It'll never happen (thank goodness), but it's still fun to imagine the possibilities. We'd get two senators per province/state and tons of congresspersons, and I think rather than going red/blue we'd have our own Canada party (except Alberta, because they're special and will have their own Alberta party). And then we'd side with the Democrats on almost everything and create a permanent liberal coalition. Which is why it'd never happen.
Never say never. I think there is something in your theory here. Quite possibly, those in America who like to posture are doing just that - posturing only.
I think if you went through with statehood, keeping your bagged milk, colorful money, and extraneous "u"s would soon be the least of your concerns.
I don't think there has been any serious proposals to annex Canada to the US. Although, the Rhinoceros Party of Canada (active 1963-1993) did propose that the US should be annexed to Canada. But they also called for the repeal of the Law of Gravity.
Oops! *blush* Yes, you're right. I tried looking up why Albertans and Ontarians are at odds. Let's see - from wikipedia: From a YouTube video called 62zLP-xY0AE]"Ontario vs Alberta - is it time to head west?" And from a Quora thread asking "Is it better to live in Quebec, Alberta or Ontario? Why?" Do these sound fair, Louanne? Just curious. I've heard of extreme sports, but extreme floating is a new one ... Having read their wiki-page, they start off by sounding like Monty Python's Silly Party, and then becoming the Very Silly Party. (And if you're not sure what I'm talking about - don't worry, neither do I. Wait a minute, yes I do. It's the Election Night Special.)
Winston Churchill published more than 6 million words in his life. More than Shakespeare and Dickens combined.
Yes, because he wanted to write his own political career so that people will remember it as better than it was. Like any politician, he made decisions that -- in hindsight -- were wrong, or seem hideous to us today. Besides, the number of words does not imply quality -- although in Churchill's case, he has the benefit of writing quality too (most of the time). Finally, I don't think it's fair to compare Churchill to Shakespeare or Dickens. Shakespeare may not have written as many words, but he certainly created a lot of them. (He also had a much shorter life than Churchill's - he died at 52). Same with Dickens: he had the disadvantage of an appallingly hideous childhood, so his writing career was much shorter than it might've been otherwise ... and then died of a stroke, when he was just 58. Churchill, in comparison, grew up with all the advantages: rich family, good house, lots of connections ... bad school, true, but there was nothing much standing in his way, either professionally or writing-wise. His life was almost twice as long as Shakespeare's or Dickens's (he was 90 when he died). So, he had lots more time to do anything he wanted.
@Rath Darkblade the only real comparison there was simple output, compared to other well known English authors. Just an interesting bit of trivia.
Fair enough. If you're judging by simple output, no problem. I was just thinking "Why", and went with it.
I wanted to make a brief, gentle, non-mean-spirited comment about this post, just in case it might be helpful. Take it or leave it. When most users make a one, or two, or three-sentence post about a thought that occurred to them, or a neat fact, or something like that, they're not seeking a mini-essay in response. That could be perceived as irritating. They could simply go to Google to research more if they cared to, but the typical reaction a typical poster is going for in such a case is, "oh, that's interesting." And if that reacting person wants to learn more, they too can go to Google/Wiki. In the social threads on this forum, I gather that most users are looking to share and lightly discuss ideas, and aren't interested in being lectured.
Fair enough. I didn't think I was delivering a lecture, but different strokes and all that. So here's a neat fact: Julius Caesar was held for ransom by pirates. He didn't think much of their methods and swore vengeance, which they laughed at. After he was ransomed, he came back to their islands and crucified them all. Centuries later, W. S. Gilbert (of Gilbert and Sullivan fame) was also held for ransom -- this time by Italian bandits (when he was just 2 years old). His parents were on holiday in Naples when a couple of men approached the maid looking after baby Gilbert and demanded the child. His parents paid the ransom of £25 (a small fortune in those days) for the return of their son. It had a profound effect on his story-telling, but he didn't return years later to crucify them.
i, too, would like to play "Apples and Oranges:" When the Dutch came to my city, a few of them were sick. The locals feared for their own health and quarantined the Dutch settles to one part of the city. a part that was marshy and on the outskirts. Well, the Dutch found the area charming, set up houses and a school, and settled there, using the marshes to their advantage. When the city lifted the quarantine and wanted the Dutch gone, they said "nope! we like it here!" and have stayed ever since. nearly a century later, and to the West, the Japanese were interned because locals feared for their own safety. But the Japanese weren't as happy about it as the Dutch
He also demanded that they ask a higher ransom for him than they were proposing since it had to reflect his social status... thus ensuring that he was well treated in captivity because he was valuable to them, and asserting his social dominance over his fellow captives. when he was released he raised an irregular formation from the villages along the coast, returned and destroyed and crucified the pirates and stole all their money.
Were any of them 100% reliable? They weren't interested in accurate reporting, they were just out to make friends, influence people, and make a few denarii. (The more things change ...) Shakespeare was the same. He made Julius Caesar out to be a big hero, but Caesar's contemporaries hated and feared him. He made Macbeth out to be a villain, but Macbeth was (broadly speaking) a pious man who even made a pilgrimage to Rome. Why all these changes? Because it made a good story, and also because James VI of Scotland/James I of England claimed Banquo (Macbeth's rival) as his ancestor. So Shakespeare was just sucking up to the king, always a good move.
Sounds about right. I'm 200# so my equivalent would be 88#, which I can probably do so long as I don't have to lift it too far off the ground or move it more than a few feet. I'm thinking of the kegs I have to duck walk from one side of the walk-in to the other.
The counterweight is PART of the overall weight of the truck. And I happen to drive a 9000lb Toyota 36v forktruck. How now, brown cow?
... So after a break from my historical WiP with 90K words, just looked it over and... WTF was I trying to do here? xD I was attempting...something? I mean, good on me for making it this far, just... Damn. xD Everything else is more or less locked in save for Act II which is.... a mess would be an understatement. Like y'all seen that image of the train wreck where the front of the train looks like a peeled banana skin going back? Yeah, it looks like that.
Eep. =( Do you have a plan or an outline, Link? Can you identify where your train went off the rails, retrace, and rewrite? =)
