kimmy

And this justifies her sentence how? I wasn't attempting to justify her sentence. I was explaining my description of her as "trash" to August. And she is trash; she might be rich and famous, but other than that she perfectly embodies all the traits that people associate with the "trailer-trash" or "white trash" stereotypes. I'm not sure While I preface this with the admission that I'm biased and I feel some "schadenfreude" at seeing one of Hollywood's worst "celebrities" suffer a little. I'm not sure I agree with the description of her as non-dangerous or low-risk. She was busted for DUI in September, and was caught driving while her license was suspended (and was photographed driving her various cars on numerous other occasions while her license was supposed to be suspended.) She failed to attend court-mandated alcohol education. She's also had other brushes with the law relating to her driving that did not result in criminal charges, including an incident where she was photographed backing her SUV into another vehicle and fleeing the scene. When she was caught violating the terms of her probation, it was for driving 70mph in a 35mph zone, late at night, with no headlights on. I think it's fair to conclude that Paris Hilton is a bad driver. I think it's fair to conclude that Paris Hilton has (until now) shown no respect for the measures imposed by the law. She was daught DUI and caught numerous times later (once by police, other times by photographers) driving while her license was suspended. The crime she was convicted of carries a maximum sentence of 90 days. The crime she could have been charged earlier with is considered much more serious: http://www.osbar.org/public/legalinfo/1275.htm (Oregon state) Since the breach of probation was in relation to Hilton's driving, and since Hilton's driving has already reached what is considered to be serious criminal behaviour, I don't think gauging her breach of probabion sentence compared to what an average first-time offender would get is necessarily accurate. And since she's shown her contempt for previous administered punishments by driving while suspended, she has identified herself for more serious punishment this time. -k

That's a good statement. Her publicist is a good writer. -k

Welcome to our forum, nut-cup! As a great man once said, "Congratulations on being crazy and having a computer." -k

"That's hawt" So, driving with a suspended license now merits the title "piece of trash" (or are you referring to a different magazine cover scandal)? I mean trash in the sense of being trashy. This is a person who has had every opportunity and advantage handed to her on a silver platter, yet remains ignorant, stupid, a habititual binge drinker and drug user, made her mark in life by having sex on videotape, and has had repeated trouble with the law prior to this. Something worse. While Paris Hilton's television program is considered by some to be a crime against humanity, I think the scale of the suffering she has caused is rather minor compared to that sort of thing. -k

I don't believe it is racist or xenophobic to oppose the doctrine that multiculturalism is an end in itself or disagree that multiculturalism should be a state-sponsored objective. And if refusing to tolerate or accept aspects of other cultures that utterly contrary to Canadian ideals is racist or xenophobic, then we should all be more racist and xenophobic. If I am a racist or xenophobe for despising customs like slicing the clitoris off of young girls, or drowning female infants because your family can't afford the dowry, or executing young people suspected of homosexuality, or any of a million other things we've seen in other parts of the world, then I am fucking proud to be a racist and xenophobe and you should be ashamed to not be one. -k

Yes, he should be returned to Afghanistan to be held with all of the other captured Taliban fighters. Khadr should be freed from the American police-state and ensconced in the safety of an Afghan jail where he belongs. -k

I don't agree with it. It might have been true of the Reform Party, and maybe even the Canadian Alliance, but I think that as the party has become more mainstream, people with extremist views have become dissatisfied with it. I think that the reason Reform might have attracted extremists early on was that it's inherent in new movements. They attract people with viewpoints that aren't represented in existing options. People like pro-lifers and anti-immigrationists, whose views weren't represented by any existing party, jumped on the Reform bandwagon because they thought they might finally have an outlet for their views. But that opportunity vanished years ago, as anything that would appeal to that constituency has long been weeded out of the party's policies as the Conservative party (and its predecessors) attracted larger and larger numbers of mainstream supporters. I think it's an outdated perception that's no longer a reflection of the party or its supporters. -k

Argus is probably correct in saying that Paris Hilton is being punished for her celebrity. Riverwind is probably correct in saying that anything less than jail-time wouldn't be any sort of deterrent or punishment for Ms Hilton. In a situation like this, where the criminal is high profile, I think the justice system is under extra scrutiny, and takes extra care to not be perceived to be giving special treatment to a privileged offender, and also to serve notice to would-be lawbreakers that breaking the law has consequences. I don't know if it's appropriate that she receive stiffer punishment than an "ordinary" person would receive for the same offense. All I really know is that Paris Hilton is living proof that someone can have every conceivable advantage in life and still grow up to be a piece of trash. -k

Actually, in another post I explained that I should have probably been more specific in the usage of my terminology because the general use of the word "racist" ended up causing a lot of grief and misunderstanding due to its vague nature. You must have missed that post. Either case, it's not about being slippery, it's about redefining it in a more specific manner instead of a general vague term. Initially you made the bold and expansive claim that every racist in the country is a Conservative. Confronted with the notion that one needn't be white to be a racist, you amended your statement to "bigots", which in your opinion made reference to the idea of a privileged group using power to an underprivileged group. Confronted with the background of anti-immigrant sentiment in the labour movement, you further amended it to just xenophobes and white supremacists. I suppose "xenophobes and white supremacists" might be sufficiently narrow for you to excuse the skinhead-like activities at the Liberal leadership convention... but is it sufficiently narrow for you to overlook Mike Klander comparing Olivia Chow to a chow-chow? Or Andre Boisclair for expressing his dismay over all of the "slant-eyed" students he sees when he visits universities? You may need to further adjust your definition. Well, the definition keeps dwindling to the point where it now stands more or less at "kinds of bigots that BC Chick is uncomfortable with." We started with "every racist is a conservative!" and right now, the state of your argument is pretty much "I am more comfortable with the kind of bigots in the Liberal party than the Conservative party." So overall I am fairly satisfied. -k

Well for now, we'll just leave aside the question of whether it is antisemitic to publicly support an organization whose goal is killing Jewish people. Isn't the fact that delegates were roaming the floor at the leadership convention distributing antisemitic leaflets in itself is more than sufficient to disprove your claim about all bigots being CPC supporters. In fact I don't know if there has ever been an equally shocking incident relating to the CPC or its predecessors. You can certainly support whichever party you wish for whatever reasons you choose. My goal, all along, has not been to change your view, just to destroy your holier-than-thou claims regarding bigots being almost exclusive supporters of the CPC. And I feel I have succeeded. -k

Just in the last month, Dion spoke against antisemitism, in support of Israel. The Canadian Jewish Political Affairs Committee sent a letter to all its members thanking Dion for his support. http://jasoncherniak.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default The rally in Montreal that you deride warmly welcomed Dion's support. http://www.cjnews.com/viewarticle.asp?id=11686 I think if you want to say Stephane Dion is antisemitic or anti-Israel, you are barking up the wrong tree. I'm not sure if it is your contention to say that Dion is racist and anti-Israel or not. Is it? I'm not claiming Stephane Dion is antisemitic or anti-Israel. I'm asking you to support the claim you made earlier, which I note you've again failed to do. You claimed that Dion was "well out front in support" among Jews. While you provided us with a heartwarming video and a number of press releases showing that Dion supports Jews, you've yet again failed to demonstrate that Jews support Dion. -k

Before you wanted to look at this in terms of whether a group with power was causing disadvantage to a group without power. Now you want to attach notions of racial supremacy to the definition. You are just freakin' slippery. "They is stealin' jobs from white folks!" has long been one of the most common complaints that bigots make about immigrants. Why is it racist when it comes from the mouth of an unemployed labourer, but "ok" when it comes from labour unions? What about "They should go back where they came from. This is country with Northern European traditions and roots, and these people from other places just don't belong. I am not saying they are inferior. They are equal. They should just go be equal back in their own country." Hey, it specifically disavows white supremacy, right? So it's ok? Not racist? One can find arguments in that vein at anti-immigration and white-supremacist websites. Are they ok as long as they don't make claims of racial superiority? I have seen nothing of the sort. Please be specific, and cite messages which you think make apology for white supremacist ideas, and we can discuss it. What is Stephen Harper supposed to speak out against? I'm not actually aware of any racist incidents that have occured during his leadership, which doesn't actually give him much to speak out against. He's been nothing but supportive of reaching out to ethnic and religious minorities. Harper made full apology on behalf of Canada for the Chinese Head Tax, something the Liberals have steadfastly refused to do. Doesn't that speak for itself? -k

Do tell. Link? Scott asked you to support the claim that Dion is "well out front in support" among the Jewish community ... and you provide a video of Dion hugging rabbis and doing a jig to klezmer music. That's feedle-eedle-idle-hidle-hilarious, Dobbins! By that logic, I guess those news-clips of Paul Martin dressed up in denim and cowboy boots and kissing cows near Red Deer proved that Paul Martin was "well out in front in support" in Alberta. I will grant you this much, Dobbins: your video does prove that Dion was well out in front among Jews, in the sense that he was physically "well out front" when he was speaking at the podium. But beyond that, I don't think it answers Scott's challenge. While the thread has drifted from its original topic, what we've been discussing for the past 100 posts or so has been the issue of bigots within parties, and BC Chick's claim that the CPC has the support of all (or almost all) bigots in Canada. While BC Chick's notion of bigotry is more exclusive than others, many or most people would consider antisemitism an example of bigotry. Why are we discussing whether there is antisemitism within the Liberal Party? Because a number of high-profile incidents make it a reasonable topic for discussion. These include: -Young Liberals of BC vice-president Thomas Hubert resigns after claiming that Israel is the "most vile nation in human history" and that Hezbollah would be remembered as heroes for fighting Israel. -Liberal MP Borys Wrzesnewskyj calls for Hezbollah to be removed from the list of terrorist organizations -Liberal MP Denis Coderre marches in a pro-Hezbollah rally -prominent Liberals like Heather Reissman, Gary Schwartz, and Ariela Cotler, have quit the party over the issue. -at the Liberal leadership convention, flyers were circulated urging delegates not to vote for Bob Rae because his wife is a Jew. If it is fair to speculate that there are racists within the CPC because of a handful of utterances over the past decade, isn't it equally fair to question whether there are antisemites within the LPC because of these incidents that all happened within the past year or so? -k

"Unmarried soldiers? Your lives are worth less! Why is Steve's government so contemptuous of unmarried soldiers?" The shrillness is almost hiti-like. All you need to do is misspell "hypocrisy" a few times, and it'll be a great impersonation. Yes, that is me. White like sour cream. -k

But you do see the falsehood in it, right? I mean, even by your narrow (and self-serving, and fake) definition of bigotry, you have to concede the Liberals and PQ obviously harbor bigots as well; I just showed you some examples. In fact, I think those two parties have gotten themselves in at least as much hot water as the Conservatives over the past few years. So, your argument is really just a respin of the old "only white people can be racists" logic. (shrug) I don't have the time or inclination to wade into that cesspool. I think that sort of view pretty much speaks for itself. -k

I'm offended by the comment, and I'm surprised at your short memory. During the last election, -Michael Klander, a high-ranking Liberal organizer, resigned after comparing Olivia Chow to a chow-chow. -a Liberal candidate in Montreal got in hot water for making racist remarks about a black BQ opponent. More recently, -Thomas Hubert, president of the Young Liberals of BC, resigns after stating that Hezbollah will be remembered as heroes for fighting against Israel, "the most vile nation on earth", and that the party would be better off without "violent Zionists" like Irwin Cotler's wife. -the Israel conflict during the Liberal leadership campaign launched a whole flurry of controversy that led to a lot of foot-in-mouth and infighting that at times veered near antisemitism. -Andre Boisclair of the Parti Quebecois embroiled himself in controversy when he expressed his dismay at how many slanty-eyed ("yeaux brides"?) students he sees on university campuses. Quebec separatists have blamed the ethnics and Jews for foiling their ambitions for a long time. These weren't just people off the street, these were candidates, officials, leaders. If these high ranking people held these views, is it unreasonable to assume that others within the party might also? The whole separatist movement seems somewhat founded on an ethnic premise, that the "pur laine" are the rightful owners and that everybody else should step off. I believe Jacques Parizeau landed himself in hot water for voicing this sentiment a little too explicitly after the 1995 referendum. It's easy to find anti-Jewish hate-speech from Canadian imams, not generally a Tory-supporting group. If you look at anti-gay bigotry, I think you'll find that traditional Sikhs and Muslims are as anti-gay as any Christians; these again are part of the Liberals' core support, aren't they? One might consider Hedy Fry's false claim of cross burnings in Prince George. One might consider Liberal and BQ efforts to campaign against Harper on the grounds that he's a Calgaryian. One might consider people who portray western Canadians as ignorant hicks to be bigots. Is it bigotry when people argue that Afghanis can't accept more civilized rules of society because they're Afghani? So what exactly is a bigot? Is it anybody who makes unflattering and uninformed generalizations about groups of people? Or it is it only bigotry when it's white Christian people saying unflattering things about people who aren't white Christians? -k

I don't believe Harper or any other Conservative (or Canadian Alliance, or Reform Party) member has ever suggested there should be free votes on spending bills or other confidence-motions. This is a spending bill that Mr Casey decided to vote against? A vote where defeat means the fall of the government? I don't think anybody ever suggested that such votes should be free votes. Really? Was this a documentary? An infomercial? That's an astounding figure, particularly since it's over 4 times the population of the entire planet. So questioning your grasp of the context of the whole question of "free votes", or being skeptical of this TV show you saw on TVO, or making fun of your apparent difficulties with numbers, makes people either spooks or nay-sayers? -k

It's obviously a gerrymander-like attempt to bribe married voters! -k

Look at the electoral map I linked to. The big blue area slightly east of the Pacific Ocean is where the seats are going. You are mistaken. That large blue area slightly east of the Pacific Ocean consists of large rural ridings where at most one new seat might be created (due to population growth in the Kelowna/Okanagan area.) Most or all of the new BC seats will not be in the large blue area, but rather the small red and orange area around the dot labled "Vancouver." You accused me of making a straw-man argument earlier when I dismissed the notion of Alberta, BC, and Ontario as monolithic entities. And yet, your description of this as adding a bunch of seats to "that big blue area slightly east of the Pacific Ocean" does indeed sound like you have a monolithic view of BC. At the very least your comments make it sound like you know very little about the politics and population distribution of the place. Maybe not. I have always assumed it means southern BC, excluding Vancouver Island, but on reflection, I suppose it could have something to do with river systems. Fill me in? The "Lower Mainland" is generally used to refer to Vancouver and its suburbs and satellite communities along the lower portions of the Fraser River. Last time, but how would they perceive their usual prospects in that area? Rather poor, generally speaking. The Vancouver region been represented by a largely Liberal and NDP contingent for as long as I can remember. I suspect one would have to go all the way back to the first Mulroney landslide to find a time when the Vancouver region sent a large Tory contingent to Ottawa. Of course I'm not. That's 5 seats out of the 22. The remaining 17 will largely be drawn in areas that are considered "Liberal-land". Generally speaking, Appeal to Tradition is considered a fallacy. Ok, if I remove the reference to tradition, does that make you happier? We give voters in the smaller provinces extra representation so that they can better bring their concerns to parliament. Now it's not an appeal to tradition, it's an explanation of why smaller provinces have higher proportional representation. I think that rules out all polls, if you assume as I do that coerced polls are at least equally invalid. I had hoped to draw your attention to the difference between polls where pollsters select a theoretically random sampling of people to question, and polls where anyone may participate if they choose to. The former are considered credible measures of public opinion. The latter are considered "just for fun". Examples of the former include political polls and other surveys undertaken by reputable polling firms. Examples of the latter include American Idol, and the Time Magazine "man of the year" internet polls which have resulted in people as diverse as Matthew Shepard, Mumia Abu Jamal, and Mick Foley being top vote-getters. -k

Our airwaves should be rented or leased, not auctioned or sold. And there should be (and I believe there are) frequency bands set aside for public use, such as HAM radio, unlicensed spread spectrum, and citizens' band radio. -k

If you add more seats within an area where you will win all or most of them, you thereby increase the number of seats you are likely to win. That is logical, but you have utterly failed to demonstrate that this proposal adds seats in areas where Conservatives will have a significant advantage. The Cons don't win in the BC lower mainland!?! I beg to differ. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Ca...ion_2006_v2.png That's certainly a pretty map, but it doesn't actually support your claim. See Mr Bluth's message for details. You, uh, don't actually know what the phrase "Lower Mainland" refers to, do you. Aside from the 11 ridings enumerated in Michael Bluth's link, there are a remaining 6 ridings in what is considered to be the Greater Vancover/Lower mainland area. These are Richmond, Delta, North Delta, North Surrey, South Surrey, and Nina Grewal's Fleetwood/Port Kells riding. The Conservatives won 3 out of these 6 seats. Of the 17 seats in the region, the Conservatives won only 4. I disagree. To address the question of whether the tories manoeuver is gerrymander-like you need to look at whether the results of the change are explicable in terms of the stated rationale, and whether there is a benefit being derived by the party driving the change. Very well, then: Clearly yes. Clearly not. Most of the new seats will be created in the high-growth urban areas of Ontario and BC where the Tories are traditionally at a significant disadvantage against the Liberals and even the NDP. Because it's the mathematical corollary of our collective decision to give Canadians in the smallest provinces proportionally more influence. You're describing an outcome, not providing the requested explanation. The explanation is, as a country we have always given voters in the smaller provinces extra representation so that they can better bring their concerns to parliament. Ontario voters should have proportionally less influence than Canadians in the smaller provinces, because it's the unavoidable consequence of our choice to give Canadians in the smaller provinces proportionately more influence. Ah, I see -- you haven't noted the technical aspect of the poll that results in all Ontario voters voting Mu in the non-Ontario section, and the non-Ontario voters vote Mu in the Ontario section. As for unscientific, I don't think you can conclude that (although it would certainly have a large margin of error). As for it being a push poll, yes, all polls are push polls. Strip out the Mu's and you see that a substantial majority of people both in and outside of Ontario object to this tory gerrymander, like. You have no way of assuring me that anybody other than yourself followed your convention regarding "mu" or even followed the suggestion of which poll they should vote in. It might well be that one partisan voted "yes" to both questions while 5 partisans voted "no" to both questions, while a further 7 people voted "mu" to both questions because they interpreted the option differently from your intent. It might be that only one person, an Ontario voter who opposes gerrymandering, actually followed the rules. You can't actually demonstrate otherwise. And any poll where people volunteer their participation is inherently unscientific. The question also only asks whether the participant supports gerrymandering (which is a bit like asking whether someone supports arson...) The question doesn't actually ask whether people feel that Ontario doesn't have adequate representation in our federal system. Or whether the participant considers this specific plan to be gerrymandering. Attempting to impart either of these meanings to the poll outcome would be unsubstantiated. -k

I had hoped you could come up with something better than a transparent strawman argument. Alright, then, what IS your explanation as to how this could possibly be to the Conservatives' advantage? Of the 22 seats created, at least half will unavoidably be in Liberal-friendly areas (GTA and BC Lower mainland). How does this benefit the Conservatives? And if this plan does somehow unfairly benefit the Conservatives, why do the Liberals apparently plan to support it? Why does Stephen Owen say it "needs to be done" and that they're "very supportive"? Are they just really really gullible? The intentions this thread addresses is the stated intentions (to redress population/representation imbalance) and real intentions of the government. The historical intentions of others are not otherwise relevant. In addressing the question of whether there's anything improper, mischevious, or "gerrymander-like" about deliberately under-representing Ontario on a per-population basis, the historical reason *why* Ontario has *always* been under-represented are *central* to the discussion. We've always done it this way. On purpose. By design. For reasons that are well understood. So the argument that it's improper, mischevious, or "gerrymander-like" falls flat. Long-standing tradition says that it *is* proper. You ask the wrong question. There are two: -Why should Canadians living in Ontario have proportionally less influence than Canadians living in other regions. Because it's the mathematical corollary of our collective decision to give Canadians in the smallest provinces proportionally more influence. And again, I challenge you to come up with an explanation of how this "obviously favors the electoral prospects of the Tories". Your 'reasons' are ludicrous. It's an unscientific push-poll on an internet forum with 14 votes where the leading response is a Greek letter, and where the outcome doesn't even make the argument you are now claim it does. How much consideration do you really think it deserves? Ipso loquitur. -k

Your interpretation surprises me. The Conservatives are well known to have a preponderance of support in Alberta, and they often seem to think they can rely on BC for seats too. Accordingly it appears to their advantage to add more seats where their success is more assured.And your Sesame-Street level analysis surprises me. I know you're smarter than to buy into an interpretation that says 10 Ontario seats = 10 Liberal vs 5 Alberta seats + 7 BC seats = 12 Conservative. I would hope you realize I'm smarter than that too. So who are you trying to feed that nonsense to? The other 5 people who voted "no" in your poll?Even allowing that all 5 Alberta seats added are likely to be safe Conservative ridings, the remaining 17 are not. Of these remaining 17 seats, the bulk of them will unavoidably be located in the Greater Toronto Area of Ontario, and the Lower Mainland area of BC. Both of these are Liberal-friendly areas where the Conservatives have a difficult time winning seats. Of the 22 seats that would be created under this plan, the balance of them between "Conservative" and "Liberal" areas would be at best a wash, and quite likely an advantage to the Liberals as Greater Toronto and Greater Vancouver will gain a bunch more Liberal-friendly ridings. And, contrary to your interpretation of this, the Liberals agree with the plan, at least according to Vancouver Liberal MP Stephen Owen: LIBERAL MP SUPPORTS TORY GERRYMANDERING IN ONTARIO By taking deliberate and specific steps that expand and preserve that 'part of our system'. That 'part of our system' has been put their intentionally. Respecting that intention and the reasons behind it is not mischief. But you are simply making up the part about their intentions. Their stated intention is to REMEDY the imbalance that presently exists that you call 'part of our system'. And yet, they only intend to apply the remedy where it helps them most. Ergo, it's mischevious gerrymandering (-like). The intention I was referring to is the intention that has been apparent since confederation and in every adjustment made to seat distribution formulas since then: providing the smaller provinces with more representation in the HoC than their populations actually warrants. Each time the representation in the HoC has been adjusted, the formula has taken precautions against provinces losing their voice due to changing population. Each time Canadian leaders have examined the issue, it has been decided that over-representing smaller provinces (and thereby under-representing larger provinces) on a population basis was acceptable and desirable. Which is why I say it is an intentional aspect of our system. The Conservative proposal maintains (though diminishes) this aspect of Canada's historical allocation of seats in the HoC. One could think of the Conservative proposal in the same sense as increasing tax brackets. It would create a "middle class," comprised of Alberta, BC, and Quebec, which together will contain roughly half of Canada's population, and all with roughly same representation by population. It creates an "upper class", consisting of just Ontario and its nearly 40% of the populace by the time the next census arrives, which will be slightly under-representation by population. And it creates a "low income" class consisting of the small and mini provinces, where all 6 + 3 territories combined will account for just over 10% of Canada's populace and where extra representatives are granted so that they will have a voice in the HoC. In this respect, it is like the 1974 act, in creating 3 categories of provinces, with special benefit being given to the smaller ones. However, it's much more logical that Ontario be in a group of its own rather than Quebec be in a group of its own. Why should Ontario be in a class of its own with respect to representation in the House of Commons? Because it's in a class of it's own in terms of population. It'll have as many representatives as the #2 and #3 provinces combined. Ontario's influence is overwhelming in the HoC even while being slightly under-represented as it already is. Ontario can most afford to give some seats to the mini-provinces. I think one can make a rational argument as to why the extra representation for the mini-provinces come at Ontario's expense. There's a big jump between Ontario and Quebec, and there's a big jump between Alberta and the next biggest province. Quebec, BC, and Alberta comprise the group that could most reasonably be considered Canada's medium-sized provinces. I think it's logical that Alberta, BC, and Quebec be grouped together to form a middle-class. It's certainly more rational than having Alberta and BC in the same class as Ontario, while Quebec be in a separate category. Misalignment implies misalignment, whether by mistake or on purpose. A slight under-representation of Ontario relative to its population is, in fact, the proper alignment, and has been considered to be so since confederation. Therefore, this is not a "misalignment" at all. Your poll is of no value, for reasons that have already been stated. Citing its results doesn't refute anything. -k

The idea was clever, and the ads are somewhat amusing, but the message in the ads is rather dumb, and in the end they don't do much beyond ribbing their adversaries. As others have pointed out, the content of the ads is pretty poor, particularly the global warming one. I don't think that anybody in the Young Liberals or on this site actually believes that there's an "all we have to do is..." solution to climate change. So having their "avatar" in the ad say "all we have to do is..." comes off as slightly less than believable. The "Hi, I'm a Mac" "and I'm a PC" ads are among the most popular and effective advertising I have ever seen. It's "hip" and clever for the Young Liberals to reference them in their own advertising. However, I think they've missed some of the reasons that make the "I'm a Mac" "and I'm a PC" campaign so successful. First, the "Mac" and "PC" characters are very likable. A challenge in making an ad like this where one character has all the answers and the other character hasn't got a clue is that the character with all the answers tends to come off as smug and arrogant. Apple has dodged this pitfall by making Mac casual and friendly and somewhat modest. He's always concerned about PC, especially when PC appears to be in some kind of distress. And PC, although pompous and rather clueless, isn't actually a bad guy. He is just "square", and it's his misguided attempts to keep up with the times that form the animus behind most of the commercials. But whatever crazy thing PC does next, Mac is always there. They even give each other Christmas presents. The camaraderie of Mac and PC is one of the things that keeps people watching the commercials. Liberal? She's a smug little snot. Conservative? He's an annoying retard. I would not cross the street to meet either of these people, unless it was to administer a punch in the solar plexus. The second aspect of the Mac and PC commercials that makes them so successful is that PC's ongoing struggles and foibles in keeping up with the world are something that PC users will recognize from their own experience. Most PC users don't struggle with this stuff to the degree that PC does in the commercials, but pretty much all of us can relate to the ads. Just about every PC user has found themselves wishing they didn't have to run all that security software, or have to contend with the way Microsoft sells its products, or that you could plug in an upgrade and it would just work and not have to mess with device drivers and system settings and all that kind of stuff. The Mac and PC commercials highlight some annoying aspect of using a PC that PC users will recognize and relate to, and presents Mac as a hassle-free alternative. The Young Liberal ads, on the other hand... the "cross dressing" and "branding" ads present aspects of the Conservatives that apparently bother Liberals, not something that will resonate with Conservative supporters. The global warming ad offers a criticism of Conservative policy that Conservative supporters won't believe, and offers a Liberal solution that even Liberals won't believe. -k

Carpet bombing is beyond their capability, but they've been indescriminately firing explosive rockets at civilian populations. They have no military, but they've got plenty of guys with guns and rockets. Catchme says that the Qassams are actually benign. They might not be big, or powerful, or accurate, but the law of averages suggests that if you keep firing them, sooner or later you'll hurt and kill people. And they have. You and Catchme can excuse it however you like, but it's a concerted effort by an organization to target a civilian population (the town of Sderot) with deadly weapons. -k