kimmy

Which is IMO correct, based on all I have read here. That's not all you said. You also said this: You boasted of your husband's 20 years of construction experience in explaining why Riverwind should Respect Yo' Authoritay. (if that's not an "appeal to authority", then what is?) And now it turns out that your husband's 20 years of construction is in .... sheetmetal. Mislead? I would say that the misleading is being done by the person bragging that her husbands 20 years of construction experience made her research more credible, when in fact it's 20 years of sheetmetal work. I am ridiculing the idea that 20 years of sheetmetal experience makes your husband an authority on structural engineering. Tell you what, next time we're discussing the collapse of a sheetmetal-framed building, your husband's 20 years of sheetmetal experience will probably be extremely relevant to the topic. If a quonset hut blows down in a gale, and your husband says "the official story can't be true, this was an inside job!" I'll give his opinion a lot of consideration. Of course. Investigate away. There's lots of people with no knowledge at all who are "investigating" the WTC collapse, so you'll feel right at home. -k

Well, actually yes. I was told to stop transcribing Chretien's verbalizations several years ago due to complaints from an offended party. However, describing Jean Chretien's manner of speech as a "ridiculously mangled Franglais patois" is not mocking or insulting. It's an objective fact. -k

I strongly suspect that the functioning of that brake pedal is regulated by a set of standards that was instituted by the US Department of Transportation (and corresponding national entities in other countries) and probably derived from research and study done by agencies like Underwriters Laboratories. A quick survey of my apartment shows that everything that I can plug into my AC outlets has a "UL" certification logo somewhere on it. Having your electrical product UL-certified appears to be a standard practice of some sort. Is it a legislated standard? (ie, a bureaucrat somewhere deemed that products sold in Canada must be UL certified?) Or is it a de-facto standard? (ie, manufacturers have their products UL certified before they go to market because they believe it is important for business reasons?) I don't actually know which is the case. However, I am under the impression that UL is a private business that sells, essentially, piece of mind. If you're a manufacturer, having your product UL certified means that you've had your product thoroughly studied to make sure it's safe. If you're a consumer, buying a product with the UL logo means that you're buying something that has been thoroughly studied to make sure it's safe. I am under the impression that Underwriters is independent and takes the integrity of their logo very seriously. If food suppliers are concerned about their reputation, perhaps there is some need for a food safety equivalent of UL. An independent organization who studies food manufacture and can credibly assure consumers that what they're about to eat was prepared according to acceptable standards and contains safe ingredients. That current implementation of the "Product of Canada" designation is woefully behind present industry practices does not invalidate the idea of having such a designation. They reviewed their practices because the Menu Foods disaster forced them to substantially reevaluate the probabilities in their "expected payout" equation. Perhaps we should follow the Chinese model for dealing with these bureaucrats... Consumers had the option of not flying on a DC10 if they're not sure the bugs have been worked out. They had the option of not buying a Corvair or a Pinto if they're not sure they're safe. Shouldn't consumers have a corresponding choice when deciding whether they wish to eat Chinese products? Being allowed to put a "Product of Canada" designation on stuff that's made of Chinese concentrates is like selling somebody on a Mustang but delivering them a Pinto. Except that you as a food consumer have no way of determining whether your Mustang is actually a Pinto, and instead of exploding in one sudden impact, your food might hurt you so slowly and gradually that you might never know what exactly caused your health to fail. -k

This was a rule that was put in place several years ago due to the sheer volume of complaints from card-carrying Liberals regarding references to Paul Martin as "Mr Dithers" and of mocking imitations of Jean Chretien's ridiculously mangled "Franglais" patois. -k

What makes you think that Sun-Rype's competitors are any better? The radio show on which I heard this indicated that they'd asked a number of companies where they purchase their concentrates, and Sun Rype was the only one willing to give them a specific answer. -k

I posted that for a couple of reasons. First, I was tired of seeing Angus attempt to "big-man" Riverwind using his construction background. "Show me the code! Show me the code! Show me where it says that in the code! We put up steel stuff all the time and we don't need no stinkin insulation! So show me the code!" Well, there's the code. National Build, 1965, Supplement 2, Fire Performance Ratings. While I'd love to read subsequent versions of the NBCC to verify that this regulation remains in force, I don't care to part with the $400 to buy a new one. While I gather it is considerably more complicated than a simple yes or no question (involving discussion of fire endurance ratings and classification by the design use to determine whether insulation is required), there's clearly background for the claim that steel is to be protected from fire. Second, I got tired of comments like this: "Why, steel is big! It's strong! It's heavy! It is hard to cut it or melt it!" Nonetheless, the National Building Code of Canada recognized 42 years ago that structural steel suffers a significant loss of strength when heated, and accordingly specified standards to prevent this from occurring. Third, while as you point out this information was obtained from the Canadian building code, building codes are based on research and experience that do not stop at national borders. If the Canadian building code was updated in 1965 to require protection of structural steel, it is because it had become recognized by 1965 in the field that there was a need to protect structural steel from weakening due to heat. (when did they start building the WTC? 1966. oooh. It was already known in the field by 1966 that structural steel needs to be protected from heat damage.) I'm sure that many will, which is unfortunate. Because it addresses an issue that is fundamental to the discussion. "lol, you can't burn steel! You can't melt it! You can't make a steel building fall down with a fire!" This article that I linked to proves that the industry has long known that fire *can* cause a steel building to fall down. -k

You have asserted your husband's construction experience as a means of claiming your "investigation" into the WTC collapses has credible expertise behind it. If you wish to make such claims, then you must be prepared to field inquiries as to the specifics of his construction experience. While I may have sounded as though I was ridiculing drywallers, framers, or mud and tape guys, my intention was to point out that being "in the construction industry" does not necessarily make you qualified to assess the structural engineering science involved in the WTC collapses. So, please. You've asserted that your husband's construction experience makes your WTC "investigation" a credible scientific exercise. To evaluate that assertion, we need specifics. If you want us to consider your husband's expertise when we read your comments, then we need to know what exactly what his expertise is comprised of. I know a number of experienced construction workers, none of whom I'd consider to have any particular knowledge about structural engineering science. And without specific information about the sort of work your husband does, I'm not prepared to give his construction experience any particular credence either. We've seen credentials inflated and invented repeatedly on the Truthwagon. It's how Jim Fetzer became a "theoretical scientist", Barbara Honegger became a "Pentagon Colonel", David Hawkins became a "PhD in Thermodynamics" and a "leading forensic economist", and on and on. -k

Strengthening our claim to sovereignty over the northwest passage isn't about preserving our freedom (whose freedom is affected by the northwest passage? That region is unpopulated, or very nearly so. Strengthening our claim to sovereignty over the northwest passage has more to do with economics and the environment that it does with security. The mission in Afghanistan is no longer about defending our freedom either, it is about honoring commitments. Having curb-stomped the vile and worthless regime that ran that place prior to its invasion, us and our allies have taken on a duty to help maintain law and order for the populace at large until they are able to fulfill that fundamental need on their own. -k

You're Mr Kuzadd? My special guy isn't in construction, actually. I am, somewhat, during my day job. -k

I don't think one can look at any field of human enterprise-- art, literature, music, science, technology, or anything else-- and not find that Americans are among the foremost contributors and innovators. -k

The pet food debacle was no doubt a serious blow to Iams and some other businesses who likewise bought tainted Chinese ingredients to put in their pet-food. That doesn't actually bring back Fluffy, though, does it. Companies, whether Iams, Mattel, or whoever, are playing the odds. I think in statistics it's referred to as a "expected payout" calculation. if (savings from cheap Chinese ingredients)*(lprobability that nothing goes wrong) > (cost of something going wrong)*(probability of something going wrong) then buy cheap Chinese ingredients. And this was really the worst case for Iams, because the pets became sick and died very quickly enough that they could be linked to the tainted product. And that the tainted product was still fresh on the shelves for the scientists to analyze. It seems to me that a more likely situation would be that a company simply gets away with it. A woman is distraught when the ultrasound shows that her baby has no hands or feet, but no way of knowing whether it's linked to something she's ingested or if it was just part of "god's plan." If she's been eating imported food containing pesticides that civilized nations banned long ago, she doesn't know it and even if she suspected, how could she go about linking it to any particular product she's purchased? So this is why I don't put a lot of faith in your argument that companies' concern for their own reputations will guarantee the safety of the products they provide. It seems to me that it's quite likely that a company can cut corners and save money while hurting their customers in a way that simply can't be traced back to them. Flat out false. China is a huge exporter of food and agricultural products, most commonly in the form of concentrates. For instance, China is the world's largest producer of tomatoes. And only 15 percent of that crop is for domestic use. The rest is turned into concentrated tomato paste for export. Likewise many other fruits and vegetables. China produces a lot of concentrates and processed fruit and vegetable products. One needn't read very far to verify that. And one needn't read very far, either, to discover that there is considerable question as to Chinese agricultural practices: which pesticides are used, the extent to which produce is cleaned before processing, and so-on. Who imports this stuff? We do, among others. Sun Rype, for instance, the BC fruit-juice company, admits that it buys some of its concentrates from foreign countries, including China. "Product of Canada" doesn't mean much when it comes to knowing what actually goes into your stuff. A company could import tap-water from Mexico and fruit concentrate from China and still be legally entitled to put "Product of Canada" on the label, just as long as they mix the concentrate and water here. -k

Framing? Drywalling? Mud and tape guy? Inquiring minds want to know. -k

http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/pubs/cbd/cbd071_e.html Canadian Building Digest article discussing 1965 revisions to National Building Code of Canada. -k

Canada and the US can't even completely agree on a harmonized set of standards for food imports. How much more complicated would it be trying to arrive at a harmonized set of standards that 150-odd countries are all happy with? But I do agree that a set of globally recognized standards, and a credible means of inspecting and enforcing them, would sure be nice. -k

Those who would seek to keep me from all the delicious pork foods out there can go do a backflip into an empty pool. I don't care whether ye be Jewish, Muslim, or PETA: stand between me and some dry garlic ribs, and I will fight you. Tell me not to eat something because it will make me sick or kill me, and I'll give that strong consideration. Tell me not to eat something because the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't approve, and I will tell you to go choke on some tofu. -k

The first Gulf War achieved the objectives it had set out to achieve. It ended the occupation of Kuwait, permanently crippled Saddam's military capability and ended Iraq's ability to pose a military threat to any other Gulf state and thereby maintained the stability of the supply of Middle East oil. Other objectives ("Free the Kurds!" "Depose Saddam!") were not part of the mission and were not intentions of the US administration of the time (see Dick Cheney explain why in that YouTube video that's been going around.) To argue that the second invasion of Iraq was necessary because they failed to remove Saddam the first time misses the mark in two different ways: -it assumes it was an intention of the first invasion to remove Saddam, which it was not. -it assumes that it was somehow necessary to remove Saddam at all. Why? What was so all-fired important about removing Saddam from power that they had to cook up fake intelligence to justify it? "Al Qaeda's there!" "They're making WMDs!" Both fake from day one, both invented expressly for the purpose of selling the American public on the idea of fighting a war that didn't need to be fought. What was so crucial about deposing Saddam? What was in it for the average American? 3000 soldiers and hundreds of billions of dollars, not to mention hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians. The death toll from the current violence, in just 4 years, already meets or exceeds all but the most outlandish claims of deaths resulting from the 12 years of sanctions. And that does not even factor in deaths that have resulted from the civil authorities' inability to prevent the insurgents from destroying water and electrical facilities. There were bigger fish to fry than Saddam. There still are bigger fish to fry, but now the US is stuck in Iraq for the foreseeable future. -k

Since when have "agent provocateurs" ever been required to turn one of these protests ugly? They have a long and sordid track record of turning ugly all on their own. I have seen interviews with some of the small minority (and it is a small minority) who attend these things with the intention of turning the protest into something less than peaceful, and the opinion expressed was that peaceful protest is ineffective and ignored, while violence and vandalism draws large-scale media attention to their cause. I believe (and I am sure that the peaceful protesters agree) that violence and vandalism distracts from the message they want to get out, and sadly gives the viewer the impression that the protest is just a bunch of hooligans. Here is something I wrote years ago while I was living in Ottawa and had just witnessed one of these events first hand. I, the copyright holder, give myself permission to reprint this in its entirety. -k

We exported a whole picket fence? Like, in one piece? I agree with Betsy again, which seldom happens and is always a little unsettling for me. In the other thread about Wal-Mart, supporters and apologists of cheap Chinese garbage were touting ideas like "Buyer beware!" and "If you don't like it, don't buy it!" Very well, but to have that choice, the consumer must be provided with accurate information. -k

If they want to pursue an election on this issue, let them. Take it to the voters. I would greatly prefer that than seeing them take it to a court challenge, which seems a weaselly way to push this if they feel it's such a noble cause. And I don't think it is a coincidence that the Liberals are suddenly gung-ho about a Kyoto implementation now that they're not the ones who'll be stuck with actually implementing the god damned thing. I suspect it is a lot easier pulling the trigger when the gun is pointed at somebody else's face and not your own. Perhaps Harper should take a page from the Chretien/Martin playbook and promise to implement the bill, then send it to some committee and let it sit in the dark until the next election. That would probably make any legal action futile, I would suspect. "Hey, we're doing it. See? We've got top men working on it right now." -k

I think he was pointing out the unintentional humor of referring to Blue Rodeo as "popular". As for the Imperial system: I have heard that anybody required to engineering calculations in Imperial quickly comes to appreciate the Metric system. Navigating through the retarded mish-mash of units, trying to figure out how many cubic inches in a cubic furlong, and that sort of thing, makes the units of measure a bigger challenge than the calculations themselves in many instances. As for a Hezbollah billboard in Windsor? I oppose restrictions on free speech in all but the most extreme circumstances. I say, let them have their billboard... (...and let CSIS and the RCMP keep a very close eye on the people who sponsored it.) -k

No, not hate speech. I just wonder what sort of upbringing and education contributed to this little turd's views. -k

Right now I suspect that rational people like JBG and Sulaco are bonking their heads against their monitors as they read Dick's past couple of messages. It's almost as if BC2004 thinks "Team America: World Police" was a documentary. Somehow I suspect he might have been talking about something that's actually worth paying any price, bearing any burden, etc etc, when he talked about making those kind of sacrifices. I fixed that for you. -k

That's hilarious! I always laugh my ass off at the part where the Zionist Anglophone oppressor I was not aware that this sort of thing is in the textbooks in Quebec. I'd be interested in learning more about this. If this is representative of the content, I am not particularly pleased about it. -k

You're super-stoked about GW's willingness to "kick ass" with ground troops... but can't correlate that with why OBL would want Bush to win the 2004 election? You mention "the sales job"... can you really not see how easy Dubya has made "the sales job" for jihadis? I appreciate your remarkable candor regarding the gigantic con-job that Dubya pulled on his country and his allies. Conned, I would say. Blair more or less admitted as much in his farewell speech, didn't he? At whatever cost? Does the question of whether the end result justifies the cost just not matter? It seems to me that only idiots enter into something without considering whether the end result justifies the cost. huh. Guess that's why I'm not president. It wasn't necessary... but he wanted to? 3000 US soldiers... hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens... hundreds of billions of dollars of US taxpayers' money... because he wanted to? "He wanted to" belongs with "It looked like it would be fun" and "a fortune cookie told me it would work" on the list of justifications for war that I hope I never hear. What do you say to the families of those soldiers, or the taxpayers who are stuck with an all-time record debt as a result of Dubya doing what he wants? Oh. Of course. "I'm leading! Follow, or get out of the way!" (shoulda seen that coming...) Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States! -k

As I've pointed out a number of times, that's what made it a lot smarter than Junior's big adventure. Oh? I thought the objective was to liberate Kuwait, end Iraq's military threat to Saudi Arabia, and restore stability. Which was all achieved. Is there any credible proof that "50,000 civilians per month were dying from UN sanctions"? Whether the Peaceniks were saying it or not, I call BS on that. And again, the question of scale. The civilian death toll resulting from the insurgency and breakdown of law and order in Iraq is far larger than the number who died as a result of Saddam's oppression. Either that, or it shows Bush Jr's decision to go create a power-vacuum in Iraq to be a giant fiasco in comparison. I go with the latter. -k