Superdelegates

Here’s a story that’s bubbling under at the moment. As I check this morning Obama has 986 delegates to Clinton’s 924. But Clinton leads, because she has more superdelegates than Obama. Superdelegates are a collection of prominent Democrats such as governors, members of Congress, and party leaders and former leaders. They have no accountability beyond the promises they make and get made in return.

That should already sound undemocratic, because it is. In the past that hasn’t really mattered, because one candidate is so far ahead that the superdelegates are just the icing on the cake. This year, however, both candidates are acceptable to the majority of Democrats, and so are splitting the vote. The majority of Democratic primaries split their delegates according to the relative result, rather than ‘winner takes all’, which means that this tie is likely to continue in the absence of some shock. That means that the superdelegates will actually choose the candidate. And right now it appears they know better than the electorate. Now that’s undemocratic.

Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged with

Sharia

The Archbishop of Canterbury has stirred up a hornet’s nest by suggesting that there is a place for Sharia law in the UK. I’ve been impressed by how roundly his views have been rejected; politicians, religious groups, and people in the street are united in opposition, which is a level of agreement we rarely reach as a nation.

A couple of interesting points have been made, and one missed. First, there already is a place for Sharia in British law. The equivalent of contract negotiations can be conducted under any set of ‘rules’ that the participants agree to, so a divorce settlement can be handled by Sharia law. Similarly any contract that only has standing under Sharia law (a Muslim marriage, distinct from the corresponding civil marriage) can be adjudicated under that law – that’s what currently happens under Jewish law, for example.

The other point made is that this is a Trojan horse from Williams; if there is a place for Sharia law then surely there must be room for Christian law outside the legal establishment. I’m less convinced by this idea; just stating what he wanted would spark far less resentment about the whole subject than using Islam as a gateway. Whatever his tactics are, I suspect they’re more subtle than this. At least I hope so, otherwise he’s not as smart as I’d given him credit for.

What has been missed in the discussion so far is the arbitrariness of recognition for religious views. Let’s concede for a moment that there should be accommodation for views such as Sharia. Why, then, shouldn’t there be similar concessions for the 390,000 people who listed themselves as Jedis on the latest census? And why not recognition for the views of the 70,000 members of the Cyclist’s Touring Club? The only plausible answer is that religions are different, which rests on one of two assumptions. One is that religious beliefs are more heartfelt than even the most passionate cyclist’s, for example. I’d question whether that’s true, but even if it were we don’t formulate laws based on passion.

The other, often unspoken, assumption is that religions deserve special consideration because they are in some way true. That’s the essence of what too many religious believers seek in government; a recognition that what they believe is more than just belief. The very best democracies shy away from this. That England has not is to its shame.

Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged with

Google Spreadsheets

I already use Google’s Docs feature, and find it very handy for lightweight spreadsheets in particular. But I’m blown away (at least the geek part of me is) by the new feature they’ve launched that lets you create forms to update a spreadsheet. Go to Daring Fireball for a sample.

Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged with

Land Value Tax

Here’s an interesting post about the feasibility of a Land Value Tax in the UK. It’s a pretty obvious idea, though not one I’d happened upon before. This snippet gets to the heart of it, I think:

10. The cost of local services should be paid for by user charges, i.e. a Poll Tax.

Wrong. It is more important to look at the value of what the landowner gets (as reflected in land values) than the cost of local services. Having more policeman on the beat reduces crime, cuts a household’s home and car insurance bills and makes an area more attractive, thus boosting selling prices. Having lots of five-a-day advisors and environmental-awareness-officers costs just as much but adds no value whatsoever.

The argument is that any benefit you derive from local services will be reflected in the value of your land; if you get free massages from the local authority, and that’s something that people want, then the value of your land will rise (as will the land tax, thereby paying for those massages). The counter-argument is also in there; ‘five-a-day advisors’ (I assume the author is referring to healthy eating campaigns) may be the single best thing a local authority could do for its residents, but if it’s not seen to be a desirable benefit then there will be no corresponding increase in land values to help pay for it.

Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged with

New Job

OK, now that the contract is signed I don’t think I can bring down the wrath of any deity with my boastful nature (c.f. the New England Patriots). In a couple of weeks I’ll be working for SpringSource, chief committers of the Spring Framework for Java (and .NET, I learned with some surprise).

The team seem really nice, as well as being wicked smart (end Boston accent). The work environment looks good, there’s a gym on site so I’ll be able to shower once I can cycle-commute again (16 miles each way, so may take a while to work up to it), and the job itself is about as cool as QA can get (take that for what it’s worth!). In the meantime I have some time to finish off the bathroom renovation, then move on to a kitchen renovation. Lucky me.

Posted in Uncategorized
Tagged with