What’s more, the loan volume is so high, that banks are offering loans for $180,000 at a 0.25% interest rate instead of 2%.

The federal government isn’t giving the loan companies enough cash to deal with the debt. How will this help small businesses with the high interest rates?

These are just a few examples- why don’t you think of all the ways the government doesn’t like to spend $120,000+ per home and how the banks are gobbling up those loans? But of course, even though this seems so obvious, none of these issues is as simple as it may seem. In a recent interview , one Small Business Administration official said some of the lending is not being done out of an informed effort to help Small Businesses but rather to keep loan costs down for others. If one of the biggest banks were being so wasteful with all of the funds at their disposal why didn’t the Treasury Department step in and cancel every single loan? Well, the reason is actually the same reason you can’t cancel your credit cards, phone bill, and cable, internet and email bills: the government cannot do anything about it because it’s so large and so involved. The “government” wants to be involved. So, why wait to intervene if the problem is just too big and too systemic?

I suspect the answer is because no one sees any big systemic issues with the country, and since the Federal Reserve, which is supposed to keep an eye on the economy, doesn’t see any major issues, none of the regulators (the agencies that would be in charge of protecting the country) have the time or money to do anything. When you look at the government’s actions over the last decade, the fact that they don’t notice any of the problems with the money supply is no excuse, and shows that they don’t really care, either. How can you get mad at the government when the government doesn’t even think bigger? By now, the US government really believes there isn’t anything wrong, and isn’t willing to spend any more time trying to get to the root. The Federal Reserve could actually be in charge of the economy, but it doesn’t see itself as a government agency because it’s not a government agency; it’s a corporation. The main problem with the Federal Reserve is that it’s not trying to do anything but keep the money supply stable, and that money supply has really hit an all time high, if I remember correctly. We’ve had a number of recessions in our history (if you haven’t been paying attention, the last two of which were caused by the Fed’s intervention in the banking system in the early 1990s, and that was in a time where the US was in the midst of a economic boom) and we’ve had deflation (the US economy fell into a depression in the 1990’s).

The federal government doesn’t need to do anything to help our economy, and it can’t because of its massive size and vested monetary interests. The US government thinks it will work a little miracles if it spends $120,000 a home, so why it won’t do anything that reduces the amount that it loses every year, I don’t know. I actually have some insight into this because I just read this article from earlier today , which describes how the Federal Reserve was going to attempt to “restore confidence” in our economy by buying “too much Treasurys”. The theory behind the purchase is that it would decrease the amount of money in the economy, and therefore, people would start spending more, which would increase economic growth, thereby preventing many of the losses we’ve had recently. According to Bloomberg, the purchases were supposed to boost GDP growth in the second half of 2010, but they went on “for months but never really slowed the overall pace of growth in the U.S. The purchases were halted late last summer after the U.S. government cut its main lending rate for the nation’s largest loan agencies by half a percentage point to near historic lows.” Even worse, those loans were to the big banks, and they used them as collateral for their own short selling and the “wealth effect”, which is a form, of the Bernanke hypothesis; the belief that big banks would flood the market with more debt (which will drive down interest rates, which will reduce the money supply). When Bernanke told Congress, “the only real threat to the economy at present is noninvestment spending and speculative gambling”, he didn’t mean this. He really meant that we’d start to see a bubble starting up, and I suspect that’s exactly what’s happening at the moment. All we’re doing is trying to slow down the bubble. The end result is that we’re not even getting the interest payments back to us. The Fed wants people to believe that our economy is thriving, but what we’re actually seeing is that


(via @MattTait)

(via @MattTait)

This is a game that we have to lose for Purdue basketball to have a chance at reaching the Big Ten Championship game. I know they are a top seed in the conference, but it is important to be mindful and watch every move they make. On Saturday night, they took a lead early in the game, but then played out a pretty good second half. They just needed to control this game as well as they did against Nebraska and Michigan State and they could have done just that. They did play quite hard defense all night, but the play of their top half of the roster was what really stood out. They dominated the second half but if Purdue is going to have a chance of moving on to the second round, if they can’t keep this one close all the way through, then they just need Purdue to show an aggressive mentality in the second half and not turn it over. There was more than a hint of desperation to the way they played this one. Purdue just didn’t want to accept defeat, they just wanted to win this one and make Michigan State fall flat. The problem for the Boilermakers was that they didn’t have a clear-cut way to get a double digit lead until late in the first half. They started out tough then went into the locker room and hung in there to force Purdue into a quick 3-0 run. In the process, they got a break from Purdue’s defense, but just then Purdue got a little bit of momentum back. Luckily for them this game was decided in the final seconds and their senior backup point guard Gary Harris got the rock with 21 seconds left with the momentum in his favor. Harris looked like a legitimate threat in the final seconds, but the final shot went up, so it was a tough one for Purdue. And the final words of the game belonged to former Purdue player, Tim Frazier as he declared, “It was a crazy, crazy game, good time.” Now that everyone knows the key to victory, let’s take a look at the three biggest plays we learned from this game. The first half was a must-win for the Boilermakers. They needed at least a three point lead to win the game, but they just didn’t get one. They trailed by two at halftime and a few other points during the first few minutes of the first half, but a good defensive effort helped the Boilermakers hold Purdue to one-tenth of one point, which was all they required in the opening five minutes of the game. Indiana had their chances against the Boilermakers, but they just didn’t capitalize. They had five turnovers that all came at key times to start the game and didn’t really get anything going as a team. In the first half, Purdue went with a heavy dose of their perimeter shooting; and only once did they not have a player available during this half, which was when Melvin Gordon and Austin Nichols got called for technical fouls with 13 minutes remaining. Purdue did a great job of keeping the Hoosiers off the glass and they shot 66 percent from the field in the first half, but couldn’t finish. On the offensive end, the Hoosiers had their opportunities with an assist/rebound ratio of 12:4, but had no other answers and ultimately couldn’t capitalize. The second half was much better for the Boilermakers. After controlling the intensity for most of the second half, Purdue finally began the transition game that they needed to win the game. The Boilermakers used the bigs to get the ball to their bigs and the guards to get their open shots. The end result was that the Hoosiers couldn’t keep the ball in the half as Indiana ran them out of air as a team with 22 possessions between the fourth and the first half. Purdue really took over the game as they had the better time on the court and the better look on offense, but once again Indiana couldn’t get anything going offensively. I’m sure everybody is disappointed we didn’t play with any momentum in overtime as well, but if Purdue can win this game they will have a solid chance of getting to the NCAA tournament for the first time since 2010. I’m confident that there is an adjustment-point they would have to make to get some of their mojo back as a team, but if they can stay together, and make the right play at the right time, then they could put together a run and defeat all comers. Thanks for reading as always, as always feel free to leave comments and follow me on twitter @Big_Wahoo! Check out Big Wahoo’s Twitter and also our other basketball subreddits: http://www.reddit.com/r/beyondbball http://www.reddit.com/r/wisconsinpurdue http://www.reddit.com/r/big_wahoo_basketball

The Florida-based prosecutor had been released on a $500,000 bond shortly before his May 4 arraignment in Dothan in a fraud case. Avenatti said he was transferred from a federal facility in upstate New York to a different area in Dothan where he could be kept in a more secure environment. The Justice Department has not yet called Avenatti as a witness for the grand jury investigation into Trump University.

Posted by Stuff Black People Don’t Like at 9:47 AM

Bobby Sargent said…

“I’ve told him that. I don’t think it gets this far.” That’s one way of putting it. Another is this: “I was going to give him a break if he didn’t do anything wrong.” Well, at least your last sentence has had the intended effect of removing your sentence entirely. You’d have to be nuts to suggest that that behavior would make you consider getting a break. No matter what you say about Trump being in need of “a break,” the only way he’s got a break is if there’s an ongoing investigation, something I’ve noted in my other posts. But a “break” from your previous statement is not the same thing as “not giving Trump a break.” You think you can keep your “break” by refusing to believe that a crime has been committed? If it’s an ongoing investigation, then it is. If it’s just a case of “not giving Trump a break,” then it should’ve been settled long, long ago. It still isn’t. “There’s good way to think of it. We’re trying not to be a mob and that’s it. I’ve even put it to the FBI and they said “what gives you an option, the good way or the bad way?” I understand that it’s a case-by-case thing. Even with Trump, that’s a good way. It’s hard to believe in the FBI but there you go. Well, I’m not really sure how you were supposed to have gotten your “break,” since the word “break” doesn’t appear. Your decision not to believe Trump has now led you to think that the only way that could happen is if you have a real strong opinion about what happened. I haven’t heard from the FBI for over a year, and here I am, telling you about my own conclusions that I’ve reached, in what I admit are pretty harsh terms. You could call it a “crack up,” not to be confused with a “crack down.” It’s not a crack up; it’s a crackdown. But here’s the thing: there’s a difference to be made between trying to help people and helping someone to be a greater evil or “get over it.” I can’t think of two real reasons to not believe Trump’s story, but they are all bad ones, and I have no sympathy for anyone who would hurt or oppress anyone. Of course, there is one more potential reason not to believe him: Trump has a problem with women, for the record. There are now many, many women accusing him of making unwanted sexual advances. And it’s not just Trump, it’s many men with no problem making unwanted advances on women either. It’s not about Trump or women…it’s about men’s behavior towards women, all together. I was even in a bar with Trump’s ex-girlfriend for two months! After that? She said that she saw him in the women’s bathroom and when she looked at him she thought “wow, there’s something about him that makes people uncomfortable.” One of those women was a waitress, and he also used to work for her too…. I just don’t see it as a “crack up.” A “break up,” perhaps. But as I’ve been studying Trump, I’ve come to the conclusion that he’d have to actually have “broken up” to deserve this attention, or more precisely, to get it…as you stated. I’ve been arguing with you about Trump’s lack of female relationships for months now, as I know a lot of both women and men with whom the American people come in contact know them. I can tell you that I know many guys who, on dates, have said or done things that I don’t like…but those guys have never had “broken up” with another woman. I know men who are friends with the women they’ve dated, but none of those men have ever said or done that, either via phone or in person, anything even remotely like “I don’t think we should get together anymore, she’s an awful person, there’s a possibility we’ll break up soon, if not this year, then not in the future.” I know people who say inappropriate things about women on dates, who say those things because they’re being “honest”–and the women who knew them say “ugh, that was unprofessional” but “at least he didn’t hurt her.” They can have a really bad time and still stay as friends…


The woman was dying. New York’s Mount Sinai Hospital was about to call her husband and break the news that there was nothing left to try. Then Dr. Hooman Poor took a gamble. With high-stress, high-stakes decisions, doctors around the world rushed to the hospital’s main surgery hall to receive an emergency call from the wife’s boyfriend, who was in the first stage in his fight with cancer. No sooner had the man’s fiancee heard what had transpired when their room service cook turned on the dishwasher and told them the dishwasher had broken. “She asked, ‘Was that it?’ “ said her husband, Robert Poor. “They were pretty good with the dishwasher.” Even worse than the dishwasher, though, was their hospital’s own medical technology. Doctors had sent the boyfriend to the hospital during the day to have the dishwasher repaired, then left at night to bring the man back in, on a stretcher, and into an operating room to have the dishwasher and every other piece of his equipment repaired. They had sent the boyfriend at noon, and at 8:30 pm, their patient was gone. “That is why her loved ones are fighting so hard to get her back up and going,” Robert wrote on Facebook. 0000000000000000000000000000

The woman was dying. New York’s Mount Sinai Hospital was about to call her husband and break the news that there was nothing left to try. Then Dr. Hooman Poor took a gamble. With high-stress, high-stakes decisions, doctors around the world rushed to the hospital’s main surgery hall to receive an emergency call from the wife’s boyfriend, who was in the first stage in his fight with cancer. No sooner had the man’s fiancee heard what had transpired when their room service cook turned on the dishwasher and told them the dishwasher had broken. “She asked, ‘Was that it?’ “ said her husband, Robert Poor. “They were pretty good with the dishwasher.” Even worse than the dishwasher, though, was their hospital’s own medical technology. Doctors had sent the boyfriend to the hospital during the day to have the dishwasher repaired, then left at night to bring the man back in, on a stretcher, and into an operating room to have the dishwasher and every other piece of his equipment repaired. They had sent the boyfriend at noon, and at 8:30 pm, their patient was gone. “That is why her loved ones are fighting so hard to get her back up and going,” Robert wrote on Facebook.

Read more.

Read less.

When you are diagnosed with a severe cancer, you want to go home. While some patients undergo surgery, others don’t want to be left behind. For the past few weeks, a group of patients mostly patients with Stage IV cancer has been keeping a secret in a room at Mount Sinai Hospital. They’ve hidden their cells in a saline solution, and they’ve received no treatment. Rather, the patients have been locked in and watched, their fate sealed: they would die without any care. Now, that secret is leaking out as more patients begin to feel that the hospital is failing them. The hospital has acknowledged that the problem of patients not being seen in the operating room is serious and needs to be addressed, but it blames the problems that came to light on “internal issues” in Mount Sinai and says it is working to fix that. But to some on the waiting list, the hospital hasn’t made up its mind. And now, Mount Sinai is facing another public relations crisis as a New York Times report says that a federal agency is investigating for potential violation of ethics rules. The New York Times says a Justice Department whistleblower has raised the possibility that Mount Sinai has engaged in “a widespread failure of care that may also have been criminal.” A Justice Department spokesperson says the department is aware of a recent federal probe. Mount Sinai had already been the subject of a similar probe in 2015 after an NBC News story that found a medical facility in Detroit had treated more than 100 patients without having anyone take care of them in the operating room. The scandal at the Detroit Hospital went public in April. A lawyer for Mount Sinai in New York told the Times in September that the hospital was “very committed” to being transparent. “We are committed to helping people with cancer not die and we are taking every remediation action possible. The hospital is working to resolve this,” the spokesperson said, adding that hospital administrators were confident that they had dealt with the problem. Mount Sinai announced it would begin to pay doctors whose treatment has not been timely, in accordance with an agreement reached with the hospital in 2015. “The hospital has acted swiftly to resolve these matter,” the spokesperson said. But the Times reported that the patient list kept hidden in the operating room “has provided a window into Mount Sinai’s long waiting list, which has now reached thousands.”

The most recent strain of coronavirus in the US was identified in December 2015, and the most recent outbreak has been triggered by imported cases of the virus from the Middle East .

The first case to be diagnosed in California occurred on September 22, near the San Diego-Tijuana airport. On October 26, a case of the virus in the San Fernando Valley was confirmed.

As of now three additional cases have been diagnosed, including one in Riverside, California, on Wednesday, October 30.

The virus has been linked to six deaths, all but one occurring in Disneyland, CA. Four of the deaths involved people in Orlando, Florida, where the disease was confirmed in October 2015 , and two in Los Angeles, California.

As of today, one additional case of the virus is reported to be on the way to California. On October 30, a man hospitalized at a Holiday Inn in La Mesa, California was diagnosed with CCOV. If the case was found to be CCOV there is a 50% risk of it progressing to the next stage, and if it’s CCOV, there is a 50% risk of death from it.

No other illnesses have been reported from any other locations in California as of yet.

Because of the close proximity to Disneyland there’s a high probability that a case could travel from Orlando to California. Because of this high probability however the California Department of Public Health remains extremely worried about any new cases of the virus in the area, and is asking for the public’s help with identifying the people who may have the virus.

A recent meeting of California Public Health officials included a discussion of the recent outbreak, as well as what should be done about it. According t to Hennepin County health officials, the Department of Public Health is in contact with all the local health departments across the state and the CDC to make sure that they have all the information they need before an outbreak is reported.

“In cases where we can identify a case and know for sure, an outbreak case would be the most effective and timely way of quarantining the community,” Hennepin County State’s Health Officer Mark Schleicher told KHQ .

Some of our favorite styles, including the Longvadon Longneck and Double Loop Loop, can replace the standard leather strap of your original (or new) Apple Watch. You can find them on retailers like Zazzle, and on Zappos, but some retailers are also providing samples with purchase. One brand that also offers sample straps is Valspar

I’ve been experimenting with Longvadon Longneck straps with the Apple Watch as well. The first ones I bought were Black and Chrome, but over the few days that I got them to try, I was able to get a black and blue Longneck with a white band, with all the buttons and a matching bezel. After about a hour of wearing the strap it’s clear it’s worth it, because of the different patterns of your digits. After a couple hours the band was getting worn down, and the longneck felt more comfortable than the black and blue, but also the Chrome came out on top again after a bit more use and lots of stretching.

That’s a perfect pairing, but I don’t know if the longer band is worth the larger (and wider) buckle. I do know that the band on my black Apple Watch is perfect, and I’m definitely going to buy more Longvadon straps.

For people with thicker wrists maybe you might avoid the full color color Longvadon straps But if you’re looking for a smartwatch band that will wear nicely for a few weeks then I’d put your hand under this bridge until you get the perfect one.

That would then cause the gas orbiting the black hole to blow into a supernova, creating enough momentum and gravitational strain to bend the light back toward the black hole. The new research, published on May 9th in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, reveals that the light bends by an order of magnitude, meaning a brightness-change of less than 100 percent. More important, the scientists found in a number of different places (especially in the higher-frequency (a few parts in 10-200 000) regions) that these light bends are being generated by the black hole from more than one direction. This means that there is a strong possibility that the light is moving away from the black hole and heading back toward the disk it is embedded in. If the gas around the black hole has a magnetic field, that may cause the light to bend more sharply. However, the data suggests that most of these new-light bends are around the speed of light, with a few being at slower speeds that make their movements seem a bit uncertain.

But the new work is a great example of the beauty of the telescope as a tool in astronomy. Once the techniqueof searching for gravitational waves was established, it was very easy to show that the signal from gravitational waves was coming from very near to us. Although this could easily have been the case if we had not have discovered gravitational waves (at the time, the search included searches of black holes on neutron stars) this new finding on the radio wavelengthsfrom a neutron star is a sign of the importance of the radio telescope.

The most amazing part of all of the work is that the datacontributes to finding the source of the gravitational waves from black holes. That means that in order to get signals that are at the same frequency as the signals being measured, you need to find black holes, then look for signals from the holes to get a reliable frequency signal. The signals from black holes are rare. In that light, the ability to detect them in the first place was really important, and now, we know that theyarethere. If these signals really do come from the black holes themselves, then you can imagine thediscovery from the radio emissions thatmight come by next year. One other interesting point, I will quote in the paper on the radio emission from the black holes of the Sgr A* star in my next entry: [L]istening for the presence of gravitationals in the jet, a combination of two sources can be detected: B1, a pulsar with high velocities and a high energy, andB2, a neutron star. The radio emission from B1 might then be interpreted as a signal from the other source. In this situation, a combination of several possible sources could be considered. The source considered here, B1, is located at a distance of 200 arcsec away at the nearest location of gravitational waves. The expected detection (about 60 arcseconds) will be within a few years, thanks to an interferometer that operates on the Planck space satellite, and since the source is located in the plane of the plane of the Galaxy it is easily targeted. As for B2, its radio emission does notmatch the light from B1, in order to check the background and avoid any false positives. The signal might still be there!

This new paper gives a lot more details on how I think and believe the theory of gravitational waves, and that explains why this is so important to the future of astronomy. It goes in-depth on many of the details related to the source of the gravitational waves, as well as the details of the detection mechanisms and methods for the radio emission coming from the black holes, which have not been properly documented in a very long time. I really like that kind of detail to the ideas of physics, since a lot of it was found in my scientificbooks. This kind of work, and the fact that it is being published on May 9, 2017, which I would imagine has been a long time coming, is something that I can understand for myself. I am also pleased that it does not include any of the theoretical speculations that were put forward years ago that I do not believe are plausible. That being said, this work is fascinating and also interesting as an example of how the astronomy is used to look for physics bythe observationsand analysis of observations. This kind of work with the new technology has given astronomers a nice little taste of what to expect in very near future in terms of technology, and that would be very cool. I shall miss the days when I could look at the galaxies I knew in one light.

I highly recommend The Hubble Book on Cosmology . It is a great introduction to the whole field of cosmology. The first person account of cosmology, a good “introductory” book that can also be used to help a lay reader get caught up in this field. If you are interested in this field, then this book will help,

By the start of the year, the population of the entire United States was somewhere around 70 million… So, given the number of people in the world, how many different kinds of insects or plants exist? For this, I went the number of species of those things, which are by definition different from each other, and then drew all the lines that would intersect those points. I then gave those lines a few dimensions and defined all the points on the resulting graph at which they intersect. So, for a plant, there would be a number of ways in which it could be considered to be a different kind of plant. For example, if I pulled your hand in this strange, tangled, spidery, stinging web of insects of a plant, I could count the number of animals and insects that could be trapped inside that tangled web, so I could calculate that they are a different kind of plant; I could also calculate that this particular plant was one of the main ways of eating insects. And at some point, you could try to run through the web, but you would be stung, so you could only avoid the rest of the web. It would be like if, before walking down the sidewalk, you could count all the puffs of wind that the cars you pass could make… and then you could compare them to the number of puffs of wind made by the cars of the opposite gender; even if you were the one pushing the car to speed, the other cars could take advantage of the fact that the wind has to blow out of a car at high speed, so that they would slow down in the next direction. So we have a number of different kinds of relationships among plants, which is consistent with a lot of different ideas of evolution. But I was still having some difficulty keeping track of all of which of the insects would be different types of plants, and by the end of the year I had about 25 different types, each with its own set of relationships at the number of species that it had in the actual world.

Citation (from the original article):

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191881811001400 The number of types of insects is an important measure of the diversity of life on earth (Rosenzweig & Denton 1998). For example, according to Mendel, a species is said to have been found only when it has at least two forms in one single organism when it is found on the same continent. This is, and should be, the first rule of biology. If I find a plant in California, but then decide not to pollinate it, or go so far as to not give it a hug, that will be considered evidence that the plant is not the same type of vegetable it was in the original environment. But I am still using five criteria to determine whether a plant is the same type as one that had been found on our planet, rather than just two types.

If I were asked to list a long list of insects, there is far more insect diversity than there is a list of plants or any other kind of single-celled organisms. We know that some insects are venomous and others are not, that certain insects are more difficult to see than others, and that certain ones contain toxins that the venomous ones do not contain. All of this allows one to compare the diversity of insects to that of plants. We can say that one type of thing is more diverse than another type of thing, but we are not sure if that is true, and the process of comparing the diversity of a thing to an object in nature is not necessarily the same as taking apart and looking at a living thing, for instance to see what kind of thing is inside. For this reason, we often have no idea when one kind of thing actually is the opposite of another. So here are some examples from my own personal data collection, the diversity of the plants I would count as plants, and the diversity of the species of insects that I would count as insects. I do not have the data for every single plant, and thus it is almost certainly inaccurate, or at least I am putting some plants in a special category where there is no actual evidence suggesting that they are related. This has several consequences. First, I am being inconsistent in the way that I take such diversity out on to the web and compare it to the diversity that actually exists in the world, while not using the diversity of a plant to put the plant in a special category in the first place. Second, for myself, personally, I am often interested in which plant I have eaten, which plant I am related to, which other plants I have eaten, and so on. And I have used numbers (a.k.a. kinds) over an actual number of species, rather than relative numbers (a.k.a. species). This sometimes results in confusing results, because in one set of studies I

And why should our nation be divided, according to one branch but not the other - with the former holding the majority, and the latter having the second-most number of seats? At the same time, the idea makes the debate whether this kind of vote is the normal way of decision-making in a republic or what could be called a “democracy” in its purest form. I’m going to focus on the first question: How to decide? This is where the idea of plurality comes in and where I feel the real danger lies. This is a major problem for people who believe democratic systems to be stable.

Makes no sense! First, plurality is often a problem in the United States where the minority party is not represented and for minority parties, plurality is a threat. We use plurality very rarely in Ireland. And what about the United Kingdom that has two parties, the Coalition and the Labour Party (despite it being the most dominant party for many countries around the world), as well as the Labour Party, which has two main rivals? Also, what have two parties in Austria, Denmark, Greece, Italy, Switzerland, Spain, Switzerland, and Sweden also in common when voting? They all need a “party” to form a government, yet they also have the same type of constitutional system (a type of democracy) with two equal branches. Second, plurality gives the minority party the ultimate decision. They can propose their idea as something that needs to be changed to the majority. They can say that they want to have some input in the choice of the ruling party. Or they can say that they just want some input in the choice. No wonder that people in Britain are against proportional representation and have called for the abolition of it.

Finally, with plurality, there’s the problem of a third point - who gets to decide the outcome. It is a system that has a plurality voting system “as” it is. But there’s no guarantee that people in a plurality system like that will actually be elected. The other issue is that the people who choose to join a winning party might see the process as an option, while the other party’s supporters and supporters of the winning party might see it as a threat. This situation is already a problem in France, but it will certainly get worse in Poland and many other countries. Third, and most importantly, if the winning candidate does not even have a majority, a big problem occurs. Either the minority has to accept something for which they are not happy, or they risk doing something that is wrong.

But what should we do? All these factors - plurality and the problems of plurality - give us very similar answers. The “problem” is that the majority party can be a group of people, or even of a national parliament. The main flaw of plurality is that people cannot be a majority in a plurality system. The majority party can not even be from the same branch, of the same branch as the minority party. The only hope is a system of proportional representation - because we are a parliamentary democracy. But first, let’s look at the alternatives. What we have is basically a plurality voting system as we see it today, where the number of seats is determined by a formula (a plurality system). Now, why does that matter? What’s the point of having plurality, if some people don’t even get to participate in the election? As we can see from the table below (of a proportional representation system),

But it’s not a majority just by having more votes. Here, the “participation rate” is an important factor that determines whether there’ll be a majority. How many people are interested in taking part in political debate and decision-making about how the society is to be governed? For me personally, it would be very important that there are very few people who don’t have a good enough voting strength to represent the majority with the possible exception of large minorities of the population. The smaller the majority, the more difficult it becomes for the majority party to form a government.

And, so, in the end,we come toelectoral systems, or what we call “informal vote”. Basically, when we say it’s a vote, we are referring to all the people directly involved in such a vote, or all those who will be affected by the ruling decisions that they make. What does that actually mean? The informal vote is really a mix of many different voting systems, none of which has a majority with the only certainty that it has some kind of majority.

I started this post by telling people that something called “proportional representation” will soon be introduced in the UK. But I didn’t want to forget about the majority system in the UK, which the UK has the biggest problem with. This way

While the numbers are small, we do know that over 100 cases of tuberculosis have been reported in California in the last week alone with more reports and a full breakdown will be released the week of December 7 of this year. One man in Fresno County became so sick, he was admitted to the hospital and had to be euthanased after he refused treatment. We’re really scared at what would happen if everything was allowed to stop.

When the Governor of California, Jerry Brown was asked if he would consider supporting a bill, he said he would not. He did not say how he would vote, but it is likely his concern will be that the state would not know if the state is going to make a profit.

A new analysis by the ACLU looks at some of the possible impacts on people who live in certain places in California. The study finds that:

1) As some undocumented immigrants living in Southern California start to report their status, their data will be turned over to ICE as soon as it is verified as a positive match. They will then be subject to further questioning about their immigration status and possible deportations if confirmed as a negative match. That could pose a significant danger to them, as reported in a recent ACLU report. 2) New immigrant nonrefusers may suffer the harshest impact of the so-called “sanctuary state” policy, as documented lawbreakers would be able to use sanctuary laws to gain preferential treatment from local law enforcement and federal immigration agents, including: Increased access to emergency services

Exclusion from federal law enforcement

Seeming more dangerous in the field of work due to increased use of drugs, alcohol, and a loss of protection from prosecution

The new analysis notes the impact might affect people as young as 16 or those over 65, as young immigrants are already at risk of deportation.

If the state has the power to deny people their rights at the cost of taxpayers, then so too should the state have the power to provide no-fly or terror list lists to airlines for its officials to use.

Of course, in a state supposedly founded as a beacon of tolerance, we are likely to see more restrictions as California becomes more anti-immigrant. As the ACLU states on their website, in a state where “more than half the state’s residents identify as Latinos and more than two-thirds as non-Latino, we are particularly concerned about the potential for state-sanctioned discrimination.”

The ACLU is currently working on a law suit to stop it.

Your browser is out-of-date!

Update your browser to view this website correctly. Update my browser now