#274: It's Like You're In A Rock 'N' Roll Museum's Choir
.....................
Rolling Stone's Brian Hiatt, reviewing Dylan's just released "Murder Most Foul", writes that it reminds him of Van Morrison's Astral Weeks session. For me, that, along with the soundtrack to Ken Burns' Civil War series, plus add in the element of surprise found on Dylan's XM radio show, and you'd have a secular feel for the piece. But that would understate the impact, since there's perhaps nothing as timely, artistically, as a look back at what went wrong, considering where we are now.
But, our's is a springtime moment, with the dread of winter sure to be brought down, defeated, and escorted offstage. Dylan's is one more invocation, calling upon a 60's promise yet to be redeemed. That return, to a blessed present, is as certain as each of us imagining it, indeed, happening. I'm cautiously optimistic.
Are you? The above link includes the song in its entirety.
..................
A follow-up article, also at Rolling Stone, explains 20 allusions found in Dylan's song.
And another look, again at R.S.
The New Yorker publishes a more critically balanced piece by Kevin Dettmar, dissing the song's first half, which focuses on Kennedy.
A Salon article, by David Masciotra, that embraces the song's Kennedy theme, making the case that Kennedy was killed because he was ditching the cold warriors in the CIA and military.
Friday, March 27, 2020
Sunday, March 15, 2020
We Must Adjust When Change Occurs
#273: Changes Afoot
..................
Change Past
According to a scientific study of fossilized mollusks we now know that 70 million years ago there were only 23 and a half hours in a day; and thanks to the moon's gravitational pull, we now have 24. And, all those many years ago, there were 273 days in a year, instead of only 365 and a quarter.
Change Present
The coronavirus, like HIV-AIDS, is likely to have a profound impact on social interaction. It's as if we are being forced to think twice about how we socialize. For example, if the virus were to mutate ** and become even stronger than it presently is, we might see the partial abandonment of urban areas as people seek out isolation, while maintaining a virtual, online, link to society at large.
Change Future
And as I noted, rather breathlessly, recently, there is the real possibility that plant-based meat, that tastes like the real thing and costs considerably less, will doom modern corn-and-beans agriculture, and profoundly reduce land values. Update: 2/4/24. It seems that the recent lull in plant-based meat mania may have been overtaken by R&D.
All we know, of course, is that change will occur, and we'll have little choice in the matter.
...........................
** In the past, a virus could be expected to mutate into something less deadly, simply because a dead victim can't spread a more deadly version the way a mildly sick victim can. But, a virus that can be spread before its effects are noticed avoids that fail-safe.
..................
Change Past
According to a scientific study of fossilized mollusks we now know that 70 million years ago there were only 23 and a half hours in a day; and thanks to the moon's gravitational pull, we now have 24. And, all those many years ago, there were 273 days in a year, instead of only 365 and a quarter.
Change Present
The coronavirus, like HIV-AIDS, is likely to have a profound impact on social interaction. It's as if we are being forced to think twice about how we socialize. For example, if the virus were to mutate ** and become even stronger than it presently is, we might see the partial abandonment of urban areas as people seek out isolation, while maintaining a virtual, online, link to society at large.
Change Future
And as I noted, rather breathlessly, recently, there is the real possibility that plant-based meat, that tastes like the real thing and costs considerably less, will doom modern corn-and-beans agriculture, and profoundly reduce land values. Update: 2/4/24. It seems that the recent lull in plant-based meat mania may have been overtaken by R&D.
All we know, of course, is that change will occur, and we'll have little choice in the matter.
...........................
** In the past, a virus could be expected to mutate into something less deadly, simply because a dead victim can't spread a more deadly version the way a mildly sick victim can. But, a virus that can be spread before its effects are noticed avoids that fail-safe.
Wednesday, March 11, 2020
Biden's VP Pick--Outside The Envelope
#272: Getting Everybody On Board
...................
I took the time today to google "Biden's VP Pick", and read a dozen or so recent articles. Who'll Biden choose? Who should he choose? The consensus heavyweight options (senators and governors only) are, in alphabetical order:
* Tammy Duckworth (IL senator)
* Kamala Harris (CA senator)
* Amy Klobuchar (MN senator)
* Michelle Lujan Grisham (NM governor)
* Elizabeth Warren (MA senator)
* Gretchen Whitmer (MI governor)
Hey, they're all women! That's right. It's been 36 years since the Democratic presidential nominee chose a woman. Not including a woman on the ticket would be surprising indeed.
And who is my 'outside the envelope' pick? Surprise! I suggest Biden put the decision up for a vote, limited to just Democrats and maybe Independents. Each of our six VP candidates could identify a deserving down-ballot candidate (senate, governor, house, etc.), or political organization, each week over a three month period. Voters would donate to the down-ballot candidate that corresponds to their VP choice, and do so once a week--as many as twelve times. For example: Kamala Harris picks Stacey Abrams' Fair Fight for the first week. This would result in a running score among the contenders (based on number of individual donors), while at the same time highlighting and supporting Blue talent.
And since political donations require name, address and occupation, any registered Republican could have their votes annulled (though the donation itself needn't be returned). Donations could be routed through a special account that keeps track of each contender's score, while allowing for giving in amounts as low as $1.
This would be a fun, super-effective approach (and a mailing list bonanza for Blue) that takes the onus off Biden (he would, however, pre-approve all names on the list). Plus, any disgruntlement among the nay-sayers (like: "He didn't pick my fave") is moot. Voila, a unified party.
...................
I took the time today to google "Biden's VP Pick", and read a dozen or so recent articles. Who'll Biden choose? Who should he choose? The consensus heavyweight options (senators and governors only) are, in alphabetical order:
* Tammy Duckworth (IL senator)
* Kamala Harris (CA senator)
* Amy Klobuchar (MN senator)
* Michelle Lujan Grisham (NM governor)
* Elizabeth Warren (MA senator)
* Gretchen Whitmer (MI governor)
Hey, they're all women! That's right. It's been 36 years since the Democratic presidential nominee chose a woman. Not including a woman on the ticket would be surprising indeed.
And who is my 'outside the envelope' pick? Surprise! I suggest Biden put the decision up for a vote, limited to just Democrats and maybe Independents. Each of our six VP candidates could identify a deserving down-ballot candidate (senate, governor, house, etc.), or political organization, each week over a three month period. Voters would donate to the down-ballot candidate that corresponds to their VP choice, and do so once a week--as many as twelve times. For example: Kamala Harris picks Stacey Abrams' Fair Fight for the first week. This would result in a running score among the contenders (based on number of individual donors), while at the same time highlighting and supporting Blue talent.
And since political donations require name, address and occupation, any registered Republican could have their votes annulled (though the donation itself needn't be returned). Donations could be routed through a special account that keeps track of each contender's score, while allowing for giving in amounts as low as $1.
This would be a fun, super-effective approach (and a mailing list bonanza for Blue) that takes the onus off Biden (he would, however, pre-approve all names on the list). Plus, any disgruntlement among the nay-sayers (like: "He didn't pick my fave") is moot. Voila, a unified party.
Monday, March 9, 2020
Pandemics: Another Reason To Vote From Home
#271: In 2016, 33 Million Voted By Mail (~25% of all US voters)
...................
As I write this, in March 2020, the world is reeling from the spread of the coronavirus. Without 2020 hindsight, we don't know if things will get dramatically worse, or whether the entire matter will blow over by early summer. One thing we do know is that the best way to avoid spreading the virus is to stay away from public spaces, like polling places.
With this in mind, state lawmakers who favor vote-from-home legislation can add one more good reason to their list. As it is, that list is impressive. This Washington Monthly cover story from 2016 finds that with vote-from-home:
* turnout is higher--in some cases dramatically so
* voters can look up candidates and issues as they vote (so, more informed voting)
* paper ballots mean re-counts are not a problem
* states save money with no polling places to man, and no machines to buy
* no waiting in line
and now:
* zero touching of doorknobs, pens, curtains, and no air-borne particulates
At present, five states (Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Utah and Hawaii) have instituted 100% vote-by-mail for 2020. Another five states have partial vote-by-mail.
And one more thing: if enough states allow vote-by-mail, there's less and less of a case to be made for postponing an election due to a pandemic.
As for the delay in reporting an election's results (if ballots postmarked by election day are allowed), there are surely more important things than the political equivalent of 'instant gratification'.
..........................
Here's a Slate article by Rick Hasen that makes the case for action, now.
And here's a thorough look at voting from home, written in early April.
And here's Ron Brownstein at the Atlantic on April 11th, on what is likely to happen.
...................
As I write this, in March 2020, the world is reeling from the spread of the coronavirus. Without 2020 hindsight, we don't know if things will get dramatically worse, or whether the entire matter will blow over by early summer. One thing we do know is that the best way to avoid spreading the virus is to stay away from public spaces, like polling places.
With this in mind, state lawmakers who favor vote-from-home legislation can add one more good reason to their list. As it is, that list is impressive. This Washington Monthly cover story from 2016 finds that with vote-from-home:
* turnout is higher--in some cases dramatically so
* voters can look up candidates and issues as they vote (so, more informed voting)
* paper ballots mean re-counts are not a problem
* states save money with no polling places to man, and no machines to buy
* no waiting in line
and now:
* zero touching of doorknobs, pens, curtains, and no air-borne particulates
At present, five states (Oregon, Washington, Colorado, Utah and Hawaii) have instituted 100% vote-by-mail for 2020. Another five states have partial vote-by-mail.
And one more thing: if enough states allow vote-by-mail, there's less and less of a case to be made for postponing an election due to a pandemic.
As for the delay in reporting an election's results (if ballots postmarked by election day are allowed), there are surely more important things than the political equivalent of 'instant gratification'.
..........................
Here's a Slate article by Rick Hasen that makes the case for action, now.
And here's a thorough look at voting from home, written in early April.
And here's Ron Brownstein at the Atlantic on April 11th, on what is likely to happen.
Sunday, March 8, 2020
The 2020 Presidential Campaign Is All About... The Senate
#270: Joe Biden Matters Less Than Sara Gideon
....................
We all too often view politics as a 'Big Man' contest, when sometimes, the action is elsewhere.
Take 2020. Given a Democratic senate majority, a re-elected Donald Trump is likely doomed to a second, perhaps successful Impeachment. He has so much incriminating baggage, and so many henchmen willing to tell-all, that his prospects are exceedingly bleak--especially with the use of a secret ballot to convict. And besides, without a Republican Senate, his actions as president would be constrained in all but a few areas.
Which is why Joe Biden is the safest choice in seeking to remove our current president. That's because winning marginal, and even unlikely, senate contests in purple and red states is job one. Our one alternative is Senator Bernie Sanders, who would run up large margins in coastal blue states where there are no competitive senate contests, while scaring away enough red state voters to jeopardize a senate takeover.
Here's President Trump's current approval numbers in states with key senate races:
Maine: -19
Colorado: -16
North Carolina: -8
Arizona: -6
Georgia (x2): -6
Iowa: -4
Montana: -2
Texas: +2
Alaska: +4
South Carolina: +6
Kansas: +7
Nebraska: +10
Tennessee: +12
Mississippi: +14
Alabama: +20
Kentucky: +24
Except for Alabama, these are all potential Republican losses, should candidate quality and sufficient funding allow Biden's coattails to prevail.
It should be noted that in 2016 all senate contests were won by the party that carried a given state, so the likelihood is that Biden would also reach 270 Electoral Votes for the win; nevertheless, the case is overwhelming that Biden is the better vehicle for securing Blue's fortunes.
And who is Sara Gideon? She is likely Maine's Democratic senate candidate in 2020.
....................
We all too often view politics as a 'Big Man' contest, when sometimes, the action is elsewhere.
Take 2020. Given a Democratic senate majority, a re-elected Donald Trump is likely doomed to a second, perhaps successful Impeachment. He has so much incriminating baggage, and so many henchmen willing to tell-all, that his prospects are exceedingly bleak--especially with the use of a secret ballot to convict. And besides, without a Republican Senate, his actions as president would be constrained in all but a few areas.
Which is why Joe Biden is the safest choice in seeking to remove our current president. That's because winning marginal, and even unlikely, senate contests in purple and red states is job one. Our one alternative is Senator Bernie Sanders, who would run up large margins in coastal blue states where there are no competitive senate contests, while scaring away enough red state voters to jeopardize a senate takeover.
Here's President Trump's current approval numbers in states with key senate races:
Maine: -19
Colorado: -16
North Carolina: -8
Arizona: -6
Georgia (x2): -6
Iowa: -4
Montana: -2
Texas: +2
Alaska: +4
South Carolina: +6
Kansas: +7
Nebraska: +10
Tennessee: +12
Mississippi: +14
Alabama: +20
Kentucky: +24
Except for Alabama, these are all potential Republican losses, should candidate quality and sufficient funding allow Biden's coattails to prevail.
It should be noted that in 2016 all senate contests were won by the party that carried a given state, so the likelihood is that Biden would also reach 270 Electoral Votes for the win; nevertheless, the case is overwhelming that Biden is the better vehicle for securing Blue's fortunes.
And who is Sara Gideon? She is likely Maine's Democratic senate candidate in 2020.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)