Also most of the studies of ubi show it doesn’t cost all that much because it allows a reduction in expensive to administer social programs - obviously less of an effect in the USA that doesn’t have those.

Ubi is just a reform of progressive taxation so that it goes slightly negative as you get closer to zero income instead of stopping at zero percent.

It is arson. Digging up and burning accelerating amounts of fossil fuels for decades after we all know about anthropogenic climate change due to the greenhouse effect and fighting against any transition of any kind is arson.

That’s a map of poverty.

Data scientist here; there simply are not enough murders to model this, so they will need to use proxies for “likely” murderers (like any sort of violent crime). That means the model will very strongly target people who are over-policed (minorities) and those more likely to actually get caught and charged for things, and thus be in the training data set (poor people). It will also fail spectacularly for this purpose because even a highly accurate model will produce almost 100% false positives -again, because actual murders are so vanishingly rare. The math just doesn’t work.

Either he was arrested with no record of the arrest (i.e "disappeared") which is a new line for the administration to cross, or he disappeared for another reason (by himself, or with help or coercion by a foreign entity like the CCP), and the FBI is investigating.

I hope journalists keep on this because the first option would be a huge problem that everyone needs to know about, but without more information, the second is also a possibility. The CCP is known to have agents in western countries that manipulate and pressure ex-pats to return to China. Keeping an open mind now will also strengthen the argument if evidence for the former comes to light.

That's why that advert goes down in history as a spectacular blunder. Every single one of us absolutely would.

It's the least painful, most economically efficient way to encourage those things and other transitions. When it comes to transportation, higher gas prices have historically resulted in a market for more fuel efficiency (and inflation-adjusted low gas prices have lead to oversizing of vehicles). Unlike the 70s, this time, the carbon tax is brought in slowly and smoothly over many years to encourage conservation (including the things you mention), drive demand for more fuel efficiency, and in the long term, encourage the electrification of the remaining fleet.

The vast majority of Canadians want the government to do something serious about climate change, but they don't know what that thing is. Economists said a carbon tax and rebate was the most efficient, but public support isn't driven by economic papers, but by propaganda machines. It's just too easy to blame the carbon tax for everyone's problems. It's the perfect boogeyman for inflation. Heavy handed regulation of industrial emitters would probably be the most supported by the public, but it would have a terrible impact on Canadian industry, and actually be limited in it's effectiveness, as most of Canada's emissions would still be "free."

Agreed. Fuck off with this "we have no free speech" bullshit, substack (and it's freedom of conscience in Canada in the first place, not free speech). All of the things listed are social consequences, not criminal prosecution or some other government persecution. Sarah was booted by her party, not the government, and the rest are employers and universities. If there is fault, it lies with those organizations.

It's also not protected speech, so if there is fault, those organizations will have to suffer social consequences themselves, as it doesn't seem that they broke any laws.

There really needs to be a consequence for using the notwithstanding clause or otherwise violating charter rights. Time and time again, populist politicians violate them to stoke votes, gain political momentum, then many years down the road, lose in court and their policies are reversed (paid by a future government with tax dollars). It's usually not as egregious as this, but it's a constant thing. Look at the public pay freeze that was just reversed in Ontario.

It needs to be stated clearly every time this comes up:

The notwithstanding clause TAKES AWAY RIGHTS, IT DOESN'T GIVE THEM. Using it doesn't give "parents rights," it takes away children's charter rights.

You are spreading lies. I hope it's unintentional.

Minors are not getting gender surgery and the few that get access to anything hormonal are not offered anything irreversible.

Equating "story time" with adult burlesque is just simple bigotry. Someone dressing up as a princess to read a story to kids isn't burlesque, regardless of their gender.