kimmy

My informants tell me that Mac Harb is a Liberal senator from Ontario; a Chretien appointee. I am not sure why senators are thinking they should be introducing legislation. As I said in a thread just recently, people really only tolerate the Senate because it never actually does anything... and here's Mr Harb upsetting the apple cart. Shut up, drink your Metamucil, and go back to bed, Mr Harb. This could end up being shouting-match material during the next election campaign, but since Mr Harb is not accountable to anybody, anybody at all, there's really nothing Mr Ignatieff can do about the situation anyway. However, I think the commercial seal hunt is doomed. The writing is on the wall. Seal fur is about as popular as asbestos, and soon the only demand for seal will come from Chinese witch-doctors who use seal gonads in making the ancient herbal voodoo equivalent of Viagra. -k

Now that I'm older ... I'm starting to wonder if I'm racist against talking dogs myself. I mean, he probably brought most of his trouble on himself with his stupid boombox. If he'd just left his boombox at home, people probably would have been nicer to him. -k

I loved the video for Da Funk when it came out. It really opened my eyes. I felt really bad for the talking dog. He just wanted to connect with people, but he never did, because everybody was racist against talking dogs. -k

I'm still confused as to how a gay pride festival is condoning illegal activity. I believe sodomy laws have been stricken from the books in most jurisdictions, yes? Arguing that pride festivals condone illegal activity because some attendees brandish their dongs in public is like arguing that Caribana condones illegal activity because some attendees pass the dutchie on the left hand side, or that the extreme sports festival condones illegal activity because some attendees get drunk and puke all over everything. -k

Which is terribly unfortunate. I am certainly no homophobe, and yet when I see footage of Pride festivals, it looks to me more like a celebration of severe mental retardation than of homosexuality. -k

My tower computer cost only a few hundred dollars to assemble; to purchase a laptop with comparable processing and graphics power would have cost me well over two thousand. And that laptop would not have a 22 inch monitor, and it wouldn't have a full-sized keyboard. People who do any amount of *real* work on computers will not wish to give up their full-sized keyboards and deluxe high-resolution monitors. And people who enjoy gaming or have computationally intensive tasks will not be in a rush to give up their towers for laptops until computer manufacturers address the dismal cost/performance ratio laptops provide. I just obtained an unlocked "android" phone straight from Hong Kong. It's pretty darned cool. But again, while being able to access information from a pocket-sized device is certainly handy, it's still a lousy experience when compared to the comfort of a full-sized monitor and keyboard. Very few people are going to decide that surfing the web on a 3.7" monitor makes a real computer unnecessary. -k

Well, I'm certainly not in favor of promoting festivals that would be illegal. I'm not aware of anything inherently illegal about a festival for homosexuals. Now, if some people who attended that festival were engaged in illegal activities, it seems to me that would be an issue for local law enforcement officials to take care of. And if illegal activities at an event were so widespread as to be disruptive to the community, then maybe the event shouldn't be held anymore. This happened to our local "extreme sports" festival... drunk teenagers fighting and vomiting on every horizontal surface in town resulted in the city council deciding the event was no longer benefitical to the community and declining to issue permits to the organizers. Maybe people can make the same argument in regard to Toronto Pride, perhaps with the help of Mr C's new video documentary. I have a hunch that it's going to be a tough sell, however. -k

I recall the last time MikeDavid discussed this issue (or perhaps it was the time before, or the time before... MikeDavid has discussed this many times here...) he indicated that he expects a high-salaried position and is unwilling to take an entry level job... likely unrealistic expectations for someone who seems to have very little experience and-- based on his postings here at least-- less than stellar literacy and dubious cognitive skills. -k

There's two questions involved here. One: am I ok with the government funding any event? Two: do I feel that this event is less deserving of other events that receive funding? My answers in brief: I'm pretty ambivalent about government funding for events of this sort, whether it be a Pride Parade, or a Fringe Theatre frestival, or a Grand Prix race, or whatever. But no, I don't see a Pride parade as being inherently less worthy of funds than a fringe festival or a busker festival or whatever. To elaborate: I'm not an ideologue who out of hand rejects the idea of providing government funding to events that are designed to promote tourism. If it's necessary, and if it seems like the resulting benefits will be worth the price tag then I say go for it. But it's hard to gauge whether we really do get our money's worth when we fund these sorts of things. And if people are relying on government-funded events to get people into their restaurants or hotel rooms, then maybe there's too many restaurants and hotel rooms and funding events to generate traffic is actually just delaying the inevitable. There's a whole philosophical debate there that's beyond the scope of this discussion. But it really doesn't matter, because that decision is out of our hands. We do live in a country that often (too often, many would argue) spends public funds to stage events to promote tourism (the ultimate expression of that happened last month in Vancouver...) So having established that our government is prone to funding events, the next issue is how to decide which ones get the funding. And to me, the obvious decision is to fund the events that generate the best return on the investment. And by most accounts, Toronto Pride is a very successful event that draws a large number of visitors. To me, if the government is in the business of promoting events, this one looks like a fairly good choice. Should it be less deserving because it's not for kids? Not in my opinion. -k

Indeed. If you weren't there in 1867, you got lumped in with "Other - 24 seats." However, I oppose doing anything to legitimize the senate. If something (like "Triple E" for example) were implemented, people might expect the senate to start actually doing stuff, which would be a step in the wrong direction. -k

Sure. "A R.E.A.L Woman's place is in the home." They're a bunch of 18th century tea-grannies who advocate an ultraconservative position on every issue. They once claimed that Marc Lepine may have massacred the women at Ecole Polytechnique because his girlfriend had an abortion... later retracted the claim when they were forced to concede that they didn't actually know whether Lepine even had a girlfriend, let alone one who'd had an abortion. If they claimed the sky was blue, I'd want independent photographic evidence with timestamps and GPS coordinates before I accepted the claim. If they claim that gay pride parades are known for public sex acts, well, I guess we'll have to wait for Mr C's documentary video. And yet there are those who do equate opposition to Pride parades as hatred of homosexuals. It's implicit in arguments like "if Stephen Harper isn't a homophobe, then why won't he go to the Pride Parade?" and it's explicit in a lot of the debates around Pride parades. Personally I've never been to one, but conduct I've seen on video and photograph strikes me as juvenile and ridiculous. I think that there may be a historical explanation... a desire to shock, offend, and outrage straight-laced folks once upon a time, to draw attention to their cause. But I'm skeptical that it's of any benefit to the gay community at this point in time. It makes the paraders look like a bunch of clowns, more than anything. -k

If Canadians are so set in tradition, what happened to the Red Ensign and God Save The Queen?? -k

Not everybody, perhaps, but a significant and vocal portion of Canada's left, for certain. You wanted to use an analogy of racists among rightwingers. A better analogy would be support for tax-cuts among right wingers. Not all rightwingers support tax cuts, but the position is widely held among rightwingers, and it would easy to find any number of cites to support that opinion. Canada's left and the Olympics was the same. We're all aware of extremely vocal leftists who decried the amount of money being spent on Olympic venues when they felt social funding would be a better use of the money. And the "attack on the homeless". And the "environmental devastation". And on and on. Maybe not all leftwingers supported those views, but a very loud portion of them certainly did. And left wing politicians were trying to play both sides of the issue, especially here in BC, where opposition to the games was actually higher than in other parts of the country. Carole James opposed the Olympics at every turn, but still cried foul when she felt she was excluded a suitably visible place at pre-Olympic events. -k

Opposition to the games from Canada's left has been so vocal and vehement as to create the impression that it's extremely widespread and a widely held viewpoint. I think it's entirely fair to speculate that Jack Layton may have misjudged his supporters' views by jumping on the Olympics bandwagon in such brazen fashion. -k

I'm really skeptical of the premise that the majority of the CBC Comments posters are representative of the majority of Canadians. -k

So are you saying that if I went to a left-leaning forum such as Babble and looked over the Olympics related threads, I wouldn't find those criticisms being made again and again? Or are you saying that people who say those things are out of touch with what "real" left-leaning Canadians think of the Olympics? -k

I have no complaint about Layton going to the game and doing the "common touch" thing and the "Go Canada" thing. However, for myself (and probably most who view the video) it provided a graphic demonstration of the old adage "never stand between a politician and a microphone." Probably not the kind of impression Layton was hoping to make. I'm actually not sure why he wanted to be seen celebrating the game at all. I thought the NDP and its supporters hated the Olympics and took a "bread not circuses" stance on the whole thing. I also thought they hated this Olympics in particular because of that whole "stolen land" thing. I also thought the leftwingy types dismiss sports altogether as another "opiate of the masses" used to distract plebes from important issues. I also thought they felt that such outre displays of blind patriotism were the rightwingy first steps on the road to totalitarian police states. I also wonder if Jack had even owned the Canada jersey long enough to pull the price tags out of it. But I'm glad Jack had fun at the game. -k

So "True patriot love, in all thy sons command" is supposed to read "True patriot love, in all thy sons, command" which actually means "Command true patriot love in all thy sons." An imperative without proper punctuation, in Yoda-grammar, delivered. -k

Are there anthem police that go about fining people for singing unofficial words? It seems to me that people can continue to sing what they like. -k

It wasn't a ruling but a promise by the publisher. But you're correct, the promise was made only in regards to CBCnews.ca and not the CBC as a whole. So, this new and balanced outlook amounts to ... Kevin O'Leary? I confess I don't read the CBC website often enough to know whether they've improved things. I listen to CBC 1 radio most mornings, and it still sounds like the same old same old. -k

It strikes me as a completely unimportant issue. But also a legitimate complaint. I'm surprised to hear that people have a sentimental attachment to the line "True patriot love, In all thy sons command," because it's completely inane. What is that supposed to even mean? -k

Which is why I am upset that people, including an MP, seem to accept that it's within the state's power to taser someone in an incident when nobody's physical safety was in any danger. The taser was supposed to be a safer alternative to night-sticks, bullets, and judo. Not a replacement for attempting to resolve situations without physical violence. I asked where he thought she should have been slammed on the ground, and he said "the part where she started screaming and hammering on the glass." Seems pretty clear that he thought she should have been slammed on the ground at that point. If he thinks I've misrepresented his comment, he can speak up for himself. He doesn't need you to act as his attorney. So, if somebody becomes angry at the security staff and they calm her down and they let her fly anyway, does that make the news? These are subjective terms coming from a biased party to a confrontation. They're not objective facts. I'm sorry you're determined to be obtuse about this. Everybody agrees there was a confrontation. The fact that one side decided to write to an opposition MP doesn't make their account magically more factual or free from bias. I already pointed out where one of the injured parties claimed she threw her shoes at a staffer, which is contradicted in the other letter, so the hyperbole aspect of the complaint is already an established fact. I explained the incident. I feel that my resentment of the treatment I received is more than justified. If you think you'd have been so much better with it, well, good for you I guess. Out of respect for Charles, I'll decline to comment. So far the only objective facts that have been agreed to by all parties is that Guergis was late, was rude, made offensive remarks to the staff, and made a disparaging remark about Prince Edward Island. -k

It's nothing of the sort. It's an acknowledgment of the history and physiology of the human brain and nervous system. Some are better at hiding it than others, but deep inside each and every one of us is an animal that wants to defend his tribe, protect her offspring, hunt and gather, belong to the tribe, reproduce, steer clear of bears, and all of the other things that kept us alive as a species. We're full of hardwired behaviors that take place automatically in many situations. If someone verbally confronts you, you might be able to rationally resolve the situation without any harm coming to anyone... but while your brain is finding a positive solution, your adrenal glands have unloaded a big dose of hormones into your blood that are preparing your body to handle the situation primate-style. -k

If one was in a death penalty state, then saying "he could have gotten the death penalty" would be acknowledgment of a fact. It might not imply approval of the death penalty, but it certainly indicates acceptance of the fact that it's within the state's power to do so. If Canada were some kind of stormtrooper state, then saying "she could have got the taser" for shouting and kicking a door would be acknowledgment of that fact. It doesn't imply approval of tasering people for minor misbehavior, but it certainly indicates acceptance of the fact that it's within the state's power to do so. Except this isn't some kind of stormtrooper state, and I don't accept that it's within the state's power to do so, and I think that people who believe this would be a legitimate response to the situation need to spend some time reflecting on what this country is supposed to be. Right here: I'd say it would be the part where she started screaming and hammering on the glass. I see nothing at all to support that interpretation. And further, I think people are taking it as a given that average Joe would be barred from flying, detained, charged, or beaten up or tasered in the same circumstance. The point, and I'm sorry you missed it, is that these reports are subjective claims coming from one side of the confrontation. There might not be much difference between "slamming" and "throwing". There is, however, considerable difference between the two accounts that you overlooked: one story claims she threw her boots in the bin, and the other story claims she threw her boots at the staffer. So obviously at least one and probably both of these stories contain an element of hyperbole. I don't consider the side that says she was "screaming" to be any more trustworthy than the side that says she "spoke emotionally". And yes, I'm biased against these people. I put that on the table and shared my own airport security story and I simply find it hard feel sorry for them. And I think it's hilarious that these poor little kittens were still crying about their terrifying encounter with the scary woman a whole week later. -k

ROFL. Sorry, I've taken up too much of your time already. I'll let you get back to handing out eviction notices to Torontonians. -k