kimmy

My point? Michael Hardner more or less hit it with the Fess Parker reference. Still trying to fathom that someone in North America could have never heard of "The Lost Boys". It gets played 5 times on every English-language tv station in the country during October every year. Perhaps the French stations play a different movie 5 times every Halloween... perhaps a movie about two unattractive vampires sitting in an ugly Paris apartment sipping Merlot and trying to reconcile their eternal damnation with Sartre's philosophies. Of course. Let's just call Corey Haim's death, and the reaction to it, a case study. And I think that at its core, it's not so much that people care about Corey Haim. It's more that the event is a reminder of the passage of time. I was Christmas shopping in December and the store I was at had cases of Pop Shoppe soda near the cash register lineup. The two people in line were delighted. Thrilled! "I haven't seen these forever!" "I thought they went out of business in the 1980s!" They both grabbed a case, with one proclaiming that her brother was going to freak out when he saw it. Personally, the Pop Shoppe means nothing to me. Pop Shoppe had been out of business for a long time. The brand disappeared and many entirely adequate replacements filled its place in the market without anybody noticing. Its reappearance is apparently driven entirely by nostalgia. The shoppers behind me had been living their lives perfectly well without Pop Shoppe soda for many years, but seeing this long-dead brand reappear spoke to them. It reminded them of a time when they were younger, better looking, more carefree, perhaps happier. This simple bit of nostalgia-- outdated pop-bottle packaging-- spoke to them in a way that made them happy. And I suspect that for many people now saddened by Corey Haim's death, the influence is the same. Haim, like Pop Shoppe, had been out of peoples' lives for many many years, and this sudden reappearance reminded them of a time when they were younger, better looking, more carefree, perhaps happier. Haim's death is probably a reminder for many people that like Haim they are now older, worse looking, less carefree, and perhaps less happy. -k

If that was your MP's government-funded mailing to you, then you're right to complain. If that was paid advertising, then no. -k

These things, from what I have seen, don't contain that sort of thing anyway. They contain legislative issues your MP wants to highlight. They contain economic updates your MP wants to tell you about. They mention the MP attending community events and meeting with old-people. None of this is necessarily partisan, but all of it helps your MP get his face and message out to the electorate. -k

They weren't "deliberately" trying to trigger avalanches, perhaps, but short of firing cannons and fireworks, what more could they have done to increase the potential? They did not "make a mistake". In their own words, they were well aware of the risks and chose to do so anyway because "this is when the snow is most bitchen, dudez!" There's nothing that indicates any of these people were inexperienced, from the sound of it they are serious enthusiasts. And they say they were well aware of the avalanche warnings. I'm just perplexed at the choice of language here. "honest mistake"? "unfortunate"? "their evaluation of the risk was flawed"? If someone keeps poking a bee hive with a stick and ends up getting stung, was that an "honest mistake"? No, it was a foolish decision. I can't buy into language that excuses these guys. You're trying to make it sound like they were acting responsibly and something unexpected happened. The truth is, they were acting incredibly foolishly, and something entirely predictable happened. -k

My mistake. I intended to refer to those brochures MPs send out by Canada Post unaddressed advertising. I would personally be all in favor of ending that kind of junk. I'm not sure how practical it would be to enforce some kind of antipartisan policy for these "Updates from your MP" mail-outs. Short of saying something provably false, how could you police something like that? They don't have to lie for these things to be an unfair advantage over their next electoral opponents. It might not necessarily be a significant advantage, but it's still and unfair one. -k

Your MP needs your address and your permission to send you bulk mail? I thought Canada Post just loaded that crap into their bags with all the other junk-mail they now dish out. -k

I gather you're over 60? -k

These should not be ended unless bulk e-mailings from incumbent MPs are likewise ended. The mail-outs from sitting MPs are pure partisan propaganda, and if they are publicly funded, then a rebuttal from the opposition should likewise be funded. -k

Corey Haim, best known for his 1987 role in the teen vampire flick "The Lost Boys", has died at age 38. As you'd expect when someone this age dies unexpectedly, drugs are being speculated as a possible cause, and Haim has battled drug problems in the past. Corey Haim appeared with Corey Feldman in a number of teen films (including The Lost Boys), as well as a recent "Reality TV" series chronicling the adventures of the former child stars. Oddly, Toronto taxpayers may be picking up the tab for Haim's funeral. Update: No they're not. Small point of order... I thought Jason Patric was the heart-throb, while the two Coreys portrayed dorks. -k

Yet another year, and yet another batch of dead snowmobilers. This time, it's self-styled "extreme athletes" participating in the "Big Iron Shootout", an annual gathering of dimwits with high-performance snowmobiles. Dimwits? Well, yes. Every media outlet in BC has been informing us of the unprecedented avalanche risk. Even those of us who have no interest in going into the high country knew that there was extreme risk of avalanche. Just now listening to one of the survivors on the radio, saying: "Well, it's an extreme sport, and there's a risk... usually when the avalanche risk is high that's when the quality of experience is the best." As he goes along he explains that they knew about the avalanche risk and says that they were willing to take the risk because that's what they love to do and this is when the snow is at its best, and it's no different from anybody else who participates in a dangerous sport. Maybe so... but when somebody lands on his head coming off a ramp on his BMX or falls off a cliff while rock-climbing, they don't need a massive public search-and-rescue operation to dig survivors out of a mountain. These morons continue to say "we were willing to accept the risk" but as far as I've heard they're not offering to pay back the money that's been spent searching for them and their buddies. Now... I wouldn't wish harm on anybody, but it's pretty hard to feel sorry for these guys. Maybe next year idiots heading into avalanche country during extreme avalanche warnings should be told to bring a shovel. -k

Fine, it may not have been explained specifically to you. It's certainly been explained a number of times to other people claiming Judge Maund gave Jaffer preferential treatment because of ties to the party. While I'm no legal expert, I'd have to expect that a sentence agreed to in a plea bargain would have to meet minimum requirements for the offense plead guilty to. Judging from the howls of outrage over the treatment Jaffer has received, I think it's fair to say that a large number of people don't feel that the discretion was "reasonable" at all. It actually looks like an example of how mandatory minimums would result in sentencing that John Q Public thinks is more appropriate to the severity of the crime. Now, whether John Q Public has reasonable expectations for sentencing is another issue entirely, and a fair question. Indeed. -k

I just noticed that this thread is in "Travel, Leisure, and Sports". Which is of those does Mr Canada fit under? -k

Does your dog speak to you? Tell you to do things, for example? -k

As has been explained to you a number of times, the "break" Jaffer received was provided by the prosecutor who plea-bargained the case, not by the judge. As well, it appears that the "break" Jaffer received is no different from the sort of "break" received by the overwhelming majority of people prosecuted for the same offense. Finally, considering how overwhelmingly negative public reaction to this sentence has been, I'm baffled that people are now citing this case as an argument against mandatory minimums. Like how does that make any sense?? -k

Well, this is the other reason not to get too hung up on semantics. Without an original language transcript and a native speaker to explain the connotations for us, it's hard to know if "regime" captures the spirit of the word he actually used, or if it was just a rough approximation. As well, "regime" has taken on some amount of colloquialism-- ("the Bush regime was replaced by the Obama regime...") while in formal usage it is not just the people, but the whole form of government (the colonial regime was replaced by a republic.) And based on his previous statements, it seems very likely that's what Makmood is talking about. It fits with his previous statements about Israel-- "vanish from the pages of history..." "wiped off the map..." and while there's nothing here to suggest he's talking about annihilating the people of Israel, it seems highly likely that when he talks about "annihilating this regime" he means an end to the state of Israel. -k

I'm sure glad I found the Official Mr Canada ™ thread. I have had a hard time figuring out if Mr Canada is actually a real person, or if he's a comedy sketch, an amusing parody of far-right views. Much of his recent stuff has been so uproariously funny that it's hard to believe it could be anything other than Pythonesque parody. The "filming the Pride parade" thread in particular has had in stitches many times. -k

No, I'm not placing much stock in semantics in this discussion. However, since you ARE, I think it's reasonable to point out that you're not being consistent about it. -k

If we're being sticklers for semantics, then no, the killing of the citizens is not implied. Perhaps by seizing its territory, removing its government, and making it either a territory of an existing state, or by creating a new and different state in its place ("The Islamic Republic of Palestine," hypothetically.) A country is a pretty philosophical concept, and short of physically disintegrating its land mass, there's no sense in which the word "annihilation" would have a literal meaning. I would say that if China takes the land mass of Tibet, imposes its own law and declares the area to be just an extension of the neighboring province, settles enough Chinese citizens into the region that Tibetans become a tiny minority, and expunges Tibetan culture, then I think it would be entirely fair to say that Tibet has been annihilated, even if its citizens were not slain in the process. I think many Iraqis were relieved to be free of Saddam, and I think many Iraqis understood that the US ultimately intended to leave the country in their hands. We all understand that when Makmood talks about annihilating Israel (whether the regime or the country) he's talking about the end of the Jewish state, which should make Israelis extremely nervous whether or not Makmood is advocating they be killed in the process or not. -k

Let this be a lesson to all you mad scientists! Stick to plasma physics and don't "pimp your ride"! -k

I think he's saying that if the bombs and bullets start flying, the difference between "annihilating the regime" and "annihilating the country" was of little comfort to the Iraqis. And, given that Israeli government is an elected one, changing their regime through use of force is a rather unsettling proposition. And, given the widespread view in the Arab world that Israel was stolen from the Palestinians, I doubt his audience has the same impression of what Makmood is talking about, anyway. -k

If they had him on video the whole time, why did they need to lock the place down and search the whole area? -k

If the guy had not gone into the restricted area, the airport security was still compromised, wasn't it? It seems to me that security was compromised the moment the guard left his station unattended, whether or not somebody was seen going under the rope. The issue was not that a guy was seen entering, but the possibility that someone else may have entered without being seen, yes? Hypothetically, if the guy had not entered, would they have still locked down the area and delayed flights once they realized that a security post had been left unattended? That would have been the right thing to do, under the circumstances. But would it have actually happened? We can only guess, but my bet is on "no." I think the response here was not because there was a hole in security, but rather because the hole was pointed out in a manner that embarrassed the security staff and necessitated an exaggerated response to create the impression that something extraordinary had occurred. -k

Whether they're talking about destroying the nation as a whole or just the governing regime is pretty moot, as neither would be accomplished without a huge cost of lives. -k

Jaffer plea deal 'not so unusual': lawyer A lot of people are up in arms based on the belief that Jaffer received special treatment. In reality, it looks more like people should be up in arms because this is how the system works in most cases: -k

When I lived in Ottawa I attended Canada Day festivities on Parliament Hill. As an underaged teen at the time, I was certainly surprised to say the least. This was certainly a publicly funded event (I can't imagine all of those 3rd-rate Can-con singers were playing for free...) and there was certainly a heavy police presence, and there was an amazing tolerance for illegal activity, marijuana use. One could not move for more than 5 meters in any direction without bumping into either an RCMP officer or someone smoking marijuana. At other Canada Day firework I have attended since, I have noticed similar acceptance of marijuana use as well, to a lesser degree (as measured by joints per police officer per meter squared.) If we are going to gripe about illegal activity at publicly funded events, it seems to me Canada Day festivities should be high on the list. -k