pbsthisdayinhistory:

December 11, 1941: Germany and Italy Declare War on the United States
On this day in 1941, Nazi Germany’s Adolf Hitler and Fascist Italy’s Benito Mussolini declared war on the United States in support of their ally, the Empire of Japan. The U.S. government responded by quickly passing resolutions of war against the two Axis powers. 
Although the United States had previously claimed neutrality in Europe, these declarations led America into the European conflict of World War II. Three days prior, President Franklin Roosevelt had declared war against the Empire of Japan, the third Axis power, following the surprise attack on the naval base at Pearl Harbor. 
Explore Ken Burns’s timeline of World War II to discover the most important and consequential events of this global conflict.
Photo: President Roosevelt signing the declaration of war against Germany, Dec. 11, 1941 (Library of Congress).

pbsthisdayinhistory:

December 11, 1941: Germany and Italy Declare War on the United States

On this day in 1941, Nazi Germany’s Adolf Hitler and Fascist Italy’s Benito Mussolini declared war on the United States in support of their ally, the Empire of Japan. The U.S. government responded by quickly passing resolutions of war against the two Axis powers. 

Although the United States had previously claimed neutrality in Europe, these declarations led America into the European conflict of World War II. Three days prior, President Franklin Roosevelt had declared war against the Empire of Japan, the third Axis power, following the surprise attack on the naval base at Pearl Harbor. 

Explore Ken Burns’s timeline of World War II to discover the most important and consequential events of this global conflict.

Photo: President Roosevelt signing the declaration of war against Germany, Dec. 11, 1941 (Library of Congress).

pbsthisdayinhistory:

December 7, 1941: Pearl Harbor Attacked
On this day in 1941, a surprise aerial strike was conducted by the Imperial Japanese navy against the United States naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Japan’s goal for the attack was to use it as a preventive measure to keep the U.S. Pacific Fleet from interfering with its planned military actions across the world.
The surprise attack not only struck a serious blow against the U.S. Pacific fleet, but also served as the critical factor for the United States joining World War II.
George Macartney Hunter was a naval officer assigned to the USS West Virginia stationed at Pearl Harbor. Read his journal notes from that day.
Photo: A small boat rescues a seaman from the 31,800 ton USS West Virginia burning in the foreground (Library of Congress).

pbsthisdayinhistory:

December 7, 1941: Pearl Harbor Attacked

On this day in 1941, a surprise aerial strike was conducted by the Imperial Japanese navy against the United States naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Japan’s goal for the attack was to use it as a preventive measure to keep the U.S. Pacific Fleet from interfering with its planned military actions across the world.

The surprise attack not only struck a serious blow against the U.S. Pacific fleet, but also served as the critical factor for the United States joining World War II.

George Macartney Hunter was a naval officer assigned to the USS West Virginia stationed at Pearl Harbor. Read his journal notes from that day.

Photo: A small boat rescues a seaman from the 31,800 ton USS West Virginia burning in the foreground (Library of Congress).

sonicbloom11:

The Atlantic:

The Geography of Hate
America’s racist groups concentrate in certain regions — and their presence correlates with religion, McCain votes, and poverty
Since 2000, the number of organized hate groups — from white nationalists, neo-Nazis and racist skinheads to border vigilantes and black separatist organizations — has climbed by more than 50 percent, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). Their rise has been fueled by growing anxiety over jobs, immigration, racial and ethnic diversity, the election of Barack Obama as America’s first black president, and the lingering economic crisis. Most of them merely espouse violent theories; some of them are stock-piling weapons and actively planning attacks.
But not all people and places hate equally; some regions of the United States — at least within some sectors of their populations — are virtual hate hatcheries. What is the geography of hate groups and organizations? Why are some regions more susceptible to them?
The SPLC maintains a detailed database on hate groups, culled from websites and publications, citizen and law enforcement reports, field sources and news reports. It defines hate groups as organizations and associations that “have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics,” and which participate in “criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing.”  As of 2010, the SPLC documents 1,002 such hate groups across the United States.
The map [above], by Zara Matheson of the Martin Prosperity Institute, graphically presents the geography of hatred in America today. Based on the number of hate groups per one million people across the U.S. states, it reveals a distinctive pattern.
Hate groups are most highly concentrated in the old South and the northern Plains states. Two states have by far the largest concentration of hate groups — Montana with 13.8 groups per million people, and Mississippi with 13.7 per million.  Arkansas (10.3), Wyoming (9.7), and Idaho (8.9) come in a distant third, fourth, and fifth.

But beyond their locations, what other factors are associated with hate groups? With the help of my colleague Charlotta Mellander, I looked at the social, political, cultural, economic and demographic factors that might be associated with the geography of hate groups. We considered a number of key factors that shape America’s geographic divide: Red state/Blue state politics; income and poverty; religion, and economic class.  It is important to note that correlation does not imply causation —we are simply looking at associations between variables. It’s also worth pointing out that Montana and Mississippi are fairly extreme outliers which may skew the results somewhat. Nonetheless, the patterns we discerned were robust and distinctive enough to warrant reporting.
First of all, the geography of hate reflects the Red state/Blue state sorting of American politics.

Hate groups were positively associated with McCain votes (with a correlation of .52).

Conversely, hate groups were negatively associated with Obama votes (with a correlation of -.54).

Hate groups also cleave along religious lines. Ironically, but perhaps not surprisingly, higher concentrations of hate groups are positively associated with states where individuals report that religion plays an important role in their everyday lives (a correlation of .35).

The geography of hate also sorts across economic lines. Hate groups are more concentrated in states with higher poverty rates (.39) and those with larger blue-collar working class workforces (.41).



Reblogging in light of Sunday’s shooting in Milwaukee.

sonicbloom11:

The Atlantic:

The Geography of Hate

America’s racist groups concentrate in certain regions — and their presence correlates with religion, McCain votes, and poverty

Since 2000, the number of organized hate groups — from white nationalists, neo-Nazis and racist skinheads to border vigilantes and black separatist organizations — has climbed by more than 50 percent, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). Their rise has been fueled by growing anxiety over jobs, immigration, racial and ethnic diversity, the election of Barack Obama as America’s first black president, and the lingering economic crisis. Most of them merely espouse violent theories; some of them are stock-piling weapons and actively planning attacks.

But not all people and places hate equally; some regions of the United States — at least within some sectors of their populations — are virtual hate hatcheries. What is the geography of hate groups and organizations? Why are some regions more susceptible to them?

The SPLC maintains a detailed database on hate groups, culled from websites and publications, citizen and law enforcement reports, field sources and news reports. It defines hate groups as organizations and associations that “have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics,” and which participate in “criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing.”  As of 2010, the SPLC documents 1,002 such hate groups across the United States.

The map [above], by Zara Matheson of the Martin Prosperity Institute, graphically presents the geography of hatred in America today. Based on the number of hate groups per one million people across the U.S. states, it reveals a distinctive pattern.

Hate groups are most highly concentrated in the old South and the northern Plains states. Two states have by far the largest concentration of hate groups — Montana with 13.8 groups per million people, and Mississippi with 13.7 per million.  Arkansas (10.3), Wyoming (9.7), and Idaho (8.9) come in a distant third, fourth, and fifth.

But beyond their locations, what other factors are associated with hate groups? With the help of my colleague Charlotta Mellander, I looked at the social, political, cultural, economic and demographic factors that might be associated with the geography of hate groups. We considered a number of key factors that shape America’s geographic divide: Red state/Blue state politics; income and poverty; religion, and economic class.  It is important to note that correlation does not imply causation —we are simply looking at associations between variables. It’s also worth pointing out that Montana and Mississippi are fairly extreme outliers which may skew the results somewhat. Nonetheless, the patterns we discerned were robust and distinctive enough to warrant reporting.

First of all, the geography of hate reflects the Red state/Blue state sorting of American politics.

Hate groups were positively associated with McCain votes (with a correlation of .52).

Conversely, hate groups were negatively associated with Obama votes (with a correlation of -.54).

Hate groups also cleave along religious lines. Ironically, but perhaps not surprisingly, higher concentrations of hate groups are positively associated with states where individuals report that religion plays an important role in their everyday lives (a correlation of .35).

The geography of hate also sorts across economic lines. Hate groups are more concentrated in states with higher poverty rates (.39) and those with larger blue-collar working class workforces (.41).

Reblogging in light of Sunday’s shooting in Milwaukee.

Vice:

TAKE A STROLL… WITH ROB DELANEY - COOKING UP A WAR? DON’T FORGET THE PISS
People are understandably upset after video emerged of what appears to be U.S. Marines urinating on Afghan corpses. If they’re surprised, however, they need to pick up a history book. Soldiers piss on corpses in every war. On both sides. Soldiers rape civilians, as a rule, in every war that has ever taken place since time immemorial. Rape is a weapon of war. Piss, some people are now learning, is a weapon of war. Some fucked-up, disgusting combination of the two, plus shit and dismemberment, is a weapon of war. Bad guys do it. “Good” guys do it. When a country’s government decides to wage war, they are deciding to sanction piss, rape, and the torture and murder of women and children who had the colossally bad fortune to be in the midst of the war. When the U.S. decided to enter into Afghanistan and then Iraq, they (i.e. Congress and the president, and the myriad companies that profit from war) knew this. I’m not singling out the U.S. here; while we’re as good at implementing the more horrific, soul-erasing weapons as anyone, we’re not alone. Does your country have a military? In times of war, they kill people, and sometimes they piss on them.
If it isn’t clear why I’m detailing this, it is because I want to express an old thought: war is the very worst thing there is. And if you command an army, you better the fuck understand, in your probably cowardly, definitely privileged, likely draft-dodging bones, that when you send soldiers out to fight and die, they are going to do some unconscionable, irreversible things. And they are doing it in your name. Because you told them to.  And pissing on a corpse is a FUCKING POEM compared to issuing an order for beautiful young people to go and kill other beautiful young people in a land far away, because you, in essence, “felt like it.”

Vice:

TAKE A STROLL… WITH ROB DELANEY - COOKING UP A WAR? DON’T FORGET THE PISS

People are understandably upset after video emerged of what appears to be U.S. Marines urinating on Afghan corpses. If they’re surprised, however, they need to pick up a history book. Soldiers piss on corpses in every war. On both sides. Soldiers rape civilians, as a rule, in every war that has ever taken place since time immemorial. Rape is a weapon of war. Piss, some people are now learning, is a weapon of war. Some fucked-up, disgusting combination of the two, plus shit and dismemberment, is a weapon of war. Bad guys do it. “Good” guys do it. When a country’s government decides to wage war, they are deciding to sanction piss, rape, and the torture and murder of women and children who had the colossally bad fortune to be in the midst of the war. When the U.S. decided to enter into Afghanistan and then Iraq, they (i.e. Congress and the president, and the myriad companies that profit from war) knew this. I’m not singling out the U.S. here; while we’re as good at implementing the more horrific, soul-erasing weapons as anyone, we’re not alone. Does your country have a military? In times of war, they kill people, and sometimes they piss on them.

If it isn’t clear why I’m detailing this, it is because I want to express an old thought: war is the very worst thing there is. And if you command an army, you better the fuck understand, in your probably cowardly, definitely privileged, likely draft-dodging bones, that when you send soldiers out to fight and die, they are going to do some unconscionable, irreversible things. And they are doing it in your name. Because you told them to.  And pissing on a corpse is a FUCKING POEM compared to issuing an order for beautiful young people to go and kill other beautiful young people in a land far away, because you, in essence, “felt like it.”

usagov:

Learn about these things and more:

  • The U.S. population increased by nearly 10% since the 2000 census.
  • In 2009, 16.7 percent of people in the United States were not covered by health insurance.
  • Of the 77.3 million people ages 3 and up enrolled in elementary, secondary, and post-secondary schools in 2009, 86.5% were enrolled in public schools in 2009.
The Onion:

Historians Politely Remind Nation To Check What’s Happened In Past Before Making Any Big Decisions
WASHINGTON—With the United States facing a daunting array of problems at home and abroad, leading historians courteously reminded the nation Thursday that when making tough choices, it never hurts to stop a moment, take a look at similar situations from the past, and then think about whether the decisions people made back then were good or bad.
According to the historians, by looking at things that have already happened, Americans can learn a lot about which actions made things better versus which actions made things worse, and can then plan their own actions accordingly.
"In the coming weeks and months, people will have to make some really important decisions about some really important issues," Columbia University historian Douglas R. Collins said during a press conference, speaking very slowly and clearly so the nation could follow his words. "And one thing we can do, before making a choice that has permanent consequences for our entire civilization, is check real quick first to see if human beings have ever done anything like it previously, and see if turned out to be a good idea or not."
"It’s actually pretty simple: We just have to ask ourselves if people doing the same thing in the past caused something bad to happen," Collins continued. "Did the thing we’re thinking of doing make people upset? Did it start a war? If it did, then we might want to think about not doing it."
In addition, Collins carefully explained that if a past decision proved to be favorable—if, for example, it led to increased employment, caused fewer deaths, or made lots of people feel good inside— then the nation should consider following through with the same decision now.
While the new strategy, known as “Look Back Before You Act,” has raised concerns among people worried they will have to remember lots of events from long ago, the historians have assured Americans they won’t be required to read all the way through thick books or memorize anything.
Instead, citizens have been told they can just find a large-print, illustrated timeline of historical events, place their finger on an important moment, and then look to the right of that point to see what happened afterward, paying especially close attention to whether things got worse or better.
"You know how the economy is not doing so well right now?" Professor Elizabeth Schuller of the University of North Carolina said. "Well, in the 1930s, financial markets—no, wait, I’m sorry. Here: A long, long time ago, way far in the past, certain things happened that were a lot like things now, and they made people hungry and sad."
"How do you feel when you’re hungry? Doesn’t feel good, does it?" Schuller added. "So, maybe we should avoid doing those things that caused people to feel that way, don’t you think?"

The Onion:

Historians Politely Remind Nation To Check What’s Happened In Past Before Making Any Big Decisions

WASHINGTON—With the United States facing a daunting array of problems at home and abroad, leading historians courteously reminded the nation Thursday that when making tough choices, it never hurts to stop a moment, take a look at similar situations from the past, and then think about whether the decisions people made back then were good or bad.

According to the historians, by looking at things that have already happened, Americans can learn a lot about which actions made things better versus which actions made things worse, and can then plan their own actions accordingly.

"In the coming weeks and months, people will have to make some really important decisions about some really important issues," Columbia University historian Douglas R. Collins said during a press conference, speaking very slowly and clearly so the nation could follow his words. "And one thing we can do, before making a choice that has permanent consequences for our entire civilization, is check real quick first to see if human beings have ever done anything like it previously, and see if turned out to be a good idea or not."

"It’s actually pretty simple: We just have to ask ourselves if people doing the same thing in the past caused something bad to happen," Collins continued. "Did the thing we’re thinking of doing make people upset? Did it start a war? If it did, then we might want to think about not doing it."

In addition, Collins carefully explained that if a past decision proved to be favorable—if, for example, it led to increased employment, caused fewer deaths, or made lots of people feel good inside— then the nation should consider following through with the same decision now.

While the new strategy, known as “Look Back Before You Act,” has raised concerns among people worried they will have to remember lots of events from long ago, the historians have assured Americans they won’t be required to read all the way through thick books or memorize anything.

Instead, citizens have been told they can just find a large-print, illustrated timeline of historical events, place their finger on an important moment, and then look to the right of that point to see what happened afterward, paying especially close attention to whether things got worse or better.

"You know how the economy is not doing so well right now?" Professor Elizabeth Schuller of the University of North Carolina said. "Well, in the 1930s, financial markets—no, wait, I’m sorry. Here: A long, long time ago, way far in the past, certain things happened that were a lot like things now, and they made people hungry and sad."

"How do you feel when you’re hungry? Doesn’t feel good, does it?" Schuller added. "So, maybe we should avoid doing those things that caused people to feel that way, don’t you think?"

Jerks

Ambassador Philip D Murphy, September 8, 2011:

There are jerks everywhere.

There are jerks where I come from in America, and there are jerks in the heart of Europe, here in Berlin.

A jerk is someone who shows no respect for other people, because they dress differently, talk differently, or were born with skin darker or eyes shaped other than the local standard. 

Ultimately, jerks are people with such a deficit of character and self-respect that they feel a need to belittle and intimidate others to fend off feeling small, scared and insignificant themselves.  So we need to help them change the way they think and the way they feel about themselves.  But first of all we need to stand up to them.  Because words and deeds do have consequences.

I was painfully reminded of this recently.

A group of U.S. Embassy staff and friends attended the Hertha game on August 26th.  They had a great time during the game, and were pleased to cheer on the home team.  One of them was African-American.  After the game, as they were walking away from the stadium, two men came at them and accosted our African American colleague.  One jostled him and the other doused him with beer and directed a deeply offensive racial insult at him.  The Embassy group tried to calm the situation, but it became clear that these individuals, along with an approaching group of their friends, were bent on violence.   The police arrived quickly and confronted the thugs, and the Americans left the area. No one was left bleeding or bruised, but things might easily have ended differently.

You can’t just let these things go.  Regardless of where incidents like this happen, whether it’s in America or Germany or anywhere else in the world, we have to stand up and say it’s wrong.  

This week in Washington, D.C., a national memorial to Dr. Martin Luther King opened on the Mall where the famous freedom fighter spoke to hundreds of thousands at the height of our civil rights campaign – half a century ago.  Dr. King remains a wonderful example for all of us.  He saw things that weren’t right and he refused to remain silent.  He had the courage to take action to change things for the better.

For many Americans, regardless of their political views, the election of Barack Obama was a triumph over our own history, a victory over the petty hatreds of many generations of our own jerks.  It was a milestone, but it wasn’t the end of the story.  Racism is still present in America.  We still have our jerks, the small people who need to prove themselves by lashing out at people they perceive as different.  And so we Americans have to keep working to make thing better.   The same is true for Germany.  Society – whether American or German – cannot look the other way and hope that somehow magically bigotry and racism will disappear.  We have to speak out and we have to take action.

Racism is not a thing of the past, neither in Germany nor in the U.S.  It remains a very modern problem, and increasingly so as populations move around the world in search of better lives in these tough economic times. Racism must be confronted firmly wherever it rears its head – whether along a country lane in America or on a sidewalk outside the Olympia Stadium or anywhere else in the world where jerks think that they can hurt people and get away with it.

Business Insider:

Yes, the rest of the world is watching this embarrassing debt ceiling nonsense, and it is growing dismayed.

Der Spiegel has a roundup of commentary in German newspapers about the fight, and the universal message is this:

The US is holding the entire world hostage, and it’s the Republicans that are playing with fire.

Hard to accuse the Germans (who are no fans of fiscal profligacy) of being motivated by politics, or of having some inherent reason to attack Republicans. This is just the reality of what they’re doing.

Here’s the passage from Bild, the newspaper of the masses:

"Playing poker is part of politics, as is theatrical posturing. That’s fair enough. But what America is currently exhibiting is the worst kind of absurd theatrics. And the whole world is being held hostage.

"Irrespective of what the correct fiscal and economic policy should be for the most powerful country on earth, it’s simply not possible to stop taking on new debt overnight. Most importantly, the Republicans have turned a dispute over a technicality into a religious war, which no longer has any relation to a reasonable dispute between the elected government and the opposition."

"If it continues like this, the US will be bankrupt within a few days. It would cause a global shockwave like the one which followed the Lehman bankruptcy in 2008, which triggered the worst economic crisis since the war. Except it would be much worse than the Lehman bankruptcy. The political climate in the US has been poisoned to a degree that is hard for us (Germans) to imagine. But we should all fear the consequences."

"No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state."

Article 14, Section 265 of the Missississippi State Constitution

Though it is not enforced, and is against Article VI, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution, this still remains on the books.

The Atlantic:

The Geography of Hate
America’s racist groups concentrate in certain regions — and their presence correlates with religion, McCain votes, and poverty
Since 2000, the number of organized hate groups — from white nationalists, neo-Nazis and racist skinheads to border vigilantes and black separatist organizations — has climbed by more than 50 percent, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). Their rise has been fueled by growing anxiety over jobs, immigration, racial and ethnic diversity, the election of Barack Obama as America’s first black president, and the lingering economic crisis. Most of them merely espouse violent theories; some of them are stock-piling weapons and actively planning attacks.
But not all people and places hate equally; some regions of the United States — at least within some sectors of their populations — are virtual hate hatcheries. What is the geography of hate groups and organizations? Why are some regions more susceptible to them?
The SPLC maintains a detailed database on hate groups, culled from websites and publications, citizen and law enforcement reports, field sources and news reports. It defines hate groups as organizations and associations that “have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics,” and which participate in “criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing.”  As of 2010, the SPLC documents 1,002 such hate groups across the United States.
The map [above], by Zara Matheson of the Martin Prosperity Institute, graphically presents the geography of hatred in America today. Based on the number of hate groups per one million people across the U.S. states, it reveals a distinctive pattern.
Hate groups are most highly concentrated in the old South and the northern Plains states. Two states have by far the largest concentration of hate groups — Montana with 13.8 groups per million people, and Mississippi with 13.7 per million.  Arkansas (10.3), Wyoming (9.7), and Idaho (8.9) come in a distant third, fourth, and fifth.
 
But beyond their locations, what other factors are associated with hate groups? With the help of my colleague Charlotta Mellander, I looked at the social, political, cultural, economic and demographic factors that might be associated with the geography of hate groups. We considered a number of key factors that shape America’s geographic divide: Red state/Blue state politics; income and poverty; religion, and economic class.  It is important to note that correlation does not imply causation —we are simply looking at associations between variables. It’s also worth pointing out that Montana and Mississippi are fairly extreme outliers which may skew the results somewhat. Nonetheless, the patterns we discerned were robust and distinctive enough to warrant reporting.
First of all, the geography of hate reflects the Red state/Blue state sorting of American politics.

Hate groups were positively associated with McCain votes (with a correlation of .52).

Conversely, hate groups were negatively associated with Obama votes (with a correlation of -.54).

Hate groups also cleave along religious lines. Ironically, but perhaps not surprisingly, higher concentrations of hate groups are positively associated with states where individuals report that religion plays an important role in their everyday lives (a correlation of .35).

The geography of hate also sorts across economic lines. Hate groups are more concentrated in states with higher poverty rates (.39) and those with larger blue-collar working class workforces (.41).

The Atlantic:

The Geography of Hate

America’s racist groups concentrate in certain regions — and their presence correlates with religion, McCain votes, and poverty

Since 2000, the number of organized hate groups — from white nationalists, neo-Nazis and racist skinheads to border vigilantes and black separatist organizations — has climbed by more than 50 percent, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). Their rise has been fueled by growing anxiety over jobs, immigration, racial and ethnic diversity, the election of Barack Obama as America’s first black president, and the lingering economic crisis. Most of them merely espouse violent theories; some of them are stock-piling weapons and actively planning attacks.

But not all people and places hate equally; some regions of the United States — at least within some sectors of their populations — are virtual hate hatcheries. What is the geography of hate groups and organizations? Why are some regions more susceptible to them?

The SPLC maintains a detailed database on hate groups, culled from websites and publications, citizen and law enforcement reports, field sources and news reports. It defines hate groups as organizations and associations that “have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics,” and which participate in “criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing.”  As of 2010, the SPLC documents 1,002 such hate groups across the United States.

The map [above], by Zara Matheson of the Martin Prosperity Institute, graphically presents the geography of hatred in America today. Based on the number of hate groups per one million people across the U.S. states, it reveals a distinctive pattern.

Hate groups are most highly concentrated in the old South and the northern Plains states. Two states have by far the largest concentration of hate groups — Montana with 13.8 groups per million people, and Mississippi with 13.7 per million.  Arkansas (10.3), Wyoming (9.7), and Idaho (8.9) come in a distant third, fourth, and fifth.

But beyond their locations, what other factors are associated with hate groups? With the help of my colleague Charlotta Mellander, I looked at the social, political, cultural, economic and demographic factors that might be associated with the geography of hate groups. We considered a number of key factors that shape America’s geographic divide: Red state/Blue state politics; income and poverty; religion, and economic class.  It is important to note that correlation does not imply causation —we are simply looking at associations between variables. It’s also worth pointing out that Montana and Mississippi are fairly extreme outliers which may skew the results somewhat. Nonetheless, the patterns we discerned were robust and distinctive enough to warrant reporting.

First of all, the geography of hate reflects the Red state/Blue state sorting of American politics.

Hate groups were positively associated with McCain votes (with a correlation of .52).

Conversely, hate groups were negatively associated with Obama votes (with a correlation of -.54).

Hate groups also cleave along religious lines. Ironically, but perhaps not surprisingly, higher concentrations of hate groups are positively associated with states where individuals report that religion plays an important role in their everyday lives (a correlation of .35).

The geography of hate also sorts across economic lines. Hate groups are more concentrated in states with higher poverty rates (.39) and those with larger blue-collar working class workforces (.41).

theatlantic:

Top Importers of Libyan Oil
Libyan oil spreads out from the nation’s ports to the rest of the world. Italy is, by far, the largest importer of Libyan oil. US imports from the country have fallen in recent years, but China, France, and the United Kingdom have all been buying more Libyan oil.

Compare that with the countries from where the US gets its oil, all data from US Department of Energy:

theatlantic:

Top Importers of Libyan Oil

Libyan oil spreads out from the nation’s ports to the rest of the world. Italy is, by far, the largest importer of Libyan oil. US imports from the country have fallen in recent years, but China, France, and the United Kingdom have all been buying more Libyan oil.

Compare that with the countries from where the US gets its oil, all data from US Department of Energy:

I’m currently fascinated and, honestly, frightened by Muammar Gaddafi’s speech to Libya right now, which has been going on for more than hour.
He’s essentially promising to shoot any people that protest his regime in order to maintain his position. He blames everything that’s happening in Libya on Israel, the United States and other foreign entities.
Al-Jazeera is picking and choosing what it wants to translate, leaving out the most inflammatory statements, specifically what I mention in the previous paragraph.
For background on Libya, read this from Mother Jones.
For what the United States and other nations can/should do, read this from Foreign Policy’s Marc Lynch.
For more options, read this from POMED.

I’m currently fascinated and, honestly, frightened by Muammar Gaddafi’s speech to Libya right now, which has been going on for more than hour.

He’s essentially promising to shoot any people that protest his regime in order to maintain his position. He blames everything that’s happening in Libya on Israel, the United States and other foreign entities.

Al-Jazeera is picking and choosing what it wants to translate, leaving out the most inflammatory statements, specifically what I mention in the previous paragraph.

For background on Libya, read this from Mother Jones.

For what the United States and other nations can/should do, read this from Foreign Policy’s Marc Lynch.

For more options, read this from POMED.

NYTimes:

 Security Forces in Bahrain Fire on Mourners and Journalists
MANAMA, Bahrain — Government forces opened fire on hundreds of mourners marching toward Pearl Square Friday, sending people running away in panic amid the boom of concussion grenades. But even as the people fled, at least one helicopter sprayed fire on them and a witness reported seeing mourners crumpling to the ground.
It was not immediately clear what type of ammunition the forces were firing, but some witnesses reported live fire from automatic weapons and the crowd was screaming “live fire, live fire.” At a nearby hospital, witnesses reported seeing people with very serious injuries and gaping wounds, at least some of them caused by rubber bullets that appeared to have been fired at close range.
Even as ambulances rushed to rescue people, forces fired on medics loading the wounded into their vehicles.
A Western official said at least one person had died in the mayhem surrounding the square, and reports said at least 50 were wounded. The official quoted a witness as saying that the shooters were from the military, not the police, indicating a hardening of the government’s stance against those trying to stage a popular revolt.
The mourners who were trying to march on symbolic Pearl Square were mostly young men who had been part of a funeral procession for a protester killed in an earlier crackdown by police.
Minutes after the first shots were fired, forces in a helicopter that had been shooting at the crowds, opened fire at a Western reporter and videographer who were filming a sequence on the latest violence.
At least seven people had died in clampdowns before Friday’s violence.
[Read More]

Aside from obvious concerns about Bahrain firing on its own people, Americans should pay closer attention to this for one simple reason: The Fifth Fleet is based just outside Manama.
What happens in Bahrain, regardless of the protest’s outcome, will dramatically change the United States’ outlook on the region, if it hasn’t already.

NYTimes:

 Security Forces in Bahrain Fire on Mourners and Journalists

MANAMA, Bahrain — Government forces opened fire on hundreds of mourners marching toward Pearl Square Friday, sending people running away in panic amid the boom of concussion grenades. But even as the people fled, at least one helicopter sprayed fire on them and a witness reported seeing mourners crumpling to the ground.

It was not immediately clear what type of ammunition the forces were firing, but some witnesses reported live fire from automatic weapons and the crowd was screaming “live fire, live fire.” At a nearby hospital, witnesses reported seeing people with very serious injuries and gaping wounds, at least some of them caused by rubber bullets that appeared to have been fired at close range.

Even as ambulances rushed to rescue people, forces fired on medics loading the wounded into their vehicles.

A Western official said at least one person had died in the mayhem surrounding the square, and reports said at least 50 were wounded. The official quoted a witness as saying that the shooters were from the military, not the police, indicating a hardening of the government’s stance against those trying to stage a popular revolt.

The mourners who were trying to march on symbolic Pearl Square were mostly young men who had been part of a funeral procession for a protester killed in an earlier crackdown by police.

Minutes after the first shots were fired, forces in a helicopter that had been shooting at the crowds, opened fire at a Western reporter and videographer who were filming a sequence on the latest violence.

At least seven people had died in clampdowns before Friday’s violence.

[Read More]

Aside from obvious concerns about Bahrain firing on its own people, Americans should pay closer attention to this for one simple reason: The Fifth Fleet is based just outside Manama.

What happens in Bahrain, regardless of the protest’s outcome, will dramatically change the United States’ outlook on the region, if it hasn’t already.

Robot Fish “Charlie”

CIA’s Office of Advanced Technologies and Programs developed the Unmanned Underwater Vehicle (UUV) fish to study aquatic robot technology. Some of the specifications used to develop “Charlie” were: speed, endurance, maneuverability, depth control, navigational accuracy, autonomy, and communications status.

The UUV fish contains a pressure hull, ballast system, and communications system in the body and a propulsion system in the tail. It is controlled by a wireless line-of-sight radio handset.

(Source: salon.com)