On Sun, 8 May 2022 19:42:26 -0700 (PDT), "bil...@shaw.ca"
<billvan@shaw.ca> wrote:

>On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 3:39:37 PM UTC-7, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 23:54:45 +0200, "Anders D. Nygaard"
>> <news2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Den 07-05-2022 kl. 00:11 skrev bil...@shaw.ca:
>> >> On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 10:07:31 PM UTC-7, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>> >>> Wed, 4 May 2022 17:29:35 -0400: Quinn C
>> >> [...]
>> >>>> In Ireland, ministers are required to be MPs.
>> >>
>> >>> Strange, very strange.
>> >>
>> >> Not strange to me. In Canada, cabinet ministers are nearly always MPs,
>> >> though it is not mandatory.
>> >
>> >Same here.
>> >
>> >> Very rarely, a non-MP is named to the cabinet,
>> >> usually a prominent person.
>> >
>> >Quite the contrary: Most non-MPs appointed minister are "experts" in
>> >some sense of the word; some already well-known to the public, but
>> >more, I think, have been non-public figures.
>
>Experts in their field who are prominent enough for cabinet consideration
>*are* generally experts in some sense of the word, as you put it. You are
>free to put it in your own words, but ""quite the contrary" is unwarranted here.

I don't think it was intentional on your part, but you have attributed
what you have responded to above to me because it's "Tony Cooper
wrote..." at the top. Anders wrote that.
>
>> >Another category is politicians who are EPs
>
>Whatever you mean by EPs is probably not in use in Canadian English.
>Or perhaps, when you explain what you mean by it, I'll say "D'oh" and
>slap myself on the forehead. For now, I have no idea what you mean
>by EPs.

Again, written by Anders. An "EP" is a member of the European
Parliament, and I had to look it up to know that.

>> In the US, we have Cabinet secretaries instead of Ministers. They are
>> nominated by the President but must be confirmed by the Senate before
>> they take office.

I did write the above, but later posted a correction because what I
wrote is misleading.

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

In message <j06g7h12h3g3tvj5t4fldq2a4g7qaosjkm@4ax.com> Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Retconning" is "retroactive continuity" and explained as when the
> form or content of a previously established narrative is changed.

Close, but not quite. A retcon is a new piece of information that
changes the perception or meaning of previous events, but is not
changing what was stated before, but more like adding to it or casting
it in a new light.

"We have always been at war with Eastasia" is not a retcon, for example.

A good and somewhat well-known example is the retcon that the person who
murdered Bruce Wayne's parents was actually the Joker. It didn't change
any of the known facts or narrative in the original story, just added
element that the shooter was the man who became The Joker.

My favorite retcon, however, is Bucky Barnes, dead for 40 years and
considered un-retcon-able, in 2005 Marvel did just that. They did it
well, and it was rather brilliant.

As far as I know the term originated among comic fans in the 1980s when
both DC and Marvel were making extensive changes to their characters. I
first encountered it on rec.arts.comics in... 1989?, but I have no idea
if that was its origin.

It's only been recently that I've noticed it being used for things other
than comic books, mostly for TV and movies, but the term itself has been
applied to retcons from before retcon was a thing.

--
when you're no longer searching for beauty or love, just some kind of
life with the edges taken off. When you can't even define what it
is that you're frightened of...

Sam Plusnet hat am 09.05.2022 um 00:16 geschrieben:
> Jokes about Stalin flourished - once the £$%^&*() was safely dead.

It is rumoured that Brezhnev collected jokes about him. Much better
times than under Stalin, who collected people who spread jokes about him.

In article <t59ptg$k67$1@dont-email.me>,
Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
> On 09/05/22 06:25, Anders D. Nygaard wrote:
> > Den 08-05-2022 kl. 00:39 skrev Tony Cooper:

> >> In the US, we have Cabinet secretaries instead of Ministers.
> >
> > You had me confused there for a moment. My first thought was that
> > this is a distinction without a difference, but when I tried to look
> > it up, I found that British cabinet secretaries are senior civil
> > servants - which surely is not what you intended.
> >
> > Am I right in interpreting your point as being one of terminology: In
> > the US, politically appointed heads of government departments are
> > (mostly) referred to as "secretary of X", rather than "minister of
> > X"?
> >
> > Or is there a deeper significance to your comment that I'm missing?

> It's mostly a difference in terminology.

> The word "secretary" is very flexible. It ranges from someone who is
> good at shorthand to people with very senior positions.

and even, as a slightly tipsy young lady told me (many years ago) they are
sexetaries

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 2022-05-09, Tony Cooper wrote:

> On Sun, 08 May 2022 17:42:36 -0400, Tony Cooper
><tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 8 May 2022 22:25:38 +0200, "Anders D. Nygaard"
>><news2012adn@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Den 08-05-2022 kl. 00:39 skrev Tony Cooper:
>>>>In the US, w e have Cabinet secretaries instead of Ministers.
>>>
>>>You had me confused there for a moment.
>>>My first thought was that this is a distinction without a difference,
>>>but when I tried to look it up, I found that British cabinet secretaries
>>>are senior civil servants - which surely is not what you intended.
>>>
>>>Am I right in interpreting your point as being one of terminology:
>>>In the US, politically appointed heads of government departments are
>>>(mostly) referred to as "secretary of X", rather than "minister of X"?
>>>
>>>Or is there a deeper significance to your comment that I'm missing?
>>>
>>>/Anders, Denmark
>>
>>Titles. Antony Blinken is "Secretary of State". Not all Cabinet
>>members are "Secretary of...", but the major ones - except for the
>>Vice President - are.
>>
>>https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/cabinet/
>
> I don't know what I was thinking of when I wrote "In the US, we have
> Cabinet secretaries instead of Ministers".
>
> That implies that the word "Secretary" is not used as a title for UK
> Cabinet members. It is, of course. It's just that a Minister can be
> a member of the Cabinet. A US Secretary of... is not also a Senator
> or Representative. In the US, they resign that office to be a Cabinet
> member if in that office when they become Secretary of.
>
> The titles in the UK don't seem to follow a pattern. I see:
>
> Foreign Secretary

The official title seems to be (currently) "Secretary of State for
Foreign, Commonwealth and Development affairs".

> Secretary of State for...
> Minister of State
> and the one I like best: Minister without Portfolio.
>
>
>
>
>
>

--
A heretic is someone who shares ALMOST all your beliefs.
Kill him. ---Ivan Stang

On 2022-05-07, Peter Moylan wrote:

> On 07/05/22 00:34, Adam Funk wrote:
>> On 2022-05-06, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>> On 06/05/22 01:50, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>>>> How big is a House district? Ours come very close to being
>>>> exactly 1/435 of the total population as counted in the last
>>>> Census, except it's messed up by the small states getting 1 Rep
>>>> regardless of size; but within a state, all the districts have to
>>>> be exactly the same size.
>>>
>>> It's the same here. All electorates have to be equal in population,
>>> as much as practicable. I don't have the numbers to hand at the
>>> moment. The redistributions are done by a non-partisan body, so
>>> gerrymandering is not a problem.
>>
>> Good idea --- just out of curiosity, how are they appointed?
>
> I presume that it's the same as in any other public service department.
> When there's a job vacancy it's advertised in the newspapers, people
> apply, and then a selection committee tries to choose the best qualified.
>
> But I suppose you meant the senior management of that department.
> Probably most of them get there because of internal promotion.
>
> [Snip]
>
>>> It's not all good. The main beneficiaries are likely to be the
>>> United Australia Party and One Nation, both of which are extreme
>>> right, anti-vax, and racist. The UAP is gaining support because it
>>> is promising low-interest mortgages (while knowing that there is
>>> no way it could finance that).
>
> As in other countries, promising a chicken in every pot is a vote winner.
>
>>> On the other hand, some climate change deniers in the government
>>> run the risk of being edged out.
>>
>> Aren't extreme right kooks usually also climate change deniers?
>
> Our present Liberal/National coalition government has its share of
> extreme right kooks. Both of those parties are strong supporters of coal
> mining, and that leads them to inaction on climate change.
>
> But climate change is now, according to surveys, the top concern of
> voters. For that reason, probably, a number of independents are standing
> against government members on a platform of doing more about climate
> change. In addition, there is a body lobbying for climate action that,
> although not running candidates for election, is donating funds to those
> independents that it approves of, to give those independents a better
> chance of winning.

Good news.

> Meanwhile, we seem to have fewer right-wing kooks running as
> independents, because they have a couple of extreme right parties they
> can join.

That's probably bad because of strength in numbers?

--
Corporations are neither physical nor metaphysical phenomena. They are
socioeconomic ploys — legally enacted game-playing — agreed upon only
between overwhelmingly powerful socioeconomic individuals and by them
imposed upon human society and its all unwitting members.
---Buckminster Fuller

bil...@shaw.ca <billvan@shaw.ca> wrote:

> On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 3:39:37 PM UTC-7, Tony Cooper wrote:
> > On Sat, 7 May 2022 23:54:45 +0200, "Anders D. Nygaard"
> > <news2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Den 07-05-2022 kl. 00:11 skrev bil...@shaw.ca:
> > >> On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 10:07:31 PM UTC-7, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
> > >>> Wed, 4 May 2022 17:29:35 -0400: Quinn C
> > >> [...]
> > >>>> In Ireland, ministers are required to be MPs.
> > >>
> > >>> Strange, very strange.
> > >>
> > >> Not strange to me. In Canada, cabinet ministers are nearly always MPs,
> > >> though it is not mandatory.
> > >
> > >Same here.
> > >
> > >> Very rarely, a non-MP is named to the cabinet,
> > >> usually a prominent person.
> > >
> > >Quite the contrary: Most non-MPs appointed minister are "experts" in
> > >some sense of the word; some already well-known to the public, but
> > >more, I think, have been non-public figures.
>
> Experts in their field who are prominent enough for cabinet consideration
> *are* generally experts in some sense of the word, as you put it. You are
> free to put it in your own words, but ""quite the contrary" is unwarranted
> here.
>
> > >Another category is politicians who are EPs
>
> Whatever you mean by EPs is probably not in use in Canadian English.
> Or perhaps, when you explain what you mean by it, I'll say "D'oh" and slap
> myself on the forehead. For now, I have no idea what you mean by EPs.
> > >
> > In the US, we have Cabinet secretaries instead of Ministers. They are
> > nominated by the President but must be confirmed by the Senate before
> > they take office.
>
> Our ministers are chosen from among the elected MPs by the prime minister
> and his/her advisers. They should be vetted for suitability but that is
> sometimes not done thoroughly, with embarrassing results.
>
> > If a sitting Senator or Representitive would be nominated, he/she
> > would have to resign their seat as a Senator or Representive to serve
> > as a Cabinet secretary.
>
> That's a major difference between the U.S. system and the British-style
> parliamentary system we have in Canada. Anyone named a federal cabinet
> minister who is not already a Member of Parliament is expected to become
> an MP as soon as possible so as to be able to answer questions about their
> ministry in Parliament.

Yes, strange ideas, they just never got how it should be done.
Montesquieu already knew better.
As you no doubt know, Dutch members of parliament
must give up their seats when becoming minister.
And many ministers have never been members of parliament.
(it is even possible for members of the opposition to become minister)

The government governs, it must have the confidence of parliament.
Nobody should be kept in check by himself,

Jan

On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 5:42:41 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Sun, 8 May 2022 22:25:38 +0200, "Anders D. Nygaard"
> <news2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Den 08-05-2022 kl. 00:39 skrev Tony Cooper:

> >> In the US, we have Cabinet secretaries instead of Ministers.
> >You had me confused there for a moment.
> >My first thought was that this is a distinction without a difference,
> >but when I tried to look it up, I found that British cabinet secretaries
> >are senior civil servants - which surely is not what you intended.
> >
> >Am I right in interpreting your point as being one of terminology:
> >In the US, politically appointed heads of government departments are
> >(mostly) referred to as "secretary of X", rather than "minister of X"?
> >
> >Or is there a deeper significance to your comment that I'm missing?
>
> Titles. Antony Blinken is "Secretary of State". Not all Cabinet
> members are "Secretary of...", but the major ones - except for the
> Vice President - are.

The Attorney-General is minor?

(Until about 50 years ago, the Postmaster-General was a Cabinet
member as well.)

A number of others have "cabinet rank," such as the UN Ambassador
and the EPA Administrator, but they do not participate in the Line of
Succession to the presidency in case of disaster (cf. "designated
survivor").

> https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/cabinet/
> --
> Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida
> I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

And misinformation.

On Sun, 08 May 2022 13:14:40 -0400
Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 8 May 2022 09:17:15 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
[]
>
> I was not aware that it is handled differently in the case of a
> Representitive. Thank you for the correction.
> >
Is that a representative^w typical error?! (Insert smiley)
>
[]
> >> --
> >> Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida
> >> I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.
> >
> >And misinformation.
>
> And a willingness to admit error.
>
I'm sure some^wone here won't. But in the meantime I'll watch the entertainment.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On Sat, 7 May 2022 21:29:50 +0100
Paul Wolff <bounceme@thiswontwork.wolff.co.uk> wrote:

> On Sat, 7 May 2022, at 11:54:01, Peter Moylan posted:
> >On 07/05/22 00:34, Adam Funk wrote:
> >> On 2022-05-06, Peter Moylan wrote:
> >>> On 06/05/22 01:50, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >
> >>>> How big is a House district? Ours come very close to being
> >>>> exactly 1/435 of the total population as counted in the last
> >>>> Census, except it's messed up by the small states getting 1 Rep
> >>>> regardless of size; but within a state, all the districts have to
> >>>> be exactly the same size.
> >>>
> >>> It's the same here. All electorates have to be equal in population,
> >>> as much as practicable. I don't have the numbers to hand at the
> >>> moment. The redistributions are done by a non-partisan body, so
> >>> gerrymandering is not a problem.
>
> [snippo]
>
> >>> It's not all good. The main beneficiaries are likely to be the
> >>> United Australia Party and One Nation, both of which are extreme
> >>> right, anti-vax, and racist. The UAP is gaining support because it
> >>> is promising low-interest mortgages (while knowing that there is
> >>> no way it could finance that).
> >
> >As in other countries, promising a chicken in every pot is a vote winner.
> >
> >>> On the other hand, some climate change deniers in the government
> >>> run the risk of being edged out.
> >>
> >> Aren't extreme right kooks usually also climate change deniers?
> >
> >Our present Liberal/National coalition government has its share of
> >extreme right kooks. Both of those parties are strong supporters of coal
> >mining, and that leads them to inaction on climate change.
> >
> >But climate change is now, according to surveys, the top concern of
> >voters. For that reason, probably, a number of independents are standing
> >against government members on a platform of doing more about climate
> >change. In addition, there is a body lobbying for climate action that,
> >although not running candidates for election, is donating funds to those
> >independents that it approves of, to give those independents a better
> >chance of winning.
> >
> >Meanwhile, we seem to have fewer right-wing kooks running as
> >independents, because they have a couple of extreme right parties they
> >can join.
> >
> I imagine that spectrum of groupings characterised by leftness and
> rightness would run from extreme left through left, centre and right to
> extreme right. I mean that outer reaches are necessarily the extremes.
>
> But I hear a great deal in the public meeja about the extreme right, and
> hardly anything about the extreme left. Am I biassed, or just not
> noticing it, or is there a conspiracy of silence towards the leftward
> extreme? Other explanations welcome, if politely put.

The extreme left have mostly given up on campaignihg for a Workers Revolution; the USSR and Nth Korean experiences not being great examples of Workers Paradises. (SIC?)

The current sunspots favor a swing to the right and localism.
--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

* Silvano:

> Sam Plusnet hat am 09.05.2022 um 00:16 geschrieben:
>> Jokes about Stalin flourished - once the £$%^&*() was safely dead.
>
> It is rumoured that Brezhnev collected jokes about him.

About Stalin, or about himself?

--
Where we are, when we are ... nothing but lies told by the senses.
-- Trance Gemini

* Tony Cooper:

> On Sun, 8 May 2022 10:55:33 -0400, Quinn C
> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>
>>>>> In this context, a Canadian is a foreigner. The context is
>>>>> established by your use of "non-American". I framed it as "American
>>>>> vs foreigner".
>>>>
>>>>No you didn't. You better leave both the kickoff spot and the goalposts
>>>>where they were.
>>>>
>>>
>>> A Canadian is a non-American, Mattea is a Canadian. Can you take
>>> that one step further? Is she, or is she not, a "foreigner" when
>>> appearing on an American television show?
>>
>>Stop retconning. What I answered to is right up there:
>>
>>| I would assume some ability to answer questions of a broader nature
>>| than Canadian history and events would be required
>
> "Retconning" is "retroactive continuity" and explained as when the
> form or content of a previously established narrative is changed.

Yes. Don't do it.

You can say "I didn't think this one through" or "I didn't express this
well" and try a different argument, but "I never said what I said" just
isn't building the foundation for a good faith exchange.

>>It's not the broader than Canadian that is the problem, but the narrowly
>>American nature.
>>
>>>>> Frankly, I don't understand your complaint.
>
> I still don't.

As very neatly explained in my last post, which you obviously didn't
read, there's no complaint.
>>>>> You mentioned somewhere
>>>>> "if Canadians are allowed to enter". As far as I know, anyone - from
>>>>> anywhere - can apply to enter.
>>>>
>>>>No, only Americans and Canadians. Or maybe residents of those two
>>>>countries. But certainly not people living elsewhere.
>>>
>>> This page does not indicate that only Americans and Canadians are
>>> eligible:
>>>
>>> https://www.jeopardy.com/be-on-j/faqs
>>
>>What do you think is the point of this one, then?
>>
>>| ARE CANADIANS ELIGIBLE TO TAKE THE TEST?
>>|
>>| Yes, Canadians are eligible.
>>
>
> I'll take "Obvious Answers for $1,000".
>
> What is the nationality of the people who most often ask if they are
> eligible?
>
> Canada is a large county neighboring the United States with a large
> number of viewers who watch the program.
>
> If there were a large number of questions from non-American viewers of
> other nationalities, there would be a similar entry for that group.
>
> There's nothing about that entry that implies in any way that other
> non-Americans are ineligible.

Just not Griceing it.

--
.... it might be nice to see ourselves reflected in TV shows and
Pride season campaigns, but the cis white men who invented the
gender binary still own the damn mirror.
-- Delilah Friedler at slate.com

On 09/05/22 22:04, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:

> The extreme left have mostly given up on campaignihg for a Workers Revolution; the USSR and Nth Korean experiences not being great examples of Workers Paradises. (SIC?)
>
> The current sunspots favor a swing to the right and localism.

It is hard to find current examples of the extreme left. Cuba qualifies,
it is true, but almost all of central America has been defeated by the CIA.

China has abandoned socialism. but is hard to classify its current
leaning. It appears to be a form of capitalism that is what is diffentt
from what it wants 5to promote.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW
http://www.pmoylan.org

Den 09-05-2022 kl. 04:42 skrev bil...@shaw.ca:
> On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 3:39:37 PM UTC-7, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 23:54:45 +0200, "Anders D. Nygaard"
>> <news2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Den 07-05-2022 kl. 00:11 skrev bil...@shaw.ca:
>>>> On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 10:07:31 PM UTC-7, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>>> Wed, 4 May 2022 17:29:35 -0400: Quinn C
>>>> [...]
>>>>>> In Ireland, ministers are required to be MPs.
>>>>
>>>>> Strange, very strange.
>>>>
>>>> Not strange to me. In Canada, cabinet ministers are nearly always MPs,
>>>> though it is not mandatory.
>>>
>>> Same here.
>>>
>>>> Very rarely, a non-MP is named to the cabinet,
>>>> usually a prominent person.
>>>
>>> Quite the contrary: Most non-MPs appointed minister are "experts" in
>>> some sense of the word; some already well-known to the public, but
>>> more, I think, have been non-public figures.
>
> Experts in their field who are prominent enough for cabinet consideration
> *are* generally experts in some sense of the word, as you put it. You are
> free to put it in your own words, but ""quite the contrary" is unwarranted here.

I intended my statement to be "contrary" to "prominent" - not a slur on
the expertise of your "prominent persons". I thought my expansion on the
prominence (or not) of our non-MP ministers made that clear.

>>> Another category is politicians who are EPs
>
> Whatever you mean by EPs is probably not in use in Canadian English.
> Or perhaps, when you explain what you mean by it, I'll say "D'oh" and
> slap myself on the forehead. For now, I have no idea what you mean
> by EPs.

Members of the European Parliament. I should have written MEPs.

/Anders, Denmark

On 2022-05-09 17:27:33 +0000, Anders D. Nygaard said:

> Den 09-05-2022 kl. 04:42 skrev bil...@shaw.ca:
>> On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 3:39:37 PM UTC-7, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 23:54:45 +0200, "Anders D. Nygaard"
>>> <news2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Den 07-05-2022 kl. 00:11 skrev bil...@shaw.ca:
>>>>> On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 10:07:31 PM UTC-7, Ruud Harmsen wrote:
>>>>>> Wed, 4 May 2022 17:29:35 -0400: Quinn C
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>> In Ireland, ministers are required to be MPs.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Strange, very strange.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not strange to me. In Canada, cabinet ministers are nearly always MPs,
>>>>> though it is not mandatory.
>>>>
>>>> Same here.
>>>>
>>>>> Very rarely, a non-MP is named to the cabinet,
>>>>> usually a prominent person.
>>>>
>>>> Quite the contrary: Most non-MPs appointed minister are "experts" in
>>>> some sense of the word; some already well-known to the public, but
>>>> more, I think, have been non-public figures.
>>
>> Experts in their field who are prominent enough for cabinet consideration
>> *are* generally experts in some sense of the word, as you put it. You are
>> free to put it in your own words, but ""quite the contrary" is
>> unwarranted here.
>
> I intended my statement to be "contrary" to "prominent" - not a slur on
> the expertise of your "prominent persons". I thought my expansion on the
> prominence (or not) of our non-MP ministers made that clear.
>
>>>> Another category is politicians who are EPs
>>
>> Whatever you mean by EPs is probably not in use in Canadian English.
>> Or perhaps, when you explain what you mean by it, I'll say "D'oh" and
>> slap myself on the forehead. For now, I have no idea what you mean
>> by EPs.
>
> Members of the European Parliament. I should have written MEPs.

Better still: "Members of the European Parliament". It's safest not to
use abbreviations unless you're sure that everyone knows them. Even for
those of us who live in the European Union MEP is not an abbreviation
we meet every day.

--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

Quinn C hat am 09.05.2022 um 16:33 geschrieben:
> * Silvano:
>
>> Sam Plusnet hat am 09.05.2022 um 00:16 geschrieben:
>>> Jokes about Stalin flourished - once the £$%^&*() was safely dead.
>>
>> It is rumoured that Brezhnev collected jokes about him.
>
> About Stalin, or about himself?

About himself.

On 09-May-22 12:10, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> As you no doubt know, Dutch members of parliament
> must give up their seats when becoming minister.

Presumably their Parliamentary seat is then filled after a local election.

If there is a subsequent cabinet reshuffle, does that mean the (now)
ex-minister is left high and dry?

Or are cabinet reshuffles less common in the Netherlands than here in
the UK?

--
Sam Plusnet

On 5/8/2022 8:09 PM, bil...@shaw.ca wrote:
> Paul Wolff wrote:
>> bil...@shaw.ca posted:

>>>> I imagine that spectrum of groupings characterised by leftness and
>>>> rightness would run from extreme left through left, centre and right to
>>>> extreme right. I mean that outer reaches are necessarily the extremes.

>>>> But I hear a great deal in the public meeja about the extreme right, and
>>>> hardly anything about the extreme left. Am I biassed, or just not
>>>> noticing it, or is there a conspiracy of silence towards the leftward
>>>> extreme? Other explanations welcome, if politely put.

>>> Remind us where you live

>> In my own head, subjectively speaking. Geographically, central southern
>> England, Wessex, and Berkshire. Culturally, Western European.

>>> and what sort of parties constitute the extreme
>>> left and right there.

>> It's not so much 'there' as in the minds and words of the people with
>> opinions who report or are reported in mainstream media. The Corbyn
>> supporters in the Labour party seem to be on the leftward edge, but I
>> don't remember them being called extreme left, so there ought to be
>> something beyond them that actually is at the extreme left. There's a
>> Communist Party and a Socialist Workers Party on the leftward fringe but
>> no-one pays them any attention. Or maybe Corbyn is extreme left, but
>> people shy away from saying so.

> Corby strikes me as a little too left-wing to win enough seats
> to form a government. Not extreme, mind you, but near enough to scare
> a significant proportion of voters.

>> Substantial leftward parties are the non-English nationalist parties -
>> Scottish National, Plaid Cymru and Sinn Fein - yet the UK Independence
>> Party and British National Party are characterised as right wing. So
>> nationalism isn't either left or right, and doesn't help.
>
> I think Canada's Parti Quebecois might be comparable to those parties.
> Its aim at one time was to achieve independence for Quebec, but nowadays
> its policies are meant to enhance the interests of the province within Canada.
> That could change with a strong charismatic leader, but we haven't seen one
> of those for a while.

All that and independence too; but they haven't been doing well in the
polls lately, and there's a provincial election coming.

The Bloc Québécois is sent to Ottawa to defend the interests of la
nation, and they are doing OK.

>> Right-wing leaves me baffled, except for preserving the status quo ante,
>> therefore far-right is meaningless to me. Fascism is unthinkingly said
>> to be far right-wing, but by that standard the Chinese Communist Party
>> is far right-wing. Is it? Maybe it is, if authoritarianism and
>> ultra-nationalism are the leading criteria. Whichever wing it is, left
>> or right, the Chinese system is pretty extreme anyway.

> I don't think there are neat categories to define today's China. Communism
> is long gone, despite the name of the party, which adopted a kid of
> economic nationalism decades ago while maintaining a ruling class of
> senior party members.

>> I'm left with the feeling that "extreme right" is simply the antithesis
>> of socialism, but with a louder voice.

> And yet the German Nazis called themselves socialists. The name really
> doesn't mean much. I'm thinking about whether there should be a name
> for parties and dictators that reflect their willingness to try to achieve
> their goals by means of genocide. "Fascist" may carry too much historical
> baggage to qualify.

>>> Here in Canada, there are no parties with significant public
>>> support on either extreme.

>>> But in the U.S., Donald Trump has dragged the Republicans to extreme positions
>>> not seen previously in my lifetime, to the point where tens of thousands
>>> of his supporters marched on Washington, broke through police lines
>>> and stormed the Capitol building, where at least some of them were
>>> looking to kill the vice-president for not being right-wing enough and to
>>> overturn the results of the election their side had lost. It was incompetently
>>> carried out, but it was nevertheless an attempted coup.

>> What do they mean by "not being right-wing enough"?

> He was unwilling to do his best to overturn the election results that made Biden
> president, and to try to reinstall Trump for a second term for which he had not
> been elected.

>>> On the left? Sleepy Joe Biden. Which side do you think poses the bigger
>>> threat to democracy?

>>> In most of Europe, meanwhile, far-right parties are on the rise. Far-left
>>> parties are neither on the rise, nor a threat to democracy. In Russia,
>>> Putin has established a one-man dictatorship that resembles
>>> fascism more than anything else, complete with the persecution of
>>> ethnic Ukrainians and the outright invasion of Ukraine.

>> Would you say Putin's fascism was left-wing fascism or right-wing
>> fascism?

> I don't think there is anything left-wing about Putin's outlook. As I said,
> his rule most closely resembles fascism. He is a dictator who is willing
> to massacre dissenters and bomb his own country's cities. The last
> place I recall where that sort of thing happened was Syria.

>>> Feel free to point out left-wing threats equivalent to these threats
>> >from the right. My view is that there are no equivalent threats from
>>> the left, and that the media are correct to focus on the right,
>>> especially in the U.S.

>> That may be so. In Britain, there are many socialist parties, but they
>> seem doomed ever to squabble amongst themselves for supremacy of
>> doctrine, so have little impact on Real Life.

> I think it's a sign of good political health when the fringe/crackpot parties
> in a multi-party system are mostly ignored by the populace. Also when
> the parties that do have a chance to form governments remain comfortably
> close to the political centre.

On 5/8/2022 12:51 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
> CDB <bellemarecd@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Ken Blake wrote:
>>> CDB <bellemarecd@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> I once had to write a letter to one "Jean Royce", and didn't know
>>> how to
>>>> address em.

>>> Did you consider "Dear Them"?

>> She was someone whose favourable opinion I wanted, so I looked into
>> the matter before writing.

> Lest you misunderstand, I of course was not serious in suggesting
> "Dear Them."

<EL> Oh. Never mind. <EL>

* Quinn C:

> The two prevalent types of questions that I can't answer in Jeopardy are
> a) from subjects that I'm not well-versed in and b) questions that are
> very US-specific.

When nobody could identify the multi-clued picture by Archibald Willard
painted for the US centennial showing 3 marching musicians ("Spirit of
'76"), Ken commented "I know you can picture it!" Maybe true for the
candidates, but it didn't look familiar to me when I looked it up.
Archibald Willard has a Wikipedia page in only four other languages -
and an oddball collection it is: Arabic, French, Hebrew, Persian.

--
The country has its quota of fools and windbags; such people are
most prominent in politics, where their inherent weaknesses seem
less glaring and attract less ridicule than they would in other
walks of life. -- Robert Bothwell et.al.: Canada since 1945

* Peter T. Daniels:

> On Sunday, May 8, 2022 at 10:53:06 AM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
>> * Peter T. Daniels:
>>> On Saturday, May 7, 2022 at 11:55:38 AM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
>>>> * Peter T. Daniels:
>
>>>>> As the guy said, he only knew Harding because Coolidge's number
>>>>> had been given in the previous question.
>>>> So Mattea's a guy now (nobody else gave any answer in that category)!
>>> I recalled it as the (now rare) male contestant.
>>
>> By the way, I don't think it came up in the chats, but Mattea identifies
>> as what people on TikTok apparently pronounce "Le-dollar-bian" to avoid
>
> I can't guess
>
>> censorship by the algorithms.

You'll have a hard time keeping up with the youfs.

Le$bian?
>> If it wasn't for Matt Amodio, who seems to be so straight he couldn't go
>> down a spiral staircase,
>
> That's cute -- too bad it was wasted on the creep.
>
>> it'd be in danger of turning into Queerpardy.
>
> NPR had a Mothers Day story this morning about the recuperation of the
> term "Mama's Boy" -- apparently it's not an insult these days.

Ha - not even under a new name, like "goblin mode", which I just learned
is a fashionable term for being a slob.

--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)

On 5/8/2022 12:29 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> CDB wrote:
>> lar3ryca wrote:
>>> CDB wrote:
>>>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>> CDB wrote:
>>>>>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>>>> Quinn C wrote:
>>>>>>>> Peter T. Daniels:
>>>>>>>>> Quinn C wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Ruud Harmsen:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net>
>>>>>>>>>>> scribeva:

>>>>>>>>>>>> They were also very fond of Locke. Mattea
>>>>>>>>>>>> would know.
>>>>>>>>>>> Incomprehensible, irrelevant and uncalled for
>>>>>>>>>>> reaction. Who is Locke? Who is Mattea?
>>>>>>>>>> If you don't even know who Locke is (or Berkeley
>>>>>>>>>> or Hobbes), you won't win in Jeopardy against
>>>>>>>>>> Mattea Roach, who's currently on a winning streak,
>>>>>>>>>> one of the biggest in history, again (there were
>>>>>>>>>> two of those quite recently).
>>>>>>>>> Last night Ken all but apologized for the "gimme"
>>>>>>>>> Final Question, using the excuse that the questions
>>>>>>>>> were written months ago and used randomly. Would that
>>>>>>>>> have prevented them from removing one that consisted
>>>>>>>>> of nothing but recognizing the second line of "O
>>>>>>>>> Canada"?
>>>>>>>> Any intervention that takes the candidates into
>>>>>>>> account introduces subjectivity and thus unfairness.
>>>>>>> There have been an awful lot of questions in the last
>>>>>>> few weeks pertaining specifically to Canada. Someone's
>>>>>>> thumb seems to be on the scale.
>>>>>> Alex Trebek used to make sure there were questions about
>>>>>> Canada in the mix (embarrassingly few of them got more than
>>>>>> blank looks). They may do this in memory of him.
>>>>> Did he ensure there would be Midwest questions when a
>>>>> Chicago candidate was on?
>>>> I don't think I suggested that he would arrange Canadian
>>>> questions for Canadian contestants. My mention of blank-faced
>>>> reactions seems to me to rule that out.
>>>>>>> They seem to believe that long streaks are good for
>>>>>>> ratings, but in fact they're boring. It was shocking last
>>>>>>> night that no one knew (NASA shmASA) that Apollo's twin
>>>>>>> sister is Artemis, or who Peter Stuyvesant was (never
>>>>>>> mind the portrait, "handed NY over to the Brits" was
>>>>>>> enough).
>>>>>> Artemis was also called Selene, which would have been a
>>>>>> good guess for a moonshot.

> Not different divinities?

The Olympian religion was pretty syncretic. The lines I quoted in the
sig-space were from a poem billed as a "Hymn to Diana", but in the
course of it the goddess is addressed as Diana, Juno, Hecate, and Luna -
Maiden, Mother, and Crone, in other words - the White Goddess.

>>>>> Though it's not the name of the new lunar exploration
>>>>> program.
>>>> My remark addressed the idea that the contestants were
>>>> shockingly ignorant of the name of Apollo's sister. I doubt
>>>> that they all were, but they may have faced an embarrassment of
>>>> choice, as my formerly-siggish comment pointed out below.
>>> Shockingly? Did you study Greek, Roman, and/or Norse mythology
>>> in your school years? I sure didn't.

>> OK, "shockingly". The shock was PeterTD's (see above).

> You could inform him that we did indeed learn Classical mythology in
> elementary school (how can you do Greek and Roman history without?).
> If he didn't, you might look into Canadian curricula.

>>> As for Peter Stuyvesant, only a self-centred boor that thinks
>>> the world revolves around an eastern US state would expect every
>>> Canadian to know anything at all about him.

> I also pointed out that in high school there was mention of Wolfe
> and Montcalm, who accomplised the same end but rather less
> peacefully.

Montcalm and this brave youth together walked,
On the Plains of Abraham like brothers talked
Till each one took his post and did retire;
'Twas then these numerous hosts commenced their fire.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEvcz1Utm5E

>> I know a little bit, but I went to school for several years in an
>> eastern US state. I picture him saying that some opponent would
>> soon be shorter by a head (possibly apocryphal; I couldn't find it
>> on the Net),

> Was that an option in 17th-century Dutch law? Rings a bell, but not
> about P.S.

>> or looking like Charles Coburn, except black and white, and
>> singing "September Song".

> Please. Walter Huston! (If there was a movie of *Knickerbocker
> Holiday* and they used Coburn, he was horribly miscast. There's
> something like a Broadway Original Cast album, and Huston does a
> surprisingly creditable job.)

It was the first try. I saw the movie on television in 1952, roughly
speaking. I guess they were still showing the 1930s version.

In all candor, I don't remember who played the dirty old man. I
remember the song; I had been a Weill fan since I seeing "One Touch of
Venus" in the late forties. I didn't know him by name for years, but I
knew what I liked.

On 5/8/2022 1:08 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
> CDB <bellemarecd@gmail.com> wrote:
>> lar3ryca wrote:

>>> As for Peter Stuyvesant, only a self-centred boor that thinks
>>> the world revolves around an eastern US state would expect every
>>> Canadian to know anything at all about him.

>> I know a little bit, but I went to school for several years in an
>> eastern US state. I picture him saying that some opponent would
>> soon be shorter by a head (possibly apocryphal; I couldn't find it
>> on the Net), or looking like Charles Coburn, except black and
>> white, and singing "September Song".

> What am I missing? Surely you don't mean Peter Stuyvesant singing
> "September Song".

When he was a young man courting the girls, he played him a waiting game.

On 09-May-22 22:31, CDB wrote:
> On 5/8/2022 1:08 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
>> CDB <bellemarecd@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> lar3ryca wrote:
>
>>>> As for Peter Stuyvesant, only a self-centred boor that thinks
>>>> the world revolves around an eastern US state would expect every
>>>> Canadian to know anything at all about him.
>
>>> I know a little bit, but I went to school for several years in an
>>> eastern US state.  I picture him saying that some opponent would
>>> soon be shorter by a head (possibly apocryphal; I couldn't find it
>>> on the Net), or looking like Charles Coburn, except black and
>>> white, and singing "September Song".
>
>> What am I missing? Surely you don't mean Peter Stuyvesant singing
>> "September Song".
>
> When he was a young man courting the girls, he played him a waiting game.

Courting...
Tennis, or legal?

--
Sam Plusnet

On Monday, May 9, 2022 at 11:31:39 AM UTC-7, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 09-May-22 12:10, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> > As you no doubt know, Dutch members of parliament
> > must give up their seats when becoming minister.

> Presumably their Parliamentary seat is then filled after a local election.

The last time I knew anything about it, the Dutch didn't have ridings
or constituencies that British-style parliamentary systems have.
The Dutch had -- and probably still have -- a proportional system. Your
party gets 23.5 per cent of the vote, it gets 23.5 per cent of the seats.
If that amounts to, say, 40 seats, the top 40 names on the list of
candidates authorized by your party will each get a seat.
>
> If there is a subsequent cabinet reshuffle, does that mean the (now)
> ex-minister is left high and dry?

I'll leave that one for someone who knows.
>
> Or are cabinet reshuffles less common in the Netherlands than here in
> the UK?

They are common enough as I understand it, but are triggered by different
factors. The Dutch have many political parties representing various interests;
no party ever gets a majority of seats. Every election is followed by a series of
negotiations in which a new coalition is cobbled together that is acceptable to
parties that together hold a majority of seats. Part of those negotiations is
abhow many cabinet ministers each party in the coalition gets, especially
with regard to the most powerful ministries. A cabinet shuffle would generally
be just one step in the building of a new coalition after the old coalition has
fallen apart.
>
bill

> Sam Plusnet