Conservative Donnybrook

The British government has forbid any and all athletes representing England in the upcoming Beijing Olympics from voicing criticism of the communist human rights abusing government of the People’s Republic of China.

As this article points out, the British have a history of sucking up to dictators.  I encourage all athletes from England to either refuse to sign the government required contract or to break the rules anyway.  This has just as much to do with free-speech as it does for calling attention to the intolerable communist forces at work in occupied China.

This message is completely off-topic. But, I was thinking about a post about how the Kansans went for Huck and it occurred to me that while Kansans might be what you call the people from Kansas, I had no idea what to call the people of Wyoming. Are they Wyomingans, the Wyomingese, Wyomingians, Wyomingers? I have no idea. This made me begin to compile a list of states for which I had no idea how to address their denizens en masse. Nevadans? Montanans? What about Connecticut? Or New Hampshire? Don’t even get me started about Massachusetts.

There seem to be three different ways that state names are converted into collective descriptors. The first is simply append an N or an AN to the end of the state name: Ohioan. The second is to add an IAN to the end: Floridian, Californian. The last is to add an -ER to the end: Vermonter, Michigander (no idea where the D comes from).

But the states named above don’t seem to work with those possibilities. New Hampshire in particular is difficult. If you add the -ER to the end, it sounds suspiciously like you’re trying to start an old car in cold weather: New Hampshirer(erererer). (Say it out loud. You’ll see what I mean).

I know that at least one state (mine) is not known by its state name, but by the term Hoosiers. I have never heard any politician attempt to address his “fellow Indianans.” So if Indianians can be be Hoosiers, maybe other states can be addressed by a term other than their state name.

If someone who lives in Maine could tell me how your politicians address you, it would clear up a lot of trouble for me. Because right now, I am inclined to call you Maine-iacs.

The most recent poll for the Washington primary was conducted 4 days ago and showed:

Huck – 24; McCain – 32; Paul – 6; Romney – 31; Undecided – 8.

The actual results as of now with 87% of precincts reporting is:

McCain – 26 (-6); Huck – 24 (+0); Paul – 21!? (+15); Romney – 16 (-15); Uncommitted -13 (+5).

It would appear from this that ALL of Romney’s support is going to Ron Paul and so is some of McCain’s. Which I suppose, just makes you wonder what the hell you can tell from polls.

I saw some interesting poll numbers this week. Pollster.com published the results of a poll conducted by SurveyUSA concerning the upcoming Virginia primaries. In the poll, McCain received 45%, Romney had 22% and Huckabee took the another 20%. They then conducted the same poll without Romney. In the second poll, McCain received 57%, Huck got 25%, and Paul took the other 9%. In other words, the absence of Romney in the race benefited each of the remaining candidates as follows: +12% to McCain, +5% to Huck and +9% to Paul.

Bottom line is: If Virginia is any indication, Huckabee is the guy who benefits least from Romney’s suspension of campaign activities.