kimmy

I assume that this equating of pets with the infidel is the direct and inevitable result of Paris Hilton wandering about with that pet rat or whatever that thing is that she uses as a live fashion accessory. It's odd, though, given that there are a number of stories about Mohammed himself having a pet cat named Muezza. One story is that one day when Mohammed heard the call to prayer and found that his cat was sleeping on the sleeve of his robe, Mohammed cut the sleeve off of his robe rather than disturb his cat's sleep. Another is that a cat carried away an asp that had hidden itself in Mohammed's robe. Another has that Mohammed's cat alerted him to the presence of a would-be assassin. Rough week for the Prophet. First, bylaw enforcement apparently decides to overrule Mohammed's views on allowing women to pray at the cube. And now bylaw enforcement wants to ban the Prophet's pet from the kingdom. If Mohammed showed up in Mecca tomorrow, parking enforcement would probably have his flaming chariot tagged and towed. -k

I would point out that the "Toronto Star" story is, in fact, the same A.P. story posted at CBS earlier in the thread. I do not find the story makes undue effort to be an apologist for the Saudis. The reporter provides the Saudi official's explanation, as a balanced report ought to, but she also provides skepticism by noting the contradiction between al-Barr's statement and Khzeim's statement, and further mentioning the eyewitness reports of women being moved away from the Cube. At any rate, what do I care? It's their cube. They can do whatever they want with their cube. I think it's odd that a religion that strictly forbids worshiping idols mandates that you have to bow to a cube 5 times a day. There might be enlightened Muslims elsewhere, but unfortunately the sacred cube is in Saudi Arabia, which is still pretty much in the dark ages. However... Mohammed allowed women to worship with men at the cube. But now, 1400 years later, the Prophet's practice is being altered because of... crowding concerns? Oh, come on. If the idea is to reduce crowding, then they should find a better way. If the idea is to segregate the men from the women, then at least have the gonads to say as much. This idea of hiding behind the Mecca PD Bylaw Enforcement Division is an insult to everybody concerned. -k

Would feel the same way if they were democratically elected like Hezbolla or Hamas? Well... the Taliban not being democratically elected wasn't the reason that brought western forces to Afghanistan, as you'll recall. If some democratically elected government of some banana republic was dedicated to harboring a violent terrorist group dedicated to harming western targets, I don't think I'd be in favor of giving them a free reign to resume their crappy activities either. -k

The CPC and it's predecessors and supporters have been "taking it" for far longer than I've been following politics, I think they've more than proven they can take it, and have more than earned the right to comment when others make the same mistakes. As for whether "all's fair in love and war", you've seen enough elections in this country to know that it's not even a question. -k

The extension passed with the support of the Liberals, did it not? While I don't think anyone is anticipating a domino-effect of countries turning into Muslim theocracies if we pull out of Aghanistan, there's no doubt that Canada pulling out would be perceived by the Taliban as a tremendous victory for them. It would only serve to embolden them, show them that Canadians don't have the stomach for a fight, and probably rally more recruits under their banner. Show them that if you just set off enough suicide bombs, the cowardly Canadians will run away home. Show them that you can defeat the west because the west is too soft and scared to see it through. I would categorize that as alarmism. The Taliban, though against Western values, have never planned to attack the West. They only wanted power in Afghanistan. You are using the same logic as Bush when he says that if they leave Iraq, the terrorists would come to the US next. The funny thing is that Iraq had nothing to do with Al Queda and in fact considered them hostile. The Taliban may have no intention of attacking the west, however they treated Al Qaeda as honored guests in their country. They awarded Osama the official title "Hero of Islam" or something like that, didn't they? Frankly, I don't think we should give them the country back. Frankly, I don't like what they did with it when they were in charge and I don't think they should have a second chance. -k

It's relevant that he was addressing biships and not politicians. However, when he's advocating church activism in public policy, it becomes everyone's business. -k

Well, for those who have bought into the "they hate us for our freedoms!" dogma, I guess the logical conclusion is that "they" would hate us less if we weren't as free. But I thought fighting for those freedoms, whether they're being used or abused, was supposed to be the big selling point of the "they hate us for our freedoms" rhetoric. Like Black Dog, I tend to see a fair big of similarity between the two groups. Unlike Black Dog, I tend to feel there's a big difference in the degree of senselessness between the two groups. The stupidest, most intolerant ideas that Christian wackos come up with about gays or women or media and art and culture still seem fairly tame compared to what we have seen under strict Muslim regimes. But that's kind of beside the point. The point is that if you call upon people to fight to protect their freedoms with one breath, and criticize them for using their freedoms in the next, you're a hypocrite. And, a guy who used to date Ann Coulter complaining about women's sexual freedom seems like a bit of a hypocrite as well. Dinesh D'Souza can go do a backflip into an empty pool. -k

Well, going by the logic of CPC opponents, this isn't a "cockamamie resolution", it's a look into the heart of the REAL NDP, the wild-eyed grassroots extremists that Jack Layton can't keep quiet. Yes, this isn't an isolated resolution from some mavericks, it's a glimpse at what these people *really* believe and a reminder that even though the party wants to deceive people into thinking they've become moderate, they're still the same bunch of wackos. (I assume this all sounds pretty familiar. Should we go back to the CPC policy convention threads and check?) At any rate, how sure are you that this is just a renegade kook? The riding association president says that the resolution echoed with other Vancouver Island riding associations, and probably with delegates from across Canada. The National Post mentions that there are "a number" or similar resolutions, though presumably only one that equates Canadian soldiers with terrorists. One apparently describes the current Afghan regime as "barbarous warlords little better than the Taliban." The article also mentions a resolution calling for an end to trade with Israel. And, Stephen Taylor's blog mentions a number of resolutions calling for the nationalization of resources, media, communications, manufacturing, banking... So you feel obliged to adopt the same tactics? Look, if holding the leadership or entire membership responsible for the actions or beliefs of a few is wrong, then don't do it. If not, well, don't bitch about it when it happensto your guys. Simple. You guys (not you in particular, BD, but many on the left) have always made a big deal about the "extreme" elements within the Conservative party. For as long as I've been following politics, the left has informed me that it's an Important, Scary Thing that there are extreme elements within a party. But now you want me to just ignore this? I'm so confused. Mainstream Canadians of all political stripes take notice when some extremist within the CPC says something outrageous. Why would this case be any different? You guys can dish it out but you can't take it? Nah, screw that. We get to watch your crew do damage control on this. If anything, it should be a lesson to your guys in refining their message as they move towards an election within the next year. Uh...why should the party leader comment on a single resolution? If a CPC riding association put forward a resolution calling for the internment of all Muslims in Canada, would you expect Harper to comment? What you'd get would be a spokesman saying something along the lines of "the democratic process...blah bhal blah..open to many viewpoints...blah blah blah...up to the party membership to decide..blah bhlah blah." And rightly so. If a CPC riding association came out with a resolution that was as outrageous as your example, I'd expect Harper to act immediately to condemn it and strike it from the agenda. Some things *aren't* open for discussion. If he didn't, he'd be roundly condemned for his inaction. And rightly so. The G'n'M article indicates that the outrageous portion of the proposed resolution has been withdrawn, so it appears that the NDP have recognized as much. -k

Demanding that immigrants learn English, and demanding English-only are not the same thing. While I have heard people demand that immigrants learn English, I have never heard anyone say that immigrants shouldn't be allowed to use their own languages as well. -k

I shall provide for you a Sesame-Street level example, since that seems to be about the limit of your reading comprehension: "Jimmy and Suzie converted willingly. Joey and Sally converted because they were threatened with harm if they refused. Maggie and Mike refused to convert and are dead." In my example, everybody who refused to convert is dead, and yet Jimmy and Suzie converted by other means. As just illustrated, your paraphrasing is inaccurate. I find it fascinating that you're able to throw around fancy terms like "null hypothesis" yet seem to have difficulty in correctly interpretting simple statements. Unlike some countries where I would be hidden under a burqa or flogged for speaking in public, it doesn't matter if you don't care for my opinion. If you don't care for my opinion, the only remedy available to you is to not read it. Your shoddy reading comprehension skills has also apparently given you a misguided notion of what constitutes spreading hatred. Your continuing accusations against me are closer to breaking the law (slander, libel...) than anything I've written. -k

Where has Layton been falsely quoted? If you're referring to the thread title, it's not false. It's an accurate paraphrasing of his position. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home What does "bring all combatants to the table" mean, if not "invite Taliban to peace talks"? Why don't you illustrate for us exactly where you feel Layton's position has been misrepresented, gerry? I'm sure this will be tremendously entertaining. -k

You'd think that might be a suitable wake-up call to people who think that we can make peace with al Qaeda using some kind of generalized fuzzy-wuzzy live-and-let-live approach. But you'd be wrong. -k

If the coalition lures these "moderate Taliban" to desert their comrades-in-arms with offers of amnesty, then what legitimacy do these deserters have to negotiate on behalf of the Taliban? None. Well, I shouldn't have to point this out, but the Taliban is a lot different from the Conservatives, Liberals, or NDP. The Taliban isn't a democracy. They don't have an annual policy convention. But if you want to stick with a Canadian political analogy, here's one to ponder. Imagine that Jack Layton hosts a big pow-wow at the YMCA or wherever it is the NDP has its get-togethers. Among the invitees are David Orchard, Joe Clark, and Carole Jamieson. And after several days of discussions, sing-alongs, and hugs, they emerge from the YMCA with many new policy announcements. Flanked by his three new friends, Jack Layton announces that Canada will be cancelling NAFTA, pulling out of Afghanistan, and keeping Kyoto. When asked how they arrived at these surprising agreements without Prime Minister Harper even in attendance, Jack explains that he worked out the agreement with the "moderate Conservatives" on stage with him. Think that would fly? Think that Stephen Harper would feel bound to abide by agreements reached by 3 people he can't stand who had no authority to negotiate on his behalf? That's ridiculous, right? So, why would you think the Taliban would feel inclined to give any credence to any agreements negotiated by some chickenshit deserters? -k

... uh, what? What do you mean by It's an extremist organization with extremist leadership and extremist ideology. How do we identify these moderates? How do we bring them to the table while excluding the extremists? If we identify and identify these "moderate Taliban" and invite them to the negotiating table while excluding the leadership, then what credibility does this supposed negotiation have? Come on, this notion that hostilities could be ended by negotiating with Taliban (but just moderate ones!) is sheer fantasy. The real Taliban-- the leadership, the hardliners, the ones who held public beheadings in soccer stadiums and lined up accused homosexuals to run over them with a tank-- have no reason to negotiate anyway, because they know that they will win in the end because Canadians just don't have the stomach for this job. -k

Once the other kids see that Cooper is allowed to bring his dog to school, all the other kids will want muscular distrophy too! -k

It's only "secret" because nobody can figure out how to get the oil out of the rocks in practical production quantities. As with Alberta's oil sands, technological hurdles will be overcome. As with Alberta's oil sands, getting useful oil out of the rocks will never be easy or cheap and will consume lots of energy. In short, don't expect gas to drop down to 30 cents a litre any time soon. -k

You might think that your "Vallium anybody?" routine will make people see you as a tremendous wit; you're actually only half right. This is the key point, and something the Arrow boosters just don't seem to grasp. The US cancelled its Mach 3 interceptor project (and Mach 3 bomber) at the same time, for the same reason: the arrival of the rocket age meant that strategic bombers, and the ability to intercept them, had become obsolete. -k

I have another little fable or parable or one-act play that I've sort of been working on. It goes a little something like this: "Daddy! Daddy! I am home from school!" "That is very good, Susie. What did you talk about today in your social studies class?" "We were talking about Multi Culturalism. One kid wanted to ask about the long-term effects of allowing another country to fund the growth of a conservative branch of religion in Canada." "And what did the class think about that, Susie?" "I don't know. Before we could talk about it, this other kid jumped up on his desk and started yelling and calling everyone racists and saying he was going to file human rights complaints against everybody." "Oh. What happened then?" "We all had to watch an educational video called Friends Come In Many Colours. Did you know that even though people have different skin colour and wear different clothes and hats, we all have red blood?" "Wow, Susie, that is fascinating. It sounds like you sure learned a lot at school today." -kimmy

Did they apologize, or just express "regret" because "it appeared as if the Prime Minister was responding to that particular protester", which wasn't even what all the outrage was about!! It's pathetic all around for anyone pretending there was something biased or unfair to Steven in that piece, and pretending that the CBC apologized for what all the Conservative shills were so shrill about is even more pathetic. They acknowledged that they made a mistake, and expressed "regret". The difference between an apology and "expressing regret" is just semantics. It still amounts to an acknowledgement of the legitimacy of the complaint. -k

If I was a public official and wanted to make myself look like a complete idiot, this is probably how I'd go about it. I can't think of many better ways of aggravating the public than picking on a kid in a wheelchair. We already know how this is going to turn out. Once the media gets ahold of this story, the school board is going to realize that they look like idiots and are going to reverse their position and probably issue an apology. I'm puzzled at something: if the school board is not allowing the dog in school because other kids might be afraid of dogs or allergic to dogs, then what difference does a doctor's note make? Does a doctor's note make the dog less scary to other kids? Does a doctor's note make the dog hypoallergenic? I dunno. I don't see asking for the doctor's note as being unreasonable, but at the same time I don't even see the point of getting into a battle like this. Battling a disabled kid in the media is a no-win situation for the school board. Why go there? -k

(if the PoliSci department at U of L has a course based on the misadventures of the MLW message board, I think I'd advise little Susie to start looking for a new college too.) That's a lovely story, Mr Hominum. You should consider selling it as a one-act play. I could picture it being acted out with sock puppets on a Very Special Episode of Sesame Street. -k

If you want to nitpick, then yes, that's what I meant. My statement: "Historically, it's the Religion of Peace because everybody who wouldn't sign up is dead." My statement says NOTHING WHATSOEVER about whether people have joined the Islamic faith through other means. My statement only addresses the fate of those who refused to convert. Your paraphrasing is completely wrong. This is what's known as a "straw-man fallacy." The only inaccuracy in my statement was the word "everybody". Obviously not everyone who refused conversion was killed. Some were enslaved, some driven out, others were allowed to live as "dhimmis" in their conquered homelands. Regardless, the meaning is essentially the same. Islam brought peace by killing dissenters, or driving them out, enslaving them, or oppressing them. I find calling Islam "the Religion of Peace" to be about as sensible as calling Catholicism "the Religion of Science." Since you've applied your "null hypothesis" to something not implied in my statement, you've amply proven nothing, except that you can work with straw-man arguments. If you insist on looking only at the present day, we could still look at Sudan and Nigeria and Algeria and Indonesia to see Islam "making peace" by killing or driving out those of other faiths. You've only illustrated that you don't know what "paraphrase" means. My original statement never excluded other means by which people joined Islam, so "in part" is not a contradiction or adjustment of it at all. Sorry, but you're still arguing with your own straw-man. You begin again with new fallacies: I make no claim at all regarding the conduct of *all* Muslims. The fact that most Canadian Muslims are capable of coping with our pluralistic society does not alter the history of their faith or the fact that Islam is still expanding through violence in other parts of the world. Canadian Muslims seem to have accepted the pluralistic nature of our society, but this thread is discussing the wholesale export by Saudi Arabia of a branch of Islam that is by its nature incompatible with our pluralistic society. The claim that all Muslims were forced to join the religion is not implicit in my statement. I have not altered the statement, I have expanded on it. I said nothing about the entire group. We do not yet live in a society where it is making someone unhappy is considered "hateful". If you're hoping to become a prosecutor... don't quit your day job. Unless you're already a prosecuter, in which case you should consider finding a new one. (shrug) I guess I'll have to live with that.By the say, I wouldn't normally mention it, but since you started the nitpicking: Islam is a religion, not a race. -k

The CBC itself agreed that the complaint was in part justified, and apologized on-air. I DO THINK THAT HARPER DEALS WITH THE MEDIA IN A DIFFERENT STYLE THAN HIS PREDECESSORS WHO TALK AND TALK WITHOUT SAYING ANYTHING OF SUBSTANCE. PAUL MARTIN AND ESPECIALLY JEAN CHRETIEN WOULD ANSWER ALL THE QUESTIONS THE MEDIA COULD ASK AND NEVER ONCE SAY ANYTHING REMOTELY VALUABLE. DA PROOF IS DA PROOF AND IF DA PROOF IS DA PROOF DEN IT IS PROVEN, GERRY! Are you guys still convinced that this site is full of shadowy CPC operatives? -k { }

I am told that Don Getty was an enormous failure as premier, and that if he'd stayed on much longer the PCs would have opened the door for the opposition parties. They averted their demise by hastily reinventing themselves with Getty's departure and Klein's arrival. If they choose a new leader who is as clueless as Getty is said to have been, the door will once again be open. I am of course too young to remember much of Getty's reign, other than dad frequently grumbling about "football players" while watching the evening news. However, I believe Getty's time in office shows that Albertans' patience with the PC party is not infinite. -k

Which leads me to wonder: if they could pull off an "inside job" like 9-11, why fuck around with something so minor? If they wanted to take over the world, or create a facist dictaorship, or justify invading the entire Midddle East or whatever, why not go all the way and, say, nuke a major U.S. city? The idea isn't to take over the world. It's to keep making more money for their friends in the defense or oil industries. Although, there are also those theories that believe the US government is controlled by evangelical kooks who seek to bring about Armageddon or somesuch. (listen to me, articulating on behalf of the conspiracy nutjobs. Does that seem right? I wish they would come defend their own ideas so I can go back to scoffing at them.) -k