YouTube – Obama: “Fired Up? Ready To Go!”. Via Talking Points Memo.

Here’s an economic proposal that I think makes a lot of sense. We’re talking about spending $700 billion to prop up a market for something that no longer has a market, thanks to it being abused and bungled out of existence as coordinated effort by all the top firms in America. [...]

That’s an ineffective plan, and we all know it. I propose instead that Henry Paulson give that 700 billion dollars to me. In return, I’ll stimulate the economy myself. I’ll stimulate the hell out of it — whatever you want. I’ll spend it like it was water, and I was some sort of… water-spending guy.

The first thing I’d do? Build new solar and wind infrastructure, and make untold billions of dollars providing power to the nation. The walls of my corporate headquarters would be covered with solid gold, and the business park would be laid out so that from space, it would look like Calvin peeing on barrels of oil.

[...]

Read all of it!.

So John McCain doesn’t know how many houses he owns. That’s all nice and well but the thing I am worried about more is the guy’s taste! You would think that a gazillionaire like McCain could at least afford a decent interior designer. But look at this! I mean, please, have you seen the dog statue on the right? Unbelievable.

One thing is clear: somebody with as bad a taste as John McCain is not fit to be president.

Via Talking Points Memo

John Sidney McCain III, born August 29, 1936, is 71 years old. Are we seeing the first signs of dementia? Judge for yourself…

Update: More fun… YouTube – John McCain Bonus Nonsense.

If you want to know more, you should really read this book. It’s full of information and a good read — so you really cannot go very wrong.

Stille, Alexander: The Sack of Rome, ISBN 159420053X (amazon.com, amazon.de)

Considering all this, it seems particularly strange how seriously this election is taken officially. Ecuadorians are forced to vote (though you are allowed to turn in an empty ballot). Furthermore, the so-called ley seca (“dry law”) forbids the sale of alcohol throughout the election weekend. Now, in a country with corrupt politicians and law enforcement, could you believe that such a law is actually enforced!? Supposedly, bars and restaurants are checked by undercover policemen and will be closed down at a single offence. Maybe because there is nothing else to do, the whole city seems to be out on the streets at the moment — to cast their all-so-important vote.

Excuse me for being cynical, it is just hard to think about this differently if you know what riches oil has brought to other countries and have to see every day just how horrible Ecuador’s poor are off.

Read more about the elections in Ecuador at tagesschau.de (in German).

Let’s just hope that we can get back to normality at some point.

• Sweden is a member of the European which means that I do not need to worry about work permits or visas.
• It is supposedly an open and international society, welcoming to foreigners.
• Swedes speak good English and speaking Swedish is not an absolute prerequisite for living or working.
• There is a well-organized official website offering loads and loads of information for foreigners.
• Sweden’s immigration policy is sensible and relatively lenient. You must have lived in Sweden for only five years to become a citizen. Double citizenship is allowed.
• Sweden is well-organized, modern, clean and safe — something I do treasure, coming from Germany.
• Sweden is innovative and has lots of high-tech business.
• Swedish universities offer lots of graduate programs in English.
• Swedish education is of high quality and cheap (if not free since government-subsidized). Swedish spending on education is the highest in the OECD — some 4.9% of GDP.
• Swedish is related to other European languages (unlike Finnish, for example) and should be quite possible to learn. Furthermore, you are in a kind of “learn-one-get-two-free” situation since Swedish will also help you in Denmark and Norway.
• Swedes value equal opportunity higher than other countries and egalitarianism has a strong tradition.
• Smoking is not permitted in public places.
• Sweden has an excellent welfare system and is very strong on social equality.
• The Swedish state understands to maintain a very strong state — financing health care, social security, education and infrastructure with tax money — while still being an attractive investment location. The key seems to be financing these systems from tax money, therefore making the price of labor independent of the price of social security. Corporate tax is low while individual taxation is high. This draws in investors. The tax system is strongly redistributive, providing for social fairness. More info in this excellent ZEIT article in German.
• Excellent childcare is available, actually making it practical for women to work.
• Swedish politicians actually seem to “get it” sometimes. They actually adopt sensible reform (such as allowing double citizenship which used to be outlawed) and don’t just talk about it.
• Sweden is near my home country Germany — making it easy for me to come back and visit.

I can only come up with a lot fewer reasons not to go:

• The ridiculous policy on alcohol sale: it can only be sold in a government-owned monopoly shop, is insanely expensive and can only be bought during special opening hours.
• I do not speak a word of Swedish. (This can be helped, though.)
• I have never been in Sweden. (Something it seems I have to change soon.)

Well, let’s see. I will try to update this list as I find new points and ask some Swedish friends what they think about this idea.

More info:

• SWEDEN.SE — the official gateway to Sweden
• Study in Sweden
• Swedish Migration Board
• Die ZEIT: Der Schwache Riese [German]

This Guardian Unlimited story recounts a troubling incident on the London tube where a Tube customer was arrested for the following profane reasons:

• they found my behaviour suspicious from direct observation and then from watching me on the CCTV system;
• I went into the station without looking at the police officers at the entrance or by the gates;
• two other men entered the station at about the same time as me;
• I am wearing a jacket “too warm for the season”;
• I am carrying a bulky rucksack, and kept my rucksack with me at all times;
• I looked at people coming on the platform;
• I played with my phone and then took a paper from inside my jacket.

I do sincerely hope that we Europeans do not fall prey to the same kind of political and inefficient security actionism that we see in the US. Always remember Benjamin Franklin’s famous quote: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

1. It does not work. It is too easy to get real IDs in false names which makes it trivial to circumvent this measure. Additionally, the authorities give you a free way of checking whether you are on the list: you can just go to the airport and try to check in. If you are refused, you get an ID in another name and try again — voilá.

2. The way it works is dangerous, curtails civil liberties and is most probably unconstitutional. If your name appears on the no-fly list, there is no way to find out how it got there. Neither can you challenge its appearance. This is equivalent to a policy of “guilty until proven innocent” and can therefore never be acceptable in a state that values its civil liberties.

3. The money wasted on this huge program would be better spent elsewhere. Of course it is good to keep potential terrorists off planes. However, they could also commit their crimes elsewhere. Would it not be better to spend money on measures that actually bring terrorists behind bars, preventing them from committing any further crimes at all?

4. The program is applied blindly according to computerized rules without any human oversight. The Wired story reports the case of a nun denied boarding because a (male!) Afghan terrorist supposedly used her last name as an alias. Even the most cursory human check of this situation would have revealed this error. She was nonetheless denied boarding.

What I find particularly troublesome is the following account:

“I said something to the effect that ‘If this were Northern Ireland, I would understand,’” McPhee said. “And the police officer said, ‘Ma’am, I’ll pretend I didn’t hear that, or otherwise I would have to arrest you.’ After that, I didn’t say anything.”

Now you cannot even criticize the ridiculous and unconstitutional treatment you have to go through? Since when can you be arrested for a simple statement in the United States?

This program is far beyond the bounds of what is acceptable in a free, constitutional state. Honestly, this is one of the reasons why I could not right now imagine living in the United States. Where have we gotten? A country that claims to be promoting freedom around the world and that has actually brought it to Europe and Japan after World War II is now abolishing their civil liberties on their own turf.

More than angry, this makes me sad.

Link found through Schneier on Security.