tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-67870050631779873312024-02-19T14:00:22.897-05:00Info HedonCollections in Science, Politics, News, and Other Intellectual Pursuits.InfoHedonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09726727144730953980noreply@blogger.comBlogger27125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6787005063177987331.post-6360800074619117122011-11-22T04:41:00.001-05:002011-12-09T18:40:02.787-05:00Good Cop, Bad Cop<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/zg4e8d1dcb.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/zg4e8d1dcb.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br />
<br />
There's been a lot of police abuse lately with the OWS protests over the US. I'm watching these videos of cops going off on empty-handed protesters. And I find myself feeling both mad and vulnerable.<br />
<br />
Why do police behave like this? Maybe it's the megaman-like riot gear that's turning them sour.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">. <a href="http://media.strategywiki.org/images/3/3b/Mega_Man_1_enemy_Sniper_Joe.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" src="http://media.strategywiki.org/images/3/3b/Mega_Man_1_enemy_Sniper_Joe.gif" /></a></div><br />
Or it could also be the police acting as a group causing <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deindividuation#Real-life_instances">deindividuation</a>. There's a tendency for people to behave outside peaceful social norms when they aren't individually identifiable. This seems like another good reason to enforce officers wearing their name tags. Officers <a href="http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=917_1320452175">sometimes</a> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTsh-2Szak0">forget</a> their name plates when handling protests.<br />
<br />
We've really created a perfect storm for misconduct. We have deindividuation, authority roles reminiscent of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment">Stanford Prison Experiment</a>, and pressure to blindly follow orders like in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment">Milgrim </a>Experiment. It's no wonder so many police become violently antisocial. Maybe we shouldn't be getting pissed at individual, callous officers. Instead, perhaps it's appropriate to evaluate police environment. If we can change their environment, perhaps then we can change their group behavior.<br />
<br />
And this isn't impossible to do. Here are just a few ideas:<br />
<br />
<ul><li>Make name plates clear. Put officer names and badge number on the back of their uniforms like a jersey.</li>
<li>Make laws that unambiguously allow citizens to record police when they're on duty. Police must not tell citizens that they cannot film.</li>
<li>Require officers to wear cameras (not just the kind used to monitor protesters). Some cities<a href="http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2011/09/19/20110919phoenix-police-department-gets-50-officer-cameras.html"> have already experimented</a> with this. This helps protect good officers from frivolous claims as well.</li>
<li>Stop having officers dress like <a href="http://a57.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/U.S./396/223/occupy_oregon_1113.jpg">armored ninjas</a>.</li>
<li>Maybe don't use wartime weapons like <a href="http://rt.com/news/ows-police-sound-canons-603/">sound canons</a> and <a href="http://www.collapsenet.com/free-resources/collapsenet-public-access/news-alerts/item/5191-tampa-police-roll-out-a-tank-to-deal-with-a-few-dozen-protesters">tanks</a>. Scaring everyone around you can't help.</li>
<li>Sometimes an individual or a few protesters can spoil the bunch and behave poorly. This does not authorize permission to launch an attack on entire crowds of people.</li>
<li>Save tasers, pepperspray, tear gas, flash bangs, fists, and batons for actual violent encounters. Even if police insist on arresting people illegally, they can at least do so without hurting them.</li>
<li>Many people are looking for work and are quite capable. Fire bad cops.</li>
</ul><div>Not sure what I mean about police violence against protesters? Take a look:</div><div><ul><li>(<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OtIHxO76W0">Video</a>) A veteran was shot in the head with a tear gas canister. Then, when others came to his aid, an officer threw a flashbang grenade at them.</li>
<li>(<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/18/occupy-oakland-police-beating-veteran">Video</a>) Another veteran is marched down by a line of officers in riot gear. One officer leaves the pack and beats the man down with his baton until his spleen ruptures.</li>
<li>(<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjnR7xET7Uo">Video</a>) Sitting protesters at UC Davis are peppersprayed at point-blank range.</li>
<li>(<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tb08JzR3McA&feature=related">Video</a>) Octogenarian professors are not off limits.</li>
<li>(<a href="http://videosift.com/video/Colbert-on-Occupy-U-C-Berkeley-Students-Gently-Nudged">Video</a>) Some "nudging" with batons as described by the Associated Press.</li>
</ul><div>Now this is not to say there aren't good cops out there. There are:</div></div><div><ul><li>(<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otOmIMiQXQI">Video</a>) Cop checks on dressed-up protesters.</li>
<li>(<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9yIBOnbJjY">Video</a>) Cop looks out for protesters' welfare.</li>
<li>(<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpjinRTSGNQ">Video</a>) Police arresting an unruly jackass without beating him</li>
<li>(<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqI4NnbRM4c">Video</a>) This isn't in the US, but look at how the police interact with the suspect. They threaten him with tasers, but they don't use them because they're not quite necessary. They use as much physical force as they need, no more. This happens to include legitimately wrestling the suspect to the ground. Also note how stupid this suspect is. Had he followed the advice at the end of this post, he would be a lot better off.</li>
</ul></div><div>Unfortunately, some good officers are also <a href="http://www.pixiq.com/article/when-good-cops-become-victims-of-police-abuse">retaliated against</a> by fellow officers.</div><div><br />
</div><div>Regardless if the cop you're interacting with is good or bad, here's some decent advice (I'm not your lawyer):</div><div><ol><li>Don't be an asshole. Really, don't be a fucking asshole.</li>
<li>Be polite, if you can handle that.</li>
<li>Don't resist arrest, and don't EVER touch a cop.</li>
<li>If a cop says he's trying to do you a favor by searching you or asking you to confess to something, then remember that cops can lie to you all day long.</li>
<li>Say, "I'm not resisting, but I don't consent to searches."</li>
<li>Don't offer information that can be used against you. And if you can't tell the truth, then don't say anything.</li>
<li>If you are being arrested, announce (yes, verbally) that you are using your right to remain silent and that you want a lawyer.</li>
<li>If you are unsure if you can go or if you don't think the officer has a right to keep you, then ask if you are free to go.</li>
</ol></div>InfoHedonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09726727144730953980noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6787005063177987331.post-80389075026755654872011-07-03T20:55:00.009-04:002011-10-25T17:44:09.621-04:00Donate to WikiLeaks with Bitcoins. Tell MasterCard, Visa, and PayPal to Screw Themselves.<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><br />
<div style="color: red;"><u><b>Updates (Friday, July 8):</b></u></div><br />
1.<br />
Some people may not be comfortable with using MtGox to trade bitcoins. There are two other alternatives:<br />
<ul><li><a href="https://www.tradehill.com/?r=TH-R19362">Tradehill</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.bitcoin7.com/?ref=9256">Bitcoin7</a></li>
</ul>Both of these sites still allow transfers from Dwolla.<br />
<br />
<br />
2.<br />
As of Thursday, June 7, 2011 there is an opening to donate to WikiLeaks through credit card via DataCell. WikiLeaks announced this on their <a href="http://www.facebook.com/wikileaks">FaceBook Page</a> and <a href="http://twitter.com/#%21/wikileaks">Twitter</a>. It is unclear how long this option will stay open. Visa has already taken steps to shut this door, though there are reports that Visa continues to accept the transfers anyway. The announcement was made on DataCell's website <a href="http://www.datacell.com/news/2011-07-07/credit_card_donation_to_wikileaks_is_now_accepted_again/">here.</a><br />
<br />
But even without Visa, DataCell is still accepting donations using MasterCard and American Express <a href="https://donations.datacell.com/">here</a>. For how long? Who knows? There is a currency transfer from Euros, but the donations go through. MasterCard, as of this writing, has not responded. Note that MasterCard previously denied WikiLeaks transfers. American Express has never had the opportunity to reject WikiLeaks donations. It will be interesting to see how American Express responds.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
WikiLeaks explains the banking blockaid and their legal action against it <a href="http://wikileaks.org/Banking-Blockade.html">here</a>.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><a href="https://donations.datacell.com/">Go here to try to donate via credit card to WikiLeaks.</a> If that doesn't work, there's always bitcoin (see original article and instructions below).</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;"><u><b>Updates (Tuesday, October 25):</b></u></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: red;"><u><b><br />
</b></u></span><br />
Another way to support Wikileaks is to use the website "<a href="https://flattr.com/">Flattr</a>." This site has you store funds there, and then use those stored funds to donate to charities or wherever makes a "Flattr" button available to click. Wikileaks, has such a button.<br />
<br />
So, here's how you do it:<br />
<br />
1. Go to <a href="https://flattr.com/">Flattr</a> and set up an account.<br />
2. Add funds via however (accepts PayPal and credit card as well). You're limited to donate 50 Euros per month. That's more than $50 for our inflated US currency, but it automatically does the exchange rate.<br />
3. Go to Wikileaks' donate page here: <a href="http://shop.wikileaks.org/donate">http://shop.wikileaks.org/donate</a><br />
4. Click on the "Flattr" icon.<br />
5. This pops out text that includes a green donate button. Click on that.<br />
6. Enter the amount you want to donate. You may have to use a penny under the given range and use a comma rather than period to separate dollars from cents.<br />
<br />
And that should do it.<br />
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
I think we know why we're here.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/G7kFC6KSNVc" width="640"></iframe></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"> So what do we do about these companies?</div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><b><u>Screw MasterCard,Visa, and Paypal</u></b></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhLzeitinXXCUREfaYqdxLSGIETG0N1h612G2wS-orGoQbrzRq03SBxDaPmiLFgY1G4TrIY26bN_bzv_PpFc03uhGR1sUV78oU4MnHpZ66NGT4eDv-V9-BpLBJvnbIIrBbPuQCcTeOl0y2t/s1600/Visa+Gift.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="164" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhLzeitinXXCUREfaYqdxLSGIETG0N1h612G2wS-orGoQbrzRq03SBxDaPmiLFgY1G4TrIY26bN_bzv_PpFc03uhGR1sUV78oU4MnHpZ66NGT4eDv-V9-BpLBJvnbIIrBbPuQCcTeOl0y2t/s640/Visa+Gift.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0pwqnCuzJHwlev6NWwrG-TtAMqJFcVIpQZW3Enp3KNy2qQySnV1XbvfAwgFyO5trT9B7Xc_jaY3V3P-eeCvK5VFnIN_HpVn5fwXo4Os-3rOPLYeqXExTDj4xWx-axJayUSoo4innDjlh3/s1600/Visa+Gift.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br />
</a></div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><b><u><br />
</u></b></div><div class="MsoNormal">Who would have guessed that a site dedicated to whistleblowing would piss off the largest corporations in the world? You? Well, okay. Good guessing.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">So what do you do when these corporations control the way you donate money to Wikileaks? Apparently, you bypass these jackasses and use Bitcoin. <a href="http://wikileaks.org/support.html">WikiLeaks suggests it.</a> You could also write a check and cross your fingers that it actually gets to WikiLeaks. Don’t want to write a check? Okay, keep reading for info on the bitcoin.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>What’s a Bitcoin?</u></b></div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkeYoKEEpuFXxshvzYU3E67e_WlmfUKzSTgl9utv0zNBntOXH_Zz7qC7Ogi7IU2iyV8ySZCcWsdt5Z7oi_RqGu_m0Z1ELEllWcNI0MbY7OlJipxrTcP6K_1dDpvYImGU5F37-kZiMaG8Uq/s1600/bitcoin-225.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkeYoKEEpuFXxshvzYU3E67e_WlmfUKzSTgl9utv0zNBntOXH_Zz7qC7Ogi7IU2iyV8ySZCcWsdt5Z7oi_RqGu_m0Z1ELEllWcNI0MbY7OlJipxrTcP6K_1dDpvYImGU5F37-kZiMaG8Uq/s1600/bitcoin-225.png" /></a></div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">"What the fuck is a bitcoin," you ask? Well, after you calm down your language, I’ll tell you.</div><div class="MsoNormal">A bitcoin is a file that is recorded on a public ledger so that it is identifiable and not counterfeited. It has value because it is limited in supply; people perceive that it has value; and, importantly, people trade it for value. People also had to do work to get these coins. A person created a supply of bitcoins that he allowed to be “mined”. These coins are mined by average computer Joes that use mainly their graphics cards to solve complex problems. Over time, the problems they solve have steadily gotten harder. This helps with inflation and the predictability of bitcoin supply.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">None of that makes sense? Okay, here’s a video:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Um63OQz3bjo" width="640"></iframe></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjb2SzkzTGtlgVQPqW1HYY56-kRAfwbvhVMOTcRAHilJ3svpaKmU_gjklVaAh6uTccqtSfMmmtdZ-56N3AOe0LzoIhqQPb1Fo34DfPMCmRbm6_80ACSHzrbFAHNIA101EqnO_bGke_tjIjl/s1600/scrooge_mcduck.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><br />
</a></div><div class="MsoNormal">What’s that? Bitcoins remind you of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogs">pogs,</a> and you think they’ll crash? That actually doesn’t matter for your purposes. You just want to donate to WikiLeaks, right? Then you don’t need to hold on to your bitcoins. Just get them and donate them, so you don’t take on any real risk. If you want to keep some for later, then that’s up to you. WikiLeaks will thank you either way for the currency and continue doing their hard work.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="text-decoration: none;"><br />
</span></div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>How to Get Some Bitcoin to WikiLeaks.</u></b></div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMUoTTOV9kqMtC8s8IHHog0Lj7zWlpEZ4TfTY2JPSvDWHBN53sCM-FsIDnNuMBtuzHUMHul-q-HejL0rbPsJ_R5i89nS8_YJyeBppYA8XKmA9roBzcC_lhl8jN432t0SnHfhRUtZSNuJQS/s1600/scrooge_mcduck.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="193" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMUoTTOV9kqMtC8s8IHHog0Lj7zWlpEZ4TfTY2JPSvDWHBN53sCM-FsIDnNuMBtuzHUMHul-q-HejL0rbPsJ_R5i89nS8_YJyeBppYA8XKmA9roBzcC_lhl8jN432t0SnHfhRUtZSNuJQS/s640/scrooge_mcduck.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Here’s how this is gonna happen:</div><ol><li><span style="font: normal normal normal 7pt/normal 'Times New Roman';"> </span>Set up Dwolla account and deposit funds. (there’s some waiting and confirmation stuff here)</li>
<li><span style="font: normal normal normal 7pt/normal 'Times New Roman';"></span>Set up MtGox account and transfer funds from Dwolla account.<span style="font: normal normal normal 7pt/normal 'Times New Roman';"> </span></li>
<li><span style="font: normal normal normal 7pt/normal 'Times New Roman';"></span>Use MtGox account to buy some bitcoins.</li>
<li><span style="font: normal normal normal 7pt/normal 'Times New Roman';"></span>Transfer bitcoins from MtGox account to WikiLeaks, or transfer to online wallet and donate from there.</li>
</ol><div class="MsoNormal">Off we go.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><b>1.<span style="font: normal normal normal 7pt/normal 'Times New Roman';"> </span></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">1. </b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Set up Dwolla account deposit funds. (US only; Otherwise, see next step)</b></div><div class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Go to: <a href="https://www.dwolla.com/">https://www.dwolla.com</a></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Good job. Now sign up for an account. Don’t forget that you’re dealing with real money, so you’ll want to avoid that 12345 password. You’re going to need an account to transfer money from. It’ll ask you to confirm two deposits in your bank account as well as confirm your e-mail. You’re getting your routing and account number mixed up? Okay, here:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1y_PuSY8CI2FBLzyPNB8JMvo7TKoCLKxH4yaheHaIOdMjrXL95qjHQKLffHmGPrFa3ThJ1cqcjVDggeJyLsHgk097-LtFE1tZh85OQG37V-xSju9FwOtZ0dV35h0ufBK3kn6W1XS9XEf1/s1600/routing_number_on_check.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="182" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1y_PuSY8CI2FBLzyPNB8JMvo7TKoCLKxH4yaheHaIOdMjrXL95qjHQKLffHmGPrFa3ThJ1cqcjVDggeJyLsHgk097-LtFE1tZh85OQG37V-xSju9FwOtZ0dV35h0ufBK3kn6W1XS9XEf1/s320/routing_number_on_check.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">After you confirm the deposits, you’ll need to get money into your Dwolla account. There’s that transfer time . . . such a pain, I know. Just think of how much WikiLeaks has done for you. You can bookmark this page and continue when you get the confirmations. Also, you’ll need to transfer enough to purchase at least one bitcoin. The going rate can be found at: <a href="https://mtgox.com/">https://mtgox.com/</a>, which hangs between 15-20 US dollars.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-list: l2 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -.25in;"><b>2.<span style="font: normal normal normal 7pt/normal 'Times New Roman';"> </span></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font: normal normal normal 7pt/normal 'Times New Roman';"> </span></b><b>2.</b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font: normal normal normal 7pt/normal 'Times New Roman';"> </span></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Set up MtGox account and transfer funds from Dwolla account.</b></div><div class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">You’ve hung in there. Good work. Go to the Bitcoin exchange market: <a href="https://mtgox.com/">https://mtgox.com/</a></div><div class="MsoNormal">Now set up an account with that clever alphanumeric password.</div><div class="MsoNormal">Click on “add funds”. It’s on the left side of the page. You have a bunch of options. If you’re from another country, use one of these:</div><ul><li><span style="font-family: Symbol;"><span style="font: normal normal normal 7pt/normal 'Times New Roman';"></span></span>Redeem MtGox code</li>
<li><span style="font-family: Symbol;"><span style="font: normal normal normal 7pt/normal 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span>Liberty Reserve</li>
<li><span style="font-family: Symbol;"></span>Cash or Check</li>
<li><span style="font-family: Symbol;"></span>Euro Bank Transfer (Europe)</li>
<li><span style="font-family: Symbol;"><span style="font: normal normal normal 7pt/normal 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span>Australian AUD Deposit (AU)</li>
<li><span style="font-family: Symbol;"><span style="font: normal normal normal 7pt/normal 'Times New Roman';"></span></span>International USD Wire</li>
</ul><div class="MsoNormal">You’re on your own there if you're not using a Dwolla account.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">For those in the US that used the Dwolla account, click on that radio button and click the hyperlinked number following “account number”.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">This takes you to your Dwolla Account.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">You’ll see steps numbered in blue circles. The first text box will have your MtGox account number in it: MTGOX#12345X. The default is to send money from your Dwolla account to this account, so you’re good. Step 2 is to check how much you want to transfer. That’s your call. Go ahead and complete your transfer.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-list: l2 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -.25in;"><b>3.<span style="font: normal normal normal 7pt/normal 'Times New Roman';"> </span></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font: normal normal normal 7pt/normal 'Times New Roman';"> </span></b><b>3.</b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font: normal normal normal 7pt/normal 'Times New Roman';"> </span></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Use MtGox account to buy some bitcoins.</b></div><div class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">You’re ready to get some coins. Click on “trade” in the left of the MtGox site. You’re asked for the number of bitcoins you want. You have to figure this out by looking at the going rate.</div><div class="MsoNormal">Look at what bitcoins are going for in the row showing the lowest asking price. Round up to the nearest cent. Divide the amount you want to spend by this going rate. That’s the amount you’re buying.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Now take the going rate number and put it in as your asking price. Note that your transaction wait will be shorter if you offer to pay a few cents higher than the lowest asking price. You can wait around if you want to save some pennies, or you can offer a few cents higher. You won’t necessarily pay the amount you offer. It’s just the max you’ll pay.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Click “Buy Bitcoins”.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">You’ll see your dollar balance get lower and bitcoins get higher at the top right of your screen as the trades go through.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoListParagraph" style="mso-list: l2 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -.25in;"><b>4.<span style="font: normal normal normal 7pt/normal 'Times New Roman';"> </span></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font: normal normal normal 7pt/normal 'Times New Roman';"> </span></b><b>4.</b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font: normal normal normal 7pt/normal 'Times New Roman';"> </span></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Transfer bitcoins from your MtGox account to WikiLeaks, or transfer to an online wallet and donate from there.</b></div><div class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent: -0.25in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">You’ve got your bitcoins. Kickass. Time to spend them. You can (<b>A</b>) make your transfer to WikiLeaks now, or (<b>B</b>) you can hold your money in an online wallet and transfer it from there.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">A.</b></div><div class="MsoNormal">Click on “Withdraw Funds”. Click on the number of bitcoins you want to donate. The number must be one or greater. Keep that in mind to avoid stranding $10 or so left in the account. Now put in WikiLeaks’ bitcoin address in the box: <a href="http://wikileaks.org/support.html">1HB5XMLmzFVj8ALj6mfBsbifRoD4miY36v</a>. (Bitcoin address link goes to WikiLeaks’ page showing its number)</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">WikiLeaks says thanks.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">If you click on account history, then you can see the withdraw transaction, though it doesn’t say the destination. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">B.</b></div><div class="MsoNormal">Okay, so you want to keep some leftover coin. The easiest option is to set up a virtual wallet. Go to <a href="https://www.mybitcoin.com/">https://www.mybitcoin.com/</a></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Click on sign up, use your good password, and open your account. You have your own bitcoin address now to receive and transfer bitcoins.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Now go back to <a href="https://mtgox.com/">https://mtgox.com/</a>. Click on “Withdraw Funds”. Click on the number of bitcoins you want to transfer to your online wallet. The number must be one or greater, and you might as well transfer it all if you’ve chosen this step. Now put in your bitcoin address from <a href="https://www.mybitcoin.com/">https://www.mybitcoin.com/</a> in the box. Transfer it on over.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Now you’re dealing with your coin at <a href="https://www.mybitcoin.com/">https://www.mybitcoin.com/</a>. Click on “Send Payment”. Select however many bitcoins you want to give to WikiLeaks and insert their bitcoin address the box: <a href="http://wikileaks.org/support.html">1HB5XMLmzFVj8ALj6mfBsbifRoD4miY36v</a>. (Bitcoin address link goes to WikiLeaks’ page showing its number)</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">WikiLeaks says thanks. You can click on “view history” to see the exchange.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Way to be persistent! You must really like WikiLeaks. Good for you. And if you're wondering how else you can store/spend any leftover bitcoin, you may start your search here: <a href="http://www.weusecoins.com/getting-started.php">http://www.weusecoins.com/getting-started.php</a>.</div><div class="MsoNormal"></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAp7W5Sml5X_9KdHfsTA6SYOq11nd5bRc2jRcd0eFa5gWbofGxY27GO9hTCiUzAn5Wv_qtUzNRPC3VvPSGttVMam187Laq6GqWyCZ4vx_7Qm-NEoWzd8OzNf4bQVWiKEONt7NRebQLxWMT/s1600/mario+flag.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAp7W5Sml5X_9KdHfsTA6SYOq11nd5bRc2jRcd0eFa5gWbofGxY27GO9hTCiUzAn5Wv_qtUzNRPC3VvPSGttVMam187Laq6GqWyCZ4vx_7Qm-NEoWzd8OzNf4bQVWiKEONt7NRebQLxWMT/s400/mario+flag.png" width="400" /></a></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><u><b>Updates (Friday, July 8):</b></u><br />
<br />
1.<br />
Some people may not be comfortable with using MtGox to trade bitcoins. There are two other alternatives:<br />
<ul><li><a href="https://www.tradehill.com/?r=TH-R19362">Tradehill</a></li>
<li><a href="https://www.bitcoin7.com/?ref=9256">Bitcoin7</a></li>
</ul>Both of these sites still allow transfers from Dwolla.<br />
<br />
2.<br />
As of Thursday, June 7, 2011 there is an opening to donate to WikiLeaks through credit card via DataCell. It is unclear how long this opening will stay open. Visa has already taken steps to shut this door. The announcement was made on DataCell's website <a href="http://www.datacell.com/news/2011-07-07/credit_card_donation_to_wikileaks_is_now_accepted_again/">here.</a><br />
<br />
But even without Visa, DataCell is still accepting donations using MasterCard and American Express <a href="https://donations.datacell.com/">here</a>. There is a currency transfer from Euros, but the donations go through. MasterCard, as of this writing, has not responded. Note that MasterCard previously denied WikiLeaks transfers. American Express has never had the opportunity to reject WikiLeaks donations. It will be interesting to see how American Express responds.<br />
<br />
WikiLeaks explains the banking blockaid and their legal action against it <a href="http://wikileaks.org/Banking-Blockade.html">here</a>.</div>InfoHedonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09726727144730953980noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6787005063177987331.post-87169604563378336242011-06-19T20:08:00.007-04:002011-12-09T11:01:30.793-05:00Publically Available Legal Resources<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.geeklawblog.com/2010/05/spokane-county-law-library-needs.html"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZMPvxlPx_-h_CdjJwkENEDk4coTp0aHnsGAaCaA48H-KdMjggx2gFhSun2X1LZ63HB-q_sbr7YLbPnNO0WMEtyY58YNfb7LLMSLtEL5TkVxBJ4Oa-glnkZEI6oxRwpvkVQvl_VykMW0sE/s1600/Westlaw.png" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.geeklawblog.com/2010/05/spokane-county-law-library-needs.html"><span id="goog_1109703591"></span><br />
<span id="goog_1109703592"></span></a></div>I compiled this as a protest to LexisNexis and Westlaw. I hope this allows others to better navigate the legal and scholarly resources that are publicly available.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>US Case and Codified Law</u></b><br />
<a href="http://scholar.google.com/advanced_scholar_search?hl=en&as_sdt=2,23&allcts=">GoogleLegalSearch</a>(Shows Referenced Cases) </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><a href="http://law.justia.com/">Justia</a> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><a href="http://www.plol.org/Pages/Search.aspx">PLOL</a>(Free Registration Required) </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/">LII</a>(Read the Law Heading)</div><div class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://search.usa.gov/">Search.USA.gov</a>(Easy Search Function for Codified Law)<br />
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u><span style="text-decoration: none;"><br />
</span></u></b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>Legislative History</u></b><br />
<a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.php">LibraryOfCongress/Thomas</a> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u><span style="text-decoration: none;"><br />
</span></u></b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>Administrative Law</u></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><a href="http://www.washlaw.edu/doclaw/executive5m.html">Index of Agencies</a></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><a href="http://www2.lib.virginia.edu/govtinfo/fed_decisions_agency.html">AdministrativeDecisions</a></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectionCfr.action?collectionCode=CFR">Administrative Code</a></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><a href="http://law.justia.com/cfr/">JustiaCodeFederalRegulations</a></div><div class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/">Federal Register</a></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>Executive Branch Agencies and Independent Agencies</u></b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.ilrg.com/gov/us.html">ILRG</a></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u><span style="text-decoration: none;"><br />
</span></u></b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>US Supreme Court Oral Arguments</u></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><a href="http://www.oyez.org/cases">Oyez</a></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>Local Ordinances</u></b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.municode.com/library/library.aspx">MiniCode</a> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u><span style="text-decoration: none;"><br />
</span></u></b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>Court Rules, Legal Forms, and Dockets</u></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><a href="http://www.llrx.com/courtrules">LLRX</a></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><a href="http://www.uscourtforms.com/">USCourtForms</a> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><a href="http://forms.justia.com/">Justia</a></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><a href="http://www.memphis.edu/govpub/forms.php">FederalForms</a></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><a href="http://partners.uslegalforms.com/partners/plol/">PLOL</a></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><a href="http://www.docstoc.com/documents/legal">DocStoc</a> </div><div class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.ilrg.com/forms/">ILRG</a></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>Federal Court Information</u></b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.justia.com/courts/federal-courts/us-courts-of-appeals.html">Justia</a> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>State and Local Government General Information</u></b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.statelocalgov.net/">State&LocalGov</a> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>General Statistical Information</u></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><a href="http://www.pollingreport.com/">PollingReport</a></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><a href="http://fedstats.gov/">Federal Stats</a></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><a href="http://www.library.vanderbilt.edu/romans/fdtf/statistics.html">US Gov Stats</a></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><a href="http://www.bls.gov/bls/other.htm">Bureau of Labor Statistics</a></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>Legal Encyclopedias</u></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><a href="http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/all">LII</a></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><a href="http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/;jsessionid=BEE79BE29B58797EA7A77FEA2C3017BF">NOLO</a></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><a href="http://public.findlaw.com/">FindLaw</a></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><a href="http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/legal-guide">Citizen’sMediaLaw</a> </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page">Wikipedia</a>/<a href="http://www.google.com/">GoogleSearch</a>(May lead to other primary and secondary sources available at your library)</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>Jury Instructions/Verdict Information</u></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><a href="http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/guides/jury.cfm">Georgetown</a> (Starting at "1. Model Civil Jury Instructions by Federal Circuit")</div></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
<b><u>Briefs</u></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><a href="http://www.llrx.com/features/briefsonline.htm">LLRX</a></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>Trial Advocacy</u></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><a href="http://www.illinoistrialpractice.com/">IllinoisTrialPractice</a></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>Legal Dictionary</u></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><a href="http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?">Law.com</a></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal;"><a href="http://www.legal-explanations.com/index.htm">LegalExplainations</a></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>Free Physical Resources</u></b></div><div class="MsoNormal">Call your local public university library, law library, or city library. They typically have immense resources (Ex//ScienceDirect, Elsevier, Annotated References), especially if you live in an urban area.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>Paid</u></b></div><div class="MsoNormal">LexisNexis and Westlaw are available for outrageously high prices from $15-$75 per minute.</div><div class="MsoNormal">You can find other paid resources ($15-$200/month) that don’t offer much more than what you can get for free. Ex// TheLaw.net, Fastcase, Loislaw, National Law Library, Versus Law, and CaseClark</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div>InfoHedonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09726727144730953980noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6787005063177987331.post-60789632271802094552011-04-08T00:31:00.021-04:002011-04-11T23:30:54.540-04:00Response to Greenwald: Putting the Potency back in the Partisan Voter<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.charlescmorgan.com/Damned-If_You_Do_Damned_If_You_Don%27t_Small.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="216" src="http://www.charlescmorgan.com/Damned-If_You_Do_Damned_If_You_Don%27t_Small.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>Glenn Greenwald recently did a <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/04/05/democrats/index.html">piece</a> on the impotence of the partisan voter--specifically those voting Democrat. And he was right. Democrats take the votes from the Left for granted. Democrats can violate civil liberties, pay out corporate welfare, and spend unconscionable amounts on war. Their base isn't going anywhere. At worst, some of the base will stay home instead of vote. The best Democrats have to offer is to make Republicans look worse. And even then, it's the Republicans that do most of the work.<br />
<br />
Greenwald didn't see any answers from colleagues either. Rachael Maddow and Joan Walsh's best ideas were to give tough love for Obama only until the election year started. Then they recommend a level of unconditional positive regard that even Carl Rogers couldn't strive to.<br />
<br />
But there is a tool to remove the eat-shit-and-smile approach of the Left's base. It's called <a href="http://www.electology.org/approval-voting">Approval Voting</a>. Approval Voting is a lot like Plurality--the system we're accustomed to. The only difference is that instead of being limited to one vote, you can vote for as many as you wish. But that's a bigger deal than it may sound on the surface.<br />
<br />
Let's look at the dynamics of the political situation first. That will help us understand the problems we're dealing with. Imagine yourself as a leftie back in 2000. The candidates Gore, Bush, and Nader are important to you. You crap yourself thinking of Bush getting elected (and indeed you will). And Gore is <a href="http://www.ontheissues.org/al_gore.htm%0A">not exactly your knight in shinning armor</a>. He doesn't support gay marriage, he's for the death penalty, for the war on drugs, supports cap and trade rather than a carbon tax, supported NAFTA, against single-payer, and he supported strikes on Iraq. <a href="http://www.ontheissues.org/ralph_nader.htm">Nader</a>, on the other hand, is your wet dream on policy issues.<br />
<br />
And so you have your quadrennial dilemma. You can be a frustrated pragmatist and vote for Gore; or, you can keep your integrity by voting for Nader. Of course, a Nader vote risks that you crap your pants with Bush.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://naccm.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/311_cartoon_obama_expectations_small_over.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="307" src="http://naccm.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/311_cartoon_obama_expectations_small_over.jpeg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
But the picture is worse than this. The Left wouldn't think of describing Gore's drawbacks, just as they've been hesitant to call out Obama on his weaknesses when he ran. Instead, the Left makes excuses for the Democrat candidate. The Left becomes a collection of apologists. It even tells its political teammates to shut up on the Democrat's flaws. Indeed, this can continue even when the Democratic candidate gets elected. There is some loose tolerance mid-season, but it's back to a strict no-criticism policy once election time returns.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.sinkers.org/posters/democrats08/kucinich08.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://www.sinkers.org/posters/democrats08/kucinich08.jpg" width="191" /></a></div><br />
And yet, the picture is still worse. The Left is so afraid of Republicans that it will actually marginalize the candidates it agrees with <i>most</i>. The picture above is tame compared to the treatment the Left gives Nader. And when the Left marginalizes its more appealing candidates, it also marginalizes the ideas those candidates bring. Those ideas become easier to attack because they're only supported by "fringe" candidates. Single-payer health care and opposition to wars immediately come to mind. The polls of actual support for those policies aren't typically raised at this point. Besides, the Left doesn't want the Democrat to appear weak for not supporting those policies.<br />
<br />
All this also translates into weak polling results. And the Commission on Presidential Debates requires an average of 15% over five national polls in order to participate in the debates. The political dynamic makes polling at this level a virtual impossibility. This is why you only see the Republican and Democrat in the debates. [perfect book on the debates <a href="http://www.amazon.com/No-Debate-Republican-Democratic-Presidential/dp/1583226303?ie=UTF8&tag=info06c-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">here</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=info06c-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=1583226303" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" />]<br />
<br />
So how does Plurality Voting create all this mess? Voting consists of two parts: the expression and the calculation. The calculation part is easy--just add 'em up. No issue there. The problem is with the expression. Plurality only lets you express the minimum amount possible. Your say is limited to one candidate, and you don't get to say how much you like that candidate. And that limit to one candidate is why third-party candidates appear as fringe. Plurality prohibits voters from saying anything about the other candidates. In reality, however, the number of voters that actually support those alternate candidates is significantly greater. And it's the voters that do support those third-party candidates that wind up splitting the vote. It's here that we get our spoiler problems.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/37/Approval_ballot.svg/220px-Approval_ballot.svg.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/37/Approval_ballot.svg/220px-Approval_ballot.svg.png" /></a></div><br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/">Approval Voting</a> offers to change the current political dynamic substantially. The calculation in Approval Voting is exactly the same as Plurality. The only difference is the voter's directions. It's as simple as the depiction above. If anything, Approval Voting is <i>easier</i> than Plurality because <a href="http://www.electology.org/approval-voting#TOC-How-will-Approval-Voting-affect-spo">Approval voters are less likely to spoil their ballot</a>. That makes sense because voters must make their Approval ballot unreadable in order to spoil it. And this is no problem for voting machines either--not that this is an endorsement of voting machines. The point is that Approval Voting is easy, maybe even easier than Plurality.<br />
<br />
Because Approval Voting lets voters choose more than one candidate, this eliminates vote splitting and thus the spoiler effect. So you like Nader but still don't want Bush to win? Then use your Approval vote for both Nader and Gore. They each get one vote added to their tally. And you won't want to abandon voting for Gore until it's clear that either Bush isn't in the running or Gore himself is no longer competitive. You can think of it as voting like you would under Plurality given the polls, but then you continue as you wish. The good part is that Approval Voting <i>always</i> lets you vote for your favorite. [more on strategy <a href="http://www.blogger.com/">here</a>]<br />
<br />
So that's nice. Approval Voting eliminates spoilers. But what does Approval Voting do for the potency of the partisan voter? The reason voters on the Left have no power is because Democrats don't have to listen to their policy concerns. But Approval Voting allows those policy concerns to gain ground. Approval Voting legitimizes those policies of the Left by giving third-party candidates a more accurate level of support. Indeed, large-scale French studies contrasting voting systems <a href="http://rangevoting.org/French2007studies.html">show significantly more support </a>for third-party candidates when Approval Voting is used. This result has been consistently repeated.<br />
<br />
So no more of that 1-2% of the vote nonsense for legitimate third parties and independents. It's also difficult to marginalize third-party candidates when they're polling over 30% or 40%. Under Approval Voting, a Democrat that ignores third-party issues now risks losing the race. Approval Voting has it so that even when the Democrat does win, the Left still gets what it wants. That's because the Democrat can't ignore the Left's issues anymore. At the very least, those issues will have to be included in the political dialogue. And higher poll numbers for third-party candidates will make it nearly impossible to exclude the candidates from debates. This legitimization of ideas and candidates is the power Approval Voting gives the partisan voter. And the Left should be clamoring for it.<br />
<br />
[Technical notes:<br />
<ul><li>Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) won't solve your problems. True, IRV does mitigate vote splitting with fringe spoilers. But it fails when candidates become competitive. IRV splits the votes of popular centrist candidates. The popular centrist has its votes split by competitors from either side of the political spectrum. This vote splitting occurs because there is only one first-choice vote. The popular centrist candidate then gets eliminated by having the least first choice votes. Visual <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQxlM-P6ONs">here</a>.</li>
</ul><ul><li>Also, IRV is a <a href="http://www.electology.org/monotonicity">nonmonotic system</a>. This means scenarios arise when you can hurt your candidate by voting for them and help them by voting against them. Specifically, this craziness happens about 15% of the time with IRV elections. This rate doubles to about 30% when IRV picks a winner other than the Plurality winner. Also, IRV doesn't let you vote your favorite, as was <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg3LJLlcj68">seen in the Burlington, VT election</a>.</li>
</ul><ul><li><a href="http://www.electology.org/approval-voting#TOC-Doesn-t-Approval-Voting-violate-one">Approval Voting does not violate "one person, one vote."</a></li>
</ul><ul><li>Approval Voting (as a form of <a href="http://www.electology.org/score-voting">Score Voting</a>), <a href="http://rangevoting.org/ArrowThm.html">escapes Arrow's Impossibility Theorem</a> because it is a cardinal system. </li>
</ul><ul><li>Approval Voting does not regress to Plurality through <a href="http://www.electology.org/bullet-voting">bullet voting</a>.]</li>
</ul>InfoHedonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09726727144730953980noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6787005063177987331.post-961084025525688952011-02-01T01:56:00.002-05:002011-02-02T17:03:40.649-05:00New Hampshire Introduces Bill to Bring Approval Voting State Wide<h3 style="font-weight: normal;">The following is taken directly from <a href="http://www.electology.org/hb-240">The Center for Election Science</a>. </h3><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.electology.org/_/rsrc/1295858212757/config/customLogo.gif?revision=3" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="53" src="http://www.electology.org/_/rsrc/1295858212757/config/customLogo.gif?revision=3" width="320" /></a></div><h3 align="left" id="sites-page-title-header"> <span dir="ltr" id="sites-page-title">New Hampshire House Bill 240</span> </h3>In January of 2011, New Hampshire state representative Dan McGuire created <a href="http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/bill_status.aspx?lsr=292&sy=2011&txtsessionyear=2011&txtbillnumber=HB240" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">HB 240</a>. HB 240 would establish Approval Voting for all state offices and presidential primaries. The bill enables approval voting by removing the restriction to choose only one candidate. Voters would be able to vote for all the candidates they liked, not just one.<br />
<br />
Approval Voting highlights:<br />
<ul><li>More expressive</li>
<li>No vote splitting or spoilers, <i>ever</i></li>
<li><i>Always </i>vote your honest favorite</li>
<li>Significantly less spoiled ballots</li>
<li>Results are easy to understand, just like Plurality<br />
</li>
<li>Ballots are familiar to voters and look essentially the same as Plurality</li>
<li>Alternate candidates get a more accurate measure of support<br />
</li>
</ul>Approval Voting at any level, especially statewide, would significantly improve democracy over Plurality. Here is a brief FAQ on this subject: <br />
<br />
<object classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,47,0" height="270" id="flashObj" width="480"><param name="movie" value="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1&isUI=1" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" /><param name="flashVars" value="videoId=718815073001&playerID=651017566001&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAAGuNzXFE~,qu1BWJRU7c26MMkbB19ukwmFB5ysvYz5&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true" /><param name="base" value="http://admin.brightcove.com" /><param name="seamlesstabbing" value="false" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="swLiveConnect" value="true" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><embed src="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1&isUI=1" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashVars="videoId=718815073001&playerID=651017566001&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAAGuNzXFE~,qu1BWJRU7c26MMkbB19ukwmFB5ysvYz5&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true" base="http://admin.brightcove.com" name="flashObj" width="480" height="270" seamlesstabbing="false" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" swLiveConnect="true" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><br />
<h3><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=6787005063177987331&postID=96108402552568895" name="TOC-6"></a>What is Approval Voting?</h3><div>Approval Voting simply means that voters can vote for as many candidates as they choose. It is traditionally applied to single-winner elections. Approval Voting is more expressive than the typical way we vote — Plurality Voting. That's because Plurality Voting limits voter expression to only one candidate. This concept of being able to pick multiple candidates is already familiar to voters. Voters do this when electing school boards and councils. The difference is that with Approval Voting only one winner is elected.<br />
<br />
Consider a race between candidates Jones, Smith, and Thomas. You might vote for Jones if you disliked Smith and Thomas. But a voter with the opposite preferences might vote for Smith and Thomas.<br />
<br />
<h3><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=6787005063177987331&postID=96108402552568895" name="TOC-What-would-the-change-in-ballot-loo"></a>What would the change in ballot look like for New Hampshire voters?</h3><div style="display: block; margin-right: auto; text-align: left;">Really, all voters would see is a change in directions allowing them to vote for their choice "or choices." Click the ballots below to see for yourself.<br />
<div style="display: block; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-right: auto; margin-top: 5px; text-align: left;"><a href="http://www.electology.org/hb-240/PRE-POST%20HB%20240.gif?attredirects=0"><img border="0" height="167" src="http://www.electology.org/_/rsrc/1296447947461/hb-240/PRE-POST%20HB%20240.gif?height=167&width=400" width="400" /></a></div></div></div><h3><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=6787005063177987331&postID=96108402552568895" name="TOC-How-would-Approval-Voting-results-d"></a>How would Approval Voting results differ from Plurality Voting results?</h3>Political scientists in <span style="font-weight: normal;"><a href="http://scorevoting.net/FrenchStudy.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">France</a></span><span style="font-weight: normal;"> and </span><span style="font-weight: normal;"><a href="http://www.electology.org/german-approval-voting-polls">Germany</a></span><span style="font-weight: normal;"> conducted two l</span>arge-scale Approval Voting surveys based on their current elections.<span style="font-weight: normal;"> These studies reinforced the positive benefits of Approval Voting. For instance, voters using Approval Voting largely chose to vote for more than one candidate (i.e. they didn't widely <a href="http://www.electology.org/bullet-voting">bullet vote</a>). Also, the candidates showing scant support under Plurality Voting were better represented under Approval Voting. These more accurate reflections using Approval Voting likely come from its good properties. Approval Voting is <i>completely </i>immune from vote splitting (no spoiler effect, <i>ever</i>), and it <i>always </i>allows voters to express their honest favorite.<br />
<br />
</span> <br />
<h3><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=6787005063177987331&postID=96108402552568895" name="TOC-How-will-Approval-Voting-affect-spo"></a>How will Approval Voting affect spoiled ballots?</h3><span style="font-weight: normal;">Without a doubt, using Approval Voting will drastically decrease the number of spoiled ballots. Technically, it's impossible to spoil an Approval ballot. If a voter approves anywhere between zero to all candidates (all combinations), then they've submitted a valid vote. To spoil an Approval ballot, a voter has to make the ballot unreadable — rather difficult. In fact, in the French and German studies referenced above, <a href="http://rangevoting.org/SPRates.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">under 0.5%</a> of voters managed to accomplish this folly (that's less than one in two hundred).<br />
<br />
Plurality Voting ballots are treated as spoiled whenever voters mark more than one candidate. The fact that voters do this tells us that they have more to say than Plurality Voting permits. Consequently, in the 2000 U.S. elections, nearly two million ballots were spoiled — <a href="http://rangevoting.org/SPRates.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">almost 2%</a>. <br />
<br />
Plurality Voting's spoilage rate of around one in fifty is almost four times more than Approval Voting. Had Approval Voting been used in 2000, not only would there have been no spoiler effect, but poll workers could have counted around one and a half million more voters' ballots.</span><br />
<br />
<h3><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=6787005063177987331&postID=96108402552568895" name="TOC-Does-Approval-Voting-help-major-par"></a>Does Approval Voting help major parties or minor parties?</h3><div>While this may sound impossible, <a href="http://www.electology.org/better-for-both">we contend</a> that Approval Voting is fairer to <i>both</i> major parties and minor parties. More importantly, Approval Voting is fairer to <i>voters</i>.<br />
<br />
<h3><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=6787005063177987331&postID=96108402552568895" name="TOC-Is-Approval-Voting-vulnerable-to-ta"></a>Is Approval Voting vulnerable to tactical voting?</h3>Approval Voting is highly resistant to tactical voting. <a href="http://www.electology.org/tactical-voting" target="_blank">Tactical voting</a> is when voters don't cast purely honest ballots. For a closer look on how Approval Voting is resistant to tactics, go <a href="http://www.electology.org/approval-voting-tactics" target="_blank">here</a>.<br />
<br />
<h3><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=6787005063177987331&postID=96108402552568895" name="TOC-Doesn-t-Approval-Voting-violate-one"></a>Doesn't Approval Voting violate "one person one vote"?</h3><div>No. The term "one person one vote" refers to the weight of votes, not to how votes are expressed. And in Approval Voting, all ballots have the same weight. <br />
<br />
The U.S. Supreme Court made the "one person one vote" rule explicit in <i>Reynolds v. Sims</i> (377 U.S. 533). The rule stated that no vote should count more than any other so that it has unequal weight. This unequal weight would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. And it was <i>Baker v. Carr</i> (369 U.S. 186) that extended the Equal Protection Clause to districting issues. In <i>Reynolds</i>, the state of Alabama set up its districts so that they varied wildly in population. The districting was so bad that it gave some voters' ballots as much as 41 times more weight than others. Because the weights of the ballots were different between districts, that violated the "one person one vote" rule. <br />
<br />
Consider again the Jones-Smith-Thomas Approval Voting example where all three candidates are tied. You vote for Jones, while a voter with your exact opposite preferences votes for Smith and Thomas. After that, all three candidates are still tied. Those two ballots have an equal but <i>opposite</i> effect. The key here is that no voter can vote more than once for the <i>same</i> candidate. Another way to think about it is that every voter casts an "up" or "down" vote for every candidate.</div><div>According to <i>The International Encyclopedia of Elections</i>, approval voting does not violate any state constitutions in the United States. Here's a <a href="http://scorevoting.net/ConstVt.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Constitution-based view</a> of the subject, from The Center for Range Voting. (Range Voting is another name for Score Voting, and Approval Voting is just a simplified form of Score Voting where the "score" is effectively a one or a zero.)</div><h3><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=6787005063177987331&postID=96108402552568895" name="TOC-Where-can-I-learn-more-about-Approv"></a>Where can I learn more about Approval Voting?</h3><div>Steve Brams, an NYU political science professor from Concord, describes Approval Voting in layperson-friendly terms <a href="http://bigthink.com/ideas/18726" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here</a>.<br />
<br />
</div><div>Warren Smith, a Princeton math Ph.D. who has researched voting issues for over a decade, gives <a href="http://scorevoting.net/Approval.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">this detailed account</a> of Approval Voting history.</div></div><h3><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=6787005063177987331&postID=96108402552568895" name="TOC-But-what-about-Instant-Runoff-Votin"></a>But what about Instant Runoff Voting?</h3>Our extensive analysis over the years overwhelmingly supports the view that Approval Voting <a href="http://www.electology.org/approval-voting-vs-irv">is a much simpler and more democratic system than IRV</a>. The results of Approval Voting elections are also much easier to understand than the numerous rounds of vote transfers that IRV utilizes. Don't take our word on it. Click below for the Oakland 2010 IRV election results. If that had been an Approval Voting election, you would only see approval percentages and total votes for each candidate — much simpler.<br />
<br />
<div style="display: block; margin-right: auto; text-align: left;"><a href="http://www.electology.org/hb-240/Oakland%2C%20CA%20IRV%20election%20results.jpg?attredirects=0"><img border="0" height="92" src="http://www.electology.org/_/rsrc/1296503455513/hb-240/Oakland%2C%20CA%20IRV%20election%20results.jpg?height=92&width=400" width="400" /></a></div><br />
<h3><a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=6787005063177987331&postID=96108402552568895" name="TOC-Where-has-Approval-Voting-been-used"></a>Where has Approval Voting been used?</h3><div>A modified form of Approval Voting was used to elect the <a href="http://scorevoting.net/EarlyUS.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">first four US Presidents</a>.</div><div><br />
</div><div>In 1990, Oregon used Approval Voting in a statewide advisory referendum on school financing, which presented voters with five different options and allowed them to vote for as many as they wished. (Incidentally, in 1987, a bill to enact Approval Voting in certain statewide elections passed the Senate but not the House in North Dakota.)</div><div><br />
Approval Voting has been used in internal elections by the political parties in some US states, such as Pennsylvania, where a presidential straw poll using Approval Voting was conducted by the Democratic State Committee in 1983.</div><div><br />
</div><div>Approval Voting is used to elect the <a href="http://scorevoting.net/UNsecyGen.html" rel="nofollow" style="color: rgb(50, 73, 112) ! important;" target="_blank">Secretary General</a> of the United Nations.</div><div><div><br />
Approval and Score Voting were the foundation of government in <a href="http://scorevoting.net/VenHist.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">renaissance Venice</a>, and <a href="http://scorevoting.net/SpartBury.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Ancient Sparta,</a> respectively. These were two of the longest lasting (perhaps <i>the</i> two longest lasting) democracies ever. Also, Cardinals used Approval Voting for centuries to elect the <a href="http://scorevoting.net/PopeApprovalSystem.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Catholic Pope</a> (at the time the most powerful elected person on the planet).<br />
<br />
In the early 2000s the <a href="http://scorevoting.net/BostonTeaPartyApp.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Boston Tea Party</a> became apparently the first US political party in modern times to employ Approval Voting. Approval Voting is also used by the state Libertarian Party in Colorado and <a href="http://www.electology.org/approval-voting-in-the-texas-libertarian-party">Texas</a>.</div><div><br />
Several large organizations, with membership well in excess of the number of citizens in many US cities, use Approval Voting:</div><div><ul><li>Mathematical Association of America (MAA), with about 32,000 members;</li>
<li>American Mathematical Society (AMS), with about 30,000 members;</li>
<li>Institute for Operations Research and Management Sciences (INFORMS), with about 12,000 members;</li>
<li>American Statistical Association (ASA), with about 15,000 members;</li>
</ul>Smaller societies that use Approval Voting include the Society for Judgment and Decision Making, the Social Choice and Welfare Society, the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, the Pubic Choice Society, and the European Association for Logic, Language and Information.</div></div><div><br />
</div>Additionally, the Econometric Society has used Approval Voting (with certain emendations) to elect fellows since 1980; likewise, since 1981 the selection of members of the National Academy of Sciences at the final stage of balloting has been based on Approval Voting. Coupled with many colleges and universities (e.g. San Francisco State University's Academic Senate) that now use Approval Voting– from the departmental level to the school-wide level – at least several hundred thousand individuals have had direct experience with approval Voting.<br />
<br />
If New Hampshire passes this bill, it will be the first time that traditional Approval Voting will be used to elect U.S. public officials. To imagine that it may take place throughout an entire state is truly exciting.InfoHedonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09726727144730953980noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6787005063177987331.post-39983008037684307182010-07-20T21:24:00.001-04:002010-07-20T21:29:36.502-04:00Range Versus Caveman Voting<div class="caption"><div style="text-align: center;"><i><object height="525" width="660"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AuKDXeJt7KA&hl=en_US&fs=1?color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AuKDXeJt7KA&hl=en_US&fs=1?color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="660" height="525"></embed></object></i></div><i> </i><br />
<br />
<i>Range voting</i> is a single-seat voting system that never forces voters to betray their favorite, is immune to vote splitting, and is highly expressive.<br />
<br />
This video was initially on the website <a href="http://rangevote.com/" target="_blank">RangeVote.com</a>. The end of the video shows a link for the next part of the video. For details on range voting, see <a href="http://rangevoting.org/">The Center for Range Voting</a>.<br />
<br />
For range voting in brief, see: <a href="http://tiny.cc/8n94b">here</a><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhE8r-wAwTT0-Vf_MEbc7ltBK4MKPSGSeRSVcKS19ZrrnvBwWxRiRXYwS5bR4qPnKBCm9kNBBligFSZHhN1IjDNT2THTIbZCVt_aHEhYlJuq8KR1S8_RuR7eIh3GVW6Lg8MIVlEs_1v21M/s1600/RangeVote.com" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="340" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhhE8r-wAwTT0-Vf_MEbc7ltBK4MKPSGSeRSVcKS19ZrrnvBwWxRiRXYwS5bR4qPnKBCm9kNBBligFSZHhN1IjDNT2THTIbZCVt_aHEhYlJuq8KR1S8_RuR7eIh3GVW6Lg8MIVlEs_1v21M/s640/RangeVote.com" width="640" /></a></div></div>InfoHedonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09726727144730953980noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6787005063177987331.post-19317126657125497772010-07-18T20:55:00.001-04:002010-07-18T20:56:13.229-04:00Duopoly Must Go: An Appeal for Score Voting<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Gonzalez">Matt Gonzalez</a> has graciously used his blog to host an essay from the folks at the <a href="http://rangevoting.org/">Center for Range Voting</a>/Election Science Foundation. For those that aren’t familiar with Matt Gonzalez, here’s a background:<br />
<br />
Matt was the head of the Board of Supervisors in San Fransisco as a member of the Green Party. He also ran for mayor of San Fransisco as a Green. Despite being outspent 5-1 and having the likes of Al Gore come to rally for his opponent, Matt was within 6% of the runoff winner, Gavin Newsome. Matt was also the VP running mate of presidential candidate Ralph Nader in 2008.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2qxtKBk5QxaCN_yrqntejZLCpcn_x_flIfIcaqz74xk531EnPuWwJQyjwHJ6WLuY1r0_ghjYkHzUz9ztezuC589QsTAbf4WnK8kdJaCZPgW8uCQAwHvdHSfqUXH5qjiDWI21QRhVB-RX5/s1600/republicratsteeview3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="390" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2qxtKBk5QxaCN_yrqntejZLCpcn_x_flIfIcaqz74xk531EnPuWwJQyjwHJ6WLuY1r0_ghjYkHzUz9ztezuC589QsTAbf4WnK8kdJaCZPgW8uCQAwHvdHSfqUXH5qjiDWI21QRhVB-RX5/s400/republicratsteeview3.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br />
The following essay can be found at Matt Gonzalez's blog, <a href="http://asitoughttobe.wordpress.com/2010/07/18/score-voting/">As It Ought to Be</a>:<br />
<blockquote><h1 class="entry-title">Duopoly Must Go: An Appeal for Score Voting</h1><h2>by Andrew Jennings, Clay Shentrup, Warren D. Smith</h2></blockquote><br />
<blockquote>Progressive thinkers on all sides of the political spectrum often wonder why the United States seems incapable of escaping a two-party political system. Is it a result of an extreme demographic situation, an urban and a rural America so large and obstinate that they are incapable of cooperation? Does it somehow come from the unique American spirit, a tradition steeped in individualism and adventure? Are the third parties being silently stifled because of their opposition to our incessant march toward rule by large corporations? The answer, in fact, may be so simple that it is right at our fingertips at least once a year. Every time we vote, in fact.<br />
<br />
Fifty years ago, French sociologist Maurice Duverger <a href="http://scorevoting.net/DuvTrans.html"><span style="color: #444444;">observed that</span></a> the plurality voting method tends to favor a two-party system, whereas “the double ballot majority system [a.k.a. 'top-two runoff'] and proportional representation tend to multipartism.” Observations in the social sciences are never absolute, but this tendency for plurality voting to maintain two-party domination is so reliable that it has become known as Duverger’s Law.<br />
<br />
Plurality voting (a.k.a. “first past the post”), by far the most common system in the United States, is where each voter votes for one candidate and the candidate with the most votes wins, even if he receives fewer than 50% of the votes. Top-two runoff (a.k.a. “TTR” or “delayed runoff”) is just like plurality voting, except that if no candidate receives a majority of the votes, then a subsequent election is held between the top two finishers. </blockquote><blockquote>Few would expect the way we count our votes to be the primary factor determining the layout of our political landscape, but the evidence is overwhelming. Beyond the empirical trends to which Duverger referred, mathematical analysis of these voting methods suggests a causal relationship. For instance, a plurality voter who prefers a Green Party candidate will often take the tactical route, casting an insincere vote for the Democrat in order to prevent the Republican from winning. This costs the voter very little, since a minor party candidate is by definition unlikely to win anyway. It seems clear that such tactics keep us locked in a two-party system.<br />
<br />
A top-two runoff system differs considerably. To echo Duverger, most of the approximately 30 countries which use this system have <a href="http://scorevoting.net/TTRvIRVstats.html"><span style="color: #444444;">escaped two-party domination</span></a>, even in single-seat non-proportional elections. And as with plurality voting, <a href="http://scorevoting.net/TTRvIRVreasons.html"><span style="color: #444444;">analysis of the runoff system</span></a> strongly suggests that this is not a coincidence, but in fact a result of voter psychology and the different tactical incentives at play. For instance, voters in the runoff have no incentive to cast an insincere vote, as there are only two choices. And once the options are narrowed down to two candidates, voters often have a better chance to get to know an otherwise unknown challenger. These factors may largely explain how Green Party candidate Matt Gonzalez was able to come within striking distance of Democrat Gavin Newsom for mayor of San Francisco in 2003 (the margin was less than 6%) despite being outspent five to one, and despite Newsom’s being endorsed by a host of powerful beltway politicians.<br />
<br />
Opinions vary as to the relative merits of TTR versus other systems, and the above is not meant as an endorsement of TTR per se. Rather, it is a testament to the extent to which the voting method determines the party composition of a government. It seems clear that if we want to escape the two-party stranglehold, we must adopt a different voting method; specifically one which is not known to also maintain two-party domination.<br />
<br />
Many of the modern efforts for voting reform promote an alternative form of runoff, called instant runoff voting (“IRV”), which allows voters to rank the candidates and appears to offer us a way out of our electoral difficulties. Unfortunately, communities and scholars are discovering that the hope IRV offers us for escaping our two-party system is only illusory.<br />
<br />
Like TTR, IRV doesn’t fix the spoiler problem: a bloc of voters <a href="http://www.electology.org/debate/IrvPlurality"><span style="color: #444444;">may get a worse result</span></a> by supporting their sincere favorite candidate. For instance, in the <a href="http://scorevoting.net/Burlington.html"><span style="color: #444444;">2009 mayoral election</span></a> in Burlington, Vermont, a group of voters who preferred Republican over Democrat over Progressive could have gotten the Democrat instead of the Progressive by insincerely top-ranking the Democrat instead of the Republican. It may seem strange to think of the GOP candidate as the spoiler, but the ballot data shows that a majority of voters in left-leaning Burlington would have taken the Progressive <i>or</i> the Democrat over the Republican in a runoff election, making the GOP more akin to a third party in this particular circumstance — albeit a strong third party. </blockquote><blockquote>And therein lies the rub. See, most voters picture runoffs in the context of weak third parties. The thinking goes that if you prefer, say, Green over Democrat over Republican, then you can safely support the Green. If the Green doesn’t make it to the runoff, then your support will simply go to the Democrat. But that is only the first phase of a third party’s growth. Next imagine that the Green Party, freed from the fear of “wasted votes,” grows to encompass more and more of the electorate until it can outlast the Democrats and make it to the runoff. Finally, imagine a third phase in which the Greens have grown enough to not only defeat the Democrats, but to win against the Republicans in the runoff. This third phase represents the greatest hopes for those who see IRV as a way to end the stifling two-party stranglehold on government.</blockquote><blockquote><br />
But this rosy picture starts to darken the moment we take account of two crucial factors. First, it must be noted that each of these three phases is generally a prerequisite for the next. This is explained concisely as follows: as a third party grows, it will become powerful enough to defeat its most similar major party before it will become powerful enough to defeat both major parties. Second, the middle phase is effectively a barrier to the third. It is precisely the scenario experienced in Burlington. In this phase, the Greens defeat their most similar opponent, only to lose in the runoff. For Greens who prefer the Democrat to the Republican, the announced ballot totals will make clear to them that their honesty caused them to get the Republican instead of the Democrat. If even a mere 10% of them decide to cast a tactical vote for the Democrat in the next election, then even a prodigious 10% increase in their popularity by that time will be completely nullified. More realistically, their popularity would increase by less than 10%, in which case the tactical behavior would bring them down faster than they could increase their membership.<br />
<br />
Many IRV proponents have argued that such strategy is infeasible and/or inadvisable, since it is likely to “backfire.” We address this theoretical argument in detail <a href="http://www.electology.org/debate/IrvPlurality"><span style="color: #444444;">elsewhere</span></a>, but for now let’s put aside contentious theorizing, and turn our attention to empirical reality. Australia uses instant runoff voting to fill each of the 150 seats in its House (has used IRV since 1918). It also uses other methods for other elections, e.g. its Senate is elected with a <i>multiwinner</i> method called PR-STV (proportional single-transferable vote). Australia’s House is <a href="http://scorevoting.net/AustralianPol.html">two-party dominated</a>; in the elections of 2001, 2004, and 2007 combined, not a single house seat was won by a third-party member. In contrast, quite a few seats <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Senate#The_composition_of_the_Senate">in their Senate</a> (e.g. 9 out of 76 in their 2005-2008 Senate and 6 in the 2008-2011 Senate) were/are occupied by third parties, mainly the Greens.<br />
<br />
The same trend has been observed with IRV elsewhere, such as the Irish presidency (a near monopoly despite being mostly ceremonial), and in <a href="http://scorevoting.net/MaltaPol.html">Malta</a> and <a href="http://scorevoting.net/FijiPol.html">Fiji</a> (before it was a dictatorship). And it is interesting that San Francisco supervisor Ross Mirkarimi (who helped found the California Green Party) <a href="http://www.greenpartywatch.org/2010/03/12/ross-mirkarimi-switches-party-affiliation-from-green-to-democrat/"><span style="color: #444444;">switched from Green to Democrat</span></a> in early 2010, despite the fact San Francisco now uses IRV, instead of the delayed runoff system it used when Matt Gonzalez made his impressive mayoral bid.<br />
<br />
Of all these examples, Australia may be the most pertinent. We noted that their Senate uses STV, while their House uses IRV. STV is a multiwinner proportional system, and it so happens that IRV is actually the single-winner form of STV, so both systems use the same ranked ballot. Thus it is not too surprising that many American election activists see the adoption of IRV as a crucial “stepping stone” to proportional representation via the adoption of STV. IRV gets voters accustomed to ranking the candidates, and puts the basic machinery in place to tabulate those ranked ballots in the specific manner that STV entails. Even IRV proponents who are aware of its tendency for duopoly often support it for this very reason; they want proportional representation. In fact FairVote, the organization most often associated with the push for IRV, was founded in 1992 as “Citizens for Proportional Representation” (and later the “Center for Voting and Democracy”), and it seems that behind the scenes, their pursuit of IRV is a long-term play for proportional representation in America.<br />
<br />
The stepping stone strategy might actually make sense were it not for the USA’s rigid impediments to <a href="http://scorevoting.net/PropRep.html"><span style="color: #444444;">proportional representation</span></a>, which was made illegal at the federal level via a 1967 law which outlawed multi-member districts. In 1996, congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (who later ran as the Green Party candidate for US President) wrote, but failed to pass, bill HR 2545, which would have overridden that previous 1967 law. She re-introduced a similar bill, HR 1189, in 2001. It failed again. Then she tried again with HR 2690 in 2005. It failed yet again.<br />
<br />
This leads us to believe that PR will be federally unobtainable in the USA as long as we are two-party dominated (a Congress dominated by two parties will continue to block anti-duopoly legislation such as McKinney’s). We therefore believe that proponents of PR must find a single-winner voting method which doesn’t maintain duopoly, as a <i>prerequisite</i> to PR. As has been noted, ordinary top-two runoffs fit that description, but they have their own problems, both in terms of voter turnout and the cost and fatigue associated with extra elections. And they can still leave voters justifiably fearful of supporting candidates they sincerely prefer to the apparent frontrunners, in the first round. (As a reminder, voters have no incentive to be insincere in the runoff.)<br />
<br />
There are other voting systems that work with a ranked ballot and have several advantages over instant runoff voting (e.g. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method">Condorcet methods</a>), but even more exciting is a simpler class of voting systems discovered in the past few decades, based on an entirely different paradigm: ratings rather than rankings. These systems let each voter consider each candidate separately and assign to each a score or grade.<br />
<br />
In his 2008 book <span style="color: #444444;"><i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Gaming-Vote-Elections-Arent-About/dp/B002SB8OMA?ie=UTF8&tag=info06c-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Gaming the Vote</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=info06c-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B002SB8OMA" style="border: medium none ! important; margin: 0px ! important; padding: 0px ! important;" width="1" /></i></span>, author William Poundstone (an MIT physics grad) suggests a voting method called range voting (a.k.a. score voting), in which voters rate the candidates on a scale such as 0-10 or 1-5. When the scale is reduced to 0-1, we effectively have approval voting, which is identical to plurality voting except that there is no limit on the number of candidates a voter may support. A third method, the Majority Judgement, asks the voters to use a few natural-language terms (Excellent/Good/Acceptable/Unacceptable, for example) to grade the candidates and chooses the winner by finding the candidate who was given the highest grade by a majority of voters (the median grade).<br />
<br />
Score voting has historically been overlooked, based on the assumption that it would succumb to pervasive tactical exaggeration. But that view was debunked back in 2000, when a Princeton math Ph.D. named Warren D. Smith performed an extensive set of computer calculations which showed the system working extremely well, even with high rates of tactical voting. This is based on an objective “economic” indicator of voter satisfaction with (or “representativeness of”) election outcomes, called <a href="http://scorevoting.net/BayRegsFig.htm"><span style="color: #444444;">Bayesian regret</span></a>.<br />
<br />
This can be understood if we think for a moment about a voter whose preferences are Nader=10, Gore=6, Bush=0. If this voter is sincere, he casts those very scores. But if he is a tactical voter, like those who voted for Gore instead of Nader under plurality voting, how should he vote under score voting? For starters he wants to give Gore a 10, and Bush a 0, to maintain the tactical advantage he sought under plurality voting. But he can additionally give a 10 to Nader, and any other candidates he prefers to both frontrunners, with no fear of negative consequences. (In election theory parlance, we say that score voting passes the <a href="http://scorevoting.net/FBCsurvey.html">Favorite Betrayal Criterion</a>.) Whereas you will recall that with IRV, tactically placing the Democrat in first place absolutely requires a Green voter to place the Green lower than first place. But with score voting, giving Gore a maximum score in no way prevents a voter from still giving Nader a maximum score too. So third parties face no artificial barrier to growth, as they do with IRV.<br />
<br />
A simple way to think of it is that a tactical score voter should support the same candidate as he would with a plurality ballot, and then also support all the candidates he likes better. This means that the appearance of being “unelectable” need not become a self-fulfilling prophecy, like with plurality, IRV, and so many other methods. If it turns out that enough voters prefer a minor party or independent candidate to the presumed frontrunners, then he can actually win, even if the voters are highly tactical! Empirical <a href="http://scorevoting.net/PsEl04.html"><span style="color: #444444;">evidence strongly suggests</span></a> election outcomes will then be vastly more representative of the actual relative support for the candidates.<br />
<br />
We believe this has enormous consequences, beyond the obvious opportunity to escape from two-party domination. For instance, the inordinate importance of cash in elections is <a href="http://scorevoting.net/RL2parties.html#cash"><span style="color: #444444;">largely a product</span></a> of the need to prove electability. Consider exit polling from 2000 in which 90% of Nader supporters claimed to have voted for someone other than Nader. This shows that the number of votes Nader could have received by convincing voters he could be elected (e.g. by having an enormous campaign “warchest” and/or getting the nomination of a major party) was nine times as large as the number of votes he won by trying his best to convince voters he should be elected. Also consider that in the 2008 US presidential election, Mitt Romney spent large amounts of cash from his personal fortune to bus in voters to straw polls with no legal consequence whatsoever, apparently in order to be seen early on as a frontrunner, so as not to be abandoned by tactical voters, who fear wasting their vote on candidates who can’t win.<br />
<br />
These may seem like anecdotes, but their prevalence amounts to something greater. Money matters far too much in today’s political process. And efforts to curb that with typical campaign finance reform are inherently unstable, as cheaters will be more likely to win elections, and then just make their cheating retroactively legal, and/or intimidate government officials who dare to try to prosecute them. We believe it may be more effective to try to reduce the inherent importance of cash, than to wage a potentially futile battle to level the playing field. With score and approval voting, a candidate need not prove his electability in order to earn your vote. </blockquote><blockquote>In summary, we would be wise to realize that the lack of alternative choices in American politics is unlikely to be repaired without changing to a better voting system, and that instant runoff voting is probably not the answer. We should give serious consideration to voting systems based on ratings, where voters can evaluate each candidate independently, and never fear giving their full support to the candidates they prefer to the frontrunners. While it’s impossible to predict exactly how these systems will play out in practice, the theory and a great deal of empirical evidence make them <a href="http://scorevoting.net/CFERlet.html"><span style="color: #444444;">seem promising</span></a>, and it’s clear that the systems we have now are not working and it’s time to look outside the box for a voting system that will truly support smaller parties and encourage alternative ideas in our political discourse.</blockquote>InfoHedonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09726727144730953980noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6787005063177987331.post-52817739216054535112010-07-03T16:01:00.003-04:002010-07-03T16:13:15.031-04:00Approval Voting Video<div style="text-align: center;"><object height="405" width="500"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/VSQNftGg27U&hl=en_US&fs=1?rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/VSQNftGg27U&hl=en_US&fs=1?rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="500" height="405"></embed></object></div><br />
I'm trying out some video stuff. Feel free to let me know what you think. Approval voting as described here is for a single-winner office election. Here are some useful links:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYFnnaEL3OywRu5okVOgx8PW4KvdgAH5gPA_yRWuZUR8dFAQXXyAzG5-OgJ4MsSdAdP06VRlDfBfPHfVW5IczNmgLkGtdBMb8HRBmnijxEc5t5YC514zM2z2XeF4omKbN51LbKPaC71-m9/s1600/180px-approval_ballot.svg.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiYFnnaEL3OywRu5okVOgx8PW4KvdgAH5gPA_yRWuZUR8dFAQXXyAzG5-OgJ4MsSdAdP06VRlDfBfPHfVW5IczNmgLkGtdBMb8HRBmnijxEc5t5YC514zM2z2XeF4omKbN51LbKPaC71-m9/s320/180px-approval_ballot.svg.png" /></a></div><br />
Steven Brams on approval voting: <a dir="ltr" href="http://bigthink.com/ideas/18726" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" title="http://bigthink.com/ideas/18726">http://bigthink.com/ideas/18726</a><br />
<br />
Approval voting nonprofit: <a dir="ltr" href="http://www.approvalvoting.org/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" title="http://www.approvalvoting.org/">http://www.approvalvoting.org/</a><br />
<br />
Video comparing voting systems: <a dir="ltr" href="http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/VotingFreeLecture.aspx" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" title="http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/VotingFreeLecture.aspx">http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/VotingFre...</a><br />
<br />
Voting systems in general: <a dir="ltr" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-winner_voting_system" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" title="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-winner_voting_system">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-w...</a><br />
<br />
More on voting systems at The Center for Range Voting: <a dir="ltr" href="http://rangevoting.org/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" title="http://rangevoting.org/">http://rangevoting.org/</a><br />
<br />
The book to read on voting systems is, of course, Gaming the Vote:<br />
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Gaming-Vote-Elections-Arent-About/dp/B003JTHVSI?ie=UTF8&tag=info06c-20&link_code=bil&camp=213689&creative=392969" imageanchor="1" target="_blank"><img alt="Gaming the Vote: Why Elections Aren't Fair (and What We Can Do About It)" src="http://ws.amazon.com/widgets/q?MarketPlace=US&ServiceVersion=20070822&ID=AsinImage&WS=1&Format=_SL160_&ASIN=B003JTHVSI&tag=info06c-20" /></a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=info06c-20&l=bil&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B003JTHVSI" style="border: medium none ! important; margin: 0px ! important; padding: 0px ! important;" width="1" /><br />
<br />
If you're interested in the Commission of Presidential Debates, check out No Debate:<br />
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/No-Debate-Republican-Democratic-Presidential/dp/1583226303?ie=UTF8&tag=info06c-20&link_code=bil&camp=213689&creative=392969" imageanchor="1" target="_blank"><img alt="No Debate: How the Republican and Democratic Parties Secretly Control the Presidential Debates" src="http://ws.amazon.com/widgets/q?MarketPlace=US&ServiceVersion=20070822&ID=AsinImage&WS=1&Format=_SL160_&ASIN=1583226303&tag=info06c-20" /></a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=info06c-20&l=bil&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=1583226303" style="border: medium none ! important; margin: 0px ! important; padding: 0px ! important;" width="1" /><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=info06c-20&l=bil&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B003JTHVSI" style="border: medium none ! important; margin: 0px ! important; padding: 0px ! important;" width="1" />InfoHedonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09726727144730953980noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6787005063177987331.post-38822084143805074472010-06-14T13:00:00.131-04:002010-06-15T13:04:50.994-04:00News Flood--Focus on Gaza Flotilla<div style="text-align: center;"><embed allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="360" src="http://blip.tv/play/heYGgeXLaAI%2Em4v" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="580"></embed></div><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimqnJXEfJ5tTXLNMdqIt1bQEso8o2efDxI2cTlVW6k9kTI7Me2sKOoJWnC_b7I-9uwMqX6xFnwcmHKScr5Es7zcUfOVPbzJYcJoTUMfK9diEu8ozNW2clKw5ndvliPLi-69zQHz6j9OwrS/s1600/unrwa_map.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimqnJXEfJ5tTXLNMdqIt1bQEso8o2efDxI2cTlVW6k9kTI7Me2sKOoJWnC_b7I-9uwMqX6xFnwcmHKScr5Es7zcUfOVPbzJYcJoTUMfK9diEu8ozNW2clKw5ndvliPLi-69zQHz6j9OwrS/s640/unrwa_map.jpg" width="449" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">(<a href="http://burningbillboard.org/2009/01/bombarding-palestinian-refugee-camps-in-gaza/">Refugee Camps in Gaza Strip and Surrounding Area</a>)</span> </div><br />
By now we've all heard of the Israeli attack on the flotilla aid ship set for Gaza. If not, a background can be found <a href="http://www.democracynow.org/2010/6/9/framing_the_narrative_israeli_commandos_seizes">here</a>. This attack was carried out in international waters. The flotilla intended to violate the Israeli blockade against Gaza by providing humanitarian aid. Much of what has been presented is a sort of "debate" over self defense. But autopsy reports present a different picture. This story shows evidence of repeated close range shots to the back of the head and to the back. It is difficult to justify this as self defense. It appears Israel is also attempting to use the tactic of information control, but fortunately information is still getting out. As noted in the <a href="http://infohedon.blogspot.com/2010/05/memorial-day-another-enabler-for-war.html">previous post</a>, US tax dollars help to support the Israeli military in such raids--$2.5 billion in grants specifically for military aid in 2009 alone.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Summary of Turkish Autopsy Report</b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQYWKPKFdogBFtHtkLkwkA-dPrAhAnrl1EiWocJvWhAmFcyG9HHRJG5cz3-KEcDkDgq5qkWgsia0P9spHSokSvzLlF6XOgnwzQw57WPjwXN96bAGgqbdZ-F-S_Q5Go9hDcaZ11UAu78bm1/s1600/Autopsy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="219" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQYWKPKFdogBFtHtkLkwkA-dPrAhAnrl1EiWocJvWhAmFcyG9HHRJG5cz3-KEcDkDgq5qkWgsia0P9spHSokSvzLlF6XOgnwzQw57WPjwXN96bAGgqbdZ-F-S_Q5Go9hDcaZ11UAu78bm1/s640/Autopsy.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;">(<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/04/gaza-flotilla-attack-autopsy-results">Guardian</a>)</div><span id="goog_184711828"></span><span id="goog_184711829"></span><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><object height="405" width="500"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9ZCGCr9BHCg&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9ZCGCr9BHCg&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="500" height="405"></embed></object></div><br />
So why all the fuss over Gaza? Is the poverty really that bad? See the video above and decide for yourself.<br />
<br />
The US has refused to call for an international investigation of the attack against the flotilla. Instead, it insists that Israel be able to conduct its own internal investigation. To investigate the US's stance, we should look at how the US has looked at this conflict in the past. So how has this conflict between Israel and Palestine traditionally been reported in the US? Here's an analysis of <a href="http://www.ifamericansknew.org/media/net-report.html">just that</a> (<a href="http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000639">another source</a>):<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">Actual Conflict Deaths Vs. Reported in U.S. Media</span></b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9m3IZ7PtbS7JKVJZkblfRIj5HN5AVnjWgMCxD1FCer25IuCnSlYDs-P_UJbJV6_brwP6q_qgQZTReZ80qgGZMTfxgsQX9GKZ2WsjeMgCMyXdRawgd9XZv-CpoljJBeuD270N4DSVZSMcX/s1600/actual+deaths.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9m3IZ7PtbS7JKVJZkblfRIj5HN5AVnjWgMCxD1FCer25IuCnSlYDs-P_UJbJV6_brwP6q_qgQZTReZ80qgGZMTfxgsQX9GKZ2WsjeMgCMyXdRawgd9XZv-CpoljJBeuD270N4DSVZSMcX/s320/actual+deaths.gif" width="240" /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfZ-C_D5nkqhmCtg0YJv6aPfcbf7H8VBLoaYp-W6QVmzMuHXJPbTRdgW7njlSMQqKZdqNBByDYMnqmU3NTpz7dySYEePR_60bHptxae3sSFvu908qQ37luIMQeE3TSd9j6j2wTgZAmYF4_/s1600/percentage+reported.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfZ-C_D5nkqhmCtg0YJv6aPfcbf7H8VBLoaYp-W6QVmzMuHXJPbTRdgW7njlSMQqKZdqNBByDYMnqmU3NTpz7dySYEePR_60bHptxae3sSFvu908qQ37luIMQeE3TSd9j6j2wTgZAmYF4_/s320/percentage+reported.gif" width="298" /></a><br />
(Reporting over 100% refers to repetitions in broadcasts)<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Actual Children's Deaths Vs. Reported in U.S. Media</span></b> </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2a5cO4ZhG9ESIISF7yUJ94GaXSfzYU5tyeDozot8UlLUdbwQU5niyw_rdPRNkiwJunY1Du7dMr8e6V9nCC7DyyZaQI6cZBSMh5oOpFPtJNoORM_nqzfJ5Bwcj46tC0oCZbClp_VPDcpvY/s1600/children+deaths.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2a5cO4ZhG9ESIISF7yUJ94GaXSfzYU5tyeDozot8UlLUdbwQU5niyw_rdPRNkiwJunY1Du7dMr8e6V9nCC7DyyZaQI6cZBSMh5oOpFPtJNoORM_nqzfJ5Bwcj46tC0oCZbClp_VPDcpvY/s320/children+deaths.gif" /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZxW-zQMw3gnZKVxwN73vqV5_A8e474emFKzeB5WuR4NQBt4hpi5ob6pCcZTtDSf1D1YUnkyhEJP9IgJrjSAKZRLEV0Kg220JodFdfW5FD-wXklH_89mirNoWkP4TuSR-1SZHrKeCt64kt/s1600/children+reported.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZxW-zQMw3gnZKVxwN73vqV5_A8e474emFKzeB5WuR4NQBt4hpi5ob6pCcZTtDSf1D1YUnkyhEJP9IgJrjSAKZRLEV0Kg220JodFdfW5FD-wXklH_89mirNoWkP4TuSR-1SZHrKeCt64kt/s320/children+reported.gif" /></a></div><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">The Historical Conflict in a Nutshell</span></b></div><table border="1" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0"><tbody>
<tr bgcolor="#eaecd3"><td align="middle" colspan="2" style="text-align: center; vertical-align: middle;"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 10pt; font-weight: bold;">About This Topic</span></td></tr>
<tr> <td align="left" colspan="2" valign="top"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 10pt;"> </span><br />
<div align="justify"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 10pt;">The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the world's longest standing conflicts. Many people feel that resolving this conflict is the key to resolving the various conflicts throughout the Middle East. Some observers see this conflict creating Arab resentment towards the "West" and fueling radical Islamic terrorism. Although the conflict generates massive public discussion and debate, there are relatively few (if any) forums that inherently maintain an impartial and non-partisan approach to understanding it. We intentionally expose the massive variations of opinion, narrative and fact, to give our readers the best "big picture" understanding of the conflict and its potential solutions. </span></div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 10pt;"></span></td></tr>
<tr bgcolor="#eaecd3"> <td align="middle" style="text-align: center; vertical-align: top;" valign="top" width="50%"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 10pt; font-weight: bold;">PRO Israel/CON Palestine</span></td> <td align="middle" style="text-align: center; vertical-align: top;" valign="top" width="50%"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 10pt; font-weight: bold;">CON Israel/PRO Palestine</span></td></tr>
<tr> <td align="left" valign="top" width="50%"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 10pt;"> </span><br />
<div align="justify"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 10pt;">The Pro-Israel camp generally base their arguments on the following principles: </span><br />
<span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">a)</span> Israel is the historical "homeland" of the Jewish peoples who have lived there continuously since biblical times. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">b)</span> Many Jews believe that they deserve a "Jewish" state because of historical injustices, such as the Holocaust, and because they have international support and recognition through the U.N. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">c)</span> The majority of Israelis support a "two-state" solution, creating a Palestinian state alongside Israel in Gaza and the West Bank. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">d)</span> Other Israelis support the idea of "one-state", either by annexing all occupied territories into the Jewish state (far right view), or incorporate the occupied territories into one secular democratic state with equal rights for all (far left view). </span></div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 10pt;"></span></td> <td align="left" valign="top" width="50%"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 10pt;"> </span><br />
<div align="justify"><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 10pt;">The Pro-Palestinian camp generally base their arguments on the following principles: </span><br />
<span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">a)</span> The Palestinian people have lived in the area of Israel/Palestine since biblical times. They see most Israeli Jews as foreign colonizers who began arriving within the last 100 years. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">b)</span> Palestinians consider themselves a national entity, deserving of the rights of all nations, including a Palestinian state. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">c)</span> Many Muslim Palestinians and their supporters see the land as Islamic holy land, and are strictly opposed to non-Muslims owning and establishing a state on Muslim land. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 10pt;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">d)</span> Palestinians vary widely in what they see as a just solution to the conflict. They include: the total destruction of Israel; a "bi-national" or "one-state" solution; and a "two-state" solution.</span></div><span style="font-family: arial; font-size: 10pt;"></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>(Ref: <a href="http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000631">Pro/Con.org</a>)InfoHedonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09726727144730953980noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6787005063177987331.post-46054449257931433802010-05-31T15:51:00.020-04:002010-06-03T16:10:09.206-04:00Memorial Day: Another Enabler for War<div style="text-align: center;"><div style="text-align: center;"><b><object height="405" width="660"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/akm3nYN8aG8&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/akm3nYN8aG8&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="660" height="405"></embed></object></b></div><div style="text-align: center;">Speech by Mike Prysner (quotes used throughout post).<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>"We Were Told We Were Fighting Terrorists.</b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>But the Real Terrorist Was Me."</b></span></div></div></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAgb_rx7n_JxZ2grVPX4mesOynqPVlAuhxnzc-7zqpxxeb43Cm_1wSo55dPYZGk5I5RrLLleSy1FriPn1UCKe1mbzLKKSTH-0hzKTF3zDjHkrY44-tDWTttFio6exGZcF1xWfjjyJov2hg/s1600/Shock+and+awe+Iraq.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="428" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgAgb_rx7n_JxZ2grVPX4mesOynqPVlAuhxnzc-7zqpxxeb43Cm_1wSo55dPYZGk5I5RrLLleSy1FriPn1UCKe1mbzLKKSTH-0hzKTF3zDjHkrY44-tDWTttFio6exGZcF1xWfjjyJov2hg/s640/Shock+and+awe+Iraq.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;">(US "Shock and Awe" Attack on Iraq, May 2003)</div><ul><li>Afghan <i>civilian </i>deaths by US troops since invasion: 6,500 (<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/nov/19/afghanistan-civilian-casualties-statistics-data">Guardian</a>)</li>
</ul><ul><li>Iraqi <i> civilian </i>deaths by US troops since invasion: >100,000 (<a href="http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/300/Whats-In-A-Number?bypass=true">TAL interview</a> with Lancet author--links study)</li>
</ul><ul><li>Serious injuries will be much higher than the death toll.</li>
</ul>Terrorists from Saudi Arabia killed some 3,000 people on 9/11. We were told by our government that they did it because they were jealous of our freedom. This was our government's best rationale . . . and we took it. We were angry and we wanted a simple answer. And there it was--a ridiculous, nonsensical, and simple answer. Our freedom was just too enviable.<br />
<br />
But there was a reality: these terrorists actually hated us for supplying weapons to Israel to attack Palestine. Bin Laden said this repeatedly (<a href="http://www.representativepress.org/Motivesfor911.html">RP</a>--checks with <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/interview.html">Frontline</a>). The leader behind the attacks according to the 9-11 Commission, <span style="font-size: small;">Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, is repeatedly noted to give the same reason</span><span style="font-size: small;"> (<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7EB1FxENxQ&annotation_id=annotation_755407&feature=iv">RP</a>, <a href="http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf">9/11 Commission Report</a> pg 147).</span> When these facts came out in congressional testimony, they were silenced and minimized in the official report. Mainstream media blacked it out (<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44wK72Snm6Y&annotation_id=annotation_674272&feature=iv">see video</a>).<br />
<br />
The US gave Israel a $2.5 billion military grant in 2009. The US provided Israel with over $58 billion dollars in a steady stream of specifically military funds (aside from other aid) for the last 50 years (<a href="http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf">CRS </a>pg 21). Israel's recent attack on a Gaza aid ship in international waters gives a sample of what these military funds go towards (<a href="http://www.democracynow.org/2010/6/3/huwaida">DN</a>).<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiORe_S7UL4_MxTvSFqpY8Zchbsaj_yb5fkp2VcZTwlqQSjjO4xl3_ljWc8tUjonDL2dksMNrosm5E5bbi5tyhHjEacgRGo5M3kd2zZmIngaqbqfoDgaz_xwDdRwIcjuuA6doiMPN0yaFr7/s1600/rumsfeld-saddam.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="297" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiORe_S7UL4_MxTvSFqpY8Zchbsaj_yb5fkp2VcZTwlqQSjjO4xl3_ljWc8tUjonDL2dksMNrosm5E5bbi5tyhHjEacgRGo5M3kd2zZmIngaqbqfoDgaz_xwDdRwIcjuuA6doiMPN0yaFr7/s400/rumsfeld-saddam.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br />
Saddam was clumsily linked to Bin Laden by way of repetition in the media. There was nothing else. This had to be awkward for the US since they considered Saddam an ally (see photo) while he was using USA made chemical weapons to kill some 190K Kurds and 50K Iranian solders (<a href="http://socialistworker.org/2004-1/480/480_05_SaddamHussein.shtml">SW</a>). But we had to put Saddam back in line when he threatened our access to their oil (<a href="http://socialistworker.org/2004-1/480/480_05_SaddamHussein.shtml">SW</a>).<br />
<br />
Normally, when the US wants to change the government of another country it does it with a bit less attention. The traditional rational is over trade policy. The US becomes particularly angry if a government wants to nationalize its natural resources--a sure sign the US will put you on its to-coup list (<a href="http://www.alternet.org/world/39416/?page=entire">AN</a>, <a href="http://killinghope.org/bblum6/overthrow.htm">KH</a>).<br />
<br />
The US's prolific modern overthrow record includes: Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, British Guiana in 1953-64, Iraq in 1963, Cambodia in 1955-70, Laos in 1958-60, Ecuador in 1960-63, Brazil in 1962-64, Dominican Republic in 1963, Congo in 1960, Bolivia in 1964, Indonesia in 1965, Ghana in 1966,Chile in 1964-73, Greece in 1967, Bolivia in 1971 Australia in 1973-75, Portugal in 1974-76, Jamaica in 1976-80 Chad in 1981-82, Grenada in 1983, Fiji in 1987, Nicaragua in 1981-90, Panama in 1989, Bulgaria in 1990, Albania in 1991, Afghanistan in 1980s, Ecuador in 2000, Afghanistan in 2001, Venezuela in 2002, Iraq in 2003, then Haiti in 2004 and back in 1991 (See <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVwqar4e4Ks">TRN </a>video for excellent coverage). For the history of the US taking of Hawaii, see here: (<a href="http://www.pinkyshow.org/archives/episodes/090611_hawaii03/090611_hawaii03_credits.html">PS</a>).<br />
<br />
See a complete history on the US's role in overthrowing foreign government from NY Times reporter Stephen Kinzer in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Overthrow-Americas-Century-Regime-Change/dp/0805082409?ie=UTF8&tag=info06c-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=info06c-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0805082409" style="border: medium none ! important; margin: 0px ! important; padding: 0px ! important;" width="1" />. <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><b><br />
</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>"Racism Is a Vital Weapon</b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>Deployed by this Government."</b></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijEYCJzgGSoXqVef6JlpMhqB1f3tJUEzWmBBXO3Sr0my0cIO-IFtFtIaizNTbjoZTuOFXSHyeoQLX4_pltGRSOCE7Nx25RB-cFKBU0pBsalkjeol_tOca7dTtfLmzLwlSfzMXgRDJOf8X2/s1600/slurs.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="363" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijEYCJzgGSoXqVef6JlpMhqB1f3tJUEzWmBBXO3Sr0my0cIO-IFtFtIaizNTbjoZTuOFXSHyeoQLX4_pltGRSOCE7Nx25RB-cFKBU0pBsalkjeol_tOca7dTtfLmzLwlSfzMXgRDJOf8X2/s640/slurs.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><b><br />
</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><object height="405" width="500"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3bnU2PZKYFo&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3bnU2PZKYFo&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="500" height="405"></embed></object></b></div><br />
Racism is a tool used to dehumanize the other side. It also helps to create an in-group versus out-group mentality. For more on dehumanizing, see previous post on the <a href="http://infohedon.blogspot.com/2010/05/how-us-military-trains-soldiers-to-kill.html">US military training to kill civilians</a>.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>"They Do Not Have to Fight the War. </b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>They Merely Have to Sell the War."</b></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjABZLL_pY3KIZekt_lV_YASrS3BjqkXkHR0DwAs2PUJJkJEULKfv4VenJMeHwBqHVAhuafXUKf1PxtGBdnsPNvqOwEU0W6ihmwzqwJmkGxHTSPq8R7zyGhGTd3aUm51LDy4mcC9ERF7E7K/s1600/powell.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="496" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjABZLL_pY3KIZekt_lV_YASrS3BjqkXkHR0DwAs2PUJJkJEULKfv4VenJMeHwBqHVAhuafXUKf1PxtGBdnsPNvqOwEU0W6ihmwzqwJmkGxHTSPq8R7zyGhGTd3aUm51LDy4mcC9ERF7E7K/s640/powell.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>(Powell, former US SOS, presenting WMD argument to UN before US invasion of Iraq)<span style="font-size: large;"><b></b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><br />
</b></span><br />
<div style="text-align: left;">War is not a natural human inclination. If that were true, drafts would have never been used, our media would not have to sell us the war, and protesters would not be beaten for their opposition (<a href="http://infohedon.blogspot.com/2010/05/how-us-military-trains-soldiers-to-kill.html">previous post</a>). The government has long known that they must use lies and coercion to make us fight (See video <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9219858826421983682#">Why We Fight</a>). Here are some examples of lies and opportunism:</div><ul style="text-align: left;"><li>In 1898, President McKinley wanted the US to go to war with Spain. When the USS Maine exploded (cause unclear), McKinley quickly used this as a pretext for war (<a href="http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq71-1.htm">USN</a>). The USS Maine was hyped so much as an excuse for war that it is now synonymous with the term yellow journalism.</li>
<li>In 1940, a year before the Pearl Harbor attack, Lieutenant Commander Arthur H. McCollum sent to naval commanders what is now referred to as the McCollum Memo. The memo outlined the need to provoke an attack by Japan against the US to raise public support for the war (<a href="http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/McCollum_memorandum">Memo </a>sec 9-10). Eventually, the US received its overt attack that gave Roosevelt just the public support he needed to attack Japan.</li>
<li>In 1964, there were two separate events collectively referred to as "The Gulf of Tonkin Incident." These events were used by President Lyndon Johnson to officially send the US to war with Vietnam. The first event occurred when the US sent the destroyer ship USS Maddox to gather intelligence on the coast of North Vietnam. While there was engagement, no US troops were killed (<a href="http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq120-1.htm">USN</a>). In the "second event," the US Navy claimed that the North Vietnamese torpedoed and sank two US ships during another patrol. The Federation of American Scientists investigated this after the CIA released documents on the subject. Despite MacNamara's claim that the evidence of the second attack was unimpeachable, the group concluded that the Navy fabricated the entire event (<a href="http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5j-5IKhFZ-bFe_Nc957JypHhNTMxQ">AFP</a>, <a href="http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/gulf_of_tonkin/articles/rel1_skunks_bogies.pdf">CQ</a>).</li>
<li>In 2001, the US was attacked in New York City. Immediately, the US government attempted to use this attack as a pretext to go to war with Iraq. Obviously, Colon Powell's and the Bush administration's argument of WMD's never attained evidence. But that didn't stop the US from attempting to connect Saddam to Bin Laden and having it numbingly repeated in media (<a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-december-29-2008/the-bush-years--the-iraq-war-mashup">DS</a>). But Saddam had no recent connection to Bin Laden nor al-Qaida (<a href="http://news.wvpubcast.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=88154003">NPR</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/">MSNBC</a>). And yet we are still there. President Obama continues to fund the war in the face of a weak anti-war movement. </li>
</ul><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>"They Need a Public Who Is Willing to </b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>Send Their Soldiers into Harm's Way."</b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirGuDEAWJaCkOt2bBpEz3YE2ErhNqj_eTp6i0UtIWZR5B1Tl_y7YfaX-fbE89OZsXT6e8PFz62Rcu55F3fpg7S5RgzepROL8Ygmn8Aoww8yHgEBG5w-UeqzSFjYTm2CTV6jVpw9rn9DLO-/s1600/bumpers.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="344" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirGuDEAWJaCkOt2bBpEz3YE2ErhNqj_eTp6i0UtIWZR5B1Tl_y7YfaX-fbE89OZsXT6e8PFz62Rcu55F3fpg7S5RgzepROL8Ygmn8Aoww8yHgEBG5w-UeqzSFjYTm2CTV6jVpw9rn9DLO-/s640/bumpers.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;">"Question War" bumper stickers (<a href="http://www.questionwar.com/qwribbons.html">here</a>).</div><br />
And yes, supporting the troops is supporting the war. To say otherwise is to have no understanding of the blatant inconsistency. Who fires the rounds if not the troops? The request to kill another comes with it the nondelegable duty to investigate the merits. A government with a track record of lying for its own benefit should immediately make one skeptical of its argument for war.<br />
<br />
So how does the US overcome its track record? It targets the youth and the poor.<br />
<br />
When it's difficult to find work in order to pay rent, it becomes easier to justify joining the military. There is no mystery that economic hardship makes the job of military recruitment easier (<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/19/us/19recruits.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2">NYT</a>). But is it right to kill others for an unjust cause in order to pay rent?<br />
<br />
According to a UN resolution adopted by the US, the military cannot engage in recruitment actions with those under age 18 without parental permission (<a href="http://www.undemocracy.com/A-RES-54-263.pdf">Doc </a>art 3). Yet, paramilitary JROTC programs exist in schools throughout the US affixing themselves in hallways and lunch halls of students. Deception and coercion used to recruit these students is commonplace, with 6,600 allegations of recruiter wrongdoing in 2005 alone (<a href="http://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/humanrights/crc_report_20080513.pdf">ACLU</a> pg 19). Recruiters lied to enlistees that the US was not at war and that individuals could simply leave the military if they didn't like their experience (<a href="http://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/humanrights/crc_report_20080513.pdf">ACLU</a> pg 20). Recruiters specifically targeted poorer schools after recognizing that they had less success getting college bound students (<a href="http://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/humanrights/crc_report_20080513.pdf">ACLU</a> pg 29)<br />
<br />
Some states such as California have what are called Cadet Corps. The California Cadet Corps proudly announces to have settled in over 100 schools throughout the state (<a href="http://cadet.org/2126101019192810143/site/default.asp">CCC</a>-bottom). This presence includes elementary schools.<br />
<br />
There are more than half a million kids in over 3,600 JROTC programs across the US. Some 30-50% of these kids in JROTC will join the military (<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2008/1016/p01s01-usgn.html">CSM</a>).<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>"Not Only Do We Have Nothing to Gain,</b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>but We Suffer More."</b></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.imow.org/economica/stories/viewStory?storyId=3657"><img border="0" height="372" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtPW82EHtbKhgXcZTZrUbMpyL2yEP8O8QPWJlA0zD0dtdlwpAlA-9dwofX7IIeyyqhrs2V7UT_-dFt9isRftgzBFy_KHXu5cnYPILmc_KKDEUQ-9Pal4YA38upqxhv6IJzQ0zEktEo_lFo/s400/budget.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><br />
Every dollar we spend towards the military is used to kill those our government does not like. This subtracts what would otherwise go towards our social programs or paying down foreign debt. See the <a href="http://infohedon.blogspot.com/2010/05/tavis-smiley-mlk-and-beyond-vietnam.html">MLK Beyond Vietnam post</a> for how Dr. King saw wars as an obstacle to fighting poverty.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>"Our Enemies Are Not 5,000 Miles Away.</b></span></div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>They Are Right Here at Home."</b></span></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3Dg9Ncrc1KfJSAB8Q9CiUb7tKqr7v3OZsn9wIlsLrxpx_2AOe1R2rEy5CUptpvL4ObE4Pi4m8sVlNo22Ca9IFZ62aLNHDR1Xl5PF9JpXg3MGMErssUoAKYpZdalDMHa_PpkDiBMJiezgG/s1600/corporate-america-flag.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="352" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3Dg9Ncrc1KfJSAB8Q9CiUb7tKqr7v3OZsn9wIlsLrxpx_2AOe1R2rEy5CUptpvL4ObE4Pi4m8sVlNo22Ca9IFZ62aLNHDR1Xl5PF9JpXg3MGMErssUoAKYpZdalDMHa_PpkDiBMJiezgG/s640/corporate-america-flag.gif" width="640" /></a></div><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">$700 billion was used to bail out the US's richest companies in 2008 (<a href="http://bailout.propublica.org/initiatives/2-emergency-economic-stabilization-act">PP</a>). This does not count the over $150 billion dollars in annual subsidies that the US government gives to US corporations (<a href="http://www.fpif.org/articles/corporate_welfare_and_foreign_policy">FPIF</a>). This is despite the fact that between 1998 to 2005 2/3 of all US corporations paid no federal income tax (<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2010/04/06/exxon-tax/">TP</a>). These tax evaders include such giants as Exxon Mobile and General Electric despite their billions in income. </span></span></b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</span></span></b></span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">See full speech: (<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Nj_qJaEUTc">Part 1</a>, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jGmMbQPJTU">Part 2</a>, <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7380181&mesg_id=7380362">Transcript</a>) Ignore:[<span class="status">A6Y7PQK2FJG7]</span></div>InfoHedonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09726727144730953980noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6787005063177987331.post-66044021433834160232010-05-20T22:18:00.043-04:002010-05-21T21:31:23.991-04:00Facebook & Comedy Central Cave to Pressures on Depicting Muhammed<div style="text-align: center;"><object height="405" width="500"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/dd9lYFBFL14&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dd9lYFBFL14&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="500" height="405"></embed></object></div><br />
The Associated Press story above describes how the Pakistani government banned Facebook over the Everyone Draw Mohammad Day Campaign. The government has also answered by blocking YouTube (<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/20/pakistan-blocks-youtube-sacrilegious">Guardian</a>). This campaign came about after an artist from Seattle created a poster advertising the campaign. She did not expect it to be taken seriously, but it was. A Facebook group for the day soon formed and shot up to 100K followers. (<a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/Horizons/2010/0520/Will-Facebook-be-hurt-by-protests-against-Everybody-Draw-Mohammad-Day">CSM</a>) Now, however, the group no longer comes up in searches. It appears Facebook has deleted the group. There is a replacement group that is still generating members (at around 1,000 at the time of this initial post). Similar groups have followed. Some members have changed their profile pictures to depict Muhammad. Numerous groups have also formed to oppose Everyone Draw Mohammed Day.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiztf8svlwj-X7XoYqXentybL9G2BmN4fD1sfhJCb-g96SXw-dHEexVlFchs6gJtxCPyRC-ys_7xhIPh3JsM4eD2-VCg5Rpvq7sHjuOYt6cGAuKRsAnsmxk-8UW8B9czFbm3MiRlPi7LmVj/s1600/mirror.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiztf8svlwj-X7XoYqXentybL9G2BmN4fD1sfhJCb-g96SXw-dHEexVlFchs6gJtxCPyRC-ys_7xhIPh3JsM4eD2-VCg5Rpvq7sHjuOYt6cGAuKRsAnsmxk-8UW8B9czFbm3MiRlPi7LmVj/s200/mirror.jpg" width="190" /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqRxXBhQnOLVgPpuQCwBEgoZosgjQYubxZ4FnP4vFvAcIlY708EoUiDMUBHBfamhN6_pPn395ft507qI3bZ5c03E4MfasVJIXGGYEV-HbAO96tWAxFiMonmZyyq7-leuzJaJZ7A81SMHdm/s1600/muhammed+physics.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="280" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqRxXBhQnOLVgPpuQCwBEgoZosgjQYubxZ4FnP4vFvAcIlY708EoUiDMUBHBfamhN6_pPn395ft507qI3bZ5c03E4MfasVJIXGGYEV-HbAO96tWAxFiMonmZyyq7-leuzJaJZ7A81SMHdm/s400/muhammed+physics.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br />
However, Facebook retaliated against at least one user. It deleted his account after merely describing how science provided a better explanation for how the world worked than a deity (<a href="http://hellointerloper.blogspot.com/2010/05/all-hail-freedom-of-speech.html">Interloper</a>). This particular user lost four years of photos, messages, and contacts. A screenshot of the conversation shows the user didn't type any obscenities or slurs. A large number of users report Facebook deleting their accounts over Muhammed comments and postings. Users accuse Facebook of deleting many of their Muhammed pictures as well. (Examples of "offensive" pictures above. There are also<a href="http://jonas3333.wordpress.com/2010/05/21/muhammad-on-ramadan/"> harsher pictures</a> that more forcefully try the issue.) The fact that Facebook has done all this is interesting considering its CEO Mark Zuckerberg identifies as atheist (<a href="http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119621309736406034.html">WSJ</a>).<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><object height="360" width="580"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kVLhfbrZvtI&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kVLhfbrZvtI&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="580" height="360"></embed></object> </div><br />
<span style="font-size: small;">If Facebook did remove the original group (not too improbable), it wouldn't be the first time pressure from Muslim groups was successful. But there may be some question to the cause of the page's removal. The author of the group, "Andy" did an interview with CNN and MSNBC (see above) using his Skype account for anonymity. The <i>Jewish Business Magazine</i> later did an interview with "Andy." He informed them that a man calling himself Ali Hassan hacked into his Skype account (likely the same one used for the news interviews). The hacker also claimed to know the author's home address though did not state what he would use the information for (<a href="http://jewishbusinessmagazine.com/jewish-business-news/everybody-draw-mohammed-day-creator%E2%80%99s-computer-hacked/#">JBM</a>). It looks like the hacker also destroyed the creator's WordPress blog dedicated to the event (<a href="http://everybodydrawmohammedday.wordpress.com/">Blog</a>).</span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjluJNSQe2vXjRoGSytmgpszpO3RdBH_qXL59vEFwZQX89sDH-aza95fUgtlHs_XkoudmPXpH5h58JdvD-VMJ-mSekmheS-0a54-yQWjEVLgnuJykmarP-ddNaFPcm_f8gRZWg6l4HWAWT8/s1600/south-park.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjluJNSQe2vXjRoGSytmgpszpO3RdBH_qXL59vEFwZQX89sDH-aza95fUgtlHs_XkoudmPXpH5h58JdvD-VMJ-mSekmheS-0a54-yQWjEVLgnuJykmarP-ddNaFPcm_f8gRZWg6l4HWAWT8/s320/south-park.gif" /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4JJs8m26Z09uxSMPQ6oWLxfXH_stQTwO6d2YM39bDNczYdUToiyNNPmbkg0rOEGJiagFBaT_ImRHvl5x-tjHKIjIGYlT0aFb4vJnyEQbVAXcuxun8jFAJ3WLPPTMzvB9UAEwEaqqbiaCB/s1600/mascot.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj4JJs8m26Z09uxSMPQ6oWLxfXH_stQTwO6d2YM39bDNczYdUToiyNNPmbkg0rOEGJiagFBaT_ImRHvl5x-tjHKIjIGYlT0aFb4vJnyEQbVAXcuxun8jFAJ3WLPPTMzvB9UAEwEaqqbiaCB/s320/mascot.jpg" /></a></div><br />
<span style="font-size: small;">The incident that pushed this recent movement was a South Park episode where the plot centered around presenting Muhammed in order to save their town. The episode satirized the censorship situation by hiding Muhammed in a mascot suit. This is despite a previous episode where Muhammed was allowed to be shown. (See above left with Jesus cartoon) Interestingly, the episode sparking the controversy (above right) is also no longer available. See SouthPark <a href="http://www.southparkstudios.com/">website here</a>. (See season 14 episode 5) Note that this is not a contract issue since more recent episodes do not have that warning.</span><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><object height="405" width="500"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KGUOe2SSnKE&start=28&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KGUOe2SSnKE&start=28&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="500" height="405"></embed></object></div><br />
<span style="font-size: small;">The inconsistency is interesting. Because South Park did show Muhammed in a 2001 episode, but it refused to show him both in a 2006 episode (Cartoon Wars) and in the recent 2010 episode. The 2001 episode didn't follow with any protest and somehow slipped under the Muslim radar. (See summary of episodes in video above)</span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgU-mlpRbK6iBXOs1yOKAiSFEcii6YZ0W9OlGjHfePabOw7xkf2oszCJsa5yR-P_gwOSrKmOutH6GqZ8FMUub__lUX9NfK-0XR5V3eII3P56K7AVlJfAuXP9GOS3sHa33mTyecO393S2hUd/s1600/simpsons.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="280" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgU-mlpRbK6iBXOs1yOKAiSFEcii6YZ0W9OlGjHfePabOw7xkf2oszCJsa5yR-P_gwOSrKmOutH6GqZ8FMUub__lUX9NfK-0XR5V3eII3P56K7AVlJfAuXP9GOS3sHa33mTyecO393S2hUd/s400/simpsons.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br />
What makes the protests more serious is the death threats. These death threats refrain some from giving the support they would otherwise provide (See Simpsons intro screen caption from Squirt and Whale s21e19). And death threats were exactly what the creators Trey Park and Matt Stone received (<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2010/apr/22/south-park-censored-fatwa-muhammad">Guardian</a>). One website making a threat said they would be made to be like Van Gogh, a Dutch film maker. Van Gogh was shot to death in retaliation after making a documentary on the abuse of women in Muslim countries. His attacker, Muhammed Bouyeri, stuck a <a href="http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/312">five page note</a> into Van Gogh's chest with two knives (<a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/controversial-filmmaker-shot-dead-531777.html">Ind</a>). The note forced the documentary's script writer <span style="font-size: small;">Ayaan Hirsi Ali</span> into hiding by threatening her life (<a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/ayaan-hirsi-ali-my-life-under-a-fatwa-760666.html">Ind</a>). Ayaan had already fled Somalia to escape its subjugation against women and the stiff penalty for criticizing Islam (<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2005/may/17/religion.immigration">Guardian</a>).<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWsaItVMbAD1DotHV386-ORCC0e8bK1zz8r4sFBidK1f6QNDwTMiGvooG8V6h1ZpdLPfQYmO57sqPutXl0PaBA-ViLcOwE5cuYc9xqLpwKcKY0oRyrx0Ia9BTPzDK2kUuuWn07-GUbACT_/s1600/muhammed+cartoons.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWsaItVMbAD1DotHV386-ORCC0e8bK1zz8r4sFBidK1f6QNDwTMiGvooG8V6h1ZpdLPfQYmO57sqPutXl0PaBA-ViLcOwE5cuYc9xqLpwKcKY0oRyrx0Ia9BTPzDK2kUuuWn07-GUbACT_/s400/muhammed+cartoons.png" width="282" /></a></div><br />
Part of the grounding for this controversy is from cartoons published in Danish newspapers during September 2005 (see above). Death threats and murder plots against the cartoonists followed after the publication (<a href="http://jp.dk/uknews/article1263133.ece">JP</a>). Westergaard, the drawer of the Muhammed bomb cartoon, was attacked in January 2010 in his own home. The attacker had an ax and knife. He swore at Westergaard and chased him to his panic room. The attacker then went at police with the ax, but was shot down in the leg (<a href="http://politiken.dk/newsinenglish/article871593.ece">Politiken</a>).<br />
<br />
Police arrested two individuals this month of May for firebombing the house of Mohammad cartoonist Lars Vilks (though unsuccessfully). Another man headbutted Vilks less than a week before this attack while Vilks was giving a controversial talk (<a href="http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=3035450">NP</a>, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyExaO4jzD0&feature=related">Video</a>).<br />
<br />
Republications months later incited vandals to set fire to Danish embas<span style="font-family: inherit;">sies in Iran, Lebanon and Syria. Not all Muslim leaders supported this reaction, however (<a href="http://www.democracynow.org/2006/2/7/freedom_of_speech_or_incitement_to">DN</a>). </span>A mix of hostile and nonviolent protests also resulted in dozens of deaths (<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa/02/18/cartoon.roundup/index.html">CNN</a>, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/07/world/asia/07iht-islam.html?_r=1">NYT</a>--others besides these). One man attempted to murder editor Roger Köppel of a Berlin newspaper after reprinting the cartoons. Security within the building captured the assailant Amir Cheema with a large knife (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amir_Abdur_Rehman_Cheema">Wiki ref to German Spiegel piece</a>--family members claim German police killed Amir before trial rather than suicide).<br />
<br />
<h3 class="UIIntentionalStory_Message" data-ft="{"type":"msg"}" style="font-family: inherit; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span class="UIStory_Message">There is a point of these drawings and of this article. One should never have to <span class="text_exposed_show">fear criticizing or satirizing any idea or religion. Indeed, the mythologies within religions are absurd and are fertile ground for such satire. (See a previous post on the absurdity of the <a href="http://infohedon.blogspot.com/2010/05/geographic-concentrations-of-religious.html">geographic concentration of religions</a>.) Religion is also often used to rationalize violent and abusive behavior. This last reason alone should justify keeping it within poking distance.</span></span></span></h3><h3 class="UIIntentionalStory_Message" data-ft="{"type":"msg"}" style="font-family: inherit; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span class="UIStory_Message"><span class="text_exposed_show"> </span></span></span></h3><h3 class="UIIntentionalStory_Message" data-ft="{"type":"msg"}" style="font-family: inherit; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span class="UIStory_Message"><span class="text_exposed_show">See End of Faith for a more critical look at religion by Sam Harris. See also </span></span></span><span style="font-size: small;">Ayaan Hirsi Ali's autobiography and her criticism of Islam</span><span style="font-size: small;"><span class="UIStory_Message"><span class="text_exposed_show">:</span></span></span></h3><h3 class="UIIntentionalStory_Message" data-ft="{"type":"msg"}" style="font-family: inherit; font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span class="UIStory_Message"><span class="text_exposed_show"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/End-Faith-Religion-Terror-Future/dp/0393327655?ie=UTF8&tag=info06c-20&link_code=bil&camp=213689&creative=392969" imageanchor="1" target="_blank"><img alt="The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason" src="http://ws.amazon.com/widgets/q?MarketPlace=US&ServiceVersion=20070822&ID=AsinImage&WS=1&Format=_SL160_&ASIN=0393327655&tag=info06c-20" /></a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=info06c-20&l=bil&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0393327655" style="border: medium none ! important; margin: 0px ! important; padding: 0px ! important;" width="1" /> <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Infidel-Ayaan-Hirsi-Ali/dp/0743289692?ie=UTF8&tag=info06c-20&link_code=bil&camp=213689&creative=392969" imageanchor="1" target="_blank"><img alt="Infidel" src="http://ws.amazon.com/widgets/q?MarketPlace=US&ServiceVersion=20070822&ID=AsinImage&WS=1&Format=_SL160_&ASIN=0743289692&tag=info06c-20" /></a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=info06c-20&l=bil&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0743289692" style="border: medium none ! important; margin: 0px ! important; padding: 0px ! important;" width="1" /> </span></span></span></h3>InfoHedonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09726727144730953980noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6787005063177987331.post-74795517866342254732010-05-16T11:49:00.006-04:002010-05-16T21:27:43.011-04:00How the US Military Trains Soldiers to Kill Foreign Civilians<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://infohedon.blogspot.com/2010/05/how-us-military-trains-soldiers-to-kill.html"><img border="0" height="374" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7Mn9V5XWFmD7_mVE8703F-1Q_hQl5xV98TLs0dJms9QjNBG4SL1QZ47ob7gPRZ9Noqx89pc3x6eGwm2b5pnEAuSxrAA55Z4ik-ib_1t2M1prkJYQ07jQhHFxPGvIQu5CBEQJp0H_okZCO/s640/interview.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br />
<div style="text-align: left;">"I went down to the market where all the women shop. I pulled out my machete, and I began to chop. I went down to the park where all the children play. I pulled out my machine gun and I began to spray." Stieber's commanding officer ordered him and the rest of his platoon to recite this chant.<br />
<br />
This is an interesting interview of Josh Stieber. Stieber was within the same platoon on the ground as appeared in the recent <a href="http://infohedon.blogspot.com/2010/05/wikileaks-founder-assange-decries.html">Wikileaks video</a>. Stieber, however, withdrew under a conscientious objector status shortly before that attack.<br />
<br />
This interview does a nice job focusing on the cognitive barriers the US military uses to prevent soldiers from raising moral protest. Stieber volunteers himself as an example. He experienced extreme resistance after refusing to kill Iraqi civilians. His background is conservative Christian. This may be striking considering this background is generally considered inclined to be more favorable toward the US military.<br />
<br />
The way Stieber deals with <a href="http://infohedon.blogspot.com/2010/05/michael-shermer-presents-perception-and.html">cognitive dissonance</a> is particularly telling. Instead of continuing to rationalize his belief, he changes his mind. This is remarkable considering his background and the social pressure within the military. The interview begins below. . . .</div><a name='more'></a><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><object height="405" width="660"><param name="movie"
value="http://www.youtube.com/v/cAdF31r2ve0&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1"></param><param
name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param
name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed
src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cAdF31r2ve0&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1"
type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always"
allowfullscreen="true" width="660"
height="405"></embed></object></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><object height="405" width="660"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sIsZxUtGOwA&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sIsZxUtGOwA&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="660" height="405"></embed></object></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><object height="405" width="660"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/A2-VEEGeyy4&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/A2-VEEGeyy4&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="660" height="405"></embed></object></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><object height="405" width="660"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/En8_6Z1v_Eg&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/En8_6Z1v_Eg&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="660" height="405"></embed></object></div><br />
The raiding of Iraqi homes comes up in the last segment. Although Stieber says he didn't see any raid killings first hand, he was aware of them. These killings may be rationalized by the soldiers, but not without internal conflict.<br />
<br />
Consider <a href="http://www.truthout.org/obamas-war-death-women-and-children-cover-ups-protect-us-killers58391">a raid with US troops in Afghanistan</a>. There, the US military initially claimed to find two pregnant women and a teenage girl slain and bound inside their home. Reporter Jerome Starkey of the London Times uncovered otherwise. In actuality, US troops shot down the three women in a raid. They then proceeded to cover up the act by taking their knives to dig out the bullets. Clearly, attempting to cover up their actions shows the soldiers recognized the weight of what they did. This is despite demands for them to feel otherwise.<br />
<br />
The US military still refuses to apologize to Starkey after accusing him of lying. They still claim no cover-up occurred despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They obviously did not choose same path as Stieber.InfoHedonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09726727144730953980noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6787005063177987331.post-11811538345868803192010-05-15T15:18:00.004-04:002010-05-28T18:02:28.651-04:00Anand Defeats Tapalov in 2010 World Chess Championship (Video Analysis)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbL5FexhJs105axU9oiDXIB8uSiqjmKzEaXUMr7qEGJ93057UZV6C2PkxbAwDdxaytu1nNMt4ILj2_Q4_kPh211PKMciqMJN7HAH6mZ4NH95HDzxImU6auPlidWzpkfvDMD60to5eDePy9/s1600/Anand+v+tapalov.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbL5FexhJs105axU9oiDXIB8uSiqjmKzEaXUMr7qEGJ93057UZV6C2PkxbAwDdxaytu1nNMt4ILj2_Q4_kPh211PKMciqMJN7HAH6mZ4NH95HDzxImU6auPlidWzpkfvDMD60to5eDePy9/s640/Anand+v+tapalov.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br />
That time has come once again for chess enthusiasts--The World Chess Championship. This title has been around since 1886 when William Steinitz won the first championship. Interestingly, there was some dispute over the managing of the title from the early 1990s to 2006 when two rival championship titles were introduced. But it soon went back on track for this being the sole title for official best chess player in the world.<br />
<br />
The championship consists of 12 games where a win is one point, a draw is 1/2 point, and a loss is zero points. If there is a tie after 12 games, play continues with fast time controls. Standard time controls for tournaments are game in two hours for the first 40 moves and then a one hour extension once move 40 is played. A five second delay is normally included before each move. If you run out of time, you lose.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://infohedon.blogspot.com/2010/05/anand-defeats-tapalov-in-2010-world.html#more">Below is a series of video analyses for the game.</a> Before you tell yourself that you can't follow complicated chess games, know that the reviewer in the video explains the game very simply and intelligently. He focuses on main ideas, uses few computer analysis branches, and has great visuals. The videos below were created by jrobi whose blog can be found <a href="http://jrobichess.blogspot.com/">here</a>, website <a href="http://www.jrobichess.com/">here</a>, and YouTube <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/jrobichess">here</a>.<br />
<br />
This tournament was particularly exciting. The player listed first in the video has the white pieces. Enjoy the games . . .<br />
<a name='more'></a><hr xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" /><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><b>Game 1</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><br />
</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><object height="405" width="500"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CB9Cz8xrPA0&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CB9Cz8xrPA0&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="500" height="405"></embed></object></b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><br />
</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Game 2</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><br />
</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><object height="405" width="500"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5wZ_Obg-SNM&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5wZ_Obg-SNM&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="500" height="405"></embed></object></b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><br />
</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Game 3</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><br />
</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><object height="405" width="500"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/O4S-jWhNTrs&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/O4S-jWhNTrs&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="500" height="405"></embed></object></b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><br />
</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Game 4</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><br />
</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><object height="405" width="500"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5Lo4MUedfrk&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5Lo4MUedfrk&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="500" height="405"></embed></object></b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><br />
</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Game 5</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><br />
</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><object height="405" width="500"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8U19jx-ivgU&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8U19jx-ivgU&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="500" height="405"></embed></object></b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><br />
</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Game 6</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><br />
</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><object height="405" width="500"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fz0huC91AqY&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fz0huC91AqY&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="500" height="405"></embed></object></b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><br />
</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Game 7</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><br />
</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><object height="405" width="500"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xOVQUG-PSBY&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xOVQUG-PSBY&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="500" height="405"></embed></object></b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><br />
</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Game 8</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><br />
</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><object height="405" width="500"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5Al6xvwTQR4&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5Al6xvwTQR4&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="500" height="405"></embed></object></b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><br />
</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Game 9</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><br />
</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><object height="405" width="500"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-jJqeK1yDPM&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-jJqeK1yDPM&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="500" height="405"></embed></object></b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><br />
</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Game 10</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><br />
</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><object height="405" width="500"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qHGAVZp9Wco&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qHGAVZp9Wco&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="500" height="405"></embed></object></b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><br />
</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Game 11</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><br />
</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><object height="405" width="500"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yIluvLyTfDQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yIluvLyTfDQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="500" height="405"></embed></object></b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b><br />
</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><b>Game 12 (The Final Showdown)</b></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><object height="405" width="500"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PbB4O_NorRU&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PbB4O_NorRU&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="500" height="405"></embed></object></div>InfoHedonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09726727144730953980noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6787005063177987331.post-90860473627577185452010-05-13T16:39:00.010-04:002010-05-18T00:24:55.788-04:00Wikileaks Founder Assange Decries Abusive Information Burying in the West<div style="text-align: center;"><object height="405" width="660"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZYspXgSQTy4&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZYspXgSQTy4&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="660" height="405"></embed></object></div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><object height="405" width="660"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4S6002S8PTU&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4S6002S8PTU&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="660" height="405"></embed></object></div><br />
Wikileaks launched in late 2006 with the mission of bringing to light hidden information. In this talk, Assange describes how this burying of intelligence by the West sets precedent for other countries. This tactic by the West provides justification for other countries to hide abuses in power.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><object height="405" width="500"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5rXPrfnU3G0&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5rXPrfnU3G0&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="500" height="405"></embed></object></div><br />
Wikileaks became well known after its recent leak capturing a helicopter shooting into a crowd of people in Iraq (above). The video shows two Reuters journalists being gunned down in a crowd. There is some evidence that individuals may have had AK-47s but at this point in time this was common in Iraq. The calm demeanor shows the lack of hostility. There was also never any return in gunfire. The begging by the helicopter pilot for the wounded reporter to touch a gun to justify shooting him is telling. The pilot then guns him down along with his rescuer. Two school children in the vehicle are hit with bullets in the exchange.<br />
<br />
Another note is that YouTube initially froze the counter of the Collateral Murder video, though it is clearly unfrozen now (over 6.6M views). YouTube also refused to give Sunshine Press (Wikileaks) any of the awards popular videos normally get. These accolades help videos get more views. This abusive treatment was obvious because while the original video rose in popularity, it was the copied and re-uploaded videos that were making the top videos page. Viewers were clearly afraid the original video was going to be taken down and wanted it to be preserved. Obviously, YouTube's attempts to stifle the video were not enough. Its contents quickly became too large for even the mainstream press to ignore. Though, they did do their best to rationalize the military's actions.<br />
<br />
The organization is planning the video release of a larger attack against a crowd of people in Afghanistan. The talk by Assange mentions a few other examples of the releases by Wikileaks. The organization also released a <a href="http://file.wikileaks.org/file/cia-afghanistan.pdf">CIA report</a> aiming to raise support in Europe for the Afghanistan war and a <a href="http://file.wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf">report by the US government</a> to undermine Wikileak's integrity and shut it down. The US report sites for justification the many stories embarrassing to the US government that the organization leaked.<br />
<br />
Wikileaks does not accept support from government or corporations in order to maintain its integrity. It provides a service that few if any other outlets are able. If you are interested in supporting their cause, <a href="http://wikileaks.org/">please donate</a>.<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: red;">Update! 5/18/10: </span>Excellent Video interview with Assange on SBS Dateline <a href="http://www.sbs.com.au/dateline/story/watch/id/600572/n/The-Whistleblower">here</a>.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://wikileaks.org/"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEga7zHFP2jzkUD2lZZluMgadr2utrc6DL4m90lToKW-5w_YSwtO4BhyWg6mEGargthRw0g3nc0TZT4UvWkVMR5NvQjgsYjnZ3Av_HxWC7KeYUr8ksl0VLGHXyCwGp28-Qxw1fT_H30HuEr6/s200/WL_Hour_Glass_small.jpg" width="86" /></a></div>InfoHedonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09726727144730953980noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6787005063177987331.post-10671292405221046082010-05-12T08:00:00.003-04:002010-05-12T08:00:10.222-04:00The Geographic Concentrations of Religious Belief Should Give Pause<div style="text-align: center;"><object height="405" width="660"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EYigmGyN2RQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EYigmGyN2RQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="660" height="405"></embed></object></div><br />
Despite the geographic concentrations of religion, this does not cause believers to step back. Does the kind of God you believe in really have anything to do with your religion's merits? Or is this an example of a localized bandwagon fallacy? The peculiarity that Dawkins points out does a good job answering this question.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgs8nN4MhH9H-nIydjOxAIPI5P2IoxFgx2IY2dasXp5680hvBaBrVyxUDZgwlBxDfPHMLeKHWQsg7R2TgZgl7jX7jZjl14E36DZK7UGSEnICf_lRxTnojRhbwi4kju5XR0-EIUpg78HWya9/s1600/religion+world.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="318" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgs8nN4MhH9H-nIydjOxAIPI5P2IoxFgx2IY2dasXp5680hvBaBrVyxUDZgwlBxDfPHMLeKHWQsg7R2TgZgl7jX7jZjl14E36DZK7UGSEnICf_lRxTnojRhbwi4kju5XR0-EIUpg78HWya9/s640/religion+world.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPXctY00UBp3jmK1x8eu-rT9V791Xl9x1E5TV7uOChMVP_MlhwaOyNwc9KbYBxtP0DAvCi6BMMK_WK_2sqkzwt0XItVE5Ozynu41JiKv0e6LwySrA7j4_pc_vW1Yj2sI994r3v4f2X82L2/s1600/religion+USA.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="464" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPXctY00UBp3jmK1x8eu-rT9V791Xl9x1E5TV7uOChMVP_MlhwaOyNwc9KbYBxtP0DAvCi6BMMK_WK_2sqkzwt0XItVE5Ozynu41JiKv0e6LwySrA7j4_pc_vW1Yj2sI994r3v4f2X82L2/s640/religion+USA.gif" width="640" /></a></div><br />
Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist, is most known on this subject for his book The God Delusion:<br />
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618918248?ie=UTF8&tag=info06c-20&link_code=bil&camp=213689&creative=392969" imageanchor="1" target="_blank"><img alt="The God Delusion" src="http://ws.amazon.com/widgets/q?MarketPlace=US&ServiceVersion=20070822&ID=AsinImage&WS=1&Format=_SL160_&ASIN=0618918248&tag=info06c-20" /></a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=info06c-20&l=bil&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0618918248" style="border: medium none ! important; margin: 0px ! important; padding: 0px ! important;" width="1" />InfoHedonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09726727144730953980noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6787005063177987331.post-42038434606039065142010-05-11T08:00:00.004-04:002010-05-11T13:49:07.904-04:00Propaganda Insists on Cutting Entitlement Benefits to Reduce Debt<div style="text-align: center;"><object height="405" width="660"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/aopOQFLk1fY&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aopOQFLk1fY&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="660" height="405"></embed></object><br />
<br />
<br />
<object height="405" width="660"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/htKdDxSkOZk&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/htKdDxSkOZk&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="660" height="405"></embed></object><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">We are constantly told that the solution to reducing our debt is to get rid of Medicare, Medicaid, and S-CHIP; cut welfare for the poor; and reduce entitlement benefits in general. Yet, there is always money for extraordinary war spending. There is always money to bail out corporations while we turn a blind eye to anti-trust law. From 1998 to 2005 <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/2010/04/06/exxon-tax/">we let two-thirds of all US corporations get by with paying no income tax</a> by allowing them to use offshore tax havens. We refuse to do bulk purchasing discounts for pharmaceuticals. We assure there are huge subsidies available for oil, coal, and nuclear to push aside cleaner energy opportunities. And how many of these dirty sources of energy are found near the homes of the rich? The list goes on.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: left;">But the media and government demand that the poor and middle class step up first to sacrifice themselves. This forces them to fight against each other while the top 1% celebrate their unimaginable wealth. That fight conveniently distracts them from the real thieves and gluttons. In ludicrous rhetoric the middle class and the poor are told to throw their tax dollars up to the top 1% and to wait so that it may magically trickle back down for some greater benefit. And so the middle class and poor look up patiently at the millionaires and billionaires. But, of course, their money does not trickle down.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com/"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEias06PV8kNdZpApRQj_Scva-XbECIIoeISIVyfsxzdcpBRQ21X_A08OFOccOnyK_c00ETacTZNw3Shw96rLKnjzHvnlY93Z0Dm0o_ddKRdG3vFsYwlICNor_-VdezpY7ubfM0uUWdA2HXd/s400/trickle-down.jpg" width="340" /></a></div></div></div>InfoHedonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09726727144730953980noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6787005063177987331.post-54630140084391602202010-05-10T13:51:00.015-04:002010-05-10T15:43:49.106-04:00Michael Shermer Presents a Perception and Reasoning Clinic<div style="text-align: center;"><object height="360" width="580"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8T_jwq9ph8k&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8T_jwq9ph8k&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="580" height="360"></embed></object></div><br />
It's amazing how we let our error prone brains get the best of our perception. But there's more than just being cautious with our perception. We frequently receive information or perform acts that don't match with our current thinking. This creates a phenomenon called cognitive dissonance--an uncomfortable need to resolve the conflict.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://infohedon.blogspot.com/2010/05/michael-shermer-presents-perception-and.html"><img border="0" height="490" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggnpq4coX2mosgxJlfPZALR1M48DeeFhEPPWAtg_lGY_FIRkYEUUcrwQ6kPCxB7dP6-a5dEoDQ-0d1EglepOOFadX6E3KEmZXx_XYZMRNFZZCicIgPR8WiTDIRbB6BpUH6ciNE4KQUTnJk/s640/fallacy.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br />
One way to resolve cognitive dissonance is to change our position so that it matches with the new behavior or information. But who wants to be wrong or change our personal identity? Instead, we often elect to rationalize the difference. This frequently takes the form of cognitive errors/biases. What are these cognitive errors? One teacher wrote a song about them. And it goes a little something like this . . .<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
<object height="405" width="500"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3RsbmjNLQkc&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3RsbmjNLQkc&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="500" height="405"></embed></object><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">Here's Michael Shermer's classic, Why People Believe Weird Things. Note the added section of why smart people believe weird things:</div><div style="text-align: left;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/People-Believe-Weird-Things-Pseudoscience/dp/0805070893?ie=UTF8&tag=info06c-20&link_code=bil&camp=213689&creative=392969" imageanchor="1" target="_blank"><img alt="Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time" src="http://ws.amazon.com/widgets/q?MarketPlace=US&ServiceVersion=20070822&ID=AsinImage&WS=1&Format=_SL160_&ASIN=0805070893&tag=info06c-20" /></a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=info06c-20&l=bil&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0805070893" style="border: medium none ! important; margin: 0px ! important; padding: 0px ! important;" width="1" /></div></div>InfoHedonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09726727144730953980noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6787005063177987331.post-61030094550313384432010-05-09T14:36:00.013-04:002010-05-28T18:02:31.663-04:00Master Lock Responds to Lock Bumping Technique<div style="text-align: center;"><object height="360" width="580"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kUJWc7rIj8I&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kUJWc7rIj8I&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="580" height="360"></embed></object></div><br />
Reminder: <a href="http://justing622.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/jail.jpg">Don't break into people's personal belongings</a>.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://infohedon.blogspot.com/2010/05/master-lock-responds-to-lock-bumping.html"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi4-lP6mn7sGdbZhlZrkRMVv5xUKBHwgI1ghSNBrcozIznwEkC7I7Xm-dDrKFOEGVPkIqme0FC3iLDbmzADq1Z5AoLn4jcQkq7P3z1JLt7NxHXnpudfMpSnLbEMbsGCSPRggZcuy05pRFbk/s320/inside+lock.png" /></a><br />
<br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">I'll eventually do a post on picking, which is what's appropriate when bumping isn't workable. But why pick a lock when you can just hit it? Bumping is an interesting concept when you think about the inside of a lock. This is applicable for a class of locks called pin tumblers (more complicated versions may use the same idea on other types of locks). These pin tumbler locks are found on common doors, shelves (cam locks), padlocks, and other usual places.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div>The first step is to make your key so that the valleys between the teeth are at the lowest point. This allows the bottom pins to hang low when the key is inserted. Keys have what you might call a combination of levels that operate as a sort of password for your lock. Here, your "password" would be 11111 as there are typically five pins and thus five valleys. The low cut assures that none of the pins interfere with the sheer-line (where the yellow core part meets the green hull of the lock). There is a light clockwise or counterclockwise tension that you put on the key as you strike it at the base (called the bow). This tension keeps the top pins in their new position. The energy from the striking device to the key to the bottom pins to the top pins transfers the same way pool balls react. This is why the top pins shoot up the way they do while the bottom pins stay low.<br />
<br />
For a basic look at locks, I recommend:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Visual-Guide-Lock-Picking-2nd/dp/0970978812?ie=UTF8&tag=info06c-20&link_code=bil&camp=213689&creative=392969" imageanchor="1" target="_blank"><img alt="Visual Guide to Lock Picking (2nd Edition)" src="http://ws.amazon.com/widgets/q?MarketPlace=US&ServiceVersion=20070822&ID=AsinImage&WS=1&Format=_SL160_&ASIN=0970978812&tag=info06c-20" /></a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=info06c-20&l=bil&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0970978812" style="border: medium none ! important; margin: 0px ! important; padding: 0px ! important;" width="1" /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">If you're REALLY interested, then you have to go with THE book:</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Locks-Safes-Security-International-Reference/dp/0398070792?ie=UTF8&tag=info06c-20&link_code=bil&camp=213689&creative=392969" imageanchor="1" target="_blank"><img alt="Locks, Safes and Security: An International Police Reference Two Volumes" src="http://ws.amazon.com/widgets/q?MarketPlace=US&ServiceVersion=20070822&ID=AsinImage&WS=1&Format=_SL160_&ASIN=0398070792&tag=info06c-20" /></a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=info06c-20&l=bil&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0398070792" style="border: medium none ! important; margin: 0px ! important; padding: 0px ! important;" width="1" /> </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">There are also many sites devoted to lock picking tricks. The most organized group is probably <a href="http://toool.nl/">The Open Organization of Lock Pickers (TOOOL)</a>.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div>InfoHedonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09726727144730953980noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6787005063177987331.post-89521151004922496582010-05-08T13:49:00.016-04:002010-05-20T16:18:57.931-04:00Birth Control Pill Turns 50<div style="text-align: center;"><object height="360" width="580"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_AcqARlzSvk&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_AcqARlzSvk&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="580" height="360"></embed></object></div><br />
The pill was originally approved by the FDA in 1957 for treatment of miscarriages and menstrual disorders. Three years later it was approved for birth control <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Clinical-Guide-Contraception-Speroff/dp/0781764882?ie=UTF8&tag=info06c-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">(1)</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=info06c-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0781764882" style="border: medium none ! important; margin: 0px ! important; padding: 0px ! important;" width="1" />. Its landing was not quiet. Comstock (Victorian Style) laws passed in the 1870s still had residual effects. The head of a Planned Parenthood, Griswold, was arrested in New Haven, Connecticut just a few years after the pill's release. Her crime was giving out information to married couples on how to prevent pregnancies. The US Supreme Court decided 7-2 for Griswold under the right to privacy (<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Contraception-Practical-Management-Clinical/dp/1588295990?ie=UTF8&tag=info06c-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">2</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=info06c-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=1588295990" style="border: medium none ! important; margin: 0px ! important; padding: 0px ! important;" width="1" />).<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://infohedon.blogspot.com/2010/05/birth-control-pill-turns-50.html"><img border="0" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg6l4MnSXm6AMbncPEbJymbdo5lZOVGy8t8egq_t_3BINzK_zB1EQVmwN1Zxf0PtTN7ovU1DKmoX96oLiRfR29H3REXmD8jbo9pU6-Co3IQxLS0Kwg67ndrfUGofYpFqZMykANBjevZi7Wk/s400/birth+control+pills.jpg" width="400" /> </a></div><br />
The pill has come a long way. The most salient observation to pill users is probably change in mood until a good match is found. Newer pills have lower levels of hormones than their ancestors. These lower levels have even observed reduced risk in certain cancers (pretty cool). Still, an elevated risk for heart attack is present among smokers, particularly those over 35. The incidence for smokers over 35 without using birth control is 88 per 100,000 per year. For oral contraception users in that demographic, the rate is 485 per 100,000 per yer.<br />
<br />
Nonsmokers over 35 and smokers under 35 not using oral contraception have a risk of about 10 per 10,000 per year whereas their risk while using contraception jumps to roughly 40 per 10,000 per year <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Clinical-Guide-Contraception-Speroff/dp/0781764882?ie=UTF8&tag=info06c-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">(1)</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=info06c-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0781764882" style="border: medium none ! important; margin: 0px ! important; padding: 0px ! important;" width="1" />. Many references use rates such as relative risk. But I think giving the actual numbers says more about the real risk, especially when they're low. Even the highest risk group here only has a risk of about .5% per yer compared to .1% not using the pill.<br />
<br />
<embed allowfullscreen="true" base="http://www.npr.org" height="386" src="http://www.npr.org/v2/?i=5458926&m=5473391&t=audio" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="400" wmode="opaque"></embed><br />
<br />
[Described Above] An interesting practice is using monophasic (same level of hormones) pills without taking the sugar pill breaks. This continuous use prevents menstruation and cramps (who wants those?). It is generally very rare to experience a pregnancy when no menstruation is taking place. For some, that news may not be enough. The anxiety of not having a period to know whether pregnancy has occurred may be rectified by using a pregnancy testing kit. Keep in mind, even having a period is no sure sign of having avoided a pregnancy (though obviously highly indicative). Some pills have been designed especially for continuous use. The most popular is probably Lybrel.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><object height="360" width="580"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KsQgMhvkg4E&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KsQgMhvkg4E&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="580" height="360"></embed></object></div><br />
Above is a very simple description for how the pill works.InfoHedonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09726727144730953980noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6787005063177987331.post-41210731036432196172010-05-07T19:18:00.008-04:002010-05-11T01:13:34.036-04:00Sam Harris: The Science of Morality<div style="text-align: center;"><object height="360" width="580"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Hj9oB4zpHww&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Hj9oB4zpHww&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&color1=0x234900&color2=0x4e9e00&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="580" height="360"></embed></object></div><br />
Sam points out the obvious here--that there are at least some moral truths. And those truths do not come from a divine text. Rather, they come about from reasoning. Further, some questionable beliefs of moral truths should not warrant respect.<br />
<br />
Importantly, Sam hits on moral relativism. What bearing does the location and cultural surrounding play in the moral evaluation of some event? This "respect for culture" gets taken away as an out. I immediately think of how forced female circumcision frequently gets a moral waiver.<br />
<br />
Sam gave an elaboration of his talk and response to criticism <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/a-science-of-morality_b_567185.html">here</a>.<br />
<br />
He also is releasing a new book on the subject scheduled to appear in October:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Landscape-Science-Determine-Values/dp/1439171211?ie=UTF8&tag=info06c-20&link_code=bil&camp=213689&creative=392969" imageanchor="1" target="_blank"><img alt="The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values" src="http://ws.amazon.com/widgets/q?MarketPlace=US&ServiceVersion=20070822&ID=AsinImage&WS=1&Format=_SL160_&ASIN=1439171211&tag=info06c-20" /></a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=info06c-20&l=bil&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=1439171211" style="border: medium none ! important; margin: 0px ! important; padding: 0px ! important;" width="1" />InfoHedonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09726727144730953980noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6787005063177987331.post-32238833753678103092010-05-06T15:32:00.015-04:002010-05-10T15:46:18.000-04:00Dawkins Uses Dowsing to Demonstrate Scientific Testing<div style="text-align: left;"><div style="text-align: center;"><object height="405" width="500"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_VAasVXtCOI&hl=en_US&fs=1&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_VAasVXtCOI&hl=en_US&fs=1&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="500" height="405"></embed></object></div><a href="http://infohedon.blogspot.com/2010/05/dawkins-uses-dowsing-to-demonstrate.html">Dawkins exposes a practice here called dowsing</a>. Dowsing uses a rod (not a metal detector) or stick of sorts to find precious metals or water. Sound silly? Don't say that to the people charging for it. The importance of this video is less about how silly dowsing looks. Rather, the importance is how Dawkins highlights logical fallacies that we are all susceptible to and how scientific methodology may rectify that faulty thinking. </div><br />
Here are a couple big ones:<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://infohedon.blogspot.com/2010/05/dawkins-uses-dowsing-to-demonstrate.html"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8atmVDyBBNZk5qf3dsFgIEN9iTZy-qZfihWfgwfrJXhKJZtOqPL1OJMR3s68iUJcydvI10Vk-1EGbvjnT0FBM_Q4_gSXACOkXMU19rXYvULyuiz-mgbPxQHuvJFW4ZTthIG0WzSycPXQv/s320/clever_hans.jpg" /> Click here for full post and video</a></div><ul><li>Having either the participant or the tester know a correct response can signal subtle cues. Classic example: Clever Hans (above) was thought to be able to do simple arithmetic by taping his hoof. His owner didn't even know he was signaling his horse. Solution: use a double blind method where neither the participant nor the experimenter knows what the correct answer is.</li>
</ul><br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9oxbYkTYbWRJ7WkPz3f_tcX4k_PDKDfhejTsHwShUB0FyLe02EmzEQKquj1e2SqfkZcxkcI-hVoS4QtIhfluSaO0frjZ6huxaiyTP6rH-gkWGRAsgFYe2udGN_GLx_rl9JlnBnU4Y8K9S/s1600/phone.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9oxbYkTYbWRJ7WkPz3f_tcX4k_PDKDfhejTsHwShUB0FyLe02EmzEQKquj1e2SqfkZcxkcI-hVoS4QtIhfluSaO0frjZ6huxaiyTP6rH-gkWGRAsgFYe2udGN_GLx_rl9JlnBnU4Y8K9S/s320/phone.jpg" /></a></div><ul><li>Confirmation biases are when we tend to remember events that confirm our belief and dismiss events that disconfirm. Imagine those who think they have ESP because they can predict a friend calling. They may dismiss all the times they didn't think of their friend and their friend called anyway. They also dismiss when they thought of their friend and their friend didn't call. Solution: Use statistics to determine whether the outcome would have likely occurred by chance. Retest to avoid false positives (Type I error).</li>
</ul><br />
But no one falls for these things . . . right?<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
<object height="405" width="660"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pvbk9Mc_xa8&hl=en_US&fs=1&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pvbk9Mc_xa8&hl=en_US&fs=1&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="660" height="405"></embed></object></div><br />
<br />
The military in Iraq and Afghanistan have mud on their faces after this one. Thailand government beat them to the punch in halting use of the "high tech" dowsing rod.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-z93zaGFGR7-GwcyJ4pDhx7mjma9tRuHTfstdbzGftZEqP1ecUbKbDaA6y61P4xjmVciTGLX6vnCibDhv0abXqj1skAKgkYyIfzil9P2cQLPF5Hw5yqFybf4-zv8mgsSWUxk1VaoPU94k/s1600/quadrotracker.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh-z93zaGFGR7-GwcyJ4pDhx7mjma9tRuHTfstdbzGftZEqP1ecUbKbDaA6y61P4xjmVciTGLX6vnCibDhv0abXqj1skAKgkYyIfzil9P2cQLPF5Hw5yqFybf4-zv8mgsSWUxk1VaoPU94k/s320/quadrotracker.jpg" /></a></div><br />
Perhaps the reason the US didn't fall prey is because they learned from their mistake from Quadro Corp. Quadro Corp. sold a substantially similar looking device to police, schools, and airports in multiple states in the US in the 90's. The cost to tax payers: $400 to $8,000 per unit. This is embarrassing.<br />
<br />
But this is not quite as embarrassing as when the US government gave millions of dollars to the CIA from the 1970's to 1995 to research "remote viewing" to psychically survey enemies from afar. This was code named <a href="http://www.biomindsuperpowers.com/Pages/CIA-InitiatedRV.html">Project Stargate</a>.InfoHedonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09726727144730953980noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6787005063177987331.post-58860823561455571512010-05-05T12:36:00.006-04:002010-05-11T00:52:53.542-04:00Tavis Smiley: MLK and Beyond Vietnam<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://video.pbs.org/video/1456944662#"><img border="0" height="242" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJ-14d-YLTjPhyeUdvdyvBQVbI9KiEVMiFM0YTSgNiW-JczNa05tW4p977Z8h1rkAZ-1uFQe84XMX1dR7HH3Zd88RFz-1AkbAm6A7schabKquFbdCRzjEDqrpLa6Z5wBIIxx6RMJqq5oBM/s400/mlk+sign.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br />
<br />
<a href="http://video.pbs.org/video/1456944662#">Tavis Smiley's Program showed</a> that MLK experienced heavy backlash (shown above) for speaking up against the war in Vietnam.This backlash hit him from within the Civil Rights Movement to the mainstream media. . . .<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
The media of the day did not like MLK's dissent and let him know about it. They ingrained their role as protector of the government line.<br />
<br />
<ul><li>Life Magazine: "[The speech was] demagogic slander that sounded like a script for Radio Hanoi." </li>
</ul><ul><li>Reader's Digest: "[King] has alienated many of the Negro's friends and armed the Negro's foes ... by creating the impression that the Negro is disloyal."</li>
</ul><ul><li> The New York Times: "Dr. King can only antagonize opinion in this country instead of winning recruits to the peace movement by recklessly comparing American military methods to those of the Nazis testing "new medicine and new tortures in the concentration camps of Europe." The facts are harsh but they do not justify such slander."</li>
</ul><ul><li>The Washington Post : "Dr. Martin Luther King's Vietnam speech was not a sober and responsible comment on the war but a reflection of his disappointment at the slow progress of civil rights and the war on poverty. It was filled with bitter and damaging allegations and inferences that he did not and could not document." </li>
</ul><ul><li>The Washington Post again: "King has diminished his usefulness to his cause, his country, his people." </li>
</ul><ul><li> The Chicago Tribune [Guest Editorial from Cincinnati Enquirer]: "He quite definitely crossed over the line when he lent himself and his prestige to an "anti-Vietnam War" rally in Chicago."</li>
</ul> <object height="405" width="500"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/b80Bsw0UG-U&hl=en_US&fs=1&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/b80Bsw0UG-U&hl=en_US&fs=1&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="500" height="405"></embed></object><br />
<br />
The speech (above) remarks to the courage that King had in doing the right thing. He connected the poverty in America with the government's constant need for war. He sacrificed much of the support he earned in fighting for civil rights. This sacrifice shows the degree of his integrity--a degree not conveyed in conventional classrooms.InfoHedonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09726727144730953980noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6787005063177987331.post-8893584624621289312010-05-04T23:58:00.012-04:002010-05-11T00:53:13.287-04:0040th Anniversary of National Guard Killing Four at Kent State Anti-War Protest<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.democracynow.org/2010/5/4/on_40th_anniversary_of_kent_state"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimk9M49_VkGQkZ67IPYLLd7UvvbywFUR3IufPc8ffF17boem1txE5icobloI6FiXma8vnA6N3MNb5Nuls5v6qM6T0j19SYyjPuUfenrdSPhYlUkk0B9fibfEiHWZgfpM253f7TxK7OGly7/s400/kent+state.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br />
<a href="http://www.democracynow.org/2010/5/4/on_40th_anniversary_of_kent_state">Democracy Now! covers the 40th anniversary of the Kent State Shooting.</a> There, the National Guard killed four students at a non-violent protest of the Vietnam War. This did not help morale for the war. Having learned its lesson, the government's attacks on anti-war protesters have been less deadly. But that is not to say the physical attacks have not been brutal. . . .<span style="background-color: red;">Update! (5-10-10)</span> <br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<div style="background-color: white; text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: red;">Update! Excellent Al Jazeera Story on Kent State Shootings</span></div><div style="background-color: white; text-align: center;"><object height="340" width="565"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TdCpI2qdsd8" ></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src ="http://www.youtube.com/v/TdCpI2qdsd8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="565" height="340"></embed></object></div><br />
And yes, <a href="http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/05/new_analysis_of_40-year-old_re.html">there was an order to fire on the students.</a><br />
<br />
The government really does not like anti-war protesters. Citizens dissenting from the offered rational for war are not given real venues to voice their opposition. Political candidates supporting war dominate the political spectrum and makes voting a futile effort. A plurality voting system preventing honest voting only discourages matters further by marginalizing the few "fringe" anti-war candidates. Protest remains the only option--whether it's labeled legal or illegal. <br />
<br />
But when a blackout of media coverage isn't enough, the government sends its disapproval loud and clear through a police force. Horses, dogs, tasers, teargas, concussion grenades, and pepper spray are the popular choices for police against protesters. Though, more forceful options have recently been utilized. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.socialistviewpoint.org/may_03/may_03_24.html"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi6h6Kd7UfiT4cnYnhF_Pzc_Ak9SliCRAnzh81mFolAQ_5qeTe9IIr7SuXQIndK-N1FtJ7f7L0e0ha2qjcX0uQbsX4sUI3MDCstgWnVqiuptP2lWM-_aVxVhG52p7haHdnriYc1_fOKA_Yc/s320/wooden_bullet.jpg" /></a></div><br />
Wooden bullets (shown above) are a more recent tool against protesters.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/goog_1506161902"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLQva803MIBT7aNZXVg9W-rWSCi3tn2iUP5f73FM4FNt2XUbzZLVbdkBOxLPet1EZVAYEH8-6EY4teXbe4CdYMqDBLjYpIN-P8G1U03XjuqKU-7lZxruwDrOsOUe-N5uxVdtvqnVJWUb3u/s320/OaklandWound_4.7.03.jpg" /></a><a href="http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0407-07.htm" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjoRK90s0gvoEjENWWYE-XrqBEdLAgBmJ6Cj_OF_EKW_oJldDjNwbW6SwBp1vbuoJtcnsPbz8wrBTOJhczBsjJgP4pQVhyphenhyphenZYZK1XeT37sV6krdzM-rUwIz917_TM7_JwCyLeKYxyyzeQkh_/s320/0407-08.jpg" /></a></div><br />
Clearly, a message (shown above) is intended to be sent. These pictures depict the results of police attack against a <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0407-07.htm">nonviolent anti-war protest in Oakland, 2003</a>.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://minnesotaindependent.com/8059/mnindy-video-rnc-protesters-show-and-tell-of-injuries-from-cops"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjf32toGvGUJ34p2T25XsxypExIQvOW_FHRJWK8GGzcLDkn4yIhJprxjPzKsCoabAcSdMh1ggCvoXCL4TXaUeT9eludWOTfQwhJwGJ9brgav_MOp1Imv8nhyphenhyphenOdqb258anUZxU0CFmut8kZH/s320/rnc-injuries.jpg" /></a></div>Similar attacks by police occurred at the <a href="http://minnesotaindependent.com/8059/mnindy-video-rnc-protesters-show-and-tell-of-injuries-from-cops">2008 Republican National Convention</a>.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.brumax.com/freedomofspeech.htm"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlfrz4tVKTbyzhE5ffvE13PhVO8sqPUtowG2-AyqgjjGqSFV3kdpdALwpmjAPQDEZJmOnDbsvS9q1-aURx6W56e2-LiT1aoMTpNnYrSiIvToBJSCmBzg-pAQo1BtuzNx0WHeGp9tQf9AhQ/s320/convention_protest_zone.jpg" /></a></div><br />
Naturally, the Democratic National Convention welcomed dissenting voices. See their "free speech zones" (above) located far enough away so that politicians wouldn't have to see them.<br />
<br />
<object height="405" width="660"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QSMyY3_dmrM&hl=en_US&fs=1&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QSMyY3_dmrM&hl=en_US&fs=1&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="660" height="405"></embed></object><br />
<br />
At the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh, police added a new weapon: the "long range acoustic device." The <a href="http://www.lradx.com/site/content/view/205/110/">LRAD 500X<span style="font-size: xx-small;">TM</span></a> (shown above) is capable of <a href="http://www.telemaruk.com/shipcomms/lrad.htm">delivering near 150db</a>. This is <a href="http://www.dangerousdecibels.org/hearingloss.cfm">similar to a nearby gunshot and can cause <i>immediate</i> hearing damage</a>.<br />
<br />
So, while the government may no longer directly kill protesters, it has not given up in using brute physical force to squelch dissent.<br />
<span id="goog_1603204460"></span><span id="goog_1603204461"></span>InfoHedonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09726727144730953980noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6787005063177987331.post-51617019671601160072010-05-03T15:41:00.007-04:002010-05-28T19:05:10.634-04:00Range Voting Idea Springs Up in BC's Clearwater Times<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.bclocalnews.com/bc_thompson_nicola/clearwatertimes/opinion/92543319.html"><img border="0" height="88" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwJjoDQ09kqW846ZeV_ppIOjuN0ffhzddt0wQVzzjCmqOJ93vdqFcdrj83fOb2i8UCc0G9h-MK0ZbK9zHOnK-oAsEZ-BTYcsV_Krpun0a0MI8ZBiwmq-Yvs6J6i7vzAbK1b4iC2lveJzOF/s640/clearwater.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br />
British Columbia (BC) has failed twice attempting to overhaul their voting system. The first time it wanted to implement a system called <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MY-zNY-X3vY">single transferrable vote</a> (STV). This is a more complicated, though more proportional and mathematically fair system. It just missed the 60% needed to implement the system. The second attempt to implement STV was worse. Its support dropped by 20%.<br />
<br />
Currently, BC uses the traditional <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKAAq_8Poqo">first past the post/plurality system</a>. Plurality suffers from numerous flaws such as distorting the representation of officials to the voters when electing an office body. It is probably best known for its high vulnerability to vote splitting.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.bclocalnews.com/bc_thompson_nicola/clearwatertimes/opinion/92543319.html#disqus_thread">This Clearwater Times article </a>tosses around the idea of an alternate voting system: range voting, described in detail within the article. Given that the voters of B.C. rejected STV (nonsensically in my opinion), I think a transition from plurality to range voting is good. However, this is not where range voting shines its brightest. The proposal suggested is for electing a legislature whereas range voting is good for single office positions. Yes, those elected under a range system would be better than under plurality, no doubt. But those selected under range would not be proportional to the voter population.<br />
<br />
<h3 class="UIIntentionalStory_Message" data-ft="{"type":"msg"}"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;"><span class="UIStory_Message" style="font-weight: normal;"><span class="text_exposed_show">This is like having Nolan Ryan replace a minor leaguer in the outfield. Sure, he'll do much better than the chump being replaced. But you'd be better off having him pitch. Others are much better outfielders. I will be split in happiness if this goes through. I'll be happy that range is implemented somewhere, but disappointed that it's not playing its best position.</span></span></span></h3><h3 class="UIIntentionalStory_Message" data-ft="{"type":"msg"}"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;"><span class="UIStory_Message" style="font-weight: normal;"><span class="text_exposed_show"> </span></span></span></h3><h3 class="UIIntentionalStory_Message" data-ft="{"type":"msg"}"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;"><span class="UIStory_Message" style="font-weight: normal;"><span class="text_exposed_show">For a modern discussion on range voting, see: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Gaming-Vote-Elections-Arent-About/dp/B002SB8OMA?ie=UTF8&tag=info06c-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Gaming the Vote</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=info06c-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B002SB8OMA" style="border: medium none ! important; margin: 0px ! important; padding: 0px ! important;" width="1" /> or visit <a href="http://rangevoting.org/">The Center for Range Voting</a>. </span></span></span></h3>InfoHedonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09726727144730953980noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6787005063177987331.post-58188937171967890162010-05-03T15:09:00.006-04:002010-05-28T19:05:10.635-04:00NewScientist Magazine Article on Vote Theory Misleading and Damaging<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627581.400-electoral-dysfunction-why-democracy-is-always-unfair.html?full=true"><img border="0" height="305" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgQXmFDFBHE2tc4EBilhaH3ECk56Xmuc3kxqW2n1Yxjwk_q0Yp1TbSoO66Zmhn3-lt_O7fJFGZhmr0VlQ1wX5FxFmDjelKAEY9cPkaupVTShXPt8M8fOvWb1TQ9pZhBqDINAg3Ql34wHSIK/s400/ballot+box.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627581.400-electoral-dysfunction-why-democracy-is-always-unfair.html?full=true">The piece linked</a> communicates numerous misunderstandings of both vote theory as well as political systems. I directly communicated with the author who explained to me that it is difficult to convey these principles to a readership with an assumed limited math background. There is also limited space. He states his claims are upheld by journals, yet NewScientist chooses to save space by omitting references.<br />
<br />
Following is a detailed criticism. References to article are in italics and bulleted. . . .<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<ul><li><i>“Making elections fair is more a matter for mathematicians. . . . What they have not done is come up with the answer. With good reason: it probably doesn't exist.”</i></li>
</ul><br />
Kenneth Arrow's Impossibility Theorem states: “. . . my theorem is not a completely destructive or negative feature any more than the second law of thermodynamics means that people don't work on improving the efficiency of engines. We're told you'll never get 100% efficient engines. That's a fact--and a law. It doesn't mean you wouldn't like to go from 40% to 50%."<br />
<br />
According to Arrow, the fatalism described in the article violates his theorem. Further, his theorem is most relevantly applied to single office elections where inaccuracies in the winner selection can produce the greatest discrepancies from voter desire. Given the context of this article, plurality is the victim--PR is not. Even more, if one really wants to elect legislatures via single office positions, range voting sidesteps Arrow's theorem. The technical and minor exception can be found in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Gaming-Vote-Elections-Arent-About/dp/B002SB8OMA?ie=UTF8&tag=info06c-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Gaming the Vote</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=info06c-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B002SB8OMA" style="border: medium none ! important; margin: 0px ! important; padding: 0px ! important;" width="1" />, pg 254.<br />
<ul><li><i>“This system [plurality] scores well on stability and accountability, but in terms of mathematical fairness it is a dud.” . . . “What's more, proportional systems tend to produce coalitions of two or more parties, potentially leading to unstable and ineffectual government - although plurality systems are not immune to such problems, either”</i></li>
</ul><br />
So, plurality scores well on stability and accountability, yet it is not immune to unstable and ineffectual government? Even so, PR systems are worse? This is false according to the <a href="http://viewswire.eiu.com/site_info.asp?info_name=social_unrest_table&page=noads&rf=0">Political Instability Index</a>. Eight of its top ten most stable countries use PR democracies. Further, in plurality small changes in voter opinion can drastically change representation. But in PR systems small voter changes lead to proportionately small representation changes. Unlike plurality, this characteristic of PR exemplifies stability by definition.<br />
<br />
<ul><li><i> “So we are left to make the best of a bad job. Some less fair systems produce governments with enough power to actually do things, though most voters may disapprove; some fairer systems spread power so thinly that any attempt at government descends into partisan infighting.”</i></li>
</ul><br />
Though not defined as such, dissenting groups within plurality parties may as well be another party. Does having two parties really expedite the legislative process? References other than lots of people repeat this? Do the passed policies actually represent the voters’ wishes?<br />
<br />
This article also propagates a myth that PR systems will lead to small ineffective parties. This ignores the fact that many countries use thresholds to mandate a minimum level of support in order to gain any seats. This threshold for PR systems prevents especially small parties. Even more, some countries with many parties actually do excellently on the Political Instability Index.<br />
<br />
<ul><li><i> “But large constituencies weaken the link between voters and their representatives [in PR].”</i></li>
</ul><br />
It is unlikely in plurality that a particular constituent even voted for the representative. Most would not call this incongruence in ideology a “strong link.” But in a PR system almost all constituents have someone who represents them ideologically. Popular PR systems such as STV go even further by affording more geographic representation in addition to ideological representation. You don't even mention this.<br />
<br />
<ul><li><i>“Candidates [in PR] are often chosen from a centrally determined list, so voters have little or no control over who represents them.”</i></li>
</ul><br />
This is a falsehood. Open lists are used in many PR countries such as Brazil, Chile, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland. All STV countries are also (obviously) "open list."<br />
<br />
<br />
<ul><li><i>“Proportional representation has its own mathematical wrinkles. There is no way, for example, to allocate a whole number of seats in exact proportion to a larger population.”</i></li>
</ul><br />
A reasonable observer will easily note that the small variance in proportionality under a PR system is a stark contrast versus the highly distorted outcome in a plurality system. Unlike PR, plurality systems further compromise fair representation by hindering voters from voting genuinely given an alternative exists. This fear of a throwaway-vote further disfigures the proportionality of plurality systems. Even without dishonest voting, plurality violates voting criteria to no end and to devastating degrees(<a href="http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/" target="_blank">Individual Visual</a>; AND <a href="http://rangevoting.org/BR52002bw.png" target="_blank">Bayesian Regret</a>). Clearly, the inexactness of PR is nothing compared to plurality’s abysmal attempt at proportionality.<br />
<br />
I recommend Gaming the Vote for a discussion on voting systems:<br />
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Gaming-Vote-Elections-Arent-About/dp/B002SB8OMA?ie=UTF8&tag=info06c-20&link_code=bil&camp=213689&creative=392969" imageanchor="1" target="_blank"><img alt="Gaming the Vote: Why Elections Aren't Fair (and What We Can Do About It)" src="http://ws.amazon.com/widgets/q?MarketPlace=US&ServiceVersion=20070822&ID=AsinImage&WS=1&Format=_SL160_&ASIN=B002SB8OMA&tag=info06c-20" /></a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=info06c-20&l=bil&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B002SB8OMA" style="border: medium none ! important; margin: 0px ! important; padding: 0px ! important;" width="1" />InfoHedonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09726727144730953980noreply@blogger.com0