The summer of Shove...

Been a busy beaver, developing software this summer so very little time for much else. Let's see, highlights:

1. Set up site blocker so I block myself from visiting news aggregation sites during working hours. Must...break...news...cycle...

2. Building software that may, at some point in the future, get used to govern the free world. Or, may be used in large corporate promotional campaign. Still, having fun...

3. Raising my boy.

Haven't been thinking much about the philosophical substrate of our democracy which was the intention of this blog, but hey, it's summer. Enjoy it...the general campaign is coming, and I'm sure I'll be full of ill-advised opinions then. Peace...

Rev. Wright

Once again, you have to be kidding me, right? We are trying to select a leader based on the philosophy of his pastor? To me, this simply shows how absurd it is that we have such a position (president) in the first place.

I don't know about you, but I am not a child. I do NOT need a father figure, my father works nicely, thank you very much. I do NOT need a president/king to guide me, tell me right from wrong, etc. People who DO need these things are retards, and by that I mean they are retarding our growth as a species.

It's time we cut the for-profit media and politicians out of the system. However much I like Obama, and I do, I certainly don't need him to guide me or my country. Nor do I need McCain, or Mistress Clinton. I think the only way forward is to build the future, and mock those that would hinder our progress. Take heart, and as Obama says, have hope.

back...and we're not insane.

For anyone who would think that having an election on the Internet is insane, have you been following the methods we have of presidential party nominations? IE: caucuses and primaries, some states not being counted because they went too early, etc? You're kidding me, right?

The whole reason the current system exists is because it is based on the bad technologies of previous times: quill pens, bad roads, human slaves. Why do we tie ourselves to these archaic systems of self-management?

The answer is simple and depressing. It's because of demagogy. Politicians exploit the current system to get into positions of power, and even if they have good intentions, the political system itself gives them and their cronies too much power without equaling accountability.

No self-respecting web 2.0 site would allow such an imbalance.

on strike

...I'm on strike. not writing anything but code until...

too much for now...

too much going on in my professional and personal life to warrant much posting on this front for now, we'll see if the Winter doldrums give me some time...

No Thank You Jesus

Kathy Griffin kicks some ass while getting an award:

more here.

The response is great. I particularly like the comment from the Christian dude:

"It's just not OK anymore to mock Christians and Jesus with impunity."

Hey buddy, wake up. She's not mocking christ at all, she's mocking YOU.

Gonzoles headed for think tank...

Well, the story is still developing, but looks like Gonzo is out.

NY times here...

My issue wasn't that he was a liar. It's that he lied so poorly. And that he didn't mention 9/11 enough.

Guess it's time to go spend more time with the family. Or Rove's family...

When will we start to realize that the problem is not that these people are in power, it's that any people are in power? The Justice Dept. should have civilian oversight, ie from Congress, and it's absurd that this hack took a year to remove from power. And then, only left on his own (or Bush's) volition.

Boooooooooooooooooooo.....time for a new system, people.

Bush compares Iraq to Vietnam...

Saying we should stay? Saying we should have stayed in Nam and "won?"

Don't you just love how they are trying to frame this argument in terms of "surrender" and "defeat" if we leave. Why not declare victory instead? We removed Saddam, we found no WMD (but at least contained the threat), we beat their military, and now we are engaged in a wholly unjustified occupation compounded by a religious civil war. Who are we surrendering to?

This is not war, this is occupation, and terms like retreat and surrender do not apply. To even use those terms is to engage in prevarication.

Bush is right. This is Vietnam. I have no idea who on his staff told him it would be a good idea to compare the two, but now that the cat is out of the bag it sure isn't going back in. And unless I'm wrong, most Americans don't think we could have won Vietnam even if we had used Nukes (which would have probably started a world-wide nuclear exchange).

Which is perhaps what Bush is angling for. Scary times...

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/23/that-vietnam-analogy-reactions/#comment-11284

Been away...

Been away for a couple weeks, August vacation and all that Jazz. hmmm...I need to spend more time writing on this damn thing or I should probably take it down. Hate to leave things half-done. Well, I do have a kid on the way, and I'll probably have more time (ha!) to write when he comes popping out.

Google government, where are you?

Pods...

The following post comes from a reader of the blog and can be read in the comments section. I will respond in future post:

Anonymous said...

Ok... so I’m not really a revolutionary, my mortgage is too high. However, I do have thoughts about what will happen after the revolution. What kind of government do we want? I talk to a lot of people about the American Government and one consistent message that people agree upon is there is something seriously wrong with the system. It isn’t a party or a person but this form of institutionalized bribery that we have somehow developed. I know our founding fathers didn’t intend this mess of government contracts running political agendas or special interest groups funding campaigns to control our representatives. Basic point is that our representatives don’t represent the citizens anymore. The debt the US owes is off the charts and no plan in sight to even stop going in debt much less pay off what we owe. I could go on about all the issues today but it really is pretty obvious that we are heading towards a bankrupting state on monetary and ideological basis. By the way, I’m not address State Governments at this point. Not that they don’t have their problems but nothing like the screwed up Federal system.

When the revolution comes and I’m asked what we should do I’m proposing a new flavor of democracy. I’m calling it “Group Democracy”. Our current system had 200+ years and this is where it got us. It is time for Democracy 2.0. Here is the basic premise:

· The more people you add to a group the dumber they get. Take a look at our congress. We need to keep groups small and conversations relevant in those groups to the real issues in the world today.
· Representation creates a level of abstraction that allows our congress/president/supreme court make decisions that are not fiscally responsible (I would even go so far to say ‘evil’ at times). To fix this problem the only way forward is citizens taking back our country.

Group Democracy:

· Create voting pods of 10 citizens each that vote on every issue/bill/resolution on Federal issues. Each pod gets to cast one vote. If there is a deadlock in the pod then a vote isn’t cast for that Pod.
· Federal Government is relegated to preparations for weekly Pod voting on issues.
· Bills are created by anyone from any Pod. Even special interest groups (which are pod members) can introduce bill/legislation into their Pod. The point is that a Pod has to introduce a bill. Your Pod needs 100% consensus on any bill submitted to your timezone for review.
· Pods are organized by time zone – Pod members can live out of that timezone (for instance if they move out of the timezone during their Pod tenure) but when Pod assignments happen it happens within that timezone. This allows for ease of Pod meetings and other organizational issues.
· Bills/Legislation are reviewed and voted on to move forward to National voting by all pods in the timezone that bill was introduced. This puts structure in place to stop final votes on issues happening without a review process at the timezone level.
· Pods are selected at random by people’s social security number. They are not tied to any location, race, age or any other traditional grouping other that at original assignment (every 2 years) they are assigned within a timezone.
· When people turn 18 years old they are assigned to their first Pod.
· Pods are changed up every two years.
· Pods communicate via whatever means required. Suggestion to meet once a week for 2 hours to cast votes.
· Random selection of pod members means that lobbying has to be done by pod members to convince other pod members to vote on their issue.
· Special interest groups are then forced to lobby to Pods.


There is a lot more to this and I’m sure there are issues I haven’t envisioned but really how much worse can it be than what we have?

Now there is an alterative all we need to do is wait for the revolution!!!!

peace
b.

Why do we need a daddy?

Sure, in a family unit it makes sense. But why would we need a daddy on the level of a nation-state? In other words, why do we need a dictator...or president. Or perhaps the president should only enforce the laws, and not lead us.

A leader in battle is one thing. A leader in our day-to-day politics? A leader to set our budget?

One question I often ask those who are for a strong executive: do you need someone to tell you what to do? Strangely enough, they all answer no...but they think the american public does need such a leader. I've got a word for that:

hypocrisy.

Coming back...

Whew. Haven't been posting because of a big push at work, though it won't be ending soon. Also, so disgusted about current state of politics that I find it hard to face the future, or even writing about it. Going to take a couple days on the cape to blow out some cobwebs, we'll see where I am upon return...

Transformers Movie

We surf a standing wave of nostalgia. Because we have no future, no shared myth of a past, we cling to the small stories from our childhoods, simple good vs. evil. And then we remake these stories as live action epics. Instead of new stories, people want to hear the same stories, over and over again, like children.

This movie blew.

Objectivist GG? Human Bondage?

First, take a look here...love the govt/sex analogy.

I have mixed feelings about the entire Rand/Objectivist position, but I don't think it is necessarily dis-congruent with GG. In fact, I would argue that a GG would allow men to not be subjugated to the whims of other men - to fight for their own individuality. I think current systems give you neither collectivism nor libertarian-style freedom of choice. Instead, entities and individuals are able to hijack the government to serve their own ends.

From that essay: "each of us must pursue our personal happiness, without forcing (infringing upon the life, liberty and property of) others." That's really along the lines of what my favorite political philosopher John Stuart Mill always advocated. I think what we should recognize is that what keeps us from this is not simply human nature, it's the bad technology of an archaic system of government.

Quick Thoughts...

Question: would a GG ever actually replace all the functions of our current govt?

Answer: No. Anytime you have an emergency you're going to need instant command and control structures that are top-down. So, in the military or disaster recovery space you're not going to see GG making a big impact at first. However, it would be hoped that an electronic democracy would put the best people in positions of power. Our current system emphasizing who was best at being a roommate in college (great job, Brownie!).

Question: Would a GG ever be for-profit? Meaning, will people who participate in them get paid, and will the system itself make money?

Answer: Why not? Isn't our current system for-profit (excluding huge national debt)? Maybe a future government has an advertising based rev stream? The non-profit approach to government has allowed the military industrial complex to tempt those in power with what they don't have, money. I think what's so great about GG's is if the system is created correctly, some of them could be for-profit and some wouldn't, and we could choose which ones we want to live within. Like choosing to have ad-banners on a website or not.

Imagine...

Imagine...instead of opening up a browser in the morning and reading about a failed presidency and a failed war, we could log into our GG and start participating in building a better world from the local level on up. Instead of posting our thoughts our into the ether, hoping that a meme strikes a fancy with a few other like-minded individuals, we could meet in virtual spaces to take action on initiatives that interest us. Not fundraising for a candidate, or working for a non-profit, but working directly within a system that empowers the people.

Maybe then Mondays wouldn't suck so much.

Link for the day:

Wars between Democracies?

More on War and Democracy...

This is what happens when you google e-govt!

HA!

A Great Rant on e-Govt

This is a must read by Mitch Kapor.

a choice quote:

Transparency is not a new concept to self-government. In fact it's an essential component. Yet our government practices have become increasingly opaque. For example did you know the final draft of the Patriot Act was introduced simultaneously with the vote?

But...it's facism!

The most fascinating response I get to the idea of GG (Google Govt. by the way, like how I just slip into the acronym?), is that "it's fascism!". Strangely enough, I have heard this from 2 libertarians.

"But how can a system that provides more control for the people be fascism?" I ask?

Their fear is that a corporation would control the votes and the decision-making, and that this amounts to fascism. My response is: this is valid fear. However, the nation-state has failed us, and has resulted in actual fascism many times in history. And a GG system, by empowering the people in a peer-review process, would be far less likely to commit the sins of a fascist regime (ie. unjust wars).

But, let's dispel the fascist myth of a GG by hypothesizing how it would actually work.

Let's assume the following:

1. Everyone has a vote.
2. Votes are not all equal.
3. Everything is open source with complete transparency.

Let me speak to point #2, since this is where the cries of "fascism" arise. In a representative system, votes are not equal at all. I have a vote to elect a representative, but hers is the only vote that counts on legislation (excluding ballot initiatives, which can be easily ignored by the state and federal governments). Then, it takes 4-6 years for my vote to matter again, while in the meantime this representative can do all kinds of idiotic things in my name, with my initial vote backing them.

Bad technology.

A Google Government would balance this by having a weighted voting system, in effect a "multiplier" on your vote that is adjusted, in real time, based on your level of respect within the system.

So, let's say you're Jane Bloggs and you decide to start participating in the GG in your town. the issue is garbage pickup, and you think it should happen twice a week. So, you sign onto your town's GG and you see all kinds of people talking about all kinds of issues (I'm assuming here these people are using asynchronous video posts to discuss issues...I'll get into why I think this is the best system in a later post. Probably in video). At this point, you have 1 vote with no multiplier (let's call them credits for the sake of argument).

Now, you start posting about this issue (Garbage pickup) and people start saying "Hey, Jane knows what she's talking about!". They begin to give you credits for your speeches on the issue, in effect "applause". Eventually, you become a recognized voice on this issue, in effect your advocacy and knowledge have given you standing within the GG on this issue, and you're able to call for a piece of legislation to start double pickups, form a coalition of supporters, and get funding approved for the increased garbage handling. You've become your own senator!

Now, however, let's say you start talking about other issues about which you have little knowledge. People start saying "hey, Jane did a good job on the garbage issue, but maybe Jane doesn't know too much about Health Care". You lose some of your credits; you aren't able to get support for your bill to give teddy bears to everyone in the emergency room.

A good GG would be able to reflect the intrinsic value of a meritocracy: efficacy. People should be rewarded for what they are able to do, for how they benefit the community, not for what their name is or how well they fundraise.

Ah...one other thing I'll get to. A good GG would also be able to be adjusted on the fly to help balance the system and improve the output. In other words, you wouldn't need a constitutional convention to change the parameters of the system. A good GG would allow you to run a socialist-style government in one town, and a more fiscally conservative government in the town next door. And, be able to compare and contrast the two.

Doesn't sound like fascism to me. Sounds like the liberty bell ringing.

Avoiding gridlock...with software.

Interesting...

"...University of Arizona engineer Yi-Chiang Chu is developing a software package that could smooth out the evacuation process. Working from real-time data collected by city and state transportation departments, the software suggests the best options for re-routing the cars and ensuring that everyone can get out of town as quickly as possible.—Gregory Mone"...

Of course, I don't think that GG will somehow automatically be able to decide the best direction for people to take in their own governance, at least not to start with. But why do people think they are better at governing themselves than machines could possible be (note, I said possibly...I certainly don't want my PC telling me what to do circa 2007, since it would probably tell me to take a nap while it rebooted itself).

The point is not to ever give machines control of our govt...the idea behind GG would be to build a better tool. Perhaps one that wouldn't get us embroiled in unjust wars, allow oil companies to dictate environmental policy, and place a bunch of reactionary religious bigots in charge of all of our destinies. But I digress.

I think it might be worth it to respond to some possible criticisms of GG...next post.