The Quantitative Peace

The Military and Competitive Sports

I missed my last post, but thankfully I'm on top of this week's edition. 

Kyleanne Hunter and Oliver Kaplan have a piece at Political Violence @ a Glance discussing some of the military roots of the biathlon. I've never known much about the sport's history, but it certainly makes sense that its origins are so closely tied to the kinds of security needs that Hunter and Kaplan cite. This was particularly interesting to me as both my wife and I grew up close to Lake Placid, New York. Lake Placid hosted the winter Olympics twice—once in 1932 and again in 1980—and continues to be a destination for tourists and athletes alike. Additionally, the 10th Mountain Division is headquartered about three hours from there at Fort Drum, and they have an armory located in Saranac Lake, New York where I grew up. Two members of the US biathlon team are also from Saranac Lake: Annelies Cook and Tim Burke. 

I went to high school with both Annelies and Tim, and it's great to see them doing so well. Hunter and Kaplan's discussion of the biathlon's history also makes me appreciate the sport and where I grew up a little bit more, and it's neat to think about the sport in terms of how it intersects with my own personal historical/research interests. The idea that specific military assignments can evolve into cooperative/competitive sporting events is really interesting, and I'm sure there's been much more written about it than I'm aware of (which is little). Naturally this makes me wonder what other sports have evolved out of military activities. Archery comes to mind, but I suspect that has competitive origins that are less exclusively military. There are a number of other shooting-related events during the summer games (see here), but again, many of these events are not necessarily exclusively military in origin either. Some of the historical information the link provides, and the descriptions of some of the events, suggest more of a hunting-related background. And many of these events appear to have been phased out, or have only been held once or twice.

It also makes me wonder as to what kind of selection effects might be at work in terms of how these activities evolve into competitive sports. Presumably you need activities that are a mixture of some highly specialized skill, but also something that's not overly secretive. After all, you don't want other states knowing that you have individuals highly trained in a particular task if that will compromise their work in some way. You also need an activity where multiple countries have need of the same type of training or force. As Hunter and Kaplan discuss, multiple countries were deploying similar sorts of forces to patrol remote, mountainous border regions, thereby facilitating the development of some sort of competitive event based on these shared activities. So not every state needs to have a given force, but at least a few do in order for it to be competitive. 

So what are some contemporary examples of the sorts of military activities that could evolve into internationally competitive sports? And how has technological innovation changed the landscape, so to speak, in terms of the pool of potential activities that could evolve in this way? My mind immediately went to some underwater sports, thinking of some combination of navigating an underwater obstacle course, and then performing some task requiring a demonstration of dexterity. This list of underwater sports suggests there are some sports that at least partly resemble these activities. Underwater navigation and underwater target shooting, specifically. This article also indicates that no underwater sports have been a part of the Olympic games. This appears to be due to the International Olympic Committee selecting which games it will grant approval to. Still, these seem like activities that require a high degree of specialization, but are also pursued by enough countries to facilitate competition. 

Another future possibility would be sort sort of aerial drone competition. Competitors might be judged on their ability to take off, perform certain maneuvers, perhaps "paint" a moving target for a given period of time, and then land. Though there are more advanced military variants, less sophisticated and less expensive drone variants are already being experimented with for a variety of purposes (see Amazon's recent talk of drone-based delivery). Though this would certainly emphasize physical performance less than other athletic activities, I'm not sure it's all that different from other activities like shooting, much of which emphasizes hand-eye coordination. This is also technology that more countries are likely to pursue for security/military purposes as time goes on.

If anyone can think of other military activities that might translate into internationally competitive sports, please share in the comments. 

The Day of the Doctor and the Veil of Ignorance (Warning: Spoilers!)

The 50^th Anniversary episode of "Doctor Who" aired this week in theatres throughout the world. There was an interesting scene towards the end of the movie, which I would like to share. Below I give a very simplified version of the scene.

There are two main characters in the scene, a human and a shape-shifting alien refugee that took on the human’s form.

The human and the alien are located in a secret storage facility in London and it has the most dangerous alien weapons on Earth.

The alien wants to take over the earth, and she plans to use the dangerous weapons in the room to do it. The human will do anything to stop them from using the weapons.

The alien has two choices: (1) continue to plan to take over earth, or (2) back down and leave earth with no other reasonable place to go, resulting in certain death of her species.

The human has two choices: (1) she can set off a nuclear warhead that will destroy the weapons facility and all of London, or (2) she can allow the alien to take the weapons, take over the earth, and destroy all humans. She prefers the first option. Even though she expects to destroy London, she believes she can save the rest of the earth.

The two figures below outline the game. There are two Nash equilibriums, {Take Over; Set Off} and {Leave; Set Off}. Since the Alien is indifferent between these two outcomes- she has nothing to lose, as her species would die regardless of what the human did- it is hard to predict what the alien should do. In the scene, the alien chooses to try to take over earth. Then the human starts the timer to set off the bomb, and this results in the {Take Over; Set Off} outcome.

When it seems like London is doomed, a third character, the Doctor, enters the room and tries to convince the characters to come to a peaceful agreement. When neither character backs down, the Doctor comes to an ingenious solution: he puts a veil of ignorance over the human’s and alien’s minds, causing them to forget whether they are human or alien. Immediately both players agree to halt the warhead timer and begin to negotiate an agreement.

Ultimately, the Doctor forces the alien and the human to consider each other’s preferences. The Doctor’s solution is similiar to Rawls’ veil of ignorance solution. According to Rawls, if people are unaware of their own personal characteristics at the negotiating table, they are more likely to come to equitable or fair agreements. Since people under a veil of ignornance are unable to determine if they are rich and powerful, or poor and weak, they will  develop an equitable agreement over the distribution of opportunities and rights. 

Not only does the Doctor force the alien and the human to take into account each other's prefereces, the Doctor also forces the characters to consider a third option: sharing the earth. It is possible that neither the human nor the alien believed they could credibly commit to sharing the earth, and this is why they did not consider it prior to the Doctor’s arrival. However, since the Doctor is forcing them to negotiate, they may be more likely to consider the option.

The two figures below outline the new game. The strategic form game takes into account that neither player knows their own preferences, so there is 50% chance of receiving the human’s payoff and a 50% chance of receiving the alien’s payoff. In addition, I think when both players are individually choosing their optimal strategies, they choose the set of strategies that best work out for both players, instead of just for themselves.

The Nash equilibriums of this new game are {Leave; Set Off} and {Divide Pie; Accept Proposal}. Note that neither of these solutions includes setting off the nuclear warhead, so the Doctor successfully changes the outcome of the game. In addition, since {Divide Pie; Accept Proposal} is a better outcome than {Leave; Set Off} (an expected payoff of 0 for both players is better than an expected payoff of -15), I think both players would end up choosing to {Divide Pie; Accept Proposal} as their final agreement.

The main issue I have with the Doctor’s solution is that there is no suggestion of an enforcement mechanism. Both the human and alien could come to an equitable agreement, but they might intend to renege once they find out who they really are. In the very least, after the agreement is reached, both parties would have to be locked out of the room before the veil is lifted. Otherwise, the alien could try to take over again and the human could set off the nuclear warhead. With respect to sticking to the agreement in the long term, both parties would have to come up with some way to force each other to adhere to the terms.

Gifts for Political Scientists, 2013

It is a week before the American tradition of "Black Friday" starting on Thursday, and I have not done an updated list on "Gifts for Political Scientists" since 2010, so here is my proposed list for 2013.  Trying to find gifts for that special poltiical scientist in your life can be quite difficult.  Given the existing list from 2010 (that is, I am avoiding repeats) and inspiration from the source I originally stole the idea from, here is the supplement to the 2010 list. 

Board Games

The games on my 2010 list are still my go-to suggestions for people considering games for political scientists. However, for this year, I am adding a few to the list.

• Ticket to Ride (Amazon) - This game is relatively simplistic in its presentation and offers a variety of strategies based on hidden information that each player has.  There are two shared goals for all of the players, and at least two hidden goals for each player.  This game is fantastically appropriate for all age groups and allows some complexity even when there are a bunch of game theorists all playing the game.  I would strongly recommend this board game over something like Monopoly if you are looking for a game for the family.

• Mafia/Werewolf (Wikipedia) - This game is free and there are multiple versions of it available across the web. If you must buy the game, there are some options on Amazon.  I recommend this free game as it is similar to Bang! (see the 2010 list) in that it is a game of private information in which palyers are trying to determine other people's roles and take actions based on their evaluation of that information. In both versions of the game (Mafia or werewolf), the majority of the players are normal citizens who are trying to determine who the non-citizens are that are harming the town.  In Mafia, you are looking to determine who in your town is part of the mob. In Werewolf, you are rooting out werewolves that are destroying your community.  The citizens are attempting to identify and eliminate the mobsters/werewolves while the other party attempts to remain hidden and elminate citizens until they control a majority of the vote and win the game.  

This is a go-to game for large parties and is best played with seven or more people.

Card Games

• Dominion (Amazon) - Dominion is the top of my list for card games.  It is a "Deck-Building Game" that makes building a deck part of the game. For people who normally play collectible card games, deck-building is part of the pre-game strategy. Dominion makes this aspect front and center as many of your actions are built around creating your deck.  Dominion is flexible and boasts eight different expansions that allow you to engage in different settings, strategies, and fundamentally alter some of the rules of the game.

Video Games 

• Civilization V: Brave New World (Amazon/Metacritic Reviews) - Okay, this is slightly cheating on the no repeats rule, but it is cheating I can live with. The second expansion to the 2010 recommended item adds in a few important facets to growing a civilization and dealing with international relations. The biggest game-play addition for International Relations folk is the introduction of the World Congress. The ability to sanction belligerents, ban particular goods, encourage international festivals, and devote resources to science makes this expansion a necessary tool in international discourse.  Quite a long game, but solo play has improved dramatically. If you can find 2-5 people to sit and play competitively for hours at a time, then the experience of the game improves dramatically. To enjoy Brave New World, you do need the base game and I recommend also picking up the first expansion. 

• Bioshock: Infinite (Amazon/Metacritic Reviews) - In my 2010 list, I included Bioshock on the recommendation of Michael Flynn without my own exposure.  Now, I have played through Bioshock, Bioshock 2, and Bioshock Infinite.  The last in the series of games is a standalone game that you can play without having exposure to the previous games.  The setting is the city of Columbia in 1912; a city built in the sky.  Bioshock played upon Ayn Randian themes of an alternative societal structure during collapse.  Bioshock Infinite engages a mix of patriotism, jingoism, and racism.  Columbia is more patriotic and pro-America than America itself and ends up seceding from the Union. The game takes place after this secession.  There is much more to this game and the political themes are worth discussing for political scientists; however, I will not spoil much more of the story here. You can find a trailer for the game here on Youtube. 

• Tropico 4 (Amazon/Metacritic Reviews)- A simulation where you play the leader of a small Latin American Island and lead your country through economic, political, and social decisions. The setting of the game takes place during the Cold War, so you are balancing out trying to appease American and Soviet interests (the closer you move to either country, the more aid they give you) as well as dealing with other international factors.  You have elections every six years and you can make them free and fair, use election trickery, make false promises, or engage in outright assassination.  The choice is yours in creating your island government. This game is great if you are a builder, a planner, or into running your own country.

 

Books/Reading

• Game of Thrones (Amazon/Audible) - I am late on this particular bandwagon.  I have yet to see the show as I am making my way through the books first. Most of my book consumption happens through Audible as I can listen to the audiobooks during my daily commute via bike.  This fantasy series has a decent mix of intrigue and politicking that has made many of a political scientist happy thus far.  My favorite moment from the series thus far is when one of my students wrote a reaction paper that tied a concept discussed by Robert Bates into the book and used it to explain the set of relationships between the various actors.  

• The Foundation (Amazon/Audible) - this foundational science fiction book by Asimov creates the social science theory of "Psycho-History"; a study of groups of people and has the ability to predict their behavior.  Psycho-history cannot predict individuals, but can predict the movement of large bodies as if they were unitary actors.  The parallels between Asimov's fictional social science and what we do should be obvious. This seven part series is a must-read for any political scientists interested in science fiction.

Movies

• The Hunger Games (Amazon) - The young adult novel hit the big screen a few years ago and the second in the series is out this week.  The movie lends itself to some discussion of civil war, protest, and rebellion in the context of dictatorships.  

• Brazil (Amazon/Wikipedia Entry) - One classic in addition to the contemporary blockbuster: Terry Gilliam's dark comedy Brazil.  This movie also lends itself to themes about dictatorship, repression, and resistance with a heavy backdrop of bureaucratic nightmares.  

For the Office

• Tardis Door cover (ThinkGeek) - In case you want to make your office seem bigger on the inside.

• Independents' Flag (ThinkGeek) - For the Firefly lover who wants to express their preferred political affiliation. 

 

The list is a bit truncated this year as I plan to make this an annual post. As such, there are plenty of other items that can make political scientists happy.  Of course, if you are an editor, then the simple word "accept" is more than enough. 

When losing is the winning strategy: Game Theory, Badminton, and the 2012 Summer Olympics

The Badminton World Federation disqualified four female badminton teams today from the London Olympics for unsportsmanlike behavior. These teams purposefully tried to lose their first match in a round robin event in order to be paired against easier teams in subsequent rounds (video recap here). These teams were obviously cheating as purposely losing in this manner is against the badminton rules. So why would so many teams blatantly cheat in a very public and very important sporting event? Because they thought they could get away with it. Prior to this mass banning of teams, several Chinese teams had a history of purposefully trying to lose in badminton matches and they were never punished for their behavior.

Being able to cheat and get away with it gave the Chinese teams a huge advantage in the Olympics. Hence, other teams followed the example of the Chinese teams and tried to lose, so they would also have an advantage in later rounds of the competition. All the cheating teams believed there existed a low probability of being caught and/or punished for cheating given past examples.

I created a game to demonstrate why it was in the best interest of all the badminton teams to try to lose their first badminton matches, assuming there was a very low probability that they would be caught.

The Players

There are two players in this game, Team 1 and Team 2. Team 1 is the better team. They have a 60% chance of winning the match if both teams play fairly. Team 2 is the weaker team. They only have a 40% chance of winning the match if both teams play fairly.

Both teams want to lose the match (while the A team is the better team in this particular round, they would rather have easier competition in subsequent rounds of tournament play). If a team loses, they receive 10 points. Alternatively, if a team wins, they receive 0 points.

Nature also plays a role in this game. Nature represents both the probability that the team will be found cheating and punished for their behavior.  If Nature decides that a team played unfairly, Nature will punish the team, but only 5% of the time.  Given that punishment has been rare in the past, this probability is reasonable, but can be altered to change the risk/reward ratio for cheating. If a team is caught cheating, they receive -10 points.

The Moves (See Figure 1)

Team 1 goes first. They can “Cooperate” and try to win the game, or they can “Defect”, and purposefully try to lose.

Team 2 moves next. They observed Team 1’s move. Team 2 can also “Cooperate” and try to win the game, or “Defect”, and purposefully try to lose.

The Outcomes

There are four outcomes.

1. Both teams Cooperate

For this outcome, both teams played fairly and tried to win the game. Team 1 wins 60% of the time when this occurs, and Team 2 wins 40% of the time. A team receives 0 points for winning and 10 points for losing. Hence, the expected utility for each team if this outcome occurs is:

([(0.6*0)+(0.4*10)] , [(0.4*0)+(0.6*10)]) = (4, 6)

2. Team 1 Cooperates, Team 2 Defects

For this outcome, Team 1 tried to win and Team 2 tried to lose. Team 1 wins with a 100% probability and receives 0 points for winning.

Since Team 2 cheated, there is a probability that Nature will punish them. Nature punishes Team 2 5% of the time. If Team 2 is punished, they receive -10 points. The other 95% of the time, Team 2 gets away with it and receives 10 points for losing.

The expected utility for each team if this outcome occurs is:

(0, [(0.95*10)+(0.05*-10)]) = (0, 9)

3. Team 1 Defects, Team 2 Cooperates

For this outcome, Team 1 tried to lose and Team 2 tried to win. Team 2 wins with a 100% probability and receives 0 points for winning.

Since Team 1 cheated, there is a probability that Nature will punish them. Nature punishes Team 1 5% of the time. If Team 1 is punished, they receive -10 points. The other 95% of the time, Team 1 gets away with it and receives 10 points for losing.

The expected utility for each team if this outcome occurs is:

([(0.95*10)+(0.05*-10)], 0) = (9, 0)

4. Team 1 Defects, Team 2 Defects

For this outcome, both teams tried to lose. Since both teams tried to lose, there is a 50% chance that any team could win.

If a team wins, and Nature does not catch them cheating (which happens 95% of the time), the team receives 0 points.

If a team loses, and Nature does not catch them cheating (which happens 95% of the time), the team receives 10 points.

If Nature catches a team cheating (which happens 5% of the time), regardless of whether the team won or lost, the team receives -10 points.

The expected utility for each team if this outcome occurs is:

([(0.5*(0.95*0))+(0.5*(0.95*10))+(0.05*-10)], [(0.5*(0.95*0))+(0.5*(0.95*10))+(0.05*-10)]) = (4.25, 4.25)

The Nash Equilibria (See Figures 2 and 3)

There is one Nash Equilibrium derived from backwards induction, {Defect; Defect, Defect}.

There are two Nash Equilibria derived from the strategic form game, {Defect; Cooperate, Defect} and {Defect; Defect, Defect}.

This game suggests that as long as the Badminton World Federation rarely punishes players for trying to lose in the first match of a round robin even, it is in a team’s best interest to try to cheat early on in order to improve their chances of winning in subsequent rounds. To change this outcome, the Badminton World Federation should either detect and punish cheating more often, or change the rules of the tournament where losing in an early round is not so advantageous.

(For another interesting sports match- the 1994 Caribbean Cup provides a classic example of how rules fundamentally change the expected behavior of players in an environment where the object of the game appears simple. By the end of the game, it was in the best interest of both teams to try to score points for the other team).

 

On the Utility of IR Research

At the Duck of Minerva, Josh Busby has a post on the gap between political science research/IR and the policymaking community. I don't have a whole lot to say about the specific content of Busby's post, aside from the fact that I think this is an interesting an important debate to have. (Also, please note that the links in the quotations were provided in Busby's original post).

Using private information to beat Death

 

 

In Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey (not to be confused with their most Excellent Adventure), the duo are killed and sent to Hell.  On their way to an eternity of punishment, Death gives them the ability to escape their fate if they can best him in a game of their choosing.  The wager seems to be an obvious one to take: If you lose, you are stuck in hell for eternity; if you win, you can leave.  However, if you do not play the game, then you are still stuck in Hell without the ability to leave. In a previous dialogue (not shown in the above clip), Death boasts that he has never lost a game. 

If Death really never lost a game, it is reasonable to assume he has played billions of such games (assuming billions have encountered him and wanted to leave).  A variety of games are likely to have been proposed including athletic competitions (perhaps the most common up until this point in history), strategic games with full information, and even gambles.  Given this, Death would have to be some sort of super athlete that makes the right move every time (perfectly rational), and wins all lotteries. Even in fair lotteries, Death could only win so many coin tosses in a row before it appears the game is rigged in his favor.  As an aside, it is likely that no single player would know that he has played coin tosses before and won so many in the past, but his boast out to tip players off.  Thus, unfair lotteries biased in favor of the condemned are likely to still be skewed in their actual results for Death.

Given these constraints established by the movie, the question for the viewer becomes obvious: What game would you choose to play against Death?

 

After some pondering, the optimal game would be one of private information--where the player can control elements outside of Death's control.  As such, Death's ability to win depends on his ability to guess what the player has chosen. Given this proposition, then it appears that Bill and Ted stumbled upon the right course of action in their initial choice: Battleship.  In a world where you are playing the best strategy possible without cheating, the average win using a decent algorithm averages 40 moves. If we posit that Death plays perfectly strategically without knowing what the players know, then there is room for the other player to do better than Death.  So, Bill and Ted knowing he would put his ship in the J row may work out as a better strategy given their glimpse into Death's psychology. Clue, again, affords them room for private information in guessing which character committed the murder of Mr. Body.  Twister, on the other hand, I lack a convincing interpretation as it is clearly a game of athletics.  Perhaps Gymnasts have not challenged Death before.  Though, of course, I am sure the script was written with the idea of seeing an ancient mythological being playing modern games against two relatively airheaded dudes and not with a mind towards game theory.

Given this understanding of how to beat death, and while Bill and Ted succeed in finding the right path to victory, they allow too much for error.  If Death can lose at games of private information, then the best strategy is to make it a game of asymmetric private information instead of a symmetric one (technically, a symmetric, asymmetric information game) like Battleship.  Simply, offering Death a game of "Guess What Number I Am Thinking Of" and making the possible set of numbers contain all numbers would make Death's ability to guess the number indistinguishable from zero.  The game is much less fun, but the certainty it provides makes it an optimal choice given the symmetric alternative.  For this solution to be accurate, then it means that either people have never played an asymmetric information game against Death, that his strategy was superior to his opponent's in stategy previous games and could overcome the information asymmetry, or, perhaps, he was simply boasting to dissuade would-be challengers.  Also, this is what happens when you leave Comedy Central on during the day while doing house chores. 

Math's PR Problem OR Changing our Educational System

I was listening to the BBC's Global News Podast this morning and found an interesting segment on the utility of mathematical modeling. Professor John Adam's book (which can be found here) looks at how one can model various aspects of urban life—pollution, traffic congestion, number of dentists offices, etc. I've not read the book, but Adam's message in his interview was something that I can sympathize with. In particular, Adam talks about the degree to which the educational process divorces math from any kind of applied usage. Learning math in this way, he goes on, is partially responsible for why more children/people are not as interested in mathematics as they might otherwise be. 

Sure, there are the ubiquitous "if a train leaves city A at rate X, and a train leaves city B at rate Z, when will their paths cross," kind of examples. But seriously, is that the best we can do? Now, I recognize that I'm far from being the strongest, or the quickest, when it comes to picking up a lot of the methods that I've been taught over the past few years. I, like many people I suppose, was not the biggest fan of math class in high school. Some of this was laziness on my part, but some of it was also the framework in which the subject matter was taught. Even in college it was far from clear that any kind of math beyond balancing a checkbook would play as big a part in my life as it currently does. I did well enough in these classes, but it was not until graduate school that I really had to seriously engage math and statistics.  

As it turns out, I've really enjoyed the quantitative side of my training here at Binghamton, and I'm far more willing to work at developing my understanding and skills now than I was when I was 16. Had I known in high school that I this stuff could be used to study things like war, human rights, etc., I might have cared a bit more. These are things that I've always been interested in. And this is perfectly rational behavior, right? If the expected utility of learning this material is zero, or even negative, then why expend the effort? Where is the payoff? If this is the case, then a major part of the reason that the expected utility of learning this material is so low is because the people that should be able to provide you with the relevant information to update your expectations simply do not do a very good job of that. In fact, I'd say that I didn't really get that at all until grad school. And being able to make that initial connection between math and statistics, and the substantive topics that I care about, has subsequently led me to develop a greater appreciation for the math itself that underlies the models I often use. 

I don't have any answers for how the educational system could be modified to address this issue. I also realize that you would have to find a way to incorporate applied mathematics into most subject fields, as not everyone has the particular set of interests that would make more math in history or government class a sufficient solution to the problem. Still, there must be a better way. With folks like Neil deGrasse Tyson going around trying to promote greater scientific literacy, and the recent attacks on NSF funding for political science, it seems like there is a space for us to modify how we educate our younglings and how science, math, history, etc., can be better integrated in this process. Maybe if people developed a better understanding of science as a process, or math as something with real world and substantive applications, rather than something that existed strictly from 1pm to 1:45pm during 8th period, people would be better able to develop a more robust appreciation for how mathematics and science fit into, and matter for, our daily lives. This is fairly obvious when phrased like that, but the fact is that it's not really what we do currently, is it?

Am I missing something?

Also—and this is a total aside—Brian Rathbun at the Duck of Minerva has a discussion of how Iron Maiden material can be used to teach political science. This is perhaps a good example of what I was talking about above, so perhaps this is not a total aside, but what we have here is essentially "applied awesomeness."

How Bruce Bueno de Mesquita buys a car

Bruce Bueno de Mesquita explains how to buy a car cheaply--something he mentioned on the Colbert Report this week:

 

 

The Colbert interview can be found here.

Stuff is still happening in (the sequel)...

I really don't know how many times I'll be able to use that title, but given that the American audience has become so distracted by the Washington debt ceiling battle, I decided to check on some old favorites and post a quick update on goings on elsewhere.  

Libya:  Apparently Libyan rebels have made "significant" gains in the past week, taking control of some key cities on the way to Tripoli.  NATO planes have damaged or destroyed over 150 targets in the past week alone.  However, who really knows what qualifies as a "military target" for these purposes.  Sources in the article also indicate that some of Ghadaffi's forces have begun consolidating in Tripoli and have begun removing their uniforms, apparently gearing up for a transition in tactics.  It will be interesting to see what the next month brings.  

Syria:  It sounds like the body count in Syria is continuing to rise steadily.  Syrian security forces are apparently combating "armed gangs" in an effort to protect the people.  This includes firing into Palestinian refugee camps as well it seems.  The article also mentions a Youtube video that has surfaced, purportedly showing some pretty graphic scenes from the crackdown.  I've not seen it, but it sounds pretty unsettling.  

Bahrain:  It sounds as though things have quieted down for the time being, but Bahrain is still dealing with the fallout from the previous protests and crackdowns.  Quiet doesn't necessarily mean good, however, as the BBC is reporting that hundreds of people are still in jail and there are reports of widespread torture.  Not terribly surprising, but it's important to keep in mind the fact that the violence carries on even once the streets have cleared.    

Class, Empathy, and Taxes

Several recent studies by three University of California psychologists, Michael Kraus, Paul Piff, and Dacher Keltner, suggest that individuals with lower class incomes are more empathetic and more altruistic than individuals with higher class incomes. They argue that since lower income individuals have to rely more on others to survive, they learn pro-social behaviors and learn to emphasize with others.

The results of these studies may explain why some individuals with a great deal of disposable income (1) are unaware of the magnitude of income inequality in the US, (2) believe they should pay the same tax rate as lower income individuals, and (3) want to reduce government spending on social programs. These studies can also explain the results of a recent CNN poll that suggests that individuals making under 50K a year are more likely than individuals making 50K a year or more to want the government to keep taxes high "so the government can use their money for programs to help lower-income people".