Where'd He Get That 'Cool'

My Kennedy Listicle

On this, the 50th anniversary of JFK's assassination, I jot down a list to answer the question: "Where'd he get that 'cool":

1. As a wealthy man from a prominent family he had those 'high hopes' upon which ambition feeds.
2. His wife, Jacqueline.  She had a serious, classically trained mind that must have challenged him to greatness.
3. He read and studied history.
4. The experience of war would be enough to remove any uncertainty of character resulting from his privileged background.
5. He was, for the most part, successful, politically.
6. His extramarital affairs, though they point to his downfall, meant that he thoroughly experienced life.
7. All the cool kids were Democrats when his time came.  Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt and then Adlai Stevenson led the way.  His elite Harvard education meant he was a player.
8. In his final years he took many drugs, some of which would have had psychoactive effects.  Which leads us to:
9. His health was terrible (very bad back, serious adrenal disease), but he was able to rise above the pain.  How could this not have been a source of strength?
10. Compared to what?  To the white bread banality of Nixon and Eisenhower.
11. His secret that he probably kept to himself: he didn't fear death.  

Presidential Aplomb

US Presidents -- From Forty To One

First, let's acknowledge the obvious: being president can't be easy.

Second, while it may be impossible to adequately know the historical constraints presidents face (foolish political allies, a hostile congress, belligerence overseas, prior catastrophes), a close enough approximation is possible.

Third, I'll be adjusting this ranking as I learn more about each man.

And fourth, I'm not considering presidents who died soon after taking office: W.H.Harrison, Taylor and Garfield.  And, of course, Cleveland's two non-consecutive terms are counted only once.

You may wonder what criteria I'm using to judge.  Well, Alex Voltaire has a good round-up.  One additional thing I will say is that as a progressive, I see being a slave owner or having imperialistic tendencies, to cite two examples, as more and more serious faults as time goes on.  While Washington was a slave owner, Tyler's slave owning came many decades later.  Likewise, Eisenhower and LBJ, not to mention Bush II, are marked down much more for overseas overreach, compared to a president like Polk.  In a similar vein, Grant is credited with surprisingly early attempts at social justice.

Washington - 5

Adams - 8                      

Jefferson - 10

Madison - 25                   

Monroe - 21         

JQA - 17                 

Jackson - 34            

Van Buren - 33       

Tyler - 28

Polk - 27

Fillmore - 30           

Pierce - 36

Buchanan - 39

Lincoln - 1

Johnson - 38

Grant - 7                 

Hayes - 19              

Arthur - 23                

Cleveland - 14       

Harrison - 31           

McKinley - 16

T. Roosevelt - 4

Taft - 15                   

Wilson - 18                         

Harding - 26           

Coolidge - 32         

Hoover - 22             

FDR - 2

Truman - 9              

Eisenhower - 20     

Kennedy - 6                           

LBJ - 11                           

Nixon - 37

Ford - 29                                

Carter - 13                

Reagan - 33            

Bush I - 24               

Clinton - 12              

Bush II - 40

Obama - 3
Trump -41     

Many rankings have Truman at #7 to #9, Buchanan near the bottom and Lincoln, FDR & TR at the top.  These presidents need no introduction to their ranking slot.  I will say a few words, however, about some of the more unusual rungs on the ladder:

#25: Madison: His presidency would likely have been much more successful if it hadn't been for the war of 1812, but by his own hand he had helped do away with national economic and military power (central bank, standing army) only to find the nation sliding into war.  D'oh!

#18: Cleveland: I'm giving Cleveland a pass on the economic stink in his 2nd term; this, since economic theory had yet to blossom (the Federal Reserve, monetary stimulus to fight recession) and it can be argued he inherited a mess from Benjamin Harrison.

#26: Harding: The scandals in his administration that are often cited when placing him in the dungeon did not implicate him, personally. 

#6: Kennedy: This is a rather high rating compared to most experts.  I think it deserved due to Kennedy's inspiring charisma alone, and the fact that much of his agenda was stalled in Congress.  Reckless in his personal sphere? Sure, but at the time not so far outside the norm.  And indications are that he was heading in the right direction in the final year or so of his life, both as regards policy and in his personal life.

#3: Obama: Here's the shocker, since as I write this (November, '13) Obama's legacy looks mighty bleak.  My bold predicition is that 'Bama's legacy will feature five major turnarounds: economy, war overseas, healthcare, the environment and higher education.  Each well underway by '17 when he leaves office.

Another couple mentions are in order: both Jackson and Reagan are placed in the low 30s zone (34 and 33), despite poor, high 30s performances.  This is because they presented a commanding presence that, rightly or wrongly, added to the country's stock of confidence.  Likewise, the records of presidents like Coolidge, Nixon, Ford, and Bush I are weighed down by their lack of gravitas.  In the case of Nixon, perhaps what we see is a feigned gravitas accompanied by the shaking of jowls.  Bush II could be added in here, except that I find no 'up' side to be weighed down. 

One last point about ranking.  What judging is all about is determining whether there is any slack between what's possible for a president to accomplish and what he / she actually accomplishes given the times lived in.  Clinton, for example, couldn't have passed most of the major progressive legislation that Obama enacted.  Did he need to 'triangulate', though, that much, separating himself from his own party?  Probably not, though this is debatable, since the U.S. population wasn't nearly as blue, demographically, then as today.  

Also, am I being too partisan?  My Democratic presidents look a lot livelier than do my Republicans of the past 100 years.  Hey, sorry, that's not my problem.  Essentially, Wilson grabbed the populist, progressive agenda from Teddy Roosevelt's Republicans, FDR and Truman improved on Wilson's short-comings, and the Democrats have been the more progressive party ever since, with perhaps Hoover, Ike, Nixon, and Bush I each bridging some of that gap.

.........................
Update: Presidents Day  --  2/19/18   ----     #41 -- Trump 
Okay, he's had a year and a month to show us he can't do any better than 'worst ever'. 

Nobody thought it would be this bad.  I can't think of a single thing President Trump hasn't managed to make worse--dramatically worse in most cases.

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

Also, here's an interesting ranking of presidents based on their health.  Obviously, it's hard to know much about our earliest leaders, but this list does a good job with what we know.

          

Reading Great Books: Absorb, Align or Awaken?

That Good-Books-Are-Good-For-You Study

A recent Huffington Post article summarizing a study published in Science suggests that reading literary fiction improves our ability to 'read minds' and so better navigate our inter-personal worlds.

The authors of the study "designed five related experiments.  In each...subjects...read 10-15 pages of either literary or popular writing" (Chekhov or Danielle Steel)  Then, "when participants finished their excerpts, they took tests designed to measure" mind reading.  "in one test...(readers) looked at a face for 2 seconds and decided whether the person appeared happy, angry, afraid, or sad."  In another, "they saw only a small slice of a face and picked from four complex emotions such as "contemplative" and "skeptical"."

"Those who read "literary" works scored significantly higher...than those who read popular selections."

But what are the tests measuring?  The absorbing of goodness, a mental realignment or the awakening of mindfulness?

One of the study's authors is quoted as believing the results "show that fiction's power doesn't hinge on exposing readers to foreign viewpoints or offering a persuasive, empathetic message. "For us, it's not about the content.  It was about the process.""  In other words, the ability to fathom or figure out an ambiguously sketched description or relationship.

But couldn't the study be proving something else?  That our minds are temporarily realigned by stories imbued with wonder and power.  And that this heightened mental state makes it easier to do well on just about anything, including tests that gauge our ability to 'mind-read'.  If this is the case, literary fiction's effect is generated by both process and content.

I'm reminded of a poorly designed piece of 'modern art' that reaches for the ambiguity sauce and comes away with a recipe devoid of the savory.

Which is why this study, and others that might be imagined, are at the mercy of well-chosen, powerful content.

As for whether literary fiction has a temporary or lasting effect on our minds, like everything else in life, the effect is probably most intense initially, wanes over time, but can be compounded.

Victuals For All

Nutrition Saves $$

If we all agree that everyone-getting-enough-to-eat is worth taxpayer dollars, what's the best way forward?  As it is now, SNAP provides 48 million Americans with free food.  And Republicans in congress want to reduce that number.  They say recent years have seen a dramatic increase in the number of people on what used to be called 'food stamps'--in 2000, the number was only 17 million.

A recent blog post by the economist Paul Krugman shows that this increase is nearly all related to the declining fortunes of the poor.  As the economy skewed in favor of the rich during the Bush years, and then collapsed, the increased use of SNAP benefits became a major part of society's safety net.  While there was an additional expansion beyond this, it was due to a legislative change that saw government agencies seek out those eligible for assistance, **  rather than wait for the needy to discover they qualified.
** Making sure kids get enough to eat reduces the need for future spending many times over.

The case for reduced spending now, on the other hand, points to a small loophole that could be tightened, and to the need to tie benefits to work requirements for able-bodied and childless working-age adults.

A slight tightening of eligibility, to screen out those with ample assets but little income, might be a legitimate point for congressional give-and-take, but without a strong economy, work requirements are simply cruel.

Another Republican plan to fix SNAP, proposed by Tennessee congressman Phil Roe, an MD, would be to limit recipients to healthier foods, using guidelines devised for the WIC (women, infants and children) program.  The thinking here is that healthier eating will reduce the need for spending on Medicaid, not to mention healthier lives led.

Under the Roe proposal, the list of excluded groceries under SNAP (alcohol, tobacco, pet food and other non-food items) would be expanded so that only the healthiest basics are covered: juice, milk, cereal, cheese, eggs, fruits, veggies, whole wheat bread, grains, tortillas, canned fish, legumes, soy products and peanut butter.

There are several potential problems with this 'fix':
   * higher quality foods can often be more expensive
   * cooking can be near-impossible for someone who works several jobs
   * many poor live in 'food deserts' where mainly low quality, processed foods are available

Yet another approach that seeks similar, healthier results is to reward recipients for buying fruits and veggies (a 30% rebate) rather than prohibiting the purchase of unhealthy foods. ** 
** see HIP article, below

All these ideas require buy-in from store checkout clerks.  This can be especially difficult for smaller stores whose inventory is not automated.  One way around this problem would be to use the existing label requirement for organic foods, so that any product with an organic icon would qualify.

My own take:
   * don't scale back benefits now, as the poor need all the help they can get
   * do limit SNAP benefits to WIC categories and foods labeled 'organic'
           * high quality food = more expensive -- sorry, a bag of rice and one of beans along with fresh fruits and veggies is going to be fairly cheap
           * grant waivers for those working more than 40-hour weeks
           * grant waivers for low-mobility recipients 
   * implement the 30% rebate for fresh fruits and veggies

Politically, there might actually be room for agreement on a package like this.  Democrats would succeed in retaining near-current funding levels and a new 30% off for produce.  Republicans would claim victory too; their expectation, most likely, would be that once eligible food is limited to the nutritious, there's sure to be a decrease in program participation.

The Problem
Background information
HIP article

In The Public Eye

Snoopsters Ahoy!

As I've mentioned previously, I work for the Post Office, and so handle other people's personal information on a daily basis.  This means I avoid looking at or telling others about the information I'm exposed to.  For example:

   * I don't read postcards

   * I avoid talking about what little information I do know; if a letter from the IRS requires a signature, for instance, I like to skate around the obvious when handling the transaction

   * If I leave a package at the door of an apartment building, I turn the label toward the wall so the neighbors aren't unnecessarily informed of a person's name

This all surfaced in my mind as the nation came to grips with government spying on our communications, both foreign and domestic.  We've recently learned that a record of all telephone calls, for example, is kept, that can be accessed, if needed, for national security purposes.

Which raises the question of what's more important, privacy and a faith in the direction history will take, or security and the likelihood of less violence--especially terrorism?

Actually, there is little choice, politically, since there are many in the public realm who choose to focus on security and in a way that willfully overplays the risk involved.  Which often results in voters who are afraid for their safety more than they are concerned about their privacy.

And yet the dialectic of history would suggest that gradually, as fewer terrorists acts flow from increased security, the pendulum will swing in the opposite direction.  We shall see.

Robot-istan

Where's My Robot Taking Me?

Kevin Drum, an unusually able blogger at Mother Jones, has written about the likelihood of artificial intelligence soon outperforming the human brain.

The article's first page suggests that this may be but several decades away.  In the second, Drum deals with the implications.

If robots of the future can do the work that humans can, faster and more accurately and just as easily, what becomes of a society organized around the idea that everyone works for a living?

Drum suggests that we can head in two different directions as super-smart robots do more and more of our work for us: either we ramp up the redistribution of wealth, so that even if only a few of us actually work, we still all enjoy the ride, or, all but the few who own robots will be unemployed.

Ah, but isn't their a third possibility?  That the economy bifurcates into two parts: the super-efficient, robot-run, money-making machine that pays for national security, the welfare state, etc., and a secondary, artisanal, more locally-sourced economy that crafts and creates, as opposed to mass produces.

This secondary scene would likely center around the arts in their broadest sense: in areas where the primary focus is on relaxation, entertainment, the natural world and artistic expression.  Much of the initial support for these areas might have to be from visitors, although wealthy patrons, foundations and inherited wealth would also likely play a part.  

Any takers?

Good For The Goose Is A Fattened Gander

Subsidized Elbow Grease

The Republican-controlled House recently passed a Farm Bill that expanded government assistance for most farmers (those that grow corn, soy, wheat, sugar, cotton, for the most part) and there have been fingers pointing at lobbying by corporate agriculture as the cause.

Several writers, including Brad Plumer of the Washington Post, wonder how farmers, who represent 1% or 2% of the population, can have such a large impact on public policy.  Here are a few reasons why, aside from corporate lobbying:

  * the farm economy is much larger than the total number of farmers; think workers for John Deere, ADM and Monsanto, not to mention the small-town stores and service providers whose customers are often farmers

  * if you live away from metropolitan areas, chances are you transit through agricultural areas, and the intuitive effect is to subconsciously judge farmland as taking up many times more geographical area than developed land, so that the importance of the farm economy is likewise seen as larger than it in fact is

  * there is something in our social fabric that identifies with the farmer and makes his case easier to make: not so long ago--maybe 100 years, maybe a little more--a majority of our ancestors were making a living based on what thet could grow and what thet could make from the things that were grown in their community

All of which happen to zero in on the Republican party's sweet spot: rural voters, especially those who own land or a business as a sole proprietor.  Little wonder, then.