Fixing Our Democracy: The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court's Magic Fraction, 5/9, or 56%

....................
I recently posted this article suggesting that the number of supreme court justices be temporarily changed from 9 to 11.  I assumed that the Trump presidency would soon be seen as illegitimate (witness: Kathleen Hall Jameison's new book on how Russian interference decided our 2016 election), and imagined us asking ourselves, How can we get back to 'normal'?

I proposed adding Obama's spurned nominee, Merrick Garland, plus another nominee (chosen by the winning presidential candidate in 2020--assuming she or he were a Democrat) to temporarily annul, in practical terms, Trump's ill-gotten nominees (Gorsuch and Kavanaugh).

Fortunately, I've come up with a much more likely path.  A path that avoids the nearly impossible task of convincing enough senators that 150 years of tradition (the 9-member court) should change.  Instead, here's a supreme court 'fix' that leaves the number of justices at nine:

1. First, use the percentage represented by a minimum 5/4 decision, 56%, as the new vote threshold (56 out of the senate's 100 votes) necessary to confirm supreme court nominees.

2. Then, institute judicial terms of 18 years, effective retroactively.

3. Retirements, resulting from these 18 year terms, would begin in June 2021, would be based on seniority, and would occur every two years until all current justices have retired.  This would take 18 years.

All this would be based on a bi-partisan plan, agreed to by all sides, with a constitutional amendment to cement the deal likely taking 5-10 yers to effect.  In the meantime, all parties would pledge to abide by the agreement.

The first to retire, in 2021, would be Clarence Thomas (on Supreme Court since 1991), who would be 73 years old.  The remaining justices, their year of retirement, and their age at that time--barring, of course, deaths or early retirements:

2023: Ruth Bader Ginsberg (since 1993), 90
2025: Steven Breyer (since 1994), 87
2027: John Roberts (since 2005), 72
2029: Samuel Alito (since 2006), 78
2031: Sonia Sotomayor (since 2009), 77
2033: Elena Kagan (since 2010), 72
2035: Neil Gorsuch (since 2017), 68
2037: Kavanaugh (since 2018), 71

At first glance, Democrats would be expected to more eagerly back this deal.  It curtails Kavanaugh, Roberts and Gorsuch's terms, not to mention minor truncation for Thomas and Alito.  On the other hand, careers for both Sotomayor and Kagan are cut short.  By 2021, or soon thereafter, if a Democrat is elected president, and if it looked like she or he might be with us until 2028, it might be that Republicans would be more eager for the deal, as otherwise, replacements for Ginsberg and Breyer would likely be 45-year-olds with another 30-40 years on the court.  At that point, the shoe could very well be on the other foot.  Ideally, at some point, the two shoes would complement one another by walking over to a deal.

Most importantly, the deal's 56% confirmation margin (56 out of 100), would mean that presidents would tend to nominate fewer ideologues, and instead offer up more non-partisan jurists who have bi-partisan support, and are known for their brilliance rather than their youth.  This would be a major step towards a more thoughtful, balanced court, and as a result would 'fix' one of our three branches of government.

And what if a justice retires prior to the 18-year term limit?  A nomination ensues that entails the remaining years of the retiring justice's term.

As for plausibility, if all parties agree that this is the way forward...there's no stopping it.  Initially, justices would have to voluntarily step down after their 18-year term.  But since the spotlight would be on a single justice at a time, this might actually work.  Eventually, a constitutional amendment would be passed to make retirements mandatory.  As for why the Republicans would agree to this deal, here is a comparison of shortened terms, Rs compared to Ds, assuming Democratic replacements for both Ginsberg and Breyer (replacements A and B) who, we'll posit, are 50 year-olds:

Roberts at age 72 -- Kagan at age 72
Alito at age 78 -- Sotomayor at age 77
Gorsuch at age 68 -- Replacement A at age 68
Kavanaugh at age 71 -- Replacement B at age 68
Thomas at age 73 is the outlier

Here is a scenario, that shows how the deal might occur in 2021:
 * Thomas retires in 2020; Trump/Pence nominates another right-winger
 * The Senate votes the nominee down
 * A Democrat wins the presidency, and our deal is proposed
 * Both parties see the advantages of a deal and agree in full
 * The deal takes effect in 2027 (allowing time for a constitutional amendment)

Notes:
The idea for 18-year terms came from this article by Ezra Klein, writing in Vox, and this presentation.

Also, the fraction 5/9 is actually 5.55555, but is nevertheless rounded up to 56.

Update 10/13/2018:
But, what if Thomas is still with us in 2021--again, assuming a Democratic administration?  If collusion between former-President Trump and the Russians is proven, and if Democrats control the House and Senate, the option of putting another 2 or 4 justices on the Supreme Court should be used to get Republicans to negotiate.  The idea would be to effectively negate the votes of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, then place Garland and another to make the court, practically speaking, much as it would be if Trump hadn't colluded.  The number of justices could then be allowed to fall back to nine.

Exit Trump -- The Most Likely Scenarios

Will We Dump Trump Or Will He Fist Pump?
............

To get a feel for the myriad ways our current president might leave office, and to assess them quickly, I'll organize them into four main scenarios, ranked least to most likely:

4. He suffers a medical emergency, and is incapacitated (or pretends to be), and steps down.
3. He leaves, head held high, or tail between legs, in 2020, after a single term in office.
2. He voluntarily leaves office (a la Nixon).
1. He is forcibly removed from office.

There's no chance for a second term.  The indictments of his deputies have already tarnished his presidency.  There is likely much more to come.  The stench of corruption and incompetence is simply overwhelming.

That said, let's analyze our four scenarios:

4. A Medical Emergency.  The most unlikely, simply because he has surrounded himself with 'yes' men, which counteracts much of the negative feedback that would otherwise trigger anxiety and concomitant breakdown.  The possibility that he plays the sympathetic, injured party in this scenario--a patient in bed with little chance of recovery (or the ability to appear in court) can't be ruled out.

3. A Full Term To 2020.  If the 2018 elections are a mix of good and bad news for the Republican party, the economy is more-or-less stable, and there's a mixed verdict RE: 2016's collusion with Russia, any impeachment is unlikely to result in removal from office (the Senate cannot muster the necessary 67 votes).

2. Nixon, Redux.  With ominous black clouds on the horizon (not only do the 2018 elections result in congressional oversight, but the economy destabilizes, and the collusion with Russia case is proven) our 45th president departs, voluntarily.  Not as likely as impeachment, since Donald Trump is a fighter inside a comfortable, reassuring echo-chamber, convinced that he's always right.

1. The Full Mountebank, Revealed.  With fewer black clouds looming (but given, at a minimum, a major defeat in the 2018 elections), the fighter isn't going anywhere.  What we forget, from our vantage point in September, is that what seems like an iron grip of president on party is not one of reciprocal conviction, but of convenience.  Republicans want to win.  They'll be unabashedly loyal, up until their winner loses.  Given that electoral loss, and likely bad news RE: collusion, the now lame horse they rode in on, will, without hesitation, be put out of its misery.  Better to back a possible winner--even a dark horse of the 'never Trump' variety--than be trounced in 2020 with an incumbent who has 'all time worst President' status, and an approval rating hovering around 30-35.   Losers can't be choosers, and choosers don't want losers.

What's Growing In The Democratic Party Garden?

New Ideas Roundup

.............
I recently finished reading the Washington Monthly's July/August issue and feel the Paul Glastris piece "Winning Is Not Enough" deserves attention.  Here's a quick look and my reaction:

The Gist: An FDR-like era of progressive ascendancy is needed, politically, rather than one more victory in the vote for President, followed by yet another stinging defeat.

The Agenda:
  * A Broad Effort To Encourage Voting
     --secure against hacking
     --vote-by-mail (much cheaper to hold election, especially if postage is free)
  * A 52-State Union
    --add D.C. (currently, they can vote for President, but not Congress)
    --and Puerto Rico (U.S. citizens, but can't vote for Prez. or Congress)
  * Reduce Expenditures By Ditching Contractors
    --saves big $$; prevents feeding at Fed's trough
  * Address $$ In Politics
     --let voters choose who to give $1,000 to (tax credit)
     --receiving candidates would have to decline lobbyist $$
  * Set Up Medicare Buy-In and Universal Public Option
     --don't try too hard (Medicare for All)
     --instead, Medicare Buy-In for 55-to-65 year-olds
     --and Universal Public Option for all (to promote competition and availability)
  * New WPA Jobs
     --let unemployed sign up with existing non-profits
     --2 years wages paid for by Feds
  * Take Writing of Legislation Away From Lobbyists
     --return Congressional staff levels to previous (pre-Gingrich) levels
     --currently, Congress can't afford to write/vet complex legislation

My View:
I like it all.  One caveat is with the WPA Jobs.  Some areas of the country still have high unemployment rates (urban cores, rural backwaters), so a legit concern.  Would be easier to enact during a recession.  Also, would have to avoid make-work jobs to avoid controversy.

The over-all feel is much more likely than some of the wilder and more politically difficult ideas being floated these days, like:
  * Single-Payer Health Insurance
     --would involve enormous disruption to health care industry
     --those having insurance through employer would be giving up a freebie, then paying enormous tax
  * Taxing Corporations Whose Employees Rely On Government Benefits
     --good idea, except for unintended consequences (poor can't find work)
     --maybe a rewrite could solve the problem

What I Would Add:
In these pages I've written about:
  * Combining A Lottery With Boosting Civic Engagement
     --would appeal to low-information voters
  * Addressing The Big-State, Little-State Electoral Imbalance
     --build retirement housing in Native American South Dakota and African American Mississippi
     --effectively turn two small states from Red to Purple
  * Democrats Running For President Forming An All-Star Team
     --would assure voters that whoever won would be able
  * Ending The Ill-Conceived Trump Supreme Court Advantage
     --subterfuge should not lead to advantage
  * Ideas on Trade, Immigration, Informality
     --making Trump a 30% President, not 40%
  * Getting Out Of Afghanistan
     --pay Afghan soldiers enough to really want their jobs

True, several of these (the second and fourth) would be controversial and perhaps to be avoided in the near future.

Pessimist's "Oh No" Debunked

............
An excerpt in the Atlantic magazine from Yuval Noah Harari’s book, "21 Lessons for the 21st Century", suggests that technology favors tyranny, and that liberal democracy could lose out to authoritarianism because the tyrant can make better decisions:

"If you disregard all privacy concerns and concentrate all the information relating to a billion people in one database, you’ll wind up with much better algorithms than if you respect individual privacy and have in your database only partial information on a million people."

My reaction is: unlikely.  That's because of one magic word: freedom.  Collecting data is one thing; the mind at liberty to sift through options based on that data--without prejudice--is another.  An authoritarian leader, even with superior data, is blind to most options, since few would suit his malign interests; he will tend to choose poorly.

Freedom is based on fairness, the understanding among citizens that all members and their opinions are of equal value.  We agree to our society's rulebook, or if we don't, we agree to how rules are changed.  We thus have rights and are expected to think independently; and independent thinkers = freed minds.

Having many opinions focused on an issue, if all facts are well known and all options considered, usually means making good decisions.  Here is one prediction-based website for example, that crowdsources opinion.

With that in mind, here are a few quotes from Mr. Hariri's article and my reactions:

 "Remember that the Internet, too, was hyped in its early days as a libertarian panacea that would free people from all centralized systems—but is now poised to make centralized authority more powerful than ever."

In some parts of the world there will be much foolishness in this regard (the digital realm used for ill).  Societal norms like tolerance, and equality for all, can take many generations to become established, especially given centuries of authoritarian tradition.  But the western world and its democratic allies will almost certainly avoid centralization.  There will be setbacks, but the progressive march towards freedom will continue.  Here's one way that might unfold.

 "Just think of the way that, within a mere two decades, billions of people have come to entrust Google’s search algorithm with one of the most important tasks of all: finding relevant and trustworthy information. As we rely more on Google for answers, our ability to locate information independently diminishes."

Isn't this confusing the access to answers with the ability to ask questions?  Sure, we use a super-fast encyclopedia these days, but we still have to know how to look up a subject/ask for our answer.

"Humans are used to thinking about life as a drama of decision making. Liberal democracy and free-market capitalism see the individual as an autonomous agent constantly making choices about the world. ... What will happen to this view of life as we rely on AI to make ever more decisions for us? Even now we trust Netflix to recommend movies and Spotify to pick music we’ll like. But why should AI’s helpfulness stop there?"

Ummm..., doesn't Spotify represent randomization and novelty, rather than choice?  As for Netflix, isn't it like an olden-day librarian telling you which shelf of books to investigate?

"....It’s not so hard to see how AI could one day make better decisions than we do about careers, and perhaps even about relationships. But once we begin to count on AI to decide what to study, where to work, and whom to date or even marry, human life will cease to be a drama of decision making, and our conception of life will need to change. Democratic elections and free markets might cease to make sense. So might most religions and works of art. Imagine Anna Karenina taking out her smartphone and asking Siri whether she should stay married to Karenin or elope with the dashing Count Vronsky."

Not going to happen.  Humans desire agency.  They want to decide.  They aren't about to abandon that thrill.

"If we invest too much in AI and too little in developing the human mind, the very sophisticated artificial intelligence of computers might serve only to empower the natural stupidity of humans, and to nurture our worst (but also, perhaps, most powerful) impulses, among them greed and hatred."

This makes sense, to a point.  I think "the natural stupidity of humans" is uncalled for, and overdone.

"Yet their true business isn’t merely selling ads. Rather, by capturing our attention they manage to accumulate immense amounts of data about us, which are worth more than any advertising revenue. We aren’t their customers—we are their product."

Actually, the AI in Google's algorithms are currently offering me ads touting impossibly expensive real estate when, a month ago, I simply wanted to know what the going price of large parcels of land was in a specific state for an article on this blog.  This kind of thing represents wallpaper to be ignored.  If a few customers click on such ads, so what?  As for an advanced, future AI, there will likely be a human backlash, and new rules governing its use.

"Liberalism reconciled the proletariat with the bourgeoisie, the faithful with atheists, natives with immigrants, and Europeans with Asians by promising everybody a larger slice of the pie."

Actually, I would say that what Liberalism offers is fairness.  Ideally, everybody has a more or less equal chance to claim their rightful due, and slowly but surely we are progressing towards that ideal.  There is simply no fairer way to arrange society.  A progressive justice that enables freedom is the way humans one up any squaring-the-circle AI.

Counting Down the Top 200 Songs By Women Musicians Since 2000

NPR Chose The 200 Best Performances By Women 

The list we're using was put together by NPR Music, drawing on the opinions of more than 70 women and non-binary writers.  You can read about, listen to, and watch each song's video by clicking the link here.

The 'semi-finalists' who received a top score of '5', are listed below in countdown form; then, the complete list of 200 follows, also as a countdown.

Just a brief word on my opinions.  I'm generally not a fan of Country, Heavy Metal, and Rap, though I think you'll agree I've been open-minded.  The top 25 include:

World: 4
Folk: 4
Country: 3
Hip-Hop: 3
Pop: 3
Blues: 3
Rock: 2
Avant-Garde: 1
Classical: 1
Industrial: 1

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

Top 25 Songs (artist, song title, year recorded, place in list of 200):

#25: Hop Along, "Tibetan Pop Stars" (2012) -- 128/200
#24: Juana Molina, "Eras" (2013) -- 172/200
#23: Jenny Hval, "That Battle Is Over" (2015) -- 140/200
#22: Sylvan Esso, "Coffee" (2014) -- 87/200
#21: Abigail Washburn, "City Of Refuge" (2011) -- 174/200
#20: Julia Wolfe, Anthracite Fields: "Flowers" (2015) -- 127/200
#19: Yeah Yeah Yeahs, "Maps" (2003) -- 2/200
#18: Shovels & Rope, "Birmingham" (2012) -- 101/200
#17: Valerie June, "Workin' Woman Blues" (2012) -- 39/200
#16: Janelle Monáe (featuring Grimes), "Pynk" (2018) -- 102/200
#15: Tanya Tagaq, "Uja" (2014) -- 119/200
#14: Rhiannon Giddens, "At The Purchaser's Option" (2017) -- 30/200
#13: Arooj Aftab, "Lullaby" (2015) -- 150/200
#12: Sharon Jones & The Dap-Kings, "100 Days, 100 Nights" (2007) -- 7/200
#11: Ibeyi, "River" (2014) -- 85/200
#10: Kacey Musgraves, "Follow Your Arrow" (2013) -- 22/200
#9: Micachu & The Shapes, "Golden Phone" (2009) -- 138/200
#8: Norah Jones, "Don't Know Why" (2002) -- 28/200
#7: Thao & The Get Down Stay Down "We The Common" (2013) -- 105/200
#6: Amy Winehouse, "Back To Black" (2006) -- 4/200
#5: First Aid Kit, "My Silver Lining" (2014) -- 116/200
#4: Lorde, "Royals" (2013) -- 6/200
#3: Corinne Bailey Rae, "Put Your Records On" (2006) -- 82/200
#2: Alabama Shakes, "Hold On" (2012) -- 5/200
#1: Janelle Monáe (featuring Big Boi), "Tightrope" (2010) -- 11/200

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

NPR's 200  (click to follow along)

#200: Lori McKenna's "Humble and Kind" (2016)
This is a spare, country / folk number that I liked when I heard it just now for the first time.  It has interesting lyrics, I like the message.  Otherwise, its pace is plodding, the formulaic country elements are predictable, though there's a beauty to the bareness, like a tree in winter.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 3

#199: Rapsody (featuring BJ The Chicago Kid) "Black and Ugly" (2017)
"...Gritting teeth..." appears in the lyrics.  Hmmm.  I'm afraid profanity is one strike against this for me; violence is another.  But there's pride here; a mixed beat that's interesting.  I'm hoping I'll find at least one rap song on this list that penetrates my defenses.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 1

#198: Demi Lovato "Cool For The Summer" (2015)
Here we have the annoying drum machine, the slightly-slow-for-dancing music, the minimal tonal changes, with a very light theme.  Again, not written for me.  But, given a chance to branch out, musically, by her label, Lovato's voice might be fun to have on in the background.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 2

#197: Kaki King, "Playing With Pink Noise" (2004)
Avante garde picking and thwacking. A mix between a classical guitar sound, and spontaneous hambone riffing.  Not for most people, but I like it.   0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 3

#196: La Insuperable (featuring Chimbala), "Damelo" (2013)
People listening to this needn't reach over to check a needle or wonder if their feed is whacko; the repetitive words and bursts of 'skipping' music are not a bug, but a feature.  The accompanying video has beautifully coiffed and clothed women to look at; but they don't seem to exist, otherwise.   Undulating, driving Dominican beat.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 2

#195: Buika, "Mi Niña Lola" (2006)
Flamenco, with appropriately jazzy atmosphere.  Orchestrated in parts.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 3

#194: Lizz Wright, "Hit The Ground" (2005)
Here's the first one I've heard before.  That's how sheltered I am.  But, we're early days, since we're only on #194.  Simple, serene, flowing and well-constructed, this is also the best I've heard so far.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 4

#193: Allison Miller's Boom Tic Boom, "Otis Was A Polar Bear" (2016)
This is the stuff I'd be surprised to find on any chart, but it appeals to the experimental jazz lover in me.  I don't care for the whimsical title, and it gets a bit up a tree in places, but I wasn't there at inspiration, was I.   0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 4

Update: August 7th:

#192: Emel Mathlouthi, "Kelmti Horra" (2012)
Song about the Arab Spring.  The humming at the beginning is a terrific opening; and there are emotionally uplifting moments elsewhere in the song.  Western ears usually find the quavering and minor-key phrasings of music from countries like Tunisia (in this case) hard to take--even with orchestration and interesting rhythm it is a challenge.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 4

#191: Ashley McBryde, "Girl Goin' Nowhere" (2018)
I suppose you have to tip your hat to the understatement in this song, but aside from a few lyrics that work, this just wallows in a formulaic rut that is 'country'.  But, then others may want just that kind of depression in their songs, so there.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 1

#190: Phoebe Bridgers, "Smoke Signals" (2017)
Again with the depressive, though here there is no formulaic pattern to follow.  A delight in the bizarre (the video, the lyrics) sinks this otherwise original music that I would normally like.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 3

#189: The McCrary Sisters, "Train" (2013)
Like the traditional "This Train Is Bound For Glory" the McCrary version is a chugger.  It adds a few melodic flourishes and vocal gymnastics as well.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 4

#188: KING, "The Greatest" (2016)
There's enough here to qualify as inspiration (the uplift to the voices at the end of several phrases, for example), despite the odd use of over-the-top self-congratulation.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 3

#187: Anna Thorvaldsdottir, In The Light Of Air: "Luminance" (2015)
Genre: Avant-Garde Classical.  Theme: wintery cold.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 3

Update: August 10th

#186: Torres, "Sprinter" (2015)
Melancholic rock.  Accompanying video is black/white images in a sea cave.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 4

#185: Ms. Dynamite, "Dy-Na-Mi-Tee" (2002)
Catchy, inventive, fun.  Especially like the dog-like panting and barking.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 4

#184: Khia, "My Neck, My Back (Lick It)" (2002)
Ummm, this is just a 'Johnny One Note' thing, literally.  With over-the-top, suggestive lyrics.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 0

#183: Jorja Smith, "Blue Lights" (2016)
Depressive, urban, mellow rap, but with a chorus suggesting uplift.  Ends with baby crying.    0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 0

#182: Idina Menzel, "Let It Go" (2013)
Programmatic, no melody; though Disney surely made a mint off of this pap.   0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 0

#181: St. Vincent, "Digital Witness" (2014)
Surprising that this would make it big.  Parody of North Korean - style automaton work life.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 4

#180: Sara Bareilles, "Love Song" (2007)
When the video is so much fun; even better than the music.   0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 4

#179: Laura Mvula, "Father Father" (2013)
Spare; piano, drum and vocals, accentuates a fantastic voice.  Nice, obscure chords in places.   0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 3

#178:  Noname (featuring Raury & Cam O'bi), "Diddy Bop" (2016)
More johnny-one-note, or thereabouts, but with interesting lyrics and upbeat sensibilities.   0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 2

#177: Light Asylum, "A Certain Person" (2010)
Synthesizers in the foreground.  I like the neighing horses, but otherwise, this isn't for me.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 2

#176: Victoire, "Cathedral City" (2010)
I thought maybe this would be my first '5' rating.  An eclectic, background vocals and variable beat tour that skips on into entertaining.  But not quite.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 4

Update: August 12th:

#175: A-WA, "Habib Galbi" (2015)
Another keeper.  Here we have traditional Arabic women's music mixed with mild dance hall energy.
 0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 4

#174: Abigail Washburn, "City Of Refuge" (2011)
Another traditional musical style, plainsong, given a driving, even galloping pace, with banjo accompaniment.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 5

#173: Jhené Aiko, "The Worst" (2013)
Calm, gentle, bitter.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 3

#172: Juana Molina, "Eras" (2013)
The unstructured song at its best; just sound that attracts; Argentinian artist.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 5

#171: Fatima Al Qadiri, "D-Medley" (2011)
Abstract electric dance music; Kuwaiti artist.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 3

#170: Kelis, "Milkshake" (2003)
Fairly predictable; repetitive.   0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 1

#169: Brandy Clark, "Hold My Hand" (2013)
More generic country.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 2

#168: René Marie, "Dixie/Strange Fruit" (2001)
A medley of "Dixie" and "Strange Fruit" that works.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 3

#167: Daymé Arocena, "Mambo Na' Má" (2016)
Cuban mambo mixed with New Orleans brass, dubbed with scat.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 3

#166: I'm With Her, "I-89" (2018)
Trio on guitar and vocals.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 4

#165: Tweet (featuring Missy Elliott), "Oops (Oh My)" (2002)
Contains some positives, but could've been greater.   0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 3

#164: Amara La Negra, "Poron Pom Pom" (2013)
Peppy, driven.  Dominican artist.   0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 2

#163: Windhand, "Orchard" (2013)
Is it "Doom" or just heavy metal?  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 2

#162: Cristina Pato, "Muiñeira for Cristina" (2013)
The bagpipes of Galicia meet jazz.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 4

#161: Carly Rae Jepsen, "Run Away With Me" (2015)
As exuberant as you'd want.  The drum machine makes this too predictable, however.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 3

#160: The Band Perry, "If I Die Young" (2010)
If Country music could extract itself from predictability, it would start with something like this.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 3

#159: Sarah Kirkland Snider,  Penelope: "The Lotus Eaters" (2010)
An update for Homer's Odyssey, in song.  Classical styling.   0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 3

#158: Mary Gauthier, "Mercy Now" (2005)
A more traditional Country music.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 3

#157: Terri Lyne Carrington, "Mosaic Triad" (2011)
What I used to call experimental jazz.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 4

#156: Julien Baker, "Sprained Ankle" (2015)
Simple, sweet, soothing.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 4

#155: Mortals, "View From A Tower" (2014)
The heavy metal moondogs return.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 0

#154: Holly Herndon, "Chorus" (2014)
What might be called a collage of digital snippets and voices.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 2

#153: Lily Allen, "Smile" (2006)
A light-touch, Ska-influenced number.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 4

#152: DJ Sprinkles, "House Music Is Controllable Desire You Can Own" (2008)
(no audio)

#151: Fever Ray, "Seven" (2009)
Another artist I've heard many times.  Roots electronica?   0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 4

#150: Arooj Aftab, "Lullaby" (2015)
Pakistani sufi styled music through an accessible, western filter.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 5

#149: Sky Ferreira, "Everything Is Embarassing" (2012)
Drum machine, predictable.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 2

#148: Rilo Kiley, "Portions For Foxes" (2004)
Lyrics and attitude are of the 'bad news' variety, but buoyant, driving music contrasts.   0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 3

#147: Imogen Heap, "Hide And Seek" (2005)
Simple vocal gymnastics; quite satisfying.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 4

#146: Metric, "Help I'm Alive" (2008)
Begins in promising manner; never blows past that opening.  Would benefit from further melodic development.   0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 4

#145: Nicole Mitchell, "Shiny Divider" (2017)
Jazz for flute is tough to pull off.  Here it underscores vocals.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 2

#144: Jamila Woods, "Blk Girl Soldier" (2016)
A mix of lament and uplift.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 2

#143: Mala Rodríguez, "Yo Marco El Minuto" (2000)
A funky underpinning is wasted on yet more Johnny-One-Note rap.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 2

#142: Cooly G (featuring Aaron Carr), "He Said I Said" (2012)
Again, an interesting drum/bass/rhythm is wasted on droning rap vocals.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 2

#141: Taylor Swift, "You Belong With Me" (2008)
A commercially crafty production.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 3

#140: Jenny Hval, "That Battle Is Over" (2015)
Musically enchanting; visually disturbing.  0 - 5 interest in hearing (not seeing) it twice: 5

139: Moor Mother, "Deadbeat Protest" (2016)
Punk meets industrial and they rage on.   0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 0

138: Micachu & The Shapes, "Golden Phone" (2009)
Industrial, but melodic, catchy and upbeat.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 5

137: Jazmine Sullivan, "Bust Your Windows" (2008)
A darker mood, though well done.   0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 4

136: Mon Laferte, "Pa' Dónde Se Fue" (2017)
Chilean artist, music.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 4

135: Big Thief, "Mary" (2017)
Electric piano, sweet voice.   0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 4

134: Maren Morris, "My Church" (2016)
A good example of a Country song that affirms its genre, while at the same time transcending it.   0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 4

133: Gossip, "Standing In The Way Of Control" (2006)
Protest song, with driving beat, big vocals.   0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 2

132: Ciara (featuring Petey Pablo), "Goodies" (2004)
The usual: drum track, tendency towards Johnny-One-Note.  A few clever lyrics.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 2

131: Jlin, "Black Origami" (2017)
Experimental percussion.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 3

130: Elizabeth Cook, "Heroin Addict Sister" (2010)
Good lyrics, simple country-tinged tune.    0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 3

129: Joanna Newsom, "Sapokanikan" (2015)
Whimsical, unpredictable.   0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 3

128: Hop Along, "Tibetan Pop Stars" (2012)
With an excellent, grungy backdrop, the vocals could have shone bright.  And they do, in parts.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 5

Update: 8/15:

127:  Julia Wolfe, Anthracite Fields: "Flowers" (2015)  
To win a Pulitzer Prize in music, you have to be good.  And this is.  Most people would call this classical, though it has a folk theme.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 5

126: Andra Day, "Rise Up" (2015)
Moving, melodic, anthem-like.   0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 4

125: Priests, "And Breeding" (2014)
 Irreverent.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 0

124: Amerie, "1 Thing" (2005)
 Great mix-up rhythm.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 4

123: Tegan And Sara, "The Con" (2007)
Well constructed song.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 4

122: Kali Uchis (featuring Jorja Smith), "Tyrant" (2017)

Agreeable, but predictable.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 3

121: G.L.O.S.S., "G.L.O.S.S. (We're From The Future)" (2015)
Violent, angry.   0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 0

120: Miley Cyrus, "Wrecking Ball" (2013)
Powerful voice, but song relies on predictable, plodding structure.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 2

119: Tanya Tagaq, "Uja" (2014) 
First Nations, visceral, urgent and raw; otherworldly, yet compelling.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 5

118:  Big Freedia, "Azz Everywhere" (2010)
No audio.

117: Jean Grae and Blue Sky Black Death (featuring Chen Lo), "Threats" (2008)
Epic soul, then comes the rap.   0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 1

116: First Aid Kit, "My Silver Lining" (2014)
Swedish sisters manage to sound authentically Western (cowboy, that is).   0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 5

115: The Internet (featuring Kaytranada), "Girl" (2015)
An easier rap, but still formulaic.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 2

114: Laura Marling, "Rambling Man" (2010)
Folk from Great Britain; a bit predictable.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 4

113: Flor De Toloache, "Dicen" (2014)
 Mariachi.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 2

112: Estelle (featuring Kanye West), "American Boy" (2008)
Suave, catchy, but superficial.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 3

111: Mary Halvorson Octet, "Away With You (No. 55)" (2016)
 Jazz guitar in an 8-piece band.  Challenging.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 4

110: Santigold, "L.E.S. Artistes" (2008)
Different, and appealing.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 4

109: Angel Olsen, "Shut Up Kiss Me" (2016)
 A funny kind of punk.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 4

108: Pistol Annies, "Bad Example" (2011)
 Inventive country.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 4

107: Gwen Stefani, "Hollaback Girl" (2004) 
Disappointing, from someone with so much talent.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 3

106: Babymetal, "Gimme Chocolate!!" (2014) 
K-pop meets heavy metal.   0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 2

105: Thao & The Get Down Stay Down "We The Common (For Valerie Bolden)" (2013)
Folksy, but surprisingly supple uplift.   0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 5

104: Princess Nokia, "Tomboy" (2016)
Rap lyrics are different, but uninteresting.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 1

103: Beyoncé, "Countdown" (2011)
Frenetic, driving, but well-done if one likes this sort of thing.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 2

102. Janelle Monáe (featuring Grimes), "Pynk" (2018)
 Gentle hip-hop; a revelation.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 5

101: Shovels & Rope, "Birmingham" (2012)
Expressive, different country number.  Video is fun.   0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 5

100: Maggie Rogers, "Alaska" (2016)
Quite enjoyable.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 4

Update: 8/16

99: Ana Tijoux, "1977" (2009)
Chilean rap.   0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 3

98: SOPHIE, "Lemonade" (2014)
Sound effects used to the extreme.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 1

97: Ludicra, "Clean White Void" (2010)
Heavy duty metal.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 1

96: EMA, "California" (2011)
Overdone generalizations galore.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 2

95:  Noura Mint Seymali, "Ghlana" (2016)
North African meets pop.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 3

94: Eve (ft. Gwen Stefani), "Let Me Blow Ya Mind" (2001)
Has a mellow rap fun feel.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 4

93: HAIM, "The Wire" (2013)
Without the delirious video, the music is plodding.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 3

92: Fea, "Mujer Moderna" (2016)
Chicana punk.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 3

91: The Moldy Peaches, "Anyone Else But You" (2001)
A folksy, simple duet.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 4

90: Caroline Shaw, "Partita For 8 Voices" (2012)
A cappella experimentation: Baroque music mixed with spoken word.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 4

89: FKA Twigs, "Two Weeks" (2014)
 Calm, stately, with interesting percussive backdrop.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 4

88: Evanescence, "Bring Me to Life" (2003)
 Operatic in feel.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 3

87: Sylvan Esso, "Coffee" (2014)
A low-key twinkler.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 5

86: Matana Roberts, "All Is Written" (2015)
Sax, voice, experimental patchwork.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 3

85: Ibeyi, "River" (2014)
Wonderful background vocals and beat; well done lyrics, too.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 5

84: Pink, "Don't Let Me Get Me" (2001)
Pop, for sure.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 2

83: Young M.A., "OOOUUU" (2016)
Rap caricatures: "ho"s and "bozos".  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 1

82: Corinne Bailey Rae, "Put Your Records On" (2006)
Delightful summer-time voice (and video) makes this a sure-fire winner.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 5

Update: 8/19

81: Jenny Lewis, "Just One of the Guys" (2014)
Commendable message, but plodding. 0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 3

80: Joanna Newsom, "Peach, Plum, Pear" (2004)
Unusual, almost childish delight in eccentricity.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 3

79: Gretchen Wilson, "Redneck Woman" (2004)
Anti-stereotype stereotype, complete with "Hell yeah" as call-and-response.  But, very well crafted.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 4

78: Natalia Lafourcade, "Hasta La Raíz" (2015)
 Simple, melodic (in Spanish).  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 4

77: Anohni, "Drone Bomb Me" (2016)
Disturbing art, harping on recent wars.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 0

76: Rihanna, "Bitch Better Have My Money" (2015)
Tedious music, profane.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 1

75: Jill Scott, "Golden" (2004)
Ok, ok, I'll make it Johnny-two-three-note.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 2

74: Sharon Van Etten, "Every Time The Sun Comes Up" (2014)
 A well-done foundation for a song.  Could have been so much better.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 3

73: Icona Pop (featuring Charli XCX), "I Love It" (2012)
 Inhibition; she doesn't care.  Song reminds me of a pounding headache, despite the upbeat feel.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 1

72: Regina Spektor, "Us" (2003)
 Fun video.  Music is classical-meets-unexpected.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 4

71: India.Arie, "Video" (2001)
Auto-biographical lyrics on a simple, bluesy track.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 3

70: Blu Cantrell, "Hit 'Em Up Style (Oops!)" (2001)
Catchy.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 3

69: Xenia Rubinos, "Mexican Chef" (2016)
Johnny-one-note- bass line and drums, with pointed lyrics.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 2

68: Nicki Minaj (featuring Beyoncé), "Feeling Myself" (2014)
Well-done rap, but that's not much of a complement.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 2

67: Grouper, "Heavy Water/I'd Rather Be Sleeping" (2008)
Dreamlike, languid.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 4

66: Sia, "Chandelier" (2014)
Operatic feel, with soaring melody.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 3

65: Shakira (featuring Wyclef Jean), "Hips Don't Lie" (2006)
A Caribbean feel, but plain, until the solos.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 3

64: Waxahatchee, "Bathtub" (2012)
Calm, matter-of-fact voice with minimal guitar strumming.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 3

63: Katy Perry, "Teenage Dream" (2010)
Plodding in its own way.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 2

62: M.I.A., "Bad Girls" (2012)
Moroccan feel; but superficial swagger for the most part.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 3

61: Broken Social Scene,  "Anthems For A Seventeen Year-Old Girl" (2002)
Whispery vocals, banjo; repetitive.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 3

60: Ivy Queen, "Quiero Bailar" (2003)
Supposedly exotic, but droning on (in Spanish).  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 1

59: Little Big Town, "Girl Crush" (2014)
Country, but relatively inventive.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 3

58: Adele, "Someone Like You" (2011)
Simple piano and voice.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 4

57: Lady Gaga, "Born This Way" (2011)
 Driving beat is unqualified.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 3

56: Nelly Furtado, "I'm Like A Bird" (2000)
Fairly interesting, but derivative.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 3

55: Tune-Yards, "Powa" (2011)
 Punk for pop.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 2

54: Margo Price, "Hands Of Time" (2016)
 Here's Country that makes a contribution.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 4

53: Cecile McLorin Salvant, "Monday" (2015)
A Broadway feel.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 3

52: Vanessa Carlton, "A Thousand Miles" (2002)
Appropriately mobile video combined with a fairly predictable voice, piano and strings.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 3

51: Feist, "1234" (2007)
Simple, catchy jingle.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 4

50: Downtown Boys, "Monstro" (2015)
Boisterous, declarative.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 2

49: Robyn, "Dancing On My Own" (2010)
Pop dance number.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 2

48: Beyoncé (featuring Jay-Z), "Crazy In Love" (2003)
I guess it just isn't for me.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 2

47: Avril Lavigne, "Complicated" (2002)
More pop.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 2

46: Azealia Banks (featuring Lazy Jay), "212" (2011)
More out-of-control rap.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 1

45: Anaïs Mitchell, "Why We Build The Wall" (2010)
Spare, voice and acoustic guitar.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 3

44: Lizzo, "Good As Hell" (2016)
Nice feel to this pop.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 3

43: Taylor Swift, "Blank Space" (2014)
"I've got a blank space..."  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 2

42: Esperanza Spalding, "I Know You Know" (2008)
 Jazzy.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 4

41: Kelly Clarkson, "Since U Been Gone" 
 Technically emotive, but still pop.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 3

40: Rihanna (featuring Calvin Harris), "We Found Love" (2011)
 Another big name, another low score (sigh).  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 2

39: Valerie June, "Workin' Woman Blues" (2012)
Traditional blues; cutting, thrilling vocals.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 5

38: St. Vincent, "Cruel" (2011)
Bizarre, but compelling.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 4

37: Paramore, "Misery Business" (2007)
Sorry, but angry pop is still pop.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 2

36: Bomba Estéreo, "Soy Yo" (2015)
Great beat and flute track (in Spanish).  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 4

35: The Knife, "Heartbeats" (2002)
Warped vocals and lyric; but strangely, it works.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 4

34: Carrie Underwood, "Before He Cheats" (2005)
Well-done Country.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 3

33: Courtney Barnett, "Avant Gardener" (2013)
Blase attitude meets crafty tune.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 4

32: SZA, "The Weekend" (2017)
Suggestive traipsing about is a near sure sign of debasement.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 2

31: Against Me!, "Transgender Dysphoria Blues" (2014)
A spritely rock pace combined with the transgender blues.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 3

30: Rhiannon Giddens, "At The Purchaser's Option" (2017)
Traditional Americana: voice, banjo and drum.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 5

29: Lady Gaga, "Bad Romance" (2009)
Aggressive beat, slick production.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 2

28: Norah Jones, "Don't Know Why" (2002)
Sincere and simple.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 5

27: Kesha, "Praying" (2017)
Programmatic. 0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 2

26: Miranda Lambert, "Gunpowder & Lead" (2008)
Country that is violent, but well-done.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 3

25: Cardi B, "Bodak Yellow" (2017)
Violent rage, profanity.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 0

24: Rihanna (featuring Jay-Z), "Umbrella" (2007)
Johnny-one-note, with blah chorus, reprised.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 1

23: Amy Winehouse, "Rehab" (2006)
Wonderful 50's era feel; lyrics are poignant.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 4

22: Kacey Musgraves, "Follow Your Arrow" (2013)
Inviting, clear-eyed Cowgirl.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 5

21: Carly Rae Jepsen, "Call Me Maybe" (2012)
Catchy and fun pop.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 4

20: Adele, "Rolling In The Deep" (2010)
Excellent singing.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 4

19: Beyoncé, "Formation" (2016)
Making put-downs and clever word play work. Video adds political context.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 3

18: Grimes, "Oblivion" (2012)
Punk industrial combined with ethereal vocals.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 3

17: Florence + The Machine, "Dog Days Are Over" (2009)
Joyful.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 4

16: Mitski, "Your Best American Girl" (2016)
Loser's song.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 4

15: Nicki Minaj, "Super Bass" (2010)
Enunciation quite good, but Rap without any melody.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 2

14: Hurray For The Riff Raff, "Pa'lante" (2017)
Obscenities work against, for me.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 0

13: Lana Del Rey, "Video Games" (2011)
Tired sounding, though serene.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 2

12: Solange, "Cranes In The Sky" (2016)
Peaceful, but seemingly directionless.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 2

11: Janelle Monáe (featuring Big Boi), "Tightrope" (2010)
Ah, a Rap song I can love--actually much more than Rap.  Percussion is excellent.  Motown feel to it; cosmo horns; funky choreography (foot as mop).  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 5

10: Peaches, "F*** The Pain Away" (2000)
I'll pass on this one.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 0

9: Brandi Carlile, "The Story" (2007)
Country verging into rock.  Operatic uplift.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 4

8: Alicia Keys, "Fallin'" (2001)
Bluesy R&B with real teeth; not having to parade for the camera a clue here.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 4

7: Sharon Jones & The Dap-Kings, "100 Days, 100 Nights" (2007)
Old-time Motown sound.  Refreshing.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 5

6: Lorde, "Royals" (2013)
Melody rules.  0 - 5 interest in hearing it twice: 5

5: Alabama Shakes, "Hold On" (2012)
Those guitars and voice build a classic.  0 -5 interest in hearing it twice: 5

4: Amy Winehouse, "Back To Black" (2006)
Excellent composition.  Sounds old and new all at once.  0 -5 interest in hearing it twice: 5

3: Beyoncé, "Single Ladies (Put A Ring On It)" (2008)
Shaking one's booty in a song's video usually means there's not much going on in the music.  0 -5 interest in hearing it twice: 2

2: Yeah Yeah Yeahs, "Maps" (2003)
Fantastic underpinning of drums and guitar; repetitive lyrics almost did this one in.  0 -5 interest in hearing it twice: 5

1: M.I.A., "Paper Planes" (2007)
Upbeat, happy, sound-effects heavy.  0 -5 interest in hearing it twice: 3

The $50 Billion Radical Idea That Just Might Work

Would You Give Away Your Fortune...To Be Remembered As A Patriot?

A dozen or so American men have a net worth approaching $50 billion; several have even more.  With one act of generosity, one of them could begin to erase the three original sins of American history.

These three wrongs, lingering in the background, remind us of how far from ideal our history is: our broken treaties with native Americans, the enslavement of African Americans, and the necessary, anti-democratic compromise made when founding our nation.  All three could be addressed, in good faith, with $50 billion.

To begin with, the third major wrong we mention, the anti-democratic compromise at our nation's founding, is a bit hard to grasp, but can be summed up this way: Wyoming's 580,000-odd residents send two of their number to the US Senate, as do California's 40,000,000-odd voters.  This means our 'democracy' sees one person's vote having as much power as 74 voters in a different state.

The suffering of Native and African Americans, by contrast, is easily understood.

With those three wrongs in mind, a mega-billionaire could spend his $50 billion on retirement housing for Native and African Americans.  If placed strategically, this housing would attract Native and African American voters to relocate to states where a hundred thousand or so new voters would turn a reliably one-sided politics into something more competitive.  This would not only address the need for housing and old age comfort in general (a minor step, yet a step nonetheless), but would change the political makeup of the relevant states, effectively moving them from being reliably Republican senate seats to instead being toss-up contests.

This, alone, wouldn't remove the stain of a 74-to-1 vote difference, but it would be a practical way to patch the effect of that disparity.  This is because, at present, our country's large state/small state differential tends to favor the Republican party, and affects not only the Senate, but the Presidency as well, since our electoral college system awards electors based on a state's total (House plus Senate) delegation.  Though there are large Republican states (Texas) and small Democratic states (Vermont), they tend to be the exception.  This imbalance can be easily grasped if one looks at a list of states with less than 3 million inhabitants:

Population
Listed in descending population order, our country's smaller states and their traditional lean:
Mississippi (R)
Arkansas (R)
Utah (R)
Kansas (R)
Nevada (Mix)
New Mexico (D)
Nebraska (R)
West Virginia (R)
Idaho (R)
Hawaii (D)
Maine (Mix)
New Hampshire (Mix)
Rhode Island (D)
Montana (R)
Delaware (D)
South Dakota (R)
Alaska   (R)
North Dakota (R)
Vermont (D)
Wyoming (R)

This built-in edge means Republicans start with something like a 10-seat advantage in the Senate.  In general terms, all it would take to fix this imbalance is for two or three states to change from R to D, or for five reliably Republican states to become toss ups.  And in a limited way, that's what we're describing here.

But would an additional 100,000 voters in states like South Dakota and Mississippi really do the trick?  It might.  Both groups tend to vote Democratic, so a population increase of 150,000 might see an additional net 100,000 Democratic voters.   Here are recent numbers for party strength in both SD and MS:

* Registration by Party:
   SD:   R: 251,468;    D: 156,316     Neither: 121,844
   MS:  R: 44%;    D: 42% (estimate)
* 2016 Presidential election results:
   SD:   R: 227,721;   D: 117,458;    Libertarian: 20,845
   MS:  R: 700,714; D: 485,131
* Recent Senate election results:
   SD:  D: 237,835 R: 142,766 (2008)
   SD:  R: 140,741 D: 82,456     Independent: 47,741 (2014)
   MS: R: 709,626; D: 503,467 (2012)
   MS: R: 683,409 D: 560,064 (2008)

It would appear that South Dakota represents a much easier lift than does Mississippi.  Not only is party registration only about 100,000 apart, but the 2016 presidential election saw a mere 110,000 gap.  And, as recently as 2008, South Dakota overwhelmingly elected a middle-of-the-road Democrat to the Senate.

Mississippi, meanwhile, saw a 215,000 vote difference in the 2016 presidential election.  In addition, the most recent senate contest saw a gap of 206,000.  But, in 2012, the presidential election saw a difference of only 148,000, and the 2008 contest saw a margin of only 123,000.

Now that we've seen the effect on party balance, let's look at location, then cost, then we'll describe our plan's specifics.

Location
Because we're addressing three major failings in our past, there are bound to be compromises among our objectives.  We aren't suggesting that all $50 billion be spent on one or another community, nor that all our focus be on ameliorating the small state / large state imbalance; after all, there are aggrieved communities in traditionally Democratic states, too.

A prime example: Native Hawaiians.  Their monarchy was overthrown by American business interests in the late 19th century.  They are aggrieved; but, Hawaii is an overwhelmingly Democratic state.

There are also large African American populations in traditionally Democratic urban areas in states like Michigan, Illinois, New York, Maryland, etc.

A reasonable compromise might involve 100,000 housing units, each, for South Dakota and Mississippi, plus another 5,000 each for Native Americans in Arizona and Hawaii, and 5,000 each in cities like Detroit, New Orleans, Baltimore, Atlanta, Memphis and Milwaukee.

Cost
If we're assuming that our senior housing would be provided free of charge, and that modest, single-family condos be built for this purpose, we can note that most smaller new homes in SD and MS are in the $150-250,000 range (in some urban areas like Detroit and New Orleans existing housing could possibly be used).  And, since we're buying materials in bulk, clustering units, and building only modestly sized structures, let's say the average price would be $150,000.  With about half the relocating population married, let's say, and with some having grown children and/or parents living with them, that would mean spending about $15 billion per 100,000 units.  For all 240,000 units, our price would be about $36 billion.

There'd be site planning costs, plus dining, social, and recreation facilities, that would involve support and maintenance workers, and would eat up the remaining $14 billion endowment.  In South Dakota, the biggest additional cost would likely be water (perhaps water recycling plants would be needed).  In Mississippi, land would likely be more expensive.

Additional Details
Normally, housing is put up for sale, and there's no requirement that the buyer be of one race or another.  Since housing is not being sold in our case, this becomes less of a problem.  But how to equitably distribute a free commodity?  One solution would be to turn distribution over to a tribal council, in the case of SD, and possibly traditionally black churches, in the case of Mississippi.  These organizations would be asked to recruit modern-day 'pioneers' from around the country, who could both prove the relevant ancestry (the genealogical details could be left up to the organizations in question) and play a part in redeeming American history.

Community size would have to be thought through.  Too large, and the load on local roads, for example, might be too much.  Too small, and the aggregate need for support/maintenance might be too great.  Of course available acreage would tend to keep size in check, but perhaps 5,000 per site, the size of a small town, might be possible.  If land were available, sites could be clustered, 2-3 per location, so as to minimize support/maintenance.  So, perhaps a dozen locations, with several sites of approximately 5,000 population (about 3,000 homes) within 5-10 minutes of each other.

Perhaps a fleet of electric buses could provide on-demand shuttle service to shops and nearby towns.
If there were monies available, investments in wind--for SD, and solar--for MS, could provide residents their power needs (with batteries for backup storage).

For those relying solely on Social Security, not having bills for housing, food, transportation, and electricity would mean an affordable early retirement.

Would there be 360,000 'pioneers' wanting this deal?  Almost certainly, even if the relevant organization retained actual ownership, and passed on the property to new residents once a pioneer moved on.

Would the host states agree to the population influx?  Because our pioneers would be settling in states  with large Native and Black populations (9% and 38%, respectively), nearby communities would likely welcome the inevitable economic boom, not to mention the cultural kinship.  The states' residents outside the impacted areas would be a different matter.  Additional services would be required for such large increases in population, and although taxes (especially the initial revenues generated during construction) would pay for some of these, there would likely be a gap, as many, though perhaps not most, of those choosing to be pioneers would be of limited means.  But, the promise of thousands of jobs in the impacted areas (areas of chronically high unemployment--over 10% in places) would probably win out.

Would our plan achieve its objectives?  Here are three possible scenarios:

Pessimistic: No donor steps forward.
Likely: Assuming a donor does appear, and our plan does play out, the practical political effect would be something like a split senate delegation for each state (not all pioneers would vote, let alone vote for a single party, though Native and African Americans, nationally, voted Democratic at 76% and 89% rates, respectively, in 2016), meaning each state would merely be a 'toss-up', rather than seats being reliably Republican.  That's like changing the Senate's small-state imbalance of seats from 24-10 to perhaps 22-12.  Not bad.
Optimistic: Addressing our nation's original sins would result in a snowball effect:
  * corporate sponsorships would add to project quality
  * South Dakota and Mississippi would experience dramatic economic booms
  * unemployment would be significantly reduced in nearby locations
  * an additional influx of job seekers, family members and cultural affiliates would nearly triple the original population increase, with a total population boost of 400,000 per state (perhaps a net swing of 250,000 votes), meaning the Senate's small-state seat imbalance is instead 20-14.

Actually, our pessimistic case may be the most likely to achieve our objectives.  That's because our plan could instead be part of a bi-partisan economic stimulus package.  It has the obvious appeal of righting national wrongs in a tentative and preliminary way; and, it also has the practical appeal of perhaps halving the unemployment rate in Republican-led, rural states with shockingly high joblessness.  And because it's always hard to separate men from their money, there may be no other way to effect what we might call Inspired Retirement.

Update (8/8/18):  Kevin Drum over at Mother Jones magazine has something of a pet peeve regarding the neediest generations.  Here he compares income growth over the past few decades with age group.  The elderly have gained the most.  And here he debunks an article in the New York Times that focused on elderly bankruptcies (he shows that there has been no rise over the past decade or so).

Point taken.  So, perhaps instead of senior housing, our donor would instead do well to build houses for young families.  Except, of course, for the jobs problem.  Those who've retired don't need jobs. Instead, they require workers to care for their needs = jobs.  Young families would love to move into a new home, but they'd need a job in order to even think of moving.

Update (11/7/18): Our latest election was a splash of cold water to the face--in terms of our Inspired Retirement proposal.  That's because a house of representatives and senate will likely be needed in order for the federal government to finance our project.  So, for the foreseeable future, it's up to individual billionaires.

It would take puzzled news reports of a major land purchase in South Dakota and/or Mississippi to signal a green light for this project.  We'd, of course, know what was happening.

Update: 1/20/21: I revise this idea:

* A pilot program for Alaska, where R/D vote difference in 2020 was just 36K

* New housing in existing towns/cities, rather than new towns

* Gradual expenditures (pilot program in Alaska), rather than lump sum (smaller price tag)

Is Nine Supreme Court Justices A Number Set In Stone?

Short Answer: No

Given the Republican senate leadership's unprecedented refusal to consider President Obama's Supreme Court nominee in early 2016, there is some chatter in Democratic circles these days regarding the possibility that a newly elected Democratic president, in 2021, might find her/his legislative agenda blocked by the current court (think anti-trust laws, for example).   What to do?  Well, theoretically, congress could add a tenth, even an eleventh seat.

Obviously we're a long ways from 2021, but the argument for adding seats to the Supreme Court has already been presented.  Essentially, the case is that:

  * A fair-minded seat was recently stolen
  * Seats have been added and subtracted before (though nine has been the number for 150 years)
  * Every presidential election for the past 25 years, except one, has seen more votes for the Democrat than for the Republican; and yet we have a conservative, Republican court

Doubts regarding the wisdom of such a case are many, but what is assumed is that adding seats would be an act of sheer partisanship.  The Democrats, or Republicans for that matter, would ram through the necessary legislation and tradition be damned.

But what if the adding of seats were done in a bi-partisan manner?

Assuming that an odd number of justices is desirable, there could be an agreement between parties that two seats be added immediately (one being the unfairly ignored Obama nominee), but that they be in place only so long as the newly elected Democratic president were in power (either 4 or 8 years), whereupon the number would be allowed to return to nine (through natural attrition: retirement or death).  This would thus neutralize the appointments made by our current president.

Why would this be fair?  Our current president's tenure is besmirched by scandal; and, his first appointment was the result of an unfair trick.

And what would the most likely outcome be?  Two new Democratic appointments (assuming a Democrat is elected in 2020), plus the replacement of the two most senior liberal justices, leaving a December 31, 2021 court evenly split between conservatives (Roberts (66), Thomas (73), Alito (71), Gorsuch (53), and Kennedy's replacement) and liberals (Kagan (61), Sotomayor (67), and the three new appointees), plus the centrist Garland (69).  Projecting another 16 years into the future (time enough for a return to nine justices), all the current members save Gorsuch (69) and Kagan (77) would be in their 80s and if not already retired, soon to be so: Thomas at 89, Alito at 87, Roberts at 82; and Sotomayor at 83, plus the centrist, Garland at 85.

This would be the fairest outcome, and one that would eventually uphold the Supreme Court's traditional number of justices: nine.  It would also emphasize the judicial balance that the American people expect from their court.