kimmy

What would you like to discuss, Jack? Let's hear it! -k

How's this even a topic, Jack? What, aside from Ruth Grumley's PhD makes this any different from any of the dozens of other times the lefties have brought up this laundry list? Is there anything in this laundry list that is new or deserving of its own thread? Or is the fact that it was presented by "Ruth Grumley, PhD~~!" the reason this is a new thread? Is there anything on this list that you'd actually like to have us discuss? Pick anything on the list, and I can direct you to an existing MLW thread on the topic. You want to talk about the substance of the complaints rather than Ruthie's PhD? Have at it! -k

By the way, my friend is making a list of reasons why Michael Ignatieff creeps her out, and you guys should probably listen to her, because she has a Masters degree (in chemistry.) -k

I don't dismiss any of it. All of it is long standing leftie gripery that we've all discussed many times before. None of it is new. So, thanks to Frances Ricks, PhD, for coming up with a list to remind us what the lefties have been complaining about, but really... so what? -k

The mention of her PhD struck me as a rather misguided attempt to portray her as an authority. Much like how the Truthies turned James Fetzer into a "professor of theoretical physics" and Barbara Honegger into a "Pentagon Colonel". -k

PhD in psychology...a retired child and youth care worker. Not that it makes her opinion any less valid... but trumpeting her PhD as if it made her an expert on political matters is a little shady. -k

That's the mental picture I have of dinnertime at the Bach household. -k

Entertainment value? So... have Rick Mercer interview the leaders as they fight it out on a paintball battlefield? Have Cabral "Cabbie on the Street" Richards from The Score hang out with the leaders in a hip urban environment? Hey, he's "ethnic". That would be fresh! I put the blame squarely on the shoulders of Elizabeth May. The less people the better. As Dilbert would say, the usefulness of a meeting is inversely proportional to the number of people present. A debate with just Harper and Ignatieff would actually be the ideal situation in terms of people actually getting significant information about what the possible Prime Ministers have planned for this country. Hopefully they ditch the kitchen table format. Actually, I would say it's your ex-girlfriend's fault. -k

I agree with that, as well as with some of the other comments. I disliked some of the questions, particularly the one about abortion. "The government should make it easier for a woman to get an abortion." Agree? Disagree? Well, I thought it was already pretty easy for a woman to get an abortion. How am I supposed to answer? And which party has abortion on their election platform anyway? Seems to me like this question and some of the others aren't an attempt to assess how your views match a party platform, they're an attempt to pigeonhole the ideological beliefs of the person taking the quiz. This thing decided I was a social conservative and an economic moderate on the little x-y chart... but still decided that I'm a Liberal. Even though I am closer to the Conservatives on the "social" axis, I am a Liberal because they put the Conservatives way off to the right on the "economic" axis... which seems odd, because the charge usually made against the Conservatives is that they're the opposite: socially conservative but economically not very conservative at all. I'm not sure if there's a combination of answers that would have actually put me out that far on the "economic" axis... I thought the answers to economic questions that I gave it were pretty right-wing already. I'm actually baffled at how this thing decided that I'm a social conservative. I told it I was ok with marijuana, gay marriage, and abortion. I guess it decided I'm a social conservatives because I "somewhat agree" that immigrants ought to speak English or French. -k

He's also calling for a moratorium on new developments ("until the environmental footprint is better managed", meaning probably forever.) It's nothing new from Jack. It's actually a more diplomatic tone than he took in 2008, when he flew his plane over Fort McMurray and declared it a disgrace that had to be stopped immediately. Funny that he didn't mention any of this when he was in Edmonton just last week tourstopping with Linda Duncan, proclaiming how he was going to "paint the town orange". Kind of a douche move to not mention any of that until he left town. Edmonton Strathcona, Linda Duncan's riding, has the university and Whyte Ave. There's a lot of students, academics, and young adults. It's not a riding full of tradesmen, rig-hands, or roughnecks. Still, Duncan won by a narrow margin last time, and probably a big part of the reason why is that people were tired of Rahim Jaffer (who had already earned a reputation as one of the laziest MPs in the country, and who spent more time with Helena during the campaign than he spent in Edmonton.) This isn't a safe seat for the NDP, but I don't think Layton bashing the oilsands is going to be any more of a factor this time than it was last time. I wouldn't bank on that "paint the town orange" thing happening, though. -k

It's a crappy job, Michael, but you can at least be proud that you were chosen. Think of it as recognition of your unsurpassed ability to put the substance of the discussion ahead of personalities or partisanship. -k

If I recall the last debate, Steve Paikin was widely praised by observers from across the spectrum. Somebody who does a good job deserves to be invited back. 'nuff said. -k

I'm not inferring that every government program will end up a disaster. I'm just pointing out that there's a large potential to waste a catastrophic amount of money for little benefit if this is not done very carefully. Those looking for a double income "could happen"? They likely already constitute the majority of parents with children in formal daycare environments. They'll likely continue to do so, at a discount subsidized by you and me, in the future. I don't believe struggling single parents are prime customers for organized daycare programs. The struggling single parents I know make things work by relying on the assistance of family and friends, because they really can't afford daycare right now. That's why I'd like to see means-testing. There are people who really could use help. I'd like to make sure they're the ones my money is actually helping. If I'm helping parents who need a daycare subsidy so they can earn enough to make a life, I'm ok with it. If I'm helping parents who need a daycare subsidy so that they can free up a few hundred bucks a month to outbid me for the home I'm trying to buy, I'm much less happy about it. If couples want to buy bigger cars or bigger homes or retire at 50 instead of 60, that's awesome for them, but I don't see why my money should be used to subsidize that sort of selfish objective. No. Why do you think that has any relationship to daycare? -k

Clearly they've made a choice that will cost them in a financial sense but which they consider to be worth the cost. The other couple has also made a choice, which will benefit them financially but have costs which won't show up on their bank statements or tax returns. I don't see why one choice should be financially subsidized while the other is not. In other words, I hope any subsidized daycare program would have a needs-assessment component. I'm not opposed to the idea of subsidizing daycare for a couple who need two incomes to survive. I don't want to subsidize daycare for couples who want a second income so that they can make bigger mortgage payments or buy a second SUV or retire sooner. I haven't read the specifics of the Liberal plan (are there specifics yet?) but I won't support it unless there's needs-assessment. If they can assure me that it really will work to the benefit of single moms rather than that couple that wants the bigger mortgage, then ok. Even that, however, they better do it in a financially sensible manner. It better not turn into Gun Registry 2. If this turns into big grey buildings being constructed with Canada logos on the front, it's going to be a disaster. Again, I'll need to read the specifics. However, I think it's important to point out that it would be *easy* for this to be implemented in a way that it would end up cheaper giving single moms money to just stay home and look after the kids themselves. -k

Well, I said I didn't figure you as somebody who didn't watch MMA, which isn't quite the same thing. It's just been my observation that those of you who are ... uh, "more experienced" tend to think MMA is for classless young mooks, and consider it the downfall of civilized society. It's also been my observation that those who are somewhat left of center often despise combat sports of all stripes (as well as hockey or football), and would prefer to watch soccer or cricket or some other "world sport". Or despise all competitive sports, especially professional sports. But those are stereotypes, of course. Bollocks. Anthony Johnson chose to do a bare minimum of work and made no real effort to advance his position or push for a finish. He was content to lay on top of Hardy for 3 rounds and let the judges decide. That's why the crowd was booing. Johnson has a huge size and strength advantage over Hardy (or just about anybody else at Welterweight) and could have pushed for a finish, but he didn't. The reason they were talking about Johnson's gas tank is that Johnson cuts a ridiculous amount of weight to weigh in at 170 pounds. He's not just huge for a welterweight, he'd be big even as a middleweight. In fact, I've read that he's as much as 220 pounds between fights, which is completely absurd for a welterweight. I'm not even sure how that's medically possible. His issues making weight at 170 are documented around the interweb, and you can read about it for yourself. When you cut that much weight, conditioning is going to be a major factor. If you saw his fight against Josh Koscheck, you understand. He dominated when he was fresh, but got tired and beaten up once he ran out of gas. It's why he has so many short fight wins, and why once the fight goes past the first round he's got as many losses as wins. Who says Hardy is a #1 contender? I doubt he'll ever fight for the title again. Here's how Hardy won the title shot. During the title fight in which Georges St Pierre was beating the living piss out of Thiago Alves, who'd been built up as some kind of human destroyer, Joe Rogan asked in disbelief "who do you put against GSP next?!" meaning he couldn't see anybody who stood a chance. A moment later, he answered that question: "Joe Silva says Martin Kampmann or Mike Swick". So Martin Kampmann vs Mike Swick had been built up as a #1 contenders match. But then Swick got injured, and Kampmann fought (and lost to) Paul Daley. Swick returned from his injury, and Dan Hardy beat him up. So both Hardy and Daley beat the original "#1 contenders", and then Paul Daley proceeded to get beat by Koscheck and then thrown out of UFC for being a moron, so Hardy was the one left, with Koscheck right after him. I was thinking more in the line of creating a general recipe for success that works in an MMA fight. Take a high-calibre NCAA wrestler (with all that entails: a great athlete with strong takedowns and lots of practice cutting weight) and teach him a bit of boxing and teach him enough BJJ to avoid submission attempts, and you've got an instant UFC fighter. It's a recipe that works very well, and has led to an awful lot of very similar fighters in UFC ranks, and a lot of fights that look like replays of each other. They threw Lesnar in with the sharks from day one, and he did pretty good. His wrestling base and natural athleticism are so strong that they're very difficult for any opponent to deal with. Carwin nearly beat him because he had enough takedown defense to give himself a chance to land some punches. Velasquez beat him because his wrestling ability is so strong that he was able to regain his feet. If Cain wasn't a top-tier wrestler himself, all his striking ability would have counted for nothing, because once Brock had him on the mat it would have been over. If he'd beaten Henderson, he'd have been as legitimate a challenger as anybody else in UFC at the time. Henderson himself would have got a title shot, except that UFC wasn't willing to pay him as much as he thought he deserved. Bisping is better than some of the guys they've fed to Anderson Silva over the years. (Patrick Cote, particularly.) Hamill beat Bisping, there's no question in my mind about that. So did Evans. Both those guys are monster wrestlers in the Light Heavyweight division. Henderson and Wanderlei also beat him, and they're more in his size bracket (like Bisping, they've fought at LHW but are probably more suited to middleweight.) I'd be interested in seeing Bisping fight guys like Sonnen, Marquardt, Belfort, and Franklin. -k

What proof of these early "miracles" is there? And ... why have the "miracles" stopped? -k

I can't imagine why Harper made the offer in the first place. There's nothing for him to gain by debating Ignatieff 1-on-1. Giving Ignatieff another opportunity to be on TV doesn't do anything for Harper. If it was Harper who was trailing in the polls, I bet he'd be a lot more interested in the idea, and Ignatieff not so much. -k

There's been at least a few cases of campaign workers or employees being caught writing to newspapers, phoning radio shows, or in one incident, even being interviewed in a "man on the street" segment, without disclosing their affiliation. This is one particularly egregious incident from a few years back... We have also had incidents on this forum where new members have signed up and posted almost identical messages to each other within a few days. Not hard to imagine how something like that might happen. I recall this happening when "the Coalition", 2008 edition, was taking a beating in the court of public opinion. We had a couple of new members sign up and post nearly identical messages where they explained why the coalition was actually great for democracy. hmmm. Now, no doubt these are real human beings who actually do support the party that they're expressing their support for. So ... is there an issue? Are they really "astroturf" if they're sincere in their convictions? -k

Bringing the escort into it forfeits their claim to the "high road". Sure to be a big hit with what I like to call "the Jack Weber demographic", however. -k

She was a colossal waste of time at the last leadership debate. I think that supporters of all the major parties should be pleased. It'll give the real leaders more time to make their case and to challenge each other. Kudos to the networks for putting their foot down. Enough's enough, Liz. -k

Sure you would. I agree, however, that it is a very good policy idea. Like others, I don't see a problem in paying for it by canceling the planned corporate tax cut, because I've become highly skeptical as to how much that corporate tax cut would actually benefit Canadians anyway. I don't see how Conservatives can complain about spending a billion dollars to help people obtain post-secondary education when they found a billion dollars to host a stupid worthless G8 turdstorm in Toronto. -k

I'm not surprised you'd think something like that, since anybody with the smarts of a ping-pong ball could read the time-stamp on the message and see that it took 4 minutes. Nice going, genius. Now you can put your PhD in Pseudoscience to work and come up with an explanation about how time travels faster for you because of localized gravitational variations caused by your big empty head. Moron. -k

Tell it to your Sharing Circle, Dances-With-Keyboard. -k

It was nice having a few months off from all the Native Activist types that show up from time to time and flood the forum with junk mail. -k

I think that making an effort to reach young voters is important, even if most of them don't actually give a crap. First off, it has symbolic importance. Secondly, some young people actually do vote, and reaching them young might encourage "brand loyalty". Just because the parties have done a lousy job of appealing to young voters in recent years doesn't mean it's an impossible task, it might just mean the parties have done a lousy job of it. As well, social media and online networking aren't just for young people anymore. Your parents and even your grandparents might be on Facebook and Twitter and Youtube. It's how people share ideas and opinions now. It's part of an effective communications strategy, and is probably a much more cost-effective way of campaigning than buying old-media advertising. That said, having an effective communications strategy is only part of the challenge. You have to have ideas worth communicating, and you have to have an audience willing to listen. I think a lot of people might be inherently unwilling to listen to the NDP regardless of what means they use to communicate. I don't think there's an issue in Canada right now that people are passionate enough about to raise voter turnout, especially young people. I don't think there's a leader in Canada who would energize young voters either. This is, after all, Canada. Even when things are bad, they're still pretty good. -k edit to add: I just noticed they only provided an iPhone app. Get on Android, you deadbeats! NDP voters can't afford iPhones!