kimmy

Do you really think Harper would tell Quebec to put up or shut up? I wish. I really do. I think that if many Canadians thought Stephen Harper would do that, he'd win in a landslide. Wouldn't that be what a *real* "Loves Canada!" Prime Minister would do? I don't, though. I don't think Harper actually has the brass monkeys to do that. I doubt the CPC are willing to try a tougher approach with Quebec. But, maybe at some point, he will be able to try a different strategy. I think the idea that the Liberals can use National Unity as campaign ammunition is has pretty much evaporated. I do think that most Canadians now recognize that the Liberals' claim to represent both English and French Canada has become hot air. And I think Canadians feel that French-English relations in Canada have steadily worsened during the Liberals' tenure. I mean, these guys have been in charge for 12 years... if they had any answers on national unity, don't you think they'd have tried them by now? -k

Rostrum? Did somebody say rostrum? (looks around for The Terrible Sweal) I do detect the tone you're sensing. I would say subtly so-- it is more in word choices than in the content of the piece.Phrases such as "Harper says" and "Harper appeared to" carry a connotation of suspicion. One tends to use "says" as a qualifier, and "appeared to" when one is unconvinced as to whether the appearance is genuine: There's also the quotes around Harper's "great disappointment". While it's technically accurate to use quotes around it since it's the exact phrase Harper used in his letter, the way the quote was inserted made it look like "scare quotes"-- the practice of using quotation marks around terms the author is skeptical of, or to indicate terminology which the author considers dubious. When one reads "scare quotes", one tends to imagine the author speaking the phrase with a sneering scarcasm. As I'm involved in editing fiction for a number of authors-- none published yet and in writing fiction of my own-- not published yet either --I've learned to pay a lot of attention to word choice and connotations and subtext... and I have a feeling that the writer of this pieces is someone who is trying to do an objective piece, but on a personal level she doesn't trust believe Harper in the least. Canadians don't hate American presidents. Canadians just hate this one. And his dad. ...and the cowboy. And that guy with the tapes. But Canadians loved the chubby guy that got with the fat skank. PMPM was no doubt thrilled to hang out with Bill Clinton. Frank McKenna was no doubt happy to help out his friends by getting scolded by the current US administration. All of it seems to have been terribly well timed, from a Liberals point of view. -k

BBC news: riots in Sydney It sounds like something of a flip-side to what happened in France recently. I wonder, if Tawasakm us still around, if he could give some more insight into this? -k

Another incident much like the "beer and popcorn" gaffe. Fact is, she's right. Duceppe and others are blasting her for saying something that's true. Exact same thing as Stephen Harper's infamous "culture of defeatism" comments. The message was true, but the phrasing is impolite. -k

Well, yes and no. Yes, it's minor, because in a lot of cases he's probably right. One of the main reasons a lot of poor families are poor is that they don't understand how to handle money. One of the main reasons I don't hand out cash to panhandlers is that I suspect that a lot of them are more likely to use the money to try and buy a bottle of "Big Bear" rather than food. For a while I carried around grocery store coupons to give to panhandlers... I quit doing that because the panhandlers did not seem very pleased with the idea. Some of them became downright agitated; others just crumpled up the coupons and threw them back at me. When you get right down to it, this gaffe amounts to people saying what a lot of us are really thinking, instead of what's polite to say. And if the Liberals are not happy at seeing their opponents make hay out of this breach in political correctness, tough cookies. They've been doing the same to their opponents for years. -k

There are two different stories here. One is that the "average folks" in TV ads are actually partisans. This is, indeed, not very surprising, when it comes right down to it, as August and eureka point out. I do, however, think there's merit to Kinsella's 3 pointed reply. And the NDP's cut-up reply is proof of that. At the very least, the Liberals gave their opponents and detractors some handy ammunition, and as Kinsella quite carefully put it, "you leave an impression altogether different than the one you intended." Or, as the NDP less carefully but more comically put it, It is something of a non-story. I don't think anybody's really dumb enough to think that a party's TV ads are going to represent an honest sampling of real Canadians. Are there still people so naive as to how TV advertising really works? Probably only the hapless seniors and trailer-park yokels who think those infomercials are actually talk shows. I don't think the TV ads are deceptive, but it certainly does not look good when your "average Canadians" get outed. As for the other story-- that there is apparently an organized effort by the Liberals to anonymously use letters pages and message boards to promote their party, I do think that's maybe little deceptive. One doesn't expect to find average Canadians on TV ads, but one does expect to find average Canadians on message boards and letters-pages... and when the people have partisan interests in the subjects they're writing about, usually we expect them to identify themselves as such. Several years ago there was a movie called "The Blair Witch Project". It was produced for a miniscule budget-- only about $30,000-- and achieve immense box-office success, largely on the strength of "buzz" created by advance screenings and posts on movie-related internet websites from people who had attended the advance screenings. There were rumors, though, that some of these internet postings raving about the movie were actually written by the movie's creators and their associates. I don't know that it was ever proven one way or the other. Something that's known in the movie business is that "word of mouth" is a very effective form of advertising. It's one reason why some movies-- usually movies that the studios believe have exceptional artistic merit but limited mass appeal-- are initially released in only a few theatres in key markets. This strategy allows the movie to build "word of mouth" and attract critical attention without the expense of a "wide" release. What's unique about the "Blair Witch Project" was that they were able to create "word of mouth" without actually releasing the movie at all. And if the rumors are true, the creators were able to manufacture their own word of mouth, using the anonymity of the internet. So... does any of this relate to politics? Is "word of mouth" an effective marketting strategy for political parties? Probably not: I might be more willing to consider seeing a movie if other people have seen it and say it's entertaining... I'm not as likely to vote for a political party just because others say they are. However, having people anonymously blitz letter pages and message boards does get their "talking points" out. Having their information presented and advocated by anonymous members on message boards might get their arguments heard by people who would not be as receptive if they knew it was coming directly from the party. Is it honest? Not really. Dirty or unfair? I'm not sure. -k

That seems to agree with what the G'n'M and CTV articles said yesterday... more BQ, more NDP, and an even more fragile minority this time around. If the trendline numbers were put in Parliament, a Liberal/NDP coalition would still be a minority. -k

Since it's positively balmy here in Edmonton, perhaps I should offer to run about wearing the banner. I faced a similar situation myself last election, when I knew before going to the polling station that the Conservative candidate would win this riding in a landslide. Voting for any of the major parties would have been pointless; I opted to vote Green to offer the $1.75 of support and help them reach the 4% threshold. The need for electoral reform has never been more clear. Luckily, once the Liberals squeak back in with another rickety minority, we can look forward to hearing from Belinda Stronach, who has been designated by PMPM as his point-woman on "addressing the democratic deficit." Belinda is certainly known as a profound thinker with a penetrating insight into our nation's democratic tradition, and I'm very excited to learn what innovative solutions she developed in the time she's spent grappling with the issue. The ideas she comes up with could shape the course of our country's future, and I for one am extremely excited about it. -kimmy

And this... this is just sad. -k {pass the doritos!} Of course.But what's sad is that someone would be willing to make the leap in logic to equate the two issues. Associating the Liberal Party with the sponsorship scandal is, well, obvious. Associating the Conservative Party with the Hell's Angels is, well, sad. A desperate, pathetic effort, really. See, it's been established that the Liberal party received direct financial benefit from its own criminal activity in the sponsorship scandal. Is anybody willing to make the claim that the Conservative party is receiving direct financial benefit for criminalization of marijuana? Are they selling drugs? Are they receiving cash from the Hells Angels? Maybe if I saw James Rajotte or Rahim Jaffer bumping around on Whyte Ave taking twenties in exchange for little baggies, I'd buy into the argument. Maybe if I saw Stephen Harper and Rona Ambrose sitting at a private table in a strip club getting lappies from a bunch of skanks I'd start wondering. But unless I see some credible evidence on the subject, I will remain skeptical. There's only one political party in Canada that I suspect might have any relationship with organized crime. Two words: Joe Morselli. And this... this is just funny. I suspect that anybody who believes this is true has either never been stoned at all, or spends so much time stoned that they're no longer acquainted with reality. -k

Well now we're making some progress! Indeed, if more resources are put into the enforcement of a ban in Canada, then it will be effective. (weren't you mocking the notion that stricter policing was the important factor earlier? let's recap... hmmm.)But at least now we seem to be on the same page, in that enforcement is the crucial element here. Then again, if more resources were put into enforcing Canada's existing laws regarding ownership and smuggling of handguns, it would have the same impact as this fictitious ban. After all, existing Canadian laws with regard to owning and storing handguns are already so strict as to make the notion of a ban irrelevant. So, I've got yesterday's Journal on my lap here, with an article with quotes from Tony Cannavino, president of the Canadian Professional Police Association. You and me and the president of the police association all seem to be in agreement that the important aspect here is enforcement. But of course, the people Martin is hoping to appeal to aren't interested in hearing about more police, or tougher sentences, because the people Martin is hoping to appeal to are people who are convinced that the police and the law are part of the problem; they're more interested in hearing the government taking responsibility for their problems. "Take away the handguns to stop our young men from shooting each other anymore." "Give us money so that our young men stop joining gangs." -k

Oh, of course. Men and women all have problems. Life's rough all over. But you certainly seem to blaming women for all of this. If women weren't going to college, men wouldn't find them scary. If women weren't earning lots of money, men's egos wouldn't be hurt. If women weren't out working, men would have somebody to have sex with when they came home from work ( ) ... isn't that what you're getting at? -kimmy {"My name is Foxy Cleopatra, and I'm a whole lotta weman!"}

Why? What makes you think your moral beliefs are more important than theirs? Clearly, you don't believe in freedom of speech, so I'm mightily suspicious of what your sense of morality might be. I suspect that he was being sarcastic and responding to this post by me: I liked this part.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. This seems to be a process that many parts of the Muslim world are struggling with. And while "STFU and MYOB" may not have been a very nice way of phrasing it, that's essentially how I feel. The Bible might be full of good advice on how to save your soul, but it REALLY SUCKS as a science book, and the church needn't be involved in deciding what subjects are permissible for research or what can be taught in schools. Pat Robertson might have studied a lot about Jeeeeezus, but I really question his expertise as a foreign affairs advisor. Likewise, the church need not act as an authority on literature, film, academics, and so on. I enthusiastically support the right of Christians to create and to enjoy whatever art and literature they like. But when it comes to art and literature they don't like, I support their right to "STFU and MYOB". The public's right to participate in exchange of ideas is important, and trumps this or that cultural group's "right" to not have its sensibilities challenged from time to time. And one of the reasons why western society has excelled and the muslim world has obviously ... well, less so... is that most Christians in the west *understand* this and *agree* with it. -k

CTV: Liberal support slipping in Ontario: poll Globe'n'Mail: Liberal lead hides regional weakness Interesting analysis that suggests the Tories may gain in Ontario, the NDP might gain seats in the GTA and in BC, the Liberals may gain in BC but lose seats in Ontario, and in Quebec... -k

I don't see why somebody would feel they have to defend every position of the party they support. I know that there are Liberal and NDP supporters (and even MPs) who would have prefered keeping the traditional definition of marriage, for instance. Even people within the parties don't agree on every issue, so I can't imagine why you'd anticipate blind and total agreement from party supporters on a message board. You don't have to agree with every position your party holds... but if you disagree on the most important ones, you might be supporting the wrong party. Do I agree with the CPC on marijuana? Yes. Do I consider marijuana to be an important issue? No. You're right, though: if marijuana was the most important issue to me, I wouldn't vote for the CPC. (then again, if marijuana was the most important issue to me, I probably wouldn't vote for the Liberals either, come to think of it.) And this... this is just sad. -k {pass the doritos!}

Banning handguns in Chicago probably made a real difference. Banning something that's been legally available and widespread amongst law-abiding people is most certainly going to have a dramatic effect. Banning handguns in Canada, on the otherhand... come on, eureka. You're smart enough to know the difference and recognize what a misleading argument you've just presented. Your argument probably sounds very persuasive to stupid people, however-- much like the "handgun ban" itself. -k {I mean, come on. Weren't you even a little embarrassed at what you've just posted?}

I spoke of you in 3rd person because I was addressing Black Dog. I think I speak for many here in saying that I'm still having a hard time figuring out what you're actually talking about. Do you feel that all our problems would be solved if women just quit going to college and returned to old-fashioned roles? -k

We don't do a lot of invading of other nations, or fighting off invasions, but we do have international obligations. We provide aid and peacekeeping and participate in multinational efforts with the United Nations and with our allies aimed at (hopefully) noble goals. Meeting these obligations is something that Canada couldn't do without our armed forces. We don't have mandatory military service, as many European nations do; Canada's ability to meet its commitments depends entirely on people who have chosen to enlist. It might be debateable whether these people are "making a difference", but I don't think it is debateable that these people are doing a service for Canada. If we as a nation decide that it is important to participate in peacekeeping efforts in some country we've never been to and don't ever plan on going to, or we choose to send emergency assistance to the disaster-stricken residents of some hapless nation on the other side of the world, we can do that only thanks to the efforts of people who have chosen to enlist. And even if we don't choose to do any of that, but the United Nations asks member nations to contribute to those efforts anyway, we can live up to our responsibilities as a member of that community only thanks to the efforts of people who have chosen to enlist. I suppose, if you wished, you could call these people "tools," as they're acting on our behalf. As for whether they're "suckers", I guess that depends how cynical you are. Someone with my very low opinion of the competence of our leaders should probably think yes. I am not sure that I would ever willingly put my life in the hands of Paul Martin and Bill Graham and their friends. That's just me, though. Generally speaking, somebody who enlists in the armed forces is somebody who has agreed to act as as a representative of our country's will on the world stage, somebody who gives effect to our country's views on world policy and the global community. If somebody trusts our leadership and believes in our views on the international community, then I think they're entirely justified in feeling that they're sacrificing themselves for the good of the nation. If Canadian soldiers find themselves losing their lives in tasks that are not worth the cost, I don't believe it is they that are the suckers, I believe it is the people that put them there. That might be our leaders or it might even be we voters. -k

Weren't you the guy saying that police were busting people with "a few plants" as grow-op operators? Well, I agree to a large extent, although I would suggest that the political support from police-chiefs and financial support from liquor and tobacco companies probably factors into the politics of the situation more than organized crime. -k

My preference would be for decriminalization, or perhaps even legalization if some well-thought-out implimentation were presented. However, in my opinion the current state of affairs is not that big of a deal and I am skeptical that pot-users are being persecuted to the extent that some in this thread seem to be suggested. In other words, like same-sex marriage, this is not an issue that's going to have much impact on my vote. -k

Is Islam the future of humanity? I sincerely hope not. As much as you argue otherwise, I can't help but look at the state of women in just about every country under Islamic rule and feel great relief that I live in a nation under secular rule. Islam might have offered a great boost for the status of women when it arrived, 1400 years ago, but it seems that attitudes in much of the Islamic world are still stuck in the 6th century. -kim

My guess is that it's a foreigner with an axe to grind... -k

Whaaaa? -k

I've looked in on babble the odd time and always come away with the impression that it's somewhat extreme. Not necessarily that the views are particularly extreme, but the devotion to an idiology and the rabid dislike of other viewpoints. ... fanatical perhaps is the word I am looking for. -k

I doubt whether the police will kick in your door and cart you off to jail for having a hemp plant or two in your basement. Police obtain search warrants based on evidence that's by nature related to growing large quantities, such as ridiculously high electricity consumption, infrared photography indicating unusual heat, purchasing of large quantities of hydroponics gear, regular visits with known trafficers, and so on. I doubt very many busts are for "a plant or two". And I know that the police tend to use a lot of discretion when dealing with possession. Friends of mine who were caught by a policeman smoking weed near Whyte Ave were suggested to move to a more private location, as "the smoke is bothering people." The officer made no mention of the fact that it was marijuana smoke and was content just to have them smoke someplace privately. I believe that in most instances the officer doesn't *want* to make that arrest, but he will if you make a big show of disobeying the law. I attended Canada Day on Parliament Hill one year and got completely lit just from the second hand smoke. With that many smokers and that many RCMP all concentrated in one place, you know that there'd be mass arrests if they were serious about enforcing the law. 48,000 arrests for possession is a tiny number considering the number of Canadians who are believed to use marijuana. If the police were remotely interested in enforcing marijuana laws, the number would be far higher. And I suspect that possession charges are used by police as a convenience: for instance, somebody is being a jackass in a public place, bullying or harrassing people or something, and the police would like to cool his heels for a while, then if he's got a joint in his pocket then that's a good excuse to take him away. I'd suspect that possession charges were also often laid in connection with other charges, someone gets pulled over for careless driving and has marijuana in the car. Personally I do agree with the theory that legalization of marijuana would just be too expensive to too many people. Police chiefs would lose a great excuse for higher budgets, tobacco and liquor companies would face unwanted competition. The Hells Angels would simply not stand for it. Historically people often blame William Randolph Hurst for inciting public fear of marijuana because he thought hemp was a threat to his pulp and paper business. I also think that if people had access to clothes made of hemp fibre, they'd be hucking their cotton stuff in the trash. One time I was shopping and found this pair of italian-made jeans made out of a cotton-hemp blend and OMG! it was like wearing heaven. They would have cost me a month's salary I digress. Hemp also has interesting possibilities in biodiesel because it is a very rich oil producing plant, so perhaps the Big Oil conspiracy theorists will get on the hemp bandwagon too. As for the "ban on handguns", I personally am not outraged at the idea of banning handguns... I'm just appalled at the stupidity of the concept. Instead of banning handguns, I've got a better idea: Paul Martin could Ban Murder! That way, there would be no more murders! It's such a great idea I'm surprised nobody's ever thought of it before. -k

Can't you be called an Israeli unless you're a Jew? There's a difference between what is technically accurate and what is implied. "Israeli" might have been technically accurate in this situation (might, or might not...) but what is implied? What mental picture does someone form if you say "an Israeli"? I'm betting that for the overwhelming majority of readers, the phrase "an Israeli" does indeed bring to mind a Jewish person, and I doubt that there are any who would first think of a Palestinian living in the West Bank. And seriously, would many West Bank Palestinians would actually identify themselves as "an Israeli"? Whether the headline is technically accurate or not is somewhat beside the point, as the headline creates a very wrong first impression. Do you think the headline was actually defensible? How about this one: -kimmy