kimmy

George Galloway... a guy who was too left-wing for the Labour Party (isn't that kind of like being too gay to be on Will & Grace?) and got kicked out of Parliament by his own party for urging British soldiers to disobey orders and for urging other Arab nations fight in Iraq's defense. Sounds like an awesome guy. Now that we know what kind of ideas he represents, it's no wonder he'd badmouth Harper... but it's not like this guy is credible or anything. -k

I'm not even much of a conservative, but I'll take a stab at this one. Small-c conservatives respect what Paul Martin Jr was able to accomplish as Finance Minister. However, he's also remembered as the ideal example of the "Peter Principle" in action. That's where you excel in your job and are promoted until you reach a level that's above your competence, and that's where you stay. Sadly, he will most be remembered for his attempts to clean up a mess that wasn't even his fault. He'll also be remembered for failing to live up to any of his bold promises about "the democratic deficit" or "western alienation" or accountability or whistleblower protection or ... pretty much anything, aside from gay weddings at least. Great finance minister, though. -k

Sure, and since David Icke has never been sued by the Bush family or the British royals, they're obviously 8-foot tall shapeshifting lizards. After all, if they weren't 8 foot tall lizards, why wouldn't they sue him for saying they were? What a surprise that your "source" for this is a book from a guy who writes books about banking conspiracies, drug company conspiracies to keep the cure for cancer a secret, "chem-trails", and that stuff. I asked for a credible source, not another kook. uh, the government never said "we were only kidding." The author did-- the guy who wrote the forward of the original edition, and got it published. Leonard Lewin. A guy who was known as a humorist and satirist even before Iron Mountain was published. -k

Kimmy, do you disagree with the advice or with the people who are offering it? Both. I think following this advice would be a surefire ticket back to opposition status. It's not what voters want. And, there's a reason Manning never won an election. There's a reason Harris's party was crushed in their last election. There's a reason both of these guys now write reports for think-tanks instead of competing in the public sphere. I disagree. I believe that primarily, voters wanted to punish the Liberals. Harper was able to convince Ontario voters to give him a chance because he distanced himself from the hard-core conservatism of Manning and Harris. The only reason Harper's victory wasn't more thorough is that many Ontario voters remained skeptical that he'd distanced himself from those policies. Harper never had a mandate to implement Harris style cuts. It's not what he campaigned on and not what voters elected him for. Interpretting his falling polls as an indicator that voters are disappointed that he failed to follow through on promises he never made and they never voted for is ... goofy, to say the least. What's the saying... if you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras? If Harper's polls are falling, it seems more logical to look to the two issues that have dominated headlines for months: Afghanistan, and the environmental plan. -k

The fact that Harper is in danger of losing the next election already doesn't make Manning or Harris any more believable. Manning never achieved any real electoral success with his policies... and a phone-booth would be big enough to hold the audience for a Mike Harris speech these days. -k

You can tell it's real because it reads like it's real? ... ...do you actually understand the *concept* of what a hoax is? Evidence? I want to read a credible source that quotes Galbraith as saying it was real. -k

Taking advice from Manning and Harris would be an excellent way for Harper to avoid turning into "big government", because it's a surefire way to get back on the Opposition side of the House. -k

It was not a "joke", it was satire. Inspired by a real event: a 1966 stock-market dip caused by the possibility of peace breaking out. It was intended to be thought-provoking... and if things it predicted have come true, it's because good satire is a critical examination of reality. The author admitted it was a hoax in 1972, claiming that it was no longer necessary to maintain the hoax, because real documents coming out of the Pentagon made a parody redundant: "The charade is over. Some of the documents read like parodies of Iron Mountain, rather than the reverse." -Leonard C Lewin. Museum of Hoaxes: -k

Since Celil's case was the source of this controversy in the first place, and since the Chinese diplomat confirms that Harper raised, we can consider this Case Closed, yes? Mixed feelings. Yeah, the Chinese shouldn't be oppressing Falun Gong people or spying on Canadians, but ... I do feel just a twinge of jealousy that we can't do something like that with Scientologists.... -k

I actually found it amusing that she was praying for a strike. What I found a lot less amusing was that they've got this little girl trained to go up to complete strangers and start proselytizing. I found that to be fanatical and a little creepy. But the more troubling fanaticism was what I saw in the trailer which the original post linked to. Did you watch it? Do you disagree that it's religious fanaticism? -kids chanting and screaming and pumping their fists in the air with tears running down their faces? -convulsions? -"there's only two kinds of people in this world. People who love Jeeezus, and people who don't." -"how many of you would give up your lives for Jeeezus?" -"we're being trained to be God's army!" -"This means war! This means war! Are you a part of it or not?" -they've even got their own flag that they swear allegiance to. Aside from which particular prophet they're fanatical about, it strikes me as being a whole lot like the "pyjamas and funny hats" guys. As I said before, these particular kooks will use ballots rather than bombs to fight their war, but they're still fanatics. -k

Harper was only Prime Minister for a month by the time Celil was detained. Did he really mess up relations with the Chinese that much during that span? -k

Woo-hoo. A great example of the kind of "western values" that Leafless is always talking about. "Hi. um, God's just telling me that you're on his mind, and he just wants to take you and love on you and he has special plans for you and your life. He just wants you to follow him with your whole heart." It's a good reminder that not all religious fanatics wear beards and pyjamas and funny hats. These particular ones are less likely to blow stuff up, but probably more likely to change western governments in ways that rational people won't appreciate. -k

Actually, he wasn't bragging about being a tough-guy with the Chinese. What he said was that the Chinese were unaccustomed to a Canadian leader being frank with them. -k

Being gutsier than the Liberals isn't really much to brag about. Whether it was soft-pedalling human rights in discussions with China, or the spineless handling of the Zahra Kazemi affair, or basing Canada's positions on south-east Asian conflicts on how many votes it would generate in Toronto-area ridings, I don't really think the Liberals distinguished themselves in diplomacy during the Chretien and Martin eras. Let's recap: this thread introduced the discussion of Harper's relations with China. It's clear that some of Harper's adversaries here on MLW saw it as an opportunity to attack Harper for being reckless. But suddenly it's funny to suggest that Harper has taken a "gutsier" stand? Whether Harper's approach will yield results for Hussein Celil remains to be seen. However, I don't fault Harper at all for attempting to address this issue with President Hu. -k

Ah, so that's what Monty's been up to since he got banned. Nice to see he's keeping himself busy. -k

Weren't you able to find any Imams to quote on this issue? -k

Then say so. Don't coat it in specious statements about maturity. Just cop to the fact that yeah, 16 is better than 14 not because of any quantifiable factor but simply because it seems less icky. Just because "maturity" isn't a quantifiable factor doesn't mean that there's no merit to the view that by and large 16 year olds are more mature than 14 year olds. If you object to the idea of putting that line at 16, let me ask you this: what makes an arbitrary line at 14 any better? The argument that you're advancing-- 14 year olds have already entered puberty, there's no quanitifiable difference between 14 year olds and 16 year olds, there's individual exceptions, etc, could just as easily be applied to an arbitrary line between 14 and 13. Are you opposed to the idea of arbitrary lines in principle, or are we just bickering over where that arbitrary line should be? Do you use public transit? Next week, try getting on a bus that stops outside a highschool at around 3:30. And the next day, try a route that stops outside a junior highschool at 3:30. And get back to me on the subject of whether you feel 16 year olds are different from 14 year olds. Maybe, but then an adult willing to have sex with a 14 year old is probably not going to be deterred and vice versa. Well, that depends. A person just tempted to do it on a lark would probably think twice. A person for whom it was a compulsion might not be deterred. But, at least society would have a much more effective tool with which to deal with somebody for whom having sex with young teens is a compulsion. When I said "beside the point," I meant that my opinion on the matter was beside the point, not that sexual education was beside the point. Arguing this issue based on peoples' views on sex education strikes me as being a lot like arguing abortion access based on its opponents' views on the death penalty. Whatever Vic Toews' views on sex education are... what input does he have into provincial education curriculums? -k

Somehow lost in all of this partisan sniping is the fact that Harper is attempting to press the case of a Canadian citizen. Amnesty International Canada What would you have him do? Why is it assumed that this is going to cost Canada business? Why is it assumed that this will cost Harper votes in areas with large Chinese-Canadian populations? I am troubled that Harper is being criticized for attempting to intervene on behalf of a Canadian citizen being mistreated in a foreign jail. Only in Canada. Only in Canada. -k

IOW it's arbitrary. Kinda like deciding that 16 year olds are inherently more mature than 14 year olds. I disagree. "Broad and open to interpretation" is pretty much the exact opposite of "arbitrary". Here's arbitrary: if you're a grown man, and you're bagging a 14 year old, you're violating the law. That's arbitrary. It's black and white. It doesn't depend on how liberal a judge's definition of "exploitive" might be, or on any particular interpretation of the youth's intentions or capability of forming "consent". I beg to differ simply because it's such a broad generalization. Kids mature physically a lot earlier hese days than they used to. A girl who's hormones have cranked up at 12 may be settled by 14, while there are other kids who haven't even hit puberty by 16. But where's the smart money, BD? Statistically speaking, don't you think there's going to be a considerable difference, on average, between 14 year olds and 16 year olds? The argument you're making could be (and has been) applied equally to every single age-based law in our society. Driving age, drinking age, voting age, and others... whether people are actually appropriately mature for these responsibilities varies from individual to individual. However, as a society we use arbitrary guidelines because considering every individual on a case by case is impractical. We accept the use of arbitrary guidelines, and simply do our best to place these arbitrary lines in the most appropriate place based on a number of factors. In this instance, I think that putting the guideline for having sex with grownup people at 16 rather than 14 seems like a better place for the arbitrary line. Well, I agree that in practice the number of cases that this might actually be applied to is probably pretty small in the overall scheme of things, but I don't see that as an actual objection. While the kids themselves might be unlikely to change their behavior in any case, this might have an effect on any adults who might be considering having sex with a young person. Don't you think that this bill could have a deterent effect on adults who might be considering getting with a young person? It seems to me that the knowledge that you'd be violating a cut-and-dried rule would be a little scarier than the knowledge that you're violating a vague guideline that's easy to weasel out of. Personally, I would be, but that's beside the point. Supporters of this bill at the very least have to recognize that the bill does not (and isn't intended to) deter teenagers from having sex with each other, and as such sex education remains a necessity. -k

The problem with that, as I've argued already, is that the definition of "exploitive" is said to be "broad and open to interpretation", which I suspect in practical terms means it's virtually useless. I hate to keep harping on this, but when we saw 2 cases last week where judges were unwilling to interpret bludgeoning people to death with baseball bats as murder, so why would I assume they'd be any bolder in deciding what is or isn't exploitation? My suspicion is that judges are actually a very conservative lot... and I don't mean socially conservative, I mean conservative in the sense that they don't want to make waves, don't want to create drama, don't want to do anything that's going to get their name on the front page, don't want to do anything that's going to get their decisions reviewed by appeals courts, don't want to break with established definitions and practices that are long-established in the legal tradition. I suspect that no judge is going to want to be the first judge to decide that an adult with a nice car and an apartment of his own seducing a youth is "exploitive". Maybe FTA Lawyer could jump in and tell me if I'm out to lunch in thinking that. As with any exercise in drawing arbitrary lines, there's going to be lots of exceptions on both sides. There are probably lots of 14 year olds who have highly developed maturity and personal responsibility. There are certainly lots of people who don't develop any maturity or personal responsibility by the time they're 16, or by the time they're 30, for that matter. But by and large? I'd say yes, on the whole, 16 year olds are on average far more physically and emotionally and mentally mature. Physically, a 14 year old is in the midst of extraordinary physical changes, and their little brain is pumped full of hormones. A 16 year old has already in large part physically evolved, and has had time to psychologically adjust to his or her new body (for a boy, maybe this is not so dramatic, but for a girl, trust me, it's pretty overwhelming.) The hormones have calmed down a little. A 16 year old has a little more experience. A 16 year old is less likely to be blown away by the first adult he or she meets who has a car or an apartment or alcohol or a bag of pot. -k

Does anybody disagree? Can Harper press the issue without jeopardizing our economic relationship with the Chinese? Yes. Because they need us even more than we need them. If they wish to try to intimidate us by brandishing their big stick-- trade-- we have an even bigger stick to brandish: energy security. The Chinese are desperate to invest heavily in our oilsands to secure a stable source of energy for their future needs. -k

EGALE statement Northern Liberal blog: EGALE giving ammunition to their opponents: -k

Hiti raises a good point. It seems to me that Norman Spector is about the last person who has the Liberal Party's best interests at heart. Spector probably hopes that the Liberals pick Bob Rae for the same reason that Oilers fans hope that Jamie McLennan gets to start more games for the Flames this season. -k

They're projecting an end of the year surplus of $4 billion, and a surplus next year of $4.5 billion. So apparently, if they recorded a deficit in September, they must have done pretty well during the rest of the year. Since when do we get month-by-month federal balance-sheets, anyway? I've never heard of one before today. I'm curious to hear what form these "higher transfers and program expenses" took, however. At any rate, a $4 billion surplus this year doesn't exactly sound like he's spending us into the poorhouse. -k

Why is it a given that he is isn't? But to answer your question, Palestinian public opinion, according to the poll data, shows that despite the election of Hamas (which implies support for its ends and violence) the Palestinian public is squarely in favour of diplomacy and the two-state solution. The more Hamas chafes against this and the more their instrangience feeds internal instability, the less appealing they'll be to the electorate. This Angus-Reid poll supports your claim that most Palestinians prefer a peaceful, two-state solution. However, even at that, there's still 10% of respondents whose preference is for either "One Palestinian state" or "One Islamic state". So I guess the question is, how vehement are those 10%? Perhaps most of them would grudgingly accept a 2-state solution, but it's inevitable that some of them are as hard-line as al Zahar or Maryam Farhat on the issue of recognizing Israel. And, those who believe there can't be peace as long as Israel exists are undoubtably those who are committing suicide bombings in the first place. I'm probably not expressing myself very well here. Back in the threads where people were discussing Jack Layton statement that we should negotiate with the Taliban, Jack supporters said "it doesn't have to be a human rights abomination: we'll just negotiate with the moderate Taliban and leave the hard-liners out." But if the result of those negotiations was some compromise that was unacceptable to the hard-liners, how does that create peace? They'll just keep blowing things up. And my feeling is somewhat the same with Palestine... even if the large majority want peace, how does peace actually occur until you can convince that one in 100 or one in 1000 or one in 10000 that a cause that he's already shown he's willing to die for doesn't matter anymore? I'm not saying that there shouldn't be an effort made to find a mutually agreeable solution. I'm just of the view that hard-liners-- on both sides-- will be impossible to please and will certainly try to undermine the process at every opportunity. I don't dispute that. I just feel that you were a little quick to dismiss this guy's statement as "pandering to his base." If he were a western politician, sure... but he's not. I don't think he's a fringe politician, and I don't think you can dismiss comments like this because they're extremist. These comments might be extremist, but they represent the views of some portion of his electorate, and unfortunately the portion of the public he represents probably includes people who are willing to blow themselves up if they don't get their way. Is anyone opposed to the spilling of blood for their cause? You're not. Most of the posters on this board are not. So what is it you're saying? The truth is, BD, that myself and most westerners *do* oppose the spilling of blood, and would prefer not to unless it's necessary. Probably the same can be said for most Israelis and most Palestinians as well. But clearly there are exceptions... like the woman who coached her sons to become suicide bombers, and threw a party when her kid had blown himself to smithereens. You said earlier that the inevitability of a compromise is going to sink in eventually, and the only question is how much bloodshed it'll take to get the point to sink in. But I think that there are some people who just aren't going to be persuaded by any amount of bloodshed. -k