Well sure, if you want him to be torn from reality! There's some changes that the timeline just refuses.
Reading the article, it talks about the "tricks" to read, and I think about reading Beowulf where "Beowulf spake, bairn of Ecgtheow", "Beowulf bode in the burg of the Scyldings"
Like... You better be able to sound it out because there's no tricks here, you've never seen these words...
Like... You better be able to sound it out because there's no tricks here, you've never seen these words...
There's a lot of videos on youtube of people using pressure washers to clean sidewalks, and especially getting rid of the plants in between stones.
I tried it today, and can confirm that it works, but it takes about 100 times longer than the videos might indicate and I can't imagine what my water bill will look like. Happy to have cleaned up my paving stone sidewalk though!
I tried it today, and can confirm that it works, but it takes about 100 times longer than the videos might indicate and I can't imagine what my water bill will look like. Happy to have cleaned up my paving stone sidewalk though!
He was going to, but when he did he came back and realized that if we don't let 9/11 happen COVID gets even worse.
Whenever we're sitting around discussing teaching the latest political thing, I almost always now go in to look at how many schools failed to produce one (1) student reading at grade level at graduation.
I think it's fitting that people who shouldn't have made it to the next grade because they don't yet have the prerequisite skills are being taught by people who think they should be allowed to teach all these other materials when they aren't yet successfully teaching the prerequisite skills.
I think it's fitting that people who shouldn't have made it to the next grade because they don't yet have the prerequisite skills are being taught by people who think they should be allowed to teach all these other materials when they aren't yet successfully teaching the prerequisite skills.
Get back to work slacker! What you think just because you got a nuke dropped on you that's an excuse?
It depends on the interpretation of which laws presently apply to which parts of the government, and also whether those laws open the office of president or the individual acting in their capacity as office holder of president.
As an example, you could sue the government as in the office of the President under a 1983 civil rights claim or a federal civil torts act claim, but the man who was president would be personally immune. On civil grounds the supreme Court has already decided in the 1980s that the person behind the presidency is immune for actions taken in an official capacity, so this second question is about criminal immunity.
Nixon V. Fitzgerald (1982) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/457/731/
An example of agents of the state who don't have that kind of immunity would be police officers who tend to have qualified immunity, meaning that there is a limitation in law on the amount of immunity they are allowed to claim. I think in the case of police officers the police officers would have to be generally acting within their scope as police officers, and so they can't just do whatever they want and claim immunity whereas certain individuals acting on behalf of the government still can. I would imagine that a soldier in a war zone for example likely has all civil liability waived, and so if they bombed the wrong building the people who own that building can't come back and and go after the soldier in court for it (though there is a separate military law that would apply to the solider under such circumstances).
As an example, you could sue the government as in the office of the President under a 1983 civil rights claim or a federal civil torts act claim, but the man who was president would be personally immune. On civil grounds the supreme Court has already decided in the 1980s that the person behind the presidency is immune for actions taken in an official capacity, so this second question is about criminal immunity.
Nixon V. Fitzgerald (1982) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/457/731/
An example of agents of the state who don't have that kind of immunity would be police officers who tend to have qualified immunity, meaning that there is a limitation in law on the amount of immunity they are allowed to claim. I think in the case of police officers the police officers would have to be generally acting within their scope as police officers, and so they can't just do whatever they want and claim immunity whereas certain individuals acting on behalf of the government still can. I would imagine that a soldier in a war zone for example likely has all civil liability waived, and so if they bombed the wrong building the people who own that building can't come back and and go after the soldier in court for it (though there is a separate military law that would apply to the solider under such circumstances).
One of the reasons that I pick on Elon is that many on the left want to use him as an example of private wealth being abused, while they ignore the fact that it was policies that they enacted that made him immensely wealthy. An overwhelming amount of his money came from selling crappy electric cars and government spacecraft paired with Federal reserve policy which cranked up the stock market to fund the massive government they wanted.
If I was a rich like him I can't say I'd do much different than he has.
If I was a rich like him I can't say I'd do much different than he has.
Sovereign immunity is well established in the common law.
It says that the only time the government can be liable for crimes or torts is when it agrees to be liable for crimes or torts.
There's a limited number of things that you can sue the government for, and a limited number of things that you can charge the government for criminally. That's just the way things have been for hundreds of years. Examples of where the government allows itself to be sued would be 1983 civil rights claims, and certain laws which limit the immunity of certain actors such as police officers.
If you would make the argument to me that the President should have limitations on their liability, I would agree with that and I would say that the next step would be for the Congress to present legislation which limits immunity of the head of the executive Branch and pass it (even the veto power of the president can be overwhelmed if a super majority can vote for the legislation). It would be unjust for the courts to arbitrarily decide that the ancient and well established concept of sovereign immunity has disappeared because a certain president is now the one it applies to.
It says that the only time the government can be liable for crimes or torts is when it agrees to be liable for crimes or torts.
There's a limited number of things that you can sue the government for, and a limited number of things that you can charge the government for criminally. That's just the way things have been for hundreds of years. Examples of where the government allows itself to be sued would be 1983 civil rights claims, and certain laws which limit the immunity of certain actors such as police officers.
If you would make the argument to me that the President should have limitations on their liability, I would agree with that and I would say that the next step would be for the Congress to present legislation which limits immunity of the head of the executive Branch and pass it (even the veto power of the president can be overwhelmed if a super majority can vote for the legislation). It would be unjust for the courts to arbitrarily decide that the ancient and well established concept of sovereign immunity has disappeared because a certain president is now the one it applies to.
Arguably totalitarianism is the present.
In spite of a veneer of liberalism, the government has more control over our lives and the world at Large than ever before. In many western liberal democratic countries the percent of GDP that represents government overwhelms the entire private economy. Much of that remaining so-called private economy is just crony capitalism -- the richest people on the planet all have strong ties to the government. People are pissed off at Elon Musk for buying twitter, but no one seems to remember that he's entire Fortune is based on government Payola -- his cars for years were built in a factory he was given for free and every one highly subsided both directly and indirectly, and the other part of his fortune is SpaceX which is almost exclusively government.
In 1900, the government made up 5 to 10% of GDP in most of these countries and most of them didn't even have an income tax. Today, blue collar workers can hit a 50% marginal tax rate, and in some countries over 60% of GDP is the government.
With examples such as the credit card companies silencing viewpoints the government doesn't like, or up in Canada the federal government directly ordering Banks to remove people's ability to use money, that's a level of authoritarianism that most authoritarian regimes throughout history didn't reach.
Part of the way that the veneer of liberalism can be maintained is because in the past authoritarian governments tended to be somewhat masculine and used direct coercive Force, whereas today authoritarianism tends to make more use of indirect methods and GSR, such as during the pandemic when the federal governments other than Trudeau's, didn't directly silence anyone from saying things that they didn't like, but they did end up exercising direct control over academia to end up making it appear that there was a consensus that didn't necessarily exist, and ended up using messaging campaigns to paint anyone who wasn't doing what they wanted as in opposition to civilized society which turned neighbors into the agents of the state, through active rallying which led to acts of shaming.
While it may appear that feminine authoritarianism is not authoritarianism, anyone who has lived under the iron fist wrapped in a velvet glove knows full well it is just as bad.
In spite of a veneer of liberalism, the government has more control over our lives and the world at Large than ever before. In many western liberal democratic countries the percent of GDP that represents government overwhelms the entire private economy. Much of that remaining so-called private economy is just crony capitalism -- the richest people on the planet all have strong ties to the government. People are pissed off at Elon Musk for buying twitter, but no one seems to remember that he's entire Fortune is based on government Payola -- his cars for years were built in a factory he was given for free and every one highly subsided both directly and indirectly, and the other part of his fortune is SpaceX which is almost exclusively government.
In 1900, the government made up 5 to 10% of GDP in most of these countries and most of them didn't even have an income tax. Today, blue collar workers can hit a 50% marginal tax rate, and in some countries over 60% of GDP is the government.
With examples such as the credit card companies silencing viewpoints the government doesn't like, or up in Canada the federal government directly ordering Banks to remove people's ability to use money, that's a level of authoritarianism that most authoritarian regimes throughout history didn't reach.
Part of the way that the veneer of liberalism can be maintained is because in the past authoritarian governments tended to be somewhat masculine and used direct coercive Force, whereas today authoritarianism tends to make more use of indirect methods and GSR, such as during the pandemic when the federal governments other than Trudeau's, didn't directly silence anyone from saying things that they didn't like, but they did end up exercising direct control over academia to end up making it appear that there was a consensus that didn't necessarily exist, and ended up using messaging campaigns to paint anyone who wasn't doing what they wanted as in opposition to civilized society which turned neighbors into the agents of the state, through active rallying which led to acts of shaming.
While it may appear that feminine authoritarianism is not authoritarianism, anyone who has lived under the iron fist wrapped in a velvet glove knows full well it is just as bad.
Anyone who thinks that Trump is a violent authoritarian clearly wasn't looking at the four years he was in charge with a critical eye.
Even with respect to the vaccines, he didn't mandate anyone use them, he just helped get some red tape out of the way so that they could get to market faster. It was others who took the fact that those vaccines existed and then mandated that millions of people be forced to take an untested experimental vaccine.
I know myself and a lot of other people kind of wish that he had been a little bit more of a violent authoritarian in certain respects. If Minneapolis was my home city, and a bunch of violent lunatics were burning it to the ground for months, I would want every level of government to be stepping in to protect the property rights of the individuals other than the protesters who live in that City and are watching their homes and businesses be burnt to the ground. Instead he just sat there wagging his finger at them.
Even with respect to the vaccines, he didn't mandate anyone use them, he just helped get some red tape out of the way so that they could get to market faster. It was others who took the fact that those vaccines existed and then mandated that millions of people be forced to take an untested experimental vaccine.
I know myself and a lot of other people kind of wish that he had been a little bit more of a violent authoritarian in certain respects. If Minneapolis was my home city, and a bunch of violent lunatics were burning it to the ground for months, I would want every level of government to be stepping in to protect the property rights of the individuals other than the protesters who live in that City and are watching their homes and businesses be burnt to the ground. Instead he just sat there wagging his finger at them.
This lady is the ultimate example of leftist professors.
She is absolutely insufferable and so every single relationship she's involved with fails, and so the problem must be that relationships are white supremacy and must be abolished, not that she's an insufferable twat and no one wants to spend any time around her.
If she bothered actually looking into how women are treated under a lot of those alternative family structures, she might realize the correct answer is you just stop being such an insufferable twat...
She is absolutely insufferable and so every single relationship she's involved with fails, and so the problem must be that relationships are white supremacy and must be abolished, not that she's an insufferable twat and no one wants to spend any time around her.
If she bothered actually looking into how women are treated under a lot of those alternative family structures, she might realize the correct answer is you just stop being such an insufferable twat...
One of the biggest problems facing conservative parties around the world is that many of them are so pozzed and broken that nobody wants to vote for them since it's just a vote for the same progressive policies as the left wing parties but slightly less honest about it.
That's one of the reasons the Conservatives in Canada faced in the last election, and one of the problems the Republicans continually face. People don't want to just vote for different colored socialists, they want to vote for something fundamentally different.
That's one of the reasons the Conservatives in Canada faced in the last election, and one of the problems the Republicans continually face. People don't want to just vote for different colored socialists, they want to vote for something fundamentally different.
I'd be interested in seeing how that wager works out. I might be overestimating the amount of construction required to convert an average piece of rail to high speed rail. On the other hand, I do know from some previous research into rail accidents that higher speed routes often require route redesign. For example you need to redesign corners because something you can safely take at 40mph is suicidal at 200mph. Also, as I keep on mentioning with the paths in northern Manitoba, you could end up needing to do a lot of work on a piece of land including bringing in a lot of carbon intensive material, replacing relatively carbon neutral crushed rock with a stronger foundation. I'm also not sure if a high speed train would require additional barriers to keep wildlife or people or debris away from tracks compared to standard rail.
I did a bit more research, and it looks like high speed rail lines would likely require significant ground work (digging up existing areas and replacing what was there with an engineered underlay, as well as improving drainage in marginal areas such as my often referenced manitoba track), and instead of traditional track and timber rail ties, they'd use something like a ballastless track, which is continuous cement with steel mounts for tracks, so anywhere you go you'd be doing a lot of work and using a lot of cement where you used none, and a lot more steel per meter.
As for roads, that's a good question too. Asphalt is a highly recycled material, but it isn't free either, and some new asphalt needs to be added. Also, how does a highway compare to a high speed rail in terms of what's required? Trains are heavier than anything on the road by far, but I'd guess there's a lot less traffic on any given train line than a given road.
Overall, my mind is still imagining trying to replace new york to LA, and the costs involved with those, since I don't think either of us disagree that existing rail could likely be upgraded in relatively small regions I mentioned at the beginning that already have viable rail systems that have proven themselves. My argument has been that for something like the new york to la route, an airplane may be the most environmentally conscious method because while you burn a lot of fuel you don't need to build or maintain any infrastucture between the points.
I did a bit more research, and it looks like high speed rail lines would likely require significant ground work (digging up existing areas and replacing what was there with an engineered underlay, as well as improving drainage in marginal areas such as my often referenced manitoba track), and instead of traditional track and timber rail ties, they'd use something like a ballastless track, which is continuous cement with steel mounts for tracks, so anywhere you go you'd be doing a lot of work and using a lot of cement where you used none, and a lot more steel per meter.
As for roads, that's a good question too. Asphalt is a highly recycled material, but it isn't free either, and some new asphalt needs to be added. Also, how does a highway compare to a high speed rail in terms of what's required? Trains are heavier than anything on the road by far, but I'd guess there's a lot less traffic on any given train line than a given road.
Overall, my mind is still imagining trying to replace new york to LA, and the costs involved with those, since I don't think either of us disagree that existing rail could likely be upgraded in relatively small regions I mentioned at the beginning that already have viable rail systems that have proven themselves. My argument has been that for something like the new york to la route, an airplane may be the most environmentally conscious method because while you burn a lot of fuel you don't need to build or maintain any infrastucture between the points.
The CO2 in a tree is gathered over years and years, whereas rotting can occur in a relatively short period of time. It ends up back in the air, and plants around them which take years and years to gather carbon through photosynthesis won't collect it immediately.
Moreover, you can't say for certain whether a spot will even stay a forest on geological timeframes, and the odds are it will not. There have been 5 mass extinction events on earth, and 3 of them happened since the end of the carboniferous period. The End Permian event was caused by volcanic activity releasing large amounts of CO2 and H2S which caused acid rain and ocean acidification (killing 96% of species), the End Triassic event was caused by underwater volcanic activity which caused global warming and a change in composition in the oceans (killing 80% of species), and the End Cretaceous event was caused by a meteor impact which caused global cataclysm including global cooling (killing 76% of species). Besides that, there have been 13 other mass extinction events if you include the current Holocene mass extinction event. Antarctica was once part of a massive forest and today is an icy waste, and Australia was once almost entirely forest and today is mostly desert.
That's why the coal exists for the 60 million years after plants evolved to grow cellulose and before something else evolved the ability to digest cellulose, and essentially disappears. During the carboniferous period, anywhere there was forest (particularly swampy forests), that carbon essentially became part of the landscape and over 60 million years accumulated and was exposed to anerobic conditions thanks to the swampy conditions, and if the forest died, the carbon remained because there was nowhere for it to go and often got driven underground by geological processes over millions of years. I'd expect that millions of years of sedimental deposition by itself (even through processes like wind) would be enough to cover up the tree beds over time. The reason it stops after that is the tree beds don't stick around and become deposited carbon, they become CO2 through the metabolic processes of fungus.
By contrast, the process of life producing rock such as carbonates is a long term place for carbon to go. The white cliffs of dover for example are formed from the bodies of millions of years of aquatic life forms dying and falling to the ocean bed, and the parts that don't rot, oxidize, and aren't eaten by other creatures end up sticking around and packing down, creating entire mountains of carbon impregnated rock.
Honestly, one of the biggest shocks in my life was reading geological history and realizing that stuff we think would be important ended up being meaningless, while stuff we think of as insignificant ends up becoming incredibly important when you're talking about geological timeframes.
Moreover, you can't say for certain whether a spot will even stay a forest on geological timeframes, and the odds are it will not. There have been 5 mass extinction events on earth, and 3 of them happened since the end of the carboniferous period. The End Permian event was caused by volcanic activity releasing large amounts of CO2 and H2S which caused acid rain and ocean acidification (killing 96% of species), the End Triassic event was caused by underwater volcanic activity which caused global warming and a change in composition in the oceans (killing 80% of species), and the End Cretaceous event was caused by a meteor impact which caused global cataclysm including global cooling (killing 76% of species). Besides that, there have been 13 other mass extinction events if you include the current Holocene mass extinction event. Antarctica was once part of a massive forest and today is an icy waste, and Australia was once almost entirely forest and today is mostly desert.
That's why the coal exists for the 60 million years after plants evolved to grow cellulose and before something else evolved the ability to digest cellulose, and essentially disappears. During the carboniferous period, anywhere there was forest (particularly swampy forests), that carbon essentially became part of the landscape and over 60 million years accumulated and was exposed to anerobic conditions thanks to the swampy conditions, and if the forest died, the carbon remained because there was nowhere for it to go and often got driven underground by geological processes over millions of years. I'd expect that millions of years of sedimental deposition by itself (even through processes like wind) would be enough to cover up the tree beds over time. The reason it stops after that is the tree beds don't stick around and become deposited carbon, they become CO2 through the metabolic processes of fungus.
By contrast, the process of life producing rock such as carbonates is a long term place for carbon to go. The white cliffs of dover for example are formed from the bodies of millions of years of aquatic life forms dying and falling to the ocean bed, and the parts that don't rot, oxidize, and aren't eaten by other creatures end up sticking around and packing down, creating entire mountains of carbon impregnated rock.
Honestly, one of the biggest shocks in my life was reading geological history and realizing that stuff we think would be important ended up being meaningless, while stuff we think of as insignificant ends up becoming incredibly important when you're talking about geological timeframes.