kimmy

Is it a given that he's any less rabid than the people who voted for him? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_al-Za...awkish_Position And, is it a given that the al Zahar and the people he represents are necessarily opposed to the spilling of blood-- their enemy's or their own-- in the fight for their cause? -k

Gerryhatrick says that the Liberals don't oppose the mission in Afghanistan. In fact, if you look at the Liberal leadership condenders' positions on the subject, you'll notice that Brison and Ignatieff have stated firm support for the mission, and the remainder have taken PaulMartinesque positions where they talk a lot without taking a firm position either way. There's not a single firm commitment to withdraw from Afghanistan from any of the contenders. I think the inference is clear: they know that they could potentially form the next government, and don't wish to make a promise that they'd have no possibility of keeping. (by contrast, it's easy for Jack Layton to pledge things like total withdrawal from Afghanistan, because he'll never be in a position to make good on that commitment.) To make a long story short, I think the message is, don't expect Afghanistan to be a big election issue. Layton will talk a lot about it, but the Conservatives won't because they've already made their commitment and the Liberals won't talk much about it because they they're not going to withdraw our troops and they won't want to talk about that fact. -k

It does appear that their unwitting Hollywood fame has not been all champaigne and Gucci for some of Cohen's "guest stars"... Borat making for embarrass for frat boys, frat boys making for lawsuit for Borat. You look, click here. Borat shenanigans have real-life consequences. The whole concept strikes me as being what Rick Mercer's "Talking to Americans" would be like if it was a comedy. -k

Sorry, but my free time is precious, and I'm not willing to throw 3 and a half hours of it away listening to a speech by a guy who's widely considered a kook. That's why I asked Newb for the Cole's Notes version, and from his explanation it sounds like a very weak theory. Who'd want to spend 3 and a half hours listening to a crazy-person talk about a weak theory? It's a large, and unjustified, leap in logic to assume that just because low-pay, low-skill jobs have gone overseas, high-skilled jobs will do the same. The factors that give these nations an advantage in manufacturing simply don't exist in other areas of enterprise. This is basically just a new spin on the same old theme. It's been, what, about 20 years since we were told that eliminating trade barriers in North America would turn us into a third-world nation? 15 years since Ross Perot was sounding off about the "giant sucking sound" of jobs flying south of the border? And, while there's always individual winners and losers from every economic change, our society as a whole continues to become more prosperous than ever. -k

In Flanders Fields the poppies grow Between the non-denominational grave-markers, row on row -k

Knowledge has been divorced from manufacturing. I can understand why an 84 year old nutbar wouldn't understand this, but I'd expect more from a self-described electrical engineer, since the electrical engineering field is one of the most obvious examples. A considerable portion of the world's electronics are now manufacturered in places like Malaysia, China, and Taiwan. But for the most part, they're designed elsewhere. The knowledge that designed those products comes from places like Canada, the United States, and Japan. The knowledge is here. The part of the process that's been exported to southeast Asia is the part that involves little knowledge at all: semi-skilled workers at assembly lines, earning low wages, and working in barely tolerable conditions. Opponents of "globalization" would point out that we've exported the worst parts of our industry-- the low-paying, dangerous, polluting parts-- to third world countries, while keeping the good parts-- the high paying, knowledge-based, non-polluting portions-- for ourselves. The fact that he has been around for a long time doesn't prove he's smart, it just proves that gullible people have been around for a long time too. -k

And frankly, who cares if it stops terrorists. I'm just hopeful that it will do something to reduce the number of beat-downs and swarmings on public transit. Using public transit can be pretty scary after dark, and for those of us who depend on using transit in off-peak hours, additional security measures will be much appreciated, whether it's enough to stop mad bombers or not. -k

For reference, the statistical work for that article was not done by Roberts. Floyd Rudmin is the one who did the mathematics. Here is the article which Roberts cites: http://www.counterpunch.org/rudmin05242006.html Rudmin's calculations are based on one fundamental and obviously false assumption: his calculations are based on the premise that the NSA is paying equal attention to all 300 million Americans. He states his mistake right in the opening line of his article: We know that's false. They simply don't have the time or resources to spy on 300,000,000 people. We know that they use criteria (such as lists of people of interest, flagged activities such as buying fertilizer, and of course the dreaded Racial Profiling) to narrow their focus considerably. Redoing the calculations using a number much smaller than the 300,000,000 figure on which Floyd bases his calculations will yield much different results. As they say, there's "lies, damned lies, and statistics." In this case, he's created misleading results by incorporating bad assumptions into his calculations, or to borrow another phrase, "garbage in, garbage out." He came up with the numbers he came up with because he has an axe to grind. -k

Hopefully I will not be branded a hateful lemming for posting two in a row... Yeah, but the Ageofconsent.ca site claims that in Bill C-2, "the definition of 'exploitation' is quite broad and open to interpretation." Perhaps they hope that this will encourage people to believe that it could be used in situations where adults have taken advantage of gullible teens. In fact, it probably means the opposite... if the definition is "broad and open to interpretation", it's unlikely that it'll be used at all, except in the most glaring instances. Gay teens are probably at an even higher risk of exploitation by predatory adults due to the factors you mention. There are more avenues available in the present day for them to find like-minded people of their own age. There are also more avenues available for predatory adults to contact them. I would suggest that going outside the age group is less necessary than it was when Svend was a teenager, and that since it's easier than ever for adult predators to identify and take advantage of confused kids, an additional deterent effect will be worthwhile. I'm also somewhat disgruntled that I just used the word "necessary" in describing a 14-year olds' sex life. Since when is it "necessary", for either gay or straight kids, to find sexual partners before they're 16? I turned out to be a happy and well-adjusted person, and I wasn't sexually active until I was 18. I mean, if a gay 14 year old can't find a partner closer to his own age, is it really going to kill him to buy a jar of Vaseline and a copy of Muscle & Fitness and wait until he's 16? -k

By and large, 14 year olds lack maturity. Do you actually know anything about the legislation that's being discussed? The law under discussion has a "close in age" clause that says it is not criminal to be sexually active with a 14 or 15 year old provided that you're within 5 years of their age. This legislation would not make you a criminal for getting with your 15 year old girlfriend while you were 18. Nor would it make criminals of the sexually curious highschool kids that you speak of. If by "get back into the bedrooms of the nation," you mean "discourage adults from getting with 14 year olds," then I agree... As for how much impact this will have, that's certainly questionable... but conversely I don't see any reasonable objections to this bill that aren't addressed in the "close in age" clause. -k

And, it's clear that the Liberal caucus has divided opinions on the mission in Afghanistan: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/liberals/afghanistan.html -k

Where did you get the misguided idea that Liberals and their supporters don't agree with what Clinton said? It's pretty much common sense. I specified Liberal supporters, not Liberals. Recent polls have indicated decreasing support for the Canadian mission in Afghanistan, and I assume that a fair chunk of those who have ceased to support the mission are Liberal supporters. Do you disagree? -k

That's something that many of us who support Canada's continued participation in Afghanistan believe. (both parts: that the Taliban's return would be a nightmare for the Afghan people, and that it would give al Qaeda a safe haven.) It is gratifying to hear those words spoken by somebody who is respected by many Liberal supporters in Canada. Perhaps Clinton's comments will give them cause to reassess their feelings about the Afghan mission. -k

The extent to which they're "quick and accurate" is debatable only to the extent that you wish to dicker on the definition of accurate. They're undeniably quick. Perhaps the Nielsen ratings are not accurate to the degree of precision that ballots or sales receipts are, but these are large sample, scientifically conducted samples that are considered to have a good statistical accuracy. As with any kind of polling, the methodology isn't perfect, but it's probably a better and more consistent poll with less room for bias than typical political polls. The Nielsen ratings may not be accurate enough to tell which show is Stephane Dion and which is Gerald Kennedy, but it's accurate enough to determine which shows are Stephane Dion and which are Joe Volpe. And certainly accurate enough to determine which shows are Michael Ignatieff and which are Hedy Fry. And this is what makes money for the network. They can demand premium rates for shows that receive a "Michael Ignatieff" response from viewers. They can charge good rates for "Stephane Dion" and "Gerald Kennedy" shows. They probably have to give discounts to advertisers for "Joe Volpe" programming. And "Hedy Fry" programs cost the network a lot of money, because they're going to have to give their advertisers refunds for advertising in that time slot. (taken out of sequence, but I'll address it here.)I still can't figure out why you and T-bag keep repeating that the advertisers decide what's on, but you're wrong. They don't. The viewers do, through the mechanism of the Nielsen ratings. The networks make this decision based on their financial self-interest, as detailed above, based on the desires of the viewing public as measured by large-scale polling research. The mechanism by which they get paid might be different, but networks decide what to put in their programming slots in the same way that supermarkets decide what to put on their shelves. Are you saying TV producers are like dictators? It's just the opposite. The whole TV industry is a huge exercise in democracy. Unlike the crappy textbook or a badly thought out government program, a TV program that misses the mark will be gone from the TV in a matter of weeks. TV programs are like political candidates, and the viewers vote with their remote controls. Like a political candidate, a tv producer comes up with a premise that he hopes will appeal to the voters... and they ultimately "elect" the program they choose. And, as with governments, people usually get the TV they deserve, which is often a disappointing outcome. It's not easy or cheap to make a TV show. It's a multi-million dollar investment. Even cheap-to-produce "reality tv" shows cost a considerable chunk of money to put together. It's like any other business venture-- a big investment that's more likely to fail than succeed. A producer doesn't risk money and effort because it's cheap or easy to do so. They do it because the financial rewards of a successful series are considerable, and because they believe that they've come up with a product that can beat the odds (or, perhaps, because they've got a clever accountant who can turn it into a good write-off if it fails...)As for whether TV is "good", it's certainly not my contention that it's high art. This whole discussion started off as a tiff between Argus and myself over whether present-day TV is worse than it was back in the "good old days", and my contention was not so much that what's on TV right now is great, but rather that the shows of yesterday were by and large really crappy. I do believe television is an art medium, but how much of what's on TV at any given moment is *good* art, or art at all, is quite debateable. -k

I'm puzzled by the objections. (1) I have no idea how this is a gay rights issue. I don't understand why Svend Robinson and E.G.A.L.E. believe it is. (2) I don't see any reasonable objections that aren't addressed by the "close in age" 5 years exemption. This doesn't stop younger teens from exploring their sexuality... it just prevents them from doing so with adults. Opponents of bill C-22 have made a handy website to voice their concerns: http://www.ageofconsent.ca/ One interesting point they raise is that (from the Dept Justice page promoting Bill C-2: That's swell in principle, but if Ageofconsent.ca is correct in claiming that "the definition of 'exploitation' is quite broad and open to interpretation" ...then it's going to be practically useless in practice. Right? I mean, we've seen two examples in the past week of judges who don't consider bludgeoning people to death with baseball bats to be murder, so why would anybody have any faith in them to make any use of a "broad and open to interpretation" definition of exploitation? -k

Advertisers don't buy TV shows. The networks buy TV shows. They do so based on their anticipation of audience tastes. "How many people would people watch this?" and "Which people would watch this?" In this sense, your analogy to Christmas shopping or government programs is a good one. However, unlike either of those situations, the network has quick and accurate metrics to determine whether the "present" they bought for their audience was well received. And unlike either of those situations, the network has a financial stake in the result. The network isn't selling a program to advertisers, they're selling eyeballs. If the show they've purchased fails to attract a sufficient viewership, they can't charge as much money for their ads. A further note on this train of thought: couldn't it equally be applied to any commercial enterprise, artistic or otherwise? If you're making a movie, you're spending a bunch of money in the anticipation that there'll be an audience that wants to see the end result. Or a play, or a painting, or an opera, or the 2007 Dodge Nitro. Like a TV program that a network airs that fails to connect with an audience, just about anything else you care to name is created and invested in before its market is proven to exist. The wikipedia page on Shakespeare suggests that while he was not regarded as highly as he later came to be, he was hardly anonymous: At any rate, I do agree with the premise that what is popular at the moment might not be what stands the "test of time". One needn't go back centuries to find examples of that fact. I mentioned Bruckheimer not because of his movies, but because his TV productions are, at present, the most commercially successful in the medium.I wasn't aware that Shakespeare wasn't considered commercially successful in his time; I had assumed he was. But is that the point? He undoubtedly wrote his plays with the notion that they'd be playing to large audiences... as part owner of a theatre company, he had a financial stake in doing so. I will have to make a point of seeing that. House is a TV program about a medical doctor, yes. Dr House's most notable characteristic, though, is his misanthropic view of people in general, and that he is (to put it charitably) a curmudgeon, which I suspect is why cybercoma thought Argus might relate to him. -k

Indeed, I took English 200 at the University of Calgary, and while Chaucer was good for some chuckles, I really didn't care for the bulk of it. I suppose the problem lies with the definition of 'art'. It is far too broad, in my opinion, and I generally equate tv as akin to the Mexican guy who had seven vials of his own masturbatory spunk in a wheelbarrow (who was given money by the Banff Centre for the Arts). What? Why on earth would you equate TV with THAT?If anything, if one is comparing TV to the "fine arts", I'd say the criticism lies in most TV being too far the opposite direction. I'd say weird experimental euro-films that run at arty festivals are more like the Mexican ... wanker; too "hip" or "edgy" or "high concept" for anybody to find any enjoyment in. TV, on the other hand, would be more like the dude who makes genuine oil paintings at the shopping mall. Yep, they're real paintings, and yep, they look nice... all the grannies stop and say "Now *that's* a nice painting... not like that Voice of Fire crap that the government spent 3 million dollars on." But they all look pretty much the same. Autumn sunset in a mountain valley. Or, sometimes, dawn in a mountain valley. Sometimes, it's mid-day, and hhe changes it up by putting pine trees instead of poplars. The dude churns out 10+ of the things each day, and nothing about any of them is unique or inventive. But put one next to a Van Gogh, and the grannies would pick the shopping mall painting to put in their living room, because it looks "nice", and the Van Gogh is all "sloppy" and "looks like a kid painted it." That's TV. I suppose that this is the only true 'art', for even Bill Waterston or Berkely Breathed likely started drawing for their own amusement, and their friends told them "Hey, this is great, you should try to sell it." Does selling it make it stop being 'art'? Not really, but it starts having a different purpose. I don't get it. It becomes compromised when it starts becoming commercially viable?Incidently, this is somewhat the opposite of August's view that seeks to link artistic merit to market value. If The difference between Bill Watterson's friends were seeing his 4-panel comics for free and laughing their asses off, compared to Watterson selling the strips to newspapers to become part of the collection of content that readers pay $1 a day for, compared to a consumer shelling out $20 for a paperback compendium of his comics? Beats me. This whole discussion about why the business model is so linked to the artistic merit of the material somewhat escapes me. William Shakespeare was the Jerry Bruckheimer of his day, wasn't he? His plays were written expressly with the intention of finding mass audiences at the theatres of the time, yes? Hundreds of years later, his plays are still regarded as among the most significant works of English-language literature, aren't they? If I recall, Richard Wagner was mostly concerned with getting laid and getting paid. Does that have any impact on our views of his operas or his symphonies? This is why I don't consider tv to be 'art'. If influencing the mind, improving society, or making people contemplate life are viewed to be components of art, then where would that leave something like, say, an abstract painting or a piece of instrumental music?Is a Mozart instrumental "art"? Most people would probably say so... but it doesn't contain any thoughts or ideas. It might evoke a mood, might cause the listener some emotional response, but it doesn't have any social or philosophical ambitions. Doesn't the act of creating something that people find to be palatable in itself constitute "art"? Again, is this any different from Shakespeare creating palatable ways of liberating sheckles from the pockets of Londoners? -k

Well, hopefully one would find enjoyment in the joie de vivre (with just a touch of insouciance) that a Kimmy experience brings to their day. To some, Kimmy might provide the same sort of uplifting experience one might receive from a good novel. For others, a dash of Kimmy might be more akin to a soft drink or a handful of gummy bears. For some, even a smidgeon of Kimmy might cause a reaction comparable to horrible food allergies. Needless to say, no actual guarantee of enjoyment of Kimmy is expressed or implied, and individual results may vary. As for Leafless... I've found a handy graphical aid that illustrates how this thread has gone for Leafless: click here. -k

Why does he keep posting that same graph as if it means anything? What's "UAH"? What's "MSU"? How can you visually interpret that graph without applying some sort of averaging? It's impossible to determine any temperature trend in its current form. I went to the Columbia icefield a couple of years ago with my dad, who remembers what that glacier was like in the 1970s. His reaction is all the evidence I need to know that climate change is taking place here in Alberta. -k

I'm not sure if you're being obtuse on purpose, or just can't help it. The point is that *every* form of art ever devised faces limitations. In some cases, it's unavoidable (dancers can't exceed the limitations of the human body or defy the laws of physics) and in some cases it's purely arbitrary (the 5-7-5 format of the haiku.) TV faces limitations of time-- the program must last half hour or an hour, with space for either 8 or 16 minutes of ads, respectively. That the constraint of time and the necessity of including commercial interruptions is driven by the business model. And? It seems that you can't see past the fact that commercial breaks are a necessity of the business model, unlike other limitations that result from technological limitations or physical limitations or simply by tradition. I don't know why you're so hung up on that, or what it has to do with anything. Rubbish, the bulk of it lowers rather than elevates. There is a saying I saw on a friend's mom's fridge, many years ago..."Great minds discuss ideas, Lesser minds discuss events, And small minds discuss people". TV generally sticks to even beneath these, but will try to sell any of them for the quickest buck possible. It doesn't try to elevate anything, and if it does it is incidental. That is not it's purpose. Often times I thought it would be more elevating to hit myself over the head with a brick than read through some of the stuff I had to read in Lit class, but I still realize that the fact that I didn't like it doesn't mean it wasn't "art". Maybe someday when you've grown up a little and realized the same we can continue. -k

Every war ever fought started was justified in the minds of those who started it, no? So what's your point? Hitler thought going to war for liebensraum was justified. Kimmy thinks that armed intervention to stop the slaughter in Rwanda or East Timor would have been justified, or that armed intervention to stop the slaughter in Darfur would be justified. While I guess it's subjective, I don't think that just because me and Adolf both believe our causes are justified puts both causes on equal moral footing. Beautifully put, CA. Really? I thought it was kind of melodramatic and maudlin. As Canadians, how many wars have we participated in that have been for the benefit of "greedy merchants"? Let's hear it. Reel 'em off. -k

Nobody supports terrorists. As for the US taking concrete action, that's an excellent idea. What will they do? Invade Iraq? Try to hunt down Osama Bin Laden? Excellent plan. -k

wassup, T-bag? I don't know, I never heard of it. Henry & June was the first film to receive the "NC-17" rating. I'm sure she's crushed. "Duh" indeed. Actually, this is what I was alluding to... I am saying that the breaks for TV are not 'just like live theatre breaks'. They are not at all related to 'artistic merit'. Breaks in live theatre are not related to artistic merit either. They're a limitation imposed by the medium. And you can't name for me a single art form that doesn't have some limit imposed upon it by its own medium. In some cases (such as movies, painting, sculpture, writing and poetry) the art is limited by the ability of its medium to portray what the artist wishes to convey (movies are limited to 2 dimensions and only 2 of the 5 senses. sculptures are limited by the laws of physics and the mechanical characteristics of the material being shaped. Writing and poetry are limited by the limited ability of words to convey ideas or feelings or images. Some forms of writing (haiku or sonnets) even have self-imposed limitations. And all art forms face limitations in the amount of resources available to the artist. We tend to forget that Shakespeare's plays were written to appeal to the masses too. Is TV "art"? August addressed this quite succinctly earlier: "But moving pictures themselves are arguably European (the 7th Art). And TV is just moving pictures." Wikipedia's page defines art as: So what about that would discount an episode of a TV drama? -images, sights, sounds? check -realize the imagination of the artist? check -self expression or shared enjoyment? Hey, just because *you* don't enjoy it, T-bag... -elevates our interpretation of the world and of ourselves? Earlier in this thread, Argus was explaining how Archie Bunker and Maude and MASH made people think about controversial issues or question authority. And we were discussing whether the "ripped from the headlines" shows make think about current events. While most people would probably consider TV to be closer to "simple description" than "the sublime", but I think that any attempt to portray human dilemnas can be considered an attempt to "elevate our interpretation of the world or of ourselves". -k

You can search for more of his greatest hits from his profile page. As I recall, aside from his intense dislike of Orhan Pamuk, Hasan is interested in philosophical issues, writing bad poetry, calling the European Union a bunch of Sodomites, and blaming the Armenian genocide on the English. -k

Well, that explains why I don't remember it. -k