kimmy

-k

Stephen Harper was first elected as an MP in 1993, and had his first child in 1996. I suppose he had to struggle on the MP's wage... didn't he..... Well, during Harper's term from 1993 to 1997 an MP's salary was $65,000. That's certainly middle class by most peoples' estimation. Gov't of Canada: MP compensation It wasn't until 2001 that MP salaries received a hefty bump (to $130,000 and up.) -k

If Liberals are reaching for this speech as the "magic bullet" that's going to take down Harper, they must be pretty desperate. The real reason that this speech stayed "hidden" for so long is most likely that it just doesn't have much value as campaign material. It is, as I think somebody else mentioned, a pretty interesting synopsis of Canada's parties and politics of the time. -k

Stephen Harper Unplugged Interesting chat. Notable comments from Harper: -if he was leading a minority government, Harper would try to govern issue-by-issue and believes that he could work with the NDP on issues like his proposed GST cut. -the reason the 1979 PC minority government collapsed is that Joe Clark is a moron. -the premiers hate Paul Martin, except for McGuinty. -"I wouldn't want him behind my back," in reference to McGuinty and the trouble he's caused for Martin. Overall, the Toronto Star account makes it sound like a fairly pleasant chat, and that Harper seems to friendlier and more comfortable with the media than he's been in the past. I doubt there's anything in the content of his comments that the Liberals will be able to use. For the most part, it comes across as candid and honest-- a departure from the Harper's public personna-- and if Harper is getting more comfortable with the media that can't be good news for his opponents. -k

So people are irredeemable, then? Well, hypothetically... would you ever trust the likes of Paul Bernardo or Clifford Olson to walk free in society again? Personally, I wouldn't. No amount of rehabilitation or good behavior behind bars could ever convince me that the likes of them were "redeemed" in any functional sense. Only they themselves and whatever creator they believe in will ever know how redeemed they really are. I'm not necessarily for the death penalty, but there are some who I believe should never ever see the light of day again. And unless I'm mistaken, Canada doesn't have a life sentence without possibility of parole. There's a chance that these pieces of crap could find themselves sitting before a parole board. And while one would hope that no parole board would ever be so stupid as to let these most notorious killers loose, what assurance to we have that they're equally vigilant with less famous cases? -k

Probably Harper's reluctance to address the question was because he couldn't believe it had been asked by a real reporter, and not by a four year old, a head-trauma victim, or a mental retard put there as a plant by Rick Mercer. -k

I doubt that the average salaries of either people working as computer programmers, or people with MA degrees in Economics are outside the range most people consider middle class. I also strongly doubt that his jobs as parliamentary assistant or with the NCC are outside the range most people consider middle class. But then again, if people with a Masters or a job in the tech sector are the new upper crust, I guess that makes me an heiress! I'm going to go tell dad that since he's now part of the rich and famous, he should buy me a sportscar and a downtown loft. -kimmy hilton

Thank you for supporting my point. If that's your point, it's a rather inane one. What do you imagine you've proven here, in regards to the topic under discussion? -k

Clearly we were not willing. I believe we could have sent a token handful of troops if we were willing. However if you prefer to believe that Tonga, Moldava and Fiji were more able than Canada because they weren't in Afghanistan, you are welcome to that belief. We should probably give thanks that neither Tonga, Fiji nor Moldova chose to invade us at that time since every conceivable Canadian soldier was abroad. Canada's armed forces were already stretched to the limit between the extended commitment in Afghanistan and our ongoing commitments to the world community. At the time there was question as to whether we could even continue our involvement in Afghanistan. Make light of it you wish, but it's the truth. Snickering comments about leaving ourselves open to invasion from Tonga don't dispute that, but do make you look like a buffoon. Making military commitments requires more than just having a few spare guys in green uniforms. It requires money and equipment and transportation. It requires having spare personnel to relieve them when it's their turn to come home. Could we have sent along some token troops? Sure, I suppose. But we weren't being asked to. We were being asked for our endorsement. Harper would have given it (as would Martin, apparently) but Chretien chose not to (one of the few times in history that Chretien came away looking smart, as it turns out.) This chatter about whether Harper is a chicken for saying he'd have supported the war but wouldn't have sent troops is nonsense, as sending troops wasn't part of the commitment Canada was asked to make. -k

My recollection is that at the time the US wasn't even asking us for a commitment in troops, they just wanted our formal support to add credibility to their claim to being a multinational action. So whether Canada was willing or able seems to be a moot point, don't you think? As for whether Tonga or Moldova were more military capable, I don't think that's a fair question. I doubt that Tonga and Moldova were already heavily engaged in Afghanistan as well as peacekeeping operations in other countries. Canada was. As for "great disappointment"... I myself felt great disappointment. Not that the WMDs never showed up, but rather that the information that supposedly justified the invasion was so half-baked. I felt somewhat betrayed that our supposed allies tried to enlist our aid on false pretenses. -k

Well, there was the angle that he had turned his life around. Then there's the angle that there are doubts about the evidence used to convict him (Williams protested his innocence to the very end, even though a confession would have given him a better shot at clemency). May I suggest actually reading up on a subject before posting? I've read a bit on the subject, and nothing really struck me as being more compelling about this case than many other capital cases. Tookie's lawyers and supporters say there is new evidence that should have been weighed before the execution. But people often turn up prior to the death penalty being carried out claiming to have information that could affect the verdict. Tookie claimed to have turned his life around. But, I mean, doesn't everybody? If clemency was granted everytime somebody "found JEEEEEEzus" on death row, nobody would ever be executed. I mean, I'm pretty sure that Tookie wasn't the first death row inmate to "see the light" before his execution... so why was he a cause-celebre? Tookie's black... but as has often been pointed out, a lot of death row inmates are black. Race can't be the thing that makes this case different. The alleged new evidence, the supposed rehabilitation, the race issue... I don't buy that any of these factors are unique to this case, or any different from probably the bulk of capital cases in the US. So what got this case so much more attention than other capital cases in the US? The Governator? The childrens' books? Or just that as Crips co-founder he had more notoriety? -k

Harper said he can relate to raising a family on a middle class budget. The facts of the matter indicate that he did so for about 10 years before becoming leader of the opposition. Just admit that you got duped by the mention of Harper's current salary, forgot that he was earning much less when his kids were younger, and move on. -k

And I don't disagree with any of that. What I object to is when the church undertakes to impose its values on science or academics (for instance) -- for the most part Christians have recognized that allowing people to pursue knowledge is important to our continued well-being as a society. And when you look around the world at times and places where people could get sentenced to death if they angered the politburo or the bishop or the imam with ideas that challenged conventional thinking, the overall pattern is probably pretty similar. If you wipe out your best minds or drive them away, you fail before very long. You become weaker or poorer, or your enemies become stronger or richer. I have no objection at all to religious people speaking in favor of values they hold dear. Traditional families, the virtue of charity, whatever else. I'm not as big a fan when they try to become active in politics to enforce their beliefs onto others who might not subscribe to their philosophies. If you track back to my first message in this thread, I did not say "the church needs to STFU." What I said was "Progress, in the west, has come only when the church has been made to STFU and MYOB in spheres of science and politics and commerce." Talk about virtues and families and morals, but don't talk about astronomy or quantum mechanics or assassinating Hugo Chavez. There are fields of human endeavor that don't need input from the church. -k

There seems to be a culture clash. While many involved seem to be Lebanese-- almost certainly muslim-- it's not clear that muslim beliefs have a role in the conflict, so I will lay off that aspect of it for the time being. Well, who has a bigger vested interest in challenging these misconceptions? Those who risk missing out on some tasty (?) shawarma if they don't challenge these misconceptions, or those who could be at risk of ostracism or even violence if they don't challenge these misconceptions? If there were widespread belief that the evil Blondes were causing the downfall of civilization, and if this belief were leading to random curb-stompings of blondes... I assure you I wouldn't be waiting for others to change their views. I'd be doing everything in my power-- writing, speaking, whatever-- to change peoples' minds (and, likely, buying some good hair-color products as well, but that's beside the point.) -k

Well, I don't know about the last bit... but I'm curious: why such a big fuss over this particular death row bum? I know that a lot of people oppose the death penalty under any circumstances, and I respect that. I'm curious, though, why there seems to be so much more uproar in support of "Tookie" than in other capital punishment cases. Is it because as co-founder of the Crips he has legions of fans and admirers? Is it because Arnold Schwarzenegger is a big fat lemon as a governor, and people are glad to have an opportunity to embarrass him? Is it because "Tookie" is such a cuddly-sounding nickname? -k

Well, I doubt that August would have asked the question had the article come from CTV or CanWest, so I suppose the expectation of bias is a factor. But, why wouldn't people have the expectation of bias? I mean, based on observed behavior, why wouldn't people expect to find bias in CBC articles? -k

I haven't done any exhaustive studies on the subject, but it seems to me that given Canada Post's prices for courier services, the proposition that they're unfairly subsidized might be difficult to prove. If they do obtain a successful verdict, we can just tell them to take it out of the $5 billion they owe us. On occassions when I buy things by internet, I seldom have it shipped by Canada Post if I have a choice. Fed-ex provides much handier tracking service and better delivery. With Canada Post I know beforehand that the delivery guy is just going to slam a sticker on my door and I'll have to trudge down to their location the next day. :angry: The Fed-Ex guy at least tries to actually deliver the package. UPS delivery is ok, but I've had trouble with their tracker, and on situations when I've had to call the company to get information, I found the people I spoke to were utterly incomprehensible... to the point that I wasn't even sure they were speaking english. Not good. -k

Harper woos `working families' - Says he relates to middle class I guess we're supposed to get the impression that Harper's a "regular guy" with a "regular paycheque".... Most "middle class" Canadians wouldn't consider Harper's salary of $213,500 plus expenses a "middle class" salary.... And of course, with these economic times, $200K doesnt go very far... most Canadians can really identify with that ... can't they.... Stephen Harper's kids are into their teens now... Harper has been drawing the "Official Leader of the Opposition" paycheque for only 3 years. For most of his time as a parent he's held positions that I'd assume pay far less-- policy writer, political aide, NCC spokesman. I doubt these are particularly lucrative careers; I doubt the Harper family was earning much more than the typical Alberta family until the past 3 years. I'd expect that Harper could relate a lot more to the typical Canadian parent than, say, a shipping magnate or an auto-parts tycoon. -k

You're right: "says" is not generally associated with authenticity. I think some of the headlines you've provided yourself are good examples of how "says" can suggest different things in different situations, and the headlines you presented could be written in completely equivalent ways to create different initial impressions. Using search functions to churn out instances of different words doesn't provide context or subtext, and it doesn't tell me how often each leader received more emphatic sounding headlines. Did you really feel my fictional headline for the Scott Reid article was pointless? I think it demonstrated how two completely accurate headlines could set different tones for the article that follows. I haven't gone to the bother of doing a thorough study of whether the CBC consistently uses more positive-sounding headlines for one party or the other... I just assert that equivalent content can be presented in ways that provide the reader with a different tone and a different emotional reaction to the content. I don't claim the CBC does this consistently, or knowingly, I just claim that it's possible to do so. Not necessarily. The decision to reference "US conservatives" in the headline, for instance, is defensible, as you argue. But I suggested an equally accurate headline that omits reference to US conservatives. If you were Stephen Harper's PR director and you had an opportunity to choose which headline the story would run under, your choice would be obvious. If you were Paul Martin's PR director, your choice would also be obvious. There's an editorial decision implicit in the headline, and in this instance it's one that was more favorable to the Liberals than the Conservatives. Now, I don't claim that this is a regular pattern of behavior. But we were debating whether August's feeling about the tone of the article had any merit. I think August's feeling does have some merit. -k

No, not the world over. But here. We have a number of muslim groups and associations that can make some effort at speaking on behalf of the community and on speaking to muslims within the country. I would assume the same can be said of Australia and Holland and England. Think back to last summer, when a variety of Canadian muslim groups banded together to condemn the terrorist attacks in London. It was groundbreaking... because it was pretty much a first. Because it wasn't "tepid", and because the thrust of the statement was condemnation and not denial, and because the community itself was recognizing that there's an element of truth in what I'm saying: that like it or not the public perception of their community was damaged by the incident and that failing to acknowledge this only adds to the perception of indifference. I remember a Chris Rock bit, where he says "we need a race war... between the black people and the n***ers." He goes on to explain himself: black people, being black people... and n***ers being black people that are ruining the reputation of black people around the country. Pretty ugly, indeed. But denying that people make stereotypes and assumptions and associations is just naive. I don't know what percentage of natives in Edmonton are gang members, but when I see a group of natives rolling towards me at a transit station, I can't help feeling nervous. Fair? No. Ugly? Yes. But I can't help it. I don't want to make it sound like I'm defending making blanket judgments about groups of people based on ethnic origin... I'm just saying it happens whether you like it or not. And if muslim communities don't like the associations people make, they ought to be very vocal about it, not just in denying responsibility, but actually showing some concern over the problems that are occuring. -k

So it is. Be that is it may, it's a pretty standard useage. Indeed. But can you blame me for wondering if somebody other than Harper might have gotten less suspicious-sounding headline?Scrolling down the page, we find ...suppose for a moment that it said "Liberal says he is sorry for beer and popcorn blunder"Let's pause to consider the difference between the headline the CBC uses, and the one I just created. First off, the CBC's headline is more assertive of the apology's authenticity, while the one I made up is more skeptical that he's actually. Secondly, the headline I made up uses the word "blunder", which even Scott Reid acknowledges it was. The CBC headline is far less judgmental of that. I think you could argue that either the CBC headline or the one I wrote would be equally accurate, but I think the difference in tone is apparent. I don't think it's far afield to wonder if the CBC gives the Liberals more headlines of the former type, and the Conservatives more headlines of the latter. Perhaps I'll do an informal survey on the topic at some point. In this instance, the CBC headline is ...which has, well, first off the "says", secondly the semi-"scare quotes", and thirdly the mention of US conservatives-- which neither Harper nor the column by Basham brought into it-- is a reminder to the reader of what Harper wishes to avoid being associated with. (one could almost picture it being extended to read "Harper says he has 'many differences' with U.S. conservatives ...but does he really?") The headline is accurate, but in tone it's a lot more like my fictional headline than the one the CBC gave the popcorn thing. Is it fair to wonder whether Martin might have got a headline more like "Martin emphasizes differences with US administration"? Arguably. As I said earlier, I think the content is fair but I'm skeptical of the tone. Have CPC supporters become so skeptical of the CBC's reportage of the Conservatives that they read too much into things? Entirely possible. It's quite likely that one could go through the CBC website and find articles about the Liberals and find them to have a negative tone for the same reasons I sense this one to be negative. It's very possible. But in my view the CBC has all but invited such skepticism upon themselves through their track record. -k

Remember the backlash in Holland after the film-maker was assassinated by a violent muslim critic? (click here for details...) Ok, first off, I do agree with description of this as racism. However, if the account Argus presents is accurate-- muslims descending on the beach en-masse, harrassing non-muslims and attempting to enforce their own views (that others may not be present when muslim women bathe, for instance) then doesn't the community itself bear some responsibility? In response to incidents like terrorist attacks and the murder of Theo Van Gogh, what is the reaction of the muslim community? Overwhelmingly, it is silence, followed by some tepid statement from some minor imam or community organization to the effect that "The Quran does not support violence." Maybe muslims do not feel the need to be more proactive in their responses. But fairly or unfairly, these incidents are associated with the whole community and they tar the whole community with the same brush. If the response is always this same silence, doesn't that imply approval? Maybe the public reacts badly to muslims in general in response to incidents, it's in part because the muslim community hasn't done much to differentiate itself from the troublemakers? -k

A lazy one, apparently -k

It's the headline of the article! Interesting. Did you use a computerized search method, or was it strictly by hand? I disagree. In the context of the paragraph, the quotes are correct. The direct attribution of the like "great dissapointment" gives the statement more heft than it would without the quotes, where it would look like simple editorializing on the part of the author: remember, people reading this article might not necessarily see the original letter. The article does indeed provide an editorial summary of Harper's letter, right from the start: The article quotes liberally from the article to which Harper was responding, including using the line twice... but contains only an editorial summary of Harper's response to it, quoting only "great disappointment" from Harper's response. Well, when the CBC puts Harperstein on their news page, they're not exactly doing much to avoid the perception, are they. If the CBC endorsed Harper as the prime minister, how would his supporters react? Well, probably shock, confusion, maybe even suspicion... check the calendar to see if it was April 1, wonder if they've crossed the dimensional threshold to Earth-2 (is that the one where Lex Luthor is the only hero on earth, and has to fend off the evil schemes of Superman, Wonderwoman, and Batman all by himself? Or was that Earth-Prime? Anyway, whichever it is, that would be the only place where you'd find CBC endorsing Harper.) How Conservative supporters would react if the CBC endorsed Harper is a purely hypothetical question, since it's not like it would ever happen. I don't think it's unreasonable to wonder whether the CBC has an editorial bias. They've given us lots to wonder at over the past year or so. We've seen at least a couple instances where they got on stories unfavorable to the federal Liberals far behind other english language media outfits. While other media outlets were reporting on Harper's "special prosecutor" announcement, CBC was focused on whether the announcement indicated a rift between Harper and Mackay. We've seen them in the recent past play up the staff turnover at the CPC communications group. Not that any of this-- or even all of it-- proves bias, but do you think the question itself is unfair? -k

Good, good. This is a fair indication that gullibility isn't dead after all! Step aside, suckers! I've got herbal remedies and weight-loss products to sell! -kimmy {heading for Quebec first.}