Three peat...

No, dear readers, sadly you do not get three posts today. Rather, I simply chose to continue my admittedly short streak of titling posts with numbers. If you want further justification, today's date starts with "3." Also, I'm pretty sure that the outside air temperature right now is about 3 degrees. Although I'm really just guessing at that - I haven't been able to leave my 8x15 room for the past 9 hours.

Unfortunately, that's about all I've got to share with you right now. I could try to tell you that this coming year is going to be the Cubs's year (hey, it's the 100th anniversary of the Cubs's first World Series title this year - that's got to be some good mojo, right?), but who would I be kidding? Besides, in some extremely perverse way, part of the mystique of the Cubs would be destroyed if they actually won something. Sure, I cried like a baby in 2003 when they blew it again, but would I still enjoy being a Cubs fan as much if they had won? It's easy to be a fan of a team that wins, like the Yankees or the Cardinals (may they rot), but there's a bit of a smugness that comes with being a Cubs fan. Sure, a little part of you dies every season, but you have to work at being a Cubs fan. I imagine it's something like being an early Christian in ancient Rome. A Cubs fan, like an early Christian, has a tremendous amount of faith. But in the end, where does that faith lead? To being impaled on a spike or ripped apart by a lion in the opposing fans' arena. Although, once every 400-something years, something good does happen.

Okay, enough self-congratulatory drivel about the life of a Cubs fan. I'll try to get something a bit more intellectually stimulating up later this week, although it'll probably be something about the Super Bowl. Until then, remember that this is the year of the Cubbies. You heard it here first (actually you heard it first from the millions of Cubs fans that said "wait until next year" sometime around last June, but this is my blog so I'm taking credit).

Two for...

Okay, this is going to be short for a couple of reasons. First, there's a longer post below that sapped most of what little brain power I've managed to maintain after 9 hours at work on the 4th night in a row that I've been here. Second, I'm supposed to go home in less than 20 minutes, so I've got to start wrapping things up. Finally, it's hard to write when you're compulsively checking the National Weather Service radar every couple of minutes to see if there's been any more snow. I know of people that work the night shift that have been stuck at work by winter storms, sometimes for days on end, and I have no desire to join their elite fraternity.

Which brings me to one of my main gripes about snow, ice, and other forms of winter driving hazards: frat boys and sorostitutes. Now, it would not be a stretch to say that I loathe those in the Greek system regardless of weather (they are, after all, wasting my oxygen), but that loathing becomes particularly severe in the winter. Why? Because it is during the winter, my friends, that these distinguished individuals decide to channel the stupidity that normally results in them behaving like a herd of lemmings dressed in matching Hollister outfits into driving like something resembling a cross between a demolition derby and a 2 year old throwing toy cars around the room. It's really not that hard to drive in the snow and ice. JUST SLOW DOWN! Apparently some have heard this advice. Unfortunately, they decided this meant to take their foot completely off the gas in an effort to coast at idling speed all the way to their destination. Since this causes everyone else to brake, those other Sigma Tau Upsilon Phi Ipsilon Delta idiots who don't slow down end up slamming on their brakes, causing multiple car pile-ups and crying puppies. Meanwhile, the idiot driving at 2mph has slid out because cars have to be moving to steer.

On the other hand, because they are like a herd of lemmings, idiotic behavior such as this, while likely to get me killed, does tend to cull the herd a bit. Which leaves more oxygen for you and me my friends. Or at least it would have if this country hadn't been dumb enough to elect one of these Greek idiots to the presidency, but that's a different post for a different day.

The price of one...

Okay, this is the first of two posts that I plan to put up today. Because I am quite possibly the most clever blogger out there, I've decided to title them "Two for..." and "The price of one...." Or maybe it's just because I'm in my 9th hour of the 4th straight night that I've worked that I think I'm so clever. Anyway, onto the post.

I would like to use this first post to respond to a few criticisms leveled against me by Mr. Currie. I've decided that the best way to do that would be to take his comment paragraph by paragraph and respond to each point in order.

Okay, so his first criticism was that I mentioned the removal of James II and the Stuart dynasty in connection with the Act of Union in 1707 (his paragraphs 1 and 2). My point, which I'll admit I worded poorly, was that although James II had been deposed in 1688, a Stuart still sat on the throne in 1707 in the person of Queen Anne. Thus, the Scots, having been the ancient home of the Stuart line, could still take some pride in having a Scottish monarch on the throne as their parliament was ripped out from under them. My mention of George and the Hanoverians was only to show two things: 1) That the Scots were only 7 years away from losing even this feeble dignity, and 2) As a way to make a connection for my American audience to the history of Britain.

Second criticism: Yes, the Union wasn't perfect, but Glasgow benefited. I completely agree with this statement, and I'll admit that I made far too broad of a generalization by saying that all of Scotland remained little more than an internal colony. Yet, as A.J.S. Gibson and T.C. Smout have shown (in Prices, Food and Wages in Scotland, 1550-1780), the Union did little (or nothing) to raise laborers' wages in Edinburgh until around 1760. Unfortunately, the cost of feeding a family of 6 (2 adults and 4 children), began climbing shortly after the Union to a point above the average wages without a comparable era since the early 1600s (page 364). Combine this with the desperate attempts at economic development in the Highlands practiced by such groups as the British Fisheries Society and the Highland Roads and Bridges Commission in the late 1700s and early 1800s, and it becomes clear that much of the economic prosperity promised by proponents of the Union either never materialized or took a very long time to do so.

Third criticism: My mention of the Battle of Culloden has nothing to do with the Act of Union or conflict between Scotland and England. My response is that I never said it did. The idea of remembering Culloden Moor, as I asked my readers to do, is rather absurd given that it was a pointless battle. The rebellion had already been defeated and Charles Edward Stuart would have done well to march his supporters back into the Highlands where they either could have conducted a guerrilla campaign or blended back into the clans. Really the only reason to remember the battle, unless, like Mr. Currie you had family present, is if you're a Jacobite, and I suspect there are precious few of those in the world today.

Finally, Mr. Currie states that I am wrong in stating that a majority of Scots want an independent Scotland. To this I must plead ignorance. I am in the middle of Missouri, which is not exactly where you would go to observe Scottish politics or public opinion. While I am tempted to bow to Mr. Currie on this point, given that I assume he either lives in Scotland (based on the time at which he commented, this seems likely) or has family/friends there, I must point out that my situation allows me only to comment on such matters through the reading of various press materials. And here's what I found:

In the Daily Mail: This article describes the results of a recent poll that finds people on both sides of the border (England and Scotland) in favor or dissolving the Union (poll results shown in graphic form here).

In the Telegraph: Another poll showing people favoring independence for Scotland.

From BBC Newsnight: A poll that shows no support for independence, but it's close.

Finally, Mr. Currie states that in the May elections those that favor independence (the SNP) will not be successful. Once again, all I have to go on is polling data, and this one from YouGov and Channel 4 shows the SNP leading (although not enough to capture an outright majority by themselves).

Okay, that's all I've got. I'll try to be better about checking my facts before I post anything like that again, and I'll also try not to do it from work so that I can concentrate more and deliver you the high quality writing that The Mister Speaks is known for. Until then, BOOM!

A quick note...

I'll have a much longer post later. I just wanted to toss up a quick note apologizing for what, I've come to realize (with a little prompting), was a rather shoddy post yesterday. That's what I get for trying to rush something out in between customers at work. A lack of concentration and inadequate facts/arguments (plus some very clumsy attempts at humor) lead to "utter rubbish" in nearly every case, and it certainly appears that it did again this time. I would, however, like the chance to respond to many of the criticisms raised by Mr. Currie, who is obviously much more in touch with events in Scotland than I, a humble blogger stranded in the corn of Mid-Mo, could ever hope to be. So, I'll have a new post later, and I can assure you, now that I know people other than friends and family occasionally read this (not that you don't matter, you just tend to be more forgiving of me), I'll be much more careful with what I say.

A date which will live in infamy...

Most people associate the title of this post with Pres. Roosevelt's speech following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. While this is historically accurate and will assure a passing grade on most 4th grade American History exams, we here at the Mister Speaks prefer to use this statement in reference to January 16, 1707. Why would we do such a thing? Quite simply, three hundred years ago today the traitorous Scottish Parliament accepted the English blood money offered to it and voted itself out of existence.

Of course, this was merely a formality as the crown had already been usurped by William of Orange 19 years earlier. The Scots, by 1707, could still claim to rule the land as Queen Anne, daughter of the deposed King James II, sat on the throne, but the country was only 7 years away from passing into the hands of the first of the German Georges. Granted, this turn of events would eventually prove beneficial to everyone reading this blog, as the third George would prove both massively incompetent as well as periodically insane - a combination of traits that would cause/allow the American colonies to gain their independence. On the other hand, this did nothing for the Scots, who continued for some time to be little more than an internal colony of the British empire (Michael Hechter has a wonderful book addressing this very topic). By 1800, the Union had certainly not brought the promised economic benefits to Scotland (especially the Highlands, see my thesis for some more on this).

Why this extended history lesson? Several polls released by various agencies in Britain have suggested that many in Scotland (in many of the polls, a majority) want to end the Union. Other polls suggest that the Scottish National Party, which has as one of its stated aims a referendum on the future of the Union, is set to capture a majority in the devolved Scottish Parliamentary elections set for May. An independent Scotland should be economically viable based on revenue from tourism and North Sea oil, although it may never become a second "Celtic tiger" like Ireland. Anyway, all this boring stuff aside, it'd sure be nice to see the saltire flying freely over Scotland again. The hard part, I suspect, would be figuring out who the legitimate "king over the water" is. Also, I apologize for the lack of facts to support my arguments, I'll try to add some links later. Until then, death to the Union and remember Culloden Moor.

More reading material...

Well, dear readers, I still have nothing to say. And since by now you've all read the 212 page monstrosity that is my thesis (you have read it, right?), you're probably waiting expectantly for the next "The Mister Speaks" reading assignment. Well, rest easy, because I have your next assignment right here. Pay attention because there will be a quiz. Anyways, your assignment is the Wife's Law Review article from the soon to be published edition/volume/whatever they call it. It's a good read, if you're into the credit counseling requirement of the new bankruptcy law, which I know you all are. I'll try to come up with something more exciting to write while I'm at work tomorrow night, but until then, here's the link for the Wife's work.

When you have nothing to say...

Loyal readers, my apologies. I'm still recovering from that horrific performance in the Sugar Bowl, which ended up with me destroying far more brain cells than I thought possible. As a result, I haven't been able to come up with anything to write for your pleasure. However, should you need your fix of stuff that I've written, my thesis is now available online. Now you too can revel in the excitement that is/was economic development in the Highlands! Okay, so it's not really exciting, but at least you can see what type of glorified BS earns a Masters at America's public universities these days. Anyway, you can read it here. Have fun.

...

I don't have a title and I don't have a post. After that Sugar Bowl performance by ND, I don't really have much left, except alcohol, and even that has taken a massive hit in the past few hours. Because I know my family reads this, I'll leave out the expletive-laced tirades, but I will say this - @!*%$ *@# * @*!^ @!()* @()* !#@* @)(.

Back by popular demand...

Okay, so the Wife making sarcastic cracks in the comments section probably doesn't constitute "popular demand." But, as I've said many times before, this is my blog and if I want to attach to the Wife the importance signified by "popular," then I will. Plus, this may be the only time either the Wife or I is called popular - we don't get out much. Anyway, the important point is that I'm back.

And why is that important? Well, it's because of the multiple ways in which I am back. I'm back in Columbia, and boy have things changed. Who knew that so much could happen in mid-Mo for a week? If I had known that they were going to change their calendars from 2006 to 2007, I would have stayed. Okay, so nothing really changed. But why would anyone want it to? BooCoMo is just one apple tree short of the Garden of Eden in my opinion. Why would I say that? The Wal-Mart to people ratio is fantastic. For every 45,000 people in Boone County, there is a Wal-Mart. Compare this to Indianapolis, where I grew up, and there is only 1 Wal-Mart for every 170,500 people in Marion County. That means I have nearly 4x as much space in the aisles every time I subject my soul to the possibility of eternal hellfire by wandering into that venerable bastion of corporate greed.

I'm also back at work, which isn't really noteworthy except for the fact that it gives me the time to come up with new blog posts, especially ones that require calculating the person to Wal-Mart ratio for various locations. I'm also back in the saddle again, which really doesn't mean anything as far as I know, but I just wanted to include a random reference to a song that probably hasn't been on the radio in years. Additionally, I'm bringing sexy back, which really went without saying, but I thought I'd throw it out there for your benefit anyway. And finally, I'm back to teasing you with new blog posts. Maybe this time I'll actually follow through and update this thing more than once every 12 days. Then maybe I'd be back in your hearts too.