Interesting Links for 2-6-2011

[andrewducker]

• Google Apps drops support for FF3.5, IE7 and Safari 3.
  (tags: google browser web)
• Global war on drugs has failed. (Odd how it's always _ex_ heads of state that tel the truth)
  (tags: politics society drugs)
• Our female ancestors used to travel to new places, while the men stayed at home.
  (tags: history gender anthropology)
• Very nice piece from the creator of Frozen Synapse on how the game came to pass (still addicted, by the way)
  (tags: games computer_games FrozenSynapse)
• 96% of Americans under 50 are on Facebook
  (tags: facebook usa)
• Low-carb, higher-fat diets don't add to risk of artery blockage. Also have faster weight loss.
  (tags: fat diet carbohydrates health heart)
• Mooncakes - an edible black market currency in China. No, really.
  (tags: economics china currency)
• Anti-reform peers shame the Lib Dems.
  (tags: libdem politics reform democracy)
• Why love is the most renewable resource in a relationship, and the least valuable.
  (tags: love relationships)
• Goldman Sachs lost 98% of Gaddafi's $1.3bn investment
  (tags: politics finance banking libya)

Comments

[draigwen]

The love thing rings true so much right now. It was the thing that kept me in the relationship for so long.

I know another two people now in the middle of breakups (and much more messy ones too). Does seem to be the season for it!

[feorag.livejournal.com]

The diet thing is the usual "let's pretend the problem is something else and deny that" FUD. The problem with Atkins type nonsense is that it fucks your kidneys. Hell, it even fucks cats' kidneys, and they've had millions of years of evolution selecting them to thrive on such a diet.

I have found the Getting Cancer Diet to be both more effective and safer.

[gonzo21.livejournal.com]

I'm surprised the article on the lords doesn't seem to understand the benefit of an un-elected house. I always thought the argument was that with an unelected house of lords, we have a group of people who do not have to kow-tow to the demands of the newspapers and the chittering masses to meet the expectation of the day in order to be popular and get elected.

Ideally, I'd like to see a house of lords where the lords are picked from amongst the brightest and best in the country, excellent businessmen, philosophers, scientists, etc.

[a-pawson.livejournal.com]

Lib-Dem policy is to have a fully elected second chamber. The article is pretty much highlighting what I see as one of the main benefits of having a non-elected HoL - peers don't have to blindly follow what the party leader/whip demands.

[fearmeforiampink]

In theory it's possible to get elected lords who do not have to kowtow to the demands of the newspapers and the chittering masses to meet the expectation of the day in order to be popular and get elected. Because the main suggestion currently tabled for elected Lords is that they would serve 15 year terms, and only be able to serve one term.

[gonzo21.livejournal.com]

I could really get behind a party that was going to select peers on the basis of ability and intelligence.

[gonzo21.livejournal.com]

Ah yes, that could work. Still, I'd rather people be selected on merit (and arguably against their will, because I've always reckoned those most suited to ruling are probably the ones who desperately do not want to. :) )

[makyo.livejournal.com]

Ideally, I'd like to see a house of lords where the lords are picked from amongst the brightest and best in the country, excellent businessmen, philosophers, scientists, etc.

Exactly - and this is one of the major strengths of the current system. An elected House of Lords would sweep away all that expertise, replace it with a bunch of second-rate political cronies, and further consolidate the grip on power of the party-political elite.

One of the other major problems is that an elected second chamber would naturally claim (and rightly so) some sort of electoral mandate and challenge the primacy of the Commons. The current, shambolic reform proposals address this issue by effectively saying "No they won't, because we'll tell them not to, la la la, I can't hear you..."

There is certainly a case for some sort of Lords reform, but these proposals are stupid and extraordinarily poorly thought out.

[andrewducker]

My understanding is that the danger to kidneys is caused by ketosis, and this is only an issue during the induction phase - and even then not if you're following the diet and drinking plenty of water.

I've not heard anything about kidney issues outside of that - most low-carb diets aren't even no-carb diets, they just avoid sugar, refined carbs (like white bread), etc., so there's no danger there at all.

[andrewducker]

Who picks them? And how much say do I get in it?

Because I do not consent to be governed by people I do not have a say in selecting.

[fearmeforiampink]

The problem is separating 'merit' from 'because they did something for the government of the day and said government thinks they'll votes for them'.

While I can see the arguments in favour of against their will, it would be an unacceptable violation of those peoples rights (which you probably know/agree with, thus the smiley).

Given the nature of the second chamber, I'd imagine that people standing to be Lords would primarily sell themselves on their expertise, so in theory that should at least partly solve that.

[andrewducker]

I care not for the primacy of the Commons. I want a revising house that can tell the Commons to go stuff itself if it's doing something stupid. And I want it to have an electoral mandate for exactly that reason.

And the whole point of 15-year single terms is to avoid political cronyism - once a person is elected there is no hold over them.

[gonzo21.livejournal.com]

We're not really governed by the house of lords though are we? They're a sort of emergency stop-gap which only comes into effect when it derails a particularly awful piece of government legislation.

I see them as a sort of safety-valve.

They don't make decisions. They don't propose policy, or create laws. And if we ever wind up with a fascist party in power, the Lords will probably act as a counter balance to stop the worst excesses of any party of the extreme.

[andrewducker]

Actually, they can propose policy. And also prevent it, except in certain limited situations. They send back stuff with changes all the time.

[gonzo21.livejournal.com]

Yeah, and much of the stuff they send back requiring changes is stuff that really needed to be thought over by the Commons some more, and changed.

I do think the House of Lords does valuable work, and is in general a good thing.

But the debate here is really about should it be elected. And, I just think that any attempt to make them electable, just turns them into Yet More Bloody Politicians, and, we've already got enough of them.

If the house of lords is electable, then... just getting rid of the damned thing altogether, would surely be the more sensible course of action?

[feorag.livejournal.com]

No - it's long term kidney damage, and it's been known about since last time this nonsense was fashionable in the 70s and it killed people who followed it long-term. Ketosis has two effects: the short term one is that you are really unpleasant to be around, and the other is that you lose muscle, not fat.

The official advice still is that such diets should not be followed for more than 2 weeks without medical supervision, and that the supervision includes regular kidney function tests.

Of course white flour, white rice etc should be reserved for treats, but that's because they've been stripped of all nutritional value - they are empty calories. They should be replaced with wholemeal flour, brown rice etc, though. These are also more filling, which is a useful attribute if you're trying to lose weight.

[gonzo21.livejournal.com]

I suppose selections based on merit could be decided by peer review... And... I just had a horrible flash of any university department ever trying to decide which of their faculty members would be the best candidate for anything, and the viscious political infighting that might occur.

Yeah, this really isn't a good idea at all. :)

And yep, it would be an unnacceptable violation, no way to make it work in the real world. But, I do think the desire to be a politician ought to be a good enough reason to never vote for that person. But I'm with much of the country, in having become so terribly deeply cynical about all politicians.

[andrewducker]

Really?

I don't see why.

Lots of countries have two houses, with the second one being elected. In some of them they're done by State (Australia, USA, Germany, Canada, etc.), in some of them they're across the whole country (Ireland, France, etc.)

By electing them for a long single term (say 15 years as is currently suggested) you prevent them from being Yet More Politicians, as they can only take part once, and can speak their mind fully once there.

Having a bunch of people there for the long term, revising the laws proposed by people there for the short term, strikes me as a good thing.

[andrewducker]

Can you offer some citations for this? Because it goes counter to most of my reading. I've certainly bumped into nothing so far which indicates that ketosis causes muscle loss.

[makyo.livejournal.com]

But how much say do you have in the selection of the MPs in the Commons?

My MP is a New Labour backbencher, selected by the local party selection committee, and presented to the electorate (a very safe Labour constituency) as the anointed candidate. I've never voted for him, I think he does a lousy job at representing his constituents' interests, and I don't want him as my MP. But because some shadowy bunch of unelected, unaccountable people on the local selection committee have picked him, he gets a job for life. Every four or five years we're presented with the fiction that we could vote him out, but it never happens because the other parties just aren't a credible alternative where I live, and our electoral system doesn't give independent candidates much of a look-in either.

Apart from the fiction of electoral accountability, how is this any different from nominating members of the Lords?

[feorag.livejournal.com]

You're right - ketosis is just the brief initial stage before the body starts using up its muscle mass.

[andrewducker]

Ketosis is what happens if you are taking in insufficient carbs to supply the needs of the insulin response. It continues until you're taking in a higher level of carbs.

I can't find anything at all on the body destroying its own muscles.

[andrewducker]

You'll note that I favour electoral reform of the commons as well.

"The commons is bad" isn't an excuse for The Lords.

[feorag.livejournal.com]

The technical term for it is "starvation".

[fearmeforiampink]

See, I think most politicians go into politics wanting to help people, and most of those still strongly want to help people throughout their time as MPs. I think it's more what the system does that changes what they do to get that.

Firstly, the broad churches that FPTP creates forces a high level of compromise onto them – in order to get thing X that they want, they have to put up with thing Y that they think is suboptimal or downright negative (but not as negative as they thing X is positive).

Secondly a lot of it is how public perception views them through the way the media shows them. Everyone calls politicians lying bastards. It's 'cause they'll talk round a question and not answer it directly, and try and polish turds. But if they don't do that, when they do go "Yes, it's a turd", we rip them apart for it, therefore there is very little incentive for them to admit that it's a turd. To a degree I do think we get the politicians we deserve...