The Supreme Court is the final arbitrator of what is constitutional so who better to give an opinion? The alternative is to pass the law, people get charged, go to court with all the hassles, perhaps get convicted and go to jail, eventually someone can afford the legal costs of multiple appeals until the law is thrown out, perhaps by a Provincial Supreme Court or Court of Appeals with the Supreme Court declining to hear the case or perhaps by the Supreme Court itself. There are also issues of Federal vs Provincial jurisdiction, better to resolve the issue early then late. The court does not have to give an opinion such as when asked whether same sex marriages were constitutionally necessary. As the government had already announced that they were legalizing it, the courts opinion didn't matter so they didn't waste time on it.
Don't be daft. 1/3rd will rise up, 1/3rd will take the side of government and 1/3rd will be indifferent, any other split would see elections being able to solve things. End result will be something like Democrats vs Republicans, red states vs blue states or rich vs poor. Just look at the tea party and the occupy movements, both demonized by the press, government and in public opinion. Or look at the history of the USA, Washington used the Army to put down the Whiskey rebellion successfully, Lincoln used the army to force the south back into the Union successfully. In both cases the army didn't even have much of an advantage when it came to arms.
In Canada sometimes the government will ask the Supreme Court for an opinion on the Constitutionality of a law before it gets signed. Much better then passing laws of questionable constitutionality and letting people suffer until it works its way up the chain of appeals courts.
That is one of the few mistakes our founders made.
Another was to assume that subsequent political leaders would have the same personal integrity as they did and would strive to uphold the basic principles of the Constitution.
The Constitution was being ignored almost before the ink was dry on the Bill of Rights with even Jefferson prosecuting people with laws that he thought unconstitutional. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
It's worse then that. Cuba is the symbol of American Imperialism. When they first decided to become a major player, they planned a war with Spain, did a false flag operation, surprised and defeated Spain and made Cuba a puppet state in the name of freedom and gave it to the Mafia to run. Then those awful Cubans revolted, threw out Batista (sp?) and did awful things like giving the average person shoes and free medical. The truth is that in that part of the world, the average Cuban is better off then lets say the average Haitian or even Mexican. A Mexican might have free speech but if he practices it he may well lose his head or worse.
I'd rather live in Cuba then some of Americas right wing allies such as Saudi Arabia or their right wing puppet countries such as Haiti. Now you might look at Saudi Arabia as a libertarian right wing paradise where the citizens don't pay taxes and can do what ever they want as long as they follow the social mores which comes naturally but I don't like the slavery. And of course in Haiti you're free to struggle to get a job for $3 a day, save and become rich but the truth is it is hell on Earth for most of its citizens, but they do enable your underwear to be slightly cheaper.
In pre-Newton/Galileo/etc. times, as far as I know the theory of gravity was basically, "things tend to fall." It's a terrible theory, sure, but it happens to be right.
Actually it was that heavy things fell faster then light things, which while right according to common sense, proved wrong. This is the problem with many sciences, common sense says one thing while the reality is different. When it comes to AGW this shows up regularly, the Earth is too big for mankind to affect it is a common argument.
How many Central American countries has America sent troops to? How many Central and South American countries has America used the CIA and such to interfere in their affairs including forcing regime change? Usually much more bloody then what Russia is currently doing in their sphere on influence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...
3. A referendum on independence is not a typical vote. It is a vote that is too important and too wide-reaching in its consequences to be decided by a simple majority. Just look at what is happening to the Tartars: They are about to be enslaved by the tyranny of the majority. When the Continental Congress met in 1776 to vote on independence, they decided for exactly this reason that any vote in favor of independence had to be unanimous. The US did not declare independence until delegates from all thirteen states voted in favor of independence.
So what will America do if Quebec votes to separate? As it stands they vote and a simple majority of Quebecois means they leave Canada, the rest of Canada has no say. Take it a step further, what if Quebec offered Russia a base bordering the USA? Do you really think America would allow Russia having a base there? Would America consider giving all the land on the Pacific back to the countries they stole it from and give up having any bases on the Pacific besides Alaska? And when the Continental Congress met, only 13 out of 16+ colonies were represented and they tried to invade at least one of those colonies to force it to join and afterwards the Articles included that the other colony was automatically allowed to join. (British N. American colonies in 1776 included New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Canada, as well as Bermuda and various Caribbean colonies)
What's the problem. Trees often have branches grafted to themselves and even branches grafted to different trees, across species as well. This just makes the tree of life more realistic, branches grafting to other branches equals species exchanging genes. Just need a good arborist or biologist to explain it to the court.
I think it was my point that went over your head. It is only when there is no competition that a company feels free to screw over its customers. There are various ways to get rid of competition and Musk is currently doing it the old fashioned way, innovating and being less expensive. Perhaps ULA will go out of business and Musk would be free to screw his customers, at least the ones that have to use an American company. Doesn't mean he would. On the other hand perhaps a government will come into power that really likes ULA and they pass all kinds of regulatory hurdles to increase Musk's costs and ULA wins. Then ULA is free to screw their American customers. Thing with the space industry, there is other competition, Russia, China, India, the EU and it is in the Governments interest to have any American company win, especially considering the military significance of space, being the high ground as well as the technology restrictions (remember it wasn't that long ago that even a browser was restricted for foreign nations) so it's a totally different market.
What they did know was the mortality amongst the natives when exposed to smallpox was way higher then for Europeans. Read the letters, the idea was to do whatever was necessary to stop Pontiac and his people along with the idea that the natives were less then human.
It gets monotonous. Remember when the argument was that volcanoes put out more CO2 in a year then people ever did? Or that a couple of planets were getting warmer so it must be the Sun affecting a third of the planets? And so on until now where it's "97 was a super warm year, lets use that as our base and scientists are involved in a giant conspiracy for more funding and want us to live in caves. Seems to be a common thing with some people. When the disease model of disease was introduced there were those who screamed it was unscientific and impossible that there were little bitty invisible things that could cause sickness. When it became obvious that shitting and dumping chemicals in our rivers, lakes and oceans had negative affects there were those who screamed that we could never dump enough stuff to affect water or air quality. And so on.
Which facts? The fact that the gas I buy mostly comes from the privately owned Cherry Point refinery? The fact that Petro-Can is a private company? Or the fact that many oil companies such as Exon and Chevron (Standard oil) are American?
Why would it take thousands of blankets? The spread of smallpox was pretty well understood at the time and inoculating against it was also catching on after studies had shown at least an order of magnitude better survival rate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I... Not long after Washington seriously thought the British might be using smallpox to fight the revolutionaries and inoculated new troops. The evidence is scant but it was not unreasonable with how warfare was at the time and considering the enemy to be less then human. Another article, http://www.history.org/Foundat...
At the time, how smallpox was spread was pretty well understood (along with syphilis) and inoculation (often by snorting small pox scabs) was already common practice as it only had about a 2.5% fatality rate which was at least an order of magnitude better then not being inoculated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
Which Church? We're talking about the French and Indian wars, if these Indians were converts, they were Catholics and Catholics had much reduced rights in British society and law and quite likely the Anglican Church didn't care too much what happened to some Papists. The Catholic Church has a long history of being involved in the genocide of the native peoples, genocide being defined as wiping out a culture in this case. Anyways my original point is that the story of small pox blankets was not made up from thin air, maybe not implemented too much but based on historical records.
Two at a minimum. It's not like we have detailed records and when the general commanding all the British forces in North America wants something done, it may well get done.
Over tired people will have a tendency to use the extra hour for sleep. I've seen a similar study that showed the automobile accident rate went up 14% when daylight savings time started and dropped 14% when it ended. Averages out but shows being deprived of that hour makes people more accident prone and the extra hour less accident prone.
Obviously it never got to the point of a large number of blankets. If you scroll down the page to the conclusion I linked to you'll see
Trent's entry for May 24, 1763, includes the following statement:... we gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect.
Along with reports that by the following spring smallpox was raging amongst them. As for the Church, as recently as the '50's if not more recently (Church ran residential schools only ended in the '90's) the Government of Canada along with the Church were doing medical experiments and dietary experiments on the native population in the residential schools. Generally, to judge by their actions the Church has not considered the natives to be human. The government is being very reluctant to be transparent about the issue. Of course our government is like yours, voted in on promises of transparency and probably the most opaque government ever. only difference is they're Conservative. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politic... is one link, Google has lots more.
Slashdot Mirror
The Supreme Court is the final arbitrator of what is constitutional so who better to give an opinion? The alternative is to pass the law, people get charged, go to court with all the hassles, perhaps get convicted and go to jail, eventually someone can afford the legal costs of multiple appeals until the law is thrown out, perhaps by a Provincial Supreme Court or Court of Appeals with the Supreme Court declining to hear the case or perhaps by the Supreme Court itself.
There are also issues of Federal vs Provincial jurisdiction, better to resolve the issue early then late. The court does not have to give an opinion such as when asked whether same sex marriages were constitutionally necessary. As the government had already announced that they were legalizing it, the courts opinion didn't matter so they didn't waste time on it.
Don't be daft. 1/3rd will rise up, 1/3rd will take the side of government and 1/3rd will be indifferent, any other split would see elections being able to solve things. End result will be something like Democrats vs Republicans, red states vs blue states or rich vs poor. Just look at the tea party and the occupy movements, both demonized by the press, government and in public opinion. Or look at the history of the USA, Washington used the Army to put down the Whiskey rebellion successfully, Lincoln used the army to force the south back into the Union successfully. In both cases the army didn't even have much of an advantage when it came to arms.
In Canada sometimes the government will ask the Supreme Court for an opinion on the Constitutionality of a law before it gets signed. Much better then passing laws of questionable constitutionality and letting people suffer until it works its way up the chain of appeals courts.
That is one of the few mistakes our founders made.
Another was to assume that subsequent political leaders would have the same personal integrity as they did and would strive to uphold the basic principles of the Constitution.
The Constitution was being ignored almost before the ink was dry on the Bill of Rights with even Jefferson prosecuting people with laws that he thought unconstitutional. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
It's worse then that. Cuba is the symbol of American Imperialism. When they first decided to become a major player, they planned a war with Spain, did a false flag operation, surprised and defeated Spain and made Cuba a puppet state in the name of freedom and gave it to the Mafia to run. Then those awful Cubans revolted, threw out Batista (sp?) and did awful things like giving the average person shoes and free medical. The truth is that in that part of the world, the average Cuban is better off then lets say the average Haitian or even Mexican. A Mexican might have free speech but if he practices it he may well lose his head or worse.
I'd rather live in Cuba then some of Americas right wing allies such as Saudi Arabia or their right wing puppet countries such as Haiti. Now you might look at Saudi Arabia as a libertarian right wing paradise where the citizens don't pay taxes and can do what ever they want as long as they follow the social mores which comes naturally but I don't like the slavery. And of course in Haiti you're free to struggle to get a job for $3 a day, save and become rich but the truth is it is hell on Earth for most of its citizens, but they do enable your underwear to be slightly cheaper.
What are you talking about? I've caught lots of dogfish.
In pre-Newton/Galileo/etc. times, as far as I know the theory of gravity was basically, "things tend to fall." It's a terrible theory, sure, but it happens to be right.
Actually it was that heavy things fell faster then light things, which while right according to common sense, proved wrong.
This is the problem with many sciences, common sense says one thing while the reality is different. When it comes to AGW this shows up regularly, the Earth is too big for mankind to affect it is a common argument.
How many Central American countries has America sent troops to? How many Central and South American countries has America used the CIA and such to interfere in their affairs including forcing regime change? Usually much more bloody then what Russia is currently doing in their sphere on influence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O...
3. A referendum on independence is not a typical vote. It is a vote that is too important and too wide-reaching in its consequences to be decided by a simple majority. Just look at what is happening to the Tartars: They are about to be enslaved by the tyranny of the majority. When the Continental Congress met in 1776 to vote on independence, they decided for exactly this reason that any vote in favor of independence had to be unanimous. The US did not declare independence until delegates from all thirteen states voted in favor of independence.
So what will America do if Quebec votes to separate? As it stands they vote and a simple majority of Quebecois means they leave Canada, the rest of Canada has no say. Take it a step further, what if Quebec offered Russia a base bordering the USA? Do you really think America would allow Russia having a base there? Would America consider giving all the land on the Pacific back to the countries they stole it from and give up having any bases on the Pacific besides Alaska?
And when the Continental Congress met, only 13 out of 16+ colonies were represented and they tried to invade at least one of those colonies to force it to join and afterwards the Articles included that the other colony was automatically allowed to join.
(British N. American colonies in 1776 included New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Canada, as well as Bermuda and various Caribbean colonies)
What's the problem. Trees often have branches grafted to themselves and even branches grafted to different trees, across species as well. This just makes the tree of life more realistic, branches grafting to other branches equals species exchanging genes. Just need a good arborist or biologist to explain it to the court.
I think it was my point that went over your head. It is only when there is no competition that a company feels free to screw over its customers. There are various ways to get rid of competition and Musk is currently doing it the old fashioned way, innovating and being less expensive. Perhaps ULA will go out of business and Musk would be free to screw his customers, at least the ones that have to use an American company. Doesn't mean he would. On the other hand perhaps a government will come into power that really likes ULA and they pass all kinds of regulatory hurdles to increase Musk's costs and ULA wins. Then ULA is free to screw their American customers.
Thing with the space industry, there is other competition, Russia, China, India, the EU and it is in the Governments interest to have any American company win, especially considering the military significance of space, being the high ground as well as the technology restrictions (remember it wasn't that long ago that even a browser was restricted for foreign nations) so it's a totally different market.
What they did know was the mortality amongst the natives when exposed to smallpox was way higher then for Europeans. Read the letters, the idea was to do whatever was necessary to stop Pontiac and his people along with the idea that the natives were less then human.
It gets monotonous. Remember when the argument was that volcanoes put out more CO2 in a year then people ever did? Or that a couple of planets were getting warmer so it must be the Sun affecting a third of the planets? And so on until now where it's "97 was a super warm year, lets use that as our base and scientists are involved in a giant conspiracy for more funding and want us to live in caves.
Seems to be a common thing with some people. When the disease model of disease was introduced there were those who screamed it was unscientific and impossible that there were little bitty invisible things that could cause sickness. When it became obvious that shitting and dumping chemicals in our rivers, lakes and oceans had negative affects there were those who screamed that we could never dump enough stuff to affect water or air quality. And so on.
I wasn't aware that Elon Musk was out to screw his customers.
Which facts? The fact that the gas I buy mostly comes from the privately owned Cherry Point refinery? The fact that Petro-Can is a private company? Or the fact that many oil companies such as Exon and Chevron (Standard oil) are American?
Why would it take thousands of blankets? The spread of smallpox was pretty well understood at the time and inoculating against it was also catching on after studies had shown at least an order of magnitude better survival rate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
Not long after Washington seriously thought the British might be using smallpox to fight the revolutionaries and inoculated new troops. The evidence is scant but it was not unreasonable with how warfare was at the time and considering the enemy to be less then human. Another article, http://www.history.org/Foundat...
At the time, how smallpox was spread was pretty well understood (along with syphilis) and inoculation (often by snorting small pox scabs) was already common practice as it only had about a 2.5% fatality rate which was at least an order of magnitude better then not being inoculated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
Is there a reason that serious heart cases *should* be distributed uniformly?
Might spread out the hospital load.
It was a good idea during a war when everyone had to observe black out conditions. Of course that war is long finished.
Which Church? We're talking about the French and Indian wars, if these Indians were converts, they were Catholics and Catholics had much reduced rights in British society and law and quite likely the Anglican Church didn't care too much what happened to some Papists.
The Catholic Church has a long history of being involved in the genocide of the native peoples, genocide being defined as wiping out a culture in this case.
Anyways my original point is that the story of small pox blankets was not made up from thin air, maybe not implemented too much but based on historical records.
It's nice for the kids to walk to school in the light. Though for where I am it might be best to always be on DST.
Two at a minimum. It's not like we have detailed records and when the general commanding all the British forces in North America wants something done, it may well get done.
Over tired people will have a tendency to use the extra hour for sleep. I've seen a similar study that showed the automobile accident rate went up 14% when daylight savings time started and dropped 14% when it ended. Averages out but shows being deprived of that hour makes people more accident prone and the extra hour less accident prone.
Obviously it never got to the point of a large number of blankets. If you scroll down the page to the conclusion I linked to you'll see
Trent's entry for May 24, 1763, includes the following statement: ... we gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect.
Along with reports that by the following spring smallpox was raging amongst them.
As for the Church, as recently as the '50's if not more recently (Church ran residential schools only ended in the '90's) the Government of Canada along with the Church were doing medical experiments and dietary experiments on the native population in the residential schools. Generally, to judge by their actions the Church has not considered the natives to be human. The government is being very reluctant to be transparent about the issue. Of course our government is like yours, voted in on promises of transparency and probably the most opaque government ever. only difference is they're Conservative.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politic... is one link, Google has lots more.