Monday, December 24, 2007
Hej tomte gubbar slå i glasen
This morning at 6:21 am we got a call on one of our cellular phones, from the International number +46709622578. It was a text message, something that neither of us ever use or do. It woke me out of sleep. It read:
Hej tomte gubbar slå i glasen ….God jul! Krama alla! Ingela
I don't appreciate receiving phone calls like this. I have not activated text messaging on my phone because I was afraid of spam like this, especially this one, which looked like it came from outside my country, the United States. I wanted to find out who or what was responsible for the call.
I looked up 4, 46, and 467 as international country codes. Neither 4 nor 467 is such a code. But 46 is Sweden. So I am guessing that is where this call came from. I Googled the phone number but got no results. I tried to translate this from Swedish to English but that is hard to do since Babelfish does not include this language. There are several online translators available, but none of them would translate "gubbar" or "glasen". I got that "hej" was simply "Hey!" and that "tomte" is an elf of some sort. A German-Swedish dictionary translated it as "Gartenzwerg", or a garden dwarf. One dictionary translated "glasen" as "viele Danke!". "Jul" is Christmas, "krama" is embrace, and "alla" is all, and I am guessing that Ingela is someone's name.
So this looks like some sort of Christmas greeting. I looked up these words in Google images. The expression "Hej tomte gubbar slå i glasen" gave me a bunch of Christmas dwarfs or elves, as did "tomte". "gubbar" reminds me of the German "geben", and "slå" is "stand". So I get something like "Hey! Elves definitely give you thanks. Merry Christmas! To all!".
This may be a nice greeting, but I don't appreciate it being sent all over the place by cell phone. How did Ingela know the cell phone number anyway? It's a nice time to give season's greetings, but please not by text on phones.
Hej tomte gubbar slå i glasen ….God jul! Krama alla! Ingela
I don't appreciate receiving phone calls like this. I have not activated text messaging on my phone because I was afraid of spam like this, especially this one, which looked like it came from outside my country, the United States. I wanted to find out who or what was responsible for the call.
I looked up 4, 46, and 467 as international country codes. Neither 4 nor 467 is such a code. But 46 is Sweden. So I am guessing that is where this call came from. I Googled the phone number but got no results. I tried to translate this from Swedish to English but that is hard to do since Babelfish does not include this language. There are several online translators available, but none of them would translate "gubbar" or "glasen". I got that "hej" was simply "Hey!" and that "tomte" is an elf of some sort. A German-Swedish dictionary translated it as "Gartenzwerg", or a garden dwarf. One dictionary translated "glasen" as "viele Danke!". "Jul" is Christmas, "krama" is embrace, and "alla" is all, and I am guessing that Ingela is someone's name.
So this looks like some sort of Christmas greeting. I looked up these words in Google images. The expression "Hej tomte gubbar slå i glasen" gave me a bunch of Christmas dwarfs or elves, as did "tomte". "gubbar" reminds me of the German "geben", and "slå" is "stand". So I get something like "Hey! Elves definitely give you thanks. Merry Christmas! To all!".
This may be a nice greeting, but I don't appreciate it being sent all over the place by cell phone. How did Ingela know the cell phone number anyway? It's a nice time to give season's greetings, but please not by text on phones.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
"Romney Must Be Stopped!"
Today I found out that the Concord Monitor has published an editorial saying that Romney is a "phony" and "must be stopped". Furthermore, the article says he flip-flops.
Maybe the Concord people read my blog on the Flip-Flop Index (see below). Of all the Republican candidates, Romney has the highest Flip-Flop Index, namely 6,150. So they are right. He flip-flops a lot. For this reason and several others, he is definitely not the best candidate for President. And I agree with the Monitor. Stop him.
But there is another candidate out there with a Flip-Flop Index nearly twice as big. Hillary Clinton has a Flip-Flop Index of 11,200. Why? Because Hillary is from Arkansas and she is from New York. She is in favor of the Iraq war and she is against it. So why doesn't the Monitor come out against Hillary?
Maybe the Concord people read my blog on the Flip-Flop Index (see below). Of all the Republican candidates, Romney has the highest Flip-Flop Index, namely 6,150. So they are right. He flip-flops a lot. For this reason and several others, he is definitely not the best candidate for President. And I agree with the Monitor. Stop him.
But there is another candidate out there with a Flip-Flop Index nearly twice as big. Hillary Clinton has a Flip-Flop Index of 11,200. Why? Because Hillary is from Arkansas and she is from New York. She is in favor of the Iraq war and she is against it. So why doesn't the Monitor come out against Hillary?
The Girl Index
A few months ago, I encountered something on YouTube called "Breck Girl", showing this young woman giving John Edwards a haircut, and making him look nice and spiffy. This gives the impression that John Edwards is a media hype person who needs to look like a sexy Hollywood actor. That is definitely not the case. Edwards is a serious candidate, and in fact, one of the best that is running for President in 2008. It's just that he has this "Breck Girl" around to give him this spiffy image. So is John Edwards the only one with this property?
No. All the candidates have girls, even Hillary. So we might as well define a Girl Index, which I suppose will represent a mix of rock-star charisma and media hype involved with the candidate. The Girl Index is defined as the number of hits that occur when one Googles on “’X’ girl”, where X is a Presidential candidate. So here we go:
Edwards 5410
Clinton
“Clinton Girl” 6310
“Hillary Girl” 4580
“Hott4hill” 16,100
Obama 9,670,000,000 (!!!,!!!)
Richardson 454
Gravel 1760
Kucinich 2070
Biden 96
Dodd 167
Giuliani 50,000
McCain 347
Romney 1,290
Huckabee 190
Ron PaulPaul 69,900
Tancredo 8 (no longer a candidate)
Keyes 141 (most of these stick a comma between “Keyes” and “girl”)
F. Thompson Thompson 11,800
Breck 51,100
Hey, Breck isn’t even a Presidential candidate. That 9 billion for “obama girl” is a Google error, I’m sure. The word "the" only gets about 10 billion hits. When I Google on “’obama girl’ the”, I get 550,000 hits. Surely that can't mean that there are 9 billion pages out there that have "obama girl" in them but not "the". The large number of hits for Obama is because Obama was the candidate that had the original girl, the “Obama Girl”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKsoXHYICqU
I found that a Ron Paul fan came up with an answer to that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFWoyJ-SGpk
And there is a Ron Paul girl:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6mBCC4dt0Y
And there is even a Hillary girl:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Sudw4ghVe8
Looking at all these girl indices, which I take to be a measure of infatuous charisma and hype, the major Democratic candidate that has the least index is once again Bill Richardson! (since Biden and Dodd are not major candidates, or you’re a Republican – then it’s John McCain or Mike Huckabee). No matter which way you measure the candidates, idiot, flip-flop, or girl, Richardson’s name keeps coming up.
And among the top 3 Democrats, Edwards has the smallest index. A snazzy exterior may cover more than just hype, as Jim Kunstler says:
“Then there's John Edwards, who has essentially remained a candidate since his defeat for Vice-president in 04, babysitting the odious John Kerry. I like Edwards pretty well, too. His origins were humble. Despite his movie star exterior, he seems capable, decisive, and sympathetic. He has his finger on the pulse of the biggest not-yet-articulated campaign issue: the demolition of the middle class.”
No. All the candidates have girls, even Hillary. So we might as well define a Girl Index, which I suppose will represent a mix of rock-star charisma and media hype involved with the candidate. The Girl Index is defined as the number of hits that occur when one Googles on “’X’ girl”, where X is a Presidential candidate. So here we go:
Edwards 5410
Clinton
“Clinton Girl” 6310
“Hillary Girl” 4580
“Hott4hill” 16,100
Obama 9,670,000,000 (!!!,!!!)
Richardson 454
Gravel 1760
Kucinich 2070
Biden 96
Dodd 167
Giuliani 50,000
McCain 347
Romney 1,290
Huckabee 190
Ron PaulPaul 69,900
Tancredo 8 (no longer a candidate)
Keyes 141 (most of these stick a comma between “Keyes” and “girl”)
F. Thompson Thompson 11,800
Breck 51,100
Hey, Breck isn’t even a Presidential candidate. That 9 billion for “obama girl” is a Google error, I’m sure. The word "the" only gets about 10 billion hits. When I Google on “’obama girl’ the”, I get 550,000 hits. Surely that can't mean that there are 9 billion pages out there that have "obama girl" in them but not "the". The large number of hits for Obama is because Obama was the candidate that had the original girl, the “Obama Girl”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKsoXHYICqU
I found that a Ron Paul fan came up with an answer to that:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFWoyJ-SGpk
And there is a Ron Paul girl:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6mBCC4dt0Y
And there is even a Hillary girl:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Sudw4ghVe8
Looking at all these girl indices, which I take to be a measure of infatuous charisma and hype, the major Democratic candidate that has the least index is once again Bill Richardson! (since Biden and Dodd are not major candidates, or you’re a Republican – then it’s John McCain or Mike Huckabee). No matter which way you measure the candidates, idiot, flip-flop, or girl, Richardson’s name keeps coming up.
And among the top 3 Democrats, Edwards has the smallest index. A snazzy exterior may cover more than just hype, as Jim Kunstler says:
“Then there's John Edwards, who has essentially remained a candidate since his defeat for Vice-president in 04, babysitting the odious John Kerry. I like Edwards pretty well, too. His origins were humble. Despite his movie star exterior, he seems capable, decisive, and sympathetic. He has his finger on the pulse of the biggest not-yet-articulated campaign issue: the demolition of the middle class.”
The Flip-Flop Index
Recently I read an email referring to an article by David Brooks that said that Barack Obama has a constant position and does not flip-flop too often. This says that Barack Obama's position is ever constant and that he has a solid inner core of beliefs. This seems desirable, but it seems like this guy has found The Truth. A truth is probably a truth, but The Truth is always a lie. Still, Obama is far different from a fundamentalist Christian like Falwell (either one) and I find him appealing.
To me the opposite of Obama's consistency is flip-floppiness. A while ago I ran into the "Idiot index". The index of candidate X is simply the number of hits "'X' is an idiot" gets when Googled. Right now, the Idiot Indices of the prominent Democratic candidates are Clinton, 20200; Obama, 13200; Edeards, 13200; Richardson, 4. The prominent Republicans all have high Idiot Indices. We don't want an idiot for President, nor do we want someone that a substantial number of people conceive of as an idiot. So this would say the best candidate is Bill Richardson.
So today I tried the same thing with flipflops. The Flip-Flop Index. For candidate X, this is the number of hits the phrase "'X' flip-flops" gets. Here are the results:
Clinton 11200
Obama 436
Edwards 8
Richardson 1
Biden 3
Giuliani 1260
Romney 6150
McCain 4370
Huckabee 2320
Ron Paul 10
Tancredo 8 (no longer a candidate)
F. Thompson 292
The other candidates gave me "no documents" when the phrase was Googled. This says that none of the prominent Republicans are constant - they are a bunch of flip-floppers. Among the Democrats, sure, Obama has a lower index than Clinton, the utmost top flipflopper of them all. But Edwards and Richardson have far less than that even. So to me the Flip-Flop index selects either Edwards or Richardson.
If you use both the Idiot and Flip-Flop indices to pick a candidate, Bill Richardson is your candidate.
And it makes me wonder about this article. If indeed Obama has the attributes that the article gives to him, then how come 436 web sites say or quote that he flip-flops?
To me the opposite of Obama's consistency is flip-floppiness. A while ago I ran into the "Idiot index". The index of candidate X is simply the number of hits "'X' is an idiot" gets when Googled. Right now, the Idiot Indices of the prominent Democratic candidates are Clinton, 20200; Obama, 13200; Edeards, 13200; Richardson, 4. The prominent Republicans all have high Idiot Indices. We don't want an idiot for President, nor do we want someone that a substantial number of people conceive of as an idiot. So this would say the best candidate is Bill Richardson.
So today I tried the same thing with flipflops. The Flip-Flop Index. For candidate X, this is the number of hits the phrase "'X' flip-flops" gets. Here are the results:
Clinton 11200
Obama 436
Edwards 8
Richardson 1
Biden 3
Giuliani 1260
Romney 6150
McCain 4370
Huckabee 2320
Ron Paul 10
Tancredo 8 (no longer a candidate)
F. Thompson 292
The other candidates gave me "no documents" when the phrase was Googled. This says that none of the prominent Republicans are constant - they are a bunch of flip-floppers. Among the Democrats, sure, Obama has a lower index than Clinton, the utmost top flipflopper of them all. But Edwards and Richardson have far less than that even. So to me the Flip-Flop index selects either Edwards or Richardson.
If you use both the Idiot and Flip-Flop indices to pick a candidate, Bill Richardson is your candidate.
And it makes me wonder about this article. If indeed Obama has the attributes that the article gives to him, then how come 436 web sites say or quote that he flip-flops?
Which Democratic candidate is best?
Here are eight criteria that a candidate for President should satisfy:
1. The candidate should have a good knowledge of energy, since an energy crisis, such as peak oil, looms for the world.
The candidate that is best for this criterion is Bill Richardson, since he has been Secretary of Energy and knows about what is going on in the oil and gas world.
2. The candidate should be aware of the class and wealth disparities of this nation, and his campaigning should reflect a willingness to take action towards more equality.
The candidate that is best for this criterion is John Edwards, since he is campaigning on a theme of Two Americas and how they should be combined into One America.
3. The candidate should be charismatic, since that would improve his electability.
The candidate that is best for this criterion is Barack Obama. He has shown more charisma than any of the other Democrats (or Republicans), to the extent that "Obama girl" videos are made about him.
4. The candidate should know what the real reason is for Bush's invasion of Iraq.
The candidate that is best for this criterion is Dennis Kucinich, since he is the only one who has told us what that reason is - oil. He also would end the trauma in that nation more quickly than the others.
5. The candidate should be one who would implement universal health coverage so that everyone has access to speedy, affordable health care.
The candidate that is best for this criterion is Hillary Clinton, since she has announced such a program, back in the early 1990s. Let's hope if she is elected that she will implement it.
6. The candidate should be knowledgeable as much as possible about what goes on in Washington, especially Congress and the Executive Branch.
The candidate that is best for this criterion is Joe Biden. He has shown more knowledge than the other candidates in the debates.
7. The candidate should be one who will take direct action to end the war in Iraq, rather than just talk about it.
The candidate who best fits this criterion is Chris Dodd. He was the only Democrat to vote against a recent bill that would have funded the war and started withdrawals, as he said that would not end the war, and is the only Democratic presidential candidate to co-sponsor the Democrat's most aggressive anti-war bill.
8. The candidate should have a religion that does not encourage the candidate to talk about God all the time when he speaks.
The candidate who best fits this criterion is Mike Gravel, as he is a Unitarian, a religion that does not worship the traditional Christian or Muslim God.
OK, so who do we pick? Each candidate is best at something. Right now I am leaning towards Edwards.
1. The candidate should have a good knowledge of energy, since an energy crisis, such as peak oil, looms for the world.
The candidate that is best for this criterion is Bill Richardson, since he has been Secretary of Energy and knows about what is going on in the oil and gas world.
2. The candidate should be aware of the class and wealth disparities of this nation, and his campaigning should reflect a willingness to take action towards more equality.
The candidate that is best for this criterion is John Edwards, since he is campaigning on a theme of Two Americas and how they should be combined into One America.
3. The candidate should be charismatic, since that would improve his electability.
The candidate that is best for this criterion is Barack Obama. He has shown more charisma than any of the other Democrats (or Republicans), to the extent that "Obama girl" videos are made about him.
4. The candidate should know what the real reason is for Bush's invasion of Iraq.
The candidate that is best for this criterion is Dennis Kucinich, since he is the only one who has told us what that reason is - oil. He also would end the trauma in that nation more quickly than the others.
5. The candidate should be one who would implement universal health coverage so that everyone has access to speedy, affordable health care.
The candidate that is best for this criterion is Hillary Clinton, since she has announced such a program, back in the early 1990s. Let's hope if she is elected that she will implement it.
6. The candidate should be knowledgeable as much as possible about what goes on in Washington, especially Congress and the Executive Branch.
The candidate that is best for this criterion is Joe Biden. He has shown more knowledge than the other candidates in the debates.
7. The candidate should be one who will take direct action to end the war in Iraq, rather than just talk about it.
The candidate who best fits this criterion is Chris Dodd. He was the only Democrat to vote against a recent bill that would have funded the war and started withdrawals, as he said that would not end the war, and is the only Democratic presidential candidate to co-sponsor the Democrat's most aggressive anti-war bill.
8. The candidate should have a religion that does not encourage the candidate to talk about God all the time when he speaks.
The candidate who best fits this criterion is Mike Gravel, as he is a Unitarian, a religion that does not worship the traditional Christian or Muslim God.
OK, so who do we pick? Each candidate is best at something. Right now I am leaning towards Edwards.
