On the 28th of November I attended a Persona Dinner at a friend’s house.
A Persona Dinner is one where everyone acts, for the whole meal, as if they were their SCA persona – no talk about movies or facebook or anything. It is an acting challenge – improv theater, if you will. For two hours or so I was Roger Gridley, a late 16th century English mercenary officer serving in Italy, saying the things Roger would say.
The co-hosts both had 10th century Moorish personas which made things interesting – one of them had Roger Gridley written into her own persona as a family relation and was something of a rule-breaker anyway so we could talk, but the other had no family connection with me and thus could not speak to me (she was unmarried, to make it worse). I could speak to her (and in fact my Roger would have been expected to speak to unrelated unmarried women fairly freely in his time and place), of course, which led her to address several answers to other guests (female, of course) or at one point mumbled to the table!
Also in attendance were an early 16th century Italian woman, a 10th century Moorish child (with a persona relation to the hosts but none in real life), a 15th century English couple, and a woman who didn’t really have a persona at all.
Under these circumstances odd things happen – Roger had no idea what a yurt was, so someone had to spend some time explaining it to him even though I knew perfectly well what one was. Roger made some comments on the certainties of military science that reflected the thoughts of the time but are idiotic to today’s eyes (the supremacy of the pike for example). Tomatoes were widely considered poisonous in some of our cultures but not others. Much of the conversation, of course, was us talking about ourselves.
As the hosts were Moors no wine or other alcoholic beverage was served, which Roger gently twitted his hostess about.
The food was excellent and I believe quite period (though prepared using modern equipment). We ate off more-or-less period serving dishes and tableware and were of course in full period garb. We sat on cushions at a low table as befitting 10th century Moors which I had no trouble simulating Roger’s awkwardness with. :-}
I considered apologizing to my hostess for the poor showing I made on the basis that I was on campaign and my baggage was stuck on the road (my SCA garb is oriented towards fighting or campaigning rather than court or dinner wear) but chose not to bring it up. I also wore a somewhat earlier-period sword than Roger would have normally carried.
All in all it was a great deal of fun and gave me a boost in motivation on updating my garb.
Friday, November 30, 2012
Thursday, November 22, 2012
Spin, Spin, Spin
Boeing has issued a partial second offer on the SPEEA contract.
Boeing has made a big deal about how this is a much better offer than their last offer.
SPEEA has pointed out that it is still a worse offer than the existing contract.
Reading news stories on the subject today was an interesting education in spin.
Several articles emphasized improvements in this offer without specifying what they were improvements from – and without highlighting any of the takeaways. Provably correct but, in my biased opinion, misleading.
The union put out an email claiming that this contract was an attempt to split the union into factions – young and old, and ‘tech’ and ‘prof’ (the latter two being an existing division in SPEEA based on the possession of an engineering degree). By giving the techs the short end of the salary pools they attempt to create friction between the existing divisions, and by eliminating the pension benefit they create a situation where they can eventually play the ‘old guard’ off against the ‘young guard’ over retirement benefits. Probably correct in my biased opinion, but not provable.
Boeing, while offering its engineers a worse contract than we had, has given its executives double-digit raises this year and is giving the best stock dividend in years. The company, in defending this, claims that its engineers and executives are different ‘markets’. True. Engineers need to spend a decade in a particular and very narrow specialization within the aviation industry and be licensed by the Federal Government in order to be key employees at Boeing. Executives can come from anywhere and require no specific qualifications in order to be key employees at Boeing. They also get paid more. The company needs a huge number of engineers from a steadily shrinking pool. The company needs a small number of executives from a steadily expanding pool.
Hold on, something is backwards here…
Boeing has made a big deal about how this is a much better offer than their last offer.
SPEEA has pointed out that it is still a worse offer than the existing contract.
Reading news stories on the subject today was an interesting education in spin.
Several articles emphasized improvements in this offer without specifying what they were improvements from – and without highlighting any of the takeaways. Provably correct but, in my biased opinion, misleading.
The union put out an email claiming that this contract was an attempt to split the union into factions – young and old, and ‘tech’ and ‘prof’ (the latter two being an existing division in SPEEA based on the possession of an engineering degree). By giving the techs the short end of the salary pools they attempt to create friction between the existing divisions, and by eliminating the pension benefit they create a situation where they can eventually play the ‘old guard’ off against the ‘young guard’ over retirement benefits. Probably correct in my biased opinion, but not provable.
Boeing, while offering its engineers a worse contract than we had, has given its executives double-digit raises this year and is giving the best stock dividend in years. The company, in defending this, claims that its engineers and executives are different ‘markets’. True. Engineers need to spend a decade in a particular and very narrow specialization within the aviation industry and be licensed by the Federal Government in order to be key employees at Boeing. Executives can come from anywhere and require no specific qualifications in order to be key employees at Boeing. They also get paid more. The company needs a huge number of engineers from a steadily shrinking pool. The company needs a small number of executives from a steadily expanding pool.
Hold on, something is backwards here…
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Bipolar Disorder
There is a strong temptation in life to view things in black-and-white terms; one thing is right, the rest is wrong.
The problem is, this is almost always wrong. Most of the things in life come in shades of grey.
I think this is one of the fundamental problems with the US, and it manifests itself quite nicely in the political system.
We have a two party system. Technically there are other parties but they really don’t matter. Thus, since most people identify with one party or the other, there is room for only two positions on any issue. Yes, people hold a huge variety of positions on most issues, but they won’t be represented at the national level.
You may support the 2nd Amendment as written, the upcoming UN small arms ban, or anything in between, but when you’re voting for Federal office you have basically two choices: pro-gun or anti-gun.
You may support no abortions at all, or partial birth abortions and anything else, but again you’re pro-life or pro-choice.
The divisions within these blocks are often greater than the space between them, and what someone calls themselves is often driven less by their beliefs than by the people around them. Someone who supports limited-capacity hunting weapons only is pro-gun if they live in eastern Massachusetts or Washington D.C. Someone who tries to ban private ownership of automatic weapons is anti-gun in Texas.
Then we hit the problems with combinations. Despite the huge number of major issues, the parties only allow one set of positions each. The Democrats are nominally pro-choice and anti-gun. The Republicans are nominally pro-life and pro-gun. So what does an anti-gun pro-life person do? They throw away their vote on a third party (rare), or they vote for whichever issue they care more about. Note that with just two issues and a binary belief state there are four positions. If one allows for, say, four positions on an issue and ten issues there are over ONE MILLION combinations… only two of which are represented.
Now, some combinations are unlikely. Let’s say 90% of them are. A mere 100,000 positions. Yet in almost every election you have only two choices – A or B. Most often, neither A or B will take a firm stand on most of the issues – they’ll pick a few issues to take a stand on and spend most of their time attacking their opponent’s supposed positions on a few issues.
So we’re left to grope in the dark and make bad choices most of the time.
That’s assuming you have a choice at all. The most extreme case is also the most important – voting for president. However, thanks to some historical factors most of the votes in the presidential election don’t matter. Massachusetts is going Democrat. The Democrats don’t need to vote and the Republicans might as well stay home. The result is all but pre-ordained by God, no matter what happens with get-out-the-vote campaigns. The candidates don’t matter. In twenty years it might be different (or it might not) but no matter who is running in 2016 we can be quite sure of MA’s electoral votes.
Oddly, the electoral college was set up with the exact opposite in mind – to prevent a minority from being marginalized by ensuring they would have Federal representation. The problem is that the founders figured the minority would be geographically concentrated (more or less true at the time). Of course, they also wrote the Constitution so that the person who got the 2nd most votes for president would become vice president. Can you say President Obama and Vice President Romney?
I think there’s a nugget of a good idea there, however. Suppose that any presidential candidate who got at least one percent of the popular vote but failed to secure an electoral majority got a four-year term in the US Senate, with all the privileges thereof? Tens of millions of people voted for Romney – give ‘em a consolation prize. Senator At Large Romney. Yes, that means we’d also get Senator At Large Dukakis. No system is perfect.
I think this would be highly beneficial. All those marginalized voters in solidly ‘red’ or ‘blue’ states could vote for a third-party candidate. Someone with a wide enough appeal to carry the minority in half a dozen states could then represent those people at the federal level. Note that these people must be on the ballot for, and receive votes for, president.
Would this unbalance the Senate? Probably not. The need to hit 1% of the popular vote would cap us at 99 S-a-L’s (one person, after all, gets the job he’s running for) no matter what, but that would take such a fine balancing of the popular vote that we can safely rule it out. Let’s say we retain two ‘real’ presidential candidates going for the Oval Office. How much of the vote do they suck up? Let’s say a quarter each. They are, after all, the real contenders and most people will know it. The lion’s share of the votes in the ‘swing’ states will go to one of them. Half the vote gone, and we’ve got a POTUS and a S-a-L. Then some of the vote is going to go to people who fail to reach 1%. A few percent of the vote every election goes to people who fail to get even a single electoral vote, after all. Plenty of people are going to overshoot, as well – 5% doesn’t get you five seats. Let’s say you wind up with one S-a-L for every 2% of the vote. We wind up with POTUS and 26 S.a.L (including the leader who lost). If we say 3% is the average we go down to 17 S-a-L. And, of course, these guys aren’t going to be a single voting block. Some are Republicans from Democrat states and some are Democrats from Republican states (a Republican from New England and another from the Pacific coast – no point in getting on the ballot in every state; in fact better NOT to be on the ballot in swing states). A few are third-party folks. Libertarian, Green, whatever.
Ross Perot would have gotten seats in both 1992 and 1996, though very few others (no one in 2012, for example, though Johnson came close) would have based on historical votes. Still, given that three or so candidates have made it onto most or all of the state ballots in most of the recent elections we can be fairly sure this would result in some additional senators. After all, someone who has no chance of getting anything is a less attractive use of your vote than someone who has a good chance of getting something.
Best of all, this might break things up entirely. If someone knows the ‘consolation prize’ is there, why not keep going if you don’t quite get your party’s nomination? Sure, you won’t be POTUS this time, but you’ll be a senator. Or… will you? Go to the Presidential debates and ask tough questions of the ‘leaders’. Take a hardline position – you’ll catch part of the base.
Now the leaders have a hard choice – dodge the questions from the 2nd string and look like wafflers, or answer them and actually tell the electorate how they feel. I think that’s a win-win for the voters no matter who you’re going for.
Constitutional Amendment, anyone?
The problem is, this is almost always wrong. Most of the things in life come in shades of grey.
I think this is one of the fundamental problems with the US, and it manifests itself quite nicely in the political system.
We have a two party system. Technically there are other parties but they really don’t matter. Thus, since most people identify with one party or the other, there is room for only two positions on any issue. Yes, people hold a huge variety of positions on most issues, but they won’t be represented at the national level.
You may support the 2nd Amendment as written, the upcoming UN small arms ban, or anything in between, but when you’re voting for Federal office you have basically two choices: pro-gun or anti-gun.
You may support no abortions at all, or partial birth abortions and anything else, but again you’re pro-life or pro-choice.
The divisions within these blocks are often greater than the space between them, and what someone calls themselves is often driven less by their beliefs than by the people around them. Someone who supports limited-capacity hunting weapons only is pro-gun if they live in eastern Massachusetts or Washington D.C. Someone who tries to ban private ownership of automatic weapons is anti-gun in Texas.
Then we hit the problems with combinations. Despite the huge number of major issues, the parties only allow one set of positions each. The Democrats are nominally pro-choice and anti-gun. The Republicans are nominally pro-life and pro-gun. So what does an anti-gun pro-life person do? They throw away their vote on a third party (rare), or they vote for whichever issue they care more about. Note that with just two issues and a binary belief state there are four positions. If one allows for, say, four positions on an issue and ten issues there are over ONE MILLION combinations… only two of which are represented.
Now, some combinations are unlikely. Let’s say 90% of them are. A mere 100,000 positions. Yet in almost every election you have only two choices – A or B. Most often, neither A or B will take a firm stand on most of the issues – they’ll pick a few issues to take a stand on and spend most of their time attacking their opponent’s supposed positions on a few issues.
So we’re left to grope in the dark and make bad choices most of the time.
That’s assuming you have a choice at all. The most extreme case is also the most important – voting for president. However, thanks to some historical factors most of the votes in the presidential election don’t matter. Massachusetts is going Democrat. The Democrats don’t need to vote and the Republicans might as well stay home. The result is all but pre-ordained by God, no matter what happens with get-out-the-vote campaigns. The candidates don’t matter. In twenty years it might be different (or it might not) but no matter who is running in 2016 we can be quite sure of MA’s electoral votes.
Oddly, the electoral college was set up with the exact opposite in mind – to prevent a minority from being marginalized by ensuring they would have Federal representation. The problem is that the founders figured the minority would be geographically concentrated (more or less true at the time). Of course, they also wrote the Constitution so that the person who got the 2nd most votes for president would become vice president. Can you say President Obama and Vice President Romney?
I think there’s a nugget of a good idea there, however. Suppose that any presidential candidate who got at least one percent of the popular vote but failed to secure an electoral majority got a four-year term in the US Senate, with all the privileges thereof? Tens of millions of people voted for Romney – give ‘em a consolation prize. Senator At Large Romney. Yes, that means we’d also get Senator At Large Dukakis. No system is perfect.
I think this would be highly beneficial. All those marginalized voters in solidly ‘red’ or ‘blue’ states could vote for a third-party candidate. Someone with a wide enough appeal to carry the minority in half a dozen states could then represent those people at the federal level. Note that these people must be on the ballot for, and receive votes for, president.
Would this unbalance the Senate? Probably not. The need to hit 1% of the popular vote would cap us at 99 S-a-L’s (one person, after all, gets the job he’s running for) no matter what, but that would take such a fine balancing of the popular vote that we can safely rule it out. Let’s say we retain two ‘real’ presidential candidates going for the Oval Office. How much of the vote do they suck up? Let’s say a quarter each. They are, after all, the real contenders and most people will know it. The lion’s share of the votes in the ‘swing’ states will go to one of them. Half the vote gone, and we’ve got a POTUS and a S-a-L. Then some of the vote is going to go to people who fail to reach 1%. A few percent of the vote every election goes to people who fail to get even a single electoral vote, after all. Plenty of people are going to overshoot, as well – 5% doesn’t get you five seats. Let’s say you wind up with one S-a-L for every 2% of the vote. We wind up with POTUS and 26 S.a.L (including the leader who lost). If we say 3% is the average we go down to 17 S-a-L. And, of course, these guys aren’t going to be a single voting block. Some are Republicans from Democrat states and some are Democrats from Republican states (a Republican from New England and another from the Pacific coast – no point in getting on the ballot in every state; in fact better NOT to be on the ballot in swing states). A few are third-party folks. Libertarian, Green, whatever.
Ross Perot would have gotten seats in both 1992 and 1996, though very few others (no one in 2012, for example, though Johnson came close) would have based on historical votes. Still, given that three or so candidates have made it onto most or all of the state ballots in most of the recent elections we can be fairly sure this would result in some additional senators. After all, someone who has no chance of getting anything is a less attractive use of your vote than someone who has a good chance of getting something.
Best of all, this might break things up entirely. If someone knows the ‘consolation prize’ is there, why not keep going if you don’t quite get your party’s nomination? Sure, you won’t be POTUS this time, but you’ll be a senator. Or… will you? Go to the Presidential debates and ask tough questions of the ‘leaders’. Take a hardline position – you’ll catch part of the base.
Now the leaders have a hard choice – dodge the questions from the 2nd string and look like wafflers, or answer them and actually tell the electorate how they feel. I think that’s a win-win for the voters no matter who you’re going for.
Constitutional Amendment, anyone?
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
The Morning After
Sometimes I hate it when I'm right.
A sampling of today's headlines, neither random nor nonpartisan:
Obama Re-Election Signals New Phase in Syria War
ABC News
a.k.a. the US will now give even more weapons (that it won't allow its own citizens to buy) to fanatic Muslims.
US election party in Beijing: part celebration, part education
Los Angeles Times
This one speaks for itself.
Kremlin Cheers Obama's Re-Election
ABC News
As does this one.
Hard Mass. race ends in victory for liberalism
Boston.com
It wasn't just in MA, though "socialism" might be a better word.
Dollar Falls After Obama Victory, Losses Seen Limited
CNBC.com
I'm surprised they're willing to admit the first part, but not at all surprised it happened.
Obama Win Keeps NASA on Course — Toward an Asteroid
Space.com
For those who flunked math and physics, collisions with other objects in space are Bad Things.
The best Election Night tweets
CNN.com
Because it is much more important to cover fluff than substance - after all, if we covered substantive issues in detail Romney might have won!
Asian Shares Warm To Obama Re-election
Wall Street Journal
The dollar is falling but Asian markets are going up. So the people with money on the line think Obama's win is good for Asia and bad for the US.
Republican Karl Rove calls Barack Obama Fox News projection 'premature'
Telegraph.co.uk
Well, technically the electoral college hasn't cast their votes yet, but while it isn't official yet I don't think any sane, informed person is in any doubt.
Obama win has US investors staring at fiscal cliff
Chicago Tribune
Yup. The man who gave us the fiscal cliff in the first place is now in charge of leading an almost identically divided Congress to solve it. I feel so much better now!
I've expected PBHO to win for months, though I'll admit being disappointed that Romney didn't do better. Worse, however, is that I can't really see the election four years from now being any better. For the record, I'm not ruling out PBHO being on the ballot again. It's not like he cares about the Constitution or that he won't have a stacked Supreme Court ready to rule flagrant violations of it as valid. Sure, I heard a lot of comments from him that this was his last election.
Four years ago I heard him promise millions more jobs, among other things.
I'd say 'fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me' except I wasn't fooled the first time.
A sampling of today's headlines, neither random nor nonpartisan:
Obama Re-Election Signals New Phase in Syria War
ABC News
a.k.a. the US will now give even more weapons (that it won't allow its own citizens to buy) to fanatic Muslims.
US election party in Beijing: part celebration, part education
Los Angeles Times
This one speaks for itself.
Kremlin Cheers Obama's Re-Election
ABC News
As does this one.
Hard Mass. race ends in victory for liberalism
Boston.com
It wasn't just in MA, though "socialism" might be a better word.
Dollar Falls After Obama Victory, Losses Seen Limited
CNBC.com
I'm surprised they're willing to admit the first part, but not at all surprised it happened.
Obama Win Keeps NASA on Course — Toward an Asteroid
Space.com
For those who flunked math and physics, collisions with other objects in space are Bad Things.
The best Election Night tweets
CNN.com
Because it is much more important to cover fluff than substance - after all, if we covered substantive issues in detail Romney might have won!
Asian Shares Warm To Obama Re-election
Wall Street Journal
The dollar is falling but Asian markets are going up. So the people with money on the line think Obama's win is good for Asia and bad for the US.
Republican Karl Rove calls Barack Obama Fox News projection 'premature'
Telegraph.co.uk
Well, technically the electoral college hasn't cast their votes yet, but while it isn't official yet I don't think any sane, informed person is in any doubt.
Obama win has US investors staring at fiscal cliff
Chicago Tribune
Yup. The man who gave us the fiscal cliff in the first place is now in charge of leading an almost identically divided Congress to solve it. I feel so much better now!
I've expected PBHO to win for months, though I'll admit being disappointed that Romney didn't do better. Worse, however, is that I can't really see the election four years from now being any better. For the record, I'm not ruling out PBHO being on the ballot again. It's not like he cares about the Constitution or that he won't have a stacked Supreme Court ready to rule flagrant violations of it as valid. Sure, I heard a lot of comments from him that this was his last election.
Four years ago I heard him promise millions more jobs, among other things.
I'd say 'fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me' except I wasn't fooled the first time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
