Keepitsimple

Perhaps this has been previously posted. Canada may very well have reasons for regrets and apologies but we certainly were not alone - in keeping with the thinking of "the times" here's how other countries have tried to reconcile with their Native populations - including Australia, New Zealand, Northern Europe, Greenland and South Africa..... http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/how-other-countries-have-tried-to-reconcile-with-native-peoples/article24826144/

Geez - don't get your shorts in a knot again - you'll blow a gasket......I just found it very odd that the hottest years on record are the most recent ones - yet no State heat records have been set - while three cold records have. I'm just one of those everyday, high school science guys.. I look at things pragmatically......especially predictions and resulting observations. As for the US representing just a small amount of the Globe's surface.....sure.....but that small amount just happens to have the most extensive, accurate, historical temperature measurement system......by far.

Go Tom go!

1) Those two states you gave me were noted in my original post. South Carolina and South Dakota did not set new records - they tied older ones. Oddly enough, three states recorded their coldest temperatures ever since 1998 - Maine, Illinois, Oklahoma. 2) I'm aware there are legitimate reasons for adjusting temperatures. Time of day is a no-brainer - but you'd think that over hundreds/thousands of stations, there would be just as many "early readings" as there would be "later readings" and thus become almost a wash. But it really does appear that every time "adjustments" are heralded, recent averages increase and older ones decrease.....or is that just my imagination at play? Can you show me any articles/studies where adjustments have caused substantial cooling? So again, don't you find it odd that in this 21st century we haven't set any high-temperature records in any of the 50 states yet we've got some States with the coldest? After all, this is the decade that contains most of the "hottest years on record" and have regularly experienced "extreme weather". Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_temperature_extremes

I posted the State records on maximums because they do away with all the "homogenization" and "adjustments" that are common in the rolled-up temperature averages - which often seem to adjust historical temperatures downwards and more recent ones upwards (a separate argument). Individual readings from single sources are difficult to manipulate. Don't you find it odd that with your own graphical presentation of how the US has gotten so much hotter - that not even one new State record has been set? One would think there would be quite a few over the last 20 years - those years that are the "warmest on record"? So what's with that?

Along the same lines, if the general public were asked "How many States have registered their highest temperature since 1998", chances are pretty good John Q. Public would say 20 - maybe 30. And they would be horribly wrong. The answer to that question is.....wait for it.......NONE (although 3 were tied with earlier records). Any idea how that could be? Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_temperature_extremes

Perhaps you just don't get it. When it comes to crime, punishment and government surveillance, the US is not just another country - they are on a different planet. Depending on the State, their incarceration rates or 3, 4 and even 5 times more than Canada. If you're looking for Big Brother, his latest alias is Obama.

What are you talking about? The article refers to a hate crime - no mention of terrorism at all - and rightly so.

As the article says - they don't know all the facts - so it's speculative.....maybe there are unknown facts that allow them to hold him. Otherwise as I said..... - you've just proven why Bill C-51 is required. Without a doubt, a guy like this deserves to have some restrictions placed on him - and by your own words, we couldn't do that before. Is this your example of someone whose Charter Rights are being violated - a "kid" who converts to Islam, celebrates the last year's killings on Canadian soil and implies that ISIS is honourable?

If any credibility is attached to this report - you've just proven why Bill C-51 is required. Without a doubt, a guy like this deserves to have some restrictions placed on him - and by your own words, we couldn't do that before. Is this your example of someone whose Charter Rights are being violated?

The Iroquois Wars were ongoing long before the Europeans arrived and before the Natives aligned themselves. The Great Peace Treaty you speak of with the Iroquois has the following as a precursor - which I posted previously....and it doesn't look like the Iroquois had peace treaties with the tribes they conquered.......and all this reference doesn't detract from the fact that First Nations in Canada have had periods of mistreatment but lets be honest about the context of the times.

In light of the incredible media focus on the Senate scandal and the rhetoric that "they're all crooks", I find it heartening that under the every-nickle-and-dime lens (covering two full years) of the Auditor General - 81 of the 115 senators who were audited had no irregularities....none. Of the 34 who did, 11 were for less than $8000. What this shows me is that 81 Senators clearly knew what was right - and what was wrong.......and I'm prepared to give some (perhaps quite a few) of the 34 the benefit of the doubt that there was no intent to fleece the system for personal gain. There's an important lesson here in human nature - and why there are rules and regulations in business. If rules leave gaps for personal gain or corruption with no effective oversight, someone will always come along to exploit those gaps - it's human nature. And one more point - there are 81 severely pi$$ed-off Senators who have had their good names sullied by what will eventually amount to a small minority of Senators with a faulty moral compass. Cleaning it up will not be a monumental task - the entitlement "culture" that plays so well in the media is not as apparent as the headlines scream. Link: http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/exclusive-breakdown-of-sums-that-30-senators-are-alleged-to-owe-1.2411218

.....and the natives fought huge battles among themselves. Do Canadians know about the Iroquois/Beaver Wars? Not a chance......and for those who think they were all peace-loving natives until the Europeans came, think again. This makes for very interesting reading for those that are unaware of Canada's early history. What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? Well, it seems that even back then, the "conquering" Native Nations laid claim to the land. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver_Wars

Predictable that CBC's Power & Politics never once mentioned that of the 30 senators with questionable expenses - 15 were Liberals and the 4 worst offenders were Liberals with expenses far greater than Duffy - and the 5 "least" offenders were Harper appointees. After all - the Duffy narrative makes it seem like it's all Conservatives - so why change it, right? Thanks again CBC for your objective reporting. Link: http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/exclusive-breakdown-of-sums-that-30-senators-are-alleged-to-owe-1.2411218

Nice deflection with the lawyers - much as I don't like them, they don't bill a billion. The starting point is the 40's and no matter how you slice it - funding has gone up continuously at the Federal level by a large amount and an incredible amount at the Provincial level. This isn't about trying to bash - or credit Harper - just re-stating that there's plenty of money in the system - billions.

Sorry to let more facts get in the way - but not only has Federal funding for Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development largely increased since the Chretien years - but the provinces have hugely increased what they spend as well. Every once in a while it would be nice to hear you say "I didn't know that". Link: http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/research-news/research/publications/Aboriginal-spending-2013.pdf.pdf

Funny how the media has yet to focus in on Rod Zimmer with any intensity - the Liberal Senator who is reported as "retired" but in fact resigned (August 2013) due to "ill health" a couple of months after Duffy left the Conservative caucus over expense claims. Zimmer is on the hook for literally twice as much as Duffy - and like Duffy, a good portion of it is tied to housing allowance. Yep - $178,000.......and neither he, nor anyone in the Liberal Party has offered to pay it back. There's plenty of dirt to go around.

Isn't THAT the truth. Shame it's had to come to that.

The term "progressive" is outdated by 50 years. It was relevant in the industrial revolution days and as recently as the 60's - and of course ongoing still in many countries - fighting for workers rights, a decent wage, and fighting against true inequality - so prevalent back in the days of lords and class warfare. Today it's almost meaningless - except as a disingenuous barb to imply that Conservatism is not progressive. All the big battles have been waged - and won - and we are down to the minutiae of individual and collective "progress". Those on the right believe in individual responsibility and an economic framework that drives business - and that a rising tide lifts all boats. Those on the Left believe in government intervention, income re-distribution and a "lowest common denominator" approach. As usual, the ideal (Canada), through Liberal and Conservative governments alike, have striven to end up somewhere in the middle. All Canadian parties are progressive - none wants to intentionally "leave people behind"......but heck, we've already got so many tools for people to succeed and prosper - it's very difficult - almost impossible to enter true poverty in Canada. There are always ways to get food on the table, a roof over one's head - and clothes on one's back. So spare the argument about being "progressive".

In other words - you also have no clue where these 630 Nations want to be in 30 years - or 100 years either. There has been billions spent and there are billions more available - AND many of these nations stand to have recurring royalties of billions more. A good start is to take collective responsibility (all 630 nations) for their future, start to work together, and move forward.

TRC or not, I still don't have a clue what the vision is for these 630 nations.....as put forward by the Nations themselves - not the Canadian government. Given the proper resources, what would these 630 Nations look like in 30 years? What is the practical 10 step roadmap and where does it lead? Again - a roadmap defined by Aboriginals. If you don't know where you're going, any road will get you there.

Arctic ice is decreasing at the rate of 2.33% per decade while Antarctic ice is increasing at the rate of 2.88% per decade. Yet the media focus is continually on the Arctic. You'd be hard pressed to find any mention of Antarctic ice - except when there might be a negative "study" linked to it. In simple terms though, what are we to make of one pole decreasing while the other increases and more than offsets the other? Do they cancel each other out in terms of ice-melt apocalyptic predictions? We know that the Arctic has melted before - probably to where it is now - reports of an open Northern Passage come from around1900 to as recent as the 1940's. Likewise, it would seem logical that the Antarctic has also gone through its decrease/increase periods. Stepping back from the minutiae, it would appear that there is indeed some sort of balancing act in play. To this hayseed, it seems that its all part of the Natural Climate cycle - a cycle that has an intrinsic balance to it.....and before we embark on the typical anthropogenic argument - let me concede that humans - by our GHGs, land-use, and activities - have injected ourselves into that natural cycle - and have become part of it. How much is still up for debate. But darn, the increase/decrease of ice at the poles is interesting. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Give yourself a shake. Edward Snowden? In a US case that hasn't even been ruled on? That's the best you've got. Hey - we're Canada in case you haven't noticed - even if you seem to have so little respect for our government. That's one of the advantages of a two Party (maybe three) system. If one party starts to break something, the other party can come in and fix it - that's why either party so seldom breaks things. That's a pretty simple explanation but it's mostly true......and it hasserved us well.

Nice straw man but it doesn't come close to holding water. Canadian-style democracy has checks-and-balances against these yet undefined (rationally anyway) hypothetical threats against law-abiding citizens. The government can be voted out of office and the next one can change whatever ails the legislation. Secondly, there are all sorts of ways to sue the government - with the Supreme Court having the final say. But the other side of the coin holds no such barriers. Terrorism will, by its nature - continually seek to find ways to inflict their mayhem.....ways that we don't yet know. Terrorism is ever evolving, poking and prodding for weakness....and as has been said many times - our security has to be "right" 100% of the time - terrorists only need to succeed once.

The CBC knows full well the answer to that question. The term "genocide" has legal implications that by definition, could lead to prosecutions. It's easy for people to throw that term around - but when as Prime Minister, you are speaking for the government of Canada - you have to recognize and acknowledge the implications of those words.