kangeiko: (buffy is my hero)
I'm numb. Numb or just not processing this.

I remember feeling like this when I was on holiday and the London riots broke out. I felt so helpless. I'm stuck halfway across the world and I want to cry, and everyone is greeting me with a cheery smile and a "Happy Friday!" NO, don't you understand, everything is awful and is just going to get worse.

I'm so, so angry. All those idiots who voted to leave because they thought it would benefit them or because they thought it would never pass, or because they thought it would be 'a laugh'. All those who are complaining that they were lied to, when - consider the source. At some point, you have to accept responsibility that you listened to Nigel Farage and to Britain First and to the EDL and decided to be a xenophobe and ignore the reams of experts telling you that you're fucking up. Coalitions of doctors, teachers, economic experts, industray leaders all lined up to say you're going to do the country and the world an injury, and did anyone listen? "Everyone is at fault except me, because I didn't think my vote was actually a vote."

And then you have places like Cornwall. Where they voted overwhelmingly to leave, and then went - "hold on, but we still keep all that EU money we get every year, don't we?" No, Cornwall. What you've voted on is to land the UK into a 2 decades-long recession, and to bear the brunt of it. Because no one is going to give you anything. You think Farage or Johnson have any interest in sending money your way? You will sink further and further into deprivation and I would have more sympathy if you hadn't done this to yourselves.

I am so tired of people refusing responsibility for their own stupidity. The tens of thousands googling "what will leaving the EU mean" in a panic after they've already voted and the result has been called. Those who argue that somehow we're in a better negotiating position for having given away everything that matters. And that cunt Farage, for saying "without a shot fired" after a political assassination not even a week ago. The white rose from Jo Cox's memorial is still fresh on my bureau. And he sits there and disrespects her life, and her death. It's inhuman.

And yeah. Boris Johnson. A man so self-serving that he attached himself to a campaign he doesn't believe in, assuming it will fail but he can paint himself as the underdog. Guess what, Boris, you fucked the country. You and Cameron will go down in history as the politicians who killed off Great Britain.

Finally, what does this mean going forward? Well, if the EU has any sense, they will slap the most punitive measures imaginable on the UK. They have to persuade other countries where the Right is on the rise that breaking away causes more harm than their xenophobia can stand. They need to be able to point at the broken ruin of Britain and use us as a warning for all others. This, and only this, may stem the domino effect from spiralling out of control. Because of this happens, it won't just be Europe - every other major trading bloc will be dragged in and the recession might be world-wide and lasting. So yeah, to save everyone else, the EU will need to gut the UK. And I am strangely ok with this. Because you know what, we fucked up. I know that those fo us who voted remain, we tried, but it wasn't enough. And so we have to all share in the punishment of it.

So I'm calling it. Up to two decades of recession so severe it might be a Depression. Scotland becoming independent. A united Ireland (with more sectarian violence as a result). Spain taking Gibraltar (and everyone going willingly). A fracture between the trading bloc of London, Manchester, Newcastle and the xenophobic, angry countryside, sliding ever more into complete economic ruin. Millions of forcibly repatriated pensioners previously retired in Spain suddenly dumped on our doorstep. The loss of qualified people - a shortage of plumbers, of builders (because we're drowning in housing, right?), or nurses, of young, motivated workers. Rage by the young at what the old have done. Punitive politics. I was surprised that the student loans didn't trigger it, but it won't be far behind - a political party championing the rights of the young at the expense of gutting old age provision, pensions, etc. Not getting to power, but getting enough traction to stoke further resentment. And meanwhile. Those tariffs, blocking every attempt at trade. Every attempt at growth. For decades. Because what do we have to negotiate with?

Some lawyers are saying that Johnson et al can now stall indefinitely - nothing can legally compel them to press the Article 50 button. This is true. But what does delaying mean? If somehow Johnson can manage a political about-face and call a second referendum once the awful, punitive terms are known, that may be the only way forward. More young voters will be enfranchised, and hopefully the idiotic element will have managed to kill itself by playing in traffic. But how realistic is that? We couldn't even get this right the first time.

Yeah, I'm one of the lucky ones. I have dual nationality and thus will retain my European passport. You can bet that I will be making sure it is up to date.
kangeiko: (thoughtful)
I have spent the last couple of weeks back at work, and filled with inexplicable rage. It seems only a few days ago that I was happily sleeping until noon and not giving a thought to what has been happening in the exciting world of international aid. Sadly, it was only a few days ago, and I wish that my Christmas holidays could have been extended a little longer in order to put off the inevitable.

Let me explain. The world of international aid works something like this: charities do their best to run effective programmes, and some are more successful than others. The most successful programmes (measured by how much money gets spent on the programme) get funded, and the least successful (those with the highest overhead costs) get cut. If I told you that Charity X spends 50% of all money donated on overheads, and Charity Y spends 80% of all donations on overheads, everyone would pick Charity X (and complain about the cost of the bloody overheads, to boot).

Now, suppose you're running Charity X. You have a great many programmes and not enough money to continue funding them all. Costs are going up all the time, inflation is ridiculous, and the exchange rates have decided to bend you over the nearest bench without so much as a by-your-leave. So you're trying to decide what gets funded: this governance programme, or that malaria initiative. The malaria initiative involves mosquito nets, and you're shifting tons of the stuff, so it's expensive and you're spending loads more on that than on your staff and office costs. It looks good on paper, because your overheads are low, and your programme costs are high. The governance programme - for instance, working with grassroots organisations to encourage government transparency and accountability - is heavy on people and doesn't have a whole lot of aid money going out, so it looks like a waste of time. So you de-fund the governance programme and pump funds into malaria.

And why not? Malaria is a big issue, and many governments are piss-poor at doing anything about it. The problem is, the reason they don't do anything is partly because the mechanisms of government are so completely bollocked up that sending in direct aid funds is like pouring money down the drain. If the UK government then sends the Dictator of Country A lots of aid funds and asks him nicely to spend it on mosquito nets, don't be surprised if he decides to buy himself some new guns instead. So now you have malaria and guns, which was not the intended result.

What is a better plan is spending that money on building better, more accountable governance structures. CIPFA - the UK public sector accountancy body - is working with the Nigerian government on developing accountability and transparency in government operations. The reason for this is that a better, more accountable government benefits everybody. A better, more accountable government will hopefully prioritise mosquito nets over new tanks (unless you're Mr Cameron, in which case you'll prioritise tax cuts for the wealthy instead of flu jabs for the poor).

Of course, while you and every other aid agency is channeling funds into helping grassroots organisations build better civil societies, there are millions of children dying of malaria because no one coughed up for the bloody nets.

So there you have it. Do you spend your money on a long-term option that will eventually help to bring about robust, accountable governments, or do you try to stop people dying in the meantime?

Answers on a postcard, no longer than 140 characters.

kangeiko: (wasting time online)
I should know better than to read the Have Your Say section of the BBC website, but I got very little sleep last night and more or less clicked on the wrong link.

HYS: Koran protest on hold: Your Reactions


I'm not actually talking about the book-burning itself, which seems like a media gift-horse for a crazy man who should have been ignored. I'm talking about the idiots weighing in on the discussion. Dear ignorant bigots, let's get a few things clear:

1. It's a protest against a mosque being built on Ground Zero.
Nobody is building a 'mosque' on Ground Zero. It's an Islamic Cultural Centre, and it will be in Manhattan, and relatively close to Ground Zero, but not ON GRound Zero, which will be a memorial. People remembered that it will be a memorial. The press reported on a mosque being built on GRound Zero. So this became conflated into 'a memorial mosque on Ground Zero'.

What else is in proximity to Ground Zero? Everything up to and including strip clubs and gay clubs. And yet no one seems to know this. It's the equivalent of the UK protesting the opening of an Islamic bookshop (which has as much in common with a mosque as a cultural centre does) near one of the 7/7 sites (which are in Central London and it is almost impossible to avoid proxity to one of them) with the headline, "Mosque to be built on 7/7 site". Where is the cultural centre going to be built? Several streets away. You will notice that the map labels the proposed site as that for an Islamic cultural centre, while the rest of the article uses the word 'mosque'. Bad show, BBC.

2. This is free speech, like the Danish cartoons.
This is what the artist of the cartoons had to say about the proposed burning: "Satire is provocation. Provocation should lead to reflection, to enlightenment, to knowledge. In this case, this is really not the case."

Free speech? Well, he was allowed to go ahead with the burning, but apparently some confusion over not recognising different imams led him to think some sort of deal had been struck and to suspend it. You know what would be a violation of free speech? Banning someone planning permission to build a cultural centre based on their religion. Preventing someone from practising their religion peacefully. Preventing people from speaking about Islam and the cultures of the millions of different people around the globe that it embraces.

3. Islam is some other country's religion
Newsflash: while Islam may be the official religion of several countries (not all of which are in the Midle East, shock horror), religion is not bound by official borders. There are Muslims in America, just as there are Christians in Iran.

It makes me think. Putting to one side the reaction outside the US, very little has been heard from American Muslims on this. I wonder why an entire section of society remains silent on an issue that would doubtless cause offense. When groups remain silent, it makes me wonder just how free the free speech really is.

4. Christianity doesn't teach "and eye for an eye any more", whereas death sentences are common in Muslim countries, and this is a protest against that.
Look. Lets look at this logically. There are 58 countries that retained the death penalty in 2009, most of which did not use it. But let's look at these 58, and see whether they are indeed Muslim countries.


Clicky for a breakdown )

So what do these figures show us? Of the 58 countries who still execuse people for ordinary crimes (e.g. murder), 19 have Islam as the official religion, 1 has Christianity, 2 have other or not specified, and the majority - 36 countries - are secular ones, with no official religion.

Of those 58 countries, only 18 actually carried out executions in 2009. 9 of those were Islamic countries, and the rest were secular. The overwhelming majority of executions were carried out in China, a secular country, with thousands of executions. The next-largest number are in Iran, with 388+ executions.

The USA (population 370m, 2009 census), a secular country, carried out more executions (52) than the Islamic countries of Bangladesh (160m population, 3 executions), Egypt (81.5m population, 5+ executions), Sudan (41m population, 9+ executions), and Yemen (23m population, 30+ executions) put together. Anyone doing the maths, that's 370m vs c. 300m, so if we're looking per capita, the USA executed slightly less people per capita than some of the poorest Islamic countries in the world.

In other words, the correlation between religion and the death penalty is rather weak (caveat: I haven't bothered to run a real correlation analysis on this because I really need to have a shower and breakfast, also, I am busting for the loo). I will bet you real money that the correlation between a dictatorial system of government and widespread poverty and the death penalty (and its use) is much stronger.

*

Stepping back from the statistics for a moment, where on earth did you see this guy protesting anything other than the sheer existence of Islam?! Ascribing to him any motives other than wanting his 15 minutes of fame is giving him way too much credit.
kangeiko: (LoM)
Anonymity in rape cases. Boy, that's a strange issue. The government has recently clarified it's proposal to attempt to reinstate this measure by limiting it until the accused has been formally charged. This is not enough for women's groups, who point out that no such similar provision has been proposed for other serious crimes.

The problem is, rape isn't like other serious crimes, and certainly isn't treated like it in law. The vast majority of rapes are carried out by someone the victim knows. This means that when they come forward to report a crime, they are not saying "someone raped me", they are saying "he raped me". I've always found that a difficult concept to understand in terms of law. On the one hand, the suspect is presumed innocent until proven guilty. But in the majority of cases, the question isn't about whether sex took place or not, or who was involved, but whether consent was given. So while in a straight-forward assault charge a barrister may argue that her client was not present, and the victim was assaulted by someone else, they rarely dispute the crime's existence. The victim's word, and the physical evidence, are enough for a crime to have been assumed to have happened, and the investigation is about identifying the culprit.

In a rape case, the sex is often not disputed. It is consent that is argued over. The defence often does not rest on, "it wasn't my client", but, rather, "no crime took place". In assuming the suspect innocent, then, the law calls into question whether a crime was ever committed. The onus is then on the victim to prove that a crime, rather than sex, took place.

Let's step back from that for a second. To a legislator looking at the figures, anonymity for those accused of rape makes sense from a numbers perspective: here is a crime with only a 6% conviction rate. There are two possibilities: either the current law makes it practically impossible to prosecute this crime successfully, or too many innocent people are being accused unnecessarily. So from a rights perspective, 94% of those accused were never convicted (most never brought to trial), and therefore protecting them from the stigma of the accusation is important. Add to that government's general helplessness in the face of conviction statistics: we know the law doesn't work but don't know how to fix it (and in many cases don't have the power). Only about 10% or so of reported rapes are 'stranger rapes'. Let's assume that about half of those got a conviction (in reality they are much more likely to do so than non-stranger rapes). That accounts for 5% of the total number reported as "stranger rapes = solved". A further 5% are "stranger rapes = unsolved" and 1% are "non-stranger rapes = convicted". The remaining 89% of reported non-stranger rapes are therefore, by the assumption that "non-conviction=no crime has been committed", not crimes at all! So why would any legislator work on 'creating' more crimes, when they can work on 'protecting' more 'innocent people accused unjustly'?

I understand why the govt is reacting the way they are. I also think they are missing the point. The laws surrounding rape and sexual assault need to be reviewed so that there is no longer the default assumption of an unjust accusation and no crime committed. The CPS currently has an impossible job in having to both prove the guilt of the defendent and to prove that a crime has been committed each and every time. The figures lie to us, and the law lies to us. Both need to be changed before we can start thinking about anonymity for the accused in any sort of crime.
kangeiko: (Default)

Tomorrow night, C4 will be screening a Dispatches documentary, The Lost Girls of South Africa. I will be watching it closely.

In 2009, the Medical Research Council published survey data regarding rape and sexual assault in South Africa. (statistics details) )


The statistics are horrific: a child is raped every 3 minutes in South Africa (details of the statistics) )

. However, what is more disturbing is the survey results, which showed that 1 in 4 men admitted to having committed a rape. Think about that for a second. More commentary below the cut. )


kangeiko: (Default)

I just confirmed that the Electoral Commission received my application for a postal vote. I was a bit worried as I hadn't heard back from them and the deadline is tomorrow, but am pleased that it has been put through. Voting papers through the post soon, yays!

Which leads me to the happy-making polls being run, showing the LibDems coming out first. That's right, a jump in opinion polls from lagging third to just-beating-Cameron-to-the-post first place. Ofcourse, given the way the seats are split up this still leaves them in third place re: seats won, but it makes the election that much tighter. And you just a few new voters to get themselves registered and turn up on the day...

My point is, the Leader's Debate managed to get people actually talking and caring about the election which, given the political apathy of the last couple of decades, is nothing short of amazing.
kangeiko: (Default)
Oh, God. According to the Electoral Reform Society, my parliamentary seat is Marginal 2: "the real front line between Labour and Conservative government". All righty.

Problem is, I generally vote Lib Dem, and was planning to do so again. For the local elections the battle is between Lib Dems and Tories - no issues about voting there. But with the parliamentary elections, it's looking a Labour vs Tory battleground. Which makes the back of my teeth ache. Do I swallow my political convictions and vote - gulp - Labour, simply to try to keep out the Tories? Do I vote Lib Dem regardless? Do I emigrate and make it someone else's problem?

This is why we shouldn't discuss politics at the dinner-table.
kangeiko: (thoughtful)
I'm going to wade in to the healthcare debate currently waging. A few points.

1. The Democratic bill does not, in any way, shape or form, resemble the NHS. So deciding to have a huge swing at the NHS "just because" is bad form.

2. Stephen Hawking is British. He was born British, and he lives in the UK. So your argument that "he wouldn't have a chance in the UK" is void, as the man says himself.

3. I'm interested that, thus far, no one has commented on the race relations implications of the proposal and the Republican response. The demographic that would overwhelmingly benefit from free healthcare would be the Hispanic and particularly the African American population, who experience greater infant mortality and have a harder time securing health insurance. The part that would lose out are the wealthy classes (primarily white) that would see their taxes rise higher than their premiums. Yet no-one seems to be commenting on the fact that the Republicans are blocking the reform of a set-up currently massively weighted in favour of whites.

4. Death panels? Seriously? As I understand it, they already exist: in insurance companies, where regular debates on who gets their life-saving op paid for wage. Or, rather, how they can get out of paying for the life-saving op. Again, those that suffer disproportionately are those that can't mount a legal challenge, i.e. the poor and disenfranchised Hispanic and African American populations. Because life expectancy comes into it as well, and the life expectancy of an African American male is 66.1 years, a lot lower than the 73.6 year average for men (wiki has the average male life expectancy at 75.5, which is an even higher gap). By comparison, Costa Rica (with its free universal health care) has male life expectancy of 74.6, Cuba 72.6, Dominican Republic 71.3, and North Korea 69.18 (!!) (linky). So there's something to be proud of, I suppose.

5. For those arguing that Medicaid is just as effective as the NHS, in at least one state, an already paltry provision is about to become even weaker. Those arguing that it's sufficient to meet the health needs of the population without health insurance are throwing ever-smaller scraps from their table and calling it a meal.

Just fyi -

Apr. 13th, 2009 11:52 pm
kangeiko: (Default)
I'm not posting new posts about the Amazon issue, I'm just updating my original post with any new links and/or info.
kangeiko: (Default)
Amazon.com has been removing books containing LGBT content from their search function. That means that Oranges are not the only fruit is not showing up. Ostensibly, this is because they don't allow their search function to list 'adult' content. Really? Justine and 120 Days of Sodom both show up, as does The Story of O and Lost Girls, not to mention all Past Venus and Silver Moon titles. Those books are not showing up, and they are denied a sales rank (which helps drive the search engine), lest this indicate that people are genuinely interested in Halberstam's Female Masculinity. You let people buy critical theory books and who knows where that madness might lead?

Outraged? Too fucking right. )

*

Yeah, it was ranty. I don't care. Who the fuck dares to ban Halberstam?? Although I am vaguely amused that a search for 'female masculinity' brings up Butler's 'Undoing Gender' and 'Gender Trouble'. D'you suppose they're next for the ban-bin?

- A list of the books affected.

- A petition on the subject.

- Amazon.com's official stance

- A good write-up of the whole thing.

Hat-tips: [livejournal.com profile] raedbard, [livejournal.com profile] hhertzof.

ETA:
There appears to be several different levels of this. 'Oranges' and 'Female Masculinity', along with a few others, are not showing up in the search pages at all, and have no sales rank. 'The Story of O' is showing up in searches, but also has no sales rank. This means that none of the books above can be seen on the best-sellers list. Some, like Oranges, can't be found without a direct link to the page from an external source (such as Google).

I'm not quite why there are two lists - maybe it's based on the search word? My thoughts are:
- there should be NO books excluded from the search engine: that's censorship by proxy, limiting the choice available by lying about its existence.
- regarding the books without a sales rank (if this is how they are excluded from the best-seller lists): I understand if a company does not wish to have adult content prominent on its best-sellers list. I disagree, but I understand. However, 'gay', lesbian' 'trans-gendered' or any other related search term is not a synonym for 'adult content'. You don't get to exclude Winterson, you bastards. You want to exclude erotica, fine. Think of a non-bigoted way to do that.

So, Tipping the Velvet and all other Sarah Waters novels? Restore their goddamn sales ranks.

(Incidentally, Fingersmith is one of the books not featuring a sales rank. Fingersmith, as many of you will know, was shortlisted for the Booker Prize and Orange Prize. Winterson's Oranges are not the only fruit won the Whitbread prize, and is on the curriculum of most English Lit students. )

Do you suppose they'd also remove the sales rank of The Inheritance of Loss (#12,248 in the best-seller list - 2006 Booker winner, when Night Watch by Waters was shortlisted) or The Life of Pi (#1,120 in the best-seller list - 2002 Booker winner, when Fingersmith was shortlisted)? No? I didn't think so.

ETA2:
The Night Watch paperback edition is not showing up in the search results, but it does have a sales rank. Interesting. So - three lists? Four? How the hell are they filtering things, so only some are getting through?

ETA3:
- Amazon claims it's all a glitch.
- Article in the LA Times - Amazon deranks National Book Award Winner.
- Googlebombing for Amazon Rank.
- Commentary on the supposed glitch.

ETA4:
- Background on this, going back to Feb. Hat-tip: [livejournal.com profile] queenspanky.
- Was it a hacker? Maybe not. Hat-tip: [livejournal.com profile] eponis.
- Guardian article. Hat-tip: [livejournal.com profile] raedbard.

ETA5:
- Conversations with an Amazon rep: This is not a glitch. via [livejournal.com profile] metafandom.
kangeiko: (thoughtful)
UN halts aid after Hamas hijacks enovy

The entire situation is making me sick. The aid was going into Gaza, Hamas, I have no bloody idea what the point of that hijack was. Seriously. I am scratching my head. And throwing things. But mostly scratching my head.
kangeiko: (Default)
AAARGH.

I know it's a mistake to stray from my safe little corner of the reasonable, sensible internets, but there I go again, into the territory of people who get their news entirely from Faux News.

Don't clicky if you don't want the rage )

*

More rage, part the second )

*

Ah, I feel better.

ETA: Even more so for deleting their latest comment without reading. Srly, when the pinnacle of your argument is 'but you're mean!', that's when I stop caring.
kangeiko: (Default)
The new President is busy overturning close to a decade of insane and borderline-psychotic policies:
- A lift on the ban on stem cell research.
- Dropping the global gag rule.
- Banning 'enhanced interrogation' and rendition - or as we like to call it, torture and kidnapping.
- Pledging to close Guantanamo Bay, and all ghost prisons.

Other stuff has also happened that shock me beyond words:

The good:
- Laurent Nkunda is captured in Rwanda. If you don't know who General Nkunda is, he's a born-again Christian who happens to be the leader of the rebel armies doing their fair of raping, killing and mutilating across the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The DRC has requested that Nkunda be extradited. The worry now is that a deal may be struck or, worse, that he may be executed. Neither one of these options fills me with joy. But not having him running about with the killing and the mutilating and the raping? Plus, there is a small but still present chance that he might be put on trial. Which - would be a blessed miracle indeed.

The bad:
- New evidence of Gaza child deaths - what's shocking about this is not that children died (because when you wage a war in the middle of a city you're going to primarily kill civilians, let's not kid ourselves), but that Israel is still insisting that people were shooting at them. Looking at several of their targets - UN facilities, schools, groups of children - that's starting to wear a little thin. I'd like a real answer - and an investigation - of this.
- UN accuses Israel of using white phosphorous. For those who don't know what phosphorus does, imagine something that clings to you, that can't be removed, and that will stick until it burns right through you, through skin and muscle and bone. Now throw that stuff at a bunch of civilians, and watch even the smallest wound kill. The reports that this might have been used against civilians horrifying. I'm going to be following the investigation of this very closely indeed.
- Artic melt 20 years ahead of climate models - US researchers claim to have found evidence that accelerated melting has crossed a "tipping point" from which there is no going back.

***

Something not related to the Real World - and we can all be grateful -

Nextwave slash, by [livejournal.com profile] apiphile. I leave you with the image of the Captain helping Aaron try out his latest attachment. And I run away in the opposite direction.
kangeiko: (Default)
Watched the inauguration from the big-screen TVs my work set up for the occasion. There was wide-spread relief, cheering and a round of applause when the new President was sworn in, and much hissing whenever Bush was on-screen (aaah, hissing. The discerning critic's weapon of contempt). You could say we were biased - just a tad.

So, welcome to the world stage, Mr President. We've been waiting for you. Show us what you've got.
kangeiko: (Default)
UN suspends Gaza aid operations - because they are being bombed by the Israelis.

Anyone who justifies bombing a school because it may hold militants permanently loses the moral high ground, IMNSHO. Although Hamas is doing the Palestinian cause no favours, by vowing retaliation - against Israeli children. Nice to see where you stand on the idea of a ceasefire, Hamas.

Meanwhile, the US, UK and France have stopped blocking the UN resolution - thanks, guys, nice to see some sense, finally.

Except it seems that everyone is too cash-strapped to give anything to Gaza. So what with there being no money, and aid agencies having to withdraw due to being bombed, and Israel not tending to the wounded, it might be too late already.

Meanwhile, everyone seems terrified of having an opinion, lest they offend someone.

I'm not afraid to have an opinion. I think both sides are behaving appallingly, and it's the children who are paying the price.

There. Now everyone can be offended.
kangeiko: (Default)
The US is blocking a UN Security Council statement on a cease-fire in Gaza.

...

I have no words.

EDIT: Actually, I do have words. Most are expletives.

You can donate money to the Muslim Aid Gaza appeal here.
kangeiko: (atia of the julii)
Hmmmm. Not a single woman on that list.

A surprising amount of grace )

Also had my first Arabic lesson yesterday, and learnt more than I thought was possible in two hours. Entirety of the alphabet (individual letters and cursive (joined up) letters, and did you know that they look COMPLETELY DIFFERENT depending on where they are in the word? And bear no resemblance to the printed letters? Yup. Good times.), greetings and small-talk, introductions, vocatives, and how to fend off an overly-amorous former State Department employee over here doing his Masters and about one overly-friendly comment away from getting my boot in his face. Why is it always me??

*

Giving up internets for a while while broadband is reconnected. Should hopefully have a phoneline this evening, so internets to follow soon.
kangeiko: (Default)
No internets from tomorrow afternoon, and I so want to blog endlessly about the election! I managed to stay up until, about 3.10am, until they called Ohio for Obama, and was then too tired to stay up any longer. A pity, 'cause apparently it only took another hour for it to be called for the new President-Elect.

I am too excited for words. So I won't blog. But I will read the paper and squee. And possibly rewatch S6 and S7 of The West Wing. (Did anyone else see Richard Schiff on the BBC2 midmorning yesterday, doing commentary? Lotsa fun.)
kangeiko: (Default)
We are changing our phone-line provider (and broadband provider) over the next month. This means that I will not have a phone-line for about a week, and broadband for a further two weeks. I will continue to have internet access for a little while longer (courtesy of Old Work's wifi laptop gadgets) but, come Friday, I shall be departing Old Work. And will not be spending New Work's time on personal internet-fu. Because I am dedicated and full of good intentions.

So.

1. I can't post pictures of my costume just yet - work laptop will not talk to phone, poo. Will have to wait until I am properly returned.

2. I have signed up for [livejournal.com profile] yuletide! Well, ok, I signed up twice, because I always change my mind on what fandoms to offer and always get too exciteable and offer everything in my 'first run' sign-up. I then do a more considered, less crazy sign-up, featuring fandoms that will not cause me acute pain and stabbing of the eyes if I end up having them assigned. I am so excited already!

3. After 7th Nov, I will only have access to email (managed by my exciting google-enabled phone) for hopefully a week, but most likely two weeks. I could probably browse lj, but it will cost me a fortune. So pls email me if you need to get in touch/are posting momentous news/want to meet up, for my lj-fu will be lacking for a little bit.

4. I want to stay up all night Tuesday night and watch the election, ready with a really big stick if people are stupid. But I suspect that I may fall asleep instead. Hmmm. Stupid time difference.

5. I'm reading Antarctica, by Kim Stanley Robinson. It makes me happy. In a full-of-rage, militant environmentalist sort of way. (You didn't know that I was a militant environmentalist, did you? Only when it comes to politics. And the ANWR. And Antarctica. And any forests, anywhere. And fish. No, really. I bored [livejournal.com profile] athena25 to tears during my undergrad dissertation, when my only topics of conversation were 1. fish; 2. trees; 3. cars. Yes. But I feel much more informed, now. Also, Palin-rant ))

*pant pant*

OK, that's me done. Will continue posting/reading/commenting until Friday. (Expect Weds morning's post to be a doozy.)
kangeiko: (Default)
Reactions to the Archbishop of Canterbury's comments on Sharia law in the UK.

Of particular interest to those interest in debates centring around individual vs. group rights. Also of interest because no-one (other than the tabloids, who have 1 braincell between them) has lost their shit - yet.

Profile

kangeiko: (Default)
kangeiko

January 2017

S M T W T F S
12 34567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031    

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 21st, 2017 12:44 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios