Algorithmic voters
A lot of the raw material for this diary is covered in Lookout's diary. You've got police brutalizing protesters, and why. You've got the Fed pouring money into junk, and why. You've got food banks running out of food. And why.
Lookout also highlighted a Jimmy Dore video, which deserves highlighting.
Yeah, cops taking a knee. Look at all those allies out there -- it's a field day for allyship! Nonviolent protests break out all over the world and hegemonic America has spoken. Virtue signaling YEAH! Then let's go back to being stupid.
Meanwhile you've got climate scientists saying that ‘Collapse of civilisation is the most likely outcome.’ Now, we could have a civilization, but it appears that nobody really cares, and that nobody will continue to care as the catastrophes compound. Why? We've been programmed to follow some sort of obsolete algorithm for "self-interest," irrespective of any sort of actual self-interest we might be advancing in following the algorithm. Have a career, make a lot of money, own some property, get married, raise a family, blah blah blah. It no longer bears any relationship to the reality in which we live. The only investment worth pursuing is the government, and only the rich can afford to own any of it, and they've programmed our government to support their own obsolete algorithm of "self-interest." The rest of us pay income taxes without purpose.
The obvious solution, then, is to change the algorithms by which we conduct the affairs of civilization. The clearest example of an algorithm to change, at least to my thinking, is in political thought. You may remember that I ran a series on what to say to the Biden bullies, the people who are absolutely frightened by Donald Trump's ridiculous behaviors and who stand ready to accuse us all of being Trump supporters if we don't pledge our hearts, minds, and souls to victory for Joe Biden in November. Here, once again, are the links to those diaries:
Joe Biden in Fantasy and Reality
The Biden campaign is achieving its intended objectives.
The Trump-As-Dictator Narrative
Sales Ethics and the Democratic Campaign '20
Standards Joe Biden does not meet
These posts were all intended to give you an idea of what to say to the Biden bullies. But all of them beg the question of what is really in it for the Biden bullies themselves. What is in it for them?
Biden bullies are clearly following an old algorithm of self-interest: "vote for the (D), because the (R) is worse." They've been following this algorithm for the past forty-five years or so, or, say, since Carter beat Ford in 1976. (Now, Carter was the last decent President, though at the same time he was completely co-opted when he was in the White House. I guess something had to occupy the vacuum left behind by Nixon's resignation.)
Now, the newest twist on this "vote for the (D)" algorithm was presented to America by Barack Obama, a President put in power by such algorithmic voters -- but then, under Obama's watch, Democrats lost 900+ state legislature seats, 12 governors, 69 House seats, 13 Senate seats. Don't forget those Supreme Court seats and the White House, too. You can say "it's not his fault" all you want, but the fact of the matter is that he served two terms, it happened on his watch, and he doesn't appear to have done diddly-squat about it outside of having his proxies bankrupt the DNC so that Hillary Clinton could take it over. Never mind Obama's right-wing record; it was his preference for the other party in power (DESPITE the algorithm) which will define his presidency.
There is certainly something to this algorithm, as indeed the Democrats can claim to be on several fronts better than Republicans. However, saying so is like saying that the good cop is better than the bad cop in a good-cop-bad-cop routine. One might be better than the other, but the consequences of their collaboration will be similar in many respects. And most of these respects are, and will be, crappy ones. In the particular instance above, you can say that Joe Biden would be better than another term of Donald Trump, but the outcome in this particular contest between two tone-deaf senile right-wing white male jerks, one with a bad record and the other with a bad attitude, is really not something we can decide. Nor can we say with any certainty that the outcome under a Biden presidency would be any better. (By outcome, I don't mean personality -- Trump's personality is odious -- but rather the sum-total of what will happen. Trump's crappy demeanor is counterbalanced by the pushback his policies receive.)
In all of these panicky assessments of a second Trump term, then, we are being asked to respond to a "threat" of things that are going to happen anyway, by taking an action which will by no means amount to a solution. Joe Biden isn't going to save the world, and (to compound matters) any criticism of him as someone who won't save the world is being treated as a threat to be suppressed, rather than something to added to an overall political judgment of what to do.
The obvious solution is that there must be some opening wherein the functioning of the algorithm can cease. (The Republicans have their own algorithm, which must also cease operation.) The algorithms are the "automatic" way in which most people lose with our current ways of operation. It's easy to find them -- medical bankruptcy, for instance, or the prison-industrial complex, or sellout unions, or real-estate Ponzi schemes, or capitalist "alternative" energy, or plea-bargaining innocent people into prison time.
As for the political solution, maybe a new party, maybe more credible candidates, maybe a revolution of some sort -- you choose. Perhaps the algorithm can be changed first in the realm of the downticket candidates. Take your time if you want; but think it through and make it effective, because the algorithms have to go. In fact, all of the algorithms which mark any sort of transition to what Jodi Dean calls "neofeudalism" have to go. The neofeudal "nobility," the folks who benefit from owning government while everyone else loses, must be dispossessed of their special status.
Comments
Well stated
Indeed, the programming must be changed significantly if the world is to survice even worse catastrophes to come.
"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott
There is no 'good cop'.
Most of those Dore vids show likely Democratic party primary voters being abused by police in cities run by Democratic party officials.
Call it 'Blue on Blue' violence. Or better yet, 'Choke Blue no matter who'.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Good Cop/Bad Cop
, is an interrogation routine, where one acts as a "bad cop", who plays the tough, out of control evil guy, to scare you into giving him some sort of confession, and the other acts as the "good cop", tries to befriend you, win your trust, to entice you into giving him some sort of confession. It's basically tag team wresting.
but you probably knew that.
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
I see only one hope
The Pelosi/Schumer/et all cabal will sabotage any possible reform for at least 5 years - until we are all dead - and there is no one in the Democratic Party with the courage and the power to stop them. The Republicans therefore may actually be the lesser evil, but that doesn't matter.(a homicidal death cult is a homicidal death cult, regardless of which is the most efficient) Our only hope is to destroy the Democratic Party so that a new party can replace it and defeat the Republicans. Destroying the Republicans will only accelerate our demise because it will only empower the corporate Democrats.
To use a football metaphor: we're down by 16 with 20 seconds left. We need a hail mary followed by an onsides kick followed by another hail mary - and two two point conversions or it's all over, but that's what it is.
On to Biden since 1973
Well Franklin Foer, writing for the Atlantic,
thinks that "The Trump Regime Is Beginning to Topple"... the purple passage seems a bit less confident:
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
Huh.
And here I thought the protests were about police violence against and killing of black folks.
Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.
Yeah --
there might be a bit of wish-fulfillment in that last piece.
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
Actuality as seen by someone who can't see:
"it’s worth pausing to marvel at the moment"
As in, "Everyone marveled at the gorgeous cake."
Oh. My. God.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Really well put.
Especially this part:
They can run all the “Biden is a changed man” stories they want but this is the bottom line.
Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.
Exactly right.
There are a few things that might change the foremost being performance theater.
Climate catastrophe?
"Meanwhile you've got climate scientists saying that ‘Collapse of civilisation is the most likely outcome."
That sentence should read "some climate scientists...." Most of the material in the linked article comes from one organization, whose agenda is described in this quote: "The Australian-based Breakthrough National Centre for Climate Restoration has spent years publishing reports warning that the science shows we are headed for civilisational collapse." There is no agreement among the scientific community as a whole that we face imminent climate catastrophe. The whole notion of "tipping points" that the linked article endorses is highly controversial, and not endorsed by the IPCC. Just sayin'.
I'm sure that adding between two and three parts per million
every year to Earth's atmospheric carbon dioxide endowment while acidifying the oceans and destroying the coral reefs and while releasing the methane clathrates from the Siberian permafrost and the Arctic Ocean floor is totally fine, except for the future.
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
And as for the Australians --
You can hardly blame them, given that their government clings to Australia's coal industry despite the fact that climate-change-fueled fires burned down 20% of their forests last year. Not good optics, as an outsider like myself would say.
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
Thomas Paine
had a simple way of looking at this, and is pretty much how I think about the world.
"A long habit of not thinking something wrong, gives it the superficial appearance of being right".
Thinking politician's give two cents about "the people", is just down right wishful thinking, no?
Words and deeds must be congruent, otherwise it is an error.
Imo, "self interest" has been corrupted to mean, thinking of one's self, and being indifferent to everything else is correct thinking and acting.
How is it in my self interest, to become as wealthy as I can, live where ever I want, but my country is in flames and my neighbors want to kill me? How is that a good thing?
I "believe" it IS in my self interest that the "collective" in which I reside, (planet earth, the US, Texas, Dallas, Neighborhood) is happy and healthy.
C99, my refuge from an insane world. #ForceTheVote
Reply to Cassiodorus on Climate Catastrophe
Human activity is only a minor factor, if at all, in the rising amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Climate scientist Dr. Roy Spencer explains why:
"Atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) continue to increase with no sign of the global economic slowdown in response to the spread of COVID-19. This is because the estimated reductions in CO2 emissions (around -11% globally during 2020) is too small a reduction to be noticed against a background of large natural variability. The reduction in economic activity would have to be 4 times larger than 11% to halt the rise in atmospheric CO2."
I would add that human emissions of carbon dioxide are only a small percentage of what the natural environment emits--outgassing from the ocean, etc. It is open to question if the increases in CO2 we are seeing in the measurements are entirely due to human activity. Natural processes appear to play a far larger role. I'll link Dr. Spencer's article at the end of this comment so you can read it for yourself. As for who Dr. Spencer is, he and his colleague John Christy basically wrote the book on how to measure atmospheric temperatures with satellite instruments, while they were working for NASA in the 1980's.
The other things you mention--ocean acidification, coral reef bleaching, methane releases--none of these are as simple as some would paint them. The truth is, we do not fully understand a lot of the natural processes that affect the earth's climate. Even your statement about the recent Australian bush fires being fueled by climate change is highly questionable. If you really start digging into the science of these things (which I have attempted to do myself), flat statements about climate change affecting this or that turn out to have surprisingly little solid foundation. Here are a couple of links:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/05/why-the-current-economic-slowdown-w...
And, about the Australian bush fires:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/01/are-australia-bushfires-worsening-f...
The rest of us will start here.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
Re: "The rest of us will start here"
Not everyone swears by the "Skeptical Science" web site:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/03/monckton-responds-to-skeptical-sc...
Of course the deniers don't.
Could I have some of that Exxon money too?
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.