h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

No, we did send John Newcombe (the tennis player) over to keep Dubya drunk for a few years, although i don't think this was a government plot to stop him running for office

Our electoral system, while far from perfect, is not too bad as far as democratic systems go. Elections these days seem to be decided by Murdoch and Packer (who control the media) rather than the CIA which i guess is a step forward

Attack 'on' Kashmir? Kashmir is in India isn't it - surely action within your own borders is 'in' not 'on', unless you're being alarmist - question the semantics of your sources.

Hi autist. Kashmir seems to me to be one of those debatable points as to whose land it real is. It was never really sorted out when India and Pakistan were in the British empire. When Pakistan was created after the Brits pulled out it just happened that the Indians had a more powerful army and could just about hold most of this contested region.

Quite why they would want to is the bit that confuses me. Why fight over a bunch of useless rocks in the middle of nowhere? I thought that it was only the British that would do such a thing vis the Falklands

Surley it's always been Indian - hence the P - A - K acronym which makes up Pakistan's name - it's border states Punjab, Afganistan, Kashmir. I know it's contested territory, and that Pakistan have long since funded the rebels there, it just seemed odd that the phrase "Indias attack on Kashmir" was used, when it was effectively an attack on India within Kashmir to which India have eacted with internal force.

I don't know that this is the case BTW, i only heard about it here.

India and Pakistan are still in the British Commonwealth.

As I understand it, rebels from both India and Pakistan want to form an independant country in Kashmir. Currently, 33,000 sq miles of Kashmir is in Pakistan, the rest is in India.

[url removed by moderator]

> "Electoral votes are given to states based on the population of the state taken from the census."

Set minimum of three votes per state unfairly favours residents of smaller states, who thus have more electoral power. Number of votes per state updated every ten (five?) years, so remains continually out of data. Update of number of votes subject to political interference AKA gerrymandering.

Incidentally, this is the same problem that the UK has with constituencies - likewise, in the UK someone can form a majority government even though they had the smallest number of votes cast. In the UK, as in the US, this is a historical abberation that has been kept because it (sort of) works.

You may find it educational to look at the figure of (number of electoral votes/population) for each of the USA states. To be fair, this should be constant across all states, in practice there is significant variation.

> "since we're the ones with the space technology"

Along with Russia (first country in space), the EU (European Space Agency), China (lowest cost per satellite in the world).

> "since we're the ones with the space technology"

Along with Russia (first country in space), the EU (European Space Agency), China (lowest cost per satellite in the world).

Having read the document that Lucinda posted the other day one thing stands out beyond the fact that the information is circumstantial at the best, speculation in the main, prosecutable nowhere. Thats the preface by Her Majesties Government where it uses two phrases:

"This document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Osama Bin Laden in a court of law."

"But on the basis of all the information available HMG is confident of its conclusions as expressed in this document."

So the government is saying it has decided to knowingly act above the law.

I guess that HMG isn't telling you everything, as usual...

Truth is the FIRST casualty of WAR

Rod

Della,

I'll start with this. I am not Christian, but I was raised Baptist. (the southern kind <lol&gt So I can understand the thought that he may *seem* to be putting on a show.

I don't really see how it matters if he is sincere or not. (oh c$$p I've done it again ) If some people derive comfort from it, then hey, that is all that matters. If some find it fake, then that is their own issue. As it stands, provided God exists, the only one that knows his heart is God.

As far as declaring war, hey, at least he didn't do it in the name of God like our qu'uaran thumping foe.

I'll concede that the last comment there may seem lame, but I find it kind of funny in a sick sort of way.

But you know, if you were a TRUE christian, you are absolutely right, there would not be an option to go to war. That was the old testament god, the new testament god believes in peace for all men, (but then so does the qu'uaran <lol&gt.

Completely off subject, but maybe you can relate here,

Incidentally the only ones in all the world that I've found that seem to follow the Christian principle of doing no violence, no harm, and nothing but love to everyone and everything they meet would be the Dalai Lhama. I'm not Buddhist either, just a truth seeker and I fear it will take all my life to find it. That may offend some people, buddhist/christians alike. But if you think about it, not only did the Dalai Lhama not resist, he went in to exhile rather than defile his religious beliefs.

To me, that truly is Holy.

I think it's more likely that they are acting without firm evidence because they want to, rather than that they have further evidence that they are withholding.

Unless that evidence is something like Bin Laden was acting on the orders of the CIA or something, obviously that they would suppress, but that's a bit too 'conspiricy theory' for me.

> "As far as declaring war, hey, at least he didn't do it in the name of God like our qu'uaran thumping foe."

While Bush is certainly much better on this issue than the Al-Qaeda, he did declare the start of a 'new crusade' (subsequently withdrawn), and has certainly used religious language when referring to the issue, mixed in with the cowboy speak. It's purely a cultural thing, I would say - the levels of religious speech amongst the various politicians is pretty well matched to their background, and the extent to which contact between church and state is deemed acceptable.

Aside: Anyone here seen Thumb Wars, the Star Wars parody? Recent politicians have sounded a lot like the Princess in an early scene...

> "You will never win, Black-Helmet Man. We are good... and you are bad... Your badness will be your destruction, while our goodness will be our triumph... bad is bad.... good is good... bad, bad, good, bad, good, bad, bad, bad, .... good."

I can recommend it actually - well worth an internet search...

flinch - it would seem reasonable not to provide information, if providing it might endanger their contacts. Imagine how long an informant would last if the Al-Qaeda discovered that they'd been slipping information to the USA...

How much additional evidence there might be, if any, and how conclusively it might show Al-Qaeda's guilt, remains to be seen...

>hence the P - A - K acronym which makes up Pakistan's name<
My understanding was that Pak means pure in Urdu, making the country's name "Land of the Pure."

I've read that Kashmir is an enchantingly beautiful place. I don't know if that's why they're fighting over it, or even if that's a good reason to fight over it.

I'll have to look at my map, but I think just shooting from the hip here that it has a lot to do with water.

The area is lush compared to the rest of the desert like area that they live in.

OK: let's look at the circumstantial evidence:

1) The Taleban assassinate the leader of the offical Afghan opposition, who happened to be an expert on all the hiding places used by the rebels who threw out the Russians before the Taleban's putsch, JUST before the Sept 11 atrocity, thereby depriving the west of an invaluable potential ally in the hunt for bin Laden;

2) The Taleban arrest umpteen-odd innocent aid workers for the trumped-up crime of 'preaching Christianity' JUST before the Sept 11 atrocity, thereby securing a number of useful human shields.

Of course, I may be just paranoid, but I don't think that these are the actions of an innocent third party alienated from their out-of-control house guest.

I think its because, basicly, people could be jealous. Or maybe its because of their accents
and the way they change spellings of words

I doubt the Kashmiris would appreciate you calling their homeland a few old rocks

If I remember rightly, Kashimir is mostly Muslim but was given to India by a rather foolish British Imperial bureaucrat during partition. The Kashmiris, therefore, want to be part of Pakistan, but the Indians legally own Kashmir and aren't about to give it up.