placnx

There are some people who exemplify their Chineseness with the control obsession, Xi Jin Ping being the exemplar. Thaksin at the end of his time in power was displaying this unfortunate tendency.

Is he a virologist? As various people have commented, you can get it again. There are four strains A-D.

If you've had it, you could get the vaccine to protect against getting it again. Dengvaxia.

When you do that sitting, try keeping your legs elevated.

I didn't see any change after stopping Daflon around 6 weeks ago. This morning I could see my ankle bones clearly. This was not the case for the last 6 months or so.

The current one, Shingrix, is very effective, but not available in Thailand.

I've had some swelling in the feet for about 10 years, but a year ago it started getting so bad that in the end I could only get my feet in my shoes with a shoe horn and a struggle. Normally I am quite stationary, but sit with my feet elevated, but last year I started spending a lot more time sitting with feet down. A vascular surgeon prescribed Daflon 1000 for 2 months. It didn't do anything. At the end of the 2 months I got a doppler ultrasound which showed no blockages. What helped quickly was resuming feet up or sitting in bed and reading. So I'm back to where I was a year ago or so when sitting habits had changed.

Hopefully Trump's appeals can be similarly expedited so that he will be disqualified from holding office, but we could end up with a Republican president and Dem VP!

I haven't asked about vaccination cost in Taiwan yet. I am still deciding on which hospital/clinic to use. Cost in US for 1st jab was $222.

I just checked last week, and Shingrix is available in Taiwan.

My experience with Shingrix - 1st jab: no side effects. I'm thinking of going to Taiwan or Singapore for the 2nd. The window is 2-6 months.

I guess that the others meant that once the senator hurdle has been overcome, could the PM & speaker nominate ministers from the original 8-party coalition, effectively dumping the parties that got them through the PM vote?

There is a program running on Al Jazeera English on Sunday at 19:00 which can also be watched online. It's Al Jazeera World : The Database, and the program note is: "Information about you that private companies supply to banks can come from any number of sources and result in your account being closed for no apparent reason." This is a two-part program that was initially shown in April 2020.

Move Forward should now state clearly their program regarding 112 and put this matter in abeyance until an election when they gain a majority (not counting any coalition partners) .

I've had a UK bank account for many years and never been resident in the UK.

Yes, it started when Paris was besieged by Germans in 1870. Maybe people even ate rats then.

No problem for Coney Barrett and Alito to get a job at the Heritage Foundation or Federalist Society.

Did you read the quote I posted? The Framers were aware of how things can go wrong if the apparent majority in a state or locality, i.e. "the people", through their legislatures can enact intemperate or unjust laws that violate basic rights. Are you aware of the Texas take on anti-abortion, a real travesty! I did read the Alito draft, essentially the same thing as the decision. As I explained in previous posts, it goes against logic to give the states a say over such fundamental rights as a woman's right to choose what to do in regard to a not yet viable fetus. As you may know, this right developed from the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, so not something that even the Supreme Court should tamper with. If the Dems got big majorities again, maybe they should impeach the liars on the Supreme Court, those who lied in their confirmation hearings.

Did you read your link? An excerpt: "Most of the Founders agreed that the people were capable of governing themselves without the aid of a class of nobles. But they also knew that the people can screw things up. By acting intemperately or unjustly, they can trample on the rights of a minority or overlook the national interest. Indeed, the Founders experienced this on an almost daily basis in the 1780s, as the state governments legislated imprudently and even maliciously, even though, by the standards of the time, they were extremely sensitive to shifts in public opinion."

The Consitution is there to organize the rule of law in which the rights of individuals are protected from oppression including by the "majority". It makes no sense to have basic rights vary from state to state, since such rights are not determinable by some local majority.

Right, several justices are reactionaries. Perhaps they take precedent from the Old Testament where lying to achieve "good" ends was acceptable.

Yes, the Dems were remiss in not codifying Rowe when they had the majority in both houses.

We should blame Obama & Co for being so lackadaisical as the Dem majorities shrank with each election after 2008.

There is a limit to how far a Court can reasonably infer how the mentality of the 18th Century framers of the Constitution should determine how the Court rules today. In particular, bringing back states' rights to set local rules regarding abortion flies in the face of women's rights which logically cannot be different state-to-state. The concept of an unviable fetus having personal rights is more a theological concept than a constitutional one. Then again, the right to bear arms could be subject to limitation by local rules when not subsumed by the militia provision of the Constitution.

The military governments of Taiwan and S Korea were quite repressive, yet they eventually yielded to the popular will.