kimmy

I had heard that while agreeing to the restriction on non-US steel, similar constraints on other foreign products (such as wood...) were rejected. Spending federal grant money on US-made goods is not the same as erecting trade barriers. (however, federal specifying the procurement of US-only goods for these projects might in itself be a violation of NAFTA... I imagine teams of lawyers are studying that closely.) Overall, I'm skeptical of whether it's a smart move, however. Requiring the use of US steel instead of cheaper imports from Korea or China or wherever might make US steelworkers happy. However, it will also raise the cost of raw materials in the projects, which will limit the scope of what can be accomplished with the money specified, which will ultimately mean less US workers are employed during the building of these projects. Robbing Peter to pay Paul, as it were, except that in this case Paul works at a steel plant and Peter works in construction. -k

I'm all for fairness. We might not always agree about what fairness actually means. I never claimed these individuals to be representatives of the entire group. I mentioned them to illustrate that people view events through their own lens. I don't think I'm saying anything outrageous or controversial there. I suspect that many people can relate to the experiences I mentioned. And I think some people have been conditioned to read racism into situations. You'd wanted to talk about intent, but nobody knows your intentions except you, and it's no secret that some people will assume the worst. -k

Relax, Chick, I was just having some fun. Firstly, to tease you for being so blatantly un-PC, and secondly to make fun of my current favorite media catch-phrase, "post-racial". Whatever the biological legitimacy of race as a concept may be, I think everybody who lives in the real world recognizes that "race" exists as an issue in our society. And yet, how often have you heard media talking heads talking about "a new post-racial age" since the US election? If the post to which you'd expected a response was this one... ...I didn't see much point in responding. It seems to basically boil down to "saying mean stuff is only mean if you mean to be mean." Which is first off kind of pointless when "mean" is in the eye of the beholder. There are no shortage of people who wish to read racist intent into ordinary actions. Once, I bumped into a black girl who was attempting to board a bus as I was exiting. Common courtesy says you wait for people to exit before you attempt to enter, and particularly don't step right in front of someone as they're coming out of a narrow door. However, in her mind apparently the contact occured because I hated her skin tone, and she was ready to throw down to avenge this insult. Another time, a black couple was studying the menu at a food-court kiosk. They were well back from the till, and appeared to be deep in thought; I already knew what I was going to order, so approached the till and placed my order. "Hey, you don't get to cut in front of us just because you're white," the woman angrily informed me. "I'm sorry, were you ready to order?" I replied, and she glared daggers at me and stormed off, towing her companion with her. My intent was not racist, my intent was simply to order lunch... but that mattered little to the angry woman. Not intending to be racist is of no consequence. One must apparently walk on eggshells to avoid such confrontations. -k

Montreal's Georges St Pierre defeated longtime rival BJ Penn last night in what had been billed as a match between two of the greatest fighters in the history of mixed-martial arts. Hawaii's Penn, known as "the Prodigy," challenged St Pierre to a rematch of their 2006 fight, which was a narrow and controversial victory for St Pierre. But despite Penn's confidence that he would avenge the earlier loss, the rematch was anything but close, as St Pierre completely dominated the fight. Penn was beaten so badly in the later stages of the fight that his trainer threw in the towel after the fourth round. The dominant performance cements St Pierre's reputation as one of the best fighters in the world. St Pierre is on a very short list (along with Steve Nash and Justin Morneau) of Canadian athletes who are regarded as elite stars in professional sports that are not hockey. -k

Creeping permissiveness. -k

Yes, but you were wrong. It's obvious-- except to you, apparently-- what BC Chick was getting at in referencing boxing, basketball, and golf... these are sports that were once dominated by white people but came to be dominated by black people (or at least by Tiger Woods, in the case of golf.) BC Chick is mockingly reassuring Dick that black people haven't taken over politics... yet. Presumably she is poking fun at white people who worry that "they" are taking over everything. But I am shocked-- shocked, I tell you-- that such a racially provocative comment would be made now that we're in The New Post-Racial Age ™. BC Chick, haven't you learned to paint with all the colors of the wind yet? -k

If you re-read BC Chick's post... Don't you worry BC2004, the presidency isn't boxing, basketball, golf... it's not over yet for 'yer type'. ...it's pretty obvious that she was indeed referring to race. -k

Considering that the article links to the letter directly at an official US Senate website, I think it'll stand up. -k

Thank goodness, I was starting to think I was the only one. I find it pretty hard getting all worked up about this news article when I never went to a school where the anthem was sung daily. -k

Don't look now, but between Joe Calzaghe and all of those Russian and eastern Europe powerhouses, Whitey is back in boxing in a big way. Hey, Chick, after Manny Pacquiao's awe-inspiring victory over Oscar, "yer type" are stars in the boxing game too! -k

From the first post in the thread... If you don't think that's an accurate representation of what atheists believe... what do you think the ads should say? -k

I am so used to hearing lefties reference George Washington in support of terror tactics that I guess I just responded reflexively. -k {I was cleaning it and it went off...}

This is clearly a hoax, since everybody knows that Jeeeeezus cures homosexuality. -k

If George Washington was like Hamas, and the English were like the Israelis, we'd all be chewing bangers and mash with crooked teeth. Hamas will never be founding fathers of anything unless they adopt a means of change more suited to the goal they are seeking. -k

I do agree with Mr Canada on one thing: this shouldn't be overlooked. We shouldn't be blinded by faith in multiculturalism, or faith in basic human goodness or by the idea that all cultures are basically equal. All cultures are no equal. Some cultures have practices that are abhorrent (as Wild Bill's story illustrates.) If cannibals from wild jungles moved to Canada and wished to continue their culinary practices, we'd say no. That's a line we'd draw. Let's not be shy about drawing other lines either. We should not tolerate the intolerable. -k

There's another question to consider... what actually does fall under the heading of 'honor killing'? Certainly some of these cases are easy to file under a heading. What was the previous one that was a hot topic on this board-- a father choking his daughter almost to death because she wouldn't follow the dress code? And there's been a number of incidents involving Vancouver's Indo community-- deaths of young women at the hands of male relatives-- that we tend to suspect have cultural/religious motivation. I mentioned one earlier in this thread... South American men killing a woman they feel has embarrassed them in some way. That's not a religious honor killing, but it's something that has existed in the culture and was even a legal defense in Brazil until just recently. Religion and culture can apparently both be behind honor killings. What if we took an average Canadian guy, who might be an atheist, or maybe a Christian to some degree that most people would consider a very average citizen. And he finds out that his wife is cheating on him, and he's so mad that he kills her. Is that an honor killing? Is it only an honor killing if we have religion or culture to blame it on? -k

Honor killings suck. I take issue with the figure of 5000 a year in North America, however. The writer of your article misquoted the source for the figure: "The United Nations estimates around 5,000 deaths occur each year — mostly of women, mostly in South Asia and the Middle East." http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...ft=1&f=1012 The source for the claim of 5000 is claiming it is worldwide, not North America. A word of advice: if you can find mainstream sources for your citations, use those instead. "Post Chronicle" looks like little more than a blog for angry Christians. In this instance, using the NPR article would have spared you criticism from people who don't consider "Post Chronicle" credible. Also, before someone else does, I have to point out that honor-killings are hardly unique to Islam. I believe the last honor killing I heard about in Canada was in Vancouver's Indo community, not Muslims. "Macho" South American Catholics have been known to kill women who they think have cheated on them or have insulted or embarrassed them. However, I appreciate your enthusiasm for women's rights. -k

I think everybody considers Paris Hilton an airhead skank. However, I'm at a continual loss to understand the appeal of Janis Joplin. It's because she didn't wear a bra, right? As to the subject at hand... I agree completely. I have a friend who is a casual user of marijuana, and I have smoked with her a number of times... probably around 10 times total in my life. It is a pleasant, relaxing experience. The negatives I can think of: -I'm not a smoker, so inhaling smoke doesn't come easily to me. There's an awful lot of coughing involved for me. -I hate smelling like marijuana smoke afterward. -weird feeling in tummy. -once had too much, or combined it with alcohol, or somehow did something wrong, and became highly disoriented. It was a little scary. Contrasted with alcohol... I'm a mean drunk. (I'm pretty damned mean even when I'm sober, for that matter...) I've had to cut back on alcohol a lot because it tends to put me in a belligerent state of mind. Marijuana is the complete opposite. Although nowadays I have an actual day job, I still waitress evenings at a club, and have done for years. I think everybody who has spent any amount of time at clubs would agree: you have no end of trouble with drunk people, but you seldom have any trouble with marijuana users. I would think that if we were comparing the two by the harm they cause, marijuana would be legal and alcohol would be illegal. If everybody suddenly quit drinking alcohol, incidence of violence would drop dramatically. (of course, it would also put me out of one of my jobs...) An aside... has anybody here spent any amount of time with meth users? I sometimes encounter meth users, and find them to be really creepy. Their motor control and speech centers in their brains seem to be considerably damaged, and I'm wondering how permanent the harm is. -k

You're a ******** *******. -k edited for ... oh, let's say clarity.

Before this turned into yet another thread about what an ignoramus Mr Canada is, there was an interesting topic at hand. It doesn't justify it, and you know, it doesn't even really explain it. A lot of us watched President Obama's inaugural address last week. Some of us thought it was a great speech... others, not so much. Nonetheless, one of the things that stood out for me (and for many others) is that Obama for the first time actually specifically mentioned non-believers as a part of America's make-up. "Our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus and non-believers," he said. Personally, I thought that was lovely. It's something that everybody knows is true, yet seldom acknowledged. Imagine my surprise to find out that adding "and non-believers" didn't sit well with some people. -k

There's an awful lot more teachers than priests. Nonetheless, that's 5000 examples to disprove the claim that being a devout Catholic makes you a good person. 15, 14, 12, 10, 9, and 7? I'm sure you're raising your children as best you can. What bugs me, though, is earlier on you were saying... So on the one hand you're challenging *other* people who are also raising *their* kids as best they can, to provide equal air-time for Jeeeeezus. While at the same time you drive around and show your kids the dregs of society and say "this is what'll happen to you if you don't believe in Jesus!" Do you realize what a fucking idiot you sound like complaining that atheist parents aren't giving Jeeeezus a fair shot with their kids, while portraying life on skid row as what's waiting for atheists? -k

Of course. I'm just curious if Bubber is going to throw a temper-tantrum over Franken's comments like he did over Shady's in the other thread. -k

Of course. But many of the victims of abuse by priests were male. Weren't you just saying that homosexuals don't believe in Jesus? It's widely believed that the percentage of homosexual priests is greater than the percentage of homosexuals in the population at large. Father Donald Cozzens believes that between 25% to 50% of priests are homosexuals, and this is coming from a respected academic at a respected Catholic university. Hey, maybe instead of driving around Toronto and pointing to gays on the street to teach your kids how they'll turn out if they don't believe in Jesus, maybe you can just take them to church! Common or not, there's countless convictions of males being molested by priests, which pretty much destroys the claim that being a Catholic makes you some kind of paragon. So on the one hand you challenge atheists to "teach their kids both sides!" but on the other hand you're not teaching your kids any side except your own because you don't have any "personal connection" to other religions. Figures. So why do you drive around Toronto and point to fags and hookers and drug addicts and say "this is what happens if you don't believe in Jesus!" Is that your way of teaching your kids to think for themselves? -k

I think he's referring to this. Hiiiiiilarious. -k

She might not have a choice. Should such an option exist, it is likely that any woman refusing to accept it would be made an outcast in her community, or (as WIP noted) an apostate. If I recall correctly, the discussion was not about whether people could settle disputes by whatever means they wished, but rather about whether to give legal recognition to it. If you and your buddy want to rock-paper-scissors over who has to pay for the next pitcher, that's your right. If you and your want to rock-paper-scissors for custody of your children... uh, no. -k