The Grim Hamster lord

First... we celebrated your birthday. Hope it was happy. Look up your birthday topic in Warm Wishes. As for the PickensPlan... this you absolutely do want to know about. Here is one man, T. Boone Pickens, who made his fortune in oil. He is starting the world's largest wind farm in Texas. Look up PickensPlan. You will be impressed. He is spending 10 billion of his own money for this project. I've seen the PickensPlan and while it is admirable and far superior to any drilling in ANWR or off the coast of Florida (surely McCain would never get your vote?), it seems more like someone who is trying to compensate for a lifetime of environmental destruction and less admirable *cough*SwiftboatChallenge*cough* than the work of a committed environmentalist. But, who cares about motive? What mattes is that Pickens has come up with a plan which could turn around the United States before the "Climatic tipping point" of 440 CO2/ppm is reached. Shame not even Obama will have the guts to go through with it, for fear of being accused of "creeping socialism" and "socialism by the back door." But then again, so was FDR and LBJ.

Sorry I keep staying away for so long. I don't know about Obama's speech in Berlin, but I saw him in London. I'd say he'd get my vote, if I was a US citizen. As to the Pickens Plan, I've not heard of it, but if it is anything like the pathetic Swift Boat challenge then I don't want to know.

Space based solar panels? Hugely fantastic idea and will be the future of energy production - when they finally can develop the technology at reasonable prices. With the cost of space travel and the high maintenance of these panels, we won't see them until beyond 2050 which is largely seen as the "watershed" for having lowered carbon emissions beyond 80% in the developed world. To clarify about the microwaves - there is an issue with safety, but some proposals make allowances for the microwaves being less concentrated, so would reduce any damage in the (unlikely, but still probable) event of the satellites shifting out of geostationary orbit and transmitting down outside of the target area. By the by, I don't suppose any of you who support the Iraq War have read the United Nations Charter recently? Or the Russell-Einstein manifesto? "Here, then, is the problem which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war?" Also, hello all! I see you've decided to skip the whole "election" business and just gone to assume Barack Obama is the President now?

TGHL's amazing list of Presidents of the USA of the 20th century post-WWII - ranked in order of awesome 1) Lyndon Banes Johnson (when we forget about Vietnam) 2) Harry S Truman 3) JFK 4) (Lyndon Johnson when I remember Vietnam) 5) Dwight D Eisenhower 6) Bill Clinton 7) George W Bush Sr (before the 1992 fiasco) 8) Jimmy Carter 9) Richard Nixon 10) Gerald Ford 11) Ronald Reagan 12) George W Bush Debate and discuss, Horatio would probably knock Bill Clinton down several pegs I'm sure. Deservedly too.

Aside from Japanese backpacks... Two things: 1) Same-Sex Marriage in California: It is fantastic that a US state has legalised same-sex marriage; to go beyond the norm of civil partnerships and to give equal status to homosexual couples is fantastic. Regrettably, the UK has yet to legalise gay marriage, although civil partnerships mean that they are equal in all but name. 2) I just finally received my copy of RFK's memoirs of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Its a fantastic read, especially the document section which includes the letters and communication between JFk and Khrushchev. 3) Ted Kennedy.

I, the Hamster Lord that is Grim, swear I shall abide by those rules. And post more often.

Good news for Horatio: I have long since defected to Obama. Why? Well, since the soaring rhetoric didn't win me over, I thought I'd read one of his books. The moment he started advocating international development over military intervention, I was won over. Obama for President! *cue singing and dancing by Horatio* I'm guessing that Horatio will sing "Ding-Dong! The Witch Is Dead" in his best Julie Garland impression when Clinton finally quits the Democratic race? I still expect she'll be the one jumping on Obama's back and whooping and hollering on the way to the convention to get the VP though. And if things start looking grim for Obama on the way to the 2012 elections, I suspect she'll start knitting "I told you so" jumpers and get ready to launch a challenge to Obama for the nomination.

What do you do when they trick you into thinking it was a simulator but it was all real and you just flew a jet from Ohio to New York full of real passengers? If that hasn't happened yet, I'm pitching it to a network and making millions and then I'm going to throw them at the guys who wrote the Sopranos and Mad Men while laughing at how a poor reality TV show beat their well executed, slick genius television programmes. Do you want to be the first contestant Horatio? No prizes, except international fame. Fame not included In other words, congratulations Horatio on passing your first test. I wish you the best of luck with the rest of them and I'm sure you'll ace them with flying colours.

Tell him I'm sorry. We all are.

I side with Hillary. The Democratic Party should not have punished Florida and Michigan by suspending all delegates: it should instead have had its delegate totals slashed as punishment, in the same way the Republicans did. Shame Romney didn't go on fighting. If he had, it could have irrevocably damaged the Republican Party's ability to start campaigning in preparation for November's elections. Oh and I have a handy scorecard from the BBC on how close the candidates are to getting the nomination. Look up on the BBC site, US elections.

Who won again? I keep hearing mixed reports of Clinton getting more delegates and the key states, Obama getting more states and more delegates. Nothing seems quite concrete. All I know is that Clinton is winning in terms of delegates and super-delegates and will probably win the delegate rich states of Ohio and Texas, while Obama might pick up the smaller ones.

Not like it came out of the blue or anything, but I was hoping he'd stick it through longer. I'm just hoping, praying, for a president who's not stubborn and can help America stop drowning in its own 100% partisan, war-rendered, "moral" stained feces. Speaking of which McCain is coming to my campus and the band is looking for volunteers to play. I'm not going. At first I was like "cool a candidate is coming to us!" And then I lamented "why him??" I don't like holding a grudge against a candidate mostly for his religious attributes, but that's pretty much all he is, or is made out to be at least, and for me that does not make a good political leader (assuming there can be one). The band director claimed that neither the band nor the university is endorsing any particular candidate, but I have trouble believing that. Let's see a Democrat, or at least a moderate Republican, visit us after McCain. (for the record I probably wouldn't have attended anyway, I have too many plans riding on me being home during the event). There is such a thing? McCain is the best out of a bad lot. Look at who you've got: A multi-millionaire who is, in a word, a nutter (Romney), a crazy Libertarian who wants to revert back to 1929 (Paul), someone who can't decide if he is a rock hard conservative or a moderate, possibly due to some wound he got back in Vietnam (McCain) and then OH NO STAY AWAY HUCKABBE ARGH ARGH STAY AWAY IT BURNS! (Huckabee). I have a radical solution: You don't vote Republican come November. Vote Democrat no matter what. No matter Clinton. I wonder if Mike Bloomburg will step in as an independent or not...

Guliani has stepped out too, backing McCain. No sign from Edwards as to who he is backing, bets are on a swing to Clinton which will give her the nomination as that extra 18-5% who voted Edwards back her over Obama.

Edwards bites the dust at 6PM GMT, 1PM ET. Check out the British publication called The Guardian. The John Edwards story. Comments?

I might have to hold my views hostage to get you to post more. So, what did you think of the South Carolina Primary???????? Did you read what the Economist said? "Hillary gets thumped!" Obama blew Hillary off the map. The majority of the South Carolina vote that Hillary received was the white-woman voter. Then old Billy exhibited his bad loser style while campaigning for his wife in the midwest. I never get apathetic about politics. Frustration may come into play, as politicians seem to be a group of losers, but hopefully one will stand out in the crowd. Guiliani started in Florida with about 55% or so, now he is still there and down to around 20 something percent!!! Here is a perfect example where he should have quit while he was ahead. Blackmail? Surely not? I think the victory has been overestimated. The post-poll figures should make worrying news for Obama, because he only won due to the overwhelming African-American support in that state. While he drew the majority of the African-American vote, he got barely any of the white vote, the majority of that going to Edwards, and then there was Hillary in the middle with a mix of the two. Kudos to Obama for inspiring so many to come out and vote, but what was the final percentage he got? 55%. What proportion of the overall vote was African-American? 55%. While I'm not saying he is drawing from a solely African-American base, I am saying that exit poles indicate that he got 80% of the African-American vote and only 15% of the white (and all under 30s interestingly), compared with with Hillary's mixture of white, African-American, men and women. Super Tuesday will decide the nomination I suspect, and if polls are to be believed, it is Hillary all the way I am afraid. The Democratic nomination has become divided on race now, and once John Edwards drops out (must be happening soon, right?) Hillary will get the white, male population which will swing it into her favour. As it is, she is almost guaranteed the Latino and white women's support, but it is how Edwards' supporters swing to that will decide the candidacy. She certainly needs to keep Bill on a leash though, negative campaigning definitely hurt her in South Carolina. Good, an apathetic voting population is the worst thing for democracy. Poor, poor Guiliani. McCain has in effect got the candidacy now, unless some mysterious cloud of pro-Rudy feeling springs from Florida and Super Tuesday or if America turns out to be dominated by right-wing evangelicals and some how manages to vote Romney or Huckabee in.

So I heard you'd give some views on a certain documentary? Its quite interesting, I've gotten into political philosophy quite a bit recently so I found Isaiah Berlin's lecture a very interesting read. Not something you might readily find on Amazon, though I believe the Oxford University Press publish some of Berlin's work still. I wouldn't get apathetic about politics, it still matters even when they do seem to become debase, amoral beings. Interesting article in the Guardian today though on how Clinton's tactics are drawing white voters away from Obama and leaving him with a solely African-American base and Edwards has a solely white base, while Clinton has support of whites, African-Americans and Latinos. Such a shame about Guliani collapsing out of the Florida race, although I found it increasingly hard to tell the difference between Guliaini the man who slept on his gay friend's couch and introduced social liberalism to NYC and Guliani the Iran hating, terrorist hunting Neo-Conservative nutter. You should probably mark the box which says Clinton Or Michael Bloomburg (kekeke), anything so long as it isn't Republican. ESPECIALLY NOT HUCKABEE OR ROMNEY.

I was expecting an opportunity to denounce some conspiracies. There is but one solution to the dilemma we face: Go ninja team?

I've been waiting for you. You need to come around more often. You always send me on searching trips. The concepts of negative liberty and positive liberty, I know nothing about, but I will educate myself by your return. As for my thoughts of the Power of Nightmares... I am saving my reply until you start showing up on a regular basis. Tell me about the Curtis documentary. What are your thoughts? Any views on the Democratic Race? Sorry, life at the moment is all a bit pressured and intense. Isaiah Berlin, an Oxford political philosopher, gave a lecture in the 1950s called "Two Concepts of Liberty" which theorised that there were two types of liberty in the world: Positive Liberty, freedom by being given the means and opportunities to achieve your full potential, and Negative Liberty, freedom from coercion, or the state. While praising the idea of Positive Liberty, he said it was intrinsically flawed, because the people who tried to create it ended their dreams of positive liberty in a police state and a bloodbath; citing examples of the French Revolution ("We will force you to be free") and Lenin's USSR. He said that negative liberty, an individualistic view, was the only solution, because only through an individualist society could we be free from the pressures of society and the tyranny of state. Berlin's ideas took hold in the Cold War; influencing both the governments of Reagan and Thatcher. However, Curtis argues that negative freedom is a very narrow view of freedom and ultimately leads to "market liberalism." A system which sets out to free people using free market economics and applying them to public services, foreign affairs and all areas of policy. But, rather than freeing people through the free market system, it entraps them with numbers: To use the NHS as an example, Thatcher's application of market liberalism led to a collapse in the system. Doctors, nurses and all the medical professions found themselves under the control of administrators who were obsessed with reaching the performance targets imposed on them by the new system of market liberalism. They had to find as many ways as possible to manipulate the figures in order to escape the threat of budget cuts, redundancies and inspections. One hospital ended up solving the waiting list targets by taking the wheels off trolleys and reclassifying them as beds while simultaneously renaming corridors as wards. In response to this abuse, the government had to put more control over the system, paradoxically defeating the idea of freeing people that they set out with. And yet politicians remained convinced that this was just anomalies, despite wide spread reports of abuse, and continued with market liberalism. The same application of mathematics and economics to the psychiatric profession in the USA has caused the mental health "epidemic" that is ongoing: the system uses a check-list of behaviours to identify disorders without any measure given to information about each individual's lives. In reality, patients were diagnosed with disorders when they didn't have any, as the system mistook normal human behaviours such as depression, anxiety and stress as being abnormal conditions which needed to be treated through brain altering drugs like prozac and lithium. Many people in the USA and the UK, do not have many of the disorders psychiatrists claim they do, but because the system is based on an objective rationality to diagnose something which needs a lot of subjective information there has become a false epidemic of "undiscovered" mental health issues. Market liberalism is what ultimately destroyed Russia; by removing all controls, prices and instantly removing all state industries forced the Russian people to sell off their items or starve in the face of collapsed currency and soaring food prices. They then developed into the modern day Russian who supports Putin: Those who favour security and stability over freedom. In the UK and USA, we have both ended up with social stagnation and elites; the poor got poorer, the middle classes got a bit richer and the elites made ridiculous profits at the expense of everyone. The deregulation of the market by both Clinton/Bush and Blair administrations has led to corrupt corporations like Enron, who lie about their profits to maximise their personal bonuses and sacrifice plans like Health Care and Education in favour of the free market, despite the detrimental effect it has on both. Curtis develops this into how we can truly be free; by recognising that Berlin was wrong. His ideals were born out of paranoia and fear of the USSR, and that the Soviet Union was not an accurate representation of positive liberty. I know none of these links will be allowed, but I shall do so for Horatio's benefit: Sorry I had to delete this. Horatio This post rather counts as being active for an entire month? Well, I treat it with the usual critical eye I do to all things, but what I find with Curtis' documentaries are that they take things I know to be true and develops the background and narrative of events. Some of them, like The Trap, introduce me to new concepts like the Two concepts of liberty which I can research myself and allows me to come to my own conclusions. On the whole, I find them more objective than most documentaries due to their use and reliance on expert interviews, news footage and broadcasts. Certainly more objective than Michael Moore's work. The Democratic Debate... There was a short moment where it was about politics, but now it has descended into divisions over race and gender. Obama and Clinton are as bad as each other, ignoring on developing the politics necessary to defeat the Republicans and choosing to engage on smear campaigns against each other which will destroy the Democratic Party's core support as African-Americans are alienated by Hilary's attacks on Obama and women alienated by Obama's on Hilary. The best thing to do now is rapid reconciliation and a refocus on the politics of the campaign. Hilary would be wise to heed it or face abandonment by black voters in November. The dream ticket of Clinton-Obama may be dead I fear and Edwards may be out of the contest altogether at this rate, as he is excluded increasingly from the race by the media and Clinton and Obama focusing entirely on themselves and each other.

I'm watching yet another Adam Curtis documentary, entitled "The Trap: How we lost our freedom." I am still curious as to what Horatio thought of the Power of Nightmares. Is anyone familiar with the concepts of "negative liberty" and "positive liberty?"

Bhutto was expecting to be assassinated. How sad. As for her son, well, only time will tell. Let's hope he doesn't get assassinated as well. Tribal politics... that is all I see there. Obama... I am glad at he won Iowa. Clinton didn't even come in second. *round of applause* I hope she sinks faster than the Titanic. Take a look at the article in the December 2007, Atlantic Monthly on Obama. Let me know what you think. And yes... I did view it. Oxford, how fantastic. I certainly hope you get accepted. Please keep us posted. Yes, she is a great loss for Pakistan. Especially since Nawaz Sharif is an awful leader, but other than the PPP he is the only democratic alternative to Bhutto's party. As for tribal politics, I think it has gone beyond that now. Now it is sinking into chaos. So am I, I just suspect he won't be able to replicate that success in the rest of the caucuses, whereas Hillary will be able to if you look at how great her lead is over Obama and Edwards in New Hampshire. I really don't like Edwards incidentally. I hope he drops out quick. Having read the Obama article, I find myself wanting him more and more to succeed, its just that I don't think he will be able to triumph against a strong Republican candidate like McCain or Guliani, or even an independent Bloomburg and to be honest, its more about having a Democrat in the White House than how that Democrat is presented. As that article points out, it is not about policy, as all the policies are very close together, but the character of the person presenting them and I'm not sure the American public would choose this inspirational, young, black candidate over a more experienced, solid candidate... like Clinton... Thoughts on it? Thank you. I actually got my acceptance letter just before Christmas, so all I need is the grades. Three As though in three very academic subjects. :closedeyes:

Oh and: [insert word here], Benazir Bhutto got assassinated. A dark day for democracy in Pakistan and worldwide. These weeks have not been good to democracy: Bhutto was assassinated, Kenya is on fire after vote rigging and Iowa chose Huckabee. HUCKABEE. In other news, I have met the new leader of the PPP, Bhutto's son, when I was at Oxford for my interviews. I say met, I mean saw for a brief moment. I wonder how he will lead the PPP in the run up to the elections.

I found the related article to the production, and that was scary in itself. I've never thought of it this way. I mean, it wasn't like I was taking all the words of the politicians for fact, but I never realized exactly how much of it could have been built off of an illusion. That is what I was hoping! I gave you enough details to find it on your own. Yes, there happens to be a website where you can watch it for free, but obviously I am not at liberty to say which website that is. Try Google. Non-BBC website. Rhymes with Smarchive. I take it you watched it yourself Horatio? And yes. Huckabee is a psychotic fanatic who scares me deeply. Same goes for all Republican candidates except Guliani. Stupid Iowa. Stupid racist, religionist, ultraconservative fanatics who voted for Huckabee and Romney of Iowa. And I'm not surprised Obama beat Clinton in Iowa, but what I think will happen now is that Clinton will win the next lot of caucuses and Obama will be behind.

I implore you to watch this: The Power of Nightmares on the BBC site. [Deleted until I can ask HampsterKing if this would be permitted.] The power of myths are quite strong, no?

What's the point in getting married when the entire concept of marriage is of subservience to the man and of a male-female relationship? So if a couple just lives together, then there is no subservience? Not if they choose not to. If you choose to serve, then its your choice. In marriage, you have to swear to be subservient regardless of what you want, what you believe in and what happens in the future. I thought they took those words out of the marriage vows. Depends on which denomination you are and which Bible you use. The majority still stick to the traditional version. And of course, homosexuals are not allowed anywhere near the pulpit. They are permitted in the pulpit in the Episcopal church. Did I say pulpit? I meant altar. That makes a difference. Certainly when it comes to getting married it does.

What's the point in getting married when the entire concept of marriage is of subservience to the man and of a male-female relationship? So if a couple just lives together, then there is no subservience? Not if they choose not to. If you choose to serve, then its your choice. In marriage, you have to swear to be subservient regardless of what you want, what you believe in and what happens in the future. I thought they took those words out of the marriage vows. Depends on which denomination you are and which Bible you use. The majority still stick to the traditional version. And of course, homosexuals are not allowed anywhere near the pulpit. They are permitted in the pulpit in the Episcopal church. Did I say pulpit? I meant altar.