kimmy

Well, Levant might indeed be an opportunistic dingus. But I believe that's somewhat beside the point. First off, a question: have you seen the cartoons, Black Dog? Did you specifically look for them on the internet? I did. I know that many have. From what I've seen, most who weigh in on the subject have seen the cartoons (I'm amused at how many I've seen swear they saw the cartoons "only by accident.") I looked for them. I wanted to know what the fuss was about. I wanted to know whether the cartoons were hateful *from a western perspective* (meaning, I wanted to know if they had editorial merit from the criteria that a western newspaper editor would use.) I know that a large number of people who have followed the controversy have done the same. And I think there's an element of hypocrisy at work when we internet snobs, a large number of us having made the decision to search out this information to satisfy our own intellectual curiousity, presume to apply different standards to people who rely on print media. Something I think that's been overlooked is the timeline. The cartoons were published in Denmark on September 30, 2005. Nothing happened in October. Nothing happened in November. Nothing happened in December. Then in late January there's an uproar. Why didn't anything happen for 3 and a half months? Muslims in Denmark reacted to the cartoons, when they were first published, as citizens in a western democracy react to such things: they wrote letters and they demanded to speak with editors and politicians. This is about the same as Catholics react when some TV show or editorial cartoon upsets them, it seems to me. Nothing happened with these cartoons until some conservative Muslims went to the middle east to provoke reaction. They showed off pictures that Jyllands-Posten never even published, such as the now infamous pig Mohammed drawing. At the point that the cartoons became a controversy, continuing to try to keeps them under wraps does a disservice to everyone. For Muslims, the media's decision to the cartoons under wraps has allowed a small group with an agenda to greatly overstate the degree of offense that was done to their faith. For the rest of us, stifling discussion about the issue has allowed misinformation to grow. "They can't handle free speech" and "it's just cartoons... why are they so upset?" are two common perceptions building in our country about this. Canadian Muslims can handle free speech. They'll respond to the cartoons as the Danish Muslims did, not as middle-eastern Muslims have. -k

Aw, thanks. It is nice to hear that some people did take my message in the spirit it was intended. I originally posted that on Jan 26, toward the end of this thread: http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi...=35&t=002131&p= Somebody later reposted it into the Feb 6 thread you mention. Well, I got jumped on for neglecting to mention that my ancestors stole the land from the natives. And then there were some Stockwell Day jokes, and then the thread got closed. -k

I think Harper has enough to worry about at home. After last week's debacles, I don't think jetting to Europe to watch hockey would do his image much good. Sounds like a rather Pettigrew thing to be doing, to be honest. Although I've noticed Laura Bush hanging out at the Olympics. Maybe Laureen should head over. They could swap recipes, and so on. -k

This was hardly so awesome that it needed to be posted once, let alone twice. I take your opposition to bossing others around and interfering with other cultures to mean you support a Canadian withdrawal from Afghanistan? -k

You will not see what Muslims see. This is the point that a lot of people are missing. Depictions of Muhammed are considered 'idolatry', just as the Jews and Muslims see Christians as 'idol-worshippers' for venerating 'Christ on the Cross'. That might be true. However, the claim being made (and now being taken before Canadian courts, I believe) is that the cartoons are hate speech. The question of whether these cartoons are a legitimate exercise of free speech or whether they incite hatred is one that must be answered from a Canadian perspective, not from an Islamic perspective. -k

What about movie theatres offering different prices depending on the age of the customer? What about establishments of all sorts that offer discounts for students or seniors? A new Edmonton nightclub does not allow people under 21, even though the legal drinking age is 18. These are also discriminatory, aren't they? Dating services and chat-lines offer lower prices for women to join up. Many bars offer cheap drinks for women on certain nights. The theory is that more women will participate if the price is lower, and more men will participate if there are more women. But is this not also discriminatory? What about apartment buildings and condominiums that only sell or rent to residents over 50 with no kids? What about places with dress-codes? I don't know that the specifics of these gay-only nights at these clubs, but I am guessing that they probably happen on Tuesday or Wednesday night when business is normally pretty slow. The gambit (as with student discounts, senior discounts, cheap chat lines and cheap drinks for women) is that they can increase business by offering a specific incentives for groups that normally have lower participation rates. For the new nightclub, the target audience is patrons who've stopped going out because they're sick of teenagers running around throwing up and looking for fights. In the case of gay-night at the club, that incentive would be a gay-friendly atmosphere where they can meet other gay people. In the case of a women's fitness club, the incentive is the opportunity to exercise without being oogled by men. If the courts step in and say "you can't have gay-only night" or "you can't have a women-only fitness club," they're essentially dismantling a part of the business plan. To me, "It's my business and I'll run it as I see fit" should be the only response necessary. If the owners of Spy Lady or FriendlyAdultConnections or Golden Years Condominiums or Mantastic! Nightclub feel that they can find a niche in the marketplace by discriminating against some prospective customers to create a certain atmosphere for their patrons, that should be their right. Ok, so then there's the question about what if the discrimination is particularly odious or unsavory? The well-known case of the golf-course that's almost exclusively white men? Well, regretably I think that should be their choice as well, as long as it's a privately run business. However, I think that they'll find their club shrinking as increasingly few educated white men would want to be part of a blatantly racist club. Before very long their ideal customers will have died of old age, and the only people who'd want to be in their club will be people who can't afford the fees. -k

Forgot to add: I found the difference between the *handling* of the two defections striking. When Stronach crossed the floor, they went to such effort to spin us this little drama of the sequence of events. They went to such pains to try to sell us a version of events that didn't make Stronach look like an opportunist and didn't make Martin look like a desperate man, and to try to gain additional political mileage by making Harper look mean-spirited and the party look uninclusive. Yesterday, Harper's explanation was more or less "I've always thought David Emerson was a good guy, and I wanted a representative from Vancouver in my Cabinet, so I called him and offered him a Cabinet post and he accepted." Without going into any debate about whether the Stronach and Emerson cases are any different, I will just mention that I found Harper's explanation to be more straightforward, more blunt, more credible. The Liberal spin of Belinda.ca's defection was so self-serving that it practically begged for skepticism. I think Harper handled it much better and that might be one reason why he's not getting as tough a ride over this as Martin and Stronach did. -k

I am somewhat disappointed as well. This was not what I had hoped for from Harper, and especially not on his first day. I sense that the Fortier decision is somewhat akin to his making Josee Verner his Quebec lead after the 2004 election, even though she was defeated. That, ultimately, paid off for Harper and may have been a factor in the party's unexpected breakthrough in Quebec. I'm sure he hopes that Fortier will pay similar dividends in Montreal. Luring a prominent Liberal to cross the floor is also somewhat disappointing... when the shoe was on the other foot, then were rather vocal about the immorality of running under one banner then serving under another. I think in both situations, Harper decided that the long-term payoff is worth the short-term optics. I think that like getting same-sex marriage out of the way on the first day of the election campaign, Harper believes that doing this now means it will be less damaging than if it happened later down the road, and that having Fortier and Emerson in Montreal and Vancouver will ultimately be worth the price he pays right now. Whether this turns out to be a politically astute move remains to be seen. But I do find it disappointing and somewhat out of step with his views on senate reform and democratic reform. -k

Who cares where she's from? She was elected by Edmonton voters. Yeah, I can tell... And if your opinion of somebody is decided by their address and not their ideas, then I don't really care to waste another moment with you, either. -k

First off, you're not doing much to make yourself look smart by calling people idiots. Secondly, the ridings are named "Edmonton-Spruce Grove" and "Edmonton-Leduc". (Mike Lake's riding is Edmonton-Beaumont, as well.) All 3 ridings take a chunk of Edmonton and combine it with areas outside the city. Edmonton-Spruce Grove contains a big chunk of the western side of Edmonton that includes West Edmonton Mall. If you don't agree, why don't you check the riding map. Idiot. http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/candidatesri...alberta/257.pdf -k

This is the most pointless argument since "Tastes great/Less filling." I mean, good lord. I feel embarrassed to have even read it... how much worse do you guys feel for having written it? -k

Aw, thanks guys And thanks to August for thinking enough of that to cross-post it, even if it's not exactly within forum rules. I found my experience on Babble to be ... well, it's a lot like other message boards, actually. There are some bright people who are willing to talk intelligently about ideas. There are some people who are there to just spew bile and don't wish to let facts get in the way of a good rant. I imagine that Black Dog or Newbie find visiting Mapleleafweb much the same as I found Babble. I'd say that there are less balancing viewpoints at Babble than there are here at MLW, and I get the sense that a lot of the Babblers are not used to discussing ideas with people who don't agree with them. One of the things I've enjoyed about MLW is that there have been thoughtful members with a variety of viewpoints, but over the past few months I've felt that the balance has been declining... some of the better "lefties" don't participate as much (or at all) anymore. Another thing my visit to Babble has made me appreciate is that Greg is a good moderator. The thread I signed up to participate in was locked because a moderator decided it was "too long", and my critic never got a chance to reply to my follow-up to his criticisms. I understand that discussing same-sex-marriage is a banning offense there, yet in other threads we find vicious attacks on people who aren't "progressive." A lot of the progressives seemed excited by the idea that Harper's asthma might kill him. I think MLW tends to have a better attitude, although the Gore thread gives me pause... Anyway, I signed up at Babble to say some things I thought should be said, but now the novelty has pretty much worn off. -k {future ex-Babbler}

Thought 1: your H4rp0r page is hilarious. Thought 2: I doubt Rick Mercer and similar had much influence on the outcome. While M3rc0r may have had some barbs for the Liberals, he's never really let up on H4rp0r (the "Future Conservative Cabinet" being particularly notable.) Thought 3: if Rick Mercer really was taken seriously, Stockwell Day would probably have been dealt with by peasants with pitchforks and torches by now. Ralph Klein would probably be living in a ditch, drinking Lysol to dull his bitterness. Thought 4: Mercer finding humour in the Liberals' ineptitude really just proves that he can still recognize humour. Let's face it, the Liberals are funny, funny people. -k1mm0r {"h4rp0r knows the hum0ns yearn for information. your curiousity knows no bounds..." great cartoons, dude }

That Harper has tapped Mulroney people (you forgot Marjorie LeBreton, btw ) to help get set up in government isn't a bad thing. I expect that there are large numbers of non-elected staff to be put in place and a lot of chaos going on at Parliament Hill. Having capable and experienced people to call upon can only help get things done quickly and efficiently. It doesn't mean Mulroney's calling the shots or that Mulroney-style porkbarrelling is back in vogue. Hopefully Harper has learned from the pitfalls of his predecessors of the past 20 years. -k

Consenting adults. Then why is the age of consent being lobbied by the Gay Group to be lowered? *which* "gay group" is advocating for lowering the age of consent. You need to be *very* specific when you're making a claim like this. -k

I had been a little skeptical of this idea, and the playing of the supposed "Alberta card" by Hargrove, Martin, and Duceppe. However, I spent a little time browsing over at Babble this morning and was, indeed, taken aback by the amount of anti-Alberta bile I saw. There does indeed seem to be a sense among some of the "progressives" that a hostile foreign power has staged a political coup in Canada. I was of course expecting to see hyperbole about "neocons" and an "agenda of hate" and so on, with the Babblers being what they are. But I was quite unprepared for words like "Almericans" and the sheer amount of anger directed not just at Harper but at *this province.* I don't assume that these people represent all "progressives" or all Ontarions, but that element was certainly in evidence in what I read there this morning. -k

Hi and welcome! I also hear Frank McKenna often mentioned as a likely frontrunner. Some also wonder if John Manley might try again. -k

Sadly, the numbers are not quite there. The voters have spoke. Sadly, the numbers are not quite there, either. Not enough hats to keep up with demand. This is the official design, as proposed by Canuck E. Stan. Here is some background on the party's formation. Although it was the best thing for the party, I'm still surprised that Paul Martin actually resigned. Didn't he run it past his focus-groups first?Agreed, I don't think he was a bad person, and he was a good finance minister... but he was a lousy prime minister. -k

Paul Martin has just resigned as Liberal leader, but will remain in the HoC to represent Lasalle.

The article doesn't say the CPC has joined forces with Jean Chretien. It says: Kinsella says the same. Martin's war within the party against the Chretienites has come back to bite him in the ass, rather literally. Quebec journalist Michel Auger (is he the one who got shot by the Hell's Angels?) identifies what he believes are the 4 crucial moments of the campaign: Two strong tactical moves by Harper. One disasterously timed appearance of impropriety. And one boneheaded move by Martin. -k

For goodness sake, Chris, try to learn to think critically for yourself. Just because you read something on the Internet doesn't mean it is true. What court approved "Dr Carly" as an expert? What expertise did the court approve her as an expert on? We don't know. She didn't tell us. The fact that some lawyer was able to get her onto the stand to rant doesn't mean she is credible. Where did "Dr Carly" go to medical school? Her biography says her degree is in Diagnostic Ultrasound. How does being an Ultrasound Technician qualify somebody as an expert in immunology? Just because "Dr Carly" posted her rambling crap in the Public Comments section at the CDC website doesn't mean she's a CDC expert. Just because she has used some quotations from a recognized medicine text-book in her rambling crap doesn't mean that the quotes have any relationship to what she is actually saying. She knows that anybody who actually knows what the quotations actually mean would not waste any time reading her junk-science anyway. She is writing people who have no idea what the terms she is using mean, so she knows that she can use the quotes to "prove" something that they don't actually say. If I wrote something to you and provided Japanese quotes to "prove" that I was right, would you trust me? Would you trust that the Japanese quotes say what I said they did, or would you want to know for sure? If you would be mistrustful of information I provided you in Japanese, you should probably also be mistrustful of complicated medical information that you don't understand. It doesn't say what "Dr Carly" says it says. It doesn't prove what "Dr Carly" wants you to believe. "Dr Carly" is a lot like "Dr Horowitz". She is taking advantage of people who just don't have enough information to know what she's actually talking about. -k

Rachel Marsden was a Simon Fraser University competitive swimmer who gained national notoriety by publicly accusing her coach of sexually harrassing her. Later... too late to save the coach's job or reputation, of course... it was revealed that she was actually an obsessive stalker who was fixated on her coach. I don't actually know what the link between Rachel Marsden and Gurmant Grewal is. Perhaps she has left athletics behind and is now stalking MPs. Gallant a loose cannon. We'll undoubtably hear from her after the election. Like it or not, Harper has won (is it too soon to say that?) this election by moderating his position on some social issues, including abortion. If Harper does not stand by the more moderate positions that have contributed greatly to this victory, he will have proven his critics right, the ones who said that the "new moderate Harper" can't be trusted. If Harper does not stand by the more moderate positions he has espoused during this campaign, he would be leading the Conservatives back out into the wilderness of Canadian politics. Harper is a pragmatist and he's accomplished something very important... I can't imagine that he wants to throw it onto the scrap-heap of history just for the sake of appeasing Cheryl Gallant and her corner of the party. -k

I'm setting up in the Caymans as we speak. I'll get back to you. -k

Coyne's take on this was priceless. -k

Thanks, guys. It's been a tough campaign, but I know it's worth it when I see regular Canadians "Stand Up for Dietary Fibre!" -k