kimmy

We live in a country that was governed for 11 years by the ugliest son of a bitch this side of Mick Jagger. How much of a factor could appearance really be? -k

Not. Try this: http://www.ccsd.ca/pr/2003/aboriginal.htm uh, from your link: Although a disproportionate number of the poor are aboriginal, aboriginals comprise only 3.4% of the poor in the cities studied. Or, as Argus put it, "there are more poverty-stricken whites than poverty-stricken natives, simply out of sheer numbers." -k

Is it possible that the BQ will get fewer votes, yet win more seats, this time around? I suspect that a lot of Quebec voters who intend to vote BQ do so because they hate the Liberals, not because they actually support separation. I also suspect that a lot of Quebec voters who intend to vote Liberal do so because they oppose the BQ, not because they support the Liberals. I also suspect that a lot of Quebec voters who right now are toying with the idea of voting CPC will probably, by election time, have moved into one of the two groups I just mentioned. After the election we'll be able to look at it riding-by-riding and see what impact (if any) a rise in CPC support in Quebec had. I bet we'll find that when the votes are cast, the CPC support will be smaller than polling suggests, polarized toward Liberal or BQ by the question of whether to vote against the Liberals or vote against separatism. -k

I think he's suggesting that attempting to censor these groups can have an effect opposite of what is intended. If you look at almost any of these theories, one finds that the belief that "the Man" is attempting to hide "the real truth" is a big part of the mythology. -"big oil" controls the media and is suppressing knowledge about Iraq and keeping "the 100mpg carburator" a secret. -pharmaceutical companies are trying to surpress information about the incredible healing power of ____. -the "ZOG" is attempting to supress the "truth" about the Holocaust. -secret government agencies are trying to supress the truth about Roswell and Chem-trails and invisible mind-control machines and orgones and so on. The belief that they've discovered something secret and forbidden might be a significant part of the allure of these theories among their followers. By banning discussion of an idea, the government might actually give it a kind of "outlaw appeal". ("this must be serious and powerful and dangerous if the government is afraid to let people hear it!") These ideas shouldn't be forced underground where they can fester and grow unchallenged. They should be freely discussed so that their lack of merit can be exposed to all. -k

The difference btween CSL and CSL International is indeed semantics, as they're both part of CSL Group and wholly owned by Martin's family. That Harper spoke of "CSL" rather than CSL International or CSL Group specifically is unimportant. It might well be the case that using flags of convenience is a necessity in the international shipping industry. That does not dispute the truth of anything Harper said. And indeed, neither you nor CSL itself dispute the implication that CSL evades Canadian taxes; you and they defend it as a necessity within the industry. Operating businesses in foreign jurisdictions for reasons of competitiveness is not necessarily unpatriotic, however the implication that it is unpatriotic is often levied by the left against those who would move manufacturing operations to Mexico or call-center operations to Mumbai. The Martin family's use of flags of convenience is an application of the exact same principle. Back when we were arguing about the Liberal promise to axe the GST in 1993, you argued that it was not unethical, since the Progressive Conservatives had every opportunity to argue that the Liberal plan was not viable. Very well. Paul Martin has every opportunity to argue that using flags of convenience is not unpatriotic. If he wishes to make that argument to the Canadian people, or explain the intricacies of the international shipping industry, he is free to do so. He has every opportunity to confront Harper on this issue if he believes he has been wronged. If his case is as compelling as you believe it is, if this is as damning of Harper as you believe it is, Martin has every opportunity to jump on this with both feet. It is there as an issue for him to seize, if he is willing. Personally, I don't think that's going to happen. And not because Martin and his strategists are dumb people, but because you're grossly, absurdly wrong in your estimation of how damaging this would be to Harper as a campaign issue. "Harper could have been buried," my ass. -k

CTV = Conservative TV? Given CTV vice-president Charle Bird's close ties to the Liberals, that's kind of a silly claim, don't you think? -k You obviously haven't been watching NewsNet on a regular basis. It seems like the only guy who brings up conservative gaffs is Duffy. Did anybody else see him read off the Conservative response to the debate minutes BEFORE the debate started. They already had it written and were slamming Paul Martin for being negative, before the debate had even happened. Why wouldn't the CTV employees be pro-conservative? Their tax dollars pay for part of their competion's salary. Something that would likely disappear under a pro-privatization conservative govt. I am not saying it is a company policy, more of an individual perspective that is given to most stories. CTV Newsnet's format-- short-cycle headline news format-- is specified by the CRTC, and Newsnet is not permitted to devote more than a small portion of its broadcast schedule to anything other than headline news. (read about it here: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Decision.../db2005-131.htm ) In otherwords, if you want indepth analysis of the election, you're watching the wrong channel. Newsnet's government-mandated 15-minute "newsreel" format means headlines... and the Liberal gaffs have been headline-grabbers. -k

This is downright libelous. -k

CTV = Conservative TV? Given CTV vice-president Charle Bird's close ties to the Liberals, that's kind of a silly claim, don't you think? -k

That's kind of grasping at straws, isn't it? After all, if Martin remains Prime Minister to actually impliment this policy, it means Harper wouldn't be able to actually use the Notwithstanding Clause anyway. It's also a debateable issue... Right now Martin thinks the Notwithstanding Clause is the worst thing ever... a couple of years ago he apparently thought it was something he'd use if necessary to protect religious freedoms. What if some other issue-- perhaps preserving public healthcare-- created a scenario where Canadians would be in favor of using the clause? And it's also an empty promise, isn't it? Wouldn't removing the clause require a constitutional amendment? What are the odds of a minority government being successful in getting the provinces to agree to that? -k

I went to the Liberal site and so far have only watched the Atlantic one. It features the "culture of defeatism" quotes, taken out of context from a speech that actually talked about empowering the Atlantic provinces by giving them a bigger stake in offshore resources. It features "war-drums of doom" music. And it presents Harper speaking in front of a backdrop of... himself, a photo of his eyes blown up so large that he looks like Sauron. Yes, I'd consider that negative. It's not talking about policy positions (the Liberals were so opposed to Harper's policy on Atlantic Canada that Martin implimented it himself last year.) It's presenting a scary image of Harper, scary music, and negative quotes. I do consider that negative. -k

Amen. Further, cross-posting the same hype into different threads within minutes of each other is also not very good etiquette. -k

From the Liberals themselves: http://www.liberal.ca/news_e.aspx?id=11350 This does sound somewhat desperate... a grasp at what they hope will sound appealing. But is it viable? Somebody posted yesterday that Martin himself said not long ago that he'd use the Notwithstanding Clause of he felt it was in the interest of defending freedom of religion. Has he changed his mind on that? Is it no longer a good idea? -k

I think this is a good assessment. Probably all 3 will happen to some degree, the question is to what extent will each of these occur. There's also scenario 4, which is that the ads don't change people's voting intentions but do harden their resolve and increase their dislike of the opposing groups. Whichever effect predominates, I think the end result will be an increase in cynicism and antipathy in this process. -k

That is interesting. The idea that any sort of behavior would be "hard wired" into the human brain is something that would be explained by survival advantages. Any behavior that's build into human brains would be something that helps a small unit-- a tribe or clan-- survive more effectively. I always think watching how dogs behave is interesting, because pretty much everything a dog does makes sense if you look at it in terms of how a dog would relate to his pack. At heart, your chihuahua is a tiny little wolf in your house and that wolf-pack mentality is still observable in your little Fifi or Poopsy or Shmoopsy or whatever, and your family is his pack. When the family is around the dinner table, your dog is sad, not just because he loves food, but because the rest of his pack is eating and he isn't. Your dog and cat might coexist peacefully, but if mom yells at the cat for messing with her plants or whatever, Fifi immediately gets after the cat too: Fifi detects that an authority dog in his pack has become hostile to Mr Whiskers, and Fifi responds accordingly. This isn't learned behavior, it's just stuff that dogs do because dogs have their own social instincts. Humans likewise have built in social instincts... things relating to attracting and selecting mates, protecting our young, and so on. Is a built-in desire to have religious beliefs another aspect of human instinct? It's certainly not as straightforward as attracting mates or protecting young, but it could be. Stuff that helps unite the clan or tribe might be advantageous to group unity, and therefore a survival advantage. People do seem to grab naturally onto things that unite them with some and divide them from others-- look how easily people attach themselves to a sports team, for instance. We rally ourselves behind those who wear blue and orange sweaters, and declare enmity towards those who wear red and black sweaters!! But rather than fight them for prized hunting land or a lucrative turnip patch as in ancient days, we just battle over rubber disks. Forming these attachments leads to rather illogical behavior in modern times, but once upon a time, forming these associations and going to war to win that hunting-ground would have been something that helped get Kimmy-genes passed on to the next generation-- natural selection. It was a survival advantage for people to band together and take stuff to make their own group stronger. -k

In another thread, I invited you to attempt to paraphrase or summarize this message, to try to distill some sense out of it, and see whether you still feel it's a great post after you've done so. I still hope you might take a crack at it; it would be an interesting exercise. -k It speaks for itself. I'm sorry if you have difficulty reading river's posts. They take a little time and thought. Are they rants? Yes. Are they comprehensible, absolutely. However, it would help to have an open mind as a criterion. That may prove to be an insurmountable problem on this board however. . I take that as a "no." -k

I'll have to check them out. I've got eclectic musical tastes and I'm always curious to hear a new sound. -k

USA Liberal... when you picked Canada as a destination, were you aware that this is a democracy? A country with multi-party elections? I'd have assumed something like that would have come up in the citizenship exams. You said that Canada is "the real democracy," yet you seem aghast in horror at the notion that people might actually choose a government you don't support. Perhaps if you were uncomfortable with the idea that people might actually exercise their democratic rights, you should have picked a single party state or a handy dictatorship. As an aside, I find it hilarious that the same people who thought it was "despicable" to speak badly of Jean Chretien's mangled, f'ed up, fugly, gruesome visage are now supporting their opposition to Stephen by speaking badly of his personal appearance. How funny is that? That's hilarious. -k

Keegstra had no business teaching students that the holocaust didn't exist. I don't want Bible or Quran forced on kids. I don't want Intelligent Design taught in Biology class. I don't want the Flat Earth Society to get equal time during science class. I don't want my kid to be taught that the value of Pi to be 3.2 The KKK ought to have a right to go out in public and make themselves look like jackasses. Whether the specific phrase "Death To Niggers" is legal is highly doubtful, however. I would think that incitement of violence against an identifiable group is probably well outside the bounds of protected speech. And yelling "fire" in a theatre is, of course, the classic example of justifiable limitation on freedom of speech. It was probably far more relevant before theatres had built-in sprinkler systems and flame-retardant upholstry, but the point is clear enough. I don't think Argus, or anybody else, is claiming that the right to free speech is absolute. Acknowledging that limitations on free speech are justifiable in some instances is one thing, but some of the specific cases now winding up in court go far beyond yelling "fire" in a theatre or chanting "Death to niggers." The Hugh Owens case is an example. It's easy to argue that incitement of violence or yelling fire in a theatre are justifiable limitations on free speech... it's much more debatable as to whether a newspaper ad with references to Bible verses and 2 stick figures holding hands being crossed out in the style of no-smoking signs creates social harm that justifies limitation of free speech. -k

In another thread, I invited you to attempt to paraphrase or summarize this message, to try to distill some sense out of it, and see whether you still feel it's a great post after you've done so. I still hope you might take a crack at it; it would be an interesting exercise. -k

You mean to say it wasn't conceived and designed by Mulroney??? OMG Al Gore Jr invented it. -k

Let's revisit eureka's fury over Harper's mention of CSL. (...) (...) That CSL and CSL International are separate entities is mere semantics, as they're both subsidaries of the CSL Group, owned entirely by Martin's family. That CSL International is, indeed, evading taxation in Canada is freely admitted by CSL itself: (The CSL Group: frequently asked questions.)To paraphrase, "we register our ships in foreign countries to benefit from lower taxes and fees. If we didn't, we wouldn't be able to stay competitive." So what has Harper said that is so dishonest? The Martin family business does indeed register many of its ships under "flags of convenience" for the sake of paying lower taxes. That may be necessary to compete in the international shipping business, but that doesn't make it any less true that CSL Group does so. -k

There's no record of what Martin said at the convention. Nor what Harper said, for that matter. The Bilderberg conventions have a strict "off the record" policy. Quite simply, you have no evidence of what Harper said at the Bilderberg convention. The quotes in this thread have been selected from other speeches he has made over the years. -k

As has been discussed earlier in the thread, the scope of human rights commissions extends beyond preventing the incitement of hatred. There can sometimes be a fine line between promiting undesirable stereotypes and stifling legitimate discussion of social issues. I provided some examples earlier on. One was that police in Canada do not publish information about race (except in instances where it could help identify an at-large suspect). They used to, but they were made to stop, because releasing such information could promote a negative stereotype towards some races or ethnic groups. But when the Toronto Star set out to examine the facts on police racism and racial profiling, they found extremely there was very little information to work with... because police were no longer allowed to keep that sort of information. The well-intentioned goal of preventing negative stereotypes might actually be working against the people it's supposed to protect, because since those statistics are not kept, there's really no way of telling whether the police are disproportionately unfair to some racial groups. The goal of preventing hatred is a worthy one, but giving some committee the power to arbitrarily punish people for asking what might be legitimate questions is a dangerous thing. -k

If this is as frightening as you say, how worried should we be that Paul Martin attended the conference in 1996? He's obviously been part of this secret cabal for much longer than Harper. -k

December 8, 2000 was about 10 days after the resounding re-election of a beligerant Prime Minister who had already spoken of increased distribution of Alberta's prosperity, ran his 2000 campaign in large measure by demonizing Alberta, and on the night of his victory he threatened Alberta with "tough love". In the context, rhetoric about protecting the province from federal incursion was timely and relevant. The infamous "firewall" letter included steps like opting out of the RCMP in favor of a provincial police force (like Quebec and Ontario already do), opting out of CPP and instituting an APP (just as Quebec has the QPP), provincial collection of taxes (as Quebec already does) and asserting more provincial authority in healthcare, as the Constitution allows. The "firewall" letter also proposed using the Supreme Court rulings that paved the way for the Clarity Act to force Senate Reform back onto the national agenda. In other words, the "firewall" letter proposed that Alberta exercise powers already used in Quebec and/or Ontario (so how "unCanadian" is it really?) and using a Supreme Court decision to try to encourage national action on an issue considered important by Albertans but unimportant by a ruling party that had shown itself not only indifferent, but actually hostile. Do you know how scarce labour is in Northern Alberta? Even with outrageous wages for menial jobs, they still can't find people to wait tables or work the deep-fat fryer, because they can't get enough workers. And considering spiralling rents and inflation up that way, you need the outrageous wages to make ends meet anyway. It's not about the money. -k