kimmy

I recall you saying you were done... I don't recall me saying I was done. Thanks, but I'm quite satisfied with the 'do I've got. D'ya think, DiNozzo? *wap* It's not hard to find black supremacists on the interweb. I also recall reading about a Latino movement which basically intends to claim (reclaim?) California for "La Raza". They certainly exist in some number. It makes sense to some degree. If you grew up hearing that some group has done this and this and this to you and your ancestors, and that the reason you can't get ahead in life is that this group has all the power and they don't like you, I suspect there might be an inclination to harbor negative attitudes toward that group as a whole. It's clear that the people who committed that crime hated the victims. What's not clear is that race is the reason they hated the victims. They might have hated them because they were financially secure, or because they were happy, or because they were human. Not that it even matters. If treating the case as a hate crime could have resulted in a harsher penalty, then go for it. But since capital punishment was already on the table, it seems to matter little. They were going to die. Unless having them die slowly was a possibility, there wasn't much to gain. -k

Dancer is a ginger, and is not here because he is afraid he will get kicked. I am late for work and will reply later. -k

(odd, I'd heard that you were done yesterday.) Of course he's going to say that. You'll notice that this isn't a news article, this is a public relations statement from the school superintendent. What else is he going to say?. The principal said that some of the students started to realize that they had gone too far on Monday. Your conclusion that they must have been confronted by others to come to this realization is not supported by any of the articles you posted. You're the most obsessive person on this message board when it comes to demanding citations and proof, and yet you're asking others to accept something you can't back up with anything other than your own assumptions. The principal said that some of the students realized they'd crossed the line on Monday, and clearly the implication is that even some of the sixth graders realized that slapping Jewish kids is different from slapping tall kids. And I can't imagine why you're so stubborn in refusing to acknowledge that, when you yourself are arguing that "Hit A Jew Day" is different from "Hit A Tall Kid Day" or "Kick A Ginger Day". I've emphasized the key phrase here. "Any group who was singled out." Because all we've really accomplished is make people more careful in choosing who gets singled out. -k

Sorry for not responding, and I am giving it some consideration. And yeah, I do think you're to some extent right. Bullying, the need to build ones' self at the expense of others, maybe even gangs, all to some degree involve lack of self image and the desire to feel important and powerful. And to me it seems like all the political correctness and hugs and holding hands has not done away with that desire, just channeled it in different directions. -k

So they were confronted on Monday by ... mystery adults? So you didn't specify the principal. Nice attempt at a dodge, but none of your articles says anything to support the claim that students were admonished by any other adults for their behavior on Monday either. The only mention of an adult other than the principal doing anything on Monday was a Jewish parent who called the principal to complain. Unless you've got some more articles up your sleeve, we'll just have to file the claim that the children were admonished for their behavior on Monday under "creative writing". That addresses only what happened on "Hit A Jew Day", and makes no claim as to what may have happened on the prior "Hit A Tall Person Day". There is, again, nothing to support the claim that the Jewish kids were exposed to a higher level of aggression than on the previous "spirit week" days... and clearly this was a very low level of aggression in any case. Clearly, and I think this obvious to everyone who reads the articles, the line that was crossed was when the Jewish kids were singled out. That's implicit in the principal's comments, and she suggests that even some of the sixth graders understood that was over the line. The historical subtleties probably come as very little comfort to the kid on the receiving end of the swarming. And I'm just curious as to how we reached a point that people know that swarming a Jewish kid for being Jewish is wrong, yet apparently don't realize that swarming a redheaded kid for having red hair is wrong. And for all your talk about the historical nature of the issue, you haven't addressed that. The bigger picture is that people shouldn't get beat up. How'd we get to the point where people know they're in deep trouble if they pick on a Jewish kid or a black kid, but don't see a problem with picking on somebody else? That's crap. "Hit A Jew Day" would have been shut down instantaneously, by Facebook and by the RCMP. This group was against Canadian law. I strongly suspect that the very existence of this group was a direct violation of Facebook's terms of use. I think it's highly debatable as to whether this was treated consistently with the principles of Canadian law or with Facebook's own terms of use. They failed to meet their own standards. We just agreed that people simply would not have tolerated "Kick A Brown Person Day" and "Kick A Jewish Person Day". So the situation you're proposing is completely hypothetical. People wouldn't have participated in a "Kick A Jew Day" swarming because they would know full well they'd wind up in juvenile court. People wouldn't have joined the Facebook group in the first place, because they'd be worried about getting a visit from the RCMP. The Facebook group wouldn't have had time to attract 5000 members, because Facebook would have shut down been shut down the "Kick A Jew" group within minutes. And nobody would have started the Facebook group at all, because they know they'd wind up getting a visit from the RCMP. We're contrasting 13 kids curb-stomping a redhead kid in a locker-room because they didn't think they'd get in trouble for it against 13 kids who weren't doing anything because they knew full well that curb-stomping a Jewish kid or a brown kid would have got them in a world of trouble. We're comparing an incident that happened to one that never would have been allowed to happen. Well duh. Clearly they were bullies. However, I think the circumstances are very interesting. The first thing that stands out is that 13 is a tremendously large group for bullies. In my experience, bullies are usually individuals or small groups of outcasts. This attack apparently happened in a locker-room at a school... 13 students would be fully half of a typical sex-segregated phys-ed class at any school I've attended. My family moved around a lot and my brother and I attended many different schools and my brother was a magnet for bullies. And yet I can't recall such a large group ever participating in a bullying incident. I don't believe "bullying" is an adequate term to describe that size of a group attacking an individual. And, why a "ginger kid" on "Kick A Ginger Day"? Clearly the existence of the "joke" in itself played a role in inciting the violence. It's possible that this particular kid was a target for bullies, but to think that he was beaten up with this severity by such a large group on a regular basis simply defies credibility. Clearly there's a mob mentality played a role, and clearly incitement played a role... ...and in Canada, incitement of violence is against the law. The law doesn't specify that it's only against the law if the target group has been historically victimized. I'm faulting people for being too stupid to recognize that announcing "National Kick A Ginger Day" and reminding people to "shine up those steel-toed boots" was not in the least bit funny. When has talking about harming a group of people ever resulted in anything remotely funny? Hey, they're joking about curb-stomping kids... but at least there's no rayyyyycism. -k {First they came for the tall kids, and I did not speak out because I was not tall. Then they came for the ginger kids, and I did not speak out, because I was not ginger. Then they came for the Jewish kids, and all hell broke loose, and there was a school assembly and suspensions and mandatory counselling sessions and newspaper headlines and a lady from the Jewish Anti-Defamation League...}

I read it the exact same way as you: PR from the bank industry. When I read "Canadians have large amounts of underutilized cash and are missing out on significant investment income", what I read is "please, folks, buy some of our mutual funds and investment services." Is anybody here actually happy with the way their investments have performed over the past several years? They were doing a pretty mediocre job with my assets before The Big Crash of last year, and I'm scared to look at my holdings ever since. And they're disappointed that people aren't investing more money with them? People aren't investing money because investing money has produced such dismal results and people have been burned badly several times in the past decade. Unjustified risk aversion? In light of recent events I don't think peoples' mistrust of bankers, banks, investments, and stocks is "unjustified" at all. 9-11 was just after the implosion of the tech-bubble, and I propose that the collapse of the tech bubble has a lot more to do with peoples' reluctance to invest than the collapse of the twin towers. Many Canadians had their retirement fortunes invested in companies like Nortel, which plunged from over a hundred dollars a share to a couple of bucks. People went from comfortable nest-eggs to practically nothing in the span of just weeks. During the Great Depression, a lot more people were employed creating the necessities of life-- food, clothing, manufactured goods... now most of our food can be produced by a tiny proportion of the people, and clothes and manufactured goods can be purchased by the ton from cheap foreign sources. Video games and movies and nights on the town might be frivolities that people can easily do without, but they're a much bigger part of the economy than they used to be. The economy needs people to keep spending money on these frivolities or jobs disappear. -k

That's clearly false. The principal didn't find out about it until Monday evening, and the children were not confronted until Tuesday morning. Your article does not state which students were slapped, and says "at least one" student was slapped. Nothing in the article suggests that the Jewish students were the recipient of more aggressive behaviour than others. And as already pointed out, the students were not confronted about their behaviour until Tuesday. And finally we are on the same page. We both know that people tolerated "Kick A Ginger Day" because they thought it was a harmless prank, and we both know that nobody would have tolerated"Kick A Jew Day". So, how did we become a society where people are smart enough to recognize that the one is absolutely not funny, yet still stupid enough to think that the other is funny? What I'm wondering is: the 13 kids participating in the swarming that led to the kid being taken to hospital... are they thinking "Well, he's not brown and he's not Jewish, so this is just harmless fun"? -k

Aldo Raines is not an educated man. He's not a particularly smart man. In fact he probably couldn't spell "CAT" if you spotted him a C and a T. And he certainly can't spell "inglorious" or "bastards" (the title of the movie comes from an inscription on the butt of a rifle that I believe belongs to Raines.) But what he lacks in smarts, Raines makes up for in ruthless cunning. Raines, nicknamed "the Apache" due to his grandpappy being 1/8 Indian, and due to his guerrilla tactics and ruthless violence, is the leader of a group of commandos waging war in occupied France during World War II. His group, known as "the Basterds", are out to strike terror into the heart of Nazi soldiers. The Basterds are Jewish (perhaps other than Raines, who is a Tennessee hillbilly, which would seem to make him an unlikely Jew, I would suspect) and take to avenging their people with a bloodthirsty zeal. The Basterds themselves are only part of the story. The main plot of the movie involves a Paris theatre owner, a young woman who is (secretly) Jewish and has a personal score to settle with the Nazis. When her theatre is selected to premiere a Nazi propaganda film that will be attended by many top Nazis, she has her opportunity for revenge. But the Allied leaders sense an opportunity to cripple the Third Reich as well, and hatch a plot involving the Basterds, a German movie-star/double agent, and a British intelligence official/film critic. Things go off the rails several times and end up in a completely unexpected conclusion. Although Brad Pitt is the big name on the marquee, the movie really belongs to Melanie Laurent, who is compelling as the theatre owner. Brad Pitt certainly does his part, playing up Raine's accent and lack of book-smarts for big laughs. When he goes undercover as an Italian stuntman, and manages to say all of his lines (consisting of "graci" and "arrivaderci") with a Tennessee accent, you've just gotta smile. Diane Kruger is also delightful as Bridget Von Hammersmark, Movie Star. There is nothing particularly profound here. It's popcorn entertainment, for the most part (although, some of the shocking violence may have you spewing popcorn chunks.) It wouldn't be a Tarantino movie without some reference to 1970s cinema schtick, and the cop-show style introduction for Basterds member Hugo Stiglitz is hilarious. I was fascinated by the contrast between Melanie Laurent's intense, serious performance, and Brad Pitt's cornball schtick. I am sure this was intentional, though I can't put my finger on what the objective might have been. The opening scene, involving a Nazi detective interrogating a French farmer regarding a missing Jewish family, is a superb scene and might be worth the price of admission on its own. -k

I recently saw this movie, and enjoyed it very much. Tom is a nice young man who thinks he's found the woman he was meant to be with forever. Influenced by Beatles songs and The Graduate, Tom believes in love. Summer is a nice young woman who just doesn't feel the same way. Influenced by her parents divorce, she believes that you have fun until you don't feel the same anymore, and move on. The narrative flips back and forth from the early days of their relationship when everything seems magic, to the later stages when all the magic is gone. When they first meet at work they bond over their love of music, their offbeat senses of humor, and movies, and acrobatic shower sex. The contrast between these fun-filled early scenes and the later where the relationship is dying is so stark, one can only share Tom's disbelief that things just didn't work for them as a couple. The movie is set in Los Angeles, but doesn't feature any of the usual LA landmarks. It shows off ordinary buildings, streets, the sort of places we see every day and don't really look at. Tom and Summer love music, and music is featured prominently in the film... a couple of favorite moments were Summer yodelling the "Knight Rider" theme to Tom through her cell phone while people look at her as if she's nuts, and a song-and-dance number right out of a Highschool Musical production. Also, apparently watching "The Graduate" would help. Someone had to explain a scene involving a bus to me. Joseph Gordon-Levitt portrays Tom Hansen. I am not familiar with any of his previous work, but he is very good here. As Tom he seems like the sort of guy any girl could fall in love with, making it all the more confusing that Summer just doesn't want him anymore. His pain and bewilderment seem very real. Zooey Deschanel brings Summer Finn to life. She is a radiant and magnetic personality, full of life and laughter... and yet also distant. It is tempting to describe her as a free spirit, but that would be wrong. She is an independent spirit, but not a free one. She lives within boundaries of her own creation, boundaries that Tom is aware of, at some points believing himself to be "on the inside", at other times completely frustrated by her. Zooey Deschanel is the younger sister of Emily Deschanel, star of the "Bones" TV series. Between Zooey's movies and Emily's long-running TV show, I'm not sure which sibling has bragging rights when they sit down for Christmas dinner. Anyway, I liked this movie a lot. A lot of movie characters don't make much of an impression on me. Tom and Summer have been with me for several days. -k

was prominently featured in the terrific movie 500 Days Of Summer.(This fun video is not from the movie, but does feature the song, as well as a guy doing yo-yo tricks in a variety of San Francisco locations.) -k

The monster transport was in Kelowna to deliver helicopters to a Kelowna company for maintenance and upgrade. The visit would not have been possible prior to November of last year, when the runway was lengthened to 8900 feet. -k

I can't recall a precedent for any of that happening. He might have the power to do those things, but how many PMs have done any of it? As a general rule, I don't think Canadians appreciate it when elected officials take an interest in specific cases. I think Canadians like the idea that the courts are separate and independent from elected officials. And I still don't "get" the decision made here. The judge in this case has acted as if the prior opinions of special prosecutors-- that the case would be difficult to prosecute-- amount to an acquittal for Blackmore and Oler. -k

Isn't it considered highly inappropriate for elected officials to speak out on specific cases? -k

You completely misunderstand the argument I'm making. I'm not alleging that "Kick A Ginger Day" was racism. I'm pointing out that because it wasn't "racist", idiots apparently didn't recognize that it was wrong at all. It's unimaginable that this could have reached that level had it been anybody other than "gingers". Facebook would have immediately deleted the group (and probably forwarded information about its members to the RCMP) had it advocated violence against anybody else. A nationally organized day dedicated to bullying an identifiable group gets 5000 members, results in incidents across Canada (including one kid swarmed by 13 classmates and taken to the hospital). But thank god no Jews were harmed! -k

This comment from Principal Lelonek really makes the point: “Not until Monday did any children realize this isn’t good, we’ve crossed the lines,” she said. To me, they crossed the line when they started slapping other students. To Ms. Lelonek, they crossed the line when they started slapping Jewish students. We all know that if they'd moved on to "Hit a Fat Kid Day" instead, this doesn't turn into headlines and suspensions and mandatory counselling sessions. And even a statement from the Jewish Anti-Defamation League that this is not mere bullying. Anyway, I had claimed that nobody would dare to organize an equivalent to "Kick A Ginger Day" prank directed at a non-white or religious group... and by way of proving me wrong you've come up with an incident involving, apparently, 4 sixth grade kids at one school in St Louis. And while it's certainly a counterexample, its scale is such that it helps make the point for me. Kick A Ginger Day: a Facebook group with 5000 members, multiple incidents across Canada, at least one kid hospitalized... Hit a Jew Day: 4 kids at one school who apparently slapped 1 kid. -k

Interesting story... It began with an unofficial "Spirit Week" among sixth-graders that started harmlessly enough with a "Hug a Friend Day." Then there was "High Five Day." Soon, though, the days moved from friendly to silly. Next there was "Hit a Tall Person Day" and, finally, "Hit a Jew Day." ... funny that this wasn't put a stop to when it reached "Hit A Tall Person Day", don't you think? These kids learned a very important lesson: you can hit people... you just can't hit Jewish people. Much like how you can say bigoted, demeaning things about people... as long as you don't say them about people of certain ancestry. -k

We both know there are real bigots and racists out there who'd happily kick members of religious or ethnic groups. But I don't think they'd think it was harmless or amusing, I think they'd do it knowing it was harmful and serious. The difference between "Kick A Ginger Day" and some real hate group is that the "Kick A Ginger Day" kids probably didn't see anything wrong at all. The kid who started the group said it was just a joke, and I strongly suspect that everybody who participated felt the same. I doubt they did it because they sincerely hate red haired people, I think they did it because they thought it was fun and hip and cool and subversive and just didn't see it any harm in it. Here is the thread that I started last year to discuss the topic. While the authorities did take the issue seriously, several members of the forum didn't. Sir Bandelot, Guyser, and WIP are certainly not lunkheads, they're bright people with centerist views. I think they're pretty mainstream Canadians, and their reaction tells me that probably a lot of other mainstream Canadians felt the same thing... "this is just a joke, it's not really going to happen" or "it's just kids being kids" type reactions... and mainstream Canadians wouldn't react that way if somebody proposed "Kick A Sikh" day. -k

Earlier it was asked why a message is ok when said by some people is considered commendable, but the same message when said by somebody else is considered reprehensible. And to me, at least, that seemed related to the question of why a message when said about some people is considered reprehensible, but the same message when said about somebody else is considered harmless and amusing. The blonde thing is the obvious example, of course, but last year's "National Kick A Ginger Day" stands out as well. As some will recall, the TV show "South Park" did a satire in which "ginger kids" -- redheads-- Some people apparently didn't recognize the satire, and used Facebook to organize "National Kick A Ginger Day" for November 20 of last year. The media got wind of it, schools issued warnings. Some people suggested that this was simply a joke and much ado about nothing, and guffawed about political correctness run amok. The guffaws were dampened considerably after numerous attacks on redhead kids were reported, and mass suspensions were handed out at one school. I think it goes without saying that if someone attempted to organize "National Kick A Muslim Day" or "National Kick An Oriental Day", nobody would consider it a harmless prank. More to the point, I don't think anybody would attempt to organize such an event in the first place, because the wrongness of it is so obvious. Everybody would simply know better. (Even someone evil enough to actually go out with the intention of kicking Muslims or orientals would know better than to advertise his intentions.) The issue would be so obvious were some religious or ethnic group the target... and yet "National Kick A Ginger Day" actually happened, in Canada, in 2008. I had assumed that the creators of South Park picked "gingers" as the target of this fictional pogrom because it's just so off the wall. But it's apparently quite real in England. -k

Wasn't the Onion headline after he was elected something along the lines of "Black Man Chosen For Crappy Job"? Everybody knew it was not going to be easy. That his opponents are complaining that the country has not been repaired in 8 months is just partisan politics. It is still early days. I think he's going to be fine. -k

How would sitting through Amajinabinabad's speech help "address Iran's or any other problems"? Would we later go and say "look, man, you owe us for not walking out on your crappy speech, so release the detained journalists?" -k

I am just sitting here giggling as I imagine how members of Rabble/Babble would react if a teacher had their children singing songs of praise for Stephen Harper. "Stephen J Harper, he got the economy back on track, Stephen J Harper, said that Makmood Amajinabinabad is wack..." I think it would be a great way for kids to feel patriotism about our government! Either that, or completely inappropriate. Mostly just the latter, now that I've had a chance to think about it... -k

I think there is an element of sarcasm in that post that you may have missed, Bubber. -k

Although my earlier message was intended as satire, I do work with a young black person who I'm very happy to have work with us because he really is a terrific kid, by any standard. And I most certainly am conscious of color when he is on the site. And not because I am a bad person, but because I am trying to be the opposite. I make an extra effort to say hi and smile when he arrives, even on days when I just feel like scowling. I take care to make sure my criticisms are always polite and constructive because I don't want them to be taken the wrong way. I make sure to spend at least a little while working with him every day just to make sure he feels included. And while these are all common sense things to keep in mind when supervising people in general, I make an extra effort to be conscious of them when I am dealing with the young black man. And... I suppose the argument could be made that it's racist for me to take notice of it at all, to be guarded in what I say or do. Maybe it's patronizing of me to make an effort to avoid causing offense. Maybe I'm wrong to worry that if I cause offense he'll interpret it as evidence of racism. One might argue that the truly non-racist thing to do would be to treat him exactly the same as everybody else on the site. It's a fair point, I suppose. But for me, what I want is that when people I supervise go home at the end of the day, they feel like I have treated them fairly. I try to be kind and helpful to everyone, but if I have to crap on someone, I certainly do so. And if I do so, it is generally because they've screwed up or are not doing their job or something along that line and I hope they understand that. If they think I have crapped on them because I'm a psycho (@#$*@ I guess I can live with that as long as they start doing what I want them to do. But if someone feels like I have crapped on them because I have an issue with their ancestry, then they're certainly not going to go home feeling like I've treated them fairly. And most of all I want for people to feel like I've treated them fairly. So, I do see color. It is something I have made an effort to be conscious of at work. I am not sure it is the right attitude to take. My intentions are good, if that counts for anything. -k

I think Canadians who don't feel concerned about terrorism are probably people who doubt the threat is significant anywhere else either. People who believe 9/11 was an isolated event (or was fake). People who assume the fact that there's been only a handful of significant successful terror attacks on Western countries since 9/11 is evidence that terrorist activity doesn't exist to the degree that the authorities would claim. People who believe that the danger has been hyped out of proportion for political reasons. I doubt that many Canadians still fall into the "we're safe because we're Canadian and everybody loves Canadians" school of thought. -k

Now I feel kind of bad for making fun of Kuzadd's story, and I hope her feelings have not been hurt. -k