tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post7071175598355831940..comments2024-03-18T17:09:55.964-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: Lessig for President? Let's struggle free of cheating, dogmatism and bought elections.David Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger94125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-49051755365383514312018-10-30T01:54:57.414-07:002018-10-30T01:54:57.414-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.siskahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07076079736141144027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-18809498411868904042015-08-22T12:07:35.517-07:002015-08-22T12:07:35.517-07:00I recommend for anyone who has serious doubts or b...I recommend for anyone who has serious doubts or burgeoning hopes or just curiosity about the Referendum Presidency "hack-the-corrupt-system" alternative that Larry Lessig is proposing, check out this in-depth unpacking and critiquing and discussing of it in Cenk Uygur's interview of the man, just posted in the last day or so: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F45J85c5vCI <br /><br />The real possibility this could work, along with the other approaches going at the problem from the state route to call a Constitutional Convention to ensure the long-lastingness of reform, seems to be emerging in some hard to deny ways, once all the aspects and concerns are explored in full.<br /><br />(key point: this is not an "either-or" proposition, it is a "both-and" proposition -- Sanders, or Warren, or even Clinton as a viable option--with her corporate allegiance incentive removed--would be right there in the mix, and ultimately taking over the reins with the ability to *actually* get things done, once the FIRST issue was handled first)Avihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06109293854131618660noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-19342663393886465412015-08-17T20:41:44.391-07:002015-08-17T20:41:44.391-07:00Thanks Larry. Alas, I would refer L&T to my d...Thanks Larry. Alas, I would refer L&T to my detailed appraisal of horizons, which shows how the American notion of rights expanded organically, over time. But there is no way on Earth that they would - organically - be able to process it even well enough to paraphrase and disagree or refute it!<br /><br />But enough...<br /><br />onward<br /><br />onwardDavid Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-16504373611551249792015-08-17T20:04:14.591-07:002015-08-17T20:04:14.591-07:00Apologies to Dr Brin, but this one requires a resp...Apologies to Dr Brin, but this one requires a response...<br /><br />Treebeard:<br /><i><br />LOL sorry LarryHart but I rather doubt the founding fathers had anything this in mind for the nation they founded. They were men of a different age, <br /></i><br />So? They had the right <b>principles</b> which maybe weren't quite so self-evident as they claimed, but became so with age. "All men are created equal" maybe didn't mean black slaves or Jews or women in 1776, but once one embraces the <b>idea</b>, one is forced to notice that the only logical <b>conclusion</b> is that it applies to all sentient beings who participate in the society. Several Confederate states, on the other hand, tried to enshrine "for white people only" and "other races are inferior" into <b>their</b> founding documents, just as South Africa and Rhodesia and Nazi Germany would at later dates. Which <b>principles</b> stand the test of time, and which get relegated to the dustbin of history?<br /><br /><i><br />who never in their wildest nightmares could have imagined the U.S. government doing something like intentionally relocating "refugees" en masse from places like to Somalia to places like Minnesota as a de facto weapon of political & ethnic warfare against the population, <br /></i><br /><br />They who-the-what now? What exactly is the U.S. government <b>gaining</b> from such political and ethnic warfare?<br /><br /><i><br />and relentlessly vilifying anyone who dissents as "racists". <br /></i><br /><br />Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're <b>not</b> out to get you. Likewise, just because some particular argument doesn't <b>make</b> you a racist doesn't mean you aren't one.<br /><br /><i><br />I sometimes call it the "U.S.S.A." or "Amerika" to distinguish it from the land the founding fathers knew), which nothing in history suggests is likely to end well. <br /></i><br /><br />Why is it that criticism of America from the right is considered patriotic, while only criticism from the left is treasonous? I mean, immediately after 9/11, both Jerry Falwell and Susan Sontag essentially suggested that the attacks might be the result of America's own failings. Sontag's implication was that if we weren't so arrogant throwing our weight around in the Middle East, Arabs might not have had the motivation to attack us. Fallwell's implication was that by being too tolerant of gays and feminists, America lost favor with God and so He let us be attacked. Both accusations blamed America's own failings for the attack, but only one was considered anti-American. Why is that?<br /><br /><i><br />As for loving or leaving it, for free men under the stars there is always a third option (call it the Khan option): fight it and make it something more to your liking!<br /></i><br /><br />What, you think you're surprising me with your "third way"? Not at all. What do you think 1970s liberals were trying to do when your ilk were telling us to "Go back to Russia". "Love it or leave it" wasn't something my side made up. You right-wingers can't even live by your own so-called "principles".<br /><br />So sure, stay and fight to make America the Holnist paradise you salivate over. But a whole bunch of other Real Americans are fighting to make it a country that lives up to the ideals that made us the shining city on the hill to the world.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-73202118369493680902015-08-17T18:00:00.257-07:002015-08-17T18:00:00.257-07:00Treebeard actually makes a point... that the Lefti...Treebeard actually makes a point... that the Leftist religion or ONLY giving loyalty to the next horizon of tolerance expansion is kind of disgusting, in that it is zero-sum. Leftists demand ONLY loyalty to inclusion expansion and abandonment of all older loyalties. It's the way they are zero sum.<br /><br />But Rightists are worse. They are zero sum by ONLY clinging to the old loyalties, no matter what rot lies underneath some of them (e.g. the confederacy)... and their reflex is to hatge and despise the finger waggers who say... "let's expand horizons and be more inclusive."<br /><br />The only positive summers are liberals -- who alas seem unable to grasp that they are NOT the same as their lefty allies, at all!<br /><br />See: http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2013/11/liberals-you-must-reclaim-adam-smith.html<br /><br />Liberals want BOTH horizon expansion AND to enjoy the better of the old loyalties, too. <br /><br />Alas, libertarians should be like this, too. But they have been misled into zero-sum assumption that government is always evil, instead of a tool for cautious use in overcoming past mistakes and future ones.<br /><br />Note that there is no way that locum or treebeard could understand what I just wrote, above, were they to re-read it fifty times and attempt every paraphrasing. The meaning would slip away.<br /><br />And with that I am shifting to the next post.<br /><br />onward<br /><br />onwardDavid Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-9395326401393653772015-08-17T17:57:05.713-07:002015-08-17T17:57:05.713-07:00LOL sorry LarryHart but I rather doubt the foundin...LOL sorry LarryHart but I rather doubt the founding fathers had anything this in mind for the nation they founded. They were men of a different age, who never in their wildest nightmares could have imagined the U.S. government doing something like intentionally relocating "refugees" en masse from places like to Somalia to places like Minnesota as a de facto weapon of political & ethnic warfare against the population, and relentlessly vilifying anyone who dissents as "racists". This is a radical new form of "progress", and a radical new nation (I sometimes call it the "U.S.S.A." or "Amerika" to distinguish it from the land the founding fathers knew), which nothing in history suggests is likely to end well. As for loving or leaving it, for free men under the stars there is always a third option (call it the Khan option): fight it and make it something more to your liking!Treebeardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-56255128436901544472015-08-17T17:46:16.201-07:002015-08-17T17:46:16.201-07:00Dr Brin:
But then, in order to try to fabulate hi...Dr Brin:<br /><i><br />But then, in order to try to fabulate his point, he says red oligarchs offer redtaters “more liberty.”<br /></i><br /><br />Liberal environmentalists are often accused of preferring that mankind "shiver in the dark" in order to save the planet. Yet here we have locum essentially equating "shivering in the dark" with liberty. If we accept electricity, modern construction, sanitation, running water, medicine, police and fire departments...basically anything that might raise a human being's standard of living, we do so only by selling out our freedom.<br /><br />With friends like that, who needs enemies?<br /><br />Liberals are also accused of seeing racism in shadows everywhere, and for years, I have tried to avoid making that charge. But especially as the Obama presidency goes on, it becomes harder to even parse the right-wing arguments <b>unless</b> one recognizes that "liberty" is a code word for "freedom not to pay for anything that might benefit black people." That's the only way one might imagine that Kansas Governor Brownback is giving his people more liberty by starving his state of revenue. And this is not a new sensibility that began in 2009. The 1964 advertisment in which Ronald Reagan asserts that if Medicare is enacted, our grandchildren will wonder what it used to be like to be free? What, "free" to go bankrupt and/or die horribly from an unexpected illness? No, of course not. He meant "free" to not have to pay for insurance that covers black people.<br /><br />LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-25428260238904035502015-08-17T17:36:47.622-07:002015-08-17T17:36:47.622-07:00Jumper:
...
I think I hate pirates.
Do you mind...Jumper:<br /><i><br />...<br />I think I hate pirates.<br /></i><br /><br />Do you mind if I ask what brought <b>that</b> on?LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-67281770183327086882015-08-17T17:19:56.842-07:002015-08-17T17:19:56.842-07:00Treebeard:
What is called “racism” is mostly just...Treebeard:<br /><i><br />What is called “racism” is mostly just the normal human impulse to be more comfortable/secure/trusting around people of your own tribe/kin/kind. This is something Malcolm X acknowledged and which was never in human history considered some dire cosmic sin until very recently, thanks to the aggressive propaganda of a few fanatics. Nations normally reflect this human tendency, providing safe “homelands” where people can be among their own (see Israel). But again, thanks to some fanatics, we are creating a regime of chaos where no such safe spaces can exist.<br /></i><br /><br />Well, those fanatics you disparage are the Founding Fathers of the United States. This country purposely became something other than the racial/ethnic homelands of the old world and became great by welcoming all comers. "Send us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free." So now, you want a homeland of your own where you can get away from those #@!!% huddled masses? Why don't you take the advice your kind would have given me in the 1970s--America, love it or leave it.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-78300683329907282432015-08-17T17:15:52.624-07:002015-08-17T17:15:52.624-07:00locum started out making a good basic point… that ...locum started out making a good basic point… that if you zero in on ONE TRAIT — having some money and some power — then by that one trait there is no difference between “good oligarchs” and bad ones. But notice how reflexively he assumes that zeroing in on ONE TRAIT makes even a scintilla of scense. It is one reason you all should be more patient with my keeping him around. I have never seen a better example of crippling zero-sum thinking.<br /><br />Never mind that great wealth has had its principal deleterious effects on human societies by being *inherited*. That is when rigid classes descend to enforce the stunning waste of talent we saw in almost all past societies, but which is lessened in egalitarian, flat-open-fair competitive ones. But then, in order to try to fabulate his point, he says red oligarchs offer redtaters “more liberty.”<br /><br />Hoo hah? OMG the hilarity.<br /><br />Oh, certainly I adore Rollerball. Though the ironies of locum citing it abound.<br />David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-47873466275999599152015-08-17T17:04:22.683-07:002015-08-17T17:04:22.683-07:00I was thinking lately of how sugar-coated pirates ...I was thinking lately of how sugar-coated pirates have been lately. We have the cutesy "talk like a pirate day" and Johnny Depp movies, and everyone forgets these are guys who board a ship that isn't theirs, cut throats and gut-shoot people, steal cargo, drown people, and rape any women aboard. Then kill them. I've decided I don't find pirates romantic, heroic, individualistic, admirable, or cute. I think I hate pirates.Jumperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11794110173836133321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-62352720555360237212015-08-17T15:32:56.548-07:002015-08-17T15:32:56.548-07:00Treebeard needs a homeland where he can be with hi...Treebeard needs a homeland where he can be with his kind........Jumperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11794110173836133321noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-48598524855708728592015-08-17T14:44:40.286-07:002015-08-17T14:44:40.286-07:00locumranch, referring to "Rollerball":
...locumranch, referring to "Rollerball":<br /><i><br />Jonathan E: I've been thinking, Ella. Thinking a lot... and watching. It's like people had a choice a long time ago between having all them nice things or freedom. Of course, they chose comfort.<br /><br />Ella: But comfort is freedom. It always has been. The whole history of civilization is a struggle against poverty and need.<br /><br />Jonathan E: No! No... that's not it. That's never been it! Them privileges just buy us off. [deep sigh]<br /></i><br /><br />Again, I almost see your point, and then it eludes me. You portray Ella as a "sellout", but really, what is she saying that is wrong? If Johnathan means that people can pay too high a price for their comforts, sure, I agree with that. But Ella's words themselves are essentially correct. You seem to be taking the Ronald Reagan view of Medicare in 1964--that by accepting a system that prevents disease from being a bankrupting event, we would forget what is once was like to be free.<br /><br />If comfort, wealth, and security are the antithesis of liberty, then what is liberty <b>for</b> exactly?<br /><br />Johnathan "sighs" that Ella isn't getting his point, but what observation could she make at that point that would satisfy him?LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-32453654788538361312015-08-17T14:31:25.309-07:002015-08-17T14:31:25.309-07:00locumranch:
Red Staters tend to ally themselves w...locumranch:<br /><i><br />Red Staters tend to ally themselves with conservative oligarchs because (1) conservative oligarchs offer those Red Staters increased liberty, more self-determination, less federal collectivism & more state's rights (which is analogous to the valued 'lives of the crew' that the alien offered Kirk), (2) progressive oligarchs promise more federal collectivism, more security & less self-determination (which is analogous to the power, wealth & privileges that the alien offered history's notorious villains)<br /></i><br /><br />I have to admit that I understand your position better after this one.<br /><br />I do think you have a contorted definition of "liberty". Having just re-read Vonnegut's incredibly prescient 1953 novel "Player Piano", I'm thinking of the climax where the population rebels against machines taking jobs away from humans. The leaders of the rebellion want to carefully inventory the machines in town in order to decide which should be kept operating and which should be dismantled, but the crowd is not so easily contained. "I just blew up the waste disposal plant! Give the country back to the <b>people</b>!"<br /><br /><br /><br />LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-20212177264330009532015-08-17T13:56:50.245-07:002015-08-17T13:56:50.245-07:00David, on Lessig's message in debatea etc - bu...David, on Lessig's message in debatea etc - but Bernie Sanders got there with the corruption in politics message before Lessig, and in a better format. Bernie has been hammering the message since before Lessig was even published on the subject. When Lessig states that he, himself, is needed to spread the anti- corruption message, he is ignoring that the same message is already being spread by someone with better political bona fides than his. Ego driven to think that he has anything unique to add to the campaign. matthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17757867868731829206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-11690795129956690542015-08-17T13:53:52.750-07:002015-08-17T13:53:52.750-07:00Larry_H almost gets it; David does not:
Red Stat...<br />Larry_H almost gets it; David does not: <br /><br />Red Staters tend to ally themselves with conservative oligarchs because (1) conservative oligarchs offer those Red Staters increased liberty, more self-determination, less federal collectivism & more state's rights (which is analogous to the valued 'lives of the crew' that the alien offered Kirk), (2) progressive oligarchs promise more federal collectivism, more security & less self-determination (which is analogous to the power, wealth & privileges that the alien offered history's notorious villains) and (3) oligarchs are all that our current US governmental system has to offer law-abiding US citizens in recent elections (which is really no choice at all).<br /><br />Of course, this is a very temporary alliance, less analogous to the original ST's 'Savage Curtain' episode (referenced above) and more analogous to the 'Who mourns for Adonais?' episode, which ends with the putative head of the Red Staters (aka the conservative oligarchs) being serviced in the same manner as the head of either Apollo or GJ Danton.<br /><br />Then, only then, there will be no room left in our universe for oligarchy & gods.<br /><br /><br />Best<br />________<br /><br />Rollerball (1975) is a much better analogy: Jonathan E = A Red State Reactionary; Ella = A Blue State Sell-Out; and Bartholomew = The Corporate Oligarchy<br /><br />Jonathan E: I've been thinking, Ella. Thinking a lot... and watching. It's like people had a choice a long time ago between having all them nice things or freedom. Of course, they chose comfort.<br /><br />Ella: But comfort is freedom. It always has been. The whole history of civilization is a struggle against poverty and need.<br /><br />Jonathan E: No! No... that's not it. That's never been it! Them privileges just buy us off. [deep sigh]<br /><br />Bartholomew: The game was created to demonstrate the futility of individual effort. You can be made to quit, you know. You can be forced.<br /><br />Jonathan E: You can't make me quit.<br /><br />Bartholomew: Don't tell me I can't. Don't EVER say that. I can. YOU can be stopped. [Jonathan E leaves the room, he turns up the volume of a TV set & thousands cheer his name]<br />locumranchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-32305021706114277802015-08-17T12:39:23.178-07:002015-08-17T12:39:23.178-07:00Actually Laurent Weppe I think it’s simpler than t...Actually Laurent Weppe I think it’s simpler than that, and not nearly so nefarious. What is called “racism” is mostly just the normal human impulse to be more comfortable/secure/trusting around people of your own tribe/kin/kind. This is something Malcolm X acknowledged and which was never in human history considered some dire cosmic sin until very recently, thanks to the aggressive propaganda of a few fanatics. Nations normally reflect this human tendency, providing safe “homelands” where people can be among their own (see Israel). But again, thanks to some fanatics, we are creating a regime of chaos where no such safe spaces can exist (at least in the rather pathological modern West), which is probably going to be the source of a lot of conflict going forward.<br /><br />I know this doesn’t fit with some people’s Federation fantasies, but it’s a deep human reality, and no amount haranguing “good old white boys” is likely to change the fact that we just want what other people want, and all the haranguing and moralizing is really just making things worse. Go harangue the Chinese or something and leave us normal folks the f*ck alone!Treebeardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-72695161768405461572015-08-17T12:29:45.131-07:002015-08-17T12:29:45.131-07:00David, on Lessig's message in debatea etc - bu...David, on Lessig's message in debatea etc - but Bernie Sanders got there with the corruption in politics message before Lessig, and in a better format. Bernie has been hammering the message since before Lessig was even published on the subject. When Lessig states that he, himself, is needed to spread the anti- corruption message, he is ignoring that the same message is already being spread by someone with better political bona fides than his. Ego driven to think that he has anything unique to add to the campaign. matthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17757867868731829206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-80173599415210283282015-08-17T12:04:42.258-07:002015-08-17T12:04:42.258-07:00elaborating further...
In an original series epis...elaborating further...<br /><br />In an original series episode of "Star Trek", an alien being simulates a morality play for itself by pitting forces of "good" (including Kirk, Spock, and Abraham Lincoln against forces of "evil" including Ghengis Khan and a nasty Klingon. The two teams have to fight for supremacy in order to win a prize offered by the alien.<br /><br />At the end, the frustrated alien tells the victorious Kirk that he (the alien) saw no difference between the tactics employed by the two sides. He was not able to discern a difference between the good side and the evil side. As a suggested answer, Kirk asks what the alien had offered the bad guys if they had won. I don't remember the exact phrasing, but essentially, he had offered them power and conquest. To which Kirk responded, "You offered <b>me</b> the lives of my crew."<br /><br />Your response to Dr Brin reminds me of that alien in the way that you just don't get it.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-30693829688891729932015-08-17T11:52:06.594-07:002015-08-17T11:52:06.594-07:00locumranch:
I condemn all oligarchs in equal fash...locumranch:<br /><i><br />I condemn all oligarchs in equal fashion, from the wealthy GOP elitists to pseudo-populist multimillionaires like John (Heinz) Kerry & Hillary Clinton, the difference being that I don't pretend that best interests of the common citizen coincide with the fiduciary interests of the select 'Good Billionaire'...<br /></i><br /><br />But you do claim "Red State" sensibilities to be the antidote to the oligarchs, ignoring the fact that the Red States overwhelmingly vote <b>for</b> the agenda of the oligarchs.<br /><br /><i><br />parasites are parasitical regardless of the Political Correctness of their respective ideologies.<br /></i><br /><br />That's a bit lazy. What you're saying is that those who use their powers for good are the same as those who use their powers for evil, because "using their powers" is bad regardless of what they are used for.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-78045875406673007222015-08-17T11:34:51.129-07:002015-08-17T11:34:51.129-07:00What dichotomous BS !!
I condemn all oligarchs ...<br />What dichotomous BS !! <br /><br />I condemn all oligarchs in equal fashion, from the wealthy GOP elitists to pseudo-populist multimillionaires like John (Heinz) Kerry & Hillary Clinton, the difference being that I don't pretend that best interests of the common citizen coincide with the fiduciary interests of the select 'Good Billionaire', the difference between 'good' billionaires and 'bad' billionaires being largely imaginary as parasites are parasitical regardless of the Political Correctness of their respective ideologies. <br /><br /><br />Best locumranchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-61280929374639083802015-08-17T11:12:11.507-07:002015-08-17T11:12:11.507-07:00"I had missed the extensive use of private em...<i>"I had missed the extensive use of private email accounts in the late W.Bush Admin...<br /><br />"So, how is Hillary any different?"</i><br />You've answered your own question there. When it happened under W, there were no Congressional outcries, no headline news stories, no "-gates" being tossed about.<br /><br />That, by the way, also answers your "hypothetical" regarding how we would have responded if this had happened under a Republican administration. It <i>did.</i> And the nation shrugged its metaphorical shoulders and went on about its business, re-electing the same people who had done it.Jonathan S.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-4185704647305504022015-08-17T10:49:52.788-07:002015-08-17T10:49:52.788-07:00Matthew I disagree about Lessig. If he is in the ...Matthew I disagree about Lessig. If he is in the debates his sole aim will be to talk about corruption of politics… issues that no one else even hints at. Any major increase in public awareness of those isses will benefit the nation spectacularly.<br /><br />Tacitus I appreciate you courtesy tinged with whimsey. And I do not deny that the email thing and the Clinton Foundation donor thing are worth raising. I simply choke over the pretences that these are comparableto the staggering mountain of malfeasances on the other side. And we begin and end with OUTCOMES. In none of these cases are the outcomes even theoretically more than molehills. Compare this to the Bushite wars, which benefited only Iran and Cheney clan companies to the tune of perhaps a hundred billion dollars. Indeed, compare all clintonite “scandals” to just the one C5 cargo of $12 billion in raw cash that landed in Bagdhad and promptly disappeared? Um?<br /><br />Dig it. You want more separation between money and politicians? One party wants to move in that direction. The other has dismantled all barriers. So do not lecture us about the Clinton Foundation, please. Indeed, theirs was the only 8 year admin to have zero high or medium officials indicted for malfeasance of office, despite desperate efforts to find smoking guns. (Efforts that included diverting anti-terror resources before 9/11… should that not make you steamed?)<br /><br />----- Ironies abound. Our local defender of oligarchy whines that all our efforts to resist oligarchy are doomed because the oligarchs already control it all. Did I mention that the fundamental here is personality?<br />David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-86080988629870658782015-08-17T07:48:27.537-07:002015-08-17T07:48:27.537-07:00Forgetting about the classic (unconnected) thermos...<br />Forgetting about the classic (unconnected) thermostat study for the 1950s that correlated the illusion of control (and/or 'ownership') with improved factory worker productivity, our credulous host continues to assume a causal relationship between socioeconomic OUTCOMES & the political process, even when no such demonstrable relationship exists.<br /><br />So. get out there and fiddle those dials, display those partisan political flags, and ROOT ROOT for the Home Team (Yanks think this means one thing, while Aussies & Kiwis know it means something completely different), the important thing being that you become invested, engaged & actively complicit in your ongoing political & socioeconomic subjugation, so much so that you never wake up to discover how thoroughly ROOTED you are.<br /><br />So convince yourself that that little thermostat of yours determines the foregone conclusion and ENJOY the complimentary bread & circuses, because the more you 'whip yourselves' into a partisan frenzy, the less actual whipping your duly-elected slave driver will need to apply to achieve the desired outcome:<br /><br />Your enthusiastic servitude.<br /><br /><br />Bestlocumranchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-57876837151875602972015-08-17T07:20:29.919-07:002015-08-17T07:20:29.919-07:00So long as I am being long winded today, something...So long as I am being long winded today, something I wrote to help my UK friends understand the 2015/16 campaign season.<br /><br />http://detritusofempire.blogspot.com/2015/08/help-wanted-president-201516-edition.html<br /><br />TacitusTacitushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17007086196578740689noreply@blogger.com