kimmy

Considering that many Liberal ridings are concentrated in small geographic areas (urban Toronto, urban Montreal, urban Vancouver) I think it's kind of inevitable. I am skeptical of this claim. I have seen large federal projects all summer all over Interior BC. -k

That's "We Can Do Better." They are obviously trying to keep expectations realistic. -k

Interesting speech, actually. -k

I am of the suspicion that this deficit is not as daunting as it appears. I suspect that a substantial portion of it is not "structural" but rather non-recurring stimulus spending, as well as a result of temporarily depressed revenues. I suspect that both Harper and Ignatieff believe that eliminating the deficit will be a realistic promise that they can win brownie-points for delivering on once the economy is back on its feet. The whole idea of campaigning against the deficit seems disingenuous to me, however. "Look at this outrageous deficit the government has racked up!" Do they think the voters are so dumb as to recall who demanded the stimulus spending? (It's a serious question. The voters might well be that dumb.) I think they should be campaigning on: "WE saved the economy. Harper wasn't going to spend money to stimulate the economy until WE demanded it! WE made this government spend the money to fight the recession!" -k

They wanted to show everybody that they found a real forest? Hey, on the bright side, at least it's not an out-of-focus cell-phone video. I have said for some time that I, Kimberly Johnson, am the voter that the Liberals need to win over to return to government. They need to win voters who aren't overly enchanted with Harper, but have refused to support the Liberals due to various factors (ad-scam, Stephane Dion, etc.) This ad (and I've only watched the English one because my French is abysmal) doesn't do much to help them on that front, but it doesn't hurt them either. They seem to be trying to create an image that the middle-of-the-road Canadian will find comfortable and relateable. Michael Ignatieff steps forward and declares himself to be in favor of trade, competitiveness, innovation, and business. I think the large majority of Canadians are ok with all of this. (Compare Stephane Dion who stepped forward and spoke of shifts and change and alarm and impending crisis... all of which made people uncomfortable.) This isn't a campaign or a platform, this is a guy who is trying to approach the typical voter in a way they'll find comfortable. (edit to add: ok, even with my French being abysmal, those were straightforward enough.) -k

What has the one got to do with the other? What has my guess at Anand Jon Alexander's motive for committing rape to do with the prior discussion? Why don't you explain that for us, Ms Smartypants? -k

They're certainly welcome to. But If they're breaking a contract, they may need to factor legal costs and punitive costs into their balance sheet. I suspect Mr Baird is right: they're trying to stir up public sentiment in order to give themselves a position to strengthen their negotiating position when they ask for more cash. We shall see. -k

Men in a position of power sometimes exploit young women when given the opportunity to do so. "Casting couch" refers to directors feeling entitled to sexual favors from aspiring actresses; this guy felt entitled to sexual favor from aspiring models. Now, obviously this guy has crossed a legal line that made it possible to prosecute him, so certainly this wasn't the traditional "casting couch" scenario, but it is similar enough that I feel comfortable in suspecting this attitude was his motivation rather than racial motives. That is to say: I see this as a case of a powerful male feeling entitled to tribute from women seeking his favor, not a brown man trying to get revenge on whitey by "defiling" white women. -k

aha! Not so simple as it first appeared. If Greyhound has entered into some agreement, then I sould expect that there are potentially legal means of holding them to it until alternative arrangements can be made. Ultimately, I still feel that if British Columbia can operate billions of dollars worth of capital in getting people from the mainland to islands up and down the coast, inland provinces can figure out some way of getting people up and down the highway. -k

Some music doesn't just become history, it transcends it. Everybody knows .. uh, Greensleeves, for instance. It will survive in the sense that it will still exist in recorded format that someone could still listen to in a hundred or a thousand years, if they chose to. It is dead in the sense that nobody will chose to. It has no relevance to anyone who wasn't around to hear it back in "the good old days". -k

Yeah, but as I pointed out: when was the last time you heard of Jews killing an apostate? There's definitely some wacky crap in the Old Testament. I mean, doesn't Deuteronomy also say that you should be slaughtered for eating shellfish or working on Saturdays? Yet, it doesn't happen. You can't say it doesn't happen with Islam, because we know it happens. I also hate religious kooks of all creeds, and yet find I write about Muslims much more often than Jews or Christians, because Muslims give me so much more to write about. -k

That song will die. It'll be gone when they are. -k

After listening to interviews on CBC radio about how important Greyhound is to people in isolated communities, I was left wondering: why is a private company expected to operate as if it were a public utility? If Greyhound is a private business, they must be free to operate in their own financial best interest, and protect their financial well being. If these routes that are to be closed are an indispensable public service, then maybe our government needs to look at alternate was of providing this service. Public subsidy of transportation in Canada has gone on for longer than Canada has even existed, railroads being the most prominent example. Whether subsidies of private corporations, or outright government operation of the transportation service, we've got a lot of precedent here. If British Columbia can operate a fleet of large, expensive boats and terminals to get people to remote islands along the coast, surely Ontario and Manitoba can figure out some way of getting people and goods up and down highways. -k

That was kind of my point, Dick. -k

yabut yabut how many killings of Jewish apostates can you recall? I don't know enough about this particular case to have an opinion as to whether this girl is actually in danger. However, it is credible that this girl might be in danger because we know that young women have been killed for "dishonoring their families" and disobeying their faith and whatever. We also know that Muslim apostates do sometimes get killed. (Surely we recall the guy sentenced by a court to die in Afghanistan for leaving Islam.) You can't out of hand reject the possibility that this girl might be in legitimate danger after what happened in Kingston. -k

Not off the top of my head. I don't really follow feminist organizations closely or monitor their statements. It's like asking somebody to name some top Cricket players and their current stats. Who would know, and who would even care? I do recall feminist groups being among those who spoke out against Sharia in Ontario, however. One prominent example of a feminist who speaks out against Islam is Irshad Manji; but of course she can do so without accusations of racism because she is brown and Muslim herself. -k {Jesus Juice!}

That's ridiculous. Women have not fought for freedoms in our Western democracies only to lose them to third-world knuckleheads. -k

You heard feminists speak about it the last time Afghanistan tried to pass such an outrage; I have no idea how it got through with no publicity this time. Feminists speak about this sort of outrage often. Usually the reaction is quite muted, however: often times the people who would be carrying the torch on something like this are also committed to patronizing brown-people and to making excuses for religious idiots. So I guess I agree with the gist of what you're saying. The forces of political correctness are often thrown into a quandary whenever third-world brown-people do something stupid. Let me stop you there, however. Presenting "REAL Women" as a representative of what Canadian feminists are saying is a huge mistake. They're a group of cranky old church-ladies fighting for womens' right to get out of the workforce and get back in the kitchen. Why are they sticking up for the Muslims? Because in the clash between women and religion, R.E.A.L. Women figure the Muslims are on Team Jeeeezus. -k

It could be argued from that point of view, but I strongly doubt that is the sense Lictor is using the term. -k

Unless Castro is Jewish, I doubt Dub is interested. -k

So... ...this guy raped underaged girls and gets 59 years in prison? Sounds like it's lucky for him he did the raping himself, because if he'd had pictures of somebody else doing it, the sentence could have been 200 years. Other than the color of the man's skin, this sounds like a pretty familiar story (we've all heard the phrase "casting couch"...) Men who find themselves in a position to prey upon young women sometimes do so. I doubt his person was motivated by racial factors... I am only guessing, but I suspect he was motivated by the same factors that have motivated men to pursue attractive young women for as long as humans have walked the earth. I am also put off by the word "defiled" used in the opening post. These women have been victimized by a criminal, but they have not been "defiled". The word "defiled" suggests somehow that they have been ruined or rendered worthless by what has happened. This is a 3rd-world attitude ("10 chickens for your daughter if she is a virgin... but only 2 if she is not a virgin. The groom's mother will conduct an inspection.") These women may be left with emotional scars by this experience, but they are not "defiled". -k

One possibility is that this review is being done as a courtesy to the South African government. The second possibility is that the accusation of racism is sufficiently upsetting to the government that they feel Canada's reputation is being harmed. I think the situation is similar to attempting to criticize contemporary policy in Israel. You might get branded an anti-Semite, and reminded of the Holocaust. Well, apparently criticizing South Africa's current government can get you branded a racist, and Apartheid is a lot more recent than the Holocaust. -k

In regard to the claim that Bryant is receiving special consideration: a prominent BC lawyer has been hired to prosecute the case. And I believe that Wild Bill has it exactly right: -k

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were at the hearing. I didn't know you'd had a chance to audit the evidence first hand. What can you tell us about the case that was presented? I don't think anybody who knows anything about current events in South Africa would be at all surprised at either of the two central claims: 1) race-based violence directed at members of a minority. 2) the government being unwilling or unable to provide human security for members of minorities. While I'm not a refugee claims expert I believe those two criterion, which could easily be argued to apply in South Africa, would form the basis of a successful refugee claim in any circumstance. -k

Sheppard is identified as being angry enough to be swinging his bike-lock as a weapon. Cite: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/michae...e1274909/#video Speaking of cites, do you have any citation for the claim that Sheppard's bike had been damaged? I don't recall actually reading that, but I may have missed it. Feel free to inform me, if you can. "one punch"... have you ever been in a fight? Do you realize how often people are seriously and permanently injured in fights? Since Sheppard is reported to have been swinging his bike-lock as a weapon, it doesn't seem likely that Bryant would have gotten away with just "one punch" either. Ever been hit by a bike lock? I haven't, but I suspect they're pretty effective weapons. You'd have us believe that Sheppard was behaving in a calm and rational manner. Despite the fact that... -police had already been called to take him away from his girlfriend's residence earlier that evening. -his own friends say he was so drunk that they can't believe the police didn't drive him to his home. -he's reported to have been striking Bryant's car with his bike-lock. -he chased a moving vehicle and grabbed onto it. None of this gives any reason to suspect that he was calm or rational at the point Bryant decided to flee the confrontation. Exactly the opposite. Oh yeah... when Edmonton police issued a warrant for Sheppard's arrest in 2003, they warned the public that he had a history of violence. And by the way, let's have another look at this little bit, from an article that you provided earlier: ...so, why was Sheppard obstructing the roadway in the first place? -k