Recent Comments by bcglorf subscribe to this feed

Just Loading A Rock Onto A Truck

bcglorf says...

I love that there was enough foresight involved to put a pallet in the box so it wouldn't get scratched, but not enough to notice that the rock outweighs the truck.

Can I have my rims back?

bcglorf says...

Your talking about it historically though. Historical abuse and mistreatment of Aboriginal people in Canada has been acceptable to discuss for at least a generation or two now, up to formal apologies and enormous numbers of court cases and cash settlements around the myriad past injustices.

The trouble is, even while addressing all the historical problems, there still exist new ones right now.

Typical conditions on Aboriginal reserves in Canada are unacceptably awful. You can have a thriving municipality right neighbouring an aboriginal reserve that is a mess of dilapidated homes, boiled water and grossly increased rates of unemployment, substance abuse and suicide. Small wonder then that increased crime rates also come along with all that.

Even that you can talk about, though the increased crime rate will get you in trouble for flirting with being racist against aboriginals.

What you can't talk about is many of the causes of the disparity.

Aboriginal reserves operate under a different legal framework than the neighbouring municipality. They operate under a different framework of governance. They operate under a different system of taxation. Organisation of all related government services like education, healthcare, policing and civil works like roads, water and sanitation are ALL different if you're on a reserve.

Talking about all that you need to be very careful how you say it, because if your not careful my above observations are a statement that coloniser systems are superior to aboriginal ones.

Private property rights are IMO an even hotter topic. The dilapidated housing on a reserve 10 minutes away from the municipality with everything in order is a direct result of who is responsible for maintaining them. In the municipality if a roof is missing shingles, the owner replaces them. If a window is broken, the owner replaces it. On the reserve though, the community is the owner. Unsurprisingly, that abstraction means maintenance on the homes is worse. If the mayor was responsible for using tax dollars to maintain all the homes in the neighbouring municipality it'd be a mess too. This leads to the poor aboriginal family stuck in a destroyed and overcrowded home and a chief saying sorry, the Canadian colonisers didn't give us enough money to fix your place, go yell at them. This just stirs up the Winnipeg citizens I mentioned earlier to respond with wonderment at why you don't fix your own home up yourself instead of protesting hopelessly for the government to hand out the money to do it for you.

The differential treatment still in place now, today is a cancer and needs to be fixed but calling it out like that would get me in trouble.

Drachen_Jager said:

People in Canada ARE talking about it for the first time.

First Nations people had their entire culture turned upside-down by the government of Canada and the Catholic Church. They were torn from their homes, raised in abusive conditions in institutions that expected them to conform to European norms, and even when they met those norms they were mentally and physically abused.

Now people are surprised that a generation of abused children makes for poor parents? The criminal problem with First Nations people is one that European Canadians created. It is a problem that's been ignored for far too long.

People like this need help. They do not need to see the inside of yet another cell.

Can I have my rims back?

bcglorf says...

I live 2 hours out of Winnipeg.

Without seeing anything about the location of the video, not even seeing it was in Canada, my first thought on seeing this was "Hey, that looks like Winnipeg"

Funny as the politeness is, this is just sad to me.

Winnipeg has a reputation for being one of the most racist places in Canada. As often as not when someone in the province hears about a crime near them, you'll hear them guess the description of the suspect will include "native in appearance". Sadder still, it's because as my instinct hit while watching the video, it too often ends up being the case.

Canada has a huge race relations problem. Our native population is grossly over represented in the prison system, which you can talk about now. The fact that stems from them being grossly over represented in committing crimes is NOT supposed to be talked about. Which means you nobody gets to talk about the roots of WHY that over representation exists, let alone talking about solutions to the awful conditions that aboriginal youth are disproportionately growing up in.

ChaosEngine said:

Canada, where even the criminals respond to a polite request.

Michael Che Hilarious "Black Lives Matters"

bcglorf says...

It's not even as much that BLM disrupted the Pride parade, but that one of their demands was to ban the police from participating in the parade in the future. That's actively destroying years and years of hard fought progress to bring people together, and I can't fail to call that a bad thing. Again, I hope the US chapters are different in that much, and in many states there is also much more justified outrage against the police, which is very much unlike up here in Canada.

Canada's BLM held sit in protests demanding to meet with the chief of police and then repeatedly abandoned the meetings before they were supposed to happen. They then went on to condemn the police chief for having zero interest in protecting black civilians in Toronto. FYI, the chief of police of Toronto at the time was a black man.

A BLM toronto co-founder railed at how our Prime Minister, who makes Barack Obama look like very right -leaning, is a white supremacist terrorist. Rhetoric that just means absolutely nothing and looks like little more than gross false victimhood.

And then for good measure another co-founder squeezed in a quarter million dollar 'overtime' payment on their last week with the University of Toronto's Student Union. When the Student Union sued to get that money back as their was no documentation justifying paying out that kind of money all of a sudden the Student Union were racists. Eventually the case was settled with an undiclosed amount returned.

BLM Toronto has done enough harm I am pretty comfortable saying I oppose them. The goal of making race relations better is of course good. Correcting injustices is of course good. I just don't see that coming from a group taking the actions I've seen, IMO they are actively making things worse, not better.

Again, that is specific to up here in Canada, I can't imagine that the US chapters can be as bad without it having been all over the media where I couldn't miss it. That said, up here I would likely have altogether missed everything but the parade as well save for having personally witnessed a just disgusting racist attack on someone at a an event. That led me to discover the attacker was tied in with BLM Toronto and suddenly seeing that as perhaps not an entirely isolated event .

moonsammy said:

No, BLM did that with the Minneapolis / St Paul Pride parade in Minnesota last year as well. I've had to stop and have some real thinks about some of the tactics employed by BLM over the last few years, as frequently my gut reaction has been "well that seems excessively antagonistic towards people who likely already support them." Things like blocking a pride parade, or shutting down sections of highways and such. Ultimately, these actions aren't aimed at the people who are immediately affected by them, they're done to generate publicity for the group when they might otherwise have difficulty getting any sort of media attention paid to their message from more typical, "polite" protests.

Civil rights organizers have had over 60 years of experience in determining how to effectively protest, or longer if you look at examples like women's suffrage. At this point I think they have a pretty good idea of what forms of protest are useful vs counter-productive. I support what BLM is trying to accomplish, and as someone who to date has not personally helped that cause in any direct manner, I'm opting to trust that they have an idea what they're doing and that if I'm reacting negatively to their approach I should probably question / sit with that reaction before saying something foolish.

Michael Che Hilarious "Black Lives Matters"

bcglorf says...

In Canada at least BLM really has given itself a bad reputation. They halted the Toronto Pride Parade until their demands were met, those demands including excluding police officers from participating in the parade...

I hope the Canadian, and specifically Toronto, chapter of BLM is disparate from the American one, because this incident wasn't isolated. BLM Toronto has taken repeated actions like this one that give exactly the black lives matter MORE vibe that the All Lives Matters crowd accuses the group of.

When your wife asks do you love me, she DOES mean do you love me MORE than others, BLM Toronto at least certainly has acted in that manner enough to lose my support for now.

Why You Should Never Ask Doug To Help

Chinese Police release Knife Defense training video

bcglorf says...

Not sure I've seen the exact video you mean, but I've seen several showing the reaction distance problem. That's why the video demonstrates the number 1 option, run away.

Carry a gun is inferior to run away, it is just a better option than trying to use years of hand to hand and knife fighting training versus someone with a knife.

wraith said:

This might not be the place for a serious discussion, but have you seen "Surviving Edged Weapons"? Minimum reaction distance for a gun wielding (and well trained) Police officer? 21 feet!

Chinese Police release Knife Defense training video

bcglorf says...

This. Self defence instructors seem to be pretty universally agreed on step 1 in confronting someone with a knife:
1: Run away

They are also pretty universally agreed on the best way to win a knife fight if running isn't an option, bring a gun.

ChaosEngine said:

You only need to get far enough away until the train hits the next station. I’ve spent years training in knife disarms, and there’s no way I’d do anything but run like hell unless I had no other choice.

Why did Cosmonauts take Shotguns into Space?

Turkish T129 ATAK helicopters conducting a drill

bcglorf says...

On the chance your 'jokingly' isn't obvious, MLK, Ghandi and Mandela's causes ALL had support from those willing to use violence, aka better weapons would help.

Malcolm X would be the next most prominent figure beside MLK. Indian independence wasn't won with peaceful hunger strikes alone, and again lots of violence in South Africa.

Ghandi even bridged the gap to working alongside the effective army fighting for India's independence:
" I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor.
But I believe that nonviolence is infinitely superior to violence, forgiveness is more manly than punishment, forgiveness adorns a soldier."

Speaking more to the point of America today, pretty much no civil war has been fought exclusively with civilians on one side, and the government, police, army and all other branches of the state united on the other. The reason being that if that kind of unity within the government against the civilian population exists, you ALREADY have tyranny.

In America, the example would be if a president or a particular political party decided to try for tyrannical over reach, would the American public be better equipped to resist that with or without guns? In civil war, guns give power to the majority of public opinion that would need to be there otherwise. In a nation with an unarmed public, whatever the majority of soldiers side with is likely gonna win. With an armed populace, the civilian opinion matters more.

I think it's an overall modest observation, and one that really doesn't in anyway make it obvious that the modest benefit is worth the costs. That is another matter, but you can't factually claim that there isn't a meaningful difference between an armed and unarmed population when facing civil war.

newtboy said:

You mean like MLK, Ghandi, or Mandela did?

Perhaps an extremely well armed fanatical populace with little to lose paired with impossible terrain and nearly zero resources to steal has that chance against some less advanced enemies....but again, I'm talking about Americans.
Americans have zero chance to win or draw against the U.S. military. None. Nada. Zilch. A temporary standoff with disastrous consequences is the best I've ever heard of, that's a loss.

Turkish T129 ATAK helicopters conducting a drill

bcglorf says...

As @jimnms alluded to re Afghanistan, civilians may not be able to 'win', but well armed civilians can certainly make it hard, bordering on meaningless for their opponent to win either.

No, automatic weapons don't guarantee liberty from tyranny. On the flip side, try opposing a tyrannical government without them.

newtboy said:

That makes the argument entirely without merit once you admit they are useless against governments, who have armies, tanks, aircraft, armed drones, missiles, and far more.

Modern warfare is just not winnable by civilians....particularly here in America. The only possible way to win is convince the military to not fight you, and using guns against them makes that impossible.

Turkish T129 ATAK helicopters conducting a drill

bcglorf says...

I'm not totally sold on the AR-15 to save the country line of reasoning either, but it's not entirely without merit.

flowers are beat by knives are beat by guns are beat by tanks are beat by airpower

Sure a population armed with AR-15s isn't going to prevent a guy like Bashar Al Assad who's willing to use helicopters to drop chemical weapons on you. At the same time, try resisting or overthrowing a guy like that WITHOUT AR-15s...

newtboy said:

You think they wouldn't? Tell that to the Syrians.

Plenty of people don't just say, but firmly believe their rifle protects them from a tyrannical government...David Koresh was one. They lined up tanks for him.

Rather silly statement about a scenario that's happened repeatedly.

God Sent Two Scientists To Cure Cancer But They Were Aborted

bcglorf says...

I gotta say I don't like throwing that at these guys because it gives them an actual defense. Their behavior and actions are indefensible and evil. Don't give them the chance to drum up support from other more sane people who believe:
1.Life begins at conception/fetuses are human
2.Execution of people who've committed sufficiently horrific crimes is justifiable

There's lots of people that believe those 2 things, but can still be 100% on board with condemning the awful, manipulative evil of Bakker and co.

bareboards2 said:

So how do they sit on the death penalty?

You know the answer.

God Sent Two Scientists To Cure Cancer But They Were Aborted

bcglorf says...

I'm very big on religious freedom, but the depths of emotional exploitation, deceit and manipulation of this entire program should be criminal. We recognize other kinds of con jobs and convict for it, this crew should be too.

Religious freedom should start getting cut off when you preach the necessity of giving the speaker your money in exchange for what they will do for you. Giving to a charity that will go on to help others is one thing, it's another to pay money to get someone to promise you their 'blessing', prayers, or even financial rewards that will metaphysically be manifest in return.

newtboy said:

How many times did God send us someone to end this religious con family, the Bakers, but they were aborted? Whatever that number is, it's too low.

New Rule: Dear Roseanne | Real Time with Bill Maher

bcglorf says...


There are enough things wrong with Trump that shooting down everything about him in a one sided monologue looks the same as what Fox did with strawman arguments against Obama.

It's not enough to point out Trumps problems to people. You needed to have one of his prominent supporters on air to demonstrated that Trump is OBJECTIVELY worse than any other president. The other upside is actually getting a chance to have the voice of a Trump supporter like Roseanne out there so that maybe, just maybe, left leaning folks can hear the other side and find common ground. Until the democrats steal back people that voted Trump, the train is just gonna keep on rolling in the wrong direction.

Example, talking about rolling back Obamacare as though it should be obvious to poorer Trump supporters that they were screwed by this. You can't just change their opinion by calling them too stupid to know what their daily lives are like. You have to listen to the details of why they think their healthcare under Obamacare was, or would become worse than before it. I know my aunt and uncle in Alabama, although middle class, both swear that after Obamacare their costs went up and benefits went down. You have to listen to people a bit if you care about figuring out how to change their vote next term,

kir_mokum said:

he really should have just had her on. i think they've both gone a little nutty over the years. maybe if they dealt with each other face to face, they're would be a lot more to sink you teeth into.

Send this Article to a Friend

Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients

Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon