It sounds like blocking off a significant part of downtown Ottawa, and making the parliament buildings inaccessible, should be on the more severe end of things. But, we'll see.
CBC didn't say anything about possible sentences, but I found a city news piece from 2022 that talks about mischief. It isn't very useful though:
Kicking a wall could result in a fine, while mischief to a war memorial or blocking significant portions of downtown could see up to 10 years of jail time, Toronto criminal lawyer Karen McArthur said.
In the most severe cases the maximum sentence is life imprisonment, Peters said.
So, they could be looking at anything from a fine to lifetime imprisonment?
The thing is, those investors are in a Catch-22 situation.
Tesla's valuation is absolutely absurd. Even after all the value the stock has lost, it still has a P/E ratio of more than 100. Standard, boring, normal car companies that are well run have a P/E ratio of 7.
These investors have convinced themselves that Tesla deserves to be thought of completely differently than other car companies because they have a genius in charge.
If they ditch Elon, they have to admit that they're just a normal car company, and the right price for their shares is $14 each or so, not the $270 it is now. But, if they keep Elon, they have to convince themselves that somehow their sales are going to turn around and their genius who happens to be a Nazi will somehow convince all the people who hate Nazis to buy cars from him.
I wonder if this concept car contains anything Canada-specific in its design. For example, Canadian winters are bad for batteries, have they done anything to compensate for that? Extra clearance for getting over snowbanks when you're plowed in?
If there's nothing unique about it, it will be hard to compete not just with Tesla, but also with Rivian, BYD, and all the traditional car companies with electric models.
If it's just a park, why aren't the spectators in the park?
I think the original is just meant to be a simple concept without a fully fleshed out world. In the true original version, it's only meant to differentiate between equality and equity. It does that by showing that equality gives everyone the same resources, but equity focuses more on ensuring everybody has the same outcomes.
By changing the wall into a chain-link fence and labelling that as justice, it basically opens the door to asking more questions about this world being depicted. Why is there a wall in the first place? In most cases when you have spectators at a sporting event who have to stand on something to see over a wall, it's because it's a professional sporting event that sells tickets, and doesn't want people who haven't bought tickets to be able to see the event.
If justice is removing the wall and replacing it with a chain-link fence people can see through, what does that mean for the world of professional sports? Are people who didn't buy tickets entitled to view the game regardless of buying tickets to see it? If you take that concept more broadly, should people be able to access any good or service they want without having to pay for it?
I'm mostly just making fun of the over simplified world depicted in the meme.
Or, replace the chain link fence with a dodgy internet stream of the game. It's unjust that some people don't get to see the game, and other people who paid for a ticket do.
It's also useful to ask "if you don't support DEI, is it diversity, equity or inclusion you have an issue with?"
Should certain people or certain kinds of people be excluded? Is that why inclusion is bad?
What's bad about equity? Should things be inequitable? Should certain people get preferential treatment? If so, which people and why?
Or, is it diversity that's the problem? Is uniformness important? Is it so important that it's reasonable to exclude people who don't come from the right backgrounds or don't look a certain way?
It's worth noting that there's been a shortage of doctors in Canada for decades now. The root of the problem is that to become a doctor, you need to complete a residency program. But, the number of residency slots is set extremely low. That means that there are a lot of med school graduates who never get into a residency program, and eventually have to do something other than becoming a doctor.
You would think that you could get around this by moving to Canada with an MD and years of experience. But, frequently foreign experience isn't counted as being on par with Canada's system, so foreign doctors need to do a Canadian residency. That means they compete with Canadian med school graduates to get into the same residency programs.
Why aren't there more residency slots? Part of it is political, many provincial governments want to shrink the healthcare budget, so by limiting the supply of doctors they limit the size of the healthcare budget. But, there are also indications that the doctors also don't want the competition, and lobby the government to limit the number of residency spots it pays for, and by doing that, limits the number of doctors.
So, doctors may be trying to move to Canada, but unless something changes, they might not be able to practice medicine here.
I don't think I'm the confused one here, to be honest with you, as shown by the other answers and upvotes in this thread
Yes, other people were confused. That doesn't mean that you're not confused.
The question is clearly asking if Americans are aware that they're now a rogue state, and I answered appropriately.
No, what you answered was "How do Americans feel about being a rogue state?" That's a completely different question, even though it's the one most people answered.
I fully understand and acknowledge that we're seen as a rogue state externally
The question was whether Americans in general understood and acknowledged that. I would say no, because most Americans don't follow foreign news sources. People who are getting their news from Fox News, OANN and Newsmax are probably not aware of that. Instead, they probably think the US is even more respected than ever.
The question is basically "Are Americans aware of how the world perceives them?"
Possible answers to that question are: "Yes, I read DW news in English, and BBC news too. I'm aware of how the world perceives the US." Or "No, I can imagine how the world must view the US, but I only read US news so I can only guess."
The question isn't your awareness of what the government is doing. It's your awareness of how the US is perceived by the rest of the world. A rogue state is "a nation that is considered very dangerous to other nations". To answer that question, you have to reference other nations views on the US.
Do you think they would have prosecuted if it had been a low level employee doing the same thing? Running their own private email server, doing government business on that server?
I think they would have, that's why I think it's important to note that they chose not to prosecute her despite it being something that would have been prosecuted for other less powerful people.
Was it as big a deal as the GOP made of it? No. But, it's still a rule that everybody else has to follow or they get charged.
It figures it takes someone calling themselves "CanadaPlus" to actually see the actual question and answer it.
Everyone else is answering about how aware Americans are about what's happening, but the question was about whether Americans were aware of how the world perceived the US. The answer, of course, is "no, Americans have no idea because Americans consume almost no non-American media".
merc @ merc @sh.itjust.works Posts 10Comments 3,054Joined 2 yr. ago
Wealth inequality is driven by inequality in wealth. Hmm, we might need a study to confirm this.