Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Zelandakh]

Measure the distance between two fixed posts sufficiently apart thru air (theodolite,laser) & along ground (chainage) & see the difference.

This is also very close to one of the techniques that works for posts that are large enough (eg long bridges) providing you cal also demonstrate that the "posts" are absolutely vertical in relation to the ground. In fact long suspension bridges need to take account of the difference in lengths between the top and bottoms of their supporting towers to function correctly. But I personally do not have equipment sensitive enough so this is another technique, like satellites, that relies on taking someone else's word for it.

 

Some other possible proofs include shooting weapons over long distances West and East and observing the difference, or, simple if impractical, visiting the South Pole. But the simplest method is probably the Foucault_pendulum (my reference in the previous post on plumb lines). So yes, there is enough proof out there but it is still imho more difficult than disproving a typical alternative fact, which are usually obviously false from the briefest of investigations.

[kenberg]

I once pose the following question to a freshman math class: When we throw a ball, we assume a parabolic path. When we track a satellite in orbit, we assume an elliptical path. Suppose Baltimore launched a missile to strike on San Francisco. Should we assume a parabolic path or an elliptical path? It led to an interesting discussion, including some thoughts about the fact the Earth is rotating on its axis.

 

Here is something that I presume is actually done, or at least was done in less advanced technological times. Suppose you have two listening stations A and B placed, say, 500 miles apart. They pick up radio signals from a source C and we wish to know exactly where this source is. You have measured the distance along the ground from A to B, you can measure the angles CAB and CBA, If you want to know the distances along the ground from A to C and from B to C you can use the Sine Law. But if the Earth is flat you had better use the planar Sine Law and if the Earth is a sphere you hand better use the Spherical Sine Law. Of course if the Earth is an oblate spheroid with an uneven surface there could be further complications!

 

How we know what we know has always struck me as both interesting and practical. I know something about how the ACA works, and I know some people who have been caught up in some of its complications. But I am hardly prepared to give an hour talk on its strengths and weaknesses. Nor on the strengths and weaknesses of its proposed replacement. A good deal of what we "know" amounts to accepting something from a person, an agency or a process we trust. I have never read the proof by Andrew Wiles of Fermat's Last Theorem. I believe it to be correct. Part of what makes that choice easy is that their are no great financial interests lobbying for it to be true or false.

[y66]

From What Do We Mean by ‘Populism,’ Anyway? by Max Fisher and Amanda Taub:

 

After Wednesday’s newsletter, our inboxes were flooded with questions about populism. Reader Felipe B., for instance, asked whether it was reasonable to put the Philippines’ Rodrigo Duterte, France’s Marine Le Pen and America’s President Trump into the same “populist” basket.

 

It’s a good question. The way the term is thrown around can make it seem like a euphemism for xenophobic politics or even white supremacy. But populism is a specific phenomenon that follows a pretty predictable pattern. Learning to recognize it will give you a new understanding of politics around the world — and of some of the risks that keep us up at night.

 

At its most basic level, populism is a type of politics that promises to protect and empower “the people” against the “corrupt elites” who oppress them, writes Cas Mudde, a political scientist at the University of Georgia, in this helpful 2004 paper.

 

That is pretty broad, which helps explain why populist politics can come in many different forms. Populism isn’t so much a fully formed political philosophy as it is a base on top of which politicians can layer their specific agendas, like frosting on a cake. It provides the “people versus elites” framework, but that ideological “frosting” is what defines who “the people” are and how the elites have supposedly oppressed or abandoned them.

 

Right-wing populists often define “the people” in racial or nativist terms, specifically distinguishing them from foreigners and other out-groups who don’t share the correct “national character” — which, in Western countries, is often coded as white and Christian. And they claim that elites have sacrificed the people to open borders and globalism, often through institutions like the European Union.

 

Hungary’s populist Prime Minister Viktor Orban, for instance, has said Europe must close its borders to protect its “Christian character” against Muslim immigrants, and argued in an op-ed several weeks ago that the greatest threat to Europe was the “unelected elites” in Brussels who were trying to transform Europe “against the will of the people.”

 

In France, the anti-immigration, anti-Islam National Front demands “France for the French.” In the Netherlands, Geert Wilders rails against Muslims’ supposed threat to the Dutch people. In Germany, the far-right Alternative for Germany party claims that immigrants are diluting the “European character” of the German people. You get the idea.

 

Left-wing populists, by contrast, tend to define “the people” in class terms and to rail against wealthy capitalist elites. Hugo Chávez, for instance, claimed that Venezuela’s poor and middle classes were being oppressed by the country’s wealthy elite and by international financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

 

But social scientists have found that populists, regardless of ideology, tend to do the same things once in power: undermine liberal-democratic institutions and centralize power in their own hands — often by claiming that checks on their power would prevent them from fully carrying out the will of the people.

 

Mr. Chavez, for instance, changed Venezuela’s constitution to give himself more power; his ideological protégé, Rafael Correa, did the same in Ecuador. And in Poland, the populist Law and Justice party has introduced new laws since taking power that would reduce checks and balances and undermine the power of the country’s constitutional court.

 

It’s a worrying pattern — and we think it means populist politicians are worth watching closely.

Populism isn’t so much a fully formed political philosophy as it is a base on top of which politicians can layer their specific agendas, like frosting on a cake? This sounds way better than eat more fruits and vegetables.

[mike777]

What are you observing for with the plumb line? There is a technique in this area but I do not think you have it just yet.

 

 

think of a plum line such as a pendulum and a circle of small posts tht it knocks down during the day as it swings.

 

you observe how the plum line moves in a circle you observe how the earth is a circle...not flat

[mike777]

From What Do We Mean by ‘Populism,’ Anyway? by Max Fisher and Amanda Taub:

 

 

Populism isn’t so much a fully formed political philosophy as it is a base on top of which politicians can layer their specific agendas, like frosting on a cake? This sounds way better than eat more fruits and vegetables.

 

 

Your article just shows how little the author understands the Philippines and its culture.

 

Just one more example of authors not knowing crap what they write about just another article full of bias crap.

[PassedOut]

Your article just shows how little the author understands the Philippines and its culture.

 

Just one more example of authors not knowing crap what they write about just another article full of bias crap.

It would be more helpful if you'd give a couple of specifics about where the author is wrong, rather than a purely emotional reaction.

[jogs]

that seems fair and just ...if you want to live in an expensive area you should get more, much more more from the government than those who live in cheap areas. For example I noted my brother in law flew across country to the Cleveland Clinic which is more expensive than where he lives....it seems fair the govt pay more, much more.

Both your doctor should get more and you should pay more in premiums and co-pays.

[Zelandakh]

think of a plum line such as a pendulum and a circle of small posts tht it knocks down during the day as it swings.

 

you observe how the plum line moves in a circle you observe how the earth is a circle...not flat

OK, a pendulum is different from a plumb line. You have come up with the Foucault pendulum, which is indeed one of the simplest and best known ways of showing the Earth's rotation. There is a little more to it than that in that a flat Earth could also be rotating but it becomes impossible to reconcile the rest of the observed universe with this motion, so this does indeed work as a proof.

[y66]

From The Trump Elite. Like the Old Elite, but Worse! by old elite conservative columnist David Brooks writing about the House Republican health care bill:

 

It’s no wonder that according to the latest Quinnipiac poll this bill has just a 17 percent approval rating. It’s no wonder that this bill is already massively more unpopular than Hillarycare and Obamacare, two bills that ended up gutting congressional majorities.

 

If we’re going to have the rough edges of a populist revolt, you’d think that at least somebody would be interested in listening to the people. But with this bill the Republican leadership sets an all-time new land speed record for forgetting where you came from.

 

The core Republican problem is this: The Republicans can’t run policy-making from the White House because they have a marketing guy in charge of the factory. But they can’t run policy from Capitol Hill because it’s visionless and internally divided. So the Republicans have the politics driving the substance, not the other way around. The new elite is worse than the old elite — and certainly more vapid.

[alok c]

:huh:

This is also very close to one of the techniques that works for posts that are large enough (eg long bridges) providing you cal also demonstrate that the "posts" are absolutely vertical in relation to the ground. In fact long suspension bridges need to take account of the difference in lengths between the top and bottoms of their supporting towers to function correctly. But I personally do not have equipment sensitive enough so this is another technique, like satellites, that relies on taking someone else's word for it.

 

Some other possible proofs include shooting weapons over long distances West and East and observing the difference, or, simple if impractical, visiting the South Pole. But the simplest method is probably the Foucault_pendulum (my reference in the previous post on plumb lines). So yes, there is enough proof out there but it is still imho more difficult than disproving a typical alternative fact, which are usually obviously false from the briefest of investigations.

Apology for highjacking the thread.Ancients at least in India & Greece before Christ measured circumference of Earth to a reasonable accuracy.Still earlier people knew Earth's roundness by observing position of the Sun at Solastices.Here, i am losing a little faith in Darwin.How come people in 21st century,though you may call them fringe but they are measurable part of population (judging by youtube volume) can be such stupids(ignorance is different from stupidity)? Surely collective knowledge is in retrograde at least to some part of main stream(not isolated) population contrary to Darwin's theory!!! :huh:

[helene_t]

Apology for highjacking the thread.Ancients at least in India & Greece before Christ measured circumference of Earth to a reasonable accuracy.Still earlier people knew Earth's roundness by observing position of the Sun at Solastices.Here, i am losing a little faith in Darwin.How come people in 21st century,though you may call them fringe but they are measurable part of population (judging by youtube volume) can be such stupids(ignorance is different from stupidity)? Surely collective knowledge is in retrograde at least to some part of main stream(not isolated) population contrary to Darwin's theory!!!

Maybe the environment doesn't favour high intelligence anymore? Survival of the fittest means survival of the dumbest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icmRCixQrx8

[barmar]

Of course if health care is a right, something we all are entitled to no matter what, citizens will of course demand bells and whistles at the very least.

 

Citizens will of course demand something more, much more than the lowest standard of care

Voting is a right, but that doesn't mean the government will send someone to drive you to the poll.

[barmar]

:huh:

Apology for highjacking the thread.Ancients at least in India & Greece before Christ measured circumference of Earth to a reasonable accuracy.Still earlier people knew Earth's roundness by observing position of the Sun at Solastices.Here, i am losing a little faith in Darwin.How come people in 21st century,though you may call them fringe but they are measurable part of population (judging by youtube volume) can be such stupids(ignorance is different from stupidity)? Surely collective knowledge is in retrograde at least to some part of main stream(not isolated) population contrary to Darwin's theory!!! :huh:

I think there are a few causes of this.

 

First, there have always been kooks who came up with "alternative facts". The difference now is that the Internet makes it easy for them to spread their ideas far and wide, and gullible people eat it up.

 

Second, in recent decades much of the population has become distrustful of the establishment. Watergate and a number of political scandals since then have made us distrustful of government. And lay people tend to think that scientists are elitists, and trying to pull conspiracies. It doesn't help that technology has put many of them out of work and created weapons of mass distruction that scare them.

 

This has resulted in an anti-science backlash.

[PassedOut]

Looks like the republicans found it impossible to come up with anything better than the ACA, so threw in the towel. Seems like I was hoping in vain for Trump to reveal his wonderful, best-in-the-world health care plan for us. Oh well. Now he can focus on explaining to the generals how to eradicate ISIS once and for all.

:P

[mike777]

Both your doctor should get more and you should pay more in premiums and co-pays.

 

 

no no no you misunderstand. We are talking about free health care I am not paying anything. At this point we just debate whether I get to fly free coach or free first class.....stuff such as that.

[mike777]

Voting is a right, but that doesn't mean the government will send someone to drive you to the poll.

 

 

actually in a way they do......they send a driver to my house with a ballot and a driver to my house to pick up the ballot. OTOH you are correct it seems I do not yet have the right to a robot driver car or free uber just yet .....give it time.

[mike777]

I think there are a few causes of this.

 

First, there have always been kooks who came up with "alternative facts". The difference now is that the Internet makes it easy for them to spread their ideas far and wide, and gullible people eat it up.

 

Second, in recent decades much of the population has become distrustful of the establishment. Watergate and a number of political scandals since then have made us distrustful of government. And lay people tend to think that scientists are elitists, and trying to pull conspiracies. It doesn't help that technology has put many of them out of work and created weapons of mass distruction that scare them.

 

This has resulted in an anti-science backlash.

 

In some ways the backlash you describe against the forces you point out seems to make a "basic income" more of a political reality.

 

Parijs and Vanderborght just published a new book on the subject of "basic Income".

 

"It may sound crazy to pay people an income whether or not they are working or looking for work. But the idea of providing an unconditional basic income to every individual, rich or poor, active or inactive, has been advocated by such major thinkers as Thomas Paine, John Stuart Mill, and John Kenneth Galbraith. For a long time, it was hardly noticed and never taken seriously. Today, with the traditional welfare state creaking under pressure, it has become one of the most widely debated social policy proposals in the world. Philippe Van Parijs and Yannick Vanderborght present the most comprehensive defense of this radical idea so far, advocating it as our most realistic hope for addressing economic insecurity and social exclusion in the twenty-first century.

The authors seamlessly combine philosophy, politics, and economics as they compare the idea of a basic income with rival ideas past and present for guarding against poverty and unemployment. They trace its history, tackle the economic"

[mike777]

Looks like the republicans found it impossible to come up with anything better than the ACA, so threw in the towel. Seems like I was hoping in vain for Trump to reveal his wonderful, best-in-the-world health care plan for us. Oh well. Now he can focus on explaining to the generals how to eradicate ISIS once and for all.

:P

 

Yes, a huge victory for the Democrats, they are gleeful. I note that not one Democrat would vote for the destruction of the entitlement.

[y66]

Swamp 1. Trump 0.

[blackshoe]

"Voting is a right."

 

Yeah. Some idiot politician here in New York is proposing that failure to vote be made a crime.

[mike777]

Today is a clear victory for single payer health care in some form such as the UK or Canada....not that I really understand how dthey differ or work. As far as posters explanation it always seems single payer health care is not a single payer...but be that as it may....

 

It may take ten years until single payer can declare a clear victory.....but today the victory is in sight and unstoppable!

[ldrews]

Today is a clear victory for single payer health care in some form such as the UK or Canada....not that I really understand how dthey differ or work. As far as posters explanation it always seems single payer health care is not a single payer...but be that as it may....

 

It may take ten years until single payer can declare a clear victory.....but today the victory is in sight and unstoppable!

 

Could you lay out your reasoning, please. Today looks to me like a defeat of the Republican attempt to mess with Obamacare, leaving it intact. Obamacare is pretty far from a single-payer system.

[cherdano]

Could you lay out your reasoning, please. Today looks to me like a defeat of the Republican attempt to mess with Obamacare, leaving it intact. Obamacare is pretty far from a single-payer system.

 

Part of Obamacare was a big expansion of the single-payer share of US healthcare, with about 10.7 million signing up who previously were not eligible before, but also about 3.5 million who were.

 

Ryancare wanted to undo this expansion. This was part of the reason it was projected to increase the number of uninsured by 24 million, and that was part of the reason the bill failed. If this didn't get through the House despite a big Republican majority, it is hard to see this expansion ever being repealed.

 

Meanwhile, the individual market is potentially much more unstable. It is much easier to imagine the exchanges collapsing, followed by a repeal of that part of Obamacare. Meanwhile, the most promising and logical fix to Obamacare exchanges proposed by anyone is an expansion of single payer: Medicare expansion for anyone over 55. It takes the most expensive patients off the exchanges while offering them affordable insurance.

[Al_U_Card]

In some ways the backlash you describe against the forces you point out seems to make a "basic income" more of a political reality.

 

Parijs and Vanderborght just published a new book on the subject of "basic Income".

 

"It may sound crazy to pay people an income whether or not they are working or looking for work. But the idea of providing an unconditional basic income to every individual, rich or poor, active or inactive, has been advocated by such major thinkers as Thomas Paine, John Stuart Mill, and John Kenneth Galbraith. For a long time, it was hardly noticed and never taken seriously. Today, with the traditional welfare state creaking under pressure, it has become one of the most widely debated social policy proposals in the world. Philippe Van Parijs and Yannick Vanderborght present the most comprehensive defense of this radical idea so far, advocating it as our most realistic hope for addressing economic insecurity and social exclusion in the twenty-first century.

The authors seamlessly combine philosophy, politics, and economics as they compare the idea of a basic income with rival ideas past and present for guarding against poverty and unemployment. They trace its history, tackle the economic"

Well, it seems to be working for the banks....(QE 1, 2,3 etc.)

[jogs]

The looming doctor shortage. Every article says we need to educate more doctors. There needs to be a more pragmatic and less expensive solution. Ottlik tells us when one encounters an unexpected problem it may be right for an alternate tack. Politicians' approach to every problem is to continue the same methodology which wasn't working, only throw more money at it. Time to think outside of the box. Make the nurse practitioner the face of healthcare. NPs can be trained in 21 months. Even now doctors don't visit end-of-life patients who stay at home. Doctors stopped making house calls in the fifties. NPs will often work under supervision of a physician.