Looking forward to 2021

 "2020 24 hours to go," said the Ramones.  Now is the time to look back... or look forward.

I now have a trip to think about.  The flights to New York, March 2020 and to Oakland, May 2020 have transformed into a flight to Alaska Late Summer, 2021.  Cabins?, an RV?, a car?  Lots to research.  Working on optimization problems such as planning a trip (or winning a fantasy league or long ago developing a product for sale) might be my key to happiness.

I expect to have access to a vaccine sometime during the first half of 2021.  If not, the flights can move again.  Looking forward-- what would I like to do?-- feels healthy.  Some plans change, but it is positive for me to plan.

Representation

 In high school, I attended a summer program which looked at democratic representation from a mathematical standpoint.  As a 15 year old, I was to express an opinion on which method of apportionment was most fair.  Mathematics do not give a perfectly clear answer to that question so opinions on that question have some value.  How fair is the Electoral College system?  It is certainly a matter of opinion whether the two factors that should contribute to representation are statehood and population.  It seems to many that Idaho, Wyoming and Montana may be over-represented.

Aside from geography and population, how else might representation be determined?  Should there be representation based on other demographics-- age, race, income, education, area of study?  I could make the case for any of the above.  The more representative our representation is, the better they should represent us.  How does this work in practice?

Volunteers at Union Park District Council when I was there tended to be old, white, wealthy professionals who lived in houses.  The half who rent were not directly represented on the council.  People understood that we were not necessarily the same in all characteristics as those we represent but we pretended to represent them anyway.  Our failure, where we may have failed,  was in not having enough dialog with those in our neighborhoods with different opinions on subjects like development, transportation and how to make a business district successful.  Our failure, where we may have failed, was in not listening to enough of the voices of our diverse neighbors.

People did show up at meetings and did represent strong opinions.  People sometimes felt like they were the world's experts and therefore should be heard to the exclusion of others.  People sometimes felt like they were the impacted ones and everyone else was a fraud in a show.    People expressed ideas.  But, who showed up at the meetings?  

Most in the neighborhood had no idea that our council even existed.

Does adding people of color, younger people and people with different backgrounds improve the council?  It could.  The fundamental issue though is whether the representatives engage their diverse neighbors.  Justice Thomas checks the diversity box, but do his opinions represent diversity?

It feels like the US Senate, with all its 80 year olds, is less representative than it could be.  It feels like the Supreme Court is more cult than representative body as the Federalist Society demonstrates how a political fringe can dominate at governance. Most real people don't seem to identify as Republicans.  Most real people don't seem to identify as Democrats either.  How do you stock a neighborhood body such that it evaluates problems outside of a political lens?

If you could just choose twenty people at random to represent your neighborhood, you'd be better off in a sense.  Of course, of those twenty, you might not find even one willing to lead the organization.  If you do find a leader, you might find the willing leader is not a capable leader.

The problem with governance, whether at the neighborhood level or at the national level is accountability.   Though unrepresentative, the attorneys and other professionals have a deeper knowledge of organizations and process than many of us.  Also, people off the street willing to be held accountable for their neighborhood are rare.

The main issue once you do find people willing to accept the obligations of the role is lack of engagement in the broader community.  When people are tuned out, as most people usually are tuned out, organizations serve the privileged.  Unless people inside and outside the organization pay close attention, it is difficult to stop the focus from being those who want to focus on themselves at the expense of their neighbor.

People who care about institutions and ethics and accountability, George Washington-types, are what make democratic organizations work.

How would I make representation fair?  I don't think it is a math problem.  I think it is mostly a matter of creating good faith efforts toward making people aware of an organization's business.  District Councils strive the be ethical and equitable.  To demonstrate this, they need to document outreach.  Chuck Grassley might be known for extreme partisanship, but nonetheless, he continues to visit the 99 counties of Iowa regularly toward hearing varied points of view.  Organizations with people who focus on listening deserve credit, even from those who disagree.

If a representative organization  focuses on listening to people not generally heard, it is doing its job.

ET: The Extraterrestrial and its impact in 2020

 ET: The Extraterrestrial is on Netflix this month.  It was released in 1982 so maybe we don't remember everything about Steven Spielberg's follow-up to Jaws, Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Raiders of the Lost Ark.  What struck me first was the use of flashlights.  X Files, CSI and many other shows copied the use of those flashlights.  Do people remember the flashlight scenes from ET?  

The second notable feature is the soundtrack.  John Williams debuted as a creator of soundtracks in 1959 and composed soundtracks to several of the top films of the 1970s.  Dialog does not define this film, except maybe, "ET, phone home."   I bet the script is half the length of most films as Williams' sounds and music define most of the scenes.

Third, the cast is memorable as Drew Barrymore followed up with a significant career that people remember.

What is the other lasting impact of this and other Spielberg films?  

I wonder how they affected our politics.  

Here is a synopsis of ET.  

Elliot, at ten years old, discovers a stranded extra terrestrial who is fleeing scientists from the United States government.

Gert, his younger sister, teaches ET how to talk while Elliot continues to bond emotionally with the creature.  ET explains via a Buck Rogers comic that he wishes to reconnect with his family. 

Outside, Sprinter vans full of electronics are intercepting the conversations of the children.  

The family leaves.  Mysterious figures in astronaut suits break into the house.

Elliot scrounges for wires, a sawblade and batteries.  ET fashions a Speak-n-Spell connected to an umbrella which he places on a hilltop in the woods.

Well intentioned scientist/government agents are unrelenting.  But, Elliot and his friends and family miraculously prevail in the rescue of the cuddly alien.

Also fraying on our trust of technology, the Three Mile Island nuclear plant had a radiation release in 1979.

Likewise, our post- Vietnam, post-Watergate cynical political world manifested as more cynical when Ronald Reagan got elected in 1980 by telling us that government was the problem, not the solution.

Post-Sputnik, science had been highly regarded.  This was how the United States was to compete with the Soviet Union.  Apollo 11 in 1969 proved that Americans via a US Government program could land on the moon.  All it took was brave astronauts who happened to be scientists.

In the 1970s, popular scientists included Carl Sagan.  His work predates SETI.  Scientists were highly respected.  Sagan's series, Cosmos, was a top program on PBS.  Isaac Asimov was constantly churning out new work on subjects such as astronomy.  Stephen Jay Gould was popularizing bioscience.  Douglas Hofstadter got a Pulitzer Prize for a book about related abstract concepts.

1982, the launch of ET: The Extraterrestrial, feels like when science lost its luster in this country.

Maybe in 2020, following the disastrous consequences of leaders who ignore sound, consensus scientific and medical advice, we can start to respect the field once more.

The cool thing about science is that it self corrects.  If people have better ideas that get better results than the scientists, we scientists are the first to acknowledge it! 

   

Guest Post: Caution. Live A Great Story

 

Caution: Live a Great Story. The sticker playfully vandalized a sign in a state park that provided a warning for those who might not have been close attention that the trail narrowed and was slowly winding down hill towards river rapids. There were areas of the trail that were rockier, more slippery, seemingly more dangerous.

I told my husband that there was a story right there, with that sign and that sticker. It was full of real life, right there, facing us in that sign and sticker. How often do we half heartedly challenge ourselves and then feel more pride than we should about the "risk" we just overcame? How often do we caution ourselves to avoid risks that might make a great story later, just because we don't have the courage? How often do we actually risk more than we should, often without seeing another option, and while we end up with a great story, it was never a great experience?

Living itself is a risk. Every day we wake up, we have no idea what will happen. We have some, but not total, control. What is the benefit of seeking out greater risks than just waking up? What is the benefit of not taking new chances?

My 5 year old doesn't understand risk yet. That caution sign in the park? To her it was an invitation to run and have lots of fun. When it was rocky, she knew that she had to tread carefully. But, a big, leaf covered hill? Who can resist? The sign was really meant for us to ensure we kept her close.

But, what about the times we don't keep her close? When she was not quite 2, she ran across two front yards to meet an older boy that she didn't know who was bouncing a basketball by himself.

She stared at him. He stopped bouncing his ball and stared back at her. She wasn't yet talking. He was 9 year old, but didn't seem to know how to deal with a toddler approaching him.

My husband made introductions. Those two have become best friends because of the risk our daughter took. Turns out, the boy's family was used to way more risks than most of us American born citizens will likely ever face. When the boy was 2, his entire family was poisoned in their home country of Democratic Republic of Congo. He spent the next 6 years with his family in a Refugee Camp in Uganda before moving to the USA.

His family took a risk. They have a great story. But, their experience wasn't great.

In 2005, interest rates were low and friends around me convinced me to start looking for a house. I searched many houses, and found one that I liked. I took a risk and purchased the house. It is an old 98 year old house. There have been frustrations, there have been joys- both have lead to great stories. Is this really the greatest risk that I have ever done? In my mind, it is. Seems trivial when so many before me have done the same in life. But, as I said before, just waking up every morning is the first risk we take every day.

Yet, that is where many of us exist. The low risk plane where our decisions for the day do not cause great thought. We take the paths most traveled and still somehow think our experience is unique to us.

Is that wrong? Avoiding all moderate to high risks could lead to undeveloped potential. I recently had a student intern who really had no passion for the job that she had spent 4 years studying, but she decided to just continue to plug away because of the time and money already invested. To her, there was even greater risk at spending more time and money to explore yet another career choice. Sure, she could go on and eventually settle into a job where she was mediocre. But, there is probably a career that suits her better if she would just cross that new bridge.

But, what do successful risk takers have in come with those who have either been unsuccessful in taking a risk or have avoided a risk because of unwarranted fear? A clear goal in sight.

My daughter who is a social butterfly, who takes the risk to meet people and loves to travel- her objective is to explore and learn as much about the world that surrounds her as she can because she knows that with that knowledge leads to independence.

The neighbors who risked their lives in Democratic Republic of Congo? Their goal was safety. Safety for themselves, their extended families, their neighbors. Even though they are safer now in the USA, they are still with the people they left behind and continue to work to make the area safer for others.

Even low risk decisions, such as buying a house, come with clear goals if they are to be successful. My goal when I bought my house was something that was affordable, which to me meant lower mortgage payment than my rent. Something that was centrally located to allow efficient travel around the city. Something that was solidly built. And the ultimate goal was financial. I wanted to keep my money and not be giving it to a landlord for the rest of my lift.

What do people who do not cross those new bridges seem to have in common? Lack of a clear goal.

When I asked the student what her goal was after she was done with her internship, her response was simply that she wanted a part time job somewhere. It never seemed to matter to her where, or what the job was, or what it paid, or even if it had benefits (her husband had the benefits). It wasn't clear why she paid money for this particular graduate degree or why she was spending time at a place at which she clearly did not want to be. It wasn't clear what she was hoping to learn at her internship. She seemed mostly interested in maximizing her time with her family at home. Was her goal really to be a stay at home mother, but she thought society would look down on her? I can't say for sure. But, I can say that actually doing what you want, instead of what you think society wants you to do, is actually risky. And if what you want is legal, gives you positive benefits that outweigh any negative losses, then it is likely a good risk to take. Doesn't matter if it feels like a small, low risk to you or a big, high risk to you. If you have a clear goal in mind, and the risk you will take gives you positive rewards that outweigh any negatives, that risk is most often worth it.

 -- Monica