Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
Because the monarch plays a limited but important role in government. It is her job to appoint a Prime Minister (not always trivial in a hung parliament); and, it's her decision whether to call an election, or to appoint a new PM from the current Commons should the government fall on a confidence motion.
You could eliminate the monarch...but then you'd just need to replace her with someone else who would do those jobs (call that person a president, chancellor, or whatever else you like). And what have you gained? (Aside from having to reprint all your currency, reissue passports to all your citizens, rewrite parts of your constitution, etc.).
Are you saying that there aren't local governments in the UK? Because that's not correct in the slightest.
Or are claiming that the landmass of a nation determines when it can be successful as a monarchy? Because Canada is larger than the US, and functions well enough with a queen and parliamentary system very similar to the UK.
Or are you claiming that it's population size that determines if a monarchy could work as a form of government? Claiming it doesn't scale with population is as ridiculous as claiming that counting ballots by hand doesn't scale in large populations -- the arguments just make no sense.
Fry: Uh, just so we'll know, who's the enemy?
Brannigan: A valid question! We know nothing about them, their language, their history or what they look like. But we can assume this: they stand for everything we don't stand for. Also they told me you guys look like dorks.
I'm curious - what do you suggest as a better way to compare 400 candidates applying for 4 jobs? Don't forget the most important constraint: you are not an expert in any of their fields.
And the other important constraint: you don't have infinite time to read material and seek out experts to determine the quality of their publications. It is unfortunate, and I wasn't trying to imply with my comment that there is some better way (or that I have any idea what a better way would look like).
But, I've found some amazing, insightful papers on the personal webpages of professors near retirement, who no longer care about the grind of publication. I've seen absolute crud (to the extent of being poorly plagiarized) in high-calibre conferences, and I've seen truly insightful work decried as pointless by one of the "old boys' clubs" that run some of the high-calibre conferences. I'm not saying I have a fix; I'm just saying that the perceived "value" of a venue isn't reflective of the quality of work in that venue relative to other places.
Aside from the peer-review process, what do these journals offer the scientific community that they can't get for free on the Internet?
Unfortunately, within the academic world, the quality of publications on your CV is determined by the perceived quality of the venue (e.g., high-impact journals, low-acceptance conferences, etc.), as opposed to the quality of the actual work getting published. There's an inertia problem faced by any new publication venue or method, and the academic world is ironically slow to adapt. At the end of the day, professors need tenure, grad students need scholarships, etc., so they will continue to publish in what are currently accepted as quality venues.
The Prime Minister is not elected directly, he's simply the head of the party that got the most seats.
To clarify further, the prime minister can actually be any person at all (it's constitutionally questionable whether the prime minister even need be a Canadian citizen over 18 years of age). The Canadian system of government is very different from the American system, and few Canadians know how our system actually works (thanks to bombardment of American media and their electoral system).
The head of state is the Queen of Canada, Elizabeth II, who is also the Queen of England. Her duties are carried out by the Queen's representative in Canada, the Governor General (currently Michaëlle Jean), who is appointed by the Queen on the advice of the prime minister.
When elections are called in Canada (which happens every five years, or sooner if the government loses the confidence of the house), Canadians go to the polls and elect 308 representatives to the House of Commons -- one representative from each riding in the country, in a first-past-the-poll vote. While there are some independent members elected to the house, typically the members come from one of the four major political parties: the Conservatives (right-of-centre), the Liberals (central), the New Democratic Party (left-of-centre), or the Bloc Québécois (a Quebec-interest-only party). The Green Party (left-of-centre) has also nearly elected some members to the house, and briefly held a house seat after one member crossed the floor.
Once the 308 members have been elected to the house, the Governor General chooses someone to be the prime minister. That person will form a government by choosing people (here, I mean anyone he or she pleases from the general population) to be their ministers.
The newly formed government, with the prime minister chosen by the Governor General and ministers chosen by the prime minister, then faces a vote of confidence by the house. Here is where the elected representatives of Canada have their say: do they have confidence in the abilities of the newly formed government to lead the country? If they say no, the Governor General must either find a new prime minister and government that could hold the confidence of the house, or dissolve parliament and call a new election to find 308 new representatives.
So, in practice, in order to ensure that the chosen prime minister and government will have the confidence of the house, the Governor General will appoint the leader of the party with the most seats in parliament as the prime minister. But, with all that said, it's important to note that our system is very, very different from the American system in which a president is elected.
But, like the parent said: if you want to be a drunk who revels in causing problems for the police while they're trying to do their job (problems that you have the constitutional right to cause, yes, but problems nonetheless), expect problems in return.
Sorry to self-reply, but I want to expand on this statement. It should be noted that, in a number of states, the person wouldn't even have the right to refuse to present ID. Because of the 911 call and accusation of assault, the police officer's dealings with the group of drunks would have qualified as a Terry stop. In 24 states, there are Stop and Identify statutes, which allow police to demand identification during a Terry stop.
Washington is not one of those states, so the police officer did not have the authority to hold anyone for failing to provide identification. But, I just wanted to add to my above post, noting that the constitutionality of the actions taken in this case is not uniform across the entire US, before some Slashdotter got a creative idea about what to do next time they're dealing with a police officer.
They said they can no longer be obtained. They didn't say they were destroyed.
To play devil's advocate: how many people have called customer service somewhere to try to request something or get something done, only to be told that it can't be done (despite you knowing that it can be)? The letter he got back stating that it was past the 90-day retention period was probably sent by some drone at a desk, doing what happens every time I'm on the phone with customer service anywhere. Yes, it's possible that this was part of a police cover-up, and that possibility should certainly be investigated. But, I wouldn't jump to that conclusion.
[T]his is a good lesson for those
/.ers who maintain that you don't have to show a cop your ID in the U.S. when asked [...]. That may *technically* be true, but it can still cost you a weekend in jail and a $3500 legal bill if you actually pull that shit with a real cop.
To expand on what the parent said: the police officer was dealing with a large group of drunks. Someone had called 911, claiming that they were assaulted by this group of drunks. The police officers were trying to round up everyone involved, figure out who was who, and figure out what happened (basic police work). Yes, the officer overstepped his constitutional bounds by detaining someone for not providing identification. But, like the parent said: if you want to be a drunk who revels in causing problems for the police while they're trying to do their job (problems that you have the constitutional right to cause, yes, but problems nonetheless), expect problems in return.
I posted this response to the wrong story!!
...yet got modded insightful. Kudos, sir!