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

Here's hoping for the following...

Gray Davis for governor of California.
Walter Mondale in Minnesota.
Max Baucus in Montana.
and democrats in all other seats, unless a green party candidate is available, in which case I would have to know the details to call it.

Don't suppose you're too impressed with the outcome (in spite of Davis and Baucus winning)

Nonetheless, parties in opposition rarely make up ground unless :
- the party in power is deeply unpopular
- the party in opposition proposes something new

From this remote vantage-point, it seems kind of obvious that 9/11 was going to neutralise the former possibility; a public can't turn on its figurehead in a time of crisis. But in spite of that, it seems the Democrats still failed to offer any radical alternatives.

If you're that passive, you maybe deserve to lose, yeah? To do so as badly as this, particularly with the economy in a poor state, seems like incompetence.

The corollary of this result is that Gore, or anyone similarly wooden, has zero chance in 2004. The Democrats need a charismatic candidate, or a do-nothing Bush presiding over a struggling economy is still going to win by a street.

Pin (being bloody-minded)

Depends on if we invade Iraq or not. If we do, expect him to get booted (see his father). If not, he'll probably win again. What makes me nervous is now the Repubs can push through all sorts of nasty law....like, oh, deregulation. Funny, isn't that what they did to Enron/Worldcom? And didn't they say that deregulating power and airlines would make them CHEAPER?

It's hard not to be a bitter cynic.

Cynic is OK. Bitter cynic is NG.

I agree 100% about Bush's ride from here. I don't think he needs to attack Iraq for political reasons any more. If he does it, it must be because he believes it's necessary. Like Tone. We might even get the grotesque future development of Britain criticising the US for going cool on a Good War. Watch this space.

There was a neat quote from some (unremembered) US newspaper this morning on the radio (they do an international press review on R4). Paraphrasing : Bush now has to be careful what he asks for, just in case he gets it.
I like that.

The Democrats' Doldrums nicely echo the British political scene, with right and left reversed. The Conservatives are slowly sinking from sight through failure to suggest anything remotely radical. Tone has stolen their original wardrobe, and this Duncan-Smith guy (You heard of him? Thought not...) lacks the imagination to wear anything else. Until this week, that is, when with unerring stupidity the Opposition instructed all of its MPs to vote against a bill that would let unmarried couples adopt kids. Oh well, there goes another Tory Leader.

...Tory Leader...hmmm...there's a page of favourite oxymorons round here somewhere...

Not sure what you mean about deregulation. You're not somehow under the impression that American Corporations respond to governments, are you? 'Cept in the time-honoured respect of obscene campaign-funding, of course.

You must be getting tired of politics, too. Ethnic minorities similarly. Let's see...we did religion, hometowns, family stuff...

OhMyGawd, there's only sport and music left!

No, deregulation was this brilliant idea (read dripping sarcasm there)that Reagan had in the 80s, that government would lift all regulations on corporate business. Things like airline ticket price caps were removed, and recently, electrical companies (including coal, gas, nuclear, etc) were deregulated, meaning they could sell their services to the highest bidder. Reagan thought it would become a pure market economy, with everyone lowering their prices because consumers would refuse to pay too much, yadda yadda yadda. The moral is that prices didn't drop...they skyrocketed. Electrical prices have doubled and even tripled in the last year. California has been subject to rolling black outs at peak energy use times, because the electricity that was federally mandated to come here suddenly went to Washington, or Oregon, because they paid more. Or Montana, which had too much, would sell it to CA at some outrageous price.

All this means is that thanks to Reagan-era deregulation, I now have a cost of living quadruple that of my parents just 30 years ago. I have a slim to none chance of owning my own home, or ever seeing a dime (shilling) from social security.

Don't know much about sports...music it is. Although I could talk about politics for a good while longer, unless you're bored with it?

Sure...we can do some more politics.

I'm no expert in US energy policy but it's a strange situation if the country has less generating capacity than it needs. It also sounds a bit improbable that the state of California should get outbid by Oregon.

It's hard to feel much sympathy about rising energy prices, because the US is so horribly inefficient. American cars, for example, are a disgrace.

It relates to the Protectionism thing, in a great spiral of pseudo-economics. US cars weigh half as much again as anyone else's, and they're appallingly fuel-inefficient. The rest of the world down-weights our cars, in part to meet the emissions regulations we've most of us signed up to, and in order to do so we develop lots of technology, including, fr'example, crash-resistant steel grades. The US puts up import barriers and continues to enact dinosaur engineering, oblivious to the technology advances going on outside, apparently believing that the assault on uncompetitive US industry is somehow unfair. Bush goes to Kyoto and fouls the carpet, and so on, and so on...

Your infrastructure might just be falling apart because your economy is a myth, my dear. What Reagan tried to do was kill-or-cure. Maybe the patient was too far gone already?

...OK...I admit it, there's a fair amount of Devil's Advocate here - but I'm interested to hear what you say. The US (and by implication the whole world) just might have a serious problem in the form of the tyrrany of the US electorate. Say that George Dubya suddenly began to see the light, and realised that his own country's profligacy was far more dangerous than dear old Saddam. Say he suddenly wanted to sign up to Kyoto. To come in line with, let's say, li'l ol' Britain, he now has to cut the US's emissions of greenhouse gases by nearly 60% in twelve years.

Are you tyrants going to let him?

You can make the same case about other aspects of US consumerism. You lot are pretty wasteful, MR. Maybe a sharp shock in your cost of living is 1. inevitable, 2. just what the country needs.

Oh, don't get me wrong...I would love to see more fuel-efficient cars, Shrub sign the Kyoto treaty, and America reduce its consumption of goods by at least half. What bothers me is that "keeping up with the Jones" continues to be a problem in America, and that somehow we can't seem to get the idea in our heads that we don't NEED all of this stuff.

I used to be guilty of having too much stuff. I still have one drawer full of stuff that I don't know what to do with, but at least it's only one. My husband cannot get rid of anything, and unless the freezer is full of meat, he feels deprived. I am one of those people who forgets I have something sometimes, but I never have felt the need to stuff my house with things. I do admit that I go to Costco (a warehouse store) and bulk up on staples...chicken, tortillas, and the like. But that's only because it costs less.

And I am currently looking for a car, because my husband owns a small pickup, and I cannot do the things I need to do with his truck. That, and I really hate not having a backseat, etc. But I am trying to chose wisely...something small, fuel-efficient, reasonable to maintain and relatively inexpensive. Do you know how hard that is? Everyone wants to sell me something with wizbangs and gizmos, leather this and that, turbo engines, blah blah blah. When I ask about a used car, I'm looked at as though I'm nuts! I find myself realizing how much of a car culture California is. I only need a car to go other places, mostly because there's no public transportation to speak of here. I walk to campus, and people think I'm crazy. It's less than half a mile from my door to my department, less than that to work. I'm not kidding...people drive that! It's crazy!!!!

American consumerism is founded on a principle that we are somehow superior to other countries. What pisses me off so much is that over and over, it's been proven that if we open our borders to trade, we could lower the cost of living for ourselves, raise wages, lifespans, and standards of living in other countries, and quite possibly reduce the amount of anti-American sentiment in the world.

But you are right that our economy is a myth. We seem to hold to Adam Smith as if our lives depended on it, and believe that if the economy isn't growing, then something's wrong. I don't understand that whole growth thing. Certainly new markets open up, and new technology creates new jobs, but why should the US expect that everyone has a well-paying job all the time?

That said, I think part of the problem, too, is that unlike other countries (yours, for instance) we have little or no public transportation or state-funded health care, and anyone who isn't in that top income bracket who asks for help is looked upon as a slacker, lazy, even downright indigent.

Sadly, most Americans are more concerned with style than substance.

[Aside] As I type, Ancient Brit is standing over my shoulder in person, and he's going on a bit...
(It's frightening when your relatives transform into their Hootoo personality at the mere sight of a keyboard. A bit like the wheel of a car turns some people into monsters...)
Turns out he uses Alabaster. Yeah, you could have guessed. Nuff said.
...Yes, OK, I suppose you probably can type faster than I can, Dad. Look, just go away, will you? This is a private conversation, right?
He sends his regards, anyhow...

Oops...I got a job to do. Back soon!

...Sorry about that little scene of domestic bliss.

Maybe your last post was a little too self-critical. The American Consumer is only a product of a socio-political system, don't you think?
On the whole, it's probably a more desirable product than the equivalent from some other regimes. And to grow from European Colonial football-field to World's Top Nation in a quarter of a millenium is bound to lead to a few antisocial tendencies. They're allowable defects.

It's not what America is today that it'll be judged on. A truly global planet is only just starting out. The Cold War has only just ended. Reconciliation between Western and Eastern powers is only just beginning.

It's what America does in the next half-century that will determine the future of the World. That's why, unless he changes his position on Kyoto, Bush probably has no chance of being well-remembered by history. So far, he's abdicated his responsibility. That decision's long-term significance will dwarf that of the War on Terror or 9/11, let alone anything else that his Administration has faced.

But I don't really believe that it's fair to blame the US public for Kyoto, in spite of the "tyranny" comments earlier. Nor for protectionist tendencies, excessive aggression, dodgy justice, or any of the other things I've recently criticised. I said (many posts ago now) that the US deserves better than the fools who lead it, and I do really believe that.

And I don't distinguish between Democrat and Republican on the basis of home economy and social policy, of course, because it doesn't affect me.
Like all foreigners, I base my judgement on the parties' foreign policy stance.

Recent Republicans mostly seem to have had a view of the Rest of the World as something to be politically/militarily corrected and/or commercially exploited. Rather more Democrats have seemed to recognise an obligation to lead, to educate and to develop. So I'm always a little bit pro-Democrat, though I don't really think it's my right or business to push an opinion.

...Oh yeah, keeping tons of junk doesn't equate to Consumer Excess, not in my book anyway. It can often be the opposite - "We're not buying a new one. I've got the parts to fix it...somewhere..."
That's an attitude I like, though the Weddell might disagree. If I was resourceful and practical enough, I'd choose to live that way myself.

And drawerfuls of tat are part of the Essence of Life. Some of the rubbish I keep fills me with ridiculous happiness just to touch and feel it, and not just through nostalgia. Some things are just uplifting and tactile in themselves. Like harmonicas, GameBoys, penknives, packs of cards, to suggest a few. I could go on, Julie Andrews-like.

Maybe the real Ultimate Consumer Juggernaut Disaster is the trendy modern habit of Detoxing/FengShui-ing/Whatevering our lives. Throw out the old you, buy a new one. That really is truly wasteful. To convince people that it's a process of self-purification is quite a neat piece of marketing, but I personally believe that it only works on idiots.

Stick to the old you, and just tweak the bits you don't like.

The old wherever you go, there you are, eh? Yes, well, in this country, sometimes the new stuff gets overdone. I think Feng Shui has a place, as does certain kinds of detox, etc. What I don't agree with is that everything here becomes, somehow, the province of the elite. I would love to spend a day at a spa being pampered and prodded and massaged and facialized and...

But I don't have $600.

That's what I deplore, is that money really is equated with happiness here. It's always been like that. If an American wants to be considered happy, they have to be rich. Never mind that money really doesn't by happiness (see above), the myth is that it does. Even I buy into it. I think sometimes that if I had more money, I could take care of the things about myself that I don't like. Not so much by buying my way out of them, but that I would be able to afford the tools with which to assist me.

Tell your dad I said hello back. I've got to go edit a paper and take the small person to the the dreaded golden arches. I promised I would.

I've heard a lot of people (not just Americans) say that you have to be rich to be happy.
In a way it's true, if you're flexible with a definition of richness.
Happiness can be elusive. Pinning a pursuit of it on something you might never have is pretty silly, though.
I know a lot of people who've never realised how happy they are, which is sad.
I'm never going to be rich, but I'm sure I'm happy. I think you are too. You sound like it, mostly.
I did win £10 in the National Lottery yesterday though. Wheee!

AB's gone home, over the low hill. Just as well. I can still almost hear him sniggering over my shoulder. Don't think he'd be too impressed with the foregoing example of homespun philosophy...

Last night, in the queue at the Chinese Takeaway, we got into a typical conversation, and dreamed up something that might be called Technosocialism. I don't know whether he gets his ideas from reading more widely than I ever do, or just out of his own head. Anyway, this one started with the declaration that all new housing estates should have a helipad, so that helicopters could replace road ambulances. Then it needed a community telecoms centre, then it was schools on-line, with class sizes of 10,000 per teacher. And so on. We got home before he'd explained his alternative to money. Mum and wife don't either of them respond well to talk of that sort.

I don't often agree with him. I never did. I sure hope my mind still crackles like his does in 30 years' time, though.

Golden Arches. Staple Food of Youth, and I admit to excessively-frequent personal use, too. I'm a secret collector of tray-papers from different countries. The rule is, must go there in person and must have a Big Mac, then take the tray-paper.

They really are the same everywhere. It's reassuring somehow. Only difference I've ever really noticed is in Japan, and that's the marketing rather than the product. Ronald McDonald has yellow skin. Maybe he's related to Homer. More likely, his normal manifestation looks too much like the Traditional Personification of Death or something.

Editing papers sounds cool. You should tell me more. I'm a frustrated journalist. If I had my time again, I'd try write for a living. It's always been a minor source of regret, but during the brief period when I had the chance, I was too hung up on doing something useful, like going into engineering.

Come to think of it, AB warned me often enough that that was a stupid notion, too...

Well, the paper I'm editing is on modern definitions of heresy. So not exactly most folks' .

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner...woke up Sunday morning with a nasty head cold, so I've been a bit fuzzy. I felt bad, too, since the small person and I had plans to go look at tide pools on the beach. I told her this next weekend for sure, but I feel like I really let her down. I've discovered I have more patience than I thought, however, as long as I don't let that initial instant of frustration take hold.

Oh, well, off to bed. Night!

(Sorry, I'm a little fuzzy)

So, is this enough advance notice?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A813061

I figure 8 months, you and the Weddell ought to be able to swing it, or at least you and AB....

In principle,

...So let's think about how you roll this one out for the Weddell...

"Yeah, there's this red-headed Researcher, right, who's invited me... OK, right, I meant invited US...Female, right...The one I've been having those Deep and Meaningful conversations, yeah, I probably did mention her...NoNoNo - not JUST her. These Atelier types, too. Cool, intelligent, interesting people. Did I really complain that they won't talk back to me? I don't exactly remember. But, yeah, I suppose it is a bit of a long way to go to find out..."

......

* mental note to work on this proposition *

Doubtful about AB, too. He's a retired gentleman who needs all of his carefully-hoarded money to squander on golf equipment. In fact, come to think of it, I'm not sure that I approve of him blowing my inheritance on a jaunt to the West Coast...

Well, OK, we can work on it...but I wouldn't hold your breath (not for 8 months, anyway)

It's just an idea. If it's any help, tell her we met because we were talking about our kids...which, if you recall, is only the truth. Well, that and you're smarter than your average bear.

Try something like this:
"So, you know how I've been having conversations on this website, H2G2? Well, someone said I would really like the Gilroy Garlic Festival, and it's next summer, and I'm thinking that it would be really great if we took a vacation, and we could go there. It would only be for a couple of days, but we could take the girls, and head down to Disneyland after that. Several people I've met live in the area around there, and one of them has a six year old girl, and it would be a lot of fun, and what do you say? I mean, Dad might even want to go."

Or some such. Just think...Disneyland, the Pacific Ocean, and a meet all in one. There's also Rodeo Drive, Hollywood, the Tonight Show...heck, there's a lot of stuff going on down here. Take your pick!

One day, we will certainly spend time in California.
I think it might turn out to be SF and Points North rather than Disneyland/Hollywood etc.
We won't be taking the kids, deeply adorable though they are. In fact we've solemnly promised not to show them any more breathtaking landscapes, stunning cities, fine cuisine and fascinating culture until they're good and ready.
Because they're poorly organised and headstrong, they will almost certainly fail to realise that they have become good and ready until they have kids of their own, and the Whole Terrible Cycle of Thwarted Dreams will begin again.

Pin
(No, I don't really feel like that. I reckon the Disposition skipped a generation...)

The Gilroy Garlic Festival is only an hour south of San Fran...and it's only two days....make a second honeymoon out of it, leave the kids with AB!!!!

There, problem solved.

Hey, you're obviously a natural at selling a tricky proposition.

I need an alternative to this scenario :

"Darlings, Mummy and Daddy have decided to go on a little holiday, and we thought you might like to stay with Grandad for a couple of weeks...Now, dear, you know very well that you can't hold your breath indefinitely..."

It's actually the elder sib who's the bigger problem. It comes as a nasty shock when you realise someone's poured a couple of bottles of nail-varnish into your shoes.

No, really?!

Alright, with the Weddells' family. And if the kids still complain, say it's your second honeymoon and (plan this ahead of time) start making out. Guaranteed that the older one will definitely get grossed out and want to stay anywhere to avoid the sight of her parents kissing!!!!

Yeah, that works. Tried it. Though the Weddell has to be in an unusually good mood to co-operate.

No, not really. She's got the imagination, the elder sib, but not the mendacity. She threatened to do the nail-varnish thing on one fraught occasion, that's all. (She did once put a slice of toast in the VCR, but she was a lot younger back then)

For future reference, I'll refer to the kids as Scrofulina (elder) and Verminette (younger). OK?

Not sure what you mean by the Weddell's family. Not my mother-in-law, surely? One of the Weird Aspects of the Union is that the Weddell's family consists of exactly one sister (resolutely childless) plus one mother (widowed) and absolutely zero other living relatives. Whereas mine is fairly crowded, particularly on Mum's side. Seems a bit lop-sided, sometimes.

...Do I get on with my mother-in-law? You really want to know?

Nuff of that. Tell me about these heretics in your paper (and in your handle). Who are they, exactly?
Pin *all ears*