kimmy

So... "The Accused"? "Thelma and Louise"? I'm not trying to pick on you, I'm trying to figure out if it's the scene itself you found upsetting, or just that you weren't expecting a scene like that in this genre of movie. It was certainly an upsetting scene, which I think was entirely the point. Of all the gratuitous violence in the film, it was one scene that I didn't think was gratuitous at all... it was integral to the story, and I think it had a ring of truth to it as well. -k

Even if the tolls were the same as it costs to take BC Ferries, almost every traveller would happily pay, just for the relief of not being held hostage by that scurvy band of sea-dogs for a two hour voyage, plus however many hours you need to line up to get onboard. Arrrrh, there be a two-sailing wait at Tsawassen, me hearties! Now get thee to the galley, and give the wench $8 for a cheeseburger while ye waits, for there be naught else but seagull crap for ye to eat at the terminal, matie. -k

I dunno... the "R" rating, the words "Graphic violence, sexuality, nudity, language" being affixed to listings and reviews... I think viewers were warned that they weren't going into a typical superhero movie. Being shocked that a superhero movie contained such dark subject matter to me seems a bit like assuming that "Family Guy" or "Ninja Scroll" are going to be cheerful children's entertainment because they're cartoons... -k

It seems to me that a tide ought be rising half the time and falling half the time... The most obvious means of generating power from tides would only generate power during the half cycle when the tide is falling. There might be other ways... huge floats that could pull cable as they rise or fall, perhaps, might be a way to generate power throughout the whole tidal cycle. Wind, solar, and tidal all need some way to store energy effectively to become more meaningful. There are ways to store energy... batteries, capacitors, flywheels... all having major drawbacks on this sort of scale. I have often wondered about using wind, solar, or tidal to synthesize hydrogen. Hydrogen can be stored and transported, could be used for fuel cell vehicles, and could power huge fuel-cell generators. -k

Yes! And No! People on Vancouver Island hate BC Ferries with a passion. And yet, a lot of people on Vancouver Island are probably grateful that the lack of direct land route maintains some level of exclusivity, some amount of buffer between them and all the craziness of the Lower Mainland, "keeps the riff-raff out" one might say. If the only thing separating Vancouver and Victoria were a short car drive, would Victoria begin to take on more of the characteristics of the Lower Mainland? It might... Kelowna, BC sits on the eastern shore at the mid-point of a lake that is a kilometer or two wide and about 100 kilometers long. Kelowna is a city of about 120,000... and it is growing so rapidly that new housing developments are piling up on the mountains that surround the town and real-estate prices are right up with Vancouver as the highest in the country. On the west side of the lake, directly opposite Kelowna, is a community called Westbank, of roughly 30,000 people. Many of them commute to work in Kelowna. Westbank's growth is largely a result of rising housing costs in Kelowna. Westbank's growth has been limited largely as a result of the difficulty of getting across the lake. Up until last year, traffic across the lake had been via an old floating bridge, an ugly rusting monstrosity that was a blight to behold. 3 lanes of traffic pitifully undersized for the demands facing it, subject to frequent interruption as a lift-span had to be raised to allow boats to pass beneath. Last year, the new bridge was completed, a beautiful structure that is little more than a ribbon of road arcing through the air on one end and resting gently on the water at the other, 5 free-flowing lanes of traffic allowing unimpeded travel across the lake, the lift-span a thing of the past as even an oceanliner could pass under the arc on the west side. On the bright side, the new bridge will make it far more convenient to get across the lake, opening the west side up to all kinds of development possibilities, and allowing many more people to live in the Kelowna region. On the down side, the new bridge will make it far more convenient to get across the lake, opening the west side up to all kinds of development possibilities, and allowing many more people to live in the Kelowna region. Whether it's good or bad is a matter of perspective. -k

As Shakey already posted, the Telegraph found out what really happened: The most authoritative account I can find was from pool reporter William Englund of National Journal. His pool report stated: "Then it was Cowen's turn, and he was in for a surprise. 'We begin by welcoming today a strong friend of the United States,' he said--then stopped in surprise as he realized he was reading President Obama's speech off the teleprompter. 'Why don't these things work for me?' he asked, as the crowd roared. 'Thank you for having us. Who said these things were idiot-proof?' Then he got his bearings and gave the same talk that he delivered in the East Room. When he ended, at 8:12, Obama stepped to the microphone and said, 'First, I'd like to say thank you to President Obama...(much laughter). Happy Saint Patrick's Day, everybody.' Then we were escorted out." Clearly a joke, clearly didn't give a speech at all, but rather taking the opportunity to poke some fun at Cowen's earlier misfortune. That would certainly be an interesting press conference. Ron Burgundy could relate. -k

double post...

I don't think there was any ambiguity about him being a killer. He became one, and not as result of how he dealt with the kidnapper, but because of what he had witnessed earlier. Earlier in the film his old comrades laugh about the time he dropped a guy down an elevator shaft on a whim... there's no ambiguity. That's an interesting thought. But I think the point was that he changed when he learned of the little girl's fate, not when he disposed of the murderer. By the time the killer returns to the house, Kovacs is already gone and Rorscach is there waiting. I don't think he was giving the man a way out. I think he was taunting the man, expressing his utter contempt for him. "Here, take this. You could use it to save yourself, but I know you're too weak to do what you need to do." It was just sadism, really, forcing the man to contemplate his own cowardice during the final moments of his life. I didn't care for it myself. I also thought some of the fight scenes were excessive, in the level of violence, and in their length, and in the style. The style was so over the top that one of my friends was under the impression that all of the characters have super strength and speed. When Dan and Laurie are attacked in the alley, they seem to be looking forward to the fight, and the Matrix-style kung fu they dish out seems out of place. I thought the scene was supposed to be a reawakening for them, a reminder that they used to be exceptional... it should come as a surprise to them to discover how capable they still are. Instead they act (and fight) as if beating the shit out of large street-gangs is still a day to day event for them, when it's a part of their lives they turned their back on a decade before. Saving the more spectacular antics for the prison riot scene would have been better, I think, reflecting that they're "back in the game". Why did they go into the alley, anyway? Subconsciously looking for trouble? -k

Full bag, if possible. People wear headcoverings for reasons of fashion, or reasons of convenience, or reasons of culture and religion. Some young people, male and female, do wear toques all year long for reasons of fashion. Some young men have taken to wearing old-fashioned gentlemens' hats. It's definitely eye-catching. I think at some point somebody must have taken a look at old Frank Sinatra films and thought "you know, this was one cool guy." Or maybe Humphrey Bogart. I wear a toque in the winter, to keep warm. I often wear a wide-brimmed hat in the summer if I'm going to be out in the sun for any length of time. Because I don't tan, I just burn. In both cases, it's simply a matter of protection. I need to wear a hat outside in summer, but what kind of hat is definitely difficult, because I wouldn't want to look like some kind of pretentious idiot, rodeo slut, or yokel. Like probably any other article of clothing, choosing a hat might express affiliation with some sort of subculture, hobby, lifestyle, social class, or viewpoint. For the time being, I have a wide straw hat, and a dressier looking one made out of white woven paper. Both were obtained from Zeller's at a cost of about $10 each. For people whose headwear is proscribed for cultural or religious reasons, choosing a hat is probably very simple, but their reasons for wearing it are completely different as well. I believe Paul says so in Corinthians, for reasons Argus may have mentioned earlier. -k

The "18+" rating is definitely well-deserved... The attempted rape is a key event in the story... I don't think you can tell the story without it. And doing it in such a graphic, brutal scene gives it the impact it needs. Where Snyder screwed up is that he failed to capitalize on that... failed to connect this event to later events (I filed this all under the general heading of failing to give Laurie the dramatic weight she needs to play her role later in the story.) It's also thematically important... it marks the end of the golden age of innocence and idealism, breaks up the Minutemen, disenchants the members, gives the nagging doubt that they're no better than the criminals they beat up. Great, powerful scene... but mostly wasted in the film. If you're talking about the scene with the cleaver... then yes. I don't think that was necessary. In the book... dowses room with gasoline, gives man hacksaw, drops lit match. Watches building burn down, listens to man's screams for as long as they last. To me, that's a less bloody and yet also more chilling way of showing he's lost his last shred of humanity. I don't know if Snyder thought the cleaver would be an easier way to make the point on film, or if he thought it would be more effective in representing the brutal violence he's become capable of. Again, disappointing that Snyder went over the top with gore on scenes like this... and yet gave us a bloodless climax. The climax needed to be horrific. -k

Eddie Blake is murdered in the opening scene of The Watchmen. He is an old man, but powerful: his sledgehammer fists smash the tiled walls of his posh New York apartment as he tries to fight his mysterious assailant. He wields kitchen knives and improvised weapons with a deft touch and remarkable speed, his strength and skill are obvious. And yet, he is no match for his attacker. Realizing he's beaten, he tells his attacker "it's all a god damn joke" before he is hurtled to his death through the plate glass window to the street 30 stories below. We quickly learn that Eddie Blake was a masked vigilante known as The Comedian. A bittersweet historical montage brings us up to speed: this is an alternate reality where costumed crime fighters were a historical fact. The montage is, I think, beautifully done: it portrays the costumed vigilantes with at first idealism and innocence and optimism and frivolity... but gradually transforms into violence, corruption, and tragedy. In that sense, it mirrors society's transformation as a whole, certainly in the Watchmen's fictional universe, and possibly our own as well. In a "meta" sense, it also describes the evolution of the "superhero" genre, from the bright cheerful stories of days gone by to the bleak and violent medium it has become (compare "Batman" cartoons to "The Dark Knight"...) By the end of the montage, we learn that the costumed vigilantes have been banned due to public outrage. Only three remain: The Comedian, who continues his work as a government-sanctioned operative who spends his time toppling Marxist regimes around the globe, carrying out assassinations for President Nixon, and so on. Dr Manhattan, also government-sanctioned, a scientist given god-like power through an accident. And, Rorschach, an outlaw who continues his work as a masked vigilante because he simply must. Others have retired, or met violent ends, or committed to insane asylum, or simply vanished. Eddie Blake's murder sets the story in motion, arousing the suspicions of the surviving costumed adventurers, leading them to a plot that is shocking in its ambition. The Watchmen is based on the 12-chapter comic-book series of the same name, written by British writer Alan Moore in 1986. It was widely acclaimed, becoming one of the first English-language comic book series to be taken seriously as a work of literature, and winning honors that are normally reserved for traditional forms of literature. The comic book series created a wonderfully detailed alternate world, with startling well-developed characters, and explored many themes, such as humanity's need for myths and monsters, nostalgia and longing for simpler times and fear of the future, group-think and collective fear... the portrait of a society becoming increasingly claustrophobic, increasingly dispirited, increasingly choked by its own fear as the Doomsday Clock inches towards midnight, was tremendously compelling. The comic book created this rich world full of not just the costumed adventurers, but regular people, all crushed under the weight of impending doom. I loved the movie. I might be one of the few who did. The graphic novel has a lot of hardcore fans, many of whom are undoubtedly upset at the liberties taken with the revered source material. And people not familiar with the source material may have found the movie overly long, overly complicated, or just plain confusing. But personally, I loved it, despite its flaws. There are several flaws. A major one is that Laurie Juspecyk, the second "Silk Spectre", is simply not adequately developed. Her complicated past plays a pivotal role in the story, and the film doesn't explain her adequately... so that when the Big Revelation comes, it is first off not very surprising to the viewer, having been clumsily hinted at earlier... and secondly doesn't seem like that big of a deal anyway, because her feelings have not been adequately fleshed out. What's supposed to be an astonishing revelation that changes the world view of the big blue man has very little impact to the viewer. Second big drawback, the shocking plot turn has been deprived of much of its shock. In many places the movie exceeds the violence of the comic book by an order of magnitude... and yet, at the climactic event, where the comic book truly punches the reader right in the stomach, the movie gives the viewer a sanitized event that simply lacks the impact it needed. Intellectually, the viewer understands that what happened was almost unthinkable, and yet the viewer has not been *shown* that. Deviating from the book, the movie uses a simpler ending that requires less explanation for the audience... which is a choice I understand... but they didn't need to make it sanitized. It should have been utterly shocking, and it wasn't. And thirdly, the movie fails to create the rich, full world that the novel creates. The comic series is full of characters, with which the masked vigilantes live and interact and are part of... while in the movie, the masked vigilantes seem largely detached from the people around them. However, for all that, I thought the movie did a number of things really well. I loved that they did manage to convey some of the rich backstory that the comic book series created. I loved that they managed to fit in many of the same kind of visual "easter eggs" and symbols the comic book art was filled with. I like that they did manage to convey at least some of the things the book creates, and even though fitting all of that complexity into a 2.5 hour movie would have been impossible, at least they managed to hint at some of the richness of the book. Mostly I loved that they were able to recreate many of the characters so vividly. I think Rorschach, Dr Manhattan, and The Comedian really came across brilliantly in the movie. Jackie Earle Haley is amazing as Rorschach. The clenched teeth, the jaw jutting forward, the sneer of contempt, the measured pace, the stare, and especially the voice... he simply radiates the kind of seething hate and contempt that the character demands. He's a true psychopath, capable of startling violence yet filled with unwavering conviction. His name comes from his mask, the endlessly shifting blots of black on white, which also represents his outlook: black and white, twisted into whatever shapes but always black and white, never mixing, never allowing shades of grey. "Never compromise." Hard to believe that such an unsympathetic character, with few human qualities left, would be the primary character in a story that's ultimately about human nature, yet there he is. Billy Crudup, as Dr Manhattan, is also impressive. Of all the "super heroes" in the story, only he has any "super" power, the rest are simply regular people in funny costumes. The portrait of a being who is becoming less and less connected to humanity is convincing. If you could travel the cosmos or shape worlds with your thoughts, why WOULD you hang out with humans, anyway? And yet, the one instance in the movie where he raises his voice above the even blank monotone he speaks in reveals he does still have a heart to break. And I loved Jeffrey Dean Morgan as The Comedian. The Comedian's "happy face" pin (with the drop of his blood approximating a hand on the Doomsday Clock) became the iconic emblem for the comic book series, and though he dies in the opening moments, he is a towering figure in the story. Through 40 years of flashbacks, we learn he is a bastard whose brutality and callousness touches the lives of two generations of costumed adventurers (and not for the better.) The colorful clown costume of his early career, and the "happy face" pin of his later career are pure irony... there is nothing happy about him. His outlook is total nihilism, the belief that human nature is savage and contains nothing worth preserving, and the belief that nuclear war is inevitable and imminent and that nothing anyone does has any consequence. "Once you realize what a joke everything is, being The Comedian is the only thing that make sense." The Comedian is the character that sort of ties all of the other characters together in one way or another, and Morgan brings a swagger, a physical presence, a charisma, and sex-appeal to the role that brings all of it together. -k

"Humans have been trying to kill each other off since the beginning of time, now we finally have the technology to finish the job." -k

He certainly doesn't come across nearly as eloquent without his teleprompter or prepared material (ie, on-the-fly answers to obvious questions at press conferences have been rehearsed many times beforehand.) I don't think he's lost, however. The few times I've seen him without his teleprompter, he seems to be working out how to make his point clear, which I think is the mark of a thinking man, not an automation. An automation would toss out a few soundbites and catch phrases that don't really address the subject and move on to the next. After reading the article about that event, it is obvious that the "thank you, President Obama" thing was a joke, and clearly one that was well-received at the event. I don't think mispronouncing a word in itself is terribly indicative of intelligence either. Personally, I can't say "antibiotics". For some reason, it always comes out of my mouth as "ant-eye-bee-otics", out of my mouth wrong without my brain's conscious involvement. It's not an inability to process information correctly, it's a matter of reflex. If someone as smart as I am continues to mispronounce a common word, it's clearly not an issue of intelligence. I am skeptical of that. It is hard to know how much of what you see on stage is him and how much is the product of his writers and handlers and coaching... but that can obviously be said of every politician you see on a stage. In Obama's case, at least he has his academic background and his books to vouch for his abilities. -k

When attempting to vote; when being photographed for a passport or drivers license; when testifying in a court of law. Why? Because it's your right to! -k

My apologies for not responding sooner. I have been away. Whether or not there'll ever be a specific rule that says a face must be uncovered, the right to confront the accusations being made against him is the cornerstone of our system. There is a strong argument to be made that allowing someone to testify wearing a mask impairs the ability to cross-examine the witness, and therefore is in direct opposition to the right to mount a defense. That's very interesting. However, I think the reference you've provided makes it clear that if audio testimony is to be considered, the defendant's lawyers argue it be excluded for the exact same reasons that the lawyers in this case have successfully argued against testifying from behind a mask. In short, while the minutia may have helped your argument in the short term, the larger principle supports my side. -k

The judge has already ruled once that seeing the accuser's face was relevant to his right to confront the accusations being made against him. This remains in the realm of pointless semantics. Whatever phrase one might use to describe this, the *spirit* of the law is that the accused has the right to confront the accusations made against him. It has been argued, and found to have merit, that allowing the accuser to wear a mask while she testifies is in conflict with the defendant's right to confront the allegations made against him. And, while you guys have certainly gone all-out to find other examples that might achieve the same result, none of you have done anything to dispute that argument. And none of you have attempted to dispute the fact that the defendant's right to confront allegations made against him is the *paramount* consideration here. As I said earlier, I simply don't believe you. Keeping in mind that audio evidence and audio testimony are not the same thing, can you provide me any kind of citation for the claim that audio testimony is allowed? I have not heard of it, at least, not in criminal trials. I don't believe it's permitted. The witness must be physically present, except in extraordinary circumstances (the aforementioned children providing video testimony against an abusive parent, for example). I am certain that you or I can't testify by phone if we're busy that day. In fact in many cases the court goes to great expense and security risk to have a defendant physically present in the court, the right to confront a witness is held in such regard in our system. I'm sorry, guyser, but you're going to have to convince me, because I just don't believe you're right. Argus isn't wrong, at least not until such time as a judge reverses the initial ruling. (and if that happens, it will be under appeal in milliseconds.) -k

Isn't this the reason we have escalating tax brackets? -k

This whole "right to see their face" is a red herring. It's not the reason that people should be concerned about this. It was never the basis of the argument presented by the defendant's lawyers, either. While I'm no lawyer, I'm highly skeptical that audio-only testimony is permitted except in the most extraordinary circumstances. Note that this is different from admission of audio recordings as evidence (such as 9-1-1 recordings, wiretaps, etc.) -k

Allowing the accuser a concealment that could allow her to lie more effectively most definitely puts the fairness of the trial into question. Gambling that the jury's mistrust of masked people will balance this out seems to do a disservice to everyone involved. The accuser doesn't get the benefit of the doubt in our system. The defendant does. Remember that whole "presumption of innocence" thing? I am not saying that she is "going to lie", I am pointing out that there is a possibility that she might, which is true of any witness who takes the stand at any trial. And if she does lie, then yes, they need the chance to catch her. How can you possibly suggest we should approach it with the assumption that she's going to tell the truth? I am absolutely gobsmacked that you'd post something so utterly foolish. I really don't care if it's embarrassing for her. Putting someone in prison is the most serious thing we in Canada can do to someone as a society. The defendant deserves to defend himself to the fullest, and if the price of being sure is a few minutes or a few hours of embarrassment for someone, that is a small price to pay. Who said "unlimited"? Lawyers do not have unlimited latitude when they are making their case. The are permitted to ask questions relevant to the case, and the judge and opposing counsel will have little patience for anything that strays from the topic, particularly if it is an attempt to humiliate or intimidate the witness. The rape shield law is a case in point. It is not an absolute: in situations where the victim's sexual history is relevant to proceedings, the judge will allow questioning; this is determined on a case by case basis at the request of the defense lawyers. Hypothetically, let's say... if a woman testifies that the defendant gave her herpes when he assaulted her, it might be highly relevant to know that she had sex with 5 other guys the same weekend. One that I heard a while back was a case where a young teen had accused a man of sexually assaulting her. She provided graphic descriptions of sexual acts in her testimony. The judge ruled that the jury *did* need to know that the girl had been sexually active for several years already, because concealing the information could lead the jury to believe that the only way a girl this young would have such detailed knowledge of sex acts would be if the defendant had indeed assaulted her. Do you imagine that you've provided some brilliant counterexample where the defendant's right to a fair trial is not placed above the victim's right to not be embarrassed? Because you haven't. If the defendant's lawyers can provide a compelling argument as to why discussing the victim's sexual past is relevant to proceedings, then they will be allowed to discuss it, embarrassing or not, rape shield law or not. -k

I think you have it backwards. I think financial status tends to be a function of mental capability, not vice-versa. I strongly suspect that being crazy often results in being poor, and seldom results in being rich. If Canada has more crazy people per capita than, say, Burma, it is likely because our society is somewhat more charitable, allowing crazy people to survive longer. Crazy is not a terribly scientific term at any rate. However, I believe research has indicated that mental illness is far more prevalent among the homeless than among the population as a whole. So, my money would be on "poor people are likely to be crazy." -k

You both just conceded that having her face covered detracts from this defendant's right to a fair trial, so this debate is pretty much over. *** It's not just the earlier ruling in this case that establishes the precident, it's a principle that exists in other rules as well. We don't allow people to testify by telephone. If children are allowed to testify in separate hearings, we show the jury video, not just audio. A defense still *could* be mounted if Meryl Streep were brought to the witness stand to act out the witness's testimony on her behalf, but that doesn't make it fair to do so. This woman will before the court making accusations that could land someone in prison. Even if concealing most of her face doesn't completely disguise her, it would certainly make it easier for her to make untruthful statements, which increases the likelihood of a wrongful conviction. That's the paramount concern for a presiding judge. Witnesses have been required to expose themselves on occassions when it is relevant to the trial. Photographs of injuries to private areas of victims, for example, or if a witness has an identifiable mark on their body that assists in making an identification or proving that an attacker exposed himself to the victim for example. If it is relevant to the trial, then modesty has not been an obstacle. *** Ok, it's not a bag, it's a niqab. Likewise, it's not creationism, it's Intelligent Design; it's not mutilation, it's female circumcision; it's not burning widows alive, it's a suttee. etc etc. To be clear, I am not making this argument because I think having to wear a niqab is stupid (although, I do think it's stupid. Even most Muslims don't think it necessary, btw.) I am making this argument because I believe very strongly in the supremacy of Canadian law. We might not have a unified culture, but we still have principles (particularly the right to a fair trial) can not be compromised. -k

...and meanwhile back on Planet Oleg, if you're not wearing a bag over your head then you're a whore. Go drive off a cliff, asshole. -k

Cite? Are you smarter than the judge who made the initial ruling that the niqab does indeed interfere with the defendant's right to mount a legal defense? -k

By refusing to address the issue of the defendant's right to a fair trial. While all three of you have attempted to tap-dance around the issue, none of you have actually attempted to address it. Once a case is in court, no. Once a case is before the court, the paramount concern is the fairness of the trial. Once a case is before the court, the worst outcome is if an innocent person is wrongly convicted. That is why the assumption of "innocent until proven guilty" is the cornerstone of our legal system. Guess what: testifying is traumatic for sexual assault victims of all religions and backgrounds, male and female. Should we allow everyone who takes the stand to accuse someone of sexual assault to wear a mask to make the experience less traumatic? Give me an example of how the shoe might be on the other foot. Are you asking me to imagine how things would be if this case was tried under Islamic law instead of Canadian law? Because if that was the case, this woman could wear her bag to the hearing, and it wouldn't matter because her word would be worth only half that of the man she is accusing. You can look that one up: two women are required to counter the word of one man under Islamic law. If the shoe were on the other foot, she'd be a whole lot worse off than she is under Canadian law, which adds an ironic twist to this whole affair. I'm not condemning their choice to wear bags over their heads. They can wear any damned thing they want. However, in a criminal trial the right of the accused to a fair trial is paramount. Depriving the jury of a key means of evaluating the truth of the accuser's testimony is absolutely a threat to the right to a fair trial. It is absurd to argue otherwise. You don't seem terribly interested in understanding. You seem only interested in advocating for this woman. Whether you're convinced or not is of little value. Precident is not on your side. And one judge has already ruled in favor of the defense lawyers on this issue. It seems that in light of established legal tradition and the ruling of one judge already, the onus would be on you guys to argue that the defendant's right to a fair trial is not compromised by allowing the accuser to conceal her face while testifying. So far none of you have done anything to present an argument as to why. None of you have attempted to dispute the simple biological fact that humans use facial expression as a means of communication. In a trial that is likely to be a "he said/she said" clash of testimony, you are advocating that the jury be deprived of one of the most important means of determining whether she actually believes what she says on the stand. The best you guys have provided is ... what about blind jurors? Well, since either lawyer is able to reject a potential juror for any reason they wish, the defense has only themselves to blame if a witness is able to successfully dupe a blind juror. I must also point out the statistical unlikelihood of having 12 blind jurors. Yourself and cybercoma and guyser, however, would have us blind all 12 jurors. You should all think about whether this is really what you want for the Canadian justice system. -k

If the job description for "Minister of State for Science and Technology" is to help grow the science and technology industry in Canada, that is not a job requiring a scientific background, it is a job requiring a business management background. To me it sounds like this job would involve allocating funds to ventures most likely to succeed, withdrawing funds from ventures doomed to fail, creating an environment that could promote investment, advocating for tax breaks for R&D companies, and so on. I would be very surprised if this minister would make funding decisions on a case by case basis. Business analysts and auditors (again, probably people from a business background rather than a science background) are probably the ones who investigate whether individual businesses should receive funding. At any rate I would be very surprised if anyone in the technology industry in Canada is doing research into the origin of life on earth... having an opinion on that issue is probably of no significance at all to the job. It's quite possible that a creationist could be very effective in the role, if he had an appropriate enthusiasm for boosting the technology industry in Canada. There would be an issue if the minister were to take an interventional approach to deciding who gets funding and who doesn't, however. Biotechnology is a special case. The development time for products is so long in the biotechnology industry that it's impossible for small companies to sustain it on their own. Proving the safety and effectiveness of a product can take 10 years or more to get the product onto the market, and that's only half the battle. Once you have a product on the market, it's market is minimal until you can get medical insurance (particularly the American private medical insurance industry) to fund your product for patients. The time frame and risk involved is simply unacceptable for private investors... and probably sends up red flags to government programs as well. The best hope is to develop your idea to the point of a successful demo, then sell it to a giant conglomerate that can afford to take a long view and speculate on such risky ventures. -k