[new sovereignty] obama and the nau

Matt writes:

Unless USSC takes this up in five days time, says yes to hearing oral arguments, and rules favorably setting a precedent that will make Obama ineligible on all the Electoral College's ballots nationwide, we'll have a non-citizen as president.

This is of concern too:

I originally found this via VA again. Now, I don't agree much with what this Russian says but he did mention the amero ... My truthful opinion is most Americans would accept the NAU if it meant they could keep their money (despite the fact it would be in ameros, not dollars).

I commented:

That's most certainly how it will be sold to the public. I'm not convinced they'll "declare" anything beyond what is absolutely necessary and what has to be declared will be sugar coated for the hip pocket.

Ian Parker Joseph states:

The question is: how will the elite, the corporate rulers and the government leaders ‘sell’ this bill of goods to the electorate? Traditionally, instilling a climate of fear and using the tried and true, ‘problem-reaction solution’ method achieves this.

Whether it be a thoughtful, well planned and executed economic crash, or whether some tragic and unforeseen ‘event’ happens, a frightened population will always react to the problem and demand a solution from its government.

A CFR taskforce recommended that by 2010, a North American Union be created, not as a sovereign state but in charge of:

# single economic zone,
# single area of free movements of people,
# single education system,
# single defense and security system,
# single social benefits system,

... within the three countries. The NA Advisory Council would oversee this.You'll note that taxation is not mentioned in that and I don't know the current proposals, having not looked at this for some time. It might be good to read the document itself [pdf], plus this one on the genesis of the organization, to get the "feel" of it.

Obama's take on it all?

Under George W. Bush, the United States has not lived up to its historic role as a leader in the Western Hemisphere. As president, I will restore that leadership by working to advance the common prosperity and security of all of the people of the Americas. That work must begin with a renewed strategic partnership with Mexico.

Our relationship with Mexico should serve as a bridge to greater security and prosperity in North America and to better relations with Latin America.

I don't feel that his remarks, in total, amount to the NAU as such but if it were the plan, it would hardly be conceded in an up front speech like that. Actually, he did say, in answer to a gimme question:

"I know some people have been hearing rumors about it. But as far as I can tell that's just not something that's happening. We would never give up our sovereignty in that way. Any other questions?"

Not in what way? To concede sovereignty openly? As mentioned above, that has never been the tactic. So all that Americans can do, for now, is watch vigilantly and wait. Obama is obviously au fait with the naughty words he must never say - Amero, SPPNA, NAU, CFR - and he is treading carefully.

[housekeeping] communication channels

There are a few communication problems just now.

Both emails are down or erratic so for my Russian and Australian friends whom I know check this blog – I’ve set up a new email account [not web-based] on another computer and will send a letter to each of you. Expect it from that new address.

For blogfriends, I’m setting up a second email account and will send a message to you. Please don’t provide that address to anyone, as it won’t be listed.

For the blogosphere in general, I’ll need to set up a default email, a third and that will happen some time soon but I need to think that one through and set up security devices which will shut out the unwanted. Much real life action just now is soaking up the time, such as shifting house.

Bloghounds can communicate via regular channels as their business is not affected by all this.

I’m running comment moderation at the moment for posts older than 14 days but as it doesn’t connect with an email any more, I’m having to view Blogger’s dashboard near the blog name, which lists each comment as one line which I can’t get to expand. Sorry but I’m not prepared to approve publication of a comment on that basis, given the spam of late.

So the bottom line is – it will all get sorted soon and sorry for the inconvenience. I’ll post this below my main morning post of the day.

[classic language quiz] five simple questions

1. Hoi polloi means what in Greek?

2. The expression vox populi, the voice of the people, is often followed by which other vox?

3. Paparazzo (played by Walter Santesso) was a character in a film by Federico Fellini. Which film? This is the origin of the term paparazzi.

4. Which Latin adjective is sometimes inserted in mea culpa to emphasize the point, so that it reads, roughly, as "my most grievous fault"?

5. Procrustean means an arbitrary standard to which exact conformity is forced. The name, referring to a character from Greek mythology, means the ________ .


Answers are here.

[canadian roulette] whither integrity

The Canadian situation illustrates that in politics, no blow is too low:

In the Commons, Mr. Dion attacked Mr. Harper for considering a move to prorogue Parliament – ending the session and starting another one in the New Year – portraying him as taking illegitimate steps to dodge defeat in a confidence vote on the economic update the Tories introduced last week.

So, rather than work in with Harper to get over this economic crisis and thrash out some sort of joint policy, Dion resorts to separatists to overthrow a recently elected government which requires stability to achieve anything at all. Is Dion providing Canada with that stability? Can he be trusted? Then again, Harper himself resorting to a tactic he did, say, in 2005, was outrageous.

What it all says to me is that party politics is the worst way to run a country when the chips are down.

[brit girls] are easy

There's been another one of those interminable studies. An Australian travel blog mentions a study saying that British girls are the most promiscuous in the world:

Basically, the Poms are up for one-night stands and casual sex. Far more so than Australians, if the study is to be believed.

Now, this might have come as a surprise to the older set, still pushing the "no sex please, we're British" stereotype. However, as any once-lonely Aussie backpacker will be able to tell you, it's pretty much the opposite that's true. Which is probably why we get on so well.

One commenter agreed with the study's findings:

Yep, found that English (and Irish) girls (outside of their own country) are always fun to meet. When they're back home I've found they can be a bit more conservative, but that's probably the same anywhere right?

I've always observed [in celibate and saintly manner, from a distance, of course] that most nations' ladies are not above a little international cooperation.

[libraries] always a place for the dead tree media

Blogger Xensen has almost finished rebuilding his library and that raises the question, in my mind, of whether we need physical libraries any more. Let me say up front that I feel we do.

Bryan Appleyard took on the might of the digitisphere in early 2007 with his article on the death of the book and replied to the flak thus:

I wrote an article in The Sunday Times about Google's digitisation of the world's libraries. Some - Google included - seemed to think I said this was about to destroy civilisation. This does not fill me with hope about the ability of these people - Google included - to read.

Commenter Mitar is an apostle of the new reading:

I just hope that there will be the day when information will be freely accessible and not limited only to the people who can afford it, which, I believe, will help more developing nations than care for their cultural well-being.

Overall it seems to me that very similar ideas were around when Gutenberg invented movable type. 500 years ago we got books which enabled us to share information and knowledge easier, more rapidly and to regions where this was not possible before.

Now we are at the similar point in our history, we are getting rid of the limits the material nature of the books have and we are going forward. This are steps forward. I think you should enjoy the ride.

I was interested in Mitar's "this are steps forward". Bit more than a typo, methinks. Commenter Jack covered my thoughts about literacy and reading here:

I can say, from the point of view of this librarian at a baccalaureate institution, that it's not the death of the book we should be worried about, it's the death of reading. Like the USA Today newspaper in America that shortened all journalism into two paragraphs, digitising a book gives it to a medium that does not encourage reading, is not designed for reading, and considers reading to be tedious.

It used to be called "sustained reading," a concept teachers promoted to encourage a lifelong appreciation for the written word, and the book was the ultimate device for delving into the understanding of the world. But now Google's push for digital copy will accelerate that death, by moving it to a medium that looks remarkably like a television, and by all accounts acts like one too. Is it any wonder we know so little about our world?

It seems to me that both have a point - the net has certainly freed up information but there are two points which need addressing straight away.

Firstly, commenter Devon said:

You seem to have an overarching assumption that when data is held digitally, it is of a lower form called information. Conversely, when touched by a human mind, this data is risen to a higher form called knowledge. Now, I am likely oversimplifying your views, and I don't wish to be condescending.

Even if we are to simply regard knowledge as either true or useful information, there is absolutely no reason to assume that a human is more likely than an algorithm to reference it until we know more about both the human and the algorithm.

Data held digitally is of no less quality than information on the dead-tree page but there is now a second issue - that the whole aim of the Google digitization, being to make information freely available across the globe, is undercut by the development of the ebook, DRM, the two-tier net and semi-governmental regulatory practices.

About ebooks, L'Ombre says:

Well mostly what we seem to have learned is that there is a demand for ebooks and that if the publisher doesn't meet that demand then others will do so. Furthermore there is probably a continuum. If no ebooks exist then many high quality free versions of popular books will show up, if the publisher sells the ebooks with DRM at high prices then some bootleg copies will occur and if the publisher makes the books available for low cost (and without DRM though it is hard to control for that) then very few if any bootleg copies will be made available.

So we are back to the same old story - that information will again be available for those willing to subscribe to it, i.e. those with the money. The only hope for the less affluent is the public library and for the slightly better off, the slow building of a real library in real space in a real room.

The danger in that, of course, was illustrated in Fahrenheit 451.

In the end, to Mitar's distinction between information and knowledge, can be added a third issue - simple literacy. I hate to say it but the syntactical, grammatical and spelling errors which abound today, even in publications intended for foreign learners of English [and that is mortifying] show how far literacy has slipped in two generations.

UPDATE: You might like to look at Angus Dei's take on the matter.