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

"Subject: The British Meritocracy "

"It's a modernization of the Chinese mandarin system. Secondary students are required to choose their career at 16 or 17 (prior to their A-levels), and for many their university education is so narrow that it's almost impossible to change later. There's often no continuing education requirement, so the skills and knowledge taught in a university education quickly become obsolete. Students usually choose their A-level subjects to maximize their marks, so most hard subjects are very unpopular. Trade is looked down upon (as in Rome and Greece). "

Does that sound accurate?

Sorry I haven't responded earlier.
I'd say that it's not so much that you have to choose your career at 16, more that there's a narrowing down of subject ranges through each stage of education. I mean, at A level, you're still doing four different courses, so there's some space for flexibility.

Only the stupid students choose their A-level subjects for easiness - basically because if you choose an easy subject, universities will value your marks less because they know that they're easier to get. In fact, the harder subjects (except for the *extremely* hard ones) are difficult to get on to, because of lack of spaces. But yes, everything else is true.

Happy Halloween. It isn't happy for me because it looks like Bush will win--Bin Laudin basicly gave him the election.

Really? I thought it was still pretty much divided. Damn Kerry. Why couldn't someone else run? Or are you fresh out of decent (in the quality sense) politicians over there right now?
Even Bush himself, I'd argue, is more suited to being a second-ring sort of politician. Although some people seem to think that politics is like art, and controversiality shows importance.

Well, at least we can hope that if it's as close as it was last time, someone'll demand some sort of fair and legal recount this time.

Well, it looks like I was overreacting--I underestimated the sanity of the American public and expected the Bin Laudin tape to have a deeper impact then it did.

Based on the news reports and polls I've read (and I've been following it quite closely), it's still pretty much a dead heat--in fact it sounds like Kerry may have a slight advantage in some of the more important battleground states. My personal guess right now would be a slight electoral victory for Kerry with so many lawsuits that the result isn't clear this month.

We do have some decent politicians here. In all fairness, Bush oughtn't be the Republican candidate and Kerry probably oughtn't be the Democratic candidate.

Back in 2000, McCain was a superior candidate to Bush for the Republican nomination; he won the early primaries and would have won the nomination most likely if Bush hadn't gotten into some very negative campagining. If he'd won the nomination, he would easily have beat Bush because, for a conservative, he isn't that bad. Unlike Bush, he isn't beholden to big buisness nor does he seem to have Bush's neoconservative goal of some sort of American empire.

As for Democrats, my choice for the presdency would probably have been Howard Dean--though I admit he would have been unelectable and that some of the other candidates had strong points. Anyway, in American politics anyone whose favorite book in the New Testament is Job can't possibly win. I'm not sure if any of the other Democratic primary candidates would have done that well, though several would probably have done better than Kerry. I can think of a couple Democrates in Congress who I think would do a good job--including Maryland (my state)'s senator Mikulski, but I don't think she has any intention of running in the near future.

I think the real problem is not so much a lack of decent politicians as this: the Republicans are too dominated by special interests who want lunatics--fundamentalist Christians, the ultra-rich corperations, and the neocons are willing to fund dirty campaigning to support and come out in droves to vote for people like Bush while the Democrates have too divided a base--they have black and hispanic voters who vote Democrate because it is the party of poor minorities but who are devout Christians who like the Republican social policy, ultra-liberals who would vote Green if they could win and want policies that would chase away the main Democratic base, and poor workers whoare socially inclined to conservativism but who want an economy where they can support their families. The Republicans have become the party of ultra-reactionaries to the point where the more reasonable conservatives like McCain get overshadowed, the Democrates are too split between the poor fiscical liberals and the rich social liberals to pick a good candidate--instead they select compromise candidates like Kerry who stand for little except not being Republican.


The problem isn't that someone wouldn't demand a recount--it's that both sides will sue about everything. Each party has on the order of 10,000 lawyers lined up. In Ohio (probably the most important swing state after Florida) the Republicans already lost a lawsuit involving their ability to challenge voter's qualifications at the polls--but one can be sure there will be many lawsuits no matter who wins Ohio and Florida--and they will be close. There will be recounts, there will be a lot of recounts, and there will be a lot of lawsuits about who can vote and what should be recounted.

I guess we both spoke to soon. It'll be interesting to see how it goes now. Will the world descend into religious totalitarianism? Or will Bush splutter out and die? Second administrations have a history of being far less effective and important than first ones.