08 June 2019

Pre-prequel

Anticipatory plagiarism is a concept I used to struggle with - coming up with a brilliant idea only to come to realize that someone else had thought of it and published it decades or even centuries earlier than you had the opportunity to get it down.

This also happens in literature when a writer unwittingly writes a similar story to something they had never come across. In general, this happens by some sort of collective osmosis (perhaps it’s a Jungian phenomenon) by which these thoughts and ideas are in the ether - part of the existing background. It’s in the groundwater. 

This morning I read a short story in the Bradbury-edited collection that I’ve been making my way through.  It’s called “Mr. Death and the Redheaded Woman”, by Helen Eustis. It is an unintentional prequel to Piers Anthony’s On a Pale Horse (by which I mean of course, Anthony unintentionally wrote a whole series of novels {of which I’ve read the first few but not all} as a follow up to Eustis’s very fine story).

I've been getting back into Wikipedia as of late, particularly as I've been reading Timeless Stories for Today and Tomorrow, edited and with an introduction by Ray Bradbury.  As I started digging into the stories, I was struck first by the sense of time - of being tales from a different (but not entirely unfamiliar) era.  Much like when I read The Thin Man last year, one of the most enjoyable parts of every story, is a real insight into how folks lived 'in the before'.

The stories have also been enjoyable in their own right, but because they are primarily speculative as opposed to pure fantasy, they each have been deeply and fundamentally rooted in the time they are written (or when they are portraying in the rare case it's not meant to be "present day").  Bradbury finished the introduction on 1 July 1951, which means the collection is made up of stories all from before that time (and likely mostly well before, given that they're mostly being re-produced and collected here in this book).

As I read the first couple stories, I wondered who the collection of writers were that Bradbury had collected.  I've heard of many of them, but the first two at least were completely unfamiliar to me.  Henry Kuttner's story, particularly, excited me as he had worked within the Cthulhu Mythos (and had corresponded with H.P. Lovecraft).  Kuttner also worked closely in collaboration with his wife, C.L. Moore and the authorship of much of his work and her work were intermingled (so much so that the story in this collection could likely have been in good part her work).

 I plodded forward, and for each story resolved to read the Wikipedia entry for each author in concert with the story.  Which brought me to Christine Govan's story, where I found no corresponding wiki-entry (though she was mentioned in a few other articles, often as a family member to someone else).  A writer in her own right, I created her article and have now noticed that Helen Eustis also has one missing.

Govan and Eustis were the second and third woman authors collected in this book, and the first two authors in the book without their own wiki-entries.  It's a problem and I am working on solving in a small way.  I created a stub for Govan, in the same way that I had Faustin E. Wirkus years ago.  I don't have the time or inclination to go in depth and create a full article, but a sourced stub about someone who definitely deserves a wiki-page will grow on its own.  It takes time, but eventually the world will help do the work (as long as it doesn't get deleted!).

06 May 2019

6 of May

We peddle a lot of nostalgia these days.

A few years ago, Facebook stole my idea and began telling me about things that had happened on the same calendar date in previous years.

We enjoy the synchronicity of same dates. Although cosmically comically meaningless, humans seem to enjoy calendrics (autocorrected to “cake drive” = 🥮🚗)

On this notable day in Milwaukee sports, when the Bucks have taken a solid 3-1 lead in the Eastern conference semifinals (and at a time when people are actually paying attention to the Bucks!), and the Brewers are poised to beat Max Scherzer, I look back on my May 6th.

Arcia and Gamel each with 2 hits tonight, Giannis was a monster tonight (becoming only the second Milwaukee Buck in history to score 35+ points and get 15+ rebounds in a playoff game - and the only person not named Kareem to do that.)

It’s heady times here. 

27 April 2019

Oh no, Joe...

Updated Democratic Primary Contenders List:
(7/30/19 - after night one of Debate II)
Candidates Who Would Defeat Trump Handily
  1. Cory Booker
  2. Pete Buttigieg
  3. Julián Castro
  4. Tulsi Gabbard
  5. Kamala Harris
  6. Amy Klobuchar
  7. Bernie Sanders 
  8. Elizabeth Warren
  9. Andrew Yang
Candidates Who Very Likely Would Win Vs. Trump
  1. Bill de Blasio
  2. Beto O'Rourke
  3. Tim Ryan
  4. Marianne Williamson
I Don't Quite Know
  1. Mike Gravel
  2. Wayne Messam
  3. Seth Moulton
  4. Joe Sestak
May Well Lose to Trump
  1. Michael Bennett
  2. Joe Biden
  3. Steve Bullock
  4. John Delaney
  5. Kristen Gillibrand
  6. Jay John Hickenlooper
  7. Jay Inslee
  8. Eric Swalwell


Updated Democratic Primary Contenders List:
(circa early June 2019)
Candidates Who Would Defeat Trump Handily
  1. Cory Booker
  2. Pete Buttigieg
  3. Julián Castro
  4. Tulsi Gabbard
  5. Kamala Harris
  6. Amy Klobuchar
  7. Tim Ryan
  8. Bernie Sanders 
  9. Elizabeth Warren
  10. Andrew Yang
Candidates Who Very Likely Would Win Vs. Trump
  1. Michael Bennett
  2. Bill de Blasio
  3. Steve Bullock
  4. Mike Gravel
  5. Wayne Messam
  6. Seth Moulton
  7. Beto O'Rourke
I Don't Quite Know
  1. Joe Sestak
May Well Lose to Trump
  1. Joe Biden
  2. John Delaney
  3. Kristen Gillibrand
  4. Jay John Hickenlooper
  5. Jay Inslee
  6. Eric Swalwell
  7. Marianne Williamson

So, i like Joe Biden.  I'm not going to vote for him in the Democratic Primary, but i would vote for him of course in a general election in 2020 as i did Hillary Clinton.

But please understand this, blue-leaning, honest-broker, patriotic Americans... Joe Biden will lose a general election run against Donald Trump.  Well, not for sure, but he is is on my list of candidates who I'm not quite sure about, but will likely lose.

Mainstream media outlets all (from CNN to MSNBC to Fox News to Real Time to everywhere) continue to misunderstand presidential elections.  The prevailing wisdom is that American voters care about where someone stands on the right/left political spectrum and the danger of nominating a candidate who is TOO LIBERAL.

The reality is that the big middle of the electorate is suffering, miserable and angry.  Americans have elected disruptive change at every opportunity since the 1980s (at least as much disruptive change as they were permitted with the two major parties).  "The middle" is not interested in the right/left spectrum.  While the parties are, the middle is largely a-political.  The middle just wants to raise their middle finger to the powers that be and wind up electing as much change as we are permitted.

For this reason, the biggest primary electoral blunder that Democrats can make is to nominate someone like Joe Biden - not because Joe is a bad guy, but because it's exactly the kind of "Stability Candidate" that the major parties have nominated since losing a first term since 1996.

Joe Biden is the latest in the line of Bob Dole, John Kerry, Mitt Romney future likely losers.  A candidate whose primary characteristic for electoral consideration is their seriousness and appropriateness for office.  These candidates scream stability (which is a strange thing to scream).

Since 1988, each American presidential election chose the change candidate.  The reason every president has been re-elected since that time is not because we as Americans dislike firing people, it's because the major parties chose someone even more establishment than a sitting president with 4 years of experience under his belt:

  • 1992 - Bill Clinton, a governor of a small southern state defeats the sitting president who was vice president for the 8 years before that.
  • 1996 - Bill Clinton defeats Bob Dole, a senator from an older generation and a throwback gesture to 'bringing the grown-ups' back to power.
  • 2000 - W "wins" an election over Al Gore, a sitting vice president of 8 years.  Interesting to note, is that if McCain had won this primary, i think Gore wins in November.
  • 2004 - W still seems new to this job 4 years in, and he defeats John Kerry, who looks and acts as if his chiseled jaw was formed from the stone of Mt. Rushmore.
  • 2008 - Obama's hope and change defeats John McCain's trust us... except for Sarah Palin.  She's just for fun.
  • 2012 - Obama beats everyone's boss, Mitt Romney.
  • 2016 - You didn't want another Bush?, how about another Clinton!
The mistake always made by both parties has been that America wants re-assuring in their candidates.  The "trust us, we are experienced" hasn't won in more than 30 years...


One caveat is needed here, because we are living in such strange times.  It may be that anyone who the democrats nominate will win.  Despite the fact it was before "Smells Like Teen Spirit" was released that we last elected the more stable, normal, institutional choice for president, I do have some modicum of trust in the American electorate to not do this to us again.  I was vocal amongst my peers that I thought Trump would win in 2016.  I am not as concerned that he will win again in 2020.  Thus, in my classification below of current 2020 Democratic Candidates for President the most dangerous category is "May Well Lose to Trump".  The worst possible choice for the Dems in 2020 would be to once again nominate Hillary Clinton to run against Trump, and I would put her in that category, which means a fair chance to win, but "May Well Lose to Trump".

Original List (e.g. keeping myself honest)

Candidates Who Would Defeat Trump Handily
  1. Bernie Sanders 
  2. Elizabeth Warren
  3. Cory Booker
  4. Pete Buttigieg
  5. Julián Castro
  6. Andrew Yang
Candidates Who Very Likely Would Win Vs. Trump
  1. Amy Klobuchar
  2. Beto O'Rourke
  3. Tim Ryan
  4. Tulsi Gabbard
  5. Wayne Messam
  6. Steve Bullock
  7. Mike Gravel
  8. Seth Moulton
I Don't Quite Know
  1. Jay Inslee
  2. Marianne Williamson
May Well Lose to Trump
  1. Joe Biden
  2. Kamala Harris
  3. Kristen Gillibrand
  4. Eric Swalwell
  5. Michael Bennett
  6. Bill de Blasio
  7. Jay John Hickenlooper
  8. John Delaney

*  *  *

May 2019
I've had to update the list given the additional passage of time, so I think it makes sense to explain a bit of my thinking.  I'll keep the list current (mostly moving people out of "I Don't Quite Know" to another category as I get a better sense of who they are).

My troublesome "May Well Lose to Trump" category are there for two reasons, the first is the one I outline above, namely that they seem to primarily be running as a "stability candidate" - and stability always loses the presidency in American (at least since 1988 and arguably since 1972).  

Biden and Bennett fall into this category.

The other folks who may lose to Trump are 'coastal elites', candidates who are in large part defined by where they are from (these will mainly be New Yorkers and Californians).  Even though de Blasio has true progressive cred, he may lose to Trump because he is TOO New York.  The others on that list have 'not Trump' as their main selling point rather than an over-riding message to their campaign.

And then there's Hickenlooper, who I thought I had heard described as a "radical centrist", which I liked... just saw him on The Rachel Maddow Show this evening, and he is just a centrist centrist...  and may well lose because of it.


*  *  *

June 2019
And John Delaney's performance at the California Democratic Convention solidifies him in the "May Well Lose" camp.

We should be able to finalize this list, and remove the "I Don't Know" category in a few weeks with the first debates (unless Jay Inslee doesn't make it and I still have never heard him talk...).  Marianne Williamson seems confirmed to make the first debates, which will make things more interesting.

09 April 2019

Beautiful Day for the Beautiful Game

It’s been a great NYC workday capped off with some Champions League action at Smithfield Hall NYC. Liverpool is in action and up early in the semis* vs. Porto. Tottenham is batting Manchester City  nil nil on an adjacent tv.

The capper, though, is that ALSO adjacent is a big screen showing my favorite football club, Nottingham Forest in their long-shot quest to qualify for promotion playoffs today in a mid-week match against Sheffield Wednesday. (Unfortunately just now down 1-0). 

Best of all is that I’m next to two Brits in kits for Sheffield Wednesday and there are several Forest supporters nearby.

*oops, that is the quarters!

24 March 2019

Florida Man hates Triangle Man

… lives his life in a garbage can…

Florida, man

I am constantly amused by the fear of IDENTITY THEFT


it's a thing, sure - I myself had my identity stolen. Twice in fact. One was a pypal scam and the second was my discover card being used to buy gas and take cash advances.

Both times it was a hassle, but I ultimately lost 0 dollars. I know that's not always the case, , but generally it seems to be.

The real theft, tho, is corporate grift. My 5 year old LG refrigerator has ceased refrigeration. I am a prisoner of Wells Fargo bank these last 20 years and they and every other credit card company is guilty of usury upon me and all of their "customers". We are made to fear scammers of all varieties, but the real scam is out in broad sight. 

17 March 2019

Let's Hear it For The... Government Bureaucrats!!

Government isn't the problem, folks.

Governance is.

Our current administration entered office "unqualified" - of course, my standard for qualified to be president is fairly radical in its minimalism.  Like, 35, American born, hasn't done it before for 6+ years.

Over time, and in recent decades, we have come to believe and profess a specific pre-qualification for being president.  For a long time this has unfortunately meant male-ness and whiteness.  This has also, always meant privileged and wealthy (i know i know, you'll point out Bill Clinton's birth or Barack & Michelle Obama's humble beginnings, but they all came by way of privilege - and the honest ones will acknowledge that).  Most recently, before 2016 at least, EXPERIENCE was king, as if previously winning (m)an(y) election(s) - and possibly trying to do some governing - prepares them to lead our silly monster of a nation.

Dan Carlin makes the point in his erstwhile podcast Common Sense that the way we elect our leaders has almost nothing to do with what we ask our leaders to do once they're in the job.  It's part of the reason that my Conversation Party idea (or the random appointment of citizens to every elected office) is so compelling a path forward.

In the 19th Century, we had several pretty bad presidents.  Of course, we were a minor nation - not the SuperPower that we are today.  Today we have a 19th-Century President in our 21st Century age.  And as little as we good liberals would like to admit it, we're doing okay.  Sure, it's embarrassing.  And we are something of a laughingstock amongst the nations.  And the tweets are really bad.  And he's not so smart.  And he's not a good person.

But in truth, the proverbial trains are running on time.  The Department of Defense is defending, the IRS is collecting taxes, State is stately.  The bureaucracy (what Fox News/State TV calls "the Deep State") is working.  Bureaucracy sounds inherently bad, but only because we've been programmed since Reagan at least, to think so.  In reality, the career public servants work a job - a job they likely could be paid more to do in the private sector.  Their mission is not abstract profit for a nameless corporation, rather to do the work of the people.  This work continues, regardless of whose at the head.  (If you think a moment about your experience, you'll see that this makes sense.  If your boss {or boss's boss, etc. ...} weren't there for 6 months or a year or more, but you all kept working tell me how things would go...  The answer, generally, is, i expect, as they are.  Status quo.  Keep on keeping on.

And so, as we look toward 2020,


24 February 2019

Still a Good Idea

On this date in Roman Numeral J history in 2008, it was also an Oscar Sunday and I was watching, evidently.  I feel that my post-game Oscar analysis idea stands up (tho, RIP Harriet Klausner).

I turned away this evening - catching up on Walking Dead instead.  I did just go down to watch Bradley Cooper and Lady Gaga sing.  Tonight's festivities started off on a bad foot, when Keks (see most future posts, i expect), our new fur baby, stepped on the remote while we had paused it to see Adam Lambert's Queen opening sequence, which we subsequently missed.

In 2008, the best picture nominees were:

  • No Country for Old Men
  • Atonement
  • There Will Be Blood
  • Juno
  • Michael Clayton
I think of those i still have only seen Juno (and i see from my Arfives that i saw Michael Clayton) the following year.  I feel like maybe i saw Atonement too at some point, but can't prove it.

This year:
  • Green Book
  • Black Panther
  • A Star is Born
  • BlackKklansman
  • Vice
  • Roma
  • Bohemian Rhapsody
  • The Favourite
The past two years i've seen the best picture winner each year after the ceremony (The Shape of Water & Moonlight).  I'll likely keep that trend up, but i regret that movies are no longer as much a part of my life as they once were.  I was already regretting it a decade ago i guess.