kimmy

This whole "Doggy-gate" issue is a non-issue to Conservative supporters. I mean, if he were caught lying about strong-arming the Business Development Bank of Canada into giving his friend a loan, or his personal acquaintence with ad-executives or that sort of thing, then maybe. But this issue is so trivial that I simply don't care about any aspect of it. I fully support him lying about it, in fact, if it causes Belinda Stronach even a moment of consternation. As far as I am concerned, he should have simply told her to go fuddle-duddle herself rather than denying the dog remark. The whole issue is a joke to start with and simply can't care much whether MacKay lied when he denied calling her a dog. And for those who say "if he lies about a small issue like this, he probably lies about big issues too!" Absolutely. It's just like how when you can't trust somebody to obey the small laws like jaywalking or the speed limit, how can you trust them to obey big laws like murder and arson? I mean, it's the same thing. It's gravely serious. -k

Link Yes, the apology was a bit late, but at least it came eventually. How long will it take MacKay to acknowledge what he said? Well, it's nice that she apologized, I suppose. But the question is, what sanctions, if any, did she face for being caught lying to Parliament? None, so far as I can tell. Sure, I suppose it's possible she actually thought she had received a letter that she never received. I supposed it's equally possible that Peter MacKay thought that the MP across the floor had actually stolen his canine. I mean, anything's possible. Didn't she get re-elected a couple of times after she did that? Just wondering. To answer the question, it honestly doesn't matter much to me. I hate Fry, and what she said just confirmed my opinion of her. I'm sure that people who supported her weren't swayed much by the situation either-- perhaps they felt that she was just trying to make a point, or that her overall efforts aren't diminished by one lapse of judgment. I feel that this controversy is about the same. It's a big deal to people who already oppose the Conservatives, it's a non-issue to people who already support the Conservatives... and I suspect that when voters go to the polls they'll have bigger issues on their mind than this tempest in a teapot. -k

I had this argument with someone here on MLW once before, a couple of years ago, perhaps. People say "American TV is garbage," and point to the continued existence of reality shows to prove the point. But "reality shows" have been on TV for a very long time. People gripe about "American Idol" and so-on, but forget that "Star Search" or "The Gong Show" were doing the same thing decades earlier. "Reality TV" is generally used to refer to non-actors in unscripted situations competing for prizes... isn't that the definition of "game show"? Those have been around since the 1950s, if not earlier, were they not? I find it odd when people from the era when Star Search and Wheel of Fortune and Jeopardy were on in prime time now point at American Idol and Survivor as proof of how TV has gone to hell since the good old days. And, it's largely beside the point, anyway. The popularity and prevalence of "reality shows" has declined sharply in the past couple of years. And, to further rebutt critics who point to reality TV as evidence that the quality of TV has declined, I point out that the rise of reality TV shows came at the expense of "sit-coms", not of quality drama. The sit-com is the lowest of low-brow programming, and it has become virtually extinct. I can listen to people who claim that movies used to be better, or that music used to be better... I don't generally agree, but I'll at least consider the idea. But when people tell me that TV used to be better, I generally knock over their table and pour my drink on their carpet. I'm sorry, but that's just ludicrous. I might be younger than most of you, but I am not such an infant that I don't know what kind of garbage you guys used to watch on TV. I am old enough to remember some of the 1980s for myself, and I've seen even more of this crap on channels that re-run older programs. And frankly, this stuff sucked. It was crap. Aside from a small number of exceptions like The Hill Street Blues or Archie Bunker, very little programming from older eras compares well to today's shows. I mean, the evidence is out there. Anybody who chooses to do so can torture themselves by watching a few hours of the television of "the good old days" and find out first hand what dog-shit you guys used to watch. Very little of it deserves to be remembered, and very little stands up well against today's shows. -k

Small quibble with this point-- Corner Gas averages 1.4 million viewers, which is a big hit by Canadian standards. Hockey Night In Canada is lucky to get 1.4 million viewers on a typical weekend. Even the most watched shows-- CSI, Grey's Anatomy-- don't reach 2 million viewers. If one judges what's worth watching by how many viewers it draws, then the ratings say Corner Gas is worth watching. But I understand your argument about Canadian-made programming not being cost-effective compared to the cost of buying an episode of an American show. If we accept the goal of promoting Canadian-made programming, and accept that government money is necessary to accomplish it... here's a question: is running a national network a cost-effective way to promote Canadian content? It seems to me that for the annual cost of operating the CBC, the Canadian government could subsidize an awful lot of Canadian-made programming. What if CBC stations were sold off to local operations or smaller networks (Chum City, Craig Media...) and Canadian content requirements were increased, while larger subsidies were made available for people wanting to produce Canadian shows? -k

So, the Liberals raised all kinds of uproar regarding the remark and even threatened to block House business until Stronach received an apology, now say that the remark isn't the issue, but rather that he denies having called her a dog. That's kind of a change in tune, isn't it? It seems somewhat reminiscent of Kenneth Starr vs Bill Clinton. Starr was extremely concerned with Clinton's sexual impropriety... up until the point where Clinton was shown to have lied, at which point the sexual impropriety became a non-issue and the focus shifted to perjury. However, just as Clinton equivocated the accusation based on the question of whether receiving a hummer constituted having sex with that woman, MacKay also has an out. He might have insinuated that Stronach is a dog, but he did not in fact *call* her one. While that might be quibbling over semantics, that's about as much respect as this "issue" deserves. So, the other question. How big of a deal IS lying to Parliament, anyway? There's no doubt that a great many lies have been uttered in the House over recent years (surely we all remember the Chretien era?) but how many have been proven to be lies? Well, there's one obvious example that stands out. "They are burning crosses in Prince George as we speak!" Ok, she could have been exaggerating for dramatic effect. But then she claimed to have a letter from the Mayor of Prince George documenting cross-burnings. Which was a bald-faced lie, and shows that the earlier statement was intended to be taken as fact. Ok, so what consequences did Hedy Fry face for lying to Parliament in such brazen fashion? Yes, she was eventually shuffled out of Cabinet (because she was an embarrassment to the Liberals, not as punishment for having lied per se.) But did she face any censure from the Speaker or from Parliament? Aside from eventually being left out of Cabinet, did Fry face any punishment for having lied to Parliament? I don't recall that she did. I don't even recall her being forced to apologize. If that's the precident for what happens when people lie to Parliament, then sorry, but no: lying to Parliament isn't a serious matter at all. -k

The CBC is involved in the Slave Trade? For real? -k What do you mean? You said "What has the CBC done for me lately? The Slave Trade." I mean, surely after what you said in the other thread, you're not expecting me to go and do a bunch of reading to figure out if you're talking about some sort of documentary, or a new sit-com, or CBC's new collective labour agreement. "Read your own bloody sources and then explain them to the rest of us. ...I am busy enough trying to keep up with my own sources thank you very much." ...as somebody famously put it. -k

I disagree. I have had numersous Muslim classmates and co-workers who, aside from their aversion to the mystery-meat at the cafeteria, were rather indistinguishable from everybody else. I believe that such people constitute by far the majority of Muslims in our country. They're not particularly notable on the street, they're not in the news, and they aren't making trouble. They go about their business and function well in our society. Unfortunately, in the mind of the general public at large, "Muslim" means the pyjama-wearing meat-heads rather than the well-adjusted Muslims who just go about their business like the rest of us. "Christians" encompasses both decidedly normal folk as well as frothing at the mouth, speaking-in-tongues kooks... but by and large people recognize the kooks for what they are-- the exceptions. Hopefully that will happen for Muslims some day, as people come to realize that there are far more normal Muslims than kooks in the bunch. -k

The CBC is involved in the Slave Trade? For real? -k

In Canada, Christians can (and have) been charged under hate crimes legislsation for quoting religious teachings regarding homosexuality. The case of the Saskatchewan man who was successfully prosecuted for hate speech for buying a newspaper ad that quoted the Bible on the subject is the well known example. I'm very curious as to whether the law would be as eager to go after Muslims on the subject as it has been to go after Christians. And Black Dog, why do you feel that this is about right-wingers vs Brown People? This is a dichotomy that's going to get increasingly confused over the next few years, as many of the most conservative people in this country are, in fact, brown people. Surely I'm not the only one who recalls how upset the Liberals got over the gay marriage issue when Stephen Harper was attempting to reach out to Sikhs on "family values", or when the Golden Temple in Amritsar gave the Liberals the smack-down over the issue. The old line of thought that equated right-wing with white and Christian and Liberal with all the colors of the rainbow and all the faiths of the earth is going to go the way of the passenger pigeon. And while conservative Christianity might indeed be better at hiding its bigotry than conservative Islam, I'd suggest that a more significant difference is that Christians, even the most conservative, have accepted that religious law doesn't hold sway in western democracies, which apparently is a distinction that some conservative Muslims are having a difficult time with. I'm a lot more in line with August's view on the issue: the battle for our country's future isn't between White People and Brown People, or Christians vs Muslims. It's rationality vs obscurantism. -k

*cough*cough*ignatieff*cough* After decades of rule by lawyers, how much worse could an economist really be? -k

You are making an assumption on my part. When did I grant you that right? Less Kimmy please. Perhaps. Probably a very good assumption. Do you disagree? Did you recognize the name "Hossam Abdul Raouf" when you heard it? Did you think "Ahhh. The al-Qaeda analyst and editor of Vanguard of Kharasan magazine and al-Qaeda strategist"? Do you think others were likewise aware, or do you think maybe "al-Qaeda strategist" would have been a more informative description? If I write a message in the future regarding Sayed Ali or Said Hussein, should I just take it for granted that you know who they are? O come on now, aren't you stretching a bit? Not at all. Reread what you wrote and tell me how you can say you were doing anything other than scoffing at the article based on the paper it came from. or Rita Katz? Indeed. -k

The fact that this has become an issue in Parliament, and apparently an issue for voters as well, makes me despair for the future of this country. This belongs right down there with the Inky Mark / Reg Alcott dispute or with Volpe trying to turn the "Libranos" poster into a political issue as among the most pathetic wastes of time I've ever heard of. If MacKay did in fact call Stronach a dog, then MacKay owes a big apology to dogs everywhere. That is all. Good day. -k

Wasn't he an accountant? From the wikipedia entry: -k

As the article mentioned, his name is "Hossam Abdul Raouf" Does the name mean anything to you? No? Me neither. The description "an al-Qaeda strategist" is more informative. If you were skeptical of the description, perhaps you should indeed have read the article rather than dismissing it out of hand because it came from the National Post. You suggested that the author probably got the information from random folks he met in downtown Ottawa, apparently because you don't consider the paper credible. You've thrown in your lot with the people who dismiss anything they see on CBC or CNN or the Toronto Star because they don't like the source. Outstanding. The real question here is, in fact, not how credible is the National Post, but how credible is this "SITE Institute"? -k

This is comparable to Archie Bunker telling George Jefferson that he's not a racist, and reading George some skinhead tracts and Stormfront recruiting literature to demonstrate that his own views are quite balanced. -k

1. I don't think it's viable to pigeonhole some 'conspiracies' as loony just based on individual feelings of what seems far-fetched. To some it was no doubt unthinkable that Nixon could be a crook. But he was. We have thousands of years of examples that demonstrate that men and women are capable of dishonesty, so the notion that Nixon might be dishonest is hardly unthinkable by any objective observer. On the other hand, we have no documented cases of humans transmogrifying into 8 foot tall talking lizards, and there's no rational reason to suggest that such a thing ever has happened or ever will happen. Because they're stupid? I put them in the same catagory as 8 foot lizards because the notion of people with crystals on sticks changing the weather or acquiring super-powers by sleeping in a tin-foil box seems completely bonkers. Likewise there is no rational reason to believe in 'original sin', or that an ancient guy's death could somehow expiate it. Or that there are 72 virgins awaiting suicide bombers in heaven, or that the world rests on 4 elephants standing on a turtle. Well, I agree completely (click on "fanciful" and "strange" in the original post.) However, in a cowardly effort to avoid controversy and keep this thread from getting derailed, I decided to leave major religions out of the discussion, as I mentioned in my last post. I don't think a desire to belong is particularly consonant with conspiracy theorists, whose beliefs usually seem to set them apart rather than draw them closer to others. Though, persecution seems to be a common thread among conspiracy theories. It seems common among a number of these theories that "the Man" (in some form or another) is threatened by their ideas and is trying to keep "the Truth" from being known. You know. Traditional scientists try to discredit Orgones because it threatens their livelyhood. The Z.O.G. controls the police and the courts. The Illuminati control the media. The 8 foot tall lizards control the highest reaches of political power. Bush and Cheney are trying to suppress knowledge of NESARA to keep Rocket Jesus and the Star Angels away and maintain their grasp on power. etc etc. Maybe these people find some sort of personal validation in being persecuted. Maybe believing that you're being persecuted because you're a threat to The Man is better for your self-esteem than admitting you're persecuted because you're a smelly deadbeat. That seems more likely, but why pick giant lizards when the local food bank needs volunteers? There must be something more at work. How about the "Matrix" fantasy? You've seen the movie, right? Keanu Reeves, as "Neo", learns that the entire world is actually a computer simulation designed to keep human minds entertained and enslaved... and the only ones that know the truth are Neo and his rebel cohorts. There seems to be some appeal to believing that you're in on a big secret that everybody else is ignorant of. -k

Something struck me as particularly odd about this claim: One of the first lessons we learn about genetics in highschool is the story about the experiment conducted by August1881 who proved that you can cut the tails off of generation after generation of mouse, and yet the next generation will be born with tails. How is it, then, that a lack of mandibular exercise will result in the next generation being born with a weaker jawline? We owe it to the memory of those generations of maimed mice to remember that acquired characteristics are not passed on to following generations. You can eat processed food, live on soup and pate, or pull out all your teeth and suck your meals through a straw, and it won't make a lick of difference to what your kids look like. A weaker jawline evolves if, and only if, a weaker jawline provides some survival advantage or greater reproductive success: higher odds of weak jawlined individuals passing contributing that characteristic to future generations. But that would seem contradictory to the whole thesis that future generations will be choosy about their reproductive partners and place high emphasis on looks. Are we sure this theory was written by an expert? I still say hoax. valuable Kimmy-Points up for grabs! -k

Hoax? I'll bet 100 valuable Kimmy-Points that this is the work of the same guy who created the imaginary scientific report that blondes would be extinct within 200 years. -k

Ok, suppose we set aside 9/11 theories, because that is just sidetracking the thread. And we can leave out the major religions, because that'll sidetrack the thread too. In the interest of harmony, let's stick with stuff like David Icke and his 8-foot tall lizards. Or NESARA. Or Orgones. Or chem-trails. I am sure that everybody here can at least agree that *that* stuff is completely nuts. There seems to be no rational reason to believe that the British royals, the Bush family, and Boxcar Willie are actually 8-foot tall lizards. There seems to be no rational reason to believe that Jesus is returning on a rocket ship with a legion of "star angels" to declare a one-world government and cancel everybody's credit card debts. Or that the vapors left behind by airplanes are actually Secret Mind Control chemicals. But, there seem to be a considerable number of people who believe in exactly those things. We've had more than a few visits to this forum from people trying to propagandize for these very ideas. What attracts people to such *bullshit*? Black Dog suggests: But ... I'm not sure that's satisfactory. I mean, if 8-foot tall lizards are the answer... ...what was the question?! I earlier proposed that there might be something hardwired into the human mind that makes us want to believe in things. I'm sure I'm not the originator of the notion, but I don't know where I might have become acquainted with it. Humans have always rallied together around beliefs, even nonsensical ones. Tribes. Clans. Religions. Political parties. Nations. "Granfalloonery." Currently, we who believe in Mighty Mullet band together to support him, and to oppose those who follow the sinister Eighty-Three Teeth. Does professional sport fill a void in our modern lives by creating a fictitious tribe to be part of? And if so, could this be the same void that draws people to these kooky theories? While I could (perhaps...) believe that some of these outrageous ideas might help someone rationalize the world around them, isn't it likely that identifying with these ideas meets some sort of need to have a cause or a crusade or something to belong to? -k

I personally believe that blondes have become the ultimate fashion accessory. What better way to show you've made it in the world than to have a trophy on your arm? And for black men in particular, what better way to show you've made it in the white-man's world than to have a white man's trophy on your arm? What a great status symbol-- much better than a Mercedes, for sure. That's priceless! Judging from the letters page, some people appear to not get it. I got one of these as an Xmas gift from somebody who does not know anything about my political views(she had just returned from Cuba). I'm going to wear it as a stealth shirt, some people will have a rude awakening when they try the 'revolutionary brother' routine with me. OMG, I was wearing my Guevara T-shirt the other day, and Leah comes up to me, and she's like "OMG, who is that DISHY Latino guy on your t-shirt?" and I'm like "I don't know, but OMG, doesn't he have the CUTEST beret?" -k

I agree but only in so much as the brand, Dove, has tried to make a connection that no other brand may be doing. [i have no idea how all of the other brands advertize (I just pick the cheapest soap!) but my guess is that they suggest that their products are better than the leading competitor yadda yadda yadda something to the effect that their soap is special and can do special things.]After seeing the ad, a buyer will think: "They understand me." [usually, when it comes to making a sale, the best thing is to be a good listener. Buyers never want to be ignored regardless of whether they can be satisfied or not and they NEVER want to feel like they are being duped.] When the consumer goes to the shelf to choose a bar of soap, the product recognition may work. Dove will stand out even if the soap does nothing special. I think this somewhat captures the essence of the issue. If I might point to beer ads as a comparison... Many beer ads try to associate their product with a wild party attitude... and that likely misses the mark for a large segment of the buyers. "I know that buying a case of Molson will not transform my bland apartment into a bitchen party-zone," a buyer might say, "and even if it would, I'm not sure that I would want that sort of chaos going on in my home anyway." Other ads try to appeal to those consumers with a different approach-- emphasizing the product itself ("mountain-spring water," or so on...) or trying to associate it with a different mindset (an adult enjoying a beer with some friends, or suggesting that beer is the natural thing to drink while you're watching hockey.) I believe that Dove has recognized that a large portion of the marketplace for skin/hair/beauty products simply didn't identify with the traditional beauty product marketting, just as a large portion of beer buyers didn't identify with wild party advertising. Dove is attempting to appeal to women who are not gullible enough to believe a shampoo can give their hair the tensile strength of steel or to believe that they just need a couple of beauty products to look like the models in other companies' ads. Is it a zero-sum game? Kind of. Just as Unilever hasn't created the need for soap, it probably hasn't convinced women to use more soap than they used to. The amount of soap I buy remains fairly constant, as far as I can determine. I suspect that if this campaign has been successful for Dove, the success has come at the expense of Dove's competitors. I think your phrase "socially useful" raised some eyebrows in this thread. I know that you're by no means under the belief that Dove is running a public service campaign, but perhaps others might have thought you were suggesting that this campaign is motivated by altruism. I do think it's socially useful, even while still being at its core an advertising campaign. I don't see the two as being contradictory (although that's often the case.) At the heart, these are essentially attack ads. They're attacking the assumptions underlying their competitors' advertising. A while back, a local car dealership ran ads that blatantly lampooned some of their competitors' ads. ("Are you really dumb enough to believe that they'll give you a guaranteed $2000 trade-in for your rusted-out 1981 Chevette? Do you really thing the cost of that Free Trip To Hawaii doesn't come out of your own pocket?" and so on.) And while it was shameless dog-eat-dog competition, I think it was socially useful too. If it got consumers to apply a little critical thinking to some of the gimmicks dealerships use to sell their cars, then it was socially useful. And I think that the Dove campaign is socially useful in exactly the same way. -k

I posted this in another thread, but I thought it was an interesting topic that might deserve a thread of its own: I'm not sure about mental hospitals, but I think that the way these kinds of theories keep popping up must say something fundamental about the human mind. In ancient times there were all sorts of fanciful mythologies developed to explain the natural world. Later, the organized religions that now dominate our world, and in particular some of the adherents of those religions who are so influenced that their entire lives are focused by these beliefs. And then there are the "new age" beliefs... people who believe that they can perform magic, obtain energy from crystals, and so on. Long-time readers of MapleLeafWeb know that we get occasional visits from fervent believers in NESARA. And orgones. And chem-trails. And on and on. So ... why? What draws people to these ideas? People seem drawn to the unobservable, in forms ranging from the merely far-fectched to the fanciful to the strange to the demented to the utterly ridiculous. Is it built in? Hard-wired? Does our desire to build these mythologies and cling to them serve some sort of biological purpose, like a role in building tribes? -k

Would it be ok if I say something on-topic, or are people still focused on Dancer's ex-girlfriends' muffs? ... I probably shouldn't even have to ask. ... Well, I'll plunge ahead regardless. What about hair-color in media? Movie, TV, books-- fiction of whatever sort? Do media images shape society's ideas, or just reflect them, or some of each? If someone is casting a character for a TV show, or describing a character in a book, how do they decide what the character is going to look like? I've been wondering this the past couple of weeks. When I have a chance to watch TV, there are a few crime/detective type shows I follow. I figure I've probably seen ... oh, maybe about 40 TV murders since the start of the new TV season. And about 3/4 of the victims have been blondes. That seems like far too much to be a coincidence... so what's the reasoning behind that creative choice? -k

A couple of media links... Vancouver Province Surrey Leader Surrey has its own newspaper? Wow! Who would have suspected that so many Surreyites could read? -k {shattering stereotypes on MLW since 2004}

I assume this the video? Kim Jong Il doing a behind-the-back monster-jam is, indeed, one of the funnier things I've seen in a while. I watched "Team America: World Police" last week, which also made me laugh. "Herro!" I still believe in a carrot-and-stick approach. There should be a carrot, but there also has to be a big f'n stick to smack people with. People need to know that being our friends is fun, but they also need to remember that being our enemies is not fun. -kimmy {"herro!" "Why everybody so stupid??"}