kimmy

There were lots of articles asking to what extent Canadian Muslims were "radicalized" and whether home-grown terror was a real possiblity and so-on. I don't recall any that singled out specific individuals to be the poster-boy for home-grown radicalized Muslims, but the "could it happen here?" aspect was pretty apparent. As for the story in question... I think that newspapers love to print any article where you get to use the word Nazi, no matter how trivial the subject. -k

Poor choice of words on my part, maybe, but I think the idea is clear enough. Freedom of religion is a fundamental right in Canada, and one shouldn't have to change their religion to escape hatred. The meaning of "identifiable groups" is clarified in the law itself: In this section, “identifiable group” means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation. "White" is a color or a race. Islam is a religion. White supremacist beliefs aren't covered by any of it. As for whether the law actually gets enforced, that's kind of up to the people doing the enforcing. I don't disagree. If a minority is victimized by a white person, people are quick to claim hate. If the situation is reversed, people attempt to rationalize it in some other terms. -k

You call it "mayhem", I call it a "grassroots anti-poverty campaign". -k

What, exactly, were the Jews to be called out for in this thread? Have they installed a synagogue in a public school? Are they segregating Jewish girls in public schools during their period? Are mobs of Jews running around assaulting people for taking photographs? If you have something that Toronto's Jews are up to that we need to know about, please speak up. -k

I think prohibiting the incitement of hate, period, would be far too broad. It could have made (for example) the social media websites that outed Vancouver rioters illegal. I don't think inciting hate against serial killers or gangsters or rapists or white supremacists should be illegal. If those people don't like being hated, they should stop rioting, killing people, shooting up Surrey, raping people, and marching around in white sheets (respectively). Hating people based on who they are is wrong; hating people based on what they do isn't. I think enumerating race, ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation makes it clear that the law is intended to prevent people from being hated for their inalterable characteristics. When I expressed skepticism that white people would be covered "in practice", I simply meant that I think the law would not be nearly as vigilant in enforcing these rules if the target of the alleged hate were not some group perceived to be a persecuted minority. -k

Well, Bonam was the guy who suggested that even if the house depreciated by $120,000 you still come out ahead of renting. But clearly that isn't the case. I went to a mortgage calculator website and took a $200,000 house on a 25 year mortgage at 5% -- and got payments of $1260 per month. Then I took the same $1260 per month, spent $1000 of it on rent, and saved $260 of it at 4%. At the end of 25 years, the home owner's $1260 per month has given him a home, and the renter's $1260 per month has given him $134,000 in savings. Who came out ahead depends on the value of the property at the end of that time. But to make it a more realistic comparison, we should also include the other costs of owning a home. The home owner pays property taxes, strata fees, insurance, maintenance and renovations and repairs. The renter doesn't have any of those costs. So let's say the home owner pays $1260 a month for his mortage and pays $260 a month in various home owner expenses. And the renter pays $1000 a month rent and saves $520 at 4%. After 25 years, the home owner has a home, and the renter has $268,000 in savings. There's a lot of factors at work, but it's not as one-sidedly in favor of home ownership as everybody seems to think. Maybe in the future that home will be worth a fortune... but it might not appreciate in value much or at all. If I could travel back in time 10 years with the money I have now, I'd definitely buy a home. It would have been a great investment. But I'm having a very hard time convincing myself that buying a home right now is a great investment. Prices skyrocketted in the past decade but income didn't keep up and home prices relative to income are at an all time high... so it seems unlikely that home values will continue to go up. Mortgage rules have been toughened, all the construction that was started in the housing boom from 5 years ago entered the market and vacancy rates have increased. It seems unlikely to me that real-estate prices will rise much in the foreseeable future. It kind of looks like it has the makings of a bubble, to me. -k

Sure, why not? I don't hold Jews to be above mockery any more than any other religion. They just generally don't do much to deserve mockery in Canada. -k

In theory white people are an identifiable group. In practice, probably not so much. However, I'm not really aware of a big anti-white hate-propaganda problem in this country anyway. -k

She certainly does. Every cause needs martyrs, right? -k

The scumbag cop in the Kelowna incident was also charged with beating up someone in a separate incident. And he's under investigation for beating up someone else in another earlier incident. The fact is: the RCMP wouldn't have done anything about the guy if it wasn't for the video. Getting the guy caught on video, red-handed, and putting it on YouTube for the world to see is the only thing that made a difference. If it wasn't for that video and the ability of the internet to spread it to a wide audience, that piece of crap would still be out on the street kicking people in the face. (now he's sitting at home collecting an RCMP paycheque for doing nothing, instead. yay!) -k

The o-line had been pretty good up until tonight, but the Bombers smacked them around. -k

Well, for the sake of argument... Some might consider it "Islamification" if law enforcement officers are so buffaloed by claims of religious freedoms, or so afraid of charges of bigotry or offending Muslims, that they're unwilling to enforce the law. Some might consider it "Islamification" when a mob of angry Muslims arrives to force Muslim views upon non-Muslims, as well. -k

Eskimos lose The vaunted offense isn't so scary when Ricky Ray doesn't have time to throw. -k

A culture where men wear skirts? Hilarious! A culture where men wear bathrobes, women wear bags over their heads and have to be segregated during their period, and everybody has to face east and kiss the floor 5 times a day? Nothing funny aabout that. -k

What a heartwarming twist to the story. I am positively thrilled that our country is bringing in ever more of these delightful people. I think I am beginning to understand why some of the people here are so enthusiastic about bringing more Muslims to Canada. More Muslims = More LULZ. Trustee Michael Coteau can wish whatever he likes, but is he surprised by this outcome? They agreed to let an Imam come set up a mosque in their cafeteria. Why are they surprised that it works just like a mosque? I probably don't want to know the answer to that. If they'd let a voodoo priest set up shop, they'd probably be shocked when chickens started getting whacked. The few remaining Christians who still believe menstruating women are "unclean" and must be kept separate from everyone else are ridiculed as backwoods hillbilly yokels. If there are Muslims who hold the same belief, I think they are equally deserving of ridicule. -k

I always hear people say "renting is just throwing money away", but they don't seem to realize that roughly 40% of your mortgage payment isn't going into equity. I think the example I provided illustrates that paying off a 25 year mortgage doesn't put you that far ahead of renting and putting the difference into a long-term investment. Even if the house doesn't depreciate. And I think I really understated the case, because when you factor in property taxes, home insurance, maintenance costs, strata fees, renovations, and all the other costs home-owners have that renters don't, the difference between that $200,000 home and a $1000/month rental is a lot more than the $260/month figure I used. Ultimately I'm still considering buying a home, but I'm holding off. First off because I'm not sure my present situation is permanent. If I move or decide to go to school, I'd wish I hadn't bought. And secondly because I'm skeptical of current housing prices in the city I live in. The market doesn't seem sustainable. -k

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/08/02/yonge-dundas-smackdown -k

What people often forget is that money that is spent paying real-estate fees, taxes, and interest is just as lost as money that is spent on rent. A $200,000 home is going to cost you about $380,000 over the course of a 25 year mortgage, so you better have more than an $80,000 home to show for it by the time it's paid off. (for comparison sake, a $1000 rent over 25 years works out to $300,000 and costs $260 less per month, even if you disregard taxes, strata fees, maintenance costs, etc.) Now, if you invest that $260 per month, how much do you have after 25 years? If you put it into something that gets 4% interest, you've got $134,000. $134,000 cash beats an $80,000 house... -k

So would robbing liquor stores and gas stations, and it would do less lasting damage. There are some drugs we can't legalize. They are simply too destructive to the people who use them to even consider the possibility. Whether it be medical side-effects, or the debilitating effects of long-term addiction, we can't sanction drugs that ruin the users. I'm all for legalizing marijuana, but heroin and crack and meth are something completely different. We as a society should do our best to prevent people from becoming addicted to these drugs. And we as a society will fail. So what then? Your idea of a dogmatic approach-- the drugs are illegal, so we must enforce the law and punish the users whenever we catch them! --what use is that? First off, we won't catch them-- not many, at least. Second, if we do, so what? A guy smokes up in front of a cop and we throw him in jail for a week for possession of a controlled substance. What good does that do? He gets to eat and shower and has shelter for a week, which is probably a good thing, and maybe gets some medical care. And then what? We find him again a month later and put him in jail again? What's the goal? Deterrence? Rehabilitation? Neither of those objectives are served. Our jail space is at a premium already. What's the point of filling it even more with people who won't be rehabilitated, who won't be deterred from committing the same crime in the future, and who for the most part only pose a danger to themselves? There's no practical benefit to taxpayers of an approach like that. So what's the use? I think TimG said it well earlier. If handing out free crack-pipes to junkies will keep them from spreading disease, there's some benefit to society. If the person doing the handing out is able to make contact with the occasional junkie who wants to get into a treatment program, there's benefit to society as well. -k

and the first one now will later be last, for the times they are a-changing. -k

When I was in elementary school, my class was given a variety of tests one day. Weird tests. Guess which group of squiggly lines is next in the sequence. Choose which shape is not like the others. Guess which number is next in the series. Decide which word is most like the others. Decide which word is least like the others. And so on. And a while later, the teacher talked to me separately and informed me that they wanted to send me to a special program. Naturally I was terrified that they had decided I was a short-bus kid. But as it turns out, that wasn't the case at all. The tests apparently showed that my ability with squiggly lines and shapes and synonyms and antonyms was completely off the charts. As funny as it probably sounds to some of you, I was identified as a Gifted Child. For real! And so I spent one afternoon a week at a different school, with other kids who were apparently also really good at squiggly lines and shapes. I was the only kid from my school, and there was another kid from a different school, and there were 10 kids from the host school. Either they had a different standard, or some kind of really amazing demographic success, I guess. We read Shakespeare, and studied Aztecs, and attempted to have conversations about current events (which for the most part as I recall just illustrated that being good with squiggly lines and shapes doesn't mean you're a deep thinker). Anyway, I had the option to keep going at that, but I quit after a year. My regular classmates were convinced that I was in "special ed" and teased me. I felt like an outsider in the class, with 10 of the kids being regular classmates. Getting to the other school took a long time. The program wasn't very good. Shakespeare and Aztecs somehow never really stimulated my untapped potential the way they must have hoped. Overall I just didn't feel like I got much out of it. It was mostly just a chance to goof off one afternoon a week. Regular school was ok for me. I was able to get decent grades without trying very hard. If I could travel back in time, I'd probably grab myself and give myself a shake and try to convince myself that I could have be really exceptional if I just worked at it. I've sometimes wondered why nobody else did that either. The gifted students program was the one time the school system recognized me as anything more than a kid who was good at sports and tried to reach out to me, and I didn't recognize it at the time. My little brother was also gifted, and in some respects far more gifted than me. Unlike me, however, regular school was a serious challenge for him. Why was it a challenge if he was so darned bright? Because everything came so easily to him that he rebelled against it. He refused to do homework-- it was so completely boring for him that it was like a punishment. He was in constant trouble and detention for not doing work. He would get 100% on all the tests, but because he never did assignments his grades were poor. He developed terrible study habits. He had difficulty relating to other kids, and often became a target for bullies. So, based on my brother's experience, I know that being "gifted" isn't always as great as it sounds. School can be as difficult for somebody like my brother as it is for a dumb kid. Maybe moreso, because the school system is tailored to dumb kids, and doesn't really know what to do with somebody exceptional. So, I was reading this article: http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/02/23/no-room-for-gifted-kids/ It's apparently pretty contentious issue. Some districts refuse to identify any students as gifted because it would mean creating programs and taking resources away from other kids. Some parents object to the idea that gifted kids need special programming at all, when other kids are struggling to keep up and when special needs children also need resources. While there's an argument to be made that my brother's struggles in school were of his own making, I think there's also an argument to be made that the school system failed him, that he was a special needs child that the school system was simply not prepared to handle. Any opinions? Is the school system failing children? Is it the kids and their parents who should be the ones responsible for dealing with this "problem"? Is it a non-issue, since it's only a tiny percentage of kids, who probably won't grow up to be robbers and rapists anyway? -k

As mentioned in the other thread, I think your desire to lump Islamic terror in with "the right" is pretty inane. And deprived of that, where's the rest of this "right wing terror"? In Canada we've had the bank bombing in Ottawa and the bombing of pipe-lines in Alberta and BC. All have been accompanied by political messages and the warning of future attacks if policies do not change; that's the classic definition of terrorism. Anticorporatism and ecoterrorism are left-wing causes, yes? And in return you're going to give me ... what, the Toronto 17? You already know what I think of that. What else? Some abortion clinic bombers (how many of those have we actually had in Canada?) -k

Well, he's no Rex Grossman to be sure. -k

It's a ridiculous notion. The NFL has much higher calibre athletes. End of story. However, that's not the only thing to consider when you're deciding who to watch. For example, the Bengals or Bills could handily whip whatever teams end up playing in the Rose Bowl... but the Rose Bowl will matter to a lot more people than any game the Bengals or Bills play in this year. -k

I only saw one episode of the first season. The only part I actually remember didn't pertain to zombies at all. One of the characters was a wife-beating red-neck, and when an uppity woman confronts him for his behavior, he's about to "teach her a lesson" too. One of the other men in the tribe, who had been having a really really bad day for reasons I don't recall, saw the altercation and came over and beat up the redneck. And he didn't just beat him up, he beat him so brutally that everyone nearby (as well as me, the viewer, a regular UFC watcher) was aghast at how merciless it was. It was a really powerful scene. But like many things that I see once and think it might be interesting enough to see again... I didn't see it again. It happens a lot. -k