Election thread

[Buster's Uncle]

I think of it as mostly St Paul theology as in the Book of Hebrews, as best example.

As for the Catholics... Oh.  I suppose you're right.

But the cultural conservatives in your part of the country should be well-versed enough to understand my argument.

Sure, but they're all Protestants as far south as north Florida and clear over to the Mississippi, and don't have just everything in common with the Catholics after some core cultural values -the differences being mostly apparent only to them, but they find them significant- but give them all the America they want, and watch the purges of unpopular minority denominations begin and work up to whoever wins being the official state religion in a theocracy of unhappy people. 

They'd fall to infighting if they even got their own party, absent perfect leadership at the top.  These people make good -no, BETTER- neighbors, but lousy, hateful, politicians.

[Yitzi]

Persuasion works better than laws, too.

No, actually it doesn't; you get more people who say they agree, but without a basis in laws it ends up being totally corrupted (whereas with laws you have a decent chance of ending up with at least some who accept it and don't corrupt it).  Short-run, persuasion seems to work better, but if you want a system that will last the millenia fairly intact, you need to use laws (as you said, it's the Pharisee way).   

[Buster's Uncle]

No, really; it does.  What you describe is failed persuasion.

Laws without persuasion give you Prohibition.  That really worked out well.   

Persuasion without laws is still better, even if needing ongoing persuasion and other social mechanisms to work in the long-run.  I stand behind my remarks.  You like the persuasion-based way I run this place better than some other, more common,  moderation philosphies I could bring to bear, I assure you. 

[Yitzi]

No, really; it does.  What you describe is failed persuasion.

Laws without persuasion give you Prohibition.  That really worked out well.   

Persuasion without laws is still better, even if needing ongoing persuasion and other social mechanisms to work in the long-run.  I stand behind my remarks.  You like the persuasion-based way I run this place better than some other, more common,  moderation philosphies I could bring to bear, I assure you. 

Laws without persuasion don't work well, true, and a mainly persuasion-based way is a good idea (you don't run this place in a completely lawless manner, though; you wouldn't make it mainly about Civ whatever-the-number-is-now if that was the best way to persuade people to participate.)  But having no laws at all is essentially a slow method of ideological suicide.

For comparison of laws-with-persuasion-support as compared to persuasion-but-no-laws, just look at the two groups you mentioned (Pharisees and early Christians), and see which one has done better.  (Of course, this depends how you define "better"; I define it as "still has people who follow their ideals". )

[Buster's Uncle]

Be with you in a second, Y.



I post this story half just to mention that it's time to stop reporting about the Petraeus story - it's pretty much run it's course the day it broke, Friday, and has become just another hollow pretty white girl story that isn't really about anything other than having a decent-looking woman involved, and some prurient interest.  Let's give destroying three families a rest, and journalists ought to go find something more newsworthy to take out their election fatigue on.

Remarks on the other issue to follow the story.

Why Men Like Petraeus Risk It All to Cheat
By Stephanie Pappas, LiveScience Senior Writer | LiveScience.com – 7 hrs ago.. .

 
An admitted affair has crumbled the career of CIA Director David Petraeus, prompting the evergreen question: Why do people with so much to lose risk it all for sex?
 
In the last few years alone, several public figures, from former Rep. Anthony Weiner to action star and former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, have admitted to straying from their marital vows. In Petraeus' case, a miscalculation of risk may have contributed to the decision to cheat, psychologists say.
 
"People tend to underestimate how quickly small risks mount up" because of repeated exposure to those risks, said Baruch Fischhoff, a professor of social and decision science at Carnegie Mellon University. "You do something once and you get away with it — certain things you're probably going to get away with — but you keep doing them often enough, eventually the risk gets pretty high."
 
Even so, men can become blind to risk at the sight of an attractive woman, and from an evolutionary perspective, cheating can be a positive mechanism for ensuring gene survival, regardless of risk, scientists say.
 
Military affairs
 
Petraeus, a retired four-star general, resigned his post as CIA Director on Friday (Nov. 9), admitting to an affair with Paula Broadwell, his biographer. Twenty years the general's junior, Broadwell had close access to Petraeus for several years, but their affair reportedly did not start until after he left the military in 2011.
 
A West Point graduate, Broadwell is a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army Reserves. She reportedly bonded with Petraeus over physical activity, going on runs with him and remaining a close confidant after Petraeus' military career ended.
 
That time together likely contributed to the intimacy between Petraeus and Broadwell, said Frank Farley, a Temple University psychologist, just as many people begin affairs after getting close in the workplace.
 
Petraeus is not the first high-ranking military man to have an affair, said Farley, who is also a past president of the American Psychological Association. Famously gruff World War II general George Patton had an affair with his wife's step-niece. General Douglas MacArthur had a mistress named Isabel Rosario Cooper, whom he met in the Philippines.
 
And General Dwight D. Eisenhower, later president, may have had an affair with his World War II chauffer, Kay Summersby, according to the woman's memoirs and some suggestive letters left behind after both parties died.
 
"The nation should not be surprised at Petraeus having an affair," Farley told LiveScience.
 
Leaders like Petraeus tend to be bold risk-takers, Farley said, a personality trait that is very helpful when leading soldiers into battle. The same trait may make these leaders more likely to take risks in their personal lives, as well. [10 Easy Paths to Self Destruction]
 
Broadwell may have some of the same risk-taking traits as the former director. In a January interview with The Charlotte Observer, Broadwell, who is also married, called herself and her husband "adventure junkies."
 
Risk versus reward
 
Still, Petraeus' 38-year marriage and his career were at stake in his decision to pursue an affair. Extramarital liaisons are especially risky for CIA employees with access to classified information, because an affair can leave the person open to blackmail.
 
There are also concerns that Broadwell could have gotten classified information from Petraeus. For example, in a speech in Denver in October, Broadwell brought up details about the U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi that may not have been public knowledge, according to The Daily Beast.
 
With risks like that on the line, could an extramarital affair be worth it? As it turns out, men may become blind to risk when an attractive woman enters the picture. One 2008 study found that men who played blackjack after seeing beautiful female faces took more risks than men who played the game after seeing unattractive faces.
 
This was true if the men were highly motivated in seeking new sexual partners. The blackjack risks seemed calculated to impress potential mates, study researcher Michael Baker, now a professor at Eastern Carolina University, told LiveScience. [The Sex Quiz: Myths, Taboos & Bizarre Facts]
 
More germane to high-profile affairs, Baker said, the risk of losing one's career or reputation is nothing compared with the evolutionary drive to reproduce. In that sense, while embarking on an affair may seem dumb, it actually shows something called "mating intelligence."
 
"These individuals have these very high-status, high-power positions, and the whole idea behind why people might be motivated to get these positions is because it gives them better access to resources that could be used to increase their reproductive success and attract more mates," Baker said.
 
Until the last few decades, extramarital affairs wouldn't have put a crimp in the careers of high-profile men, Baker said. It's only recently that men have been subject to the consequences of infidelity. And, of course, monogamy is often a lofty ideal.
 
"The human race has had thousands of years of problems with monogamy," Farley said. "The problems have not been resolved."

http://news.yahoo.com/why-men-petraeus-risk-cheat-210918083.html

They didn't mention preachers.  Same thing with preachers, because the same sort of guys rise to the top of that profession, too.  Usually tall, handsome (except when they're not), charismatic and agressive individuals.  The same qualities that make them sucessful at being politicians and/or preachers (or generals) also make them good with women, and just the sort of lusty go-getters more likely to run around, to boot.  I figured this all out 20 years ago, and as science, I think these researchers just announced that the sun rises in the east.

It's like the rock star who answered the question about why rockstars date and marry supermodels with "Because they can."

[Buster's Uncle]

Laws without persuasion don't work well, true, and a mainly persuasion-based way is a good idea (you don't run this place in a completely lawless manner, though; you wouldn't make it mainly about Civ whatever-the-number-is-now if that was the best

We've been lucky at AC2 to not have needed much in the way of laws, so far, actually.  See any rules posted?  Not a soul has done a single thing that requires remedial moderation more high-handed than friendly talking to someone to encourage them in the desired attitude.  Just hasn't come up yet.  sisko and me just ain't into imposing our will.  Persusasion has been all it took so far, although this forum is actually a dictatorship with nothing so much as a Magna Carta, let alone a constitution.

Laws are only needed when you can't achieve consensus.  I commend these posts to your attention:
http://alphacentauri2.info/index.php?topic=2293.msg9766#msg9766 (and the post following)
http://alphacentauri2.info/index.php?topic=2293.msg11479#msg11479

When the community has grown to meet our ambitions for it, this will almost certainly have changed to something more formal.  Consensus is exponentially more difficult to reach as the population at issue grows.  [shrugs]  Until that time, a culture where laws aren't necessary is better.  Depends on the leadership, of course.

[Rusty Edge]

You know, there's a point in there underlining the schizophrenia of the Republican party.  The Cheney administration sided with big business interests every. single. time., no matter what.  You're possibly to young to have been aware of the business where they backed regulations that considerably extended how far into the US Mexican truckers were allows to go before they had to stop and off-load their cargo.  I don't have to have watched Lou Dobbs (or any of the openly Mexican-hating element) around then to know how that went over with their (frankly Mexican-hating) base.  It was just a terrible political move.  But that's the Bush occupation all over for you; business interests always won with them, and business likes cheap labor.

Racists, on the other hand, like police.  Schizo party, the Republicans.

It might help to look at it slightly differently.

The party includes big businesses, who engage in corporate chronyism... they are always lobbying to change the rules to their advantage.

There are also small businesses, entrepenuers, & family businesses, who basically want a fair chance.  Sometimes they feel threatened by cheap illegal labor.

A special advantage and a level playing field are at odds.

[Buster's Uncle]

Come to think of it, Yitzi, I have a job for you, you being so impressively detail-oriented - start a thread In Council Room, and organize citizen participation in making up the forum rules.  Quote this post.  You, if you accept this commision, are hereby appointed Chairman of the Commitee of the Everyone Interested for Rules. 

Some guidelines:

Forums are never democracies, and this one is no different - we live and die on member happiness, but the admins reserve all right to accept or regect proposed rules.

If the admins accept a rule, we consider ourselves bound by it.

We reserve the right to think of more guidelines as they occur to us, and participate in discussion like anyone else.

We may not formalize this until we feel like it's needed.

The management has as much rights as anyone else.  Please try to make it easier for the managment to manage, not harder.

Let's try harder than usual to observe topic discipline during this discussion.

The ultimate goal of all rules is the health of the forum and the happiness of the members.  We're not banning every little thing someone wants banned, unless the whole community is best served by banning it.




That's all I got for now - look at it as a live microcosmic participatory experiment in culture and government.

[Buster's Uncle]

You know, there's a point in there underlining the schizophrenia of the Republican party.  The Cheney administration sided with big business interests every. single. time., no matter what.  You're possibly to young to have been aware of the business where they backed regulations that considerably extended how far into the US Mexican truckers were allows to go before they had to stop and off-load their cargo.  I don't have to have watched Lou Dobbs (or any of the openly Mexican-hating element) around then to know how that went over with their (frankly Mexican-hating) base.  It was just a terrible political move.  But that's the Bush occupation all over for you; business interests always won with them, and business likes cheap labor.

Racists, on the other hand, like police.  Schizo party, the Republicans.

It might help to look at it slightly differently.

The party includes big businesses, who engage in corporate chronyism... they are always lobbying to change the rules to their advantage.

There are also small businesses, entrepenuers, & family businesses, who basically want a fair chance.  Sometimes they feel threatened by cheap illegal labor.

A special advantage and a level playing field are at odds.

I'm not sure I follow the distinction you're trying to draw.  Of course there are other competing interests than the ones I mentioned.

[Buster's Uncle]

I think texting is a strong sign of a spoiled and doomed society.  Never tried it.  I think anything that can't be plugged into a printer is a toy.

I Hate Text Messaging

 
(Language warning.)

Video embedding is back, and the Boondocks is teh awsome, and I wanted everyone to see this NSFW clip...

[Yitzi]

Come to think of it, Yitzi, I have a job for you, you being so impressively detail-oriented - start a thread In Council Room, and organize citizen participation in making up the forum rules.  Quote this post.  You, if you accept this commision, are hereby appointed Chairman of the Commitee of the Everyone Interested for Rules.

I might at that.  Having participated in some other forums, I do have some idea of what can go wrong and possibly how to prevent it, though the fact that these forums have such a strong focus (and are opt-in, so only include people who are into that focus) will make it less of an issue than others.

[Buster's Uncle]

Yeah - we've announced a few firm rules - no sharing people's PMs around, no newb-bashing ever - but nothing organized.  Drawing up a good list is work, and we work all the time already.  As a citizen, I tended to insist on a good rule set, properly posted, for my own protection from nerdbadge mod behavior.  So, that's part of your mision here, too.

It would be good for everyone to have something well-thought out ready.  I do strongly recommend reading all of Building a Community for various things I've said about policy and philosophy as part of getting started...

[Buster's Uncle]

...I just want to mention that I've concluded in recent days that not only is there a bizarre and widespread Republican reality bubble -not entirely a new revelation-  but that it's the worst, most dangerous and intractable problem in American politics.  What to do about it?  No problems are going to get solved well and for long while half the people are living in and acting on a complete fantasy...

I'm not exaggerating.  This is a horrible, horrible, problem, IMAO.  This could ruin the world for a long time to come.

What to do about it?

[Unorthodox]

I'm not sure which problem you're talking about, but the "fiscal cliff" they PURPOSELY CREATED in the hopes of having a Romney president to do things after the election.  They purposely have delayed this budget "problem" for 2 full years. 

And guess who's out of a job come Dec because of it?  (potentially.  Until not only they decide what they're doing but the money actually MAKES it down the line, which takes longer than this "45 days" they have to figure it out.  I've survived an entire year in this budget limbo, hopefully I can swing a few more months.  Dec 7 is the new deadline for me.)

[Buster's Uncle]

I couldn't say for sure who's to blame for the cliff, though it seems pretty obvious, but doing things that hurt the country -knowing they will- for politcal gain?  Isn't that treason?  Seriously?  I'm asking.

I'm sorry to hear that you're a casualty.  That's just awful, and I'm sorry that my words can't do it justice.

---

I was talking about the world of Fox News and the "Invisible Obama that only Republicans can see" (as Jon Stewart put it).  The right is living in a dream; witness all the stories about everyone in the top echelons of the Romney compaign being shocked at losing.  Look at Karl Rove on election night, fighting with the twinkies/anchors of Fox, not believing the numbers.  Look at every word Anne Coulter has uttered in public for the last 12 years or more.  Look at my posts about Scott Card going insane.  Listen to almost anything anyone on the right has said about Obama for years now.  Half the people are living in a bizarre dream world where a spineless and ineffective moderate president is an evil Kenyan Muslim socialist.

It scares me that anything Sara Palin says is given any more respect than the last time Charles Manson gave an interview - she's only slightly more rooted in reality.  Donald [Sleezebag] hasn't been laughed off the face of the Earth 10 years ago.  What to do about it?  Republican candidates don't have to denounce Rush Limbaugh and Bush Jr. as pro forma trying to establish they're not evil dinks.  The crazy is spreading like wildfire and we're all doomed if we don't figure a way out.  I'm seriously worried.