Perhaps it's different in other disciplines, but I've never seen an idea that could negatively affect my funding, and if there were one it would not be a dissident idea, quite the reverse. Grants aren't to prove that X is true, they are to explore the factors relating to X. If someone has an idea that is disruptive to an entire field (everything you were doing is wrong) then that produces more funding, not less, because now there are a whole new range of avenues of investigation. The things that negatively affect funding are (repeatable) results that show something so conclusively that there is no point in ever investigating it again, and those are very rare.
The AGW example is particularly silly, because fields where there is deep division in the scientific community are the ones where it is easiest to get funding, as everyone wants to know which competing theory is correct (or that they're both wrong). Most climate scientists I've met would love for there to be some strong, evidence-backed, scientific theories countering their work, because then their next grant application practically writes itself.
Well, one simple solution is multi-seat constituencies. This doesn't fix the issue, but it does make gerrymandering harder. You vote for (for example) two candidates, and the two candidates who get the most seats win. If the constituency is mostly Democrat, it will get two Democrats Representatives. If it's mostly Republican, it will get two Republican Representatives. If it's split down the middle, it will get one of each. The more seats per constituency, the harder gerrymandering is.
Another possibility is to have single-seat constituencies, but make them overlap, so that everybody gets to either vote for two or more candidates in different House elections, or (ideally) gets to choose which district they will vote in. This doesn't prevent gerrymandering, but it means that everyone can participate in it, rather than whichever party happened to be in power when they were moving electoral boundaries.
Of course, this doesn't help Republicans who are completely surrounded by Democrats or Democrats who are completely surrounded by Republicans, but hopefully that's a relatively small number, and not too unevenly balanced in either direction.
The real problem, however, is that the USA is a country of 320 million people using a political system that expects complete ideological agreement between most members. You need a system where no single party has close to a majority and so the Federal government has to operate by consensus, not by a small majority forcing its will over a slightly smaller minority. If you want an example of a good system of government to use in this situation, I'd recommend reading the Federalist Papers and the US Constitution...
With that kind of money at stake, I predict that a replacement for Silk Road will be operating out of Russia within the week.
I'm not sure what your point is. In the House, all seats were up for reelection and the Republicans won on seats but did not get the majority of the popular vote, so this means that they represent the will of the people? In the Senate, not all seats were up for reelection, but in the 1/3 that were, the Republicans lost 2 seats overall and lost the popular vote, so this means that they represent the will of the people? In the Presidential election, there is only one seat and it was up for reelection, the Republicans lost both the popular vote and failed to win the seat, so this means that they represent the will of the people?
You can write off the Senate elections as only giving you the views of 1/3 of the country, but you're still left with two national elections where more people voted against the Republicans than voted for them (I'm not sure what the statistics are for third parties, so this may be true for Democrats too) and where more people voted for the Democrats than voted for the Republicans. And yet you still claim that the Republican majority in the House represents the will of the people?
So yes, by the rules of the system, which are arguably superior to the hypothetical rules you seem to wish we operated under, the House Majority Republicans *are* there due to the will of the people, and *do* represent it.
If by 'the people' you mean the commission that defines constituency boundaries, then I suppose you're right. If you mean 'the people who voted' then you are wrong. If you mean 'the people who are eligible to vote' then neither party can claim to be even approximately representing the will of the people.
Because Israel doesn't want peace,
Blow it out your ass, Adolph.
Maybe that way the Nobel prize committee could undo some of the damage to the prize's reputation that they caused by giving it to shitheads like Arafat and Obama.
I agree. It looks as a stupid as skinny jeans.
When I make the window wider, I don't want to just get more blank space.
Seriously guys, this is pretty simple stuff. Get it right.
I judge a religion as being good or bad based on whether its adherents become better people as a result of practicing it. - Joe Mullally, computer salesman