Slinkys and Change

First, watch this awesome slo-mo of a slinky being dropped.

Because it takes time for the tension to be released on the bottom of the slinky, it remains ‘held up’ while the top of the slinky falls. More subtly, the torsion is released faster than the tension and reaches the bottom first, uncoiling and rotating the bottom surface before the tension is released and the bottom finally begins to fall.

Social change behaves in a similar way. When a critical mass of thought or behavior changes state from OK to not-OK, it releases the social tension holding that thought or behavior in place. A wavefront of change moves through society from the change-point group outward to those most closely associated and onward from them in an expanding sphere of influence. The group farthest from the change point – either physically, socially or ideologically – is the last group to change.

The subtle part is that some part of that change may move faster. An idea, subordinate to, but foundational of the larger change may move through society first, followed later by large scale behavioral or ideological change. Examples might include the idea that tobacco smoking is unhealthy moving through society as a precursor to a later change that smoking is socially unacceptable, followed even later by policies and ideological reinforcement to discourage it. Another example being that information about stagnation in economic performance and high unemployment might move through society as a precursor to change in economic policy or even entire economic systems.

In the slinky, the inertia of the spring impedes the release of tension, which is why the bottom of the spring doesn’t fall at the same instant as the top. In society, not only does it take time for information to propagate, and for a critical mass of people to change opinion, but there is the additional impedance of disinformation, the inertia of entrenched interests hiding or distorting critical information in order to protect their power and income.

Finally, there is one other effect which is fascinating. Because the top of the slinky is released first, it the first thing to be affected by the change in state, therefore is the first thing to experience the acceleration of gravity. As a result, it actually outruns the tension-release propagating through the slinky, and reaches and passes the bottom of the slinky while it is still being held in place.

Again, this is mirrored in society. Those first to change have made large progress toward the new state of things before the last of the group has even begun to react. If they get far enough out front, they end up pulling the rest along even against their will. Revolutions can sweep through societies this way.

Historical Diversion: The Judge, His Bowie Knife, the Duel and the Femme Fatale

David Smith Terry was truly a man of his time and place – Texas and California in the early to mid-19th century. He possessed a large portion of the same intelligence, ambition, and physical courage which distinguished many of his contemporaries, as young men in tumultuous times. Alas, such qualities were offset by a pig-headed conviction of his own righteousness, a boiling-hot temper readily provoked to violence, and one more weakness, which would eventually prove fatal to David Smith Terry; he was all too ready to act on impulse without regard for consequence.
He was of a generation born into a relatively new country, with no memory of colonial rule by Britain, or the revolution itself, save perhaps for passed-down recollections of his maternal and paternal grandfathers, who had both fought in it with distinction. David S. Terry was the second of four sons of Clinton Terry and Sarah Smith Terry. The Terry marriage does not appear to have been a particularly successful one; they separated in 1835, when David Terry would have been about eight years old. Sarah Terry must have been a woman of spirit and determination, for she moved with her four sons to Texas in that same year, apparently hoping to retrieve some portion of respectability and income which had been lost through her husband’s mismanagement – mismanagement which must have been on a fairly epic scale to leave her in possession of their remaining property and custody of their sons. She and her sons established a plantation west of the present-day city of Houston, where they planted cotton and waited for prosperity to bless them once more. Instead, Sarah Terry died, shortly thereafter, leaving her sons – the oldest, Benjamin being fifteen, and David thirteen – essentially orphaned in the war and rebellion which followed.

David, large for his age and already impetuous, enlisted in Sam Houston’s army of Texans at Gonzales, following the fall of the Alamo. Reputedly, he fought at San Jacinto with considerable distinction. When Texas won a shaky independence by Houston’s victory, David S. Terry returned home to the cotton plantation – but not for long. He took up the study of law in the office of a relative by marriage, was admitted to the bar and practiced in Galveston for some years. He was described as a tall, handsome gentleman, solidly built, with steel-grey eyes under heavy brows, and sandy hair brushed back from a high forehead. He sported chin-whiskers but no mustache. Naturally rather reserved, he could be animated in conversation when the topic interested him, and very good company. He identified passionately as a man of Southern sympathies and as a Texan; to that end, he usually carried a sheathed hunting knife of the design made popular by Jim Bowie.

Read more

Hillary Will Not Be Elected

I’m going to predict Hillary Clinton will not be elected. I believe the majority of Americans are fed up with the lack of economic growth, high unemployment, increasingly bad race relations, politically driven riots, politically driven campus unrest, and an increasingly chaotic international situation. They’re going to vote for a change of government.

The real question is what to do when the GOP controls all three branches of the federal government. What should it do, in what order? Ted Cruz, for example, will immediately repeal what he considers all of Obama’s illegal executive orders. Nice. But of limited impact in the great scheme of things. What I’m concerned about are the fundamentals.

My list of fundamentals:
1. Replace the tax code with a lower, flat tax. Everyone pays at the same percentage.
2. Pass a balanced budget amendment. Include debt repayment in the budget.
3. Require all rules and regulations from any federal agency be approved by Congress. Require a cost-benefit analysis be included for each. Each regulatory agency and its existing rule set should be reviewed and scrubbed.
4. Pass welfare reform. Only the old and infirm should be on social benefits long term. Everyone else should be working and contributing to society. I would be open to CCC and WPA type programs to make the long term unemployed productive.
5. Repeal ObamaCare. Go to a market based healthcare and insurance system. Vastly reduce the legal hurdles and risks to providers. Include tort reform.
6. Repeal Common Core.
7. Review the costs and goals of every federal agency. Close every unnecessary agency. Start with the Dept of Education.

At the state level, I would like to see every Republican controlled governor-legislature team perform a full scale review of its school system: its administrative burden, its curriculum, its goals and its metrics. Consider voucher and competition systems to give parents a choice of schools and make schools compete for students.

People are ready for change. The future of the nation requires it. What good is attaining political power if it is not used?

Some Random Thoughts

Hillary Clinton, if elected president, would likely do for gender relations what Barack Obama has done for race relations.

Speaking of Hillary, anyone remember her response when the harmful impact of her proposed healthcare plan on small businesses was questioned?  Her response was: “I can’t be responsible for every undercapitalized small business in America.”

No one was asking her to “be responsible” for them, of course, only to refrain from wantonly devastating them.  Should Hillary become the Democratic nominee, Republicans need to ensure that this quote, and other similar ones, are brought to the attention of every small business owner in America.

There are a lot of small business that are run by women, and an effective attack on the Democratic hostility toward small business should help to reduce Hillary’s advantage among the female demographic.  Part of such attack should consist of hammering on the cultural factor–the truth is, Hillary feels contempt for you, Ms small businessperson–and part of it should consist of a very specific and tangible critique of particularly obnoxious regulatory and tax policies.  (I recently ran across a message board on which Etsy sellers, really micro-manufacturers, almost all female, were discussing the pain suffered while trying to comply with IRS inventory accounting rules.)

Marco Rubio’s comment statement that “we need more welders and less philosophers” was unfortunate.  His overall point is entirely correct–we need to stop stigmatizing vocational education and assuming that College is and should be the only path to a really good job–but he could have said it better.  (See discussion at Ricochet, led by an actual philosopher.)  Republicans need to be careful not to project contempt toward anyone who thinks of himself as an intellectual, in the way that Obama projected contempt for a wide swath of working people with his snide comment about “clinging to guns or religion”…which comment certainly cost him votes and would have cost him a lot more had Republicans been able to use it more effectively.

In that same debate, when the subject of whether large banks should be bailed out in crisis situations came up, neither Cruz nor Kasich mentioned the existence of the FDIC.  I don’t care about Kasich, but Cruz should have responded that ‘we have the FDIC to protect the vast majority of depositors–although we need to ensure that it is adequately funded by fees to the banks–so the real question about a bailout has to do with protecting the bank shareholders and bondholders–and no, we shouldn’t do that.’