kimmy

Regarding the Muslim Association of Canada: the group asserts that its values are derived from Hassan Al Banna. That is NOT the same as saying they share the values of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood, during Al Banna's lifetime was not a terrorist group, it was a social and political reform movement. It was immensely popular, with membership in the millions. The Egyptian government became so afraid of the group's popularity that the group was banned and censored. The Egyptian Prime Minister was assassinated, apparently in retaliation for the crackdown on the group. And in retaliation for that assassination, Al Banna himself was assassinated by the government. It was never actually proven that the Prime Minister was assassinated by a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, and certainly never proven that Al Banna was involved in the assassination at all. Whatever path the Muslim Brotherhood went down after Al Banna was assassinated, it is not a reflection of Al Banna's beliefs, and not representative of what MAC believes. If MAC is to be judged on their statement that they follow Al Banna's beliefs, we should at least consider Al Banna's beliefs during his lifetime, and not what the Muslim Brotherhood may have done since Al Banna's death. Al Banna's beliefs seem to have 2 really prominent characteristics: a firm belief in charity and economic fairness. And, a rejection of all things western and a return to traditional Islam. And this is where it would be nice if someone from the group could explain what they're actually all about. I don't think anybody objects to charity. However, if the group believes in rejecting westernization and embracing traditional Islam, that's a little more problematic for a group in Canada. Michael asserts that even if that's what they do believe, they're within their right to do so. And I don't disagree at all. However, the question of whether the CBC should be involved with such a group in any capacity is another question. I think that entering into a partnership with this group, using the phrase "...in assocation with..." and putting the group's name on a website that is being promoted by the CBC and its popular television show amounts to, essentially, an endorsement. If this group is advocating for Sharia courts, traditional Muslim rules for women, living lives isolated from Canadian society at large, and that sort of thing, then I don't think the CBC should be legitimizing the group through this sort of a partnership. And I would feel the same way if it was a regressive Christian or Jewish group as well. -k

This "pulling ahead" is the result of previously challenged ballots being upheld and being added back into the totals, right? I had read that almost all challenged ballots end up counting, and that Coleman's people challenged a lot more ballots than Franken's did. -k

A god warrior? -k

Is there a party in Canada that will put an end to same sex marriage? There sure is! Is there a party in Canada that will put an end to abortion? There sure is! Is there a party in Canada that will put mothers back in the home? There sure is! If you want these things, there's only one party for you: the Christian Heritage Party! The "Conservative" Party won't stand up against gay marriage, but the Christian Heritage Party will! The "Conservative" Party won't stand up against abortion, but the Christian Heritage Party will! Canada's religious right are standing up and making their voices heard as never before! In fact, in September, the CHP received nearly 30,000 votes coast to coast! Twice what the party received in 2000! Almost 1 in 500 voters stood up and said "Jesus for me, thank you!" Christian Heritage is the party for YOU, Mr Canada! This is the party that represents your views. The "Conservative" Party has failed the pro-life movement. The "Conservative" Party failed to overturn gay marriage. The Christian Heritage Party is the only party that truly believes in these issues! And by the way, Mr Canada, get involved. CHP needs your help. A donation would help. And you know, maybe consider running as a candidate. Did you know that only 59 CHP candidates ran in the last federal election? That means that Christians in 249 ridings didn't even have the opportunity to go into a ballot-box and support Jesus with their votes... isn't that terrible? Why not you, Mr Canada? You obviously have the passion... and you know where you stand on the issues. Why not get in touch with CHP and tell them "I want to stand up for Jesus too!" They would probably be overjoyed to have you on their team. -k

oh, ok. So what's the claim being made, then? -k

Well, Lou Dobbs is a name that people recognize and he is on a big US TV network, so what he says must be pretty credible, right? Well, as we go through these clips, why don't we spend some time to consider what he's actually saying, and whether it's credible. I think that in each Lou Dobbs clip you've linked to, you'll find that the objective facts being presented do nothing to support any kind of claim of "erased borders" or "a threat to our sovereignty". The only parts that claim anything of the sort are sourced to "many people", or anonymous "critics", or "people" that Clifford Kincaid has heard talking. I think that if you re-watch the videos with an eye towards considering where these claims of "a threat to our sovereignty" actually come from, you'll notice that the claim is not implied in any of the information being presented, but rather comes from Lou Dobbs himself. Before we get to the content of this video, let's take a moment to consider the sources. And both of these guys have some obvious bias on the subject. Lou Dobbs has been freaking out about Mexican immigrants for some time now. Cliff Kincaid has been freaking out about the UN and multinational organizations for some time now. As far as I can tell, creating panic about America's sovereignty and flogging right-wing causes is Kincaid's full-time job. So what does Kincaid actually have to say on the subject? After glossing over the obvious (NAFTA, the stated goals of the SPP) he goes on to claim that he has "heard people talk about things" like a unified North American legal system, and so on. He has "heard people talk about those things". WHAT PEOPLE? "WOW", says Dobbs at each unsubstantiated claim. "That's astounding!" Awesome journalism, Lou. Completely typical piece. Weak news piece glosses over the stated goals of SPP, playing up crackpot concerns about "borders being erased" and all the while with the caption "WHY IS CONGRESS IGNORING A THREAT TO OUR SOVEREIGNTY?" on the screen. This is sheer comedy, folks, this is the kind of journalism they make fun of every night on "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report." Then they turn the ball over to Lou Dobbs, who sputters furiously about "elites" and "multinational corporations" for a minute and a half. Well, we already know how Lou feels, but once again we are no wiser as to the legitimacy of any of these "concerns" about "borders being erased". Ok, and this one starts with a big banner captioned "American Kleptocracy" beside Lou's head. This is off to a promising start. Once again, 5 seconds in he talks about "many" who consider the SPP "a blueprint for the North American Union" and a "threat to our sovereignty", then heads out to a news piece about the then-upcoming meeting in Banff, and highlights an element of the plan which would see Canada and the US help fund infrastructure development in Mexico. Well, American and Canadian people might not be excited about spending money to help Mexico build infrastructure. However, funding infrastructure improvements in another country happens all the time. The American and Canadian governments both spend billions of dollars a year on building infrastructure in other countries, in fact. It's not a threat to our sovereignty. Here is something for Lou to consider: maybe if Mexico had better infrastructure, there would be fewer of those scary scary scary immigrants streaming across the border each year. btw I am apparently a "left wing activist" for not believing that the NAU is happening, according to Dobbs. Trucks from Mexico will have expanded access to US highways. I only watched about 10 seconds of this one... unless Lou intends to argue that the trucks will be full of Mexican commandos, I have no idea how this relates to "a threat to American sovereignty" or "borders being erased". A compilation of some Lou Dobbs clips, including the earlier one about Mexican infrastructure. I'm spending more time on this than it deserves even without reruns. Let's move on. Vincente Fox suggests that there is a long term possibility for some kind of EU-type arrangement, but that trade is what they are working on. Mitt Romney says that he would not participate in SPP if he became president. That's certainly a valid viewpoint. However, nothing in what he says actually does anything to support the claim that this is a plot to "erase the borders" or any such thing. Guy on TV asserts that the Amero is already in progress... and invites us to "google it" to learn more. So I google it, all I find is the same paranoid claims from the same paranoid websites... so it's a circular argument. -k

It doesn't actually matter what the average Palestinian wants. Israel can't base policy decisions on the wishes of a peaceful majority, as long as there's a lethal minority that won't accept any compromise. Imagine a police negotiator dealing with a gunman with 30 hostages in a bank. While 30 out of 31 people in the bank might be desperately hoping for the same thing, the only opinion that matters is that of the guy with the gun. As long as that guy still has the gun, the opinion of the other 30 people in the bank just doesn't matter. -k

The chem-trail/orgone accumulator/David Icke set are so much more fun than the NWO types. Their theories are fun and fanciful and creative and just tug at my sense of whimsy. It has this exciting narrative that we live in this world surrounded by all of this advanced mind control technology and 12-foot-tall lizard overlords, that we're in this constant battle with unseen forces and we can protect ourselves using power-crystals and fight them using orgone weapons... and that soon the Star Angels will arrive, possibly led by Jesus himself, a UFO-pilot Jesus, who will overthrow the 12 foot tall lizards and restore justice and save us all. -k

You are referring to Hal Turner's theory, yes? Cite? -k

Sounds about right. However, this little stain is in trouble for using her position to improperly access someone's private information and then disclosing that private information to the media. "she won't allow her reputation to be disparaged" ... huh. If people don't want their reputations to be disparaged, they should probably not act like scumbags in the first place. Had she done this to Kimmy the Construction Worker instead of Joe the Plumber, she'd be out of some teeth as well as out of work. -k

One of the funnier things in this thread is the idea that Christianity alone is a target for us humanists. Anybody who's been around for even a little while should be familiar with the ass-kicking Islam takes on this message board. -k

They're certainly well within their right to hold those beliefs, if those are indeed beliefs they hold. However, the question is not whether they're allowed to believe that. The question is whether the CBC should be in any way associated with a group that hold such views. If the CBC had partnered with a Christian group of dubious value... some outfit that believes Leviticus forms the basis of a solid law and order program, say... would people think that was appropriate for the CBC? I'm suggesting, probably not. -k

Requesting a 6-year sentence for a guy who shot someone in the eye? You know, it kind of DOES sound like the prosecutor is on the side of the accused. 6 years? For shooting someone in the head? He fired a gun at a man who was driving a truck on a freeway, and hit him in the head. And then he was arrested breaking into the property of people who had terminated his employment, while carrying loaded weapons. 6 years!? What the ****, gentlemen. I ask you: What the ****? -k

Is murder ok if it is fiction? Wouldn't the same reasons lead one to say no as well? Let me be clear, I am not advocating in favor of child porn in any incarnation. However, some distinction seems to be made here that is not made in regard to any other work of fiction... and I am hoping that somebody can articulate as to why that distinction is being made, because it eludes me. -k

I have mixed feelings about Mr Ignatieff. On the one hand, he seems like a return to a more traditional Liberal leader. The party will likely be free of Dion's Quixotic notions regarding the green future. On the other hand, I am worried about the future of the Kimmy Green Energy Center for Wind-Powered Scooter Innovation. With Dion no longer in charge of the coalition, and the coalition now in doubt, it seems unlikely that I will ever get my subsidy. -k

Somehow I just knew that the grand sum of Mr Canada's research on Mr al Banna was what was contained in the original post. -k

Rue, nobody here is arguing that pornography involving real children is despicable and that its creators, purveyors, and customers should be smote down with extreme prejudice. However, we have been discussing fictional characters. They don't seem to need protection. Pedophiles the world over know that Lisa and Bart Simpson can be found at 742 Evergreen Terrace, in Springfield. Rod and Todd Flanders live right next door, yet there they are week after week. Haven't gone missing... haven't been telling Chief Wiggum that they were touched on their special place... Argus indicates that we already censor words. Having the wrong words on your website, or your bookshelf, or your hard-drive could, apparently, get you in a lot of trouble. There are any number of utterly horrific things that could be written about, or drawn, or made into television or film. Yet it seems as though the only one which is treated in this way is child pornography. Why is that? I can turn on my television any night of the week and find some murder mystery about some woman, usually a pretty young blonde, who has been snuffed in some horrific manner, and this doesn't raise an eyebrow. As long as she's over 18 years of age, at least. -k

What bearing does that question have on the nonsense you guys have been peddling here? "The NAU is happening! Look, the coins are already here!" ...except that the coins are novelty medallions being manufactured by Daniel Carr (that's President Daniel Carr to you.) Or the young journalist in your video "blowing the lid off the New World Order" by pointing out that the phrase New World Order is in his text book. Or talking about how cell phones have been banned from his school to keep students from exposing "the truth", as if there were any possible truth worth exposing at Joseph P. McMullen Elementary school that "the Man" could possibly be concerned with. Or, how many have there been in the past? Alex Jones posting the video of somebody wandering around an abandoned train station and talking about how it's a KBR "concentration camp". Or Alex Jones showing video footage of a SWAT team on a university campus to take out an armed suspect and narrating that fascist storm-troopers are on America's campuses to enforce UN-required one-world indoctrination? Or how when police were called to the elementary school to take a violent out-of-control child to social services, Alex Jones contended she was taken away to be a sex-slave for the pedophile elites of the world government. Or how Alex Jones and Forrest Mims III got that college professor detained by telling Homeland Security that his speech about the global population explosion was "a plot to kill 90% of the human race." yep, something that nobody ever expected could happen tomorrow. But you guys are asking us to believe that these retards, Alex Jones and his kin, have the secret inside scoop on it. You guys want to have serious conversations about this stuff, but all that's ever brought forward for discussion is this idiocy. -k

BTW, does anybody find it odd that the state that had to have a 2nd election already has its senator, while this state still hasn't got one? -k

We're building a society where people don't want to be Santa Claus at the mall because they're afraid that police officers will be kicking down their door because somebody's child said "Santa touched my special place." We're building a society where the cute baby pictures your parents took of you getting a bath in the kitchen sink could probably land them in jail. We're building a society where some classic works of literature just would not have been created today, because their authors would be scared shitless of being charged with criminal offense. We're building a society where "protecting children" has apparently become such a crusade that it has caused people to take leave of their senses. -k

I am over it, August, I am far far over it. However, I am fascinated by the extent to which the criteria for being a national leader seems to be so changeable. This idea, that Harper is not a national leader because he got shut out of Newfoundland, has been put forward on a number of occasions by Liberal supporters who seem oblivious to the fact that their own party has had almost no support from a significant chunk of this country, for decades. I'd just once like to hear some Liberal supporter explain this seeming contradiction. Is the idea that Newfoundland is somehow more integral to the country than the prairies, or is there some other explanation? I am skeptical that Ignatieff being Russian Orthodox rather than of WASP descent is of little importance to most people under about 60 years of age, but I could be mistaken. It is not of any particular importance to me that Harper is Harper and not Harpski, Harpow, Harpelli, Harpersson, Harpberg, or so-on. While I have written several times about my non-English, non-French European ancestors and their contributions to building this country, the fact that Ignatieff is also of non-English, non-French European ancestry doesn't cause me to feel any special kinship with him. If this were 50 years ago, I would probably feel differently. If this were still a country where non-English, non-French Europeans had never achieved the top positions in our society, then having a Russian Orthodox PM would probably be very inspiring. But non-English, non-French Europeans have had every top job in this country except for Prime Minister, and the sense is that the barrier on that issue is not so much that they're not of English descent, but rather that they're non from Quebec. -k

With the Republican victory in the South Carolina run-off election, there's not a lot of importance left to this from a big-picture perspective. With the "supermajority" thwarted, a Franken victory might ironically be better for the Republicans. With Coleman under investigation for financial shenanigans, they'd be better off if he wasn't in Senate. And if Franken wins, then after 4 years of having this annoying cartoon character in the Senate I would think that just about everybody would be ready to vote for somebody else in 2012. Probably the only way the Republicans could lose to Franken in 2012 would be if their candidate is Ben Stein. -k {looking forward to the great Franken-Stein debates of 2012.}

I think what Canadian Blue was getting at is that the term "neo-conservative" has been overused to the point that any specific definition it might have had has been lost. "Neo-con" now means, more or less, "something that left-wing message board users don't like". -k

Hi Michael. I don't have any prior knowledge about Al Banna, but have looked at a few online sources over the past couple of days. This biography contains a brief history of him, and outlines some of the views that characterized the movement he founded: http://www.bookrags.com/biography/hassan-al-banna/ His agenda appears to have been an interesting mix of progressive socialism with traditional Muslim beliefs. In a poor nation struggling with transition from traditional handicrafts and small enterprise to western-style industrialism and business, some of these ideas obviously had tremendous appeal: fairer wages for workers, profit sharing, more equitable wages in government jobs. Also described is the call for return to Muslim traditions of charity as an important measure in improving the common good. Also described in his teachings is the rejection of secularism and westernization: This seems to be in agreement with what Pipes and Fatah said of Al Banna's ideology. What I would emphasize is that while all of this probably made great sense and was extremely popular in Egypt in the 1930s and 1940s, Canada is not Egypt. There are certainly some of Al Banna's ideals that would be highly relevant even here and now... the organization's participation in this venture supporting food banks shows as much. However, the anti-secularism, anti-Western portion of Al Banna's program obviously just isn't compatible with participating in Canada in the present day. So perhaps rather than saying they seek to implement Al Banna's ideas in Canada, perhaps they should articulate which ideas they support and how they would wish to implement them: expressing blanket support for Al Banna obviously leaves reason for concern. -k

I read that on their site as well, but dismissed it as being so vague it's completely meaningless (integrated but distinct, a vibrant part of Canada, with its own culture and values... sounds like something lifted out of the Meech Lake Accord, mais oui?) Someone's vision of how "an Islamic presence" could be integrated into Canada would be for Muslims to participate in society and the workforce and amongst other Canadians regardless of differences of faith. I'd be fine with that. Someone else's vision of how "an Islamic presence" could be integrated into Canada might call for Sharia courts and Islamic schools to be officially sanctioned, and I wouldn't really be into that at all. I have read nothing about the group to justify the label "Islam Extremists". I glanced through their site and their Muslim Youth magazine and nothing I saw seemed anything but benign. However, this figure Hassan Al Banna that they cite as their inspiration seems to be somewhat controversial. The group itself could probably put this to rest by being more specific in talking about what sort of social ideas they stand for and how they envision Al Banna's ideas being applied in Canada in 2008. -k