Getting Back To A Shared Reality

 #306: No "Going Back To 1950s" Unity.   Oh Yeah?

.........................

In The Atlantic, Derek Thompson makes the case that since the 1950s, news, entertainment, and community spirit in general, have all splintered into countless micro-audiences, with each segment sharing little in common.  And Covid-19 has simply underlined that fragmentation.  Politically, this has lead to alternate realities for all media whose model features feeding on one's own propaganda.  We've become a sorry example of disunity, despite our nation's identity arguing otherwise.

At the risk of reaching for the unlikely, here's me imagining a turnaround:

1.  For a new president taking office amid a pandemic, the first instinct will be to communicate hope and encouragement.

2.  With anti-establishment media counter-programming blast furnace negativity, the only way forward will be a positive message that directs attention to a brighter future.

3.  So, rather than predictable and boring, or worse, angry and combative, make each presidential appearance/initiative a showcase for talent and participation.

4.  Announce ahead of time a topic for discussion.  Example: Affordable Housing.  Start with a joke, promise music later on, introduce guests, including celebrities, and--for our example--the Housing (HUD) secretary.

5.  Ahead of time, post a link on social media to a site that records statements, and gathers answers to questions.  Example: "If the US government paid to have your home insulated, and over the next ten years, the savings on your utility bills paid back that investment, would you sign up (after ten years, all the savings would be yours)?  At the end of each show, announce results.

6.  Hire talk/comedy show writers and producers.  Fashion once-a-week shows around specific topics.  The tone would be up-beat, slightly amusing.  Include skits, video shorts and cartoons to keep things fun.  The main feature would of course be introducing a possible government program or legislative initiative, with the President, Vice President, or cabinet secretary leading a relatively fast-paced introduction and brief conversation.  A link would lead to much deeper programming.

7.  It's here that I add a new twist to my previous suggestion that building a must-see video presentation for viewers is how one could conceivably control the political conversation.  In addition to a question / polling component used to drive an agenda, include a forum wherein people can deliberate.

8.  A dot.gov forum would bring people of varying political beliefs together to discuss issues.  Maybe:

  * An 'official', moderated discussion group considering the current week's topic.  

  * One-on-one discussions with other Americans.

  * Stratified layers of informal discussion that send 'good ideas' and consensus-builders to the next level.

9.  So, random groups of perhaps 25 commenters ('lurkers' would constitute many times that number), with those receiving the most 'up' votes able to post and vote at the next highest level, though all levels would be transparent.

10.  This funnels consensus upwards, creating a record of arguments that can be read by all, and favoring 'reality' to the extent that it follows common sense.  Though not for everyone, the challenge to the strong willed would be "Make your case, or admit your reality can't take it." This is likely to prove alluring, and may in the end change minds.  Or, even if derided as 'rigged', such a forum would attract and focus attention, which is of course paramount. 

11.  Additional concerns:

  * Ubiquitous internet would need to be a right, so as to enfranchise all Americans.  Perhaps this would eventually mean the makeover of most internet service providers, creating public, non-profit utilities with a minimum connection for everyone paid for by government. 

  * Verification of accounts could involve the usual logging in/confirmation with passwords.

  * Winnowing all comments on a weekly topic would likely be beyond most moderator's abilities.  So, moderating would involve our top 'levels', with especially salient arguments highlighted for all to read.  Moderators could be hired by the government, or perhaps would be those who make it to the top on a given topic.

  * Financial rewards could conceivably be added, especially for moderators at the top.  And, if necessary to generate interest, small rewards (savings bonds) for making it to a certain level would be possible.

  * What would the formula be for organizing a given topic?  For the week's main topic, each 24-hour period would randomly generate as many 25-person groups at the base level as needed.  Every few hours, those with the most 'up' votes per post (across all 'base level' groups) would receive a notice that they could post at the next level.  Their most popular posts would automatically occur at that higher level as quotes and a link.  Those admitted with posting ability at higher levels could then give and receive 'up' votes at that higher level.  Every few hours, the highest are advanced, creating a virtual conveyor-belt of debate, with the advancing arguments likely being those appealing to the widest range of opinions: consensus.

For topics other than a given week's chosen topic, a more deliberate pace would be employed.  Perhaps a bulletin board of proposed topics could begin one-on-one, attract more members all the way to 25, then be eligible for our 'conveyor belt' of levels as each additional 25 members sign up.

  * As a rule, our forum, because it would be transparent (anyone could read any level and any topic), would gradually educate and unite (this, for a population that has recently been subjected to intense quantities of disinformation).  And because anyone could follow the reasoning of those with alternative views, side-by-side with rebuttals, reality is bound to win out, on our forum, and at home.

Biden's Best Bet: Deliberate Pace Or Blitz?

 #305: Hodgepodge: Politics

..........................

Part 1: Is Biden Bumbling Already?

The short answer: 'no'.  Anything Biden's likely to do, and anyone he's likely to appoint, will be many hundred times better than the shambolic mess of the past administration.  Sure, there're possible missteps in appointing team members with ties to industries they'll oversee.  But, like Obama's making peace with insurance companies before passing ObamaCare, it's often better to win, than to be perfect in winning.  And then there's the Nixon-to-China concept: it's arguably easier to get powerful players, like defense and ag giants, to go along with reform if that reform is being carried out by people the big boys trust.  

Part 2: Deliberate Pace Or Blitz?

As with most things, it'll be a combination.  That's because long-term, taking the time to explain an issue means voters will understand, and be resistant to simplistic slogans.  But, short-term, delivering on promises is what will solidify voter choice.  And when the opposition party is determined to obstruct, the only answer is to blitz: plant as many seeds as possible, as quickly as possible, so any rats in the barn can't keep up.

As I wrote last month, the deliberate approach might involve 'must-see' spectacles on TV, with celebrities mixed with explanation.  Like FDR's fireside chats, make people comfortable tuning in regularly (celebrities, jokes, music), but get an explanation across: this is the problem, this is why we're solving it this way.  Aim for low-information voters.  Then, link to in-depth reporting and analysis for those who're passionate about an issue.

I know I'd tune in.

The need for speed is best summed up by David Roberts at Vox.  He makes the case that there's nothing to be gained from attempts at compromise, and everything to be gained by going 'all-in'.  

A good combination of explanation and blitz might be the threatened use of an obscure constitutional power no president has ever invoked.  Biden could explain to the American people that the country faces an emergency, and that he needs a team in place, right away.  If Republicans in the Senate get in the way, he'll invoke his super-power.  Hopefully, they'll see the light and act ASAP.  Repeat this pattern for things like Climate Change ("...otherwise, I'll have to declare a state of emergency.")  Meanwhile, promulgate dozens of lesser orders and actions.

Part 3: OK, Why Did Biden Win Big, and Dems Just Break Even?

This is in count-down form.  The biggest factor is listed last.  The first five (#s 10 through 6) all fall under Trump-vote-bigger-than-expected category which didn't overwhelm Biden's huge wave, but it meant down-ballot Republicans did better than expected.  The last four (#s 4, 3, 2 and 1) were all used against Dems by their opponents. 

10. Checks -- for low-information voters, a presidential signature on a check is a powerful statement.  Those in need can't be expected to think beyond their plight.

9. Confidence Man -- for low-information voters, a candidate who is self-assured, quick to choose words, and care-free, is attractive.  When combined with propaganda, the uglier effects of any misrepresentation and swindling can be hidden.

8. Machismo -- for the 'real' masculine/authoritarian, control, bullying, and displays of superiority are attractive.  Having a large military component to our culture means these tendencies are enhanced.  

7. Free Media - for low-information voters who happen to be channel-surfing, a live broadcast of a presidential rally can be more effective than a half-dozen commercials.  Ah, the old days, when an appearance meant 'equal time' for one's opponent.

6. Virus - for a candidate willing to risk additional infection and death, having volunteers go door-to-door--assuming one's opponent isn't taking the same steps--is a definite advantage.  Biden did the right thing; Trump's team was careless.

5. Polls - for high-information independents, knowing that polls showed a blow-out for both Biden and most down-ballot Dems, the obvious response was to split one's ticket.  It's also likely true that polling leading up to election day was under-representing Republican first-time voters.

4. Socialism - for certain demographic groups (Cuban-Americans, Venezuelan-Americans), this is a trigger word that spoils any Democratic outreach.  Meanwhile, most hoping for 'Socialism' are thinking Sweden.

3. Pack-The-Court - for traditionalists, especially 'soft' Republicans, the idea of adding more Supreme Court judges confirms their suspicions that while Biden may be okay, splitting one's ticket is the obvious answer.

2. Defund-The-Police - for those who are in any way anxious about their safety, this is an obvious arrow in the wrong direction.  Meanwhile, many looking for police reform feel they have no other choice but to get radical, as they feel they've tried everything else.  Unfortunately, low-information voters decide most elections, and violence (often 'outsiders' ruining a peaceful march) can be turned into propaganda.

1. Propaganda - not just low-information voters, but those who choose to follow biased journalism never hear both sides of a story--let alone the truth, which is nearly always the opposite of what's broadcast on certain notorious media.  Meanwhile, social media platforms have up to now done little to limit misinformation.

..........

Roll Call compares top-of-ticket voting with down-ballot, and shows that gerrymandering had a large role in the 'lack of coattails' effect.  Our #6, Republicans campaigning in a pandemic, may have meant low-information voters on the Republican side were more familiar with down-ballot candidate names.  It's also possible that low-information voters wanted Biden, but didn't have the time to vote any further (our #5, but for Dems).

Brian Stryker has a fairly convincing take: states with big Coronavirus caseloads saw bigger polling errors, pointing to a certain kind of voter more likely being at home to answer the phone: Biden voters who took Covid more seriously than did Trump voters.  Stryker estimates that this accounts for 40% of 2020's polling error.  So, the second half of our #5 should probably be our #1.

My Favorite Music

#304: My Favorites, Ranked

..................

I listen to Radio Paradise, which allows listeners to rank songs from 1 - 10.  I've done this for nearly ten years without really thinking why, until today, when I decided to add up all songs I rated '10', by artist.  Turns out there are 145.  {For artists that appeared in more than one act, I've combined their numbers in a sliding scale.}

After the list below (which includes all artists with at least two songs), I list my favorites that other listeners agree on, and disagree with (the highest and lowest average scores compared to mine).

The Grateful Dead/Jerry Garcia  12 - 15

Bob Marley  10

Joni Mitchell  9

Natalie Merchant/10,000 Maniacs  9 -13

Talking Heads/David Byrne  8 - 11

Santana/Santana Brothers  6 - 7

U2  6

The Rolling Stones  6

Crosby, Stills, Nash/ & Young  5 - 7

Allman Brothers  5

The Beatles  5

Traffic  4 - 5

Steely Dan  4

Aretha Franklin  3

Anna Ternheim  3

Neko Case  3 - 4

Marvin Gaye  3

Bob Dylan  3 - 4

The Pretenders  3

Jimi Hendrix  3

Van Morrison  3

Sarah McLachlan  3 - 4

The Black Keys  2

Led Zeppelin  2 

Fleetwood Mac  2

The Band  2 - 4

Leon Russell  2

Shook Twins  2

Al Green  2

Neil Young  2

David Bowie  2

My Morning Jacket  2

So, here are the songs that, on average, other listeners agree are the best:

(Note: to average a 9.2, nearly everyone has to agree the song is a '10')

Jimi Hendrix - All Along The Watchtower ... 9.2

Beethoven - Moonlight Sonata ... 9.1

The Beatles - You Never Give Me / The End ... 9.0

Dave Brubeck - Take Five ... 9.0

Jimi Hendrix - The Wind Cries Mary ... 8.8

Antonio Vivaldi - The Four Seasons - Spring ... 8.7

Chuck Berry - Johnny B. Goode ... 8.7

Pink Floyd - Speak To Me / In The Sky ... 8.6

Van Morrison - Into The Mystic ... 8.6

Vince Guaraldi - Linus & Lucy ... 8.6

And, compared to my list (that are all '10s'), these rank worst, on average:

Joni Mitchell - Don Juan's Reckless Daughter ... 5.8

Cocteau Twins - Alice ... 5.8

Joni Mitchell - Black Crow ... 5.8

Dave Matthews Band - Don't Drink The Water -- 5.9

The Band - This Wheel's On Fire -- 6.1

David Byrne - Make Believe Mambo -- 6.1

World Party - Hollywood -- 6.1

Tinariwen - Cler Achel -- 6.3

Natalie Merchant -- This House Is On Fire -- 6.3

Talking Heads -- Totally Nude - 6.3

A few things:

* I listen to the legacy version of Radio Paradise.  This is because my internet connection is not particularly good.

* My '10's tend to be songs with which I'm familiar enough to have established a firm opinion.  So, there are many songs that'll probably end up as a '10' once I've heard them enough.  And, so, they're by definition more recent.

* There are currently many bloggers listing their most listened to music, according to their download site, which keeps track.  Frankly, I prefer to hear a really good DJ playing enormous variety.  This means I rarely get tired of my favorites, and when I hear them they're a surprise.  Plus, I'm constantly hearing new music and artists I wouldn't otherwise be exposed to.  While this exposure is also the case for algorithms at streaming sites, I don't like particular kinds of music, I like good music.

* I've written recently about the main lyricist for the Grateful Dead, Robert Hunter, who passed away last year.  I also ranked Jerry Garcia's top 50 this summer to commemorate the 25th anniversary of his passing.

* Five years ago I ranked my favorite musicians, a list I'm unsurprised to find mirrors my unconscious choices, above.  I then updated it.

Are Social Media Uniquely Distracting?

#303: I Say 'Yes', Then 'No'

.......................

The novelist, professor, and critic, Claire Massud, interviewed in Guernica, describes modern social media as a huge distraction, draining us of our own thoughts: 

" I also see the advent first of the Internet, but then more perniciously of the smartphone, as being distractions. ...It’s like the grout between the tiles. It fills up any space that you might have to be bored, to be curious, to be daydreaming, to be inventing something or just thinking, with photos on Instagram or that stupid little fruit game or whatever it is that people do with their phones." 

There is, of course, some truth to this.  Everyone regrets at least one wasted moment, or lost month in some cases.  I can remember spending an entire day laboriously evaluating entries in a competition (something like 'New ideas for a better future'), that relied on all entrants grading other entries to establish a winner; and then the sponsor declared it a failed experiment soon after my 12+ hours.  But, as with most things, what you get out of our modern internet is what you put in.  And by 'put in' I mean the framework of limitations one uses, and the thoughtfulness of approach one employs.

For example, I have no hard and fast rule, but I generally watch about a half-hour of television per day (while eating dinner--preparing dinner is when I chat).  Likewise, I generally limit myself to about one hour per day on Twitter (while eating a leisurely breakfast).  When I post on Twitter, I don't usually combine it with reading posts from others.  And I follow just 14 people, mostly journalists, so I get my news that way too.  And, I've recently been limiting Facebook to about an hour a month (this is partly anger at Facebook's blind eye to disinformation, and partly a lack of time).  So, instead of doom-scrolling, playing games and the like (not so many years ago I played a farm-puzzle game for 20 minutes every night), I browse dozens of newsletters and their linked articles, looking for the most exciting material, then I bookmark for when I have time.  And this is all on a desktop computer.  The only time I use my phone for an internet connection is when I'm waiting at a doctor's office, for example.  Likewise, the only time I listen to music over the internet is again, on my desktop.

But getting back to what the internet and social media have to offer.  I can remember as a junior high student poring over an encyclopedia, reading factual information about China's Cultural Revolution, for example.  It was interesting, sure, but these days, getting to add my two cents to an article, and getting to send the link to all my friends?  That is just totally awesome.

Awesomeness spelled out:

1. Agency.  Teens might explain it this way: School tells me what to study, my friends tell me what's cool, religion tells me what to believe, pop culture tells me what's hot, but on my phone, I alone am in command.

2. Timing.  A common snub is to refer to something as enabling instant gratification.  And there's obviously something to that, as waiting is perhaps the most under-appreciated ability.  But, a little noticed fact of our modern lives is that we now keep time in a synchronized manner, impossible as recently as 10-20 years ago (an Apple computer I bought in 2009 was not synched, time-wise, and was usually off by a minute or two).  So, time itself is something we can now imbue with meaning.  A time stamp can even be referenced: "Hey, this is the exact minute your birth certificate says you were born."  And, of course there's the welcome variety of timing: messages that soon disappear, texts that can wait hours, postings that can wait days.

3. Contact.  I can remember, prior to the internet, trying to contact opinion page writers with questions and comments on their published ideas.  I even received letters in reply in some cases (the foreign policy historian / expert, George Kennan, for instance).  But I went to a lot of trouble to contact such people, certainly more trouble than pushing a 'Contact Us' button on a website.  Plus, without Google to direct me, how would I be able to find other writers on a topic that interested me?  I wouldn't.  And turning from people to things, places, photos and discussions, one can find what one is looking for at the snap of a finger.

4. Participation.  An important step up for children/teens, compared to pre-internet.  

There's probably very interesting research to be done with people who, as children, watched very little TV, compared to those who watched a lot.  I imagine we'd find that an only child benefits from TV, while not so much for children in large families.  And it's probably the same for the internet and social media.  Texting a friend for the first time, and receiving a return message in reply, is so wonderful, not because you don't also communicate verbally, but because it means one is included in a consciously made partnership.  Communicating with those outside one's family is a relatively big step into the world of increasingly unrecognizable contexts, steps that only get more challenging as life unfolds.  The fact that we can begin to make social decisions on our own at a relatively early age is surely a great advantage if enough supervision is available, when needed. 

5. Expression.   A teen can sit in front of a TV, soaking up all the dialog, acting, and distant settings one encounters on a typical show, but it's only when decisions are made: Where do I want to go on the internet?  What music do I want to listen to?  Who do I want to text, and what do I want to say?  that a mind begins to take shape.  Later in life, the ability to share what makes us happy, and to do so easily, is such a blessing.  Writing, photography, video, music and other common art forms--we'd be so much poorer without social media.

Gamified Work -- Done Right, What It Would Look Like

#302: Hint: Employee Opt-In 

......................

Gizmodo has a review of a recent Microsoft product that allows management to follow worker 'productivity'--to what extent a given employee uses Microsoft features over a 28-day period.  

Framing 'productivity' this way--how many times does an employee speak up during a group chat, for example, could easily prod the average worker to spit out unhelpful dialogue just to score points.  And then there's the somewhat spooky notion that Big Brother is watching your every move, a concern the article highlights.  So, ...What do I think?

Everybody can understand the desire for accountability--a goof who doesn't try, and makes life miserable for everyone else, should ideally be encouraged by gamification to help out.  Just keep it elegant and worker-centric.  But, you ask, ... Why focus on the worker?

For motivation to guide employees towards helpful behavior, each worker must be in control of their own destiny.  Otherwise, motivation drys up, and with it, success; or, coercion milks for fascist joy.

Designing boardgames as a hobby, I've come to realize that engineering a desired end--job motivation, in our case, is usually a simple matter of finding the right fit.  

If, to enhance productivity, one were to begin with an employee opt-in RE: objectively gathered data, and salaries were based on either the opt-in, or a lower, but attractive standard salary, and management never has knowledge of said objectively gathered data, something like 50% or more of a company's employees would be expected to goose their own motivation in order to reach the higher payout.  And, ideally, opt-in reports would go straight to payroll, so that everyone is 'at ease', with management only privy to an overview of how many reach the higher pay level. 

True, management is paying more for employees who self-report their enhanced productivity.  But, this model is engineered so that half the productivity goes to the employee in higher wages, and half to management in higher profits, or some such split.

The details of how the objectively gathered data are constructed are key to a model working well, but are well outside this simple outline of how a generalized system could work.

A 'Greener', Electric Airship

#301:  Immaculate Transport

...............................

According to this article on the history of airships (probably tl;dr, unless Zeppelins move you), an electric (partly solar) version is in the works.

Many years ago, when in my twenties, I checked out a book from the library on airship potential.  What got me excited was the realization that people could live in roadless wilderness, being supplied periodically from above.

And recently, while driving to work, I noticed how the drop in Fall temperatures haw revealed the uniform takeover of roadside forest by an invasive plant (in this case, false honeysuckle, which retains its leaves compared to other plants, and so the revelation).  The effect is, of course, for invasives to smother native flora.  This got me thinking.

In many cases, to ever return natural ecosystems to their original glory, people will have to actually dwell on land for a decade or two or three, even if they eventually exit the scene.  It'll be their life's work to thin a forest (to prevent overwhelming fire), re-introduce native plants, and repair other damage, on one- two- or three-thousand acres.  

Life in a wilderness, even if part of a human family, would be limiting for most people.  But with modern conveniences (internet to stay in touch, vacations to visit friends and family, some modern comforts), there'd likely be many a willing volunteer (and perhaps vacationers to help pay the bills).  Never a disturbing sound, except the occasional visit, with supplies, from a purring airship.  

Since it's almost impossible to imagine what a homestead would feel like without a road providing the outside world access to one's front door (Has anyone other than oddball hermits ever lived that way?), it could be touted as a pioneer experience, a celebration of this country's early history.  Most likely, we're talking about a state or federal program (on state/federal land) that would train and equip those involved, provide the airships/supplies, and oversee the science-based efforts undertaken, perhaps with Native American tribal advice--and participation.

When I first came up with this idea many years ago (before the internet), I sent it, as part of a newsletter I published at the time, to a friend at an environmental organization.  The reaction was that wilderness needed to be wild, not settled.  I agreed then, and now as well.  I think, though, that some wild-ish areas may need a light touch of some kind in order to return to their original health.  And, if so, it may be that roadless transport has a part to play.

Image: BBC

Science Questions The Thawing Permafrost Feedback Loop

 #300: Truth Or Consequences

.......................

If there's a scarier argument for doing something about Climate Change, I haven't heard it: 

 --- As global temperatures rise, permafrost releases trapped methane, creating greater warming

But, apparently, climate scientists aren't on board.

Fine, science doesn't care what works in spreading a climate message.  And yet, ...I just hope the scientists are right.  

The good news here: there's no reason to give up hope.  We can do this.

2020 Fall Photo

 #299:  Here's The Way Less Traveled

.............................

Biden Tele-Events: I Imagine One

 #298: Getting Facts To Those Who're Being Played

..............................

My previous post suggested that the Fox News viewers in this country could be reached by cutting out the middleman (Fox News and its ilk), and presenting television entertainment, complete with celebrities and comedians in a 'live' format.

Here's an example of what I have in mind:

President Biden has 2-3 celebrities on Zoom.  The focus tonight is explaining Science.  After a few warm-up exchanges, he starts with Neil deGrasse Tyson, who explains:

"Let's say you're guessing which size screwdriver to use.  You try a big one.  Nope.  Next size down; perfect.  That's science at a very basic level.  It's you testing something out.  In the end you find the right answer and you get to work.  The typical scientist is doing that x 1,000.  And, once that scientist finds the right screwdriver, there's no reason to keep looking.  Science is like that.

Biden then introduces a 20-second Climate Science video, emphasizing that it's only 20 seconds.  Afterwards: "Science knows the answer already.  And get this, the answer is cheaper, and creates more jobs.  So, its a no-brainer."

Next is a lighter moment with a different celebrity.

Each night's half-hour show is promoted based on the scheduled guests.  There's no killer like "Topic: Climate Change" to weed out the curious from the already initiated.

Something for each age bracket.  A general script and 3-minute delay, with celebrities and experts doing the heavy lifting.  Biden keeping it lit.

  

How Might Biden Get Himself Heard By Trump Voters

 #297: Is There A Fix To The Fake News Problem?

..................................

Trump voters rely on Fox News and other pre-configured media to keep them up to speed.  And we can be sure this'll be the same pattern in the Biden years just as it was over the past decade or two.  Or will it?

What if there was a way to reach those who question science, trust in traditional authority, and adopt the latest MAGA info with little discretion?  Well, ok, those are voters Biden is unlikely to reach.  But, what about those who had to think twice before voting for President Trump?

A possible way around conservative media, akin to President Roosevelt's fireside chats (which effectively cut out the reporter as middleman) would be entertaining, televised events that combine lighter comedy and heavier public policy, with the president as host.  President Biden could invite experts on a particular issue that he was promoting.  He could also invite comedians and celebrities to attract a large audience.  

In the age of Covid-19, such events might have to be virtual, but given improvisational talent, like a Stephen Colbert or a Seth Meyers, it wouldn't matter.  

'No' to comedy?  Fine, keep it serious.  Invite both conservative and progressive figures.  Have fact checkers on hand to resolve conflicting claims.  Most importantly, bring unbiased information to those who rarely hear it.  And secondarily, get free media exposure that could help pass proposed legislation.  Speak out.

Inside The Mind of a Trump Voter

 #296: American 'Independence' = Think For Yourself

..........................

What's it like to be a Trump voter?  Imagine not thinking for yourself, and instead relying on others to clue you in.

An easy way to imagine that reality is to remember that only recently has the human mind thought for itself.  Prior to the Renaissance and Enlightenment, just about everyone adhered to beliefs set forth by the authorities.  Not only were alternate worldviews unlikely, given a bare-bones education, they were often dangerous ("I could be shunned by my community").  And though western civilization has slowly moved toward independent thinking, we're still working at it, and there's still occasional back-sliding.

The genius of our American democracy is that we enshrined independent thinking as authority (everybody votes).  So, those who couldn't justify independent thought on their own could simply agree,  patriotically, that America's system was the best, or the least objectionable authority possible.  This unified the independent and non-independent minded.

Of course there were bumps along the way: the notion that your neighbors, boss, and local politicians would defend your rights, no matter how you might vote, was only redeemed by the late 1800s move to a 'secret ballot'--independent thought reaching its logical conclusion.  And of course voting rights have, as a rule, required expansion.

The Trump voter, though, is now able to latch onto a wholesale undermining of our democracy in the person of President Trump.  That's because paying lip service to America as 'the land of the free', and other patriotic evocations, has become detached from the essential tenets of a democracy that in fact make it 'the land of the free'.  These detached tenets include: 

* respecting the will of the people (when losing an election means it was 'rigged'), 

* upholding basic rights (when journalists are "the enemy of the people", and those assembling peacefully are tear gassed to make way for a photo op), 

* looking out for the national interest ahead of one's own (when encouraging a foreign adversary to help win an election is mere electioneering),

* evincing a hands-off approach to justice (when using the DOJ to dissemble, and fabricate charges against one's opponent, is par for the course). 

Why, then, aren't there alarm bells going off in a Trump voter's mind?  Well, that voter is either: 

A) Incapable of defending the stray, contrary impulse occurring in an ordinary life:  " ObamaCare's been good to me, but I just don't understand all the facts and figures; and Trump says he's got a plan."

B) Linked through a support network of individuals to an agreed upon underdog role: "The guys I like to hang with send me some awesome MAGA info (implicit: 'strength' is derived from belonging, rather than one's ability to reason independently).

C) Accustomed to a social order that rewards uniformity over maintaining high standards, even if there's misogyny, racism and incompetence involved: "Sure, he may have done a few bad things, but I've always voted Republican, and so's this town." 

D) Completely focused on the strange Trump charisma of jocular couldn't-care-less, easy-peasy, accordion-playing hands, age-defying hair, and weird displays of alpha-male dominance.

E) Profiting from the lowering of standards, and thus not interested in their upkeep.

Or, more likely, a sloucher's shuffle of all five, topped off and guided by access to the kind of foolhardy propaganda that tricks those lacking independent thought into believing they are the righteous vanguard.

And what does someone who relies on outside authority invariably do when confronted by a choice?  Obviously, they'll seek traditional authority where they've always found it (the Republican party, Fox News, wild-eyed talk radio), or, if these raise doubts, any source that demonstrates perceived strength (confidence, muscularity, wealth, certainty, dominance of others), for this is how authority and its followers have traditionally been defined (the underling's glory; the overlord's example: "He just tells them where to go; that's so exciting").

What is so massively ironic is that freedom is based on reasoning for oneself.  To be free is to have an honest conversation within one's mind, and to wholly own paths taken and decisions made.  

And, when choosing the best path forward, one wants all the available information in unbiased form, to determine what is valid, and what has the highest priority; that is, the best science. This internal, honest dialogue unifies the mind, and so focuses all energy on one's goal, thus freeing up energy spent on what's otherwise infighting and the suppression of impulses.  The result is freedom's unlimited potential, within the individual, and for a nation.  

Incidentally, a reliance on outside authority is why a large majority of sex scandals involve Republicans.  Since they tend not to think for themselves, and instead adopt an outside authority's say-so, the result is an imperfect mix of suppression and impulse (with the control that's imposed often an unnatural fit, leading to more impulse).  This failure to be honest with oneself and the world defines the Trump persona and his followers' delight in its aggressive manifestations.

Here's an additional discussion of why some voters will pick Trump over at Paste.

Foresight: The Year To Come

 #295: Biden's Way

.........................

Matthew Yglesias, writing in Vox (here), looks ahead to a Biden presidency, and sees a fight over a $15 minimum wage as a likely opening for getting congressional Republicans to act more responsibly.  I summarize his points, below in black.  My comments are in green.

...

1. If Biden wins, he's certain to need a big stimulus to dig out of our medical / economic crisis.

2. The likeliest way forward is a big 'Reconciliation' bill that packages these Biden ideas:

 - a universal child allowance 

  - expanding the Affordable Care Act  

  - investments in clean energy

  - increased funding to low-income schools

"with short-term boosts to unemployment insurance and state/local budgets, plus some cash for public health interventions".   These spending increases would then be offset by tax increases on the rich.  And, the entire package would only require 50 votes. 

3.  Then, Biden can entice Republicans to cooperate across the aisle by focusing on raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour, since the issue is popular (about 2-to-1 public support).

4.  Once he has cooperation, he can put forward other highly popular legislation that Republicans would also have a difficult time objecting to:

* the DREAM Act

* making sure the super rich pay their taxes

* a big infrastructure bill. 

* automatic voter registration to make voting easy

* strict curbs on partisan gerrymandering

* marijuana legalization

* universal background checks

* a public option for generic pharmaceuticals 

5.  By holding off on losing ideas like drastically curtailing immigration enforcement, excessively broad student debt cancellation, reparations, or banning private health insurance, he'd be well on the way to re-election.

Yglesias makes a compelling case.  It fits Biden's temperament (tough and bold within traditional boundaries), and is much likelier than a power grab that could easily fail (court packing, or abolishing the filibuster--justified though such actions may be).

There are a few weaknesses, however, to consider.

1. Climate Change can't wait.

2. It may take longer than expected to write a budget resolution (necessary for 'Reconciliation')

3. Republicans are unlikely to cooperate.

Climate Change Can't Wait

We may have ten years, max., before the earth's climate begins to spin out of control (as permafrost melts, it releases trapped methane, meaning more heat, then more methane...).  We simply can't wait six months to a year for a cooperative Congress to emerge.

That's why this blog has proposed modifying the Senate filibuster, rather than the unlikely path of trying to abolish or ignore it.  Instead, the Senate could decide. with a simple majority vote, that any legislation based on scientific consensus is not subject to the filibuster.  How would this be done?  My proposal is a government clearinghouse, like the CBO but run by scientists, that would assess legislation and render judgement in a timely manner.  The specifics are of course secondary.  

Would this fit with Biden's style?  It's hard to argue that science shouldn't be front and center.  Could Republicans successfully whip up opposition to the best Science?  Unlikely.

It May Take Longer To Write A Budget

In his article, Yglesias' discusses how Republicans wrote legislation during the lame duck session when trying to abolish ObamaCare and enact their 2017 tax cuts.  But Democrats are not as easily corralled.  And Republicans care less about traditional norms, like the need to hold full hearings.  Plus, why not both a big reconciliation bill and a science-based filibuster tweak?

Republicans Are Unlikely To Cooperate

Yglesias is right that a strategy beginning with popular legislation is the best way to tackle congressional disfunction.  But he admits Republicans may still obstruct.  By then, Biden's first 100 days could easily be over, and his honeymoon period too.  Waiting too long could mean that curbing the filibuster becomes impossible.  

On the whole, though, I think Yglesias has it right, save for that science-based-filibuster tweak.

Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums -- A Proposal

 # 294: What'll Remain 'Great' Once We're Long Gone?

.........................

I've recently blogged about which years on the Rolling Stone 'Greatest' list saw the most albums released (here), and which albums fell out of Rock 'N' Roll heaven (here).  This time I'm proposing a way to make the list better.

First a few observations:

   * A 'greatest' list is an attempt to answer the question: What is best.  That, of course, is a bit ridiculous, since music appeals to us depending on our mood.  But once you're on a path to 'greatness', there remain only a handful of ways to measure 'the best': face-to-face fandom (ticket sales), indirect fandom (recordings sold), popular acclaim (everyone votes), or critical acclaim (professionals vote).

   * The Rolling Stone list is a "professionals vote" vehicle.  The magazine selected several hundred industry insiders, and asked for a 'top 50' studio albums list from each.

   * Why is this the best way forward?  Because the desire to see a performance face-to-face, or to purchase a recent recording, or to vote in a fan poll, can be driven by simple, in-the-moment impulse: "Does she really shake it?", "That light show roooccckkked", even "He knows what it's like to be me".  These reasons to listen may or may not have anything to do with whether the music itself will be admired in 100 years.  Often, musical impulse has a lot to do with the art of the con job (song titles, for example, become "Wild Sexy Dollah", with the song itself otherwise derivative).

   * And, of course, professionals are only partly removed from this same subjectivity.  Googling for a discussion of the Rolling Stone list, I read of one insider who admitted to tossing out the usual suspects (Beatles, Dylan, Stones) to showcase lesser knowns (The Beastie Boys, I believe, were at #1 on his list).  This is certainly celebrating one's own aural journey, but isn't there a throwing-up-one's-hands element involved ("At least I know what I like"), and isn't this but a step above the con?

   * Professionals have their sympathies as well ("Let's be inclusive, you guys"), which is yet another step above the con, and just one step below our question: What's best?  What'll still be played in 100 years?

   * To answer that, I would submit, requires something a bit more than top 50s from an inclusive list of industry insiders.  And there is a way to get that done, believe it or not.  So, here's my proposal:

Make It A Contest

1. First, plan on a recurring update (maybe every five years).

2. Second, ask for two separate top 50 lists.  One for what speaks to the present, and the second, for what'll be considered best in 50 years.

3. The insiders polled would also be asked to list ten of their peers who they feel have the best judgement for IDing future 'greats'.

4. Among those top ten lists, the 100 whose names appear on the most lists (out of 300-400 insiders) become the core-100, and have their All-Time lists used to generate a second top-500 list: 'All-Time Greatest'.  They would also be taking part in an on-going contest to see whose judgement proves the most accurate. 

5. Voting on these two tracks would thus give us a 'What speaks to Now' list (perhaps updated every year), as well as an 'All-time greatest' list (perhaps every five years).

6. With each five year update, the core-100 would ID their most accurate predictor (defined as most albums still among the top 50, compared to five years ago), and she/he would receive commensurate recognition (as well as automatic inclusion in the next 5-year core-100.

Two lists not only allow voters an outlet for their sympathies ("What about Hawaiian music?" or "I'm so tired of hearing those songs; I'm picking something fresh."), but focus on the partially ignored question: What does speak to our times?"  This will mean a good many albums that deserve greater recognition (so maybe: Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums To Hear Right Now).  

Meanwhile, the core-100, the most discerning music professionals as voted by their peers--and who else would know--have a chance to be heard, minus the less experienced, and less serious hangers-on.

Would this give us the definitive All-Time Greatest?  It might come a little bit closer.

Previewing Biden's Plan

 #293: I Review What's On Offer

..............................

According to Jeff Stein, a reporter for the Washington Post, Joe Biden, in a recent Michigan speech, laid out his priorities for 2021.  I reconfigure his reporting:

+ Increase Capital Gains taxes on the wealthy

+ Corporate tax rate 21->28%

+ Increase income taxes on +$400K earners

- Infrastructure / clean energy plan 

- Free preschool and community college

- Affordable childcare

- Public option, subsidies for ACA

- Require feds buy US products

- $15 minimum wage

This seems about right.  Not too ambitious, which might scare off middle-of-the-road voters; but not too weak, which would fail to energize the Democratic base.

Keeping the details under wraps ("affordable" childcare, for example) avoids the criticism of being unrealistic, while still exciting potential voters.

The Biden campaign no doubt has a sense of the politically possible, and for all I know they have plans to introduce additional initiatives in their 'first 100 days', but, there's one idea that's so likely to galvanize public support for Team Biden that it's worth mentioning: Baby Bonds.

Everybody likes babies.  Everybody likes the idea of an even playing field.  We'd all be relieved if inequality were receding in the rearview mirror.  And everybody would welcome a program that partly paid for itself in less safety net spending.

Here's a thumbnail sketch:

* On a sliding scale (from $0 to $2,000, based on family income), money is placed in a bank account every year for every American child.

* Compound interest (@3%) further increases each account, so that once 18 years old, a child from a low-income household would receive something like $50,000.

* A windfall at age 18 (to be used for either college, a down-payment on a house, or a business start-up) is what, if anything, will allow those with little chance at success a solid first step up.

* The fact that it helps all low-income families, means that envy ("They got it, but we didn't!") isn't a problem.

* The price tag is surprisingly low for such a comprehensive solution, at a mere $60 billion a year.  Though, of course, that's a lot of money.  On the other hand, an economy that gives everyone a chance would do wonders for the nation's bottom line (future tax receipts) not to mention all the avoided disfunction. 

* A few questions.  If begun in 2021, does the nest egg only kick in in 2039?  That's a long way off.  Could things be phased in?  If so, the idea would be incredibly popular, since it wouldn't cost much to begin with.  Without a phase-in, it's certainly understandable why the Biden agenda hasn't included what would otherwise be a no-brainer.   So, maybe a gradual phase-in, starting with $200 a year for all 5-year-olds, with 2034 the first year for payouts.

* Here's the math for a plan that would increase payments by $200 per year, from 2021 until 2030, when each account would receive $2,000 a year:

Cost (excludes each child's $1,000 at birth)

2021: (Approximately 3% of $60 billion) = $1.8 billion

2022: $5 

2023: $8 

2024: $12 

2025: $17 

2026: $23 

2027: $28 

2028: $35 

2029: $42 

2030: $50 

2031: $53 

2032: $56 

2033: $60 

2034: Begin Payout 

Payouts: 2034 through 2040

Born in 2016:  $20,00 plus compound interest

Born in 2022:  $31,800 plus compound interest

Payouts: 2041 on: $39,000 --> ($49,936 with compound interest)

These figures are based on a plan put forward by Sen. Cory Booker (see link, above).

Rolling Stone's '500 Greatest Albums': The Goners

 #292: Biggest Misses

.......................

Previously, I tallied the RS list, by year, here.

Comparing 2003's list (Rolling Stone's first) with 2020's (its third) we find, among 2003's top 200, these 30 "greatest studio albums" that have fallen from Rock 'N' Roll heaven (no longer among the top 500):

#198: Little Walter: The Best of

#189: Quicksilver Messenger Service: Happy Trails

#188: Buffalo Springfield: Buffalo Springfield Again

#186: Sly and the Family Stone: Fresh

#183: Fleetwood Mac: Fleetwood Mac

#182: Bob Marley and the Wailers: Natty Dread

#181: The Rolling Stones: Now!

#178: The Byrds: The Byrds

#175: The Carpenters: Close To You

#174: Bob Dylan: Desire

#171: The Byrds: The Notorious Byrd Brothers

#166: Elvis Costello and the Attractions: Imperial Bedroom

#161: Otis Redding: The Dock of the Bay

#159: Kiss: Alive

#158: Elton John: Captain Fantastic and the Brown Dirt Cowboy

#150: Santana: Santana

#147: Otis Redding: Dreams To Remember

#142: Phil Specter: A Christmas Gift For You

#139: U2: All That You Can't Leave Behind

#138: The Meters: Rejuvenation

#136: The Replacements: Tim

#135: Elton John: Greatest Hits

#127: The Mamas and the Papas: If You Can Believe Your Eyes and Ears

#124: The Byrds: Younger Than Yesterday

#125: The Stooges: Raw Power

#121: Moby Grape: Moby Grape

#114: The Rolling Stones: Out of Our Heads

#101: Cream: Fresh Cream

#95: Credence Clearwater Revival: Green River

#58: Captain Beefheart and His Magic Band: Trout Mask Replica

Notes:

* Of course it's somewhat shocking to see the 58th greatest album of all time demoted to nothingness, but the probable story here is that industry insiders likely wanted to make a point, and once that point was made (Hey, it's in the spotlight!), they could acknowledge reality and move on.

* Nothing here is for sure.  I simply jotted down artists and titles found in the 2003 issue (after perusing the 2020 on-line version), I checked back with the 2020 version, and crossed out any that had indeed appeared.  Then, I did everything a second time.

* Even I can't believe that the Carpenters appeared on the 2003 list.  On the other hand, it's understandable that at least half of those on this list are from the '60s, and almost all the others are from the '70s.  It's likely that a similar winnowing will occur in subsequent decades, assuming future updates.

* If we were to look back, from the year 2037 ('03, '20, '37), to see which albums on 2020's list might have been removed, which would we pick?  Ok, I'll give it a whirl.  To make it simple, I'm limiting it to the top 58 (in honor of the Captain), but I have to pick at least 17 (since it'll have been that many years).  This means I'm guessing my picks'll no longer be top 58 material--though they'll likely still be in the top 100.  But, I can't get any wrong!  That seems fair (note, below, that I have only one pick from the top 20):

#56: Liz Phair: Exile in Guyville

#50: Jay-Z: The Blueprint

#49: OutKast: Aquemini

#47: Ramones: Ramones

#45: Prince: Sign O' The Times

#44: Nas: Illmatic

#41: The Rolling Stones: Let It Bleed

#40: David Bowie: The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders From Mars

#36: Michael Jackson: Off The Wall

#32: Beyoncé: Lemonade

#31: Miles Davis: Kind of Blue

#28: D'Angelo: Voodoo

#27: Woo-Tang Clan: Enter The Woo-Tang Clan (36 Chambers)

#26: Patti Smith: Horses

#23: The Velvet Underground: The Velvet Underground and Nico

#22: Notorious B.I.G.: Ready To Die

#2: The Beach Boys: Pet Sounds

* My biggest risk is in picking the current #2.  I figure that in another 17 years there just won't be that many active industry professionals who have any connection to The Beach Boys, and Pet Sounds' standing will dip accordingly.  Meanwhile, many more recent favorites will be replaced by the very best released in the next 17 years.

I Review Vox's 2021 Agenda

 #291: Fixing Our Democratic System

...................

Vox's Ian Millhiser recently published an 11-point proposal for fixing American politics.  I've whittled it down to a basic outline, in black.  Click the link to read the full details.  My grades and comments are in green:

1) First things first: Get rid of the filibuster

Should Democrats win a majority in both houses, eyes will turn to the Senate, which will have to choose between unraveling the filibuster — which typically prevents any legislation from becoming law unless it is supported by 60 senators — and unraveling hope that major voting rights legislation, or any other big progressive legislation, will become law.

B+  Vox's Ezra Klein has written out the full case for elimination, here.  Unfortunately, he hasn't read this blog's suggestion to keep the filibuster (Lower the vote threshold from 60 to 50 for legislation that follows the best science--determined by top scientists empaneled by Congress; this would be similar to the CBO's economic analysis, but applied to science, rather than money).  What would he think?  He does discuss the Senate's built-in Republican edge--even given statehood for DC (another two Democratic senators)--which would likely mean deep regret once Republicans are again in the majority.   

Klein and Millhiser would probably argue that voting rights must be addressed in 2021, and that requires the filibuster's elimination.  But why not create a third congressional body (after the CBO and the Science Advisory Council) composed of ten representatives, one each to be chosen by ten minority organizations (NAACP, NOW, and so on).  Any legislation impacting minority rights would be subject to a 60-vote filibuster, unless receiving thumbs up from any of the ten members (one less vote required, on a 60 - 50 sliding scale, per thumbs up from members). 

And, of course, if the filibuster is kept--perhaps the Democrats don't have enough votes to eliminate it, Norm Ornstein's idea of requiring 41 'no' votes be present to stop a filibuster, rather than 60 'yes' votes, would mean effectively lowering the 60 threshold into the mid- to upper-50s (as older senators are unable to stay at their desks for days on end).

2) Stop voting rights violations before they happen

 ...[R]equire states and localities with a history of racial voter suppression to “preclear” any new voting rules with the Justice Department or with a federal court in Washington, DC. [using] a new formula: jurisdictions with “fifteen or more voting rights violations” in the previous 15 years, or states with “ten or more voting rights violations” if at least one was committed by the state itself, [would] be subject to preclearance.

A.  Ideally, this wouldn't be necessary, but evidently some politicians can't help themselves.

3) Eliminate registration as an obstacle to voting

At least 21 states plus the District of Columbia permit voters to register to vote on the same day that they cast their ballot — eliminating the need to register in advance.

A+  There is close to zero double-voting, while disenfranchisement is all too common. 

4) Make it as easy as possible to vote

Thirty-nine states plus the District of Columbia allow early voting — in-person prior to Election Day. All but nine states either automatically mail ballots to all registered voters, or allow any voter who wishes to vote absentee to request a ballot.

A+

5) Stop running elections on the cheap

A Democratic Congress [with] few constraints on its ability to borrow money during a period of low inflation and even lower interest rates, would be well-positioned to provide [sufficient] funds.

A  This would include things like voting machines that can't be hacked.

6) A tax credit for all voters

Congress could provide a tax credit of $60 to everyone who casts a vote. As a bonus, Congress could make this a refundable tax credit — meaning it would be available to the poorest Americans who pay little or no income tax.

A-  A bit costly (~250 million x $60 = $15 Billion), but probably worth it.  Cheaper version: random drawing for US savings bonds (ten $1,000 winners in each congressional district = $4.35 billion).

7) Fix Senate malapportionment

The Senate...effectively gives additional representation to white [rural] Americans, and dilutes the voting power of people of color.

Democrats have rallied behind a partial solution to this problem — statehood for the District of Columbia. The Democratic House voted to make DC a state in June, and Congress has the power to make DC a state through ordinary legislation. 

More radical solutions are possible, for example, breaking up larger states such as California into smaller [units]. Absent such solutions, the Senate will continue to over-represent white conservatives and potentially even become a permanent bastion of Republican Party power.

B+  A perfect solution is all but impossible.  DC statehood is probably the least bad idea.  And don't forget this blog's retirement-homes-for-Black-and-Native-Americans solution.

8) Allow states to neutralize the Electoral College

The popular vote loser has become president in two of the last five presidential elections.

A recent study by three University of Texas researchers found that a Democrat who wins the presidential popular vote by 3 percentage points still has about a one in six chance of losing the Electoral College. [And] there's a small chance that a Republican president will be elected even if the Democratic candidate wins the popular vote by as much as 6 points.

A proposal known as the National Popular Vote Compact would allow states to effectively neutralize the Electoral College. It works like this: A bloc of states that control a majority of electoral votes all agree to allocate those votes to the winner of the national popular vote. 

Currently, 15 states plus the District of Columbia, which combined control 196 electoral votes, have signed onto the compact. The compact will take effect once a bloc of states that control at least 270 votes sign on.

A-  Unfortunately, those last few states (totaling 74 or more electoral votes) will be almost impossible to round up.  But no harm fighting the good fight.

9) Stop gerrymandering

States must redraw their legislative districts at least once every decade to ensure that each district has roughly the same number of people. That means the party that dominates the election prior to a redistricting cycle can often entrench its own power by drawing maps that neutralize many of the other party’s voters.

Unlike the problems of Senate malapportionment and the Electoral College, however, congressional Democrats have rallied behind a potent solution to gerrymandering, at least in federal elections: require nearly every state to use a 15-member redistricting commission to draw US House districts. This commission [would] include equal numbers of Democrats, Republicans, and independents, and, at least one member of each party and one independent [would have to] approve final maps. 

A+

10) Public financing for candidates

Supreme Court decisions like Citizens United v. FEC (2010) have largely gutted our ability to keep wealthy donors from having a disproportionate impact on elections. The most commonly cited concern about money in politics is corruption, because the need to raise money forces politicians to ingratiate themselves to big donors if they wish to remain in office. 

One way to mitigate this problem is public financing, which provides additional funds to candidates who agree to certain restrictions on their ability to raise money from large donors. 

Under [proposed] legislation, qualified candidates receive six dollars for every one that they raise from donors who give $200 or less. 

A+  

11) Prevent Trump’s judges from sabotaging voting reforms

While the Constitution created the Supreme Court, it only provides for “such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” Thus, because lower federal courts are entirely creations of Congress, Congress may determine the scope of any lower court’s jurisdiction.

It could, for example, strip courts that are known to be stacked with Republican partisans of jurisdiction to hear any lawsuit challenging new voting rights legislation. It could also require all such suits to be brought in the federal district court in DC..., where reactionary judges likely to toss out voting rights laws for partisan reasons can be outvoted by their more numerous colleagues.

Alternatively, Congress could create a new court — call it the “United States Court for Voting Rights Appeals” — and route any lower court decision challenging a voting rights law to that Court, which would be filled with new judges appointed by the sitting president.

In any event, a Democratic Congress will need to think hard about how to deal with partisan judges if it doesn’t want its laws to be quickly sabotaged by those judges. 

B-  This attempt at solving the problem of knuckle-draggers in judicial robes needs one more thing, a way around the arch-conservatives on the Supreme Court.  Otherwise, legislation will be, time and again, nipped in the bud.

Addressing the problem by adding additional judges could take either of two directions:  

* The maximalist approach (13 seats, instead of nine).  The chance of passage would be smaller, but the result much more satisfying.

* The minimalist approach (11 seats, instead of nine).  This would limit the worst of the damage, and have a good chance of passing.  

If taking the minimalist approach, Merrick Garland, who should rightly have been confirmed in spring of 2016, could be the first of two new justices.  The other would create the +1 margin that Garland would have brought with him.  By limiting it to just two, Democrats appear fair, self-restrained, and are much more likely to accomplish their goal of balancing, since they wouldn't have the internal resistance within the party (and elsewhere) that could easily prevent something bolder. 

If taking the maximalist approach, Democrats would need a large majority in the Senate, as there'd be conservative Democrats who would be reluctant or even hostile to "court packing" (though it should probably be referred to as "court balancing", or a "judicial fix").

Or, instead of adding judges, legislation could strip judges of authority over certain legislative areas, or impose super-majority thresholds.

Here's Rock 'N' Roll's Zenith

 #290: Rolling Stone's Top 500 Albums, By Year

......................

If you were guessing what year Rock 'N' Roll peaked, based on the general consensus of music professionals, which year would you pick?  Let's take a look, with female artists in Blue, male artists in Red and mixed groups in Purple:

Year By Year: Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest (Studio) Albums

Years of 16+ transformative albums are in bold

1955: 1

'56: 1

57: 1

58: 1/1  

59: 4

60: 1/1 

61: 1

62: 1

63: 2

64: 1/2          ... 3

65: 0/10      ... 10

66: 1/5         ...  6 

67: 1/12/2  ...  15

68: 2/11/1  ...  14

69: 2/17/2  ...  21

70: 0/21/2  ...  23

71: 5/14/3  ...  22

72: 2/20     ...  22

73: 0/14/1  ...  15

74: 2/3/2     ...  7

75: 4/13      ... 17

76: 1/7         ...  8

77: 0/14/2   ... 16

78: 1/10/3   ... 14

79: 2/9/2     ... 13

80: 1/6/4     ... 11

81: 1/3        ...  4

82:  0/6       ...  6

83:  1/4       ...  5

84:  1/9      ... 10

85:  2/5       ...  7

86:  2/6       ...  8

87:  1/8       ...  9

88:  2/3/1    ...  6

89:  2/6/1    ...  9

90:  2/3/2    ...  7

91:  0/13/3 ... 16

92: 3/5       ....  8

93: 3/6         ... 9

94: 4/9/1    ... 14

95: 2/8      ...  10

96: 2/5/2     ... 9

97: 6/2/1     ... 9

98: 4/3/1     ... 8

99: 4/4        ... 8

00: 2/6        ... 8

01: 1/5/1     ... 7

02: 0/2        ... 2

03: 2/4/1     ... 7

04: 0/6/1     ... 7

05: 3/2        ... 5

06: 1/3        ... 4

07: 1/3        ... 4

08: 0/3        ... 3

09: 0/2       ...  2

10: 1/1       ...  2

11: 2/2       ...  4

12: 2/2       ...  4

13: 1/5        ... 6

14: 1/1       ...  2

15: 0/4        ... 4

16: 4/1        ... 5

17: 2/1        ... 3

18: 2/1        ... 3

19: 1/1/1     ... 3

Notes: 

  * In eight of the past ten years female artists have tied or overtaken male artists.

  * I had to guess whether several artists were female or male.

  * Since I did this by hand, I seem to have 502 listed.

  * By decade, the figures are:

50s:     9

60s:   75

70s: 167

80s:   78

90s:   89

00s:   49

10s:   36

  * Recent generations have had their favorites.  But, unheralded material may emerge as music historians and fans sift through and promote relatively obscure albums.

  * A review, from The New Yorker's Sheldon Pearce.

Joni Mitchell's Album Covers, Ranked

#289: "I’m a painter first. I sing my sorrow and I paint my joy."

.........................

You'll need to click this link (thanks, Paste) to view the album covers, themselves.

A few comments:

* I'm in the same "don't try to smile" boat as Joni.  It's brave, of course, when your livelihood depends on attracting attention.

* I bought Court and Spark soon after it came out (my former roommate had played it quite a bit).  Plus, I've heard her most famous work on the radio.  And, eventually, I'll listen to her newer material.

* My instinct, for some reason, is to fall for the portraiture, (top ten, with one exception).

Countdown:

#19: The Hissing of Summer Lawns

#18: Don Juan's Reckless Daughter

#17: Mingus

#16: Shine

#15: Dog Eat Dog

#14: Night Ride Home

#13: Chalk Mark In A Rainstorm

#12: Turbulent Indigo

#11: Both Sides Now

#10: Ladies of The Canyon

#9: Song To A Seagull

#8: Court and Spark

#7: Clouds

#6: Blue

#5: Taming The Tiger

#4: Wild Things Run Fast

#3: Travelogue

#2: For The Roses

#1: Hejira

...........................

My Top 55 Rock & Roll Artists List (the Mighty 55) has Joni ranked #10.

 

A Year Of Ample Apples

#288: Truly Delicious

.....................

Here we have Ashmead's Kernel (so sweet!) and Grimes Golden (crispy, and tasty too) apples.  No spraying, mind you, so I quarter them and remove anything untoward.  Banner year could be from all the wood ash I've spread under the trees.

 

And here we have what we thought were Calville Blanc apples (reputed to be from the time of Louis XIV); an apple whose vitamin C content is greater than found in an orange--often used in pies.  But, uncertainty reigns as this photo shows something quite different.  Perhaps the nursery who sold us our tree had too many of something else.  Still, a great tasting, fine looking apple.  

A Constitutional Convention...Now?

#287:  The Modern ConCon Equivalent

............................

Alex Voltaire, on Twitter, drew my attention to Larry Sabato's proposal for a Constitutional Convention to improve American governance.  Sabato's 23 suggestions strike me as worth discussing, but with our modern internet, a virtual version would be much more likely.  Step #1: set up a wiki discussion forum to entertain suggested constitutional changes, record expert and popular opinion on those changes, and do so for an indefinite number of years.  Eventually, the logical approaches to problems, and the arguments for and against, would emerge and solidify.  The most popular ideas could then be adopted by one or more political parties, and make their way through the ratification process.

As for Sabato's ideas, here's my take (in green, with letter grades):

Congress

Expand the Senate to 136 members to have it be more representative. His plan would give the ten most populous states two additional senators each, and give the next fifteen most populous states one additional senator, and would give the District of Columbia one senator.

Very unlikely to pass, though this is perhaps a half-way point between big and little states' interests. B

Appoint all former presidents and vice presidents to the new office of "National Senator" to serve national interests instead of state interests, bring presidential experience to the Senate.

A reasonable idea if ex-presidents were willing. A-

Mandate non-partisan redistricting for House elections to enhance electoral competition and lessen the influence of gerrymandering.

Artificial Intelligence can do this objectively. A

Lengthen the terms of representatives from two years to three years, and set Senate terms to coincide with all presidential elections, so the entire House and Senate would be elected at the same time as the President.

While coinciding elections is good, a single presidential term for six years?  B+, C+

Expand the size of the House of Representatives to approximately 1,000 members from the current total of 435, so House members can be closer to their constituents, and to level the playing field in House elections.

Yes, though unlikely.  Would lower the power of a vote in Wyoming vs. California. A-

Establish term limits in the House and Senate to restore the Founders' principle of frequent rotation in office.

Arguments for are obvious.  Against: lobbyists and office staff know more than those elected. C

Add a Balanced Budget Amendment to encourage fiscal fairness to future generations.

Hello loooong recessions.  Must allow for emergency and counter-cyclical spending. D

Create a Continuity of Government procedure to provide for the replacement of senators and representatives in the event of extensive deaths or incapacitation as may happen as a result of a major disaster such as a large scale nuclear attack.

Probably needed. A

Presidency

Establish a new six-year, one-time presidential term with the option for the President to seek three additional years if approved by a referendum of the American people.

Ruins "lengthen the terms" idea, above. C-  

Limit some presidential war-making powers and expand Congress' oversight of war-making.

Sure, though current oversight is not being exercised.  Would this be any different? A-

Give the president a line-item veto.

The ability to override the veto might best be lowered. B+

Allow men and women not born in the United States to run for president or vice president after having been a citizen for 20 years.

Yes.  A

Supreme Court

Eliminate lifetime tenure for federal judges in favor of non-renewable 15-year terms for all federal judges.

A

Grant Congress the power to set a mandatory retirement age for all federal judges.

B

Expand the size of the Supreme Court from 9 to 12 to be more representative.

This should probably be an odd number.  Perhaps 13, the number of Federal District Courts.  B+

Give federal judges guaranteed cost of living increases so pay is never an issue.

Is this as urgent as the rest? B

Politics

Write a new constitutional article specifically for the politics of the American system.

Vague hand waving?  C+

Adopt a regional, staggered lottery system, over four months, for presidential party nominations to avoid the destructive front-loading of primaries.

Isn't this a party decision?  B-

Keep the Electoral College, as the previously suggested House and Senate reforms would preserve the benefits of the College while minimizing the chances a president will win without a majority of the popular vote.

Little chance of abolishing, anyway. NA

Reform campaign financing by preventing wealthy candidates from financing their campaigns. Mandate partial public financing for House and Senate campaigns to lessen the impact of lobbyists and fundraisers.

Sure.  A

Adopt an automatic registration system for all qualified American citizens to guarantee that their right to vote is not abridged by bureaucratic requirements.

Absolutely.  A+

Universal national service

Create a constitutional requirement that all able-bodied young Americans devote at least two years of their lives in service to the country.

Older people love this.  But disrupting young lives?  One size fits all?  If voluntary, sure.  D+ 

National constitutional convention

Convene a new constitutional convention using the state-based mechanism left to Americans by the framers in the current constitution.

Hard to do.  NA

....................

Black type quoted from Wikipedia

Make The Senate Filibuster Actually Work

 #286: I Flesh Out My Proposal

..........................

In an article appearing in the Atlantic magazine a week ago, prominent Washington think-tanker, Norm Ornstein, suggests that reforming the Senate filibuster could be as easy as flipping it from a requirement that 60 senators be present, and agree to end debate on a given matter, to a requisite 41 senators or more, present, voting to prolong debate.  He believes that many older members wouldn't be able to maintain a presence (nearby, if not at their desks) for more than a day or so, making 41 senators effectively 42-44 or so, and the filibuster much less widely used (those conducting one would find it very time consuming), thus allowing congress to be productive again.

I've read much of the twitter chatter that accompanied his article, and found there were only two or three significant objections:

1. That any change could be undone in the future by the opposition party.

2. That the precedent for virtual Senate voting has been set (due to Covid) and may mean allowing members to vote from a distance in the future, defeating the intent of Ornstein's idea.

3. That we should simply "end the filibuster already".

All of which brings my own proposal to the fore: Eliminate the filibuster conditionally, based on Science.  A scientific body giving a thumbs up to legislation combating Climate Change, for example, would reduce the necessary vote margin from 60 to 50.  This of course assumes Democrats won't, in 2021, have 50 votes to abolish the filibuster altogether (2-3 Democratic senators have said the filibuster is too valuable a tool to jettison), meaning a conditional filibuster may be better than nothing.

My idea is based on the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) which, since 1974, has provided congress with a non-partisan analysis of what proposed legislation will cost.  A similar entity, call it the Congressional Science Examiner, would sketch out the impact of proposed legislation, and indicate whether that legislation was based on the best scientific information available.  If so, a thumbs up.  If not, improvements could be suggested.  Like the CBO, the CSE would employ non-partisan, professional scientists whose tenure would last through multiple administrations.  And, as with the CBO, the CSE's director would be appointed by the heads of the relevant House and Senate committees (for example, the House committee on Science, Space and Technology and the Senate's committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, or some such mix), plus a mediator, who'd be an extra member from academia/a science lab, leading a given analysis team, and would be chosen by all qualified applicants voting amongst themselves.

As for Ornstein's 60-40 reversal, sure, I'm for it.  It might even prove popular enough to be kept intact once the opposition party again controls the Senate.  After all, the party on the outs when the reform occurred isn't likely to make it easier for obstructors once they take control.

The real need, however, will arise if the Senate is divided 51/49, 52/48, or 53/47 D/R in 2021.  Even with Ornstein's flip, next to nothing would be accomplished legislatively, unless there were enough votes to simply eliminate the filibuster.  If not, absolute gridlock, and a dangerous frustration.   That's when the science-based, conditional filibuster would make the most sense.  

As for the fate of a science-based panel once the opposition eventually recaptures control?   Who can argue with the best science and not appear foolish and/or corrupt?

...................

January '21 Update:

With its two Georgia Senate wins, the Democrats have 50+1 control in that body.  But, their 50th vote for Climate Change legislation (their least enthusiastic member), West Virginia's Sen. Joe Manchin, isn't a likely 'yes', since it would lead right into an accelerated end to coal as a major fuel (though, what about with remediation dollars flowing to West Virginia?)  In any event, the more likely 50th vote would almost certainly be Mitt Romney (R - Utah) or Susan Collins (R - Maine), with perhaps both needed if another Democrat joined Manchin.