Problem is that society has a short term memory and only the thoughts and feelings a month before an election is all that matters.
Marketing and promotion is all that matters and which ever party has the most of it in the three months before an election will likely win that election. Which makes you realize that we live less and less in a democracy but in a weird plutocracy or oligarchy … a system that runs on money and not the will of the people.
Up until about 20 years ago elections used to be positioned in WHO TO VOTE FOR and now they are more about WHO YOU SHOULDN’T VOTE FOR. The conservative marketing is not so much about what solutions they can offer … they just continually make the broad statement that no one should vote for Liberals.
“The total all-in cost was about $1.7 million," says Victoria fire Chief Dan Atkinson.
Two grants from the provincial and federal governments – totalling $660,000 – bring replacement costs in line with a new diesel truck at around $1.2 million.
“Total cost to ownership is definitely lower so when we look at that total lifecycle of say a 20-year vehicle, we’re saving a lot of money in fuel over that 20 years,” said Simon Upshon, manager of fleet operations with the City of Victoria.
Seems to be a fairly financially sound decision to make. Fuel is a massive cost for a car of this size.
The truck comes equipped with air suspension, allowing its height to be adjusted to four different levels. It’s all-wheel drive, unlike its predecessors, and being electric, there is more space for storage.
And the article says it has a fallback diesel engine if the battery runs low:
According to the city, it also has an onboard diesel engine that will automatically engage when the battery drops below 20 per cent during an extended firefighting response, ensuring no breaks in service.
Which borders should a Palestinian state be given?
Why do you feel that the border results of that particular war matter more than any other war (that came before, or that has come after)?
Nobody seems to be able to answer these questions without massive hypocrisy when the same logic is applied to other countries whose borders were also formed as the result of wars.
It’s like there’s some sort of cut-off date right after WW2 where people feel nobody should be allowed to invade anyone else.
Except for Israel, where the Arab side didn’t like the result of the plan that was drawn up and voted on by the UN (even though it had far more land that they currently have) rejected it, and had all of the neighboring Arab countries invade Israel literally the day after the British withdrew as their mandate to handle the area ended. They initially took a bunch of land before Israel threw their asses out and recaptured even more territory, and the Palestinians have been fighting about the results ever since.
No, instead it’s Israel’s fault for fighting back against the constant violence from Palestinians (mostly funded by external sources from Arab countries)
Does it suck that Palestinians are dying? Yes. Did they lose a war they started? Yes Did they choose to continue violence after they lost? Yes
So why is Israel the bad guy here?
If Ukraine retakes their territory, including Crimea, are we going to call them the bad guy if they continue to kill Russians who keep attacking them across the border? Would we call them the bad guy if they push into Russia a few kilometers to establish safer borders for their people?
Which borders should a Palestinian state be given?
Personally, I say go back to 1967, do a “land back” divestment of territory taken and make reparations consisting of both money and supportive resources. With international support, given the role of the international community.
Why do you feel that the border results of that particular war matter more than any other war (that came before, or that has come after)?
Because that was, as I understand it (which is far from complete), the final straw for the Palestinian nation’s quest for autonomy and security.
Nobody seems to be able to answer these questions without massive hypocrisy when the same logic is applied to other countries whose borders were also formed as the result of wars.
It’s not hypocrisy to grow and change over time, as long as one acknowledges the failures of the past.
It’s like there’s some sort of cut-off date right after WW2 where people feel nobody should be allowed to invade anyone else.
Exactly! This is the “growing and changing” I spoke of earlier. We know better. We know that nations need autonomy and security, that countries need autonomy and security, and that individuals need autonomy and security. In the years and decades following the two world wars (especially WWII), a very large fraction of the planet came together under the auspices of international organizations, including the UN, in recognition of those facts with the desire to fix things, once and for all.
There have been and will continue to be missteps and outright failures. Neither should cause us to dismiss the goals or give them up as a lost causes. Instead, every failure should rally us in a redoubling of effort.
In my opinion, that is what we are seeing, a redoubling of effort in response to an abject failure to conform to the new standards we have set for ourselves as a global community.
If you want end of 1967 borders there would be no Palestinian state at all. There would be no land to give back. Israel controlled the entire region including Gaza, the Westbank, the Sinai peninsula.
Or are you talking about returning to BEFORE the six day war?
The one that was started by Egypt banning Israeli vessels from the straights of Tiran AGAIN despite what happened a decade prior? Supported by three other Arab countries.
Should there be no consequences for countries who cause wars? Egypt’s president even took responsibility for it after the failure.
If Egypt (or the other arab neighbors) care so much about the Palestinians, they could take them in as citizens. Instead they’re building even more walls to keep them out. Their attacks have never been about Palestinians, or establishing a Palestinian state, it’s always been about eliminating Israel. That’s why they keep turning down perfectly good plans, and invading instead.
If an officer is present, the highschool student is more likely to be charged for offenses that happen at school, which means they are more likely to get a criminal record, which means they will have a harder time finding employment, which can ruin lives.
An idiot giving/selling drugs to their friends becomes a life-long criminal or homeless.
Dealing drugs in a school counts as an aggravating factor. Add a knife in the backpack, and you’ve got another aggravating factor.
You start seeing mandatory minimums of 2 years, which is fed time. That doesn’t get removed from your records until at least 5 years after your sentence is over, so at least 7 years. This gets extended if you commit other crimes, which you might, if you can’t get a job. That’s into “ruining lives” territory, and we’re created a lifer.
This isn’t necessarily someone who “needs to turn their life around.” This situation applies to someone who wanted to try ecstasy or shrooms with their friends and listen to EDM, or made a tray of pot brownies.
I am not pro 16 year-olds doing drugs, but lots of kids do drugs without ruining their lives. Most people try something other than booze before they hit 18. Having police in the schools to just hang around is more harm than good.
What a god awful ‘plan’ , if a municipality can’t get housing permits out the door faster they’ll lose federal money. So a failure to build* faster will see potholes linger, sewer systems forgo repair another year, and other critical maintenance tasks and improvements go down the drain.
But whatever, I guess I thought about the plan for too long, this is a ‘common sense’ plan and you just have to turn off your brain and roll with it.
Common sense is the worst kind of sense. It presents solutions with little to no need for actual knowledge or logical thinking. It will keep your hand off a burning stove, but may well burn a country to the ground.
City planners, Mari said, have so far been unwilling to approve multi-unit housing that disrupts the “character” of residential neighbourhoods.
Victoria’s requirement for six metres between the front of the home and property line prioritizes a decorative front yard over more functional space in the backyard
“But municipalities say, ‘No, we want a single-family 1950s white-picket-fence front yard esthetic’ and they write that into their bylaws.”
“I don’t think it’s failed,” said Marianne Alto, who was elected mayor in October and has sat on council since 2010. “What I think has happened is we asked too much of a single policy. I think there was a probably an unreasonable expectation that this was almost magic.”
" […] there are some local governments that don’t want to participate in making sure we have housing for future generations […] said Kahlon, who recently spoke to California Senator Scott Wiener about it."
“I don’t believe for a second missing middle will produce affordable housing — but it will create more diverse supply in the long run,” Dell said.
Even as the City of Victoria looks to fix the problems in its missing-middle policy to spur building, Mari, the Victoria developer, is skeptical it >will provide the transformation needed.
“It’s unlikely we’re going to see a policy that is robust enough to actually tackle the housing crisis,” he said.
Amodio said as long as we’re wedded to the idea of the single-family home as a symbol of the middle class dream — even as it excludes a >vast swath of society who have been priced out of that dream — municipalities will continue to take a conservative approach around >green-lighting density.
“This vision that we have embedded, it’s imbued in our collective consciousness, to have a big front yard with a certain style of house that >has been defined as being character. And this character is what makes a beautiful neighbourhood. And I so strongly oppose that,” she said. >“To me, it’s people … that create character.”
In my opinion, the only issue here is all the micro-managed zoning laws created by people that still think the whole city should be giant fucking suburb. And guess what, it is a giant fucking suburb. As soon as you get outside of downtown, it’s just houses and roads interspersed with random car-centric shopping centres until you get to parkland.
victoria
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.