fifth verse)
We used to play for silver
Now we play for life
One's for sport and one's for blood
At the point of a knife
Now the die is shaken
Now the die must fall
There ain't a winner in this game
Who don't go home with all
Not with all....
[Alternating voices sing, first of immorality, then condemnation, then our quote]
[Note: music by Bob Weir.]
#15 "Ramble On Rose", October 19th, 1971
(second half, first verse)
Just like New York City
Just like Jericho
Pace the halls and climb the walls
Get out when they blow
[Hard to beat Garcia's exciting music here; excellent poetic path, as well.]
#16 "Mississippi Half-step Uptown Toodleloo", July 16th, '72
(chorus)
Halfstep
Mississippi Uptown Toodleloo
Hello baby I'm gone, goodbye
Half a cup of rock and rye
Farewell to you old Southern sky
I'm on my way--on my way
[Upriver, where the paddle wheeler stopped.]
#17 "Eyes Of The World", February 9th, 1973
(first verse)
Right outside this lazy summer home
you don't have time to call
your soul a critic, no
[The band's music, fully mature.]
#18 "U.S. Blues", Feb. 22nd, 1974
(second verse)
I'm Uncle Sam / that's who I am
Been hiding out / in a rock-and-roll band
Shake the hand that shook the hand
Of P.T. Barnum / and Charlie Chan
[Big-hearted, inclusive.]
#19 "Scarlet Begonias", March 23rd, 1974
(fourth verse)
Once in a while
you get shown the light
in the strangest of places
if you look at it right
[Once, that is, like at a GD concert, when you're playing, like everyone else, in the "Heart of Gold Band"]
#20 "Fire On The Mountain", March 18th, 1977
(second verse)
If mercy's in business I wish it for you
More than just ashes when your dreams come true
[Warning: throw away your matches.]
[Note: music by Mickey Hart.]
#21 "Althea", August 4th, 1979
(first verse)
I told Althea I was feeling lost
Lacking in some direction
Althea told me upon scrutiny
my back might need protection
[Early precursor of the 'I've got your back' concept, except back-to-back?]
#22 "Alabama Getaway", November 4th, 1979
(2nd verse)
Reason the poor girls love him
Promise them everything
Why they all believe him?
He wears a big diamond ring
[Succinct.]
#23 "Standing On The Moon", February 5th, 1989
(last verse)
Standing on the moon
Where talk is cheap and vision true
Standing on the moon
But I'd rather be with you
Somewhere in San Francisco
On a back porch in July
Just looking up at heaven
At this crescent in the sky
In the sky
[High flying spaceman's regret.]
Encore, #24 "He's Gone", April 17, 1972
(first verse)
Rat in a drain ditch
Caught on a limb
You know better but
I know him
[The alternative meaning that is simply wrong (first line). Also, 3rd and 4th lines nail the wrong-headed ugliness of celebrity.]
Second Encore, #25 "Here Comes Sunshine", Feb. 9th, 1973
(Second part, second verse)
Good to know
you got shoes to wear
when you find the floor
Why hold out for more?
[Once one wakes up, why keep on sleeping?]
Third Encore, #26 "Cosmic Charlie", October 19th, 1968
(most of the way through)
Calliope wail like a seaside zoo
The very last lately inquired about you
It's really very one or two
The first you wanted, the last I knew
[Delicious second meaning: "the last I knew".]
And probably Hunter's most famous words:
Lately it occurs to me
What a long strange trip it's been
[Dry humor that suddenly turns otherwise on closer scrutiny.]
Monday, October 14, 2019
More Sleep Hacks
#249: Light And Sleep
.........
Linda Geddes’ book, Why Office Workers Can’t Sleep (and Why That’s Bad), is excerpted on Lit Hub, which I read yesterday morning, after awakening at 5:20.
Geddes thinks falling sleep is affected by the light we experience after dark. Bright blue light tells our brain it isn’t night yet. Candlelight says the opposite. Her opinion is informed by the experiments she and her family conducted over several weeks, each week using different lighting in their home after dark.
Except, I’d say there’s another factor that’s even more important: exertion. No, I’m not saying 'exercise', because some people consider a half mile walk to be exercise. No, I’m talking about serious exertion, like pushing a mower up and down a hill for half an hour—twice a day. At least that’s my system. If I’ve exerted sufficiently, I’ll fall right to sleep, even after staring at my 17" computer screen for an hour or two before turning in.
And, by the way, it may be that getting enough sleep is the key to aging gracefully. Though, it should be said that old age conspires against that state of grace. There’s the usual decline in physical activity, meaning low exertion levels. Then, when one does exert, there's cramps-for-gramps, meaning drinking more water, thus getting up more often, and so interrupting sleep. The secret? Exertion. Even if getting up more than once a night, a weary body will fall right back to sleep.
.........
Linda Geddes’ book, Why Office Workers Can’t Sleep (and Why That’s Bad), is excerpted on Lit Hub, which I read yesterday morning, after awakening at 5:20.
Geddes thinks falling sleep is affected by the light we experience after dark. Bright blue light tells our brain it isn’t night yet. Candlelight says the opposite. Her opinion is informed by the experiments she and her family conducted over several weeks, each week using different lighting in their home after dark.
Except, I’d say there’s another factor that’s even more important: exertion. No, I’m not saying 'exercise', because some people consider a half mile walk to be exercise. No, I’m talking about serious exertion, like pushing a mower up and down a hill for half an hour—twice a day. At least that’s my system. If I’ve exerted sufficiently, I’ll fall right to sleep, even after staring at my 17" computer screen for an hour or two before turning in.
And, by the way, it may be that getting enough sleep is the key to aging gracefully. Though, it should be said that old age conspires against that state of grace. There’s the usual decline in physical activity, meaning low exertion levels. Then, when one does exert, there's cramps-for-gramps, meaning drinking more water, thus getting up more often, and so interrupting sleep. The secret? Exertion. Even if getting up more than once a night, a weary body will fall right back to sleep.
Sunday, October 13, 2019
Mind Reading AI -- Scary, At First
#248: Are 'Fake Thoughts' Possible?
...................
Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg recently discussed the future of devices that control screen action with mere thought.
My initial thought was: What if we get to the point where everyone automatically knows what we're thinking. Scary. Then I realized that screen control would involve what we think of as 'orders' (move there, do that), rather than the emotions that flood into our mind ("That guy's a loser.", "I'll pretend I didn't hear that.", "...of course I'm bluffing.")
Which raises the question of 'Fake Thoughts', and whether it would ever be desirable to rely on wearable gadgets that let us know what other people are thinking. Almost certainly not, since sight, sound and touch are 'in the moment', as opposed to a split-second delay that would require some getting used to, to say the least.
But for those unable to see or hear, sure. And, to read the minds of our pets. There's surely be a huge demand for that.
...................
Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg recently discussed the future of devices that control screen action with mere thought.
My initial thought was: What if we get to the point where everyone automatically knows what we're thinking. Scary. Then I realized that screen control would involve what we think of as 'orders' (move there, do that), rather than the emotions that flood into our mind ("That guy's a loser.", "I'll pretend I didn't hear that.", "...of course I'm bluffing.")
Which raises the question of 'Fake Thoughts', and whether it would ever be desirable to rely on wearable gadgets that let us know what other people are thinking. Almost certainly not, since sight, sound and touch are 'in the moment', as opposed to a split-second delay that would require some getting used to, to say the least.
But for those unable to see or hear, sure. And, to read the minds of our pets. There's surely be a huge demand for that.
Tuesday, October 8, 2019
Is Warren Blue's Best Bet?
#247: If 2020's Wave Is Bigly Breaking
...................
My fascination with 2020's US presidential election seems all-encompassing at times; but aren't we all just waiting for a presidential exit? For example, the campaign to tackle Climate Change could use the US out front, yet that's all but impossible with our current failure at the top.
Who's most likely to get the Blue agenda passed? Let's take a look at a recent survey of our current president's state-by-state approval ratings, use these as a rough estimate of 2020 senate races, then add in coattails for either Elizabeth Warren (left-wing reformer) or Amy Klobuchar (farm state progressive). We'll then examine three scenarios: Optimistic (-2%--slowing economy, impeachment), Neutral (+3%) , and Pessimistic (+6%--good economic numbers, impeachment backlash), and see who does the best in each. Farm states will give Klobuchar minus 3%. Urban states will give Warren minus 3%. Meanwhile, farm states will cost Warren +3% and urban states will cost Klobuchar +3%. North Carolina, Georgia, Virginia and Colorado are neither rural, nor urban.
An '*' indicates an incumbent Republican senator. A '(Blue)' indicates a Democratic incumbent. 28 states had Trump underwater (Vermonters, for example, pegged his approval rating at 24% in October and 25% in November), while 21 states have him above. Ohio was about even.
Vermont - 24 - 25
Massachusetts - 25 - 26 (Blue)
Hawaii - 26 - 24
Maryland - 28 - 28
California - 28 - 30
Rhode Island - 31 - 32 (Blue)
Washington - 33 - 31
Oregon - 33 - 37 (Blue)
New York - 34 - 34
Illinois 34 - 35 (Blue)
Connecticut - 35 - 37
New Hampshire - 36 - 39 (Blue)
New Jersey - 36 - 37 (Blue)
Delaware - 37 - 39 (Blue)
Nevada - 38 - 40
New Mexico - 39 - 40 (Blue)
Minnesota - 40 - 41 (Blue)
Colorado - 40 - 41 (*)
Maine - 41 - 42 (*)
Virginia - 41 - 41 (Blue)
Pennsylvania - 42 - 44
Michigan - 44 - 45 (Blue)
Iowa - 44 - 45 (*)
Arizona 45 - 46 (*)
North Carolina - 45 - 46 (*)
Wisconsin - 45 - 49
Georgia - 46 - 45 (**)
Florida - 47 - 48
Ohio - 48 - 51 ................. even
Utah - 49 - 49
Kansas - 49 - 50 (*)
Texas - 49 - 49 (*)
S. Carolina - 50 - 51 (*)
Indiana - 51 - 52
Alaska - 52 - 52 (*)
Missouri - 52 - 53
Montana - 52 - 51 (*)
Nebraska - 53 - 51 (*)
Mississippi - 54 - 56 (*)
Louisiana - 54 -53 (*)
Tennessee - 55 - 56 (*)
Alabama - 57 - 59 (Blue)
Idaho - 59 - 62 (*)
S Dakota - 60 - 63 (*)
Arkansas - 62 - 63 (*)
Kentucky - 62 -59 (*)
Wyoming - 62 -67 (*)
Oklahoma - 63 - 63 (*)
North Dakota - 67 - 65
W Virginia - 68 - 67 (*)
Warren
Optimistic: net, plus 7 seats (TX, GA x 2, NC, AZ, IA, ME, CO, minus AL).
Neutral: Plus 2-3 (AZ, ME, CO, minus AL; NC a toss-up)
Pessimistic: No change - plus 1 (CO, minus AL; AZ a toss-up)
Klobuchar
Optimistic: plus 12 (NE, LA, MT, AK, SC, KS, GA x 2, NC, AZ, IA, ME, CO, minus AL
Neutral: plus 3-4 (GA x 2, NC, IA, ME, CO, minus AL, MI; NC a toss-up)
Pessimistic: plus 1 (ME, IA, CO minus AL, MI)
This is, of course, a very rough approximation. There would be other factors like incumbency, and candidate competence, and who's to say that ±3 is appropriate. But, it does give one a feel for what a farm state candidate might accomplish in electing Blue senators, compared to an urban state nominee with better turn-out among city folk.
A super-optimistic scenario makes the contrast stark: if a -6 modifier is used (instead of only -2 for optimistic), the result for Klobuchar is an astonishing swing: +15, giving Blue 62 senators! Meanwhile, Warren's result would be a more modest +9, and 56.
Is Trump's floor at 35% - 40% nationwide, or could it be 30-35? If 30%, a -6, scenario could be stretched to -8 or beyond, which would allow Klobuchar to rescue the Alabama seat as well, and Warren to wrangle SC.
Update 10/11: one month later and the numbers have moved slightly Red-wards (if you click the link at the top, you'll see that many states are one digit higher; though some, like Wisconsin, moved from 45 to 49; I've added these numbers, above). Would these changes alter our admittedly very rough projections? Actually, they increase Klobuchar's haul to 59 in an optimistic wave, while leaving Warren at 54. In our neutral setting, the numbers see the possibility of a new vice president having the tie-breaking vote in both cases, and the possibility of a Red Senate for Warren (with Michigan the culprit). Our super-optimistic scenario, meanwhile, nets Klobuchar MI, MS, TN, with AL and KY at 50% likelihood, for around 63-64.
Fun: If we assign the major candidates to their home state numbers, we have a fairly accurate list of how 'liberal' each candidate is. Bernie (Vermont, at 25--is the most liberal state here), then Warren (Massachusetts, at 26), Harris (California, at 30), Yang (New York, at 34), Booker (New Jersey, at 37), Biden (Delaware, at 39), Klobuchar (Minnesota, at 41), and Buttigieg (Indiana, at 52).
The reason I mention these numbers is to underline how easy it is for supporters of the left-leaning candidates to project their own assurance: "Bernie'll knock their socks off out in the farm states!" when they don't live surrounded by reddish-purple farmers. Whether you like it or not, farm states like Iowa and Wisconsin have disproportionate weight in the Electoral College (and Senate). Either you deal with this reality, or you live with the consequences of your over-confidence.
...................
My fascination with 2020's US presidential election seems all-encompassing at times; but aren't we all just waiting for a presidential exit? For example, the campaign to tackle Climate Change could use the US out front, yet that's all but impossible with our current failure at the top.
Who's most likely to get the Blue agenda passed? Let's take a look at a recent survey of our current president's state-by-state approval ratings, use these as a rough estimate of 2020 senate races, then add in coattails for either Elizabeth Warren (left-wing reformer) or Amy Klobuchar (farm state progressive). We'll then examine three scenarios: Optimistic (-2%--slowing economy, impeachment), Neutral (+3%) , and Pessimistic (+6%--good economic numbers, impeachment backlash), and see who does the best in each. Farm states will give Klobuchar minus 3%. Urban states will give Warren minus 3%. Meanwhile, farm states will cost Warren +3% and urban states will cost Klobuchar +3%. North Carolina, Georgia, Virginia and Colorado are neither rural, nor urban.
An '*' indicates an incumbent Republican senator. A '(Blue)' indicates a Democratic incumbent. 28 states had Trump underwater (Vermonters, for example, pegged his approval rating at 24% in October and 25% in November), while 21 states have him above. Ohio was about even.
Vermont - 24 - 25
Massachusetts - 25 - 26 (Blue)
Hawaii - 26 - 24
Maryland - 28 - 28
California - 28 - 30
Rhode Island - 31 - 32 (Blue)
Washington - 33 - 31
Oregon - 33 - 37 (Blue)
New York - 34 - 34
Illinois 34 - 35 (Blue)
Connecticut - 35 - 37
New Hampshire - 36 - 39 (Blue)
New Jersey - 36 - 37 (Blue)
Delaware - 37 - 39 (Blue)
Nevada - 38 - 40
New Mexico - 39 - 40 (Blue)
Minnesota - 40 - 41 (Blue)
Colorado - 40 - 41 (*)
Maine - 41 - 42 (*)
Virginia - 41 - 41 (Blue)
Pennsylvania - 42 - 44
Michigan - 44 - 45 (Blue)
Iowa - 44 - 45 (*)
Arizona 45 - 46 (*)
North Carolina - 45 - 46 (*)
Wisconsin - 45 - 49
Georgia - 46 - 45 (**)
Florida - 47 - 48
Ohio - 48 - 51 ................. even
Utah - 49 - 49
Kansas - 49 - 50 (*)
Texas - 49 - 49 (*)
S. Carolina - 50 - 51 (*)
Indiana - 51 - 52
Alaska - 52 - 52 (*)
Missouri - 52 - 53
Montana - 52 - 51 (*)
Nebraska - 53 - 51 (*)
Mississippi - 54 - 56 (*)
Louisiana - 54 -53 (*)
Tennessee - 55 - 56 (*)
Alabama - 57 - 59 (Blue)
Idaho - 59 - 62 (*)
S Dakota - 60 - 63 (*)
Arkansas - 62 - 63 (*)
Kentucky - 62 -59 (*)
Wyoming - 62 -67 (*)
Oklahoma - 63 - 63 (*)
North Dakota - 67 - 65
W Virginia - 68 - 67 (*)
Warren
Optimistic: net, plus 7 seats (TX, GA x 2, NC, AZ, IA, ME, CO, minus AL).
Neutral: Plus 2-3 (AZ, ME, CO, minus AL; NC a toss-up)
Pessimistic: No change - plus 1 (CO, minus AL; AZ a toss-up)
Klobuchar
Optimistic: plus 12 (NE, LA, MT, AK, SC, KS, GA x 2, NC, AZ, IA, ME, CO, minus AL
Neutral: plus 3-4 (GA x 2, NC, IA, ME, CO, minus AL, MI; NC a toss-up)
Pessimistic: plus 1 (ME, IA, CO minus AL, MI)
This is, of course, a very rough approximation. There would be other factors like incumbency, and candidate competence, and who's to say that ±3 is appropriate. But, it does give one a feel for what a farm state candidate might accomplish in electing Blue senators, compared to an urban state nominee with better turn-out among city folk.
A super-optimistic scenario makes the contrast stark: if a -6 modifier is used (instead of only -2 for optimistic), the result for Klobuchar is an astonishing swing: +15, giving Blue 62 senators! Meanwhile, Warren's result would be a more modest +9, and 56.
Is Trump's floor at 35% - 40% nationwide, or could it be 30-35? If 30%, a -6, scenario could be stretched to -8 or beyond, which would allow Klobuchar to rescue the Alabama seat as well, and Warren to wrangle SC.
Update 10/11: one month later and the numbers have moved slightly Red-wards (if you click the link at the top, you'll see that many states are one digit higher; though some, like Wisconsin, moved from 45 to 49; I've added these numbers, above). Would these changes alter our admittedly very rough projections? Actually, they increase Klobuchar's haul to 59 in an optimistic wave, while leaving Warren at 54. In our neutral setting, the numbers see the possibility of a new vice president having the tie-breaking vote in both cases, and the possibility of a Red Senate for Warren (with Michigan the culprit). Our super-optimistic scenario, meanwhile, nets Klobuchar MI, MS, TN, with AL and KY at 50% likelihood, for around 63-64.
Fun: If we assign the major candidates to their home state numbers, we have a fairly accurate list of how 'liberal' each candidate is. Bernie (Vermont, at 25--is the most liberal state here), then Warren (Massachusetts, at 26), Harris (California, at 30), Yang (New York, at 34), Booker (New Jersey, at 37), Biden (Delaware, at 39), Klobuchar (Minnesota, at 41), and Buttigieg (Indiana, at 52).
The reason I mention these numbers is to underline how easy it is for supporters of the left-leaning candidates to project their own assurance: "Bernie'll knock their socks off out in the farm states!" when they don't live surrounded by reddish-purple farmers. Whether you like it or not, farm states like Iowa and Wisconsin have disproportionate weight in the Electoral College (and Senate). Either you deal with this reality, or you live with the consequences of your over-confidence.
Saturday, September 28, 2019
Our Next President
#246: Ranking The Likeliest Dozen Names
................
My tweet #1189 ranked Donald Trump as least likely, of 12 possible candidates, to be president-elect on November 4th, 2020. But, since this post concerns our next president, we'll remove Trump and instead use 'other' as a filler for #12.
So, here's that ranked list with my background reasoning:
#12 Other. This could be Nancy Pelosi (if both Trump/Pence are impeached). But the chances are so small, I can't even.... Or, almost as unlikely, a Republican alternative to Trump next year like Bill Weld. Of course if Trump should somehow win, we won't know who our next president is until 2024, or possibly sooner if Trump wins, and then somehow stumbles.
#11 Yang. Improbable candidates have won elections before. After all, pro-wrestler Jesse Ventura became governor of Minnesota a while back; and then there's Trump. But, stage presence accounted for those two unlikelihoods. In Yang's case, there just isn't much charisma. On the other hand, Yang's ideas are fresh, let's say. I reviewed them here. And here's a Quora session in which he lays out his thinking.
#10 O'Rourke. There's raw, youthful exuberance, and then there's the uncanny ability to channel the wisdom of old age in a vigorous, young body. Beto has toggled between the two, but also has a knack for zeroing in on key issues, so who knows.
#9 Sanders. Despite his relatively high poll numbers, Sanders is far from #1. That's because Warren has a positive spin on much the same material, while Sanders channels anger. Plus, if he weren't so intensely negative--and endearing in a way--we'd all probably notice how impossibly old he is for a winning candidate--79 on election day.
#8 Harris. So much raw talent, but somehow Harris finds a way to let down her guard when doing so is not advisable. This is probably because California, and the SF bay area, is a more care-free world than is the national scene. Maybe next time?
#7 Romney. This is the one shocker on my list. The reasoning here is that if Trump's job approval rating drops down into the 30% range during the impeachment hearings, Senate Republicans up for reelection next year may begin to peel away, leading to ratings in the 20% range, which in turn might lead to actual conviction in the Senate. And though this is unlikely, Romney's chances are actually fairly good should Republicans then turn to someone with the name-recognition, financing, and track record to be up and running in a matter of months.
#6 Booker. No candidate likes to admit their campaign is in trouble, but candor is refreshing, especially so if a Hail Mary pass is successful (and it appears Booker's necessary $1.7 million will be raised). Booker is a good fit as the somewhat more moderate Warren, though as I mentioned previously, he really needs to tone down the bulging eyes when he speaks excitedly.
#5 Buttigieg. Articulate, soft-spoken, friendly. Another good fit should a more moderate Warren be called for.
#4 Klobuchar. My own pick as Blue's best bet in the race to control the Senate, and thus enact a Blue agenda. That is, a non-threatening politician who is fluent in farm-speak and, relative to other candidates, will have coattails in Red states like Iowa, Texas and Kentucky. And, she has a sweet disposition, which is always a harder approach to impugn. Klobuchar's chances probably depend on whether, and how quickly, Biden implodes.
#3 Pence. If Trump bites the dust prematurely, there's the very good chance that Pence would be our next president for a year, or even a few months (Trump's likely impeachment may begin to eat away at his confidence, and health; so at his age, and with his diet, a heart attack or stroke isn't all that unlikely).
#2 Biden. The likelihood of Biden winning the nomination, outright, isn't all that good, since he's falling in the polls and has his name associated with Trump's Ukraine scandal. But the 2020 calendar (front-loaded) could result in an inconclusive 1st ballot in July at the Democratic nominating convention in Milwaukee (with 15% as a threshold to gain delegates in each state, Sanders, and possibly others, could acquire a small fraction of delegates; with Biden and Warren splitting the remainder: stalemate). If so, Biden would be the logical 'compromise' candidate, especially since superdelegates (the party's elected Governors, Senators, etc.), would then have a vote on subsequent ballots. Perhaps a deal would be reached whereby Biden would agree to step down in 2024 (he would be 82 that November).
#1 Warren. As Warren has made her way up in the polls, she's looked more and more likely. There's almost a cheery abandon to her delivery (for example, she's effusively welcoming to her questioners). This joy in delivery is difficult for a politician to fake if they don't deeply believe in their mission. But, even if this all bodes well for her, she's appealing to Blue voters. That'll change once she gets to November. Ideas like Medicare for all, free college, reparations, healthcare for undocumented residents, and the like, will be easy targets for the Red candidate. Even so, she's the most likely. I wrote about her here in December of last year.
................
My tweet #1189 ranked Donald Trump as least likely, of 12 possible candidates, to be president-elect on November 4th, 2020. But, since this post concerns our next president, we'll remove Trump and instead use 'other' as a filler for #12.
So, here's that ranked list with my background reasoning:
#12 Other. This could be Nancy Pelosi (if both Trump/Pence are impeached). But the chances are so small, I can't even.... Or, almost as unlikely, a Republican alternative to Trump next year like Bill Weld. Of course if Trump should somehow win, we won't know who our next president is until 2024, or possibly sooner if Trump wins, and then somehow stumbles.
#11 Yang. Improbable candidates have won elections before. After all, pro-wrestler Jesse Ventura became governor of Minnesota a while back; and then there's Trump. But, stage presence accounted for those two unlikelihoods. In Yang's case, there just isn't much charisma. On the other hand, Yang's ideas are fresh, let's say. I reviewed them here. And here's a Quora session in which he lays out his thinking.
#10 O'Rourke. There's raw, youthful exuberance, and then there's the uncanny ability to channel the wisdom of old age in a vigorous, young body. Beto has toggled between the two, but also has a knack for zeroing in on key issues, so who knows.
#9 Sanders. Despite his relatively high poll numbers, Sanders is far from #1. That's because Warren has a positive spin on much the same material, while Sanders channels anger. Plus, if he weren't so intensely negative--and endearing in a way--we'd all probably notice how impossibly old he is for a winning candidate--79 on election day.
#8 Harris. So much raw talent, but somehow Harris finds a way to let down her guard when doing so is not advisable. This is probably because California, and the SF bay area, is a more care-free world than is the national scene. Maybe next time?
#7 Romney. This is the one shocker on my list. The reasoning here is that if Trump's job approval rating drops down into the 30% range during the impeachment hearings, Senate Republicans up for reelection next year may begin to peel away, leading to ratings in the 20% range, which in turn might lead to actual conviction in the Senate. And though this is unlikely, Romney's chances are actually fairly good should Republicans then turn to someone with the name-recognition, financing, and track record to be up and running in a matter of months.
#6 Booker. No candidate likes to admit their campaign is in trouble, but candor is refreshing, especially so if a Hail Mary pass is successful (and it appears Booker's necessary $1.7 million will be raised). Booker is a good fit as the somewhat more moderate Warren, though as I mentioned previously, he really needs to tone down the bulging eyes when he speaks excitedly.
#5 Buttigieg. Articulate, soft-spoken, friendly. Another good fit should a more moderate Warren be called for.
#4 Klobuchar. My own pick as Blue's best bet in the race to control the Senate, and thus enact a Blue agenda. That is, a non-threatening politician who is fluent in farm-speak and, relative to other candidates, will have coattails in Red states like Iowa, Texas and Kentucky. And, she has a sweet disposition, which is always a harder approach to impugn. Klobuchar's chances probably depend on whether, and how quickly, Biden implodes.
#3 Pence. If Trump bites the dust prematurely, there's the very good chance that Pence would be our next president for a year, or even a few months (Trump's likely impeachment may begin to eat away at his confidence, and health; so at his age, and with his diet, a heart attack or stroke isn't all that unlikely).
#2 Biden. The likelihood of Biden winning the nomination, outright, isn't all that good, since he's falling in the polls and has his name associated with Trump's Ukraine scandal. But the 2020 calendar (front-loaded) could result in an inconclusive 1st ballot in July at the Democratic nominating convention in Milwaukee (with 15% as a threshold to gain delegates in each state, Sanders, and possibly others, could acquire a small fraction of delegates; with Biden and Warren splitting the remainder: stalemate). If so, Biden would be the logical 'compromise' candidate, especially since superdelegates (the party's elected Governors, Senators, etc.), would then have a vote on subsequent ballots. Perhaps a deal would be reached whereby Biden would agree to step down in 2024 (he would be 82 that November).
#1 Warren. As Warren has made her way up in the polls, she's looked more and more likely. There's almost a cheery abandon to her delivery (for example, she's effusively welcoming to her questioners). This joy in delivery is difficult for a politician to fake if they don't deeply believe in their mission. But, even if this all bodes well for her, she's appealing to Blue voters. That'll change once she gets to November. Ideas like Medicare for all, free college, reparations, healthcare for undocumented residents, and the like, will be easy targets for the Red candidate. Even so, she's the most likely. I wrote about her here in December of last year.
Wednesday, September 25, 2019
President Trump's Impossible Successors
#245: Are Rural America's Fortunes About To Nosedive?
..................
I did not see this coming, but the implications of a shift from meat-based, to meatless protein, can't be ignored.
If consumers find meat substitutes preferable--and reports are that the Impossible Burger, for example, is quite tasty--the two-step process of growing animal feed (corn and beans) that is then turned into meat, becomes outdated, and with it the entire physical layout of rural America.
Why Would This Happen?
Using a one-step agricultural model (plant protein becomes Impossible Burger) is both cheaper and requires much less land, compared to the very inefficient conversion of plant to animal protein. Once enough people buy the Impossible Burger and other foods like it, economies of scale will drive down the price. Lab-grown foods, according to this report,
"...will be at least 50 percent, and as much as 80 percent, lower [in price] as
current products. This will result in substantial savings.... The average
U.S. family will save $1,200 a year...."
Won't This Take A Long Time To Unfold?
Not if the price of meat-less protein seriously undercuts meat. If it tastes like meat, and costs a lot less, the change could be sudden and dramatic. Smartphones, for example, took less than ten years to dominate the market for hand-held devices.
What Will Happen To Rural America's Farmers?
Ever since European settlers first plowed American soils, growing meat has been an important focus. And for the self-sufficient homesteader, nothing will change. But for the commercial farmer--the overwhelming majority of agriculture--a collapse of the equation corn-and-beans -->> cattle-and-hogs means a glut, followed by lower prices, resulting in an unprecedented number of bankruptcies.
And The Political Implications?
Rural states with few urban areas (like the plains states of Oklahoma, Nebraska, Kansas, the Dakotas, plus Montana, Iowa, Missouri, Indiana, Mississippi and Alabama) will likely see dramatic decreases in population; and nearly all are Red (Republican). This will eventually render the House of Representatives and Electoral College much friendlier to Blue candidates. The effect in the Senate will be less pronounced, though without farm work, people in rural areas will move to in-state urban areas, tipping the urban/rural balance in those states.
Could A Lower Price For Land Change Anything Else?
Possibly. More private hunting grounds are likely. Larger house lots in rural areas are also probable. Nature reserves become less expensive (huge expanses of restored prairie with herds of buffalo, for example). Maybe a back-to-the-land movement has always been in the offing, but suffered from high land prices.
And What About All The Bankrupt Farmers?
The federal government's safety net will kick in, most likely with a transitioning program to retrain workers.
..................
I did not see this coming, but the implications of a shift from meat-based, to meatless protein, can't be ignored.
If consumers find meat substitutes preferable--and reports are that the Impossible Burger, for example, is quite tasty--the two-step process of growing animal feed (corn and beans) that is then turned into meat, becomes outdated, and with it the entire physical layout of rural America.
Why Would This Happen?
Using a one-step agricultural model (plant protein becomes Impossible Burger) is both cheaper and requires much less land, compared to the very inefficient conversion of plant to animal protein. Once enough people buy the Impossible Burger and other foods like it, economies of scale will drive down the price. Lab-grown foods, according to this report,
"...will be at least 50 percent, and as much as 80 percent, lower [in price] as
current products. This will result in substantial savings.... The average
U.S. family will save $1,200 a year...."
Not if the price of meat-less protein seriously undercuts meat. If it tastes like meat, and costs a lot less, the change could be sudden and dramatic. Smartphones, for example, took less than ten years to dominate the market for hand-held devices.
What Will Happen To Rural America's Farmers?
Ever since European settlers first plowed American soils, growing meat has been an important focus. And for the self-sufficient homesteader, nothing will change. But for the commercial farmer--the overwhelming majority of agriculture--a collapse of the equation corn-and-beans -->> cattle-and-hogs means a glut, followed by lower prices, resulting in an unprecedented number of bankruptcies.
And The Political Implications?
Rural states with few urban areas (like the plains states of Oklahoma, Nebraska, Kansas, the Dakotas, plus Montana, Iowa, Missouri, Indiana, Mississippi and Alabama) will likely see dramatic decreases in population; and nearly all are Red (Republican). This will eventually render the House of Representatives and Electoral College much friendlier to Blue candidates. The effect in the Senate will be less pronounced, though without farm work, people in rural areas will move to in-state urban areas, tipping the urban/rural balance in those states.
Could A Lower Price For Land Change Anything Else?
Possibly. More private hunting grounds are likely. Larger house lots in rural areas are also probable. Nature reserves become less expensive (huge expanses of restored prairie with herds of buffalo, for example). Maybe a back-to-the-land movement has always been in the offing, but suffered from high land prices.
And What About All The Bankrupt Farmers?
The federal government's safety net will kick in, most likely with a transitioning program to retrain workers.
Update 2/4/24: The latest. After a falling off in plant-based meat (that costs roughly the same as the real thing, it seems a breakthrough is at hand.
Sunday, September 15, 2019
Why Medicare-For-All Is Such A Big Lift
#244: ObamaCare Passed By A Whisker
..................
Kevin Drum at Mother Jones points out the basic logic behind universal health coverage:
"The answer, obviously, is to...move everyone into the biggest risk pool of all: the entire country... [T]he US government [can] negotiate better prices...[and]...can spread...costs far more widely than any single company or insurer. That’s both efficient and sensible."
So, the thinking behind Medicare-For-All is that by expanding the risk pool to the entire country, a big medical bill that would hurt a family or small company isn't even noticed by the payer. Which is the traditional role of insurers. Which means they can be eliminated, saving money.
This all makes sense when seen objectively from above. But if you look at it subjectively from below, you'll see why universal coverage is such a big lift.
You're young, you're healthy, and you're in your 20s, 30s or 40s; your medical expenses are few. You have medical coverage through your employer; it's part of your benefit package; you're insurer handles any billing, and what you pay as a young person is quite manageable. Meaning there are four big reasons not to like universal coverage:
1. That enormous increase in taxes.
2. The uncertainty of whether your employer will increase pay when eliminating employee-based coverage.
3. The hidden factor that nobody talks about: you are healthy and only need insurance for minor things, so signing up to pay an average amount doesn't make sense when you hardly use your insurance.
4. The second hidden factor that nobody talks about: you are a Republican believing in individual responsibility. Instead of identifying with your fellow Americans, you identify as a self-sufficient American, proud in your ability to handle anything untoward.
Viewed in this light, Medicare-For-All, even if sensible, will be up against four big reasons for failure, any one of which might be surmountable, but not all four. That's because #4 is perhaps a quarter of all voters. Add in another 20%, say, for all the young, short-term thinkers. Then another few percent for those with excellent employer-based care, and we're already at 50% without touching on the shocking increase in taxes needed to pay for any change--so, we'd probably need to add another 15% or so. Plus, there's the don't-rock-the-boat older voter who'll wonder whether a favorite doctor will still be available.
When polled, a goodly percentage of responses might even say they supported universal coverage, but in the voting booth would instead vote their pocketbook. So, bottom line: 2-to-1 against, with perhaps 5-10% of those 'against' feeling so strongly as to change their 2020 votes for senator and president.
Finally, what makes the focus on Medicare-For-All so ironic, is that Blue's big issue in the 2018 election, the issue that won them the House of Representatives, was Healthcare, specifically Republican attacks on ObamaCare. So, not only are they touting a top-down, enormous pill to swallow, but they're throwing away their most persuasive vote getter. Luckily, the likeliest Dem. candidate, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, has yet to fully finalize her healthcare plan, and the current front-runner, former Vice President Joe Biden, is already on board with a more moderate, progressive plan ('progressive' here defined as making progress, rather than shooting for the moon).
..................
Kevin Drum at Mother Jones points out the basic logic behind universal health coverage:
"The answer, obviously, is to...move everyone into the biggest risk pool of all: the entire country... [T]he US government [can] negotiate better prices...[and]...can spread...costs far more widely than any single company or insurer. That’s both efficient and sensible."
So, the thinking behind Medicare-For-All is that by expanding the risk pool to the entire country, a big medical bill that would hurt a family or small company isn't even noticed by the payer. Which is the traditional role of insurers. Which means they can be eliminated, saving money.
This all makes sense when seen objectively from above. But if you look at it subjectively from below, you'll see why universal coverage is such a big lift.
You're young, you're healthy, and you're in your 20s, 30s or 40s; your medical expenses are few. You have medical coverage through your employer; it's part of your benefit package; you're insurer handles any billing, and what you pay as a young person is quite manageable. Meaning there are four big reasons not to like universal coverage:
1. That enormous increase in taxes.
2. The uncertainty of whether your employer will increase pay when eliminating employee-based coverage.
3. The hidden factor that nobody talks about: you are healthy and only need insurance for minor things, so signing up to pay an average amount doesn't make sense when you hardly use your insurance.
4. The second hidden factor that nobody talks about: you are a Republican believing in individual responsibility. Instead of identifying with your fellow Americans, you identify as a self-sufficient American, proud in your ability to handle anything untoward.
Viewed in this light, Medicare-For-All, even if sensible, will be up against four big reasons for failure, any one of which might be surmountable, but not all four. That's because #4 is perhaps a quarter of all voters. Add in another 20%, say, for all the young, short-term thinkers. Then another few percent for those with excellent employer-based care, and we're already at 50% without touching on the shocking increase in taxes needed to pay for any change--so, we'd probably need to add another 15% or so. Plus, there's the don't-rock-the-boat older voter who'll wonder whether a favorite doctor will still be available.
When polled, a goodly percentage of responses might even say they supported universal coverage, but in the voting booth would instead vote their pocketbook. So, bottom line: 2-to-1 against, with perhaps 5-10% of those 'against' feeling so strongly as to change their 2020 votes for senator and president.
Finally, what makes the focus on Medicare-For-All so ironic, is that Blue's big issue in the 2018 election, the issue that won them the House of Representatives, was Healthcare, specifically Republican attacks on ObamaCare. So, not only are they touting a top-down, enormous pill to swallow, but they're throwing away their most persuasive vote getter. Luckily, the likeliest Dem. candidate, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, has yet to fully finalize her healthcare plan, and the current front-runner, former Vice President Joe Biden, is already on board with a more moderate, progressive plan ('progressive' here defined as making progress, rather than shooting for the moon).
Friday, September 13, 2019
I Stay Up Late And Watch The Debate
#243: Facial Expressions Tell All
Previous debates have seen me go to bed early, meaning I didn't watch the actual debating, just the media coverage. That changed last night, thanks to a day off today. The big difference, I found, was in seeing candidate faces. So, what follows are the three biggest shockers, then my grade for each candidate:
1. Bernie had the bulging eyes and crazed aura of a madman. That frowning, glaring, intense vitriol is surely a turnoff for the average voter. No wonder Bernie has a low ceiling in the polls.
2. Cory Booker has baffled pundits. He seems to be making great debating points, and nobody can understand why he hasn't broken through. But look at his eyes: bulging, intense, disruptive.
3. Andrew Yang is unique in his policies ($$ for everyone) and strategy (ten new signers up to his website receive major $$). But his delivery is jerky and abrupt--hard to see him as plausible.
I Grade The Candidates
A Amy Klobuchar: the Dems best bet to win the Senate (and thus enact a Blue agenda). She was brilliant (an ad-lib Lincoln quote, for example), easily understood (Bernie "wrote the bill; I read the bill"), positive when critical (she noted Bernie's cooperation with her on drug prices), and delivered when exceeding her allotted time (gun control is a Mitch McConnell problem). Her articulate, powerful, turn-around of a probing question (RE: her past record as MN AG) was excellent.
A- Elizabeth Warren: presented a master class in how to deflect unwanted questions. First relax the pacing, which erases the sting of the query. Next, reframe the question, citing the big picture. Then, briefly explain your answer and wrap up in the allotted time. She exuded a healthy, confident, vibe (I think she's been working out). Unfortunately, her brilliant opening statement (in which I detected hints of playfulness, humor, and above all, calm) were followed by an intense grilling on Medicare-For-All, meaning she was on the back foot from then on. Her support for MFA may have originally been necessary, politically (to avoid Bernie having the entire left wing of the party to himself), but it is her Achilles heel (Why? Because of the cost and disruption involved.)
B+ Cory Booker: was unlucky in being called on late in the opening round. By the end of the debate, however, he was among the leaders in speaking time. In general he came across as passionate, yet reasonable, and stood out as noticeably taller than his neighboring speakers. On the other hand, his face was too consistently bug-eyed and emphatic.
B Andrew Yang: clearly had the attempted PR triumph of the night. His $$-to-lucky-website-visitors was a show-stopper. But, it probably came across as a bit cheesy to most watchers. Still, you do what you have to do, and in this case there was a likely reward for being aggressive: a bump in traffic on the old web.
B- Pete Buttigieg: was unlucky in that he kept getting thrown for a loop. First it was having to follow Yang's bombshell offer of $1,000-a-month for ten lucky winners. Then, he was interrupted several times by the moderators with follow-ups, and rather than finishing his sentences, he stopped speaking to listen (perhaps an unconscious power play for both parties). Otherwise, he came across as articulate and sincere, and the fact that his electoral record is limited to his mayoral-ship has now been all but forgotten.
B- Beto O'Rourke: was the recipient of many attaboys from the other candidates; this must have been satisfying for someone who's turned it up to 'over-drive' and left it there. The downside, however, is that youthful vigor can mean loose cannon. Some have observed that Beto has probably lost any chance of winning elective office in Texas as a result of his over-drive (including expletives).
C+ Julian Castro: had the night's biggest surge of combativeness. He called out Biden's apparent waffle (I didn't notice it) on Medicare-For-All (Castro), versus Public Option opt-in/opt-out (Biden). Of course the subtext was that Biden couldn't remember what he had just said. Smart? The tactic might have seemed less mean-spirited if Castro had said it once, then let Biden respond in full, rather than repeating the jab--which never wins. But, Castro gets points for ad-libbing, which is never easy.
C Joe Biden: was in acceptable 'B-' territory if one is willing to tolerate the word-salad approach to public speaking. He has charm, a twinkle in his eye, and a common-guy aura that should be gold. Being in his mid-to-late 70's, though, could be a killer; we'll see.
C- Kamala Harris: seemed to be mourning her summer's rise-then-fall in the polls. She appeared listless at times, and spoke in a let's-try-this-out vein (come on, bash Trump); and, a barely controlled nervousness to her voice (which I take as a warning, in my own life, to stop talking) crept in. But, since she is talented, and a young public figure, there's no sense in looking backwards.
D+ Bernie Sanders: had the misfortune of being hoarse and tired-looking. And he didn't hear his name being called for opening comments. And during that embarrassing pause, he had a perfect frown on his face. And he received a few attaboys--usually a sign that you're not considered a real threat. His admission that he wouldn't want to end the Senate filibuster (and would instead use the Reconciliation process to pass a Blue agenda, relying on a Dem veep to say what could go in such a bill, normally reserved for budgetary matters) makes those who knew what he was talking about shake their heads (Why pretend you're not blowing up the filibuster, when that's what you're doing?)--and most viewers lost him on that one, anyway.
Previous debates have seen me go to bed early, meaning I didn't watch the actual debating, just the media coverage. That changed last night, thanks to a day off today. The big difference, I found, was in seeing candidate faces. So, what follows are the three biggest shockers, then my grade for each candidate:
1. Bernie had the bulging eyes and crazed aura of a madman. That frowning, glaring, intense vitriol is surely a turnoff for the average voter. No wonder Bernie has a low ceiling in the polls.
2. Cory Booker has baffled pundits. He seems to be making great debating points, and nobody can understand why he hasn't broken through. But look at his eyes: bulging, intense, disruptive.
3. Andrew Yang is unique in his policies ($$ for everyone) and strategy (ten new signers up to his website receive major $$). But his delivery is jerky and abrupt--hard to see him as plausible.
I Grade The Candidates
A Amy Klobuchar: the Dems best bet to win the Senate (and thus enact a Blue agenda). She was brilliant (an ad-lib Lincoln quote, for example), easily understood (Bernie "wrote the bill; I read the bill"), positive when critical (she noted Bernie's cooperation with her on drug prices), and delivered when exceeding her allotted time (gun control is a Mitch McConnell problem). Her articulate, powerful, turn-around of a probing question (RE: her past record as MN AG) was excellent.
A- Elizabeth Warren: presented a master class in how to deflect unwanted questions. First relax the pacing, which erases the sting of the query. Next, reframe the question, citing the big picture. Then, briefly explain your answer and wrap up in the allotted time. She exuded a healthy, confident, vibe (I think she's been working out). Unfortunately, her brilliant opening statement (in which I detected hints of playfulness, humor, and above all, calm) were followed by an intense grilling on Medicare-For-All, meaning she was on the back foot from then on. Her support for MFA may have originally been necessary, politically (to avoid Bernie having the entire left wing of the party to himself), but it is her Achilles heel (Why? Because of the cost and disruption involved.)
B+ Cory Booker: was unlucky in being called on late in the opening round. By the end of the debate, however, he was among the leaders in speaking time. In general he came across as passionate, yet reasonable, and stood out as noticeably taller than his neighboring speakers. On the other hand, his face was too consistently bug-eyed and emphatic.
B Andrew Yang: clearly had the attempted PR triumph of the night. His $$-to-lucky-website-visitors was a show-stopper. But, it probably came across as a bit cheesy to most watchers. Still, you do what you have to do, and in this case there was a likely reward for being aggressive: a bump in traffic on the old web.
B- Pete Buttigieg: was unlucky in that he kept getting thrown for a loop. First it was having to follow Yang's bombshell offer of $1,000-a-month for ten lucky winners. Then, he was interrupted several times by the moderators with follow-ups, and rather than finishing his sentences, he stopped speaking to listen (perhaps an unconscious power play for both parties). Otherwise, he came across as articulate and sincere, and the fact that his electoral record is limited to his mayoral-ship has now been all but forgotten.
B- Beto O'Rourke: was the recipient of many attaboys from the other candidates; this must have been satisfying for someone who's turned it up to 'over-drive' and left it there. The downside, however, is that youthful vigor can mean loose cannon. Some have observed that Beto has probably lost any chance of winning elective office in Texas as a result of his over-drive (including expletives).
C+ Julian Castro: had the night's biggest surge of combativeness. He called out Biden's apparent waffle (I didn't notice it) on Medicare-For-All (Castro), versus Public Option opt-in/opt-out (Biden). Of course the subtext was that Biden couldn't remember what he had just said. Smart? The tactic might have seemed less mean-spirited if Castro had said it once, then let Biden respond in full, rather than repeating the jab--which never wins. But, Castro gets points for ad-libbing, which is never easy.
C Joe Biden: was in acceptable 'B-' territory if one is willing to tolerate the word-salad approach to public speaking. He has charm, a twinkle in his eye, and a common-guy aura that should be gold. Being in his mid-to-late 70's, though, could be a killer; we'll see.
C- Kamala Harris: seemed to be mourning her summer's rise-then-fall in the polls. She appeared listless at times, and spoke in a let's-try-this-out vein (come on, bash Trump); and, a barely controlled nervousness to her voice (which I take as a warning, in my own life, to stop talking) crept in. But, since she is talented, and a young public figure, there's no sense in looking backwards.
D+ Bernie Sanders: had the misfortune of being hoarse and tired-looking. And he didn't hear his name being called for opening comments. And during that embarrassing pause, he had a perfect frown on his face. And he received a few attaboys--usually a sign that you're not considered a real threat. His admission that he wouldn't want to end the Senate filibuster (and would instead use the Reconciliation process to pass a Blue agenda, relying on a Dem veep to say what could go in such a bill, normally reserved for budgetary matters) makes those who knew what he was talking about shake their heads (Why pretend you're not blowing up the filibuster, when that's what you're doing?)--and most viewers lost him on that one, anyway.
Saturday, August 31, 2019
I Imagine A Debate 'One Liner' For All Ten Candidates
#242: September 12 Debate Advice
................
Several weeks ago I proposed an 'outside-the box' scenario, whereby Biden dropped out of the race and instead invited each Democratic candidate to serve on a united, Team Blue. For example, Elizabeth Warren would be Treasury Secretary, Kamala Harris would be Attorney General, and Mayor Pete would be UN Ambassador. The campaign would continue, of course, and the winner would become the party's presidential nominee and be replaced on Team Blue by a non-candidate.
Obviously that's all out the window, since candidates are now thoroughly invested, each with many IOUs to fill. And even if Biden were to drop out, he wouldn't have the same pull that he did this Spring. So, here are actual imagined 'one liners' and the reasoning behind each, listed in reverse order of Blue sweetness.
#10: Andrew Yang: "A $24,000 UBI is the cushion that allows you and your partner to say "yes" to starting a small business."
Emphasizing $24,000 for a couple, rather than $12,000-a-year for one person, magnifies the effect that a UBI would have, reminds voters what a revolutionary course Yang is proposing, and appeals to everyone's inner artisan.
#9: Beto O'Rourke: "Some say I'm too aggressive, that I'm too animated, that I should wait my turn... (pause), just like they cautioned the young Jack Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama, back in their day."
Youth, passion, and well..., it's hard to argue with that winning pattern.
#8: Julian Castro: "When my brother and I entered Stanford University in 1992, the most recent election had seen the state of California vote Republican for president; now, all these years later, the states of Texas and Arizona--a combined 49 electoral votes--are poised to say "enough"; if so, the red tide has indeed turned."
His numbers are hard to refute (Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin = 46 electoral votes, compared to TX and AZ at 49); plus, "Stanford" reminds voters that Castro is elite.
#7: Bernie Sanders: "Some candidates like to beat around the bush. Well, you know what? I'd like to beat the damn patriarchy, and I'm not afraid to say it!"
The phrase "beat around the bush" suggests a reluctant, moderate fizzle. Plus, Sanders needs more female support, so the "patriarchy" reference.
#6: Pete Buttigeig: "If tomorrow is sunny, calm, and cool, with a hint of winter's fighting spirit, the last thing we want is an angry orange sun telling us our climate's going to change."
Mayor Pete's hope is that articulate speech, and a cool command of faculties, prove decisive.
#5: Kamala Harris: "I'm America's melting pot, personified; like, hey, I'm a Californian, but I'm moderate."
At this point Harris should embrace her reputation for being relatively moderate. There's no sense in battling Bernie and Warren for votes on the left.
#4: Cory Booker: "I was huddled with a supporter the other day who said her name was Dorothy, and she thought I was the perfect mix of heart, head and spirit on the winding road to Oz; (pause), I guess that means our current president is hiding behind a curtain of deceit, and we're all about to expose him."
Booker could use a midwest reference to counterbalance his urban credentials going into the Iowa caucuses.
#3: Joe Biden: "I'm like the guy who comes home from his job pounding iron, sits down to help his kids do their homework, and says to his wife "This is when my real job begins; this is the fun part."
All Biden needs is a straight-forward reference to hard work, wife and kids.
#2: Elizabeth Warren: "You know I'm a fighter, but unlike our current president, I know when to quit. Sorry, but if I'm elected, and once I'm President Trump's age, I'd step down. Then, in 2024, the person on this stage I intend to ask to be your next Vice President will, if all goes well, serve you through 2030."
Warren is 70, Trump is 73. What better way to question Trump's fitness, while also handing a subtle, wilted rose to her two main competitors, Bernie and Biden (77 and 76)? And, it steers attention to other, younger candidates, but as potential veeps, rather than challengers. This line also hints at whether she knows when to tone it down, which she'll likely want to do RE: healthcare.
#1: Amy Klobuchar: "A college student taking a selfie with me said that I, being slow and steady, was the turtle in this race, and that come Iowa, I'll saunter by, while all the tired hares will be napping by the side of the road. Maybe, but the only way that'll happen is if voters realize the Senate is where we as Democrats must win big, assuming our agenda (healthcare, climate, childcare, unions, and so on) wins the presidency. And a smart, cheerful, farm state vote-getter at the top of our ticket is probably our best bet in winning Red farm country's senate contests."
A spell-it-out strategy that promotes a non-threatening take-the-Senate focus is hard to get across in one line. But, with so many possible pick-ups in farm country (enough for the Democrats to conceivably get to 60!), Klobuchar is the steady female hand that could win it all. Here's the list of senate seats (in order, with the likeliest first); states having large rural populations *** are in bold: AZ, CO, ME, IA, NC, GA, TX, GA(2), MT, KS, SC, KY, AK, TN, SD, NE, MS, LA, AR, OK, ID, WV, WY. So, to get to 60, Blue would have to hold Alabama, and take 13, meaning that states like KY and AK would be on the bubble. Tough, but not impossible in a big wave election. Plus, even getting to 55 would allow for many more Blue success stories than would a mere 50-51.
*** large rural population defined as 66% urban or less.
................
Several weeks ago I proposed an 'outside-the box' scenario, whereby Biden dropped out of the race and instead invited each Democratic candidate to serve on a united, Team Blue. For example, Elizabeth Warren would be Treasury Secretary, Kamala Harris would be Attorney General, and Mayor Pete would be UN Ambassador. The campaign would continue, of course, and the winner would become the party's presidential nominee and be replaced on Team Blue by a non-candidate.
Obviously that's all out the window, since candidates are now thoroughly invested, each with many IOUs to fill. And even if Biden were to drop out, he wouldn't have the same pull that he did this Spring. So, here are actual imagined 'one liners' and the reasoning behind each, listed in reverse order of Blue sweetness.
#10: Andrew Yang: "A $24,000 UBI is the cushion that allows you and your partner to say "yes" to starting a small business."
Emphasizing $24,000 for a couple, rather than $12,000-a-year for one person, magnifies the effect that a UBI would have, reminds voters what a revolutionary course Yang is proposing, and appeals to everyone's inner artisan.
#9: Beto O'Rourke: "Some say I'm too aggressive, that I'm too animated, that I should wait my turn... (pause), just like they cautioned the young Jack Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama, back in their day."
Youth, passion, and well..., it's hard to argue with that winning pattern.
#8: Julian Castro: "When my brother and I entered Stanford University in 1992, the most recent election had seen the state of California vote Republican for president; now, all these years later, the states of Texas and Arizona--a combined 49 electoral votes--are poised to say "enough"; if so, the red tide has indeed turned."
His numbers are hard to refute (Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin = 46 electoral votes, compared to TX and AZ at 49); plus, "Stanford" reminds voters that Castro is elite.
#7: Bernie Sanders: "Some candidates like to beat around the bush. Well, you know what? I'd like to beat the damn patriarchy, and I'm not afraid to say it!"
The phrase "beat around the bush" suggests a reluctant, moderate fizzle. Plus, Sanders needs more female support, so the "patriarchy" reference.
#6: Pete Buttigeig: "If tomorrow is sunny, calm, and cool, with a hint of winter's fighting spirit, the last thing we want is an angry orange sun telling us our climate's going to change."
Mayor Pete's hope is that articulate speech, and a cool command of faculties, prove decisive.
#5: Kamala Harris: "I'm America's melting pot, personified; like, hey, I'm a Californian, but I'm moderate."
At this point Harris should embrace her reputation for being relatively moderate. There's no sense in battling Bernie and Warren for votes on the left.
#4: Cory Booker: "I was huddled with a supporter the other day who said her name was Dorothy, and she thought I was the perfect mix of heart, head and spirit on the winding road to Oz; (pause), I guess that means our current president is hiding behind a curtain of deceit, and we're all about to expose him."
Booker could use a midwest reference to counterbalance his urban credentials going into the Iowa caucuses.
#3: Joe Biden: "I'm like the guy who comes home from his job pounding iron, sits down to help his kids do their homework, and says to his wife "This is when my real job begins; this is the fun part."
All Biden needs is a straight-forward reference to hard work, wife and kids.
#2: Elizabeth Warren: "You know I'm a fighter, but unlike our current president, I know when to quit. Sorry, but if I'm elected, and once I'm President Trump's age, I'd step down. Then, in 2024, the person on this stage I intend to ask to be your next Vice President will, if all goes well, serve you through 2030."
Warren is 70, Trump is 73. What better way to question Trump's fitness, while also handing a subtle, wilted rose to her two main competitors, Bernie and Biden (77 and 76)? And, it steers attention to other, younger candidates, but as potential veeps, rather than challengers. This line also hints at whether she knows when to tone it down, which she'll likely want to do RE: healthcare.
#1: Amy Klobuchar: "A college student taking a selfie with me said that I, being slow and steady, was the turtle in this race, and that come Iowa, I'll saunter by, while all the tired hares will be napping by the side of the road. Maybe, but the only way that'll happen is if voters realize the Senate is where we as Democrats must win big, assuming our agenda (healthcare, climate, childcare, unions, and so on) wins the presidency. And a smart, cheerful, farm state vote-getter at the top of our ticket is probably our best bet in winning Red farm country's senate contests."
A spell-it-out strategy that promotes a non-threatening take-the-Senate focus is hard to get across in one line. But, with so many possible pick-ups in farm country (enough for the Democrats to conceivably get to 60!), Klobuchar is the steady female hand that could win it all. Here's the list of senate seats (in order, with the likeliest first); states having large rural populations *** are in bold: AZ, CO, ME, IA, NC, GA, TX, GA(2), MT, KS, SC, KY, AK, TN, SD, NE, MS, LA, AR, OK, ID, WV, WY. So, to get to 60, Blue would have to hold Alabama, and take 13, meaning that states like KY and AK would be on the bubble. Tough, but not impossible in a big wave election. Plus, even getting to 55 would allow for many more Blue success stories than would a mere 50-51.
*** large rural population defined as 66% urban or less.
Friday, August 23, 2019
I Review A Wendell Berry Interview
#241: Among The Top Ten Influencers In My Life
..............
The New Yorker's Amanda Petrusich interviewed Wendell Berry recently, and caused me to remember reading Berry's non-fiction in high school, plus his poetry and "The Unsettling of America" in college. I will quote from the article, then comment (in green):
"My daddy said to me, about five years after I married Tanya, “Well, you’ve got a good girl.” And I said, proudly, “I know it,” and he said, “Well, you don’t deserve a damn bit of credit for it.” And he was right. ... Somehow, you just get led to where you’re supposed to be, if you’re willing to submit."
Sounds familiar.
"“I had a wonderful life and I had nothing to do with it”—well, now I can say that, too."
One imagines alternative lives for oneself. Berry seems to be saying that those different lives can't happen if one follows true happiness.
"If we should decide to replace the chemicals and some of the [big farm] machinery with humans, as for health or survival we need to do, that would be very difficult and it would take a long time ... (b)ecause there is no farmer pool from which farmers can be recruited ready-made."
Yes, but if change is to come, it will certainly be voluntary, and probably gradual. First, limit the damage--from soil loss, for example. Then encourage best practices and smaller / more numerous farms.
"A well-made sentence, I think, is a thing of beauty. But then, a well-farmed farm also can feed a need for beauty."
A tempting critique of Berry's philosophy is that knowing what is true happiness can only be possible when we're free of preconceived notions of where happiness is found. Exposure to alternative paths--urban life--is what expands choice to the point where true happiness is always included in the mix of choices. Otherwise, the blinders of 'prescribed' happiness--especially when income is depressed--means that 'beauty' is found in superficial, disappointing 'appearance', like applied make-up, orderliness, following the leader, etc. Berry mentions the Amish. Here is a pictorial essay. Have these people found 'true happiness'? On the other hand, of course, if rural incomes soar and modern technology brings cosmopolitan culture into one's home, no matter where one lives, and farms are more intimately sized.., maybe Berry's right.
"You must either decide [marriage] is worth working at, or just leave it undone. [It] is not perfect agreement. But you’ve accepted this other person into your mind. I work alone, but always with her presence in my mind. And she is somebody I want to impress. I’m going to write this with the hope that it’ll help her to love me. I feel the stakes are pretty high. I’m in a conversation with her that hasn’t ended yet."
Now that's telling it.
..............
The New Yorker's Amanda Petrusich interviewed Wendell Berry recently, and caused me to remember reading Berry's non-fiction in high school, plus his poetry and "The Unsettling of America" in college. I will quote from the article, then comment (in green):
"My daddy said to me, about five years after I married Tanya, “Well, you’ve got a good girl.” And I said, proudly, “I know it,” and he said, “Well, you don’t deserve a damn bit of credit for it.” And he was right. ... Somehow, you just get led to where you’re supposed to be, if you’re willing to submit."
Sounds familiar.
"“I had a wonderful life and I had nothing to do with it”—well, now I can say that, too."
One imagines alternative lives for oneself. Berry seems to be saying that those different lives can't happen if one follows true happiness.
"If we should decide to replace the chemicals and some of the [big farm] machinery with humans, as for health or survival we need to do, that would be very difficult and it would take a long time ... (b)ecause there is no farmer pool from which farmers can be recruited ready-made."
Yes, but if change is to come, it will certainly be voluntary, and probably gradual. First, limit the damage--from soil loss, for example. Then encourage best practices and smaller / more numerous farms.
"A well-made sentence, I think, is a thing of beauty. But then, a well-farmed farm also can feed a need for beauty."
A tempting critique of Berry's philosophy is that knowing what is true happiness can only be possible when we're free of preconceived notions of where happiness is found. Exposure to alternative paths--urban life--is what expands choice to the point where true happiness is always included in the mix of choices. Otherwise, the blinders of 'prescribed' happiness--especially when income is depressed--means that 'beauty' is found in superficial, disappointing 'appearance', like applied make-up, orderliness, following the leader, etc. Berry mentions the Amish. Here is a pictorial essay. Have these people found 'true happiness'? On the other hand, of course, if rural incomes soar and modern technology brings cosmopolitan culture into one's home, no matter where one lives, and farms are more intimately sized.., maybe Berry's right.
"You must either decide [marriage] is worth working at, or just leave it undone. [It] is not perfect agreement. But you’ve accepted this other person into your mind. I work alone, but always with her presence in my mind. And she is somebody I want to impress. I’m going to write this with the hope that it’ll help her to love me. I feel the stakes are pretty high. I’m in a conversation with her that hasn’t ended yet."
Now that's telling it.
Wednesday, August 14, 2019
Is Common Sense Worth Anything?
#240: Rush To Judgement?
..............
We're all too familiar with simpletons and cranks thinking they know more than 'the so-called experts'. These are usually older men with too much time on their hands, gadflies who take on things like Global Warming, using outdated arguments that appeal to common sense. For example, "our earth has seen much larger swings in temperature than a mere two degrees." Their argument is usually buttressed with graphs that show thousand year ebbs and flows. Meanwhile, the learned opinion of those who study precisely this question--and can easily debunk their argument--is ignored.
And yet, occasionally, the nay-sayers are right. Cigarette smoke, for example, is now seen for what it is: carcinogenic, though 75 years ago there was no such consensus.
So, at the risk of following the crack-pots down one of their rabbit holes, I'm about to dunk on a philosopher's 'What is reality?' question. And I'll make it short.
1. Philosopher Donald Hoffman thinks that humans evolved, not to discern a singular reality, but to see reality in the way that best furthers our species--which means we don't actually see reality, we see the version that best suits us. Link.
2. Sure, there's something to this. We occasionally mistake an ambiguous smile for permission to speak, say, when the smile's ambiguity is based on discomfort at our presence. If we were more perceptive, we might have noticed this.
3. But the clincher is that if we 'see' a poisonous snake as a stick laying in our path, our species is about to shut down that openness to self-made reality one more time.
Does Hoffman doubt this obvious hole in his argument? Maybe I'm missing something. It just seems to me that daily life teaches us to home in on objective reality. That's why babies, for example, burn their fingers, fall down, and in general do a lot of crying. And the ultimate experience for young people--especially boys--is to prove that they can handle life, including the adversity that inevitably surfaces. "I'm going to live for a week in the wilderness!"
Of course one can make the case that 'objective reality' is sometimes seen in a utilitarian manner, rather than as a wonderfully interwoven whole. For example, when settlers first encountered tall grass prairie, did they spend days marveling at the many grasses and flowers in their myriad shapes and colors? Maybe a few took a minute to take in that wonder. And I've read letters, one written by a 16-year-old girl in the 1830s, that lean towards a fuller appreciation. But in general, the pioneers chose to see land as needing to be plowed, and prairie as a nuisance that should soon disappear. This, though, I'd say, is quite different from evolution directing humans to view reality subjectively.
Update: 8/20. Perhaps Hoffman's theory is meant as a description of how we create meaning ("...our tribe uses signs painted on rocks to communicate; this gives us an edge over our neighbors who don't.") But that's a stretch.
..............
We're all too familiar with simpletons and cranks thinking they know more than 'the so-called experts'. These are usually older men with too much time on their hands, gadflies who take on things like Global Warming, using outdated arguments that appeal to common sense. For example, "our earth has seen much larger swings in temperature than a mere two degrees." Their argument is usually buttressed with graphs that show thousand year ebbs and flows. Meanwhile, the learned opinion of those who study precisely this question--and can easily debunk their argument--is ignored.
And yet, occasionally, the nay-sayers are right. Cigarette smoke, for example, is now seen for what it is: carcinogenic, though 75 years ago there was no such consensus.
So, at the risk of following the crack-pots down one of their rabbit holes, I'm about to dunk on a philosopher's 'What is reality?' question. And I'll make it short.
1. Philosopher Donald Hoffman thinks that humans evolved, not to discern a singular reality, but to see reality in the way that best furthers our species--which means we don't actually see reality, we see the version that best suits us. Link.
2. Sure, there's something to this. We occasionally mistake an ambiguous smile for permission to speak, say, when the smile's ambiguity is based on discomfort at our presence. If we were more perceptive, we might have noticed this.
3. But the clincher is that if we 'see' a poisonous snake as a stick laying in our path, our species is about to shut down that openness to self-made reality one more time.
Does Hoffman doubt this obvious hole in his argument? Maybe I'm missing something. It just seems to me that daily life teaches us to home in on objective reality. That's why babies, for example, burn their fingers, fall down, and in general do a lot of crying. And the ultimate experience for young people--especially boys--is to prove that they can handle life, including the adversity that inevitably surfaces. "I'm going to live for a week in the wilderness!"
Of course one can make the case that 'objective reality' is sometimes seen in a utilitarian manner, rather than as a wonderfully interwoven whole. For example, when settlers first encountered tall grass prairie, did they spend days marveling at the many grasses and flowers in their myriad shapes and colors? Maybe a few took a minute to take in that wonder. And I've read letters, one written by a 16-year-old girl in the 1830s, that lean towards a fuller appreciation. But in general, the pioneers chose to see land as needing to be plowed, and prairie as a nuisance that should soon disappear. This, though, I'd say, is quite different from evolution directing humans to view reality subjectively.
Update: 8/20. Perhaps Hoffman's theory is meant as a description of how we create meaning ("...our tribe uses signs painted on rocks to communicate; this gives us an edge over our neighbors who don't.") But that's a stretch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)