kimmy

I don't think I've ever claimed to be free of bias or prejudice. You're surely not going to claim that you are either. If you have a point, feel free to make it. I'll consider your argument, if you have one, but I am certainly not going to make your case for you, or do research that you're too lazy or inept to do for yourself. Cut-and-pasting some random data from some random articles and acting as if you've proven something doesn't cut it. Listing some random voter intimidation cases is about as useful a contribution as listing some random football stats. If you've got a case you think is relevant to this discussion, let's hear about it. Otherwise, maybe you should get back to helping charter.rights redefine the field of modern physics, Neutrino-Man! Are you saying that the DoJ using race as a criterion for deciding whether to pursue a case isn't newsworthy? I think most people would disagree. Are you saying that something isn't newsworthy if it's an "allegation"? Many news items are based on allegations. Moving goalposts. -k

Ignatieff has already gone to Alberta more times than Chretien did the whole time he was PM. Unlike Dion, Ignatieff can speak for himself in English. Unlike Dion, it's not really very clear what Ignatieff stands for. Dion had a clear vision. It was a vision that everybody outside downtown Toronto hated, but at least you knew what he stood for. Ignatieff seems... as best I can tell... to be offering to maintain the status quo. "Steady as she goes, except with somebody other than Harper at the helm" seems to be his message. -k

So in which of your "counterexamples" has the DOJ declined to pursue charges for explicitly racial reasons? All of this-- blah blah blah bureaucrats are sleazy, blah blah blah he's becoming an instant celebrity-- fails to address the issue. -k

I certainly wouldn't run for office. And the stuff I've written here is enough to guarantee I'd never get elected even if I did. -k

The news story here is not voter intimidation, as disgusting as Samir Shabazz's words are. The news story is the DOJ declining to pursue charges and even vacating a judgment obtained against one of the defendants because, according to a former employee, the defendants were black. It may create the appearance that the DOJ has decided that redressing racial inequities of the past takes precedence over maintaining the rule of law. Or, to put it succinctly... Justice must be done, and justice must be seen to be done. -k

haha, ok, sure. You're not demeaning those women based on their appearance, you're satirizing right-wing hypocrisy. -k {I'm not accusing you of lying, I'm just satirizing the left's difficulties in practicing what they preach. }

About 20 minutes of disappointment, from the sound of it. -k

I certainly hope they're caught before somebody gets hurt, accidentally or otherwise. However, I still believe that seeing these guys as much different from the yahoos with spray-paint is giving them too much credit. -k

Holy shit, Jack, this was happening in 1870 and FOX News and the right-wing blogosphere just turned a blind eye?! Hypocrites!! I love how the left deplores seeing people attacked based on their appearance... except when it's people they don't like. Well, I did, actually... ...and I think we all recognize that the Justice Department would have handled this a lot differently in the case of the aforementioned "bubbas". They didn't just refuse to press charges, they actually vacated a summary judgment that had already been won against one of the accused. Do you think our hypothetical "bubba" would have got off the hook just by agreeing to not stand outside polling stations with his baseball bat on voting day in 2010? Do you think that decision to drop further proceedings against these people is questionable, especially in light of the DOJ lawyer's alleged comment that "I didn't take this job to prosecute black people"? Does that seem like an attitude consistent with the rule of law? Do you think this would have been handled the same for our hypothetical "bubbas"? I don't. I think there would be prosecutors jumping all over each other to further their careers by dealing with these hypothetical bubbas, Duke Lacrosse style. I think it would have become a national media cause celebre, Duke Lacrosse style. I'm not so sure. Sure, they should both be prosecuted, but you're not just asking for that. You're also asking us to view these two guys differently. You seek to rationalize the first guy's conduct in terms of historical injustice and unfortunate family circumstances without explaining what he actually did. It's "thanks to" his terrible that his environment that he did what he did, although we don't actually know what he did or how it relates to his terrible past. You seek to demonize the second guy's conduct by mentioning his apparent privilege and fortunate circumstances, without any explanation of what he did or how that relates to his privileged background. Suppose the first guy committed a sadistic murder-rape, and the second guy committed these murders during a brawl. Am I still feel sorry for the first guy and contempt for the second guy? Is it a joke that this issue received coverage on just one network? Do you think it's a joke that the Department of Justice handling of this issue is being questioned? -k

Deploying the bomb at 3am-- and phoning to notify the police 15 minutes beforehand-- is clearly a choice to avoid human casualties. There's 3 obvious reasons for making such a choice, as I mentioned. Likewise their previous actions-- setting fire to a public official's empty car, and bombing a remote powerline tower. Could they change their tactics in the future? It's possible. Is it likely? That would be sheer speculation. My guess is that no, it's not likely. Stealing or wrecking property and harming or killing people are two very different boundaries for almost everyone raised in our culture, and there's no reason to assume that just because someone has crossed one boundary it's likely that they'll cross the other. Certainly this group is a "concern", and destruction of property is still a crime, and the authorities should certainly be trying to catch them before they escalate their activities or hurt someone (accidentally or otherwise.) But in the big picture: how much should the typical Canadian be worried about this? These are stunts, designed to achieve media attention for the group and it's views. How much attention is actually warranted? Is this group much different from a group of yahoos who get together one night and deface a government building with spray-paint? If so, how? -Because they have a name? -Because they have a manifesto? -Because cleaning fire damage is slightly more expensive than cleaning up spray-paint? -Because they used a bomb instead of paint? IMO the bomb aspect is the only thing that makes this event newsworthy. I think that sensationalizing this would probably only serve to make bombs look more appealing to other knuckleheads who want attention. -k

If someone was harrassed by a paramilitary-looking goon with a weapon as they approached the polling station, then certainly they were oppressed. -k

One suspects that had white "bubbas" in Confederacy t-shirts carrying baseball bats shown up around poling stations to heckle black voters, the media reaction-- and legal response-- would have been quite different. -k

In a technical sense I think they are terrorists (and they'll be treated as such by the law when they're caught). But they've so far intentionally avoided targeting people. Al Qaeda was violent right from the start. Resistance Internationale and Al Qaeda might both be terrorist groups, but Resistance Internationale are basically vandals, and Al Qaeda are basically murderers. I certainly don't approve of property being destroyed, but I have a hard time feeling any "terror". The manner of their activities makes it clear that they don't want to hurt people, for probably one of 3 reasons: -they're philosophically opposed to it -they believe it would make people unsympathetic to their cause -they fear the legal consequences. There is, I suppose the chance that they could escalate into something more dangerous later, but it would be a major philosophical shift. I think it is more likely that they inspire some other angry kooks who aren't afraid of hurting people than it is that these guys themselves suddenly decide to start targeting people. At its core, I believe this was a showy grab for media coverage for their cause, not a real attempt to terrify people into changing their behavior. Obviously I as a tax-payer am not thrilled at having to clean up the recruitment center. But in terms of dollars and cents cost to society, I would bet that this is a drop in the bucket. For example, last year when those flash-mobs of Tamil Tiger supporters were blocking off Toronto freeways at rush hour: I bet the cost of repairing the recruitment center pales beside the cost of making thousands of Torontonians an hour late for work. -k

They'll no doubt get the full Department of Public Safety treatment when they're caught, but I have a hard time seeing this as real "terrorists". It seems like a bunch of mooks, to me. If they set their sights on human beings instead of empty buildings, I'll view them as terrorists. -k

Thanks for your thoughts, Tawasakm. It's nice being at a forum that has people with such a diverse range of experience and expertise. -k

Shut up and put on your f--ing fez and celebrate our Multicultural Mosaic, jerkwad. -k {ps: happy birthday. }

aw, thanks. People read page-turners. People read books that pique their intellectual curiosity or tickle their sense of humor. People read books about subject matter that appeals to them, or that they are emotionally invested in for one reason or another. I haven't read any of the Twilight books, but if I were guessing based on the movie, I would bet that its appeal is the latter. -k

Naomi is not as one-note as some people would have you believe. Why, just last year she posted a message that didn't mention Jews or Israel at all. -k

It seems like an appropriate name to me. It's also a hell of a lot better than what we'd get if we renamed it right now... "Multicultural Mosaic Day" "Ka'na'wa-sa-ta'ke Day" "Two Solitudes Day" Thanks, but no: I much prefer Canada Day to whatever politically correct super-inclusive dog-shit we'd no doubt get served up. -k

Really, what is there to say? For most of us I think it goes without saying that we are opposed to bombings. I don't think anybody here is actually in favor of bombings (this isn't Rabble/Babble, after all.) There was a pretty long thread about the RBC bombing. But it wasn't the bombing itself that generated discussion. It was side-topics, like whether the bombers were "anarchists" or "leftists", and whether the bombers were terrorists in a formal sense of the word. But the bombing itself? What needs to be said? Concerned doesn't seem like the right word. Annoyed is closer to my feelings. -k

Not to most. For those insecure about the "Canadian identity" (or lack thereof) clinging to archaic spellings is one inane symbol they can point to as a means of saying we're different from Americans. Other examples include the fictitious Canadian politeness and fictitious Canadian tolerance. The only practical reason to prefer one over the other is if you're doing a bilingual sign and want to save some space: "Shopping Centre D'Achat" Or, of course, as a cheesy attempt to add "class" to a new suburb. People might be willing to pay more money to live in "Centrepointe" than in "Centerpoint". -k

-k

This might bring back some memories... -k

I'm certainly not one who champions freedom of speech selectively. (Not like George Galloway himself, for instance.) I think that by far the best way to deal with George Galloway him would be to allow him to speak to Canadians so that they can see for themselves what a giant douchebag he is. I certainly wouldn't want to protect George and his supporters from themselves by forcing them to keep their mouths shut. I encourage them to express themselves loudly and enthusiastically. -k

It's ridiculous to claim that most of Dancer's posts are about Israel. He has a wide and varied history of contribution to this forum. For example, at least 5000 of Morris's posts are about pussy. -k