kimmy

Yes, that appears to be the case. I did find the earlier thread on this subject that I was thinking of, and it does relate to the earlier boycott as mentioned in the original post. I'm not sure whether targetting Israeli professors rather than Israeli goods is exactly upping the ante, but I suspect the earlier boycott of Bar Rafaeli swimsuit calendars and gefelte-fish didn't produce as much leverage as it was expected to. -k

And yet somehow the fantasy-inspired version has a romance that will keep people believing in spite of all evidence to the contrary. It is as if people who watched the CBC mini-series about the Arrow thought it was a documentary. -k

The "country rejects" stay in reject countries. The best and brightest go someplace where their skills will be rewarded. -k

Ford is, if I recall, the only one of the US auto makers that still has a paddle left on their voyage down the proverbial creek. I am having a hard time reconciling what I hear on the news with what I see on the streets. Granted, this is not exactly a typical Canadian market, let alone representative of the North American auto market as a whole, but I see a huge number of the new Malibus on the road, an enormous number of Impalas and Chargers, and huge numbers of "Big 3" pickup trucks built in the past year or so. I have a hard time believing they're losing so much money, when each day I see so many of their newest vehicles on the road. -k

I doubt he'd be able to use campaign money for his court case regardless. -k

What if Rosa Parks had owned a car? -k

oh? I must have missed that. In this thread you're hopping mad because Shady is mocking "Corruption you can believe in" before Richardson has been convicted of anything. In the other thread you were mocking Coleman based on that house business that he has also not been convicted of yet. And the difference is ... uh... that Coleman is "a shitty Senator"? But isn't a shitty senator still entitled to be presumed innocent until proven guilty? Well, I suspect that shitty senators are also still entitled to fair trial. -k

In my years at MLW, I can think of only a few members who were virulently anti-immigrant. MikeDavid00 and Craiger come to mind. Other than a few people, anti-immigrant sentiment here is not a blanket dislike of immigrants, but rather a directed towards more specific aspects of immigration. The most common complaint, I believe, is in regards to Muslim immigrants who may be unwilling to accept the realities of living in a secular society. I think this is in large measure a result of seeing the downward spiral in Europe and being unwilling to allow Canada to fall into the same troubles. I assume it's because he's too lazy to leave? -k

I'm on "witch hunt"? That's all you have left, isn't it. Hey, how about addressing your "Norm 'Buy Me A House' Coleman" quip? Seems like an ironic comment coming from such a dedicated proponent of the right to be presumed innocent. -k

I was able to return to Edmonton for Christmas, and was quite impressed by all of the projects underway. It should be well worth the temporary inconvenience of the construction. -k

Which again has nothing to do with the actual reason Richardson is resigning. I'm sure Obama will be able to find some qualified minority cabinet candidates who aren't being accused of exchanging government contracts for political contributions. I seem to recall quite a few minorities in the Bush cabinet, btw. Where did I proclaim his guilt, einstein? Oh, ok then. So, care to explain how referring to him as Norm "Buy Me A House" Coleman in the other thread jives with your enthusiasm for the presumption of innocence? -k

I certainly don't blame him. I do find it amusing to note the degree of venom that some blacks reacted when he explained that he did not consider himself "black", but rather multi-racial. The term "traitor" was thrown about rather liberally. Martha Burk referenced Curves herself in one of the articles I read the other day, oddly enough. Her comment was basically: "I won't defend Curves, because it's a slippery slope. But I don't think mergers of multinational corporations are being made on the treadmills at Curves..." Another of the articles I read the other day pointed out that Smith Barney and Morgan Stanley paid out about $80 million in settlements for gender discrimination lawsuits filed by employees. Both settlements included provisions that the respective employers would no longer allow executives to claim any business expenses relating to Augusta or any other club that discriminates on the basis of race or gender. Companies that supposedly subscribe to the principle of equality... paying for male employees to go to male-only clubs to do business? hmmm. Think any female executives have ever attempted to file a trip to Curves under business expenses? Anyway, legality is beside the point. Clearly, private clubs such as Augusta and others have the legal right to their own membership policies and can invite whoever they wish. The issue will not turn on law, it will turn on shame. While undoubtedly many members of Augusta and similar clubs are cro-magnons who couldn't care less what anyone thinks, it is doubtful that anyone whose public image is of any importance would wish to be associated with such an organization. On the other hand, I doubt you'll find any women who feel guilty going to a Spa-Lady. -k

This isn't the first time some public sector union has taken a rather provocative political stance regarding Israel, and I'm trying to remember what the previous one was. I'm sure it was discussed here at MLW, though. Anybody have a recollection of that issue? -k

If that's what was on your mind, why did you post the whiny-sounding crap about him being a minority, as if that had anything to do with the kickback charges being made against Richardson. btw, I'm sure that Richardson will receive the benefit of the doubt just as much as Norm Coleman has. Because the allegations would undermine his tenure from the moment he started. -k

yeah, people are obviously picking on Richardson because he's a minority. That's what I got out of reading the article. -k

The idea that continuing to fund development of a product with no application and almost no customers would have been a boon to the nation seems rather odd. It seems to rely on some kind of "perpetual motion machine" economic theory that I as yet have not been able to grasp. We don't need huge military development program to engage in such an enterprise. All of our economic ills could be cured if the government would simply hire as many unemployed smart-people as possible to solve Sudoku puzzles, and hire as many unemployed dumb-people as possible to move large piles of sand from one place to another. Think of the spinoff benefits of all of this new employment! Think of the tax money could be raised from all of these newly employed people! Why, it would be some tiny fraction of the government money sunk into the project! I would suggest that if we become of the belief that spending an enormous amount of tax money to stimulate employment were to be in the best interest of the country, there are many far better ways to spend it than on developing a military technology with extremely limited use. -k

As I was saying, it's not a question of unanimity or what percentage believes what. Undoubtedly many or most Palestinians would just like to get on with their lives, but their opinions don't matter, it only matters what the ones who are armed militants think. The views of peace-minded Palestinians will be irrelevant until the armed militants stop the attacks. And you'll notice that's something Hamas never agreed to. The articles about Hamas' friendly new philosophy that you keep posting all say that Hamas remains dedicated to armed "resistance". If it were a democracy, the support among everyday Palestinians for some kind of reconciliation with Israel would be an encouraging starting point for some kind of settlement, but it's not a democracy. It's not a democracy while there's armed militants using their neighborhoods as staging grounds for attacks and using their neighbors as human shields against the reprisals. And it's designed that way from the start. Hamas provokes Israel to the point where retaliation is inevitable, and makes political mileage from the civilian casualties that inevitably result. The civilians dying in this conflict are martyrs by someone else's design. Considering the Israelis agreed in principle to giving the West Bank to the Palestinians in the 2001 Taba talks, I don't think that argument holds water. Coming from you, BC_Chick? Prior to the Canadian election you told me that you refuse to support the Conservatives because of stuff that some Reform types said back in the 1990s and because you still believe the party has racists in its midst. And yet you think the Israelis are "misinformed" for not wanting to recognize a group that until 3 years ago called for their complete destruction, and continues to stand behind terror attacks as a matter of policy? Really, Chick? Really? Even the new warm, fuzzy Hamas isn't exactly as conciliatory as you are trying to portray. Your own links don't support the claim that they've recognized Israel's right to exist. The position offered is a temporary truce based on the 1967 borders, with Israel's right to exist left as a question to be decided in the future. Are you really trying to portray this as something people would get behind if they weren't so ignorant? -k

The fact that they're some of the worst people the world has seen since the Khmer Rouge? -k

This reminds me of the controversy a few years ago with regard to the Augusta Golf Club, in the United States. Augusta is one of the most prestigious golf clubs in the world, and one of the most exclusive. Augusta has no female members. Membership is by invitation only, and no woman has ever been invited to join. A few years ago Martha Burk, former president of NOW, called on Tiger Woods to boycott the annual Masters tournament held at Augusta until Augusta allowed female members. Tiger Woods, as people may know, is of ethnic background that could only accurately be described as "not white" -- his background includes black, asian, native American ancestors. Burk noted that Augusta didn't have non-white members until just a few years previous, either, and felt that as golf's top draw, he should use his influence to take a stand against a club that wouldn't have him on its grass if he weren't competing in the tournament. The irony of Tiger Woods winning championships on a course that wouldn't have him as a member is noted in this viciously funny Onion satire, predating the Martha Burk controversy by several years. Woods, being a competitor rather than a politician, chose to avoid the controversy and did what he does best, play golf. Augusta's position all along (to this day, in fact) was simply that "it's our club, and we can invite whoever we want." There are lots of other golf clubs that women can join. There are lots of other bars that women can go to. People can vote with their feet. Personally, my view is the opposite of Groucho Marx: I would not want to belong to any club that wouldn't have me as a member. If Kimmy is not good enough for you, then you are not good enough for Kimmy, end of story. That's easy enough to say about some gay bar, which is probably not any more edifying or enriching than bars catering to heterosexual clientele. In the case of Augusta, though, I have to pause. Augusta's members are the most influential and successful people in our society. When the Kimmy Green Energy Center for Wind Powered Scooter Innovation is a multi-billion dollar enterprise and I have the sort of life that requires me to hob-nob and rub elbows with that sort of people, won't places like Augusta be an impediment to me? Perhaps when I am at that point in my life I will be able to simply pick up the phone and call Bill Gates and say "Bill, you fat asshole, why are you a member of that redneck shithole anyway?" -k

It all sounds very nice. Sadly, I don't think any legislation can force people to be better parents. I think you're setting yourself up for a huge disappointment. I walked past a hospital just a couple of weeks ago and there were crusaders just like yourselves marching up and down the street with their signs and billboards ("a full classroom died here today", and so forth...) and you know, MC, I didn't see a war anywhere. I didn't see pro-choicers fighting with them. I didn't see news teams covering the action. I didn't see much of anything going on, aside from a handful of people marching up and down the street with signs. I just ignored them, like every other person. There was simply nothing going on. -k

I don't think that it was apparent in 2001 that Pakistan would offer harbour to the Taliban to the extent that it has. I also do not think the definition of success in Afghanistan need be annihilating the Taliban from the face of the earth. I believe that our objectives should be defined by the condition in which Afghanistan is in, not by whether the enemy has been annihilated. -k

If one takes "innocent" to mean "naive, lacking adequate information," then often times yes. If one takes "innocent" to mean "abstinent until married"... hardly ever. I haven't read the whole thread, just the last couple of pages... and yet I've already slapped myself in the forehead a half dozen times from reading Mr Canada's theories. I need some Tylenol before I can continue. -k

People who hate or fear Harper tend to view him as an evangelical, believing that ultimately his religious views will shape his party's policy. I think those people are mistaken. The defining characteristic of Harper's political career has not been dogmatism, but pragmatism. As with Chretien and Martin's Catholicism, Harper's religious views will take a back seat to what is possible, practical, and electable. It continues to surprise me that many of Harper's detractors on the one hand insist that he will stop at nothing to obtain power, while on the other hand warn of terrible things that will happen if he obtains it. These two ideas are fundamentally at odds. As a pragmatist, Harper recognizes that the values of the hardcore social conservatives in the party are an obstacle to his success. As a pragmatist, Harper knows that the Charter of Rights and Supreme Court rulings have a deeply limiting effect on any socially conservative agenda he could pursue even if he wanted to. There is no way that an attempt to enact a socially conservative policy on any of the religious right's favorite issues could be done in a way that would appease the target audience anyway, so there is no gain in pursuing it at all. -k

Good article, thanks for posting. -k

Yup. Scientology is obviously pretty bonkers too. I started a thread a while back to discuss the issue of why people adopt seemingly strange beliefs a while back: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=6845 Religions and conspiracy theories have some of the same elements... they also have some differences. Not talking about it doesn't make it not true... but people talk about a lot of things, and most of it is bullshit. You've got a guy who has rebuilt his media career by demonizing Mexican immigrants, pumping up this nightmare scenario where the border between Mexico and the United States is erased and there's nothing keeping all of those evil smelly Mexicans out anymore. Why is he putting the "Why is congress ignoring a threat to our sovereignty?" caption on the screen in a segment that provides no evidence at all of any threat to Amercan sovereignty? At what point does this stop being called "journalism" and start being called what it is? And here you've got this guy who apparently makes a full-time job of raising paranoia about immigrants, and gays, and "world government", talking about how the SPP is actually a plot to integrate with Mexico and how there's even going to be a North American Court. If I told you I'd heard that gasoline will be 30 cents a litre by next summer, you might be skeptical or interested, or maybe you'd be willing to consider that maybe I've actually got sources in the industry who are projecting this sort of thing, or maybe you'd just think I was pulling your leg. Suppose I told you I'd heard gasoline will be 30 cents a litre by next summer, during a conversation in which I was trying to sell you a Hummer SUV that gets 3 miles per gallon. All of a sudden it's different, right? All of a sudden I've got a vested interest in making you believe that gas will be cheap in a few months. All of a sudden, I've got a real incentive to be telling you something false. Now how do you feel about my claim that gas is going to be cheap in a few months? If somebody who opposed the firearms registry told you they'd heard there was a plan that every registered firearm was going to be seized by the police, would you believe this person had actually heard it from a credible source, or would you suspect they heard it from nutbars and was just repeating it because it suits his purpose? What are the chances that these "people" Clifford Kincaid heard this from are a credible source of information? And what are the chances that these "people" he's heard this from are just more cranks and that he's making the claim anyway because it suits his purposes? Ok, but the claim being made is that it's "a threat to our sovereignty", not that it's "a threat to American jobs". Debate about whether multinational agreements like SPP (or NAFTA) are a threat to jobs or to the economic situation of the average man on the street are completely legitimate topics that SHOULD be discussed, and have been topics of heated debate for over 20 years. But that's a completely separate issue from discussing whether this is a plot to erase borders and merge sovereign nations into a single entity. Stuff could happen in the future. Obviously. The EU... how many countries are there in Europe? they still have borders, right? They have their own laws and courts and law enforcement agencies, yes? Some of them didn't even adopt the Euro, kept their British pound for example. Even if things did eventually get to that state, it's a lot less scary than the fruitcakes are making it out to be. Was it done in secret? Did the people have no say? Research that as well... if the EU is supposed to be the example of how scary things could be, what exactly is the big panic anyway? As for the African Union, I don't even think it's at that level. I think think it's an attempt to have African countries stop invading each other, stampeding refugees across each others' borders, provide peacekeepers, and generally speaking try and keep a handle on the chaos without Whitey getting involved. No common currency, no common courts, no borders being erased. -k