Screwy and typical of Trump, but where’s the Republican National Convention in all this? I’m wondering if Trump overstepped his bounds by pulling the plug on the Jacksonville convention. It’s the RNC’s convention, not his. If he announced the cancellation without the blessing of the RNC he will have burned up a lot of good will with the GOP establishment.
With school boards across the continent struggling with planning for the most tumultuous school reorganization in anyone’s memory, it seems a bit far-fetched to protest possible reductions to French immersion
L’Assemblée de la francophonie de l’Ontario denounced talks about French programs in a tweet Wednesday night, calling it “totally unacceptable.”
“In a bilingual country, to propose the elimination of the teaching of one of the official languages is unthinkable,” the organization representing Franco-Ontarians wrote. “We also ask the Toronto District School Board to stop using official languages as a means of pressure to reach its goals. It’s damaging for the country.”
There’s something between the lines here…I agree with the author’s premise that fiscal policy to deal with the pandemic could lead to a Universal Basic Income but he muddies the waters when he turns philosophical and wonders about the future of capitalism. I’d like to know how creative programs to deal with the pandemic could reform conservative economic thinking. Don’t call it Universal Basic Income. Call it …? That’s what I want to know… how to present and package an effective safety net in a package that Republicans could support.
This is interesting. It describes the rules, such as they are, that will govern the impeachment trial in the Senate. The proceedings will be presided over by Chief Justice Roberts but that’s separate from the role of the judge which falls collectively to the Senators…they are judge and jury. The author compares the rules governing impeachment to Calvinball…the rules are pretty much whatever 51 Senators want them to be.
The rules under which Donald Trump will face trial in the Senate are a combination of theatrically detailed and maddeningly vague.
— Read on www.lawfareblog.com/imagining-senate-trial-reading-senate-rules-impeachment-litigation
LORINC: New residential density plans a small step in right direction http://spacing.ca/toronto/2019/07/18/lorinc-new-residential-density-plans-a-small-step-in-right-direction/
This Ottawa blogger makes a lot of sense: measure the prospective value of cross-river infrastructure spending by the number of people moved, not the number of vehicles.
No hard news or proposals here – just “pondering”. But it’s the first pondering from the Ontario PCs that does not strike me as ridiculous.
This is the PC government’s discussion paper on Reducing Litter and Waste in Our Communities: Discussion Paper I couldn’t find any proposed bans on single-use plastics in it. Regarding plastics in general the government is proposing more standardization for recycling, greater front-end involvement by manufacturers/packagers, and more Federal government leadership (which is unusual, coming from this particular bunch of PCs.)
Ontario government ponders ban on single-use plastics
 Dealing with the second objective, voter parity, and giving the Minister the benefit of the doubt that he understood that the primary concern is not voter parity but effective representation, there is no evidence of minimal impairment. The Province’s rationale for moving to a 25-ward structure had been carefully considered and rejected by the TWBR and by City Council just over a year ago. If there was a concern about the large size of some of the City’s wards (by my count, six wards had populations ranging from 70,000 to 97,000) why not deal with these six wards specifically? Why impose a solution (increasing all ward sizes to 111,000) that is far worse, in terms of achieving effective representation, than the original problem? And, again, why do so in the middle of the City’s election?
 I am therefore obliged to find on the evidence before me that the breaches of s. 2(b) of the Charter as found above cannot be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society and cannot be saved as reasonable limits under s. 1.
Interesting premise…the author suggests that if impeached and removed from office Trump wouldn’t go away but would start campaigning for the 2020 election – creating havoc on the way.
A better alternative, he (the author) suggests, would be for the Democrats to develop some positive messaging/programs/alternatives. I agree; relying on the “Not my President” dissenters isn’t going to carry them very far in the mid-terms.