I sympathize. Circumstances mean that we actually do still need, not just a phone number, but a landline. We just hang up on those rare occasions when our call screening fails.
The trouble is that means policy is being set or supported based on the people who don't know enough about anything to even figure out how to manage their phones.
We're all doomed.
Hey, don't you know that unmeasured = nonexistent? We're all just infants playing peek-a-boo.
I guess I did heavily imply that the concept of limited liability companies is evil by design. That's on me. My intention was to call out the egregious misuse of them.
I'm not even so much concerned that the system is possible to abuse as that it not seen as abuse by too many.
This, right here, is our fundamental problem. The idea that everything and everyone has to be enclosed and developed or otherwise conform to some narrow master plan is behind everything from loss of access to public lands to colonialism and beyond.
If the land supported several hundred thousand people there, then it was obviously providing what the people needed and there had to be both systems of governance and economic systems. The fact that they did not conform to the ideals of someone from outside does not change those simple facts.
Is this not by design?
I've yet to hear of a corporate bankruptcy that left the owners and officers and board members on the bread lines.
Holy shit! Not knowing whether you were joking or not, I did a basic wikipedia search. Unless someone has vandalized her page, you're right.
So who is she to talk? Why aren't interviewers pressing her on this?
Not at all! While I have some problems with the impaired driving law, I'm firmly on side with it being a criminal offense. But my experience is that employers mostly ignore those convictions, suggesting that the statistics may not mean what we think.
In anticipation of the next question, my concerns with impaired driving legislation, enforcement, and punishment are:
Abstinence is the only reliable way to determine whether you meet the legal definition of impairment outside of actually getting pulled over. If abstinence is the objective, then that should be the law. If abstinence is not the objective, then there should be ready access to reliable tests ahead of time.
In the absence of actual property damage or injury, it should not result in incarceration. This follows my general objection to incarcerating those who have caused no concrete harm.
There needs to be supplementary legislation surrounding ownership of road legal vehicles so that someone other than the driver can be held responsible when a suspended driver is driving.
There needs to be due consideration given to the fact that it's possible for an impaired driver to be involved in a crash without being any more responsible for that crash than an unimpaired driver would have been. That is, if I run a red light, hitting a vehicle operated by an impaired driver, that driver should not be assessed fault or denied access to my insurance.
In addition, there needs to be proper enforcement of all crimes. For example, many boating laws go unenforced because enforcement officers are reluctant to subject someone to criminal penalties for the infraction.
Don't forget that impaired driving is a criminal offense. I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that impaired driving makes up over half of those with criminal records. Maybe more in SK, where even senior politicians, including the Premier, have impaired driving records.
Yes, I suppose we will. It's pretty sad that this kind of thing isn't already illegal.
There are all kinds of residency and membership seniority rules in a wide variety of organizations, from villages to nonprofits.
Make a rule that says you have to be a member in good standing for at least 13 months in order to vote, 25 months to stand for any position below leader, and 37 months to stand for leader.
That's far from ideal, but having a system vulnerable to hijacking is worse. At least this would require long term planning and extended infiltration. The infiltrators would be exposed to and forced to follow the party line for long enough that maybe they'd even change.
How about maybe seeking input from people with actual, concrete expertise in the relevant fields on what can be done today, tomorrow, etc to, you know, actually meet the damned goals!