I've been thinking for some time that debates between political candidates aren't particularly useful, because they don't reflect the actual work of being a political leader. Political leaders aren't (or shouldn't be) spending their days arguing with someone advocating for a different policy platform, they are (or should be) their days providing leadership to get shit done, often with an irritatingly finite budget and a politically divided legislature. Instead of debates (or, if people insist, in addition to debates), candidates should have to do televised activities to reflect that.
My shower has given me two ideas so far:
1. Assembling Ikea furniture: The candidate has the instructions but can't touch the actual furniture parts or tools. The candidate oversees a team of people who are allowed to touch the parts and tools but aren't allowed to look at the instructions. The candidate has to effectively communicate what needs doing to the team. To up the difficulty level, maybe there are multiple pieces of furniture to be assembled and the parts are all mixed in together. Maybe there's one or more parts missing, or one or more parts extra. Maybe the other team has the missing parts!
2. Scavenger hunt: The candidates are given a list of things to find (impossible ideal: a randomly-generated subset of all the things in the world), a specific budget, and a team of people. Their mission is to bring all the things to a designated location. The crucial thing about this scavenger hunt is that it is not designed to be logistically feasible. Some items might be more expensive than the budget allows for. Some items might be extremely difficult to move. Some items might belong to someone who is reluctant to give them up or sell them or lend them. Maybe the last surviving white rhino is on the list. Maybe the Stone of Scone is on the list. Maybe the Pope's underwear is on the list. (As well as easier things like a pink paperclip or a ferret or a bottle of EKU 28.) And the candidates and their teams have to plan and strategize and persuade to figure out how to get all these things, in time and under budget, despite whatever obstacles exist.
In both cases, there are several options for who is on each candidate's team. Maybe they have a team of randomly selected politicians they'll have to work with, e.g. MPs if this is a contest between prospective Prime Ministers. Maybe they have a team randomly selected from a group of volunteers - people volunteer to be part of this, but which candidate's team they're on (or if they're selected at all) is left up to chance. Maybe the candidate gets to appoint their team. (I like the idea of a team partially randomly-selected and partially appointed, so we can see both how the candidates work with people who don't necessarily support them as well as the power of the candidate's metaphorical rolodex and the candidate's judgement in choosing a team.)
In all cases, the goal is not to see who finishes the task first or fastest, but rather to see how they handle the tasks. How do they elicit the desired performance from people who aren't necessarily enthusiastic allies? How do they deal with obstacles and frustrations? How do they deal with limited resources? What are their responsibility and blame dynamics like?
Ideally, these challenges wouldn't be scored and wouldn't be set up to necessarily have a clear winner. The goal is to let voters observe the process and see just what kinds of leaders these candidates would make.
Can you think of any other activities that would be similarly useful in achieving this goal?
Showing posts with label Brilliant Ideas That Will Never Work. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Brilliant Ideas That Will Never Work. Show all posts
Sunday, November 06, 2016
Sunday, September 11, 2016
New Rules: Natural Consequences Edition XII
17. If you do something assholic out of ignorance, you have to read a book or article or watch a movie or otherwise consume a piece of media chosen by the victim of your assholicness.
The victim doesn't have to assign you your reading right away. They retain the option of assigning you reading at any point in the future, or not at all. (The purpose here is to avoid imposing upon the victim the additional burden of figuring out how to educate you, while leaving the door open for if they ever stumble upon the exact thing that would address your ignorance.)
Possible variation: if the total time the victim is affected by your ignorant assholicness exceeds the amount of time it takes you to consume the media, they are permitted to assign you multiple pieces of media to consume, with a total consumption time equal to the amount of time they were affected by your ignorant assholicness.
Another possible variation: the victim can appoint a proxy to assign you your reading.
The reading can, of course, include anything the victim has written. I'm also open to it including a face-to-face conversation, but the interpersonal dynamics of a face-to-face "This is why what you are doing is wrong" conversation can be difficult and put the person whose behaviour needs to change on the defensive.
I know that when I, personally, do something assholic out of ignorance, I want to learn how to do better. And I know that it is a burden to ask people who are already suffering from my ignorance to do the additional work of educating me. If they could just give me something to read, whenever they happen to stumble upon something that would do the job, that would relieve the burden from both of us.
And, as an added bonus, people who are being intentionally assholic but claiming innocent ignorance would come away with homework.
The victim doesn't have to assign you your reading right away. They retain the option of assigning you reading at any point in the future, or not at all. (The purpose here is to avoid imposing upon the victim the additional burden of figuring out how to educate you, while leaving the door open for if they ever stumble upon the exact thing that would address your ignorance.)
Possible variation: if the total time the victim is affected by your ignorant assholicness exceeds the amount of time it takes you to consume the media, they are permitted to assign you multiple pieces of media to consume, with a total consumption time equal to the amount of time they were affected by your ignorant assholicness.
Another possible variation: the victim can appoint a proxy to assign you your reading.
The reading can, of course, include anything the victim has written. I'm also open to it including a face-to-face conversation, but the interpersonal dynamics of a face-to-face "This is why what you are doing is wrong" conversation can be difficult and put the person whose behaviour needs to change on the defensive.
I know that when I, personally, do something assholic out of ignorance, I want to learn how to do better. And I know that it is a burden to ask people who are already suffering from my ignorance to do the additional work of educating me. If they could just give me something to read, whenever they happen to stumble upon something that would do the job, that would relieve the burden from both of us.
And, as an added bonus, people who are being intentionally assholic but claiming innocent ignorance would come away with homework.
Friday, July 22, 2016
Brilliant Ideas that will Never Work: murder-proof knife
While writing my previous blog post, I came up with an idea for a knife that can't be used as a murder weapon.
If the blade of the knife touches something that is approximately 37 degrees celsius (i.e. the temperature of the human body), the blade retracts, making it impossible to use it to cut or stab anything.
We already have thermometers with protruding metal probes that detect the temperature of the thing they're touching (e.g. meat thermometers). We already have switches that switch on and off when the thermometer they're attached to crosses a certain threshold (i.e. thermostats). We already have knives with blades that retract. So combine all this technology to make a knife whose blade retracts when it touches something at a temperature near 37 degrees.
Food shouldn't be near 37 degrees, at least not for any significant amount of time. It should either be stored below 4 degrees or cooked above 60 degrees. If the food you're trying to prepare is 37 degrees, it needs to be either heated up or cooled down.
If you're using the knife for something other than food preparation, the thing you're cutting is probably room temperature. Room temperature is about 20 degrees, and 37 degrees is uncomfortably hot for ambient temperature. If the ambient temperature is 37 degrees, you really should move to somewhere cooler before you get heatstroke.
I don't deny the possibility that there might be some specialized activities beyond the scope of my imagination that legitimately require the use of a knife at 37 degrees celsius. And they can use a specialized, non-murder-proof knife for those specialized activities. But for ordinary household use, knives could be made murder-proof.
If the blade of the knife touches something that is approximately 37 degrees celsius (i.e. the temperature of the human body), the blade retracts, making it impossible to use it to cut or stab anything.
We already have thermometers with protruding metal probes that detect the temperature of the thing they're touching (e.g. meat thermometers). We already have switches that switch on and off when the thermometer they're attached to crosses a certain threshold (i.e. thermostats). We already have knives with blades that retract. So combine all this technology to make a knife whose blade retracts when it touches something at a temperature near 37 degrees.
Food shouldn't be near 37 degrees, at least not for any significant amount of time. It should either be stored below 4 degrees or cooked above 60 degrees. If the food you're trying to prepare is 37 degrees, it needs to be either heated up or cooled down.
If you're using the knife for something other than food preparation, the thing you're cutting is probably room temperature. Room temperature is about 20 degrees, and 37 degrees is uncomfortably hot for ambient temperature. If the ambient temperature is 37 degrees, you really should move to somewhere cooler before you get heatstroke.
I don't deny the possibility that there might be some specialized activities beyond the scope of my imagination that legitimately require the use of a knife at 37 degrees celsius. And they can use a specialized, non-murder-proof knife for those specialized activities. But for ordinary household use, knives could be made murder-proof.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Brilliant Ideas That Will Never Work: require healthy food to be sold in larger-than-single servings
I previously came up with the idea of requiring unhealthy food to be available in single servings, so people don't find themselves eating more than they'd like because they have leftovers.
What if we also did the opposite and required healthy foods to be sold in larger quantities?
For the purpose of this idea, "healthy" means food where the percentage daily value of bad nutrients (saturated and trans fat, sodium, cholesterol) is significantly lower than the percentage daily value of calories, and the percentage daily value of at least one good nutrient (vitamins, fibre, etc.) is significantly higher than the percentage daily value of calories. ("Significantly" would have a specific numeric value, but I don't have the knowledge to come up with something realistic.) "Serving" means the amount used to calculate the nutritional information in the black and white box on the label.
Perishable healthy foods must be sold in packages of a minimum of two servings, which is still a perfectly reasonable amount for a person to eat in one sitting. Non-perishable healthy foods must be sold in packages of a minimum of six servings, which is either a massive pig-out for one person, or dinner for two, or a meal or two of leftovers.
Produce can continue to be sold as it occurs in nature. (In other words, you can still buy just one apple rather than being forced to buy two.)
The purpose of all this is to get people to fill up on healthier foods, and get healthier leftovers into people's fridges. If your store-bought salad is a double serving, you'll still eat the whole thing, and have less room left for potato chips. If you have leftover high-fibre multigrain pasta with organic sodium-free tomato sauce, you'll probably eat another serving sometime this week instead of ordering pizza.
The reason why this is categorized as Brilliant Ideas That Will Never Work rather than Things They Should Invent is that it has a couple of flaws. First, it's possible that restrictions on how healthy foods can be sold and packaged might make manufacturers and sellers of healthy foods decide it's too much work and just get out of the healthy foods business anyway. We really should be making it as easy as possible to make healthy foods available. Second, in the cases of foods that can have both healthy and unhealthy variations (such as the pasta and tomato sauce example above), the unavailability of smaller sizes (especially if we also require unhealthy food to be sold in single servings) might make people who don't want leftovers make unhealthy choices.
But still, it would be awesome if we could pull it off.
What if we also did the opposite and required healthy foods to be sold in larger quantities?
For the purpose of this idea, "healthy" means food where the percentage daily value of bad nutrients (saturated and trans fat, sodium, cholesterol) is significantly lower than the percentage daily value of calories, and the percentage daily value of at least one good nutrient (vitamins, fibre, etc.) is significantly higher than the percentage daily value of calories. ("Significantly" would have a specific numeric value, but I don't have the knowledge to come up with something realistic.) "Serving" means the amount used to calculate the nutritional information in the black and white box on the label.
Perishable healthy foods must be sold in packages of a minimum of two servings, which is still a perfectly reasonable amount for a person to eat in one sitting. Non-perishable healthy foods must be sold in packages of a minimum of six servings, which is either a massive pig-out for one person, or dinner for two, or a meal or two of leftovers.
Produce can continue to be sold as it occurs in nature. (In other words, you can still buy just one apple rather than being forced to buy two.)
The purpose of all this is to get people to fill up on healthier foods, and get healthier leftovers into people's fridges. If your store-bought salad is a double serving, you'll still eat the whole thing, and have less room left for potato chips. If you have leftover high-fibre multigrain pasta with organic sodium-free tomato sauce, you'll probably eat another serving sometime this week instead of ordering pizza.
The reason why this is categorized as Brilliant Ideas That Will Never Work rather than Things They Should Invent is that it has a couple of flaws. First, it's possible that restrictions on how healthy foods can be sold and packaged might make manufacturers and sellers of healthy foods decide it's too much work and just get out of the healthy foods business anyway. We really should be making it as easy as possible to make healthy foods available. Second, in the cases of foods that can have both healthy and unhealthy variations (such as the pasta and tomato sauce example above), the unavailability of smaller sizes (especially if we also require unhealthy food to be sold in single servings) might make people who don't want leftovers make unhealthy choices.
But still, it would be awesome if we could pull it off.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Wherein a foreigner who knows nothing about privatized health insurance tries to fix the US health insurance system
What if US health insurance companies weren't taxed on their earnings, and were instead taxed on the value of the claims they decline? If they pay in full every claim submitted to them, they won't pay any taxes. If they pay none of the claims submitted to them, they have to pay taxes on the full amounts of all the claims submitted to them.
Other problems I've heard of are a) insurance premiums being too expensive, and b) patients being refused insurance coverage at all because they are or have been sick. So in addition to taxing the amounts of any claims that are refused, they should also tax the amounts of any insurance premiums above a certain percentage of the client's income, and there should be a penalty for every applicant they refuse to cover, equal to either the cost of their average client or the cost of their most expensive client (I can make arguments for both).
Now the obvious flaw here is that taxes are never 100%, so the insurance companies would still be saving money by doing whatever they want. It's possible that anti-tax sentiment would provide sufficient motivation, but you can't make policy on the assumption that people are that stupid. So the next step is to use any money collected through this coverage denial tax to create an insurance fund for people who can't get or afford coverage elsewhere. So basically the insurance companies are paying the insurance premiums of people they refuse to cover.
I think they either did or were talking about making a rule in the states where every citizen has to buy health insurance, so it would be perfectly logical to tweak legislation at this point to make that more feasible. And if the insurance companies don't want to pay any denied-claim tax and just want to revel in unbridled capitalism, all they have to do is provide their services to anyone who asks at a fair price.
Other problems I've heard of are a) insurance premiums being too expensive, and b) patients being refused insurance coverage at all because they are or have been sick. So in addition to taxing the amounts of any claims that are refused, they should also tax the amounts of any insurance premiums above a certain percentage of the client's income, and there should be a penalty for every applicant they refuse to cover, equal to either the cost of their average client or the cost of their most expensive client (I can make arguments for both).
Now the obvious flaw here is that taxes are never 100%, so the insurance companies would still be saving money by doing whatever they want. It's possible that anti-tax sentiment would provide sufficient motivation, but you can't make policy on the assumption that people are that stupid. So the next step is to use any money collected through this coverage denial tax to create an insurance fund for people who can't get or afford coverage elsewhere. So basically the insurance companies are paying the insurance premiums of people they refuse to cover.
I think they either did or were talking about making a rule in the states where every citizen has to buy health insurance, so it would be perfectly logical to tweak legislation at this point to make that more feasible. And if the insurance companies don't want to pay any denied-claim tax and just want to revel in unbridled capitalism, all they have to do is provide their services to anyone who asks at a fair price.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Brilliant Ideas That Will Never Work: Godwin's Law penalty box
First, we make a universal standard for necessary exemptions from Godwin's Law (i.e. cases in which a comparison with nazis is appropriate).
Then, anyone who makes an inappropriate comparison with nazis gets a time-out. They are banned from all discourse for a certain period of time, like a penalty in hockey. If any particular political faction is egregiously overusing nazi comparison, these penalties will enable their opponents to dominate discourse, like a power play in hockey.
A potentially feasible variation: people who make completely irrelevant comments in comment threads (e.g. the gist of the article is "Look! Baby ducks!" and someone comments "See, this is what's wrong with feminists!") is banned from commenting for a certain period of time.
Then, anyone who makes an inappropriate comparison with nazis gets a time-out. They are banned from all discourse for a certain period of time, like a penalty in hockey. If any particular political faction is egregiously overusing nazi comparison, these penalties will enable their opponents to dominate discourse, like a power play in hockey.
A potentially feasible variation: people who make completely irrelevant comments in comment threads (e.g. the gist of the article is "Look! Baby ducks!" and someone comments "See, this is what's wrong with feminists!") is banned from commenting for a certain period of time.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Brilliant Ideas That Will Never Work: childfree ring
This idea started here and was enhanced by this.
Childfree people don't want to be in a relationship with non-childfree people, and vice versa. There's just no point. However, reproductive goals don't always naturally come up in conversation, and it's really presumptuous and kind of creepy to bring them up early on in a potential relationship. ("Want to go for coffee sometime?" "Sure, but I won't bear your children.") This could have the unfortunate result of people ending up emotionally attached to people who would make unsuitable partners. You might be well on your way to falling in love before you discover that one of you wants kids and the other doesn't, so the relationship will necessarily have to end.
Solution: a universally agreed-upon visual signal denoting one's childfree status. It would work the same as a wedding ring. You wear it and anyone who cares can look for it, see that you're childfree, and proceed accordingly. It doesn't necessarily have to be a ring, but it should be subtle, visible, and unisex.
The flaw in this plan is that since a childfree ring is worn only for the benefit of potential mates, wearing one implies that you're on the prowl. After all, if you're in a relationship, the general public doesn't need to know that you're childfree - whether you're CF or not, you still won't bear their children. Not everyone might want to walk around at all times wearing a symbol indicating that they're on the market. (I certainly wouldn't!) But then if you don't wear it all the time, you'll have a romantic comedy meet-cute with the guy in front of you in line at the grocery store and fall in love before you both discover that you're CF and he wants 12 kids. So I wouldn't wear it (although I'd have supermarket guy reading my blog before we got too serious anyway), and if not everyone wears it then it won't work.
Actually, now that I think about it, people who are in the market for a relationship should all blog. Not about looking for a relationship, but about everyday stuff. If I were looking for a relationship and a potential partner read my blog, they'd discover that I'm CF and urbanist and recovering catholic, they'd get a sense of my politics and tastes and neuroses and sense of humour, so any core incompatibilities would be identified immediately and incompatible partners could reject me before I even noticed they were looking. It would be much more efficient.
Childfree people don't want to be in a relationship with non-childfree people, and vice versa. There's just no point. However, reproductive goals don't always naturally come up in conversation, and it's really presumptuous and kind of creepy to bring them up early on in a potential relationship. ("Want to go for coffee sometime?" "Sure, but I won't bear your children.") This could have the unfortunate result of people ending up emotionally attached to people who would make unsuitable partners. You might be well on your way to falling in love before you discover that one of you wants kids and the other doesn't, so the relationship will necessarily have to end.
Solution: a universally agreed-upon visual signal denoting one's childfree status. It would work the same as a wedding ring. You wear it and anyone who cares can look for it, see that you're childfree, and proceed accordingly. It doesn't necessarily have to be a ring, but it should be subtle, visible, and unisex.
The flaw in this plan is that since a childfree ring is worn only for the benefit of potential mates, wearing one implies that you're on the prowl. After all, if you're in a relationship, the general public doesn't need to know that you're childfree - whether you're CF or not, you still won't bear their children. Not everyone might want to walk around at all times wearing a symbol indicating that they're on the market. (I certainly wouldn't!) But then if you don't wear it all the time, you'll have a romantic comedy meet-cute with the guy in front of you in line at the grocery store and fall in love before you both discover that you're CF and he wants 12 kids. So I wouldn't wear it (although I'd have supermarket guy reading my blog before we got too serious anyway), and if not everyone wears it then it won't work.
Actually, now that I think about it, people who are in the market for a relationship should all blog. Not about looking for a relationship, but about everyday stuff. If I were looking for a relationship and a potential partner read my blog, they'd discover that I'm CF and urbanist and recovering catholic, they'd get a sense of my politics and tastes and neuroses and sense of humour, so any core incompatibilities would be identified immediately and incompatible partners could reject me before I even noticed they were looking. It would be much more efficient.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Brilliant Ideas That Will Never Work: celebrity interrogation for charity
You get a famous but reclusive person who hardly ever gives interviews, and you get them to do a Q&A session. You charge admission to the Q&A session (being a real hard-ass about recording devices), and then auction off the right to ask questions. Top bidder gets to ask the first question, second bidder gets to ask the second question, etc. etc. until time is up. The size of the audience and the duration of the event should be such that only 10-20% of the audience gets to ask questions, and if possible a live bidding system should be set up so people sitting in the audience can increase their bids in desperate attempts to get their questions in.
Fatal flaw: finding someone who is sufficiently famous and sufficiently reclusive that people would be willing to pay significant money for the opportunity, but still willing to do the interview.
Fatal flaw: finding someone who is sufficiently famous and sufficiently reclusive that people would be willing to pay significant money for the opportunity, but still willing to do the interview.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Brilliant Ideas That Will Never Work: results-based prison sentences
Right now, you commit a crime and you're sentenced to five years. That's rather arbitrary. Instead, it should be you commit a crime, and you're sentenced to prison until, say, you've got your substance abuse and anger management problems sorted, then you're on parole until you've proven you can hold down a job and an apartment without cheating or stealing from anyone and have a relationship without beating your partner.
The only tiny wee flaw in this plan is coming up with an objective way to measure results that neither correctional officers nor criminals can game.
The only tiny wee flaw in this plan is coming up with an objective way to measure results that neither correctional officers nor criminals can game.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Brilliant Ideas That Will Never Work: yellow bike approach to reuseable containers
Toronto wants to ban disposable coffee cups in addition to plastic bags.
If they do this, then if you want a coffee while away from home, you'll have to carry a mug around with you all day. This would work for office workers, who can keep their mug on their desk and wash it in the sink, but it won't work for people who are on the move all day or work outdoors or for whom spontenous coffee comes up. ("Want to go for a coffee?" "I can't, I don't have a mug with me.") If this goes through, people will have to carry a couple of totebags and a coffee mug around with them all day just so they can go through the normal everyday activities of grabbing a quick coffee if they feel the need or pick up a couple of things for dinner on the way home. This isn't a huge deal for car people, who have basically a small room in which to store anything they might have to carry around, but it's a major inconvenience for pedestrians and transit users. We're supposed to be getting people out of their cars too, and this doesn't pass the skirt heels handbag test.
It would be brilliant if they could solve this by taking a yellow bike approach to mugs and tote bags. You can pick up a reuseable at the place where you buy your coffee/groceries, then you can just leave it somewhere when you're done. Maybe you could leave the tote bags in the lobby of your apartment building. Maybe you could leave the mugs anywhere in the city that sells coffee. In any case, drop-off locations would be plentiful and convenient. Then someone would pick them up (job creation!), the mugs would be washed sanitarily, and they'd be taken back to retailers for reuse.
Obviously the logistical problems are overwhelming. They'd need massive numbers of drop-off locations to make this convenient for people. Getting the right numbers of containers back to the right retailers would be complicated. Who would pay for all this? I have no idea! That's why I classified it under Brilliant Ideas That Will Never Work instead of Things They Should Invent, but I'd love to be proven wrong.
If they do this, then if you want a coffee while away from home, you'll have to carry a mug around with you all day. This would work for office workers, who can keep their mug on their desk and wash it in the sink, but it won't work for people who are on the move all day or work outdoors or for whom spontenous coffee comes up. ("Want to go for a coffee?" "I can't, I don't have a mug with me.") If this goes through, people will have to carry a couple of totebags and a coffee mug around with them all day just so they can go through the normal everyday activities of grabbing a quick coffee if they feel the need or pick up a couple of things for dinner on the way home. This isn't a huge deal for car people, who have basically a small room in which to store anything they might have to carry around, but it's a major inconvenience for pedestrians and transit users. We're supposed to be getting people out of their cars too, and this doesn't pass the skirt heels handbag test.
It would be brilliant if they could solve this by taking a yellow bike approach to mugs and tote bags. You can pick up a reuseable at the place where you buy your coffee/groceries, then you can just leave it somewhere when you're done. Maybe you could leave the tote bags in the lobby of your apartment building. Maybe you could leave the mugs anywhere in the city that sells coffee. In any case, drop-off locations would be plentiful and convenient. Then someone would pick them up (job creation!), the mugs would be washed sanitarily, and they'd be taken back to retailers for reuse.
Obviously the logistical problems are overwhelming. They'd need massive numbers of drop-off locations to make this convenient for people. Getting the right numbers of containers back to the right retailers would be complicated. Who would pay for all this? I have no idea! That's why I classified it under Brilliant Ideas That Will Never Work instead of Things They Should Invent, but I'd love to be proven wrong.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Brilliant Ideas That Will Never Work: voters have to know what's in their own interest
Once upon a time I proposed a simple knowledge test for voters, and anyone who can pass the test can vote regardless of age.
Today I have a better idea: require all voters to know which proposed policies are in their own interest. I've seen quite a few people both in Canada and in the States (when your neighbour spends like 18 months shouting on the rooftop with a bullhorn "Look at us! We're having an election!" you tend to notice a thing or two) supporting candidates or parties who stated platform is directly against that person's own interest. Basically they're saying "I have size 11 feet. The Purple Party wants to ban shoes that are larger than size 10. Vote Purple in 2008!"
I wish they could administer a test to every prospective voter: "Name any party's or any candidate's position on any issue, and explain why this position is or is not in your own best interest." People wouldn't be required to vote for a party or candidate that is necessarily in their own best interest (maybe you agree with the Purple Party's premise that large shoes use too many resources and are willing to go barefoot for the greater good, maybe you're 82 years old and own enough shoes to last the rest of your life), they'd just have to be aware of whether a particular policy actually is in their own best interest.
The only problem is, apart from the logistical problems of administering a quiz (and an essay question at that) to every prospective voter, you could never get everyone to agree that the test is being administered fairly and neutrally.
Today I have a better idea: require all voters to know which proposed policies are in their own interest. I've seen quite a few people both in Canada and in the States (when your neighbour spends like 18 months shouting on the rooftop with a bullhorn "Look at us! We're having an election!" you tend to notice a thing or two) supporting candidates or parties who stated platform is directly against that person's own interest. Basically they're saying "I have size 11 feet. The Purple Party wants to ban shoes that are larger than size 10. Vote Purple in 2008!"
I wish they could administer a test to every prospective voter: "Name any party's or any candidate's position on any issue, and explain why this position is or is not in your own best interest." People wouldn't be required to vote for a party or candidate that is necessarily in their own best interest (maybe you agree with the Purple Party's premise that large shoes use too many resources and are willing to go barefoot for the greater good, maybe you're 82 years old and own enough shoes to last the rest of your life), they'd just have to be aware of whether a particular policy actually is in their own best interest.
The only problem is, apart from the logistical problems of administering a quiz (and an essay question at that) to every prospective voter, you could never get everyone to agree that the test is being administered fairly and neutrally.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Brilliant Ideas That Will Never Work: total war to save the world
Think about World War II. Not the war part, what was happening at home. Everyone and everything was completely mobilized towards the goal of winning the war. Food and clothing and fuel were rationed. Recycling was invented so raw materials wouldn't go to waste. Geeky students and posh housewives went to work on farms and in munitions factories. Barriers were broken down, assumptions were challenged, there was constant innovation, and eventually they achieved their goal.
So let's do it again. Not the war part - it's so frightfully noisy! - but the complete mobilization of all society's resources to some greater goal for the good of the world, like ending hunger or weaning ourselves from fossil fuels, for example.
The advantage of the total war model is that your role is handed to you, you don't have to work out the right decisions for yourself and you'd have to go to a good deal of trouble to make the wrong decisions. You get your ration cards, and that provides you with your fair share of food. You go to the war office and say "Hello, I'd like a job," and they send you to the aircraft factor and teach you how to make airplanes. You just do what you're told and sacrifice for a bit.
For this to work, they'd need a tangible goal and a carefully detailed, workable plan for how to get there. To get society to buy in, the goal should be achievable within a relatively short period of time - say between six months and two years - with the promise that all rationing and restrictions will be lifted as soon as the goal is achieved. The goal should also be such that its positive effects will be felt for a long time afterwards. Under any rationing or restrictions, everyone should still be adequately fed and clothed and sheltered. Small pleasures like coffee and wine and cigarettes should still be somewhat available, even if they are not as abundant as they were before. Jobs that work towards achieving the goal should be available for the asking, and the jobs should provide full training (just like then-Princess Elizabeth - and other posh girls like her I assume - was trained to be a mechanic during WWII rather than being told "Sorry, you can't be a mechanic because you don't know how to be a mechanic.") The internet must continue to exist just as movies continued to be made during WWII. The sacrifices required must be feasible, productive, well-thought out and temporary, ultimately achieving a goal that will bring about greater good in the long term.
But people will never go for it.
So let's do it again. Not the war part - it's so frightfully noisy! - but the complete mobilization of all society's resources to some greater goal for the good of the world, like ending hunger or weaning ourselves from fossil fuels, for example.
The advantage of the total war model is that your role is handed to you, you don't have to work out the right decisions for yourself and you'd have to go to a good deal of trouble to make the wrong decisions. You get your ration cards, and that provides you with your fair share of food. You go to the war office and say "Hello, I'd like a job," and they send you to the aircraft factor and teach you how to make airplanes. You just do what you're told and sacrifice for a bit.
For this to work, they'd need a tangible goal and a carefully detailed, workable plan for how to get there. To get society to buy in, the goal should be achievable within a relatively short period of time - say between six months and two years - with the promise that all rationing and restrictions will be lifted as soon as the goal is achieved. The goal should also be such that its positive effects will be felt for a long time afterwards. Under any rationing or restrictions, everyone should still be adequately fed and clothed and sheltered. Small pleasures like coffee and wine and cigarettes should still be somewhat available, even if they are not as abundant as they were before. Jobs that work towards achieving the goal should be available for the asking, and the jobs should provide full training (just like then-Princess Elizabeth - and other posh girls like her I assume - was trained to be a mechanic during WWII rather than being told "Sorry, you can't be a mechanic because you don't know how to be a mechanic.") The internet must continue to exist just as movies continued to be made during WWII. The sacrifices required must be feasible, productive, well-thought out and temporary, ultimately achieving a goal that will bring about greater good in the long term.
But people will never go for it.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Brilliant Ideas That Will Never Work: ugly glasses protest for better insurance
Optical coverage in the health insurance of absolutely everyone whose insurance details I know is insufficient. Every insurance plan I'm familiar with (which includes university employees, teachers, steelworkers, some hospital workers, and all levels of public service) pays a limited dollar amount, and many don't even cover the cost of lenses.
This is unacceptable. Insurance companies should - actually OHIP should - cover the actual cost of glasses (or, at the very least, lenses), not just "Oh, you need glasses, okay, here, have $200." But the problem is that because glasses are so important - we need to wear them on our faces, all the time, to see - people end up coughing up whatever it costs to get a decently functional and reasonably attractive pair of glasses.
But imagine for a moment if everyone stopped doing that. Everyone started buying only what was covered by their insurance. Ugly square plastic glasses abound - not the hipster kind, the kind you'd expect to see on a serial killer who's been in jail for 20 years. Everyone does without anti-glare and without sunglasses. Everyone who does have glasses is walking around with smudged lenses and crooked frames. Everyone whose doesn't have insurance coverage (or doesn't have enough coverage to buy even lenses) is walking around squinting unattractively, unable to drive if their licence has conditions.
That would certainly show the world how insufficient our insurance plans are, making the powers that be more willing to increase coverage for both the haves and the have nots. Unfortunately it will never work because no one who can possibly make the money work will be willing to make themselves blind and unattractive.
This is unacceptable. Insurance companies should - actually OHIP should - cover the actual cost of glasses (or, at the very least, lenses), not just "Oh, you need glasses, okay, here, have $200." But the problem is that because glasses are so important - we need to wear them on our faces, all the time, to see - people end up coughing up whatever it costs to get a decently functional and reasonably attractive pair of glasses.
But imagine for a moment if everyone stopped doing that. Everyone started buying only what was covered by their insurance. Ugly square plastic glasses abound - not the hipster kind, the kind you'd expect to see on a serial killer who's been in jail for 20 years. Everyone does without anti-glare and without sunglasses. Everyone who does have glasses is walking around with smudged lenses and crooked frames. Everyone whose doesn't have insurance coverage (or doesn't have enough coverage to buy even lenses) is walking around squinting unattractively, unable to drive if their licence has conditions.
That would certainly show the world how insufficient our insurance plans are, making the powers that be more willing to increase coverage for both the haves and the have nots. Unfortunately it will never work because no one who can possibly make the money work will be willing to make themselves blind and unattractive.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Brilliant Ideas That Will Never Work: blatently prioritize urbanism
For the purposes of this post, let's use gross generalizations in the service of brevity and divide human lifestyle into two categories: urban and suburban. Urban lifestyle is high-density, based on and valuing apartments/condos and public transit and all the services amenities you need right around the corner. Suburban lifestyle is low-density, based on and valuing houses and land and cars, and not minding if you have to drive to get anywhere.
Suburban lifestyle you can get anywhere in the GTA. Urban lifestyle you can get only in Toronto. Other places do try, but you always come away feeling like an eccentric making a sacrifice on principle rather than simply quietly going about your life. Toronto is the only place around here where urban is a viable enough option that people might choose it out of preference rather than necessity.
In light of the recent budget situation in Toronto, I find myself wondering what would happen if the City of Toronto made a deliberate choice to prioritize urban over suburban. What if they just said "Yep, we're taxing house ownership, we're taxing cars, we're introducing congestion charges. Houses and cars are luxuries here, so we're taxing them to subsidize public services. If you don't like it, go to 905." Boldly make Toronto even more Toronto at the expense of things that are non-Toronto about it. You want city? We'll give you city! You don't want city? Then what are you doing here?
Would it work? I have no idea. But it does occur to me that people trying for the suburban lifestyle within 416 have chosen to live in 416 for a reason. Houses and parking are cheaper in 905, so if houses and cars were their top priority they'd go elsewhere. It just remains to be seen if whatever led these suburban-lifestyle-seekers to live in 416 is strong enough to keep them there.
Suburban lifestyle you can get anywhere in the GTA. Urban lifestyle you can get only in Toronto. Other places do try, but you always come away feeling like an eccentric making a sacrifice on principle rather than simply quietly going about your life. Toronto is the only place around here where urban is a viable enough option that people might choose it out of preference rather than necessity.
In light of the recent budget situation in Toronto, I find myself wondering what would happen if the City of Toronto made a deliberate choice to prioritize urban over suburban. What if they just said "Yep, we're taxing house ownership, we're taxing cars, we're introducing congestion charges. Houses and cars are luxuries here, so we're taxing them to subsidize public services. If you don't like it, go to 905." Boldly make Toronto even more Toronto at the expense of things that are non-Toronto about it. You want city? We'll give you city! You don't want city? Then what are you doing here?
Would it work? I have no idea. But it does occur to me that people trying for the suburban lifestyle within 416 have chosen to live in 416 for a reason. Houses and parking are cheaper in 905, so if houses and cars were their top priority they'd go elsewhere. It just remains to be seen if whatever led these suburban-lifestyle-seekers to live in 416 is strong enough to keep them there.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Brilliant Ideas That Will Never Work: luxury witness protection program
Conventional wisdom is that people aren't willing to come forward and report crimes that they've witnessed. The solution: make it worth their while. If you witness and report a major crime, you get put into a really posh witness protection program. Along with their new identity, witnesses get a home, paid for outright, fully furnished, and stocked with everything they'll need (since they have to leave their previous lives behind). They also get a generous annual allowance, tax-free and indexed, to ensure that they never have to work again. If they have any kids, they get an additional allowance to cover their tuition and school expense. And they get all this for the rest of their lives providing they don't ever get involved in crime.
I wonder what effect it would have on gang-related crime if snitching suddenly became more lucrative than a life of crime?
I wonder what effect it would have on gang-related crime if snitching suddenly became more lucrative than a life of crime?
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Brilliant Ideas That Will Never Work: your own apartment as coming-of-age ritual
In today's Toronto Star, there was an article suggesting that Canada needs a coming-of-age ritual to make youth feel like responsible and enfranchised members of adult society. (Unfortunately I can't find a link, but it's on the second-last page of the Ideas section). I don't know if I agree with this premise, but I have an idea for something that might make an effective ritual. Inspired by the Native tradition of having boys go out alone in the woods, I'm imagining everyone having to live alone in their own apartment for a certain period of time after their 18th birthday.
The apartment is a very basic studio apartment, but you have it all to yourself. No roommates, and you're not sharing a kitchen or a bathroom like in res. You don't get it for free, but perhaps it would have to be geared to income because obviously most 18-year-olds can't afford their very own apartment. You'd pay market prices for your telecommunications, and utilities would be at market rates if feasible, or geared to income if unfeasible (we don't want people ruining their credit score or having to declare bankruptcy or going without running water just because we've forced them to leave their parents' home before they were ready financially). There would also have to be some kind of assistance for students who are still in high school, because we don't want this ritual to have to make people have to drop out. The coming-of-age apartments wouldn't all be bunched together in one building, they'd be spread out across the community, so your neighbours would be a random sampling of whomever lives in your community.
Of course, there are huge feasibility problems (which is why I categorized this post under Brilliant Ideas That Will Never Work), but if it were feasible I think it would achieve a great many coming-of-age results.
Living alone is the ultimate exercise in dealing with the consequences of your actions. If you don't take out the garbage, it sits there and smells up the place. If you don't pay the phone bill, the phone gets cut off. If you make too much noise, the neighbours will complain. You get to see all the stuff your parents nagged you about come true (or not).
Living alone lets you develop your own person separate from the expectations of your family. When you live with your family, their expectations colour your every action, whether it's meeting their expectations, or defying their expectations, or trying to avoid their expectations. When I lived at home, if I wanted to go out I'd have to justify it to my parents, and if I wanted to stay in I'd have to avoid or put up with my sister's mockery. Here in my own apartment, I just come and go as I please. It's quite refreshing to go about your everyday life without having to justify your actions to anyone, and not having to justify your actions gets you away from the necessary adolescent defensiveness and ultimately leads to a more mature and adult attitude towards your life.
Living alone teaches you a lot about yourself. Think of how you set up your very first apartment. You doubtless anticipated some needs that didn't materialize, and didn't anticipate other needs that did materialize. And your second apartment was set up to reflect these needs. For example, I would never have guessed that I'd fall into the habit of gaming while watching TV, but now it's my favourite way to unwind. Conversely, I have a blender and a mixer in my kitchen, and I've never used them. I guess I anticipated doing more complicated cooking than I do, but ultimately found that it wasn't worth it since I don't have a dishwasher. I take fewer baths than I'd anticipated (no, I'm not dirty, I shower instead) but sleep in more than I'd anticipated. I eat less sugar and more salt than I thought I would. When you're all alone with complete control over your space and no one around to impress, you learn a lot about what your real preferences and priorities are, and can use that to inform your decisions.
Living alone also helps your parents and the other adults around you respect you for who you actually are. My parents weren't nearly as dismissive of my phobias when they found out that I still have panic attacks even when there's no one around to rescue me. My mother was convinced I'd change my kleenex-wasting ways and start using less kleenex once I had to buy it myself (I still don't know what is perceived as excessive about the amount of kleenex I use), but I didn't so now she has to chalk it up to "Different people do things differently." Living alone gives you a certain amount of grownup cred. You're managing, you're coping, you're dealing, so they can't really Kids Today you that much. The community also has to treat you like an adult because you're approaching them in your adult role to buy your groceries or do your banking or get your strep throat diagnosed.
Basically, living alone calls everyone's bluff. It's a real, relevant trial by fire (21st century industrialized urban version). If you make it, your elders have no choice but to give you basic adult respect. If you don't make it, you're much humbled and know exactly what you need to work on. In any case, it would make it clear that you are not spoiled or sheltered, but instead know exactly what it means to be an adult.
The apartment is a very basic studio apartment, but you have it all to yourself. No roommates, and you're not sharing a kitchen or a bathroom like in res. You don't get it for free, but perhaps it would have to be geared to income because obviously most 18-year-olds can't afford their very own apartment. You'd pay market prices for your telecommunications, and utilities would be at market rates if feasible, or geared to income if unfeasible (we don't want people ruining their credit score or having to declare bankruptcy or going without running water just because we've forced them to leave their parents' home before they were ready financially). There would also have to be some kind of assistance for students who are still in high school, because we don't want this ritual to have to make people have to drop out. The coming-of-age apartments wouldn't all be bunched together in one building, they'd be spread out across the community, so your neighbours would be a random sampling of whomever lives in your community.
Of course, there are huge feasibility problems (which is why I categorized this post under Brilliant Ideas That Will Never Work), but if it were feasible I think it would achieve a great many coming-of-age results.
Living alone is the ultimate exercise in dealing with the consequences of your actions. If you don't take out the garbage, it sits there and smells up the place. If you don't pay the phone bill, the phone gets cut off. If you make too much noise, the neighbours will complain. You get to see all the stuff your parents nagged you about come true (or not).
Living alone lets you develop your own person separate from the expectations of your family. When you live with your family, their expectations colour your every action, whether it's meeting their expectations, or defying their expectations, or trying to avoid their expectations. When I lived at home, if I wanted to go out I'd have to justify it to my parents, and if I wanted to stay in I'd have to avoid or put up with my sister's mockery. Here in my own apartment, I just come and go as I please. It's quite refreshing to go about your everyday life without having to justify your actions to anyone, and not having to justify your actions gets you away from the necessary adolescent defensiveness and ultimately leads to a more mature and adult attitude towards your life.
Living alone teaches you a lot about yourself. Think of how you set up your very first apartment. You doubtless anticipated some needs that didn't materialize, and didn't anticipate other needs that did materialize. And your second apartment was set up to reflect these needs. For example, I would never have guessed that I'd fall into the habit of gaming while watching TV, but now it's my favourite way to unwind. Conversely, I have a blender and a mixer in my kitchen, and I've never used them. I guess I anticipated doing more complicated cooking than I do, but ultimately found that it wasn't worth it since I don't have a dishwasher. I take fewer baths than I'd anticipated (no, I'm not dirty, I shower instead) but sleep in more than I'd anticipated. I eat less sugar and more salt than I thought I would. When you're all alone with complete control over your space and no one around to impress, you learn a lot about what your real preferences and priorities are, and can use that to inform your decisions.
Living alone also helps your parents and the other adults around you respect you for who you actually are. My parents weren't nearly as dismissive of my phobias when they found out that I still have panic attacks even when there's no one around to rescue me. My mother was convinced I'd change my kleenex-wasting ways and start using less kleenex once I had to buy it myself (I still don't know what is perceived as excessive about the amount of kleenex I use), but I didn't so now she has to chalk it up to "Different people do things differently." Living alone gives you a certain amount of grownup cred. You're managing, you're coping, you're dealing, so they can't really Kids Today you that much. The community also has to treat you like an adult because you're approaching them in your adult role to buy your groceries or do your banking or get your strep throat diagnosed.
Basically, living alone calls everyone's bluff. It's a real, relevant trial by fire (21st century industrialized urban version). If you make it, your elders have no choice but to give you basic adult respect. If you don't make it, you're much humbled and know exactly what you need to work on. In any case, it would make it clear that you are not spoiled or sheltered, but instead know exactly what it means to be an adult.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)