I'm by no means against reduction or modification of service to match the reality of less mail being sent and delivered. Reduction of service and tax funding are not mutually exclusive.
But a legal mandate to serve all Canadians and a mandate for "solvency" based solely on postage are mutually exclusive in a country as geographically large as Canada with all our small, rural and remote (i.e. Unprofitable) communities.
Why should Canada Post be "solvent"? It's mandated to serve every Canadian address. Have you considered what that means? It means it has to send mail to the furthest reaches of Grise Fiord (look for it on Google Maps). A business would never deliver there, and they don't because it's not profitable. A non-discriminatory mail service is not a profit business, it's a public service of the government. Firehalls ans library systems have budgets, but no one expects them to be solvent because they're services supported by public funds (taxes), not businesses.
You say this like a gotcha, but was this difference missed by women or was it imposed by men? Men treating women differently also results in unfair treatment of men.
All assignments are submitted electronically now, and if he's in philosophy, he will also have to follow formatting requirements like font, font size, margins, and spacing. Practically, he's doing as much as he is allowed off-computer.
If they had, they'd know there was a 13th disciple named Matthias. I'm not even kidding, it's in the Book of Acts. He was selected to replace Judas, and is described as having been with them since the beginning.
You can't win by playing nice is there are no rules for the other side. There is no democracy left in America, and there will be no fair election in 2028 whether Trump is still alive or not.
Anyway, Tyler Robinson showed there is another way. Am I saying Robinson specifically is a good guy? No. But realistically, evil leaders and administrations have been stopped by good guys fighting back with violence, and then stopping when the goal has been achieved and returning to peace. The difference between good and bad isn't non-violence and violence, but restrained violence to achieve the goal of peace and violence as the goal itself.
Well, I'm no American, but US free speech means freedom from consequences from the government, doesn't it? This was directed by the FCC, which is the government.
But I'm no American, what do I know?
(It's embarrassing that non-Americans know the rights of Americans better than Americans. As designed by the powers that be.)
"Cut. Spend."? I'm no financial analyst, but you have to cut in one area in order to spend in another. Maybe we disagree on what is cut and what gets spent on and those choices could be matters of argument and debate, but trying to call out the fact of it itself like some gotcha is either bad faith or stupid.
Truly, without sarcasm, I invite you to read the gospels and actually get to now about Jesus. The shortest is Mark and can be read through in one evening.
The story progression was predictable and the pacing was not the best. Still, I appreciated the focus on Ortegas and Navia's acting. In this interview she alludes to not being able to dance when others are; I presume she's talking about the death of her partner late 2021 (which was after the worst of covid restrictions, but not so long after them). When it came to the rescue scene and La'an killed the Gorn, Ortegas' only friend in a lonely time and place, it made me sad to think Navia was probably going back to that loss.
But this episode was really made to retcon people not knowing the Gorn in TOS. The writers needed to make up a reason for people to forget a species they've now encountered several times, including medical breakthroughs (Batel). Still, more Ortegas, please. And still more range, please.
Since La'an doesn't make it to TOS, my guess is she dies by the end of the show and the pain of losing her drives Spock to push his humanity aside. I was expecting that to happen with the Chapel break-up, but then they brought La'an into things, so I transferred the theory onto her instead 😂
I watched all of Discovery. It is, by far, the worst of all Star Treks. (Disclosure: I have not seen TAS.)
The reason is simple: Discovery is really the Michael Burnham show. She is the Mariest Sue who ever Mary Sued. Discovery could have been a really great show if it had been an ensemble show because it has a lot of very interesting characters whom we never explore.
Instead, everything centres around Burnham. She is the reason for the war at the start of the show. She is the magical, fated solution. She is Spock's (adopted) sister and had immeasurable impact on his life. Even through timey-wimey things, her (biological) mother comes to save her and the universe.
And on top of all that is the crying. Oh, gosh, everything is so emotional on this show. There is a time and place for emotions, but Discovery was too much of it, including inappropriate times. Burnham and her maybe-broken-up-boyfriend stop in the middle of an infiltration in a hostile station to talk about their relationship.
Even the really great characters, Saru and (Emperor Georgiou) centre around Burnham. She is like a sister to Saru, she saved his life, he gives up being a Captain to continue serving under her captaincy. Burnham is Georgiou's daughter (not actually), and Georgiou's love for her (as much as she can love) changes her.
No one has a story unless its actually about Burnham. Or they get a story and then get killed off.
The best thing about Discovery is it brought Trek back on TV and it gave us the rest of this era of shows.