kimmy

I thought MP pensions were based on length of service, not the age at which you leave. -k

So Peggy McIntosh asserts the existence of: "“an invisible package of unearned assets, which I can count on cashing in each day, but about which I was ‘meant’ to remain oblivious. White privilege is like an invisible weightless knapsack of special provisions, maps, passports, code books, visas, clothes, tools, and blank checks”" But when it comes to providing examples, they come up with: What a lame list of "privileges". First off, this must be a pretty dated list, because going by this list, black and Asian people now enjoy many aspects of White Privilege as well. Many of those that aren't are pretty nebulous as being "privileges". Is it to my advantage that the most readily available bandages are designed for a "white" consumer? Those bandages match my skin about as well as they match Wesley Snipes. The fuzzy-wuzzy self-esteem boost that comes from knowing that our country's constitution was drafted by people of ostensibly the same race as me? If I ask to speak to "the person in charge" and somebody of a different race comes out, so what? Who cares? I mean, how is stuff like this supposed to be "an invisible knapsack of special provisions, maps, passports, code books, visas, clothes, tools, and blank checks”"? The examples just don't live up to the rhetoric. -k

I'm still hoping to learn more about the wonderful perks I'm entitled to just for being white. Does it work kind of like a Costco card? Are there forms I have to mail in? Are we talking something good? Or are we talking like "your 10th cup is free" type stuff? -k

Several years ago I had a conversation with two non-white friends, both 2nd generation Canadians, who both agreed that "so where are you from?" was annoying, particularly from somebody who won't accept "Trail, BC" as an answer. So I no longer ask that question. Not exactly sure about "all the benefits I get just from being white," though. -k

I wish I could poke fun, but as an Eskimos and Oilers fan, I have nothing to laugh about. -k

Well then it must have been extremely upsetting for you to have had your ass beaten (figuratively speaking) so badly by those you consider your inferiors in this thread. Let's recap. You entered the thread making inaccurate statements about MMA, insulting people who enjoy the sport, and claiming that if people disagree with you it's because they've been conned by UFC propaganda. And when your claims were disproven and your flimsy-ass arguments were shredded in short order you backtracked on all of it and said "heey I'm just saying there should be rules k thx bye" And then you vanish from the thread. But then you return with... Which is a truly splendid way of proving to everyone that you really don't know what you're talking about. And, having that pointed out for you, you slink off again. But instead of having the sense to stay gone, you're back with... Considering how spectacularly badly this thread has gone for you, I'm having a hard time seeing where your sense of superiority comes from. I mean, I literally can't recall if you've posted a single accurate piece of information or presented a single defensible argument in the whole thread. Based on what you've shown us so far, I'm not sure you're the right guy to be calling others inferior. It appears to me that (to paraphrase my mom) you have an arrogance that's not particularly well deserved. So how does a guy who's made such a fool of himself in this thread feel entitled to go about dubbing others inferior? Why don't you explain it for us, smart-man? -k

What a conveniently selective memory you have. -k

I'd pay money to see that happen. Jack's a boxer... and you're some creepy dweeb who looks vaguely like the kind of dude Chris Hansen is always telling to "have a seat over there". I know who my money is on. -k

He wasn't attacked to shut him up. He was attacked because he acted inappropriately. People called for him to lose his job because his actions were at odds with his job description. A Judge doesn't get to make off-the-cuff observations during a trial. A cop doesn't get to say whatever he feels like when he's on-duty. A McDonald's cashier doesn't get to say "you don't need a Big Mac. Order a salad, fatty." When we're acting as representatives of our employer, we're expected to conduct ourselves in a manner consistent with our employer's values and objectives, and if we can't we are likely to find ourselves seeking different employment. In Houle's case, his employer's most sacred value is supposed to be the free exchange of ideas. His statement to Coulter was in direct opposition to that value. Of course it's hard to be too angry with Houle when we have since learned that he was acting under orders from Alan Rock. How classy of Rock to tell Houle to do that, then lay low and leave Houle to take all of the criticism for the decision. I am so thankful that that guy never became Prime Minister. He's certainly not "my friend". I wondered if he might be yours, from the enthusiasm with which you championed him. You and he are kindred spirits, judging from your attitude toward views that don't agree with the social agenda you support. Everybody on this message board agrees that there must be some limitations on freedom of speech. That's not what makes you the worst. What makes you the worst is that you're the only person on this whole message board who'd argue that people shouldn't be able to see Jesus Camp because it might prejudice them against Christians. You're the only person on the message board who'd argue that Seamus Wolfe was a champion of free speech when he banned those posters because he was just expressing his views. And I suspect that's the real motive behind the thread. "See, guys? I'm not so bad? Look, everybody's doing it. See?" I have yet to hear how Mr Winnicki's freedom of speech was denied in any way. You seek to argue that since Mr Winnicki is a white supremacist, and since some white supremacists are Holocaust deniers, Mr Winnicki may have been prevented from attending a private function because he may or may not have expressed the view that the Holocaust was a hoax? Who cares? Freedom of speech doesn't provide any freedom from the consequences of speaking, which might well include the fact that people do not wish to be associated with you. The premise that Steyn has somehow trampled on free expression here is such tortured logic that it probably only makes sense to you. Another wrinkle you haven't considered: Steyn didn't refuse Winnicki entry to the function anyway. The event organizers did. -k

"Real life" situations got introduced to this thread for one reason: Da Shwa has claimed that striking a grounded opponent is cowardly, unmanly, and UnCanadian in any and all situations, and that Real Canadian Men would never engage in such an act because it is completely at odds with Real Canadian Values. "Real life" situations easily disprove his claim about how Real Canadian Men act. Basically it comes down to this: having utterly failed to make their case with the initial argument of MMA being excessively dangerous, and having nothing of any factual substance on their side, Bandelot and Da Shwa first came up with a bunch of ridiculous slippery-slope arguments, and finally have nothing left except this appeal to some sort of code of gentlemanly conduct that Real Canadian Men supposedly subscribe to. If that's going to be the case they wish to make, then the discussion of how Real Canadian Men actually conduct themselves is entirely reasonable. If Bandelot and Da Shwa wish to retract the claim about how Real Canadian Men actually fight, and try to make some kind of rational argument instead of an appeal to "Canadian Values", then the discussion of "real life" situations becomes irrelevant. But they already failed miserably in attempting to concoct a rational argument as to why MMA is evil while boxing is still "The Sweet Science", so this "cowardly!" "UnCanadian!" thing is really all they have left. -k

Houle was slammed by academics, as well as commentators from across the political spectrum, for being at odds with the fundamental mission of a university. That you persist in seeing it as just a guy speaking his mind is just more evidence that you just don't get it. Marcus Wolfe? My apologies. I meant Seamus Wolfe, the U of Ottawa Students Union president who banned posters publicizing Ann Coulter's event from the campus. You lauded Seamus Wolfe as an exemplar of free speech, since he was expressing himself by banning the posters. You also lauded students unions who ban pro-life clubs from campus as exemplars of free speech for the same reason, as well as making other incredulous statements in trying to excuse the SUs who banned pro-life clubs. And in light of our recent discussion about Undercover Mosque, I think we get a pretty clear idea of where you stand on the exchange of ideas that you don't agree with. I especially liked the part where you said that you were a moderate because you didn't think Jesus Camp should be shown either. I mean, to me that just kind of said it all. The reason nobody has given you the answer you want is that your premise is fundamentally broken. Your argument that Steyn is a hypocrite rests on the premise that barring Winnicki from the event is a violation of Winnicki's freedom of speech. It isn't. -k

I sell my body as a labourer, making use of my husky strength to do what other women can't. I have a hunch that men who work as escorts or strippers or nude models are likewise not held in particularly high esteem by society at large. As for pictures... I don't really have a good sense of how widely men circulate pictures of their privates. I've never had a friend come up to me and say "hey, my boyfriend just sexted me a picture of his dong. Wanna see?" I know that some guys do send pictures like that around, or show off their goodies while they're chatting on their webcams, or whatever. I bet lots of guys would invite a stripper to dinner! I do think you're underestimating the sex drive of women, Argus. There might not be the "gay bathhouse" scenario where women just show up and have sex. (well, there's clubs like that, but that's beside the point.) But women spend a lot of time thinking about sex, and as you've noted, it's not difficult for women to find a sexual partner if they're in the mood. It's just done with a little caution, for a variety of reasons. Sure he can. There are countless examples of physically unattractive men who've ended up with beautiful women. As long as he's got money, he's attractive to somebody. From a "natural selection" point of view, male promiscuity makes a certain amount of sense. The more seed he can spread, the better his chances of staying in the gene pool. Female promiscuity, on the other hand, doesn't. The rate at which she can pass along her genes is capped, regardless of how much sex she has or how many partners she has. For her, the best chance of staying in the gene pool comes from improving the survival odds of the offspring she has. Her best chance of doing that is probably to identify a mate who is a good protector/provider, and gain his loyalty. I'm sure the biological basis of sexual dynamics is a complex and controversial subject, of course. It can't be as simple as just that... but I suspect there's a hardwired drive to find a good provider, and that the unattractive little nerd with a 6 figure income probably fits the bill. -k

From what I've read, even a lot of pro-lifers were against this amendment. -k

You, sir... You... ...sir! YOU!!! ....SIR!!! Meh. At the end of the day, all he's guilty of (aside from rank hyperbole and cornball theatrics) is breaking his employer's policy. Why would a news organization have such a policy in the first place? To maintain an appearance of impartiality. Laudable... but for MSNBC, I think the cat's kind of out of the bag anyway. Does this show Olbermann's political biases? Yes. I think all of us already knew Olbermann's political biases. -k

I think you are correct. The Tea Party's rise is ultimately going to be at the expense of the Republicans, not the Democrats. Their candidates might excite the far right, but don't appeal enough to the general population to win. -k

Uh, isn't this the same message that got Mark Steyn a trip before the human rights tribunal? -k

I've always admired Tarek Fatah. And I agree with almost everything he says here, especially toward the end. I don't think he's blaming Europeans for anti-Semitism among Muslims or trying to deflect criticism from Muslims. I think he's saying that Muslims have seized on things like "The Protocols" to justify their believes. -k

... Is it just me? Am I the only one wondering how this is a "freedom of speech" issue if the guy didn't want to speak? Of course, if Mr Winnicki is trying to frame this as a "freedom of speech" issue, then maybe he hadn't planned on being just an observer at this event. But this isn't about Mr Winnicki's freedom of speech at all, it's about a group barring a potentially disruptive presence from their event. The attempt to equate this with the controversy at the U of O is doubly inept, because not only is this not about Mr Winnicki's freedom of speech, but neither was the U of O controversy about freedom of speech. It was about the U of O's failure to live up to the ideals that universities are supposed to uphold. Ultimately, Nicky, given your posting history on the subject, I suspect that your real interest here is just to make yourself feel less guilty about defending folks like Marcus Wolfe and Francois Houle in prior threads. -k

Thanks, Shakey. I do try to be objective, but when it comes to these immigrant and immigration related threads I do have one persistent prejudice, namely that MikeDavid00 is an idiot. http://www.pacificmalltoronto.com/about.html Now, see, that I could buy as a perfectly reasonable explanation. But this... ...not so much. I could see a justification for denying an application if the nature of the business didn't fit the theme of the place. But denying an application because the person who applied had the wrong country of origin? I would think that could end up in court. -k

Well, fuzzy-wuzzy Imam Feisal Rauf, for one. He's a lefty, right? I remember y'all telling me what a liberal he is. I'm sure that if we go back through the debate on Sharia in Ontario we'll find folks trying to soft-sell it using arguments like "it would be strictly voluntary" and "people are just opposed to this because they have the wrong idea about Sharia and they hate Muslims" and so on. Do we really need to go have a look and see which useful idiots were on the side of Sharia at the time? edit to add: oh why not... Marion Boyd. Do I win something? -k

Probably because I was away from the forum for a week. I won't be around much for the rest of this week either, so don't feel lonely if I don't get back to you any time soon. That the police and CF have the authority to do so does not alter the claim that it's "gutless and cowardly". That they may be required to do so in the line of duty touches on the issue of necessity, and it's naive to claim that it's never be necessary for a civilian to strike an opponent when they're on the ground. Well, if someone is actually manslaughtered, at least. Beating someone to death-- whether they are standing or on the ground-- will probably lead to criminal charges. If someone is lying on the ground helplessly, then of course continuing to pummel them is excessive. But if they're lying on the ground with the intent of getting right back up and attempting to harm you, then it's absolutely not excessive to use your advantageous position to protect your own safety. You keep attempting to black and white this... it's always "gutless and cowardly". It's always stomping an unconscious person til you get convicted for manslaughter. People must sometimes rely on judgment. If your opponent is barely conscious, then continuing to pummel him is poor judgment that could probably get you put in jail. If your opponent is still fully able and still fully intent on fighting you, then letting him up is absolutely foolish. This is the first season where the NHL has had any rule at all prohibiting hits to the head. Prior to now, you could hit a guy in the head as long as you used your shoulder. You can still hit a guy in the head, but they have slightly reduced the circumstances under which you may do so. Every one of those crippling concussions Scott Stevens dished out were 100% legal under the rules of the day, and most of them would still be legal today. What was the reaction when he dished out those shots? Were people saying "oh no, this is terrible"? A lot of non-hockey fans were. But most hockey fans were saying "it's part of the game. He should have kept his head up." It's not an aberration, it's "part of the game". There's no rule against goons going out and picking on smaller players. It's part of the game. As you already explained, it's such a part of the game that teams have enforcers on their roster in anticipation of this inevitability. Why did Steve MacIntyre smash Raitis Ivanans' head like a pinata? Because Ivanans had gone out minutes earlier and injured two players who are 50 pounds smaller than himself. Why did Ivanans go out and injure two players 50 pounds smaller than himself? Because it's his job. Why does he have a job doing that? Because it's part of the game. You already attempted to rationalize this gutless behavior when you said If such gutless behavior were not so prevalent in the Real Canadian Sport, Don Cherry would not have to go on TV to plead for Real Canadian Men to stop attempting to cripple each other. Why should MMA do what you consider "the right thing"? I mean, if there was a compelling medical argument to be made, that might be a good reason, but yourself and Sir Bandelot attempted to ride that pony and failed miserably. What makes your claim to know what's "the right thing" any more valid than those who believe that hockey ought to "do the right thing" and institute a complete ban on fighting? What makes your claim to know what's "the right thing" any more valid than those who feel that a ban on boxing would be "the right thing"? -k

Punching is most powerful when it's a whole body motion. You can't put your whole body into a punch when you're on the mat trying to attain or retain top control of a guy. And in that fight, if you watch it again, I think you'll notice that Carwin was mostly just flailing away. There was nothing methodical about it, he was just throwing leather frantically. He landed a few good clean shots, but I think it was actually far less than it might have appeared. Lesnar did block a lot, or move his head enough to avoid the full force, or at least pull down on Carwin enough to reduce the power of those shots. I think Carwin was thinking "holy! I've got him down! This might be my only chance! I have to throw everything I've got at him right now before he gets back up!" If he'd started working on MMA as soon as he left college, he'd be something else. But at this point he is what he is. Which is still one hell of a tough fighter. The other thing I've been wondering is how much his illness last year took out of him. I don't think he's ever recovered all of the muscle mass he lost during that ordeal. For Brock's sake I hope the rematch isn't any time soon. He's got a lot of things to work on before then. Yeah, when I saw Brock get the takedown, I thought "Cain is in deep trouble." And when he got free almost effortlessly, I thought "Brock is in deep trouble." His only chance to win that fight was to keep him on the mat... and when it became apparent he wasn't going to get takedowns easily or hold him down when he did, I knew he was in a lot of trouble. He's a one-trick pony. But his one trick is so good that it's been enough to handle everybody he's faced, until Saturday. -k

Always? What if someone were to mention some lefties' support for Sharia as an example of their willingness to throw women under the bus in the name of tolerance? Wait, did we already have that discussion? -k

Is it being trotted out as an threat to Canadian society? Or is it being trotted out as an example of people unwilling to adapt to our society? -k

I'm a little too young to remember this from the first time around... I'm definitely too young to remember this from the first time around, but it's such a catchy tune: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXtpoO_DlDM I couldn't find one that had the video to go with the music. However, I gather that the credits started with Funny -k