Swarm Corruption

[Annie]

I know this may be addressed after the election, then again, maybe not:


Chicago Boyz Blog Archive Swarm-Corruption

Swarm-Corruption

Posted by Shannon Love on November 2nd, 2008 (All posts by Shannon Love)

Print This Post

In computing, “swarm” designates a process carried out by a large number of decentralized small computing units each working on a tiny piece of a much larger problem. For example, the Folding@Home project uses the idle computational power of thousands of desktop computers to run computationally intensive simulations of protein folding.

More recently, the concept of swarm has expanded to describe any decentralized action enabled by peer-to-peer communications such as the Internet. For example, in swarm-journalism large numbers of people independently decide to investigate the same event and independently publish their findings.

Recent revelations that the Obama campaign did not take elementary precautions to prevent illegal campaign donations over the internet raise the real possibility of a “corruption swarm” in which a large number of people independently carry out the same corrupt act.


The beauty of swarm-corruption lies in its deniability. The Obama campaign did not have to launch a centrally coordinated effort to break the law, they needed to merely remove the standard safeguards that normally prevent such illegal acts. Obama could then just sit back and let corrupt donors figure out for themselves that they could break the law....

...At what point do corrupt campaign donations invalidate an election? No campaign can guarantee that 100% of its donations are legal. A certain amount of error and fraud creeps into any system that collects from millions of sources. So, we have to tolerate low-single-digit percentages of a politician’s funding coming from illegal donations. On the opposite extreme it seems obvious that if 100% of a politician’s campaign donations came from corrupt sources then that level of corruption would invalidate the politician’s mandate to hold office. Somewhere between the two extremes lies a level of corruption that would invalidate a politician’s claim to office.

Where does that point lie? If 10% of Obama’s donations came from illegal sources would most Americas believe that invalidates his claim to office? Probably not. 20%? Unlikely. 30%? Maybe. 50%? Probably.

Even if the level of corruption falls below the threshold that triggers the outright rejection of the legitimacy of the election, high levels of swarm-corruption could seriously undermine a politician’s mandate.

Obama may find that he won the election battle but lost the political war. In any case, we must update our laws and procedures to prevent swarm-corruption from becoming a significant problem in the future.

 

[editec]

Swarm corruption is rather like the de facto racial prejudice that Blacks face every damned day.

 

[Annie]

Swarm corruption is rather like the de facto racial prejudice that Blacks face every damned day.

LOL! Great twist, did that hurt?

 

[glockmail]

This is just one of the many things that will not go away if Obama is elected. Also expect to see the natural born issue, Rezco-Ayers-Wright, ACORN and voter fraud, and documentation of hundreds of lies and broken promises. He will have a full time staff spinning all this shit that will make the Clinton machine look like kindergarten in comparison.

Not to mention the "excuse squad" to spin the spiraling economy and bankrupt social programs.

 

[Jeepers]

This is just one of the many things that will not go away if Obama is elected. Also expect to see the natural born issue, Rezco-Ayers-Wright, ACORN and voter fraud, and documentation of hundreds of lies and broken promises. He will have a full time staff spinning all this shit that will make the Clinton machine look like kindergarten in comparison.

Not to mention the "excuse squad" to spin the spiraling economy and bankrupt social programs.

Wow.. an entire days worth of Fox News talking points in one tiny paragraph.. you deserve an award for that... ::

 

[bigbroodmaster]

I don't understand how you can start blaming Obama already for the declining economy. Not only is it not his fault, the man hasn't even taken office yet!

 

[glockmail]

I don't understand how you can start blaming Obama already for the declining economy. Not only is it not his fault, the man hasn't even taken office yet!

1. Markets hate uncertainty.
2. The Democrats have been bad-mouthing the economy ever since Bush took office, but more so since they have been campaigning for 08. Obama ratcheted up the rhetoric even higher since the Fannie Mae thing.
3. Obama is promising to raise taxes during an economic downturn.

 

[midcan5]

Swarm corruption is rather like the de facto racial prejudice that Blacks face every damned day.

Interesting comparison.

-----------------------

I wonder if swarm thinking could explain the failure of conservative policies since Reagan as well? Considering the conservative echo chamber and the speed at which the BS viruses pass from wingnut to wingnut it seems a better fit. But while crap can be sold to the people for a while, eventually they figure out it is crap, thus the sinking republican party.


A vote for McCain/Palin is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.

Make-Believe Maverick : Rolling Stone
Mad Dog Palin : Rolling Stone

 

[editec]

1. Markets hate uncertainty.

Markets ARE uncertainty. If the market was certain, there'd be no market.

2. The Democrats have been bad-mouthing the economy ever since Bush took office,

Now I'm not sure what you mean by that.

But if anyone was, as you call it -- bad-mouthing the economy, then given what we know, now, about that market, the one tthat your Republic chums kept telling us was so sound, what were they really doing?

They were warning people that the economy was unsound....and that Bush and McCain were completely wrong.

but more so since they have been campaigning for 08. Obama ratcheted up the rhetoric even higher since the Fannie Mae thing.

Oh? By rachet up you mean noting that has in fact been in the crapper for the middle class for years?

Yes, it's called speaking the unpleasant truth.

Given that you are a Bushite, I can see why speaking the truth might offend you.

3. Obama is promising to raise taxes during an economic downturn

For people making more than $250,000 a year.

That going to effect you?

I rather doubt it.

 

[glockmail]

....
For people making more than $250,000 a year.

That going to effect you?

I rather doubt it.

We have ways of deferring income so he can't touch it.

 

[editec]

LOL! Great twist, did that hurt?

Truth often does.

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

We have ways of deferring income so he can't touch it.

So why the whine whine whine?

 

[editec]

We have ways of deferring income so he can't touch it.

So do most people with that amount of income.

That's why I laugh at the apologists for the master class who whine about how unfair the tax codes are for the superwealthy.

 

[Old Rocks]

We have ways of deferring income so he can't touch it.

That can and will be changed. Democratic House and Senate.

 

[glockmail]

So why the whine whine whine?

Who's whining? I voted against your Messiah today.

 

[glockmail]

That can and will be changed. Democratic [sic] House and Senate.

And my financial adviser will quickly find another way.

 

[Tech_Esq]

So do most people with that amount of income.

That's why I laugh at the apologists for the master class who whine about how unfair the tax codes are for the superwealthy.

Don't you ever wonder why the super-wealthy are voting for Obama? Think about it. Bill Gates - Obama, Buffet - Obama, over 2/3rds the Wall Street bankers - Obama and the list goes on.

Kinda makes you think that maybe they know something you don't doesn't it? After all, even though they have plenty of money, they could probably find something they want to do with it more than pay confiscatory taxes. Obama has been very up front with the fact that he is going to take their money away from them, so why support him?.....hmmmm

You do recognize the divergent roles that the super-wealthy who support Obama and the rest of you that support Obama play right?