scribblet

I resented being taken away from my busy schedule for unnecessary seminars. Apart from that, the discussion is not about me, I just used some 90s information in order to relate what was happening.

The whole argument is outdated and just divides people by race A non white person with successful parents, a good education and skill set will likely do a lot better than a white under privileged person in a low income trailer park. (okay bit of a stereotype). I agree there is still a disparity in N.A. (more in the U.S. than in Canada) but IMO for the most part race is not the issue Does this discussion or argument mean that minorities will always need special favours to do better and that affirmative action hasn't helped minorities? Is 'white privilege' any different than getting where you because of affirmative action. Isn't affirmative action a form of unearned privilege ?

Still no idea what you are going on about, I don't feel bad about anything, but maybe not making personal attacks is not an option for you. Maybe you should check your own 'emotional state' .

No idea what you are going on about, I don't feel guilty about anything.

Exactly !! Actually, the whole concept is racist in itself.

It's nonsense, it just creates more hard feelings and does nothing to foster co-operation or help anyone become successful. It reminds me of HR multi cultural seminars where we were given tickets and divided into groups.. don't remember much else but all it did was foster resentment. In fact, none us had thought much about race and inequality as jobs and promotions were based on skill sets, interviews and merit. However, after these seminars, the requirement to keep race stats (% of asians, e. asian, black native, disabled etc.) and the awarding of additional points for just being a minority, it did change perceptions on who was actually being discriminated against. Actually it may not be totally accurate. https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZHBpLndpLmdvdnxkcGktdmlzdGEtcHJvamVjdHxneDo3MTMxMTU5NTljYzI2ZWFl

If it is being done or even suggested it's disgusting. The idea of 'white privilege' is past it's best before date and is simply and old relic of multi cultural training seminars from the 90s and does nothing but foster enmity among groups. How about instead we talk about how we can help and work towards achieving equality for all people via education, speaking well, dress and skill sets etc. etc. Anyone agreeing to wear those bands are allowing themselves to be browbeaten and are subjugating themselves to propaganda. There are many white people who are under privileged and downtrodden but this type of nonsense only promotes inequality causing resent

Exactly. The provinces had a choice, they could easily have said no, but in Ontario McGuinty chose to accept it. McGuinty also had the option to ensure that we did not pay more on essentials services, e.g. electricity and residential heating -but he made another choice not to give consumers a break in that area.

I guess we need stats etc. to back it up, but this seems to be in line with the article, it's from March, 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/07/world/extreme-poverty-down-despite-recession-world-bank-data-show.html This seems to agree about fewer casualties of war http://www.visionofhumanity.org/info-center/think-again-war/

Why 2012 was the best year ever according to the Spectator. A U.K. Magazine, I've no idea who who owns it or anything about it but I liked the article. Never in the history of the world has there been less hunger, less disease and more prosperity http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-week/leading-article/8789981/glad-tidings/#comments cont...

Well said !

Excellent posts Rue...

You all seem to ignore the fact that he didn't exactly govern as a democrat. He commanded all media outlets must carry his speeches or risk being shut down. (propaganda of course) Most people would call that fascism, but hey - not when it's Chavez. If it's Chavez it's okay to rewrite the Constitution, persecute—and prosecute political enemies. Remember 2007 when lost a referendum on constitutional changes aimed at making his revolution irreversible but he later brought int by law by decree. Remember 2002, when hundreds of thousands marched on the presidential palace to demand Mr Chávez’s resignation: 19 people died, many killed by snipers who were firing from surrounding buildings and were never identified. And as Human Rights Watch says: “characterized by a dramatic concentration of power and open disregard for basic human-rights guarantees.” How very democratic. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/06/opinion/in-the-end-chavez-was-an-awful-manager.html/?pagewanted=all&_r=0 The legacy of his 14-year “socialist revolution” is apparent across Venezuela: the decay, dysfunction and blight that afflict the economy and every state institution. The endless debate about whether Mr. Chávez was a dictator or democrat — he was in fact a hybrid, an elected autocrat — distracted attention, at home and abroad, from the more prosaic issue of competence. Mr. Chávez was a brilliant politician and a disastrous ruler. He leaves Venezuela a ruin, and his death plunges its roughly 30 million citizens into profound uncertainty.

Just because you disagree doesn't mean it's crap. Is the WSJ and Human rights watch wrong to, there are others. http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/07/17/venezuela-concentration-and-abuse-power-under-ch-vez Chavez was a despot who gloried in his anti American rhetoric and attacks on Britain. He was a master of propaganda as we can see by the "useful idiots of the Left" who idolize a guy who left his country in a real mess. suppressed journalists, limited free speech etc. etc. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2289326/How-typical-Left-idolise-despot-gloried-attacking-America-Britain.html

Maybe the Arctic will become the breadbasket of the world. Heck, longer growing seasons, more food, more trees.. cool

Comments on here are not necessarily fact, but I guess the Miami Herald and all the other papers are wrong. He was just a real sweet guy. Chavez might have used his oil to buy the affections of people like Mr. Kennedy, but his poor management of the country's oil and the economy has left a mess. As the WSJ said: Yet when the Chávez era finally drew to a close Tuesday with his death from cancer at age 58, life for Venezuelans had only become worse. As life stories go, the lesson of Chávez's is to beware charismatic demagogues peddling socialist policies at home and revolution abroad.

It's all coming from the same source Criminal Justice International Associates, a risk assessment and global analysis firm in Miami, Fla. who estimates his worth is a couple of billion give or take a bit. Venezuela’s economic freedom score is 36.1, making its economy the 174th freest in the 2013 Index. Its score has decreased by 2.0 points since last year, reflecting deteriotation in business freedom, labour freedom, and freedom from corruption along with an major increase in gov't spending, prior to the 2012 elections. Venezuela is ranked 28th out of 29 countries in the South and Central America/Caribbean region, and its overall score has recorded one of the 10 largest declines in the 2013 Index. Inflation is high so IM Hugo Chavez's socialism attempt has failed to achieve what he intended. http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/03/05/3268749/the-plundering-legacy-of-hugo.html?NewsWatchCanada.ca# Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez and his legacy of plunder Was he also an anti semite - the MSM isn't reporting much on his treatment of jews. http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/07/17/venezuela-concentration-and-abuse-power-under-ch-vez The Miami Herald isn't too impressed with him either. Gotta love the adoration of this guy who did everything the Harper haters fantasize about 'nasty old Harper' doing....

But it's okay to tell everyone else how to do their business when it comes to saving a species etc.

It worked when I deleted the smilies...

So far so good, I'm trying imageshack can't got this An error occurred Sorry, but you have posted more images than you are allowed to deleting the smilies

I don't see how allowing them to be hunted for their skins is conserving, in fact I'd say that allowing this only encourages poaching. Either they should be protected or not. How can we say that they are in danger from habitat loss but at the same time allow trading which puts the bears at a greater risk. As I said, the Inuit should be able to hunt for food, but not to sell the furs.

Of course they haven't been merged. It makes sense this time since both countries have a dog in the hunt.

If polar bears are a threatened species how can even the Inuit continue killing them. http://www.tgdaily.com/sustainability-brief/69988-inuit-can-keep-trading-polar-bear-skins?NewsWatchCanada.ca from 2009 http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2009/11/08/the_bear_facts_about_the_polar_bear_hunt.html Inuit hunters insist those experts have it all wrong because they are using computer models based on outdated data and ignoring the traditional knowledge of people who share the land with wildlife.

Hmm, there's only one (maybe more) 'tool' around here.

Note the date the article about Baird/funding, it's been going on since November last year. This was prior to the media outrage about funding for a supposedly anti gay religious group providing clean water etc. to Ugandans. Kinda puts a lie to all of that. I see no reason why this should cut into conservative support, only a liberal would infer such a thing.