Scott's views on politics are similar to his views on the environment. He thinks that if the effects these things have are not immediately visible to him in the short-term, they don't matter. He likes to think of himself as being apart from the system.
No, not really. It's mostly that in a representative form of government dominated by anti-intellectualism, there isn't anything significant to do, unless I make a career out of it. It's even worse living in a state like NY, where my vote barely matters as the winner is effectively pre-determined. I still vote, but other than that, it's just annoying.
National Politics in the US is more a form of entertainment now than anything. People following the elections are fundamentally no different than people following sports, American Idol, or whatever other thing you're into. People pick a team to root for, then they get caught up in the drama, despite the fact that they themselves have almost no effect on the outcome. The thing is, as a form of entertainment, politics is pretty depressing. Even with stupid American Idol, inane as it is, your vote will count for more, and it has an optimistic attitude.
At the very least if we had a proportionally representative parliament, I would care a little bit more. At least then if I were part of a fringe party with 5% of the vote we would have 5% of the seats.
In a world where politics was perfect and awesome, everyone would just spend their time doing what they really enjoy. Only the people who liked politics would bother paying attention to it. I realize that I am lucky enough to be in a situation where I have the ability to live my life as I please without worrying myself with political bs. I can just do my geekeries in peace. Rather than take that for granted, I'm going to savor it for as long as I can. I can only take so much bullshit before I'm left with no option other than to just give everyone the finger.
That democracy has a finite maximum number of participants after which you get diminishing returns?
We're not talking diminishing returns here, we're talking *negative* returns. Diminishing returns generally == some benefit from each additional person, though the amount decreases.
True, so I should have said "not just" instead of "not", but 1) In that case, it would have been diminishing all along, not just after the maximum 2) "Negative returns" more accurately describes what you were trying to get at.
I agree 110%. That's the only solution I've ever seen as being viable. Tear it down and start all over again.
One piece of evidence, minor as it is, is Digg. Digg functioned perfectly when a self-selected, generally aware, small number of dedicated people had control over the content. Once the masses joined in, it became flooded with useless garbage was completely ruined. This seems to happen with every instance of democracy on the Internet: I've never seen an Internet democracy succeed.
What does that say about our real democracy?
We have real democracy? We've ever had real democracy?
It's a great idea, but it was really only feasible back when the world was small. With so much information out there today, it's impossible to expect every citizen to be educated enough to make a decision about every pertinent issue.
It's a great idea, but it was really only feasible back when the world was small.
Well, it never really worked. In ancient times, only the wealthy and educated male land-owning citizens could vote. France's "true democracy" ended in untold bloodshed. America was more representative and less democratic back then.
It's a great idea, but it was really only feasible back when the world was small.
Well, it never really worked. In ancient times, only the wealthy and educated male land-owning citizens could vote. France's "true democracy" ended in untold bloodshed. America was more representative and less democratic back then.
Well, I only said it was "feasible," not that it actually ever happened.
1) In that case, it would have been diminishing all along, not just after the maximum
Not true. You could be approaching an inflection point in which the greatest cost/benefit opportunity could be achieved which would then lead towards a diminishing trend which would achieve a maximum critical point only after which you would achieve negative gains.
/Grasping at straws to make my quickly worded statement logically feasible.
That democracy has a finite maximum number of participants after which you get diminishing returns?
There are only a certain number of laws after which you get diminishing returns. Take the tax code, for instance, or the enormous amount of case law that makes actually knowing and obeying the federal, state and local laws impossible. There is no meeting of the minds. If lex rex were a contract, it would be voided because it's too complex for the parties to understand.
Hi American people, I thought I'd drop back in on this thread to ask if the reports I've been hearing about Obama selling out have been blown out of proportion and, if so, by how much?
1) In that case, it would have been diminishing all along, not just after the maximum
Not true. You could be approaching an inflection point in which the greatest cost/benefit opportunity could be achieved which would then lead towards a diminishing trend which would achieve a maximum critical point only after which you would achieve negative gains.
/Grasping at straws to make my quickly worded statement logically feasible.
Despite the grasping at straws, that might in fact accurately describe the true nature of such a system. Scott has a point about the English / literal sense that a negative return is a loss, though in a mathematical sense it's fine.
On the whole, the point is you chose a poor phrasing to begin with (i.e. my point #2).
Hi American people, I thought I'd drop back in on this thread to ask if the reports I've been hearing about Obama selling out have been blown out of proportion and, if so, by how much?
I would not call it a sell out on Obama's part.
What I would say is that the American media's love affair with Obama may now end up doing him more harm than good. He's been put on such a high pedestal by the liberal pundits and talking heads that he will likely disappoint no matter how well he does if elected.
Many in the American media act as if Obama is some sort of messianic figure. He's just another politician. He's driven by focus groups and PR folks. He's doing what he feels he needs to do to get elected. If you think that is selling out than you don't know much about American politics.
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) on Thursday backed off his firm promise to withdraw combat forces from Iraq immediately, and instead said he could “refine†his plan after his trip to Baghdad later this month.
Earlier, a top Obama adviser had said that the senator is not “wedded†to a specific timeline.
Obama told reporters in Fargo, N.D., that he is “going to do a thorough assessment."
"When I go to Iraq and I have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I'm sure I'll have more information and will continue to refine my policies," he said according to CBS News. “I have been consistent throughout this process that I believe the war in Iraq was a mistake.â€Â
Obama later said at a second news conference he still intends to withdraw troops if possible.
The original Obama plan, still on his Web site, promises: “Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.â€Â
In a separate six-page Iraq plan, he says in a section headed “All Combat Troops Redeployed by 2009â€Â: “The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to begin immediately to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year –now.â€Â
David Axelrod, Obama’s chief strategist, began backing off during remarks Wednesday on CNN’s “Situation Room,†telling guest host John Roberts that Obama has actually advocated “a phased withdrawal, with benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet, that called for strategic pauses, based on the progress on these benchmarks, and advice on the commanders on the ground.â€Â
What's next? First he began to modify his "no preconditions" on meeting with leaders of Iran and now this? Does he have any real plans or is he just winging it?
Even Thomas Merton from the dailykos is confused:
During the primary season when Obama was preferred by the vast majority of the Kossacks over HRC, it was due to the fact that somehow HRC was a continuation of the past when Obama was a clean break from the past. Now looking at the Obama's nimble position on Iraq willing to keep ("residual force for clearly defined missions" aka semi-permanent bases), 180 degree reversal on FISA, his embrace of AIPAC and Israeli hegemony in Middle East, his newest adventure in faith based initiave, this whole "move to the middle" dance has left me wondering, exactly what is it about Obama that is so radically different from Hillary Clinton who is by most account is a typical middle of the road, plain vanilla politician ??
I mean, if he is keeping the ("residual")troops in Iraq, wants to keep syping on people illegaly, will keep on appeasing the genocidial policies of Israel (and by default America's because let's face it, Israel is de-facto the 51st state of US and wouldn't dare taking a dump without its approval), will continue to blur the line between religion and politics in State affairs, really, what is it so different about this guy from a purely policy standpoint which Hillary wouldn't have delivered??
Does he have any real plans or is he just winging it?
Obama has a plan for all of us. Be ye of good cheer, for his works are mysterious and great.
Will this plan be revealed on two tablets that are dictated to him by a burning bush?
Here is a rather scathing piece on Obama's move to the middle: Memo to Obama: Moving to the Middle is for Losers. I'm sure this piece will have his move towards Hillary's Iraq policy added in later today.
Hi American people, I thought I'd drop back in on this thread to ask if the reports I've been hearing about Obama selling out have been blown out of proportion and, if so, by how much?
First, don't pay any attention to Steve, he's wrong on a regular basis and has proven with some regularity that he has no fucking clue what he's talking about. What Obama did was change from accepting only public funding to accepting private funding. This means he has access to far more money to campaign with than he would have normally. Additionally, a good chunk of the money is coming in small donations from citizens through his website and other venues.
The reason the republicans are flipping two kinds of shits about this is because now he has a metric fuck-ton more money than they do, and he's not backed by big oil, big telecom, or other hardly reputable organizations.
Some liberals/progressives and democrats are a little worried he'll become bought by lobbyists, but that doesn't seem to be the trend, nor does it seem like something he'd do based on his record so far.
Steve, a good ninety percent of the whiny little complaints you post about Obama are just so much bullshit.
You remind me of the misshapen little trolls capering about Aslan when he was tied to the Stone Table. You can whine and point to minor little flaws all you want, Obama is going to be the President.
Then if you criticize him you'll be a traitor (or at least that's been the standard for the last eight years).
Hi American people, I thought I'd drop back in on this thread to ask if the reports I've been hearing about Obama selling out have been blown out of proportion and, if so, by how much?
First, don't pay any attention to Steve, he's wrong on a regular basis and has proven with some regularity that he has no fucking clue what he's talking about. What Obama did was change from accepting only public funding to accepting private funding. This means he has access to far more money to campaign with than he would have normally. Additionally, a good chunk of the money is coming in small donations from citizens through his website and other venues.
The reason the republicans are flipping two kinds of shits about this is because now he has a metric fuck-ton more money than they do, and he's not backed by big oil, big telecom, or other hardly reputable organizations.
Some liberals/progressives and democrats are a little worried he'll become bought by lobbyists, but that doesn't seem to be the trend, nor does it seem like something he'd do based on his record so far.
Because papers like the Washington Post are just so conservative...
Sen. Barack Obama reversed his pledge to seek public financing in the general election yesterday, a move that drew criticism from adversaries and allies alike but could provide him with a significant spending advantage over Republican rival John McCain.
..........
"John McCain's campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs," Obama said in his message to supporters yesterday. "And we've already seen that he's not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations."
To date, no conservative 527 groups have materialized. But Obama portrayed his call as a preemptive strike.
"From the very beginning of this campaign, I have asked my supporters to avoid that kind of unregulated activity and join us in building a new kind of politics -- and you have," Obama said. ". . . I'm asking you to try to do something that's never been done before."
Essentially Obama is going with what is best for him. He's changing positions all over the place now that the primaries are over. A lot of his supporters in the media are scratching their heads over this guy. He's taking positions that Hillary took in the primaries that got her ridiculed by the left.
There was a great one in the paper yesterday where Obama was distancing himself from one more personal friend; his primary self. If the strip was online I would have linked to it.
And, since I'm not against kicking people when they're down, here's alonger listof McCain's wishy-washy flip-floping.
//Doublesuck it.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: "I'm not a McCain supporter". You can post all the anti-McCain links you want. The "everyone else is doing it" defense does not work. It did not work with your parents when you were a kid and it does not work here.
If you can not defend the actions of your preferred candidate than just admit it.
Are you saying that Obama is the equivalent of McCain?
Did you notice that I linked to the left wing bloggers in the above post? People who are on the Obama side are scratching their heads over what he is doing. Unless you think the dailykos is now a conservative site... The only Absolute Bullshit here is your inability to defend Obama's policy changes since the primaries ended.
I'm thinking that Steve might be very happy in a little cell in Guantanamo. Let's all save the crap he's written against Obama so we can show Homeland Security in January '09.
I'm thinking that Steve might be very happy in a little cell in Guantanamo. Let's all save the crap he's written against Obama so we can show Homeland Security in January '09.
GITMO will likely be closed by then. Those pesky SCOTUS guys ruined it for everyone.
I'm thinking that Steve might be very happy in a little cell in Guantanamo. Let's all save the crap he's written against Obama so we can show Homeland Security in January '09.
GITMO will likely be closed by then.Those pesky SCOTUS guys ruined it for everyone.
And, since I'm not against kicking people when they're down, here's alonger listof McCain's wishy-washy flip-floping.
//Doublesuck it.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: "I'm not a McCain supporter". You can post all the anti-McCain links you want. The "everyone else is doing it" defense does not work. It did not work with your parents when you were a kid and it does not work here.
If you can not defend the actions of your preferred candidate than just admit it.
Are you saying that Obama is the equivalent of McCain?
Did you notice that I linked to the left wing bloggers in the above post? People who are on the Obama side are scratching their heads over what he is doing. Unless you think the dailykos is now a conservative site... The only Absolute Bullshit here is your inability to defend Obama's policy changes since the primaries ended.
Alright, fine, so you don't support McCain, whatever. You're still insisting that Obama is "changing positions all over the place" when he changed his stance on ONE thing AND gave a pretty valid explanation of WHY. So, in order to put a nail in this argument's coffin, here are citations of all the things Republicans "flipped" (or outright lied) about for your perusal:
Comments
National Politics in the US is more a form of entertainment now than anything. People following the elections are fundamentally no different than people following sports, American Idol, or whatever other thing you're into. People pick a team to root for, then they get caught up in the drama, despite the fact that they themselves have almost no effect on the outcome. The thing is, as a form of entertainment, politics is pretty depressing. Even with stupid American Idol, inane as it is, your vote will count for more, and it has an optimistic attitude.
At the very least if we had a proportionally representative parliament, I would care a little bit more. At least then if I were part of a fringe party with 5% of the vote we would have 5% of the seats.
In a world where politics was perfect and awesome, everyone would just spend their time doing what they really enjoy. Only the people who liked politics would bother paying attention to it. I realize that I am lucky enough to be in a situation where I have the ability to live my life as I please without worrying myself with political bs. I can just do my geekeries in peace. Rather than take that for granted, I'm going to savor it for as long as I can. I can only take so much bullshit before I'm left with no option other than to just give everyone the finger.
Diminishing returns generally == some benefit from each additional person, though the amount decreases.
1) In that case, it would have been diminishing all along, not just after the maximum
2) "Negative returns" more accurately describes what you were trying to get at.
It's a great idea, but it was really only feasible back when the world was small. With so much information out there today, it's impossible to expect every citizen to be educated enough to make a decision about every pertinent issue.
Would've been nice, though.
So what to replace it with? Does it even matter?
/Grasping at straws to make my quickly worded statement logically feasible.
On the whole, the point is you chose a poor phrasing to begin with (i.e. my point #2).
What I would say is that the American media's love affair with Obama may now end up doing him more harm than good. He's been put on such a high pedestal by the liberal pundits and talking heads that he will likely disappoint no matter how well he does if elected.
Many in the American media act as if Obama is some sort of messianic figure. He's just another politician. He's driven by focus groups and PR folks. He's doing what he feels he needs to do to get elected. If you think that is selling out than you don't know much about American politics.
What's next? First he began to modify his "no preconditions" on meeting with leaders of Iran and now this? Does he have any real plans or is he just winging it?
Even Thomas Merton from the dailykos is confused: Obama & Hillary-The Difference
Here is a rather scathing piece on Obama's move to the middle: Memo to Obama: Moving to the Middle is for Losers. I'm sure this piece will have his move towards Hillary's Iraq policy added in later today.
The reason the republicans are flipping two kinds of shits about this is because now he has a metric fuck-ton more money than they do, and he's not backed by big oil, big telecom, or other hardly reputable organizations.
Some liberals/progressives and democrats are a little worried he'll become bought by lobbyists, but that doesn't seem to be the trend, nor does it seem like something he'd do based on his record so far.
You remind me of the misshapen little trolls capering about Aslan when he was tied to the Stone Table. You can whine and point to minor little flaws all you want, Obama is going to be the President.
Then if you criticize him you'll be a traitor (or at least that's been the standard for the last eight years).
Essentially Obama is going with what is best for him. He's changing positions all over the place now that the primaries are over. A lot of his supporters in the media are scratching their heads over this guy. He's taking positions that Hillary took in the primaries that got her ridiculed by the left.
There was a great one in the paper yesterday where Obama was distancing himself from one more personal friend; his primary self. If the strip was online I would have linked to it.
EDIT: In conclusion, A short list of things McCain has "flipped" on, some in the past year.
Suck it.
//Double suck it.
If you can not defend the actions of your preferred candidate than just admit it.
Are you saying that Obama is the equivalent of McCain?
Did you notice that I linked to the left wing bloggers in the above post? People who are on the Obama side are scratching their heads over what he is doing. Unless you think the dailykos is now a conservative site... The only Absolute Bullshit here is your inability to defend Obama's policy changes since the primaries ended.
Bush flips like a pancake.
Flippin on health care.
Big huge Bush list.
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST.
Oh, and McCain is breaking the rules of his own goddamned act.
///Slam dunk suck it.