My Best Blogging

A Look Back At My First Five Years

I'm getting better at blogging.

I now link to my blog on twitter, and increasingly, more people read my posts.

Here, then, are my top ten most popular, followed by my ten best, both in countdown order (below, you'll find these same lists tabulated at the time this piece was published--March 16th:

As of May 22nd, 2016:

Most Read
10.  Supreme Court 4/4 Tie in November -- The Scariest, Worst-Case Scenario (Feb. 29, 16)  ^1
9.  Why The Young Love Bernie (April 1st, '16)  New on list
8.  Trump's Possible Veep Picks (May 14th, '16)   New on list
7.  Gamified Labor -- On The Clock (Nov. 24, '13)  ^1
6.  The Case For Bernie (March 14, '16)   New on list
5. My Little Twitter Idea (May 5, '15)   ^1
4. Rock's Mighty 55 - The Meta-View (Nov. 22, '15)  ^1
3. Presidential Aplomb (Nov. 17, '13)   ^1
2. 13 Positions For A Republican Reboot (Nov. 12, '15)  ^1
1. Feedback On My Little Twitter Idea (Jan. 8, '16)    3 slot advance


Best

10.  My Favorite Web Links (constantly updated)
9.  Unbundling Pay TV -- An Exercise In Game Design
     (Ordering TV a la carte)
8.  Monetizing Online Journalism   New to List
7.  Hillary's Secret Weapon: Bernie   New to List
6.  Presidential Aplomb
     (I rank US presidents)
5.  Take It To A Higher Level
     (using on-line voting to make Congress work)
4.  The Mighty 55 -- Rock 'N' Roll's Greatest
3.  Supreme Court 4/4 Tie In November -- The Scariest, Worst-Case Scenario
     (having nine justices on the court is vital)
2.  Meet, Greet 'N' Seat
     (designing a more democratic presidential primary system)
1.  Gamified Labor -- On The Clock
     (encouraging efficiency at work)

As of 3/16/16:

Most Read

10. Meet, Greet 'N' Seat  (March 11 '16)
9. Supreme Court 4/4 Tie in November -- The Scariest, Worst-Case Scenario (Feb. 29, 16)
8. My Little Twitter Idea -- Finally Revealed  (Jan. 3, '16)
7. What A Schock! (Oct. 18, '10)
6. Gamified Labor -- On The Clock (Nov. 24, '13)
5. Feedback On My Little Twitter Idea (Jan. 8, '16)
4. My Little Twitter Idea (May 5, '15)
3. Rock's Mighty 55 - The Meta-View (Nov. 22, '15)
2. Presidential Aplomb (Nov. 17, '13)
1. 13 Positions For A Republican Reboot (Nov. 12, '15)


Best

10.  My Favorite Web Links (constantly updated)
9.  Unbundling Pay TV -- An Exercise In Game Design
     (Ordering TV a la carte)
8.  America's First Published Poet
7.  Looking Back At The Architect
     (I review a revisionist book about Christ)
6.  Presidential Aplomb
     (I rank US presidents)
5.  Take It To A Higher Level
     (using on-line voting to make Congress work)
4.  The Mighty 55 -- Rock 'N' Roll's Greatest
3.  Supreme Court 4/4 Tie In November -- The Scariest, Worst-Case Scenario
     (having nine justices on the court is vital)
2.  Meet, Greet 'N' Seat
     (designing a more democratic presidential primary system)
1.  Gamified Labor -- On The Clock
     (encouraging efficiency at work)


Notes about these results (3/16):

* Chronologically, 7 out of 10 of my most read posts appeared within the past year, so hopefully I'm getting more interesting.

* My most extensive writing involves the Mighty 55.  This is a separate blog devoted to the most important rock 'n' roll.   The blog posts referencing it, above, are summaries.  Here's a link to the blog itself.  Incidentally, the most popular entries are The Kinks and Janis Joplin (tie), followed by Radiohead (5/22/16 update: most popular is now my #1, Natalie Merchant. My #2 "The Greatest Rock & Roll Band" and #46 The Kinks, are tied for 2nd.  Janis, #49, now at #3).

* Here are a few musings RE: my most popular:
#7, from way back in 2010, was a critique of Aaron Schock, the now disgraced ex-congressman who resigned after it was revealed, in '14, that he had misused campaign funds.
#4 is actually another idea that I used to tease my little twitter idea (which, itself, was only revealed half a year later: #8).
#1, my most popular, is a list of positions that the Republican party could adopt in order to move itself back to being a more centrist party.

The Case For Bernie

Best Case Scenario

The case for, paradoxically, begins with the case against.

What most political pundits think they know—based on experience—is that a Socialist like Bernie would lose when matched up against just about any Republican opponent.  

Why?  Left-wing idealism has a long track record.  It’s not just George McGovern in ’72, it’s the myriad races at the state and local level where youthful idealism almost always loses.  The further out in left field, the more likely the loss.  The Green Party is a good example of how being idealistic just isn’t enough.  Rather, political movements that champion things like single-payer healthcare, government funded higher education, legalized marijuana, and so on actually need voters who favor such things.

Steven Pearlstein in the Washington Post covers the unlikelihood that voters in this country would choose radical change.

And even if Bernie were somehow, miraculously, elected, it would likely be a relatively close vote, and he’d almost certainly face a hostile House of Representatives, thwarting every one of his plans, as happened to President Obama.

Wait, though, what if he caught fire and won big?  Wouldn’t that make his plans much more likely?  Probably not.  The reason ObamaCare, for example, was so watered down by the time it passed—even with both houses of congress in Democratic control—is that not all Democrats want radical reform.  In fact, most of the 'extra' Democrats elected in a big wave election would be relatively moderate, from districts in which voters would be about as Republican as Democratic.  So, compromise would be all that would happen.

Now that we’ve completely quashed all hope of a leftist revolution in 2016, here’s that case for Bernie:

* Sure, the odds of winning might be 33% instead of 66% for Clinton, but one can trust Bernie.  He fires from the hip without having to think about what he's saying.  He has deep principles based on what's just and equitable.  One can trust his views, no questions asked.

* And his opponent, if Bernie were to get the nomination?  Maybe the worst possible candidate for the Republicans, someone like a Donald Trump or a Ted Cruz, is being served up by fate just so Bernie can win this one. 

* Wouldn’t it be such a ‘get’ to keep young Bernie supporters energized?  An entire generation brought into the tent.

So, that’s the case for.  And the most convincing point is probably the last.  An entire generation at stake.  Except that when reality sank in, when, over the course of the first four years, compromise was found to be all that was possible, wouldn’t it just be an awfully big turn off?

Meet, Greet 'n' Seat

Neighborhood Forums

(Updated February '20)
As we’ve seen every four years, the system used in selecting a president begins with contests in Iowa and New Hampshire.  Why?  Well, as our system has evolved over the years, alternatives have been judged unworthy.  One perennially discussed alternative, for example, is to only have regional primaries, like the gargantuan set of contests to be held this March 3rd.  The objection, however, has always been that this skips the ‘getting-to-know-you’ politics found in small states.  

But if we want voters to meet candidates up close in live settings, and yet also want the first voters to be as diverse as our country (Iowa and New Hampshire being less racially diverse and more rural than average), perhaps we need to think outside the traditional box.  Maybe even take a step into the digital age.

We know Iowa and New Hampshire aren’t about to give up their first-in-the-nation status without a fight.  But what if, in the weeks leading up to the first primary season contests, there was a way for candidates to make pitches to a small, representative sample of all voters?  

We could easily do this.  We know how to select a random sample.  We have digital media that could transfer candidate videos to these voters.  And we certainly know how to conduct on-line polls.

Except, there are potential drawbacks to on-line activity.  Security, for one.

But what if the interaction was live --in a high school gym or hotel ballroom, where security could be guaranteed and the integrity of any polling unquestioned.  Here's one possible scenario I’m calling Meet, Greet ’n' Seat:

1. The Democratic Party would randomly select towns and urban neighborhoods (let’s say each such neighborhood would average 2,024 Democratic voters).  Overall, selected neighborhoods, combined, would be representative of the Democratic Party, whether examined by age, gender, race, religion, income, etc.

2. Democrats and Independents living in these select neighborhoods would then be sent tickets to a local Meet, Greet ’n Seat event, held in the nearest auditorium, hotel, or other large facility.  Follow up canvassing to encourage residents to attend, free dinner, and a token payment (Savings Bond) received following the event (to avoid a majority-rich problem), would ensure enough of a sample to make groups of events statistically significant.

3. Events would include as many candidates as wished to attend, or recorded videos from those who couldn't.  Events might begin with an informal meet-the-candidate half-hour as voters arrive, followed by a 90-minute or so session during which dinner is served, with candidates onstage.  Besides answering questions from the floor, candidates would be allowed to make several-minute speeches.  The evening would then conclude with voters asked to fill out a ballot that would list candidate names.  Age cohort, gender, race, religion, approximate income and party affiliation, would also be requested.  As they left the event, voters would turn in their ballot and receive their Savings Bond.  They could also sign up to receive additional party and candidate material.

The polling results thus obtained would be an on-going primary that awarded no delegates, but that allowed candidates to interact inexpensively with voters, hone their campaigning skills and message, and possibly rise to the status of serious contender, prior to the first contests taking place (a threshold for participation would be established by the Democratic Party).  By November, the field would be effectively winnowed.

Details

Q: Is There Really A Problem With Iowa, New Hampshire…?

A: Probably.  It's conceivable that a milquetoast candidate beholden to the more traditional party interests could do very well with a diet of Iowa and New Hampshire, perhaps doing well enough to be the odds-on favorite, even though more diverse/urban states had yet to vote.

Q: What’s wrong with on-line videos and polling?

A: Security—preventing votes from being hacked.  But also, there’s nothing like a live event to provide a true sense of what a candidate is like.  Otherwise, canned appearances can deceive.

Q: How many invitees would attend an average event?

A: With the Savings Bond, the excitement of meeting celebrities (including the would-be variety), plus dinner (though a buffet or BBQ is probably a more likely description), I’m guessing about 50%.

Q: What about those who couldn’t attend, because of job commitments, for example?

A: An alternate date or two for screening a recording of the event.  For the homebound, a copy of the recording, and mail-in ballots.

Q: Why add independent voters to the mix?  

A: If events are limited to Democratic voters, the act of attending announces one’s party affiliation, something that is likely to scare off all but the ‘base’.  Besides, these events would serve as excellent outreach.

Q: How would Independents be identified?

A: All voters, minus voters in any of the past two or three Republican primaries.  In states where party identification is not know, some other system, perhaps requests for tickets, with statistical adjustments made to weed out any nefarious tricksters trying to ruin the process.

An alternative would be to focus exclusively on early primary states where party identification is known (this is the case in three of the current four early-birds with the exception being South Carolina).

Q: How would the cast ballots be turned into a representative sample?

A: The events would be held in diverse locations.  The raw data would be weighted so as to produce a representative sample.  For example, Independents would be separated from Democratic ballots.  Events could be analyzed as stand-alone data sets, as well as cumulatively.

Q: How many of these events would a candidate have to attend in order to have been to them all?

A: 46, though candidates would likely pick a dozen or so to attend in person.

Q: What would the schedule be like?

A: Events on Saturdays and Sundays in May through November (excluding a few dates like the 4th of July and Thanksgiving weekends) in the year prior to the election.

Q: How much would all this cost?

A: If the cost per attendee is about $100, including a $20.24 Savings Bond, dinner, canvassing, and venue, and 1000 attend, that’s $100,000 x 46 events = $4.6 million, well within the budget of a donor eager to encourage actual democracy.

Overview

These Meet, Greet ’n’ Seat events would accomplish several things:

 * Make the Democratic Party more fundamentally democratic.

 * Reward the best candidate in the primaries, rather than the best fundraiser, or the most familiar face.

 * Provide opportunities for local party organizers.

 * Expose independent voters to Democratic Party ideas and leaders.

 * Provide candidates with the interactive experience they need to begin a campaign.
 * Take the initial decision-making away from Iowa and New Hampshire without actually doing so.

Supreme Court 4/4 Tie in November -- The Scariest Worst Case Scenario

Why 9 Supremes Sooner, Not Later

I’ve been waiting patiently for someone to write up the case for immediately filling the vacancy on the Supreme Court caused by the recent death of its ninth member.  Not the usual arguments RE: the Senate should do its job, or RE: the failure to do so is an unprecedented breach of constitutional norms.  No, I mean the real, acute danger to us all if we wait too long.

I happened to be watching TRMS on Feb. 15th when the best case I’ve heard so far was made.  Here it is in a nutshell: the 2000 presidential election was decided by the Supreme Court.  If that happened again, the Supremes could easily tie in a 4/4 vote given the court’s current makeup.

A good point.  But we all know that in a 4/4 Supreme Court tie the verdict of the lower court stands.  And while it wouldn’t be as satisfying to have a lower court resolve whatever the 2016 equivalent of hanging chads is, there would be resolution.

Take it one more step, though.  What if multiple states had either close vote counts that required recounts, or a confirmed hack of voting machines?  The election of 2000 made the former a reality, and the latter may have happened as well—precinct-by-precinct vote totals in Ohio in 2004 are arguably suspicious. 

So far, a scenario where multiple states have vote irregularities isn’t all that unlikely, given a close election--or one in which several state vote totals are within a recount's margin-of-error.

Now, though, let’s drop the hammer.  Remember, our first condition is that the Supreme Court is effectively tied 4/4 election day.  

And, our second condition is that two or more state Supreme Court rulings are made regarding the same kind of recount or tampering issue.

For example, a hacker is caught manipulating votes in both Ohio and Florida.  

Unfortunate as this scenario is, what if these cases were decided for the Republican in one state, and for the Democrat in the other.  For example, if in one state the votes in predominantly white counties were digitally retrieved at considerable expense and recounted after a hack, but not in predominantly black counties, due to the expense involved, while in another state all votes were retrieved and recounted.  This would be somewhat similar to the situation in 2000 in which the Supreme Court cited the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution to halt an on-going recount.  

But if two states are involved in the above scenario, the Equal Protection Clause will be violated regardless, so long as a 4/4 Supreme Court can't resolve the issue.  And without resolution there’s no new President to appoint a ninth justice.  Checkmate, chaos.  Given our current political disfunction, this danger, even if it’s 1-in-100 or 1-in-1000 is too great a risk.  

Of course, if both states in our scenario certify their election results without a Supreme Court decision, a President is inaugurated, a 9th justice is nominated and confirmed, and if a decision is then rendered, the Supreme Court’s newly appointed ninth member could hypothetically overturn an election—especially if the Equal Protection Clause had obviously been violated.  Again, this would be an enormous constitutional crisis that we shouldn’t have to imagine, let alone live through.  A ninth Supreme Court justice installed prior to the election avoids the issue completely.

The larger picture is that deliberative justice requires an odd number of votes so that a decision is reached and one side is victorious.  Ultimately, this is why monotheism appeals to so many people: singularity leads to finality, and if we all agree to abide by that finality before it is rendered, there is harmony before and after.

Lurking, Following, Commenting; What About 'Skimming'?

What Drives Me To The Internet?

Social media have opened up a world I'm only just appreciating.  I've always had family, neighbors and friends.  Now there's virtually everybody in the world with something to say.  

There's certainly time for familiar faces on Facebook, for example, but I've realized, recently, that there are the equivalent of modern-day Shakespeares out there, to be enjoyed as well.

We have words to describe the process we go through in searching for these hidden gems.  "Lurking" has a disapproving frown somewhere in the background.  "Following" has an obedient ring to it.  "Commenting", meanwhile, isn't always possible, and when it is, it's often tucked away behind a click, or under an ad.

Have we settled on a big picture word for what we're actually doing?  Maybe a word like "Skimming" describes it.  We're constantly on the lookout for interesting, fun, creative material.  We bookmark, link and download in addition to follow.

What I'd really like, though, are ways to make skimming easier.  When I read an opinion piece, I usually find the comment filter "reader's picks" the best way to sort, rather than "oldest" or "most recent".  That way I'm all but sure to skip the crackpots and dumbbells.  

Which is why I proposed that Twitter adopt ranking in my post this January.   One can think of ranking as a way we establish what's artful and what's a waste of time.  And when you think about it, ranking is democracy for our daily lives. 

Feedback On My Little Twitter Idea

Thanks, Everyone, For The Good Ideas

Your messages (condensed) RE: My Little Twitter Idea:

1. Twitter works because we like little things.  So, you're saying: highlight the big little.

2. Agree.  Problem with FB and other platforms is: not succinct like Twitter.

3. Use "Favorite" and "Hashtag" instead of adding "Ranking" and "Community"

That first response wraps it up in a nutshell.  Twitter works because it minimizes.  But if it also promoted those best at Tweeting, it would be a much deeper medium.

The second response underlines: Why Twitter?  Why not look to FB or other media?  Answer: shorten 'er 'n' link, Capt'n.

The third response is tempting.  Within each hashtag, who has the most favorites (hearts)?  But hashtags are also used for irony, jokes and afterthoughts.  And fans would litter twitter with obligatory faves.  So, limit it: your favorite five Twitterati in each of five communities.

You may send more feedback to:  55jhs56  at  gmail.com

Update: 2/26/16:  I've revised my original Little Twitter idea to mesh 'Communities' with existing 'Hashtags'.

Update: 3/24/16: I've incorporated a commenter's idea (rank users, but based on the number of followers they have).  This idea wouldn't work, because of all the fake accounts, unless... the only followers who were counted were those who had submitted at least one top-5 ranking.

I will tie this all up in a subsequent post.

My Little Twitter Idea -- Finally Revealed

Tweak Twitter Idea Contest -- My Entry (for Jan. 8th update see next blog post)

On May 5th of last year I wrote about My Little Twitter Idea.  Or at least I teased the idea.  I thought there might be a 1-in-10,000 chance that someone at Twitter, or maybe a social media start-up, might somehow read my post and decide to contact me, wanting to know about the idea in advance.  But of course, no.

And who blames them?  After all, this is only my "little" twitter idea, still leaving my "big" idea (see contact information below).  But I've teased enough, so here it is, and you can judge for yourself:

Please, don't get me wrong, I love Twitter.  It has the exciting rush that is youth; the rapid giggle of delight at devouring a morsel in one bite.  But the Twitter-verse has a problem.  I know there're people on twitter who'd appeal to me.  I'd love to listen in on their lives; what makes them tick; the things around them they point out.  But it's way too time consuming checking out people the Twitter algorithm offers up as likely candidates.  That's because Twitter's suggestions just aren't narrowly enough drawn (Here's another punk band because your niece, who you follow, is in a punk band).  I want a better, quicker way.

I want Twitter to be way deeper.  I'll start out with a baby step:

Have a Ranking icon at the top of a Twitter user's home page.  Click on the ranking icon, if you want, and it takes you to a page where you can submit a top-five favorites ranking of those you follow.

A '5' ranking = 25 points.  '4' = 16, '3' = 9, '2' = 4 and '1' = 1.  Add together everyone's assigned numbers and you get a sense of who people enjoy reading.  So if I see a tweet from someone with tens of thousands of Twitterati, but only a grand rank total of '3' (three different people among those tens of thousands assigned a '1' out of a possible 5), I know there's not much there.  Likewise, someone with a high rank relative to their number of followers is likely an up-and-comer who's worth following.

For a second step along this Ranking pathway, keep reading.  What if, once you generate a top-5 ranking, you're allowed to join up to five Communities.  

A community would be a specific interest.  That is, book readers (tweeters who belong because they tweet about books), bicycle riders, or, say, listeners who enjoy funk.  Join that community, as one of your five.

Want more than five?  You can pay Twitter to be part of additional communities. 

What about Hashtags?  Obviously hashtags were meant to do something similar to what I'm proposing for communities, but I still have to wade through hundreds of tweets looking for gems.  Compare that to a community like, let's say, Astronomy.  Without a ranking, I have no way of knowing that Neil DeGrasse Tyson is a superstar and will likely rank in my top five once I'm exposed to his brilliance.

What about polymath tweeters?  If I'm a member of The Beatles community, but only tweet about the Beatles once a month, my feed isn't going to interest members who just want to discuss the Lads from Liverpool.  That's where hashtags can be combined with communities.  Only those tweets that are hashtagged are included in the feed for that community.  And even if your Beatles tweets are infrequent, if they're exceptional, you might still end up on someone's top-5, thanks to being in the same community.

And that brings us to a third step that Twitter could take with Rankings.  Instead of one's normal feed, one could instead jump to a single community feed.  And, within that feed, twitter users could be ranked a second time, thus making the polymath tweeter nearly as likely to appear as a prominent member.

My guess is that these three steps would mean:

1. Easy access to the most popular tweeters in thousands of specialized communities.
2. A way for good writers, and those who apply themselves, to gain an audience in a given community.
3. A way for Twitter to not only make more money, but grow accordingly.
4. The lessening of the Bot epidemic on Twitter.

How so RE: Bots?  Currently, Bots are used to create fake Twitter accounts that make a celebrity (or those seeking to be celebrities) seem popular.  If submitting a top-5 ranking using the Ranking icon involved some kind of character-recognition filter that required a minute or two to complete, it would be a lot more difficult to create phony accounts.  Besides, those with lots of fake followers would find they were in the same boat with that user described above, who had tens of thousands of followers and a ranking total of '3'.

Additional Update 3/24/16:
At Slate, a writer named David Auerbach has proposed a way to eliminate the negativity on Twitter--the responses aimed at users that have little purpose other than abuse.

In response to Auerbach's idea, Hjalti Thorarinsson, in comments, suggests that Twitter users be ranked according to followers (plus approved responses), and that this would heighten the level of discourse.  This would be a much simpler idea than my top-5 ranking system.  The reason it might be problematic, however, is that upwards of half of all large Twitter accounts have inflated follower numbers.

The reason I mention Hjalti's idea, though, is that it might actually make my idea much better.  That is, if users were all rated, as Hjalti suggests, based on their number of followers, but ratings only included those who'd completed at least one top-5 list.  The celebrity user with all the fake followers would rate abysmally, compared to someone with genuine followers who loved reading the latest.  So, by taking an active part in the Twittersphere, those you follow benefit--what better incentive?

Contact me about my Big Twitter Idea @   55jhs56  at  gmail.com