An amazing study just came out in the journal Nature where people studied violent conflicts statistically and found that such conflicts all follow very similar patterns. And those patterns are very similar to how financial markets (also based on human behavior) function. Here is the abstract of the article:

Many collective human activities, including violence, have been shown to exhibit universal patterns. The size distributions of casualties both in whole wars from 1816 to 1980 and terrorist attacks have separately been shown to follow approximate power-law distributions. However, the possibility of universal patterns ranging across wars in the size distribution or timing of within-conflict events has barely been explored. Here we show that the sizes and timing of violent events within different insurgent conflicts exhibit remarkable similarities. We propose a unified model of human insurgency that reproduces these commonalities, and explains conflict-specific variations quantitatively in terms of underlying rules of engagement. Our model treats each insurgent population as an ecology of dynamically evolving, self-organized groups following common decision-making processes. Our model is consistent with several recent hypotheses about modern insurgency18, 19, 20, is robust to many generalizations, and establishes a quantitative connection between human insurgency, global terrorism and ecology. Its similarity to financial market models provides a surprising link between violent and non-violent forms of human behaviour
 more this way»

>

Source : Gallup.

Depending on who you ask, the Iraq war costs anything from a low $200 million, to a moderate $411 million to a whopping $720 million a day.

The American Friends Service Committee calls for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and they have put together this video describing in numbers the financial toll the war is having on the country's ability to deal with its domestic issues. When you spend $720 million in a failed war, you can't spend it in health care, schools, jobs or the current housing crisis.

Watch the video.

Austin's NBC News affiliate has conducted a pre-debate poll of the electorate and this is what they've found :

The race for the Democratic nomination is too close to call. The large percentage of "undecided" voters give even more weight to the CNN debates Thursday evening. As Senators Clinton and Obama both tour Texas, they will be reaching out to the undecideds to close the gap.

If the election were held today, who would you vote for? Democrats:

• Clinton 46%
• Obama 45%
• Undecided 9%

Margin of error: +/- 4%

If the election were held today, who would you vote for? Republicans:

• Huckabee 30%
• McCain 52%
• Paul 9%
• Undecided 9%

Margin of error: +/- 4%

Voter interest is high for the March 4 primary and as Texas plays a role in deciding the nominee, the expected voter turnout is historic.

Do you plan to vote in the March 4 primary?
18-39
55% (Democrats)
45% (Republicans)

40-59
61% (D)
39% (R)

60+
49% (D)
51% (R)

They are going to conduct the poll again after the debate. What's really interesting is the reason why they chose the company conducting the poll, Constituents Dynamics:
 more this way»

Ms Unhinged Malkin is using data of the white supremacist organization NumbersUSA, to prove that Latinos who voted for Hillary Clinton were "corruptly" naturalized under her husband's administration.

Is that really so? How can she be so certain that all of those who voted for Clinton are naturalized immigrants as opposed to old American Latino families with no links to their countries of origin?

This is the untold story of Super Tuesday. For all the talk from Democrats and Republicans about whether immigration is or is not a wedge issue in 2008, the fact of the matter is nobody is exit polling and on the look out for recently naturalized citizen voters.

More to the point for pundits who are scrambling to feign to know all things latino, nobody is going out of their way to define demographically what "Latino voter" means.
 more this way»

• Is a Latino a recent immigrant?
• Is a Latino a native Northern Mexican who never immigrated to the US?
• Is it Nuyoricans only or does it include also Puerto Ricans born in the island?
• When confusing Hispanic and Latino, are we also including people born in Spain and Portugal but naturalized in the United States?
• And how many generations does it take before you loose the identity politics moniker and become a "full American"?
• Too many people are tossing around the "Latinos only vote for white Democrats or the Clintons" without qualifying the term Latino or Hispanic and that's a problem.

I believe that Hillary Clinton won for 4 very important reasons :

1. The campaign was able to get as many registered Democrats to vote for her as possible.

2. Since most registered Democrats who came to vote were women, the "tear heard around the world" was successful in getting her the last minute sympathy vote from people who ...

3. would have otherwise voted for John Edwards.

I think it is clear that for Hillary Clinton to stay in the race she needs to beat John Edwards, not Barack Obama. Edwards ran a remarkable game in Iowa. Had he had as much money as Clinton, he probably would have beaten her by more than just 1%. I am not sure though that under the voting trends of Iowa, he would have been able to beat Barack Obama.

4. The Obama campaign has insisted in equating their "I am not a black candidate" campaign with a complete disregard for the colored blogosphere. Yesterday was the day that it showed how much that has cost them.

So let's look at the numbers, courtesy of MSNBC.com :
 more this way»