April 17th, 2005
|03:06 am - Ghosts of posts|
There's a current of feeling going around that the British election hasn't been very interesting so far due to the fact that the differences between the parties aren't dramatic. The most interesting piece of journalism I've seen so far this election is this piece in The Times (so, sadly, UK-only) about how voters' political issue preferences are lining up; if the battleground isn't about tax any more, then what the left-right divide means in this country these days. Hat tip to ewx for the link to the snappily-titled (heavily British) Political Survey 2005, which is what it says it is and far more interesting than the Who Should You Vote For? jobby going round these days - which I think is far from well-designed, though not deliberately overt propaganda. (nja and others have been engaging in interesting analysis here.) My results show that I am a fairly strong internationalist, as opposed to nationalist, though I've seen (and admired!) one considerably more internationalist score still from a Friend already.
Changing the subject, I have a not-very-exciting theory that if you mean to write about something topical in LJ and don't do so immediately, the chance of you doing so goes down very rapidly as time goes by - more than linearly, though I wouldn't like to wildly stab at a power. Accordingly, I have a long list of things that I have long meant to LJ about and now accept that I never will. Therefore I'm going to try to flush the buffer by telling you about (some of!) the things I meant to post to LJ about but never did. If you'd like me to remove any of these from the j_p trashcan before I press the recycle button then speak up and I may blog about them yet.
Otherwise, it's just a list of random links and vague titles...
http://www.livejournal.com/users/songmonk/904366.html - my comments
http://pokersearch.pokerclan.com/forum/pokerclan/?f=25 - The Big Game
http://www.bealaerospace.com/articles/DMagazine/ - Andy Beal
http://guinnessandpoker.blogspot.com/2004_05_02_guinnessandpoker_archive.html#108377010692152426 - WSoP history
Ah, Gay Paris
Come Home Billy Bird: http://www.onlylyrics.com/read.php?id=9945
Sports: 10 biggest prizes in sport
National character: do different nations have different characters?
Silly shop names: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3732960.stm#cutabove
"When you see this, post a bit of poetry in your own journal."
Politics: NE Assembly
Gambling - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3754960.stm
Words: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3755482.stm - applet / URL
Jon Stewart on Crossfire: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3749790.stm
Settlers of Catan WC: http://www.herne.de/spielezentrum/SPZ-Engl/e-home3.htm
Brave New World
The Journey to Wild Divine - http://www.wilddivine.com/ - three finger sensors that track your body's heart rate variability and skin conductance. http://wilddivine.dreamingx.com/hsite.php?id=1131&sub=HS = $148, expansion software $40
http://www.alinghi.com/en/ac2007/challengers/oracle/ - Chris Dickson sails again!
cuboctahedron - http://www.peda.com/models/
Pentominoes (daweaver, addedentry)
I also wish to recognise the contribution of shortcake biscuits to my diet today. Thanks, shortcake. Thortcake.
Current Mood: productive
I'm very curious about what you wanted to post about Brave New World...and also how it can be topically-linked, since the book is not exactly recent. (Which isn't to say that its message isn't relevant, just that I wouldn't think you'd have to worry about whether your LJ post on it happened fast enough.)
I imagine he was planning to post a book review, seeing as how I know that he finally picked up a copy and read it for the first time a couple of months back. :D (It'd be interesting to see just what kind of review he could produce after a significant period of time had passed, though...)
Then if this is true, I would be interested in reading said review. Since I just reread it and all. :-)
See below. *snogs Meg again*
Okey-doke. What I can remember about Brave New World from four months after reading it:
1) It was surprisingly easy to read. I am somewhat leery about older pieces of writing, but this has aged tremendously well.
2) I'm glad it took such a satirical twist towards the end. It could have been very depressing indeed but was just plain fun farce as a result.
3) It was tremendously thrilling to see the remark about disparaging game and forms of recreation that did nothing to drive consumption! Whole (cottage) industries have been built on the principles thereof...
4) I was idly thinking that it might be fun to try to recreate and realise invented games from speculative fiction - given that I've done Quidditch, it could definitely be possible to emulate the likes of Centrifugal Bumble-Puppy. (I just like saying Centrifugal Bumble-Puppy!) On later reading, though, it does seem to be much more missing the point, though.
5) Soma is a very interesting concept, especially living in a world where antidepressants are fact and commonplace. The two can't completely be compared and I don't have the experience or knowledge of the subject to try, even if they could; it would be dangerous and wrong to extrapolate knowledge of one into the other, but it's an interesting parallel at least.
6) He did very well in predicting a brave new world which, if not accurate, is inaccurate in interesting ways. What lessons can we learn from it in our reality?
The analysis at the Huxleyweb (?) site is sometimes a little heavy going but very interesting.
There's a current of feeling going around that the British election hasn't been very interesting so far due to the fact that the differences between the parties aren't dramatic.
Run like hell, Mr. Dickson. U.K. '05 is the new U.S. '00
Yes, I was thinking that. Gore and Bush, hey, they're basically the same, clearly not worth turning out, it won't make a difference...
Well, essentially had 9/11 (er, 11.9) never happened Bush would have been a completely inconsequential president. Gore would have been too. It wasn't until somewhere around the start of the Iraq war where politicalities and schism developed, and things took a[nother] turn for the worse.
I disagree, I think the domestic politics would have been the same without 9/11, and there is a real difference there, though Bush would probably have lost last year.
I don't doubt that Bush would have lost without 9/11. However, much of his domestic agenda was caused by/promoted via political capital from 9/11.
The USA PATRIOT Act wouldn't have been passed without 9/11. Bush got essentially a free ride from the press until we found out we were going to Iraq about a year later, and even then press was mostly positive. Bush wouldn't have had as much support for his pet projects if he wasn't a "wartime president" and he even couldn't get the gay marriage amendment passed.
If Bush can't pass Social Security Reform, we have all the makings of another 1994: a divisive President, congressional ethics problems, and a major policy failure which (assuming that the Democrats can do something with it) could shift the legislative branch to Democrat control again.
Bush spent most of the period prior to 9/11 on holiday (er, vacation), and no doubt would have carried that on for the rest of the term if he'd had the chance.
Bush is a lot like Reagan in that he was the populist vehicle/cheerleader for another group of people, and really isn't that necessary in policy decisions. I'm not saying either is a puppet, at least moreso than any other politician is, but there are strings involved.
I don't agree with that current of feeling, though; the linked issues comparator spells out the differences (excellent public service!) and the Times article (which, er, you probably won't be able to see without a paid subscription, being outside the UK) clearly illustrates what the true battleground is - and why.
Well, there were differences between GWB and Gore, too. But not dramatic. It certainly wasn't another matchup between Bush vs. Clinton and Perot, where each candidate had lot of differences to each other.
O for multi-member constituencies or other, more proprotional, forms of representation where there's always something for the minority parties to play for and less tendency to assume safe seats!
|Date:||April 17th, 2005 09:28 pm (UTC)|| |
That is called "The Law of Diminishing Intent," and it is a quite common psychological phenomenon.
"I really should take my car in for an oil change. I'll do it tomorrow." You quite honestly do intend to tomorrow, but you don't, and as each day passes, the odds of taking it in go down and down until it becomes something that can no longer be put off. (also: writing a will, doing taxes, etc.)
I wonder if the principle can be used as a concept for an entertaining game at all? Doesn't seem obvious...
good heavens! -- I am a dangerous extremist
on this poll. At (-7.5, -1.8) there is only one person in the entire sample who is more rehabilitation / internationalist than me, and only 2% are more socialist / anti-war. Even among Guardian-readers, 88% are significantly to my right on the rehab/inter axis ;-)
Hurrah! *votes for Mo*
I wonder where Dr. N. Palmer Esq. of Broxtowe would be on that poll? I would happily vote for the Flagship Party, though I fear we'd have three Chancellors of the Exchequer, six Foreign Secretaries, nineteen Ministers of Security and who knows how many Postmasters General...
I would argue that you were a far-from-dangerous extremist, or extremely far-from-dangerous. Mind you, perhaps everyone on the x>0 side of the Y axis would agree with your self-assessment!
I wonder where Dr. N. Palmer Esq. of Broxtowe would be on that poll?
According to the Publc Whip
, he has voted against the Government just 17 times out of 1854, and in this Parliament his voting record is identical with Tony Blair's (when they both voted)...
The Flagship Party sounds like a fine idea, though. Maybe we should suggest to Carol that she run a politics game as the next reader-participation thing, to get people warmed up.