Vote Dip

Vote Dip

 

http://www.salon.com/2014/02/14/multimillionaire_venture_capitalist_tom_perkins_says_the_1_should_get_more_votes/

A 1%1%er says out loud that he wants oligarchy; and then wonders why people are upset.

Part of the answer, in psychological terms, is that vote-buying causes a conflict between several hard-wired systems of moral evaluation: the market-pricing morality implicit in the money power, and the in-group loyalty and the equality moralities implicit in voting.

          But the human mind has other hard-wired moral systems: purity, authority, care. Perhaps the 99% could offer Mr. Perkins other tradeoffs for votes. How about a tradeoff in the Purity dimension? Would he be willing to earn extra votes by a fee and some self-defilement?

          I therefore offer this Modest Proposal: the Vote Dip. Start with a cylindrical steel vat, ten feet high and six feet across. Weld ladders up the inside and outside wall. Affix a button on the floor, 3 inches across; run a wire from this button up and out to a light bulb affixed to the outside of the vat. Whenever the button is pressed, the light goes on for one minute.

          Then fill the vat to the brim with sewage. Add sufficient quantities of ethyl mercaptan, putrescine and cadaverine.

 

Here's the proposal. For a mere 10,485,760 dollars, the donor has half an hour to turn on that light bulb up to twenty times; each time doubles the number of votes the donor can cast. Twenty doublings = 1,048,576 votes; exactly ten dollars each, a bargain if that bulb turns on twenty times. But the only way allowed to turn on that bulb is to dive to the bottom of the vat and push the button. No wet gear allowed. A video of the entire procedure is broadcast on the airwaves and the Web.

          What do you think? And what would Mr. Perkins think?

 

The Virtue of Mystery

 

The Virtue of Mystery

 

 

It’s good that there’s no proof of the existence of God. Any god whose existence can be rigorously proven will be rigorously described, then analyzed, then predicted, then controlled, then bought and sold. All theocracies are attempts to do such buying and selling. But any god worthy of the name is free; therefore no god worthy of the name can be proven to exist.

Define These

             Define These

 

Hamas accuses Israel of genocide. Israel calls Hamas terrorists. Logic is irrelevant in passionate politics, but I ask anyhow, because I identify as a nerd:

Define “genocide”. What percent casualty rate qualifies? Does 15000/2100000 = 0.71%? If so then do annual traffic deaths qualify?

Define “terrorism” in terms that do not include the routine behavior of states at war. Was the Cold War terrorism?

          The worst actors in this war fight for religion. Define “God”.

Bonus question:  “Semite” includes both Arabs and Jews. Is Netanyahu anti-Semitic? (I recommend a more precise replacement term: “Judaophobic”, in parallel with “Islamophobic”.)

Some statistics:

Annual USA traffic deaths = 43000 out of 333000000 = 0.013 %. So it does not qualify as genocide, by Hamas’s definition. Annual USA gun deaths = 48000 out of 333000000 = 0.014 %. Another non-qualifier. Annual USA heart attack deaths = 376000 out of 333000000 = 0.11%. So heart attacks are close to qualifying. Total USA covid deaths = 1300000 out of 333000000 = 0.39%. That’s closer.

You can legitimately say that for the Gazans, this war has been worse than covid. That’s a valid point.

The Oxford online dictionary defines ‘genocide’ as:

“The deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.”

“Large” is ambiguous, and needn’t involve percentages. The key seems to be deliberation and aim. I think this weakens the definition, for I cannot read minds. At most I can judge from stated intentions.

The IDF claims that they are minimizing civilian casualties. Hamas’s charter calls for maximizing civilian casualties. So IDF might not fit, but Hamas definitely does.

The Oxford online dictionary defines ‘terrorism’ as:

“The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.”

So states at war would definitely be terrorist organizations, except for a loophole: “lawful” violence and intimidation of civilians for political gain.

So define “lawful”. Is the Mafia code of omerta a legal system?

The definition is circular. Violence against civilians is not terrorism if it is lawful: and it is lawful if it is committed by non-terrorists. In practice law and terrorism are defined by who won. Not who’s right but who’s left.

Please note that I slam both Hamas, with ‘define genocide’, and the IDF, with ‘define terrorism’. ‘Define God’ slams theocracy; ‘define lawful’ slams the state; but maybe these are trick questions. Here’s a third tricky question: define money.

On PC

 On PC

Political correctness is about how to be racist without being racist, sexist without being sexist, and bigoted without being bigoted. Political correctness doesn't mention classism because it is sponsored by the ruling class.  

 

 

Stalked by a Bot

             Stalked by a Bot

 

 

 

The phone rang. I picked up on the third ring and said, “Hello, who is there?”

A robot voice said, “Good-bye.”

 

Several days later, the phone rang, I picked up on the third ring, “Hello, who is there?”

A robot voice said, “I’m sorry, that is not a valid extension.”

 

After that I picked up on the third ring every time, in the hope of getting a third creepy robot. Finally: Ring, ring, ring, I pick up, “Hello, who is there?”

Silence.

 

And that’s a trifecta! Have I been rejected by a bot?