Re: Things we remember...
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> On 7 Nov, 18:28, Dimensional Traveler <dtra...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>
>> But that is (or at least used to be) downright UnAmerican!
>
> An irrelevant observation to those of us, comprising 95 per cent of
> humanity, who are not blessed with American citizenship.
You 95% could all REMEDY that deficiency.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
James Nicoll
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>Matt Hughes wrote:
>> On 7 Nov, 18:28, Dimensional Traveler <dtra...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> But that is (or at least used to be) downright UnAmerican!
>>
>> An irrelevant observation to those of us, comprising 95 per cent of
>> humanity, who are not blessed with American citizenship.
>
> You 95% could all REMEDY that deficiency.
>
I can only imagine the wave of strokes that would follow the
announcement that 6 billion foreigners, mostly non-white,
weregoing to join the US.
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
Mike Ash
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> Matt Hughes wrote:
> > On 7 Nov, 18:28, Dimensional Traveler <dtra...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> But that is (or at least used to be) downright UnAmerican!
> >
> > An irrelevant observation to those of us, comprising 95 per cent of
> > humanity, who are not blessed with American citizenship.
>
> You 95% could all REMEDY that deficiency.
You have obviously never had to deal with the US immigration
authorities. It's incredibly difficult just to get someone into the
country legally when she's married to a citizen. It becomes completely
ridiculous if you don't have such an advantage. So no, I suspect that
80-90% out of that 95% could not, in fact, remedy that deficiency even
if they wanted to.
--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <hd515q$pl2$3...@reader1.panix.com>):
> In article <hd4uhl$b01$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>> Matt Hughes wrote:
>>> On 7 Nov, 18:28, Dimensional Traveler <dtra...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> But that is (or at least used to be) downright UnAmerican!
>>>
>>> An irrelevant observation to those of us, comprising 95 per cent of
>>> humanity, who are not blessed with American citizenship.
>>
>> You 95% could all REMEDY that deficiency.
>>
> Gien the pants-filling that goes on over Mexicans,
> I can only imagine the wave of strokes that would follow the
> announcement that 6 billion foreigners, mostly non-white,
> weregoing to join the US.
>
And this would be a problem for exactly what reason?
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> In article <hd4uhl$b01$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>> Matt Hughes wrote:
>>> On 7 Nov, 18:28, Dimensional Traveler <dtra...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> But that is (or at least used to be) downright UnAmerican!
>>> An irrelevant observation to those of us, comprising 95 per cent of
>>> humanity, who are not blessed with American citizenship.
>> You 95% could all REMEDY that deficiency.
>>
> Gien the pants-filling that goes on over Mexicans,
> I can only imagine the wave of strokes that would follow the
> announcement that 6 billion foreigners, mostly non-white,
> weregoing to join the US.
Not IMMIGRATE, you silly person. Have all you other countries JOIN the
USA, becoming our newest possessions.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> In article <hd4uhl$b01$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> Matt Hughes wrote:
>>> On 7 Nov, 18:28, Dimensional Traveler <dtra...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> But that is (or at least used to be) downright UnAmerican!
>>> An irrelevant observation to those of us, comprising 95 per cent of
>>> humanity, who are not blessed with American citizenship.
>> You 95% could all REMEDY that deficiency.
>
> You have obviously never had to deal with the US immigration
> authorities.
I didn't say IMMIGRATE. JOIN us. Become PART of us. No more of these
"other countries", just EVERYTHING is the USA.
Mike Ash
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> Mike Ash wrote:
> > In article <hd4uhl$b01$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Matt Hughes wrote:
> >>> On 7 Nov, 18:28, Dimensional Traveler <dtra...@sonic.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> But that is (or at least used to be) downright UnAmerican!
> >>> An irrelevant observation to those of us, comprising 95 per cent of
> >>> humanity, who are not blessed with American citizenship.
> >> You 95% could all REMEDY that deficiency.
> >
> > You have obviously never had to deal with the US immigration
> > authorities.
>
> I didn't say IMMIGRATE. JOIN us. Become PART of us. No more of these
> "other countries", just EVERYTHING is the USA.
I highly doubt that Americans would accept this any more easily than the
other one.
James Nicoll
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>James Nicoll wrote:
>> In article <hd4uhl$b01$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>> Matt Hughes wrote:
>>>> On 7 Nov, 18:28, Dimensional Traveler <dtra...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> But that is (or at least used to be) downright UnAmerican!
>>>> An irrelevant observation to those of us, comprising 95 per cent of
>>>> humanity, who are not blessed with American citizenship.
>>> You 95% could all REMEDY that deficiency.
>>>
>> Gien the pants-filling that goes on over Mexicans,
>> I can only imagine the wave of strokes that would follow the
>> announcement that 6 billion foreigners, mostly non-white,
>> weregoing to join the US.
>
> Not IMMIGRATE, you silly person. Have all you other countries JOIN the
>USA, becoming our newest possessions.
>
about 2 - 3% of the voters will be the current Republican bases, while
20% will be Red Chinese and 17% will be Indian.
David DeLaney
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>> I didn't say IMMIGRATE. JOIN us. Become PART of us. No more of these
>> "other countries", just EVERYTHING is the USA.
>
>I highly doubt that Americans would accept this any more easily than the
>other one.
... I'd vote for it.
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Quadibloc
> In article <hd5jto$p4...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> > I didn't say IMMIGRATE. JOIN us. Become PART of us. No more of these
> > "other countries", just EVERYTHING is the USA.
>
> I highly doubt that Americans would accept this any more easily than the
> other one.
I don't know. If they fixed it so that only "real Americans" could
vote, it might work out just fine, as well as bringing about world
peace. I think they had a system of government like that on the
southern tip of Africa at one time.
John Savard
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <hd5mac$auv$1...@reader1.panix.com>):
> In article <hd5jp4$p4u$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>> James Nicoll wrote:
>>> In article <hd4uhl$b01$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>>> Matt Hughes wrote:
>>>>> On 7 Nov, 18:28, Dimensional Traveler <dtra...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> But that is (or at least used to be) downright UnAmerican!
>>>>> An irrelevant observation to those of us, comprising 95 per cent of
>>>>> humanity, who are not blessed with American citizenship.
>>>> You 95% could all REMEDY that deficiency.
>>>>
>>> Gien the pants-filling that goes on over Mexicans,
>>> I can only imagine the wave of strokes that would follow the
>>> announcement that 6 billion foreigners, mostly non-white,
>>> weregoing to join the US.
>>
>> Not IMMIGRATE, you silly person. Have all you other countries JOIN the
>> USA, becoming our newest possessions.
>>
> I look forward to you explaining to the brown trouser brigade that
> about 2 - 3% of the voters will be the current Republican bases, while
> 20% will be Red Chinese and 17% will be Indian.
>
Again, I quite fail to see a problem. I do see much potential for comedy.
Why, just Rush Limbaugh alone should provide considerable amusement.
And, of course, the frothing would not come just from Rush and Glen Beck and
others of his ilk. Certain politicians and commentators and various others
who Professionally View With Alarm in other former nations would also be
screaming, though for different reasons. Hugo Chavez, for just one delicious
instance. The comedy factor alone would be a reason to push for this. That,
and the way that after it's all over a significant percentage of Viewers With
Alarm will have expired for one reason or another and this would lower the
world's population, a Good Thing.
Butch Malahide
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 18:51:22 -0500, James Nicoll wrote
> > Gien the pants-filling that goes on over Mexicans,
> > I can only imagine the wave of strokes that would follow the
> > announcement that 6 billion foreigners, mostly non-white,
> > weregoing to join the US.
>
> And this would be a problem for exactly what reason?
He didn't *say* the wave of strokes would be a problem, just that it
would occur. It's hard to say what effect it would have on overall
health care costs; raise them in some cases, lower them in others.
Butch Malahide
> > Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> >> Matt Hughes wrote:
> >>> On 7 Nov, 18:28, Dimensional Traveler <dtra...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> But that is (or at least used to be) downright UnAmerican!
> >>> An irrelevant observation to those of us, comprising 95 per cent of
> >>> humanity, who are not blessed with American citizenship.
> >> You 95% could all REMEDY that deficiency.
>
> > Gien the pants-filling that goes on over Mexicans,
> > I can only imagine the wave of strokes that would follow the
> > announcement that 6 billion foreigners, mostly non-white,
> > weregoing to join the US.
>
> Not IMMIGRATE, you silly person. Have all you other countries JOIN the
> USA, becoming our newest possessions.
Silliest idea I ever heard of. Are you aware that the Constitution
says that "[t]he United States shall guarantee to every State in this
Union a Republican Form of Government"? You want 100 Iraqs and 100
Afghanistans, as we try to guarantee Burma, Oman, Illinois, Zimbabwe,
England, etc. a republican form of government?
Here's a better idea. Admit Alberta as the 51st state. Combine Maine
and Vermont into one state, to keep the number at an even 50 and avoid
the need to redesign the flag. Let the Puerto Ricans go free.
David DeLaney
>"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>> James Nicoll wrote:
>> > I can only imagine the wave of strokes that would follow the
>> > announcement that 6 billion foreigners, mostly non-white,
>> > weregoing to join the US.
>>
>> Not IMMIGRATE, you silly person. Have all you other countries JOIN the
>> USA, becoming our newest possessions.
>
>Silliest idea I ever heard of. Are you aware that the Constitution
>says that "[t]he United States shall guarantee to every State in this
>Union a Republican Form of Government"? You want 100 Iraqs and 100
>Afghanistans, as we try to guarantee Burma, Oman, Illinois, Zimbabwe,
>England, etc. a republican form of government?
...can't we just amend that to "a Democratic Form of Government"?
Dave "there's glory for you" DeLaney
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> In article <hd5jp4$p4u$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>> James Nicoll wrote:
>>> In article <hd4uhl$b01$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>>> Matt Hughes wrote:
>>>>> On 7 Nov, 18:28, Dimensional Traveler <dtra...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> But that is (or at least used to be) downright UnAmerican!
>>>>> An irrelevant observation to those of us, comprising 95 per cent of
>>>>> humanity, who are not blessed with American citizenship.
>>>> You 95% could all REMEDY that deficiency.
>>>>
>>> Gien the pants-filling that goes on over Mexicans,
>>> I can only imagine the wave of strokes that would follow the
>>> announcement that 6 billion foreigners, mostly non-white,
>>> weregoing to join the US.
>> Not IMMIGRATE, you silly person. Have all you other countries JOIN the
>> USA, becoming our newest possessions.
>>
> I look forward to you explaining to the brown trouser brigade that
> about 2 - 3% of the voters will be the current Republican bases, while
> 20% will be Red Chinese and 17% will be Indian.
Oh, they just don't get the vote right away. First they have to become
properly acculturated. Once they're all speaking American English,
watching American Shows, and buying shoddy American products, THEN
they're ready to be American voters!
Juho Julkunen
Spoor) (sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com) says...
Is there some minimum usage requirements? I already do all of the
above, at least some of the time.
Oh, _all_ of us. Got it.
--
Juho Julkunen
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> On Nov 7, 11:08 pm, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>> James Nicoll wrote:
>>> In article <hd4uhl$b0...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>>> Matt Hughes wrote:
>>>>> On 7 Nov, 18:28, Dimensional Traveler <dtra...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>>> But that is (or at least used to be) downright UnAmerican!
>>>>> An irrelevant observation to those of us, comprising 95 per cent of
>>>>> humanity, who are not blessed with American citizenship.
>>>> You 95% could all REMEDY that deficiency.
>>> Gien the pants-filling that goes on over Mexicans,
>>> I can only imagine the wave of strokes that would follow the
>>> announcement that 6 billion foreigners, mostly non-white,
>>> weregoing to join the US.
>> Not IMMIGRATE, you silly person. Have all you other countries JOIN the
>> USA, becoming our newest possessions.
>
> Silliest idea I ever heard of. Are you aware that the Constitution
> says that "[t]he United States shall guarantee to every State in this
> Union a Republican Form of Government"? You want 100 Iraqs and 100
> Afghanistans, as we try to guarantee Burma, Oman, Illinois, Zimbabwe,
> England, etc. a republican form of government?
If they JOIN us, presumably they're EAGER for us to give them our form
of government, having seen the light and accepted the Proper American
Destiny for the Universe.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Well, I'm sure that we'd accept some high majority; there'll always be
a few old people who just can't adapt to the new language and customs.
Are we not generous?
Quadibloc
It has occurred to me that you don't really have to do anything so
wicked and evil as that.
There's a much simpler solution. Just put judges in the Supreme Court
that respect the Constitution.
That way, it doesn't matter how many voters from China and India there
are; taxes still won't go up, because the Federal government can only
spend money for "the common defense" and "the general welfare". So
they will be quite unable to vote themselves any welfare! (After all,
Libertarians have claimed that the U.S., as part of going Libertarian,
would abolish its immigration laws.)
Farm subsidies (which is how food stamps kicked in) and pork (since
everything else is cheaper when made in China, why not our space
rockets) would be another matter, though.
John Savard
Matt Hughes
<seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
Has any other country modeled its government after the American
tripartite experiment?
Matt Hughes
http://www.archonate.com
Cheryl
I expect so. I don't know for sure, but it would appear to be one of the
possibilities considered by some of the newer countries, at least, at
one point in their recent histories. They do tend to change government
models rather frequently.
--
Cheryl
Mike Ash
<7f05ee07-26d8-426e...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
And wasn't that a jolly and peaceful place to be!
erilar
<bdc1c4e8-50ef-4e13...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Butch Malahide <fred....@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey, strokes are fairly cheap, health-care wise, compared to some other
ways to go. . .
--
Erilar, biblioholic
bib-li-o-hol-ism [<Gr biblion] n. [BIBLIO + HOLISM] books, of books:
habitual longing to purchase, read, store, admire, and consume books in excess.
Mike Ash
erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
> In article
> <bdc1c4e8-50ef-4e13...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> Butch Malahide <fred....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 7, 6:31�pm, J.J. O'Shea <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 18:51:22 -0500, James Nicoll wrote
> > > (in article <hd515q$pl...@reader1.panix.com>):
> > > > � �Gien the pants-filling that goes on over Mexicans,
> > > > I can only imagine the wave of strokes that would follow the
> > > > announcement that 6 billion foreigners, mostly non-white,
> > > > weregoing to join the US.
> > >
> > > And this would be a problem for exactly what reason?
> >
> > He didn't *say* the wave of strokes would be a problem, just that it
> > would occur. It's hard to say what effect it would have on overall
> > health care costs; raise them in some cases, lower them in others.
>
> Hey, strokes are fairly cheap, health-care wise, compared to some other
> ways to go. . .
Only if you actually *go*. If you stay, it can become quite expensive.
Jesper Lauridsen
>
> Has any other country modeled its government after the American
> tripartite experiment?
What is this "American tripartite experiment"? My friends google and
wikipedia has been of no help.
erilar
Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com> wrote:
I'm hoping for a quick, fatal heart attack.
Bill Snyder
I think it's a reference to the fact that our government is
formally divided into three branches: executive, legislative, and
judicial. The guys who set it up considered that the resultant
competition and a system of "checks and balances" would keep any
one branch from becoming too powerful. (IMO they unfortunately
overlooked the fact that this would at best one keep of them from
becoming *relatively* more powerful, but that's a different
story.)
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
W. Citoan
tripartite:
1 : divided into or composed of three parts
2 : having three corresponding parts or copies
3 : made between or involving three parties
The reference is to the US government being divided into three branches
(Executive, Legislature, & Judicial) that are supposed to provide checks
and balances on each other.
It was a novel form back in 1787.
- W. Citoan
--
Whatever you choose, do not seek to carry out easy tasks.
-- Adolf Von Baeyer
Kurt Busiek
<rors...@sorrystofanet.dk> said:
I would assume he means the separation of powers into three branches --
executive, legislative and judicial. If so, searching on those three
terms will tell you all you need to know.
But we nicked it from the Greeks and Romans.
kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!
Dimensional Traveler
government be separated and counter-acting each other.
--
7 Years - 2265 Experiments - 10 tons of explosives - 705 Myths
Myths - Will - Fall!
Default User
Liberia.
Brian
--
Day 279 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project
Lawrence Watt-Evans
<fred....@gmail.com> wrote:
>Here's a better idea. Admit Alberta as the 51st state. Combine Maine
>and Vermont into one state, to keep the number at an even 50 and avoid
>the need to redesign the flag.
Maine and Vermont? They don't even share a border! Merging the
Dakotas would make more sense.
> Let the Puerto Ricans go free.
Last time they voted, I believe independence ran third, behind
territorial status and statehood.
They hold plebescites every so often, and have never yet voted for
independence, though it's been close once or twice.
--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com
I'm selling my comic collection -- see http://www.watt-evans.com/comics.html
I'm serializing a novel at http://www.watt-evans.com/realmsoflight0.html
Default User
> James Nicoll wrote:
> > I look forward to you explaining to the brown trouser brigade that
> > about 2 - 3% of the voters will be the current Republican bases,
> > while 20% will be Red Chinese and 17% will be Indian.
>
> Oh, they just don't get the vote right away. First they have to
> become properly acculturated. Once they're all speaking American
> English, watching American Shows, and buying shoddy American
> products, THEN they're ready to be American voters!
Just keep polling the region until less than 50% want to vote, then
they're ready.
Kurt Busiek
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 04:08:14 -0800 (PST), Butch Malahide
> <fred....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Here's a better idea. Admit Alberta as the 51st state. Combine Maine
>> and Vermont into one state, to keep the number at an even 50 and avoid
>> the need to redesign the flag.
>
> Maine and Vermont? They don't even share a border! Merging the
> Dakotas would make more sense.
Reunite Michigan!
Butch Malahide
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 04:08:14 -0800 (PST), Butch Malahide
>
> >Here's a better idea. Admit Alberta as the 51st state. Combine Maine
> >and Vermont into one state, to keep the number at an even 50 and avoid
> >the need to redesign the flag.
>
> Maine and Vermont? They don't even share a border! Merging the
> Dakotas would make more sense.
I was thinking of the saying "as Maine goes, so goes Vermont." Should
have looked at the map. OK, reunite Maine and Massachusetts.
> > Let the Puerto Ricans go free.
>
> Last time they voted, I believe independence ran third, behind
> territorial status and statehood.
I don't like the idea of admitting a State where there is significant
support for independence. (Remember Reconstruction? Well, no, I don't
either, but it's in the history books.) Those plebiscites tend to
underestimate the Independentistas, many of whom boycott the vote. By
the way, the island's official status is called Commonwealth; I
believe it's a contentious point whether Commonwealth = Territory.
William December Starr
Butch Malahide <fred....@gmail.com> said:
> Silliest idea I ever heard of. Are you aware that the Constitution
> says that "[t]he United States shall guarantee to every State in
> this Union a Republican Form of Government"? You want 100 Iraqs
> and 100 Afghanistans, as we try to guarantee Burma, Oman,
> Illinois, Zimbabwe, England, etc. a republican form of government?
You're forgetting that the Guarantee Clause has been rendered moot
by judicial cowardice,. The Supreme Court declared in _Luther
v. Borden_, 48 U.S. 1 (1849) that whether a given State's government
is of a "Republican Form" is a political question and therefore
non-justiciable. I.e., whatever the Congress decides on such a
question is final and nonappealable.
-- wds
William December Starr
Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> said:
> I think it's a reference to the fact that our government is
> formally divided into three branches: executive, legislative, and
> judicial. The guys who set it up considered that the resultant
> competition and a system of "checks and balances" would keep any
> one branch from becoming too powerful. (IMO they unfortunately
> overlooked the fact that this would at best one keep of them from
> becoming *relatively* more powerful, but that's a different
> story.)
They also overlooked the fact that the power brokers in one branch
might _want_ to hand some powers over to another branch because
holding said powers was too politically uncomfortable.
Who here is old enough to remember when the Congress, rather than
the President, declared wars?
Dorothy J Heydt
Power in the US (under the Constitution) is divided among three
branches: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. That is, the two
houses of Congress, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court. (And
all the branches have numerous underlings who work for them.)
These are set up within a system of "checks and balances" which
are supposed to keep any one branch from overpowering the others.
It usually works, though of late there's been a certain incidence
of the Presidency grabbing off some powers allocated to Congress.
The power to declare war, for instance. That is traditionally an
act that only Congress can perform. Note that in 1941, when the
Japanese had attacked Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt could not
declare war on Japan then and there. He had to wait for Congress
to meet, the following day (which was Monday), and to make one of
the best speeches of his career while asking Congress to declare
war, which it promptly did.
With the side-effect that the UK was able to declare war on Japan
some hours before the US did. Churchill was able simply to
declare it (with what quick consultation with King and Cabinet,
I'm not sure), but Roosevelt had to wait for Congress.
Of late, as I say, we've had Presidents who simply sent out the
troops, with or without actually calling it a war.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at hotmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the hotmail edress.
Kithrup is getting too damn much spam, even with the sysop's filters.
Butch Malahide
>
> With the side-effect that the UK was able to declare war on Japan
> some hours before the US did. Churchill was able simply to
> declare it (with what quick consultation with King and Cabinet,
> I'm not sure), but Roosevelt had to wait for Congress.
I don't believe Churchill had the power to declare war. I believe the
King had the sole power to declare war, without necessarily consulting
with his Prime Minister or anyone else, unless he wants to. The law
may have changed since then.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
<fred....@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 8, 1:21�pm, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 04:08:14 -0800 (PST), Butch Malahide
>>
>> <fred.gal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >Here's a better idea. Admit Alberta as the 51st state. Combine Maine
>> >and Vermont into one state, to keep the number at an even 50 and avoid
>> >the need to redesign the flag.
>>
>> Maine and Vermont? �They don't even share a border! �Merging the
>> Dakotas would make more sense.
>
>I was thinking of the saying "as Maine goes, so goes Vermont." Should
>have looked at the map. OK, reunite Maine and Massachusetts.
They don't share a border, either -- that's part of why they split in
the first place. They also don't share a culture.
What's your problem with combining the Dakotas?
>> > Let the Puerto Ricans go free.
>>
>> Last time they voted, I believe independence ran third, behind
>> territorial status and statehood.
>
>I don't like the idea of admitting a State where there is significant
>support for independence. (Remember Reconstruction? Well, no, I don't
>either, but it's in the history books.) Those plebiscites tend to
>underestimate the Independentistas, many of whom boycott the vote. By
>the way, the island's official status is called Commonwealth; I
>believe it's a contentious point whether Commonwealth = Territory.
It's listed as a territory. "Commonwealth" is vague, to say the least
-- Massachusetts, Kentucky, and Virginia are commonwealths, too, but
they're also states. (There's a fourth commonwealth among the fifty
states -- Rhode Island, maybe?)
W. Citoan
>
> It's listed as a territory. "Commonwealth" is vague, to say the least
> -- Massachusetts, Kentucky, and Virginia are commonwealths, too, but
> they're also states. (There's a fourth commonwealth among the fifty
> states -- Rhode Island, maybe?)
Pennsylvania
Butch Malahide
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 12:33:19 -0800 (PST), Butch Malahide
>
No, Pennsylvania.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
<wci...@NOSPAM-yahoo.com> wrote:
>Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
>>
>> It's listed as a territory. "Commonwealth" is vague, to say the least
>> -- Massachusetts, Kentucky, and Virginia are commonwealths, too, but
>> they're also states. (There's a fourth commonwealth among the fifty
>> states -- Rhode Island, maybe?)
>
>Pennsylvania
Right. Thank you. I should have remembered that.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<7f05ee07-26d8-426e...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>):
> On Nov 7, 10:50ï¿œpm, Mike Ash <m...@mikeash.com> wrote:
>> In article <hd5jto$p4...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> ￜ"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>>> ￜ ￜI didn't say IMMIGRATE. JOIN us. Become PART of us. No more of these
>>> "other countries", just EVERYTHING is the USA.
>>
>> I highly doubt that Americans would accept this any more easily than the
>> other one.
>
> I don't know. If they fixed it so that only "real Americans" could
> vote, it might work out just fine, as well as bringing about world
> peace. I think they had a system of government like that on the
> southern tip of Africa at one time.
>
> John Savard
At one point they even had the same initials: Union of South Africa.
Paging Oom Paul Kruger. Paging Oom Paul Kruger. Pick up the white courtesy
telephone...
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Dorothy J Heydt
You may well be right. Still, it would've been *much* easier for
Churchill to ring up His Majesty and get the necessary permission,
than for Roosevelt to get a quorum of both houses of Congress
together on a Sunday afternoon.
On Monday morning, on the other hand, there was no problem.
Butch Malahide
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 12:33:19 -0800 (PST), Butch Malahide
>
> >On Nov 8, 1:21 pm, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 04:08:14 -0800 (PST), Butch Malahide
>
> >> <fred.gal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >Here's a better idea. Admit Alberta as the 51st state. Combine Maine
> >> >and Vermont into one state, to keep the number at an even 50 and avoid
> >> >the need to redesign the flag.
>
> >> Maine and Vermont? They don't even share a border! Merging the
> >> Dakotas would make more sense.
>
> >I was thinking of the saying "as Maine goes, so goes Vermont." Should
> >have looked at the map. OK, reunite Maine and Massachusetts.
>
> They don't share a border, either -- that's part of why they split in
> the first place. They also don't share a culture.
OK, how about giving Vermont back to New York?
> What's your problem with combining the Dakotas?
Adding a Canadian province to the Union, even the most conservative
one, is likely to add to the number of blue states; by merging two
blue states, my plan is politically neutral.
Lawrence Watt-Evans
<fred....@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 8, 4:06�pm, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 12:33:19 -0800 (PST), Butch Malahide
>>
>> <fred.gal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Nov 8, 1:21�pm, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 04:08:14 -0800 (PST), Butch Malahide
>>
>> >> <fred.gal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >Here's a better idea. Admit Alberta as the 51st state. Combine Maine
>> >> >and Vermont into one state, to keep the number at an even 50 and avoid
>> >> >the need to redesign the flag.
>>
>> >> Maine and Vermont? �They don't even share a border! �Merging the
>> >> Dakotas would make more sense.
>>
>> >I was thinking of the saying "as Maine goes, so goes Vermont." Should
>> >have looked at the map. OK, reunite Maine and Massachusetts.
>>
>> They don't share a border, either -- that's part of why they split in
>> the first place. �They also don't share a culture.
>
>OK, how about giving Vermont back to New York?
You'd have trouble selling it to the Vermonters.
>> What's your problem with combining the Dakotas?
>
>Adding a Canadian province to the Union, even the most conservative
>one, is likely to add to the number of blue states; by merging two
>blue states, my plan is politically neutral.
Oh, for heaven's sake -- that's ridiculous. Petty political
dichotomies and schisms are transitory nonsense, and lumping "red" and
"blue" states together as is the current practice is absurd.
William December Starr
djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said:
> It usually works, though of late there's been a certain incidence
> of the Presidency grabbing off some powers allocated to Congress.
>
> The power to declare war, for instance. That is traditionally an
> act that only Congress can perform. Note that in 1941, when the
> Japanese had attacked Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt could not
> declare war on Japan then and there. He had to wait for Congress
> to meet, the following day (which was Monday), and to make one of
> the best speeches of his career while asking Congress to declare
> war, which it promptly did.
>
> With the side-effect that the UK was able to declare war on Japan
> some hours before the US did. Churchill was able simply to
> declare it (with what quick consultation with King and Cabinet,
> I'm not sure), but Roosevelt had to wait for Congress.
>
> Of late, as I say, we've had Presidents who simply sent out the
> troops, with or without actually calling it a war.
And Congress likes it that way.
-- wds
William December Starr
Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> said:
> Butch Malahide <fred....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Adding a Canadian province to the Union, even the most
>> conservative one, is likely to add to the number of blue states;
>> by merging two blue states, my plan is politically neutral.
>
> Oh, for heaven's sake -- that's ridiculous. Petty political
> dichotomies and schisms are transitory nonsense, and lumping "red"
> and "blue" states together as is the current practice is absurd.
I'd expect that transience to matter very little to politicians who
have to function in the immediate present. If the proposed addition
of a new State would likely add two new Senators of Party X to the
mix, plus a bunch of Representatives and electoral votes, the
politicians of Party Y would almost certainly oppose it tooth and
nail and not be impressed by "You know, in ten or twenty or fifty
years that new state might be solidly Party Y instead."
-- wds
erilar
<32gef559so0us7ne2...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
> What's your problem with combining the Dakotas?
Getting across either one E-W or W-E is bad enough; that would make it
just as bad at right angles to that! 8-)
David DeLaney
>Butch Malahide <fred....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Here's a better idea. Admit Alberta as the 51st state. Combine Maine
>>and Vermont into one state, to keep the number at an even 50 and avoid
>>the need to redesign the flag.
>
>Maine and Vermont? They don't even share a border! Merging the
>Dakotas would make more sense.
I'm assuming it would end up with New Hampshire squozen down into the top of
Massachusetts, sweet-green-icing-melting-down style?
>> Let the Puerto Ricans go free.
>
>Last time they voted, I believe independence ran third, behind
>territorial status and statehood.
>
>They hold plebescites every so often, and have never yet voted for
>independence, though it's been close once or twice.
Can we at least cut Florida loose and let it go drifting off into the
Caribbean?
Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
David DeLaney
>"W. Citoan" <wci...@NOSPAM-yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
>>> It's listed as a territory. "Commonwealth" is vague, to say the least
>>> -- Massachusetts, Kentucky, and Virginia are commonwealths, too, but
>>> they're also states. (There's a fourth commonwealth among the fifty
>>> states -- Rhode Island, maybe?)
>>
>>Pennsylvania
>
>Right. Thank you. I should have remembered that.
Rhode Island's oddity is the 'and Providence Plantations' part.
Don Aitken
The power to declare war is, along with many other things, a matter of
"ordinary prerogative", which means it is exerciseable by the
sovereign *on the advice of the government* and not otherwise. The
government, for this purpose, means the cabinet. The Prime Minister
has no special position in this context (or in any other; there are
only a handful of statutory references to the position, almost all of
which deal with things like salary, pension and official residence,
rather than powers).
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
Don Aitken
wrote:
Listed where? It has been the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico since 1952,
when it *ceased* to be a territory.
William December Starr
Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> said:
> What's your problem with combining the Dakotas?
[stubbornly] "I don't want to retroactively make Alastair Reynolds right."
-- wds
Lawrence Watt-Evans
wrote:
Listed in lists of U.S. territories. Sometimes with an asterisk to
denote its commonwealth status.
Quadibloc
> I'd expect that transience to matter very little to politicians who
> have to function in the immediate present. If the proposed addition
> of a new State would likely add two new Senators of Party X to the
> mix, plus a bunch of Representatives and electoral votes, the
> politicians of Party Y would almost certainly oppose it tooth and
> nail and not be impressed by "You know, in ten or twenty or fifty
> years that new state might be solidly Party Y instead."
That's certainly how our political system functions in Canada. Which
is why the Liberals will pay any price to placate Quebec so as to keep
it from choosing to separate.
Since they're not planning to institute anything bad like Negro
slavery when independent, Canadians would generally be unwilling to
maintain our union by force - _provided_ they left behind all majority-
English and majority-First Nations areas of their province.
Unfortunately, there are some radical individuals among the French-
Canadian population who might resist any changes to their provincial
boundaries by force. Hence, unless the Quebecois can deal with this
themselves, they run the risk of ending up like the Palestinians,
instead of independent, from an attempt at separation. At least if, at
the time, the rest of Canada were governed by a party with some
backbone, willing to protect English Canadians from being taken
involuntarily into a new state which would (as we see from present
experience) be willing to discriminate against them (i.e. not allow
them the full right to live normally while being unilingually English,
in precisely the way we have allowed French people living in Quebec to
live normally while being unilingually French).
For obvious reasons, I consider these radical individuals to be a
personal threat to my safety, since they could engender a situation
where I wouldn't be considered "Canadian" - for the same reason that
Israeli Arabs are not considered typical Israelis.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> Can we at least cut Florida loose and let it go drifting off into the
> Caribbean?
Given the Florida Hostage Crisis of 1983 and the victimization of a
Canadian funeral home business by the Florida legal system (Florida
had a law requiring it to post an unreasonably large bond before it
could appeal an unjust legal verdict), relations between our two
countries might be improved if you permitted Canada to occupy Florida.
Of course, there is the matter of the valuable, indeed priceless,
facilities at Cape Canaveral which I am sure your country would wish
to retain.
John Savard
Mike Ash
<0d563097-a776-4f07...@y10g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
Given the number of Canadians who can be found on the beaches and
boardwalks of south Florida in peak season, I think we *already* permit
Canada to occupy Florida.
--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
Sean O'Hara
declared:
> >>
> Gien the pants-filling that goes on over Mexicans,
> I can only imagine the wave of strokes that would follow the
> announcement that 6 billion foreigners, mostly non-white,
> weregoing to join the US.
No need for that. Applications for statehood are available from the
Library of Congress.
--
Sean O'Hara <http://www.diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com>
New audio book: As Long as You Wish by John O'Keefe
<http://librivox.org/short-science-fiction-collection-010/>
Robert A. Woodward
I don't believe that Congress authorized any of the interventions
in Haiti, Mexico (and elsewhere in Central America) in the 20th
century.
--
Robert Woodward <robe...@drizzle.com>
<http://www.drizzle.com/~robertaw>
Sean O'Hara
> >
> The reference is to the US government being divided into three branches
> (Executive, Legislature, & Judicial) that are supposed to provide checks
> and balances on each other.
>
> It was a novel form back in 1787.
>
No it wasn't; we took it from Machiavelli's Discourses, in which he
argued that the most stable form of government should consist of a
monarch, an oligarchy, and democracy, all locked in an eternal
struggle for supremacy. Machiavelli, a practical man who abhorred
the purely theoretical and idealistic political ideas of Aristotle,
Plato and their ilk, took his theory from his study of Roman history.
Butch Malahide
>
> Rhode Island's oddity is the 'and Providence Plantations' part.
Probably not for long. They are having a referendum next year on
removing that part of the state's name, because the word "Plantations"
is reminiscent of slavery.
David DeLaney
>the Great and Powerful James Nicoll declared:
>> Gien the pants-filling that goes on over Mexicans,
>> I can only imagine the wave of strokes that would follow the
>> announcement that 6 billion foreigners, mostly non-white,
>> weregoing to join the US.
>
>No need for that. Applications for statehood are available from the
>Library of Congress.
...how many people does one have to be before one can apply, I wonder?
Dave "and if we raise James to statehood, what will that do to national
accident rates?" DeLaney
Sean O'Hara
declared:
> >
> Power in the US (under the Constitution) is divided among three
> branches: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. That is, the two
> houses of Congress, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court. (And
> all the branches have numerous underlings who work for them.)
> These are set up within a system of "checks and balances" which
> are supposed to keep any one branch from overpowering the others.
> It usually works, though of late there's been a certain incidence
> of the Presidency grabbing off some powers allocated to Congress.
>
"Of late"? It's been a recurrent pattern since Jackson told Marshall
to enforce his own decisions.
> The power to declare war, for instance. That is traditionally an
> act that only Congress can perform. Note that in 1941, when the
> Japanese had attacked Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt could not
> declare war on Japan then and there. He had to wait for Congress
> to meet, the following day (which was Monday), and to make one of
> the best speeches of his career while asking Congress to declare
> war, which it promptly did.
>
All of which is purely formalistic. The US was at war with Japan the
moment the bombs started falling, which was before either side had
declared war. If Congress had taken a week to vote on it, it
wouldn't've changed the fact that US troops were fighting the
Japanese in the Philippines.
For that matter, the navy had been engaging German forces in the
Atlantic throughout 1941, and the army occupied Greenland, which
technically belonged to Axis-controlled Denmark, in April '41.
> Of late, as I say, we've had Presidents who simply sent out the
> troops, with or without actually calling it a war.
>
Neither of the Barbary Wars was ever declared by Congress -- they
just gave the President vague authorization to do ... whatever.
And then there was that time James Polk sent the army into Mexico
and had them sit there until the Mexicans responded, at which point
he went crying to Congress about Mexican perfidy.
Let's not pretend the United States had some proud and honorable
history that's been besmirched by recent events.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <mike-FE9FF7.0...@news.eternal-september.org>):
> In article
> <0d563097-a776-4f07...@y10g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Nov 8, 3:24ï¿œpm, d...@gatekeeper.vic.com (David DeLaney) wrote:
>>
>>> Can we at least cut Florida loose and let it go drifting off into the
>>> Caribbean?
>>
>> Given the Florida Hostage Crisis of 1983 and the victimization of a
>> Canadian funeral home business by the Florida legal system (Florida
>> had a law requiring it to post an unreasonably large bond before it
>> could appeal an unjust legal verdict), relations between our two
>> countries might be improved if you permitted Canada to occupy Florida.
>> Of course, there is the matter of the valuable, indeed priceless,
>> facilities at Cape Canaveral which I am sure your country would wish
>> to retain.
>
> Given the number of Canadians who can be found on the beaches and
> boardwalks of south Florida in peak season, I think we *already* permit
> Canada to occupy Florida.
>
>
Yes, it's Snowbird Season again, and vehicles with Quebec license plates are
swarming down I-95. My question:
When will someone open a learner driver school somewhere in Quebec? Or,
failing that, when will the Florida legislature authorize culling the more
egregiously bad drivers out of the herd? I'd pay for a hunting licence, I
would. Given that here in Deepest South Florida we already have swarms of
doddering half-blind ancients who had spent most of their lives in Noo Yawk
and Joisey and just as many teen-age Cuban boys and, worse, their sisters,
driving, it takes _serious effort_ to drive so badly as to stand out from the
crowd. Quebecois make the effort. if we can't hunt 'em, can't we do something
to show our appreciation of them, like maybe give 'em each a nice pet on
their way out of the state? Something like, oh, a Burmese python? That'll get
rid of _two_ pests at once...
Cheryl
>
> Yes, it's Snowbird Season again, and vehicles with Quebec license plates are
> swarming down I-95. My question:
>
> When will someone open a learner driver school somewhere in Quebec? Or,
> failing that, when will the Florida legislature authorize culling the more
> egregiously bad drivers out of the herd? I'd pay for a hunting licence, I
> would. Given that here in Deepest South Florida we already have swarms of
> doddering half-blind ancients who had spent most of their lives in Noo Yawk
> and Joisey and just as many teen-age Cuban boys and, worse, their sisters,
> driving, it takes _serious effort_ to drive so badly as to stand out from the
> crowd. Quebecois make the effort. if we can't hunt 'em, can't we do something
> to show our appreciation of them, like maybe give 'em each a nice pet on
> their way out of the state? Something like, oh, a Burmese python? That'll get
> rid of _two_ pests at once...
>
They're probably just driving the same way they do in Montreal, which is
well-known for its drivers. Perhaps not 'well-known' in a positive
sense, though.
I doubt they'd be really amenable to classes - I mean, by their
standards, they drive just fine. A pet snake, on the other hand...you
could sell them at souvenir stands, and make a bit of money too. People
are always bringing back weird, dangerous and downright illegal things
from their holidays; it's not much of a stretch to add a Burmese python
to the list of souvenirs.
--
Cheryl
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> J.J. O'Shea wrote:
>>
>> Yes, it's Snowbird Season again, and vehicles with Quebec license
>> plates are swarming down I-95. My question:
>>
>> When will someone open a learner driver school somewhere in Quebec?
>> Or, failing that, when will the Florida legislature authorize culling
>> the more egregiously bad drivers out of the herd? I'd pay for a
>> hunting licence, I would. Given that here in Deepest South Florida we
>> already have swarms of doddering half-blind ancients who had spent
>> most of their lives in Noo Yawk and Joisey and just as many teen-age
>> Cuban boys and, worse, their sisters, driving, it takes _serious
>> effort_ to drive so badly as to stand out from the crowd. Quebecois
>> make the effort. if we can't hunt 'em, can't we do something to show
>> our appreciation of them, like maybe give 'em each a nice pet on their
>> way out of the state? Something like, oh, a Burmese python? That'll
>> get rid of _two_ pests at once...
>>
>
> They're probably just driving the same way they do in Montreal, which is
> well-known for its drivers. Perhaps not 'well-known' in a positive
> sense, though.
>
That word you're searching for is "infamous".
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
James Nicoll
>declared:
>> >>
>> I can only imagine the wave of strokes that would follow the
>> announcement that 6 billion foreigners, mostly non-white,
>> weregoing to join the US.
>
>No need for that. Applications for statehood are available from the
>Library of Congress.
Odd synchronicity: this article talks about where people
around the world would move to, if they could move anywhere:
The US is still quite popular, with a 165 million people
who move to the US if they could. Interestingly, most of them
would move in next door to the people this statistic most alarms
(I assume) and then marry their daughters (I infer).
Nations with the highest Potential Net Migration Index
(immigrants in minus emigrants out as a proportion of the total
adult population) are:
Singapore: +260%
Saudi Arabia: +180%
New Zealand: +175%
Canada: + 170%
Australia: + 145%
All of whom are relatively low population nations, so it's
easier for them to rack up huge percentages of net incomers, given
a 700 million person migrant base.
Not sure what's so attractive about Saudi Arabia, though.
Canada + 175% still only gets us up to around the current population
of the UK.
The nations with the lowest PNMIs are
Democratic Republic of the Congo: -60%
Zimbabwe: -55%
Sierra Leone: -55%
Haiti: -50%
El Salvador: -50%
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
Nigel
> In the Year of the Earth Ox, the Great and Powerful W. Citoan declared:
>
>
>
> > The reference is to the US government being divided into three branches
> > (Executive, Legislature, & Judicial) that are supposed to provide checks
> > and balances on each other.
>
> > It was a novel form back in 1787.
>
> No it wasn't; we took it from Machiavelli's Discourses, in which he
> argued that the most stable form of government should consist of a
> monarch, an oligarchy, and democracy, all locked in an eternal
> struggle for supremacy. Machiavelli, a practical man who abhorred
> the purely theoretical and idealistic political ideas of Aristotle,
> Plato and their ilk, took his theory from his study of Roman history.
>
Yes, it was basically the model of King, House of Lords and House of
Commons that was in use in Britain at the time.
Cheers,
Nigel.
Thomas Womack
James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
> Nations with the highest Potential Net Migration Index
>(immigrants in minus emigrants out as a proportion of the total
>adult population) are:
>
>Singapore: +260%
>Saudi Arabia: +180%
>New Zealand: +175%
>Canada: + 170%
>Australia: + 145%
>
> All of whom are relatively low population nations, so it's
>easier for them to rack up huge percentages of net incomers, given
>a 700 million person migrant base.
>
> Not sure what's so attractive about Saudi Arabia, though.
One of the few importers of unskilled labour, and whilst the wages and
working conditions are dire it's right next to a load of
people-exporting-bloc countries in comparison to rural life in which
labouring on a building site in Dhahran is paradisaical.
Tom
James Nicoll
I keep forgetting just how awful the crapsack parts of the world
are (even though the book I am reading dwells in some detail on the
perspectives from which a slum can look like a step up).
Wayne Throop
:: is well-known for its drivers. Perhaps not 'well-known' in a positive
:: sense, though.
: "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com>
: That word you're searching for is "infamous".
Which is sort of like "inflamable", in that as flamable and inflamable
both imply the risk if flam, famous and infamous both imply the risk of fam.
"Why do we have "flamable", "inflamable", *and* "non-flamable"?
Either something flams, or it doesn't." --- George Carlin
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Sean O'Hara
declared:
Odd that Dubai's not on the list -- an even smaller country with a
huge demand for cheap foreign labor, plus there are tons of
Westerners who've bought into the country's propaganda that it's an
awesome futuristic city.
James Nicoll
>declared:
>> In article <hd96ro$9om$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
>> James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Not sure what's so attractive about Saudi Arabia, though.
>>
>> One of the few importers of unskilled labour, and whilst the wages and
>> working conditions are dire it's right next to a load of
>> people-exporting-bloc countries in comparison to rural life in which
>> labouring on a building site in Dhahran is paradisaical.
>>
>
>Odd that Dubai's not on the list -- an even smaller country with a
>huge demand for cheap foreign labor, plus there are tons of
>Westerners who've bought into the country's propaganda that it's an
>awesome futuristic city.
Note that futuristic does not rule out crapsack.
Kurt Busiek
No, not really. That's echoed in the Presidency, the Senate and the
House of Representatives.
What's being referred to here is the Executive branch (the Presidency),
Congress (the House and Senate together) and the Judiciary (the Supreme
Court). It goes back to the trias politica from ancient Greece and
Rome. In Britain, the Judiciary (the Law Lords) were a part of the
legislature, as is the Prime Minister. And when power was invested in
the monarch, the other branches were all subject to the monarch anyway,
so they weren't a separation of powers but a fusion.
Over time, Britain has gotten more like the American system, but the
Executive (the Prime Minister) is still a part of the Legislature, and
the Judiciary has only recently been spun out into a Supreme Court.
We nicked a lot from Britain's system (the bicameral legislature, huge
sweeping masses of common law and more), but the three branches of the
US government come from ancient Greece and Rome and from the political
writings of Locke, Montesquieu and others.
kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!
Lawrence Watt-Evans
<two...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
I think you're missing another issue, as well -- Mecca is in Saudi
Arabia. Millions of devout Muslims would like to live in Mecca.
Szymon Sokół
> Oh, they just don't get the vote right away. First they have to become
> properly acculturated. Once they're all speaking American English,
> watching American Shows, and buying shoddy American products, THEN
> they're ready to be American voters!
Hey, that's changing rules in mid-play! Since when speaking English is
required to be an American voter? Next time you're going to say that reading
and writing are required...
--
Szymon Sokół (SS316-RIPE) -- Network Manager B
Computer Center, AGH - University of Science and Technology, Cracow, Poland O
http://home.agh.edu.pl/szymon/ PGP key id: RSA: 0x2ABE016B, DSS: 0xF9289982 F
Free speech includes the right not to listen, if not interested -- Heinlein H
W. Citoan
> On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 02:16:46 +0000, Don Aitken <don-a...@freeuk.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 17:06:46 -0500, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 12:33:19 -0800 (PST), Butch Malahide
> >><fred....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Nov 8, 1:21�pm, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:
> >>>> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 04:08:14 -0800 (PST), Butch Malahide
> >
> >when it *ceased* to be a territory.
>
> Listed in lists of U.S. territories. Sometimes with an asterisk to
> denote its commonwealth status.
Somebody certianly seems to have forgotten to tell the US Government it
was no longer a territory:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rq.html
http://pierluisi.house.gov/aboutpr.html
among others.
- W. Citoan
--
Give me where to stand, and I shall move the world.
-- Archimedes
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 09:42:08 -0500, Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>
>> Oh, they just don't get the vote right away. First they have to become
>> properly acculturated. Once they're all speaking American English,
>> watching American Shows, and buying shoddy American products, THEN
>> they're ready to be American voters!
>
> Hey, that's changing rules in mid-play! Since when speaking English is
> required to be an American voter? Next time you're going to say that reading
> and writing are required...
These are MY Utopian Conquest of the Universe, I get to write the rules!
Derek Lyons
>In article <so4ef51b7vaulos20...@4ax.com>,
>Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net> said:
>
>> I think it's a reference to the fact that our government is
>> formally divided into three branches: executive, legislative, and
>> judicial. The guys who set it up considered that the resultant
>> competition and a system of "checks and balances" would keep any
>> one branch from becoming too powerful. (IMO they unfortunately
>> overlooked the fact that this would at best one keep of them from
>> becoming *relatively* more powerful, but that's a different
>> story.)
>
>They also overlooked the fact that the power brokers in one branch
>might _want_ to hand some powers over to another branch because
>holding said powers was too politically uncomfortable.
>
>Who here is old enough to remember when the Congress, rather than
>the President, declared wars?
Congress still declares wars - and the President is still the
Commander in Chief and can, within certain broad limits, send the
troops where he will.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Derek Lyons
>The power to declare war, for instance. That is traditionally an
>act that only Congress can perform. Note that in 1941, when the
>Japanese had attacked Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt could not
>declare war on Japan then and there. He had to wait for Congress
>to meet, the following day (which was Monday), and to make one of
>the best speeches of his career while asking Congress to declare
>war, which it promptly did.
And, even while he was waiting for Congress to declare war - he was
ordering the military to engage the Japanese.
Robert Bannister
Blame the spelling. If it had been "enflammable", there would have been
no confusion.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> In the Year of the Earth Ox, the Great and Powerful Thomas Womack declared:
>> In article <hd96ro$9om$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
>> James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Not sure what's so attractive about Saudi Arabia, though.
>>
>> One of the few importers of unskilled labour, and whilst the wages and
>> working conditions are dire it's right next to a load of
>> people-exporting-bloc countries in comparison to rural life in which
>> labouring on a building site in Dhahran is paradisaical.
>>
>
> Odd that Dubai's not on the list -- an even smaller country with a huge
> demand for cheap foreign labor, plus there are tons of Westerners who've
> bought into the country's propaganda that it's an awesome futuristic city.
>
Perhaps it's not Muslim enough, although that doesn't deter them
elsewhere where they set about changing their host country's laws.
--
Rob Bannister
David DeLaney
>Wayne Throop wrote:
>> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com>
>> : That word you're searching for is "infamous".
>>
>> Which is sort of like "inflamable", in that as flamable and inflamable
>> both imply the risk if flam, famous and infamous both imply the risk of fam.
>>
>> "Why do we have "flamable", "inflamable", *and* "non-flamable"?
>> Either something flams, or it doesn't." --- George Carlin
>
>Blame the spelling. If it had been "enflammable", there would have been
>no confusion.
And now I'm imagining, though possibly not many here will follow the logic
chain, Miss Marple on fire.
Dave
Robert A. Woodward
Michael Stemper
>On Nov 8, 2:06=A0am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> I don't know. If they fixed it so that only "real Americans" could
>> vote, it might work out just fine, as well as bringing about world
>> peace. I think they had a system of government like that on the
>> southern tip of Africa at one time.
>Farm subsidies (which is how food stamps kicked in) and pork (since
>everything else is cheaper when made in China,
Mmmm, mu-shu pork, mmm.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
The name of the story is "A Sound of Thunder".
It was written by Ray Bradbury. You're welcome.
William December Starr
fair...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) said:
> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>
>> Who here is old enough to remember when the Congress, rather than
>> the President, declared wars?
>
> Congress still declares wars - and the President is still the
> Commander in Chief and can, within certain broad limits, send the
> troops where he will.
I could be wrong but I don't think that the U.S. Congress has had
the institutional honesty/guts to say anything like "War is hereby
declared" since early December 1941. Mostly it just says "We give
the President authority to anything he wants and if it turns out
badly blame him not us."
-- wds
Butch Malahide
>
> I could be wrong but I don't think that the U.S. Congress has had
> the institutional honesty/guts to say anything like "War is hereby
> declared" since early December 1941. Mostly it just says "We give
> the President authority to anything he wants and if it turns out
> badly blame him not us."
When was the last time any country declared war? When was the first
time?
Don Aitken
Starr) wrote:
>In article <4afa9f9d....@news.supernews.com>,
>fair...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons) said:
>
>> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>>
>>> Who here is old enough to remember when the Congress, rather than
>>> the President, declared wars?
>>
>> Congress still declares wars - and the President is still the
>> Commander in Chief and can, within certain broad limits, send the
>> troops where he will.
>
>I could be wrong but I don't think that the U.S. Congress has had
>the institutional honesty/guts to say anything like "War is hereby
>declared" since early December 1941. Mostly it just says "We give
>the President authority to anything he wants and if it turns out
>badly blame him not us."
>
That was indeed the last US declaration of war, but it isn't only the
US which has given up on formal declarations since then. *No* country
has declared war on another since the Soviet Union did so on Japan in
August 1945.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
Tim McDaniel
Matt Hughes <arch...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>On 8 Nov, 16:09, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
><seaw...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> � � � � If they JOIN us, presumably they're EAGER for us to give
>> them our form of government, having seen the light and accepted the
>> Proper American Destiny for the Universe.
>
>Has any other country modeled its government after the American
>tripartite experiment?
See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_system>, and in
particular the world map at the top.
Looks like there are three (3) countries in the Americas that *don't*
use a Presidential system. (One of the small yellow bits in South
America is French Guyana, which is an integral part of France, or so
France says.) It's also the usual scheme in north-equatorial and
eastern Africa, and some occurrences elsewhere.
The Wikipedia article lists some criticisms and support for the system.
--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com
Dimensional Traveler
dictator using the title "President" isn't a "Presidential system"
government IMHO.
--
7 Years - 2265 Experiments - 10 tons of explosives - 705 Myths
Myths - Will - Fall!
Quadibloc
> That was indeed the last US declaration of war, but it isn't only the
> US which has given up on formal declarations since then. *No* country
> has declared war on another since the Soviet Union did so on Japan in
> August 1945.
And thus this supports my contention that the primary cause of this is
not the desire of the U. S. Congress to retain oversight, but the
desire of nations to avoid an expilcit admission that they are acting
in violation of the United Nations Charter.
We do have world peace; war has been outlawed! To those who still face
the threat of being killed in military hostilities, though, the fact
that this just means they no longer _call_ it war must constitute cold
comfort.
John Savard
John
"erilar" <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:drache-25E97A....@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article <mike-D75062.1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <drache-12A737....@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > In article
>> > <bdc1c4e8-50ef-4e13...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
>> > Butch Malahide <fred....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Nov 7, 6:31 pm, J.J. O'Shea <try.not...@but.see.sig> wrote:
>> > > > On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 18:51:22 -0500, James Nicoll wrote
>> > > > (in article <hd515q$pl...@reader1.panix.com>):
>> > > > > Gien the pants-filling that goes on over Mexicans,
>> > > > > I can only imagine the wave of strokes that would follow the
>> > > > > announcement that 6 billion foreigners, mostly non-white,
>> > > > > weregoing to join the US.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > He didn't *say* the wave of strokes would be a problem, just that it
>> > > would occur. It's hard to say what effect it would have on overall
>> > > health care costs; raise them in some cases, lower them in others.
>> >
>> > Hey, strokes are fairly cheap, health-care wise, compared to some other
>> > ways to go. . .
>>
>> Only if you actually *go*. If you stay, it can become quite expensive.
>
> I'm hoping for a quick, fatal heart attack.
>
I'm hoping to pop into another universe when this one approaches The Big
Crunch.
But a heart attack is another option, I guess.
Dimensional Traveler
Basically the universe just keeps expanding until even atoms and
subatomic particles get ripped apart.
Jesper Lauridsen
> On 2009-11-08 10:43:43 -0800, Jesper Lauridsen
><rors...@sorrystofanet.dk> said:
>
>> On 2009-11-08, Matt Hughes <arch...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Has any other country modeled its government after the American
>>> tripartite experiment?
>>
>> wikipedia has been of no help.
>
> I would assume he means the separation of powers into three branches --
> executive, legislative and judicial. If so, searching on those three
> terms will tell you all you need to know.
So Montesquieu and friends? That's familiar stuff and is the basis for
pretty much all governments that genuinely tries to be democratic.
> But we nicked it from the Greeks and Romans.
It's the "American" and "experiment" I'm having trouble with.
Kurt Busiek
<rors...@sorrystofanet.dk> said:
> On 2009-11-08, Kurt Busiek <ku...@busiek.com> wrote:
>> On 2009-11-08 10:43:43 -0800, Jesper Lauridsen
>> <rors...@sorrystofanet.dk> said:
>>
>>> On 2009-11-08, Matt Hughes <arch...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Has any other country modeled its government after the American
>>>> tripartite experiment?
>>>
>>> What is this "American tripartite experiment"? My friends google and
>>> wikipedia has been of no help.
>>
>> I would assume he means the separation of powers into three branches --
>> executive, legislative and judicial. If so, searching on those three
>> terms will tell you all you need to know.
>
> So Montesquieu and friends?
As mentioned elsepost.
> That's familiar stuff and is the basis for
> pretty much all governments that genuinely tries to be democratic.
>
>> But we nicked it from the Greeks and Romans.
>
> It's the "American" and "experiment" I'm having trouble with.
The Americans certainly did try it, and it's often described as an
experiment. Whether Matt meant to suggest Americans invented it, or
merely applied the ideas, you'd have to ask him, but I doubt he thinks
the separation of powers sprang full-blown from the brow of James
Madison.
Robert Bannister
Next you'll be expecting us to believe in the benefits of an Electoral
College.
--
Rob Bannister
John
>"Quadibloc" <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
>news:bd403cd2-b13c-4430-8f30-
nbip
>And thus this supports my contention that the primary cause of this is
>not the desire of the U. S. Congress to retain oversight, but the
>desire of nations to avoid an expilcit admission that they are acting
>in violation of the United Nations Charter.
>
>We do have world peace; war has been outlawed! To those who still face
>the threat of being killed in military hostilities, though, the fact
>that this just means they no longer _call_ it war must constitute cold
>comfort.
In the news today, The United States as declared Shenanigans on North Korea.
Wayne Throop
: n the news today, The United States as declared Shenanigans on North Korea.
I'll get my broom.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw