Commentary On Popular Music

#320: Two Main Problems With Popular Music

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

A recent New Yorker article by Amanda Petrusich on music genres (Who decides what genre defines a song?) got me thinking about popular music again.

I'd previously described ten things that I think, over the years, turned popular music into a pale shadow of its former self.  

This post will add two things that I've decided should be included.  In fact, the more I think about it, the more central I think they are to popular music's decline.

1. The Emergence Of Radio And Then TV

It's hard to imagine how exciting Radio and TV were when they first appeared.  We're jaded with constant access to tunes.  The first radio listeners likely couldn't believe the wonder of discombobulated sound.  They would've gathered 'round and listened intently to the heavenly broadcasts.  Similarly, TV would've been unbelievable.  Watching would have involved all of one's attention, and be an escape from the mundane.

And what happens when one listens to music intently over many years?  One's musical IQ increases.  And conversely, as music becomes a background beat, and we move on to other things?  Our average 1Q decreases.

2. The Exposure To All Popular Genres

The centralization ofAM radio music in American life, and the popularity of all-genre, Top 100 radio stations, meant that listeners became familiar with different styles and beats.  In other words, we were all cosmopolitans before we retreated to our own backwater as popular music splintered.

Nowadays, because we often select our own music, it can easily become walled-off from the cross-currents that characterized the era of commonality in music.  We download a few favorite artists.  Our music platform figures out what genre we like, and offers us more of the same.  We select a particular kind of music: 'easy-listening', or 'warm' (that last one, from Petrusich's article).  The result: music becomes formulaic, and increasingly sterile.

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

As I've described in detail at the above link to my top-ten article, the solution I've stumbled upon to the second of these problems is to listen to a DJ--a musical genius one might say--who plays nearly every genre imaginable. Do I listen with as great attention as generations before.  I doubt many do.

Science Settles It; Reforming The Filibuster

 #319: Top Ten Filibuster Reforms

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

The 50 Democratic senators, plus Vice President Kamala Harris (51), could reform the Filibuster (60 votes needed to pass legislation), if they could settle on a plan.  But since at least two Democrats have said 'no' to ending the Filibuster, Republican senators would be needed for abolition, or, if it were modest in scope, mere reform might be possible.  

So, let's take a look at the various options that have been proposed (see Michael Ettlinger's article in Vox for more detail; and New York magazine's Eric Levitz has the latest; plus here's an idea that would probably be too easy to undermine: a limited number of filibuster attempts per 2-year period).

Counting down, in reverse order, the ideas least-to-most likely to pass the Senate.

10. Base It On Majority of US Population

Each senator is awarded half of their state's population, so Diane Feinstein (CA) and Ted Cruz (TX) wield enormous power.  Why so unlikely?  Too many small state senators would miss out.

9. The Ratchet Plan

A filibustered bill is voted on again after compromises are agreed to, and then again, etc., with the 60-vote threshold lowered each time.  This is doing away with the filibuster...slowly.  So, still very unlikely.

8. Let The Next Election Settle It

All filibustered legislation is voted on again, after the next election, at which time no filibuster is possible.  So, a slightly drawn out filibuster elimination, (Senate elections are every two years).  

7. Single Exception: The Debt Limit

Republicans (and conservative Democrats) like the debt limit.  It focuses attention on government largesse.  So, unlikely, though less so than #8 through #10.

6. Single Exception: Government Funding

Republicans, as a rule, don't look favorably on government action, so why would they agree to make the funding of government easier to accomplish?  And, this would be an awfully big step for 'pro-Filibuster' Democrats.

5. Lower The Threshold To Less Than 60

What about 59?  Or 56 (that is, 5/9ths)?  Maybe if there were six Republicans willing to vote for an Immigration bill, for example, a change could be made.  It would be bi-partisan!

4. Make 'Em Talk Round The Clock

At least one senator has to talk for hours and hours until nobody wants to talk any more.  It's how Americans think the Filibuster works, when in reality the threat of a Filibuster is all it takes, since the Majority can't afford to waste time.  So, nobody really wants this kind of reform.  

3. Make 'Em Stay on the Floor

The way it works now, 60 votes are needed to end the threat of a Filibuster.  This reform would require at least 40 senators be present on the Senate floor to keep a Filibuster going.  So, old people on uncomfortable cots--unlikely, though it might get entertaining.

2. Single Exception: Voting Rights

This would strip Republicans of their overall strategy, which is to make it harder for certain groups to vote.  So, hard to see this attracting Republicans.  Maybe all 50 Dems?  Could be a way for 'no'-to- abolishing-the-Filibuster Democratic senators to show they're Democrats, but not by doing the Filibuster much if any harm.  Comes close to being #1, since Democrats, as a party, need to stop the flood of voting restrictions in Republican-controlled states.

1. Single Exception: Science

Are Republicans eager to be seen by history as anti-Science?  This would use existing government science experts to give a thumbs-up on legislation, similar to how the Congressional Budget Office evaluates the financial implications of legislation.  If government scientists thought that a given bill was the likeliest way forward, 50+1 votes would be needed, instead of 60. 

Ecotopia Revisited

 #318: Sketch: A British Utopia

It's been 46 years now since Ernest Callenbach's Ecotopia set the pace for what might be called future perfect fiction: a writer's imaginary utopia set in our contemporary world.

Judging from a brief excerpt published in Yes!, Rob Hopkins has written something similar.  For example:

    "In our community, the kids seem to have radically different feelings about school than they did 10 years ago. The education department’s decision to eliminate testing, to give ample space for unstructured play and to provide students with opportunities within the community to acquire meaningful skills that enable them to live happy and healthy lives by their own definition means that most kids here now love going to school. My son, for example, recently upped his cooking skills by spending a week at a local restaurant.

Kindness, creativity, local production, and agriculture woven into everyday life..., who wouldn't want to live in such a world?

Getting serious about such things, though, requires more than a quick reference to the elimination of tests at the local school.  Or, elsewhere, a 3-day workweek and a Universal Basic Income.  But, on the other hand, we should encourage imaginations like Hopkins, since nothing comes of nothing, and we all know there's plenty of room for improvement in this world of ours.

May your dreams bear fruit.

Snow's Wild Isles

#316: Glimpses

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

Another abstract art break from nature:

Earth's rough drafts: China

Leaving for unexplored inlets, inner sea

Great Britain: waving dino 
without Cornwall, SE

Abstract Easter Egg.
Somehow Happily Hanging 
On Tree of Life

Alternate Futures -- Post Office Edition

#316: Postal Banking?

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

Adam Clark Estes at Recode/Vox describes the many possible ways that the United States Postal Service could become viable, financially.  Everything from postal banking to caregiving for the elderly.  As one might imagine, I have opinions about his article's suggestions.

But first, do we have a problem?  Most of the Post Office's red ink is due to a Congressional directive to pre-fund its retiree health benefits--something no other company (certainly not USPS's competitors) must deal with.  But, a 30% decline in 1st Class mail over the past decade, and a dramatic decline in mail volume during the pandemic's early months ("Disinfect all surfaces!") has forced cost cutting and reorganization strategies on an institution otherwise only slightly in the red. 

Curiously, we don't read about actual reform among the grab-bag of options.  And this isn't surprising.  Very few people are familiar with all facets of postal operations.  Each is a separate experience: the stamps sold, the mailing fees charged, the letters and packages sorted, the mail delivered, the maintenance of machines, buildings and vehicles.  And yet, I can tell you as a mailman who delivers, there's room for savings.

Decades ago the Post Office was known as a place where regimentation was the norm, and as a result employees (many former employees) 'went postal'.  To its credit, the culture has changed.  There's a gentle escalation of correction, when necessary.  There are opportunities to be heard, opinions are even sought, surveys of employee satisfaction are conducted.  But this is all standard for most businesses these days.  What's lacking is what I have.  That is, a reason to seek efficiency in my work, while maintaining standards.  The reason my 'craft' (rural mail carrier) enjoys this search for productivity is that, originally, rural carriers were farmers (some still are), and, as their own boss, were used to setting a unique pace.

Exactly what does efficiency have to do with postal thrift?  If the other crafts at the post office (the clerks, custodians, technicians and drivers) were all in control of their own time, the way I am, there'd be savings to be had in both money for the post office, and less employee time worked.  I explain this, with an example of how it might work here.  In fact, I once asked a supervisor to read my suggestion.  She'd served in three of the above five crafts and had also supervised same (as close to a generalist as I have encountered).  Her response: 

"That is actually a very good article.  The concept is right on target.  The postal service would be so much more productive if this was put into practice!"

For those interested, I think there's also an over-abundance of middle-managers.  Employees, organized as a co-op, with incentives for getting along, keeping standards high, and dealing with any problems within the co-op structure, could, with printouts and once-a-week meetings, handle 75% of what management personnel do to keep our craft in line.  Specifically, complaints from customers, and other failures to meet guideposts, would be reported from supervisor to individual carrier, but otherwise, all other organizational matters would be handled within the employee co-op.  Of course, this is all 'future perfect' imagining.

Ok, let's look at those ideas for making the post office solvent (my reactions in green):

* Keep offices open longer: in other words, become more like the 24-7 UPS store.

This doesn't sound likely.  The Post Office has surely looked at this and determined the labor costs would be too high.

* Banking: affordable checking/savings accounts, debit cards, small loans, and other services.

A likely idea simply because the estimated annual profit would be $9 billion (a 2014 estimate), enough to cover any temporary shortfalls.  But, would space be available?  Would security be an issue?  Otherwise, ...sure.  Besides, as recently as the 1960s the USPS provided banking for its customers.

* Deliver groceries: probably in pre-packed, re-usable, indestructible containers.  

One encounters grocery pickers in stores these days (those who fulfill online orders).  So, instead of picking up their orders, shoppers would have them delivered to the front door.  Ok, if there's a market for it.

* Caregiving: something that I've read about in France (and Japan, according to Estes).

My own experience with older customers is that they enjoy a wave and an occasional word.  Would they want their mailman socializing?  If they would, they probably need to get out more.  I don't see it, though I could be convinced otherwise.

* Electric vehicle charging stations (in the parking lot).  

I like this.  Not only is there preliminary word that the next generation of USPS vehicles will be electric, but post office parking lots would seem like the perfect place for charging (perhaps limited during the busiest hours).  The USPS as a trend setter, no less!

A Secret Impeachment Vote Can And Should Be Held

#315: Yes, It Can Be Done

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

In December of 2019 I wrote in detail about the case for reclaiming the Senate's mystique.   To wit: senators used to be highly-regarded gentlemen, trusted to express themselves in relative anonymity.  Now, our senators have thousands of voters following every little thing about their lives.   Plus, there are 'enforcer' -types letting each senator know if they're out of line, even threatening their safety should they depart from party orthodoxy.

The upcoming impeachment trial of former president Trump in February presents us with a chance to revisit my case for secrecy.  In light of the mob action at the Capitol on January 6th, it may be that disarming 'enforcers' is now a necessity.  

First, there's nothing in the Constitution stopping the Senate from a secret ballot.  If every member is on the record (literally, on the record) declaring how they voted, the Constitution's conditions have been met.  In addition, a secret, paper ballot could also be cast and take precedence.  Then, anyone wanting to examine those ballots could recount them as many times as they wished.  That some senators would vote one way in secret, and one way in public would be their choice to make.  And this could all take place via a transparent, live feed from the Senate floor.  My article, referred to above, provides additional details (for example: each senator receives two pieces of paper, 'Convict' and 'Acquit', which s/he then folds, and walking up, one-at-a-time to the presiding officer's chair, places one in the ballot box, and the other in the discard box, without disclosing contents, all this after voicing their vote).

Then there's the question of who would want this to happen.  My article addresses this as well.  In the present case, everybody except the accused should and likely would want a secret vote:

  * Republicans: Most would probably want Trump removed from politics--which would likely happen if he were convicted.  He's the poster child for 'damaged goods'.  Most mainstream Republicans would win their re-election contests if they didn't have to fear primary challengers whipped up by Trump's rhetorical threats.  Send Trump up the river and they're home free.

  * Democrats: A secret ballot vote that convicts (as it likely would), when compared to a voice vote that acquits (all but certain), would be even more embarrassing for Republicans than would simple acquittal.  That's because the only logical conclusion for a secret ballot conviction, coupled with voice vote acquittal, is that a certain percentage of Republicans were lying ("I can't believe 18 of my Republican colleagues voted to convict....", say all 45 recorded votes to acquit.")  Plus, Republican senators, now no longer as worried about primary challengers, would probably be slightly more cooperative in getting legislation passed.

  * The American People: Perhaps 5-10% of Republicans feel compelled to toe the line out of fear, when defending Trump ("I don't want to have to lie to my husband about how I voted").  The rest are hard core believers.  But those 5-10%, along with nearly two-thirds of voters (Democrats and a good many Independents) would, if they could vote secretly, toss Trump's sorry excuses aside.  It should be remembered that the basis of all justice is that misdeeds have consequences.  Denying justice only describes a path to crime for the next criminally inclined wrong-doer.

The only nay-sayer in all this, if the American People are counted in favor, at 66/33% or thereabouts, is Trump himself (and his hangers-on).  But all guilty parties in their right mind want to avoid justice, so this is not surprising.

But what about the argument that the Republican party is digging its own grave as it sticks with a disgraced president?  Wouldn't Democrats be smarter to let this play out?  The answer is surely 'no', since the more unlikely an ally Trump becomes, the more the tension there is in the Republican party between sanity and The Crazy.  Convicting Trump for inciting an insurrection--something many Republican senators would prefer to do, would be a minor, internalized embarrassment for those who lie about their vote, but would make them, and their country, stronger in the long term.

And, finally, what about the triumphant argument I've encountered online, that if, say, 20 Republicans vote to convict, it only takes 30 Republicans saying they voted to acquit to ID those 20 turncoats?  Obviously, some politicians are better liars than others, but lying indignation is easy when your political future is on the line.  All 50 (except the 4-5 who would publicly vote to convict) will say they aren't lying.

After The Internet - History's Next Surprise

#314: 'Before Internet' Times Seem Quaint; By 2050, What'll Seem Dated?

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

David Byrne's newsletter (yes, that David Byrne), Reasons To Be Cheerful, had an item recently describing several companies allowing their employees to work fewer hours for the same salary.  This occurred because of the need to work from home (Covid), in one case, or as an experiment to see if shorter hours might lead to higher productivity, in another.

As I've written previously, there's a huge potential for increased efficiency in our work lives that the age of digital data has unlocked.  My guess is that a good 10-20% increase, if not more, is possible using simple things like gamification, work-from-home, and other strategies for getting work done faster and more enjoyably, with no loss of quality.

Very well, you say, give us an example.  OK, let's say you work behind a cash register, as one of four check-out cashiers, and a fifth and sixth cashier can be brought in during higher volume hours.  If you're told that you can just go home if you reach your 150th customer before your 8-hour shift is over, you'll work a bit faster.  Not so fast as to make mistakes, but you'll develop a sixth sense for cutting back on wasted time.  You'll become so good at it that if 150 customers was the average before the 'leave at 150' changeover, you'll start going home 15- 30-minutes early.  That's because you're in charge of your own time.

If this means your employer doesn't need a sixth cashier, they save, too.  Plus, customers needn't wait in line as long.   But, you say, everyone can't go home if there are only two extra cashiers (who also work in the back of the store).  But what if management keeps a record of your time savings (digital data!), and when your hours add up to a day off, you've earned a paid holiday.  

Does everyone work faster?  No, some cashiers will speed up a little bit, but miss the 150 threshold.  And that's another plus for management.  Besides, such cases of near misses erase any reason to prefer efficient employees over those that are less efficient.  So, nobody's penalized for missing the 150 target.

But, most importantly, the spark of a self-directed life can, in some people, light a fire.  At home, they begin to see ways to organize their lives that avoid pointless time wasting: "There's no point sitting here feeling down", someone might say, "Yesterday, I felt so good planting a garden, I'm going to finish that, and then...."

You probably can't imagine half-an-hour a day adding up to a 10-20% productivity gain.  But, cashiers are traditionally fast workers.   We haven't yet considered those who've successfully found ways to drag out their work (no accusations are necessary, I'm sure I'd be in the same boat if I were in their shoes).  There are many people who delight in taking a break from work to chit-chat with customers, to linger in the hallway, or to purposely drink copious liquids in order to be heading for the bathroom every twenty minutes.  Again, no accusations are necessary, as these are creative ways to fight for one's self-interest. 

Realistically, we wouldn't see a 10-20% change right away.  A person who's attuned to frittering away minutes must reprogram their lives, and that takes time.  It's like getting in shape, physically.  It won't happen right away.

Now, what about my claim that this changeover to a more self-propelled lifestyle is going to feel as monumentally significant as 'the internet'?  OK, that's a big claim.  

Except, when you think about it, what's just as big, if not bigger than bringing the world to one's fingertips?  Well, surely, rising from little more than automaton, to self-determination, approaches that level of significance.  In the end, you can't really enjoy life without being in control of your own.