Report: 2004 Election Corrupted

 

Proof that you have never played golf with CEOs...    :)

 

Seriously, though, while there certainly may a criminal or two in high corporate office, this type of thing just doesn't happen in America's business world.  This type of conversation just doesn't happen.  The corporate leaders of America just aren't a bunch of criminals.  That idea is just false.

 

Aggressive accounting?  Yes.  Questionable payments to foreign governments?  Yes.  The occasional price-fixing?  VERY rarely, but yes.  A little inside information shared among friends?  Yes, but only among the stupid.  But rigging an election?  It's just the wrong kind of crime.  This is not what American corporate leaders do.  Yes, it is possible that a board member would do such a thing, but it is no more likely than a random other person doing such a thing - probably, IMO, much less so.

 

You are splitting hairs. An agent acting on behalf of the company is culpable.

 

The agent, yes, the company, no - because the employee was NOT acting on behalf of the company.  It is just an individual who happens to be associated with a company.  If you commit a murder that happens to benefit your boss, is your employer somehow liable?  Even if you did it to impress your boss?  Of course not - that just makes you a regular murderer.

 

Not splitting hairs at all.  People today are very happy to casually blame "the corporations", which is essentially a meaningless phrase.  There is always a person at the end.  If that person acted as if the corporation was backing him, then the corporation may be culpable - but if an individual rigs an election without the knowledge of anybody else - how then is the employer liable?

 

This is the reason middle level executives and managers exist. They want to get to the top, and supply plausible deniability for those that are calling the shots. The people who know about their clandestine work reward them handsomely, not publicly.

 

Again, you are just wrong about corporate culture.  This comment simply makes no sense in the American business world.  This just isn't how it works.

 

You know that we are taking, essentially, each other's position from the ID debate. I'm saying that the proof justifies the existence, and you are saying that it is too complex to happen. I must go to work now, so I will try to post my next argument in the next couple days.

 

Actually, the opposite is true.

 

In the evolution discussion, my point was that when choosing between two options, both of which are a priori improbable, one should choose the one that is LESS improbable.

 

I am making a similar point here, except that we have one explanation that is a priori improbable (cheating), and another explanation which is not improbable at all (that Bush was simply elected).

 

When choosing between a probable explanation and an improbable explanation (for which there is absolutely no evidence), we should choose the probable explanation.

 

Is it possible that the Ohio machines were rigged?  Sure - but we have no actual reason to believe so.  Most of the "evidence" relies on silly conspiracy theories straight out of Fahrenheit 9/11, such as what you posted, and these theories, frankly, show a complete ignorance of the daily functionings of corporate America.

 

Heck, I'm just trying to imagine pushing through the reimbursement request for "$500,000 cash to bribe programmer to fix Ohio voting machines".    

 

:)