kimmy

Indeed. Everything is "justified" to people who have a warped sense of justice. Most people would regard Australia's intervention to stop the slaughter in East Timor to be honorable and maybe even heroic... ...but for some reason, the Islamists saw it differently ("the infidels have committed an act of war against the Ummah" or some such...) and terrorist attacks directed at Australians were the result. The problem with discussing whether our western democracies actions abroad are beneficial or justified or "interference" or "abuse" is that it doesn't matter what our opinion is. The knuckleheads will form their own opinion based on their own unenlightened world views. To us, going to Sudan to stop the violence of the janjaweed militias might be a noble purpose... but to the fanatics, it will be more "western aggression against Islam" and no doubt another cause for terrorists. -k

I'm skeptical that they're "not all that organized". Most white racists wouldn't fall into the category of belonging to organized groups. However, it is well known that there are organizations out there. And some of the organizations are not just building crappy websites and printing tract literature. And the threat of prison is of little consequence if you don't plan on getting caught or if you don't plan on surviving. The plan was to die under a hail of Secret Service bullets, either before or after the attempt on Obama's life. Anyway, from what little I've read, I gather this "conspiracy" was not exactly the Masterminds of the Aryan Underworld. Then again, Dylan Kliebold and Eric Harris were not exactly what you'd consider masterminds either, and not part of any organization that couldn't meet in a phone-booth... but they still managed to cause a ton of sorrow. The plan was, allegedly, that these two turds had planned to go to a school in a predominately black area, massacre a bunch of students, escape, go on a killing spree, and later attend the Obama inauguration. Even if they only ever got as far as attacking the school, it's still terrible and has grave repercussions. To me, this sounds less like Aryan Raiders and more like Marc Lepine, Kliebold/Harris, Kimveer Gill, Seung-Hui Cho type crap. Losers with irrational hatred and martyr fantasies. That might well be the sad reality, but I don't see how it relates to this situation. -k

It is believed that US agencies are on high alert for plots against Obama. I absolutely believe there's white supremacists who'd kill Obama given the chance. I also believe the Toronto terror plot was real. People who think that this sort of stuff is too crazy to be true have too high an opinion of humanity in general. And just because the suspects might not be smart enough to carry out their plans, doesn't mean the malice isn't real. There are some spectacularly defective people out there, and through the magic of the internet, now they can meet each other! -k

"They cited an instance in which she labeled robocalls -- recorded messages often used to attack a candidate's opponent -- "irritating" even as the campaign defended their use. " -she's right. "Also, they pointed to her telling reporters she disagreed with the campaign's decision to pull out of Michigan." -she's right. If "off message" is to disagree with cutting and running in Michigan and calling "robocalls" irritating, and "on message" is to keep insinuating that Obama is chummy with terrorists, she should go "off message" more and stay "on message" less. -k

By the way, this idea that once Obama gets elected he's going to turn into some kind of Black Power vigilante taking revenge for 250 years of injustice is just the most irrational, paranoid thing ever. Like, get real. However, I have heard rumours (friend of a friend, no names...) that the FBI is already preparing for trouble with white supremacists in the event that Obama gets elected. As Drea mentions, whichever candidate wins, there will be some people who will be extremely upset. You can bet that US law and order is going to be very prepared for a wide range of possibilities on Nov 4. -k

Are you sure? Obama's own speeches make it clear that his Afghanistan policy involves demanding a larger commitment from other NATO countries. As a Canadian, are you of the belief that our commitment there isn't sufficient? Will hearing that we need to do more be easier to swallow if it comes from a Nice Guy president? That's not a trade policy, it's a sound bite. The actual trade policy articulated on his official site includes planks like "Fight for fair trade: Obama and Biden will fight for a trade policy that opens up foreign markets to support good American jobs." (hmm. what leverage might they employ to cause that to happen?) "Amend NAFTA: Obama and Biden believe that NAFTA and its potential were oversold to the American people. They will work with the leaders of Canada and Mexico to fix NAFTA so that it works for American workers." (hmm. what leverage might they employ to cause that to happen?) (hmm. isn't this what his campaign assured our representatives wasn't part of the plan at all?) And yes, other things including the one you mentioned. Still, you missed the two most important parts for Canada. That's what their official site says. Looking around at other stuff around the net, one finds things like this: http://worldtradelaw.typepad.com/ielpblog/...e-of-the-t.html where the Obama representative (Lael Brainard, cited as potentially Obama's trade honcho) adds ideas like pressuring China regarding their currency (hmm. what leverage might they employ to cause that to happen?) Even if you've done your homework on this (which seems iffy...), I find myself skeptical that most of the Canadians who support him so enthusiastically have done the same. I can picture thousands of unemployed Ontario and Quebec factory workers clutching their severance pay sobbing "...but I thought he was a Nice Guy.. :( " -k

It doesn't matter if she's running for office or not. She's a highly visible part of the Obama campaign, and a woman in the center of the public eye. Knowing how much has been spent on Michelle Obama's clothing and styling would give us some perspective on the issue of whether $150,000 for Palin is an outrageous amount for a woman in this situation. BC-Chick and Riverwind (and uh, yourself I believe) suggested that there's a gender double standard at work here. Knowing how much Michelle Obama's image has cost would give us an apples-to-apples comparison to compare to Palin's expenses. And she's been a part of the Obama campaign, so it's fair game. -k

I think Hilary's best chance has passed her by. Romney to me seems like the best Republican candidate that is on the horizon right now. I can't help wondering about Rice. I can't imagine that we've seen the last of her. I don't know whether being part of the Bush regime taints her irreparably. Agreed. If the Republicans lose, Palin will likely take the blame. The cartoon-job that has been done of her makes her non-viable in the future. Even if she does actually go read some geography and history books, she'll never shake the image of being painfully uninformed about the big picture. And why would Biden even get any consideration... the fact that he was seen as a nice, safe VP nominee pick would do little to hide the fact that he was a total non-factor in the Democratic nomination. -k

While I wouldn't presume to speak for Mrs Bush-Cheney, I suspect that the comment is not that she's not "aware" of Barack Obama, but rather being confused or skeptical about the actual substance of what he's campaigning on. Everybody knows he's an eloquent and charismatic speaker, but beyond that, the only thing I'm certain people know he stands for is being different from George W. Bush. Granted, that might be reason enough for many people to vote for him. He defines himself as "change", not of being something but of being different from something that came before. I feel like I am watching an elaborate soft-drink advertisement campaign, where the sales pitch is not based on the flavor or nutritional content of the beverage, but rather on nebulous benefits that don't actually relate to the product at all. (Drinking Mountain Dew apparently identifies you with extreme sports. How Mountain Dew actually relates to you getting onto the surf-board is never made clear. Likewise, while having heard that Obama creates happiness and joy, I'm still unsure as to how the product actually relates to those feelings.) Let us take you as an example, Bubber. You're an enthusiastic Obama supporter. If I asked you to articulate his policy on an issue (say, trade or Afghanistan, as those are issues of great importance to Canadians) could you tell me what Obama actually stands for, without going to his website and looking it up? -k

I watched about 30 seconds of the video, saw some clips making a big deal about the fact that Obama's middle name is Hussein, saw some Kennedy accidentally call him "Osama" instead of "Obama", and turned it off. That's moronic. Pro-McCain people have to come up with something a lot more compelling, because that's just stupid. This is insulting to peoples' intelligence. Sure it has. No question. Unauthorized surveillance, people being held long term without trial, these are troubling issues. But you know, even a little turd like Omar Khadr gets his day in court (...eventually.) We know where he is, we know he's still alive. Doesn't the fact that a black man is running for (and is likely to become) President in the first place completely obviate the question? To a higher degree than in all but a handful of countries on earth. America falls short of the ideal. But by real-world standards, America remains about as close as it gets. Our western democracies really rock, compared to what most people on earth have to contend with. -k

The Liberals for a long time had sought the Cinderella voter. "This chair is too big! This chair is too small! This chair is just right!" Dion's policies took away the Liberals' medium-sized chair and pushed the Liberals in a direction of competing with two other parties offering small chairs. A lot of voters who'd have considered a medium-sized chair probably opted for the large chair. Other voters who'd have preferred a medium sized chair but decided for a smaller chair, found themselves choosing between 3 small chairs. A lot of them opted for the orange-colored small chair rather than the red one. 38% of the popular vote puts the CPC in a range where they can contend for a majority government. Ceding that number to them and moving farther left to compete with 2 other parties for the remaining 62% of the votes would be dangerous for the Liberals for 2 reasons. Firstly, it's still a first-past-the-post system. Conceding 38% of the voters to the CPC and choosing to fight 2 other parties for the remainder creates a lot of scenarios where the votes split in a way that elect a CPC candidate. Secondly, it puts a lot of faith in the assumption that the 62% of the people who didn't vote CPC are people would not vote CPC regardless of what the options were. I think a lot of the people who voted Liberal were people who would prefer a centrist option. Taking the Liberals further to the left might leave these voters concluding that the CPC offers the better option for centrist views. If one notes the drop in "right wing" votes from 2000 to 2004, one suspects that those voters were centrist voters who had supported the Progressive Conservatives, but in 2004 decided that the Liberals reflected their views better than the new "united right". In the time since, those voters appear to have changed their mind, probably more because of corruption (2006) and Dion straying from the centrist path (2008). Those voters would be willing to reconsider the Liberals. Conversely, some Liberal voters would probably be willing to consider the CPC if the Liberals continue to abandon their traditional position in the center. Or, more likely, traditional Liberal supporters who feel abandoned would just stay home. "That's not the Liberal party I used to support. I think I'm going to stay home and watch Sarah Connor instead of voting." -k

I liked "Where'd Russia go?" -k

.45%, 1.6%, 1.4%... our local Communist Party candidate got more than .45%. Candidates for nutso parties like Christian Heritage, Western Block, Marxist Leninist, and so on, often get from .5% to 1%. Independent candidates often get more than 1%, just from people who don't like any of the major parties. If you literally just paid the entry fee and got enough nominations to get your name on the ballot, you could probably get 1% of the vote just from people who thought your name sounded nice. Maybe next election I'll plunk down a deposit just to give it a try. "Kimmy? She sounds nice. I'll vote for Kimmy." Maybe I could even become a party. "The Kimmunist Party of Canada". Yes, the "Progressive Canadian" party is dead, and it was dead at birth. It has no relation to the Progressive Conservatives of years gone by, other than being a crass attempt to cash in on a historic political brand. One can only wonder if the left unites in the future whether there'll be similar attempts to rally people who can't adjust to reality. Names like "the Literal Party of Canada" and the "Nice Democratic Party", perhaps? -k

Alberta is not large enough to skew the election results as dramatically as you suggest. 65% of Albertan votes were for the CPC, but Alberta is the 4th largest province, and had the lowest voter turnout (52%) in the entire country. The province by province results for the CPC in 2008: NL: 16% NS: 26% PEI: 36% NB: 39% PQ: 22% ON: 39% MB: 49% SK: 54% AB: 65% BC: 44% Territories: 35%, 38%, 33%. Only in Quebec, Newfoundland, and Nova Scotia does the CPC support register significantly below their national figure of 37.6%. Only the 3 prairie provinces were significantly above the national figure. That's not very skewed. That's surprisingly balanced. Harper has solid representation from every region except Quebec. That's sonething Chretien never achieved, and never had to. With Ontario delivering 100 MPs for Chretien each election, it simply didn't matter that the Liberals were rejected in Quebec and the west. Each of Chretien's governments was more than half Ontario MPs. -k

Most? I've never met a Canadian who thought Omar should be brought back to Canada. -k

Here is a perspective that you two might not have considered: Jean Chretien's strong majorities were the result of popular vote percentages of 41.2% (1993) to 38.5% (1997) to 40.8% (2000). Harper's win this week (37.6%) is only a few percentage points off of what had been easy majority territory just a short time ago. Jean Chretien was considered to be a tremendously successful politician, a masterful campaigner, a strong leader; there were no calls for him to step down even though roughly 60% of Canadians rejected him in each election he ran. So what's the difference in Harper's case? Well, the obvious difference: Chretien delivered 3 majorities, Harper has won 2 minority governments. How? Why such a difference in results, despite fairly similar percentages in popular support? I think if you study the results, you'll find it's not so much a difference in the amount of support for each man, but rather *where* their support was located. Chretien benefited more from regionalization than Harper has. I think you will find that a lot of Harper votes were in regions where he didn't *quite* have enough support to win seats. Whereas with Chretien, he was very strong in Ontario and in Montreal and in the Maritimes... but he was soundly rejected in areas where he didn't get seats. Harper, on the other hand, obviously has very high support in most of the west where it translated into seats, but a lot of Harper support in Ontario didn't translate into seats. The big difference between Chretien and Harper is not the amount of support, but how concentrated their support was. (It's the same reason that 10% of the popular vote gets the BQ 50 seats while 7% of the popular vote got the Greens no seats.) Related thought: Harper's 2 minority governments with 36.3% and 37.6% of the vote are a far more "democratic" result than Chretien's 3 majority governments with support based on 38.5% to 41.2% of the vote. I don't see the wisdom of choosing a leader with the goal of making the party more popular with people who aren't likely to vote for that party regardless. Perhaps I am giving people too much credit, but I don't think most people who didn't vote CPC made that decision based on personal dislike or distrust of Harper. I think a lot of people who chose to support other parties probably made that choice based on policies. "I'm voting NDP because I don't like big corporate tax cuts." "I'm voting Liberal because I think a carbon tax makes sense." "I am voting BQ because I don't like what the Conservatives have been saying about culture or youth crime." I don't think it was a personal rejection of Harper; most polls said that he had far and away the highest personal approval of the party leaders. I think a lot of people just didn't like the platform. I don't think it's any more complicated than that. -k

They decided that a guy who speaks terrible French could not become PM, so they picked a guy who speaks terrible English instead. Did it just not occur to them that many of us anglos would take offense? I don't know what level of effort he made at learning French prior to becoming CPC leader. And it's beside the point anyway. The point is, Harper's French has improved markedly in the past 6 years, while Dion's English seems to be as dismal as it was 12 years ago. It's not like Harper's an exceptional case either. We all know people who came to Canada as adults with very poor english and have learned the language to a very competent level of fluency. I have a co-worker who came from Quebec with sub-Dion level english a year ago and now has english far superior to Dion's, just from working alongside us anglos. Lots of people seem to be able to improve their english language skills, even as adults. Stephane Dion is not one of them. Why? Does he just not think it's important? No, I do not agree. You seem to want to file this under the heading of stuff that happens to everybody but reporters don't report on because it's trivial. I strongly disagree. I file this under the heading of a major political figure in this country either being unable to comprehend a straightforward question in the country's most-used language, or being unable to answer a question fundamental to his campaign. Either way this was newsworthy. That is the reason CTV went back on their agreement to not show these: it is not under the same heading as screwing up a tongue-twister or knocking over your glass of water. CTV decided, rightly, that these were relevant to peoples' decision of whether they think Dion is adequately prepared to be PM. My response is that the same applies to Dion. Legitimate question, didn't know how to answer it. If Harper, or Dion, or Layton, or any politician of note gets caught so completely flat-footed by an obvious question, that's not a "gotcha" moment, that's legitimate news. Getting make-up before going on TV? Lets loose a vicious fart? Slips on a banana peel? That's not news. Can't answer a question fundamental to his theme? That's news. -k

If I may, your argument here is, essentially, that the media is being mean to Dion. Is that not what this boils down to? Who cares? Harper was soundly rejected in Quebec at that time. Outtakes or not, his poor French was a factor in that. Quebecers apparently won't accept a leader whose French isn't to their liking, which you've cited yourself as a factor in Kennedy's failed leadership bid. Dion was the Intergovernmental Affairs minister in 1996. He's had a prominent role in the federal government for a long time. But unlike Harper, he hasn't improved his skills in his non-native language. He still talks like a cartoon character, he still can't communicate effectively, and evidently he still can't comprehend straightforward questions. But criticize him for his apparent lack of interest in Canada's most used language, and it's "Allors! Le racisme!" A number of years ago, I had the idea of applying for a job with the federal government. I submitted my personal details to start the application process, and was rejected right off the bat. Why? Wrong postal code. The government would not accept applications from Edmonton. Or Alberta. Or basically anywhere outside of Quebec and Ontario. The rationale, apparently, involved moving expenses or some such, even though I'd made no request to have expenses paid for me. A while later that outrageous policy drew appropriate public fury and was corrected, with much ballyhoo. I decided to apply again, but again was out of luck. My ace computer skills, which were good enough for Microsoft, were not at issue. The problem was my fluency in French. The job was designated as bilingual required, and my French language fluency, as an FSL kid from the prairies, would have had to have undergone a test that there was no chance of me passing. Computer techies with the government may be required to interact in either language. So again no luck for Kimmy. So, my question is: if my French isn't good enough for the federal government, why should I accept a Prime Minister whose English isn't good enough for me? If we were talking about showing up for the interview with some chip-dip on his tie, or belching, or accidentally knocking over the coffee table or something, I'd be with you. But this wasn't some kind of wacky shenanigans that the public didn't need to know about. This was a guy who wants to be prime minister being unable to answer a straightforward question that is central to the current premise of his campaign. Palin wasn't given any out-takes. She was caught flat-footed by a question she didn't know how to answer, and sat there uncomfortably while trying to figure out how to respond. Viewers got to see her in that moment, and many decided that her reaction showed that she simply did not have adequate knowledge to be Vice President. You would have us believe that Canadian viewers should not have had been allowed to see Dion in similar circumstances, because it was ... uh, mean. Or something. -k

Although, I can't vouch for it personally, August says that Harper's French is very adequate, and Harper has been on the national scene for half the time Dion has. Harper needed some do-overs in French in 2002 when he was first arriving on the scene as a national leader? Well, he wasn't deemed Prime Minister material in 2002. He's also a quick study apparently. Dion needs do-overs in English 12 years after entering federal politics. He's apparently not a quick study. Whether he's Prime Minister material remains to be seen, but you know my opinion. I guess it depends what you consider a "gotcha" moment. I don't consider "what would you have done differently to protect the economy if you were prime minister" to be a "gotcha" question. I consider it to be the fundamental question required of Dion if he is going to campaign on the theme that he Harper has not done enough for the economy and he would do better. That's not a "gotcha", that's the fundamental question raised by Dion's own premise. For Dion to not be prepared to answer that question in every interview is more unforgivable than Palin not knowing the definition of "The Bush Doctrine". -k

Dion has been in federal politics since 1996. He is not "just starting out". Preston Manning was constantly criticized for being unable to speak adequate french. Gerald Kennedy's poor french was apparently a major strike against him in seeking the Liberal leadership. Apparently that was legitimate criticism of those men... but to criticize Dion's miserable English on the other hand, that's politically incorrect, that's anti-French, anti-Quebec. That makes me irate. Hey, Dobbins, either he's not functionally fluent in the primary language of this country, or this was a "Governor Palin" type moment where he couldn't answer a question that's fundamental to his claim that he'd be a better choice to manage the economy. Either explanation is not very flattering. I also don't accept that CTV was doing something unethical by airing this clip, whether they told Dion's handlers they'd cut it or not. Canadians deserved to see this. -k

Well, JoJo is calling for an 8 point margin of victory for Obama. When the real polls come out, we'll see if JoJo the psychic chicken is smarter than your CNN Quick-Poll and its 71 point margin. -k

JoJo the Psychic Chicken also declaring Obama the winner, and JoJo was also right on the VP debate. I'm confused... did you mean to say Obama called McCain "that one" and himself "This one"? Or McCain called Obama "that one" and himself "this one"? Mine is Strangle Thicket Palin! -stp

How's it partisan to have school kids watch the debate? Both candidates were at the debate, weren't they? If they'd given extra credit for having the kids turn the channel while Biden was speaking, now that would have been partisan. My social studies class watched a tape of a debate during class time one year. It was a worthwhile exercise. Hopefully the kids from Gladys Wood Elementary found it educational too. It is natural for people to see someone they can relate to succeed, and thing "hey, I could be successful too!" Paul Kariya becoming a hockey star was a very big deal for my friends of east-Asian descent. Barack Obama becoming quite likely President would undoubtedly be of monumental importance to black people (and quite likely other minorities as well). I don't begrudge them that at all. It is only natural. However, I think everybody who sees the video can recognize this isn't the "I wanna be like Mike!" type of inspiration one usually associates with role-models and heroes. That kind of inspiration doesn't usually come with salutes and pledges (...can't help wondering if there was an Obama poster on the wall behind the camera.) Trying to rationalize this as just a natural expression of excitement caused by somebody they relate to seems like quite a reach. It wasn't a natural expression of anything, it was an organized and rehearsed veneration of a political figure. Do you think Obama personally told the tubby little fella "you should become a doctor!" No? Perhaps he got the idea from somewhere else. Perhaps his parents? Perhaps from a doctor he met? Perhaps he had the idea himself? Perhaps he was actually inspired by somebody other than The Big O. The whole discussion becomes rather moot if this was something their teacher had them do. At that point it starts resembling a scene from Jesus Camp once again, with obviously different choice of religious figure but otherwise considerable similarities. -k

Hmmm. I wonder why? Did you see the video before it was removed? You can read about it here... http://www.suntimes.com/news/elections/120...,obfrat.article While I imagine that many kids have said "I want to be a basketball star just like Steve Nash!" I don't recall ever hearing of kids saying "I'm going to be a doctor because of Steve Nash!" I can imagine kids might think "I want to be a music star like Jack White!" but I don't think many kids have donned camouflage, formed a fake military troop, and saluted as they pledged their careers to making Jack White proud. On the other hand, there are people who don military garb and salute as they pledge themselves to Jesus. I find those people creepy and weird. I don't find it any less weird that these young folks are pledging to a living person rather than a religious figure. Rather the opposite, in fact. According to the above article it was their teacher's idea, however. Intriguing thought, that. Imagine some teacher having their students form a little paramilitary organization devoted to Steve Nash... or Jack White... or Jesus... and imagine what the reaction would be. Good effort, but no. -k

"Car brakes are being cut in Guelph as we speak!" -Hedy Fry I will wait to see what the police discover before I jump to conclusions. -k