Its provisions dictate that the president can sidestep any checks and balances on his power once he has abused his authority so many times that no one can keep track anymore.” Trump added that while his opponents may try to challenge his executive order in court, the loophole also states that by then he will have achieved his immediate political aims.
This must have been based on what he was doing in his first term, but damn. That's way too on -the-nose. It's like the current administration took notes from a piece that was supposed to be too absurd to take seriously. Probably not the first time with the Onion though. (And there was also the escalator thing with the Simpsons.)
PM stresses need to avoid bad optics of starvation; dozens of trucks said ready to enter; far-right parties divided on move, but neither threatens to exit in protest
(...)
Israel’s “greatest friends in the world,” he said, including senators but without mentioning specific nationalities, had said there was “one thing we cannot stand. We cannot accept images of hunger, mass hunger. We cannot stand that. We will not be able to support you.”
Netanyahu said the situation had been approaching a “red line” and a “dangerous point,” but it was not clear if he was referring to the crisis in Gaza or the potential loss of support from allies.
I heard about this elsewhere. The gist I got was that Trump wants the US to pay the lowest price any developed country pays for prescription meds, most likely targeting places in Europe, but with the potential to affect everywhere else too as the drug companies seek to recoup their costs. Thing is, it's apparently unlikely to go anywhere. Big pharma sued to prevent this a while back during a similar attempt by a past administration (I can't remember which president).
I'm just an outside observer myself but yes, it's clear there's absolutely propaganda for folks at the bottom. In the spirit of the topic though, I was talking about the perspective of the oil companies Danielle Smith answers to. Dividing people within AB doesn't seem to be in their immediate interest. I welcome other insights anyone might have, but right now it seems to me the only way they'd want this is if they're doing a long-term gamble on increasing the likelihood of joining the US.
Neither am I, but I don't see how an independent Alberta would even remotely benefit the all-powerful oil companies unless their actual end goal is to have AB join the US.
The only way this wouldn't be supremely disappointing would be if they were keeping all staff and only introducing this for lower-importance sequences to reduce the famously insane workload. But yeah, I know I'm only kidding myself to even entertain that idea.
It sucks, but it costs the same to pay the staff no matter who is or isn't there. What costs us more is to move his family out and then move them back in again when he likely wins in a by-election. I just learned they have a non-verbal autistic daughter. An unnecessary double-move would be not only costly to us but extremely cruel to that child. We should just be demanding he reimburse the costs of his stay until he's legitimately living there again. If he loses out in a leadership review or in the expected by-election, then we pay for the move as they're forced to adjust to leaving for good (and he should still pay for the overstay, as far as I'm concerned).
The two matters aren't mutually exclusive and ultimately their motives don't matter as much as the effect. Getting riled up and indignant about some people's racism is useless and even counterproductive-- especially compared to focusing on the source.
Racism being systemic means there are barriers to overcome at every income level. Everyone has already bought into it at varying levels, so you can't just go "See, look, they're racist!" Outside of a few like-minded people, the typical response would range from shoulder shrugs to annoyance at best. Many will even perceive the accuser as acting superior.
If we're talking about racism on a systemic level, exposing that there IS someone who benefits is necessary to get people invested in societal healing. Most people are constantly tired and from their perspective, don't have the energy to care about what they perceive as other people's problems. Make it their problem too, and maybe something will change.
Were you thinking environmental pollution? That was my first thought, but then I remembered it could likely be due to the health care crisis there due to catastrophic understaffing of medical facilities. Recently some technicians for cancer screenings were even speaking out to say it definitely causing death from missed or delayed screenings. It's likely other health areas are similarly affected.
Incidentally, I find it gross they just put it beside homicide rate and don't explore anything else.
Yeah, private ownership concentration is a huge problem leading to monopolies, lack of innovation, and worsening treatment of both customers and employees in general. As I understand it, all funds have increasingly gone to parasitic shareholders more than ever since CEO pay has shifted more and more to pay in company stock.
I’d love more publicly-run utility and transportation networks as you said, but in other less critical areas we could probably benefit from a more competitive system of small-to-medium-sized cooperatives that could (ideally, in a perfect world) replace corporations entirely. I would love to see support for worker groups with solid business plans to receive government grants (or at least forgiving loans) to help them buy their private sector workplaces for conversion to a democratic business model where employee-owners don’t get treated like serfs and businesses have to win over customers to survive, rather than trapping them and getting complacent.
I had to actively seek sources out for my own sanity. The people compiling it don't cover every area I'd like, but there's good news happening too. Two sources I know of are Sam Bentley and Good News.
Yikes, proper waste handling could use more attention in the news, despite the seemingly endless flow of other problems. (Lots of good news too, but that gets even less attention.)
I just happen to have watched this earlier so I'll indulge you this time.
Scheer is letting PP stay at the official opposition leader's well-staffed Stornoway mansion instead of taxpayers funding his family moving out, just to fund them moving in again when he likely wins in a by-election. Even the commenter in the video says that part doesn't matter and it's a non-issue. He also goes on to say it's a shame the PM's residence at 24 Sussex Drive hasn't been renovated in a long time, experts are saying it's "unlivable" but Trudeau and possibly Carney are afraid of political blowback for spending money on fixing it up.
It works for politicians who do the usual sleight-of-hand around "fiscal responsibility," and for the eventual shareholders.