Somebody let the TERFs off their leash, and they started braying about how the world is going to collapse if we stop erecting onerous administrative barriers between trans people and accurate ID.
Mind-blowing revelation ahead:
Vivalid was the original metalhead part… I lost count. Like 13 or something.
It’s almost as if we have data on this or something.
While Conservatives busy themselves self-immolating over the government’s choice to deficit spend, the economy moved the fuck on and responded exactly as predicted:
Alberta’s economy is more than just back on its feet, it’s about to run faster than any other region in Canada.
Gross domestic product in the western province will rise by 2.9 percent this year, according to a Bloomberg survey of economists, up from an April estimate of 2.5 percent. That matches forecasts for neighbouring British Columbia, and in 2018 Alberta comes out on top with a 2.4 percent expansion that would be tops among Canada’s 10 provinces.
It’s a huge comeback from Alberta’s last place finish in each of the last two years when oil prices plummeted below $50 a barrel, triggering layoffs and an investment freeze that shrank GDP by about 4 percent. The rebound is another sign Canada may retain its top spot among Group of Seven nations as economic growth diversifies away from consumer spending.
Step two, of course, is the part that really gets the Conservatives excited–Keynesian spending requires taxation during the booms. It remains to be seen whether this will be the case. Conservatives tend to shriek “Greece!” the moment someone suggests 8 hours is not an adequate response time in the emergency room, but they do have a point. You have to balance the budget eventually, and a boom is the best time to do just that. Just running a deficit is the easy part, the real test will be whether Alberta’s NDP or the Canadian Liberals actually shear their capitalist sheep. The saying is “tax and spend,” not just “spend,” after all.
Senthorum Raj reviews the animating principles informing the criminalization of otherwise ethically justifiable sexual behaviour:
We tend to assume that law is objective and disembodied, but the story of the decriminalisation of homosexuality in the UK shows that, like the people who create it, it is in fact an emotional creature, animated by visceral human feelings — and as far as sexuality is concerned, the chief emotion at work is often disgust.
You don’t have to look very hard to see how much it was disgust, not a concern for morality or justice, that shaped the laws governing homosexual activity. In fact, in the UK, homosexuality was long deemed so perverse that to even speak of it in public would stain your character.
Criminal punishments for homosexual activity, which included the death penalty, thrived on disgust for centuries. Introduced by Henry VIII in 1533, the Buggery Act 1533 criminalised the “abominable vice” of anal sex between men. In his commentaries on the common law of England published in 1765, jurist William Blackstone described buggery as an “offence of so dark a nature” that “the very mention of [it] is a disgrace to human nature”. Colonial statutes (which are still in effect in a number of Commonwealth countries today) referred to sex between men as an “act against the order of nature”.
In 1895, writer Oscar Wilde was put on trial for “gross indecency”, a statutory offence introduced in 1885 to punish individuals who engaged in same-sex relationships, without having to prove they had anal sex. In sentencing Wilde for gross indecency, Justice Willsnoted:
The crime of which you have been convicted is so bad that one has to put stern restraint upon one’s self to prevent one’s self from describing, in language which I would rather not use, the sentiments which must rise in the breast of every man of honour who has heard the details of these two horrible trials.
Disgust, again, was the animating principle. In writing about the Wilde trial, philosopher and legal scholar Martha Nussbaum observes that disgust was not simply an excess or unintended consequence of prosecuting sexual offences; it was central to it. Criminal penalties were contingent on the extent to which the person, and the activity they engaged in, could elicit public disgust.
The observant might note that this remains salient today.