Language of significance | 1/12/08
A logical mind speaks the language of the computer, which is now or soon will be the only language of power and significance on this earth.
Jesse Michael Barr
Essays and abstractions about art, sports, and philosophy. Plus, all my current projects. These are my digital self:
A logical mind speaks the language of the computer, which is now or soon will be the only language of power and significance on this earth.
Cats vs. Dogs |
Some say that cats are smarter than dogs because they are more independent and don't rely on others for food, love, and play. I think dogs are smarter because they realize it would be foolish to live life that way.
Relationships |
There is no truth in relationships. There is no right and wrong. There is no judge.
There are two perceptions,
two opinions,
two simultaneous films,
two sets of brainwaves that are sometimes in harmony but rarely in unison.
Girlfriends | 10/9/07
Having an open-minded girlfriend is great, unless she's more open-minded than you.
The Price is Right--Big Wheel Math | 3/9/07
Having been both a math major and an avid fan of game shows, I've seen many challenges that can be analyzed and "solved" with mathematical formulas.The Price is Right Big Wheel -- 2 times during the show, contestants gather to spin "the big wheel". They each get two spins, trying to get closest to $1.00 without going over. It's mostly luck, but strategy comes into play when the players are given the choice to "freeze" after their first spin, or to spin again.
The wheel is divided into 20 squares of 5 cent increments. If you total $1.00 exactly, you win some cash directly from Bob's wallet. They determine the order of the contestants based on how much money and prizes they won in their pricing game. They reward the bigger winners by placing them later in the order as this increases their odds of winning on the big wheel.
So, faced with the decision, when should you "freeze" to mathematically maximize your odds? One thing you should not do is give that deer in the headlights look into the audience. You should know before you even enter the studio.
If you're in the second position and you freeze on a number: Let X = the position on the wheel (1-20) that corresponds to the spin value. For example, a spin value of 5 cents corresponds to X =1, and spin value of $1.00 corresponds to X = 20.
If contestant 2 spins X on his first spin, compare the probability of contestant 3 winning on a freeze vs. the probability of contestant 3 winning if contestant 2 spins again:
Freezing: (-2x^2 + 3x + 779)/800
Spinning again: (consider the probability of busting and the probability of increasing the total):
(x/20) + (1/1600)*[(-2(X+1)^2 + 3(X+1) + 779) + (-2(X+2)^2 + 3(X+2) +779)...+...(-2(20)^2 + 3(20) + 779)]
You'll find that contestant 2 freezing at .55 and above gives him the best chance of winning.
Now consider the first contestant's strategy:
If contestant 1 spins X on his first spin, compare the probability of contestant 2 or 3 winning on a freeze vs. the probability of contestant 2 or 3 winning if contestant 1 spins again:
Freezing: (-4x^4 + 12x^3 -93x^2 + 126x + 639559)/640,000
Spinning again: (consider the probability of busting and the probability of increasing the total):
(x/20) + (1/12,800,000)*[(-4(X+1)^4 + 12(X+1)^3 - 93(X+1)^2 + 126(X+1) + 639559) + (-4(X+2)^4 + 12(X+2)^3 - 93(X+2)^2 + 126(X+2) + 639559)...+...(-4(20)^4 + 12(20)^3 -93(20)^2 +126(20) + 639559)]
You'll find that contestant 1 freezing at .70 and above gives him the best chance of winning.
We're Not Going to Pull Out of Iraq | 1/19/07
Sorry American public, we’re not going to pull out of
Some people will say, “We’ve been there for years so far and we could have easily just taken the oil, but we didn’t. Doesn’t that show that we’re not there to steal it? We’re willing to pay for it.”
Well, it’s not about stealing the resources per se, it’s about controlling them…for the foreseeable future. Sure, we’re willing to pay for it. Money’s not really an issue. The American public will gladly pony up for gas. But, if we just pay some guy to take it out of the ground that is not ours, isn’t that still stealing it? If I pay someone to go into my neighbor’s yard and dig up his prize petunias, wouldn’t I be stealing them? I don’t have to pay my neighbor or even ask his permission. I just have to pay the guy doing the digging (and maybe give him a gun for protection).
Our move into Iraq for oil is not limited to a Republican conspiracy. It will continue under the Dems. Oil is the blood of Capitalism. You could not have a vibrant modern economy without oil. Cheap oil is even better. Our addiction to oil is like that of the carnivorous plant in “Little Shop of Horrors”. “Feed me! Feed me! Feed me!” The
Supporters of Bush and Iraq War | 1/15/07
52% of Americans supported the invasion of Iraq. 52% of Americans supported the Bush administration and elected them into power for a second term lasting from 2004 to 2008. What I can't seem to get over is that some, if not most of those who supported Bush and the war, have never been to war and have no military experience. They are not currently enlisted and have no immediate family members going to war. They have no human life at risk. Yet they pressed a button and voted for the Bush Administration and their war.Those most responsible for starting and managing the war are George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condaleza Rice, and Don Rumsfeld. Among them, they have never been in the military, and have zero experience with war. They have no immediate family members in harm's way. Yet, they press a button and order someone else's kids to march into hell. Some of these kids will be erased. Some will be mangled beyond recognition. Some will be returned home and can't sleep, become homeless, or addicted to substances. Imagine the families who have a human stake in this. They will have to deal with this the rest of their lives. They will have to go through their own hell regardless if their son or daughter returns alive.
Now I'm going to speak directly to those who supported Bush and this war: Do you see what you've done? Do you see what you started? I hope your vote wasn't thoughtless or casual. You thoroughly researched this subject right? You listened to all the dissent and came to a responsible conclusion that this would be worth our sacrifice right?
If you continue to support this war and are not willing to go over there and not willing to sacrifice your own kids for this cause; but are willing to sacrifice people you don't even know, then you are a lowly coward and you should slink into the shadows of society and be embarrassed to speak. How do you sleep at night knowing this?
If you no longer support this war, then you should try to visit these families that you put through hell and apologize. You should volunteer at the VA hospital and grovel and beg their forgiveness. You should keep your eyes down for the rest of your life. You should be ashamed for taking lightly your vote that put this all into action. You should pass onto your kids the wisdom to always be vigilant of those in power and never be casual about war.
The Coming Age of the Woman | 12/21/06
We have only ever seen the world dominated by the male gender. As James Brown said, "It's a man's world". It’s hard to image it the other way: dominated by women. But, I predict this will happen in my lifetime. Reasons why men hold more power:
- Physical Dominance: Men are taller, stronger, and faster. Men have always been able to beat up, or physically dominate women. Men are born with physical power.
- Opportunities for a
Both of the above facts that have kept men in power for centuries are now becoming extinct.
- Physical Dominance: As society and technology advance, man’s physical strength has become less important as a means of survival. Physical strength cannot be used as an expression of power without punishment. Women have more laws and weapons protecting themselves from a man’s violence. A man’s physical intimidation over a woman will be less of a factor and society will render it less significant. A more effective means to power will be one’s mental abilities.
- Opportunities for a Woman: Through struggle, women are gaining ground here. They’re breaking down the good old boy structure. The trend is moving towards equal opportunity.
As these trends continue, womens' power will rise and mans' power will fall. As they approack equality, I predict a woman will run for a high office. Society will openly discuss whether the world will be better off with woman in charge. Women in power will be a grand social debate, offering the world a duality of thought:
Men: Aggression, violence, wars, bigotry, the old ways.
Women: The new ways, socialism, peace, compassion, 51% of the population.
The woman will win, swinging the pendulum dramatically in the direction of women’s power.
Another trend that is happening concurrently is that of women’s sexual independence. One revolution already happened in the 60’s where women realized they had the power to sleep with whichever man they want. This sexual liberation extended into the 90’s when women realized they could sleep with whichever person they wanted, man or woman. This was accepted and encouraged by men. Next, women make another leap and realize they could have sex with any man, woman, or machine they want. This is likewise encouraged by men and seen as just more kinkiness. But then the machine will replace the male penis as the ultimate provider of sexual pleasure. I’d bet that even today, women have sex with machines more often than with human men.
From Sex and the City:
Women will have power, friends and relationships with other women in power. A society built up that they control. They will have control over men. Men will desire their sex and their power. Women will get emotional satisfaction and love from people that they work and live with—not necessarily men. It will be understood that women are more important biologically than men. They have the womb and are making most of the decisions. Artificial insemination will be commonplace. The propagation of the species will be regulated and controlled by women. Sex with machines will be considered cleaner, safer, and more satisfying than sex with a man. More men will be performing menial jobs. There will be more men assistants, servers, cleaners, homeless. The top male physical specimens will be chosen as breeding studs. Men will become fit for servitude. Men will become needy and pathetic. Watch out guys, the Age of the Woman is almost here.
Stop Saying "War on Terror" | 9/15/06
Consider this revelation:There is no "war on terrorism".
In reality it's a war launched by a Republican government against all of it's enemies, both foreign and domestic. It's a phrase that instills fear in the American public and allows them to go out and fight their enemy de jour.
some evidence:
--Bush's secretary of education referred to the teachers' union as "terrorists"
--They've referred to Democrats as sympathizing with terrorists and un-American and unpatriotic.
--They conquered Iraq, loosely tying Saddam to terror.
--They call Hammas terroists despite being democratically elected in Palestine
--They call Hesbolah terrorists despite having popular support amongst the Lebanese.
--For the most part, they stopped looking for the guy who everyone agrees fits the definition of a real terrorist, Bin Laden.
Notice, all of these targets are those who threaten their power. It's that simple. I mean, why did Nixon have FBI files on John Lennon? Was he a threat to the state? No, he was a threat to Nixon's power. That's it.
What really drives me crazy is that so many liberals use this phrase, "war on terror". We've fallen right into their trap. They've infected us with their terminology. And every time that phrase is repeated, it is more accepted as the way things are and the way things have to be. It perpetuates the fear amongst Americans. And I'm afraid that when the Democrats seize power they will tout that phrase and use it for their own self interests.
So, You Call Yourself a Libertarian? | 8/29/06
When I was in high school in the mid 90’s, I called my self a Libertarian. I remember writing, “Adam Smith is God” on my desk in history class. I believed in a small, laizes-faire government that would stay out of my personal life and out of the way of big business. I grew up in a part of suburbia, where middle-class, working people felt they had “pulled themselves up by the bootstraps so why can’t everyone else?” They embraced these libertarian ideals that meant lower taxes and lower government regulations. There was a natural distaste for government and labor unions. This attitude trickled down to their kids and somewhere along the way, I picked it up. I had friends that didn’t believe in tipping. I didn’t believe in a minimum wage, although I was glad to get it at the put-put course where I worked. I now realize that my ideas were naïve and purely theoretical. This is my updated message to my younger self and other so-called Libertarians:You’re talking out your ass when it comes to Unions and corporations. Have you ever been in a union? Have you ever been the head of a big corporation? You’re not studying labor law are you? Basically, everything you’re talking about is theoretical. Maybe you heard it on a libertarian website, or maybe from one of your friend’s fathers. Maybe you came up with it on your own, but just so you know, the Republicans have been singing that song of pro-corporate, anti-government, anti-union for the last 30 years. You certainly didn’t invent it. So where did it come from?
Big corporations are primarily motivated by profits. They want to conduct business how they want, where they want. So, they lobby the government and get behind the political parties, both Republican and Democrats. They fund think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute to write intellectual papers supporting this grand theory. They buy up media companies to help propagandize to the people. They preach this theory that 1. Big business and free markets are good for
Here’s a short list:
-Hiring and firing laws
-environmental regulations
-taxes
-labor laws
-labor unions
-the possibility of your workers striking
-immigration laws
-wage laws
-investigative reporters
Now, I stress that this is a theory because it’s an idea that hasn’t been fully tested. There has always been government and labor unions. They’ve never been able to test their theory in its purest form and they never will. Until then, Libertarians will continue to decrease the power of the people and increase the wealth and power of socially indifferent corporations.
The Hollywood Liberal Elite Does Not Exist | 8/28/06
The Right likes to throw around the catch phrase Hollywood Liberal Elite. They want you to believe that To be sure, the people who live and work within the boundaries of
While it may be true that the majority of the people that work inside the film and television industry are liberal, this is only a small part of the grand total of influence impressed on American political thought. Their bias is simply negated by the countless other American industries that are conservatively biased. The American film industry is liberal? OK, The American Churches are conservative. Teachers are generally liberal and Doctors are usually conservative. So what?
The Right is trying to make a point specifically about the Hollywood Elite--those celebrities who engage in politics and use their influence to unfairly influence
You: "Barbara Strisand"
Me: "Ronald Reagan"
You: "Michael Moore"
You: "Sean Penn"
Me: "Mel Gibson"
You: "Tim Robbins"
Me: "Charlton Hestin"
Me: "Dennis Miller"
We can stop there. I'm running out of names for both sides. Ask yourself, who has had a bigger influence over American thought? Clearly, the Hollywood Conservative Elite has had equal or more influence on American political thought. So, I think one of their favorite catch phrases is debunked no matter how you interpret it. This is a fun game you can play with your conservative friends.
It seems to me we should all try to listen to the political opinion of
Hurricane Katrina and The Blame Game | 8/27/06
Late morning, August 29th, 2005, the levee gave way and the waters from hurricane Katrina and Lake Pontchartrain began flooding the city of New Orleans. At that exact time I was flying over the state of Louisiana in a commercial flight from Los Angeles to Cincinnati. On my arrival, the airport televisions were red with the “state of emergency” graphics used by so many cable news programs. They showed that blue spiral moving across the flat map of Texas and Louisiana. I thought to myself, “My God, I just flew overtop of all this and didn’t even realize it was happening”. I remember the dramatic animation that showed the crucial 3rd dimension of New Orleans—that it was in fact a bowl, surrounded by water, protected by flood walls that were presently being threatened. 12 hours later, those flood walls were breached and the city of New Orleans drowned and was lost forever.Days later, the country was frustrated and saddened by the loss, and sought comfort in playing the great American game of “Who’s to Blame”.
It presents a philosophical or theological conundrum to “blame” Mother Nature or God for such a storm. Therefore, most good Americans could at least agree on collectively blaming the government. Both the local and federal government had absorbed much criticism for their handling of the biggest disaster in the history of the country that left about 2,000 dead and 2,000 missing.
The mood of the country at this point reflected a sharp divide between those absolutely loyal to the Federal government and the Bush administration and those who distrusted and disdained him. Those who criticized the Federal government’s mishandling of the crisis found their criticisms deflected towards the local government, and likewise, those who blamed the local government found their blame deflected towards Bush and company. This game of political racquetball was played out in the press by good spin doctors and politicians everywhere. This game was also mirrored by average Americans—products of their favorite cable news show.
This is an account of one such game of “Who’s to Blame” between me and a friend of mine in Ohio who shares my love and reverence for our great city of New Orleans, but doesn’t share my distrust and distaste for our President, George W Bush. This was my argument:
I am open-minded enough to see that all parties are to blame for the mishandling of Katrina, which includes the residents and all levels of government. However, I don’t live and vote down there on the Gulf Coast, and I’m admittedly less knowledgeable about the details of their operations at the local level. I know they have a long history of a having a corrupt local government which of course raises my suspicions about their ability to engage a massive and expensive aid and evacuation plan for the benefit of the people. But the argument about who is most to blame is an invention of politicians, spin doctors, and party loyalists. I argue that as citizens living in Ohio, we should focus our criticism on the Federal government. We vote for the president. We pay into the Federal government. It is our duty to be vigilant and critical of the Federal government for the sake of people in New Orleans—and for the sake of all future victims of natural or terrorist disasters.
George Bush can be blamed for the loss of one of our great cities for the following reasons:
Environmental policy—Bush’s global warming policy or lack-there-of caused the ocean waters to warm which causes in increase in severity of the hurricanes that hit the Gulf Coast every year. Also, he refused to fund the preservation of the wetlands in Southern Louisiana which are an ecological treasure and are proven to help to weaken hurricanes.
Failure to properly fund levees and plug a major hole in our defense. The city of New Orleans and the Army Corps of Engineers have recently been making frequent requests to the Federal government for additional funding to rebuild and fix their outdated levee system. The president should know that New Orleans is a city in a bowl that lies below sea level and is surrounded by water, which makes it susceptible to flooding caused by rising waters or other means. The survival of the city depends on the ancient water pumps and unsure levee walls that hold back all the water from Lake Pontchartrain. An additional $300 million was requested from the Federal budget to help sure up the levee system. This was denied by Bush and Congress. Some will say, the odds of a storm this big arriving and overwhelming the infrastructure of a city that has endured a century of hurricanes is very small and couldn’t have been predicted. Let’s be honest, it’s a gamble. Save a little money now and roll the dice that the “big one” won’t come. They gambled and they lost. In total, the damage ended up costing $80 billion dollars plus the human cost of nearly 4,000 dead or missing. There is also the untold cost of losing a city of such cultural importance. That’s a huge loss. Both Congress and the President should be held accountable for this gamble.
In fact, this gamble speaks to a larger gamble of the priorities of the Bush administration. Consider this: What if the breech in the levies was caused by a terrorist explosion? Was the Federal government prepared for this? Had the Department of Homeland Security thought of this? Was there an emergency plan in place for the city of New Orleans? Is there an emergency plan in place for my city? The Federal government’s reaction to the breech in the levies speaks to the fundamental error in their geo-political policy since 911. They put all their efforts and money into prioritizing offense as the number one strategy to combat global terrorism. They’ve gambled it all on offense and left very little money and only corrupt, incompetent bureaucrats to look after our defense. This is a divisive strategy issue amongst liberals and conservatives. Liberals generally reject offensive military maneuvers like the invasion of Iraq. Democratic candidate John Kerry called for a much broader strengthening of our defenses including: port security, border security, cargo screening, protection of transportation systems, protection of health systems, hospitals, chemical plants, nuclear plants, and an investment in first responders. The travesty in New Orleans certainly supports a reversal in policy priorities.
The Bush administration was inexcusably slow to react to this crisis. The incompetence and lack of communication is astounding—almost to the point of carelessness. See Hurrican Katrina timeline and you’ll see what I mean. http://www.thinkprogress.org/katrina-timeline. All the blame and shame of the Federal government’s response should rest on the President’s shoulders. After all, he restructured FEMA. He created the department of Homeland Security. He appointed all the leaders like Michael Brown and Michael Chertoff. It’s his show. It’s his government.
Too much military and National Guard committed overseas. It became clear early in the crisis that the only group that had the equipment, manpower, and chain of command to save people from a drowning city was the military. But, the US military was in the Middle East busy enforcing Bush’s policy, fighting two simultaneous wars of choice. In fact, the US was so committed to these war offensives in Afghanistan and Iraq that half of the National Guard of the Gulf Coast states were overseas supporting the military. What was left of the National Guard was sent in to save lives and rebuild New Orleans. National Guard from other states had to be borrowed from other states which delayed rescue attempts. This was undoubtedly a serious cost of fighting two elective wars.
Appointment of Michael Brown – Michael Brown was the point man for the response to Katrina. He was appointed by President Bush to head FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). However, this man had no experience at the federal level and no experience managing emergency situations. He was appointed because he was a crony and a personal friend of George Bush’s campaign manager. This is an example of Bush putting his Republican cronies above what’s good for the people of this country. It’s unforgivable. The famous words, “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job”, proclaimed by Bush, 3 days into the disaster, shows an astounding disconnect from current events and public opinion.
My friend denied every one of my attempts to criticize Bush. I mean he flat-out refused to give any of my arguments any credibility. In fact, he claimed that I was just blindly following the world in having a knee jerk reaction to blaming a universally disliked political figure. I argued that he was in denial, lost in his love and admiration for this very average man.
I want to point out that my goal in writing this is not to expose my friend’s state of denial; but, rather to expose all Republicans’ state of denial. Every Republican I talked to following the aftermath of Katrina denied all of my claims and argued against all my criticisms. Instead, they blamed the local governments and the people of New Orleans.
All of the following info came long after Katrina. You be the judge.
Michael Brown resigned under a mountain of criticism. (fired?)
Jefferson Parish President Aaron Broussard on Meet the Press (wmv)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina
On National Guard support delay
Al Gore audio clip1
Al Gore audio clip 2
Al Gore audio clip 3
[Al Gore on Charlie Rose re: ocean waters]
New York City and Washington DC cry for more security funding to bolster defenses
On December 4th, 2005, the bipartisan 911 commission appeared on Meet the Press to talk about how well the federal government was following up on its set of recommendations for securing the homeland.
FMR. GOV. THOMAS KEAN, (R-N.J.; Chair, 9-11 Commission): But what we've said is that we've not moved forward to the extent we should. We've made some progress, very little progress in some areas. It's not a priority for the government right now. You don't see the Congress or the president talking about the public safety is number one, as we think it should be, and a lot of the things we need to do really to prevent another 9/11 just simply aren't being done by the president or by the Congress.
MR. HAMILTON: Absolutely. This is a no-brainer. From the standpoint of responding to a disaster, the key responders must be able to talk with one another. They could not do it on 9/11, and as a result of that, lives were lost. They could not do it at Katrina. They still cannot do it. And we think this is-- must be urgently considered and approved. Now, that's not the only problem.
MR. KEAN: What we're concerned about now is that these recommendations more than four years after 9/11 are still not being done. People are not paying attention to them. And if they're not put into place, we are very vulnerable as a people to another attack.
Top 50 Films I've Ever Seen | 8/26/06
To begin to understand the beautiful enigma that is life, you must first watch these f ing great films:Top Tier (not in order):
The Darjeeling Limited
Sexy Beast
I Heart Huckabees
Mulholland Drive
Dr. Strangelove
Godfather II
Sin City
Shawshank Redemption
Bob, Carol, Ted, and Alice
Good Will Hunting
American Beauty
Tier II: (not in order)------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Godfather I
The Matrix Reloaded
Fight Club
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Requiem for a Dream
La Vita e Bella (Life is Beautiful)
Cool Hand Luke
The Office: Christmas Special
Se7en
Gangs of New York
The Saddest Music in the World
As Good as it Gets
Lost in Translation
Donny Borasco
Tier III:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12 Monkeys
Blue Manhattan
Sleuth
Rainbow Bridge (Jimi Hendrix)
Vanilla Sky
Bowling for Columbine
The Shining
The Stunt Man
Mighty Wind
Shallow Hal
V for Vendetta
Pink Panther
Age of Innocence
Memento
Old School
Empire Strikes Back
The Matrix
Sophie's Choice
Squid and the Whale
School of Rock
Crumb
Wag the Dog
Age of Innocence
Children of Men
Dancer in the Dark (Bjork--madly sad and deep)
Strangers With Candy: The Movie review | 8/25/06
I love Strangers With Candy the TV series. This movie was like the longest, worst episode.
The Stolen Election in Ohio | 8/24/06
No state was more important in the 2004 election than Ohio. The state has been key to every Republican presidential victory since Abraham Lincoln's. Both parties overwhelmed the state with television ads, field organizers, and volunteers in an effort to register new voters and energize old ones. Bush and Kerry traveled to Ohio a total of forty-nine times during the campaign--more than to any other state.Ohio is my state, and I’m responsible for it. I vote here, and in 2004 Ohio elected George W. Bush for President. Or did we? Any time I travel, people inevitably ask me, “so, what happened in Ohio”? I believe it is the duty of all Ohioans to know the story. So far, most claims of election fraud have come from the side of the “losers”—democrats and independents. But EVERYONE should be concerned with a broken voting system. Let’s examine this scientifically:
I. Exit polls – Exit polls today are extremely accurate. In Germany, for example, the exit polls have never missed the mark by more than 3 tenths of 1 percent. Exit polls have even been used in other countries to turn around elections when they didn’t match election results (Georgia 2003, and Ukrane 2004). Based on exit polls, CNN had predicted Kerry defeating Bush in Ohio by a margin of 4.2 percentage points. Instead, election results showed Bush winning the state by 2.5 percent.
II. Ohio's vote was skewed by old-fashioned punch-card equipment. 66,000 votes were invalidated by faulty voting equipment. Most of the uncounted ballots occurred in Ohio's big cities and black precincts. There is evidence showing an inordinate amount of votes registered for obscure third party candidates and Bush in largely Kerry supported precincts. There are claims of ballot stuffing and election fraud in several rural counties, where election officials have described how votes were changed. In these counties, there was unbelievable turnout numbers and result numbers. Election officials even witnessed people tampering with the voting software in Auglaize County. Leaked emails showed a pre-meditated plan by GOP officials to announce a fake terrorist threat in Warren County. The county administration building was hastily locked down, allowing election officials to tabulate the results without any reporters or election observers present. The results in Warren County were odd, and didn’t make sense, and of course, favored Bush.
III. Ken Blackwell’s shenanigans. In the battle for Ohio, Republicans had a distinct advantage: The man in charge of the counting was Kenneth Blackwell, the co-chair of President Bush's re-election committee. As Ohio's secretary of state, Blackwell had broad powers to interpret and implement state and federal election laws -- setting standards for everything from the processing of voter registration to the conduct of official recounts. And as Bush's re-election chair in Ohio, he had a powerful motivation to rig the rules for his candidate. Blackwell, in fact, served as the ''principal electoral system adviser'' for Bush during the 2000 recount in Florida, where he witnessed firsthand the success of his counterpart Katherine Harris, the Florida secretary of state who co-chaired Bush's campaign there.
Blackwell set up registration barriers and deliberate chaos in an effort to keep thousands of legitimate Ohio citizens from voting. He found ways to throw out thousands of voter registration cards, deny people provisional ballots, and other methods to discourage voting, especially from poor, African-American, transients, and college students. Most of these techniques ended up hurting Democrats and most were declared illegal and overturned in court—but too late. The details of these shenanigans can be found with a simple search online. Add to this, the very suspicious long voting lines in Democratic voting precincts. I voted in a largely pro-Kerry part of the city and had to wait 3 hours in line. Other precincts report 7 hour waits. An estimated Three percent of all Ohio voters who showed up to vote on Election Day were forced to leave without casting a ballot. That's more than 174,000 voters. The Conyers report concluded, ''The vast majority of this lost vote was concentrated in urban, minority, and Democratic-leaning areas.'' Statewide, African-Americans waited an average of fifty-two minutes to vote, compared to only eighteen minutes for whites. There was a misallocation of voting machines statewide that consistently hurt Democratic areas. The areas with the strongest machine to voter ratios were Bush strongholds and the areas with the lowest machine to voter ratios were Kerry strongholds.
IV. Voting Machines. Walden O'Dell, the head of Diebold, a leading manufacturer of touch-screen machines, declared in a fundraising letter for the Ohio Republican Party that he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year." At least 20 machines had to be re-calibrated to fix a problem where people voted for Kerry and the machine registered Bush (“vote swapping”). An electronic machine at a fundamentalist church in the town of Gahanna recorded a total of 4,258 votes for Bush and 260 votes for Kerry. In that precinct, however, there were only 800 registered voters, of whom 638 showed up.
V. It matches suspicious national trends: The 6 major news organizations all hired the same polling company. They did a sampling 6 times larger than normal in their national poll, driving the margin of error down to 1 percent. As the last polling stations closed on the West Coast, exit polls showed Kerry ahead in ten of eleven battleground states -- including commanding leads in Ohio and Florida -- and winning by a million and a half votes nationally. In ten of the eleven battleground states, the tallied margins departed from what the polls had predicted. In every case, the shift favored Bush.
In precincts where Bush received at least eighty percent of the vote, the exit polls were off by an average of ten percent. By contrast, in precincts where Kerry dominated by eighty percent or more, the exit polls were accurate to within three tenths of one percent -- a pattern that suggests Republican election officials stuffed the ballot box in Bush country.
Exit polls deviated larger than their margins of error in 36 states. In 32 of the 36 states, the discrepancy favored Bush.
Nearly half of the 6 million American voters living abroad never received their ballots -- or received them too late to vote -- after the Pentagon unaccountably shut down a state-of-the-art Web site used to file overseas registrations. A consulting firm called Sproul & Associates, which was hired by the Republican National Committee to register voters in six battleground states, was discovered shredding Democratic registrations. In New Mexico, which was decided by 5,988 votes, malfunctioning machines mysteriously failed to properly register a presidential vote on more than 20,000 ballots. Nationwide, according to the federal commission charged with implementing election reforms, as many as 1 million ballots were spoiled by faulty voting equipment -- roughly one for every 100 cast.
VI. No ensuing investigations. And, we’ll never know for sure and you can’t prove to me that Bush actually won because there was no recount, no investigation by congress, and the media fell asleep on this. The source code for the voting machines is not “open source” and not open to public scrutiny.
Sources:
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNe3ndcWa88
http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/3/2005
"Should-be" President Al Gore with Charlie Rose | 8/23/06
Gosh, I would feel so much better if this guy were President. In fact he did win the popular vote and by all independent accounts won Florida. After the election he grew this beard and became so much more relaxed and funny and likable. Watch Al with Charlie Rose. Don't you agree?
Europe and the American Left | 8/20/06
The Bush Kerry election of 2004 had the largest voter turnout in American history. The election was close and the cultural and ideological battle between the “left” and “right” is hot and divisive. But as both sides clamor to register new voters, expand their base, and broaden their tents, their platform gets compromised and blurred. The Right has successfully stayed on message, offering an easy-to-follow narrative. “At least, I know where they stand,” is a popular catch phrase amongst casual observers of American politics. In contrast, the message of the “left” as brought to us by John Kerry, Howard Dean, and Al Franken seems indecisive and nuanced. Those who call themselves “liberals” and “progressives” will say that their philosophy and platform is nuanced and complex because life is nuanced and complex. They will admit that their philosophy is not conducive to the world of sound bites, television, and the simplistic, vapid Presidential debates. It’s better articulated in books, newspapers, blogs, and films. Certainly, the “left” lacks leaders who can charismatically deliver a concise, easy-to-swallow version of “where they stand”. They also lack organization. They lack catch phrases. They lack the echo-chamber structure that is necessary to market a message. That’s why they’ve been loosing. - Secularism – Only 50% of Europeans “believe in God”.
- Gay Marriage – Most European countries have legalized gay marriage or authorized civil unions with legal benefits equal to heterosexuals.
- Higher taxes and greater social welfare—
- State funded healthcare
- State funded secondary education
- The state pays parents to stay home the first few years and raise their children
- State funded employment service
- Strict work-week limitations
- Civil Rights (articulated in the Charter of Fundamental Rights in EU Constitution)
- Health Care is a human right
- Free education is guaranteed
- Right to unionize and strike
- Capital Punishment
- Abolished across
- Considered barbaric and illogical
- Drug addiction
- Considered a medical issue and addicts get treatment not jail
- Changed policy from “use reduction” to “harm reduction”
- Does not pursue the drug user as a criminal
- International Law
- The EU shows strong support of International treaties like,
- Supports International Criminal Court
- George W. Bush – Most unpopular American President in a century amongst Europeans
Stephen Colbert: Comic Genius, Huge Balls | 8/7/06
I loved Stephen Colbert's work on Strangers With Candy.But now, in my opinion, Stephen Colbert has put himself into the "comic genius" category with his new character, "Stephen Colbert of the Colbert Rapport". This is an over-confident, over-the-top Republican Bush supporter guy. Appreciating the true genius here requires an awareness of current events, an understanding and scorn for Bush supporters, and a heightened sensitivity for sarcasm and dry wit.
Since most Republicans are devoid of a sense of sarcasm or high comedy, Stephen Colbert is often passed off as one of their own, because he so loudly and proudly touts their message. He is often quoted by right-wing pundits as a sincere source for Republican ideals. They don't get that his character is meant to be a fool.
As I said, a sense of sarcasm and dry wit is required to detect this; and there is no one in the world that I can think of that is more devoid of these two characteristics than George W. Bush. This is why I don't think Bush understood what was coming when Stephen Colbert was booked to speak at the White House Press Correspondence Dinner.
Amazing Speech, amazing balls, comic genius: entire video
Pre-Iraq invasion: Winning Hearts and Minds | 7/28/06
I wrote this during the build-up to the war in Iraq, but before the invasion:
There are many reasons for committing US troops for the invasion of Iraq and eventual regime change. Some are explicitly given by the Bush administration. Some I believe are secretly held by the Bush administration, but are not articulated for political or strategic reasons. Of course, it’s hard to tell because they never speak with any level of detail and nobody asks them tough questions. But, of all these reasons both given and guessed at, I can see only two that are credible.
One is that Saddam Hussein is a horrible, oppressive dictator who should be removed from power for the sake of the Iraqi people and for the sake of the world. However, I don’t see this as a conclusive reason to go to war, but more of a moral justification. A reason to go to war would consider a cost-benefit analysis of the situation. A reason to go to war would be one that tells us it is worth it for us to take this action. For example, if your friend fell through the ice, you’d be morally justified in going over to save him. However, it wouldn’t be a reason to do so. You’d most likely both fall in if you were to act without a good reason.
The only credible reason I see is to plant the seeds of democracy in the region. This is an implied reason for the war. I’ve never heard any administration official give this as a reason for war. I can see why they would keep a lid on it because as the game of world politics go, we need the support of other oppressive regimes in order to topple one. Openly touting the spreading of democracy would scare off all other dictators in the region who would then meet us with unified, firm resistance. I can assume that planting the seeds of democracy in the heartland of the Middle East is one of their reasons for war as it is a fundamental part of the Neo-Conservative philosophy which guides this administration’s foreign policy. I happen to agree with it, in theory; however, it must be implemented in a very careful, delicate way, with respect to their culture and long history of Western occupation.
Establishing democracy in a country that has no familiarity with the concept will be a tricky procedure. It’s all about winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. It’s all about gaining their trust and showing them that we are there on behalf of their best interests. It will take our best PR efforts as it is a delicate war of ideas. I believe that there will be a small window of opportunity, after we get Saddam, where we will be held in high esteem by the Iraqi people. I think they will see us as liberators, but if we stay too long, they will see us as occupiers. We must do a good job in this window of convincing them that democracy is the way to go.
I propose:
1. Giving laptops out to Iraqi citizens and setting up networks which will give them an instant taste of free speech and also teach them computer skills.
2. Make a speech to the American public encouraging them to establish personal relationships with the Iraqi people. Encourage American families to “adopt” Iraqi families by communicating and even giving money. This will help to inform the American people about Iraqi concerns, and begin to establish a trust between Western and Arab countries. Some English will be learned, some Arabic will be learned. I would say, “Welcome Iraqi friend to the 21st century! We are here to help.” The American people, through establishing personal relationships, have a much better chance at winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people than does a tank and a bomb and a soldier in a gas mask. Bush should set up some sort of group to promote and manage this.
I Don't Support the "war on terrorism" | 6/30/06
I don’t support the “war on terrorism”. Most people would be shocked to hear this. They would say, “What are you un-American?” I would say to them, “not at all, but by my nature, I am a peaceful person. In order for me to support a war that kills and imprisons other human beings, I must be first convinced of several things: What is terrorism? Who is the enemy? How we plan on eliminating or containing that enemy? What are the costs? When we will declare victory and return to peace? When the American government declares a war on terrorism, they have the duty to explain these very basic details to the public. Anyone else like me, who cares about humanity and has pride in his country, would ask the same set of questions. I first heard about the “war on terrorism” from George W. Bush in a speech following the 911 tragedy. Apparently, it’s been around since Reagan. Following 911, the new “war on terrorism” had been accepted in
Like most people, I am a peaceful person and so my default position is set to “no war”. Something or someone has to convince me that a war is ever a good idea. So far, Bush has still failed to explain specifically the answers to my most basic questions about the war. So, I’m left to examine his words, the testimony of those high in government, and their policies.
WHAT IS A TERRORIST?--Can someone define a “terrorist” for me? We’re fighting a war against it. What is it?
Here is the official
Here is the British government’s definition: The use or threat of action which is violent, damaging or disrupting and is intended to influence the government or intimidate the public and is for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.
If that’s the definition then the
WHO ARE THEY?—Here’s a short list of those referred to as terrorists by the government:
911 Hijackers
Osama Bin Laden
Users of illegal drugs
Palestinian militant groups
Al Queda
The governments who support and harbor terrorism:
Sadam Housain
Iraqi insurgents
Some
Some Australian citizens
Some British citizens
Georgian rebels
Cat Stevens
Hamas – Democratically elected
Hezbollah – Publicly supported
It seems like groups go on and off their list only to suit the political need of the
HOW DO WE PLAN ON ELIMINATING OR CONTAINING TERRORISM?
I’ve never heard a strategy answering this question. Evidence shows that eliminating or containing terrorism seems to be a very low priority for the
WHAT ARE THE COSTS?
Costs were never fully explained to me in the beginning. I think that Americans underestimated the costs. So far, the new “war on terror” has lasted longer than World War II. The costs of the “war on terror” are increasing in category and volume. Here is a list of some so far:
a. The Patriot Act – limited citizens rights to privacy. Expanded government’s search and seizure rights.
b. The suspension of Habeas Corpus—Gives the executive branch the power to imprison anyone they want.
c. NSA wiretapping—The executive branch seized the power to spy on American citizens without a warrant.
2. Money
a. $600 Billion and counting. Very soon, it will be the most expensive war in American history (adjusting for inflation). What else do you think we could do with $600 Billion?
b. Unforeseen costs of broken families, troops physical and mental care.
3. American lives – Mostly 18 and 19 year old kids.
5. Foreign civilian casualties.—I’ve heard some pretty big numbers here.
4. Support from allies—This is a cost that will be felt later.
5. International perception of
WHEN WILL WE DECLARE VICTORY AND RETURN TO PEACE?
From the powers that be, I’ve heard, “A long time”, “Decades”, “Until all terrorist groups are defeated”. There doesn’t seem to be a definable moment where we will win and then return to peace. The answer to this question seems suspiciously open-ended.
Currently, we are fighting the hateful, violent concept of terrorism with hateful, violent means. Our aggressive military tactics will kill the enemy while simultaneously increasing the enemy’s recruiting power. Seemingly, that’s perpetual war. The
The American public is funding both sides of the “war on terrorism”. We are funding the
CONCLUSIONS:
I don’t see how anyone who seriously asked these questions and searched for answers could support a “war on terrorism”. And yet, so many Americans, who claim to be Christians and proponents of democracy, went along with it and now there’s no end in site. If your fundamental belief is “Thall Shalt Not Kill”, you must be very sure before making an exception to God’s word, “Thou Shalt Not Kill” and launching a global war on anyone. You have in effect authorized the use of our military to hunt down and kill people. We’re talking about shooting people, and blowing them up using the biggest and most sophisticated weapons in the history of war.
What Our Leaders Should Do After 911 | 6/29/06
One positive result of the 911 disaster was that it woke many Americans up to the complex study of geo-politics. The people of the world pay more attention to American policy and actions than do Americans themselves. It may shock foreigners to read this, but Americans live on an island—rarely leaving the country and rarely paying attention to others. 911 changed that for many of us as we grappled with complex question, “Why would someone do this to us?”We have the resources, the money, and the support around the world. We can accomplish anything we want. It’s all a question of policy design. I wrote this essay shortly after 911. The judgment is left to you, the reader, to determine if this course would have put us in a better place than we are today:
What our leaders should to do after 911:
1. Secure the airlines. It is crucial to restore our citizens’ confidence in domestic air travel as soon as possible. Terrorism is about spreading fear, and we cannot allow that fear to overwhelm us and take away those things that make this country great. I suggest redesigning security measures that will make future hijacking impossible.
a. Take a tip from Israel. They’ve been dealing with terrorism longer than we have. At their airports, they have very sharp, very well paid men in suits equivalent to our secret service patrolling the airport looking for any suspicious activity. They would employ profiling techniques, not just on race, but also on gender, age, clothing, and behavior patterns.
b. Secure the planes themselves by locking the cockpit from the inside. Be smarter than the terrorists. Give instructions to all pilots that upon the first moment that it is evident that a hijacking is taking place, immediately land the plane. This won’t prevent a terrorist from killing a bunch of people in the cabin, but it will discourage any plans to hijack the plane for the purpose of gaining control of it.
2. Keep the moral high ground. Every western, free, democratic country saw a small group of extremists hijacking 4 commercial planes and piloting them into buildings of another free, democratic society killing thousands of innocent civilians. They were the bad guys, and America was the good guys. This resulted in an outpouring of sympathy from the rest of the world. The front page of the main French newspaper read, “Today, We Are All Americans”. A survey two weeks after the attacks showed that the European public supported a US military assult against the perpetrators or their host nation.
We should take this opportunity to join hands with other free, western democracies in combating terrorism and extremism. We should take this opportunity to strengthen our bond with our democratic allies and sponsor an international body, whose purpose would be to research and define terrorism, find the roots of extremism, and come up with fair and articulate ways of dealing with the problem. This will have the effect of isolating the extremists and ensure that our public policies fall within the mainstream of progressive, Western thought. This will ally us with the Europeans and place us on the moral high-ground for years to come.
3. Liberate Afghanistan. We should move quickly with our allies into the heart of Bin Laden’s political support. We should make every effort to find and capture Bin Laden and his cronies, while at the same time taking out the Taliban with force. We should give the people the right to vote and establish some sort of representative democracy. The United States should support the more moderate, western-friendly elements of Afghani leadership. We should set up schools and provide them with much aid and humanitarian support. We should give out many laptops and teach computer skills. This would help introduce the concept of free speech and over time strengthen their democracy. This might also introduce an important industry into their culture. We should take Afghanistan on as our pet project and encourage other freedom loving persons throughout the region to travel there and help build it up as an example of the possibility of peaceful progressive change in the region.
4. Understand and empathize with Bin Laden. I say empathize, not sympathize. In order to curb this sort of behavior, we must first understand where it comes from. Try to understand Bin Laden's motives. Try to get inside his head. Listen to his speeches and reasons for hating the US and causing such dramatic violence. Don’t just write this guy off as a nut, because there are a lot of Muslims out there who support him. These are the future Bin Ladens. Understand why they hate us. They don't hate our freedom or our democracy. They don't hate us just because we are white, or American, or Jewish, or Christian. They don't want to kill us all just because they are Muslim and therefore part of an inherently violent, intolerant religion. This is an oversimplification that misses the point. This train of thought can lead you into thinking that what they hate about you is a fundamental part of your being--something that is at your core as a human and cannot change, (like being a Christian or embracing freedom). This allows you to de-humanize them. You see them as animals, incapable of rational thought--incapab