Distributed Mind

So somewhere in the chain of tools used to produce Distributed Mind, we have a problem. For some reason, Nucleus has been "randomly" rejecting posts. It seems related to the size of the post, but sometimes it seems smaller than others. And before I was able to fix it by just moving text to the extended area, but that did not seem to work for the last entry I wanted to post. Very frustrating, and I haven't had time to deal with it (I need to do a proper bug report for Nucleus, probably). Hopefully we will get that fixed soon, and get everything working again, so I can post entries longer than one paragraph...

[Dec. 12, 2004: Posts are magically working now, and has been for a couple days. I have no idea what changed.]

Wired has an article on the latest investigation into voting machines in Florida. This time though it is touch-screen machines instead of optical scan machines (the researchers ruled out any problems there - glad to see I wasn't the only one). A group at UC Berkeley (UC DATA) claims there are anomalies in the vote tallies for counties using touch-screen voting machines. The difference would not be large enough to question the outcome of the election in Florida, but is primarily about how well the machines work. This is exactly the kind of study that needs to be done. I don't know if this study is any good or not, though in time we will probably have a better idea after other researchers take a look at it. But, this is the kind of study that needs to be done.

(Credit: NASA/JPL/Cornell. High-resolution version available.)

(Credit: NASA/JPL/Cornell)

Spirit at Columbia Hills (in August):

(Credit: NASA/JPL/Cornell. High-resolution version is available.)

Opportunity at Burns Cliff in Endurance Crater:

(Credit: NASA/JPL. High-resolution version is available.)

(Credit: NASA/JPL. High-resolution version available.)

Endurance wide view:

(Credit: NASA/JPL. High-resolution version is available.)

Imagine being a magical Harry Truman, able to look back at 1950 from 2004. So, the Korean War results in a total of nearly 3 million fatalities, of which about 1 million or so are civillian, with some massacres on both sides. (I am using Matthew White's numbers again since I am lazy, and he actually checked multiple sources, most of which I wouldn't have available.) Remember, North Korea started the invasion so technically they are at fault, and morally culpable. Unfortunately, China got involved; that appears to have been avoidable, so that would have helped things alot, but at any rate, we are probably looking at 1 million bare minimum total casualties. Some of those were unpreventable regardless of our involvement; after all, North Korea had already attacked, and by the time anyone had intervened, they had captured nearly all of Korea, and massacred some random civillians (around 100,000 evidently). Thus, only some of the casualties are preventable.

Your alternative is to not get involved. We have a million or so casualties, followed by several hundred thousand (possibly over 1.5 million) political prisoners worked to death, around 2 million famine fatalities (though those may be reduced or eliminated if North Korea is not entrenched against South Korea), (again, borrowing from the better of White's numbers). Additionally, you relegate the 50 million South Koreans and their ancestors to a life of poverty and repression. This is mitigated by the fact that the South Korean government was not so friendly to its people for a long time, so you could take that into account.

I think this is a complex and interesting case study. Especially, since the issues are fairly clear. Justin says there are actions that could be taken, but war was wrong. I think if we allow war, this seems to be a war to fight, having more justification than most wars we have fought, including World War I. But then we all know I have heavy pacifist leanings, so maybe I wouldn't support fighting a war. What would you do? (Consider that you will have to answer victims of the war on the one side, or the new victims of the communist regime on the other, if you don't defend South Korea.)

And by the way, certainly tactics could have been improved. We probably could have ended the war in a few months with no Chinese involvement, had we not passed the 38th parallel, though nothing is ever certain. One could try to argue one way or the other using hypothetical possibilities regarding how the war might have differed. Of course, war, like all things, is not perfectly predicatable.

Finally, it might be interesting to think about the impact of not having the magical 20/20 hindsight. In some sort of sick Kantian/utilitarian ethical hybrid, you could consider not having perfect knowledge of future events combined with an allowance for war (is war allowable in Kantian ethics? - doesn't seem so).

[I suspect my Korean roommate probably has some opinions on this matter; I should ask him what he thinks.]

Discover Magazine has up an article about a guy named Natapoff and his proof of the superiority of the electoral college over a strict popular majority system. I think I need to think more about this, but I don't agree with his analysis. I know, how can I argue with a proof? (And mind you I haven't read the technical paper the article is based on, admittedly.) Well, for one thing, his criterion may be too simple, and his assumptions may be flawed. Merely maximizing an individuals probability of affecting the outcome of the election (while assuming that voters do not have an equal probability of voting for either of two candidates - which is true, but perhaps not useful) is probably not enough to ensure a satisfactory outcome.

The analysis seems also based on only two candidates (or with all other candidates having a negligible number of votes). It would be wise to include other possibilities.

One thing our culture frequently loses sight of is the fact that technology applied unthinkingly is... well, useless. The whole idea of technology is to facilitate, not to be a slave to it for its own sake (that's what art is for). Many have seen this already, but my favorite example of technology gone bad (or rather human use of technology gone bad), is Peter Norvig's PowerPoint version of the Gettysburg address. Many more things could be said, have been said, and probably will be said (by me that is) about PowerPoint, but I think this is the most biting critique of all misuses of technology, PowerPoint or otherwise. (I am currently discussing the content of the Gettysburg address with Justin. It is kind of scary in and of itself, but that is another story. War stinks, folks; no avoiding that fact, and all motivational speeches aside.)

I just saw yet another commercial for Don's Guns, featuring, of course, Don, who was in this particular commercial standing between a counter and a wall full of rifles talking about how they rent guns, etc., etc. (with a slight deviation from his usual slogan, saying, "I don't want to make money, I just love to rent guns, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha" - and he actually says "ah/ha," in case you were wondering). Anyway, I couldn't help but think of the line "Hey, just what you see, pal." Of course, one can't forget, "Any of these would be perfect for home defense." Uh huh...

(By the way, for those of you unfortunate to be living outside of broadcast range for Indy stations, you are really missing out. You have to see Don once before you die.)

Sometimes, the way you say something means more than what you say. Justice means nothing without love.

I apologize... I did overreact this morning. I don't think Hartmann's analysis was that bad, though I do think he is mistaken, based on a cursory examination. Likewise, I definitely overstated the case against "crying wolf." While I think some people were definitely going to claim fraud regardless, the kind of claims Hartmann made were not unreasonable, if premature. And I know if something were to happen, it would requrie momentum, which can only be built by people complaining, essentially. I still don't think that any of these claims are wholly correct, but I apologize for overreacting and being hyper-critical.

To quell all these red vs. blue arguments, here is how the country actually voted, scaled by color to represent the margin of each county:

The map was produced by M. T. Gastner, C. R. Shalizi, and M. E. J. Newman, who have made some other maps too.

The most useful of their other maps, though a little less visually decisive, is their cartographic version of the map above. The counties are scaled to represent the number of votes:

You can see that really only certain areas in the middle of the country are solidly Republican/Bush, and a few urban areas are solidly Democrat/Kerry. Most of the country is that sickly purple of 51%.

The MSNBC article sounds better, but in most cases says nothing really damning, at least about Florida. Except, I did like the one about more votes cast than registered voters. That would be a pretty good sign something went wrong, eh?

I did want to adress preemptively the fact that the optical scan voting machines had much larger margins (in terms of the gap between registration and how people actually voted) than the ones with touchsreen voting machines. I noticed that, but I also noticed that Vilensky's numbers show the margins were as large in 1996. And, since some of these are small counties, margins like that can be large easily, especially sine the "Dixiecrat theory" is going to be true in rural counties. Also, note that the counties using touchscreens are... huge in comparison to smaller counties. So, urban counties voted more consistently. Come to your own conclusions as to what that may or may not mean. (Other than when Olbernmann says "nothing in common" he is flat wrong. And note in general the large difference between registration and voting don't occur in most of the large optical scan counties. Check Hartmann's data.)

Exit polls: The exit polls weren't wrong. They were within [as far as I have seen] their margin of error. So, don't be bringing exit polls to me because they don't contradict the vote data. Exit polls are going to be somewhat unreliable, because they aren't truly random, which is the most important condition to get really good numbers out of a poll or survey.

Well, since Justin finally brought it up... I had been holding out, waiting till there was something conclusive, not wanting to feed the paranoia, and not wanting to cover over possible real incidents. So far, I haven't really seen anything that impressed me. We know there was voter fraud, since there always is. Whether the optical scan databases were really used to throw the election is another story... I... Well, I doubt it. I saw the article Justin linked to. I thought it was pretty good. Then, it turns out the Dixiecrat theory may be correct. One Yevgeny Vilensky checks some of the numbers and finds... Well that they voted for Bush by large margins not only in 2000, but in 1996 as well. Assuming Vilensky's data is correct, Hartmann's analysis is just plain wrong, and sloppy (why didn't he look up the numbers for previous elections?) Now I haven't looked up the numbers either due to (1) time constraints, and to a lesser extent (2) laziness, so take my response with a grain of salt as well. It just doesn't look to me like this is correct; the jury is still out. I won't be shocked if it turns out there were problems, but so far I haven't seen anything to convince me that it happened. Or so far, even that there is enough data to warrant any sort of inquiry. Unfortunately, even if something does come up, we probably won't get to it because we cried wolf.

And, by the way, let's note what we're talking about here. (Justin didn't say anything about how this could have affected the outcome of the election, but I know others have, so I thought I would address it.) Some have suggested this cost Kerry the election. Well, assuming there was massive fraud in both Florida and Ohia, it could be possible. Like I said, no good evidence yet. But, even if it did, it would be the same joke as last time. Kerry would win the election while being down by several million votes. I love when Presidents get elected while losing the popular vote... We should have fixed the blasted electoral college, and then this would have nothing to do with the presidency, but rather the real issues: the security of electronic voting, possible corruption by local and state officials and corporations, and criminal voter fraud by partisan lone wolfs or operatives. All of those routes of inquiry should be pursued rigorously if any kind of data comes out suggesting fraud. And if anything shows Kerry should have been President, fine. Don't expect me to be happy about democracy getting again trampled on because of a bad feature of the Constitution that no one will fix.

As data is made available about county voting patterns, people have scrutinized them to find some disturbing trends. Read on...

Evidence Mounts That The Vote May Have Been Hacked

Electronic Voting Angst

In light of Romans 14, what should we do with churches who believe it is wrong to use instruments in church? Should we all get rid of our instruments? Should we ignore it and hope it goes away? Should we tell them off? Open question; I don't know the answer. Some things to think about though:

• Romans 14 is referring to individuals, not whole movements.
• Furthermore, it is referring to weakness of faith; those that say they are leaders and yet say something so contrary to Scripture (clearly the ancient Hebrews used instruments, it is right in the Psalms!) could probably be held to a higher standard.
• On the other hand, we accept people who deviate much more on matters open to some interpretation, say Baptism.
• Paul does use strong language against the circumcision movement, maybe this would be comparable (though certainly it seems less important!).

So anyway, this for some reason is one that always bothers me. I don't know why it is always this particular issue, but there you have it.

Everyone is rightfully up in arms over the murder of Theo Van Gogh in the Netherlands. But, in the midst of all the righteous indignation, will the anti-terror hawks mention the reponses that the crime has received? Attempted mosque burnings, school bombings, leaving a pig's head outside of a mosque... No one has been injured or killed, but certainly with something the scale of a bomb, someone could have. (And the school itself was apparently closely monitored for shome shady connections it had; this does not absolve the method or the vigilatism involved.)

I don't feel the need to comment on Van Gogh's killing. It speaks for itself. But see if everyone becomes afraid of the backlash the way they are of the "Islamofascists" as so many are fond of calling... well whomever they are calling that. See if the conservative hawkish rhetoric is even-handed or not. But why should they report on these actions when we are not at war with some radical, violent Dutch right-wingers? That is fair, unless we consider the risk that we may contribute to propagating that kind of violence here. I don't think we want that - at least we shouldn't want that. But I think the "feeding frenzy" conservatives have been in over the killing of Van Gogh is the kind of thing that does contribute to this kind of violent thinking by some of the more anti-social elements of our society. The Klan is not such a long memory here, we don't need a redux. These may have been lone individuals, but note also there are more organized responses against Muslims and Arabs there too.

Watch the rhetoric, see if it matches with reality. Which element at this moment is in danger of causing more harm to our society? My answer: They both are, and don't you forget it.

[Update: Just to clarify, the point of all of this is that there is a culture of violence which exists, and can be promoted. That is what I, and other war-skeptics/near-pacifists/pacifists/whatever we are, are really after. Many of the people involved in perpetuating the rhetoric are good people, but I think they are still on dangerous ground. Most conceptions of pacifism agree on one thing: He who commits violence is himself harmed.]

One of Andrew Sullivan's readers constructs an argument that Bush was not helped by the gay marriage issue, based on the fact that Bush's gains since 2000 in states that had ant-gay marriage amendements/laws on the ballot were lower than the national gain. I am very curious about all of this. I would really like to know what issues got people worked up in this election. I don't want to e manipulative in addressing the voting population in the next election, but this might help us to understand what concerns of theirs to address - and by address I mean, explain, not cater to, though, of course, we do need to meet the needs of the people. It's a fine line, but ultimately any politician, any party, is going to have to explain how they can solve the nation's problems better than the other candidates or parties. And that means understanding what concerns they have. Time for a detailed national poll, I think (there probably already is one, I just need to find it...).

Well, I have fixed a few things around here. First, we are now running Nucleus 3.1 instead of 2.5 beta (ack!). Second, in the process I fixed a few things. Entries now display author names at the top, so people can tell who wrote them (wouldn't want people to confuse one radical leftwing fanatic with... well another radical leftwing fanatic). And, most of all, I fixed the RSS 2 feed so it (1) shows the author (again, wouldn't want...) and (2) has full text!. Hopefully people will actually subscribe to our feed now! (I am a believer in full text feeds, which makes it sound stupid that we didn't have one, but, um technical issues, people!)

Probably some more enhancements will be coming as well. Maybe we can improve the comment system around here. Nucleus has the stuff, I just need to figure it all out. Maybe throw some plugins in as well.

Just as I am getting used to Nucleus, I am thinking I may use Wordpress for the Christian Challenge blog. I am getting decent with Nucleus, but Wordpress seems to be a little more standards-friendly out of the box, and I think it has better support (larger user community), despite being a relative newcomer. Oh, well, gotta go with the flow I guess. (Even if I do have an Amiga 1200 in my closet.)

[Hey, 200th post!]

Yeesh, I have written a ton of posts, and I haven't gotten a response on one in... well, it's been so long, I have forgotten! It's like walking into an (Indiana limestone) cave, and calling out to see if anyone is there and just getting an echo... Oh, well. Anyone alive?

(This may be a little hard to follow, especially since I use the word "morality" in a way many people may not have thought of it before, so bear with me. I chose morality because it encompasses something both liberal and conservative views can have a concept of, if not with equal strength.)

Government is crucial to the preservation of "morality," by which at the most basic level I mean the right of protection of person, property, and some level of freedom of thought, speech, and movement. (Rights and morality are all part of the same entity, just different views of it. Ultimately it is all a question of ethics.) The government must, to an extent, enforce morality; a minimum, agreeable-to-nearly-all morality, but a morality nonetheless. And sometimes it must legislate morality, such as in the case of theft (in some socities there is no such thing, I have been told, and at any rate it is imaginable, but that would clearly not work in our society; thus the government makes a decision about the morality of theft and creates penalties).

Many on the left talked this year about the "Orwellian" terminology coming out of the Bush administration, e.g. the infamous Clean Air Act. Conveniently my pro-choice counterparts among us liberals (who outnumber me by some ridiculous margin) ignore their own occasional loose use of language.

I linked to some maps in my last post, but the best one I have found so far is Robert Vanderbei's which shows the vote county by county, but is shaded to show the balance of the vote in each county. It's a very good map, and interesting.

In the midst of my efforts to labor with the theology of politics and the politics of morality, I am also interested in testing my hypotheses about why this election went a certain way, and how to use that fact in future elections to determine how to best address the nation's concerns. We can have a better candidate, but if we can't show how they will help the country, we will have a hard time winning. So, what needs explaining? is the question. To find the answer to that we would do well to look at this election.

One complaint in mathematics is that proofs are always written as if they sprang fully formed from the head of the author [hey, there's a reference to Athena in there!] while masking the reasoning that allowed the author to arrive at the proof. The problem is the reasoning is would be very useful to understanding the implications of the proof. So it is with old writing, and blogging or it's pen and paper cousin journaling. I have noticed that by blogging the things I read and saw and experienced that contributed to my final thoughts, and by blogging the partial, sometimes contradictory thoughts along the way, I have a product much more useful than merely a persuasive piece which offends half its readers because they don't understand how someone could think that. Even if I construct the argument, it is my conception of how it should be explained; with a journal, the reader can determine for themselves which pieces of data and thought are useful (and in an easier way than following many footnotes). So, there is no slick argument to make, just thoughts to digest, and it is in the readers hands which makes it much richer. It also helps me to document for myself how I arrived at the final conclusion. Very useful. I think only now am I truly starting to realize the ways in which a blog can be intrinsically different than traditional media.

Just a thought, but I really, really hope that in a few years when we all go back to find out how the future and past elite was thinking in 2004 that we won't find it hasn't all been deleted due to inactive accounts and unpaid service fees. I wonder how we can best try to preserve the documents we have now.

(Of course, even more so than traditional publications, blogs contain much junk - does anyone really care that I drank too much coffee one day? - and much of blogging and web journalism is more conversational than traditional media, so a lot of it is things that would not traditionally have been recorded anyway, but it is a new media, and much of it was meant to be more permanent than mere conversation. At any rate I think we will find much of it useful someday, even if we don't know exactly how yet.)

The trends of this political year for me, as they relate to my faith anyway, have seemed to come down to these issues: (1) Should Christians even participate in politics? Is it right to vote at all? (Of course, if it is, paying taxes should be out, and holding office is definitely out.) Some Christians I respect deeply have traditionally taken this route. If we should be involved, to what degree, and in what ways? (2) How should a Christian vote when none of the choices match our ethics? (3) How should our faith play out in issues? What kinds of laws and policies should we support, and what should a Christian politician push for?

As I have sruggled with these issues, most of the things that made me think have been written here. Whatever else I discussed with Justin, and maybe he remembers some of it. But I think reading what I have written here will give anyone a good idea of what I was thinking, as well as providing plenty to think about, though perhaps I am being presumptuous.

I think the first issue got short-shrift, but maybe we aren't quite done with it yet. For the time being I think a better alternative is to really deeply explore the third issue, which hopefully solves the second issue. But I think a better exploration of the first issue would be good as well. I don't want to give the impression that somehow politics is nearly as crucial an issue of faith as, say, the gospel is. Our work is not of this world. We need to be careful how much we draw on the example of Israel, the pre-incarnation theocracy. We live in a different world. Based on what Jesus taught us how should we respond - politically or otherwsie - to the world we find ourselves in? That is the fundamental question and the more deeply we can answer the question, the better off we are.

At this point my best guess is that there is appropriate action I can take in the secular realm of politics, by fronting and supporting candidates who will make a real difference. You all know what I think about that, at least at some level of detail (granted a comprehensive exposition of the issues has not come yet). But I do not want in the process to lose sight of the real purpose behind all of this, as I am so wont to do. Nor do I want the church to lose sight of that. Republican politics as usual is not what the church is called to, but I need to be careful not to replace that with some other new secular agenda or goal. Running faithful candidates with Biblical goals of justice and peace is still a secular means, and, ultimately, the church's purpose is a spiritual one, not a political one.

I am an analyst, not an activist, by nature. Er, which explains why I was still deciding who to vote for in most races the day of the election. The closest I get to practicality is strategizing and suggesting to someone else to do it. This is sometimes a useful trait, as it can give one a kind of intellectual detachment that can be quite useful. However, that tendency certainly won't be enough though to bring about any real change in the future (unless I somehow become a famous author, which is not likely to happen). So, now the real work of trying to fight my tendency to sit back and watch and comment. Will I get my act together and help to bring about the revolution in American politics? We shall see. Of course, the rest of you can help too.

And, just a reminder, the real political work starts today, November 3rd. The election is - almost - over. Now we get to fight every vote and policy coming down the pipe, while we try to position the next round of warriors for the coming elections in 2006 and 2008. And along the way we have to speak out, loudly, intelligently, and most of all, wisely, in an attempt to explain to the people of this nation that there are better ways of doing things. All the while we have to work to unify and heal the impact of division that we face. Yes, it is hard work but at least it is honest work. And I think we can handle it. Onward, my compatriots. Change the world...

[Oh, and I have come to hate combat metaphors, but cest la vie, er, or maybe guerre. I can't think of any better wat to put it in this case though. The communitarian pacifist in me knows there must be a better way, though.]

AKMA links to an article by Alasdair MacIntyre on voting. Basically, MacIntyre argues against voting for either of the two parties. Interesting piece, sort of goes to what I have been thinking, though I might not go as far. I voted against the established order in 2004 though, so I won't feel guilty at any rate. (I know MacIntyre via his book After Virtue, but I haven't really bothered to get around to reading anything else of his, and was especially unaware of what he was up to lately, so I found this interesting.)

I would have preferred to see John Kerry win. Barely, but hey. But, even though the final results aren't in (even though they probably are), it would be tough for me to still hope that somehow in all those states it turns out to be a close win for Kerry, which would put him in the White House. Four years ago many of us were complaining about an electoral system that could allow a person to win the presidency even though he had not achieved half the popular vote. Some of those complaining were reform types like me who just hate the electoral system (after all I, um, voted for Bush - a mistake I did not repeat); others were a little less objective. Let's see where they are now when Kerry has basically certainly lost the popular vote. Will they argue it still made more sense for Bush to be president? Um, haven't seen it yet. I do grant that they have not been extremely strident about it - at least that I have heard.

(Of course, in all fairness, I suppose one could wish - without too much hypocrisy - for one anti-democratic quirk to "fix" another, but let's at least hear someone fess up to that wish.)

When reality imitates art: Deceptive fliers in Ohio matched an article from the satirical Onion from last week.

Well, I predicted a bigger mess than last time. This morning at 1:00 am, I thought I had been wrong. Looks like I still have a chance. Somehow, in a sick sort of way, I am happy to see it up in the air. Beats me why. Must be my love of chaos. I do hope this all gets sorted out soon though; we really don't need a repeat of 2000....

I feel like I should have a "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!" bumper sticker.

It would make less sense though, given that I took the advice to "throw away your vote."

If a company pollutes significantly, and so affects my health, that is just as great an injustice as the government taking some of my taxes - in fact, much worse. Corporations should no more be able to impugn my right to life than other citizens, or than the governmnet my right to liberty and property.

Of course, one can argue that the libertarian ideal is based on an over-simplified view of individual liberties (I would like to suggest, for example, that the current generation should not be able to destroy things of great value at the expense of future generations without some overwhelming reason - but there is no model for this in the libertarian view), but I think even within their argument, their reasoning is not consistent, as I just explained.

I don't know the details of the studies; maybe if I have time, I spend longer looking them up. But, it is accepted fact that high mercury levels in the environment contribute to birth defects. Hello! Who do birth defects affect? Those unborn children we are all so keen to supposedly save. Birth defects - from various sources, of course, not just mercury - were the leading cause of death in children less than one year old in 1999. Abortion and environmental regulation are not separate issues. The mistake is two-fold: (1) self-rightousness in supporting a candidate who can call themselves "pro-life" but does not wholly wish to protect unborn and young children and then categorically condemning those who would prefer a more holistic approach and (2) giving those candidates a free pass once they are elected. Wake up and smell the pollution. Even if enviro-anarchists are your choice at the polls in 2004, we can still through other means try to protect the citizens of all ages in this country.

(You can see I am feeling much better about being told I am immoral yesterday, even though I think I will now vote for "no-chance Ralph.")

I just heard Sen. Bill Frist state on Larry King's show that the President would not need to have Congressional approval to invade Syria because of his status as commander in chief. What!? That's not what my Constitution says. It says, in Article 8, Section 8, that "The Congress shall have the power to ... declare war ... ."

Our nation has so lost touch with what the Constitution says about war, that now politicians are able to make these blatantly ridiculous remarks. I for one am appalled. But then, I am always appalled. When does it end?

It occurs to me that in a 49% majority to a 49% minority suggests (as I am so fond of pointing out) political "choice" is practically non-existant with "random" fluctuations (as opposed to systematic tendencies) being enough to decide the election. I wanted to claim the impact of this was not catastrophic, but I could think of plenty of examples where even, say, a three way split of 49%, 30%, 20% would not imply some sort of superiority for the winner if the losing candidates were sufficiently similar; the gap between the winner and the losers would be largely in appearance not substance. This suggests to me again, something I already knew, that the American system for choosing a President is completely broken. Having more than 2.125 choices and runoff voting are suggestions I can think of, but they still don't fix the fundamental problem, which is a problem not only of the American system, but representative democracy in general - i.e. what really constitutes a majority, and how useful is a 51% majority, or worse a 49% "majority." It may be that 51% majority indicates it really doesn't matter which choice is made; but maybe it does. I don't know.

If it is something we can change by changing procedure, we should.Otherwise we are flipping a coin every four years, and what is the point of having an election to do that? I am open to any serious suggestions as to how to improve the situation, but something "should" be done, if it can, I would suggest. Maybe it is also time to have some serious discussions regarding representative democracy.

(I could point out that in pure democracy this issue changes slightly. On the one hand, voters aren't choosing 4 years of policy with a coin flip. On the other hand, they may be choosing issues every bit as important, just on an individual basis. So... Strict democracy is not a guaranteed solution.)

We wrote roughly 12,500 words here in October. That is the equivalent of around 50 pages of 12 point Courier double spaced.

In honor of the passing of our special day honoring fear, I will repost this article which originally appeared on Cassandra:

Just to continue to give your brain a workout... One Joe Carter writes a piece arguing voting for Kerry is immoral. His suggested alternative for the likes of me seems to be to not vote for President, or to vote for a guaranteed loser (not sure if he means a pro-life loser or any loser). You can find my feeble comment in response on his site. Suffice it say: Whomever I vote for, or don't vote for, I will feel I made the wrong decision, and I may even feel some moral culpability. (Though I have ceased to feel guilty for voting for Bush; no one voted for some of the things his administration supported, and certainly no one voted for the unexpected changing circumstances that made those actions possible.)

[I want to write a piece later about some of the Christian moral arguments that have been made about this election later. Let's just say I feel I am being coerced from both sides - and not perhaps because they are really so worried about my conscience. (And I say both since nobody has argued I am morally obligated to support Ralph Nader or Badnarik. Odd how that works.) On the one hand I feel pressured by the predominant church culture in the US who feels that Bush is the right choice; they disincline me to vote. On the other hand, to liberal Christians I am evil if I don't oppose George Bush, regardless of his views on some issues they are supposed to care about. I am not saying it is an easy choice, but I am very wary of anyone who thinks it is easy or who claims to know which choice I am morally obligated to make. Both are bad, can we be honest about that for a minute? Now, what should we really do?]

"The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long - and you have burned so very, very brightly, Roy."

(And, just for good measure: "Too bad she won't live! But, then again, who does?")