That the Harper government burned 7 fisheries libraries?
That happened. It was done supposedly after digitizing the info, but apparently only a small amount of the job was done before the torch was lit.
https://thetyee.ca/News/2013/12/09/Dismantling-Fishery-Library/
That article says nothing about burning, and explicitly mentions how they were digitized. There's quite a lot of criticism of how digital libraries are considered worse by many, but your claim doesn't seem to hold up from the article you linked. The "Evil" Harper government consolidated 7 libraries into 2, and digitized the information prior to closing those places. That's hardly book-burning.
Also, they mention The Great Library of Alexandria, and how it's the same as how Rome destroyed it, implying malice... except not exactly. Accounts differ whether it was burned by Caesar at ALL (at all, partial, or completely destroyed), and even if it was, it was an accident when he lit his ships on fire in the harbor and it spread to some buildings in the city. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_the_Library_of_Alexandria The Romans didn't deliberately ever torch that Library, and given the years, the "roman-esque" dynasties of Egypt were HUGE supporters of it.
The REAL tragic destruction of it was during the Muslim conquest of Egypt in 642. Accounts differ because records of it come from hundreds of years later, but regardless of WHY, the library was destroyed permanently following their conquest. Further reading is in that wiki article.
And note, if anybody here ever considers Egypt safe enough to travel to, I HIGHLY recommend going to the "Spiritual Successor" to that library, the Bibliotheca Alexandrina in said city. Awesome library, inside and out. Combination library and museum these days, with a fascinating "restricted" section that when @Dirona and I were there we looked into. If you're a scholar (especially religious history, but it's hardly restricted to that), they have some NICE stuff.
If you digitize records, and keep such available, it's a lot different than saying "All that knowledge, just go away!" Again, the article you linked even said they kept it all.
If you're arguing the physical tomes themselves had historic value, rather than the information therein, then OK, that's a point, but that's WAY different than what's implied by book-burning in our culture. Book-burning = Nazis = against knowledge (in our culture I mean). Disposing/recycling of obsolete technology is something else. Saying it should be preserved for historic (non-knowledge value) is again something else.
https://thetyee.ca/News/2013/12/23/Canadian-Science-Libraries/
They claim that information was not being digitized. The government wouldn't and still won't reveal how much was saved.
The estimate was 1 in 20 books was digitized.
That's a HUUUUGE amount of data gone.
They claim that information was not being digitized. The government wouldn't and still won't reveal how much was saved.
The estimate was 1 in 20 books was digitized.
That's a HUUUUGE amount of data gone.
So a few scientists, who aren't willing to go on the record, are contradicting the official story from DFO, and this is all coming from a publication that has a "not conservative" (to be generous) bent to it.
Frank, c'mon. At least the Star or something else that's at least a wide-circulation Liberal rag. This is a half-step away from conspiracy theory here.
Frank, c'mon. At least the Star or something else that's at least a wide-circulation Liberal rag. This is a half-step away from conspiracy theory here.
The Globe ought to be acceptable to him. But you'd likely have a slam dunk if you can find the Post reporting it.
I'm not saying the closures didn't happen Frank, just that there's no disaster here. The materials were even offered multiple times to others (in the globe article), and basically nothing that wasn't already in other places was thrown out. LOTS of duplication (as is normal) was thrown out is what the main thing is here.
Basically, it's an optics-bad-only story IMO.
The Post is hardly different than most of these. They're fine enough.
FTFY
Dave
Staff member
Trump is going to order the following tomorrow:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...orders-iraq-iran-libya-restrict-a7544566.html
- No more muslim refugees.
- No more immigrants from ANY country.
- Start building the wall.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...orders-iraq-iran-libya-restrict-a7544566.html
Don't worry Gas, I got this.
No one complained when Obama did it. The only difference is that now,
When Pence takes office, he's going to seem the most reasonable person and will be far less complained about than if he or Ted Cruz or any actual Republican had taken office without Trump being the horrifying buffer between Obama and a Republican president.
Oh Frank, you know it was never about the actual orders.
GasBandit
Staff member
Quantity != effect.
And like Blots said when he channeled me... expanding the power of the executive branch by rewriting passed laws without congressional action (Obamacare mandates and subsidy applications and exceptions) or granting legal status to 5 million illegal aliens.... it sort of sets a precedent toward autocracy.
Because now the abuses of power you agreed with under Obama became the springboard to normalcy for abuses of power you hate under Trump.
Sure, an Australian source on news from the Netherlands, this link makes sense.
The Netherlands set up an international fund for abortion to help people get what they need, opposing the reinstituted gag rule.
The Netherlands set up an international fund for abortion to help people get what they need, opposing the reinstituted gag rule.
Trump threatened Chicago to get its act together or he is going to send in federal intervention. What that means, who knows, but if he means sending military rolling into the city I am going to be pissed.
I'm unclear how sending "the Feds" is going to do anything about homicide rate, as if it's "reduce spending on homicide." Martial law would have that effect, but what the fuck?
So that abortion gag order? They're taking it world wide. The WHO have to scrub all mentions of abortion from their .org or lose 14% of their funding.
This reeks of Pence. And they haven't even been in the office for a week, yet! Jesus Christ.[DOUBLEPOST=1485354550,1485354371][/DOUBLEPOST]I'm copy/pasting a post I made earlier this morning on Facebook:
This is mostly a rant about about current American politics, but it absolutely blows my mind how so many people and politicians are pro-life, but then also don't think about the support needed to raise a child. Now mind you, I don't have any children, but I have enough friends and family and have heard enough stories about the cost and stress of raising one.
Them: "We're going to defund things like Planned Parenthood. No more abortions! No more birth control freebies! No sex education! We care deeply about the life of this baby! PRO-LIFE!"
Women: "Okay, well, I have this baby now. Since you care so much about its life, how about funding for day care, child medical benefits, a good education, maybe some funding so I can afford to feed them properly, oh and there's the cost of all these diapers."
Them: "What? No free handouts! Go back to work, you slacker."
Women: "I can't go back to work. I have this baby to raise now."
Them: "Should've thought about that before having sex. Or should've thought about using protection."
Women: "When or who I have intimate relationships with is none of your business. I also didn't know how to be safe about it because all you promote is abstinence only. I used what little protection I could afford or was available to me thanks to you. Or it was forced on me or I was coerced."
Them: "Shouldn't have asked for it, then."
Women: "I didn't. No one believed me, anyway. So now I have this baby and..."
Them: "Screw you. Should've just kept your legs together."
Women: "Fine, forget about me. What about the baby? You said..."
Them: "They're your problem now!"
This reeks of Pence. And they haven't even been in the office for a week, yet! Jesus Christ.[DOUBLEPOST=1485354550,1485354371][/DOUBLEPOST]I'm copy/pasting a post I made earlier this morning on Facebook:
This is mostly a rant about about current American politics, but it absolutely blows my mind how so many people and politicians are pro-life, but then also don't think about the support needed to raise a child. Now mind you, I don't have any children, but I have enough friends and family and have heard enough stories about the cost and stress of raising one.
Them: "We're going to defund things like Planned Parenthood. No more abortions! No more birth control freebies! No sex education! We care deeply about the life of this baby! PRO-LIFE!"
Women: "Okay, well, I have this baby now. Since you care so much about its life, how about funding for day care, child medical benefits, a good education, maybe some funding so I can afford to feed them properly, oh and there's the cost of all these diapers."
Them: "What? No free handouts! Go back to work, you slacker."
Women: "I can't go back to work. I have this baby to raise now."
Them: "Should've thought about that before having sex. Or should've thought about using protection."
Women: "When or who I have intimate relationships with is none of your business. I also didn't know how to be safe about it because all you promote is abstinence only. I used what little protection I could afford or was available to me thanks to you. Or it was forced on me or I was coerced."
Them: "Shouldn't have asked for it, then."
Women: "I didn't. No one believed me, anyway. So now I have this baby and..."
Them: "Screw you. Should've just kept your legs together."
Women: "Fine, forget about me. What about the baby? You said..."
Them: "They're your problem now!"
Pulling out of TTP, pulling out of WHO, calling NATO obsolete, and so on and so forth- when they said "America First" they definitely meant it. As long as you don't want to export or don't care about international customers at all, I guess.
This will either mean Russia, China, or someone else (the EU! HAHAHAhahaha *cough*) will fill the international power vacuum that's rapidly starting to appear, effectively weakening the USA immensely, or it'll kill millions - mostly poor in other continents. I wonder if the "poor starving Africans" type of charity videos will be as impactful as they were in the '80s and '90s.
This will either mean Russia, China, or someone else (the EU! HAHAHAhahaha *cough*) will fill the international power vacuum that's rapidly starting to appear, effectively weakening the USA immensely, or it'll kill millions - mostly poor in other continents. I wonder if the "poor starving Africans" type of charity videos will be as impactful as they were in the '80s and '90s.
I've seen some people say this is where China will rise to power. At this rate, I don't think they're wrong. And in some ways, that's scary, too.
I don't see why being charitable is a pre-requisite to oppose something one perceives as murder. By the same token, I do not believe any amount of safety nets alone can adequately justifies taking women's bodily autonomy away.
I will note that, in my experience and environs, pro-life people believe in (and donate to) churches and charities that support those in need. I work first-hand writing software for such charities in my tri-county area, and they are mostly non-secular and wholly unconcerned with the reasons why someone has children--they care about keeping the family fed, clothed, housed, and warm.
It's not just the murder, though. My point wasn't just about abortion, but women's health and sex education in general. I'd be happy if there was a massive reduction in abortions because there's better support for protection, birth control, and sex education. Hell, I don't remember which state it was, but after they introduced a great sex-ed program, teen pregnancy rates plummeted. And then rose again when the program was pulled.
But my point is the hypocrisy that they care so much about the child, but then provide no support if and when that child is born. Or to prevent the child from being conceived in the first place.
Also, donating to churches and charities is fine, but that support only goes so far. My ex who was a single mother struggled especially with the costs of day care and medicine for her child. She had little to no support.
We look at abortion as a symptom of a society in need of family planning methods, other people look at abortion as a symptom of a society in moral decay. Fixing a moral problem (seeking to terminate pregnancies) with another (encouraging young people to have safe sex) capitulates moral ground a lot of people do not want to give up. There's a plethora of other views as well, but I'm not super-familiar with them due to an overriding lack of interest in the excuses to police people's bodies.
I understand your point, but I don't think it constitutes hypocrisy. They may very well prefer that a child be born and bring hardship on themselves and their parent(s), rather than be killed for """"convenience."""" It sucks for the parents and the child, but (in many people's views) it sure beats not being born.
I agree that on many places support is wholly lacking. In some places it's abundant but hard to reach, or not publicized enough (part of my volunteering is in that direction).
What if that was the plan all along?
Sure, Trump says good things about Putin, and wants to be friends with Russia, but what if that's a smoke screen, and actually the chinese have something on him... i mean if i had some loud mouthed idiot under my control i wouldn't have him praise me... i'd have him lambaste me while he was sabotaging his country, so no one would suspect.
Then I'm way ahead of all you jackasses.