I Said I'd Write About Three Things
.....................
Here we have the three topics I said I'd write about, and links to those articles:
1. TR (Teddy Roosevelt) 110 years later. Busting monopolies, experiencing Nature, and admitting he was wrong about Imperialism. Link
This is my political philosophy, which includes novel ideas like:
*encouraging a do-it-yourself, creative economy, operating alongside a super-efficient, decentralized corporate marketplace.
* hooking up voters with online decision-making
* shielding workers from our future's robot-based automation by enabling creative, low-profit small businesses
2. Rock Music, Revisited. I look back at my Mighty 55 rankings, and make adjustments.
This will likely be done every year. My very own garden of sound that I maintain. Link
3. Election Boardgame Trilogy.
My brother's and my 2016 boardgame design.
Thought it was finalized, and here, a year later, we're still finding improvements. Next up is 2012, then 2020, with game complexity declining as we go. Link
Thursday, January 31, 2019
Tuesday, January 29, 2019
Is Mindfulness Worth Looking Into?
Is Describing It Even Possible?
Using a shortened list of questions (link) meant to test your mindfulness levels, I'll describe what it is (for me), and why it's so hard to get one's head around:
Do you...?
1. Experience emotion and not be conscious of it until later.
2. Spill things because you're thinking of something else.
3. Walk quickly, without paying attention to experiences along the way.
4. Not notice physical tension/discomfort until they grab your attention.
5. Forget a name almost as soon as you've been told it.
6. Run on automatic.
7. Listen to someone with one ear, do something else.
8. Drive places on 'automatic pilot', then wonder why you went there.
9. Find yourself preoccupied with future/past.
10. Snack without being aware that you're eating.
Except for #3 and #6 (walking past ugliness; automatically doing repetitive tasks), plus #9 ( preoccupations have their time in the sun, too), this gets at 'mindful'.
What's perhaps more interesting are the ways one can increase one's engagement:
* Self: One word: "why". Any time something doesn't feel right, ask yourself 'why'. Think about it, then let it go. Just pausing to ask 'why' every once in a while will eventually get you focused.
* Other: Watch TV while eating. Feed yourself every time you're enjoying what's going on. While chewing, ask yourself: "why do I like this?" This'll help coordinate eating with intent.
* Dating: When you have the chance, focus on the day of the year. Why's it special? Does it make you want to plan your dinner? talk to someone? read? dance? watch TV? There's a time for everything.
* Religion: If you need direction, most religions have ways of focusing on key questions, like meditation or prayer.
But, what is it? Simple; mindfulness is getting started on what makes you ask 'why'.
Using a shortened list of questions (link) meant to test your mindfulness levels, I'll describe what it is (for me), and why it's so hard to get one's head around:
Do you...?
1. Experience emotion and not be conscious of it until later.
2. Spill things because you're thinking of something else.
3. Walk quickly, without paying attention to experiences along the way.
4. Not notice physical tension/discomfort until they grab your attention.
5. Forget a name almost as soon as you've been told it.
6. Run on automatic.
7. Listen to someone with one ear, do something else.
8. Drive places on 'automatic pilot', then wonder why you went there.
9. Find yourself preoccupied with future/past.
10. Snack without being aware that you're eating.
Except for #3 and #6 (walking past ugliness; automatically doing repetitive tasks), plus #9 ( preoccupations have their time in the sun, too), this gets at 'mindful'.
What's perhaps more interesting are the ways one can increase one's engagement:
* Self: One word: "why". Any time something doesn't feel right, ask yourself 'why'. Think about it, then let it go. Just pausing to ask 'why' every once in a while will eventually get you focused.
* Other: Watch TV while eating. Feed yourself every time you're enjoying what's going on. While chewing, ask yourself: "why do I like this?" This'll help coordinate eating with intent.
* Dating: When you have the chance, focus on the day of the year. Why's it special? Does it make you want to plan your dinner? talk to someone? read? dance? watch TV? There's a time for everything.
* Religion: If you need direction, most religions have ways of focusing on key questions, like meditation or prayer.
But, what is it? Simple; mindfulness is getting started on what makes you ask 'why'.
Wednesday, January 23, 2019
Predicting the Future: 1/23/19 --> 1/1/2020
I Peer Ahead
.................
Using a set of questions about our world a year hence published in Vox's Future Perfect newsletter recently, here are my answers, followed by Vox's percent likelihood, then mine. Plus, I'll comment on each:
Trump still in office (90%) — 70%
It's hard to imagine the Republican senate voting for articles of impeachment, which is what it would take; but..., it's even harder to imagine another two years of what we've just been through. So, I'll stick with my late summer '19 (August 21st to be exact) Trump exit guess from last year.
No clear Democratic frontrunner (with 50% being the frontrunner cut-off) (60%) — 85%
Here's my scenario (see primary calendar, here):
* 3-4 candidates do well enough in Iowa to claim momentum
* With Super Tuesday's primaries in California, N. Carolina, Virginia, Massachusetts, and Texas, (plus four smaller states) looming on March 3, February's primaries and caucuses in New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina will be overshadowed.
* This means little-known hopefuls are doomed. The big three-four will be:
1. Sen. Elizabeth Warren
2. Sen. Cory Booker
3. Secretary Julian Castro
and possibly:
4. Sen. Kamala Harris and/or Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand
* Other candidates will find themselves in somewhat less prominent positions and will soon be out
* Key to this prediction is former Veep Joe Biden, and equally lovable Sen. Bernie Sanders deciding not to run (not to mention former Rep. Beto O'Rourke).
US will not enter recession (80) — 55
I don't think things will be anywhere near as bad as George Bush's end-of-term in 2008, but not all that different (recessions hurt); whether this occurs by next year or not is hard to say.
Congress: no full-length border wall (95) -- 95
With contraband and would-be immigrants hidden in trucks that simply drive through ports of entry, a border wall that can be tunneled under is not the solution that a sensible observer would settle on. With logic against it, and migration on the decline, there's nearly no way it's going anywhere.
US homicides will decline (80) -- 85
As they have since lead was removed from gasoline (those who haven't heard this theory explained will be shocked; but, data do indeed point to lead being the cause of the world's several decades of high crime; try googling 'lead/crime theory'). The remaining 15%: the shadow of lead (a brain toxin, especially for babies) has now passed as babies poisoned decades ago are no longer struggling teens, 20- and 30-somethings, so we may returned to a 'normal' crime level now.
UK will leave EU (80) — 45
With a process unfolding, inertial drift will mean a crashing out. But, that prospect should stiffen enough spines to generate a postponement or re-vote. Will it?
Modi continues as Indian prime minister (60) — 50
I'll use 50% once, here.
Neither India nor China enters recession (70) — 75
Hard to believe they would, though in the case of China, state propaganda might be able to cover it up.
Malaria deaths decrease (80) — 85
Let's hope so.
No additional countries adopt UBI (90) — 95
Fine in theory, but a Universal Basic Income is expensive.
More animals killed for US human consumption (60) — 65
Unless a recession hits sooner rather than later.
Impossible Burger in at least one grocery chain (95) — 95
Looking forward to eating them on a regular basis.
Fully autonomous self-driving car not commercially available as taxis or for sale (90) — 85
There will be much more hype leading up to this possibility, when it happens, compared to what we're hearing now.
DeepMind release an AlphaZero update, or new app, capable of beating humans and existing computer programs at a task in a new domain (50) — 55
We'd have to be a tech wizzards to know much about this.
Average world temps will increase (60) — 80
That remaining 20% is the chance that 2020 happens to be a year when there's a large volcanic eruption, or when temperatures happen to dip, temporarily.
Global carbon emissions increase (80) — 85
Though, the coming year may be the last for a rise in emissions if a world recession occurs--economies don't turn on a dime; especially since we have ignoramuses in charge in several countries.
...........
Hopefully I'll have a few right answers in among the guessing. We'll see.
.................
Using a set of questions about our world a year hence published in Vox's Future Perfect newsletter recently, here are my answers, followed by Vox's percent likelihood, then mine. Plus, I'll comment on each:
Trump still in office (90%) — 70%
It's hard to imagine the Republican senate voting for articles of impeachment, which is what it would take; but..., it's even harder to imagine another two years of what we've just been through. So, I'll stick with my late summer '19 (August 21st to be exact) Trump exit guess from last year.
No clear Democratic frontrunner (with 50% being the frontrunner cut-off) (60%) — 85%
Here's my scenario (see primary calendar, here):
* 3-4 candidates do well enough in Iowa to claim momentum
* With Super Tuesday's primaries in California, N. Carolina, Virginia, Massachusetts, and Texas, (plus four smaller states) looming on March 3, February's primaries and caucuses in New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina will be overshadowed.
* This means little-known hopefuls are doomed. The big three-four will be:
1. Sen. Elizabeth Warren
2. Sen. Cory Booker
3. Secretary Julian Castro
and possibly:
4. Sen. Kamala Harris and/or Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand
* Other candidates will find themselves in somewhat less prominent positions and will soon be out
* Key to this prediction is former Veep Joe Biden, and equally lovable Sen. Bernie Sanders deciding not to run (not to mention former Rep. Beto O'Rourke).
US will not enter recession (80) — 55
I don't think things will be anywhere near as bad as George Bush's end-of-term in 2008, but not all that different (recessions hurt); whether this occurs by next year or not is hard to say.
Congress: no full-length border wall (95) -- 95
With contraband and would-be immigrants hidden in trucks that simply drive through ports of entry, a border wall that can be tunneled under is not the solution that a sensible observer would settle on. With logic against it, and migration on the decline, there's nearly no way it's going anywhere.
US homicides will decline (80) -- 85
As they have since lead was removed from gasoline (those who haven't heard this theory explained will be shocked; but, data do indeed point to lead being the cause of the world's several decades of high crime; try googling 'lead/crime theory'). The remaining 15%: the shadow of lead (a brain toxin, especially for babies) has now passed as babies poisoned decades ago are no longer struggling teens, 20- and 30-somethings, so we may returned to a 'normal' crime level now.
UK will leave EU (80) — 45
With a process unfolding, inertial drift will mean a crashing out. But, that prospect should stiffen enough spines to generate a postponement or re-vote. Will it?
Modi continues as Indian prime minister (60) — 50
I'll use 50% once, here.
Neither India nor China enters recession (70) — 75
Hard to believe they would, though in the case of China, state propaganda might be able to cover it up.
Malaria deaths decrease (80) — 85
Let's hope so.
No additional countries adopt UBI (90) — 95
Fine in theory, but a Universal Basic Income is expensive.
More animals killed for US human consumption (60) — 65
Unless a recession hits sooner rather than later.
Impossible Burger in at least one grocery chain (95) — 95
Looking forward to eating them on a regular basis.
Fully autonomous self-driving car not commercially available as taxis or for sale (90) — 85
There will be much more hype leading up to this possibility, when it happens, compared to what we're hearing now.
DeepMind release an AlphaZero update, or new app, capable of beating humans and existing computer programs at a task in a new domain (50) — 55
We'd have to be a tech wizzards to know much about this.
Average world temps will increase (60) — 80
That remaining 20% is the chance that 2020 happens to be a year when there's a large volcanic eruption, or when temperatures happen to dip, temporarily.
Global carbon emissions increase (80) — 85
Though, the coming year may be the last for a rise in emissions if a world recession occurs--economies don't turn on a dime; especially since we have ignoramuses in charge in several countries.
...........
Hopefully I'll have a few right answers in among the guessing. We'll see.
Monday, January 21, 2019
A One-Line Wonder
Web Wisdom
..................
Ever save something off the internet, then wonder where it came from?
Here's something I saved, and now can't recall when, where, and who wrote it:
"Human interactions ought to be celebrated instead of intentionally (& artificially) replicated."
I tried googling, but nothing came up.
So, here's a brief reaction:
*Do I know what this means? I think we're comparing organic with inorganic.
*Is this deep? If I'm right, then yes.
*Perhaps an example would help:
A: Organic:
I meet someone unexpectedly; we smile, chat, continue on our way.
B: Inorganic:
I then scheme, such that I will try to capture the moment and enjoy it more: I sacrifice my daily schedule to try to meet the person again, on a subsequent day. And when I do so, I can't remember the line I had planned to use to reference our previous encounter.
..................
Ever save something off the internet, then wonder where it came from?
Here's something I saved, and now can't recall when, where, and who wrote it:
"Human interactions ought to be celebrated instead of intentionally (& artificially) replicated."
I tried googling, but nothing came up.
So, here's a brief reaction:
*Do I know what this means? I think we're comparing organic with inorganic.
*Is this deep? If I'm right, then yes.
*Perhaps an example would help:
A: Organic:
I meet someone unexpectedly; we smile, chat, continue on our way.
B: Inorganic:
I then scheme, such that I will try to capture the moment and enjoy it more: I sacrifice my daily schedule to try to meet the person again, on a subsequent day. And when I do so, I can't remember the line I had planned to use to reference our previous encounter.
Most Popular Recent Posts
What You're Reading
..........................Here's a countdown, #10 to #1, each with a link and date published:
#10: What if Fighting Climate Change Were Easy? (link) (12/16/18)
An example of how our battle may be easier than we think.
#9: The 2020 Dems.: Who Should Drop Out (link) (12/23/18)
I use Rolling Stone's leaderboard to rank the candidates on who should get gone.
#8: Democratic Presidential Candidates, 2020 (link) (7/4/18)
The case for running as a Blue Team. I later refine this idea by suggesting just three candidate form a pact (link). I further refine this (see #9, above).
#7: Bailing On Things (link) (10/14/17)
What I've given up recently, or scaled way back on.
#6: Is Nine Supreme Court Justices A Number Set In Stone? (link) (7/21/18)
I suggest a way for the court to be made whole after the arguably stolen seats of recent years. I then update that idea with Fixing Our Democracy: The Supreme Court (link) (10/1/18)
#5: President Barack Obama: A-, B+ or Lower? (link) (3/12/17)
His accomplishments, and his grade.
#4: Feel Like A Million (link) (1/7/17)
If Trump had been really smart, he could've done this to improve ObamaCare (written before his inauguration).
#3: More Advice For Trump: Afghanistan (link) (5/20/17)
The case for getting out, and instead paying Afghan forces salaries high enough to make joining the taliban the poorer choice (and it would cost us less).
#2: Hiding In Plain Sight (link) (12/16/18)
Populism (FDR's pro-labor, keeping-corporate-greed-in-check, philosophy is making a comeback; Elizabeth Warren being the messenger).
And, the #1 most read post on this website over the past two years is...
#1: The $50 billion Radical Idea That Just Might Work (link) (8/1/18)
This is my answer to the country's three original sins (Native dispossession, Slavery, and unequal representation--in the Senate and Electoral College).
Sure, some readers may have been keyed in by the titles (#10, for example; but then, what about #7? Perhaps that's because #7 is personal, not political). Anyway, this countdown simply gives the reader a top-ten for further exploration, should you find the first steps on the hike worth your while.
Friday, January 18, 2019
Making A 'Green New Deal' Hard To Resist
What We Want; How We Proceed
......................
As a rule, the easier way is usually the one we'll take; the path of least resistance. For the Green New Deal, recently popularized by Climate Change activists, the easiest path is not necessarily the best. If we fail to stop global warming, we lose. But if we're too ambitious, and we lose politically we also fail.
So, here's a 3-point plan (easily understood), that'd be fairly easy to pass (politically winnable), that also has within it the seed for limiting warming to a maximum 1.5 degrees (necessary):
1. Return To The Obama 'Normal'. This means that by 2021, with the election of a new president, the policy framework Obama had in place is reinstated. Most voters will understand and be behind this.
2. Generate Funds. Instead of raising taxes (very hard), or running a larger deficit (still hard), or asking the Federal Reserve to invest (hard-ish), we commit to cutting 1% of military spending, and instead spend it on a Green New Deal. Then, we increase that to 2% the next year if we have buy-in from our military antagonists. If so, we increase our cut exponentially, redirecting 4, 8, 16%, until we have the funds to tackle our ten-year goal of merely surviving Climate Change. If our military competitors are also redirecting funds, nobody feels threatened by this, and the world succeeds.
3. Hasten An Accelerated Carbon Drawdown. Put in place a) communication; b) jobs; c) policy.
Communication: give US savings bonds, randomly, to people who participate, online, in understanding and forming public policy (this educates, plugs in, and means agency for voters).
Jobs: provide jobs and other assistance that would actually work. Green policy itself will also create jobs.
Policy: make as much progress as possible--given our political bottleneck: the US senate (good luck). Assume that an acceleration will occur, but until our political initiative can succeed, highlight alternative paths, rather than just one.
How does this all fit together?
* Without the need for taxes, there's no easy target for opposition
* With jobs on the line (for all states), it's easier to enthuse get-out-the-vote efforts
* With voters plugged in, reactionary and special interest messages lose part of their audience
As for "Communication", I've proposed online voting (based on voters --> informing representatives of their opinions) that's fair to all (because sampling is involved) and doable (as opposed to online secret balloting, which is not). Participants would be randomly rewarded with Savings Bonds, so as to have a relatively representative sample for polling firms to start with. This, for the House of Representatives (here's the link).
......................
As a rule, the easier way is usually the one we'll take; the path of least resistance. For the Green New Deal, recently popularized by Climate Change activists, the easiest path is not necessarily the best. If we fail to stop global warming, we lose. But if we're too ambitious, and we lose politically we also fail.
So, here's a 3-point plan (easily understood), that'd be fairly easy to pass (politically winnable), that also has within it the seed for limiting warming to a maximum 1.5 degrees (necessary):
1. Return To The Obama 'Normal'. This means that by 2021, with the election of a new president, the policy framework Obama had in place is reinstated. Most voters will understand and be behind this.
2. Generate Funds. Instead of raising taxes (very hard), or running a larger deficit (still hard), or asking the Federal Reserve to invest (hard-ish), we commit to cutting 1% of military spending, and instead spend it on a Green New Deal. Then, we increase that to 2% the next year if we have buy-in from our military antagonists. If so, we increase our cut exponentially, redirecting 4, 8, 16%, until we have the funds to tackle our ten-year goal of merely surviving Climate Change. If our military competitors are also redirecting funds, nobody feels threatened by this, and the world succeeds.
3. Hasten An Accelerated Carbon Drawdown. Put in place a) communication; b) jobs; c) policy.
Communication: give US savings bonds, randomly, to people who participate, online, in understanding and forming public policy (this educates, plugs in, and means agency for voters).
Jobs: provide jobs and other assistance that would actually work. Green policy itself will also create jobs.
Policy: make as much progress as possible--given our political bottleneck: the US senate (good luck). Assume that an acceleration will occur, but until our political initiative can succeed, highlight alternative paths, rather than just one.
How does this all fit together?
* Without the need for taxes, there's no easy target for opposition
* With jobs on the line (for all states), it's easier to enthuse get-out-the-vote efforts
* With voters plugged in, reactionary and special interest messages lose part of their audience
As for "Communication", I've proposed online voting (based on voters --> informing representatives of their opinions) that's fair to all (because sampling is involved) and doable (as opposed to online secret balloting, which is not). Participants would be randomly rewarded with Savings Bonds, so as to have a relatively representative sample for polling firms to start with. This, for the House of Representatives (here's the link).
Wednesday, January 16, 2019
HobbyTime Update
What I Play In My Spare Time
....................
I describe my hobby here (link). This post is an update on my brother's and my design, 2016 (illustrations and photo at the link).
For those who play historical boardgames, it isn't difficult to understand the attraction: the immersion in a set of difficult decisions that allows one to feel history play out--the closer the glove of the game fits the time represented, the better.
So, I present: a glove-like concept, a focus on clever card play, and simplification:
* Press Support
This was key to the campaign--especially for Clinton. Did she have The Press in her corner, or was there disenchantment.
We represent this by making the tie-breaker in all cases the player with the most Press Support cubes.
And, Press Support cubes on a given issue (Character, Jobs, Protest, Immigration) give an edge when that issue is debated (there's a debate at the end of each of the four turns). Debates are scored for Partisan and for Bi-Partisan appeal; the latter is mainly Press Support cubes.
A recent tweak to the rules: rewards for winning Bi-Partisan appeal in a debate are constrained by how many Press Support cubes one has on the relevant issue (cubes are gained when playing Bi-Partisan Events related to a given issue): this makes Press Support more important.
This card is Clinton's best hope at
having The Press on her side.
* Upgrade of 'Dud' Cards
The idea here is to reward innovative card play, rather than a player's accumulation of better cards.
A recent tweak: some of the cards that were considered 'lesser' were given dual-use status (they can be played as both Event and Address-An-Issue).
This card can now be played as a
key Event, as well as Addressing
An Issue (with a +1 cube draw).
* (in general), Simplification
Although our game is aimed at players who enjoy complex designs (its sister games, 2012 and 2020, will be easier to master), we are now attempting to simplify whenever we can.
A recent tweak: players now select, or draft, their hand of four cards at the beginning of each of the four turns in exactly the same way each turn. It used to be a different process for Turn #1.
Here's a fairly powerful card that
earns a cube on the Bi-Partisan,
Press Support ("Both") track--for
either player--on the Character
issue.
....................
I describe my hobby here (link). This post is an update on my brother's and my design, 2016 (illustrations and photo at the link).
For those who play historical boardgames, it isn't difficult to understand the attraction: the immersion in a set of difficult decisions that allows one to feel history play out--the closer the glove of the game fits the time represented, the better.
So, I present: a glove-like concept, a focus on clever card play, and simplification:
* Press Support
This was key to the campaign--especially for Clinton. Did she have The Press in her corner, or was there disenchantment.
We represent this by making the tie-breaker in all cases the player with the most Press Support cubes.
And, Press Support cubes on a given issue (Character, Jobs, Protest, Immigration) give an edge when that issue is debated (there's a debate at the end of each of the four turns). Debates are scored for Partisan and for Bi-Partisan appeal; the latter is mainly Press Support cubes.
A recent tweak to the rules: rewards for winning Bi-Partisan appeal in a debate are constrained by how many Press Support cubes one has on the relevant issue (cubes are gained when playing Bi-Partisan Events related to a given issue): this makes Press Support more important.
This card is Clinton's best hope at
having The Press on her side.
* Upgrade of 'Dud' Cards
The idea here is to reward innovative card play, rather than a player's accumulation of better cards.
A recent tweak: some of the cards that were considered 'lesser' were given dual-use status (they can be played as both Event and Address-An-Issue).
This card can now be played as a
key Event, as well as Addressing
An Issue (with a +1 cube draw).
* (in general), Simplification
Although our game is aimed at players who enjoy complex designs (its sister games, 2012 and 2020, will be easier to master), we are now attempting to simplify whenever we can.
A recent tweak: players now select, or draft, their hand of four cards at the beginning of each of the four turns in exactly the same way each turn. It used to be a different process for Turn #1.
Here's a fairly powerful card that
earns a cube on the Bi-Partisan,
Press Support ("Both") track--for
either player--on the Character
issue.
Saturday, January 12, 2019
What Corrupted Pop Music?
Something Nasty Happened Behind The Woodshed
........................
If you asked the average American "What happened to popular music?", you'd probably get a large majority agreeing that something awful turned the music of our youth into what passes for a tune today.
So, here's a countdown of seven possible reasons, beginning with #7, and arriving at #1, the most likely culprit.
#7: The Decline of Traditional Performance. We forget that a mere 65 years ago, most music was performed (at school, in the park, in a concert hall, along a parade route, in a church). What do all these venues have in common? They involve music that's approved of, and music that's almost always played competently. This reinforces traditional music structure. Sure, there was music in the parlor on the piano, and music on the back porch, and performance in clubs. But this unconstrained playing constituted a minority, or involved accepted structure, like practicing traditional forms.
#6: Distribution. Gone are the days when a musical artist could record and release music to make a living. Sure, some mega-famous stars can. But most musicians find that the music download format makes it impossible to earn a living--especially when splitting proceeds among 4-5-6 members of a band. So, it's touring and ticket sales, or bust. To tour, you need excitement, commercial appeal, and good music, secondarily.
#5: The Collector. Starting in the late '50s and '60s the number of records sold to the public skyrocketed. Those buying records started from scratch. Not only was the Baby Boom generation the largest ever, to date, but it was joined by older generations. Essentially, there was a huge demand for recordings, and that demand eventually became satiated, relative to subsequent generations. This, even though LPs gave way to cassettes, CDs and DVDs. When music listeners each had their collection of favorites, they often preferred to listen to the familiar, thus abandoning the current pop scene, leaving behind a younger and younger audience for pop. Thus, pop became teen-age music, to a degree.
#4: Splintering Market. The explosion of recording in the last half of the 20th century enabled niche artists to reach specialized audiences. Thus, those who enjoyed Gospel, or Cowboy poetry, or traditional Hawaiian, were removed from the target audience.
#3: The Rise of Rhythm. Rhythm is much more visceral than melody. With the decline in the age of the average pop music listener, the appreciation for geometrically satisfying harmony gave way to the excitement of the beat. Example: rap, where lyrics and beat mesmerize, and a few simple movements in tone are all that it takes.
#2: Cleverness, Rewarded. An aspiring artist in a sea of similar voices will feel it imperative to set herself apart. This encourages commercialism (the gimmick that will attract attention, rather than the song that'll have to compete with dozens of similar offerings). Flashy dress, suggestive or explicit lyrics, thundering, captivating shows, easier tunes that hammer away at the basics.
#1: The Averaging of the Market. It's a fact of commercial life that selling more is better than selling less, so the unlikelier the songs, the less chance of promotion. This encourages formulas that are used to hit the jackpot over and over, with pop songwriting now farmed out to the same hands, who work with their 'successful' blinders in place.
So, it's no wonder.
The ultimate factor is, of course, that the less interesting popular music gets, the less that older, more open-minded, more sophisticated music listeners are to stick around when the latest merchandise assails the ear. So, pop music is what's left behind.
.........................
For the record, I listen to Radio Paradise (link), with its four channels that one can move between at will (the main mix, mellow mix, rock mix, and groovy mix). The groovy mix has more spacey, unorthodox material; the mellow mix can be thought of as calming, and the rock mix is relatively harder edged. The main mix is thoughtful classic rock, world music, even some popular classical music, combined with some obscure numbers, but mainly critically acclaimed material. No commercials, just a mild-mannered voice occasionally pointing out interesting things and once in a while reminding listeners that they can donate.
Music on RP can be ranked (if you want), and each song sports an average rating. There's also a full screen of background material on the artists, plus listener comments on the current selection to look at. And, you can play slideshows synchronized with the music, for those wanting the full immersion experience.
........................
If you asked the average American "What happened to popular music?", you'd probably get a large majority agreeing that something awful turned the music of our youth into what passes for a tune today.
So, here's a countdown of seven possible reasons, beginning with #7, and arriving at #1, the most likely culprit.
#7: The Decline of Traditional Performance. We forget that a mere 65 years ago, most music was performed (at school, in the park, in a concert hall, along a parade route, in a church). What do all these venues have in common? They involve music that's approved of, and music that's almost always played competently. This reinforces traditional music structure. Sure, there was music in the parlor on the piano, and music on the back porch, and performance in clubs. But this unconstrained playing constituted a minority, or involved accepted structure, like practicing traditional forms.
#6: Distribution. Gone are the days when a musical artist could record and release music to make a living. Sure, some mega-famous stars can. But most musicians find that the music download format makes it impossible to earn a living--especially when splitting proceeds among 4-5-6 members of a band. So, it's touring and ticket sales, or bust. To tour, you need excitement, commercial appeal, and good music, secondarily.
#5: The Collector. Starting in the late '50s and '60s the number of records sold to the public skyrocketed. Those buying records started from scratch. Not only was the Baby Boom generation the largest ever, to date, but it was joined by older generations. Essentially, there was a huge demand for recordings, and that demand eventually became satiated, relative to subsequent generations. This, even though LPs gave way to cassettes, CDs and DVDs. When music listeners each had their collection of favorites, they often preferred to listen to the familiar, thus abandoning the current pop scene, leaving behind a younger and younger audience for pop. Thus, pop became teen-age music, to a degree.
#4: Splintering Market. The explosion of recording in the last half of the 20th century enabled niche artists to reach specialized audiences. Thus, those who enjoyed Gospel, or Cowboy poetry, or traditional Hawaiian, were removed from the target audience.
#3: The Rise of Rhythm. Rhythm is much more visceral than melody. With the decline in the age of the average pop music listener, the appreciation for geometrically satisfying harmony gave way to the excitement of the beat. Example: rap, where lyrics and beat mesmerize, and a few simple movements in tone are all that it takes.
#2: Cleverness, Rewarded. An aspiring artist in a sea of similar voices will feel it imperative to set herself apart. This encourages commercialism (the gimmick that will attract attention, rather than the song that'll have to compete with dozens of similar offerings). Flashy dress, suggestive or explicit lyrics, thundering, captivating shows, easier tunes that hammer away at the basics.
#1: The Averaging of the Market. It's a fact of commercial life that selling more is better than selling less, so the unlikelier the songs, the less chance of promotion. This encourages formulas that are used to hit the jackpot over and over, with pop songwriting now farmed out to the same hands, who work with their 'successful' blinders in place.
So, it's no wonder.
The ultimate factor is, of course, that the less interesting popular music gets, the less that older, more open-minded, more sophisticated music listeners are to stick around when the latest merchandise assails the ear. So, pop music is what's left behind.
.........................
For the record, I listen to Radio Paradise (link), with its four channels that one can move between at will (the main mix, mellow mix, rock mix, and groovy mix). The groovy mix has more spacey, unorthodox material; the mellow mix can be thought of as calming, and the rock mix is relatively harder edged. The main mix is thoughtful classic rock, world music, even some popular classical music, combined with some obscure numbers, but mainly critically acclaimed material. No commercials, just a mild-mannered voice occasionally pointing out interesting things and once in a while reminding listeners that they can donate.
Music on RP can be ranked (if you want), and each song sports an average rating. There's also a full screen of background material on the artists, plus listener comments on the current selection to look at. And, you can play slideshows synchronized with the music, for those wanting the full immersion experience.
Thursday, January 10, 2019
2020 Candidates Ranked
What Are The Odds?
.....................
Those good at predicting the future tend to shy away from presidential contests; too many unknowns in years with no clear frontrunner--especially so if the field is large. But that won't stop me, since I don't have a career as a pundit.
Here's my quasi-objective system: I rank each candidate on four attributes (Good Humor, Charisma, Policy, and Demographics), assigning 0-10 points for each, then add up all points and see who our most likely candidate is. First, the Democratic nomination:
Using the top 13 candidates from a previous post (link), I've moved a few candidates up/down (thanks to a better look at several) and have:
Joe Biden. Good Humor: 9 Charisma: 5 Policy: 5 Demographics: 2
Kirsten Gillibrand. Humor: 3 Charisma: 5 Policy: 7 Demographics: 6
Steve Bullock. Humor: Charisma: Policy: Demographics:
Michael Bloomberg. Humor: 4 Charisma: 3 Policy: 8 Demographics: 3
John Hickenlooper. Humor: 6 Charisma: 4 Policy: 6 Demographics: 6
Hillary Clinton. Humor: 4 Charisma: 6 Policy: 9 Demographics: 4
Jay Inslee. Humor: Charisma: Policy: Demographics:
Kamala Harris. Humor: 5 Charisma: 6 Policy: 7 Demographics: 7
Beto O’Rourke. Humor: 5 Charisma: 7 Policy: 5 Demographics: 8
Elizabeth Warren. Humor: 6 Charisma: 5 Policy: 10 Demographics: 5
Julian Castro. Humor: 7 Charisma: 8 Policy: 5 Demographics: 7
Cory Booker. Humor: 9 Charisma: 7 Policy: 6 Demographics: 6
Amy Klobuchar. Humor: 8 Charisma: 5 Policy: 8 Demographics: 9
And what do I mean by "Good Humor, "Charisma", "Policy", and "Demographics"? Well, here's a discussion of each candidate with those criteria in mind:
Biden: He's comfortable in his own skin (good humor), but other than that, he doesn't have the Charisma, nor policy record to keep the good grades coming. In fact, like his Demographics (older, white male, Eastern state) his policy record over the years has big potholes (voted for the Iraq war, for tightening bankruptcy regulations, etc.). But, he has two pluses that would likely boost his overall score into the mid-20s, namely, that he has the stature (former Senator, Veep) and appeals to a key demographic: White, blue collar men (for practical-minded voters). Score 21 (bonus 2 + 3) = 26
Gillibrand: She has a keen grasp of several important issues (generally, 'me too' concerns, health care); but, though she's young, and female, she represents an eastern state, New York, and doesn't yet have the experience that allows one's charisma to blossom. Score = 21
Bloomberg: A former mayor of New York, wealthy businessman (Bloomberg TV, etc.), and successful funder of noteworthy causes, his score reaches this high because of bonuses (for executive experience and wealth). Score: 18 (bonus 2 + 1) = 21
Hickenlooper: The former governor of Colorado has the electoral success, business background, and centrist views to win in the general election (imagine Arizona tipping Blue thanks to Hickenlooper--a solid Blue west would mean a much easier path to 270). But not many voters sense these things (as opposed to Biden's bonus points, which are easier to fathom). Score = 22
Clinton: 2016's nominee probably has what it takes to win. She knows policy inside out, and has a sense of what isn't and what is possible, policy-wise, in that attempt to win. The fact that she was likely a victim of electoral theft shouldn't diminish her appeal. But she's four years older. Score = 23
Harris: She has no down-side, scoring well across the board. Though not over-powering in any of our four categories, she has room to develop. The one possible draw-back is that she hails from California, rather than from a state/region where her roots might tip the balance.
I watched her appearance on Colbert recently, and have sympathy for anyone in her shoes. She couldn't announce her candidacy quite yet, so, was reserved. No doubt the experience gave her a chance to see what running would be like. Score: 25
O'Rourke: It's tempting to rank O'Rourke higher, across the board, especially his Charisma. But he's young (humor), and relatively middle-of-the-road compared to the national Democratic electorate (policy). His Charisma has great potential, because he's the genuine article; and a young, energetic champion from Texas is Demographic gold (if Texas turned Blue, the election would be all over before it even started; the youth vote, meanwhile, is something candidate Obama showed how to bring out).
Score: 25
Warren: The only candidate to rank as a '10' in any category, her policy ideas are right on the money. Forcing corporations to value their workers and their social footprint, rather than just being greedy, is the inventive Edison Medicine. Her populism is not only right for what ails us, it's popular, and could conceivably pull the typical blue collar voter over to the Democratic column. But, she's older, and comes from the East coast--Massachusetts no less. Score: 26
Castro: Normally, charisma develops in tandem with a career. In Castro's case, he's a natural. And, like O'Rourke, he's a Texan with the potential to turn the state Blue. He even has many progressive issue positions that would appeal to the Democrat base, but he probably doesn't have the experience to hammer away, or propose new ideas, the way a Warren does. But, it's early days. Score: 26
Booker: Booker seems to bubble over with good humor. In fact, it's tempting to give him a '10'. He makes friends with those he meets. Would this translate to a national audience? His policy grasp is good, and he's known for working with Republicans to pass legislation. Unfortunately, he's a senator from a reliably Blue eastern states, New Jersey, and he's unmarried. But he projects youth, vigor, excitement, and drive, which is why he's this close to #1. Score: 28
Klobuchar: She's the under-the-radar candidate, with average Charisma, but with a naturalness and unthreatening manner that would appeal to many mid-westerners--which is what Democrats probably need to nail down a win (Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan, maybe even Ohio). And with Iowa the first contest of a compact primary election season, she has a likely come-from-behind scenario all but written out for her. Score: 30
Since I last posted this list, I've moved O'Rourke up several spaces, and given Biden several bonus points--I still think it unlikely that he'll run, however.
Further Update (1/31): Good news and (possibly) bad for Harris. Her announcement unfolded brilliantly, evincing a truly professional organization. The possibly bad news: she's on tape suggesting all private health insurance could be done away with. This places her in the vanguard, but could be used to scare general election voters. A more prudent approach would be to embrace alternatives to disfunction, in general terms. But, this is a race to capture the nomination, so the next time I publish this list, she'll likely have moved up a few spaces.
Note: Montana governor Bullock and Washington governor Inslee are yet to be rated, since I've yet to see them live. Also, on the Republican side, Maryland governor Hogan has indicated an interest.
And now on to the Republicans--this time as general election candidates:
Donald Trump: Humor: 0 Charisma: 9 Policy: 4 Demographics: 4
Mike Pence: Humor: 1 Charisma: 4 Policy: 6 Demographics: 9
Mitt Romney: Humor: 6 Charisma: 5 Policy: 6 Demographics: 5
John Kasich: Humor: 6 Charisma: 5 Policy: 7 Demographics: 9
Trump: At this point, he's a basket case. He's obviously guilty of myriad crimes and bad calls. He insists on sticking to his base of 40%, refusing to appeal to others. He never smiles (naturally). His theatrical Charisma has probably lost all its power to win over the undecided. His policy set will bring him the nomination if he lasts that long, but he needs bonus points to come anywhere near the top ten Democrats. An older, over-weight, big-mouth white guy from the east coast who's clearly out of his depth ranks a disastrous '4' on demographics (minor appeal to rural, blue collar workers). Score: 17 (bonus points: 9, for sitting president) = 26
Pence: He's ready and waiting for a bullpen call. If he gets it, he'll likely seem a lot more formidable than he does now. Much of his on-screen presence has seemed stifling--just appearing 'proper'; so, not much Charisma, let alone 'good humor'. Otherwise, he'd be a likely candidate in that he comes from the midwest. Score: 20 (bonus points are less for unelected Prez): 6 = 26
Romney: An average rating with nothing that says 'exciting', or 'I'm the one'. But, he was the Republican nominee in 2012. Now a senator from Utah, he could claim some relevancy in a state like Arizona or perhaps Nevada (he won AZ in 2012, but lost NV to Obama). A likely loser in an age when corporate restructuring (his business specialty) is viewed with deserved suspicion. Score: 22
Kasich: The obvious choice if the Republicans want to win. Being the former governor of Ohio, he could appeal to midwestern voters that Red needs to win. He's jolly at times, but comes across as serious. Unfortunately for him, he's less than the Trump base would like in a conservative. If Trump departs, expect Kasich to either fight it out with Pence for the nomination, or clear the field for him. Score: 27
...........................
Update: 1/12/19
Ok, I've gotten some push-back on Klobuchar, and have now studied her perceived less-than-progressive votes in the senate (link, just click on an issue, then a sub-category, to see how her votes were judged), and agree that she may have a few weaknesses in an electorate of only Democratic voters: Gun Control (carrying guns on Amtrak, for example); Privacy (allow government spying on US citizens); Health Care (removing a tax--that supported ObamaCare--on pediatric devices, also not approving additional funding for CHIP); GMOs (not requiring GMO labeling on food packages); and Trade (approving the free-trade agreement with Panama). All relatively minor concerns.
Now, it's tempting to explain away these questionable votes as horse-trading, voting strategically, or maintaining a reputation for common sense (for example, she voted for an amendment to ObamaCare that would prevent any families making $200,000 or less from having to pay more in taxes as a result of the ACA--it was likely a poison pill, meant to sabotage; but did she know ahead of time that it would fail?), but, tempting or not, I wasn't there to know, and so I won't try to explain. Suffice it to say that tacking to the center is not necessarily a bad thing if it means the odds of your side losing a senate seat are considerably less.
Same goes for the presidency. The more cautious you are, the less interested you're likely to be in ambitious proposals like Free College, Jobs For All, Guaranteed Incomes, Single-Payer Health Care, Reparations for Black and Native Americans, the Decriminalization of Drugs, not to mention the Decriminalization of Sex Work, even though a case, convincing or not, can be made on humanitarian grounds for each. And caution is sometimes the difference between winning and losing.
Candidates pick issues to identify with based on the possible, as they see it, with an eye to judging what is doable. That's just politics. It's like deciding whether to ask your friend to stop swearing when you're together in public. Or, considering a word to your spouse about helping the homeless. Is saying something worth it in the long run? Politicians make equivalent decisions all the time. That's how we know whether they've got what it takes.
.....................
Those good at predicting the future tend to shy away from presidential contests; too many unknowns in years with no clear frontrunner--especially so if the field is large. But that won't stop me, since I don't have a career as a pundit.
Here's my quasi-objective system: I rank each candidate on four attributes (Good Humor, Charisma, Policy, and Demographics), assigning 0-10 points for each, then add up all points and see who our most likely candidate is. First, the Democratic nomination:
Using the top 13 candidates from a previous post (link), I've moved a few candidates up/down (thanks to a better look at several) and have:
Joe Biden. Good Humor: 9 Charisma: 5 Policy: 5 Demographics: 2
Kirsten Gillibrand. Humor: 3 Charisma: 5 Policy: 7 Demographics: 6
Steve Bullock. Humor: Charisma: Policy: Demographics:
Michael Bloomberg. Humor: 4 Charisma: 3 Policy: 8 Demographics: 3
John Hickenlooper. Humor: 6 Charisma: 4 Policy: 6 Demographics: 6
Hillary Clinton. Humor: 4 Charisma: 6 Policy: 9 Demographics: 4
Jay Inslee. Humor: Charisma: Policy: Demographics:
Kamala Harris. Humor: 5 Charisma: 6 Policy: 7 Demographics: 7
Beto O’Rourke. Humor: 5 Charisma: 7 Policy: 5 Demographics: 8
Elizabeth Warren. Humor: 6 Charisma: 5 Policy: 10 Demographics: 5
Julian Castro. Humor: 7 Charisma: 8 Policy: 5 Demographics: 7
Cory Booker. Humor: 9 Charisma: 7 Policy: 6 Demographics: 6
Amy Klobuchar. Humor: 8 Charisma: 5 Policy: 8 Demographics: 9
And what do I mean by "Good Humor, "Charisma", "Policy", and "Demographics"? Well, here's a discussion of each candidate with those criteria in mind:
Biden: He's comfortable in his own skin (good humor), but other than that, he doesn't have the Charisma, nor policy record to keep the good grades coming. In fact, like his Demographics (older, white male, Eastern state) his policy record over the years has big potholes (voted for the Iraq war, for tightening bankruptcy regulations, etc.). But, he has two pluses that would likely boost his overall score into the mid-20s, namely, that he has the stature (former Senator, Veep) and appeals to a key demographic: White, blue collar men (for practical-minded voters). Score 21 (bonus 2 + 3) = 26
Gillibrand: She has a keen grasp of several important issues (generally, 'me too' concerns, health care); but, though she's young, and female, she represents an eastern state, New York, and doesn't yet have the experience that allows one's charisma to blossom. Score = 21
Bloomberg: A former mayor of New York, wealthy businessman (Bloomberg TV, etc.), and successful funder of noteworthy causes, his score reaches this high because of bonuses (for executive experience and wealth). Score: 18 (bonus 2 + 1) = 21
Hickenlooper: The former governor of Colorado has the electoral success, business background, and centrist views to win in the general election (imagine Arizona tipping Blue thanks to Hickenlooper--a solid Blue west would mean a much easier path to 270). But not many voters sense these things (as opposed to Biden's bonus points, which are easier to fathom). Score = 22
Clinton: 2016's nominee probably has what it takes to win. She knows policy inside out, and has a sense of what isn't and what is possible, policy-wise, in that attempt to win. The fact that she was likely a victim of electoral theft shouldn't diminish her appeal. But she's four years older. Score = 23
Harris: She has no down-side, scoring well across the board. Though not over-powering in any of our four categories, she has room to develop. The one possible draw-back is that she hails from California, rather than from a state/region where her roots might tip the balance.
I watched her appearance on Colbert recently, and have sympathy for anyone in her shoes. She couldn't announce her candidacy quite yet, so, was reserved. No doubt the experience gave her a chance to see what running would be like. Score: 25
O'Rourke: It's tempting to rank O'Rourke higher, across the board, especially his Charisma. But he's young (humor), and relatively middle-of-the-road compared to the national Democratic electorate (policy). His Charisma has great potential, because he's the genuine article; and a young, energetic champion from Texas is Demographic gold (if Texas turned Blue, the election would be all over before it even started; the youth vote, meanwhile, is something candidate Obama showed how to bring out).
Score: 25
Warren: The only candidate to rank as a '10' in any category, her policy ideas are right on the money. Forcing corporations to value their workers and their social footprint, rather than just being greedy, is the inventive Edison Medicine. Her populism is not only right for what ails us, it's popular, and could conceivably pull the typical blue collar voter over to the Democratic column. But, she's older, and comes from the East coast--Massachusetts no less. Score: 26
Castro: Normally, charisma develops in tandem with a career. In Castro's case, he's a natural. And, like O'Rourke, he's a Texan with the potential to turn the state Blue. He even has many progressive issue positions that would appeal to the Democrat base, but he probably doesn't have the experience to hammer away, or propose new ideas, the way a Warren does. But, it's early days. Score: 26
Booker: Booker seems to bubble over with good humor. In fact, it's tempting to give him a '10'. He makes friends with those he meets. Would this translate to a national audience? His policy grasp is good, and he's known for working with Republicans to pass legislation. Unfortunately, he's a senator from a reliably Blue eastern states, New Jersey, and he's unmarried. But he projects youth, vigor, excitement, and drive, which is why he's this close to #1. Score: 28
Klobuchar: She's the under-the-radar candidate, with average Charisma, but with a naturalness and unthreatening manner that would appeal to many mid-westerners--which is what Democrats probably need to nail down a win (Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan, maybe even Ohio). And with Iowa the first contest of a compact primary election season, she has a likely come-from-behind scenario all but written out for her. Score: 30
Since I last posted this list, I've moved O'Rourke up several spaces, and given Biden several bonus points--I still think it unlikely that he'll run, however.
Further Update (1/31): Good news and (possibly) bad for Harris. Her announcement unfolded brilliantly, evincing a truly professional organization. The possibly bad news: she's on tape suggesting all private health insurance could be done away with. This places her in the vanguard, but could be used to scare general election voters. A more prudent approach would be to embrace alternatives to disfunction, in general terms. But, this is a race to capture the nomination, so the next time I publish this list, she'll likely have moved up a few spaces.
Note: Montana governor Bullock and Washington governor Inslee are yet to be rated, since I've yet to see them live. Also, on the Republican side, Maryland governor Hogan has indicated an interest.
And now on to the Republicans--this time as general election candidates:
Donald Trump: Humor: 0 Charisma: 9 Policy: 4 Demographics: 4
Mike Pence: Humor: 1 Charisma: 4 Policy: 6 Demographics: 9
Mitt Romney: Humor: 6 Charisma: 5 Policy: 6 Demographics: 5
John Kasich: Humor: 6 Charisma: 5 Policy: 7 Demographics: 9
Trump: At this point, he's a basket case. He's obviously guilty of myriad crimes and bad calls. He insists on sticking to his base of 40%, refusing to appeal to others. He never smiles (naturally). His theatrical Charisma has probably lost all its power to win over the undecided. His policy set will bring him the nomination if he lasts that long, but he needs bonus points to come anywhere near the top ten Democrats. An older, over-weight, big-mouth white guy from the east coast who's clearly out of his depth ranks a disastrous '4' on demographics (minor appeal to rural, blue collar workers). Score: 17 (bonus points: 9, for sitting president) = 26
Pence: He's ready and waiting for a bullpen call. If he gets it, he'll likely seem a lot more formidable than he does now. Much of his on-screen presence has seemed stifling--just appearing 'proper'; so, not much Charisma, let alone 'good humor'. Otherwise, he'd be a likely candidate in that he comes from the midwest. Score: 20 (bonus points are less for unelected Prez): 6 = 26
Romney: An average rating with nothing that says 'exciting', or 'I'm the one'. But, he was the Republican nominee in 2012. Now a senator from Utah, he could claim some relevancy in a state like Arizona or perhaps Nevada (he won AZ in 2012, but lost NV to Obama). A likely loser in an age when corporate restructuring (his business specialty) is viewed with deserved suspicion. Score: 22
Kasich: The obvious choice if the Republicans want to win. Being the former governor of Ohio, he could appeal to midwestern voters that Red needs to win. He's jolly at times, but comes across as serious. Unfortunately for him, he's less than the Trump base would like in a conservative. If Trump departs, expect Kasich to either fight it out with Pence for the nomination, or clear the field for him. Score: 27
...........................
Update: 1/12/19
Ok, I've gotten some push-back on Klobuchar, and have now studied her perceived less-than-progressive votes in the senate (link, just click on an issue, then a sub-category, to see how her votes were judged), and agree that she may have a few weaknesses in an electorate of only Democratic voters: Gun Control (carrying guns on Amtrak, for example); Privacy (allow government spying on US citizens); Health Care (removing a tax--that supported ObamaCare--on pediatric devices, also not approving additional funding for CHIP); GMOs (not requiring GMO labeling on food packages); and Trade (approving the free-trade agreement with Panama). All relatively minor concerns.
Now, it's tempting to explain away these questionable votes as horse-trading, voting strategically, or maintaining a reputation for common sense (for example, she voted for an amendment to ObamaCare that would prevent any families making $200,000 or less from having to pay more in taxes as a result of the ACA--it was likely a poison pill, meant to sabotage; but did she know ahead of time that it would fail?), but, tempting or not, I wasn't there to know, and so I won't try to explain. Suffice it to say that tacking to the center is not necessarily a bad thing if it means the odds of your side losing a senate seat are considerably less.
Same goes for the presidency. The more cautious you are, the less interested you're likely to be in ambitious proposals like Free College, Jobs For All, Guaranteed Incomes, Single-Payer Health Care, Reparations for Black and Native Americans, the Decriminalization of Drugs, not to mention the Decriminalization of Sex Work, even though a case, convincing or not, can be made on humanitarian grounds for each. And caution is sometimes the difference between winning and losing.
Candidates pick issues to identify with based on the possible, as they see it, with an eye to judging what is doable. That's just politics. It's like deciding whether to ask your friend to stop swearing when you're together in public. Or, considering a word to your spouse about helping the homeless. Is saying something worth it in the long run? Politicians make equivalent decisions all the time. That's how we know whether they've got what it takes.
Tuesday, January 1, 2019
When "Mind Blown" Really Means It
A Count Down Of 19 Least- To Most- Mind-Blowing Stories
.................
The Atlantic published an article that linked to a staggering 83 "(of) (t)he most extreme, most sobering, and zaniest facts that [our] science, technology, and health reporters learned [in 2018]." Read it here.
Since few people have time to read all 83, I'm counting down these stories, starting at the 19th most seismic, in my opinion, and proceeding to #1. What you'll miss are the merely informative, intriguing and even remarkable. And yes, I'll write a bit about each epiphany.
...............
19. The number of exclamation points now necessary to convey genuine enthusiasm online is, according to most internet users, three.
This is a good example of a dud "blown mind". Interesting, but hardly disruptive of expectations.
18. After one year in America, just 8 percent of immigrants are obese, but among those who've lived in the U.S. for 15 years, the obesity rate is 19 percent.
Is there something about American culture that encourages indulgence? A failure to set limits? To look for total, immediate gratification, now? If we're different, that does verge on the mind blowing.
17. You can reconstruct a pretty decent record of historical whaling intensity by measuring the stress hormones in the earwax of a few dozen whales.
Could future generations look back on our treatment of animals--especially highly intelligent creatures--as something akin to how we now see sexual assault?
16. Kids under the age of 8 spend 65 percent of their online time on YouTube.
Are we conducting one huge science experiment on the human species? Are kids losing a sense of themselves as actors, and instead becoming mere watchers?
15. When your eyes look right, your eardrums bulge to the left, and vice versa. And the eardrums move 10 milliseconds before the eyes do. What else don't we know about how our bodies function? Or, could we have reached a stage in human consciousness where we're truly masters of our own physicality?
.................
The Atlantic published an article that linked to a staggering 83 "(of) (t)he most extreme, most sobering, and zaniest facts that [our] science, technology, and health reporters learned [in 2018]." Read it here.
Since few people have time to read all 83, I'm counting down these stories, starting at the 19th most seismic, in my opinion, and proceeding to #1. What you'll miss are the merely informative, intriguing and even remarkable. And yes, I'll write a bit about each epiphany.
...............
19. The number of exclamation points now necessary to convey genuine enthusiasm online is, according to most internet users, three.
This is a good example of a dud "blown mind". Interesting, but hardly disruptive of expectations.
18. After one year in America, just 8 percent of immigrants are obese, but among those who've lived in the U.S. for 15 years, the obesity rate is 19 percent.
Is there something about American culture that encourages indulgence? A failure to set limits? To look for total, immediate gratification, now? If we're different, that does verge on the mind blowing.
17. You can reconstruct a pretty decent record of historical whaling intensity by measuring the stress hormones in the earwax of a few dozen whales.
Could future generations look back on our treatment of animals--especially highly intelligent creatures--as something akin to how we now see sexual assault?
16. Kids under the age of 8 spend 65 percent of their online time on YouTube.
Are we conducting one huge science experiment on the human species? Are kids losing a sense of themselves as actors, and instead becoming mere watchers?
15. When your eyes look right, your eardrums bulge to the left, and vice versa. And the eardrums move 10 milliseconds before the eyes do. What else don't we know about how our bodies function? Or, could we have reached a stage in human consciousness where we're truly masters of our own physicality?
14. The Cambridge Analytica scandal caused 42 percent of Facebook users to change their behavior on the platform, according to a survey conducted by The Atlantic....
Are we gradually shaping our digital reality? If so, the good times may only just be rolling.
13. [To begin] 2018, Amazon had 342 fulfillment centers, Prime hubs, and sortation centers in the United States, up from 18 in 2007. ...In the fourth quarter of last year, 25 percent of all new office space leased or built in the United States was taken by Amazon.
What if we're heading for a one-party state, retail-wise?
12. From 1984 to 2015, the area of forest in the American West that burned in wildfires was double what it would've been without climate change.
The fact that a few degrees difference could make much of the planet unlivable is slowly sinking in.
11. The fastest someone has ever hiked all 2,189 miles of the Appalachian Trail is 41 days, seven hours, and 39 minutes. That averages out to roughly two marathons a day.
This makes one realize how able our bodies are, if we simply put our minds to bettering them (and, yes, that's 55 miles a day, with about half of it uphill).
10. Conservatives tend to find life more meaningful than liberals do.
If you think of conservatives as trying to preserve a precious code, and liberals as celebrating the multiplicity of valid codes, this makes sense, since multiplicity isn't as easy to grab hold of. There's also the question of net worth: do conservatives tend to own more, and are thus happier with their lot in life?
9. Ivy League universities took nude photos of incoming freshman students for decades.
We face constant reminders of how far we've come in limiting 'traditional' outrages against individual dignity. Could noisy nighttime hospital rooms be next?
8. Doing a good deed—or even imagining doing a good deed—can boost an athlete’s endurance by reinforcing his or her sense of agency in the world.
The case for optimism regarding human nature gets much stronger, if, by doing good, we enhance our abilities.
7. There’s a parasitic fungus that doses cicadas with the hallucinogen found in shrooms before making their butts fall off.
Psychoactive substances have been used since the beginning of time. We may simply be a giant ant colony, our heads sending and receiving pheromone-like messages we're unaware of. Occasionally we glimpse these powerful forces that bind us together.
6. Women who've had six to 10 sexual partners in their lives have the lowest odds of marital happiness, according to one study.
Is it our lot as logical thinkers to abide by the dictum "do unto others", romantically? Or, is the study's result reflective of how many unfocused, unlikely partners there are that have to look for a long time before stumbling into a final, bad relationship?
5. The lifespan of a meme has shrunk from several months in 2012 to just a few days in 2018.
Are we speeding that fast? What'll happen when memes last a mere hour or two? Or have we simply caught up with the natural age of a news cycle?
4. Many butterflies in the nymphalid group can hear with their wings.
Surely the wonders of nature are a good place to start each day.
3. The shopping mall put a cap on consumerism as much as it promoted it.
Cynicism about corporate greed, and about our being suckers for the latest bamboozle? Or, maybe malls really are disjointed, almost alien worlds, plopped down in our community (example: the unavoidable, lingering penetration of "added chemicals" in one's nostrils, from a "pizza" outlet).
2. Some people think that quantum computing will bring about the end of free will.
The concept of a curious entanglement, that links an action with one in a distant location, shouldn't be scary to us; since this is love.
1. (Not on the list): You read this.
Much online culture is about puffing oneself up and strutting about. I don't do that. And yet you looked at my #1. That is something of a miracle in the age of three exclamation point redirection.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)