Saturday, February 02, 2008

[anagrams] ten to titillate

Paris says: 'If I can do them, you can do them but I can't really do them, you know. Let's make a video together instead.'

1 'In his patrol.'
2 'Now more grand jobs.'
3 'Blush, war geek ogre.'
4 'Unhappily ransacks zealots.'
5 'Do hot crow.'
6 'Slow sleek melancholic.'
7 'Only I can thrill.'
8 'I join anal glee.
9 'Aha! Demi-human, odd jam.'
10 Shh! Image jam.'

a 'Doctor Who'
b 'George Walker Bush'
c 'Hillary Clinton'
d 'Paris Hilton'
e 'Angelina Jolie'
f 'James Higham'
g ''James Gordon Brown'
h 'Nicolas Paul Stéphane Sarközy'
i ''Mahmoud Ahmadinejad'
j 'Welshcakes Limoncello'

No peeking now!

1d, 2g, 3b, 4h, 5a, 6j, 7c, 8e, 9i, 10f

Bonus anagram

'Feminism' anagrams to 'I'm fine Ms.'

[allegiances] regions within regions


How careful do you have to be when referring to nationality? I wrote this:
If you were to walk out of my front door onto the corridor, there are two Muslim families on the left, two Russian on the right, then another Russian [Orthodox] and Muslim. Lots of children, one old couple and then us in here.

When we speak, it's in Russian [language] and the couple on the left is the closest thing we have to yuppy [anyone unhappy over this term?]. No one feels any significant ethnic difference - our biggest issue is the rubbish disposal service and don't even start me on this outrageous backsliding into greed.

They've stopped the decades old automatic removal system and now you have to phone some number and pay for them to come and get your rubbish. Haven't had time to get into this yet but will do so tomorrow. Meanwhile, the bags of rubbish accumulate.

So the type of ethnic tension in Kosovo and Israel does not see the light of day. Why? The answer's pretty obvious - everyone is into domestic issues, making ends meet, improving our lot and so on.
Ian P immediately and quite rightly took issue with the word Muslim placed alongside Russian. So let's get right down to this ethnic issue, starting with the Britain/UK/England/EU Region question.

Of course, the tension over Rutland is part of folklore and the fact that "Rutland is the county in England with the highest Total Fertility Rate at 2.81" leads one to question what residents do at night.

The question of Taunton being historically part of Minehead already, is discussed in the video below. The ancient struggle for old Williton, torn between Taunton and Minehead, has blighted this area for generations. It might still blow up into open war and illustrates the problem of historicity and ethnic groupings.

Cut to Toque, who wants England to stand according to the "traditional" boundaries, as distinct from the EU monster imposed ones and I couldn't agree more. So, no Northumberland, only the once and future Northanhymbre, taking in Yorkshire and the North-East, as in my sidebar.

Who'd agree with this these days?

I don't speak "Northanhymbrean", just English and the Yorkshire accent is virtually non-existent although I can mimic my father. So when home, I'm seen as foreign or worse, a Southerner. The Southerners say, 'Touch of the antipodaean in there, I think" but the Australians used to call me "that Pom with the la-di-da accent". Where does that leave the Higham, as he's half Oirish on his mother's side, the family split between counties Cork and Antrim?

I'd like to ask Guthrum where he's from - from Wessex or is he a Brit or an Englishman? What of Kernow? I'd like to ask Colin Campbell if he's a Crow-eater, a Scot or an Australian. Whom does he support in the Test?

Are your allegiances to your town, region, county, state or nation? Prodicus noted:
A town is too small. A continent is too big and lacks tribal or quasi-familial bonds strong enough to hold it together - an empire likewise.
Where do we stop with this thing? The Mappa Mundi concedes Cornwall as separate and Dave Cole refers to the Stannaries or do you perhaps pay tribute to Gododdin or the Kingdom of Strathclyde? Perhaps you're a West-sider or a Northerner?

And what of Berwick, the Scottish town or is that English? What of Monmouthshire, the English county or is that Welsh?

Where's the U.S. Canadian border? What of the Ontario flare-up? Will there be open war?

Where are you from?

Have I asked too many questions?



Friday, February 01, 2008

[day in the life] trying to beat up the banal

I'm running this because a few readers said they liked the 'slice of life' posts - nothing really special to report on from today:

Saw a kind gesture today and it was nice.

Had a lecture and seminar [first day back] and it wasn't actually the 150 I mentioned yesterday but only 58 correspondence girls from the top two groups in the 5th course - so we were talking serious brainpower [mentioned in the feminism post below].

The air inside the room was fetid and full of everyone's coughing and general sickness [it's going around the city currently] and I suffer from an allergy [possibly rhinitis]. A few minutes in and the girls started donning coats and hats while I was in shirt and tie, so I had to close the window, dammit. They pointed out, politely, that it was actually minus 10 out there.

With the windows now closed they warmed up and took off the coats and hats but I started to go down from the air and had to stop and go outside five or six times.

After the last time, two of them got up and opened the window again themselves, which suited me fine but was clearly against their own interests. How often would someone do that?

Someone took a photo of today's events [can't see why] and she promised to send it to me and I'll post it here when I get it.

Then it was over to the Min and when asked by his secretary whether I wanted coffee or tea, I said I'd have what he had. Sighing, she said, 'Look, what do you really want?'

'Coffee, coffee.'

'Are you sure?'

'Yes.'

When he arrived, there was my coffee on the table, along with his tea. Just before we got down to business, he wasn't satisfied. He sniffed the aroma, looked over at my coffee and wanted to change to coffee himself. I wanted to change the coffee for tea but it never occurred to us to just swap and so the secretary came in to find out what we really wanted.

He ended up with coffee plus tea and I stuck with the coffee. 'You're absolutely sure before I go?' she asked. Nods all round and she went.

He then looked over and asked, 'You sure you really want coffee?'

'Yes, yes, absolutely.'

Little bit knackered now and off to bed - it will have to wait till Sunday to revamp the blogroll, adding Selena, among others. And yes, the internet changeover went through all right. Have a good evening.

Night night.

[kosovo] february independence or holocaust


Otto von Bismark was right on the money:

If there is ever another war in Europe, it will come out of some damned silly thing in the Balkans.

Kosovo is in the process of announcing independence right now in January/February 2008, backed by the troika of the U.S., Britain and France and once various elections are out of the way:

In his comments to reporters, Mr Thaci [Kosovo Province president] repeated earlier statements that a declaration would be made in co-ordination with the European Union and the United States.

However:

A declaration of independence by Kosovo's President or Prime Minister is expected to be followed by a similar announcement from Serb leaders in northern Kosovo. "You can be sure of that. It will happen the very same day or the next day," said Oliver Ivanovic, a moderate Serb politician in northern Kosovo.

Spengler of the Asian Times says:

If Serbia and Russia draw a line in the sand over the independence of Kosovo, we may observe the second occasion in history when a Muslim advance on Europe halted on Serbian soil. The first occurred in 1456, three years after the fall of Constantinople, when Sultan Mehmed II was thrown back from the walls of Belgrade, "The White City", by Hungarian and Serb defenders.

The Siege of Belgrade "decided the fate of Christendom", wrote the then Pope Calixtus III. Not for nothing did J R R Tolkien name his fictional stronghold of Minas Tirith "The White City".

Serbia and Russia are correct to offer partition rather than independence for Kosovo, that is, breaking off the Christian-majority municipalities of the north and attaching them to Serbia proper, while permitting the Muslim majority to determine its own fate. This is the obvious, humane and common sense solution; the fact that the State Department refuses to consider it inflames Russia's worst fears about America's intent.

Former ambassador Richard Holbrooke warned in the March 13 Washington Post that war would erupt if Russia attempted to "water down" the Kosovo independence plan. Holbrooke added, "Moscow 's point about protecting fraternal Slav-Serb feelings is nonsense; everyone who has dealt with the Russians on the Balkans, as I did for several years, knows that their leadership has no feelings whatsoever for the Serbs."

Now two EU states have decided not to ratify independence:

Romania and Cyprus have warned that they will not recognise any unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo. In addition to Romania and Cyprus, EU members Spain, Greece and Slovakia fear recognition could fuel separatist movements elsewhere. Russia says independence should not go ahead until Belgrade agrees to it. Serbian leaders strongly oppose independence for UN-administered Kosovo.

At this point, it's as well to note Bismark's comment, as it is more apt today than ever before - the build up of the EU Army and the continued presence of U.S. troops in the Balkans without any specific purpose is an interesting development.

The logical solution is partition, as it avoids bloodshed but this will not be listened to by the international community, certain elements who appear to be shaping up for the conflagration they must know will ensue, given Serbia's past record.

Thursday, January 31, 2008

[suspense] will this blog continue?


There's every chance this blog will freeze into semi-perpetuity at midnight.

Technically the cable internet stops at midnight but if I post tomorrow morning, then the technician understood my plea in Russian and switched me over to another month. If I don't post, I need to brush up on my Russian - or else he does.


Exciting, huh?

[carmelita] all strung out in america

There've been many American posts here lately but this blog will be back to the UK shortly. I saw this America in the video [why, oh why are there only two minutes of the song?] and I saw the other America too. Interesting place.


[feminism] the reason the young man is what he is

[Chuckle] Vox sure knows how to put the boot in:
There was no shortage of women who didn't like it when men were responsible for everything. They wanted to vote, they wanted to work, they are demanding a turn to take the reins.

Fine, says the modern young man, who has been subjected to 16 years of feminist propaganda that women are just as good - better, in fact - than men at pretty much everything.


Not being given to whining and being largely practical, the young man is happy to leave the responsibility to the women who are demanding it.

Who in their right mind would trade models, games and football for marriage to some controlling bitch who's as likely to leave you as not?
Why do I like that guy so much?


Late note for Welshcakes, who said not a lot but was not happy:


I've just got off the phone from the girl I love and every syllable she uttered went straight through me. She's everything I adore in women - soft to the touch, passionate, exotic, difficult, impossible, superior to me in intellect, a polyglot, impossible not to make endless love to, appreciative of men.

Plus she was tongue tied and at a loss what to say. That's nice.

I ... we ... can adore women and everything about you, from the way you move, the things you do with your lips, the sheer excitement in your presence, the way our troubles just melt away when you're in our arms.

We can adore you and do, including you, Welshcakes.


That's why we hate feminism with a passion - because the strident variety which has consumed one half of humanity is so divisive, so mindless, so designed to separate and breed hatred, so designed to turn men from the women we'd love to love.

To hate feminism does not mean we want to chain you to the kitchen or to dominate you and if you think that, it's so, so sad. Most men - the non-vocal types - want to meet you in a spirit of love, not in a spirit of prune-lipped oversensitivity as to whether we're going to infringe your personal rights as a woman or whether we acknowledge your supremacy.

In my head you are superior and I go back tomorrow to 150 of you in one room with me for four hours - yes, I think you're superior but do I need it shoved down my throat 24/7?

It's one of the key reasons I left to come over here because the "just past young" give ... and I give in return.

[splendid isolation] who needs to be human


Demands comment:

One: How can any person take a machete to another human being—whose only transgression might be his race, or his nationality, or his tribe, or his religion— and not be plagued with guilt and agony over the taking of that life? I can't understand it. I can't put myself in their shoes. The enormity of what I'd done would destroy me, and I could not live with myself.

Lost in the mob, the mob mentality, welcome evil - take your place in our hearts and give us our vital spark. Lt. General James N. Mattis, February 1st, 2005:

"Actually, it’s a lot of fun to fight. You know, it’s a hell of a hoot. . . . It’s fun to shoot some people. I’ll be right upfront with you, I like brawling. . . . You go into Afghanistan; you got guys who slap women around for five years because they didn’t wear a veil. You know, guys like that ain’t got no manhood left anyway. So it’s a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them.”

Two: I am not consciously seeking to discover these linkages. When they reveal themselves I sit back, dumbfounded at the beauty and intricacy with which the unraveled had been originally woven. So too have I come to believe that there is no autonomy. No originality. We build on what has been.

We're not isolated from the rest of the world and yet, even walking amongst them, we can be brain dead:

Three: The people I met there seemed to always be shopping or sitting on benches earning money, for doing nothing. Apart from a group of horse-people (I later guessed I had been talking to a group of 13 year-old girls into horse riding) and a kind chap who gave me a free gun, little conversation was to be had.

Will I go back into Second Life? Not unless someone I know goes too. Otherwise it's a waste of time and utterly mind numbing. Without 'Linden Dollars' you can do very little except roam the streets and buildings as though you are the last person alive on Earth.

Think. Feel.

The day we're satisfied with a life of acquisitive routine, punctuated by holidays abroad in tourist centres, we cease to be human. The day we become the mob, we've become automatons.

Are we automatons? A check list - if for us, it's more:

Sex, not love;

Revenge, not forgiveness;

Ego scaffolding, not humility;

Pride, not pleasure in achievement;

Cold cyberworlds, not forest and river;

Pleasure seeking, not pleasure in others' pleasure;

Expensive houses and furnishings, not beautiful homes;

Knee jerk reactions and cliches, not thinking something through;

... then chances are we're well on the way to becoming a global, bourgeois automaton. Not that there's anything wrong in this - every film cast needs it's thousands of extras, after all. Hey, let's get passionate here, for crying out loud! As Warren Zevon puts it:

I'd like to go back to Paris someday and visit the Louvre Museum
Get a good running start and hurl myself at the wall
Going to hurl myself against the wall
'Cause I'd rather feel bad than feel nothing at all

The clip below is the man who isolates himself from humanity as distinct from the one who loses himself in the mob, both just as bad. First, a portion of the lyrics:

Michael Jackson in Disneyland
Don't have to share it with nobody else
Lock the gates, Goofy, take my hand
And lead me through the World of Self

Splendid Isolation
I don't need no one
Splendid Isolation

By the way, there's everything in here - the direness of American talkshow TV, compressed into "slots", book-ended with "comedy" and Mickey Mouse, the dated and a bit dorky session musos who are still excellent musos, a fun interview with Letterman and in the middle of it all, observing it all going down - the flawed homo sapiens himself:


[christianity] life in the fast lane


[adelaide] colin's backwater


Adelaide - is Jocko's home really as bad as Sleepy Hollow, Geelong?

More than half of voters in an Adelaide newspaper's online opinion poll agree with Victorian Premier John Brumby - the city is a "backwater".

The poll had attracted more 2090 votes before 10am today, in response to the question: "Is Adelaide a backwater?"

Forty-eight per cent said Adelaide lagged behind the eastern capitals and another 15% agreed it was a backwater but said that was part of the appeal. Twenty-eight per cent said Mr Brumby was "just a jerk", and 6% based their defence on the number of major events on in Adelaide at this time of year.

The remaining 3% were unaccounted for by the News Limited poll.

Mr Brumby sparked a verbal joust yesterday when he said that unless Victoria pushes ahead with channel deepening in Port Phillip Bay, Melbourne will end up a "backwater", like Adelaide.

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

[stupidity] some people never learn


How's this for stupidity?

A guy breaks a glass in his kitchen and the bits go under the table. He doesn't pick any of the bits up because he's in the middle of some project and then he just forgets until late evening. Barefooted, he then goes to the kitchen for a coffee.

He's still extracting bits next morning.

Just before he goes to work, the jug containing the bit of Christmas tree the love of his life brought him and which was adorned with metal plasticky type baubles - the whole thing decides to fall from the window sill to the kitchen floor and bits of metally plastic go everywhere.

No time, he has to go to work.

Comes home, kicks off shoes and takes off socks - yes, you've got it - goes into the kitchen to put the kettle on. He's still extracting bits this morning.

Yes - it is me. This guy needs training wheels and a nanny!

[u.s. presidential elections] how they work

Honest to G-d truth - overslept this morning and woke up at 9:11 a.m.!

Yesterday, I was explaining the U.S. presidential election system to my Min, as best I could, using yesterday's post but it was woefully inadequate when he started asking curly ones like:

1. Who are these electors? Are they the senators? Who chooses them?

2. What's the difference between a primary and a caucus?

3. Are these primaries and caucuses to select delegates for the Electoral College?

4. Why do they need an Electoral College? Why don't the people elect the President?

He's particularly interested in this because he has his own little election coming up over here and they're thinking of different systems in the future - Westminster, American, French and so on. Hope he doesn't ask me about the French.

So, if you're American, don't laugh at this piece, still in draft form, prepared for the Min and my students but please check it for accuracy. If you're non-American and were as much in the dark as I was, it might be useful. Of course you could look it up yourself but this is more summarized:

As everyone knows, the U.S. system is a series of checks and balances - hence the Constitution, hence the three way split of power - legislative, executive and judicial, hence the presidential election system.

The second thread running throughout is the traditional rivalry between constituent states and the desire to preserve states' rights.

As far as I can see, the presidential election goes through this procedure [reducing it to basics]:

1. Certain candidates emerge through the party system by wheeling and dealing and through attracting cash for the coming process - this happens in the year before the election;

2. The primaries and caucuses are used by the different parties, the two most important being the Democratic and Republican. within the 50 states, plus DC, to select delegates who will go to the party conventions later. Delegates are selected according to the methods the party decides it wants to adopt within that individual state - it's party business, not the state's [see below] - this happens from December onwards and the most important is Super Tuesday in February through March in the election year, when [currently] 22 states will select their delegates to the convention;

3. Conventions are held to formally select a party's candidate for the presidential election later that year but in recent years, they've largely been razamataz and everyone already knows the state of play. Not always though - there've been some surprises over the years. Each delegate attending that convention has basically "pledged" his or her vote to one candidate but only on the first ballot, after which they are "free".

4. Out of this come the various parties' choices for president and vice-president and these are voted for on election day in November by the people of the U.S., who are not voting for the candidate directly but from the people's votes, members of the Electoral College are elected and they vote 41 days later for president. It is therefore their vote and not the people's which elects the president and vp.

5. The whole thing is confirmed later.

Primaries, caucuses and conventions

The two methods for choosing delegates to the national convention are the caucus and the primary.

The Caucus

Caucuses were the original method for selecting candidates but have decreased in number since the primary was introduced in the early 1900's. In states that hold caucuses a political party announces the date, time, and location of the meeting. Generally any voter registered with the party may attend.

At the caucus, delegates are chosen to represent the state's interests at the national party convention. Prospective delegates are identified as favorable to a specific candidate or uncommitted. After discussion and debate an informal vote is taken to determine which delegates should be chosen.


The Primary

In the early twentieth century there was a movement to give more power to citizens in the selection of candidates for the party's nomination. The primary election developed from this reform movement. In a primary election, registered voters may participate in choosing the candidate for the party's nomination by voting through secret ballot, as in a general election.

There are two main types of primaries, closed or open, that determine who is eligible to vote in the primary. In a closed primary, only a registered voter may vote. For example a voter registered as Democratic can vote only in the Democratic primary and a Republican can vote only in the Republican primary.

In an open primary, on the other hand, a registered voter can vote in either primary regardless of party membership. The voter cannot, however, participate in more than one primary. A third less common type of primary, the blanket primary, allows registered voters to participate in all primaries.

In addition to these differences, there are differences in whether the ballot lists candidate or delegate names. The presidential preference primary is a direct vote for a specific candidate. The voter chooses the candidate by name. The second method is more indirect, giving the voter a choice among delegate names rather than candidate names. As in the caucus, delegates voice support for a particular candidate or remain uncommitted.

In some states a combination of the primary and caucus systems are used. The primary serves as a measure of public opinion but is not necessarily binding in choosing delegates. Sometimes the Party does not recognize open primaries because members of other parties are permitted to vote.

Further notes on primaries and caucuses

Each state is given a number of delegates by the party machines, proportional to the state's population and each state has its own method of choosing delegates.

The Democrats use a higher ratio than the Republicans, which means they have more delegates overall. So from Colorado, the Democrats selected 61 delegates and the Republicans selected 40.

Some give all their delegates to the winner, some break them down by districts, and others dole them out depending on the percentage of the total vote each candidate receives.

Nowadays, all delegates are "pledged" to a candidate before they are elected to go to the convention. However, these pledges don't last past the first round and, after that, delegates are free agents. Prior to this, delegates elected on behalf of one candidate often went to the convention and made deals with one of the other candidates, essentially making the primaries meaningless.

Now, with pledged delegates, it is the conventions that are probably out of date as it has been a long time since there was even a second ballot at either major convention. (Compare this to the 19th century where at one point the Whig convention went through over 250 ballots to elect a majority candidate).

So when Bush won Colorado, what that means is that he got most of CO's delegates to the GOP convention to represent him.

The conventions are effectively over when one candidate gets over half of the total national delegates, which gives him a majority at the convention. That happened in March for both Bush & Gore, so the primaries after March didn't matter very much.

The delegates from each state meet at the convention to vote for the candidate they represent. They have a big party, wear silly hats, and hold up signs saying things like "Colorado for McCain".

Remember, the delegates determined in the primaries are committed to vote for their candidate only on the first ballot at the convention. After that, they can vote for anyone. McCain "released" his delegates to vote for Bush so that Bush could have a unanimous vote.

At the convention, the party delegates also write the official party platform.

The whole delegate system was intended to replace the "smoke-filled rooms" where powerful members of the party secretly chose a candidate. The Constitution doesn't talk about how party nominees are chosen, so every party can decide for itself. Smoke-filled rooms and secret processes are perfectly legal; we just use this primary process because people like it better.

A caucus, on the other hand, is a bunch of people of a political party who show up at a party meeting and decide, by whatever system they want to use, who their choice is.

The Republican Party uses a winner-take-all system in which the delegate or candidate with the most votes in a state's primary or caucus wins the right to be represented by ALL of the party's delegates at the national convention.

Federal law doesn't dictate how states choose their delegates.

The term caucus apparently comes from an Algonquin word meaning "gathering of tribal chiefs," and the main crux of the caucus system today is indeed a series of meetings.

In Iowa, the caucuses themselves are local party precinct meetings where registered Republicans and Democrats gather, discuss the candidates and vote for their candidate of choice for their party's nomination.

The Republican caucus voting system in Iowa is relatively straightforward: You come in, you vote, typically through secret ballot, and the percentages of the group supporting each candidate decides what delegates will go on to the county convention.

The Democrats have a more complex system -- in fact, it's one of the most complex pieces of the entire presidential election. In a typical caucus, registered democrats gather at the precinct meeting places (there are close to 2,000 precincts statewide), supporters for each candidate have a chance to make their case, and then the participants gather into groups supporting particular candidates (undecided voters also cluster into a group).

Again - the whole business is entirely according to how the party wants it to be - the government doesn't come into it officially.

The Electoral College

It may surprise you to know that Russia has a more direct presidential election process than the United States. In the United States, a system called the Electoral College periodically allows a candidate who receives fewer popular votes to win an election.

In fact, there have been several presidential candidates who won the popular vote, but lost the election because they received fewer electoral votes. In Russia, where no such system exists, the candidate who receives a majority of popular votes wins the election.


Every four years, on the Tuesday following the first Monday of November, millions of U.S. citizens go to local voting booths to elect, among other officials, the next president and vice president of their country. But the results of the popular vote are not guaranteed to stand because the Electoral College has not cast its vote and what the people actually voted for was not the president and vp but for the Electoral College.

The Electoral College is a controversial mechanism that was created by the framers of the U.S. Constitution as a compromise, some politicians believing a purely popular election was too reckless, while others objected to giving Congress the power to select the president. The compromise was to set up an Electoral College system that allowed voters to vote for electors, who would then cast their votes for candidates, a system described in Article II, section 1 of the Constitution.

Each state has a number of electors equal to [but not actually comprising] the number of its U.S. senators plus the number of its U.S. representatives. Currently, the Electoral College includes 538 electors, 535 for the total number of congressional members, and three who represent Washington, D.C., as allowed by the 23rd Amendment.

On the Monday following the second Wednesday in December, the electors of each state meet in their respective state capitals to officially cast their votes for president and vice president. These votes are then sealed and sent to the president of the Senate, who on January 6th opens and reads the votes in the presence of both houses of Congress. The winner is sworn into office at noon on January 20th.

Most of the time, electors cast their votes for the candidate who has received the most votes in that particular state. Some states have laws that require electors to vote for the candidate that won the popular vote, while other electors are bound by pledges to a specific political party. However, there have been times when electors have voted contrary to the people's decision, and there is no federal law or Constitutional provision against it.

In most presidential elections, a candidate who wins the popular vote will also receive the majority of the electoral votes, but this is not always the case. There have been four presidents who have won an election with fewer popular votes than their opponent but more electoral votes.

In 2000, for example, Al Gore had over half a million votes more than George W. Bush but after recount controversy in Florida and a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Bush was awarded the state by 537 popular votes. Like most states, Florida has a "winner takes all" rule. This means that the candidate who wins the state by popular vote also gets all of the state's electoral votes. Bush became president with 271 electoral votes.

Today, a candidate must receive 270 of the 538 electoral votes to win the election, so George W. Bush won the 2000 election by one electoral vote. In cases where no candidate wins a majority of electoral votes, the decision is thrown to the House of Representatives by virtue of the 12th Amendment. The House then selects the president by majority vote with each state delegation receiving one vote to cast for the three candidates who received the most electoral votes.

Here are the two elections that were decided by the House of Representatives:

1801: Thomas Jefferson

1825: John Quincy Adams.

The goal of any candidate is to put together the right combination of states that will give him or her the 270 electoral votes plus. It's a numbers game.

Nomination of electors

If you're wondering how someone becomes an elector, it turns out it's not the exact same process across the board. It can actually differ from state to state. In general, though, the two most common ways are:
  • The elector is nominated by his or her state party committee (perhaps to reward many years of service to the party).
  • The elector "campaigns" for a spot and the decision is made during a vote held at the state's party convention.
Qualifications to be an Elector
  • He or she cannot be a Representative or Senator;
  • He or she cannot be a high-ranking U.S. official in a position of "trust or profit";
  • He or she cannot be someone who has "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the U.S.
Usually, electors are people who are highly politically active in their party (be it Democrat, Green, Libertarian, Republican ...) or connected somehow to the political arena, such as: activists, party leaders, elected officials of the state and even people who have ties (political and/or personal) to the Presidential candidates, themselves. Potential elector candidates are nominated by their state political parties in the summer before the Election Day. The U.S. Constitution allows each state to choose its own means for the nomination of electors.

In some states, the Electors are nominated in primaries the same way that other candidates are nominated. Other states nominate electors in party conventions. All states require the names of all Electors to be filed with the Secretary of State (or equivalent) at least a month prior to election day.


Hope that clears it up.

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

[suddenly] the one word it's best not to hear


Something to cheer us all up on this snowbound evening. :)

Donne should have written: "No man is an island, especially in Russia." Perhaps he would have, if he'd lived here.

Networks mean survival here and the strongest network is family. I'm just astounded that I have to actually argue with western blogfriends that the family is the best available unit when such a question is not even a question in Russia.

Tragedy can hit suddenly - completely life-altering tragedy - this is so the world over - but in the west, despite even the NHS debacle, there is an infrastructure which kicks in, a safety net. Here there is none. The derelict, the streetkid, he's not picked up by a hospice outreach programme, there is no lifeline to call.

He simply dies.

Or she goes into prostitution. The real westerner simply cannot get his mind round this. But surely, in these days of improved medicine, mobile phones and so on? No. We are, all of us, living on the edge each day and that is why, when I don't hear from my friend for two days or he from me, fear kicks in. Not anger, not resentment - it's far worse - fear. Especially in winter.

An aspect of this is that the melodramatic and unnecessary drama then becomes the living reality - and it does do this, it really does.

The Russians are blunt because they must be to survive and any westerner living here must also be so, otherwise he goes down. There is no planning and speculation is a pointless exercise because tomorrow might be your last. It's in every aspect of life. More spuriously, if you see a pair of shoes you like and you wait till tomorrow to decide, they won't be there.

Faith takes on a meaning all its own, the longer you live here close to the streets and markets.

The exhortation of Christ that he will come like a thief in the night, at a time no one expects, is immediately applicable to this country. Make sure you've taken care of all the details before you go out each day. At this moment, the trouble is with my friend and his family. Tomorrow it might be me. There are always two or three issues with everyone - I have mine - but they usually stay relatively benign, dormant.

Then a conjunction of circumstances suddenly renders two of the three malignant and that's your life blighted. It's in this context that I approach cyber-issues as less than life and death, given that I'm due for a fall of my own in 2010. Like wars, it's already been arranged and you just take it as it comes.

So the only thing is to utilize the remaining time, to get your novels, your small legacy, up and running, take care of property matters and then, like any batsman in cricket, just keep stroke making until they finally get you.

After all, everyone has to go sometime.

I like this one too but it requires patience. That's about the amount of snow we have but not the enemy shooting at us. At this point. :)


What´s the Difference Between Us and Them?

Warning: Politically incorrect post ahead. All who may be offended best not to read!

That was the question posed by one of my professors during the intensive January mini-course. We were talking about fish. In Spanish, there are two words for fish: pez (when the fish is in the sea) y pescado (when it´s on your plate). In my seven (soon to be eight) years of speaking the language, I always have messed up things like this. There are also words for chicken when it´s in the barnyard and on your plate, well, you get the idea.

So, I messed up pez y pescado. My teacher looked at me and laughed, ¨Matt, you know the difference between us (Spaniards) and the Japanese?¨
¨What is it?¨ I aksed.
¨We eat pescado, they eat pez.¨

One of the things I truly love about Spain, they are brutally honest and very politically incorrect. They say what they think. If you aren´t warned about it beforehand, it can be quite offending. For instance, two Saturdays ago, I was going to a nightclub with a Spaniard friend of mine. Before leaving, my landlady suggested I change my jacket.

Another thing I love about Spain are the TV ads. Here are three of my favorites:




Renault´s Twingo Ad put to classical music




Seat (a Spanish car company) ad for the Altea XL put to the great Civil War song ¨When Johnny Comes Marching Home.¨ I asked my landlady about all the English language songs used in the ads. Her response was, ¨Well, we´re quite Americanized.¨



Finally, my personal favorite, a Vicks Nasal Spray ad. Notice at the end the part that says ¨Read the instructions of this medicine and consult the pharmicist." That is one part of Spain´s TV ads I don´t like. Every, and I mean every (without exception), medicine ad has to have that at the end of the ad, as required by law. It gets quite old when three or four medicine ads happen in a row (sadly, that has happened several times in the past few days). I mentioned to my landlady´s son, if I were to go to Hell, that would be my punishment, seeing that screen over and over again. Not a second after I said that came another ad. He looked at me and I said, with a solemn face, ¨Why??????¨

Alright, that´s all for now. I might not be able to post again for a while because the computer I use right now has weak net capabilities and Internet cafés, while cheap, aren´t high on my list. Until next time!

[report card] enter name here

Report Card

Opportunities: Excellent

Arrogance: Overweening

Sense of responsibility: Nil

Charisma: Outstanding

Gift of the gab: Professional

Talent: Low

Trades on: Greed of the gullible

Result: Disaster

[cry inequality] or else do something about it


Dave J quotes M.N.Marger:

The power of a dominant class or ethnic group is not simply the power of force but also the power to propound and sustain an ideology that legitimizes the system of inequality.

In reality, however, the opportunity structure is hardly equal, and the dominant values of individualism, competition, and achievement favor those who are wealthy and can easily avail themselves of the opportunities for success.

This simplistic analysis is very much that of my student days when, at 20, I looked around, saw inequality everywhere and wanted it all swept away and a new utopia put in its place. We were young, we could do whatever we wanted if we all banded together. The analysis suited a mind susceptible to simple solutions but considered itself to be sophisticated and all-seeing - that was me at 20.

A detractor the other day called me "adolescent" and he might have been close to the truth because I do still think we can change some things. Some, in a limited way and for some time.

My initial comment at Dave's was:

There's an element of truth on both sides. The inequality is so ancient that the central decision makers are better educated, housed, clothed and fed and operate at a higher level in all ways except spiritually. This is wrong but intergenerationally perpetuated.

Also:

The spiritual nature of much of the leadership, itself a subset of the old and new money, is atrophied - there is no need to exercise the spirit when the primary purpose is to protect wealth - and pragmatic people tend to be the most unspiritual and therefore tend, by degrees, to the level of the beast.

Beautiful example here in our town is of a porcine wheeler-dealer, [so he projects himself], living in my friend's housing block, who parks his car in the middle of the lane and conducts aggressive deals by mobile phone, blocking everyone around, before going up to his flat for a vodka. Zero concern for anyone else whatsoever - voice harsh, cruel piggy eyes and so on.

On the other hand there are most certainly groups and ethnicities that when they do have the opportunity, do not grasp it with open arms and work their butts off to escape their plight but instead adopt a lazy, handout mentality, a carping "everyone discriminates against me so I'll sit on my butt and watch TV, then go out later and mug someone because nobody give's a rat's a-s- about me" approach to life.

So yes, it does quite often come down to individuals but also to a mentality which feels sorry for itself without actively seeking solutions, a mentality which leans on the state as the provider without understanding how that state sustains itself in the first place - by taking earnings from people who work for those earnings, give or take a few hundred thousand criminals.

Moving tangentially into the world of sport, there is a piece in Cricinfo which sums it up:

"What they needed was a solid innings from Lara. What they got was someone who seemed not to care."
By way of explanation, this was offered:

A story broke in India's Outlook magazine claiming that immediately after the game Lara had told the Kenyans that losing to them was not as bad as losing to a team like South Africa. An unnamed source was quoted as hearing him say: "You know, this white thing comes into the picture. We can't stand losing to them."

From the Koori to the PAC, it's the same story. Utilize the fashionable catchcry "racism" [others use feminism, ageism, every -ism under the sun] to justify your own failure when the truth is that there are people who are simply lackadaisical and expect handouts, on one hand and there are people with a Calvinistic work ethic who actually succeed, on the other.

It is possible to succeed in western societies like Britain and the U.S.

We had Ugandans and Kenyans at our London school and they were not sons of rich princes - they grew up in New Cross and Brixton but their parents and ultimately themselves, wanted to be lifted out of the mire and into a mentality of hard-working success. It's rubbish that, in these societies, a person can't succeed.

Admittedly, most will never grasp the reins of power but that's our plight too because power is all tied up by cabalists like Common Purpose, the CFR, the Bilderbergers and so on but that's hardly the issue mooted in the first quote in this post.

In the end, it comes down to another simplistic rule:

The moment you start moaning is the moment you stop succeeding.

[encryption] thou shalt have nothing private

The documents on my computer are encrypted but:

The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) was changed last autumn to allow police to force people to hand over passwords or keys to encrypted data. Refusal to do so is a criminal offence carrying a penalty of two years in jail, or up to five years if the issue concerns national security.

And yet there is still a slim hope:

The government's new powers to force the handover of encryption keys could be vulnerable to a legal challenge under the Human Rights Act's guarantee to a fair trial. People who refuse keys or passwords face up to five years in jail.

The problem with this iniquitous act is that it allows the government, e.g. the ODPM, to decide whom they consider undesirables and can then break in and arrest the ordinary citizen along with the genuine terrorist threat - all swept into a waterboarding prison under the charge of sedition.

Section 22 says:
It is necessary on grounds falling within this subsection to obtain communications data if it is necessary-

(a) in the interests of national security;
(b) for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or of preventing disorder;
(c) in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom;
(d) in the interests of public safety;
(e) for the purpose of protecting public health;
(f) for the purpose of assessing or collecting any tax, duty, levy or other imposition, contribution or charge payable to a government department;
(g) for the purpose, in an emergency, of preventing death or injury or any damage to a person's physical or mental health, or of mitigating any injury or damage to a person's physical or mental health; or
(h) for any purpose (not falling within paragraphs (a) to (g)) which is specified for the purposes of this subsection by an order made by the Secretary of State.

[super tuesday] february 5th


The theory
In the United States, Super Tuesday commonly refers to the Tuesday in early February or March of a presidential election year when the greatest number of states hold primary elections to select delegates to national conventions at which each party's presidential candidates are officially nominated. More delegates can be won on Super Tuesday than on any other single day of the primary calendar, and accordingly, candidates seeking the presidency traditionally must do well on this day to secure their party's nomination.

What to watch for

Although the results are reported by state, district results are quite important:
Each district typically has three to five delegates to award. A candidate needs at least 15% of the vote in the district to get any delegates. So in a race where only Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama meet that threshold, they are likely to divide the delegates evenly if there are an even number of delegates available. That makes the districts with an odd number of delegates the most valuable, because the winner will automatically get an extra.

The 2008 race
But Mr. Obama heads into the 22-state showdown as the underdog. The Illinois senator trails Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York by large margins in polls in most of the big states voting Feb. 5. And he lacks the time or resources to campaign intensively in many of those far-flung races to close the gaps.

"Clinton is harvesting her long-term campaign investment," says Cole Blease Graham Jr., a professor of political science at the University of South Carolina. "The Democratic establishment seems to be more behind her."
So, despite Obama's successes, the Lizard Queen appears to have done the number crunching and is likely to emerge the victor. This would surely be a result favoured by the Republicans as her divisiveness might just tip the balance their way.

On the other hand, the allegedly most corrupt machine politician of modern times might just have the numbers to head the U.S.A., come 2009. Lord have mercy on America and the world.

Monday, January 28, 2008

[next james bond] who's a pretty boy then

[davos] one bomb would do the trick

[slavery] in deepest, darkest britain

Tale of deepest, darkest Africa?

An undercover reporter was offered several children for sale by their parents in Nigeria: two boys aged three and five for £5000 ($A11,231), or £2500 for one, and a 10-month-old baby for £2000.

Teenage girls — including some still pregnant — were willing to sell their babies for less than £1000. One international trafficker, tracked down in Lagos, claimed to be buying up to 500 children a year.

Nope - Britain. To be specific:
Impoverished African parents are being lured by the traffickers' promises of "a better life" for their children, thousands of miles away in cities including London, Birmingham and Manchester. But, once brought to Britain, the children are used as a fraudulent means to obtain illicit housing and other welfare benefits, totalling tens of thousands of pounds each a year.
Nice to know the old ways are still being observed. Lovely people in the world, aren't there?

[dolly] would you eat her?

Dolly

The USFDA assures everyone that everything is all right:
After reviewing numerous scientific studies, the US Food and Drug Administration found that food derived from cloned cows, pigs, goats and their offspring is as safe to eat as products from conventionally bred livestock. Stephen Sendoff, director of the FDA's food safety division, said: "The likelihood that anything would go wrong from a food safety standpoint is unimaginably small."
Well, that's a relief - departments of state's assurances can always be fully trusted, can't they? The hallmark of state administrators is competence, after all.

You have any issues with that? By the way - love that name "Send-off". Yes indeed. :)

Sunday, January 27, 2008

[quantum of solace] don't we all need it?


Nice article with Daniel Craig commenting on Quantum of Solace:

It is a direct sequel to Casino Royale, beginning an hour after that film ends, with Bond devastated by his betrayal by true love Vesper Lynd.

"He had his heart broken at the end of the last movie and that certainly is a spur for him in this one," said Craig, 39, straight from the set in sharp grey suit, crisp white shirt and cufflinks.

"I'd be lying if I said there wasn't revenge in his heart. But it's more than that. That spurs him on, but that's not what the movie is. It's not a revenge movie. It's about him figuring a few things out."

Producer Barbara Broccoli said the film, directed by Marc Forster (Monster's Ball, The Kite Runner), mixes Bond's "inner turmoil" with action - and of course gadgets - as he tries to stop a shadowy cabal trying to bring down the world economy.

Nice premise but can't help thinking it's a bit risky coming out with this directly. I know I'm doing the same on this blog but I've always been prepared to go up in smoke, which appeared to happen two days ago. Still, s'pose they know what they're doing. I like that Bond, in Craig's words:

"...wants his closure."

On the title itself, Craig says it's about:

"that spark of niceness in a relationship that if you don't have, you might as well give up."

"That spark of niceness." After the really unpleasant things which happened this morning via my e-mail, I'd have to agree wholeheartedly that that's what life is all about - that spark of niceness.

As for James Bond, he's a sad case. He's looking for niceness but thinks it can come through the barrel of a gun. Similarly, I was offered friendship today by someone telling me he had the power to "eat me for dinner", to destroy me but he'd give me one last chance and let's be friends. Interesting ideas on closure, solace and friendship.

As ye sow, so shall ye reap unless one of the two is of a forgiving nature and is willing to turn the other cheek.


[tyranny] we stand up or we go down

Wikipedia image called 'Telescreen'

The Reactionary Snob comments:
Apparently students will not be allowed to access the student loans facility if they do not sign up to ID cards. But wait a second! ID Cards are going to be delayed (nobody saw that coming - this lot's record with large scale IT projects is woeful. I wouldn't trust them to finish a wank on time let alone a major project). And not only are they being delayed they may end up not being compulsory.
Englisc Fyrd continues:
And so the saga continues, Labour get told "No" but they keep rephrasing the question until they get a yes. Of course that's if they bother to ask the question in the first place.
Now, in the light of a nasty e-mail this morning calling me:
... an attention seeking control freak, a delayed adolescent, stupid enough to get sucked in to the agenda of a thoroughly vindictive liar ... I'll kill your blog for ever [which I'll now add to my testimonials]
... it's clear that, just as we have to stand up to this sort of thing in the blogosphere and keep blogging until people like this really do shut us down, so we, as citizens have to stand up to ID cards because the moment we meekly accept them, it's the thin edge of the wedge.

And for those of a theological bent, let's not forget it was written about 2000 years ago that there'd be chips in our right wrists or foreheads in order to "buy or sell", as they put it.

For sheer literary power though, you can't go past this as a final comment:
I do apologise if my glee is obvious, but these disingenuous bastards deserve to see their flagship; full of cannonball holes, listing badly with the rigging falling about their ears; slip serenely, unmissed, unwanted and unloved beneath the cold grey waves.

Yes, I’m enjoying the sight of HMS ID Cards wallowing, holed beneath the waterline, as the venal, mendacious poltroons who launched and sailed her try vainly to make her appear watertight. May every politician be so visited by the lies and fraud they perpetuate in such graphic fashion.
My goodness, can that man write or can that man write!

[medical advice] mousemedicine

Think Mousie's going to be struck off for this gratuitous advice:

* If you are choking on an ice cube simply pour a cup of boiling water down your throat. Hey Presto! The blockage will instantly remove itself.

* Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold while you chop.

* If you suffer with high blood pressure, simply cut yourself and bleed for a few minutes, thus reducing the pressure in your veins. Remember to use a timer.

* If you have an irritating cold, take a large dose of laxatives, then you will be afraid to cough or sneeze.

* Contact lens wearers: keep your eyes snug and warm this winter by adding a few drops of chilli sauce to your cleaning solution.

For more of these helpful hints and the very best medical advice, Mousie provides over at his place.

[girls smoke] the new generation

I question the figures:

[A] Bath University-led team said "aggressive targeting" of women by tobacco firms was behind the rise [in female smoking in Russia]. Researchers monitoring 7,000 people over 11 years found 7% of women smoked in 1992, compared with 15% in 2003, the Tobacco Control journal reports.

Manufacturer British American Tobacco said the increase was due to Russians having more money for cigarettes. [However] the researchers, who also included teams from University College London and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine said tobacco advertising had been virtually non-existent in the Soviet Union. Companies invested heavily in developing the market, promoting smoking as part of the new 'western lifestyle' [Dr Anna Gilmore, lead researcher]

[O]nce the break-up [of the Soviet Union] started, the nationalised smoking industry disintegrated, allowing the big tobacco firms to push their products. The report said the firms became "rampant" and by the mid-1990s it was estimated that half of all billboards in Moscow and three quarters of plastic bags in the country carried tobacco advertising.

Lead researcher Dr Anna Gilmore said: "There can be no doubt that the marketing tactics of Philip Morris, British American Tobacco and the like directly underpin this massive increase in smoking that spells disaster for health in Russia.

The reason I question the figures is that I'd estimate now that, of the younger girls I know and see over here [up to 25 years of age], maybe 70% smoke and that might be a conservative estimate.

The issue today has become sidetracked because of, for example, the U.K.'s heavy handed and draconian legislation which I commented on here and here - the idea of the government legislating on the matter is anathema to millions of people and those pushing such legislation now have a nice label attached - anti-smoking nazis.

The moment government does these things and the blogosphere attaches a catch-all label, all real debate flies out the window and it's back to the good old entrenched positions all over again.

As in climate change.

This, in turn, leads to this sort of thing and most people, including myself, would agree with the publicans. It then makes this sort of thing so much harder.

On the other hand, non-legislative national campaigns can be effective for a short time. In Australia in the 80s, there were two major campaigns I recall. "Slip, slop, slap" was aimed at reducing skin cancer and was pretty effective. It became quite cool to sport a white nose in the sun and to wear a hat and light shirt on the beach, as a counterweight to the image of the bronzed Aussie.

Another campaign was against smoking and there were buses which toured schools, replete with videos, smoking machines and stats. These targetted young kids and the obvious question was how ethical it all was - libertarians might say not very. The bus was popular with the kids though because of the "show" the young people manning the bus put on and the kids definitely thought the issue through.

Some time ago, this blog drew attention to the dangers of female smoking as more insidious than male but what effect would such a post have on a girl? I'd say next to zero.

I'm in a position to talk to hundreds of girls a week about it but as most readers would suspect, the best result such a campaign would achieve would be marginal, at best. Girls parrot the words and agree 'oh yes, it's a terrible thing' and they'll tell you how terrible all their friends are smoking [but not them] and then they'll go to the club that night and of course they're all smoking.

Sites like Parentingteens are virtually nowhere - convincing parents themselves but how many teen girls would read a site like that?

They're much more likely to read this and there's no mucking about here - it's straight into it, pushing girls smoking and these sites are all over the place, interwoven with porn on Google searches - interesting how the tat industry is so keen to associate smoking and teen sex as part of the new youth and a whole generation is being pied-pipered into it.

This is the most balanced site I can find but again, how many girls are going to tune into it?

I have absolutely no idea what to do to stem this tide. Labelling anyone who raises concerns over young females smoking immediately puts that person in the "anti-smoking nazi" camp and I'm dead against government legislation on the matter.

So where to go from here? I just hate seeing wrong things succeed and right things get nowhere.