vilking

People, buy Pepsi. Unless they cave, in which case buy Coca-Cola.

"AFA asked Pepsi to stay neutral in the culture war." What? They're not the Romulans, you know.

This article by Steven Pinker, the language theorist, in the New York Times, is ostensibly about Obama's bungled oath of office, but it also contains a few passages that nicely encapsulate my approach to grammar.

'Language pedants hew to an oral tradition of shibboleths that have no basis in logic or style, that have been defied by great writers for centuries, and that have been disavowed by every thoughtful usage manual. Nonetheless, they refuse to go away, perpetuated by the Gotcha! Gang and meekly obeyed by insecure writers.

'Among these fetishes is the prohibition against “split verbs,” in which an adverb comes between an infinitive marker like “to,” or an auxiliary like “will,” and the main verb of the sentence. According to this superstition, Captain Kirk made a grammatical error when he declared that the five-year mission of the starship Enterprise was “to boldly go where no man has gone before”; it should have been “to go boldly.” Likewise, Dolly Parton should not have declared that “I will always love you” but “I always will love you” or “I will love you always.”

'Any speaker who has not been brainwashed by the split-verb myth can sense that these corrections go against the rhythm and logic of English phrasing. The myth originated centuries ago in a thick-witted analogy to Latin, in which it is impossible to split an infinitive because it consists of a single word, like dicere, “to say.” But in English, infinitives like “to go” and future-tense forms like “will go” are two words, not one, and there is not the slightest reason to interdict adverbs from the position between them.'

Personally, I'd go further and say that when it comes to grammar, you should just make shit up. It's your language, be free!

My feelings on the United States closing of Guantanamo Bay:

'A [silly fellow] will say some shit like, "I take care of my kids." You're supposed to, you dumb motherfucker! What kind of ignorant shit is that? "I ain't never been to jail!" What do you want, a cookie?! You're not supposed to go to jail, you low-expectation-having motherfucker!'

--Chris Rock.

This is what I call 'The Rock Doctrine' - ie, you shouldn't have to be commended for doing something a normal person/country would do anyway.

(The words 'silly fellow' replace another word that I'm not going to put on this LJ.)

The top 25 songs of 2008, mashed:

I've been reading the comments on the Guardian's story about Matt Smith being cast as the 11th Doctor. It's surprising how prejudiced people are about young people. I happen to quite like this new Doctor - after all, the Doctor is 900+ years old, so no actor is of 'sufficient age/experience' to adequately play him. But this is because I am an optimistic person, and therefore not at home in Britain, whose national motto is a quiet moan.

One observation, though, is - I think this Doctor's personality will be remarkably different than the Tenth's. The Eleventh looks like the brooding type.

I suddenly feel an urge to grow a moustache.

This urge needs to be combatted swiftly and with all necessary force.

I do sometimes wish I were an expert on something. Instead my knowledge covers a wide range of issues over which I have rather shallow understanding. I sometimes startle myself at my lack of intellectual or moral rigour.

I think the number of people who've said to me over the past week, "yeah, but he's going to disappoint, just you wait", suggests that no-one will be disappointed - in fact they'll be secretly pleased.

I was just talking to KG, who asked for my blog address. I told him he wouldn't be interested because it's turned into a desolate backwater for me to extemporise upon the political system of a country I've never lived in and probably never will.

Would anyone who reads this blog be surprised to know I seriously considered American Studies rather than English Literature for my BA?

Anyway, I'm writing now on the 4th of November. IT IS ELECTION DAY. The fucking behemoth has lumbered its way over the stony mountain, and has finally sat down to tea. Thank goodness. It only took two years! Soon my life will be back to normal. I have, for months upon months, looked at polls every day, read American blogs and American newspapers for every scrap of information as to how it was going to go, searching for fuel for my anger or inspiration. I've speculated within myself as I walk to work, and speculated out loud to friends (who have held differing levels of interest) about every aspect - who will be the Vice Presidential nominees, which states will eventually be in play, et cetera. Every twist and every turn has seemed of monumental, game-changing importance - and today, the final turn will be taken. The big one. The actual fucking election. It's like a life, which proceeds by minor horrors and miracles day by day, each of which seems monumental, until the final horror itself, the reality of the end.

So the election has to happen. And then the litigation, if there is any. And then the constructive work of building a presidency will have to take place. These things, presidential administrations, are huge organisations, and are generally built up over a matter of months, and destroyed piece by piece over a matter of years. Obama or McCain will have to choose a chief of staff, and then begin creating a cabinet. The cabinet will then have to be filled with sub-cabinet appointees. The process of building relationships with foreign leaders will have to take place. It will be a hectic time - important, but less thrilling, than what is about to happen today.

What's going to happen today? Well, for me, I'm going to go to work, make some phone calls, do some casework, then go on over to Andy's... oh, you mean in America. Heavens to murgatroyd, yes. Lots of things will happen today. Over a hundred million people will vote, for one thing, if they haven't already voted. They will encounter huge, punishing queues. A majority of them will most likely vote for Barack Obama - his last average was 52% to McCain's 44%. It is unlikely that McCain will be able to make that up.

But then, as the 2000 election (and indeed the 1876 election) shows, the winner of the popular vote doesn't win the election. Because that would be far too sensible. The winner of the Presidential election is the first candidate to gain 270 electoral votes. Put simply, it is easier for Obama to do that than McCain.

Say you're starting from the position we were in after the 2004 election. Kerry had 252 electoral votes; Bush had 286, which is why Bush won the election. Since then, things have changed, and all in the wrong direction for the Republicans. Obama has 'inherited' all 252 electoral votes that Kerry earned - the only ones in doubt are in New Hampshire and Pennsylvania, a combined total of 25 votes. However, when I say 'in doubt' - Obama has been at least seven points ahead in these two for *weeks*. Moreover, Obama has increased his leads in states that Kerry held by a whisker. Obama is further ahead in Penn and NH now than Kerry was.

Since 2004, the Republicans' popularity has declined so that now three states Bush won that year - Colorado, New Mexico and Iowa - have moved firmly into Obama's column according to all the polls since about September. This gives him a total of 21 extra electoral college votes, bringing his total up to 273: ie, over the finish line. So the rest is about two things: a) insurance policies in case anything happens to Penn, NH, or one of these three states, and b) building a mandate for the Obama administration. Obama would like to win in all areas of the country - in the North East, in the South, in the Midwest, in the Rocky Mountains and in the West. (Perhaps not in Alaska.) There are 'in play' states in all these regions. He will also be wanting to bring a large number of Democratic Senators and Congresspeople along with him.

So the worst-case scenario for Obama is, of course, to lose. Duh. He would do this by losing hold of Pennsylvania or New Hampshire and failing to win any of the other swing states. I do not think this will happen.

The second worst-case scenario for Obama is to win narrowly - the '273' scenario I described above.

The best-case scenario is for Obama to win resoundingly. It is just possible that Obama could win 406 - 132, if he were to win *every* single 'toss-up' state: because of the direness of the Republican campaign, 'toss-up states' now include places like Arizona, North Dakota and Montana. But I think in the end, McCain will just about win these. It will be like having all your clothes removed by a passing roadrunner, but still being left a teatowel to hide your shame.

What is more likely to happen is that Obama will win all the Kerry states plus Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Montana or North Dakota, Iowa, Ohio, Virginia and Florida. McCain will win all the Bush States minus these. So that would leave the election Obama 341 - McCain 197.

And then it's a question of exactly what concoction of drinks I mix together to celebrate.

Or it could all go horribly wrong.

I was thinking about 'campaigning' in the US - ie, what purpose it actually serves. Not the grassroots organisational stuff - letters and leaflets in people's mailboxes, canvassing, etc. I mean the campaigning that the big hitters do - people like Obama, Biden, Clinton, McCain, Palin, Giuliani.

It's treated as a big media story if Obama and Bill Clinton are to campaign together, as the NYT reports they're about to do, once, in Orlando FA, or if Obama takes time off from campaigning to see his dying grandmother. But beyond the symbolic nature of Bill Clinton getting over his ego-trip (which you could argue he did anyway in Denver back in August), what purpose does it serve? How does it actually help Obama to have Clinton campaign for him? By this stage of the campaign, big campaign events are basically speeches to people who *already support* the candidates - unlike, say, in the primaries, where people go along to campaign events to help them make up their minds. So what if Obama takes time off from rallying his already devoted supporters? So what if Clinton turns up as a star attraction? Why don't they just spend their time watching TV instead?

Just found this among my internet travels:


Herbert A. Millington
Chair - Search Committee
412A Clarkson Hall, Whitson University
College Hill, MA 34109

Dear Professor Millington,

Thank you for your letter of March 16. After careful consideration, I
regret to inform you that I am unable to accept your refusal to offer me
an assistant professor position in your department.

This year I have been particularly fortunate in receiving an unusually
large number of rejection letters. With such a varied and promising field
of candidates, it is impossible for me to accept all refusals.

Despite Whitson's outstanding qualifications and previous experience in
rejecting applicants, I find that your rejection does not meet my needs at
this time. Therefore, I will assume the position of assistant professor
in your department this August. I look forward to seeing you then.

Best of luck in rejecting future applicants.

Sincerely,
Chris L. Jensen

On a train -

American: "What do British people say for 'goodbye?'"
Me: "Err... goodbye."
American: "Really? Oh."
Me: "Are you looking for 'cheerio'?"
American: "YES! YES! Cheerio!"
Me: "Yes, er, thanks. Ta-ra."
(I get off the train)
Me: "Oh shit, I just said 'ta-ra'"

At dinner:

Seth's mum: "So, you must live in a much smaller house than this in England."

Seth's mum: "Can I get you guys drinks?
[to Seth] coffee?
[to Nate] coffee?
[to Seth's dad] coffee?
[to me] tea?"

Seth's mum: "Do you have pies in England?"

Anyway. In the middle of the night (US time - around 8am here) last night Barack Obama picked Joseph Biden Jr. as his choice for US Vice President. He did it by text messaging all his supporters - he'd promised to let them know before anyone else, which is why it came out in the middle of the night, as that's when the media outlets caught wind of it.



I wrote a long post (with videos) about my thoughts about the Vice Presidency a couple of months ago. Joe Biden figured so low on my radar that I didn't even list him. I was aware of him, but wasn't exactly keen on the idea of him being Vice President. Anyway, I've made up for it with the above video. Ahem.

There are a few reasons why I didn't really rate Joe Biden. He's old n' grey; he's run for President twice now (including this time round) and not got far either time; he's been a Senator since *1973* (1973! Barack Obama was 11 years old at the time, I was minus 12) so he's practically antithetical to the idea Obama ticket, which is all about change in Washington and change in the American way of doing things. He's also been caught plagiarising Neil Kinnock (what kind of person would plagiarise Neil Kinnock?). He's from Delaware, which is rather like saying you're from nowhere. Delaware is the kind of state you can leave by accident, the kind of state that everyone forgets about when they try to name all 50 states. (People do actually play this game.)

He has a tendency to shoot his mouth off and make 'gaffes' - which I actually quite like but political professionals, particularly the Obama camp, tend to hate. One such 'gaffe' was when he referred to Obama as the 'first African-American to run for President who's bright, articulate and clean.' I think it was 'clean' that got to people, as it wasn't as though Shirley Chisholm, Jesse Jackson, Carol Moseley Braun or Al Sharpton had personal hygiene issues. And really, the guy just drew a blank.

But then this is probably one of those things that actually makes sense more if you're an American. Though I like American politics, I'm obviously more aware of the political landscape in my *actual country*. Joe Biden's a bit of a mystery to me, but I guess to Americans who have been seeing him on their TV screens for the past *thirty-five years* (do we have any politicians who have been highly visible for thirty-five years?) this is less of an issue. And with Barack Obama, who it's fair to say many Americans either don't know much about, or 'know' completely false information about, at the top of the ticket, it's probably quite good to have someone with the appeal of a familiar old piece of furniture at the bottom of the ticket.

He does address some of Obama's weaknesses as well. I'm generally a bit sniffy about this kind of approach: I think compensating for your weaknesses is effectively admitting that you fall short in a particular area, and that itself is a sign of weakness. One of the reasons I was quite hot for Gov. Sebelius to be named to the position is that naming her would be a rather ballsy, confident move that didn't play along to the Republican narrative of Obama's deficiencies.

But this took a bit of a hit during the South Ossetia crisis - while John McCain's approach was confident and alarmingly wrong (an approach popular with many Republicans), Obama's was hedged and betrayed some uncertainty. This wasn't altogether surprising as I doubt most westerners could fumble together a coherent view on politics in the Caucasus apart from "Russia! Bad! Bad Russia!" - which was basically McCain's view and was therefore warmly received by a lot of Americans.

I think with Joe Biden on board this Obama deficiency *is* shorn up, though, and it probably shows that Obama is more politically mature than I am that he made the pick. Reasons why Joe Biden is good in this area: he's a long-serving member, now Chairman, of the Committee of Foreign Relations (which essentially means that this is the area he specialises in, and has a long history of making important decisions in); his expertise in foreign relations issues is evident whenever he speaks on the subject, and proof of this came last week when the (admittedly mad) President of Georgia personally asked him to come during the crisis there. He's also actually passionate about a number of issues in the world that lie outside of the American sphere of interest - case in point, Darfur. This makes a change from previous foreign policy 'experts' in the Bush administration. While he was running against Obama last year, he made much of his foreign policy experience advantages over him (as did everyone else...); this will of course make for some Republican attack ad fodder - meh, who cares. Obama has made it clear that he wants a Vice President who disagrees with him and challenges him on issues constantly. Obama is a big opponent of groupthink, a disease which overtakes all administrations, and is showing worrying signs of taking over the Obama campaign at the moment; I think his selection of Biden suggests that he's trying to combat this disease.

He also fills out some demographic points. I have to say when I see the Obama/Biden photo (above), it doesn't quite gel because these two guys aren't at all similar. The message their images project is so completely at odds. But he is a working-class guy (one of the least wealthy senators in terms of assets, but who doesn't brag on and on about it like the now-superwealthy John Edwards) of a certain age (65) who is very popular among old, poor voters, a group Obama is having a lot of trouble with. That said, I think if Obama was looking for an old white man for his deputy, it's not as though he had a paucity of choice. The guy is also ferocious and funny in attacking opponents - another weakness of Obama's, who is often quite cool, relaxed and slow to rebut attacks.

So, the guy makes sense for two reasons: he adds to the campaign, and he will add to the Obama administration. If Obama doesn't make it to 2016 for any reason, he'll make a good President. After 2016, assuming all goes well, people will be tired of Obama - because this is what happens in politics - and will be looking for a change. This is where Biden will provide his best service, much like Vice President Cheney has for the Republicans; he'll be 73 by then, and probably unviable as a candidate, so like Cheney he'll probably not run to succeed Obama. The fact that, in this election, McCain isn't strongly tied to the current administration, is his best asset, without which he'd be sunk. If it was Cheney running this time round, the election would be a cakewalk for Obama. As it is, the Republicans are genuine challengers, and that's down to Cheney's willingness to step aside. Who then in 2016? Mark Warner, David Patterson, Claire McCaskill? Eight years ago Barack Obama was nowhere (he couldn't even get tickets to the Democratic convention), so it could well be someone we've never heard of.

One point I should make finally. John McCain is 72; Joe Biden is 65. Menzies Campbell was 66 when he eventually resigned from the Lib Dem leadership, mainly because of the burden of the press ridiculing his age. Sad really.

Tomorrow I work, and bury incriminating items.
On Monday I have bank holiday. On Tuesday I fly out to see Seth. I stay in New York for a week.
I fly back over the next Tuesday-Wednesday. I go see Hamlet in Stratford on Wednesday night and stay there that night. I go to work again on Friday.
On Saturday I go to Bruxelles and work in the European Parliament for a week until Friday. On Friday I go back to Watford for the night.
On Saturday I go down to Bournemouth and stay there for the Liberal Democrat national convention, until Wednesday. By now it is the middle of September.
On 18th September I finally resume normal life.

I love this.

"The insinuation from the Obama campaign that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, cheated is outrageous."

Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni
Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands
In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen
Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk
Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Und es nur durch verdoppelte Arbeit
Zurückerobern könne. Wäre es da
Nicht doch einfacher, die Regierung
Löste das Volk auf und
Wählte ein anderes?



Well, that's what I say when I'm not thinking clearly, anyway. And inclined to speak in German and quote Brecht. But the whole thing is extraordinarily frustrating.