SNL Greats --The List

 #331: Ok, A Link To A List

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

I've watched Saturday Night Live for a majority of the 46 years it's been around (exceptions: the first 10 years, and another 10 years from 2000 to around 2010--when we could finally DVR way too late night material).  I often don't think the humor is good enough (we skip over many a skit after giving it a look), but occasionally something'll be so good I'll actually remember it years later (Dana Carvey's "Broccolee, Broccolii")

Anyway, Paste has a fairly good list up counting down the show's top 50 comedians.  I agree with the majority, save for these exceptions (and a few 'stinker' stickers which I won't apply).

1.  In general, the first 7-8 years don't measure up to the occasional comedic brilliance found in later shows--save for Dan Aykroyd.  But I wasn't there.

2.  This list doesn't give its women members their due.  Cecily Strong, Maya Rudolph, Kate McKinnon, and Melissa Villaseñor (not on the list--had a great solo Covid sketch recently) especially deserve a higher (lower) number.

3. A few times, specific performers drew me back to watching regularly: Martin Short, initially, Mike Myers around '90, and Tina Fey in '08--proven talent, and each deserve greater recognition.

The list, without the photos and several paragraphs on each:

50. Joe Piscopo

49. Cheri Oteri

48. Garrett Morris

47. Leslie Jones

46. Beck Bennett

45. Kyle Mooney

44. Molly Shannon

43. Tim Meadows

42. Bobby Moynihan

41. Jimmy Fallon

40. Cecily Strong

39. Laraine Newman

38. Ana Gasteyer

37. Seth Meyers

36. Chris Rock

35. David Spade

34. Billy Crystal

33. Fred Armisen

32. Vanessa Bayer

31. Jason Sudeikis

30. Adam Sandler

29. Martin Short

28. Dennis Miller

27. Darrell Hammond

26. Jane Curtin

25. Chevy Chase

24. Norm Macdonald

23. Maya Rudolph

22. Jan Hooks

21. Aidy Bryant

20. Will Forte

19. Mike Myers

18. Jon Lovitz

17. Kate McKinnon

16. Kristen Wiig

15. Andy Samberg

14. Tracy Morgan

13. Bill Murray

12. Chris Farley

11. Tina Fey

10. Kenan Thompson

9. Amy Poehler

8. Bill Hader

7. Dana Carvey 

6. Gilda Radner

5. Dan Aykroyd

4. John Belushi

3. Phil Hartman

2. Will Ferrell

1. Eddie Murphy

Our Culture Of The Vicarious

 #330: How Did A Land Of Plans Become A Land Of Fans?

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

There's much to be worried about these days, and whether a nation of do-it-yourselfers (both prairie pioneers and off-the-boat entrepreneurs) is becoming overly distracted by the entertainment of others, shouldn't rank all that high.  But, I'll run through a few activities that are making us more 'follower' and less 'leader', and describe ways I've overcome.

Music

We all have the best music (and worst, with much in-between) at our finger-tips.  But why aren't we listening to quintessentially American, self-taught geniuses--the contemporary equivalent of a Jimmi Hendrix, let's say, instead of the formulaic 'sounds-like-all-the-rest' quivering, quavering voice that sounds self-indicting to my ear.

I sat myself down at the piano in 2014 and, using a beginner's playbook, started practicing.  I had had lessons as a kid.  A few times I experimented with notes and chords that sounded good.  I wrote them down.  Next year (it's always next year, isn't it) I will finally check out that Garage Band app and get started.

Movies

We also have the best of film available.  And most of us will gladly watch several a month, living through the triumphs and tragedies of other peoples' lives.  The spectacle, the emotional thrill, the rush of events.  But what about our own lives?  Are there things we're missing as a result.

For me, a 2-3 hour commitment is way more than I have time for, unless I'm making a social move, and can discuss what's going on during (hitting the pause button) or afterwards ("I bet you liked the scenery.") Otherwise, I'm 99.9999% selective, and haven't seen a movie in many years.

Celebrities

There's something about a familiar face that lights up our minds.  And that 'turn on' can find us buying a People magazine, or watching a television appearance.  Fandom is fairly innocent, after all.  But, with celebrities, there goes the urge to work on our own lives, to polish to celebrity-level status a few of our own traits--we're all good at something, given enough time.

My guilty pleasure in this regard is watching the occasional interview on DVRed late night comedy programs (Seth, Colbert, Fallon).  The questioning is almost always entertaining, and the celebrities usually are too.  This involves a lot of former SNL cast members.  And, I'm eating lunch or dinner, so I'm really not wasting time.

Sports

I'm sometimes amazed at how much my contemporaries follow sports.  I overhear conversations involving, not just the latest results, but which teams have what it takes.  The amount of time required to become knowledgeable in a particular sport is probably something one doesn't notice.  But to what end?

Early in life I was a rabid local sports fan, though I confined myself to baseball, for the most part.  And I have followed the home team's ups and downs fairly regularly, even watching a game once every year or so (a good use of time when ill). 

Then, many years ago, I was part of a privately run league whose Commissioner used a computer game version of Stratomatic Baseball, run super-fast, to create an entire season's worth of games, using the real world players that we managers groomed, traded, benched, etc.  Then, the following year, the previous year's results were used, rather than real life stats.  What fun, as each week during the season we'd receive a packet of game printouts and team statistics in the mail.   While it lasted it was an absolute joy.

Lately, I've been introduced to the world of fantasy baseball (bid for players on 'your' team, then competitively match batting and pitching statistics with other teams in your league of twelve).  You have a budget that allows you to, as the team's manager, let go of duds and sign promising talent, etc.  The managerial challenge is what makes this more than a silly diversion--at least that's what I tell myself.  And discussing one's actions with another manager is a delight!  It's on Yahoo and it's free.

Television

Again, we have access to all the shows we might care to watch, old and new.  And for many, the temptation to let TV take over our lives must be overwhelming.  But, how many shows do we remember a few years out?

I vaguely recall a show I must have seen in reruns, The Wild, Wild West, which was set on the American frontier during the mid-1800s, but involved fascinating gadgetry, lots of chases on top of moving trains, costume disguises, and the like.  Entertaining, for sure, but do I remember anything more than a vague greatness?  No.

So, I pretty much stick to the DVRed late night comedy shows, plus a few current events / talking heads shows that keep my amateur's A+ rating current in that field.  Then I read about the unbelievable torrent of shows that I never get to, and the chatter behind each, skipping over articles like "Top Ten Shows To Watch On Netflix" (I get a lot of general interest newsletters).  Obviously, I don't subscribe to a downloading service.  Maybe some day.

Twitter

As with much else in life one can find all sorts on Twitter--or any other social media platform for that matter.  There are the friends one wants to encourage, the celebrity lives that can be 'all anyone's talking about', even the odd-ball retweeters who will send you "funny", "clever" or "outrageous" content.

My approach is to avoid the arguing (seriously, what arguing?) and instead follow journalists and keen observers.  The journalists are all in one "List" that I compiled recently (and now access nearly every day).  This keeps me current (that amateur's A+ rating I mentioned earlier).  Many journalists are retweeters (so a few goes a long way), and some are exclusively 'inside scoop' and 'my take' writers.  Then I have a fun list of people I've found interesting, that I look at when I have time, and that I occasionally add to, once I check out a likely retweetee's postings and decide they have something to say.  Plus, I limit Twitter to breakfast time, so that I'm not tempted to scroll indiscriminately.  And my lists don't have ads (I'm always surprised that Twitter still allows ad-free lists), so I'm not grossed out by an ad for something I find sickening (fabric detergents that smell like artificial flowers for example).

Mystical or Missed-The-Call?

 #329: Do We Sensationalize The Everyday Surprise?

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

Here at the computer I can see my collection of persimmon wood (wonderful texture and gnarled structure).  One piece (see below) had been partially covered by a sweater set on a hanger.  I put the sweater outside early last fall to air out (I bought it for a few dollars at a 2nd-hand store), since I can't stand the artificial aromas that attend most detergents (it's got to be scent-free for me).

Well, yesterday was windy, and gazing out my window I noticed the sweater, blowing in the wind.  Then I remembered I'd planned to bring it in to wear before the cool weather was over.  After a half-year outside, it would smell wonderful.

That was at about noon, maybe a quarter after.  At 12:28 I saw a blur outside, and was shocked to realize the sweater had been blown off its hanger.

A person who appreciates the wonders of our world will think this mystical.  Had a sweater felt itself called by a nearby mind?  Was it eager to be put on?

Maybe, until I realized I could be blowing the call.  It's a bit disillusioning, but think about the logic in reverse.  I only noticed the sweater because it was moved by an especially strong wind.  If there'd been no wind, I wouldn't have thought about it.

So, to sum up, if I were a mystical person, I'd think it was nigh a miracle.  And if I were a science-only person, I'd be satisfied it was all happenstance.  Since I'm a mix of the two, I have to say I enjoyed the drama....  I did look at the sweater again just now, and saw that it has an 'Izod' brand stylized logo sporting the initials "I" and "Z".  Hmmm.

Photos taken Oct. 2nd, 2012

Another piece.  Why the swerve?

Sleeping Giant Stirs: Voting Rights

 #328: HR1's All-Encompassing Fixes

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

I have now read through the entire Brennan Center walk-through of House Resolution 1: The For The People Act, which tackles disfunction in our political system.

And before your eyes begin to close (the way mine did several times while reading), let me say that the legislation is everything one could want.  It fixes dozens of holes in our federal election system, as well as in our government in general--many shown to be problems by the mendacity and avarice of our most recent president.

It has problems, as pointed out by a recent article in the Daily Beast by Jessica Huseman.  But these problems are mainly related to timing.  If and when the Senate passes what is now S 1, any remaining deadlines and mandates that are problematic can be adjusted in conference with the House.

First, we'll describe, in brief, what the bill does, then deal with any problems the bill might have.

In short, it's as if someone were to wave a magic wand, and fix everything subject to legislative adjustment:

* Makes Voter Registration easier and (eventually), covers everyone automatically

* Requires (eventually) Paper Ballots that can be examined by the voter prior to tabulation, and can then be recounted by hand--thus removing any chance of fraud

* Strengthens Early Voting and Vote-By-Mail options, and requires vote counting begin ASAP, to enable quick election night tallies

* Election day becomes a holiday

* Looks into making Washington DC a state

* Eliminates Gerrymandering (weird-shaped voting districts, meant to help one party over another) by 2031

* Stops potential Foreign Interference in the US voting process, mainly through auditing election results

* Removes the ability of foreigners to spend money on Campaign Advertising

* Mandates full disclosure of all funding sources for political Online Advertising

* Political Ads must include who's paying for them

* US Corporate Donations that are political in nature must be OK'd by shareholders

* Presidential Inaugural Fundraising is limited 

* Campaign Finance Reform includes 6-to-1 matches for congressional races, without using taxpayer monies, for candidates sticking to the 'little guy' rules

* Major Lobbying Reform (example: foreign agents), including presidential appointees recusing themselves when conflict-of-interests arise

* Ethics and Transparency Upgrades for congress as well as the president and his team

* Requires Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates to disclose their Tax Returns

......

So, what could possibly be wrong with all this?

Huseman's article makes the following major point:

While the bill is laudable, it fails to take into account the real-life experiences of our election officials who know what's possible.  Note: I have included two "(eventually)" above, to indicate it will take time to get these provisions implemented.  

Part of the bill writers' oblivious attitude was likely due to the early version (2018) having no chance of passing the Senate, let alone getting a presidential signature.  Now, perhaps due in part to the Republican over-reaction to their presidential ticket loss, the odds of passage have improved, though are probably less than 50-50.

And here are a few minor points:

1. Not enough money has been allocated to pay for the bill's mandates (beyond the initial set up)

2. The bill requires that those wanting to register to vote be allowed to do so using an automated telephone system that doesn't yet exist

3. Another problem: voters are allowed to sue their states and counties if those entities have failed to meet all mandates--an invitation to divert resources away from actual voting

4. E-poll books, used by poll workers, are included in a list of voting technologies that must meet strict standards--but those e-poll books standards don't even exist

5. Paper ballots must be stored somewhere, prior to the random chance that they'll be audited.  This involves vast amounts of warehouse space.  Where does a small, rural county find such, let alone pay for it?

Aside from the obvious provisions whose deadlines will have to be extended (automatic voter registration for states that'll take years to get it right, plus paper-trail voting machines for all), the handful of problems listed as minor points can simply be avoided:

1. Provide the $$ for future needs

2. Dump this option

3. Dump this as well, allowing voters to contact a hot-line number that refers matters to Justice Department voting rights lawyers

4. With ballot auditing, this is a minor weakness in the system--put off the compliance deadline 

5. Coordinate ballot storage at the federal level, if necessary

With all the above changes, Democrats may well have everyone but West Virginia's Joe Manchin on board.  To both get to 60 votes (to avoid a filibuster), and/or to convince Manchin to make it 50, there will likely be a need to appeal to a bi-partisan consensus, which will mean symbolically cutting the bill back, then when Republican opposition is all but certainly made manifest, Manchin can be allowed to demand any changes he might require.

Another option is to look for success in the 2022 congressional elections.  If there were more than 50 Democratic senators at that point, the Manchin bottleneck could likely be avoided.

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

Further discussion by Igor Derysh in Salon.  Also, by Andrew Prokop in Vox.

Biden's Border Blues

 #327: The Over/Under, Round and Through

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

Vice President Kamala Harris has been tasked with border issues.  Here, listed in reverse order, are her options as I see them.  #1 is the option I expect will be chosen.  But who knows?

#6  Do Nothing.  This issue is a loser, and the more effort expended, the further it becomes your mess.  Essentially, nobody wants to say 'no' to young, desperate people eager to work hard.  But, there are hundreds of millions, if not billions, who would come if they could.

#5  An Exception To The Filibuster For Immigration.  Democrats decide to devour the 'whole enchilada'.  Negotiate with Republicans, meet with resistance, decide things among themselves.

#4  Negotiations Based On Reforming Asylum Law.  Once one realizes that as Climate Change drives hundreds of millions from their tropical and low-lying lands, offering asylum to all will become impossible.  So, why not cash in the chit now, if concessions from Republicans were on the table?  Perhaps legal status for all those already here, and a generous, but permanent level of refugee admissions.  Asylum would be reserved for prominent leaders of communities fighting for their rights.

#3  Negotiations Based On The Romney/Cotten Proposal.  Instead of the Romney/Cotton offer of a $10 minimum wage coupled with much stricter E-Verify (businesses check a government website to determine whether new hires are citizens), counter-offer $12.50, a more reliable system to check on status (several people using the same Social Security number would seem solvable), and legalization (over an extended time) for all those already here.  Be prepared to compromise.

#2  Make A Few Well-Meaning Gestures.  Since the issue is near impossible to solve, politically, keep it from getting out of hand, but don't try to fix it.  Included here is the blanket acceptance of children, financial help for Central America, cooperation with Mexico, and perhaps additional judges to hear cases.

#1  Create Difficult Votes For Republicans.  Legislation to make Dreamers (those brought to the US as children, who know no other country) full-fledged citizens would be step number one.  

...

Why list them in that order?  

Putting Harris in charge probably gives Biden a few months, but eventually Harris will do something, so Doing Nothing is hard to see.  Likewise, an exception to the Senate Filibuster.  Though not out of the question, it's hard to see WV senator Joe Manchin agreeing to anything much.

#4 and #3 would risk alienating Democratic activists, on the one hand, and making it harder to win over Trump's least committed voters, on the other.  Ideally, both could be satisfied with well-thought-through legislation.  But, not likely.

And that leaves #2 and #1.  A few gestures is less likely than a vote on Dreamers simply because the Dreamers are a very sympathetic cause, and the vote is likely to be not only revealing, but also bi-partisan--at least it should be. 

Winnowing Photos

 #326: What To Keep

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

I was reading an article in the latest New Yorker about someone who hires herself out as something of a photo collection editor.  She'll wade through your tens of thousands of photos, and remove the junk, leaving you with just the best.

My immediate thought was 'no way'.  Many times when looking at old photos I've wished the photographer had turned the camera a little bit this way or that.  Here's a good example:

Family members and their pets

(and bikes) are wonderful.  Even 

the photographer (looks like a

woman's dress?) is in the picture.

But a few steps to the right is an

old house whose interior is lost

--nobody thought to take pictures.

Here's an 'outside' example:

"What kind of a mailbox did you used to have?"  

"I don't remember.  Oh wait, here's a photo.  You

can just barely see it."

And, finally, the 'studio shot' 

photo from long ago:

If people then had known 

what to photograph, they 

could've been rich, maybe 

even literally so.  

But no, we've just the one 

image.

Which means, unless you're absolutely sure there's nothing in a photo, don't junk it.

But, then there's also the thought that if we're living in the present, do we really need sub-par shots to waste away our lives?   

The Years Ahead: Best Case Scenario

 #325:  A Brighter Future

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

Mike Lofgren, at Bill Moyers' On Democracy blog, thinks the US Constitution needs major repair work, and despairs at the likelihood of achieving the necessary transformation.

Ah, but let's not forget our history.  As Lofgren notes, the Gilded Age of the late 19th Century was followed by the Progressive Era.  So, here's a brief description of how a similar makeover may already be upon us.

First, the bill of particulars:

1.  Because of the Electoral College and the Senate Filibuster, ours is not a democracy, but rather a minoritarian oligarchy. 

2.  Congress is cowardly, failing to impeach, or at least invoke the 25th Amendment.  Treason, in the form of an insurrection, comes and goes, yet nothing is done.

3.  The Executive branch is out of control, conducting minor wars with virtually no oversight.

4.  Justice is applied selectively, with massive self-dealing by those at the top of the political food chain, while the little guy meets with a steady erosion of civil rights.

Now for that more hopeful chronology:

2021: By November, Democrats in Congress pass another popular big ticket bill: this time, Infrastructure.

2022: The true extent of former president Trump's malfeasance emerges.  Not only the January 6th insurrection, but the long parade of bad faith.

2023: Thanks to their two massive spending bills, the economy picks up, and the mid-term elections give Democrats the votes to significantly adjust the Senate Filibuster.

2024: Republicans are unable to resist Trump's allure.  The party has shed all pretense to be anything but a Trump vehicle.  Instead of his 31.00% of potential voters in 2020, and his 25.60% in 2016, Trump barely hits 22%, losing decisively to the Biden/Harris steamroller (Romney was at 25.90 in 2012, McCain at 27.64% in '08, Bush 28.70 in '04 and 24.50 in 2000).

2025: By now, Democrats are contending with a defeated, hollowed-out opposition that is unable to stop passage of long overdue government reform.  A new progressive era begins.

Infrastructure Week: From Laugh Line To Realization

 #324: Bringing Ten Republicans On Board

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

The Senate filibuster, unless Democrats junk it, seems to have a stranglehold over our policy options.

Fighting Climate Change, ensuring Voting Rights, addressing Immigration, all would require an unlikely 60-vote margin to pass--the cause of much consternation among Democrats.  True, there's the chance that a mere 50 Democrats could agree to a 'Reconciliation' on budgetary matters relating to infrastructure/taxation, but there might be a more likely way.

Infrastructure (transportation, energy, and communication) has one thing that's a bit different from other policy objectives: it's often location specific.  A community in Texas may be interested in storing energy with utility scale batteries to avoid the next power outage.  For a small town on the prairie, it may be high-speed internet to attract new businesses.  Meanwhile, an east coast city might consider public transportation its number one need--to allow car-free living, and thus reduce a resident's overall cost of living. 

At first, this doesn't strike one as all that significant, until you realize that giving voice to local concerns is what makes legislation popular: my money going to solve my problems, and in a big way.  Sure, there are things all communities need: building retrofits to enhance energy efficiency, for example, but how would we otherwise know what each community really wants from an Infrastructure bill?  

We wouldn't.  And that's why giving locals a voice in selecting projects to become the Infrastructure bill might be enough to peel off ten Republicans.  

* Set aside an Infrastructure Week (possibly month) in the distant future

* Issue broad guidelines (inclusivity, sustainability, local labor, maximum effect)   

* Promote the idea that anybody can submit local ideas to complement those that have widespread appeal

* Invite members of the House and Senate (and their staff) to consider locally focused submissions

* Publish them all, and allow a popular vote, nation-wide, and within each house district and state.

* Unveil legislation based on these proposals.

It would be hard for house and senate members to avoid participating.  How would they face their constituents in 2022 if they refused to participate, or voted 'no' on jobs and 'internal improvements'?  Especially when voter favorites were involved.

At the end of the day, if Republicans refuse to participate, Democrats would have the perfect vehicle for Reconciliation (the plan's expenditures, coupled with taxes on the super-rich).  And if the bill passed, local investments would be the obvious feel good issue in the 2022 election.

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

BTW, the polling organization, Data For Progress finds these broad-based infrastructure items to be the most popular:

 1. investments that upgrade aging water infrastructure

 2. funding that helps small farmers expand sustainable farming practices

 3. the creation of a Climate Conservation Corps

 4. a GI Bill for fossil fuel workers

Also popular:

5. R&D on promising new energy systems

6. Updates to the power grid (latest idea: underground, next to roads and tracks, thus avoiding right-of-way litigation)

7. New incentives and a charging network for electric vehicles

Wrong Turn On Psychedelics?

 #323: Will Psychoactive Drugs Help With Mental Issues?

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

A recent pair of articles on psychedelic research laid out the case against:

1. In a recent study, those micro-dosing LSD reported greater mindfulness.  But so did those ingesting a mere placebo.

2. Some mental health professionals feel psychedelic substances shouldn't be used on those with anxiety, depression, PTSD, etc.  They feel that this is another example of a search for a miracle cure, with uncontrolled pressures to report success.

My amateur's theory is that psychoactive substances simply diminish the 'standard operating procedure' function that our brains use to cope.  Then, over the course of the next several hours or day, users put the pieces back together again.  Ideally, they'll have experienced the inadequacy of certain of their worldly constructs, and will have made adjustments.  It is possible, however, that this rewiring will induce panic.

What I'd say determines whether one learns from psychedelic experiences is whether one is in control of one's mind.  If so, one is likely to make improvements, as well as marvel at the wonder of raw sensory input.  If not: mild to severe discombobulation.

If this theory is valid, psychedelic substances are most likely to help those who are already self-sufficient and mindful.  Those who suffer mental issues will likely be helped less, if at all.

And, further, since the help gained in either case will be relatively minor, it's probably advisable that micro-dosing be employed.

As for the placebo effect among micro-dosers, it should be pointed out that in the study cited, those micro-dosing had a history of doing so prior to the study.  I wouldn't be surprised if one minor, acquired tweak, courtesy of their previous LSD ingestion, was the ability to find pleasure in mindfulness.

Meanwhile: a brief case 'for'.

Update: January 10th, 2024.  It now seems likely that psychedelics do, in fact, have a big role to play in treating various mental deficiencies.  Sigal Samuel has a very exciting interview at Vox with one researcher studying this promising field. 

Back By Popular Demand

 #322: Images From My Backyard Wilderness

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

This is the second batch of snow, melting.  Here's the first.  I guarantee you these are as freaky as any dreamscape--that's because they're pure wilderness.

Swan

Stepping Out

Pointing out that the white creature has a horn.

Decomposing firearm.

Five inches on my head.

New-to-science, parrot, nicknamed Snarky.

New chef can't handle it.

Ghost of smoker's past.

The visible universe.

More (Less) Senate Filibuster

 #321: I Design The Likeliest Possible Reform

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

After posting "Science Settles It; Reforming The Filibuster" last weekend, I read Ian Millhiser's Vox article that is a comprehensive review of where 'the Filibuster' has been, and where it could conceivably go.  It highlights another collection of possible reforms to add to our Top Ten list.

But, rather than expand to a Top Twenty list, I'm making the somewhat unorthodox case that maybe the most likely reform is incremental.  That instead of abolishing what is admittedly a hold-over from the Jim Crow era, the Filibuster could be made to work.  And, after all, until 50 senators want to abolish it, we're stuck tinkering with the thing.

Central to this effort is the fact that my hobby is boardgame design (my brother and I are currently working on a 2020 US Presidential election game).  So, I have an amateur's understanding of how politics works.

Additional Reform Possibilities

After reading Millhiser's brief explanation of Senate procedure, we can identify an additional three areas that need attention: 

*  Increase The Number of Senators Required To Initiate A Filibuster: When a single Senator can cause a lengthy delay in proceedings, there's an obvious need to raise the threshold from one Senator to, say, ten.

* Make It Easier To End A Filibuster: Either reduce the number of senators needed to end a filibuster, or protect certain Senate actions from the filibuster (like confirming nominees, as happened several years ago).

* Adjust The Time It Takes To Wait Before A Particular Filibuster Is Ended: It's currently 30 hours for most votes, make it less.   Or, curtail the allotted time for debate on whether to vote.

So, here's my proposal:

Ten votes needed to petition to initiate a Filibuster.  This removes the incentive for 'lone wolf' senators to pad their career profile with unlikely objections to legislative flow.

41 senators needed to sustain a Filibuster.  This effectively decreases the 60-vote threshold because older persons are prone to unforeseen absences from the Senate floor. 

Three hours, maximum, for wait and debate on whether to end a filibuster.  In an age of instant communication, 30 hours is too much.

Then, besides these three procedural changes, two categories of legislation are made immune to the filibuster:

No filibustering Voting Rights legislation (legislation that makes voting easier).

No filibustering best-science legislation (career scientists who work for the US government make the best-science call during legislative hearings).  

And while we're at it, there's congressional review of the Supreme Court.  Increasing the number of justices on the Court is unlikely.  But eliminating the filibuster for congressional review (something Congress does, though rarely) could be 'on the table' to warn the Supreme Court not to become too radical.  So...,

No Filibustering Congressional Review of Supreme Court decisions.  

Commentary On Popular Music

#320: Two Main Problems With Popular Music

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

A recent New Yorker article by Amanda Petrusich on music genres (Who decides what genre defines a song?) got me thinking about popular music again.

I'd previously described ten things that I think, over the years, turned popular music into a pale shadow of its former self.  

This post will add two things that I've decided should be included.  In fact, the more I think about it, the more central I think they are to popular music's decline.

1. The Emergence Of Radio And Then TV

It's hard to imagine how exciting Radio and TV were when they first appeared.  We're jaded with constant access to tunes.  The first radio listeners likely couldn't believe the wonder of discombobulated sound.  They would've gathered 'round and listened intently to the heavenly broadcasts.  Similarly, TV would've been unbelievable.  Watching would have involved all of one's attention, and be an escape from the mundane.

And what happens when one listens to music intently over many years?  One's musical IQ increases.  And conversely, as music becomes a background beat, and we move on to other things?  Our average 1Q decreases.

2. The Exposure To All Popular Genres

The centralization ofAM radio music in American life, and the popularity of all-genre, Top 100 radio stations, meant that listeners became familiar with different styles and beats.  In other words, we were all cosmopolitans before we retreated to our own backwater as popular music splintered.

Nowadays, because we often select our own music, it can easily become walled-off from the cross-currents that characterized the era of commonality in music.  We download a few favorite artists.  Our music platform figures out what genre we like, and offers us more of the same.  We select a particular kind of music: 'easy-listening', or 'warm' (that last one, from Petrusich's article).  The result: music becomes formulaic, and increasingly sterile.

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

As I've described in detail at the above link to my top-ten article, the solution I've stumbled upon to the second of these problems is to listen to a DJ--a musical genius one might say--who plays nearly every genre imaginable. Do I listen with as great attention as generations before.  I doubt many do.

Science Settles It; Reforming The Filibuster

 #319: Top Ten Filibuster Reforms

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

The 50 Democratic senators, plus Vice President Kamala Harris (51), could reform the Filibuster (60 votes needed to pass legislation), if they could settle on a plan.  But since at least two Democrats have said 'no' to ending the Filibuster, Republican senators would be needed for abolition, or, if it were modest in scope, mere reform might be possible.  

So, let's take a look at the various options that have been proposed (see Michael Ettlinger's article in Vox for more detail; and New York magazine's Eric Levitz has the latest; plus here's an idea that would probably be too easy to undermine: a limited number of filibuster attempts per 2-year period).

Counting down, in reverse order, the ideas least-to-most likely to pass the Senate.

10. Base It On Majority of US Population

Each senator is awarded half of their state's population, so Diane Feinstein (CA) and Ted Cruz (TX) wield enormous power.  Why so unlikely?  Too many small state senators would miss out.

9. The Ratchet Plan

A filibustered bill is voted on again after compromises are agreed to, and then again, etc., with the 60-vote threshold lowered each time.  This is doing away with the filibuster...slowly.  So, still very unlikely.

8. Let The Next Election Settle It

All filibustered legislation is voted on again, after the next election, at which time no filibuster is possible.  So, a slightly drawn out filibuster elimination, (Senate elections are every two years).  

7. Single Exception: The Debt Limit

Republicans (and conservative Democrats) like the debt limit.  It focuses attention on government largesse.  So, unlikely, though less so than #8 through #10.

6. Single Exception: Government Funding

Republicans, as a rule, don't look favorably on government action, so why would they agree to make the funding of government easier to accomplish?  And, this would be an awfully big step for 'pro-Filibuster' Democrats.

5. Lower The Threshold To Less Than 60

What about 59?  Or 56 (that is, 5/9ths)?  Maybe if there were six Republicans willing to vote for an Immigration bill, for example, a change could be made.  It would be bi-partisan!

4. Make 'Em Talk Round The Clock

At least one senator has to talk for hours and hours until nobody wants to talk any more.  It's how Americans think the Filibuster works, when in reality the threat of a Filibuster is all it takes, since the Majority can't afford to waste time.  So, nobody really wants this kind of reform.  

3. Make 'Em Stay on the Floor

The way it works now, 60 votes are needed to end the threat of a Filibuster.  This reform would require at least 40 senators be present on the Senate floor to keep a Filibuster going.  So, old people on uncomfortable cots--unlikely, though it might get entertaining.

2. Single Exception: Voting Rights

This would strip Republicans of their overall strategy, which is to make it harder for certain groups to vote.  So, hard to see this attracting Republicans.  Maybe all 50 Dems?  Could be a way for 'no'-to- abolishing-the-Filibuster Democratic senators to show they're Democrats, but not by doing the Filibuster much if any harm.  Comes close to being #1, since Democrats, as a party, need to stop the flood of voting restrictions in Republican-controlled states.

1. Single Exception: Science

Are Republicans eager to be seen by history as anti-Science?  This would use existing government science experts to give a thumbs-up on legislation, similar to how the Congressional Budget Office evaluates the financial implications of legislation.  If government scientists thought that a given bill was the likeliest way forward, 50+1 votes would be needed, instead of 60.