Santa, Is That You?

#380: When Giving Isn't Living

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

It’s at this time of year that I’m often struck by how unlikely gifts are to score a ’10’ (on a scale of 1 - to - 10).  That’s because for a ’10’ to happen, three things have to occur:

#1. A gift must be unexpected and unknown to the recipient.

#2. A gift must fit perfectly into the recipient’s life.

#3. The gift must be appropriate in value.

For example, with #3, if your best friend likes Tesla cars, they're simply too expensive (and would require too great a reciprocal gift), plus that friend likely already has one.

Or, if your child likes a series of books, the universe of that book series is probably already known—and perhaps picked over, so anything you might stumble upon would fail #1, and perhaps #2.

Of course one can always give something generic, like a gift card or a subscription, but these border on the impersonal (mutual friends: "She gave you a gift card to that hip bar?  That's what she gave me!")  Likewise, you could be giving everyone on your list the latest kitchen gadget you use and like, or a subscription to your favorite magazine (“At least I know I like these.”)--which of course says more about you than the recipient, meaning #2 would almost certainly be a fail.

Denied an easy solution to the gift giving dilemma, we usually opt for breaking either #1 (“So, what do you want for Christmas?") or #2 (sheepishly, “The receipt's in there in case you want a different color.”), hoping to settle for a ‘9’ or ‘8’ on the 1 - to - 10 scale.

But guessing can easily land us much lower, setting up the possibility that our recipient might wish we hadn't bothered, which is the storyline behind much gift giving.  The wild guess ("A pogo stick!"), the mainstream choice (“Hey, #1 on the charts.”), or even worse, a failed gift we’re hoping to unload on someone else (“Brown mustard; it’s made with anchovies!”). And yet, if guessing won’t do, and we don’t have time to comb through possibilities, what’s to become of us?

Honestly, sometimes the best option is to dodge:

* Family: In a large, mature family, or one that includes multiple adult generations, draw name pairs from a hat (first one’s the giver and second the recipient), and give just one gift each.  This places the emphasis on togetherness, rather than gift giving.

* Dear Friends: Develop one’s gift giving instincts, just not during the holidays.  When one comes upon a likely gift that approaches a ’10’, indulge, and rather than saving it to fill the hole of the obligatory December gift, explain that you feel Christmas has become too commercialized, but that “I couldn’t resist when I saw this; I think you’ll like it."

* Half-baked acquaintances: Send holiday greeting cards to anyone who gives you a gift.  In the card, explain that you decided to donate all the money you normally spend on gifts to the XX charity.  You'll be cutting off your supply of unhealthy food ("Chocolate covered goo!”), knick-knacks (“A doggy ornament!”), and coffee table books (“Harbors of the World!”), in the years to come, but for some of us, that’s a plus.

Turning Defense Spending Into Pro-Democracy Assistance

#379: Hey, Wanna-Be Democracies, Make Us An Offer

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

Our second-highest ranked general recently opined that about 5% of the Defense department budget of $700+ billion a year pays defense contractors to do nothing.  This is because 'continuing resolutions' in Congress advance stop-and-start spending by a few months here, a week there, and occasionally cease altogether during a government shutdown.

He also noted that defense hawks in Congress routinely tell the Pentagon that we need many billions more in military spending than the top brass asks for.  And I won't even link to the damning piece in Rolling Stone, recently, that explained how, despite congressional attempts to do so, the Pentagon cannot be audited, so that we really don't know where all the money goes.

In other words, there seems to be ample room to cut.

First, though, what are we fighting for?  Democracy around the world would be one answer.  If there were more democracies and fewer rogue regimes trying to get away with destabilizing behavior, perhaps we wouldn't feel as threatened.

Obviously, I'm setting up a different use for those excess defense dollars, so let's just cut to the chase:

 * challenge non-democratic nations to make us an offer

 * describe a step-by-step timetable whereby a government in power voluntarily transitions toward democracy

 * see what the asking price would be for such a transition

 * establish a secret, prioritized list of those who generate the most instability, and would thus be the most welcomed if they were to submit an offer

 * encourage our allies to contribute 

 * find a deserted island (here are 12), fix it up with luxury appointments, and guarantee safety-until-death for any dictators who agreed to take part

To be honest, it's hard to identify some governments as definitely democratic or not.  Elections can be that in name only, and can be rigged from the start.  Others involve strongman leaders who don't allow their challengers as much media access as would be fair, or often limit who can run for office.  But why bother deciding?  Any big man head of state can decide for himself if this is the 'out' he's been looking for, and we could then decide if his (decidedly secret) offer was worth it.  The strongman would be a hero for stepping aside (even if he personally felt the walls were closing in for one reason or another).  

And, we should add, there'd certainly be in-country pressure from citizens who realized what a booming economy would do for their country--assuming democratic steps were being taken, and financial support was beginning to trickle in, soon to be substantial (a dedicated bank account in a neutral country could assure the monies would be forthcoming).

With that in mind, what countries would be on our prioritized list?  The answer would be something to task the CIA with, but here's a rough list, with several included because their leadership might be tempted:

 * Iran.  Under theocratic control for over 40 years, it's hard to imagine the clerics taking the necessary steps, but if negotiations were possible (no deserted island necessary), what a big deal that would be

 * Venezuela.    Promising, because it has the educated workforce to support an immediate return to democracy, and was quite wealthy only a few years ago    

 * Cuba.   As with Venezuela, an educated workforce

 * North Korea.  Hard to imagine, but this would go a long way towards easing tensions in east Asia

 * Belarus.  This would be fairly high on our list because it would signal to Russia that the time for real democracy has come

 * Myanmar.  Democratic first steps were recently crushed by a military coup; so a return to that prior path might be possible

 * Egypt.  A return to the democratic process would be a good influence on all Arab governments

 * Turkey.  If things continue to go downhill....

There are more likely countries than these, but they'd be considered low priorities compared to the above list, which is composed of fairly large populations and economies that are either very destabilizing (Iran, North Korea), or would send a message (Belarus, Egypt, Myanmar), or would impact our backyard (Venezuela, Cuba; Nato's in the case of Turkey).

Actually, it's conceivable that a secret agreement could be put in place that would see the exile of a head of state, followed by suspiciously high expenditures on economic development, education, the justice system, clean energy, and so on, if the departed leader would prefer a more 'manly' exit.

 

What Is Memory, Anyway?

 #378: Answer: A Way We Can Judge Genuine Interest

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

We've all had one of those embarrassing moments when we just can't remember someone's name, or the perfect word for the moment, or the title of a movie we just saw the week before.  And usually, there's a reason why, though the shock of not remembering often overtakes any insight to be gained.

How does one get to know that 'why'?  Practice.  When a memory shortfall occurs, wonder why.  And if thought about, usually soon enough, we discover.  

This is the danger with writing things down.  Unless one forgets to check what one's written, there's no way to benefit from a failed memory.  Which is why I rarely make shopping lists (obviously, there are times when we must perform, socially, but for me they're unusual).  If I forget an item while shopping, I'm usually able to later pat myself on the back when I think through the 'why' of that forgetfulness: "Oh, right, I wanted to use up the garden tomatoes before I bought salsa."

So, I was quite struck to read these words of advice from the author of 'A Wrinkle In Time', Madeleine L’Engle: 

“I have advice for people who want to write...you need to keep an honest, unpublishable journal that nobody reads, nobody but you. Where you just put down what you think about life, what you think about things, what you think is fair and what you think is unfair....”

Of course everybody's different, and advice about writing will work for some and not for others.  That said, I wonder whether keeping a journal might end up costing budding writers if it means they aren't allowing themselves to forget, and to learn from those lapses.  In other words, are great ideas really all that good if we can't remember without jotting them down?  "Note to self: make this into a million dollar novel: Squirrels are really just crybabies when they scold."

It's ironic that we say we want to be spiritual, religious, and mindful, but we don't allow ourselves access to one of the few windows into our psyche: the refusal of the mind to execute when it knows, subconsciously, that it shouldn't.  "Wow, I completely forgot I was supposed to answer his text; he'll be sure to drag me for it.  Wish he'd just leave me alone."  

Usually, a righteous force behind our actions is what we hope for--a knowing certainty that demonstrates inner conviction; and yet many expect that certitude to emerge without the dedicated forethought, deliberation, and review required in countless situations, large and small, failing and successful, over the course of a lifetime.

When should we write, then, if we're looking to exercise our 'forgot it' muscles?  For me, once I've decided what to write about (which often means remembering an idea from the day or week before), I focus on writing.  If I can't remember an idea I had last night, it's forgettably unworthy anyway.

Fixing Facebook II

#377: I Take A Second Swing

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

Here's my first swing (#373).  After skeptical feedback, I've decided to address the issue a second time.  Helpfully, 538 posted a fix Facebook article a few weeks ago, so here's my reaction (in green) to various ideas that article discusses:

* Limit Re-shares

This would attack the 'viral' part of the problem.  But, not only would limiting shares impact positive (especially funny) posts, let's not forget that social media, if done right, serves a purpose in speaking truth to power.  So, though this might work, it is inelegant and could stifle the best reactive material.

* Curb ‘Bad Actors’

Let's assume that FB already downgrades, algorithmically, posts from those who peddle violent and false material.  If not, they should, though the effect will only be marginal.  The reason: the worst actors are adept at avoiding responsibility, and will just post as someone else. 

* More Prominent User Controls

I've been taking the year off from FB, so I'm not aware of any new controls.  But, since the worst offenders are the dumbbells who only want to cause trouble (plus the simpletons who welcome 'trouble'), our focus, unfortunately, will have to be on them.  Anyone who just wants to avoid bad content is obviously not the problem.

* Prioritize ‘Good For The World’ Content  

FB tried this out and found that it reduced time spent on the platform.  So, a non-starter, unless made law (something like this may actually happen, since the recent whistle-blowing RE: FB's integrity unit made the cover of Time magazine).

* Focus On User Interests Rather Than Friends’ Attention Grabbing

A possible first step, though if a user's interests are in being a bad actor.... 

* Show Reverse Order Chronological Posting

This is what I remember from the good old days when I had a dozen or two people on my feed.  It would take 10-20 minutes a day to keep abreast of family and friends.  But, again, this is Facebook heaven, with everyone being truthful and civic-minded.  The problem is that there's nothing to stop bad actors from setting viral wildfires that burn out of control before they're even identified.  The 538 article mentions that the FB algorithm has a hard time determining early on what's civic content, so throttling viral flare-ups can take time.

So, what's to be done?  In #373 I suggested that once a post reaches a threshold of engagement, a 1 to - 10 scale would appear for users to rate the post's content.  Anything that received a less than passing grade would from then on contain a link explaining why the post was a bugger (in general terms, and eventually, in specific terms).  But, thanks to feedback I've received, I can say that that isn't enough.  It might be something FB would be willing to do, but it doesn't focus on the bad actors.  If a group of trouble-makers all re-shared the same post, their followers could all rate it a '10', and so avoid any repercussions, until its viral nature broke through to the general public.  But, how's that all that much different from where things stand now?

This brings me to a second swing: 

Use the 1 - to - 10 scale as a voluntary whistle-blowing mechanism to both limit bad actors and promote good critics.  Here's how it might work:

* The FB algorithm would tend to promote posts from those with critiquing skill, and demote those whose critiquing is poor.

* A '5' rating on the 1 - to - 10 scale would be neutral.  A '6' or more would indicate a favorable review; and '4' or less, negative.  The closer to a '10' or a '1' the score, the more the user has at stake.

* This would incentivize users to search for and critique posts from obvious transgressors, downgrading, if not shutting down, the worst bad actor networks--due to infiltrators and the curious seeking to build up their critiquing score.  Likewise, posts that are particularly worthy and bring out our best (funny, interesting, or just fun) would be sought out and promoted.

* Yeah, but who decides what's good/bad?  Surely that's a tough call, no?  Right, but a post with enormous engagement might have a small fraction of users rating it.  These would be volunteers taking a chance that the post was so obviously wrong-headed/worthy that they were willing to rate it poorly/positively.  Until FB moderators settled the matter, the post's rating (averaged) would show, next to the 1 -  to - 10 scale.  Once FB had a chance to examine the post, it would either agree with the user rating, or toss the result, based on facts or objectionable content.  Those it agreed to would count towards a user's critiquing score.

* Not only would the most objectionable material likely tend to disappear from FB, but those posting material would probably think twice before cranking out yet more bad actor content, since their algorithmic score would suffer--especially so for content that's in poor taste.

* Since FB could choose to effect something like this idea, we might point out that quite a bit would depend on how much a user's algorithmic score was impacted when successfully exercising critical skills.  If users could become quite influential thanks to their volunteering, the system might just work.  

Time For A Third Party

 #376: November 2022 May Surprise Us

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

Alternative political fiction:

* A wealthy individual with several hundred million dollars to spare sets up an 'Independence Party' to contest ~50 House of Representative elections in Nov. '22

* No candidates are involved; instead, a digital interface, perhaps called "W. E. People" promises to mirror voter sentiment in a given House district

* Once newly configured districts are known (the result of 2020 Census redistricting), ~50 are chosen based on their 'independence'

* Each interface mirrors that district's political opinion, employing polling, and soliciting feedback on / discussion of the issues

* When the time comes to elect a House Speaker, any "W. E. People" winning candidates would refrain from voting

* Targeted locales: states with 'prairie populist', and 'outsider' traditions like AK, MT, UT, KS, ND, IA, KY, WV 

* $$ saved (due to no salary and no 'campaign') is used for staff who'd handle constituent needs and run interface

* polling would 1) be as transparent as possible and 2) ideally, average results from multiple polling firms

 

China's Population Control Policies And Coal

#375: The Raw Numbers

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

According to the Washington Post's Lily Kuo: 

"In response to an energy crunch, China has increased coal imports, expanded coal production and approved new coal mines. In October, the country produced 357 million tons of coal, a level not seen in six years..."

Meanwhile, China's population control measures, beginning in the 1970s, and including 1980's one-child policy, have reduced births in the country by as many as 500 million (current population 1.45 billion), or roughly a third of its current total.

While the 500 million reduction may be an over-statement (an urbanizing workforce and rising standard of living no doubt contributed), and heavy-handed enforcement undoubtedly caused untold suffering, it should be noted, the result means that China only burns 56% of the world's coal.  

Like it or not, that reduction in coal burning--perhaps 100 million tons a month--makes the challenge of Climate Change a lot less difficult.

I Coach Republicans and Democrats For 2022

#374: But... Can They Both Win?

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

Republicans: Get Real.  Here's three reasons for returning to the GOP of yore:

* By 2024, voters will want a young candidate, rather than yet another elder gent approaching his 80s.  Might as well face it, America's ex is old news.

* Which means it's time to end the bad-mouthing and head for the middle of the road.  Otherwise, sorry but there just aren't enough old angry-guy voters to win.

* Even in the heat of post-January 6th soul-searching there are those in the media who're eager to embrace a conservative alternative.  And, who're most Republicans going to vote for?  A Democrat?  Unlikelihood.

Democrats: Don't Change.  You're on track--it just doesn't seem like it.  Here's why:

* The Republicans will blow their current lead.  That's because they won't take my advice.  They'll continue following a leader who's only looking out for old #1--a recipe for disaster, as we saw on January 6th.

* Just explain what the agenda for '22 will be: a Reconciliation bill to reduce the deficit and bring down inflation.  Cut corporate welfare.  Be bold fighting high prices (example: use strategic oil reserve).

* Also, describe what's in store, post-'22, if voters elect another two Dems (Senate) while keeping a House majority: the remaining items on Biden's agenda

- Paid Family Leave

- Medicare coverage for Vision and Dental

- States Rights For Non-Lethal Recreational Drugs (not part of agenda, but a likely candidate)

- Free Community College

- Pay fors: items axed by Sinemanchin, like corporate tax rate increase, re-instating tax on ultra wealthy estates

Fixing Facebook

#373: Feedback Is Key

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

Galaxy Brain, by Charlie Warzel, features a post this morning comparing the vast wasteland of daytime TV with the "weird, garbage-y, spammy stuff" on Facebook:

"Some posts are truly vapid, recycled, or low budget, like" a "2 a.m. channel scroll" on TV. "Other posts approximate the feel of listless daytime channel surfing: lots of time killers and “on in the background” content sandwiched between melodrama." 

This is a revealing comparison, in that it points out the unfortunate tendency of media to slouch toward mediocrity.  There's a big difference, though, between the two formats: TV is exclusively passive, we sit and watch; while on the internet we have agency.  Sure, we can change 'channels', moving from Facebook to the equivalent of some other TV network; but what makes the internet different is that not only can websites accept our posts, but they can also be constructed in order to register feedback.  This, I'll argue, is how Facebook, and the internet more broadly, can be 'fixed'. 

A first reaction to the issue is to want minimal standards and prohibitions, and to promote media literacy.  But in addition to these obvious approaches, what if we were to ask Facebook, for example, to accommodate not just the (heart) and (mad) emoji system in all its variety, but a link to an objective source that would critique and grade a post.  Not all posts, obviously, would get the treatment, but if a post were flagged by enough viewers, it would.

Ok, but who would this 'objective source' be?  Facebook itself?  That wouldn't be much different from the current setup.  Some kind of outside group funded by Facebook?  Possibly.  But what about Facebook users themselves?  What if, after a post has received a certain amount of engagement in a given amount of time, it sports a scale from 1- 10, that appears adjacent to the emoji feedback display?  Facebook viewers who see the 1 - 10 scale can click on a number to register the grade they'd assign, based on what they got out of the post, and whether they'd recommend it.  An aggregate grade would then appear somewhere nearby.

Sure, this would be a very imperfect way to accommodate feedback, but it would be a first step.  It may be that an alternate Facebook-like platform could come up with a way to incorporate feedback on 'viral' posts that's much more nuanced.  Maybe a user could search for posts a trusted friend has rated highly, or could find out what their 'friends', collectively, rate the highest.  

Even better, perhaps, would be a clearinghouse for in-depth critiques of posts, genres of posts and the networks of bogus click-bait factories that are used to direct traffic to sites which can't stand on their own merit.  A link to this clearinghouse would appear on any post that registered below a certain cut-off grade on the 1 -  10 scale, taking the user to an exposé, critique, or general counseling on "What's up with this kind of post"

And yet, would any of this actually do any good?  Wouldn't it just accentuate the silo-ing that occurs on the internet?  The answer to this objection is probably a mix of resignation in the face of intractable human nature, and a determination to crack the nut.  The internet has only been around for several decades.  There are surely exciting twists and turns yet to come.  Innovation is our friend.

.........

A dozen digital media experts weigh in on what to do about FB.

Another compilation, this time from 538.

A Few Thoughts About Sen. Kyrsten Sinema

 #372: The Importance of 'No'

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

Tonight I read Senator Kyrsten Sinema's wikipedia page straight through.  A few things that go a long way towards explaining her politics:

1. She grew up in a family experiencing varying degrees of homelessness and want.  Instability makes people value certainty.  This could easily predispose her to conservatism.

2. She lost the first two elections she ran.  Then she started winning.  Loss is another path to conservatism.

3. Her first appearance on the national stage, in 2012, involved a very nasty campaign in which many embarrassing moments in her past were brought to light by her opponent.

4. Her sexual orientation means she is probably more careful about her image than would be the average politician.

5. She represents a state that is newly purple.  She can probably remember a time when Arizona was deep red, or mostly so.  Because there are so many older, more affluent retirees in Arizona, and because older voters tend to turn out in greater numbers, non-Presidential election years are particularly problematic for openly liberal politicians in purple states.  She is probably not looking forward to 2030, when she will be only turning 60.  And if she's smart, she'll be thinking about retiring in 2038.

6. Her public image, that she carefully cultivates, is fiscal conservatism combined with liberalism on social issues.  She embraces the memory of John McCain, but is an ardent supporter of Planned Parenthood.  This treading the middle path, which will likely guarantee her her seat until she no longer wants it, is difficult, made only slightly easier by making as few details as possible public.

7. She prefers to not engage with the press because that will only underline the difficulty of her middle path. Instead, she'd rather rake in campaign contributions and produce 'mainstream' ads and outreach that most everyone can agree with--thus the recent Bi-partisan Infrastructure Bill that she recently got behind in a big way.

8. Her most recent 'no' positions: against a $15 an hour Minimum Wage, against an end to the senate Filibuster, and against allowing Medicare to bargain for lower drug prices, were all opportunities to emphasize her fiscal conservatism, and are perhaps negotiable in the end.  Another Democratic senator had already nixed the Minimum Wage hike, ditto the Filibuster.  And drug price declines will, it appears, make it into President Biden's Build Back Better bill, albeit in watered down form.

9. All told, we have a cautious but opportunistic, broad strokes persona whose internal mantra might be: the less said the better.

10. What's lost amidst the dramatic gestures (her thumbs down on the Senate floor, when voting against a $15 an hour Minimum Wage was a John McCain reference), relaxed dress code, and outward self-assurance is that she probably planned her summer hijinks with her party, ahead of time; she caucuses with the overwhelmingly liberal Democrats in the Senate; and, according to the article I read, has voted 100% with the president this year. 

Update: March 16, '23: Here's a Vox piece by Christian Paz that explains her difficult though possible path to re-election since becoming an Independent.

Less Than What Meets The Eye

#371: Learning To Question What We See

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

I took a photo today that illustrates the problem of fakes; the particularly modern condition of things not being what they seem.

 

Those petals on the table are either a miracle on par with the latest UFO sighting, or..., right, those are from the geranium that preceded our white rose that you see.

I also conducted an experiment today.  I told myself I wasn't going to click on any ads (not that I ever do) at the bottom of a webpage, but that I was going to count the number that vaguely interested me.  Of course some were things I knew about already (Vikings in America 1000 years ago!), and some were too bizarre to be anything but disappointing ("Always pour coke on your tires when traveling alone.").  But, I dutifully tried to find something I was genuinely interested in.  I scrolled and I scrolled, but found nothing that I thought worth it.

Which is my point.  Isn't a 'life skill' like skepticism RE: advertising the perfect mental exercise?  It even feels vaguely empowering to know you aren't going to be clicking, just laughing at what advertisers think we'll fall for.  Hey, you could say it's 'one weird trick' up our sleeves!   

Is Biden On Track?

 #370: We answer the question

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

If we look back at the Biden Administration's first nine months, it's mostly A- action, with a few exceptions.  Here's the breakdown:

1. Has he stabilized the economy? A-  

The American Rescue Plan, passed in March '21, was what the economy needed to get pretty much back up to normal.  It also meant we could withstand the Delta variant's attack, the current shock to supply chains, and the uptick in prices--all likely inevitable following Covid's initial surge.

Could he have done more?  Short answer: no, boosterism gets you only so far.

A possible missed opportunity: combining his legislative agenda (which, though paid for, is expensive) with an effort to cut expenditures to reduce the Deficit, symbolically to begin with, but with wider potential once the economy recovers.  This effort could then have been rolled out just prior to unveiling his Afghan exit, with a 'peace dividend' part of a larger context.  The goal might be saving $100 billion over ten years, which could include suggestions submitted by individual Americans.  This would then insulate his administration from attacks over deficit spending, and dilute any internal opposition to passing his agenda.    

2. Has he fought off Covid? A 

Yes, he's done just about everything reasonable.  He's listened to the science, most importantly.  He's also accelerated vaccine availability, eased into vaccine mandates, and generally kept up with the pep talk.  

There are of course those who fault him for not committing more vaccines to countries which haven't the resources for an inoculation campaign.  Though it's true that, because of variants, we aren't safe until everyone's safe, worldwide, there are always nay-sayers, and plenty of them, who'll complain about not getting our own house in order, first.  So, his chosen lane is understandable.

Speaking of which, nay-sayers to the vaccine were always likely, and it certainly wasn't his fault that inoculation rates weren't higher, faster.  In fact, in the long run, the anti-vax crowd will almost certainly help sink Republican party prospects (due to lingering Covid in Red America), not only because the anti-vax argument is so obviously selfish and near-sighted, but because there are so many more voters who have received the vaccine than not.  

3. Does he have progress to point to, legislatively? A

Assuming Build Back Better passes later this month, he'll have pulled off something approaching a miracle.  With just 50 Democrats in the Senate, the odds were not good.  Though things are far from certain, the likelihood is that spirits will rise, money will flow, the economy will respond, and Biden's poll numbers will turn around from 'poor' to 'competitive'.

4. Has he kept his dignity and sense of humor? A-

If anyone has any doubt, check out the transcript from his recent town hall, which appeared a week or two ago on CNN.  He jokes about his agenda, his age, etc.  There's a mischievousness about his words, as if he's enjoying himself to the utmost.  He handles his talking points well, though there's a bit more stumbling around than one encountered with Barack Obama or Bill Clinton.   But he comes across as an everyman who's trying.

5. Is his own party with him, for the most part? A-

Yes, and the few hiccups to puncture the good-natured ambiance among Democrats have only highlighted the breadth of party opinion; from "democratic socialist" Bernie Sanders to "conservative" Democrat, Joe Manchin.  And this wide range of opinions is likely necessary to win elections.  Allowing Republicans to claim the 'moderate' vote would be disastrous.  There are simply too many middle-of-the-road and independent voters for Democrats to ignore the center.

6.  Are there signs that peace is breaking out around the world?  B+

 The Iran nuclear deal is set to be re-instated, or at least that is the plan.  Then there's the exit from Afghanistan, and Iraq soon enough.

What's missing is a comprehensive plan that rolls back military spending around the world.  This should be a top priority, as it's otherwise just a matter of time before tensions erupt and suddenly we're committing more lives and hundreds of billions to what could have been avoided.  

Worldwide commitments could have been rolled into the ongoing Climate Change conference, with reductions redirected, and poorer nations leaning into good behavior, due to a peace dividend flowing their way.  Or, a separate conference could effect the same end.

7.  How about the US border?  He's received his lowest grades there.  B

Unfortunately, there's little he can do, barring legislation that addresses the issue.

The low grades he receives are almost certainly due to both sides of the question being unsatisfied, leaving very few happy campers.

8.  Has scandal infected his cabinet or hangers on?  A

No, though it may be that we are unaware of what will soon spill out.  Let's hope not.

Martin Longman, at Progressive Pond, made the point that our former president couldn't turn the tables on the infamous 'infrastructure week' gag.  He didn't have the negotiating skills, despite protests to the contrary, and he and his cabinet, handlers, and associates were practitioners of 'crony' capitalism (for example, building cheap toll roads that some big shot buddy could use to skim a percentage off of the driving public).  Plus, it's hard to imagine what Biden Administration hanky-panky would even look like.

9.  Is he convincing Americans that his agenda is worthy?  B

Yes, he makes his appearances and presents his talking points.  And compared with an Obama or a Clinton, it isn't all so different.  

But, his outreach could be a bigger deal.  It could easily be a 'must see' moment every week if he convened experts and cabinet members to talk through a specific subject, with probing questions from the President, and then an audience asked before and after to register opinions on the matter at hand.  He could start out each appearance with a circling back to previous topics, giving an update on legislation here, a proposal there, a major announcement, and so on.

The format would be a breath of fresh air compared to reading from a tele-prompter.  Most importantly, it would be collaborative, giving viewers the sense that government is working on issues that're important.  It could also be entertaining, with video clips used for illustration.  Celebrities with expertise could humanize the discussion.  Improv comedians could be at the table to interject levity.  Close with a musical number as the credits roll.  Hold each appearance in a different location.

In short, show the captain in action, and he'll likely be captivating.   

Greening the Sinai Peninsula

 #369: Would It Work?

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

If you haven't heard about the amazing idea that a near-desert, the Sinai peninsula, could possibly become a healthy, productive landscape of farms, grassland, and forest, you are in for a real treat.

My introduction came via the David Byrne newsletter, Reasons To Be Cheerful, which I heartily recommend.  I then googled the subject and picked the Guardian link (above, first paragraph), which involves additional detail.

The gist, for those who don't feel like a 5-10 minute read, is that using the dredged sediments from the bottom of a large lake along the Mediterranean coast, the washed-away soil of a good deal of the peninsula can be returned, while at the same time, fog-nets in the mountains will catch moisture.  Most importantly, though, hundreds of greenhouses equipped with vats of life-breeding organisms will hop-scotch around the peninsula, generating greenery, then moving on to the next location.  After decades of hard work, the moisture in the air, flowing from the Mediterranean, will begin to fall as rain, thanks to the more moist local air.  

What's even more exciting is the possibility that a greened Sinai peninsula will act to funnel rain to the east, south and west (I assume Jordan, Upper Egypt, Saudi and Yemen) almost all of which is barren and unproductive.  This would allow what is now mostly wasteland to support some of the excess population found in the region, and hopefully avoid water-related conflict and other sources of tension.

The good news is that re-greening a vast area has happened before, in the loess hills of China, described in both articles linked to above.

The possible bad news (my own opinion) involves at least three hurdles that the project will encounter:

* Political.  The Chinese government didn't have to deal with an Islamist insurgency that has made the northern Sinai a no-go zone over the past decade. 

* Financial.  The Chinese government in the 1990s, though they had help from the World Bank, were able to dedicate hundreds of millions of dollars to the project.  The Egyptian government, by way of comparison, has somewhat less control of its economy; that is, fewer resources to work with.  And, they'll be paying for a European company to do the dredging, while the Chinese relied on local farmers who were likely paid very little.

* Cultural.  The Chinese banned tree cutting and grazing when implementing their project.  Can the Bedouin, plus Egyptian locals in the northern Sinai be expected to refrain from grazing?  

Hopefully the Islamists will fade away if the re-greening project attracts enough investment to create sufficient jobs and economic progress.  Probably the most important variable will be whether re-greening is seen as a local project, or an effort engineered by outsiders who have the Egyptian government to enforce their plans.

To sum up, the science involved is probably less problematic than is the execution.  At least the re-greening project, if it takes shape, will be seeking to work with nature, rather than against it.

Plotting Success -- It Isn't Easy

 #368: Nonetheless, We'll Take A Crack At It

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

In the Washington Monthly, David Atkins tries to explain why Democrats should forget about appealing to middle-of-the-road voters, and instead embrace what gets the base excited.  He thinks this is the way out of the trap that faces the Democratic party: not only do Republicans consistently get fewer votes at the presidential level (seven out of the last eight elections) yet still win or come close thanks to the Electoral College, but congressional elections are just as skewed in favor of Republicans--thanks to redistricting.

He identifies "popularism" (finding which Democratic proposals are most popular, and basing campaigns on them, exclusively) as the problem.  This is, he believes, because the proposals that generate the most excitement among activists (he mentions police reform, climate change, anti-racism) are what will get out the vote.

Given his arguments for this view (summarized below), it occurred to me that it's often the case that there's something to both sides of any argument.  And with that in mind, I comment (in green) on Atkins' points, #1 through #5, then suggest the two sides can be one.

Atkins:

1. Opinion surveys can't gauge what really motivates voters.

They're a starting point.  Usually, helping voters is a sure bet. 

2. Republicans win elections, despite having unpopular policies.

Usually because their opponents make tone-deaf mistakes. 

3. Activists won't stop pushing for social change, popular or not.

Nor should they.

4. De-emphasizing 'unpopular' issues may not bring back independents.

Or, talking someone's language is a first step. 

5. Appealing to the center at the expense of the base would lose votes.

Right-wingers certainly agree, witness their sharp turn to the fringe Right.

We can't possibly anticipate every future twist and turn, but a good bet is that combining the Left and Center, if it were possible, would be the most likely way forward.  So, what would that look like?  Maybe:

November '21: Includes addressing Climate Change, funding universal Pre-K, patching ObamaCare.

Spring '22: Identify symbolic cuts to the Deficit, and promise a major crackdown once the economy is humming.

Summer/Fall '22: Propose the following as a Democratic Party agenda if the Democratic margin increases to 52 in the Senate and the House is held:

1.  Allow Medicare to bargain for lower prescription drug prices.

2.  Climate Change, Part II

3.  A path to citizenship for Dreamers

4.  Family Leave

5.  Free Community College

Paid for by #1, above, as well as other revenue sources.

2023: A Voting Rights carve-out of the Senate Filibuster.

2024: Like '22, appeal to voters with a mix of max-popular items and progressive priorities.

2025+: Assuming wins in '22 and '24, take on things that need 60 votes.  By then, Republican moderates will likely have regained their voice (losing, time and again, will do that to you).  Or, if not, eliminate the filibuster and take on the next batch of super-popular items, plus a few progressive favorites.

The idea is to choose the most popular moderate and progressive agenda items on the buffet table; then, once properly fortified, and with the wind at your back, get to the remaining issues that seemed like such hard nuts to crack when you were weak and hungry. 

Grace Slick's "White Rabbit" -- Lyrics

 #367: An Anti-Drug Song?

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

I take it these lyrics, in black below, appeared on the Jefferson Airplane album, Surrealistic Pillow, released in 1967.  I say this because in a few instances there are other words I've always 'heard' in my own mind--of course this is true of many situations where the listener doesn't own the recording, and so doesn't see the words in print.  

This questioning of 'official' lyrics got me to look up the song on Wikipedia, read the commentary, as well as history, and look closer.  (Note: Slick originally wrote this song, in '65 - '66 when with a different band.)

So, a few comments (in red):

One pill makes you larger, and one pill makes you small

And the ones that mother gives you, don't do anything at all

(A comment I read suggested that the initials to the words "larger", "small" "don't" spell out LSD.  That seems like cherry picking, in the case of "don't".  Instead, the word in question is "you", which if it began with a 'd' would be "dou".  So, no dice.  The lyrics even continue with "don't do", so that's that.)  

Go ask Alice, when she's ten feet tall

And if you go chasing rabbits, and you know you're going to fall

Tell 'em a hookah-smoking caterpillar has given you the call

(Here, one can make the case that the word shouldn't be 'call', but 'cord'.  Perhaps it was, originally, but was considered too direct, plus it didn't rhyme as well as "call".  But it's perfect, otherwise, since it could also be spelled 'chord'.  On the other hand, there are but two, linked "call"s in the song.  What's the 'link'?  Perhaps, the "oh ok, ah" attitude to taking drugs needs to be discussed with a female friend who's sober. 

Also, the "...and you know..." could be imagined as "and, you know, you are going to fall")

And call Alice, when she was just small

When the men on the chessboard get up and tell you where to go

And you've just had some kind of mushroom, and your mind is moving low

(Grace Slick once, famously, claimed that "White Rabbit" was an anti-drug song, which most laughed at.  But, that's ignoring "...the men on the chessboard...", and possibly, the "...hookah-smoking caterpillar..."  If we remember that this is a female perspective--one of the first with a confident, decided tone--one can read it as advice for situations in which men seek to dominate (..."tell you where to go").  The advice is that Alice will know when she is 'small'.  In other words, it's easiest to judge situations when sober.

Note: Also, there is one female on a chessboard, and 'she' is as powerful as Slick's delivery.)    

Go ask Alice, I think she'll know

When logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead

(Here's one I've also heard differently.  The end of the line would be standard English if it were "...by the way".  But of course it can't be, since "...sloppy dead" rhymes with the song's final three lines.  Besides, it's fun, and could even be a snide comment: "BTW, aren't the Dead (a contemporaneous band) a bit sloppy compared to us? Ha ha.")

And the white knight is talking backwards

(Here, "knight" can become "king...ht" if the 'ni' is read or spoken backwards.)

And the red queen's off with her head

(A commenter noted that it's actually the queen of hearts that says "off with her head" in the books by Lewis Carroll, and, furthermore, that the white knight is not the character who talks backwards.  Which makes the pairing of the white knight and the red queen in the song's lyrics quite telling, and fitting, especially with the "larger...smaller" imagery, earlier)

Remember what the dormouse said

Feed your head, feed your head

(The five last words of the final five lines are, in order, dead, backwards, head, said, head, which could be a nice play on the word "head", using it as a verb as well as a noun.  But where is 'backwards', anyway, if we did want to head that way?  If it rhymed, it would be "backweds", so, possibly, Alice's knowing advice is for a woman to wait for her White Knight to turn into a forward-facing king, rather than following orders on a chessboard, or accepting a "cat's" pill, when one's mind is "...moving low...".)

So, overall, the listener hears a buffet table of ambiguous meanings, which is the mark of a well-rounded, mature song.  I highlight an alternate interpretation to underline that ambiguity.

What The Devil Wants

#366: Not What You Think

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

I recently googled "What Does The Devil Want", and as expected, there were many religious attempts to define the answer.  In fact, many fell into the trap of self-confirmation (several church websites had  "Keeping you from Church and studying the Bible." as a central devilish concern).  Below, I make a few observations on the topic:

  * Apparently the origin of the word 'devil' involves the Greek for 'slander'.  I find that interesting because, at first glance, slander doesn't seem that big of a deal.  In 2016 a candidate for president made up outlandish charges (Your father plotted to kill JFK), and defamatory nicknames ("Lyin' Ted Cruz", "Crooked Hillary", "Low Energy Jeb").  But, instead of being sidelined for the devil's work, that candidate easily won his party's nomination, and the presidency.  Of course, when you think twice about it, the use of slander is war--in miniature.

  *  Another answer to our question comes from the place where the devil lives--or should we say 'lived' since he's surely dead--hell.  If heaven is its opposite, hell is full of misery and lost hope.  But, isn't the realm of hell simply what happens to a mind that has chosen what it knows to be wrong?  When we transgress, we move from the unitary, internal agreement that is heaven, to the miserable duality of knowing we've made a mistake: regret, shame, and self-punishment.

What the devil wants, using the heaven and hell spectrum, is for us to end up divided in our minds, hating what we do, yet doing it anyway.  That is, ignoring our conscience and suffering the consequences.  Perhaps the best way to get a person to abandon the ship of conscience is to tempt him with the idea that he can get away with wrong-doing.  And if a movement emerged that treated 'getting away with it' as a manly virtue, that mocked shame (for pussies) and apologies (wimps), and attracted a leader who was a marvel at communicating those lessons (by literally never paying a price for his multitude of serious transgressions), wouldn't that be the perfect vessel to fulfill the devil's desire?

  * Finally, though, the devil would have to exact his price: hauling his minions off to hell.  That, of course, is his overall goal, so once a deal is struck, his targets abandon their conscience, revel in the giddy delight of not getting caught, reassure themselves on this account by repeating the same slanders ("Our enemies aren't worthy.") until the price must be paid: defeat, and the rest of their lives in hell.  Of course what has happened is that without a conscience, their inner decision-making process is compromised, atrophies, and is then abandoned, in favor of directions from their leader, making the end inevitable.  The foolish impulse finds its way into action.  The body rebels, with nervous ticks, or their equivalent, on display.  Doom then finds its prey, like the haunting owl's hoot: "Woo, woo, woo, woo, woo!        

Every Day A Winner

 #365: Walking Away --> Sometimes Key To Success

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

I admire people who don't need life to turn out one way or another.  They wake up in the morning and navigate a best way forward, no matter what disappointments occur.  And, if thwarted, they simply recalculate based on their new reality.  This may involve resistance, or it may be time to move on.

A person who doesn't need a certain outcome in life, doesn't need to control reality.  Instead, the twists and turns of fate can be scanned for opportunity, and sometimes what at first seems like a second-best outcome, or alternate course, becomes an unforeseen windfall.  On the other hand, it's usually the case that disappointments in life send one down what are obviously secondary paths.  But even then, it's better to accept reality, and be grateful as one counts one's blessings.  That's because, if things aren't going to get any better, why not turn one's full attention to making the best of it--that is, aiming for every day a winner?

Which is how I feel about President Biden's agenda getting through Congress.  If it succeeds, that's a win. If it doesn't, that could possibly, in the end, be a second-best result, though still getting quite close to an ideal outcome.

Here's the rundown, as I see it, covering the main characters, their outlook, and a bottom line for each.  

President Biden: He'll take whatever deal he can get, including a trade with SineManchin that sees, at minimum, several programs (Child Care, Paid Leave, Free Community College, Pre-K For All Kids, extended Child Tax Credit, Medicaid for non-Participant States, ObamaCare Patches, Climate, Medicare Expansion) in exchange for passing the Bi-Partisan Infrastructure bill that SineManchin are eager to see become law. 

Joe Manchin: To win his senate seat in 2024 (at age 77), he wants to take a stand against government largesse.  He likes the Infrastructure spending, and might accept several programs as listed above, but in general, the less the better.  How much of his strategy is a pose that he can abandon?  We don't know.  My guess is that it's all for real; he won't budge--very much.

Kyrsten Sinema: Arizona is a relatively conservative 'purple' state with a lot of well-off retirees.  Sinema, much to the irritation of most Democrats, is trying to appeal to middle-of-the-road voters, and hoping she can get past any primary opponent when she runs for re-election in 2024 (at age 48).  She has scuttled Democratic party plans to tax the rich and corporations, along with a plan to sock it to the big pharmaceutical companies.  In general, like Manchin, she believes less is better and seems to be hoping nothing passes, save for the Infrastructure bill she helped shepherd through Congress.  Will she compromise, once she's established herself as a conservative Democrat?  I'm guessing she's willing to give up a little bit, but only as long as she's seen as a throttler.

Bernie Sanders: Sanders, and the other progressives in Congress, want the entire $3.5 billion over ten years, if not more.  They're likely to wait until the last possible moment to see if the other side blinks.  Then they'll accept a deal that's at least $1.5 trillion or more, over ten years, but nothing less.

In all cases, the likeliest timeline involves a November agreement, if there is one.  This is because the US would like to pressure other countries to pledge generously to the fight against Climate Change at the upcoming UN conference in Glasgow, Scotland, occurring Oct. 31 through November 12.

Even if the Biden Agenda passes with little to show, Climate-wise, there will be government action to announce at the conference.  The EPA's Michael Regan has rules for methane emissions, as well as energy production, if Congress fails to act.  But, ideally, the start of the conference would see an agreement announced based on the relatively ambitious Biden agenda. 

What might the second-best outcome be?  Unless SineManchin are bluffing, and desperately want their Bi-Partisan Infrastructure bill, signing the two bills will likely leave out quite a few component parts.  But, this would allow Democratic candidates to campaign on those extras. Democrats could say: "All we need are another two senators, and everything's doable, including...XYZ".  The focus would be on the specific programs, themselves--many very popular--rather than on the 'deal' that's unfolding and how much it would cost.

Could SineManchin be bluffing?  It's not likely, but certainly possible.  This would be a very well kept secret: that both senators told Biden when negotiations began that they needed to drag out the negativity, but that as long as they're seen as nay-sayers, they'll eventually say they wanted the Infrastructure bill too badly to hold out, and all or most of the 3.5T will pass.  Somewhat more likely is that nothing is passed, and much more likely that a small portion makes it through the wringer.   

What's the likelihood that Democrats keep the House and add two senate seats?  Most experts would say that this is very unlikely.  But, there are several things working in the other direction (as I explained in an earlier post):

* Biden's predecessor has been acting erratically, and could easily become too old for his role as party boss.  Plus, he has a record of making everything about him.  So, if his favored candidate is beaten by another Republican in a state primary, he may refuse to endorse the victor, ruining that candidate's chances.  Likewise, he may pick a flawed candidate, and that candidate wins his primary, but ruins the party's chances in the general.

* Covid could be on the way out.  If it is, or is for the most part, the nation's mood could improve dramatically.

* The economy could take off.  Despite Covid's Delta variant, the threat of inflation, and supply chain problems, the economy has been chugging along.  The most likely to disappear is inflation.  Most higher-level economists point to recent inflation pressures as being temporary.

* Anti-Vax fever among some Republican politicians is almost certainly a loser.  It is hard to believe there aren't Republican advisers trying to kill what is a bug-eyed 'painting yourself into a corner' position if there ever was one (the percent of voters who are vaccinated against Covid is probably close to 75% and the percent vaccination against Measles, etc., is nearly 100%).

What about a "We don't need this" approach from Bernie and the progressives?  Could it work?  In other words, if progressive Democrats refuse to pass the Infrastructure bill without the full $3.5 trillion over ten years also passing, would SineManchin blink?  Most political pundits would say it wouldn't work, since Biden himself has said the total price would likely be lower.  But who knows?  The power of "I don't need this." is often underrated.  And if Biden and SinaManchin had made a wink-and-nod deal in advance, it'd be the perfect thing for Biden to say "It'll be less." to erase any footprints (the deal where SineManchin act out, before changing their tune at the last minute).  And if you think about it, running for re-election on a popular platform, with very popular pay-fors (taxing the rich and corporations) isn't a bad consolation prize for the progressives.

It might even make for a winner of a day--but not until November 8th '22.

My point, though, is always aim to win the day, and that starts with being grateful, no matter what.

 

What's With All The *@?1`* WTF Language?

 #364: So What?

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

Like most modern Americans I hear everybody's 'few choice words' and consider it par for the course.  But let's take a closer look:

When someone swears, what are they really doing?  They're breaking a taboo.

But what if we switched taboos?  What if, to express outrage, frustration, independence, or just for emphasis, the custom became to briefly remove an item of clothing?

"Not fair", you say, since speech is much more of an abstract expression than is covering up/uncovering our bodies.

Actually, 'mooning' someone, or more often other people, plural, does seem a bit like cursing.  And our little experiment reveals something about swearing: that it's more 'attack' than 'defense'; it's aimed at another person's comportment and standards, or more often, general societal standards, rather than ones' own.  This becomes easy to understand if you imagine someone who's so isolated they know no one can hear; and when they swear, the words have no strength; they're but weak imitations of the real thing, ringing hollow in the speaker's mind.

Which is the reason I don't swear, save for the occasional "big, big 'D'" as the song goes.  But does it bother me when others swear?  Yes and no.  In the end I'm invariably unaffected, so I end up not caring.  I do feel sorry for someone who fails to use choice words sparingly and in just the right situation.  And it does bother me, initially--as it takes a split second to confirm the speaker's intent, just as a sudden lunge in your direction, in a crowd, is disconcerting, briefly, until you realize someone just wants to shake you hand.

Another reason I don't swear is that like removing one's clothes and standing naked in front of strangers, the common prohibition on the mixing of public and private spaces is a handy rule of thumb for discerning appropriate conduct.  The exceptions, like allusions, allegorical art, the manipulation of symbols, and so on, are what fuels creativity; but if not partially hidden from view, that creativity simply fails, due to over-exposure.

Smart Money On Clean Energy

#363: Why Climate Change Isn't Just Another Ozone Hole

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

For those of you too young to remember, the '80s and '90's had what at first glance seems like something similar to Climate Change as an urgent issue: an ozone hole over Antarctica.  Looking back at what was a successful campaign to end the use of the chemical causing the problem, CFCs, some would say, "Hey, we'll solve Climate, too, just give us time."  Except that's not how it works with Climate.  That's because almost all economic activity uses fossil fuels or causes carbon to be released.  This is changing, slowly, with innovations in energy, agriculture, and materials allowing progress, but altering what fuels our economy uses is a much bigger challenge than banning a single chemical used as a refrigerant.

That's why governments must lead the way; for obvious reasons (spreading the word, raising the enormous funds necessary, and getting it done ASAP) as well as to signal to other nations that we're a team player.

Surprisingly, the first countries to change over to a clean energy economy won't be the ones taking the biggest hit, but those likely to be the big winners, globally.  Don't we want the Googles, Apples and Twitters of renewable energy technology to be in the US?  Besides, taxes on carbon (a national tax as well as international tariffs) are inevitable, so those who change now pay little in the long run.  And who wants to be the last one to buy a gas-powered car?  If it has no resale value, gasoline is taxed much more vigorously, and gas stations have all but disappeared, that's a losing proposition.

And where are we in getting ready to surf the coming wave?  A major first step in the right direction is currently awaiting passage in the Senate.  President Biden's Build Back Better policy agenda would mean walking down the beach towards that clean energy wave on the horizon.  Ironically, the senator least likely to go along with Biden's plans is from a state that would greatly benefit from the government spending involved.

Hopefully something will remain of our president's Climate agenda if and when BBB passes the Senate.  The obvious thing to do at that point, aside from talking up the economic gold mine that is being innovative and cutting-edge, rather than late to the party, is for Democrats to get to 52 seats in the Senate, and then get rid of the filibuster, making the governing process much easier, and enacting what are popular Democratic policies.

The chances of that happening aren't as long as some would think.  Here's my top-10 list of what might happen to cause the Dems to get lucky.

And here is Ed Kilgore with the suggestion that Dems reserve the highly popular Medicare Expansion provisions (vision, dental, hearing) for 2022, when voters would be reminded why they want to vote Democratic.

 

How To Handle China

 #362: Answer:  The US Will Take These Steps If You Don't Behave

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

The reunification of China is not something I oppose, and I imagine that is how most Americans view the matter.  What does irritate is a 'husband' telling a 'wife' that she must submit, without first attracting her with righteous action.

A recent speech by Chinese President Xi Jinping restated his desire for a peaceful reunification with Taiwan, a self-governing island since China's civil war ended in 1949.  Few people have any problem with this sentiment.  Instead, the reason Taiwan has said 'no', and the US has backed them up, is because Xi's China wants its 'wife' more than it wants to please her.

Obviously, everybody has a lot on the line.  With the world's economy intimately connected, any hostilities, let alone an invasion of Taiwan, would bring ruin to our lives, planet-wide.  To avoid such a mess, the US should communicate to Xi that if he doesn't behave, the US will take the following steps:

 * Publicly link Xi to 'the husband who desires his wife, but won't please her'.  This shaming would be a big embarrassment, and if it were communicated in concert with other world leaders, the effect would be world class humiliation.

 * A next step, if necessary, would be to publicly urge the relocation of business links to other markets

 * Yet another step would be to offer incentives for said relocation, and for active government investment in necessary substitute supplies of things like rare earth metals

 * Finally, if Xi won't abide by the laws of marital engagement, a defensive military posture can be augmented

Ideally, none of the above would be necessary.  A private message, signed by the US and its allies would lay out the above four steps and ask that Xi 'attract' Taiwan in his bid for reunification.

Will 'Plant A Billion Trees' Work?

#361: A Local Cautionary Tale

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

The fight against Climate Change involves cutting emissions of greenhouse gasses, first and foremost.  Eventually, we'll also want to remove carbon from the air, since much of what we emitted in the past century will otherwise be in our atmosphere for a long time, causing Climate Chaos.  In some regions this will involve artificially removing carbon.  In most of the world, however, planting grasses at sea, and trees on land is the obvious, natural solution.  

Unfortunately, there are problems with our efforts at planting trees.  As this Vox article by Benji Jones points out, trees need water, the right soil, and usually, cooperation from the locals.  Otherwise, if planted in the middle of a hot summer, in inhospitable soil, or in a field used for grazing, most seedlings will perish. 

A local example:  A decade or so ago a particularly curvy section of a local highway was straightened by the state highway department, and in its former curvy areas trees were planted.  I imagine the on-paper master plan for this project had generic blobs of trees on each side of the roadway.  Someone then asked a tree person what kinds of trees should be planted.  The answer was probably smaller ornamental offerings so as not to eventually pose the threat of a taller tree falling on the road.

When one drives through this area these days, the planted trees have suffered from deer damage, something the state's experts, living in an urban area, perhaps didn't consider.  In this more rural location, trees need the following:

* water, in particularly dry months, during the year after planting

* minimal fencing to keep deer from eating and rubbing

* mowing, to keep competing vegetation from overcoming planted trees

Ironically, 'volunteer' trees will take over if allowed.  For Climate, this is probably the likeliest solution.  Unfortunately, this could easily result in massive hackberry, oak and maple within yards of the roadway, a no-no for a highway department that must constantly fight fallen limbs and trunks (Fun Fact: nearly a century ago a wealthy local planted sycamores along this roadway, county line to county line.  Unfortunately, though beautiful, they were all removed, in their prime, to widen the road).

So, the obvious solutions are a fall planting to avoid a spring planting plus drought, in addition to minimal fencing (I re-purpose livestock fencing for my trees).  Alternatively, as I do, mowers can be on the lookout for 'volunteers' growing in the right location.  These are often the result of squirrel know-it-all foresight, and can be flagged and mowed around.  This takes a good eye and a grounding in tree-identification.  But this still leaves deer as spoilers, so best to settle for fencing.

Top Ten Events Leading To A Democratic Victory In 2022

 #360: Will These Events Happen?  Possibly.

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

Predicting the future isn't easy, but we can imagine the future based on possible events, and be fairly sure--if those events are significant--about where they might lead.

So, let's explore ten events, ranked according to the certainty they'd mean a Democratic victory in the 2022 midterms.  #10 is the least likely, #1 the most:

#10:  Democrats attract 'mirror' candidates for congressional districts in which the Republican candidate is heavily favored.  Mirror candidates promise to reflect constituent opinion, rather than to offer their own.  They run as 'outsiders', bringing sanity to Washington.  The idea is to peel off enough independents to deprive the traditional Republican candidate of a sure win.  Candidates would reflect constituent opinion by holding town halls, commissioning polls, and setting up online feedback mechanisms, then voting accordingly.  Direct democracy's lure in the tech age might be hard for the independent-minded to resist.

#9:  Afghanistan fades from the headlines, and instead of periodic reminders of tragic death and destruction, the realization that we removed ourselves from an endless war gains the upper hand.  Ideally, the Taliban would have immediate difficulties governing and have to rein in their worst tendencies in order to secure international investment.  Or, even better, their autocracy collapses due to intransigence, incompetence and recession-induced infighting, leading to elections and an internationally recognized unity government.

#8:  Iowa senator Chuck Grassley dies, aged 89, just weeks before his 2022 election contest.  Iowa Republican party leadership, controlled by Trump loyalists, selects a replacement nominee who is unprepared for prime time.  He makes several gaffes, and fumbles softball questions from Fox News hosts.  The Democratic candidate draws enough independent voter support to squeak through to victory, preserving a 50-50 Senate.

#7:  The various voter-suppression efforts at the state level (Texas, for example) have the perverse effect of egging on marginal Democratic voters, who want to vote based on some of the other items on this list.  This reverse psychology also energizes the organizers tasked with getting out the vote.

#6:  The Delta variant of the Covid-19 virus becomes increasingly confined to areas of the country where vaccination rates are lowest.  These areas correspond to regions where Republican voters constitute a clear majority.  With a death rate differential (deaths in Red areas minus those in Blue areas) averaging perhaps 500 a day, for a year, there'd be something like a hundred thousand fewer Republican votes by election day.  In a few close races (perhaps Georgia's senate contest), that could be the difference.

#5:  Our 45th president suffers extreme embarrassment as New York state's investigation into the Trump Corporation uncovers massive tax evasion and insider coddling.  Add in his other looming, legal headaches and the publicity is sure to register with 2022 voters.  Will his hand-picked governor, senate and house candidates want him on stage, campaigning with them?  But of course.

#4:  During his two years out of office, come 2022, our previous president has kept up his high fat, high cholesterol, low fiber diet.  His legal predicaments cause intense stress.  This eventually catches up with him.  Hobbled by a heart condition, stroke, or other ailment, he's a shadow of his pre-presidential self and unwilling to expose his weakness in a public attempt to fire up the Republican base.  The party is rudderless just when it needs a shot in the arm.  

#3:  The vaccination rate nears something approaching 'herd immunity' in most metro and suburban areas.  Cases, hospitalizations and deaths plummet as the virus is confined to areas of low vaccination.  This stark contrast highlights the shocking Republican embrace of anti-vax sentiment in states like Florida.  Even greater numbers of suburban voters choose their Democratic candidate, joined by a small but significant number in rural areas.

#2:  The repeated federal spending on the pandemic, coupled with the Biden agenda's stimulus effect, means the economy is in line for a dynamic growth rate last seen in the 1990s.  Suddenly, the main pillar of Republican attacks on the Democratic agenda crumbles, bringing down Republican hopes for retaking the House and Senate.

#1:  Because of his intense need for adoration and, in turn, control over others, our previous president has managed to lower the chance of success for Republicans in a number of key races.  Instead of strong conservative candidates able to appeal to independents, his weight is instead behind toadying yes-men, each with a bumbler's single-minded resolve: to make the boss look good.  This only brings upset defeats to the fore.

I'm leaving out Inflation, Abortion and Climate, as they're either ambiguous (inflation), inflame passions on both sides (abortion), or are likely more of the same (climate).

A recent article by Matt Cooper in the Washington Monthly makes the case that the 10-year $3.5 billion Build Back Better bill now before Congress (free Community College, free Child Care, Paid Leave, extended Child Tax Credit, expansion of Medicare, and a big first step on Climate Change among other things) isn't necessary for a Democratic victory in the midterms.  And neither is the 10-year $1 billion bi-partisan Infrastructure bill.  Three possible outcomes, RE: the Biden Agenda, as I see them, ranked least to most likely to assist Democrats in 2022:

#3: The Infrastructure bill passes; the Build Back Better bill does not.  We should remember that, on its way to the Senate, Republicans in the House, egged on by the former president, voted against the bi-partisan infrastructure bill, a wildly popular spending plan, just to deny Biden a win.  Votes against were also being readied as of last week.  In '22, faced with opponents who remind voters of this shameful, heedless selfishness, what's a loyal, Trumpified Congressman to say?

#2: Neither bill passes.  As Cooper points out, this allows for an aggressive Democratic message in 2022.

#1: The Two Bills, Linked, Pass Together.  Even if the price tag is brought down significantly, the 'win' would be contagious.

According to this informative tweet, the specific $$ amounts (in billions), over ten years, for several likely items in the Build Back Better bill are: 

Child Care and Pre-K: $465                                                                                                                            

Paid Leave: $450

Climate: $625

Free Community College: $120

IRS Funding $80 

Total: $1.74 trillion, almost exactly half the original Biden plan.  This, or a similar scaled-back version would presumably receive the blessing of Democratic hold-out senators, given the following tweaks: 

* Allow fossil fuel sequestration to count toward renewable energy (once that proposed technology has been proven reliable).  

* Make the first two items means-tested (if you're rich enough you don't need them), which would bring the total down to the 1.5 T maximum identified by one key senator.  Note: few rich kids would be going to community college.

* Task the IRS with providing taxpayers all they need to file a digital return.  Make it an easy few minutes online for the vast majority of filers.  This would surely be very popular, and help congress swallow the 'increased enforcement' pill--also very popular.

Paying for the above would be a handful of items selected from the right-hand side of the linked tweet, above.

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

10/13 Update: Ed Kilgore, in New York magazine, suggests that Democrats hold off on the very popular Medicare expansion plank in the Biden agenda, and save that for a reconciliation bill in 2022.  This would mean that just when voters were making up their minds about who to vote for during the summer and fall of 2022, they'd be reminded that Democrats were voting to include vision, hearing and dental care benefits in Medicare.   If this were ranked in the above list, I would place it somewhere between #3 and #5.

Is American Genius Identifiable?

#359: Maybe

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

If there really is something about the American experience that's exceptional, what is it?  Well, I think I can put my finger on it.  But first, here's what it isn't.

Most native cultures around the world value tradition because "the old ways" have emerged over the centuries as the best way forward.

What makes the West--and especially America--different in the modern era is that the individual is arbiter of the best way forward.  And the fact that hundreds of millions of humans can live in relative luxury is mainly due to harnessing individual self-interest.

This 'productivity' is the focus of a recent piece in the New Yorker by Cal Newport that attempts to fight back against the recent vilification of productivity.

But the genius of Western productivity isn't that it allows bosses to force workers to put out more and more for the corporate bottom line.  That, of course, is phony productivity, since there's no individual self-interest generated, any more so than in a factory in the old Soviet Union.

When this country was 90% family farms, two centuries or so ago, most work was based on self-interest, and that pattern is what set up what we can now claim as American Genius.  When productivity is one's own to maximize, or laugh at, the mind has decades of practice finding the best solution to any given predicament. 

How best to rekindle that original genius now that our workforce is at least 90% urban (mainly hourly wage earners), and most work in the remaining 10% is no longer that of self-interested farmers, but of hired hands and such?

Time control, by employees.   

1. Determine a job's average productivity.

2. Allow any employee an early exit on days when that employee's productivity exceeds the average. 

3. Or, instead, allow that employee to take paid time off at a later date.

4. Management receives a third of any increased productivity.  There are also better health outcomes through improved morale, and thus less spending on healthcare.

Determining average productivity is done in a systematic way, commonly referred to as the industrial time study.  Though instead of improved workflow, the emphasis is on setting a baseline beyond which productivity is deemed to have increased.  It is then up to individual self-interest to increase productivity beyond this determined 'average'.  This of course happens due to the payoff of an early exit to the workday or time off at a later date.  Work quality can also be measured to avoid slapdash effort, and those pursuing quality work instead of speed retain their baseline paycheck.

Controlling the pace of one's actions is the essence of a self-employed life.  

A slightly less powerful answer to our question is the co-op.  A business that is owned by its workers will have that same self-interest propelling work ("If I do my best, my paycheck will be bigger").  There are, of course, opportunities for goof-offs to ride other workers' productivity (compared to the above individual worker-based system), which is why co-ops are a second-best option.  Though, obviously, a worker-owned business could always implement the above 4-step process.

Ironically, it may be that labor unions would benefit even more than individual workers if our pace-of-work process were implemented.  This is because, currently, hourly wages enable less than productive work practices ("My paycheck won't increase if my work is above average, so why try?  Instead, I'll just take it easy").  And those who happen to observe union workers will unconsciously notice that work is being done at a suboptimal pace, and over time conclude that unions are inherently a drag on American Genius.    

Finally, The Last Country Has Switched To Lead-Free Gasoline

 #358: The Day Our Afghan War Ended

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

Back in 2018, Kevin Drum, then at Mother Jones (now blogging on his own), wrote a wrap-up piece on how leaded gas has been responsible for elevated levels of crime and violence.  Here's the link.   At the time, he suggested that the Middle East would be a much calmer place once all leaded gas is a distant memory (15-20 years or so).

Well, today, the BBC reports that Algeria finally made the world lead-free.   

The countries that have only recently gotten the lead out are a list of the world's troubled and war-torn areas: 

"North Korea, Myanmar and Afghanistan stopped selling leaded petrol by 2016, leaving only a handful of countries, including Iraq, Yemen and Algeria, still providing the toxic fuel in the latter half of the last decade."

So, by the 2040s, a place like Afghanistan will finally begin its return to a less feverish state. 

The Comeuppance Show

 #357: Skewering The Wrongheaded

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

"Capitalism is the problem" is a trendy refrain that's...imprecise at best.  What critics of capitalism are usually objecting to is salesmanship taking over from actual worth.  Their valid critique is that when someone trys to sell something, their own interests in selling often trump their objectivity.

On the other hand, someone who borrows money to set up a workshop in her attic, where she makes jewelry, which she then sells online at a reasonable price, meanwhile paying off her loan, is of course participating in the capitalist system.  And most critics of capitalism would say there's nothing wrong with doing that.

What upsets most critics are unethical actions surrounding the buying and selling of merchandise.  Misrepresenting what one sells, destroying one's competition in order to corner a market, deceiving one's customers, donating to politicians in exchange for business 'assistance'.  There's even the unsustainable degradation of the natural world for profit.     

I wonder if TV networks have ever considered a half hour sketch show that skewers some of the more wrongheaded salesmanship in our economy.  

Here's an example: Lovable stop motion animals are having a picnic deep in the forest, next to a babbling brook.  Half-way through, a Mr Toad -like creature, oblivious to the impact of his actions, sends the picnickers in all directions as he drives a huge SUV up the creek bed.  He's being filmed for a commercial that touts a vehicle that "can go anywhere".   He drives off, leaving a mudhole, with the other animals in various states of disarray.  Several staggering characters hold up a banner that reads: "Attention Toads: Please Use Roads" 

A companion website could host the show's content and allow for explainers ("Despite what you see in commercials, please stay out of natural areas.") and interaction.

The feel would be light-hearted, fun, but thoughtful.  Like the best of cartoons.

Could A Unified, Binational Israel Work?

 #356: How Might It Come About

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

Thanks to Lit Hub I was able to avoid the NYRB's paywall and read Omri Boehm's article about prospects for settling the Palestinian/Israeli situation.

It's hard to know whether the prospects for a 2-state solution are indeed as grim as the article contends.  If so, it seems equally unlikely that Israelis would agree to a unitary state that encompasses all of Israeli and Palestinian lands, assuming this means Israeli voters are eventually outnumbered by Palestinians.

Which would suggest there's no hope for the near future, unless, of course, compromises were possible.  Here's an outsider's notion of what compromise might look like:

First, the near-term is impossible; there really is little hope.  Instead, it might help to imagine a distant future by which time a gradual cooling of tensions could possibly end in peace.  If that future was, say 2100, and the time between now and then was spent preparing, rather than in fighting, a unified nation, composed of several generations who had grown up under this unfolding process might be in the cards.

Until then, all manner of cooperation would be called for to negotiate a relationship between a state and its intended.  Obviously, Palestinians would require a quasi-state for themselves, but one that was temporary.  Otherwise, a few possibilities:

An Education-Weighted Legislative Body For Palestinians.

A Palestinian Authority that is based on education-weighted voting (higher ed degrees would carry greater voting weight than would elementary ed; plus, educational opportunity would be expanded for all).  Incentivizing educational attainment could go a long way toward alleviating Israeli fears.  

Also, female leadership would be guaranteed a certain percentage of seats in a transitional legislative body.  Again, this would emphasize the importance of a gradual transition towards a cosmopolitan Palestinian outlook.

A Phased, Long-term Shift.

Rule of law, voting rights, and military conscription, for example, are gradually introduced for all non-Israeli Palestinians "between the river and the sea", with the process ending in 2100 with full integration.  Negotiations in the meantime concern a timetable and an unfolding process.

Palestinians Are Asked To Approve Any Deal.

A plebiscite open to all non-Israeli Palestinians within the nascent nation-state would be held in a number of years to approve this transitional process after initial negotiations to write up the question to be posed.

Update: Dec. 25th '23:  This blog entry has been totally rewritten.

Is A 'Smart Home' Worth It?

 #355: I Describe Minimal-Tech Easy

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

Gizmodo ran a column recently by Andrew Liszewski that gives us a peek into the world of 'smart homes', where things like lights, music, temperature, even doors are all automated.  A tech geek can park his vehicle in the garage, have the porch lights come on, the door swing open, house lights turn on, with dinner and music on cue as well.  Robot vacuums have cleaned the floor and the air is purified and appropriately cool.  

Our columnist strikes a negative tone, though, discussing the hassles involved with set-up and coordination.

Since I use near-zero gadgetry, enjoy the spontaneity of doing things myself, and have long wondered how people have time to set up and maintain their gadgets, here's a short list of how I view the promise of the smart home:

1. Music.  Having grown up in an age where people actually sat together to listen to music, I wonder whether relegating music to a background roar that's barely heard--as other things are ongoing--makes sense.  I have Radio Paradise on, sometimes, when I'm sitting at my computer.  I occasionally listen to music when driving.  That's it.

2. Vacuuming. Since I often walk barefoot outside, my feet bring grass (often freshly mown) into the house.  Is this worth cleaning up?  Every once in a while I'll vacuum, but in that case, I'm in the mood,

3. Lighting. The idea of lights coming on automatically when one enters a room seems like such a small victory.  It's just the flip of a switch one is short-cutting.  Besides, I prefer no-light or next-room-light for places like the bathroom.  And turning off a light when you leave a room becomes second nature--especially if you care about conserving.  Plus the dramatic turning on of a light is stripped of all context when it's automatic.  What if a voice behind you says lazily "let's leave the light off".

I could go on, but you get the idea.  

The concept of a 'smart house' is perfect for selling us things we may not really need.  And for futurist writers who need something spiffy to point to in the future, the idea of the dumb servant, performing our chores for us, seems like a logical next step in civilizing our homes.  

Maybe I'm doing too many chores for my own good, but I doubt it.