Sometimes the political process works

Last Thursday, Tim Westergren from Pandora visited Nashville and held a little town hall meeting before heading out to the clubs to look for new artists. We met upstairs at Bongo After Hours, and that very small space was completely filled -- they figured out how to let us all in, which included seating us on the floor of the stage all around Tim as he talked. It was standing room only -- for him. He was extremely charming; he kind of reminded me of the drummer in That Thing You Do! (only more mature, since that character was in high school.) He is the very definition of down to earth. He talked about what the company's all about, and some of the challenges they've faced, and he talked to us about our experience of using the service. (If you don't know what Pandora is, read this post.)

Tim used to tour with a band himself, and it shows. He is extremely proud of being able to provide good jobs for musicians (who he hires to analyze the music's "genes") and also of the way his service hooks listeners up with music they will like that they wouldn't otherwise have heard. He asked for cds from the crowd (this being Nashville, some audience members represented labels and many were in bands.) That music will be listened to for quality, and analyzed for the genome project if it makes the cut. The breadth and sheer amount of music on Pandora is truly impressive.

Pandora almost had to go off the air this summer, along with every other internet radio station, because a change in the way they pay the artists was poised to go into effect that would be four times the amount of airplay on a regular radio station. I kept reading about this all through the spring and summer, and heard about it on NPR, and then, miraculously, the deadline passed and internet radio is still on the air. What happened was the people cried out! As the deadline loomed, people faxed and called their representatives, jamming up the fax machines and phone lines. Congress decided something was wrong, and the rate change was held up, and a new agreement is now being negotiated.

I have mentioned before that I usually have mixed feelings on most political issues; not this one. Radio in this country is abysmal; now all of a sudden it's not and let's keep it that way! I think small labels love internet radio.

The last time I remember such a wonderful outcome from the political process was when four more weeks of Daylight Savings Time were added. That is the Bush administration's most (only?) positive legacy.

Huckabee and the bumblebee

This morning, I caught a bit of George Stephenopoulos' interview with Mike Huckabee. As usual, Huckabee was very likeable, but something he said sounded wrong. He said that science claims that the bumblebee shouldn't be able to fly, but the bumblebee doesn't know this, and it just goes ahead and flies anyway, makes honey, etc. And he compared the bumble to his campaign, which keeps going in spite of political analysts saying he hasn't got a chance, can't raise enough money, etc.

I thought "Oops, he said bumblebees make honey; that's not right." So I went, of course, to the web, and found that in fact, bumblebees DO make honey! Just not very much of it. But while I was at it, I typed in "bumblebee" and "fly" and got plenty of stories debunking the urban myth that scientists think bumblebees can't fly. (Here, and here, for example.)

It's not bloody likely that Huckabee hasn't been told that this story is an urban legend (and just to be safe, I'll send this post to his campaign.) He seems like the kind of man who doesn't let the facts get in the way of a good theory. I wonder if he even remembers being told that it isn't true? That's the first thing that bothers me.

The second problem is with the subtext, that science is ridiculous. Obviously, science does not say the bumblebee cannot fly, because the first step in the scientific method is observation. The whole proposition isn't just wrong; it doesn't even make any sense.

I'm not sure whether he said science says they can't fly or science doesn't know how they fly; either way, though, it's wrong.

It is no surprise to me that a man who doesn't let facts stand in the way of a good story might not be science's best friend.

Edited later same day: I've gone to Huckabee's website and watched the YouTube video of the Stephenopoulos show. Huckabee said: "This reminds me of the old story of the bumblebee. It's scientifically impossible for the bumblebee to fly..." Maybe "old story" is his way of admitting it's a story.

What do you look for in a presidential candidate?

It crossed my mind during the Republican YouTube debate last night to wonder what I am even looking for in a presidential candidate. I am a terrible judge of presidents: I've already mentioned that I voted for Gary Hart, but also, even though I voted for Gore, I took George W. Bush at face value on compassionate conservatism. So I suppose I should take comfort in the fact that my one vote won't amount to anything.

In addition to just being a poor presidential picker, I also have mixed feelings about many or most political issues.

Nevertheless, I feel compelled to try to pick one. So I've been doing some introspection on what I am even looking for, and here's what I've come up with:

1. I like a president who makes wise financial decisions. This would include not promoting bills that were big wastes of money, and vetoing bills that were huge wastes of money. The Clinton era was a good era for this: I say the Clinton era, because I believe he had a lot of help from a Republican congress in keeping spending low. I enjoyed about the Republican YouTube debate the amount of lip service given to fiscal conservatism, but as we know from the current era, that may be all it is.
2. I would like to see a president who does not feel so entitled as regards our role in other people's countries. I am a Noam Chomsky reader, and I know that prior to the Bush era, the U.S. government was extremely involved in other countries (ex. Chile 1973, East Timor 1975), but at least they pretended otherwise. Now it seems way more overt. Seems dangerous to be so hated. I agreed with Paul on this one.
3. I don't want a president who seems mean or who engages in lots of black and white thinking. A president should be able to project strength and thoughtfulness at the same time.
4. I know from experience that there are a lot of people out there who seem nice, and hard-working, and trustworthy and sincere, then the veil slips and out comes the irrationality and narcissistic rage. I have had some bad experiences with these people in leadership roles, and it's a risk you take when giving someone a leadership role. I want someone who can take on a leadership role without morphing into a monster. And I think sincerity is part of this, so I look at them to try to figure out who is sincere, and yet, I am not necessarily so great at being able to tell. I don't consider George W. Bush narcissistic, exactly, though he's an Enneagram 7, and he certainly falls short where the first three criteria are concerned. I don't consider Bill Clinton narcissistic, exactly, though he's an Enneagram 3. It's because I haven't seen their hateful side. Actually, I have seen GWBush's hateful side, but only a lack of thoughtfulness and the certainty that he is right, not the actual rage.

What do you consider when choosing a president?

Report on Republican YouTube Debate

Since I'm (tentatively) planning to vote in Tennessee's Republican primary this year, I figured I should watch the debate and see who I might like to vote for. [I've recently discovered that if I register as an independent voter, I will be able to choose to vote in whichever of the primaries I like. And since all voting in the Democratic primaries has ever gotten me is the chance to vote for some pretty boy nobody ends up liking (ex. Gary Hart), I might as well try something new.] And I've never seen a field of Republicans without a clear front runner. My dad and I agree that whichever candidate wins, it'll be somebody weird.

I watched the debate, and was surprised at my opinions.

Going from left to right (the tv viewer's left):
Tancredo: Too Republican.
Huckabee: Likeable. Seemed sincere. His 30-minute spot WAY too Christian. I agree with him when he says Americans are looking not for someone they agree with on every issue but for someone who sticks by what he believes. (Except I suppose that'd describe GWB so in that case, no.) But how can a SALES tax replacing the income tax be a fair tax? That sounds a little nutty.
Romney: Hated him. Seemed insincere. He reminds me of the Democrats every four years who feel uncomfortable saying what they really believe. That's not where you want to be. I also thought he came across as something of a black and white thinker. My read on this is that it is a defensive reaction against being branded a flip-flopper. Was Anderson Cooper harder on him than he was on the other candidates, or was that my imagination?
Giuliani: Likeable. Didn't mention 9-11 for at least the first half of the debate (though it seemed calculated.) Sharp. Gave specific answers. Not afraid to say no. There didn't seem to be a disconnect between what he said and what he really thought. But far too war-like!
Thompson: Likeable. Funny. Poised. Seemed very sincere. Gave smart answers. Too war-like!
McCain: Liked him well enough. Liked how he lit into Romney about the Geneva Convention. But he said "my friends" a little too often.
Paul: Mentioning the Trilateral Commission in a national debate always a mistake, especially as your first comment. He may as well have segued right into why Building 7 fell just to get that out on the table. By the way, why did Building 7 fall? I liked a lot of what he had to say, though.
Hunter: Never heard of him. Have now watched entire debate and still not heard of him. ZZZZ

I liked the African-American man whose question was "Why don't we vote for you?" Ha!

Several of these men, if not all but Ron Paul, feel threatened by Islamic terrorists. Do you?