Democracy or oligarchy?

From a comment at cafehayek by David White, I learn:

The Constitution was framed for three million people in thirteen sovereign states. When the first Congress met in 1790, there was one representative for every 30,000 people. By 1920, the U.S. population was 90 million, and Congress capped representation in the house at 435, where it remains today. Now, however, there are 300 million Americans, yielding a ratio of one representative for every 690,000 people. If we apply this ratio to 1790, there would have been only four members in the House of Representatives. Or, to put it another way, if the ratio of the framers existed today, there would be 10,000 members in the House.

The Danish development has been similar, if somewhat less extreme. In 1849 the Danish Rigsdag had 151 members, 100 in the Folketing, 51 in the Landsting. Today the Folketing has 179 members. Back in 1849 Denmark had appr. 1.4 million inhabitants, or 1 representative pr. 9300 people. Today she has appr. 5.45 million inhabitants, or 1 representative pr. 30.000 people.

The FIDE candidate matches has started

More here.

I wonder if it is a coincidence that Cowen posted this post today? I should think not. I don’t believe Carlsen will win. In order to win matches, you need experience. Lots of it.

I say we all give Carlsen a few more years to mature before we demand that he becomes the new world champion. He’s not even old enough to drive yet. There’s plenty of time.

Quote of the day

In Venezuela, bad policy is good politics because it’s popular.

From econlog.

A question that popped into my mind though: Only in Venezuela? I think it is a (more) general phenomenon.

Despair.com

From the other Megan (non-McArdle) I learn about this site.

I guess this site gives me a couple more things to add to my birthday wish list – along with some of these. I love being a student – or maybe it’s being single?

Probably both.

Mtel Masters

The position after round 7:

Sasikiran: 4.5
Mamedyarov: 3.5
Topalov: 3.5
Adams: 3.5
Nisipeanu: 3.0
Kamsky: 3.0

The official website is here.

Sasikiran’s lead comes as a bit of a surprise to me. Not because he’s not a good player, but because it sure didn’t look like he was going to win when I followed the game yesterday. After move 19…f4 black’s (Sasikiran’s) pawnstructure was just horrible:

I actually left the game and stopped kibitzing when they reached move 40, which made me look twice when I saw the result. After 40…Bxf1 they would soon agree on a draw surely:

No timetrouble any more, and of course Mame would take on d8 – and we’d have a nice perpetual with knight and rook, both players would be happy, both would be in the lead. Even if the black king moves to the f-file, it would probably still be draw – however, if anything, to move the black king away from its safe haven in the top corner would be advantageous to white, not black, so this I did not deem a realistic scenario: Something like this pops to mind: 41.Nxd8…Rc1, 42.Nf7+…Kg8, 43.Nxh6+…Kf8, 44.Rf7+…Ke8, 45.Rc7!…Rxc7 (forced), 46.dxc7…Kd7, 47.Bxb7…Kxc7, 48.Bf3. If black would have played 41…Bh3, it would look much the same, at least until move 45. As Rxc7 would in that case no longer be forced, black might consider Bb6, but the black position would still be somewhat inferior.

Mame should have taken on d8. Well, he didn’t. He played 41…d7? instead (as mentioned, what is most peculiar about this move is probably the fact that it was played _after_ the timetrouble was over) . Sasikiran played Rg8. Game over.

Non Sequitur?

“Børn skal beskyttes mod den passive røg. Derfor er det i orden at lave rygeforbud, mener de fleste danskere ifølge ny meningsmåling.

65 pct. af danskerne ønsker rygning begrænset på cafeer og værtshuse.”

Her.

Ok, lad mig se om jeg forstår det her ret: Børn bør beskyttes mod røg. Derfor er det i orden at forbyde rygning på cafeer og værtshuse. Børn tilbringer som bekendt en stor del af deres tid på de danske værtshuse. …øh?

A simple way to make you realise just how little you know

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random

By using this page as your startpage, perhaps for just a week, I can almost guarantee that it will change your perception of how much (little) you know.

Curiosity is a dangerous thing…

Or maybe: Yet another reason why we shouldn’t expect scientists to win the evolutionary race…

Balan on the persuasiveness of religion

Suppose Doubting Thomas tries hard to figure out the truth about these matters, and has some not completely conclusive and only partially satisfying answers to show for his efforts, and he’s had little fun along the way.* His buddy Pious Pete points out that Thomas did a lot of struggling and still doesn’t even claim to have a rock-solid foundation for his values whereas he (Pete) does. That is, Pete correctly points out that Thomas faced a hard problem, struggled, and still didn’t find a fully satisfactory solution, while Pete went through none of this. Of course Pete didn’t solve the problem either, he just avoided it by refusing to take it seriously and essentially assuming it away. But it sure looks like Pete not only has the better deal, but is also righter; after all, he dealt with a lot less muss and a lot less fuss than Thomas did. Misdirection, just like a magician, and it works.

Here.

Quote of the day

“We would like to apologize for the way in which politicians are represented in this programme. It was never our intention to imply that politicians are weak-kneed, political time-servers who are more concerned with their personal vendettas and private power struggles than the problems of government, nor to suggest at any point that they sacrifice their credibility by denying free debate on vital matters in the mistaken impression that party unity comes before the well-being of the people they supposedly represent, nor to imply at any stage that they are squabbling little toadies without an ounce of concern for the vital social problems of today. Nor indeed do we intend that viewers should consider them as crabby ulcerous little self-seeking vermin with furry legs and an excessive addiction to alcohol and certain explicit sexual practices which some people might find offensive. We are sorry if this impression has come across.“

Shouldn’t be too hard to guess where it comes from. And don’t worry guys, of course there’s no need to apologize…

Sandmonkey clarifies

The “Done” post after all was not his last post on the sandmonkey site, but don’t get your hopes up. This one probably is, at least for now.

Apart from a clarification of his motives, Sandmonkey also has a proposal:

I am proposing creating an organization that deals with championing the causes of blogger and freedom of speech in the middle-east, at least as the first step, since it seems that 90% of the cases of blogger intimidation and oppression comes from this region anyway. This new organization / committee / coalition / whatever would exclusively bring focus to our causes, champion them and push for our protection. It would do so by utilizing a strategy that doesn’t only rely on bloggers and the media to pressure governments. This new coalition would include 1) prominent bloggers from the US on both sides of the political divide (cause one of the few things that I think the left and the right can agree and co-operate on is the importance of free speech), who will bring light, focus and attention of the American public and the media to the plight of those bloggers, and help mobilize their readers to start letter campaigns and pressure against those governments who do oppress bloggers, 2) prominent bloggers from each and every middle-eastern country, who will provide us with the news of who is getting arrested or persecuted, and help mobilize their local blogosphere and media to come to aid of those who are being persecuted, 3)Human rights organizations and interest groups, local and international ones, to help with the legal, physical and moral support for those imprisoned or charged with crimes due to what they wrote, and 4) Members of American and Europeans Think Thanks and Interest groups, who will help with spreading the word and lobbying their respective government or the select lawmakers who do care about freedom of speech to apply pressure on our governments to leave us the hell alone. This way we would cover all fronts and apply pressure from everywhere: The Media, the blogosphere, both legally and physically on the ground , internationally through lobbying governments and lawmakers, and not to mention, most importantly, through the campaigning of the thousands of caring people world-wide that do give a damn about our freedom and spend their time and effort writing e-mails to our embassies and their government respresentitives, forwarding letters and informing others, and raising money through online donations to support those bloggers affected and in need. If something like this gets created and gets operated correctly, the playing field would be drastically changed in favor of the side of the middle-eastern bloggers, and eventually persecuted bloggers everywhere. It would eliminate a huge part of the worrying associated with blogging and would stop people like me from quitting, and even eventually get me, and others like me who quit, started on blogging again. Such an entity is essential, necessary and its time has come.

It has indeed, and it would be in everyones interest, including Western bloggers, to make this idea come true. Whiteberg is right: “The web – unfortunately – only gives us the freedom that the state decides to give us. Or more correctly, the freedom that we are willing to fight for.”