22 Comments

1. 

   Jenny Haniver on 26th September 2017 at 8:28 pm

   Following some of your tweets to their sources sometimes leads me to very strange sites, some quite removed from the site of the tweet shown in your blog,, and I always enjoy falling down the rabbit hole; never know what I’ll find. Today, for instance, I fell into a weird RC twitterverse rabbit hole, and was led to this crazy clip from an old Brazilian film depicting the momemt that St. Joseph of Cupertino went into ecstasy while saying mass. https://twitter.com/JovemCatolicoDM/status/909772297002680320. Best seen on full screen.

   Also fell into some great science twitter sites, would list ’em all, but that’d be overkill. Here are a few interesting tweets from a few of these interesting sites: “bioturbation with and without soil fauna” – from DrRossPiper
   https://vimeo.com/222168889?ref=tw-v-share (best on full screen).

   Video of a cool protozoan here, lacrymaria or Tear of Swan: https://twitter.com/Docteur_Drey/status/908708685383393280 (best on full screen).

   And this video of a crab daintily, and I stress dantily, snacking on a cherry suspende dover its head leaves me slack jawed in wonder. Why, I’d love to have him or her as a dinner guest, instead of being dinner.
   https://twitter.com/hashtag/1stpairequalclaws?src=hash.

   And don’t know if you’ve seen this, but it’s one of my favorite animal videos:
   “honey badger don’t care” (trigger warning; can be gross and full of puerile humor https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r7wHMg5Yjg.

   Reply
2. 

   j.a.m. on 26th September 2017 at 9:33 pm

   Clinton got 48 percent of the popular tally. That may be a majority in your part of the world, but not in the world of math. It’s kind of cute to imply that the electoral college is some kind of alien entity, but it’s how we elect the president in a federal system, and it is a key part of the system of checks and balances. Clinton ran up a two-point advantage thanks to a couple of areas that lack a functioning two-party system and are wildly unrepresentative, but that has absolutely no bearing on the fact that the country as a whole elected someone else. She ran for a third term, she ran far to the left, she ran incompetently, and she lost. Nightmare avoided.

   Reply
   • 

     Linda Calhoun on 27th September 2017 at 1:09 am

     “Clinton ran up a two-point advantage thanks to a couple of areas that lack a functioning two-party system and are wildly unrepresentative…”

     This description is also true of Trump’s lopsided support in small rural areas. The difference is in the absolute numbers. 71% of Americans live in densely populated urban areas. So Clinton’s larger total of the popular vote reflects a certain cultural leaning, and Trump’s smaller total reflects a different one.

     Gore won the popular vote by half a million votes. Clinton won the popular vote by 2.85 million. As the population continues to concentrate in urban areas, if future presidential elections are lost by ever larger pluralities, or even by majorities, at what point does that need to be addressed?

     If your position on that is, “Never, as long as my party is winning”, perhaps you should think about Trump’s opinion of the electoral college before it benefited him personally.

     L

     Reply
     • 

       j.a.m. on 27th September 2017 at 7:53 pm

       Sure, from the earliest days of the republic there always have been many fault lines — cultural, economic and otherwise — and federalism has served us very well in managing those fissures. Part of a rational solution would be to lower the stakes of a presidential election by limiting the federal government to its proper constitutional role. (By the way, do you hear anyone complain that, in the European Parliament, Luxembourg and Malta hold 10X the representation per inhabitant compared with Germany? That Cyprus is at 6.5X, and many other states at 2-3X or better?)

       Obviously we need a better vetting and nomination process for president, and for sure need a better procedure in the event of deadlock. We should allocate the electoral vote more proportionally.

       But ultimately, e pluribus unum comes down to political leadership. And that presents a bit of a quandary, since in America the best and brightest don’t go into politics. (Thank God.)

       Reply
       • 

         Heather Hastie on 28th September 2017 at 6:34 am

         Whenever I’ve said, in at least three posts before the election, that the US should distribute the Electoral College votes for President more proportionally, you’ve criticized me. I’m glad to see to see we’ve made progress re fairness. I’ve never said it should change Senate representation as in the number of senators. There’s a case to be made for keeping that as it is.

         Reply
   • 

     Mark R. on 27th September 2017 at 10:25 am

     The only way and the only reason republicans win is because they cheat and lie and divide with hate. They cheat by gerrymandering (you should check out HBO VICE’s cover of North Carolina gerrymandering), voter suppression (ever heard of ‘cross-check?), allowing dark money with no transparency, supporting limitless money in campaigns (I know the dems get a lot of money too, but they don’t support citizens united), they cheat by disallowing a vote or even a debate for a President’s appointment for the Supreme Court. Presently, many aren’t even that concerned about Russian meddinling in US elections, but they set up an entire mock-committee investigating ‘voter fraud’…hmmm, I wonder why they’re doing that? It all stinks to hell; I know you can’t smell it because you’ve drunk the Kool-Aid and are consumed by the cult. And let’s talk about republican lies; lied us into the Iraq war, continue the lie that ‘tax-cuts for the rich is the solution to all your financial woes’, lie about climate change, lie about the deficit being the worst evil of the American economy, lie about immigration being the worst evil of the American economy, lie about their monstrous not-health care bill. Current POTUS not only lies as much as he tells the truth, but I don’t think he knows the difference. Perhaps he did once, but like Gollum convincing himself that his ring was actually a birthday present, Trump also has the ability to convince himself of what he wants to be true. I’m actually surprised he’s not religious, he so easily convinces himself of his own bullshit. As far as dividing with hate, that’s so self-apparent I needn’t bother expounding. I came to a simple conclusion many years ago about modern (Nixon on up) republicans, but trump has solidified this conclusion beyond reproach: republicans are immoral and lack any hint of credibility.

     Reply
     • 

       j.a.m. on 27th September 2017 at 7:57 pm

       Oh, my. And yet, amazingly, they end up being the lesser evil.

       Reply
3. 

   j.a.m. on 26th September 2017 at 10:01 pm

   Health care for the disabled is covered by Medicare, and disability income is covered by Social Security, neither of which have anything to do with Obamacare or Graham-Cassidy. But never let the facts get in the way of leftist ideology.

   (And let’s not even get started on our tort system.)

   Reply
   • 

     Linda Calhoun on 27th September 2017 at 1:12 am

     Do you seriously think that if they succeed in repealing the ACA, that Medicare and Social Security wouldn’t be next?

     Paul Ryan has repeatedly said he wants to eliminate both.

     Trump lied about Medicaid. What makes you think he didn’t lie about Medicare and Social Security?

     L

     Reply
     • 

       j.a.m. on 27th September 2017 at 7:55 pm

       Yes, of course, entitlement reform also is mathematically and actuarially inevitable.

       Reply
   • 

     Heather Hastie on 27th September 2017 at 2:56 am

     The amount going to Medicaid is being reduced by 1 trillion dollars over ten years under Graham-Cassidy. I heard Cassidy saying on CNN yesterday that was essential because it’s going broke. That is a gross distortion of the facts. States get to decide who’s covered in those programmes under the Bill. So yes, it does effect them.

     I didn’t mention Social Security.

     Reply
4. 

   Lee Knuth on 27th September 2017 at 5:21 am

   The Electoral College was set up by the founding fathers to ensure that no despot could gain the office of president. The electors were to vote their conscience, sure didn’t work this time.

   Reply
5. 

   Mark R. on 27th September 2017 at 9:43 am

   I was actually in the waiting room before a doctor visit when I read your musing about what would happen if you were an American. It’s sad, isn’t it? There are millions w/o health care still, and we don’t have any peripheral programs like you mentioned. At every convenient store, and on almost every point of purchase at other stores, there are programs asking for money to help children, hunger, diabetes, heart disease etc and there are even more billboards, radio and tv ads asking the public for money. Americans have to count on each other when life happens. I know many conservatives think that’s perfectly fine, but any human being with a moral compass knows that this is an insufficient way to help one-another. Goes back to the Maori saying you posted yesterday. Anyway, I asked my doctor (a cardiologist) what he thought about the republican health care plan. I didn’t know his politics, but figured any doctor would have a problem with trumpcare. Indeed he did…he said the American healthcare system is a travesty and he backed Sanders’ Medicare for all. I knew he was a good doctor. 🙂

   Thanks as always for the warm and fuzzies!

   Reply
   • 

     Heather Hastie on 27th September 2017 at 2:17 pm

     Cheers Mark. USians give more to charity per capita than any other country, which is great. (NZ comes in 2nd.) The problem with letting the private sector do it is that they decide who deserves help. That means, for example, the people of your own religion get a lot more than atheists, for example because so many think a bad Christian deserves help more than a good atheist. The government distributes help on the basis of need, which is much fairer.

     I watched a CNN debate on healthcare a couple of days ago, and that Cassidy a$$hole brought up the Charlie Gard case as a reason the US shouldn’t have single-payer. That sort of thing always happens when you try to talk to a conservative about healthcare. It sickens me.

     Reply
     • 

       Mark R. on 27th September 2017 at 3:15 pm

       Cassidy is done, which is a good thing. He said he wouldn’t seek re-election…the writing is on the wall. Cassidy was an unknown, then a known, and now an unknown again. Good riddance. I’ve been enjoying HC’s pissed-off attitude. She’s on fire right now doing the book tours. Love it!

       Reply
     • 

       j.a.m. on 27th September 2017 at 8:01 pm

       “The problem with letting the private sector do it is that they decide who deserves help. That means, for example, the people of your own religion get a lot more than atheists, for example because so many think a bad Christian deserves help more than a good atheist. The government distributes help on the basis of need, which is much fairer.”

       Everything in my knowledge and experience tells me that’s a pile of baloney, but knowing you as a strong rigorous empiricist, I know you can back up your opinions, however eccentric, with solid, airtight, substantive, unimpeachable, unbiased, reproducible hard data that you will generously share with us. Thanks in advance.

       Reply
       • 

         Heather Hastie on 28th September 2017 at 6:47 am

         Just look at NZ. Our average wage is quite a lot less than yours (around NZ $50000) but there are a lot less people in poverty, we live longer, we have much lower corruption, more freedom, lower taxes, a higher rating in economic indices such as ease of doing business, single-payer healthcare for all, more press freedom, better wage parity etc. We’re even more peaceful. This is despite our unemployment rate currently being slightly higher than yours – 4.9% vs 4.3%. (Both are low by international standards.

         Reply
         • 

           j.a.m. on 28th September 2017 at 4:34 pm

           All very fascinating, but you’re changing the subject. The claims before us are as follows:

           1. Private organizations practice religious discrimination and do not provide services on the basis of need.
           2. Many people think a bad Christian deserves help more than a good atheist.
           3. Direct government aid is always “much fairer”.

           Did this information come to you in a dream, or do you have the data?

         • 

           j.a.m. on 28th September 2017 at 4:37 pm

           P.S. On population, New Zealand would rank 25th if it were a state, just ahead of Louisiana. On GDP, it would rank 29th, just ahead of Oklahoma. (Just some context to bear in mind the next time we try to draw comparisons between New Zealand and the USA as a whole.)

   • 

     j.a.m. on 27th September 2017 at 8:13 pm

     I’d give a doctor’s opinion about health care economics about the same weight that I’d give an astrologer’s opinion about astrophysics.

     Reply
     • 

       Heather Hastie on 28th September 2017 at 6:48 am

       You’ll be ignoring Cassidy, Price, and Paul then.

       Reply
       • 

         j.a.m. on 28th September 2017 at 3:53 pm

         Should have said average doctor, but you got me for once.

         Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.