text:
Difficult Run
I had another dream, I had another life
The DR Editors
The DR Book Collection
The DR Taglines
Advertising on DR
The DR Comment Policy
TSA link collection
March 7, 2019 December 14, 2017 by Monica
Just a reminder as you travel this holiday season: the TSA is a total waste of money.
The following lists are nowhere close to comprehensive. They are just the links I happened to save over time. The first two groups (Fools, Criminals) are only anecdotes and are a small sample over the course of many years. However, the third group (Incompetent) involves larger sample sets and speaks to the central question: Does the TSA keep us safe?
Fools:
TSA fires screener caught sleeping in Seattle – CNN, January 6, 2003
Florida teen detained because her purse had an image of a gun – Yahoo News, December 2, 2011
TSA subjects wheelchair-bound three-year-old to humiliating search – The Daily Mail, March 19, 2012
TSA Apologizes To Family After Clip of 3-Year-Old Girl in Wheelchair Goes Viral – Huffington Post, February 21, 2013 (Note this is a separate instance than the previous story.)
TSA Humiliated Double Amputee Marine – KTLA, March 22, 2013
TSA Agents Detained Nine-Year Old Boy Because He Had A Pacemaker – Reason, August 23, 2016
A panty liner triggers a TSA pat-down – Washington Post, March 30, 2017
Criminals:
3 ex-TSA workers plead guilty to theft – Seattle Pi, September 23, 2005
TSA Screener Arrested [after taking money from a passenger's wallet] – TMJ4, October 14, 2006
Ex-TSA agent sentenced for role in pot smuggling scheme at LAX – Daily Breeze, March 25, 2013
6 Shockingly Childish Abuses of Power by Airport Employees – Cracked, April 22, 2014
Suit: Man held 20 hours after asking to file TSA complaint – San Diego Tribune, February 4, 2015
Video Shows Airport Security Tackling Cancer Patient With Disability – Huffington Post, August 12, 2016
A TSA agent who may have lied about a bomb threat can't be sued – Los Angeles Times op-ed, August 26, 2017 (Passenger threatens to file a complaint against TSA agent, so TSA agent falsely tells police passenger made a bomb threat.)
Airport screeners fail to see most test bombs – Seattle Times, October 28, 2006
The Things He Carried – The Atlantic, November 2008 (Atlantic correspondent carries prohibited items on to multiple flights while investigating what the TSA can actually detect.)
TSA's Program to Spot Terrorists a $200M Sham? – CBS, May 19, 2010 "The program is failing to catch terrorists. It's never even caught one."
Does the TSA Ever Catch Terrorists? – Slate, November 18, 2010
TSA Source: Armed Agent Slips Past DFW Body Scanner – NBC, February 21, 2011
The case for abolishing the TSA – Vox, May 26, 2014
Acting TSA director reassigned after screeners failed tests to detect explosives, weapons – CNN, June 2, 2015 (Note in both 2006 and 2015 the TSA failed to detect the relevant items over 90% of the time.)
The TSA is Still Really Bad at Evaluating Risk – Reason, December 21, 2017
Please, TSA Workers, Don't Come Back – Reason, January 9, 2019
See also the related DR post: TSA: A Cost-Benefit Analysis
Categories Economics, Politics, Society Tags civil liberties, terrorism
Migration and Terrorism
April 10, 2018 August 18, 2017 by Walker
A new study examines the link between immigrants and terrorism:
In our recent work (Dreher et al. 2017) we provide a detailed analysis of how the number of foreigners living in a country has affected the number of terrorist attacks made by foreigners on citizens of their host countries. According to the raw data, in OECD countries between 1980 and 2010, for every million foreigners in the population, 0.8 terror attacks are committed per year, per country (there were 662 transnational attacks). While it is obvious that the number of attacks increases with the number of people living in a country (after all, with no foreigners in a country, no foreigners would commit any attacks), on average these numbers amount to about one attack by foreigners per year and host country, and 1.3 people die from these attacks in the average country and year.
Transnational terror is dwarfed in absolute numbers by the number of attacks made by the domestic population. In the 20 OECD countries that our sample covers, there were 2,740 attacks arising from the domestic population. In relative terms though, the picture is different – there were fewer than 0.18 terrorist attacks for every one million locally born citizens in a typical country and year. Overall, while the probability that foreigners are involved in an attack on the domestic population was much higher than the risk that citizens were involved in attacks on their own country, the risk associated with each additional foreigner was tiny.
In our statistical analysis, we investigate whether, and to what extent, an increase in the foreign population of the average OECD country would increase the risk of terrorist attacks from foreigners in a host country. We identify exogenous variation in the number of foreigners living in an OECD country using changes in migration resulting from natural disasters. These changes affected host countries differently, according to the specifics of each host- and origin-country pair.
Using data for 20 OECD host countries, and 187 countries of origin between 1980 and 2010, we find that the number of terror attacks increased with the number of foreigners living in a host country. This scale effect that relates larger numbers of foreigners to more attacks does not imply, however, that foreigners are more likely to become terrorists than the domestic population. When we calculate the effect of a larger local population on the frequency of terror attacks by locals, the effect is of a comparable size. We conclude that, in this period, migrants were not more likely to become terrorists than the locals of the country in which they were living.
To put these results in perspective, consider the expected effect of a decrease in the domestic population of 0.0002% (which is the average decrease in the domestic population of the 20 OECD countries we studied in 2015, according to the OECD). According to our model, this would have reduced the number of terrorist attacks by 0.00025 per country and year. The increase in the stock of foreigners living in these countries was 3.6% in the same year. According to our estimates, this would have created 0.04 additional attacks. We might argue that this hardly justifies a ban on foreigners as a group.
We find little evidence that terror had been systematically imported from countries with large Muslim populations. The exceptions were Algeria and Iran, where we found a statistically higher risk of being involved in terrorist attacks against the local population, compared to the average effect of foreigners from non-Muslim countries. In this light, the phrases 'Muslim terror' or 'Islamist terror' does not seem accurate or useful. Only 6% of the terrorist attacks in the US between 1980 and 2005 period were carried out by Muslims, and less than 2% of all attacks in Europe had a religious motivation between 2009 and 2013 (Alnatour 2017).
I've written before about how European labor laws may play a role in radicalization. The authors make a similar case for immigration bans:
Contrary to the expectations of many politicians and pundits, introducing strict laws that regulate the integration and rights of migrants does not seem to have been effective in preventing terror attacks from foreign-born residents. We rather find that repressing migrants already living in the country with these laws has alienated a substantial share of this population, which increases the risk of terror. Stricter laws on immigration thus have the potential to increase the risk of terror, at least immediately following the ban.
…Our results illustrate an important trade-off. While stricter immigration laws could reduce the inflow of (violent) foreigners and thus potentially the number of future terrorist attacks, the restrictions would also increase the probability that those foreigners already living in the country become more violent. Immigration bans, like those recently introduced in the US, would arguably increase the short-term risk of attacks, before potentially reducing risk when the number of foreigners in the population has decreased.
Categories Economics, Politics, Social Science, Society Tags immigration, international issues, terrorism
Far-Right Terrorism
Last year, I linked to a Cato study on the likelihood of a foreign terrorist attack (TL;DR: it's astronomically low). With Charlottesville in the news, this piece from Foreign Policy was particularly interesting:
The FBI and the Department of Homeland Security in May warned that white supremacist groups had already carried out more attacks than any other domestic extremist group over the past 16 years and were likely to carry out more attacks over the next year, according to an intelligence bulletin obtained by Foreign Policy.
Even as President Donald Trump continues to resist calling out white supremacists for violence, federal law enforcement has made clear that it sees these types of domestic extremists as a severe threat. The report, dated May 10, says the FBI and DHS believe that members of the white supremacist movement "likely will continue to pose a threat of lethal violence over the next year."
…The FBI…has already concluded that white supremacists, including neo-Nazi supporters and members of the Ku Klux Klan, are in fact responsible for the lion's share of violent attacks among domestic extremist groups. White supremacists "were responsible for 49 homicides in 26 attacks from 2000 to 2016 … more than any other domestic extremist movement," reads the joint intelligence bulletin.
The report, titled "White Supremacist Extremism Poses Persistent Threat of Lethal Violence," was prepared by the FBI and DHS.
The bulletin's numbers appear to correspond with outside estimates. An independent database compiled by the Investigative Fund at the Nation Institute found that between 2008 and 2016, far-right plots and attacks outnumbered Islamist incidents by almost 2 to 1.
Now, granted, when we consider that the Southern Poverty Law Center "estimates that [today] there are between 5,000 and 8,000 Klan members, split among dozens of different – and often warring – organizations that use the Klan name," that's a huge improvement over the 4 million in the mid-1920s. But I find it ironic that groups that worry about the influx of immigrants in part due to potential terror attacks are more likely to commit said attacks in recent years.
Categories News, Social Science, Society Tags terrorism
Meaningless Secular Democracies and Islamic Exceptionalism
April 11, 2018 April 26, 2017 by Walker
According to Brookings scholar Shadi Hamid, liberal democracies offer little meaning for many Muslims across the world. The Atlantic summarizes his view:
History will not necessarily favor the secular, liberal democracies of the West. Hamid does not believe all countries will inevitably follow a path from revolution to rational Enlightenment and non-theocratic government, nor should they. There are some basic arguments for this: Islam is growing, and in some majority-Muslim nations, huge numbers of citizens believe Islamic law should be upheld by the state. But Hamid also thinks there's something lacking in Western democracies, that there's a sense of overarching meaninglessness in political and cultural life in these countries that can help explain why a young Muslim who grew up in the U.K. might feel drawn to martyrdom, for example. This is not a dismissal of democracy, nor does it comprehensively explain the phenomenon of jihadism. Rather, it's a note of skepticism about the promise of secular democracy—and the wisdom of pushing that model on other cultures and regions.
Most Islamists—people who, in his words, "believe Islam or Islamic law should play a central role in political life"—are not terrorists. But the meaning they find in religion, Hamid said, helps explain their vision of governance, and it's one that can seem incomprehensible to people who live in liberal democracies.
The article continues with an interview with Hamid, which offers some interesting points not only about Islam, but about the relation between religion and politics generally:
I am arguing that Islam is exceptional. I think there's a general discomfort among American liberals about the idea that people don't ultimately want the same things, that there isn't this linear trajectory that all peoples and cultures follow: Reformation, then Enlightenment, then secularization, then liberal democracy.
Where I would very much part ways with those on the far right who are skeptical about Islam is that I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing for Islam to play an outsized role in public life.
…There are many of us here in the U.S. who are skeptical [of theology in government], but ultimately I think it's up to the people of the region to decide what's best for themselves through a democratic process that would play out over time.
I see very little reason to think secularism is going to win out in the war of ideas. But the question is: Why would it in the first place? Why would that even be our starting presumption as American observers? It's presumptuous and patronizing to think a different religion is going to follow the same basic trajectory as Christianity.
Hamid touches on Malaysia and Indonesia, two countries which are often ignored because "they're not very central to U.S. national-security interests":
Those two countries are often described as models of pluralism, tolerance, and relative democracy. But there are actually more sharia bylaws on the local level in those two countries than you see in much of the Arab world, including Tunisia, Egypt, Lebanon, and certainly Turkey, in the broader region.
That tells us something: It's not just an Arab problem. It's not just a Middle Eastern problem. What I do think is quite different is that Malaysia and Indonesia have come to terms with this reality. [Islam] doesn't have the same kind of polarizing effect on the body politic [in those countries] as it does in the Arab world, because those two countries have reached a conservative consensus, where people say, "Yes, Islam does play an outsize role in public life, but we're going to agree to adjudicate our differences through a democratic process, or at least not through violence."
Unfortunately, too many Westerners refuse to take the metaphysical and spiritual claims of Islam (and religion in general) seriously:
As political scientists, when we try to understand why someone joins an Islamist party, we tend to think of it as, "Is this person interested in power or community or belonging?" But sometimes it's even simpler than that. It [can be] about a desire for eternal salvation. It's about a desire to enter paradise. In the bastions of Northeastern, liberal, elite thought, that sounds bizarre. Political scientists don't use that kind of language because, first of all, how do you measure that? But I think we should take seriously what people say they believe in…There's a desire for a politics of substantive meaning. At the end of the day, people want more than economic tinkering.
I think classical liberalism makes a lot of sense intellectually. But it doesn't necessarily fill the gap that many people in Europe and the U.S. seem to have in their own lives, whether that means [they] resort to ideology, religion, xenophobia, nationalism, populism, exclusionary politics, or anti-immigrant politics. All of these things give voters a sense that there is something greater.
What about the supposedly inherent violence within Islam?
A question I get a lot is, "Wait, ok, is Islam violent? Does the Quran endorse violence?" I find this to be a very weird question. Of course there is violence in the Quran. Muhammad was a state builder, and to build a state you need to capture territory. The only way to capture territory is to wrest it from the control of others, and that requires violence. This isn't about Islam or the Prophet Muhammad; state building has historically always been a violent process.
…ISIS has gone well beyond the al-Qaeda model of terrorism and destruction…ISIS one of the most successful Islamist state-building groups. And that's what makes it scary and frightening as an organization: They have offered a counter model. They've shown that capturing and holding territory is actually an objective worth striving for. An overwhelming majority of Muslims dislike ISIS and oppose them. But ISIS has changed the terms of the debate, because other Islamist groups in recent decades have not been able to govern. They have not been able to build states, and ISIS has.
One of his final thoughts is probably one of the most important:
Islamism is a very modern thing. It was inconceivable four centuries ago. In the pre-modern era [in the Islamic world], Islam imbued every aspect of public and political life. It was the unquestioned overarching legal and moral culture in these territories. With the advent of secularism as a competing idea, or ideology, for the first time Muslims have to ask themselves these kinds of questions of who they are and what their relationship to the state is. So, in that sense, Islamism only makes sense in opposition to something else that isn't Islamism, i.e., secularism.
If I had to sum up mainstream Islamism in a sentence, I would say it's the attempt to reconcile pre-modern Islamic law with the modern nation-state. But the problem is that Islamic law wasn't designed for the modern nation-state. It was designed for the pre-modern era. So the question then is, "How do you take something that wasn't meant for the modern era and adapt it to the modern era—the era of nation-states?" That is the conundrum that Islamist movements are facing.
An insightful, fascinating read.
Categories Politics, Religion, Society Tags Islam, terrorism 1 Comment
Still Think There's a Threat?: Immigrant-Linked Terrorism
April 11, 2018 February 2, 2017 by Walker
I've written before about the (un)likelihood of dying at the hands of a foreign terrorist here on American soil. But for kicks, let's drive the point home a little more. As Vox reports,
To put [the Cato Institute's numbers] in perspective, I've produced the following chart, which compares the average annual likelihood of American pedestrians being hit by a railway vehicle, dying due to their own clothes melting or lighting on fire, and being killed in a terrorist attack perpetrated by an immigrant. It's quite revealing:
Even better, you have a higher chance of winning the lottery or being struck by lightning than being killed by a refugee in a terrorist attack:
Here's hoping we can all get a grip.
Categories Politics, Social Science, Society Tags immigration, terrorism 3 Comments
White women and Trump.
April 11, 2018 November 22, 2016 by Monica
Photo from "9 Women on Why They're (Still) Voting for Trump," New York Magazine
53% of white women voted for Trump.
In the circles I run in, there was tons of coverage and discussion about the myriad comments Trump has made over the years that many of us consider blatantly sexist. When the Hollywood Access tape came out, I took (and still take) his comments as an admission of sexual predation, a topic that means a great deal to me. I was already a #NeverTrump conservative, but the Hollywood Access tapes made it much more difficult for me to understand how people of good conscience, especially women, could vote for this man.
My feed started to include articles such as The Atlantic's "The Revolt of the Conservative Woman" and viral tweets from conservative women feeling betrayed by their party's defense of Trump. Between his apparent gross disrespect of women and the opportunity to elect the first female president, I thought women would vote in droves for Clinton and against Trump. Article's like FiveThirtyEight's "Women are Defeating Donald Trump" seemed to think so too.
But clearly I was missing some major parts of the puzzle. (Apparently a lot of us were, including the pollsters.) As Walker pointed out recently, Trump's support among (all, not just white) women was only slightly lower than the average for Republican presidential candidates since 2000 (42% compared to an average of 44.2%). Clinton's support among women was exactly average for the Democratic presidential candidates since 2000 (54%). Women weren't driven to the polls to vote against Trump or for Clinton—overall turnout among women was only 1% higher than in 2012.
So what happened? What pieces of the puzzle was I missing, that women were neither particularly repelled by Trump nor particularly inspired by Clinton?
Maybe it was bigotry.
Predictably, some of my leftist friends think the missing puzzle pieces are racism and (internalized) sexism. I've seen repostings of LV Anderson's piece at Slate ("White Women Sold Out the Sisterhood and the World by Voting for Trump"), which is filled with explanations like this:
What leads a woman to vote for a man who has made it very clear that he believes she is subhuman? Self-loathing. Hypocrisy. And, of course, a racist view of the world that privileges white supremacy over every other issue.
Sarah Ruiz-Grossman at Huffington Post authored a letter to white women that started with "Fellow white women, I'm done with you." In sync with a lot of the commentary I've read, it showed no curiosity as to the perspectives, hopes, fears, or values of millions of women that led them to vote for Trump (or at least not vote for Clinton). Instead, and again, it simply told them what they didn't care about, what their moral failings were, and what they must do now.
While I appreciate the frustration, I think this approach is an awful strategy. Lambasting people, especially conservatives, for bigotry has not been terribly effective at changing their minds (or votes). Berating the other side seems to mostly get them to tune out entirely when the inevitable accusations of prejudice begin. And the rampant shaming of Trump supporters clearly did nothing to dissuade them throughout the primaries (when shaming was coming from conservatives and liberals alike) or the rest of the election. Why would it work now, when they've won? They have less reason than ever to be concerned about the opinions of people who show no understanding of their perspectives or interest in their wellbeing.
But it's not just that I think accusing people of bigotry is poor strategy; I think it's poor reasoning too. In this post I go through three theories of how voting for Trump was bigoted and explain whether I think those theories make sense.
Theory 1 – Internalized sexists: women voted for Trump instead of Clinton because they are sexist against female candidates.
How Trump measured against Clinton is a major factor. The pantsuit nation adored Clinton, of course, so for them this was no contest at all. But we aren't looking into what HRC's biggest fans thought; we're exploring the millions of women who disagreed.
It's not that everyone who voted for Trump thought he was wonderful: exit polls show that 20% of people who voted for Trump had an overall unfavorable opinion of him. Nearly a quarter of Trump voters said he wasn't qualified for or did not have the temperament to be president, and a full 17% of people who voted for Trump to be President said they would be "concerned" if he were elected!
But 28% of Trump voters said they chose him mainly because they disliked Clinton. Trump received about 60M votes, which would mean about 17M cast their votes primarily as a vote against Clinton. Along the same lines, while voter turnout for Trump was slightly lower than it had been for Romney, voter turnout for Clinton was much lower than it had been for Obama.
Some will argue that these numbers show sexism: people so rejected the idea of a female leader they either stayed home or voted for someone they despised just to stop Clinton. Actually women get accused of sexism no matter which way they vote: Women who backed Clinton are accused of bias, just "voting with their vaginas," and the rest of us are accused of not voting for her because we're misogynists. It's a lose-lose.
But these theories ignore the fact that women don't generally vote based on gender, and gender stereotypes end up being less relevant than party affiliation in voting decisions. In other words, we vote based on political positions. The reality is that most of the women voting for or against Clinton did so based on a variety of competing concerns and priorities, just as most men choose their candidates.
CNN reported that millennial women in particular "rejected the notion that gender should be a factor in their vote." As FiveThirtyEight put it:
Clinton's stunning loss Tuesday night showed that issues of culture and class mattered more to many American women than their gender. The sisterhood, as real sisterhood tends to be, turned out to be riddled with complications.
On average, for the last 5 presidential elections, 89% of Democrats chose the Democratic nominee and 91.4% of Republicans chose the Republican. Last week 89% of Democrats chose Clinton and 90% of Republicans chose Trump. If internalized sexism were a major factor in terms of female nominees, we'd expect 2016 to show a drop in Democrats voting for the Democrat (as internally sexist Democratic women abandoned Clinton) and perhaps even a jump in Republicans voting for the Republican (as internally sexist Republican women were motivated to stop Clinton). But there was no such change.
Similarly, if internalized sexism was a major factor we'd expect Clinton to get a lower proportion of women's votes compared to previous Democratic nominees. Yet, as mentioned above, she got exactly the average proportion of women Democratic nominees have had in the last five presidential races. Or, if we're operating under the idea that only conservatives can be bigots, we'd at least expect a higher proportion of women to vote for Trump in order to stop Clinton. Yet Trump got just slightly less than the average proportion of women Republican nominees have had for the last five races.
If anything, these stats suggest women weren't influenced by gender at all.
Theory 2 – Indifference to sexism: women cared more about party lines than taking a stand against Trump's misogyny.
There are several assumptions embedded in this line of thinking: (A) The women who voted for Trump accessed the same information we did about him. (B) When they assessed that information, they came to the same conclusions we did about the degree of Trump's misogyny. (C) There was nothing else in the balance for them in this election that could have meant more to them than Trump's misogyny.
2a. Trump voters were likely accessing different information.
Hopefully it's not a secret that conservatives and liberals consume different media. I wish I had time to do an entire blog post on how drastically this impacts our views of each other and of our political landscape. But the main point is we should be very careful when assuming that everyone else—especially people that run in different social circles and already hold different perspectives—"knows" the same "truths" we know. Which stories get reported and how they're described varies a lot, and sadly, at least in my experience, most people don't look for sources from worldviews they don't hold. Or, if they do, it's not in an attempt to observe and understand, but to feel outraged and argue.
So when John Oliver does a witty, biting piece on "making Donald Drumpf again" and you see it reposted over and over, that doesn't mean everyone saw it. The people who already hated Trump were a lot more likely to see it than anyone else. Late night comedy is, after all, a bastion of liberal derision.
Pictured: Echo Chamber with John Oliver
2b. Trump voters were likely interpreting information in different ways.
That's not to suggest Trump supporters were wholly unaware of criticisms against him. I think it's unlikely, for example, that many Trump supporters didn't at least hear about the Hollywood Access recording. But the context in which conservatives in general, and enthusiastic Trump supporters specifically, interpreted that was often quite different than how leftists saw it.
Many people (including me) were disgusted and horrified by Trump laughingly talking about getting away with kissing and groping women without their consent. But many others mostly heard politically-motivated faux outrage. The same people so focused on Trump's comments and the sexual assault allegations against him remained dismissive or defensive about the long history of sexual misconduct and assault allegations against Bill Clinton—and Hillary Clinton's role in silencing Bill's accusers. Clinton fans retorted that Hillary isn't responsible for Bill's behavior, but that misses the point. She's responsible for her behavior: she referred to these women as "floozy," "bimbo," and "stalker," and put great effort into "destroying" their stories.
Good luck telling conservatives they must take a principled stand against sexual assault while refusing to acknowledge that the Clintons basically embodied rape culture.
Of course the Hollywood Access tapes are only one example of Trump's sexism, but the pattern remains the same. Whatever example you point to, if outraged accusations of bigotry are coming from leftists or the media, conservatives are extremely skeptical. In fact, getting back to point 2a, conservative circles are more likely to have articles about people who made up stories of hate crimes – stories which, before being shown to be false, often caused viral online outrage (as well as extensive donations to the alleged victim).
I find this problem very frustrating. I do believe the left is too quick to claim bigotry, but I believe the right is therefore too quick to dismiss actual bigotry. Robby Soave of Reason.com summarized this view well:
[It's] the boy-who-cried-wolf situation. I was happy to see a few liberals, like Bill Maher, owning up to it. Maher admitted during a recent show that he was wrong to treat George Bush, Mitt Romney, and John McCain like they were apocalyptic threats to the nation: it robbed him of the ability to treat Trump more seriously. The left said McCain was a racist supported by racists, it said Romney was a racist supported by racists, but when an actually racist Republican came along—and racists cheered him—it had lost its ability to credibly make that accusation.
Kirsten Powers explained the same idea in terms of misogyny:
After all, these same voters have watched as every Republican candidate in recent memory has been accused of waging a "War on Women." If Democrats are going to claim that Mitt Romney and John McCain hate women (and they did), then they shouldn't be surprised when voters ignore them when they say Donald Trump hates women. If every Republican is a misogynist, then no Republican is.
I don't believe the right's resistance to recognizing bigotry is all the left's fault. I think that's a factor, but ultimately we're all responsible for assessing each situation and trying to be fair-minded about it.
Even so, I think many conservatives viewed the outrage over Trump as nothing more than yet another chapter in a long history of selective and manufactured leftist outrage, and so they discounted it. So even if they had watched John Oliver, they probably would have just rolled their eyes at another leftist show mocking conservatives again.
2c. Trump voters were weighing a lot of additional concerns apart from bigotry.
But there were a lot of conservatives who heard about the problems with Trump and were seriously concerned. Many of them became the #NeverTrump crowd, but others still voted for Trump. Why? Because they weren't balancing the problems of racism and sexism against nothing. They were taking those issues and factoring them in with a lot of other issues, weighing each one, and coming to a decision. Even women who voted against Trump had other concerns they considered more important than sexism.
Many reject as ridiculous this concept of weighing multiple factors, saying it's a weak excuse to try to cover up bigotry. They assert nothing could outweigh the civil rights threats Trump represents, and therefore the people who came down on Trump's side, by definition, just didn't care enough about civil rights.
Keep lecturing people about what they don't care about while showing no understanding of what they do care about. That's been so effective so far.
Interestingly, I saw the same reductive thinking from conservatives trying to berate #NeverTrump people into voting for him. If you didn't vote for Trump—if you voted for Clinton, or even if you voted third party—you must not care about massive government abuse and corruption, our country's impending economic collapse under an overregulated welfare state, and, possibly above all, the killing of tens of thousands of babies.
Does that last part sound hyperbolic to you? Because, for a huge portion of the pro-life movement, that was the assertion. Many pro-lifers view abortion as morally equivalent to any other unlawful human death. If you want to imagine the abortion debate from a pro-life perspective, just replace the concept of "fetus" with "toddler," and listen to how the arguments sound. So when Hillary Clinton campaigned on a platform of no restrictions through all three trimesters and requiring Medicaid to cover abortions, that was an absolute deal breaker for many people. Abortion happens in this country roughly 1 million times a year. Imagine for a moment you were choosing between (1) a candidate who stirs racial animosity and blatantly disrespects women and (2) a candidate who unapologetically embraces policies making it legal to murder a million toddlers a year. Who would you pick?
If your first response is to explain why that second description is false, you're missing the point. Yes, I understand that for many, abortion is nothing at all like killing a toddler and even the comparison is offensive. I'm not trying to convince anyone here how to feel about abortion. I'm trying to convince people that you can't sincerely talk about what motivates others if you refuse to acknowledge their actual perspectives. People who voted for Trump could (a) recognize Trump's racism and sexism, (b) care greatly about those issues, and (c) still believe the threats Clinton represented were more dire. The only way you can genuinely believe that every single vote for Trump represented at minimum a callous disregard for civil rights is if you ignore or dismiss the circumstances and value systems of millions of people.
Passion about abortion likely affected many of women who voted for Trump. LV Anderson was aghast that more than half of white women would vote for a man who said he'd appoint Supreme Court justices to overturn Roe v. Wade. It is amazing to me that so many people are still taken off guard when women are antiabortion. Half of American women are against abortion, and that has been true since long before Trump entered the primaries. Yet each time thousands or millions of women don't go for the pro-choice position, pro-choice people are just so surprised. This is another example of the same pattern: be totally unaware of what people have repeatedly said they care about, and then be surprised and angry when they vote for the things they said they cared about all along.
I've used abortion as an example of competing values, but it's only one of many. A recent New York Times article profiled women who voted for Trump. While 22-year-old Nicole Been mentioned her deep opposition to abortion as part of her stance, other women discussed Trump's approach to veterans, their own dire financial situations, and their disillusionment with Democratic efforts to improve their lives. Another New York Times article profiled college-educated women who voted for Trump; they, too, opposed abortion, but focused more on economic security and job and college prospects for their children.
Article after article about the parts of the nation that went wholeheartedly for Trump (including many counties that had previously voted for Obama twice) describe recurring themes of economic and cultural despair, resentment at being derided by the rest of us, and the way economic and racial anxiety intertwine. (Here's one or two more.)
Note that racial anxiety is one of the recurring themes. The left seems to want to reduce this narrative to bigotry and nothing more, and I've spent a lot of time here explaining why I think that's inaccurate. But the right seems to want to reflexively deny bigotry had any part to play, and I don't think that's true either. At minimum there was certainly a racial component to Trump's candidacy. Looming large in the support of Trump were concerns about minority groups getting unfair preferential treatment and resources, immigrants taking resources and increasing criminal activity, and terrorists threatening our safety.
Theory 3 – Institutionalized sexism and racism – regardless of personal motivation, women who voted for Trump supported a platform that would disproportionately harm minority groups.
A major hurdle with discussions of racism and sexism is the use of the same words to mean very different things. In my right-leaning circles, "racism" generally means an individual's disdain or animosity towards others based on race. Same thing with "sexism," but based on sex. In my left-leaning circles, "racism" and "sexism" often mean individual disdain or animosity, but can also mean cultural norms and systemic and institutionalized systems that disproportionately negatively impact minority groups.
So when someone claims that a vote for Trump was racist, they could either mean (a) the person casting the vote has disdain or animosity toward people of other races or (b) the person casting the vote, regardless of his or her motivations, helped to uphold systems that have major negative impacts on women and nonwhite people.
The interesting thing about the "effects not intentions" version of racism is that it can be empirically verified. Motivations can be pretty complicated, multifaceted, and irrational. Effects can be objectively measured. So if "racism" (or sexism or Islamophobia or homophobia) is defined as "policies and practices that hurt these groups," and if electing Trump ends up hurting these groups, then it follows that electing Trump was racism, by this definition.
3a. It's reasonable to believe electing Trump will end up hurting these groups.
Trump campaigned on ending sanctuary cities, suspending visas, and deportation. If implemented, those policies would disproportionately affect undocumented immigrants (about half of which are Hispanic or Latino, followed by Asian) as well as American citizens from families with mixed citizenship statuses. Whether you agree with these policies or not, and whether you personally care how these policies affect others or not, it's hard to deny that they will negatively impact immigrants and their family members who are American citizens.
Trump has talked about requiring immigrants from predominantly Muslim countries to register upon entering the U.S. Alternatively he called for a ban on Muslims immigrating to the country; while he clarified this would not apply to American citizens, it's hard to believe such policies and related rhetoric about Muslims won't affect public perception of and reaction to Muslims already living here. The FBI has released data showing a 67% increase in hate crimes against Muslims in 2015. Some are worried this trend is related to Trump's rise and campaign rhetoric; others say there are other factors–such as 2015 terrorist attacks–that likely played a part. But I think either of those reasons underscores the central point: when the public increasingly perceives a group as dangerous, violence against innocent people in that group becomes more likely.
It seems like Trump's potential effects on African American communities have been less of a focus, but there are reasons for concern. (This link includes some reasons I think conservatives will dismiss as more faux outrage, but, for what it's worth, I believe some of these points are pretty valid.)
While Trump didn't propose specific policies against LGBT folk, the 2016 Republican Party platform did object to legalized gay marriage and take other positions seen as anti-gay. Because Trump was the Republican nominee and can now nominate SCOTUS judges, many believe he will work to adopt those Republican positions. I think it's unlikely gay marriage will get overturned, but I don't think it's a certainty, and I see why many people are worried their marital status could be threatened.
Trump has a history that suggests a pretty disrespectful view of women, not to mention (again) his statements in the Access Hollywood recordings. To the extent women believe support for Trump signals societal dismissal of sexual assault, that belief could have another chilling effect on women reporting assaults and seeking help. I watched this play out on both the national level and with women I know personally after the Access Hollywood firestorm. Women (and men, for that matter) who have experienced sexual assault listened as friends and family who were Trump supporters minimized, dismissed, and, in my opinion, very generously interpreted Trump's statements. That was difficult. Victims of sexual assault hear those reactions and believe the reactions would be the same if they came forward with their own stories. I can understand why people fear this kind of dismissal of sexual misconduct will only get worse now that Trump will be president.
A vote for Trump lent support to these policy proposals and attitudes, even if the person voting didn't personally support one or any of the above. In this sense I think Theory 3 is truer than the other theories—I think a Trump administration will very likely make life harder for these groups.
3b. First problem: negative effects count as racism regardless of what they're being weighed against.
Consider Trump's campaign regarding Islamic terrorism. I do believe requiring (mostly) Muslim immigrants to register upon entering the country, or refusing to let them enter at all, will negatively affect the public's views and behavior toward Muslim Americans and Muslim immigrants already here.
But I also recognize that the people who support these measures believe they will significantly increase our national security and safety. Based on my understanding of Theory 3, what Trump voters believe about these measures (and how those beliefs speak to their motivations) is irrelevant, because Theory 3 is all about effects on minority groups, not the intentions of the people pushing these policies. Whether they sincerely believe these measures will save American lives doesn't change whether or not this approach is defined as racist.
And we've only talked about what they believe, not what is objectively true. Apparently NSEERS, the similar Bush-era program that required immigrant registration, was ineffective at preventing terrorism; it sounds like it was just more security theater, but in this case directed at specific groups. But suppose, hypothetically, immigrant registration made a huge difference in national security. Suppose—as I suspect is the belief of some who support this idea—that without immigrant registration we'd have more San Bernadino and Pulse nightclub shootings. Or another World Trade Center.
If these policies actually prevented terrorism deaths in our own country, does that change whether they are racist? If I understand Theory 3 correctly, it does not. In this way Theory 3 rings a bit hollow for me, because while it is at least technically accurate and objectively measurable (does X policy negatively impact Y community or not?), if it ignores all other factors I still consider it misleading.
3c. Second problem: conflating Theory 3 with Theories 1 & 2.
In my experience, the left frequently blurs the line between "negative impacts" and "personal animosity." A great example is the Slate article "There's No Such Thing as a Good Trump Supporter." Chief political correspondent Jamelle Bouie argues that Trump supporters do not merit empathy because they "voted for a racist who promised racist outcomes." He cites other authors who have claimed Trump's victory does not reveal an "inherent malice" in the populace (referring to the "personal animosity" definition of racism). Bouie counters with the "negative impacts" definition:
Whether Trump's election reveals an "inherent malice" in his voters is irrelevant. What is relevant are the practical outcomes of a Trump presidency…If you voted for Trump, you voted for this, regardless of what you believe about the groups in question.
But, as the title of the piece suggests, Bouie is not condemning only the effects of voting for Trump; he's condemning the Trump voters themselves. He asserts that it is myopic and even "morally grotesque" to suggest Trump supporters are good people. He compares Trump voters to the men in the early 20th century who organized lynchings (they "weren't ghouls or monsters. They were ordinary.") and the people who gawked and smiled at those lynchings ("the very model of decent, law-abiding Americana.") He sums up: "Hate and racism have always been the province of 'good people.'"
Note the switch here. Bouie is no longer talking about practical outcomes; he's talking about hate. He has switched from the "negative impacts" definition of racism back to the "personal animosity" definition. So is he saying that most Trump supporters did not have inherent malice but should be condemned for the policies they supported? Or is he saying that anyone who can support Trump has to be, at least in part, motivated by hate?
And this is often how I see the conversation going. To (heavily) paraphrase:
Person A: If you voted for Trump, you're racist.
Person B: I'm really not. I disagreed with a lot of what he said but I thought Clinton would do more damage in XYZ ways.
Person A: Yeah, you may not personally feel racist but you supported racist policies. It just shows you think the concerns of white people are more important than the actual human rights of everyone else.
Person B: That's not what I think at all!
Person A: It's not about what you personally think! It's about what you supported!
In other words, in principle motivation is supposed to be irrelevant because racism is about effects, but in practice accusations of racism nearly always boil down to motivation—at best a selfish indifference and at worst outright malice. So, in principle, I think Theory 3 has some merit and is worth talking about. In practice, I find I just end up repeating the arguments I made for Theories 1 & 2.
Categories Featured, Politics, Society Tags 2016 presidential election, abortion, civil liberties, discrimination, donald trump, feminism, gay marriage, hillary clinton, immigration, Islam, LGBT, media bias, political partisanship, race, racism, rape culture, sexism, sexual assault, terrorism 2 Comments
What are the Chances?: American Deaths via Foreign Terrorists
April 11, 2018 September 21, 2016 by Walker
With skittles and terrorists in the news, it might be worth assessing the risks that immigrants pose to U.S. natives. How likely are Americans to be killed by a terrorist attack committed by a foreigner? A new policy analysis from the Cato Institute finds that the chances are vanishingly small:
Including those murdered in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 (9/11), the chance of an American perishing in a terrorist attack on U.S. soil that was committed by a foreigner over the 41-year period studied here is 1 in 3.6 million per year. The hazard posed by foreigners who entered on different visa categories varies considerably. For instance, the chance of an American being murdered in a terrorist attack caused by a refugee is 1 in 3.64 billion per year while the chance of being murdered in an attack committed by an illegal immigrant is an astronomical 1 in 10.9 billion per year. By contrast, the chance of being murdered by a tourist on a B visa, the most common tourist visa, is 1 in 3.9 million per year. Any government response to terrorism must take account of the wide range of hazards posed by foreign-born terrorists who entered under various visa categories.
Given that Americans are as likely to be killed by falling furniture as a terrorist attack, maybe we should ban all new purchases of televisions and couches. Add this to the evidence that immigrants are less criminal than native-born Americans and we end up with nothing more than a fear-mongering blowhard.
Categories News, Politics, Social Science Tags terrorism
European Labor Laws and Radical Islam
April 11, 2018 April 6, 2016 by Walker
The Boston Globe made this interesting observation last week in the wake of the terrorist attack in Brussels:
Long before Tuesday's terror attacks in Brussels, it was clear that Belgium had become a breeding ground for Islamist extremists. Hundreds of Belgian Muslims — as many as 500, according to one estimate — have gone to Syria and Iraq to fight for ISIS, making Belgium by far Europe's leading supplier of foreign jihadists. Last November's horrific slaughter in Paris was masterminded by a Belgian radical, Abdelhamid Abaaoud, and at least four of the men who carried out those attacks were from the Brussels district of Molenbeek. One of them was Salah Abdeslam, who was captured in Molenbeek, after an intense manhunt, on March 19.
For Islamist imams and terrorist ringleaders, such neighborhoods — heavily Muslim, densely populated, with high unemployment and crime rates — have proved fertile territory for recruiting violent jihadists. "There is almost always a link with Molenbeek. That's a gigantic problem, of course," Belgium's prime minister said after the Paris atrocities.
The article continues by explaining that "Muslim communities are not inherently predisposed to violence. The presence of a sizable Muslim population in a non-Muslim-majority country does not inevitably presage jihadist bloodshed or demands for the imposition of sharia. It is true that some 650,000 Muslims live in Belgium, but five times as many — 3.3 million — live in the United States. Why hasn't America become a hotbed of Islamic extremism? Why aren't American Muslims by the thousands flocking to fight for ISIS, Al Qaeda, and other terrorist organizations?" Drawing on Pew Research data, the columnist points out that the "United States has been far more successful at assimilating and integrating Muslim immigrants into American society and culture than has Western Europe." And this is all despite the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In other words, "America's melting pot still works."
Much of this is surely cultural. But are there any economic factors involved? Journalist and Reason analyst Shikha Dalmia thinks so. "The standard explanation," she writes, "is that Europe has admitted more Muslims than it can afford to integrate…Failure to spend money on integration means consigning these refugees to segregated Muslim ghettos or banlieues without jobs and without prospects — other than their monthly welfare check — where they become sitting ducks for radicalization." But this narrative is flawed:
Immigrants don't need job programs. They need jobs. And, for a variety of reasons, Europe provides much more of the first and America much more of the second. Europe has an army of social workers in various NGOs whose job is to prepare immigrants for jobs. Not so much in America, which may be partially why America has a far better assimilation track record than Europe. Jobs offer immigrants not just a paycheck, but also an entry into their new society, providing them with both the means and motive to learn its language and customs, all of which eliminates the need for formal programs. What is striking in any conversation with Syrian refugees in America is just how ready and willing they are to take just about any job, no matter how lowly or arduous…Yet many European countries have gone out of their way to deny or severely limit job opportunities for asylum seekers and refugees.
…Even after refugees obtain work permits, their upward mobility is greatly restricted in Europe, thanks to the exceedingly rigid labor market in many countries. The unemployment rates of France and Belgium are nearly twice that of the United States. This dismal job market affects immigrants much more than the native born, thanks to Europe's tough minimum wage laws and other labor regulations that protect incumbents at the cost of newcomers…Europe's tough hiring-and-firing provisions, demanded by labor unions, are poison for immigrants. Why? Because immigrants inevitably involve more risk and uncertainty than natives, and if employers can't fire them, notes George Mason University's Alex Tabarrok, they won't hire them either. It is not surprising that Muslims in France, which has some of the most protective labor laws in the industrialized world, are two-and-a-half times less likely to receive job interviews than non-Muslims.
This counterintuitive explanation is worth considering.
Categories Economics, News, Religion, Society Tags international issues, Islam, terrorism
Four Mistakes to Avoid When Talking About Radical Islam
April 12, 2018 December 17, 2015 by Allen
One of the best-written pieces in the aftermath of the Paris attacks has not received significant exposure so far. It is a pity, because Shai Held's 4 Mistakes To Avoid When Talking About Radical Islam goes right to the heart of how public dialogue on religious extremism should be handled. As Held indicates, "the public conversation about radical Islam is often tedious at best, and downright toxic at worst," because, predictably, each side cares more about defending its own worldview than engaging in nuanced consideration of the problem posed by radical Islam (or any other religious extremism, for that matter). Both sides become entrenched in their opinions, something which isn't helped by the nature of social media. Those with a positive view of Islam and Muslims are understandably inclined to distance ISIS and other expressions of extremism from Islam as practiced by millions. On the other side of the debate are those who are legitimately concerned with violent acts committed by Muslims in the name of Islam, but wildly exaggerate its role in Islam. Each view feeds on the other. How do we step out of yet another vicious circle of partisan strife and find effective solutions to the problem posed by radical Islam?
In facing the current moment, there are four pitfalls we must avoid. The first two, the mistakes of misguided liberals, are (1) denying that Islam has anything to do with ISIS, and (2) refusing to admit that Islam is in unique crisis. The latter two, the mistakes of reactionary conservatives, are (3) declaring that Islam is irredeemably evil, and (4) painting all Muslims with the same brush. All four of these illusions are appealing to some, but all are false, and ultimately noxious.
I highly recommend reading the rest of Held's piece, it is a reasoned and reasonable response to a controversial topic that does not dismiss legitimate concerns on either side. Something rare indeed.
Categories Uncategorized Tags international issues, Islam, terrorism 2 Comments
Ideological Education and Terrorism
April 11, 2018 November 27, 2015 by Walker
With the sting of the latest terrorist attacks still lingering, questions regarding radical Islam have once again surfaced, from the legitimate to the Islamophobic. When it comes to support for ISIS, the Economist reports that a Pew study from last spring finds that attitudes toward the terrorist group in 10 Muslim-majority countries were "overwhelmingly negative.":
It found that 99% of Lebanese and 94% of Jordanians, for instance, held "very unfavourable" views of the group. Even in Saudi Arabia, a country whose Wahhabist creed is seen as a wellspring of jihadism, there is little indulgence: in a face-to-face poll in September sponsored by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a think-tank, a scant 4% of Saudi respondents expressed any degree of support for the group.
However, the same article provides this interesting, if not disturbing, insight about those who do support the terrorist organization:
"Teachers and preachers and professors declare support for the bombings, and stay in their jobs, and then we wonder why youths go and join [IS]," laments a Twitter message from Ali al-Jifri, a popular Sufi leader in Abu Dhabi. Muhammad Habash, an exiled Syrian Islamic scholar, argues on the website All4Syria that IS is not a product of some conspiracy but the outcome of mainstream religious teaching: he notes that one of the group's most effusive Facebook cheerleaders is a former professor at a Saudi university and the daughter of a noted Syrian preacher. Interviewed on SkyNews Arabia, Ibtihal al-Khatib, a Kuwaiti writer, contends that IS did not emerge from a void but from a heritage that Islamic thinkers refuse to re-examine: "We are paying a price for keeping silent for many years, but now that harm comes knocking on our doors we have to accept responsibility."
Research indicates that many terrorists are both educated and well-off financially. While increased education may slightly decrease support for terrorism, economist and Brookings fellow Madiha Afzal finds that ideological curriculum (specifically in Pakistan) may be responsible for the rising extremist views among the younger population:
My regressions also show that older people have more unfavorable opinions toward the Taliban, relative to younger people; this is concerning and is consistent with the trend toward rising extremist views in Pakistan's younger population. The problems in Pakistan's curriculum that began in the 1980s are likely to be at least partly responsible for this trend. Urban respondents seem to have more favorable opinions toward the Taliban than rural respondents; respondents from Punjab and Baluchistan have more favorable opinions toward the Taliban relative to those from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, which as a province has had a closer and more direct experience with terror.
Afzal's research finds that across the educational spectrum, an overwhelmingly majority hold unfavorable views of terrorism. But her data provides an important counterpoint to those who simply think education in the abstract is the answer. One can be highly educated, but when that education is ideologically biased, intolerant, and exclusionary, then those indoctrinated are likely to be as well.
Categories Economics, Education, Politics, Society Tags international issues, terrorism 1 Comment
Search Difficult Run
© 2021 Difficult Run • Built with GeneratePress


The online casinos would offer you with various kinds of incentives for alluring new players along with retaining existing players at their casino. The bonuses could become the major criteria for different players when deciding on the online casino they intend to play at. It would be in your best interest to gain some understanding about the available bonuses. It would be especially important for terms and conditions prior to you accepting the bonuses.
You would come across two major kinds of bonuses, sticky and cashable bonuses. It would be in your best interest to make the most of the sticky bonus, as it would be free money given by the casino. You could make use of sticky bonus to win free games. In event of you winning the game and meet the wagering requisites, you could withdraw the amount without the sticky bonus initially given by the casino to assist you play.


Describe the first time you used a foreign language to communicate You should say: what the situation was where you were who you communicated with and explain why you used a foreign language to communicate on this occasion. ANSWER: I have been learning English for a long time, but I haven't had many chances to practice speaking English with native speakers. To the best of my recollection, the first time I used it was on Christmas Eve three years ago….
Describe a place near water You should say: where this place was what you did at this place who you went there with and explain why you liked this place. ANSWER: Last summer, my family went on a vacation to Cat Ba island, which is located in Hai Phong city and I was really impressed with the beach there. To arrive at this destination, we had to take a ferry from the mainland, a journey which lasted roughly one hour….


The Age of Innocence is a favorite movie of mine. I am referring 1993 Martin Scorsese movie and not the 1934 film both films are based on the Edith Wharton novel of the same name. The story is a melodrama, but it is expertly filmed by Scorsese and acted by a topnotch cast. I typically dislike melodramas, but damn if it is not a stunningly detailed and pretty film. The film is of a society that on its surface is calm and proper, but in actuality the participants are cunning and at battle. It's beautiful on the outside, but not so pleasant on the inside.
I am tired of authoring posts that touch upon the troubles and tribulations within the skeptical community. While there have been various upheavals over the past seven and now going on eight years that I have followed skepticism online, this was the year my innocence was lost. I am not sure what exactly put me over the top, but as I noted in my last post that enough is enough with the trials and tribulations among and between some of the more notable skeptics and their closest followers. I plan to make an effort to not cover either the direct or the derivative aftershocks of the turmoil over the coming year. I fully expect in the coming year there to be more twitter, blog, and commentary battles based upon slights at conferences or blog posts or whatever. While my opinion of some skeptics has been deflated and others tarnished, there is still of lot of good material and work to celebrate. I would like to highlight a few such projects.
Dr. Stuart Robbins' excellent podcast Exposing PseudoAstronomy continues to be a solid bed of skepticism that is well thought out, produced, and released. The most recent episode on the famous Face on Mars is a text book example of a take down of a persistent, but popular woo meme in our culture. I highly recommend it this episode.
Skepticallity the granddad of skeptical podcasts has evolved in format over the years to its current form of a few brief segments by various hosts followed by the main interview by Derek. The beginning three or four segments before the interview are a worthy of listening on their own merits, and continue to keep this podcast fresh. While Skepticality has changed throughout the years to maintain its relevance Skeptoid continues with its straight forward formula to great success. Dunning's weekly work that churns out one 12 minute or so episode a week appears so simple on its surface but his ability to never miss a week is impressive.
The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, while I have shared my thoughts on some tweaks for the show, continues to be the weekly focal point for skeptics around the English speaking peoples. Rationally Speaking hosted byMassimo Pigliucci and Julia Galef continues to produced some of the best thought out and consistently rational discourse on topics. Kylie Sturgess' Token Skeptic podcast continues to expose lessor known guests to the wider skeptical audience. While the Token Skeptic does not have the audience of the SGU, it is good to know there are other outlets for people to get their word out.
The Virtual Skeptics vodcast has not missed a weekly video broadcast since launching in August, 2012. I noted when VS launched that they should stick to video and not release a audio only feed. I now think this comment was wrong. I find myself listening to the live broadcast every Wednesday. Yes, I mostly listen to the live broadcast by gingerly slipping my iPhone into my pocket to not turn off the video feed so I can do stuff while I listen. I do at times watch part of an episode on my iPad, but audio give so much greater flexibility for the consumer. Second, the audio feed would likely increase the audience for a show that deserves a broader popularity. The video feed is nice, and should not be abandoned. I suspect that having all the hosts able to see each others reactions helps create the chemistry of the show. Yes, it might be annoying for the listener from time to time when the panels discusses a photo in detail. The pros I think outweigh the cons for an audio only feed.
As a side note: One of the more troubling trends over the past couple of years of drama has been the continuous mixing of skepticism and atheism along with humanism, and treating them as a single entity. Clearly there is overlap, and cross discussion between these areas is inevitable. However, I will attempt to stay focused on the skepticism and leave the atheism to someone start the Atheistic Review blog.
Perhaps skepticism as a cultural/social entity has shown its warts to the world, but there is still a lot of excellent work being produced and more wonderful work to come. My age of innocence with skepticism may have come to an end, but at least now I am realistic.


Mafiascene.com - View topic - Ruby is asking for opinions on a Mafia Graphic Novel series.
Ruby is asking for opinions on a Mafia Graphic Novel series.
Would you like to see a Mafia Graphic Novel?
Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2018 9:56 am Post subject: Ruby is asking for opinions on a Mafia Graphic Novel series.
While I don't get much time for modding these days to really commit to it like I used to back in the day ( ) it is still something I really want to give to our limited community. While I've retreated from this site in recent years, I have never stopped trying to make new projects, but due to lack of time they never tend to get far before I can show anything.
However, after having played through both Max Payne 1 & 2 again recently (True master class games!) I had a sudden brain wave. I've always loved their graphic novel style snippets over using cutscenes and I remembered that years ago, a member (Zorro) created a Mafia comic that he called "GangsterZ". And while it was short, it was very good.
Do you want to see an animated Mafia Graphic Novel comic series created in game by me? By animated I mean, fully voiced with dialogue, sounds etc.
P.S - Admins, I hope it's ok for me to post this in the "Mafia Related" section as I couldn't really think of anywhere else where it might of belonged.
Glad to be back. Hope to hear from you all soon.
Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2018 11:28 am Post subject: Ruby is asking for opinions on a Mafia Graphic Novel series.
Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2018 4:49 pm Post subject: Ruby is asking for opinions on a Mafia Graphic Novel series.
Wow. I did not know that channel existed. I'm sorry things with ZORRO ended as they did. I stood up for him until the end. Such a harsh, creative guy.
Anyway, my opinion is the same for many things. Do it if you are inspired to. There isn't really a community now; there's no positive reinforcement. I was thinking on this topic recently. I have some YouTube videos. Look at ZORRO's, for instance. Short, mostly ignored. But such a care in editing. Immersive, cinematic. Quality over quantity. He was like that.
Getting back to my long belabored point, YouTube isn't a job and you can't make money doing it unless you produce industrial quantities of video a la Buzzfeed and get hundreds of thousands of views per day. You do it because you love to do it. You do it for yourself.
Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2018 6:43 pm Post subject: Ruby is asking for opinions on a Mafia Graphic Novel series.
of anywhere else where it might of belonged.
No problem at all. Nice to hear from you after some time.
Look forward to further developments of this.
Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2018 9:13 pm Post subject: Ruby is asking for opinions on a Mafia Graphic Novel series.
I'd really like to see a Mafia graphic novel.
Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2018 10:03 pm Post subject: Ruby is asking for opinions on a Mafia Graphic Novel series.
Wow, it's been such a long time, so good to see you and hear that you're doing well!
Best of luck, fellow mafioso!
Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2018 7:17 am Post subject: Ruby is asking for opinions on a Mafia Graphic Novel series.
You have through time stood out as one of the most iconic heads of the MAFIA community, I can't think of one who'd be more suited for this project. You have my good luck, though I'm sure you don't need it.


Proper paragraph organization in an essay will create a proper flow of thoughts and ideas, and will help guide readers throughout the course of the entire paper while increasing their understanding and comprehension on a topic being discussed. Here are some ideas from Essaypalace that can help with organizing your paragraphs.
Wе offеr custom written and plagiarism frее assignment help service and help for UK studеnts to achiеvе acadеmic succеss without facing any problеm.
If you havе a coursework duе but havе not startеd writing yеt. If you want to imprеss your tutor with your writing abilitiеs but havе not timе to work on coursework. If you havе to usе rеliablе articlе but do not know how to conduct a thorough rеsеarch for your coursework writing.
Applying to univеrsity? Arе you worriеd about not writing wеll еnough to gеt accеptеd in thе dеgrее programmе you want at thе univеrsity you wish for?


An Ohio woman charged with killing her husband and then hiding his body parts in storage containers around their home pleaded not guilty in court on Friday.
Marcia Eubank, 49, was arrested in December and charged with one count of murder for the grisly death of 54-year-old Howard Eubank.
Investigators said Marcia allegedly shot her husband several times in the head inside their Akron-area home in June, dismembered him and then scattered his body parts around the house in storage containers.
Marcia confessed in December, six months after the grotesque crime, when her son stumbled upon a bin containing his father's remains.
She was arraigned on Friday and pleaded not guilty to charges of aggravated murder, corpse abuse and evidence-tampering. She remains at the Summit County jail on a $1 million bond.
Investigators don't have a motive for the crime, but an attorney for the jailed wife alleges that she was physically and emotionally abused during her nearly 25 year marriage. Brian Pierce said his client will be evaluated by mental health professionals to help with the defense, according to the Associated Press.
Police were called to the home on December 9 following a 911 call from one of Howard and Marcia's sons claiming human remains were found inside.
The son had forgotten his keys and climbed through a window of the house when he spotted a crate covered in flies and maggots and opened it, Cleveland.com reports. The son texted his mother who allegedly admitted that she killed his father in June.
Marcia was arrested that same day in a parking lot outside a business near the house.
Jonathon Eubank, another of Howard's sons and Marcia's stepson, told ABC News that she went to great lengths to keep the murder a secret. He claimed that his stepmother told everyone that Howard had left her and went to Texas.
'We all thought it was odd and strange that he would just up and leave, but it never crossed our mind that she would actually murder him,' Jonathon said.
He told the outlet that the last time he had talked to his father was a month before the crime. The two had discussed how excited they were for Jonathon's August wedding.
In the months after the death, Jonathon said posts would appear on his father's Facebook page letting everyone know he was OK. He now knows the posts were written by his stepmother.


Ten years of experience building the web.
We believe in the power of simple, effective design, and believe that power should be wielded by all. We aim to discover and deconstruct — to break things down and build them better.
© 2018 Redecode. All rights reserved.


The map in a 32 bit or 64 bit version of Theatre Manager may look different as per the image below.
The left side is how your current map displays in a Theatre Manager 32 bit version on MacOS. It would have perfect seat placement because you are already using that map for sales.
The right side could be how the same map appears in Theatre Manger 64 bit if you have not replaced the SVG map recently and you will need to do a one-time adjustment of the SVG map to make it line up.
If the map in 64 bit Theatre Manager looks the similar to 32 bit (vis a vis, seat placement), you have nothing further to do.


text:
United States one-hundred-dollar bill
(Redirected from United States one hundred-dollar bill)
Current denomination of United States currency
One hundred dollars
≈ 1.0[1] g
Security fibers, watermark, 3D security ribbon, security thread, color shifting ink, microprinting, raised printing, EURion constellation
Years of printing
Benjamin Franklin, Declaration of Independence, quill pen, inkwell
Design date
The United States one-hundred-dollar bill ($100) is a denomination of United States currency. The first United States Note with this value was issued in 1862 and the Federal Reserve Note version was launched in 1914, alongside other denominations.[2] Statesman, inventor, diplomat, and American founding father Benjamin Franklin has been featured on the obverse of the bill since 1914.[3] On the reverse of the banknote is an image of Independence Hall in Philadelphia, which has been used since 1928.[3] The $100 bill is the largest denomination that has been printed and circulated since July 13, 1969, when the denominations of $500, $1,000, $5,000, and $10,000 were retired.[4] The Bureau of Engraving and Printing says the average life of a $100 bill in circulation is 90 months (7.5 years) before it is replaced due to wear and tear.
The bills are also commonly referred to as "Bens", "Benjamins", or "Franklins", in reference to the use of Benjamin Franklin's portrait on the denomination, as "C-Notes", based on the Roman numeral for 100, or as "blue faces", based on the blue tint of Benjamin Franklin's face in the bill's current design. The bill is one of two denominations printed today that does not feature a President of the United States; the other is the $10 bill, featuring Alexander Hamilton. It is also the only denomination today to feature a building not located in Washington, D.C., that being Independence Hall located in Philadelphia on the reverse. The time on the clock of Independence Hall on the reverse, according to the U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing, showed approximately 4:10[5] on the older contemporary notes and 10:30 on the newer colorized notes.
The Series 2009 $100 bill redesign was unveiled on April 21, 2010, and was issued to the public on October 8, 2013.[6] The new bill costs 12.6 cents to produce and has a blue ribbon woven into the center of the currency with "100" and Liberty Bells, alternating, that appear when the bill is tilted.
As of June 30, 2012, the $100 bill comprised 77% of all US currency in circulation.[7] Federal Reserve data from 2017 showed that the number of $100 bills exceeded the number of $1 bills. However, a 2018 research paper by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago estimated that 80 percent of $100 bills were in other countries. Possible reasons included economic instability that affected other currencies, and use of the bills for criminal activities.[8]
1.1 Large size notes
1.2 Small size notes
1.3 Series dates
1.3.1 Small size
2 Removal of large denomination bills ($500 and up)
Large size notes[edit]
(approximately 7.4218 × 3.125 in ≅ 189 × 79 mm)
1863 $100 Legal Tender note The first $100 Gold Certificates were issued with a bald eagle to the left and large green 100 in the middle of the obverse.
1880 $100 Legal Tender (1869 version) A new $100 United States Note was issued with a portrait of Abraham Lincoln on the left of the obverse and an allegorical figure representing architecture on the right.
Series 1878 $100 silver certificate The first $100 silver certificate was issued with a portrait of James Monroe on the left side of the obverse.
1914 $100 Federal Reserve Note The first $100 Federal Reserve Note was issued with a portrait of Benjamin Franklin on the obverse and allegorical figures representing labor, plenty, America, peace, and commerce on the reverse.
1922 $100 Gold Certificate The Series of 1880 Gold Certificate was re-issued with an obligation to the right of the bottom-left serial number on the obverse.
1861: Three-year 100-dollar Interest Bearing Notes were issued that paid 7.3% interest per year. These notes were not primarily designed to circulate and were payable to the original purchaser of the dollar bill. The obverse of the note featured a portrait of General Winfield Scott.
1862: The first $100 United States Note was issued.[3] Variations of this note were issued that resulted in slightly different wording (obligations) on the reverse; the note was issued again in Series of 1863.
1863: Both one and two and one half year Interest Bearing Notes were issued that paid 5% interest. The one-year Interest Bearing Notes featured a vignette of George Washington in the center, and allegorical figures representing "The Guardian" to the right and "Justice" to the left. The two-year notes featured a vignette of the U.S. treasury building in the center, a farmer and mechanic to the left, and sailors firing a cannon to the right.
1863: The first $100 Gold Certificates were issued with a bald eagle to the left and large green 100 in the middle of the obverse. The reverse was distinctly printed in orange instead of green like all other U.S. federal government issued notes of the time.
1864: Compound Interest Treasury Notes were issued that were intended to circulate for three years and paid 6% interest compounded semi-annually. The obverse is similar to the 1863 one-year Interest Bearing Note.
1869: A new $100 United States Note was issued with a portrait of Abraham Lincoln on the left of the obverse and an allegorical figure representing architecture on the right. Although this note is technically a United States Note, TREASURY NOTE appeared on it instead of UNITED STATES NOTE.
1870: A new $100 Gold Certificate with a portrait of Thomas Hart Benton on the left side of the obverse was issued. The note was one-sided.
1870: One hundred dollar National Gold Bank Notes were issued specifically for payment in gold coin by participating national gold banks. The obverse featured vignettes of Perry leaving the USS St. Lawrence and an allegorical figure to the right; the reverse featured a vignette of U.S. gold coins.
1875: The reverse of the Series of 1869 United States Note was redesigned. Also, TREASURY NOTE was changed to UNITED STATES NOTE on the obverse. This note was issued again in Series of 1878 and Series of 1880.
1878: The first $100 silver certificate was issued with a portrait of James Monroe on the left side of the obverse. The reverse was printed in black ink, unlike any other U.S. Federal Government issued bill.
1882: A new and revised $100 Gold Certificate was issued. The obverse was partially the same as the Series 1870 gold certificate; the border design, portrait of Thomas H. Benton, and large word GOLD, and gold-colored ink behind the serial numbers were all retained. The reverse featured a perched bald eagle and the Roman numeral for 100, C.
1890: One hundred dollar Treasury or "Coin Notes" were issued for government purchases of silver bullion from the silver mining industry. The note featured a portrait of Admiral David G. Farragut. The note was also nicknamed a "watermelon note" because of the watermelon-shaped 0's in the large numeral 100 on the reverse; the large numeral 100 was surrounded by an ornate design that occupied almost the entire note.
1891: The reverse of the Series of 1890 Treasury Note was redesigned because the Treasury felt that it was too "busy" which would make it too easy to counterfeit. More open space was incorporated into the new design.
1891: The obverse of the $100 Silver Certificate was slightly revised with some aspects of the design changed. The reverse was completely redesigned and also began to be printed in green ink.
1914: The first $100 Federal Reserve Note was issued with a portrait of Benjamin Franklin on the obverse and allegorical figures representing labor, plenty, America, peace, and commerce on the reverse.
1922: The Series of 1880 Gold Certificate was re-issued with an obligation to the right of the bottom-left serial number on the obverse.
Small size notes[edit]
(6.14 × 2.61 in ≅ 157 × 66 mm)
Both views (obverse and reverse) of the Series 1934 $100 Gold Certificate.
Front of a Series 1966 $100 United States note.
Obverse of a Series 2006A $100 note.
Joseph-Siffred Duplessis portrait of Benjamin Franklin used on the $100 bill from 1929 until 1996.
H.B.Hall engraving of Joseph-Siffred Duplessis portrait of an older Benjamin Franklin used on the $100 bill 1996 onward.
Comparison between a Series 1990 note and a 2013 note.
1929: Under the Series of 1928, all U.S. currency was changed to its current size and began to carry a standardized design. All variations of the $100 bill would carry the same portrait of Benjamin Franklin, same border design on the obverse, and the same reverse with a vignette of Independence Hall. The $100 bill was issued as a Federal Reserve Note with a green seal and serial numbers and as a Gold Certificate with a golden seal and serial numbers.
1933: As an emergency response to the Great Depression, additional money was pumped into the American economy through Federal Reserve Bank Notes issued under Series of 1929. This was the only small-sized $100 bill that had a slightly different border design on the obverse. The serial numbers and seal on it were brown.
1934: The redeemable in gold clause was removed from Federal Reserve Notes due to the U.S. withdrawing from the gold standard.
1934: Special $100 Gold Certificates were issued for non-public, Federal Reserve bank-to-bank transactions. These notes featured a reverse printed in orange instead of green like all other small-sized notes. The wording on the obverse was also changed to ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS IN GOLD PAYABLE TO THE BEARER ON DEMAND AS AUTHORIZED BY LAW.
1950: Many minor aspects on the obverse of the $100 Federal Reserve Note were changed. Most noticeably, the treasury seal, gray numeral '100', and the Federal Reserve Seal were now smaller with small "spikes" added around the Federal Reserve seal, like the Treasury seal.
1963: Because dollar bills were no longer redeemable in silver, beginning with Series 1963A, WILL PAY TO THE BEARER ON DEMAND was removed from the obverse of the $100 Federal Reserve Note and the obligation was shortened to its current wording, THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE. Also, IN GOD WE TRUST was added to the reverse.
1966: The first and only small-sized $100 United States Note was issued with a red seal and serial numbers. It was the first of all United States currency to use the new U.S. treasury seal with wording in English instead of Latin. Like the Series 1963 $2 and $5 United States Notes, it lacked WILL PAY TO THE BEARER ON DEMAND on the obverse and featured the motto IN GOD WE TRUST on the reverse. The $100 United States Note was issued due to legislation that specified a certain dollar amount of United States Notes that were to remain in circulation. Because the $2 and $5 United States Notes were soon to be discontinued, the dollar amount of United States Notes would drop, thus warranting the issuing of this note. $100 United States Notes were last printed in 1969 and last issued in 1971.
1990: The first new-age anti-counterfeiting measures were introduced under Series 1990 with microscopic printing around Franklin's portrait and a metallic security strip on the left side of the bill.
March 25, 1996: The first major design change of the $100 note since 1929 took place with the adoption of a contemporary style layout. The main intent of the new design was to deter counterfeiting. New security features included a watermark of Franklin to the right side of the bill, optically variable ink (OVI) that changed from green to black when viewed at different angles on the lower right corner '100', a higher quality and enlarged portrait of Franklin, and hard-to-reproduce fine line printing around Franklin's portrait and Independence Hall. Older security features such as interwoven red and blue silk fibers, microprinting, and a plastic security thread (which now glows pink [nominally red] under a black light) were kept. The individual Federal Reserve Bank Seal was changed to a unified Federal Reserve Seal along with an additional prefix letter being added to the serial number, w. The first of the Series 1996 bills were produced in October 1995.[9]
February 2007: The first $100 bills (a shipment of 128,000 star notes from the San Francisco FRB) from the Western Currency Facility in Fort Worth, Texas are produced, almost 16 years after the first notes from the facility were produced. The shipment makes the $100 bill the most recently added production to the facility's lineup. 4.6 billion notes were produced at the facility with series 2006 and Cabral and Paulson signatures, including about 4.15 million star notes.[10]
October 8, 2013: The newest $100 bill was announced on April 21, 2010, and, because of printing problems, did not enter circulation until nearly three and a half years later, on October 8, 2013.[6] In addition to design changes introduced in 1996, the obverse features the brown quill that was used to sign the Declaration of Independence; faint phrases from the Declaration of Independence; a bell in the inkwell that appears and disappears depending on the angle at which the bill is viewed using optically variable ink (OVI) and changes from copper to green; teal background color; a borderless portrait of Benjamin Franklin; a blue "3D security ribbon" (trademarked "Motion" by Crane Currency[11]) on which images of Liberty Bells shift into numerical designations of '100' as the note is tilted; and to the left of Franklin, small yellow 100s whose zeros form the EURion constellation. The reverse features a large gradient '100' printed vertically on the right side, small yellow EURion 100s and has the fine lines removed from around the vignette of Independence Hall. These notes were issued as Series 2009A with Rios-Geithner signatures. Many of these changes are intended not only to thwart counterfeiting but to also make it easier to quickly check authenticity and help vision-impaired people.[12]
Series dates[edit]
Small size[edit]
National Bank Note Types 1 & 2 1929 Jones Woods Brown
Federal Reserve Bank Note 1928A Jones Woods Brown
Gold Certificate 1928 Woods Mellon Gold
Legal Tender Note 1966 Granahan Fowler Red
Legal Tender Note 1966A Elston Kennedy Red
Federal Reserve Note 1928 Woods Mellon Green
Federal Reserve Note 1928A Woods Mellon Green
Federal Reserve Note 1934 Julian Morgenthau Green
Federal Reserve Note 1934A Julian Morgenthau Green
Federal Reserve Note 1934B Julian Vinson Green
Federal Reserve Note 1934C Julian Snyder Green
Federal Reserve Note 1934D Clark Snyder Green
Federal Reserve Note 1950 Clark Snyder Green
Federal Reserve Note 1950A Priest Humphrey Green
Federal Reserve Note 1950B Priest Anderson Green
Federal Reserve Note 1950C Smith Dillon Green
Federal Reserve Note 1950D Granahan Dillon Green
Federal Reserve Note 1950E Granahan Fowler Green
Federal Reserve Note 1963A Granahan Fowler Green
Federal Reserve Note 1969 Elston Kennedy Green
Federal Reserve Note 1969A Kabis Connally Green
Federal Reserve Note 1969C Bañuelos Shultz Green
Federal Reserve Note 1974 Neff Simon Green
Federal Reserve Note 1977 Morton Blumenthal Green
Federal Reserve Note 1981 Buchanan Regan Green
Federal Reserve Note 1981A Ortega Regan Green
Federal Reserve Note 1985 Ortega Baker Green
Federal Reserve Note 1988 Ortega Brady Green
Federal Reserve Note 1990 Villalpando Brady Green
Federal Reserve Note 1993 Withrow Bentsen Green
Federal Reserve Note 1996 Withrow Rubin Green
Federal Reserve Note 1999 Withrow Summers Green
Federal Reserve Note 2001 Marin O'Neill Green
Federal Reserve Note 2003 Marin Snow Green
Federal Reserve Note 2003A Cabral Snow Green
Federal Reserve Note 2006 Cabral Paulson Green
Federal Reserve Note 2006A Cabral Paulson Green
Federal Reserve Note 2009 Rios Geithner Green
Federal Reserve Note 2009A Rios Geithner Green
Federal Reserve Note 2013 Rios Lew Green
Federal Reserve Note 2017A Carranza Mnuchin Green
Removal of large denomination bills ($500 and up)[edit]
Main article: Large denominations of United States currency
The Federal Reserve announced the removal of large denominations of United States currency from circulation on July 14, 1969. The one-hundred-dollar bill was the largest denomination left in circulation. All the Federal Reserve Notes produced from Series 1928 up to before Series 1969 (i.e. 1928, 1928A, 1934, 1934A, 1934B, 1934C, 1934D, 1950, 1950A, 1950B, 1950C, 1950D, 1950E, 1963, 1966, 1966A) of the $100 denomination added up to $23.1708 billion.[13] Since some banknotes had been destroyed, and the population was 200 million at the time, there was less than one $100 banknote per capita circulating.
As of June 30, 1969, the U.S. coins and banknotes in circulation of all denominations were worth $50.936 billion of which $4.929 billion was circulating overseas.[14] So the currency and coin circulating within the United States was $230 per capita. Since 1969, the demand for U.S. currency has greatly increased. The total amount of circulating currency and coin passed one trillion dollars in March 2011.
Despite the degradation in the value of the U.S. $100 banknote (which was worth about $697.19 in 1969), and despite competition from some more valuable foreign notes (most notably, the 500 euro banknote), there are no plans to re-issue banknotes above $100. The widespread use of electronic means to conduct high-value transactions today has made large-scale physical cash transactions obsolete and therefore, from the government's point of view, unnecessary for the conduct of legitimate business. Quoting T. Allison, Assistant to the Board of the Federal Reserve System in his October 8, 1998 testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Committee on Banking and Financial Services:
There are public policies against reissuing the $500 note, mainly because many of those efficiency gains, such as lower shipment and storage costs, would accrue not only to legitimate users of bank notes but also to money launderers, tax evaders and a variety of other lawbreakers who use currency in their criminal activity. While it is not at all clear that the volume of illegal drugs sold or the amount of tax evasion would necessarily increase just as a consequence of the availability of a larger dollar denomination bill, it no doubt is the case that if wrongdoers were provided with an easier mechanism to launder their funds and hide their profits, enforcement authorities could have a harder time detecting certain illicit transactions occurring in cash.[15]
^ "Currency Facts". uscurrency.gov. U.S. Currency Education Program. Retrieved 14 July 2020.
^ Barbara Maranzani (April 25, 2013). "It's All About the (New) Benjamins". history.com.
^ a b c Sandra Choron; Harry Choron (2011). Money: Everything You Never Knew About Your Favorite Thing to Find, Save, Spend & Covet. Chronicle Books. p. 208. ISBN 9781452105598.
^ "For Collectors: Large Denominations". Bureau of Engraving and Printing. Archived from the original on September 11, 2007. Retrieved 2012-04-06.
^ "Money Facts". Bureau of Engraving and Printing. Archived from the original on 2012-03-10. Retrieved 2012-04-06.
^ a b "Federal Reserve Announces Day of Issue of Redesigned $100 Note". uscurrency.gov. U.S. Currency Education Program. Retrieved 14 July 2020.
^ Phillips, Matt (21 November 2012). "Why the share of $100 bills in circulation has been going up for over 40 years". Quartz. The Atlantic Media Company. Retrieved 5 March 2019.
^ Telford, Taylor; Whalen, Jeanne (5 March 2019). "There are more $100 bills in circulation than $1 bills, and it makes no cents". News & Record. Retrieved 5 March 2019 – via The Washington Post.
^ USPaperMoney.Info: Series 1996 $100 July 1999
^ USPaperMoney.Info: Series 2006 $100 April 2012
^ Crane Currency. "MOTION Micro-Optics Banknote Security". Retrieved 6 October 2017.
^ uscurrency. "$100 Note Podcast Episode: 1". YouTube. Retrieved 2012-04-06.
^ "US Paper Money information: Serial Number Ranges". USPaperMoney.Info. Retrieved 2012-04-06.
^ "Some Tables of Historical U.S. Currency and Monetary Aggregates Data" (PDF). Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. Retrieved 2012-04-06.
^ "Will Jumbo Euro Notes Threaten the Greenback?". U.S. House of Representatives. October 8, 1998. Retrieved 2012-04-06.
Friedberg, Arthur; Ira Friedberg; David Bowers (2005). A Guide Book of United States Paper Money: Complete Source for History, Grading, and Prices (Official Red Book). Whitman Publishing. ISBN 0-7948-1786-6.
Hudgeons, Thomas (2005). The Official Blackbook Price Guide to U.S. Paper Money 2006 (38th ed.). House of Collectibles. ISBN 1-4000-4845-1. OCLC 244167611.
Wilhite, Robert (1998). Standard Catalog of United States Paper Money (17th ed.). Krause Publications. ISBN 0-87341-653-8.
Money portal
Numismatics portal
Wikimedia Commons has media related to 100 United States dollar banknotes.
$100 Note
Evolution of the $100 Dollar Bill - Landmark Cash
United States currency and coinage
Federal Reserve Note
Bureau of Engraving and Printing
Mutilated currency
Current coinage
Penny (1¢)
Nickel (5¢)
Dime (10¢)
Quarter (25¢)
Half dollar (50¢)
Dollar ($1)
Bullion coinage
America the Beautiful (silver)
American Gold Eagle
American Buffalo (gold)
First Spouse (gold)
American Platinum Eagle
American Palladium Eagle
American Liberty (gold)
Current paper money
Bicentennial coinage
Confederate dollar
Obsolete denominations
Canceled denominations
Counterfeit United States currency
National Numismatic Collection
Coin production
Annuit cœptis
Replacement banknote
Sales tax token
Promotional fake denominations
President of Pennsylvania (1785–1788), Ambassador to France (1779–1785), Second Continental Congress (1775–1776)
Founding of the
Join, or Die. (1754 political cartoon)
Albany Plan of Union
Albany Congress
Hutchinson Letters Affair
Committee of Secret Correspondence
Committee of Five
Model Treaty
Franco-American alliance
Treaty of Amity and Commerce
Treaty of Alliance
Staten Island Peace Conference
Libertas Americana
Treaty of Paris, 1783
Delegate, 1787 Constitutional Convention
Pennsylvania Provincial Assembly
Inventions,
Franklin's electrostatic machine
Franklin stove
Gulf Stream exploration, naming, and chart
Kite experiment
Associators
Junto club
Library Company of Philadelphia
Pennsylvania Hospital
Academy and College of Philadelphia
Philadelphia Contributionship
Union Fire Company
Early American currency
Continental Currency dollar coin
Fugio cent
President, Pennsylvania Abolition Society
Master, Les Neuf Sœurs
Silence Dogood letters (1722)
A Dissertation on Liberty and Necessity, Pleasure and Pain (1725)
The Busy-Body columns (1729)
Pennsylvania Gazette (1729–1790)
Poor Richard's Almanack (1732–1758)
The Drinker's Dictionary (1737)
"Advice to a Friend on Choosing a Mistress" (1745)
"The Speech of Polly Baker" (1747)
Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, Peopling of Countries, etc. (1751)
Experiments and Observations on Electricity (1751)
Birch letters (1755)
The Way to Wealth (1758)
Pennsylvania Chronicle (1767)
Rules by Which a Great Empire May Be Reduced to a Small One (1773)
Proposed alliance with the Iroquois (1775)
A Letter To A Royal Academy (1781)
Remarks Concerning the Savages of North America (1784)
"The Morals of Chess" (1786)
An Address to the Public (1789)
A Plan for Improving the Condition of the Free Blacks (1789)
The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin (1771–1790, pub. 1791)
Bagatelles and Satires (pub. 1845)
Franklin as a journalist
Franklin Court
Benjamin Franklin House
Benjamin Franklin Institute of Technology
Benjamin Franklin Parkway
Benjamin Franklin National Memorial
Benjamin Franklin Medal
Royal Society of Arts medal
Depicted in The Apotheosis of Washington
Treaty of Paris (1783 painting)
Benjamin Franklin Drawing Electricity from the Sky (1816 painting)
Boston statue
Philadelphia statue
Washington D.C. statue
Jefferson Memorial pediment
Ben and Me (1953 short)
Ben Franklin in Paris (1964 musical play)
1776 (1969 musical
1972 film)
Benjamin Franklin (1974 miniseries)
A More Perfect Union (1989 film)
Liberty! (1997 documentary series)
Liberty's Kids (2002 animated series)
Benjamin Franklin (2002 documentary series)
John Adams (2008 miniseries)
Sons of Liberty (2015 miniseries)
Refunding Certificate
Franklin half dollar
One-hundred-dollar bill
Franklin silver dollar
Washington–Franklin stamps
Cities, counties, schools named for Franklin
Franklin Field
Mount Franklin
State of Franklin
Sons of Ben (Philadelphia Union)
Ships named USS Franklin
Ben Franklin effect
Age of Enlightenment
American Enlightenment
The New-England Courant
The American Museum magazine
Syng inkstand
Deborah Read (wife)
Sarah Franklin Bache (daughter)
Francis Franklin (son)
William Franklin (son)
Richard Bache Jr. (grandson)
Benjamin F. Bache (grandson)
Louis F. Bache (grandson)
William Franklin (grandson)
Andrew Harwood (great-grandson)
Alexander Bache (great-grandson)
Josiah Franklin (father)
Jane Mecom (sister)
James Franklin (brother)
Mary Morrell Folger (grandmother)
Peter Folger (grandfather)
Richard Bache (son-in-law)
Ann Smith Franklin (sister-in-law)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_one-hundred-dollar_bill&oldid=999993945"
Currencies introduced in 1861
Works about Benjamin Franklin
One-hundred-base-unit banknotes
United States dollar banknotes

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl