kimmy

Joe Volpe's also the guy who howled that the Conservative MPs who posed holding a magazine that called the Liberals "The Libranos" were just like the KKK. Joe Volpe is also the guy who, when asked how it was possible that so many employees of a certain company, as well as their family members including spouses and toddlers, all donated the maximum allowable contribution to his campaign, said that it's because his candidacy inspires people. Even the toddlers? His campaign inspires youth. To say Joe Volpe is a slimy politician would be disrespectful to slime. -k

Maybe it just means he's consistent. Some people will support him, regardless. Some people will never support him, regardless. Chretien never got much over 40% either. -k

I don't think August is referring to the politicians themselves. I think he's referring to some of the absurdly shrill rhetoric that comes from some of our friends on the left. The kind of people who bike-lock themselves together on stage to prevent Christie Blatchford from speaking because they believe she's committing hate-crimes and a danger to the physical safety of students. The people who genuinely argue that Stephen Harper is like Adolph Hitler. The people at Rabble.ca. William Ashley. That sort of thing. I'm sure Bloody would point out that those people have their counterparts on "the right", and he's correct. -k

Somebody (Evening Star, maybe?) made a similar observation a while back. The opposition has tried to package legitimate issues right alongside nonsense like Bruce Carson's 22-year old girlfriend, and it makes all of it look trivial. "The boy who cried wolf" is a good allegory. When they cry bloody murder over Helena Guergis yelling at airport security staff or the Bev Oda thing, it just gets that much easier to tune them out, even when they actually have a point. -k

I definitely have to give credit to the NDP for taking the high road in this campaign. They have set themselves apart, and clearly people are responding. As the cliche goes, it couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of guys. As for the Liberals, I'm trying to figure out how things went off the rails so quickly. They started off with their 3 big policy announcements and promising to give Canadians a positive vision. That's great! But their first ad right out of the gate? Michelle McPherson in her underwear, as if further humiliating a 22 year old girl has anything to do with the many many faults of the Harper government. At the end of the day I think policies are what matters, and I think voting based on how you feel about the ads is kind of short-sighted. But if I were voting on how I feel about the campaigns, the NDP would be the first and only choice. -k

I'm sure he believes the polls say what they say. He probably means that he thinks those numbers will turn out to be fiction in terms of how people actually vote on May 2. He (and a lot of Liberals) probably sincerely believe that when it comes down to it, voters will decide the NDP aren't "real" and will oppose Harper by electing Liberal MPs. Progressive Conservatives once held a similar conceit in regard to Reform. -k

Gee, looking at that list it sure sounds terrible. How could they defund the "New Brunswick Coalition for Pay Equity", for example? Clearly they don't want women to earn fair wages, right? Well, maybe they looked at these groups, evaluated the type and quality of services they were offering, and concluded the money could be better spent elsewhere or that the service could be provided better in some other way. Having spent a couple of minutes looking over the "New Brunswick Coalition for Pay Equity" website, I'm kind of glad they have been defunded. -k

I find the proposition pretty disappointing, personally. Depressing is probably a better word. I don't want a clear distinction between the right and left. I want a reasonable balance between the two. -k

I'm not sure that there is a "problem" here. Your example (and I made the same point a couple of pages ago) describes a situation that could theoretically happen and would be viewed as a gross outrage by probably almost everyone. But it wouldn't happen. In principle I agree with the idea that the infant's life is as deserving of legal protection moments before birth as it is moments afterward. In practice, no doctor would harm that infant regardless of whether it's legal. Would Canadians really want to go through the conflict and controversy and strife of a public debate on the issue to prevent a situation that really isn't going to happen in the real world anyway? I'm not sure that's a productive use of Parliament's time and energy. -k

I did manage to watch this... and it certainly has potential. The premise struck me as being a lot like Dune, with the treachery and intrigue between rival noble houses and all that. It looks like a good cast as well. I like Sean Bean and Lena Headley. That said, I didn't exactly fall head over heels for it... and probably the reason is just the large number of characters they introduced in a short period of time and the amount of background and exposition they had to cover was pretty daunting. I'm interested enough to keep watching, and I expect that as they spend more time with the characters it will become pretty addictive. I don't think the latter scene was intended to show any romantic feeling. I think it was intended to show just the opposite: she's just an object as far as he's concerned. He doesn't think of her as his sister or even as a person, she's just a shiny bauble to bribe the barbarians with. Pet peeve tangent alert: it bugs me when a show uses hair-color as a substitute for characterization. They might as well have Sean Bean's family wandering around with white cowboy hats and Lena Headley's family and the Targaryan twins wandering around in black cowboy hats. Lena Headley looks kind of weird as a blonde anyway. -k

That's true, and I'm not suggesting that there's some epidemic of late-term abortions that's sweeping the land and we have to stop them before it's too late. What I am arguing is that I feel (and I think you agree, and probably most people including most doctors and most pro-choice people agree) that some point in a fetus's development abortion is no longer appropriate. I think most of us feel that at some point it stops being just the woman's choice and that killing a fetus past a certain stage of development is wrong. Shady feels the same... but in his view that stage is at about 5 weeks instead of 22 or 26 weeks. Deciding where that point actually is is a matter of personal opinion, not a matter of hard science. Perhaps if I was arguing for a fetus to be declared a person you'd have a point. -k

Don't worry, I have sources. -k

As I said before... once you guys decide you're independent, there's nothing left to negotiate. We're no longer "partners in the Canadian adventure" at that point. But you can join us in some really cool trade organizations, just like Mexico and the Dominicans. -k

Ok, look... first of all, that I'm not a pro-lifer. And I'm not a Bible-thumper. People know a bit about my political leanings and just assume things that are completely untrue. I dislike shoddy arguments. That's why I scoff at Shady's idea that a heartbeat is the difference that separates a person from human tissue. And it's why I don't care for the "violin player" story you referenced earlier. It's a shoddy piece of work. It has a number of flawed premises, the chief of which is to equate pregnancy with imprisonment. The protagonist of the story is in bed, tied to a fully-grown adult male. But how many fetuses are you aware of that weigh 160+ pounds? A pregnant woman enjoys a very high degree of freedom until all but the very latest stages of pregnancy... a point by which even many pro-life people consider abortion to be inappropriate. And it's that last point where I step off the pro-choice bandwagon, because I don't think abortion should be allowed right up to the last second before delivery. At some point we confer the rights of a person upon a fetus. "Preemies" born at 22 weeks are people and get every chance at life that modern medicine can provide them. A fetus at 38 weeks can legally be aborted. Does that seem right? Do you think that a woman should be able to decide, in the middle of delivery, that she'd like an abortion instead? If yes, then we obviously will not be able to agree on this. If no, then what point do you think aborting that fetus ceased to be appropriate? When the fetus could survive on its own outside the mother's body without medical help? When the fetus could survive on its own outside the mother's body with medical help? When it began to have brain activity? When its heart began to beat? I personally believe that a fetus ceases to be "just a blob of human tissue" at some point well before it emerges from the mother's body. I think that deciding that the fetus becomes a person when it takes its first breath is way more bone-headed than Shady's view that it becomes a person when its heart begins to beat, yet that's what our law says. Which is stupid. It's not that first breath of air, or the severing of the umbilical cord, or the water breaking, that transforms a fetus from "a blob of human tissue" into a sentient human being. And when we reach that distinction it's time to stop talking about it being just a matter of a woman's freedom or personal choice. A sentient human being should not be killed without compelling reason. "It's not convenient for me" is not particularly compelling when she has had months to come to that decision. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that abortions past a certain stage of development should be prohibited except by medical necessity. The overwhelming majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester anyway. -k

Aw thanks! I just heard of it yesterday. I'm not familiar with the source material, but I'm always up for fantasy and science-fiction themed programming. I plan to check it out. -k

Anencephalic babies have beating hearts. Lots of patients with irreparably damaged brains, like Terri Schiavo, have beating hearts. And the magic of modern medicine also allows people to live for considerable lengths of time *without* beating hearts. So what makes you so sure a beating heart is a great guideline of whether someone is a person? -k

"Once Québec gets sovereign, a no from them conducts us to independence." I'm confused... what definitions of "sovereign" and "independence" are being used? Are "sovereign" and "independent" not one and the same? I'm also curious as to what negotiations you envision will happen once Quebec becomes independent. From where I sit, the only thing left to "negotiate" at that point becomes what share of the national debt you guys take with you. -k

Of course not. Sadly, they (other than Peter Kent, apparently) won't say anything about it, for obvious reasons. And sadly, their opponents will let it slide for the exact same reason. I think it's a sad indictment of the state of politics in Canada all the way around. -k

Capable of forming a majority? Like, on May 2? Sure, I suppose he's capable, if 15% of Canadians change their voting preference in the next week and a half... -k

That was not an exhaustive list. Yourself and Canadien expressed doubt that Paul Martin had played "the Alberta card" in his 2006 campaign. I was just refreshing your memories. The real "kick" isn't that it occured. The "kick" is that this is apparently a viable vote-getting strategy in other parts of the country. Michael Ignatieff is the first Liberal leader in a long time (since John Turner, maybe?) who hasn't turned hostile to Alberta when it was politically advantageous. -k

I don't really care to participate in that sort of debate. My point is that while Bloody might be completely accurate in pointing out the irony of "less government!" types who support legislation against marijuana or who want kids to say the Lord's Prayer each morning in school or so on, abortion is (in the view of many people of a variety of political and philosophical backgrounds) not simply a matter of personal choice. -k

I treated two visiting friends to dinner at my local "Fatburger" and got 3 good-as-homemade burgers, a big basket of very good fries, and 3 bottomless soft drinks for about $30. My landlord always makes some comment about royalty when I barbecue steaks or ribs or shrimp or crab legs in the back yard. This coming from a guy who spends probably over $100 every week on pizzas and fast-food meals for himself, his wife, and their toddler. -k

I know you believe there's a dichotomy in the logic of "rugged individualists" who support restriction on abortion access. However, if one believes that a fetus should be considered a person (in a legal sense) then abortion legislation ceases to be a matter of "government regulation on personal issues". -k

I'm implying they're not attempting to use this to their political advantage because they're afraid of making Tamil voters angry. -k

That better be one tasty burger... -k