Short of looking at the cbc's coverge yourself I'm not sure how I can do much more to represent them. Here's a link to a podcast series they ran:

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/podcasts/boushie/

The victim was Colten Boushie and the farmer was Gerald Stanley, googling that and grabbing the CBC results will show you pretty quickly what their coverage looked like overall.

The case ended with a not-guilty verdict and the farmer is home now. Now, the only witnesses that were sober that day were the farmer and his son. What's worse 3 of the witnesses all changed their stories in court from what they originally told police because they 'didn't want to get into trouble'. With such poor witness testimony and no other evidence of malicious intent on the farmers part it's not much of a surprise that the defence's characterisation of a robbery that led to a tragic and fatal accident was considered credible.

Despite that, Canada's Indigenous services minister responded immediately to the verdict saying;
"We all have more to do to improve justice & fairness for Indigenous Canadians."

And our justice minister tweeted:
"My thoughts are with the family of Colton Boushie tonight. I truly feel your pain and I hear all of your voices. As a country we can and must do better - I am committed to working everyday to ensure justice for all Canadians."

As though the outcome was somehow dictated by race. This victimhood mentality just ignore the underlying real problem of horrible conditions on reserve. The judicial system didn't racially undermine the case, the real problem is a lot more complex than that and is being ignored because it's easier and more popular to ignore the root causes and just echo platitudes about how everything bad that happens down the road is racial too.

Your video, Custom Prosthetics Make Everyday Tasks Easier, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

There is a reason I wear jeans, t-shirts and ball caps to work everyday. Ageism in IT is very real and I want to sneak under the radar for as long as I can.

The UK's DailyMail posts a story of a female teacher molesting a student almost everyday.

In Mexico, last I heard, it was mandatory for everyone to spend time in the Military/police force. There is no vetting, so these are everyday regular guys, in their appointed uniforms. This is where the corruption in Mexico stems from.
It's easy to pay them off to do your personal bidding, because they aren't there by choice, working for the good of the people.

Of course my info is old, it's what I was told by locals years ago when I lived there for a short time, years ago. It may have changed by now, though it doesn't look like it.

This is me everyday when I wake up.
*promote

Doesn't happen everyday that a longstanding apparatschik of a major party throws her predecessor (DWS), her party's former Presidential Nominee (HRC), and a former President (Obama) under the bus like this. I like it. Smells like rats leaving a sinking ship.

Money laundering is the cherry on top, really.

"The hottest temperature I've measured was over 210 degrees Fahrenheit. To put that in to everyday terms is 99 degrees Celsius."

Fixed that for you.

...

(This is a really interesting phenomenon but whoever wrote the voice-over is an idiot.)

Good and interesting stuff in there.

I think Sharpe is right that this escalation happened for a pretty silly reason (known blowhard and mouth-runner Trump runs his mouth, news at 11), and the NFL vs Trump skirmish detracts from the root issue that Kaepernick was trying to bring attention to a year ago.

On the other hand, I kinda agree with the other guy that maybe bringing attention to that skirmish will also bring attention to the original issue, so maybe it is a net good thing.

Yeah, the owners aren't going to give a fuck until shit lands on their doorstep. Yeah, calling people a "son of a bitch" rates at about a 2 on the "Trump just said what?!" scale. Sharpe's cynicism about how we got here makes a lot of sense.

I didn't care about Kaepernick sitting for the anthem a year ago enough to pay attention. I wasn't against it. I didn't think the was trying to "disrespect" the flag / soldiers / country / whatever, but I wouldn't have really cared if he was. Aren't people allowed to be anti-war? Opposed to mindless nationalism?


Fast forward to today. The billionaires that Sharpe mentioned who donated big sums to Trump's campaign finally get upset when his shit lands on their door. His (comparably tame) "Twitter attacks" on the NFL kick off a dog-and-pony show that may possibly have been cunningly intended to distract from the much more weighty stuff that Kaepernick was trying to draw attention to in the first place, but I seriously doubt that Trump is that clever.

However, something good did come of it: I went from "meh" to paying attention. I went back and listened to Kaepernick's interview about why he was sitting for the anthem from a year ago (embed below), which I didn't watch at the time. I heard a rational, honest, and eloquent young man calmly and clearly explain what he was doing and why he was doing it.

He saw injustice, and wanted to do something about it. He had access to a soapbox that very very few of the people on the receiving end of that injustice have. So, he made up his own mind to do something to try to get conversations started. He was surprised and confused that anyone would see his actions as disrespectful towards soldiers / military, and was later persuaded (by a Navy SEAL) to kneel as opposed to sit for the anthem in an effort to make that more clear.

He seemed aware that he can only control what he does -- not how people will try to spin it, and not how people may react to it. And he also clearly accepted that his actions could have consequences, and that he didn't want to rope anybody else in to acting with him unless they were prepared to accept those consequences also.

So, yeah. Some good came of this recent escalation, even if it came for the wrong reasons. Because some of the people that get drawn in to the dog-and-pony show might decide that they care enough to go back and take a deeper look at it, like I did. And when they look deeper, they're going to see Trump's standard, everyday twitter nonsense on one side compared to a lot of more rational stuff like, say, perhaps actually listening to words of the person that got the ball rolling on the other side (Kaepernick, and others). I like the way that scale balances out.

Congratulations! Your video, Just your everyday traffic in Russia, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 135 Badge!

Your video, Just your everyday traffic in Russia, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

For everyday use Fahrenheit seems pretty handy. 100 °F is dangerously hot, 0 °F is dangerously cold, you know you have to take extra care if it gets out of that range. And a body temperature of 100 °F is the start of having a fever.

The only number you need to remember is that water freezes at 32 °F. I doubt you'd ever need to know the boiling point of water to cook.

Plus the much smaller increments are nice. °C is good if you're a sciency type and need to convert from Kelvin, but otherwise I don't see many advantages.

Total BS answer.

WHAT shared beliefs? There is no color requirements or religious prerequisites to being on the right hand side of the political spectrum. I know the media and lefty fanbois try to paint it that way, but that is complete drivel.

Goals? What 'goals' do these white idiot racists have that black idiot racists or hispanic idiot racists don't ALSO have ? What makes one group's racism leftist and therefor tolerable/understandable/justifiable in the media and the other group's racism "right wing" and abhorrent? And yes, there ARE black and hispanic racist groups...

Nothing but political bullsh*t. Racism is racism and it ALL should be abhorrent.

At it's core today, the right-wing political ideal maintains that free markets and capitalism is the best economic system for a free people because it promotes the MOST interchange between classes of people (poor, rich, powerful, etc). As such, a true right wing government would be small and not so powerful in an individual's everyday life.

At it's core, the left-wing political ideal is that capitalism is not "fair" and that the Government should step in to make everyone "equal", trading away freedom to social engineer equality and redistribute wealth. Of course, this means the more power that can be consolidated into the government, the better and more "equal" we can all be. (Don't even get me started on how this path leads to the shores of Venezuela or every other failed socialist country before it)

Back on my point though, racism doesn't rely on free markets or capitalism. Racism CAN and I would argue DOES benefit from leftist ideas of social engineered equality though.

So if these white racists voted as a majority for Republicans this election cycle, I would suggest that they did NOT do it because the are "right wing" at all. I suggest they did it because the other side of the ticket represents nothing but more and more "social engineering" that would NOT benefit their preferred race. Further, I would suggest that had the "social engineering" over the time period of the last Presidency been skewed towards pro-white, that these same white racists would have voted Democrat.

@Diogenes

Thank you for your detailed answer. I do agree with you that context matters and that words are neither inherently good or bad by themselves. However, I think you’re looking at the situation from a more microscopic point of view as a simple joke between two people. I prefer to take a more macroscopic view of the situation. Allow me to explain.

Going back to my hypothetical example, it’s true that I didn't mean any harm when I used the term "retard" towards my brother. I think all people like to think of themselves as "good" people. For example, I would never in my life point at person with Down Syndrome and scream "Retard!" at the top of my lungs or attempt to belittle someone with an actual mental disability. The problem, however, is that by using the word in the way I did in the example I am tacitly--and quite publicly (remember this is happening in a parking lot)--endorsing the equating of people with mental disabilities to stupidity. I may be making a joke towards my brother but it isn’t just my brother that winds up being the butt of the joke.

Now maybe from your perspective, it’s just one person saying a joke. Look at the context, you might say. It’s a distasteful joke but no big deal, right? And I could agree with that if it was just some off-color joke limited to a single individual. Unfortunately, and I think we can both agree on this, the use of “retard” to mean “stupid” is a relatively common occurrence in American vernacular. You couple that with the stigma against mental illness and mental disability and I think it becomes fairly plain to see that on the macroscopic level (i.e. society) we have a problem: a group that is socially disadvantaged and historically discriminated against is even further marginalized by the language people use in their everyday lives. Now, if you don’t agree this is a problem, I’m afraid the conversation has to end here since the logical conclusion of such a stance is that people should be free to say whatever they want and be immune to criticism, damn the consequences.

But if you do agree it is a problem, how are we going to solve it? My take on the situation is that doing absolutely nothing when witnessing a situation like the one I've described is unlikely to improve society in any way. The status quo will be maintained if people are not confronted about their language use.

That being said, people often say things without fully comprehending the implications of what they are saying. They often talk the way they were raised and never once questioned whether what they were saying was actually harmful or not. I don’t think people should be pilloried for that, but in the event that they are unaware of how they are contributing to the discrimination and oppression of others they certainly need to be educated.

This necessarily entails confrontation, although that confrontation might be very low key. Continuing the example above, I think a good way for the woman in the example to “enlighten” me about my misguided use of the word “retard” would be something along the lines of this:

“Excuse me. I really wish you wouldn’t equate having a mental handicap with stupidity. My nephew has Down Syndrome and even though, yes, he can’t do everything that a person without an intellectual handicap can do he is most certainly not stupid.”

Now, all of that said, I see nothing wrong with publicly shaming those who clearly understand the implications of what they are saying and out of either stubbornness, a need for attention, or actual spite willfully continue to use language that is degrading or oppressive. A white person frequently using the N-word in public to describe black people, for instance, is a situation where I’d be completely fine with them getting verbally eviscerated. We don't always have to be polite, even when being politically correct.

As a final note, I want to make it clear that I believe in free speech in the sense that everyone should be free to say whatever they wish. However, as a caveat to that I also believe that free speech comes with the responsibility that people must own everything they say. If someone wishes to use offensive, degrading, or oppressive language that is their choice. Free speech in no way gives them a free pass from criticism of that choice, however.

Hmm... I'm not so sure PC speech can be so easily separated from politeness. I mean, isn't one of the main reasons for the promotion of PC speech to raise peoples' awareness of how our everyday use of words can demean people? That's why, for example, PC speech proponents pushed for changing the term "garbage man" to "sanitation worker." Or why they decried the use of the word "gay" being used as synonymous with "stupid."

Certainly PC speech also is concerned with how language is used to oppress others but it seems to me it is also quite concerned with creating more polite language usage.