British Political analysts struggling with concept of coalition...

There's no cute video for this. Anyway, British political commentators are struggling to explain to the public their own weird historical mutant of election law, where everything is an ad hoc gentleman's agreement. Aside from the fact that the Prime minister has to decide when he calls for an election, there's the case of the hung parliament where the sitting government actually gets to decide who to talk to first. But the Liberal Democrats have decided not to do that, not in the least because they wouldn't have a majority, even with Labour, but they would, with the Conservatives. But then, the conservatives aren't going to offer the Lib Dems Proportional representation, Which is what they need if they're ever going to be a viable contender in the future. Britain has one the most heavily gerrymandered district systems in the world, which is why the Liberal Democrats have 8% of the seats, when they have 23% of the popular vote. If the Conservative-Liberal Democrat government doesn't make it, then there is little to no hope of a majority government, unless there's a truly bizarre rainbow coalition in the works. If there's anything this election's proved, it's that the Liberal Democrats are right, Britain needs a major election reform so it can have the governments it needs, not this shit. And all the ranting and raving about how coalition governments are rife with 'horse trading' are just so much nonsense. Contra-moral sellouts labeled as compromise are the very soul of politics, and whether you dither and argue with coalition partners or extremists and lunatics within your own party is completely irrelevant.

Is your job your defining characteristic?

I had an absurd conversation like this not too long ago. A woman who expected an enormous amount of praise for her job as a social worker. I just don't get why she thought everyone would fall over her because of this. I guess it's tough, but if the job really brings you to the brink of despair several times a day, maybe it's just that you're not cut out for it. If you're going to spend 40 hours a week on it, it better be something you like. I had an another altercation with a professional marine, once. The general thrust of his story was that he didn't want to die, and that it was all the fault of politicians. I countered that if, for instance, the military were in charge of the government, he'd probably still be expected to die. I believe it's inherent to the job. If you want to live, you can increase your chances by not picking jobs were dying is part of the description.

No man is an Island

UGH. This one is somehow much worse than the first one. The digitally inserted Micheal, the truly terrifying vocodering, the completely nonsensical rap bridge. I hate pretty much everyone in the video. You sort of begin to wonder if these kinds of projects exist to save lives or to further inflate popstar egos. What's really going to happen to all that money? Most likely buy a solid gold plane for the Haitian president, or whichever warlord is in power when the cash gets there. Administrative costs and the salaries of all those highly necessary aid workers will take another big chunk. The rest of the cash? Miscellaneous(theft). If only the American Army wasn't so busy they could restore law and order.

The men who stare at goats

I liked the film, but not as much as the documentary series by Jon Ronson. Mostly because of the oppressive acting. Maybe I shouldn't have watched it after the documentary, now the wacky hijinks of the US military seem a lot less fun and a lot more crazy. The one thing the film doesn't address and the documentary barely touches is the fact that the reason these things work so well in the military context. Any army is prone to these kinds of hysteric flights of fancy, it's in their nature. They spend so much time brainwashing people to become soldiers, what does it matter if you tack on a load of other ideas that don't really make any sense in that context? The unquestioning obedience of orders and other great ideas in service of a single goal make it an easy prey for profoundly stupid ideas. It's remarkably similar to religion that way.

Water

Another doctor's visit today and my doctor asked if I'd be interested in a homeopathic cure for gallstones. The sketch above immediately sprang to mind. I asked my doctor why he'd offer me this and apparently it's in my insurance package. I assured him I don't believe in it, and he concluded that that is the only reason he'd prescribe something homeopathic. I just checked, and apparently it is. I always sort of assumed that you had to pay for these things yourself, at least. It's pretty horrifying to realise I've been paying for this. But checking with my sister, whose studying medicine, the official position of doctors is not to say anything bad about homeopathy, unless it's about to kill you. There ought to be law, wasn't there one already?

Policecops

If only they were really like this, but they're not. I spent years actively hating the police, but they probably do serve a purpose. According to a friend who worked in a womens' shelter, they're the main reason most domestic disputes don't end in bloody murder, which is something to be grateful for. I've never been particularly helped by their presence, nor have many of the people I know. There's the rule of law aspect of having a police force that I must have benefited from somehow, but mostly there have been fines, po-faced lectures, shrugs at inquiries into if they'll find my stolen property, or if they'll look for those guys that started the fight. And these are the positive encounters. I've also been fined unjustly, detained for no reason, pushed around, threatened with violence, and once pulled over because they thought I might have been speeding if they weren't there. In Rio they arrested me for a bribe, when I didn't have any drugs, they offered to arrest a dealer and get me some.
It's a problem of consistency, mostly. I just don't know what to expect. I'd much rather they either always fined you, always gave you a lecture, or well anything really, as long as they always do it. It's just the reasonability, the discussions only work if both parties are of sound mind, and even if I sometimes am and can discuss things calmly, I can't be sure of that, and neither can they.