2. Forgetting the contribution of those who worked and sacrificed to get us where we are today. e.g. renaming schools, streets, and tearing down statues
"Hiding the fact that people did terrible things just because the also did some good things is just as bad. Pointing renaming a bridge because the guy we named it after was the architect of an abusive system isn't rewriting, or ignoring history, it's the opposite of that. It's making sure we are fully aware of that history, and the entirely of the impact that person had, and more importantly, deciding if we want to honor them within the context of their entire body of work."
I am fairly sure the young people, pushing down the statues, did not do the work you are suggesting.
As an older person, I see too much presentism going on these days, especially the tendency to interpret past events in terms of modern values and concepts.
I do not believe there has been enough criticism of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The main problem is that anyone, who attempts to do so, is running the risk of being called a racist. How many graves have been dug up to establish the truth?
I know what it was like to be ripped away from my parents, at the age of 3, and put in an institution for one and a half years. I can tell you from experience, the kids were worse than the attendants.
You are both right and so abysmally wrong here all at the same time it's hard to comprehend, of course kids left to bring themselves up with no adults to mentor them become feral violent sexually perverse little bastards, books about it have been written, Lord of The Flies, Tom Brown's Schooldays.
You know the other scary thing, the kids brought up in that environment are never able to make up for it, they will always be broken and barely functional with no ability to effectively parent, they will pass on their learnt dysfunctional behavior to their kids and Grandkids.
It's why the huge Group Homes with 15 or 20 kids I started working in back in the 80's have been closed, because we now know better
But here's the thing, only three groups of children were sent wholesale into these types of institutions to be raped and abused starved and beaten for decades, generation after generation, the mentally and physically handicapped (abuse within the deaf community was horrific) and natives.
Every single native foster kid that comes through my house now has been parented by mums and dads or Grandparents who were raped beaten, starved in these institutions, a whole society has had it's ability to grow develop and nurture its own kids destroyed and it will take generations to rebuild that.
The abuse within the care system for white kids in the 60's 70's and 80's was the same as it was in the Residential System for native kids, the difference is only about 2 or 3% of white kids were affected by that whereas almost 100% of natives were sent to these hideous abusive institutions, you know what else? the white kids who went through those terrible institutions in the 60's and 70's had the same outcomes as the native kids, they ended up spending their lives in jail or strung out on the street alongside the native kids, their kids and grandkids end up in my foster home, the issue isnt about race, if you do the same thing to any group of kids you get the same terrible outcome, it's just we (Canada) mostly did it to native kids.
The Following 23 Users Say Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
Kind of agree with Cliff here. If we were following the science, we would have been upgrading HVAC and air purification in schools and public places. It is definitely easier (somehow) to keep it to the binary of either lock it all down or complain about lock downs, vaccine mandates, and freedom.
I always just assumed it was because we're downright miserly when it comes to spending money on stuff like that. I swear as a people I think we live in a permanent state of sticker shock for mundane expenditures.
I'll start by saying that in general, I am far more on the "woke" side when it comes to science and just trusting the experts. I'm not smart enough to understand the inner workings of every single health and science issue - we absolutely have to trust the people who are educated and trained in these subjects.
With that said, multiple people have asked for an example, and there are absolutely examples of the left doing what is described here and politicizing science. Biggest example I can think of is COVID lockdowns - once the pandemic died down a bit, if you were for opening things back up, you got destroyed for being a far right MAGA that hated science.
When you look at the data, I'm not sure there was a worse affect of the pandemic than what we've seen in education and children simply not at learning at the level they should be at. In the US, there was a clear gap between blue and red states, where blue states that prolonged lockdowns had worse effects on children's scores. But the lockdowns became so politicized (on both sides) that you couldn't have a serious conversation about the downstream affects of the lockdown. And IMO, this is a problem that will hurt us for at least a generation, as the current generation of children are simply a step below. This has also led to widening inequality as those that are less fortunate and didn't have the same resources to learn from home, hire a tutor, etc. were further left behind with prolonged lockdowns.
Again, I think what the far right has been doing regarding science and health is nothing short of disgusting, but to say the left is unblemished here when IMO they've done real damage to our society is also unfair.
That NY Times analysis is a bit simplistic. Other than in the few states that had strict rules one way or the other, there isn't huge correlation between the amount of virtual learning and how the state overall voted in the Presidential election. For instance, places like Georgia and West Virginia had a higher rate of virtual learning in 2020-21 than places like Michigan, Vermont, or Maine did.
And even ignoring that, there doesn't appear to be a huge correlation between virtual learning and achievement loss when you dig into the actual numbers. For example, that article shows the 10 states that lost the least reading achievement and then the 10 states that lost the most, suggesting that the top 10 states (because they're seemingly more conservative) benefited from more in-person learning. But in reality, the average rate of virtual learning in the top 10 states is actually higher than it is in the bottom 10 and the median rate is identical. And you can see it in the individual states too. Hawaii had essentially zero in-person learning in 2020-21 and they're #2 in reading. Meanwhile Florida and Nebraska had virtually zero remote or hybrid learning, and they're #44 and #47 respectively.
That matches most worldwide evidence which has shown that basically all education systems suffered, but it didn't heavily correlate with school closures. In fact, some data has shown a negative correlation between school closures and loss in PISA math scores (see image here). And that's likely for several reasons:
1) People self-modified their behaviour in the face of risk. Even in "open for business" places like Florida or Sweden, youth still had markedly lower contact with friends, extended family, and extracurricular activities. This has a negative impact on mental health, well being, and ultimately academic achievement
2) Places that experienced longer closures tended to have lower rates of severe disease and death. So while fewer gaps in in-person learning likely did have a benefit, if the trade off for that was students seeing more loved ones experience severe disease and the stress that comes with that, then it's not necessarily a net benefit
The places that got it right prioritized keeping schools open while mitigating spread elsewhere. But examples of that in the US are few and far between. BC did it in Canada, where schools were only closed for about 2 months in the entire pandemic in April and May 2020. But even then, I'm not sure there's huge evidence that BC saw less loss in educational achievement than comparable jurisdictions with more closures.
The Following User Says Thank You to opendoor For This Useful Post:
Internal Trade Minister Anita Anand informed the provinces Friday that Ottawa will remove more than half of federal internal trade barriers in a move to make Canada less reliant on the United States, according to a senior federal government source.
Anand made the announcement at an informal, virtual meeting of the Committee on Internal Trade, which is responsible for implementing the Canada Free Trade Agreement (CFTA).
The federal government is removing more than half of the 39 remaining CFTA exceptions to encourage more trade within Canada, according to the source.
CBC News is not identifying the source because they were not authorized to speak publicly.
he statement goes on to say the the party is concerned Dhalla may have violated the Canada Elections Act, as well as "certain other election finance matters, non-disclosure of material facts and inaccurate financial reporting."
The official statement came after CBC News first broke the details of the vote earlier Friday afternoon.
A source, speaking on the condition they not be named, said Dhalla was also accused of failing to disclose the involvement of a non-Canadian citizen in her campaign, which the party alleges would amount to foreign interference if it happened during an election period.
Quote:
"I think it speaks to the state of the Liberal Party of Canada that a candidate who is running to become leader of the party and running to be prime minister of our country is finding out she is being disqualified on air from an email that the media outlet that she is interviewing with has received."
Dhalla called the allegations against her "fabricated, fictitious and fake" meant to "complete Mark Carney's coronation" as leader.
"They did not want anyone challenging the front-runner, the blue-eyed boy, Mark Carney," she said.
Ruby Dhalla kicked out of the Liberal leadership race and with the Liberals acting on serious allegations. Interviewed by the CBC after investigation. Jesus what a completely unneeded trainwreck.
While it's good she's disqualified, it looks like the rules were violated as blatantly as possible. She's like there to solely sabotage the Liberals.
Blue eye boy to characterize Carney? What the hell?
Executives from some of the world’s biggest oil and gas firms are listed as attendees at a conservative conference in London whose keynote speakers include the leader of the Heritage Foundation – the group that published the Project 2025 blueprint for a second Trump term.
Representatives of BP, Koch Industries, Valero Energy, Energy Transfer and other fossil fuel producers will be at the event hosted by the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship (ARC), according to a leaked list of attendees viewed by DeSmog.
The three-day event, which was convened by conservative Canadian influencer Jordan Peterson, kicks off on Monday with a panel including U.S. House Republican speaker Mike Johnson and UK Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch.
Billed as an effort to “re-lay the foundations of civilization,” the conference will feature panels about energy and environment that are filled with prominent deniers of the climate crisis, as DeSmog has previously reported.
Based on what I read in the article I'm not sure what this has to do with Canadian politics because Canada's National Observer doesn't mention any Canadian politicians attending in this lengthy piece. I'm certain they would be naming and shaming the Canadian right wing politicians.
Quote:
ARC’s conference will also play host to politicians, commentators, and think tanks from across the UK and Europe.
In addition to Badenoch and Farage, the listed speakers include a number of journalists for The Spectator and GB News – conservative outlets owned by ARC patron Paul Marshall.
According to the attendees list, UK government officials will also be joining the conference – including from the Treasury, Foreign Office, and Home Office – consorting with radical right-wing politicians and campaign groups.
At least a dozen UK parliamentarians will also be attending, drawn almost entirely from the Conservative Party. Their contingent will include Shadow Business Secretary Andrew Griffith, the influential pro-Brexit campaigner Lord Matthew Elliott, and former Health Minister Lord James Bethell.
They will be joined by far-right politicians from the EU. The attendees will include elected representatives from radical right-wing parties based in France (National Rally), Denmark (Danish People’s Party), Estonia (Conservative People’s Party), Hungary (Fidesz), Iceland (Centre Party), Netherlands (Forum For Democracy), Norway (Progress Party), Poland (Law and Justice), Spain (Vox), and Sweden (Sweden Democrats).
The attendees list also features a former leader of the far-right German party Alternative für Deutschland.
A number of influential conservative European think tanks have sent their most senior executives to the conference, including from Poland (Ordo Iuris), and Bulgaria (Institute of Right Wing Politics), while there will be a substantial Hungarian contingent at the event.
Mathias Corvinus Collegium (MCC) Brussels, a fossil fuel funded think tank, will be represented by its executive director, and the Budapest-based Danube Institute is planning on sending its president.
Both groups have close ties to Viktor Orbán’s far-right Hungarian government, which has severely restricted political, media, and judicial freedoms in Hungary over recent years, and is a global sponsor of anti-climate groups. The attendees list also includes one of Orbán’s senior advisors.
Based on what I read in the article I'm not sure what this has to do with Canadian politics because Canada's National Observer doesn't mention any Canadian politicians attending in this lengthy piece. I'm certain they would be naming and shaming the Canadian right wing politicians.
Cool any comment on what’s mentioned in the article?
Yeah, my comment is that the article doesn't tie any Canada politicians to this conference.
Well it's generally about the participation of oil companies, some of them Canadian, some operating in Canada, supporting these events. That makes it relevant to Canada. I know this is the politics thread, and no politicians are identified, but it doesn't make it not about political action in Canada, and what it might mean when our industry is mingling with these social issues. Why participate? How does that benefit Canada?
I know you like to try to bat down every post I make like a kitten with tethered ball, but you tend to end up looking worse after most of them, so maybe just address the points? Or do you support blowing up our government and taking the rights of our citizens away, turning our country into a christo-facist state? Because that is exactly what project 2025 is. If you don't support that, then maybe read the ####ing article and educate yourself on what they are trying to do to society. It's be more worthwhile to your intelligence than whatever obsession you have with my posts.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
Well it's generally about the participation of oil companies, some of them Canadian, some operating in Canada, supporting these events. That makes it relevant to Canada. I know this is the politics thread, and no politicians are identified, but it doesn't make it not about political action in Canada, and what it might mean when our industry is mingling with these social issues. Why participate? How does that benefit Canada?
I know you like to try to bat down every post I make like a kitten with tethered ball, but you tend to end up looking worse after most of them, so maybe just address the points? Or do you support blowing up our government and taking the rights of our citizens away, turning our country into a christo-facist state? Because that is exactly what project 2025 is. If you don't support that, then maybe read the ####ing article and educate yourself on what they are trying to do to society. It's be more worthwhile to your intelligence than whatever obsession you have with my posts.
If you want to denigrate the conference maybe it is better to do so in the christo-fascist thread or the disappointed in this world (whatever that official title is) thread. Also the article doesn't tie any Canadian O&G companies to this conference as you suggest. You are just assuming they are there because of all the other evil O&G names that were dropped in association. Also included are some of the biggest global pharma companies, biggest banks, biggest food companies, biggest auditing firms. Maybe reps from our Canadian banking sector will be there so that they can hang out with their buddies at JP Morgan or KKR.
I get it though, you saw the name Jordan Peterson and got all hot and bothered and your head is about to pop off.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to calgarygeologist For This Useful Post:
Blue eye boy to characterize Carney? What the hell?
