kimmy

You think so? Why? Of the 22 seats that would be created, 10 would be in Ontario and a good portion of the remaining 12 would be in Liberal-friendly areas of British Columbia. The argument that this is some sort of scheme to give Conservatives an electoral edge seems awfully fragile. 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. I think either number is a misalignment. Taking steps that approximately preserve that misalignment whilst remedying a similar problem elsewhere is the thing I'm objecting to. "Misalignment" implies some sort of mistake or oversight or error has been made, but the over-representation of the mini-provinces at Ontario's expense is very much in keeping with the spirit of our federal system. The issue of whether Ontario alone would bear the burden of providing the mini-provinces with higher proportional representation would be a good one to discuss. Oh really? You should check out the results of this poll. I refuse to. Sure, since they directly contradict your unsubstantiated comment. Do I feel refuted by your poll? Other than your jejune quibble about the definition of 'gerrymander', what is wrong with the questions? The question you posed is much like asking "Do you support Liberal hate speech?" One can legitimately ask it... one can legitimately vote no... but neither the question nor the answer actually make any claim that Liberal hate speech has occured. I just can't stand Liberal hate speech! I definitely do not support it! I can't cite an incident where Liberal hate speech has actually occured but I'm definitely voting "no!" because after all, who would actually vote that they support hate speech? Just so with your question. Your question asks if we support gerrymandering. Neither yourself nor the other 5 people who voted "no" have offered a compelling argument that this specific plan is gerrymandering, or even "gerrymander-like", as you put it. You yourself now say you *think* the government is trying to give itself an electoral advantage. If you wanted a poll on the merits of this specific proposal, then instead of asking if people support schemes to rig the system to obtain electoral advantage, you should have asked whether people think this plan is such a scheme. -k

That would cost them about 90% of their business. -k

This is not the first I have heard of something like this, as I recall natives claiming that "the white man is stealing our wind" (in regard to wind-power turbines) so I guess it was only a matter of time. It goes without saying that this will end the same way any other dispute with First Nations goes. Whitey will open up his wallet and the First Nations will be happy, at least until they cook up some other scam to feign outrage and demand compensation for. Since electromagnetic waves propagate through the free space between the molecules that form "air", the cell phone transmissions are not, in fact, making use of the natives' air. Therefore, this claim is utterly without merit. -k

The whole Muslim world can go do a colelctive back-flip into an empty pool. Or stampede each other to death at the Hajj. yippee. -k

Why would not be partisan when I was trying to guage criticism of the party carrying out the gerrymandering? You've failed to substantiate the accusation of gerrymandering made in your poll question. Its not the poll that produces the fighting, it's the irrational objectors to it that do that. You've also failed to show that the objections are irrational. You're not making much sense here. You say its extensivey gerrymandered, then you complain when I complain about gerrymandering. I never agreed that it was gerrymandered. First off, as I pointed out, the definition of gerrymandering (the real definition, not Figleaf's Special definition) refers to maliciously drawn boundaries, not the relative number of voters. A minor point, but I would expect some amount of accuracy from a guy who goes on a rant when somebody mis-uses the word "liberal". Secondly, I said Note the word "if". I dispute your application of the word gerrymandering to this, and not just because it doesn't meet the literal definition of gerrymandering, but because it doesn't fit the spirit of gerrymandering either. The word gerrymandering, as you're well aware, has a connotation of mischief, shenanigans, malice, gimmickry, and so-on. But the deliberate over-representation of small provinces, and resulting under-representation of large provinces, was an intentional characteristic of our federal system right from day one. Now: how can a characteristic that's been an accepted and intentional part of our system from the very start be considered gerrymandering? You've done nothing to establish that they've been misaligned for political gain. In fact, you've failed to establish that they're misaligned at all. Why do you consider Ontario being under-represented by 4.2% under this proposal to be a misalignment, when Ontario is currently under-represented by 4.4%? It doesn't appear to be a misalignment at all, it appears to be a continuation of a Canadian tradition that holds that the mighty moderate their voice so that the meek might be heard. Oh really? You should check out the results of this poll. I refuse to. The results of your poll are crap, because your poll is crap, because it's based on a faulty question. A number of people have already stated their refusal to participate because of the assumption inherent in the question. I spit in the general direction of your poll. -k

Let us not be too hasty to scoff at another culture's beliefs. I would like to hear more about these "dwarfs" before I come to a conclusion. They might be referring to midgets (or whatever the politically correct term is) in which case I'd agree, that sounds like the crappiest "eternal paradise" I've ever heard of. (Although, it should be pointed out that the concept of a virtuous maiden being exiled to the company of a band of dwarfs is not unprecidented in the west.) However, what if by "dwarfs" they are actually referring to magical gnomes? Fairies? Leprechauns? Toy-making elves? Munchkins? Or Oompa-Loompas? Now, what girl wouldn't want to spend her afterlife with a loveable band of fairies or magic gnomes? This is the kind of enchanting whimsy that made Walt Disney a wealthy man. It's almost enough to make me think about blowing myself up, in fact, if I could only find a suitable cause. At any rate, does 72 fairies really sound so bad compared to western notions of the afterlife, which I gather revolves largely around cream-cheese? And while we're at it, do you really think the whole "72 virgins" thing is really as good as the hype? I'm skeptical. First off, virgins are not actually very good in bed. Secondly, what happens to the virgins when they're not virgins anymore? Does our martyr have to marry them? Or do the virgins get executed for being adulterous whores? Either way, it's not terribly good for our martyr. He's going to be henpecked times 72, or else he's going to be lonely. 72 virgins would keep our guy occupied for roughly 36 minutes, I am guessing, and then what? He's looking for another bomb so he can blow his ass out of paradise to get away from his 72 wives. Or else the virgins are all gone and the place is a sausage-fest. An eternity of hanging out with other suicide bombers, wondering where all the babes went? Is that really the kind of afterlife these guys want to have? -k

I'm real sorry to have used the term 'gerrymandering' to describe gerrymandering. What was I thinking? Well, it's not gerrymandering in the accepted definition of the term.Perhaps instead of a poll deliberately designed as a partisan slam, maybe you could have perhaps put forth an argument as to the importance of representation by population, or some other thesis that would create discussion instead of fighting. Yep. well, at least we're agreed on that much. Why this, then? Deliberately delivering more seats to some and not to others in knowing violation of population facts is gerrymandering in my book. Why? Violation of population facts has been a long-standing and accepted feature of our electoral system. We've never had strict representation by population, and as Roger Gallaway's remarks in Hansard point out, it was by design. I don't see how it can be argued that failure to incorporate a principle that has never been part of our system qualifies as gerrymandering. Unless you have the crazy idea that undervaluing individual voters based on where they live is not quite cricket. Well, it's not a crazy idea, per se, but it's a rather foreign one to Canada's electoral system. You're all amped up because this Tory proposal has kept with a Canadian tradition and failed to incorporate an American principle that's never been a fundamental aspect of Canadian democracy. "Undervalued"... so, under the proposal, Ontarions would be only 96% as valued as Canadians in the middle-sized provinces? And Prince Edward Islanders would be 400% as valued? hmm. Does that viewpoint reflect the reality of Parliament's priorities? I would suggest it does not. I would suggest that arguing that Ontarions need more weight in Parliament is going to draw mostly chortles and guffaws anywhere outside of Ontario. Small provinces like PEI and Newfoundland, as well as the Territories, have been given disproportionately high representation in the HoC. Intentionally, by design. The mathematical corollary of that decision is that voters in larger provinces will have proportionately lower representation. By definition. It's unavoidable. I'll let you work through the details on that with your pocket calculator, but trust me, it works out that way. To summarize, we have a 140 year tradition in this country that knowingly varying from population facts when determining representation in the House of Commons is, indeed, quite cricket. -k

Perhaps if the thread had not been opened with an "are you still beating your wife?" type question, it would not have descended into partisan douchebaggery. First off, a note on the word "Gerrymandering". Deviation from the strict principle of representation by population isn't really gerrymandering in a strict sense. The term refers to redrawing the boundaries of constituencies, such as the repeated adjustment of the "Edmonton Center" riding to aid in returning Anne McLellan to Ottawa, for instance. If one considers deviation from the principle of representation by population to be gerrymandering, then it must be pointed out that the present system is already intensely gerrymandered, and always has been. Jeffrey Simpson notes as much in the very first lines of the article that was referenced earlier: While Ontario will remain under-represented under the proposed plan (39.4% of the population vs 35.2% of the seats) that is in fact an *improvement* over the present situation (38.8% of the population vs 34.4% of the seats.) Canada has in fact never had strict representation by population, as that goal has always been compromised by the goal of providing representation for small regions. In addressing a proposal to cap the number of MPs at 308, Liberal Roger Gallaway spoke thusly: Hansard, May 3 2004 In short, the principle of representation by population has never been the be-all or end-all of representation in the House of Commons. Every province and territory except for Ontario, Alberta, and BC, benefits from special clauses. Quebec and other low (or negative) growth provinces benefit from a clause stating that no province shall have fewer MPs than they had in 1976. The Atlantic provinces benefit from a clause that provinces shall not have fewer MPs than senators. The Territories benefit from the fact that it's not medically possible to send only a fraction of an MP to Ottawa. The news here is that under the proposal, BC and Alberta would finally have the same proportional representation as Quebec. Ontario will be remain under-represented by approximately the same proportion as it is today. Is it fair that Ontario would have lower proportional representation than Quebec, Alberta, and BC? Perhaps not. However, I think the perception (and probably an accurate one) is that Ontario is already the 800kg gorilla of Confederation, and the cause of democracy and fairness is not especially furthered by amending Ontario into an 820kg gorilla; becoming an 816kg gorilla will be more than adequate for Ontarions to voice their interests on the national stage. If we accept that smallest provinces should have higher representation so as to have a voice in the national debate (and as a nation, we *have* accepted this, for 140 years) does not also the reverse hold? That the largest of us should moderate our voices so as to not drown out the rest? -k

It has indeed been a businesslike first year for Harper's government. Contrary to the view expressed above, things aren't going all that badly for the Conservatives. The opinions coming from certain quarters would lead one to believe that each news event was the beginning of the end for Harper. "the combat mission in Afghanistan is going to turn Canadians against Harper, especially when more casualties start coming home." "the income trusts flip-flop is going to cost the Conservatives a lot of support!" "the environment is going to be the issue that finishes the Conservatives!" "the vote on gay marriage will remind everybody that they're still scary scary social conservatives!" "Stephane Dion's magnetic personality is going to crush Conservative support! They don't stand a chance!" "now that the Liberals have put Sponsorship behind them, people won't be mad at them anymore and people who voted Conservative to punish the Liberals will start voting Liberal again." "now people will realize that Harper is a hypocrite because they have seen how he (insert dubious case study here.) Now people will realize that Harper is no different than the Liberals when it comes to (integrity, accountability, or whichever)!" Despite these predictions, the Conservatives' level of support has remained remarkably stable. They remain a paltry 3 points behind election night, and still the most popular party in the country. Things are going ok for Stevie and the gang. -k

The GST cut was a nice symbolic gesture, but the only real effect it has had on me is that I've got a lot more pennies on my dresser than I had at this time last year. The money saved for me by the GST cut has come largely in the form of small change that I'll have to roll up and take to the bank at some point. When one considers the cost of the time it will take me to roll all this change and transport it to the bank, I'm not sure it's much of a windfall. I've argued on here many times in the past that the GST is the fairest tax we have. I even mused that someday I'd like to see income tax scrapped completely and made up by a hike in GST. -k

If Jack Layton is making a push for Canadian involvement in a Darfur mission, then I support him. It's the right thing to do. I suspect that Taliban Jack will turn into Janjawid Jack pretty quickly if the mission requires combat against brown people, however. Fighting the Taliban is the right thing to do as well. If participating in Darfur means jeopardizing the mission in Afghanistan, then I'm not sure which I'd choose. I take strong exception to this comment. While Canadian troops and other coalition soldiers have certainly killed civilians by mistake or accident, that pales in comparison to the carnage inflicted on Afghanis by the Taliban militants. A considerable portion of the civilian casualties result from the Taliban use of bombs in areas where there is heavy civilian traffic. A considerable portion of the remaining civilian casualties result from deliberate insurgent attacks on civilian targets. That comment was directed at Southerncomfort who did indeed seem to be intimidated by the possibility that acting in Darfur will make us targets of militant Islamists. -k

See, this teacher's mistake is obviously that he forgot to put on hockey gear before grabbing the kid. -k

I'm not exactly clear on the difference between genocide and ethnic cleansing, but whichever it is, what's going on in Darfur is not good. This issue has somewhat vanished off the radar since David Kilgour retired from Parliament, which is unfortunate. It is also somewhat unfortunate if people make their decisions based on Sudan's government doesn't want us there because Sudan's government is a silent partner in the tragedy going on. Sudanese government is not just sitting idly by as the Janjaweed milia engages in a campaign of slaughter and terror against the black majority in the region, the Sudanese government is not just supplying the militias with weapons, the Sudanese government is now an active participant. I believe that Canadians want our armed forces to participate in missions that advance the cause of justice and goodness. This is a situation where hundreds of thousands of people have been killed and millions have been displaced from their homes for the crime of being in the wrong ethnic group. If this isn't the kind of situation Canada should intervene in, then we don't have any business being on the world stage. It would be a big disappointment to me if Canadians are intimidated by the idea that militant Islamists might get mad. -k

So what is your theory as to the reason for the rockets? Are you aware that the factions that comprise this "unity government" have been shooting each other in the streets for the past week? Benign? 18 wounded civilians and destroyed schools? Well no kidding. That's exactly what they're trying to do. -k

Words like "innovation" and "ingenuity" are really just oversimplified descriptions of critical thinking. If one looks at any service or product that's become commercially successful, that has occurred because someone has applied critical thinking to consumer needs and wants. If one looks at any technological advance, whether it's a completely new technology or just a pen that won't leak ink onto your fingers, it's because someone has applied critical thinking to determine the shortcomings of existing technologies or the applications of new ideas. If one looks at even the smallest details of day to day life, whether it be a new paperwork form at the bank that takes 30 seconds less to fill out than the old one, or a change in the garbage collection route that saves the city some money without changing the service, or a plastic handle on your ice-cream bucket that doesn't freeze your fingers, somebody has applied critical thinking to make that improvement. And while not very many of these examples are on the scale of the Ipod or the transistor or the theory of relativity, they're still examples of people applying critical thinking to their jobs, however humble those might be. While there are no doubt many employees in all sorts of occupations who never have an original thought, it'll their colleagues-- the one who came up with the idea of moving the display to the other window so that more shoppers would see it, or whatever-- who ultimately get ahead. When it comes to handing out raises or promotions, an employer is not likely to think "Janie is a critical thinker," but they do tend to notice things like "Janie's really efficient," or "Janie came up with that great display," or "Janie had great ideas that made the Shizzlit 2.0 a big success." This stuff does get noticed, even if there's not a box on your job performance evaluation that says "Critical thinking" where your boss can put a checkmark. -k

I dunno. I think that if God was smiting down so-called Christians who are an embarrassment to the faith, there's 50-odd people named "Phelps" who'd he'd wipe out before he got to Falwell. -k

Why teach math? It's a capability no employer really gives two s#its about. No-one anywhere ever got a paycheck for doing math. It's one of our society's great myths. Critical thinking, like math, is useless to an employer... until it's applied to some task. The entrepreneurs who decide to build a product use critical thinking to gauge the market and determine what kind of need exists and whether they can make a profit in filling that need. The engineers who design the product use critical thinking to determine how to best fulfill the requirements of the product in the most economical way. The salespeople who sell the product use critical thinking to assess how to best convince a consumer to spend money on the product. The human resources person who hired these people used critical thinking to assess which were the best people for these tasks. The classics major who might have critical thinking skills but no concrete field of expertise to which to apply it might seemingly have little value to an employer. Then again, I recall reading that people from liberal arts backgrounds often find work in unlikely areas because they're able to apply their "soft skills" to tasks that others aren't accustomed to. Assessing whether an average consumer will find a user-interface convenient or annoying, for instance. -k

Because the article is reporting on a lawsuit that has been filed. Lawsuits, by their nature, make one-sided claims. The school and teacher will tell their own side of the story later, either when they choose to comment on the lawsuit, or when they defend themselves in court. uh huhAs I predicted earlier, the more interesting aspect of this isn't the lawsuit itself, but rather what political mileage hacks will attempt to make of it. -k

Whose enemy? -k

Yeah, I can't imagine what the teacher must have been thinking. How could she have thought this would be a good idea? Anyway, I can hardly wait to see what the conservative media has to say about this story. Should be hilarious. FOXNews: "RADICAL GAY AGENDA ASSAULTS SCHOOL! Is YOUR child at risk?" NewsMax: "GAY INDOCTRINATION AT CHICAGO SCHOOL" PrisonPlanet: "CHILDREN BEING INDOCTRINATED FOR USE AS SEX SLAVES BY LUCIFERIAN HOMOSEXUAL LAWYERS IN THE NWO." -k

With the "...not led away in handcuffs" comment, you were pretty clearly trying to draw a comparison between Jeff Kroeke and Jeff Monaghan. As far as I'm concerned, it's a comparison that falls terribly flat. I believe the official word is that they are continuing to investigate. As I said before, if Monaghan had sent the document to a stockbroker or an investigator instead of an opposition MP, there'd be no question in anybody's mind that the law had been broken. So this is better because the motive was malice instead of greed? You can make a strong argument that Jeff Kroeke (and Shiv Chopra and Robert Read) are whistleblowers. You can make a strong argument that Jeff Monaghan is a moron, but that's about all. Kroeke apparently used inside knowledge of the trip, plus an investigative technique that's commonplace amongst journalists and private investigators and suspicious spouses and any other private citizen, to put forward a claim that senators deliberately wasted public money on a 7-day holiday in Dubai. I've got no problem with it. I'm sure that Ms Guergis is touched by your concern for her welfare. -k

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2007...pra-070510.html He basically went to the press and said: "Health Canada is spending a bunch of money on these vaccines and I think it's a big fat waste of money for political purposes." On one hand, if Health Canada was wasting a bunch of money, I do think it's in the public's interest to know. And, if he could show that they knew that it was a waste of money and that they knew it was just for public relations, then you could argue that he was exposing wrongdoing. On the other, it was only his opinion that the money was being wasted. I don't really think he was exposing corruption or wrongdoing within the department, either. Just a policy decision that he disagreed with. Interestingly, he was involved in an earlier incident that does sound like whistleblowing. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/05/10/...mp.html?ref=rss According to the article he was fired for going public with the claim that the RCMP was interfering with his investigation of Canadian consulate staff selling visas to Hong Kong gangsters. He certainly sounds like a whistleblower. The CBC calls him a whistleblower. To me he sounds a lot closer to Jeff Kroeke than to Jeff Monaghan. Do you feel that the Conservatives were mistaken to refer to him as a whistleblower? For both Chopra and Read, one could make a good argument that they *were* whistleblowers, and the fact that their cases went to the Supreme Court would seem to prove as much. Only if you can convince me that Jeff Monaghan can be fairly grouped with Chopra and Read. I don't think the situations are very close at all. Determining whether Chopra and Read were whistleblowers went all the way to the Supreme Court. Monaghan's case wouldn't even make it to Kimmy-Kourt. Well, maybe Helena Guergis should watch her back. Maybe it's risky to have this guy on her staff. But I see no reason why it would be unethical. -k

The thing with Wikipedia is, it's what its users make it. It's a great starting point if you're interested in a topic. How a Wikipedia article is supposed to work is: users add information, complete with sources and footnotes. Other users review the article and if they feel the information is unclear or inaccurate or reflects bias, they make note of it and suggest changes. It works great for articles about technology or other areas where there's hard information, but sometimes not so good if you're looking for information about a contentious topic. It's great if you want a chronology of the 7 Day War, but not very good if you want to know the history of it. Some topics attract people with passionate opinions who want their perspective to be reflected in the Wikipedia article. Avid environmentalists might add a plethora of information and footnotes to a global warming article, for instance. Now, here's the thing. If "Conservapedia" ever takes off in any significant way, it will also attract people with passionate opinions on subjects. What happens then? -k

The invasion of Afghanistan was fully sanctioned and approved of by the United Nations. The Taliban "government" of Afghanistan was itself illegal and was never recognized by any international body other than their Saudi benefactors. Canadian forces remain in Afghanistan at the request of the legitimate elected government of Afghanistan. What exactly is illegal? Do you actually know what the word insurgent means? Do you understand that insurgent and invader do not mean the same thing? -k

Jeez, Dobbins. In the other thread, it was explained for you at least a dozen times why the Environment Canada guy is not a whistleblower, and you apparently still didn't figure it out. Do you also need it explained to you why this guy *does* qualify as a whistleblower? Really, Dobbins, you're smarter than this. This kind of thread would be about par for the course for some of the Harper-haters on the site, but I usually expect a higher quality of contribution from you. People who risk their jobs and even jail time to bring forward information that is in the public interest deserve our thanks, and to be protected and not punished for acting in the interest of the public. Was Jeffrey Kroeker a whistleblower? He appears to have exposed a deliberate waste of public by a group of senators who essentially conned the public into paying for a week-long holiday at a luxury hotel in Dubai. Why should the guy be punished for it? Was Jeff Monaghan, the Environment Canada guy who leaked the greenhouse gas plan ahead of its intended release, a whistleblower? Whistleblowing involves exposing corruption or criminal behavior, not attempting to disrupt the public release of a piece of policy. Was it in the public interest that the plan be leaked 2 days ahead of schedule? Just the opposite: the leak created the potential for insider trading. I heard the Liberal MP who the document was leaked to interviewed on CBC radio the morning after he received the document. He explained his decision to not release the contents of the document by pointing out that it contained information that could have an impact on the stock market. He also pointed out that they had no way of knowing who else the document had been leaked to. What if a stock-broker or investor had received a copy? If Monaghan had sent this document to a stock-broker or an investor rather than an MP, nobody would be questioning whether it was a criminal act. When the leak occurred, opponents of the Conservatives pointed out that the leak was a potentially serious security problem that Canadians should be concerned about. They were RIGHT. Trying to now recast the leak as whistleblowing that was of value to the public interest is just pure stupidity. -k