Wideleft
-
Posts
3,024 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
19
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Articles
Posts posted by Wideleft
-
-
I'm just going to drop this here:
-
It was communicated through the dairy inspector, but we had reason to believe that there were people on the Milk Marketing Board who wanted the little guys (especially the isolated ones) gone.
-
On 2018-10-03 at 4:44 PM, Mark H. said:
Ok, fair comment. I guess I'm more used to the farms I see in MB. We don't have a dairy ourselves, but have one neighbour with 100 cows, one with 40, and another with 70. The biggest farm that I know of personally milks around 300 head and the family also runs a strawberry farm. Boonstra berries - people on here have probably heard of them.
If what you describe is happening, then it sounds like corporations have tapped into the supply management system, just as well it gets dissolved if that's the case.
It's been happening for awhile. My brother was squeezed out of dairy 20 years ago. He'd received an award for having the top 5 milk quality in the province the previous year, but since he only had a 40 cow herd that was pretty far from the next nearest farm they pressured him to get out of the business. Told him he needed to build a new barn (at least a million dollars back then) or he was out. I am very much in favour of the idea of supply management, but I fear that the capitalists have taken over the industry.
-
20 hours ago, johnzo said:
re: false allegations, they do exist.
Here is a great example of the difference between a false accusation and a credible accusation.
It would be good for society if Cernovich got the max 10 years in prison. He can take James O' Keefe with him.
-
If you haven't used up your 3 free articles for the month, you can read it here:
-
3 months vs 15 years both for felony rape. Don't know what I need to further explain. Perhaps that the privileges that come with being white are also extended to being male?
I don't understand why people are so afraid of behaving respectfully around women when they have likely been respectful to their mothers, grandmother's, sisters etc.
-
That would mean I think that they both deserve 3 month sentences. Which I don't.
I would argue that Batey's sentence was just and therefore he was not a victim. Turner on the other hand....
-
34 minutes ago, Atomic said:
It is incredibly disingenuous to suggest the only difference between the two cases is race.
It is reprehensible that Brock Turner got such a light sentence. But the cases were not the same. Not by a long shot.
But I do agree with you that it would be naive to suggest that race plays no part. It is playing a part right now, allowing you to view Brock Turner as a villain while you paint Corey Batey as a victim.
Please show where I suggested Corey Batey was a victim.
-
21 minutes ago, Atomic said:
It's not relevant.
When Basslicker comes in and talks about the concerns of false accusations, he is accused of not actually caring about that, but instead he's trying to make excuses for Republicans.
It's the exact same thing here. You claim it's related, but really it's just a reason to be able to bring race into the discussion. On the left, your argument gets stronger the more -ist and -phobic words you can toss at the other side. Sexist wasn't getting the results you wanted, so you added racist. That's all this is.
It would be naive to suggest that race plays no part in how the accuser or accused is viewed, judged and punished by the police, public , media and courts. Same goes for social standing.
Racial considerations make this topic even more complicated, not only as accusations but at the prosecutorial stage as well. Corey Batey (a black college athlete) and Brock Turner (a white college athlete) were both convicted on felony counts of rape. Batey got a minimum of 15 years in prison. Turner got a 6 month sentence with a possibility of 3 monthsfor good behavior. He never even set foot in a prison.
-
Just now, Atomic said:
Focused? Like bringing up Jim Crow in a discussion about sexual harassment? Great focus there.
More like "Here's a thread discussing an issue that has political connections! Let me turn on my firehose of unrelated Liberal talking points and start calling everyone racists and sexists to shut down all discussion."
We are discussing the accusations of sexual assault against men and how serious these accusations should be treated. Providing an historical context about how false accusations of rape were used as an excuse to suppress blacks in the South is relevant to the discussion.
-
38 minutes ago, Atomic said:
I guess the discussion is over. Pretty bizarre and selective reasoning for what got pruned. You're allowed to be an ******* if you lean left, but not if you lean right. Pretty typical, to be honest. If you can't beat it, delete it.
To suggest that a conversation is over because we can't inject personal insults into the discussion is an interesting take. It also speaks to how far discourse has devolved. I lost a post about the kindness of kids because I also evidently injected an insult I could have avoided. Lesson learned.
Whatever the topic, I'll be sticking to the issue and ignoring (or reporting) the insult in order for the thread to remain focused.
-
3 hours ago, BBlink said:
Agreed with the part about the draft. I'm not super convinced about the other stuff.
I don't think anyone is going to say "oh man I wish this Grey Cup was in the snow" and not watch it.
The writer says there is absolutely no upside. I think the fans who go to the games in the cold would disagree. Or the fans that end up not going to the games. It's hard enough getting people to come out when it's nice and warm. Do we really look forward to November football? Or are we wondering why it's not over because hockey is now on?
The writer says that we shouldn't be pandering to the US. And I agree, but I'm still not sure how any of it takes away from the Canadian experience.
Took the words out of my mouth. I've always thought that starting the regular season in June would be a good idea (weather-related reasons), but I hadn't thought about the draft.
-
On 12/7/2017 at 9:37 AM, kelownabomberfan said:
Bill Baker - from Sherridon Manitoba. I know him personally and I agree, he's a hard guy to like. Great football player though.
That's really interesting! I've fished Kississing Lake via Sherridon twice. It's no wonder he was such a terror on the field. That place will harden you.
-
8 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:
To take the other side, Bri Larson made a tweet some weeks about about a TSA agent asking for her phone number and she made the dramatic claim that being a woman means always living on the defensive and I thought she did a real dis-service to the real issue by connecting those two things (ofcourse, we're not privy to the way in which she was asked).
I think a TSA agent asking someone for their phone number, presumably because she's a beautiful woman, in the context of his duties was highly unprofessional but not an attack on her in a sexual way (again, without knowing how he asked). But I think incidents like that can be filtered through the spectrum of common sense.
Also consider that casual sexism and casual racism are real things. A white kid being called boy and a black kid being called boy are 2 completely different things.
My wife worked in a predominantly male industry and I can tell you that she had to put up with crap like this on a daily basis. It's really easy for us white guys to pretend it's no big deal, but we sure as hell have no idea how it makes women feel unless we actually listen to what they're saying.
-
5 minutes ago, Atomic said:
I think it's natural for people to worry about themselves first. For men, the scary part of all this is the idea of someone destroying your life based on a false accusation. It is relatively unlikely to happen, but it could. And if women are standing up for women's rights, and men are standing up for women's rights, who is protecting men's rights?
Is it selfish to think this way? Yeah, it is... totally. But it's also natural. I don't think it does any good to belittle and demonize men who are concerned about it. It's a valid concern based on the court system's treatment of men in domestic disputes, divorce, and child custody, where the woman is presumed to be in the right, and the man in the wrong. The pendulum swings heavily in favour of women in these cases and men are afraid that it's going the same way in cases of sexual harassment, assault, and rape.
I wouldn't make the same argument, but I empathize with the men who do, rather than try to make them into monsters for being worried.
If you want to bring the courts into this, you'd be wise to acknowledge that false accusations of rape were weaponized in the Jim Crow south as an excuse to lynch black men in order to keep the slaves in line.
In modern times, it's far more likely that a person of colour will be convicted of sexual assault, rape, murder etc regardless of the strength of evidence. If you're a rich white guy or an exceptional college swimmer - you're chances of getting off are considerably better.
And I disagree that thinking of yourself first is natural. That sounds like a rationalization for selfishness.
-
On 12/6/2017 at 5:05 PM, basslicker said:
And democrats and liberals never lie to get votes.................or are caught with their pants down. What was that guy's name? oh yeah, Al Frankin, the 'champion of feminism.'
Nice try to push a political/anti-Christian agenda though.
https://www.ranker.com/list/democrat-sex-scandals/web-infoguy
Never said that democrats or liberals never lie or commit crimes.
The difference is that many Republicans and other small c conservatives tend to PROMINENTLY push their faith as a reason to elect them. When confronted with accusations of sexual impropriety (often in opposition to those religious morals they espouse) the response is typically (Roy Moore and Blake Fahrentold and their surrogate) to use their purported faith to shield them from criticism or accusations suggesting "no man of God could ever do such a thing" when the evidence clearly suggests they could.
From Roy Moore's campaign website:
"As a husband, father, and grandfather, I know the importance of the future we leave to our posterity.
A strong family based on marriage between one man and one woman is and should remain our only guide and model. I oppose abortion, same-sex marriage, civil unions, and all other threats to the traditional family order.
Federal funding for Planned Parenthood or any form of abortion should be stopped.
We must remain a moral and virtuous people, "One Nation under God." I support freedom of worship and the recognition of that God upon Whom we have always relied in peace and war
From Blake Fahrentold's (he used public money to settle an assault case)
"Congressman Blake Farenthold
In Washington, DC, it’s not enough to be a conservative. You must be willing to stand up for what’s right. That’s why Blake Farenthold is a Texas Conservative. He has the best rating in Texas on defending our borders. He’s a 100% pro-life Christian and has an A+ with the NRA."
In contrast, did you hear Al Franken, John Conyers or their surrogates invoke their faith to shield themselves from allegations?
Didn't realize that me pointing out the hypocrisy necessarily makes me anti-christian. I once heard a really good interview with an Irish Catholic bishop who pointed out that atheism helped keep the Catholic Church honest. Now that is a person who understands the role of religion.
-
3 hours ago, SPuDS said:
t'was a joke amigo.
29 minutes ago, Atomic said:Mmhmm. Just curious, because you created an account here and post exclusively in political topics and spout generic left-wing talking points and link to left-wing sites.
Whereas you accuse me of "projecting" (implying that I am here to be a shill for right-wing propaganda, apparently), when the vast majority of my posts are football-related and I only occasionally stray into other topics. So your claim of "projecting" is really quite hollow.
But I'm sure you've seen other lefties spout that line before so you thought it would work in this case too.
Are you familiar with the term "bread and circuses"?
Sports message boards are the flip side where people tend to take the distraction more seriously than what's really important. I'm too old for that now.
Saw my first game live in the 70's against BC. Sat in the southwest bleachers and learned to hate Bill Baker instantly.
-
On 12/6/2017 at 1:11 PM, Atomic said:
How does a left-wing propaganda shill like yourself end up on a football forum?
40 year Bomber fan.
-
13 hours ago, SpeedFlex27 said:
That's the way it looks to me as well.
As "fakenews" has become such an insidious term, I don't let it lie and I don't use it as a joke unless I show why something is fake news.
But that's just me.
-
24 minutes ago, Atomic said:
So incest, child porn, etc, is okay as long as you don't profess to be religious?
Don't pretend that I ever suggested that and don't pretend that the right does not weaponize religion to elect some pretty unsavoury and criminal characters.
Just showing that Roy Moore is not a blip in evangelical hypocrisy.
-
1 hour ago, iHeart said:
I think Beverly may be a unisex name
Beverly. Beverly or Beverley is a given name that was at one time commonly amasculine given name but is now almost exclusively a feminine name. It is derived from an English surname, which was in turn taken from the place name Beverley. -
15 hours ago, SPuDS said:
the guy's name is Beverly?
#fakenews
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/02/opinion/journal-beverly-russell-s-prayers.html
Definitely not fake news.
-
6 hours ago, basslicker said:
Yeah and I'm sure the list of democrats contains pervs and sickos as well. And a Christian list (I am a Christian as well, gotta call out all pervs, even those within my faith), a muslim list, a teacher list, a garbage man list, a policeman list, a convenience store clerk list, a lawyer list, an accountant list...................see where I'm going with this?
The difference is that republicans and conservatives are the politicians who tend to use their supposed faith in God to get votes. Perhaps you missed the blatant hypocrisy that the list illustrates.
-
Republican pastor Mike Hintz , whom George W. Bush commended during the 2004 presidential campaign, surrendered to police after admitting to a sexual affair with a female juvenile.
Republican anti-abortion activist Howard Scott Heldreth is a convicted child rapist in Florida.
Republican zoning supervisor, Boy Scout leader and Lutheran church president Dennis L. Rader pleaded guilty to performing a sexual act on an 11-year old girl he murdered.
Republican anti-abortion activist Nicholas Morency pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on his computer and offering a bounty to anybody who murders an abortion doctor.
Republican activist and Christian Coalition leader Beverly Russell admitted to an incestuous relationship with his step daughter.
Republican congressman and anti-gay activist Robert Bauman was charged with having sex with a 16-year-old boy he picked up at a gay bar.
Republican preacher Stephen White, who demanded a return to traditional values, was sentenced to jail after offering $20 to a 14-year-old boy for permission to perform oral sex on him.
Republican anti-gay activist Earl "Butch" Kimmerling was sentenced to 40 years in prison for molesting an 8-year old girl after he attempted to stop a gay couple from adopting her.
Republican preacher Jimmy Swaggart preached fidelity, but cheated on his wife with a prostitute
Republican city councilman Mark Harris, who is described as a "good military man" and "church goer," was convicted of repeatedly having sex with an 11-year-old girl and sentenced to 12 years in prison.
Republican pastor Mike Hintz , whom George W. Bush commended during the 2004 presidential campaign, surrendered to police after admitting to a sexual affair with a female juvenile.
Republican activist and Christian Coalition leader Beverly Russell admitted to an incestuous relationship with his step daughter.
Republican benefactor of conservative Christian groups, Richard A. Dasen Sr., was charged with rape for allegedly paying a 15-year old girl for sex. Dasen, 62, who is married with grown children and several grandchildren, has allegedly told police that over the past decade he paid more than $1 million to have sex with a large number of young women.
Republican anti-abortion activist Neal Horsley admitted to having sex with a mule.
I can go on...
The Environment Thread
in General Discussion
Posted
If you want to discuss timelines:
1957
Scientists working at Humble Oil (now ExxonMobil) publish a paper on the dilution of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and ocean. The paper notes: “Although appreciable amounts of carbon dioxide have undoubtedly been added from soils by tilling of land, apparently a much greater amount has resulted from the combustion of fossil fuels”–indicating company scientists understood the link between fossil fuel use and rising CO2. (Source: Center for International Environmental Law)
1968 (Global CO2 level: 323 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $1.2 billion)
In a report produced for the American Petroleum Institute, scientists Elmer Robinson and R.C. Robbins note that, among the possible sources of rising CO2 in the atmosphere, “none seems to fit the presently observed situation as well as the fossil fuel emanation theory.” The paper warns that significant rises in CO2 could melt icecaps, increase sea levels, change fish distributions and increase plant photosynthesis. (Source: Center for International Environmental Law)
1970s
1978 (Global CO2 level: 335 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $2.4 billion)
James Black, working under Exxon’s Products Research Division, writes an internal briefing paper called “The Greenhouse Effect” following from a 1977 presentation to Exxon’s management committee. The paper warns that human-caused emissions could raise global temperatures and result in serious consequences. “Present thinking holds that man has a time window of five to ten years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical,” Black writes in his summary of the presentation. (Source:InsideClimate News)
1979
At the urging of an Exxon scientist, Henry Shaw, Exxon begins analyzing the absorption rate of carbon dioxide in the oceans, considered one of the key questions of climate science at the time. “Exxon must develop a credible scientific team that can critically evaluate the information generated on the subject and be able to carry bad news, if any, to the corporation,”Shaw wrote in a letter to Exxon research executives. (Source: InsideClimate News)
1979-1983
Major fossil fuel companies, including Exxon, Mobil, Amoco, Phillips, Texaco, Shell, Sunoco, Sohio and Standard Oil of California and Gulf Oil (two companies that became Chevron) meet regularly as part of a task force to discuss the science and implications of climate change. The meetings are organized with the help of the American Petroleum Institute. A minutes document from one of the meetings suggests that oil companies knew that climate change was occurring, and that they would bear some responsibility for managing it. (Source: InsideClimate News)
1980s
1982 (Global CO2 level: 341 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $4.2 billion)
Exxon’s Environmental Affairs Programs manager M.B. Glaser sends Exxon management a primer on climate change. The primer is “restricted to Exxon personnel and not distributed externally.” It describes “potentially catastrophic events” if fossil fuel use is not reduced. (Source: InsideClimate News)
1982
Roger Cohen, director of the Theoretical and Mathematical Sciences Laboratory at Exxon, writes a memo summarizing Exxon’s climate modeling research. The memo states: “The consensus is that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from its pre-industrial revolution value would result in an average global temperature rise of (3.0 ± 1.5)°C [equal to 5.4 ± 1.7°F]…There is unanimous agreement in the scientific community that a temperature increase of this magnitude would bring about significant changes in the earth’s climate, including rainfall distribution and alterations in the biosphere.” Cohen would later become a lead climate science denier at an Exxon-funded front group.
1983 (Global CO2 level: 343 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $5 billion)
Exxon cuts funding for climate research from $900,000 per year to $150,000. Exxon’s total research budget at the time was more than $600 million.
1984
An Exxon report on the Natuna gas field in Indonesia warns that the project would be “the world’s largest point source emitter of CO2 and raises concern for the possible incremental impact of Natuna on the CO2 greenhouse problem.”
1988
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is formed.
1989
Shell announces that it will redesign one of its natural gas platforms, raising it a meter or two to account for sea level rises resulting from climate change.
1989 (Global CO2 level: 353 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $3.5 billion)
Exxon and other fossil fuel companies create the Global Climate Coalition (GCC). The GCC is created to oppose mandatory reductions in carbon emissions by obscuring the scientific understanding of fossil fuels’ impact on the climate. The GCC created a scientific “backgrounder” for lawmakers and journalists that claimed “The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood.”
1990
Dr. Brian Flannery, “representing the International Petroleum Industries’ Environmental Conservation Association, but on the payroll of Exxon,” argues strongly against wording in the IPCC’s first report, which states that global carbon emissions must be reduced 60 to 80 percent. Flannery argues that too much “scientific uncertainty” exists to recommend such reductions. IPCC scientists agree that enough certainty exists to justify the reductions, and the report moves forward. (The Carbon War by Jeremy Leggett, cited in 2002 Greenpeace report, “Denial and Deception”).
1992 (Global CO2 level: 356 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $4.8 billion)
By 1992 Exxon has become a member of American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which actively undermines action on climate change at the federal and state levels. (Source: Union of Concerned Scientists)
1993
Lee Raymond becomes CEO of Exxon.
1995 (Global CO2 level: 361 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $6.5 billion)
The Global Climate Coalition distributes an internal memo, organized by Mobil chemical engineer and climate expert Leonard Bernstein, warning that the “greenhouse effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied.” Members of the coalition included BP, Chevron, Exxon, Mobil and Shell. (Source: Union of Concerned Scientists)
1996
In a speech to the Economic Club of Detroit, Lee Raymond denies the scientific consensus on climate change. Raymond claims that “Currently, the scientific evidence is inconclusive as to whether human activities are having a significant effect on the global climate.”
1996
Mobil engineers, as a part of a project jointly owned by Mobil, Shell and a subsidiary of Exxon, note that “An estimated rise in water level, due to global warming, of 0.5 meters may be assumed” in their planning for exploration and production facilities along the coast of Nova Scotia.
October 1997 (Global CO2 level: 364 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $8.5 billion)
Exxon CEO Lee Raymond tells the 15th World Petroleum Congress in Beijing that the world’s climate isn’t changing, and that even if it was, fossil fuels would play no part.
April 1998
The New York Times, with documents leaked to the National Environmental Trust, reveals that the American Petroleum Institute is organizing a $5-million plan to challenge the science of climate change. Representatives of Exxon and Chevron are listed as participating in the plan. One line item of the plan is to “Identify, recruit and train a team of five independent scientists to participate in media outreach. These will be individuals who do not have a long history of visibility and/or participation in the climate change debate. Rather, this team will consist of new faces who will add their voices to those recognized scientists who are already vocal” (p. 6 of Greenpeace report appendix).
1998
ExxonMobil-funded think tank, the George C. Marshall Institute, co-publishes the “Oregon petition,” a petition challenging the consensus around climate change. The petition comes with a “research paper” made in the style of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, confusing some legitimate scientists into signing the petition. Other petition signatories, suspiciously, include fictional characters from the TV show M.A.S.H. and Spice Girl “Dr.” Geri Halliwell.
1998
In its proxy statement to shareholders, Exxon reports that shareholders have requested the creation of an outside directors committee to independently review and publish “a full report about the impact on climate change on our company’s present policies and practices…[including] anticipated liabilities our company may incur from its possible contribution to the problem…” Exxon’s board recommends against the proposal, citing, among other things, that the science around climate change remains uncertain.
1999
Exxon and Mobil merge.