Only if ‘none of the above’ winning leads to a new election

Should Voting Be Mandatory?
Voting is not optional in 23 countries. Here’s why the United States should become the 24th
http://ideas.time.com/2012/08/21/should-voting-be-mandatory/?iid=op-main-lede&hpt=hp_bn16

I am on record as saying it should be way more difficult to get the right to vote rather than anything else, but I could support the idea of a mandatory vote if they made it at least an order of magnitude easier to vote AND allowed for ‘none of the above’ to be a legitimate choice. Then, if none-of-the-above ‘wins’ an election, then the current candidates are discarded and a new ballot is produced. This could, of course, be immensely simplified by allowing all and sundry to add their names to the ballot (trivial if done via electronics instead of paper like today) and having an instant runoff.

But heck, nothing in our dysfunctional system is going to change for the better anyway, so why bother thinking about it? Of course, that attitude means ‘they’ have already won, but at some point a body just gets tired of endless shouting into a vacuum.

Been busy

Not much chance to blog today. Partly work has intruded but mostly my job search has intruded. When I had breaks from that I worked on a document trying to elucidate my idea for the greatest good for the greatest number.

Besides, politics is depressing today. Neither party has a plan for helping the middle class, their only focus is on getting into Wall Street’s fat wallets (or, rather, deeper into the wallets). The GOP is desperately trying to distance itself from one of its more obnoxious members (the whole Todd Akin matter) who made the Cardinal mistake of actually articulating one of their ideas in its most basic fashion. Not to worry, though, most of the people who will vote for Romney will be doing so because they hate Obama (and largely vice versa), so I would be quite shocked if Akin’s idiocy costs a single vote.

The _only_ future I see for our energy society is through biomass production, but the only feasible means of achieving the necessary scale is to produce the biomass in a greenhouse environment, something that very much drives the capital costs way up. Interestingly, even going with a very expensive greenhouse ($30/sqft) I can get more than a 10% (gross) ROI at $3.50 per gallon (all by spread sheet, of course). I can see this approach as extremely viable in just a few years when fuel prices finally stabilize at $5 per gallon. As such, there really won’t be any need to switch away from liquid fuels and there won’t be any need to invent better batteries, etc. No need, even, to posit the need for nuclear either. Kinda amazing, but then so was my calculations showing the planet could easily support a trillion people. Too bad I can’t do any of the research…

Microthruster

Lots of ‘stuff’ today…

Penny-sized “microthrusters” could propel tiny satellites
http://io9.com/5936197/penny+sized-microthrusters-could-propel-tiny-satellites

One of the reasons this is so cool to me is that it seems it can partake of the power of the parallel production of integrated circuits. That would mean that the price per unit could crater to the point where developing a ‘cubesat‘ becomes more economical (or, perhaps, less un- economical as in 2004 they cost an estimated $65,000–$80,000 to put into orbit). Oh well, something to tuck in the back of my mind for those off times when I can fantasize about space exploration…

This is pure research

A camera that can see around corners
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/19/opinion/raskar-camera-corners/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7

Yes, this is quite likely useless as it is, but the techniques developed to accomplish such a useless thing are likely to be very useful indeed. I recall reading about the light-speed photography before, but apparently didn’t blog on it. I recall thinking at the time that the value was quite limited, but I certainly didn’t see the potential of looking around corners or peering into bodies. I bet that was an interesting programming project to be involved in! Too bad all the cool stuff goes to graduate students instead of people like me.

Style over substance

Meet the inflatable, ‘invisible’ bike helmet
http://whatsnext.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/17/meet-the-inflatable-invisible-bike-helmet/?hpt=hp_c2

I am not totally sure that having my neck swathed in an explosive is an adequate return for not wearing a helmet, no matter how uncool I look. In any case, the form fitting cloths I wear are way more embarrassing on my fat body than any old helmet. I suppose if you entertained the idea of biking while wearing your haute couture you might not want to spoil the look with a helmet, but heck, why ride a bike then? You are going to get all sweaty and perhaps get your cloths caught in the chain!

Grab and release

I have been grabbed a number of times by articles today but by the time I set fingers to keyboard I have been released. Several times, after scrolling down to look at the comments (sometimes I learn some very interesting things there), I get so depressed from reading the crap spewed there I move on without even setting fingers to keyboard. So many articles I read today make it plain to me that intellect is dead here in the US. It was a long slow sickness, but knowing the end is coming doesn’t necessarily make the realization any easier.

On the way into work this morning I was all set to author a post to address DaWei’s comment about the greatest good for the greatest number, but that motivation ebbed away by the time I was actually in front of my computer. I hope to regain that motivation at some point as I think it is a worthy subject for clarification (but of course, likely no one will care except, perhaps, DaWei).

I have been on the point of deleting this post a couple of times as well. However, this time I am going to click ‘publish’, though I am probably not doing my reader(s) any favors by doing so.

Yes, Obama is evil…

Impunity at Home, Rendition Abroad
How two administrations and both parties made illegality the American way of life.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/08/impunity-rendition-abroad-torture-bush-obama

Proof, as if it were needed to any discerning reader, that Obama is evil AND his evil is recognized by liberals (can you get more liberal than Mother Jones?).

The reason why I ‘back’ Obama over Romney as the lesser of evils is because I fully expect Romney, were he to be elected, to continue the Bush/Cheney/Obama policies unabated. Therefore, in addition to continuing the executive shredding of the Constitution, Romney will ALSO destroy what is left of the middle class with even bigger gifts to the elite than Obama has given.

Things are definitely going to get worse (if they ever get better), and I view the Romney vs Obama choice is how fast to we get worse. I view Obama as less bad than Romney, meaning we get worse slower if Obama is elected.

Vote Obama: at least he gives you lube when he fucks you!

Terrorism: a term of propaganda

The sham “terrorism expert” industry
A highly ideological, jingoistic clique masquerades as objective scholars, all to justify US militarism
http://www.salon.com/2012/08/15/the_sham_terrorism_expert_industry/

Because this is a long post and I suspect many of my reader(s) won’t take the time to go through it, I chose to highlight a few passages I think are important. My take on the matter is that this meaningless word ‘terrorist’ is used to justify all sorts of illegal, immoral and unethical behavior by our citizens, legal system and government. It is important that people realize that anyone that uses this word is either ignorant or deliberately playing upon emotions with an agenda to promulgate…

…in the 1980s, Iraq was put on the U.S. list of Terror states when the U.S. disliked Saddam for being aligned with the Soviets; then Iraq was taken off when the U.S. wanted to arm Saddam to fight Iran; then they were put back on again when the U.S. wanted to attack Iraq. The same thing is happening now with the MEK: now that they’re a pro-U.S. and pro-Israel Terror group rather than a Saddam-allied one, they are magically no longer going to be deemed Terrorists. That is what Terrorism is: a term of propaganda, a means of justifying one’s own state violence — not some objective field of discipline in which one develops “expertise.”

Be very, VERY aware that anyone calling themselves a terror expert is a shill for the government helping to disseminate propaganda and focus the attention of the sheeple on an external threat so they are too stirred up to consider the threat of our own government against us…

…most self-proclaimed “terrorism experts” simply ignore the primary cause of the violence they claim to study: “most terrorism scholars, politicians and the media don’t seem to ‘know’ that terrorism is most often caused by military intervention overseas, and not religion, radicalization, insanity, ideology, poverty or such like” — even though “the Pentagon has known it for years.”

Why can’t the sheeple realize that if someone comes in and attacks you in your own space, responding in-kind is not terror, it is self defense? I guess that would require acknowledging that our own acts are indistinguishable from ‘terrorism’, which would force the sheeple to accept that our government actively acts against the best interest, not just of random defenseless people in other countries, but against its own citizens because some small fraction of those subject to US terror attacks will have (or develop) the means to retaliate.

In a book critiquing the “terrorism expert” field, Jackson argued that “most of what is accepted as well-founded ‘knowledge’ in terrorism studies is, in fact, highly debatable and unstable.” He therefore scorns almost four decades of so-called Terrorism scholarship as “based on a series of ‘virulent myths’, ‘half-truths’ and contested claims” that are plainly “biased towards Western state priorities.” To Jackson, terrorism is “a social fact rather than a brute fact” and “does not exist outside of the definitions and practices which seek to enclose it, including those of the terrorism studies field.” In sum, it means whatever the wielder of the term wants it to mean: something that cannot be the subject of legitimate “expertise.”

It is very sad to me that our country has grown so anti-science and anti-intellectual that these self-serving ideologues are not called out and run out of town tarred and feathered. Though I complain that elite forces have acted to keep the masses ignorant and idiotic, I am still upset because I expect humans to use their native intelligence to realize shit when they step in it and ignore the sweet talk of the elite convincing them it was something pleasant.

There is no term more potent in our political discourse and legal landscape than “Terrorism.” It shuts down every rational thought process and political debate the minute it is uttered. It justifies torture (we have to get information from the Terrorists); due-process-free-assassinations even of our own citizens (Obama has to kill the Terrorists); and rampant secrecy (the Government can’t disclose what it’s doing or have courts rule on its legality because the Terrorists will learn of it), and it sends people to prison for decades (material supporters of Terrorism).

Poor Glenn, shouting in the vacuum. As a by the by, he is moving to the Guardian and will no longer be at Salon.

Got no balls

Goldman Non-Prosecution: AG Eric Holder Has No Balls
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/ag-eric-holder-has-no-balls-20120815

I was hardly shocked either when I read about this before I got to Matt’s page. Indeed, I would have been shocked if it were otherwise.

Holder’s non-decision on Goldman is more than unsurprising. It amounts to an official announcement that the government is no longer in the business or prosecuting smart criminals. It’s pathetic. The one thing you pay any lawyer to have is balls, and our nation’s top attorney has none.

I include this here just because I like Matt’s writing style and want to encourage my reader(s) to take a look at his article. This is just more of the same oligarchical police state, so really, there is nothing ‘interesting’ here at all. I was having a discussion with a friend last night about how earlier in our country’s history there were frontiers where people could go make their fortune which lead to a bit of turnover at the top. That turnover has pretty much ceased and in my outlook we are entering a feudal era. Feudalism is a rather unfortunately stable form of government (it lasted thousands of years in China), so I am not optimistic about our future.

The veil of opulence

The Veil of Opulence
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/the-veil-of-opulence/

A very interesting article, one I am quite glad I came across. While I continue to have fantasies that I can claw my way into the top ranks of the wealthy, having spent time homeless and destitute I have a rather acute understanding of what it means to have potential that is unrealized due to circumstances (while arguments could be made that I made some bad choices (not getting the PhD in Biochem being a major one), prior to my class, where 70% had offers upon graduation, my MBA program routinely had more than 90% of the class with offers). Bill Gates, after all, was the son of a wealthy, well connected family. While it is certainly _possible_ that he could have achieved the same level of success, it is rather unlikely.

Thus, when I think of ‘fairness’ in our society, I think of how our society should treat those who have not (yet?) achieved success. Why should one bad mistake cost you any hope at success? Why should a car accident result in bankruptcy, homelessness and destitution? Why can’t the richest society in the world treat its citizens better? I do not believe in a zero sum game; indeed, I believe that if the poor are better off, _everyone_ is better off. I believe that the taxes paid by the favored fraction of a percent (how many of them inherited that money?) would actually be returned as higher income to those same people! However, once the zero sum mentality has settled in, it becomes very difficult to get the wealthy to consider that their taxes are an investment in society that will be repaid (indeed has already been repaid, since without the tax paid infrastructure they likely wouldn’t have been born wealthy to begin with).

This quote is very interesting to me…

…the veil of opulence operates only under the guise of fairness. It is rather a distortion of fairness, by virtue of the partiality that it smuggles in. It asks not whether a policy is fair given the huge range of advantages or hardships the universe might throw at a person but rather whether it is fair that a very fortunate person should shoulder the burdens of others. That is, the veil of opulence insists that people imagine that resources and opportunities and talents are freely available to all, that such goods are widely abundant, that there is no element of randomness or chance that may negatively impact those who struggle to succeed but sadly fail through no fault of their own. It blankets off the obstacles that impede the road to success. It turns a blind eye to the adversity that some people, let’s face it, are born into. By insisting that we consider public policy from the perspective of the most-advantaged, the veil of opulence obscures the vagaries of brute luck.

It always blows my mind that so many people in the middle class will vociferously defend the perks of the 1%. I guess they are living under the “veil of opulence” as they do so, content with the fantasy that, but for a bit of hard work and a little luck, they would be there at the peak of wealth. Why do these people defend that tiny population that, in so many cases, did not one single damn thing (but be born to the right parents) in their entire life, yet pay _less_ taxes for _no_ effort on income from capital gains and dividends? Why do they think it is OK for society to treat these exalted few with such kid gloves and treat the poor like such shit? The veil of opulence explains so much of that behavior!

So many of these same middle class people seem to be unshakably convinced that the social safety net is a ‘hammock’ for the lazy to drift along, living off the efforts of their betters. Sure, any system is going to be subject to abuse, but they are so determined to root out the abuse that they condemn those that just need a bit of help to get self supporting again. While those that abuse the system are certainly living well beyond the intent, I challenge every one to try to live on the dribs and drabs of help our government grudging parcels out and tell me they are relaxed, happy and enjoying themselves.

Not only have the rich bought our government, but they have somehow bought the souls of so many of our citizens at the same time. Of course it is about class warfare! And the upper class is winning! They have bought the hearts and souls of a large enough chunk of our society that Romney is polling even (within most margins of error) despite him probably being one of the worst candidates in the last century. (Not that I am defending the dickhead in office now, but I am convinced that Romney will continue every bit of the current evil AND lard on more evil as icing on the cake.) To say he was the least bad of a horrible group is quite true, but why do we have to keep settling for the least bad (as I do when I promote Obama: at least he give you lube when he fucks you!)? Why can’t we, as a supposed democratic nation, actually elect people who will represent society as a whole, who will operate on the tenants of the greatest good for the greatest number? I have heard so many of the wealthy elite complain that a democracy is destined to failure as people will just vote to give themselves gifts without ever paying for them (though that does sound a lot like California!), yet here we are, in a dead heat with one candidate already having given trillions of dollars to Wall Street and the other candidate complaining that that wasn’t enough.