Popping At 10,000 Feet

 #349: Coming Home, June 7th, 2021

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

I drive with my visors down, to keep from having to squint.  On this day, I happened to move my head towards the windshield and look up to see if rain clouds were present.  I think I gasped when I saw this:

My initial view would have been the lower fifth of this photo.

If you use this image as a screen saver on a larger device, you'll see a face in the clouds (lower left portion of high topknot cloud).  The face looks a little like an ancient statue, with distinct eyes, nose, hair bun, and right ear.

I Critique "Your New Healthy Habits? They’re Ancient"

 #348: Native Americans Knew Better

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

Yes! magazine published a short article by Danielle Hansen two years ago that recently caught my eye.  In it are ways in which some Native American traditions have been found, by science, to be healthier than their modern equivalents.

I'll summarize the article's points and comment on each (in green).  But first, I should acknowledge that Ms. Hansen has a connection to native heritage, and I don't.

Keep Moving

Good start, though the broader picture is perhaps more telling: Make your own things from what nature provides (beauty, plants, collections, decoration).  This will mean activity that keeps you moving.  

Get outside

Good again.  Just seeing the natural world helps us.

Go barefoot

While a good suggestion, this advice should probably caution against tenderfoot tendencies to overdo.  Feet will build toughness, but it takes time.

Hydrate

All well and good until the last sentence mentions a daily intake of 64 ounces.  That is approximately eight glasses, a level of water intake that has been debunked, as anyone on a cool or cold day who tries it can tell you.

Fast

Know that every body needs a different level of food.  But, the key is doing things for oneself (cooking, playing, planning, socializing), and engaging with the natural world.  That alone will keep one active and in good shape.  

Squat

Except there's a much more important point to make: Whole foods that aren't run through a factory provide fiber; processed foods, that we buy ready to eat, are often stripped of their fiber content.  Rather than the angle of our bodies, the natural bulking that whole foods offer is the more significant factor.

Block the blue

Are sleep disorders caused by blue light (computers, etc.) or by stress, crisis, or a lack of activity during the day?  I would emphasize the later, and suggest that weariness in the evening is to be embraced.

I Look Into The Case For Reparations

#347: Residual Slavery

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

I recently learned something about Juneteenth (our country's 11th national holiday, proclaimed by the House, Senate and President Biden last week).  Namely, that the slaves in Galveston, Texas who were finally freed on June 19th, 1865, didn't need to be told they were free.  Rather, what they needed were armed troops to prevent their "masters" from holding them against their will.  They knew they'd been freed; there was just the matter of their "owners" flouting the Emancipation Proclamation.

Then, this morning, I read Rolling Stone's article about reparations, titled 10 Things We Get Wrong About Reparations.  And since I'd recently been thinking about slavery's legacy, here's my take (the ten things we get wrong are in black; my commentary is in green):

1.  There’s no one living today who owned slaves nor anyone living today who was enslaved.

The authors make the point that the black-white wealth gap in America is something like $11 trillion.  They feel that this is a direct result of our nation refusing to address slavery's consequences.  They also note that there are Black Americans, alive today, who lived through the degradation of the pre-Civil Rights era.

As a white American (mostly, if not entirely so), I'm guessing the flip side of #1, above, is where most opposition to reparations can be found: that nobody living today was responsible for slavery (so, why should additional taxes be paid).  

As I'll make clear, below, there's always room for justice, wherever it might lead.  But, convincing a majority of voters that trillions of dollars are owed is a political undertaking.  As with any courtship, it isn't always wise to become obsessed with the endgame, at the expense of persuasion.

2.  Only a small number of Americans owned slaves, so why burden the nation with a bill for reparations?

This section is quite helpful in that it dispels the falsehood that only 1% of Southern whites were slave owners.  The true number was something like 50%, especially when one adds in whites in the South who were part of the slave economy, though too poor to own slaves themselves.

3.  African nations who engaged in the slave trade are the real debtors in the reparations conversation.

The authors make a weak argument that additional compensation might be due from African nations that seized humans for sale to traffickers.  A stronger argument: most modern African nation states only became independent following WWII. 

4.  Other communities have suffered. Why should African Americans alone receive reparations?

Here, the authors successfully confront a strong case against.  They respond by advocating that all aggrieved communities claim reparations.  One minor problem, of course, is that the few instances of reparations being paid by the US government involve people who were still living (Japanese-Americans, placed in concentration-camps during WWII, being the primary example).  

5.  Reparations will be even more divisive in an already polarized society.

The counter-argument the authors use here is that we don't know how the country would react.  This, though, gets to the heart of the resistance that reparations face: that there's no political way forward, and a huge risk of backlash: making reparations scary would be as easy as citing the ensuing tax bill.

6.  We can’t put a price tag on oppression anyway.

The authors revisit the black-white wealth gap for an approximate value of what is owed.

7.  We can’t determine who will be eligible.

On this point the authors point to census and other genealogical records that can begin to establish who is a descendant of slaves.  At this point, having undertaken genealogical research myself (there are many missing links), I begin to wonder if the case against isn't just too great, and that perhaps there's a better way.  For one thing, the poorest and most deserving families are the most likely to be those with missing or ambiguous connections (if you were forced to live in the woods, or on the run, just barely eking out a living, the odds of being counted were poor).  And, some census records do not exist, due to fire. 

8.  “Reparations” initiatives at the state and local level carve a path to the national program.

A weak, unnecessary detour.  Obviously, only the US government has the resources to pay.

9.  Reparations already have been paid by the high price of white lives lost during the Civil War.

Yet another detour, though perhaps some who're against reparations feel strongly about this.

10.  Passage of HR 40 will be a milestone on the path toward black reparations.

Again, something that doesn't really address the main arguments against.  Still, interesting that they've studied all the details and have the maximalist argument well formed.

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

The case for reparations of some kind is fairly strong.  Justice has been denied approximately one out of every eight Americans, as the black-white wealth gap makes plain.  Every time our government could have done the right thing, it didn't, up until the Civil Rights era, and here we are.

All the arguments for reparations have a huge mountain to climb, though, and that's political likelihood.  The authors note a steady rise in the percentage of poll respondents in favor, the highest number being close to, if not a majority among the young, meaning it'll probably take decades before the odds of passage are promising.  Or, it may be that young people are naturally idealistic, and only the limitations encountered during our lies harden us, so that when older, we're merely looking out for #1.  Which would, of course, dim any prospects.

And yet all is not lost.  A more likely approach that few reasonable Americans would have difficulty accepting is what are commonly called Baby Bonds.  These are bank accounts established at birth for all children born to parents earning below a certain level (involving a gradual, sliding scale), or conceivably, to those with little wealth.  Once an adult, a child's bank account could then be used for college, a home, or a business venture.  If generous enough, these would have something like the same effect as reparations.  And, because they'd address poverty, regardless of race or ethnicity. would likely be doable now, many years before reparations are possible.  Of course Baby Bonds would feel like a mere half loaf to those wanting reparations, but they'd begin a healing process--and sooner rather than later.

An Axe To Grind

 #346: I Review "The Epoch Times"

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

I received a free copy of a tabloid-sized weekly newspaper in the mail last week, and have been meaning to write about my very cursory look through its contents.

Most everyone in my community received a free copy (Did the sender target people over a certain age, plus registered voters?  If so, that would generate a mailing list that closely matched their free copy coverage).

As one can find out by googling the publication's name, The Epoch Times, according to Wikipedia, is "a far-right international multi-language newspaper and media company affiliated with the Falun Gong new religious movement."  Over the past several years the paper seems to have evinced a pattern of supporting our former president, while trying to conceal that fact (Epoch Times's ads were banned from Facebook in 2019), not to mention promoting conspiracy theories regarding Covid-19, immunization, etc.

While it's best, in general, to leave falsehoods and the foolhardy alone, I do want to reference just one example of writing with "an axe to grind", then suggest what we might consider doing about it.

Here's an article about the January 6th attack on the capitol, in which the objective voice is used to cover both the good (the president telling his followers to go home) and bad angles--from a rightwing perspective:

 Article titled: "Facebook Suspends Trump For 2 Years"  

Key paragraphs (regarding Facebook's action): 

"Facebook originally suspended Trump on Jan. 7th in the wake of the breach of the US Capitol by a crowd that included some of his supporters.  Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said allowing Trump to continue posting missives was risky.

Zuckerberg claimed Trump opted "to use his platform to condone rather than condemn the actions of his supporters at the Capitol building.

Trump told protestors in one video to "Go home peacefully." while asserting the US election was rife with fraud.  He also said that "We love you," "you're very special"....

Trump has panned Facebook, and other Big Tech companies, accusing them of uneven moderation policies.  Internal video footage and other evidence support the accusations."

The problem here is that the reader is being directed to arguments in support of the former president (he said "Go home peacefully") when there were much more bellicose things said at the rally in question.  Plus there's the final line (in bold).  It's either a half-hearted admission that, yes, Facebook has good reason to suspend, or, that Big Tech is guilty.  This is a sneaky, slick way to be 'objective' (hey, we admitted the accusations of inciting a riot are backed up with evidence), while also knowing most readers will think the reference is to Big Tech's guilty conduct--something that is assumed, with no evidence presented.

This is the kind of journalism that would earn one a termination notice at a truly great publication.  But for a reader with a high school education or less, the obvious duplicity isn't all that apparent.  And so, the equivalent of Fox News' balderdash is being funneled into the minds of our neighbors through the mail.

What's to be done?  My first reaction is to think this sort of scheme will fail.  Wrongheadedness does not win in the end, and truth will catch up with those who avoid it.

My second reaction is to say that journalistic standards should be enforced.  Put together a panel of citizens, selected at random to a half year term, and paid like a grand jury for their service.  They examine several publications in depth (with help from experts representing journalistic excellence) and vote on recommending a publication to the public.  The result is always adjusted + or - 1 in case a vote is unanimous (to allow for anonymity).  Publications could choose to promote the grade they receive, or never mention it, but everyone could easily look up what writing receives a high grade, and what writing doesn't.

A Devil's Advocate Case For Bi-Partisanship

 #345: The Long Run: Pain Now, Gain Later

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

I was looking at my Twitter feed (that is, my political list) this morning and was struck by how many people were admonishing "the Democrats", and "Schumer" to get on with it, and that any delay in getting bills passed in the Senate was going to doom the Democrats and our country.  Most of these messages were comments attached to a pundit's making the same point.  Well, if there's that much confusion out there as to what's going on, I'll go ahead and play Devil's Advocate, and present the Joe Manchin case for bi-partisanship.

First, be forewarned that I don't think this is the best way forward.  It is simply reality, for now (let's hope wiser heads prevail); something we all have to live with.  But, in six paragraphs, I'll make it sound as reasonable as I can.

* The key to a Democratic success story is the Senate.  That's because of three things: 

1. There are more small, rural, conservative, and therefore Republican states than there are big, urban, progressive Democratic states.  So Republicans have a huge built-in Senate advantage.  Sure, Dems have disadvantages in the House (urban concentration, gerrymandering), and the Presidency (the Electoral College), but the Senate is the worst of the three, as the Electoral College is only a mild version of the Senate's imbalance.

2. Democrats missed winning two arguably winnable senate seats in 2020: in Maine and North Carolina.  Those seats are off the table--barring unlikely events--for Democrats until 2026,  giving Republicans an even greater head start.  So, between the House and the Senate, long term, the former is the easier lift.

3. Furthermore, the Senate is where Supreme Court nominees are confirmed, making it crucial to reversing that body's recent, uncalled for conservative tilt (Dems have won the popular vote in all but two of the past nine Presidential elections, but Rs have been behind seven of the eleven Supreme Court justices successfully nominated during that time).

* A Democratic Senator from a rural state is an absolute treasure.  Sen. Joe Manchin's West Virginia seat, and to a degree, Sen. Kyrsten Sinema's Arizona seat, in the long run, are more important than any other political considerations.  If one does the math, there are 7 Western, 3 Midwest, and 10 Eastern states where Dems should win Senate contests (in the West: HI, CA, OR, WA, NV, NM, CO; in the MidWest: MN, IL and MI; and in the East: VA, MD, DE, NJ, NY, CT, RI, MA, VT, ME).  That's 20 states and 40 seats--not nearly enough to get lucky and make it to 50+.  

There are also six states in which both sides are about evenly matched: AZ, WI, NH, PA, NC and GA.  In these states, Dems have eight to the Rs four.

There's also one Dem senator each in MT and OH, plus Manchin in WV (Dems would be in a big hole without these three); Republicans have one senator in ME.  For the Dems that's 39 + 8 + 3 = 50.

* Outside of their strongholds, Dems have just three seats that look possible in '22 (WI, PA and NC).  They are also defending three seats in those six 'toss-up' states (AZ, NH and GA).  This leaves little if any margin for error.  Manchin's and Sinema's seats are crucial for future success. 

* Keeping those senate seats in WV and AZ is doable.  The key is letting the two quasi-Dems appear as bi-partisan and unattached to the Democratic party as they feel they need to be, while voting with the Dems nearly all the time.  For Manchin, this is a tall order, but if anyone can do it, he's the one.  This explains his behavior, and also why President Biden treats him gingerly.

The likeliest vehicle for keeping those two seats Blue is the Infrastructure bill.  That's because, if we assume that Manchin can't allow anything truly progressive to pass before '22, Infrastructure will serve as the perfect foil against Republicans in that year's congressional races, likely allowing Democrats to hold on to both the House and Senate.  The ads just write themselves: 

"Republicans filibustered the Infrastructure bill.  They want rich corporations to pay no taxes.  Potholes, blackouts, and now they say "no" to good paying construction jobs.  Don't let it happen again next year, vote for ..."

* Adding another two Dems to the Senate in '22 would complete the puzzle.  With a strong campaign message, hammered home again and again (local infrastructure projects, current and future), Dems would likely add 2-3 Senate seats, and Sinema and Manchin could maintain their bi-partisan, defend-the-filibuster credentials with no deleterious effect.  Meanwhile, progress is being made, with Biden able to enact parts of his agenda through Reconciliation (the once-a-year spending bill that doesn't require any more than 50 votes).  And, Supreme Court nominations are possible, since Republicans wouldn't control the Senate.

* With Biden able to get things done, 2024's election occurs during an economic boom.  Rather than a Republican-controlled Senate putting the brakes on the economy and preventing Supreme Court nominations, the Dems pass what amounts to economic stimulus (infrastructure, and probably much more), as the 2024 Presidential election nears.  The former president, who currently wants a rematch, may find that if he doesn't want to lose twice, his window of opportunity has shut.

Q: But what about voting restrictions being imposed by Republicans in many states like Arizona, Georgia and Texas?  A: What will overpower those attempts at voter suppression most effectively is an overwhelming turnout that makes the outcome so lopsided that any attempts to cast doubt or tamper with the results will seem laughably obvious.  Running a campaign on corporate tax cheats/local construction/good paying jobs is perfect for every congressional district, and would be very hard to beat.

Q: And what about pressing issues like Climate Change?  Can we really wait another 18 months as the world burns?  A: That is a question for Sen. Manchin.

Q: But wouldn't there be terrible humiliation for Biden if the Senate denies him his Infrastructure bill?  A: "Temporarily, some, but a filibuster would come first, meaning the actual vote in 2021 would never occur (he would use Reconciliation in '23).  Biden simply says "Let the voters decide." and the 2022 campaign begins.  This is likely to be seen as a trap by Republicans.  But what do they do?  Give Biden a win on Infrastructure, or give him a win in the 2022 elections.  That dilemma is the reason why Biden doesn't feel rushed.  He wins either way.  The problem for Republicans is that the ideas they fall in line behind are unpopular.

The Most Likely Ways Around The Senate Filibuster

 #344: I Rank The Six Most Probable Paths

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

We all know how the threat of the Senate filibuster is being deployed to keep President Biden from passing his agenda, and how two Democrats have said they won't kill the thing, or even tone it down.  

And yet, there's a small chance that somehow the logjam breaks.  Here are six possibilities, from least to most likely:

#6: Our Former President's Conduct Drives 12 Republicans To Biden Legislation.  Judging from his efforts on January 6th to egg on his supporters, we know that #45 is desperate to change reality.  If he tries something equally outrageous, the dam might not hold.  But if Republicans went along with covering up January 6th, why change now?  Very unlikely.

#5: Biden Proposes A Trade (Each Side Gets Legislation) that Republicans Like.  What if Biden agrees to give Republicans something they want in return for passing Infrastructure, let's say.  Trouble is, Republicans are defined by what they don't want.  Unlikely.  

#4: A Republican Senator Dies.   Several states have Democratic governors and Republican senators.  But there aren't many, and state law doesn't always allow an appointee to be from a different party.  Unlikely.

#3: Reluctant Democrats Agree To 'Adjustments'.  This scenario involves the two Democratic holdouts.  Due to Republican bad faith, or for whatever reason, these two have made a big point of saying 'no' until... they say 'yes'--probably on something popular, like Infrastructure.  We're getting closer to a likely scenario here.  Possible.

#2: Bipartisanship Takes Everyone By Surprise.  Here, the likely vehicle is the Infrastructure bill currently being negotiated.  Whether because they've boxed themselves into a corner ("Can we really say 'no' to corporations paying no taxes!") or, because bringing home the bacon is what politics is all about, or because, in hindsight, they don't want to be seen as holding up Climate legislation, Republicans agree to a compromise, and promise not to use the filibuster.  Possible.

#1: Voters Increase Democrat's Senate Majority By At Least Two.  Here, we're talking another 18 months of inaction, then finally, voters have their say and replace 2-3 Republican senators.  In that event, what would be the Democrats' secret to success?  They campaigned on a minimum corporate tax of 15%, using that money for infrastructure, and so bringing badly needed jobs to all areas.  Frankly, I can't think of a more likely way to enthuse voters.  Quite possible.

Update: 1/1/2024:

Well, it turned out to be the two "possible" options (#2 and #3) instead of #1.  Good thing, as Republicans took the House in '22, while the Democrats only added one Senate seat.

Why The Former President Quit Blogging

 #343: The Disease: Fearsome Big Man Syndrome

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

The news that our 45th president had abandoned his blog: "From The Desk Of...", after less than one month, struck me as revealing.  There was a lesson in there somewhere.  Only today, when I was reading Judd Legum's Popular Information newsletter on Substack, which discussed the matter, did it all make sense.

No, contrary to Uproxx' take--that everybody has the same theory (free trial period ran out, etc.), Popular Information connected the dots.  The real failing was that Facebook and Twitter weren't involved.  Without the Facebook algorithm feeding likely followers links to his blog, there was no 'street signage'.  There was no ad in the window, or doorman waving pedestrians in.  So, potential followers weren't likely to step inside one of the dozens of shops as they walked down the sidewalk.

Then, I took it one more step: what's the emotion one feels when viewing an ad in one's feed?  Well, normal people either accept or reject the appeal, then move on to the next item.  But certain kinds of people are especially susceptible to ads that rely on fear as a motivator.  They unconsciously think to themselves "If I choose to ignore this appeal, they'll know, and they're powerful; so, I'd better get on their good side".

Of course this is the basis of the protection racket, and of fascism: one must obey those above one in an authoritarian order that is based on fear of betrayal.  Social media that involves choosing to accept or reject an appeal is perfect for organizing a fascist movement, since the weak-minded ask "How do I know they aren't watching me right now?  I'd better not get in trouble."  Plus, to arouse the viewer's sense of fear, the appeal often dwells on scary subjects like "uncontrolled crime", "exploding deficits", "taking away your...", and "ruining our... (social order)".

Segments of the population that aren't susceptible to fear-based appeals have a hard time understanding all this.  But what if you knew your every move on the web was being monitored, and there were people shadowing you on the street.  Yeah, that's how saying 'Yes' to an appeal from a Fearsome Big Man makes sense--because it's easier than finding the courage in a dangerous world to say 'No'.

So, in other words, if there's no baited hook in their feed, potential 'followers' will prove hard to catch.  At which point the fisherman cuts bait and heads home.  

My Personal Ranking of TV Sit-Coms

 #342:  20 Sit-Coms I've Watched

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

Rolling Stone recently published a Top-100 Greatest Sit-Coms list.  Here's my much shorter version (the 20 out of 100 that I've watched).

The first number in each entry is Rolling Stone's assessment.  The number in red after the show title is my ranking (1-20).  The number in parentheses at the end is how many episodes I've watched (minimum one).

#92: Daria 2   I think I watched a couple episodes in a hotel room.  Quite interesting. (3) 

#72: Blackadder 15   Saw just one many years ago.  Innovative, but barely funny. (1)

#74: Futurama  5   Maybe three episodes over many years.  Nerd funny. (2)

#67: The Jack Benny Program  10   Reruns from long ago.  Deadpan humor. (2)

#66: Get Smart  6   Whole seasons worth of reruns.  Upends expectations. (~40)

#48: The Jeffersons  8   Easier to watch than depressing "All In The Family". (~15)

#41: King of the Hill  14   Hilarity that's hard to watch. (4)

#32: The Golden Girls  7   Chicken soup for when you're sick.  (20-30?)

#31: Fawlty Towers  17    Outrageous gag humor.  (3)  

#28: Malcolm in the Middle  11  Saw a few but don't remember much  (2)

#26: The Bob Newhart Show  13  Happened upon a rerun at a hotel (1)

#23: The Office (US)  4  Well done, though relies on misfits suffering  (~20)

#16: The Cosby Show  20   Simply can't watch again.  (~15)

#11: The Dick Van Dyke Show  16   Vaguely remember watching this (~5)

#8: The Honeymooners  18   Blowhards were once funny (5-10)

#7: The Mary Tyler Moore Show  12   Don't remember much but the smile (2)

#5: All In The Family  19   At the time, great; but rather dispiriting (~10)

#4: I Love Lucy 9   Early comedy had lots of gaffes, but also laughs (~25)

#3: Seinfeld  3  Watched a few reruns.  Could watch a couple more (~5)

#1: The Simpsons  1   A rare instance where I watched 10-20 seasons, plus many partial seasons.  The humor is occasionally brilliant, and usually entertaining, though several dozen episodes qualify as duds.  The main problem is Homer.  Just about everyone else is excellent, with memorable minor characters that'll always be reference points in my mind.  The only constraint now is time to watch TV, since I've seen just 2-3 this year. (200+)

In general, if I had time, I'd probably watch 1 and 2.  The rest, probably not, unless someone wanted to share and discuss.