kimmy

CTV news reports that Joe Volpe is going to announce he's going to stay in the Liberal leadership campaign. And he's picked up a big public endorsement... from none other than Alfonso Gagliano! Alfonso says that this whole problem is actually just another ugly example of anti-Italian prejudice. Volpe will lay the blame for his latest troubles at the feet of a smear-campaign by Ignatieff's team, and blame the media. It's anti-Italian prejudice. It's a smear campaign. It's the media's fault. It has nothing to do with signing up people without their knowledge, or people who are in fact dead. It has nothing to do with the spouses and children of drug-company executives all somehow donating the maximum amount to his campaign. I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, as somebody who somewhat supports Stephen Harper, I wouldn't mind seeing Volpe win the Liberal leadership race, as I think Volpe is about as weak a candidate as the Liberals could possible choose. But, whoever the Liberals choose will have a strong chance of becoming Prime Minister, and in Volpe's case I find that idea nauseating. Throughout this whole affair, I've been wondering what constituency thinks Joe Volpe is the guy who should lead our country. Who? Is there a significant number of Liberals? Or is it limited to Toronto? Or is it limited to Toronto's Italian community? Or is it limited to Toronto Italian-Canadians named Volpe? Is this an example of Toronto-centricism, where the guy's profile in Toronto makes him think he's a national figure? Maybe his supporters come from the old Chretien Liberals who long for the days when the rules are more like guidelines and da proof is da proof. -k

What is that point? My parents never allowed us to carry those boxes on principle: they did not trust where the money was going. Actually, I always thought that it was a bad practice. I think it is unwise to get kids into a knock-on-door-beg-for-money-from-strangers mode at a young age. Very risky thing to breed. I believe the point is something to do with getting children involved. I know that me and many of my little friends took some amount of pride in the idea that we could be helping other kids in other countries. The notion that the UNICEF boxes teach kids to be pan-handlers misses the mark, aside from the few little miscreants who bust open their UNICEF boxes to try and steal money out of them. Most kids who participate in the program learn about raising money and giving it to somebody who needs it worse than you do. The argument strikes me as comparable to saying that the Salvation Army bell-ringers set a bad example for kids, or that the annual Terry Fox Run sets a bad example for kids, or that Terry Fox himself set a bad example for kids. Some one-legged guy jogging around begging for hand-outs? Atrocious. Some role model that guy was! Halloween trick-or-treating might be traditional in the sense that it has been around for a long time, but unlike every other traditional event on the calendar, Halloween has no real meaning and no religious significance to anyone (other than perhaps Wiccans...) For little kids, it's a chance to get sick from ingesting too much candy. For big kids, it's a chance to get sick from ingesting too much alcohol. For almost nobody is it anything other than an annual lark. The long-standing and widely accepted incorporation of the UNICEF boxes as a part of Halloween tradition actually lends a little bit of nobility to proceedings. -k

As far back as I can remember, American so-called intellectuals have been discovering new trends or new awakenings or new grand changes - all opening a new era of some sort or another. It's no different than the latest pyschological self-help relation book that fill American bookstores. Dale Carnegie, Allan Bloom, Charles Reich, Dr. Phil. Same diff. The contention isn't that a "new era" is beginning. The contention is that there are 3 periods in American history that can be characterized as having prominent religious activism in US politics, with identifiable effect on legislation. This Robert Fogel fellow contends that we are currently in a fourth such period. But the theory of these "great awakenings" isn't concerned with how much time people spend with their Bibles or at church socials. It seems to be concerned only with how much influence organized religion has on political process. I don't mean to sound flippant, but why does that matter? This is a discussion of US politics and religious activism, not Canadian. And in the US, the driving force behind the "religious right" doesn't seem to have anything to do with Catholicism. Fogel refers to "the rapid growth of the enthusiastic religions (including fundamentalist, Pentacostal, and Protestant charismatic denominations, "born-again" Catholics, Mormons)". (is "enthusiastic" being used as a euphemism for "evangelical"?) I don't have any up to date statistics on which denominations are growing and which are not, but I do recall that our departed friend Eureka lectured me that the pentacostals were growing faster than other Christian denominations, and in fact, faster than any other religion period. Janet Jackson's nipple? Gimme a break. I'm actually pretty serious. The nipple itself was of no consequence, but the resulting fallout had implications for all broadcasters in the United States. The "nipple" incident resulted in an unprecidented response from angry viewers, resulting in action by legislators and by the FCC. In response to the incident, the FCC became far more aggressive in dishing out fines for "obscenity" and far stricter in interpretting what "obscenity" actually means. And the government drastically increased the severity of fines that could be imposed on broadcasters. The result has been self-censorship by networks, and self-censorship by producers and writers who now realize that they won't be able to sell shows that are controversial or contain anything that red-state cranks might get upset about. And the massive angry viewer response to the "nipple incident" was largely the result of an organized campaign led by the same religious leaders who likewise try to influence policy in other areas. I believe that the fallout resulting from the "nipple incident" has been influential on the direction of broadcasting in the past couple of years, and I believe it's a good example of religious activists influencing public policy. -k

The same questions that might come up from having Mulroney as an adviser and appointing Michael Wlson as an ambassador? If I recall, the Liberals and their supporters did indeed try to make an issue of Mulroney during the last election, and found zero traction with voters on that front. But no, the questions are not quite the same. The question concerns knowledge of and association with ongoing corruption. In Harper's case, at the time when Mulroney is alleged to have accepted bribes, Harper was working as the secretary to one of Mulroney's most prominent opponents. In Dion's case, throughout the 7 years of corruption of the Sponsorship Program, Dion was a prominent cabinet member, prominent federalist supporter, prominent sovereignty fighter, one of the chief Quebec lieutenants of the party. Stephane Dion sat at the same cabinet table as the principals for 7 years, and the corruption primarily took place in Dion's own Montreal home turf. So no, I don't really see it as the same kind of questions. -k

I wouldn't know either... but I don't see much evidence that this allegedly progressive group within the religious political activists constitutes anything other than a fringe. Two of your articles indicate that while some in the movement view the environment as a higher priority, the leadership wishes to remain focused on their "core issues", which doesn't include the environment. The third, the LA Times article, seems to suggest that the driving force behind embracing a broader range of causes than the traditional "core issues" is younger Christians... but from experience we can expect that a movement dependant on the political activism of young people is likely to fail, due to apathy. It's late September 2006, which means that in 2 years US election campaign hijinx will be in high gear. I boldly predict that at that time, the term "values voters" will be as popular as it was 2 years ago, if not moreso. And I boldly predict that the values that the "values voters" are lining up behind are the same "core issues" (ie, fags, abortions) that Dr Dobson and friends care about, not Christian stewardship of the environment or Christian care of the less fortunate or any of the other broader goals that the younger Christian leaders wish to be part of the agenda. -k

Why do you people always say that conservatives are "trying to paint every Liberal as a criminal"? I didn't think we were talking about "every Liberal", I thought we were talking about Stephane Dion. Dion was hand-picked by Chretien, he was one of the top Quebec members of the party, he was in prominent cabinet member throughout the time, he was directly responsible for combatting Quebec sovereignty and defending federalism. Why wouldn't people speculate about his role in the program? What's more likely: that he was in the loop, or that he was out of the loop? -k

Where in the report did it say Dion knew about the sponsorship scandal? Yes yes. Nobody ever *proved* that Paul Martin or Stephane Dion knew anything about anything. The part that Liberals fail to understand, though, is that even though it hasn't been proven that they did know, people don't really trust them when they say that they didn't know. There's a big gulf between "not proven guilty", and "proven innocent". But casting a vote isn't the same as putting somebody in jail. If I was on a jury I couldn't convict Stephane Dion for having knowledge of that mess... but I still don't have any trust in him. As August notes, he was a Chretien protege, one of Chretien's "lieutenants" in the upper echelon of the party. Why would I believe he was outside the loop of all those shenanigans? Why would I trust that he has different philosophies? Why would I trust that the padawan is any different from the master? If the Liberals pick somebody from that same old clique, it will bring up the same old questions. -k {"Screw the rules! We're saving the country!!!"}

I assume this is what you're referring to? http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article1696158.ece It appears that Turkey's leadership is trying to walk a tightrope... on the one hand trying to bring modern ideals to the country while on the other hand trying not to offend the knuckleheads: -k

Congratulations on surviving, and welcome back! -k

I dunno, I'm not really convinced. The term "Great Awakenings" seems to be used to refer to large social trends where increased religious activism caused shifts in the direction of social policy in the US. There are probably a lot of trends you could look at to argue that such an "awakening" is occuring right now in the US. You could look at the last election, where "values voters" was the catchphrase of the election. The Democrats sensed the Christian vote was critical and made sure to present Kerry as a devout man; photo-ops of him attending church were as prominent as him duck-hunting or doing other "manly" stuff. And it wasn't enough; the Democrats' traditional support among black and hispanic voters largely went to the Republicans because the black and hispanic voters have a larger Christian conservative viewpoint than the general population. Black Dog has noted some polls on a general theme: Americans are getting dumber. There's an appearance that science is under attack in the US, both from the administration and from the populace at large-- increasing support and legal momentum behind "intelligent design" theories, increasing opposition to stem cell research and scientific theories on everything from the environment to fossil fuels to the formation of the universe. One could look at the Terri Schiavo fracas, where polls indicated that large numbers of Americans rejected medical fact in favor of faith-based fantasy drivel. One could look at popular culture, movies and television, to see increased fear of programming that's risque; the firestorm from Janet Jackson's dreaded nipple is probably the most notable popular culture event of the decade to this point. I think there are probably lots of areas in which one could look and see evidence to support the theory that Christians are throwing their weight around in the US, and one might anticipate that there'll be increasing political support behind conservative causes as a result. In the US, it seems as though conservative Christians are getting pushy, and generally speaking, they're pushing in ways that you'd expect. And I believe that this religious-inspired political shift is what the historian is looking at when he speaks about the prior "Great Awakenings" in American history. I don't see that environmental consciousness is a prominent characteristic of what the increased Christian political activity in the US is pushing towards. I'd suggest that among this movement, the primary thought on environmental issues is still the old "go forth and have dominion over the seas and the lands and the air" stuff, right from Genesis. By and large environmentalism is seen as a "liberal" issue or a "new age" value among the people that constitute the present supposed "Great Awakening". -k

I don't wish to contribute to this becoming a "popularity contest" (although I am very flattered to have been mentioned ) so I will try not to mention any particular names in explaining what I think contributes to this forum. There are many people who I enjoy reading and singling out just a few would be unfair to the rest. This is the only politics forum that I read. I have tried others, and generally found them disappointing in comparison to this one. Led Boots mentioned a "me too" mentality at some boards, which I think is a good description of the shortcoming of many boards. Many boards seem to have a defined outlook which attracts members who share the same mindset. Original thought doesn't happen very often on these boards, and while I often peek in at certain places to see how certain segments are reacting to current events. Remiel asked what makes a good poster. Here are my views: -I like to read a posts from viewpoints across the political spectrum, and I like that Mapleleafweb has posters who have a variety of views. I most respect posters who can express opposing viewpoints with maturity and without things turning into pointless bickering. -I like posters who support their ideas with information, whether current events, historical facts, scientific data, whatever. -I like posters who argue their views logically, reasonably, and articulately. -I really appreciate posters who contribute special knowledge. I will break my rule by mentioning two here: g_bambino and FTA Lawyer, who although they don't post very frequently, add a lot to the board with their knowledge of our system of government and the law (respectively). -I like posters who have a sense of humor. I like posters who don't take things so seriously that they can't take a step back and have a laugh about things. Conversely, some things that make me dislike posters, skip threads, or not bother to read some members' posts. -fanatics. Whether it's some political party, some religion, some cause or outlook, whatever... if someone's support for their position is based on fanaticism rather than reason and logic, then there's not really much point talking to them, in my view. -one-note posters. Along the same line as fanatics, there are some people who I know only write about one subject, and once I've read what they have to say, I kind of tune out after a while. -people who turn a discussion into a pissing match. People who insult the poster rather than the ideas. -people whose world views seem to be built on shady information from disreputable sources. I think that more or less covers the basics. -k

During the "cartoon crisis", it turned out that British muslim clerics had gone on a tour of muslim countries, circulating inflammatory drawings that Postens had never even published, with the aim of provoking an angry response. I would expect that the same is probably going on with this latest "crisis" as well. There seem to be some who believe that riling up the muslim world would benefit some sort of cause. -k

I didn't hear about that, but I'm a little skeptical that we're talking about the same kind of Awakening. Of all the characteristics of the rising political clout of US Christians, environmental concern doesn't seem to rate as much of a priority. I think some people would consider the term "awakening" as a bit of a misnomer. To me, the idea of a "Christian Awakening" evokes the same response as when someone asked Gandhi what he thought about "Western Civilization." What's actually been awoken? A cranky, surly giant that is going to stomp around and break stuff before it goes away. -k

This attitude sounds worse than backwards. In fact, it is backwards for them to associate this with their backwardness. If every country in the world had a self-sufficiency attitude, every person in the world would have a standard of living slightly above sustenance level at best. I think his concern is not so much about international trade, but about the Muslim world having virtually no capabilities of its own. Western companies drill their oil or mine their diamonds and pay them some royalties. They take their royalties and put them in western banks. When they spend their wealth, it's to buy western-made goods or pay western professionals for assistance. They're somewhat like a rich but senile aunt who has a big bank account and a hefty pension, but doesn't know how to manage her money or care for herself anymore. She puts her trust in her nephew to manage her money, do her taxes, shop for her, care for her home and pay her bills... and trusts that he won't rob her blind in the process. The speaker sounds someone very aware that until Muslim nations develop their own ability to manage their wealth effectively-- ie, "good government"-- they're as helpless and dependent as the senile old aunt. From the sounds of it, old-world Muslims were not averse to international trade. What changed??? He addresses that later in his speech: -k

(why use a gigantic font size for your message when people have requested that you quit it? do you think your thoughts will be clearer if you write bigger? are you just such a special snowflake that you have to write differently from everybody else? Try distinguishing yourself with your ideas, rather than your font.) Bush's statement is about as far opposite of "if you can't beat them, join them" as you can get. The "Great Awakenings" refers to historical periods of religious activism in the United States. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Awakening mentions three "Great Awakenings" that occured during 1730-1740, 1820-1830, and 1880-1900. The book the article mentions, "The Fourth Great Awakening & the Future of Egalitarianism," by Robert Fogel, has a slightly different take on things: http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/256626.html He contends that a Fourth Great Awakening is already underway. His summary of the "revival" phase of this awakening: His summary of the resulting political effects: So... does anybody disagree? His description has some obvious euphemisms (backlash against gay rights and single parents would be a better description than pro-family, and backlash against affirmative action would be more apt than "return to a belief in equality of opportunity") but other than that I think his description of the current political trend in the United States seems fairly accurate. Conservative Christians in the United States have been throwing their weight around more and more during the past decade, and I think that if Dubya has made a mistake in predicting a new "great awakening", his mistake is only that he's about 10 years too late. -k

Resolutions calling for the nationalization of banks (among other things) were raised at the convention, but I assume they were defeated. In fact I have seen no discussion at all of any of the more outre resolutions that were mentioned in the leadup to the convention, so I'm assuming that they were rejected. So, I guess you could say that the NDP has rejected the notion of nationalizing banks. Or, if you were a Liberal, you would probably call it the NDP's scary secret hidden agenda. -k

I'm not sure whether you were trying to bait me or Argus, but I guess I could field this one. On a politics forum, there just wasn't much to say about it, at least until such time as somebody reached for the first "we need more gun control!" or "the gun registry is a failure!" takes. As various commentators and politicians have now done. Or at least until such time as there was some information available about his background and his motivations. Would there be special interest in this case if the shooter had been a Muslim? Assuredly. And justifiably so. One of the first questions being asked when this story broke was whether it was related to terrorism. That's not just paranoid little kimmy's mind at work, that was national media figures at work. On both CTV Newsnet and CBC Newsworld, I heard reporters say words to the effect of: "no word yet on whether there is any connection to terrorism." If a Muslim had been the shooter, a key question would be whether the attack was connected with *organized* terrorism. For 5 years + 4 days, the nightmare scenario has been that a terrorist gunman or bomber (or several) entering a college or sports stadium or crowded transit terminal or shopping mall and executing people in large numbers. If the day comes when terrorists decide that hapless bystanders in Canada's public places are targets, that nightmare would be realized. Wednesday, many people were worried that that day had arrived. I suppose one could ask whether Kimveer Gill could also be considered a terrorist. Perhaps the effect at the college was the same (or perhaps not; a real terrorist would probably have had some training and probably killed a lot more people.) The difference, however, is that were the attack carried out by an organized terrorist group, we would be facing the threat of more attacks. If the shooter had been a Muslim, we would be waiting on pins and needles to find out whether the attack was connected with organized terrorism. With what we now know about Gill, it seems extremely unlikely that the attack is connected with any sort of cause or organization at all. I saw no evidence of unfair bias directed at Muslims connected with this incident. I saw no message board posts saying "I bet the shooter is a Muslim" or any such assumptions; early eyewitness descriptions of the "black trenchcoats" quickly brought to mind the Columbine massacre and had people jumping to the premature (but ultimately correct) conclusion that the shooter was connected with the goth subculture. And even in situations when a lone Muslim has been behind shooting sprees, any connection of their actions to religion seems to in fact be downplayed, even when in a situation it might be relevant. -k

"The Republic of East Vancouver"? hmmm. 18 dead in 6 months... perhaps Vancouver's junkie and hooker populations should enlist and deploy in Afghanistan, because comparing the casualty rates, they'd be safer in Afghanistan than they are at home. -k

Some Canadians are enthusiastic about multiculturalism because it means they are neither English nor French. For example, Ramon Hnatyshyn is a multicultural-kind-of-guy. He spells his name funny. I'm of neither English nor French extraction (as I've mentioned the odd time. ) And my family name would also be spelled kinda funny, had not dad's family adopted an Anglicized spelling upon their arrival in North America. Did dropping the superfluous "a" and "s" from our last name transform us from Swedes into Anglos? I've actually obtained the "old country" costume, including funny bonnet. I'm even considering attempting to learn the language. I'm not sure why; there's no rational reason to invest the effort. Dad and his siblings don't speak the language or have any of the traditional clothes. Dad and his siblings were raised by parents who were eager to embrace their new home. They wanted to fit in within their new homeland, not cling to things that set them apart. There seems to be some question as to what actually constitutes multiculturalism, some question of line-drawing. Does welcoming folks with funny names or other skin-tones make us multicultural? Does welcoming folks with funny hats and tasty food make us multicultural? Or are those things superficialities? Do we only become truly multicultural if we allow people to practice their traditions and beliefs, in whole, in the way they're practiced "back home"? I personally believe that while Canadians are quite comfortable with the superficialities-- different hats, skin-tones, cullinary peculiarities, names-- we're still quite averse to embracing foreign cultures more fully... and I personally believe that's for the best. -k

What a rip-off. It used to be that 15,000 dinars could buy a whole cow. As for Mr Fournier, he should watch his back: Theo Van Gogh got killed for less. A startling display of bad sense, I would say. He had to know that writing something like that would be controversial. And most people have learned by now that stuff that circulates by email is not necessarily very factual. Putting something controversial in his column without actually checking the facts seems like something a typical laundromat newsletter columnist might do, but one might expect the chairman of the CBC to have better judgment. Still, it might be amusing to see the Lebanese community go on the offensive by explaining exactly what sexual practices will or won't get you put to death under their laws. That would no doubt clear up many misconceptions about their beliefs. But mostly, I find myself wondering what Stephen Colbert might say about this controversy. -k

Canadians are enthusiastic about the concept of multiculturalism because they take it to mean the idea that people will wear colorful robes and funny hats, and play unusual musical instruments and do entertaining little jigs at special events. Canadians are enthusiastic about multiculturalism because they take it to mean that they can buy a tasty shawarma or an authentic mu-gu-gai-pan right in their own home town. Canadians are enthusiastic about multiculturalism because they haven't considered that the notion of culture encompasses far more than just hats and robes and food and music. Canadians assume that funny hats, exotic music, and tasty cuisine aside, other cultures are fundamentally like their own. Canadians are happy to welcome exotic cuisine into our land (because let's face it, anything is better than British cooking) but let's not pretend that we support other cultures in whole. Let's not even pretend that we hold all cultures to be equal or equally welcome in Canada. They're not. If you don't agree, why don't you grab your Yellow Pages and see if you can find a doctor who'll perform female circumcision. That's a key point: our tolerance for other cultures and their beliefs and practices is not without limits. You can't get your daughter's external genitalia amputated in Canada, no matter how dear the practice might be to the folks back home. That's a graphic and extreme example, but unarguable. Canada has similar cultural biases against other practices like female infanticide, widows being cremated along with their husbands, honor killings, Sharia's notions about the worth of female testimony, and undoubtably many other beliefs and practices. We can, and do, limit aspects of other cultures that aren't compatible with our own. What is the difference between our "multicultural" society and the United States "melting pot"? If we take multiculturalism to mean funny hats, funky robes, and tasty food, then the difference is negligible, isn't it? One can certainly find shawarma or mu-gu-gai-pan in the United States as easily in Canada; there are funny hats and funky robes aplenty in the US as in Canada. Multiculturalism in Canada, right now, is fine because we still have the courage to say no on things that matter. Multiculturalism in Canada stops being ok at the point when we stop having the courage to say no to the aspects of other cultures that are incompatible with our own beliefs. And despite the ridicule aimed at Leafless earlier in the thread, we do still have some "Canadian National Values". The fact that Ontario said no to Sharia tribunals, the fact that the College of Physicians won't let you have your daughter's clit lopped off, the fact that murdering an adulterous spouse or daughter is still considered murder in this country, that's proof of our values. We can say yes to funny hats and exotic food, as long as we still have the courage to say no on issues that matter. -k

It's a fair question, but in this case I don't think the article takes an apologist stance on the Saudi policy. I think the fact that the Saudis (or other restrictive regimes in the 3rd world) aren't representatives of the faith as a whole, particularly as practiced in Canada, gives the paper some leeway in reporting on their practices without being seen as attacking the Islam in general. -k

There isn't much about Islam, particularly the Saudi brand, which I find funny, August. I'll never set foot in a Muslim country, and I think you've seen enough of my messages on the subject to know how much affection I hold for the stricter branches of that faith. But these two recent topics-- the banning of pets, and the new seating arrangements at the cube-- for some reason have indeed tickled my fancy. The official state religion is the Wahhabi branch of Islam, and I was under the impression that one of the primary tenets of that branch was a firm belief that Mohammed's example should be followed, and that newer practices that contradict Mohammed's example should be dismissed. And yet, here's two recent examples of new practices that contradict Mohammed's example, being snuck into the Kingdom as crowd-management and pet-patrol. It seems like a backdoor way of making changes to the practice of the faith. Suppose the Vatican decided to do away with the Communion ritual, but rather than providing a theological justification for the practice, they just shrug their shoulders and say something about complying with food services inspection bylaws. -k

My understanding is that Mohammed so loved cats that he left his mark on the forehead of all tabbies in the form of the letter M. I've heard that tale as well ...but it begs the question of which language Mohammed would have written his initial in, and whether his initial actually looks like an "M" in that language. Would Mohammed have used a Latin M if he was drawing his initial? So I wasn't sure whether whether to think of that story as a part of Mohammed folklore, or something that was thought up elsewhere. -k

It seems that Montreal is something of a key area for CSIS, so you'd think being able to process french-language information would be something of a necessity. I don't see why that would mean everybody in the whole agency has to be fluently bilingual, but at the very least you'd think there'd be some process in place for translation where required? -k