Footprints

Here's a gizmo for calculating your ecological footprint.

I'm glad they finally got one with a broader database. Most of these quizzes assume you live in the US.

Elinor

elinor.nu, tidsskriftet for elektronisk litteratur i norden er nyomdesignet og har lansert nettkatalogen sin. Jill har en post om det her.

Dagens Dagsrevyen:

Nyhetsoppleseren: Det er [så og så mange] prosent kvinner i lokalpolitikken.

Og så, jeg sverger, la han stemmen opp i et tullete toneleie og sa, mye høyere enn han hadde snakket tidligere:

Aaaaalt for lite, mener kommunalminister Åslaug Haga.

Det var helt surrealistisk. Som om det bare var en tullenyhet på barne-tv eller noe.

Rhetoricious!

Jens Kjeldsen has a nice paper on the rhetorical issues of PowerPoint. PowerPoint is basically a rhetorical tool. I remember a lot of talk in my lower-level university courses about "sounding convincing" and "pulling it off" by using it. But strangely, my impression is that it is almost universally spoken about as a presentation tool, as a teaching aid, and as a communication device. All of these are rhetorical forms, but that side never gets mentioned. I like the paper because it takes some of the vaguely uneasy to downright hateful feelings I have had about PowerPoint and puts it in much clearer language.

The Argument

PowerPoint:

• Encourages fragmentation of thought.
• Creates hierarchies where none exist.
• Opposes narrative and linear arguments.
  

The Content Template:

• Squeezes big, lumpy knowledge into
• Tiny arbitrary, bite-sized bullet points.
• Creates a standardized format for every
  

PowerPoint during presentation:

• lecture. Whoa. Uh. And it often
• leads to lecturers standing half-
• turned away, reading every. Single.

Conclusion

Not Going Away:

• Nonsensical. Bullet. But PowerPoint
• Isn't going away, so Kjeldsen argues in addition
• to media literacy (audience) for "Media Rhetoracy"
  

Media Rhetoracy:

• (speaker) - I prefer "rhetoriciousness", myself, but whatever -
• Which is the ability to use communication
• tools in suitable ways. In rhetorical terms
  

Rhetorical terms:

• to be aware of the relationship of the
• visual tool to the kairos, which is awareness of:
• Situation, audience, moment, etc.
  

Ethos, Pathos and Aramis
or Enough with the bullet points, already:

In addition to what Kjeldsen is saying, from a cultural studies-ish perspective, I would also add that PowerPoint has some false rhetoric built into its form when used on audiences not accustomed to seeing PowerPoint. This is because it is generally acknowledged by the public-at-large as a professional tool. Hence, it lends an air of credibility to even the most inexperienced speaker. It disproportionately inflates his ethos, so to speak. Also, the template of PowerPoint lends a false air of logos to the argument. It appears in a structured fashion, provided by PowerPoint, hence, it must be structured. And that's just not a good thing.

This also filters into his first example. The mother completely misjudges the kairos of the situation. She uses a tool which reeks of logos in a situation where logos is very inappropriate, giving the whole thing a business-like, cold feeling. Kids can be great at detecting instrumental reason, sometimes. This is also why you should never hold wedding speeches with PowerPoint presentations, which I've heard is something that people do in consultant weddings.

Oh, and btw: very bad media rhetoracy with the little video clip of Jens K in the beginning. Completely non-sensical and basically just a live version of the abstract. It has no justification, to my mind, but appears to be a requirement from the publishers. Very distracting and doesn't say anything that the long version doesn't say a kazillion times better.

(link via Jill)

Measuring the speed of a meme? Pathetic plea for attention, more like it. Most memes at least provide a little stick with their carrot. Like the "I am a faceless, dead 3-year old who died in a fire. Which also burned my face off. I look like a 3-year old without a face. I will come and look at you in the night if you don't forward this sms. With my eyes - without a face." That one at least had some freak factor. Phfft. I wouldn't propagate this meme in a million yearsohbugger.

Socrates
No tools will make a man a skilled workman, or master of defence, nor be of any use to him who has not learned how to handle them, and has never bestowed any attention upon them. How then will he who takes up a shield or other implement of war become a good fighter all in a day, whether with heavy-armed or any other kind of troops?

Glaucon
Yes, the tools which would teach men their own use would be beyond price.
-- Plato, The Republic, Book II

Stikkit, I think, is one of the Next Big Things. It's a note-taking system which integrates social bookmarking, calendar, contact list, etc. The grand unifying metaphor is the yellow post-it note. But Stikkit thinks while you write using Ajax and can - if you're writing in English, which is the only language it knows - figure out a number of things your note might be, like a phone number, address, bookmark, etc. It's very nifty, although still full of beta-flaws, many of which are mentioned over here. My biggest pet peeve is that there is no transparency as to what Stikkit knows. I have no idea what syntax forms it recognizes, and I would really like to see a comprehensive list of basic text commands.

Interesting fact of the day: Plato was not Plato's real name. Plato was a nickname. You know, like "Sting" or "Lenin" or "Fat Boy" or "Oy, you!" It means flat, wide or broad. If you look at his nose, you can see why. His real name is believed to have been Aristocles. Not Aristotle. Aristocles.

Längste zulässige Belichtungsdauer bewegter Objekte

1) Kinder im ruhigen Spiel, - weidendes Vieh.
2) Personen im Straßenverkehr, Wasser u. Bäume leicht bewegt.
3) Pferd im Trab, u. Bäume im Sturm.
4) Pferd im Galopp, Straßenbahn, Auto 20 km, Schiffe.
5) Eisenbahn, Kraftfahrzeuge 60km, Pferd im Sprung.
6) Fußballspieler, Turner, Schnelläufer, Skiläufer.
7) Luftfahrzeuge.

AAH!

Ole Idar Kvelvane bæsjer, om mulig, enda mer på leggen enn han allerede har gjort. Oi. Dette er pinlig. Dette er så pinlig at jeg nesten ikke klarer å se på det, men samtidig så må jeg se på det. Det er som når bilister sakker farten når de kjører forbi en bilulykke, eller når man blir ved med å pirke i et sår eller noe. Det er så sinnsykt fascinerende hvordan han blamerer seg offentlig. Les hele greien. Det er først i den tredjesiste setningen han virkelig klemmer til.

Robert Altman is dead. How terrible. He was one of the greatest filmmakers of his generation, and he kept on making fantastic movies until the end. I just rewatched Gosford Park about a month and a half ago. It's wonderful. So subtle and incredibly evil and hysterically funny at the same time. And he made MASH, too. I'm going to have to try and see that again. I didn't see it under the best of circumstances the first time. (Though I read the script to it at one point. There's a thirty-page play-by-play of a football match in it.)

Hilde Sandvik blir debattredaktør i BT. Glimrende! Og så blir Landro ny kulturredaktør. Man kan jo håpe at det innebærer at han kommer til å anmelde færre teaterstykker.

Pakkepiken gir Wikipedia kaktus for sine dårlige artikler om feminisme.

Her trengs det visst et initiativ. Hvis du har peiling på feminisme, så gå og skriv artiklene om. Det trenger bare å være en enkelt setning eller to. Hvis du ikke har redigert en wiki før er det svært enkelt: Klikk deg inn på lenkene over, trykk på "rediger" øverst, og så er du igang. Hvis du ser [[slike tegn]] så er det sånn man lager lenker til andre Wikipedia-artikler.

prosopropaganda

Kristoffer Jul-Larsen og jeg har for lengst gitt fra oss redaktørsetet i Prosopopeia, men det fortsetter ikke desto mindre med å bli et bedre og bedre tidsskrift. Nå har Proso under Trine Flattun Rogndokken og Hans Jakob Ohldiecks myndige og årvåkne åsyn levert et nummer med tittelen "Poststrukturalismer". Legg merke til spissfindigheten i flertallsbruken i tittelen. Den reklamerte Kristoffer og jeg for i det skjulte i forrige ukes Elster-innlegg. Nå blir det slippefest:

Slippefest for
p r o s o p o p e i a:
Samtale mellom Arild Utaker og Ingrid Nielsen
onsdag 22. november kl. 20:00 på Mood Arabica

Litteraturtidsskriftet Prosopopeia slipper årets #3, som har temaet “Poststrukturalismer” (i flertall).

På slippefesten frister vi med en samtale mellom Arild Utaker, professor i filosofi og Ingrid Nielsen, førsteamanuensis i allmenn litteraturvitenskap. De vil snakke om Nietzsche, om “poststrukturalisme” og om litteratur.

I bladet, som vil selges ved inngangen, tilbyr vi intervjuer med forfatterne av tre svært forskjellige Nietzschebøker i norsk akademia: Helge Pettersen, Ellen Mortensen, Arne Melberg. Dessuten oversettelse av Foucaults “Er mennesket dødt?”. Prosopopeiaintervjuet er denne gang med Arild Utaker. Ellers har vi tekster om Nietzsche, Irigaray, Deleuze, Derrida, Foucault, Butler, Said, Kristeva, Luhmann og Sokal-affair med mer.

Dørene åpner klokka 20.00 (Gratis blader til de som kommer først)

Hjertelig velkommen!

Det vil selges rimelig øl, hele natten…

* Billetter: cc: 75,- med blad, 30,- for bare inngang.

Why I can never take Dr. House entirely seriously.

And here's a Bit of Fry & Laurie.

Fædrelandsvennen anmelder Mazdak Shafifeian. Hysterisk morsomt. Litteraturkritikk på olympisk nivå.

Noen der ute som stadig har lyst til å forsvare haikuen som anmelderformat?

Noteworthy.

Kjære lesere: Er det tilfeldigvis en av dere som evt om et 150m2 stort lagerrom med parkeringsmuligheter for en van til leie i eller tett på Bergen sentrum? Legg i så fall igjen en kommentar med epost eller tlf.nr.

Finnish song of discontent. Happy tuesday.

Ugyldige argumenter mot poststrukturalismen

Kristoffer Jul-Larsen og jeg har et leserinnlegg i Morgenbladet denne uken. Det var et svar til Jon Elsters innlegg i Aftenposten & intervjuet i Morgenbladet.

Innlegget hadde av Morgenbladet blitt gitt den svært prosaiske tittelen (men la oss nå bare beholde den, da):

Ugyldige argumenter mot poststrukturalismen

Når Jon Elster kritiserer Julia Kristeva og alt som kan kalles poststrukturalisme, gjør han det med argumenter som ikke er gyldige. Elster er en samfunnsviter i verdensklasse og vi finner det derfor merkelig at han kan bruke argumenter som er så lite stringente, til å gjøre en så henslengt avvisning av en hel forskningstradisjon.

Elster stiller seg selv i en poststrukturalisme- og postmodernisme-kritisk tradisjon fra Alan Sokals berømte svindelnummer i tidsskriftet Social Text, og den etterfølgende boken til Sokal og Jean Bricmont, Intellectual Impostures (1997). Henvisningen til Sokal og Bricmont er Elsters eneste substansielle argument mot poststrukturalismen. Resten er bare det han kaller ’uhøflighet’. Vi mener at Sokal-tradisjonen nå etter hvert må legges til side. Vi kan hente noen gode og gyldige kritiske poenger fra den. De viktigste er at det foregikk mye febervill teoretisering i Frankrike på 60- og 70-tallet, og at en rekke tenkere som uttaler seg om naturvitenskapene burde visst mer om dem. Å hente ut særlig mye mer enn dette er intellektuelt uforsvarlig. Det samme sier for øvrig Sokal og Bricmont: “We show that famous intellectuals such as Lacan, Kristeva, Irigaray, Baudrillard and Deleuze have repeatedly abused scientific concepts and terminology. (…) We make no claim that this invalidates the rest of their work, on which we suspend judgement.” (fra forordet til Intellectual Impostures).

Selv om Sokal og Bricmont med rette viser frem noen tåkrummende pinlige tekster fra sentrale poststrukturalister, er den overordnete kritikken deres ikke tuftet på slike lesninger. Den stammer heller fra en mer generell epistemisk relativismekritikk som er basert på en naturvitenskapelig praksis, som de ikke klarer å gi relevans for samfunnsvitenskapelig og humanistisk forskning. For de som er interessert i en mer utførlig utvikling av denne analysen, og en generell introduksjon til Sokal-debatten henviser vi til de første fem essayene i Michael Bérubés glimrende bok Rhetorical Occasions (Chapel Hill, 2006).

Elster skriver: ”Når jeg leser en bok eller artikkel og støter på en positiv henvisning til Kristeva, Derrida, Deleuze, Lacan, Irigaray osv. stopper jeg å lese.” Vi spør oss selv om dette er fruktbar ”akademisk uhøflighet” eller intellektuell uredelighet (forøvrig ble Derrida frikjent av Sokal og Bricmont). Det virker for oss litt for behendig at man på den måten slipper å sette seg inn i en bred og dyp forskningstradisjon med forgreininger over hele det samfunnsvitenskapelige og humanistiske fagfeltet.

Kan vi si at poststrukturalismene er nyttig forskning? Ja. Kan de kritiseres? Ja. Men de kan ikke avfeies og nedlegges med et avsnitt. Det er på tide å komme oss ut av denne uinteressante debatten og inn i en saklig og redelig diskusjon om forskningsfagenes innhold og grunnlag.

Martin Grüner Larsen,
& Kristoffer Jul-Larsen,
MA-studenter i litteraturvitenskap

PS: Jeg er i Oslo noen dager, og ting kan tyde på at jeg har glemt min mobillader, så bruk epost om du vil ha tak i meg: martin punktum g punktum larsen krøllalfakrøllkrøll student punktum uib punktum no

Went to see The Queen last night, with Helen Mirren in the title role. It was a great movie, with Mirren giving a lovely performance. The music was a great source of annoyance for me, seeming to belong in some Harry Potter movie. Also, the script was not all it was cranked up to be, although it was not bad at all.

There was one nice little allegorical feature which as far as I can tell nobody has commented on online:

After Diana's death, Elizabeth II's husband takes the young princes hunting to get their minds off the grief, and for several days, they stalk, but can't shoot an 18-point stag in the countryside around Balmoral. In the movie's emotional climax, Liz meets the stag after her car breaks down.

As you know, Bob, the deer is a symbol of the goddess Diana the huntress. She is almost always depicted with a deer. Smell the allegory. This, though it could have been a nice touch, is handled a bit heavy-handed. Diana did seem to have mythological dimensions, and this is what I like about the idea. Also, this subplot gives us one of the few peeks into the emotional life of the main character.

A day or two later, the stag has been shot, and something like the following dialogue takes place between HRH and Prince Philip:
- It wandered into a neighbouring estate and was shot.
- By who?
- One of the commercial guests, I'm afraid.
- Oh... Which estate?

The answer is left hanging (the movie cuts), but the film is making a nice, subtle, well-deserved crack at the fourth estate.

Tigerstaden

Jeg er i Oslo til neste tirsdag eller onsdag. Det blir sikkert ikke så mye internett.

David Byrne of Talking Heads has an online Journal.

Ragnfridspost

Ragnfrid markerer seg sterkt i riksdekkjande media no til dags. Her kan du f.eks. høyre ho defenestrere bokklubbane på Kulturbeitet. Her kan du lese Dagbladsnettmøtesvara hennar på arge bokmålsfolk sine hissige åtak på nynorsken, og i tillegg lese ein del om barnelitteratur og så enda fleire sinte bokmålsfolk.

(Eg refererer alle kommentarar om nynorsken min til herr Stump Gjenstand.)

"Rumsfeld Resigns as Defense Secretary After Big Election Gains for Democrats"

Sweet, sweet music to my ears.

Republicans Blame Election Losses On Democrats.

I am reminded of Bill Hicks' "the elephant is dead because of all the little pygmy warriors [elephant trumpet sound]"-routine.

I completely forgot the 5th of November. How ironic.

The Vote

I seem to have suddenly gotten the chance to affect the vote in Santa Clara, California. Here and here are the pages leading up this, and here is the ballot I'm voting on.

B1-66:

First off, I want you to know that voting is a big thing for me. I’ve never voted in a national election before in my life, and believe me, it's not because I don’t want to. I’m a Danish citizen, living in Norway, and thus only have a vote in county and city elections. However, I’ve lived for so long in Norway that my vote in Denmark is suspended until I live there (which, I’m not going to, because I hate the Danish political climate. There’s a catch-22 for you). I could’ve changed my citizenship long ago, but I didn’t because it got me out of both the Danish and Norwegian conscription. The conscription is no longer a problem, because of my age, but I stay Danish partially because of inertia, partially because nationality was never a big thing with me, partially because I still don’t want to cut my remaining ties to Denmark. But this does leave me, a man with fairly strong and hopefully lucid political opinions, without the vote in any of the elections which significantly affects his life (specifically, I’m thinking of the national elections in Denmark, Norway and the United States). So now I find myself with the possibility to vicariously vote in a national election for the first time in my life, and one which I have often jokingly said is an election that everyone in the world should have the vote in, because it affects all of us.

For what it’s worth, I’ve lived in California. I lived in Goleta outside of Santa Barbara, just up the street from the UCSB camous. I lived there, went to school there, I swam in the Pacific Ocean, I made good friends, fell in love with the girls in my classes and had some great experiences that have stayed with me ever since. I love California, and I hope you’ll take my advice in the spirit with which it is given, and with the knowledge that I know the people I am affecting, and that I therefore have the very best intentions. Also, I want you to know that I understand that what you are offering is huge. I want you to know what an incredible gesture I think it is, and how much I respect you for listening to me in making this decision.

But also, I hope you will take from this the understanding that although I say that we should be allowed to vote in the US jokingly, there is more than a grain of truth to my meaning. What I’m saying is that your political and cultural landscape, the landscape produced to a great extent in California and all across your nation affect me. I don’t mean in the ordinary McDonalds, 7-Eleven, Bush-is-bad kinda way. I mean it really, actually, directly affects me and is a vital and significant force in shaping my life and that of my friends and family. Your politics are my politics.

Our policies, our economy, our jobs, our music, our youth culture, our military situation. All these depend on the US. And there are more subtle changes effected over the past couple of years. An increased rate of tension towards the Moslem population. A hardness to the tone we take when we talk about them. A culture of fear. A sudden pervasive fear of terrorism which has suddenly made itself known, despite the fact that nobody has ever died in an act of terrorism in Norway. An unwillingness to pay taxes, a lessening of the degree of civic-mindedness and the ideals of public service. All these things can be traced back to attitudes that are generated in and by the Bush administration, and the two preceding Republican governments. Our right wing wants to be like your right wing. They take after it. With worry I see that they are succeeding in this. Many of the things which worked for the Republican Party in the US are working for our xenophobic right-wing populist Progress Party now. Your decisions affect us both directly and indirectly.

So I make decisions that I hope will be good for both our countries. I think that people are right when they say that what’s good for America is good for us. What happens to you happens to us. And you are so very, very badly off now. My decisions, I think, would be the same were I voting in the US.

Let me explain my general political position:
I could be described as a socialist. More precisely, I am a social democrat. I favour (in no particular order) a mixed economy, strong transnational cooperation based on human rights, economic justice, global environmental protection, international law, an extremely limited use of force and therefore low spending on the military, checks-and-balances democracy, the welfare state, liberal social policies and a great range of permitted values, cooperative solutions, a well-funded education, limited privatisation of infrastructure. In short: I want my government to be based not on scorched-earth capitalist principles which put profit ahead of human interest, but on humane, cooperative, long-term solutions to the problems faced by real people every day, and not the problems of transnational corporations which can probably take care of themselves. I hold these positions not just because of an ideological legacy from my middle-class upbringing, I hold them because they work. Norway is consistently ranked the best place in the World to live, on UN statistics. This is – though I readily admit that our humongous oil resources are a part of this - largely because of our highly evolved welfare state. Put simply: what we’re doing works.

Here, let me just as an aside say, and this is the second thing I hope you take with you out of this, that my brother is right: you don’t really have a left wing. What you call your left wing is like an extremely moderate centrist in Norway. And you most certainly do not have a left-wing media. There is no liberal bias in the media. It might seem like you do, but you really, really, really don’t. If you trust nothing else that I say here, trust that.

Furthermore, the stances I take are taken based both on local inspections of the issues, as well as the larger view: I want a strong Democratic party because that’s the best stop-gap measure in the journey America absolutely must make, for the good of us all, over the next fifty years, towards a many-party system. Having the Dems strengthened means a move away from the horrible drift your country has taken towards – no offence – plutocracy, social conservatism and scorched-earth capitalism. I take my stances, therefore, not necessarily for the candidate I would support first, but for the candidate I believe will be more likely to have my vote help.

So, with no further ado, the following are the positions I would take in the California midterms:

1. Angelides as governor.
I know that you are against this, but I believe you are wrong. While I acknowledge that Arnold has done many good things for California, and that he is certainly a much better governor than DINO Gray Davis, I don’t think he is the best choice, and when on paper, at least, Angelides is much closer to what you need, despite the fact that he appears to be something of a nerd, and not the most charismatic of men. While Arnold appears to be a bold leader, and a strong personality, and his solution to the power crisis, his strong support of stem-cell research and his recent turn on environmental issues are strong cards in his favour, he is also too brash, too close to the corporate interests, and, more importantly, a conservative. Arnold cuts education, increased tuition level, lets in big business, is the GOP #1 fundraiser and is anti-union.

Angelides supports worker’s rights. He supports gay marriage (which Arnold does on paper, and yet oddly vetoes every time the bill passes through his office). He is pro-middle class (the real key to economic growth and social reforms). He is fiscally responsible and supports campaign finance reform. He opposes the war on terror as it stands. He is strong on education, with a great program for new teachers. He supports steps towards universal health care (and honestly, with the system you have, I can’t believe that anyone in the US would even consider voting for anyone not shouting in the streets like a maniac about the demise of the welfare state). He has a strong environmental record, and what with you being the 8th largest economy in the world and having the world’s 9th biggest city and the world’s 40th biggest city (and San Diego and Sacramento aren’t exactly tiny, either) all in the same state, you seriously need to start thinking more about that (to be fair, Arnold is already doing much in this way. I think Angelides can do more). He is sensible, he’s progressive, he has a strong sense of ethics (I’m not buying the hacker theory on the Latino blood-thing, btw), and he has a solid record and platform. He’s not perfect, but he is without a doubt the best option in a Schwarzenegger – Angelides race. And btw: those brownouts? Angelides was not only a strong opponent of them he was actually in the trenches working to end them.

2. Lieutenant Governor: John Garamendi.

Garamendi is obvious. McClintlock is a privatiser and a social and economic conservative. He wants more tax cuts (in the US situation: bad, bad, bad, as even the Norwegian right wing will tell you), has a let’s-make- bad-worse health plan and thinks Ronald Reagan was a swell guy. Garamendi is pro-education, supports stem cell research, infrastructure build-up, is strong on environmental issues and health care. A total no-brainer.

3. Secretary of State: Debra Bowen

She has a great track record opposing electronic balloting while her opponent recently got 43% of newly registered voters in California invalidated due to new voter registration database procedures, according to one source.

4. Senator: Dianne Feinstein.

Feinstein is the safest vote I cast. She has a massive lead over her nearest opponent. This one is in the box, and thank God for that. Mountjoy is pro welfare sorry tax cuts, is against, y’know, the right to privacy and the right not to be tortured, opposes gay marriage, opposes brown people and would basically just be a hand-puppet for the Bush administration.

5. Congress, California 22: Mike Honda

While Mike Honda is not ideal – he is a bit too friendly with Israel and introduced the rather dodgy resolution that demanded that Japan apologise for WWII and pay reparations – he is light-years ahead of certified nutcase Chukwu. I mean: bioterrorism and African herbs? What’s the hell is that?

Truth be told, in Norway we’d laugh Mike Honda all the way into the right-wing parties, but I really want the Democrats to take back Congress. And besides, he’s strong on civil rights.

6. State Assembly, District 22: Sally Lieber

I honestly don’t have much to go on, here, but she’s a democrat, and that’s my default position. Besides, she supports a higher minimum wage (good), is strong on environment (good) and has about 221.000$ more than her opponent (even better).

7. California State Supreme Court: Yes to both.

I don’t really have much to go on here. They are both pro-gay marriage and pro choice. Kennard is described by her more rabid opponents as a socialist, so that’s gotta be good.

8. Mayor, Santa Clara: Undecided.

I honestly can’t tell from where I’m sitting who to vote for in this one. Mahan, the incumbent, seems good, she has supposedly tried to be a uniting leader, and seems to be strong on public transportation (which, I gather, must be a problem in Santa Clara, because the politicians talk about it a lot. I believe I spent a night in Santa Clara once, and remember the morning traffic wasn’t nice.) McLemore, the challenger, seems like a dedicated political workhorse and claims to have much experience negotiating good solutions out of diverse groups. Honestly, this is not a decision I feel competent in making, although my instinct based on what I’ve read leans more towards Mahan.

9. Controller: John Chiang. He appears to be the best and most likely candidate. The Green candidate Laura Wells also has many good initiatives, though she seems perhaps a touch less serious. If you think the Green candidate is better, go ahead.

10: Treasurer: Bill Lockyer. Sensible democratic fiscal policies. The libertarian and Green candidates sound interesting, but had no information available, because it’s obviously going to be this guy with all the endorsements he has.

11. Attorney General: Jerry Brown. First off, let me just say regarding the Green candidate that quoting Peter Tosh on your homepage may not be the best idea for having a serious presentation of your candidacy. But then that's just me. He appears to be one of those policians who have all the right opinions put into an ideological package for all the wrong reasons, and with none of the skills to have them put through.

The Republican candidate is a “tough on crime” kinda candidate, which basically means someone making laws which appear to be tough on crime but which have no understanding of actual prevention and reduction of crime. Greater penalties do not neccesarily lead to less crime.

The former governor, Jerry Brown, has a solid record in politics. However, he is much too “tough on crime.” He’s not the candidate I would most like to have. All things being equal, I think the Green guy is probably closer to my stand on the issues, but he’s just not competent. Hence, Jerry Brown is your man.

12. Superior court judges:

I’m sorry, there’s just not enough info for me here. I can’t make an informed decision.

Council Member, Santa Clara, seat 2: Undecided.

Another one I can’t call from where I’m sitting. Caserta seems not to be very visionary, but then neither does Hardy, and she is rather vague about what she wants.

Ok. I think I see a trend in the coverage of these, the lower levels of the election. This is where time and the internet become an issue. You’ve been immersed in the more local levels of government for years, and I don’t feel competent beyond a certain level of representation. You know these people, you’ve read their press releases, heard the talk about them around the coffee tables, know the people they’ve dated and how they did in school. I am not competent to make decisions at this level, and it would be wrong of me to do so. The stuff online is just too vague and written for people who know the issues already. So I won’t cast any more person votes beyond this point. There is also much more of what I’ve heard described as “dog whistle politics” here: people saying things which certain segments of the population understand, and others don’t. Therefore, I stop here with the personal elections. You, hopefully, will have the knowledge to fill out the rest of the ballot. However, I will give some opinions on the propositions below:

1A – 1E: YES. Your infrastructure, health care, education system and disaster preparedness systems are lacking. Though I am big on pay-as-you-go fiscal responsibility, I think the bonds might be a good idea in your economy, and encourage further growth. Go for it.

Proposition 83: NO. This is a phony measure which seems to be tough on crime, while actually misunderstanding what and who sex offenders are and how they work. This will only tie up money and resources, while not putting the money where they should be: in rehabilitation, therapy and prevention. This law will not make children safer. It just serves to do three things: allow politicians to seem tough on crime, increase government intervention into the continued lives of ex-convicts and serving to further ostracize the sexual offenders, preventing rehabilitation and reassimilation into society.

Prop 84: I am unsure. Water safety is incredibly important throughout southern California, and with the seismic activity, there is good reason to be concerned. I remember the taste of chlorine all too well. However, bonds are a big deal, and should not be issued frivolously. I say a cautious no, but you can decide this one.

Prop 85: NO. God, no. Violent homes, anyone? Religious sects? Coathangers and backalley abortions? No. This is just a sham proposition to inch things closer to overturning Roe v. Wade. No.

Prop 86: YES. I hate to say this, but cigarette taxes and stronger smoking laws work. The US, Norway, and most other parts of the world has a rampant respiratory health and addiction problem caused by the fact that what should be a luxury good has been turned into an everyday addictive substance. The tobacco industry is killing people for profits. The cigarette tax is a great idea, and it's good for all of us.

Prop 87: YES. The US oil companies have been preventing research and implementation of alternative energy sources for decades. Drilling fees are a great idea, and funneling them into green energy is an even better one.

Prop 88: YES. If, say, you live in Montecito, which at one point had the highest rate of billionaires per square mile of anywhere in the US, you don’t get to decide whether your school district needs more money than South Central LA does. That’s why we have government, and that’s why we have common solutions.

Prop 89: YES. This is the kind of legislation you need. Serious campaign finance reform limits what I would honestly only describe as institutionalised corruption, levels the playing field for outside candidates, and disallows state contractors to influence the process.

Prop 90: YES. The Kelo decision was not good, benefitting big corporations at the expense of private property owners. The right to compensation and safety in the public relevance of whatever is taking over your property are vital to trust in the state and to the continued public spirit. This is a fair measure, although apparently some of the language is a bit incautious.

I can’t really decide on the two local measures, seeing as how I don’t know the local affairs well enough. However, I think the general idea of binding arbitration is sound, and we use it in Norway by rule.

That’s the last of it.

So again, I hope you take my advice seriously. Thank you again for your interesting offer. I hope you, Santa Clara, California and the United States of America have the very best future money can buy, and I hope this election works out; for all of us.

Oh, and good luck with the rats. You might want to see The Departed by Scorcese. It’s all about the rats.

All the best,
Martin

PS: an update. Bitch PhD has some interesting points to make on the propositions as well. She has pointed out some flaws in prop 90 and prop 88 I was not aware of, and somehow missed in the documentation. I must have read them too late at night. She also has some interesting points on prop 1A-E. I think she might be right about 1A, but 1B I'm still not convinced on.

[I moved this up top because I deliberately left it down below in order to keep the ProSalong thing up top.]

Kom på ProSalong!

Jeg har de siste par ukene drevet på og arrangert et ProSalong- debattmøte som skal være nå på tirsdag. Håper at dere alle sammen kan komme, og ta med alle vennene deres.

ProSalong er et forum for formidling av faglitteratur i Bergen, drevet av NFF og en gruppe av lokale frivillige fra forskjellige kulturaktører.

PROSALONG BERGEN

tirsdag 7. november.

Tema:
Religionskritikk og innvandring

gjester:

ANNE SOFIE ROALD & GUNNAR SKIRBEKK

Klar Bar på Zachariasbryggen. Fri entre. Dørene åpner 1900.
Kveldens vert er Frode Helmich Pedersen.

Det nyoppstartede forskningsprosjektet Politics of Faith på CMI skal undersøke forholdet mellom religion og politikk i den globaliserte verdenen. Norge og Danmark gjennomlevde siste vinter sine største utenrikspolitiske kriser siden andre verdenskrig. Det ble ettertrykkelig slått fast av karikatursaken at minoritetsspørsmål, og forholdet mellom religion og ytringsfrihet er blant de viktigste politiske spørsmålene i vår tid. Hva er vilkårene for å ha religiøse minoriteter i det moderne samfunn? Er religionskritikk og karikaturer nødvendige for å kunne sameksistere? Hva er vilkårene for dialog?

Anne Sofie Roald (f. 1954) er religionshistoriker og leder forskningsprosjektet Politics of Faith på CMI. Hun er en av Skandinavias førende eksperter på islam, med en rekke bøker og artikler bak seg, som undersøker overlappinger mellom islam, kvinnespørsmål, minoritetsstudier, demokrati og religionsfrihet.

Gunnar Skirbekk (f. 1937) er filosof og grunnlegger av Senter for Vitskapsteori ved Universitetet i Bergen. Siden hans første bok, Nihilisme? (1958), til nyeste, Den filosofiske uroa (2005), har han beskjeftiget seg med rasjonalitet, modernitet, kulturell dialog, ideologi, religion og rettferdighet.

Carbon Dioxide

I just saw Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth, and I have to say I was impressed. It is a stunning and powerful piece of political rhetoric and well worth seeing. If you visit the website, they have a page where you can calculate your carbon footprint. Unfortunately, it only works for the US, so you could perhaps try this page instead. It uses UK figures, which are probably closer to most EU figures.

Tøff i pyjamas

Her intervjuar Dagbladet kjærasten min om bokklubbar, nynorsk og kanonar. Eg vil forresten gjerne få rapportere at dei klede ho har på seg er ein silkepyjamas og ein s.k. sengehygge (eit plagg som varmar overkroppen i senga). Eg kan også avsløre at grunnen til at ho poserer i Dagbladet med ein sengehygge og silkepyjamas med eit lurt smil om munnen er at dette er eit illustrasjonsfoto som vart teken i høve ein artikkel som handla om brukte klede.

Simulacra.

I could really do with some sushi right about now

You like fish, hmm? You like fish? A nice cut of poached salmon, hmm? You like sushi? You like those maki rolls? How about just fish and chips? Yeah, well get it while you still can, cause there's not going to be any in 50 years.

Varmen er slått av på lesesalen. Det er sikkert ikke mer enn 10 grader her inne. Tennene klaprer.

"T-t-t-there m-m-m-ay b-b-be nu-nothing t-t-t-t-say ab-bout w-w-w-w-w-writerly t-t-t-texts." Ville jeg ha lest, om jeg hadde lest høyt fra Rrroland B-b-b-b-arthes' Ssss/z-z-z-z-Z.

November

Her kommer mørketiden. Denne bloggens eneste tradisjon har vært å publisere dette diktet på 1. november. Så her er det:

Året har 16 måneder: november, december
januar, februar, marts, april, maj,
juni, juli, august, september, oktober,
november, november, november, november.

(Henrik Nordbrandt, Håndens skælven i november)