Move to Santa Cruz
Well, after five years living in Vermont, and something like thirteen years living in New England, Courtney and I have gone and moved to Santa Cruz, CA. There are a lot of reasons for this; the very hard winters and extremely rainy summers in Vermont were starting to wear on us, but mostly we just wanted to live in a young and vital place that has a larger population. Courtney had some experience with the area during her brief stint working at Land of Medicine Buddha, and I had always enjoyed The Monterrey Bay area when my family and I would camp here as a kid, so Santa Cruz seemed the perfect place for us.
I applied for a UNIX Systems Engineer position at the University of California Santa Cruz, and was offered the job back in July. After some serious soul searching, I decided to accept, and we started the process of relocating a full 3,000 miles from home, which I can assure you is no simple task! I’ve been here just under two weeks, but Courtney is still tidying up our affairs in Vermont before she starts the long journey out here in our car. Yep… That’s car, not cars. The public transportation system is so good out here that we can finally be a single car family. For my part, I’ve managed to move clear across this country twice and not driven it a single time. This is fine with me, however, since I have very little interest in seeing middle America.
Casey and I managed to find Paula’s Breakfast Shack while he was out for WordCamp 08. Home of the $1.99 Basic Breakfast, this place is so good, that I simply can’t imagine going anywhere else for eggs and home fries! I’ve tried a number of taquerias, but the jury is still out on which one is best. Once I find it I’ll have to freeze some tacos and burritos and send them out to Matt, who has strongly indicated that he hates me for having such easy access to good Mexican Food.
Girl in Clinton’s “Red Phone” Ad Supports Obama
It turns out that the sleeping little girl in Hillary Clinton’s “Red Phone” TV advertisement is supporting Barack Obama. The Clinton campaign used stock footage of the girl who is now of voting age and calls “Red Phone” ad “Fear Mongering”. I guess the Clinton crew should have thought about that.
I Can Finally Have My Rocket Belt!
Juan Manuel is my new hero, plain and simple! Since the Bell RocketBelt of the early 1960’s, the world has been disappointingly devoid of this amazing invention, but no longer. Juan Manuel, a self-taught engineer from Mexico has been working diligently for nearly 30 years to develop a working rocket belt and now he has.
Supposedly the biggest trick to making these rigs work is getting the throttle to operate smoothly enough, but there are a number of other challenges as well. They run on 90% pure hydrogen peroxide which is extremely caustic, so material compatibility is a huge factor. You can’t just march into your nearest drug store and pick up this highly concentrated chemical either, so there are also many issues surrounding the distillation process of the fuel.
Lozano’s commitment to his projects is truly impressive. He has financed everything himself, and come up with a product that seems to work every bit as well as the old Bel Rocket Belt, but looks even cooler! What’s more, I can have one of these Jet Packs on sale now for $125,000! That may seem like a lot of money, but it is really very reasonable when you consider what you get:
1. A fully-tested, custom-made flying rocket belt,
2. This belt has been proved to be the most stable design and easier to fly
3. A special machine to make our own unlimited supply of rocket fuel
4. Hands-on training in the process and the equipment
5. Flight training of 10 flights in your own rocket belt
6. Maintenance and setup training
7. 24/7 expert support
8. Housing and food are included during training
When you think that the original rocket belt cost Bell Aerosystems $250,000 dollars in 1960, and that the guys from “The Rocket Belt Caper” spent a great deal more, you can only conclude that $125,000 is very reasonable indeed. This is not to say I can run out and buy one, but I admit that I am tempted by thoughts of being a full-time professional jet pack pilot.
Well done Lozano! My hat goes off to you!
High End KittyCaster Guitar
About a month ago, Courtney scored one of the new bubble gum pink Hello Kitty Stratocaster guitars from Squier (AKA Fender on the cheap). It’s a very cool looking axe, and once I adjusted the truss rod and action, it actually plays pretty well.
I was amazed to see, however, that Fender is offering an extremely limited edition version of this guitar for a whopping $21,625! Only three of these high-end KittyCasters were made, and only one will be available to the public. If you want it you’re going to have to go to Japan to get it though because it will only be available at the Mitsukoshi Nihonbashi main office for one day on July 14th.
Why Did my Arm Fall Asleep?
It’s been a while since I last woke up from a deep sleep and realized that my arm felt like a big lump of wood attached to my body that I could neither move nor feel. I have, however, been suffering increasing problems with numbness and tingling in my hands, most likely because my work has my fingers perpetually connected to a keyboard and I am starting to get carpel tunnel.
It got me thinking about what exactly causes my extremities to fall asleep. I had heard the common explanation that it is caused by lack of blood flow, but this always seemed unlikely to me because my limbs have never turned blue, and such a lack of proper oxygenation to cells would most certainly cause permanent damage.
I did some research, and discovered that an extremity will begin to “fall asleep” when pressure is applied to nerve pathways, causing them to loose their electrochemical connection with the brain. This interruption in signal causes the impulses coming into the brain from the extremity to become garbled and random, resulting in the tingling sensation we are used to feeling when our body part begins to go numb. Interestingly, this can also be caused when pressure is applied to an artery, restricting blood flow to the extremity and depriving nerve cells of nutrients. The initial tingling serves as an early warning system to tell us that we should adjust our position so that we can avoid the serious nerve damage that could result should the blood flow be restricted for an extended period of time.
The random signals interpreted by our brains as tingling are usually all it takes to get us to adjust position and solve the problem, but occasionally, we are so sound asleep that we don’t notice it and the extended pressure causes a total loss in nerve connectivity. When this happens the extremity goes completely numb and our brain is unable to move or feel it at all. Since we have passed the early warning system at this point, I am unsure what exactly stirs in our brain to alert us to the situation, but I can attest that the sensation of having a totally dead feeling arm attached to my body is disturbing to say the least. As is the extended period of tingling when the limb comes back to life.
At least I now know why it happens.
Hillary Clinton is the Wrong Democrat
Because of the way the Clinton family, along with a number of other “old” democrats worked to sabotage Howard Dean’s 2004 Presidential campaign, there is simply no way I could ever bring myself to support Hillary’s 2008 Presidential candidacy.
Ignoring her despicable treatment of Dean, and the fact that she is simply not electable, it also turns that she was on the Walmart board of directors from 1986 to 1992. That’s right, Walmart. The company that has a rich and illustrious history of discrimination, human rights violations, paying miserably low wages, destroying local environments, locking employees inside its stores, invading residential neighborhoods, creating traffic congestion, noise and light pollution, contributing to urban sprawl, and censoring the books, DVDs and videos it sells.
It makes you wonder doesn’t it? If she spent time on the board of a company that refuses to pay employee benefits and violently crushes any attempt for workers to unionize, how would she respond to these issues as President? Not favorably I suspect. I think I’ll vote for a “new” democrat this time. I think I’ll vote Obama.
Arkansas Woman Blames Heat On Daylight Savings Time
UPDATE: The item depicted and quoted below was indeed a letter to the editor of Arkansas Democrat-Gazette on 16 April 2007, but Snopes tells us:
“It was not intended to be taken literally, as its author, Connie M, Meskimen is a Little Rock lawyer known for penning sarcastic letters with tongue planted firmly in cheek.”
Looks like you got us Connie! Apparently the fact that the paper published it caused quite an outrage amongst its readers. Well, at least this explains why the letter was written fairly well. Still, I shudder at the thought of how many neo-conservatives ignoramuses down there must have read it (or tried to read it) and found themselves agreeing, in whole with its premise. Thanks to Murphy for pointing out the Snopes article.
Pople are constantly finding new levels of idiocy, but this Arkansas woman who blames Daylight Savings Time for the hot weather demonstrates a truly stupefying lack of intellect! Connie M. Meskimen is apparently convinced that the hot weather she has been experiencing lately is caused by the fact that Daylight Savings time started about a month early this year. Then, as if this vacuous assertion was not enough, she goes on to surmise that the legislation responsible for moving Daylight Savings ahead on the calendar was a ploy by the “liberal congress” to “make us believe that global warming is a real threat”.
Telling Connie that she needs to check her facts seems mind-numbingly obvious! Aside from her needing to realize that Congress, no matter how liberal, can’t alter the rotation of the Earth, she needs to remember that it was the Republicans that passed this ridiculous legislation!
Anyhow, here is the article:
Hat Tip: Courtney for the great find!
If you can’t read the image for some reason, here is the text:
Letters
Daylight exacerbates warming
You may have noticed that March of this year was particularly hot. As a matter of fact, I understand that it was the hottest March since the beginning of the last century. All of the trees were fully leafed out and legions of bugs and snakes were crawling around during a time in Arkansas when, on a normal year, we might see a snowflake or two.
This should come as no surprise to any reasonable person. As you know Daylight Savings time started almost a month early this year. You would think that members of Congress would have considered the warming effect that an extra hour of daylight would have on our climate. Or did they?
Perhaps this is another plot by a liberal Congress to make us believe that global warming is a real threat. Perhaps next time there should be serious studies performed before Congress passes laws with such far-reaching effects.
CONNIE M. MESKIMEN
Hot Springs
Polyarchy in England and France
Living in a world that is putting an ever increasing emphasis on the value of Democracy, it becomes important from the political scientist’s perspective that we have a formula we can use to determine exactly how democratic a country is. By setting out criteria that a country must meet in order to be seen as moving toward Democracy, Robert Dahl has developed just such a formula. The focus of this study will then be to examine Dahl’s formula by looking at how The United Kingdom of Great Britain and France measure up to his criteria. We will begin by first taking a look at the mechanics of Dahl’s formula, then proceed by looking at the governmental structures of These countries, putting them up against Dahl’s litmus test to see both the democratic and not so democratic aspects of their respective governments.
Since most would agree that Great Britain and France are at the very least reasonably democratic, questioning this notion will not only make clear Robert Dahl’s theory, but give us a fresh perspective on what Democracy is, hopefully opening our minds to the idea that even the most seemingly democratic countries will inevitably fall short of the democratic ideal some ways. Dahl, in fact, makes the case that there really is no best form of Democracy for every country, and furthermore, that no country throughout history has ever achieved a perfect Democracy. Because of this, he reserves the term “Democracy” to mean an Ideal and perfect Democracy, while using the term “polyarchy” to describe regimes that have strong democratic tendencies.
What then are Dahl’s basic requirements of polyarchy? When considering
this, it is important to think along the lines of a continuum, with all the regimes of the world falling somewhere inbetween perfect Democracy and an authoritarian system of governance. With this is mind, we can begin to look at some of the basic requirements that must be met if the country is to pass Dahl’s litmus test.
First of all, the most basic criteria that Dahl lays out states that in order to be a polyarchy, the system must allow for participation in government by the citizens, and contestation of the government by the citizens. While these two basic rules form a good foundation by themselves, the are far too vague to generate a good model of a county’s government. How then can we make these two concepts of participation and contestation more concrete? To deal with this question, Dahl lays out three “unimpaired opportunities that all full citizens must retain.” First, he remarks that the people must have the right to formulate preferences. Secondly, they must “have the right to signify those preferences to their fellow citizens and the government by individual and collective action.” And finally, they must “have the right to have their preferences weighed without discrimination by the government because of the content or source of the preference.” (Dahl p.2). He then goes on to enumerate eight guarantees that a government must grant its citizens if these three opportunities are to be met.
In order for citizens to have the opportunity to formulate preferences, Dahl claims that citizens must have the “the freedom to form and join organizations, the freedom of expression, the right to vote, the right of political leaders to compete for support, and the right to alternative sources of information”. For the opportunity to signify those preferences, citizens must have all the five previously mentioned freedoms as well as two more: “eligibility for public office and free, fair elections.” Finally, if citizens are to have their preferences weighed equally in conduct of government, they must have all seven of the above mentioned rights and freedoms, plus, “the institutions that constitute the government must depend on the votes and other expressions of preferences by the citizens.”
Dahl’s criteria for polyarchy then can be summarized as requiring a government that is brought to power in free and fair elections by as large a percentage of the population it will govern as possible. It must be subordinate to a citizenry that has access to non censored information and is free to speak out against the government it elected. With this in mind, let us now continue our study by shifting out focus to the governmental structures of Great Britain and France to see how well they meet this criteria.
Perhaps the most notable thing abut the government of Great Britain is that while it is officially a constitutional monarchy, it has no written Constitution. While it may seem that this would make for a regime that could be oppressive, it has worked fairly well for The United Kingdom. In fact, it has actually made the British system of government more adaptable that it may have been if its constitution was specifically spelled out (Goodgov). The British election system is a single member district plurality with the Conservative and Labor parties being the most influential (Concise Columbia Encyclopedia: Great Britain). The governmental structure is a bit strange in that the Monarchy has been retained in the form of the Royal Family and House of Lords. The Royal Family has retained only a symbolic role in government, and while the House of Lords, consisting of 1185 members still acts as an ultimate court of appeals and may delay and examine legislation, generally speaking, the monarchy has largely been striped of political influence.
Instead, the real driving force behind British government resides in the House of Commons. This parliamentary body consists of the Prime Minister who is elected by a popular vote, a Cabinet, or who is selected by the Prime Minister, and the members of the House of Commons who are elected from their respective districts in “winner take all” elections.
Knowing the basic format of the British system of governance, we can now begin to put it up against Dahl’s criteria for polyarchy. We will start by asking if British citizens are free to “formulate their own preferences.” Generally, it would seem that the answer to this question is yes, but let us look at this question using the five qualifiers that Dahl lays out. (1) Do the people have the right to form and join organizations? While The United Kingdom is officially a two party system, the existence of small parties such as the Liberal Democrats and the fact that people are free to join unions shows us that British citizens are relatively free to form and join organizations. (2) Is there freedom of expression? While British citizens typically choose not to partake in demonstration, they do enjoy, for the most part the freedom of expression. Even in the event of a riot such as in 1911 where two rioters were killed, the British government tends to be careful about protecting this freedom (The People’s Chronology: Human Rights and social Justice. 1911). (3) Do the people have the right to vote? While there are always many factors affecting the issue of suffrage, I think it can be said that generally The United kingdom has been fairly inclusive about who is able to vote. Historically, there has been problems such as an immigration act in 1968 that excluded thousands of Asians in Kenya from official citizenship, but with the downfall of British colonialism, these problems have largely gone away, leaving for the most part, universal suffrage (The People’s Chronology: Population, 1968). (4) Are political leaders free to compete for support? Parties in the United Kingdom are fairly strong, and it is usually them who decides who will run for public office in a certain district. This does not look good from Dahl’s perspective. Technically, the citizenry is free to run for office, but without party backing, it becomes almost impossible to win. However, while the British system does fall short in this area, it is important to remember that we are not holding The United Kingdom to the Democratic ideal, but rather to the expectations of polyarchy which automatically assumes the system will be at the very least slightly undemocratic in some ways. And finally, (5) are the people free to alternative sources of information? The answer to this, I think can best be illustrated by the recent events surrounding the death of Princess Diana. Clearly, if censorship was a problem, the news and tabloids would not have had nearly as much publishing freedom as they did during this traumatic time. Therefore, I believe it is safe to say that British citizens are very free to alternative sources of information.
This brings us to the question of weather or not British citizens “have the right to signify those preferences to their fellow citizens by individual and collective action (Dahl p. 2).” As mentioned above, for a citizenry to have this right, they must have all five of the above mentioned qualifiers in addition to two more. (6) Is the common citizen eligible to run for public office? Again, we run into the same problem with this question as we ran into with question four. The political parties have become such a force in Great Britain that it is virtually impossible to win without their support. Technically, however, the average citizen is eligible to run for office, albeit, if they wish to win, they must follow tradition by climbing up the party ladder. And (7), are there free and fair elections? Largely, the answer to this question is yes. There really is no problem with the government tampering with election results, and except for the trouble with the parties controlling who runs for office, the elections are free.
Lastly, the question remains if these preferences are “weighed equally in the conduct of government with no discrimination because of the content or source of the preference. ” Again, for this to be the case, all seven of the above mentioned qualifiers must be present, plus the policy making institutions must depend on “votes and other expressions of preference (Dahl p. 3).” In large part, this is the case. Both the Prime Minister and the members of the House of Commons are popularly elected in free, fair elections, and as a check on the Prime Minister’s powers, the members of the House of Commons may call for a vote of censure, and if the Prime Minister doesn’t get a majority, he must resign. There is, however a significant hindrance to this qualifier. While the citizens of Northern Ireland must live under British rule, they don’t feel that they are represented, and in large part do not participate in the governmental system. Because of this, the elected officials aren’t really accountable to the people in Northern Ireland This does Present a problem from the standpoint of representation.
By looking at Great Britain from the perspective of Dahl’s three requirements and their eight respective qualifiers, we see that indeed, this country definitely does not meet the criteria for a pure Democracy. It falls short most notably in the areas of who may run for office with a reasonable chance of winning, and in the fact that the people living in Northern Ireland are not well represented. Another strike against the United kingdom is the fact that the Prime Minister may declare a state of emergency, suspending human rights. It is, however clear that The United Kingdom does meet most of the criteria by a fairly large margin, and falls well inside the confines of polyarchy
To put this into perspective, let us now look at France’ s government using the same formula. Unlike The United kingdom, France has been relatively unstable throughout history. Because it was so bloody and no real defined Democracy emerged, the French Revolution is thought of by many to be “incomplete.” On average, France has had a new government implemented every eighteen years, and it wasn’t until 1958 that the current government (the Fifth Republic) emerged (Hollifield and Ross p. 43).
France is a mix between a Parliamentary and Presidential system. This is because historically, the legislature had been to powerful and it was thought that if a President was brought into the system and made the dominant government official, it would serve as a check to the power of the legislature. The President serves terms of seven years and can be re-elected. He is the only popularly elected official and is responsible for appointing the Prime Minister and the “government”, or Council of Ministers. His powers include being able to devolve the National Assembly and Council of Ministers, propose referendums, and force Parliament to re-consider legislation. Unofficially, he also may use his party ties to control Parliament and get them to dismiss Cabinet Ministers. The Parliament is a legislative, bicameral body that has the power to debate legislation, as well as to use a vote of censure, ousting the Prime Minister and Cabinet.
How well then does France measure up to these three requirements? Are French citizens free to formulate preferences? Again, let us determine this by looking at the five qualifiers that Dahl lays out. (1) Are French citizens free to “form and join organizations”? Well, like The United Kingdom, France has a number of minor parties, and unions. Also, French citizens may join interest groups. This demonstrates that indeed, they are free to form and join organizations. (2) Do the French have freedom of expression? The answer to this question is a resounding yes! In fact, it is not uncommon to see them partaking in political street demonstrations. (3) Do they have the right to vote? While much of the government is appointed by the President, the executive himself and the members of Parliament are in fact elected, so the answer to this question is yes as well. However, historically, France has passed laws such as the one in 1850 which discriminated against radical workers who “tended to be migratory,” by requiring that people live in one place for three years in order to vote (The People’s Chronology: Human Rights and Social Justice, 1850). (4) Do political leaders have the right to compete for support? Yes. In fact, because France uses an electoral system of proportional representation, small parties have more opportunity to compete with the larger parties than in Great Britain. (And finally (5) do the French have access to alternate sources of information? While there are certainly areas where the French government holds information back from the citizens (all governments do to a certain extent), the French tend to be fairly liberal, and thus put a high priority on being open to alternative sources of information. There is also a wide range of political ideals in France which shows us that the French government has, in general, been fairly good about not censoring information.
It seems that France has done fairly well with Dahl’s first requirement; let us now see if French citizens are free to signify those preferences. As before, if this next requirement is to be met, the first five qualifiers must be true along with (6) eligibility for public office and (7) free, fair elections. Eligibility for public office does poses a bit of a problem for polyarchy. In France, it is decided at an early age if a child is to go to college or not, and without a college education, a person can not be prepared for a career in public office. If the opportunity for an education is taken away from a person, that person is, for all intensive purposes, not allowed to run for public office. France does, however, do better with question seven, and elections are, for the most part free and fair.
Finally, this leaves us with the last of Dahl’s three requirements: Are the citizen’s preferences “weighed equally in the conduct of the government, without discrimination because of the content or source of the preference?” This leaves us with the eighth and final qualifier: Do the governmental institutions responsible for making policy depend on votes and other expression of preference? Again, the answer to this question leaves us in the gray area. The President, most definitely is directly accountable to the people as he is publicly elected, but the Cabinet and Council of Ministers also play in important role in government and they are merely appointed by the President. Furthermore, while the Parliament is an elected body, the fact that France uses proportional representation means that the members who run for office are chosen by their respective parties, and thus are more subordinate to those parties than the people who elected them.
Like the United Kingdom, France is far from a perfect Democracy. In fact, it seems to me that the areas where France falls short are a great deal more important to polyarchy than those where the United Kingdom is lacking. Most importantly is the fact that a large percentage of the French population may not so much as hope to run for public office. While it may do wonders for their educational system to allow only those who prove themselves at an early age to attend college, it is, without a doubt a remarkably important undemocratic feature of their social system, and frankly it worries me. Nonetheless, in large part, France does meet most of the criteria that Dahl lays out, and while in my opinion it is less of a polyarchy than Great Britain, it still seems to fall within the confines of polyarchy.
In this study, we have looked at Dahl’s criteria for polyarchy, and applied this criteria to both The United Kingdom and France, comparing the results to see the areas where they hold with Dahl’s formula for polyarchy as well as those where they break from it. Finally, I have briefly described why I have concluded that France is further from complete polyarchy on our continuum than Great Britain. Hopefully, this study has succeeded in taking the abstract ideas of Robert Dahl, and by applying them to two familiar countries, made them seem a little more concrete.
Works Cited
Dahl, Robert. Polyarchy; Participation and opposition. New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1995
Hollifield, James and Ross, George. Searching for the new France. New York:
Routledge, 1991
Publishing Staff. “CD-ROM: Microsoft Bookshelf 1996. Concise Columbia Encyclopedia
Licensed by: Columbia University Press, 1885
Publishing Staff. “The current constitution of Great Britain” Goodgov on the web.
Plymouth State College Internet. 13 October. 1997. Available:
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/rrt1001/goodgov/node2.html
Publishing Staff. “CD-ROM: Microsoft Bookshelf 1996 The People’s Chronology.
Licensed by: Holt and Company, 1994
© Cliff R. Pearson
14, October 1997
All rights reserved
Defeating the Government’s Active Denial System
The US government, in its undying lust to find new and exciting ways to keep its citizens under wraps has developed the Active Denial System. This device works by directing electromagnetic radiation at a frequency of 95 GHz toward the subjects. The waves excite water molecules in the epidermis to around 55 C (130 degrees Fahrenheit), causing an intensely painful burning sensation.
While the skin is not actually burned, the sensation is very painful, and can only be tolerated for a few seconds. The focused beam can be directed at targets at a range of just under half a kilometer, or 500 yards, making it a great tool to use on nonviolent protesters or just about anyone who would speak out against the all-mighty government.
I, in my undying lust to find new and exciting ways prevent the police state from exercising its Orwellian control over the public, find myself delighted to tell you how to defeat this system. As anyone who has taken a physics class can tell you, electromagnetic radiation can not penetrate a conductor. This is how a microwave works… Inside your nukerator is all kinds of EM radiation, but the little metal mesh on the front of the door keeps it inside and prevents you from cooking yourself.
Knowing this, we can come up with a host of ways to defeat the Active Denial System. You could create a wire-mesh shield, and bring it with you to your protest. This would work fine, but the mesh would have to be VERY tight, as the ADS delivers a much higher frequency wavelength at 95GHz than the measly 2450 MHz (a wavelength of 12.24 cm) that your microwave uses. You could line your jacket and pants with tin foil - remembering of course that you must also protect your face and neck.
You get the idea, simply put a mesh or sheet of conductive material between yourself and the ADS, and you win… Have fun storming the castle!
Full Metal Panic - Kaname Chidori Rilezu Cel & Douga
I’m all excited because I just got this Rilezu cel of Kaname Chidori from Full Metal Panic! FMP is my absolute favorite anime series of all time, and I’ve been looking for a nice cel of Kaname for a while now. I first saw this piece in a past auction on ebay, and was kicking myself for missing it. A few weeks ago, I saw it pop up for sale on Rubber Slug and I quickly bought it.
Full Metal Panic is a CG show, so there are no production cels available. There have been a limited number of these relezu cels (hand painted post production cels) made, but they are very hard to find, and tend to cost a lot when they are available. You are especially lucky if you find one that comes with Douga, because it is the only actual production material available from the show. Needless to say, I was thrilled to find this cel, and even more thrilled to find that it came with two pieces of matching douga.
The cel itself is amazing! No flaws aside from a small piece of clear tape which I have carefully removed. The douga is really interesting because it is composed of three pieces. The front of the first sheet is the normal pencil line drawing that you normally see. The back of it has just a few color lines, and the front of the second sheet is a more complete color guide. Like my douga of Chi from chobits, the colors on the drawings are not the same as the colors on the final product, so I have no clue what they actually mean, or how they tell the colorist what to do. It’s very interesting though.
If you are looking for a FMP cel, there are still some available here.
This is a composite of the pencil line drawing on the front of the first sheet, the color lines on the back, and the color guide on the front of the second sheet:
This is the pencil line drawing on the front of the first sheet:
This is the color line drawing from the back of the first sheet:
This is the coloring on the front of the second sheet:
Chobits Douga (Chi)
I ordered this Douga of Chi from the anime series “Chobits” last month from Anime Museum in Japan. It is my first actual piece of anime production art, and the way it is created is really quite interesting. The image above is actually a combination of the drawing on the front of piece, and the rough coloring on the back. When the paper is put on a light table, or held up in front of a light, the color comes through from the back to give an indication to the colorist of how to color the final image.
Normally this line drawing would be transfered to a piece of clear acetate and the colorist would apply the paint to the back of the cel. Very much the same way this drawing was done. Chobits is a computer generated production, however, so the coloring is all done on computers and no cels are ever made. It is interesting though, that they seem to do the line drawings by hand, and scan them into the computer for coloring. Perhaps this practice is to prevent the animation from looking too “CG”.
This is the line drawing on the front of the piece:
This is the rough coloring on the back:
Hat Tip: Alan Baker for help with combining the two scans in Photoshop!
Blue Seed Review
Buying anime without first having seen at least one episode is a gamble, and I’m happy to say that Blue Seed
Blue Seed is a Television series with 26 episodes that are 25 minutes each. It is based largely on the Shinto legend of Susano’o and the Yamata no Orochi. In Japanese mythology, Susano’o (須佐之男命) is the god of the sea and storms and Yamata no Orochi (八岐の大蛇) is a huge eight-headed snake. In this series, Susano’o is the young God of the Aragami, and Yamata no Orochi is one seriously angry tree.
The female lead is a cute girl named Fujimiya Momiji who is part of the Kushinada clan which has been tasked for centuries with protecting Japan from the Aragami, a plant-based race of monsters who would level the nation and revert all humans back into vegetation. Momiji becomes part of a government sponsored agency called the TAC, which is responsible protecting Japan from Aragami and researching their true purpose.
Kusanagi Mamoru is a half-plant, half-human man that has been given the task of protecting the Kushinada. He and Momiji become a team of sorts, and of course, she ends up falling in love with him. When the series begins it seems like he’s going to end up being a bit of a jerk, but like all the characters in this anime, he ends up being very likable, and his flirtation with Momiji is down right hilarious. Momiji is not a the typical helpless girl we see so often in anime, but she does end up getting herself in trouble a lot, and Kusanagi is always there to rescue her.
One of the things I like most about anime is the romantic tension that is built up between characters. This series has that to be sure, but unlike many titles the relationship actually goes somewhere. Not wanting to spoil anything, I won’t say how it all times out, but suffice to say, we aren’t left at the end of the last episode wondering if the two will get together.
It is also refreshing that we are not left with a bewildering feeling of ambiguity when the series ends. I remember reading somewhere that this series is like Neon Genesis Evangelion without the downtime. I would have to agree. It predates NGE by more than a year, but the story never falls apart, and the ending is actually quite good! Highly recommended and a true classic!
James Carville Pouts - Howard Dean Celebrates
James Carville seems to lack the ability to understand that his myopic view of political campaign funding is outdated and wrong. DNC Chairman Howard Dean has always flown in the face critics like Carville by asserting that the DNC should fund Democratic campaigns in all fifty states, and his plan works! Democratic candidates have won a number of unexpected victories in the 2006 election, and we now control both the houses of congress.
James Carville, however, continues to pout and complain. He, along with a couple of other Washington establishment types say that we could have won even more House seats had Dean funneled more money into them.
Well, screw you Carville! Nobody even expected us to win the Senate until a few weeks before the election, and had we followed your idiotic plan for funding campaigns, we wouldn’t have, because we’d have given up on winning in states Like Virginia and Montana long before the election even took place. Apparently Carville and his likes just can’t accept being wrong and learning from those who are smarter than them. After all, it’s idiots like these guys who worked so hard to torpedo Deans Presidential campaign, and run Kerry instead. Yeah, sure… We should listen to them!
For his part, Dean responded in a very cool, calm, professional manner.
Dean:
It was a great win for what I call the new Democratic Party. This is the new Democratic Party. The old Democratic Party is back there in Washington, sometimes they still complain a little bit.
Karl Rovian Math 101
Donald Rumsfeld has stepped down. Democrats have won a sweeping majority in the house of representatives and as Webb declares victory in Virginia and Tester pulls out a victory in Montana, it seems that the Senate is falling into Democratic hands as well.
Republicans are famous for pointing fingers at their foes, while circling their wagons around their friends. They yell at Clinton for his extra-marital exploits, but try to burry Foley’s predatory advances on congressional pages. They refuse to talk in detail about military opperations, but leak the names of clandestine CIA agents as soon as they become a political threat.
Then there is the Republican outrage over “New Math” and “Fuzzy Math” back in the earlier days of their regime. It seems that they have always claimed to have a copyright on the one and only true math, but they’ve never come right out and said it quite so much as Karl Rove did on October 24. Rove, in an interview with NPR’s Robert Siegel, insisted that he had access to a far greater number of polls than the average person, and that any suggestion that Democrats would take over either house of congress was laughable because he was using “the math”.
Well, MR. Rove, I think you need to go back to the fourth grade because you either forgot to carry a one, or you rounded WAY the hell up when you should have rounded down. I sincerely hope that you are not the one creating the curriculum for the “no child left behind” act.
Below is the transcript of that interview:
MR. SIEGEL OF NPR: We’re in the home stretch, though. And many might consider you on the optimistic end of realism about –
MR. ROVE: Not that you would be exhibiting a bias or anything like that. You’re just making a comment.
MR. SIEGEL: I’m looking at all the same polls that you’re looking at every day.
MR. ROVE: No you’re not. No you’re not!
MR. SIEGEL: No, I’m not –
MR. ROVE: I’m looking at 68 polls a week. You may be looking at four or five public polls a week that talk about attitudes nationally, but that do not impact the outcome –
[Rove is claiming access to secret polls that he never cites any data from, indicates the origin of, or otherwise documents the existence of. When asked for examples of races Republicans are winning, Rove turns to races we all know they're winning based on "public" polls. Needless to say, thousands of public polls report on individual races, not just "attitudes nationally".]
MR. SIEGEL: — name races between — certainly Senate race
MR. ROVE: Well, like the polls today showing that Corker’s ahead in Tennessee; or the race — polls showing that Allen is pulling away in the Virginia Senate race.
[Yes, we knew about those, Karl. But those still leave the Republicans losing the House and possibly even the Senate.]
MR. SIEGEL: Leading Webb in Virginia. Yes.
MR. ROVE: Yeah, exactly.
MR. SIEGEL: Have you seen the DeWine race and the Santorum race and — I don’t want to –
MR. ROVE: Yeah. Look, I’m looking at all these Robert and adding them up. And I add up to a Republican Senate and a Republican House. You may end up with a different math, but you’re entitled to your math. I’m entitled to “the” math.
Political Parties With Awesome Names!
In order to overthrow the tyranical Republican leadership, I’ve been towing the Democratic line pretty hard since the 2000 elections, in which, along with many others, I voted for Ralph Nader and unwittingly helped Bush and his cronies to power.
Despite my year 2000 voting embarrassment however, I remain a proponent of a political landscape that features a broad array of political parties. In practice, we have to unite behind the Democratic party to neutralize Republicans, but in theory I strongly support minor parties, and I remain saddened that they are relegated to obscurity by our two-party system.
Never the less, if America had a state where the effectiveness of a multi-party system could be demonstrated, Vermont would be that state. We have more independents holding elected office than any other state in the union, and the major parties have proven that they can, and do unite behind minor party candidates that have sufficient public support and similar political platform.
My political slant is no secret, so it was with great joy that I opened my ballot this year and discovered two candidates running under very provocative party names: Dennis Morrisseau, running for US House under the “Impeach Bush Now” party, and Peter Moss, running for the Sennate as the “Anti-Bushist” candidate.
My vote went to Peter Welch and Bernie Sanders respectively, but I love that I live in a state where an “Impeach Bush Now” party can exist.
