dialamah

If no no-one of a particular race or disability hasn't been hired, there's a history of racism and "hiding" those with disability, its fair to question whether that racism or ableism has had some effect on their lack of success. If there's indication that such racism/ableism has indeed held these people back from opportunity, then its fair to see if there's a way to level the playing field, so to speak. I would also rather that such programs didn't exist, but until our society can truly eradicate their biases, hiring on merit isn't any guarantee. Racism was very prevalent when I was young, and its still with us though I believe less so than it was. Perhaps as dinosaurs such as myself move on, merit-based advancement will become even more normalized and special programs will be eliminated.

While the ideal is that positions are awarded on merit, too often, its not - doesn't matter if its an inherent preference for or bias against any particular group. "Quotas", whatever they are called, aren't a good solution but they do at least bring more diversity into the work force. Dr Tam has achieved a pretty high level in her career, and I regularly see comments about her being male - as if it mattered in terms of how she does her job (I don't know if she's transgender and don't care). Singh is subject to comments suggesting that he's not loyal to Canada, as is Sajjan - comments based entirely on their ethnicity and having no basis in fact. People of color are told to "go back home", even those born in Canada. I know of an employer who decided that when hiring, he would not consider resumes where the name indicated the applicant was from a minority group. He assumption is that the applicant would not speak good English, would not understand Canadian humor and so would not fit into the workplace. Now the requirement for English and fitting into office culture may be valid, but "assuming" people would fail those requirements based on nothing more than their names is racism. Attitudes like the above are why we end up with controversial policies that seek to level the playing field. Until those kinds of attitudes are eliminated, we cannot claim to have a system that rewards people based entirely on merit. Under these conditions, focusing on bringing more diversity into positions of power seems like the next best option.

Not at all, I was agreeing with you, then expressing my opinion on why it isn't that way at all. Why did you take what I said so personally? But I've fixed it to reduce confusion.

I agree.

When was the last time a minority person or a person with disabilities served in these roles? I don't know and not going to look it up right now, but if the answer is never, I'd ask if its true that there has never been an individual from these groups who didn't have the requisite skills and experience. This announcement certainly will fire up a certain group of people who think they're hard done by, regardless of facts. On the other hand, it would be a much better world if such appointments happened because people were really judged on their merits, and not have a leg-up because they're white, or be filling some kind of "quota" of not-normally-considered people.

For four years I've thought you were smarter than this. Apparently not; another meathead on the ignore list.

Its possible to be sympathetic to people in those situations without also insisting that everybody's health should be put at risk. If we'd carried on as usual from March to June, those people's health could have been equally or more at risk because of Covid - hospitals full, people off work sick for weeks or sometimes months, many more deaths.

Don't be stupid - dealing with the problem of a pandemic means you miss your entertainments (sporting events, cards, restaurants etc) without whining, and you wash your hands, social distance and wear a mask to protect other people and yourself. Its you bunch who refuse to face the problem and want someone to fix it so you aren't inconvenienced.

It would be good to have someone work to calm down right-wing hysteria.

"Pain and suffering" from missing sporting events, (government) hosted card parties, eating out. Perhaps you'd have been happier if your mom had contracted this virus while playing cards at the seniors center, or from a server at a restaurant. Perhaps you'd have been more satisfied to experience the virus ripping through the community at breakneck speed, overwhelming our hospitals and killing thousands more people - not just from the virus, but from the lack of medical facilities for heart attacks, strokes, car accidents etc., because the hospital was full of Covid patients. We, as a country, worked well enough and fast enough that the virus didn't have a chance to get a good foothold, as it did in Italy and Spain. We've done so well, in fact, that snowflakes such as yourself can whine about how you've had to miss sporting events and card games. Good god, what would you people do if something serious happened - like a world war, where lights are shut off at night and everything from coal to butter is rationed? You'd probably collapse into a sniveling tantrum about how your "quality of life" was impacted by bombs, and demand that the government surrender so you could go to a sports game.

Right. So no problem with fraud if virtually everyone in the States requests an absentee ballot?

You've no concern that precautions due to Covid could result in voting lineups being particularly long, and time needed to vote taking longer than usual? As in not enough time before or after work to actually vote. Prove it. ~50% of the American people don't work? In what alternate universe do you reside?

Twenty States have no mandated time off work to vote, paid or unpaid. So its very possible that people can't get time off work to vote.

Yubbut it would have been so much worse if Trump hadn't implemented a partial travel ban 5 days before the next NA country (Canada) implemented a much more extensive travel ban. Right?

Per recent events and resultant studies, the virus can be transported around the world in fozen meats and its thought this has caused outbreaks in places where there'd been no cases for many weeks. Surviving Covid also doesn't creste immunity, so "herd immunity" ain't ever gonna happen. This virus isn't well understood, and it's certainly not "under control".

@OftenWrong hoping you are right, but still have doubts. Its just been confirmed that people can be reinfected with Covid, which may or may not make the virus more lethal depending on the strain, but of course we won't know based on one patient, regardless of whether he lives or dies. There are still many unknowns about long term health impacts, even with those who get mild cases, and those who get very sick, despite being young and with no pre-existing conditions. Oh, but wait - you choose to disregard those reports, preferring instead to call people names. I'll continue to exercise caution with social distancing, staying home, wearing a mask in stores and public transit (and alone in my car as I travel between stores). Though I'm starting to think a face shield a better option, since it'll protect me better than a mask and since people here don't think masking (or physical distancing apparently) is particularly important, why should I bother protecting them. You do what you like, and in a year or two, we'll probably have some definitive answers. May we both survive to know which experts were correct today.

1. Neither holding not attending large parties, so no comfort needed here. 2. True. Still, I doubt we'll see anyone in jail over it. Littering has a fine of up to $2,000 and jail sentence of up to six months, but nobody has ever gone to jail for littering, though plenty have been fined. 3. Did you post a cite? I was unaware; was commenting as a result of posts made by Sapper and Shady. 4. You maybe should try taking things a little less personally.

I think any prison sentence is more threat than promise. Fines serm more practical.

Yes, this is true. Harper did the same in 2008, when there was a worldwide recession - he 'outspent taxes taken in' for 3 years, if I recall correctly. But he had to; I recognize that even though I was not a fan of Harper and even though he promised a balanced budget. Trudeau, like virtually all leaders, also has had little choice through the pandemic. A lot of criticism has been directed toward our government (and other governments by their citizens) for not being more prepared for a pandemic - for not spending the money needed to ensure we'd be prepared with PPE and medical facilities before it was needed, for not having any kind of plan at all. Just because Canada's gotten of relatively lightly (so far) doesn't mean we can just continue on as normal. If a pandemic comes again, we need a better financial plan than suddenly having to throw tons of money out and messing up our financial outlook for years to come. I don't know if what Trudeau is planning will achieve that, but we, as a country, need to take a hard look at how we failed to plan, failed to be prepared - and figure out a way to do better next time. That will involve spending money; constant crying about that fact of life is not useful. If a Conservative leader came up with a plan - something that plans for the future, including supporting people and businesses financially if needed, then I'd listen. I'd support higher taxes to achieve that, whether it's Liberals or Conservatives imposing them. Throwing everything out based only on who's leading - that is just useless partisanship.

Do rich people/corporations who get so many tax breaks they pay nothing 'have no skin' in the game? Or is it only poor people who's income is so minimal they don't pay income tax have 'no skin in the game'? It seems to me that it's human nature, when one has almost nothing but sees the way in which the rich use the system to create more wealth for themselves, that they might also decide they may as well use the system to benefit themselves as well. Why is it so important that someone who makes $20,000 or $30,000 or $40,000 a year pay the same percentage of their income to taxes as someone who makes two, three or four times that? Losing (for example) 10% of $20,000, $30,000 or $40,000 makes a much larger difference in someone's standard of living (aka ability to consume), than losing 10% of $150,000. In a capitalist society, we absolutely require people to be able to buy things - without consumers, businesses fail. Look at how many went out of business just after 3 months of reduced/lost business. If that 40% of Canadians that you are so concerned with were to be subject to increased taxes, that would cut into their discretionary income - the income they could otherwise put to use keeping capitalism alive. Even if it's just Walmart and McDonald's. Reducing consumer spending in a capitalist system is a recipe for disaster; why else would governments be so willing to provide 'stimulus' packages when the economy slows.

Do you think nobody should pay taxes then? How do you suppose all our Western infrastructure is paid for, hmm? Roads, schools, hospitals, teachers, doctors, nurses, cops, etc., etc.? Is that 'other people's money'? Or is it only 'other people's money' if you don't like what the money is being used for? Anyway, let's hope that the Conservative leader (will it be McKay?) has a plan that actually addresses our economy in a realistic way, without cutting services to the people who need them most - children, disabled, seniors, single parents, vets etc. Let's hope that any upcoming 'austerity' focuses on those who can afford to have their lifestyle reduced - rich people, rich corporations, rich churches.

I've provided links, as have others. Why this assumption that your single link from someone who later admitted masks are useful proves anything, compared to the plurality of links recommending the use of masks? You've "warned" me? Sorry, I totally missed that. Feeling overwhelmed by how easily your arguments are demolished, are you, so you're resorting to "threats" in the hopes nobody will notice.

Is that what you think? From here, it looks like you are dismissive of the health of the community, because you think you know better than experts, and calling people who are considering the wider community scared and "rabbits".

Something of an exaggeration, don't you think? In our office, we can have no more than 40% of our staff in at any one time, including the profoundly hearing-impaired guy. Because we are very well spaced apart and take distancing rules seriously, we don't need to wear masks, as a rule, so the deaf guy can read our lips. And, interestingly enough, he wears a mask when he goes over to the mall - so I don't think he has much of a problem with other people wearing masks. Whether a deaf person can continue to work depends on the accommodation and care his or her employer and co-workers will make; blaming mask-wearing and assuming that suddenly deaf people everywhere are out of work is a failed argument. Your better argument was that deaf people, while out and about, would have difficulty communicating with store employees or restaurant servers or others who were masked. That at least had some slight validity - until you think about deaf people who don't read lips. They have to shop (and work) even when nobody's wearing a mask. Were you concerned about how they were getting by 6 or 8 months ago?

Do you mean the link about Sweden's lack of masks mandates, where you called everyone (who disagrees with you) rabbits?