Republican presidential candidate proposes border wall with Canada
jadero @ jadero @lemmy.ca Posts 1Comments 343Joined 2 yr. ago
jadero @ jadero @lemmy.ca
Posts
1
Comments
343
Joined
2 yr. ago
Okay, now I better understand your argument. I was ready to just dismiss you as a crank.
I agree with you that governments should not be in the death business. But they already are, in a sense, in their legislation of things like murder, negligence causing death, etc.
I think that proper legislation would allow for someone to help me carry out my wishes in dignified ways that are less traumatic to those I leave behind. Obviously, that means regulation to ensure that nobody is imposing their will on mine.
At the very least, I don't want anyone charged with negligence just because they didn't stop me from taking what turns out to be my final swim.
I didn't consider that. I don't know. The family and community seems to be standing behind the adoption, so I guess I'm not really willing form a strong opinion.
I'm absolutely and completely non-Indingenous and I agree 100%.
Making a claim based on her adoption by the Piapot family is fine. My limited understanding as an outsider who only reads stuff is that the adoption confers legitimate and legal membership as judged by custom. The rest? Not so much.
Should her awards be rescinded? Maybe, but probably not. After all, those awards all came after her adoption and far greater liars have not been banished.
I have some sympathy for that point if view, but it's not that simple.
Nobody, not even the most libertarian, wants to find themselves holding the shitty end of the stick, yet our political and economic systems are operating in ways that leave only the shitty end to hang on to.
We vote for improvement and get either the status quo or degradation.
We're told to vote with our wallets, but that just means bigger wallets get more votes. And if it looks like maybe the collective size of wallets is getting too big, corporations, aided and abetted by the political class, just arrange for fewer choices and smaller wallets.
Unsurprisingly, those with the will are starting to vote with their feet. People are starting to walk away from bad situations in search of better ones. Whether those better situations exist may be an open question, but they are not being any more selfish than those who insist on skimming the cream off for themselves.
It's actually an easy fix, if only the political class realized it. Tax every dollar sent out of the country at 90%. Tax every stock buyback at 90%. Tax every corporate cash reserve at 80%. Limit total compensation of each executive to 10 times that of their lowest paid employee. For essential goods and services, tax away any rise in profits beyond, say, 1% above inflation. No person or company is allowed to own more than 1 rental property with multifamily units treated as one property.
Take all that tax money and pour it into public health care, starting with free tuition to any health related education. Foreign students accessing this free education must practice in Canada for 5 years after graduation or be returning to work in public health initiatives. And fix the definition of health care so that it means what it says (dental, vision, hearing, mental, vaccines, and prescriptions are all health care that is uncovered or poorly covered).
Any money left over from that can be spent on actual environmental protection and remediation, starting with the climate crisis.
If any of that needs to be adjusted based on actual negative outcomes, then it will be adjusted, but the political class has to start by showing the general public that they mean business.
And if that sounds like I've got brain damage, that's fine. What we're doing is obviously not working out, so continuing the path we're on is also a sign of brain damage. At least I'm pointing out a different path.
Well of course they are. I learned as a kid that there are lots of things you have to get right to get a bullseye, but you'll never even get close to the target if you don't aim with intent. Has anyone seen any aiming? Any evidence of intent? Or just a target painted in kaleidoscope colours?
Subscribed! Thanks.
I don't think it's right to call it "wholesale" when it's not priced far enough below retail to matter.
Given that our governments have been unwilling to make the necessary infrastructure public, I don't think that it should have ever been legal to both own the infrastructure and sell retail services.
Others have mentioned "Canadaland" and their various podcasts.
I like "Sandy and Nora Talk Politics", "Open to Debate with David Moscrop", and "The Secret Life of Canada" (now a CBC production, but that doesn't seem to have changed the podcast).
"Hacked" is not specifically Canadian content but is made in Canada. Covers the wonderful world of who got hacked and how.
"Conspirituality" and "This Week In Virology" are what I would call "Canada adjacent" in that there are Canadian co-hosts and Canada gets some direct coverage in what are essentially international stories with an American focus. The former looks at the intersection of the wellness community and right wing ideologies. The latter, as you might guess, is about "viruses, the kind that make you sick" (their tagline) and frequently gets very technical, especially when they are reviewing a paper.
CBC pushes quite a lot of their radio and some TV programming out as podcasts. My favourites are "Quirks and Quarks" and "Ideas".
Then there are some limited series: "Recall: How to Start a Revolution" about the FLQ crisis and "Kuper Island" about Residential Schools.
For a good time, you can't go wrong with "Because News", a comedy panel-quiz show on mostly Canadian news. Some guests (especially Eric Peterson, Jean Yoon, and Martha Chavez) occasionally depart into rants or personal stories that have a lot of serious meat.
I guess we're in agreement in many areas. CBC does as bad as everyone at actually covering rural regions and representing us to the wider world.
And hearing "This American Life" on CBC was very disappointing. My first thought was that there are plenty of Canadian stories being told in local outlets and podcasts that are more deserving of wider distribution. There are more CBC programs being picked up elsewhere, so maybe there are larger cross-distribution deals in play, but the US already looms large; they don't need help getting the word out.
Most of us have heard the expression "money is the root of all evil." That's close, but not quite right. It's selfishness to the point of greed. "I want it and you can't have it." That's what is destroying the world. Spending money to gain power over others or to get rid of them is just par for the course.
Unless we find a way to solve the problem of greed, whether for resources, money, or power, we will never solve anything.
It's not the uniqueness of the coverage, but the reach. Out here in rural Saskatchewan, our choice is between CBC radio and one other station that has extremely limited news.
CBC not only has better news, but lots of deep dives, analysis, documentaries, and cultural programming. In that sense, it is unique, at least on radio.
Yes, expensive satellite internet or TV is available, and we have it in our house, but many don't. Newspapers have never really worked that well out here because picking up a stack of papers once a week when going for mail and groceries doesn't really work. Any sensible reading schedule means always being a week behind whatever comes in via CBC radio.
On top of that, we can listen to the radio while working in the fields or shop or around the house. That makes it easy to stay on top of things without sitting in front of a screen or with a newspaper for a couple of hours a day, when we should be spending time with our families.
As I said, our household can afford satellite internet, but we still get most of our news via CBC radio, because that is the only source of extensive coverage we can get without sitting around. We'd much rather use that sitting time for a good book or education (we have satellite internet specifically for all the online courses that are available).
If CBC television disappeared, I would barely notice, but CBC radio is how we stay connected to the world. If there is to be serious discussion of killing CBC, it should be TV only that gets killed and the money saved should then be put towards getting something in addition to CBC radio out to the rural and remote regions. One great option would be for CBC radio to broadcast Canadaland and other externally produced programming. CBC already doesn't produce everything they broadcast, so syndicating additional alternative programming covering other viewpoints would be a spectacular use of the system.
I think it's more about reporting to your community. If CBC goes how are you going to stay abreast of events outside your community?
To be fair, though, we just went to DST and never went back. At my longitude, solar noon is about 1:25 "pm". The people of SK aren't early risers, we just set our clocks so late that it looks that way.
There are people around me who think we should do DST, thinking we'll use our current time as the base, thus being double-DST. Madness.
If someone wants to get up earlier, I'm fine with that. But don't do it by trying to trick yourself by resetting the clocks.
The difference is that those in the public interest always argue this debate from the perspective of actually taking care of people
Those that argue for private health care argue for it as a money making business.
This is what pisses me off most about attacks on public services. Saskatchewan killed STC, the provincial highway public transit/freight system. It was costing 17 million more to run than what they were bringing in. If we assume only 250,000 taxpayers (individual and business), that's a lousy $68 apiece. I'm one of the proverbial fixed income seniors and I can come up with that much.
It's stupid, short-sighted, and heartless.
Which goods and services? Cars and doctors? Or Big Macs and pizza delivery?
There is no shortage of legitimate experts who say a proper progressive tax regime will handle UBI just fine. And if it doesn't, then at least we failed honestly instead of sitting on our hands.
Consider just the labour market. You imply that taking people out of the labour market is a bad thing, but how?
If a person can further their education as a result, that sounds positive.
If a student is better able to focus on their studies, that sounds positive.
If a parent is able to stay home with young children or work only part time with older children, that sounds positive.
If an adult is able to care for elderly or infirm relatives instead of putting them into a long term care facility, that sounds positive.
If a worker is able to retire a bit earlier, opening up opportunities for those struggling to enter the workforce, that sounds positive.
Your "labour market impact" makes it sound like you think businesses are entitled to the labour of others.
As for the rest, much can be avoided by appropriately funding universal services, thus limiting the role of ready cash.
No problem! If that's as nasty as we ever get, then I'd say we're doing pretty damn good!
People make bad decisions all the time. Far worse than maybe adopting instead of procreating. Where were the babysitters when I was doing actual stupid stuff?
They need a Go Fund Me page. CPP ain't much but I could probably kick in a few bucks.