Upgrading The Sports Experience

 #397: Demo Pop Memo

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

I've written before about the sport of baseball and how it has a pitcher injury problem.  This time I'm writing about the sport's ownership problem and making the case for demoing a populist makeover that would see fans owning teams they support.  This template could apply to other sports as well.

Though it's tempting to get into the weeds and give you all the background you need to understand the problem, I'll assume you know that:

* Some teams have three, even four times the payroll of others.  Sure, some teams can beat the odds and win despite tiny budgets, but generally most fail.

* Many teams are owned by scrooge-like billionaires who milk the team's profits while putting mediocre players on the field.

I've actually been cheering the absurd concentration of high-quality players on some teams, as this underscores how hopeless it is for fans of poorer outfits.  Hopefully, this'll cause a general reassessment.

First, the less revolutionary of the two solutions below:

The False Narrative of the Salary Cap

At the end of the current season players and owners are scheduled to enter into contract discussions.  It seems owners want a salary cap of sorts to hold down operating expenses; players are opposed.

Meanwhile, the current system is a mere tweak away from working.

Teams that spend over a certain amount on annual payroll are taxed a gradually rising percentage that is redistributed to the poorer teams.  Simply increasing that percentage and the number of thresholds involved would even out the playing field.  No need for a salary cap.

Of course the richest teams won't like this solution.  So, public figures should get behind the obvious answer and make the case that victory among equal teams is a lot more satisfying than otherwise.

The Billionaires 'Milking' Their Teams

Why do we have billionaire owners as middlemen?  Why aren't teams owned and directed by fans?  

In the case of the sole fan-owned major league franchise, the Green Bay Packers of the NFL, games have been sold out for many decades.  This, despite representing a fan-base in the immediate vicinity that's much smaller than those in major metros.  

So, the likelihood is that fans taking over ownership would likewise fill out attendance in their own stadiums.

Mathematically, a buy-out at fair market value would cost several billion dollars.  If shares were sold for $100 each, and represented one vote for members of a board of directors, plus perhaps non-binding advisory votes on team strategy, both in-season and during the off-season, how many fans would be needed to buy out a team valued at let's say $2.6 billion (the average for MLB teams)?

Well, if we allow individual fans to own a maximum 10,000 shares, and reward the extra shares with perks ('founders' special merch, for example), but not votes, and assume, on average, that 1% of owners spend the $1,000,000 max., while the other 99% spend the minimum, here's what 100,000 fans would raise: about $1 billion, so not enough.  A rolling takeover that lasted perhaps ten years and involved increased revenue from ticket sales, merch, TV rights, etc., might do it.  At a conservatively estimated $25 a seat (less desirable locations) and 81 home games, with average under-used seats at approximately 25% in a 40,000-seat venue, the potential for added revenue over ten years at an average ballpark would be: $200,000,000 in ticket sales, plus merch and TV rights.  Still probably not enough. 

Even a loan, paid back over ten years, with initial penny-pinching during that early period, would probably not be enough--especially in smaller markets.  What to do?  Probably raising the cap on shares owned per fan.  Maybe 20,000 max, as is the case with the Packers.  Allow a few thousand moneybags to pay for much of the purchase price.  If there were enough millionaires in the fan base, the numbers might begin to make sense.

To qualify as a buy-out, a grassroots effort would perhaps have to have buy-ins from a hundred thousand or so fans.  Perhaps the $100 for each share would be refundable if the effort didn't reach a certain amount by a given date.

Almost certainly, legislation at the local level would be required, and possibly nationally as well, as a forced sale would probably need an eminent domain declaration, not to mention a publicity campaign to jumpstart the trend.  Hopefully, impacted owners would realize what was coming and be happy to accommodate fans.  

The politics involved, it should be noted, would likely redound to the proposing party, and could likely be used as a demo to highlight an emergent populism.

Update: 3/29/26

In The New Yorker, an article by Louisa Thomas describes a Bernie Sanders/Greg Casar bill focused on greedy owners threatening to move teams.  The bill requires

"teams give a year’s notice about a planned move, [and that] not only can private groups make offers to keep the team in place but government entities and public groups can, too. (The bill also proposes penalties for noncompliance.)"

Letter To A New Yorker Writer

 #396: A Curious Craft

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

Dear Casey Cep,

I thoroughly enjoyed your June 28th article, What I Learned From My Mother And The U.S. Postal Service.  As a rural letter carrier for the past 34 years, it all rings true.  But you could have said more.

The astonishing secret to the rural craft, and something you may have chosen to avoid, is that we're paid a salary based on mail volume, rather than working a set number of hours.  This encourages us to promote the USPS, while seeking out work efficiencies, since we go home when we’re done.  You could call this the gamification of a win-win labor relationship.  

Our union bargains with management, with arbitration often the result.  Recently, an outside expert engineered a system for real-time workload evaluation using automatic mailpiece counts, and a hand-held, GPS-enabled device.  So, fortunately, our unusual system lives on!

Why is this fortunate?  As your mother likely discovered, familiarity with a task, joined with an incentive to seek efficiencies, results in productivity—the kind that early farm life would have cultivated at the time the rural craft was established.  

And why do we want to encourage productivity?  Because, as any economist knows, it's the basis for overall income growth.  Engineer the same gamified efficiency-seeking in other kinds of work, and the grudging 9-to-5 hourly wage, with its slow-it-down attitude, where appropriate, becomes a thing of the past.  Seeing the other crafts in my office, the city carriers, clerks, and maintenance personnel slowly pace themselves to avoid being given even more work, is a revelation, when I’m feeling the poetry of less time spent fall into place.

Very likely a simple measure of work quality is needed to encourage the favors done customers, and the avoidance of mistakes.  This is the stuff of union-management negotiation. And to attract replication, it might make sense for productivity to be shared 50/50 between labor and management.

Earlier, I noted that you likely skipped over our craft’s unique salary-based wage system.  Without deep dive context--that you likely didn’t have room for--that system would perhaps seem overly generous.  That it represents, potentially, a major step forward in how humans work, does however deserve elucidation.

Hawaiian Continuity

 #395: A Native Remake

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

Many years ago, while finishing up a day's work picking and packing cucumbers, an elderly gentleman who was helping that day assured me that the threatening sky would hold off what looked like a sure downpour until I'd finished.  He was a native Hawaiian, born around 1900, possibly before the islands were seized by American businessmen in the 1890s.  And he was right, the rain did wait.

Another vivid memory I have is my native Hawaiian friend greeting me on New Year's Day.  He seemed to sing his salutation, like a warbling bird, one extended phrase followed by another, and another again.  I remember my chagrin at not knowing how to respond in kind.

Native Hawaiians have a good case to make that their government's overthrow was illegitimate and a great wrong--especially since it was executed by Americans who should have known better.

All this is sorted through in a recent article, What Does America Owe Hawaii?, appearing in The Atlantic's January '25 issue, written by Adrienne LaFrance, herself having grown up on the islands.   Its subtitle is: The Hawaiians Who Want Their Nation Back.

Though it's tempting to revisit the article's highlights, I'll instead point out something that's probably occurred to many readers: native Hawaiian culture is widely admired, and millions of people around the world not only sympathize with, but would dearly like to assist Native Hawaiians in re-establishing their cultural nation.  What's holding things up?

Come up with a plan that would see native culture rejuvenated.  For example:

  * Here's where a first dwelling is to be built.  

  * This family/community/village-to-be has been chosen by our group. 

  * There are many more waiting to get started, each with a proposed plan.

  * Here is what the land, etc., will cost.

  * These criteria are what we use in picking each plan.

  * This is what our first selection will look like, once built.

  * If we find the financing, we will grow this big.

  * Here is what we hope to accomplish in 50 years.

If a visionary plan (the above is a blank canvass) is coupled with fairly well-known fundraisers, the sky's the limit.

Kicking off the fundraising, I'd donate $250 just to see a plan come together.

Fixing Baseball's Injured Pitcher Problem

 #394: Calling Balls and Strikes

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

Baseball's getting ugly.  The 2024 season has seen an alarming number of pitchers succumb to arm injuries, most requiring major surgery.  And this is a trend that's accelerating along with the desire to throw ever harder.  It's now all but assumed that a young pitcher entering professional ball will at some point require remedial surgery—the likely average number of healthy years, according to some experts, is a mere eight, before going under the knife.

A review of this sorry situation appeared in Pitcher List recently, with the title: Baseball’s Pitcher Injury Epidemic Has No Implementable Fix.  Another article in The Atlantic magazine, Are Pitchers Pitching Too Hard? presents similar material.  The consensus seems to be that either Major League Baseball forces lesser pitch velocities, or that fewer pitchers be allowed per team, which would, it's assumed, result in teams implementing their own preventive measures.

Problems with these approaches are obvious.  Forcing pitchers to slow down is inelegant (sport is based on excelling, not holding back) while limiting the number of pitchers per team could cause players to hide injury and ‘take one for the team’.  Plus, baseball is the epitome of a backwards-facing, traditional sport.  When more games were added to the standard season, a main hesitation involved  prior statistics and how one could no longer compare player performances with past, shorter seasons.  Mandating slower pitches would be a major sea change.

Rather than forcing the issue, an ideal fix would merely tweak things in an effort to lessen the number of injuries.  But would this be possible?  Lucas Seehafer, the author of the above Pitcher List article, doesn’t believe so.  But what if we start by looking for a change that's at least elegant?

Executing a ban on pitches thrown 100 mph or higher, for example, would likely pull the plug on elegant.  If pitchers were afraid of getting too close to 100 (assuming some penalty), would the game be fun anymore?  A more nuanced approach could involve an incentive to throw at lesser velocities.  Kiri Oler, writing in Fangraphics, makes the case for a ’tax’ that would seek to control the problem (“A High Velocity Usage Tax: A Proposal To Protect Pitchers”.) 

Yet we know baseball is likely to soon change anyway.  It's now possible to know which pitches are balls, and which strikes, using a camera and strike zone overlay.  Anyone who watches baseball on TV is familiar with the umpire who calls a ball a strike and a strike a ball.  And though it could be a long time coming, it may be hard to avoid a changeover to automated umpiring.

And when that change occurs (currently being tried out in minor league games), another side-by-side tweak would be to encourage, though not require, lesser pitch velocities: For example, ever-so-slightly expand the strike zone once a pitcher has thrown slower pitches.

As the intention would be to keep baseball the way it is, except for pitch velocity, testing could determine what level of strike zone expansion, relative to velocity, kept the current balance between pitcher and hitter intact.

How exactly would this rule change work?  A pitcher’s first pitch would be judged by the automated umpire using existing strike zone dimensions.  If the pitch was slower than an agreed upon rate of speed (the aforementioned extensive testing would determine this rate), that pitcher’s next pitch would be judged using a slightly larger strike zone.  As the pitcher in question continues pitching, the zone could expand further or contract back to normal, depending on the average speed of the pitches thrown.  Strike zone dimensions would be posted in real time for all to see (on the scoreboard, in the pitcher’s line of sight, etc.) perhaps using a scale of 1-to-4.

A sceptic might ask whether a flexible strike zone—no matter how small—could disrupt a batter’s ‘feel’ for the zone.  But as it is, the variation from umpire to umpire, and from umpire to actual strike zone (as seen on TV) is probably within the realm of variation that a flexible strike zone would entail.  Plus, the batter would know whether the zone was a ‘1’, ‘2’, ‘3’ or ‘4’.

This rule change would keep the pitcher/hitter balance intact while allowing pitching arms to be used conservatively, especially on days when a pitcher would otherwise force himself to over-perform.  Arms would still be injured, but there would almost certainly be fewer, perhaps many fewer trips to the Injured List.

Bottom Line:

 * Older pitchers. Often fan favorites, older pitchers who currently find they can’t keep pace could gradually develop strategies that involve fooling hitters, rather than blowing the ball by them.  A good life lesson: the use of less force and more finesse as we age.

 * Rewarding location. At lower velocities, the fringes of the strike zone, where a ball is hard to hit, are where pitchers will aim, if we encourage them.  Message sent to beginners: go easy on your arms, relatively speaking.  Instead, work on your control.

 * Defensive wizardry.  Pitchers will likely throw slower to less talented batters in order to enlarge the strike zone on subsequent batters.  This gives defensive athletes with below average offense an advantage, relative to players with offense-only orientations, and so, overall, allows more graceful, exciting play on the field.

 * Removing much of the acrimony on the diamond.  As Daniel Port notes in the 6/23/24 Pitcher’s List newsletter, Who wants to see arguments over umpires’ calls and the angry ejections that result?  Automated Umpire calls make for a happier, friendlier game.

Currently, there are pitchers who emphasize control, spin and ‘movement’ over velocity.  For example, in a recent article by Travis Sawchik on The Score, “Velo vs. injury: Is there a better way for pitchers?" the San Francisco Giants’ Logan Webb and his slower approach are highlighted.  

All told, this would be a simple, easy to understand adjustment that keeps each individual pitcher in the driver’s seat while returning baseball to a sunnier disposition.

Solar Rising

#389: Solar + Desalination = !!!

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

In a recent blog post Casey Handmer describes an ambitious plan whereby the Salton Sea (now a toxic wasteland) is transformed into a Lake Tahoe-like attraction using solar energy.  Most importantly, he claims this can be done at little cost, as the water from desalination, minerals from brine, and land appreciation involved would cover most of the expense.  

Furthermore, he identifies solar power as the answer to Earth's water shortage, and by extension, it's shortage of arable land.

Can this be possible?  It all does sound appealing, and something will have to give, eventually, since water will only get scarcer in places like the US Southwest.

Handmer seems to be what one could call a techno-optimist, and judging from his blog, is deeply into space exploration, terraforming Mars, and so on.  He also recently posted a defense of the owner of X (formerly Twitter).  

So, are there unlikelihoods to his plan?  Would the industrial development of the area (where California, Arizona and Mexico come together) be a deal breaker?  What about all those solar panels in the desert?  Would the necessary international cooperation be possible (the plan envisions all brine effluent being piped to the Gulf of Mexico and mixed with seawater for disposal).

I'm guessing these are the questions that would have to be sorted out before people could start getting on board.  But, that's what experts and government panels are all about.

Perhaps a shortcut to rehabilitation would be (as one commenter opines) desalinating water on the California coast, using that fresh water to substitute for the Colorado River water currently being piped to LA, and instead piping that river water to the Salton Sea in order to refill and desalinize.  This would avoid the matter of effluent being piped into Mexican waters (as well as the other two unlikelihoods referenced above).  That's because resettling the area could begin immediately, while desalinization could occur over several decades (once the Salton Sea is filled, its air-borne toxicity would be no more, and the area could be used for recreation, industry, housing and so on).  A gradual desalinization would allow for the occasional truckload of effluent to be shipped to the coast, as well as a much reduced need for solar panels.  

... or so it would seem to my mind, without the necessary expertise involved.

What Would Revitalize Popular Music?

#392: Old Music Has Taken Over

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

This article was written in 2022 and held back from being published.

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

Way back in 2019 I posted "What Corrupted Popular Music", in which I count down the top ten factors.

Today, I read Ted Gioia's article "Is Old Music Killing New Music", in the Atlantic.  Gioia makes the case that 'old music' now makes up 70% of the US market, and that percentage is growing.  Of course that data point counts anything beyond 18 months as 'old'.  Still, 70% and growing is a very large figure.  

And, as Gioia points out: "The current list of most-downloaded tracks on iTunes is filled with the names of bands from the previous century, such as Creedence Clearwater Revival and The Police."

I enjoyed reading the entire case, but what can be done about it?

What's probably happened is something like what happened to classical music: the centuries have separated the wheat from the chaff, and anything new that aims to be "a classic" has to be very good to compete.

But what if this distillation process, by which classics are canonized, could be replicated using millions of ears and a social media app?  What if artists and their new music could cut out the middlemen and be recognized as great a few days after being released?  Of course this happens to a certain extent.  There are websites that allow listeners to taste and buy new music. 

What I'm suggesting, though, constitutes a step beyond.  What happens in the normal course of events is that great art emerges when those whose opinion is most respected agree that the art in question is outstanding--the larger the number endorsing, the more emphatic the decision.  So, to compress this process from centuries to days would require that those listening to new music, themselves, be ranked by the respect they generate in expressing their opinions.

There are many ways this could be done; I can think of a few:

* Celebrities could be hired to feed their favorite new music to listeners, who further refine.

* Established music critics could be hired to pick new material.

* Established musicians could provide that same service.

* Listeners receive points when participating. They listen to new songs, then assign those points to the songs they think are winners.  If they've picked winners, their points multiply.  Or, if not, points are lost. The earlier the pick, the more the points.

Perhaps different feeds within a single website would indicate at which level a song is intended (say "pop" or"classic", with curators describing their categorical niche).  As with something like Substack, one subscription fee would be split between artists, curators, and the site (unlike Substack, the most respected participants could also be rewarded).  Plus, there could be a few 'free' options involving artists more interested in the recognition ("We'll make money once we're famous.")  Curators could add atmosphere and commentary in the hopes of bringing in paying listeners, perhaps revealing a weekly top-20 countdown, and 'best new song' award.  Just as important, each feed could have a weekly top-100 'most respected' listeners list.

Would the site eventually become an objective generator of musical excellence?  Or would the tendency be to reward the lowest common denominator?  It may be that the way to avoid "they'll love this", instead of "I love this" is to channel all new participants through the free feeds, where there's no danger of coming up empty-handed after paying for a subscription.  These free feeds then channel the most highly rated new music to the subscriber feeds where the most respected listeners are rewarded.  Eventually, this filter would likely promote excellence, especially if it's explained so that beginners focus on what they like.

Unless, of course, the real problem is the decline in musical taste due to lack of exposure and other depressors.  Which would lead us back to my article: "What Corrupted Popular Music".

I Discuss One Pundit's President Biden Article

#393: Is He Right?

............... 

Ian Leslie (most known for his writing on The Beatles) publishes a newsletter that I subscribe to.  Today's issue was titled "The Biden Conundrum", a short essay that presents a sober assessment of our current president.  Essentially, he argues, Biden's approval rating should be much higher, given his many successes.

First, I'm on the same page with much of what he writes.  There are, however, a few disagreements that I explore below.

*** To start, Leslie cites recent NY Times polls that show Trump beating Biden in key battleground states (like Georgia, Arizona, and Michigan).  He then admits:

"Polls taken a year or more out from a presidential election are notoriously unreliable, but there’s reason to think these are not just noise. First, they are part of a broader pattern. Not only are Biden’s ratings really, really bad - comparable to Carter’s at the same stage - they are ominously stable."

He's right about the unreliability, but not about Biden's ratings being all that bad.  Compared to his most recent predecessors at the three year mark in their presidencies, Biden's numbers aren't all that different.  See Kevin Drum's comparative chart.

And considering what happened to the 'sure' Democratic win in 2016, when Hillary Clinton had been the clear front runner in the polls, Biden being a slight underdog could actually be advantageous.

 *** On foreign policy Leslie writes:

"The manner of the Afghanistan withdrawal was a black mark...."

This is conventional wisdom with little to back it up.  President Trump had committed the US to exiting Afghanistan.  The hope was that Afghan government forces could take over the fight.  Evacuating US citizens and our Afghan friends would, however, have sent a signal that all was lost; thus, the messy exit when all hope was indeed lost.  It's only in hindsight that we know the end was nearer than we thought at the time.

*** Appearance:

"I’m sorry to say it, but Trump just presents as more dynamic than Biden. The man has demonic energy."

But the closer one looks, the more one realizes how limiting his grasp on reality is; he's hobbled by his own single-minded self-regard.  Most marginal voters are drawn to the vigor, initially; then many gradually recoil.

*** A Biden alternative:

"...there isn’t somebody obviously as good or better than him waiting in the wings. His choice of Kamala Harris for VP is starting to look like a tactical masterstroke. There is certainly no clamour for her to run in his place (although the NYT polling suggests that even she might now be a stronger candidate than him)"

and

"...he has already taken the decision to run and it’s almost certainly too late to reverse now. It would actually be destabilising and risky in all sorts of ways to instigate a succession battle one year out..."

Could be.  Or, the new year may bring a surprise.  What the Biden people can do is make it seem as though it's a team that's running for re-election.  Along the lines of a periodic fireside chat, have Biden, Harris and cabinet members engaging with the public.  Make these appearances entertaining and informative.  Invite celebrities.  It doesn't have to be all politics, just keep it interesting.  For example, I went down an internet rabbit hole upon hearing the old Simon and Garfunkel song "Scarborough Fair/Canticle" on Radio Paradise.  I discovered that the "cambric shirt" mentioned in the lyrics referred to a desirable fabric of the 16th century that came from India.  There, it was called "kambala".  Seems it was used for things like pajamas.  Imagine Kamala Harris presenting Paul Simon with a embroidered shirt, in a short segment with the song playing quietly in the background.  

Now imagine younger celebrities with strong feelings about issues, with Biden, cabinet members and experts discussing the issue in question.  In a group setting Biden can question, rather than declare, suggesting that authority is invested in the evidence and the group, rather than the leader. 

*** Overall:

"One reason America has ended up with a very old president is that so few Democrats under 70 are practised at the art of appealing to the median voter, rather than just to their own activists and donors."

Except this critique could be even more effectively used against the Republicans, whose fundamentalist voter base is almost never contradicted by their party's candidates.  Meanwhile, Democrats are known for their 'big tent' party. 

The Telltale Lines In Powderfinger

 #391: "I Saw Black"

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

Today I finally read Paste magazine's online article The 50 Greatest Neil Young Songs.  It's in countdown format, and generally follows my tastes, especially their #1 pick, Powderfinger, written in 1975 for Lynyrd Skynyrd, but released on Young's 1979 Rust Never Sleeps LP after the death of several Skynyrd band members a month after the song's creation.

I looked up the lyrics and confirmed my initial impression that there's more here than meets the eye.

First, let's set the scene: During the early '70s, Young criticized racism in the US south with songs like "Southern Man" and "Alabama".  Skynyrd responded with their hit "Sweet Home Alabama", in which they struck back with a brush off that southerns don't need Young's advice.

For all we know the two parties were perfectly respectful behind the scenes (Ronnie Van Zandt, Lynyrd Skynyrd's vocalist, is seen in a Neil Young T-shirt on the cover of their final LP), and became friends.  In any case, one side or the other then proposed that Skynyrd record one of Young's songs.

On that note Young writes a song about a young man reacting to authority.  We hear about a gunboat approaching the man, who is standing on a dock.  The boat has a big red beacon, a mounted gun, and numbers on its hull (meaning it's likely 'the law').  The man, for whatever reason, has his father's rifle handy.  The man is shot dead, and his thoughts continue on after death:

"Shelter me from the powder and the finger.  

Cover me with the thought that pulled the trigger.  

Just think of me as one you never figured 

To fade away so young, 

With so much left undone,

Remember me to my love

I know I'll miss her."

And the lines immediately prior to being shot:

"Raised my rifle to my eye

Never stopped to wonder why

Then I saw black...."

Here we have rebellion against authority, and the consequences.

What is fascinating are the specific references to former Young songs and the Skynyrd affair, that provide us with context.   The two prayer-like phrases at the end of the song begin with "Shelter me" and "Cover me".  To unlock these, we use the key "...I saw black", the moment of death.  Those are the same words sung by Young in "Southern Man":

"I saw cotton

And I saw black.

Tall white mansions

and little shacks."

So, "Shelter me..." is like saying: please treat me like I'm in Sweet Home, Alabama, not like we're shooting at each other.

And "Cover me..." cleverly suggests a body covered by a white sheet, but also could refer to one band recording another's song.  If the latter, it would be asking Skynyrd to voice the point of view of authority (we know of only one gun being fired): the law will shoot if you bear a threatening gun.  In other words, order vanquishing chaos.

Finally, there's one more interesting link.  After reflecting on the advice received from his absent father, which serves to pause the narrative after establishing that the young man has a gun, the soon dead man says "I saw it coming", followed in the next line with "I saw black."  So, a foreshadowing.

Even in tragedy there's usually the possibility of redemption.  Here, it's the father's advice: "...red means run, son, numbers add up to nothing."  In a word, flee, if you see a "big red beacon".  And, literally, the only way numbers add up to nothing is when negative numbers are used.  Withdraw.  Don't Rebel.  Lessen your pain.  Lay down your arms.  Surrender, to live another day.  

Realistically though, the father's advice "...red means run..." more likely refers to reading and writing, with arithmetic being a big fat nothing.  So, leave school and trust your instincts instead.  Which is it?  Well, all great writing is at its heart ambiguous.   

On Ice Cream

#390: Three Cheers For Homegrown Cherries

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

 

Self-Moderated Social Media

 #388: No Squaring Of The Moderation Circle Required

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

What if we as a nation are on the brink of a major change in how we organize ourselves, socially and politically?  Something akin to the drafting of our nation’s constitution in 1787.

Of course I’m thinking about social media and the way we organize ourselves online.  At present, it looks likely that Twitter will become more divisive and contain greater misinformation.  Facebook, meanwhile, is hard to moderate.  Could there be an emerging way around these problems that takes social media to the next level?

Nowadays, we expect our social media feeds to be whatever generates the most clicks, replies, etc.  This transactional focus on what’s exciting underpins most platforms.  And there’s nothing inherently wrong with that arrangement; except, we don’t yet know how to eliminate the accompanying problems of divisiveness, exploitation, and even poor taste that tend to hitch a free ride.

A recent article in the Washington Post pointed to one possible solution: a revamped algorithm that seeks out “bridges” between different points of view, and thus feeds us a more balanced, and let’s say healthy, take on any given subject.  Here's a fascinating, professionally written paper on how such a system might work.

A possible alternative, that might reach the same goal and yet take a much simpler, more direct path, is to enable and reward self-moderation on any given platform.  Ideally, multiple platforms would emerge, each offering a different style of moderation, which taken together would accommodate every taste that lay within the bounds of an agreed upon minimal decency.

This self-moderation would involve:

  * Well-defined standards set out by a given platform 

  * Specific rewards for identifying material that either does not meet those standards, or is one or more degrees away and deserves some official warning or commentary

  * These rewards would involve greater prominence on the platform, and if necessary, cash prizes

  * Unlike hiring thousands of moderators, self-moderation would draw in volunteers to flag content, with posts representing the greatest potential harm assessed prioritized by a few hundred expert moderators

  * Variations in flag color could be used to guess at a post’s eventual fate, with rewards being assigned in relation to each guess's accuracy

  * The algorithm used would then significantly depress the circulation of future posts generated by those creating offending material, and thus gradually rid the platform of indecency

Importantly, the vast majority of a platform’s content would be unaffected, except for the increased prominence of the rewarded users who actively understand what constitutes indecency and its fainter shades of untoward content.

A China Q & A

 #387: What Might Make Taiwan Want To Reunite?

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

I happened upon and read Dan Wang's annual letter for 2021, written from Shanghai (as well as his 2020 missive, from Beijing).  If you're interested in what's happening in China these days, you should absolutely find an hour to commit to it.  

The key ideas that have stuck with me: 

* The Chinese bureaucratic state has become much more efficient and user-friendly.  

* The recent crackdown on things like kids video-game-playing and outside tutoring was part of a push to focus on manufacturing and furthering the economy, rather than some random fist shaking.

* Wang points out the lack of 'culture', when compared to Western societies (a contrast to worldwide phenomena like manga, K-pop, and other cultural exports that have emerged from China's neighbors).

* The future's growth industries are hard to predict.  In a Western country, the hottest innovation is free to quickly emerge on its own.  Can a top-down command economy replicate this same flexibility--especially if, let's say, there are state-owned industries in the way?  If not, China will always be playing catch-up--though this is something it's done remarkably well over the past few decades.

* The discussion of regional ambiance (his 2021 letter) and China's regional cuisine (2020) were quite welcome.  A section on Mozart's operas, vis-a-vis Italian opera (2021) was a yawner for this reader--though if opera I must, let it be Mozart.

* The introductory second page to his blog lists all the books he's read since college.  Impressive.

Anyway, let's get right to this post's question:

Question: What Might Make Taiwan Want To Reunite With China?

Answer: Nobody knows, but we can guess.  So, here's a 'what if'.

At first glance, there's little that Taiwan could possibly gain from reuniting with the Chinese mainland.  And, after what happened to Hong Kong in the past few years, there aren't likely to be many Taiwanese who're even interested in looking into a possible deal.

As for the government in Beijing, there's the obvious, ultimate feather-in-the-cap that is reunification.

The first step is for us to see this imbalance, and imagine something that could possibly entice a voluntary union, hard as that may seem.

The key is that the Communist party would have to take a step into the future, reshaping and refashioning itself into something with the same structural power, but with a democratic foundation.  It would have to create a Chinese version of a modern democratic state.  

Luckily, Taiwan itself seems to have come up with just such a system.  So, what better way to unite than for the mainland to adopt the island's innovation, remaking the Communist party apparatus into something much less threatening, even inviting.  Would this be possible for a proud, assertive government?  Well, many a groom has found such a remake conceivable, even desirable, in order to secure his beloved's hand.  And what if that groom discovered that he'd be giving up nothing, yet be on his way to being a hero, to his people, and the world?  What if Chinese democracy then went on to sweep the world?  Rather than a pariah in democratic high society, China would be, indeed, the world's leader, eagerly greeted in every country's capital.

In exchange for adopting her political innovation, Taiwan, during an interim transition, would agree to set a future date, and hold annual talks, leading up to reunion, which might tentatively be, say, 2038.  Obviously, the wedding could be called off at any time, by either party.

First, what exactly is Taiwan's recent political innovation, and how might it be incorporated--seamlessly, let's hope.  First, here's a link to my post #252, which describes it.

Essentially, it's a way of using an online app to steer interest groups that are in conflict towards consensus:

Process:

1. Crowdsource objective facts from stakeholder factions about a specific issue

2. Communicate via dedicated social media, with statements aimed at resolving the issue drafted within each faction; these internal discussions then alternate with suggestions to resolve the issue at hand, that are offered to all parties

3. A rough consensus is reached between factions, followed by hammering out detailed recommendations

Tweaks (courtesy of the app being used):

  * no 'reply' button (so no person-to-person vitriol)

  * messages within factions regarding their own drafts are not shared with other factions

  * instead, only 'consensus' messages that find minimum support across different groups are trumpeted and copied to future messages; the message(s) with the most support appear at the top of a user's screen

  * thus, rather than fostering negativity, the process is gamified to tilt toward consensus

There's no point in defining the process in too great a detail, since the hope is that Beijing would make it its own (even I've fiddled with it a bit to make it make sense in my own mind).

A consensus-building tool, the app would be used to create a democratic foundation, starting with local community issues, and building higher and broader, as the system finds its footing.  And of course the Chinese Communist Party would have to tenderly nurture the ensuing process, guiding and reworking and re-envisioning, and always scaling larger as participants get used to the process.  

Could it be done?  It's conceivable.  

Would it end up being mere window dressing?  If so, the reunification date could be pushed back.  Perhaps a long-term, 2100s date would be likelier.

Are There Any Heretical Ideas That Have Merit?

 #386: In Short, Yes

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

I ran across an interesting list of "heretical" ideas put together by Tyler Cowen on the Marginal Revolution blog.  I will react (in green type) to a select few, along with several others found in the post's comments:

The author first lists "partially heretical" ideas, then asks for truly heretical beliefs (they can’t be absurd, or simple insults).  He comes up with this list (I've cut it down to the most interesting):

5. ESP works.

Most would discover vague 'directions' difficult without modern GPS.  The same is true with ESP.  If you haven't experienced it, it's unimaginable.  Plus, the confounding truth --> the more one seeks to exploit ESP, the less it occurs; like the mysterious morel mushroom, it's never a sure thing--let alone a thing to boast about and thus test for.  Just believe.

7. In fact you can trust Congress to do the right thing.

This truly is heretical.  What makes it interesting is that in 50 years it may actually be vaguely correct.  Rather than a long, sorry tradition, we're likely witnessing the flameout of a few decades worth of crackpot ascendancy (1980 - 2020 --give or take an extra decade on either side).  "We now return you to your normal programming."   

11. Non-human animals suffer more than they enjoy, and it would be better if they did not exist.

Again, ridiculous.  What makes this interesting is the inability to distinguish our minds (which anticipate, think abstractly, and can thus evaluate a life's 'misery index') and the brains of animals (who, for the most part, live in the moment).  Or do they?  There's also the failure to view animals as part of an organic whole that is Nature.  

12. American TV was much better in the 1960s and 1970s.

Obviously incorrect on many counts (production values, slllooow, boring), but makes us think.  What's it about TV in those decades?  Probably a combination of universality (everyone watching the same shows), classicism (training being more rigorous) and novelty (many programming ideas have now been used).

Commenter Dave C:

People get benefits from non-scientific things like astrology because their brains evolved to extract wisdom from...oracles.

This isn't really heretical, and isn't quoted in full, but there's something interesting here.  Could there be something to self-selected 'inspiration' that benefits the mind?  It would have to outweigh the usual: "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."   

Commenter Mark T:

Health care is not a right.

First, we have to distinguish between: 

1) the theoretical concept of a human Right derived from basic math (When more than one mind is present, how are decisions made?  Answer: by giving equal weight to each and voting on a path forward--this equality is a Right), and 

2) the common political usage found in advanced democracies ("In this great nation everyone has a right to the basics.")

So, it's only in the second sense that health care is a right, but that's what most people mean.

Commenter asdf:

1) The best life outcomes come from following the Biblical commandments on chastity, and while this [may] never be perfectly obtained, it should be considered the societal ideal rather than scorned.

This is one-sided, but not heretical.  Logically, if one thinks of a future life partner, and pleasing them, the thing to do is arguably abstinence, but just as arguably, self-discovery.  So, following hard and fast rules is probably not the answer.  But neither is ignoring the distilled wisdom of past generations.  Ideally, one can discover without becoming prematurely entangled.

3) ...single family zoning is the only way people have to protect a middle class upbringing for their family....

Here's a thought experiment: What if a neighborhood was asked to sign off on an underground multi-story building that had its own tunnel to the nearest freeway?  So, no eyesore, no big increase in traffic; just more residents paying taxes.  And let's say this new development was in a run-down part of town, replacing abandoned, dilapidated buildings with a tidy, park like setting.  Wouldn't it get approved right away?  Yes, most likely.  Which suggests that a good deal of the resistance to multi-story developments in single family neighborhoods involves aesthetics ("eyesore", "traffic", "elbow room").

4) The War on Drugs actually isn't that bad....

It's not unusual to encounter this sentiment.  I'd say it's close to a 50/50 matter, nationally, with sentiment moving steadily against.  Eventually, more tolerant laws will be implemented.

5) MLK did not ultimately believe that people should be judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin.

Most reasonable people will find this heretical.  What makes it interesting is that those who only pay lip-service to Martin Luther King like to quote the "...content of their character..." line.  Unfortunately for his detractors, King had discovered universal truths (equality, non-violence, justice, freedom, progressive fairness) that ring true on the part of a vast majority.

Disarm Government Critics

 #385: Ok Then, Let's Make D.C. Work Better

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

I checked out a comprehensive, government reform proposal, by Arnold Kling, writing in National Affairs, that proposed two new positions, a COO (chief operating officer) and an CA (chief auditor) to oversee federal bureaucracy.  After checking out comments here, I realized that my initial ("...but you couldn't do that") reaction was correct.  Kling's proposal is all but unworkable, as it ignores the reality of career civil servants, the existence of current department auditors, as well as congressional authority in these matters.

On the other hand, there's something perfectly aligned about the desire to reform government bureaucracy.  The party in power at any given time will be doing itself a favor if it preempts the 'party of big government' label by seriously addressing the issue--especially halfway through a presidential term, when seeking a thumbs up from voters in midterm elections.

Nothing would win over more independent-minded voters than announcing an effort to, for example:

1. Take on, and rebuild, one government agency, or one area of responsibility per year.

2. Invite bi-partisan input from congress.

3. Appoint a how-government-works expert to oversee the reform.

4. Seek input and reform ideas from the affected workforce.

5. Split any monetary efficiencies between:

 * employees (an incentive to make reform work)

 * other budget priorities (perhaps everyone could vote for a favorite recipient program), and

 * deficit reduction 

Aim for less--but better--government.  Start small, get bigger, then ask to 'finish the job' in 2024.

Predicting The Future: 2022

 #384: Vox's 2021 and 2022 Predictions, Reviewed

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

First, let's look at how the Vox crew did last year (about 14 right predictions out of 22) (here's the link with an explanation for each pick).  Then we'll look at their choices for the coming year (here's the link for commentary). For '22, we'll either agree or disagree on each (my comments are in green).  The percentage in parentheses is the prediction's confidence level:

Vox Staff's 2021 Predictions (how they did in bold)

Trump will uneventfully leave office on January 20 (70 percent) — TECHNICALLY RIGHT

Biden will have a treasury secretary, secretary of state, defense secretary, and attorney general confirmed by the end of the year (70 percent) — RIGHT

At least one US state will have an abortion ban currently blocked by the courts go into effect (40 percent) — WRONG [technically, but they got the gist RIGHT]

No one in Trump’s immediate family will be indicted (65 percent) — RIGHT

Trump approval rating by year’s end will be in the 40 to 45 percent range (70 percent) — RIGHT

The US unemployment rate will stay above 5 percent through November (70 percent) — WRONG

US poverty will be higher in late 2021 than it was in late 2020 (80 percent) — WRONG

The median home price in the Bay Area will fall 5 percent or more (70 percent) — WRONG

100 million Americans will be vaccinated, at least partially, against the coronavirus by the end of April (70 percent) — RIGHT

Restaurant reservations and consumer spending outside the home will be back to normal by the end of the year (70 percent) — MOSTLY RIGHT

A deadly new zoonotic outbreak will emerge (55 percent) — WRONG

The US will enact policies to hold China accountable for its treatment of Muslims, but the internment camps will remain open (80 percent) — RIGHT

The Hadi government and Houthi rebels in Yemen will reach a peace agreement (60 percent) — WRONG

LDP will continue to govern Japan (90 percent) and CDU will continue to govern Germany (80 percent) — RIGHT and WRONG

India’s economy will grow in the first three quarters of 2021 after shrinking briefly in 2020 (70 percent) — RIGHT

At least three new basic income pilots will be launched (75 percent) — RIGHT

No more countries will leave the EU (80 percent) — RIGHT

An AI breakthrough will lead to a game-changing advance in biology (75 percent) — RIGHT

Global carbon emissions will increase (90 percent) — RIGHT

Average world temperatures will increase relative to 2020 (80 percent) — WRONG 

Plant-based meat market share will increase by at least 20 percent (80 percent) — WRONG

Their discussion of these predictions reveals just how studious serious predictors are.  They were unlucky at least once (Average World Temps just missed 2020's level), and were thrown for another three losses by Democratic senate candidates winning runoff races in Georgia, changing the playing field.  So, their record is likely to improve to, say, 18/22 this year.  

Let's see if we can guess where things might go wrong for the Vox crew in '22.  We'll agree with their pick if we don't have feelings one way or another:

Vox Staff's 2022 Predictions (a confidence level of 55% or more means Yes)

*** Democrats will lose their majorities in the US House and Senate (95 percent)

95% 'yes' is a (perhaps slightly high) standard prediction.  I am feeling a current running the other way and will give it a 45% NO for either the House or Senate.  My reasoning is that

1. Trump is causing trouble for Red by endorsing candidates who could easily say dumb things.  Example: Mary Miller in IL-15 (downstate) has been endorsed over Rodney Davis (a Trumper, but voted to certify 2020's election results, and for a bipartisan commission to investigate the January 6 insurrection) (Note: Miller's mailbox fliers were seen in the pre-Christmas rush, long before her endorsement--she's hitting the ground running).

2. The truth about January 6th has yet to be fully understood and 'experienced' as a definitive, dominant story in the media.

3. The anti-science tilt of some in the Red base (especially regarding Covid) may be a bigger drag on Red than we might think.

4. Our former president does not look healthy.  Poor health could doom his command of Red; would be ironic if some of his candidates won, only to be yesterday's news.

5. The two things weighing down President Biden (and the Democrats') polling: inflation and Covid, could conceivably evaporate, at least partially, by the summer.

*** Inflation in the US will average under 3 percent (80 percent)

I'll lower that to 65%.

*** Unemployment in the US will fall below 4 percent by November (80 percent)

*** The Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade (65 percent)

I'll lower that 65 to 55 YES.

*** Stephen Breyer will retire from the Supreme Court (55 percent)

*** Emmanuel Macron will be reelected as president of France (65 percent)

*** Jair Bolsonaro will be reelected as president of Brazil (55 percent)

I will again go with a 45% NO.

*** Bongbong Marcos will be elected as president of the Philippines (55 percent)

*** Rebels will NOT capture the Ethiopian capital of Addis Ababa (55 percent)

*** China will not reopen its borders in the first half of 2022 (80 percent)

*** Chinese GDP will continue to grow for the first three quarters of the year (95 percent)

*** 20 percent of US children between 6 months and 5 years old will have received at least one Covid vaccine by year’s end (65 percent)

*** The WHO will designate another variant of concern by year’s end (75 percent)

*** 12 billion shots will be given out against Covid-19 globally by November 2022 ... (80 percent)

*** ... but at least one country will have less than 10 percent of people vaccinated with two shots by November 2022 — (70 percent)

*** A psychedelic drug will be decriminalized or legalized in at least one new US state (75 percent)

*** AI will discover a new drug — or an old drug fit for new purposes — that’s promising enough for clinical trials (85 percent)

*** US government will not renew the ban on funding gain-of-function research (60 percent)

*** The Biden administration will set the social cost of carbon at $100 per ton or more (70 percent)

*** 2022 will be warmer than 2021 (80 percent)

*** Kenneth Branagh’s Belfast will win Best Picture (55 percent)

*** Norway will win the most medals at the 2022 Winter Olympics (60 percent)

So, I've tweaked two percentages, and changed two predictions from YES to NO.  Most of the other matters are not subjects I know all that much about, or are almost impossible to predict.

A New Compromise Repeal of Section 230

#383: Nurturing Local Creative Types

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

Dean Baker, at Center For Economic And Policy Research, has been blogging and tweeting about his proposal that would both counter the current decline in local journalism, as well as rein in 'bad actors' posting disinformation and slander on social media.  Its net effect would be to help little guy creatives at the local level.

We start with the founding fathers, who, when creating the US Post Office, established a subsidized postal rate for newspapers.  This was because citizens, in order to vote wisely, needed to know the truth about their government.

Fast forward to 2022, and that link between citizens and their local government is disappearing.  Most newspapers are much less profitable than before the arrival of Google, Facebook and the like--all of which yanked away advertising revenue while distracting readers with a universe of diverse entertainment.  Unprofitable newspapers have folded, or been turned into bland shadows of their former selves.

In the meantime, social media corporations like Facebook have been shielded from having to aggressively clean up the falsehoods and slander that appear on their pages.  This shield is referred to as Section 230, and recently there've been calls for its repeal, meaning that Facebook, for example, could be sued if it didn't remove offending content, once notified.

The debate over whether to repeal Section 230 has mostly concerned whether Facebook (now, along with Instagram, etc., a part of Meta) and other social media companies could survive, and what repeal would do to our ability to enjoy them.

Enter Baker's plan that would remove Section 230's shield for sites that accept paid advertisements or sell customer information.  This would be coupled with a tax credit for all citizens to assign, as they see fit, to one or more enterprise headquartered locally and addressing that local audience.  This would have the effect of not only encouraging local news outlets, but of also cultivating local creative businesses and individuals.

Baker discusses the pluses and minuses involved in his proposal, most of which point to its being feasible.  I won't dwell any longer on his ideas except to say that an 'outside in' approach is inherently harder to pull off than is an 'inside out' change like the one I've proposed, that Meta could implement on its own.  But, Baker's package would accomplish much more, since it would take on more than a single social media platform.  

     

Fleeting = Humor

 #381: The Longer One Looks....

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

Why is it that lingering too long over a joke will usually kill it?

We watched Simpson Christmas-themed episodes this holiday season, and so I decided to revisit a Simpsons Bookmark I've saved for a year or two that promises to explain some of the show's inside jokes.  That eagerly anticipated bookmark turned into something approaching a let-down though, as it's hard for a joke to pass the one-second threshold and withstand a thorough examination.

That's even true for us when watching The Simpsons with a DVR.  We stop the action, go back and look at those banners, signs and other details one doesn't have time to read in live action.  But we rarely linger.

There's something about humor that's understood by our ears the second we hear it.  It's either TRUE, or not.  After that it's a mere echo of its former self.

   

Getting Nothing In Return -- It's Hard

 #382: That 50/50 Senate

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

When West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin periodically reminds his party that he's the 50th vote needed among fifty Democratic senators, and that he intends to vote for a slimmed down Build Back Better bill or nothing at all, there's a natural feeling among his liberal colleagues, and among liberals in general, that this isn't right: why should one senator get to decide the course of history?  It's a natural reaction, but one that seeks to ignore reality.

There is, it seems, only one way forward; and that is to take a few bites, leaving the rest for later.

Specifically:

1. Wait for inflation to be heading down, rather than up.  Ideally, heading dramatically downwards, or at least consistently down.  The CPI snapshot for December will be released on the 12th.

2. In the meantime, unveil a scaled back BBB that Manchin can live with.  If he won't tip his hand, guess what it is he'll agree to.  For example:

 * A single new program that does not involve free money (which would likely stoke inflation).

 * First steps to addressing Climate Change.

 * Expansion of healthcare subsidies to all qualifyied Americans (those living in states which haven't signed up for ObamaCare).

 * Some prescription drug pricing reform (which would help pay for the above).

 * Enough $$ for the IRS to collect from those who don't pay their fair share (also a pay-for).

3. Have the Congressional Budget Office estimate what it'll cost.  Make sure the estimate comes in at the desired amount, with expenditures equalling, or being less than receipts.  This means not back-loading most of the taxes into years 7-through-10, and not front-loading most of the benefits into years 1-through-4.

4. Announce a "second step" for Build Back Better that Democratic candidates (and any brave Republicans, if they want) can campaign for.  Make it a true second step, though, not a mighty long-jump.  For example:

* A Child Tax Credit Extension.  Expensive, and possibly inflationary, but popular, and immediately cuts child poverty by half (compared to 2020 levels).

* MediCare expansion to include hearing, vision and dental benefits.  Very popular among the age group that's most likely to vote: senior citizens and those approaching senior citizen status.

* Pay-fors would include further addressing inequality.

5. If there's any hope that Democrats can avoid the historical trend of incumbent Presidents' parties losing mid-term elections (like the one coming up this November), it likely involves a popular message to campaign on.  This, after a successful Build Back Better bill, which would likely lead to robust economic growth.

6. Sometimes, if you're lucky, the only way forward is close to being the most likely way forward.  

Santa, Is That You?

#380: When Giving Isn't Living

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

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

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

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

#3. The gift must be appropriate in value.

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

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

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

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

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

Honestly, sometimes the best option is to dodge:

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

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

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

Turning Defense Spending Into Pro-Democracy Assistance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 * challenge non-democratic nations to make us an offer

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

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

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

 * encourage our allies to contribute 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 * Cuba.   As with Venezuela, an educated workforce

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

What Is Memory, Anyway?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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