Thoughts: new old, and borrowed

This (https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/27/impeachment-trump-congress-house-228346) is a really interesting - if long - essay on the current broken status of Congress. Really sad. It is focused on the frustration of moderate members of both parties that Congress is not functioning. But it is sorely lacking an important element - there is no inclusion of leadership views. Much of the blame in the article is focused upon the power of the leadership, but none of the leadership is interviewed. Despite that, if find it pretty compelling - the overwhelming power of the leadership, the high percentage of "safe" seats that cater to the more extreme elements of each party, and (what follows) the pressure to not be "bi-partisan" all ring true to me and and difficult to see a way around. The leadership has become more powerful partly as a result of the term limits on committee chairs - a reform though "progressive" at the time. Safe seats are par...

I am what is called a climate skeptic - I recognize that climate is changing and warming, but I am aware of the uncertainly in any modelling effort and I doubt the severity of the long term effect upon human survival. My professional career was in the environmental field for the Federal government and models were used constantly to predict potential future impacts - and they were universally wrong. Just as wrong as predicting that the human species is DOOMED if we don't institute radical corrective action on climate change. Even accepting the more extreme projections of climate change by 2100, nothing I've seem threatened human survival. Change, certainly. Sever effects on some population, you bet. An apocalypse, hardly. Related to this is this interesting article by Ben Newell, a Professor of Cognitive Psychology from Australia (https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2019/09/19/is_groupthink_a_valid_argument_against_climate_science_111110.html). His argument is that...

An interesting article on how democracy is doomed: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/08/shawn-rosenberg-democracy-228045 The basic premise seems to be that democracy depends upon people being tolerant and willing to do the hard work of being good citizens, and the facts say otherwise. There is a theory that all governments, including democracies, evolve to be dominated by an oligarchy, just by the simple human nature of succeeding generations knowing their parents path and following it. This newest interpretation basically that evolution is what saves democracies from themselves. As Mencken said "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." This paper basically agrees (without quoting Mencken) and the "common people" really will make bad, simplistic choices and eventually destroy democracy. I understand the position, and am not sure I agree. First, the only emphasis is on "righ...