More to come...
2.27.2010
Mother Nature is mad at you
Massive blizzards, earthquakes, hurricanes, flooding and tsunamis is proof enough that Earth will be just fine without us here to get in her way.
More to come...
More to come...
2.25.2010
Laugh out loud
[Some of the highlights from the series...]
Q. Paul, what is a good reason for pounding meat?
A. Paul Lynde: Loneliness!
(The audience laughed so long and so hard it took up almost 15 minutes of the show!)
Q. Do female frogs croak?
A. Paul Lynde: If you hold their little heads under water long enough.
Q. If you're going to make a parachute jump, at least how high should you be
A. Charley Weaver: Three days of steady drinking should do it.
Q. True or False, a pea can last as long as 5,000 years...
A. George Gobel: Boy, it sure seems that way sometimes.
Q. You've been having trouble going to sleep. Are you probably a man or a woman?
A... Don Knotts: That's what's been keeping me awake.
Q. According to Cosmopolitan, if you meet a stranger at a party and you think that he is attractive, is it okay to come out and ask him if he's married?
A.. Rose Marie: No wait until morning.
Q. Which of your five senses tends to diminish as you get older?
A. Charley Weaver: My sense of decency..
Q. In Hawaiian, does it take more than three words to say 'I Love You'?
A. Vincent Price: No, you can say it with a pineapple and a twenty..
Q. What are 'Do It,' 'I Can Help,' and 'I Can't Get Enough'?
A. George Gobel: I don't know, but it's coming from the next apartment.
Q. As you grow older, do you tend to gesture more or less with your hands while talking?
A. Rose Marie: You ask me one more growing old question Peter, and I'll give you a gesture you'll never forget.
Q. Paul, why do Hell's Angels wear leather?
A. Paul Lynde: Because chiffon wrinkles too easily.
Q.. Charley, you've just decided to grow strawberries. Are you going to get any during the first year?
A.. Charley Weaver: Of course not, I'm too busy growing strawberries.
Q. In bowling, what's a perfect score?
A. Rose Marie: Ralph, the pin boy.
Q. It is considered in bad taste to discuss two subjects at nudist camps.. One is politics, what is the other?
A. Paul Lynde: Tape measures..
Q. During a tornado, are you safer in the bedroom or in the closet?
A. Rose Marie: Unfortunately Peter, I'm always safe in the bedroom.
Q. Can boys join the Camp Fire Girls?
A.. Marty Allen: Only after lights out.
Q. When you pat a dog on its head he will wag his tail. What will a goose do?
A. Paul Lynde: Make him bark?
Q. If you were pregnant for two years, what would you give birth to?
A. Paul Lynde: Whatever it is, it would never be afraid of the dark..
Q. According to Ann Landers, is there anything wrong with getting into the habit of kissing a lot of people?
A. Charley Weaver: It got me out of the army.
Q. It is the most abused and neglected part of your body, what is it?
A. Paul Lynde: Mine may be abused, but it certainly isn't neglected.
Q. Back in the old days, when Great Grandpa put horseradish on his head, what was he trying to do?
A. George Gobel: Get it in his mouth.
Q. Who stays pregnant for a longer period of time, your wife or your elephant?
A. Paul Lynde: Who told you about my elephant?
Q. When a couple have a baby, who is responsible for its sex?
A.. Charley Weaver: I'll lend him the car, the rest is up to him
Q. Jackie Gleason recently revealed that he firmly believes in them and has actually seen them on at least two occasions. What are they?
A. Charley Weaver: His feet.
Q. According to Ann Landers, what are two things you should never do in bed?
A. Paul Lynde: Point and laugh
2.24.2010
Moral banking
"The idea that the world of morals and care is distinct from the world of business has also had an interesting gender dimension in both popular life and scholarly thought. During the Victorian era, middle-class women were thought to be the guardians of morals and care, which were assumed to rule in the home. Meanwhile, men were thought to be morally less pure by nature and hence appropriately assigned to the rough-and-tumble world of competitive business.
Sociologist Arle Hochschild has summarized this ideology in a recent book, stating, "When in the mid-nineteenth century, men were drawn into market life and women remained outside it, female homemakers formed a moral brake on capitalism."
Hochschild does not present this social division as an ideology, however, but rather presents it as though it were fact. Portraying the world as divided into a harsh, depersonalized, masculine world of instrinsically destabilizing materialism and capitalism on the one hand, and an ethical, caring-laden sphere of authentic, nonmonetized family and community relations on the other is a popular theme. Sometimes such thinkers believe that it is now "up to women" to hold the line against capitalist incursion or to lead a movement in to a softer, more feminized, small-is-beautiful, and soulful economic system."
[From the absolutely brilliant Economics for Humans, by the extraordinarily thoughtful and supremely rational Julie A. Nelson]
Sociologist Arle Hochschild has summarized this ideology in a recent book, stating, "When in the mid-nineteenth century, men were drawn into market life and women remained outside it, female homemakers formed a moral brake on capitalism."
Hochschild does not present this social division as an ideology, however, but rather presents it as though it were fact. Portraying the world as divided into a harsh, depersonalized, masculine world of instrinsically destabilizing materialism and capitalism on the one hand, and an ethical, caring-laden sphere of authentic, nonmonetized family and community relations on the other is a popular theme. Sometimes such thinkers believe that it is now "up to women" to hold the line against capitalist incursion or to lead a movement in to a softer, more feminized, small-is-beautiful, and soulful economic system."
[From the absolutely brilliant Economics for Humans, by the extraordinarily thoughtful and supremely rational Julie A. Nelson]
2.22.2010
Math, how I love you, let me count the ways
Steven Strogatz is a new columnist for the NYT, and he talks about math and its conceptual foundations.
Sweet!
Here's a couple excerpts of his general awesomeness:
[from "Math and the City"]
"The mathematics of cities was launched in 1949 when George Zipf, a linguist working at Harvard, reported a striking regularity in the size distribution of cities. He noticed that if you tabulate the biggest cities in a given country and rank them according to their populations, the largest city is always about twice as big as the second largest, and three times as big as the third largest, and so on. In other words, the population of a city is, to a good approximation, inversely proportional to its rank. Why this should be true, no one knows...
Keep in mind that this pattern emerged on its own. No city planner imposed it, and no citizens conspired to make it happen. Something is enforcing this invisible law, but we’re still in the dark about what that something might be."
[From "Like water for money"]
"In the front right corner, in a structure that resembles a large cupboard with a transparent front, stands a Rube Goldberg collection of tubes, tanks, valves, pumps and sluices. You could think of it as a hydraulic computer. Water flows through a series of clear pipes, mimicking the way that money flows through the economy. It lets you see (literally) what would happen if you lower tax rates or increase the money supply or whatever; just open a valve here or pull a lever there and the machine sloshes away, showing in real time how the water levels rise and fall in various tanks representing the growth in personal savings, tax revenue, and so on. This device was state of the art in the 1950s, but it looks hilarious now, with all its plumbing and noisy pumps...
Though it’s tempting to view the Phillips machine as a relic of a bygone era, in one way it’s just the opposite; there’s something about it as fresh as the day it began gurgling. Look at its plumbing diagram. It’s a network of dynamic feedback loops. In this sense the Phillips machine foreshadowed one of the most central challenges in science today: the quest to decipher and control the complex, interconnected systems that pervade our lives."
[From "From fish to infinity"]
"As adults, however, we might notice a potential downside to numbers. Sure, they are great time savers, but at a serious cost in abstraction. Six is more ethereal than six fish, precisely because it’s more general. It applies to six of anything: six plates, six penguins, six utterances of the word “fish.” It’s the ineffable thing they all have in common."
[From "The enemy of my enemy"]
"Still, many of us haven’t quite made peace with negative numbers. As my colleague Andy Ruina has pointed out, people have concocted all sorts of funny little mental strategies to sidestep the dreaded negative sign. On mutual fund statements, losses (negative numbers) are printed in red or nestled in parentheses, without a negative sign to be found. The history books tell us that Julius Caesar was born in 100 B.C., not –100. The subterranean levels in a parking garage often have names like B1 and B2. Temperatures are one of the few exceptions: folks do say, especially here in Ithaca, that it’s –5 degrees outside, though even then, many prefer to say 5 below zero. There’s something about that negative sign that just looks so unpleasant, so … negative."
Sweet!
Here's a couple excerpts of his general awesomeness:
[from "Math and the City"]
"The mathematics of cities was launched in 1949 when George Zipf, a linguist working at Harvard, reported a striking regularity in the size distribution of cities. He noticed that if you tabulate the biggest cities in a given country and rank them according to their populations, the largest city is always about twice as big as the second largest, and three times as big as the third largest, and so on. In other words, the population of a city is, to a good approximation, inversely proportional to its rank. Why this should be true, no one knows...
Keep in mind that this pattern emerged on its own. No city planner imposed it, and no citizens conspired to make it happen. Something is enforcing this invisible law, but we’re still in the dark about what that something might be."
[From "Like water for money"]
"In the front right corner, in a structure that resembles a large cupboard with a transparent front, stands a Rube Goldberg collection of tubes, tanks, valves, pumps and sluices. You could think of it as a hydraulic computer. Water flows through a series of clear pipes, mimicking the way that money flows through the economy. It lets you see (literally) what would happen if you lower tax rates or increase the money supply or whatever; just open a valve here or pull a lever there and the machine sloshes away, showing in real time how the water levels rise and fall in various tanks representing the growth in personal savings, tax revenue, and so on. This device was state of the art in the 1950s, but it looks hilarious now, with all its plumbing and noisy pumps...
Though it’s tempting to view the Phillips machine as a relic of a bygone era, in one way it’s just the opposite; there’s something about it as fresh as the day it began gurgling. Look at its plumbing diagram. It’s a network of dynamic feedback loops. In this sense the Phillips machine foreshadowed one of the most central challenges in science today: the quest to decipher and control the complex, interconnected systems that pervade our lives."
[From "From fish to infinity"]
"As adults, however, we might notice a potential downside to numbers. Sure, they are great time savers, but at a serious cost in abstraction. Six is more ethereal than six fish, precisely because it’s more general. It applies to six of anything: six plates, six penguins, six utterances of the word “fish.” It’s the ineffable thing they all have in common."
[From "The enemy of my enemy"]
"Still, many of us haven’t quite made peace with negative numbers. As my colleague Andy Ruina has pointed out, people have concocted all sorts of funny little mental strategies to sidestep the dreaded negative sign. On mutual fund statements, losses (negative numbers) are printed in red or nestled in parentheses, without a negative sign to be found. The history books tell us that Julius Caesar was born in 100 B.C., not –100. The subterranean levels in a parking garage often have names like B1 and B2. Temperatures are one of the few exceptions: folks do say, especially here in Ithaca, that it’s –5 degrees outside, though even then, many prefer to say 5 below zero. There’s something about that negative sign that just looks so unpleasant, so … negative."
2.21.2010
Evan's Bye: With good reason
February 21, 2010
Op-Ed Contributor
Why I’m Leaving the Senate
By EVAN BAYH
BASEBALL may be our national pastime, but the age-old tradition of taking a swing at Congress is a sport with even deeper historical roots in the American experience. Since the founding of our country, citizens from Ben Franklin to David Letterman have made fun of their elected officials. Milton Berle famously joked: “You can lead a man to Congress, but you can’t make him think.” These days, though, the institutional inertia gripping Congress is no laughing matter.
Challenges of historic import threaten America’s future. Action on the deficit, economy, energy, health care and much more is imperative, yet our legislative institutions fail to act. Congress must be reformed.
There are many causes for the dysfunction: strident partisanship, unyielding ideology, a corrosive system of campaign financing, gerrymandering of House districts, endless filibusters, holds on executive appointees in the Senate, dwindling social interaction between senators of opposing parties and a caucus system that promotes party unity at the expense of bipartisan consensus.
Many good people serve in Congress. They are patriotic, hard-working and devoted to the public good as they see it, but the institutional and cultural impediments to change frustrate the intentions of these well-meaning people as rarely before. It was not always thus.
While romanticizing the Senate of yore would be a mistake, it was certainly better in my father’s time. My father, Birch Bayh, represented Indiana in the Senate from 1963 to 1981. A progressive, he nonetheless enjoyed many friendships with moderate Republicans and Southern Democrats.
One incident from his career vividly demonstrates how times have changed. In 1968, when my father was running for re-election, Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader, approached him on the Senate floor, put his arm around my dad’s shoulder, and asked what he could do to help. This is unimaginable today.
When I was a boy, members of Congress from both parties, along with their families, would routinely visit our home for dinner or the holidays. This type of social interaction hardly ever happens today and we are the poorer for it. It is much harder to demonize someone when you know his family or have visited his home. Today, members routinely campaign against each other, raise donations against each other and force votes on trivial amendments written solely to provide fodder for the next negative attack ad. It’s difficult to work with members actively plotting your demise.
Any improvement must begin by changing the personal chemistry among senators. More interaction in a non-adversarial atmosphere would help.
I’m beginning my 12th year in the Senate and only twice have all the senators gathered for something other than purely ceremonial occasions. The first was during my initial week in office. President Bill Clinton had been impeached and the Senate had to conduct his trial. This hadn’t happened since 1868, and there were no rules in place for conducting the proceedings.
All of us gathered in the Old Senate Chamber. For several hours we debated how to proceed. Finally, Ted Kennedy and Phil Gramm, ideological opposites, were given the task of forging a compromise. They did, and it was unanimously ratified.
The second occasion was just days after Sept. 11. Every senator who could make it to Washington gathered in the Senate dining room to discuss the American response. The nation had been attacked. The building in which we sat had been among the targets, and only the heroism of the passengers prevented the plane from reaching its destination. We had to respond to protect the country. There were no Republicans or Democrats in the room that day, just Americans. The spirit of patriotism and togetherness was palpable. That atmosphere prevailed for only two or three weeks before politics once again intervened.
It shouldn’t take a constitutional crisis or an attack on the nation to create honest dialogue in the Senate. Let’s start with a simple proposal: why not have a monthly lunch of all 100 senators? Every week, the parties already meet for a caucus lunch. Democrats gather in one room, Republicans in another, and no bipartisan interaction takes place. With a monthly lunch of all senators, we could pick a topic and have each side make a brief presentation followed by questions and answers. Listening to one another, absent the posturing and public talking points, could only promote greater understanding, which is necessary to real progress.
Perhaps from this starting point, we can move onto more intractable problems, like the current campaign finance system that has such a corrosive effect on Congress. In the Senate, raising in small increments the $10 million to $20 million a competitive race requires takes huge amounts of time that could otherwise be spent talking with constituents, legislating or becoming well-versed on public policy. In my father’s time there was a saying: “A senator legislates for four years and campaigns for two.” Because of the incessant need to raise campaign cash, we now have perpetual campaigns. If fund-raising is constantly on members’ minds, it’s difficult for policy compromise to trump political calculation.
The recent Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, allowing corporations and unions to spend freely on ads explicitly supporting or opposing political candidates, will worsen matters. The threat of unlimited amounts of negative advertising from special interest groups will only make members more beholden to their natural constituencies and more afraid of violating party orthodoxies.
I can easily imagine vulnerable members approaching a corporation or union for support and being told: “We’d love to support you, but we have a rule. We only support candidates who are with us at least 90 percent of the time. Here is our questionnaire with our top 10 concerns. Fill it out.” Millions of campaign dollars now ride on the member’s response. The cause of good government is not served.
What to do? While fundamental campaign finance reform may ultimately require a constitutional amendment, there are less drastic steps we can take to curb the distorting influence of money in politics. Congress should consider ways to lessen the impact of the Citizens United decision through legislation to enhance disclosure requirements, require corporate donors to appear in the political ads they finance and prohibit government contractors or bailout beneficiaries from spending money on political campaigns.
Congress and state legislators should also consider incentives, including public matching funds for smaller contributions, to expand democratic participation and increase the influence of small donors relative to corporations and other special interests.
In addition, the Senate should reform a practice increasingly abused by both parties, the filibuster. Historically, the filibuster was employed to ensure that momentous issues receive a full and fair hearing. Instead, it has come to serve the exact opposite purpose — to prevent the Senate from even conducting routine business.
Last fall, the Senate had to overcome two successive filibusters to pass a bill to provide millions of Americans with extended unemployment insurance. There was no opposition to the bill; it passed on a 98-0 vote. But some senators saw political advantage in drawing out debate, thus preventing the Senate from addressing other pressing matters.
Admittedly, I have participated in filibusters. If not abused, the filibuster can foster consensus-building. The minority has a right to voice legitimate concerns, but it must not employ this tactic to prevent progress on everything at a critical juncture for our country. We need to reduce the power of the minority to frustrate progress while still affording them some say.
Filibusters have proliferated because under current rules just one or two determined senators can stop the Senate from functioning. Today, the mere threat of a filibuster is enough to stop a vote; senators are rarely asked to pull all-nighters like Jimmy Stewart in “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.”
For this reason, filibusters should require 35 senators to sign a public petition and make a commitment to continually debate an issue in reality, not just in theory. Those who obstruct the Senate should pay a price in public notoriety and physical exhaustion. That would lead to a significant decline in frivolous filibusters.
Filibusters should also be limited to no more than one for any piece of legislation. Currently, the decision to begin debate on a bill can be filibustered, followed by another filibuster on each amendment, followed by yet another filibuster before a final vote. This leads to multiple legislative delays and effectively grinds the Senate to a halt.
What’s more, the number of votes needed to overcome a filibuster should be reduced to 55 from 60. During my father’s era, filibusters were commonly used to block civil rights legislation and, in 1975, the requisite number of votes was reduced to 60 from 67. The challenges facing the country today are so substantial that further delay imperils the Republic and warrants another reduction in the supermajority requirement.
Of course, the genesis of a good portion of the gridlock in Congress does not reside in Congress itself. Ultimate reform will require each of us, as voters and Americans, to take a long look in the mirror, because in many ways, our representatives in Washington reflect the people who have sent them there.
The most ideologically devoted elements in both parties must accept that not every compromise is a sign of betrayal or an indication of moral lassitude. When too many of our citizens take an all-or-nothing approach, we should not be surprised when nothing is the result.
Our most strident partisans must learn to occasionally sacrifice short-term tactical political advantage for the sake of the nation. Otherwise, Congress will remain stuck in an endless cycle of recrimination and revenge. The minority seeks to frustrate the majority, and when the majority is displaced it returns the favor. Power is constantly sought through the use of means which render its effective use, once acquired, impossible.
What is required from members of Congress and the public alike is a new spirit of devotion to the national welfare beyond party or self-interest. In a time of national peril, with our problems compounding, we must remember that more unites us as Americans than divides us.
Meeting America’s profound challenges and reforming Congress will not be easy. Old habits die hard. Special interests are entrenched. Still, my optimism as I serve out the remainder of my final term in the Senate is undiminished. With the right reforms, members of Congress can once again embody our best selves and our highest aspirations.
In my final 11 months, I will advocate for the reforms that will help Congress function as it once did, so that our generation can do what Americans have always done: convey to our children, and our children’s children, an America that is stronger, more prosperous, more decent and more just.
Evan Bayh, the governor of Indiana from 1989 to 1996 and a senator since 1999, announced his retirement from the Senate last week.
Op-Ed Contributor
Why I’m Leaving the Senate
By EVAN BAYH
BASEBALL may be our national pastime, but the age-old tradition of taking a swing at Congress is a sport with even deeper historical roots in the American experience. Since the founding of our country, citizens from Ben Franklin to David Letterman have made fun of their elected officials. Milton Berle famously joked: “You can lead a man to Congress, but you can’t make him think.” These days, though, the institutional inertia gripping Congress is no laughing matter.
Challenges of historic import threaten America’s future. Action on the deficit, economy, energy, health care and much more is imperative, yet our legislative institutions fail to act. Congress must be reformed.
There are many causes for the dysfunction: strident partisanship, unyielding ideology, a corrosive system of campaign financing, gerrymandering of House districts, endless filibusters, holds on executive appointees in the Senate, dwindling social interaction between senators of opposing parties and a caucus system that promotes party unity at the expense of bipartisan consensus.
Many good people serve in Congress. They are patriotic, hard-working and devoted to the public good as they see it, but the institutional and cultural impediments to change frustrate the intentions of these well-meaning people as rarely before. It was not always thus.
While romanticizing the Senate of yore would be a mistake, it was certainly better in my father’s time. My father, Birch Bayh, represented Indiana in the Senate from 1963 to 1981. A progressive, he nonetheless enjoyed many friendships with moderate Republicans and Southern Democrats.
One incident from his career vividly demonstrates how times have changed. In 1968, when my father was running for re-election, Everett Dirksen, the Republican leader, approached him on the Senate floor, put his arm around my dad’s shoulder, and asked what he could do to help. This is unimaginable today.
When I was a boy, members of Congress from both parties, along with their families, would routinely visit our home for dinner or the holidays. This type of social interaction hardly ever happens today and we are the poorer for it. It is much harder to demonize someone when you know his family or have visited his home. Today, members routinely campaign against each other, raise donations against each other and force votes on trivial amendments written solely to provide fodder for the next negative attack ad. It’s difficult to work with members actively plotting your demise.
Any improvement must begin by changing the personal chemistry among senators. More interaction in a non-adversarial atmosphere would help.
I’m beginning my 12th year in the Senate and only twice have all the senators gathered for something other than purely ceremonial occasions. The first was during my initial week in office. President Bill Clinton had been impeached and the Senate had to conduct his trial. This hadn’t happened since 1868, and there were no rules in place for conducting the proceedings.
All of us gathered in the Old Senate Chamber. For several hours we debated how to proceed. Finally, Ted Kennedy and Phil Gramm, ideological opposites, were given the task of forging a compromise. They did, and it was unanimously ratified.
The second occasion was just days after Sept. 11. Every senator who could make it to Washington gathered in the Senate dining room to discuss the American response. The nation had been attacked. The building in which we sat had been among the targets, and only the heroism of the passengers prevented the plane from reaching its destination. We had to respond to protect the country. There were no Republicans or Democrats in the room that day, just Americans. The spirit of patriotism and togetherness was palpable. That atmosphere prevailed for only two or three weeks before politics once again intervened.
It shouldn’t take a constitutional crisis or an attack on the nation to create honest dialogue in the Senate. Let’s start with a simple proposal: why not have a monthly lunch of all 100 senators? Every week, the parties already meet for a caucus lunch. Democrats gather in one room, Republicans in another, and no bipartisan interaction takes place. With a monthly lunch of all senators, we could pick a topic and have each side make a brief presentation followed by questions and answers. Listening to one another, absent the posturing and public talking points, could only promote greater understanding, which is necessary to real progress.
Perhaps from this starting point, we can move onto more intractable problems, like the current campaign finance system that has such a corrosive effect on Congress. In the Senate, raising in small increments the $10 million to $20 million a competitive race requires takes huge amounts of time that could otherwise be spent talking with constituents, legislating or becoming well-versed on public policy. In my father’s time there was a saying: “A senator legislates for four years and campaigns for two.” Because of the incessant need to raise campaign cash, we now have perpetual campaigns. If fund-raising is constantly on members’ minds, it’s difficult for policy compromise to trump political calculation.
The recent Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, allowing corporations and unions to spend freely on ads explicitly supporting or opposing political candidates, will worsen matters. The threat of unlimited amounts of negative advertising from special interest groups will only make members more beholden to their natural constituencies and more afraid of violating party orthodoxies.
I can easily imagine vulnerable members approaching a corporation or union for support and being told: “We’d love to support you, but we have a rule. We only support candidates who are with us at least 90 percent of the time. Here is our questionnaire with our top 10 concerns. Fill it out.” Millions of campaign dollars now ride on the member’s response. The cause of good government is not served.
What to do? While fundamental campaign finance reform may ultimately require a constitutional amendment, there are less drastic steps we can take to curb the distorting influence of money in politics. Congress should consider ways to lessen the impact of the Citizens United decision through legislation to enhance disclosure requirements, require corporate donors to appear in the political ads they finance and prohibit government contractors or bailout beneficiaries from spending money on political campaigns.
Congress and state legislators should also consider incentives, including public matching funds for smaller contributions, to expand democratic participation and increase the influence of small donors relative to corporations and other special interests.
In addition, the Senate should reform a practice increasingly abused by both parties, the filibuster. Historically, the filibuster was employed to ensure that momentous issues receive a full and fair hearing. Instead, it has come to serve the exact opposite purpose — to prevent the Senate from even conducting routine business.
Last fall, the Senate had to overcome two successive filibusters to pass a bill to provide millions of Americans with extended unemployment insurance. There was no opposition to the bill; it passed on a 98-0 vote. But some senators saw political advantage in drawing out debate, thus preventing the Senate from addressing other pressing matters.
Admittedly, I have participated in filibusters. If not abused, the filibuster can foster consensus-building. The minority has a right to voice legitimate concerns, but it must not employ this tactic to prevent progress on everything at a critical juncture for our country. We need to reduce the power of the minority to frustrate progress while still affording them some say.
Filibusters have proliferated because under current rules just one or two determined senators can stop the Senate from functioning. Today, the mere threat of a filibuster is enough to stop a vote; senators are rarely asked to pull all-nighters like Jimmy Stewart in “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.”
For this reason, filibusters should require 35 senators to sign a public petition and make a commitment to continually debate an issue in reality, not just in theory. Those who obstruct the Senate should pay a price in public notoriety and physical exhaustion. That would lead to a significant decline in frivolous filibusters.
Filibusters should also be limited to no more than one for any piece of legislation. Currently, the decision to begin debate on a bill can be filibustered, followed by another filibuster on each amendment, followed by yet another filibuster before a final vote. This leads to multiple legislative delays and effectively grinds the Senate to a halt.
What’s more, the number of votes needed to overcome a filibuster should be reduced to 55 from 60. During my father’s era, filibusters were commonly used to block civil rights legislation and, in 1975, the requisite number of votes was reduced to 60 from 67. The challenges facing the country today are so substantial that further delay imperils the Republic and warrants another reduction in the supermajority requirement.
Of course, the genesis of a good portion of the gridlock in Congress does not reside in Congress itself. Ultimate reform will require each of us, as voters and Americans, to take a long look in the mirror, because in many ways, our representatives in Washington reflect the people who have sent them there.
The most ideologically devoted elements in both parties must accept that not every compromise is a sign of betrayal or an indication of moral lassitude. When too many of our citizens take an all-or-nothing approach, we should not be surprised when nothing is the result.
Our most strident partisans must learn to occasionally sacrifice short-term tactical political advantage for the sake of the nation. Otherwise, Congress will remain stuck in an endless cycle of recrimination and revenge. The minority seeks to frustrate the majority, and when the majority is displaced it returns the favor. Power is constantly sought through the use of means which render its effective use, once acquired, impossible.
What is required from members of Congress and the public alike is a new spirit of devotion to the national welfare beyond party or self-interest. In a time of national peril, with our problems compounding, we must remember that more unites us as Americans than divides us.
Meeting America’s profound challenges and reforming Congress will not be easy. Old habits die hard. Special interests are entrenched. Still, my optimism as I serve out the remainder of my final term in the Senate is undiminished. With the right reforms, members of Congress can once again embody our best selves and our highest aspirations.
In my final 11 months, I will advocate for the reforms that will help Congress function as it once did, so that our generation can do what Americans have always done: convey to our children, and our children’s children, an America that is stronger, more prosperous, more decent and more just.
Evan Bayh, the governor of Indiana from 1989 to 1996 and a senator since 1999, announced his retirement from the Senate last week.
2.20.2010
2.19.2010
2.15.2010
Media Adoption Wave: Mobile phones
Finally!
We've reached the point in mobile phone adoption and usage behaviors that competing firms are now finding it to be more beneficial to each/all of them to coordinate.
Impressive, considering it took like 50 years for that to happen with the telephone.
We've reached the point in mobile phone adoption and usage behaviors that competing firms are now finding it to be more beneficial to each/all of them to coordinate.
Impressive, considering it took like 50 years for that to happen with the telephone.
Smart advertising
It's satisfying to see something done smart and well at the same time:
[from the ubiquitous Failblog]
[from the ubiquitous Failblog]
2.11.2010
Value
"Value is the most important word to understand in its economic and noneconomic contexts. The word is derived from the Latin valere, meaning "to be strong or worthy." The Oxford English Dictionary now lists its principle meaning in purely economic terms: "that amount of some commodity, medium of exchange, etc., which is considered to be a equivalent for something else; a fair or adequate equivalent or return.""
[One woman's reckoning]
I know what is "strong or worthy" in my life...
Do you?
[One woman's reckoning]
I know what is "strong or worthy" in my life...
Do you?
2.09.2010
If Women Counted
Almost a generation ago now, feminism was not a dirty word as it is today, but a threat: and not a threat to men or to women, but a threat to the status quo.
And since that time it has been buried under the same hyperbole that has buried civil rights movements (same-sex marriage, anyone?), environmental responsibility (now it's "energy policy" and "national security"), and government regulations (the Reds are coming, the Reds are coming!).
But in 1988, Marilyn Waring turned a revelation - economics, that stately and most mature of "sciences" was only seeing half the glass - into a book, stating her case for the logical conclusion: include the feminine half of humanity in your world-view, and you get the whole picture.
In her words: "If Women Counted is not preoccupied with debating economics with men. If my desire was to establish my own credibility within the male world, then I would make those ritual bows. But while women may not be visible to the governing ideology of the world, I do not see why we need to mimic its standards or methods to make ourselves understood or heard."
[Suck on that tit!]
The totally unimpressive, yet totally legendary Marilyn.
[That's right, girl, give us your best "Who, me?!"]
And since that time it has been buried under the same hyperbole that has buried civil rights movements (same-sex marriage, anyone?), environmental responsibility (now it's "energy policy" and "national security"), and government regulations (the Reds are coming, the Reds are coming!).
But in 1988, Marilyn Waring turned a revelation - economics, that stately and most mature of "sciences" was only seeing half the glass - into a book, stating her case for the logical conclusion: include the feminine half of humanity in your world-view, and you get the whole picture.
In her words: "If Women Counted is not preoccupied with debating economics with men. If my desire was to establish my own credibility within the male world, then I would make those ritual bows. But while women may not be visible to the governing ideology of the world, I do not see why we need to mimic its standards or methods to make ourselves understood or heard."
[Suck on that tit!]
The totally unimpressive, yet totally legendary Marilyn.
[That's right, girl, give us your best "Who, me?!"]
2.07.2010
I learned a new word: perspicuous
Perspicuous: (adj) 1. Clearly expressed or presented; lucid.
From "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations", Adam Smith
"The word VALUE, it is to be observed, has two different meanings, and
sometimes expresses the utility of some particular object, and sometimes
the power of purchasing other goods which the possession of that object
conveys. The one may be called 'value in use;' the other, 'value
in exchange.' The things which have the greatest value in use have
frequently little or no value in exchange; and, on the contrary, those
which have the greatest value in exchange have frequently little or no
value in use. Nothing is more useful than water; but it will purchase
scarce any thing; scarce any thing can be had in exchange for it. A
diamond, on the contrary, has scarce any value in use; but a very great
quantity of other goods may frequently be had in exchange for it.
In order to investigate the principles which regulate the exchangeable
value of commodities, I shall endeavour to shew,
First, what is the real measure of this exchangeable value; or wherein
consists the real price of all commodities.
Secondly, what are the different parts of which this real price is
composed or made up.
And, lastly, what are the different circumstances which sometimes raise
some or all of these different parts of price above, and sometimes sink
them below, their natural or ordinary rate; or, what are the causes
which sometimes hinder the market price, that is, the actual price
of commodities, from coinciding exactly with what may be called their
natural price.
I shall endeavour to explain, as fully and distinctly as I can, those
three subjects in the three following chapters, for which I must very
earnestly entreat both the patience and attention of the reader: his
patience, in order to examine a detail which may, perhaps, in some
places, appear unnecessarily tedious; and his attention, in order to
understand what may perhaps, after the fullest explication which I am
capable of giving it, appear still in some degree obscure. I am always
willing to run some hazard of being tedious, in order to be sure that
I am perspicuous; and, after taking the utmost pains that I can to be
perspicuous, some obscurity may still appear to remain upon a subject,
in its own nature extremely abstracted."
From "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations", Adam Smith
"The word VALUE, it is to be observed, has two different meanings, and
sometimes expresses the utility of some particular object, and sometimes
the power of purchasing other goods which the possession of that object
conveys. The one may be called 'value in use;' the other, 'value
in exchange.' The things which have the greatest value in use have
frequently little or no value in exchange; and, on the contrary, those
which have the greatest value in exchange have frequently little or no
value in use. Nothing is more useful than water; but it will purchase
scarce any thing; scarce any thing can be had in exchange for it. A
diamond, on the contrary, has scarce any value in use; but a very great
quantity of other goods may frequently be had in exchange for it.
In order to investigate the principles which regulate the exchangeable
value of commodities, I shall endeavour to shew,
First, what is the real measure of this exchangeable value; or wherein
consists the real price of all commodities.
Secondly, what are the different parts of which this real price is
composed or made up.
And, lastly, what are the different circumstances which sometimes raise
some or all of these different parts of price above, and sometimes sink
them below, their natural or ordinary rate; or, what are the causes
which sometimes hinder the market price, that is, the actual price
of commodities, from coinciding exactly with what may be called their
natural price.
I shall endeavour to explain, as fully and distinctly as I can, those
three subjects in the three following chapters, for which I must very
earnestly entreat both the patience and attention of the reader: his
patience, in order to examine a detail which may, perhaps, in some
places, appear unnecessarily tedious; and his attention, in order to
understand what may perhaps, after the fullest explication which I am
capable of giving it, appear still in some degree obscure. I am always
willing to run some hazard of being tedious, in order to be sure that
I am perspicuous; and, after taking the utmost pains that I can to be
perspicuous, some obscurity may still appear to remain upon a subject,
in its own nature extremely abstracted."
2.05.2010
Priority One: Planet
James Hansen is the kind of scientist you just have to believe. He's everywhere (head of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, professor at Columbia's Earth Institute, etc) and he's passionate - which really helps us regular people understand (read: give a shit about) what he's demanding.
Basically, we're fucked.
The climate is changing beyond any natural phenomena, deforestation is exacerbating already massive industrial carbon emissions, poverty and urbanization are making populations harder to feed and placing more people in danger when the storms that will result from these changes do take place (see: Port-au-Prince, New Orleans).
And here's the scary part: we KNOW, and we aren't doing anything about it!
And this is the part I find extremely reassuring. At our base, we human animals are incapable of dealing with problems like this. We've lost the ability to act collectively - if we could have ever had it with a global population of this size - and because of that, we are continuing on our merry way, just like all the other animals.
And fear her hand though we may, Nature has got this under control. How does SHE solve this problem...death! And lots of it. Want to bring the planet back in balance, kill off the species that's causing the problem.
We see this happening in animal populations all the time: got an oversupply of lions? No problem. They'll eat their way through the springboks in a season and then all next year's cubs will die of starvation. Problem solved.
But we should really be embarrassed. Too many lions doesn't undermine the delicate balance of the entire planet. Lions don't rape and pillage the natural environment for every living thing - they stick to their natural prey and so the problem and its' solution are both smaller in scope...so much so that rarely is an ecosystem hanging in the balance. But we've managed to endanger ourselves for generations - maybe for the survival of the species - and it will take thousands, maybe even millions of years for Nature to recover.
Then again, maybe by then we'll remember our place in the food chain and act accordingly.
Basically, we're fucked.
The climate is changing beyond any natural phenomena, deforestation is exacerbating already massive industrial carbon emissions, poverty and urbanization are making populations harder to feed and placing more people in danger when the storms that will result from these changes do take place (see: Port-au-Prince, New Orleans).
And here's the scary part: we KNOW, and we aren't doing anything about it!
And this is the part I find extremely reassuring. At our base, we human animals are incapable of dealing with problems like this. We've lost the ability to act collectively - if we could have ever had it with a global population of this size - and because of that, we are continuing on our merry way, just like all the other animals.
And fear her hand though we may, Nature has got this under control. How does SHE solve this problem...death! And lots of it. Want to bring the planet back in balance, kill off the species that's causing the problem.
We see this happening in animal populations all the time: got an oversupply of lions? No problem. They'll eat their way through the springboks in a season and then all next year's cubs will die of starvation. Problem solved.
But we should really be embarrassed. Too many lions doesn't undermine the delicate balance of the entire planet. Lions don't rape and pillage the natural environment for every living thing - they stick to their natural prey and so the problem and its' solution are both smaller in scope...so much so that rarely is an ecosystem hanging in the balance. But we've managed to endanger ourselves for generations - maybe for the survival of the species - and it will take thousands, maybe even millions of years for Nature to recover.
Then again, maybe by then we'll remember our place in the food chain and act accordingly.
2.04.2010
Love poem to capitalism
From The New Yorker, January 10, 2010:
Shopping for Pomegranates at Wal-Mart on New Year's Day
by Campbell McGrath
"
Beneath a ten-foot-tall apparition of Frosty the Snowman
with his corncob pipe and jovial, over-eager, button-black eyes,
holding, in my palm, the leathery, wine-colored purse
of a pomegranate, I realize, yet again, that America is a country
about which I understand everything and nothing at all,
that this is life, this ungovernable air
in which the trees rearrange their branches, season after season,
never certain which configuration will bear the optimal yield
of sunlight and water, the enabling balm of nutrients,
that so, too, do Wal-Mart’s ferocious sales managers
relentlessly analyze their end-cap placement, product mix,
and shopper demographics, that this is the culture
in all its earnestness and absurdity, that it never rests,
that each day is an eternity and every night is New Year’s Eve,
a cavalcade of B-list has-beens entirely unknown to me,
needy comedians and country singers in handsome Stetsons,
sitcom stars of every social trope and ethnic denomination,
pugilists and oligarchs, femmes fatales and anointed virgins
throat-slit in offering to the cannibal throng of Times Square.
Who are these people? I grow old. I lie unsleeping
as confetti falls, ash-girdled, robed in sweat and melancholy,
click-shifting from QVC to reality TV, strings of commercials
for breath freshener, debt reconsolidation, a new car
lacking any whisper of style or grace, like a final fetid gasp
from the lips of a dying Henry Ford, potato-faced actors
impersonating real people with real opinions
offered forth with idiot grins in the yellow, herniated studio light,
actual human beings, actual souls bought too cheaply.
That it never ends, O Lord, that it never ends!
That it is relentless, remorseless, and it is on right now.
That one sees it and sees it but sometimes it sees you, too,
cowering in a corner, transfixed by the crawler for the storm alert,
home videos of faces left dazed by the twister, the car bomb,
the war always beginning or already begun, always
the special report, the inside scoop, the hidden camera
revealing the mechanical lives of the sad, inarticulate people
we have come to know as “celebrities.”
Who assigns such value, who chose these craven avatars
if not the miraculous hand of the marketplace,
whose torn cuticles and gaudily painted fingernails resemble nothing
so much as our own? Where does the oracle reveal our truths
more vividly than upon that pixillated spirit glass
unless it is here, in this tabernacle of homely merchandise,
a Copernican model of a money-driven universe
revolving around its golden omphalos, each of us summed
and subtotalled, integers in an equation of need and consumption,
desire and consummation, because Hollywood had it right all along,
the years are a montage of calendar pages and autumn leaves,
sheet music for a nostalgic symphony of which our lives comprise
but single trumpet blasts, single notes in the hullabaloo,
or even less—we are but motes of dust in that atmosphere
shaken by the vibrations of time’s imperious crescendo.
That it never ends, O Lord. That it goes on,
without pause or cessation, without pity or remorse.
That we have willed it into existence, dreamed it into being.
That it is our divine monster, our factotum, our scourge.
That I can imagine nothing more beautiful
than to propitiate such a god upon the seeds of my own heart.
Shopping for Pomegranates at Wal-Mart on New Year's Day
by Campbell McGrath
"
Beneath a ten-foot-tall apparition of Frosty the Snowman
with his corncob pipe and jovial, over-eager, button-black eyes,
holding, in my palm, the leathery, wine-colored purse
of a pomegranate, I realize, yet again, that America is a country
about which I understand everything and nothing at all,
that this is life, this ungovernable air
in which the trees rearrange their branches, season after season,
never certain which configuration will bear the optimal yield
of sunlight and water, the enabling balm of nutrients,
that so, too, do Wal-Mart’s ferocious sales managers
relentlessly analyze their end-cap placement, product mix,
and shopper demographics, that this is the culture
in all its earnestness and absurdity, that it never rests,
that each day is an eternity and every night is New Year’s Eve,
a cavalcade of B-list has-beens entirely unknown to me,
needy comedians and country singers in handsome Stetsons,
sitcom stars of every social trope and ethnic denomination,
pugilists and oligarchs, femmes fatales and anointed virgins
throat-slit in offering to the cannibal throng of Times Square.
Who are these people? I grow old. I lie unsleeping
as confetti falls, ash-girdled, robed in sweat and melancholy,
click-shifting from QVC to reality TV, strings of commercials
for breath freshener, debt reconsolidation, a new car
lacking any whisper of style or grace, like a final fetid gasp
from the lips of a dying Henry Ford, potato-faced actors
impersonating real people with real opinions
offered forth with idiot grins in the yellow, herniated studio light,
actual human beings, actual souls bought too cheaply.
That it never ends, O Lord, that it never ends!
That it is relentless, remorseless, and it is on right now.
That one sees it and sees it but sometimes it sees you, too,
cowering in a corner, transfixed by the crawler for the storm alert,
home videos of faces left dazed by the twister, the car bomb,
the war always beginning or already begun, always
the special report, the inside scoop, the hidden camera
revealing the mechanical lives of the sad, inarticulate people
we have come to know as “celebrities.”
Who assigns such value, who chose these craven avatars
if not the miraculous hand of the marketplace,
whose torn cuticles and gaudily painted fingernails resemble nothing
so much as our own? Where does the oracle reveal our truths
more vividly than upon that pixillated spirit glass
unless it is here, in this tabernacle of homely merchandise,
a Copernican model of a money-driven universe
revolving around its golden omphalos, each of us summed
and subtotalled, integers in an equation of need and consumption,
desire and consummation, because Hollywood had it right all along,
the years are a montage of calendar pages and autumn leaves,
sheet music for a nostalgic symphony of which our lives comprise
but single trumpet blasts, single notes in the hullabaloo,
or even less—we are but motes of dust in that atmosphere
shaken by the vibrations of time’s imperious crescendo.
That it never ends, O Lord. That it goes on,
without pause or cessation, without pity or remorse.
That we have willed it into existence, dreamed it into being.
That it is our divine monster, our factotum, our scourge.
That I can imagine nothing more beautiful
than to propitiate such a god upon the seeds of my own heart.
2.03.2010
Misreading the signs of the past
Here's what I love about science: they're always finding out new things.
Here's what I hate about science: their interpretations suffer from the same prejudices that have restricted our cultural progression for too long.
I'm speaking, of course, of the constant (and seemingly irrevocable) desire to see women as the inferior gender. And by inferior I mean, less innovative, less powerful, less provocative, less organized, less productive, and of course, less valuable.
Here we see it yet again: An article and story from NPR entitled "For Cave Women, Farmers Had Extra Sex Appeal" claims that when men developed the revolutionary technology of farming (and the tools to go with it), the women of their time welcomed them "with open arms".
While the science is good, and the trends they've observed most definitely rational and most certainly accurate, their reading of these circumstances is frighteningly biased.
According to this interpretation, it was - of course - the men who invented the technology and were responsible for its' adoption across what is now the Middle East and Europe.
But I would make another argument. Since it was women who were primarily responsible for food gathering and what little cultivation could be accomplished without a methodical technique, AND it was also women who were more likely to need a permanent location, AND it was also women whose children would stay in that place learning and implementing new technologies and techniques, it makes MUCH more sense that it was the women who were responsible for the spread - and more importantly, the widespread adoption - of this technology. And, while adopting the tools and learning the techniques the men (raised in the farming tradition by their mothers) brought with them, they probably wanted to get a little action (since, presumably, all the local men were off hunting).
But of course, that doesn't make good sense, because we women just sit around doing what the men tell us to do, hoping that one of them will honor us with the passing of a sperm or two, praying to our (male) deity that we might just be lucky enough to provide a fertile home for that divine piece of man-seed.
HA
Here's what I hate about science: their interpretations suffer from the same prejudices that have restricted our cultural progression for too long.
I'm speaking, of course, of the constant (and seemingly irrevocable) desire to see women as the inferior gender. And by inferior I mean, less innovative, less powerful, less provocative, less organized, less productive, and of course, less valuable.
Here we see it yet again: An article and story from NPR entitled "For Cave Women, Farmers Had Extra Sex Appeal" claims that when men developed the revolutionary technology of farming (and the tools to go with it), the women of their time welcomed them "with open arms".
While the science is good, and the trends they've observed most definitely rational and most certainly accurate, their reading of these circumstances is frighteningly biased.
According to this interpretation, it was - of course - the men who invented the technology and were responsible for its' adoption across what is now the Middle East and Europe.
But I would make another argument. Since it was women who were primarily responsible for food gathering and what little cultivation could be accomplished without a methodical technique, AND it was also women who were more likely to need a permanent location, AND it was also women whose children would stay in that place learning and implementing new technologies and techniques, it makes MUCH more sense that it was the women who were responsible for the spread - and more importantly, the widespread adoption - of this technology. And, while adopting the tools and learning the techniques the men (raised in the farming tradition by their mothers) brought with them, they probably wanted to get a little action (since, presumably, all the local men were off hunting).
But of course, that doesn't make good sense, because we women just sit around doing what the men tell us to do, hoping that one of them will honor us with the passing of a sperm or two, praying to our (male) deity that we might just be lucky enough to provide a fertile home for that divine piece of man-seed.
HA
Media models get a clue...perhaps
Let's hope that the study of media is slower than the people working behind the scenes, because if it isn't obvious by now, hybrid business models are going to spank you some time soon.
As we've seen over the past few years, the convergence of content and the concurrent usage of media consumers mean only one thing: the more ways you can make a little money, the more ways you'll survive the decline in traditional media models.
And it's not just about opening more content, or putting advertising on the web. If we look at the trends in industry and regulation from the history of media proliferation, we can see that DELIVERY is not the way to make money. And that means that eventually subsidies and smart infrastructure investment will have to take over the management of the wired and wireless networks.
And that means that the companies that rely on hoarding access will eventually become content providers, regulated monopolies, or extinct.
As we've seen over the past few years, the convergence of content and the concurrent usage of media consumers mean only one thing: the more ways you can make a little money, the more ways you'll survive the decline in traditional media models.
And it's not just about opening more content, or putting advertising on the web. If we look at the trends in industry and regulation from the history of media proliferation, we can see that DELIVERY is not the way to make money. And that means that eventually subsidies and smart infrastructure investment will have to take over the management of the wired and wireless networks.
And that means that the companies that rely on hoarding access will eventually become content providers, regulated monopolies, or extinct.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)