Author: pollywannamath

words words words

2020 Reading Roundup pt. 2

pollywannamath

2020 is over and it’s time to review my reading habits from the second half of the year. In July, I set the following goals:

I plan to re-read more books directed toward adolescents, finish a culinary book, read two or three light novels, and work through a French or coding book.

Overall, I rate myself a B. I read a lot of young adult, finished a culinary book, and read from a book almost every day. I did not read anything in French, although I’m not sure that I would be able to if I tried. I practiced some coding exercises.

Here is my, non-exhaustive list, of what I read in the second half of this year with a one or two sentence review:

Of the books I read this year, I am sure to reread three in the next few years, Shogun, Being Mortal, and In Defense of Food. I’ve recommended all three frequently and each helped clarify my views or change positions I’ve previously held.

In the first half of 2021, I’d like to read more books on theory and history of thought. Specifically, I’d like to read about the founding of different Protestant denominations, a history (or histories) of mathematical thinking (generally or in specific veins), and philosophy of technology.

Uncategorized

2020 Blog in Review

pollywannamath

At the beginning of the year, I decided to commit to writing a blog through the end of the year. My goal was to publish weekly, at a minimum, and primarily write about education, design, economics, and future predictions.

I fell short of my goal of weekly publishing, and almost lost interest after moving in October. After the move, I spent the time I previously dedicated to blogging in the kitchen, learning to sew (work in progress), or tinkering in the garage.

When blogging regularly, I wrote more about politics and current events than I anticipated I would. The writing quality and amount of preparation for each post varied greatly. Overall, I think the predictions I made were pretty good, I underestimated COVID, but could not have been more correct about Herman Miller.

Based on number of page views, I consider Sad Thoughts from a Happy Achievement my most underrated post, and a Few Dream Interviews as the most overrated.

My average post length was about 700 words, which broadly meets an average newspaper article length, but longer than my ideal. My writing style and grammatical accuracy did not improve throughout the year, but this blog accounted for almost all of my writing outside of my employment.

Overall, I’d give myself a B- for the year. Inconsistency and the number of discarded posts (started but not published) prevent a higher grade.

I haven’t decided if I will set goals to blog in 2021, but I am committed to blogging through January or until I find a more suitable creative outlet.

Legal, Observations, Prediction

An Inflection Point: How to Heal the Wound

pollywannamath

I planned to write and publish this post on November 3; but wanted to respect the political climate that surrounded the election and wait until America was certain. From the start of the day, I listened to coverage of the vote turnout and it was clear that Biden was going to be president of the United States on January 20, 2021.

It is easy on November 8, to claim that it was obvious that Biden would be the winner of the election. based on news from November 3. But I contend that it was obvious.

On the morning of November 3, FiveThirtyEight modeled an 89% chance of a Biden win. 89% is not 100%, but it would require shockingly low turnout on election day or a last minute shock to be considered a likely outcome. As an exercise, FiveThirtyEight ran a simulation on November 2 where they recreated the polling error from 2016 and determined who would win the election. In that scenario, Biden won. FiveThirtyEight took the simulation further and awarded the electors from the next two likely states to Trump. In that scenario, Biden narrowly won the presidency.

Not all pollsters forecasted the same outcome as FiveThirtyEight, and I understand that not everybody follows the same news; however, FiveThirtyEight is a modeling institution that considers all mainstream pollsters in their forecast, weighted by historical accuracy. I’m using FiveThirtyEight as a proxy for an average historically-accurate forecast.

Looking at the news on November 3, it was clear to all that the United States was on pace for record voter turnout. Increased turnout has favored the Democratic party over the last few decades. Republicans win mid-terms, largely as a result of smaller turnout.

But the news the night of November 3 conflicted with the observations above. Trump was leading in many states early in the night that he would ultimately lose to Biden. The New York Times identified Michigan as a state that would likely go to Trump during the coverage (Biden ended up winning it by > 150,000 votes).

The reason for the misleading and dramatic counting of the election is twofold:

Instead, news organizations sparked increased concern about the election. Most mainstream media organizations spend election night sowing discontent by expressing their hope that Biden won the election and outlining how Trump might have won. While far-right organizations decried “late surge” of ballot counts for Biden as fraudulent. I will not post a link to that type of reporting; it does not deserve increased attention.

News organizations spent the night forecasting something that happened in the past (voting) and expressing their hope that Trump did not pull off another “miracle.” As an example of news organizations displaying partisan leanings, noted Democrat, George Stephanopoulos moderated ABC News’s bipartisan election coverage; at more than one occasion during the night he asked to see more blue (democratic wins) on the map.

He would see more blue; as soon as the mail-in ballots were counted. These organizations that spent days forecasting an event that previously occurred remind me of a scene from Mean Girls. We, as a nation should have taken them as seriously:

Forecasting past events

To this point, I’ve been pretty critical of the news (although I’ve stopped short of calling it F**e N**s). It comes with good reason. The national push to replace president Trump added to the polarization of the country. News diversity shrunk from 2016-2020 meaning that more news focused on the most polarizing issue: Trump’s presidency.

Traditional news organizations did more to gain trust with liberal-leaning readers than conservatives in 2020. Some may think that is a positive considering the propensity of the Republican president to lie. But liberals do not have a monopoly on the truth; Trump lies frequently, but his critics are not always honest.

Glenn Greenwald recently published an article about a story that was spiked by his editors at The Intercept. The article covered concerns that Hunter Biden leveraged his father’s position to secure lucrative positions with foreign governments and firms. The article falls short of accusing president-elect Biden of personally profiting or advocating policies that would aid the institutions that sponsor Hunter; but clearly and accurately identifies the open questions about the president-elect’s involvement. Greenwald alleges that the article was killed because it was too critical of president-elect Biden.

Similarly, The New York Times refused to publish Op-Eds that were deemed insensitive or objectionable more than once this year. These internal clashes on what should be published made national news.

Preventing the publication of an opinion is not censorship, nor is it a restriction of free speech. News organizations are corporations and are not required to give all writers an equal platform.

However, when mainstream media organizations make consistent editorial decisions that amplifies criticism of one party and restricts criticism of another, it fails the responsibility that it holds as the Fourth Estate. Mainstream media can no longer be an democracy maintaining institution; it becomes another source of division.

The two examples above are not outliers. The mainstream media overwhelmingly favored policies and politicians supported by Democrats.

2020 may prove to be a significant inflection point in American politics. As the level of political polarization in the United States reaches record levels, Joe Biden continues to state his desire to be a president for all Americans: “I don’t see blue or red states, but United States.”

Its time for the mainstream news to do the same. Media bias will always exist, and I am not asking for the solution for general bias. What I ask is that news organizations from Fox News to MSNBC recognize that the election is over and that the 2020 political ratings bump should not be sustained in 2021. Both sides must be willing to praise and criticize president Biden in 2021.

President Biden will not be able to be the president of all Americans, if all Americans live in a news echo chamber. In that world, only the most extreme news organizations will prosper and Biden’s message will be irrelevant.

Music

4 Songs, 32 covers, 1 bracket challenge

pollywannamath

A great cover reenvisions and reinvents the original song. Johnny Cash’s cover of Nine Inch Nail’s Hurt, introduced me to a song and band that I wouldn’t have heard otherwise. Cash’s age, experience, and public image added a dimension to the original song. Likewise, Hendrix’s cover of Bob Dylan’s All Along The Watchtower cemented the song’s meaning within the context of the 60’s.

Some songs are destined to be covered. It seems that every artist has a version of The Beatles’ Yesterday. For a little quarantine fun, I took four of those songs and built a bracket of popular covers on Spotify:

I seeded the songs based on the number of average monthly listens of the recording artist and built the following rubric for evaluation. The covers should be judged on:

  • Artistic License: How does the artist change the sound or meaning of the original song. (I did not include covers that matched style and interpretation of the original in the bracket)
  • Pull: How captivating is the song? How much does it make you (the listener) want to dance, sing, cry, or reflect?
  • Orchestration: How well does the adaptation make use of the instrumentation in the song?
  • Vocal Quality: Does the singer sound good?
  • Intangibles: Does the cover deserve special attention for a reason not listed above?

I’ll leave the empty bracket below and update the post with my completed personal evaluation at the end of the month. I encourage readers to fill theirs out, or create their own version with different genres or song mixes.

Bonus Content: My recent fascination with “Pure Imagination” stems from a real-life Charlie and the Chocolate Factory story.

Business, Education, Innovation, Technology

Post-Pandemic-Policy-Proposal

pollywannamath

I find it likely that the United States will experience a new or worsening recession within the next year. Even the most optimistic economic projections anticipate that travel will remain depressed, the hospitality industry will recover slowly, and that direct stimulus will end.

The US government should take action that bolsters the US economy, even after the pandemic subsides, without writing blank checks to US corporations.

Why not continue direct investment in US corporations? The United States Congress already provided $25 billion in bailout funds to airlines alone this year, and House Democrats are pushing for more.

Airline bailouts, in particular, are ineffective and unpopular. There are some indications that Americans’ trust of large corporations is shrinking, and corporate bailouts don’t necessarily increase the prospects of the American worker.

A perfect post-pandemic-policy proposal to aid the US recovery will need to address a few concerns:

  • It needs to be popular with the public and both parties to pass into legislation
  • The policy will need to help the travel industry
  • Their must be a fiscal multiplier to funds allocated to the policy

What do I recommend?

A World’s Fair.

The United States Congress should sanction a World’s Fair for the summer of 2021 or 2022 depending on the anticipated longevity of the COVID pandemic.

Although a proposal for a World’s Fair initially sounds like an immature policy response, I think it would be strong policy, both symbolically and economically, for the American people.

The World’s Fair, as I imagine, would focus on showcasing four aspects of American society:

  • A Brighter Future–How technology and the nation’s youth will bring the United States into its brighter future.
  • American Made–How Farming and Manufacturing make America.
  • E Pluribus Unum–How immigration and cultural appreciation create the World’s Melting Pot.
  • American Life–Sports, Theatre, Design, and Art

Ideally the Fair would be held for a few months in a city that had experience with significant air, bus and rail travel, and could hold hundreds of thousands of daily travelers. To ensure maximum economic benefit and avoid political entanglements, I’d propose to hold the convention in a mid-sized city, in the middle of the country. Omaha, Minneapolis, Indianapolis, Detroit, St. Louis, and Oklahoma City are likely candidates. Once the Fair finished, its exabits would travel to the marquee cities of the United States.

As a part of the policy funding, Congress would appropriate funds for grants associated with each of the four showcases and to subsidize travel/hotel costs for every American (at a graduated rate based on income). Additionally Congress would pay for the costs of the expeditions and for the traveling show; the winning city would need to allocate funds for the grounds and any city-specific exhibits.

The World’s Fair will jumpstart the aviation, busing, and rail industries. Symbolically, the subsidized travel will indicate to the population that it is safe to travel. Financially, it will allow millions of Americans to leave their home state for the first time, and bring in foreign travelers. Even after the Fair terminates, I anticipate many Americans and foreign citizens will travel more frequently than they would have without the encouragement.

Congress will add stipulations to the grants for each showcase that encourage competition in certain, popular and positive, arenas. For instance, the grants associated with youth and tech should promote changes to the education landscape, reduce the barriers for at-risk youth, and inspire future corporates leaders. The Farming grants would reward a return to suitable, local farming and encourage new small farmers.

In order for the World’s Fair to make a noticeable impact on the US economy or society, Congress will need to spend a lot on it. The last US World’s Fair (1984) failed because it didn’t receive the investment it needed. The US needs the cultural equivalent of a Ferris Wheel or Eiffel Tower (both World’s Fair inventions) to inspire confidence.

To make the endeavor palatable for both parties, the Fair will need to be sold as a support to the airline industries and to small-and-large businesses first. I propose the following funding sturcture:

  • 40% of grant money to A Brighter Future
  • 40% of grant money to American Made
  • 10% of grant money to E Pluribus Unum
  • 10% of grant money to American Life

In this structure, Republicans can promote the fact that farmers and manufacturers received a 40% of the overall funding, more than the “Liberal causes.” Democrats can sell the Fair as a celebration of culture and Art, 20% of trillions is a lot of funding for diversity and arts events. Both sides and the public should support the funding of children’s programs and the airline industry.

Obviously a single Fair will not save the airlines or build confidence and togetherness in the US economy. That should not be the goal. The Fair would save the airlines and hopefully bolster travel for years to come. The Fair should introduce youth to new cultures and business ideas. Ideally the Fair would inspire future economic growth both through the grant recipients, and for visitors who walk away inspirited with their personal ideas on how to build their brighter future.