Category Archives: Politics & Government

The State, the Press and Hyperdemocracy

Posted on by

“Information flow is corrosive to institutions, whether that’s a record label or a state ministry. To function in a hyperconnected world, states must hyperconnect, but every point of connection becomes a gap through which the state’s power leaks away.”

“Script kiddies everywhere now have a role model. Like it or not, they will create these systems, they will share what they’ve learned, they will build the apparatus that makes the state as we have known it increasingly ineffectual and irrelevant. Nothing can be done about that. This has already happened.”

Mark Pesce is one of the early pioneers in Virtual Reality and works as a writer, researcher and teacher. You can read the full article here.

How the bailout program works

Posted on by

It is a slow day in a damp little Irish town. The rain is beating down and the streets are deserted. Times are tough, everybody is in debt and everybody lives on credit. On this particular day a rich German tourist is driving through the town, stops at the local hotel and lays a €100 note on the desk, telling the hotel owner he wants to inspect the rooms upstairs in order to pick one to spend the night. The owner gives him some keys and, as soon as the visitor has walked upstairs, the hotelier grabs the €100 note and runs next door to pay his debt to the butcher. The butcher takes the €100 note and runs down the street to repay his debt to the pig farmer. The pig farmer takes the €100 note and heads off to pay his bill at the supplier of feed and fuel.

The guy at the Farmers’ Co-op takes the €100 note and runs to pay his drinks bill at the pub. The publican slips the money along to the local prostitute drinking at the bar, who has also been facing hard times and has had to offer him “services” on credit. The hooker then rushes to the hotel and pays off her room bill to the hotel owner with the €100 note. The hotel proprietor then places the €100 note back on the counter so the rich traveller will not suspect anything.

At that moment the traveller comes down the stairs, picks up the €100 note, states that the rooms are not satisfactory, pockets the money and leaves town. No one produced anything. No one earned anything. However, the whole town is now out of debt and looking to the future with a lot more optimism.

Source unknown

Live with the WikiLeakable world or shut down the net. It’s your choice

Posted on by

“What WikiLeaks is really exposing is the extent to which the western democratic system has been hollowed out. In the last decade its political elites have been shown to be incompetent (Ireland, the US and UK in not regulating banks); corrupt (all governments in relation to the arms trade); or recklessly militaristic (the US and UK in Iraq). And yet nowhere have they been called to account in any effective way. Instead they have obfuscated, lied or blustered their way through. And when, finally, the veil of secrecy is lifted, their reflex reaction is to kill the messenger” — via guardian.co.uk

The chickens just called. They’re running late but will be back at the roost shortly.

Scott Adams: Online voting

Posted on by

“Our current system, which features massive traditional advertising aimed primarily at older voters, would become obsolete. With online voting, the average age of voters would shift dramatically lower. The young are less susceptible to advertising because they use technology such as DVRs and ad-blocking software to avoid ads. And they avoid traditional print media altogether.  When big advertising budgets become less effective, special interests become less powerful because their money can’t help politicians get elected.”

“I started this post by claiming online voting would solve almost every problem in the world. My observation is that our planet doesn’t suffer from a lack of resources, just a lack of competence in managing those resources. Online voting could replace a broken government with one that allocates resources efficiently. And that one change, in time, could stimulate and release the economy to solve almost every problem in the world.”

Scott Adams: Eliminating Political Parties

Posted on by

“Now imagine what would happen to campaign funding if political parties didn’t exist. In our current system, a union can give a million dollars to the Democratic Party and it doesn’t seem too wrong because the party represents about half of the voters in the country. But if political parties didn’t exist, unions or corporate interests would have to donate to individuals. And a large donation to an individual campaign would either be illegal or it would look so much like a bribe that it would be counter-productive.

I think political parties made sense in pre-Internet times. It was a good way to organize and to produce candidates who had a legitimate chance of getting elected. Now it’s easy to imagine the Internet being a better platform for electing the right people. The problem is that there’s no way to get to a different type of system from here. The major parties are too entrenched to give up power, and belonging to organizations is a fundamental freedom.”

Does my vote really matter?

Posted on by

All my life I have been told that it does. The candidates have told me that. The news anchors told me that. My civics teacher told me that. And like many such givens, I beleived it must be true.

But this thoughtful post by David Cain has made me reconsider. I’m just pulling a graf to keep this short so if you give a shit one way or the other you really should read his entire post:

“Many people are uncomfortable with the idea of not voting because they feel like they would then be forfeiting the only power they have over who governs. But your vote contains no power. It is a virtually inert token of your participation, which does carry some sentimental value to some people. But it has no election-swinging ability. There are plenty of actions that can make a difference but casting your vote isn’t one of them.”

For some bizarre reason, Mr. Cain’s post caused me to flash on the carnival midway. One of the “games” involved trying to toss a wooden hoop around a small fishbowl that contained a goldfish. The bowl was just two feet away and you could almost lean over and drop the hoop on the bowl. But not quite. The carney guy understood something that I didn’t. Even if I got the goldfish, he wins.

Mr. Cain also argues that if the election is really important to you, you’ll do more than vote. You’ll knock on doors and work your ass off in other ways. I can find no flaw in that logic.

Before you dismiss the idea that your vote doesn’t really make a difference, read the post.

Covering election returns

Posted on by

Election night was a big night for radio station news departments. Or, they were back in the 70’s in the little town where I worked.

The candidates would crowd into the county clerk’s office and watch as the votes were written on a big chalk board. The radio station news guy would setup a small transmitter and send back updates that were broadcast live. You were either there… listened to us… or heard the results the next morning at the local coffee shop.

When I started working with The Missourinet (a statewide radio network) in the mid-80’s, it wasn’t that different. One of our reporters would set up at the Secretary of State’s office with a dedicated land-line (before cell phones). Maybe they used one of the state’s phones, I don’t recall. But the reporter would phone in regular updates to the network newsroom where they’d go out to affiliate stations around the state.

Sometime in the 90’s technology improved to the point where we could Telnet into the the state computers (via very slow modem’s) and access the numbers directly. And then report them over the network.

Fast forward to the Web. No more Telnet but those early websites were very glitchy. And slow. But they got better every election. It was a wonderful thing. Anyone with internet access could see the returns as they were tabulated. But it was still easier for radio stations (and their listeners) to take our reports than produce their own.

Last week one of our news directors stopped by my office to talk about what we would do online for the upcoming election. Missouri’s Senate race is the Main Event and we’ll have reporters at both candidates venue. They’ll do interviews and feed those back to the network where reporters will be working the Secretary of State’s website.

One the other end of the information pipe, people will still be listening to the radio and watching TV but I expect Twitter and Facbook to be where many get their first information. (Does the Secretary of State have a Twitter feed?). And most of it will be mobile.

Eventually we’ll all vote electronically, without standing in line. And we’ll see the results in near real time.

Will this elections more susceptible to fraud? Girl, please! Is the TSA making flying safer?

Scott Adams: Founding Fathers 2.0

Posted on by

“It was designed hundreds of years ago, and it gradually worsened over time, just like everything else that was designed hundreds of years ago. It’s the ultimate legacy system, bloated and hopelessly in need of replacement. And now, thanks to the brainwashing that all American kids get about the magic and wonder of our political system, and the near Godliness of our Founding Fathers, we’re unable to see the system itself as entirely broken. Instead, we assume the problem is that the people within the system are corrupt or incompetent. Or maybe the problem is the Tea Party, or the crazy Liberals, or anything but the system itself. There’s plenty of blame to spread around, but a good system should be excreting the crazies instead of embracing them. Why can’t we have that system?

And he has a solution:

“Suppose, just as a mental exercise, a new set of geniuses, call them the Founding Fathers Version 2.0, hold a convention and come up with a new form of government that fits the challenges of the modern age. Then, after a lengthy public debate, a constitutional vote is held in which every citizen can decide on keeping the old system or moving to the new one. If the new one wins, a transition plan is drawn up, and the move is made over maybe five years, so there is limited shock to the system.

GOP: We’re back! Did you miss us?

Posted on by

I started reading Rolling Stone back in the late ’60’s. I remember it as a different magazine. Or maybe I was just different (sure bet). I loved the pieces by Hunter S. Thompson. I had never read any reporting like that.

I recently subscribed to Rolling Stone, for one reason: Matt Tiabbi. I’ve been following his stuff or a few years now. I trust him and believe his reporting. I remember how disappointed I was when he called out the Obama administration for bringing in a batch of Wall Street crooks. But I didn’t doubt the accuracy of his reporting (or his outrage).

I’ve been trying to wrap my mind around the Tea Party movement (without subjecting myself to being in their presence). Here’s some excerpts from Mr. Taibbi’s piece in the October Rolling Stone: Continue reading →

Social media and news

Posted on by

This morning Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill tweeted that it’s time to “fire the watchdog overseeing contracting in Afghanistan.” She included a link and invitation to her Facebook page where she posted a video explaining her positon and asking “what do you think?”

I’m sure this is happening hundreds of times a day but this still feels like something significant is happening. The senator has 40,000+ followers on twitter (not sure about Facebook). I’m sure elections have been won and lost by that many votes, but that’s not my point.

How would the senator have made her position known pre-twitter/facebook? Press release emailed to hundreds of media outlets? Radio interviews with big news stations in St Louis and Kansas City? Maybe a few seconds for a satellite interview with a couple of TV stations (or the networks)?

And for all I know she’s still doing this but in every instance, the media controls the experience. And there would be little or no opportunity for engagement with the people.

It’s not difficult for me to imagine a time in the very near future where Twitter replaces the emailed (faxed?!) news release. That’s probably already happening. And I am seeing more and more YouTube and Facebook video showing up in “newscasts.”

Real Journalists would insist that much is lost by them not having an opportunity to ask the senator “the hard questions.” But the’ll be hard pressed to find many viewers/listeners/readers who agree their questions add much. Not saying they’d be right, just that they don’t agree.

I’m going to go back to Senator McCaskill’s Facebook page and read some of the comments. And if anyone can put me in touch with her social media advisor(s), I’d really like to talk to them because they seem to know what they’re doing.