Just A Taste Of The Cragged Heights of Crazy
.....................
I do think of some pretty crazy things. But, I try to keep things reasonable here, so you won't see things like these:
* If you, like Michael Cohen, were going to prison anyway, wouldn't it occur to you that you could fake retribution against your former buddy, the President, convincing everyone you really do think he was the devil. But, because you'd built up your credibility by calling him a racist, nailing him as unfaithful, and such--what everyone already knew, or would soon know, you gave yourself the space to deny things like the trip to Prague in '16--the necessary keys to collusion with Russia, the things that would really send the Trump administration into a tailspin. Very clever. This occurred to me because Cohen had previously admitted to being in Prague in 2002; but now, he says he's never been there. That got me thinking.
* A week ago, when Vice President Pence was in Columbia, to confer RE: Venezuela, it occurred to me that a really desperate president might try to get rid of his #2, somehow staging an incident. Without a vice president, Republicans in congress couldn't possibly impeach their leader, handing over the presidency to the next in line, the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. Meanwhile, naming a new vice president could be stalled, due to things like back-ground checks. The president could, by then, put someone on the ballot for 2020, and ride out the rest of his first term without a #2.
Told you they'd be crazy.
Thursday, February 28, 2019
Your Posting Number Is 202
I Passed 200 Posts -- Who Would Have Thought?
......................
Post #202:
Just a note to say that I really am keeping these posts short. I know everybody has limited time.
And, one more thing. My posts will be numbered from now on.
......................
Post #202:
Just a note to say that I really am keeping these posts short. I know everybody has limited time.
And, one more thing. My posts will be numbered from now on.
Saturday, February 23, 2019
Seen Klobuchar Town Hall -- My Brief Comments
Tough, Smart, Electable
...................
Klobuchar's CNN town hall, which I DVR'd earlier last week (see video), and watched while having lunch just now, made me think that we have a surprisingly good politician in the race, but don't notice, because her charisma is of the feminine variety: controlled, adaptive, socially adept, intelligent; she impresses, but not obviously. Compare that to Obama's athleticism, flashy grin, and issues command. Ok, both have issues command and intelligence.
Comments:
* On the issues, she's careful to bridge aspiration with the practical. Why be for something that can't pass until at least 2023, and that'll only be a frustration voters will remember in 2022--after it goes nowhere, when instead, you can appeal to centrist voters with your prudent approach, hinting at, and then delivering more?
* Reflecting on her recent moment in the spotlight at the Brett Kavanaugh hearings, Klobuchar says she was "surprised", and admits “it was also kind of sad.” That's a normal reaction. Her performance wasn't normal, however. It was the result of growing up with an alcoholic father, as we learned from her appearance; the perfect background experience for dealing with someone who's unsteady, unpredictable, and unprincipled.
* What about her being harsh with her staff? Recent news articles have reported that she browbeat several staff members who no longer work for her. Apparently she has one of the highest staff turnovers of any senator. Social media opinions have ranged from viewing these reports as disqualifying, to those asking why similar behavior on the part of male candidates is all but ignored. What do I think? Certainly a point against her, and perhaps, tragically, her candidacy is doomed; but, the performance that I watched today makes me want to think otherwise. See this Vox piece, by Laura McGann, for a discussion of whether sexism might have something to do with the matter. Plus, as is pointed out in the article, it may be that her experience with her father, a force that required iron discipline and control over chaos, contributed to her being too strict at times.
* Interesting that when asked to say 'yes' or 'no' about free college for all, she avoided doing so; she was then asked again by the CNN host, point blank, and she said 'no' while seating herself, her head turned away from the cameras. Now that is being careful. Never say something on tape that can be aggressively used against you, especially when taking the honest approach of saying what you actually think. Note: she and I are both for free college, if it could be done affordably; but why appear eager if there is no chance of passage?
* Do I think she can win the general election? Yes. Though I'd be happy with several other candidates, she's the Democrats' best bet for maximizing their vote, mainly because she's a true MidWesterner. She combines the instinct for inspiring a younger, more diverse electorate (her views are actually quite progressive), while at the same time sounding reasonable, even conservative, and thus appealing to a huge trove of swing voters in the center; hard to do. My guess is that this gift comes from growing up in a mixed rural/urban state which has traditionally been Blue; metaphorically, she's the farmer's daughter of the establishment left who came to town and did well making herself cosmopolitan.
* Except, what about the Democratic nomination? Won't that be all but impossible, given that she's not well known? She may well surprise. And starting out with the bad news behind her is certainly better than knowing it'll emerge later. There's nearly a year before the Iowa caucuses, where she could take off as a candidate. A good debate performance in the months ahead could mean a big push after Iowa. Her town hall took place in New Hampshire, which is probably where she needs to do reasonably well, after Iowa.
Read a Jan. 15th inside look, written by Julia Felsenthal for Vogue, after a day following Klobuchar around Washington.
...................
Klobuchar's CNN town hall, which I DVR'd earlier last week (see video), and watched while having lunch just now, made me think that we have a surprisingly good politician in the race, but don't notice, because her charisma is of the feminine variety: controlled, adaptive, socially adept, intelligent; she impresses, but not obviously. Compare that to Obama's athleticism, flashy grin, and issues command. Ok, both have issues command and intelligence.
Comments:
* On the issues, she's careful to bridge aspiration with the practical. Why be for something that can't pass until at least 2023, and that'll only be a frustration voters will remember in 2022--after it goes nowhere, when instead, you can appeal to centrist voters with your prudent approach, hinting at, and then delivering more?
* Reflecting on her recent moment in the spotlight at the Brett Kavanaugh hearings, Klobuchar says she was "surprised", and admits “it was also kind of sad.” That's a normal reaction. Her performance wasn't normal, however. It was the result of growing up with an alcoholic father, as we learned from her appearance; the perfect background experience for dealing with someone who's unsteady, unpredictable, and unprincipled.
* What about her being harsh with her staff? Recent news articles have reported that she browbeat several staff members who no longer work for her. Apparently she has one of the highest staff turnovers of any senator. Social media opinions have ranged from viewing these reports as disqualifying, to those asking why similar behavior on the part of male candidates is all but ignored. What do I think? Certainly a point against her, and perhaps, tragically, her candidacy is doomed; but, the performance that I watched today makes me want to think otherwise. See this Vox piece, by Laura McGann, for a discussion of whether sexism might have something to do with the matter. Plus, as is pointed out in the article, it may be that her experience with her father, a force that required iron discipline and control over chaos, contributed to her being too strict at times.
* Interesting that when asked to say 'yes' or 'no' about free college for all, she avoided doing so; she was then asked again by the CNN host, point blank, and she said 'no' while seating herself, her head turned away from the cameras. Now that is being careful. Never say something on tape that can be aggressively used against you, especially when taking the honest approach of saying what you actually think. Note: she and I are both for free college, if it could be done affordably; but why appear eager if there is no chance of passage?
* Do I think she can win the general election? Yes. Though I'd be happy with several other candidates, she's the Democrats' best bet for maximizing their vote, mainly because she's a true MidWesterner. She combines the instinct for inspiring a younger, more diverse electorate (her views are actually quite progressive), while at the same time sounding reasonable, even conservative, and thus appealing to a huge trove of swing voters in the center; hard to do. My guess is that this gift comes from growing up in a mixed rural/urban state which has traditionally been Blue; metaphorically, she's the farmer's daughter of the establishment left who came to town and did well making herself cosmopolitan.
* Except, what about the Democratic nomination? Won't that be all but impossible, given that she's not well known? She may well surprise. And starting out with the bad news behind her is certainly better than knowing it'll emerge later. There's nearly a year before the Iowa caucuses, where she could take off as a candidate. A good debate performance in the months ahead could mean a big push after Iowa. Her town hall took place in New Hampshire, which is probably where she needs to do reasonably well, after Iowa.
Read a Jan. 15th inside look, written by Julia Felsenthal for Vogue, after a day following Klobuchar around Washington.
Planning Out A Green New Deal
From Vague Document To Action Plan
...............
Eating breakfast on Tuesday morning, before heading to work, I read a Kevin Drum column. Basically, he was asking what the Green New Deal action plan is.
So, here we go. This is what I'd suggest:
The voice we use should be the tone we'd use speaking to wavering voters in the MidWest--which is easy for me, because I live here. But why the MidWest? Because the obvious first step is to elect a Democratic president in 2020 (otherwise, a Green New Deal is all but impossible), and to do that you basically have two choices: take back Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, or, try to win Florida and North Carolina--which haven't been both Blue since Obama's 2008 win; or possibly some mix of Arizona, Texas, Georgia--some of which have been Red since Bill Clinton in the '90s.
Once we acknowledge that the MidWest is the most likely focus, we then imagine ourselves speaking with voters there. What do we say? There's no question that inspiration is required--that's why the GND combines environmental with economic goals. But how inspirational need we be? Whatever it takes to get turnout cranked up among the base, but not too pie-in-the-sky, such that the MidWest's wavering swing vote is scared off.
Plus, a reasonably inspiring message takes one more thing: hope. And while Climate Change can be painted as a hopeless mess, there is hope, especially if once we win, we keep winning, in 2022 and 2024. But, to keep winning, we want several easily achievable successes, building to bigger and bigger triumphs, as opposed to trying to bite off too much right away, losing steam and then elections, if we fall short (see 2010's tax on carbon).
Above all else, we should avoid using a tone of voice that isn't focused.
Right, but what about the actual plan? And how to pay for it.
The recent book, Drawdown, (link), which I've been reading, lays out dozens of possibilities for action. Below, I'll enumerate those that seem the likeliest for us. Essentially, we already know how to do this. All we need is the determination and funding.
So, about the money....
* Do not propose a carbon tax. Remember, we're speaking to wavering MidWest voters who for whatever reason did not vote, or voted for Trump in 2016.
* A more likely approach is a worldwide pact, negotiated with our enemies, to lower defense spending on all sides, with the resultant peace dividend used to fund the Green New Deal--along with similar efforts in all countries.
* Once a new president and senate pass the GND, 1% of our military budget would be enough for a goodwill, unilateral gesture, for the first year of negotiations that would add nations to our pact. And, the more we actually make peace, the better the world's prospects. A mere 10% of worldwide military spending would be our target for the third year. If sustained for the next six, we'd have enough funds to reach the estimate identified by the IPCC (link).
And the environmental spending....
Here we have a few easily understood, attractive ways forward. There are others that are technical, or not as wonderful sounding (refrigerant management is #1 in the book). They can all be viewed at Drawdown's website (link).
A five point countdown:
5. Planting Forests (and seaweed beds)
4. Regenerative Agriculture -- letting organic matter build up in our soils.
3. Electrified Cars and Trucks
2. Solar (rooftop and large arrays)
1. Wind
And what about those economic goals we might put forward to attract voters?
Another five point countdown:
5. Consolidate ObamaCare, adding a Public Option
4. Fund state-run Energy Conservation plans that hire millions
3. Create Tax Incentives to boost our five environmental ways forward
2. Significantly increase the Earned Income Tax Credit
1. Normalize Child Care For All
Then, several years down the road, once 2020 is in the 'win' column, and the GND is passed in early 2021, move on to even more ambitious ideas. Until then, limit ourselves to a fairly modest list of goals that can pass the senate and head us in a new direction.
...............
Eating breakfast on Tuesday morning, before heading to work, I read a Kevin Drum column. Basically, he was asking what the Green New Deal action plan is.
So, here we go. This is what I'd suggest:
The voice we use should be the tone we'd use speaking to wavering voters in the MidWest--which is easy for me, because I live here. But why the MidWest? Because the obvious first step is to elect a Democratic president in 2020 (otherwise, a Green New Deal is all but impossible), and to do that you basically have two choices: take back Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, or, try to win Florida and North Carolina--which haven't been both Blue since Obama's 2008 win; or possibly some mix of Arizona, Texas, Georgia--some of which have been Red since Bill Clinton in the '90s.
Once we acknowledge that the MidWest is the most likely focus, we then imagine ourselves speaking with voters there. What do we say? There's no question that inspiration is required--that's why the GND combines environmental with economic goals. But how inspirational need we be? Whatever it takes to get turnout cranked up among the base, but not too pie-in-the-sky, such that the MidWest's wavering swing vote is scared off.
Plus, a reasonably inspiring message takes one more thing: hope. And while Climate Change can be painted as a hopeless mess, there is hope, especially if once we win, we keep winning, in 2022 and 2024. But, to keep winning, we want several easily achievable successes, building to bigger and bigger triumphs, as opposed to trying to bite off too much right away, losing steam and then elections, if we fall short (see 2010's tax on carbon).
Above all else, we should avoid using a tone of voice that isn't focused.
Right, but what about the actual plan? And how to pay for it.
The recent book, Drawdown, (link), which I've been reading, lays out dozens of possibilities for action. Below, I'll enumerate those that seem the likeliest for us. Essentially, we already know how to do this. All we need is the determination and funding.
So, about the money....
* Do not propose a carbon tax. Remember, we're speaking to wavering MidWest voters who for whatever reason did not vote, or voted for Trump in 2016.
* A more likely approach is a worldwide pact, negotiated with our enemies, to lower defense spending on all sides, with the resultant peace dividend used to fund the Green New Deal--along with similar efforts in all countries.
* Once a new president and senate pass the GND, 1% of our military budget would be enough for a goodwill, unilateral gesture, for the first year of negotiations that would add nations to our pact. And, the more we actually make peace, the better the world's prospects. A mere 10% of worldwide military spending would be our target for the third year. If sustained for the next six, we'd have enough funds to reach the estimate identified by the IPCC (link).
And the environmental spending....
Here we have a few easily understood, attractive ways forward. There are others that are technical, or not as wonderful sounding (refrigerant management is #1 in the book). They can all be viewed at Drawdown's website (link).
A five point countdown:
5. Planting Forests (and seaweed beds)
4. Regenerative Agriculture -- letting organic matter build up in our soils.
3. Electrified Cars and Trucks
2. Solar (rooftop and large arrays)
1. Wind
And what about those economic goals we might put forward to attract voters?
Another five point countdown:
5. Consolidate ObamaCare, adding a Public Option
4. Fund state-run Energy Conservation plans that hire millions
3. Create Tax Incentives to boost our five environmental ways forward
2. Significantly increase the Earned Income Tax Credit
1. Normalize Child Care For All
Then, several years down the road, once 2020 is in the 'win' column, and the GND is passed in early 2021, move on to even more ambitious ideas. Until then, limit ourselves to a fairly modest list of goals that can pass the senate and head us in a new direction.
Monday, February 18, 2019
All That 2020 Dem. Talk
A Note, And A Fun Experiment, RE: Dem. Nomination
...................
Note:
Seems candidates like Warren, Harris and Booker did well to get in early. Why? Because when you're the first of your school of fish in the water, you don't have to think about the implications. Whereas, these candidates will send out big waves when they jump in:
- Bernie: This would seriously impact Warren's candidacy, and probably hurt lefty ideas in general
- Holder: Another Black candidate could impact race accordingly
- Biden: Would impact Brown candidacy (everyday workingman)
The irony for these guys is that getting in, with such a large pool of candidates, jams up any others competing for the same priorities.
Actually, could financial backers for other candidates get behind a rival's same-kind-of-guy competitor? Would be devious.
A Fun Experiment:
Will I Make Money? I'll list the candidates and their chances (prices in cents) as reported by PredictIt, place 100 imaginary $$ on several, then update periodically:
Kamala Harris: 24 I'll put $35 here = 146
Joe Biden: 19
Bernie Sanders: 16
Beto O'Rourke: 15 I'll put $9 here = 60
Elizabeth Warren: 9 I'll put $23 here = 256
Cory Booker: 8 I'll put $5 here = 63
Amy Klobuchar: 7 I'll put $28 here = 400
Sherrod Brown: 7
Kirsten Gillibrand: 5
Michael Bloomberg: 3
As I write this, trends are up +1 for Harris, O'Rourke, Warren, and Booker. Everyone else is even, with Sanders down -1.
Maybe by next year I'll have made some imaginary $$, though that's unlikely as a dropout's price will collapse. So, I'll definitely be looking to sell, first chance I get.
Update: 2/23/19
Wow, I missed making a fortune by not getting on the Bernie Bus. Could have sold, after price went up, and made enough to keep my imaginary portfolio in the black, no matter what. Oh well.
Update: 2/28/19
My first sell/buy orders:
Kamala Harris: 24 146 shares
Joe Biden: 18 $10.80 buys 60 shares
Bernie Sanders: 16
Beto O'Rourke: 15 60 shares (sold @ .18) = $10.80
Elizabeth Warren: 9 256 shares
Cory Booker: 8 63 shares
Amy Klobuchar: 7 400 shares
Sherrod Brown: 7
Kirsten Gillibrand: 5
Michael Bloomberg: 3
Update 3/9/19
Another sell/buy wave:
Joe Biden: 25 60 shares (sold @ .25) = $15
Bernie Sanders: 25
Kamala Harris: 22 146 shares (buy 17 shares x .22 = 3.74) = 163 shares
Beto O'Rourke: 19
Elizabeth Warren: 7 256 shares
Cory Booker: 18 63 shares (60 sold @ .18) = $10.80 = 3 shares
Amy Klobuchar: 6 400 shares ($25.80 x .06 = 430 shares) = 830 shares
Kirsten Gillibrand: 5
...................
Note:
Seems candidates like Warren, Harris and Booker did well to get in early. Why? Because when you're the first of your school of fish in the water, you don't have to think about the implications. Whereas, these candidates will send out big waves when they jump in:
- Bernie: This would seriously impact Warren's candidacy, and probably hurt lefty ideas in general
- Holder: Another Black candidate could impact race accordingly
- Biden: Would impact Brown candidacy (everyday workingman)
The irony for these guys is that getting in, with such a large pool of candidates, jams up any others competing for the same priorities.
Actually, could financial backers for other candidates get behind a rival's same-kind-of-guy competitor? Would be devious.
A Fun Experiment:
Will I Make Money? I'll list the candidates and their chances (prices in cents) as reported by PredictIt, place 100 imaginary $$ on several, then update periodically:
Kamala Harris: 24 I'll put $35 here = 146
Joe Biden: 19
Bernie Sanders: 16
Beto O'Rourke: 15 I'll put $9 here = 60
Elizabeth Warren: 9 I'll put $23 here = 256
Cory Booker: 8 I'll put $5 here = 63
Amy Klobuchar: 7 I'll put $28 here = 400
Sherrod Brown: 7
Kirsten Gillibrand: 5
Michael Bloomberg: 3
As I write this, trends are up +1 for Harris, O'Rourke, Warren, and Booker. Everyone else is even, with Sanders down -1.
Maybe by next year I'll have made some imaginary $$, though that's unlikely as a dropout's price will collapse. So, I'll definitely be looking to sell, first chance I get.
Update: 2/23/19
Wow, I missed making a fortune by not getting on the Bernie Bus. Could have sold, after price went up, and made enough to keep my imaginary portfolio in the black, no matter what. Oh well.
Update: 2/28/19
My first sell/buy orders:
Kamala Harris: 24 146 shares
Joe Biden: 18 $10.80 buys 60 shares
Bernie Sanders: 16
Beto O'Rourke: 15 60 shares (sold @ .18) = $10.80
Elizabeth Warren: 9 256 shares
Cory Booker: 8 63 shares
Amy Klobuchar: 7 400 shares
Sherrod Brown: 7
Kirsten Gillibrand: 5
Michael Bloomberg: 3
Update 3/9/19
Another sell/buy wave:
Joe Biden: 25 60 shares (sold @ .25) = $15
Bernie Sanders: 25
Kamala Harris: 22 146 shares (buy 17 shares x .22 = 3.74) = 163 shares
Beto O'Rourke: 19
Elizabeth Warren: 7 256 shares
Cory Booker: 18 63 shares (60 sold @ .18) = $10.80 = 3 shares
Amy Klobuchar: 6 400 shares ($25.80 x .06 = 430 shares) = 830 shares
Kirsten Gillibrand: 5
What Corrupted Pop Music (expanded)
Something Nasty Happened Behind The Woodshed
........................(This article was originally published on January 12th with only seven reasons; this is an expanded version.)
........................
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 ten possible reasons, beginning with #10, and arriving at #1, the most likely culprit.
#10: 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 place of worship). What do all these venues have in common? They all involve music that's approved of, and almost always played competently, with attendees who must listen or be considered rude. This reinforces traditional social norms and 'accepted' music structure. Sure, there's 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 for a performance.
#9: Unbridled Masculinity. There's nothing inherently wrong with hard-edged, slightly aggressive music. The golden age of rock in the late 1960s had its whirlwind of machismo in performers like Led Zeppelin, Jimi Hendrix, the Rolling Stones, even Janis Joplin and her Big Brother and the Holding Company. But the Doors, for example, who can be praised for their jazz stylings and revolutionary departures, were nevertheless disturbingly violent and sexist in some ways. Was the urge listeners felt to break down old, tired formats too great? Did the slashing, dashing, bad boys of yore allow us to accommodate ourselves too easily to what came later--the johnny-one-notes emphasizing other things besides sound, like on-stage prancing, strident flailing of hair and limb, outrageous costumes and cheesy regalia?
#8: Another Time. Have we entered another time zone, where music as a form is now all but moot? Perhaps when anticipating and passing over into the 21st century, we unconsciously began focusing on something else besides the interior construction of geometric shapes in our minds, and instead began responding to other joys, like identity ("That woman speaks to me."), gesture (watch that majesty in motion), and accessories (that video in the background, and those fireworks).
#7: The Collector. Starting in the late '50s and '60s the number of records sold to the public skyrocketed. Most of 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.
#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 is impossible--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 secondarily, good music.
#5: Cleverness, Rewarded. Aspiring artists in a sea of similar voices feel the need to set themselves apart. This encourages commercialism (the gimmick that'll attract attention, rather than the song that'll compete with dozens of similar offerings). Flashy dress, suggestive or explicit lyrics, thundering, captivating shows, easier tunes that hammer away at the basics.
#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. This is especially true for those permanently grossed out by, and never to return to 'pop', who instead adhere to the 'acceptable', conservative, and preponderantly bland Country music realm.
#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 harmonics 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 are often on offer.
#2: Backgrounding. Nothing will doom something more effectively than to make it so ubiquitous that it's taken for granted. Because music is heard regularly these days, and because many of us tend to listen to much the same material, it becomes easier to tune out. When, a century ago, a musical performance was a once-a-week or less affair, we listened, intently. We focused on committing musical structure to memory. We then practiced bringing it back into our minds ("Yes, that was the beautiful, unexpected note!"), falling under its spell again and again in our heads.
#1: Averaging. It's a fact of commercial life that selling more is better than selling less, so the unlikelier the song, 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 '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 more sophisticated music listeners are to stick around when the latest merchandise assails the ear. So, a gradually eroding 'popular' music is what's left behind.
And, conversely, the smaller the market for finely-crafted, contemporary music, the harder it is for deserving music to attract the needed attention to launch into super-stardom, thus the focus on classics of yore.
And let's not forget, young minds need experiences to share. If there's a finite universe your friends are able to talk about, well, you're there too.
.........................
For the record, I listen to Radio Paradise (link), with its additional channels that one can move between at will. Mainly it's thoughtful classic rock, world music, even some popular classical, combined with some obscure numbers, but mainly critically acclaimed. No commercials, just a mild-mannered voice occasionally pointing out interesting things and once in a while reminding listeners 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 immersive experience.
Sunday, February 17, 2019
Fun Ways To Eat Up An Hour
I Check Out A Short Website List
.......................
Gizmodo's David Nield has a fun article that lists websites, many I'd never heard of, that it recommends if you have a one hour lunch break. I'll count them down in order of least- to most- interesting:
12. Feeling Unlucky: the very last google search result for whatever you want to search for
11. Quick Draw: draw well enough for google's AI to recognize your doodles
10. Choose Your Story: follow other storytellers, or put together your own
9. Line Rider: a simple drawing game that's "more addictive than you might think"
8. Snopes: fact checker, debunker, all around interesting
7. NASA Astronomy Picture of the Day: star pics
6. Vocabulary: play games, take tests, to expand your word repertoire
5. HowStuffWorks: ever wonder how?
4. Internet Archive: check out when the internet was young; what'd it look like?
3. EarthCam: check out the view in all sorts of places of interest
2. LibriVox: free audio books from expired copyright material
1. MapCrunch: manually navigate to, or randomly jump to street views around the world
.......................
Gizmodo's David Nield has a fun article that lists websites, many I'd never heard of, that it recommends if you have a one hour lunch break. I'll count them down in order of least- to most- interesting:
12. Feeling Unlucky: the very last google search result for whatever you want to search for
11. Quick Draw: draw well enough for google's AI to recognize your doodles
10. Choose Your Story: follow other storytellers, or put together your own
9. Line Rider: a simple drawing game that's "more addictive than you might think"
8. Snopes: fact checker, debunker, all around interesting
7. NASA Astronomy Picture of the Day: star pics
6. Vocabulary: play games, take tests, to expand your word repertoire
5. HowStuffWorks: ever wonder how?
4. Internet Archive: check out when the internet was young; what'd it look like?
3. EarthCam: check out the view in all sorts of places of interest
2. LibriVox: free audio books from expired copyright material
1. MapCrunch: manually navigate to, or randomly jump to street views around the world
Medicare For All -- Aren't You For It?
A Look Under The Hood
........................
Ok, let's see why not all 2020 hopefuls are on board the Medicare-For-All bandwagon:
Not that this is the definitive study--it's only one estimate, but it gives us an idea of how much $$ it would take to transition from a private insurance system into one in which everyone signs up for Medicare:
(link)
At the link you'll find a chart that shows, over a ten year period, Medicare-For-All costing 32 trillion more than what public healthcare spending would cost if we kept our current, private insurance system.
This would be 2 trillion less (doing away with insurance companies, even while adding many more customers) than if we continued as is, with private coverage for most, and government coverage for the rest. So, 2 trillion less spent, but covering all. Sounds good, until you look further.
To get to that 2 trillion less, a switch takes place. We trade all private insurance, co-pays, out-of-pocket expenses, everything, for coverage that includes everyone in the country, paid for with a very large tax increase.
Importantly, this switch includes all employer healthcare benefits, which is a major chunk of total healthcare spending. But would companies automatically give you a raise equal to the money they'd been spending on you for healthcare? No.
Sure, those with limited means would pay less in taxes than would those with larger incomes. And if every business automatically shifted their healthcare spending to their employees as wages, hey, not such a gigantic lift. But wouldn't businesses, especially the 50% with the worst bottom lines, find it convenient to limit that transfer (if they realized they had a one-time chance to get out of debt, for example)?
And, there's more bad news: the medical industry takes a hit when paying for Medicare, and especially Medicaid. The healthcare industry makes this up with higher charges to non-Medicare/Medicaid patients. So, the industry would get a lot less income. Sure, there'd likely be cutbacks that could be made. But many healthcare businesses, especially in rural areas, are already going belly up. With lower income, there'd simply be all the more reason for a huge number of hospital closures, despite the number of patients rising.
Even if the number of closures wasn't that huge, a fear-mongering goldmine would still be there. For the young and healthy: not a problem. But the infirm, elderly and financially vulnerable (not to mention Conservatives trending Moderate) would find the uncertainty very threatening--this, even though those over 65 would see no changes.
Which brings us to the central problem with Medicare-For-All: it's scary for too many people. Sure, the 10 - 20% who don't now have healthcare, and would get it, are deserving and would vote accordingly. But, they wouldn't get it if a majority votes for president and senate based on an unwelcome tax increase. As it is, winning will mean appealing to moderate Democrats in the Midwest. We're talking about areas of the country under economic pressure that Trump was able to appeal to with his economic populism. Much higher taxes? Are you kidding?
A much more likely alternative to Medicare-For-All is the consolidation of ObamaCare (which keeps getting more popular), the offering of a 'Public Option', then Medicare for those 55 to 65, then another step along the way, like Medicare-Buy-In for all. At that point the plunge to single payer would be much less disruptive and part of a gradual change that everyone could see coming and had grown accustomed to.
........................
Ok, let's see why not all 2020 hopefuls are on board the Medicare-For-All bandwagon:
Not that this is the definitive study--it's only one estimate, but it gives us an idea of how much $$ it would take to transition from a private insurance system into one in which everyone signs up for Medicare:
(link)
At the link you'll find a chart that shows, over a ten year period, Medicare-For-All costing 32 trillion more than what public healthcare spending would cost if we kept our current, private insurance system.
This would be 2 trillion less (doing away with insurance companies, even while adding many more customers) than if we continued as is, with private coverage for most, and government coverage for the rest. So, 2 trillion less spent, but covering all. Sounds good, until you look further.
To get to that 2 trillion less, a switch takes place. We trade all private insurance, co-pays, out-of-pocket expenses, everything, for coverage that includes everyone in the country, paid for with a very large tax increase.
Importantly, this switch includes all employer healthcare benefits, which is a major chunk of total healthcare spending. But would companies automatically give you a raise equal to the money they'd been spending on you for healthcare? No.
Sure, those with limited means would pay less in taxes than would those with larger incomes. And if every business automatically shifted their healthcare spending to their employees as wages, hey, not such a gigantic lift. But wouldn't businesses, especially the 50% with the worst bottom lines, find it convenient to limit that transfer (if they realized they had a one-time chance to get out of debt, for example)?
And, there's more bad news: the medical industry takes a hit when paying for Medicare, and especially Medicaid. The healthcare industry makes this up with higher charges to non-Medicare/Medicaid patients. So, the industry would get a lot less income. Sure, there'd likely be cutbacks that could be made. But many healthcare businesses, especially in rural areas, are already going belly up. With lower income, there'd simply be all the more reason for a huge number of hospital closures, despite the number of patients rising.
Even if the number of closures wasn't that huge, a fear-mongering goldmine would still be there. For the young and healthy: not a problem. But the infirm, elderly and financially vulnerable (not to mention Conservatives trending Moderate) would find the uncertainty very threatening--this, even though those over 65 would see no changes.
Which brings us to the central problem with Medicare-For-All: it's scary for too many people. Sure, the 10 - 20% who don't now have healthcare, and would get it, are deserving and would vote accordingly. But, they wouldn't get it if a majority votes for president and senate based on an unwelcome tax increase. As it is, winning will mean appealing to moderate Democrats in the Midwest. We're talking about areas of the country under economic pressure that Trump was able to appeal to with his economic populism. Much higher taxes? Are you kidding?
A much more likely alternative to Medicare-For-All is the consolidation of ObamaCare (which keeps getting more popular), the offering of a 'Public Option', then Medicare for those 55 to 65, then another step along the way, like Medicare-Buy-In for all. At that point the plunge to single payer would be much less disruptive and part of a gradual change that everyone could see coming and had grown accustomed to.
Is The Facebook Business Model A Problem?
I Rethink My Sanguine Attitude
Two thumbnail sketches of lengthy articles I've just read:
1) Facebook's Business Model (link)
Rather than Facebook being a way for the world to connect, this interview of an early FB investor and adviser, Roger McNamee, points out that the FB business model gathers information on its users, then sells to those who want our attention; and, because anger and other ugly emotions attract easier than calm information, disinformation is at an advantage. Article in New York magazine, written by Benjamin Hart.
2) The Rise of Italy's Five Star Movement (link)
A new political movement championing online direct democracy, environmentalism, anti-corruption measures, and a universal basic income for the poor, and how it's a front for, at best, a now deceased manipulator, who demonstrated how social media can be misused. Article in Wired, by Darren Loucaides
What do they have in common? The possibility that the internet is actually more dangerous than we'd thought.
My thinking up until now has been that not only will government regulation tame social media, but that the way forward is online democracy that educates everyone as they exercise power. Knowledge is thus spread many times faster; and with knowledge comes immunity to disinformation.
But what if the threat from bad actors (Russian hackers in 2016, for one) is too great? I still think what I call approximate democracy is the best way forward. But I'd also support anti-trust action against the tech giants, along with imposing strict privacy policies as default (with an opt out option) on most platforms. This would likely force different business models on our tech friends.
And, hopefully, the Five Star movement will outgrow its behind-the-scenes wizard of Oz stage.
Two thumbnail sketches of lengthy articles I've just read:
1) Facebook's Business Model (link)
Rather than Facebook being a way for the world to connect, this interview of an early FB investor and adviser, Roger McNamee, points out that the FB business model gathers information on its users, then sells to those who want our attention; and, because anger and other ugly emotions attract easier than calm information, disinformation is at an advantage. Article in New York magazine, written by Benjamin Hart.
2) The Rise of Italy's Five Star Movement (link)
A new political movement championing online direct democracy, environmentalism, anti-corruption measures, and a universal basic income for the poor, and how it's a front for, at best, a now deceased manipulator, who demonstrated how social media can be misused. Article in Wired, by Darren Loucaides
What do they have in common? The possibility that the internet is actually more dangerous than we'd thought.
My thinking up until now has been that not only will government regulation tame social media, but that the way forward is online democracy that educates everyone as they exercise power. Knowledge is thus spread many times faster; and with knowledge comes immunity to disinformation.
But what if the threat from bad actors (Russian hackers in 2016, for one) is too great? I still think what I call approximate democracy is the best way forward. But I'd also support anti-trust action against the tech giants, along with imposing strict privacy policies as default (with an opt out option) on most platforms. This would likely force different business models on our tech friends.
And, hopefully, the Five Star movement will outgrow its behind-the-scenes wizard of Oz stage.
Sunday, February 10, 2019
Green New Deal -- The Optimist's Way Ahead
Yes, It Actually Might Occur
.........Let's make the case for the Green New Deal's success. We'll do this by replaying a 7-step argument, by Robinson Meyer, published in The Atlantic; we'll be dispelling the negative vibe of that article with a 'we can do this' message (in green type).
1. A Democrat must win the White House in 2020.
Agreed.
2. Assuming a Democrat is president, Democrats must retain control of the House of Representatives in 2020.
Most likely; but assuming the end of the Trump era, almost certain.
3. Democrats must also win the Senate in 2020. ...[T]he party will need to win at least 50 seats to control the 100-member upper chamber. (The vice president can vote in the Senate in the event of a tie.) Thirty-five senators who caucus with the Democrats are not up for election in 2020. To control the Senate, the party must win at least 15 seats.
Where do those seats come from? Democrats are considered a lock to win seven states in deep-blue territory. Four more races in bluish states (Virginia, Minnesota, Michigan, and New Hampshire) will feature popular Democratic incumbents. And figure that Democrats win Colorado, which broke for Hillary in 2016.
That’s still only 12 seats, and Democrats need at least three more. So they'll likely try to capture at least three of the following eight states: Arizona (where a Democrat won in 2018), Alabama, Maine, Georgia, North Carolina, Iowa, Texas, and Montana.
You have to give Dems (in a presidential election year, with an unpopular incumbent) the edge in at least four (Maine, North Carolina, Georgia and Iowa), while probably losing in one (Alabama). Reasons vary from ranked-choice voting in Maine, to a good candidate in Georgia, to Trump's Trade War, in Iowa and perhaps elsewhere.
4. Let’s say Democrats pull it off—but just barely. By January 2021, a Democratic president is addressing a joint session of a Democratic House and a meager, 51-person Democratic Senate majority.
Under current Senate rules, most federal legislation ["requires"] a 60-vote “supermajority”. Because the filibuster is enshrined only in the Senate rules, not in the Constitution, Democrats could repeal it with 51 votes.
In our thought experiment, the Senate will not have 60 Democrats, period. And party leadership will struggle to find nine Republicans who'll vote to end debate on a Green New Deal package. So if Democrats want to pass it, they'll likely have to choose to end the legislative filibuster.
This assumes Republicans are as intransigent as before. But what if Trump were to lose by a huge margin (say, 45/54, after a Watergate-like Special Counsel's report)? And what if there were, say, 52 Democratic senators? The chokehold of the radical Right would be lifted, and if a new era were dawning, Republicans would look longingly at the Filibuster. They would be the ones needing it, if the House, Senate and Presidency were in Democratic hands. Wouldn't a few outlying centrists agree to allow a vote on the Green New Deal in exchange for an agreement to preserve the filibuster? Especially so, if the Green New Deal were pared back to a conservation-oriented retrofitting-of-buildings, etc., effort that hired millions, and that invoked WWII-like mobilization? Here are seven relatively moderate Republicans who might agree to this deal:
* Lisa Murkowski -- Alaska
* Chuck Grassley -- Iowa
Ben Sasse - Nebraska
* Richard Burr - North Carolina
* Rob Portman - Ohio
* Pat Toomey - Pennsylvania
Mitt Romney - Utah
and four Rs from states who'll surely feel pressure from their soon-to-be-affected residents:
* Marco Rubio -- Florida
Rick Scott -- Florida
Bill Cassidy - Louisiana
* John Kennedy - Louisiana
(* up for re-election in 2022; pressure on)
I can't emphasize enough how a change in fortune at the top will cause Republicans to recalculate their odds of holding office. If the radical Right crashes-and-burns, the Center beckons.
5. Democrats do have one way to try to work around the filibuster. They might try to pass a Green New Deal through “budget reconciliation,” an odd loophole that allows roughly one bill per fiscal year to pass out of the Senate with a simple majority of votes.
If the current increase in anxiety over Climate Change continues, states like Florida will begin to freak out. This will make a scaled back Green New Deal palatable for enough senators who'll realize how History will judge them if they're still on the wrong side of the issue in 2021--let alone 2022 when many face voters again.
6. ... [The Democratic] party’s caucus [in 2021] will likely include several newly elected moderate Democrats—and it'll almost certainly include Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia. Manchin, who has deep ties to the coal industry, has not been a friend to climate policy. When he first ran for Senate in 2010, he cut a campaign ad where he shot a hole through President Barack Obama’s favored climate bill.
The vote might be close, and a few Democrats might defect, but with moderate Republicans looking forward to 2022, there'd likely be 60 votes to proceed--the actual vote itself could be as low as 50-50 and be a success. And, the promise of millions of new jobs might allow Manchin to get on board.
7. ...Democrats could change their own math in the Senate. Assuming they repeal the filibuster, [Democrats would only need 51 votes to add two Democratic-leaning states to the Union: the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico] [meaning] as many as four new [Dem.] senators.
If Republicans continued their obstruction, this would be a possibility, though statehood for DC and PR, to happen, would likely best be given a vigorous airing that would take at least a year or so. Given a huge victory (the presidency and senate), the Green New Deal would be passed immediately.
2020 Dems. -- Who Should Drop Out
Countdown -- All Major Candidates
......................
An update of our previous countdown (link), which has more particulars:
25) John Kerry -- As much as I like guy, this isn't going to happen
24) Tulsi Gabbard -- More experience, then try again
23) John Delaney -- Needs more experience
22) Eric Swallwell - More experience
21) Tim Ryan - Needs statewide experience
20) Andrew Yang - Money For All -- appealing to some
19) Marianne Williamson - Different perspective, but asking a lot of Dem. voters
18) Eric Holder - Needs elective office credentials to be top tier candidate
17) Pete Buttigieg -- Charisma, but needs more elective office experience
16) Jeff Merkley -- Don't see this happening
15) Terry McAuliffe -- A successful centrist, but Clinton World revisited
14) Bernie Sanders -- Age can be frustrating
13) Joe Biden -- Another dear, older gent
12) Kirsten Gillibrand -- Next time around, she'll be a veteran Prez campaigner
11) Michael Bloomberg -- Principled (not independent), but 'money in politics' thing
10) Sherrod Brown -- Senate seat at stake, no matter how good you might be
9) Steve Bullock -- Has the rural voter lane to himself, but can't imagine
8) Jay Inslee -- His signature issue, Climate, shared by nearly all others
7) John Hickenlooper -- Needs more exposure
6) Beto O'Rourke -- Competing with many others, not the same as David vs. Goliath
--------------------
Top Five -- could be in any order
5) Julián Castro -- Others want him in race to drive Latinx interest
4) Amy Klobuchar -- Others want her in race to represent Midwest--likely key to win
3) Cory Booker -- Others want him in race to represent Black, Urban voters
2) Kamala Harris -- Others want her in race as Woman of Many Colors
1) Elizabeth Warren -- Others want her in race for her Ideas, Network
......................
An update of our previous countdown (link), which has more particulars:
25) John Kerry -- As much as I like guy, this isn't going to happen
24) Tulsi Gabbard -- More experience, then try again
23) John Delaney -- Needs more experience
22) Eric Swallwell - More experience
21) Tim Ryan - Needs statewide experience
20) Andrew Yang - Money For All -- appealing to some
19) Marianne Williamson - Different perspective, but asking a lot of Dem. voters
18) Eric Holder - Needs elective office credentials to be top tier candidate
17) Pete Buttigieg -- Charisma, but needs more elective office experience
16) Jeff Merkley -- Don't see this happening
15) Terry McAuliffe -- A successful centrist, but Clinton World revisited
14) Bernie Sanders -- Age can be frustrating
13) Joe Biden -- Another dear, older gent
12) Kirsten Gillibrand -- Next time around, she'll be a veteran Prez campaigner
11) Michael Bloomberg -- Principled (not independent), but 'money in politics' thing
10) Sherrod Brown -- Senate seat at stake, no matter how good you might be
9) Steve Bullock -- Has the rural voter lane to himself, but can't imagine
8) Jay Inslee -- His signature issue, Climate, shared by nearly all others
7) John Hickenlooper -- Needs more exposure
6) Beto O'Rourke -- Competing with many others, not the same as David vs. Goliath
--------------------
Top Five -- could be in any order
5) Julián Castro -- Others want him in race to drive Latinx interest
4) Amy Klobuchar -- Others want her in race to represent Midwest--likely key to win
3) Cory Booker -- Others want him in race to represent Black, Urban voters
2) Kamala Harris -- Others want her in race as Woman of Many Colors
1) Elizabeth Warren -- Others want her in race for her Ideas, Network
Taking A Break
What's Memory Anyway?
......................Here I am in youth--with a friend of course.
I don't remember this at all, though. Strange. On the back, in my mother's handwriting, it says this was Bangkok. Ok. I would've been about five. I've read that memory really only kicks in at age seven. Prior to this we need prompts, like this photo. Maybe so.
Tuesday, February 5, 2019
Pairing Up The Candidates--Who'd Help Cory Booker Win?
The Best Match
Let's start by identifying a universe of possible candidates. Then we'll describe each contender's strengths, weaknesses, and which other candidates contribute to that contender's campaign.
Since we're unsure who, exactly, will enter the race, we'll confine this exercise to the more prominent Dem. candidates who've actually announced some kind of intention to run for President: Warren, Hickenlooper, Gillibrand, Castro, Harris, Brown and Booker.
Since he recently entered the race...
*****
We start with Sen. Cory Booker:
Strengths: Friendly, Ebullient, Studious, Tethered To Homeys, Peaceful.
Weaknesses: Lacks Attack-dog Instincts, Single, Centrist Tendencies?
The obvious match is with someone who's more of a firebrand; this, in order to reassure the dedicated base of the party that Booker's perceived Centrism isn't ascendant. And, being single, the likeliest match would be with a somewhat older woman, to avoid problems with a younger, married woman. This all points to Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
*****
Second, Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown:
Strengths: Personable, Grounded, Strong Labor Ties, Successful Electoral History
Weaknesses: One Less Democratic Senator, Relatively Unknown
Brown needs pizzaz to go with his 'old shoe' likability. Someone respected in Washington circles with name recognition. The obvious answer is Sen. Elizabeth Warren, but she and Brown are both outspoken populists. Wouldn't a different emphasis better compliment? In this case, yes, Sen. Kamala Harris would give him the 'wow' factor that he needs.
*****
And now for Julian Castro, former cabinet secretary under President Obama:
Strengths: Young, Charismatic, Team Player, Texan
Weaknesses: Relatively Untested, Unknown,
His need is for someone with name recognition. Sen. Elizabeth Warren would be perfect.
*****
Ok, let's now turn to Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand:
Strengths: Fighting Spirit, "Me Too" Champion
Weaknesses: Lacks Experience, Formerly Centrist
Gillibrand would do well to expand her appeal to people of color. Secretary Julian Castro would accomplish this while emphasizing Castro's and Gillibrand's attractiveness when trying to appeal to younger generations.
******
Next up, Sen. Kamala Harris:
Strengths: Redemptive appeal to multiple racial groups, Early California Primary, Well-Executed Campaign Roll-Out
Weaknesses: Centrist Tendencies?
Harris has excitement; she needs acceptance from the party base and appeal to MidWestern voters. This points to Sen. Elizabeth Warren and her populist message, or possibly Sen. Sherrod Brown.
******
This leads to former Colorado governor, John Hickenlooper:
Strengths: Successful Governor, Business Background, Even Keel
Weaknesses: "Fire-in-the-belly?", Centrist?
To get any traction in the race, he needs excitement. So, Beto O'Rourke (if he were running); Sen. Kamala Harris would be another possible pairing.
*****
And finally, Sen. Elizabeth Warren:
Strengths: Powerful Message, Projects Strength, Well-known, Deep Campaign, Large Fundraising List
Weaknesses: Press Being Whispered To
Warren is a top-tier candidate who would do well if paired up with a candidate of color. So, someone like Sen. Cory Booker, Secretary Julian Castro, or Sen. Kamala Harris. Likely the best bet would be a candidate from an important early state, so we'll settle on Julian Castro, since Texas would probably produce the bigger delegate haul, with a Californian (Harris) in the race.
******
As I've been suggesting since last summer, 2020 may be the perfect year for candidates to break the mold of previous politicking by joining forces prior to the primary election season--in this case working as a pair. This attracts press coverage; emphasizes the alternative to 'negative' campaigning; combines resources, and builds something larger than the sum of a campaign's parts (and, no, Ted Cruz's late primary pairing in 2016 doesn't count; also, I was advocating for this in 1976: Mo Udall, Fred Harris, Walter Mondale, and Jimmy C.).
Which pairing, above, is the most powerful? Warren seems to have the most mentions as a likely match (three). Harris and Castro have two each. This might suggest that combining their talents, somehow, would be the way to go. For some reason, I think Booker/Warren or Warren/Booker might be the strongest, but who knows at this stage?
And how would a candidate pair decide who was President and who Veep? By letting voters decide. The announced union would simply mean a coordination of messages, appearances and advertising. The press coverage, alone, would likely be worth the effort.
I will update as others jump in:
*****
Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar has announced:
Strengths: Rural Appeal; MidWest Sensibility; Bi-Partisan Record; Successful
Weaknesses: Lesser Known, Taskmaster To Staff
Klobuchar is a Woman and a MidWesterner, key demographics (especially if Trump is the Republican candidate). She values discipline (perhaps to a fault), which is probably good if she can get to the general election, and come across as a no-nonsense truth teller to Trump. She would do well to have a person of color as a teammate. Probably a lesser-known like Julian Castro or Cory Booker. We'll single out Booker, due to his energetic drive. As I suggested last year, Klobuchar, Booker and Castro could form a pact, that would work together as a team. It would guarantee a major position in the cabinet for the 3rd place finisher; the Veep position for 2nd place, and the nomination for 1st. Then have Warren, Harris and Biden handling Finance, Justice and Military matters, respectively; plus Hickenlooper overseeing Business, and Oprah as Spokesperson. Consolidate cabinet positions under these 8 principals to streamline government and enable efficient decision-making, while operating as a team.
*****
Let's start by identifying a universe of possible candidates. Then we'll describe each contender's strengths, weaknesses, and which other candidates contribute to that contender's campaign.
Since we're unsure who, exactly, will enter the race, we'll confine this exercise to the more prominent Dem. candidates who've actually announced some kind of intention to run for President: Warren, Hickenlooper, Gillibrand, Castro, Harris, Brown and Booker.
Since he recently entered the race...
*****
We start with Sen. Cory Booker:
Strengths: Friendly, Ebullient, Studious, Tethered To Homeys, Peaceful.
Weaknesses: Lacks Attack-dog Instincts, Single, Centrist Tendencies?
The obvious match is with someone who's more of a firebrand; this, in order to reassure the dedicated base of the party that Booker's perceived Centrism isn't ascendant. And, being single, the likeliest match would be with a somewhat older woman, to avoid problems with a younger, married woman. This all points to Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
*****
Second, Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown:
Strengths: Personable, Grounded, Strong Labor Ties, Successful Electoral History
Weaknesses: One Less Democratic Senator, Relatively Unknown
Brown needs pizzaz to go with his 'old shoe' likability. Someone respected in Washington circles with name recognition. The obvious answer is Sen. Elizabeth Warren, but she and Brown are both outspoken populists. Wouldn't a different emphasis better compliment? In this case, yes, Sen. Kamala Harris would give him the 'wow' factor that he needs.
*****
And now for Julian Castro, former cabinet secretary under President Obama:
Strengths: Young, Charismatic, Team Player, Texan
Weaknesses: Relatively Untested, Unknown,
His need is for someone with name recognition. Sen. Elizabeth Warren would be perfect.
*****
Ok, let's now turn to Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand:
Strengths: Fighting Spirit, "Me Too" Champion
Weaknesses: Lacks Experience, Formerly Centrist
Gillibrand would do well to expand her appeal to people of color. Secretary Julian Castro would accomplish this while emphasizing Castro's and Gillibrand's attractiveness when trying to appeal to younger generations.
******
Next up, Sen. Kamala Harris:
Strengths: Redemptive appeal to multiple racial groups, Early California Primary, Well-Executed Campaign Roll-Out
Weaknesses: Centrist Tendencies?
Harris has excitement; she needs acceptance from the party base and appeal to MidWestern voters. This points to Sen. Elizabeth Warren and her populist message, or possibly Sen. Sherrod Brown.
******
This leads to former Colorado governor, John Hickenlooper:
Strengths: Successful Governor, Business Background, Even Keel
Weaknesses: "Fire-in-the-belly?", Centrist?
To get any traction in the race, he needs excitement. So, Beto O'Rourke (if he were running); Sen. Kamala Harris would be another possible pairing.
*****
And finally, Sen. Elizabeth Warren:
Strengths: Powerful Message, Projects Strength, Well-known, Deep Campaign, Large Fundraising List
Weaknesses: Press Being Whispered To
Warren is a top-tier candidate who would do well if paired up with a candidate of color. So, someone like Sen. Cory Booker, Secretary Julian Castro, or Sen. Kamala Harris. Likely the best bet would be a candidate from an important early state, so we'll settle on Julian Castro, since Texas would probably produce the bigger delegate haul, with a Californian (Harris) in the race.
******
As I've been suggesting since last summer, 2020 may be the perfect year for candidates to break the mold of previous politicking by joining forces prior to the primary election season--in this case working as a pair. This attracts press coverage; emphasizes the alternative to 'negative' campaigning; combines resources, and builds something larger than the sum of a campaign's parts (and, no, Ted Cruz's late primary pairing in 2016 doesn't count; also, I was advocating for this in 1976: Mo Udall, Fred Harris, Walter Mondale, and Jimmy C.).
Which pairing, above, is the most powerful? Warren seems to have the most mentions as a likely match (three). Harris and Castro have two each. This might suggest that combining their talents, somehow, would be the way to go. For some reason, I think Booker/Warren or Warren/Booker might be the strongest, but who knows at this stage?
And how would a candidate pair decide who was President and who Veep? By letting voters decide. The announced union would simply mean a coordination of messages, appearances and advertising. The press coverage, alone, would likely be worth the effort.
I will update as others jump in:
*****
Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar has announced:
Strengths: Rural Appeal; MidWest Sensibility; Bi-Partisan Record; Successful
Weaknesses: Lesser Known, Taskmaster To Staff
Klobuchar is a Woman and a MidWesterner, key demographics (especially if Trump is the Republican candidate). She values discipline (perhaps to a fault), which is probably good if she can get to the general election, and come across as a no-nonsense truth teller to Trump. She would do well to have a person of color as a teammate. Probably a lesser-known like Julian Castro or Cory Booker. We'll single out Booker, due to his energetic drive. As I suggested last year, Klobuchar, Booker and Castro could form a pact, that would work together as a team. It would guarantee a major position in the cabinet for the 3rd place finisher; the Veep position for 2nd place, and the nomination for 1st. Then have Warren, Harris and Biden handling Finance, Justice and Military matters, respectively; plus Hickenlooper overseeing Business, and Oprah as Spokesperson. Consolidate cabinet positions under these 8 principals to streamline government and enable efficient decision-making, while operating as a team.
*****
Sunday, February 3, 2019
Should I Be Paying To Read Content?
Journalism's Business Model
...................
It's a bit discouraging to click through to a promising article, and find it's behind a paywall. I could fork over the subscription, or I could move on. Save for one laughable accident, I've never signed up for a subscription after hitting a paywall. But, I subscribe to publications that have recently implemented paywalls. What, then, would it take to jolt me into clicking the 'subscribe' button?
First, here's the media I pay for, in countdown format:
10. My local newspaper -- News, but does have some opinion I find distasteful.
9. Time -- I usually don't read a lot, but occasionally I do more than skim.
8. The New York Review of Books -- Exposes me to tastefully written, deeper reading.
7. The Atlantic -- (my brother pays for this) I read most James Fallows material.
6. Mother Jones -- (online donations); I read most everything Kevin Drum blogs about.
5. PBS - (anonymous subscription via United Way) -- I watch the occasional program.
4. Radio Paradise -- (occasional donation) the music station I like.
3. NPR - (anonymous subscription via United Way) - Informative, entertaining.
2. The New Yorker -- Sophistication; and stylistic perfection. Follow the cartoons.
1. The Washington Monthly -- Innovative public policy that's usually fresh and on-point; online, I read most everything by Nancy LeTourneau and Martin Longman.
So, what would it take to get me through a paywall? Well, a sense that not only is the information vital, but that I identify with method and content.
'Content' will, of course, appeal to some and not others. Innovative 'method', though, is something that could possibly enable a brand new journalism. Here's what I mean:
What if you felt passionately about online media? Like you do about your favorite musical group? That's content. But what if you were a fan of the Grateful Dead, for example, as much for their music as for their openness to fans recording concerts, or for their life philosophy? That's method.
If I were an online publisher with journalistic tendencies, I'd be looking into methods that excite my readers. Maybe:
* Promoting volunteer content generators to full-time employees; a pipeline to generate content, while making readers and commenters feel included.
* Sharing soon-to-be-published stories with volunteer readers, who'd sign up for posted topics, then be part of a closed social media give-and-take the day before publication, followed by a few hours to craft interesting comments.
* Comment curation done by volunteers competing to advance up an influence 'ladder'.
Coupled with fresh, thought-provoking content, this outreach to a more participatory reading experience would begin with the promise of possible earnings (graduated, to encourage a long-term presence).
Instead of mere acknowledgment and swag (see this story about a college-age quiz master volunteering for BuzzFeed; also, this overview), content providers would feel they were helping construct something unique, with a very high ceiling if they applied themselves.
Use an algorithm to promote talent that most consistently identifies group 'consensus' as well as publisher's 'final say' opinion.
...................
It's a bit discouraging to click through to a promising article, and find it's behind a paywall. I could fork over the subscription, or I could move on. Save for one laughable accident, I've never signed up for a subscription after hitting a paywall. But, I subscribe to publications that have recently implemented paywalls. What, then, would it take to jolt me into clicking the 'subscribe' button?
First, here's the media I pay for, in countdown format:
10. My local newspaper -- News, but does have some opinion I find distasteful.
9. Time -- I usually don't read a lot, but occasionally I do more than skim.
8. The New York Review of Books -- Exposes me to tastefully written, deeper reading.
7. The Atlantic -- (my brother pays for this) I read most James Fallows material.
6. Mother Jones -- (online donations); I read most everything Kevin Drum blogs about.
5. PBS - (anonymous subscription via United Way) -- I watch the occasional program.
4. Radio Paradise -- (occasional donation) the music station I like.
3. NPR - (anonymous subscription via United Way) - Informative, entertaining.
2. The New Yorker -- Sophistication; and stylistic perfection. Follow the cartoons.
1. The Washington Monthly -- Innovative public policy that's usually fresh and on-point; online, I read most everything by Nancy LeTourneau and Martin Longman.
So, what would it take to get me through a paywall? Well, a sense that not only is the information vital, but that I identify with method and content.
'Content' will, of course, appeal to some and not others. Innovative 'method', though, is something that could possibly enable a brand new journalism. Here's what I mean:
What if you felt passionately about online media? Like you do about your favorite musical group? That's content. But what if you were a fan of the Grateful Dead, for example, as much for their music as for their openness to fans recording concerts, or for their life philosophy? That's method.
If I were an online publisher with journalistic tendencies, I'd be looking into methods that excite my readers. Maybe:
* Promoting volunteer content generators to full-time employees; a pipeline to generate content, while making readers and commenters feel included.
* Sharing soon-to-be-published stories with volunteer readers, who'd sign up for posted topics, then be part of a closed social media give-and-take the day before publication, followed by a few hours to craft interesting comments.
* Comment curation done by volunteers competing to advance up an influence 'ladder'.
Coupled with fresh, thought-provoking content, this outreach to a more participatory reading experience would begin with the promise of possible earnings (graduated, to encourage a long-term presence).
Instead of mere acknowledgment and swag (see this story about a college-age quiz master volunteering for BuzzFeed; also, this overview), content providers would feel they were helping construct something unique, with a very high ceiling if they applied themselves.
Use an algorithm to promote talent that most consistently identifies group 'consensus' as well as publisher's 'final say' opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)