Debate 2019 Part 2, Day 1

Well, fellow citizens, we watched last night's debate, and we were probably just as underwhelmed as anyone else.  But for the most part, the candidates were consistent.  There was one new candidate, Steve Bullock, who revealed the fact that he had not been on stage for the previous debate, because what the candidates say is strongly affected by how they remember their previous performance!

I don't want to appear snide, or patronizing, or cynical, but most voters will agree that what the candidates say during debates may not, and probably will not, relate closely to what they will do if they're elected.  (Of course, in the case of candidates known to be deceitful--and we won't mention names--you just know that  they don't have a clue as to how to go about doing anything, and they never had any intention of doing it anyway! Well, no reason to get discouraged . . .)

There are good reasons for this.
1. Collaboration.  Most of the difficult things they want to do needs support from Congress; and what Congress wants to do and what the president promises have to be merged and forged into what actually gets done.  Of course, a president with a melodramatic style will demand that his or her vision be put into action first, and then pretend to reluctantly compromise, claiming that it is a sign of their willingness to be flexible.
2. Flexibility.  We want to hope that the president is intelligent, and can learn from the best ideas of others.  This presentation of themselves as coming to the debates with all their program fully formed, like Venus rising from the waves, is a concession to the worst aspects of media coverage.  The media is usually harsh with any candidate who appears to show that they don't know the details of their plans.  Some of the most weak-minded candidates did take the time to learn the details of their own plans, but then clung to those details so tenaciously that we must suspect that they did not realize that they were details.  And of course you can't change your mind about any detail, because that would be Flip-Flopping, another modern evil invented and enjoyed by the most mediocre of news personalities.
3. The next point is rather a sad one.  Marketing.  None of the candidates can do anything unless they're elected, and manage to defeat the incumbent (whose name eludes me for the moment).  Therefore, they must declare policies that are a hybrid between what they want personally (which is ultimately only of secondary importance), what their constituents want (which is important), and what undecided voters want, which is actually pretty important as well.  So there are all sorts of calculations going on.  These are the calculations that they teach you in Politics School; it is called political science, and since its birth, the political calculations that the average citizen can make have become a lot more complicated.  We spend a lot of time second-guessing every candidate, and reading between the lines of what they say; was that a marketing statement?

Something that pleased me was that at least a couple of the candidates recognized that the entire row of debaters last night were actually on the same page on most of the issues.  There are transcripts that you can read to get the details; I'm only trying to present general observations, because in my view general observations are important.

4.  There was fair agreement that border security was necessary.  Even if a candidate was of the opinion that an open border would be nice, it is not practical.  In the best of all worlds, there would be no borders; we know that.  But since we cannot share all government services with our pals in the southern countries, we have to have a border.  This is reality; it is also marketing, because the Democrats have been rapped on the knuckles for giving the impression that they really wanted an open border.  There was some disagreement about other aspects of immigration, and rightly so; Immigration is one of the most difficult problems to get our heads around, given that out of the wealth at the disposal of the government with which to provide services to the people, a large proportion is tied up with entities that are controlled by the most wealthy.  There just isn't enough money to waste on unworthy illegal immigrants.

5.  There was agreement that Universal Health Care was necessary.  The more conservative of the candidates wanted that to be reached within so many years; others wanted it right away.  There was considerably less agreement on whether private insurance would be abolished.  Some candidates, who have studied the problem personally, are more inclined to deal harshly with the Health Insurance Industry, to the point of killing it dead.  This seems unnecessarily extreme, and would probably be regarded as constitutionally impossible.

6.  There was agreement that the most wealthy people and corporations had to pay their fair share of taxes.  Even one of the most wealthy candidates on stage agreed that this was reasonable.  However, he seemed reluctant to support the inheritance tax.

There seemed insufficient talk about the so-called downstream races that are so important this election year.  If the Democrats gain a majority in both houses, then un-veto-able legislation could be contemplated.  There is a lot of--well-earned--hostility towards Mitch McConnell, and great determination to unseat him.  The same goes for Susan Collins of Maine, and Martha McSally of Arizona.  If Democrats win all three seats, the Senate will effectively have a bare Republican majority (since the Vice President is the chair of the Senate, and has a casting vote).

There was also little talk about Climate Change.  Many of the candidates said at the first debate that rejoining the Paris Accords would be their first order of business.  But I get the impression that candidates are fearful about backlash from talking about environmental issues.  Let's face it: with an ignorant population, disaster is almost inevitable.  With half the population distrustful of science, and the other half hunkering down to pray, things are looking bleak.  But Be of Good Cheer, as Charles Schultz famously said.

The bottom line is that, in fact, I would be satisfied for anyone on the stage to be the Democrat nominee.  If the vote were to go on straight party lines, then the Democrats would win if enough of them came out to vote.  Elizabeth Warren kept making that point: enough people would come out to vote only if they were voting on a platform of policies that was exciting and imaginative.  On the other hand, there are more mature voters who would only be comfortable with "more of same", which is something only aging Democrats want.  Aging Republicans, on the other hand, voted for Trump because they did not want more of same; it is difficult to guess what they will do this time.

Arch

The Mueller Hearings

I do not have any special insights into, or additional information about, the Mueller hearings; to paraphrase some baseball hero: All I know is what I see on TV, and read on the Internet.

Mueller looked confused, and stumbled.  Apparently he was a lot sharper when he was younger--which strikes me as amazing--and was a lot quicker to respond.  This investigation alone, and its implications, would have aged anyone.  We're not accustomed to thinking about the White House as a hotbed of anarchy, even if it has been often the source of serious wrongdoing, crime, or even misbehavior.  The way things stand now, Mueller must have felt very exposed for a couple of years.  Compared with the shenanigans of Kenneth Starr, Mueller's behavior was the epitome of rectitude.  (But what do I know?)

Does Mueller's team have the ability to totally exonerate?  This sounds like a good point; in criminal law, one can convict--in which case, there has been no exoneration at all--or one can not convict--in which case there has been neither total conviction, nor total--what's the word?--exculpation.  The word exoneration is being used here in a colloquial sense, and one wonders whether it should have found its way into the report.  In response to the Administration's crowing about 'No Collusion,' etc, perhaps it was put there to make it clear that ongoing investigations could still yield some damning conclusions, for a later, more appropriate time.

Russian Interference in Election 2016.  Mueller was explicit in stating that there had been systematic efforts--largely successful--to sway voters before the election, and direct interference by means of hacking into Ms. Clinton's email account, and the Democratic National Convention computers, etc.  All the hacking is criminal, and all the efforts put into social media subversion probably comes close to being criminal, but to my eyes, it seems just glorified propaganda.  Since we Americans exist in an atmosphere of aggressive marketing (which is close to the President's idea of Fake News), we are both more susceptible to swallowing propaganda than the Russians themselves, but we're also inured to marketing in some ways.

It seems to me that the Republican strategy of restricting polling access was arguably a more direct and significant influence on the election outcome than Russian fiddling with facebook and twitter.  It is pathetic to point the finger at how much of an effect the Russians had on feeble-minded Pennsylvanians and their beliefs; Pennsylvanian conservatives absolutely rejoice in the feeblemindedness of their constituents.

Distraction.  By now, most of us are well aware of the principal Trump (and New Alt-Right) technique of distraction.  The onslaught of polemic from Trump and company is often stepped up when they are about to quietly take some very deliberate action to do something terrible.  At present, what they're trying to do is to win the 2020 election, to get done all sorts of unfinished business having to do with supreme court justices, appointing other federal judges, more legislation to benefit the wealthy, and big business, and giving away access to National Parks, etc.  Health Care and Immigration are only distractions, at this stage.  There are some diehard conservatives who keep those topics in the forefront, but the Republicans just can't bring themselves to put in the work it would take to replace the ACA (a.k.a. 'Obamacare') with anything that the people would like, and the insurance companies would like.  Immigration is even more difficult, and almost anything they try will result in howls of protest, from many among the Republicans as well as outside the GOP.

Another thing Republicans (and their Alt-Right Running Dogs) want, is for the Democrats to fight among themselves and select an nonviable nominee.  But I personally don't think steering the nomination towards someone who is deemed to have winnability is something we could live with (though it certainly looks as if the candidates themselves are making winnability calculations that are alarmingly cynical).  However, choosing the candidate of whom Trump seems most afraid of is surrendering more power to Trump than is comfortable to me.  He isn't intelligent, but he is tricky.

In conclusion, I do think Impeachment might be the right thing to do, as Robert Reich says; but beginning Impeachment proceedings could send a lot of lazy Republicans to the polls, who might otherwise be more interested in swilling beer and hunting deer, and so on (just kidding; they're probably wonderful people working ordinary jobs and drinking diet Coke, like everyone else).  This election, like most others, will be determined by who stays home.  And also by how successful the GOP is in discouraging minority voters.  The GOP never minds what minorities do actually--to paraphrase Professor Higgins in My Fair Lady--as long as they don't vote.

A Few Thoughts that Have Nothing To Do With the Mueller Report

I'm sorry to see the negativity that surrounded Beto O'Rourke's First Debate performance.  He seemed to be very careful in his statements, but that caution came across as hesitation.  If he settled down, and became quicker on his feet, he would have been a great candidate, though the tide of Democrat opinion seems to be to nominate a female / minority / young candidate.  Beto is certainly young, but . . .

Perhaps it's a little too early for this, but the success of any future Democrat presidency will not be dependent on the know-how and agenda of a single man or woman.  I must be a collaboration; something that the GOP cannot do.  There has to be a team, the members of which must work like dogs to repair the economy (though in statistical terms, the economy is performing in such a way that it gives Wall Street daily--thrills--shall we say).  Bear in mind that there are some extremely wealthy people who actually advocate higher taxes for upper-income individuals and corporations.  My belief is that these people know that the US infrastructure is sadly lagging behind, and the government can support repairing infrastructure and extending it and developing it only if the tax dollars are available.

The Green New Deal has a lot of window-dressing, but most definitely environmental action can no longer be kicked down the road.  A president who is good for the US will have to be someone persuasive enough to convince the people to adopt at least a few austerity measures.  I worry about water quality.  I worry about education.  I worry about deforestation.  I worry about the politics of Central America, and the opportunists, hardliners and crooks (not all the same people) who tend to snatch power there, sometimes with US clandestine help.  A huge deal of talent will have to be brought to bear on the problems that have been deferred for the last several years, and more that have been actually caused in the last several years.  I worry about plastic waste, but I fear that contracts might be taken out on anyone who brings that up, from both parties.

Okay; I need to go eat some oatmeal; we all need to keep healthy and sane, and tackle problems a few at a time, and be little Eveready Bunnies for the foreseeable future.

Arch

Being a Leader of Society; Being a Public Personality; Being a Citizen

I guess FaceBook has come to stay; despite everything I hate about FaceBook—and I wish someone will invent a substitute for it; I don't mind paying a nominal fee to have something like FaceBook without the oppressive disadvantages—it looks as though I can't stay away from it. 

No, this post is not about FaceBook!

Leonard Bernstein, c. 1950

(On FaceBook,) I 'Liked' the page of Leonard Bernstein, a personality well known to music lovers, and many others of a certain era.  Periodically, the page posts a statement that Bernstein has made on some subject or other; sometimes responding to topical issues, other times simply inspired by whatever moves the person or persons who own that page.  (Obviously not Mr. Bernstein himself; he's dead.)  And it struck me that Bernstein never made any statement with which I disagreed.

No, this post is not about Leonard Bernstein, either, though he was an amazing, admirable person.  As you probably know, music is one of my major interests, and I have lots of opinions about it.  But, once you get to know Bernstein, about Bernstein, you are struck by the breadth of music that Bernstein liked, and appreciated, and was anxious to popularize.  I mean, there were a few sorts of music that he did not particularly like, but they were vastly in the minority.

What Bernstein commented on was essentially about being a human being.  About being someone who lived on this planet.  About knowing all the wonderful things that there are on this planet, (and out of it, if it comes to that,) appreciating them, and loving them, and bringing them to the attention of everyone who had a moment to spare.  (Bernstein was not unique; Carl Sagan is another one, and arguably Neil Degrasse Tyson is yet another, with perhaps a smaller set of interests on which he comments.)

I have often written about my belief that a college education is about knowing what there is in the world that we should care about, and be interested in.  Some people prefer not to know.  If it isn't mine, then what do I care?  This is a defensive posture; it avoids the pain of worrying about things over which you don't have direct control.  But it detracts from that thread of concern that connects you to the world, that you need to make sense of what you see in the news; to talk to people whom you meet, to make sense of the motives of others; to reach out to those with common concerns, in order to make joint efforts to solve problems.  A college education is also about focusing in on matters about which you care greatly, to train to specialize on that area, with a view to working in a field that interests you.  (But we know that many go to college purely to be qualified to get a high-paying job, even if they don't have time to learn very much about the qualifications for that job the energy or the inclination to pursue those subjects to the necessary depth.)

The reason that the emphasis has changed from connection to the world to getting a high-paying job is because employment is steered today by businesses---or employers of which the majority are businesses---and hiring practices are subject to maximizing profits and minimizing costs.  In fact, there is lots of money to go round. But the competition for financial resources is so fierce among the most wealthy that it appears to ordinary folks like us that there is very little money to spare.  Everyone's attention is so completely on money, because for many students, there is great doubt whether they will be able to earn enough money to have a reasonable lifestyle, that nobody talks about falling in love with our planet and its people.  It only comes up occasionally, in a graduation address, and nobody actually listens.  To be honest, a living wage, or a comfortable wage is important before we can stop being drudges, and are able to free our minds to think.  But you see all around you, people who are kept from being free to think, because they were either denied the opportunity to attend college, or attended college as if it were a vocational school.

Because it is no longer feasible to leave it to high-school teachers and college professors to deliver basic lessons on universal values: the conservation of cultural and Art treasures, and knowledge of history; of natural resources; protection of valued ways of life; it is up to parents to take up the slack.  Those of us who were lucky enough to have been told about the treasures of the world, we're going to have an easier time of it.  For the rest of us, there are numerous programs on TV: The National Geographic (which could be weaponized by Murdoch any day now; for the moment it seems politically neutral); the Discovery Channel (I don't really know anything about it), and so on.  We have to be critical, because soon these channels might be dispensing absolute crapola.

Unfortunately for everybody, there are not many public models for young people to emulate.  One has to look very hard to identify a public personage who demonstrates the properties of caring for others, for valuing the cultures of other lands; for appreciating the Arts.  This is very painful.  In the parable of the Talents, Jesus is reported to have said words to the effect that from those to whom much is given, much is expected.  Unfortunately again, the culture of the most affluent in the nation seems to go in the direction of effectively saying that they didn't get where they are by being expected to give much.  Ironically they talk about makers and takers, but it is they who take.  We cannot expect much charity from them, and we cannot expect much leadership from them, and we cannot expect much polite speech, and we cannot expect intelligence.  We can only expect them to take mean advantage of any weak opponent; that's how they make their money—with a few notable exceptions.

Well, I had much more to say, but it has fled my mind.  Perhaps it is just as well; my blog posts often tend to ramble off topic.  This time, it has just stalled!  The skills needed to be a citizen are actually learned in high school: mathematical, statistical, logical, language skills.  High schools may not be as efficient in teaching these skills as they once were, but I get the impression that teachers still convey these ideas fairly well.  It is impossible to possess these skills, and not convey them to students of an appropriate age.

Arch

A Mid-Life Crisis That David Brooks Turned Into Gold

First, watch this, and I'll eventually give my thoughts on it!  David Brooks

By the way, I didn't mean gold in the sense of money; I meant valuable insights for us.

(For those of you still wondering whether it is worth spending your precious time watching this TED talk by David Brooks, here's a little more information!  (I know, I know: people have no clue how busy you are.  Idiots, all of them.)   David is the conservative counterpart to the liberal voice of Mark Shields, in the reflection / opinion portion of PBS News Hour, with Judy Woodruff.  Just the fact that David Brooks has been selected for this job to some degree indicates that he is a moderate, and that he is at least capable of civil and rational speech, and of reasonable reactions to the news of the day.  Among conservative voices, today, there is almost no other voice to which liberals listen to on an ongoing basis.)

A Very Simple Instance of Control Logic

My latest idea for a blog post might get some readers interested, and others annoyed!

I'm going to describe how I think a humble (old-time) clothes-dryer works, and then I'm going to Google that question, and see how far off I am!

The whole idea of control systems---temperature control systems, for example---is very clever, and over several decades, engineers who design these systems have got them refined really nicely, and it's a lot of fun to learn about.  (While we're doing it, I can show you how this sort of thing is represented using very traditional computer code.  Computer code is a lot of fun, and little kids are beginning to learn it, at school, or at home.)

Your Clothes-Dryer

(1) You put your damp clothes in.  Avoid putting actually wet clothes; unless you have items that are very delicate indeed, it is a good idea to run your clothes through the spin-dryer a second time, especially if you have jeans, or towels, or other really heavy items.  There are two clocks.  One is the timer you set, for how long you want your clothes dried.  The other has to do with a little internal timer, just so that each step goes for a minute, or whatever.
You turn the Dryer ON.

(2) The temperature starts to rise.  The Dryer waits a measured amount of time.

(3) Here we have a branching step.  The Dryer checks the temperature.

(4a) IF the temperature is below the cutoff temperature, the Dryer heats again, for a measured amount of time.

(4b) On the other hand, IF the temperature is at or above the cutoff, the Dryer stops heating, and waits a measured amount of time, and runs its little timer thing (clock).  If there's no time left on the clock, the Dryer powers off.

(5) Dryer checks the temperature again.

(6a) IF temperature is below the cutoff, Dryer heats again, for a measured amount of time, but does not run the clock.

(6b) If temperature is at, or above, the cutoff, Dryer stops heating, and runs the clock.  If there's no time left, Dryer powers off.

So that's essentially it!  As you can see, steps 3 and 5 are actually identical, and steps (4a) and (4b) are identical with (6a) and (6b).  Quite honestly, most people who have a dryer have probably guessed that this is the program of the thing.

The important detail to remember is that when the heating cycle is going on, the clock is paused.  The clock only runs when the clothes are not being heated.

Explanation
What we really want to know is how dry the clothes are.  But dryness is difficult to measure directly.  Here, the dryer does something very clever; it depends on the idea of latent heat.  Water needs some energy (heat) to evaporate; while it is being evaporated, its temperature does not rise.

When the clothes are heated, if the clothes do not get hotter, this means that there is water, and more heating will be good, the clothes will not burn.

When the clothes are heated, if the clothes do get hotter, it's time to stop, or the clothes will get scorched.

To summarize, the dryer keeps heating the clothes (for measured periods of time) only as long as the temperature drops at the end of the cycle.  When the temperature rises at the end of a cycle, the heat is switched off, and the timer starts counting down.  If you've set the 'Dryness Level' to be very dry, the Dryer keeps returning to the heating cycle, and sees whether a little heating is received without overheating the clothes.  This can easily happen; the surface moisture of a towel, or a pair of jeans can dry off, but the moisture in the inner layers with diffuse out, and the item will behave again like a damp fabric.  So given that your Dryer is not going to use X-rays of some chemical magic to analyze your clothes, it's up to you to set the Dryer to go for longer if you have heavy, dense fabrics, and to go for less time, and use lower cutoff temperatures, if you have delicate fabrics that should dry quickly.

Now: I have to Google this question: how does the control on my dryer work?

Back From Google

Well, that was disappointing; all the articles were packed with information such as 'How the temperature limiter switch works', and 'What to do if your dryer won't start.'  A lot of the self-help information on the Web has been put there by people who are trouble-shooters, and not those who are merely curious; or people who think that the mechanism is so obvious that it doesn't need further elaboration!

The diagram at right, called a flow-of-control chart, or just a flowchart, shows visually how the control branches when the various sensors (actually, just a temperature sensor, and of course, the clock(s)) make the logical system ask itself questions.  In this version, the control starts off with a couple of checks, one just for safety, and the other to simplify one of the loops.

Arch