Sentences with phrase «founded policy argument»

Not exact matches

As the American Conservative's Matt Purple wrote, «Conservatives objected that leveraging kids in policy arguments was a lousy tactic — until they found a kid of their own: Kyle Kashuv, just as bright and eloquent as his peers and a stout defender of the Second Amendment.»

This attitude has also been held among scientists until recently, when the creationist pressures on public education and policy became so threatening that some scientists founded a new journal, Creation / Evolution, a «Committee of Correspondence» and a Creation / Evolution News letter, aimed at defending evolutionary science and dismantling creationist arguments.

Various parts or implications of this position are also finding their way into a variety of pastor - oriented journals, as can be seen in Cobb's arguments against free trade in Theology and Public Policy, [5] his exchanges with Dennis P. McCann in The Christian Century over NAFTA, [6] and his debates with Robin Klay in Perspectives over GATT.

They found themselves in the wonderland of Labour Party policy making, the real world would barely encroach, many policy arguments would take place with no regard for recognisable logic and most processes were strange and absurd.

Dr O'Brien said: «Coming from countries with strong gun control policies, and a 30-fold lower rate of gun - related homicides, we found the arguments for opposing gun control counterintuitive and somewhat illogical.

[v] I found the comment very useful because it was organized around specific policy arguments, using research findings to explain why.

At the same time, their silence gives tacit support to arguments by traditionalists that standardized testing should not be used in evaluating teachers or for systemic reform (even when, as seen this week from American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten and others critical of the state education policy report card issued by Rhee's StudentsFirst, find it convenient to use test score data for their own purposes).

Learn what the research says about how to develop expertise in this genre of writing — building an understanding of (persuasive) schema; developing stronger writing prompts for the 3 argument types (fact - based, judgment - based, policy - based); and teaching students how to find and use the most relevant evidence (text, data, etc.) needed to support each argument / opinion type.

The news release — appended below — says it all, and the findings it describes reinforce my assertion awhile back that there's plenty of denial to go around in the arguments over climate and energy trends and policies.

The new paper's findings, helpfully unpacked here, cut against arguments of those who say flawed media coverage is a big factor impeding progress on climate policy.

In 1981, my Harvard colleague, political scientist Steven Kelman surveyed Congressional staff members, and found that support and opposition to market - based environmental policy instruments was based largely on ideological grounds: Republicans, who supported the concept of economic - incentive approaches, offered as a reason the assertion that «the free market works,» or «less government intervention» is desirable, without any real awareness or understanding of the economic arguments for market - based programs.

Well, since I am not an academic, and live in the real world, the fact that the «whole policy issues» do exist, and are being implemented by deluded progressive governments as we speak based precisely on «science» like this, I find your argument irrelevant.

[I make no argument for any particular position, just observe that policies in complex societies often find different balances.]

As politicians find it harder to make arguments for themselves, they frequently turn to NGOs to give their policies credibility.

A recent study comparing arguments against climate science versus policy arguments against action on climate found that science denial is on the relative increase.

I find it easiest to make sense of the arguments by thinking of policies to reduce carbon emissions as a sort of public investment project: you pay a price now and derive benefits in the form of a less - damaged planet later.

As some left - wingers start to follow in the footsteps of these unlikely bedfellows, they too will find their association with specious arguments and simple nonsense reduces their credibility — and along with that lost credibility goes the opportunity to shape policy in ways that might be more to their liking.

While Air Canada's memorandum of fact and law confusingly identifies twelve «points in issue» (paragraph 5), nine «questions of law» (paragraph 12), and seven «issues» (paragraphs 13 to 76), all its arguments relate to the Agency's finding that the carriers had not discharged their burden of showing that the cost of implementing a IPIF policy would cause them undue hardship.

An example of upholding a «legitimate government interest» is Christian Legal Society Chapter v. Martinez, where a UC anti-discrimination requirement was objected to on First Amendment grounds, and the court rejected that argument, finding that «The all - comers policy is a reasonable, viewpoint - neutral condition on access to the RSO forum; it therefore does not transgress First Amendment limitations» — the court found the university's policy to be rational, indeed «creditworthy».

Citing extensively to the evidence submitted and legal arguments developed in LTL's briefs, the Court found that LTL's client has correctly interpreted the policy at issue and appropriately handled the claim submitted by the plaintiff.

Justice D'Arcy also rejected the Minister's argument that the «indirect» bump of the cost of depreciable property frustrated the purposes of paragraph 88 (1)(c) and subsection 98 (3), unwilling to base a finding of abuse on a broad policy statement that the indirect bumping of depreciable property is not permitted under the Act.

The Tribunal also dismissed the College's arguments that the complainant's failure to pursue a judicial review of the HPARB decision and the fact that she no longer had conditions on her licenses were relevant to whether or not the complaint was an abuse of process, finding that the need for the complainant to have her complaint appropriately considered under the Code outweighed other policy considerations (¶ 61).

The argument failed to find favour with the State Commission, which ruled that a person with total disability couldn't be denied benefits of the insurance policy on the ground of being employed.

Removing arguments of individual morality from the equation is the best way to find consensus and determine public policy.

The court rejected Broker's argument, finding that Broker had waived its right to enforce its exit policy against Salesperson because it had consistently failed to enforce the policy with its other departing salespeople.

The court rejected this argument, finding that Next Generation and Homebuyer's policies had no impact on other MLS participants» ability to collect and receive commissions, since Next Generation only placed a few of its listings into the MLS and Homebuyer's placed no listings into the MLS.

The court rejected this argument, finding it wasn't clear that mold qualified as a pollutant and, more importantly, the supplementary coverage provision did not alter the specific mold exclusion contained in the policy.