kimmy

Bad case of olegitis. -k

Well said. Indeed. By their explanation of the death at the time, and the reports that they filed, you'd think they were taking down Vincent Li. The video has proven that their statements were bald-faced lies. The officers have been testifying and have looked like utter fools trying to reconcile their earlier statements with what is shown in the video. Over and over they've conceded that their statements contained "errors". The inquiry lawyers are too polite to call the statements what they are: lies. They have outright lied in the reports they filed, and I have to believe that the RCMP must have some kind of disciplinary policy for filing reports that would have, if delivered in a court of law, got them jail time for perjury. The worst part is that this only comes to light because the officers were unlucky enough to be caught on tape. There is no doubt in my mind that if not for the video they'd have gotten away with no scrutiny, no consequences, and no accountability. The lawyer-prepared non-apology expression of remorse to Dziekanski's mom was a real treasure. They're not sorry for what they did. They are sorry because they got filmed doing it. -k

WHAT female officer, you imbecile? Either you're trying to invent facts to support your moronic world view, or you're so deranged that you actually see angry scary women where they don't even exist. -k

It seems to me that's a big like arguing that the only significant difference between a Ferrari and a chuckwagon is the engine. It's arguably true... but it's a pretty huge difference. By Oleg's standards? That might be the most normal sounding thing he's ever told us about his life. Zing! -k

-k

And? The ad doesn't suggest that Barack Obama typifies the outcome of unplanned, unwed pregnancies. The ad invites people to "Imagine the Potential". -k

Rest assured, I am no pacifist. I'm completely in favor of fighting if it makes sense to do so. For the Palestinians, it makes absolutely no sense to keep attacking a foe they can not defeat by violence. They have to find a different way. Your news article illustrates two things: - first off, peaceful protest did work, even against the heartless Israelis. -secondly, why were the Israelis bombing the house in the first place? Because he was a militant. I think there's an obvious lesson to be learned from your article. You'll have to provide me a citation for that one. I simply don't believe you. I think I already explained that quite clearly. The Palestinians start. The Palestinians start because they're the ones who can't afford to let the status quo continue. Are you asking me to respect the choice to continue rocket attacks because that's what their democratically elected leaders have chosen? Sorry, but no. The rocket attacks can only serve to bring suffering upon the Palestinians. If they "choose" to continue the rocket attacks, they're also "choosing" the consequences that result from the rocket attacks. And with Israel's new, even more hardline governing coalition, the consequences aren't going to be pleasant. If possible, I'd end the rocket attacks by confiscating the rockets and jailing the perpetrators. But if it had to be done, you bet I would end the rocketeers themselves. I told you what I'd do if I was somehow made the leader of that bunch of knuckleheads. Well, that's what I'd do: a complete commitment to ending terror attacks. If there were hardliners within my own group who wouldn't put down their weapons, I'd deal with them permanent-style. Buh-buh-but what about peace? Isn't killing rocket-launching goons just as bad? Doesn't it make me a hypocrite to talk about non-violence while I'm talking about killing militants who won't get on board with my plan? No, I don't think so. If I'm the leader of these dimwits, here's how I look at it: each rocket that sails over that wall puts Palestinian civilians at risk. Each rocket increases the likelihood of an F16 flying over and dropping some ordinance, or of tanks and soldiers rolling through. Yeah, my people are starving. Does a rocket sailing into an Israeli village put food in anybody's mouth? Once the Palestinians commit to peace, the international community will be happy to help get them food. I keep trying to tell you: no it isn't. "Why, the rocket attacks hardly do any damage. The retaliation is completely disproportionate to the damage done by the rockets. It's so unfair!" I think it should be obvious by now that the only "proportionate response" that applies to this situation is this: you mess with the bull, you get the horns. It simply doesn't matter whether the blockade and the military action are "proportionate" to the damage done by the rockets. What matters is that when the Israelis are provoked, they hit back. If you can't afford to be hit back, quit provoking them. It's really that simple. Once they show that they have put down their weapons, the Palestinians will be able to get the international community to come to their aid. Things like international monitoring of supplies entering Gaza would be a piece of cake. It would become extremely difficult for Israel to argue that the blockade is still justified once Palestinians showed they were committed to non-violence. Once Palestinians show they're committed to non-violence, great things are possible. But until then, nothing will change. -k

Meet Archie Bonkers. -k

It's a terrific ad. Mr Canada and Shady have both made mention of it here before. The message in the ad strikes home for me, for a similar reason. I was old enough to be the flower-girl by the time my parents finally got married; if abortion were as accepted in 1983 as it is now, there would likely be much less Kimmy to enjoy. -k

The handling of Robert Dziekanski was disgraceful. They were talking about tasering him before they even saw him. Officials at the airport screwed things up terribly before the RCMP even arrived, of course, but the evidence coming out of the inquiry has been utterly shameful. The incident illustrates what people have been referring to as "usage creep": use of the taser in situations not just where it's warranted, but in situations where it's convenient. It was supposed to be used as a safer alternative to batons or guns. But police have also been using it as a means of forcing compliance. http://thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/1106963.html Two police officers couldn't handle a 17 year old girl without a taser? http://www.timescolonist.com/news/Tasered+...7501/story.html Two police officers couldn't handle a 14 year old girl who was already in jail? http://www.kelowna.thesun.net/node/637401 The RCMP couldn't handle a 68 year old man who hadn't even gotten out of his car? He was "resisting arrest and combative" ...while he was still behind the wheel of his car? The man's wife said in a radio interview I heard that "resisting arrest and combattive" was actually more along the lines of "confused and frightened". The police have taken the attitude that the taser is harmless so they can "shoot first and ask questions later". It's an appalling attitude, and they deserve all the scrutiny they're facing now. They've earned it. They've taken what should have been a great tool, and ruined it through reckless overuse and lack of accountability. -k

That was only one of the things they had in common. The other, of course, is opting for a hair color that most people would probably consider blonde. Campbell and Tymoshenko are very light blonde, with the remainder going with a shade that most people would call "sandy blonde". By contrast, Mary Robinson and Golda Meir are the only brunettes I know of who've achieved comparable status (and I think most people think of Meir as "grey" rather than brunette anyway.) I point this out as not a "nyah-nyah, blondes beat brunettes in politics!" jab, but rather to point out the incongruity with the survey results we've seen. Your study and several mentioned earlier on all seem to indicate that people view brunettes as being more capable, more competent, and more respected. And yet, when voters elect women to lead them, they appear to pick blondes far more often than brunettes. Don't you think that's odd? I think that's odd. Given the portion of the world's women who are blonde, isn't 22% actually a disproportionately high number? So, what brand of watches do billionaires buy? What cars do they drive? What kind of suits do they wear? If one is determined to view themselves as a human equivalent to a Tag-Heuer, a BMW, or an Armani, I guess that's their prerogative. What fun? From reading your posts I get the impression that there's this idea that you can go blonde and suddenly everywhere you go men will be drawn to you and women will want to be your friend and drinks will magically appear at your table, and the most desirable men will be competing for your attention. Being blonde, you said, has "big commercial value." It's "an artifice that incorporates a different mindset". Go blonde and get "promoted to a different realm". A "rite of passage" for women who are chasing "some sort of dream". Cheeeeee... that doesn't sound much like life as a blonde as I've come to know it. Being blonde does not turn your life into Spring Break. The universal blonde experience is not being popular. The universal blonde experience is that somebody will come up to you with some insulting joke that they assume you're going to love then get offended if you don't guffaw along, as if you're the one who has committed a social faux-pas. -k

Pretty much. People aren't going to stop needing oil any time soon. Obama is torn between his commitment to cleaner energy sources, and his commitment to make the US less dependent on Middle East oil. Obama also has a similar problem in regard to coal. The US has massive economic interests linked to coal, and needs it for power generation, and it's damned dirty stuff. I think last week's meeting yielded an agreement to basically give each other time to put lipstick on those respective pigs. The downturn in oil prices should be viewed as an opportunity to get going on that. It won't stay low for long, and the oil sands will be in higher demand than ever within a few years. They should be preparing to deal with the environmental issues now. -k

As far as the Israelis are concerned, the blockades are justified by the ongoing threat of violence from Gaza. The blockades would become much harder to justify if the rocket attacks were stopped permanently. All the rocket attacks do is give the Israelis an excuse to continue their actions. I challenge you to name even one possible way in which the rocket attacks could yield an outcome that is beneficial to the Palestinians. Yes, the rocket attacks bring attention to the Palestinians. They bring exactly the wrong kind of attention to the Palestinians. I honestly can't think of a stupider possible strategy for the Palestinians to pursue. I can be Hamas leader? The first thing I would do, for certain, would be to *stop* doing the stupidest possible thing they could do. Then, I would take stock of my situation and recognize that my best chance to improve the situation for my people would be to gain the sympathy of others. Nobody has any sympathy for terrorists, so I would completely abandon terror. I would explain in great detail that we're renouncing violence, to everyone who would listen. I'd have a representative in Washington explain that to the media there, and in London, and in Paris, and on Youtube, and anywhere else. I would explain that the only kind of aid we want from Iran, or anywhere else, is humanitarian aid. I would work ruthlessly to find any underground Palestinian groups who wished to continue violence, and I would end them, because they would only be undermining what I was trying to accomplish. Then I would say "the blockades were supposed to keep weapons out. We have abandoned violence. There are no more weapons to smuggle. When will you take the blockades down?" With the excuse of rockets and terror attacks gone, Israel still might not improve the situation in Gaza, but if they didn't they would find themselves isolated and under pressure from their allies. It's not people like you that the Palestinians need to win over. It's people like me: people who would have some sympathy for the living conditions there but can't blame Israel for acting the way they are in the face of violence. -k

That certainly seems to be indicated by a number of studies and surveys. However, name 2 things that the following women have in common: Margaret Thatcher Angela Merkel Tzipi Livni Yulia Tymoshenko Mary McAleese Hilary Clinton Kim Campbell Golda Meir and Mary Robinson are the only brunette counterparts I can think of. Odd paradox... -k

It's not a non-point. You can't ignore the link between the rocket attacks and the worst-possible election results for Palestinians. Hamas made Avigdor Lieberman famous. You can't get around it. You say "yeah, but the IDF made Palestinians militant too!" Ok, I can accept that many many Palestinians have decided they have to do something because things can't get any worse. Absolutely, do something. But, why do the dumbest possible thing you could do? I can understand the average idiot on the street wanting to hit out against their enemy, but I would think that their leadership would be a little smarter. I would think the leaders should be able to understand how utterly moronic the rocket attacks are. There is not a *single* possible positive outcome from the rocket attacks. -the rockets are too random to be of any strategic value. -the rockets are too small and weak to be an effective tool of terror. The rocket attacks only accomplish two things: -they make Israelis angry. -they make people lose sympathy for the Palestinians. Both of those things are exactly the *opposite* of what Palestinians need to do to improve their situation. Even suicide bombings make more sense than the rocket attacks (not that I would ever advocate for suicide bombings!) At least the suicide bombings scared the hell out of people, which could conceivably make them demand some sort of peace be arranged. Possibly, at least. As eyeball suggested earlier on, hunger strikes would have been a much better idea. Rocket attacks make international observers feel contempt for the Palestinians. A hunger strike would make international observers feel sympathy for the Palestinians. Rocket attacks make Israelis citizens feel the military action in Gaza was justified. Hunger strikes would have made the military action in Gaza unnecessary. If Hamas were running a campaign of hunger strikes, I don't think the IDF is going to barge into Gaza with tanks to jam sandwiches down peoples' throats... if Hamas were running a campaign of hunger strikes, I don't think Avigdor Lieberman's campaign would have resonated with Israeli voters. Maybe if Hamas were running a campaign of hunger strikes instead of rocket attacks, the more moderate parties would have had a chance in the election. -k

As I said, I realize today must have been a very tough day for you guys. Try to keep your chin up. -k

This must have been a tremendously disappointing day for Canada's lefties. I know they've had so much hope invested in the idea that Mr Obama would come to Ottawa and express some of their indignation at Mr Harper for them. I know they've been hoping that Mr Harper would do something completely disastrous, like serving a lunch of fried chicken and watermelon. Darn it, it looks like everything went swimmingly. Darn it, that darned Mr Obama came to Ottawa and conducted himself like a professional. Darn it, that darned Mr Harper conducted himself like a professional as well. Darn it all. Mr Obama probably said in advance that he had no interest in forming a coalition with Mr Layton. Mr Obama probably said in advance that he was not interested in hearing one of Mr Duceppe's colourful "alternative histories". Maybe some day Mr Duceppe will be Presidente of his own country, and Mr Obama will visit him in person. Until such time, he doesn't matter. And Action Jack will never matter. God, I hope so. Would you please stop putting ideas in her head? My life is filled with far too much excitement already, thank you. -k

I'm hopeful that we'll at least have the sense to save ourselves. -k

Wonderfully stated. -k

Even the CBC's own ombudsman, Vince Carlin, concluded that they're pretty slanted when he filed the report on his investigation into complaints about scumbag Heather Mallick's despicable smear-piece on the Palin family. (click here to flash back to the heady days of September.) I caught a piece of Anna Maria Tremonti's show yesterday morning, in which she had a couple of guests speaking on the Obamamania rampant in anticipation of the chosen one's visit. One guest, I don't recall his name, argued that Canadians are so smitten with Obama the celebrity that they've failed to actually listen to what he stands for. The other guest was Linda McQuaig, from the Toronto Star, who argued that Canadians are smitten with Obama because he's so different and progressive from other politicians. The first guest pointed out that Stephen Harper gets called everything from a fundamentalist Christian crackpot to Hitler for his position on Same Sex Marriage (which is, civil unions yes, marrage no.) The guest pointed out that Obama has the exact same position (and quoted Obama as saying "I oppose same sex marriage because I am a Christian") yet nobody calls him a crackpot or Hitler. McQuaig conceded the point, but argued that she was talking about "the overall thrust" of Obama, not one specific policy. She launched into greenhouse gasses to prove the point. She ranted about how Stephen Harper is a holocaust denier who supports the tar sands and clings to "worthless technologies" such as carbon sequestration in hopes of reducing greenhouse gasses. The other guest pointed out that Obama has downplayed talk about the tar sands because Obama himself has to stick up for the massive US coal industry, and is himself beholden to fake technologies like carbon sequestration and "clean coal" ("clean coal" is kind of like "shiny turd", apparently.) That did not go over well with McQuaig, who more or less went ballistic and shouted about "overall thrust!" for the remainder of the segment. Though she had argued that Obama was "so different and progressive", she failed to articulate any piece of policy where Obama is more progressive than Harper during her airtime, and Tremonti gave her plenty of opportunity to do so. Personally, I think the mysterious guy won the debate. People aren't smitten with Obama because he's "so different and progressive." People are smitten with Obama because he's a rock star. Obama is able to look "so progressive and different" by standing in stark contrast to Dubya, who was simply a knucklehead. Obama, when contrasted to Canadian politicians, any of them really, doesn't stand out as especially "progressive", and is "different" only by being darker in complexion. -k

I don't disagree with most of what you're saying... ...but it's hardly a rare thing when a divorced man slays his ex-wife. Granted, usually it involves a gunshot or dozens of stab-wounds, not a beheading. The spin is just a little different. Instead of a "humiliated man" engaging in an "honor killing", it's "a lonely, bitter man, unable to cope..." Culture and religion are usually ignored as aspects of this story. It's not a cultural thing, it's just an isolated case of one troubled man. I mean, honestly I hate the misogyny built into Islam and I loathe the idea of Islam becoming more prominent in our country. But aside from the morbid curiosity of the beheading... what makes this different from any number of slayings of women by their ex-partners? -k

I think you're oversimplifying this. Topaz is afraid there might be a problem in his computer, and I think he might be right. To me, this sounds like a classic symptom of a rootkit infection. You need serious computer help, Topaz. Luckily I know someone who can help. What you're going to need to do is make out a blank cheque to "KimmySoft.com" ...check your private messages for the address. -k {there is nothing funny about rootkits, kids!}

Perhaps they only hold contempt for natives who kill their children through careless neglect. It is ridiculous to chalk this up to racism: if a couple of white babies had been killed by sheer drunken idiocy, the drunken idiot responsible would be crucified. Perhaps the people who are willing to shrug and say "he has suffered enough" are the real racists: are native babies lives worth so little? You're right about one thing, Oleg: people seem to care a lot more about these little girls dead than they did when they were alive. This drunk can't have been much of a parent... how did he have care of these children in the first place? -k

Come on, it's obvious. There's no English Canada because there's no English language. Because we use the Roman alphabet, we're actually just speaking mis-spelled Roman, not English, and therefore English Canadians worship Jupiter, not Jesus. It's kind of like how we're all Muslims because we use Arabic numerals. -k

The Liberals won 5 seats in BC, and 1 each in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, none in Alberta. That's 7 seats out of 92. They didn't reach 20% support in any of the 4 western provinces. By what possible stretch of the imagination could they be considered to have "fared well" in the west? They have continually shown that they just don't "get it". Ignatieff himself concedes as much: G&M: Ignatieff vows to do things differently. -k