3 Quick Tips on Reading Faster

by Ali-Asad

“I am not a speed reader. I am a speed understander”
~Isaac Asimov

1. Change your definition of reading:

What does it mean to read? Most people consider reading as the act of looking at each word on a page in order to gain some comprehension. This definition holds most readers back. Instead, think of reading as a means towards accomplishing a goal. For example, find the number of times the word ‘it’ appears in this post.

Consider what you did/will do/would do to find the answer; you read the post. In other words, you examined a group of text to accomplish a purpose; that’s reading. Usually, your purpose will include inferring some comprehension from a passage. Typical purposes include; what is the most important point in this passage? What can I apply to my life? How many people were killed? And so on…

2. Define Your Purpose:

You cannot read without a purpose. Therefore, you must know your purpose before you start reading. Define specifically what you want to get out of the reading. Let headlines, subtitles or topic sentences give you a sense of what you want from the article. Do you want to remember some key points? Or are you just reading for fun. Any which way, define your purpose.

3. Use your finger:

When reading, your eyes have to make sure you are looking at the right words and lines as well as focusing on the words themselves. Use your finger to help guide your eyes. Trace the bottom of each line with your finger and use it as a cue for your eyes. This aid allows your eyes to completely focus on the text rather than worry about skipping lines or being on the wrong line. Use the movement of your finger to set your reading pace.

And that’s jus’ the tip

Comment below.

References/Further Reading

Breakthrough Rapid Reading

Parliament Pwnage: A Confrontation Style Democracy

by Ali-Asad

"I love argument. I love debate. I don’t expect anyone just to sit there and agree with me, that’s not their job."
~Margaret Thatcher

In a previous post, I had contrasted the UK’s multi-party political system with the US’s two party dominated politics. Although the UK does have two better known and established political parties, the Conservative Party (Tories) and the Labor Party, the UK system still allows 3rd party candidates to get elected to parliament and have a say in the political process. As I explained before, both the US and the UK have a “winner takes all/first past the post system” that discriminates against 3rd party candidates. So why does UK’s system seem to discriminate less? One possible reason is the confrontational nature of UK’s parliament which allows for: a more entertaining political debate, direct confrontation and debate between leading politicians, and free screen time in which people actual care and pay attention. Allow me to demonstrate this confrontational nature of debate with several entertaining clips.

Firstly, here is a younger Tony Blair attacking the Conservative Prime Minister John Major. Blair’s Labor Party went on to beat Major’s Conservative party in the 1997 election. The Labor party has been in power ever since.



Next, Prime Minister Blair uses his quick wit to put down the opposition Tory Members of Parliament (MPs) over their knowledge of Europe.


Now, we fast forward to 2006 and the conservative leader of the opposition William Hague takes part in a back and forth with an old college, the Deputy Prime Minister John Prescot. The zingers keep coming from both sides in this clip.



In the last keep, we rewind to 1996, where the Conservative MP is slapped down for the speaker for trying to get the Prime Minister to talk about opposition policies (the parliament rules dictate that the prime minister cannot talk about anything other than his own government’s policies).



And that’s jus’ the tip.

Comment below.

References

The Elusive Third Party, Jus’ the Tip

The Elusive 3rd Party

by Ali-Asad

“There can be no daily democracy without daily citizenship”
~Ralph Nader

Functional democracies always have multiple political parties taking part in the governing process. From Great Britain to Germany and Iraq to Ireland, all these democracies have a multi-party system that promotes a lively political discourse. Hence I find it quite absurd and ironic that the self-proclaimed leader of the free world has a political system with such an entrenched dichotomous slant.

Multi-party systems promote a much livelier and rewarding political atmosphere. For example, look at the UK political system which is dominated by 2 main political parties: the Conservative Tories and the Labor Party. But smaller 3rd parties hold over 14% of the seats in the UK’s main legislative body: the House of Commons. These parties include: the Liberal Democrats (who are fast becoming Britain’s established 3rd party), the Democratic Unionist Party, the Scottish National Party etc. All of these smaller parties contribute to the political atmosphere in the country. Also, the British parliamentary system promotes real debate: Heated exchanges, debates and questions are a well established part of the “prime minister’s questions” segment. A brief clip below – Here current Leader of the Opposition David Cameron accuses Prime Minister Gordon Brown for stealing an opposition idea and delaying elections because the polls were unfavorable.



Now, contrast this experience with that of the US Senate. Only C-SPAN covers the US Senate because only those with an extreme interest in legislative politics (like myself) could stay awake while a Senator reads prepared remarks to an empty chamber. In the greatest democracy in the world, I ask, where is the debate? Behind closed doors somewhere? Here’s a clip showing two senators talking about how they introduced amendments that were virtually identical except for the use of the word “will” instead of “shall”.



Critics of my argument will counter that the present system only exists in this dichotomous state because the two major parties consistently engage and bring in different groups to maintain their current umbrella coalitions called the Democratic and Republican parties. This point has some merits. The two dominant parties are really just collection of interest groups that share some basic common philosophy. These parties have a huge incentive to bring in more diverse activist groups as long as those groups share their same basic common philosophy. But this effect results in the dilution of innovative and diverse thought. If a party dedicated to the abolishment of the income tax becomes dissolved into the general Republican party, this anti-income tax party will have to settle for fighting for lower taxes in the broader context of the Republican Party. This result denies voters the chance of voting for a candidate who supports something they favor – the abolishment of the income tax.

Both the US and the UK have a “winner takes all” or “first past the post” system where the winner of a plurality of votes secures victory. In the US, the presidential candidate who wins a plurality of votes in a state wins all state’s Electoral College votes (the Electoral College is the body that goes on to select the President). This system exists in the UK where the winner of a plurality of votes in a constituency (district) becomes that district’s Member of Parliament. Then, the party that wins a majority of seats in the parliamentary goes on to form a government and its leader becomes the Prime Minister. According to Duverger’s Law, this “first past the post/winner takes all system” favors two-party dominated politics because smaller third parties are usually not concentrated enough in one area to win any seats in a legislature let alone win a state in a Presidential election. But the UK system provides a counter to this Law. As stated above, the UK has a vibrant multi-party system with a 3rd party (the Liberal Democrats) fast becoming an established 3rd party. But even in the UK, the deck is stacked against these 3rd parties. For example, in the most recent 2005 parliamentary election, the Liberal Democrats won 22% of the nationwide vote but only secured 10% of the seats in the parliament.

So, is there any hope for a third party in the US political system? Once again, I’d reiterate my desire to see Ron Paul run as a candidate of the Libertarian Party platform. He represents the most popular national figure that the Libertarian party could ever hope for. Paul regularly polls between 5-10% in nation polls for the Republican Party nomination. Unfortunately, this might not be good enough. Ross Perot, the most successful 3rd party candidate to run for president, secured almost 20% of the popular vote in 1992. He was polling between 7-9% for most of year but his support jumped above 25% after he participated in the Presidential Debates. Perot showed that taking part in a Presidential debate can give a 3rd party candidate legitimacy and higher poll numbers. For this years debates, the Commission on Presidential debates has ruled that a candidate must poll 15% or above in a group of selected polling organizations to be eligible. Ron Paul won’t make the cut. Nor will any other 3rd party candidate like the Green Party’s Cynthia Mckinney (Ralph Nader has formed an exploratory committee but has not officially jumped into the race). Look for either of these 3rd party candidates to win a percentage point or two come November. In a close election, they may even tilt the balance one way or another. But for the foreseeable future 3rd parties and their candidates will not have any impact on the political process. And most tragically, those citizens who agree with 3rd party policies and views will never truly be part of the process – whether they know it now or not.

And that’s jus’ the tip.

References

Candidate Selection Process, Commission on Presidential Debates
Third Party (US), Wikipedia

Plurality voting system, Wikipedia

Duverger’s Law, Wikipedia

Ross Perot, Wikipedia

Why Obama's Plagiarism Matters

"Borrowed garments never keep one warm"
~James Russell Lowell

At a Democratic fundraiser in Wisconsin Barack Obama chose to do away with her prepared remarks. Towards the end of his off the cuff speech, Obama delivered a few lines that were very similar to a remark made by Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick who is a major supporter of Obama.
Here are Obama’s words;

"The most important thing that we can do right now is to re-engage the American people in the process of governance," he said. "Don't tell me words don't matter. 'I have a dream' - just words? 'We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal.' Just words? 'We have nothing to fear but fear itself?' Just words, just speeches?"

Here are Patrick’s words;

"We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal. Just words! We have nothing to fear but fear itself. Just words? Ask not what your country can do for you ask what you can do for your country. I have a dream, just words?"

Obama has accepted that he lifted those remarks from his close supporter but thinks “it’s not too big of a deal” and “I’m sure I should have (credited Patrick) but I didn’t this time”. Obama’s response deserves serious attention for many reasons. Firstly, plagiarism cannot be taken lightly. The justice of society rests upon giving everyone their fair due. And here, Obama did not. Secondly, Obama’s decision to label his misdeed as “not too big a deal” reveals a major error of judgment. Plagiarism is a big deal. He needed to come clean about his actions and recognize his mistake rather than minimize the error.

Obama’s campaign has hit back at Senator Hillary Clinton’s attacks on this issue; they quote phrases that the Hillary’s campaign has lifted from Obama. But there’s a big difference between lifting simple catch phrases and copying speech lines designed to make an important point. The media needs to recognize this difference and hold Obama accountable for not recognizing and apologizing for his mistake.

Accepting his remark as a mistake and coming clean will save the Democratic campaign from an acrimonious fight between the supporters of 2 sides who will become increasingly polarized into thinking their candidate can do no wrong.

References

Obama says borrowed line not a big deal, Yahoo! News

Obama cedes lifting lines, Washington Times

Progressive Arab Thought

“A state does not have a religion; a state does not pray, fast or make pilgrimage. It is the individual who prays, fasts and makes pilgrimage”
~Iyad Jamal al-Din, Iraqi Member of Parliament

The Arab situation causes despair; despotic rulers govern most Arab regimes and plunder their wealth of their countries while their people remain poor and oppressed. So, why do the US government and other Western nations support these dictatorships? Foreign policy experts see these ‘moderate regimes’ as a bulwark against the tide of ‘Islamic’ extremism that threatens to sweep over the Middle East, take control of the oil and establish an anti-Western Caliphate. But recently, the world has more hope for the reformists within the Arab countries.

Reformists have come and gone in the past. In the early part of the 20th century, pan-Arab nationalism evolved as the response to Western colonial powers. But many individuals used this guise to promote their own agendas and secure power for themselves, most notably Gamal Abdul Nasser of Egypt. When Nasser’s bid to unite the Arab world against the West failed, hope for a united Arab front against the West dissolved. Now, reformists have attached themselves to the idea of democracy. Few countries in the Arab world have a semblance of democracy; Iraq’s democracy is fighting for its life.

Can democracy in Iraq work? Yes, but according to reformers like Iyad Jamal al-Din, people need to change their conception of the role of government. Jamal al-Din argues that secularism is the only way forward for any Arab country because of the different religions and sects that they contain.



Jamal ad-Din views the terrorism in Iraq as a last-ditch effort by the ‘Islamic’ extremists to establishment their anti-Western Caliphate.



Jamal ad-Din rejects the idea the American invaded Iraq for oil.





Bahraini scholar Dhiaa al-Mussawi focuses on women’s rights and modern institutions as the way forward.



Former Dean of Qatar University Abdal Hamid Al-Ansari describes the problems of Arab youth and potential solutions



Former Kuwaiti Minister Ahmad al-Ruba’i contends that Arabs nations have become so anti-Western to the point of ignoring the faults of rulers like Saddam.




A hilarious clip of a journalist and a politician debating the (de)merits of Saddam on Al-Jazeera. This debate is why I love Al-Jazeera; they represent all points of view on their news shows. You won’t find anything like this on a Western news show. Here, one commentator is reciting Quran for Saddam while the other is condemning him – It makes for excellent TV.



*These video highlights are from MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute) TV – an organization dedicated to translating Persian and Arab video in order to highlight socio-political trends. MEMRI is run by a couple of former Israeli military intelligence officers, and has been criticized for bias, selectivity and translation inaccuracy.

And that's jus' the tip.

References

MEMRI, Wikipedia

Gamal Abdel Nasser, Wikipedia

The Political Machine: A PC Game Review

Games that seek to simulate elections have a tough task. They must balance entertaining gameplay and visual appeal with real data and a realistic political campaign imitation. The Political balances both these ends and does it well. The end product is a game which you will find visually and mentally stimulating. The premise is simple. You start out 41 weeks before the election and you want to win. The Political Machine gives you many tools to go about achieving this goal but doesn’t over-burden you with facts or boring click-play.



The game screen is a map of the United States, which is essential your battlefield. And sure enough your candidate is a pawn in this battle. His actions will be your focus because he will be able to give speeches, create TV ads, raise money and build headquarters in whichever state he is in. But he cannot do everything; he has a limited number of stamina points. Once you’ve done what you wanted to do in the state and have left over stamina, you can travel to another state and continue the campaigning. But once his stamina has finished you won’t have much to do except to end your turn, which is 1 week long in game time. But the president isn’t your only pawn; once you’re given the opportunity to select a Veep candidate, he’ll go about raising awareness for you. Awareness is crucial because if the people of California haven’t heard about you, it won’t matter how liberal you are. Thankfully, there are a whole host of other pawns you can purchase who will help you in this endeavor; They are the consultants, spin doctors, smear merchants etc. Each one requires you to spend some stamina to obtain but they each play their own unique role in helping you out. For example, the spin doctors will raise your issue ratings by 15% in the states they are in. Ah issues ratings. You see, each state has its own list of issues arranged from important to not so important, and the good citizens of these states will rate you on these issues. So the more time you spend talking about social security in Florida and running ads saying you’re for it, the higher your rating will be on this oh so important issue to Floridians. I won’t give away all the features in this review but many more creative tools will become available to you as you play the game.



The single player campaign involves you fighting out a series of 9 different presidential candidates (each election cycle typically takes a couple of hours to play). Your opponents increase in difficultly as you go. For example, if you play as a democrat your first opponent will be Condi Rice but later on you’ll have to face the likes of Richard Nixon and Abraham Lincoln. As fun as this game sounds, don't take it lightly; to win against the tougher opponents you will have to be smart about where you spend your time and money. And you will become a master in electoral math no matter what. Witness my draw with John Kerry against George Washington even though I lost the popular vote by 30 million.

Overall, The Political Machine is a great game for those who would like a sense of fighting out a political campaign but don’t want to the dirty details and don’t take their politics too seriously.



For those looking for a more intense and realistic election simulator, I’d recommend President Forever. This game starts out in the primary season and includes the current crop of candidates. It’s a serious game with a higher learning curve but once will be very enjoyable once mastered.

And that's jus' the tip.

Political Machine (2008) costs $19.95 can be purchased here.
President Forever (2008 + Primaries) costs $19.95 and can be purchased here.

The Obama Fallacy

by Clint Johnson

There's a mighty big difference between good, sound reasons and reasons that sound good
~Burton Hillis

If you haven't heard, yesterday was Super Tuesday. Twenty four states held their primaries, meaning the winners could go on to claim their parties' nominations. In other words, it was an important day in the ongoing charade –namely, the one that's sometimes laughingly referred to as an election. Voters – those who bother to show up – chose between pre-approved candidates, none of whom will actually bring the kind of change this country wants and needs. The would-be leaders, trained by the finest public relations people money can buy, will pay lip-service to the sentiments of the day, collect their big money contributions and explain to us why they should be our leaders (as opposed to our representatives). And, of course, the media will lap it up, covering it as if it has any more significance than the latest "Man bites dog" story.

For the Republicans, McCain won big, but no serious observers of the 2008 farce regard him as anything different than what we've seen for the last ... well, for a long time now. For the Democrats, it was a close race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Big business, the big shots of the Democratic Party (the "super" delegates) and the military have come out in support of Clinton, which means she'll be beholden to them if elected. Her election as President would also put either a Bush or a Clinton on the winning ticket 32 years in a row –clearly a sign of real change. And then there's the great hope – Barack Hussein Obama. Sometimes I wonder how a single human can embody so much hope and change and unity. When his supporters talk about him, you can almost see their heads tilt and their eyelashes flutter; they seem beyond reach. But let me sneak in a word if I may. Obama, precisely because of all his self-proclaimed ideas of change, is the biggest disappointment of them all. If he – and his supporters – would merely acknowledge that he is only slightly better than Clinton, there wouldn't be any problem. Instead, we hear how he's reminiscent of John F. Kennedy (an overrated, militaristic president from the 60s) and how he's what we've all been waiting for.

If one can slog through the thick, empty rhetoric and decipher his positions, they will find some problems:

• He actually wants to expand the military.



• He is heavily funded (read: controlled) by Wall Street.



• His advisers, such as his top man – Zbigniew Brzezinski – have been participants in several US-fueled atrocities. Brzezinski, forinstance, boasted that he created the Afghan resistance (which spawned Osama bin Laden).



• He's an AIPAC flatterer and talks little about the oppression of the Palestinians.



• His health care plan would insure fewer Americans than Hillary's.



• He claims to oppose the occupation of Iraq but has voted several times to fund it in capitulation to the GOP-spun lie that cutting funding would leave the troops without shoes in the desert.



• He's threatened Iran with military action. Ditto for Pakistan.



• He doesn't talk about corporate welfare and corporate crime.



• He does not support legalization of marijuana for recreational use and calls it a "slippery slope."



• He hasn't expressed serious opposition to the War on Drugs.

In other words, he doesn't speak for me. The sad reality is that the system filters out and marginalizes candidates who represent the interests of the American people. And, until that's fixed, we'll be voting for the least-worst and trying to delude ourselves into thinking that this time real change will come

And that's jus' the tip.

Comment below.

References

Obama changed position on War Funding - ABC News

Outside groups aid Obama, their vocal critic - NY Times

Atrocity-linked advisers - Democracy Now

Obama's AIPAC speech text, Sun-Times

Obama's position on lobbying

Obama on Medical Marijuana - The Newshoggers

* Clint Johnson is the former online, assistant features and summer editor of the prestigious college paper ‘Daily Tar Heel’. Mr. Johnson is also an aspiring novelist. He can be reached at: clintjohnso@gmail.com

10 Best Debate Pwns of Decision 2008

by Ali-Asad

Look's like you're about to get pwned
~Eric Cartman

Here's the top 10 best political pwnage clips of the 2008 primary election campaign season thus far. The pwnages were rated on the following criteria: delivery, accuracy of pwnage line and audience reaction. Let the pwnage begin.

10. Romney at Thompson

Romney welcomes Thompson to the presidential contest with a well prepared line.

Delivery: 8, Accuracy: 7, Audience Reaction: 9 Total = 24





9. Gravel at et all

Gravel pwns all the senators running for president.

Delivery: 9, Accuracy: 7 Audience Reaction: 9 Total = 25





8. Huckabee at Romney

Romney asks Huckabee not to talk about his positions. Huckabee responds with some quick wit.

Delivery: 9, Accuracy: 10, Audience Reaction: 6 Total = 25




7. Thompson at Huckabee

Thompson unloads on Huckabee in South Carolina. This attack was Thompson’s last minute effort to garner enough votes in South Carolina to stay in the race. Needless to say, he didn’t perform well and later dropped out. But his lines of pwnage continue to serve us well.

Delivery: 7, Accuracy: 9, Audience Reaction 10 Total = 26




6. Obama at Dodd et all

Dodd attacks Obama’s speech on Pakistan as being naïve and irresponsible. Obama hits back. A classic.

Delivery: 9, Accuracy 8, Audience Reaction: 10 Total = 27




5. Biden at Guliani

Biden pwns Rudy Guliani. Period.

Delivery: 9, Accuracy: 8, Audience Reaction: 10 Total = 27



4. Biden at Richardson et all

Richardson claims that his governorship of New Mexico makes him qualified to be President. Biden breaks loose.

Delivery: 10, Accuracy:9, Audience Reaction 9 Total = 28





3. McCain at Hillary
McCain destroys Hillary and promotes himself with well delivered zinger.

Delivery: 9 Accuracy 10 Audience Reaction 10 Total = 29




2. Richardson self-pwnage
Richardson reveals a big mistake a made in a previous debate, and wonders out loud how bad a move it was.
Delivery: 10 Accuracy: 10 Audience Reaction 9 Total = 29

Find the clip here


1. Obama at Hillary & Edwards
Obama uses humor to put down Hillary and Edwards response to a debate question on the candidates’ greatest weakness.
Delivery: 10, Accuracy: 9, Audience Reaction 10 Total = 29

Find the clip here

Hope you had fun.

And that's jus' the tip.

Comment below.