kimmy

It's never been my claim that racism doesn't exist, or that racial violence isn't a historical fact. However, I don't believe that racial attacks by whites are common at all, and I believe that this incident in Courtenay became sensationalized precisely for that reason. I also believe that people have seized on the incident in an attempt to further their own personal agenda, and to falsely claim that it represents some great trend in Canadian society that simply isn't real. Contrast that with this incident... http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/200...gan-school.html ...we know that the attackers in that incident were black and the victim was white, because the families of the accused howled that their children were targets of racism. The police went out of their way to downplay any racial element to the story. The CBC report on the guilty pleas makes no mention at all of race, and the only reason we knew about the racial aspect of the story at all is that the parents of the accused made an issue of it. 16 black kids sexually assault and terrorize a white girl at a school over a span of 18 months, and nobody will utter a peep about that except for the parents crying "racism!" Three yokels yell insults and attack a black man in a parking lot, and it's national headline news. Don't you think there's a discrepancy there that deserves to be discussed? -k

You haven't been making that argument, but others (Griz, Tango, Strangles...) certainly want to create this idea of a Canada where whites are beating down minorities. I think they're wrong. I can certainly agree that some of this might be explained by violence committed during an attempt to rob or steal. But do you feel comfortable attributing the whole thing to that explanation? I mean, when I first mentioned that stat, that wasn't your initial reaction (you said "lack of paternal model"). Who are criminals by definition?! -k

I'm having a hard time making replies in this thread. I'm getting a 403 Forbidden error. Is it just me? -k

So you're not going to share your interpretation of the numbers on Table 42? -k

Good answer The US Department of Justice publishes this document and is willing to state that tens of thousands of white women were raped by black men, while black women being raped by white men is such a statistical rarity that they have trouble measuring it at all... ... if the US Department of Justice is willing to state that, right there on table 42, in print on their letterhead on their website, can't we take them at face value? Do they have some kind of ulterior motive in publishing that figure? Is this some kind of plot by The Man? -k

So what's that on Table 42, then? Others have argued the shortcomings of the DoJ stats with regard to reporting. Valid point, doesn't need me to repeat it. I wanted to point out that your brochure isn't what you'd hoped for. Even if "the majority" of the 13% of rapes that interracial are white-on-black, that could still add up to as much as a 6:1 *proportionate* rate of black-on-white rapes. -k

The statistics used in the article Argus cites do, indeed, come from the US Department of Justice, and can be viewed here: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cvusst.htm The figure American Woman provided comes from a campus life brochure about Preventing Sexual Assault. It's not a study, the source of their figures isn't cited anywhere... and by the way: even if it is correct, wouldn't actually disprove the claim that black-on-white rape is disproportionate. -k

They're not remotely close. Pan's Labyrinth is a far, far more unsettling film. The villain in Pan's Labyrinth-- the real one, not the CGI ones-- is one of the scariest movie monsters I think I've ever seen. -k

I don't believe there was anything ambiguous in what I wrote. Is there something you need to have explained? -k

We've been here reading this ridiculous thread about bands of whites who apparently roam the country like wolves looking for poor swarthy people to attack. White hatred of others is assumed to be such a big source of evil that people look for it where it doesn't even exist (like Topaz here). But hark! Finally! Proof of this great wave of white hate! A video, even! Yes! Yes! Yes! The holy grail! Now this wave of white violence has been proven! Now we can do the guilt thing and the "we have so much to learn" thing and the handwringing thing and the navel-gazing thing and talk about how this is just the tip of what must be a vast vast iceberg, and all of that. Finally we can talk about this vast epidemic of white racist violence that permeates our country! But along comes some poor hapless slob who has the audacity to suggest that the reverse is much more often the case. And people laugh and ridicule him and accuse him of getting his information from Stormfront and demand proof. And provided with statistics that show that this great wave of white violence against others is fiction, and that whites are, indeed, much more the victims of violence than the attackers? Well, that obviously doesn't match with what we know to be true. That just doesn't fit with this big epidemic of white racists driving around looking for swarthy people to kick the crap out of. It's almost as if ... as if this wave of white hate isn't even real. What about our national handwringing on the subject of race?! And so we have the rationalizations... Well, the attackers are probably ...poor! ...they probably just wanted a sandwich! You're one of the ones who demanded proof that whites are more often the victims than the attackers. Now you've got your evidence, and because it says something much different than what you were hoping for, you're here denouncing people who'd actually talk about what your statistics show. Somebody who'd point out the obvious conclusions that can be drawn from these facts that you asked for is obviously just a racist. Facts were a great thing when you thought they would be on your side, but now that they're not, people who'd like to discuss them are obviously just racists trying to oppress Canada's poor, hungry people of colour. -k

Indeed. I think it's obvious that Dion inspired a lot of apathy in his own party. There's no doubt in my mind that a lot of people who considered themselves Liberals didn't feel engaged by Dion or his fruitopian platform. Such people might still tell pollsters that they support the Liberals, but when it comes time to open their wallet for a donation or to help the campaign or get out to the poll on election night, find it hard to make the effort for a candidate they don't care that much about. -k

That's a really good point. As many kids go to big blockbusters like Transformers and Pirates of the Caribbean and Harry Potter as will go to "children's movies", and they have some pretty frightening stuff too. But I guess people don't think of them as "childrens' movies" so it doesn't trigger the same alarm bells for some reason. -k

In myth, trolls eat children. -k {served with hollandaise sauce, most likely.}

Don't need pride with an empty belly. I am picturing your head on an english muffin, gently poached, covered with hollandaise sauce. -k

hungry. -k

I think it is entirely reasonable to require someone to provide reliable identification in order to access privileges such as boarding an airplane or driving a car. I think it is entirely unreasonable for people to assume they have a right to "privacy" when in plain sight in public places. -k

Riverwind's comments have been sponsored by Amazon Kindle! It's like having a library in your purse! A revolutionary technology that gives you the freedom to --- -k

Kuzadd, I'm not sure about this, but you've raised children, right? In your opinion, what age of children would you consider this film appropriate for? I've been wondering since I saw it about whether it's actually a childrens' movie at all, or if the reviewers who said it's too creepy for kids are just overprotective worrywarts. -k

To some a benny is a poached egg on a muffin served with hollandaise sauce. -k {ham is optional.}

They have come to take Stephane Dion back to his home world. -k

Pure genius! After seeing that, who could argue the brilliance of Mrs Palin's literary accumen? -k

For some reason I was expecting to hear he'd suffered a heart attack. Man, that guy was like 300 pounds when he was still playing! I bet he must weigh a quarter ton now that he's retired! But yeah, cool that he chatted with your son and signed his ticket. -k

This video shows some of , although doesn't discuss the "3-d printing", which was done using this company's technologies. -k

Whether they had the right to sell the book or not, they appear to have broken their own agreement with their customers. The license says your digital copy is permanent, which would seem to preclude them having a right to go back and delete it, whatever their issue with the publisher. If they'd accidentally sold hard-copy books to customers in a region where they weren't licensed to sell them, sneaking into customers' homes and taking the book back wouldn't have been an option. They'd have had to have come up with some alternative, such as providing financial compensation to the publisher. And, I'd suggest that for the amount of damage this gaffe will to future Kindle sales and future E-book sales, Amazon would have been financially a lot smarter to write the publisher a big cheque and say "we're really sorry." -k

Not at all! I was considering mentioning Alice in Wonderland along with Wizard of Oz and The Chronicles of Narnia in my opening message, but couldn't recall the story well enough to know whether it was a good comparison. I didn't mind the side-track at all, as it seems almost too closely related to not merit a mention. I hadn't realized there was a new Alice movie in the works. I just hope it doesn't have Danny Elfman caper music. There's lots of sights that might be disturbing to kids in the movie. If I'd seen this when I was little, I'd have probably had a hard time sleeping for a few days. But nowadays, when kids can watch CSI on TV in prime time, I'm not sure if they're as sensitive. -k