[monplaisir] magnificence of nature and man

Pyetrdvoryetz, near St. Petersburg

Versailles is sheer magnificence on a gargantuan scale. Schoenbrunn is sheer elegance. But of the "Russian Versailles", Peterhof, Petergof, Pyetrdvoryetz, whatever you wish to call it, by the ocean near St Petersburg, Alexander Benois, in 1913, wrote:

Among the fabulous palaces of Versailles, Aranjuez, Caserta, Schoenbrunn and Potsdam, Peterhof occupies a place entirely apart. It is often compared to Versailles but that is due to a misunderstanding. Peterhof is endowed with an utterly special character by the sea. It is as if Peterhof was born out of seafoam called into being by the command of a mighty maritime ruler.

The Queen's Chamber, Versailles

Versailles rules over the land ... The fountains at Versailles are an elegant adornment, which could be done without. Peterhof is the residence of the sovereignof the seas. The fountains in Peterhof are no afterthought - they are the main thing. They are a symbolic representation of the watery realm, a cloud of spray from the sea that washes the shore at Peterhof.

Le Hameau de la Reine, Versailles

If Versailles is a triumph of architecture and layout, Peterhof is a triumph of engineering. At the height of its construction, 1715 to 1723, Le Blonde, Braunstein, Michetti and Zemtsov, the sculptor Rastrelli, the master fountain builder Paul Sualem and the hydraulic engineer Vasily Tuvolkov, together with a host of others, were all carving out this amazing series of canals, cascades, grotto, terraces and palaces.

The Cascade from the main palace, Pyetrdvoryetz

Perhaps the greatest technological achievement of Peterhof is that all of the fountains operate without the use of pumps. Water is supplied from natural springs and collects in reservoirs in the Upper Gardens. The elevation difference creates the pressure that drives most of the fountains of the Lower Gardens, including the Grand Cascade. The Samson Fountain is supplied by a special aqueduct, over four km in length, drawing water and pressure from a high-elevation source.

Pyetrdvoryetz truly connects with the sea via this canal.

Then, after all that is said, comes the magnificently small scale, simple Monplaisir, right down by the water itself:

Monplaisir is as old as Peterhof itself. The history of the whole palace and park ensemble began with the construction of Monplaisir. The palace was Peter the Great's favourite creation, and it was he who gave it this name. The Emperor himself chose the site for the construction and sketched the layout of the building. It is hardly possible to find any other place where his personal habits and tastes could be so strongly felt.

Garden of Monplaisir - my pleasure, Pyetrdvoryetz, near St. Petersburg

This place, Monplaisir and le Hameau de la Reine, at Versailles, continue to haunt me and hold a special place in my life. I suppose adding to the piquancy was that I was at each with the same girl and both places also feature strongly in the denouement of my first book, not that that is relevant.

Balustrade at Monplaisir, on the seafront at Pyetredvoretz

There are places in the world which are no doubt overrated but there are some which reward. If you love the sea and its interaction with the land, then Pyetrdvoretz really must be on your list to see at least once before you die.

French influence at the court of Peter the Great

[kosovo update] mitrovicaen republic the way to go

Centre of the new Mitrovicaen Republic

Predictable pap from the WSJ but with two sensible observations:

By a narrow margin, Serbs on Sunday re-elected Boris Tadic, who wants to bring the country closer to Europe, over the pro-Russia candidate. But his government already staunchly opposed Kosovo independence.

The ... Serbian enclave around the city of Mitrovica. Some politicians there, backed by Belgrade, promise to break away from Kosovo.

If Kosovo becomes an independent republic, the rot sets in, in two ways:

1. The domino effect begins, e.g. Republika_Srpska, Chechnya and one can't help but conclude that this is in line with U.S. foreign policy in the region, which is determined by the CFR*.

2. Serbia solidifies and hardens its line, with the Mitrovicaen Region initially breaking away and a more or less permanent state of war ready to break out at any time.

The cynical powers destabilizing southern Europe at this moment are fully aware of this scenario and that's why an independent Serbian enclave in the north of Kosovo is the only viable solution.

But this won't happen and Serbia, one half of the ancient Albanian conflict, will be ignored in this done deal. Ignoring one half of a conflict is hardly sensible foreign policy unless one wishes to see instability in a region. Then it makes eminent sense.

*the Council on Foreign Relations, America's most influential group devoted to US foreign policy

4. The situation in France

1. Sovereignty in this country 2. Legal reasons we can leave right now 3. The principle of prerogative 4. The situation in France 5. Masterly inactivity and executive action 6. It's all about culture, not race

Forget the rhetoric, forget politicking. Here is what happened in France on 29 May 2005:

A referendum was held in France to decide whether the country should ratify the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe. The result was a victory for the "No" campaign, with 55% of voters rejecting the treaty on a turnout of 69%.

The question put to voters was:

Approuvez-vous le projet de loi qui autorise la ratification du traité établissant une Constitution pour l'Europe ? "Do you approve the bill authorising the ratification of the treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe?"

Is there some way you can explain to me how this constitutes a legitimate mandate from the people to set up the EU as a state? By what legal terminology can this mean that the people voted Yes?

Here is what happened over these few days now:

Today, France’s deputies and senators meeting in Parliament in Versailles ratified by a vote of 560 to 181 the constitutional revision to allow the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon without the need for a referendum. The result of this voting opens the way for the final ratification, Thursday, first at the National Assembly, then the Senate. Out of 893 present, 741 voted. France is the 5th country after Hungary, Slovenia, Romania and Malta to ratify the Lisbon Treaty, in which they sign their sovereignty away.

I take issue with only one semantic point. France did not sign away its rights, if by France you mean the French people. They voted 55% No. Their political leaders did sign away their sovereignty and in national terms, that constitutes high treason, which Wiki defines this way:

High treason is criminal disloyalty to one's country.

Please explain how a clearly expressed view of a national people being deliberately ignored in the creation of a new state at the behest of another nationality does not constitute high treason?

Britain has been treated the same way.

[super tuesday] pass the paper bag

Obama and the Sisterhood

At a packed Obama rally in Los Angeles, Winfrey addressed a backlash from some of her female viewers, who have accused her of being a traitor to the sisterhood because she was supporting a man over a woman for US president.

"I was both surprised by that comment and insulted, because I've been a woman my whole life and every part of me believes in the empowerment of women but the truth is I'm a free woman," the world famous television talk show host said'. "And being free means you get to think for yourself."

"I will never vote for anyone based on gender or race," she said. "I'm voting for Barack Obama not because he's black, I'm voting for Barack Obama because he is brilliant."

Clinton and Her Superbowl Victory

"Super Bowl, Super Tuesday . . . we've got one down, let's get the other one!" Senator Clinton said as she jumped in the air and high-fived a group of children.

Where's a paper bag?

[hamsters in the rain] and other emergencies

For what reason would you call them?

South Wales police force has published a list of top time-wasting 999 calls during the past year in an attempt to convince people not to pick up the phone unless it's really necessary.

According to icWales, the highlight of 2007 came when one woman demanded officers come and cuff her boyfriend because he'd put her hamster out in the rain. Another caller explained: “My husband has the TV remote and won’t let me watch EastEnders.”

The list continues with the anxious citizen who admitted: “I don’t have £1 for a supermarket trolley”, and one flustered bookworm who offered: “A friend has my library card, can you come and arrest her?”

Or the bloke who enquired: “Can the police come round and take my mother-in-law away? She has been here for 18 days.”

I can think of some choice ones of my own but this is a family blog.

[punxsutawney phil] six more weeks - great

Six more weeks of it, folks!

At the curiously-named Gobbler's Knob, in the town of Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania, just a few moments ago, the little furry form of Punxsutawney Phil cautiously emerged, sniffed around for a bit...and then quietly muttered in Groundhogese that his own shadow he could see. So according to the seer of seers, the prognosticator of prognosticators, an early Spring is out of the question for 2008.

Good thing too! I love the winter so much. You've all seen the film, of course.

[news] more and more boring every day

Yawn 1

You really wonder about the French:

Citing economic worries, 55 per cent of those surveyed said they had a negative view of his performance, according to one poll. But displeasure with Mr. Sarkozy as a person ran deeper. Three out of four people objected to what was called his “exhibitionist” style.

“For the traditionalist and right-wing electorate, he was just too much,” François d'Orcival, an editorial writer at the conservative magazine Valeurs Actuelles, said in an interview with Europe 1 radio. “He broke with their image of what the presidential family should be. So this marriage – even though it's his third marriage – could help calm the waters.”

Mr. Sarkozy's ex-wife, Cecilia, refused to move into the presidential residence after his election last May. She made a point of dismissing the role of first lady as boring, saying she had no intention of being “a potted plant.”

OK, so it's all over - personally I think she's wrong for a First Lady but maybe she'll grow up and surprise.

Yawn 2

So Eli Manning brought his team back to score with 35 seconds to play with a 13-yard toss to Plaxico Burress. Big deal.

Yawn 3

Wendy Alexander cash donations. What the hell does it matter where the money comes form? Why is everyone all tied up in knots over this issue when they could save time and money concentrating on real issues like Nationalism in Formula 1? And are you really interested in Hain?

Anticipation 1

Super Tuesday tomorrow. McCain v the other two:

On the Democratic side, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama were enmeshed in a tough national fight, illustrated by polls showing the race had tightened both nationally and in key states voting on Tuesday where Mrs. Clinton had once enjoyed a comfortable lead. They include California, Missouri, New Jersey and Arizona.

Not so foregone for Clinton as supposed. She really is hated, isn't she? Question of course - can McCain defeat either?

More important than this is the worried scrutiny of countries such as Russia for whom the election of one candidate over another thousands of kilometres away is of enormous significance, despite anything said publicly. The U.S. puts itself about the globe so aggressively that their choice of leader assumes enormous importance, as it does with all the rag tag smaller countries.

I always liked that one about the big countries acting like gangsters and the small ones acting like prostitutes.

[rudolf] and the pc army

There is the Swearblogger who is also a sharp and erudite pundit, such as DK, Mr. Eugenides, Reactionary Snob and Longrider [the latter a little tame of late].

A variant on that is the Creative Swearblogger like Flying Rodent.

Then there are the straight pundits with a twist of wry like Iain Dale, Steve Green, Cassilis and Harry Haddock.

There is the soft blogger, often a lady and the special purpose blogger.

Then there is the whimsical such as Beaman, Bryan Appleyard and Deogulwulf and you either like that or you don't. Personally, I really like the latter's series of Fewtrils which I've posted a few times. Here is a selection of his latest offerings:

Helvetica is rightly deemed the typeface that best typifies modernism: it is bland and functional. Of its aesthetic qualities, others say otherwise:

The Helvetica Medium lower-case ‘a’ . . . is the most beautiful two-dimensional form ever designed. Its luxurious sensual curves are balanced by points of crisp tension. Its lovely counter makes me think of Mozart. [1]

The pretension is by-the-by, but what gets my goat is that the name of Mozart is doomed to suffer from its invocation by blighters wishing to impart the aura of aesthetic genius to ugliness and insipidity.

Fewtril no.231

History is no keen judge: the silliest affairs can become the profoundest events, and the weakest ideas the strongest currents.

Fewtril no.228

I’ll never fit in; I have trouble faking outrage.

Fewtril no.226

Some might say we are blessed by political moralism, in that for every matter about which one might feel guilty, there are a thousand unconscionable ways in which one might feel absolved — so long as one remains an adherent. Yet even if one were to succumb to this graceless convenience, guilt would find its own way, attaching itself at last to one’s own existence and advantages.

and a little contribution to the PC [ugggh!] debate:

Rudolph the Valued Member of the Reindeer Community

“[I]nclusive school programming may allow children to perceive . . . reindeer such as Rudolph as a reindeer, not as a ‘red-nosed reindeer’.”

Susan Gately, “A Textual Deconstruction of Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer: Utilitarian, Mechanistic, and Static Constructions of Disability in Society and in Schools” Essays in Philosophy, Vol. 9:1, January 2008, wherein we happily learn that “Rudolph eventually rejects the institutionalized notion that one with a red nose has no worth.”

Lord preserve us from people who use titles like Destiny's Child.

[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?

[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.

[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

H/T Verlin Martin [Lord Nazh]:

[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.

[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.

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

I like this one. Would you do it?

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