kimmy

DEAR GOD one can only wonder what promises Harper made to Dubya in exchange for those cowboy boots! -k

At first I thought that was hilarious. But then it made me kind of sad. "Because of Obama, I am inspired to be the next architect!" "Because of Obama, I am inspired to be the next doctor!" "Because of Obama, I am inspired to be the next lawyer!" I think it's great that they're inspired, don't get me wrong. But ... it took some guy they've probably never even met running for office to inspire them to pursue a challenging career? Why not "Because of the sacrifices my mother and/or father made to get me to this point in my life, I am inspired to be the next lawyer!" or "Because of the opportunities in life that I want to give my future children, I am inspired to be the next doctor!" Are things so bleak for people that they can't find reasons in their own lives to pursue excellence? -k {I did love the raised fist gestures, though. It was like Cheer Squad meets the Black Panthers.}

The poll you posted was a statistical tie. It's been demonstrated to have a margin of error of at least +/- 26% when compared to scientific polls, which makes the 51% margin of victory for Biden a statistical tie. My point was, and remains, that online polls are useless. People who cite them are either naive or stupid. -k

The Conservatives give Quebec the same things they've given other provinces: respect for provincial jurisdiction, and funding to address areas of provincial jurisdiction. They've also given Quebec symbolic recognition of its historical uniqueness. The Liberals, during the Chretien regime, gave Quebec a shower of bribes to try to convince Quebec voters that federalism was good for them. Whether one party "gives" more to Quebec is beside the point; what is significant is what is being given. Most people have little complaint with the notion that Quebec is a unique province within Canada; most people have a big complaint with the lucre that was funnelled into Quebec during the Liberal regimes in a futile attempt to promote a centralist federal vision. -k

I was addressing the question of the accuracy of on-line polls, knucklehead. Comparing your online poll to actual survey polls, one concludes that the online poll has potentially a +/- 26% margin of error, which means it's approximately accurate enough to determine whether it's day or night, but not much else. -k

I think you're missing a significant part of the debate. It is not a matter of "BOOO! He is sucking up to Quebec!" vs "YAY! Somebody needs to tell Quebec to get bent!" The problem is different visions of Federalism. There is the strong central authority vision which has been favored by Trudeau, Chretien, and Dion (Paul Martin Jr, if I recall, was less interested in this sort of view, although I could be wrong as it's hard to recall any of PMPM's positions on any subject, or if he even had any positions on any subject.) The opposing view has higher regard for provincial jurisdiction. This was the Mulroney position, it's been the Reform position, and the Conservative position under Harper. It has also been the central position of the BQ. It is why during the debate you saw Duceppe talk about provincial jurisdiction during his discussions on healthcare and environment. This view of respect for provincial autonomy is what has allowed the Conservatives to gain traction in Quebec. Western Canadians have long had that in common with Quebecers. The historical roots are different (in Quebec, it is "maitres chez nous", while in the west it is more along the lines of mistrust) but the underlying belief is the same: we're happier when we get to decide our own policies and set our own priorities and administer our own budgets. This is why the CPC and BQ view of a more decentralized federalism has much more appeal in those regions. The strong central federalism view-- the Liberal party vision-- is fundamentally different. Strong national programs that level the playing field for every Canadian, etc. But Quebecers feel that these programs threaten their sense of individuality, and westerners feel that these programs are formulated in the Windsor-Montreal corridor with little consideration of views from the rest of the country. During the 1990s the Liberal party made a concerted effort to sell Quebec on their more centralized view of federalism. It involved lots of pork, and left the other regions wondering "hey, if pork is the benefit of confederation, where's ours?" The idea that you could fight separatism through pork and spending and slapping the Government of Canada logo on everything was ultimately a failure. It wasn't even what Quebecers wanted. Pushing central programs and central spending did not make Quebecers happier, it made them angry, and it made everybody else angry in the process. The reason Quebec separatism (and Western alienation, for that matter) have fallen from the political radar is not that Harper has delivered pork to the regions. It's because he has withdrawn the federal nose from peoples' business. -k

I don't know what the comments were either, and I'm having a hard time keeping track of the resignations anymore. Is there a scorecard or a programme available somewhere? I'm getting tired of it, to be honest. It's starting to seem like anybody who has ever expressed an opinion in public before is probably unqualified to hold public office in this country. -k

By saying something like "black people love fried chicken and watermelon", somebody has expressed their belief in a racial stereotype that while not negative in itself, indicates a belief in a wide variety of other racial generalities that *are* negative. Is that why it's so negative? If that's the case, then wouldn't the same argument apply to any other stereotype, whether positive, negative, or otherwise? If someone says "Asians are good at math," are they implying they buy into other stereotypes about Asians as well? -k

The proof is in the pudding, Gost. Here's the CNN online poll quoted earlier in the thread: ...and here's traditional polls: Still a decisive win for Biden, obviously. But the margins are 15, 25, 22 points, not the 51 points shown in the online poll. That's a huge discrepancy. Even if the online poll does have some kind of mechanism to prevent someone from voting multiple times, they're still easily manipulated by activists or pranksters voting in blocks. (I sited some examples earlier: Matthew Sheppard: Time Man of the Year, Rory Fitzpatrick: NHL all-star, dumb-ass Winnipeg DJ: Top 10 Greatest Canadian, to point out a couple.) In each instance, it was a group with a common goal who tilted polls using block voting campaigns. *Any* "poll" where opinions are offered by respondees rather than solicited by pollsters is inherently unreliable for this reason. In the case of the current US election, it is widely believed that Obama has a considerable edge amongst the demographic that is young and net-savvy and likely to volunteer their opinions in online polls. That is a factor that will tilt any online poll in a way that can't be assumed to translate to the electorate as a whole. -k

I'm not sure if you're implying that the first video you posted is from the McCain campaign, or if I'm misinterpreting what you've said, but to be clear: that first video is not the campaign ad in question. This is the McCain ad: Personally I don't get why somebody would draw the conclusion that they're trying to link the ad to the Left Behind book series, or to actual end-times scripture kooks. Pretty obviously they're ridiculing the almost cult-like devotion that some of the Obama movement has taken on. The ad mocks the view that Obama is not leading a political campaign but rather a spiritual movement, the seeming sense of self-aggrandizement in some of his statements, and the sense among some of his followers that he is some kind of messiah. The clip from "The Ten Commandments" was pretty over the top, but the ad seeks to make the point (as clearly indicated from the quotations they chose) is that the guy has a seriously inflated ego. Whether it's a good ad or a poor ad is subjective, but the point is pretty obvious. Attempting to read some kind of end-times belief into it is what's called "projection". -k

What makes you think you're getting a real "mainstream" reaction from an online poll? NHL fans once banded together to get Rory Fitzpatrick voted into the All-Star game through online voting. (For those who don't follow hockey, Rory Fitzpatrick is not exactly considered all-star material.) Gay activists once banded together to get Matthew Sheppard (murdered in a gay-bashing attack) voted man of the year on the Time magazine online poll. While it's an extremely tragic story, I am skeptical whether the view that it made him Man of the Year was reflective of mainstream opinion. American Idol voters banded together to keep that goof with the bad haircut on the show far longer than he deserved. Listeners of a Winnipeg radio station voted en-mass to get their favorite DJ voted into the top 10 in the CBC's "Greatest Canadian" poll. The DJ in question apparently hosts wet T-shirt contests at a local strip club, which undoubtedly puts him among Winnipeg's cultural elite, but once again this phenomenon leads one to doubt the results of online polling. In reference to CNN in particular, I checked out their online poll on the night of Palin's speech at the RNC. The speech was almost universally well reviewed by everyone from CNN's panel of experts to Joe Biden himself, and the short-lived bounce in Palin's popularity following the speech testifies to its effectiveness. Yet the CNN online poll graded it as an "F". I suppose one could be of the belief that the analysts were just wrong and the speech was actually terrible, but I think it's more likely that the "F" grade was the result of the same kind of activity that made Rory Fitzpatrick an all-star. -k

I recorded it while watching the Canadian debate, and will watch later. My hunch is that expectations for Palin have been set so low that once again peoples views of how well Palin did will be artificially inflated. Another thing is that different viewers respond to different things. Without having seen the debate, my hunch is that Biden had a much better grasp of technical issues and background while Palin was probably "reg'lar folksy". What connects with viewers and voters tends to be a matter of personal preference. -

To be clear: I was just pulling Bubber's leg. Stereotypes are confusing. I'm not sure what's allowed. Even stuff that seems innocuous, like Asians are good at math or black people are good at sports, seems to be a minefield. I recall a few years ago after Tiger Woods won a golf tournament, one of his competitors made a poorly planned joke about looking forward to "fried chicken and watermelon" at the victory dinner. Tiger did not make a big deal about it, but the golfer who made the comment was thoroughly beat down in the media. I'm not sure if there's something coded in "fried chicken and watermelon" that I just lack the context to appreciate the significance of, but at face value it seems pretty innocuous. Fried chicken and watermelon are tasty. Everybody likes fried chicken and watermelon. But ask a black person if they'd like fried chicken and watermelon and you might be getting a punch in the mouth. -k

Online polls are the most useless invention since dealcoholized beer. Real polls will be out later. -k

I don't know that he's earned that distinction after 3 years of merely adequate government. However, I think he's head and shoulders above his contemporaries. And, as I said earlier in the week, I think he has saved federalism in Canada. This would be an irreparably broken regional landscape without Harper. -k

How often can he say it? He can't even say it once. He keeps trying, but somehow he can't get the words out. My post from another thread: I think this format kind of sucks. It breaks down into chaos too often, and the moderator is often having a hard time keeping things under control. I think Harper is doing a fair job in his punching-bag role. He's had a tough time with some issues (environment, manufacturing jobs) where Harper obviously doesn't have a lot of sunshine to blow up peoples' skirts. Among the opposition, I think Layton is doing the best job. I don't agree with him on much, but he's much better at this than Dion and May. Duceppe is laying back and picking his spots, but has been rather quiet overall. Dion has been pretty dismal IMO. I think the danger of the format is primarily to the opposition parties, ironically. To me, at least, the jumble of people trying to take on Harper winds up making them blend together. It makes Harper stand out while the rest of them sound like an angry crowd. at Duceppe with probably the line of the night in response to the question "what's the first thing you'd do as Prime Minister?" Duceppe replied: "well, I know I am not going to be Prime Minister. 3 of you are not going to be Prime Minister either, but not all of you know it yet." -k

So, what are people thinking so far? I think this format kind of sucks. It breaks down into chaos too often, and the moderator is often having a hard time keeping things under control. I think Harper is doing a fair job in his punching-bag role. He's had a tough time with some issues (environment, manufacturing jobs) where Harper obviously doesn't have a lot of sunshine to blow up peoples' skirts. Among the opposition, I think Layton is doing the best job. I don't agree with him on much, but he's much better at this than Dion and May. Duceppe is laying back and picking his spots, but has been rather quiet overall. Dion has been pretty dismal IMO. I think the danger of the format is primarily to the opposition parties, ironically. To me, at least, the jumble of people trying to take on Harper winds up making them blend together. It makes Harper stand out while the rest of them sound like an angry crowd. at Duceppe with probably the line of the night in response to the question "what's the first thing you'd do as Prime Minister?" Duceppe replied: "well, I know I am not going to be Prime Minister. 3 of you are not going to be Prime Minister either, but not all of you know it yet." -k

What are the qualifications? Is there a membership card, or something? If I make fun of Obama's twig-like physique, am I representing "the right"? Why? Do I have a membership card? Is there some kind of watch list that I'm on? Tell you what, if you don't feel that SNL and MadTV are actual representatives of "the left", I will withdraw the claim, provided that you go and cite me attacks on Obama's appearance that have come from actual, recognized right-wing politicians and commentators. If SNL and MadTV don't qualify as "the left" making fun of Dole's crippled arm, then Kimmy on MLW Forums doesn't qualify as "the right" making fun of Obama's pipecleaner arms. -k

Oh, I see, it's not that making fun of someone's looks is bad, it's that Obama's looks are the "only thing" people have to make fun of. But that's just your view (it shouldn't surprise me that you can't see anything else about the Leader that could possibly be made fun of). -People have made fun of his work history. -people have made fun of his propensity for writing books about himself. -People have made fun of the amount of times the Master Orator says "uh" and "wh-wh-wh-" when he's not reading from a teleprompter (watch the famous "lipstick on a pig" clip for a prime example) -I think it's funny that his position on NAFTA keeps shifting to match what his audience wants to hear. I didn't accuse you of making fun of her looks, but the "Stepford Wife" crack is equally childish (and displays a fundamentally flawed understanding of the reference, btw.) So again, your air of superiority rings a little hollow. nafta nafta nafta -k

I was pointing out that you were grossly in error in suggesting that "the right" are the only ones who make fun of peoples' appearances in politics. I was not adopting a "holier than thou" stance, I was knocking you off of yours. Sadly you're unable to follow a conversation. This air of superiority rings rather hollow from someone who thought Rue's "Stepford Wife" blast was hilarious. Your sense of humor seems to depend mostly on who's being made fun of. In fact, you're a lot like what you're accusing other people of. It's lucky for you that you stopped reading there, since it spared you from the embarrassment of addressing Obama's position on NAFTA. I backed it up. -k

I thought it was a good video, and that is coming from the resident Harper cheerleader. -k

I recall SNL and Mad TV sketches portraying the disabled limb flopping about comically. The Mad TV sketch was particularly crass, depicting Bob Dole as "Dole-O-Mite", dressed as a pimp and getting into some kind of altercation with the guest star (Ice T, I believe) with the result that the limb was sent windmilling uncontrollably as "Dole-O-Mite" was forcibly ejected from the stage. -k

One could plot their positions on a variety of issues as being here or their on the political spectrum, but the bottom line is that they remain viewed as a one-issue party focused on the environment, and in the popular perception that alone makes them "left wing". And the bottom line is that we know where most of their votes are going to come from. The people who decide to change their vote to Green are more likely to be traditional NDP or Liberal supporters. Traditional Conservative voters, not so much. -k

As if. I remember the left having no problem with making fun of peoples' appearances, whether it's Bob Dole's non-functioning arm, Dan Quayle's child-like countenance, Stephen Harper's hefty presence and gigantic ass, or the "naughty librarian" line and similar commentary being made about Palin. This has always been fair game for both sides of the political spectrum. Except, apparently, in the case of Obama, because (as referenced above) any mention of Obama's appearance is actually an underhanded way of referencing the fact that he's not white. Allegedly. Obama's physical presence can only be likened to that of Steve Urkel, which is, yes, frankly pretty funny. If one is only interested in issues of substance (or lack of substance) then Stick Boy's remarkable gift of being able to talk continuously without actually saying anything is pretty funny. However, my lasting impression of Obama is of the guy who promised unionists in Ohio and Michigan that he was going to tear up NAFTA and renegotiate it, while simultaneously assuring Canadian trade officials that he intended no such thing, and then confirming (after Hilary was comfortably dispatched) that indeed he didn't actually intend to renegotiate NAFTA, except that now that he's campaigning again, he's going to renegotiate NAFTA again. Maybe. I guess some might find that funny. Either funny or worrying, I guess, depending on what line of work you're in. Can any of his supporters say confidently that they know his opinion is on NAFTA? Can any Canadians here explain why they're so solidly behind a guy whose position on the one issue that is crucial to Canada in the US election is so ambiguous? Of course, the real comedy isn't from Obama himself, of course, but rather the followers, disciples, and apostles who posit that Obama is not a political candidate but rather a state of mind. -k

Going back a couple of years I have thought the Green party approach was fundamentally more sensible than the NDP approach. (I'm not sure what to say about the Liberal approach, as I wind up more and more confused each time I listen to Dion talk about it.) I am once again considering voting Green. I once again live in a riding where a Conservative landslide is likely, so voting for any of the 3 major parties would be a waste. Voting for the Green candidate would help them reach the plateau to qualify for funding. I'm of the view that they are relevant enough to have a place in Canadian politics. (and my sinister twin Evil Kimmy also believes that the continued existence of the Green Party will keep votes on "the left" divided and help the Conservatives remain in office. ) -k