[FoRK] Re: FoRK Digest, Vol 43, Issue 23

Raina Kishor <coolscorpion.raina23 at gmail.com> on Fri May 25 05:15:47 PDT 2007

stop sending me ur messages.

On 5/25/07, fork-request at xent.com <fork-request at xent.com> wrote:
>
> Send FoRK mailing list submissions to
>        fork at xent.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>        http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>        fork-request at xent.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>        fork-owner at xent.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of FoRK digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. The Traveler's Dilemma (Jeff Bone)
>   2. Re: Power gradient (Dave Long)
>   3. Re: Power gradient (Adam L Beberg)
>   4. Re: The Traveler's Dilemma (Stephen D. Williams)
>   5. Re: The Traveler's Dilemma (venki iyer)
>   6. Texas Senate approves $5 admission fee to strip clubs
>      (Russell Turpin)
>   7. Re: The Traveler's Dilemma (Russell Turpin)
>   8. Re: WTF? (Jeff Bone)
>   9. Re: WTF? (J. Andrew Rogers)
> 10. Re: Godless (Steve Nordquist)
> 11. invasion was much better than Cats lets do it again and again
>      (Dave Long)
> 12. Re: The Traveler's Dilemma (Jeff Bone)
> 13. Re: WTF? (Jeff Bone)
> 14. RE: The Traveler's Dilemma (Jeffrey Winter)
> 15. God is a Big Jerk (Jeffrey Winter)
> 16. Re: WTF? (Tom Higgins)
> 17. Re: invasion was much better than Cats lets do it again and
>      again (Jeff Bone)
> 18. Re: God is a Big Jerk (Jeff Bone)
> 19. Re: WTF? (Russell Turpin)
> 20. Re: WTF? (J. Andrew Rogers)
> 21. Students of jesus Arrested For Homemade Bomb (Tom Higgins)
> 22. Re: invasion was much better than Cats lets do it again and
>      again (Albert S.)
> 23. Re: WTF? (Jeff Bone)
> 24. Re: invasion was much better than Cats lets do it again and
>      again (Jeff Bone)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 14:57:12 -0500
> From: Jeff Bone <jbone at place.org>
> Subject: [FoRK] The Traveler's Dilemma
> To: Friends of Rohit Khare <fork at xent.com>
> Message-ID: <F726F995-4BB1-48A4-AFD9-CD677B9ABACB at place.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
>
> (I'll circle back to the discussion from last week about what kinds
> of world-bettering things FoRKies could collaborate on at some
> point...  in the meantime...)
>
> SciAm has an interesting article on game theory and rationality:
>
>   http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=7750A576-
> E7F2-99DF-3824E0B1C2540D47
>
> Enjoy!
>
>
> jb
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 23:44:57 +0200
> From: Dave Long <dave.long at bluewin.ch>
> Subject: Re: [FoRK] Power gradient
> To: fork at xent.com
> Message-ID: <2DB608A9-B430-43FA-BE1C-D5B881587BDF at bluewin.ch>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
> How about the following:
>
> the Banker (B) is one or more powers-of-magnitude "more powerful"
> than the Chumps (C).
> each turn, the Banker has the options of coercion, or of fair play.
> each turn, the Chump has the options of compliance, or of rebellion.
>
> in the case of fair play, this being a zero-sum game, the best we can
> offer is a payoff of zero.
> in the case of rebellion, we provide a stochastic game, in which the
> chump is (commonly) bankrupted, or (rarely) succeeds in becoming the
> new banker.
>
> so the matrix looks like:
>
>                         C complies       C rebels
> B coerces          1,-1                    x,-x
> B plays fair        0,0                     1,-1
>
> where x = the chump's stake 90% of the time, and -(the banker's
> stake) the other 10% of the time.
>
> I believe that minmax says that the Banker should "play fair" and the
> Chumps should "comply".  (If there are only a few chumps, and the
> number of rounds is short, the banker can attempt to win a higher
> payoff through "coercion" -- but if there are many, the risk becomes
> substantial)
>
> -Dave
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 15:11:59 -0700
> From: Adam L Beberg <beberg at mithral.com>
> Subject: Re: [FoRK] Power gradient
> To: Friends of Rohit Khare <fork at xent.com>
> Message-ID: <4654BC2F.7050408 at mithral.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> Dave Long wrote on 5/23/2007 2:44 PM:
> > so the matrix looks like:
> >
> >                         C complies       C rebels
> > B coerces          1,-1                    x,-x
> > B plays fair        0,0                     1,-1
>
> But where is the current reality in your matrix?
>
> B is a fly-by-night boiler room, C claims $200k/yr working as a busboy
> and has always been bankrupt. Neither can loose, only everyone else does.
>
> --
> Adam L. Beberg
> http://www.mithral.com/~beberg/
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 18:20:15 -0400
> From: "Stephen D. Williams" <sdw at lig.net>
> Subject: Re: [FoRK] The Traveler's Dilemma
> To: Friends of Rohit Khare <fork at xent.com>
> Message-ID: <4654BE1F.3000100 at lig.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> I really need to talk to this guy to either figure out his deficiencies
> or mine.  "In the years since I devised the game... this rejection of
> formal rationality and logic has a kind of meta-rationality attached to
> it."  Indeed, these guys have decided that only certain logical
> constructs apply to the game while not actually excluding all others.
> They then call the result irrational?  And don't buy any argument
> provided by participants?  Pretty weak, from a first reading anyway.
>
> Their "logic" that $2 is the rational choice is broken on several
> counts.  The goal is to maximize payoff, not to guarantee that you do
> better than the opponent.  It is posed as a real life situation.  In
> real life, the probability that the other person would place a minimum
> value on an art object is low.  This means that $2 is close to a worst
> case, less likely scenario.  The real choices, at that magnitude of
> penalty, are between 50% and 100% (or 95%) of the range.  Even if $2 is
> somewhat likely, over a series of instances of this kind of
> circumstance, a common and very rational way to reason about real life
> choices, even a somewhat unlikely payoff at 50-100% pays for many
> instances of near $2 minus a penalty.
>
> The logic expected seems to be naive logic.  Teenager (i.e. immature,
> innumerate) logic works like this: The police probably won't catch me
> when I do X.  (90% unnoticed or escape)  [Apparent mental model: 90% is
> about all the time, so I'll just round up and assume that they'll never
> catch me.]  "So if there is a 10% chance you will get caught, and you do
> something 20 times, how likely is it that you will be caught?"  It is
> unlikely because I'll get away.  "Uh huh.  Good luck with that."
>
> Wife-who-watches-Oprah-etc. innumerate logic works like this: I am aware
> of bad scenario a, b, c, d, e, f, g, etc. that have occurred in the
> past, or are in an urban legend to have occurred.  The consequences are
> infinitely bad as far as I am concerned.  The existence of this
> knowledge means that a real threat exists.  Therefore all affordable
> countermeasures must be employed for every known scenario.  (Never mind
> how fantastically unlikely most of the scenarios are, or that a
> practically infinite number of similar scenarios could be envisioned.)
>
> I'm a little peeved at the number of instances of the latter innumeracy
> and weak logic that make it into laws and legal interpretations.  A
> woman in the DC area let a couple of her children play in the car by
> allowing them to put down the back seat which allowed them to crawl in
> and out of the trunk area, while she drove a couple miles on residential
> streets to home.  Risky if she got into an accident, but a relatively
> minor increase in risk, well below the risk level of many other things
> that she can legally allow them to do.  A policeman happened to notice
> and arrested her.  I think she ended up with a jail term.  Meanwhile, in
> many areas, children and others can ride unprotected in the bed of a
> pickup...  Even in the passenger seat with a seatbelt they are
> relatively unprotected since trucks have such low safety requirements.
> Don't even start on motorcycles.  Or riding a bicycle.  Or crossing the
> street.  (Several people, in different instances, have been killed by DC
> buses recently within weeks of each other.)  The recent case of the
> child kidnapped from a resort while the parents were eating and/or
> drinking within view of the suite door.  People on talk / news shows,
> including the often irritating CNN legal hawk (Greta?), whined endlessly
> about how negligent the parents were.
>
> I would seriously like an innumeracy PAC to ridicule every law and
> action that is clearly uninformed.  No one should be put in jail for
> choosing to increase risk for themselves or their dependents if the
> resulting actuarial risk is arguably less than legally allowed decisions.
>
> sdw
>
> Jeff Bone wrote:
> >
> > (I'll circle back to the discussion from last week about what kinds of
> > world-bettering things FoRKies could collaborate on at some point...
> > in the meantime...)
> >
> > SciAm has an interesting article on game theory and rationality:
> >
> >
> >
> http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=7750A576-E7F2-99DF-3824E0B1C2540D47
> >
> >
> > Enjoy!
> >
> >
> > jb
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > FoRK mailing list
> > http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 00:27:51 +0200
> From: "venki iyer" <venki at computer.org>
> Subject: Re: [FoRK] The Traveler's Dilemma
> To: "Friends of Rohit Khare" <fork at xent.com>
> Message-ID:
>        <702d32a0705231527l6ee34d23yb579a2dd7be44ea8 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>
> My opinion of SciAm just went down another notch. I'm not impressed by the
> authors either.
> What is these backwards-chain-smoking gang thinking? There is NO dilemma
> with the travelers - they are not in competition, unless the article
> completely botched the description of the problem. The goal is to maximize
> each's payout (or even total payout), not to get the bigger payout (of the
> two) - there is no "go straight to jail" clause here.
>
> TD gets analogous to PD only when each traveler's goal is to get the
> bigger
> payout of the two, not the biggest payout, period.
>
> End rant. What am I missing?
>
> -V
>
>
> On 5/23/07, Jeff Bone <jbone at place.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > (I'll circle back to the discussion from last week about what kinds
> > of world-bettering things FoRKies could collaborate on at some
> > point...  in the meantime...)
> >
> > SciAm has an interesting article on game theory and rationality:
> >
> >    http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=7750A576-
> > E7F2-99DF-3824E0B1C2540D47
> >
> > Enjoy!
> >
> >
> > jb
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > FoRK mailing list
> > http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 22:47:03 +0000
> From: "Russell Turpin" <deafbox at hotmail.com>
> Subject: [FoRK] Texas Senate approves $5 admission fee to strip clubs
> To: fork at xent.com
> Message-ID: <BAY105-F1547EA6979FF8D7A5F7127BC350 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>
> I don't care if the proceeds are dedicated to saving kittens from
> Republicans.
> This is just wrong:
>
> http://www.news8austin.com/content/top_stories/default.asp?ArID=184733
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Catch suspicious messages before you open them�with Windows Live Hotmail.
>
> http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_protection_0507
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 23:36:26 +0000
> From: "Russell Turpin" <deafbox at hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [FoRK] The Traveler's Dilemma
> To: fork at xent.com
> Message-ID: <BAY105-F2517AD08E36B7EDBDE2B97BC350 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>
> The logic does assume each player is trying to maximize his own payout.
> The problem is more that it assumes a series of maximizing steps must
> present the maximal solution. Thus, $99 is a better play than $100, and
> likely is in reality, since most people will write down a $100, and
> your payoff thus is $101. But then begins the recursion down to $2. And
> that doesn't work. In this regard, this hole in game theory seems
> related to the paradox of the unexpected hanging:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unexpected_hanging_paradox
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> PC Magazine�s 2007 editors� choice for best Web mail�award-winning Windows
> Live Hotmail.
>
> http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_pcmag_0507
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 23:42:04 -0500
> From: Jeff Bone <jbone at place.org>
> Subject: Re: [FoRK] WTF?
> To: Friends of Rohit Khare <fork at xent.com>
> Message-ID: <942981DA-A33A-4F0B-B211-41EF2253F5FF at place.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
>
> On May 22, 2007, at 10:26 PM, J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
>
> > I would refute a tacit assumption you are making with the following
> > observation:  almost no one is as interesting, intelligent,
> > disciplined, and ambitious in meatspace as they appear to be when
> > chatting on a mailing list.
>
> I'm not actually making that assumption;  I'm merely asking:  are we
> any of the above, and interested in focusing any of that in any
> particular shared direction?  Could we be?  Should we be?  If so,
> how?  If not, why?  There is a lot of raw horsepower here, both in IQ
> and jawbone. ;-)  And I thoroughly believe in the power of the
> jawbone to shift the course of things, so if that's all there is ---
> well, that's fine, too.  In no way am I complaining;  FoRK has
> enriched my life in countless ways.
>
> I'm hoping to follow this up w/ a list of some of the things I want
> to do but can't find the time, a list of causes, and a couple of
> "paradigm shifting" ideas that I've been knocking around.  Just to
> season the pot a bit before stirring:  Charlie Stross has an
> interesting phrase --- evocative if only semi- and somewhat non-
> sensically defined in his books:  venture philanthropist.  I'm also
> interesting in figuring out how to cross the gap between open source,
> limited time to focus on the things one might really be interested
> in, and need to get paid for *lots* of talented developers (or
> writers, or artists, or anybody who might be interested in
> contributing to the IP commons...)  Second evocative phrase:  swarm
> of angels.
>
> Ironically I haven't had the time since the other night to write any
> of this up in detail because, well, I'm too busy fighting "the money
> problem."  (I'm rather fortunate in that what I'm doing day-to-day on
> that front is right smack in the middle of what I'd be doing anyway
> to solve some of the other interesting problems.  But for a large
> part of my career, even when building my own companies, there was
> inevitable conflict between the need to focus on the commercial task,
> very constrained, and putting the effort into more leveraged and
> forward-looking efforts...)  So a first-order question is:  how to
> build the fulcrum to place the lever to move the world without
> getting distracted by "the money problem?"
>
>
> $0.02, more later.
>
>
>
> jb
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 23:31:12 -0700
> From: "J. Andrew Rogers" <andrew at ceruleansystems.com>
> Subject: Re: [FoRK] WTF?
> To: Friends of Rohit Khare <fork at xent.com>
> Message-ID: <D75B9716-1223-4390-9EC5-69852889B7BA at ceruleansystems.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
>
> On May 23, 2007, at 9:42 PM, Jeff Bone wrote:
> > I'm hoping to follow this up w/ a list of some of the things I want
> > to do but can't find the time, a list of causes, and a couple of
> > "paradigm shifting" ideas that I've been knocking around.
>
>
> Without making any direct point, I would make the observation that
> almost every "cause" I've every heard of is really a grievance about
> a symptom of a handful of very deep problems that have no trivial
> solutions and about which even public acknowledgment is socially
> frowned upon.  If the 20th century has taught us anything, it is that
> rearranging the deck chairs has little effect on outcomes.
>
>
> One of the mistakes I see activists make over and over is that they
> try to fight a war of attrition against a system that is essentially
> in equilibrium.  That is an endothermic process, and doomed to
> failure.  I would even go as far as to say that most apparent changes
> in society that have occurred that had coincidental activism were
> foregone conclusions because the equilibrium of the system had
> changed and that all the activism was little more than noise or at
> best the straw that broke the camel's back.  Effectively altering
> surface symptoms is rare enough, altering the landscape of some of
> the really deep issues almost never happens in human history.
>
> The only plausible way to alter a system as large as global society
> is to subtly alter the environment such that the old equilibrium
> position no longer is, which requires being thoughtful enough to make
> sure that the new equilibrium position is more desirable than the old
> one, something which is often not the case.  Unintended consequences
> run rampant.  Oddly, I rarely see anyone talking about changing the
> world by way of carefully engineered equilibrium shifts by tweaking
> the environment and letting the system move under its own weight.
> Everyone wants to fight the system, which is glamorous but foolish,
> vain, and ultimately wasteful.  As a result, many of the shifts that
> do happen follow the economy, which does not concern itself much with
> political activism and such since it has its own kind of
> inevitability.  (As a contrary example, one could argue that Ghandi
> grokked the nature of the system very well and carefully exploited
> its nature, though others would argue the outcome was inevitable on a
> longer time scale.)
>
>
> > Just to season the pot a bit before stirring:  Charlie Stross has
> > an interesting phrase --- evocative if only semi- and somewhat non-
> > sensically defined in his books:  venture philanthropist.  I'm also
> > interesting in figuring out how to cross the gap between open
> > source, limited time to focus on the things one might really be
> > interested in, and need to get paid for *lots* of talented
> > developers (or writers, or artists, or anybody who might be
> > interested in contributing to the IP commons...)  Second evocative
> > phrase:  swarm of angels.
>
>
> I am not sure what "swarm of angels" would mean that does not exist
> today.
>
> One of the reasons open source works, a reason that does not get
> mentioned much, is that software does not really matter.  Relatively
> little power resides in public software.  Data and what you can do
> with it, on the other hand, matters a lot.  Open source activism is
> all well and good, but it is basically the bull chasing a red cape
> oblivious to its ultimate demise; software is an important but minor
> element in the freedom puzzle.
>
> Of course, most philanthropy is poorly focused insofar as it deals
> with short-term surface issues rather than deep foundational
> problems.  Monkeys want approval for going through the motions of
> being altruists and philanthropists, not the unrewarding task of
> actually solving real problems.  Mother Teresa is a canonical example
> of bullshit pointless altruism that was ultimately an utter waste of
> resources.  Damn hippies.
>
> When most people pick a problem to "solve", they bring with them a
> rather large number of assumptions about what a solution looks like.
> To hell with what you want to *do* (otherwise that will become the
> end itself), tell us what, specifically, you want the end state to be
> and cleanroom the implementation bringing the full weight of human
> knowledge to bear.  Most of the things you mention above are really
> meant to be means rather than ends and therefore irrelevant to
> whatever it is you want to achieve.
>
>
> > Ironically I haven't had the time since the other night to write
> > any of this up in detail because, well, I'm too busy fighting "the
> > money problem."  (I'm rather fortunate in that what I'm doing day-
> > to-day on that front is right smack in the middle of what I'd be
> > doing anyway to solve some of the other interesting problems.  But
> > for a large part of my career, even when building my own companies,
> > there was inevitable conflict between the need to focus on the
> > commercial task, very constrained, and putting the effort into more
> > leveraged and forward-looking efforts...)  So a first-order
> > question is:  how to build the fulcrum to place the lever to move
> > the world without getting distracted by "the money problem?"
>
>
> This seems easy enough.  Study the "money problem" and solve it;
> there is nothing hard about money, but most people are too distracted
> by other things (myself included) to actually address that problem in
> a fruitful manner.  Sometimes looking for a shortcut wastes a lot
> more time and resources than attacking the problem head on,
> particularly when it is a well-defined task with non-controversial
> endpoints.
>
> Most genuinely interesting things you can do require planning 20
> moves out and then having the patience and discipline to actually
> execute that in a rational order.  If there is a "money problem",
> then the first step is to do nothing but aggressively solve it;
> everything else you can do is largely pointless otherwise.  The
> universe does not care if you would rather save the whales; if
> economics says you need money to do it then nothing will be gained
> over the long-term by not focusing on the money in the short-term to
> the nominal exclusion of the longer term goals.  It is matter of
> coldly rational pragmatism that sometimes runs contrary to the purity
> of ideological motivations.  I am not saying that you actually need
> money in any particular case, just that in most cases there is no
> direct road to solving the epic problem that does not require solving
> several other less interesting problems along the way.  Most activism
> oriented people do not seem to be interested in those lesser
> problems, even when you can get them to recognize the importance of
> dealing with them.
>
>
> There is no shortage of people with a desire to change the world --
> that kind of monkey is a dime a dozen.  The reason these people never
> accomplish anything is because almost no one has the combination of
> intelligence and discipline to play the game long enough and well
> enough to actually win, usually because some combination of ideology,
> vanity, and lack of discipline will not allow them to make the
> necessary strategic detours.  I figured that out the hard way.
>
> I know it is a bit preachy, but if this was easy every retard
> activist out there would actually be accomplishing something.
> Clearly whatever it is your run-of-the-mill activist is doing is
> irrelevant to the process of achieving an end, so we can safely skip
> most of that.  The question is then, what is left?
>
> Cheers,
>
> J. Andrew Rogers
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 02:18:42 -0600
> From: "Steve Nordquist" <Saigua at sbcglobal.net>
> Subject: Re: [FoRK] Godless
> To: "Friends of Rohit Khare" <fork at xent.com>
> Message-ID: <op.tstn1hvmqi5qpx at bsdamithlon.gateway.2wire.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>
> > characteristics.  It has perfect epidemiology in humans:
>
> I really hate to say it, but if someone manages to be allergic, unique or
> messed up so that other vectors come into play, it makes for more bad
> systemic noise.  Though, where are we on the 4kD never being enough to work
> with?  .....  Maybe the systems of vectors should just be optimized to
> de-ring hot carriers.
>
> Something should be said about the mind's ability to create a diverse
> religion emulator in order to grok stuff, but I recently considered running
> AROS on an iMac and I Am Not a Horror Writer.
>
> Moreover rote...well, you don't have to believe in it or anything.  It
> would be brilliant to see the IDEs fire up one morning and -there-, static
> types are all highlighted!  Oh!  So we are an organization designed to stay
> in command-response to make balanced jutsu for berserker crews who will make
> a Fishermans' Palestine Fort.  This could so be made more general if we
> wished to implement more than once....  In RoFrames, while cracking to a new
> administration and the occasional Ascetic wisdom.
>
> And on Jeff's note about Austin's IEDs saying:
>    Well-engineered ... by a religious nut
> .....  Stinky folkways afoot, with not enough health markup activities.
> Here I thought these guys were onboard with the
> leaving-things-in-the-fridge outreach programs.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 10:16:22 +0200
> From: Dave Long <dave.long at bluewin.ch>
> Subject: [FoRK] invasion was much better than Cats lets do it again
>        and again
> To: fork at xent.com
> Message-ID: <7F01096C-EC0D-4A8E-B9D8-597980499A01 at bluewin.ch>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
> I still follow the news from the States (nicely tucked away well in
> the back of the first section of the paper), but, not being able to
> come up with a better explanation for the recent stories, have to ask
> you all the following question:
>
> is there some freaky hypnosis thing going on in the US, such that
> people may initially state
>
>     "You know, whoever vetoes a bill is the one who ultimately cuts
> funding", or
>     "If an administration isn't the worst, there needs to have first
> been a worse"
>
> but then, after only a pendulum or two of the pocketwatch, back off
> and suddenly start being all
>
>    "O hai I'm in ur politics sakrifisin ur d00ds" ?
>
> -Dave
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 09:30:57 -0500
> From: Jeff Bone <jbone at place.org>
> Subject: Re: [FoRK] The Traveler's Dilemma
> To: Friends of Rohit Khare <fork at xent.com>
> Message-ID: <D2B389A3-906C-4E42-83E6-8E830D0E0987 at place.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
>
> On May 23, 2007, at 6:36 PM, Russell Turpin wrote:
>
> > The logic does assume each player is trying to maximize his own
> > payout.
> > The problem is more that it assumes a series of maximizing steps must
> > present the maximal solution. Thus, $99 is a better play than $100,
> > and
> > likely is in reality, since most people will write down a $100, and
> > your payoff thus is $101. But then begins the recursion down to $2.
> > And
> > that doesn't work. In this regard, this hole in game theory seems
> > related to the paradox of the unexpected hanging:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unexpected_hanging_paradox
>
> Indeed.
>
> The presentation of the problem is weak, but the Nash analysis is
> textbook (given a correct presentation.)
>
> Interesting variations:  consider the case of iterated TD, for an
> uncertain number of iterations, against a single opponent of any
> strategy.  What's the optimal strategy?  Now generalize:  iterated TD
> tournament, unknown number of players, uncertain number of iterations
> per player.
>
> Tit-for-tat (and friends, i.e. two-tits-for-a-tat --- hey, that
> sounds like a stripper thing! ;-) rears its ugly head again...
>
> jb
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 13
> Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 09:53:03 -0500
> From: Jeff Bone <jbone at place.org>
> Subject: Re: [FoRK] WTF?
> To: Friends of Rohit Khare <fork at xent.com>
> Message-ID: <1D526F1D-5226-4955-9C10-C37B3EF4F1A3 at place.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
>
> On May 24, 2007, at 1:31 AM, J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
>
> > This seems easy enough.  Study the "money problem" and solve it;
> > there is nothing hard about money, but most people are too
> > distracted by other things (myself included) to actually address
> > that problem in a fruitful manner.
>
> Without being critical, James...  the assertion that "there is
> nothing hard about money" and its corollary that getting past the
> money problem and focusing significant resources on deep-rooted
> problems is not hindered by the money problem would be more
> compelling if presented by someone that had clearly solved the first
> and was actively, publicly engaged in the second.  ("I could solve
> the money problem if I tried, but I'm working on other, more
> important and interesting stuff" may very well be true in your case,
> but it's a dead hand debate-wise.  In my case, I've solved the money
> problem and then unsolved it and then mostly solved it again ---
> keeping it solved is a second-order and harder problem still ;-)
> Besides which real "money problem" I'm talking about is actually the
> higher-order money problem, not making the mortgage.)  You and I have
> had discussions off-list about some fairly deep and interesting
> problem spaces, and I tend to agree with you on many points, and
> there's some similarity in the agenda you are pursuing and my own.
> But let's not make the mistake of thinking that's the entire big
> picture...
>
> Let me reframe the goal-state, though, as perhaps there's some
> confusion about what I meant.  Look around at some of the folks doing
> really interesting and potentially important stuff:  the swarm of
> post-dot-com billionaires that are variously attacking the
> commercial / low-price-to-orbit problem;  the various prizes being
> offered to solve various computational Hard Problems (tm), sometimes
> being funded by wealthy dilletantes;  Shuttleworth's work in various
> areas, which frankly I find *extremely* valuable;  etc. etc.
>
> If you've got a billion or so to play with, you can throw real
> resources at some longer-term problems.  But (a) how can we attack
> longer-term larger-scale problems short of having a few billion to
> play with, if at all, or (b) how can you bootstrap into solutions to
> some of those types of problems, or (c) are there leveraged smaller
> problems that can, in  coordination, help with (b) above?
>
> There are some problems that the bazaar isn't well-suited to solving,
> for various deep-seated "structural" reasons, and yet that the
> cathedral is incapable of or uninterested in tackling.  Yet some of
> those same problems don't typically attract the kind of commercial
> investment that they need, due to shortsightedness of capital, lack
> of clear primary returns, etc.  That doesn't invalidate those
> problems or lessen their importance;  but it does make effort hard to
> apply in those areas.
>
> It doesn't take billions to solve big problems, necessarily;  but
> enough financial stability to allow those who would and could focus
> on the problem might allow more progress in more interesting areas,
> more quickly.  In particular I think there are certain highly
> leveraged problems that could be attacked by small groups without
> much or any funding --- that consequently become very large enablers.
>
> I'm not contemplating something as potentially ineffective and time-
> wasting as a "geeks future-oriented PAC" or anything.  Give me more
> credit than that, please...  I'm thinking both bigger (in impact) and
> smaller (in scope and thus complexity) than that.  I'm thinking meta-
> business models, not petition drives or "activism" in any recognized
> sense of that term.  I'm sick to death of politics.  There's no good
> solution in that space other than to simply "whatever it is, I'm
> against it."
>
> The thesis, then, fundamentally, is this:  the cathedral vs. the
> bazaar is an artificial and invalid dichotomy, and many sorts of
> worthwhile efforts suffer because of that simplistic means of
> organizing effort.
>
>
> jb
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 14
> Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 10:58:58 -0400
> From: "Jeffrey Winter" <JeffreyWinter at crd.com>
> Subject: RE: [FoRK] The Traveler's Dilemma
> To: "Friends of Rohit Khare" <fork at xent.com>
> Message-ID: <8307A034380BA347970711A07267275A43F8B3 at mail3.crd.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="us-ascii"
>
> >> In this regard, this hole in game theory seems
> >> related to the paradox of the unexpected hanging:
> >>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unexpected_hanging_paradox
> >
> > Indeed.
>
> I would say only in that they are both game systems
> that can come to a Nash equilibrium.  Otherwise they're
> really quite different.
>
> The Traveler's Dilemma is a far more interesing problem
> as it is really exploring emergent behavior amongst
> self-aware nodes.
>
> http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/SUPBRAIN.html
>
> Ant colonies behave almost like super-organisms since
> each member of the organism has little to no understanding
> of the overall group behavior.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 15
> Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 11:10:49 -0400
> From: "Jeffrey Winter" <JeffreyWinter at crd.com>
> Subject: [FoRK] God is a Big Jerk
> To: "Friends of Rohit Khare" <fork at xent.com>
> Message-ID: <8307A034380BA347970711A07267275A43F8BB at mail3.crd.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="us-ascii"
>
>
> http://www.villagevoice.com/books/0721,millionaire,76748,10.html
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 16
> Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 08:34:37 -0700
> From: "Tom Higgins" <tomhiggins at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [FoRK] WTF?
> To: "Friends of Rohit Khare" <fork at xent.com>
> Message-ID:
>        <e3b2914c0705240834m5f0030f4o129dec37eb826b6c at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 5/24/07, Jeff Bone <jbone at place.org> wrote:
> > I'm not contemplating something as potentially ineffective and time-
> > wasting as a "geeks future-oriented PAC" or anything.  Give me more
> > credit than that, please...  I'm thinking both bigger (in impact) and
> > smaller (in scope and thus complexity) than that.  I'm thinking meta-
> > business models, not petition drives or "activism" in any recognized
> > sense of that term.
>
> So you are going to buy an island in SL and train a ninja force of
> reason warriors to do battle across the verse with skill, aplomb and
> well scripted katanas? Ive already got my own katana but would love to
> get the jeffDeboner additions added to it.
>
> I do feel your pain Jeff, I also look at the world and see it needs
> sweeping, still my brain gently weeps for the lost opportunities...and
> then I have to go change a diapy.....that puts a sort of perspective
> on it all.
>
> I am curious to see what you come up with though, I am always up for
> betatesting the new jimmies.
>
> -tomhiggins
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 17
> Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 10:39:19 -0500
> From: Jeff Bone <jbone at place.org>
> Subject: Re: [FoRK] invasion was much better than Cats lets do it
>        again and       again
> To: Friends of Rohit Khare <fork at xent.com>
> Message-ID: <B74DE3D8-B301-4922-BBB9-3AA7322197F4 at place.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
>
> So despite having railed about the neo-cons for quite some time now,
> and sent along just about every half-assed hypothesis I've come
> across about what's really going on with our foreign policy, in the
> last couple of weeks it's finally all become clear to me.  Here's
> what Iraq is *not* and was *never* about:
>
>   (1) "capturing" the oil to get it for our own use
>   (2) any sort of war on "terror" (indeed, has the opposite effect)
>   (3) revenge for the Bush clan
>   (4) Rummy and Cheney cleaning up a leftover mess
>   (5) establishing democracy in the Middle East
>   (6) WMDs, whether leftovers / the Islamic Bomb / Broken Arrow / etc.
>   (7) establishing a strategic beachhead / getting bases out of
> Saudi Arabia
>   (8) any of the other du jour theories
>
> It is actually very simple;  it's subtle but, in hindsight, perfectly
> obvious.  It's a fight-on-the-right;  a power struggle between two
> factions of our (US) "conservative" wing, with two initially
> overlapping but ultimately divergent agendas.  (Weirdly, both of
> these ultimately incompatible agendas ground out in Cheney, who has
> actually been constructing the almost-perfect geopolitical and
> financial hedge for almost his entire career.)
>
> Side One:  the neo-cons + Pentagon.  MEANS:  creation of a *new* and
> more controllable (than loose-cannon Saddam) puppet authoritarian
> state tightly bound with a permanent free-market / private-sector
> oriented constitution.  MOTIVE:  privatize the Iraq oil fields, get
> them out of OPEC, and bust OPEC / the Saudis.  Strengthen the dollar
> and get the Saudi debt-noose off of our necks.  Recover US economic
> hegemony, and *hang onto it this time.*  OPPORTUNITY:  fear created
> by 9-11.  They had the upper hand early in this fight, but caught the
> backlash from...
>
> Side Two:  Big Oil + State Department Bakerites + Saudis + Big
> Construction.  The *last* thing they want is private companies in
> control of the second-largest low-viscosity oil fields in the world.
> The Saudis want to keep control of oil production;  they want to keep
> racking up US debt;  and they'd like to see a middle-of-the-road to
> slightly-devalued (strategic move --- prevent further foreign
> investment by US / dollar-based interests) dollar.  Baker / Bush, and
> to a lesser degree Cheney, are the House of Saud's men-on-the-
> ground.  MEANS:  eliminate wild-card Saddam, install more
> controllable puppet authoritarian regime, but MOST OF ALL keep a
> state-controlled monopoly ownership of the fields that will heed
> OPEC's ridiculously-low historical production quotas.  MOTIVE:  keep
> oil prices high, and everybody's happy;  Big Oil makes MORE money
> when oil is higher;  Saudis are happy;  OPEC continues to price-fix;
> juicy reconstruction and security contracts for the favored ones;
> etc. etc.  OPPORTUNITY:  same as above.
>
> Ask yourself about all the maneuvering in the provisional authority,
> etc.  Apply Ockham.  It's the simplest solution with the fewest
> number of entities / interests / agendas --- indeed, there's really
> one one primary issue at stake.  Opportunity presented, the initial
> steps were identical for two different agendas, and the task was
> undertaken;  but when things got to a certain point, divergence was
> inevitable.  And hence we've been stuck for 3 years.
>
> But none of this is new.  The same thing has, essentially, been going
> on in Iraq since its independence in 1932 --- or even before.  It's
> ALWAYS been about keeping Iraq's oil in the ground and off the market
> and controlled by somebody who will do exactly that.  The neo-con
> agenda's the first significant deviation from that agenda by any real
> power players - ever.
>
> Ironically, of the two, I find the neo-con position more attractive.
>
> :-/
>
> As for Iran --- well, there the threat / motivation / etc. may be
> closer to what it prima facie appears to be.  Dunno;  not enough data
> yet.
>
> jb
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 18
> Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 11:11:32 -0500
> From: Jeff Bone <jbone at place.org>
> Subject: Re: [FoRK] God is a Big Jerk
> To: Friends of Rohit Khare <fork at xent.com>
> Message-ID: <1A72C36A-A8FD-451F-A1E5-CD8826F3E5B7 at place.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
>
> Funny, but not at all useful as a review of the book, I'm guessing
> the cartoonist and his friend only read the first few pages.
> "Chaucerian frauds" indeed, though.  That got a chuckle...
>
> Yeah, Hitchens is a bit puffy.  But I figure this rounds out all the
> various overlapping magisteria of possible critique, along with
> Dawkins and Harris and the various second-tier participants.  At the
> least Hitchens speaks with a deeper literary and historical
> appreciation and therefore sharper critique of his various dogmatic
> targets and their respective mythopoesis.  But yes, you occasionally
> need a machete and a whiteboard (on which to "diagram" the sentence
> structures involved) to whack your way past the extraneous verbage to
> the meaning...
>
> "With the completion of this epic endeavor, or tome as one might have
> it, and all my strenuous though not to say (one would hope) ponderous
> or even pendulous efforts to its end, it would perhaps seem to some
> that the loquacious constituency has now been, harumph, ah,
> definitively, as one might have it  --- spoken for, as such.  So to
> speak and whatnot, and if you please, where are my cucumber
> sandwiches?  A cup of the earl straightaway, my good mammal, or I
> fear that I must immediately expire!  Oh, have I perchance happened
> to mention at any previous point in the discourse that I am a, yes,
> former, that is to say once was but am no longer, Marxist?  Ah, but
> for that fair, failed dream of my brighter youth.  More of these
> delightful finger sandwiches, if you please, good mammal.  Ah yes.
> Ahem."  (My own impression of Hitchens.)
>
> ;-)
>
> jb
>
> On May 24, 2007, at 10:10 AM, Jeffrey Winter wrote:
>
> >
> > http://www.villagevoice.com/books/0721,millionaire,76748,10.html
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > FoRK mailing list
> > http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 19
> Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 16:45:05 +0000
> From: "Russell Turpin" <deafbox at hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [FoRK] WTF?
> To: fork at xent.com
> Message-ID: <BAY105-F5607B007E83EF693696DFBC340 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
>
> Jeff Bone:
> >Look around at some of the folks doing really interesting and potentially
> >important stuff: the swarm of post-dot-com billionaires
> >that are variously attacking the commercial / low-price-to-orbit problem;
> >the various prizes being offered to solve various computational Hard
> >Problems (tm), sometimes  being funded by wealthy dilletantes;
> >Shuttleworth's work in various  areas, which frankly I find *extremely*
> >valuable;  etc. etc.
>
> Interestingly, few of those billionaires address the hard social
> problems. Given that social problems are very obdurate, for reasons
> discussed previously, and that anyone trying to shift social inertia
> will earn enemies, it may be the billionaire doing best in this regard
> is Soros, judging entirely by those who hate him. Anyone who pisses off
> both Ahmadinejad and James Dobson is bound to be doing something right.
>
> ;-)
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> PC Magazine�s 2007 editors� choice for best Web mail�award-winning Windows
> Live Hotmail.
>
> http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_pcmag_0507
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 20
> Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 09:50:58 -0700
> From: "J. Andrew Rogers" <andrew at ceruleansystems.com>
> Subject: Re: [FoRK] WTF?
> To: Friends of Rohit Khare <fork at xent.com>
> Message-ID: <BDB56C18-4C43-4CA0-9EC4-0BF74210E27D at ceruleansystems.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
> On May 24, 2007, at 7:53 AM, Jeff Bone wrote:
> > Without being critical, James...  the assertion that "there is
> > nothing hard about money" and its corollary that getting past the
> > money problem and focusing significant resources on deep-rooted
> > problems is not hindered by the money problem would be more
> > compelling if presented by someone that had clearly solved the
> > first and was actively, publicly engaged in the second.
>
>
> All my assertions were very broad and poorly focused, mostly because
> I have no idea what we are talking about here exactly. :-)
>
>
> > ("I could solve the money problem if I tried, but I'm working on
> > other, more important and interesting stuff" may very well be true
> > in your case, but it's a dead hand debate-wise.  In my case, I've
> > solved the money problem and then unsolved it and then mostly
> > solved it again --- keeping it solved is a second-order and harder
> > problem still ;-)  Besides which real "money problem" I'm talking
> > about is actually the higher-order money problem, not making the
> > mortgage.)
>
>
> Money problems per se do not significantly concern me personally, at
> the moment at least, but it is very frequently raised as a problem by
> many people (who themselves are usually the reason the problem
> exists).  Many basic money problems are symptomatic of other problems.
>
> There are several interesting higher order money problems, so which
> ones would you be referring to?
>
>
> > If you've got a billion or so to play with, you can throw real
> > resources at some longer-term problems.  But (a) how can we attack
> > longer-term larger-scale problems short of having a few billion to
> > play with, if at all, or (b) how can you bootstrap into solutions
> > to some of those types of problems, or (c) are there leveraged
> > smaller problems that can, in  coordination, help with (b) above?
>
>
> If efficiency matters, the tactics have to be flexible enough to fit
> reality in support of the long-term large-scale strategy.  That does
> not require much more than careful and pragmatic analysis.  Acquiring
> a billion dollars may well be cheaper/faster than every other
> realistic option in the calculus, which requires both patience and
> accepting the conclusions of a rational study of the problem at
> hand.  In practice, very few problems are analyzed for solutions from
> anything but narrow perspectives that dictate what is possible.
> Meaning, I think there is an inexpensive/less expensive way to solve
> many problems that most people assume will require inordinate
> resources that simply require very careful and intelligent study of
> the dynamics of the system in question.
>
> As you know, I think there is a lot of opportunity in (c) that is
> under-exploited primarily because the focus and/or domain of most
> people is too narrow.  There is a wealth of opportunities, the hard
> part is finding (or fabricating) the opportunities that will generate
> the most strategic leverage in a direction that is useful for other
> things.
>
>
> > There are some problems that the bazaar isn't well-suited to
> > solving, for various deep-seated "structural" reasons, and yet that
> > the cathedral is incapable of or uninterested in tackling.  Yet
> > some of those same problems don't typically attract the kind of
> > commercial investment that they need, due to shortsightedness of
> > capital, lack of clear primary returns, etc.  That doesn't
> > invalidate those problems or lessen their importance;  but it does
> > make effort hard to apply in those areas.
>
>
> I get the impression that more capital would have little impact on
> many of these areas, that money per se is not the gating factor.  Do
> you have a specific example that can be fenced with?  I do agree that
> having large quantities of available capital does allow one to
> consider strategies that might otherwise not be available.  Hell,
> there are very interesting problems/challenges that might be useful
> elements of a larger strategy that really could use billions (or tens
> of billions) of dollars worth of working capital, but I do not see
> too many that need to be solved today in the order of things that
> need to be approached this way.  Gotta prep the battlefield first.
>
> The real limitation to almost all of these kinds of projects is the
> people involved in implementation and execution, in terms of quality,
> quantity, and diversity.  On the upside, the Internet provides one of
> the best environments yet for winnowing the population.
>
>
> > I'm not contemplating something as potentially ineffective and time-
> > wasting as a "geeks future-oriented PAC" or anything.  Give me more
> > credit than that, please...  I'm thinking both bigger (in impact)
> > and smaller (in scope and thus complexity) than that.  I'm thinking
> > meta-business models, not petition drives or "activism" in any
> > recognized sense of that term.  I'm sick to death of politics.
> > There's no good solution in that space other than to simply
> > "whatever it is, I'm against it."
>
>
> Which is what I figured, but excluding all the cheerleading stuff
> still leaves a rather broad space of possibilities.
>
>
> > The thesis, then, fundamentally, is this:  the cathedral vs. the
> > bazaar is an artificial and invalid dichotomy, and many sorts of
> > worthwhile efforts suffer because of that simplistic means of
> > organizing effort.
>
>
> There are plenty of very successful organizations or adhocracies that
> are essentially bazaars internally that apply very strong filters to
> who can participate in order to ensure some level of reliable goal
> alignment and implementation capability.  No one may be building
> cathedrals, but at a minimum you need to be *capable* of it.
>
> Cheers,
>
> J. Andrew Rogers
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 21
> Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 10:35:48 -0700
> From: "Tom Higgins" <tomhiggins at gmail.com>
> Subject: [FoRK] Students of jesus Arrested For Homemade Bomb
> To: "Friends of Rohit Khare" <fork at xent.com>
> Message-ID:
>        <e3b2914c0705241035n39f9b8dax6352d3cfeae92d1e at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3201543&page=1
>
> "A group of students from Falwell's Liberty University staged a
> counterprotest.
>
> And Campbell County authorities arrested a Liberty University student
> for having several homemade bombs in his car.
>
> The student, 19-year-old Mark D. Uhl of Amissville, Va., reportedly
> told authorities that he was making the bombs to stop protesters from
> disrupting the funeral service. The devices were made of a combination
> of gasoline and detergent, a law enforcement official told ABC News'
> Pierre Thomas. They were "slow burn," according to the official, and
> would not have been very destructive.
>
> "There were indications that there were others involved in the
> manufacturing of these devices and we are still investigating these
> individuals with the assistance of ATF [Alcohol, Tobacco and
> Firearms], Virginia State Police and FBI. At this time it is not
> believed that these devices were going to be used to interrupt the
> funeral services at Liberty University," the Campbell County Sheriff's
> Office said in a release.
>
> Three other suspects are being sought, one of whom is a soldier from
> Fort Benning, Ga., and another is a high school student. No
> information was available on the third suspect. "
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 22
> Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 13:49:42 -0400 (EDT)
> From: "Albert S." <albert.scherbinsky at rogers.com>
> Subject: Re: [FoRK] invasion was much better than Cats lets do it
>        again and       again
> To: Friends of Rohit Khare <fork at xent.com>
> Message-ID: <561249.45177.qm at web88007.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
>
> This is an interesting theory but I'm not sure what
> you mean by "Cheney, who has actually been
> constructing the almost-perfect geopolitical and
> financial hedge for almost his entire career".
>
> Regards,
> Albert
>
>
> --- Jeff Bone <jbone at place.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > So despite having railed about the neo-cons for
> > quite some time now,
> > and sent along just about every half-assed
> > hypothesis I've come
> > across about what's really going on with our foreign
> > policy, in the
> > last couple of weeks it's finally all become clear
> > to me.  Here's
> > what Iraq is *not* and was *never* about:
> >
> >    (1) "capturing" the oil to get it for our own use
> >    (2) any sort of war on "terror" (indeed, has the
> > opposite effect)
> >    (3) revenge for the Bush clan
> >    (4) Rummy and Cheney cleaning up a leftover mess
> >    (5) establishing democracy in the Middle East
> >    (6) WMDs, whether leftovers / the Islamic Bomb /
> > Broken Arrow / etc.
> >    (7) establishing a strategic beachhead / getting
> > bases out of
> > Saudi Arabia
> >    (8) any of the other du jour theories
> >
> > It is actually very simple;  it's subtle but, in
> > hindsight, perfectly
> > obvious.  It's a fight-on-the-right;  a power
> > struggle between two
> > factions of our (US) "conservative" wing, with two
> > initially
> > overlapping but ultimately divergent agendas.
> > (Weirdly, both of
> > these ultimately incompatible agendas ground out in
> > Cheney, who has
> > actually been constructing the almost-perfect
> > geopolitical and
> > financial hedge for almost his entire career.)
> >
> > Side One:  the neo-cons + Pentagon.  MEANS:
> > creation of a *new* and
> > more controllable (than loose-cannon Saddam) puppet
> > authoritarian
> > state tightly bound with a permanent free-market /
> > private-sector
> > oriented constitution.  MOTIVE:  privatize the Iraq
> > oil fields, get
> > them out of OPEC, and bust OPEC / the Saudis.
> > Strengthen the dollar
> > and get the Saudi debt-noose off of our necks.
> > Recover US economic
> > hegemony, and *hang onto it this time.*
> > OPPORTUNITY:  fear created
> > by 9-11.  They had the upper hand early in this
> > fight, but caught the
> > backlash from...
> >
> > Side Two:  Big Oil + State Department Bakerites +
> > Saudis + Big
> > Construction.  The *last* thing they want is private
> > companies in
> > control of the second-largest low-viscosity oil
> > fields in the world.
> > The Saudis want to keep control of oil production;
> > they want to keep
> > racking up US debt;  and they'd like to see a
> > middle-of-the-road to
> > slightly-devalued (strategic move --- prevent
> > further foreign
> > investment by US / dollar-based interests) dollar.
> > Baker / Bush, and
> > to a lesser degree Cheney, are the House of Saud's
> > men-on-the-
> > ground.  MEANS:  eliminate wild-card Saddam, install
> > more
> > controllable puppet authoritarian regime, but MOST
> > OF ALL keep a
> > state-controlled monopoly ownership of the fields
> > that will heed
> > OPEC's ridiculously-low historical production
> > quotas.  MOTIVE:  keep
> > oil prices high, and everybody's happy;  Big Oil
> > makes MORE money
> > when oil is higher;  Saudis are happy;  OPEC
> > continues to price-fix;
> > juicy reconstruction and security contracts for the
> > favored ones;
> > etc. etc.  OPPORTUNITY:  same as above.
> >
> > Ask yourself about all the maneuvering in the
> > provisional authority,
> > etc.  Apply Ockham.  It's the simplest solution with
> > the fewest
> > number of entities / interests / agendas --- indeed,
> > there's really
> > one one primary issue at stake.  Opportunity
> > presented, the initial
> > steps were identical for two different agendas, and
> > the task was
> > undertaken;  but when things got to a certain point,
> > divergence was
> > inevitable.  And hence we've been stuck for 3 years.
> >
> > But none of this is new.  The same thing has,
> > essentially, been going
> > on in Iraq since its independence in 1932 --- or
> > even before.  It's
> > ALWAYS been about keeping Iraq's oil in the ground
> > and off the market
> > and controlled by somebody who will do exactly that.
> >  The neo-con
> > agenda's the first significant deviation from that
> > agenda by any real
> > power players - ever.
> >
> > Ironically, of the two, I find the neo-con position
> > more attractive.
> >
> > :-/
> >
> > As for Iran --- well, there the threat / motivation
> > / etc. may be
> > closer to what it prima facie appears to be.  Dunno;
> >  not enough data
> > yet.
> >
> > jb
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > FoRK mailing list
> > http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 23
> Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 13:13:32 -0500
> From: Jeff Bone <jbone at place.org>
> Subject: Re: [FoRK] WTF?
> To: Friends of Rohit Khare <fork at xent.com>
> Message-ID: <75E97098-E674-4653-AF57-4965453954A7 at place.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
>
> On May 24, 2007, at 11:50 AM, J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
>
> > All my assertions were very broad and poorly focused, mostly
> > because I have no idea what we are talking about here exactly. :-)
>
> Happy to take the blame;  my bad for throwing out vague if leading
> questions then not following up...
>
>
> > There are several interesting higher order money problems, so which
> > ones would you be referring to?
>
> Well, specifically:  I quite unfortunately never managed to get to
> the big $B, so the sorts of things I can invest in necessarily
> exclude those for which B+ is necessary.  So there are two
> approaches;  get the big $B which --- it quite obviously appears to
> me --- depends quite a bit more on "luck" (i.e., path-dependent
> events and situations that cannot be realistically counted on) than
> the much easier task of getting to small multiples of $M.  Or, more
> pragmatically:  are their ways to achieve the same things that do an
> end-run around initial capital requirements?  Alternatively, are
> their ways of collecting the necessary capital requirements that are
> better / more efficient than the typical forms of funding?
>
> > As you know, I think there is a lot of opportunity in (c) that is
> > under-exploited primarily because the focus and/or domain of most
> > people is too narrow.
>
> Absolutely!
>
>
> > There is a wealth of opportunities, the hard part is finding (or
> > fabricating) the opportunities that will generate the most
> > strategic leverage in a direction that is useful for other things.
>
> Agreed, wholly.  The problem is --- the typical means of providing
> that kind of focus and direction are usually seen only in the context
> of commercial pursuits.  Even then, not very often. ;-)  How can you
> provide that sort of (efficient) leadership and direction outside of
> that commercial context?
>
>
> > Do you have a specific example that can be fenced with?
>
> Yeah, several --- which sort of tile the problem space we're talking
> about here, requiring different levels of funding, coordination,
> focus, resources, etc.  Struggling with how to frame them, though.
> Writing this up over lunch doesn't seem practical. ;-)
>
>
> > Which is what I figured, but excluding all the cheerleading stuff
> > still leaves a rather broad space of possibilities.
>
> Yeah, it does.
>
> More later,
>
>
> jb
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 24
> Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 13:59:53 -0500
> From: Jeff Bone <jbone at place.org>
> Subject: Re: [FoRK] invasion was much better than Cats lets do it
>        again and       again
> To: albert at softwarepress.com, Friends of Rohit Khare <fork at xent.com>
> Message-ID: <2735868F-62EF-4308-96C3-198D4DC5B75C at place.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
>
> On May 24, 2007, at 12:49 PM, Albert S. wrote:
>
> >
> > This is an interesting theory but I'm not sure what
> > you mean by "Cheney, who has actually been
> > constructing the almost-perfect geopolitical and
> > financial hedge for almost his entire career".
>
> Basically only the following:  Cheney is at or near the very center
> of both of these otherwise-conflicting efforts.
>
> He's the official (meaning that literally, in the sense of Bush as
> "current administration" rather than "patriarchal empire") bagman for
> the Bush-Saud axis and its constituents.  (Consider the abrupt
> Thanksgiving dash to Riyadh last year.  Their master beckons, they
> come running.)  To be blunt, though, it's Baker that's the designated
> Saudi agent-in-charge over here and the usual Bush-Saud liaison when
> they're talking family business;  or indeed, it could even be claimed
> that Baker's actually the central figure, and House Bush simply
> opportunistically following his lead.  (There's reasonably good
> evidence of that, in fact.)
>
> The relationships between Cheney, Baker, Bush Sr., and Rumsfeld have
> been complex in the extreme (not always chummy) going back to the
> 70s, leading in particular to some "interesting" politics during the
> Reagan and Bush I eras...  (Bush Jr., of course, is a complete side-
> show.)  The State-Pentagon struggle is in some sense a microcosm of
> every major world conflict of the last several decades, and the same
> figures and philosophies, and their ebb and flow, dominate.
>
> Yet Cheney's also tight with the crypto-Trotskyite (permanent
> revolution, think "war party") Straussians, in some sense their
> patron (politically, if not financially) throughout the Clinton 90s.
> Their policy of constant entropy-maximization and OPEC-busting suits
> Cheney just fine;  he'll make it up on volume.  Hey, he's got an oil
> field services company, a big-project construction company, revenue
> streams from arms, infrastructure for moving large amounts of capital
> around the planet relatively undetected, access to intelligence, a
> buddy that runs the world's largest mercenary outfit, and various and
> sundry other relevant bits and pieces.  All global-capable.  No
> problemo, you angry liberal fuckheads!  Bring it on, muchachos!
>
> Either outcome suits him just fine;  he has painstakingly over the
> course of decades successfully pursued a long-term plan that gave him
> himself a central place in the two dominant, struggling would-be US
> hegemonic cabals of the last 30+ years, and engineered himself a
> strongly positive financial outcome no matter who ultimately wins
> that struggle.  Why'd he appoint himself veep?  Why, somebody has to
> babysit things and make sure at least ONE of the plans comes off...
>
> He's the most significant figure to play both sides of this fence,
> and more successful at doing so than might be imagined possible.
>
> Very impressive, really.
>
> jb
>
>
> "Any road followed precisely to its end leads precisely nowhere.
> Climb the mountain just a little bit to test that it's a mountain.
> From the top of the mountain, you cannot see the mountain."  --
> Muad'Dib: Family Commentaries by the Princess Irulan
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> FoRK mailing list
> FoRK at xent.com
> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
>
>
> End of FoRK Digest, Vol 43, Issue 23
> ************************************
>



-- 
RAINA

More information about the FoRK mailing list