kimmy

just to make sure everybody knows, the "Hands In My Pocket" ad is for a credit card company, not a Conservitive Attack ad! -kimmy {any similarities between banks that have their Hands In Your Pocket and the Liberal Party of Canada are purely unintentional.}

I do not "troll" nightclubs. However, I've spent enough time in such places, as both a patron and as an employee, to have a good idea of what I'm talking about, and I expect that most people who've spent any amount of time in a nightclub in any major city probably know what I'm referring to. As for the rest... if there's some situation where a certain group commits a grossly disproportionate share of crime or antisocial behavior, should we avoid discussing that if their pigmentation differs from our own? To me that doesn't seem like it would be to anybody's benefit. -k

Suddenly the "liberals" around here have developed tremendous faith in the police, but I can't imagine our hypothetical young black man from Toronto would be as trusting. Do you not grasp what "reverse onus" means? Presently a suspect is to be released unless the crown can present a compelling argument as to why he should not; "reverse onus" places the onus on the defendant: he will not be released unless he can give a compelling argument that he should be. What we're talking about here is imprisonment without due process-- for (as already noted) periods that can be several months. -k

I made one too. -k

Hello. We're talking about the possibility of tens of thousands of people opening small daycares in their homes. That is a far cry from what we are already doing. Need everything be licensed? If groups of friends want to each put their $100 a month into a pool so that one of them can stay home and look after the kids, would that need to be licensed? If I want to give my $100 a month to my mom to care for my hypothetical kid, will mom have to get licensed and inspected? If I want to use my $100 a month for a babysitter, will my babysitter have to get licensed and inspected? If the CPC proposal does indeed create additional private daycares as anticipated, then existing provincial inspection programs can be enlarged accordingly. There's no need to reinvent the wheel. So what role do you envision for the private daycare facilities that already exist? Will they continue to exist? Will they be subsidized? Will these big-box government daycares you envision be accessible in smaller towns, or is it just for big cities? How far will I have to drive to reach one? Will the government really create enough spaces or will it wind up like the one in Quebec? And is fewer daycares with more spaces per really that great of an environment for kids? -k

What's this in reference to? "The Worlds"? Meaning the World Junior Hockey Championships? If so, which player was booed? I hadn't heard any of this. -k

Cool. Except instead of losing your drivers license for 90 days, you can be incarcerated for 8+ months without a trial. Practically the same thing, right? -k

Lowell Green is an angry old crank who hosts a talk radio program where other angry old cranks call in and gripe about the government. It's what angry old people do, apparently-- listen to talk radio, and gripe about the government (as well as "kids these days.") Dave Rutherford is another of the same. I suspect that if a Conservative government were in power, the angry old cranks and their angry old callers would be just as negative. Why? Because they're angry old cranks. It's what makes them happy. -k

She looks and dresses much like the sort of granny one sees heading to and from "High Tea" at the Empress Hotel in Victoria. -k

(you're aware that the provinces already handle licensing and inspection of daycare, aren't you? I can't see why you think licensing and inspection will be such an immense undertaking when we're already doing it.) -k

I thought all CPC'rs were the law and order type, I think the only time you need to be worried as a white chick in Edmonton or a black man in Toronto is if you have an illegal gun... ...and I thought that "Liberals" were all about Defending The Charter ™ ...get back to me when you recognize the contradictions inherent between what Paul Martin says he stands for and what he says he wants to do in this harebrained proposal. In all seriousness, yes. I'm all for law and order. I'm all for strengthening the RCMP and for increased security at border-crossings and ports. I'm for more police in places that need a stronger law enforcement presence. I'm all for tougher sentences of violent crime. Tougher parole conditions for violent crime. I'm all for keeping dangerous people locked up longer, even if it means (gasp!) creating more prison spaces. I'm even for unmonitored security cameras in public areas; cameras that keep 24 hours of footage that police could access with a warrant if they had reason to believe the camera contained evidence about a crime. I'm strongly in favor of enforcing the laws we have. I'm certainly not in favor of breaking the law in the name of appearing to be tough on urban gun violence. The question is, when did Mr Defender Of The Charter decide that you really *can* "cherry pick" from the Charter? As Canadians we scoff at Americans getting so amped up about terrorism that they're willing to erode personal liberty with legislation that gives the state excessive power to suspend someone's rights in the name of protecting Americans from terrorists. And yet here we are starting down a slippery slope towards the same thing in the name of protecting Canadians from urban terrorists. -k

As I said, I was writing from my personal experiences. The quotes from Argus's article agree with behavior I have personally witnessed from a subset within that ethnic group. I don't presume to judge the whole group based on that behavior, I just assert that the attitudes expressed in that article mesh with attitudes I've personally observed. I think what Argus is driving at is that maybe we're being a little too welcoming of a culture and customs that are not compatible with our own values. -k

She was, along with Jean Charest, one of the 2 surviving Progressive Conservative MPs after the 1993 annihilation of that party. She remained an MP until her retirement in 2004. She was there in person when Marconi received the first transAtlantic radio signal at Signal Hill, Newfoundland. She is very nearly as old as eureka. -k

Let's try something more constructive here. Let's discuss some of the issues. -should daycare be wholly subsidized? Subsidized at all? If neither, then subsidized to what degree? -what form should government-sponsored daycare take? Are we talking about big buildings with Government of Canada logos on the side? Are we talking about government cooperation with the private daycare providers that already exist? What happens to private daycare providers that already exist if some national program is installed? -what about fairness to people who've selected other options? Leaving their kids with a friend or family member, stay at home parents, or people with no kids at all? Is it fair that these people pay taxes to support a program that they don't use? It seems to me that whatever your position on daycare, you have to be able to discuss these issues in supporting your view on daycare. -k

I asked earlier: you're referring to property seizure and not denial of bail, aren't you? Not dissimilar, except that instead of the crown showing that the suspect is a threat to detain him, the suspect must show he's not a threat to get released. They might not be dissimilar from a grammatical point of view, but in terms of being consistent with our rights, there is a rather significant difference I would think. What we're talking about here is not trivial. Sparhawk points out that there can be long waits before trial, and that the pre-trial custody could wind up counting for a sentence longer than a conviction. Does that seem right? Over in the Tookie Williams thread you were arguing the fallibility of police; yet here you seem to be arguing in favor of the crown being able to detain a suspect without trial and not have to make a case for his continued detention (the "reverse onus," after all, will be on the suspect.) Given the potential delay between the laying of charges and the trial, the difference we are talking about is not trivial. It has happened before that the wait between charges and trial was so long as to be deemed unconstitutional. This situation might be developing again as the delay to trial threatens to exceed the guideline established by the Supreme Court: Courtroom backlog in Ontario may result in mass dismissal of cases If it is unfair to the suspect that the delay between charges and trial is now exceeding 8 to 10 months, how much more unfair is if McGuinty and Martin get their way and the suspect spend that time in lockup?? Maybe if Martin and McGuinty are concerned about what suspects might do while they're out on bail, they should spend the money required to give the court system the capacity to get the backlog to a reasonable figure. You say no right is being denied. If I were a young black man in Toronto, instead of a white chick in Edmonton, would I find that reassuring? -k

*bah! botched editing attempt.* -k {nothing to see. move along. move along.}

While I have nothing to say about muslims or rape, my personal experience indicates that some non-white Canadians seem to have picked up odd ideas about the sexual availability of white women. I am propositioned much more often by black and arab men than by white men, which is rather astonishing when you consider the proportion of these groups in Edmonton. I can also report that the nature of the propositions is rather different... whereas white guys often attempt to segue into things with some get-to-know-you chit-chat, the black and arab guys far more frequently get straight to the point, with dialogue that's often amusing, crass, vulgar, vile, or even a little intimidating. Also, I suspect most people my age who visit clubs in any major city in Canada have noticed that there are very few arab girls (if any), but a lot of arab guys (usually wearing gold chains, untucked microfibre sport-shirts, and too much cologne...) and they're trying to score with white women. I would not suggest that the whole ethnic group has this mindset, but there is certainly a subset that does. The quotes in Argus's message sound a lot like behavior I've observed in person. And, a little off topic, but I have talked with acquaintances who have travelled in the Caribbean and Indonesia, and have said that some locals there also have odd notions about the sexual availability of white women. I don't know... blame American TV? -k

Yep, those delusions of persecution are what keeps drugknobs thinking they are something other than...well....knobs. Stats for drug prosecutions (from statscan in 2004), per 100,000 of population: Canadian average 304.1 Alberta 260.3 British Columbia 634.2 Looks like it's the BC cops who are throwing y'all in jail. Keep a lid on that, or BubberMilley will be moving here! -k

If I recall correctly (which is hardly a given, as I'm no lawyer) the precident you're referring to deals with arbitrary seizure of property as opposed to arbitrary incarceration, yes? If that's the case then I assume it would not be relevant as a precident in reference to Martin's plan to apply arbitrary incarceration. Martin's notion (or McGuinty's, actually; Martin appears to be a tag-along on this...) would once again put us on a path to years of court challenges, and is unlikely to be successful anyway, given the makeup of the Supreme Court. And I have to wonder, what's the driving force behind this idea, anyway? Why does McGuinty want people denied bail? I mean, we've heard that at least one of the suspects in the Boxing Day gunfight was fresh out of jail after serving a very short sentence for a violent robbery. Maybe tougher sentences or some kind of tougher probation enforcement would be indicated. But why bail? Is there some sort of problem with people committing crimes while on bail? Is flight from bail some sort of problem? If that's the case, then maybe the judges should be using more discretion when deciding on bail. Perhaps this could be dealt with by sending out a memo, rather than trampling on one of the oldest traditions in our legal system? Just a couple of weeks ago our Prime Minister was waxing poetic about "defending the Charter." He says it's the Prime Minister's most important job, and that if you won't stand up for the Charter then you shouldn't be running for Prime Minister. Well he ought to step down. Because this is utterly appalling. If I was a civil libertarian, I would be a lot more worried about this idea than about gays' right to use the word "marriage." -kimmy

okeedokey, as usual with RBacon's posts I had to do some research to figure out what he's talking about. However, in this instance he does have a point: Sun media: Martin proposing new bail rules for gun crimes This blogger argues that Paul Martin has been smoking crack: "Potent Pew" law blog: reverse onus a dubious proposition It sounds as though this idea is on the shakiest of legal ground, and should probably be filed under the heading of "we'll say anything to get elected." While Jack Layton and Stephen Harper propose to fight gun crime by enforcing the law, Paul Martin apparently wants to challenge legal principles that date back to the Magna Carta. -k

Conservatives aren't the only ones ridiculing the intelligence of other voters-- refer to eureka's message for an example. -k

Indeed. It, and the followup, certainly have the look of form-letters, don't they? We were told by the Globe'n'Mail and Warren Kinsella that the Young Liberals would be blitzing op-ed pages and internet message boards to get their message out. And I can't help wondering if this is the first shot of an invasion. You make it sound like a movement that's sweeping the country. In fact, it's not. As more and more Canadians tire of the Liberal party's act, an increasing number of people are willing to consider Harper as an alternative. (although, if this were a form letter, I assume they'd have spelled "seize" properly. Perhaps it's not...) What's the problem? Was Trudeau a political opportunist when he backstabbed Joe Clark to sink the minority government in 1979? As a Canadian who feels that the Liberals have got to be removed from office for the good of the country, I support Harper taking opportunities when they prevent themselves. What instability? Young African republics are unstable. Pakistan is unstable. South American military regimes are unstable. Canada isn't unstable. Ludicrous. "Things were bad enough"? Things were, and are, fine. The economy was, and is, tremendously strong. The notion that currency speculators are the best judge of what's good for Canada is a little troubling. The notion that a dip of a penny or two relative to the US dollar is a harbinger of economic doom is silly when you consider that just a few years ago the dollar perpetually hovered 20 cents below where it is now, and even sillier when you consider that some sectors of our economy are suffering because the exchange rate is *too high*. It was only the turning point in the minds of people whose minds were already completely made up. Layton didn't back Martin out of higher principle. Layton backed Martin because Layton was able to wring concessions from Martin, as Layton promised NDP voters he would. Layton also seized a political opportunity: the chance to get his policies into the budget in exchange for propping up Paul Martin. That's bigtime political opportunism. -k

I am under 500! In fact, just 22 and one half! I suspect most of us are under 500, though eureka might be an exception. oh. User numbers? pfff. Why would that matter? That's even less meaningful that post count, IMHO. -k

Yay! Happy New Year, everyone! Another year in which I will live by my personal credo: "glug glug WOOOOOO!" -kimmy {WOOOO!}

Hollywood types aren't afraid of associating with dangerous criminals, as long as they're the right kind. -k