but it never spilled over into politics quite to this degree.

Sure. But, look at the media environment. From the founding of the US to the invention of radio, there were newspapers. Sure, there was a strong element of yellow journalism, but to print a newspaper you still needed a printing press so it wasn’t a free-for-all. Then with radio, and then TV in the 50s there were only a handful of sources of information for everybody to follow. It’s only really since the 2010s that the media environment has been a free-for-all with anybody able to put up their own podcast, or put up videos on YouTube, or have their own blog, or post on Twitter, or whatever.

Politicians used to be able to do backroom deals. Those used to get a bad name, but to a certain extent it was a good thing, because at least they were dealing, instead of causing things to come to a deadlock. Now, if anybody dares to talk to someone on “the other team”, they get raked over the coals.

Russia was found to be sponsoring the NRA

Sure, they spent some money, and had some success. But, they hardly needed to push. The NRA’s goals were already aligned with Russia’s. The NRA has over 5 million members, and they were hardly upset with the direction Russia was pushing.

the rise of evangelicals as a voting group seems to be a co-ordinated world-wide phenomenon.

Not to me. There doesn’t seem to be much coordination there. There are just grifters seeing an opportunity.

I’d argue that those same elites thrived more under stable economic growth than an unstable one

It’s hardly the first time that an elite and powerful group tried to use a movement or a politician to further their interests and then found out that they couldn’t control what they’d unleashed.

I think you’re overestimating the influence of Russia and China and underestimating the dysfunction in the US.

Civilization is doing pretty well outside the US. If the US disappeared tomorrow, the rest of the world would do significantly better. I don’t know how the world will deal with climate change, but without the US it would be easier to make progress. The tech firms blowing up the AI bubble, and invading our privacy are nearly all American. A lot of the private equity firms destroying the world are also American. If the US could hurry up and finish collapsing, the rest of the world’s civilization could just move on.

Drink their blood. Got it.

I have to believe that as soon as there were accurate maps of South America’s east coast and Africa’s west coast, someone must have looked at them and said – you know, I bet those two were joined at some point in the past.

its

Plus, at least one of the two economists got really, really hard watching his buddy eat some shit.

Ah, I was just looking at parliamentary systems. You’re right that FPTP really screws a lot of stuff up.

Whereas in a PR parliamentary system, it is extremely rare for any one party to have a majority

I don’t think that’s true. In Canadian elections majority governments are more common than non-majority governments. In Australia it looks like every government has been a majority government since the non-labour parties merged in 1910.

The modern system of prime Ministers where the executive comes from parliament seems to play out better in modern politics.

Yes and no. The problem is that in parliamentary systems like that, if the government has a majority then they’re unstoppable. In a system with a president who has some actual authority, or a king who isn’t merely a figurehead, the Prime Minister can’t just do everything he wants. There still needs to be some negotiation.

On the other hand, the world has a lot of authoritarians in it who wore (and in some cases still are) supported by popular votes. People seem really bad at picking leaders who want to serve out a 4-10 year term, then retire to a cushy life afterwards.

I think the US chose to have a president act as a sort of a king with a term limit. Other countries saw that and adapted it when they moved away from their monarchies, either giving the president king-like powers or giving them just a ceremonial role as head of state.

What’s funny is that in the UK and in many former British colonies, there’s still a king, but it’s mostly a ceremonial role these days. So, things have basically reversed. A modern king who’s a head of state is basically a figurehead. A president who is the head of a country may have monarch-type powers.

Canada does have a sort-of similar system. It’s just that the “president” in Canada is “the crown”, which is the Governor General representing the current British monarch. It’s much more of a ceremonial role in Canada, but technically the Governor General does appoint the Prime Minister.

Australia has essentially the same system as Canada. In 1975 the Australian Governor General dismissed the Prime Minister and picked the leader of the opposition as Prime Minister so that he could call an election. Described like that it seems like a blatant abuse of power. But, the background was a really dysfunctional government. One party had narrow control over the house, the other had narrow control over the senate, and the senate was blocking everything the house tried to do. I don’t know the full details of what happened in that affair, but it seems like it could be a good thing if a Governor General would step in in a crisis resolve a deadlock.

Canada also has the “confidence votes” part of the crisis in France. AFAIK in Canada losing a confidence vote immediately triggers an election, unlike in France where it can just lead to a scramble to see who can become the new PM among the existing representatives. Because triggering an election is a big deal, it doesn’t tend to happen too often. But it has happened. In 2011 Stephen Harper’s government lost a confidence vote, and there was an immediate election, but he won that election. In 2007 Paul Martin’s government also fell to a confidence vote.

For why these are superior:

Fully open mode = big hole for air go thru.

Slanty mode = very windy ez, rainy ez, rainy and very windy… just close window.

But, the innovation I miss more than the windows were the roller shutters.

First of all, light blocking. Forget blackout curtains or something, just roll down the shutters and no light is getting in. If you work nights or something, you can block the sun completely and sleep in the dark. Along with that, the light is being blocked while it’s still outside. Why does that matter? Light means heat. In summer you don’t want the heat inside. Block it at the shutter and it doesn’t come inside to heat the inside of the house. Compare that with blinds, curtains, etc. In that case, the light has already entered the house before it hits something and heats it up. With white curtains you’ll reflect a lot of the light back out, but you’re still heating the interior of the house. They also reduce noise, add security, protect in bad storms, etc. But, to me, blocking the light and keeping the heat out was so much more important.

Yeah, my patio door did that when I lived in Switzerland. It was very confusing for visitors who moved the handle the wrong way.

Every home I’ve lived in with casement windows has opened outwards, and has had screens. They work just fine. I don’t know where you get the idea that screens are more challenging if the window opens outwards.

In fact, it’s probably easier to deal with the screens. If the window opens inwards, the screen is on the opposite side of the glass, so to access the screen you have to fully crank the window open. If the window opens outwards, the screen is on the inside, and it can be removed or adjusted whether the window is fully open or fully closed. The only problem I’ve ever had is that if the crank is in an “up” position it can get in the way if you’re trying to take the screen off, but you just give it half a crank and you’re set.

For Americans who don’t have a similar system, a “government collapse” isn’t as big a deal as it sounds. It sounds like there’s a complete breakdown in law and order and nobody’s in charge. Really what happens is that the arrangement that so-and-so will be prime minister and his cabinet will be X, Y and Z is off.

Sometimes it means there are new elections. But, sometimes (as in the French system) it just means that the various representatives all negotiate among themselves to choose a new prime minister. The President then appoints that person. It can vary from the president rubber stamping the decision, to the President getting involved in the negotiations and playing a key role in choosing the next PM. Once the President makes it official, that person becomes PM and then chooses a new cabinet. Before a new PM is chosen there’s a bit of chaos. The government can still vote on things, but the normal process is disrupted because there’s no “first among equals” to lead. In the case of France, normally the President doesn’t (or shouldn’t) deal with the day-to-day running of the government. But, during the previous government’s collapse Macron stepped in to do many things the Prime Minister would normally do.

One minor twist here. In theory, a French President is supposed to handle foreign policy and defence. The Prime Minister is supposed to run domestic things, including the day-to-day government functions. One reason why this government lasted 14 hours (or 27 days if you count his full time as PM) is that Macron was seen as having too heavy a hand in picking not just the PM Lecornu (picking the PM is technically his job as President), but also in picking the PM’s cabinet (which is supposed to be something the PM does himself). As soon as Lecornu announced his cabinet, the rest of the elected reps saw that it was essentially the same as the one they just voted down a month ago. They said they weren’t going to work with Lecornu’s government, so Lecornu quit immediately.

That’s true.

Servant gets confusingly close to “server” which is already a badly overloaded term.

Peripheral means something different.

Not anymore, but it does come from that root.