Writing on the Wall

Writing on the Wall



Writing on the Wall is a good read: well-written, entertaining, and informative. The point that the author is making could be summed up in this quote by Robin Dunbar: "Without gossip, there would be no society."

Mass media are a relatively recent phenomenon and only about 150 years old. Before that we had, as Tom Standage argues, social-media ecosystems. The first of them were the Roman media. "... the fortunes of Rome's vast territories depended to an inordinate extent on the personal ties between members of the Roman elite. Social gossip and political news were intertwined." Information was exchanged in person or by letters. There were also books but "no publishers, no copyright, and very few booksellers. Instead, books circulated from one reader to the next through recommendation and copying." During the Reformation, there were pamphlets, news ballads, and woodcuts. Later on, at the Tudor court, it was poetry that was used to communicate. "The circulation of poems in manuscript form provided a gossipy back channel behind the outward formality and strict rules of court life, and a conveniently ambiguous way to make political points." And then there were manuscript copies of speeches and parliamentary reports that circulated widely. And, again quite some years later, there were the coffeehouses, and ... in short: humans are wired for sharing and they do so with the means at their disposal.

When printing was invented and began to dominate the exchange of information, the agenda-setting became concentrated in the hands of a few. Eventually, the owners of radio and television took over and thus acquired a factual monopoly on the spread of news. This monopoly is now being broken up again by the internet. So back to the roots then? Not really for the exchange of social information in modern societies is hardly comparable to the one of ancient times. Nowadays, "various forms of media make possible gossip at a distance", to be physically present is not required anymore.

In Tom Standage's view, television has become "the most pervasive medium ever. The couch potato, vegetating in front of the flickering screen, emerged as a cultural cliché. Watching television, an entirely one-way, passive experience, became the very definition of inaction. Only sleeping involves less effort. The broadcast model considers the role of the radio listener and television viewer to be merely that of a passive consumer. This is as far as it is possible from a media system in which people create, distribute, share, and rework information and exchange it with each other. It is the opposite of social media."

Writing on the Wallprovides a helpful perspective in regards to the role that social media play in triggering protests and revolutions. "Historically, it is clear that social media, in the form of pamphlets, letters, and local newspapers, played a role in the Reformation, and in the American and French Revolution. But it is also clear, from a distance, that its main function was to reveal and synchronize public opinion and expose the extent of the opposition to the incumbent regime. In each case, simmering resentments meant that revolution would have happened sooner or later anyway; the use of social media merely helped the process along." Agreed, yet this description of the impact of social media could equally be used to describe the role of mass media that produce often not more than loud noise that accompanies events that would also have taken place without them.

Tom Standage
Writing on the Wall
Social Media - The First 2,000 Years
Bloomsbury Publishing, London, New Delhi, New York and Sydneyhttp://www.bloomsbury.com/

The simple trick allowing citizens to bypass gerrymandering

The simple trick allowing citizens to bypass gerrymandering


Here is my personal posting ofthe article that Salon Magazine recently featured: A Modest Proposal to Neutralize Gerrymandering, on how U.S. citizens might, one at a time and each of us, strike a blow against the worst political criminals since the American Civil War, neutralizing (if not ending) a travesty that has long been banned in most civilized nations,called gerrymandering. This also lets me follow up with some addenda remarks.
---The death spiral of U.S. political life has yet to see bottom. While most factual indicators suggest optimism, our public addiction to dudgeon and fury intensifies daily. Words like “negotiation,” “deliberation,” and “discourse” sink into quaint anachronism alongside “phlogiston.”The illness has many causes. Tsunamis of money in politics. Cable “news” networks push one side, denying loyal viewers any hint of refutation. Glancing at the red-state/blue-state map suggests that “deep culture” is reigniting the American Civil War. These factors arent easy to solve.However, one malignant forcecouldbe staunched almost overnight, with a simple trick. It requires no legislation, court action, or leadership from our sclerotic political caste. Mere citizens – one at a time -- could neutralize gerrymandering.
We all know the scam, inflicted on U.S. voters by both parties, often in collusion. Cynical manipulators have made a high art of crafting bizarrely-shaped, convoluted districts for Congress and state legislatures. Were told its meant to advantage the majority party in a state, letting it eke out extra seats by cramming minority party voters into rigged ghettos of Democrats in (say) Texas or Republicans in Illinois. (See illustrated example.)

But thats not the real purpose, at all!Proof came in 2010 whenCalifornia voters rebelled. Via ballot proposition, they handed district-drawing to nonpartisan commissions. Californias Democratic Party begged the mostly-Democratic populace not to, fearing the GOP might benefit. But lo, post- gerrymandering, Democrats surged to winmorestatehouse seats.Democratic politicians still fretted, because many of theirpersonal districtswere now more evenly balanced. On average, each might see only a 55% or 60% Democratic majority – an advantage, but not safety.The California experiment –including open primaries and top-two runoffs – was hugely successful. In heavily Democratic districts, the run-offbetween two Democratsproduced a weird epiphany: “Hey, this district consists 1/3 of Republicans who could tip the balance. Lets reach out to them!” Minority-party voters got leverage. Their calls were answered. No one expected this.Voter uprisings against gerrymandering have happened in half a dozen blue states, but not once in a red state, like Texas, where Democrats feel herded and disenfranchised, where gerrymandering has its Michaelangelos. Indeed, political handicapper Stuart Rothenbergsays211 of 234 Republican seats in the House are “safe,” leaving only 23 competitive.In fairness, some Democratic states like Maryland and Illinois havetheir owngerrymandering daVincis.Unforeseen Consequences
Now the iron law of unexpected outcomes takes hold, for gerrymanderings top malignant effect has been radicalization of U.S. politics. Having engineered for themselves safe districts where the minority party has no chance, cynical politicians have rendered each Novembergeneral electionmoot, (except for state-wide or national offices). Yet, safety eluded them, as this only shifted tension earlier, to the party primary; Recent Tea Party insurrections show how a districts most vociferous five percent can use primary challenges to oust established representatives or bully them into cartoonish agendas.Now consider: Gerrymandering lumps birds-of-a-feather till each district is “owned” by one party or another. Democratic voters in a Republican-owned district - or Republicans in a Democratic-owned district – willnever cast a vote for the legislature inthe only election that matters: the majority partys primary.Unless……unlessyouhold your nose and re-register with whatever party owns your district.This holds true, whether youre a Democrat in a Republican district, or vice versa.If your district is gerried to contain mostly Republicans, then itshouldbe represented by a conservative person. But, as someone living in the district, you deserve to have some say in which conservative it will be! A Tea Party radical? Or a genteel negotiator, like Goldwater or Buckley?Conservative radicals will scream that Democrats who attempt this kind of judo must be aiming to sabotage the Republican primary! But any large numbers who switch will have one goal: to recover a meaningful say in a district that had disenfranchised them. They want to vote for candidates they disagree withless; this isa reasonable criterion.
Does a label change a voters principles? Remember Republicans of yore: Abe Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower -- and sign the card!

Then, next spring, youll vote when it matters, in the primary between Republican candidates.The same advice applies to Republicans in Democratic-owned districts! In fact, this tactic has precedence -- generations of Republicans registered as Democrats in the old-time “solid south.” They can hardly complain now.Reclaim our sovereigntyPicture the majority party primary in each gerrymandered district becoming the de facto general election, with all voters participating. Screaming talking heads would lose their potency overnight. Representatives could no longer pick which citizens to ignore by their party registration. Moreover, their computerized gerrymandering programs would go haywire! That, alone, will be a form of citizen revenge upon a cynical political caste.
Cant stomach registering as a (pick your poison) Democrat/Republican? Get over it. Partisan labels made this mess. Grin at your friends shocked reactions. Then recruit them, rebelling against a political scam.
If fifty million Americans do this, well show the politicians: “you cant take us for granted, nor fool all the people, all the time.”- Follow-up after the Salon article -First See my earlier, more extensive appraisal-in-depth of gerrymandering:American Democracy: More Fragile Than We Think.AFTERWORD NUMBER ONE:Sam Wang in the New York Times Sunday Reviewused a seat-discrepancy criterion to find which 10 states are the most “out of whack. Arizona, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin were worst, plus Virginia, Ohio, Florida, Illinois and Texas. Of this ten worst gerrymandered states, Arizona was redistricted by an independent commission, with Republicans the beneficiaries of all distortions. Texas was a combination of Republican and federal court efforts, but with a notoriously pro GOP warp. Illinois was controlled by Democrats, who benefited. Republicans designed the other seven maps.
Nine out of ten were home runs for the Republican Party, helping to explain why, despite winning 1.4 million fewer votes for Congress in 2012, the GOP still controls the House of Representatives by a comfortable margin.As Mr. Wang put it: “Both sides may do it, but one side does it more often.”An interesting note: Arizona had supposedly joined the ranks of states that eliminated gerrymandering in favor of design by neutral commission, making it the one Red State to do so. Yet its districts wound up so twisted in the GOPs favor that it became a laughable embarrassment. One excuse offered, that large Native American reservations had to be given special treatment and that the Hopi and Navajo wanted to be kept separate. Um, right. How about an alternative hypothesis. That the "neutral" commission simply isn't.ADDENDUM NUMBER TWOAfter theSupreme Court struck down parts of the Voting Rights Act,certain states are no longer bound by the Acts requirement that they pass new voting regulations by the federal government. As a result, Republicanlegislators inthese states are moving forward with new voter ID laws. Attorney General Greg Abbott announced that Texas will proceed with a law requiring photo ID before voting. since it is no longer required to obtain pre-clearance from the Department of Justice.This is about more than just racism and turning away young people. It gets even better, keeping aware that American women have been swinging ever more strongly toward the Democratic PartyThink Progress reportsthat as of November 5, Texans must show aphoto IDwith their up-to-date legal name. It sounds like a small detail, butaccording to the Brennan Center for Justice, only 66% of voting age women have ready access to a photo document that will attest to proof of citizenship. This is largely because young women have notupdated their documents with their married names,a circumstance that doesnt affect male voters in any significant way. Suddenly 34% of women voters are scrambling for an acceptable ID, while 99% of men are home free.
Now let me surprise you! In fact, I would have nothing against gradually rising voter ID requirements, even though almost no Election Day false voter fraud has been reported in 30 years. When you approach it logically, there is no reason why proof of ID should not IN PRINCIPLE be part of the process of exercising a right as valuable as voting.There is only one test to see if it is a "reform" or if it is blatantly partisan voter suppression:"Has the state accompanied the new voter ID law with substantial funding to helpunder-documented but legal US citizens to get the ID they need, and to become registered? Is the state effectively helping people to meet the new burden that it has required?"

If a state has sincerely done that, then I will admit that the demand for voter ID might behonest and due to the rationalized and declared reasons.


Alas, not one red state that has passed such laws has gone on to allocate a single penny to helppoor citizens of the state, or the elderly or the young or women, to comply with onerousnew restrictions on their franchise. Let me repeat that. Not one has done so. Not even fig-leaf funding.In other words, they are exposed as lying-hypocritical, outright-cheating election thieves. And the same goes for anyone who defends this foul crime against democracy. When you make excuses for cheating, well, we all know what you were like on the playground, as a kid. A cheater and a bully. Character. It all-too often continues into adulthood, unchanged. Alas.


Addendum #3: See this variation on my theme, by Morgan Draper Kauffman, whose Interlock Project might also be of interest to you centrist policy wonks out there, sifting to prepare a chart of how our myriad modern issues are tied together in vexing ways.

David Brin Website
Twitter Facebook

Sell ​​ONGC as derivatives indicate tremendous short positions - 11 July 2013

Sell ​​ONGC as derivatives indicate tremendous short positions - 11 July 2013


1) ONGC is India's leading Oil Exploration company and one of govt's "Maha-ratna" company.Technical Analysis2) It has corrected steeply by 10% in the last 10 days and has now trading below the short term (5 Day EMA) and long term (34 day EMA).
3) The stock has reached a minor support level from where it is expected to rebound by 2-3%. If it again resumes its downward journey, then we may see levels of 286 Rs. in this stock.Derivative Analysis4) The stock has added 8% in Open Interest today and is now standing at maximum Open Interest for the last one month.5) It has added 6.7 Lacs shares in Open Interest in July futures. Besides, 1.4 Lacs shares have been added in 300 Rs call, 1.9 Lacs in 310 Rs call, 1.24 Lacs in 300 Rs. call. The premium for all three Options have declined by around 30% which indicates the levels of bearishness existing in the counter.Considering all these factors, we may derive that we may sell ONGC on every rise. If the stock rebounds from the existing support of 296 and reaches 302-305, we may sell it for possible target levels of 286. On the up side, the stop-loss can be maintained around 312.

Nixon Reconsidered 8

Nixon Reconsidered 8


I finished Joan Hoff's Nixon Reconsidered. I have three items.

1. I liked something that Hoff said on pages 344-345:

"...the
parents of those born after 1974 either strongly opposed or supported
Nixon for reasons their children still do not quite understand: 'My
parents hate him,' one of my students responded on a questionnaire
asking why she was taking a class on Nixon, 'and I want to know why.'"

Why
did I like this passage? I can't really say. I guess it's because it
warms my heart to see people wanting to learn more about the world
around them, due to something in their background that they don't quite
understand.

I was one of the people born after 1974. What did my
parents think about Richard Nixon? My impression is that they neither
hated him nor loved him. They believed that he was a shady politician,
but they didn't have high expectations about politicians, in general.

Although
my parents didn't appear (at least to me) to have strong opinions about
Nixon, there were a couple of times when they expressed an opinion
about him. When I was in the sixth grade, I was reading The Final Days, by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. The back cover quoted the New York Times
saying about the book: "Unprecedented....Mr. Nixon emerges as a tragic
figure weathering a catastrophic ordeal...and weathering it with
considerable courage and dignity." When I read that quote to my Mom,
she responded that she felt that way about Nixon during Watergate.

My
Dad one time told a story about a conversation that his father had with
someone about Nixon. A relative was really gun-ho about Nixon, saying
that Nixon would be a great President, and my Grandpa retorted, "Nixon
will be the last President, and, not only that, he will be the worst
President." My Dad in telling the story may have been implying that my
Grandpa was not too far off the mark: while Nixon did not turn out to be
our last President, Nixon's Presidency did end on a dismal note.

2. On pages 345-346, Hoff talks about how Nixon during the 1990's was deemed by many to be authentic:
"He
insisted on speaking out on issues, especially foreign policy ones; he
looked like a real person, not a talking head, on television; he stood
for something rather than nothing or everything, as is now the trendy
postmodern fashion...Nixon's potential appeal by the early 1990s because
of his own 'real' look was lost on him; he once said to me that
'blow-dry hair is now as important as brains' when running for office.
It is truly a postmodern moment when Richard Nixon, who had to deal with
charges of inauthenticity all his public life, became more real and
authentic than the totally packaged variety of contemporary politician."

Throughout
Richard Nixon's political career, there were many who did not regard
Nixon as particularly authentic. With all of the "new Nixons" coming
out, many wondered who the real Nixon was. According to Hoff, however,
Nixon during the 1990's was regarded by many as more authentic than most
of the politicians who were on the scene. I can attest to that, on
some level. I was watching a YouTube clip of David Frost's interview of
Nixon, in which Nixon was responding to Frost's questions about
Watergate. One of the commenters said that she liked Nixon because he
was comfortable with being who he was. Granted, this clip was of an
interview of Nixon from the late 1970's, not the 1990's. But I could
see the commenter's point. I don't know if Nixon was telling the truth
or not in the Frost interviews, but he did come across to me as
authentic, as a real person. I have the same impression whenever I
watch Nixon's Checkers Speech from 1952----and this is a speech that
detractors consider to be particularly inauthentic, with its staged den
and Nixon's sappy reference to the family dog. Many say that Nixon was
uncomfortable in his own skin, and they may be right. But there were a
number of times when Nixon came across as authentic, as if he were
conveying a message of "This is who I am, take it or leave it."

3.
For this third item, I'll offer my general assessments of Hoff's book.
Overall, the book has a lot about policy, and I had to reread parts to
grasp what exactly Hoff was narrating. The book is important, but it is
very dry, in areas. At the same time, I enjoyed Hoff's anecdotes about
her interviews with Nixon. In terms of her argument that President
Nixon had significant and progressive accomplishments in domestic
policy, she may be right about that, but I wish that she addressed
certain liberal arguments against Nixon's domestic policy. For example,
a number of progressives were critical of Nixon's welfare reform plan
of giving cash benefits to the poor, maintaining that the funding would
not be adequate. Hoff should have addressed that charge by saying
whether or not the poor would have been able to live on the amount of
money that Nixon's plan would give them. Another point that I would
like to make is that I found Hoff to be rather elliptical, in places.
She seemed to agree that the Joint Chiefs of Staff was bugging the
National Security Council, for example, but I wanted her to go into more
detail about why it would do this.

Good book, though!

Later, I found a hole in my pocket

Later, I found a hole in my pocket


So I was walking to school today, and I realized there was a rock in my shoe. Winter's finally hit the area, and I wasn't about to take off the shoe to loosen the offending pebble right there on the sidewalk. Instead, I grin and bear it for the remaining distance. The problem with having a rock in your shoe, though, is that once you notice it consciously, once you go beyond "my foot hurts" to "hey, there's a rock in my shoe," then the annoyance factor increases by at least 100 Erkels. (I am a child of the 90s, and I WILL measure annoyances in Erkels. It is my right.) It doesn't hurt, not really. Even when jogging with a rock in my shoe, I can't go so far as to say it actually hurts. It's more that it lingers. It dwells. It insiduates. The knowledge that there something lodged in your shoe builds and grows. And if you can't get it out immediately, it becomes the pot you're waiting to boil. The scab you can't pick. The itch you can't scratch. Simply by existing, it infuriates. And the extra kicker here is--I didn't have a rock in my shoe at all! I got to the office, thrust off the shoe, shook it all asunder--and nothing came out. I put the shoe back on and the feeling persists. I check again. Nothing in the shoe. I put it back on. It persists. And then I realized that I still felt the encumbrance even when the shoe was off. I checked my sock, and.... sure enough... a dime came out. How about that?

Later Days.

Giosan Et Al Reply To Valdiya's Article On The Sarasvati River

Giosan Et Al Reply To Valdiya's Article On The Sarasvati River

You may recall this controversy which I detailed in an earlier blog post. A quick recap. A paper in PNAS by Giosan et al in May 2012 presented the results of geomorphological analysis of the Haryana and Punjab plains and concluded that there was no glacially fed rivers flowing through this region during the Holocene. This meant that the Harappan civilization in this region was being sustained by a monsoonal river system, the remnants of which is known today as the Ghaggar, identified by some as the river Sarasvati described in the Rig Ved.

Prof. K.S. Valdiya a very senior Indian geologist did not like this conclusion. Moreover, he felt that Giosan et al have not paid due respect to the work of Indian geologists working on the problem of ancient river systems of this region. He wrote a highly emotional article in Current Science in which he misattributed sentences which I had penned on my blog to Giosan et al and also misrepresented (in my opinion) the work of Giosan et al and other workers.

Both Giosan et al and I complained about the misattribution to Current Science to which Valdiya gave brief unsatisfactory replies.

Now Giosan et al have published a second reply in which they clarify the scientific queries that Valdiya had raised.

Here it is - Open Access.

I find it puzzling that the original paper came out in PNAS, but Valdiya chose to comment and complain - not as tradition expects in PNAS - but in Current Science.

He also has not replied to Giosan et al's second clarification.

Cyber ​​Monday Linky Party FREEBIE

Cyber ​​Monday Linky Party FREEBIE


I decided to join Christina in a littlelinky party fun as Icontinuously load my cart up with goodies in preparation for tomorrow's Cyber Monday sale! I'm so excited. I love getting to download new teaching goodies that are on sale!! Woot-woot. Ok…here's the gist of thelinky party
What am I thinking? Idon't have a good singing voice. Not sure how this will go but wanted to give it a try! :)Up first, "It's beginning to look alot like reading."
The Polar Express is one of myall-time favorite stories to read with my kinders during Christmas time. I love when they ask me "Did you hear the bell ring, too?" I, of course, always hear the bell ring and they alwaysget beside themselves with excitement. I like to spread this shared reading unit over the course of two weeks. This packet is jam-packed with reader's response activities, literacy and math centers, craft ideas and craftivities, and so much more! Click the image above to head to my TPT store to check it out. Make sure to hit the preview button so you can see all the goodies included!Onto my second "song," Oh Management, Oh Management!
Tackling transitions and other behavior during the holiday season has always been a bit of a challenge for me. Well, not anymore!Last year, I started using this simple "game" to keep my kids on task and making good choices. Here's how it works: Before beginning the 'game,' I first cut up an image. For instance with the Santa, I cut off his arms, head, legs, and boots. The kids work together during each transition time to earn one of the picture pieces. The goal is to build the Santa back. How do they earn it? By transitioning quickly, quietly, and without disruptionwithin theallotted time frame. I turn over a minute sand timer and when I ring my chimes after their Daily Five rotation, they have one minute to earn their picture piece. I'm telling you it works amazingly. I have thrown together this little management tool for December as a freebieto you. Simply click the pictures above to snag it! :)And my third and final song for you today, "I'm Dreaming of a Holiday Product"
I justuploaded my newest packet to TPT last night around midnight! :) Just in time for the Cyber Monday Sale extravaganza!!Even though I've already uploaded the packet, I willcontinue to add to it as I see what my students needmore practicewith. {I'm already working on a pocket chart/emergent reader to add!}I created Holly Jolly Days specifically for my group of kinders this year. The centers all fit perfectly with our Daily Five and Math Workstations we use daily. Since we all celebrate Christmas, I wanted to make the centers Christmas themed! YaY!ClickHEREto see what all is included so far. Make sure to click on the preview image as well!Don't forget about the sale starting at midnight tonight!!You can get up to 28% off your favorite products by entering in the code CYBER at checkout. Make sure to 'follow' my store when you stop by! Iwould oh-so-greatly appreciate it! :)I'm now off to enjoy my last day of Thanksgiving break by running errands. Blah! I'm such a procrastinator!