Grannies for Drugs
April 29, 2011 11:39 AM Subscribe
Grandmothers are agitated to the point of singing K’naan songs. This basically concerns the frustration over the Canadian Senate killing Bill C-393 (a law to facilitate production of cheaper life saving HIV/AIDS drugs for developing countries). With the new election looming, the “Grannies” would like to see folks use aidsaction.ca to email their candidates and ask them about their Access to Medicines stance.
How can divesting yourself of shares to a partner be considered removing your conflict of interest?
Is Mary Dawson asleep at the wheel here or something?
posted by Talez at 11:54 AM on April 29, 2011
Is Mary Dawson asleep at the wheel here or something?
posted by Talez at 11:54 AM on April 29, 2011
That's one of my favorite songs of the last few years, and I didn't think I could possibly love it any more than I already do. I was wrong.
posted by jbickers at 12:21 PM on April 29, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by jbickers at 12:21 PM on April 29, 2011 [2 favorites]
Dasein They're not his shares anymore. He doesn't own his wife.
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we should presume that Clement possesses some positive feelings for his wife. At the very least, so long as she remains married to him, and acts in a manner aligned with his interests, he can be presumed to desire that her wealth increases.
To give a thing to a close relative (or other presumably compliant surrogate) is how wealthy people give things away, without actually giving them away. Such maneuvers are sham transactions, engaged in to evade tax, scrutiny, or as in this case, the appearance of conflict of interest.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 2:45 PM on April 29, 2011
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we should presume that Clement possesses some positive feelings for his wife. At the very least, so long as she remains married to him, and acts in a manner aligned with his interests, he can be presumed to desire that her wealth increases.
To give a thing to a close relative (or other presumably compliant surrogate) is how wealthy people give things away, without actually giving them away. Such maneuvers are sham transactions, engaged in to evade tax, scrutiny, or as in this case, the appearance of conflict of interest.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 2:45 PM on April 29, 2011
There was a sizeable presence of advocates for Bill C-393 at my local all candidates meeting, which surprised me. There were also many people associated with Save the CBC. All in all it gave me hope that a significant number of old rich white people were actually angry with the Harper government.
They're not his shares anymore. He doesn't own his wife.
Financially speaking they do own each other, no? What's mine is yours...
posted by mek at 8:30 PM on April 29, 2011
They're not his shares anymore. He doesn't own his wife.
Financially speaking they do own each other, no? What's mine is yours...
posted by mek at 8:30 PM on April 29, 2011
« Older The economics of Death Star planet destruction. | RIP Joanna Russ Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Well I certainly didn't expect to see that sentence. Attention gotten.
posted by cashman at 11:44 AM on April 29, 2011