kimmy

I am very proud... I was able to get the gist of August's snippet using my rusty, woefully inadequate French skills from junior highschool "French as a Second Language"... and it only took me 10 minutes! Here is an English translation: http://tinyurl.com/rn2g7 -k

I imagine something along the lines of continued justification of military spending. Or justifying military presence in strategic areas (Iraq oil and Afghan pipe-line theories.) There are probably lots of theories as to "why"... the "how" seems to me to be the larger problem. -k

There've been quite a few over the past couple of years. "You... are a handywoman." etc The popularity of home renovation TV shows, some of them now featuring female hosts, is encouraging women to give it a shot. -k

Ok, if you're going to go around threatening people with Sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code, perhaps it would be informative to have a look at what that legislation actually says. So, you claim: "A reasonable person would recognize that your statement breached the requirements of Canadian law regarding hate speech in that it intended to encourage hate against an identifiable religious group in Canada and worldwide." I think you're completely wrong. I think a reasonable person would recognize the opposite. First of all, note the word "Historically" in my comment. Historically, Islam *was* spread by military means in many instances. I don't see that it's hateful to modern-day Muslims to point out this fact, any more than it's hateful to modern-day Catholics to point out that a large number of women were tortured and murdered because of Catholic ideology. It might make them unhappy to talk about it, but that doesn't change the truth of it. Second of all, note sections 319.3a and 319.3c. I have reasonable grounds to believe my statement true. From the time of Mohammed up to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, Islam has spread at least in part through conquest and violence. And while Islam apparently condemns forced conversion, the recent experience of the captured reporters suggests that it's a somewhat flexible rule. As does this-- http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=763 Swordpoint conversion at the hands of Muslims, both historic and present-day, seems like justifiable response to Drea's question of what's the big deal, does it not? So there you go. While my comment might not make Muslims very *happy*, it's founded on information which I believe is accurate, is relevant to current events, and is pertinant to this discussion. In short, while you might dislike what I said, I think it's pretty clear that it's not described by the definition of hate propaganda written in the Criminal Code. If "hate propaganda" legislation were as broad and restrictive as you seem to believe, "The DaVinci Code" would have gotten Dan Brown arrested instead of making him rich. -kimmy

If money was truly wasted, then I think questioning the competence of the government is legitimate, even if the sum of money wasted was within their budgetary means. And I don't doubt that in terms of small-scale pork-barrelling and carelessness and expenditure without due diligence, Alberta's government is as bad as any government in the country. It seems like an inevitable consequence of having neither credible opposition nor a vigilant press... two situations more applicable in Alberta than in any other province. On the other hand, I don't think that Alberta's government is particularly prone to the kinds of adventurous projects that have resulted in catastrophic financial mismanagement in some provinces. (BC's ferry-building experience being a prime example.) And, I did say earlier that a Calgary Sun editorial that's a thinly veiled plug for Ted Morton's campaign is hardly the most reliable source of information... and sure enough it turns out that some of the claims seem dubious and others are poorly supported. -k

Hedy Fry is running for leader? That'll be huge in Prince George. I'm sure the CPC is hoping she wins, though I imagine the overwhelming majority of Liberals will do everything to make sure she doesn't. I see that Carolyn Bennett will be holding "Democracy Dinners" to raise funds. Will Freedom Fries be served at the Democracy Dinners? Sounds tasty. -k

On a somewhat related note, I saw a headline on the National Post recently, indicating that there was a rally for the Tamil Tigers at the University of Waterloo. Anybody catch that? -k edit: National Post story... http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/st...8c95&k=5856 Related story... http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/200...l-waterloo.html

There's little doubt that Klein's government has been sloppy, for a long time. But a Calgary Sun editorial cheerleading for Ted Morton is a source that has to be taken with a grain of salt. The idea of Ted Morton as premier makes me want to puke. -k

Should be delightful. -k

You were presented with two lists-- citizens of countries who require visas if they want to stay longer than 3 months in the Netherlands, and citizens of countries who do not require visas if they want to stay longer. "Haudenosaunee" and other self-proclaimed native nation passports don't appear on either list. Must be some sort of oversight... -k

I do not see where Argus stated that all Muslims in North America are suspects of terror and sedition. Argus's concern is not that Muslims in North America are Saudi-funded terrorists, it's that Saudi oil money is spreading a branch of Islam that's not compatible with western values. I'm becoming unclear as to who you're actually arguing with. Argus has, in this thread, focused his attention of Saudi Arabia funding the spread of Wahhabism. You raised the possibility of legal action in response to a message by Leafless, who at that point had done nothing other than complain that the Charter of Rights is allowing Canada's culture to be changed. Would you agree that you've made mention of making hate-literature complaints in this thread, and that people would be justified in perceiving this as a threat? In my former capacity as a technical support representitive for a very large multinational corporation, one of the guidelines we were given was that the instant a customer mentioned legal action, I was to inform them that I was not authorized to discuss legal matters on behalf of my employer, and that any further mention of legal matters would force me to terminate the call. I am not authorized to discuss legal matters on behalf of MapleLeafWeb either. However, I'm hopeful that we can discuss this rationally. Please cite which statements you feel are are in violation of Canadian legislation on hate speech. Please be specific. Let's examine this rationally. -k

Gotta love Google...http://www.cic.gc.ca/manuals-guides/englis...22Haudenosaunee The Haudenosaunee Passport is listed by Immigration Canada as a "Fictional passport issued by non-existent territories" in Section 5.13. I find it hard to believe that other countries would accept travel documents that Canada uncategorically rejects as "fictional". I got the same reaction when I tried to travel using my "Republic of Kimmy" passport. -k

This is cool. We'll just redefine words and then presto! No ethical problem anymore! Where did he redefine anything? Where does it say that fetuses are people? Is it written down somewhere? Is that the law of the land, or just August's opinion? Is there an official definition of fetus that implies personhood, or definition of personhood which indisputably includes fetus? Does the Supreme Court of Canada say fetuses are people? The fact that the Supreme Court has affirmed the legality of abortion kind of suggests that the "fetuses are people" argument has been weighed and rejected, doesn't it? Perhaps August, and not Figleaf, is the one who is redefining words? -k

Well, I admire your optimism... -k

I'm sure you'll get your settlement. At some point some level of government is going to get tired enough of the shenanigans to open their wallet to make the issue go away. I'm confident that for all the talk of traditions and wiser ways and so on, some amount of White Devil-man's dollars will resolve the issue to your satisfaction. White Devil's society is about to collapse... I guess I'll believe it when I see it. I do have an escape route planned out, just in case. I'll just go deal black-jack and serve drinks at the new casino on the local reserve. I have no idea what the rest of these poor slobs are going to do, though. -k

CTV To me it sounds like a lack of due diligence, not support for terror. It sounds like Kenney or somebody in his staff was dumb to not do adequate research before attending. I'm sure that even Denis Coderre would concede that "dumb mistake" is a much more credible explanation than "Harper government endorses obscure Iranian terrorist group." Not sure the same excuse would fly for the Liberals at the Hezbollah rally. Anyway... is this really something Liberals want to make an issue of? Warren Kinsella wrote recently (under the heading "Super-Secret Liberal Insider Type Stuff", I believe) that when they were successful, they managed the debate. The example he used: don't fight a battle on the Gun Registry. Why? Because although the gun registry is a defensible idea, discussing it invites discussing law and order issues, which is one area where Liberals lose ground to Conservatives. Borrowing Kinsella's logic... while it might be amusing that Kenney stepped in it by attending a rally linked to Iranian terrorists... is that an issue that Liberals want to discuss? Because if they do, it invites discussion of Liberals attending the Hezbollah rally, and the controversy of the Liberals who endorsed negotiating with Hezbollah, and the Young Liberal leader who made the controversial statements regarding Israel and "zionists" within the party. It's very serious issue for the party. Jason Kenney stepped in a cow-pie... the Liberals have stepped on land-mines. -k

Arrogance and condescension. zzzzz.... this kind of stuff is really about all you have, isn't it. 70% of Canadian males and 81% of Canadian females get highschool diplomas. How many "special ed" kids do you imagine there are in this country to drop that below 50%? (is this an example of the exceptional mathematics skills you say natives possess?) What cities have drop-out rates over 50%? Enumerate them for me, please. Or provide some evidence for this claim. The only "cities" I'm aware of where this seems likely are tiny rural communities where young men leave school early to take up the family business of farming. Yes, we're aware that there is corruption and scandal in our government. In terms of the trillions of dollars our government handles, the amount lost to corruption is miniscule. Our government is not perfect, but is recognized as being among the least corrupt on the planet. You keep saying that natives are sovereign, and that your traditions ensure propriety and wisdom are maintained. You claim you're so much wiser, and you claim you're not bound by Whitey's rules. So how is it Whitey's fault when band councils can't manage their own affairs? Why don't you just use your wisdom and your supposed sovereignty to DO THINGS BETTER? If your people are wise and sovereign, why don't you use these attributes to run your communities in a way that reflects your wisdom? And yet the number of natives who achieve success in Canada is disproportionately low, and the proportion of natives who become failures is disproportionately high. If your communities know of better ways of educating young people, why are young natives doing so poorly in life? Why wouldn't we look at the reserves? Aren't they the only places we can look at as examples of this collective native wisdom in action? Do natives who have chosen to leave reservations and join Canadian society have any relevance to this discussion? Yes, Whitey introduced all manner of terrible things to the native people. That's a historical fact. What of it? Shouldn't your collective wisdom and community values allow you to triumph over these obstacles? Apathetic shrimps? In 140 years, Canada has evolved from a backwater colony into one of the most advanced and successful nations in the world in every sense. Your people seem to be the ones in jeopardy. And more of the same arrogance and condescension. If Western Civilization is on the verge of collapse, your people are in as much trouble as anybody else, because at this point your people are dependant on that society. -k

I think the question was why followers of the supposed "Religion of Peace" would be demanding conversion at gunpoint. (and hey, don't forget: as we recently learned in Afghanistan, once you're in, you're not allowed out. Leaving Islam is punishable by death.) Historically, it's the Religion of Peace because everybody who wouldn't sign up is dead. -k

Your "facts" about Canada's education system are, in fact, fiction. Standardized testing indicates that Canada's students are competitive with other industrialized nations. 3/4 of youth graduate from highschool. And of those who don't go on to earn post-secondary degrees, a significant number have gone on to lucrative careers in the trades and skilled labor. Our system of government is corrupt and ineffective? Canada's government is consistently ranked as among the least corrupt in the world. Considering the size and complexity of the enterprise, Canada's government is very efficient. Healthcare? World class. Social services? World class. Overburdened by taxes? Our taxes compare quite well to most industrialized nations. And what do Canada's natives have to teach us about any of that? When it comes to completing post-secondary degrees, or even highschool, Canada's natives are statistically among the poorest achievers in the country, n'est pas? Canada's indian bands are notorious for graft and corruption and making band money disappear. What do natives have to teach Canada about managing a multi-trillion-dollar enterprise when many bands seem to have difficulty even managing their own little budgets? I have a difficult time believing that Canada's natives have all of this insight into running a nation of 33 million, when it appears that they can't even care for their own communities of a few hundred. -k

A wonderful job for CSIS or the US CIA. I don't know if the authorities are even *allowed* to keep tabs on a mosque until such time as they have reason to believe there's a crime being committed. It seems to me that we can't do anything unless the muslim community itself speaks out, and many muslims are understandably reluctant to do so. Interestingly, a group of Muslims did indeed speak out against Kathrada, fully 2 years before Rudwan Khalil turned up dead in Russia: http://mostlywater.org/node/563 So what came of that? Well, Kathrada was still lecturing at Dar Al-Madinah 2 years later, and a look at the Dar Al-Madinah website shows that he's still a scheduled lecturer. It appears that even when the muslim community does speak out against a kook in its midst, and even when the authorities are made fully aware of hate speech going on, and even when national media catches wind of the story... ...nothing happens. -k

I'm more or less sickened at the idea of conservative Islam achieving a significant presence in this country. Remember last year when that chump from Vancouver, Rudwan Khalil, got his stupid ass killed to death fighting Russians in Chechnya... and we had a few days of his relatives saying "ridiculous! our Rudwan is a peace-loving boy!" and so on... and mild media curiousity over what makes a Canadian boy join the Islamist rebels in Chechnya led to his mosque and it's Saudi-trained leader Younus Kathrada. Records of some of Kathrada's pro-jihad and anti-semetic rantings were found on the Dar Al-Madinah mosque's website, and the embarrassed mosque took them down. But even at that, it took some bozo getting himself martyred half-way around the world to draw attention to the question of what went on at this mosque. But there's a lot more Saudi-funded mosques with Saudi-trained kooks at the helm, and we don't really know what goes on at any of them. -k

"The White Man's Burden" is the title of one of Rudyard Kipling's most famous works, a poem about the western world's duty to introduce knowledge and our concepts of civilization to people who are less technologically advanced and have different cultures and customs. Depending how you read the poem, Kipling might be advocating colonialism... or he might be warning of its consequences. Either way, the reference is very apt for the subject of this thread. I would think that Argus's choice of title was intended to reference all of the historical debate symbolized and embodied in Kipling's poem, not an effort to make this a "race" issue. -k

Some of this stuff is pretty funny. Our society is imploding? Whitey will come to the natives begging for help within 25 years? I think everybody who has ever driven through a reservation is probably laughing out loud at the idea. A simple question for the activists who keep posting this stuff here: why bother? You've said over and over that we have no say over the issue, that our opinions are meaningless, and so on... ok, if that's the case, then why are you trying so hard to convince us of your side of the argument? Why do you keep dropping by this tiny little forum to try to change a handful of opinions that are, in your opinion, meaningless anyway? -k

You are referring to something called tax incidence or the idea that the person legally required to pay a tax is often not the person who bears the cost of the tax. (Incidentally, the wikipedia article is not very good. Someone should improve it.)For example, the government could impose a carbon tax on consumers at the pumps but the true cost would be borne by producers since competition would force them to lower the retail price. How does competition force them to lower the retail price, when all of their competitors prices would be equally affected? Competition doesn't force them to absorb the cost of the supply fluctuations that mysteriously precede summer long weekends... why would competition force them to eat the cost of a carbon tax? I doubt they would, particularly when the government is providing a well-publicized reason for the price hike and the gas companies could claim truthfully that it's not their fault. Sorry, August, their track record disputes the argument you're making. Sure. Either way, this is ultimately coming out of the wallet of Canadian consumers. I've never purchased a new vehicle, so I can't actually relate to what details go through your head as you're negotiating the lease. I do know that when I purchased my own car (the late, unlamented Reliant...) the operating costs were not a primary concern. While I had a vague awareness that I would have to pay for gas, I had the feeling that I could manage gas costs by just driving less if need be. Purchasing my car with the proceeds of a summer at a minimum wage job, the larger obstacle was the initial purchase price of the vehicle, not the operating costs. I have a hunch that the same kind of logic applies when people are purchasing their SUVs. People who can afford to shell out $70k to $100k or more for a Hummer or an Escalade probably don't have to sweat gas prices too much either, and it's probably not a factor in their purchasing decision. I've always had the sense that part of the reason people choose to drive a vehicle like that is to show other people that you're a successful person. "I can afford a car like this!" and in the past couple of years the footnote has been added: "...and I can afford to buy gas for it!" Ethanol would be lower because it is CO2 neutral. In growing, corn stalks take CO2 out of the atmosphere and then burning the ethanol puts it back in. An excellent point. On a grams-of-CO2 (and other emmissions) produced per litre burned, I think it still provable using highschool chemistry that propane and natural gas come out ahead of gasoline, if only marginally. Doesn't this sound like a bureaucratic nightmare, though? Keeping track of which oil has already been taxed? For as long as I've been on MLW, you've been pointing out that governments don't know how to do anything cheaply. Why would this oil-tracking bureacracy be any different?We already have efficient and easy to administer means of applying a carbon tax at point of purchase, whether from utility company or your corner gas station. Why wouldn't you want to use them? The same can be said for the purchase of fossil fuels. If somebody's buying gasoline or propane or natural gas in Canada, we know darned well they're going to burn it. There's precious little else they can do with it, whether they're putting it into their car, or a jerry-can, or whether it enters their house through a pipe connected to their furnace. (I guess there might be situations where somebody buys gasoline to use as a cleaning solvent or killing head-lice... but by weight of fuel sold I'm sure that those applications are pretty insignificant...)A question your approach raises: should the carbon tax be applied on oil we export? One thing that occured to me as I read Ignatieff's plan is, don't a lot of tax-grabs lately seem to be justified with a statement that it'll make Canada a world leader in this or that? I believe in last election it was claimed at various points that applying taxes could make us world leaders in emissionless automobiles, alternative electrical generation, healthcare innovation, advanced manufacturing, and pharmaceutical research. I have argued elsewhere that the modern Left confuses symbol and reality. Your final point is an example of that idea. For example, the modern Left believes that if we change the words (symbols) used to describe reality, we can change reality. I would argue that symbols, to be credible, can only reflect reality. I don't understand what you're saying. Why isn't a carbon tax applied to consumers a credible symbol of the real issue? Requesting that people pay a fee for the privilege of putting emissions into the air seems justifiable and credible based on standards that we already accept. A carbon tax is based on two fundamental ideas, which I think are both very defensible: if you're buying fuel, you're going to create emissions when you use the fuel. And, the government has the power to regulate the use of the air. It's an undeniable scientific truth: for each litre of fuel you buy, you will put X amount of emissions into the atmosphere. And we've already established that the government has the power to regulate vehicular travel through the air, and we've established that the government has the power to regulate electromagnetic and sonic emissions into the air... and I believe it's also the case that the government is able to impose fines and penalties for large-scale production of atmospheric pollution (can a factory pump poisons or carcinogens out of their smoke-stacks with impunity? I don't believe so.) The idea that the government has the right to regulate emissions into the air seems to be based on precidents that nobody seems to take issue with. You say that the government needs to claim ownership of the air; I think that the government has already established ownership, but isn't very active in applying this ownership yet. -k

IOW, this program was not produced by the CBC. How independent are these independent film-makers, though? By and large we're talking about people who've received grants from government or interest-groups aren't they? When I bother to tune in to one of these things-- which is pretty seldom, I admit-- I generally find the perspectives to be rather homogenous and predictable. -k