US president for sale...

Personally, I never got the hang of eBay, but if you're interested in buying John F Kennedy, I see on the Google ads on this blog that eBay are selling him. I don't know what state he'll be in, or even what you're gonna do with him once you got him, so I'm washing my hands on this one. This is not an inducement to click on the link, by the way, or even to look at that part of the page.

Come to think of it, it's probably more appropriate to have Bush Junior up for sale. He splits more ways - after all, many companies and lobbying groups have already successfully bought him, but that's still not stopping him selling out some more.

Star Wars - more sucking

Thanks to Adriaan for pointing out the following review in the New Yorker. It's past three in the AM, so I'm not gonna read it all now, but my eye caught the following:

The general opinion of “Revenge of the Sith” seems to be that it marks a distinct improvement on the last two episodes, “The Phantom Menace” and “Attack of the Clones.” True, but only in the same way that dying from natural causes is preferable to crucifixion.

Amen.

"I am thy Lord, and this be My naim."

The Eggventures of Dick Duck

Based on a story by Herman Finkers

Star Wars sucks - I'm not alone!

Mark Kermode (the world's best movie critic, and not only because he more often than not agrees with me) has just slated the Revenge of the Colander on Britain's BBC Radio Five Live. My jaws ache from grinning so hard...
There are funnier bits, but this sums it up nicely:
"It's badly written. It's rottenly directed. It is acted by people whose woodenness is like chewing the edge of a table."
Listen to it! The main review starts at 11 minutes and 30 seconds.

Cappuccino

Interesting fact: the Capuchin order of monks, better known as the Franciscans, are named after the color of their dark-brown robes. Not to be confused with: capuchin monkeys.

The Eggventures of Platypus Bill (part 2)

Playing with fire (Burning the midnight oil, part 2)

The Eggventures of Platypus Bill

This looks godawful on IE5

god-awful adj : very unpleasant

Yes, I realize this blog looks awful on Internet Explorer 5, both on Mac and PC (so I've been reliably informed). Well, what can I say? It looks peach-perfect on Safari, and even better on any of the Mozilla family browsers, who, by the way, do a much better job with resizing pictures (or did you think I just have bad skin and blistering spectacle frames?).

I might get around to doing something about it, but for your own Japanese alcoholic rice beverage, get Mozilla, and if you're on Mac (as you should be anyway), I'd recommend Camino (same engine, just better looking chassis).

Only in my dreams...

Another fallen hero...

Shady exercise

This is my last shading exercise before I consult the masters.

Burning the midnight oil

In Memoriam

I have been coveting
Your lusty sheen for years
For it all to end
In bitter tears
Yesterday you were
My favorite chocolate makers
But then you went and
Whored yourself out
To these Cadbury Quakers
Green and Black
No longer vivid green
But blackly dead instead

The politics of fear and loathing of politics (part 1)

Politicians rely on people having short memories, or just outright bad memories. Fortunately, although I am blessed with a bad memory, I do have a facility for flagging important events, so that I notice immediately when a politician says something in contradiction to something that has gone on before. For instance when the first resolution on Iraq was passed, the term used was 'serious consequences', a term, as was widely reported at the time, that does not allow for military action without a second resolution. The term for that would be something like 'all necessary means'. In fact, that is exactly the phrase that the US and the UK wanted to use for the first resolution, but that was blocked by the other security members, because they did not want to give the 51 states of the union carte blanche. Like Bush would ever be held back, or even understand, such subtleties. I think there should be a law that states that someone who cannot spell or pronounce 'nucular deterrant' should not be allowed to have their finger anywhere near the button, but that is another matter.

All this as a prelude to the following... Remember less than two weeks ago, when Labour was stirring up fear, saying that the Tories would dismantle the NHS (the UK's free National Health Service) by giving people the option to pay for private treatment and then reimbursing half the cost. 'That would drain vital funds away from the NHS!' While I do not agree with those plans, now Labour have done a similar thing. A mere week after retaining power, the new health secretary has announced a 3 billion pound plan to have the private sector perform routine operations for NHS patients. An important word in that sentence is the word 'routine'. This is a perfect set up for arguing that the private sector is more efficient than the public one. 'Look,' they will say, 'the private sector carried out x number of operations for much less money,' conveniently ignoring that the public sector is left with the not-so-routine cases, and even receives back the 'routine' cases that have gone wrong in the private sector. And that argument will be used to further increase the involvement of the private sector. If you do not believe me, and think I am overly cynical (if that's not a tautology), consider the following: while in the beginning of Labour's stint in power the private sector accounted for 2% of health treatment, Labour set a target for 5%, and now that has been 'upgraded' to no more than, I forget the exact number, but it's either 11 or 15%. (I just checked... It's 'between 10 and 15%. Guess what it'll end up as?)

Uh, so who's privatizing the health sector now?

PS: I am really fed up with politicians saying things like: 'Everyone knows that...' or 'We know that people believe that...' without backing this up with any evidence. Have they always been doing that, has it been getting worse of late, or am I just a bit more sensities to their non-language? Then again, everyone knows that politicians are lying scumbags. And I know that people believe that.

Fruit of my pen

Star Wars sucks, and that's a fact

I have fled the living room where the kids are watching Attack of the Clowns, in preparation for Revenge of the Colander. Now maybe my negative attitude has something to do with the strange order in which I watched these films, rather than an allergy for talking teddy bears, but I doubt it.

You see, the first Star Wars movie I watched was the second one, the ice planet one, what's it called? Return of the Jedi?, thinking it was the first one. Then, while I was living in the States some friends learned that I'd only ever seen one Star Wars movie, and suggested we watch another. 'Fine,' I said. 'Better make it the second one, 'cos I've seen the first one.' Imagine my surprise when the opening scene is the whole ice planet thing all over. 'Boy, these movies are repetitive. Surely with all the money they raked in on the first one, they could have invested in some new sets.' An aside to people who've only watched the last two episodes, ugh, the ones that are now called I and II, they used to shoot films on sets, which are basically recreations of actual places, that look kinda real from the angle that the camera shoots from. Now, of course, your typical blockbuster is shot against a mountain-sized blue screen, and a bunch of glorified cartoonist, no not cartoonists, drawing-monkeys, color in the rest of the shot. That's why the actors constantly look like they've no idea where they are or what they're looking at. Because they haven't. Because they don't.

The only good news is that there won't now be a third trilogy. I love the way they shovelled that fact under the carpet. Like the Colander was always going to be the end of the story. And, anyway, the end? How can episode III of VI be the end? Or is Sith a typo for Sixth? I don't know anymore, and frankly, my dear, I don't care.

Self-obsessed exhibitionist

"What kind of sad individual posts their own diary on the internet, as if thousands of total strangers would ever be interested in their lives? An arrogant, self-obsessed exhibitionist perhaps?"

Ouch, that hurts! This is from the Guardian's The Guide. But they fail to realize one thing, or actually a couple:
1. Who says that the purpose of this blog is to attract the attention of thousands of total strangers? I would be very happy with just a few hundred;
2. If you are a total stranger who is reading this (Hi, I'm Mark), then you are showing some degree of interest in my ranting, and this blog has at least some purpose;
3. They say arrogant, self-obsessed exhibitionist as if it's a bad thing.

If you are a (fellow) pedant, you might say: that's three points, not a couple. You are wrong. A couple is a fuzzy concept, with a typical value of two, but three, four or even maybe five are not outside the set. Wordnet agrees with me, giving as the first definition: n 1: a small indefinite number. There's nothing wrong with being a pedant, but at least get your facts straight, or consult a dictionary.

Church signs (part 1)

Church signs (part 1)
Originally uploaded by markclaessen.

So I walk past the Baptist Church twice a weekday, and they always have a sign up. One that's supposed to make you think, I guess kind of like a Zen Koan, only less profound. Only, and this is a disturbing confession to make, I never get them. Don't get me wrong, most of the time I understand them, I just don't get them.
So here's what I'm gonna do. Every time they put a new one up, I'll take a picture and share my thoughts with you, and you can maybe share some of yours back to me. Here's this month's... And this is one of the ones I do not actually know if I understand. Then again, if I'm not sure then I probably don't. That doesn't mean I haven't got my own interpretation, though. I'm never one to let ignorance stand in the way of an opinion. (Actually, I am, but since I am being polemic...)
Let's approach this mathematically, as I have noticed that many of these signs rely on this device.

Iff God + 1 > 50% then it follows that God = 50%

This allows a shocking conclusion to be drawn. If humankind would just stick together, we could hold this God at bay. No longer would we be cajoled by higher supernatural forces. If God were to say, 'I don't like what you're doing, mankind, and I'm gonna rain down something bad for medicinal punishment!' (I am assuming, with some good cause that He is a misogynist - at least I share with Him that we are both misanthropes), a united humankind could just stick two fingers up and say, 'not so fast there, Your Cloudiness', we hold half the shares in this joint venture, so you just buckle up and keep your peace.
The flaw in this scheme, of course, is that it only takes a single traitor and God gets his way. And given his prediliction to prey on the weak and senseless, someone will always give in and humankind is back under the yoke. Which explains my misanthropy...

Is this thing on?

One of my reasonings for setting up this blog was to give people an insight into my psyche, to hopefully give me some exposure that might also prove helpful in my electioneering for The Green Party.

Mmmhhyeah, after two days of relentless blogging I'm not so sure this is gonna work out. Whaddaya reckon? (You'll have to excuse the language, I have been listening to a lot of Bill Hicks stuff today, which is obliviously affecting me... What? You don't have your own, unique voice? Hey listen buddy, we're all influenced all over the place, beyond our control. At least I have great taste.)

In fact, I'm listening to an interview with Bill's brother and his long-time friend Kevin Booth right now, and it's kinda hard to type and listen at the same time.

Back to the original question though, do you think the ranting against Christians is gonna win me any votes? More so than lose some? Maybe a separate blog on the campaign trail would be better. But then again, why not be honest? I mean, why not be honest? This is who I am (if you look through the show I'm putting on). Wew, that's enough auto-intracranial escavation for now.

The guy on the left...

... (in more than one way) is Bill Hicks of course. My all-time number one (anti-?) hero. He never caved in to commercial offers, despite an almost total lack of them, even at the pinnacle of his career, when still no one in the States had heard of him. Strangely enough, he was way more popular in Britain. He died some eleven years ago, of pancreatic cancer.

People have said that he had a messianic, a Jesus complex, and it is true, he was a preacher. Just not of the Godspel, but of the unadulterated and blindingly obvious truth (blindingly obvious, that is, once he has laid it bare for you). Well, if Bill is Jesus, I am Mark, his disciple, spreading his kalacharist.

More to follow.

Powergen are evil - a corporate fairytale

So you don't think corporations are inherently evil, psychopathic entities, do you? Oh really? Go and have a look at The Corporation and then come back and talk to me...

Okay, you're back? Well then, here's my story (start voice over, I'm thinking Michael McKeane in his droll dulcet tones):

Not too long ago, there was a household occupying a typical semi-detached interbellar dwelling, who got their gas from British Gas and their electricity from TXU. Every Saturday they bought the Guardian from the local shop and the Beano for the children, but that's beside the point. One fine Saturday, the Guardian said that there were better deals to be had, so they went online and switched both gas and electricity to Amerada. The transfer of the gas went without a hitch, but the electricity just wouldn't budge, no matter how many times they inquired to both TXU or Amerada.

Then, several months later, they were notified that Amerada had become subsumed by Powergen, which was the new name for TXU. It goes without saying that the price reduction that Amerada had promised never materialized. Disgusted, they switched their electricity to ecotricity. There was a dispute over the outstanding electricity bill, but since their queries weren't answered, their letters lost, and their calls remained unreturned, little progress was made.

Until, that is, they contacted energywatch, and things started happening. Powergen apologised, if somewhat grudgingly, and no longer requested the disputed moneys to be paid. They furthermore promised never to contact them on the matter again.

Imagine their surprise therefore, when they found out (from ecotricity) that Powergen had reopened their account, and was now billing them again, even though they had been paying their bills to ecotricity for some time. Again they tried to contact Powergen, but again it was like talking to someone with cotton wool in their ears, singing at the top of their voice.

So once more they contacted energywatch, and again the matter was sorted. In further disgust, the household switched their gas supply to swalec, and now powergen sends them a letter every few weeks asking will they please come back to them. And what do you think their answer is on these occasions?

Exactly!

Zero religiosity (part 3) - Sign o' the Devil

Sign o' the Devil
Originally uploaded by markclaessen.

I did some more research, and found the following useful information:
1. The Holy See will accept Visa, Mastercard, American Express and Diner for online donations.
2. Useful information on excommunication on the New Advent website. Extracts follow:

Excommunication (Lat. ex, out of, and communio or communicatio, communion - exclusion from the communion), the principal and severest censure, is a medicinal, spiritual penalty that deprives the guilty Christian of all participation in the common blessings of ecclesiastical society. Being a penalty, it supposes guilt; and being the most serious penalty that the Church can inflict, it naturally supposes a very grave offence. It is also a medicinal rather than a vindictive penalty, being intended, not so much to punish the culprit, as to correct him and bring him back to the path of righteousness.
[...] it can affect only those who by baptism have been admitted to that society. [...] The excommunicated person, it is true, does not cease to be a Christian, since his baptism can never be effaced; [...]
The right to excommunicate is an immediate and necessary consequence of the fact that the Church is a society. Every society has the right to exclude and deprive of their rights and social advantages its unworthy or grievously culpable members, either temporarily or permanently. This right is necessary to every society in order that it may be well administered and survive.

Okay, conclusions:
1. The punishment is medicinal, I guess that means it's meant to cure you. Don't these people ever doubt they could just possibly be wrong?
2. Even if I were excommunicated, I would still be regarded a Christian. Goddangit! (Takes the Lord's name in vain.)
3. I qualify, by being a sinner and having been baptized, so that's good.
4. The church is a society, and is therefore bound by the law, which presumably means I have a right to renege my membership of said society.

Zero religiosity (part 2)

I just found the website of the Dutch Catholic Church, and they had an email facility.

Here's a translation of the email I sent them (with some asides for lay persons)...

LS (Lectori Salutem, I thought it appropriate to use Latin),

I do not consider myself to be a catholic, but an atheist. As soon as the occasion arose I deregistered my catholicism with the municipality (the church used to get a contribution from the state on the basis of the number of registered believers). But whenever the church boasts about its 600 million members worldwide I ask myself how many of those actually regard themselves as part of the church. I for one do not. Several years ago I tried telephonicly (aparantly there is such a word) to deregister with the catholic church, but I was told time and again that this is not possible. Now I have set out on my second ‘crusade’.
Can you provide me with information, or at least point me in the right direction, for deregistering or excommunication?

Thanking you in adance.

I was told I could expect an answer within three weeks. Start the clock.

Dual nationality and zero religiosity

Here's the deal... I have been living in England for over twelve years, but apart from a single instance caused by an administrative slip-up in Exeter, I have not been able to vote in national elections, because I do not hold British citizenship. I would like to apply, but there are two problems:

1. Britain does not have a problem with dual nationality, but the Dutch Ministry of Justice website rather unhelpfully states that Dutch citizens taking on another nationality kan lose their Dutch nationality. I have sent them an email asking for clarification and am awaiting a reply (promised within 10 days from yesterday).

2. The citizenship ceremony. Thank you, David Blunkett. It consists of all sorts of nonsense that I don't have a problem with (including light refreshments), but somewhere in the process you have to swear an oath (goddammit!), an affirmation (yeah right!) and a pledge (which I can never find... I spent half an hour yesterday looking for the Pledge).

I have taken the liberty of lifting them from the special Home Office website and have filled in my name. Here goes...

Oath of allegiance

I Mark Johan Alexander Claessen swear by Almighty God that on becoming a British citizen, I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her Heirs and Successors, according to law.

Affirmation of allegiance

I Mark Johan Alexander Claessen do solemnly and sincerely affirm that on becoming a British citizen, I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her Heirs and Successors, according to law.

Pledge

I will give my loyalty to the United Kingdom and respect its rights and freedoms. I will uphold its democratic values. I will observe its laws faithfully and fulfil my duties and obligations as a British citizen.

First of all, I am an atheist, so I do not see how I can truthfully allege myself to almighty god. Second, I'm not exactly a royalist, and I would like to allege many things about the queen, but not myself to her. I have no problems with the pledge, depending on what they mean by uphold (v 1: keep or maintain in unaltered condition; cause to remain or last; 2: stand up for; stick up for; of causes, principles, or ideals 3: support against an opponent; Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University); see, I am a proponent of electoral reform, so 2 & 3 are fine, but 1 is out.

However, and here comes the flipside of this rant. I am counted by the Catholic church as one of its sheep. Several years back I tried to deregister, ultimately unsuccessfully. I called various parishes, or dioceses, or whatever they're called, and when I finally tracked down where I was registered, I was told by the priest that catholicism is a gift from god, given at the time of your baptism, and that it is non-refundable.

Oh really? Ever since, I have been thinking it would be very interesting to be actually excommunicated. Maybe if I rant against the catholic church long enough on this blog and other outlets, this might happen. So watch this space.

Long lost brother of mine

Tom Servo, star of MST3K
Originally uploaded by markclaessen.

An unexpected visitor today... Tom Servo, star of Mystery Science Theatre 3000, turns out to be a brother (stephalfbrother? these dispensing machines are notoriously polygynous) of Rocky...

Rocky Rancilio
Originally uploaded by markclaessen.

Rocky, for his part, welcomed his long-lost sibling with open portafilter holder. Soon these two were standing in a corner reminiscing about the times when Rocky used to get Tom out of trouble with the Dispensing High school bullies (you can see why they would pick on him).

Miss Silvia

Miss Silvia

She arrived at my doorstep last Friday, dresses in naught but bits of cardboard and a few hessian coffee bags. Since when she has been providing me with earthly pleasures three times daily. My girlfriend is getting jealous, but she shouldn't be, because who is lurking in the background but the sturdy Rocky, with his angular good looks?

Share of the votes (only in Britain)

Last week Thursday I stood for The Green Party in the local county council elections. (You might recall there was also the piffling issue of a national election.) Because of border changes both local seats were up for election in the ward where I stood (Histon, Impington and Cottenham). On Friday the results came in, and I garnered an astonishing 949 votes. Of course, to boost my ego even further, I wanted to calculate what share of the vote that amounted to. And that's where I ran into trouble.

Here are the figures: I got 949 votes out of a total of 15,335 votes cast.

Method 1:
Simply, you might say, that's 6.2%. And in a sense that is correct, I received just over six percent of the total number of votes cast. But don't forget that everyone had two votes, so that does not correspond to the number of people who voted for me.

Method 2:
So, let's look at that. 8,372 ballot papers were issued, but 58 were rejected. You would assume that everyone who received a paper and didn't spoil their vote put their paper in the box, but from other wards (where people only had the single vote), it is clear that this is not the case. But the numbers were very small, so let's ignore them for convenience's sake. In that case 949 / (8,372 - 58) = 11.4%. That's the percentage of people who put a tick next to my name on the ballot paper.

Method 3:
But hang on, not everyone voted twice! There were 15,335 (valid) votes cast by 8,314 people, which means that 1,293 people only voted once. And if you use method 2, the total vote adds up to just under 185%, not 200%. At this point, my head starts to hurt. I am tempted to take method 1, and double that number, which gives me 12.4% of the vote. This method has two great advantages:
1. the votes add up to 200%
2. this gives me the highest share of the votes of any method

So unless you want to proof to me I am wrong, I got 12.4 per cent of the vote. Hurray!

In the beginning...

Okay, so I'm new to this blogging business, and I need to create a post in order to see how this will look like on the website, but I can't see how this will look like without creating a post first, so here goes...