kimmy

huh? I ... don't understand... this "puppy pile" of which you speak... this is a Quebec thing? -k

Certainly "the left" is not a monolith. Certainly there are some cooler heads and broader thinkers who could be counted among "the left". Certainly painting "the left" with a broad brush based on the ramblings at certain message boards is as unfair as characterizing "the right" based on ranting at freedomininon or similar. That said, I have been viewing Babble and similar quite regularly the past few days to get a handle on some of the opposing arguments, and there are a number of themes that seem to pop up quite regularly. They might not be universal to the left, but I've seen these views expressed often enough to think that they're somewhat representative. I will try to enumerate some of these views as fairly as I can... * it's obviously just bravado from some young men talking smack on the internet. The RCMP and CSIS are overreacting. * a "sting operation" is practically the same thing as entrapment. If the RCMP hadn't made it possible for these kids to buy fertilizer, none of this would have ever happened. Who even knows if they would have tried to buy fertilizer if the RCMP hadn't facilitated it. * these guys are obviously incompetent and didn't pose a real threat. The government is just trying to scare people to boost support for their right-wing security agenda. * the RCMP and CSIS spied on these Canadian citizens. They used wiretaps. This is a gross violation of civil liberties. * the RCMP said they have foiled other terror operations recently just by telling the suspects they were being monitored. Why didn't they do that this time? Why did they let the plot get to this point before they stepped in? I hope I've presented these fairly as opposed to making them look like straw-men. Is that a fair representation of some of the common themes being presented by people on "the left" in this saga? And have I missed any that should be mentioned? -kimmy

While she's deranged and the personal attack on 9/11 widows is tasteless to say the least, she does kind of have a point. Does the fact that these people lost loved ones in the 9/11 attacks make them more knowledgeable about national security? Or does it just make it harder to argue with them without coming across like an insensitive bully? -k

Balls to that: did you watch the game? Conklin's brain-fart aside, that one could just as easily have gone Edmonton's way. The series still can. If the Oilers can dominate the play the way they did for 90 per cent of Game One and tighten up on D, they need only to get a steady performance from whoever's in net to have a decent shot. Carolina has some big question marks that the Oilers can continue to exploit. This one ain't over. I hope you're right. -k

Pakistan Daily Times The Pakistan Daily Times is obviously getting their legal advice from Rabble. -k

And we're not a target already? (re-checks recent headlines...) -kimmy {I think we might be a target already...}

A few points, Gost: The Canadian military has had a difficult time recruiting for years. They did advertise regularly under the Liberals as well. I would not be surprised if they have advertised more since Harper took over, though, as stepping up recruitment was a part of the Conservatives' campaign platform of spiffing up the military. (as are the planned purchases of equipment, and I believe better wages and living conditions for members of the military as well.) The Conservatives have never made a secret of their intention of making the military a higher spending priority than it was under the Liberals. You're right that the troops have consistently been in more danger in the past few months than they were during the Liberals' time in office. This is because Canada's military has taken on a more front-line role in Afghanistan in recent months. However, this was a decision made well before the election. I believe Canada's stepped up operations in Afghanistan began in late 2005, and were a result of a commitment we made to our allies in the region. Osama Bin Laden hadn't been much mentioned in the few months before, either. Why would that change since the arrests? It's been made clear that this group had no connection with Al Qaeda. -k

That's the defense lawyer speaking.God help us all if this thing turns into a media circus. Perhaps he hopes to discredit the charges by making the allegations sound ridiculous or over the top. However, in the context, it's not ridiculous or over the top in the least. Should I check in on Babble to see whether they're giggling in delight at the notion of Harper being beheaded? Renting a few vans is hardly out of reach for the average Canadian. The fertilizer is alleged to have cost $2000 (source) which I doubt required any extraordinary financing. I don't know how much a remote piece of land in Ontario costs. I do know that there are pieces of land in some parts of Alberta that are very inexpensive because they're unsuitable for any agricultural purpose and undesirable for most recreational purposes. What else? Some smuggled guns, some paintball guns, and some car trips out of town... Why did the September 11 attacks require such extensive financing? Because they had to pay for housing and living expenses of 19 foreigners in the United States for months or years beforehand, they had to pay for flight school tuitions, and extensive travel arrangements. Where's the comparable expense in this alleged plan? The suspects are Canadians, who either have jobs or live with their parents. Nothing I've read so far suggests that the money required would be out of reach to a group of ordinary Canadians, which this (aside from their intentions) apparently was. -k

How about Dueceppe has negative opinions, which don't really count for the rest of Canada. Duceppe makes a fair point. There's only 2 possibilities: either the Liberals and NDP intended to oppose the budget, or they didn't. If they intended to oppose the budget, then letting it pass unanimously was a huge display of ineptitude. If they didn't intend to oppose the budget, then saying that they intended to do so but missed the chance because of a procedural mix-up is simply a lie. Here's my suspicion: -they didn't want to vote against the budget because they didn't want to go on record as opposing the cut to the GST. "They voted against cutting the GST" is something Conservative strategists would have loved to have stated in next election's campaign ads. -abstaining wasn't an appealing option either. They'd promised their supporters to fight aspects of the Conservatives' budget. And, of course, the Liberals had heckled the Conservatives last year for choosing to abstain rather than vote against some pieces of legislation. -k

This confusion is an example of why Greg would like people to learn to use the board's "quote" function properly. -k

With Dwayne Roloson injured, the Oilers are all but finished now. -k

I checked in at Babble yesterday to get a feel for how some of the lefties are taking this, and based on what I saw they're not taking it very well. People there are clinging for dear life to the "sting operation". Spend a few minutes at Babble and you'll be left with the impression that the RCMP must have picked 17 brown-skinned people at random and persuaded them to buy 3 tons of ammonium nitrate. And you'll read people bandying about the word "entrapment" as if they had a clue what the legal definition of the term is. You'll even find people convinced that this bit of police-work was a neo-con frame-up devised by Harper himself. "The Left," generally speaking, has a great deal of emotional investment in the premise that the threat is a fictional creation of "neo-con" interests. And to try to protect their emotional investment, they'll grasp at any straw to try to defend that premise. -If CSIS has been monitoring this group for 2 years, it was probably racial profiling. -If this group tried to buy 3 tons of fertilizer, then the RCMP must have "entrapped" them into doing so. -If this group has a wilderness retreat, it's probably because they're nature enthusiasts. -If this farmer is claiming he heard machineguns being fired at the retreat, he's probably a racist who is lying because wants the brown-people away from his land. -If there were test-explosions of home-made explosives, it was probably a science experiment, like model rocketry or the model volcano that erupts with fake lava. It probably all makes sense. They're probably just horticultural enthisiasts who wanted to use the 3 tons of fertilizer to grow some super crops at their wilderness getaway. The sound of machinegun fire was probably just flatulent geese or something. -k

uh, the intention of destroying public targets for political reasons probably has something to do with it, maybe? If somebody formulates a plan to blow up the Toronto Stock Exchange (source) they're a terrorist. -k

Thanks! I could say it was great to be back, but I wish the circumstances were different. Everything was going along so nicely. The election over, the good-guys won, I'm very pleased with the job Harper and friends have been doing so far... I didn't feel a pressing need to write about anything. I felt like I was on a long, happy vacation. Until this weekend, at least. Now I'm all aggitated and discombobulated again. -k

There's always a campaign "afoot". There isn't always a concious repetiation of a particular phrase happening, is there? As the article points out, he used the term "new government" twice in one day talking about terrorism. And if you go look at the canada.gc.ca site what do you see? "CANADA'S NEW GOVERNMENT" appears twice. Try googling it! I did. It's pretty odd, but not if you consider the basics of political propaganda as the article presents in the form of Hitlers words. I think Stephen needs to just be himself and stop listening to his paid hypnotists. I suspect that mentioning his "new government" at every opportunity might have something to do with wanting to remind people that he's not affiliated with the pack of scam-artists that ran this country for the previous 12 years. I suspect there's a point implied when he uses the phrase. For instance, "Canada's old government might have treated the military like crap, but Canada's new government is behind you." Do you honestly think Stephen Harper is the first Canadian Prime Minister to work a favorite slogan into his speeches? Should we go through some of Paul Martin's speeches and see how often he mentioned some of his inane slogans? -kimmy

"You can't prove that he knew about it." "It wasn't technically against the rules." Doesn't this sound painfully familiar to Liberal supporters? Gerry, if you could put aside your role as self-appointed Liberal apologist for a moment and just imagine you're a regular guy on the street and you hear this sort of thing. Do you think "You can't prove he knew" and "it wasn't technically against the rules" are explanations that inspire a lot of confidence in the typical Canadian voter? It seems as though some members of the Liberal party learned nothing from the last election. As a Liberal supporter, Gerry, what's your honest opinion about Joe Volpe? Is this really the guy you want leading your party into the next election, or do you want to see a different winner? Because personally, as somebody who wants to see Stephen Harper win the next election, I'd be delighted if Joe Volpe is the man leading the Liberals.

If nothing else, this should at least put a permanent end to the stupid, yet previously common, claim that staying out of Iraq would keep us safe from terrorism. Remember, folks: we don't get to decide what qualifies as a provocation to the terrorists. They themselves decide what they take offense to, and they're not known for taking a fair, rational, mainstream view when it comes to deciding what justifies an attack. I just thought I should throw that out there, because some of you debating whether Canada's role in Afghanistan spurred this seem to have lost sight of it. GostHacked seems to take great comfort that this collection of suspects apparently has no connection to Al Qaeda. Why is that a good thing? I find myself wondering the same thing I wonder everytime the Edmonton Police Service talks about a new prostitute murder. "We have no evidence that this is the work of a serial killer." Is that supposed to be comforting? Which is actually more disturbing: the idea that all 30+ murders were committed by the same man, or that there are 30+ unrelated murders and perhaps 30+ murderers walking the street? To me, I find the idea that Canadian citizens would find "inspiration" in the work of Al Qaeda and start building their own bombs to be the most troubling aspect of this. -k

No university degree? Worked for ... some autoparts company? Wow, he sounds a lot like our previous Minister of Human Resources and Democratic Renewal! Ambrose is just there because she's a woman and because she's good looking? You do realize this makes you look like a total asshole, right? I can hardly wait until the "progressives" start accusing her of sleeping her way to the top. -k

(hmm. how'd they forget the Beslan school massacre?) Anyway, I'm not generally one to stick up for Muslims in any discussion, but I'm not exactly sure this is fair. I'm not sure I buy the claim that there was "no Muslim outrage" to the events listed here. There might not be large public demonstrations, but I don't think that means there was no outrage. -k

Hi, I assume it was my message you were responding to. I didn't mean to "bash" Ottawa. Black Dog returned from a week in Montreal and proclaimed the awesomeness of the place. I was trying to illustrate that when you visit someplace, you see the tourist attractions and the highlights, but don't experience the ups and downs of day to day life. I was trying to illustrate, using my experience in Ottawa and Vancouver. If I had gone to Ottawa for a week or two, I could have come home and raved about all the cool galleries and the canal and the maple trees and all the old buildings and stuff that we just don't have here in Edmonton. But, since I lived there for a few years, I saw not just that stuff, but also experienced a whole lot of stuff that is much less than awesome about Ottawa. I hated the climate. I found there were just as many dumb-asses there as there are here. "Klondike Days" maybe have been cheesy and tacky, but no more so than "Super-Ex". (I'd probably take Ottawa's Winterlude over Edmonton's Fringe, though.) I was just trying to illustrate that there's more to a city than the stuff you squeeze into a week-long tour. And while we big-city Albertans are aware of our shortcomings of our 2 major cities in comparison to Canada's older major centers, we are not so much aware that in many ways we're also blessed compared to those cities. -k

So, has Al Gore, or anybody else, yet provided even a shred of evidence to suggest that the Conservative Party of Canada and the oil industry have conspired to break Canada's election financing and political donations rules? For that matter, has Al Gore, or anybody else, even provided a reason to suspect that the Conservatives did actually outspend the Liberals? I actually kind of doubt that they did. I don't think the reason the Liberals campaign sucked is that they didn't spend enough money. I think it's that they spent their money foolishly. -k

Well, here's the transcript. People can decide for themselves whether the press corps threw a childish tantrum, or if Scott McLellan was being a dick. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20060214-1.html I don't think he gives a straight answer to a single question, which seems like more than adequate reason for the press to become frustrated with his pudgy ass. For amusement purposes only, here is a kimmy-endorsed parody: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/...duel/index.html ...and this is why people are annoyed with the media over this. New Jersey police said almost a week ago that their wiretaps appear to exonerate Wayne Gretzky of any involvement, and it's been known since Wednesday that Wayne would not be charged or even called as a witness. And yet "the guy on the street still has the impression that Wayne Gretzky was involved in something illegal. I guess this is the sports/entertainment corollary of the philosophy that if you're talking about the Western Standard publishing the Mohammed cartoons, you should show video of rioting in Beirut. -k

We would not have attacked Iraq as it was irrelevant to even the least obvious of observers. We would have gone to the UN and secured the proper authority and allies to conduct an assault into Afghanistan where the enemy was. And since we undoubedtly would have had more allies than the US, we just might have been able to capture Osama and undermine his movement. I really doubt it. More likely, Canada spends 3 months of fruitless begging and pleading with Mullah Omar to send Bin Laden here. After which, we announce bad-ass measures like cutting them from our foreign aid plan. Maybe it's just me. I can't picture Canada instigating a military action against a country on the otherside of the world. We're followers, not leaders. As for the Americans mishandling Afghanistan, recall that the US did in fact secure UN authorization and a long list of allies before going to Afghanistan. At that time they literally did have the whole world on their side, and they did not lose that goodwill for over a year. -k

No, that wasn't directed specifically at you. I am skeptical of Jyllands Posten's motives in commissioning the cartoons in the first place. I just feel that trying to "protect" Muslims from these cartoons is patronizing. It actually reinforces the prejudices people already have: Jews and Christians can handle this stuff, but Muslims have to be protected from it because... well, why, exactly? Is it true that Muslims can't handle freedom? I don't think it's true. I don't think Muslims need to be protected from this. I think it's patronizing and condescending to think otherwise. I'm a little leery of the way you've phrased this: "the media ...have listened and respected their rights". The "right" to not be offended is *not* a right that people have in our society. This might be just semantics, and maybe that's not exactly what you meant, but it's an important point in my opinion. The media has not respected their *rights*, they've respected their *feelings*. And I don't want the media making decisions about how to cover a story based on whether peoples' feelings might be hurt. In this case, it's a minor point because seeing the cartoons is arguably not vital to an understanding of the story. You can form your own opinion of this issue, provided you're comfortable with accepting someone else's opinion of whether the cartoons 'depict' Mohammed or 'lampoon' him, as various news outlets have characterized this. (I again point out that while many of us on the internet have had the opportunity to decide for outselves whether Mohammed has been 'depicted' or 'lampooned', very few who rely on conventional media have had the opportunity to decide for themselves. Does that seem fair? Are we who get our news from our computer better equipped to make these decisions than those who get their news from a newspaper or TV? I digress.) In this case, it's not that big of a deal. But what if the media made all its decisions based on whether peoples' feelings might be hurt? How would you feel if the media decided to not cover Israeli actions in the Gaza Strip, because the media felt that it might hurt the feelings of Canadian Jews? Or if they didn't bother to report on that whole pedophile priests debacle because it might make Catholics feel bad? That wouldn't be acceptible. Not in my view. Is the same thing happening here? No major media outlet has published the cartoons. I see these possibilities: --they decided it was the proper editorial decision... or, --they were afraid (not necessarily of bombs. more likely of controversy, bad publicity, and maybe legal action.) And while I'm sure that most media outlets will *say* that they didn't publish the cartoons because it was the proper editorial decision. However, I'm not convinced that it was such a clear-cut decision. I strongly suspect that fear-- of controversy, of bad publicity, of possible legal action-- played a role. "sorry, won't happen again"? We simply can't make such a promise. Because there *will* be a next time-- some Imam will say something controversial, or some idiot will do something that brings unwanted attention to the whole Muslim community, and the press *will* be expected to cover it, and some Muslims' feelings *will* get hurt. -k

I think this whole issue has shown that many in Canada still have a very patronizing attitude toward Canada's Muslim population. People seem to have the opinion that publishing the cartoons in Canada is "not responsible" because it will result in the same sort of chaos that has occured in Beirut. Do people really have such a low opinion of Canadian Muslims? Keep in mind that when the cartoons were published in Denmark, Danish Muslims didn't react violently. They responded to the situation using the mechanisms available to citizens in a western democracy. And keep in mind that the situation in the middle east has been inflamed by people with an agenda. Extremists went on tour of the middle east to provoke outrage over the situation using cartoons that were never published in Denmark. This article contains allegations that the situation has been inflamed for political advantage by Muslims: http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_fatah/20060210.html -an Egyptian journalist says: "Muslim governments who spearheaded the campaign — led by Egypt — felt this was an easy way to burnish their Islamic credentials at a time when domestic Islamists are stronger than they have been in many years." -a Lebanese official says that most of the people connected with rioting in Beirut were actually Syrians, and claims that known Syrian agents were involved in inciting the violence. The goal, he says, was to create instability in Lebanon to justify a Syrian military presence. Which do you think is more logical? That Canadian Muslims will respond like Danish Muslims did, or that Canadian Muslims will respond like Middle Eastern Muslims did? Canadian Muslims will handle this just fine. They'll be annoyed, just as Catholics or other religious groups are when their religion is criticized or portrayed poorly in the media, and they'll respond in the same way. This attitude among lefty-types that the cartoons mustn't be published because the Muslims will be provoked is not based on tolerance or openmindedness. It's actually based on the same patronizing belief that "they can't handle free speech" that anti-muslim types hold. -k