My 10,000 Hours

You know the oft-cited number of 10,000? As in, it takes 10,000 hours for someone to be really good at [insert thing here].

Well, I decided to try a little experiment on myself.

This Christmas, we brought back the electronic piano my Mom bought for me when I went to college. It's been collecting dust for the better part of 10 years now.

So, we set up the piano in our dining room (it's big, we only have one small table in the dining room--so it fits fine) and I started practicing, seriously, for the first time in ten years.

I found that I was really enjoying it.

So, I thought: "It would be great if I could get really good at piano." Then that 10,000 hour number popped into my head. So, I thought, let's see where I am in 10,000 hours. (I also thought, this would be a good way to keep me motivated, since there are no piano recitals to prepare for, or parents to make me practice.)

So, I just opened up Open Office spreadsheet and did a little calculation. I estimated that I could spend 46 weeks out of the year, practicing 7 hours/day (this would allow for 4 weeks of vacation, plus one week for Christmas and one week for Thanksgiving). I figure that the regular variation due to work-related travel would work itself out: for example, I practiced for 2 hours one day, not one. You get the gist.

I figured that as a younger student, I probably put in about 1,380 hours. I previously studied piano for about 10 years, but not in a very disciplined fashion (I figured 3 hours per week for 46 weeks a year, just to be conservative).

So, I added that to the 5 hours I practiced last week. Looks like I'll be a genius in about 27 years!

I'll keep you posted on progress. Here's the spreadsheet I mentioned:


Matt's 10,000 Hours
Date Hours Minutes
01/12/11 1 20
01/13/11 45
01/14/11 20
01/15/11 2
01/16/11 30







Total Hours to date 1384.92 Estimated hours during previous study 1380
Hours To Go 8615.08 (46 weeks per year, 3 hours/week practice, for 10 years)
Years to Go 26.75

Why Obama is On the Run

The Obama administration is plagued by three, fatal flaws:

1.) An over-reliance on the financial services industry

2.) Fear or avoidance of conflict;

3.) Failure to effectively manage the politics of policy.

Let's look at each of these issues.

Financial Services

An interesting thing has happened in American politics. We seem to have confused the stock market, and trade in other speculative financial instruments, with the economy as a whole. And since the Clinton administration, the financial services industry has provided Democrats with a significant fundraising edge--and has had an out-sized influence on economic policy. Why are the managers of investment banks and hedge-funds best positioned to manage our country's economic policies? What about entrepreneurs? What about our manufacturers and high-value add service sector? And when you depend to such an extent on the financial industry to fund your campaigns, it becomes extremely difficult to effectively regulate that industry--or create a rationale tax system that funds the public sector and appropriately redistributes wealth.

Conflict

The Republicans have mastered the art of using conflict to get what they want. The Republicans are not afraid to jack up taxes on working class people; they're not afraid to shut down the government over the budget. This is an empirical fact. They are hostage takers.

Obama doesn't seem get this essential fact.

He still talks about compromise, about bi-partisanship. I think he really does believe that voters will reward these two virtues. This, too, has not been borne out by the facts. The Democrats have never been rewarded for reasonableness, compromise and bi-partisanship. Just look at the last election, which swept in a generation of lawmakers who have promised voters they won't compromise.

Mismanaging the politics

No one can argue that the Obama administration has not accomplished anything. On the contrary: the stimulus, financial reform and the most sweeping piece of social legislation since Medicare and Medicaid are all real victories for his administration. But all along the way, he has failed to manage the politics of policy. Think about the spectacular mismanagement of the health care debate: the town halls, the death panels. The stimulus package saved millions of jobs, yet so many working and middle-class Americans are opposed to it.

But the tax deal is the most glaring example of the administration's failure to manage politics effectively.

First, the compromise was negotiated behind closed doors, between the White House and Mitch McConnell. Back-room negotiations like this deprive the Democrats of a critical negotiating tactic: publicity.

The Republican leadership is blatantly pushing an agenda to narrowly benefit the top one percent of income earners--and they were willing to hold unemployment insurance and 99% of Americans hostage to benefit the top one percent. But this greed was never put in the spotlight during the negotiations. Throughout, the Republicans controlled the message: "now is not the time to raise taxes on anyone."

And look at the way the Republicans and the White House have handled the aftermath.

Now, this deal is clearly a victory for Republicans. But listen to how McConnell describes it:

Saying that he was unhappy with the deal, he adds “This bipartisan compromise represents an essential first step in tackling the debt — because in keeping taxes where they are, we are officially cutting off the spigot."

This "compromise" is, objectively, a huge victory for the Republicans. Yet they position themselves as disappointed, but happy that they are finally "cutting off the spigot" on Democrats wasteful spending. What is the wasteful spending they're talking about? Expanding healthcare coverage, extending jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed, and the like. The Republicans are playing the politics of this great: they keep their base (and funders) happy by saying "hey, we're not happy with this compromise [of course they are] but we're imposing discipline on Democrats' recklessness."

How has Obama handled the aftermath of the tax deal? He has become its biggest cheerleader:

“This proves that both parties can in fact work together to grow our economy and look out for the American people.”

“a win for American families, American businesses and our economic recovery.”

Really? This seems like a spectacular mistake that is going to come back and haunt Obama. We know that the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy don't spur economic growth and job creation: just look at the actual effects of those tax cuts, in effect for the better part of the last decade. So, why is the President going around talking about this as a victory, as something that is going to have big, tangible benefits for workers and the economy?

We know that these tax cuts are not going to spur growth and hiring. So, Obama is setting himself up for a major backlash when the inevitable happens. Being the poster child for such terrible policy is not a good political move, unless his goal is to attract the support of those who are going to benefit most from the idiotic extension of these irresponsible cuts.

I'm not saying that the Democrats should have simply allowed the tax cuts to expire for everyone, and accept no extension of unemployment insurance. That would not have been good politics either.

But, let's consider an alternative approach:

The negotiation over the extension of the cuts, and extending unemployment, is done in public, in Congress. The President uses the bully-pulpit to decry Republicans' irresponsibility and the reality of what they're doing: holding hostage 99% of Americans to extend an unfair and irrational benefit for the top income earners. While Congress debates this, on TV, Obama goes on tour and puts a human face on what's at stake: highly skilled workers who are desperately looking for work, but can't find any, for example. Warren Buffet types speak on behalf of the responsible, enlightened wealthy with a "get real" type of attitude: "hey, I'm worth $X billion, I don't need a tax cut, you need jobs." The Democrats mobilize their base to bolster the will of the Democrats in Congress to fight this out in public, and they put unrelenting pressure on supporters of the Republican position. They make the Republicans pay for their policies.

Perhaps, in the end, a similar compromise would have been reached. And, perhaps, it would be the best thing for the country. But, at the end of this good, healthy fight where the right lines in the sand are drawn and the Republicans are exposed for what they really are, Obama's speeches would not praise this compromise as a victory: he would speak honestly about his disappointment with the Republicans irresponsibility and would praise the valiant efforts of the Democrats to extract what they were able to extract. He would say:

"This is the best deal that we could come up with. We are deeply disappointed that the Republicans have made protecting the incomes of millionaires their priority. Our priority is families; our priority is the people who have been looking for work for the last 9 months, and can't find it; our priority is to make sure that no one is turned away at the doctor's office because they don't have insurance, or can't get the help they need because of a pre-existing condition. So we were not willing to stand by and allow the Republicans to hold your interests hostage to benefit the extremely wealthy. So, while we're disappointed with these irresponsible tax cuts, we fought, and won, to preserve tax cuts for the middle class, unemployment insurance and a cut in your payroll taxes to put more money into your pocket. But, long-term, it's up to the American people to let the Republicans know it's time to stand up for your interests, not the special interests."

I am awesome.

Folks, this is amazing. Two days after my post about What the Kindle Needs Now (in which I suggest, among other things, that you should be able to give an e-book as a gift) Amazon announces that you can gift a Kindle e-book via e-mail now!

What The Kindle Needs Now

As you know (I assume you do by now) I'm a very happy Kindle owner.

I plan on purchasing a tablet (Notion Ink Adam!) in the near future; but this will not replace my Kindle.

From the moment you open the box, you love it. It's totally focused, obsessively, on the act of reading and the glorification of that act. From the Kindle logo, to the pre-installed dictionary, it's not about media delivery, it's about getting back to basics: to the pure, beautiful, simple--yet profound--act of reading the written word.

The technology behind it even glorifies reading: it's not a traditional, back-lit screen, it's E Ink--literally little black and white balls being arranged on the page to form letters, words, and, ultimately, magazines and books on the page, like a book.

Point is, I love it.

Nonetheless, the Kindle still has some "beta" aspects to it. And as the playing field gets more crowded, Amazon will have to seek new ways of creating value with their product.

Here are some suggestions:

1.) Don't try to be the iPad, or any other tablet computer.

The best thing about the Kindle is that it's designed to do one thing, and one thing only, extremely well: provide a superior experience for the reader on a paperless platform.

The Kindle is so good because of what it doesn't do, just as much as for what it does do: you can't check Facebook, or e-mail your friend's, or flip back and forth from one "app" to the other. You just read. I read mine, mostly, on the bus during my commute. The Kindle provides me with two hours of un-cluttered, calm reading time each day. Advertisements, chat's and tweets are not competing for my attention. My mind is calm and clear after 30 minutes of reading, and nothing else.

In this hyper-active, digital world we live in, these moments are fewer and farther between. The Kindle has helped me rediscover leisurely, uninterrupted reading. And it's a real pleasure.

2.) Create a community.

You must be able to do better than a #kindle hash tag on our tweets. Let us connect with each other by sharing newspaper and magazine clippings with other Kindle owners (and not just sharing a highlight). Allow us to give e-books as gifts to other users. And what about lending books? The accountants will tell you that you'll lose potential revenue by allowing people to share books. That's missing the point: the more the Kindle (and not some other platform) connects people to their books, and to each other, the more revenue you'll drive to the Kindle bookstore.

3.) Re-invent and re-define the bookstore.

I was in a Borders the other day. What bitter irony. It's the Water Tower location in Chicago--they're doing a store-wide sale because they're closing. I was browsing the business section, and stumbled on a collection of articles from Harvard Business Review on leadership. I flipped through the pages and thought "this is a nice book, how much does it cost?" I flipped it over and checked the price "$22?" Really? I pulled out the Kindle, connected to the store and found the same publication for $9.99. I hit "buy" and in 60 seconds the it downloaded to the Kindle, at less than half the price.

Maybe that's why they're closing?

I haven't figured it out yet, but I'm convinced there's a role for a physical bookstore in a world of e-books. "Browsing" books in the Kindle store, is not the same thing as browsing through a real bookstore. Reading the sample you can download for free on the Kindle is not the same thing as picking up a book, holding it in your hands, flipping through the pages, turning it over to read the comments on the back. I'm much more likely to purchase a book in the Kindle store after I've flipped through a hard copy than if I just read the sample on the Kindle.

And there's got to be real value in creating a virtual community--defined by Kindle ownership--and providing a physical meeting point for those community members. I still love browsing in a book store, and sitting down to read in a cafe or on a big couch that's not in my house. Barnes and Noble has attempted to do this, to a degree, with Nook. If you've got your Nook and you're in a Barnes and Noble, you can read, for free, books that are available in the store. It's still an idea in formation, but I'm intrigued.

Ralph Nader was right (and so was I!)

I was an ardent supporter of Ralph Nader's 2000 presidential run. I was one of the chief organizer's of the Nader2000 campaign at Skidmore College and was a founder of the Nader-inspired student activist organization, Campus Greens.

Lately, I've (unfortunately) been feeling quite vindicated.

Ten years later, many progressives (particularly those that came of age as radicals in the 60's) cringe when I tell them I supported Nader in 2000. I believed then, as I believe now, that that was the right move.

Does that mean that I will always, as a rule, support a progressive 3rd party candidate? Of course not. In the 2004 election, for example, I supported Kerry and argued that Greens should focus on a "safe states strategy" and essentially use their candidacy to run against Bush and his reactionary, hegemonic policies, ala Earl Browder's 1936 strategy as CPUSA candidate for president.

It was clear in 2004, despite the weakness of Kerry's candidacy and the capture of the mainstream of the Democratic party by corporate interests, that there was a clear difference between the "globalist" faction that Kerry represented, and the war-mongering, "hegemonic" faction that Bush/Cheney represented.

Obviously, there is a clear difference between the Democrats and Republicans--between a Pelosi House and a Boehner House. But just how big of a difference is not clear to me. Obama has proven himself to be a consensus builder at all costs--failing to seize on the momentum, mandate and control of the House and Senate when he had the chance. Healthcare reform, in its darkest times, was championed by Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Steny Hoyer--Obama was not out in front on that issue. And, by attempting to alienate no one, Obama and the Democrats have alienated everyone: the Wall Street execs who have bankrolled their elections, and the labor unions that have turned out the vote to get them elected.

And while there may be a difference, no matter how small, how much will the current Democratic party be able to bend the arc of history in a different way--to set the United States and the globe on a different trajectory altogether--and not just tinker at the margins?

I'm amazed at the cynicism, and seeming stupidity, of the Democrats when I read articles like this. Do the strategists really think the problem is how to "excite" the base? Wouldn't "the base" be excited if the Democrats were doing more to help people now? You would think that the worst economy since the Great Depression would be a time for the Democratic party to shine--to show what they can deliver for working people. But, instead of doing, they're spending their time figuring out how to excite and inspire. Inspiring speeches got Obama to the White House, but only real, concrete action will keep him--and Democrats--in power.

So it was with some sense of vindication that I read Thomas Friedman's column, "Third Party Rising," this morning. He wrote:

"President Obama has not been a do-nothing failure. He has some real accomplishments... But there is another angle on the last two years: a president who won a sweeping political mandate, propelled by an energized youth movement and with control of both the House and the Senate — about as much power as any president could ever hope to muster in peacetime — was only able to pass an expansion of health care that is a suboptimal amalgam of tortured compromises that no one is certain will work or that we can afford (and doesn’t deal with the cost or quality problems), a limited stimulus that has not relieved unemployment or fixed our infrastructure, and a financial regulation bill that still needs to be interpreted by regulators because no one could agree on crucial provisions. Plus, Obama had to abandon an energy-climate bill altogether, and if the G.O.P. takes back the House, we may not have an energy bill until 2013."

I recently spoke with a colleague about my support for Nader in 2000 as I was venting my frustration with Obama and the Democrats. She cringed, and told me that Al Gore would have been President were in not for Nader in 2000. My friend argued that it was not just Florida, but other states that Nader cost Gore the electoral vote.

So I went back and looked at the results of the 2000 election. In most states where Nader's share of the vote was meaningful, one of the two major parties won by a sizeable margin--Nader did NOT cost Gore many electoral votes, even when he had a showing of more than 5%. (And that's assuming everyone who voted for him in New Hampshire would have automatically voted for Gore had Nader not run.)

But that's not the point, is it? What people are really saying when they criticize Nader's presidential run(s) is that he shouldn't have run because people, when given an option, might have chosen that option. Put another way: the stakes are too high to provide people with more choices because they might make the "wrong" choice. So, to ensure the "right" electoral outcome we must limit their options.

Sounds like the arguments made, in centuries-past, against direct election of the president and against universal suffrage.

Well, Pat, you were right

Just saw the new Amazon Kindle DX. It's an incremental improvement, at best. But perhaps the biggest innovation is its drop in price: to $379.00. This is, presumably, in response to the iPad's price, as Raffertyesque aptly observed several months back. (No, I can't link to his post about that because he told it to me in person. That's right, I hang out with Raffertyesque!)

Of course, the graphite color and improved contrast are also cool. But man, I like that price point. But, I also just got a Kindle. Hmm, come to think of it, the USB port on my Kindle has become a bit loose. Momentarily...

Confidence inspiring

This article from today's New York Times exposes just how pathetic and corrupt our Minerals Management Service is, and how cynical BP is.

My favorites: capping the well, and the "junk shot" (with golf balls) were both tried in 1979 on the Ixtoc I well in the Bay of Campeche, Mexico. How'd that work back then? Both failed. So why the hell did they try that again?

Oh, and BP had alerted regulators to the potential for this kind of blowout on the Deepwater Horizon. How would they deal with it? A "containment dome." Of course, MMS didn't require them to have such a dome on hand, just in case. It took 'em two-and-a-half weeks after the explosion to build and transport the containment dome.

Oh, and just for fun, the "spill response plan" that MMS approved mentioned how important protecting "walruses, seals and sea lions" would be. The catch. THERE ARE NO WALRUSES, SEALS AND SEA LIONS anywhere near the Deepwater Horizon.

If I were the Obama administration, I would not be taking responsibility for any of this, I would expose BP and the oil industry for the corrupting force they are on our political system and make the Deepwater Horizon a battle-cry for creating a new, green energy economy.

From this crisis can come change, but only if the administration seizes the opportunity and takes an unequivocal stand AGAINST the oil industry, for the fishermen, the gulf coast communities and a complete transformation into a renewable energy economy. This isn't about "energy independence," a battle-cry that got us into this mess, but for a green energy economy. Obama must make the connection between our dependence on fossil fuels, the corruption of our regulatory agencies and political system by oil companies, the devastation in the gulf and the deepening global environmental crisis.