the fact is that bill blair was the police chief of a major city where more than 50% of the population was born in another country.
it's reasonable to reserve judgement, until he does something.
Wednesday, July 18, 2018
if anything, i would expect prices to go up, as these companies will need to find a way to pay down their losses, in addition to regular inflation.
despite the rhetoric to the contrary (or perhaps because of it), things like this always go up in price under the conservatives, because they're not as strenuous about regulating arbitrary price hikes. for all their rhetoric abut "free markets", empirical observation clearly demonstrates that the only "freedom" that conservatives really believe in is the freedom of property owners to set prices however they want.
https://business.financialpost.com/commodities/energy/ontarians-may-see-a-7-reduction-in-their-monthly-bills-as-gas-utilities-halt-cap-and-trade-activities?video_autoplay=true
despite the rhetoric to the contrary (or perhaps because of it), things like this always go up in price under the conservatives, because they're not as strenuous about regulating arbitrary price hikes. for all their rhetoric abut "free markets", empirical observation clearly demonstrates that the only "freedom" that conservatives really believe in is the freedom of property owners to set prices however they want.
https://business.financialpost.com/commodities/energy/ontarians-may-see-a-7-reduction-in-their-monthly-bills-as-gas-utilities-halt-cap-and-trade-activities?video_autoplay=true
why don't we figure out if pizza is a vegetable (and tomato sauce comes from a fruit, btw) or not, first, before we start worrying if soy is really milk?
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/plant-based-milk-milk-fda-determine/story?id=56640141
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/plant-based-milk-milk-fda-determine/story?id=56640141
i'm not being sardonic.
for every town in saskatchewan, there exists a railroad line, however abandoned - for that is either the reason the town exists, or the reason the line does.
and, if you want to attract people to this landlocked flatland, where you can watch your dog run away for three days, which projects the idea that it exists in the last century, if not the one before that, then something like this might help quite a bit.
for every town in saskatchewan, there exists a railroad line, however abandoned - for that is either the reason the town exists, or the reason the line does.
and, if you want to attract people to this landlocked flatland, where you can watch your dog run away for three days, which projects the idea that it exists in the last century, if not the one before that, then something like this might help quite a bit.
if i was a conservative, i'd say something about how the greyhound is shutting down because it's not proftable, so why the fuck should the government take over a failing business?
but, i'm not a conservative, so i'm actually looking at the situation as an opportunity to reduce carbon emissions.
if the state is going to take over a transportation network, it has the obligation to do it in as ecologically sustainable a way as is possible.
but, i'm not a conservative, so i'm actually looking at the situation as an opportunity to reduce carbon emissions.
if the state is going to take over a transportation network, it has the obligation to do it in as ecologically sustainable a way as is possible.
i haven't read the trinity western case or have been following it, but it showed up on the sidebar there.
to begin with, i don't see what any of this has to do with accreditation. a school may pass rules i don't like, but that doesn't have anything to do with whether the students that have enrolled in the school have passed the proper academic requirements. if the debate is being had at the level of the question of whether accreditation should be upheld or not, i can't reasonably side with the queer advocates. and, i might point out that anybody that has graduated from this institution and met all academic requirements has quite strong grounds for a lawsuit - the unclear question is who should be held liable for it. and, i don't think it's the school.
however, i believe that this was not the question before the supreme court. the question before the supreme court was whether the tribunal had upheld the existing precedent. and, i've framed this differently, because i think the issue is often lost in translation from legalese, as this is what a tribunal is supposed to do. the idea underlying the existence of the tribunal is that there are certain cases that come up that essentially follow the same template over and over. our legal system is based on the idea of stare decisis - that is, that new cases should be settled in the same manner as previous ones were. sending these cases to full trials is just reinventing the wheel over and over - they do not require new decisions or actual judges to work them through, but merely knowledgeable adjudicators to apply the existing precedents. and, in fact, the adjudicators cannot create new law - their scope is very narrow, defined through statue to interpret existing jurisprudence. so, the idea is that these cases are already decided, that they don't need to be decided again and that going through the rigmarole is just a waste of everybody's time. this is why when the issue appears in an actual court, the issue before the judge is whether the precedent was correctly applied - that is, interpreted in a correct and reasonable manner. the adjudicator was never supposed to produce a novel ruling in the first place...
so, if the supreme court comes back and says "the ruling is reasonable", that is not delegating responsibility to the tribunal, or removing itself from the process. what that is doing is saying "the tribunal correctly interpreted the precedent that was already set by the court, and there is consequently no need for an actual trial.". it was the court that set the precedent, and the court that consequently produced the ruling. if the court felt that the tribunal was overstepping it's bounds, that is what a ruling of incorrect or unreasonable actually means...
so, that is what the court did in this case: it said that this question was determined in a previous ruling, the tribunal correctly applied a reasonable interpretation of that ruling and there is no value in bringing the case to a full trial. the court should have then assigned costs to the party responsible for wasting everybody's time.
and, how can the system be so cold to "religious freedom" or the observance of "religious rights"? because there's no such thing, really. it's a legal fiction, often perpetuated by people that don't understand the law well. "religious freedom" is a very restricted idea that applies solely to government, it's not something that has any meaning in a conflict between individuals, or between individuals and institutions. in this case, what the university was trying to argue was that it could restrict the rights of others by denying entry on restricted grounds. they then labelled their attempt to restrict the rights of others as an exercise of their own rights. the tribunal had seen this kind of charade before, and applied the proper precedent to shut it down. end of story. its not a balancing, it's just a bad argument - and one we've been through before, at that.
so, if you have a problem with the ruling in the university case, you need to look at the existing precedent; i haven't read the case, so i don't know what that was.
now, there is a valid criticism here, in that it cements the law in place pretty strongly. before the introduction of these tribunals, the court may have overturned an argument and created new precedent. these tribunals make that a lot harder. but, it's not yet clear if that's good or bad. if the way that courts deal with these tribunals is by more rigorously enforcing their own precedents, that is probably a good thing. what i'm getting at is that the courts are now going to need to demonstrate that the existing precedent was unreasonable, before they overturn it. that should help to prevent the arbitrary overturning of precedent. and, it should hopefully feed back into the tribunals, by providing for clearer instructions in terms of more specific legal tests. in the end, you might need a math degree to be an adjudicator, as it's going to require understanding complicated theorems, with dozens of corollaries.
but, i want to go back to the legal question, as i would have rather seen the issue raised on grounds of discrimination - i would have rather seen the accreditation denied on the entrance requirements. it's subtle. but, we have a critical theory for a reason, and it works the other way when you have a liberal judiciary, as we do in canada.
to begin with, i don't see what any of this has to do with accreditation. a school may pass rules i don't like, but that doesn't have anything to do with whether the students that have enrolled in the school have passed the proper academic requirements. if the debate is being had at the level of the question of whether accreditation should be upheld or not, i can't reasonably side with the queer advocates. and, i might point out that anybody that has graduated from this institution and met all academic requirements has quite strong grounds for a lawsuit - the unclear question is who should be held liable for it. and, i don't think it's the school.
however, i believe that this was not the question before the supreme court. the question before the supreme court was whether the tribunal had upheld the existing precedent. and, i've framed this differently, because i think the issue is often lost in translation from legalese, as this is what a tribunal is supposed to do. the idea underlying the existence of the tribunal is that there are certain cases that come up that essentially follow the same template over and over. our legal system is based on the idea of stare decisis - that is, that new cases should be settled in the same manner as previous ones were. sending these cases to full trials is just reinventing the wheel over and over - they do not require new decisions or actual judges to work them through, but merely knowledgeable adjudicators to apply the existing precedents. and, in fact, the adjudicators cannot create new law - their scope is very narrow, defined through statue to interpret existing jurisprudence. so, the idea is that these cases are already decided, that they don't need to be decided again and that going through the rigmarole is just a waste of everybody's time. this is why when the issue appears in an actual court, the issue before the judge is whether the precedent was correctly applied - that is, interpreted in a correct and reasonable manner. the adjudicator was never supposed to produce a novel ruling in the first place...
so, if the supreme court comes back and says "the ruling is reasonable", that is not delegating responsibility to the tribunal, or removing itself from the process. what that is doing is saying "the tribunal correctly interpreted the precedent that was already set by the court, and there is consequently no need for an actual trial.". it was the court that set the precedent, and the court that consequently produced the ruling. if the court felt that the tribunal was overstepping it's bounds, that is what a ruling of incorrect or unreasonable actually means...
so, that is what the court did in this case: it said that this question was determined in a previous ruling, the tribunal correctly applied a reasonable interpretation of that ruling and there is no value in bringing the case to a full trial. the court should have then assigned costs to the party responsible for wasting everybody's time.
and, how can the system be so cold to "religious freedom" or the observance of "religious rights"? because there's no such thing, really. it's a legal fiction, often perpetuated by people that don't understand the law well. "religious freedom" is a very restricted idea that applies solely to government, it's not something that has any meaning in a conflict between individuals, or between individuals and institutions. in this case, what the university was trying to argue was that it could restrict the rights of others by denying entry on restricted grounds. they then labelled their attempt to restrict the rights of others as an exercise of their own rights. the tribunal had seen this kind of charade before, and applied the proper precedent to shut it down. end of story. its not a balancing, it's just a bad argument - and one we've been through before, at that.
so, if you have a problem with the ruling in the university case, you need to look at the existing precedent; i haven't read the case, so i don't know what that was.
now, there is a valid criticism here, in that it cements the law in place pretty strongly. before the introduction of these tribunals, the court may have overturned an argument and created new precedent. these tribunals make that a lot harder. but, it's not yet clear if that's good or bad. if the way that courts deal with these tribunals is by more rigorously enforcing their own precedents, that is probably a good thing. what i'm getting at is that the courts are now going to need to demonstrate that the existing precedent was unreasonable, before they overturn it. that should help to prevent the arbitrary overturning of precedent. and, it should hopefully feed back into the tribunals, by providing for clearer instructions in terms of more specific legal tests. in the end, you might need a math degree to be an adjudicator, as it's going to require understanding complicated theorems, with dozens of corollaries.
but, i want to go back to the legal question, as i would have rather seen the issue raised on grounds of discrimination - i would have rather seen the accreditation denied on the entrance requirements. it's subtle. but, we have a critical theory for a reason, and it works the other way when you have a liberal judiciary, as we do in canada.
i might suggest to mom that she's better off selling her mansion in the burbs and downsizing to something more appropriate for her new life as an ex-mom. she may find she's saving money on travel costs, as well. it's unhealthy to cling to the past; it's time to move on.
and, to the lady that wants some muscle to protect her, she might be better off posting an ad in the classifieds, if she feels like that's what she really wants. but, she might want to drop the entitled attitude that suggests her partner is obligated to fork out $50/week. that, itself, might be the reason she's posting an ad like this in the first place.
and, to the lady that wants some muscle to protect her, she might be better off posting an ad in the classifieds, if she feels like that's what she really wants. but, she might want to drop the entitled attitude that suggests her partner is obligated to fork out $50/week. that, itself, might be the reason she's posting an ad like this in the first place.
then, there's this ad, which appears to be a "mom looking for daughter" ad.
it's too far from campus.
but, again - it's a real reflection of marketization. it's hard to know if this is an old mom that wished the experience wasn't so short, or a mom-that-never-was looking to skip the messy toddler phase and jump right to college (or fearful of the catastrophe of having a son...), but it's a marketization of parenthood, nonetheless - in a way that inverts the costs.
it's too far from campus.
but, again - it's a real reflection of marketization. it's hard to know if this is an old mom that wished the experience wasn't so short, or a mom-that-never-was looking to skip the messy toddler phase and jump right to college (or fearful of the catastrophe of having a son...), but it's a marketization of parenthood, nonetheless - in a way that inverts the costs.
what is this ad really for? a roommate? or a partner?
if you open the ad up, it explains that she's looking for a bodyguard - and asking them to pay $50/week to be the bodyguard. even if you include rent, that's still only about $75/week paid out in exchange for a premium service.
of course, the sad reality is that this woman is almost certainly going to get raped by the person she's "hiring" for "protection".
but, what i find more interesting is placing something like this in the context of the marketization brought on by neo-liberalism - it is the conversion of what has generally been considered normal relationship duties into a service to be traded over a market.
if you open the ad up, it explains that she's looking for a bodyguard - and asking them to pay $50/week to be the bodyguard. even if you include rent, that's still only about $75/week paid out in exchange for a premium service.
of course, the sad reality is that this woman is almost certainly going to get raped by the person she's "hiring" for "protection".
but, what i find more interesting is placing something like this in the context of the marketization brought on by neo-liberalism - it is the conversion of what has generally been considered normal relationship duties into a service to be traded over a market.
i'm sorry, but i just honestly don't have a use for a phone.
- i don't have any friends.
- the only family i talk to is my ageing and increasingly out of it grandmother
- i don't have a job
but, more importantly is that i interact with the internet very actively - i don't consume media, i create it. so, i like things like keyboards and mice and big monitors.
a phone just strikes me as a computer with a really small screen and a very difficult data entry procedure. just a lot of headaches.
to an extent, is that kind of the point? to stop people from typing?
listen: i get that it might be, that a push to get people away from their keyboards and back to their idiot boxes might be in the interests of the elite. but, i'm just not going to do it. if they could somehow succeed in reducing the internet into a watching & listening experience, i'd get bored with it and tune out. i'd keep typing and just file it on my hard drive. or, maybe i'd just get back to recording...and reading actual books...
i don't pay for cable because i wouldn't watch it if i had access for free. and, as it is, i don't consume the media being pushed down - i'm not even aware of what most of it even is.
so, when i say that a phone is just an expensive paperweight, i actually mean it.
- i don't have any friends.
- the only family i talk to is my ageing and increasingly out of it grandmother
- i don't have a job
but, more importantly is that i interact with the internet very actively - i don't consume media, i create it. so, i like things like keyboards and mice and big monitors.
a phone just strikes me as a computer with a really small screen and a very difficult data entry procedure. just a lot of headaches.
to an extent, is that kind of the point? to stop people from typing?
listen: i get that it might be, that a push to get people away from their keyboards and back to their idiot boxes might be in the interests of the elite. but, i'm just not going to do it. if they could somehow succeed in reducing the internet into a watching & listening experience, i'd get bored with it and tune out. i'd keep typing and just file it on my hard drive. or, maybe i'd just get back to recording...and reading actual books...
i don't pay for cable because i wouldn't watch it if i had access for free. and, as it is, i don't consume the media being pushed down - i'm not even aware of what most of it even is.
so, when i say that a phone is just an expensive paperweight, i actually mean it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)