notesfromnokomis@gmail.com

Everyday Skills

I recently read a book that was written by 100 different experts and published in 2004. It’s titled The Experts’ Guide to 100 Things Everyone Should Know How to Do and it was created by Samantha Ettus. The cover of the book actually says “created by” Samantha Ettus. I’m pretty sure I’ve never seen that before.

The book is separated into five sections: Morning Life, Work Life, Home Life, Weekend Life, and the Big Life. A different expert writes about each skill. The luminaries include Donald Trump on negotiating, Tucker Carlson on tying a bow tie, Suze Orman on saving money, Stephen Covey on managing your time, and Bobby Flay on barbequing, among many others.

The things associated with Morning Life that we should all know how to do are:

Sleep

Make a bed

Do push-up and sit-ups

Jog

Eat right

Make eggs

Brew coffee

Read a newspaper

Wash hair

Care for skin

Shave

Wash hands

Shine shoes

Tie a bow tie

Tie a Windsor knot

Tie a scarf

Drive a stick shift

I’m not sure what the last one has to do with morning life, but whatever. Of these 17 skills, I am proficient at 11, knowledgeable about two (jogging and eating right), and deficient at four. I don’t brew coffee, or drink it for that matter; I use an electric razor; and I have never tied a bow tie or a scarf, nor do I want to. Proficiency rating 65%. Overall I rate myself an A-.

Some of the essays are outstanding, some pretty plebeian, and some a bit strange. The “wash hair” expert thought it important to emphasize that shampoo should be poured onto hands or fingers, not directly onto hair. I can’t get the image of holding a giant bottle of shampoo above my head out of my head. Who would do that? Generally, I found it interesting to read about a commonplace activity, like washing hands, and learning the proper way to do it. I was probably correctly instructed as a child, I just don’t remember. In case you have forgotten too – wash your hands for as long as it takes to sing Happy Birthday twice.

Nineteen skills are associated with Work Life:

Manage your time

Organize

Handle a job interview

Ask for a raise or promotion

Give and receive a compliment

Negotiate

Shake hands

Make conversation

Remember names

Read body language

Listen

Improve your vocabulary

Speed-read

Make an educated guess

Tell a story

Conduct a background investigation

Deliver bad news

Apologize

Speak in public

Many of these skills are squishy, more difficult to assess than the Morning Life skills. I consider myself proficient at seven, knowledgeable about nine, and deficient at three – giving and receiving compliments (I receive so few), remembering names, and speed-reading. (I hope this doesn’t overly concern my business partners.) Most of my knowledgeable skills are easy to blame on the infrequency with which they occur, like conducting a background check or asking for a raise or promotion. Proficiency rating 37%. Overall I rate myself a C+.

Home Life comprises 17 skills:

Balance a checkbook

Save money

Understand a pet

Care for a houseplant

Prepare for a disaster

Shovel snow

Remove a stain

Do laundry

Iron a shirt

Sew a button

Pick produce

Buy fish

Paint a room

Hang a picture

Write a personal note

Make tea

Read aloud

Should I feel good about shining at Home Life? (I’m so domestic or is that domesticated.) I consider myself proficient at 13 of these skills, knowledgeable about removing a stain, picking produce, and buying fish, and deficient only at painting a room. Proficiency rating 76%. I’m giving myself a straight A. One unusual tip from the expert on doing laundry is to put clothes into the washing machine one at a time.

Weekend Life covers 23 skills:

Relax

Wash a car

Change a tire

Change oil

Mow a lawn

Fly a flag

Garden

Swing a golf club

Swim

Hit a tennis ball

Give a massage

Make a martini

Barbeque

Build a fire

Tell a joke

Be a gracious host

Be a good houseguest

Arrange flowers

Set a formal table

Uncork a wine bottle

Taste wine

Use chopsticks

Make a toast

This was extremely disappointing. I would have guessed I would shine at weekend skills, having attempted to turn my entire life into a weekend. I am proficient at seven skills, knowledgeable about eight, and deficient at eight. I’m so embarrassed that I can’t discuss these skills. Proficiency rating 30%. I should give myself an F on principle, but a D is probably more appropriate.

The last category is the Big Life, which also has 23 skills:

Breathe

Stay warm

Have good posture

Have a great smile

Flirt

Ask someone out

Kiss

Buy a diamond

Plan a wedding

Change a diaper

Hold a baby

Relocate

House-train a puppy

Create a family tree

Decorate a Christmas tree

Bake chocolate chip cookies

Give a gift

Wrap a present

Smile for a camera

Take a picture

Learn a foreign language

Plan a trip

Pack for a trip

This category contains a few items that aren’t relevant to a married man, so I’m going to take an incomplete on flirting and asking someone out. Of the remaining skills, I am proficient at ten, knowledgeable about nine and deficient at two – baking chocolate cookies and learning a foreign language. Proficiency rating 48%. Overall category grade is a solid B.

I avoided comments on many specific topics because some things are better left unsaid. I still can’t believe that my weakest category is Weekend Life. But I have no desire to change oil, mow a lawn, arrange flowers, set a formal table, or taste wine. So there really isn’t much room for improvement.

Overall, I was (approximately) proficient at 50%, knowledgeable at 30%, and deficient at 20%. I’m giving myself a solid B.

The overall rating of this post: TMI. And it could have been worse.

Value beats sunk cost anyday

We use economic terms all the time. For instance, economies of scale,[1] efficiency,[2] elasticity,[3] and externality,[4] just to name a few that start with “e”. For the most part, we more or less know what they mean, even if we don’t use them precisely correctly.

This short foray into economic terms is mere prelude to two short stories: the first centered on the term “value,” the second on the term “sunk cost.”

Last weekend, I was fortunate enough to be invited to two different homes. Friday night I visited former neighbors, Sunday night I went to visit my nephew at his new apartment. Both times, I took (among other things) a small cooler full of drinks. The cooler is an Igloo brand Tag▪Along 8. My working theory is that nothing I currently own has provided more value to me.

Value is defined as “a measure of the benefit provided by a good or service to an economic agent.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_(economics) I purchased the cooler sometime in the late 1980s for under $10. In the intervening 30 or so years, I have used it hundreds of times. It accomodates six cans or bottles of soda, beer, or water, with enough room for sufficient ice to keep the drinks cold for the duration of the event. The best non-cooling feature is a wide shoulder strap that makes the cooler easy and comfortable to carry.

My best estimate is that I have used the cooler 500 times (a bit more often than once a week) in the last 10,950 days (30 years times 365 – I’m ignoring leap days). If so, the cooler has cost me two cents per use. It is unlikely that I have another possession that I have used as often that still provides the same functionality that it provided 30 years ago.

Upon further review, I have come up with a couple of possible contenders. Flatware is essentially indestructible and gets used daily. Each individual item is much less expensive; currently you can buy decent forks for $60 a dozen. I haven’t owned any flatware for 30 years and (like most of you) I don’t keep track of individual forks. Still, I think we all receive significant benefit from our forks and spoons.

My mother gave me a pot that I have had for at least 30 years. I still use it often, whether for boiling vegetables or pasta. It might be an even better value than the cooler because it cost me nothing. I’ve had some LL Bean boots since high school. They don’t get much use now that I live in Ohio; they retain significant user value, if not monetary value.

Each of these items is used regularly and each performs according to original expectation. I would be quite cynical if I didn’t appreciate the fact that they still assist me after all these years. See Oscar Wilde who defined a cynic as “a man who know the price of everything and the value of nothing.” From Lady Windemere’s Fan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Windermere%27s_Fan

Though I have a few possessions that have provided long-term benefit similar to my Tag▪Along 8 cooler, none of them has appreciated in value. Although ebay is an inexact predictor of price, the exact (vintage) cooler I have, is being offered for $32. http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/112521252487?chn=ps&dispItem=1 My flatware, pot, and boots are not currently sellable for over three times the original purchase price. So I’m giving the value edge to the Tag▪Along 8 – it still provides benefit and it’s worth more than when I bought it. It has been an excellent value play.

Do you any long-held possessions that have generated excess value?

The next vignette is not nearly so positive. A “sunk cost” is “a cost that has already been committed and cannot be recovered” — the virtual opposite of value. https://quizlet.com/460890/100-economics-terms-flash-cards/ I never hear or read the term without offering up an internal chuckle.

A few months after purchasing the Tag▪Along 8, I bought new skis, bindings, boots, and other assorted skiing necessities. They cost much more than my cooler, but I had been skiing enough to justify purchasing equipment instead of renting it. Or so I thought.

The very next day (literally), I went skiing with friends and they took me on a slope that was beyond my capability. I managed to get to the bottom, after many flips, spills, and falls, without damaging my body or equipment. My ego was another matter.

The rest of the group was assembled at the bottom of the hill, waiting for me. In what was (I hope) an aberrant fit of pique, I vented my frustration by taking off my equipment and outer ski garments throwing each one to the ground while yelling – it’s just a sunk cost. I threw my skiis muttering, I don’t care how much money I wasted, it’s a sunk cost. I threw my goggles, saying, it’s a sunk cost. Over and over as I threw each item, I uttered some variant of it’s just a sunk cost.

My best friend’s father-in-law, one of the nicest, most interesting and generous men I have ever met, could not stop laughing. Virtually every time he sees me, the story is revisited. And he chuckles and I chuckle. Not one of my better moments, but then, they can’t all be.

Well, I’m off to a neighborhood Labor Day party. I’ll fill my Tag▪Along 8 with my beverage of choice and I promise not to shed gear and clothing while screaming “sunk cost.”

[1] “the property whereby long run average total cost falls as the quantity of output increases” https://quizlet.com/460890/100-economics-terms-flash-cards/

[2] “the property of society getting the most it can from its scarce resources” Id.

[3] “a measure of the responsiveness of quantity demanded or quantity supplied to one of its determinants” Id.

[4] “the impact of one person’s actions on the well being of a bystander” Id.

A Book Review: The Parties Versus the People

Mickey Edwards was a Republican member of the House of Representatives from Oklahoma from 1977-1993. After losing in a primary, principally because of his involvement in the House banking scandal, Edwards journeyed to Cambridge, MA, where he taught at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government and Harvard Law School. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mickey_Edwards (Our paths did not cross.)

I have no memory of him from his days in Congress. But he (apparently) saw and learned enough to pen an outstanding book: The Parties Versus the People: How to Turn Republicans and Democrats into Americans. The overall theme of the book is that our political parties are private political clubs and that their influence should be minimized.

According to Edwards, Congress used to pass, even controversial, legislation with strong bipartisan support. Among examples he provided are:

The national highway system was created in 1956 by a vote of 388-19 in the House of Representatives and by a vote of 89-1 in the Senate. Our current POTUS has an infrastructure plan, perhaps it will garner the same support. (Surely I jest.)
In 1965, Medicare was created by a majority of both parties in house. Senate Republicans were split. But a considerable number of them supported the new legislation. That almost never happens now.
The National Environmental Policy Act was enacted in 1969 by a vote of 372-15 in the House of Representatives. Unbelievably, the vote in the Senate was unanimous.

Then (again, according to Edwards) came the Robert Bork hearings, which were highly and bitterly partisan. After that, party line votes became more routine, exacerbated by Newt Gingrich’s decision to change “the legislative focus from policy development to nonstop hyperpartisan politics.” p. 31.

Edwards provided many other examples of how partisan our national legislators have become. He attributes much of it to the party system, particularly the fact that we have essentially only two parties. He prescribed several steps to minimize the influence of the parties. I consider that a worthy and wholly quixotic goal.

Probably the most important step in the right direction would be to have open primaries. Currently the parties control who gets on the ballot; they would continue to exert considerable influence under an open primary system, but it would not be paramount. Under this plan, the top two vote getters in a primary would advance to the general election. This would likely lessen the tendency of liberal candidates to lean hard left and of conservative candidates to lean hard right during primaries

In the general election, both candidates would have to broaden their appeal to garner a majority. According to Edwards, “We must break the power of partisans to keep candidates off the general-election ballot by creating a new system of open integrated primaries.” p. 48.

He proposes the creation of independent, nonpartisan redistricting commissions. The evils of gerrymandering are widely known and just as widely ignored by whichever party happens to control the districting process. Edwards stated that “The democratic ideal is to allow voters to select candidates, but partisan redistricting can produce the opposite result, allowing candidates to select their voters.” p. 65. Though it wasn’t a result of gerrymandering, I can’t help but think of Hillary Clinton deciding to live in New York. Though she had no ties to the state,[1] it was safely Democratic.

Edwards next proposed ways to reduce spending and to increase competition. The first is likely unconstitutional, but it sure would be helpful in reducing the influence of outside money. Edwards suggested that a candidate only be allowed to accept contributions from people who live in the candidate’s district. p. 80. Edwards also suggests that we allow all candidates a certain amount of free air time, though not newspaper advertising. He would also allow non-incumbents limited free mailing to minimize the incumbent’s franking privilege advantage.

Now comes a suggestion right out of an idealist’s handbook: establish nonpartisan congressional leadership. Edwards believes that partisanship has led to a party first, country second attitude. But – if the speaker’s role[2] was filled by someone outside of Congress, that person could oversee a “completely nonpartisan division of committees, guaranteeing a nonpartisan process for considering legislation on the House floor, and serving as a mediator to push the competing parties toward common ground and effective problem-solving.” That would be refreshing.

Given that it won’t happen, Edwards recommends better ways to vote for a speaker. Edwards suggests that at least one third of the signatures on a nomination must come from members of a different party.[3] Another option is to require that the speaker receive 60% of the votes cast, which almost guarantees a healthy dose of bipartisanship. Details would have to be worked out, but the originality and creativity of the suggestions is first-rate.

Edwards also believes that Congressional committees are too partisan. He states that “in theory, the committees exist to deliberate about the best solutions to major national problems; in reality, they exist to advance the partisan agenda of a temporary majority—or, for members of the minority, to block that agenda.” p.104. Edwards recommends that the Chair of a committee should be from the majority party and the Vice-chair from the minority party and that each should have the authority to bring bills forward and invite experts to testify.

Edwards would turn the rules committee into a true bipartisan traffic cop, by among other things, ensuring that any bill with 100 cosponsors would be brought to a vote. Other simple logistical measures would enhance collegiality by eliminating the trappings of partisanship. For instance, seating members by seniority, rather than by party, would bring members from opposing parties into regular contact. So would eliminating separate lecterns, cloak rooms, etc. The idea is to congregate leaders, not separate them.

These changes, and others that I have not mentioned, would not significantly alter the way Congress operates, just the way partisanship interferes with the way it operates. None of the suggestions Edwards makes would favor either current major party. They also wouldn’t help minor parties. But they would be good for the country because our leadership would almost necessarily be less strident and extreme.

[1] She grew up in Illinois and spent most of her adult life in Arkansas or Washington, D.C.

[2] Though not the constitutional speaker, who is third in line to the presidency.

[3] Here and throughout, I have skipped much of the material presented by Edwards. I can’t simply repeat the book. And I hope you will read it, so I can’t give away all of the good stuff.

Mount Kineo

I lived in Maine until I was 18 years old. Mainers call it “the state of Maine” because until the Missouri Compromise of 1820, Maine was part of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. We remain happy about and proud of our liberation.

Maine is roughly the size of Ohio, but has fewer people than the Columbus metro area (or the Cleveland metro area or the Cincinnati metro area). If its 1.3 million people (slightly more than the Dayton metro area) were even distributed, the state would be sparsely populated. But the population isn’t evenly distributed; it is heavily concentrated in the southern coastal area, whose northern terminus includes Portland and its suburbs.

The Portland metro area contains over 600,000 people, almost half of the state’s population, though fewer than the Toledo metro area or the Youngstown metro area.[1] Mainers from other parts of the state routinely refer to Portland and the southern Maine coast as not really part of Maine. Given the prevalence of sand on the coast and the paucity of rural inhabitants, it’s easy to see why other Mainers consider that area anomalous.

I was recently in central Maine, visiting family. I stayed in Dixmont, whose 36 square miles contain fewer than 1,200 people. There are 640 acres in a square mile, meaning that (on average) each resident of Dixmont has over 19 acres in which to spread out. Your neighborhood probably has a different look.

Feeling a bit crowded, my sons and I headed to Rockwood, which is a village in Northeast Somerset County. This chunk of Maine has 354 people spread over 521 square miles, almost 1.5 square miles per person. That is some serious elbow room. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Somerset,_Maine

The main draw is not the space, but the lake. Rockwood is one of several villages and towns that ring Moosehead Lake, the largest lake in Maine (120 square miles) and the largest mountain lake in the eastern United States. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moosehead_Lake At 1,000 feet above sea level, Moosehead Lake is the source of one of Maine’s great rivers, the Kennebec.

A wondrous focal point of the lake is Mount Kineo (in the background as viewed from the shuttle boat dock).

Though only 1,789 feet high, or almost 800 feet higher than the lake, Mount Kineo looks and feels taller because it rises virtually straight up from the water. It is a state park and, though technically on a peninsula, can only be reached by water. We took a shuttle boat .8 miles from Rockwood to Mount Kineo and began hiking. The trail starts flat, following the lake to the west from the drop-off point, then ascends steeply along a ridge offering fantastic views of the lake and surroundings.

To the southeast is the currently closed Big Squaw ski resort. Though the mountain itself has been renamed “Big Moose” to avoid political incorrectness, the locals refuse to call it anything but Squaw.

Upon reaching the flat plateau at the top of the mountain, the views were disappointing. We were ringed in by trees. But a now obsolete fire tower has been converted to a lookout. After climbing seven stories, using rickety hand rails for support,[2] we had 360 degree views, which confirmed the concept of a mountain lake. Moosehead is surrounded by mountains, in every direction except due south, that are significantly higher than Mount Kineo. The highest, Mount Katahdin, which is exactly one mile high, if you count the pile of rocks that surmount its plateau, was not visible the day we were there.

The view was outstanding, well worth the climb.

Mountains and lakes in all directions. Precious little evidence of human activity. Even the gigantic lake had only a couple of boats moving about.

During our return shuttle ride to Rockwood, the boat’s captain pointed to a cottage on the peninsula, which looked nice, freshly painted anyway. He said that is for sale for $825,000, but that he thought the owners would take $700,000. He then laughed and said, oh yea, it isn’t heated. And it’s only accessible in summer (by boat) and in winter (by snowmobile). During the shoulder seasons, there is too much ice for a boat and too little for a snowmobile.[3]

If you’re ever in central Maine, I recommend a day trip to Mount Kineo. If you’ve never been to central Maine, you should plan to go, even if only because it is the best way to drive to Acadia National Park.

[1] The point has been belabored. Maine, though the size of Ohio, has many fewer people. I have always loved saying or writing “many fewer.” It shouldn’t work, but it does.

[2] The stairs themselves, as well as the platform at the top, were comfortingly solid.

[3] The captain also told us that during the winter, the road that ends at the dock during the summer, continues across the lake, across the Mount Kineo peninsula, and then onto land on the other side of the lake. Though it has a state route number, it is only open to snowmobiles.

Straw Man

“A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument, while refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be “attacking a straw man”.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Today I’m not going to attack a straw man, I’m going to attack an actual man. The Columbus Dispatch recently published a letter to the editor. The arguments presented are representative of many people who support President Trump. I’m not going to suggest they are representative of the smart thoughtful people who support President Trump.[1]

I’m going to quote the letter one sentence at a time (marked “L”) and provide a short comment about each sentence (“M” for me).

L – It’s time to support our president.

M – No, it’s not. It never is, except in times of war that threaten the existence of the Republic. Instead we should support our president when we agree with his policies and we should oppose our president when we disagree with his policies. Moreover, given the tenor of the rest of the letter, it is apparent that the writer did not support the previous President.[2]

L – Ever since President Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election, the Democrats, media and old-school Republicans have done everything they can to discredit our President.

M – There is no doubt that “the Democrats, media and old-school Republicans” have not gone out of their way to help President Trump. Why should they? That isn’t their job. Politicians are supposed to help govern the country in the best way possible, not to blindly support a President whose policies they disagree with. The media is supposed to report the news. With very few and relatively small exceptions, they have done little more than expose reality. With very few and relatively small exceptions, the President has caused himself more problems than the media has. Reading his twitter feed is like watching a six-month-long train wreck.

L – He won and will be our president for the next eight years.

M – There is no doubt that President Trump won the election. I haven’t heard any credible commentator question the result of the election. I hear lots of supporters of President Trump endlessly repeat that he won, as if that justifies everything he has ever done or will ever do. He won, he is President. Move on.

The last time I checked the Constitution of the United States, Presidents serve four-year terms.

L – The media and their willing sycophants drum up fake story after fake story and come up with nothing.

M – As far as I can tell, more fake stories are generated in the White House than in the “media,” which also included conservative outlets. Yesterday the White House Communications Director accused a White House staffer of leaking his financial disclosure information “which is a felony.” It’s not a felony to publish information contained in a public document. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jul/27/anthony-scaramucci/it-felony-leak-financial-disclosure-form-anthony-s/ The accusation of “felony” was fake news. And it’s among the Communication Director’s more reasonable comments in the last couple of days. At least it wasn’t vulgar.

As for coming up with nothing: at a minimum the media have caused Jared Kushner’s memory to improve each time they uncover something else he was legally required to disclose. Recently, that included 77 assets valued at $10 million or so and more than 100 meetings with foreign contacts. The omissions might not be illegal, might not even be important, but they most assuredly are not nothing. http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/343250-kushner-updates-financial-disclosure-after-omitting-dozens-of-assets

L – They spend thousands of broadcast hours trying to get the public to think the president actually did something with the Russians to defeat Clinton.

M – I have not heard anyone suggest that President Trump “did something with the Russians” during the campaign. Many hours have been devoted to what Paul Manafort, Donald Trump, Jr., Jared Kushner, Michael Flynn, and others did with the Russians. Whether that something was illegal, collusion, or intended to “defeat Clinton” has not been established and may never be established.

A fascinatingly revealing poll suggests just how loyal the President’s base is. Even though Donald Trump, Jr. has admitted that he met with a specific Russian attorney during the campaign, a poll indicates that 45% of people who voted for President Trump don’t believe that Donald Trump, Jr. met with her. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-jr-russian-meeting-poll-majority-supporters-dont-believe-it-happened-despite-son-admitting-it-a7847636.html

L– — These investigations, costing untold tax dollars, have come up with no factual evidence.

M – No doubt the investigations cost money, but it’s not exactly a budget-busting amount. As for “no factual evidence”: I would suggest that the writer is one of the people who doesn’t believe that Donald Trump, Jr. met with Natalya Veselnitskaya.

L – I did notice that the fake media never mentions our former president inserting himself into the Israeli elections and his reported efforts to defeat our friend, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

M – How is this relevant to anything? If President Obama might have broken the law, he should be investigated. If he didn’t, he shouldn’t.

L – Now we have the Obamacare fiasco, a bill that will implode on its own in due time.

M – As I have stated I don’t really understand the various complexities of Obamacare. I doubt the letter writer does either. I suggest that there aren’t many major bills that won’t “implode” eventually – because the world is dynamic. There is no question that Obamacare has flaws. Some are inherent, some are the result of changes in the world since the bill was enacted. Some of the flaws could have been addressed by Congress, but it has collectively refused to address the flaws, choosing instead to attempt to throw it out wholesale.

L – The problem is that when it does implode millions will lose their insurance.

M – That is why Congress should address the flaws or implement a new health care plan. Thus far it has had neither the votes nor the courage to do either.

L – Some rogue Republicans, Sen. Rob Portman among them, presently refuse to support a new health-care bill.

M – Apparently any Republican who might put the interests of his or her constituents above those of the Republican Party is “rogue.”[3] Portman, by the way, voted for the “skinny” repeal of Obamacare last night. That bill was so flawed that most Republican Senators wouldn’t vote for it until they were assured that the House of Representatives would not approve the bill as presented.

L – We finally elected a non-politician for president, giving him both houses of Congress, but we did not count on the four or five Senate prima donnas who listen to fake news and misleading TV advertisements for their votes.

M – I agree that President Trump is not a career politician and that his party does have control of both the Senate and the House of Representatives. I doubt the letter writer has any evidence that, whoever the prima donnas are, they relied on “misleading TV advertisements” when deciding how to vote. As for the “fake news”: shouldn’t we use that term only when it truly applies, not to refer to anything reported that is contrary to our own personal politics?

L – Those against the new bill are either not informed or stand to make millions as long as the current health-care law remains.

M – “Not informed” refers to many members of the Senate, several of whom indicated that the bill was not widely distributed for their review. As for “make millions”: well, it’s just a stupid thing to say.

L – Our president has an agenda, which includes building “The Wall”, income-tax reform, a new health-care law and upgrading our infrastructure.

M – No argument from me. Those are things that President Trump has indicated he would like to do.

L – It’s time for the Democrats to stop stonewalling every appointee, and for the media to get on board for the good of the country.

M – I’m not sure the Democrats have stonewalled any appointee. They don’t have the votes. The real problem regarding political appointees is that not enough have been nominated. According to Money, as of early June, President Trump had nominated only 111 appointees to fill 1,100 top-tier positions. That is not the Democrats’ fault. http://money.cnn.com/2017/06/07/news/economy/trump-staffing-vacancies/index.html

I’m not sure what the media are supposed to “get on board.” Does the letter writer want slavish advocacy for the government’s policies? If so, I recommend that he read Russia Today or People’s Daily. They are the official mouthpieces of their respective governments.

L – Trump has been in office for only seven months.

M – I agree, in principle. It has been slightly over six months – even if it seems longer.

L – It will take him many more months, even years, to undo what has taken place in the past eight years.

M – Classic generic partisan rant. Who knows what the letter writer is referring to? Does he want to undo the increase in GDP? I’m against that. Does he want to lessen the huge increase in the federal deficit? I’m for that. Does he think we should return to the 8% unemployment rate that greeted President Obama? I doubt it. We know he wants to get rid of Obamacare. Maybe that’s enough for him.

That’s the end of the letter. As I mentioned, I have many smart thoughtful friends who voted for and continue to support President Trump. I do not believe that this letter represents their thinking. But I do believe that this letter represents the thinking of many (most?) of President Trump’s supporters. Sad.

[1] I know many smart thoughtful people who voted for and support President Trump.

[2] The letter writer believes in “do as I say, not as I do.”

Definition of “rogue,” the adjective

(of an animal) living apart from the main group, and possibly dangerous
behaving in a different way from other similar people or things, often causing damage

http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/rogue_2

Title page from Litigation, Vol. 43 No. 4 Summer 2017

On Political Moderation

I know very little about the intricacies of the Affordable Care Act, commonly called Obamacare. I do know one thing: Obamacare was approved in the US Senate by a vote of 60-39. Every single Democratic senator voted for the bill. Every single vote against the bill was cast by a Republican. https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00396 (Republican senator Jim Bunning did not vote.)

I also know very little about the intricacies of the American Health Care Act, colloquially known as Trumpcare. As things currently stand, the bill will receive zero votes from Democratic senators. If the bill is to become law, it will happen based solely (in the Senate) on votes by Republican senators.

Without commenting on the merits and demerits of Obamacare, Trumpcare, or any other potential national health care system, I am confident in exclaiming that enacting significant legislation related to health care along strict party lines is stupid. STUPID!

The country is not split on strict party lines. The country is moderate. Current polling from Gallup indicates that 30% of Americans consider themselves Democrats, that 26% consider themselves Republicans, and that 42% consider themselves independent.[1] http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx Gallup polling from a year ago was essentially the same: 28% Democratic, 28% Republican, 42% Independent.

Unfortunately, voting does not reflect this independence. Below are the votes cast in congressional races since 2000.

	Republicans	Democrats	Other

2016	63,173,815	61,776,554	3,623,561
2014	40,081,282	35,624,357	2,498,286
2012	58,228,253	59,645,531	4,243,456
2010	44,827,441	38,980,192	2,849,460
2008	52,249,491	65,237,840	4,934,468
2006	35,857,334	42,338,795	2,658,668
2004	55,958,144	52,969,786	4,139,261
2002	37,332,552	33,795,885	3,414,165
2000	46,992,383	46,585,167	4,959,610

Total	434,700,695	436,954,107	33,320,935
	48.03%	48.28%	3.68%

Even though 42% of Americans consider themselves independent, fewer than 4% of the votes in congressional races are cast for candidates who aren’t either Republican or Democratic. And the situation is even worse if you consider the winners.

	Republicans	Democrats	Other

2016	241	194	0
2014	247	188	0
2012	234	201	0
2010	242	193	0
2008	178	257	0
2006	202	233	0
2004	232	202	1
2002	229	205	1
2000	221	212	2

Total	2,026	1,885	4
	51.75%	48.15%	0.10%

Thus, 42% of Americans are independent, but only 4% of votes are cast for independent candidates. And those votes managed to elect only four Independents to the House of Representatives, barely one tenth of one percent of the members elected in the last nine elections.

The picture is slightly better in the Senate, where 4.5% of votes have been cast for independents.

	Republicans	Democrats	Other

2016	40,402,790	51,496,682	3,492,180
2014	24,631,488	20,875,493	2,047,814
2012	39,130,984	49,998,693	3,743,446
2010	32,680,704	29,110,733	4,078,235
2008	28,863,067	33,650,061	2,625,551
2006	25,437,934	32,344,708	2,889,132
2004	39,920,562	44,754,618	3,302,332
2002	20,626,192	18,956,449	1,979,132
2000	36,725,431	36,780,875	4,410,378

Total	288,419,152	317,968,312	28,568,201
	45.42%	50.08%	4.50%

Alas, only 2% of Senators are putative independents. I say “putative” because Senators Lieberman, Sanders, and King associate with the Democratic Party rather than with the Republican Party or a third party.

	Republicans	Democrats	Other

2016	52	46	2
2014	54	44	2
2012	45	53	2
2010	47	51	2
2008	41	57	2
2006	49	49	2
2004	55	44	1
2002	51	48	1
2000	50	50	0

Total	444	442	14
	49.33%	49.11%	1.56%

The total votes and the total seats are roughly equivalent for the two parties that duopolize the political process in this country. The political leadership in the country is essentially split between Republicans and Democrats. Accordingly, there is no reason for either party to think that any short-term virtual monopoly on the legislative process – based on control of the Senate, the House, and the Presidency – will be long-lived. History suggests that it won’t.

History also suggests that if, say, the Democrats have the short-term ability to impose a health care system along strict party lines, Republicans will devote considerable effort to impair that system and will, as soon as they are able, repeal that system. Similarly, if the Republicans impose their will and repeal and replace Obamacare, the Democrats will devote considerable effort to impair the new system and will, as soon as they are able, repeal that system.

None of this is good for the country. I would suggest that the parties don’t care. They care more about their party than about finding long-term solutions that are supported by a broad swathe of the republic. They would rather force-feed a political solution that is compatible with their ideology.

A better path would be to craft solidly bipartisan legislation that would be more likely to provide a long-term solution and less likely to inspire the ire of the other party. Below is a proposal that might help ensure that legislation is bipartisan. It could be used whenever our national legislature is crafting broad policy implicating a long-term national issue, like health care, tax reform, or massive infrastructure funding.

The Senate Majority Leader selects 25 senators that do not belong to his or her party.
The Senate Minority Leader selects 35 senators that do not belong to his or her party.
That group of 60 senators crafts legislation that at least 51 of them support.

Quixotic? No doubt. But such a process would ensure that the influence of Senators inhabiting the far left and the far right would be minimized. It would result in legislation that would necessarily be more moderate than either party would propose and enact on its own. It would lead to more legislation that reflects the predominant moderateness of the country, instead of rewarding hard-core partisans. It would result in long-term solutions that are less likely to turn into political footballs at subsequent elections, allowing us to focus on real issues, not politics.

I harbor no illusions that any such process will be adopted. It would diminish the power of people who currently possess much power. They would never allow that because they care more about themselves and their party than they care about their country. But I continue to hope that our leaders will adopt the principles of moderation that a plurality of the country embraces instead of continuing to engage in the rancorous partisanship that is currently crippling Washington. I remain a moderate idealist.

[1] I consider myself independent, though I am a registered Republican because the last primary in which I voted was a Republican primary.

American Exceptionalism

The current denizen of the White House is the most exceptional President in our country’s history. To be clear, I am using the primary definition of the word (unusual), not the secondary definition (unusually good). http://www.dictionary.com/browse/exceptional President Trump is uniquely devoid of political experience. He is unconcerned with being consistent, which might not be the worst thing. See Ralph Waldo Emerson, “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.” See also, Oscar Wilde, who said that “consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative.” President Trump was the star of a reality TV show, a presidential first. (Please let it be a last.)

President Trump is certainly the first president to play a feature role in a professional wrestling event. Here is a clip of Donald Trump beating and then shaving Vince McMahon. http://www.wwe.com/videos/playlists/donald-trump-greatest-wwe-moments [1] And, of course, President Trump makes extensive use of Twitter. Given that the 272-word Gettysburg Address is one of the greatest speeches in American history, I believe Abraham Lincoln would have used Twitter extremely effectively.[2]

I could likely go on all day and half of the night. Instead, I will briefly explain that three recent events that we consider exceptional are not.

First event[3] is that President Trump appears unusually thin-skinned, especially for one so prolific at insulting others.[4] “Don’t dish it out if you can’t take it” comes to mind. But he is hardly our first President who prickled when insulted. In Robert Morris: Financier of the American Revolution, author Charles Rappleye writes that the first President “was particularly susceptible to the barbs directed his way.” According to Rappleye, “political attacks pierced straight to that dark core of [Washington’s] spirit which gave an air of gravitas to everything he did.”

This description unintentionally highlights a sharp contrast between our first and our current president. The former had gravitas from leading the army during the brutal War of Independence, which included risking the hangman’s noose for treason. Among the greatest challenges faced by Donald Trump was getting by on a $450,000 per month allowance as a condition for renewing his loans in the early 1990s. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/06/26/business/quick-who-d-have-trouble-living-on-450000-a-month.html President Trump’s gravitas appears more fabricated than earned.[5]

The second event is that Washington and Trump indisputably have one thing in common: each was depicted or described as headless by a political “commentator.” Kathy Griffin recently and infamously held up a fake decapitated head of Donald Trump. If you want to see it, here is the link. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40108959 Less well known is a broadside by Philip Freneau, which was written during the French Revolution and described the death of Washington and Supreme Court Justice James Wilson by guillotine. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-15-02-0125 [6] Even though Freneau worked as a translating clerk for the Department of State, he did not lose his job. His patron, Thomas Jefferson, at the time Washington’s Secretary of State, protected him.[7]

The third event is that there is broad consensus that the Russian government meddled in our most recent presidential election. The efficacy of that meddling remains unknown and may never be known – there is no control group – but there is little doubt that the Russians wanted to assist Donald Trump.

Intervention by a foreign government on behalf of a presidential candidate happened at least one other time in our country. Revolutionary France favored Republican Thomas Jefferson, who has ardently pro-France[8] to the pro-English Federalist John Adams. Despite considerable efforts, France was unable to help Jefferson win, though he did become his staunch rival’s Vice President. Although their opinions of each other softened through the years, at the time Adams and Jefferson were as friendly to one another as Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are now. Imagine if she were his Vice-president.

If our President is exceptional, so is our country. Below are a few examples. I’m sure there are many more.

Countries that have not officially adopted the metric system: Liberia, Myanmar, United States.

Countries that measure temperature according to the Fahrenheit scale: Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Palau, United States.

Countries that use the “MM/DD/YYYY” date format: Belize, Micronesia, United States.

Countries that had not adopted the Paris Accords: Nicaragua, Syria, United States.

Countries whose paper currency is all the same size and without distinguishing tactile features: United States.[9]

American Exceptionalism: not what you expecting.[10]

[1] A tribute to President Trump’s imagination is his embrace of the doctored WWE video, which shows him body slamming CNN. I found it hilarious, if not particularly presidential. http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/02/video-trump-body-slams-cnn-in-wwe-tweet/

[2] You can follow notesfromnokomis on Twitter @notefromnokomis. I just noticed that when I set it up in May 2015, I forgot an “s”. Rats. Now that I’m up to four followers, I should start tweeting more than once every 2.2 years.

[3] I would have preferred to use numbers, but doing that caused all sorts of unwanted formatting issues in Word Press.

[4] Rabbit holes everywhere. “Prolific” is used with various prepositions: 48% “in”, 10% “of”, 8% “with”, 6% “for”, 5% “at”, 4% “on”, 3% “during”, 2% “as”, and 1% each “from”, “throughout”, “since”, “over”, “inside”, “across”, “around”, “among” and “after”. The numbers do not add up to 100%. Don’t sue me, sue the source: https://lingohelp.me/preposition-after-adjective/prolific-in-of-with-for-at/.

[5] To be fair, Washington was not without affectations. For instance, he wore his army uniform to meetings of the Continental Congress prior to being named commander of the army to remind people of his military experience.

[6] I searched online, futilely, for a copy of the entire The Funeral Dirge of George Washington and James Wilson, King and Judge.

[7] Jefferson’s relationship with Freneau is rather well known. He gave Freneau a job as a translator, though Freneau’s French was less fluent than Jefferson’s, to provide an income so that Freneau could publish the rabidly anti-Federalist National Gazette. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-20-02-0374-0001

[8] Jefferson’s love for France led to the introduction of that most American of foods: the French fry. http://theplate.nationalgeographic.com/2015/01/08/are-french-fries-truly-french/ For that, I will always be most grateful.

[9] I’m not suggesting that we should adopt the metric system or the Paris Accords. I’m merely pointing out that by not doing so, we are unusual.

[10] According to Wikipedia, “American exceptionalism is one of three related ideas. The first is that the history of the United States is inherently different from that of other nations.^[2] In this view, American exceptionalism stems from the American Revolution, becoming what political scientist Seymour Martin Lipset called “the first new nation”^[3] and developing the uniquely American ideology of “Americanism“, based on liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, republicanism, democracy, and laissez-faire economics. This ideology itself is often referred to as “American exceptionalism.”^[4] Second is the idea that the U.S. has a unique mission to transform the world. Abraham Lincoln stated in the Gettysburg address (1863), that Americans have a duty to ensure that “government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” Third is the sense that the United States’ history and mission gives it a superiority over other nations.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism

ESPN’s World Fame 100

ESPN The Magazine recently published a list of the 100 most famous athletes in the world.[1] They surveyed many of their reporters around the world and then created a formula, which they did not share, based on “endorsements, social media following and Google search popularity.”[2] They call their list the “World Fame 100.”

Fourteen different “sports” are represented.[3] If you can guess them all, then you have been paying closer attention than I have. The runaway winner is soccer. Thirty-eight soccer players are in the top 100, including one woman. There were eight women on the list, from four different sports. Even naming the two sports with more than one woman would be impressive. Golf is not one of them. The other two sports are easier to guess because I already told you that one of them is soccer.

Does it make sense that 38% of the most famous athletes in the world are soccer players? It’s pretty impressive on one level – the worldwide level. But it doesn’t register true with me. Perhaps it’s because only five of them are known to me. I could have guessed on several others, given their names, but I only knew (for sure) that five of them were soccer players.

Below is the number of athletes on the list by sport:

Soccer 38

Basketball 14

Tennis 11

Golf 9

Football 8

Cricket 4

Auto racing 4

UFC 3

Swimming 2

Gymnastics 2

Boxing 2

Track 1

Table tennis 1

Badminton 1

It turns out that at least one track, table tennis, and badminton star is more famous than any baseball player or any (ice or field) hockey player. You can probably name the track star.[4]

Fame is fickle, actually the poetic way to say it is: Fame is a fickle food.[5] The same list next year might have a significantly different look.

The top five are representative of the overall list: Cristiano Ronaldo, LeBron James, Lionel Messi, Roger Federer, and Phil Mickelson. Two soccer players is 40%, similar to soccer’s overall 38%, then the next three biggest sports all have one each.

I knew 52 of the 100 on the list. The most famous athlete I didn’t know was Neymar at 6th. I would have guessed soccer or rap music, given the one name. But it would have been a guess. The other athletes in the top 20 that I didn’t know are cricketers Virat Kohli (13) and Mahendra Singh Dhoni (15). The lowest ranked athlete known to me is golfer Adam Scott (98).

It’s an eclectic list because it’s worldwide. If the list were comprised of the 100 most famous baseball players in America, there’s a good chance I would know them all. I would probably know the 100 most famous Ohio State athletes. Despite the fame and long-term excellence of the football team, the two most famous OSU athletes of all time are likely a golfer and a runner.[6]

In a sign of how the times are a-changing, two UFC fighters rank in the top 25: Ronda Rousey (16, the highest ranked woman in the world) and Conor McGregor (25). Meanwhile only two boxers made the list. The highest ranked boxer is Manny Pacquiao (59), a 40-year old welterweight. What in the name of Muhammad Ali is going on?

Here’s a question that I would like you to answer: how can the NFL, which has no foreign players to speak of put eight players on the list but baseball, which has professional leagues in many foreign countries has none? I’m serious. How is that possible? The following foreign countries have more than one player currently playing major league baseball: S. Korea, Japan, Taiwan,[7] Germany, Canada, Cuba, Curacao, Dominican Republic, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Puerto Rico,[8] Australia, Brazil, Colombia, and Venezuala.

All of these countries have some interest in MLB, yet not one player is among the 100 most famous athletes in the world. But Ma Long (71, table tennis) and Lin Dan (88, badminton) are on the list. And why not? Both sports are fun, accessible, and unquestionably within my definition of a sport.

Of the 14 sports on the list, only four consistently capture my attention: basketball, tennis, golf, and football. They account for 42% of the athletes listed. There’s a big world out there that I am missing. But if it’s full of soccer, UFC, and auto racing, then I’m comfortable right where I am.

[1] June 12, 2017 edition. The list contains only active athletes.

[2] Apparently ESPN is not a fan of the Oxford Comma. Vampire Weekend has an excellent song that mentions the Oxford Comma. https://www.google.com/search?q=vampire+weekend+oxford+comma&rlz=1C1EODB_enUS512US556&oq=vampire+weekend&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0l5.7129j0j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

[3] For an explanation of the quotes around sports, see my post What is a Sport?, dated 2/2/17.

[4] Usain Bolt

[5] Emily Dickinson, Fame is a fickle food (1702).

[6] Jack Nicklaus and Jesse Owens

[7] Hopefully the government of China is not monitoring my blog.

[8] I think I wish they were a country though I’d have to study the issue more to be certain.

Misery Index 2017

Approximately a year ago,[1] I introduced the highly anticipated (by me) Misery Index, designed to assess how anguished various cities are (or should be) based on the performance of their professional sports teams. I made several disclaimers, which still apply.[2] The most important things to remember are that this is just for fun, the numbers aren’t precise, and the overall concept may not even be accurate – though I think it’s reasonable.

One obvious issue with my “analysis” is that it is city based. Some cities have multiple teams in a single sport – Angels/Dodgers, Giants/Jets. That the Cubs won the most recent World Series is good for Cubs fans and good for Chicago (according to the Misery Index), but might actually have added to the misery of some White Sox fans, not detracted from it. There are too many combinations for me to consider them all, so I focused on cities with more than one professional team.[3] I made that decision in part because I live in a sea of Cleveland fans, who were in the midst of a decades-long championship drought, which mercifully ended.

Four more championships have been contested since the Cavs won. The Chicago Cubs, New England Patriots, Pittsburgh Penguins, and Golden State Warriors won the last four major league championships. Those cities are not miserable and they weren’t before. They have all won multiple championships in the last 20 years and are now the four least miserable cities in the country according to my hyper-sophisticated algorithm.

The Misery Index is available below. It is based solely on the number and recency of professional sports championships. I express no opinion about the air quality, traffic, education system, or any other characteristic of the cities on the list.

Column 1 is the city (pretty obvious) with the number of franchises in that city from 1950 through 2017.

Column 2 is the total number of championships won by that city.

Column 3 is the number of years since the last championship.

Column 4 is the cumulative seasons since the last championshiop.

Column 5 is a composite of columns 2, 3, & 4.

City	Total	Since	Cum.	Index

San Diego (4)	1	55	110	102
Buffalo (3)	2	52	106	95
Vancouver (2)	0	46	52	94
Milwaukee (3)	2	45	90	90
Atlanta (4)	1	19	78	87
Arizona/Phoenix (4)	1	16	64	83
Nashville/Tennessee (2)	0	18	38	83
Washington (6)	4	26	91	82
Cincinnati (3)	3	28	56	80
Minneaplis/Minnesota (5)	5	26	104	80
Brooklyn (2)	1	63	7	76
Houston (4)	4	23	61	74
Charlotte/Carolina (3)	1	12	36	72
Tampa (3)	2	13	48	72
Toronto (4)	7	22	66	69
New Jersey (2)	3	15	29	61
New Orleans (3)	1	7	13	58
Montreal (2)	18	25	37	54
Indianapolis (2)	4	11	22	53
Philadelphia (5)	8	8	32	45
Seattle (4)	2	3	7	44
Detroit (4)	15	9	36	44
Dallas/Texas (6)	8	6	24	41
St. Louis (5)	7	5	14	39
Miami/Florida (4)	7	4	16	38
Kansas City (4)	3	1	3	34
New York (8)	33	5	35	33
Denver/Colorado (4)	5	1	6	31
Baltimore (4)	8	4	7	31
Cleveland (3)	5	1	3	28
Los Angeles (9)	22	4	17	28
San Francisco (3)	8	2	5	26
Chicago (7)	14	0	3	14
Oakland (3)	9	0	0	12
Pittsburgh (3)	14	0	0	11
Boston/New England (5)	28	0	2	8

San Diego has won one championship (in the AFL) in the last 55 years.[4] It has been 110 cumulative seasons since that shining moment. Their football team recently packed up and moved to Los Angeles, joining the basketball Clippers, who left San Diego in 1984.[5] San Diego’s professional sports misery is well-earned, matched (perhaps) only by Cleveland’s as the Browns were leaving town.

Buffalo isn’t far behind, with two AFL championships and a mere 106 cumulative seasons since the last one. Because they have lake-effect weather, they are probably actually more miserable than residents of San Diego, but my system does not account for weather.

A championship-free Vancouver is third. And the baseball Braves-propelled Milwaukee and Atlanta are fourth and fifth. Buffalo also had a Braves team – in the NBA.

These five cities were among the six most miserable in my first rankings. The Cavaliers win vaulted Cleveland well into the ranks of the non-miserable. As proof that my system is reasonable, I can attest that there was no angst this year when the Cavs lost in the NBA finals. Cleveland fans are no longer miserable, unless the only team they root for is the Browns. Another big riser is Pittsburgh, whose consecutive Stanley Cup victories jumped them from 13th to 2nd (in non-misery).

Boston retained the top spot thanks to the Patriots adding another Super Bowl championship. Oakland, Chicago, and San Francisco rounded out the first top five and remain in this top five as well. It’s much harder to move down than to move up. Long droughts can end suddenly, but they take time to accumulate. Just ask the fine folks in Buffalo and San Diego whose misery has been building relentlessly year after year. If they remain without a recent championship, Buffalo is destined to pass San Diego, which now has only one team.

Expect another update in about a year.

[1] June 9, 2016 at 10:06 p.m. to be exact

[2] The disclaimers are available at https://www.notesfromnokomis.com/?p=482 .

[3] My own favorite teams in the four major leagues are illustrative: Boston Red Sox and Celtics, Columbus Blue Jackets, Dallas Cowboys.

[4] The American Football League existed as an independent entity with its own championship for six years from 1960-1965. It remained independent for the next four years. During that time, its playoff winner played the playoff winner of the National Football League in the Super Bowl for the championship of professional football. In 1970, the leagues merged.

[5] If you are unusually knowledgeable or nerdy (I am the latter), you don’t need me to tell you that the Chargers spent their first year in the AFL in Los Angeles. So their recent move is a homecoming of sorts – just don’t tell that to San Diegans.