tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-45963547193525035632024-02-19T05:05:59.192-05:00A Yellow GuardIdle speculation from a highly uninformed source.Chris Connollyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11724092391390838428noreply@blogger.comBlogger134125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4596354719352503563.post-708933306930029242016-03-23T10:56:00.000-04:002016-03-23T10:56:32.944-04:00POTUS Makes His Supreme Court Pick and the Trump Carnival Continues: Outside In podcast episode 5Obama nominates Merrick Garland to SCOTUS, and Trump stopped being funny.Chris Connollyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11724092391390838428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4596354719352503563.post-76196524195505781742016-02-22T00:11:00.001-05:002016-02-22T00:11:46.227-05:00Outside In Podcast - Episode 3: The Tipping Point?After the Democrat Nevada caucuses and the Republican South Carolina primary, have we reached a tipping point in the nomination process? And can the GOP get out of the bind it has placed itself in over the Supreme Court?Chris Connollyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11724092391390838428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4596354719352503563.post-41190648880062306782016-02-04T11:26:00.002-05:002016-02-04T11:26:26.700-05:00Is Bernie Sanders the Ted Cruz of the Dems?I want to give Bernie a fair shout, so I went to his website to see what are his proposals for reforming Wall Street...Chris Connollyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11724092391390838428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4596354719352503563.post-26190552886267225392016-02-02T21:01:00.001-05:002016-02-02T21:01:34.323-05:00Inside Out Podcast - Episode 2: Iowa AnalysisIowow! But what does it all mean, if anything? A look at the caucus results, with an eye toward New Hampshire.Chris Connollyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11724092391390838428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4596354719352503563.post-69016410308981628622016-02-01T18:21:00.001-05:002016-02-01T18:21:29.713-05:00The first Yellow Guard Outside In podcastWe're talking Iowa caucuses, Donald Trump and Ted Cruz in the first ever Yellow Guard Outside In podcast, where I cast an eye from New York over the landscape of American politics and current affairs even further afield.Chris Connollyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11724092391390838428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4596354719352503563.post-79191820728491418262015-12-03T10:42:00.001-05:002015-12-03T10:42:11.275-05:00Why the State Got Its Pistorius Prosecution Strategy WrongWhy the State Got Its Pistorius Prosecution Strategy Wrong
While the Oscar Pistorius trial didn't grab my attention, the judgment did, because to be honest I could not see how the judge could come to the conclusion she did based on the proper application of the law to the facts as she had found them, as I wrote about at the time.
I was pleased then to hear this morning when I woke up that the State's appeal against the not guilty murder verdict had been allowed. The basis of the appeal was that Judge Masipa had erred in applying the principle of dolus eventualis - the very point that had troubled me about her judgment.Chris Connollyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11724092391390838428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4596354719352503563.post-24858507389414097392015-11-17T11:34:00.001-05:002015-11-17T11:34:16.878-05:00Man Bites DogAs sure as night follows day, online disputes follow a mass-shooting or terrorist attack. They almost invariably follow a very predictable pattern of action and reaction, or statement and counter-statement that ends up focusing almost as much on assessments (or condemnations) of how social media have responded to the event in question, as it does looking at the event itself.
The aftermath of the horrible events that enveloped Paris on an initially unremarkable Friday evening has not been broken this pattern. One of the main focal points of this discussion was Facebook’s decision to proactively offer a French flag filter to place over profile pictures. While it might be useful for Facebook to be more clear about what is the trigger for such an offering (is it subjective, or based on a ghoulish body-count or measurement of online mentions, for example), it offered people on Facebook the opportunity to do something, anything, in the face of scarcely imaginable horror.
Putting a flag over your avatar is, of course, a largely futile and pointless gesture – it is not going to cause members of Daesh/ISIS, a jihadi death cult, to have a rethink about where they are going in life. But it does give people a tiny sense of control in the face of what is otherwise potentially overwhelming helplessness. And while I respect the right of those who choose not to adopt a filter/flag/photo to do so, it has been impossible not to detect a hint of superiority emanating from some who chose to exercise that right.
When mass murder visited the streets of Paris earlier this year, I myself pointedly declined to adopt “Je suis Charlie” as my social media avatar. I explained my reasons in a blog post at the time, which related largely to the relationship between satire, religion and remaining united in the face of terror. Saying yes to the tricolore filter was less of a political statement than one of sympathy and empathy; it is the 21st-century equivalent of sending flowers and a card, except in the digital age many feel compelled to do so to strangers in far-off places.
This then gets to a second complaint from the more churlish corners of the digital space: either that people are hypocritical for putting up a flag for country X and not country Y; or that it is unfair that the media is paying so much attention to Paris and not to Beirut/Ankara/Garissa or whichever outrage this individual feels went unreported. Except the problem is that whichever outrage the individual feels went unreported didn’t go unreported. They just weren’t paying attention.
Did Beirut/Ankara/Garissa get the wall-to-wall rolling coverage on CNN, the BBC and Deutsche Welle that Paris did? No, they did not. But the reasons are not difficult to understand and are inherent in every human being: unfortunately, like Belfast and Sarajevo, Beirut is a byword for bombing and murder. A bomb in Beirut is, sadly, a “Dog Bites Man” news story. A bomb in Paris, on the other hand, is “Man Bites Dog.” And inherent in this dynamic of the news cycle is the fact that if bombs in Paris become commonplace, then bombs in Paris will too become “Dog Bites Man”. It will cease to be “new”s.
There is also the question of empathy, which the begrudgers appear incapable of differentiating from sympathy. Paris is one of the world’s great cities, home to one of the world’s most instantly recognizable landmarks. It is one of the most visited cities in the world, with over 16 million international visitors annually. There is an extremely high chance that most of the people reading this have either been to Paris, or if they have not would like to. Empathy is the ability to put yourself in someone else’s position: it is easier, for most people in Europe and North America, to imagine themselves eating in a restaurant in the 11th arrondissement, having a coffee at a sidewalk café, attending a concert by an American band, than it is to picture themselves attending a residential agricultural college in rural Kenya near the Somali border or shopping at a market in a Shia slum in southern Beirut.
It is easier to picture yourself in a place you feel familiar with than one you have never heard of. And without the ability to imagine ourselves as a victim, empathy is difficult to rouse. Someone who has never been on a plane is going to struggle more to imagine the terror felt by passengers in a hijacked airplane than someone who flies on a weekly basis. Students in Kenya paid more attention to the attack on Garissa than they did to the bombed Russian plane in the Sinai. And they should not be faulted for it.
Ironically, many of those who complain about the imbalance in how “the world” treats Paris versus Garissa/Beirut/Ankara etc. are equating European and North American media with “the world”, thereby exhibiting the very Euro-/America-centric worldview they complain about in others. And how many of them posted stories about Garissa and Beirut, or took some other act to express their solidarity with the victims of these horrible tragedies? Very few, for the same reasons as everybody else.
The goal of many of these people is not to raise awareness of what happens in Beirut or Ankara or Garissa or Kunming or Ciudad Juarez or anywhere else – for if it were the tactic to adopt is not to condemn people and call them hypocrites for caring about Paris. It is an unconvincing attempt to demonstrate their own moral superiority and supposed worldliness. It says there is great pain in the world, so we should not care about one more than the other, as if time, place and personal experience are irrelevant. It’s like responding to an African-American who stands in front of you and says “Black lives matter!” with the retort “All lives matter!”, as if their own personal experience and feeling should be subsumed and rolled up into the greater tragedy of the world.
Before the digital age, the media could set the news agenda through what they chose to cover and what they chose to ignore. That remains only partly true, but what drives coverage in 2015 is clicks, and likes, and comments. If the death of an 85-year old man in Tajikistan was going to drive web traffic to news sites, there would be a crowd of reporters outside his door with a live blog giving minute-by-minute updates.
If people want to raise in others awareness of, and empathy for, causes and deaths that they otherwise may show little interest in, the way to go about it is not to castigate them for caring about the loss of life that they do, or at least claim to do. Is it unfair that it should be this way? Yes, of course, it is. But if life were not unfair, then there would be no need for Black Lives Matter or flag filters of mourning on Facebook.Chris Connollyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11724092391390838428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4596354719352503563.post-39472002969893770612015-10-10T13:58:00.001-04:002015-10-10T13:58:04.376-04:00GOP Truthiness on SyriaI don't know where to begin with this, though a warning that it was going to be tripe was contained in the rhetorical flourish at the end of the opening paragraph:
>"Whether it’s in Ukraine or Syria, the Russian president seems always to have the upper hand."
I respectfully suggest that's because Russia borders Ukraine and is acting in support of the Syrian government (whether you like it or not) and not a disunited and weak opposition movement. Geography and political reality give Russia "the upper hand." No amount of [truthiness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness) is going to change that.
Basically, the argument is that the United States needs to ramp up its military intervention in Syria and confront Russia until it can force regime change.
Won't these people ever learn?Chris Connollyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11724092391390838428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4596354719352503563.post-27746826310009118562015-10-09T13:20:00.001-04:002015-10-09T13:21:13.950-04:00Single Transferable Vote 101 (or, why no-one in Britain knows how to report it properly and what they can do about it)I am a fan of the Single Transferable Vote as a voting system. Being from Northern Ireland and having lived in the Republic of Ireland, I have voted using STV more often than I have first past the post (FPTP).<br />
<br />
Naturally, then, I was pleased to see it introduced in Scotland for local elections, which helped some way to break Labour's hegemony over local politics in the Central Belt by ending the one-party state that existed in most councils in Scotland. (It also probably played a role in giving greater force to the SNP wave in recent years, in the Holyrood, Indyref and Westminster 2015 votes, by enabling the SNP to have a vastly increased number of local representatives on the ground.) It will also likely prove to be a life-support machine to the Liberal Democrats, and prevent Labour councillors going the same way in 2017 that their Westminster party colleagues went in 2015.<br />
<br />
![2007 local election results]<br />
<br />
However, the mechanics of STV are not that well known to many people, and it has been frustrating for me to read/listen to coverage of STV elections and by-elections as if they were the same as FPTP elections. This ranges from the terminology used to focus on the wrong elements to drawing erroneous conclusions. <br />
<br />
A prime example was today when Mike Smithson (someone for whom I have enormous respect) from [Political Betting](http://www.politicalbetting.com) tweeted this:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
<div dir="ltr" lang="en">
How one of Scotland's leading political sites reported the SNP loss of a by-election in the Highlands <a href="http://t.co/9VNpteamEL">pic.twitter.com/9VNpteamEL</a></div>
— Mike Smithson (@MSmithsonPB) <a href="https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/652496873694081024">October 9, 2015</a></blockquote>
<br />
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><br />
<br />
With all due respect to Mike, there is absolutely nothing wrong in an SNP supporter reporting the result in that way, because from an SNP perspective it is actually more important than the fact they lost the seat.<br />
<br />
That may sound a bit odd, clutching at straws even, but it's not, and here's why.<br />
<br />
![2012 Aird and Loch Ness result](/content/images/2015/10/Screen-Shot-2015-10-09-at-12-24-12.png)<br />
<small><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_Council_election,_2012#Aird_and_Loch_Ness">Wikipedia</a></small><br />
<br />
As you can see, in 2012 the SNP won one of the four seats available in the ward. They won it on the first count, with Drew Hendry getting 840 votes, which was 31 votes over the quota of 804. (The quota is, where n = number of persons to be elected and v = number of valid votes cast) (v/n+1)+1. So in this case, where four members are to be elected, you need to get 20% of the vote plus one vote, ((4044/5)+1) which in this case was 809). The SNP's second candidate got 7.1% - about a third of a quote. So all in all , the total SNP vote was a little shy of 28%. This is equivalent to 1.4 quotas or just over a quarter of the vote. This would, in pretty much any circumstances, be enough to get one of the two SNP candidates elected, but a long way short of enough to get two elected.<br />
<br />
In the by-election to replace Drew Hendry, who took Danny Alexander's Westminster seat at the General Election, there is only one seat to be filled, therefore the quota is going to be 50%+1 vote. As you can see, this is rather a lot more than the 28% the SNP got in 2012. In FPTP by-elections, if a party got the same share of the vote as it did at the main election, the party would retain the seat. (For all its problems, FPTP is, unarguably, simple). Under STV, however, if the SNP had matched its share of the vote, it still would almost certainly not win the by-election, because of the likelihood of unionist parties to favour each other in transfers. To have had a realistic shot at retaining the seat, the SNP would probably have had to increase its vote share to over 40% (a 12 percentage point or 40% increase over 2012). That isn't impossible, but it is unlikely. Therefore, for the SNP to have increased their share of the vote, and still lost, is very respectable.<br />
<br />
In short, it is very difficult to win by-elections under STV (which is one of the reasons in Northern Ireland councillors' and Assembly members' replacements are co-opted members of teh same party, rather than elected through a by-election that is highly likely to see the incumbent party lose a seat, even if they outperform themselves compared to the previous election).<br />
<br />
And since I am on the subject, another pet peeve is the focus, when reporting results, on the "majority" over the first candidate not elected (i.e. the runner-up), either on the first or last count. This is a largely useless statistic, as it tells you very little about how the parties performed, and gives undue importance to something that tells you very little about the election. This should be obvious from the fact that the candidate who leads after the first count may not actually win a seat. So if the candidate who is second after the first count goes on to win the seat, do they have a negative majority? Nor is there any point in reporting, as [this](https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/inverness/719115/shock-libdem-win-highland-election/) does that<br />
>She was the winner at the fourth and final stage of the count. She gained 1,511 of the 3,076 valid votes.<br />
<br />
This information is pretty useless, unless we know what the quota is. Also, saying she won on the "fourth and final count" is like saying "she found her keys in the last place she looked." Nor would this phraseology make much sense when there was more than one member to be elected, and would therefore require reporting STV by-elections and general elections in different fashions, which is clearly undesirable. A more useful re-write of these sentences would be to say<br />
>She was deemed elected on the fourth count, without having reached the quota of 1,539.<br />
<br />
The most important information is the First Preference Vote (FPV) share (by party and individual), with a comparison to the previous election. Next in importance is how many quotas each party and individual has on the first count. And finally, transfer patterns are important, the patterns for which will vary from constituency to constituency and ward to ward because, well, people are weird and vote on all sorts of criteria that you often couldn't possibly imagine.<br />
<br />
Also, it is the norm to talk about the "first count, second count, third count, etc.", even though technically they are "stages", but stages sounds boring and technical, whereas count gives a better flavour of what is going on.<br />
<br />
British political reporters really need to get to grips with the intricacies (not "vagueries" - there is nothing vague about it) of STV and stop falling back on what they know (FPTP) when interpreting results. Otherwise they are doing a disservice to the public. A trip over to Northern Ireland or the Republic to observe how STV elections are covered and analyzed by people who understand the system well would probably be a good idea.Chris Connollyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11724092391390838428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4596354719352503563.post-42198882722412157172015-09-30T12:40:00.001-04:002015-09-30T12:40:52.622-04:00The UK's Trident "debate"Very quickly, because it is not very difficult.<br /><br />The new British Labour Party leader has sparked off a row over <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-34399565" target="_blank">comments</a> that he wouldn't use nuclear weapons as Prime Minister. The row/debate is totally and utterly pointless:<br />
<br />
The UK is in NATO; the Americans have nukes; the British wouldn't use
nukes without Washington's approval; under any circumstances where a
British PM might use nukes, if he didn't the Americans certainly would.<br />
<br />
Simples. Next manufactured controversy please. Chris Connollyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11724092391390838428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4596354719352503563.post-14909972708370484212015-09-30T12:36:00.001-04:002015-09-30T12:36:16.889-04:00The Sneaking Regarders of Dixie<div data-contents="true" data-reactid=".3.1:5.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.1.0.0">
<div class="_209g _2vxa" data-block="true" data-offset-key="b1ot5-0-0" data-reactid=".3.1:5.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.1.0.0.$b1ot5">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgRdyBG_BzjUMzxQIDjsMACy5NcUc3JHx5nAzi7tiBxmTqiBcg6edAOvrROzQNMVry3CxgIEd6kl5XFoiRZL9YY5_Dht3guvOweNjxq8502kBtE7t_DOP66UxpN00QAlMpD9rdKPGDW_1J2/s1600/Second_Flag_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America_%25281863-1865%2529.svg.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgRdyBG_BzjUMzxQIDjsMACy5NcUc3JHx5nAzi7tiBxmTqiBcg6edAOvrROzQNMVry3CxgIEd6kl5XFoiRZL9YY5_Dht3guvOweNjxq8502kBtE7t_DOP66UxpN00QAlMpD9rdKPGDW_1J2/s1600/Second_Flag_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America_%25281863-1865%2529.svg.png"></a></div>
<span data-offset-key="b1ot5-1-0" data-reactid=".3.1:5.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.1.0.0.$b1ot5.1:$b1ot5-1-0"><span data-reactid=".3.1:5.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.1.0.0.$b1ot5.1:$b1ot5-1-0.0">A culture that believes that it is somehow acceptable to fly the Confederate Battle Flag outside the state capitol, having been forced to take it down from atop it only a few years ago in the face of national outrage, and which only put it up there as a "fuck you" to the Civil Rights Movement in 1963 or thereabouts, is at its core a racist one. Now, that may manifest itself in the sort of "we are only remembering our war dead and the Southern way of life, not slavery" sort of cognitive dissonance you got in that sort of nonsense David French <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420060/confederate-flag-should-stay-charleston-shooting-debate" target="_blank">wrote</a> in National Review Online, but that's what it is. French also completely ignores history when he gives significance to the fact that it is the Battle Flag of the Confederacy that is still flown, rather than the 'national' flag of the Confederacy. The Battle Flag was always more popular, even during the Civil War. The Confederacy had three different 'national' flags during its short existence; the first change came </span></span><span data-offset-key="b1ot5-1-0" data-reactid=".3.1:5.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.1.0.0.$b1ot5.1:$b1ot5-1-0"><span data-reactid=".3.1:5.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.1.0.0.$b1ot5.1:$b1ot5-1-0.0">"on account of [the flag's] resemblance to that of the abolition despotism against which we are fighting." The replacement was the Battle Flag on a white background.</span></span><br>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: #999999;"><span style="color: white;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhq0E6xtsf9z6eD4-hBchT9i7g8kg193OfRXMG18XBAWyzzHXe9P4hgG4IKMa-phLx5-nZgn7mAMNeSXxUofS7kqYJGbU7xXtGpo4s5KaL22MZ1RCCchlcwLz1NYRDD_bcRndcOf9Fkf4qV/s1600/Third_Flag_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America_%25281865%2529.svg.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="Third Flag of the Confederacy" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhq0E6xtsf9z6eD4-hBchT9i7g8kg193OfRXMG18XBAWyzzHXe9P4hgG4IKMa-phLx5-nZgn7mAMNeSXxUofS7kqYJGbU7xXtGpo4s5KaL22MZ1RCCchlcwLz1NYRDD_bcRndcOf9Fkf4qV/s1600/Third_Flag_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America_%25281865%2529.svg.png" title="Third Flag of the Confederacy"></a></span></span></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: #999999;"><span style="color: white;">Third Flag of the Confederacy</span></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: #999999;"><span style="color: white;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkCms0Z5cdfkZ3avPZg7bZg-AhvKGeuObiCH0PnSTM5NUb3_-V5LHsZNTRXLTeDEFE3eig8EEEUX2QubH7EehdFwjT-t75i5qI6XSOUGBbrV7pidANax9NK69n-QSD4ayBYAQn9tH2GRG2/s1600/Flag_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America_%25281861-1863%2529.svg.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="First Flag of the Confederacy" border="0" height="111" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkCms0Z5cdfkZ3avPZg7bZg-AhvKGeuObiCH0PnSTM5NUb3_-V5LHsZNTRXLTeDEFE3eig8EEEUX2QubH7EehdFwjT-t75i5qI6XSOUGBbrV7pidANax9NK69n-QSD4ayBYAQn9tH2GRG2/s200/Flag_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America_%25281861-1863%2529.svg.png" title="First Flag of the Confederacy" width="200"></a></span></span></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: #999999;"><span style="color: white;">First Flag of the Confederacy</span></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: #999999;"><span style="color: white;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgONEJsjLjrNp0xPwqNExjwbLde6ZBplcfdO38mAxIQYJb6Zl5LzUUT5q2cRFxFCMtoqgXQ2jprjVmsgszrUydJaZnrR4P57cNRPKPnciqIsZTSD8JWoU4fUr0N8DDFknHG595mVc_76U0O/s1600/Second_Flag_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America_%25281863-1865%2529.svg.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="Second Flag of the Confederacy" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgONEJsjLjrNp0xPwqNExjwbLde6ZBplcfdO38mAxIQYJb6Zl5LzUUT5q2cRFxFCMtoqgXQ2jprjVmsgszrUydJaZnrR4P57cNRPKPnciqIsZTSD8JWoU4fUr0N8DDFknHG595mVc_76U0O/s1600/Second_Flag_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America_%25281863-1865%2529.svg.png" title="Second Flag of the Confederacy"></a></span></span></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: #999999;"><span style="color: white;">Second Flag of the Confederacy</span></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="color: white;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br></span></span></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: white;"><span style="background-color: white;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiE4UCARjmQxj991AHZOQ1ojwI2gBsJO71-4kOH5Bd30iA8Og57bdKHitcdWbGgUeUIx_ncXE57HpECy_M9UNelUrhJTohuMt1lJPWXgouU92A3YTxJQ-l8VQbOY08dAjNOHeesoOogOV7P/s1600/150px-Flag_of_the_State_of_Georgia_%25281956-2001%2529.svg.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="133" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiE4UCARjmQxj991AHZOQ1ojwI2gBsJO71-4kOH5Bd30iA8Og57bdKHitcdWbGgUeUIx_ncXE57HpECy_M9UNelUrhJTohuMt1lJPWXgouU92A3YTxJQ-l8VQbOY08dAjNOHeesoOogOV7P/s200/150px-Flag_of_the_State_of_Georgia_%25281956-2001%2529.svg.png" width="200"></a></span></span></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: #999999;"><span style="background-color: #999999;"><span style="color: white;">Flag of Georgia until 2001</span></span></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: #999999;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_FxzaCCOGUJAAxjmEVA_FVTEzZLwifcMFnnieRU7kubdkDFw3j6SJ5vELu_eBnCQQ05jck5qg7hc4XiViFn3X7CU-qxNUI6m3VzTWm0vK5tHA9z0YVgjluvS-kE5ojUvN-1cEzU5SJGxw/s1600/150px-Flag_of_Georgia_%2528U.S._state%2529.svg.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="125" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_FxzaCCOGUJAAxjmEVA_FVTEzZLwifcMFnnieRU7kubdkDFw3j6SJ5vELu_eBnCQQ05jck5qg7hc4XiViFn3X7CU-qxNUI6m3VzTWm0vK5tHA9z0YVgjluvS-kE5ojUvN-1cEzU5SJGxw/s200/150px-Flag_of_Georgia_%2528U.S._state%2529.svg.png" width="200"></a></span></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="background-color: #999999;"><span style="color: white;">Current flag of Georgia. Spot the difference.</span></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br>
<span data-offset-key="b1ot5-1-0" data-reactid=".3.1:5.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.1.0.0.$b1ot5.1:$b1ot5-1-0"><span data-reactid=".3.1:5.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.1.0.0.$b1ot5.1:$b1ot5-1-0.0"><span data-offset-key="b1ot5-1-0" data-reactid=".3.1:5.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.1.0.0.$b1ot5.1:$b1ot5-1-0"><span data-reactid=".3.1:5.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.1.0.0.$b1ot5.1:$b1ot5-1-0.0">Of
course whites in the South were able to have a gentlemanly and mannerly
lifestyle, because it was paid for by the enslavement of
African-Americans. John C. Calhoun made it clear in his writings that
slavery was not just a necessary evil, it was a positive good that
reduced class distinctions among white people, as they could all unite
in white supremacism and superiority over the black <i>untermensch</i>.
It was not just the Southern economy that depended on the enslavement of
blacks, so too did the entire system of "genteel" social normss. And t</span></span>he idea that "my ancestors didn't have slaves - they were too poor to own them" is not a convincing one either. Just because your ancestors didn't own slaves because they were too poor to buy one doesn't mean the didn't aspire to being rich enough to own slaves, and supported the continuance social and economic system that would make that possible, even to the point of committing treason against the United States.</span></span></div>
<div class="_209g _2vxa" data-block="true" data-offset-key="3rjvo-0-0" data-reactid=".3.1:5.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.1.0.0.$3rjvo">
<span data-offset-key="3rjvo-0-0" data-reactid=".3.1:5.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.1.0.0.$3rjvo.0:$3rjvo-0-0"><br data-reactid=".3.1:5.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.1.0.0.$3rjvo.0:$3rjvo-0-0.0"></span>
<span data-offset-key="3rjvo-0-0" data-reactid=".3.1:5.0.$right.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.1.0.0.$3rjvo.0:$3rjvo-0-0"></span><br>
</div></div><a href="https://ayellowguard.blogspot.com/2015/09/the-sneaking-regarders-of-dixie.html#more">Read more »</a>Chris Connollyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11724092391390838428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4596354719352503563.post-84283478805807545272015-05-14T17:44:00.001-04:002015-05-14T17:44:37.162-04:00Marriage Equality in Ireland<script src="//www.thepetitionsite.com/embed.js" type="text/javascript"></script><br />
<div adsize="interstitial" buttoncolor="#22489c" class="care2PetitionEmbed" publisherid="710254554" rsspath="746177326">
</div>
<br />Chris Connollyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11724092391390838428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4596354719352503563.post-23321165829002166872015-03-27T11:32:00.001-04:002015-03-27T11:32:46.934-04:00Which Lib Dems voted to (essentially) defenestrate Bercow?In case you were wondering, by my reckoning four Liberal Democrat MPs voted for the Hague / Gove "student union politics" move that would have allowed Bercow to be unseated by a secret ballot.<br />
<br />
They were:<br />
<br />
- Tom Brake (no surprise; the Deputy Leader of the House dutifully sat alongside Hague throughout)<br />
- Ed Davey<br />
- Don Foster<br />
- John Thurso<br />
<br />
I read that 10 Lib Dems voted against, but don't have their names at hand.<br />
<br />
Quite why the Liberal Democrats in government (and indeed William Hague for that matter, whose reputation as a "Commons man" must now be severely tarnished) agreed to go along with Gove's "clever" little scheme is beyond me.Chris Connollyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11724092391390838428noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4596354719352503563.post-55226600536981780402015-03-15T14:14:00.001-04:002015-03-15T14:14:23.886-04:00Do Scotland's Tories Know on Which Side Their Bread is Buttered?Alex Massie has a great piece in <i>The Spectator</i> on '<a href="http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9453802/why-an-snp-surge-at-westminster-could-mean-the-end-of-britain/" target="_blank">Why an SNP Surge at Westminster Could Mean the End of Britain</a>'. I recommend you read it. I suspect he is fundamentally right about the obliviousness of English voters to the 'Rise of the 45' in Scotland. The referendum might have been won, but the Union is far from safe for as long as a majority of Scottish MPs are from the Scottish National Party. Moreover the collapse of Scottish Labour undercuts some of the structural advantages the First Past the Post electoral system gives the Labour Party, meaning that in the current electoral climate it is very difficult to see either Labour or the Conservatives getting an overall majority any time in the foreseeable future, unless something very fundamental changes.<br />
<br />
Another important question, however, is whether Scotland's Conservatives are as tuned in to the dangers of the current political maelstrom as one would expect them to be. In short, Scottish Tories have it in their gift to deny Sturgeon and Salmond at least 10 seats, and there are perhaps 10 more held by unionist parties in which a combined unionist vote could deny the SNP a victory, as the chart below shows.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
(Pic Via <a href="https://twitter.com/SNPOut">@SNPout</a>) We are likely to see more of this for other types of seats. Tactical voting guides <a href="http://t.co/060CcTVFau">pic.twitter.com/060CcTVFau</a><br />
— Mike Smithson (@MSmithsonPB) <a href="https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/576662093836992512">March 14, 2015</a></blockquote>
<br /><script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><br />
<br />
It may be difficult for Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander, to hang on to his seat, even with a fair wind of tactical voting behind him (or so Lord Ashcroft's polls <a href="http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/LORD-ASHCROFT-POLLS-Scottish-constituency-poll-report-February-20153.pdf" target="_blank">seem to indicate</a>). The other 10 Lib Dem seats are probably salvageable if beating the SNP becomes more important to Labour and Tory voters than traditional tribal loyalties. This is particularly true in seats with a strong residual Tory vote like Northeast Fife, Edinburgh West, Argyll & Bute. This also applies in a couple of seats where before the SNP surge the Conservatives were hopeful of making gains at their coalition partners' expense: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Aberdeenshire_and_Kincardine_%28UK_Parliament_constituency%29" target="_blank">West Aberdeenshire</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berwickshire,_Roxburgh_and_Selkirk_%28UK_Parliament_constituency%29" target="_blank">Berwickshire, Roxburgh & Selkirk</a>. Returning the current coalition (Lib Dem) MP at least holds out the hope of the current government being returned; a SNP Member of Parliament makes that possibility even more remote.<br />
<br />
If sufficient Labour and Conservatives vote tactically in Gordon, Ross, Skye & Lochaber and the Liberal Democrats' other Scottish seats, those seats could also be saved, though selling it to a mixture of Labour and Conservative voters becomes a lot more difficult.<br />
<br />
The bigger challenge comes in Labour-held seats, where on current numbers the SNP may be about to sweep the whole lot of them away: can Labour drum up enough support in "Only we can stop the SNP" fashion to stem the nationalist tide? Can sufficient Scots Tories in East Renfrewshire be persuaded to hold their nose and vote for Jim Murphy? Similarly in Ayr, Carrick & Cumnock, Dumfries & Galloway, Glasgow North West and Airdrie & Shotts (!).<br />
<br />
Nobody will know the answer until the early hours of May 8th, but if the SNP sweeps the board in Scotland it will be evidence that the continued existential threat to the United Kingdom remains little appreciated by unionists north of the border, let alone to the south.<br />
<br />
<br />Chris Connollyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11724092391390838428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4596354719352503563.post-53253982005582053332015-03-05T20:53:00.001-05:002015-03-06T08:32:18.138-05:00Dear Snow...<div class="_5pbx userContent" data-ft="{"tn":"K"}">
Dear snow,<br>
I know that when we first met I was young and pretty impressionable --
looking back I was so naive -- but I fell in love with you. You knew it.
I knew it, and I also knew you probably didn't feel the same way. But
to be honest, I didn't really care. I just loved you. You weren't really
around that much, and sure, I knew rain and sleet and hail a lot
better, and got pretty intimate with all of them (I'm sorry), but you
were the only one I loved.<br>
<br>
You would show up every now and again,
get me excited, and then you would disappear, without so much as a note
to say when you would be back. But that just made me love you more. You
were so exciting, and sometimes a little bit dangerous. I liked that.
Even as I did a little growing up and went off around the world myself,
you always occupied a special place in my heart, and I still looked
forward to the next time you would swing by, more or less unannounced,
so we could spend some time getting slushy together.<br>
<br>
When I moved
to the U.S., I looked forward to spending more time with you. I thought
it would be nice if we could get to know each other a bit better,
instead of just one night you were there, and then in the morning you
were gone, as mostly happened in Ireland. I was looking forward to walks
with the dog and you, hanging out in the park at the weekend, maybe
playing with your balls if we were feeling naughty or playing angels if
we weren't. It all sounded blissful. I couldn't wait.<br>
But in
truth, snow, we have both changed. I am maybe a bit less idealistic and
playful than I used to be, but since we have both been in New York I
barely recognise you. Spending so much time together has been a lot less
fun than I thought. You have been around a lot. Like, a lot. You showed
up before Christmas and you haven't gone away. To be perfectly honest, I
am getting a bit tired of seeing you every day. More than that, you are
a lot less fun than you used to be. Since moving to NYC you have got
really messy. You've also got really filthy. That's not my thing. And I
just find you cold and boring. You were already starting to annoy me,
but then tonight happened.<br>
<br>
You had already forced me to change my
plans on a few occasions, selfishly, to suit you. It happens, I said.
Snow's like that, I said. No point in getting annoyed about it. It's
part of the fun and excitement. And then tonight, even though it was
literally just around the corner, 1 block away, you decided that you
were going to dick about so much that the show I have been waiting to see got
cancelled. That was the last straw. Let me tell you hunty, I want you
out of here. Gone. Get the feck out of my life. I am sick of you. What
we had is gone, and now you are just one giant pain in my A-hole, so you
have until Sunday to get your shit together and GET OUT OF HERE. Take a
cruise down the Hudson or across the Atlantic or something. Travel. See
the world, whatever. I don't care. Just get the fuck out of my life
before I kick the shit out of you before pushing you down a drain.<br>
<br>
I mean it.<br>
<br>
Chris</div>
Chris Connollyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11724092391390838428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4596354719352503563.post-19811048939994778842014-12-10T04:24:00.000-05:002014-12-10T04:51:35.840-05:00State's Appeal Against Pistorius Murder Acquittal AllowedIn a welcome move, at least for those of us who had serious concerns about how Judge Masipa dealt with <i>dolus eventualis </i>in the Oscar Pistorius judgment (see my previous blog post on the matter <a href="http://ayellowguard.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-puzzling-problem-of-pistorius-plea.html" target="_blank">here</a>), Judge Masipa has permitted the State's appeal, which will now be heard in front of the South African Supreme Court.<br />
<br />
To recap, in a nutshell, without making it clear in her judgment why and on what grounds, Masipa J. had to have accepted that Oscar Pistorius <b>did not foresee</b> that firing four bullets through a closed toilet door risked causing the death of the person behind the door. You don't have to be a lawyer to see the problem with that (though the lawyers out there may note that the State got a lucky break that the Honourable Judge didn't explain her reasoning fully in the original judgment, for if she had perversity could well have been the only avenue available for the appeal, and that is a very difficult bar to get over. As it is, Masipa J. accepted that it is a point of law as to whether she correctly applied the principle of <i>dolus eventualis</i> to the facts.)<br />
<br />
<i>The Guardian</i>'s <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2014/sep/11/oscar-pistorius-verdict-trial-live#block-54119d96e4b0ce3d9c4803f5" target="_blank">liveblog</a> of the original judgment had a useful explanation of what happened:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCXaEi0cgtvsMX29ZtkC_-2DqCBVLgZDQeu36BK0Qv326RciOgteO2INYTDKJYu5m8v9XStVGOoTI8y2QdaKKJFpZlx7KiZ4hKegN-Y0GqdXtRtd7tXbnaQlbgkBgEaxIp7mMgRQtQjK6F/s1600/Screen+Shot+2014-12-10+at+04.49.16.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCXaEi0cgtvsMX29ZtkC_-2DqCBVLgZDQeu36BK0Qv326RciOgteO2INYTDKJYu5m8v9XStVGOoTI8y2QdaKKJFpZlx7KiZ4hKegN-Y0GqdXtRtd7tXbnaQlbgkBgEaxIp7mMgRQtQjK6F/s1600/Screen+Shot+2014-12-10+at+04.49.16.png" height="400" width="342" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Read the State's grounds for appeal below.<br />
<br />
<div nbsp="" style="-x-system-font: none; display: block; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-size-adjust: none; font-size: 14px; font-stretch: normal; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 12px auto 6px auto;">
<a href="https://www.scribd.com/doc/245475257/State-papers-for-Oscar-Pistorius-sentencing-appeal" nbsp="" style="text-decoration: underline;" title="View State papers for Oscar Pistorius sentencing appeal on Scribd">State papers for Oscar Pistorius sentencing appeal</a> by <a href="https://www.scribd.com/eNCA.com" nbsp="" style="text-decoration: underline;" title="View eNCA.com's profile on Scribd">eNCA.com</a></div>
<iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" data-aspect-ratio="0.7081021087680355" data-auto-height="false" frameborder="0" height="600" id="doc_92885" scrolling="no" src="https://www.scribd.com/embeds/245475257/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&access_key=key-2B68YdrUkPGxIHYiw7Pe&show_recommendations=true" width="100%"></iframe>Chris Connollyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11724092391390838428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4596354719352503563.post-23742071127607380722014-12-04T13:40:00.001-05:002014-12-10T05:00:24.012-05:00Eric Garner and Mike Brown: the problem is the systemI am so frustrated by what has happened that I have found it difficult to take a step back and write a measured blog post about it, and instead have been engaging in debates/arguments on Facebook. I still haven't coalesced all my thoughts, so instead am just going to flag a point I made in response to someone on Facebook, which somewhat gets to the core of my thoughts on this troubling issue.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: #f6f7f8; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 15.3599996566772px;">It is impossible, in my mind at least, to say "I am on one side on Mike Brown and the other side with Eric Garner", because in both cases the problem is the same: a District Attorney is so scared of pissing off the police union that he chooses not to pursue criminal charges against a police officer, even if he does go through the pantomime of pretending to do so. In both cases (we know in Ferguson, and we can assume in Staten Island), the prosecutor bent over backwards to avoid having the issue go to a full, public, trial, during which the testimony and evidence would be tested at length. By subverting and perverting the grand jury process Bob McCullough also further undermined African Americans' faith in the justice system. The son of a cop who was shot, he refused to recuse himself, but had neither the balls to take a decision not to press for an indictment nor leave the question of guilt or innocence to a jury in a trial. It's almost as if both DAs were scared of what the outcome might be, and intentional or not, the end result is that cops in America have become judge, jury, and executioner. That's not a democracy, that's a police state.</span></blockquote>
<br />
12/10/14 UPDATE:<br />
<br />
The <i>New York Times</i> has a good piece expanding, in rather more measured terms, the point I was making above:<br />
<br />
<h4 style="background-color: white; font-family: nyt-cheltenham, georgia, 'times new roman', times, serif; font-style: italic; line-height: 2.375rem; margin: 0px 0px 10px; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/08/nyregion/grand-juries-seldom-charge-police-officers-in-fatal-actions.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0" target="_blank">Grand Jury System, With Exceptions, Favors the Police in Fatalities</a></h4>
Chris Connollyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11724092391390838428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4596354719352503563.post-14419346843547201442014-11-12T15:53:00.001-05:002014-11-12T15:53:39.205-05:00Smugness AlertBut I couldn't resist.<br />
<br />
Of all my run-ins with RWNJs (right-wing nutjobs) on Twitter, this was by far and away the most satisfying...<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/baseballcrank">@baseballcrank</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/charlescwcooke">@charlescwcooke</a> Other than my doctorate on Sino-American relations and degree in Chinese Studies, nothing at all. Yup.<br />
— Chris Connolly (@Cripipper) <a href="https://twitter.com/Cripipper/status/532562441822277633">November 12, 2014</a></blockquote>
<br />
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>Chris Connollyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11724092391390838428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4596354719352503563.post-46481970286742747232014-09-20T15:10:00.001-04:002014-09-20T15:10:34.482-04:00The Puzzling Problem of the Pistorius PleaA <a href="http://www.legalweek.com/legal-week/blog-post/2371268/the-oscar-pistorius-verdict-was-it-a-miscarriage-of-justice" target="_blank">blog post</a> by Felicity Gerry QC has today left me thinking again about the verdict in the Oscar Pistorius trial. I need to disclaim at the very start that I saw very, very little of the actual trial and thus did not have the evidence in front of me that was placed in front of the judge. However, given the provocative title of Ms. Gerry's post, 'The Oscar Pistorius verdict: was it a miscarriage of justice?', I was slightly surprised at her conclusion that<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial; font-size: 14px; line-height: 22px;">justice was done and seen to be done. It may or may not be the truth, but on the available evidence, the important standard of proving serious criminal charges beyond a reasonable doubt was maintained."</span></blockquote>
What puzzles me about the verdict is an issue that I <a href="http://ayellowguard.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-pistorius-defence.html" target="_blank">highlighted</a> back in April, which is that the Pistorius defence boiled down to something along the lines of "I killed Reeva when I accidentally fired through the toilet door thinking there was an intruder behind it." From what I have seen and read, in her verdict Judge Masipa has not adequately dealt with the issue of transferred malice, and the blurring of what were essentially two separate defences offered by Pistorius: 1) That he acted in putative self-defence (which would require an assessment of whether it was reasonable under the circumstances as he perceived them for Pistorius to think that the force he used to avert the perceived threat was reasonable); or 2) He fired the gun accidentally.<br />
<br />
This problem with the verdict has been highlighted by a number of South African legal scholars, and put very clearly by Pierre de Vos, of the <i><a href="http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/pistorius-judgment-was-there-no-intention-to-kill-someone-behind-the-toilet-door/" target="_blank">Constitutionally Speaking</a> </i>blog, when he wrote:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #111111; font-family: verdana, 'Lucida Grande', arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 20.0004997253418px; margin-bottom: 1.5385em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
The state can only prove intention via the concept of <em style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">dolus eventualis </em><span style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">[indirect intention/transferred malice]<i> </i></span>where the state can prove that while Pistorius might not have meant to kill the victim (Reeva Steenkamp or the putative intruder), he nevertheless foresaw the possibility and nevertheless proceeded with his actions (in legal terms he nevertheless reconciled himself to this possibility and went ahead).</div>
<div style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #111111; font-family: verdana, 'Lucida Grande', arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 20.0004997253418px; margin-bottom: 1.5385em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; text-align: justify; vertical-align: baseline;">
In 2013 Judge Fritz Brand reminded us in the <em style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Humphreys</em> case that it is not sufficient for the state to show that the accused should (objectively) have foreseen the possibility of fatal injuries to convict him or her of murder on the basis of <em style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">dolus eventualis</em>. The state must show that the accused <em style="background: transparent; border: 0px; margin: 0px; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">actually foresaw </em>the possibility of his actions killing someone (in this case, the person – whomever it might have been – behind the toilet door). It is not about what a reasonable person would have foreseen (which would speak to whether he is guilty of culpable homicide).</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: verdana, 'Lucida Grande', arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 20.0004997253418px; text-align: justify;">In this case the judge found that Oscar Pistorius did not actually (subjectively) foresee as a possibility that he would kill the person behind the toilet door when he pumped four bullets through the door.</span> </blockquote>
Like Mr. de Vos, when I wrote my original post I could not see how the judge could fail to come to the conclusion, on the facts known, that Pistorius did not foresee that possibility. As far as I can see the issue was not properly dealt with in the judgment either. What is more puzzling is that an acceptance of the argument that he fired the gun as a result of an involuntary muscle spasm would then be somewhat inconsistent with a guilty verdict on the count of culpable homicide.<br />
<br />
While it would certainly have led to an undramatic trial, I always felt that by trying to prove the intentional murder of Reeva Steinkamp, the prosecution was aiming too high. The state allowed Pistorius's defence to cloud the issues. The simplicity of the question at the heart of the tragedy was overshadowed and drowned out in the melodrama of the saga of Oscar and Reeva, but it remained a simple question: <i>Did Oscar Pistorius fire four shoots through the door believing that there was an intruder on the other side, and if so did he foresee that it could kill that intruder? </i>The issue of guilt or not on the charge of murder would hinge on whether it was reasonable for him to use lethal force. From what I know of South African law I believe the answer inescapably points to 'No'.<br />
<br />
As Pierre de Vos concluded:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #111111; font-family: verdana, 'Lucida Grande', arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 20.0004997253418px; text-align: justify;">In the Pistorius case the question is whether there was any reason to believe Pistorius did not share the foresight that his actions could lead to the killing of a human being. The judge found that there was. The question is whether the facts support such a finding.</span></blockquote>
Perhaps the judge felt compelled to find as she did because the prosecution, in her view, failed to make this point beyond reasonable doubt. If so, it is an appalling oversight on the part of Gerrie Nel, the prosecution barrister and in which case then perhaps Felicity Gerry is correct, and justice was done and seen to be done, however imperfect it may be. But in the absence of clearer reasoning from Judge Masipa, we are left to guess, which is unsatisfactory from everybody's point of view.Chris Connollyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11724092391390838428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4596354719352503563.post-40329046934261731282014-09-14T22:41:00.001-04:002014-09-14T23:06:45.403-04:00The Power of Negative Thinking (Scottish edition)There's a lot of keech, as they say in Scotland, bring spouted on both sides of the indyref debate. No, Scotland will not slide into catastrophe as an independent nation, and nor will it be a megarich socialist utopia with unicorns giving out free prescriptions. It probably will thrive and become wealthier in the long run, but the birth pains of getting there could well be pretty painful and I am certain that there will be some who will regret, in the short term at least, voting Yes. Conversely, it will probably see a rebirth of the sensible centre-right in Scotland, and some right-leaning No voters will quickly embrace and love the possibilities offered by independence.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Weirdly, though, it appears that about half of No voters <b>want</b> an independent Scotland to fail. I have been looking at the data tables for Sunday's <i>Sunday Telegraph </i>ICM poll that showed 'Yes' 8 points ahead. Martin Boone of ICM gave an interview last week to the BBC in which he expressed concern that the pollsters could get the result completely wrong, as they did in 1992. That tells me that even he isn't entirely comfortable with the results of ICM's own poll. It should be noted that the sample size was also smaller than usual (700), and it was online rather than by telephone (ICM's own telephone poll a few days earlier gave No a 2-point lead).</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Anyway, I digress. A big part of the No campaign has been that they believe Scotland having its own currency and central bank would be a disaster for the country in the short term (and they are probably right), to the extent that it's not currently even on the agenda: the plan is for a currency union with the rump UK (rUK). The No argument contends further that even a currency union with rUK would be bad for Scotland, even were rUK to agree to one.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Fairly logical so far. Where it starts to get weird though is that according to the ICM poll, half of No voters believe Scotland <b>shouldn't </b>be allowed (by rUK) to have a currency union (<a href="http://www.icmresearch.com/data/media/pdf/2014_ST_scotland_poll.pdf" target="_blank">page 14</a>). Now, I accept that it is possible that a section of No, having given thought to the economic and monetary policy implications of a currency union believe that, actually, a new <i>Scots pund </i>would actually be preferable to a currency union. I suspect they are small in number though.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
That leads to the conclusion that a very significant minority of No voters, believing that an independent Scotland keeping the £ sterling would be the lesser of two evils, also believe that Scotland should not be able to keep it in any case. Or to put it another way, having convinced themselves that Scotland won't be allowed to keep the £, or alternatively believing that Scottish independence and a currency union will damage the economy, they want to see Scotland not being able to keep the pound to vindicate their opinion and how they voted*.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I believe that psychologists call this cognitive dissonance. You and I are more likely to call it cutting off your nose to spite your face.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
*(There is also the possibility that they believe that it would be unfair on rUK to allow this to happen; I can't see that equating with No's claims to also be 'Team Scotland').</div>
Chris Connollyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11724092391390838428noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4596354719352503563.post-72324912076017248742014-09-12T10:21:00.001-04:002014-09-12T10:24:18.385-04:00The most annoying thing about Ian Paisley is that he actually was quite likeableOne of the most frustrating things about Ian Paisley, a man whom history ought to judge harshly for his role in creating and perpetuating a vicious cycle of violence fuelled mainly by his own sense of self-righteousness and a Bible-inspired sectarian disdain for the Roman Catholic Church and its adherents (or as my father used to put it, rather more succinctly, "that oul' bastard"), is that he was in real life very personable and likeable, and with a great sense of humour.<br />
<br />
And while it was welcome that he became a peace maker later in life, I think Ian Jack has it right when he concludes that Ian Paisley exploited people's fears and fuelled a conflict, labelling former allies traitors and enemies devils, in large part to satisfy his own ego. Northern Ireland would never be safe until it was in the DUP's hands. Unfortunately for Northern Ireland, the manner in which he squashed other unionist leaders and ran his own party like a one-man band, has left Northern Ireland unionism led by a squad of petty political pygmies, to the detriment of all.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/nov/01/ian-paisley-interview" target="_blank">'I was rescued from the IRA that early' - Ian Paisley talks to Ian Jack</a></span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/nov/01/ian-paisley-interview" target="_blank"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihgZ6S87r0_CulgacR8x2lydM58DjsP_yJRtA8Q9u2i3z8iTpVibqhrz7dGN1hnUJFyg_svRI_PjfkHBoZH1fcmXkksJnyyxKkOVmrPtFeBExGwU_MlPxi08JFGFZ-UjjZWmO03WAz55H8/s1600/Screen+Shot+2014-09-12+at+10.20.10.png" height="259" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />Chris Connollyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11724092391390838428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4596354719352503563.post-66024278577293174002014-09-08T09:47:00.001-04:002014-09-10T01:30:29.480-04:00Why the Yes campaign has a lot in common with 'Chuggers'Alex Massie, who I believed earlier last week had somewhat conceded one of the main arguments for independence, has written a really excellent piece in the <i>Speccy</i>. I recommend anyone with an interest in Scotland's future read it.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/09/come-in-britain-your-time-is-up/">Come in Britain, your time is up</a><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="border: 0px; color: #333333; line-height: 24px; margin-bottom: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Despite the fact that both the Yes and No campaigns have done their best to present this referendum as a battle between rival cost-benefit analyses, it is still – as it has always been – about the idea.</span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; color: #333333; line-height: 24px; margin-bottom: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">There’s always been a constituency for independence and it’s always been larger than many people imagine. Always. How often have you heard a variation on the theme of <em style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">I like the idea but I’m no’ sure we could really do it? </em>or <em style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Yes, in an ideal world and all other things being equal (but not, alas, in this world)</em>.</span></div>
<div style="border: 0px; color: #333333; line-height: 24px; margin-bottom: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">Even when the idea was ridiculous it was attractive, you see.</span></div>
</blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">It reminded me of my days doing telephone charity fundraising. The principles are the same: people like the idea of giving to charity, but often are reluctant to open their wallets. What you need to do is give them a reason to do something they like the idea of doing anyway. Voting Yes to independence is very much in the same vein.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">'Yes' is gaining ground for precisely this reason. As Douglas Alexander wrote the week before last in <i>The Guardian</i>, '<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 1.154;"><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/26/scotland-yes-campaign-second-referendum-debate" target="_blank">Scotland’s yes campaign has been based on emotion, not fact'</a>, which is precisely the 'No' campaign's problem. When trying to get people to increase their giving level, you had to create an emotional hook, and create a space in which they could do something they liked the idea of doing, but which other factors inhibited them from initially agreeing to. 'Yes' has successfully created the emotional hook for Yes, and network effect is creating the space. That's why 'No' will not be able to regain the momentum. I'm not yet convinced it will be enough to carry Yes over the line, but it is going to be very close even if they don't.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #333333; font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 18.4640007019043px;"><br /></span></span><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 1.154;">Will Scotland be pushed into what Quebecers call a 'neverendum'?</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 1.154;"><br /></span></span>Chris Connollyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11724092391390838428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4596354719352503563.post-55350727576241922432014-09-05T18:59:00.000-04:002014-09-05T22:59:05.763-04:00An Objective History of Slavery (or the persistence of liberal racism).
Also, a dog running into the sea.<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">A few months ago, I was <a href="http://ayellowguard.blogspot.com/2014/03/white-supremacy-and-birth-of-american.html" target="_blank">bowled over</a> by an article by Ta-Nehisi Coates that enabled me to understand slavery and American history in a new light. I was surprised at how little interest there was in the post, and wrote a <a href="http://ayellowguard.blogspot.com/2014/04/do-whites-really-run-so-scared-of-black.html" target="_blank">follow up</a> on that basis. It was met with equal indifference.</span><br>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">I was somewhat worried that I was being hypersensitive, but my fears have been assuaged, somewhat, by a <a href="http://www.economist.com/news/books/21615864-how-slaves-built-american-capitalism-blood-cotton" target="_blank">book review</a> in yesterday's <i>Economist</i>, of Edward Baptist's <i>The Half Has Never Been Told: Slavery and the Making of American Capitalism. </i>It was Coates who drew it to my attention on Twitter, and the review is really quite jaw-droppingly racist.</span><br>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"></span><br>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Anyway I just read a book about mass rape during war time. "Almost all the men were villains." Must not be history.</span><br>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">— Ta-Nehisi Coates (@tanehisicoates) <a href="https://twitter.com/tanehisicoates/status/507620906382802944">September 4, 2014</a></span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
</span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"></span><br>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script></span><br>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"></span><br>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Mind-boggling criticism of a book about slavery in the US South. <a href="http://t.co/hjkjq2m7u6">pic.twitter.com/hjkjq2m7u6</a></span><br>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">— Matt Yglesias (@mattyglesias) <a href="https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/507623326710104065">September 4, 2014</a></span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
</span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"></span><br>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script></span><br>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>The Economist </i><a href="http://www.economist.com/news/books/21615864-how-slaves-built-american-capitalism-blood-cotton" target="_blank">apologized</a> and withdrew the review, seemingly on the basis of the last line quoted above, but very little in the entire piece stands up to scrutiny.</span><br>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br></span>
<br>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5eBKPiD7hfB_UL7OUiqw0Z75NxWN96RmcjaQ0IYtsz3LeDCVwzCn0KxNLGrA87sM7Wpty-NumwmKweys5TD6S-dH-GA8t-sAzz50L0d-VdsMm07B6L3YGmjh0IFEftxiNWnUjtsr16Nsc/s1600/Screen+Shot+2014-09-05+at+18.31.28.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5eBKPiD7hfB_UL7OUiqw0Z75NxWN96RmcjaQ0IYtsz3LeDCVwzCn0KxNLGrA87sM7Wpty-NumwmKweys5TD6S-dH-GA8t-sAzz50L0d-VdsMm07B6L3YGmjh0IFEftxiNWnUjtsr16Nsc/s1600/Screen+Shot+2014-09-05+at+18.31.28.png" height="86" width="400"></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
That's right: slaves had a vested interest in making slavery sound, you know, worse than it was. We need to be skeptical about the veracity of their testimony, and need to weigh it against the stories white slaveowners told about how well they looked after their slaves: "Jemima was practically a member of the family etc. etc."¡ One can only assume that we also need to take into account the rosy recollections of what anyone who has seen Quentin Tarantino's "Django" would know were called back then "house niggers": trusted slaves, who lived in the family home and part of whose job it was to ensure that the slaves did not escape¡</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFKUfxoZTjYLIf7ExvS0koZN4rvwgVb5dsrYCm93F854KHxoQ5mcIkwl-r-_V2QBAKu977wSLmYq9H0sYhrMir5Zdl6ub-nVH3vUxxCV4ypR7rYYXM4phB68Gz4RnSPGMpDI5Y9e1FgQxX/s1600/Screen+Shot+2014-09-05+at+18.39.24.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFKUfxoZTjYLIf7ExvS0koZN4rvwgVb5dsrYCm93F854KHxoQ5mcIkwl-r-_V2QBAKu977wSLmYq9H0sYhrMir5Zdl6ub-nVH3vUxxCV4ypR7rYYXM4phB68Gz4RnSPGMpDI5Y9e1FgQxX/s1600/Screen+Shot+2014-09-05+at+18.39.24.png" height="160" width="400"></a></blockquote>
<div class="" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
The ridiculousness of this assertion was highlighted by the fact that the picture used to illustrate the review was that of Patsey, Lupita Nyong'o's character in <i>Twelve Years a Slave. </i>Anyone who has either seen the film or read the book will know that it was precisely <b>because</b> Patsey was the most valuable slave, that she suffered the most torture. The entire critique is premised on the idea that if you treated slaves nicely they would not want their freedom. For a magazine that supposedly subscribes to a liberal worldview it really is mindboggling.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Re-read, carefully, the concluding paragraph, ignoring the last two sentences.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
unexamined factor</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: center;">
may have</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: center;">
surely</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" style="text-align: center;">
could have</blockquote>
Here we have someone writing a book review and picking holes in a very important historical work not on the basis of empirical evidence or research, but on the basis of casual racism and the fact that the idea that white people were to blame for slavery and without it the United States of America could never have come into existence makes the reviewer feel a bit uncomfortable. <i>The Economist</i> clearly has some tightening to do in its editorial department. And to answer the question I posed in my follow-up post mentioned above: yes, I think it is very clear that whites really do run scared of black history.<br>
<br>
On the plus side, however, it spawned for a couple of hours <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23economistbookreviews&src=tyah" target="_blank">#economistbookreviews</a> on Twitter.<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
Nowhere in Mr. Dickens' account does he acknowledge the proprietor's generosity in providing orphans with factory work <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/EconomistBookReviews?src=hash">#EconomistBookReviews</a><br>
— Katje (@silentkpants) <a href="https://twitter.com/silentkpants/status/507653834475192321">September 4, 2014</a></blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
Nobody even deigns to address the distinctly un-PC possibility that Josef K did it, and got what he deserved. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/economistbookreviews?src=hash">#economistbookreviews</a><br>
— Rebecca Schuman (@pankisseskafka) <a href="https://twitter.com/pankisseskafka/status/507921897003044864">September 5, 2014</a></blockquote>
<br>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><br>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
This account of the My Lai massacre is advocacy. The villagers are all victims, the US GIs who shot them all villains. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/economistbookreviews?src=hash">#economistbookreviews</a><br>
— David Corn (@DavidCornDC) <a href="https://twitter.com/DavidCornDC/status/507895831949631488">September 5, 2014</a></blockquote>
<br>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><br>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
"In her diary, young Ms Frank glorifies flagrant disregard for the law by her continued evasion of the authorities." <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/EconomistBookReviews?src=hash">#EconomistBookReviews</a><br>
— Gibson Twist (@GibsonTwist) <a href="https://twitter.com/GibsonTwist/status/507728927784460289">September 5, 2014</a></blockquote>
<br>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><br>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
"All the passengers are portrayed as victims, and all the icebergs are portrayed as evil." <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/economistbookreviews?src=hash">#economistbookreviews</a><br>
— Michael Schaub (@michaelschaub) <a href="https://twitter.com/michaelschaub/status/507641668695515137">September 4, 2014</a></blockquote>
<br>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><br>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/economistbookreviews?src=hash">#economistbookreviews</a> Ultimately what dooms War and Peace to the remainder bin is its refusal to acknowledge Napoleon's gifts as a statesman<br>
— Popehat (@Popehat) <a href="https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/507639038971367424">September 4, 2014</a></blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
"The Famine focuses too much on potato blight and London's response. The Irish should've eaten less." <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/economistbookreviews?src=hash">#economistbookreviews</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/tanehisicoates">@tanehisicoates</a><br>
— Chris Connolly (@Cripipper) <a href="https://twitter.com/Cripipper/status/507628551139389441">September 4, 2014</a></blockquote>
<br>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><br>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><br>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/economistbookreviews?src=hash">#economistbookreviews</a> "The work, as its title suggest, focuses on Sophie's choice. But what about the choices the Nazis faced?"<br>
— Popehat (@Popehat) <a href="https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/507627895070543872">September 4, 2014</a></blockquote>
<br>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><br>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en">
<a href="https://twitter.com/tanehisicoates">@tanehisicoates</a> Anne Frank's debut work would have benefited from a chapter or two detailing the German perspective. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/economistbookreviews?src=hash">#economistbookreviews</a><br>
— Aaron Rodriguez (@Arod95) <a href="https://twitter.com/Arod95/status/507626363512045568">September 4, 2014</a></blockquote>
<br>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script><br>
<br>
And if even those haven't lightened your mood, here's a gratuitous video of a dog running into the ocean.<br>
<br>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/UowkIRSDHfs" width="560"></iframe>Chris Connollyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11724092391390838428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4596354719352503563.post-45635993313042340012014-09-05T10:45:00.002-04:002014-09-05T11:32:13.460-04:00The Case For Scottish Independence by Alex MassieI have largely kept off the topic of the Scottish independence referendum (or indyref, as it has become known), largely because I think it is for the people of Scotland alone to decide what's best for their country. I'm not British, so the partition of that island into two separate countries doesn't have any emotional resonance for me, though I am from the UK, but I happen to feel that Scottish independence could be good, in the long run, for my wee part of the Kingdom. That's not enough reason, though, for me to feel like I should try and persuade Scots to do something that might not be in their interests, just because it may be in mine.<br />
<br />
(Quick thought experiment: Scotland votes Yes, but Dumfries & Galloway and the Scottish Borders vote No, and an armed militia demands their own separate devolved government remaining in the UK. Should the British government: A) Establish a Parliament of Southern Scotland and exclude the area from an independent Scotland, or: B) Ensure that the democratic will of Scotland is respected... Anyway, I digress...)<br />
<br />
Slugger O'Toole had an interesting piece yesterday, provocatively entitled <i style="color: #222222; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; line-height: 1.1em;"><a href="http://sluggerotoole.com/2014/09/03/and-so-the-oh-fck-moment-arrives-for-the-no-camp-in-the-indyref/" target="_blank">And so the “Oh F*cK” moment arrives for the No camp in the #IndyRef</a>. </i><span style="color: #222222; line-height: 1.1em;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">In it was a quote from a piece by Alex Massie, a Scottish writer, broadcaster and unionist.</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #222222; line-height: 1.1em;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></span>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #555555; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: italic; line-height: 21px; margin-bottom: 1.2em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
There is a sense, I think, in which many voters have tired of the endless statistical wrangling that’s supposed to predict – and prove! – the future one way or the other. If true, that’s a win for the Yes campaign since sidelining those concerns – particularly on the economy – opens a path to voters who quite like the idea of independence – the idea of Scotland! – but are nervous about how, or even whether, it might actually be accomplished.</div>
<div style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #555555; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: italic; line-height: 21px; margin-bottom: 1.2em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
From a Unionist perspective, it does not help that, in general, London has been useless. Even now Westminster seems more interested in the Clacton by-election than in the referendum that will decide the future stability and integrity of the United Kingdom. Viewed from North Britain, this seems desperately petty and small. There is, whether one likes it or not, a sense that perhaps they’re just not that into us. At the very least they appear to take us – and the result of the referendum – for granted. And this, naturally, cheers Yessers.</div>
<div style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); border: 0px; color: #555555; font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: italic; line-height: 21px; margin-bottom: 1.2em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
Then again, this can be a lose-lose situation for Unionists. London’s apparent indifference is galling but there are moments when you could be forgiven for thinking indifference is at least preferable to the ignorance – and indiscipline – shown by London-based politicians when they do speak about Scotland. Yes, Boris, that means you (though you are not the only guilty party).</div>
</blockquote>
<br />
Read those last two paragraphs again. If the potential end of the United Kingdom isn't enough to grab London's attention, or at least distract it from the Clacton (yes, Clacton!) by-election, and convince it that it needs to pay more attention to Scotland, then I don't know what will.<br />
<br />
Just as Antonin Scalia's withering dissent in <i>United States v Windsor </i><a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/the-twilight-of-antonin-scalia/378884/" target="_blank">inadvertently handed victory</a> to marriage equality supporters in federal courts across the United States, I think Alex Massie just made the best case for independence that I have see to date.Chris Connollyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11724092391390838428noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4596354719352503563.post-33506386176733124782014-09-03T19:31:00.001-04:002014-09-03T19:39:29.644-04:00Wording of the Scottish Independence Referendum<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px;">
I always thought the Scottish independence referendum question isn't worded very authentically. It should be:</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px; text-align: center;">
<b>Should Scotland be an independent country?</b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px; text-align: center;">
<span style="line-height: 19.3199996948242px;">'Och aye, I suppose so'</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px; text-align: center;">
<span style="line-height: 19.3199996948242px;"><i>or</i></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; display: inline; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.3199996948242px; margin-top: 6px;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="line-height: 19.3199996948242px;">'Naw, I wouldny be bothered'.</span></div>
Chris Connollyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11724092391390838428noreply@blogger.com0