Ted Rabinowitz's Blog, page 8
November 3, 2016
This Is How You Influence a Democracy - Yes, Election 2016
I just volunteered for a phone shift tonight at the Hillary Clinton GOTV effort.
I've also donated to the campaign.
As some of you might know, I've never done either of those things before, and getting involved in this way isn't really comfortable for me.
If you're like me - you agree about this election but don't usually go beyond voting - maybe think about it this weekend.
And this is how you truly influence a democracy - a government of free men and women.
You don't hide in a bunker ready to shoot at the Feds.
You don't try to scare your fellow Americans, or intimidate them, or assault them. You try to convince them of your position.
Now I step off the soapbox.
I've also donated to the campaign.
As some of you might know, I've never done either of those things before, and getting involved in this way isn't really comfortable for me.
If you're like me - you agree about this election but don't usually go beyond voting - maybe think about it this weekend.
And this is how you truly influence a democracy - a government of free men and women.
You don't hide in a bunker ready to shoot at the Feds.
You don't try to scare your fellow Americans, or intimidate them, or assault them. You try to convince them of your position.
Now I step off the soapbox.
September 19, 2016
About Last Weekend
Yes, there was an explosion.
No, I didn't see it. It was two miles away.
No one was killed. Thank God.
Yes, it was a bomb set by some inbred POS. His biggest achievement in life was to use Internet instructions to build an IED out of a pressure cooker. That is all he ever contributed to this world, and all he ever will contribute - because he showed up on video cameras, and he will not be able to hide.
And tomorrow I will go out and take care of my business, because this is New York City. And unlike Kansas, Louisiana, and Tennessee, where they piss themselves about ISIS and shriek about Mexicans and pass laws about sharia *without having to face terror themselves* - I know that the appropriate response is to go out, deal with my fellow citizens, and let the cops find that one devolved shitstain who thought this was good idea.
Because that's what people do when they're adults, and not shrieking baboons.
No, I didn't see it. It was two miles away.
No one was killed. Thank God.
Yes, it was a bomb set by some inbred POS. His biggest achievement in life was to use Internet instructions to build an IED out of a pressure cooker. That is all he ever contributed to this world, and all he ever will contribute - because he showed up on video cameras, and he will not be able to hide.
And tomorrow I will go out and take care of my business, because this is New York City. And unlike Kansas, Louisiana, and Tennessee, where they piss themselves about ISIS and shriek about Mexicans and pass laws about sharia *without having to face terror themselves* - I know that the appropriate response is to go out, deal with my fellow citizens, and let the cops find that one devolved shitstain who thought this was good idea.
Because that's what people do when they're adults, and not shrieking baboons.
September 18, 2016
Pizza Points
There is no such thing as healthy pizza. All pizza is loaded with grease, fat, salt, and carbohydrates. To eat pizza that isn't also delicious is a terrible waste.The kind of oven doesn't matter.California Pizza Kitchen isn't the only reason New Yorkers hate Los Angeles; but it is the best reason.If you're going to have a test pizza, it should be a plain cheese slice. If they can't get that right, no amount of toppings will fix things.Salt! There should be a little in the cheese and in the crust.Calzone is paranoid pizza - you can't actually tell what's inside that dough until you bite...and then it's too late.Plastic utensils were invented specifically to prevent meatheads from trying to eat pizza with a knife and fork.Good Brooklyn pizza tends to have a crust that's a little sweeter than Manhattan pizza. Alas, Manhattan pizza tends to be less flavorful.
The age of the establishment has little to do with the quality of the pizza. Just ask them at [name redacted].The best slice I've had since I came back to New York cost five bucks; it came with a second slice and a can of soda.A man's measure can be taken from his pizza habits. http://thedailyshow.cc.com/…/me-lover-s-pizza-with-crazy-br…As of three years ago, La Lanterna had a pretty good Pizza Margherita; also Pino's in Brooklyn (although the crust is too thin there). I know people who swear by John's pizza...but they are still my friends.
Mangiare!
August 28, 2016
Another Teleplay - "Northern Exposure"
Yep, time to put up another spec teleplay from the '90s. This one was for Northern Exposure, and I was actually pretty proud of it; I thought I caught the tone of the show.Click here to read.
Hope you all enjoy it.
One More Teleplay - "Northern Exposure"
Yep, time to put up another spec teleplay from the '90s. This one was for Northern Exposure, and I was actually pretty proud of it; I thought I caught the tone of the show.Click here to read.
Hope you all enjoy it.
NASA Just Released All Its Research Online for FREE, And-
Eclipse photos and more!-I had to learn about it through BRITISH media, not United States sources.Here's the link to the NASA site.
British media, not American. SMH. We are truly a no-good, ignorant-ass nation. Why do we cooperate in making ourselves more and more stupid?
It is a mystery.
August 26, 2016
Conjure Man Status Report
I am now at 60,000 words of the first draft of "Conjure Man," my contemporary fantasy.For some perspective, the word count for traditional paperback novels hovers at around 80,000 words. "Murder on the Orient Express" is 66,000; "The Hobbit" is 95,000 (although it feels like less); and "Fahrenheit 451" is only 46,118. More contemporary novels (especially bestsellers) tend toward length.
Anyway, I'm basically halfway through.My protagonist has discovered that there's a terrible secret, but he doesn't quite know what it is, yet.He's about to meet someone who might clear it up, if he weren't lost to booze and madness, adrift on a mega-yacht in the Mediterranean.There's also a question game involving demons and terrible penalties.And magical party drugs.
So...You know...
Fun.
August 22, 2016
Jeremiah 5:21
Creationists have always flummoxed me. Back when I was a story analyst in Hollywood, I had a boss at a big talent agency who was a serious evangelical Christian. The Boss Who Shall Remain Nameless actually told me that science and technology didn't matter. She said this while sitting in an office with the latest computer on her desk, with soft dichroic lights shining down and the fierce Los Angeles summer heat kept at bay by clever manipulation of the laws of thermodynamics. Her entire life, from a career in an industry that wouldn't exist without technology, to the birth of her children, to the car that got her to the office, to the vaccines that protected her from polio and tetanus, relied on science. But science didn't matter.
What did matter? The "pleasant poetry of Genesis."
Now, I'm a Jew. And from a strictly parochial standpoint, I'd like to point out that
1. Jews wrote the Book of Genesis;
2. The original is in Hebrew, our language; and
3. Even WE don't take it literally.
Really. There is an ancient principle in Judaism that states that "the Scriptures speak in the tongue of Man" - in other words, the Bible uses metaphors and parables to describe sacred realities that human beings aren't prepared to completely understand. So we are nowhere near dumb enough to believe that one must take the Garden of Eden as the literal truth in order to be a faithful, believing Jew - or Christian, for that matter.
Now, considering how science has enriched all of our lives, and how megachurches and Christian broadcasting networks would not even exist without it, I'm continuously astounded by Creationists. They sit surrounded by the proof that science works, basing their entire lives on technology, the daughter of science, and then simply abandon it when it points to a conclusion they find distasteful.
O foolish people, and without understanding! Who have eyes, and see not; who have ears, and hear not! - Jeremiah 5:21
What did matter? The "pleasant poetry of Genesis."
Now, I'm a Jew. And from a strictly parochial standpoint, I'd like to point out that
1. Jews wrote the Book of Genesis;
2. The original is in Hebrew, our language; and
3. Even WE don't take it literally.
Really. There is an ancient principle in Judaism that states that "the Scriptures speak in the tongue of Man" - in other words, the Bible uses metaphors and parables to describe sacred realities that human beings aren't prepared to completely understand. So we are nowhere near dumb enough to believe that one must take the Garden of Eden as the literal truth in order to be a faithful, believing Jew - or Christian, for that matter.
Now, considering how science has enriched all of our lives, and how megachurches and Christian broadcasting networks would not even exist without it, I'm continuously astounded by Creationists. They sit surrounded by the proof that science works, basing their entire lives on technology, the daughter of science, and then simply abandon it when it points to a conclusion they find distasteful.
O foolish people, and without understanding! Who have eyes, and see not; who have ears, and hear not! - Jeremiah 5:21
August 18, 2016
More Nerd Politics
Wired
has endorsed Hillary Clinton.And Scientific American has condemned Donald Trump.
Neither one has endorsed a presidential candidate before. Not ever.
So if you support science, technology, and, well, facts...you know who to vote for.
August 13, 2016
Apophenia in Political Journalism!
It's no secret that I, like most folks, am not a fan of Candidate 345, aka Donald Trump. (BTW, "345" stands for three marriages, four bankruptcies, five draft deferments - not exactly the markers for a responsible life.) However, this is a NerdBlog, and for the most part I've tried to keep politirants out of it.
Something occurred to me recently, though, that deals with a pretty nerdy topic: apophenia, the tendency to perceive meaningful patterns in random data. It's what gives us faces on Mars, conspiracy theories, and the "Hot Hand" fallacy. And I think that political journalists, whether they are for, against, or detached from Trump, have been epic apophenists.
It occurred to me while I was reading this Politico.com article about Trump speaking at a rally in Connecticut. The author, Katie Glueck, seemed genuinely puzzled by Trump's decision. Connecticut isn't just a reliably blue state, where Clinton has an enormous lead; it's also a relatively small state, with only seven electoral votes. Finally, it's very late in the campaign, with less than three months until the election. Surely Trump could have expended his effort more profitably someplace else.
And that was where I saw the bias. Political journalists - particularly those who cover elections, and especially those who cover elections in the infamous "horse race" style - make three unconscious assumptions about the race. Here they are:
1. All the candidates want to win.
2. All the candidates have strategic electoral reasons for their actions.
3. For the major candidates, a campaign win outweighs other possible beneficial outcomes.
For example, this article from fivethirtyeight.com is a classic "horse race" piece, focused on polls. This one from Politico.com is focused on strategy. Both of them assume that their subjects want to win the election beyond anything else. These are the assumptions. But they're not necessarily true.
Thanks to open primaries, the cheapness of social media, and the ease with which individual donors can now bankroll candidates, it is much easier to become a major-party presidential primary candidate than it used to be. If you secure the interest of a single wealthy backer, you might be supported financially through the majority of the process, the way Sheldon Adelson did with Newt Gingrich in 2012. If you can snare the interest of the media, you might not need a traditional campaign infrastructure: Trump relied on fifteen years of "brand awareness" for his primary campaign, which has been notable for its lack of traditional spending. While the Democrats for the last 20 years have had primaries with only two or three important candidates, the last few GOP primaries have featured half a dozen or more.
If it's that easy to become a presidential candidate, then a primary candidacy is suddenly cheap enough - in terms of money, effort, and human capital - to be used for things other than taking a serious shot at the White House. Maybe you use that primary to sell books, or t-shirts, or other branded merchandise. Maybe you use it to generate speaking engagements. Maybe you use it to push favored policies onto the party platform. Or maybe, if you're spiteful enough and have some time on your hands, you just use it to piss off the party regulars who can't ignore you any more.
This means that Assumptions #1 and #3 are off the table. If it is that easy to run, you might end up with a candidate winning the primaries who did not plan for it, and doesn't really want to run the country.
Like Trump.
A few months ago, the Trump campaign made Ohio Governor John Kasich an amazing offer: Be Trump's Vice-President, and Kasich would be in charge of both foreign and domestic policy. When Kasich asked what would be left for Trump to do, Trump's son replied "Making America great again." Kasich would run the country, and Trump would fly around on Air Force One. [Trump's team later denied the story, but they've also denied every story that has made their candidate look bad, even when the proof is irrefutable. Kasich also had no reason, beside spite, to make up the story; there was every reason at the time to believe that its spread would make his political life more difficult.]
This is not the offer of a candidate who wants to run the country. And if you ditch that assumption about Trump, his visit to Connecticut becomes a lot more comprehensible. Trump wants to win the election, sure, because that's about his self-image. He has to see himself, and be seen, as a winner. That's his raison d'être, his brand. But he has no clue about what he would do in the White House. He has no goal, no plans, no real policies. (His latest policy speech, about the economy, was widely considered a
Instead of seeing him as a politician, look at him as a...toddler. Or a puppy. Or a vain and insecure model. A creature who doesn't plan far ahead, but craves attention. How much do you want to bet that Connecticut is near Trump's HQ, and after a month of campaign disasters worse than anything in the last thirty years, he needed a lift. So he decided to go to a rally and get that audience jolt.
And that's all there is to it. No careful plan. No misguided tactics. Just a narcissist in need of a mirror.
Apophenia unnecessary.
Something occurred to me recently, though, that deals with a pretty nerdy topic: apophenia, the tendency to perceive meaningful patterns in random data. It's what gives us faces on Mars, conspiracy theories, and the "Hot Hand" fallacy. And I think that political journalists, whether they are for, against, or detached from Trump, have been epic apophenists.
It occurred to me while I was reading this Politico.com article about Trump speaking at a rally in Connecticut. The author, Katie Glueck, seemed genuinely puzzled by Trump's decision. Connecticut isn't just a reliably blue state, where Clinton has an enormous lead; it's also a relatively small state, with only seven electoral votes. Finally, it's very late in the campaign, with less than three months until the election. Surely Trump could have expended his effort more profitably someplace else.
And that was where I saw the bias. Political journalists - particularly those who cover elections, and especially those who cover elections in the infamous "horse race" style - make three unconscious assumptions about the race. Here they are:
1. All the candidates want to win.
2. All the candidates have strategic electoral reasons for their actions.
3. For the major candidates, a campaign win outweighs other possible beneficial outcomes.
For example, this article from fivethirtyeight.com is a classic "horse race" piece, focused on polls. This one from Politico.com is focused on strategy. Both of them assume that their subjects want to win the election beyond anything else. These are the assumptions. But they're not necessarily true.
Thanks to open primaries, the cheapness of social media, and the ease with which individual donors can now bankroll candidates, it is much easier to become a major-party presidential primary candidate than it used to be. If you secure the interest of a single wealthy backer, you might be supported financially through the majority of the process, the way Sheldon Adelson did with Newt Gingrich in 2012. If you can snare the interest of the media, you might not need a traditional campaign infrastructure: Trump relied on fifteen years of "brand awareness" for his primary campaign, which has been notable for its lack of traditional spending. While the Democrats for the last 20 years have had primaries with only two or three important candidates, the last few GOP primaries have featured half a dozen or more.
If it's that easy to become a presidential candidate, then a primary candidacy is suddenly cheap enough - in terms of money, effort, and human capital - to be used for things other than taking a serious shot at the White House. Maybe you use that primary to sell books, or t-shirts, or other branded merchandise. Maybe you use it to generate speaking engagements. Maybe you use it to push favored policies onto the party platform. Or maybe, if you're spiteful enough and have some time on your hands, you just use it to piss off the party regulars who can't ignore you any more.
This means that Assumptions #1 and #3 are off the table. If it is that easy to run, you might end up with a candidate winning the primaries who did not plan for it, and doesn't really want to run the country.
Like Trump.
A few months ago, the Trump campaign made Ohio Governor John Kasich an amazing offer: Be Trump's Vice-President, and Kasich would be in charge of both foreign and domestic policy. When Kasich asked what would be left for Trump to do, Trump's son replied "Making America great again." Kasich would run the country, and Trump would fly around on Air Force One. [Trump's team later denied the story, but they've also denied every story that has made their candidate look bad, even when the proof is irrefutable. Kasich also had no reason, beside spite, to make up the story; there was every reason at the time to believe that its spread would make his political life more difficult.]
This is not the offer of a candidate who wants to run the country. And if you ditch that assumption about Trump, his visit to Connecticut becomes a lot more comprehensible. Trump wants to win the election, sure, because that's about his self-image. He has to see himself, and be seen, as a winner. That's his raison d'être, his brand. But he has no clue about what he would do in the White House. He has no goal, no plans, no real policies. (His latest policy speech, about the economy, was widely considered a
Instead of seeing him as a politician, look at him as a...toddler. Or a puppy. Or a vain and insecure model. A creature who doesn't plan far ahead, but craves attention. How much do you want to bet that Connecticut is near Trump's HQ, and after a month of campaign disasters worse than anything in the last thirty years, he needed a lift. So he decided to go to a rally and get that audience jolt.
And that's all there is to it. No careful plan. No misguided tactics. Just a narcissist in need of a mirror.
Apophenia unnecessary.
