I need a Web 3.0 widget that will let me create Web 2.0 sites with a minimum of effort, which happens to be the maximum amount of effort I am willing to spend on making a web site. Two ideas I thought of last night:
1. "Best 10 Minutes." Almost every town hall meeting or Q&A like the candidates' visits to "the Google" has been uploaded to YouTube. There is a lot of good, in-depth information in these videos that one can't find on traditional outlets like the news, newspaper web sites, or the candidate's web site.
YouTube's system for rating and recommending videos works pretty well, but I think a web site dedicated to just videos of candidates discussing philosophy or policy would make them easier to find, and save people the time of digging through hours of video to find the best parts.
I would (I don't know what verb tense describes 'action that I wish I could take but I never will', so "I would" will have to do) set up a web site that would allow users to nominate 10-minute or less video snippets that best capture what they like about their candidate.
Each candidate would have their own section. I am guessing but don't know that YouTube allows you to embed a clip of a video using time codes, so only a link with relevant time codes would have to be uploaded. People could vote what effect the video had on them (positive, neutral, negative) and clips with the highest combination of votes and positive ratings would be featured under each candidate's section.
Yes, there is potential for abuse in a voting system like this. I'll be sure to install as many safeguards in the voting system when I don't make this web site.
2. "Pork Patrol." I am so disappointed that PorkPatrol.com is already taken. At least it doesn't go to a porn site. It redirects you to Citizens Against Government Waste, or CAGW. Yes, that is much catchier. If you want to remember what Web 0.7 looked like, be sure to pay them a visit.
At his Google talk, Obama says he wants to "Googlefy" government (my word, not his). Make bills fully searchable, attach Congress member names to earmarks, and so on.
If these changes were made, the next step would be to create a web site where people could search bills and mark each item in the bill (e.g. separate earmark, proposal for funding). If someone saw a questionable project, they could flag it, where it would appear in a public area for a certain amount of time. People would then be able to ask questions about the project, share information, and rate the earmark.
Every week, the Congress members with the top 10 negatively voted earmarks (for example) would be contacted by the site and given a chance to respond. There would be a new voting period, and then a determination would be made to publicly shame the creator of the earmark, start a phone campaign, or drop the matter and move to a new issue.
I think limiting the number of earmarks, bill language, and so on that would move on to the next stage is important. A limit would make people more judicious when voting and selecting parts of a bill to complain about. If only x items were highlighted a week, it would encourage people to focus on only the most expensive and egregious waste.
Since many earmarks are added at a last-minute and often without a vote, and a web site like this would actually encourage that practice, perhaps there should be a public comment period of 2 weeks after every significant bill so public watch groups like this site could at least bring a bill's shadier parts to the public's attention.
What makes this idea great in my eyes is that it's not even possible to do yet, so I don't feel guilty about not creating the web site. Also, I barely know anything about the minutia of the legislative process, so I am blissfully aware of whatever huge holes there are in my idea. But if budgets were made fully searchable, accountable, and indexable, a site like this would be the logical next step.
Showing posts with label idea. Show all posts
Showing posts with label idea. Show all posts
January 10, 2008
January 05, 2008
Idea for a New Primary System
Larry Sabato argues in his book, "A More Perfect Constitution", that many of the current problems with the American political system are structural and can only be remedied by updating the U.S. Constitution to handle issues the founding fathers were unable to anticipate.
For example, once you get elected to Congress, getting reelected is almost automatic. The reelection rate for House members for the past 40 years has been 85% or higher, and it is often 95% or higher. The Senate is more competitive but not by much.
One reason, among many, is that Congressional districts are gerrymandered, drawn in odd shapes to ensure favorable demographics for the member of Congress. The practice has been brazen recently, such as when former Rep. Tom Delay redrew his district in the shape of a middle finger.
A common-sense solution is to divide states into districts using a grid system with the process managed by a non-partisan group such as a panel of judges. Yet the fact that this would make House races more competitive is precisely why Congress will never pass a law to do this, along with anything related to term limits, reduction of franking privileges and so on. As difficult as it would be to pass a Constitutional amendment implementing this process, it's probably the only way it will ever be done.
It's a great book with many interesting ideas. I highly recommend it. One of his ideas came to mind with the media storm around the Iowa caucus.
With Iowa, New Hampshire, and other states leapfrogging each others' caucus or primary date so they would be one of the first states (and few that are relevant), we are now in a situation where the primary system starts in the beginning of January, yet will likely be over by the beginning of February ("Super Tuesday"). Some talking heads are even suggesting the Democratic nomination will be over by the third state, South Carolina, if Barack Obama can win in N.H. and S.C.
It's the longest election process in the world, gives a disproportionate power to the same, few states every four years to elect a candidate, and thus disfranchises most of the country. In Presidential re-election years, the sitting President is distracted and essentially out of commission for an entire year, 1/4 his or her elected term.
I'm recounting Larry Sabato's idea to fix this by memory so the details will be off, but the spirit is the same. Divide the country into four quadrants: Northeast, South, Midwest, and West. On February 1st, select by random drawing which month each quadrant will be able to hold its primaries: e.g. April, May, June, and July. (Edit: I found his write-up of this idea after posting this. The details are different and more in-depth, but the basic idea is the same.)
There is a large benefit to having two small states hold the first caucus and primary though. Small states give unknown and underfunded candidates a chance to gain traction with with retail politics, face-to-face interaction, and town hall debates, something that would be impossible in a state like California.
That is why, in addition, two out of the 10 smallest states by population will be randomly selected to have the first two primaries in the nation, a week before the first regional month. This retains the benefits of involving a small state early on and gives a state besides Iowa and New Hampshire a chance to be relevant.
I enjoy watching politics and being informed, but the primary season continues to get longer with no limit in site, and practically forces every state to push their date earlier is they want a chance to be relevant. The result is that Iowa + N.H. gets months of attention and input, and the other states, forced to have their primaries on the same day plus early in the calendar, get almost no attention and input.
This year, there are 24 states who are holding their primary on Feb. 5th. That's ridiculous. It's the longest short campaign in American history. Six months for Iowa + N.H., one month for the rest of the country, and nine months of a general election with no good TV to pass the time because of the writer's strike. I'm am going to kidnap Jon Stewart and force him to write comedy at gunpoint.
It would be ideal to fix this without a Constitutional amendment, but this has been a problem for several elections so far and I think if the national parties were able to implement and enforce a plan like this on their own, they would have done so by now.
For example, once you get elected to Congress, getting reelected is almost automatic. The reelection rate for House members for the past 40 years has been 85% or higher, and it is often 95% or higher. The Senate is more competitive but not by much.
One reason, among many, is that Congressional districts are gerrymandered, drawn in odd shapes to ensure favorable demographics for the member of Congress. The practice has been brazen recently, such as when former Rep. Tom Delay redrew his district in the shape of a middle finger.
A common-sense solution is to divide states into districts using a grid system with the process managed by a non-partisan group such as a panel of judges. Yet the fact that this would make House races more competitive is precisely why Congress will never pass a law to do this, along with anything related to term limits, reduction of franking privileges and so on. As difficult as it would be to pass a Constitutional amendment implementing this process, it's probably the only way it will ever be done.
It's a great book with many interesting ideas. I highly recommend it. One of his ideas came to mind with the media storm around the Iowa caucus.
With Iowa, New Hampshire, and other states leapfrogging each others' caucus or primary date so they would be one of the first states (and few that are relevant), we are now in a situation where the primary system starts in the beginning of January, yet will likely be over by the beginning of February ("Super Tuesday"). Some talking heads are even suggesting the Democratic nomination will be over by the third state, South Carolina, if Barack Obama can win in N.H. and S.C.
It's the longest election process in the world, gives a disproportionate power to the same, few states every four years to elect a candidate, and thus disfranchises most of the country. In Presidential re-election years, the sitting President is distracted and essentially out of commission for an entire year, 1/4 his or her elected term.
I'm recounting Larry Sabato's idea to fix this by memory so the details will be off, but the spirit is the same. Divide the country into four quadrants: Northeast, South, Midwest, and West. On February 1st, select by random drawing which month each quadrant will be able to hold its primaries: e.g. April, May, June, and July. (Edit: I found his write-up of this idea after posting this. The details are different and more in-depth, but the basic idea is the same.)
There is a large benefit to having two small states hold the first caucus and primary though. Small states give unknown and underfunded candidates a chance to gain traction with with retail politics, face-to-face interaction, and town hall debates, something that would be impossible in a state like California.
That is why, in addition, two out of the 10 smallest states by population will be randomly selected to have the first two primaries in the nation, a week before the first regional month. This retains the benefits of involving a small state early on and gives a state besides Iowa and New Hampshire a chance to be relevant.
I enjoy watching politics and being informed, but the primary season continues to get longer with no limit in site, and practically forces every state to push their date earlier is they want a chance to be relevant. The result is that Iowa + N.H. gets months of attention and input, and the other states, forced to have their primaries on the same day plus early in the calendar, get almost no attention and input.
This year, there are 24 states who are holding their primary on Feb. 5th. That's ridiculous. It's the longest short campaign in American history. Six months for Iowa + N.H., one month for the rest of the country, and nine months of a general election with no good TV to pass the time because of the writer's strike. I'm am going to kidnap Jon Stewart and force him to write comedy at gunpoint.
It would be ideal to fix this without a Constitutional amendment, but this has been a problem for several elections so far and I think if the national parties were able to implement and enforce a plan like this on their own, they would have done so by now.
November 27, 2007
A Better Way To Read Through Technology?
We (Westerners) currently read left-to-right, snapping our eyes all the way back to the left after reaching the end of the line. This snapping back is a huge inefficiency. People, once they got comfortable with the method, would be able to read faster if text were printed so the next word after the end of the line was directly below, not across the page.
There are some obvious problems with changing to this system, and it would be impossible to do on a national scale. America can't even change to the metric system, and that makes a lot more sense than this idea.
It is currently near impossible to do on a personal level too. The comfort of reading in one style for decades may be too difficult to overcome. Even if one had the desire, the number of books and newspapers printed in this wraparound format is either zero or close to it, and every publisher would find the thought of doing so ridiculous.
The Sony Reader and Amazon Kindle--two EBook readers that display text electronically on a handheld device--got me thinking of a time in the near future that would at least remove the technological roadblocks. It would be a trivial matter for an EBook reader to automatically display text in a wraparound format. The Kindle allows for one to read online newspapers and blogs too, so presumably wrapping text for these would be easy as well.
What if these EBook readers decided to offer an option to switch to this reading mode at the press of a button? It may end up a novelty, but perhaps it turns out that one can feel comfortable with this new reading style after a few hours, and the benefits make it worth it.
There's no extra publishing cost, no large technical hurdles to overcome, and it's optional. It's also a feature not offered in print, and probably never will be. Shouldn't these EBook readers do something better than their print counterparts?
I think if one were to switch to a different reading style, the majority of what we read--at home, at work, on the web--would need to be electronic plus convertible to this new style. We are many years from that becoming the everyday environment, but electronic publishing is at a point where, with the help of a few yet-to-be-developed computers programs, a motivated individual could experiment and get a good sense of the costs and benefits of learning a more efficient reading style.
There are some obvious problems with changing to this system, and it would be impossible to do on a national scale. America can't even change to the metric system, and that makes a lot more sense than this idea.
It is currently near impossible to do on a personal level too. The comfort of reading in one style for decades may be too difficult to overcome. Even if one had the desire, the number of books and newspapers printed in this wraparound format is either zero or close to it, and every publisher would find the thought of doing so ridiculous.
The Sony Reader and Amazon Kindle--two EBook readers that display text electronically on a handheld device--got me thinking of a time in the near future that would at least remove the technological roadblocks. It would be a trivial matter for an EBook reader to automatically display text in a wraparound format. The Kindle allows for one to read online newspapers and blogs too, so presumably wrapping text for these would be easy as well.
What if these EBook readers decided to offer an option to switch to this reading mode at the press of a button? It may end up a novelty, but perhaps it turns out that one can feel comfortable with this new reading style after a few hours, and the benefits make it worth it.
There's no extra publishing cost, no large technical hurdles to overcome, and it's optional. It's also a feature not offered in print, and probably never will be. Shouldn't these EBook readers do something better than their print counterparts?
I think if one were to switch to a different reading style, the majority of what we read--at home, at work, on the web--would need to be electronic plus convertible to this new style. We are many years from that becoming the everyday environment, but electronic publishing is at a point where, with the help of a few yet-to-be-developed computers programs, a motivated individual could experiment and get a good sense of the costs and benefits of learning a more efficient reading style.
August 23, 2007
Magicial Wish Box
If someone didn't have a short-term memory, a microwave would be like a magical wish box. “Man, I could really go for some macaroni and cheese.” [BEEP BEEP BEEP] “That's odd. I didn't put anything in the ...WOAH! My favorite brand too!”
June 20, 2007
Lord of the Rings: The Musicial!
I don't know whether to laugh or order tickets. I watched a few video clips, and none of them have any emotional resonance. The songs are bland and I'm not sure it's possible to combine an epic mythology with the silly, fleeting aspects inherent in musicals.
The set is absolutely gorgeous though. Watch clip #2 on the site. The visuals are almost as cinematographic as the movies, which is amazing for a play.
What this play really is though is the first test of LotR fans' nerdosity. (I know it's not a word, but it should be). It has been a few years since the movies. Will LotR have the same cultural resonance that Star Wars did, where fans devoured spin-offs and related merchandise for years after the movies?
My guess is no, for reasons that have nothing to do with the movies and everything to do with how it is less likely nowadays for people to find identity in just one or a few groups.
This is my definition of (cultural) group identity: something that you take pride in being part of or having an interest in, along with an awareness that there are other people that share your interest.
The second part is important because twenty years ago, it must have been more difficult to find people that shared an obscure interest. If you liked an unknown band and knew no one else you did, wouldn't you feel a little lonely? There was probably a gravitation towards national cultural phenomenons, like Star Wars or Dallas, because it was easier to have that feeling that there were other people with the same interest. You could put a "I Shot J.R." bumper sticker on your car and know at least some people would get it.
It's a nice feeling. I remember seeing a Homestar Runner bumper stickers and feeling a little happy seeing it. I felt positive about the mysterious person who owned that car, like we shared a bond.
My guess is that today, with all of the media choices available, and the ease in finding people who share our interests, that we belong to many more groups than people twenty years ago. At the same time, this makes being part of a particular group less special. I love the LotR movies, but I don't have the psychological need to be part of the LotR group that I likely would have had twenty years ago. There are dozens of TV shows, interests, and bands that I like that help satisfy my need for connection.
That's why I think the cultural phenomenon of Star Wars will never be repeated. There will be more wildly popular movies like Titanic or LotR, but none of them can have the long-lasting psychological impact that they could have had twenty years ago.
The long-lasting part is the critical word. In the short-tern, I do think The Matrix, LotR, and so on were as beloved as Star Wars was initially. But there are so many new movies and TV shows out there, along with ways to connect with people, that there is no psychological reason to devote yourself to just one. The same way that it is easier to find a group, it is easier to leave one too.
(On a side note, I realized as I was writing this why I try so hard to encourage my friends to share some of my interests, usually a TV show or movie that I love. I feel a little disconnected to them if they haven't seen or heard something I like a lot, as if I joined a club that they're not members of.)
The set is absolutely gorgeous though. Watch clip #2 on the site. The visuals are almost as cinematographic as the movies, which is amazing for a play.
What this play really is though is the first test of LotR fans' nerdosity. (I know it's not a word, but it should be). It has been a few years since the movies. Will LotR have the same cultural resonance that Star Wars did, where fans devoured spin-offs and related merchandise for years after the movies?
My guess is no, for reasons that have nothing to do with the movies and everything to do with how it is less likely nowadays for people to find identity in just one or a few groups.
This is my definition of (cultural) group identity: something that you take pride in being part of or having an interest in, along with an awareness that there are other people that share your interest.
The second part is important because twenty years ago, it must have been more difficult to find people that shared an obscure interest. If you liked an unknown band and knew no one else you did, wouldn't you feel a little lonely? There was probably a gravitation towards national cultural phenomenons, like Star Wars or Dallas, because it was easier to have that feeling that there were other people with the same interest. You could put a "I Shot J.R." bumper sticker on your car and know at least some people would get it.
It's a nice feeling. I remember seeing a Homestar Runner bumper stickers and feeling a little happy seeing it. I felt positive about the mysterious person who owned that car, like we shared a bond.
My guess is that today, with all of the media choices available, and the ease in finding people who share our interests, that we belong to many more groups than people twenty years ago. At the same time, this makes being part of a particular group less special. I love the LotR movies, but I don't have the psychological need to be part of the LotR group that I likely would have had twenty years ago. There are dozens of TV shows, interests, and bands that I like that help satisfy my need for connection.
That's why I think the cultural phenomenon of Star Wars will never be repeated. There will be more wildly popular movies like Titanic or LotR, but none of them can have the long-lasting psychological impact that they could have had twenty years ago.
The long-lasting part is the critical word. In the short-tern, I do think The Matrix, LotR, and so on were as beloved as Star Wars was initially. But there are so many new movies and TV shows out there, along with ways to connect with people, that there is no psychological reason to devote yourself to just one. The same way that it is easier to find a group, it is easier to leave one too.
(On a side note, I realized as I was writing this why I try so hard to encourage my friends to share some of my interests, usually a TV show or movie that I love. I feel a little disconnected to them if they haven't seen or heard something I like a lot, as if I joined a club that they're not members of.)
February 14, 2007
I Figured Out How To Fix Campaign Financing
Send me the Nobel Peace Prize. Or, if I'm over-reaching, a MacArthur grant. Fine. Chocolate medallion wrapped in gold foil. Wrapped in a Ziploc bag?
I'll tell you what, humanity. You give me a bag of M&Ms now, and after my idea revolutionizes Presidential campaigns in America, I'll pick up the rest of my gratitude.
Nod to reality: actually, I don't feel like acknowledging reality. WHAT IS ABOUT TO FOLLOW IS THE MOST AMAZING IDEA IN THE WORLD.
Currently, candidates for federal office have two options for funding their campaigns: accept federal money but be limited to how much money one can raise, or reject federal money but be able to raise and spend as much money as one wants.
Many candidates in both the primaries and general election forgo federal funding because the spending restrictions would put them at a crippling disadvantage. Both President Bush and Senator Kerry turned down federal funding in the primary season because of this.
My opinion is that the excess of money in the campaign system creates an unlevel playing field to any candidate with a significant amount of money more than his or her opponents. The advertising buying power and media coverage that money brings drowns out the voices of lesser-funded candidates and prevents most Americans from being able to give them fair consideration.
One option is to increase the amount of federal matching funds given to candidates. Considering how great an effect a President can have on America's future, and how we should do everything possible to ensure that the best candidates are nominated and have a chance to win, this isn't a bad solution.
If it costs $200 million dollars for voters to get to choose from 6 good candidates instead of 2, isn't that worth it, at least for the Presidential election?
There is a better solution though. Here is my big idea. It's a game theory approach to the issue. Instead of offering each candidate federal funding individually, we pool the money together, and if one candidate decides to opt out of federal funding, that money is split among the other candidates.
Let's say Candidates A and B are offered $125 million each for their election campaign. Candidate A says, "I could raise $200 million on my own. I'm going to pass on federal funds." But then Candidate B will get his $125 million, giving him a total of $250 million if he decides to accept federal funding, which Candidate B probably will do now.
So what is Candidate A going to go? Accept federal money. Not for his gain, but because if he doesn't, it will put him in a worse situation than his opponent: having to spend months of his time raising $250 million or more against his opponent who would have all that money without having to spend the time and resources to get it.
This works for primaries too, where I think funding plays the biggest role. Let's say there are 6 Democratic nominees that meet the eligibility requirements for federal funding. The pool of money is $120 million, or $20 million for each candidate.
Senator Obama and Senator Clinton have already passed on federal funding for the primaries. Let's say they pass because they can earn $50 million on their own. But by them forgoing federal funds, the other 4 candidates now get $10 million more, from $20 million to $30 million.
Still a disadvantage, but less of one. The fewer candidates that accept federal funding, the more it benefits other candidates to accept it. In essence, any candidate who forgoes funds is automatically giving all of his opponents free money, narrowing the funding gap among them and administering an extra penalty for not accepting public financing.
The system becomes self-balancing and fair, provided some thought is placed into the funding amounts. The current flaws in our federal financing system is only part of the problem money plays in politics, but I also think it is one of the easiest parts to fix.
I'll tell you what, humanity. You give me a bag of M&Ms now, and after my idea revolutionizes Presidential campaigns in America, I'll pick up the rest of my gratitude.
Nod to reality: actually, I don't feel like acknowledging reality. WHAT IS ABOUT TO FOLLOW IS THE MOST AMAZING IDEA IN THE WORLD.
Currently, candidates for federal office have two options for funding their campaigns: accept federal money but be limited to how much money one can raise, or reject federal money but be able to raise and spend as much money as one wants.
Many candidates in both the primaries and general election forgo federal funding because the spending restrictions would put them at a crippling disadvantage. Both President Bush and Senator Kerry turned down federal funding in the primary season because of this.
My opinion is that the excess of money in the campaign system creates an unlevel playing field to any candidate with a significant amount of money more than his or her opponents. The advertising buying power and media coverage that money brings drowns out the voices of lesser-funded candidates and prevents most Americans from being able to give them fair consideration.
One option is to increase the amount of federal matching funds given to candidates. Considering how great an effect a President can have on America's future, and how we should do everything possible to ensure that the best candidates are nominated and have a chance to win, this isn't a bad solution.
If it costs $200 million dollars for voters to get to choose from 6 good candidates instead of 2, isn't that worth it, at least for the Presidential election?
There is a better solution though. Here is my big idea. It's a game theory approach to the issue. Instead of offering each candidate federal funding individually, we pool the money together, and if one candidate decides to opt out of federal funding, that money is split among the other candidates.
Let's say Candidates A and B are offered $125 million each for their election campaign. Candidate A says, "I could raise $200 million on my own. I'm going to pass on federal funds." But then Candidate B will get his $125 million, giving him a total of $250 million if he decides to accept federal funding, which Candidate B probably will do now.
So what is Candidate A going to go? Accept federal money. Not for his gain, but because if he doesn't, it will put him in a worse situation than his opponent: having to spend months of his time raising $250 million or more against his opponent who would have all that money without having to spend the time and resources to get it.
This works for primaries too, where I think funding plays the biggest role. Let's say there are 6 Democratic nominees that meet the eligibility requirements for federal funding. The pool of money is $120 million, or $20 million for each candidate.
Senator Obama and Senator Clinton have already passed on federal funding for the primaries. Let's say they pass because they can earn $50 million on their own. But by them forgoing federal funds, the other 4 candidates now get $10 million more, from $20 million to $30 million.
Still a disadvantage, but less of one. The fewer candidates that accept federal funding, the more it benefits other candidates to accept it. In essence, any candidate who forgoes funds is automatically giving all of his opponents free money, narrowing the funding gap among them and administering an extra penalty for not accepting public financing.
The system becomes self-balancing and fair, provided some thought is placed into the funding amounts. The current flaws in our federal financing system is only part of the problem money plays in politics, but I also think it is one of the easiest parts to fix.
January 09, 2007
Future Projects
I'm trying to restore a sense of balance in my life by playing poker less and putting my energy into other activities. I have not been successful playing poker less often, in spite of the fact it is often frustrating, tedious, and lately, not profitable.
But as I am a man of leisure, I have enough free time for both. I'm trying to post more regularly. I will be adding a chunk of photos to my Flickr account soon (first one up).
I have also been toying with the idea of doing a bimonthly music podcast of about six songs a week. There are some logistical issues, and I'm not sure I'm up to the commitment of doing a biweekly podcast. Maybe I'll give it a shot for a month and see how it goes.
I have been thinking of writing a Pancake City book for a while now. Fifty/fifty old and new material. I like the idea of writing a book where I only have to write half the book.
I think I'm going to have to go back to unplugging my wireless adapter and put it in another room. It has been pretty effective in getting me to concentrate.
Just thinking out loud. Well, writing out loud. Except that I'm writing, so there's no sound involved. I guess I'm thinking out loud and writing out silently. My ideas, also silent, may be sound, figuratively. And literally? What are we to call the noiseless voice in our head that "says" our thoughts without lips? You know, the one we can hear without ears.
What is the difference between the memory of candy cane red and seeing the red in a candy cane in real life? Does the memory have any reliability, any truth?
Okay, I need to stop. I probably sound like the intro in a Philosophy 101 book. Leave some comments, people--it encourages me to write.
But as I am a man of leisure, I have enough free time for both. I'm trying to post more regularly. I will be adding a chunk of photos to my Flickr account soon (first one up).
I have also been toying with the idea of doing a bimonthly music podcast of about six songs a week. There are some logistical issues, and I'm not sure I'm up to the commitment of doing a biweekly podcast. Maybe I'll give it a shot for a month and see how it goes.
I have been thinking of writing a Pancake City book for a while now. Fifty/fifty old and new material. I like the idea of writing a book where I only have to write half the book.
I think I'm going to have to go back to unplugging my wireless adapter and put it in another room. It has been pretty effective in getting me to concentrate.
Just thinking out loud. Well, writing out loud. Except that I'm writing, so there's no sound involved. I guess I'm thinking out loud and writing out silently. My ideas, also silent, may be sound, figuratively. And literally? What are we to call the noiseless voice in our head that "says" our thoughts without lips? You know, the one we can hear without ears.
What is the difference between the memory of candy cane red and seeing the red in a candy cane in real life? Does the memory have any reliability, any truth?
Okay, I need to stop. I probably sound like the intro in a Philosophy 101 book. Leave some comments, people--it encourages me to write.
January 04, 2007
Random Roundup
- I haven’t read it yet, but I glanced through Dave Barry’s “2006 Year in Review” column. The Washington Post Magazine highlighted some of the sentences in yellow. Look, I like Dave Barry, but highlighting a Dave Barry joke is like putting glitter on a stripper.
- I’m writing a few proposals to companies about my ideas for new products. One of them is to Hostess, for “Hostess $$ugh Balls.” A box of miniature doughnut balls. Most of them are filled with a delicious lemon custard, but a few are filled with real dough!
I’m picturing on the box the Twinkie Cowboy kicking his heels while holding two fistfuls of cash dough. This is the only relation cash has to the product. The winning balls will just be filled with regular dough, so not only will the consumer be confused, she will also be disappointed, as the regular doughnut balls are inferior to the custard-filled one.
- Ever since the advent of cell phones, I have been tempted to ride up and down in an elevator and have fake phone conversations when people walk in.
"He’s all whiny, like ‘You can’t fire me, I have cancer.’ So I tell him, ‘No. What you have is no job. Now get out of here, baldy.’ What? [...] Well, he wasn’t completely bald. But he was going to get there in a few weeks, so I went with it.’ "
"How should I know where to put the body?" [notices other riders] “Hey, call me back in a few minutes.” [...] “I’m in an elevator.” [...] “They didn’t hear anything.” [...] “Are you crazy? I’m not killing someone else.” [...] "They're not even on the elevator anymore." [mouths to other riders, run]
October 24, 2006
Time Babies
I wish my thoughts were as evocative as the title, but alas, I am poorer than Yorick. Random musings:
* It would be neat to find out if there is any correlation between the frequency of a name chosen for a baby and the number of months before birth it was decided upon. Or if there is a correlation between the amount of time the parents took to think about the name and the obscurity of the name. I don't know what trend I suspect to find. "Daddy, where did you get my name from?" "Well, Recliner, we weren't expecting Mommy to go in labor so soon, and..."
* Some developing countries are growing so rapidly that it affects the time scale of technological adaptation, with some interesting results. For example, in India there are three times the number of cell phones that they are land lines. If India's economic boom had occurred twenty years ago, they would likely have the same landline telephone infrastructure as the U.S. and other countries. In a way, India has skipped over a rung on the technological ladder.
* I don't pre-screen my friends for an affinity for listening to NPR, or having an open mind, or liking to read books. But most of them do. There are some activities and hobbies people have that correlate to their likability (in my eyes), even though I often end up liking the person before learning of these hobbies.
There are also some activities and hobbies that have absolutely no relation to the person's personality or character. It doesn't matter a bit if my friends share these interests. Taste in music comes to mind. I don't think one's taste in music says anything about a person. I have never felt more or less connected to a person based on what bands they favor. It's as irrelevant as hair color, or number of siblings, and that strikes me as really odd. What does that say about music?
* It would be neat to find out if there is any correlation between the frequency of a name chosen for a baby and the number of months before birth it was decided upon. Or if there is a correlation between the amount of time the parents took to think about the name and the obscurity of the name. I don't know what trend I suspect to find. "Daddy, where did you get my name from?" "Well, Recliner, we weren't expecting Mommy to go in labor so soon, and..."
* Some developing countries are growing so rapidly that it affects the time scale of technological adaptation, with some interesting results. For example, in India there are three times the number of cell phones that they are land lines. If India's economic boom had occurred twenty years ago, they would likely have the same landline telephone infrastructure as the U.S. and other countries. In a way, India has skipped over a rung on the technological ladder.
* I don't pre-screen my friends for an affinity for listening to NPR, or having an open mind, or liking to read books. But most of them do. There are some activities and hobbies people have that correlate to their likability (in my eyes), even though I often end up liking the person before learning of these hobbies.
There are also some activities and hobbies that have absolutely no relation to the person's personality or character. It doesn't matter a bit if my friends share these interests. Taste in music comes to mind. I don't think one's taste in music says anything about a person. I have never felt more or less connected to a person based on what bands they favor. It's as irrelevant as hair color, or number of siblings, and that strikes me as really odd. What does that say about music?
May 16, 2006
Pancake City: American Inventor
Here are some of the inventions I've been working on recently:
Hairy Hair Gel--For balding men. Hair gel with clumps of hair in it to help fill out the thin spots.
GayDar 3000--A black market device that will only be sold to virulent homophobes looking to attack gay men and women. The titanium-plated device is a handheld radar screen that uses a flashing pink dot to point out all other owners of GayDar 3000s.
Wireless "I'm Not Crazy" Device--A hands-free headset that looks like a cellphone earpeice so people who like to talk to themselves won't look crazy. Our responsibility to deal with the mental illnesses of our nation's homeless is finally over!
Automatic Bill Pay--I'm not keen about this one, but my friend Bill kept bugging me to invent it.
Hairy Hair Gel--For balding men. Hair gel with clumps of hair in it to help fill out the thin spots.
GayDar 3000--A black market device that will only be sold to virulent homophobes looking to attack gay men and women. The titanium-plated device is a handheld radar screen that uses a flashing pink dot to point out all other owners of GayDar 3000s.
Wireless "I'm Not Crazy" Device--A hands-free headset that looks like a cellphone earpeice so people who like to talk to themselves won't look crazy. Our responsibility to deal with the mental illnesses of our nation's homeless is finally over!
Automatic Bill Pay--I'm not keen about this one, but my friend Bill kept bugging me to invent it.
May 04, 2005
A Special Day
While the march for gay equality takes a few steps back periodically, things are significantly better than they were 20 years ago, or even ten. But there is still a lot of homophobia when it comes to male sexuality. Even in D.C.'s
For most of us, it's not because we don't enjoying showing affection in that way. It's because the stares and more negative responses turn the act from an unconscious expression of love to a calculated decision to violate social mores. Not very romantic, is it?
That's why I think we should have a National Hand Holding Day…for Gays! It will be sponsored by the Just for Men line of hair coloring products. On that day, gay men across the country, from states like
Okay, gay men in D.C. and
Especially because it's going to come after National Ass Grabbing Day…for Gays! Everything is relative. If we go straight to the hand holding, people will comment, "Eww, two men are holding hands! And neither of them is an oil sheik."
But if we start off walking with our hands in each other's back pockets, and then follow it up with holding hands, people will say: "Thank God they went back to the hand holding. The ass grabbing made me feel uncomfortable and confused."
So there it is. National Ass Grabbing and Hand Holding days. I know gay women have their own unique issues with the public's perception of their sexuality, so we will hold separate days for them. They will be identical to the days for the men, except during Ass Grabbing Day we'll beat up anyone who whips out a video camera.
I Hope the Apocalypse Has a Good Soundtrack
One of the hallmarks of movies and television is compressed time, telling a story in a few hours that would take months or years to unfold in life. Compress time is intrinsically exciting, but I wonder if it has a detrimental effect on our ability to observe change in our own lives.
Movies has been described as "life with all the boring parts cut out". The implication is that only certain moments matter in our life, and the rest is inconsequential.
To apply this to a character-based movie, it means that all it takes for the character to change is a powerful moment or series of moments. A dramatic argument, an epiphany, a chance meeting, a death. The difference between a cheesy movie and a great one is how many of these moments are in the movie, one or 12.
This notion, that a particular moment can spur great change in our lives, has been romanticized and reinforced by our culture. Have you heard of Jim Carrey writing a $5 million check to himself when he was a struggling comic? A few days ago, Juan Dixon of the Washington Wizards pleaded with his coach to have faith in him after struggling for three straight games. He scored a career-high the next night! And what is a memoir except a collection of these moments, their importance perhaps heightened?
Moments like these make great stories and allow us a simple way to be inspired by and understand the lives of ourselves and others. Dramatic moments are why people watch sports. But the idea of the "big moment" masks the reality for most people, that change in ourselves occurs through hundreds of interactions on the time scale of months and years, not single events or interactions.
Stories like these are symbols of change and the hard work it took to achieve it, but I think this point can be forgotten in the hunger to believe that one's life can instantly change. That writing the check was what made Jim Carrey successful, not the years of work before and after it.
And the detrimental effect a "big moment" orientation may have is that it may make it harder to spot not only the improvements in our own lives and character, but the decay as well.
It is the idea of gradual decay that has preoccupied me for the past few months. I have noticed it in my life, particularly in the sophistication of entertainment I choose. The decay has been going on for the past few years, a little every month, but it has just been recently that the situation has reached a point to push itself into my conscious.
I'll write about it in a few days. Assuming there aren't any good movies on.
Movies has been described as "life with all the boring parts cut out". The implication is that only certain moments matter in our life, and the rest is inconsequential.
To apply this to a character-based movie, it means that all it takes for the character to change is a powerful moment or series of moments. A dramatic argument, an epiphany, a chance meeting, a death. The difference between a cheesy movie and a great one is how many of these moments are in the movie, one or 12.
This notion, that a particular moment can spur great change in our lives, has been romanticized and reinforced by our culture. Have you heard of Jim Carrey writing a $5 million check to himself when he was a struggling comic? A few days ago, Juan Dixon of the Washington Wizards pleaded with his coach to have faith in him after struggling for three straight games. He scored a career-high the next night! And what is a memoir except a collection of these moments, their importance perhaps heightened?
Moments like these make great stories and allow us a simple way to be inspired by and understand the lives of ourselves and others. Dramatic moments are why people watch sports. But the idea of the "big moment" masks the reality for most people, that change in ourselves occurs through hundreds of interactions on the time scale of months and years, not single events or interactions.
Stories like these are symbols of change and the hard work it took to achieve it, but I think this point can be forgotten in the hunger to believe that one's life can instantly change. That writing the check was what made Jim Carrey successful, not the years of work before and after it.
And the detrimental effect a "big moment" orientation may have is that it may make it harder to spot not only the improvements in our own lives and character, but the decay as well.
It is the idea of gradual decay that has preoccupied me for the past few months. I have noticed it in my life, particularly in the sophistication of entertainment I choose. The decay has been going on for the past few years, a little every month, but it has just been recently that the situation has reached a point to push itself into my conscious.
I'll write about it in a few days. Assuming there aren't any good movies on.
September 29, 2004
Meme War 2004
Kerry is a flip flopper vs. Bush lives in his own delusional world. Which one will win?
August 06, 2004
Too Scared To Hire?
No one knows why economic growth has slowed down. Job gains in July were 32,000, about 200,000 less than what most analysts predicted. One reason may be that employers feel that the threat of terrorism creates an uncertain business environment and they're delaying hiring people and expanding operations until they feel things settle down.
I think the President should star in a new ad campaign designed to encourage businesses to hire more people. The campaign: "Don't Be a Pussy".
April 23, 2004
A Tool for the Ages
I discovered a way to rate the obnoxiousness of a person. This epiphany was accidental. I find few people obnoxious, and I have never thought, "Sure, this guy is annoying, but how annoying?"
Yet I made the discovery while watching Charlie Rose interview Quentin Tarantino. I hate Quentin Tarantino, the person. Quentin Tarantino, the writer/director, is very skilled and has an interesting way of looking at the world. Quentin Tarantino, the person, is a pig-faced, megalomaniac who must have been a Benedict monk as a child because he can't shut up now. I watched a bit of the interview, rolled my eyes a few times, and grabbed the remote. Right before I was going to change the channel, I thought, "Wow, he's pretty interesting."
At this moment, this exact moment, my wine glass was ¼ full. The principle that I knew intuitively from parties took concrete root in my life. One can listen to Quentin Tarantino without punching the TV after ¾ of a glass of wine.
I was shocked that it only took ¾ of a glass, but the evidence was irrefutable. I watched the rest of the interview, 45 minutes, although I had to drink wine during the interview to keep my alcohol level constant, 1 and ¼ glasses, for a total of 2 glasses. Taking these results together, I composed an ODI (Obnoxious Drunkenness Index) for Tarantino:
Alcohol needed for initial de-obnoxiousification: ¾ of a glass of wine
Alcohol needed for continued de-obnoxiousification: 5/36 of a glass of wine per 5 minutes
Obviously, the measurements in this scale are relative, based on body weight, tolerance of alcohol, and hatred for humanity. But it could be an invaluable took for wish to describe their annoyance for a person more accurately:
"I hate Tarantino. His ODI is four beers, and that's when I'm in a good mood."
"I kind of like Tarantino. A shot of Jager and he's fine by me."
"Ohhhhh…I drank half a bottle of Tequila and then watched the entire State of the Union address. Why do I do this to myself?"
Yet I made the discovery while watching Charlie Rose interview Quentin Tarantino. I hate Quentin Tarantino, the person. Quentin Tarantino, the writer/director, is very skilled and has an interesting way of looking at the world. Quentin Tarantino, the person, is a pig-faced, megalomaniac who must have been a Benedict monk as a child because he can't shut up now. I watched a bit of the interview, rolled my eyes a few times, and grabbed the remote. Right before I was going to change the channel, I thought, "Wow, he's pretty interesting."
At this moment, this exact moment, my wine glass was ¼ full. The principle that I knew intuitively from parties took concrete root in my life. One can listen to Quentin Tarantino without punching the TV after ¾ of a glass of wine.
I was shocked that it only took ¾ of a glass, but the evidence was irrefutable. I watched the rest of the interview, 45 minutes, although I had to drink wine during the interview to keep my alcohol level constant, 1 and ¼ glasses, for a total of 2 glasses. Taking these results together, I composed an ODI (Obnoxious Drunkenness Index) for Tarantino:
Alcohol needed for initial de-obnoxiousification: ¾ of a glass of wine
Alcohol needed for continued de-obnoxiousification: 5/36 of a glass of wine per 5 minutes
Obviously, the measurements in this scale are relative, based on body weight, tolerance of alcohol, and hatred for humanity. But it could be an invaluable took for wish to describe their annoyance for a person more accurately:
"I hate Tarantino. His ODI is four beers, and that's when I'm in a good mood."
"I kind of like Tarantino. A shot of Jager and he's fine by me."
"Ohhhhh…I drank half a bottle of Tequila and then watched the entire State of the Union address. Why do I do this to myself?"
July 29, 2003
Modernism, Postmodernism, ...
This is either going to sound stupid or prescient in six months...This article and Trigger Happy TV are two symbols of a new movement that is currently evolving and hasn't grown to a point where it is easily identifiable and nameable.
I apologize for the vagueness--I just thought of this a few minutes ago--but my gut tells me there is something unique about society today that has given birth to these types of pranks. Maybe it's a reaction to reality TV, based on these premises:
1. Real life is different from television. (Ten years ago, almost all television programs clearly existed in a different, more exaggerated world than the one we wash our laundry and drive to work in.)
2. In the past several years, non-scripted reality programs have "hijacked" reality and brought it into the TV world. In other words, the definition of what TV is (previously, only scripted programs) has expanded, and the definition of what is uniquely real life (previously, boring stuff like living in a house with roommates) has shrunk.
3. In response to this, perhaps out of subconscious resentment at having real life processed for entertainment rather than experienced, some people have begun to take the weirdest, most artificial elements that used to be exclusive to the TV world and put them in real life (e.g. an improv group taking all 39 listening booths at a Virgin Megastore)
Hence Trigger Happy TV and the pranks by the people in these articles. I'm unsure about what I wrote for #3. I could very well be off. But I do believe this form of a prank is unique to our time and has been spurned somehow by conditions in the last ten years. If you want to add your own thoughts to what's motivating these types of pranks, I'll link to your web page or post your comments here.
Update1: The real motivation for these pranks may be a "I've seen everything" attitude shared by many people, created both by an entertainment culture that has almost reached its limit trying to one-up itself, and greater social acceptance of "different people." You may look twice if you see a man walk down the street in full drag, but think of how someone would have reacted 30 years ago (or 30 years from now).
So these pranks can be looked at as another way to one-up what has been done before (e.g. a man dressed in a squirrel suit rather than drag) or as a way to gently poke fun at people who bury themselves in their own worlds because the real world isn't interesting enough to deserve their attention. Perhaps before, comedy and drama asked the question, "How would Character X act in this unusual situation?" and now we want to know, "How would real people act in this unusual situation?"
I'm probably done pontificating on this line of thought. Although I do enjoy using the word "pontificating".
I apologize for the vagueness--I just thought of this a few minutes ago--but my gut tells me there is something unique about society today that has given birth to these types of pranks. Maybe it's a reaction to reality TV, based on these premises:
1. Real life is different from television. (Ten years ago, almost all television programs clearly existed in a different, more exaggerated world than the one we wash our laundry and drive to work in.)
2. In the past several years, non-scripted reality programs have "hijacked" reality and brought it into the TV world. In other words, the definition of what TV is (previously, only scripted programs) has expanded, and the definition of what is uniquely real life (previously, boring stuff like living in a house with roommates) has shrunk.
3. In response to this, perhaps out of subconscious resentment at having real life processed for entertainment rather than experienced, some people have begun to take the weirdest, most artificial elements that used to be exclusive to the TV world and put them in real life (e.g. an improv group taking all 39 listening booths at a Virgin Megastore)
Hence Trigger Happy TV and the pranks by the people in these articles. I'm unsure about what I wrote for #3. I could very well be off. But I do believe this form of a prank is unique to our time and has been spurned somehow by conditions in the last ten years. If you want to add your own thoughts to what's motivating these types of pranks, I'll link to your web page or post your comments here.
Update1: The real motivation for these pranks may be a "I've seen everything" attitude shared by many people, created both by an entertainment culture that has almost reached its limit trying to one-up itself, and greater social acceptance of "different people." You may look twice if you see a man walk down the street in full drag, but think of how someone would have reacted 30 years ago (or 30 years from now).
So these pranks can be looked at as another way to one-up what has been done before (e.g. a man dressed in a squirrel suit rather than drag) or as a way to gently poke fun at people who bury themselves in their own worlds because the real world isn't interesting enough to deserve their attention. Perhaps before, comedy and drama asked the question, "How would Character X act in this unusual situation?" and now we want to know, "How would real people act in this unusual situation?"
I'm probably done pontificating on this line of thought. Although I do enjoy using the word "pontificating".
June 16, 2003
The Po Man's Ski Mask
I have a better sentence than jail time for the CEOs of Enron and other people who drained the savings of employees and investors. Hairnets, worn 24/7. Why? Because nobody takes orders from a person in a hairnet. These guys won’t be able to make a bad business decision, or any decision, for the rest of their lives. The hairnet, although a mere lattice of coal-colored polyester and elastic, crushes the allure of three-piece suits, BMWs, and Cuban cigars like a cafeteria lady crushes a student with the odor of a two-day-old Sloppy Joe. Kids could practice their basketball skills while flinging rocks at Kenneth Lay. “Nothing but hairnet!”
May 24, 2003
The Future
According to my stereotypical view of the 50s, one of the anticipated devices the wondrous future would bring would be pills that contain whole meals. Was food really that bad back then? There must have been a lot of chefs with hurt feelings when the scientists announced that one. And along the same lines, although teachers today are underpaid and even more under-appreciated, at least no one is suggesting we replace them with robots. In fact, if I were a superintendent of a school system, I would carry around a poster of the robot in Forbidden Planet and tap it with my ruler every time a teacher complains about her pay or the students. Those fleshpods will get the message.
February 26, 2003
Strongman Competition
In a Strongman Competition, weightlifters compete against each other by performing Herculean, almost cartoonish feats of strength, like pulling chains, moving boulders, and lifting kegs. If they are going to do all that work, why don’t they do useful stuff, like shoveling snow, or helping people move? Instead of lifting a metal log, they could help someone parallel park by lifting his car into a space. Or instead of flipping a tire, why not give a tired fast-food employee a break and flip some burgers?
At least the competitions could be held in science classes. These guys are walking testaments to Newton. In lifting stuff solely for the sake of lifting it, they come as close as possible to the abstract ideals inherent in the laws of physics. Who could fail to love science after seeing a man pull a bus by the waist?
At least the competitions could be held in science classes. These guys are walking testaments to Newton. In lifting stuff solely for the sake of lifting it, they come as close as possible to the abstract ideals inherent in the laws of physics. Who could fail to love science after seeing a man pull a bus by the waist?
February 13, 2003
Ask Ellie
What if your whole life were recorded and you could ask an intelligent search engine questions about your past? The search icon could be Ask Ellie, an elephant in a suit.
“Ellie, show me the moments where I learned not to trust people.”
You could see the time where your best friend stole your Snake Eyes figure and shoved you into your locker at school, deal with the memory, and feel comfortable buying GI Joes again.
You could obsessively relieve happy moments during depressions, irrefutably prove to your roommate that you took the trash out the last seven times, and explain to your friend both why you have trouble calling him back and refuse to go to the circus with him. (Ellie, load “Tied with Phone Cord by Murderous Clown,” ages 6 and 8.)
Having some bohemian buddies over for dinner? “Ellie, cue the 1998 Phish concert on the screen.” Then, remembering your parents are coming over: “The edited version.”
MOM: “What was that jump? What were you doing then?”
YOU: “Calm down. I was going to the bathroom.”
DAD: “Four times in 15 minutes?
YOU: “I drank a lot of water. I was trying not to dehydrate.”
And you could learn how your character was formed, down to the finest details. “Ellie, show me the moments from my childhood that I was kind to other people. What? File not found? You stupid elephant."
“Ellie, show me the moments where I learned not to trust people.”
You could see the time where your best friend stole your Snake Eyes figure and shoved you into your locker at school, deal with the memory, and feel comfortable buying GI Joes again.
You could obsessively relieve happy moments during depressions, irrefutably prove to your roommate that you took the trash out the last seven times, and explain to your friend both why you have trouble calling him back and refuse to go to the circus with him. (Ellie, load “Tied with Phone Cord by Murderous Clown,” ages 6 and 8.)
Having some bohemian buddies over for dinner? “Ellie, cue the 1998 Phish concert on the screen.” Then, remembering your parents are coming over: “The edited version.”
MOM: “What was that jump? What were you doing then?”
YOU: “Calm down. I was going to the bathroom.”
DAD: “Four times in 15 minutes?
YOU: “I drank a lot of water. I was trying not to dehydrate.”
And you could learn how your character was formed, down to the finest details. “Ellie, show me the moments from my childhood that I was kind to other people. What? File not found? You stupid elephant."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)