Random US election musings from a non-US citizen

So as the title says, since I'm not US born nor a US-citizen, I don't really have a horse in that election and can watch it with only casual interest. It does produce some rather entertaining things, like say this video from Joss Whedon. It's really funny, go watch it if you haven't already.

He's not the only one who frames the election in such, for lack of a better word, stark terms. There's similar gnashing of teeth on the Republican side. It's very clear, for each side, that a vote for the wrong person is Apocalyptic. Literally, if you believe Whedon doesn't have his tongue in his cheek. It's shocking, for both sides, that the election can be so close when one option is so obviously wrong.

Since I don't really live in the US nor follow all the news and, more importantly, the wonk commentary, I'm the first to admit to not being a qualified judge of the situation. But my worthless opinion is that, actually, none of the choices is apocalyptic. None of the choices is all that better. The same forces that keep progressive milestones alive like Roe v. Wade in the face of opposition from religious groups are the same forces that alas prevent comprehensive health care reform. Inertia dominates politics. Only baby steps allowed. There will be no apocalypse.

That might have been interesting at least. Maybe the tragedy isn't that 'the stupid others' are deluded in voting for the wrong guy. Maybe the tragedy is that, policy-wise, all options are the same.

Update: Mark Evanier tends to agree that there's too much of the "if the wrong guy wins, we're all doomed" shtick going on. But what does he know, he's just a writer whose blog I follow.

Comments

  1. JellyDecember 20, 2012 at 2:34 AM

    As I wrote to my American friend post-election, there seemed to be far too much "The wrong man won, have to skip town, America will fall tomorrow, doom is nigh, Save Our Souls" happening. It was frustrating to watch as a person and infuriating to watch as a voter. The world will not end just because someone got voted in, and they have a planned election in four years to rectify the situation!
    I really wished (at the time) that they'd get some perspective and stop making it into a melodrama. I imagined it was a lot like young kids who didn't get something for Christmas.
    *cough* rant over...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BLANDCorporatioDecember 20, 2012 at 2:08 PM

      Well said. I'd expect such melodrama to occur elsewhere as well, but either I pay it even less attention, or it's more subdued.

      The US is a very polarized society. You can fairly accurately predict someone's stance on evolution, gun control, abortion, immigration, capital punishment, and recent military interventions, simply by knowing their stance on one of them. (Previous observation valid on internet forums, anyway; selection bias may apply.)

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Dark Magics to avoid

If there's anything true of art in general, it's that any rule beginning with "don't" should be broken on occasion. Art should engage the soul, the conscious soul even, and nothing better for that than the occasional thing that's just that bit out of place, that bit unexpected. Conform to every rule you heard and what you produce can be consumed automatically. It's when the rules fail that consciousness kicks in. So in that spirit, treat the following "don'ts" as guidelines, and even break them-- but make sure you know what you're doing ;) For what follows is a list of magical powers which, if let loose on a plot, stand a good chance to render it hole-y. And the list is by no means exhaustive: feel free to argue for more items to be put on it. To give a flavor of the disruptive nature of magic, let's look at an example that will NOT kill a story ... but which, the character who suggested it argued, would kill society. NaN. Invis...
Read more

Review of "Mind over money"

Just watched a PBS Nova documentary called "Mind over money". It's a film about two competing models of economics, referred to in the show as 'rationalist economics' and 'behavioralist economics'. 'Rationalists' model each human being as being self interested and perfectly rational in pursuing the maximization of their own wealth; this results in certain mathematical assumptions that allow for an elegant theory. 'Behavioralists' claim that human beings do not act that way; even if maximization of personal wealth were pursued (which is not always the case), mistakes are often made. I for one believe that the behavioralists are right. It seems common sense to me to assume that nobody can reliably do the kind of mental calculation required by perfect economic rationality, and there are various cognitive biases to skew things the wrong way. But, I stress, this is merely a belief and I will defer to experts that study these things. In any case...
Read more

Parity Games: Intro

Image
With computer software becoming more important and complex, finding and solving bugs is more critical and difficult than ever. But why must this be? Surely computer programs, running as they do on deterministic machines powered by pure math, can be checked automatically. Well, in general, no. The space of programs, as a whole, is so wild that there exists no algorithm to answer even simple questions such as "will this get stuck in an endless loop". But, if we only need to look at restricted classes of programs, there are mathematical methods to guarantee correctness, or automatically construct a correct program -- where "correct" of course depends on our application. Formal verification is the home of such nifty mathematics and in this post we will be looking at a beautiful slice of it: parity games . Plus, parity games are the home of a tantalizing open question: are they solvable in polynomial time? We'll define what "parity gam...
Read more