kimmy

You know what? Our lawyers and judges get their bigotry the good old fashioned way, they earn it. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/20...n-sentence.html Five pieces of crap show up at a party and beat a 17 year old boy to death with a baseball bat, and the result is a single 4-year sentence, 3 six-month probations, and a trip to juvie hall for the last guy. Why? Because they have "shown remorse" and they're good kids. This is pure dog shit. This is unacceptable. Judge John Maher can fuck off and die. -k

Until the rest of the world gets on the peace train, you can at least understand why I reject the idea that going to war is never justified, right? Until all the Hitlers and Pol Pots and Milosevics and all the other people that we've either fought or should have fought are wearing white poppies of their own, I simply can't get on board with a group that says violence is never justified. -k

Sorry, but where's the contradiction? The white poppy is, according to its manufacturer, an absolute condemnation of all war. But a great many of our veterans, especially those who fought in WWII, strongly believe in the causes they fought for. The red poppy says "we honor your sacrifice for this country", and the white poppy says "what you did was wrong. fighting was wrong. it was a crime." If that's not a direct contradiction, it's close enough for my tastes. Can you name one other than World War 2? WWII is the easy one to pick because it had a villain that everybody hates and everybody agrees on. However, it was hardly the only situation where armed intervention was right, or where not making armed intervention was wrong. Not going to East Timor or Rwanda was a crime against humanity, in my opinion. How about Darfur? Do you put any faith in the view that "all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"? I do. -k

I hope he does the pterodactyl screech when he comes to Canada! YEEEARGH!!! It was fairly notable at the time, if you paid any attention to American media. Jon Stewart had a great time with it. YEEEARGH!!! Unrelated note, holding the convention in Montreal is such a predictable and typical thing. Doing it in Calgary? That would have been ballsy. Vancouver, or Halifax, or Winnipeg, or anyplace else, would have been novel. But of course it had to be Montreal. Why? Quebec, we're going to buy your love back! YEEEARGH!!! -k

So you think we should not work to prevent violent conflict and that war should not be avoided if possible? Their website and their pledge doesn't make mention of "if possible". It speaks in absolutes: It says right there that war is a "crime against humanity," that they "renounce war", and refuse to support *any* kind of war. How does this allow for even the *possibility* that war might be justifiable? Bullshit. Again, it's implicit in their pledge. How can you honor our veterans while also endorsing the idea that war is a crime against humanity and rejecting the notion that any war is necessary? Please provide a cite for this statement. Thanks. Again, the pledge itself. Visit their website: http://www.ppu.org.uk/peace_act/pa_index.html When their pledge itself categorically rejects *any* war, what room does that leave to say that sometimes it's justified or necessary or right? I'm pretty supportive of the idea of peace. I think it would be great if there were no more violence. But their pledge isn't simply a pro-peace statement, it indicates a sort of absolutism usually only found in religious fanatics. I can't support the idea that war is a crime against humanity when our history has examples where it was a bigger crime to *not* fight. -k

Odd, I have never rented a DVD, but I have bought a couple. Not all of them have ads, (or 'trailers' for other shows...perhaps that is the confusion...I don't mean ads for products like Quaker Oats TM, but rather for other DVD's)but some do. In fact, I bought and older Jackie Chan movie called "Project A" (the stuntwork is untouchable) and the ads at the beginning (For some Jet Li movies) can't even be fast-forwarded through. I own about a dozen movies, and two TV show collections, on DVD... and to my collection, not a one of them has ads or trailers for other movies. Perhaps the DVDs with trailers, like rental movies, or apparently your older Jackie Chan movie, have been "subsidized" by their manufacturers by the placement of ads, while major releases, which is the bulk of my collection, are expected to be profitable based on large sales volume alone. Maybe that's the difference, or maybe it's something else. Beats me. At any rate, it's still irrelevant to the linkage August was seeking to create. I don't think it is a misunderstanding, I think that this is where August1991 and myself, differ our opinions from yours. True, TV is designed around breaks, but it is more important (for the cable television market) for the ads to air than the shows. Shows come and go, get moved to different time slots, etc, but ads will appear at the top and bottom (and often elsewhere) of every hour, and you can bet on that more than you can expect to see your favourite show appear in it's same time slot tomorrow. Yes, the networks need to sell ads, and can't be financially viable without them. If that's what you're getting at, then I guess my response is "well, duh." Movies need to sell tickets. Movies aren't financially viable without selling tickets. Movie theatres can't stay open without selling tickets. Movies come and go from the theatres, but the box office is always there. Going by your logic, handing your $11 to the kid in the box office is the most important part of going to the movies, and the actual films are rather secondary. Hey, the supermarket has cashiers. The food that's on the shelfs changes from week to week or year to year, but there's always been cashiers. The supermarket goes broke without the part where you give money to the cashier. So, it would be fair to say that the important part of going to the supermarket is the most important part, and the part where you get food is sort of secondary. (or to borrow August's hyperbole, "I'm surprised they even bother with the food anymore, and just make giving your money to the cashier more entertaining.") Is there 'artistic and intelligent' porn? Perhaps somewhere, but advertisers and producers don't want to take a chance on it. They want what sells, now. Wasn't the movie "Henry and June" (one of Uma Thurman's first major roles) considered "artistic porn" when it was first released? To some people, "artistic" and "porn" are contradictory. For others, being "artistic" moves something out of the category of "porn." I'm sure that there are others who give "3 thumbs up" to the idea that porn is inherently artistic. -k

Only people who actually know what the red poppy represents should be allowed to comment on this. So, I take it that you agree that the veterans have the right to be offended by this, then? Who expressed that belief? Well, the article mentions that the white poppies are purchased from the UK's Peace Pledge Union. The information on the http://www.ppu.org.uk/ppu/index.html certainly seems to suggest that no war is justifiable. This is affirmed in their pledge: Read those again, because this is key: "we should be urgently raising awareness of the causes of violent conflict and looking for the means to prevent it, at all levels, at all costs." "I renounce war, and am therefore determined not to support any kind of war." So, yes, based on their pledge, they do say that going to war against Hitler was wrong. It says they pledge not to support any kind of war. It says they it should have been avoided at all cost. The people who buy the white poppies might not see them as contradictory to the red poppies, but the people who *make* the white poppies certainly intend them that way. The red poppies are intended to honor the veterans. The white poppies, according to their makers, are a complete rejection of war... they say that the veterans who fought against Nazi Germany were wrong to do so. They say that war should have been avoided "at all costs". While I certainly support peace as a general principle, I strongly reject the views expressed by the Peace Pledge Union. As costly as fighting might be, sometimes not fighting is more costly. Avoiding WWII "at all cost" would have come at an unthinkable cost to our humanity. -k

What were they thinking? The article that Figleaf linked to contains what might be a hint: We've had situations in the past where, for instance, there was the appearance that helping out the Liberal Party of Quebec might be a handy way to boost your chances of becoming a judge. Here's the government website about Judicial Advisory Committees: http://www.fja.gc.ca/jud_app/judAdvComMem_e.html It appears a committee is made up of a representative from the Canadian Bar Association, the provincial law society, two from the province, and 3 chosen by the federal justice minister. -k

Most of the "ripped from the headlines" cases are pretty high-profile and tabloidish stuff. Also, is what percentage of the audience "gets" the allegory really a valid criticism of the art itself? I bet a huge percentage of the general public looked at the paintings of Cezanne and Picasso and so-on during their lifetimes and said "Like, what the fuck." That's not to equate TV with fine art. Quite obviously the big difference is that while fine artists need only appeal to a small, sophisticated clientelle, TV has to appeal to a large number of those people who'd be looking at Cezanne and Picasso and scratching their heads. Is it possible to do a show that appeals to a wide range of audience while still doing something artistic or intelligent? Is it possible to do something sophisticated without alienating the dumb-guy demographic? It's one of the only confrontations left between "good guys" and "bad guys" in our society, isn't it? Good guys vs bad guys is probably one of the most central themes in literature going back to the beginnings of human story telling. Peoplehave always wanted to see the good guys confront the bad guys, whether the bad guys are robbers or murderers, shady businessmen, or flesh-eating zombies, or sinister government agents, or terrorists, or space aliens, or Injuns, or mobsters, or frost giants... But what is there that's actually set in 21st century North America? Cops and lawyers. Terrorists, but that's too touchy right now. Everything else is escapist, and though escapism is tremendously popular right now there's a large appetite for something that seems realistic or at least plausible. Maybe a story about ethical and ideological conflict within some hypothetical corporation could be setting for a drama. I don't know what you might do for stories each week, or if people would want to watch... but perhaps it's an idea. -k

Nominal prolifers compromise all the time. many would favour abortion in cases where the mother's health or life were at risk. And I doubt many would support bringing criminal charges against women who have abortions, were they made illegal. Being pro-life, in practice at least, still leaves one with lots of wiggle-room. In matters concerning how the law treats people, for sure. Or for medically necessary abortions. But if one believes life begins at conception, that renders any discussion of late term or 20 weeks or 13 weeks rather irrelevant, doesn't it? It would also, it seems to me, render any discussion of exceptions for victims of rape or incest irrelevant as well. It strikes me as somewhat contradictory for pro-lifers to on one hand claim that the fetus is a person while on the other hand allow exceptions for victims of rape or incest. And yet many pro-life folks seem to take that position. Why? It seems contradictory. Perhaps this is the handiest way of separating the "fetus is a person" people from the "well, she should have been more careful" people. It seems to me that if someone sincerely believes a fetus is a person, then they're "all in" (to borrow an annoying poker metaphor.) It seems to me that if somebody is pro-life, but supports exceptions for rape or incest, then they're actually part of the "she should have been more careful" crowd. -k

I don't think you're going to be able to convince anyone that the Armenian genocide was a hoax, Hasan, but keep your chin up and keep reaching for the stars. -k

To play devil's advocate, and not take sides (because this is an issue that I have a great deal of personal difficulty with...) If someone believes that life begins at conception, then what room is there for compromise? -k

Actually, they put the ads at the front. Mostly of comparable products, too, so you are more likely to buy them. They don't put an ad for the DVD of "The story of Tinkie-Winkie and His Magic Bag" at the beginning of "Chopper Chicks in ZombieTown", I'm pretty sure. Perhaps rental DVDs have ads at the front, but none of the ones that I've purchased have ads. Perhaps the movie studios produce a different grade of DVD for the rental market from those for the retail market. At any rate, it's irrelevant to August's intention of equating artistic merit to the purchase price. Nonsense. Set changes for television shows can happen 20 times between commercial breaks. They pause for commercial breaks because they choose to. I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that commercial breaks are necessary because TV shows need to change the sets. Obviously, they're they're because the network needs to make money. However, I do claim that commercial breaks are a necessity required of the television format. Just as breaks to change sets are a necessity of the live theatre format. (yeah, I'm sure there are examples of TV shows aired without commercial breaks, just like there are one-act plays where the curtain doesn't fall until the end of the show. Almost everything produced for TV is designed around the idea that there'll be breaks.) -k

So, uh, can anybody explain to me what the "Greatest Crisis in Modern History" is without me having to sit through 3 hours and 22 minutes of Lyndon Larouche? The Coles Notes version will do just fine. -k

They said she cares more about her hair than her job. Would a male politician be attacked in similar way? That's debateable. During the election there were plenty of derisive comments about Harper's shitty haircut, but I don't recall any of them being a judgment of his competence, just petty attacks. There were plenty of comments about his "fake looking smile", some of which cast doubt on his sincerity or personal character. It's debateable. However, Stronach and Ambrose have often received a sort of media attention that they wouldn't get if they were 20 years older or 40 pounds fatter. -k

At their peril. While they'll naturally want to capitalize on Bush's plummeting support, they also need to avoid looking petty and vindictive. They need to avoid the appearance that they're putting politics ahead of getting things done. They need to create the appearance that they have goals to achieve and an agenda that goes beyond "Bush sucks". They have to show voters that they have viable policies and something positive to offer in 2008. -k

If people are just watching for the ads, why is there such a massive preference for one show over another? Why do 22.5 million people watch CSI:Miami on Monday nights at 10 pm, while just 7.5 million people watch Studio 60 on at the same time on another station? Does CBS just have more exciting ads than NBC? That seems like an odd supposition... I meant to address this earlier... I completely disagree. I often watch episodes of TV without the ads. I've purchased full seasons of TV programs on DVD. Or if I miss a show I wanted to watch, I simply download a handy, ads-free version off the internet. I find it enjoyable, actually. Of course, the ability to record TV shows on your VCR and fast-forward through the commercials means that people have been essentially watching TV without the ads for years. Watching a TV show with the ads removed, it's easy to tell where the commercial breaks are supposed to be. Is this the point you're making? Indeed. TV shows are structured in such a way. Live theatre is structured with scenes and acts. If you go to an opera, they have intermissions, yes? That the necessity of commercial breaks is taken into account in planning an episode is no different than the fact that closing the curtains to change the sets is taken into account in planning a theatre performance. TV is designed to make you watch-- period. They want you to be interested enough to see what happens next that you'll sit through the ads to find out. So, the online news stories that we all read and link to, they're worthless? If we shelled out $1 for the print edition, it'd be inherently more valuable? If you pay money to see a symphony performance of Mozart, or buy the CD, it's art.... but if you hear it on the CBC its merits somehow decrease? An episode of TV isn't free. It's purchased, at considerable expense, by the network that airs it. Suppose for a moment that an art gallery were run like a business (are they? I honestly don't know.) They'd have to choose which collections to rent, based on how much audience they might bring in and how much it would cost to bring in those collections. And, they'd have to decide how to make money by displaying the collections. Sell tickets? A corporate sponsor ("Gustav Klimt at the Kimmy Gallery... presented by Ford Canada.") Sell souvenirs? A concessions stand? Charge a loonie to use the washroom? Some combination of all of the above? Whatever the gallery's business model, does that alter the merits of the exhibits themselves? I used to get the "Firefly" and "Wonderfalls" TV programs for free. Then their networks cancelled them. Then the shows were released on DVD, and I purchased them. Did the format change-- from free network TV to for-purchase DVD collection-- alter the artistic merits of the material? It's the same shows! Does the fact that most TV series become available for purchase on DVD-- sans ads, by the way-- impact your argument? The arrival of purchaseable downloads of TV episodes? It's true that broadcast TV's business model is increasingly challenged. Between technological challenges (the remote control and VCR make the whole premise that people will watch ads somewhat dubious) and the increasing number of alternatives make it likely that the broadcast networks will have to change the way they make their income. But I don't see that as a comment on the programs themselves. -k

...about what I expected. -k

That is my feeling on the subject. Despite the hysterics of some, Canada's Conservative party has adopted moderate positions on these issues. Even their stance on gay marriage, which gets branded as "hateful" here in Canada, would be considered loony-liberal and a huge victory for the "gay agenda" by American conservatives. While some people seem to feel it's logical that Conservative supporters in Canada would support Republicans in the US, they're really two very different animals. If Canada's Conservatives were ideologically close to the US Republicans, I wouldn't support them. As for the actual results... Let's temper our enthusiasm for a couple of reasons. First off, there's apparently a strong protectionist sentiment among the resurgent Democrats. And, they apparently feel just the same on the passports issue as the Republicans. -k

How are you so sure that the allegations are false? Were you there? Have you got important evidence that the prosecutor needs to know about? Have you contacted him? What makes you say that the trial is being delayed? The alleged attack occured 7 months ago. Not sure if you're aware of it or not, but 7 months is hardly an unusual delay. -k

Perhaps there's hate in the Talmud too, but I can't recall ever hearing about Jews being indoctrinated with hate based on their scriptures. So, are the interviews presented in the film not actual evidence? Are the people who were interviewed actors or something? Is this movie corporate-sponsored? What made you decide that this is "propaganda" rather than "actual evidence"? Is it propaganda if you don't like the message? We've seen in other threads some of the stuff that you consider "evidence"... web videos by the "9/11 Truthies" and the writings of Lyndon Larouche... how is it that that stuff meets your high standards, but this is "propaganda"? I'm just trying to understand the thought process involved. -k

Hey, I've got an idea! How about instead of mass internments, we just continue to let our police and intelligence communities do their jobs? That seems to be working pretty well. Did anybody notice that in the famous Toronto terror plot, informants came forward from within the Muslim community? Did anybody notice that Canada's best known and most controversial Muslim cleric, Aly Hindy, was among those who had been in correspondence with the RCMP about some of the suspects prior to the arrests? The only real way to resolve this, short of mass deportations, is to have the cooperation of Canada's Muslim community. It seems to be coming along slowly... so why alienate them now? -k

And a mass internment of Canada's Muslims would be different somehow? If that's not automatically treating them like enemies, then what is it? There's a remarkable parallel between your line of reasoning and the Taliban's logic for making women dress in tents and stay indoors. "We're not oppressing them, we're protecting them!" How helpful. -k

The reviews on the movie have been rather poor. ThisSlate review claims that despite the provocative concept, the film doesn't actually have much to say. The review makes it sound more like an episode of Law & Order than a political commentary of any sort. This Richard Roeper review complains that the director's vision of the aftermath of the President's assassination is negative-- Cheney in Charge, a Patriot Act III, a swift and questionable trial of the most convenient suspect. Sure, that's probably negative... but is it unrealistic? My gut says no. And, if the movie dealt with President Smith and Vice-President Jones rather than Bush and Cheney, that vision of the future wouldn't be controversial... it wouldn't even be that interesting... it would be predictable, if anything. The director apparently made a similar "documentary" of fictional events recently, depicting the effects of a mass transit strike in Britain. It sounds to me as though his interest is in speculative realism, rather than political commentary. And perhaps he just felt that depicting some imaginary president would be contrary to the objective. Or, perhaps he just thought it would get him some extra publicity. Maybe both. The reviews for Borat, on the other hand, have been overwhelming... Borat: Critics make fresh! You are clicking here for find out more! Favorable reviews outnumber unfavorable by 128 to 5, and an average rating of 8.4 out of 10. Amy Biancolli, Houston Chronicle: -k

Who knows, he might become a big celebrity for doing so. He could attend one of those rehabilitation camps where they cure homosexuality by playing football, watching NASCAR, drinking beer, leaving the toilet seat up, eating chicken wings, and ogling the waitresses at a Hooters restaurant. Then he could return to work as a newly reformed heterosexual and be living proof that homosexuality is a curable condition. O'Reilly: "A lot of people watching this are probably skeptical that you're realy cured. A lot of people are probably asking themselves... he lied before, so how can we believe him now?" Rev. Haggard: "Before, I was duped into the homosexual lifestyle of drugs and massages by the liberal media. But now through the love of our saviour and the healing ministry of the Coach Jones Football and Homosexual Rehabilitation Camp, I lust in my heart for only 3 things: beer, boobies, and righteousness. The good lord baby Jeezus knows that I am speaking the truth." O'Reilly: "Well, that's good enough for me." -k