On your ballot this election, you have the opportunity to vote “Yes” to boost funding for the Champaign County Forest Preserve District (CCFPD). You should do it.

The actual language on the ballot is a bit fancier. You’ll recognize it as the question about increasing the “limiting rate.” It’s the last question on the back of your ballot, but it’s important!

Around town, you can recognize supporters of the referendum by the white and green signs urging you to vote yes for your forests.

But what is this resolution about?

The CCFPD isn’t asking for heated seats in their work trucks or for pricey, ergonomic chairs in their offices — anyone who knows the CCFPD knows they understand the restraints of the taxpayer-funded budget. Instead, they are simply asking for an investment from the public so they can, among other things, maintain dams, replace outdated equipment, and upgrade facilities like paths and bathrooms.

The new funding would also let CCFPD create more educational opportunities for people in Champaign County.

Like many Mahometans, my family and I love the parks and natural areas here.

The gorgeous forests are the habitat of fascinating wildlife like deer, owls, and butterflies. The lakes and rivers provide space for fishing and boating. As a bonus, we get a stellar cast of water-loving birds like herons, kingfishers, and ospreys who call our town home in the summer.

There are so many ways for young Mahometans to learn from the preserves.

As kids, we learned how to talk to owls and how their feathers make them so quiet when they fly.

We learned why massive turkey vultures sit on telephone poles in the morning, wings outstretched, as they prepare for a long day of soaring.

And we learned how to build huge snow ramps on the sledding hill — and then we learned why you really really should NOT go off the big ramps on the sledding hill.

Mahometans benefit so much from the forest preserves. Especially now.

During the pandemic, while most sectors experienced lower use than they had in probably years, the parks were bustling. Champaign Urbana Public Health District data shows that, during the pandemic, our parks have seen a huge spike in traffic to almost double normal levels.

It seems my familty and I are not the only who have found the outdoors to be a vital place to exercise and relax while socially distancing.

In return for maintaining all these important services and giving us a place to be during a pandemic, CCFPD is asking for a tiny increase in funding from your tax dollars. With this funding, CCFPD may even be able to make infrastructure investments that are fiscally sensible in the long run, meaning you’ll get more out of your tax dollar.

It’s a prudent investment.

I hope you’ll join my family and I in voting yes for our forests.

For more information, check out the FAQ on the Yes for Forests website. And watch this slideshow our family made highlighting our forest preserves!

-Ben Chapman and Family

The post Commentary: Vote Yes for Forests! It’s a Wise Investment. first appeared on SJO Daily.

The post Commentary: Don’t Fear Vote by Mail. It’s Pretty Great. first appeared on SJO Daily.

Machine. Hegemony. Establishment. Deep State. The Back Room.

Whatever you call the ominous forces that corrode our politics and entrench corruption, I’m sick of it. And from what I’ve heard, many other Illinoisans are, too.

We’re sick of rich donors and well-funded committees deciding who wins elections. We’re sick of partisans and incumbents designing election systems that favor themselves. We’re sick of politicians displacing the dignified art of debate with smearing and mudslinging. And we want more options for governor than millionaires and billionaires.

In bids for public office, politicians may brand themselves as fresh-faced reformers with plans to completely fix the political landscape. But after they are elected and reality hits, voters are often disappointed.

Badly needed systemic political change has remained elusive for a long time — but thanks to some plucky activists, determined nonprofits, and benevolent politicians, change is now visible on the horizon.

A promising electoral reform known as “Ranked Choice Voting” (RCV) is steadily spreading across the United States. It is tectonically shifting how candidates campaign and how voters vote.

Many municipalities already use RCV for local elections. These include Berkeley, San Francisco, Cambridge, Minneapolis, St. Paul, Santa Fe, and others.

RCV is also used in nations such as Australia, New Zealand, and Ireland for various elections. In 2016, Maine adopted RCV statewide, and Massachusetts appears poised to follow suit.

Nonprofits and advocacy groups such as FairVote, The League of Women Voters, Common Cause, and Represent.Us are all campaigning in support of RCV because of its ability to produce freer, fairer elections — and as a result, better governments.

While RCV is simple from the voter’s perspective, the mechanics of the vote counting process are awkward to explain via writing. For more visually inclined readers, this video explains RCV clearly. The text below will also explain.

On an RCV ballot, voters are able to rank candidates in order of preference. The first choice is their first favorite, the second is their second favorite, and so on.

Votes are counted in rounds. In the first round, only the first choices of voters are totaled. If a candidate receives over 50% of those votes, they win. If not, the last place candidate is eliminated and the votes that supported that candidate are redistributed to the second choices of those voters.

Votes are re-tallied, and if there is still no candidate with over 50% of the vote, then the new lowest candidate is eliminated and the votes are tallied again. The counting ends when one candidate has a majority of votes.

While the counting process may seem strange, the voting process is very simple and intuitive to voters. A voter can think of their vote as “transferring” between candidates in order of preference.

When they cast their ballot, voters basically say, “I prefer Candidate A, but if I can’t have Candidate A, then I’ll support Candidate B. If I can’t have Candidate B, then Candidate C is fine.”

In this way, RCV allows for a more precise explanation of the voter’s preferences — but it has many benefits beyond that.

One major benefit is that Ranked Choice Voting significantly reduces the effects of “vote splitting” and “vote spoiling.”

In the 2000 Presidential Election, Ralph Nader was accused of “spoiling” the election for Al Gore.

Gore and Nader both hailed from the left side of the political spectrum and they fought over the same voters. The effect was, liberal voters were “split” between the candidates, “spoiling” Gore’s chances and potentially allowing George W. Bush an unearned victory.

Some Democrats still blame Nader for helping the Republicans — but that’s not a fair accusation. Nader had a Constitutional right to run for President and voters had a Constitutional right to vote for him. After all, we have fair and free elections, right?

Fault for the awkwardness of the 2000 Election is best placed on our flawed electoral system, rather than any single person. And Ranked Choice Voting could alleviate this flaw.

Under RCV, Nader voters would have ranked Gore second, so that when Nader was eliminated, their vote would transfer to Gore and he would receive their support. The Nader voters would be “settling” for Gore, but they would still be happier than if Bush had won.

For another, more recent example of spoiling in Illinois, consider the the 2018 Illinois Governor’s General Election.

Libertarian Party Kash Jackson and Conservative Party Sam McCann won a combined 6.6% of the vote, likely splitting nearly all of that support away from Governor Bruce Rauner, who came up short against Democrat J.B. Pritzker.

The problems of splitting and spoiling place heavy, unfair hands on the scales of our election results. Fortunately, RCV can fix this because it forces a candidate to win with a majority. It means that true mandates will have to be won.

A recent example of vote “splitting” is the Chicago mayoral race.

The race was flooded with over a dozen candidates, and while this meant a healthy variety of options for voters, it also meant that the total vote counts would be split widely between the options.

The victors of the primary, Lori Lightfoot and Toni Preckwinkle, only won 17.5% and 16% of the vote respectively. Those are not significantly large enough numbers to claim any truly broad of support.

Under RCV, Lightfoot would have to win a true majority in order to win the election. She would need to prove broad support and would have to win a mandate to govern.

As another benefit, RCV can break up the two-party system.

A 2017 Gallup poll shows that 42% of Americans identify as politically independent of any party, yet neither the 116th U.S. Congress nor the 100th Illinois General Assembly have any members from non-major parties.

While there are multiple factors contributing to that incongruency, our broken electoral system is one of them. RCV could change this.

Under our current system, voters are afraid to “waste” their vote on a third party candidate who has low likelihood of winning.

For example, even if a voter truly supported 2016 Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson, the voter might be guilted into voting for a more viable major party candidate like Trump or Clinton who might have a real chance at winning.

Counterintuitively, this effect can worsen when major-party candidates are especially disliked.

In the 2016 election, fairly or not, both Clinton and Trump were deeply unpopular. In a logical system, this would mean they would receive few votes.

However, many voters were so afraid of Trump winning that they were essentially threatened into voting for the opposing major party candidate, rather than voting for a third party that they actually supported. This effect occurred on both sides of the aisle.

In this way, our current system lets major political parties to hold voters hostage.

Candidates don’t actually have to be good to win elections, they just have to show that the other candidate is worse. Modern campaigns are less about proving one’s own viability and more about inventing the best smears and takedowns of an opponent.

The candidate who can spend the most on negative ads, perform the most opposition research, and come up with the best lies and insults, will win the day. And all the voter can do is glumly check the box next to a lesser evil.

Ranked Choice Voting can change that.

Under RCV, voters can’t be intimidated out of voting for a third party. If they cast their RCV ballot ranking a third party candidate first and that candidate is eliminated, then they can simply rank a more reasonable major party candidate second or third and their vote will eventually go to that lesser evil.

No skin off the voter’s back.

As some advocates say, “Ranked Choice Voting allows you to vote your hopes, not your fears.”

Another benefit of RCV is that it encourages civility in campaigns — especially compared to our current system.

If, in our current system, a candidate appears similar to another candidate, they risk splitting votes with them and suffering a disadvantage. Essentially, candidates are punished for agreeing with each other.

Under RCV, candidates know that if voters are undecided between two options, they can simply rank one of them first and the other one second. That way, the punishment for agreeing with another candidate is minimal, and it may even be an advantage.

RCV actually makes mudslinging risky for candidates because if they run negative ads about another candidate, they risk offending the voters who like that candidate and they might miss out on the chance to be the second or third choices of those voters.

In fact, a noteworthy example of how RCV alters politics is the San Francisco Mayoral Election of 2018.

Two candidates, Mark Leno and Jane Kim, agreed so much that they teamed up and shared campaign resources. This coalition-building is a stark contrast to the status quo in which fellow candidates are practically required to smear each other.

RCV rewards candidates who bring people together, not those who tear them apart.

Some argue that coalition building among candidates is cheating — but this argument misunderstands something basic about the purpose of elections.

Elections are about deciding our next leaders. Don’t we want leaders who can build consensus, work through disagreements, and find common ground? Don’t we want leaders that make connections and form alliances? Don’t we want to become a more “united” people?

For the reasons listed here and more, movements in favor of RCV have sprung up across the country.

Voter Choice Massachusetts, a Massachusetts advocacy group, is edging closer and closer to success in bringing RCV to statewide elections.

The nonprofit FairVote, after successfully bringing RCV to Maine, is campaigning in municipalities across America. One of these municipalities is Chicago, where FairVote Illinois is operating.

Chicago recently voted in Mayor-Elect Lori Lightfoot, who has expressed support for RCV. This development is sure to spark optimism for FairVote Illinois.

Meanwhile, in downstate Illinois, yours truly is a member of the Illinoisans for Ranked Choice Voting, a group that is testing the waters in Champaign County’s municipalities for opportunities to implement RCV.

Our group so far has won support from local organizations such as the Champaign County Voter’s Alliance and UIUC Student Action, as well as five Champaign County Board Members and an Urbana City Council Member.

RCV takes power from partisans and gives it to voters. It allows us to vote for who we truly believe in — not just a lesser evil.

RCV means voting our hopes, not our fears.

Machine. Hegemony. Establishment. Deep State. The Back Room.

Whatever you call it, I’m sick of it. And while it’s going to take more than Ranked Choice Voting to free us from its grasp, it’s a heck of a start.

The post Commentary: Ranked Choice Voting Could Help Fix Illinois Politics first appeared on SJO Daily.

Kevin Hobbs is a professional actor, the Founder and Executive Director of D.O.S.E. Foundation, and a Teacher’s Assistant in Urbana School District 116.

On December 4, 2018, Hobbs was pulled over for a malfunctioning headlight.

When the Rantoul Police ran his license, Hobbs’ name elicited an arrest warrant for a small claims violation relating to a sanitation bill from years ago. Hobbs had not been aware of court summons regarding the overdue bill, as they had been sent to the wrong address. He was taken into custody by the Rantoul Police, but speedily released.

As Hobbs tells it, the police were cordial with him.

“Every police officer I dealt with during the ordeal treated me with the utmost respect,” he says, mentioning that throughout the process, the police seemed aware that the arrest was largely a formality and that they “went above and beyond to be sure the experience was not a harrowing one.”

The greatest frustrations arose the next day when Hobbs’ mugshot was posted in the News-Gazette.

Hobbs explained the story behind the mugshot via his Facebook page the next day in a post that went locally viral.

He wrote, emphasis his, that, “Normally, I don’t discuss personal matters publicly but since the The News-Gazette saw fit to publish my mug shot right along with robbers, abusers and hardened criminals WITHOUT so much as one mention of the fact that this was a SMALL CLAIMS issue; I felt the need to speak out and PROTECT my name.”

Hobbs went on to describe why he feels the blame lies on the News-Gazette.

He wrote, “This sort of racially insensitive, lopsided, irresponsible reporting from this paper hurts reputations, careers, families and has lately harmed this community more so than it’s helped it.”

Hobbs sees his own story as microcosm of a larger affliction that envelops media today where outlets don’t provide the full context in crime reporting. He says media is afflicted by a need to be first, while devotion to accuracy and context are secondary.

But another pressing problem for Hobbs is the effect mugshots have on racial stereotyping.

Hobbs is a black man and he says that posting of mugshots perpetuates with “reckless abandon” the idea of black people as criminals, because when black faces are repeatedly shown in the mugshot section of a paper, negative stereotypes are reinforced in the minds of readers.

But Hobbs says it goes further than that. He says, “It’s one thing to say that this practice isn’t good for people of color, but it isn’t good for anybody.”

After telling his story on Facebook, he was approached by people with similar stories: one person who lost a custody battle because the other party was able to provide a mugshot and another person who lost a job because of a mugshot and they had to move to find a new one.

Hobbs expresses concern for young people he knows whose names are attached to mugshots and, because of the internet, will have their names and faces tethered to those crimes for long into the future.

Shortly after Hobbs’ story gained attention on social media, another person’s experience came to light.

Christopher Hansen, publisher of CorruptCU.com, photo provided by him.

The website CorruptCu.com alleged journalistic misconduct against the News-Gazette and WCIA. It also alleged local government impurities. The story gained attention on social media, notably on a local Reddit forum.

The website was created by Christopher Hansen, a former University of Illinois College of Engineering student and current-day carpenter and electronics designer.

CorruptCU tells the detailed story of Hansen’s mistaken arrest following a false accusation of purse snatching. Hansen says that his mugshot and crime story appeared in the News-Gazette and WCIA, leading many to believe he had actually committed a crime.

Hansen wrote about the results of the misleading reporting, saying that he had to explain his story numerous times to friends and neighbors who had read the News-Gazette’s account and believed it.

Hansen wrote, “One close neighbor to whom I have spoken almost daily for over a decade was ‘thoughtful’ enough to offer to help me with my ‘drinking problem’ – he had read the News-Gazette article and concluded that it was so unthinkable that I would ever legitimately rob someone that the only plausible explanation was that I must have been drunk out of my mind.”

Hansen added that he contacted both the News-Gazette and WCIA who shared the incomplete story about him and asked them to correct and update the stories, but received no response.

Hansen aimed blame directly at the media outlets, saying, “You should be ashamed of yourselves. The public looks to news organizations to expose the ill behavior of institutions. Instead, you are just peddling cheap click-bait and refusing to shoulder the responsibility that comes with your reporting.”

Because Hansen’s business exists largely online, he expects he has lost potential clients who Googled his name and may have been turned off by the search results.

In an email,, Hansen said that he had been contacted by multiple people who have also been similarly harmed by a mugshot article from the News-Gazette.

A common frustration he heard was that the News-Gazette regularly reported the initial crime but rarely gave a follow-up, leaving a potentially inaccurate, damaging insinuation broadly available to the public.

Hansen wrote to the Mahomet Daily that his impression of the subjects of crime reporting often feel helpless.

He says, “Something very embarrassing and, from their perspective, factually incorrect, has been permanently published online, and they have no means to have it corrected or even voice their side of the story.”

Mugshot reporting is a commonly used practice in local news outlets. Recently, it has become a subject of wider debate.

Newspapers that publish mugshots argue that sharing the images and reporting on the crimes allow communities to know who is dangerous so they can be avoided. Mugshots can act as “wanted” posters with a visual description of a suspect, and they are a source of public shame for criminals.

Newspapers also argue that mugshot reporting is part of their role as record keepers for a community because publishing mugshots creates a historical record of who was booked into jail on any given day — correctly or incorrectly.

Perhaps the strongest motivator, though, is that mugshot publishing is a low-cost method of generating substantial pageviews, and it therefore acts as a revenue source for funding other valuable journalistic ventures.

But as the stories of Kevin Hobbs and Christopher Hansen show, mugshots have serious consequences for the subjects.

Mugshots and crime reports don’t always have follow-ups and they often lack context, meaning harmless, innocent people could have their names and faces marred by no fault of their own.

Additionally, mugshots and crime reports sometimes expose personal information like addresses or areas of residence which put people in danger of retaliation.

Mugshots are a more extensive business than just that which is found in local media.

One online outlet, Mugshots.com, hosts vast quantities of mugshots from people across the U.S.. The site requires people to pay to get their mugshot removed.

In May, 2018, the two alleged owners of Mugshots.Com were arrested on criminal charges. California’s Attorney General said that Mugshots.Com was profiting off of humiliation and that the pay-to-remove scheme was “exploitation, plain and simple.”

When a mugshot is posted online in a widely read local newspaper like the News-Gazette or on a large website like Mugshots.com, it generates clicks. As a result, these photos rise in search algorithms, often becoming one of the first results in search engines.

In an increasingly online world where first impressions are often made via Google, search results can be vital in getting a job or making a new business connection.

After community pushback following the widely-read stories of Hansen and Hobbs, the News-Gazette announced on January 14th that it would take steps to change its crime reporting.

In their statement, the News-Gazette wrote that, “By their nature, crime stories do not usually lend themselves well to visual accompaniment — except, of course, for mug shots. In that regard, the straightforward, egalitarian approach is to include them when publishing the associated stories online. But in practice, it might not always appear that way.”

The News-Gazette went on to say that the industry as a whole has been dealing with the question of how to properly report on mugshots, and that one catalyst to their change was a letter by an “Urbana man” who had listed concerns about their practice. The News-Gazette confirmed that the author of the letter was Christopher Hansen.

The News-Gazette promised three changes to their crime reporting.

First, to ensure all crime stories that are reported on are followed to conclusion.

Second, to decide whether to include mugshots on a case-by-case basis, which would likely result in fewer being published overall.

Third, to delete mugshots in cases where a person has their charges dropped or is acquitted, but not to remove the initial crime story because of its importance as a “proverbial first rough draft of history.”

Crime reports remain prominent on the News-Gazette’s website. These stories often present themselves as recommended readings in the News-Gazette’s other articles.

In fact, at the time of the Mahomet Daily’s reading of the January 14th statement, the reader was directed to one story displaying a mugshot, one story about basketball, and three other crime stories, one without a photo, one with a mugshot, and one with a court photo.

The News-Gazette’s statement and reforms did not satisfy the editors of Smile Politely, an online culture magazine in Champaign-Urbana known for its arts reporting and common distaste for the News-Gazette’s editorial work.

Smile Politely has prolifically criticized the News-Gazette for the mugshot publishing practice.

In their “WORST 2018” column from December 21, 2018, the magazine wrote that, “Even more than the editorials that come out of [The News-Gazette], even more than Jim Dey’s bloodlust for liberal thinkers and activists, it is the scraping of the Champaign County Sheriff’s site for mugshots, and the republishing of them, for anyone to see, that makes our blood boil.”

Smile Politely also shared the stories of Hansen and Hobbs on their website to amplify the critiques of the News-Gazette’s practices.

Following the News-Gazette’s January statement, Smile Politely railed against the paper in a piece called “The News-Gazette’s statement about publishing mug shots is terrible,” pointing out flaws in the statement and saying, “it simply falls short.”

The crux of their critique was that the News-Gazette didn’t discuss why mugshots contribute to systemic racism and disproportionately harm people of color.

They criticized the News-Gazette for using the mugshot portal to earn money, saying, “Take one glance at their online portal of mug shots and it is completely littered with advertising and clickbait garbage.”

Smile Politely also contended that the changes the News-Gazette was making did not go far enough, saying that just because an image is removed after an acquittal “doesn’t mean the damage isn’t already done.”

Smile Politely has had a hardline policy against mugshot publishing since 2015 when they wrote a story criticizing the News-Gazette’s policies.

In an email, Smile Politely shared their mugshot reporting policy.

Their email states, punctuation theirs, that, “The advent of universal internet availability, and social media presence, has created an unhealthy and unfair environment for people who have been arrested and face criminal charges. These people are innocent until they are proven guilty, and we are not interested in perpetuating their image at one of their most difficult moments.”

They add that, “The court of public opinion is swift, and oftentimes, sensationalizes the truth. As such, we do not publish mugshots, under any circumstances, even after a conviction has been made. It is not something we believe makes for a good news story. We believe that it actually undermines the importance of strong journalism, and reporting.”

In one noteworthy case, Smile Politely deviated from their policy. In announcing the arrest of Brendt Christensen, Smile Politely posted a brief blurb that hyperlinked readers to Christensen’s personal LinkedIn account, which contained a photo of Christensen.

At the time of Smile Politely’s posting in June, 2017, while the reported evidence was substantial against Christensen, he had not faced court and had not been convicted.

Sharing the personal LinkedIn profiles of criminal suspects is not standard reporting procedure and the information available on Christensen’s LinkedIn does not shed light on anything more than Christensen’s employability.

Seth Fein, publisher of Smile Politely, says that everything about the case was an “anomaly,” and that providing Christensen’s LinkedIn was a quick way to give people a rough idea of who he is.

The news station WCIA posts mugshots along with crime stories. They access the mugshots via Freedom of Information requests.

Gary Hackler, General Manager of WCIA, says that their policy is to request each mugshot available. He says, “If someone’s been arrested, we want to get their mugshot to make sure everyone knows who that person is.”

When asked about WCIA’s retraction policy, Hackler says, “Once acquittal happens, [the person affected] reaches out to us and we do it on a case-by-case basis.”

In contrast with the News-Gazette, WCIA does not have a set policy to follow every case they report on to close.

The Mahomet Daily and SJO Daily, operating under Sangamon Currents, LLC., has developed a different approach on the topic. Their policy is as follows:

Understanding the complexity of arrests and warrants, and that the media has a responsibility to not just to report, but to report accurately, the Mahomet Daily and SJO Daily only posts mug shots and stories of arrests when or if there is an immediate danger to public safety.

In the early days of the publication, the Mahomet Daily followed stories of arrests, and may have posted those stories at that time. Recent policy, within the last two years, is only to do so when the public needs to be made aware of situations where their safety or property is in danger. 

Some outlets have taken action to prevent crime stories and mugshots from becoming easily visible on Google, which could reduce the harm a single crime story does to someone’s online reputation.

Some outlets have acted to scrub all mugshots from their paper after a designated time-frame when they are no longer deemed “newsworthy.”

And still other outlets have dispensed with the practice entirely.

To Kevin Hobbs, abolishing the practice is the best solution.

He believes the practice is cheap and done only to draw the eyes of readers — not to inform. And while he acknowledges that the News-Gazette is, like many traditional papers, losing readership and in need of a revenue flow, he maintains that the practice is unjust.

Hobbs blames the bad policy on the higher-ups in the News-Gazette, saying the make-up of their leadership is lopsided and ill-informed. He wants people who “look like the community and think like the community” to lead the community paper.

Hobbs believes the paper must change who they care about and the pressure to create this change must come from the readership. He says, “The community coming together and showing its outrage is how it’s gonna have to happen.”

Hobbs knows that local media like the News-Gazette is vital and he doesn’t want it to disappear.

But, he says, “If their mission is to report, and to report fairly and accurately, then they are failing at that mission, and I’m speaking from a very personal perspective.”

The post Mugshots sometimes harm local lives first appeared on SJO Daily.

By Ben Chapman
benbart.chapman@gmail.com

The project is called “Dug the Dog IRL” (read: Dug the Dog In Real Life), and it’s a wondrous mix of nerdy, fascinating, and adorable. A prototype of the technology will be on exhibit at the University of Illinois Engineering Open House in Everitt Laboratory.

Bliss Chapman, a senior in Statistics and Computer Science, is the Signal Processing Team Lead in the project. He believes that the technology could be a valuable step forward in expanding our understanding of animal behavior.

The team says the concept is based on the talking dog collars featured in the Pixar movie, “Up.”

Instead of Dug, though, the they are testing the prototype on an exceptionally well-trained yellow lab named “Alma,” after the famous Alma Mater statue on the University of Illinois campus.

Technical explanations of the project are provided in a “Project Dug” article that the team has published on GitHub.

Team members Bliss Chapman, Amanda Maher, and Matthew De Venecia explained how the collar works.

The concept is simple.

Information in the form of electrical signals from Alma’s brain is picked up by electrodes. Circuitry amplifies the information and miniature computers on Alma’s back correlate it to a specific stimulus that she is experiencing.

If a familiar pattern is recognized, a speaker plays a recording that is associated with the emotions the dog is likely experiencing.

In this case, the group has chosen the stimulus of offering Alma a treat.

When Alma sees the treat, the electrodes pick up a signal of excitement and the speaker plays the words, “Oh! Treat! Treat! Yes, I want the treat. I do so definitely want the treat. I would be very happy if I were to have the treat!”

Amanda Maher, a junior in Mechanical Engineering, describes the project as “listening in” on signals from Alma’s brain.

One of the difficulties Maher says the team has faced is making sense of the raw electrical data from the custom 3D printed electrodes.

Most electrodes by default have a “pre-program” that is already attached to them when they are purchased that makes their usage a bit simpler. With the custom electrodes, no pre-program exists. This added an extra level of difficulty for the team.

Matthew De Venecia, a senior in Bioengineering, and Chapman both say that shielding the wires from electrical interference was an unexpectedly important step.

The signals that the electrodes receive from Alma’s brain are very weak.

The cables that travel from Alma’s head to the high-tech harness on her back (where computing takes place) can be bombarded with outside electrical activity. Even small disruptions, when amplified, can muddle the signals from Alma’s brain.

The team had to take steps to braid the wires and coat them in nickel to reduce this interference.

Overall, the Dug the Dog IRL group estimates that, if they hadn’t had any of the supplies previously, their prototype would cost about $180 in materials.

De Venecia sees a future for the technology for humans.

He says that because the technology is able to take brain inputs and create an event, it could eventually be used to make highly advanced prosthetics.

Taking this to an extended degree, he says it could allow people to accomplish complex tasks like typing or driving a car with just their thoughts.

De Venecia also anticipates veterinary applications.

He says that currently, “A vet can’t just ask a dog, ‘hey, where does it hurt?’” With this technology, better vet-animal communication is possible.

Chapman says the tech could one day “unlock high bandwidth communication with other species.” He believes this would give humans an entirely new lens to view the world, as it will offer a glimpse into the minds of animals.

He wrote in an email, “We often assume what we see is how the world is, but science continually shows us how wrong that assumption is. Other species have entirely different sensory systems and often see the world much differently than we do. I, for one, would love to hear more about their perspective.”

The prototype will be on display at Engineering Open House from 9AM-4PM on Friday and Saturday (March 8th and 9th). It will be located in the Atrium of Everitt Laboratory on the University of Illinois campus.

Alma, the dog, could not be reached for comment on this story.

The full members of the “Dug the Dog IRL” team are: Jessica Austriaco, Christine Lannon, Suva Laxminarayanan, Amanda Maher, James Soole, Kyla Swain, Bliss Chapman, and Matthew De Venecia. All the photos in this story were provided generously by their team.

The post University of Illinois Students Are Helping Dogs Talk first appeared on SJO Daily.

During the holidays, trepidation mounts over the approaching threat of political discussions with family and friends. And rightly so. It’s no secret that the political rhetoric of today is rife with division, and we justifiably hope to keep that divisiveness out of our precious family time. Our fear of division has led some of us to consider political discussion taboo — even with those closest to us. But it doesn’t have to be this way.

While I was running for County Board, I accepted the privilege and challenge of having serious political conversations with complete strangers. I wasn’t trained in politics or campaigning, so I had to learn many things very quickly about how to talk to people who disagree with me.

In the hope that you can learn what I have without suffering through the paperwork and fundraising, I’m taking the time to share what I learned. Here’s how to keep your political discussions rational, productive, and even friendly.

Stay calm. Without delving into pop-psychology and sociology, the simple fact is, if you remain calm and composed, the person you are speaking with will likely remain calm and composed. This is partly because most people don’t want to appear irate in the face of a poised, collected conversational partner. Stay calm, and chances are, others will as well.

Admit when you don’t know something. You don’t have to be an expert on an issue to have an opinion on it — as long as you’re willing to admit this and change your mind when presented with new evidence. Everyone has a limit to their knowledge. In fact, most (not all) elected officials won’t hesitate to concede that there are limits to what information they can confidently recite off the top of their head.

The other side to acknowledging your limits is being confident in what you do know. Only make assertions that you know have a firm basis in fact. When you are confident in the veracity of your statements, your tone will be calmer, you will be more composed, and your demeanor will be both more convincing and placating.

Ask questions and take the time to listen. Everyone wants to be heard and acknowledged. Frustration and anger crescendo when people feel that they have been misunderstood or are being ignored, so do your best to understand and listen. By doing this, you will also allow the conversation to be less adversarial and more exploratory, meaning not only will it be friendlier, but you may even learn something along the way.

Avoid discussing controversial issues in big groups. Groups are harder to control, and a friendly conversation can spin into disarray exponentially faster than a one-on-one conversation. This is partly because informal group discussions inevitably give way to the loudest and most attention-grabbing voices, which are not necessarily the most well-reasoned. Additionally, for those who house their ego right next to their opinions, a group discussion may offer license to “perform” and add unnecessary drama to their argument, adding to the risk of causing personal offense to a member of the group. Always do what you can to avoid settings that are difficult to predict and incentivize theatrics.

Practice. Don’t run away from difficult conversations. As you practice, you’ll gain confidence that will help you keep your cool while discussing difficult issues. I got my practice by volunteering for campaigns, but that’s not the only way. Start by talking to a friend, a mentor, or someone from your church or school. Next, practice by calling your representatives’ offices and telling them about your opinions. If you call their office’s phone number, you’ll get in contact with an intern who won’t argue with you, but will simply take down your opinion and thank you for your time. Don’t worry about embarrassing yourself, they get plenty of calls each day. Once you get some experience making an argument, visit a local government meeting and give a short testimony on an issue you care about. Pretty soon, you’ll feel as comfortable talking about politics as you are about the weather.

So there you have it: a straightforward list of ways to talk about politics without causing discord. Treat political discussions like an adventure, always remembering that most people you meet want a better future for our country — they may simply have a different plan for accomplishing that.

Now let’s go out and talk politics. We have a First Amendment. We may as well use it.

The post Commentary: How To Talk About Politics — Without Ruining Anyone’s Day first appeared on SJO Daily.