Links 11/17/15

Links for you. Science:

Nothing Simple About Hunter-Gatherer Societies
Greenland Is Melting Away
Mistakes in Proposals
A Boost for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Research
Why Bioinformatics Analysis Is Not Free


Police keep taking more and more stuff from people without charging them for crimes
Rand Paul’s right that liberal cities have the worst inequality, but it doesn’t mean what he thinks
D.C. mayor’s allies wisely shut down FreshPAC
A Real Missouri ‘Concerned Student 1950’ Speaks, at Age 89
Supply, Demand, and Neel Kashkari
After Two-Year Push, D.C. Says It’s On The Cusp Of Ending Veteran Homelessness
Philanthrocapitalism: A Self-Love Story (interesting, but the much stronger Gates Foundation criticism involves education)
The Strange, True Story of How a Chairman at McKinsey Made Millions of Dollars off His Maid
I’m a Bernie Sanders voter who will not support Hillary Clinton: Here are 10 reasons why (I will support her in the primary, but this is why I won’t in the primary. If not now, when do we support an alternative?)
Do You Actually Work, Bro?
‘Tis The Season To Be Angry

This entry was posted in Lotsa Links. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Links 11/17/15

  1. Concerned Netizen says:

    Re: supporting an alternative (Sanders vs. Clinton debate), the only *real* alternative is for a proportional parliamentary system. Until we can get more than two parties, both of whom mostly cater to rich people’s needs, we will always have these arguments about “I’m supporting candidate X but I’ll never support candidate Y from the same party”.

  2. Chris G says:

    > Then, there are 14% who will not support her in a general election…

    Question to those individuals: You do realize one of the people on the ballot next November is going to get elected President and that if it’s not Clinton who gets elected then it will be the Republican nominee? You do realize that, right?

  3. anthrosciguy says:

    One thing I’m not sure people who suggest a parliamentary system for the USA understand is what happens if you get in a majority government in such a system. They’re really able to do pretty much whatever they want. I shudder to think of what that would be in the USA with our present-day right-wing in charge. It could make GW Bush era stuff look like paradise by comparison. Scares the hell out of me.

    • Concerned Netizen says:

      Certainly the US would still find the best way to screw up the best aspects of a parliamentary system, but we would at least solve the problem of more votes going to one party, ironically electing their opposition due to gerrymandering of districts. If those two have to split their vote between seven distinct candidates and/or parties instead, then the party with the most votes gets the most seats, period.

      Coalition building does not have to be done solely between far-right conservative and even-further-right conservative when there are center-left, left and far-left people in the mix as well. I won’t say it solves all of the current problems but it takes care of a number of problems with respect to representation and turnout.

  4. anthrosciguy says:

    If you’re going to posit we just come up with seven major parties all at once before one of the major parties we have Jerry rigs the system even more (what are the seven major parties in Canada or the UK?), then I’ll just magically conjure up an end to gerrymandered districts, which solves much of our problem. Since we’re both using magical thinking, I’ll also end big money donations and make campaigns shorter (down to a grueling 78 days, perhaps).

    It’s magical thinking to hope that a parliamentary system in the USA wouldn’t elect a conservative majority, or to assume that once in they wouldn’t do even more (as they have already) to make it easier to win elections via crookery. Of course it’s wishful thinking to dream of a parliamentary system. Better to dream of something that could, and should, happen, like the end of GOP gerrymandering and limits on big money. For that matter, you could have your seven major parties in Congress; in fact with our present system they wouldn’t have to be major parties to have an effect. For example, Bernie Sanders has had far more effect in Congress than Elizabeth May has in Canada (as Canada’s only federal Green Party MP).

    • Concerned Netizen says:

      Wow, someone needs a Xanax in their cheerios or something.

      For the record, in the US we have:
      – D and R as the major parties. (that’s two)
      – Constitution Party (far-right — that makes three so far)
      – Libertarian (far-right to center-right depending on the day — that makes four)
      – Socialist Party (far-left — this makes five)
      – Green Party (center- to far-left — six parties now)
      – Independent (not technically a party but brings us to seven)

      Never once did I say seven major parties, but I understand you have a strawman to knock down and you did your damnedest to knock it into the ground and then some. In most federal elections, the D, R, L and G parties appear on enough ballots to mathematically win the presidency, so if we use that metric we have four “major” parties, but in reality we have 1.5.

      Now this is the part where I tell you to take your “magical thinking” and shove it where the sun doesn’t shine. Remember that Dems got way more votes than the Rs for House, but the House has a huge advantage in seats. For a body which is supposed to represent “the people”, you’d think it would be made up of roughly 54% dem seats. Not sure how having a proportional representation would somehow *not* result in a 54% advantage for the party you seem to support, but I guess that’s your own “magical thinking” pre-supposing that right-wingers would *still* somehow manage a solid majority in the House even if they only got 40-ish percent of the vote. Keep tilting at those windmills…..

Comments are closed.