rigorousintuition.ca

Posted: **Fri Sep 21, 2012 7:50 am**

My Obiebot friends are good algebraists. They can understand equations. For example:

(10,000 / 10,000) * (1,000/1,000) * (100/100) * (10/10) ... * (0.0001/0.00001) = 10

See? Obama is ten times better than Romney!

For those whose eyes -- like mine -- tend to glaze over at sight of an equation, no matter how trivial, let me rephrase this a different way.

Lesser-evil reasoning consists essentially in discounting all the ways in which the candidates are indistinguishable, and focusing on whatever apparent or real differences there are. So the fact that (for example) they're both mass murderers, actual or aspiring, cancels out; it appears in both the numerator and denominator. Well, onto the next thing. They're both big advocates of the police state, and education 'reform', and Israel, and immiseration -- cancels out. But aha! One of them has kinder words for the uterus than the other! Well then, there's your 0.0001/0.00001 ! A tenfold difference! And since there are no other differences, well, there's your decision made for you. Register and vote, contribute and post enthusiastic dribble on your Facebook page. It's simple algebra.

As logic goes, this is flawless. It only becomes absurd at a certain level of scale. If Ted Bundy were the Demolican candidate, and John Wayne Gacy the Republicrat... Well, a Gacy administration would certainly be better for women. But at that point, most people would throw up their hands and say 'who gives a shit?'

Please note however that even in the Gacy/Bundy case, the lesser-evil logic is still ironclad and irrefutable. There's always a lesser evil, and with instruments of sufficient refinement, capable of measuring out to enough decimal places, you can always find it.

So the interesting question for me is this: at what point in the process do people stop doing nano-arithmetic? How many decimal places is too many?

I am of course quite encouraged by the fact that for a substantial number of Americans, this point was reached a long time ago. I wonder why so few of my friends are among their number, however.

http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org/2012/ ... c_eye.html

Posted: **Fri Sep 21, 2012 10:12 am**

In all honesty, if Obama could actually change anything, 'they' would'a killed him.

--------------------------------------------
"The Enigma Of David's Toe" by Vincent Cannata
http://www.amazon.com/The-Enigma-Dav...d_rhf_gw_p_t_2

"A wild ride of conspiracy theories, reincarnation, and occult weirdness..... you know, a comedy."

Posted: **Fri Sep 21, 2012 2:47 pm**

vince wrote:In all honesty, if Obama could actually change anything, 'they' would'a killed him.

And he never even would have made it to the Senate.

Posted: **Fri Sep 21, 2012 2:48 pm**

Hammer of Los wrote:...

How about the likes of John Bolton starting up wwIII?

Whaddya think?

Don't that scare ya?

...

No. Because that's what they want you to think. They want you to be scared of this idea.

Ever watch a bullfight?

There's the matador, the red cape, and the bull.

The red cape is the media and these very IDEAS that fuck with your head and scare you.

You are the bull.

Posted: **Fri Sep 21, 2012 3:04 pm**

I am reading/lurking but won't post as i am a known 'vote supressor', so I issued a self imposed gag order.
Enjoying/amused by all you other not voters or supressors.

Posted: **Fri Sep 21, 2012 3:08 pm**

Nordic wrote:
vince wrote:In all honesty, if Obama could actually change anything, 'they' would'a killed him.

And he never even would have made it to the Senate.

I guess I lied...which should not surprise anyone as a typical non voter who wants a Romney win by default (is this fucking DU?!)

New Senators get mentors. His was Liebermann. That right fucking there should have been the tell, but I dismissed that. There's a pattern now, nay, a damned rut of well worn actions.

Posted: **Fri Sep 21, 2012 4:09 pm**

I too am sincerely enjoying the back and forth, thanks to all.

My favorite part of the presidential election is where I don't vote and don't care, but I'm gonna throw this in here. I've predicted the last two elections using astrology. The 2008 one was pretty funny, as I looked into it just for kicks when Hillary was the fave. My conclusion, as I scratched my head, was "it's not going to be a woman". I know, I'm kinda slow and not very politically aware. Anyhoo, I predict re-election of Mr O and find it all entertaining, can hardly wait for the debates.

Posted: **Fri Sep 21, 2012 4:20 pm**

It just occured to me that I might offeer something of substance in the election/voting farce.
I SUPPORT ALAN GRAYSON! Elizabeth Warren too.
I did support Fiengold too.
But Grayson and Warren need to win, dammit.

O by a landslide. I'd read that Dr. V here thinks a Romney win. I didn't ask why so, but it seems highly unlikely. This is all a show to get you involved and 'occupied'. You know the drill, and I say nothing new.

Posted: **Fri Sep 21, 2012 4:28 pm**

.

I might vote for gary Johnson, on the single issue of ending the war on drugs. Also he claims he would withdraw from Afghanistan, but personally I don't see that happening.

Posted: **Fri Sep 21, 2012 4:46 pm**

beeline wrote:Also he claims he would withdraw from Afghanistan, but personally I don't see that happening.

Yeah, Rolling Stone got the only guy who could have done that fired.

Posted: **Fri Sep 21, 2012 5:32 pm**

I will say that one of the positive emotions coming out of Shale Gas Outrage yesterday was that I feel that I'm starting to be swayed away from my imaginary write-in campaign towards voting for Jill Stein. I like her.

Shale Gas Outrage, on Broad Street, in front of Governor Corbett's campaign office:

Posted: **Fri Sep 21, 2012 7:23 pm**

2012 Countdown wrote:It just occured to me that I might offeer something of substance in the election/voting farce.
I SUPPORT ALAN GRAYSON! Elizabeth Warren too.
I did support Fiengold too.
But Grayson and Warren need to win, dammit.

Good point on local and state elections. The makeup of Congress is probably much more important that which jerk is president. The House is supposed to be the real instrument of popular sentiment; they're not leaders as much as they're representatives---of us, ideally. And at the practical level, more and better 'change' is likely through a truly representative Congress.

So do vote in local & state elections. Your local dog catcher might next be elected mayor, then use that as a stepping stone to governor or senator and so on. That's where most big-time elected officials start. I don't think I could stand actually getting involved with the Democrat party to promote better local candidates, but whatever grassroots tools remain shouldn't be left to wither.

Nordic, maybe you should run for a House seat. I'm serious!

The more I think about Supreme Court appointments, the more I think that's the single best reason to cast a vote for Obama. One or two SCOTUS Justices can have a huge and lasting effect. From what I've read, freaking Clarence Thomas is actually leading the legal/Constitutional/philosophical thinking at the Supreme Court.

Posted: **Fri Sep 21, 2012 7:47 pm**

Does anyone believe it's possible to build parallel structures of representation and legitimate government?

Posted: **Fri Sep 21, 2012 9:25 pm**

Wombaticus Rex wrote:Does anyone believe it's possible to build parallel structures of representation and legitimate government?

I was just thinking that yesterday, after visiting an event to present a year-one report on the NYC participatory budgeting program, which is kind of a first step.

Of course it's possible. It's very unlikely to happen without a direct incentive (as in participatory budgeting). To motivate people such assemblies need to have an evident purpose beyond "we're not represented in this system so let's have a parallel structure that can exert pressure but isn't in charge of anything." They need to be in charge of something, even if it's trivial. (It can start with trivial and then you've got the people more organized than before, more becomes possible.)

Posted: **Fri Sep 21, 2012 10:52 pm**

Wombaticus Rex wrote:Does anyone believe it's possible to build parallel structures of representation and legitimate government?

Is that anything like what the largest corporations have done?---parallel structures of government?

If so, mimicking aspects of that would probably require organization and resources on their level.

Overlapping that, is my leaning toward the formation of non-profit, member-owned cooperatives for goods & services, especially those goods & services that are presently under too much corporate-commercial control. Cooperatives have a structure similar to profit-driven stockholder corporations, but serve different masters.

And while we're getting better products and services at lower prices, the widespread growth of cooperatives would almost certainly weaken the corporate Establishment.

I can't help think that cooperatives are a way to start to divorce ourselves from the corporate stranglehold on government and life in general.

It would take work and resources and a long-range view, but once people own---collectively in groups---their own grocery stores, their own banks, their own insurance companies cooperatives, their own medical clinics, their own local energy production and distribution and so on, I believe they'd object, strongly, if someone tried to take those away.

People so invested might start demanding a more representative government. The US federal government is supposed to be a cooperative, am I right? So maybe a parallel commercial structure would eventually obviate the need for a popular parallel government, as citizen-invested* economy fosters a truly cooperative government.

I've been rolling this stuff around in my head a few months now, so thanks for listening to me riffle on it, and of course I always want hear about how it might fit in with other schemes.

* By invested I don't mean just with money like a taxpayer or stockholder, but invested in helping the organization, taking active roles, electing board members, pride of ownership, independence and community---things the ruling system ostensibly includes but really doesn't.

...

Meanwhile, y'all... think long-range and vote the lesser of two evils so later on we get a less-evil SCOTUS.

edit: grrr typos, & footnote

rigorousintuition.ca

"The Lesser Of Two Evils"...Why, Obama Isn't That Bad!

Re: "The Lesser Of Two Evils"...Why, Obama Isn't That Bad!

Re: "The Lesser Of Two Evils"...Why, Obama Isn't That Bad!

Re: "The Lesser Of Two Evils"...Why, Obama Isn't That Bad!

Re: "The Lesser Of Two Evils"...Why, Obama Isn't That Bad!

Re: "The Lesser Of Two Evils"...Why, Obama Isn't That Bad!

Re: "The Lesser Of Two Evils"...Why, Obama Isn't That Bad!

Re: "The Lesser Of Two Evils"...Why, Obama Isn't That Bad!

Re: "The Lesser Of Two Evils"...Why, Obama Isn't That Bad!

Re: "The Lesser Of Two Evils"...Why, Obama Isn't That Bad!

Re: "The Lesser Of Two Evils"...Why, Obama Isn't That Bad!

Re: "The Lesser Of Two Evils"...Why, Obama Isn't That Bad!

Re: "The Lesser Of Two Evils"...Why, Obama Isn't That Bad!

Re: "The Lesser Of Two Evils"...Why, Obama Isn't That Bad!

Re: "The Lesser Of Two Evils"...Why, Obama Isn't That Bad!