It's been a while.

I've not blogged for a wee while now, not because I didn't have anything to say you understand, just because I've been busy. I inadvertently wiped all my work from the PRO off my computer by overwriting it with data from my old computer so I had to go redo all the work again. Bah. Oh well, that learned me good.

But on to a different subject. If I was a betting man, and I'm not, I think I'd wait for whoever it is that gets elected as the Democrat nomination for the US presidency and with the resulting bounce for them, then put my money on John McCain when his odds get lengthened for a short while. I just can't see the US electing either a black man or a woman to the highest office in the land against a Vietnam veteran and former POW. Don't get me wrong, nothing would please me more (in respect of US politics) to see a Democrat elected, irrespective of their gender or race, but I can't see it. I guess the beauty in US politics is that you always get suckered into hoping that something good will happen. Like last time round, there was what was reported as a groundswell of opinion against GWB that people, at least over here in the UK, thought Kerry had a genuine chance of getting in. We all know what happened there, albeit Kerry didn't help himself by not choosing Wes Clark as his running mate which gave the Republicans the chance to pin their 'war credentials' of being an administration that was in the middle of a war (of their own making of course) firmly to the ballot sheets.

The point of all this in relation to my thoughts on Obama and Clinton? As always, it is the older white guys running the show. Say what you like about Michael Moore, and let's face it we all have, but he had a point. Clinton and Obama are on a hiding to nothing unless one of them can pull something big out of the bag. Even then, they have it all to do. I just can't see either of them getting elected. McCain will get one term (due to his age), probably get through an amended immigration bill that he has supported, giving something like 12m immigrants votes in the US (primarily Latin Americans), before getting footed out the door by a few more NeoCons. They will by that point have convinced Jeb Bush that being president isn't such a bad job and that a family dynasty might be the way to go after all. A large number of those extra Latin American votes will likely go to a fluent Spanish speaking, newly devout Roman Catholic Jeb. I can see it all now!

But where will the Democrat nominee come from in the next election? That I don't see. John Edwards has failed twice in a row, first as Kerry's running mate and second in trying to get the latest nomination, so he's likely out. Hilary to run again? I'd be surprised at that, especially if she loses badly to Obama this time round. Obama? Maybe. A little more experience and exposure could do him well in the interim years. Al Gore? If he wants it then I suppose he'd at least be in a position to stand for it. The Clintons would likely be out of the way and he's already being touted as the power broker between Obama and Hilary. In saying that, he does appear to be enjoying his new found eco-warrior status so who knows?

Either way, McCain will win the next election. He's a more moderate Republican and will appeal to a wider audience with his 'bipartisan' approach. Oops, nearly forgot, there is always Nader! Now, where's my cheque book?

Who I should vote for.

If I even had a vote that is:

87% Hillary Clinton
86% Barack Obama
85% John Edwards
82% Chris Dodd
80% Dennis Kucinich
79% Mike Gravel
76% Joe Biden
76% Bill Richardson
44% Rudy Giuliani
34% John McCain
26% Mike Huckabee
26% Mitt Romney
24% Tom Tancredo
15% Ron Paul
13% Fred Thompson

2008 Presidential Candidate Matching Quiz

I'm not really surprised that Hilary came top, I don't know why but I just had an inkling. I'm also not even remotely surprised that the top half of my recommended picks are Democrats. Just as well my wife and I don't both have a vote in the US elections eh? Well, they do say that you can change your politics (I have), but you can't change your team (I haven't). As long as Mitch supports Rangers I think we'll be just fine ;0)

Fun.

Since I was accused of not wanting people to have fun in the comments section earlier this week feast your eyes on this badboy. What could be more fun for the kids?

For Amber.

Since she moaned at the lack of pictures:






There isn't really much I can say about these is there? Heh.

I like to bother the Fourth Estate.

But only when people like Doug Maughan insist on doing it first:

Small economies

May I suggest Doug Maughan tells us what Iceland, Switzerland and Qatar all have in common that Scotland doesn't (Letters, February 13)? Could it be that they are all small countries that exercise control over their own economies? I wonder if that has helped them "prove" his longstanding assertion that we are better served allowing our economy to be controlled as part of a larger entity? I think not.

And the link for posterity of course:

http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/letters/display.var.2042930.0.Small_economies.php

The Mosquito.

I found this on the BBC news page. Apparently there is some uproar amongst various liberty groups about the device infringing on children's rights. I wonder how many of those arguing that point live in areas blighted by teenage gangs and trouble spots? I'm not interested in the rights or wrongs of using the device necessarily, that is a different argument. I'm just curious how often Professor Sir Albert Aynsley-Green has had to deal with groups of unruly and possibly dangerous children round his gaff. Not often I'd venture. It's not as if the device is intended for people over the age of 25 to go around chasing gangs of kids with it. As long as it is used properly and with appropriate licensing then it serves the purpose of making communities safer. The shops by where I grew up became/become a veritable no-go area at night times because of the various ne'erdowells hanging around it. A couple of these would sort the problem by all accounts. I wonder why it is such a bad thing? I am of course playing devil's advocate, but feel free to indulge me.

Little People.

I was sent this by my lovely friend Naomi . It's really cool. I much prefer installations like this to installations like this. I suppose that's why I'll never be an art critic. Oh well, c'est la vie.

IDS gives me IBS.

But this is kind of entertaining. Especially if you are of the blue persuasion in Glasgow I suppose.

Centenary.

It just occurred to me that I wasted my 100th post on that clown Thatcher. Och well. What can you do?

Scratcher.

Or Sir Mark Thatcher as he is more commonly known. I was reading earlier about how he had tried to effect a coup in Equatorial Guinea, which by the way seems to be a lovely place and it occurred to me, what on earth did Thatcher the Younger do to 'deserve' being called a Sir? Let's see, a whole series of dodgy business deals, a life of privilege, a very successful set of parents, an attempted coup (admittedly after the Sir was placed before his name), private education, breathtaking incompetence matched only by his arrogance and trading on mummy's name. No real surprise to find that his title is hereditary then, much like everything else he has had in his life. He apparently left Harrow with 3 O Levels and somehow managed to be offered a place at Oxford. Quite an achievement eh? Oh wait, I get it. Another useless titled spoiled brat. Quelle surprise.

Revolving.

I was at the National Archives in Kew yesterday where upon I found that the main revolving door was shut and no apparent way of getting in. I knocked on the side door to which one of the guards eventually let me in. I asked him why the revolving door was shut and he answered "It's been too windy." TOO WINDY?! It was designed to withstand storms and wind for crying out loud! The beauty in the revolving door is that it is silent, keeps the noise and wind and rain out of the building and offers an elegant solution to stormy weather invading indoors. The only thing I can think of is that the revolving door they have at the NA is electronic and therefore was suffering some sort of malfunction in the stormy weather. Which in itself is ridiculous. You take a foolproof way of ensuring a steady flow of people are able to get in and out of the building at will and add the 'need' for electricity to it for no real reason - it reminds me of the time in Perth when Stagecoach (who are based in the Fair City and run by the fragrant Ann Gloag and Brian Souter*), it is rumoured, 'persuaded' the council to replace many of its roundabouts with traffic lights and designated bus lanes to ensure a steady flow of traffic and access (for the buses). I'm all for public transport, but the roundabout is probably the most simple and sophisticated form of traffic management there is and it was co-opted for no good reason causing all sorts of unnecessary difficulties in trying to get through Perth. Much like trying to get into the National Archives! Honestly, why take a perfectly good working existing system and change it about for no good reason? Change for change's sake it would appear.

* Yes I know Brian Souter is a donor to the SNP. No I still don't like him.