kimmy

Is that like a nature show narrated by Sarah Palin? That actually sounds like it would be a lot of fun. "It's spring, and as mating season approaches this mama lynx is feeling a little mavericky..." -k

Why? Because the cows are young? I don't think they're crybabies because they're expressing their views. Or even because they oppose animal products. I think they're crybabies because they're "shocked and upset" by a Christmas card. -k

-k

"Torture" is not a synonym for "kill". -k

I think that everybody except the most out-there libertarians and anarchists recognizes a necessity for government. Even those who are most prone to complain about "Big Gub'mint" recognize a need for public infrastructure, law enforcement, international diplomacy, and national defense, among others. Those who believe that we the people have the right to know what our government are doing at all times (like Dr Dre, for example) do not appreciate that total transparency could in many instances undermine the duties we the people expect our government to perform. -k

Coyotes aren't killed *just* for their fur. Coyotes are usually killed for no reason other than that they're pests. It's especially gratifying to hear that these coyote hides are obtained from aboriginal hunters and trappers, since (as Charter.Rights will tell you) not a scrap of these departed animals will be wasted. Even their tendons will be used in the fabrication of traditional native tennis rackets. And you can rest assured that these slain coyotes will live on as Spirit Guides for troubled aboriginal youth. So clearly, concerns about the coyotes are completely unwarranted. -k

To me it looked like everything her hands were doing on the strings matched perfectly with the music. It seems like teaching the kid to sync her hands that closely to the music would be more difficult than teaching her to play it herself. I mean, you can see her fingers on the strings. This isn't the Piano Playing Cat we're talking about. -k

WikiLeaks doesn't decide what to publish? Are you sure? This article has a WikiLeaks spokesman claiming that they asked NATO to review files prior to publication. You guys are telling me that WikiLeaks has no responsibility for what gets published on their site, but here's "Daniel Schmitt" claiming that they asked NATO to help them go through the files before they were published so that Afghan civilians wouldn't be put in danger. Are you guys mistaken, or is "Daniel Schmitt" a big fat liar? Do you have any definition for "whistleblowing"? Or do you feel that anytime anybody has private information that they wish to publish, it's "whistleblowing"? If anything is whistleblowing as long as person divulging the information thinks people have a right to know, then "Elizabeth" from the opening post is just a whistleblower, no different from anybody who contributes to WikiLeaks. But if you believe information needs to meet a higher standard to qualify as "whistleblowing", then let's talk about that. To me, the term whistleblowing involves the exposure of wrongdoing. If somebody becomes aware of wrongdoing, I believe they have a moral right to make it known. Some of the controversial information published by WikiLeaks certainly qualifies as whistleblowing to me. But not all of it. For example, one morning I woke up and heard about a diplomatic rift between China and North Korea resulting from Chinese officials discussing what's going to happen when Kim Jong Il dies, the potential collapse of the North Korean regime, the possibility of unified Korea under democratic rule, and so-on. I have a hard time rationalizing that as whistleblowing under any definition I'm familiar with. I'd consider that to be legitimate discussion by political officials who were probably doing exactly the job their government and their citizens employ them to do. I'm at a loss to see how the world was made a better place by that being leaked. I'm at a loss to see how leaking the names of Afghan civilians assisting NATO forces makes the world a better place. I'm at a loss to understand how things like that further the cause of justice, or qualify as "whistleblowing" in the commonly understood usage of the term. Can you help me out with that? -k

PETA can use their freedom of speech to criticize people who wear fur. I'm using my freedom of speech to criticize them, and to express my support for a politician who (like the majority of Canadians) is happily wearing dead animal skin. -k

Justin Trudeau has gotten himself into hot water this holiday season. Did he commit some religious faux-pas against Christians? Did he commit some religious faux-pas against non-Christians? Did he eschew Christmas turkey in favor of a "festive halal chicken"? Did he send out cards that say "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Winter Break"? Did he send out cards that say "Happy Winter Break" instead of "Merry Christmas"? No, none of these things. He sent out Christmas cards that show him and his family wearing fur. WEARING FUR! Wearing the skins of animals? I would wager that the large majority of Canadians have clothing and accessories made out of the skins of animals. Leather remains the favorite material for winter footwear and gloves, as well as belts, purses, and other accessories. And, fur is of vast importance in the history of our country, and continues to employ many Canadians. I would like to wish Mr Trudeau and his family a Merry Christmas. Don't let PETA ruin your holidays. -k

I'm not opposed to whistleblowing. But I am opposed to the notion that since "the government" is actually "the people", the people are entitled to know all the details of what's going on and that there shouldn't be any such thing as private communications amongst government employees. -k

That's not really true. The general public could be argued to be the boss of politicians, but that argument can't be made for everybody who works for the government. If the cops show up at Dr Greenthumb's grow-op, he can't fire them and send them home. -k

Did the girl create a wonderfully expressive musical performance? Or was it a completely mechanical reproduction of some other artist's wonderfully expressive performance? When a computer plays chess, is it actually playing chess, or just solving a series of mathematical equations? I'm assuming your computer monitor probably isn't bright enough to burn an after-image into your rods-and-cones. -k

Maybe your boss reads your email at work. But would your boss release your company email to the general public? And in this case we have ... apparently Julian Assange being the guy who decides whether there's a compelling need. And his decision is always "no", right? -k

Cool story, bro. -k

You can't blame a guy for trying. However, the part about using her license plate to obtain her personal information seems a little stalkerish. Isn't that something only law enforcement agents are allowed to do? Or are things just a little different in Australia? Isn't there a reasonable expectation of privacy when you're at work as well? Should government officials, bureaucrats, and so-on, entitled to communicate privately about their work? Personally, I would not want the threat of public reaction to prevent government agents from discussing matters that are important to their jobs. -k

Thanks for the tip. Looks pretty complicated... I am still working on the basics. I can almost change between open chords without losing time now, and have basic strum kind of under control. My plan is to learn a barre chord next, and then I'll give finger picking a look. -k

Thanks, interesting reading. -k

Since Muslims are unequivocally opposed to terrorism and universally offended by those who would disgrace their faith by committing violence in its name, they really appreciate the help of CSIS and the FBI in rooting out terrorists who may have infiltrated their mosques. -k

Well, why don't we ever seen any of these ads from them....? "There Is No Allah." "Ramadan Is A Myth." "There Is No Yahweh." "Hanukkah Is A Myth, Oil Can't Burn That Long." challenged religion on all fronts. Instead they pick the easiest way to push their message. Pathetic. As many have pointed out, "There's probably no God" isn't specifically addressing Christians. Christians, Muslims, and Jews all believe that God is the same dude, they just disagree on which publicist he hired. And since "God" is a generic term, it's not just directed at the Abrahamic religions either, it's also directed at those who believe in gods who ride around on cows as well. As for why Christmas? Why not Ramadan? Nobody knows or cares about Ramadan. Christmas lasts 2 months and is unavoidable. Whereas unless you're a Muslim or a CBC listener, you didn't notice Ramadan. Also, "Ramadan Is A Myth" would be a ridiculous comment, because Ramadan isn't a belief, it's an activity. "Ramadan is pointless" would be a reasonable statement. Is the organization behind these ads afraid of Muslims? Here's what they have to say about Islam: That's not exactly tiptoeing around. -k

I know how to obtain stuff through nefarious means. That's not a problem. I'd prefer not to, though. It's not just about the artist being compensated (the writers and actors have all been paid, I believe.) I'd like to support programming I like in a way that encourages the network to continue to provide it. Right now, SyFy has no way of knowing I enjoyed their show, and they've received no financial benefit from having provided entertainment for me. I would like to support their show in a way that helps make it profitable for them to keep providing it. I might buy a DVD box set when it becomes available, or pay to download the shows if or when that's available in Canada. -k

Harper rocks! This sort of thing could compromise Harper's carefully-crafted "dweeb" image if he does it too often. Jack Layton strikes me as more a kazoo or slide-whistle type. btw, I've had my guitar for 2 months, and I'm happy to report that I've learned the main riff from "Smoke on the Water". Even Prime Ministers have hobbies. Harper plays piano. Others have talked to spirits, throttled homeless guys, banged groupies, get drunk, hit people with Inuit art... it's good to have hobbies. Paul Martin had no hobbies, and look how he turned out. -k

Your link doesn't say what you think it says. It doesn't say the FBI gave them a real bomb. It says that the guy who thought he was going to supply them with fake ingredients for their bomb was assigned to other tasks. Nowhere in there does it say the FBI supplied them with a real bomb. In fact, your own link says: I have a book describing the operation in some detail. Instead of obtaining the bomb from any FBI agent, they built it themselves. Instead of buying the ingredients from an FBI informant, they purchased them from a New Jersey distributor called "Chemical City". They mixed and dried the chemicals in one of their apartments, and stored each finished batch in a rented self-storage unit. They ran a test in a state park. In short, no FBI agent drove up and pulled a working 1300 pound bomb out of his car. They built their own. The passage you think says the FBI gave them a real bomb actually says that the informant who thought he was going to sell them fake ingredients was assigned elsewhere. -k

Not sure what a "sting" has to do with anything. "Entrapment" is when a law officer persuades someone to commit a crime they wouldn't have committed without encouragement. Law enforcement officers are generally trained to not cross that line because it undermines or destroys the case they are attempting to build. What's your point? That it's better if the feds give fake bombs to kooks than letting them figure out how to get real ones on their own? I'm convinced. But what has that got to do with the claim of "entrapment"? -k

Not necessarily. It depends how it was carried out. If an undercover cop tries to talk you into buying drugs, that's entrapment. If you decide to buy drugs, and attempt to purchase them from an undercover cop who you think might be a drug dealer, that's not entrapment. A lot of crybabies howled "entrapment" during the Toronto 18 case because the guy they attempted to purchase 3 tons of fertilizer from happened to be an undercover agent. It wasn't entrapment. They approached the undercover agent of their own volition, and the undercover agent had only been put in place because they had already been nosing around trying to obtain fertilizer. You tell me, Gost: -this guy went out and obtained what he thought was a functioning bomb. -this guy put it in a location where he thought many people would be killed if it detonated. -this guy attempted to detonate it. Does it really matter who he obtained the bomb from? He set out on a course that he thought would kill a large number of people. There's no excuse. -k