RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
What change it until it fits what we want it to be?Now, seriously, my American friends. Your heads are already spinning with this little bit of history. Do you really want to attack us? Then you'd have to learn all of it.I guess we have Trudeau to thank for that.Well, we can thank him for the charter -- the welfare state (sans universal health care), the legislative heads of power and pogg pre-date him :)
If only the current crop of parliamentarians could match Trudeau or Tommy Douglas in character.
Nah. We'll treat your history like we do ours.
We've done that with ours too! I guess our history won't be a problem for you. It's pretty much ready to stick wherever it fits.
“Ah, there are differences in the way we treated our native people. You hunted them down and murdered them. We starved them to death.” -- Pierre Trudeau to Marlon Brando after Brando remarked on Canada and the U.S. having a common heritage.
Trudeau, Brando.
Hey. If you're a western anglophone their names rhyme.
Dang Canadians are making it so I can't see the new posts.
Isn't it ironic? Don't you think?
|
Dear Samnell,
My bad. Remind me not to ask you an honest question again. Clearly a terrible mistake.It wouldn't be a problem if you didn't have such a consistent record of acting like a jackass.
Four things you do really piss me off, kid.
One, you talk about how important understanding is, but make no effort whatsoever to acknowledge the perspective of others, much less understand. As a side note: it seems to me that you use your fantasies of perfect objectivity to put between you and the others on these boards. News flash: the fantasy of perfect scientific objectivity is dead. Ask scientists and philosophers. Not me.
Two, and part of the above: radical hypocrisy. You are often guilty of committing the logical fallacies (and worse) that you accuse others of using (in the same thread no less).
Three, you forget that we are all people, as evidenced by your comments on the Rorschach thread.
Four, you are dishonest. For example: you clearly made a (honest) mistake in reading my post but do not acknowledge it. Instead you call it an "honest question" and turn the table on me, as if even asking me a question is a mistake.
Dude, I have no problem with debate. No problem with people seeing the world differently. The views, feelings, and ideas of others are wonderful to me, they are food for my own mind. I love to ask questions, and people who ask questions are my true brothers and sisters in this world.
But you, Samnell, you've drawn too much from the tolerance bank, AFAIC.
It's quite simple: if you carry yourself reasonably on these boards, and respect others, people will treat you with respect.
If my impending child weren't a girl, I'd name her after you. Bravo.
Dear Samnell,
My bad. Remind me not to ask you an honest question again. Clearly a terrible mistake.It wouldn't be a problem if you didn't have such a consistent record of acting like a jackass.
Four things you do really piss me off, kid.
One, you talk about how important understanding is, but make no effort whatsoever to acknowledge the perspective of others, much less understand. As a side note: it seems to me that you use your fantasies of perfect objectivity to put between you and the others on these boards. News flash: the fantasy of perfect scientific objectivity is dead. Ask scientists and philosophers. Not me.
Two, and part of the above: radical hypocrisy. You are often guilty of committing the logical fallacies (and worse) that you accuse others of using (in the same thread no less).
Three, you forget that we are all people, as evidenced by your comments on the Rorschach thread.
Four, you are dishonest. For example: you clearly made a (honest) mistake in reading my post but do not acknowledge it. Instead you call it an "honest question" and turn the table on me, as if even asking me a question is a mistake.
Dude, I have no problem with debate. No problem with people seeing the world differently. The views, feelings, and ideas of others are wonderful to me, they are food for my own mind. I love to ask questions, and people who ask questions are my true brothers and sisters in this world.
But you, Samnell, you've drawn too much from the tolerance bank, AFAIC.
It's quite simple: if you carry yourself reasonably on these boards, and respect others, people will treat you with respect.
^Agree totally.
|
|
Ironically the British troops didn't enter the city till an envoy ridding under a white flag was fired upon. Which was also strictly against the rules of war. As I understand it the British were on their way to discuss terms of surrender. Things went down hill from there :D
We do like to say that British (with some local British-Canadians) troops occupied Washington and burned down a good part of Washington DC. American textbooks that I've read refer to these troops as "hooligans". Truth told the attack on Washington was a response to the looting of York (omitted from the high school history texts I saw), where Americans pillaged a Canadian city. Up until York, such actions were not considered fair warfare... but hey, America tossed out the rules.
Quite right - bloody Americans. First, female genital mutilation is ALL OUR FAULT, and now this Washington crap.
Quite right - bloody Americans. First, female genital mutilation is ALL OUR FAULT, and now this Washington crap.
Don't forget meddling in the Iranian elections and stirring up protesters!
runs for cover
I think it's fair to say that the War of 1812 was about as well received in the states as the latest war in Iraq was. The views were just as varied up here in Canada depending on where you lived. Here in Nova Scotia for example it might as well have been a foreign war, we were just a staging area for naval forces, and for most it was business as usual.Worse then Iraq, far worse. You've got the same places that don't want to fight a war and in fact refuse, so far as possible, to contribute also being area's that are also the traditional invasion corridors for war in North America. Add to this the fact that the war seems to be going sour and the fact that New Englands economy is devastated once the British finally get a descent blockade going and you have all the makings for a scenario were some elements of the Union make a separate peace. This is in fact the kind of political scenario that was actually taking place by 1815. However it was possible to simply sweep this whole thing under the rug and pretend nothing had ever happened when it turned out that the war was over and the peace was pretty much status quo ante bellum.
And with some independent minded provinces added to the Dominion we could reverse the big government - federal government knows best - centralization that's been going on since world war 2 and get back to the style of government intended by our founding fathers.I think you're invading the wrong country for all of that. Seems Americans would rather the government take care of them from cradle to grave than actually be responsible for their own lives any more.
Seriously - Canada is very Federalist. We'd be voting for bigger government as a general rule.
You want Yellowknife.
Lol. If they believe that where basically invulnerable. They'll never make it there.
The drafters of our constitution were influenced in part by your civil war and tried to give the provinces and the federal government relatively clear and water tight compartments of responsibility. Health care is mostly a provincial matter.
The implementation is left to the Provinces but there are overriding rules all the provinces need to be part of - the Feds keep their hands on a significant chunk of the money used in health care - that's the stick to keep the provinces in line. Differences between one province and the next is usually pretty superficial.
I don't really agree that their is any real compartmentalization of who is in control of what issues. The only thing that keeps the Feds from poking their noses into provincial affairs is essentially tradition. That tradition can be eliminated whenever the Feds decide its no longer useful (say they want to skim off the top of Albertia's rich oil finds as a good historical example of the Feds suddenly deciding that what had been provincial affairs (natural resources - but only oil - all other natural resources are still mainly provincial affairs) where suddenly federal affairs. The system is essentially a hierarchy with the Feds able to over rule the provinces and the provinces able to overrule local governments and this can be done at will. There is a certain amount of kid gloves when dealing with Quebec because no one wants to piss them off (they'll carry a grudge into the next election...they'll go on and on about succeeding etc.) but by and large the Feds do what they want over the protests of the provinces.
And our constitution was patriated in 1982. So we'd been watching you guys tussle for a while before laying it down.
The only significant changes brought about by the Canada Act of 1982 where the rule that made it so that everything official in Canada had to be in both French and English. A declaration of complete sovereignty from England (though the Queen remains the head of state) and the addition of The Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I'm actually pretty skeptical that the Americans were used much at all as a model for government in Canada. The Self Governing Dominions (Canada, Australia and South Africa) all have pretty similar governments initially. The model is clearly Westminster.
|
Texas has always had strong beer, thus the main thrust of the plot of Smokey and the Bandit.The stuffed fish had beer in it?Which smokey and the bandit are you talking about? The original was about going from Georgia to Texas and back for Coors...
o_O
Heh, smokey and the bandit 3, the one without burt reynolds
|
^Agree totally.Dear Samnell,
My bad. Remind me not to ask you an honest question again. Clearly a terrible mistake.It wouldn't be a problem if you didn't have such a consistent record of acting like a jackass.
Four things you do really piss me off, kid.
One, you talk about how important understanding is, but make no effort whatsoever to acknowledge the perspective of others, much less understand. As a side note: it seems to me that you use your fantasies of perfect objectivity to put between you and the others on these boards. News flash: the fantasy of perfect scientific objectivity is dead. Ask scientists and philosophers. Not me.
Two, and part of the above: radical hypocrisy. You are often guilty of committing the logical fallacies (and worse) that you accuse others of using (in the same thread no less).
Three, you forget that we are all people, as evidenced by your comments on the Rorschach thread.
Four, you are dishonest. For example: you clearly made a (honest) mistake in reading my post but do not acknowledge it. Instead you call it an "honest question" and turn the table on me, as if even asking me a question is a mistake.
Dude, I have no problem with debate. No problem with people seeing the world differently. The views, feelings, and ideas of others are wonderful to me, they are food for my own mind. I love to ask questions, and people who ask questions are my true brothers and sisters in this world.
But you, Samnell, you've drawn too much from the tolerance bank, AFAIC.
It's quite simple: if you carry yourself reasonably on these boards, and respect others, people will treat you with respect.
Me too.
I guess we have Trudeau to thank for that.Well, we can thank him for the charter -- the welfare state (sans universal health care), the legislative heads of power and pogg pre-date him :)
If only the current crop of parliamentarians could match Trudeau or Tommy Douglas in character.
I tend to think Canada has generally been as Federalist as is reasonably possible. Essentially the better and faster communications become the more Federalist the state becomes. Possibly the situation will reverse itself but so far it hasn't.
You know ...
As an American, invading Canada might not be such a bad idea.
|
|
And our constitution was patriated in 1982. So we'd been watching you guys tussle for a while before laying it down.The only significant changes brought about by the Canada Act of 1982 where the rule that made it so that everything official in Canada had to be in both French and English. A declaration of complete sovereignty from England (though the Queen remains the head of state) and the addition of The Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I'm actually pretty skeptical that the Americans were used much at all as a model for government in Canada. The Self Governing Dominions (Canada, Australia and South Africa) all have pretty similar governments initially. The model is clearly Westminster.
I agree the model is Westminster, but ze british do not have a constitution in the same way that we do. There is no single document that lays down the system of government. There is a collection of statutes, conventions, judicial decisions and royal prerogative all built up over time -- forming the great "unwritten" constitution.
|
|
If the US decides to invade Canada, we'll know about it far in advance through our special spy quarters. Not that we'd be able to do much about it, other than cut off our steady supply of actors, comedians and pop stars. ;)
I'm actually pretty skeptical that the Americans were used much at all as a model for government in Canada. The Self Governing Dominions (Canada, Australia and South Africa) all have pretty similar governments initially. The model is clearly Westminster.
I certainly don't think American government is a model, and it's not what I meant, for my part. I do think the Canadian political scientists, politicians, and legal experts involved in creating our constitution had the benefit of expertise in American and European constitutional law and hindsight of the problems solved and created by constitutional lawmaking in those places, simply because we authored our constitution so late in the democracy game. It allowed us to patch up a few problems that we'd had in the past and set in stone those things we have learned to be effective.
You know ...
Water (not Oil) is very likely to be the critical strategic resource of the second half of the 21st century.
Canada controls 7% of the world's Fresh Water Supply.
With approximately 8% of its territory covered by lakes, Canada has more lake area than any other country in the world.
25% of the world's remaining wetlands are in Canada. As an American, invading Canada might not be such a bad idea.
Believe me, we are aware of this. The solution, by and large, has been to pimp our water. That way we don't have to get married, we make some cash, and the Americans can water their lawns.
Also, we have a lot more than 7% of the world's fresh water, it's actually pretty close to 20%.
Another interesting development is that desalination processes has been improving dramatically in recent years, to the point that the cost of creating a desalination plant is quickly closing in on the cost of developing a natural water source.
I don't really agree that their is any real compartmentalization of who is in control of what issues. The only thing that keeps the Feds from poking their noses into provincial affairs is essentially tradition.
Not absolutely true, though in some cases yes.
Man, I wish I had sources here. If I get a chance I'll go have a look through my Canadian studies crap.
Really, all you have to do is look at Quebec, though. It's living proof that our provinces are not just built off templates.
Also, we have a lot more than 7% of the world's fresh water, it's actually pretty close to 20%.
Another interesting development is that desalination processes has been improving dramatically in recent years, to the point that the cost of creating a desalination plant is quickly closing in on the cost of developing a natural water source.
I was wondering how things were going on the desalinization front. Fifteen years ago, based on the technology then, they were saying it was impossible. Amazing what a new decade can bring.
That's not entirely true Jeremy, our first constitution, drafted by Sir John A MacDonald and the founding fathers, was very much built with other successful constitutions in mind. You'd better believe that they looked at the US constitution. The fact that it was hammered out over a weekend pretty much guarantees that they didn't start from scratch.
I'm actually pretty skeptical that the Americans were used much at all as a model for government in Canada. The Self Governing Dominions (Canada, Australia and South Africa) all have pretty similar governments initially. The model is clearly Westminster.
OK I went and looked up John A. Mac Donald and the original Constitution and it does seem that the spectre of the American Civil War played a significant part in the drafting of the Canadian Constitution.
There is a good example comparing Canada's and America's Constitution here. Note that its very clear, in the Canadian Constitution, that all power flows from the top of the chain down. The Provinces have their powers only because the Feds grant them such powers and this flows down the chain so that cities only have those powers granted to them by the Provinces.
The concept of States Rights as the Americans understand the term simply does not exist in Canada. Quebec is more or less free to forge its own way essentially because this is where the Feds fear to tread and not because they actually lack the power to overrule Quebec.
|
|
I was wondering how things were going on the desalinization front. Fifteen years ago, based on the technology then, they were saying it was impossible. Amazing what a new decade can bring.Also, we have a lot more than 7% of the world's fresh water, it's actually pretty close to 20%.
Another interesting development is that desalination processes has been improving dramatically in recent years, to the point that the cost of creating a desalination plant is quickly closing in on the cost of developing a natural water source.
Last I heard they were talking of making some plants on the shoreline just south of LA. While still expensive it has dropped so far that California is seriously considering it.
Last I heard they were talking of making some plants on the shoreline just south of LA. While still expensive it has dropped so far that California is seriously considering it.I was wondering how things were going on the desalinization front. Fifteen years ago, based on the technology then, they were saying it was impossible. Amazing what a new decade can bring.Also, we have a lot more than 7% of the world's fresh water, it's actually pretty close to 20%.
Another interesting development is that desalination processes has been improving dramatically in recent years, to the point that the cost of creating a desalination plant is quickly closing in on the cost of developing a natural water source.
Neat! I'll google it but if anyone has favorite links... I'm asking.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I was wondering how things were going on the desalinization front. Fifteen years ago, based on the technology then, they were saying it was impossible. Amazing what a new decade can bring.Also, we have a lot more than 7% of the world's fresh water, it's actually pretty close to 20%.
Another interesting development is that desalination processes has been improving dramatically in recent years, to the point that the cost of creating a desalination plant is quickly closing in on the cost of developing a natural water source.
IIRC, Israel is really leading the way in Desalinization. Especially with recent political turns in Turkey.
IIRC, Israel is really leading the way in Desalinization. Especially with recent political turns in Turkey.I was wondering how things were going on the desalinization front. Fifteen years ago, based on the technology then, they were saying it was impossible. Amazing what a new decade can bring.Also, we have a lot more than 7% of the world's fresh water, it's actually pretty close to 20%.
Another interesting development is that desalination processes has been improving dramatically in recent years, to the point that the cost of creating a desalination plant is quickly closing in on the cost of developing a natural water source.
That, Matthew. More key words for the search. :)
Older National Geographic
MAH MAN! Thanks!
|
|
That's not entirely true Jeremy, our first constitution, drafted by Sir John A MacDonald and the founding fathers, was very much built with other successful constitutions in mind. You'd better believe that they looked at the US constitution. The fact that it was hammered out over a weekend pretty much guarantees that they didn't start from scratch.
I'm actually pretty skeptical that the Americans were used much at all as a model for government in Canada. The Self Governing Dominions (Canada, Australia and South Africa) all have pretty similar governments initially. The model is clearly Westminster.OK I went and looked up John A. Mac Donald and the original Constitution and it does seem that the spectre of the American Civil War played a significant part in the drafting of the Canadian Constitution.
There is a good example comparing Canada's and America's Constitution here. Note that its very clear, in the Canadian Constitution, that all power flows from the top of the chain down. The Provinces have their powers only because the Feds grant them such powers and this flows down the chain so that cities only have those powers granted to them by the Provinces.
The concept of States Rights as the Americans understand the term simply does not exist in Canada. Quebec is more or less free to forge its own way essentially because this is where the Feds fear to tread and not because they actually lack the power to overrule Quebec.
I agree that on the surface the text seems to imply a top down flow of power but, its not the way it works in practice.
There was a fight back in the day between Sir John A and Oliver Mowat (the premier of ontario) over how much power and control the feds would have over the provinces.
Mowat was very smart and funded / helped private appeals to the Privy Council in the UK and found two law lords that seemed to be very pro province. Lord Watson first, and then Viscount Haldane (who I believe worked as a barrister for the provinces before becoming a law lord).
Eventually Mowat won and Sir John A lost.
I'll look for an online version of the case, but in Hodge v. The Queen (1883) 9 App Cas 117 the privy council comes right out and says that the provinces and the feds are co-ordinate and co-equal and the provincial legislatures have the same power as any parliament in the dominion and has exclusive authority over its areas of legislative competence.
I'll try to find a more modern case where this is restated by the Supreme Court.
This exclusivity has been weakened / modified by the passage of time but it is still there.
Slightly more modern :)
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1950/1950canlii26/1950canlii26.html
The Parliament of Canada and each Provincial Legislature is a sovereign body within its sphere, possessed of exclusive jurisdiction to legislate with regard to the subject matters assigned to it under s. 91 or s. 92, as the case may be. Neither is capable therefore of delegating to the other the powers with which it has been vested nor of receiving from the other the powers with which the other has been vested.
I'll go dig up my con law case book tonight.
|
|
OTOH, I heard of a report of swarms of blood sucking ticks eating mooses in the canadian backyards, since the weather is no longer cold enough to kill them.
Damn global warming !
Here's a shot of one boring into a moose.
And sadly we lose 5 in Afghanistan today....
|
|
The US has pushed Canada into allowing US Security Contractors - with security links to the Pentagon to take over its Border Control and International Terminals. Canada is lost...
Next Up the Commonwealth nations of Nigeria and Pakistan where the US seems to be establishing control of Security Infrastructure and forcing themselves through the door. THose Commonwealth Dominos are falling one after the next.
|
|
The US has pushed Canada into allowing US Security Contractors - with security links to the Pentagon to take over its Border Control and International Terminals. Canada is lost...
Next Up the Commonwealth nations of Nigeria and Pakistan where the US seems to be establishing control of Security Infrastructure and forcing themselves through the door. THose Commonwealth Dominos are falling one after the next.
And then Austrailia and New Zeland become the 52 and 53rd states admited to the union.
Texas was a different story, with Americans moving into a foreign country illegally (how ironic) and then overwhelming the resident Mexicans, who hadn't established a strong presence there.Actually, Moses Austin was allowed to bring Anglo settlers into Texas. Of course, that deal was struck with the Spanish government, as there was no such thing as an independent Mexico until a year later.
And, of course, Texas Anglos had no problem with being part of Mexico until Santa Ana staged his coup and destroyed the fledgling Republic, thus setting Mexico on its path of corruption and disregard for its people.
Very valid points, and I apologize if I oversimplified matters. There was quite a bit of over-the-border crossing though, both during the Spanish control and the subsequent independent Mexico.
BTW, isn't Santa Anna one of those folks you'd love to rub out of the historical record? Mexico got off to such an excellent start with their 1824 Constitution. Where's my time machine dammit ...
As far as the guys at the Alamo were concerned the Constitution of 1824 was what they were fighting for--their flag even had 1824 on it. Guys like Jim Bowie considered himself a Mexican citizen fighting a tyrannical Santa Anna.