#244: ObamaCare Passed By A Whisker
..................
Kevin Drum at Mother Jones points out the basic logic behind universal health coverage:
"The answer, obviously, is to...move everyone into the biggest risk pool of all: the entire country... [T]he US government [can] negotiate better prices...[and]...can spread...costs far more widely than any single company or insurer. That’s both efficient and sensible."
So, the thinking behind Medicare-For-All is that by expanding the risk pool to the entire country, a big medical bill that would hurt a family or small company isn't even noticed by the payer. Which is the traditional role of insurers. Which means they can be eliminated, saving money.
This all makes sense when seen objectively from above. But if you look at it subjectively from below, you'll see why universal coverage is such a big lift.
You're young, you're healthy, and you're in your 20s, 30s or 40s; your medical expenses are few. You have medical coverage through your employer; it's part of your benefit package; you're insurer handles any billing, and what you pay as a young person is quite manageable. Meaning there are four big reasons not to like universal coverage:
1. That enormous increase in taxes.
2. The uncertainty of whether your employer will increase pay when eliminating employee-based coverage.
3. The hidden factor that nobody talks about: you are healthy and only need insurance for minor things, so signing up to pay an average amount doesn't make sense when you hardly use your insurance.
4. The second hidden factor that nobody talks about: you are a Republican believing in individual responsibility. Instead of identifying with your fellow Americans, you identify as a self-sufficient American, proud in your ability to handle anything untoward.
Viewed in this light, Medicare-For-All, even if sensible, will be up against four big reasons for failure, any one of which might be surmountable, but not all four. That's because #4 is perhaps a quarter of all voters. Add in another 20%, say, for all the young, short-term thinkers. Then another few percent for those with excellent employer-based care, and we're already at 50% without touching on the shocking increase in taxes needed to pay for any change--so, we'd probably need to add another 15% or so. Plus, there's the don't-rock-the-boat older voter who'll wonder whether a favorite doctor will still be available.
When polled, a goodly percentage of responses might even say they supported universal coverage, but in the voting booth would instead vote their pocketbook. So, bottom line: 2-to-1 against, with perhaps 5-10% of those 'against' feeling so strongly as to change their 2020 votes for senator and president.
Finally, what makes the focus on Medicare-For-All so ironic, is that Blue's big issue in the 2018 election, the issue that won them the House of Representatives, was Healthcare, specifically Republican attacks on ObamaCare. So, not only are they touting a top-down, enormous pill to swallow, but they're throwing away their most persuasive vote getter. Luckily, the likeliest Dem. candidate, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, has yet to fully finalize her healthcare plan, and the current front-runner, former Vice President Joe Biden, is already on board with a more moderate, progressive plan ('progressive' here defined as making progress, rather than shooting for the moon).
Sunday, September 15, 2019
Friday, September 13, 2019
I Stay Up Late And Watch The Debate
#243: Facial Expressions Tell All
Previous debates have seen me go to bed early, meaning I didn't watch the actual debating, just the media coverage. That changed last night, thanks to a day off today. The big difference, I found, was in seeing candidate faces. So, what follows are the three biggest shockers, then my grade for each candidate:
1. Bernie had the bulging eyes and crazed aura of a madman. That frowning, glaring, intense vitriol is surely a turnoff for the average voter. No wonder Bernie has a low ceiling in the polls.
2. Cory Booker has baffled pundits. He seems to be making great debating points, and nobody can understand why he hasn't broken through. But look at his eyes: bulging, intense, disruptive.
3. Andrew Yang is unique in his policies ($$ for everyone) and strategy (ten new signers up to his website receive major $$). But his delivery is jerky and abrupt--hard to see him as plausible.
I Grade The Candidates
A Amy Klobuchar: the Dems best bet to win the Senate (and thus enact a Blue agenda). She was brilliant (an ad-lib Lincoln quote, for example), easily understood (Bernie "wrote the bill; I read the bill"), positive when critical (she noted Bernie's cooperation with her on drug prices), and delivered when exceeding her allotted time (gun control is a Mitch McConnell problem). Her articulate, powerful, turn-around of a probing question (RE: her past record as MN AG) was excellent.
A- Elizabeth Warren: presented a master class in how to deflect unwanted questions. First relax the pacing, which erases the sting of the query. Next, reframe the question, citing the big picture. Then, briefly explain your answer and wrap up in the allotted time. She exuded a healthy, confident, vibe (I think she's been working out). Unfortunately, her brilliant opening statement (in which I detected hints of playfulness, humor, and above all, calm) were followed by an intense grilling on Medicare-For-All, meaning she was on the back foot from then on. Her support for MFA may have originally been necessary, politically (to avoid Bernie having the entire left wing of the party to himself), but it is her Achilles heel (Why? Because of the cost and disruption involved.)
B+ Cory Booker: was unlucky in being called on late in the opening round. By the end of the debate, however, he was among the leaders in speaking time. In general he came across as passionate, yet reasonable, and stood out as noticeably taller than his neighboring speakers. On the other hand, his face was too consistently bug-eyed and emphatic.
B Andrew Yang: clearly had the attempted PR triumph of the night. His $$-to-lucky-website-visitors was a show-stopper. But, it probably came across as a bit cheesy to most watchers. Still, you do what you have to do, and in this case there was a likely reward for being aggressive: a bump in traffic on the old web.
B- Pete Buttigieg: was unlucky in that he kept getting thrown for a loop. First it was having to follow Yang's bombshell offer of $1,000-a-month for ten lucky winners. Then, he was interrupted several times by the moderators with follow-ups, and rather than finishing his sentences, he stopped speaking to listen (perhaps an unconscious power play for both parties). Otherwise, he came across as articulate and sincere, and the fact that his electoral record is limited to his mayoral-ship has now been all but forgotten.
B- Beto O'Rourke: was the recipient of many attaboys from the other candidates; this must have been satisfying for someone who's turned it up to 'over-drive' and left it there. The downside, however, is that youthful vigor can mean loose cannon. Some have observed that Beto has probably lost any chance of winning elective office in Texas as a result of his over-drive (including expletives).
C+ Julian Castro: had the night's biggest surge of combativeness. He called out Biden's apparent waffle (I didn't notice it) on Medicare-For-All (Castro), versus Public Option opt-in/opt-out (Biden). Of course the subtext was that Biden couldn't remember what he had just said. Smart? The tactic might have seemed less mean-spirited if Castro had said it once, then let Biden respond in full, rather than repeating the jab--which never wins. But, Castro gets points for ad-libbing, which is never easy.
C Joe Biden: was in acceptable 'B-' territory if one is willing to tolerate the word-salad approach to public speaking. He has charm, a twinkle in his eye, and a common-guy aura that should be gold. Being in his mid-to-late 70's, though, could be a killer; we'll see.
C- Kamala Harris: seemed to be mourning her summer's rise-then-fall in the polls. She appeared listless at times, and spoke in a let's-try-this-out vein (come on, bash Trump); and, a barely controlled nervousness to her voice (which I take as a warning, in my own life, to stop talking) crept in. But, since she is talented, and a young public figure, there's no sense in looking backwards.
D+ Bernie Sanders: had the misfortune of being hoarse and tired-looking. And he didn't hear his name being called for opening comments. And during that embarrassing pause, he had a perfect frown on his face. And he received a few attaboys--usually a sign that you're not considered a real threat. His admission that he wouldn't want to end the Senate filibuster (and would instead use the Reconciliation process to pass a Blue agenda, relying on a Dem veep to say what could go in such a bill, normally reserved for budgetary matters) makes those who knew what he was talking about shake their heads (Why pretend you're not blowing up the filibuster, when that's what you're doing?)--and most viewers lost him on that one, anyway.
Previous debates have seen me go to bed early, meaning I didn't watch the actual debating, just the media coverage. That changed last night, thanks to a day off today. The big difference, I found, was in seeing candidate faces. So, what follows are the three biggest shockers, then my grade for each candidate:
1. Bernie had the bulging eyes and crazed aura of a madman. That frowning, glaring, intense vitriol is surely a turnoff for the average voter. No wonder Bernie has a low ceiling in the polls.
2. Cory Booker has baffled pundits. He seems to be making great debating points, and nobody can understand why he hasn't broken through. But look at his eyes: bulging, intense, disruptive.
3. Andrew Yang is unique in his policies ($$ for everyone) and strategy (ten new signers up to his website receive major $$). But his delivery is jerky and abrupt--hard to see him as plausible.
I Grade The Candidates
A Amy Klobuchar: the Dems best bet to win the Senate (and thus enact a Blue agenda). She was brilliant (an ad-lib Lincoln quote, for example), easily understood (Bernie "wrote the bill; I read the bill"), positive when critical (she noted Bernie's cooperation with her on drug prices), and delivered when exceeding her allotted time (gun control is a Mitch McConnell problem). Her articulate, powerful, turn-around of a probing question (RE: her past record as MN AG) was excellent.
A- Elizabeth Warren: presented a master class in how to deflect unwanted questions. First relax the pacing, which erases the sting of the query. Next, reframe the question, citing the big picture. Then, briefly explain your answer and wrap up in the allotted time. She exuded a healthy, confident, vibe (I think she's been working out). Unfortunately, her brilliant opening statement (in which I detected hints of playfulness, humor, and above all, calm) were followed by an intense grilling on Medicare-For-All, meaning she was on the back foot from then on. Her support for MFA may have originally been necessary, politically (to avoid Bernie having the entire left wing of the party to himself), but it is her Achilles heel (Why? Because of the cost and disruption involved.)
B+ Cory Booker: was unlucky in being called on late in the opening round. By the end of the debate, however, he was among the leaders in speaking time. In general he came across as passionate, yet reasonable, and stood out as noticeably taller than his neighboring speakers. On the other hand, his face was too consistently bug-eyed and emphatic.
B Andrew Yang: clearly had the attempted PR triumph of the night. His $$-to-lucky-website-visitors was a show-stopper. But, it probably came across as a bit cheesy to most watchers. Still, you do what you have to do, and in this case there was a likely reward for being aggressive: a bump in traffic on the old web.
B- Pete Buttigieg: was unlucky in that he kept getting thrown for a loop. First it was having to follow Yang's bombshell offer of $1,000-a-month for ten lucky winners. Then, he was interrupted several times by the moderators with follow-ups, and rather than finishing his sentences, he stopped speaking to listen (perhaps an unconscious power play for both parties). Otherwise, he came across as articulate and sincere, and the fact that his electoral record is limited to his mayoral-ship has now been all but forgotten.
B- Beto O'Rourke: was the recipient of many attaboys from the other candidates; this must have been satisfying for someone who's turned it up to 'over-drive' and left it there. The downside, however, is that youthful vigor can mean loose cannon. Some have observed that Beto has probably lost any chance of winning elective office in Texas as a result of his over-drive (including expletives).
C+ Julian Castro: had the night's biggest surge of combativeness. He called out Biden's apparent waffle (I didn't notice it) on Medicare-For-All (Castro), versus Public Option opt-in/opt-out (Biden). Of course the subtext was that Biden couldn't remember what he had just said. Smart? The tactic might have seemed less mean-spirited if Castro had said it once, then let Biden respond in full, rather than repeating the jab--which never wins. But, Castro gets points for ad-libbing, which is never easy.
C Joe Biden: was in acceptable 'B-' territory if one is willing to tolerate the word-salad approach to public speaking. He has charm, a twinkle in his eye, and a common-guy aura that should be gold. Being in his mid-to-late 70's, though, could be a killer; we'll see.
C- Kamala Harris: seemed to be mourning her summer's rise-then-fall in the polls. She appeared listless at times, and spoke in a let's-try-this-out vein (come on, bash Trump); and, a barely controlled nervousness to her voice (which I take as a warning, in my own life, to stop talking) crept in. But, since she is talented, and a young public figure, there's no sense in looking backwards.
D+ Bernie Sanders: had the misfortune of being hoarse and tired-looking. And he didn't hear his name being called for opening comments. And during that embarrassing pause, he had a perfect frown on his face. And he received a few attaboys--usually a sign that you're not considered a real threat. His admission that he wouldn't want to end the Senate filibuster (and would instead use the Reconciliation process to pass a Blue agenda, relying on a Dem veep to say what could go in such a bill, normally reserved for budgetary matters) makes those who knew what he was talking about shake their heads (Why pretend you're not blowing up the filibuster, when that's what you're doing?)--and most viewers lost him on that one, anyway.
Saturday, August 31, 2019
I Imagine A Debate 'One Liner' For All Ten Candidates
#242: September 12 Debate Advice
................
Several weeks ago I proposed an 'outside-the box' scenario, whereby Biden dropped out of the race and instead invited each Democratic candidate to serve on a united, Team Blue. For example, Elizabeth Warren would be Treasury Secretary, Kamala Harris would be Attorney General, and Mayor Pete would be UN Ambassador. The campaign would continue, of course, and the winner would become the party's presidential nominee and be replaced on Team Blue by a non-candidate.
Obviously that's all out the window, since candidates are now thoroughly invested, each with many IOUs to fill. And even if Biden were to drop out, he wouldn't have the same pull that he did this Spring. So, here are actual imagined 'one liners' and the reasoning behind each, listed in reverse order of Blue sweetness.
#10: Andrew Yang: "A $24,000 UBI is the cushion that allows you and your partner to say "yes" to starting a small business."
Emphasizing $24,000 for a couple, rather than $12,000-a-year for one person, magnifies the effect that a UBI would have, reminds voters what a revolutionary course Yang is proposing, and appeals to everyone's inner artisan.
#9: Beto O'Rourke: "Some say I'm too aggressive, that I'm too animated, that I should wait my turn... (pause), just like they cautioned the young Jack Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama, back in their day."
Youth, passion, and well..., it's hard to argue with that winning pattern.
#8: Julian Castro: "When my brother and I entered Stanford University in 1992, the most recent election had seen the state of California vote Republican for president; now, all these years later, the states of Texas and Arizona--a combined 49 electoral votes--are poised to say "enough"; if so, the red tide has indeed turned."
His numbers are hard to refute (Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin = 46 electoral votes, compared to TX and AZ at 49); plus, "Stanford" reminds voters that Castro is elite.
#7: Bernie Sanders: "Some candidates like to beat around the bush. Well, you know what? I'd like to beat the damn patriarchy, and I'm not afraid to say it!"
The phrase "beat around the bush" suggests a reluctant, moderate fizzle. Plus, Sanders needs more female support, so the "patriarchy" reference.
#6: Pete Buttigeig: "If tomorrow is sunny, calm, and cool, with a hint of winter's fighting spirit, the last thing we want is an angry orange sun telling us our climate's going to change."
Mayor Pete's hope is that articulate speech, and a cool command of faculties, prove decisive.
#5: Kamala Harris: "I'm America's melting pot, personified; like, hey, I'm a Californian, but I'm moderate."
At this point Harris should embrace her reputation for being relatively moderate. There's no sense in battling Bernie and Warren for votes on the left.
#4: Cory Booker: "I was huddled with a supporter the other day who said her name was Dorothy, and she thought I was the perfect mix of heart, head and spirit on the winding road to Oz; (pause), I guess that means our current president is hiding behind a curtain of deceit, and we're all about to expose him."
Booker could use a midwest reference to counterbalance his urban credentials going into the Iowa caucuses.
#3: Joe Biden: "I'm like the guy who comes home from his job pounding iron, sits down to help his kids do their homework, and says to his wife "This is when my real job begins; this is the fun part."
All Biden needs is a straight-forward reference to hard work, wife and kids.
#2: Elizabeth Warren: "You know I'm a fighter, but unlike our current president, I know when to quit. Sorry, but if I'm elected, and once I'm President Trump's age, I'd step down. Then, in 2024, the person on this stage I intend to ask to be your next Vice President will, if all goes well, serve you through 2030."
Warren is 70, Trump is 73. What better way to question Trump's fitness, while also handing a subtle, wilted rose to her two main competitors, Bernie and Biden (77 and 76)? And, it steers attention to other, younger candidates, but as potential veeps, rather than challengers. This line also hints at whether she knows when to tone it down, which she'll likely want to do RE: healthcare.
#1: Amy Klobuchar: "A college student taking a selfie with me said that I, being slow and steady, was the turtle in this race, and that come Iowa, I'll saunter by, while all the tired hares will be napping by the side of the road. Maybe, but the only way that'll happen is if voters realize the Senate is where we as Democrats must win big, assuming our agenda (healthcare, climate, childcare, unions, and so on) wins the presidency. And a smart, cheerful, farm state vote-getter at the top of our ticket is probably our best bet in winning Red farm country's senate contests."
A spell-it-out strategy that promotes a non-threatening take-the-Senate focus is hard to get across in one line. But, with so many possible pick-ups in farm country (enough for the Democrats to conceivably get to 60!), Klobuchar is the steady female hand that could win it all. Here's the list of senate seats (in order, with the likeliest first); states having large rural populations *** are in bold: AZ, CO, ME, IA, NC, GA, TX, GA(2), MT, KS, SC, KY, AK, TN, SD, NE, MS, LA, AR, OK, ID, WV, WY. So, to get to 60, Blue would have to hold Alabama, and take 13, meaning that states like KY and AK would be on the bubble. Tough, but not impossible in a big wave election. Plus, even getting to 55 would allow for many more Blue success stories than would a mere 50-51.
*** large rural population defined as 66% urban or less.
................
Several weeks ago I proposed an 'outside-the box' scenario, whereby Biden dropped out of the race and instead invited each Democratic candidate to serve on a united, Team Blue. For example, Elizabeth Warren would be Treasury Secretary, Kamala Harris would be Attorney General, and Mayor Pete would be UN Ambassador. The campaign would continue, of course, and the winner would become the party's presidential nominee and be replaced on Team Blue by a non-candidate.
Obviously that's all out the window, since candidates are now thoroughly invested, each with many IOUs to fill. And even if Biden were to drop out, he wouldn't have the same pull that he did this Spring. So, here are actual imagined 'one liners' and the reasoning behind each, listed in reverse order of Blue sweetness.
#10: Andrew Yang: "A $24,000 UBI is the cushion that allows you and your partner to say "yes" to starting a small business."
Emphasizing $24,000 for a couple, rather than $12,000-a-year for one person, magnifies the effect that a UBI would have, reminds voters what a revolutionary course Yang is proposing, and appeals to everyone's inner artisan.
#9: Beto O'Rourke: "Some say I'm too aggressive, that I'm too animated, that I should wait my turn... (pause), just like they cautioned the young Jack Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama, back in their day."
Youth, passion, and well..., it's hard to argue with that winning pattern.
#8: Julian Castro: "When my brother and I entered Stanford University in 1992, the most recent election had seen the state of California vote Republican for president; now, all these years later, the states of Texas and Arizona--a combined 49 electoral votes--are poised to say "enough"; if so, the red tide has indeed turned."
His numbers are hard to refute (Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin = 46 electoral votes, compared to TX and AZ at 49); plus, "Stanford" reminds voters that Castro is elite.
#7: Bernie Sanders: "Some candidates like to beat around the bush. Well, you know what? I'd like to beat the damn patriarchy, and I'm not afraid to say it!"
The phrase "beat around the bush" suggests a reluctant, moderate fizzle. Plus, Sanders needs more female support, so the "patriarchy" reference.
#6: Pete Buttigeig: "If tomorrow is sunny, calm, and cool, with a hint of winter's fighting spirit, the last thing we want is an angry orange sun telling us our climate's going to change."
Mayor Pete's hope is that articulate speech, and a cool command of faculties, prove decisive.
#5: Kamala Harris: "I'm America's melting pot, personified; like, hey, I'm a Californian, but I'm moderate."
At this point Harris should embrace her reputation for being relatively moderate. There's no sense in battling Bernie and Warren for votes on the left.
#4: Cory Booker: "I was huddled with a supporter the other day who said her name was Dorothy, and she thought I was the perfect mix of heart, head and spirit on the winding road to Oz; (pause), I guess that means our current president is hiding behind a curtain of deceit, and we're all about to expose him."
Booker could use a midwest reference to counterbalance his urban credentials going into the Iowa caucuses.
#3: Joe Biden: "I'm like the guy who comes home from his job pounding iron, sits down to help his kids do their homework, and says to his wife "This is when my real job begins; this is the fun part."
All Biden needs is a straight-forward reference to hard work, wife and kids.
#2: Elizabeth Warren: "You know I'm a fighter, but unlike our current president, I know when to quit. Sorry, but if I'm elected, and once I'm President Trump's age, I'd step down. Then, in 2024, the person on this stage I intend to ask to be your next Vice President will, if all goes well, serve you through 2030."
Warren is 70, Trump is 73. What better way to question Trump's fitness, while also handing a subtle, wilted rose to her two main competitors, Bernie and Biden (77 and 76)? And, it steers attention to other, younger candidates, but as potential veeps, rather than challengers. This line also hints at whether she knows when to tone it down, which she'll likely want to do RE: healthcare.
#1: Amy Klobuchar: "A college student taking a selfie with me said that I, being slow and steady, was the turtle in this race, and that come Iowa, I'll saunter by, while all the tired hares will be napping by the side of the road. Maybe, but the only way that'll happen is if voters realize the Senate is where we as Democrats must win big, assuming our agenda (healthcare, climate, childcare, unions, and so on) wins the presidency. And a smart, cheerful, farm state vote-getter at the top of our ticket is probably our best bet in winning Red farm country's senate contests."
A spell-it-out strategy that promotes a non-threatening take-the-Senate focus is hard to get across in one line. But, with so many possible pick-ups in farm country (enough for the Democrats to conceivably get to 60!), Klobuchar is the steady female hand that could win it all. Here's the list of senate seats (in order, with the likeliest first); states having large rural populations *** are in bold: AZ, CO, ME, IA, NC, GA, TX, GA(2), MT, KS, SC, KY, AK, TN, SD, NE, MS, LA, AR, OK, ID, WV, WY. So, to get to 60, Blue would have to hold Alabama, and take 13, meaning that states like KY and AK would be on the bubble. Tough, but not impossible in a big wave election. Plus, even getting to 55 would allow for many more Blue success stories than would a mere 50-51.
*** large rural population defined as 66% urban or less.
Friday, August 23, 2019
I Review A Wendell Berry Interview
#241: Among The Top Ten Influencers In My Life
..............
The New Yorker's Amanda Petrusich interviewed Wendell Berry recently, and caused me to remember reading Berry's non-fiction in high school, plus his poetry and "The Unsettling of America" in college. I will quote from the article, then comment (in green):
"My daddy said to me, about five years after I married Tanya, “Well, you’ve got a good girl.” And I said, proudly, “I know it,” and he said, “Well, you don’t deserve a damn bit of credit for it.” And he was right. ... Somehow, you just get led to where you’re supposed to be, if you’re willing to submit."
Sounds familiar.
"“I had a wonderful life and I had nothing to do with it”—well, now I can say that, too."
One imagines alternative lives for oneself. Berry seems to be saying that those different lives can't happen if one follows true happiness.
"If we should decide to replace the chemicals and some of the [big farm] machinery with humans, as for health or survival we need to do, that would be very difficult and it would take a long time ... (b)ecause there is no farmer pool from which farmers can be recruited ready-made."
Yes, but if change is to come, it will certainly be voluntary, and probably gradual. First, limit the damage--from soil loss, for example. Then encourage best practices and smaller / more numerous farms.
"A well-made sentence, I think, is a thing of beauty. But then, a well-farmed farm also can feed a need for beauty."
A tempting critique of Berry's philosophy is that knowing what is true happiness can only be possible when we're free of preconceived notions of where happiness is found. Exposure to alternative paths--urban life--is what expands choice to the point where true happiness is always included in the mix of choices. Otherwise, the blinders of 'prescribed' happiness--especially when income is depressed--means that 'beauty' is found in superficial, disappointing 'appearance', like applied make-up, orderliness, following the leader, etc. Berry mentions the Amish. Here is a pictorial essay. Have these people found 'true happiness'? On the other hand, of course, if rural incomes soar and modern technology brings cosmopolitan culture into one's home, no matter where one lives, and farms are more intimately sized.., maybe Berry's right.
"You must either decide [marriage] is worth working at, or just leave it undone. [It] is not perfect agreement. But you’ve accepted this other person into your mind. I work alone, but always with her presence in my mind. And she is somebody I want to impress. I’m going to write this with the hope that it’ll help her to love me. I feel the stakes are pretty high. I’m in a conversation with her that hasn’t ended yet."
Now that's telling it.
..............
The New Yorker's Amanda Petrusich interviewed Wendell Berry recently, and caused me to remember reading Berry's non-fiction in high school, plus his poetry and "The Unsettling of America" in college. I will quote from the article, then comment (in green):
"My daddy said to me, about five years after I married Tanya, “Well, you’ve got a good girl.” And I said, proudly, “I know it,” and he said, “Well, you don’t deserve a damn bit of credit for it.” And he was right. ... Somehow, you just get led to where you’re supposed to be, if you’re willing to submit."
Sounds familiar.
"“I had a wonderful life and I had nothing to do with it”—well, now I can say that, too."
One imagines alternative lives for oneself. Berry seems to be saying that those different lives can't happen if one follows true happiness.
"If we should decide to replace the chemicals and some of the [big farm] machinery with humans, as for health or survival we need to do, that would be very difficult and it would take a long time ... (b)ecause there is no farmer pool from which farmers can be recruited ready-made."
Yes, but if change is to come, it will certainly be voluntary, and probably gradual. First, limit the damage--from soil loss, for example. Then encourage best practices and smaller / more numerous farms.
"A well-made sentence, I think, is a thing of beauty. But then, a well-farmed farm also can feed a need for beauty."
A tempting critique of Berry's philosophy is that knowing what is true happiness can only be possible when we're free of preconceived notions of where happiness is found. Exposure to alternative paths--urban life--is what expands choice to the point where true happiness is always included in the mix of choices. Otherwise, the blinders of 'prescribed' happiness--especially when income is depressed--means that 'beauty' is found in superficial, disappointing 'appearance', like applied make-up, orderliness, following the leader, etc. Berry mentions the Amish. Here is a pictorial essay. Have these people found 'true happiness'? On the other hand, of course, if rural incomes soar and modern technology brings cosmopolitan culture into one's home, no matter where one lives, and farms are more intimately sized.., maybe Berry's right.
"You must either decide [marriage] is worth working at, or just leave it undone. [It] is not perfect agreement. But you’ve accepted this other person into your mind. I work alone, but always with her presence in my mind. And she is somebody I want to impress. I’m going to write this with the hope that it’ll help her to love me. I feel the stakes are pretty high. I’m in a conversation with her that hasn’t ended yet."
Now that's telling it.
Wednesday, August 14, 2019
Is Common Sense Worth Anything?
#240: Rush To Judgement?
..............
We're all too familiar with simpletons and cranks thinking they know more than 'the so-called experts'. These are usually older men with too much time on their hands, gadflies who take on things like Global Warming, using outdated arguments that appeal to common sense. For example, "our earth has seen much larger swings in temperature than a mere two degrees." Their argument is usually buttressed with graphs that show thousand year ebbs and flows. Meanwhile, the learned opinion of those who study precisely this question--and can easily debunk their argument--is ignored.
And yet, occasionally, the nay-sayers are right. Cigarette smoke, for example, is now seen for what it is: carcinogenic, though 75 years ago there was no such consensus.
So, at the risk of following the crack-pots down one of their rabbit holes, I'm about to dunk on a philosopher's 'What is reality?' question. And I'll make it short.
1. Philosopher Donald Hoffman thinks that humans evolved, not to discern a singular reality, but to see reality in the way that best furthers our species--which means we don't actually see reality, we see the version that best suits us. Link.
2. Sure, there's something to this. We occasionally mistake an ambiguous smile for permission to speak, say, when the smile's ambiguity is based on discomfort at our presence. If we were more perceptive, we might have noticed this.
3. But the clincher is that if we 'see' a poisonous snake as a stick laying in our path, our species is about to shut down that openness to self-made reality one more time.
Does Hoffman doubt this obvious hole in his argument? Maybe I'm missing something. It just seems to me that daily life teaches us to home in on objective reality. That's why babies, for example, burn their fingers, fall down, and in general do a lot of crying. And the ultimate experience for young people--especially boys--is to prove that they can handle life, including the adversity that inevitably surfaces. "I'm going to live for a week in the wilderness!"
Of course one can make the case that 'objective reality' is sometimes seen in a utilitarian manner, rather than as a wonderfully interwoven whole. For example, when settlers first encountered tall grass prairie, did they spend days marveling at the many grasses and flowers in their myriad shapes and colors? Maybe a few took a minute to take in that wonder. And I've read letters, one written by a 16-year-old girl in the 1830s, that lean towards a fuller appreciation. But in general, the pioneers chose to see land as needing to be plowed, and prairie as a nuisance that should soon disappear. This, though, I'd say, is quite different from evolution directing humans to view reality subjectively.
Update: 8/20. Perhaps Hoffman's theory is meant as a description of how we create meaning ("...our tribe uses signs painted on rocks to communicate; this gives us an edge over our neighbors who don't.") But that's a stretch.
..............
We're all too familiar with simpletons and cranks thinking they know more than 'the so-called experts'. These are usually older men with too much time on their hands, gadflies who take on things like Global Warming, using outdated arguments that appeal to common sense. For example, "our earth has seen much larger swings in temperature than a mere two degrees." Their argument is usually buttressed with graphs that show thousand year ebbs and flows. Meanwhile, the learned opinion of those who study precisely this question--and can easily debunk their argument--is ignored.
And yet, occasionally, the nay-sayers are right. Cigarette smoke, for example, is now seen for what it is: carcinogenic, though 75 years ago there was no such consensus.
So, at the risk of following the crack-pots down one of their rabbit holes, I'm about to dunk on a philosopher's 'What is reality?' question. And I'll make it short.
1. Philosopher Donald Hoffman thinks that humans evolved, not to discern a singular reality, but to see reality in the way that best furthers our species--which means we don't actually see reality, we see the version that best suits us. Link.
2. Sure, there's something to this. We occasionally mistake an ambiguous smile for permission to speak, say, when the smile's ambiguity is based on discomfort at our presence. If we were more perceptive, we might have noticed this.
3. But the clincher is that if we 'see' a poisonous snake as a stick laying in our path, our species is about to shut down that openness to self-made reality one more time.
Does Hoffman doubt this obvious hole in his argument? Maybe I'm missing something. It just seems to me that daily life teaches us to home in on objective reality. That's why babies, for example, burn their fingers, fall down, and in general do a lot of crying. And the ultimate experience for young people--especially boys--is to prove that they can handle life, including the adversity that inevitably surfaces. "I'm going to live for a week in the wilderness!"
Of course one can make the case that 'objective reality' is sometimes seen in a utilitarian manner, rather than as a wonderfully interwoven whole. For example, when settlers first encountered tall grass prairie, did they spend days marveling at the many grasses and flowers in their myriad shapes and colors? Maybe a few took a minute to take in that wonder. And I've read letters, one written by a 16-year-old girl in the 1830s, that lean towards a fuller appreciation. But in general, the pioneers chose to see land as needing to be plowed, and prairie as a nuisance that should soon disappear. This, though, I'd say, is quite different from evolution directing humans to view reality subjectively.
Update: 8/20. Perhaps Hoffman's theory is meant as a description of how we create meaning ("...our tribe uses signs painted on rocks to communicate; this gives us an edge over our neighbors who don't.") But that's a stretch.
Sunday, August 11, 2019
The Likeliest Candidate Combination
#239: Ranked: Candidate Pairs
..............
Fast forward to November, 2019 ... Joe Biden is still the clear front-runner, causing the other Democratic candidates to dust off Plan B. For some bright campaign manager, that alternative plan could conceivably be a 2-candidate pairing that would challenge Biden's inevitability. For example, combine Bernie at 14% and Harris at 9%, and suddenly you're competitive with Biden's 30%--especially once the media focus shifts to our underdog pair.
So, I've chosen a dozen pairs, ranked in reverse order, from least to most likely in Nov. 2020. Of course our pairs require a reasonable shot at the nomination to begin with. And, yes, being listed second likely means an eventual Veep spot in all cases except our #1.
Losers
#12: Bernie Sanders & Julian Castro
This would probably be Donald Trump's dream ticket; he could hammer away at Bernie's honeymoon in the USSR, and Castro's calls for reparations and somewhat porous borders. The much ballyhooed Latino vote in Texas, likely another four years away from tipping Texas Blue, would likely come up short, as a flood of low-information Trump voters turn out.
#11: Bernie Sanders & Tulsi Gabbard
Another one to bring a smile (albeit strained) to Trump's face. The mainstream media would probably egg on a third party centrist to get into the race (someone like Starbuck's Howard Schultz) and the chance of a Trump re-elect would increase manyfold.
Very Close!
#10: Bernie Sanders & Kamala Harris
A bit more likely than the other two Bernie scenarios, the problem here is that Bernie's hardline Medicare-For-All stance, for example, erases Harris' bridge building to moderates; likewise, Sanders would be over-shadowed by the telegenic Harris, and create an unwanted, internal contrast RE: white male privilege (since Sanders would be in the driver's seat), a leftist critique that could easily drive the news of the nascent union.
#9: Pete Buttegieg & Beto O'Rourke
Mayor Pete has the potential to enthuse multitudes, especially younger voters. So, a ticket with two younger, inspiring candidates makes some sense. But, without a woman or a person of color on the ticket, inexperience could get the better of our young heroes, once a disinformation campaign emerges.
#8: Pete Buttegieg & Kirsten Gillibrand
Here's the female presence Mayor Pete could conceivably entice into a joint pairing. But even with a female presence, a white bread ticket would have long odds.
Winners
#7: Kamala Harris & Beto O'Rourke
We're now getting into likely winning territory against Donald Trump. Both Harris and O'Rourke have the excitement in their delivery that can compel a high turnout. This pairing, however, seems the least likely of our success stories, mainly because of the inexperience that comes with untested new faces.
#6: Elizabeth Warren & Pete Buttegieg
Aside from the excitement for this combo among college educated whites, there's the question of whether people of color would turn out in numbers high enough to avoid the pattern of 2016, a lopsided popular vote win, coupled with a narrow call in the electoral college.
#5: Pete Buttegieg & Cory Booker
And here's the logical pairing that would give Mayor Pete his best chance at success. The oratorical firepower alone is remarkable. The down side is that the pair begins with a mere 5-10%, combined. The press, though, would likely make much of these two.
#4: Kamala Harris & Steve Bullock
Taking a different tack, Harris could appeal to the heartland with a farm state figure like Bullock. As the first woman president, the first Asian-American, and the first black woman president, she can be fairly sure of a high turnout on the left and with people of color. These two, however, might not bring enough polling power to make the necessary splash during the nomination contest.
#3: Elizabeth Warren & Cory Booker
Here we have what should be, on paper, a solid pairing. The downside for the Democrats, though, would be the likely loss of whatever Senate hopes they might have had. An urban, East coast pairing provides little coattails for down-ballot races in the heartland.
Winners!
#2: Kamala Harris & Pete Buttegieg
This is the kind of 'high ceiling' pairing that would get many Democrats excited, especially younger voters. Unfortunately, though, there could also be a fairly 'low floor', due to inexperience.
#1: Elizabeth Warren & Kamala Harris
Not only is our winning pair exciting for all demographics, but it begins with the highest percentage in the polls, something like 25%, so that Biden could be easily overtaken. And, running against the female-vote-challenged Donald Trump, a woman-woman pairing would likely focus, and thus defuse, the usual questions RE: female candidates.
...............
My own choice for the most likely candidate pairing--if one could choose from any Democratic candidates--would be Klobuchar & Harris. But, since the latter is unlikely to agree (Klobuchar is at a mere 0-3% in early state polls), especially when the much more popular Elizabeth Warren is available, this combination didn't make the list.
Update 8/13: I've gotten the most eyebrows raised over the notion that a woman-woman ticket would be the best bet in defeating the Trumper. My point: when it is women being bullied, the focus can be turned on the bully's history of mistreating women; when it is a female opponent being 'out-maneuvered', it can be seen by a credulous press as fair game.
Update 9/21: Harris' dramatic decline in recent polls has meant that this list is out-of-date. Perhaps I'll revisit the 2-candidate idea come November.
..............
Fast forward to November, 2019 ... Joe Biden is still the clear front-runner, causing the other Democratic candidates to dust off Plan B. For some bright campaign manager, that alternative plan could conceivably be a 2-candidate pairing that would challenge Biden's inevitability. For example, combine Bernie at 14% and Harris at 9%, and suddenly you're competitive with Biden's 30%--especially once the media focus shifts to our underdog pair.
So, I've chosen a dozen pairs, ranked in reverse order, from least to most likely in Nov. 2020. Of course our pairs require a reasonable shot at the nomination to begin with. And, yes, being listed second likely means an eventual Veep spot in all cases except our #1.
Losers
#12: Bernie Sanders & Julian Castro
This would probably be Donald Trump's dream ticket; he could hammer away at Bernie's honeymoon in the USSR, and Castro's calls for reparations and somewhat porous borders. The much ballyhooed Latino vote in Texas, likely another four years away from tipping Texas Blue, would likely come up short, as a flood of low-information Trump voters turn out.
#11: Bernie Sanders & Tulsi Gabbard
Another one to bring a smile (albeit strained) to Trump's face. The mainstream media would probably egg on a third party centrist to get into the race (someone like Starbuck's Howard Schultz) and the chance of a Trump re-elect would increase manyfold.
Very Close!
#10: Bernie Sanders & Kamala Harris
A bit more likely than the other two Bernie scenarios, the problem here is that Bernie's hardline Medicare-For-All stance, for example, erases Harris' bridge building to moderates; likewise, Sanders would be over-shadowed by the telegenic Harris, and create an unwanted, internal contrast RE: white male privilege (since Sanders would be in the driver's seat), a leftist critique that could easily drive the news of the nascent union.
#9: Pete Buttegieg & Beto O'Rourke
Mayor Pete has the potential to enthuse multitudes, especially younger voters. So, a ticket with two younger, inspiring candidates makes some sense. But, without a woman or a person of color on the ticket, inexperience could get the better of our young heroes, once a disinformation campaign emerges.
#8: Pete Buttegieg & Kirsten Gillibrand
Here's the female presence Mayor Pete could conceivably entice into a joint pairing. But even with a female presence, a white bread ticket would have long odds.
Winners
#7: Kamala Harris & Beto O'Rourke
We're now getting into likely winning territory against Donald Trump. Both Harris and O'Rourke have the excitement in their delivery that can compel a high turnout. This pairing, however, seems the least likely of our success stories, mainly because of the inexperience that comes with untested new faces.
#6: Elizabeth Warren & Pete Buttegieg
Aside from the excitement for this combo among college educated whites, there's the question of whether people of color would turn out in numbers high enough to avoid the pattern of 2016, a lopsided popular vote win, coupled with a narrow call in the electoral college.
#5: Pete Buttegieg & Cory Booker
And here's the logical pairing that would give Mayor Pete his best chance at success. The oratorical firepower alone is remarkable. The down side is that the pair begins with a mere 5-10%, combined. The press, though, would likely make much of these two.
#4: Kamala Harris & Steve Bullock
Taking a different tack, Harris could appeal to the heartland with a farm state figure like Bullock. As the first woman president, the first Asian-American, and the first black woman president, she can be fairly sure of a high turnout on the left and with people of color. These two, however, might not bring enough polling power to make the necessary splash during the nomination contest.
#3: Elizabeth Warren & Cory Booker
Here we have what should be, on paper, a solid pairing. The downside for the Democrats, though, would be the likely loss of whatever Senate hopes they might have had. An urban, East coast pairing provides little coattails for down-ballot races in the heartland.
Winners!
#2: Kamala Harris & Pete Buttegieg
This is the kind of 'high ceiling' pairing that would get many Democrats excited, especially younger voters. Unfortunately, though, there could also be a fairly 'low floor', due to inexperience.
#1: Elizabeth Warren & Kamala Harris
Not only is our winning pair exciting for all demographics, but it begins with the highest percentage in the polls, something like 25%, so that Biden could be easily overtaken. And, running against the female-vote-challenged Donald Trump, a woman-woman pairing would likely focus, and thus defuse, the usual questions RE: female candidates.
...............
My own choice for the most likely candidate pairing--if one could choose from any Democratic candidates--would be Klobuchar & Harris. But, since the latter is unlikely to agree (Klobuchar is at a mere 0-3% in early state polls), especially when the much more popular Elizabeth Warren is available, this combination didn't make the list.
Update 8/13: I've gotten the most eyebrows raised over the notion that a woman-woman ticket would be the best bet in defeating the Trumper. My point: when it is women being bullied, the focus can be turned on the bully's history of mistreating women; when it is a female opponent being 'out-maneuvered', it can be seen by a credulous press as fair game.
Update 9/21: Harris' dramatic decline in recent polls has meant that this list is out-of-date. Perhaps I'll revisit the 2-candidate idea come November.
Sunday, August 4, 2019
I Further 'Advise' A Dark-Horse Candidate
#238: ' A 4-Step Plan '
.............
First, I stoke my candidate (Amy Klobuchar's) self-confidence with a look-on-the-bright-side assessment, then proceed to a proposed 4-step 'campaign push' for the coming months:
Your Glass is Half-full
* It's a good thing to maintain low expectations. Ideally, a candidate wants a relatively slow ascent in the polls, capped off with a final, dramatic win. So, rather than being a flash in the pan (or the butt of late night jokes***), the Klobuchar candidacy is very much on track, especially since it recently qualified for the third debate (September) when the field will likely be cut in half.
* The campaign continues to get good press. This write-up, for example, is currently the most popular post at the influential Washington Monthly website. Another post there explains why a realistic candidacy (Klobuchar's--and the author would argue, Biden's) is the only way forward (the Senate being the key to any significant progress).
* The logic behind the Biden campaign is the masculine, to Klobuchar's feminine version: occupy the center-left, and be an average guy/gal who low-information voters can sense comes from 'the heartland' and is non-threatening to them.
* A list of likely candidates at September's debate, and why each is wanting:
10. Andrew Yang -- inexperienced, albeit fun, plus disruptive ideas
9. Julian Castro -- attractive persona, but lefty (reparations, for example)
8. Beto O'Rourke -- melodramatic, if effective delivery
7. Cory Booker -- urban focus (as opposed to heartland), but a likely running mate
6. Pete Buttigieg -- problem with POC, but a possible running mate
5. Bernie Sanders -- caustic and unrealistic, though a liked, avuncular figure
4. Kamala Harris -- a wanna-be lefty, though a likely running mate
3. Elizabeth Warren -- nicer Bernie, but McGovern-ish?
2. Joe Biden -- borderline dodderer by Nov. 2020?
so...,
1. Amy Klobuchar -- best bet, esp. if all others seem lacking
The Campaign's 4-Steps Ahead
* Humor. Run a contest that chooses scripts for funny campaign videos. Pick and pay a dozen or so. Allow access to the candidate for simple, everyday vignettes, sly asides, plus more serious, understated humor. Post videos on a regular basis. Wink: Would likely reach more voters than would mere campaigning.
* Describe The Candidate's 'Heartland' Pull. At the next debate mention two upcoming campaign swings, #1 to Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, W. Virginia, New Hampshire, Maine. #2 to Michigan, Iowa, Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Alaska. 25 states, each with an election for US Senator in 2020, and fully 20 of the 25 being currently Red. Wink: This is the best part of nominating a farm country candidate; suddenly, many more Senate contests are in play.
* Announce Iowa 2020. Pick 20 small towns in Iowa, each with 20,000 population or less. Announce that anyone living in those towns will be able to participate in an online experiment whereby voters watch highlights from Klobuchar's campaign appearances, then answer questions and discuss the issues touched on. All feedback is curated, and both raw and curated data are then made available to anyone who might be curious about what small town Iowans think. Wink: Iowa is vital for Klobuchar.
* Yes, Stage Trump --> Klobuchar. Highlight Klobuchar's ability to handle a belligerent, older opponent (thanks to her prosecutorial training and her alcoholic father) by having an actor briefly on stage at her appearances who plays the part of President Trump. The gist: aggressive accusations are handled deftly, with confidence and calm. Wink: Make campaign appearances fun, while also demonstrating capability, and setting the stage for the 'job hire' in voters' minds.
*** CBS' Colbert didn't even include a joke about her in his live show that night. Update: a debate retrospective, on Late Night with Seth Meyers' NBC show, directed three gentle jokes Klobuchar's way--as many as any of the other candidates!
.............
First, I stoke my candidate (Amy Klobuchar's) self-confidence with a look-on-the-bright-side assessment, then proceed to a proposed 4-step 'campaign push' for the coming months:
Your Glass is Half-full
* It's a good thing to maintain low expectations. Ideally, a candidate wants a relatively slow ascent in the polls, capped off with a final, dramatic win. So, rather than being a flash in the pan (or the butt of late night jokes***), the Klobuchar candidacy is very much on track, especially since it recently qualified for the third debate (September) when the field will likely be cut in half.
* The campaign continues to get good press. This write-up, for example, is currently the most popular post at the influential Washington Monthly website. Another post there explains why a realistic candidacy (Klobuchar's--and the author would argue, Biden's) is the only way forward (the Senate being the key to any significant progress).
* The logic behind the Biden campaign is the masculine, to Klobuchar's feminine version: occupy the center-left, and be an average guy/gal who low-information voters can sense comes from 'the heartland' and is non-threatening to them.
* A list of likely candidates at September's debate, and why each is wanting:
10. Andrew Yang -- inexperienced, albeit fun, plus disruptive ideas
9. Julian Castro -- attractive persona, but lefty (reparations, for example)
8. Beto O'Rourke -- melodramatic, if effective delivery
7. Cory Booker -- urban focus (as opposed to heartland), but a likely running mate
6. Pete Buttigieg -- problem with POC, but a possible running mate
5. Bernie Sanders -- caustic and unrealistic, though a liked, avuncular figure
4. Kamala Harris -- a wanna-be lefty, though a likely running mate
3. Elizabeth Warren -- nicer Bernie, but McGovern-ish?
2. Joe Biden -- borderline dodderer by Nov. 2020?
so...,
1. Amy Klobuchar -- best bet, esp. if all others seem lacking
The Campaign's 4-Steps Ahead
* Humor. Run a contest that chooses scripts for funny campaign videos. Pick and pay a dozen or so. Allow access to the candidate for simple, everyday vignettes, sly asides, plus more serious, understated humor. Post videos on a regular basis. Wink: Would likely reach more voters than would mere campaigning.
* Describe The Candidate's 'Heartland' Pull. At the next debate mention two upcoming campaign swings, #1 to Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, W. Virginia, New Hampshire, Maine. #2 to Michigan, Iowa, Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Alaska. 25 states, each with an election for US Senator in 2020, and fully 20 of the 25 being currently Red. Wink: This is the best part of nominating a farm country candidate; suddenly, many more Senate contests are in play.
* Announce Iowa 2020. Pick 20 small towns in Iowa, each with 20,000 population or less. Announce that anyone living in those towns will be able to participate in an online experiment whereby voters watch highlights from Klobuchar's campaign appearances, then answer questions and discuss the issues touched on. All feedback is curated, and both raw and curated data are then made available to anyone who might be curious about what small town Iowans think. Wink: Iowa is vital for Klobuchar.
* Yes, Stage Trump --> Klobuchar. Highlight Klobuchar's ability to handle a belligerent, older opponent (thanks to her prosecutorial training and her alcoholic father) by having an actor briefly on stage at her appearances who plays the part of President Trump. The gist: aggressive accusations are handled deftly, with confidence and calm. Wink: Make campaign appearances fun, while also demonstrating capability, and setting the stage for the 'job hire' in voters' minds.
*** CBS' Colbert didn't even include a joke about her in his live show that night. Update: a debate retrospective, on Late Night with Seth Meyers' NBC show, directed three gentle jokes Klobuchar's way--as many as any of the other candidates!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)