kimmy

What's going to happen? Will Israelis just give the country back to the Palestinians? -k

Barack Obama is certainly free to identify himself as a black person. I am again reminded of Colin Powell's statement on the subject, which is "In America,... if you look like me, you are black." I interpret his statement to mean that it's not your choice, it's something people will decide whether you like it or not. I do not fault Obama for his choice on the census form. However, it does make me wonder at his sincerity during his famous Rev. Wright speech where he invoked his white mama and white grandparents and talked about his family being "every race and every hue". -k

It seems like your argument is something along the lines of "hey, man, I'm pretty happy with the way things are, and I don't want to re-open this debate, but the issue isn't settled and it'll probably get re-opened sooner or later, and so we should settle the issue and since people think Europeans are progressive, we could have rules like in Europe. It probably wouldn't actually settle the issue anyway, but at least we would be doing something, even if it didn't settle anything." If the best rationale for doing something is that other people did it, or that it's an alternative to doing nothing, that's not a very good rationale. People probably would have responded better if you had started off the thread with this. It seems sincere. The attempt to rationalize it with some sort of justification that they do it in Europe or that we should do something now because there might be a controversy later comes off as deceitful. I don't think anybody here is going to stand up for ignorance, but knowing what other countries are doing and emulating them are two very different things. "But they do it in Europe" in itself is not an argument in favor of anything. Perhaps people would be more receptive if you explained what the benefit to Canada would be if we followed Europe's example. But remember that "if we don't do something, there might be controversy later..." is not going to work, because there *will* be controversy later, regardless. -k

The only word I can think of to describe their reaction is "infantile". I can't comment on just how many "bad apples", but clearly some of these people simply do not belong in western democracies and should find some venue more suitable to their world view. They should simply leave. -k

Lots of our fiction does feature homicidal vigilantes who are portrayed as heroes, even though they are, essentially, psychopaths. Dexter is a homicidal vigilante who is clearly a psychopath, but certainly no hero. The viewer's dilemma-- how much can they identify with this person who is basically a monster-- is one of the things that made the series so fascinating for me. Dexter's father's dilemma-- what to do when he realized his son was a genuine clinical psychopath who was probably going to end up hurting people some day-- is an interesting one. I think most parents in that situation would be in a state of complete denial, probably convince themselves that mutilating small animals was just a phase that he'd grow out of if they just gave him the right lecture. For me the best part of the show was Dexter attempting to blend in with "normal". His thoughts on all the masks people put on for the rest of the world. His attempts to fake feelings he didn't actually have, to avoid discovery. It was something I really related to. Because although not a psychopath-- as far as I know at least-- I put on many masks during a typical day too... for example, my evening job as Happy Waitress Kimmy... is not easy to do when I'm not feeling particularly happy or not feeling up to flirtatious drunks. Responsible Day Job Kimmy is also a mask sometimes. Trying to show one face to your subordinates who might lose respect if they thought you weren't confident, trying to show a different face to your boss who might fire you if he knew what you were thinking, or so on. Or your social life... what to show and what to hide from the people in your personal life... I think all of us wear a lot of masks. Not quite like Dexter, but there's a similarity. -k

Indeed. To fit in with what's "normal" is to fit in with nothing at all. Nobody walks down the street feeling kinship with other people wearing the same western clothes that 95% of the population wears. "He that has many friends, has no friends," as the saying goes. On the other hand, being part of something with some niche to it... whether it be the football team, the goths, a sorority, the Dungeons & Dragons club, the Sri Lankan community, the MSA... these are groups that you can actually fit in with. Wearing western clothes in Canada doesn't mean you fit in, it just means you don't attract attention. -k

Why do we need to "join the rest of the civilized world"? Are we so unsure of ourselves that we must emulate others rather than make our own choices? Why does it matter that many of these countries are considered "progressive"? Are you under the impression that the left will agree to anything if you say "but that's how they do it in Sweden"? I'm not necessarily opposed to some sort of restrictions along these lines... but you seem to be leading with some really weak material here. And ... how sure are you that this issue has been "settled" in the countries you listed? Do you think imposing a similar restriction (say, 12 week limit) here in Canada would "settle" the issue? I doubt it. I doubt it would be any more settled than it is right now. If I believed a fetus was a person, how could I accept rules like the ones you've listed here? How could any committed pro-lifer accept a compromise like that? How is 12 weeks be any better than 25 weeks? How could a committed pro-lifer agree to exceptions like "except in cases of rape or incest..."? Do you think that if Canada had regulations like the ones you've listed here, do you think pro-lifers would be satisfied that justice has been achieved? Fat chance. They'd look at it as the first step and keep lobbying to make it tougher. There's no compromise that can "settle" this issue. Ever. -k

Keeping a successful TV show on track seems to be almost as difficult as creating one in the first place. There's countless examples of TV shows that caught people's interest for a time but then stalled out because they didn't know what to do once they finished a story arc or didn't know how to develop the characters any further. ("Ok, now that they've finally slept together... what do we do now?!") Having a start, a finish, and a plan from how to get from one to the other is crucial for a book or a movie to work. Doing the same thing in a TV series is a little harder... (what happens if you get renewed for another season?) I think my favorite TV series have tended to follow the format of having a single episode story that more or less stands on its own, as well as a season-long story that is advanced a little bit each episode. Dexter is a prime example. I watched the first season of Dexter, but have not seen any since. This is what I wrote a couple of years ago (in one of those "everything nowadays sucks, it was better in the good old days" threads that pops up here from time to time) : -k

I was a little worried once upon a time. But now that I am Gifted With Prophecy™ I know I have nothing to fear. I will not come to harm at the hands of a dweeb from the internet. Unfortunately, my fate is too grisly and embarrassing to be revealed here. -k

I assume your proposal is intended as satire. It illustrates a point. One's success in life-- material success, at least, not overall happiness-- might be influenced to some degree by race or gender. But it's influenced by a lot of other factors too, and most of them are hard to quantify. I've said before that I think competent parenting is probably the biggest advantage a child can have. Coming from a financially stable family. Possibly having siblings or not having siblings or some combination of siblings. Physical health. Mental health. Having an outgoing, aggressive, confident personality is probably a huge advantage. Coming from an area that has better schools, or worse schools. Having the right, or wrong, teacher influence you. Having the right, or wrong, classmates, or getting mixed up with the right, or wrong, crowd at school. Having the right, or wrong, social influences in your neighborhood. Being victimized in some way as a child probably has a dramatic affect on where your life heads. There's probably an endless number of things you could look at. There's a huge number of possibilities that could influence a person's chances for success in life... and to somehow decide that someone is "priveleged" based on just two-- race and gender-- is pretty comical. -k

We still do a lot of work in imperial for legacy reasons. Existing surveying and land titles and standards and all sorts of things were done in imperial units and the work to convert them to metric would be both monumental and pointless. We use inches and pounds for our height and weight because our parents did, and possibly because our bathroom scales are old or American and only have pounds. And possibly because our professional sports heroes compete in American leagues where their heights and weights are given in inches and pounds. English athletes are still weighed in "Stones", btw. However, anybody who has ever attempted scientific calculations in imperial units understands why metric is a much nicer system. -k

If someone is unwilling to abide their party's wishes, they shouldn't run under the banner of that party at all. They can run as an independent. -k

The party is all-powerful in our system, and removing party names from ballots will not change that one iota. If those voters want Harper to be prime minister, then voting for the CPC candidate is the right vote whether he's a moron or not. At the end of the day, choosing the party and party leader that fits your ideological outlook is more important than supporting the most capable back-bencher. There are exceptions, of course. If your local candidate is particularly notable, it might be worthwhile to support them anyway. Anne McLellan was able to get elected a number of times largely on the strength of the idea that having an MP in cabinet would be more valuable to the constituents than having a back-bencher in opposition. And there are many examples of people voting for the MP rather than the party. Elsie Wayne or David Kilgour, for example, MPs whose personal popularity in their home ridings was more important to their electoral success than their party affiliation. -k

Whereas if party names were hidden on the ballots, people would vote with meritudinous intentions, such as "she sounds hot" or "he sounds Irish like me!" or "my 3rd grade teacher was named McGuff too!" My thoughts are that in our system the party's position is far more significant than an individual candidate's relative merits. Hiding party affiliation from someone in the ballot box could serve no good purpose. Imagine Dr Greenthumb's reaction when he leaves the polling station after doing his civic duty and discovers that he accidentally voted for the candidate from the party that opposes legalizing pot. Actually, that would be pretty funny. Maybe you're onto something. -k

The debt is not held by the Bank of Canada. The debt is held by private citizens and corporations in the form of government bonds. If you stop paying interest on those bonds, you're depriving some poor grandmother of her retirement income or wiping out the college fund a parent is building for their child. You'd also be breaking a legal agreement between the government of Canada and the bond holder. You'd also be undermining or destroying confidence in our financial system. This is the kind of step taken by desperate third-world governments. We're not third world, and we're not desperate. -k

Oleg is definitely a personality. There's no questioning that... Oleg having been around the arts community doesn't make him an authority on the causes of homosexuality any more than my years waitressing make me an expert on substance abuse. If Oleg wishes us to regale us with tales of his experiences with the fruity arts community, or his stories about how his butchy ex-wives have ruined his life and left him a pauper, he's welcome to. But if he's going to make claims like "AS a math professor or musicans brain changes and becomes formed by conditioning from repeated actions... so does the sexuality of the population through constant conditioning" or "engineered mutationism" then people will call it what it is. Homosexuals hide the true nature of their personal lives from people? Wow! Gee, I wonder why that might be? -k

Your figures illustrate the difference perfectly. Were Chretien running against a "united right", those figures would put him in minority government territory, not the sweeping majorities he ran throughout his tenure. Chretien's 38-41% popular vote is only marginally higher than the 36-38% Harper has received in the past two elections, but the results are considerably different because of the location of their support. Having their support concentrated in urban ridings in Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal has let the Liberals win a lot more seats than they would have if their support was spread evenly across the country. -k

Allowing a lobbyist to use a her parliamentary e-mail and phone casts doubt on her character. Blowing up at airport security staff is forgivable, but allowing Jaffer to use parliamentary resources for his lobbying business is a poor ethical decision that could (and has) brought the whole government under suspicion. They're absolutely justified in ditching her. If she didn't see a problem with what she's done, she just doesn't belong in public office. -k

Shady might be right about Gore's flushing habits. Somebody who is as "granola" as Gore is likely to have very regular (and rather large) bowel movements. Rich in fibre. -k

I asked earlier, August, and you didn't answer... What compromise is being requested by either Quebec voters or their elected representatives? What compromise, if offered, would persuade the BQ to disband? What compromise, if offered, would persuade Quebec voters to quit sending BQ MPs to Ottawa? I humbly suggest that the answers to these three questions are: none, none, and none. The compromise English Canadians have made is this: we have come to accept your 40-50 BQ MPs as a long-term and possibly permanent fixture in the House of Commons. It's really not that bad. -k

Indeed, and it might well be plausible that there was an actual local event rather than a global one. But that still does not reconcile with the version that's presented in the scripture, or the version that these "researchers" are asking us to believe. Again, these "researchers" are telling us that they've found the ark near the top of the tallest mountain in the entire region. A flood that could float the ark to that location would *have* to be global in scale, by definition. And scripture itself tells us that the great flood covered the peaks of even the tallest mountains, which even if it were just referring to the tallest mountains in the region, would still require a global flood. -k

And to carry that a little further... if I announce that I'm going searching for unicorns, go out into the woods and find hoof-prints, and declare that I've found proof that unicorns exist... would my claim have merit? Nice find! There have been thousands of floods all over the world... that different folklores and mythologies also feature floods is not surprising at all. This has been covered already. No, the melting of all the glaciers of the ice-age was not enough to raise the sea levels very much. Guess where the water to form those huge glaciers came from in the first place? The sea. You can't raise the sea level to the top of Mount Ararat by melting ice that came from the sea in the first place. You can return the sea level to where it was during a warmer era. For the Biblical flood it to be plausible (from a scientific perspective) we'd need a plausible explanation for where all the water came from, and where it went afterward. -k

When I read the title I assumed that it was a Shady thread and that an actual homicide was being alleged. Very funny speech with some hilarious one-liners. I don't think it is wrong for politicians to do things that might let people see them as normal people. It seems like many people are emotionally invested in the idea that politicians they don't agree with are bad people. It is not necessarily so. It might be more constructive to think of them as nice people with whom we don't always agree. I suspect that for most of them that's probably the case, in fact. -k

You probably nailed it... saying he's gay is probably about all that will ever happen. Having Veronica unsuccessfully throwing herself at him is probably the extent of the story possibilities. Maybe he and Betty can commiserate about unrequited love. That's not much different from Chuck, though, is it? Aside from providing Archie a more inclusive group of friends, I can't recall Chuck ever doing much. 4th member of the Riverdale High football team, or something. Maybe Kevin can join the team too. -k

Having 9 bathrooms doesn't mean he's going to flush anymore than he would if he had 1 toilet. He might have lots of toilets, but he's still only got one set of bowels. -k