TEMPORAL PAULI EXCLUSION PRINCIPLE...

     I wonder if the reason we've seen no evidence of time travel is because a variation on the Pauli Exclusion Principle would forbid it?

     The principle states, to the best of my understanding of it, that two identical fermions (things like electrons and quarks) cannot occupy the same quantum state. In other words, you can't have two electrons occupying the same point in space.

     It makes me wonder (with no ability to prove it of course...what do I look like, a mathematical genius?) if the same concept applies temporally. In other words, the same particle from different times (effectively two particles now, but still otherwise identical, from this point of view) not being able to occupy identical moments.
     From a 4th dimensional (time) point of view, the particles you're comprised of would look not like points, but lines stretching from their creation to their annihilation. I'm thinking time-travel would force those lines to intersect, effectively overlapping moments. If two of the same kind of particles in the same moment cannot occupy the same volume, then perhaps two identical particles from different times cannot occupy the same moment.

     I'm repeating myself. I know. I'm just struggling with a way to describe what I'm thinking so that it's consistent.

     Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. All energy (of which matter is) has been with us since the beginning of time and will continue until its end (should that ever come) so just because you have not always existed does not mean the electrons and quarks (represented as protons and neutrons) have not always existed. And they will continue to exist long after you no longer have a need for them.
     You can't go back (or forward) because it would require your fermions to occupy the same moment and that's just not allowed...

    Maybe that's why. I don't know. I was bored at work...

CELLULAR MARGINALIZATION...

     I've finally pinpointed the time when I first felt decoupled from the world as though no longer a part of it: cellphones. I think cellphones represent a sea change in our culture not so much because of what they are, but what they have enabled. They started proliferating in 1999 and by the advent of smartphones capable of accessing the internet, the change was too far along for me to feel like I could ever be a part of the world again.

     I feel marginalized by them. It's in my nature (or at least I'm well disciplined) to be patient and to delay gratification. I can't imagine answering an unexpected cellphone call nor can I imagine myself responding to a text in public and especially if I'm around friends and/or gathered with family. I thought such behavior was considered rude. Now, it's whatever and I'm the weirdo for sticking to that and now I'm the asshole if I get mad when I'm interrupted because someone couldn't wait to respond to a text.

     When I make plans or agree to the plans of another, I stick to them and budget my time accordingly in order to show up on time and at the agreed-upon place. But if I get mad when plans are changed last minute or when people text to say they're going to be late, again...I'm the asshole. I don't understand when the world became so fly by the seat of one's pants. I don't understand how or why planning has come to be seen as obsolete; how it is in any way more virtuous to alter plans via constant updates, punishing those who would keep them. But now it's considered a punishment to hold others to plans. I don't get it...God forbid we do what we said we were going to do.

     Smartphones have added another element to my feelings of obsolescence. Now the idea of waiting until later to do something has been almost completely taken off the table and for some reason this is celebrated.

     And I say all this as a coward. One would think I would welcome texting over conversation; that I would welcome distractions to avoid interacting with groups of people; that I would welcome popping in earbuds to block out the public world around me...but I don't.
     I don't actually carry my cellphone with me when I leave my apartment (unless I'm going someplace I've never been before since payphones are no longer a thing). Why should I? Growing up, the telephone hung on a wall. Later they became somewhat portable but they were still tied to the home. I've spent more than half my life being comfortable being out of contact and perhaps more so, EXPECTING to be out of contact when I've left my home to run an errand. When people learn of this, they act as if I am mad. And it's not the kids who act that, but the adults. Those same adults who, like me, did not have cellphones growing up.
     I don't listen to music when I'm walking. Not having a car, I'm a professional pedestrian - if such a thing may be said. I know the value of being aware of environmental sounds for my own safety but even outside that. If I'm walking in a park or sightseeing, I don't want to be shut out from it. I don't see the point of going outside to listen to music. It's like people today are afraid of silence and I don't know where that fear came from. In some ways I can understand women doing so...men are proven assholes so providing a visual cue of "Don't talk to me" may have actually proven liberating for women. I wouldn't be surprised if their mp3 players aren't actually on: that it's all an act because men just don't know how to keep to themselves in public.
     I don't like texting. And again, this comes from a coward who avoids talking to people at practically all costs. However, despite that, I feel if I do want to talk to someone that...I should talk to that someone; that even if it's all subconsciously processed, body language and tone of voice is important when getting to know someone. I don't want to hide or avoid that obligation when it comes about.
     I don't mind being bored. I feel no terror when bored yet I swear people do or that they feel boredom is bad for you somehow. I feel no need to fill every waking moment with an activity nor do I feel compelled to respond to texts and phone calls immediately. I'm not a doctor, EMT, police officer, volunteer fireman, etc. whose services may be required at a moment's notice. Whatever it is, it can wait. Good news can wait. Bad news can wait too. And bullshit...bullshit can DEFINITELY wait until later. And if it's really bad news, well...bad news has a way of finding you. Because of that, I feel no need to even look at my phone when out and about.

     When I go out, I'm going out. When I go out with friends, I'm going out to see those friends. When I'm seeing family, I'm there to see my family. I don't think it's wrong to be busy. Likewise, I don't think it's wrong to expect other people to be busy when they're out with their friends too. Phones used to have busy signals. I miss those. Now that I think about it, the introduction of call waiting was a harbinger of things to come. I would never answer call waiting. Why? Because I'm talking to you now. I don't see how it's good psychologically to tell your friend that you have other things you'd rather be doing than talking to them...
     How ironic that putting my friends first while I'm with them in person and believing that others should do the same would make me the impolite one. Sorry that I don't feel it an appropriate time to look at who's texted me...

     But that's not how the world works anymore. I can lament it. I can wish it weren't so or that it would go back to the way it was...but that won't happen. Regardless of whether my positions are better or saner is irrelevant because they're obsolete. I'm obsolete. I don't foresee me ever fitting in with this brave new world of what I perceive to be rudeness, impulsiveness, and impatience. I just fade. For all the good cellphones can and do do, the shitty behaviors they've liberated from their users are alien to me. It's not something I can ever in good faith join.
     I'm not saying I don't ever feel the temptation nor do I wish to imply that I myself have never engaged in such behaviors. Besides, one doesn't need a cellphone to be rude and I've been rude in my day. I wasted many weekends playing videogames, listening to music, and watching TV shows nonstop (sometimes just to watch something...anything. I wasn't even all that into a lot of shows I watched as a kid) when maybe my Mom or Dad would have rather me spent some time with them. Looking back on it, I'm not proud. I could've been...should've been...a better son. The point is, I'm certainly not innocent. Maybe it's just all too new so a culture and its associated rules haven't been established yet. Maybe in the coming decades, I'll feel a part of this world again as people temper their behavior in light of what these machines are capable of doing to us. But I don't know, the drug of now is most addicting.

     Even television's not the same. VCRs in a way started it, but their capacity was limited so the idea of binge-watching an entire season wasn't exactly a thing. VCRs allowed a person who would otherwise be left out join in the conversation. Television used to be a cultural thing. Sure, there were repeats in the Summer but otherwise you had to watch the show when it aired or risk being left out. There were no high-capacity DVRs or on-demand online video feeds.
     It's more minor than the points above but it's still a thing now that you can't expect the people you're talking to to have seen a show's episode the day it aired...or even at all. Cable's proliferation has fragmented audiences to a considerable degree. It's not all bad but at times I think there are too many channels...too many options. The old cable boxes used to only have 36 channels and the first 12 were broadcast and local access leaving you with 24 cable channels and HBO.
     It's all so alienating...

     My world is gone...or at least, the world I understood is. It's ironic that I should feel so disconnected when the people of this world have never been more connected to each other.

THE SECRET TO PERFECT POPCORN (who knew there actually was one?)

     Years ago I gave up microwave popcorn, not because of some bullshit health concern but because companies like Orville Redenbacher, Pop Secret, and Act II shrank the size of their packages. Microwaves have preset popcorn settings designed for 3½ oz. bags. Yes, I could take the time to figure out the time difference but I'm lazy and absolutely HATE when companies shrink product sizes to raise prices rather than hold the size and be honest that inflation is an insidious thing eating away at the value of everyone's dollar like the tax on the poor it is.

Don't think I forgot about you, supposed-to-be-half-gallon-sized ice-cream

You used to be 1 lb. bags when I was young before becoming 14.8 oz., 12.6 oz., and now 11.4 oz.

 Bastards...

      So I went back to making popcorn in a pot over the stove. The thing is, no matter what I did, the kernels always came out chewy. They could never match the awesomeness of microwave popcorn. Just what does that electromagnetic radiation do to those kernels that makes them come out so fluffy and crunchy anyway*?

     It made eating popcorn a decidedly less satisfactory experience. I tried looking online for solutions. Nothing worked. Whether I kept the lid closed or slightly ajar...chewy. Whether I heated the pot first and then added the kernel or heated the pot and kernels simultaneously...chewy. The solution continued to elude me until one day I noticed the bag of popcorn seeds actually had cooking instructions on them. Here I thought making popcorn was about as simple as making cereal, who the heck would need instructions?

     Curious, I read them. Unlike the Orville Redenbacher seeds, the store-brand variety had an extra step and this step has proven to be the secret that apparently no one else online has figured out when it comes to making perfect stovetop popcorn.

     Roasting.

     Yep, that's right...roasting. The instructions were as follows:

• STEP 1: Place a small amount of oil in the pot (a few tablespoons)
• STEP 2: Add a half-cup of popcorn seeds and cover.
• STEP 3: Over medium heat (not full blast!), heat the pot, shaking occasionally to distribute both the oil and seeds.
• STEP 4: When the first kernels start popping, remove the pot from heat to a cool burner (i.e. one that hasn't been used) and let the pot sit for a minute. Do not remove the lid (though you can add butter at this step if you wish)
• STEP 5: After a minute, return the pot (with the lid still on) to the original burner and continue heating over medium heat (again, not full blast)
• STEP 6: When the kernels begin popping, shake the pot to stir up and redistribute the remaining kernels. Popcorn is done, like with microwave popcorn, when it goes 1-2 seconds without another pop.
• STEP 7: Empty into a bag/bowl and enjoy.

     Step 4 was the secret. Who knew? Sure, it takes a little longer to make, but it comes out fantastically. Leaving the lid ajar (to let steam escape) is unnecessary. Nope, it's letting these kernels stew in hot oil for a bit.

     So if your stovetop popcorn's been lackluster, give it shot like I've outlined above. I'm going to make some right after I post!**

_________________________________________________________________________

* Now I wonder if microwave popcorn has been pre-roasted...

** Yes, I'm secretly hoping this post becomes popular...

WHY IS SUPERMAN IMMORTAL?

     I don't know why Superman doesn't age. I've seen comics in which he survives thousands, if not millions of years, into the future. For the sake of the story, I can accept the the light of our yellow sun bestows Superman with his immense powers but I don't see why he shouldn't still be subject to aging.
     On top of that, Superman seems like a dated character. He makes sense in the 1930s-1950s but I have a harder time seeing him remain relevant later on. His methods seem tailor-made for a time when people were looking for and needed big solutions. It was the Prohibition Era, the rise of organized crime, the Great Depression, World War II, the Cold War, etc. Around the world, it was the consequences of World War I and the rise of various fascist states. I have a difficult time imaging someone who's basically a living god dealing with problems like Civil Rights, Feminism, and Environmentalism.

     As for origin stories, Superman does have a convenient tie-in with actual world history.

     Superman was obviously not born of Earth despite looking every bit as much like a human. He was born on a planet named Krypton at a time when the world was doomed. Their sun, called Rao, was going to die spectacularly. As to why a mass evacuation was not planned or even attempted, I don't know. Personally I wouldn't want to venture into that question (even though the comics certainly have). I think it better to suggest a story rather than actually depict it in this case. As it has been said about art: to define is to kill. We don't need to know why Krypton and all its inhabitants were destroyed, just that it did and that Kal-El, the last son of Krypton, managed to escape that Holocaust and arrive to a good family on Earth.

     I figure, like the Thundercats, baby Kal-El was placed in a state of suspended animation for his long journey to Earth. How long the journey took should not be revealed. It could be anywhere from a few weeks to thousands of years. I figure Kryptonian technology must have been advanced but it's not important to know its details. I'm happy to go with the strange crystal ship we saw in the movies and its related crystal-based technology which we see working even though we don't know how it works.


     Something else I wonder...did the writers know of the gaseous element or, because everyone on the planet died, was it supposed to be a pun "Crypt + -on" and they changed the C to a K?

     As for when Superman arrives, however, that much can be said with certainty. In 1908 on June 30th over Siberia in near the Podkamennaya Tunguska River there was a massive explosion from an airburst made by a comet. While it left no crater it destroyed a large section of the forest in that area: over 750 square miles. It was only luck that this explosion did not occur over a very populated area. This seems to me as good a time as any to have Superman arrive on Earth.

Trees flattened by the Tunguska explosion. Imagine if we had better aircraft then so it could be photographed from high up?

     Superman's crystal ship would have landed in Smallville and the explosion over Tunguska would have actually been a fragment of Krypton itself laced with the mineral kryptonite. Since this was before the Great War, perhaps in a spirit of scientific cooperation, samples of this meteorite would be sent all over the world, including the United States which would allow Lex Luthor to come into contact with the mineral and successfully hypothesize its effects on Superman later in this story's timeline.
     I'm happy to have Smallville be located in Kansas, where it was in the iconic 1978 film, rather than have it be a mysterious Anytown, USA. It seems especially necessary for Superman to be "out of the public eye" in his formative years, raised and cared for by his adoptive family, the Kents, who are eternally grateful (and willing to keep his secret, even from Superman) for their literal gift from the heavens of a child whom they would christen Clark since they were incapable of conceiving on their own.

     I'm not going to speculate here how Clark grew up here but it's obviously incredibly important that it be done right. Other superheroes have to learn the message of "With great power comes great responsibility" and no one more represents this message more than Superman given what he, as a living god, is capable of doing. Fortunately for the world he found himself being raised by a wholesome Kansan family who taught him right from wrong, about justice and fairness, about believing in your fellow man, and about idealized American values. It's very "Aww, shucks!" but without it, Superman could easily have become a fanatical dictator (which I believe he does in "Red Son")

     I have no desire to see "the Adventures of Superboy". As far as I'm concerned, Superman did not set out to be a hero and had a regular childhood. I don't even know if I would want it revealed why he turned to superheroism either: as with Kryptonian culture and technology, it seems better left unsaid and implied. However, he should definitely come out wearing his trademark uniform on April 18, 1938 (when Action Comics number one was published) and declare himself to a curious public/press in June of that same year (that issue bore the date "June 1938" despite being published prior).

Dated June 1938; published April 18th

     I think the newest movie suggested it took some time for Superman to gain his powers under our yellow sun so perhaps Clark Kent was effectively "just a man" until at least puberty and afterward, as his powers started manifesting, Ma and Pa Kent's teachings would take on an especially heavy importance. I think of the exchange from the movie spoken by Pa Kent:

     The Superman story in my version also benefits starting in 1908. It was easier to hide back then and start fresh. There was no Social Security administration. The Kents, especially if they moved, could probably get away with claiming Clark to be their own child and if not, I'm sure no one would demand proof of adoption back then.
     Clark would be nine years old when the United States entered World War I: maybe he knew friends who lost their fathers to the war. He'd be adolescent during Prohibition: perhaps organized crime affected his life in some way. He'd be 25 when Hitler came to power and when the Great Depression hit the hardest: did the Kents lose their farm? How did Smallville handle the despair? I don't know how Superman would have handled World War II though that war did scream out for heavy-handed solutions. Does he stay out of it? Does something force his hand? World history is already changed by his mere presence but how far does it go? Were the Kents progressive folk or did Superman carry with him attitudes that may have kept him from being concerned about the rights of black people and the plight of Jews in Europe?
     When does Lex Luthor enter the scene? Maybe for the sake of the movie, Luthor gets his start in real estate schemes before the war but as a soldier in the war, he is the only one depicted showing concern, even horror, that Superman ended it so quickly and decisively in favor of the Allies. As was already stated in some of the comics, Luthor sees in Superman potential menace rather than blindly accepting him as an American hero like the rest of the public. His role was to take on the thankless task of stopping a god, or at the very minimum, containing him, before Superman realizes humanity is virtually incapable of stopping him (Superman) from doing what he damn well pleases.

Does Superman steal Capt. America's thunder and punch out Hitler himself?

     Going by my timeline, Clark Kent would be 30 years old when he debuts as Superman and about 70 years old when he dies on December 10, 1978 (the date when "Superman: The Movie" first premiered) giving about a forty year run.
     As for what causes Superman's death, which I'm assuming will have an air of heroism to it rather than simply the fading of a light, I don't care to speculate (although the Khmer Rouge was in power, actively genociding the Cambodian population at the time). However, I figure his end would be something like that of Avatar Wan, the very first Avatar from the Last Airbender universe in which Superman laments that he was unable to make the world a better place because there's still crime, corruption, war, and supervillainy. There simply wasn't enough time...

[With his eyes closed.] I'm sorry, Raava. I failed to bring peace. Even with Vaatu locked away, darkness still surrounds humanity. [Opens his eyes.] There wasn't enough time...

     However, in his death, he becomes an inspiration for many other heroes. So, in a sense, like Avatar Wan, his spirit remains on Earth and continues to do good in the face of the entropy of evil.
     The first of such heroes would be Batman whose comic debuted in 1939. Batman could have declared himself, a year after Superman did, in response to what he was seeing in Metropolis. Knowing that Superman could not be everywhere at once and still deeply affected by the loss of his parents to crime in Gotham City, Batman would be the first "copycat" hero even if his methods would not necessarily gain the approval of Superman.

     I could go on, but I think I've already said enough...

[On a side note, I don't see Batman as a modern hero either. He feels dated as well, like he would benefit from a time with less invasive technology. I imagine the internet would be as much a bane to Batman's secret identity and staying at least one step ahead of both criminals and law enforcement as would the loss of telephone booths and omnipresent security cameras be to frustrating Superman's quick costume changes and desire for anonymity]

50% OBSOLETE...

     When I was younger I could never understand why anyone would want to die. Life is beyond cool. There's always something new and amazing to discover about it no matter how small or large a life you live. Existence has much to offer anywhere from the human scale all the way down to elementary particles and all the up to vast superclusters of galaxies. It's practically impossible to be bored and even when you are, boredom can prove to be a wellspring of creativity allowing for even greater enjoyment of life. So why would anyone want to leave it behind?

     And to be clear for a moment, I'm not talking about obvious kinds of suffering like cancer or neverending pain; no, I'm talking about how when people get old that they eventually come to terms with their mortality and even embrace it with a smile. How does that happen?

     Personally, I suspect obsolescence...

     I feel like I've crossed sometime in the past few years a critical point in one's life: the 50/50 point. I feel slightly more than 50% obsolete; like I'm no longer on the "winning" side.

     It makes me think of senior citizens, especially those who have made it to an advanced age. Think of how different their world is from when they were young in terms of technology, culture, their place in the world, etc. It must be tough and psychologically draining over time to endure. I think of the theme song to All in the Family. It's pretty much an ode to a lost way of life and though that way of life was clearly better for some (read: straight white male) folks than for others, it captures that feeling of the past is gone and we, the current generation, will never be relevant again.

     It's not necessarily the end of the world...just the end of your world. Things need to change if they are to both survive and improve. It's the very mantra of evolution: adapt or die. In a sense that's what's going on psychologically. Society is constantly changing and you have to either adapt to its changes or become irrelevant.

     The thing is...adapting is stressful. I suppose it's easier to do when one is young and still figuring shit out but I've found over the years that I'd like to enjoy the fruits of my labor but life insists upon going on. It'd be nice if technology could maybe slow its progress for a little while that we might enjoy and master the changes wrought but the next version/update is always around the corner.
     Culturally it'd be nice if things were still like they were in the 1990's. Things felt more understandable then. The younger generation's ways are definitely not my own. It'd be wrong to begrudge the advances made in women's and gay rights but I will admit it's frustrating to have to adapt a language I've been using most my life...which is a stupid criticism, yes. It demands defensive posturing when being told how your way of thinking reflects a life led in Easy Mode (aka: privilege) and that the power I never knew I had needed to be shared. Our fellow citizens deserve their rights, yes. But still annoying, though...and strange to think one's been wrong all this time.
     It's not like mine's the only paradigm shift.

     But I feel increasingly obsolete and that obsolescence is slowly taking its toll. I'm sure I have a long way to go; decades, no doubt. Yet I feel as time marches on, I will feel increasingly comfortable letting go of my hold on this world because it will simply take too much to keep fighting it to maintain my sense of normalcy.
     Maybe that's why I dream I'm the villain in any daydream involving the supernatural. Using my power to hold the world to my will rather than accepting it. I always identify with the villain who wants to know how the story ends or wants things to be the way they used to be or put some drag on the pace of change or to otherwise preserve what's been.

    It's weird to think that when my time has come, provided I'm not to be taken prematurely, that I will actually be willing to go; be willing to lay down the burden of living and have it carried by the next generation. It still sounds so far-fetched but surely it will happen, no?

    Weird...

THE DATING GAME, part something or other

     If a successful date is defined as "getting subsequent dates" then I've had three successful dates in my life. Those three successful dates have had two things in common.

     The first was that every first date I've had which ended with the girl kissing me of her own free will (no leaning in or other kind of pressuring on my part) resulted in a second date. It seems late in the game to be learning this lesson but from now on if I have a first date which does not end with me getting a kiss, I'm never talking to that girl again. That's one notch higher for my personal confidence...at 36.

     The second, and certainly less important but still curious, thing my successful first dates have all had in common is the girl has been 29 regardless of my age at the time. I'm not reading too deeply into that however...

     Unfortunately only two of those successful dates featured girls whose names were that of '80s songs. That would've been a great coincidence to keep going. I suppose there's still time enough yet for me to successfully meet a Rosanna, Jenny, Sara, Carrie, Joanna, Amanda, Gloria, Sherrie, Luka, and even a Billie Jean... ;-)

REMOVE HAMILTON FROM THE $10 BILL ALREADY!

     Recently, Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew mentioned modifying the $10 bill to feature a woman instead of Alexander Hamilton as it was next in line to be redesigned in 2020 though I do not believe he committed to totally ousting his portrait on the note...maybe it'll still be the watermark? I don't know. However this has been causing a minor uproar in various newspaper editorials on why Hamilton ought not be removed and it's the same provincial reasoning that has kept dead Presidents/elder statesmen on our coins since 1948.

     The rules for currency redesign are not codified in law to my knowledge but the Coinage Act of 1890 does specify that a design may be changed on a coin without the approval of Congress after 25 years and while this was done for a little while.
     Barber coinage replacing the long-lasting Seated Liberty coinage from 1892-1916 which in turn was replaced by a veritable renaissance of Liberty depictions covering a span of 1916-1947 which in turn was replaced, starting in 1909 or 1932 depending on how you look at it, with Presidents that have never been replaced. Only the Franklin half dollar yielded to John F. Kennedy in 1964 and that design has proven unremovable as well.
     In fact, the only President successfully replaced on a coin was Eisenhower whose dollar was made from 1971-1978. He was replaced by Susan B. Anthony in 1979 and she proved replaceable with the Sacagawea dollar starting in 2000. The key difference here though, the dollar coin barely circulates so no one's constituencies feel "threatened".

     Our currency, like our coins, was once colorful and imaginatively designed. The idea of a portrait of a famous American to act as a focal piece of the note began from its inception in 1861. They even featured Lincoln while he was still alive, something which cannot be done now.
     But also like our coins, starting in the 1920s, it became a goal to standardize our currency which up until that point had frequent redesigns and depicted a wide variety of portraiture such as Presidents, famous generals, Treasurers, notable Americans like Lewis and Clark, American Indians, and even allegorical depictions of Science, Liberty, America, and Industry.
     Additionally, by the late 1920s it was deemed necessary to save money on printing by reducing the size of bank notes to their present-day size. When these small-sized notes were introduced, the portrait line-up was frozen with $1 Washington, $2 Jefferson, $5 Lincoln, $10 Hamilton, $20 Jackson, $50 Grant, $100 Franklin, $500 McKinley, $1000 Cleveland, $5000 Madison, and $10000 Chase.

     These notes were introduced in 1929.

     1929!

     That's almost 90 years ago. There's probably less than a hundred people still alive with a living memory of anyone other than Hamilton appearing on the $10 bill and odds are that memory would be of Andrew Jackson who graced the 1914 series $10 Federal Reserve Note, 1918 series $10 Federal Reserve Bank Note, and 1923 series United States Note. Other current portraits on $10 bills at the time before the changeover were the first Treasurer of the United States, Michael Hillegas, graced the 1922 series $10 Gold Certificate and recently deceased Vice-President Thomas Hendricks appeared on the 1908 series $10 Silver Certificate. Assassinated President William McKinley graced the 1902 series $10 National Bank Notes.

     Money used to be a lot more than Federal Reserve Notes!

     I'm not saying I hate Alexander Hamilton, a man instrumental making this country what it is today, no. Though that is what people would imply of me but it's not the case. It's about sharing the spotlight with other notable Americans like was done previously. Replace all the current portraiture in fact, even Washington and Lincoln.
     You can't tell me there are no other men and women truly worthy of such commemoration. You can make a rule like they have to not only be dead but maybe dead for at least 50 years so as to allow perspective to develop. I don't know who Thomas Hendricks is. I seriously only learned looking up whose portrait graced the various $10 bills of yesteryear. He was commemorated too quickly one might presume. I would argue the same with Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, and Dwight Eisenhower on the dime (less than a year after his death), half-dollar (less than a year after his assassination), and dollar coin (about two years after his death) respectively.
     Change the vignettes on the reverses too.

     But the point is, 90 years is too long. If the Federal Reserve wants to redesign currency every 7-10 years to keep up with counterfeiters then why not introduce new portraiture and vignettes while we're at it?

     I feel like the US missed a great opportunity for a grand redesign of our coins and currency during the Bicentennial. We got a new reverse for the $2 bill (the old ones prior to the 1976 series featured Jefferson's mansion Monticello) and some reverse-modified quarters, halves, and dollar coins but that was it (and in the case of the latter, the design was produced only for 18 months with the previous designs resuming in 1977).
    We could have had currency vignettes depicting important/triumphant events in US history. The $2 bill led the way with the signing of the Declaration of Independence. We could have had things like the Surrender at Saratoga (which ended the Revolutionary War), the signing of the Constitution, an artist's rendering of the assault on Fort McHenry (where the Star Spangled Banner was written), Lincoln delivering the Gettysberg Address (or the surrender at Appomattox Courthouse which ended the Civil War), the flag-raising on Iwo Jima, and the Moon Landing among other possibilities.

     Who might have graced such notes? I don't know, but the point is...we should have tried. Same with our coins. All our money designs are tired and stale. Surely good art is not dead in this country. Surely we can do better...