Just A Taste Of The Cragged Heights of Crazy
.....................
I do think of some pretty crazy things. But, I try to keep things reasonable here, so you won't see things like these:
* If you, like Michael Cohen, were going to prison anyway, wouldn't it occur to you that you could fake retribution against your former buddy, the President, convincing everyone you really do think he was the devil. But, because you'd built up your credibility by calling him a racist, nailing him as unfaithful, and such--what everyone already knew, or would soon know, you gave yourself the space to deny things like the trip to Prague in '16--the necessary keys to collusion with Russia, the things that would really send the Trump administration into a tailspin. Very clever. This occurred to me because Cohen had previously admitted to being in Prague in 2002; but now, he says he's never been there. That got me thinking.
* A week ago, when Vice President Pence was in Columbia, to confer RE: Venezuela, it occurred to me that a really desperate president might try to get rid of his #2, somehow staging an incident. Without a vice president, Republicans in congress couldn't possibly impeach their leader, handing over the presidency to the next in line, the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. Meanwhile, naming a new vice president could be stalled, due to things like back-ground checks. The president could, by then, put someone on the ballot for 2020, and ride out the rest of his first term without a #2.
Told you they'd be crazy.
Thursday, February 28, 2019
Your Posting Number Is 202
I Passed 200 Posts -- Who Would Have Thought?
......................
Post #202:
Just a note to say that I really am keeping these posts short. I know everybody has limited time.
And, one more thing. My posts will be numbered from now on.
......................
Post #202:
Just a note to say that I really am keeping these posts short. I know everybody has limited time.
And, one more thing. My posts will be numbered from now on.
Saturday, February 23, 2019
Seen Klobuchar Town Hall -- My Brief Comments
Tough, Smart, Electable
...................
Klobuchar's CNN town hall, which I DVR'd earlier last week (see video), and watched while having lunch just now, made me think that we have a surprisingly good politician in the race, but don't notice, because her charisma is of the feminine variety: controlled, adaptive, socially adept, intelligent; she impresses, but not obviously. Compare that to Obama's athleticism, flashy grin, and issues command. Ok, both have issues command and intelligence.
Comments:
* On the issues, she's careful to bridge aspiration with the practical. Why be for something that can't pass until at least 2023, and that'll only be a frustration voters will remember in 2022--after it goes nowhere, when instead, you can appeal to centrist voters with your prudent approach, hinting at, and then delivering more?
* Reflecting on her recent moment in the spotlight at the Brett Kavanaugh hearings, Klobuchar says she was "surprised", and admits “it was also kind of sad.” That's a normal reaction. Her performance wasn't normal, however. It was the result of growing up with an alcoholic father, as we learned from her appearance; the perfect background experience for dealing with someone who's unsteady, unpredictable, and unprincipled.
* What about her being harsh with her staff? Recent news articles have reported that she browbeat several staff members who no longer work for her. Apparently she has one of the highest staff turnovers of any senator. Social media opinions have ranged from viewing these reports as disqualifying, to those asking why similar behavior on the part of male candidates is all but ignored. What do I think? Certainly a point against her, and perhaps, tragically, her candidacy is doomed; but, the performance that I watched today makes me want to think otherwise. See this Vox piece, by Laura McGann, for a discussion of whether sexism might have something to do with the matter. Plus, as is pointed out in the article, it may be that her experience with her father, a force that required iron discipline and control over chaos, contributed to her being too strict at times.
* Interesting that when asked to say 'yes' or 'no' about free college for all, she avoided doing so; she was then asked again by the CNN host, point blank, and she said 'no' while seating herself, her head turned away from the cameras. Now that is being careful. Never say something on tape that can be aggressively used against you, especially when taking the honest approach of saying what you actually think. Note: she and I are both for free college, if it could be done affordably; but why appear eager if there is no chance of passage?
* Do I think she can win the general election? Yes. Though I'd be happy with several other candidates, she's the Democrats' best bet for maximizing their vote, mainly because she's a true MidWesterner. She combines the instinct for inspiring a younger, more diverse electorate (her views are actually quite progressive), while at the same time sounding reasonable, even conservative, and thus appealing to a huge trove of swing voters in the center; hard to do. My guess is that this gift comes from growing up in a mixed rural/urban state which has traditionally been Blue; metaphorically, she's the farmer's daughter of the establishment left who came to town and did well making herself cosmopolitan.
* Except, what about the Democratic nomination? Won't that be all but impossible, given that she's not well known? She may well surprise. And starting out with the bad news behind her is certainly better than knowing it'll emerge later. There's nearly a year before the Iowa caucuses, where she could take off as a candidate. A good debate performance in the months ahead could mean a big push after Iowa. Her town hall took place in New Hampshire, which is probably where she needs to do reasonably well, after Iowa.
Read a Jan. 15th inside look, written by Julia Felsenthal for Vogue, after a day following Klobuchar around Washington.
...................
Klobuchar's CNN town hall, which I DVR'd earlier last week (see video), and watched while having lunch just now, made me think that we have a surprisingly good politician in the race, but don't notice, because her charisma is of the feminine variety: controlled, adaptive, socially adept, intelligent; she impresses, but not obviously. Compare that to Obama's athleticism, flashy grin, and issues command. Ok, both have issues command and intelligence.
Comments:
* On the issues, she's careful to bridge aspiration with the practical. Why be for something that can't pass until at least 2023, and that'll only be a frustration voters will remember in 2022--after it goes nowhere, when instead, you can appeal to centrist voters with your prudent approach, hinting at, and then delivering more?
* Reflecting on her recent moment in the spotlight at the Brett Kavanaugh hearings, Klobuchar says she was "surprised", and admits “it was also kind of sad.” That's a normal reaction. Her performance wasn't normal, however. It was the result of growing up with an alcoholic father, as we learned from her appearance; the perfect background experience for dealing with someone who's unsteady, unpredictable, and unprincipled.
* What about her being harsh with her staff? Recent news articles have reported that she browbeat several staff members who no longer work for her. Apparently she has one of the highest staff turnovers of any senator. Social media opinions have ranged from viewing these reports as disqualifying, to those asking why similar behavior on the part of male candidates is all but ignored. What do I think? Certainly a point against her, and perhaps, tragically, her candidacy is doomed; but, the performance that I watched today makes me want to think otherwise. See this Vox piece, by Laura McGann, for a discussion of whether sexism might have something to do with the matter. Plus, as is pointed out in the article, it may be that her experience with her father, a force that required iron discipline and control over chaos, contributed to her being too strict at times.
* Interesting that when asked to say 'yes' or 'no' about free college for all, she avoided doing so; she was then asked again by the CNN host, point blank, and she said 'no' while seating herself, her head turned away from the cameras. Now that is being careful. Never say something on tape that can be aggressively used against you, especially when taking the honest approach of saying what you actually think. Note: she and I are both for free college, if it could be done affordably; but why appear eager if there is no chance of passage?
* Do I think she can win the general election? Yes. Though I'd be happy with several other candidates, she's the Democrats' best bet for maximizing their vote, mainly because she's a true MidWesterner. She combines the instinct for inspiring a younger, more diverse electorate (her views are actually quite progressive), while at the same time sounding reasonable, even conservative, and thus appealing to a huge trove of swing voters in the center; hard to do. My guess is that this gift comes from growing up in a mixed rural/urban state which has traditionally been Blue; metaphorically, she's the farmer's daughter of the establishment left who came to town and did well making herself cosmopolitan.
* Except, what about the Democratic nomination? Won't that be all but impossible, given that she's not well known? She may well surprise. And starting out with the bad news behind her is certainly better than knowing it'll emerge later. There's nearly a year before the Iowa caucuses, where she could take off as a candidate. A good debate performance in the months ahead could mean a big push after Iowa. Her town hall took place in New Hampshire, which is probably where she needs to do reasonably well, after Iowa.
Read a Jan. 15th inside look, written by Julia Felsenthal for Vogue, after a day following Klobuchar around Washington.
Planning Out A Green New Deal
From Vague Document To Action Plan
...............
Eating breakfast on Tuesday morning, before heading to work, I read a Kevin Drum column. Basically, he was asking what the Green New Deal action plan is.
So, here we go. This is what I'd suggest:
The voice we use should be the tone we'd use speaking to wavering voters in the MidWest--which is easy for me, because I live here. But why the MidWest? Because the obvious first step is to elect a Democratic president in 2020 (otherwise, a Green New Deal is all but impossible), and to do that you basically have two choices: take back Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, or, try to win Florida and North Carolina--which haven't been both Blue since Obama's 2008 win; or possibly some mix of Arizona, Texas, Georgia--some of which have been Red since Bill Clinton in the '90s.
Once we acknowledge that the MidWest is the most likely focus, we then imagine ourselves speaking with voters there. What do we say? There's no question that inspiration is required--that's why the GND combines environmental with economic goals. But how inspirational need we be? Whatever it takes to get turnout cranked up among the base, but not too pie-in-the-sky, such that the MidWest's wavering swing vote is scared off.
Plus, a reasonably inspiring message takes one more thing: hope. And while Climate Change can be painted as a hopeless mess, there is hope, especially if once we win, we keep winning, in 2022 and 2024. But, to keep winning, we want several easily achievable successes, building to bigger and bigger triumphs, as opposed to trying to bite off too much right away, losing steam and then elections, if we fall short (see 2010's tax on carbon).
Above all else, we should avoid using a tone of voice that isn't focused.
Right, but what about the actual plan? And how to pay for it.
The recent book, Drawdown, (link), which I've been reading, lays out dozens of possibilities for action. Below, I'll enumerate those that seem the likeliest for us. Essentially, we already know how to do this. All we need is the determination and funding.
So, about the money....
* Do not propose a carbon tax. Remember, we're speaking to wavering MidWest voters who for whatever reason did not vote, or voted for Trump in 2016.
* A more likely approach is a worldwide pact, negotiated with our enemies, to lower defense spending on all sides, with the resultant peace dividend used to fund the Green New Deal--along with similar efforts in all countries.
* Once a new president and senate pass the GND, 1% of our military budget would be enough for a goodwill, unilateral gesture, for the first year of negotiations that would add nations to our pact. And, the more we actually make peace, the better the world's prospects. A mere 10% of worldwide military spending would be our target for the third year. If sustained for the next six, we'd have enough funds to reach the estimate identified by the IPCC (link).
And the environmental spending....
Here we have a few easily understood, attractive ways forward. There are others that are technical, or not as wonderful sounding (refrigerant management is #1 in the book). They can all be viewed at Drawdown's website (link).
A five point countdown:
5. Planting Forests (and seaweed beds)
4. Regenerative Agriculture -- letting organic matter build up in our soils.
3. Electrified Cars and Trucks
2. Solar (rooftop and large arrays)
1. Wind
And what about those economic goals we might put forward to attract voters?
Another five point countdown:
5. Consolidate ObamaCare, adding a Public Option
4. Fund state-run Energy Conservation plans that hire millions
3. Create Tax Incentives to boost our five environmental ways forward
2. Significantly increase the Earned Income Tax Credit
1. Normalize Child Care For All
Then, several years down the road, once 2020 is in the 'win' column, and the GND is passed in early 2021, move on to even more ambitious ideas. Until then, limit ourselves to a fairly modest list of goals that can pass the senate and head us in a new direction.
...............
Eating breakfast on Tuesday morning, before heading to work, I read a Kevin Drum column. Basically, he was asking what the Green New Deal action plan is.
So, here we go. This is what I'd suggest:
The voice we use should be the tone we'd use speaking to wavering voters in the MidWest--which is easy for me, because I live here. But why the MidWest? Because the obvious first step is to elect a Democratic president in 2020 (otherwise, a Green New Deal is all but impossible), and to do that you basically have two choices: take back Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, or, try to win Florida and North Carolina--which haven't been both Blue since Obama's 2008 win; or possibly some mix of Arizona, Texas, Georgia--some of which have been Red since Bill Clinton in the '90s.
Once we acknowledge that the MidWest is the most likely focus, we then imagine ourselves speaking with voters there. What do we say? There's no question that inspiration is required--that's why the GND combines environmental with economic goals. But how inspirational need we be? Whatever it takes to get turnout cranked up among the base, but not too pie-in-the-sky, such that the MidWest's wavering swing vote is scared off.
Plus, a reasonably inspiring message takes one more thing: hope. And while Climate Change can be painted as a hopeless mess, there is hope, especially if once we win, we keep winning, in 2022 and 2024. But, to keep winning, we want several easily achievable successes, building to bigger and bigger triumphs, as opposed to trying to bite off too much right away, losing steam and then elections, if we fall short (see 2010's tax on carbon).
Above all else, we should avoid using a tone of voice that isn't focused.
Right, but what about the actual plan? And how to pay for it.
The recent book, Drawdown, (link), which I've been reading, lays out dozens of possibilities for action. Below, I'll enumerate those that seem the likeliest for us. Essentially, we already know how to do this. All we need is the determination and funding.
So, about the money....
* Do not propose a carbon tax. Remember, we're speaking to wavering MidWest voters who for whatever reason did not vote, or voted for Trump in 2016.
* A more likely approach is a worldwide pact, negotiated with our enemies, to lower defense spending on all sides, with the resultant peace dividend used to fund the Green New Deal--along with similar efforts in all countries.
* Once a new president and senate pass the GND, 1% of our military budget would be enough for a goodwill, unilateral gesture, for the first year of negotiations that would add nations to our pact. And, the more we actually make peace, the better the world's prospects. A mere 10% of worldwide military spending would be our target for the third year. If sustained for the next six, we'd have enough funds to reach the estimate identified by the IPCC (link).
And the environmental spending....
Here we have a few easily understood, attractive ways forward. There are others that are technical, or not as wonderful sounding (refrigerant management is #1 in the book). They can all be viewed at Drawdown's website (link).
A five point countdown:
5. Planting Forests (and seaweed beds)
4. Regenerative Agriculture -- letting organic matter build up in our soils.
3. Electrified Cars and Trucks
2. Solar (rooftop and large arrays)
1. Wind
And what about those economic goals we might put forward to attract voters?
Another five point countdown:
5. Consolidate ObamaCare, adding a Public Option
4. Fund state-run Energy Conservation plans that hire millions
3. Create Tax Incentives to boost our five environmental ways forward
2. Significantly increase the Earned Income Tax Credit
1. Normalize Child Care For All
Then, several years down the road, once 2020 is in the 'win' column, and the GND is passed in early 2021, move on to even more ambitious ideas. Until then, limit ourselves to a fairly modest list of goals that can pass the senate and head us in a new direction.
Monday, February 18, 2019
All That 2020 Dem. Talk
A Note, And A Fun Experiment, RE: Dem. Nomination
...................
Note:
Seems candidates like Warren, Harris and Booker did well to get in early. Why? Because when you're the first of your school of fish in the water, you don't have to think about the implications. Whereas, these candidates will send out big waves when they jump in:
- Bernie: This would seriously impact Warren's candidacy, and probably hurt lefty ideas in general
- Holder: Another Black candidate could impact race accordingly
- Biden: Would impact Brown candidacy (everyday workingman)
The irony for these guys is that getting in, with such a large pool of candidates, jams up any others competing for the same priorities.
Actually, could financial backers for other candidates get behind a rival's same-kind-of-guy competitor? Would be devious.
A Fun Experiment:
Will I Make Money? I'll list the candidates and their chances (prices in cents) as reported by PredictIt, place 100 imaginary $$ on several, then update periodically:
Kamala Harris: 24 I'll put $35 here = 146
Joe Biden: 19
Bernie Sanders: 16
Beto O'Rourke: 15 I'll put $9 here = 60
Elizabeth Warren: 9 I'll put $23 here = 256
Cory Booker: 8 I'll put $5 here = 63
Amy Klobuchar: 7 I'll put $28 here = 400
Sherrod Brown: 7
Kirsten Gillibrand: 5
Michael Bloomberg: 3
As I write this, trends are up +1 for Harris, O'Rourke, Warren, and Booker. Everyone else is even, with Sanders down -1.
Maybe by next year I'll have made some imaginary $$, though that's unlikely as a dropout's price will collapse. So, I'll definitely be looking to sell, first chance I get.
Update: 2/23/19
Wow, I missed making a fortune by not getting on the Bernie Bus. Could have sold, after price went up, and made enough to keep my imaginary portfolio in the black, no matter what. Oh well.
Update: 2/28/19
My first sell/buy orders:
Kamala Harris: 24 146 shares
Joe Biden: 18 $10.80 buys 60 shares
Bernie Sanders: 16
Beto O'Rourke: 15 60 shares (sold @ .18) = $10.80
Elizabeth Warren: 9 256 shares
Cory Booker: 8 63 shares
Amy Klobuchar: 7 400 shares
Sherrod Brown: 7
Kirsten Gillibrand: 5
Michael Bloomberg: 3
Update 3/9/19
Another sell/buy wave:
Joe Biden: 25 60 shares (sold @ .25) = $15
Bernie Sanders: 25
Kamala Harris: 22 146 shares (buy 17 shares x .22 = 3.74) = 163 shares
Beto O'Rourke: 19
Elizabeth Warren: 7 256 shares
Cory Booker: 18 63 shares (60 sold @ .18) = $10.80 = 3 shares
Amy Klobuchar: 6 400 shares ($25.80 x .06 = 430 shares) = 830 shares
Kirsten Gillibrand: 5
...................
Note:
Seems candidates like Warren, Harris and Booker did well to get in early. Why? Because when you're the first of your school of fish in the water, you don't have to think about the implications. Whereas, these candidates will send out big waves when they jump in:
- Bernie: This would seriously impact Warren's candidacy, and probably hurt lefty ideas in general
- Holder: Another Black candidate could impact race accordingly
- Biden: Would impact Brown candidacy (everyday workingman)
The irony for these guys is that getting in, with such a large pool of candidates, jams up any others competing for the same priorities.
Actually, could financial backers for other candidates get behind a rival's same-kind-of-guy competitor? Would be devious.
A Fun Experiment:
Will I Make Money? I'll list the candidates and their chances (prices in cents) as reported by PredictIt, place 100 imaginary $$ on several, then update periodically:
Kamala Harris: 24 I'll put $35 here = 146
Joe Biden: 19
Bernie Sanders: 16
Beto O'Rourke: 15 I'll put $9 here = 60
Elizabeth Warren: 9 I'll put $23 here = 256
Cory Booker: 8 I'll put $5 here = 63
Amy Klobuchar: 7 I'll put $28 here = 400
Sherrod Brown: 7
Kirsten Gillibrand: 5
Michael Bloomberg: 3
As I write this, trends are up +1 for Harris, O'Rourke, Warren, and Booker. Everyone else is even, with Sanders down -1.
Maybe by next year I'll have made some imaginary $$, though that's unlikely as a dropout's price will collapse. So, I'll definitely be looking to sell, first chance I get.
Update: 2/23/19
Wow, I missed making a fortune by not getting on the Bernie Bus. Could have sold, after price went up, and made enough to keep my imaginary portfolio in the black, no matter what. Oh well.
Update: 2/28/19
My first sell/buy orders:
Kamala Harris: 24 146 shares
Joe Biden: 18 $10.80 buys 60 shares
Bernie Sanders: 16
Beto O'Rourke: 15 60 shares (sold @ .18) = $10.80
Elizabeth Warren: 9 256 shares
Cory Booker: 8 63 shares
Amy Klobuchar: 7 400 shares
Sherrod Brown: 7
Kirsten Gillibrand: 5
Michael Bloomberg: 3
Update 3/9/19
Another sell/buy wave:
Joe Biden: 25 60 shares (sold @ .25) = $15
Bernie Sanders: 25
Kamala Harris: 22 146 shares (buy 17 shares x .22 = 3.74) = 163 shares
Beto O'Rourke: 19
Elizabeth Warren: 7 256 shares
Cory Booker: 18 63 shares (60 sold @ .18) = $10.80 = 3 shares
Amy Klobuchar: 6 400 shares ($25.80 x .06 = 430 shares) = 830 shares
Kirsten Gillibrand: 5
What Corrupted Pop Music (expanded)
Something Nasty Happened Behind The Woodshed
........................(This article was originally published on January 12th with only seven reasons; this is an expanded version.)
........................
If you asked the average American "What happened to popular music?", you'd probably get a large majority agreeing that something awful turned the music of our youth into what passes for a tune today.
So, here's a countdown of ten possible reasons, beginning with #10, and arriving at #1, the most likely culprit.
#10: The Decline of Traditional Performance. We forget that a mere 65 years ago, most music was performed (at school, in the park, in a concert hall, along a parade route, in a place of worship). What do all these venues have in common? They all involve music that's approved of, and almost always played competently, with attendees who must listen or be considered rude. This reinforces traditional social norms and 'accepted' music structure. Sure, there's music in the parlor on the piano, and music on the back porch, and performance in clubs. But this unconstrained playing constituted a minority, or involved accepted structure, like practicing traditional forms for a performance.
#9: Unbridled Masculinity. There's nothing inherently wrong with hard-edged, slightly aggressive music. The golden age of rock in the late 1960s had its whirlwind of machismo in performers like Led Zeppelin, Jimi Hendrix, the Rolling Stones, even Janis Joplin and her Big Brother and the Holding Company. But the Doors, for example, who can be praised for their jazz stylings and revolutionary departures, were nevertheless disturbingly violent and sexist in some ways. Was the urge listeners felt to break down old, tired formats too great? Did the slashing, dashing, bad boys of yore allow us to accommodate ourselves too easily to what came later--the johnny-one-notes emphasizing other things besides sound, like on-stage prancing, strident flailing of hair and limb, outrageous costumes and cheesy regalia?
#8: Another Time. Have we entered another time zone, where music as a form is now all but moot? Perhaps when anticipating and passing over into the 21st century, we unconsciously began focusing on something else besides the interior construction of geometric shapes in our minds, and instead began responding to other joys, like identity ("That woman speaks to me."), gesture (watch that majesty in motion), and accessories (that video in the background, and those fireworks).
#7: The Collector. Starting in the late '50s and '60s the number of records sold to the public skyrocketed. Most of those buying records started from scratch. Not only was the Baby Boom generation the largest ever, to date, but it was joined by older generations. Essentially, there was a huge demand for recordings, and that demand eventually became satiated, relative to subsequent generations. This, even though LPs gave way to cassettes, CDs and DVDs. When music listeners each had their collection of favorites, they often preferred to listen to the familiar, thus abandoning the current pop scene, leaving behind a younger and younger audience for pop. Thus, pop became teen-age music, to a degree.
#6: Distribution. Gone are the days when a musical artist could record and release music to make a living. Sure, some mega-famous stars can. But most musicians find that the music download format is impossible--especially when splitting proceeds among 4-5-6 members of a band. So, it's touring and ticket sales, or bust. To tour, you need excitement, commercial appeal, and secondarily, good music.
#5: Cleverness, Rewarded. Aspiring artists in a sea of similar voices feel the need to set themselves apart. This encourages commercialism (the gimmick that'll attract attention, rather than the song that'll compete with dozens of similar offerings). Flashy dress, suggestive or explicit lyrics, thundering, captivating shows, easier tunes that hammer away at the basics.
#4: Splintering Market. The explosion of recording in the last half of the 20th century enabled niche artists to reach specialized audiences. Thus, those who enjoyed Gospel, or Cowboy poetry, or traditional Hawaiian, were removed from the target audience. This is especially true for those permanently grossed out by, and never to return to 'pop', who instead adhere to the 'acceptable', conservative, and preponderantly bland Country music realm.
#3: The Rise of Rhythm. Rhythm is much more visceral than melody. With the decline in the age of the average pop music listener, the appreciation for geometrically satisfying harmonics gave way to the excitement of the beat. Example: rap, where lyrics and beat mesmerize, and a few simple movements in tone are all that are often on offer.
#2: Backgrounding. Nothing will doom something more effectively than to make it so ubiquitous that it's taken for granted. Because music is heard regularly these days, and because many of us tend to listen to much the same material, it becomes easier to tune out. When, a century ago, a musical performance was a once-a-week or less affair, we listened, intently. We focused on committing musical structure to memory. We then practiced bringing it back into our minds ("Yes, that was the beautiful, unexpected note!"), falling under its spell again and again in our heads.
#1: Averaging. It's a fact of commercial life that selling more is better than selling less, so the unlikelier the song, the less chance of promotion. This encourages formulas that are used to hit the jackpot over and over, with pop songwriting now farmed out to the same hands, who work with 'successful' blinders in place.
So, it's no wonder.
The ultimate factor is, of course, that the less interesting popular music gets, the less that more sophisticated music listeners are to stick around when the latest merchandise assails the ear. So, a gradually eroding 'popular' music is what's left behind.
And, conversely, the smaller the market for finely-crafted, contemporary music, the harder it is for deserving music to attract the needed attention to launch into super-stardom, thus the focus on classics of yore.
And let's not forget, young minds need experiences to share. If there's a finite universe your friends are able to talk about, well, you're there too.
.........................
For the record, I listen to Radio Paradise (link), with its additional channels that one can move between at will. Mainly it's thoughtful classic rock, world music, even some popular classical, combined with some obscure numbers, but mainly critically acclaimed. No commercials, just a mild-mannered voice occasionally pointing out interesting things and once in a while reminding listeners they can donate.
Music on RP can be ranked (if you want), and each song sports an average rating. There's also a full screen of background material on the artists, plus listener comments on the current selection to look at. And, you can play slideshows synchronized with the music, for those wanting the full immersive experience.
Sunday, February 17, 2019
Fun Ways To Eat Up An Hour
I Check Out A Short Website List
.......................
Gizmodo's David Nield has a fun article that lists websites, many I'd never heard of, that it recommends if you have a one hour lunch break. I'll count them down in order of least- to most- interesting:
12. Feeling Unlucky: the very last google search result for whatever you want to search for
11. Quick Draw: draw well enough for google's AI to recognize your doodles
10. Choose Your Story: follow other storytellers, or put together your own
9. Line Rider: a simple drawing game that's "more addictive than you might think"
8. Snopes: fact checker, debunker, all around interesting
7. NASA Astronomy Picture of the Day: star pics
6. Vocabulary: play games, take tests, to expand your word repertoire
5. HowStuffWorks: ever wonder how?
4. Internet Archive: check out when the internet was young; what'd it look like?
3. EarthCam: check out the view in all sorts of places of interest
2. LibriVox: free audio books from expired copyright material
1. MapCrunch: manually navigate to, or randomly jump to street views around the world
.......................
Gizmodo's David Nield has a fun article that lists websites, many I'd never heard of, that it recommends if you have a one hour lunch break. I'll count them down in order of least- to most- interesting:
12. Feeling Unlucky: the very last google search result for whatever you want to search for
11. Quick Draw: draw well enough for google's AI to recognize your doodles
10. Choose Your Story: follow other storytellers, or put together your own
9. Line Rider: a simple drawing game that's "more addictive than you might think"
8. Snopes: fact checker, debunker, all around interesting
7. NASA Astronomy Picture of the Day: star pics
6. Vocabulary: play games, take tests, to expand your word repertoire
5. HowStuffWorks: ever wonder how?
4. Internet Archive: check out when the internet was young; what'd it look like?
3. EarthCam: check out the view in all sorts of places of interest
2. LibriVox: free audio books from expired copyright material
1. MapCrunch: manually navigate to, or randomly jump to street views around the world
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)