My Little Twitter Idea

No, Not The Big One

That's right, I've got a big, especially interesting idea for social media.  I wrote about it on Feb. 25th, '15 with my 171st tweet:

Q: Will my 'next-social-media' idea pan out?  A: Can't say or it'd no longer be mine.  No Catch-22, just write a teaser check; teaser reply.  

This thing I've just thought up is instead my little twitter idea.  'Little' in comparison, and best used on Twitter, though it might work on another platform.

Actually, wait a minute, why am I writing this?  If the idea is good enough, and I think it is, and it's not going to save or improve lives, other than being fun, challenging and strangely addictive (in a status-driven context), why not hang on to it and maybe I'll be able to use it in some fantastic future that I couldn't possibly imagine in present-day 2015?  

Why not?  Because it might be the door to that fantastic future.  After all, you have to start somewhere.

Yeah, maybe so.  Hey, wait, what if I reveal an even teensier idea--an appetizer to the appetizer?  Surely that's all very possible since it's likely not an original idea.  So here goes:

Woe is the newspaper business.  The classified ad section (formerly a big money-maker for the industry) has been downsized thanks to on-line versions.  And the younger generation gets its news in other ways.  And... I know.  I follow the number of free, all-ad tabloids distributed to non-newspaper-subscribing households in my town from one week to the next (that's because I deliver them in mailboxes and the bundles I receive each week have a total for my route that I can track).  Many borderline subbers tend to let their subscriptions lapse, then wait for a 'special offer' from the publisher to re-subscribe.  Others read a copy at work and are not subscribers.  And while the slide in subscribers may be leveling off in our town, as our newspaper learns how to fight back, the future doesn't look good.

Lately, I've noticed our paper containing considerably more local stories.  "What's that construction project on such-and-such street"; the kind of thing you might call your local, lowest-rung elected official about.  So, they're on the right track.  My idea is simply a furthering of that trend.

Here it is: 
Have an on-line address that accepts ideas for stories that contain opinion.  There'd be two categories.  One for short, tweet-length observations:
* "That photo on page #1 was so good; did you see the little doggie?" 
* "Saw a young kid at the Mall; is there something about holes in pants that makes sense?" 
* "I don't like that billboard on such-and-such street"
* "You've got to see the community theater doing X...."  

The other category would be for longer pieces tied to the current issue, or to a topic fresh in the public mind.  These would be several paragraphs, and unlike the shorter, brief bits, could earn the writer more than his/her name in the paper, though the amount paid would likely be but a token, maybe an extension on one's subscription.  

And because opinions can be dangerous for a publisher, these longer pieces would be on-line only, accessible with a subscriber's password.  They'd thus generate interest in the paper, yet not require space, per se, while also avoiding any question of advocacy, since they would qualify as something like a letters-to-the-editor section.

As with the comments in most on-line fora, writers would have their opinions ranked by 'thumbs up', 'neutral', and 'thumbs down', with the ups appearing first in the reader's feed and the 'downs' buried for all but the most dedicated reader.  These opinions would also be categorized, with Sports, Personalities, Community, Politics, Education and The Arts, being possible categories.

Trusted writers who reach a certain level of output are posted immediately.  Others are vetted, problems are flagged, ...the usual.

Ideally, a subscriber reads the newspaper, then heads for the on-line version where opinions are offered and chatter enhances the original reading experience.

Initially, newspapers may have a role in encouraging their on-line chatter--getting the ball rolling.  Eventually, though, there'd be very little to do, as natural leaders would likely emerge to fulfill a moderator's role.

Yeah, I know, that's not very exciting.  But I guarantee you my 'little' and my 'big' ideas are many times more interesting.

I Can't Hear You!

The First Goth Ball

For all these years a portrait on the wall has stared calmly down at me whenever we've had enough people in the house to have a party in the dinning room.

Except for an explanatory note taped to the back, that I typed up about 25 years ago, I hadn't thought much of this print of Holbein's Duchess of Milan:

Dad and I recently looked up the relevant passage in my mother's father's unpublished autobiography and found that on a visit to Gõttingen, Germany in 1912, while studying in the UK, he had purchased the above for 12.50 DM (then, the equivalent of $3.00).

Had that been the end of it, well, that's all very interesting.  But then we looked up just who was the Duchess of Milan and found that she was originally Princess Christina of Denmark, who was married off at the age of 12 to the Duke of Milan; her 'husband' then died the next year.  Again, this would be interesting in itself.  But it gets really interesting when we discover that when she was 16, England's Henry VIII had her portrait drawn by Holbein (on March 12th, 1538) with the intention of perhaps choosing her as his next wife.  In response, she wore her mourning clothes and had her rooms in Brussels draped in black; and, if one looks closely, there is a delicate arrangement to the fingers to note.  She is rumored to have said of the situation: "If I had two heads, one should be at the King of England's disposal".  Henry pursued the match (upon seeing her portrait for the first time, it is said that he was so happy he had his musicians play all day--this is understandable, as she has an intelligent look about her), but Christina's guardian, her aunt, Mary of Hungary, did not approve and, besides, Christina had strong ties to the Lutheran church.

The Duchess marries again, four years later (to the man who was originally to marry Henry's fourth wife, Anne).  He then dies and she is left to raise a son and two daughters as regent of Upper Lorraine. Her children, incidentally, become the ancestors of many of the royal bloodlines of Europe.

If you're wondering, the cuttings in the above photo are of pink dogwood.

A Boardgamer's Concise Manifesto

What Makes A Boardgame Great

Each year hundreds of boardgames appear on the market (here's a list of the most popular).  Most people don't know about these games because boardgame aisles only have Monopoly, Battleship and Clue for sale.  Meanwhile, dozens of new boardgame publishers appear each year, many to hawk self-published titles which are money-losing and time-wasting for all involved.  So, here's a handy guide to finding the occasional diamond in the rough.

#1: Is it Fun?  This criterion eliminates most kiddie games like Candyland, and most self-published games that weren't first tested, then revised, then retested by professionals working for game publishers.  Beyond this, everyone has their own tastes (see mine below).

#2: Does it speak to you?  If there's only one other person in your life who likes to play boardgames, don't buy a game that can't be played by two.  If you don't like to be reminded about war, or disease, or nasty creatures, or frightening space aliens, don't buy games with those thematic settings.

#3: Just looking at it, is it captivating?  Sure, some popular games like checkers and chess have boards that are plain checkerboards.  But wonderfully designed boards are the first step on the way to an exciting world drawing you in.

#4: Have you enjoyed playing it?  That's right, you can attend a convention, try out games that look good, and buy after you play.  Here's a list of convention resources.

..........

And what game categories interest me?  Here I whittle away at the tens of thousands of boardgames published in the past 50 years:

* No disturbing images, objectives or settings.  This eliminates war, horror and colonialism as game categories.

* 2-player games are preferred.  I don't care for the relationship struggle that means favoring one opponent over another.  I'd rather focus all my energies on crafting a 'win', rather than being fair and civil to everyone.

* Beautiful boards!  If I'm staring at it for an hour or so, I like to open my eyes wide and soak in the image.

* Crafting.  It takes skill to start with a subject like a high school dance and not only make a game that's fun, but artfully include the characters in attendance, the music played, the food/drinks consumed, the clothes characters are wearing and what those characters are allowed to do at the dance.  Then, it takes imagination to raise the game to a higher level, by, for example, creating shifting personalities (a wallflower becomes the center of attention), song requests, illegal booze/penalty, even different venues at the school (bathroom, dance floor, behind stage, parking lot, janitorial closet, etc.)

This last criterion, of raising a design to a higher level, is where much of my winnowing occurs.  There are many games where a designer has invented a new way to play cards, roll dice, arrange tiles, rank turn order, etc.; has sketched out something of a mechanical drawing to show how the idea works; and then casts about for a subject to tack on.  Sometimes the fit is surprisingly good; usually it isn't, though; and sometime it's woefully inadequate.  A favorite for game designers who like to tack on thematic settings after the fact are fantasy, space and other imaginary realms where there are none of reality's constraints.

I prefer games that begin with a subject and develop a game idea around the setting.  This is much harder to do well, because it's very tempting to take shortcuts, rather than hone the same design for years, until fun is maximized and depth absolute.

My Favorite Web Links

A window on my worldview.  

My favorite writers on the web and links to them:

#1:  Paul Krugman.  More followers than just about anyone on Twitter, he combines Economics wizardry with a gift for explanation, and adds wit for leavening.  Hard to beat his devastating ability to call out the wrong-headed while also owning up to his own minor errors.  A columnist for the New York Times.    Link

#2:  James Fallows.  While his blog posts can be on topics that don't especially interest me (airplanes), when he does write about public policy, including foreign policy, especially China, where he lived, his writing is as reasonable and well thought out as can be found anywhere.  Associated with the Atlantic magazine.   Link

#3:  Kevin Drum.  His interests are about as broad as can be imagined.  Again, well-thought-out, logically limber arguments that leave that magical feeling of wonder at the end.  Occasional swear words must be endured, but otherwise an absolute joy.  At Mother Jones magazine.   Link

#4:  Radio Paradise.  My go-to site for music, which is writing for the ear.  The husband and wife who run this site have usually excellent taste in music, mixing world music and the occasional jazz and classical music selection with a majority of recent release masterpieces, plus golden oldies.  The golden oldies seem to be the most popular, judging from listener rankings.  There is also a discussion board and comments section.   Link 

#5: Alex Voltaire.  An American professor of history who teaches in Singapore, Alex is a friend from way back who is consistently interesting and has inspired my own writing.  His ranking of US presidents is excellent.  His work on Rock 'N Roll acts has gained a wide following.  Note the tabs for these super categories at the top of his Northumbrian Countdown site.    Link 

#6: Alison Tyler.  Another personal friend, her writing on the granular level is what I strive for, and what outshines all the others on this list; but, one does have to ignore Tyler's main focus, which is erotica, and rather enjoy her writer's instincts.  This is easily done, however, using her twitter account, a good place to find the captivating nugget emerging from that all but lost mother lode.   Link 

#7: Cecil Adams.  The columnist behind the intriguing, funny and cool The Straight Dope has been "fighting ignorance since 1973" with his brand of laid-back expertise.  For example:  "If you handle baby birds, will their parents shun them (apparently not)?"    Link

#8: Nancy LeTourneau.  The Washington Monthly magazine's blog, Political Animal, has at its helm a new weekday blogger who is not only a woman, but is probably the closest to come to my own politics. Link

#9 Ta-Nehisi Coates.  A difficult childhood has been overcome with writing skills which have blossomed into something awesome.  His experience learning French, as an adult, helped set me on the path to playing around on the piano.  His recent piece on how 'friends' have inadvertently disclosed to the world where he lives, is also terrific.  A writer for the Atlantic magazine.   Link 

#10 Ezra Klein.  Originally with the Washington Post, Klein has now started Vox, which is an interesting, cutting-edge and consistently well-written site.  Sarah Kliff is the resident expert on health care, for example.     Link

Women Are The Key

Why?

Let's look, in very general terms, at why women are key to our progress as a species.

Women are usually credited with having their family's best interests in mind, compared to men who tend to be more self-centered.  In general terms that's because men emphasize the better path, comparatively, concentrating on whether individuals pass the worthiness test, measured against an ideal.  It is therefore quite common for men to not only become self-absorbed, but to become lost in testy competitiveness, long after that focus has outlived its purpose.

What men can sometimes forget is that beauty, creativity and wisdom are the goals towards which all the testing and competitiveness in the world should be focused.  Women simply remind men of that.  So, to the extent that women are subjugated or ignored, there will be failure to focus on what's important and instead, we get a tribalism that is basically one-upmanship gone awry: in religion, for example.   

The usual argument in favor of women's rights is utilitarian: that women are generally good at caring for children, playing the role of housewife, being supportive and so on, and that these roles serve to maintain society.  

And while there is undoubtedly truth in the women-as-maintainers argument, the often obscured key is that, again in general terms, society needs women to remind men, in real time, what they're aiming for.  Written rules can be used as a substitute, of course, but are at least one step removed from real time, and subject to interpretive drift.  A calcified set of religious do-dos and don't-don'ts is often the result of men substituting rules for real-life experience.

Okay, you say, but who and what educates women to the point where they're able to serve their 'true north' function?  Again, in general terms, this is something that happens, just as men are good at testing for worthiness.  Education is simply the process that enables.

What are the implications, then, for our species, aside from the obvious importance to be placed in women's freedom?  As a man I can understand all this in general terms, but obviously it's more likely that a women will grasp the particulars better than I will.  Which leads one, again obviously, to the conclusion that a female president to lead this country, or any country, is a good in and of itself.

Obama

Judging The Obama Presidency

First, I should acknowledge my prejudice. Like Obama I identify with Hawaii, having lived there for five years in my twenties; I lived in Asia as a boy; I went to college in California; and finally, I’ve settled and put down roots in Illinois. So, I don’t expect I'll ever again have so much ‘where-you’re-from’ in common with a president.

Second, I’d like to admit to one other subjective bias: Obama’s demeanor (a mix of power, grace and calm–emanating, perhaps, from his African, Hawaiian and Indonesian roots, respectively) is something, in my eyes at least, approaching high art. The only parallels I see are JFK and to a lesser extent, FDR. Some of this is the contrast with his predecessor, but I think we take for granted what'll be seen in hindsight as incomparable delivery.

What’s crucial, though, is not Obama’s agile approach to the microphone, or Reagan’s hearty, bemused, delivery, it’s the essence of a president’s politics. And here, context matters. The question is, essentially, what was in the realm of the possible for Obama, and did he fulfill.  While he did have a 60-vote super-majority among Senate Democrats from July ’09 to Jan. ’10, a time when the Dem.s also controlled the House, we should remember that several of those 60 were quite conservative, or at least thought they had to protect themselves against challenges from the right (senators from NE, LA, AR, IN, PA, CT). Meanwhile, Republicans had organized to deliberately block everything Obama proposed, regardless of merit, and their major tool in doing so was the Senate filibuster.  So, not surprisingly, little of Obama's promised magic was possible.  The much touted 'purple' approach, where both parties would meet in the middle, was strangled in its crib.

Thus, when comparing what Obama was able to accomplish with what Lyndon Johnson, say, accomplished (a time when the filibuster was rarely used), this context is key.

Here, adapted from comments of mine in the Northumbrian Countdown, are a few other Obama myths addressed:

Change was too slow and tentative in coming.
There is always the question of whether to promise only what one can deliver, and so risk losing an election; or, whether to aim for the stars. Obama chose the latter in ’08 and won convincingly. Given his race, the country's economic trauma, and the irregularities in recent close elections, deflated rhetoric was simply unaffordable.

Obama erred in making health care his major focus when he had political capital to spend.
Jobs and infrastructure are often pointed to as alternatives that could have garnered more support on Capitol Hill and been first steps to eventually tackling health care. Except that a nearly trillion dollar stimulus bill, meant to jump-start the economy, had jobs and infrastructure as components; there was even a second, minor stimulus.  Only a few commentators, like Paul Krugman, were advocating more money for jobs; the price tag for the stimulus was shocking, especially as it followed upon the price tag for TARP, the bank bailout.  Simply put, the appetite for more just wasn't there.  Besides, there were news stories of how 'shovel-ready' projects weren't numerous enough, and if Democrats in congress had waited on health care, they would've soon lost their 60-seat supermajority. As it was, the legislation's first major hurdle was surmounted less than a month before the D’s majority was reduced to 59.

Another commonly suggested alternative to Health Care was a Cap & Trade energy bill. The House successfully passed one early on, but the consensus at the time was that health care was the likelier issue.  Besides, the House bill was loaded with 'compromises', like huge subsidies for nuclear power's white-elephants-to-be, now uncompetitive compared to renewables.

Obama should have learned from Bill Clinton's mistakes in trying to pass healthcare in the early '90s.
Actually, it can be argued that Obama paid too much heed. Probably the biggest reason why the president let congress hash out the details, and so allowed the process to play out in public, was that Clinton had crafted his attempt behind closed doors. with little congressional input, then presented a fait accompli.

ObamaCare was a complex bill, easily becoming “death panels,” and the loss of doctor choice.
Or, one can blame Republican detractors for distorting what was the only way forward.  Connecticut’s Joe Lieberman shook his head at a public option, for example, meaning the votes just weren't there for something more workable.  Interestingly, the losing-your-doctor charge may be the one true criticism that was hushed up by the bill’s supporters. If Obama hadn’t repeatedly said “If you like your plan, you can keep it” ObamaCare may well have died in the Senate.

Obama is aloof and leads from behind.
The problem here, as usual, is that the Republican party has been intent on keeping any hint of victory from Obama (a strategy settled on, in secret, the day of Obama's inauguration). The president's only way forward was and is to stay in the shadows and let events unfold without his 'push'; that's because any thumbs up from the president is met with a vociferous thumbs down from congressional Republicans, dooming the initiative in question.  Presidential enthusiasm was and is counter-productive.
There is also the extended period early in Obama’s first term when outreach to the opposition was placed front and center (the ’09 stimulus, with its tax cutting emphasis is exhibit A; the near debt default deal of ’11 with its compromise that led to 'sequestration' is B), all to no avail.  And if he'd ignored the Republican point of view, initially, it might be argued that he'd never tried to engage.
Some commentators have urged Obama to engage in greater outreach to congresscritters.  Yet more rounds of golf with (now former-) House speaker Boehner?  Why elevate 'leaders' who have little control over their party's direction, when it's hard to even imagine the chore of making merry in such company?  

Obama's is a surveillance state; Guantanamo, drones cost civilian lives.
This is, again, a case of choosing either right or caution. It may surprise some readers, but the Democratic party has only recently (and in hindsight, temporarily) reversed the Republican edge on foreign policy and keeping the country safe. To achieve this meant moderating the impulse to cut Pentagon spending and continuing key aspects of the war on terror, specifically, drones and wiretaping. Was this wise? Because he was shutting down two wars, opening up to Iran, attempting to close Guantanamo (Congress is alone responsible for this not happening), etc., one could argue that a strong Republican candidate in ’12 could have made an effective critique and perhaps turned the election.

The healthcare.gov rollout was a disaster.
I’ll switch gears here and agree with this assessment.  The reason it happened in the first place, of course, is that another calculation was made and Obama again came down on the side of caution. From the accounts I've read, work on the website was delayed until after the ’12 election in order to deprive the opposition of an issue. This meant that the usually deliberate pace of government, in a compressed window, just couldn't hack it.

Where does all this leave Obama on my presidential rankings list? During the height of the ObamaCare roll-out mess I counter-intuitively moved him up from #8 to #4--out of our 40-odd chief executives--with the bold prediction that he would, by the time he leaves office, turn around four major ills: the economy, wars overseas, health care and the environment.  A few months later I added a fifth: college education, and moved him forward yet another notch.

What would gild the lily, would be passing the torch to a Democrat in 2016, something a two-term Blue President has been unable to do in my lifetime (Johnson in '68, Clinton in '00).

We shall see.

What's Ahead

Winning D.C.

Signals in the political landscape had all been pointing towards a big win for Republicans in the fall of '14, and sure enough, just that happened: a smaller and older body of voters chose the champions of obstruction.

Though the scenery is quite different from that in 2008, when voters threw out the other party, the pattern of boom and bust is a constant.  And so, the defeated in 2014 look forward with hope to the familar scenery of redemption somewhere down the road. 

What might that familiar scenery look like?  A newly victorious party is energized and emboldened by success.  Actors further out on the fringe are given greater heed and the inevitable correction then occurs at the next election (though let's skip that eight years of Bush-like misunderestimating please!).  So, expect to hear more of Senator Ted Cruz and other wingers, who look to be candidates for over-the-cliff leadership.

In the meantime, Democrats might examine their presentation for '16.  The path ahead seems likely: many low-information voters remember the Clinton years as the 'good old days'.  The Clinton presidency's appeal was broadened by addressing typically Republican concerns (Al Gore's attack on red tape in DC bureaucracies, for example).  And a woman at the top of a national ticket should generate enthusiasm and provide for a convenient narrative.

And it's never too early to engage in what works, politically.  The most effective GOTV (Get Out The Vote) efforts, it should be noted, have been shown to move elections, if done right.  Here's a good backgrounder on what works (short version: canvassers going door-to-door, talking with voters for 10-20 minutes each).

My own input here, as an unpaid door-to-door canvasser in my youth, is that engaging the public by ringing doorbells is hard work, even when paid, say, $20 an hour.  The temptation is to linger on friendlier porches and make a run for it otherwise. 

So, the key is obviously prior training on how to present a candidate.  There are also the work parameters that a party might engineer to reward success. 

Pretend you're part of a 2-person team knocking on doors.  If you've been well trained in how to present a candidate, you're halfway to a successful GOTV effort.  Now imagine that before and after ringing a doorbell you sign in on a mobile device.  Perhaps the device buzzes at the 10 minute mark to keep you moving.  Perhaps it senses heat and can tell when a third body is on the other side of a front door.  Maybe it senses the give-and-take of conversation to encourage questions asked.  Constructing work parameters can reward solid effort, minimize the lackadaisical impulse, and, coupled with effective training, get out the vote effectively.

Can enough money be raised to pay for the best trained and equipped canvassers?  That likely won't be a concern with potentially our first female president asking for votes.