When you can't convince someone using logic, tapping into the emotion sometimes can work.
If you are afraid of heights and your friend wants you to climb on the roof to see the view, she will never feel your fear of heights directly. She just tell you not to worry. But maybe you can appeal to one of her own fears - say snakes - to get her to understand how you feel. OK, I'll climb on the roof, but you hold these snakes first. She'll viscerally understand why you won't go on the roof, even if she isn't afraid of heights.
This video does just that, and with humor.
OK, men might look at this and say it isn't the same. I'd say it's pretty close to how many women are treated when they report assaults. They aren't taken seriously, they're somehow responsible for what happened to them. And without doubt, there are examples of that, but they are relatively few, and the many serious complaints shouldn't be treated poorly because of the exceptions.
So think about this approach - turning the tables and using the same language to get someone to see how ridiculous they're being.
Monday, January 15, 2018
Sunday, January 14, 2018
Living In A Construction Zone
 |
| Furniture out, workers' tools in |
I'm not complaining. My mom knew where things were and she always had something to use for whatever situation, whether it was gift to take when visiting someone, a bag to hold something in, the old waffle iron, and on and on. She didn't want us moving things around because then she wouldn't be able to find them. She did say, repeatedly, "When I'm gone, you can do what you want."
So the last two and half years, our trips here were focused on cleaning things out. People have been telling us to to rent it out while we're not here - most of the time - and so we are required to get it
When we head out this week, the carpet will come off the living room floor and the old hardwood floors will be sanded and polished.
That means we've been getting everything into the garage so the floors will be cleared. We still have a little table in the kitchen (no hardwood there so that's ok) and an air mattress bed that we can move out ourselves before we leave. Bathrooms have been in and out of service as they get various upgrades - new grout, paint, and fixtures. One bathroom got a whole new vanity.
I'm still finding things I didn't know were here. An old cream and sugar set was wrapped in old newspaper. Not sure why they had the Chicago Sun Times from June 6, 1989 - two days after the Tiananmen massacre.
I couldn't remember Li Peng being shot back then and when I googled Li Peng assassination most everything - including bios of Li Peng - omit mention of an assassination attempt. There was one book - Confessions: An Innocent Life in Communist China - I found where a Chinese student talks about his participation in Tiananmen protests and he writes,
"After we had hung up our poster, we heard news that Deng Xiaoping had suddenly died and that Premier Li Peng had been wounded in an assassination attempt. That afternoon firecrackers were popping all over campus to celebrate Deng's death. But we soon discovered that these "news reports" were baseless rumors. In fact students from Jaotong University had not been run over by tanks, Deng Xiaoping was alive and well, and Li Peng had not been wounded."Publishing unsubstantiated rumors, as this headline shows, isn't new. But neither is attempting to fool the public with false stories. Yellow journalism was taught in the American history classes I took in high school. But there's a new sophistication in the creation and spreading of the new brand of fake news we see today.
We try to drive as little as possible - J walks and I ride the bike all I can. But if you need to go far or fast or carry a lot, you need to take the car and traffic can be frustrating. Public transit is ok for a few destinations, like the airport.
Some of my old bedroom furniture was snapped up by a young man with a square beard and tight jeans who was excited about picking up 'mid-century' stuff for a token price. I was happy it was going to an appreciative home. Various people have been leaning on me to get rid of, or do, this and that. I think they are mostly right, but I don't want a generic house in the end so I'm holding my ground on some things. And listening to reason on others.
And we are in LA, where the weather has gone from nice to rainy to very nice. And we've eaten lots of good food. As we were coming home from house-related errands we stopped on a block of Venice that had a Brazilian cafe, a Caribbean place, a Thai place, and a Himalyan place. We ate at Tara's in part because of the garden like setting on a busy street.
 |
| Domo Plate at Tara's |
And yesterday when it got into the eighties (F) even at the beach, we decided we needed a break. J walked and I biked the two miles to Venice Beach.
After playing in the surf with my granddaughter when she was here in December, I was seriously thinking about catching some waves. I watched the few would-be body surfers not catch anything and I remembered our bathtub was out of commission while the resurfacing dried. But I did go into the water part way and it felt great to have the surf rushing between my legs. The water didn't feel terribly cold (about 60˚F).There's still work to do when we're gone - the floors, and when that messy job is over, new blinds will be put into most of the windows. We're headed to see our Seattle granddaughter before touching base again in Anchorage and then more Seattle time before coming back here to see what we still have left to do.
... was out getting garbage and recycling into our cans and two neighbors' cans. Neighbors up the hill have moved into their house about a year after we moved into this one. The neighbors to the south moved in much more recently and became very good friends with my mom. And the LA sanitation department picks up bulky items like carpet and sinks if you call a day ahead - and they were open Sunday to take my call.
Friday, January 12, 2018
NPR, In Order To Report Trump's Statements, Joins George Carlin In Saying "Shit" On Air
Here's a tweet from an NPR news-story:
I might remind readers that 'shit' was on the top of George Carlin's list of seven dirty words.
Write your representatives in Washington that you applaud this boost for free speech from Trump and their lack of opposition.
However, what's allowable on broadcast tv and radio is not necessarily what should be allowable by a sitting president of the United States. And it's not the word 'shit' that I object to, but the racism of excluding people of color while inviting Norwegians.
If your members of Congress haven't stood up in protest, you might want to remind them that the president is a sick, dishonest, depraved human being who is not fit for office. And the checks and balances written in the Constitution mean it's their responsibility to act.
That they shouldn't wait until November when the people of the United States will act for them.
In memo to staff, @NPR standards editor says it is now necessary to say “shithole” on the radio so that listeners know the day’s news, but preceded by a warning to listeners, and “no more than one use of the word each hour in the main shows is enough.”— Steve Inskeep (@NPRinskeep) January 12, 2018
I might remind readers that 'shit' was on the top of George Carlin's list of seven dirty words.
The seven dirty words are seven English-language words that American comedian George Carlin first listed in 1972 in his monologue "Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television".[1] The words are: shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits.[2][1]It's time to thank President Trump for making it possible for broadcast media personnel to now use the word 'shit' on air without interference from the FCC. Hopefully, the other six will soon become useable when appropriate too.
At the time, the words were considered highly inappropriate and unsuitable for broadcast on the public airwaves in the United States, whether radio or television. As such, they were avoided in scripted material, and bleep censored in the rare cases in which they were used; broadcast standards differ in different parts of the world, then and now, although most of the words on Carlin's original list remain taboo on American broadcast television. The list was not an official enumeration of forbidden words, but rather was compiled by Carlin. Nonetheless, a radio broadcast featuring these words led to a U.S. Supreme Court decision in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation that helped define the extent to which the federal government could regulate speech on broadcast television and radio in the United States.
Write your representatives in Washington that you applaud this boost for free speech from Trump and their lack of opposition.
However, what's allowable on broadcast tv and radio is not necessarily what should be allowable by a sitting president of the United States. And it's not the word 'shit' that I object to, but the racism of excluding people of color while inviting Norwegians.
If your members of Congress haven't stood up in protest, you might want to remind them that the president is a sick, dishonest, depraved human being who is not fit for office. And the checks and balances written in the Constitution mean it's their responsibility to act.
That they shouldn't wait until November when the people of the United States will act for them.
Thursday, January 11, 2018
Graham v Municipality of Anchorage #6 - Test Makers Lack Certification
We're starting to get into the details. Some might think "This seems minor" for some of these posts, but I hope to explain why they aren't minor. But if you don't agree with me, I'd also point out that a pattern of minor issues can collectively become a much more serious issue.
In this post I'm reporting the point that Jeff Graham's attorney made in court: that the people who designed the training, the tests, and the grading procedures didn't have the training or the certification to do it right.
In court, Jeff Graham's attorney, Jeff Jarvi, gave Chad Richardson, the person in charge of the engineer academy (engineer is the step above a basic fire fighter and the academy is the training and testing program to promote to an engineer) a copy of his Fire Service Instructor Certificate and asked him to read off what level the certification was. Chad Richardson read it: Level I. He was then asked what the difference between Level I and Level II was. He didn't know. He was then asked to read the above version of how the state certifying board distinguishes them. Here's what Richardson read in court:
From the State of Alaska Department of Public Safety (p. 3 of 16)
If you missed the bold above, Level I is qualified to give training and tests someone else has designed. You need Level II to create the training and the testing (including how the tests are graded.)
Jarvi did the same with Casey Johnson who prepared the exam. And current Deputy Chief Jodie Hettrick who was then the new head of all training at the AFD. They all only had Level I certification. While I can understand the difficulty of coming into a new situation when the academy had already been planned, one thing Jodie Hettrick could have done in her initiation period was to check the certifications of the two in charge of the academy. She had, after all, been in charge of the state certification program just before taking the job in Anchorage.
Why does this matter?
First and foremost, the people in charge of testing didn't have the knowledge needed to create a valid and reliable exam and exam process necessary for a system based on merit principles, as required by the MOA Charter at Section 5.06(c).
Second, it undermines the credibility of the AFD's claims in court about how professional the fire department is. The people preparing the exam didn't have the training or certification to do their jobs right. There are also certifications for what different levels of paramedics can and cannot do. Several people testified to not being able to perform certain functions because you needed a higher certification to perform it. Are people ignoring those certifications too? I suspect not, simply because they see that as their primary function, while they might see testing as 'merely' administrative. I don't know for sure.
Third, it raises questions about integrity, the area that Jeff Graham was marked down on, just enough in his oral exam, for him to fail to qualify for promotion. I'll get into that matter later, but I want people to remember this as one of number of questions about integrity that make the judgment of Graham's integrity seem hypocritical and which I'm sure the jury didn't miss.
On August 4, at the end of the MOA's defense, Deputy Chief Hettrick was called back to the stand by the MOA attorney and asked questions about the lack of proper certification.
It was unfortunate, she told the court. That State of Alaska didn't offer training in Anchorage for a number of years. But it turns out there were people at AFD who had been certified at Level II when there still was training available in Anchorage.
Jeff Jarvi, Graham's attorney, asked why people didn't go to Juneau or Outside for training, and Hettrick said it depended on available travel funds. He then pointed out that Casey Johnson (who created the exams) had been allowed to testify at the trial out of sequence so he could attend a non-critical conference in North Carolina. That's four years since the exam and they still haven't gotten training.
Below are some of my typed notes in the courtroom, so they aren't verbatim but close.
MOA Attorney Monica Elkinton "Are you saying that between 1996 and 2012 courses weren't offered?"
Hettrick: Two small groups and no one from Anchorage took it. There are no state statutes that require certification. Local government makes that decision. For police they have statutes. There are recommendations, but without the instructor program, state couldn't do that.
Elkinton: Sounds like the authority having jurisdiction can prescribe what to do.
Hettrick: Yes
So, she's saying without a Municipal statue requiring training people to proper certification, it's ok if unqualified people make up the exams and grading procedures.
When it was Jeff Jarvi's turn to cross examine.
Jarvi: Chief Dennis was a certified Level 2 right?
Hettrick: Yes
Jarvi: Were there others?
Hettrick: We have, I believe, less than 10.
Jarvi: There are others [with Level II Certification]?
Hettrick: Yes
Jarvi: Did they travel Outside to take the exam?
Hettrick: No, they got it before 1996, but they can have them renewed. The other half of that group attended the course we did in 2016. . . .
Jarvi: We heard that Dennis did his in Juneau and Casey Johnson [Who created the test but was only certified at Level I] was accommodated in this trial to go to a conference in North Carolina?
Hettrick: Yes.
I would also note here - it's difficult to find the perfect place to put everything because some facts relate to more than one point, such as Casey Johnson's descriptions of how he himself had prepared for his own promotion exam. MOA attorney Elkinton made one of her key arguments in the case that Graham didn't pass the test because he didn't study hard enough.* To prove that point she asked various other people how hard they studied.
Casey Johnson, in answering Elkinton's questions, said he studied many hours every day for months and months. It was important for him to know everything. I'd note that there was no real way to verify how much time he actually spent other than his word. There were logs of people attending academy sessions or working with others in their stations, but not independent reading and studying.
I raise this because Casey Johnson also said that training had become his passion. Yet, if he was so dedicated to studying and memorizing as much as possible so he could pass the exams and do his job well, how is it that he didn't make sure he got the Level II Fire Safety Instructor training? How is it that he didn't know about validity which was discussed in some detail in the national Fire Safety Instructor Training manual?
*I do have to mention that Jeff Graham passed the written test and the practical test comfortably. So apparently he studied enough for those exams. It was the highly subjective oral exam that he didn't pass. By one point. I'll got into much more detail about what was wrong with that exam in future posts.
In this post I'm reporting the point that Jeff Graham's attorney made in court: that the people who designed the training, the tests, and the grading procedures didn't have the training or the certification to do it right.
In court, Jeff Graham's attorney, Jeff Jarvi, gave Chad Richardson, the person in charge of the engineer academy (engineer is the step above a basic fire fighter and the academy is the training and testing program to promote to an engineer) a copy of his Fire Service Instructor Certificate and asked him to read off what level the certification was. Chad Richardson read it: Level I. He was then asked what the difference between Level I and Level II was. He didn't know. He was then asked to read the above version of how the state certifying board distinguishes them. Here's what Richardson read in court:
From the State of Alaska Department of Public Safety (p. 3 of 16)
AFSC Fire Service Instructor Certification Levels:
Instructor I: (NFPA 1041 2012 ed., 3.3.2.1): An individual who has demonstrated the knowledge and ability to deliver instruction effectively from a prepared lesson plan, including instructional aids and evaluation instruments; adapt lesson plans to the unique requirements of the students and authority having jurisdiction; organize the learning environment so that learning is maximized; and meet the record-keeping requirements of authority having jurisdiction.
Instructor II: (NFPA 1041 2012 ed., 3.3.2.2): An individual who has met the requirements for FSI Level I qualifications, and has demonstrated the knowledge and ability to develop individual lesson plans for a specific topic including learning objectives, instructional aids, and evaluation instruments; schedule training sessions based on overall training plan of authority having jurisdiction; and supervise and coordinate the activities of other instructors.
If you missed the bold above, Level I is qualified to give training and tests someone else has designed. You need Level II to create the training and the testing (including how the tests are graded.)
Jarvi did the same with Casey Johnson who prepared the exam. And current Deputy Chief Jodie Hettrick who was then the new head of all training at the AFD. They all only had Level I certification. While I can understand the difficulty of coming into a new situation when the academy had already been planned, one thing Jodie Hettrick could have done in her initiation period was to check the certifications of the two in charge of the academy. She had, after all, been in charge of the state certification program just before taking the job in Anchorage.
Why does this matter?
First and foremost, the people in charge of testing didn't have the knowledge needed to create a valid and reliable exam and exam process necessary for a system based on merit principles, as required by the MOA Charter at Section 5.06(c).
Second, it undermines the credibility of the AFD's claims in court about how professional the fire department is. The people preparing the exam didn't have the training or certification to do their jobs right. There are also certifications for what different levels of paramedics can and cannot do. Several people testified to not being able to perform certain functions because you needed a higher certification to perform it. Are people ignoring those certifications too? I suspect not, simply because they see that as their primary function, while they might see testing as 'merely' administrative. I don't know for sure.
Third, it raises questions about integrity, the area that Jeff Graham was marked down on, just enough in his oral exam, for him to fail to qualify for promotion. I'll get into that matter later, but I want people to remember this as one of number of questions about integrity that make the judgment of Graham's integrity seem hypocritical and which I'm sure the jury didn't miss.
On August 4, at the end of the MOA's defense, Deputy Chief Hettrick was called back to the stand by the MOA attorney and asked questions about the lack of proper certification.
It was unfortunate, she told the court. That State of Alaska didn't offer training in Anchorage for a number of years. But it turns out there were people at AFD who had been certified at Level II when there still was training available in Anchorage.
Jeff Jarvi, Graham's attorney, asked why people didn't go to Juneau or Outside for training, and Hettrick said it depended on available travel funds. He then pointed out that Casey Johnson (who created the exams) had been allowed to testify at the trial out of sequence so he could attend a non-critical conference in North Carolina. That's four years since the exam and they still haven't gotten training.
Below are some of my typed notes in the courtroom, so they aren't verbatim but close.
Hettrick: Two small groups and no one from Anchorage took it. There are no state statutes that require certification. Local government makes that decision. For police they have statutes. There are recommendations, but without the instructor program, state couldn't do that.
Elkinton: Sounds like the authority having jurisdiction can prescribe what to do.
Hettrick: Yes
So, she's saying without a Municipal statue requiring training people to proper certification, it's ok if unqualified people make up the exams and grading procedures.
When it was Jeff Jarvi's turn to cross examine.
Jarvi: Chief Dennis was a certified Level 2 right?
Hettrick: Yes
Jarvi: Were there others?
Hettrick: We have, I believe, less than 10.
Jarvi: There are others [with Level II Certification]?
Hettrick: Yes
Jarvi: Did they travel Outside to take the exam?
Hettrick: No, they got it before 1996, but they can have them renewed. The other half of that group attended the course we did in 2016. . . .
Jarvi: We heard that Dennis did his in Juneau and Casey Johnson [Who created the test but was only certified at Level I] was accommodated in this trial to go to a conference in North Carolina?
Hettrick: Yes.
I would also note here - it's difficult to find the perfect place to put everything because some facts relate to more than one point, such as Casey Johnson's descriptions of how he himself had prepared for his own promotion exam. MOA attorney Elkinton made one of her key arguments in the case that Graham didn't pass the test because he didn't study hard enough.* To prove that point she asked various other people how hard they studied.
Casey Johnson, in answering Elkinton's questions, said he studied many hours every day for months and months. It was important for him to know everything. I'd note that there was no real way to verify how much time he actually spent other than his word. There were logs of people attending academy sessions or working with others in their stations, but not independent reading and studying.
I raise this because Casey Johnson also said that training had become his passion. Yet, if he was so dedicated to studying and memorizing as much as possible so he could pass the exams and do his job well, how is it that he didn't make sure he got the Level II Fire Safety Instructor training? How is it that he didn't know about validity which was discussed in some detail in the national Fire Safety Instructor Training manual?
*I do have to mention that Jeff Graham passed the written test and the practical test comfortably. So apparently he studied enough for those exams. It was the highly subjective oral exam that he didn't pass. By one point. I'll got into much more detail about what was wrong with that exam in future posts.
Tuesday, January 09, 2018
Two Movies Two Nights, One About Love, One About Anger - Naming and Billboards (Updated)
Monday night we saw Call Me By Your Name, a movie as devoid of violence as you can get. There was blood - Elia got a nose bleed while eating dinner. Oscar scraped his stomach in a bike accident. If there was more than that, I don't remember. The movie was about love in many different forms from love among family members, friends, and sexual love. It's about intelligent, well educated, multilingual people interacting not just with civility, but with affection. It all takes place in a lushly sensual summer in Northern Italy.
The movie has gotten a lot of praise. The New Yorker has one gushing review and one thoroughly nasty review. It wasn't merely critical, but relentlessly churlish. The first paragraph ends with:
I did raise the question to my wife about Armie Hammer's name. I joked that he was the grandson of the oil man Armand Hammer. It turns out, according to The Times of Israel that he's the great grandson of Armand Hammer. The review focuses on the Jewish themes of the movie.
Tuesday night we saw Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri, a movie full of violence, foul language, and anger. The film erases the idea of good guys and bad guys - everyone is flawed, and there's anger deep in all of them. With one exception. It doesn't paint a pretty picture of the United States, but it does force anyone watching it to think about our uncivil society and the troubled lives of people who never experienced dependable, unconditioned love. This is, for me, a movie about anger and how it causes us to do stupid things, to hurt other people as a way of trying to lessen our own pain.
All that said, Three Billboards got a slew of Golden Globe awards Sunday night and Call Me By Your Name got shut out, though it did have a lot of nominations.
This post is for Casey, but he's probably already asleep.
[UPDATE Jan 10, 2017: I've had a night to sleep on this second film. What hadn't quite formed itself into words last night: This is a fairy tale, constructed to make a point about the destructiveness of anger and the importance of forgiveness. The characters and the town are less real people than constructs to teach a lesson, a parable perhaps. That's the unease I walked away from the theater with. Will it work? I don't know. This town is in the same state as Ferguson and racism in the police station isn't below the surface. While partisan politics aren't mentioned, this town clearly voted for Trump and Mildred is probably one of the few who didn't. The town is divided between troubled whites and others - blacks, a gay guy, and a dwarf. I suspect the obviousness of that will have many Trump voters immune to the message about the destructiveness of anger and hate. It will come across like Clinton's deplorable comment did. With the exception of one (very cool) white resident of Ebbing, the only people who supported Mildred were the outsiders - blacks, a gay, a midget. But perhaps people who originally side with Mildred will recognize their own obsessiveness.
In a SlashFilm interview, director McDonagh says the screenplay was written eight years ago, so it's not about Trump and current politics, but it doesn't say how much time he spent in small town Missouri. (Sam Rockwell, in a Vanity Fair interview says the movie was filmed in Asheville, North Carolina, but he spent time in Missouri doing ride-alongs with police.) So I simply don't know how well this reflects the people in a town like this.
All that said, each film maker, each author should make the story they have in them. Short of intentionally manipulative propaganda, it's not their responsibility how people react. Riling people up is not a bad thing. so long as they think about the issues raised and their own positions.]
The movie has gotten a lot of praise. The New Yorker has one gushing review and one thoroughly nasty review. It wasn't merely critical, but relentlessly churlish. The first paragraph ends with:
"Elio affirms that his parents were aware of the relationship and offered their approval, to which Oliver responds, “You’re so lucky; my father would have carted me off to a correctional facility.” And that’s the premise of the film: in order to have anything like a happy adolescence and avoid the sexual repression and frustration that seem to be the common lot, it’s essential to pick the right parents. The movie is about, to put it plainly, being raised right."I had thought about how loving Elio and his parents were with each other, and as well as I got along with my parents, this family really had a great rapport. But to say that the movie was all about being raised by the right parents, hints that perhaps something about the warmth of the family irritated Brody, the reviewer, enough to color his whole view of the movie. There were things he said that had merit. He basically said it was all a tourist promotion scheme for Northern Italy, and I did think, when I saw the waterfall, about all the people who will add it to their itineraries when the go to Italy. And I thought about his criticism of the camera shots. There were no point of view shots - and I realized I couldn't remember seeing what was happening from the eyes of the main characters. (I'd have to see it again to be sure. I'm not sure it's true. We do see Oscar's arrival from the upstairs window where Elio is, for example.) That criticism also made me feel sorry for someone so steeped in film making that he sees the film making instead of the film.
I did raise the question to my wife about Armie Hammer's name. I joked that he was the grandson of the oil man Armand Hammer. It turns out, according to The Times of Israel that he's the great grandson of Armand Hammer. The review focuses on the Jewish themes of the movie.
Tuesday night we saw Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri, a movie full of violence, foul language, and anger. The film erases the idea of good guys and bad guys - everyone is flawed, and there's anger deep in all of them. With one exception. It doesn't paint a pretty picture of the United States, but it does force anyone watching it to think about our uncivil society and the troubled lives of people who never experienced dependable, unconditioned love. This is, for me, a movie about anger and how it causes us to do stupid things, to hurt other people as a way of trying to lessen our own pain.
All that said, Three Billboards got a slew of Golden Globe awards Sunday night and Call Me By Your Name got shut out, though it did have a lot of nominations.
This post is for Casey, but he's probably already asleep.
[UPDATE Jan 10, 2017: I've had a night to sleep on this second film. What hadn't quite formed itself into words last night: This is a fairy tale, constructed to make a point about the destructiveness of anger and the importance of forgiveness. The characters and the town are less real people than constructs to teach a lesson, a parable perhaps. That's the unease I walked away from the theater with. Will it work? I don't know. This town is in the same state as Ferguson and racism in the police station isn't below the surface. While partisan politics aren't mentioned, this town clearly voted for Trump and Mildred is probably one of the few who didn't. The town is divided between troubled whites and others - blacks, a gay guy, and a dwarf. I suspect the obviousness of that will have many Trump voters immune to the message about the destructiveness of anger and hate. It will come across like Clinton's deplorable comment did. With the exception of one (very cool) white resident of Ebbing, the only people who supported Mildred were the outsiders - blacks, a gay, a midget. But perhaps people who originally side with Mildred will recognize their own obsessiveness.
In a SlashFilm interview, director McDonagh says the screenplay was written eight years ago, so it's not about Trump and current politics, but it doesn't say how much time he spent in small town Missouri. (Sam Rockwell, in a Vanity Fair interview says the movie was filmed in Asheville, North Carolina, but he spent time in Missouri doing ride-alongs with police.) So I simply don't know how well this reflects the people in a town like this.
All that said, each film maker, each author should make the story they have in them. Short of intentionally manipulative propaganda, it's not their responsibility how people react. Riling people up is not a bad thing. so long as they think about the issues raised and their own positions.]
Video Economics Primer Offers Four Ways To Reduce Long Term Deficit
Someone sent me a link to this video that explains the economy. I'm always skeptical about people explaining the economy. Why? Because economists tell us the economy is doing well, all signs are positive. But we hear
My reaction is that if these things are happening in a 'good' economy, then the economists aren't measuring the economy right.
But this video is a great start to learn how economist think about the economy, some of the jargon, and our options for debt reduction beyond the Republican mantras of no new taxes and spending cuts.
In fact, near the end of the video, Dalio explains why spending cuts alone exacerbate the debt problems.
And who is Ray Dialo? Wikipedia tells us:
Crib Sheet
This video is content rich. He has reduced his presentation to the essentials. Every word is important. I couldn't listen to this while doing something else. In fact, I had to stop it repeatedly so I could take notes. But by doing that, I understood his conclusion.
Basically, he's saying:
The economy works in a simple, mechanical way.
And, of course, economists don't agree amongst themselves, so take this all with a grain of salt. Consider it a starting point for finding out more.
[UPDATE 5:45pm: I've added the word 'video' into the title after seeing how relatively few people have looked at this post so far today. LA Rain got more hits faster. People apparently don't want to deal with the hard topics. The video is really well done, and maybe by adding video to the title more people will stake a look. Just musing here on blogging and people's interests. I do recognize that I too get overloaded and skip things I should read.]
- about the people struggling to get by, (and probably know some of them too.)
- that US income inequality hasn't been so high for a century.
- (and see) a lot of homeless folks all over.
- that to keep the economy growing we have to destroy the environment. (Well they don't word it quite like that.)
My reaction is that if these things are happening in a 'good' economy, then the economists aren't measuring the economy right.
But this video is a great start to learn how economist think about the economy, some of the jargon, and our options for debt reduction beyond the Republican mantras of no new taxes and spending cuts.
In fact, near the end of the video, Dalio explains why spending cuts alone exacerbate the debt problems.
And who is Ray Dialo? Wikipedia tells us:
"Raymond Dalio (born August 1, 1949) is an American investor, hedge fund manager, and philanthropist.[3] Dalio is the founder of investment firm Bridgewater Associates, one of the world's largest hedge funds.[4] He is one of the world’s 100 wealthiest people, according to Bloomberg.[5]"So, when he says at the end, that this 'template' has helped him, I'm assuming it means it has helped him to time and direct his investments.
Crib Sheet
This video is content rich. He has reduced his presentation to the essentials. Every word is important. I couldn't listen to this while doing something else. In fact, I had to stop it repeatedly so I could take notes. But by doing that, I understood his conclusion.
Basically, he's saying:
The economy works in a simple, mechanical way.
- A few simple parts
- A lot of simple transactions, that are repeated over and over again.
- These transactions are driven by human nature and create 3 main forces that drive the economy
- productivity growth
- the short term debt cycle
- the long term debt cycle
He explains these three forces and uses the three visually superimposed on each other - productivity growth, short term debt cycle, and the long term debt cycle - to explain what people have to do to keep the cycles going in our favor.
He starts by talking about transactions (people exchanging goods and services for money and credit) and shows how these can lead to cycles of increasing and decreasing productivity and debt.
He puts CREDIT in the center of this model - as a critical means to increasing productivity and living standards (He points out there is $50 trillion in credit in the US, but only about $3 trillion in cash.)
You can agree or disagree with his presentation (I have a few questions and quibbles) but it does a great job of spelling out the basics of mainstream economics.
He tells us at the end that the short term debt cycles can be fixed by the central bank (The Fed in the US) decreasing interest rates. But each time it does this and restimulates the economy and productivity growth, it increases the long term debt until the long term debt cycle gets us to a depression.
He offers four solutions at that point. (Lowering interest doesn't work because it is already at 0% at this point):
- Cut spending
- Restructure the debt
- Income redistribution
- Print more money
He argues that cutting spending increases the problem, and the ultimate solution is a combination of all four, which, if done well (balancing inflationary and deflationary ways to deleverage) it is 'beautiful' and gets us balanced again with the least disruption.
I promise if you watch this carefully and take some notes, all this will make perfect sense.
This is useful to gather jargon and understanding for when you talk to your Republican congress members who only want to cut spending and taxes.
And, of course, economists don't agree amongst themselves, so take this all with a grain of salt. Consider it a starting point for finding out more.
[UPDATE 5:45pm: I've added the word 'video' into the title after seeing how relatively few people have looked at this post so far today. LA Rain got more hits faster. People apparently don't want to deal with the hard topics. The video is really well done, and maybe by adding video to the title more people will stake a look. Just musing here on blogging and people's interests. I do recognize that I too get overloaded and skip things I should read.]
Monday, January 08, 2018
A Little Rain Makes Me Think About Life After Humans
It rained overnight in LA.
Looking at the drops left on the leaf reminds me that nature follows set patterns. We talk about human caused global warming harming the earth. But 'harm' is in the eye of the beholder.
The earth will change, but it will survive. How humans and other living things will survive is another story. Some argue that without humans, the non-human living things will thrive. The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement calls for people to stop procreating. There's even two seasons of Life After People on History.com. (A quick look suggests that all the pollutants we've already created and have sitting around will cause massive harm.)
UPDATE 8:45pm: The rain got more serious later in the day:
Looking at the drops left on the leaf reminds me that nature follows set patterns. We talk about human caused global warming harming the earth. But 'harm' is in the eye of the beholder.
The earth will change, but it will survive. How humans and other living things will survive is another story. Some argue that without humans, the non-human living things will thrive. The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement calls for people to stop procreating. There's even two seasons of Life After People on History.com. (A quick look suggests that all the pollutants we've already created and have sitting around will cause massive harm.)
UPDATE 8:45pm: The rain got more serious later in the day:
Sunday, January 07, 2018
How We Remember Our Presidents
Given recent tweets, I can't help but think about presidential legacies and monikers. Here are a few:
And I can't imagine anything other than:
As you might be able to detect, I'm frustrated that the American media's spotlight is focused on Trump's twitter account. It's like the slowing of traffic as people view a car wreck. We're caught in ajam-up of cars and can't get on with what we need to do. Hopefully, we're absorbing the reminder to drive more safely individually and planning how to get public officials to collectively fund safer infrastructure, even alternatives to driving.
So keep calling your congress members. Keep working with groups gearing up for the next election. Read funny books and watch funny movies to clear off the numbing effect of our president.
Meanwhile I'm thinking far ahead when it's possible the irony that Trump's nickname will carry could actually wear off and people take it at face value. So Orwellian. Push that thought away and pick your battles well.
- Washington - Father of His Country
- Jackson - Old Hickory
- Lincoln - The Great Emancipator, Honest Abe
- Roosevelt - The Trust Buster
- Coolidge - Silent Cal
- Roosevelt - FDR
- Truman - Give ‘em Hell Harry
- Eisenhower - Ike
- Kennedy - JFK
- Johnson - LBJ
- Reagan - The Great Communicator
- Nixon - Tricky Dick and “I am not a crook.”
- Carter - The Peanut Farmer
- Bush (Jr) - Dubya
And I can't imagine anything other than:
- Trump - A Very Stable Genius
As you might be able to detect, I'm frustrated that the American media's spotlight is focused on Trump's twitter account. It's like the slowing of traffic as people view a car wreck. We're caught in ajam-up of cars and can't get on with what we need to do. Hopefully, we're absorbing the reminder to drive more safely individually and planning how to get public officials to collectively fund safer infrastructure, even alternatives to driving.
So keep calling your congress members. Keep working with groups gearing up for the next election. Read funny books and watch funny movies to clear off the numbing effect of our president.
Meanwhile I'm thinking far ahead when it's possible the irony that Trump's nickname will carry could actually wear off and people take it at face value. So Orwellian. Push that thought away and pick your battles well.
Saturday, January 06, 2018
Is Trump A Genius?
First there was the IQ test and Mensa, the club for people who scored over 130-32 (top 2%) on the IQ test.
Yet Priceonomics in a piece called "The Psychology of Self Appointed Genius" tells us that 49% of men who filled out OKCupid applications marked yes when asked if they were a genius.
So, in thinking he's a genius, Trump is pretty much an average man.
Except, the Priceonomics article goes on to say:
Another observation from this article:
Let's think about this a different way. We began with Mensa requiring being in the top 2% of the IQ test. But IQ tests don't exactly measure IQ.
From a Gizmodo article on Mensa and Trump:
But beyond that IQ tests measure fluency in a particular cultural kind of knowledge. Harvard psychologist Howard Gardner came up with list of multiple kinds of intelligence. The Northern Illinois University faculty development site lists them as:
Let's look at these one by one:
1. "well-developed verbal skills and sensitivity to the sounds, meanings and rhythms of words - his speeches to his base showed a certain sensitivity to sounds and rhythms" - "Lock her up, Lock her up," "Build that wall, build that wall." But these are first or second grade level vocabulary and rhythms.
2. "ability to think conceptually and abstractly, and capacity to discern logical and numerical patterns" - Haven't seen much of this. Logic and numerical patterns do not seem to be part of his way of thinking. Tends to be much more of a concrete than abstract thinker.
3. "capacity to think in images and pictures, to visualize accurately and abstractly" - could well be that he thinks in images and pictures, but I don't see much abstraction.
4. "ability to control one’s body movements and to handle objects skillfully" - I haven't seen him play golf, but I've heard he's reasonably good. On his famous grabbing tape, he claimed to be able to handle some objects skillfully.
5. "ability to produce and appreciate rhythm, pitch and timber" - he's pretty good, again with a supportive audience, at saying things that arouse their emotion and loyalty.
6. "capacity to detect and respond appropriately to the moods, motivations and desires of others" - again, he's figured out what moves his base, and if he has genius in anything, it would be in pushing people's buttons.
7. "capacity to be self-aware and in tune with inner feelings, values, beliefs and thinking processes" - the part of his brain that processes self-awareness seems not to be functioning much at all.
8. "ability to recognize and categorize plants, animals and other objects in nature" - one of my daughter's college roommates was from Manhattan, like Trump, and she needed to get back to the city on weekends because she couldn't handle all the green of the campus. She needed her fix of concrete. Trump's climate change denial, shrinking of national monuments, off-shore drilling all suggest that nature is near the bottom of his list of important things.
9. "sensitivity and capacity to tackle deep questions about human existence such as, What is the meaning of life? Why do we die? How did we get here?" - No evidence shown of this.
So the only glimmer of genius I see from this list is, as I mentioned in #6 - ability to push other people's buttons. He pushed his supporters' buttons to positive effect and he skillfully enrages everyone else on a regular basis.
But let's look a little deeper.
Daniel Goleman came up with different kinds of emotional intelligence. From a Concordia University site:
I'd give him high marks for social skills for inspiring others (his base) and inducing desired responses (from the media and from liberals.) One could debate this. He'd prefer the media to praise him, but he certainly knows how to get them riled up. But perhaps that isn't really his intention. Managing relationships? He's on this third marriage. His staff seems to be busy with internal warfare, his most trusted now becoming his avowed enemies.
This is really a quick and dirty assessment. I haven't given detailed examples to back up my assessments. I think what I'm mainly offering here is a measuring stick that others can use to measure his self-reported genius against. And I'm waiting to see readers think I've missed.
I'll end with one other characteristic of geniuses, that James Fallows, among others, has pointed out: most geniuses don't call attention to their gifts.
Yet Priceonomics in a piece called "The Psychology of Self Appointed Genius" tells us that 49% of men who filled out OKCupid applications marked yes when asked if they were a genius.
So, in thinking he's a genius, Trump is pretty much an average man.
Except, the Priceonomics article goes on to say:
"when you’re bad at something, it’s likely that the deficits that prevent you from improving also prevent you from realizing how bad you are."Citing a paper by Dunning, Heath, and Suls, the article continues:
"70% of one million high school seniors surveyed said they had “above average” leadership skills (only 2% said their skills were “below average.”) 60% rated themselves as in the top 10% in “their ability to get along with others”, 25% rated themselves in the top 1%. This is not quite, but almost as extraordinary as the 39% of OKCupid users who thought they were at least in the top 2%.So Trump, again, is not in the exceptional 2% range in overestimating his abilities.
In a 1970s study, 94% of college professors rated themselves as doing “above average” work (and 2/3rds rated their performance in the top quarter).
Other examples include motorcyclists, who think they’re less accident-prone than the typical biker, and business leaders, who think their firm is more likely to succeed than the industry average."
Another observation from this article:
"People with low IQ tend to overestimate their intelligence, (people with high IQ tend to underestimate their intelligence)."So, this would predict a genius would not say she was a genius.
Let's think about this a different way. We began with Mensa requiring being in the top 2% of the IQ test. But IQ tests don't exactly measure IQ.
From a Gizmodo article on Mensa and Trump:
"psychology currently recognizes IQ tests as not measuring actual intelligence, a concept which is incredibly hard to define, and which is inevitably linked to both social and individual conceptions. IQ tests primarily measure a range of skills, academic achievements and acquired knowledge—things that tend to have to do with social standing, not innate intelligence."So people born to an economically higher class, with access to cultural and educational advantages, will naturally score higher on an IQ test than those from a lower economic class. A good example for me is thinking about and IQ test where all the examples would come from the skills needed to survive in Alaska Native village culture - knowledge of the stories of the particular language group, knowledge about subsistence hunting and fishing, about Arctic astronomy and weather. Not only do you need to know the logic, but you'd have to understand all the examples. Say, "A chum salmon is to a silver salmon as a caribou is to a __________." Your logic might be fine, but if you don't know these particular fish or the caribou, you can't even apply the logic. But IQ tests and SAT's are written by and for people with a certain cultural background and knowledge. And it isn't from a Yup'ik or African-American culture and knowledge.
But beyond that IQ tests measure fluency in a particular cultural kind of knowledge. Harvard psychologist Howard Gardner came up with list of multiple kinds of intelligence. The Northern Illinois University faculty development site lists them as:
Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences
The traditional IQ tests focused on the first three of Gardner's intelligences.
1. Verbal-linguistic intelligence (well-developed verbal skills and sensitivity to the sounds, meanings and rhythms of words)
2. Logical-mathematical intelligence (ability to think conceptually and abstractly, and capacity to discern logical and numerical patterns)
3. Spatial-visual intelligence (capacity to think in images and pictures, to visualize accurately and abstractly)
4. Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence (ability to control one’s body movements and to handle objects skillfully)
5. Musical intelligences (ability to produce and appreciate rhythm, pitch and timber)
6. Interpersonal intelligence (capacity to detect and respond appropriately to the moods, motivations and desires of others)
7. Intrapersonal (capacity to be self-aware and in tune with inner feelings, values, beliefs and thinking processes)
8. Naturalist intelligence (ability to recognize and categorize plants, animals and other objects in nature)
9. Existential intelligence (sensitivity and capacity to tackle deep questions about human existence such as, What is the meaning of life? Why do we die? How did we get here?)
(Source: Thirteen ed online, 2004)
Let's look at these one by one:
1. "well-developed verbal skills and sensitivity to the sounds, meanings and rhythms of words - his speeches to his base showed a certain sensitivity to sounds and rhythms" - "Lock her up, Lock her up," "Build that wall, build that wall." But these are first or second grade level vocabulary and rhythms.
2. "ability to think conceptually and abstractly, and capacity to discern logical and numerical patterns" - Haven't seen much of this. Logic and numerical patterns do not seem to be part of his way of thinking. Tends to be much more of a concrete than abstract thinker.
3. "capacity to think in images and pictures, to visualize accurately and abstractly" - could well be that he thinks in images and pictures, but I don't see much abstraction.
4. "ability to control one’s body movements and to handle objects skillfully" - I haven't seen him play golf, but I've heard he's reasonably good. On his famous grabbing tape, he claimed to be able to handle some objects skillfully.
5. "ability to produce and appreciate rhythm, pitch and timber" - he's pretty good, again with a supportive audience, at saying things that arouse their emotion and loyalty.
6. "capacity to detect and respond appropriately to the moods, motivations and desires of others" - again, he's figured out what moves his base, and if he has genius in anything, it would be in pushing people's buttons.
7. "capacity to be self-aware and in tune with inner feelings, values, beliefs and thinking processes" - the part of his brain that processes self-awareness seems not to be functioning much at all.
8. "ability to recognize and categorize plants, animals and other objects in nature" - one of my daughter's college roommates was from Manhattan, like Trump, and she needed to get back to the city on weekends because she couldn't handle all the green of the campus. She needed her fix of concrete. Trump's climate change denial, shrinking of national monuments, off-shore drilling all suggest that nature is near the bottom of his list of important things.
9. "sensitivity and capacity to tackle deep questions about human existence such as, What is the meaning of life? Why do we die? How did we get here?" - No evidence shown of this.
So the only glimmer of genius I see from this list is, as I mentioned in #6 - ability to push other people's buttons. He pushed his supporters' buttons to positive effect and he skillfully enrages everyone else on a regular basis.
But let's look a little deeper.
Daniel Goleman came up with different kinds of emotional intelligence. From a Concordia University site:
Emotional self-awareness — knowing what one is feeling at any given time and understanding the impact those moods have on othersOf these five, I'd say Trump does well on Motivation and, to a certain extent, Social Skills. He clearly is motivated, though I suspect a lot of this comes from his father who was driven and whose disappointment in his oldest son seems to have motivated Trump not to disappoint his father.
Self-regulation — controlling or redirecting one’s emotions; anticipating consequences before acting on impulse
Motivation — utilizing emotional factors to achieve goals, enjoy the learning process and persevere in the face of obstacles
Empathy — sensing the emotions of others
Social skills — managing relationships, inspiring others and inducing desired responses from them
I'd give him high marks for social skills for inspiring others (his base) and inducing desired responses (from the media and from liberals.) One could debate this. He'd prefer the media to praise him, but he certainly knows how to get them riled up. But perhaps that isn't really his intention. Managing relationships? He's on this third marriage. His staff seems to be busy with internal warfare, his most trusted now becoming his avowed enemies.
This is really a quick and dirty assessment. I haven't given detailed examples to back up my assessments. I think what I'm mainly offering here is a measuring stick that others can use to measure his self-reported genius against. And I'm waiting to see readers think I've missed.
I'll end with one other characteristic of geniuses, that James Fallows, among others, has pointed out: most geniuses don't call attention to their gifts.
Friday, January 05, 2018
Famous People Born 1918 Part 2: ""Pretend that every single person you meet has a sign around his or her neck that says 'Make Me Feel Important.' Not only will you succeed in business, you will succeed in life."
Science
It was a good year for Nobel Prize winners. (There were two Peace Prize winners in yesterday's post.)
*From Schwinger's Nobel lecture in 1965
**As I write this, Katherine G. Johnson and Jens C. Skou appear to be still alive. Johnson's 100th birthday will be next August 26, Skou's will be next October 8
Here's some video that shows why Feynman was such a popular physicist.
xxx
[UPDATE Jan 6, 2017: Barbara Carlson points out in the comments that this video doesn't download. I've checked and I have the right embed code, so don't know why it's not working. Here's the link:
https://www.ted.com/talks/richard_feynman?utm_campaign=tedspread--b&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=tedcomshare ]
Business
The headline quote comes from Mary Kay Ash. I think it's a great way to view the world. I've recommended that we all treat everyone we meet or see on the street as if they were actual or future Nobel Prize winners or US presidents. (The presidency will regain its luster post eventually.) Here suggestion is more direct. But it's only good advice if it's genuine and not a sales strategy.
Read the link above that tells the rosy story of Mary Kay Ash. But then also read this story that argues Mary Kay's company doesn't do its women salesforce nearly as much good as officially claimed.
Film
Below is a short homage of sorts to Ingmar Bergman, De Düve. I can't resist. I remember first seeing this in a theater and slowly figuring out what was going on.
Sports
Religion
*As I write this, Billy Graham is still alive. [UPDATED Feb 23, 2018: Billy Graham passed away February 21, 2018.]
A Few Others
These don't fit into neat categories.
Here's Jack Paar interviewen Judy Garland:
As I mentioned in Famous People Born In 2018 Part I, all these folks, had they grown up in the same neighborhood, would have been in the same class at school.
In case you haven't figured it out, in each category, people are listed in the order that they died.
It was a good year for Nobel Prize winners. (There were two Peace Prize winners in yesterday's post.)
| Header | Died | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Richard Feynman | 1988 | Nobel Prize Physics |
| Julian Schwinger | 1994 | "Indeed, relativistic quantum mechanics - the union of the complementarity principle of Bohr with the relativity principle of Einstein - is quantum field theory. " * |
| Gertrude Elion | 1999 | Nobel Prize Medicine - Leukemia, Herpes Drug Pioneer |
| Franco Modigliani | 2003 | Nobel Prize Economics |
| Frederick Sanger | 2013 | Nobel Prize Chemistry 1958 and 1980 |
| Katherine G. Johnson | ** | NASA Mathematician portrayed in "Hidden Figures" |
| Jens C. Skou | ** | Nobel Prize Chemistry |
*From Schwinger's Nobel lecture in 1965
**As I write this, Katherine G. Johnson and Jens C. Skou appear to be still alive. Johnson's 100th birthday will be next August 26, Skou's will be next October 8
Here's some video that shows why Feynman was such a popular physicist.
xxx
[UPDATE Jan 6, 2017: Barbara Carlson points out in the comments that this video doesn't download. I've checked and I have the right embed code, so don't know why it's not working. Here's the link:
https://www.ted.com/talks/richard_feynman?utm_campaign=tedspread--b&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=tedcomshare ]
Business
| Died | Comments | |
|---|---|---|
| Sam Walton | 1992 | Founder of Walmart and Sam's Club |
| Mary Kay Ash | 2001 | Founder of Mary Kay Cosmetics |
The headline quote comes from Mary Kay Ash. I think it's a great way to view the world. I've recommended that we all treat everyone we meet or see on the street as if they were actual or future Nobel Prize winners or US presidents. (The presidency will regain its luster post eventually.) Here suggestion is more direct. But it's only good advice if it's genuine and not a sales strategy.
Read the link above that tells the rosy story of Mary Kay Ash. But then also read this story that argues Mary Kay's company doesn't do its women salesforce nearly as much good as officially claimed.
Film
| Died | Comments | |
|---|---|---|
| William Holden | 1981 | Academy & Emmy Award Winning Actor |
| Rita Hayworth | 1987 | Dancer, Pinup, Actor |
| Art Carney | 2003 | Academy Award Winning Actor - Honeymooners Actor |
| Ingmar Bergman | 2007 | Academy Award Winning Swedish Director |
Below is a short homage of sorts to Ingmar Bergman, De Düve. I can't resist. I remember first seeing this in a theater and slowly figuring out what was going on.
Sports
| Died | Comments | |
|---|---|---|
| Bob Feller | 2010 | Cleveland Pitcher, Hall of Famer |
| Leroy Walker | 2012 | First Black To Lead US Olympic Committee, Coach US Olympic Team |
Religion
| Died | Comments | |
|---|---|---|
| Maharishi Mahesh Yogi | 2008 | Transcendental Meditation Guru To Beatles and world |
| Oral Roberts | 2009 | Pentacostal Televangelist, Founder Oral Roberts University |
| Billy Graham | *[2018] | "The Pope Of Protestant America" Religious Advisor to Presidents |
*As I write this, Billy Graham is still alive. [UPDATED Feb 23, 2018: Billy Graham passed away February 21, 2018.]
A Few Others
These don't fit into neat categories.
| Died | Comments | |
|---|---|---|
| Frank M. Johnson | 1999 | White Alabama Judge Who Ruled Against Segregation |
| Ann Landers | 2002 | Esther Pauline Friedman Lederer - Advice Columnist |
| Jack Paar | 2004 | Investor and Host Of The Late Night Show |
| Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn | 2008 | Nobel Prize in Literature, Expelled from Soviet Union |
| Abigail Van Buren | 2013 | Pauline Ester Friedman Phillips, and Twin Sister of Ann Landers |
Here's Jack Paar interviewen Judy Garland:
As I mentioned in Famous People Born In 2018 Part I, all these folks, had they grown up in the same neighborhood, would have been in the same class at school.
In case you haven't figured it out, in each category, people are listed in the order that they died.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)