One of my hobbies is procrastination. I'm going to work on getting out some blog posts that have been sitting in queue since early January.#

The thread was last written about here on January 7th.#

Gary Santoro writes two pieces about political parties for "Dean Independents."#

The crux of the first piece is that because the two main parties in America are becoming so similar, people are leaving them in large numbers as "Independents" who look for another source of their own revelation. Nothing really strikes me as something new to add to the discussion.

But here is the sentiment:

In my opinion, the two-party structure is vulnerable to corruption and prone to the type of declines in effectiveness described in this piece. Where is a third voice, or third opinion? Today, we are limited to a choice of two political organizations that have attained large scale. A third choice could provide diversity and better representation, better checks and balances, and objectivity. Having greater than three major parties in government might be fragmentary and prevent consensus, but I would argue that our two-party system limits competition.

The second case basically emphasizes the last quote and makes the case for Howard Dean as an "Independent's Democrat."

Ole Eichhorn gets email about a post of this nature he wrote.#

Be careful what you wish for! I received an email from Ivan-Assen Ivanov, a Bulgarian, reporting that they have proportional representation, and it isn't working out:

[...]

So be it - nothing like real data! I also received email from others pointing out that in Israel's system fringe parties have undue influence, with negative implications. Fascinating.

So the downside of proportional representation is that small fringe parties have too much influence, while currently in the U.S. it could be argued they do not have enough. I wonder if there is a middle ground? Or perhaps every system has its upside and downside, and none is "best".

The "answer" is, of course, to not have a system that lets anybody coerce anyone else... but THATS not logical now is it?

Richard Tallent replies to the above post about election systems and political parties.#

Richard Tallent perfectly defines the ways that politicians exist only to extend and perpetuate their power. He speaks about this in terms of the two forms of legislations that are passed and then way every issue is a win for both sides:

The second kind are those bills that they all agree on, usually because such bills perpetuate their power. These are the insidious ones. For these, their justification is that it is more pragmatic simply to "do what's best for the people" than to risk public debate on the matter. This is where we get our Patriot Act II, hidden Executive Orders, last-minute amendments, and the "rule changes" that institutionalize the two-party structure.

It's strange because Richard and I got to the point where we agree and I don't really feel there's anything more to add. I'm curious of how this applies to blog etiquette. Is it proper to just link the reply without comment? Should you say "This space left blank intentionally?" Just an, "I agree?"

Hmmm!

Chip Gibbons posts the first chapter of his book, Reality: The Final Taboo: Hamlet's Binary Circumstance.#

The philosophy that the work revolves around is very similar, purposefully, to that of Hamlet's soliloquy: To be or not to be. If you want to understand the universe and your place in it, you must first answer, "What is the universe?" A faulty to answer to this question will lead you on a faulty path through life.

Reality is the totality of everything that exists. If we can know what exists and all the properties of things that exist and all the relationships between things that exist then we would understand the universe and our place in it. We would have all the knowledge that it is possible to have.

The sum of all things that exist is a way to define reality and the universe. Here Chip makes a point that things that exist are the only things you can talk about reasonably--because things that don't exist don't have properties to speak of. Additionally, Chip points out that:

Characteristics of entities can also be universal or unique. All snowflakes are white, crystallized water, but every snowflake has a unique shape. Any characteristic that is universal cannot be unique; and whatever is unique cannot be universal. Not all characteristics are either universal or unique, some are shared by a subgroup but now all entities in the group; but it is true that universality excludes uniqueness and uniqueness excludes universality.

It is the characteristics that are unique to an entity that give it an identity apart from other entities. Every human being has a unique consciousness which is dependent upon his existence; that consciousness ceases to exist when he ceases to exist. The universe is not dependent upon the existence of individual consciousnesses for its existence. In other words, universal reality is a uniform, objective reality than can be experienced, independently validated and understood by any individual, unique, subjective consciousness.

Which seems to suggest that something is reality provided that it can be verified to exist by anyone who chooses to verify it. (This is differently from being verified by a majority.)

What I think is very interesting is the way that Chip phrases that people cannot have the same subjective realities--that each view is unique. It is particularly interesting because I have used almost the same wording when explaining this to many people over the past few months of thinking about it:

It is an objective, universal reality that each individual is genetically unique with the exception of identical twins or clones. In addition, each person has unique experiences and occupies a unique point in the universe. This creates a unique relationship with universal reality for each individual consciousness. It is not possible for two individuals to see the universe in precisely the same way. If their perceptions, thoughts, emotions, and resulting actions were identical and occurred at the same point in time and space; they would be the same person because they would have the same characteristics and location.

And this all a great preface to the argument that I presume the book is about: What exists and what doesn't? Why is Reason greater than Faith? And, what are the consequences if we don't follow Reason? The warning in Chip's words:

Whether we choose to accept or reject universal reality is a binary circumstance. We attempt to know it or we don't; we either succeed or we don't. There is no guarantee that we will succeed even if we try; there is only a guarantee that we won't survive if we reject the nature of our existence in the universe.

To succeed we must understand Nature and the laws that are truly sovereign in the universe, not invent our own false images that we would LIKE to be true--but are not. This is because Nature, as evidenced through evolution's creation of everything we see, is obviously the most successful creator and the arbiter of progress. The problem, it seems, is that Man is too impatient for Nature and wishes for things to be ready before it is meant to be.

This rush forces Man to jump in to something before it is understand (before Nature can be followed) and always seems to end with band-aids and splints. But to follow Nature, one must let it lead; or be mindful of the lessons it teaches in our probings.

Fundamental to this is actually looking to Nature, and not to the imaginary heavens of Faith.

An argument may be that we have not died yet so our Nature-less path cannot be all bad, but not only is it too early to tell if lack of Reason will be our demise, the odds seem not to be in our current path's favour. (As evidenced by our destruction of our planet and living conditions in the few thousand years of agriculture and technology as opposed to the hundred thousands spent as hunter/gatherers.)

Julie Leung writes about some great neighbors and friends she has.#

What I saw about M and K, although they were different from us, made me like them more. They lived what they believed. M had a worm bin he was starting to use to recycle food scraps. And he rode his bicycle everywhere. Bike rides for M and K were not road races for recreation, but a way of transportation every day. One night at the grocery store I ran into M, wearing his helmet, after biking up hill in the dark to go shopping. The van is only used rarely. M and K are willing to change their lives and make the sacrifices for what they think is right.

That's why they went away for a year. They believe in the organization where M will be working. K will be counseling boys at an orphanage. Again I think it's amazing for people to give up a year of life and move to another country because they love and believe something so much.

Halley Suitt is the first to report on a recent bill from President Bush.#

President Bush signed into law today the Timberlake-Spears bill, which requires the two stars to wed within 48 hours to spare the nation any more unusual sexual highjinks. "I think these young people need to set a new moral tone for the nation, before they suffer a total Sodom and Gomorrah-like meltdown," the President said from the Oval Office. He has made the White House available to them for the wedding with the President himself serving as best man and Laura Bush undertaking the responsibilities of Brittney's maid of honor. "They are giving our daughters very bad ideas," Laura admitted.

Michael Feldman reports on those crazy minorities.#

MINA, Saudi Arabia (AP) -- At least 244 people were trampled to death and hundreds more hurt Sunday under the crush of worshippers in one of the deadliest disasters during the annual Muslim pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia.

The stampede occurred during the stoning of the devil, an emotional and notoriously perilous hajj ritual. Pilgrims frantically throw rocks, shout insults or hurl their shoes at three stone pillars -- acts that are supposed to demonstrate their deep disdain for Satan.

Paul Craig Roberts writes about why you don't want to be a columnist.#

What I have learned from my life as a scholar, a public policymaker, and a columnist is that issues cannot be addressed until there is a crisis. Until a paradigm breaks down, it is difficult for a scholar with a different view to get a hearing. He is not so much shouted down as ignored. Keynesian demand management was immune from criticism until it collapsed in stagflation. A columnist who tries to check popular impulse is shouted down or run over.

The successful columnist is the one who understands that the job is one of entertainer. He finds an audience to which to play and gives up on educating anyone on any issue.

Godless at Gene Expression quotes some nice economics about why bureaucracies don't work.#

One of the chief underpinnings of public choice theory is the lack of incentives for voters to monitor government effectively. Anthony Downs, in one of the earliest public choice books, An Economic Theory of Democracy, pointed out that the voter is largely ignorant of political issues and thatthis ignorance is rational. Even though the result of an election may be very important, an individual's vote rarely decides an election. Thus, the direct impact of casting a well-informed vote is almost nil; the voter has virtually no chance to determine the outcome of the election. So spending time following the issues is not personally worthwhile for the voter. Evidence for this claim is found in the fact that public opinion polls consistently find that less than half of all voting-age Americans can name their own congressional representative.

Public choice economists point out that this incentive to be ignorant is rare in the private sector. Someone who buys a car typically wants to be well informed about the car he or she selects. That is because the car buyer's choice is decisive—he or she pays only for the one chosen. If the choice is wise, the buyer will benefit; if it is unwise, the buyer will suffer directly. Voting lacks that kind of direct result. Therefore, most voters are largely ignorant about the positions of the people for whom they vote. [...]

Public choice economists also examine the actions of legislators. Although legislators are expected to pursue the "public interest," they make decisions on how to use other people's resources, not their own. Furthermore, these resources must be provided by taxpayers and by those hurt by regulations whether they want to provide them or not. Politicians may intend to spend taxpayer money wisely. Efficient decisions, however, will neither save their own money nor give them any proportion of the wealth they save for citizens. There is no direct reward for fighting powerful interest groups in order to confer benefits on a public that is not even aware of the benefits or of who conferred them. Thus, the incentives for good management in the public interest are weak. [...]

However, he draws some pretty ridiculous conclusions:

Now, that said, there is a role for government in preventing force and fraud. Some degree of food regulation, antitrust oversight, and pollution control is necessary to prevent externalities and increase the quality of life. And no one disputes the government's role in policing our cities and defending our country. One can also make a strong case that big, time-limited infrastructure and research projects are best undertaken with public funds: the interstate highway system, rural electrification, GPS, the transcontinental railroad, the Manhattan Project, the Human Genome Project, and so on. Such projects have a) limited time spans to prevent bureaucratic ossification and b) results that aren't necessarily best allocated by markets (e.g. scientific knowledge).

Um, yes there are some people who "dispute the government's role in policing our cities and defending our country" and all those other things.

Why after learning that "public good" is illogical would you immediately say it's a good idea?

Chip Gibbons writes about the Muslim stoning festival.#

Did they point out that there is no evidence that Satan has ever been killed in this stoning ritual. The fact that they come back every year, indicates that the faithful believe that he survived last years stoning. The only people who die are the believers who are killed by other believers.

You know what they say about people who live in glass houses.

Moxie is my media and morality mentor, her murmurs mould my mind.#

Janet showed during family dinner hour what many infants see up close and personal every meal-time.

So what?
Get over it. I can't believe this is news.

That news brings up my all time favorite inequity between the sexes...
Why has the female breast become so taboo on television in America?

No one blinks an eye when a man with huge pecks is shown "topless" during family teevee time.

Chip Gibbons links to a story about tetragametic chimeras.#

A mother-of-three has discovered she is not the biological parent of two of her naturally conceived sons and is in fact made up of two women.

Scientists came to the extraordinary conclusion that the 52-year-old was formed from two non-identical twin girl embryos which fused into a single person in her mother's womb.

Tests carried out on the woman - known as Jane - showed she had two distinct types of DNA in her body.

Her blood is made up of her own cells, but when doctors took samples from her thyroid gland, mouth and hair, they found they came from two different people.

The Telegraph writes about gossip and celebrity.#

Whenever I have been to America and watched David Letterman's show, I have been barely able to understand a word of his monologues. I know them to be superbly rendered, but have absolutely no idea who the disgraced politicians, badly behaved sports stars and naughty daytime television hosts who provide his punchlines are, so have felt excluded, a foreigner. But then, if Letterman tuned in to British chatter right now, he wouldn't have a clue who we were talking about either.

The fact is, low-level gossip is the social lubricant of every society. These castaway celebrities — the pneumatic model, royal reporter, silly toff and punk turned property magnate — are the subject matter that differentiates us.

Dean Esmay writes about primaries and parties.#

This year, I was going to register as a Democrat so I could, like Smash, help choose a Democratic candidate I find appealing--and to help stop Howard "The Democratic Pat Buchanan" Dean from winning the nomination and control of the Democratic Party. However, I have no such option here in Michigan, and I find that utterly infuriating.

Get this: voters are not allowed to vote in Democratic primaries here. Well, actually, we are, but the party can and does ignore the results. In fact--I kid you not--in 2000, voters in the Democratic Primary nominated Lyndon LaRouche for President. Know why? Because Al Gore and Bill Bradley were not even on the Democratic ballot. They didn't bother to put anyone important on the ballot, you see, because they already knew they were giving the nomination to Gore, and they didn't care what voters thought at all.

I swear to God I am not making this up. Al Gore won the primary here anyway, without a single vote being cast for him.

Ben Adida on how you "shouldn't bite."#

Of course, this type of advertising stunt wouldn't be possible if our social mores were a tad more realistic and consistent. It's a bare breast. Most of it already appeared on the cover or [d] magazine a few years ago. The superbowl halftime show featured dozens of other scantily-clad women showing more skin than the average beach-goer. If we could all agree that it's just a breast, there would be no stunt, there would be no chat by the water fountain, there would be no demand for [x]'s new album.

But instead, we choose to be offended. People make calls. The press goes wild. The FCC chooses to investigate. The people who planned this stunt ([a], [b], [c] and [x]) get what they want: a huge controversy that keeps their names on everyone's lips long enough to watch the next [a] show, to visit the [b] web site, to buy [x]'s latest album.

The only way to really punish those who planned this manipulative stunt is to undestand their real motive (selling their products) and to not bite. Don't make a big deal of it, and the stunt will fall flat on its face. But go ahead, Michael Powell, go investigate. I'm sure [x] is shaking at the mere thought of how many records you'll help her sell.

Joi Ito: A feature, or a bug?#

Recently, someone told me that psychiatry was the only area of medicine where doctors "voted" to determine what sorts of behavior were considered diseases and should be treated. The assertion was that the drug companies created incentives for doctors to classify behaviors which had medical methods of neutralization as diseases. Many of these behaviors, my friend asserted, were natural human behaviors that some people had and didn't require a cure.

Now I'm back to trying to figure out what parts of my personality I should change and what parts of my personality are actually features and not bugs. Of course the first step is to know yourself and identify the demons and quirks. Most personality traits have benefits and drawbacks and designing your life to maximize the benefits and minimize the liabilities is probably a good thing.

Chip Gibbons links to Tom Burka on "War as Peace."#

Awards ceremonies positively took over Opinions You Should Have for the third day in a row, as Tony Blair and George Bush were nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

[...]

"George Bush brilliantly used the military to force peace upon the war-loving Iraqis," said Pietra Sjordihorgi, a Swiss philanthropist who tortures small animals to stop animal abuse.

Silica Myoderovich, a Russian scientist who boils old sneakers in order to ameliorate foul smells, commented, "Pre-preemptive war -- involving the use of military force to prevent the contemplation of activities seeking to start programs that might be focused on the development of possible weapons that could be used to start hypothetical wars -- is a brilliant idea."

Don Park invents a great new social networking idea: Friendship circles.#

One of the common weaknesses of existing social network services is the lack of easy flexible ways to differentiate types or depth of friendship. Orkut, for example, allows one to group friends but also requires one to name each group. While this requirement seems trivial and makes sense logically, it deters users from using the feature in practice.

Friendship Circle is a way to express types and depths of friendship with minimal effort. A Friendship Circle is basically a nested rings of people (represented by icons with miniture photo and name) around a person. To use the Friendship Circle, the user drag and drops icons from a palette of friends to the circle.

Don Park, on a roll, thinks that Orkut needs "permachat" like joiito on IRC.#

To get around these problems. I think permachats should be created centered around individuals and communities. A permachat is like IRC except conversations takes place over much longer period, days even. Visibility of permachat should be limited to friends or friends of friends only. Amount is determined by rate of actvity. To promote interaction and to encourage the sense of conversation, sense of time is removed, leaving only faces and names next to each entry. Amount of activity within past 24 hours should be displayed in the 'view network' and 'my communities' pages using color hints (i.e. red for hot).

Moxie is proud to be a Republican, and just because she doesn't talk about it much doesn't mean she's a liberal Democrat.#

Meanwhile, one of the people they are confiding in is one Republican girl who happens to adore George W. I suppose sometimes it's a good thing to be a wolf in sheep's clothing as my friends have suggested.

I don't make or break relationships, personal or otherwise based on politics or world views. Despite some serious doubts I still believe people are inherently good.

Just because one likes lower taxes, guns and people who don't kill babies just because it's "convenient" doesn't make someone a freak.

If those things makes one a Republican, that's just fine by me. It's a label I'm proud of.