Artificial Intelligence, All the Time?

A Conspiracy Theory

So what are Elon & Co. doing with all that data?   One thing I'm pretty sure of, and one I suspect. The first is using the data to train AI machines to do as much of the work as possible. That work done by humans, and that which occurs more automatically, but is supervised by humans.   He can't get rid of it all, despite trying real hard (!), but he could potentially get something like the classic 80/20 result, with 80% of many departments reassigned (to a bot). If he wires the data up properly, he could even run his machine learning programs on the data without even having to swipe it all, in which case it's legal. Then someone else can figure out the rest, and he can go back to playing rocket ships.

The basic thinking is that if the civil servant gets this particular function right 95% of the time, the AI machine can get it 98%.  That will apply to some functions, without a doubt.  The 2% of what remains of that function, you can get the remains of the civil service corps to work on.  It all sounds awful, and it is, but that's the logic. 

That second thing, though, my conjecture, is that he wants the data, for commercial purposes (100% illegal), but that he will disguise that when (not if) he downloads the data.  He will have to separate name from social, at a minimum, with the data attached to one or the other but not both.  The data mining itself and the machine learning do not need the name, and the social is of limited predictive value (though there is some intelligence in it). 

This is the tricky part:  the data can be made available more broadly, within the government or beyond, in this separated way--the user would have to use inference to make full use of it.  There could be an encrypted key to put the two together, or a series of them, and the US Government would have the exclusive access to this key stuff. 

 Except for the backdoors his coders put in to control the flow of money. And the copies he's made on the sly.

The New Era

It is incontrovertible that we have moved on from what history will eventually know as the Postwar Era.  We have reached the point by which many people might have no idea which "War" that phrase describes; a vanishing few have live memories of World War II; a few more recall the devastation out of which this period emerged.  The period we finished had two principal parts:  the Cold War, and the one which followed.  That one is over, but it doesn't really have a name yet, as it's too soon.  I would say--sincerely-- it was the Golden Age of the US, which would not please our current Presidential officeholder to hear, the next one being the Age of Golden Showers?

Now, though, the US wants to be just one among many--globally, and arguably, even in our half of the populated world, America (the Western Hemisphere).  Brazil, Mexico, Canada, the more successful parts of Central America and the Caribbean--they won't allow themselves to be dominated by the Monroe Doctrine, no more. In the Pacific, we strain to maintain; in Africa, the fastest-growing continent in population, we are losing the game fast.  

Culturally, too, we are entering a different direction than that which has been predominant.  The five nations which "won the war" and together formed the United Nations, giving themselves veto powers--the US, UK, France, Soviet Union (given to Russia), and China--have been among a handful of nations which have hosted international development--above all, in military might, but also in music, visual arts, and above all, rapid changes in technology.  Social development has been mostly continuous and slow --there have been real improvements in women's rights, in combating racial inequity in some nations, in feeding the world--but international political progress from the original UN Charter has been halting and is now being abandoned.  The clearest examples are global efforts to slow climate change or limit nuclear weapons.  Liberal democratic and social democratic values rise and fall in the esteem of the people, who are guided by the simple, sound principle that they would rather have their nations--always nations!--do what most want, rather than not (the way of kings and dictators who do what they want). Now, so many are feeling that they are not getting it. 

Nevertheless, so far, resistance in the 21st century has been reactive, generally nonviolent.  We don't see much new coming forward, politically.  Now come the destructive technology masters, culturally everywhere and now politically coming to dominate the US Federal government:  they are promising something new, in effect. 

We just need to cede.  

If only humans would give up this silly notion that they need to control things, we could operate much more efficiently!!  A good example is the driverless car situation, currently stalled.  There is a tipping point, I would guess it's about 75%, when the driverless cars will be able to stop worrying so much about the crazy things people-driven cars do and can just send signals back and forth from the vehicles on the net and things will work much better.  The cars will go much more efficiently and faster, without errors (except the occasional hallucination, I guess, but we're working on that!)--The tech bros.  

It is already a fact that first point of contact for consumers is going to be a chatbot, in most cases.  Voice response, sure, but the real question is whether you can get to a human and what you have to do to get to it.  I don't see that changing anytime soon, though the battlelines will shift back and forth at any particular entity, along with the location housing the humans or machines, and based on the needs of the shareholder, whoever that might be.  

So, that's when you're reaching out to them.  There's also the other side, though:  we call it marketing. What ad you're going to see when, what video or sound is in it when you get it, what email, what response to your polite inquiry.  

My request for legislation is a simple one:  in those cases, when what you are being presented is pure AI, there needs to be a bug that you can click that will tell you so--also what program or series of programs is being used, and that's that.  Or, if it is AI but there is a human behind it who has specifically approved or edited it, then that person is not wholly anonymous but can be accountable in some sense.  That's all I ask; then the consumer can judge the content knowing its provenance. 

 

Part III: Domestic

 

 Fraud

 In my opinion, it is the greatest current threat to (American) quality of life, and I write it in when I am polled for my opinion of the most salient issue.  

The icon of fraud is Donald Trump, who is fraudulent in most any way that can be described.  Liar, con man,pretender, and falsifier of documents, tax returns, charitable contributions--can't think of more offhand, but I would add his relations with his wives, ex-wives, and sexual targets.

I can't blame it all on him, but there are frauds arising in all sorts of activity, new ones all the time.  The most outrageous one I heard about recently regards the new credit card initiative for "Tap and Pay" on their cards.  I was opposed to that already--it's too easy to buy things, why make it more easy and less controlled?  So, the way this works is some fraudster approaches, too close, to your wallet with your Tap and Pay card; they have a POS device (Point of Sale, not the other meaning) concealed in their coat pocket, and they activate it against your nearby card.  Not for big purchases, there's a max, without PIN or signature of $50 or less, but they could do it against multiple cards, and you wouldn't even know it happened. 

A few years ago, the hottest fraud play, producing billions of ill-gotten gains a year, involved the creation of fake identities, carefully built with real credit bureau records.   The attack involved taking several loans or balance transfers, then suddenly disappearing without a trace.   Nowadays, what I see, apart from the obvious and frequent spam attacks, are clever imitations of the real relationships people have which are used to elicit voluntary payment or authorizations.  The Nigerian scam 2.0. 

These threats are the reason why you have to get a second verification after you put in your PIN or password, every time you use a new device, or the same device from a new location.  They are driving restraint of legitimate activity. Financial institutions cooperate in tracking down and fighting fraudsters, but it isn't enough.  It is one area where national interests coincide globally and government agencies need to expend real effort. 

Trial and Election Update

Speaking of defrauding the public, how about that Truth Social IPO?  Totally legal theft from the easily gulled. Big meme, not funny.  All to finance the continuation of the con in Trump's courtroom struggles. People focus on the delays, which are many, but Trump continues to lose. He still has a chance to win big, if he can somehow convince enough voters in the swing states to bring it home, though time does not appear to be on his side for that outcome.  

Of the different scenarios discussed previously, I'd rate the probabilities as follows:  Status Quo 50%, Trump Collapse 30%, Chaos 10%, Biden Weakened 5%, and all the Trump/Biden Out combinations 5%. 

Briefly,  if I didn't know that Trump realizes he is doomed if he loses the election, I would say that he is defying his very astute advisers and trying to lose it, with some of the things he's said.  I'd like to get the odds on exile for the would-be Once and Future King, as that's where I think it will go in the end, if he should live so long. 

I don't blame him for falling asleep during the voir dire of jury selection.  Having been on a couple of panels (and juries) myself, it is the most boring thing, though very important for the lawyers for both sides to pay close attention. 

Speaking of trials not happening (the other three), how about the "solemn consideration" Sen. McConnell wished for the Mayorkas impeachment.  After due consideration, it was rejected, accurately, as a "piece of crap" by some unnamed Democratic Congressperson.  Not just any piece, though:  a particular stinky piece of textual diarrhea.  There was a point, though:  the intention is to devalue the impeachments of Trump during his administration.  It didn't work, though. 

Covid

 Remember that?  It shouldn't be too hard, as it's still around.  Some folks seem to have nostalgic amnesia about the 2020 debacle presided over by our 45th, and disgraced, former President. 

Finally

 A bit over the top, some lyrics to a song by a beautiful, mournful group called Low (also covered by Robert Plant).  I dedicate them (with a change in the pronoun following The Great Destroyer), to Joseph Biden.  RIP, Mimi Parker!

At times I see you
You silver rider
Sometimes your voice is not enough

Your face in windows
Outside forever
Nobody dreamed you'd save the world
Nobody dreamed you'd save the world

La la la la etc

The march is over
The great destroyer
he passes through you like a knife

Oh take me with you
You silver rider
Sometimes you voice is not enough
Sometimes your voice is not enough

I should explain briefly this oblique reference.  Joe Biden is an unlikely choice as a superhero, though his opponent fits the role of a master villain, like in Batman, Dick Tracy, or Bond.  I'd say his moniker would be Ass-Face DickHead.    Anyway, it is barely an exaggeration to say that Biden must save the world from this great destroyer.  Not just our fragile democracy, those acclaimed checks and balances, but also globally:  the danger of global conflict, the end to serious efforts to control climate change, and more. 

 

 

Status Quo Ante '24: Part 1

Having reviewed in more depth all the alternative scenarios, we now come back to the one summarizing the current reality, the Null Scenario. Biden and Trump each running to the end of the line, gaining their nominations,  and on to the general election, with neither visibly yielding from roughly a half-share of the electorate in a primarily two-man race.  Trump goes through the brutal process described in the Standard Trump Trial Outcomes, but it's not enough to drive him from the race, or even noticeably change his support level.  So, there we are then--what happens? 

In this post we go over the BFD, the Presidential race; in a subsequent one, Congress and some state and local electoral battles. 

At the strategic level, a national election is about a single, dominant issue that drives the dialogue.  Normally, in a contest between an incumbent and a challenger, it's a barometer, a measure of the satisfaction level (or the pain level, if you prefer) with the performance of the incumbent's administration.  The Republicans would like it to be just that, and have confidence that the approval levels and "right track/wrong track" seen at present will continue to be unfavorable to Biden.  

There is one big difference, though--the challenger is a former President, with therefore a huge record of statements and actions that are not easily forgotten by the electorate. Biden's strategy is to make Trump that dominant issue, and he has the enthusiastic assist from the former President himself.  Repeatedly. 

To put his tone on an elevated level, at least here at the outset, Biden seeks to make the issue of the election the Defense of Democracy.  There are three reasons why that strategy will not take hold as much as it should: 

• One is that half of the people in the US don't even know or care what the nature of our (representative) democracy is; 
• The second is that, of those who do know, many recognize primarily a lack of democratic quality in many of  our processes to elect and govern; and
• The third is that many others of us who do know about our system are sworn opponents of Biden's continued administration (or, as they might put it, "Obama/Biden's continued administration"). 

 I think it's a worthwhile message for this early stage, but a bit confusing. 

I would think that ultimately, the Democratic theme will be something along the lines of  "Is That Really Who We Are?", referring to the man who would be the symbol of our nation to the world and of this era to history, if Donald Trump were, once again, re-elected President.  

As the fictional Cmdr. Scott said on Star Trek, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." The modern-day admonition to Americans might read: "Fool us once, January 6; fool us twice, WW3". 

About Presidential Debates

I considered leaving this section blank, to indicate my expectation that there will be no general election debates between Biden and Trump, but I suppose I should explain why I think that will be the case. 

Neither Biden or Trump will want a debate before a live, impartial audience.  Trump generally does not like to perform before any audience that isn't stuffed with his fans; Biden might be willing to show, despite appearing so old and all, but not with Trump.  He has no respect for him, and might be concerned he wouldn't be able to keep his temper, or his heartrate, under control.*

There would be strong pressure, then, for some kind of meeting of the two, possibly in studio, or before a handpicked, limited audience.  Maybe better with two adjacent soundproof booths, and studio mikes and earpieces.  Zoom would not be a good idea, frankly, but could be a last resort, if there were a way to do it without granting any advantages.  That would be the sticking point of any kind of debate negotiations, which are likely to happen unless both dismiss the idea from the start.  I think they would both like to taunt the other about it, though. 

If there were just one debate, or two, it would be so superficial, with all the Trump diversions and interruptions that he could manage. There might be some interesting variances in the views of foreign affairs that are interesting but not important in many voters' choices.  And that, and a lot of Trump's whining, would be that. 

Tactics and Forecasting 

Money--First, there will be a lot of it. The spending of one side will drive the spending of the other, both in quantity and directionally.  So, keep that in mind as you contribute (see below).  

There is also a lot at stake, though, and pockets are going to have to be deep.  The electronic deluge of election requests are expanding in depth, frequency, and displacement, even at this early stage. I have a couple of consumer-friendly suggestions for those receiving election advertisements below. 

The so-called Popular Vote--That is what would decide our Presidential election, if we really wanted to have our collective preference decide both our head of state and executive head of government (probably not an altogether good idea).   It's not happening anytime soon--maybe if Texas or Florida flips. 

We tend to think of the Democrats having a built-in edge in the raw national vote total, relative to Electoral College outcomes, due to the "excess votes" in states like New York and California. This perception is what prevents popular vote deciding our election.  It's not really true; if Democrats were to abandon, for example, all serious efforts in Florida (something defensible given the failure to provide credible statewide candidates),for example,  that might throw a million or two  "excess votes" to the Republicans.  Something like that happens in those two large Democratic states, as Republicans run but are not expected to win, and have been outgunned since 2000.  Trump's fortunate 2016 found the cracks in the Democratic Electoral College wall. 

Other Issues for the Campaign: The fact of the Republican House's complete inability to legislate is one that works for partisan Democrats, but it doesn't bother Republican voters much if they are seeking less Federal government.  At this point, Independents don't seem inclined to penalize one party more than the other for this ineffectiveness.  Abortion politics were big in 2022 and largely favored Democrats, but I don't see it working at an overall level; the follow-up condition of  reproductive healthcare by state is all over the place--so its effect will be varied.  Taxes, the deficit and debt level, and defending government benefits, will come up, but they aren't going to be important in moving independents within the current static legislative environment.  The economy could be, if inflation ignites again, or a deep recession develops, but that would be more the Biden Weakened scenario than this one.  

The Big Chunks, and Getting "Granular" 

The starting point to identify the winner in a closely-contested election, Trump vs. Adversary (as in 2016, 2020) is:  Who wins Pennsylvania?  If the Democrats can hold Pennsylvania, they have a clear advantage in the drive to reach 270.   If they can't win, that means that Biden's margins in the cities of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, along with some edge in their suburbs, are not sufficient to overcome deficits in the rural and small towns in the rest of the state.  That would bode badly for the other swing states, each with its own mix of composite populations. 

Electorally, Pennsylvania is no picnic for the Democrats. It's very close, but more often the Democrats can win Pennsylvania in statewide elections, unlike, say neighboring Ohio, where the Republicans usually win, or New York, where the Democrats always do: Those states are also mixed, like PA, but not so balanced at that broad level.  Pennsylvania will have the re-election of popular Senator Bob Casey in 2024, the state government is headed by a popular governor, Josh Shapiro, and there will be other battles driving turnout there.  Biden has always claimed Pennsylvania roots, from one of those smaller cities (Scranton) that are themselves swing areas within the critical swing state. 

Pennsylvania is so important because it is the largest of the swing states, with 19 Electoral Votes.  Without it, Trump practically has to run the tossup states; with it, he only needs to split them with Biden to get into a photo-finish.  Current polling in PA (from Quinnipiac University's poll) confirms that, this far out, Biden and Trump are in a dead heat, well within the margin of error.  Self-declared independents prefer Trump by almost 10 points, and they are focused on the economy. 

The next most critical states are a threesome, all with long-term demographic trends favoring Democrats.  They are at different stages in their gradual shift over the fulcrum toward the left.  Arizona and Georgia have moved in parallel in Federal elections to elect Democratic Senators and narrowly vote Democratic in the Presidential as well (with contrary state government results), while North Carolina has remained just out of reach (except in 2008), though the state government elections show Democrats can win there. 

Democrats' Electoral College majorities before Arizona and Georgia became winnable depended on consistently winning the North Central states of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, generally by very narrow, vulnerable margins.  Michigan and Wisconsin tipped over to the Republicans in 2016; they have tipped back since, margins in the urban and suburban areas overcoming furious right-wing resistance from the states' rural areas.  Michigan should lean Democratic if the economy holds, but Wisconsin's furious struggle for partisan dominance is continuing on a number of fronts, both legal and extralegal.  Minnesota was very close in 2016, but recent elections indicate it now has a decent-sized  Democratic lean. 

The other tossup entities are not decisive in themselves but could make a difference in an extremely close outcome.  Nevada (6 Electoral Votes) is always close but has broken to the Democrats in Presidential elections; it will be a focus also due to an expected close Senate race.  Of New Hampshire (4 EV) we can say the same.  Then there are the two individual EV in Maine and Nebraska that tend to go against the statewide result, and their states uniquely allow Congressional district-level votes.  (I wanted to get New Mexico some attention through legislation following this approach, though I'm not getting any traction.) 

Getting to 270

The 2024 election will be the first with revised Electoral College numbers after the 2020 Census, changing the calculations slightly in the Republicans' direction.  Biden wins if he can get 270 or more Electoral Votes; if not, he will lose--Trump wins in the House of Representatives if no one gets to 270.  That would presumably be  due to some third-party Electoral Votes, something that hasn't happened since 1968.  Democrats start with a good lead among states considered "Safe" due to predictably large margins in the large states of California, New York, and Illinois, while the Safe states for Republican are smaller ones; they do close the gap, though, when one adds to their number their "Likely" big states--Ohio, Florida, and Texas. 

In a closely-contested Biden vs. Trump contest, I would give a slight edge to the Democrats in Pennsylvania and New Hampshire.  This would give Democrats an edge of 259-218 (review that map here), with the following ones seemingly Toss-ups at this distance:  Georgia, Arizona, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Nevada, and the two single EV of Maine and Nebraska.  In that situation, any one of the first three states I named would get the Democrats over the line, while winning just Wisconsin of those would leave them one tantalizing vote short (holding the Maine seat, winning the Nebraska one, or Nevada would then be enough). 

To summarize, Democrats have a narrow advantage, even in a close race.  As long as they win Pennsylvania. 

Consumer-Friendly Advice on Political Contributions

The 2024 election is guaranteed to be the most expensive in history; billions of dollars will be expended to try to move small numbers of people to vote, and to vote in the direction sought by the spenders.  Engaged citizens would seek to add their monetary contributions to provide more leverage to outcomes than just voting locally, but we should recognize that ours will pale in comparison to the huge sums being laid down in unlimited Political Action Committees, unless our efforts are strategically or tactically accurate. Here are a few thoughts: 

• There are only a couple dozen House seats constructed to be competitive, out of 435; the other 400+ were constructed to be anti-competitive.  Give no more than a token contribution to your local Representative, or to its challenger, if you prefer, unless yours is one of that handful. 
• The same is true of the Senate races, except for a few--we will identify both groups in a susbsequent post. 
• When they say your contribution will be matched, triple-matched, or 9-to-1 matched (I saw that on a Trump email), it's tempting to think that its effect will be magnified.  It's the opposite:  the matching money is already pledged. 
• Late-campaign contributions will be burnt on TV ads.  In this early stage, one would hope that money will go toward building an effective campaign organization at the grassroots level. Watch out, though, for appeals from campaigns that face hopeless odds, or to defeat primary opponents. 
• Finally, every mid-month or end-month there will be the appeals to meet certain targets by the campaigns' deadlines, especially the official ones for reporting contributions.  Ignore all these; campaigns' bragging about the level of donations will only stimulate their opponents to do more.  If anything, the emails after the deadlines revealing the shortfalls (there's a lot of those, too) might be more appropriate targets for consideration.  

World Cup, and Other Games Afoot

The Global Footie Floodtide

I saw, but did not read, the article in The Atlantic recommending a boycott of the Qatar World Cup in November.  With all respect to the esteemed author, I already knew the arguments, and it didn't matter.  

I'm sure most fans of the game felt the same way.  Notions that FIFA is corrupt, that the host country is undeserving, and that the host country is pushing their workers too hard against an unrealistic schedule--all of those have been raised often in past Cup experience.  FIFA, Qatar, guilty as charged, I'm sure.  As an example of excessive extravagance and waste, I cite those beautiful stadia--what good are they, now?   

I watched most of it, without guilt.  (At least the ones starting after 7 a.m. MST, which were the great majority of them.) The competition was excellent, real effort throughout.  In those rare games without two fully engaged, motivated teams the results showed. 

The tournament was full of those exciting moments with one attacker going head-to-head with the goalie.  In live play, they arose most often through the counter-attack, but also there were all those penalty kicks, both the regulation ones and then the match tiebreakers in the elimination rounds.  Not so many goals from set pieces, own goals and deflections, or ball-pressure-driven planned chaos in the goal area, this time around.  

The Cup leads uniquely to an identification of the star player with the national team and thus with the nation, and this year's tourney played that to advantage.  Number one for me was Mbappe (France), again.  It will be interesting over the longer run to see if he can challenge the late superstar Pele's three World Cup wins, having come so close to his second.   Neymar (Brazil) and Harry Kane (England) had their moments to shine before ultimate disappointment, as did personal favorite Luka Modric (Croatia).

The team that was the potential mold-breaker was Netherlands (?) Not their defeat of our Christian Pulisic (USA); that was according to form. The Dutch team's game with eventual Cup champion Leonel Messi (Argentina) in the quarterfinals was critical to the tournament, especially when Croatia upset Brazil later in that round (due to some bad luck and a hot goalie)+    The Orange's lack of a single 'shooting star' showed in that showdown, until substitute Wout Weghorst scored twice in the last 10 minutes to send the game to extra time.  Then, in the penalties, it showed when first taker was their captain, defenseman Virgil Van Dyk, who missed, en route to a penalty-kick rout.  

I do feel their day will come, maybe in 2026 if Cody Gakpo rises to become the star by then.  The youthful USMNT performed well, and if Pulisic develops better working partnerships (maybe with Aaronson?), with home-field advantage they could shoot to match Morocco's surprise run to the semifinals this year. That would be two full steps up, but it's possible if the team can maintain its positive momentum. Remember the historical pattern, though (broken only once, in 2014):  if the World Cup is in Europe, a European team wins; if elsewhere, a South American team.  

Drops of The Other Foot

I want to give a shout of acclaim to big-time college football for doing something right--that is, if they follow through.  The planned expansion of their playoffs from four teams all the way to 12 is a bold move that I salute, both from the standpoint of broadening that competition and improving their marketing.   

It (the CFP, the College Football Playoff) certainly was in the best light on New Years' Eve with the two semifinal playoff games, proving that there is life beyond the SEC and Big 10 (and Clemson, if you wish) and showcasing the drama as never before.  Purists will point out that the scores, 51-45 and 42-41, reflect massive and frequent defensive lapses alongside some wonderful offensive execution, but making way for offense to shine is the game now, echoing current NFL practice.  

I watched most of those two games on ESPN's experimental "Skycast" telecast, and it is a phenomenon.  No commentators, just the stadium announcer and crowd noise, with the visuals provided by the cameras on the overhead wires, facility with which (to follow action and individuals or zoom in) is now first-rate.  Instant replays come in through a side box; the bottom line shows some summary stats and the previous play result.  It is much more like "watching a game" then the usual "watching a telecast of the game".  The downside is that I expect it would only work at certain stadiums at this point. 

As for the NFL, this is the season when I do watch.  The playoffs seem to be later each year; they certainly are larger, as they go from 12 to 14 teams.  The trick in this planning exercise (post-season sizing) is to bring in all of the teams you might want, without bringing in too many embarrassments.  With expanded playoffs, you have the chance that a hot team could barely make it, but then have the momentum for a possible surprise run, something which is necessary for general fan interest.  It looks like there will be competition for that "coveted 7th spot" (a probable first-round loser) in each of the NFL Conference playoffs, which would fulfill the alternate objective, providing some focus for the final weekend of the regular season. * It doesn't always work that way:  this year, baseball's playoff spots were fairly cut and dried at the margin, but the ones who made it in last were worthwhile once the postseason began.  

Round Ball, Solid Floor

..and a horizontal, round goal 10 feet off the ground.  The simplicity of the offensive scheme in basketball gives great advantage to the prospect of scoring (goaltending not allowed!), so the real challenge is to play effective defense (without fouling).  That applies especially to the NBA playoffs, which is the true objective.  One could be justified in tuning out the NBA regular season, though I love the game too much for that.  The Top 16 playoff approach that has been in place for decades (and criticized as long for being too broad) is now even more expansive, with 20 teams gaining a postseason:  a team need only finish in the top 10 of its conference (out of 15) to have a chance, though the real game is to finish in the top 6 of the conference and avoid the deadly "play-in" round. 

Whether by design or accident, the league's conference competitions seem to have sorted themselves around that first-6/top-10 scheme.  As an example, the Eastern Conference playoffs, long an afterthought in the NBA Finals tournament, now should feature five championship-worthy teams, and a spirited battle for 6th (my pick would be Cleveland).  Boston and Milwaukee are proven factors in the Finals picture, and Brooklyn, Philadelphia, and Miami would qualify as well, if they should emerge from the regular season intact.   Meanwhile, the Western Conference lacks standout teams so far, as recent conference champions Phoenix and defending NBA champs Golden State have regressed, so it seems headed for a 10-team standings mudfest in the final weeks of the season and through the play-in round.. 

Tuning out the regular season in college basketball seems even more appropriate; not much occurs before the New Year worth noting. College basketball is a coaches' game, and a game of defensive organization, something that has to be rebuilt each season.  Turnover is so great that it takes a couple of months of regular-season games for the teams that can jell into tourney contenders to play enough together in order to do so.  At least it's that way for my team, the U. of Kentucky, and John Calipari's "one-and-done" guys.  This year it's different, though:  the Wildcats return last year's college Player of the Year Oscar Tshiebwe, a bulky post scorer and ace rebounder--who can shoot free throws, too!  Somehow they seem to be having the same problems, though, and we'll see whether they can play in March.

Easiest Prediction:  PredictIt to Die

Unless there is some dramatic, unexpected reversal in Federal commodities regulation policy, the domestic online political prediction marketplace PredictIt will come to an end very soon.  February 15 is the end date for all trading; no new markets have been added in several months and, with the midterm elections markets finally all settled, less than two dozen remain, few with any real interest from participants. The last World markets (i.e., scope outside the US), where I liked to hang out, closed with the New Year. 

 I made about 40% gain on my portfolio in this year's midterm elections.  That's not really very satisfactory, given that I anticipated correctly the outcome of  90% of the contested statewide elections , as well as the overall results.  I did too much hedging, in the dismal weeks before the vote, and wasted money on dreamy longshot hopes (Mandela Barnes, Tim Ryan, Cheri Beasley, the exotic R-Senate/D-House outcome, etc.).  That's endgame behavior for you.   

My approach all along, refined by a disastrous flame-out (on a 'sure thing') in the Rasmussen Markets of 2008, was for long-term survival and indulging my desires, conditioned by good sense and risk management, as a low-investment hobby, a/k/a cheap entertainment.  Given this, I did a fair amount of analysis, no research at all, and a lot of shit-posting in the robustly incorrect Comments areas. So I survived and enjoyed, at least until this timely but premature demise of the site which we must now expect.**

Game of the Year

The full-fledged release of Online Sadistic Whist surpasses all else that occurred in 2022.  It is now open to all comers, in limited release.  We will happily provide details; please respond here. 

+The other game which shaped the finals was England-France, the one that I missed watching due to other commitments.

* The other last-week focus the NFL seeks, and apparently will get this year, is the battle for the 1st spot, which is truly to be coveted as it is now the only one getting a first-round bye. 

** The following is my prediction on the hottest topic there: What will be the resolution on the dozen or so markets going beyond Feb. 15?  (None has been announced, and the time draws near.)  The calculation which is presented as "Market Investment"for each market--taking into account the risk mitigation from multiple No bets--will be returned to traders, just a few weeks after the close of trading. 

 Cash withdrawn before then will be subject to the 5% withdrawal fee, but that money will not be, as the PredictIt managers would want to avoid the charge of profit-taking, which I suspect is the main reason the CFTC has revoked their continuing operation.  It was billed as a research project, and it will provide oodles of data to review the realities of mass prediction.   If they behave, and close down without scandal, they might be permitted to reopen again someday, with a slightly-changed economic model. 

Tip-Off

 The State of Sport, Pt. 1

NBA:  Will the trends be Bucked?

The top question in this year's NBA season is not the soap operas at big-money collectives in Brooklyn and L.A., but will the Milwaukee Bucks' championship be the signal for rising dominance? 

Over its history, there have been those kinds of dominant teams, ones that monopolized their conference titles and won more than their shares of the Finals.  Boston Celtics in the early '60's are the archetype, but several have emerged since then.  In the 21st Century, things have moved faster, and these periods of stable dominance have been shorter.  Still, in recent years there have been the rule of the Golden State Warriors, who won the Western Conference five straight years, with three titles, the Cleveland Cavaliers, their opponents in four of those (winning one of the others), and before that the previous LeBron James collective in Miami and the Kobe/Shaq Los Angeles Lakers, with similar successes. 

So, are the Bucks at the peak of their success, or is there more to come?  There certainly would seem to be in the form of Giannis Antetokounmpo, their star center who has raised the Bucks up from league mediocrity, one level at a time.  He is still very young. 

Normally, franchises can only move up one step at a time.  The best thinking of league team General Managers seems to be that a threesome of star players (at least, shining at that moment) is needed in order to shorten the path to stable success in the playoffs. That third star becomes decisive at some point when margins in key games are so narrow. The current coinage of The Big Three as it applies to the Bucks is Giannis, Jrue Holiday at point guard, and now Khris Middleton, as wing man.  Middleton's place in the triad was secured by clutch baskets down the stretch of close games in last year's playoffs, sometimes when Giannis, a poor free-throw shooter until now, wasn't even on the court.  

We will have to see whether that develops as it would need to do for longer-term Association dominance, Jordan- or Bill Russell-level, or if Giannis' path develops with other vertices, other teams.  He is a transcendent talent, like the one who led the Bucks' previous championship, some five decades ago (Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, at that time still Lew Alcindor). 

If the Bucks renew success this year, winning their Conference finals, that would then suggest that their progression so far is not even complete.   But at this time, I am reminded that the critical moment in the Bucks' path to the championship was defeating the Brooklyn Nets by a point in Game 7 of their Eastern Conference semifinals--that early.  Their success so far is contingent, and dependent on defeating a host of other valid contenders.  More than ever before, I daresay. 

Questions 2, 3...n

We start by examining the team chemistry of the Big 3 triangles at Brooklyn (Kevin Durant/James Harden/Kyrie Irving?) and the Lakers (LeBron/Anthony Davis/Russell Westbrook).  Both have the challenge, playoff-time, that there will be only one ball and three guys who want to get it and shoot it.  More immediate questions are finding the best way to include newcomer Westbrook and getting Kyrie his vaccination at some point before the end of the regular season.  Those two teams have the most talent, but that doesn't always decide it. 

Some one-line oversimplification for the other championship contenders I see: 

Atlanta Hawks -  Huge surprise that they reached the Conference finals.  Duplicating that would indicate the kind of progression possible with Trae Young, who I'd compare to Stephen Curry. 

Phoenix Suns - Just as huge a surprise that they could win the Western Conference last year.  The duo of Chris Paul and Devin Booker lacks a third and also seems fragile.  One more chance, I think. 

Miami Heat - A third recent major surprise, when they reached the NBA Finals through the bubble playoffs of 2020.  Jimmy Butler is still there and makes the incredible possible. 

Los Angeles Clippers - The question is whether their own magic man, Kawhi Leonard, will be available for the playoffs.  Paul George without Kawhi was not enough, but the Clippers still reached their own highest level ever by reaching the Western Conference finals. 

Utah Jazz - Likely once again to have the best record in the regular season in the West.   They oppose the Big 3 approach with a more pure team concept.  But can they get past the second round? 

Denver Nuggets - They are a dark horse in the Western playoffs.  They have the league MVP, talented big man Nikola Jokic, but will lack top scorer Jamal Murray for most of the regular season.  If they can catch fire at the end, they could surprise all with a playoff run.  It is rare in the NBA for such a team (expect them to be in the middle of the pack of playoff qualifiers) to go so far as the Finals, but it can happen. 

The Standard Scenario is the Lakers against either the Bucks or Nets.  Personally, I'm looking for a different trend to continue:  the last three years have featured six different teams in the NBA finals.  I think there's room for two more new ones.   The Brooklyn Nets vs. either the Clippers or Jazz.  The Nets' superior money should win out.  But it's OK!

The College Game - I have no idea--I know the University of Kentucky Wildcats are full of one-year-and-done secondary-school superstars, as they always are--and it really doesn't matter that much until after the New Year.  Then we'll see which teams have put it together for the Tournament, which is what it is all about. 

Mr. Fix-It: 

I can never watch sports without wondering if it might be better if..... Most of these thoughts will be both logical and also outrageous and beyond consideration.  But those who manage the product (commissioners and owners) need to consider the quality of their product, always open to real improvement. 

In the case of the NBA, though, there's not so much to suggest.  They cleverly caught on to the "more in the playoffs is better" axiom with their Covid improvisation in late 2020 of the Play-in Tournament (to make sure contending teams had a real chance to get in the playoffs in that unevenly truncated season), and then kept a form of it.  Now ten teams in each conference get a shot (Ed. up from 8). 

One aspect I would correct a bit:  the three-point shot--a great innovation for this still-young, still-changing sport--has taken over, more than it should. The answer would be to make the 3 option slightly less rewarding, but not by simply moving the arc back:  the true gunners can make it at any distance, if left alone. However, if one looks at the arc behind which you get three, as it's painted on the court, you can see that it flattens out to a straight line giving access for threes all the way to the end of the court (the baseline).  The logic of this is that the corner shot, having no backboard to bounce off, is more difficult to triangulate perfectly, but this is old news now, and there are too many players just hanging out in that corner, "spacing".  If the arc were to continue to the sideline, that corner shot is just worth two.  It would change offense, to the benefit of battles in the paint, and generally in front of the basket.  The would-be spacer is squeezed more into the midrange of the court, where the action used to be.  

As for the college game, my personal view is that college basketball--men's--has subordinated itself excessively to its football colleagues in the construction of conferences.  The NCAA should take over and make the finals tournament a 256-team free-for-all, organized around regional conferences that supersede the crass  financial calculations of the Athletic Directors around football revenue.  The conferences' cash cow is these conference tournaments that are fun for the little guys, but a nuisance for the top teams in the big conferences, ultimately weakening them in the contest that really matters ("March Madness", the current national 68-team elimination tournament).   I'd like to see the conference tourneys go, in exchange for more emphasis on conference play itself for seeding the big deal. 

That won't happen, so let's focus on the short-term question:  how do we keep them down on the farm (the NCAA) when they have seen the big city (NBA)?   You can't, really, but the best thing would be to allow a return to college play for some of those who 'go pro' and then find it a level too high.  That is, they might  only lose half their eligibility if they turn pro, or be offered an inducement to return to complete their degree, for example?  

Pyramids of Success 

(inversely to number of franchises)                                Examples

                      Multi-season dominance              old-time Celtics, Lakers, Michael, LeBron and Steph                                                

                                        Just reaching the top        Bucks, Hawks, Heat, Toronto (with Kawhi)

Reaching conference finals     Clippers, current Celtics, Nuggets, Jazz

Early playoff-round 'Opponents'   Knicks, Trail Blazers, Pelicans

Play-in Posse    Pistons, Hornets, Kings, Spurs

Tankers:      TimberWolves, Magic, Rockets

There is one more thought I have for the NBA.  It is looking at going from 30 teams (6 divisions by 5 teams each) to 32 (8X4, or better, 4X8 with each of the four divisions having a "subdivision").  This is sensible and copies NFL's pattern, which is rarely wrong from a marketing sense.   Even better marketing, and I'm certain it's an idea that was proposed and then classified as a "non-starter", would be to put the two new teams on the other side of the Atlantic:  one in Europe, and one in London.   

The NBA teams would fly to Europe once a year, play both teams, and head back over a week.   The European teams would play each other a bit more, maybe, but would make up for that with 2-3 very long road trips each season. 

To make it even more interesting, the "European" team should be the one that has earned it, either through NBA performance (Play-In level) or, if not, by taking the place of the previous year's team by winning the European professional league championship.   This would resonate with Europeans, and their level of pro basketball has risen dramatically in recent years, judging by the quality of players coming over. 

The London team would be of the conventional sort, the idea being to get hold of a bunch of City investment money. 

I admit some of this is copying the NFL's tracks, but this approach is more real to the sport than a couple tourist teams blowing into town to provide gladiatorial entertainment. 

Additional Notes:  I was born in Kentucky and spent some of my formative years growing up there, which is to say basketball is very close to my heart.  So, I begin this series with that sport; I plan to follow it with comments on baseball, both types of football, tennis, and the Olympics.  Always sticking in my two cents' worth of improbable suggestions, of course. 

As I Rescue the Biden Administration Once Again

This is a problem with a solution, this duel of infrastructure bills.  After you, Alphonse.  No you, Gaston.  

The hard parts are the votes 49 and 50 in the Senate, as it seems no Republican dares to cross Mitch on this one.  This gives Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema inordinate power over the content and timing, and they are making the most of it. 

This whole big thing about the price tag is a bad PR joke come to life.  The simple answer is to shorten the time frames, strategically, so as to remain more or less equalized in expected revenues and expenditures (so that the true price tag, in terms of additional deficit, is minimal) and expire certain of the "entitlements" proposed.  The bill should allow those to be re-authorized by majority vote under the reconciliation process. 

Finally, the cloture vote on a continuing resolution and debt limit increase was a rude thumb-nosing, and should be countered by a similar fart in their general direction.  McConnell has said he would allow a "clean continuing resolution" (dirtied only by emergency relief, a demand we will be hearing a lot more from our Southern GOP Senators) to pass.  So, do that, then immediately after change the Senate rules to allow "future" debt limit increase motions to go to immediate vote with a simple majority, then make the motion.  In other words, make another crack in the filibuster for a "clean" debt limit increase measure.   

It's either that, or put it in the BBB Big-Ass Biden bill.  Which is just normal sausage-making, really. 

Again, the hard part is discerning how to accommodate what Sens. Manchin and Sinema require to support the final bill.  Beyond the simple price tag sticker shock of it all,* of course.   Manchin seems to want some pullback from the Green New Deal-ish aspects of it--there are credits for energy savings that push aside fossil fuels.  So, I'd say give him money to start a major "clean coal research" facility in Morgantown.  There may be no practicable way to make coal clean, though from what I remember, certain varieties should be easier to take off their impurities.  The big plus would be meaningful improvements in carbon and methane sequestration, which would be required on a high scale to make coal burning not release CO2 and other greenhouse gases.   And the learning could pay off in the future. Just a few billion, or a few dozen billion, it wouldn't be that bad. 

As for Sinema, the scuttlebutt is that she doesn't like the tax increases on the rich folk.  (The scuttlebutt on Manchin was similarly that the corporations that have bought him didn't want the increase.  I will come to this momentarily.)  I would say that her key constituency is the striving class, middle and upper-middle, professions of various kinds, in Maricopa County and thereabouts (and a similar group in the Tucson area).  What those people won't like, and where the rub is going to lie, is in the reversal of the SALT limit imposed by the Trump TaxScam that is a hardcore demand of Majority Leader Chuck Schumer.   

Why is that?  The limit hits those with higher incomes in taxes with relatively high state income taxes.  Arizona is a no income-tax state.  Though sales tax is a different issue, this is one of the big areas of appeal to put up with its infernal summers (it's gorgeous winters are also another, obviously).  So, the invidious comparisons would suffer there. 

The remedy will have to be some other kind of monetary concession, and I think Sinema has communicated what that will be.  I'm guessing military tech spending of some kind. 

As for Manchin, he is dealing directly with President Biden.  My belief is that he has privately assured Joe that, when the time comes and he has satisfied himself, he will vote for the deal.  He also gave him the size of sticker he could really support, after all the back and forth.  And, importantly, that he would not oppose the corporate tax increase to 27%, which is what Biden promised.   

Manchin has been giving clues all along, though:  his voiced reluctance to add new entitlements really is pointing toward the sunset approach I suggested above.  Again, in five years we should be able to take a new look at these, to see then where our priorities for investment should lie. 

My over-under number for the tag is $2.31T, that last .01 T (ten billion dollars) being the Manchin Concession.  

* (yes, $3.5 T is a big number, no doubt, though for a 10-year markup it's a slower rate than $2.0 T for an average of six years).   

Assuring Election Integrity 

In some of the comment areas of websites I have visited, I have seen that phrase used by those seeking remedies for the purported electoral abuses of 2020.  I ask, what is election integrity, but this:  

"ready access to the vote for all adult citizens, which is then counted, and reported, efficiently and accurately"

Question mark.  So far, no one has disputed this formulation--I cannot see how one could. *

Frankly, it doesn't seem that much to do:  nations in all parts of the world have managed it.  Not all of them, mind you--the main requirements seem to be up-to-date use of technology, the will to use it, and precautions against its misuse.  They have one tool, though, that we do not have:  a standard national ID. 

I guess it's too late to bundle that into the reconciliation, too, though there's every reason it should have been included:  "election infrastructure".   But maybe there's a way to make it "bipartisan", as I have suggested. 

* I use no shock quotes around the phrase because it's not  masquerading as another thing; it is the thing itself. 

Nonpartisan Initiatives--Pt. 2

(The first part of this series was my proposal for a National Institute of Home Health Work, which I would re-purpose as a nonpartisan initiative. Disclosure: It was originally partisan in my motivation, supporting Biden's chances in Florida--which is to say, basically nonpartisan.)

The January 6 Rejectionist movement will not succeed. This is not 1876, much as that bunch of reactionaries would wish it were. 

Once this Drumpfenputsch is rebuffed, Biden should immediately turn around and announce a commission to "recommend electoral standards reforms", making every effort to make the composition of commission members diverse, with true nonpartisan representation--and third-party advocates.  It won't be hard to find takers. 

Here are my suggestions for recommended Electoral Reforms.

$$ -Catalyst for Reform No one of any political stripe, or of none, should doubt the need for change.  What happened with this election should make that crystal clear:  we are as transparent as artificial mud.

But the Constitution mandates states' responsibility and power to conduct elections, which even applies to the Federal elections (President and Congress).  Ultimately, the choice to adopt the recommendations will belong to individual states, but funding to implement the needed reforms is the kind of incentive which will win acceptance of the standards package.   As we do with safety or with environmental protections.  Or, memorably, as the Department of Transportation (Buttigieg's new gig) did with the drinking age for states. It's just hygiene.   

How much are we talking about?  A few billion, at most.  Less than the PAC's will waste in the next midterm.  

I.  The Simple Compromise - Voter ID,  Ready Access, Election Day holiday.  

The tricky part is the voter ID part; there was legislation passed a generation ago (the NVRA, or "Motor Voter Act'), but it lacked enforcement.  The passport license update mandated for this year has been postponed; it's time to get security into the 21st century, and noot based on driving a car.  With any limitations on its use as ID specified, but clearly establishing citizenship, or, if not that, the legal status.  That's what you need to present when voting, like a $20 bill (or just bring your phone close) if you wanted merchandise.  (All persons can get replacement ID's, restoring the information from our national systems; replacement requires something like a retinal scan to preclude future abuse.)  It might seem shocking, but it's the minimum requirement, really. 

The basic standards to facilitate the process involve an adequate but not excessive time period for Early Voting, a similar, different one for necessary absentee voting, and the standards must account for accessibility in terms of hours, ADA requirements, protection from hazardous conditions, etc.  So, this is not a simple task, but not one that is political in intent, except to honor the principle of allowing all possible legal voting. Something very hard to oppose in these terms. 

2.  A More Elaborate Reform - 

The Electoral College, and all its procedures, resembles a petrified sketch on the back of an envelope, written in pencil and laminated. No Constitutional amendment of any kind is needed to fix it, though.   I wouldn't dare advocate changing that: Something like that, or regulating dark money contributions to elections, is an Impossible Dream at this time.  The media would not allow the latter, for one thing, and the amendment process is difficult even with bipartisan support.

Instead, take development of the standards regime described above.  Throw onto it another, optional enticement (with additional money) for two, linked reforms:  

a)  Go the Maine/Nebraska route! 

b) Accept non-partisan Congressional districting in the next four years!

a) The fundamental problem with the Electoral College, apart from  all its clunky processes, is the winner-take-all nature of states voting "to maximize their influence".   This is simply bad Game Theory; it names a few winners, with the rest having next to zero effect.  

Even those who vote for the ticket(s) winning in most of the big states feel useless, as their electoral votes are taken for granted (unless you are Florida, or one of the Rejected Six).  California Republican voters (all of them, useless) feel little differently from Texas Democratic ones, but also little differently from New York Democrats (whose votes are taken for granted), let alone New York Republicans (useless, even if in favor of those they only despise).  

The answer for all these big states is to represent their vote more accurately, allocated by Congressional district winners (along with the two statewide winner-take-all votes, as is done in the two states currently using this approach, Maine and Nebraska).   Contrary to conventional wisdom, that will increase the significance of voters in those states, though it will only work if done in concert. 

As for the smaller states, they still may see a mirage of having their relative importance magnified in the current system, due to their disproportionate representation (compared to population).  It is a mirage, as their importance is illusory:  Nevada's case illustrates that in this Presidential election; nobody really cared too much about undoubted irregularities there, because it was not in a position to influence the outcome--six Electoral Votes is too small to matter, let alone for the many states with 3-5 EV. 

It shows just how important this reform can be for otherwise unimportant voters' new significance, though,  that the EV chase brought Trump-Pence to Maine's Second, and Biden-Harris to Nebraska's Second.  Both campaigns won the district, countering the statewide result.   Neither state would draw the slightest attention from either campaign without that provision. 

Obviously, all these improvements require serious attention to the technology required to implement, which is money well-spent, as it will protect our republic from some of its self-destructive impulses.  I have been advised that Floridians and Texans have already upgraded their systems, so all they need to fix are their voter suppressions. That's how this thing works. 

b) The necessary reform to accompany this change to district-based Presidential voting must be having a nonpartisan approach to determining congressional seat boundaries.  There are methods already in some states; those would be the model for those being gerrymandered most recently. These objectives would be the basis for the money offered to adopt this additional package, which should be generous.  

Many states would take this offer right off the bat, final terms unseen:  the small ones have to change little to nothing, but get their systems upgraded.  Many of the large ones would see the benefit; the terms could be couched similarly, but better, to the approach taken with the National Popular Vote Act* (only taking effect in their states when 270-X have adopted, X being the number adopting conditionally).  The states getting all the attention currently would "get less attention", which most people in those states would consider a benefit, and the side perceiving itself on the short end in those states would still have some voice. 

OK, I admit some states would choose to make stupidity a virtue, as for example some have done with the Medicaid assistance coming out of the ACA.  But consistently defeating bad policy could become a habit once more in America (some steps in forming that habit have been seen in 2018 and 2020). 

I am generally opposed to magnifying the effects of our broad powers still reserved to the states ("States Wrought") , but here I have to give credit to states for innovating meaningfully.  The thing is, I want those good state innovations to be brought broadly to the nation, but without permanently disempowering the states' own true responsibility. ++

 

*Can you imagine if we had the National Popular Vote Act in effect?  Well, we couldn't have had that and the current Rejectionist party, which may be good, but what if Trump had won more electoral votes than Biden with that thing in place?  It would only have been worse.  

++Note: Ranked-choice voting would be a small addition to this package that would assist the significance of independents and third-parties, to satisfy nonpartisanship requirements, and would eliminate additional cost.  So would 'jungle primaries' or 'jungle general elections', but those are bit more demanding bargaining chips, once commissioners sit down and work things through.  Kudos to Alaska for moving on ranked-choice. 

Policy Proposal for Joe

VP Biden should announce that he will propose a National Institute for Home Health Work.  

In doing so, he will allow us to address a critical future need of our society and develop the value of a widespread, under-trained and under-paid service. 

Why Home Health Work?  - It is a demographic fact that the numbers of retired people, at all levels of health, are increasing dramatically, and we should expect those to continue.  

The coronavirus epidemic in the US and other countries has shown us that concentrations of people with compromised health conditions can be explosively dangerous in the case of contagious disease.  Many or most retirees would prefer to live at home, if the right care can be provided to them. 

The quality of service provided by home healthcare providers is, in general, not good enough.  In the employment marketplace today, that work is understood to be underpaid and unstable, with its main advantage being easy entry,  great demand, and easy exit.  A few manage to land private placements with more stability, but most wash out or give up. 

That is not the kind of care that people need.  There is an identifiable range of necessary skills, from first aid, medication assistance, and making good judgement calls on emergency assistance, to practical things like assisting around the house, cooking, and helping with transportation for clients.  A nationally-recognized certification and training program would assist agencies in finding qualified employees, who would legitimately expect to be paid better than today's norm. 

How? and Where? -  Most of the training needs to be done remotely, through a thin network of accredited centers which primarily recruit and coordinate, providing technical communications assistance as needed, as well.

The rollout should look like this: 

• Bring in a small group of experienced workers, public health and safety experts, and trainers from top-rated agencies and video training experts to develop curriculum. 
• Recruit initial groups from among top-rated home health workers to 'train the trainers'. Ensure maximum diversity.  These trainers are the permanent employees of the institute and would create a new professional corps.
• Fine-tune the balance of "lectures", "interactive discussions", and "hands-on monitored sessions", adjusting over time with feedback from trainers.  Provide secondary assistance in a variety of foreign languages, and create an additional language certification for workers able to assist in them. 
• Testing of learners should similarly engage online, written, and hands-on demonstrations.  The goal is to provide valid credentials and guide learners to additional training where necessary before going or returning to the field. 

The location of the Institute should be in South Florida.  That's where the greatest numbers of both clients and potential learners reside.  Other centers should be in similar magnet areas where there is unmet demand for high-quality home health workers. 

I would make a rough estimate that the whole process to initiate and roll out the program would cost $500 million.  After that, the annual cost of the service should be no more than one-tenth that; clearly the service should charge a fee, but it should be one that recognizes the public value being created, and the length of the course--some 3-6 months for workers with previous experience, a year for those without--will make it cost-effective for tens of thousands. 

Someone who has access please pass this on to the Biden-Harris campaign!  

 

5X5: #5- The New Life

This is the fifth and final of the series of thoughts from the coronavirus quarantine, looking within, outward, and ahead.  Instead of five in five days, or even five weeks, we've had plenty of time to make the fisstu' and let it simmer. 

Food

We've been fortunate with regard to access to quality local options to get food, and no excessive restrictions.  I want to give my greatest praise for the modern supermarket, especially the ultramodern one, which was ready for the logistical challenge. There were those who went crazy with the overstocking of certain items, but that was corrected before long.  The idea that toilet paper would be something to hoard--even with the supply chain inertia around the industrial/commercial rolls--is an example of a kind of craziness that has been the exception rather than the rule.  

I consider the past few years to have been the Golden Age of Global Food.  The downside is its cost; not all could access it.  One reads of the feasts of the kings of the Middle Ages, or in classic Roman times; this kind of plentiful variety is accessible to a much broader population today, but will it continue?  I have my doubts.  Though we can still insist on quality--or not, as many will opt--the quantity and variety of food ingredients and products may decrease. Instead, I expect less fresh produce brought in by airplane from exotic climes, and less fresh meat from distant factory farms.  

Meanwhile, I've been putting in a lot more time developing my cooking skills.  We now have the time, the material, and the information needed to try new dishes, though most of my designs for them start with the basic ingredients of olive oil, onion, and garlic, and going from there.  I have drifted a little into Thai, Korean, and Chinese methods, but I have to restrain myself with regard to the chiles and such. 

I have also started a diet for the self-quarantine period.   My 'Covid-19 Diet' has the objective of losing 19 pounds; I'm a little more than halfway there.  The concept is the mini-fast; by eating nothing for more than half the day (at least 12 hours, preferably 14-16), the body burns off pounds gradually.  I do it roughly the opposite of the Muslim Ramadan approach:  my last food should be around sunset, then I have nothing (except water, and coffee--black, no sugar--in the morning) until around 10-11 a.m.  I then eat freely during the remaining daylight hours.  I've always been a brunch fan--now I can have a brunch-like meal seven days a week, the daily schedule allows it (no alcohol, though). 

Buildings

Shelter--the right kind, in the right place--has never been more important in modern life.  Thus, those who do not have "all the comforts" are especially at a disadvantage for their mental well-being, though we see very little of that in the televised reporting from these elite individuals' personal home offices.  Peloton has never seemed more appealing, though they seem to have pulled back on their ads--cash flow crisis?--in favor of ubiquitous adds for insurance of all kinds and pharmaceuticals. 

Still, I feel quite certain that humanity will have little trouble adapting to Coronavirus Rules, even if they are with us for decades. I am reminded of a science fiction story I read once but can't place:  was it Asimov, or Arthur C. Clarke, maybe?  It posits a distant future where people rarely, if ever, meet up in person.  Instead, their holograms meet up in a safe place.  The quality of that very possible future lifestyle will depend on a lot more development of what we refer to today as virtual reality.  VR is more of a gimmick than something with convincing verisimilitude and the full range of sensory input today, but give it time:  Artificial intelligence used to be a sore disappointment, almost an oxymoron, but no one is laughing at the idea of AI today. 

The problem with people's lives being limited to being physically at home all the time is what is sometimes referred to as "nature deprivation".  Even during this crisis, it has been critically important, for mental and physical health, to get out and get some sunlight and some exercise in a natural setting.  In that regard, I am very sympathetic to those in the big cities with the stay-at-home orders and feel that the trade-off required has been (net) harmful to many, while being relatively safe here+, and still able to go out--working in the yard, taking hikes or bike rides--has been a comfort. 

The Eponymous Novel (Orhan Pamuk, 1997)

I'd had this paperback in the house for some years, didn't know where it came from, but when I ran across it in my little bookcase for potential reads or partially-read ones, I figured this is the time.  Orhan Pamuk is the Turkish novelist awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 2007; this novel was first published in 1994, one of his earlier efforts, and translated into English in 1997.

The opening grabbed me.  Its first sentence:  "I read a book one day and my whole life was changed."  Yes, I could identify. A young male student sees a book carried by a beautiful woman colleague, tracks it down, and reads it obsessively, day and night, and can think of nothing else. The book offers the promise of a new life, and in that life everything that was before, though it remains still, is somehow different when framed by this. 

We come to realize that the ideas of the book will be shown only through the course of our young man's impetuous adventures.  In 1990's Turkey, this takes the form of going, on buses operated by a variety of private bus lines, to the most obscure areas in the country's vast interior.  Searching for that woman, with or without that equally mysterious man seen with her, who may well be other atoms, following the same kind of random movement patterns.  We're not sure, though, as our guy saw her companion, Mehmet, shot and then disappear from sight. This wandering goes on, with great Pamukian embellishment, for fifty pages or so. 

Then Boom!  The inevitable head-on crash of buses,* and somehow our protagonist and the object of affection are literally thrown near to each other.  Operating Platonically (i.e., no sex, despite himself), they begin working together to try to decode and translate into practical action the precepts of the book, which leads them to a conspiracy-theorist, known as "Dr. Fine".   They infiltrate his family presenting themselves as a promising young couple ready to be mentored.   They eventually take off, separately, pursuing their destinies.  

It's a somewhat trying book to digest, because it teases much more than it delivers.  About halfway through, I resorted to reading some reviews to see what I was missing.  The answer was: not too much, at that point.  I learned that the name of this book he read and obsessed about will not be disclosed, nor much of its contents.  Some reviewers were respectful (no less than D.M. Thomas wrote the review for the New York Times), some reduced it to a shaggy-dog story.  To that, though, I would disagree; there is definitely a resolution, and a lot more opportunity to fill in the dots than that would suggest.    

(the following bit has spoilers)

 The key to the plot comes early, from the mysterious initial companion of our heroine, Mehmet (not his real name), when he says, "The way of the book leads only to death".   The conflicts in the course of the novel involve the fundamental Turkish challenge,  melding all of Western European/American civilization with the ancient traditions of Western Asia.   In the resolution of its mysteries, the course of the novel narrows its range from a yearning that is universal, for greatness and the sublime, to desires that are intensely personal and surprisingly mundane, even antisocial.   In this regard, the novel brings to mind the work of Umberto Eco, or very differently, Albert Camus.  Characters in the story make their choices, often inexplicably, unfeelingly, or on false impressions, but randomness rules.

It may be needless to say, but The New Life  hasn't changed my life much yet.  The novel was very popular in Turkey, with a lot of speculation about its hidden meanings:  Was it about the Koran, or some other religious text, or about the Gulenist cult (which was allied with Erdogan back then, seeking a modern religious revival in the country, and in conflict with the repressions of the secular authority)?  Well, not exactly--that unnamed book's proposed lifestyle was something more like the old American TV series "Then Came Bronson", if you remember it:  a drifter, his identity and purpose shown through heroic acts as he travels from town to town.  One amateur reviewer of Pamuk's novel titled his effort as "Blood on the Tracks", referring of course to the Dylan album, the tracks being here the dangerous byways of Turkey.  A very good summary phrase to which we Westerners can relate.


*One aspect mentioned several times was that it seemed to our main character that the mysterious book had been written as though it were specifically for him.  For me, that resonated with the bus-crash motif.  We had taken a long drive through the Turkish countryside in our honeymoon trip in 1993, and there were several near-miss head-ons or ravine plunges, due to narrow roads, blind curves, no shoulder on the roads, and trucks and buses driving pell-mell.  So, I could identify with that, too.

+23 cases so far in Taos County; no deaths. 

5X5: #4--Entertainment! for a Time of Sickness

The added free time can present some annoyance, if not properly filled.  There have been any number of posts and articles with ranked lists, offbeat suggestions, rumors of new (usually filmed at home) shows and performances.   I've been scanning through them and have a few of my own, mostly through experience of the otherwise dreck and re-runs .

'Contagion' (2011) as Intro Course for Dealing with The Real Thing
If you have not seen this Steven Soderbergh movie this year, you could've had a crash course in this year's pandemic in two hours.   (OK, one hour 46 minutes, according to imdb)  Early on in my confinement, I managed to find it for another viewing.

It's painful, but also a story of survival at the level of the human experience through the whole course of an emerging pandemic, with a superb cast and script.  Much will seem familiar, because it's what we're going through. It's a different virus, with a different trajectory, but so much of it could have prepared our society for it, if we'd watched it and taken it more to heart.

The basic parameters are an outbreak of a "chimeric" virus (bat/pig) spreading easily by respiratory means from an initial set of infections in China and carried on by international air travelers.The US breakout  (Minneapolis) is shown through the tribulations of the husband (Matt Damon) of Patient Zero (Gwyneth Paltrow), and his daugher (their young son succumbs early).   Then, she has a sudden, fatal seizure, and it goes from there. The infection begins to spread through casual contacts she made en route back home from her business trip to China.

(Some of the next bit may be spoilers...)

 Among aspects that the careful attention to science+ captured for the film is the rapid deciphering of the DNA of the virus, but the difficulty in developing a vaccine for a novel virus.  The CDC official on the scene of the breakout (tragically awesome Kate Winslet) opens a hospital triage location in the largest stadium in the city.  Her boss (Laurence Fishburne) is shattered and cuts some corners, but he ends up being heroic. There is a blogger (Jude Law) who peddles a false remedy, and various story permutations follow for him.  The film explains the "R-nought" concept, the number indicating the propensity of a disease to spread--it's actually just the average number of new cases per existing one.++

The movie posits panicked runs on supplies (in the film, on pharmacies), with those leading to some looting (including guns) and rioting. There are even armed security screens at state boundaries mobbed with cars.  So far, to Americans' credit, the social response in our reality has been more restrained, the recent Astroturfed protests in a few states notwithstanding, at least partially because the mortality rate of the virus in the film is several times higher than our (much-disputed) own.  Rather than anarchy, in the real world the poor seek healthcare.

The film also has an international element, addressing the problem of the worldwide distribution of the eventual game-changer, the vaccine.  A WHO official (Marion Cotillard) is kidnapped by provincial Chinese seeking to jump the queue.  One of my few criticisms of the film's resolution is that the global challenge is presented early in the cycle but not closed.  The lottery-type distribution of vaccine issuance by birthdate that the US decides upon (the hand of partisan politics is barely felt in Contagion) brings domestic peace, but what about....(insert names of many failed nations)?

Somewhat on this topic, I have found reference to a sci-fi novel about a breakout pandemic and authoritarian measures taken to contain it, written in 1997 with the prescient title 2020 (by Hamutal Shabtai).  From the interview with the author, who is somewhat apologetic about the length of the book (I haven't tackled trying to find it yet),  the story includes the aspect of China trying to suppress word of the burgeoning threat, the challenges of systematic testing and how it erodes free society, and then the potential brutality of policies separating those detected as infected from the vulnerable.


+Ref. podcast interview with the film's writers for Vanity Fair,  a pro screenwriter with a top epidemiologist.  Quality, Soderbergh style.  The podcast may have a paywall. 
++Here is a set of estimates of the "R-sub T", the infectiousness of Covid-19 over time by state, made a couple of weeks ago.

Saved by Infection?
Back on the topic of movies and invasive species, the other must-see for this period of time, if you have not seen it, is the film that may signal the eventual redemption of the Oscars, which seemed lately to have fallen into a permanent trap around Hollywood's immobile conventions and their lack of diverse creators, roles, and economic opportunity.  I was so appalled by the nominations this year I hadn't even written my usual Oscar preview here, and I watched most of the show with a resigned lack of enthusiasm.

That changed for me when they announced the winner of the Best Director award, and I gave a shout of joy when Parasite won Best Picture.  It showed me that the Academy's voting electorate, within the straitjacket of the nominations, had brought the right attitude.  One way to make Oscars more interesting is to feature more prominently the excellent films produced around the world, with the aim of making the show truly a world championship (since a competition, it seems, it must be) and not a high-priced back-pat.

I am totally committed to the experience of cinema, like theater both public and private, of the darkened room and the big screen, but Parasite, though plenty visual, will stream very well, or indeed work with any format.  What makes it special is its manic creative energy, astonishing characters, and intricately-woven plot.  The one downside for me (slight spoiler) is the Tarantinesque "cathartic" bloodbath near the end, but it is redeemed with a Hitchcockian post-climax twist.


TV Overview:  Delving into the Escapist Void
Enough education, though.  Let's talk about entertainment which takes us away from virus-related concerns.

My tv-watching habits (mostly sports, news, science/nature shows, talking-head public affairs) have taken a serious and sudden change.  No more live sports, and the news is always pretty much the same.  The talkshows haven't taken much of a hit, and nature photography is better than ever before.  (I particularly liked the PBS' Nature show for Easter, "Remarkable Rabbits".)   Under the circumstances, though, I've had to dig deeper.

In this depressing Drumpfist era,  I had already found it easier to glom onto iconic popular culture events that have no basis in reality.  I accept that it's a miserable excuse, and that effective activism would be a far more potent and honorable response, but these have been miserable times, and, while activism was certainly possible, its effectiveness has been blunted.

(This was due to the fog created by Chief Twit Dimwit's lies and provocations, McTurtle's slow walk to 2020, and endless blather from those seeking some kind of lawful justice that Robert Mueller and his report,  House committee subpoenas, and Senatorial Profiles in Cowardice can never provide.  Seeking satisfaction was self-delusion, a sort of escapism. *)

And so I chose to attend the two singular popular culture events of 2019:  The Avengers: Endgame and the final season of Game of Thrones.   The first got much greater praise than it deserves, while the second has been criticized more than it deserved.

Serial moviewatching is a venerable tradition, and comic-book hero movies are similarly well-established. I have not gone so far as to immerse myself in their multiverse, though.   I read comic books sometimes way back when, but I didn't really care if they were DC or Marvel, even then.  Save for a few SH movies I've seen over the years--I was somewhat impressed when the Christopher Reeve Superman series combined the commercial potential of the '60's Batman series with somewhat less cheese, and I enjoyed Robert Downey Jr.'s rehab work as IronMan, and Alfred Molina any old time (Doc Ock!)--little stands out  (OK, I'll admit that Guardians of the Galaxy was funny.)

Because of this limited emotional commitment, my appreciation of the biggest movie box office film of all time was stunted, particularly so as I have never seen Part I of the Avengers megahit two-parter.  It made for a fairly objective viewing of what I came to see as a standard-issue time-travel script.  Star Trek did it at least as well, from the point of creative storytelling. Doctor Who does it with more humor and better aliens.  Obviously, the production values of the Marvel series are world-class, but that is just table stakes for action megahits:  we want more!**

As for GoT, one has to credit the patience and depth with which this fictional world was developed.  I will admit it was a lot more data than I was willing to take on.  I had seen an episode or two, casually, over the first years of its run, so I knew the stars of the story and some of the place names and story themes.  I watched all of the penultimate season, binge-watched seasons 1 and 2 in the marathons prior to the release of the final season (but then stopped due to some travel), and then the ultimate one.  So, I saw the half I wanted, retained some significant holes in my understanding of past events, but had no problem following the fast-moving final season.

I was not one of those sorely disappointed by the outcome.  The key aspects of the two-part wrap (the war with the Walkers, and the siege of Kings Landing) did no more than bring things to ends prefigured (as possible outcomes) earlier, through the track of the main characters' destinies. The political denouement of the new king, etc. was anticlimactic, which is the norm for the end of great TV series.

Two things, related, that I really loved about it:  1)  the importance of that limitation of time and linear space which constrained everything in a pre-vehicular era, and then how dragons were the equivalent of nukes that dissolved those limits; and 2) the opening credits!  The effortlessly shifting camera angles and focus on the regional map (see below:  the big picture looks suspiciously like Greece, the Aegean,, and Asia Minor) served effectively to transport us into the fictional world.  I already see evidence that the excellent notion of that sequence has been picked up by other series.


*I barely escaped from that depression, only to fall into the crater of our disappointing Presidential primary and its excruciating, ugly process. Waste can be defined as the Cost of Bad Quality.  As the subject here is another, and we have somewhat crawled out of our crater, I will say no more.
**By "we", I mean "I".  Seems like the rest of the world had little problem with it. 

It's a Reality Show World

"This ain't really life, ain't really life, ain't nothing but a movie."--Gil-Scott Heron,  B-Movie

This was in 1981, just after we were all shocked as the reality sunk in that Americans had elected an actor, Ronald Reagan, to be their President.  You could extrapolate to the present, and then it would not be so surprising to consider our reality becoming virtual, a video game of some sort.  But, no--much more disappointing. 

"The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" - Gil-Scott Heron, again.  

Ten years ago, that quote was not viewed as being proved false--social media was enabling movement faster than the cameras could arrive.  Now, we know:  television (video) is too much a player to be revolutionary, and is an important tool in the hands of Reaction's surveillance. 

I won't say I never watch so-called Reality Shows:  As a family, we enjoyed The Amazing Race (travel being a big thing for us), and some Fear Factor (spectacularly gross, but limited variety).  I have tried to avoid any others.   Though imitation of reality is at the core of storytelling, and even documentaries generally are edited, these shows that purport to be real but are artificially created offend my sensibilities.  Amazing Race was a good example. It never broke the fourth wall, but in every one of those taxi cabs or jitneys, or airplane cabins or customs lines there was, somehow, a camera capturing all their squabbling and confusion. Come on. 

So, I have to admit that I have watched a lot of The Voice, and not just this year, because it's one of my wife's favorites.  I am continuously impressed by the quality of the performing contestants they bring to the show, and the sophisticated arrangements and staging are impressive.  I hate the show's formats for the (exaggeratedly slow) series of cuts to the contestant pool, though, and the amount of fluff that is padding the (excellent) performances is excessive.  

While there is too much emphasis on the coaches' phony "win" percentages, I also tend to feel that the real performers are somewhat exploited--though I admit, willingly so.  They are not amateurs, but semi-pros; most have honed their performing craft in a variety of live settings, but they need that big break (which I am far from convinced comes through the route of these shows--current Voice coach Kelly Clarkson is the only true star who has emerged this way, to my knowledge).   The winner should be guaranteed ample cash money plus a recording contract, and all the finale performers paid generously.  Are they?  Generally these shows would say so if it were the case.  Instead, the coaches get the big payouts, making this the Nike of game shows.  In normal times, I'd say it's good for local employment (in LA). 

With the dearth of live entertainment for The Voice to continue the final rounds of the current season, our TV has picked up a show, Songland, which followed it on the same channel in recent weeks. I have seen a couple episodes, but no more.  It is sort of the obverse of The Voice. The idea is that semi-pro songwriters come in with a potential pop song which they pitch--through performing it--to a team of songwriting coaches and a performing artist who has promised to record it (and give royalties for it to the episode's winning songwriter, and presumably, their coach).  The three finalists (out of four) for the episode then re-work the song with the coach's assistance, to fit the performers' preferences, and the performing artist chooses the winner at the end.   I believe it's the show's second season. 

As a format, it's good: much better than The Voice's one, concise, straightforward, and honest. Though the royalties for the song will likely be rather trivial in the end, there's a chance for a big payout, and at least it will give some honest credits for the resume.  The songs themselves are not really my problem, as they are all designed to provide an immediate hook, and a catchy hummable chorus.  The better ones have clever wordplay in their required rhymes.  So, we all know what is what, about this kind of song, but the making of the sausage itself is what disgusts me, even if this is like the real-life pop music "sessions"  For me, the show is simply too damn formulaic--the romance is nowhere evident. 

A couple more Small-Screen World comments for this special time of unquestioned TV cultural dominance:  This situation reminds me of the time in the early '80's when music videos suddenly became a very big deal (they already existed in limited number and quality prior to that).  The choices you as video producer had were somewhat few:  you could show the band performing the song, or pretending to perform it while doing something, or show the story the song was trying to evoke, or something completely unrelated (which was rarely greenlighted for production).  The chops for performing in a studio environment, which musical performers have have developed and perfected over the years, serve them especially well in this environment, whether they play to the camera or ignore it.   

Still, whatever your content, you can either present yourself in your office--there may at least be the shelves of books you may have read behind your shoulder for the viewers to enjoy--or in your garden or backyard, or present a series of other people doing the same.  I guess a couple have tried for a more intimate setting, though I have seen only one on a roof, and none in a basement.  But that's limiting, for sure.  Here are a couple ideas if this continues to drag out: 

A quick-hit musical variety show with topical content, like Laugh-In; 
A holographic (instead of Zoom) meeting of a small group of participants; 
Performances in concert halls with minimal attendees (5% capacity?), full special effects, and added sound-absorption. 

The Quality of Merch is in Its Strains
Top five of the current season--I will attest to having consumed each in the jurisdiction in which it is produced, as prescribed by law:

Blue Dream (H-NM) - 18.0%
Armagnac (S-CO) - 19.6%
Blueberry Headband (I-NM) - 20.6%, (I-CO)- Unk.
Pineapple Trainwreck (H-CO) - 24.6%; Train Wreck (H-NM) - 19.5%/
Blue Dream (H-CO) 23.6%/Blue Maui (H-NV)-Unk.

Contrary to what this might indicate, though, I'd prefer sativa if more were available commercially.  I agree with Bill Maher that they should cut down on packaging, or at least reycle their cylinders and tubes.  And, as may seem obvious, my favorite color is blue.

The Best Thing I've Seen on Facebook lately (I have no idea of the credits):  Our Current Location within a Dystopia-based Venn Diagram

From reddit/MapPorn: