Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Friday, August 17, 2007
Quotations
Sorry, I know that the updates have been few and far between lately. I'm home in the land of dial-up internet and ongoing farmwork for a few weeks. I'll tend to this patch of page much better starting in September.
For the meanwhile, here are a couple quotes that have struck me of late. I'm often skeptical of rigid quotations, because they frequently simplify a complicated problem, but these are working for me for whatever reason:
I'm reading thrugh Grapes of Wrath right now, so I might amend "or money" to the end of that quote. But maybe that is a religion.
Before anyone takes offense: I sincerely believe that if everyone observed the rules that Christ or Mohammed or Whoever described, the world would be a better place. The problem is that religion in the great justifier of all otherwise unjustifiable acts.
For the meanwhile, here are a couple quotes that have struck me of late. I'm often skeptical of rigid quotations, because they frequently simplify a complicated problem, but these are working for me for whatever reason:
With or Without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steve Wienberg
I'm reading thrugh Grapes of Wrath right now, so I might amend "or money" to the end of that quote. But maybe that is a religion.
When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross.
Sinclar Lewis
Before anyone takes offense: I sincerely believe that if everyone observed the rules that Christ or Mohammed or Whoever described, the world would be a better place. The problem is that religion in the great justifier of all otherwise unjustifiable acts.
Saturday, August 4, 2007
Nothing new under the sun
I'd heard a lot of passing remarks on how bad of an idea it is to keep an army in Afghanistan, but this excerpt from a Kipling's "A Young British Soldier" really drives the point home:
When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
Friday, August 3, 2007
Handicapping Evolution
Explanation
It's interesting to contemplate what animals would eventually rise to control the Earth is humans were to somehow disappear. Actually, it'd be pretty fun to bet on if you had a six pack of beer and a few eons with nothing to do. To that end, here are the odds of any current species (or group of species) on Earth eventually developing the intelligence and means to control the Earth's resources as humans do now.
Chimpanzee 5:1 odds
Chimpanzees share the closest common ancestor with humans of any other animal, and it stands to reason that they have the shortest genetic distance to travel to catch up with humans in terms of intelligence. Chimps already have demonstrated the ability to engage in cognition (figuring out problems in their head instead of through trial and error), can learn sign language, and appear to be aware of themselves (will try to wipe away a mark on their own face if they see themselves in a mirror). Furthermore, their opposable thumbs give them a big advantage over dolphins in the way of manipulating tools. This is pretty important in order to control resources; being able to harvest chemical energy, for example, would be difficult without hands to manipulate tools.
Dolphin 8:1
By some measurements, dolphins may be more intelligent than we are right now. Some scientists have begun gaging intelligence by the number of folds in the brain's frontal lobe, and dolphins have far more than we do. They clearly have a language and more computational brain power for language than we do: what might sound like several seconds of whistling could convey more data than hours of human conversation. They also appear to make art (blowing bubbles into vortexes of water), and thus appear to have creative thought. However, as stated in the chimpanzee section, dolphins are severely handicapped by not having appendages with which to easily manipulate tools. This casts doubt over their ability to control resources. Furthermore, living in an aquatic environment makes developing fire and electricity much more difficult or unlikely than on land.
Octopus 18:1
According to some theories, cephalopods were leading the race to higher intelligence when the took an evolutionary wrong turn: octopus and squid blood uses copper instead of iron to convey oxygen. The hemocyanin in their blood is less efficient than the hemoglobin in our own, and therefore cephalopods blood probably carries too little oxygen to support a big brain. If octopuses could get back n the right track or figure out some way around this problem, they could be well on their way towards supremacy. They are already extremely adept at problem solving and manipulating instruments with their tentacles. Furthermore, some octopuses have evolved to live in progressively shallower water, perhaps presaging a move up onto land.
Raven 40:1
Ravens are thought to be the most intelligent species of bird. Like chimpanzees, ravens have show signs of cognition: a raven that encounters a piece of meat hanging from a string will trap the string with one foot and slowly pull the meat up with the other. Ravens also use sticks as tools for grub-hunting. However, flight requires maximum weight efficiency (birds have only one ovary and kidney, for example). This makes a high brain mass to body mass ratio unlikely.
Termites 150:1
I've heard a scientist suggest that one of the massive colonies of millions of termites in Africa might be as intelligent as a 4-year-old. Could be: they've already invented agriculture through fungus farms, language through chemical messages, sophisticated air conditioning, architecture, and division of labor. It's not that much of a stretch to imagine an ant colony learning to cultivate and use fire, a short step away from mastery of chemical energy. However, one wonders about the inherent limits of the hive consciousness...
Frogs 20,000:1
Though they have appendages with digits capable of grasping, frogs and most other amphibeans have little computational brain power.
Snakes 45,000:1
The disadvantage of having no appendages whatsoever makes snakes a dark horse candidate in this race.
Cockroaches 150,000:1
Not a good chance, and thank God for that (even if I'll never be around to see it).
Update: Maybe I should adjust this one to be a little more probable. In the case of a nuclear holocaust, cockroaches would have very little standing in their way.
Betting on larger groups
Generic primate 3:1
With orangutans, gorillas, and bonobos included, this group merits a healthy third of the probability of coming out on top.
Generic mammal 7:3
Adding dolphins, apes, cats, dogs, and rodents together, there's almost a 50% chance you've got a winner.
Generic bird 35:1
In addition to the raven's brain we include the tool-mastery of finches, and the possibility that a flightless bird will eschew its weight efficiency for a more intelligent brain. Furthermore, it is possible that the sudden boom in human intelligence a few hundred thousand years ago was the result of sexual selection--suddenly it was cool to date nerds. Birds are especially prone to sexual selection as a method of picking mates, so it's possible that they could get going down the same road that humans did.
Generic invertebrate 15:1
For a big-paying yet plausible bet, put your money on the invertebrates and hope the cephalopods develop hemoglobin or the hive consciousnesses keep getting smarter.
No successor 5:1
It took a few billion years of life to get humanity up and running. The sun's still got a few billion years of juice remaining, so the odds that another species won't rise to dominance are slim, but certainly a possibility.
Please place your bets by the next milennia. No wagers will be accepted any later.
It's interesting to contemplate what animals would eventually rise to control the Earth is humans were to somehow disappear. Actually, it'd be pretty fun to bet on if you had a six pack of beer and a few eons with nothing to do. To that end, here are the odds of any current species (or group of species) on Earth eventually developing the intelligence and means to control the Earth's resources as humans do now.
Chimpanzee 5:1 odds
Chimpanzees share the closest common ancestor with humans of any other animal, and it stands to reason that they have the shortest genetic distance to travel to catch up with humans in terms of intelligence. Chimps already have demonstrated the ability to engage in cognition (figuring out problems in their head instead of through trial and error), can learn sign language, and appear to be aware of themselves (will try to wipe away a mark on their own face if they see themselves in a mirror). Furthermore, their opposable thumbs give them a big advantage over dolphins in the way of manipulating tools. This is pretty important in order to control resources; being able to harvest chemical energy, for example, would be difficult without hands to manipulate tools.
Dolphin 8:1
By some measurements, dolphins may be more intelligent than we are right now. Some scientists have begun gaging intelligence by the number of folds in the brain's frontal lobe, and dolphins have far more than we do. They clearly have a language and more computational brain power for language than we do: what might sound like several seconds of whistling could convey more data than hours of human conversation. They also appear to make art (blowing bubbles into vortexes of water), and thus appear to have creative thought. However, as stated in the chimpanzee section, dolphins are severely handicapped by not having appendages with which to easily manipulate tools. This casts doubt over their ability to control resources. Furthermore, living in an aquatic environment makes developing fire and electricity much more difficult or unlikely than on land.
Octopus 18:1
According to some theories, cephalopods were leading the race to higher intelligence when the took an evolutionary wrong turn: octopus and squid blood uses copper instead of iron to convey oxygen. The hemocyanin in their blood is less efficient than the hemoglobin in our own, and therefore cephalopods blood probably carries too little oxygen to support a big brain. If octopuses could get back n the right track or figure out some way around this problem, they could be well on their way towards supremacy. They are already extremely adept at problem solving and manipulating instruments with their tentacles. Furthermore, some octopuses have evolved to live in progressively shallower water, perhaps presaging a move up onto land.
Raven 40:1
Ravens are thought to be the most intelligent species of bird. Like chimpanzees, ravens have show signs of cognition: a raven that encounters a piece of meat hanging from a string will trap the string with one foot and slowly pull the meat up with the other. Ravens also use sticks as tools for grub-hunting. However, flight requires maximum weight efficiency (birds have only one ovary and kidney, for example). This makes a high brain mass to body mass ratio unlikely.
Termites 150:1
I've heard a scientist suggest that one of the massive colonies of millions of termites in Africa might be as intelligent as a 4-year-old. Could be: they've already invented agriculture through fungus farms, language through chemical messages, sophisticated air conditioning, architecture, and division of labor. It's not that much of a stretch to imagine an ant colony learning to cultivate and use fire, a short step away from mastery of chemical energy. However, one wonders about the inherent limits of the hive consciousness...
Frogs 20,000:1
Though they have appendages with digits capable of grasping, frogs and most other amphibeans have little computational brain power.
Snakes 45,000:1
The disadvantage of having no appendages whatsoever makes snakes a dark horse candidate in this race.
Cockroaches 150,000:1
Not a good chance, and thank God for that (even if I'll never be around to see it).
Update: Maybe I should adjust this one to be a little more probable. In the case of a nuclear holocaust, cockroaches would have very little standing in their way.
Betting on larger groups
Generic primate 3:1
With orangutans, gorillas, and bonobos included, this group merits a healthy third of the probability of coming out on top.
Generic mammal 7:3
Adding dolphins, apes, cats, dogs, and rodents together, there's almost a 50% chance you've got a winner.
Generic bird 35:1
In addition to the raven's brain we include the tool-mastery of finches, and the possibility that a flightless bird will eschew its weight efficiency for a more intelligent brain. Furthermore, it is possible that the sudden boom in human intelligence a few hundred thousand years ago was the result of sexual selection--suddenly it was cool to date nerds. Birds are especially prone to sexual selection as a method of picking mates, so it's possible that they could get going down the same road that humans did.
Generic invertebrate 15:1
For a big-paying yet plausible bet, put your money on the invertebrates and hope the cephalopods develop hemoglobin or the hive consciousnesses keep getting smarter.
No successor 5:1
It took a few billion years of life to get humanity up and running. The sun's still got a few billion years of juice remaining, so the odds that another species won't rise to dominance are slim, but certainly a possibility.
Please place your bets by the next milennia. No wagers will be accepted any later.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Google cooking
I got home today and looked in the refrigerator to discover nothing but condiments, 2 eggs, some broccoli, onions, and a can of corn. I frowned for a second, thinking a trip to the supermarket was required, then inspiration struck.
I opened my computer, went to Google, and typed in "onions,broccoli,corn,egg,recipe". An instant later, a host of dinner possibilities appeared on my screen. After clicking through a couple, I chose "Broccoli Corn Casserole" and went to work. I am happy to report that the results were quite good.
What's more, I learned that Google-cooking is actually a common phenomenon. Every day, many people simply google ingredients and select the most appealing recipe to become the day's dinner. This is yet another way in which google has revolutionized the world: I look back on the me of 10 years ago, sadly making my way to the grocery store. Now I can put that trip off indefinitely.
Tomorrow's search: "salt, droopy carrots, teaspoon strawberry jam, beer."
Ah, to be alive in the google generation.
I opened my computer, went to Google, and typed in "onions,broccoli,corn,egg,recipe". An instant later, a host of dinner possibilities appeared on my screen. After clicking through a couple, I chose "Broccoli Corn Casserole" and went to work. I am happy to report that the results were quite good.
What's more, I learned that Google-cooking is actually a common phenomenon. Every day, many people simply google ingredients and select the most appealing recipe to become the day's dinner. This is yet another way in which google has revolutionized the world: I look back on the me of 10 years ago, sadly making my way to the grocery store. Now I can put that trip off indefinitely.
Tomorrow's search: "salt, droopy carrots, teaspoon strawberry jam, beer."
Ah, to be alive in the google generation.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Appealing conspiracy theories II: UFOs
Okay, okay, hear me out before you roll your eyes. I know that UFO sightings are generally attributed to inbred farmers and tinfoil-helmet wackos, which makes it very easy to write it off. To make sure I'm understood: I don't actually believe that people see alien spacecrafts or are sucked up into ships for experimentation. That said, I find the idea intriguing for a number of reasons.
The evidence in for UFOs
Think about these things: the universe is more than 20 billion years old. There are billions of galaxies like ours, each containing billions of planets with similar conditions to the Earth at the time our oldest ancestor's creation. The odds that ours is the only planet to have produced life is slim (perhaps even in this solar system). Scientifically, it's very, very improbable that we're unique. And if you're still dubious on religious grounds: remember that it was the idea of exceptionalism that fueled the belief that the Earth was the middle of the universe, around which everything else turned. And isn't it just more of a tribute to the idea of a Creator that there are other worlds out there?
So: I don't think there's any way that we are alone in the universe. The question then becomes: where are they? Let's consider just our galaxy for a moment. Say that there are 1,000 other worlds that have life (a pretty conservative guess, based on the previous paragraph). It would be pretty improbable, then, that we would be the fastest-developing world. Perhaps we are one of the faster ones (or slower), but the odds of us being the most developed would be 1 to 1000 against, even in this conservative example.
We now have two premises: 1. There are probably other planets with life in universe, and 2. It is probable that of the planets to have produced life that we are not the most developed of all. If these points are valid, then there are alien societies throughout the universe that have , that reached the stars before us. Now, think about our own species. Once we mastered the use of chemical energy, we have exploded outward, reaching outer space within a century, and to the edge of our solar system within thirty more. Project that exponential expansion forward another several centuries and we'll have reached the nearest stars. A few millennia more, and we'll have spread across the galaxy. The idea at play here is that once a society gets going it can spread very quickly. In a few thousand years, an intelligent race can leap out from their caves and across many light years. In relation to the universe, which as I said before is older than 10 billion years, a few millennia is nothing. It's an inconsequential blink. So the odds are that any society with a head start on us will have reached Earth and beyond, no matter if they're the star system next door, or on the other side of the Milky Way.
An analogy: we've just woken up, explored the bedroom, and found no one there. To assume that we're the only ones in the house or the first ones awake is to jump to conclusions. And if we believe that there are others in the house, the fact that we haven't seen them doesn't mean that they haven't been in while we we sleeping.
Maybe they didn't want to wake us: why I don't actually believe the theory
While I think the evidence is compelling that there is other life in the universe, and even that some of that life is intelligent and star-traveling. But I don't believe in the stories of alien abductions and UFO sightings. Imagine humankind ten thousand years in the future, coming across a planet upon which a species has reached the Industrial Age. Wouldn't you think that we would remain hidden and allow them to develop on their own? I believe that if there are aliens out there, they would keep their distance, and if they chose not to, then they would do it in such a way so that we on Earth would have no clue that they were doing it.
The evidence in for UFOs
Think about these things: the universe is more than 20 billion years old. There are billions of galaxies like ours, each containing billions of planets with similar conditions to the Earth at the time our oldest ancestor's creation. The odds that ours is the only planet to have produced life is slim (perhaps even in this solar system). Scientifically, it's very, very improbable that we're unique. And if you're still dubious on religious grounds: remember that it was the idea of exceptionalism that fueled the belief that the Earth was the middle of the universe, around which everything else turned. And isn't it just more of a tribute to the idea of a Creator that there are other worlds out there?
So: I don't think there's any way that we are alone in the universe. The question then becomes: where are they? Let's consider just our galaxy for a moment. Say that there are 1,000 other worlds that have life (a pretty conservative guess, based on the previous paragraph). It would be pretty improbable, then, that we would be the fastest-developing world. Perhaps we are one of the faster ones (or slower), but the odds of us being the most developed would be 1 to 1000 against, even in this conservative example.
We now have two premises: 1. There are probably other planets with life in universe, and 2. It is probable that of the planets to have produced life that we are not the most developed of all. If these points are valid, then there are alien societies throughout the universe that have , that reached the stars before us. Now, think about our own species. Once we mastered the use of chemical energy, we have exploded outward, reaching outer space within a century, and to the edge of our solar system within thirty more. Project that exponential expansion forward another several centuries and we'll have reached the nearest stars. A few millennia more, and we'll have spread across the galaxy. The idea at play here is that once a society gets going it can spread very quickly. In a few thousand years, an intelligent race can leap out from their caves and across many light years. In relation to the universe, which as I said before is older than 10 billion years, a few millennia is nothing. It's an inconsequential blink. So the odds are that any society with a head start on us will have reached Earth and beyond, no matter if they're the star system next door, or on the other side of the Milky Way.
An analogy: we've just woken up, explored the bedroom, and found no one there. To assume that we're the only ones in the house or the first ones awake is to jump to conclusions. And if we believe that there are others in the house, the fact that we haven't seen them doesn't mean that they haven't been in while we we sleeping.
Maybe they didn't want to wake us: why I don't actually believe the theory
While I think the evidence is compelling that there is other life in the universe, and even that some of that life is intelligent and star-traveling. But I don't believe in the stories of alien abductions and UFO sightings. Imagine humankind ten thousand years in the future, coming across a planet upon which a species has reached the Industrial Age. Wouldn't you think that we would remain hidden and allow them to develop on their own? I believe that if there are aliens out there, they would keep their distance, and if they chose not to, then they would do it in such a way so that we on Earth would have no clue that they were doing it.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
At least they're not rotary phones...
Isn't it strange that the phones in baseball dugout are never chordless? Why is baseball so behind the times? Even most football coaches have gone to the wireless headset...
Could it be that the image of a manager striding over and picking up the phone to call the bullpen is just to iconic to be replaced? 10 points for anyone who can provide a reasonable answer...
Could it be that the image of a manager striding over and picking up the phone to call the bullpen is just to iconic to be replaced? 10 points for anyone who can provide a reasonable answer...
Bear Grylls
Over the course of three minutes on Man vs. Wild last night, Bear Grylls dropped all of these gems:
Wow. Truly one of the greatest 5 minutes in television ever.
Update: Bear Grylls is obviously entertaining, but it's hard to pin down just how much of his appeal is derived from unintentional comedy. Having given it some thought, I submit that it's about 63% unintentional comedy, 37% sheer awesomeness. Results may vary based on the individual.
The most important part of you to keep cool is your head. I need a hat to reduce the risk of overheating. I could use my T-shirt, but I need that to keep the sun off my back. The only thing I have left is my boxer shorts.
(Now wearing boxer shorts as a hat) But my next problem is water. I’m going to need to resort to extreme measures to survive… The only thing I can do, is to drink my own pee.
It may seem disgusting, but your own urine is safe to drink.
(Having urinated into a canteen and drank it, all on camera) But urine alone is not going to be enough in this heat; I need to find a source of water as soon as I can.
Wow. Truly one of the greatest 5 minutes in television ever.
Update: Bear Grylls is obviously entertaining, but it's hard to pin down just how much of his appeal is derived from unintentional comedy. Having given it some thought, I submit that it's about 63% unintentional comedy, 37% sheer awesomeness. Results may vary based on the individual.
Monday, July 9, 2007
Appealing Conspiracy Theories I
As a skeptic and positivist, I am usually dismissive of popular conspiracy theories. However, there are a couple that strike a note of truth. In this occasional series, I will discuss the appeals of some of the few theories I find appealing.
The Moon Landing Was Faked
You may have come into contact with people pushing the idea that Neil Armstrong et al never actually made it to the moon, but instead filmed the whole thing in Nevada somewhere. While it may sound like a wing-nut theory, and I'm sure that adjective describes many of its supporters, some of the arguments for it seem to strike a note of plausibility in my mind.
What it has going for it
The biggest reason why this theory raises my eyebrows is the political situation at the time. The United States and USSR were in the middle of the contest of bravado known as the Cold War. Among the battlefields of this war (aside: doesn't this seem kind of silly in retrospect?) was technological achievement: each side strove to out-invent the other, almost like two brothers competing for their father's approval. President Kennedy launched a major broadside in this battle when, in 1961 he dedicated the country to landing a man on the moon "before this decade is out." This put a lot of pressure on the US, for to fail to accomplish this goal would mean a failure to one-up the Soviets (seriously, doesn't this make it sound like some middle school pissing contest?). Furthermore, in 1969, the year in which the moon landing occurred, the U.S. was desperately
So there was clearly a good deal of incentive, but how about motivation? Was Kennedy's successor, Lyndon Johnson, so brazen as to dupe the world in such such a way? Well, yes, and Kennedy, too. JFK was a willing perpetrator of all sorts of shifty shenanigans, ranging from having someone break into a municipal office to ensure his election papers were filed on time, to the secretively planned Bay of Pigs operation. LBJ was certainly not above deception, famously accusing an opponent of bestiality with pigs in order to force the man to spend time in his press conferences having to deny it. And Richard Nixon, whose term had just begun when the landing occurred? I think it's safe to say that he was not above secret conspiracies.
With a strong motivation and the people willing to do it, all the ingredients were in place to fake the moon landing.
Why I don't actually believe
As appealing as the theory is because of the political situation and players involved, I just don't think they could have pulled it off. Faking the moon footage, in particular the low-gravity bouncing, would have been astronomical. Bear in mind that Star Wars was still a decade away. Combine that with the sheer number of people that would have had to be in on it--dozens of government officials from two different political parties, hundreds of NASA scientists, all the astronauts, the film crew, etc. I just don't think that it's possible for that big of a secret to remain a secret for so long.
The Moon Landing Was Faked
You may have come into contact with people pushing the idea that Neil Armstrong et al never actually made it to the moon, but instead filmed the whole thing in Nevada somewhere. While it may sound like a wing-nut theory, and I'm sure that adjective describes many of its supporters, some of the arguments for it seem to strike a note of plausibility in my mind.
What it has going for it
The biggest reason why this theory raises my eyebrows is the political situation at the time. The United States and USSR were in the middle of the contest of bravado known as the Cold War. Among the battlefields of this war (aside: doesn't this seem kind of silly in retrospect?) was technological achievement: each side strove to out-invent the other, almost like two brothers competing for their father's approval. President Kennedy launched a major broadside in this battle when, in 1961 he dedicated the country to landing a man on the moon "before this decade is out." This put a lot of pressure on the US, for to fail to accomplish this goal would mean a failure to one-up the Soviets (seriously, doesn't this make it sound like some middle school pissing contest?). Furthermore, in 1969, the year in which the moon landing occurred, the U.S. was desperately
So there was clearly a good deal of incentive, but how about motivation? Was Kennedy's successor, Lyndon Johnson, so brazen as to dupe the world in such such a way? Well, yes, and Kennedy, too. JFK was a willing perpetrator of all sorts of shifty shenanigans, ranging from having someone break into a municipal office to ensure his election papers were filed on time, to the secretively planned Bay of Pigs operation. LBJ was certainly not above deception, famously accusing an opponent of bestiality with pigs in order to force the man to spend time in his press conferences having to deny it. And Richard Nixon, whose term had just begun when the landing occurred? I think it's safe to say that he was not above secret conspiracies.
With a strong motivation and the people willing to do it, all the ingredients were in place to fake the moon landing.
Why I don't actually believe
As appealing as the theory is because of the political situation and players involved, I just don't think they could have pulled it off. Faking the moon footage, in particular the low-gravity bouncing, would have been astronomical. Bear in mind that Star Wars was still a decade away. Combine that with the sheer number of people that would have had to be in on it--dozens of government officials from two different political parties, hundreds of NASA scientists, all the astronauts, the film crew, etc. I just don't think that it's possible for that big of a secret to remain a secret for so long.
Friday, July 6, 2007
King for a day
Question
What would you do if you were made head of the country for just long enough to impose one piece of legislation? Would you right a perceived wrong, or attend to your pet cause? Essentially, the question is: what added law would do the country the most good?
My Answer
I would set up a system for the public funding of elections.
I thought for a while about the various other causes I might want to try and devote my 15 minute reign to, but I think this works out best. When you're trying to decide between a number of choices, I'm a big fan of third-way options which use a creative alternative to allow you to have you cake and eat it, too (aside: I used to hate that aphorism, but it's growing on me).
The theory behind my choice: as cynical as I may sound sometimes, I really believe that well-run democracies will eventually come up with the right answers. In our case, however, there is a huge problem created by the process of elections.
In order to be a serious contender, you must have some serious cash backing. In order to get that backing, you must be supported by major corporations. And in order for major corporations to think that you're worth investing in, they must believe that your election will bring them something in return. Obviously, there's a huge incentive there to govern in the interest of your financial patriarchs, rather than in the interest of your constituents.
People have tried to fix this problem through campaign finance reform laws. Unfortunately, there are a few major weaknesses in those laws:
1. It's really hard to plug all the potential loop holes.
2. Without some sort of financing, the super-rich have a huge advantage.
3. There is some concern that it is a violation of free speach to prevent people from giving money to political organizations.
My solution to the problem is publicly-funded elections. Here's how it works: money is accrued through taxes (the cost is an estimated $1 per person). Any candidate getting a requisite minimum number of signatures is eligible to spend this money on an election. If all the candidates in a race opt to run with public money, they are each allowed a fixed ammount. If only one candidate elects to take they public money, enough is given to catch him/her up with his opponent. Since the opponent now has no incentive to try to outspend his/her rival, the total money spent drops significantly.
I like this idea a lot because it frees politicians from their financial obligtions, and allows them to support the legislation based upon whether they think it is sound, rather than whether it will be good for their backers. This would end the patron system we have now, and get real work accomplished on immigration, the environment, education, the economy, and many other areas in which companies havea vested interest.
What would you do if you were made head of the country for just long enough to impose one piece of legislation? Would you right a perceived wrong, or attend to your pet cause? Essentially, the question is: what added law would do the country the most good?
My Answer
I would set up a system for the public funding of elections.
I thought for a while about the various other causes I might want to try and devote my 15 minute reign to, but I think this works out best. When you're trying to decide between a number of choices, I'm a big fan of third-way options which use a creative alternative to allow you to have you cake and eat it, too (aside: I used to hate that aphorism, but it's growing on me).
The theory behind my choice: as cynical as I may sound sometimes, I really believe that well-run democracies will eventually come up with the right answers. In our case, however, there is a huge problem created by the process of elections.
In order to be a serious contender, you must have some serious cash backing. In order to get that backing, you must be supported by major corporations. And in order for major corporations to think that you're worth investing in, they must believe that your election will bring them something in return. Obviously, there's a huge incentive there to govern in the interest of your financial patriarchs, rather than in the interest of your constituents.
People have tried to fix this problem through campaign finance reform laws. Unfortunately, there are a few major weaknesses in those laws:
1. It's really hard to plug all the potential loop holes.
2. Without some sort of financing, the super-rich have a huge advantage.
3. There is some concern that it is a violation of free speach to prevent people from giving money to political organizations.
My solution to the problem is publicly-funded elections. Here's how it works: money is accrued through taxes (the cost is an estimated $1 per person). Any candidate getting a requisite minimum number of signatures is eligible to spend this money on an election. If all the candidates in a race opt to run with public money, they are each allowed a fixed ammount. If only one candidate elects to take they public money, enough is given to catch him/her up with his opponent. Since the opponent now has no incentive to try to outspend his/her rival, the total money spent drops significantly.
I like this idea a lot because it frees politicians from their financial obligtions, and allows them to support the legislation based upon whether they think it is sound, rather than whether it will be good for their backers. This would end the patron system we have now, and get real work accomplished on immigration, the environment, education, the economy, and many other areas in which companies havea vested interest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)