The truth has leaked out from the Nobel committee. It was racism that stopped Barack Hussein Obama II getting the prize. A press conference in Oslo was called to discuss it.

Ralph the Reporter: Why did some white guy no one heard of get the Nobel Peace Prize instead of Obama?

Frigut: The prize is awarded based on actual achievements. What did Obama ever do?

Ralph: What does that have to do with it?

Frigut: I don’t understand.

Ralph: Nothing Obama gets has anything to do with whether he earned it or not.

Frigut: But ..

Ralph: Look Obama gets. That’s the rule. He gets in Harvard based on bad grades and low LSAT scores. He gets by based on affirmative action grading. Yeah, its blind, but not that blind. Ayers wrote Obama’s book, Dreams of My Father’s Reparations. Obama is a Senator. Now he is going to be president. He was born in Kenya and travels on the Indonesian passport. Don’t you get it, it doesn’t matter what he deserves, its racism to deny him.

Frigut: Its always difficult to understand you Americans. I think we gave a prize to a man who worked hard for many years for peace.

==

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2008/press.html

The Nobel Peace Prize for 2008

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided to award the Nobel Peace Prize for 2008 to Martti Ahtisaari for his important efforts, on several continents and over more than three decades, to resolve international conflicts. These efforts have contributed to a more peaceful world and to “fraternity between nations” in Alfred Nobel’s spirit.

Throughout all his adult life, whether as a senior Finnish public servant and President or in an international capacity, often connected to the United Nations, Ahtisaari has worked for peace and reconciliation. For the past twenty years, he has figured prominently in endeavours to resolve several serious and long-lasting conflicts. In 1989-90 he played a significant part in the establishment of Namibia’s independence; in 2005 he and his organization Crisis Management Initiative (CMI) were central to the solution of the complicated Aceh question in Indonesia. In 1999 and again in 2005-07, he sought under especially difficult circumstances to find a solution to the conflict in Kosovo. In 2008, through the CMI and in cooperation with other institutions, Ahtisaari has tried to help find a peaceful conclusion to the problems in Iraq. He has also made constructive contributions to the resolution of conflicts in Northern Ireland, in Central Asia, and on the Horn of Africa.

Although the parties themselves have the main responsibility for avoiding war and conflict, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has on several occasions awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to mediators in international politics. Today Ahtisaari is an outstanding international mediator. Through his untiring efforts and good results, he has shown what role mediation of various kinds can play in the resolution of international conflicts. The Norwegian Nobel Committee wishes to express the hope that others may be inspired by his efforts and his achievements.

Oslo, 10 October 2008

A group of prosecutors for Obama, the Obama Posse, have ordered prisoners in jails to sing “Sing for Change”, the hit new kids song sweeping the nation’s institutional settings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXABTmZP6oA&feature=related

Missouri prosecutor Bob McCulloch:  The prisoners respond better when they sing “Sing for Change.”   It gives them a feeling of inspiration.  We are going to schools.  We are going to have juries sing it.  Judges too.  The whole court room.  Rise for “Sing for Change.”

Jennifer Joyce:  When I sing it with our prisoners and juries before the start of a case in court I feel truly inspired.  Its as if Obama himself were sitting in as judge of that case.

Bob McCulloch: Jesus and Muhammad would both approve this and sing, “Sing for Change” if they were alive.  I truly believe that.

Jennifer Joyce:  Buddha too.

Bob McCulloch: Mao too.
Jennifer Joyce: Che and the Castro brothers.

Bob McCulloch: Not to mention Stalin.

Jennifer Joyce: Allah bless Stalin, who with Trotsky pointed the way for us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSvBCBnulLs

http://blackpoliticalthought.blogspot.com/2008/10/obama-youth-junior-fraternity-regiment.html
There is nothing wrong with this video. These young men are using the example of Obama as an inspiration to take responsibility for their own lives. There is nothing wrong with the teacher or the posting on the Internet. The problem is not young men like these who are finding inspiration and taking responsibility. Obama is supposed to be a hero to young blacks. What good is he if not that?

They should do more and add their lessons to the video. They can do math problems and also English and other subjects. Much of math can be set to rap. More than is realized.

Within reason, having political views is not bad in students. Apathy is worse. I think the students should get an A and the teacher a bonus. These are fine young men taking inspiration from their hero’s example of hard work and study in school. Obama graduated Harvard Law School by hard work. They are picking careers for themselves and using this as inspiration. What do people want them to do?

Obama youth junior fraternity regiment
http://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/mathematicians-of-the-african-diaspora/

They should add a video on Mathematicians of the African Diaspora.

David Blackwell is still alive.

http://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~davidbl/

Black organizations need to do more to honor him and use his work and life as an inspiration. The reason they don’t is he did many of his accomplishments before the 1964 Civil Rights Acts. That doesn’t fit their narrative for the history of blacks in America.

==

The children singing, produced by Hollywood is truly scary.

http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/274518.php

The children singing is manipulation. The young men are at an age where some discipline for young males is not so bad. I hope they find inspiration to study and stay out of trouble. We need to stop immigration so that the labor force participation of black teenage boys goes back to what it was before the 1965 Immigration Act. The youth and future of young black men was taken from them by cynically substituting Hispanic immigration. They need something to inspire them. It would be better for the teens to switch to David Blackwell for inspiration.

In any case, this is quite different from “Sing for Change”, which reflects Obama’s cult. Obama now always refers to himself as we. He has become a god.

Obama “Sing for Change”

Obama campaign is trying to cover this up now. It is truly sick. Obama’s website is pushing how to indoctrinate kids.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXABTmZP6oA&feature=related

Following is a brilliant discussion of leftism and its pure evil and cowardice:

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2008/10/06/the-obama-youth/

Pyongyang remix versio

http://reason.tv/video/show/556.html

This is what our schools are already. We are being genocided by immigration, its a math theorem. MSM are the same thing.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1213928&blobtype=pdf

We investigated various cases of the island model with stochastic migration. If the population is infinite, the immigrants have a fixed gene frequency and the alleles are neutral, the gene frequency on the island converges to that of the immigrants.

Many “grown up” people can’t stand these words and call them Hitler. Even on some “right wing” blogs. The math is the truth. PC like the Obama video is so that people react to the math by calling it Hitler. It has happened already.

==

Black male teens video is not the best solution to be sure. That black teachers and school principals give into using this approach is disappointing. The real problem for black male teens is no jobs. Immigration took away their job chances. So they really are in trouble.

Its ironic that the Hollywood left that produced the Sing for Change are the ones behind immigration that did change black male teen labor force participation rates from high before 1965 to low today. Black male teens once had high labor force participation rates and real jobs to work into.

If we had kept our know-how here, we could have kept our manufacturing jobs here too and still had jobs for black men and boys, not to mention all men and boys. The Hollywood Left are precisely the ones who took the jobs away from these teens. Their video of their young children singing for change is a total lie. They are the ones behind black teenage unemployment and low employment.

black teen labor force participation rates

Thus the Sing for Change video is a lie about what Hollywood liberals really did to black teenagers, took their jobs away is what they did, some change.

The school with the black teens is likely desperate. But whatever they do, they aren’t going to produce jobs for their kids when the Hollywood Left took them away by (1) Hispanic immigration (2) Know-how transfer of technology and manufacturing methods to non-Americans by educating foreign students here and by the whole immigration process which transfers manufacturing jobs outside the US.

==

Ed Morrissey says Sing for Change is creepier of the two.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/04/video-the-obligatory-obama-youth-fraternity/

(Spoof) John Sidney McCain III of many houses and cars suspended his campaign when the Dow Jones Industrial fell below 10,000.

McCain: We must come together as patriotic Americans and stock markets to solve this crisis together.

In a townhall meeting later:

Man: Aren’t you a dufus to suspend your campaign because the Dow is below 10000?

McCain:  We must suspend.  Suspend. Suspend.  You will be suspended Sir. You are the Double Dufus.  Norman coordinate.

Dr. Evil then arrived to fix his robot.

Meanwhile at the Obama Axelrod campaign.

Axelrod: My Lord Apophis, the John McCain robot of your rival Dr. Evil is malfunctioning again.  It has suspended its campaign because the Dow Jones is below 10000.

Obama Apophis: The fool.  My victory shall be complete.

Keith Alja-Olbermann, Daily Kos and Rich Lowry are praying for this.

http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/zwecker/1203739,CST-FTR-fey05.article

Also:

McCain as Dr. Evil v. Austin Powers as Dr. Evil.

Obama v. Apophis.

And the ultimate:  Jesse the Body Ventura as referee in the ultimate tag team demo:

Sarah Palin, Tina Fey, Apophis, Obama, McCain and Austin Powers.  Not sure who to pair Biden with.  Spock?

Re Berg lawsuit on Barack Hussein Obama II citizenship or natural born citizen.

Summary:

The argument on Generalized Interest in Obama’s brief is analyzed in words and math symbols. It is found that the previous case and Obama’s argument is based on a mathematical fallacy. The issue of low generalized interest is the same in cases involving a single voter’s eligibility to vote for both sides. The probability to cast the critical vote is the number that is low, but its low in individual vote eligibility cases as well. Moreover, the paradox of voting requires courts to give deference and standing to these low probabilities or they undermine individual voting. See details below.

http://www.obamacrimes.com/index.php/component/content/article/1-main/24-berg-files-opposition-to-defense-motion-for-dismissal

http://www.obamacrimes.com/index.php/component/content/article/1-main/23-senator-obama-and-the-dnc-file-for-dsimisal-of-berg-vs-obama

Obama motion to dismiss:

http://www.obamacrimes.com/attachments/023_Obama,%20DNC%20Motion%20to%20dismiss.pdf

More recently, in Hollander v. McCain, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56729 (D.N.H. 2008), a voter sued Senator John McCain and the Republican National Committee, alleging that, because Senator McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, he is not a
“natural born citizen” and is therefore ineligible to hold the office of President. The Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss on the grounds that plaintiffs lacked standing. The Court ruled that the plaintiff “does not have standing based on the harm he would suffer should McCain be elected President despite his alleged lack of eligibility under Art. II, §1, cl. 4. That harm, ‘standing alone, would adversely affect only the generalized interest of all citizens in constitutional governance.’” 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS at *12, quoting Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208, 217
(1974).

The main argument Obama uses is that a voter lacks standing because their “generalized interest” is small because, in effect, the probability their vote changes the outcome is small.

The reason this argument fails is that a candidate can challenge a voter’s eligibility even though the probability the voter’s vote changes the outcome is the same as in the case the voter challenges the candidate’s eligibility. So its the same small number reducing the interest of the case to both sides, in both cases. If that small number doesn’t block the candidate challenging the voter’s eligibility to vote, then it doesn’t block the voter challenging the candidate’s eligibility to vote.

The math is worked out with algebraic symbols towards the end of the article. The symbols demonstrate what was just stated, the probability to decide an election by one vote is small. That same small number applies to defendant and plaintiff interest whether its the candidate challenging voter eligibility or the voter challenging candidate eligibility.

So a candidate challenging a voter faces the criticism that the chance that voter’s vote will change the election is small so the candidate’s interest in that case is small. The voter challenging the candidate’s eligibility because it makes their vote’s value low to zero faces the same argument from the candidate that the probability that person’s vote will change the election is small. But its the same probability whether the candidate is challenging the voter’s eligibility or the voter is challenging the candidate’s eligibility. Since the eligibility of individual voters can be challenged by candidates, so can voters challenge the candidate’s eligibility since its the same small number that reduces the interest of each in each case.

Equal protection of the laws requires that if this small probability is not a hurdle to a voter having their eligibility to vote challenged by a candidate, then it is not a hurdle to their challenging the eligibility of a candidate. Moreover, its the same issue at common law even apart from any Constitutional argument, and if one suit is not barred by the low probability that a voter’s vote will change the outcome, then the other is not either.

Its obvious that challenges to voter eligibility have to be allowed, and that the voter has to be allowed to defend their eligibility. Its just as obvious in light of the math that candidate eligibility can be challenged by individual voters and defended by the candidate.

Moreover, public good arguments apply in each case in similar ways. The public free rides on all these cases and the expenses paid by all the parties. Rules of law should optimize the total public good and if private parties are willing to front that, that is no reason to exclude them from litigation. The public has an interest in eligible voters voting for eligible candidates.

Moreover, the paradox of voting says that democracy depends on psychic income of voters to vote since the probability their vote will make the difference is zero. The argument used by Obama and the court stands the paradox of voting on its head, and makes it the goal of law to enforce the paradox instead of to fight it. Voting is a public good and to get people to vote they have to be made to feel good despite the low probability their vote makes the difference. People don’t feel good about voting if ineligible candidates can run and they can’t be challenged by individual voters.

Stated differently, if courts say as a matter of law, individual voters have no interest in voting and their vote counts as zero before the courts, then it sends the message their vote doesn’t matter and they shouldn’t vote. That then ends democracy. Ending democracy does harm people. So the paradox of voting deals with the same small probability and the conclusion is that the government and society have to make people feel good to vote to get them to vote. That means treating their vote as important even if its probability to change the outcome is low. That means they have standing to sue over candidate eligibility even if the probability their vote changes the outcome is low. Democracy depends on the government giving this respect to people’s individual vote despite its low numerical probability to alter the outcome of the election.

After the Florida debacle in 2000, public figures like Bill Clinton said this should send a message that individual votes do matter and they don’t want to hear that they don’t. The courts should hear the same thing as then president Clinton heard. In fact, given the role of the courts in Florida in the 2000 election they should hear it more than lame duck president Clinton did. The courts should carry away the lesson from Florida 2000 that each individual vote matters.

If courts say individual votes don’t matter, then courts are saying the paradox of voting rules and people shouldn’t vote and their vote should get no deference or respect or standing in court. That ends democracy. Judges like presidents swear an oath to uphold the Constitution not undermine it.

The Paradox of Voting only has a resolution and the Constitution is only possible if people’s vote is treated as important, given deference and respect and given standing in cases brought against voters by candidates over voter eligibility in the same manner as voter cases against candidates over candidate eligibility. Democracy and the Constitution depend on the courts and government recognizing that individual votes matter, are due deference and give standing in court.

==

A candidate can challenge a voter’s eligibility to vote. Therefore a voter can challenge a candidate’s eligibility for office.

Which is greater harm? An ineligible voter voting for an eligible candidate or an eligible voter voting for an ineligible candidate?

The law never creates a situation where entity A can legally challenge entity B but B can’t challenge A. Reciprocity in standing to sue is part of equal protection of the laws. Its also recognized in the law of nations. If someone can sue you in a court, then you can sue them, even if they are in a separate country, a corporation, a government or something else.

Equal protection of the laws requires that if a candidate can challenge a voter’s eligibility, then a voter can challenge a candidate’s eligibility.

If an ineligible voter voting is a harm that gives legal standing, then an ineligible candidate must too? What is the harm in an ineligible person voting, they are still a human being one might say. What is the harm in an ineligible person serving, they are still a human being, one might say. But isn’t the ineligible person holding office as Commander in Chief the greater harm than the ineligible person voting? The Constitution thinks so, since it excludes people from being CINC that it allows to vote.

One ineligible person voting is surely a small fraction of the harm of an ineligible person being CINC.

An ineligible person can challenge an eligible person’s eligibility to vote, but an eligible voter can’t challenge an ineligible candidate’s taking office? That is what Obama says. Only an ineligible candidate would say that.

What about a corporation or robot taking office? Can a corporation run for office, and no person can challenge it? But at the same time the corporation can challenge a person’s eligibility to vote?

With provision voting, a vote can be challenged after the election date. The voter can also be challenged before the election date. The purpose of provisional voting is so a single eligible voter can sue in court to get their single vote counted. The candidate can oppose the eligible voter in court, and has standing to do so. Equal protection means the voter has standing to say the candidate is not eligible in court.

See also:

http://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2008/08/25/obama-enrolled-as-citizen-of-indonesian-school-violates-art-ii/

The right to challenge the eligibility of a candidate and the right to challenge the eligibility of an individual voter must spring from the same place. It must be symmetric. If a candidate can challenge the eligibility of a voter, a voter can challenge the eligibility of a candidate. We can’t have the absurdity that an ineligible candidate can challenge the eligibility of an eligible voter, but an eligible voter can’t challenge the eligibility of an ineligible candidate. That would exalt form over substance. It would also not give equal protection of the law.

The right to vote and the right to challenge eligibility to vote or be a candidate are all part of a unitary right to vote. They can’t be separated. Its all linked. The right to vote and the right to challenge or defend a challenge are all linked. Voters have the right to defend a challenge from a candidate, and therefore have the right to bring their counter claim against the candidate’s eligibility.

The correct claim by a candidate against a lawsuit is that the voter brining it is ineligible to vote and so can’t bring the suit. But as long as the voter is eligible to vote, they are also eligible to challenge the eligibility of the candidate. Its all symmetric and each provision that is a source of the candidate’s right to challenge voter eligibility also gives the voter the right to challenge the candidate’s eligibility. Ineligible voters and candidates don’t have standing to challenge eligible voters and candidates. That’s what the Constitution and the law require, by the very meaning of election, citizen, vote, etc. from the time of the Greeks and before. The very words have origin in Greek and Latin from elections at those times in those places.

It was understood then that eligible citizens voted for eligible candidates and that they could challenge an ineligible one. The right to sue in court and the form of courts were all linked together to these rights to vote in these early democracies where the words and ideas were born. The Founding Fathers understood it that way.

==Generalized Interest Math

The chance that a specific voter will make the difference. This falls to zero based on a probability law. For large numbers, we can use a normal distribution, so the tail probability falls to zero as p = f(N) for some function f.

==Normal?

If each voter has a probability p to vote for one candidate and q =1-p for

the other, and p does not equal q, then as N becomes large, we can use a normal approximation to the distribution. It may be that this could lead to the following functional form for f(N):

f(N) = A exp(-k x*x), for the appropriate definition of x. Here x is related to N, number of voters in a linear fashion x = a + b N.

Nothing depends on such a functional form for an approximation to the binomial.

The idea is that if p is not 1/2, the probability of the election being tied so one vote makes the difference is not the peak point of the normal distribution, the bell curve.  In this case, as N goes to infinity, the normal distribution becomes a single spike centered at the mean.  If the mean is not a tie vote, but one side wins, then the case of tie vote is off the spike, so it has zero probability in this situation. In that case, the probability of a tie is in the tail of the spike, and so its probability goes to zero like the exponential quadratic above.  The density becomes a Dirac Delta Function as its called, and the tail can be approximated or represented with exponential quadratic.  The Wiki article on the paradox of voting talks about the case that p=1/2.  In this case, the delta function is centered on a tie vote.  That is a very special case.

==

If f falls to zero faster than 1/N, following argument would apply. But this may not be a correct assumption.

For a voter suing a candidate, the generalized interest argument is
based on dividing the cost by the number of voters, so c = C/N. As N rises, e.g. over 1 million, p falls to zero much faster than c does. So from generalized interest point of view, a voter has more generalized interest to challenge a candidate than the chance that a specific voter challenged as eligible will be the deciding vote.

–

Regardless, f falls to zero and C/N or p C/N fall to zero as some function of N.

==Tried to add this comment at Berg webpage, but it may not have posted.

“Generalized interest falls to zero faster for challenging voter”

Let N be number of voters. Generalized interest is to take C/N where C is some generalized total cost. The generalized interest argument is to say C/N is low. This is a fallacy, of course. If C is high and some person bears the cost to litigate, its a public good. Courts are supposed to optimize public good utility and this is part of law and economics movement to interpret law.

==

Following may not be correct about how probability falls to zero. (But if one candidate is ahead in the polls, it may be accurate?)

But when a candidate challenges a voter, the probability that person will be the deciding vote goes to zero as A exp(-a N^2) for N large, using a normal approximation to the binomial. For N 1 million, the chance a specific person is the deciding vote goes to zero far faster than the generalized cost C/N goes to zero. So even from the most narrow damage analysis, generalized interest says that the generalized interest of an individual to challenge a candidate’s eligibility is greater than the reverse interest of the candidate to challenge a specific person’s eligibility.

–

Using f(N) as probability of casting deciding vote, it still falls to zero as N increases and so generalized cost, probability weighted or not, and probability of casting the deciding vote are all falling to zero quickly as N increases.

==

Note added to linked post on this as well. Math and common sense, they work together. No wonder this law and economics movement took off.

The probability falls to zero so fast, that expected cost or even a percentile close to zero (or one depending on how look at it) leads to same conclusion.

===Person’s point of view.

A person can defend a challenge by a candidate to their eligibility to vote even though the probability they are the deciding vote goes to zero like f(N). The person doesn’t lose the right to defend or challenge the challenge because their probability of being the deciding vote is so close to zero.

But C/N is the cost to the person if they challenge the candidate’s eligibility. This is much larger than the probability they are the deciding vote.

The person’s legal interest and standing to litigate the challenge to their vote eligibility survives even though the probability they are the deciding vote is far less than C/N. So their specific damage is considered still sufficient even though less than C/N.

This means their generalized interest for a specific candidate to not be eligible is greater than their interest that they will be the deciding vote. Since they still have standing to litigate a challenge to their right to vote, that means they have standing to litigate a candidate’s eligibility.

==Attempt to post a shorter summary at Berg website also failed.

The probability a person will cast the deciding vote is far less than 1/N where N is number of people. The generalized interest in an eligible candidate is C/N where C is total. The individual interest in being the deciding vote when the candidate challenges the person’s eligibility to vote is less than C/N when N is large. But a person still has standing to litigate a challenge to their eligibility to vote, even though its less than C/N, their generalized interest in the election itself.

===The court is also mixing up the analysis anyhow.

If a plaintiff wants to bring a case that they have low direct interest in, but the public has a high interest in, then the cost to the defendant is their own cost, but the gain is to the public. So the public interest is to allow the case.

If the defendant has a low interest, and still wants to defend, they can. In this case, a voter may have a low probability of changing an election, but is still allowed to defend a challenge to their eligibility to vote. This is partly the public good of preventing false challenges. The defendant bears the cost of preventing false challenges to voter eligibility. The defendant gets even less benefit than in the ineligible candidate case for N large, but the public is benefited by the defendant doing so.

The defendant gets psychic income to defend their vote. But in the case of an ineligible candidate they get psychic income to bear the cost of removing an ineligible candidate.

We can think of a box. The voter has low direct damages in their share of the chance their vote makes the difference or with an ineligible candidate. Although its actually greater with an ineligible candidate from a foreign country since they can wreck huge harm per person. The public interest is high. In each case, the law works best by allowing the individual to bear the cost for a public good, and letting the individual be paid with psychic income.

Because of the paradox of voting, the whole system of democracy depends on people voting despite the probability they will cast the deciding vote going to zero faster than 1/N. So the generalized interest argument ignores that the probability of casting the deciding vote is less than the C/N value. So generalized interest would lead the courts to prohibit any person from voting because the cost of voting was greater than their chance to change the election.

Voters have to get psychic income from voting. That’s why they get little stickers, I voted. If the candidate is ineligible, voters won’t get psychic income. This is especially true for a president. Ineligible candidates that can’t be challenged takes away the psychic income of voting and so prevent elections working by the logic of the Paradox of Voting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_voting

Many people are voting for Obama as a symbol, i.e. the psychic income. If he is not eligible that takes away from that psychic income and thus undermines the psychic income that is what gets people to vote even though the math of voting is that the probability to be the deciding vote goes to zero like f(N) while the benefit goes to zero like B/N.

So the courts have done the math wrong to allow people to challenge a challenge to their eligibility to vote but not to let them challenge the eligibility of a candidate to hold office.

==Scaling and Generalized Interest

The probability to be the deciding vote goes to zero as N goes to infinity. However, C/N goes to zero only if C is independent of N, where C is the cost of government. If the cost of government increases with N, then C/N need not go to zero as N goes to infinity.

Suppose the government pursues a policy of genocide. Then the individual is genocided by the government, and C rises with N so C/N doesn’t go to zero. As a matter of fact, its a mathematical theorem that the judge can take judicial notice of that one way immigration does cause genocide.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1213928&blobtype=pdf

We investigated various cases of the island model with stochastic migration. If the population is infinite, the immigrants have a fixed gene frequency and the alleles are neutral, the gene frequency on the island converges to that of the immigrants.

Genetics. 1979 January; 91(1): 163–176.

The Island Model with Stochastic Migration

Thomas Nagylaki

Department of Biophysics and Theoretical Biology, The University of Chicago, 920 East 58th Street, Chicago, Illinois 60637

http://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2007/06/30/population-genetics-island-model-one-way-migration/

==Ineligible candidate, loss is unbounded.

Examples of ineligible candidates: A corporation as an ineligible candidate. A robot. A citizen of another country. A piece of fruit. A random number generator. A lobbying firm.

For an ineligible voter, the loss is bounded by the worst of the two candidates, or the difference in them. The space of candidates is what drives unbounded loss.

In government, loss is worse then gain. Genocide is the downside of bad government. The upside is social security, unemployment and medicare. Although these have to be paid for and attract the poor of other countries.
Thus becoming loss.

Immigration is genocide, the most effective form of it. its perfected. Government policy creates it. Obama is more for it than McCain it appears. So there is an issue genocide whose total cost C is not independent of N, but imposes a loss on each individual that doesn’t fall with N. The loss to each individual from genocide doesn’t decrease because others are genocided too. Thus the individual cost from genocide doesn’t go to zero. The generalized interest from genocide by immigration doesn’t fall to zero. That is an issue in the US at this time. Obama is for the process described in the Wright Island Model that causes genocide of those already here. He identifies with the immigrant flow that causes genocide of the stock of genes here.

The probability of genocide for each individual voter is one no matter how many voters there are. Thus the generalized interest from this point of view to stop immigration doesn’t fall to zero as the number of voters increases, but stays bounded away from zero as N increases. It does not asymptote to zero. This is ignoring the probability of making the deciding difference in the election.

Note the Wright Island Model is a mathematical theorem, its not a study. Its a published theorem. The judge can take judicial notice of theorems in math.

==Tax example. Tax doesn’t fall to zero

C = t Nw

t is tax rate, N is number of people, w is wage, assumed same.

C/N = tw.

This doesn’t go to zero as N goes to infinity.

==Generalized interest probability adjusted

Let p be the probability the person changes the result.

pC/N = p t w

So if p goes to zero, then ptw goes to zero. But this is because p goes to zero.

However, a person can defend a challenge by a candidate of their eligibility to vote. This is true even though the probability their vote is deciding, p, goes to zero as N goes to infinity.

The factor that makes p C/N go to zero for taxes is the p, the probability the person will cast the deciding vote. But the law already allows a person to defend a challenge to their vote from the candidate, even though its the same p that makes the chance the person casts the deciding vote go to zero.

Thus the role of p is symmetric between the candidate challenging a voter’s eligibility to vote or the voter challenge the candidate’s eligibility to be elected. The factor making generalized interest go to zero is p, the probability the person’s vote is deciding, and that applies in both lawsuits. Since the candidate challenging the voter’s eligibility to vote allows the voter to defend, despite their generalized interest going to zero, the voter can challenge the candidate’s eligibility despite their generalized interest going to zero, where generalized interest in each case includes as a factor the probability the voter casts the deciding vote. The candidate can pursue that case against a voter even though the same probability p is going to zero as N goes to infinity.

If generalized interest for a voter defending a challenge to their eligibility is the p t w, the generalized interest is identical in each case, candidate suing voter over the voter’s eligibility and voter suing candidate over candidate’s eligibility.

==Generalized interest fallacy

The factor that makes generalized interest asymptote to zero as the number of people goes to infinity is the probability the person’s vote will change the outcome. But the person’s generalized interest in candidate eligibility exactly equals their interest in their own vote. A person can defend their eligibility to vote when the candidate challenges it, even though the probability their vote makes the difference goes to zero as the number of people goes to infinity.
But their interest in their own eligibility to vote is mathematically equal to their interest in the outcome, and that equals their interest in the eligibility of the candidate. The factor that makes them all go to zero is the probability they cast the deciding vote. The same applies to the candidate initiating action to challenge their eligibility to vote. That also goes to zero based on the probability that person’s vote makes the difference. So all the cases have the same factor and it applies to the interest of candidate and defendant in all cases.

So the smallness of the probability that a person’s vote makes the difference either stops all litigation or it doesn’t matter, i.e. litigation to challenge eligibility to vote or a candidate either are all permitted despite or all prohibited because the probability an individual vote will make the difference goes to zero.
==

http://obamacrimes.com/index.php/component/content/article/1-main/24-berg-files-opposition-to-defense-motion-for-dismissal#comments

Keith Olbermann missed his meal last night in the Joe Biden Sarah Palin debate. But the job of remanufacturing what happened is now going full speed from the angry left blogs like the New York Times and Daily Kos.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3719710#countdown

Transcript not posted yet, but look at above link in a day or two.

Olbermann was feasting in anticipation of Sarah Palin on a plate. But that didn’t happen. So his team invented a fictionalized version of the debate after it happened. Sarah Palin just memorized the prep book. They all do that. Even Bill Clinton prepped from debate books when he was president. All presidents do that. All candidates for president do that.

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=rAQ&q=Reagan+Carter+Clinton+%22briefing+book%22&btnG=Search

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9803E7DA133BF935A15753C1A965948260&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Reagan Carter special prosecutor “briefing book”

http://www.debates.org/pages/trans80b.html

“October 28, 1980 The Carter-Reagan Presidential Debate”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_research

So already in 1980, they were already trying to steal the other guy’s briefing book. Saying Palin used a briefing book as if that proves she is mentally deficient is absurd. The opposite is true. Learning her briefing book shows she can do the job, because that’s what the job is. That’s why who writes the briefing book is as important as who learns it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/us/politics/03watch.html?hp

By ALESSANDRA STANLEY
Published: October 3, 2008

But mostly, she tried to recoup from past blunders on foreign policy. She twice dropped the name of Kim Jong Il of North Korea, made a point of referring to Iran’s president and described the Cuban leadership as “the Castro brothers.” She also recast her television interviews as traps set by liberals, not unforced errors of her own.

At the end of the debate, before she was surrounded by her husband and children, and burped her newborn, she thanked the moderator for the chance to talk to the American people “without the filter, even of the mainstream media, kind of telling viewers what they’ve just heard.”

It was a pre-emptive strike against commentators poised to critique her performance and a retroactive strike against the other Sarah Palin.

Sour grape times.

http://www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/ajc/bookman/entries/2008/10/03/the_morning_after_palinpalooza.html

The morning after, Palin-palooza

By Jay Bookman | Friday, October 3, 2008, 06:59 AM

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Rudy Giuliani says that last night’s performance by Sarah Palin was one of the best debate performances he’s ever seen.

Seriously.

“Only the liberal media could deny her this victory,” said Mr. 9-1-1.

So I have a question: After saying something so foolish and dishonest, how does Giuliani look at himself in the mirror this morning? How does he expect people to take him seriously?

Really. I’ve seen better debate performances from a street wino. And he was arguing with himself, not with Joe Biden.

Uh, Jay, Would that be seriously?

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/02/sarah-rocks/

Sarah Rocks is right. Michelle Malkin hits it exactly right.

First, I would like to see all the Sarah doubters and detractors in the Beltway/Manhattan corridor eat their words.

Eat them.

…

Prediction: Watch for a whole new, severe strain of Palin Derangement Syndrome to begin tonight.

They hated her before tonight. They are going to pour on more unfathomable hate at a level we have never seen before.

They are still on their Sarah hate riff.

Governor Sarah Barracuda Palin achieved total victory in the vice-presidential debate with Senator Joe Biden. She won the battle of these two heavy-weights. It was clear that God was with her. Her energy and her vitality were regal and triumphant. She can be our warrior queen to lead us to defeat Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, the axis of Islamic evil. She and John McCain stand above Joe Biden and Barrack Hussein Obama II to fight the evil that came out of Mecca in 622 AD.

Palin’s ending was stirring and will
live in history.  We have to fight for our freedom and do what is unpleasant or unpopular.  We have to fight for freedom.  Our freedom doesn’t come shrink wrapped from China.

In another sign of Sarah Palin’s inexperience, she admits she has not met demons.  Nor has she visited the underworld, or even have a passport to it.

Keith Olberman and Barack Hussein Obama II (citizen of Kenya, Indonesia and Earth (KIE)) have admitted they have met demons.  In fact, the both boast of it.

Obama’s passport from Indonesia already gets him into the underworld.  He used it to visit Pakistan in 1981.  Then he went to Mecca and swore allegiance to his God.  You can see the looks of anger and arrogance on Obama’s face.  When this god is displeased, it shows.

Obama’s inner demon(s) come out here:

http://www.mikefrancesa.com/wordpress/?p=1011

http://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2008/08/28/barack-hussein-obama-is-angry-in-his-speech/

Olbermann by dint of his many years service and unique condescension and arrogance on TV has also been granted a multiple entry visa into the underworld.  He uses it regularly with his Daily Kos Squad.

In summary, Sarah Palin has no passport to the underworld and has never been there.  Sarah Palin has never met a demon. Sarah Palin has not entered into the dominion of those who will destroy us.  She has no such experience.   But typical white folk trust her.  Will they never learn?

The demons have a plan for America to wake up in Zanubamaland.

http://oldatlanticlighthouse.wordpress.com/2008/08/29/waking-up-in-zanubamaland/

Vote Chuck Baldwin rates excellent in stopping legal immigration and amnesty by NumbersUSA.

Please vote no on the bailout Senators John Warner and Jim Webb.  We earned this money and we don’t want it to go to Wall Street bonuses.  Reform first, bailout never.  Reform first. Reform second. Reform third.  What does it take to get Wall Street to reform?  Losing money.  A bailout will stop reform.  We are already hearing the attacks on mark to market accounting.  SEC Chairman Cox whom McCain said should resign, is leading the way to rollback mark to market accounting.

Mark to CEO bonus is not what we need.  We need mark to reality, especially in a financial crisis.  Now is the time for truth to come into the suites of the powerful.  It does that on the wings of mark to market accounting.  It isn’t until they see their bonus money going out the door that they think about the truth.  CEO’s are walled off from the truth more effectively than George Bush is.  McCain or Obama will be next the same thing.  Its almost happened already with both of them.

Throwing money away in a bailout should not be the last act of your Senatorial career, Senator John Warner.  You should go out for us not for a Wall Street bailout that will be seen more and more as a bonus bailout.

Senator Jim Webb, you ran as a populist red-neck hillbilly who wasn’t owned by Wall Street.  Time to show that’s still operative.  Are you the Senator from the Virginia hills or the Senator from Wall Street?