StevetheClub

Very little doubt? based on what? The evidence should also support for you that there is no evidence of racism. You actually believe that every person with mental health issues can be capably dealt with in any system? I have a bridge to sell you. I suppose I feel like the long and storied history of racism in the USA, including recent events, that others have articulated better than I have provides a large stack of evidence. I've already articulated a lot of my thoughts on this topic in another thread and I don't particularly feel like responding to that extent again but I certainly can. As for the second part of your response: ugh, I hope it's ok to to ask that if you're going to respond to me then at least respond to what I said, which is not what you wrote. Since you brought it up, yes, I agree with what you wrote too. I do think that it is a fair expectation that every person with mental health issues can be capably dealt with. I'll go even further and say that when they aren't capably responded to then an effort should be made to understand why so it doesn't happen again. I don't think it's unfair to expect people to do their jobs capably, and I also know that sometimes **** happens and mistakes are made. Clearly in this case a mistake was made.

I have very little doubt there is a racial element, but I suppose it's hard to know for sure. I don't think the evidence supports it's absence. With more certainty I can say that this is a clear example of individuals, and a system, that are incapable of dealing with mental health issues.

He's saying that it's better than the Women's World Cup, which is supposed to be a compliment, though I'm not sure why it has to come at the expense of the very worth watching World Cup.

I know what you're saying but your definition of what constitutes "tv" is outdated and a little too broad. There is no such thing as "free" TV anymore as the broadcast signals available to antenna have been virtually cut off. Everyone that wants to access broadcast media has to pay for cable or an Internet connection at least. Why is it too broad? It is what it is. Content providers are free to choose their delivery methods and set the price points they want. This gives consumers 2 choices. Either accept the delivery model and pay for it at the price point they set or do without. It is what it is now, but that's not how it always has to be. It is not even remotely unreasonable or "stupid" to advocate for a change in how content is delivered in an industry in which innovative ways to deliver content are always being explored. TV is always changing and the article reflects a very logical next step, one that is already happening in other sports. If what you're reading is "people want to be able to watch TV without paying for TV" then you're missing the point. What people want is a way to consume content that reflects current values and preferences, and is consistent with the technology available.

A big part of Manitobas situation is because past NDP governments made it an unfriendly place to do business. The Alberta NDP campaigned on making corporations and specifically oil and gas companies pay more. They are actively looking to make it a less business friendly environment. Wish I was a teacher, then I'd be taken care of by the NDP. As it stands they're just going to tax me more, slow down an already slow oil field which means I'll earn less with less work, all in the name of someone else should pay for the spending. **** the NDP and their ass backwards ideals. Not to nit-pick, nor to come out as pro-NDP (though I did vote for them I've very cautiously optimistic), but I'm not sure you could do any better than being a teacher now in Alberta. The starting wage is close to 6 figures and the union is very strong.

And what I'm saying is that I don't think you're appreciating the relationship between the micro and macro factors.

Amen to that. I'm a Mental Health Therapist, Registered Social Worker, and I have a Masters in Counselling Psychology from one of the best schools in the country (not intending to toot my own horn, just providing a context for my knowledge) so yes I definitely have an understanding of FASD and I couldn't agree with you more. My statement has nothing to do with ignoring the crime or condoning violence, that's not even close to the intent. In fact, both of the above quotes as well as my previous entries in this conversation have reflected this. I've seen yourself and others deny contributing factors both explicitly (such as when saying that race was not a factor) and implicitly (such as completely ignoring other forms of oppression and systemic violence). This is what I'm responding to.

It's been depressing to see what the NDP have done in Manitoba and I certainly hope the same doesn't happen here. The talk I've been hearing that the Alberta NDP are not like the NDP out East. I guess time will tell.

"When nonviolence is preached as an attempt to evade the repercussions of political brutality, it betrays itself. When nonviolence begins halfway through the war with the aggressor calling time out, it exposes itself as a ruse. When nonviolence is preached by the representatives of the state, while the state doles out heaps of violence to its citizens, it reveals itself to be a con. And none of this can mean that rioting or violence is "correct" or "wise," any more than a forest fire can be "correct" or "wise."" (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/nonviolence-as-compliance/391640/) -------------------- "When our cultural emphasis is on keeping things ‘status quo,’ then the people who are threatening or inconveniencing that way of life become ‘the violent ones.’ Everyone else is simply engaged in righteous efforts to control ‘the threat’ or expressing justifiable outrage at the world’s failure to do so. Worse yet, the whole mess is self re-enforcing. Society is set up with the decks stacked so high against certain groups of people that they are – at times – quite literally set up to do the very things society claims not to want them to do. Our societal structures are boxing people in (through poverty, discrimination, lack of choice, etc.) to untenable ways of life. Once boxed in, society then proceeds to keep an extra close watch on those ‘high risk’ types (i.e., people whose basic needs are not being met by that society), just waiting for them to step somehow out of bounds in order to make do in a world not necessarily set up with their survival in mind. Society then uses that as the proof they needed to be boxed in in the first place. And, voila: “See, we told you ‘those people’ are bad!” Never mind that people are angry and desperate because they want to survive. Never mind that they are even angrier and more desperate because they aren’t surviving. That all was well in Baltimore before the riots befell its peaceful streets is little more than an illusion palatable only to those who have distance from the harsh realities thanks to race, geography and/or some other source of privilege. The violence has been there all along. Strangely, when I say these sorts of things, people seem to hear them as being 'pro-riot.' I'm not 'pro-riot.' But, nor am I willing to see only one side of the violence while remaining blind to the other. In fact, it's the institutional violence that has the much more longstanding and far reaching impact. CVS will be rebuilt. Lives will not. One needn’t go so far as being "happy" about the riots to understand that simple truth." (http://www.madinamerica.com/2015/05/baltimore-burning-defines-violence/) -------------------- The recipe for this violence to continue is to keep ignoring the institutional violence. Keep focusing on charges and arrests, on about how throwing rocks is wrong. Focus on punishment, on catching the one person or the few people and putting them in jail. Tell yourself it's not about race or housing or employment or addiction or mental health. Ignore oppression. Simply, keep simplifying. It's clearly working.

Not sure if this is sarcasm or not. Ignoring race ignores the primary issue and the lack of addressing it has practically invited what has been going on.

Great job of highlighting the larger socioeconomic issues that have led to social and racial oppression that necessarily lead to the tragic and needless deaths of those held captive and controlled by the system. That is the point you were trying to make, right? Wait a minute.... Nope. Your sarcasm aside my point was about the losers that hide behind the "we have to do something" when they dont actually give a flying fig. There are, I believe, three investigations on-going into the death of the victim. But hey, a night of violence and looting will get to the bottom of everything. And thats not a commentary on any ethnic group, it's a commentary on specific losers. Perhaps the sarcasm was unfair. I have just grown very tired of the microscopic view of incidents that have come up in this thread that completely ignore systemic issues. The problem is that "if you don't want to get shot then don't run" or "looters are losers" gets to the bottom of absolutely nothing. And investigations into these incidents will, I have little doubt, teach us that if only more people obeyed the law we'd have less people getting killed, which, once again, gets us nowhere. ok but what does rioting, burning cars and buildings, attacking police officers and essentially anarchy do to make things better? Im pretty sure if people stop running from cops, resisting arrest or attempting to disarm a cop then injury and death tend to stop happening... what needs to happen unfortunately is proactive solutions.. vest cameras and recording devices,better training and testing of officers for mental issues and racist views... there is no other quick fix.. no magic trick to undo the Crappy situations American police departments find themselves in.. You're absolutely right, except that you just listed a bunch of quick fixes. And in no way am I condoning violence, what I'm saying is violence is not the problem, it's the symptom of a much, much larger problem that goes beyond law enforcement. My point is articulated much better http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/listen-to-septembre-anderson-on-why-baltimore-is-about-police-violence-not-broken-windows. I wouldn't say I agree whole-heartedly with everything, but I think the main message is relevant and valid. Edit: another good article http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/04/29/we-shouldnt-condone-the-baltimore-riots-but-lets-stop-calling-them-senseless/ Edit #2: And perhaps the best article: http://www.theonion.com/articles/baltimore-residents-urged-to-stay-indoors-until-so,38511/

Great job of highlighting the larger socioeconomic issues that have led to social and racial oppression that necessarily lead to the tragic and needless deaths of those held captive and controlled by the system. That is the point you were trying to make, right? Wait a minute.... Nope. Your sarcasm aside my point was about the losers that hide behind the "we have to do something" when they dont actually give a flying fig. There are, I believe, three investigations on-going into the death of the victim. But hey, a night of violence and looting will get to the bottom of everything. And thats not a commentary on any ethnic group, it's a commentary on specific losers. Perhaps the sarcasm was unfair. I have just grown very tired of the microscopic view of incidents that have come up in this thread that completely ignore systemic issues. The problem is that "if you don't want to get shot then don't run" or "looters are losers" gets to the bottom of absolutely nothing. And investigations into these incidents will, I have little doubt, teach us that if only more people obeyed the law we'd have less people getting killed, which, once again, gets us nowhere.

Great job of highlighting the larger socioeconomic issues that have led to social and racial oppression that necessarily lead to the tragic and needless deaths of those held captive and controlled by the system. That is the point you were trying to make, right? Wait a minute....

So when the Army kills tonnes of innocent people its OK because America F$$$ Ya?So when taxpayers pay for criminals in jail and/or pay for social assistance for people who commit murder those don't matter because why? You're inventing ****. You need to show me where in this thread I said either of those things. Here is a thing that grownups know: sometimes multiple things matter at once. I didn't suggest you said it... you brought up the tax payers garbage... so I simply replied that tax money in the states goes to the Army and tax money goes to Jails and social assistance where all 3 areas have a few bad apples who have commited cold blooded murder like this incident. So how come each of those killings are not highlighted in the news every single day? I'm not justifying what the guy did was right, I'm simply stating that he shouldn't be held in higher regard compared to a thug with a gun who kills an innocent person. Just because the guy was white and killed someone black means nothing, the fact that he killed some one in the wrong is what should be the focus. People are killed every day so just because a guy has a badge does that mean his murder is more significant then some thug who shoots down an innocent bystander in a drive by?? Mr Grownup if you were so smart you would know that more criminals kill innocent cops and also more way more innocent people each year then cops killing innocent criminals. You should be posting threads for every single one of those incidents! None of that argues against what he said. You just listed more things that, agreed, matter very much.

I think the "police aren't targeting black people because they're black, but only because they're poor" argument is pretty much horseshit. The numbers don't add up. Consider how black people fare in non-fatal encounters with law enforcement: According to the 2009 U.S. Census (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0695.pdf) there were about 3.7 million black families under $30,000 income in the USA, and 13.1 million white families under $30,000 income. If the imprisonment numbers tracked with income, then you'd expect to see roughly 3-4x as many white people in jail as black people, because there are 3-4x more poor white people than poor black people. However, according to the Prison Policy Initiative (http://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/rates.html) blacks and whites each account for about 40% of the prison population. Blacks are many times more likely to be imprisoned than whites are. If the American justice system is indeed blind to race, then why are black people being imprisoned at such an elevated rate? It seems people are getting confused with the difference between individual and systemic racism. I have no idea if individual racism was at play in this murder or not but I have little doubt that systemic racism was, for reasons that have already been better articulated by others. Saying it was racist because it was a white cop who shot a black man is oversimplifying it just as much as saying it wasn't because it was a cop who shot another law-breaking citizen without considering race, and both ignore the larger point of a broken system that teaches human beings how to treat one another.

Simply put, because there is no objective test for depression, suicide, or any mental health struggle and a history of anything does not predict future behaviour. That being said, I don't know everything about him so I don't know if the professionals supporting him had a reasonable expectation that he was a danger to himself or others and should have done something to prevent him from flying. They have to be careful about reporting too because it could just make people less likely to seek help if they feel their doctor is obligated to report back to their employer. I think the obvious solution is regular mental health review requirements by the airlines and then they are in a better position to determine flying fitness. In this case, his doctor did order him off work. The question will be was it due to the reported vision issues or mental health issues? Agreed. A culture that values seeking and receiving support rather than punishes it is also extremely important. With respect to your last question, I guess I would say that while I can see how one may be viewed as being the primary precipitating factoring I would argue that chronic degenerative health conditions and mental health are necessarily intertwined.

Simply put, because there is no objective test for depression, suicide, or any mental health struggle and a history of anything does not predict future behaviour. That being said, I don't know everything about him so I don't know if the professionals supporting him had a reasonable expectation that he was a danger to himself or others and should have done something to prevent him from flying.

Figuratively Actually, sadly (for some), from the Oxford dictionary: literally Line breaks: lit|er¦al¦ly Pronunciation: /ˈlɪt(ə)rəli / Definition of literally in English: ADVERB 1In a literal manner or sense; exactly:the driver took it literally when asked to go straight over the roundabouttiramisu, literally translated ‘pull-me-up’ 1.1informal Used for emphasis while not being literally true:I have received literally thousands of letters I'm not going to partake in the dumbing down of society to the point where rampant improper use of a word becomes an acceptable colloquialism. I don't know, I have mixed feelings. On one hand, my first instinct was the same as yours. On the other hand, the basis of language is shared comprehension so if enough people use a word in a certain way then the definition changes. That's just language evolving like it always has. There's no divine decree that says "literally" has to mean one thing or another.

Figuratively Actually, sadly (for some), from the Oxford dictionary: literally Line breaks: lit|er¦al¦ly Pronunciation: /ˈlɪt(ə)rəli / Definition of literally in English: ADVERB 1In a literal manner or sense; exactly:the driver took it literally when asked to go straight over the roundabouttiramisu, literally translated ‘pull-me-up’ 1.1informal Used for emphasis while not being literally true:I have received literally thousands of letters

I can't speak to how Mike posted when he was 14, but I can say that I would not have guessed your age from your posts. I can also say (too late, I know), welcome to the board.

The problem I have with the call is that it just seems like O'Shea wasn't reading the game well. Yes, he's called for punts with the Bombers deep in their own end in other games but in those games the defence was shutting the opposition down, not getting run over like they were that game (and the one before). Yes, the Bombers have struggled in short yardage in other games but they had been doing very well all that game. Based on how the game was going I still think the low-risk call was gambling, not expecting the defence the stop an offence whose strength plays to the Bomber's weakness. The call makes a little more sense, though I still don't agree with it, if it put the Riders in a position to have to score a touchdown to win but all they needed was a field goal. Based on the evidence staring him in the face, I just don't see how O'Shea expects the Riders not to move the ball enough for at least a field goal.

Considering that the team was pretty good on D all game and has been decent throughout the year and the teams biggest weakness is being able to get the hard yards when they're in short yardage I think you are assigning too high a % for success. Remember this team has failed to convert 3rd and 1 multiple times against worse defenses than the Riders. Nothing is guaranteed in football, all you can do is make plays when you are put in a position to do so and the defense utterly failed at the end of the game. I would have gone for the 3rd down gamble personally, but that's just my attitude, I didn't have a problem with O'Shea taking the lead and trusting his defense to win the game for him. They had many chances to make it happen and didn't c'est la vie. Except that Messam already had multiple double digit runs so it was pretty clear the run game, in particular Messam, was not going to be stopped. And though 3rd and shorts have been an adventure this season today the Bombers executed very well and got good pushes on their gambles. Finally, O'Shea has done a great job reading games and trusting in the D when they are stopping the opposition. Today he simply had too much, unfounded, faith in the D. They should have went for it. Even if they don't get the touchdown they leave far less time on the clock.

I'm not about to defend his entire body of work but I don't see why there is such a backlash about this article. What I took away from it is that despite the recent success of the Bombers a long term vision is needed for long term success, which may mean trading a valuable International for a decent National on the OL (which is clearly not impossible, despite the opinions of some posters, given that, as Lawless points out, Hall and a pick were recently traded for Neufeld).

stoddard... The best adequate canadian receiever ever! hands of glue no doubt but otherwise...? Haha yeah, I was thinking the same thing. A reliable receiver no doubt, but I'd say there's just a slight drop off from Gordon to Stoddard.

Bah. Nothing against you personally but this response always frustrates me. I get the point, that somebody can look good in practise and crap the bed in a real game, but I say a large part of the fun of being a fan is pondering the "what if" questions and enjoying the potential. So what if sometimes you're left disappointed? Enjoy the ride and look forward to the potential of the next player.