The devil’s in the details
Ashely Seager discusses his experience with domestic PV in today’s Guardian. Some of the interesting headline figures include 92% of his family’s annual electricity consumption coming from the PV panels and an estimated ROI of 7%. Pretty good going really, though he points out that the grants fiasco has reduced this return significantly.
Look, you know…
I haven’t been following the US presidential election very closely but clearly Barack Obama’s eloquence has lifted the political debate above its usual harping/whining and excited a lot of people. Sadly though, last night’s “Worst. Debate. Ever” was more reflective of the Rovian bad old days, a petty, shrill tabloid tone rather than a serious discussion of the policy challenges facing the US. But this morning, ABC must have a nasty hangover as their comment pages have filled up with over 11667 (and counting…) largely negative comments, reflecting public frustration with the level of maturity in the questioning.
I think it’s interesting to view this particular incident in parallel with the styles of the two main candidates. Hillary Clinton’s speeches reflect the older style: insipid, patronising, dwelling on ridiculously trivial political points or bland platitudes (although neither candidate seems to have really radical policy proposals – it’s just that they sound so much worse coming from her). On the other side, Obama at least seems to be trying to talk to Americans like they are adults and rise above the fray.
Of course this is just a general impression and so, being a numbers guy, I was pleased as punch to see that the New York Times offers a transcript analysis tool, allowing you to search for specific phrases. The most interesting search I could think of was to compare the two candidates’ verbal ticks: Clinton’s “You know,” (alternatively, I’m your friend or I’m lying through my teeth) and Obama’s “Look,” (…can we please grow up and talk like big boys and girls).
The results:
- Clinton said “You know,” 43 times to Obama’s 16. 10 of Clinton’s came when she was squirming under a question about the Bosnia sniper thing.
- Obama said “Look,” 6 times, 0 for Clinton. These usually came after one of the moderator’s questions, a particularly exasperated one after the infamous flag pin question.
Anyway it’s an interesting little tool and I’d be curious to see what others make of it.
Blogorrhea
If the last post was an example of an interesting nugget from the archives, then this one is more typical of the dross that fills up my backlog of drafts. It’s got all the the prerequisites:
- Vague notes: Check. It says, “Jared Diamond and updated to Wordpress 2.5″. Honestly, your guess is as good as mine.
- Throwaway title: Check – “Blogorrhea”. Which apparently is an honest-to-goodness word in the 21st century.
- Link to a Guardian article: Check.
And an optional extra, the block quote.
Last January, the League of Conservative Voters analysed transcripts of television interviews and debates with all the Democratic and Republican contenders for the White House. By January 25, the candidates had been asked 2,975 questions on a range of issues.
Only six of those mentioned the words “climate change” or “global warming”. That is not much greater than the level of media interest in the candidates’ positions on UFOs. They were asked three questions on UFOs in the same study.
Slightly surreal reading, n’est-ce pas?.
Rivers of “sticky glue”
I’ve been slowly working through a backlog of post ideas and the title of this one jumped out at me. The draft contained a link to a Guardian story about the pollution problems facing China and how the government is trying to promote a “struggle” against polluters (with all the historical baggage that word carries).
Interesting reading on its own but it seemed particularly relevant as I’m just finishing Jared Diamond’s Collapse on the environmental woes of past and present societies, including China. The importance of environmental attitudes features prominently in Diamond’s analysis and he summarizes the Chinese situation nicely:
China’s leader used to believe that humans can and should conquer Nature, that environmental damage was a problem affecting only capitalist societies, and that socialist societies were immune to it. Now, facing overwhelming signs of China’s own severe environmental problems, they know better.