Solid shitpost. My first reaction was anger for the poor dog.
Then I realized there are no airbags or crumple zones, the driver isn't wearing a seatbelt and car pobably doesn't even have one available. The driver is also likely three martinis into his day already and so are most of the other drivers on the road with him. The dog might actually be safer than anyone else here.
But they aren't stable and are facing real trouble. Airlines cut flights, airports lose fees. Both become vulnerable. Private markets make them money pits that have to close up shop.
Private industry has a place in any economy. But when essential systems can't survive the swings of markets, that's your signal that nationalizing essential infrastructure becomes neccessary.
We should do the same with oil. We can't yet live without it, but with climate change cooking us, we can't leave private interest seeking growth at all costs.
We're not in the world you remember anymore. Change isn't coming. It's here.
Had been. It was a great paper in the 80s and 90s, always centre right yes, but reasoned. It tilted even more right under Edward Greenspon (2002-2009) but somehow managed to stay credible, even if often disagreeable.
Its editorial stance took a hard turn to the Right with John Stackhouse (2009-2014) and then went to circus levels of shit with David Walmsley. It's been unreadable since.
Fuck the Grope and Flail with tree stump. They have no credibility. It's a billionaire mouthpiece meant to form opinion, not inform opinion.
I've seen more than a few times a single word change A/B sales 1%/10000% of a category. Sure that means more the bigger you are, but you would be surprised how often words turn people on or off. They get confused
Anyone who has spent time doing ad copy levels of wordsmithing would probably understand. Imagine Nike's creative dept saying Nike--Just do stuff. Words matter. Would the Squatty Potty sell as well if it were the Pooper Stooper?
Edit: most often the offending word was a turn off or confusing to people in a way that only became understood after the fact. Oh! That's why. The right word usually removed barriers for client understanding. Sorry I can't remember specifics atm.
Or perhaps, someone you hate the most being sponsored by someone you hate the most in the hopes they all die tragically in an act of mutual anihilation.
I still can't believe prediction markets exist. Every bet requires a counterparty and information asymetry means its not a market, its a killing field going up against rigged bets just like this.
In the upside-down world of Globe and Mail financial editorialism, subsidy is profit, taxes are poison and deficits are a clarion call from the gods themselves to further raise subsidies and lower taxes.
A topsy-turvey whilygig circus-world where public is bad, private is good and objectively defending this position is not required. You can't even think about viable alternatives, so why bother discussing them.
Editors at the Globe and Mail were asked for comment on this, but were unavailable on account of being unable to speak with so much corporate cock in their mouths. The words they tried to say were too garbled amidst the Bay Street laughter and cum coming out of their noses.
Solid shitpost. My first reaction was anger for the poor dog.
Then I realized there are no airbags or crumple zones, the driver isn't wearing a seatbelt and car pobably doesn't even have one available. The driver is also likely three martinis into his day already and so are most of the other drivers on the road with him. The dog might actually be safer than anyone else here.