kimmy

You're always telling people to "stop spinning", but you're certainly not one for taking his own advice. The results of the first election were 49.8% to 46.8%. The results of the runoff were 57.5% to 42.5%. That is a decisive difference. While both parties may have had trouble getting the vote out since the "real election" was already over, it is obvious that the Republicans were far more successful in mobilizing their support than the Democrats. Palin was central in those efforts. All of which misses the real point, which is that even after taking a lot of the blame for "losing the election", she was still the one that they went to when they needed someone to campaign for Chambliss in the runoff. -k

Perhaps... but that's not the same as being a good reason to have a special category for "hate crimes". If a particular defendant is particularly likely to reoffend, be it against a black person or a gay person or a random person or a person with pie, it seems to me that a judge should be able to make that sort of determination during sentencing. -k

If a guy kills his wife because his wife cheated on him, his next wife or girlfriend or female acquaintance is probably in a lot of danger as well. If I beat up somebody and take their lunch, I might be a danger next time I get hungry... do you think there should be a food crimes legislation? Do you think that the three turds in this video are well behaved individuals until such time as they run into some non-white person? Personally, I think you're giving them too much credit. Personally, I suspect they're the sort of creeps who'd be driving around looking for somebody else to beat up if there wasn't a black person handy. -k

Religious fanatics of all description can go stick their flippers in a light socket. We hear a lot about Muslim fanatics, and Christian kooks to a lesser extent, but recent events have made it clear that there are some completely retarded Jews and Hindus as well. -k

While it is obvious that she has absolutely no appeal for Democrat supporters, it is equally obvious that a lot of Republicans feel very passionate about her. It was apparent even during the campaign that she overshadowed McCain-- drew far bigger crowds to her campaign stops, had people chanting for her even during McCain's own speeches. For the Georgia senate runoff, the Democrats used "robocalls" from Obama and Hillary; the Republicans countered by having Sarah Palin campaign for their candidate, and won the runoff soundly. She has also been a very successful fundraiser for the party. She seems to be the one carrying the flag for the party right now, almost by default certainly, but also because she's the only living Republican that generates this kind of enthusiasm. While I think that her chances of ever becoming President are slim, I think she could have a very large influence on who the Republican candidate will be. If she chooses not to run herself, whoever she puts her support behind would have what might be an insurmountable advantage in winning the Republican nomination. -k

uh, can't the same argument be made regardless of the motive? -k

Inane threads have lots of posts because Oleg and Benny have lots of time on their hands. Good threads have few posts because Oleg and Benny haven't found them yet. -k

I remember seeing a tv show or movie where a distraught southern redneck bride complained that a brawl erupted at the wedding reception because the band wouldn't play Freebird... I can't say who you should respect Bill; I can only assume that the amount of respect you have for an artist is proportional to the amount of guitar riffs and the length of their mullets. I'm not surprised you like Wolfmother, as they sound as if they've just emerged from 35 years in a cryogenic chamber. It's as if somebody threw Deep Purple and Led Zepplin in a blender. At any rate, if you're aware that Wolfmother exists, you must be aware that they don't exist in a vacuum. You can't find a radio station that plays just Wolfmother, and you can't find a radio station that plays Jonas Brothers, Britney Spears, and Wolfmother. Surprisingly, there are actual radio stations designed for people who'd like to hear Wolfmother and other artists who are producing new music that is neither boy-band nor Britney. Some of this music is good, some is decidedly not good, but it is out there. I am probably not the right person to advocate on behalf of today's artists, as I myself am often more interested in exploring music from before I was born (such as ). As well, I can't even begin to discuss the merits of hip-hop, as I neither hip nor hop. However, due to popular demand, I present the following as a little taste of some of the newer music I find enjoyable. You can tell me you can't stand it, but you can't tell me it's boy-bands-and-Britney formula crap. Kyuss and Queens of the Stone Age new record has lots of on it. has not strayed far for several years. as I would think most Canadians would be familiar with and probably before very long people will also have heard of . More commercially successful bands like The Killers, the Foo Fighters, Nine Inch Nails, and Green Day are likewise still producing great records. I suppose some people might consider Green Day's "American Idiot" to be "commercial crap" because it's sold a billion records, but if you listen to "American Idiot" from start to end and all you got out of it was commercial crap, you're just not listening. -k

I don't know anybody who listens to boy-bands or Britney clones either... and yet people your age seem to think that's all there is. Yes, that's basically the difference here. I can look back at the 1970s and recognize that while the industry was dominated by commercial crap, there were lots of artists doing different things. You look at the industry today and recognize the commercial crap, and think that's all there is. Congratulations, you've turned into somebody's dad. (Red Foreman, maybe.) "Music today, it's all disco crap. When I was your age, we had real Rock And Roll! Elvis, and Bill Haley, and Buddy Holly, and..." As much as the "top 40 charts" don't represent what people were listening to in the 1970s, this "Jonas Brothers and Britney Spears" notion you're hung up on is even less representative of what people are actually listening to today. Top 40 doesn't exist anymore, and there are 5 times as many radio stations as there used to be. And if you don't like what the radio stations in your town are playing, you can turn on your computer and stream radio stations from other cities, or from online music channels that cater to any taste imaginable. People have an infinite amount of choice now. That hadn't been my intent... at least not until he brought up Carole King. Using Carole King to argue that the music of the 1970s was better is like using Pauly Shore to argue that the movies of the 1990s were better. I bet that playing "It's too late baby, now, it's too late" over and over would be an excellent alternative to waterboarding. Anyway, I digress. I'm just always amazed at the smugness when old-people talk about how much better things were back in their day. It's always amazing to me how selective peoples' memories are when they look at the past, and how their view of the present is filtered through their preconceptions. Argus and I had a similar thread about TV... Argus argued that TV was better back in his day, because they had Archie Bunker and (...uh, I think Archie Bunker was about the extent of it...) but somehow he'd forgotten that they also had BJ And The Bear and all kinds of other laughably bad garbage that just hasn't stood up to the test of time. Unluckily, Argus couldn't argue that he and his friends were actually watching much cooler FM TV stations that played more sophisticated programs. If I recall, August and I had a similar discussion regarding movies... August looks at 1965 and recalls Dr Zhivago but forgets That Darn Cat. The power of nostalgia is to recall the highlights of days gone by and contrast them with the run of the mill of present day. Some people would probably argue that Rock 'n' Roll was already finished by the time Bill's FM radio stations emerged. -k

You want to contrast today's mass-market music with a handful of hand-picked artists that you and your hip buddies listened to? That's an apples and oranges comparison. You want to look at the mass-market music of today to show how the '70s were so much better? Let's compare apples with apples and look at the mass-market music of the 1970s. You want to make the claim that the music of today has been "dumbed down"... I argue that the music of your day was just as dumb, and probably dumber. I present the following case: http://cashboxmagazine.com/archives/70s_files/1970YESP.html http://cashboxmagazine.com/archives/70s_files/1971YESP.html http://cashboxmagazine.com/archives/70s_files/1972YESP.html http://cashboxmagazine.com/archives/70s_files/1973YESP.html http://cashboxmagazine.com/archives/70s_files/1974YESP.html http://cashboxmagazine.com/archives/70s_files/1975YESP.html http://cashboxmagazine.com/archives/70s_files/1976YESP.html http://cashboxmagazine.com/archives/70s_files/1977YESP.html http://cashboxmagazine.com/archives/70s_files/1978YESP.html http://cashboxmagazine.com/archives/70s_files/1979YESP.html I didn't think they could stack shit that high, but there it is: the 1000 biggest songs of the 1970s... and probably 950 of them are so bad that they're only suitable for the soundtrack of a Will Ferrell period-comedy, or so forgettable that they haven't been played in years and haven't even been missed. There's your musical golden age, Bill. I think the above list proves that most of it has been forgotten because it sucked. So... would you say it was "Muskrat Love" that brought down the Berlin Wall? Or would you say it was more "Disco Duck"? You look at the music industry today and just see a bunch of commercialized crap. I look at the lists of what people were actually listening to in the 1970s, and just see a bunch of commercialized crap too. -k

With the exception of the Stones, none of those acts are (or ever were) singing about partying like high-school kids. As for the Stones, my comments re:KISS apply. Ditto Aerosmith and Van Halen. Maybe the 4 of them can get together and do a "Still in highschool after 52 years!" tour. I always do one of these: when old-people tell me that they're up on the music the kids are listening to nowadays, and proceed to discuss boy-bands and Britney Spears as if that's the sum total of the music industry. Ditto the above comment. Another thing I notice about old-people is how selective their memory becomes. They can remember the Claptons and Zepplins, but forget how much dog-shit there was that came along with it. Visit one of those websites that'll spit out the top 20 record chart for any week in history, and look up what was actually popular, and I guarantee that most of it is crap that you'd forgotten. You remember the Claptons and Zepplins and conveniently forget Frankie Avalon and the Archies and the Monkees and Fabian and that 99% of the 1970s was so bad that it was erased from the public consciousness by 1981. Personally I'd rather jab my eardrums with knitting needles than listen to Carole King, but that's just me. I feel the same about Janis Joplin, btw. Stoned Chick Yelling. And what's "pablum" to you? If "pablum" means inoffensive, unchallenging, and formulaic ...then "pablum" has been the staple of the music industry for longer than you or I have been alive. If "pablum" means just plain dumb, then "I Wanna Rock And Roll All Night And Party Every Day!" is the king of pablum. Personally, I think digital media is the greatest promotional tool for bands that has come along since forever. I can hear new music on Youtube, internet radio, illegal downloads, or in video games, and if I like it, I buy it. When broadcast radio was the only way I heard new music, I never bought anything. At the time, commercial radio wasn't playing anything that was remotely interesting to me, and as a result, I wasn't buying anything. Now I have access to an infinite variety. And the arrival of more radio stations that don't follow "top 40" formats has improved the variety there, as well. I've bought far more CDs since I've been downloading music than I did before I started. -k

Some horrible person remarked "Gee, and I thought Farrah Fawcett would be the most famous white woman to die today." -k

I have never regretted choosing a "pay as you go" phone plan. I have never trusted cell phone company contracts, and there are alternatives. -k

Whatever KISS's merits might have been back in their day, the idea of them still doing the same thing 30 years later is very said. 60 year old men strutting around in leather jackets and makeup and singing about getting tail is pretty pathetic. The only thing sadder than that is the Beach Boys still trying to be surfer-dudes. -k

I have heard that the NDP once upon a time mattered, that they represented the views of blue collar workers and farmers and common-sense, ordinary Canadians who just wanted somebody in parliament to ask "WTF?" to the banks and big business on their behalf.. I have heard that these blue collar workers and farmers and common-sense ordinary Canadians who used to support the NDP would no longer recognize this party of "new energy" and political correctness and Quixotic left-wing ivory towerism. -k

Indeed. Probably marrying into Oleg's clan is the first clue. -k

Where has anyone claimed that? In these cases, we're talking about the difference between unsympathetic vs unsympathetic and angry. I don't see how unsympathetic and angry is of any great value to the protesters. The transparent support for Tamil independence and the LTTE at those rallies is what cost me their support. People don't support your cause. To try to disrupt their lives until they do support your cause? That's foolish, and it's extortion. I can only consider native issues on a case by case basis. What's the latest one... armed guards at border crossings? No, I can't bring myself to support the natives on this one, whether they protest it by healing sick children or by ransacking towns. My opinion of the cause won't change, but the tactics would certainly influence my opinion of the protesters. I don't recall anybody saying they'd be on their side if not for these protest tactics. That's a straw man, Globe. However, that's not what the author of this thread. She claims that racism, not the protest tactics, is the rea Which is a load of crap. And you've unwittingly provided proof, Globe: where were you when Tamils were protesting outside in the bitter cold of winter every day on the sidewalks of University? Not impeding pedestrians or cars? The answer is you didn't even know they existed, because no one pays attention to the concerns of minority groups until they make enough of a disruption to get people to pay attention. ... no one has ever heard of small and civil acts of awareness-raising or protest that go on all the time (ie - grandmothers walking around the Great Lakes), Canadians might not have cared about these more civil protests, but Canadians weren't upset about them either. Ergo: the protest tactics, not racism, is the reason the Hamilton Spectator spoke out against these tactics. -k

From your own article... (emphasis is the author's.) This is about as honest as claiming that there was no Frog Lake Massacre... because the deaths all occurred on dry land. -k

You'll note, Drea, that Palin never disputed Letterman's right to free expression (in fact, she endorsed it.) Rather, she used her own freedom expression to (figuratively speaking) kick the living crap out of him. This is my take as well. If you agree to a boxing match, you've agreed to accept the possibility that you'll get punched in the face. If you go on a ski-hill, you've agreed to accept the possibility that you'll fall down. If you sit in the front row at an x-rated comedy club and start heckling the guy with the microphone, you've agreed to accept the possibility that you'll be taunted and provoked. The situation, as described in the newspaper article, is not the same as someone walking down the street being targeted with hateful comments. -k

Sorry, but Thanks for playing, we do have some lovely parting gifts.The text of the joke is public record. His joke did not specify "the unwed mother". The joke only identifies the one being "knocked up" as the one that was at the Yankees game with Sarah. Which was 14 year old Willow, not "the unwed mother". Letterman has already admitted it was his mistake. He claims first that he didn't think Palin actually had any of her daughters at the game, but later claims that he thought it was the 18 year old that was at the game. Whichever the case, he has concede that it was his error that made the joke appear to be about Willow. Whichever story he decides to stick with, he concedes it was his fault, not some wild right-wing conspiracy to frame him. Personally, I'd suggest you give this one up, before you wind up looking as foolish as Letterman did. -k {"I meant to ridicule the 18 year old unwed mother, not the 14 year old." What a big man he is.}

Sorry, but that *was* the joke he told. It might have not been the joke he *intended* to tell, but that his own fault and the fault of his writing team, for not checking their facts. He says that he specifically went to check that Bristol had turned 18 ... but he obviously never bothered to check which daughter actually attended the baseball game. His efforts to shift the blame to angry listeners for "misunderstanding" the joke and try to play his earlier non-apology for laughs were simply foolish. Had he offered his 2nd statement, the real apology, on his next show, this would have not blown up the way it has. waaaaah. Media figures have used Palin to great advantage to their own careers. Are we supposed to feel sorry for them in this instance when the shoe is on the other foot? -k

There was only one Palin daughter who was at the Yankees game, and it wasn't the older one. Late Show could have saved themselves a lot of embarrassment if they'd just come out from the start and admitted they'd got the facts wrong, instead of trying to rationalize it away or saying it was the fault of others who "misunderstood" the joke. The joke posits either that the unnamed Palin daughter is promiscuous, or that Alex Rodriguez is a rapist. It was either an attack on the girl, or on Alex Rodriguez, or both. Well, they say there's no such thing as bad publicity. "They can write whatever they like about me... just make sure they spell my name right." I doubt it, in this case, though. He may have gained some short-term viewers from people who tuned in to see what all the ruckus is about (more evidence of the magnetic power Sarah Palin still has, I would suggest...) but I suspect that the black eye Letterman has suffered from this controversy will last much longer than the rise in ratings. Obviously, the questions about his character in wake of the tasteless joke are bad enough and were certainly upsetting to Letterman himself, as evidenced by how visibly agitated he became during his 8 minute non-apology. But what probably burns him up more than that is that he got his ass kicked by a politician, and worse, by a politician who everybody thinks is a lightweight and not-too-bright. (and she did kick his ass... if this was a fight, it was as short and brutal a knockout as you could find in UFC.) That has to be humiliating for him. -k

I'm personally never really that shocked when something like this happens. I had never heard of this man before. If "family values" is the only thing he has going for his political career, then this should kill his aspirations of reaching higher, and deservedly so. If he has a track record as a legislator that has merit, then hopefully this doesn't put an end to it. I don't believe that "family values" should elevate pointless people into positions of power, and I don't believe that personal failings should ruin the careers of worthy people. I make no claim of knowing which sort of person Mr Ensign is. I quickly scanned his wikipedia entry and among the predictable positions one would expect, I also found this... To me, that sounds like a valuable contribution to the law of the land. Perhaps it is a clue that he has other valuable contributions to make, and if that is the case then it would be unfortunate if marital infidelity ended his political career. -k

The dude just took (as us Albertans would say) a good old fashioned curb-stomping. -k

Seems fair to me. Some of the other stuff going on in this thread is kind of head scratching, though... Liberal supporters' holier-than-thou attitude toward attack ads for one thing. Three words for you... "Choose your Canada." US style attack ads... on televisions... in Canada... we did not make this up. And for you, just one URL... "stephenharpersaid.ca" ...it's a parking space for ads nowadays, but every fan of out of context quotes remembers what the site used to contain. And this one... Just hoping you can clarify for me... when you say Harper "started lying about every idea that Canada was founded upon" ... can you be specific? Are you referring to the actual historical facts of our country, or are you referring to the fake national identity Pierre Trudeau dreamed up in the 1970s and 80s? -k