漫画 女郎蜘蛛

  Manga Index 

Self-critique: The left front leg is a bit wrong, it the tibia (upper arm) was meant to be hiding the coxa and a forced perspective femur. There are too many legs on the left side--that hand sticking out connects to nowhere. It was supposed to be the back leg, but then I added the hand in the back on the left side. I think it's good though--the fibulas, tibias (ulnas), and forearms all need to be about the same length so the knee/patella can also be a "shoulder" for the arm to come down from.

模倣子 Idiocracy, The Big Other, and existential anxiety

 

Macromemetic Index 

Contact memes are evident here as well, i.e., if somebody virtue signals the right buzzwords, they are seen as credible. The abdication of authority, knowledge, whatever to dumb and unqualified virtual big others is also deeply macromemetic since it's probably an example of memetic nexus. Subscribers to a memetic nexus know that others in their shared cohort are also subscribed, and so any use of memes coming from this source, no matter how ridiculous, will be accepted by everybody else.

模倣子 Comments on Faspeel Game

 Yes, I like the "caramenti" name. The Mexican name for tic-tac-toe is "el gato" (a sharp or pound sign is "el gatito"), so there might also be another name possibility in there someplace. The more memes the merrier!

I just wrote this new page in which I took a deep dive into how the game works using the memetic modeling techniques I've been working on. It might or might not be interesting, or shed light on how the game works. Hopefully it appeals to computer science types. I am working on another page where I'll try to analyse strategies. Ultimately I should knock up a programmed interface where one can play against the computer, and maybe the computer against itself.

I devised the game as a simple model wherein you can look at strategies based on the state of the game and also beliefs about what the other player is trying to tell you. They can be trying to cooperate, deliberately lying, or random (or a mixture).

The point of the game is that you can "signal" the other player with your "show" coin (on the board) and your "cover" coin, to give them an idea of what your "secret" coin is, which is what determines the outcome of a bump, i.e., each player gets two points, or a "conflict" in which both flip coins to arrive at a random outcome (see below)

The game is played in "rounds" of whoever gets to ten points first. Cooperation is where each player gets as close to ten as possible each time. How well you're doing could be expressed as a ratio or a rolling average, e.g., 7/10, 9/10, 10/6, 10/8, 10/10, 10/10, 10/10, as opposed to where you just try to beat the other player as badly as possible.

I don't have this on the page (I may add it) but you can play in "passive", "even money", or "aggressive" mode where a "conflict bump" is different depending upon what you do if both players flip coins. The bumped player always gets three points on both tails. On a double-heads, the bumping player either gets zero points, one point, or two points, and one point for one heads, one tails. In "even money" the average result is the same as cooperating and each player getting two points every time. In aggressive mode, there is an average advantage to a player trying to bump regardless of what they think is going to happen. In passive ("simp") mode, one tends to lose over time with devil-may-care bumping.

In any case, if you bump without any idea of what the other player is trying to tell you (assuming they are not just playing randomly) there is a 25% x 25% x 25% chance that the other player will get right up to nine and you've practically lost the round.

Would it be useful for me to put up another page showing some samples of play? Like a few moves with some bump results?

模倣子 Horrible Women Roaming Unchecked

Macromemetic Index

Horrible women running around abusing people in public.

This happened to me a few years back. 

We don't have immunomemes for this stuff. Actually a woman came up and defended me when this happened to me, but otherwise we don't have immunomemes against this kind of behavior.

模倣子 Faspeel State Diagrams

 Macromemetic Index - Rules of Faspeel 

Introduction

There are states of the game, and later I also want to explore the states in the minds of the players, the "belief systems." I may get into the latter in a separate essay, if not here.

Herein I deal with how there are "orthogonal memeplexes" which may be represented much more economically than if they were all completely entangled. As I'll show, the fact that the board locations are clear and distinct ("Near" vs. "Away") and the move positions are all "heads" or "tails" along with the turn-taking of the game, means little or no ambiguity, no "jinx events" (10) or race conditions.

In other words, the superficial states of the system are "well-marked." When it comes to the "belief system memeplexes," I think we can start to look at dynamic learning (forming of new links and matrices, adjusting of weights, etc.). Again, with the orthogonal memeplexes idea--the belief memeplexes of each player are driven by the same memetic deployments, each making state changes within their own confines, for example, when one player does a flip! it changes the state of the whole objective system on the board, and also the "belief systems" (12) of both players, i.e., their "beliefs" about what will happen next.

The Game Memeplex

The board contains the relative positions of the two players "show" coins, either Away or Near. This state we call R. Either player can deploy away! or near! to change to the other state. When Near, a player may bump! the other player's "show" coin, thus reverting the system to Away and revealing their "secret" coin and if it matches the bumper's "show" coin it's a share! otherwise it's a clash! (2).

fig. 1. States of the Board

There are two players, each with state systems, P and Q. Each player's state consists of their "show" coin (on the board) and their "cover" coin (on the top of their "message," covering their "secret" (1)). The state of player P's "show" is Sh or P.Sh and the state of their cover is Co or P.Co. The "show" may be either "heads" or "tails" which we represent as Sh.Ta or Sh.He respectively. Transitions between these states are accomplished by the meme deployments flip! and shuffle! which symmetrically switch the states back and forth. The "show" and "cover" are also independent, effectively.

fig. 2. Coin States for Each Player

What about the "secret" coin? That works out to be an immunomemetic/alliance deployment that immediately follows a bump! deployment (5). It is not part of the visible state of the system (hence the term "secret").

The Overall System

R: State of the Board

P: State of Player 1

Q: State of Player 2

So we see how any one of the deployments depicted above may happen, according to which player's turn it is. Switching between Away and Near states does not impact the state of either player's "show" or "cover" coin, for instance. These states are all orthogonal to, or independent of, one another.

So we can denote the state of the whole system as RPQ, or for instance, QRP--more on this (7) when I get into the deployment descriptors, next. Note that the state of player one's things is P, and player one as an agent is p.

Deployment Descriptors

Deployment descriptors describe all of the individual actions, or memetic deployments, which may take place in this system. In a shorthand, I can describe all of the things that can happen in this system with the following few lines:

PQR.Away.[p, q].near! <=> PQR.Near.[p, q].away!

A word or two of explanation about this equation. Note that PQ appears on both sides. This indicates that the states of players one and two don't change, they remain the same on both sides of the transitions. Note the [p, q] and how it indicates that either agent may deploy the away! or near! meme when it is their turn.

Moving on to the descriptors for the memetic transactions when each player changes their own states.

R[Q, P][P, Q].Sh.[ Ta, He ].[p, q].flip! <=>
                                R[Q, P][P, Q].Sh.[ He, Ta ].[p, q].flip!

Here we see how the flip! meme changes the "show" state, Sh, from "heads" (He) to "tails" (Ta) and vice-versa. Note how the board state, R, stays the same across the transaction. One of the two player states [Q, P] remains static, while the other [P, Q].Sh changes.

R[Q,P][P,Q].Co.[[Ta,He],[Ta,He]].[p,q].shuffle! <=>
                                  R[Q,P][P,Q].Co.[[He,Ta],[Ta,He]].[p,q].shuffle!

Here's a bit of a twist. The shuffle! meme can either swap the "cover" (Co) from "heads" to "tails" or it can remain the same (6), hence the [[Ta,He],[Ta,He]] to [[He,Ta],[Ta,He]] which denotes how the "cover" may switch or stay the same. The secret, of course, may or may not change as well, but that's not a visible aspect of system state. That is, the other player knows that you shuffled, but not whether you actually changed the "secret" or not, or, of course, whether it's "heads" or "tails."

And then there's the bumping, which is a little different. It only works in one direction, sending everybody to the Away state.

PQR.Near.[p, q].bump! => PQR.Away   (8)

Of course, the bump! meme goes into a "compelled state" (5) which results in the deployment of either a share! or a clash! deployment, depending upon the "secret" of the bumped player, before returning to the Away state. This could be represented as an additional state (8) in the R submemeplex, but just putting the bump! meme is a kind of shorthand. Written out:

PQR.Near.[p, q].bump!clash! => PQR.Away

PQR.Near.[p, q].bump!share! => PQR.Away

This is kind of weird and non-deterministic, since in a given system a compelled state could lead to disparate states depending upon the "random" outcome. This is the nature of immunomemes, of course. When we say or do something we hope it will be well received and will lead to a good following state, but we also fear that there will be a bad reaction that we did not expect, and we shall lose face as a result. In an agent's "belief system" they might do a game-theory-like analysis of probable outcomes, but that is for another investigation. For now we just want to describe all of the possible states of the Faspeel game.

Break-Out of All Deployment Descriptors

PQR.Away.p.near! <=> PQR.Near.p.away!

PQR.Away.q.near! <=> PQR.Near.q.away!

PQR.Near.p.bump! => PQR.Away   bump! is a shorthand for the two possible outcomes (8)

PQR.Near.q.bump! => PQR.Away

PQR.Near.p.bump!share! => PQR.Away    (8)

PQR.Near.q.bump!share! => PQR.Away

PQR.Near.p.bump!clash! => PQR.Away

PQR.Near.q.bump!clash! => PQR.Away

RQP.Sh.Ta.p.flip! <=> RQP.Sh.He.p.flip!         Pp flips tails to heads

RQP.Sh.He.p.flip! <=> RQP.Sh.Ta.p.flip!          p flips heads to tails

RPQ.Sh.Ta.q.flip! <=> RPQ.Sh.He.q.flip!     Qq flips tails to heads

RPQ.Sh.He.q.flip! <=> RPQ.Sh.Ta.q.flip!       Q fliips heads to tails

RQP.Co.Ta.p.shuffle! <=> RQP.Co.He.p.shuffle!    P shuffles cover tails to heads

RQP.Co.He.p.shuffle! <=> RQP.Co.Ta.p.shuffle!    P shuffle heads to tails

RQP.Co.Ta.p.shuffle! <=> RQP.Co.Ta.p.shuffle!      P shuffle tails no change

RQP.Co.He.p.shuffle! <=> RQP.Co.He.p.shuffle!      P shuffle heads no change

RPQ.Co.Ta.q.shuffle! <=> RPQ.Co.He.q.shuffle!

RPQ.Co.He.q.shuffle! <=> RPQ.Co.Ta.q.shuffle!

RPQ.Co.Ta.q.shuffle! <=> RPQ.Co.Ta.q.shuffle!

RPQ.Co.He.q.shuffle! <=> RPQ.Co.He.q.shuffle!

The foregoing should encompass all of the possible moves at any point in the game.

Implications for Chess

My initial impetus was to model the game of chess as a two opposing societies comprised of individuals cooperating competitively with each against the other society. There might be some kind of evolution process taking place between the memetic systems of each side. Each piece would have its own ideomemplex (14) and the whole "team" would have a kind of shared endomemeplex (11) which would be effectively what was competing against the other side.

My problem was that I was mixing up the rules and strategies of chess and the actual play with the attitudes and decisions of the individual pieces (agents). I think what I've come up with here will prove useful. The state of the game is the separate, external memeplex, and each player has their own ideomemplex. In Faspeel there is no "deployment decision" problem as between the chess pieces, since there is only one "player" effectively.

Next steps might be to make the "cover" and the "flip" and the "Away/Near" all separate "agents" who try to decide which of them has the better chance of advancing the game, as opposed to that decision being monolithic.

It looks like the "game theory" (Nash equilibria) aspects lie primarily in the endomemeplexes, rather than an analysis of the board state (exomemeplex). This is the AI implication of this approach. A brute force, or optimized brute force approach to chess (or any such game) consists in looking at the board and deciding the best move based upon projected possible countermoves. The approach I suggest looks mainly at the other's likely intensions. In Faspeel, there is only the board situation, and what I think the other player is trying to tell me. There is never enough information to pick the next best move based just on the board itself.

If I can learn that the other player favors advancing their bishops in certain situations, is generally cautious about getting their queen out, is excessively willing to sacrifice pawns, or do trades, and so on, I can focus on what they are likely to do, and maybe where that will land me, and not worry about what they are very unlikely to do. Also, it might allow me to play an "intimidation game" or a "tricky/trappy game" which might otherwise be impossible to attempt.

Such a model, if computerized, could potentially learn the play style of any number of master chess players, based upon the moves of their documented games, perhaps later beating them at their own game, or allow more junior players to "play with the Big Boys" without actually having to schedule a match (13).

Conclusions & Further Investigations

I've put forward the idea of "orthogonal" or "independent" submemeplexes, and also a notational system for these in terms of state transition diagrams and deployment descriptors which appear to be useful. The hope is that these concepts and techniques will go a long way towards reducing the complexity associated with description and analysis of (some) memetic systems.

There may be implications for long-standing real-world modeling problems which I've yet to effectively address (10). Submemeplexes, artificial as they may or may not be, provide a way to represent the system without "everything being connected to everything".

One idea I had, which I will explore in a future essay, is how to model "belief matrices" or "belief endomemeplexes" (11) which govern how each player "thinks" the other player is going to act. The bad news is that these will certainly be messier that what we've seen here, but the good news is that they may be orthogonal to the physical state memeplexes in a similar way to how these are orthogonal to one another. In other words, adding an increasingly complex, or one for which there may be multiple possible implementations, system for modeling things like strategies, beliefs ("they want to cooperate" or "they're trying to trick me" or "they're just playing randomly" etc.) will result in no linking between the submemeplexes. The other playing flipping their coin is a meme that changes the physical states of the system, and it may also change my beliefs about what is happening, but the state changes in both of these memeplexes will be decoupled. At least that is my hope.

Ultimately, I have the goal in mind of modeling chess as a memetic system. It occurs to me that rather than modeling the ideomemetic behavior of each player in Faspeel, it might be more in the right direction to model the "show," the "cover," and the near! away! or bump! meme decision all as separate agents that then use game theory considerations to decide which one goes. Hopefully that will be "cleaner" than what I was thinking of, and be a step in the right direction for the chess project.

_____________________________

(1) Per the rules, each player has a stack of two coins, one on top of the other, 

(2) This rule may vary (3) but when the coins (share!) match each player gets two points and when they conflict (clash!) both players flip coins to work out the result (3).

(3) In a clash! both players flip coins, and if they both come up "tails" the bumped player gets three points. Otherwise, the bumping player gets one point. (4)

(4) Variations on this, which comes to "The Dating Game", are that on double heads the bumping player either gets zero points, or gets two points, and otherwise gets one. The zero points one is the "cautious version", the two-pointer the "aggressive version" and the one-pointer the "even money version." So called because with "even money" there is no advantage to trying to work out the other player's signals and just "going for it."

(5) There is an "implied" or "constrained" state (9) that exists between the bump! deployment and the immediately clash! or share! deployment. This means that the bumper initiates the action, but has no power over what happens next, which is effectively an immunomemetic/alliance deployment by the bumped player.

(6) A player may shuffle their "message" coins without actually changing anything, or by changing the secret and keeping the covering coin the same.

(7) Orthogonal states may be listed in any order, and without period delimiters between. Contrast this with the state of the show coin of, say, player 2, being "heads" which we denote as Q.Sh.He in other words, the "show" coin state, and the value of that state are substates of player two's state, hence, period delimiters. The state of player two "contains" the substates of "cover" and "show" and each of these may have a state of "heads" or "tails" so all possible states are: Q.Sh.He, Q.Sh.Ta, Q.Co.He, and Q.Co.Ta. If the state Q is mentioned without substates on both sides of a deployment descriptor, this means that nothing about that state has changed during the deployment.

(8) The two memetic pathways, in immunomemetic/alliance notation look like: PQR.Near.[p,q].bump!share! => PQR.Away and PQR.Near.[p,q].bump!clash! => PQR.Away. There are several options for representing this on a state transition diagram. One is to have a "compelled state" or "virtual state" (9) into which the bump! meme enters, and two memes, clash! and share! exit. Another is to have two compound memes going from the Near to the Away states.

(9) I have not as of yet officially settled upon a notational convention for a compelled state, that is, like the "cloud" symbol I use for regular states. What I have been using more or less consistently so far is a cloud with no name on it, indicating that once entered the state is immediately exited and nobody has any decision power in the choice of the outgoing memes.

     

fig. 9.1. compelled State form

     

fig. 9.2 immunomemetic form 

(10) Some things that come up in modeling multi-agent, real-world memetic modeling are jinx events, race conditions, and deployment decision. If two agents "want" to deploy a meme at the same time, or actually deploy memes at the same moment, or the relative time it takes agents to "get ready" to deploy a meme, or to decide to do so, or even stages of deploying memes based on growing or dwindling support of other agents. The artificial turn-taking associated with a game simplifies things, obviously. But orthogonal submemeplexes are a away to think about more complex systems without it all rapidly turning into one giant blob with all states potentially connected to all other states via all possible memes, ultimately with a plethora of "weights" attached to every possible interaction. I may have to deal with that soon enough in the next essay on endomemetic systems to do with Faspeel and "belief matrices" and such.

(11) An endomemeplex (as opposed to an "exomemeplex," i.e., an externally visible memeplex (13), which we usually just call a "memeplex") is a system internal to an agent which that agent uses to decide how to interact with an (the) exomemeplex. The endomemeplex accepts external (and internal) stimuli, deploys internal memes (which we can call "decision processes" (12)) based on internal states (which could be termed "beliefs" (12)), and finally produces memetic deployments into the exomemeplex (which could be termed "decisions" (12) or "actions" (including the "null meme" or "doing nothing").

(12) "Beliefs," "decision processes," and "decisions" in the phraseology of macromemetics may or may not resemble what one conventionally regards as such, naturally.

(13) When we consider the interaction between an individual's endomemeplex (or ideomemeplex in the case of a single individual (14)), one can see the possible therapeutic value of such activities as playing video games. A primary anxiety of the individual in taking decisions is immunomemetic pushback from others, or more to the point, that the system state will be pushed into an unfavorable configuration for said individual by their making a misstep.  A video game, for example, provides a "state reset" wherein the individual's mistakes do not have permanent effect. One is able to play out the same series of memetic deployments over and over without that primary fear of long-term consequences. However, the ability to "roam around" for an extended period in an environment where immunomemetic consequences are suspended may have many benefits, even therapeutic ones.

(14) A subtle distinction may be drawn between endomemeplexes and ideomemeplexes. In memetic hacking (15), one tries to get a picture of a cohort's overall propensity to respond to given stimuli, e.g., likelihood to vote for a certain candidate, buy a certain product, engage in racist/sexist behavior, etc. Members of a memetic cohort share large portions of a "shared endomemeplex," e.g., speaking the same language or dialect, religious beliefs, recognized symbols, preferred foods and activities, etc. and also, importantly, fears about being bullied by their fellows about things, even if nobody in reality "believes" them. Every individual has their own internal ideomemeplex that governs their behavior, and this tends to be an "overlapping set" with the cohort/societal norm endomemeplex. You could say that an ideomemeplex is an "implementation" of an endomemeplex, which is in turn an "abstraction" of a group's "values and predilections."

(15) Memetic hacking (a term I invented long ago and which I've stuck with) is the process of probing individuals to try to get an idea of what sort of memetic responses they exhibit, and possibly are likely to exhibit later. An example of "passive" memetic hacking might be wearing a T-shirt with a certain slogan or image around, to see what response it gets. No response anywhere might suggest that there is no resonance in the cohort to the given meme. Active positive or negative response, or just widespread recognition might suggest that the given meme could be used to influence the cohort. "Active" or "aggressive" memetic hacking consists of asking individuals questions or posing hypotheticals, or offering free/discounted items to see if they are accepted, or even more nefariously, perhaps, seeing how individuals respond to things like "confidence schemes" or "fake news." In memetic hacking, we are ostensibly trying to get a picture of the endomemeplex of a cohort, but we are doing it by investigating the ideomemeplexes of a collection of individuals.

模倣子 it’s not the heat, it’s the humidity

 Memetic Index 

Hey howdy 🤠 

How is the heat down there?

It’s been around a hundred around here a lot, and a scientist 👨‍🔬 buddy says that’s 15 degrees above the fifty-year average for this time of year. 

We may all be doomed. Past a certain 🌧️ 🌡️ humidity and temperature, it’s impossible for the human body to shed heat, no matter how much we perspire 💦 

I’ve been to Egypt 🇪🇬 a couple of times and it’s 130 in the shade there, but it’s a dry heat and if you stay hydrated 💧 you can sweat 😅 it out, but in huge swaths of the planet 🌍 🌏 where billions live, India, China, Southeast Asia, central Africa, etc., life may simply become impossible, and quite suddenly, millions left dead ☠️ almost overnight, as though a giant bomb 💣 had gone off. 

I read about the idea a “wet bulb 💡 🌡️ event” which I need to follow up on, since I recall reading 📖 that it had already happened at least once in India 🇮🇳 with entire villages, regions, simply wiped out overnight, tens of thousands of bodies literally strewn everywhere, lying where they had collapsed, as if from a kind of sudden suffocation, to be discovered by troops and would-be rescue 🛟 workers who came in after the heat had subsided. 

I wonder which of the three horses 🐎 🐴 🐎 of Thomas Malthus that counts as? He didn’t count on technology 🤖 getting us out of the resource/subsistence hole 🕳️ we dig for ourselves, but he also didn’t count on our destroying the climate such that we can’t live there anymore. 

The USA 🇺🇸 military apparently take climate change VERY seriously.

模倣子 TOOL The Dispossessed

 Macromemetic Index 

The Dispossessed
by Ursula K. Le Guin

Introduction

I read the book through once and listened to it another couple of times. It's the story of a man who is something of a fish out of water, a brilliant physicist, living on a planet, Annares, in an orbital dance with another planet, Urras. Annares is an anarchy, controlling the whole very poor planet. Urras is rather like Earth, full of different cultures, capitalist, communist, military dictatorship, and wars and exploitation.

It's one of the best books I've read, definitely my "top shelf." It's a wonderful example of the science fiction oeuvre, using a futuristic or alternate reality premise as a launching pad for a eloquent allegory for exploring social issues, in this case weighty ones.

Names & Places

I wonder how Le Guin cooked up her names. I wonder if "Urras" and "Annares" were somehow "Earth" and "Anti-Earth" in some way. I like the way she "Japanified" Einstein's name, for one. Annaresti names are cooked up by computer. I wonder if names throughout the book were full of deep and interesting hidden meanings. "Hain" means "hate" in French, for example--perhaps a long shot, that. I liked her neologisms, such as kleggage and nuchnebi. I felt they carried a lot of narrative load for her.

Storycraft

I thought her use of interleaved narrative exquisitely done. I reread the story a number of times, and I picked up on more and more of the foreshadowing, and it seemed that she "spread the load" with how she structured the story, giving us details and then switching to how that fit into the story on the other planet. It made things more dynamic, and I think if it had been Part I: Annares and Part II: Urras, for instance, there would've been a bunch of foreshadowing at the start, straining the memory of the reader, and making the payoff at the end less impactful.

Linguistics & Physics

Le Guin's expositions into the Pravic language and the General Temporal Theory were lengthy when compared to many "soft science fiction" authors who tend to put actual enabling scientific concepts on as a kind of "band-aid" or which with much briefer expositions revealing a profound lack of understanding of their subject matter. Everybody's got faster-than-light travel, subspace communications, teleporters, laser-blasters, in-ship gravity, light sabers, Babel-17 languages, universal translators, telepathy, empathy, and on and on and on (sorry to pick on Star Trek so much). Le Guin makes no such slip-ups. She never misses a step. I didn't catch anything to suggest that she was anything other than a polyglot linguist and a physicist conversant in special & general relativity as well as quantum physics. She somehow skirted the landmines, quicksands, and pitfalls one could easily fall prey to in trying to fold such topics into a fictional narrative, including the ones I specifically had my ear out for. For example, she set me at ease by making the point that while months passed on the near-lightspeed Hainish interstellar ships, decades passed on the home world. Typical of her extra dollop of scientific detail, which would require some scientific training to recognize, to anchor her point, smear on another thick brushstroke rather than leave an irritating swath of naked gesso.

Pravic shares characteristics with Japanese and Spanish, for instance, in which it's rude to employ the genitive case for parts of one's own body, or lack of curse words except for very specific descriptions, lack of superstitious, religious references, or convoluted ways of expressing ideas which would otherwise cut against the grain of social harmony, e.g., "that's mine" or "give me that" or "would it bother anybody if I were to partake of this one" or "I've come to bother you" or "the way of doing this might be the suggested one" and so forth, or just simply dispensing with grammatical gender or other such forms which gobble up linguistic resources, often leaving room for discord in the process.

Socio-Politics and Economics

One began to get the impression that the story was to be a straightforward analogical contrast between communism and capitalism, but things got more muddled and interesting as they went on. First, when the ambassador from Thu, Chifoilisk, makes his frothy protestations to Shevek about how different his "communist" society is to A-Io, the propretarians, the unbridled laissez-faire capitalists, it becomes clear that from the perspective of Shevek's homeland of Annares, the two are at best superficially different, at worst virtually indistinguishable.

The Battle of the Sexes

I was glad that the book is penned by a woman, as it lent weight to Le Guin's comments about female power and the relationship between men and women, the power dynamics, etc.

The women on A-Io go around topless (at least in the company of those who "own their nudity"), bejeweled, hair shaven, have no responsibilities or jobs or academic or intellectual standing, and yet Vea claims that the women control everything because they in fact control the men. It reminds me of one of my favorite quotes, which sounds like Voltaire, but apparently isn't:

"The business of society consists in men pretending that they themselves are in charge and women pretending that they themselves are not."

So there is some substance to Vea's assertion, à la "The Hand that Rocks the Cradle Rules the World," and so on.

Meanwhile, while great material and political egalitarianism reigns on Annares, statements are made that "men may learn Odonism, but women are fundamentally propertarians" because they own men, are able to take possession of men (rather like on Urras), and as Shevek's partner Takver admitted, a pregnant woman is constitutionally unethical, having no other loyalty than to the fetus.

One contrast was Shevek's talk with Takver and others about how infidelity in a partnered relationship was about trust, while Vea's protestations when Shevek was coming on to her were to do with her reputation and keeping secrets from her husband and her maid. I liked Takver's term, "body profiteer." Matter-of-fact and free of loaded expressions.

I was gratified at how deeply and thoroughly Le Guin dove into and elaborated this subject, more so than a male author might have dared to, or even had the insight to attempt.

Freedom and Dictatorship

We have the planet Annares, a planet-wide anarchist commune, and Urras, home to multiple languages and cultures and countries, notably A-Io, Thu, and Benbilli.

The Ioti are propertarians, with some super-rich enjoying luxury amidst starvation, want, and squalor. We don't get to see the interior of Thu, but we learn that it is a kind of communist country run by a presidium, by which one of the main characters, Chifoilisk is "called back."

The Annarasti make the assertion that the Urrasti are slaves to their possessions.

On Annares, we see the dictatorship and problems of government represented by Sabul, the physicist mentor, and by Tirin, the playwright. By contrast to Urras, specifically A-Io, Annaresti culture shows itself to be egalitarian, anarchist, caring, coping with and trying to survive and thrive in a world of scarcity, but then we see the ugly underbelly of power plays in committees, creeping bureaucracy in the face of repeated crisis, and the helplessness of individuals when things don't go their way.

Law versus Custom

Takver, Shevek, and Bedap discuss the fate of their friend, the playwright Tirin. He was criticized for his art, for his parody play about Urras, and he wound up in an institution. They said how "customs" have even more power than "laws" which they abhorred in the Urrasti. Shevek observes that while both scientists and artists are creatives, the scientist can appeal to "objective truth" to defend his work while the artist has no comparable defense.

I was deeply intrigued by this contrast. It's a deeply memetic question. Customs are "stronger" and more efficient, laws are more easily configured, downloaded if you will. Customs are hard to fix when they go wrong, as they tend to do.

Shevek observes how military "discipline" is nothing of the sort, but merely a way of spreading responsibility for decision around so horrors may be committed, effectively on command. It's not actually stated, but it also means that new hands may take hold of the levers of power and nothing changes--just put somebody new's picture up behind the front desk. It's clean, efficient, and effective, and easy to change as needed. It's also great for consistent commission of cruelty and horror on a mass scale.

We see Sabul's self-serving, Machiavellian machinations, keeping his place despite lack of merit, controlling others, we see Rulag's dictatorship through controlling committees, envious neighbor Binub's whinging about being mistreated by committees.

We could fault the manipulativeness of Sabul's power-grabbing, Rulag's dogmatic grandstanding, and Binub's whining, but what choice do they have? Binub has no power to petition, to vote, to lodge a complaint, or so we are led to understand. Rulag has no court to plead to, no petition, no vote to get out, and also nobody has any course to resist her. And her cronies have no other resort than to violence. Sabul has no title, no chairmanship, no desk, no office, ostensibly in an anarchy, but it's really a meritocracy with no measuring sticks. He has to struggle to cobble together his own, and guard it at all times against all comers, especially up-and-coming physicists with real talent.

One wonders if Annaresti society would function as well as it does in a less spartan environment. What if there were more resources to squabble over, more room for people to slack off in either protest or apathy, less impending doom at every turn, less threat of Urrasti invasion? I can only imagine that's why Le Guin painted the Planet Annares as she did. 

Can an anarchist society function without singleness of purpose?

Checks but no Balances

Karel van Wolferen wrote in The Enigma of Japanese Power that Japan is a system of balances but no checks. One might say something like "a deep keel but no rudder." Annaresti society might be quite like this. 

Rulag makes the point that Shevek and his Committe of Initiative are behaving just as the propertarians said anarchists would eventually devolve into, i.e., taking selfish decisions without considering the welfare and traditions of the society as a whole.

We may have a scaling problem, and a centralization problem. What is Le Guin showing us about dictatorship and democracy, their practical aspects, their fatal flaws? Is it possible to run a government without offices, votes, petitions, courts, and are there substitutes? Is it possible to run a society without certifications, official conveying of responsibility, that sort of thing?

Final Remarks

I was intrigued by Le Guin's depiction of the role of women in society. I think she gave us a lot to chew on and can't ignore in terms of Realpolitik vis-à-vis the Women's Liberation Movement.

Her analogy of the two worlds supported well the political and economic contrasts she showed us. The setting is so richly drawn as to give us a lot to talk about and speculate on on our own.

I felt we were left largely to draw our own conclusions.

漫画 Pen & Ink of Woman Looking Down with Glasses

 Manga Index 

Self-critique: Need to work on the perspective on the glasses. Mouth position, overall realization, and perspective. Nose not too bad, but still. Work on hair--lots of lines, perhaps could have better impact. Eyes a bit askew, asymmetrical, could telegraph what they're looking at...better.

Ink drawing from reference

Cartoonified version of original

Original reference

Pencil sketches for inking

漫画 Hobbit Maiden

 Manga Index 

Hobbit maiden

Happy American National Day!

漫画 Standing Nudes 1

 Manga Index 

Standing nudes 1

漫画 Standing Nude 2

 Manga Index 

Standing nude 2

漫画 Two Lulus Interacting with Border

 Manga Index 

Two Lulus interacting with border

模倣子 Why Clothing?

 Memetic Index - Quora Link - Earlier Essay 

I’ve got a theory, which may be not at all original, about “why clothing?” Humans being able to walk erect and having hands is not so much for tool use, since other animals can use tools without erect gait like ours. One thing that the erect gait gets you is the ability to CARRY things back to the village, i.e., if you find a bunch of food, like mushrooms, berries, nuts, or some dead animal or something, more than you can carry with two hands, then clothing, i.e., a fur or cloth or such wrapped around you becomes an enabling technology for better foraging, i.e., to use as a sack to carry stuff back, as in “dressed in sack cloth”. So clothes even in hot climates starts to make sense.

Once humans start to migrate out of warm areas then said clothing can be enlisted for double-duty to keep warm, protect from the elements. Having said that, early reports of people living in Tierra del Fuego and such said they did not wear much in the way of clothing, i.e., sort of gives the lie to the idea that humans started making clothes when things got cold. It makes more sense from a technological development standpoint that they were already invented in some other form. Hence clothing that doesn’t seem to “cover up your naughty bits.”

Which brings us to the body shaming part. If clothing is already “available” memetically speaking, then there is an iconic/memetic place to “hang” the shaming memes. A lot of societies are all about shaming and controlling women, so rather than the female body being shameful as such, if clothing is available as a technology, then it’s possible to start to hang/attach shaming memes to this already extant socio-technological object in order to control women. If clothing were not already available, present, then this would be much more difficult to accomplish.

詩 Arièl the Hoarding Mermaid

Memetic Index 

"Why do I have all this crap, and why can't I get rid of it?" Kind of like a dysfunctional Little Mermaid (admittedly more Danish than Dutch) 

Look at this stuff, isn't it neat? 

You might think my collection's more than complete. 

You want thingamabobs, I've got twenty, with my whozits and whatzits galore, no big deal, you might say, to throw one or two of them awaaaaay. 

But which one? 

They're all so unique, potentially useful and handy, but unlike candy, I can't eat them, and so they staaaaaay. 

I wanna be where those people are, those who say, a place for everything, and everything in its place, but who has the spaaaaaaace? 

Every day I thank god for recycling, is that why churches run donation centers, by the way? 

My precious little darlings aren't dying, my memories aren't erased. 

I can still treasure them in absentia, since they're just going into someone else's loving embraaaaaaace. 

I wanna be, please let me be, free from this minutia and baggage, somewhere that's cleeeeeean. 

漫画 Lulu Shooting Arrow

 Manga Index 

Lulu shooting arrow

模倣子 SUSPECNA Notes

 Macromemetic Index - SUSPECNA A Meduim Blog Post

Introduction

I've got an idea for a new "uniform law" that would reform how States deal with Federal elections (rather like Nebraska and Maine). This post includes some of the many notes and emails I've written on the subject so far. 

Tasks to Accomplish

1. getting help from the Uniform Law Commission

2. drafting the legislation (with help from lawyer friends)

3. working out the voting system (e.g., ranked choice voting, and how to tally votes under such a system)

4. possibly including verbiage about Gerrymandering and other such voter suppression and inequality issues

5. reaching out to State legislators to get the law passed

6. looking into existing laws and practices (including what ballots look like) in the several States

7. other stuff (to be discovered)

ULC 

There's a Uniform Law Commission (documented in Wikipedia) which has been around for a century and a half and whose mission seems to line up with my idea of getting each of the Several States to pass my Electoral College Act.

You know about the interstate pact to make the Electoral College irrelevant, right? When states with enough electoral votes to win the election (270) join that pact, it automatically goes into effect. The states agree to give all their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote. It seems air-tight to me. Is what you are working on different?

Yeah, I had major issues with the Interstate Popular Vote Compact as soon as I heard about it, and my worries were borne out by the recent Texas Supreme Court case against Pennsylvania, Georgia, and two other swing States. If an interstate compact exists regarding how States certify their electoral college results, nothing guarantees that states will disagree on how other states have counted their votes, and sue each other in the SCOTUS, and we already have proof that that can and will happen.

Even if the compact contains verbiage to the effect (and I haven't checked) that "signatory states shall respect the certified counts of other signatory states," or "signatories agree not to sue each other in the SCROTUS" or whatever. None of this is likely to work, even if it exists in the law, since there's a potentially infinitely deep set of Russian dolls of "yes, but they didn't count their votes right," or "the great State of Texas always has the right to seek relief in SCROTUS" or "yes, but...." or even as we saw in the electoral college of Texas, they deliberated for something like two hours about a resolution to SCROTUS decrying SCROTUS' decision to dismiss their suit against the other four States on the basis that they have no standing. By the way, they voted that the EC of Texas is a deliberative body and can discuss whatever and pass resolutions on whatever (including vote against the Interstate Compact if they decide, if Texas signs in future, which they are near to doing). Well, hey, I just thought of this -- the interstate compact would GIVE Texas standing (as an aggrieved party) in this situation, that is, SCROTUS would not have the same grounds for dismissal, i.e., they would have standing as a signatory of the interstate popular vote compact to sue other states over their vote counts. In other words, it would be Gore v. Bush times Biden v. Trump (where none of the cases are dismissed with prejudice as spurious this time) on steroids every single election. I could probably go on for a few more paragraphs.

So it's a huge truckload of crates of tins of worms, in my view, and I hope it doesn't pass enough states and dies a quiet death.

My idea is simply to create a law and get it pushed to the states as a Uniform Law, with the help of the Uniform Law Commission, that would do something like make all states choose their electors like Nebraska and Maine do (and I still need to read their laws in detail, as well as all the other states). By the way, I was unable to see the EC proceedings of those two states (ME, NE), so if you know any URLs, I'd be much obliged. I did watch a number of others, and it was exactly what I expected, and showed me that my idea for this 

The idea is to get rid of the winner-takes-all rule. If we do that, we've effectively make the EC match up with the popular vote. People think the EC doesn't track the popular vote, because of the "at large" (Senator) electors, and yes, that as some impact, the ol' Wyoming voters get 193,000 votes per elector, while Texas, New York, and California voters are about three times that, and that makes Republicans (or whoever Gerrymanders Western States) easier to get votes.

Yeah, kind of, but I would argue that's not such a big deal, but that it's overshadowed by winner-take-all.

One complaint is "my vote doesn't count" if I'm blue in a red state or vice-versa, or green in a red state or whatever. Take Idaho. Depending on how you set things up, both districts might still go red, but the two at-large electors, one might go blue if all of the blue voters in the state  So Idaho might elect three red and one blue, instead of always four blue. Also, one or both at-large electors could be "given" to a minority group. This is a kind of "out there" idea, I'll admit. But say you have a minority, like black people, or latinos, who are spread out all over, but are recognized as having their own political need. So if you're black or latino, you could opt for a latino or black ballot, in which you'd have the right to vote for one or both of the at-large electors, and of course the elector for your district, and regular voters would not have at-large electors on their ballots, just their local district electors.

I do want to do some analysis of past elections to see how things would've gone if my new law were in place, and maybe some what-ifs as to whether it were only partly in place.

Anyway, sorry if I sound heavy-handed. I was suspicious of the Interstate Popular Vote Compact from the off, I think it changes too much, and the Texas SCOTUS action just confirmed my suspicion about how it would be a destabilizing effect, rather than the reverse.

Anyway, yes, I'm unemployed and writing full time since April. What you said John Le Carré sounds like about what I'm doing. I hope to have something to show you, if you want, sometime soon. The first half of my chapters are in flux again, hopefully tidied up soon, then the last 1/3 of the book is kind of a shambles, too.

Once I fix the electoral college and gerrymandering, I think health care is next, and then some kind of amalgam of Universal Income, welfare, unionization, social security and maybe a few other things.

Got to make it so that people's votes actually count, so that candidates have to campaign in all of the states, not just the handful of swing states, and feel like none of them are guaranteed, and third party entrants become realistic. Anyway, I do blah, blah, blah.

PS: The working title for my new Uniform Law is SUSPECNA (Simplified Uniform State Popular Electoral College Normalization Act), which I'm sure you'll agree is superior to the forgettable "National Popular Vote Interstate Compact."

PPS: Probably some right-wing screed (I didn't read it through) but here's agreement and support for exactly what I just said. Yes, yes, it's almost certainly unconstitutional (some don't give a big rat's about that, others do). For me, as an information system engineer, I don't like non-convergent systems.

The name of your new law sounds suspicious. :) What are non-convergent systems?

I just discovered Robert Sapolsky -

https://youtu.be/_njf8jwEGRo?t=4195

He gives a great explanation of the butterfly effect, right at the place in the URL. But the whole lecture is very interesting.

I've heard from experts that the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is legally very sound. Interstate compacts are allowed and respected in Supreme Court precedents, and the states have autonomy in how they select their electors. OTOH, we have arrived at a point in history where legal and constitutional structures are in danger of being ignored or overthrown by the Republican cult.

Attachments area

Preview YouTube video 21. Chaos and Reductionism

21. Chaos and Reductionism

So I originally wrote all the following before the events of Wednesday the sixth (a day that will live in infamy). I may be able to safely further beat my drum of how the NPVIC might make things worse in terms of States suing each other or fighting each other in the January 6 joint session. The NPVIC could give grounds for objection where none would otherwise exist.

Let's all just let our own imaginations run wild in our own separate, socially-distanced garrets with the blinds drawn for now, shall we?

Yeah, that was one of the frightening aspects of the past four years, that our system of laws and Constitution became almost religiously iconic in nature, and upheld more in the breach than the observance, used to press one's own agenda, and now it's just pressing one's own agenda out of arrogance, whether or not there's legal support.

Yeah, I just feel that the NPVIC won't be a stable system, especially given the growing divisiveness we see. The voters in one state want candidate A and the voters in another state want candidate B, but the overall majority is for candidate B, so a "sovereign" state has to go against the will of its own voters and switch them all to candidate B. The people who have to execute that switcheroo are elected, paid by the state, and they may lose their jobs because of the action of voters in another state, and their elected officials. We've already seen way more wrangling in 2000 and 2020 over much less. I don't care how well-worded a law is, it's not going to change those facts right there, or probably a bunch of others.

I should try to come up with a mathematically rigorous description of "stability" in terms of the Electoral College.

It would be interested to hear what your experts say about the Texas SCOTUS suit against PA, GA, Wi, MI ("Pagaweemee") regarding their vote counting. SCOTUS dismissed it on the basis of standing, i.e., a State cannot claim aggrieved status over how another State counted its votes. That's how the Constitution is designed to work. Do your experts think that the NPVIC would grant Texas, for example, standing, in such a case? I assume that it might, and given what I've seen, that could be a disaster.

It's all trying to solve a problem that's caused by winner-take-all. We should solve that, not mess around with something that's not the root of the problem. Say "California's EC votes don't reflect the popular vote!" Okay, true. There are about 57 electoral votes in California. Mostly Democrat, but about 30% Repubilcan. So say, "I live and love in Orange County, and thanks to the EC my vote doesn't count!" Hogwash. The problem is that California should be sending 16 Republican electors (I assume the two at-large electors would go Democrat).

<start content=possible-pointless-rubbish>

Texas is about 50/50%, so amazingly, it's more Democrat than California, and 38 votes. That means with Texas and California together, the Dems get 41+19 = 60, and Republican 16+19 = 35. With the winner-take-all EC, it's 57 versus 38. Population-wise California is 39.5 million and Texas is 29 million.

So Popular vote 42.2 million Dems, 26.4 million Republican or 61.5% Dem versus 38.5% Reps.

WTA EC:  57 / 95 = 60% dems, 40% repub.

"Normalized" EC: 60 / 95 = 63.1% dems, 36.8% Republican

This doesn't mean too much without running the numbers for more states, like little agricultural ones that always vote "all Republican", like at least running all of the Western States and see what that looks like.

To my mind, it's a question of granularity. You may share this feeling, like every presidential election, except possibly the one we just had and one or both Obama ones, of "Who the hell voted for this guy? None of the people I know did, but he won at a walk. What the hell?" In other words, I look around my neighborhood and either feel like we all voted the some, but people in many, many other neighborhoods voted the other way. Or in my case, I look at my neighbors and I'm pretty sure most of them voted the other way.

The point is, one doesn't feel if everybody around voted against one, that one's vote is not being counted, is ignored. We may feel our country is bat-shit crazy and like we're somehow in danger, but not like our vote was ignored. The point is that if the votes were all counted up for my whole neighborhood, and it went one way, I'd be part of it, even if it didn't go my way. Just like if three of my neighbors voted the other way, one would cancel out my vote, and the other two would go the other way.

I don't know what I'm trying to say. I guess it's like pixels on a screen. At some point you gotta say, "This spot here is orange," once you've decided how big of dot size you're going to work with.

<end content=possible-pointless-rubbish alt-tag=jay-may-be-flattering-himself>

I'm getting the feeling I have some fundamental work to do in order to be able to talk clearly about these things. And I think it might dovetail into the gerrymandering work I want to do. I might need a quantity like the "effective impact of a single vote" on an election. Like, effectively Wyoming has way more impact than California, for instance, since WY has like half a mil population, and one Congressional Representative, so each of their EC votes "costs" just under 200K votes, while it's more like 700K in California (and Texas). So a WY vote has three times the impact.

By the way, that might be a problem for the PNVIC -- how to deal with this unevenness of electoral votes? It's probably in keeping with how the law is to work, i..e, it doesn't matter who actually casts the electoral college votes, just how they are split up.

And actually, that's an interesting point: how should the at-large electors be selected? Is there a way to do it that's fair, and which promotes 3rd party entry?

Oh, cool idea. Instead of Wyoming giving all it's vote to some PNVIC pot, it could give one or more of its at-large electors to someplace like California. Is that an incremental move in the direction of PNVIC? Or is it just random crap? That's an important question, since if that's hard, then PNVIC is hard. So far it's the big democrat states who have signed up (that's right, no?). The hard part will be when different-party States have to hand their votes to the other side. Totally random, off-the-cup thought.

Anyway, I wrote all this crap, and it's been sitting in my drafts folder, so I thought I'd shoot it off.

PS: Thanks for the video -- I'll try to get to it soon.

....

I think your remark below is the challenge so that you are building a framework which becomes clearer as your update it.  Common ground for the most will help build support for incremental solutions down the road.
Thanks for all your hard work...... 

=======================

I've got a little project that I've been thinking about.

I want to explore electoral legislation, namely gerrymandering and updates to electoral college legislation at the state level.  

This new legislation would get rid of the "winner takes all rule." One hoped-for outcome would be that third parties would actually have a chance of getting some EC votes. Another is that the EC would more closely track the popular vote. 

I'm trying to put a team together. I need to check what each State's (apart from Nebraska and Maine, though I'll want to look at them, too, since their way of choosing Electors will probably be a template) way of choosing Electors in the Presidential election looks like. The objective is to draft an amendment to each State Constitution (or whatever part of their election code, whatever that looks like) and get it to the right people (State Assembly majority and minority leaders, State party leadership, whatever) to change how Electoral College Electors are chosen. Worst case a different law would have to be drafted for each State.

What I'm envisaging at the moment would be like Nebraska and Maine (I still need to get into the details of how they work), where each Federal Congressional District would choose a different elector, and each ballot in every district would have two "at large" electors (two for each party) as well, which would be the same on every ballot in the State. Whether this would simplify the ballot that each voter had to fill in remains to be seen. 

There's another initiative, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which tries to accomplish something similar, but I believe it to be wrong-headed. I need to get into the details, but it effectively has States club together to agree on voting all their electoral votes to exactly match how the popular vote went. It kicks in when 270 EC votes worth of States sign onto it, pass it. Problems abound, in my view, since one state's submission of their electoral votes depends on other states' vote counts. California, for instance, would have to wait, in principle, for a score of other states to count their votes, and if they all turn up Republican, then all of California has to vote 100% Republican, too. Are California, Texas, or all the other States then supposed to be allowed to check the other States' election certification and vote counts? Contentious election counts in any State could potentially impact the certification of dozens of other States. I should probably write a piece on this.

I need a catchy name, or I already thought of one and forgot it, but something like Uniform State Popular Electoral College Normalization Act (USPECNA? rather the same idea as the Uniform State Narcotic Drug Act, but less fascist, i.e., a State-level initiative that all States need to get on board with, but, unlike NPVIC, every State that passes my law helps a bit, not all-or-nothing). Maybe SUSPECNA (Simplified Uniform State Popular Electoral College Act). I'm open to suggestions, but "The Popular People's Front of Judea" is right out.

I want to get historical election data and model how elections would have gone had this legislation been in place.

================

On the Gerrymandering, I want to understand the precinct-level voter data, and the goal is to come up with some kind of analysis method that would lead to an algorithm or formula that would provide a deterministic answer as to whether Gerrymandering had taken place (even accidentally). It should be multi-party friendly as well. I'm currently trying to model things on the RISK game board for starters, and then move on to read election data. I still need to nail down sites that provide this information, and in what format. One issue I suspect will be a problem is "adjacency data," i.e., which precincts are next to one another. I've got a buddy who's shown interest in the math behind this problem.

Update of name for Uniform Voting Act.

I need a catchy name, or I already thought of one and forgot it, but something like Uniform State Popular Electoral College Normalization Act (USPECNA? rather the same idea as the Uniform State Narcotic Drug Act, but less fascist, i.e., a State-level initiative that all States need to get on board with, but, unlike NPVIC, every State that passes my law helps a bit, not all-or-nothing). Maybe SUSPECNA (Simplified Uniform State Popular Electoral College Normalization Act). I'm open to suggestions, but "The Popular People's Front of Judea" is right out.

And I need to reach out to the Uniform Law Commission, and maybe they can help me with the name.

Legal Eagle did a video on the Texas suit against other States to change their election results, which is a great example of why the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, i.e., States would be required to interfere with one another's election processes in order to fulfill the requirements of this law, which this suit and the 2020 election show to be deeply problematic.

Voting Systems

https://youtu.be/oJoVFrBkBTw

I should probably try to include this in my SUSPECNA uniform legislation. 

Attachments area

Preview YouTube video How Ranked Choice Voting Can Save American Politics

How Ranked Choice Voting Can Save American Politics

I'm putting together a project to reform voting. One prong is Gerrymandering (mainly describing it mathematically) and the other is the Electoral college (getting rid of winner-takes-all)

Gerrymandering is a separate but very important issue, as are other forms of voter suppression. This piece speaks to a number of voter suppression issues to do with operating polling stations, eg, funding. 

The SUSPECNA (act) will ease pressure on election management by removing the winner takes all aspect of presidential elections. This will have many benefits leading up to and during the election. 

State Lawsuits

https://youtu.be/l6MyImeCKlk

Here’s the suit that makes me think that The:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

...is not only a bad idea, full stop, but could actually accord standing to these kinds of lawsuits, ie, states suing each other in SCOTUS over how they voted. 

I need to get on this SUSPECNA legislation I want to do. 

https://legalbeagle.com/8473373-propose-law.html

And a buddy (you know who you are!) sent me this very promising link :

https://legalbeagle.com/8361632-write-bill-proposal.html

Which uses the term “Bill proposal” which I want to do:

SUSPECNA electoral college reform uniform state law

Reïnstate the fair and balanced law for news outlets (the FCC policy tossed out by Dick Cheney?)

Possibly federal and also uniform state law that corporations be licensed/incorporated “in the public interest”

Possibly fed and uniform state laws that healthcare providers be treated like utilities, eg, de facto monopolies serving a beholden population and therefore subject to price-gouging, levels of service, non-denial of service, reasonable guarantee of quality and timeliness of service, etc. 

I have a few others, but that may be a good start.  

Attachments area

Preview YouTube video Why the Texas Election Suit Was Doomed (And Why They Filed It Anyway)

Why the Texas Election Suit Was Doomed (And Why They Filed It Anyway)