Santa, Is That You?

#380: When Giving Isn't Living

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

It’s at this time of year that I’m often struck by how unlikely gifts are to score a ’10’ (on a scale of 1 - to - 10).  That’s because for a ’10’ to happen, three things have to occur:

#1. A gift must be unexpected and unknown to the recipient.

#2. A gift must fit perfectly into the recipient’s life.

#3. The gift must be appropriate in value.

For example, with #3, if your best friend likes Tesla cars, they're simply too expensive (and would require too great a reciprocal gift), plus that friend likely already has one.

Or, if your child likes a series of books, the universe of that book series is probably already known—and perhaps picked over, so anything you might stumble upon would fail #1, and perhaps #2.

Of course one can always give something generic, like a gift card or a subscription, but these border on the impersonal (mutual friends: "She gave you a gift card to that hip bar?  That's what she gave me!")  Likewise, you could be giving everyone on your list the latest kitchen gadget you use and like, or a subscription to your favorite magazine (“At least I know I like these.”)--which of course says more about you than the recipient, meaning #2 would almost certainly be a fail.

Denied an easy solution to the gift giving dilemma, we usually opt for breaking either #1 (“So, what do you want for Christmas?") or #2 (sheepishly, “The receipt's in there in case you want a different color.”), hoping to settle for a ‘9’ or ‘8’ on the 1 - to - 10 scale.

But guessing can easily land us much lower, setting up the possibility that our recipient might wish we hadn't bothered, which is the storyline behind much gift giving.  The wild guess ("A pogo stick!"), the mainstream choice (“Hey, #1 on the charts.”), or even worse, a failed gift we’re hoping to unload on someone else (“Brown mustard; it’s made with anchovies!”). And yet, if guessing won’t do, and we don’t have time to comb through possibilities, what’s to become of us?

Honestly, sometimes the best option is to dodge:

* Family: In a large, mature family, or one that includes multiple adult generations, draw name pairs from a hat (first one’s the giver and second the recipient), and give just one gift each.  This places the emphasis on togetherness, rather than gift giving.

* Dear Friends: Develop one’s gift giving instincts, just not during the holidays.  When one comes upon a likely gift that approaches a ’10’, indulge, and rather than saving it to fill the hole of the obligatory December gift, explain that you feel Christmas has become too commercialized, but that “I couldn’t resist when I saw this; I think you’ll like it."

* Half-baked acquaintances: Send holiday greeting cards to anyone who gives you a gift.  In the card, explain that you decided to donate all the money you normally spend on gifts to the XX charity.  You'll be cutting off your supply of unhealthy food ("Chocolate covered goo!”), knick-knacks (“A doggy ornament!”), and coffee table books (“Harbors of the World!”), in the years to come, but for some of us, that’s a plus.

Turning Defense Spending Into Pro-Democracy Assistance

#379: Hey, Wanna-Be Democracies, Make Us An Offer

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

Our second-highest ranked general recently opined that about 5% of the Defense department budget of $700+ billion a year pays defense contractors to do nothing.  This is because 'continuing resolutions' in Congress advance stop-and-start spending by a few months here, a week there, and occasionally cease altogether during a government shutdown.

He also noted that defense hawks in Congress routinely tell the Pentagon that we need many billions more in military spending than the top brass asks for.  And I won't even link to the damning piece in Rolling Stone, recently, that explained how, despite congressional attempts to do so, the Pentagon cannot be audited, so that we really don't know where all the money goes.

In other words, there seems to be ample room to cut.

First, though, what are we fighting for?  Democracy around the world would be one answer.  If there were more democracies and fewer rogue regimes trying to get away with destabilizing behavior, perhaps we wouldn't feel as threatened.

Obviously, I'm setting up a different use for those excess defense dollars, so let's just cut to the chase:

 * challenge non-democratic nations to make us an offer

 * describe a step-by-step timetable whereby a government in power voluntarily transitions toward democracy

 * see what the asking price would be for such a transition

 * establish a secret, prioritized list of those who generate the most instability, and would thus be the most welcomed if they were to submit an offer

 * encourage our allies to contribute 

 * find a deserted island (here are 12), fix it up with luxury appointments, and guarantee safety-until-death for any dictators who agreed to take part

To be honest, it's hard to identify some governments as definitely democratic or not.  Elections can be that in name only, and can be rigged from the start.  Others involve strongman leaders who don't allow their challengers as much media access as would be fair, or often limit who can run for office.  But why bother deciding?  Any big man head of state can decide for himself if this is the 'out' he's been looking for, and we could then decide if his (decidedly secret) offer was worth it.  The strongman would be a hero for stepping aside (even if he personally felt the walls were closing in for one reason or another).  

And, we should add, there'd certainly be in-country pressure from citizens who realized what a booming economy would do for their country--assuming democratic steps were being taken, and financial support was beginning to trickle in, soon to be substantial (a dedicated bank account in a neutral country could assure the monies would be forthcoming).

With that in mind, what countries would be on our prioritized list?  The answer would be something to task the CIA with, but here's a rough list, with several included because their leadership might be tempted:

 * Iran.  Under theocratic control for over 40 years, it's hard to imagine the clerics taking the necessary steps, but if negotiations were possible (no deserted island necessary), what a big deal that would be

 * Venezuela.    Promising, because it has the educated workforce to support an immediate return to democracy, and was quite wealthy only a few years ago    

 * Cuba.   As with Venezuela, an educated workforce

 * North Korea.  Hard to imagine, but this would go a long way towards easing tensions in east Asia

 * Belarus.  This would be fairly high on our list because it would signal to Russia that the time for real democracy has come

 * Myanmar.  Democratic first steps were recently crushed by a military coup; so a return to that prior path might be possible

 * Egypt.  A return to the democratic process would be a good influence on all Arab governments

 * Turkey.  If things continue to go downhill....

There are more likely countries than these, but they'd be considered low priorities compared to the above list, which is composed of fairly large populations and economies that are either very destabilizing (Iran, North Korea), or would send a message (Belarus, Egypt, Myanmar), or would impact our backyard (Venezuela, Cuba; Nato's in the case of Turkey).

Actually, it's conceivable that a secret agreement could be put in place that would see the exile of a head of state, followed by suspiciously high expenditures on economic development, education, the justice system, clean energy, and so on, if the departed leader would prefer a more 'manly' exit.

 

What Is Memory, Anyway?

 #378: Answer: A Way We Can Judge Genuine Interest

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

We've all had one of those embarrassing moments when we just can't remember someone's name, or the perfect word for the moment, or the title of a movie we just saw the week before.  And usually, there's a reason why, though the shock of not remembering often overtakes any insight to be gained.

How does one get to know that 'why'?  Practice.  When a memory shortfall occurs, wonder why.  And if thought about, usually soon enough, we discover.  

This is the danger with writing things down.  Unless one forgets to check what one's written, there's no way to benefit from a failed memory.  Which is why I rarely make shopping lists (obviously, there are times when we must perform, socially, but for me they're unusual).  If I forget an item while shopping, I'm usually able to later pat myself on the back when I think through the 'why' of that forgetfulness: "Oh, right, I wanted to use up the garden tomatoes before I bought salsa."

So, I was quite struck to read these words of advice from the author of 'A Wrinkle In Time', Madeleine L’Engle: 

“I have advice for people who want to write...you need to keep an honest, unpublishable journal that nobody reads, nobody but you. Where you just put down what you think about life, what you think about things, what you think is fair and what you think is unfair....”

Of course everybody's different, and advice about writing will work for some and not for others.  That said, I wonder whether keeping a journal might end up costing budding writers if it means they aren't allowing themselves to forget, and to learn from those lapses.  In other words, are great ideas really all that good if we can't remember without jotting them down?  "Note to self: make this into a million dollar novel: Squirrels are really just crybabies when they scold."

It's ironic that we say we want to be spiritual, religious, and mindful, but we don't allow ourselves access to one of the few windows into our psyche: the refusal of the mind to execute when it knows, subconsciously, that it shouldn't.  "Wow, I completely forgot I was supposed to answer his text; he'll be sure to drag me for it.  Wish he'd just leave me alone."  

Usually, a righteous force behind our actions is what we hope for--a knowing certainty that demonstrates inner conviction; and yet many expect that certitude to emerge without the dedicated forethought, deliberation, and review required in countless situations, large and small, failing and successful, over the course of a lifetime.

When should we write, then, if we're looking to exercise our 'forgot it' muscles?  For me, once I've decided what to write about (which often means remembering an idea from the day or week before), I focus on writing.  If I can't remember an idea I had last night, it's forgettably unworthy anyway.

Fixing Facebook II

#377: I Take A Second Swing

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

Here's my first swing (#373).  After skeptical feedback, I've decided to address the issue a second time.  Helpfully, 538 posted a fix Facebook article a few weeks ago, so here's my reaction (in green) to various ideas that article discusses:

* Limit Re-shares

This would attack the 'viral' part of the problem.  But, not only would limiting shares impact positive (especially funny) posts, let's not forget that social media, if done right, serves a purpose in speaking truth to power.  So, though this might work, it is inelegant and could stifle the best reactive material.

* Curb ‘Bad Actors’

Let's assume that FB already downgrades, algorithmically, posts from those who peddle violent and false material.  If not, they should, though the effect will only be marginal.  The reason: the worst actors are adept at avoiding responsibility, and will just post as someone else. 

* More Prominent User Controls

I've been taking the year off from FB, so I'm not aware of any new controls.  But, since the worst offenders are the dumbbells who only want to cause trouble (plus the simpletons who welcome 'trouble'), our focus, unfortunately, will have to be on them.  Anyone who just wants to avoid bad content is obviously not the problem.

* Prioritize ‘Good For The World’ Content  

FB tried this out and found that it reduced time spent on the platform.  So, a non-starter, unless made law (something like this may actually happen, since the recent whistle-blowing RE: FB's integrity unit made the cover of Time magazine).

* Focus On User Interests Rather Than Friends’ Attention Grabbing

A possible first step, though if a user's interests are in being a bad actor.... 

* Show Reverse Order Chronological Posting

This is what I remember from the good old days when I had a dozen or two people on my feed.  It would take 10-20 minutes a day to keep abreast of family and friends.  But, again, this is Facebook heaven, with everyone being truthful and civic-minded.  The problem is that there's nothing to stop bad actors from setting viral wildfires that burn out of control before they're even identified.  The 538 article mentions that the FB algorithm has a hard time determining early on what's civic content, so throttling viral flare-ups can take time.

So, what's to be done?  In #373 I suggested that once a post reaches a threshold of engagement, a 1 to - 10 scale would appear for users to rate the post's content.  Anything that received a less than passing grade would from then on contain a link explaining why the post was a bugger (in general terms, and eventually, in specific terms).  But, thanks to feedback I've received, I can say that that isn't enough.  It might be something FB would be willing to do, but it doesn't focus on the bad actors.  If a group of trouble-makers all re-shared the same post, their followers could all rate it a '10', and so avoid any repercussions, until its viral nature broke through to the general public.  But, how's that all that much different from where things stand now?

This brings me to a second swing: 

Use the 1 - to - 10 scale as a voluntary whistle-blowing mechanism to both limit bad actors and promote good critics.  Here's how it might work:

* The FB algorithm would tend to promote posts from those with critiquing skill, and demote those whose critiquing is poor.

* A '5' rating on the 1 - to - 10 scale would be neutral.  A '6' or more would indicate a favorable review; and '4' or less, negative.  The closer to a '10' or a '1' the score, the more the user has at stake.

* This would incentivize users to search for and critique posts from obvious transgressors, downgrading, if not shutting down, the worst bad actor networks--due to infiltrators and the curious seeking to build up their critiquing score.  Likewise, posts that are particularly worthy and bring out our best (funny, interesting, or just fun) would be sought out and promoted.

* Yeah, but who decides what's good/bad?  Surely that's a tough call, no?  Right, but a post with enormous engagement might have a small fraction of users rating it.  These would be volunteers taking a chance that the post was so obviously wrong-headed/worthy that they were willing to rate it poorly/positively.  Until FB moderators settled the matter, the post's rating (averaged) would show, next to the 1 -  to - 10 scale.  Once FB had a chance to examine the post, it would either agree with the user rating, or toss the result, based on facts or objectionable content.  Those it agreed to would count towards a user's critiquing score.

* Not only would the most objectionable material likely tend to disappear from FB, but those posting material would probably think twice before cranking out yet more bad actor content, since their algorithmic score would suffer--especially so for content that's in poor taste.

* Since FB could choose to effect something like this idea, we might point out that quite a bit would depend on how much a user's algorithmic score was impacted when successfully exercising critical skills.  If users could become quite influential thanks to their volunteering, the system might just work.  

Time For A Third Party

 #376: November 2022 May Surprise Us

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

Alternative political fiction:

* A wealthy individual with several hundred million dollars to spare sets up an 'Independence Party' to contest ~50 House of Representative elections in Nov. '22

* No candidates are involved; instead, a digital interface, perhaps called "W. E. People" promises to mirror voter sentiment in a given House district

* Once newly configured districts are known (the result of 2020 Census redistricting), ~50 are chosen based on their 'independence'

* Each interface mirrors that district's political opinion, employing polling, and soliciting feedback on / discussion of the issues

* When the time comes to elect a House Speaker, any "W. E. People" winning candidates would refrain from voting

* Targeted locales: states with 'prairie populist', and 'outsider' traditions like AK, MT, UT, KS, ND, IA, KY, WV 

* $$ saved (due to no salary and no 'campaign') is used for staff who'd handle constituent needs and run interface

* polling would 1) be as transparent as possible and 2) ideally, average results from multiple polling firms

 

China's Population Control Policies And Coal

#375: The Raw Numbers

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

According to the Washington Post's Lily Kuo: 

"In response to an energy crunch, China has increased coal imports, expanded coal production and approved new coal mines. In October, the country produced 357 million tons of coal, a level not seen in six years..."

Meanwhile, China's population control measures, beginning in the 1970s, and including 1980's one-child policy, have reduced births in the country by as many as 500 million (current population 1.45 billion), or roughly a third of its current total.

While the 500 million reduction may be an over-statement (an urbanizing workforce and rising standard of living no doubt contributed), and heavy-handed enforcement undoubtedly caused untold suffering, it should be noted, the result means that China only burns 56% of the world's coal.  

Like it or not, that reduction in coal burning--perhaps 100 million tons a month--makes the challenge of Climate Change a lot less difficult.

I Coach Republicans and Democrats For 2022

#374: But... Can They Both Win?

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

Republicans: Get Real.  Here's three reasons for returning to the GOP of yore:

* By 2024, voters will want a young candidate, rather than yet another elder gent approaching his 80s.  Might as well face it, America's ex is old news.

* Which means it's time to end the bad-mouthing and head for the middle of the road.  Otherwise, sorry but there just aren't enough old angry-guy voters to win.

* Even in the heat of post-January 6th soul-searching there are those in the media who're eager to embrace a conservative alternative.  And, who're most Republicans going to vote for?  A Democrat?  Unlikelihood.

Democrats: Don't Change.  You're on track--it just doesn't seem like it.  Here's why:

* The Republicans will blow their current lead.  That's because they won't take my advice.  They'll continue following a leader who's only looking out for old #1--a recipe for disaster, as we saw on January 6th.

* Just explain what the agenda for '22 will be: a Reconciliation bill to reduce the deficit and bring down inflation.  Cut corporate welfare.  Be bold fighting high prices (example: use strategic oil reserve).

* Also, describe what's in store, post-'22, if voters elect another two Dems (Senate) while keeping a House majority: the remaining items on Biden's agenda

- Paid Family Leave

- Medicare coverage for Vision and Dental

- States Rights For Non-Lethal Recreational Drugs (not part of agenda, but a likely candidate)

- Free Community College

- Pay fors: items axed by Sinemanchin, like corporate tax rate increase, re-instating tax on ultra wealthy estates