kimmy

First off, Vision is not "Christian" programming. They describe themselves as "multi-faith and multi-cultural". While there may be more Christian programming than programs from other faiths, they do have Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, and Sikh programs as well. And not all of their programming is religious in nature, either. I believe that the CRTC (Canadian Radio and Television Commission) rules regarding what must be included in the "Basic" cable package have been changed; cable customers are no longer required to pay for Vision in their basic cable package. For some context, look into the threads about the Sun TV "news" network, which involves a similar issue-- Sun applied to be in the same category of channels that Vision is being removed from. -k

The letters "S" and "S" appearing next to each other is not "tied to all Jews." I don't see why any reasonable person would think that the letters "SS" are a reference to a military unit that became extinct 70 years ago, as opposed to any of a myriad of far more current and relevant acronyms, such as Super Sport, Sport Sedan, Status Symbol, Secret Service, Social Security, Stainless Steel, Service Station, Solid State, State Subsidized, Safe Sex, Stop Speeding, Spread Spectrum, Stephen Spielberg, or Stockholm Syndrome. Do Jewish New York Yankees fans have panic attacks when they look at a box score and read "Derek Jeter SS"? Has Derek Jeter been inducted into the SchutzStaffel!? Has Baruch Shuv contacted MLB to request that they rename the position "short stop" to something like "intermediate infielder" out of sensitivity to Holocaust survivors? -k

Cite? You point out that they're not even selling it in Canada... so it seems unlikely that they ever planned to sell it in Israel. The muscle car is as a distinctly American breed of vehicle-- it had a strong following in the United States and Canada, but nowhere else. So it seems highly unlikely to me that they ever planned to sell these in Israel. The muscle car was made for long highways and cheap gas, so it seems nonsensical to suggest that GM planned to sell these vehicles in a postage-stamp sized country where gas costs $10/gallon, but not in a country with a proven appetite for muscle cars, like Canada. If they had planned to sell the car in Israel, they would not let a kerfuffle over the name stop them, they would sell it under a new name tailored to the local consumer, as they have with numerous other vehicles in the past. He's not complaining about the name of a vehicle that's coming to Israel, he's complaining about a name that it appears will only be used in the United States. -k

I only know him from The Hockey Song, which I think every Canadian recognizes instantly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stompin%27_Tom_Connors His Wiki page shows that Canadian people and Canadian events figure prominently in many of his songs. -k

If he had said "I eat therefore I am", would you think he was claiming to be food? No, that's really not implied at all by Descarte's famous argument. You can read more about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum That I'm aware is the only thing I can be completely sure of. Does the death of body mean an end to self-awareness? I can't be sure, but that's the theory I'm going with. They can hook up electrodes to your head and see activity of your neurons when you're listening to music or solving a problem or watching a video. I don't see a good reason to think that awareness would continue when those neurons are dead. -k

I'm not offended by being called a lefty. I find it funny, more than anything. It's funny, when I arrived on this message board I used to get accused of being on Stephen Harper's payroll, and being a Western separatist, and all kinds of stuff like that. But over the last couple of years, a lot of people have decided I'm a lefty. I've learned that some people think you're a lefty if you believe the law applies to police as well as to the general public. I've learned that some people will call you a lefty if you think that sensible regulations should govern banks and corporations. I've learned that some people will call you a lefty if you don't love Jesus <------this much------>. I've learned that some people will call you a lefty if you think that raising taxes to what they were under Reagan wouldn't be an undue burden on the wealthy. And in this thread, I've learned that people will call you a lefty if you believe that explaining how he plans to prioritize competing and sometimes contradictory interests is a much more complicated task than just "tell the truth." I do have a Red Army sniper in my profile picture. Is it because I'm a communist? No. I put that picture in my avatar partly because she was a truly heroic and inspiring woman. Partly because of my own enthusiasm for my growing collection of Soviet WWII weapons. And partly because it just tickles me to no end that so many people have decided that I'm "a leftist" because I think the rule of law should apply to police and that banks should be regulated and that people should pay their damned taxes and because I don't love Jesus <----this much---->. The "Leftist from the Left Coast" stuff is pretty ill informed, btw. Outside of the Greater Vancouver Area, gulf islands, and Victoria area, BC is pretty much Redneck Country. I'm also not even from the "Left Coast", I'm a born-and-raised Albertan and I have roots in country that's so rustic that I doubt somebody from southern Ontario could even comprehend it. I drove past Chatham-Kent on the way from London to Windsor one time, btw. Woo. Fun times. Go Red Wings. The point was to illustrate the dilemma of finite resources and infinite want. Ok, so you manage to save enough money by cutting waste and so-on to fill the pot-holes and add some new transit routes. You still don't have enough money in the city budget to four-lane Main Street. Whether you can find enough nickels in the couch-cushions to check off one more item from your voters' wish lists, you still have more items that you can't do. Or won't do, because there are lots of items that some in the community would like, but more people would oppose. A cyclist lobby is campaigning to have one lane of the busiest bridge in town turned into a bicycle-only bridge. Are you going to say no, and lose the votes of thousands of cyclists? Or are you going to say yes, and lose the votes of thousands of motorists who are already mad about traffic congestion? "Telling the truth" is easy. Deciding what to say "yes" to and what to say "no" to is the hard part of a politician's job. -k

Oops. First off, I guess I shouldn't have called August a "hapless boob". That was excessive. Sorry, August. In my defense, I will just say that I was riled up by August's condescending tone in message #46 above. As August and I have been e-friends for almost a decade, I perhaps have a familiarity in responding to August that I wouldn't use in responding to a new member or to somebody who I don't care for. -k

That's not the premise at all. The premise is that in a world of unlimited wants and limited resources, we have to set priorities. In a democracy, those priorities are set by our elected leaders. Those leaders are elected because the priorities they've stated appeal to more voters than the priorities their competitors stated. The good politician doesn't just tell the truth, he tells the truths that are most relevant to the most voters. A reporter can tell you that the streets suck; a politician can tell you that if he is elected he will make repairing the streets a priority. A good politician will explain why repairing the streets is good for everybody. We can fix potholes or we can add bus routes, but we can't do both. Pick one. We can have lower taxes or expanded services, but we can't have both. Pick one. If people opt for lower taxes rather than expanded services, that's their choice, that's democracy. They go vote for a politician who says that's what he stands for. And that politician's job is to go out and persuade as many voters as possible that lower taxes will help them more than expanded services. But we're outside the realm of objective fact now. It's a question of opinion, belief, and persuasion. Not "telling the truth". I've been on team Harper for longer than anybody else on this forum, you hapless boob. If being a leader was as simple as stating obvious facts, anybody could have been Pierre Trudeau. If you think that the ability to state the obvious is what makes for a great leader, you are without a clue. Truth: the streets need repairs. Truth: transit service needs improvement. Truth: there isn't enough money in the budget to do both. Truth: "telling the truth" doesn't fix the roads, or fix the buses, or even address the budget for that matter. Truth: a leader doesn't just tell the truth, he sets priorities. What is your hypothetical truth-telling politician going to say when he is asked whether he will fix the streets or fix the transit system, August? You won't and can't address that question, because to do so would be to admit how monumentally stupid your premise is. Since this is a showbiz-themed thread, you might want to look up the phrase "jumped the shark". You've done so, in style that would make Henry Winkler jealous. -k

well, no shortage of mountain-folk around here. I have actually been thinking of getting a Kentucky flint-lock some day. Should cover all my hillbilly wedding needs. -k

I am not disputing the existence of objective facts, August. I am pointing out that there are millions of objective facts, and which ones are most important to the business of running the nation is a matter of opinion. "Tell the truth" is a simplistic, childish outlook that ignores the realities of limited resources and competing and sometimes contradictory priorities. Voters are not all the same. Voters have different priorities. Joe wants the pot-holes fixed; Suzie wants better public transit. We don't have enough money in the budget to make both of them happy, so somebody is going to be disappointed. So how does "tell the truth" resolve this situation? -k

Yes. Do you have a point, or are you trying to imitate August by being "too hip for the room"? -k

Sounds fun! Speaking of "shotgun roulette", I saw these while I was shopping for ammo: http://www.theammosource.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=2_5_98&products_id=375 When even the seller is warning you that these are pretty dodgy, that's probably a bad sign. Still, for $99, ... If you spend $99 and you need to spend some time with a dremel working on the action, that's not so bad. But if you spend your $99 and pull the trigger and get a face full of shrapnel, that's pretty bad. I can do dremel, but I don't want to get a face full of shrapnel. I will probably save my money for something a little more reputable. I bought the TT-33 from Marstar. I think they're in Ontario. I'm not sure how the ATT got approved so quickly, but I'm not going to complain. -k

Why is the historical percentage of defense as a % of GDP important in determining how much it should cost to defend America right now? The threats aren't the same today as they were in the 1980s. I'm also curious to know whether the costs of "homeland security" are included in those annual defense budgets. It seems to me that protecting Americans from "asymmetrical warfare" has become a bigger part of the national security puzzle, and if that's not reflected in the graph showing defense expenses, then maybe it ought to be. -k

Perhaps Obama is overhyping the consequences of sequestration in an effort to put political pressure on Congress. Perhaps Obama is not in the same league as Clinton or Reagan. Perhaps Obama's adversaries in Congress differ from those of prior years in that some seem to view their one and only mission as opposing tax increases, and others seem to view their one and only mission as opposing Obama. Perhaps I will go microwave some casserole. -k

hmm. My TT-33 is already in the mail. I just applied for my long term ATT last week... -k

Of course spending is higher than it was in 2007. There have been a lot of extra expenses incurred since the Captains of The Free Market crashed the free market into an iceberg. What of it? -k

What new dumbassery is this? Is that a new rehash of "atheists thing that *they* are god" line that dumb-people like to repeat because it sounds sophisticated? It's not sophisticated. It's a dumb-guy's impression of something a sophisticated person would say. It combines daytime talkshow-level pop-psychology with low-rent sophistry. Shit, Pliny, get it together. -k

Palin and Klein were very successful politicians. How did Clark become premier? Media savvy, and being the most "un-Campbell" option. -k

If the name "Provo" has bad connotations in the UK, then by all means, don't sell it there or pick a new name. But unless this British MP is telling Kia that they shouldn't sell a car named "Provo" *anywhere*, then it's not the same as the "SS" thread. -k

I thought the exact same thing when I read the original post. Once upon a time, Pontiac used to re-badge their "Bonneville" as the "Parisienne" to sell in Canada, I believe. More recently, they rebadged the Australian-made Holden Monaro as the Pontiac GTO for US sale, as neither "Holden" nor "Monaro" had as much cachet as "Pontiac" and "GTO" with American buyers. GM has also been re-badging the Daewoo Hung Lo and Fung Wang cars as Chevrolets, because North American consumers don't want to drive a Fung Wang, and the "Daewoo" name inspires mistrust that ranks up there with names like "Enron" and "Madoff". Long story short, GM is happy to change a vehicle's name to make it more palatable to the local marketplace, probably a lesson they learned when "Nova" sales tanked in Puerto Rico. But when I actually read the article, this little bit jumped out at me: Now, if GM was going to sell cars named "SS" in Israel, I think Baruch Shuv would have a point. But Baruch Shuv isn't complaining because people are going to be driving around Tel Aviv in an "SS", he is complaining because people in Minneapolis and Calgary are going to be driving around in an "SS". So as far as I'm concerned, Baruch Shuv can go do a backflip into an empty pool. What a jerkwad. -k

A political party formulating an "outreach strategy" to appeal to ethnic voters? That's a non-issue. A governing party using government resources to further partisan political objectives? That's a real scandal. What I find disappointing is that coverage of this issue seems to be distracted by the salacious "ethnic" angle, which distracts from the real issue. As for Clark herself... somebody compared her to Sarah Palin. That's off the mark. Other than representing a right-of-center political party, they have nothing in common. Palin was bold and strongly committed to her ideology. Clark doesn't seem to have any ideology at all. She has been a huge disappointment as premier, seeming to stand for nothing beyond saying what she thinks the electorate wants to hear. -k

Life isn't all champagne and caviar for the 1%. This riveting documentary exposes the dangers that the wealthy have to contend with! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqIZa3PTX6c -k

Next election, we might find the Conservatives telling us that we need to strengthen the economy, and the NDP telling us that poverty is rising, and the Liberals telling us that the quality of public healthcare in Canada is declining. And they could all be telling us "the truth". Telling "the truth" is only a small part of the challenge facing a politician. He must not just tell the truth, he must convince voters that the truth that he is telling is more important than the truth that the other guys are telling. I might sympathize with Mr Mulcair but vote for Mr Harper because I think that other problems will become more severe if the economy doesn't improve. And second, and more important, is a plan. It is not good enough for Mr Harper to tell me that we need to strengthen the economy to earn my vote, he also has to articulate a credible plan as to how that can be done. I might agree 100% with what he thinks is the biggest issue facing our country, but if I think he is 100% wrong about how to solve it, I can't vote for him. Why didn't Willard win the presidential election a few months ago? Was he not telling the truth? (well, he wasn't, much of the time, but let us carry on...) On the main issue of the election, he did tell the truth-- the economy sucks. Why didn't people vote for him? Did they not believe him? No, they believed him. They agreed that the economy sucks. What they didn't believe was that a plan of deregulation and tax-cuts would improve the economy. -k

As well, the sequester cuts were designed to be so unpopular that neither party would want to see them happen, so that both would be motivated to find a solution. But with the Republican Congress approval rating now flirting with single digits, they've concluded that they really couldn't become any less popular and have nothing to lose anymore. They have obtained their tax cuts without any tax increases, so I guess they "won". -k

Sure, but how much defending does America actually need? The United States is an unassailable military superpower, and would continue to be so even if it dramatically reduced its military expenditures. It appears to me that budgetary issues are a greater threat to America's security than any enemy that can be fought with guns and missiles. -k