Some places do put fees on the sale of the car itself, and their regular registration, that go to public transit. Plus they deliberately reduce the supply of parking spaces available, effectively forcing car drivers to pay for the space they occupy. I think this puts a proper price for people to appreciate the hidden costs of car ownership.
But such policies are harder to “sell” to places with vast country or hinterlands because space is in abundance, and cars are heavily favoured.
These are indeed good examples.
Perhaps over the last 50 years, there are parts of Asia that build whole neighbourhoods with public transit in mind, and mixed-use zoning. They don’t have nearly the same learning curve to conquer as Alberta does…and they almost certainly don’t take +10 years to figure out how a line is supposed to interact with traffic lights.
I suppose “transit oriented development” are critical baby steps…but to some these are really small baby steps.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/edmonton/article/highly-anticipated-metro-lrt-line-opens-to-public/
He noted that when he started, Indigenous people made up 15 per cent of federal prison system inmates and this has since risen to 33 per cent and a shocking 50 per cent when it comes to women in the system.
Criminal Justice System to Canadian Society, Canadian Society do you copy? There’s a real problem here and we’re not the solution, over. /s
“The classification system has been identified by the Canadian Human Rights Commission as racist, as discriminatory on the basis of race, sex and disability,” Pate told APTN News.
“People with mental health issues, racialized people and women. And so disproportionately Indigenous women and men, but particularly women, are more likely to be classified as higher security.”
Allegations of racism aside, I think it’s a very sad situation when groups are openly inviting controversy, and cry foul when an expected unfavourable response happens.
I don’t think this bodes well even for people who are honestly trying to keep up with current events, and who also wade through all the noise. I can’t imagine what people who don’t even read much would make of this. I suppose that’s the point isn’t it? All this noise isn’t for the people who read, it’s for the people who just want to feel.
Isn’t that what happened to the Asians? When people needed something to blame, the Asians were the targets of random attacks. Women and seniors were the ones who ended up hospitalized. It was wrong then, it’s still wrong now for the pro-Israel groups to invite and promote this emotion of victimization within their communities.
I still say this is part of the larger American scam for AI. AI’s just a tool, and certainly not autonomous as the stuff of movies. US companies are just using the concept of AI to layoff workers, and they’re trying to lock in their AI services contracts before the bubble bursts.
This article falls into the scam pile for me.
Plus I’m fairly certain Zuckerberg should be charged for Crimes Against Humanity, but that seems to be an issue for another day.
Actively look to “give glory” or kudos to people around you.
On a practical level, be it an opposing force opponent, or even someone on your own squad - like a family member - looking to give glory encourages me to engage with my environment on a real level when I’m drifting off or getting lost. I’m trying to connect with the intentions of others while still trying to achieve my own. These don’t have to be lose-lose situations, and they shouldn’t be either.
If I can compliment someone on a tactic or a response committed under stress, I’m trying to say I see the other person. I’m also saying honestly that the action was valid, and others can understand my position without guessing. In a world where some feel they have to live by deception or seek glory for themselves exclusively, simply validating someone else gives strength and encourages others to tough out their positions in the face of toxicity.
You’re also forcing a change of perspective, and refraining from dwelling on the faults of others or yourself.
Even if the kudos goes to the opposition, I’d rather compliment someone I believe I can work with, and build mutual respect.
I’m not convinced that “AI” is even what it’s meant to be. Worse, I think scenarios of success are already drawn up in stories and science fiction - and 2025 AI suggests we’re not even close.
Now that more information is available concerning the US governments private recollections and thoughts surrounding their military activities in Afghanistan, I’m suspicious that this AI is a “campaign”. It’s simply another game of sleight of hand or pump and dump maneuver. The US remains a major currency reserve, but successive governments over the last 20 years have been incompetent, and the country has been mismanaged for far longer than anyone expected.
With the US signalling strongly that they are giving up competing with China on advanced technologies like renewables and batteries, there’s little else left besides the promise that AI will somehow swoop in and fix it all. But as netizens already point out, capitalist corporations cannot “benefit” from AI without taking advantage of its promise - taking jobs away from humans.
Sadly “AI”, or whatever you want to call it, is an interesting tool, but that still requires supervision or human oversight. AI is not the magic promised for all the countless billions spent, water burned, and energy depleted. I think the world is starting to grow suspicious, and the US faces a market correction due to fears of the AI bubble.
Perhaps AI’s promise remains, but how its pursued gives the impression of another American scam.
I get a sense that people aren’t against easy to understand ads - as in, one company produces a concept, markets, publishes the ad, and delivers it to you on behalf of their client.
But people are not going to agree to reading that article, and consenting to 500 advertising partners to track you indefinitely to sell your data points.
All this technology, energy, and money that’s behind the surveillance economy, is the cost of turning you into the product.
What we the privacy concerned public would like to say is go make real products to help the world instead.
Here’s one from South China Morning Post about HK students. I know it’s not a movie length piece or anything, but it does touch on some statistics and a concerning trend of increased pressure and suicide rates.
Building on your comments, I just want to point out that Alberta’s ridings need to be adjusted. At this point the regions are totally overweight against the cities, and they don’t account for population growth. Those of us not in the democratic majority are already painfully aware that we’re all probably being gated by the UCP, the very same party that has probably been captured or compromised.
Perhaps Canadians feel like we should be able to protect our house. But also understand we’re fighting against people who have the powers of government, and are literally barring the doors shut behind them as best they can.
We are fighting a siege out here, and I’ve said as much elsewhere.
There’s the recent news about the Auditor General getting canned. Plus the Unions pushing Operation Total Recall have Elections Alberta asking for more funding, and the UCP is basically slow dripping the money needed to slow the public backlash their party is experiencing.
For those following the story, this isn’t an isolated incident. There’s the 2003 “Lamb Roast” allegations, and who knows how many other allegations that have been settled or unreported over the decades.
Whether you feel the 2018 incident with “EM” is an open and shut case, the broader misogyny issue in Hockey Canada and Junior Hockey isn’t over.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/hockey-canada-house-of-commons-committee-1.6533439
A valid point raised in the video as well. These 19 something year old players allege that the complainant was begging for sex, and everyone felt awkward. No one films to document this remarkable scene that sounds like a porn video.
But, they definitely had time to record a consent video.
What’s wrong with exploring the details of a high profile case involving Hockey players sexually assaulting a woman? I think the videos are well researched, and together form up 3 hours of well thought out detail.
I point out that this is a deep dive into the issue, and you roll up with a BBC article that probably takes 5 minutes to read.
Also, I watched the videos, and there’s discussion about how badly the case was handled from all fronts; and, there’s treatment on how netizens have some consensus that there was very little likelihood that the charges would result in convictions because of how the laws are.
I won’t go over all the highlights. A few points raised for me were:
Criminal law standards vs morality standards - I felt that the video also distinguished the issue of the court’s formal finding of guilt or innocence based on a standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. They even went over the moral issues that arose when exploring the culture of sexism in the Hockey players online “bible”, consent, and even the pinch points on evidence that were in favour of either the Hockey players and the complainant.
What’s society comfortable with issues of team sports and toxic behaviour? We’re being reminded about the ugly side of Hockey culture and whether we want these players to be flaunting their wealth and power around in this way. Or should they pay a price? Who should trust these roving packs of guys, travelling from town to town, grabbing at booze and women, then rushing home to their well compensated handlers at the first sign of trouble?
What credibility does Hockey Canada have? An organization that’s supposed to be hand holding these guys, and upholding some semblance of a honour/conduct system? There’s clips of the players making alleged statements to Hockey Canada for conduct over the allegations of sexual assault, and their statements are not even consistent with what ends up out during the criminal proceedings.
For all intents and purposes, the numbers lay out that the Justice system, despite its lofty aspirations, is also clearly a racist one. One can accept both these points. But, I think the main point remains clear: programming and funding for social safety nets must be explored and protected.
Also, I think the suggestion that this translates simply to “reduced sentencing” is disingenuous. Courts still have to consider the background circumstances of accused persons before striking a balance between rehabilitation and deterrence. Anyone would agree that a blanket policy to reduce a sentence by virtue of one’s heritage or upbringing is wrong.
But you’re still raising your own problems with court sentencing as opposed to addressing the point raised which is the social safety nets are getting cut. These programs were already underfunded to begin with, and they were intended to help these over-represented populations get the leg up they actually need to even match up with “average” folks.
Most people in developed countries would be shocked to know that Canada continues to underfund and under support First Nations peoples. Some reserves don’t even have running water in 2025, and are forced to truck water for cisterns or melt snow when available. For decades in the past, people who lived on reserve could not leave freely, subjected to check stops like they were in some WWII ghetto. They can’t get services out to remote areas where they live due to chronically underfunded roads, the conditions are poor, and they’re constantly held back or down because of this. You want to treat First Nations and Indigenous Peoples as equals under the law? You can start by understanding how the government and society abused these communities from the start, then tucked away to be forgotten, only to be punished when they show up in public areas because they’re different.
Justice did not create these considerations. These are considerations Canadian society created through history, a karmic load. You just don’t want to pay it publicly.
OP’s point remains valid as First Nations and Metis peoples are over-represented in prisons. Even if the Justice system aspires to ideals of fairness and impartiality, it’s a human driven system. Despite courts even trying under the barest minimums to recognize these societal challenges, they REMAIN overrepresented in prison. Even the Justice System itself acknowledges this as a challenge even as its own existing staff and members continue operations.
TL;DR Courts try to recognize government and society’s role in harming First Nations and Metis Peoples over DECADES, and STILL end up incarcerating these people MORE than ANYONE ELSE.
Also, I suggest for any system that aspires for impartiality and fairness to be visibly biased is human. I believe that there needs to be some margin here - probably generous at this rate - to permit lessons to be learned by the Justice System, and by society. But, I believe such errors by the system end up being a force multiplier for frustration against reconciliation.
I’ll acknowledge that this is probably a conspiracy I come back to and it goes along these lines:
Crypto has mostly replaced drugs as the primary core for money laundering.
In my opinion, bitcoin didn’t really hit the scene until around 2012 when miners were moving from their home built GPU rigs to specialized ASICs.
The UCP is short-circuiting democracy. They’re supposed to be elected to represent the people. Their role is to carry the constitution and the legal protections afforded within. But here, the government is acting in bad faith.
They’re not negotiating with the teachers. There may even be good grounds to suggest that the government never intended to negotiate in good faith because they contemplated the use of the NWC.
By invoking the NWC, as you say, the UCP are not pushing parties to further negotiations or arbitration. They’re just telling the teachers and the students that you have no rights, you have no other choice, and there’s no option to go to court.
The UCP have committed an affront to freedom of expression, and collective bargaining across the country. There may not be any other logical choice but to strike.
I don’t agree with the tariffs. Canada does have an auto industry, but as far as Electric Vehicles or batteries are concerned, there’s not much to protect. We don’t have a proper competitive product for EVs, and Canada doesn’t have the infrastructure investments needed to make EVs competitive with ICE vehicles. We’re a smaller market with a huge hinterland and hard winters, and that poses some natural challenges for EVs.
Also, we’re saddled with the Americans, and even they don’t appear to be pursuing EVs or battery technologies at the highest levels with maximum effort. What are these tariffs for, exactly?
Even if Chinese companies were allowed to sell to the Canadian markets, they’d likely be shipped in as final products, and we’d hope they’re not watered down.
Canada’s relationship with the US is not good at the moment, and the Americans are emphasizing onshoring and US manufacturing. Canada will have to balance what it wants with these real considerations. We may have the right value proposition for local manufacture, but that depends on how far out we look into the horizon.
So with all of this in mind, the Vauxhall Advance wants to ask Canola farmers to willingly offer their business as sacrifice to some tariffs that don’t even look like they’re accomplishing much? If anything, China’s negotiations amount to a gesture of please reconsider while we offset your product with other agricultural products from the Belt and Road initiative.
I think that’s a difficult message for the canola farmers to swallow. Everyone sees what happened to the American soy farmers. They’re done. Even after negotiations between the US and China led to a truce, the resulting supply glut and the rise of new competitors in South America will leave a lasting impression.
https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chinas-soybean-glut-could-defeat-us-export-hopes-after-trade-thaw-2025-11-12/