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.