kimmy

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. -k

I'm not opposed to the idea of plebicites on some issues (although, I can't at the moment think of an issue where I think a plebicite would be the best way of resolving it.) But using direct democracy as a means of running a large and modern country (or even a province, city, or really anything larger than Dog River, Saskatchewan) would be unwieldy and impractical. I think most of the work done in running a country does not actually consist of big showy policy announcements or voting on controversial issues. I think that most of the work is done by ordinary people working at desks using spreadsheets and word processors and telephones, trying to figure out how to get the most widgets for their department without blowing the budget. For the most part I am willing to trust that guy and I suspect that he's very sincere in his efforts to maximize widget procurement efficiency. He's probably very good at it. I don't think he needs all Canadians looking over his shoulder to tell him how to do his job. He probably knows a hell of a lot more about purchasing widgets than the rest of us ever will. So at this point I borrow the idea of "specialization" from economics. Once upon a time, specialization was probably pretty simple: men kill animals and cook them on fires, women gather edible plant stuff and care for the children. The sphere of human activity has expanded by orders of magnitude since then, to the point that nobody can possibly fill all the roles on their own. No one has the time to look after all the things that we use to facilitate our quality of life. Did you weave your clothes? Did you grow the grains that were in your breakfast cereal, milk the cow, build your house, dig an oil-well, refine gasoline, build a car, drive to Columbia to obtain coffee beans, forge metal pots, make your own dishes in a kiln you built yourself? Did you build your computer from base metals and sand? Write your own operating system? Of course not. The idea of specialization is what enables us to lead the lives that we do. If we didn't specialize our activities and divide our efforts through some means of commerce, we would be all living a subsistence lifestyle. I believe the same idea relates to government. If the only decisions we had to make as a tribe were trying to decide which cave to live in and what kind of animal we were going to kill for supper, direct democracy would be very feasible. But things get more complicated pretty quickly... if our tribe is trying to decide which plants are poisonous, should we put that to a popular vote, or should we ask the witch-doctor? See, we're still living in caves, and we've already got issues that require specialized knowledge to make correct decisions. And governing our tribe, all 32 million of us, is so much more complicated than that. So we have specialists-- tens of thousands of them-- clustered in their caves in Ottawa and Hull and trying to use their specialized knowledge for the good of the tribe. And we trust them to do a good job. But we want input and accountability. So we appoint chieftans to oversee them, and we interact with these chieftans. We have a Medicine Chieftain, a War Chieftain, a Law Chieftain, a chieftain who oversees the process of dividing up the burnt animal flesh and edible plant stuff, and so on. And each chieftain might not know much about medicine or war or law, but these chieftains are there to represent us to the specialists who look after each of these fields of endeavor. If we as a tribe are unhappy with the way medicine is being administered, we don't complain to individual witch-doctors, we complain to the medicine chieftain who tries to set things right. If the tribe continues to be unhappy with the medicine chieftain, then it could be the medicine chieftain's head on a stake as a warning to other chieftains who disappoint the tribe. I think this is the best way to do things. With so much specialized knowledge at work and so many decisions to be made, we just can't possibly know enough about each issue to make informed decisions-- we have our own specializations to worry about. Choosing representitives to interact on our behalf with these specialists and to take accountability for their activities saves us all a lot of effort and energy. However, that still leaves lots of room to wonder whether our system could be improved. How often should we review our chieftains and assess their records? If a chieftain is screwing up, should we have the power to stake his head at our wish, or must it wait for a review period? Does dividing prospective chieftains into adversarial parties serve any purpose? Need all the chieftains be from the same party? What if we could elect chieftains for specific tasks, could that be better than having the party leader appoint chieftains to specific tasks and reappoint them on his whim? -k

I don't really get it. Who, exactly, should be prevented from using the word "Christmas"? After all, most private companies and crown corporations already use generic phrases such as "Happy Holidays" and "Season's Greetings". (Frank Costanza's "Festivus" has somehow not yet caught fire on in a big way.) What, then, is pissing these people off? Do they not like seeing the word "Christmas" on the calendar? My calendar does have the word "Christmas", as well as "Rosh Hashanah", "Yom Kippur", "Guadalupe Day", and ... well, lots more. Why are these jerks picking on Christmas when there's a whole calendar full of oddly named days to pick on? If Christmas is exclusive, then what about "Anzac Day"? Are these people talking about preventing private individuals from using the word Christmas? Because if that's what they want, they can collectively go do a backflip into an empty pool (metaphorically speaking.) I'll consider referring to Christmas as "Festive" as soon as they start referring to Ramadan as "Weight Loss Month." How's that for a fair compromise? -k

People used to think it was impossible? Wow-- talk about a 180 change... now the average guy on the street thinks that most women are just a drink or two away from giving it a try. Yeah, I remember when CBC used to show reruns of "Kate & Allie" before supper. I'm not sure I'd call it a documentary, though. -k

This is really all that need be said, in my opinion. I did wish to complain about some of the numbers being brandished about earlier, though. Classifying people as "homosexuals" based on something as tenuous as having "a voluntary same-sex experience between the ages of 12 and 27" seems like a willful effort at inflating the number. What's the point? -k {not gay, but wouldn't kick Angelina Jolie out of-- uh, nevermind}

I was very young at the time, and my understanding of the event was pretty limited but I found the media coverage upsetting. Just as at the time I didn't really understand what the first Gulf War was about, but found the CNN coverage to be mesmerizing and scary. Dim video of anti-aircraft guns hopelessly firing thousands of tracer-bullets into the night sky at invisible enemies as explosions went off all around was something that was kind of etched into me, and likewise with the hundreds of crying people with their candles at the university, and photographs of that clueless, non-descript looking loser who was apparently the monster behind it all. Since then there have been rounds and rounds of debates over whether it was a hate-crime or a symbol of a larger problem in society or a gun control issue or just an isolated case of a mentally ill individual. Many different people have tried to use the incident to gain political mileage. My dad, and my special guy, and some of my male friends are engineers. I've attended classes on occasion. I'm quite possibly going to pursue a career in engineering myself. I know that for some people the field has the reputation of not being inclusive to women, and I know that women are a relatively small minority in the field. But the engineers that I know are kind and good-natured and I know they think very highly of their female classmates and colleagues and are very upset by the idea that this incident might have cause women to not enter the field. I personally don't believe so. I don't personally believe that the deranged thug was a symbol of a deeper problem or an expression of male resentment towards career women or similar motives attributed to him. I think he was probably a very small man with serious feelings of inadequacy. I don't believe he represents any aspect of the men that I know. I think the massacre should be remembered for what it was: a horrible tragedy... but I feel uncomfortable with the idea of people using it as a starting-point to launch into some political crusade. I don't think that's fair to anyone concerned. -kimmy

On Anne McLellan: I'm surprised to see so much dislike of Landslide Annie. While she has all the charm and personal appeal of a wet dog, I don't know of anything in her record in public office that would inspire such dislike. Can somebody fill me in? On the debate between Slavik44 and Argus, I will just point out that it's probably better to be Bloc Alberta than to be Bloc Elsie Wayne. On other candidates who deserve to be out of a job: oh man, I can't believe I forgot Joe Volpe. Man, is that guy ever a prick. Lessee.... the prodigal son returns home to repent after his dubious ventures out into the wider world, and the father celebrates his return by killing the fatted calf for a feast. The loyal son becomes jealous: he stayed home and worked while his brother was away pursuing folly, so why no feast in *his* honor? He mockingly calls his brother "this, thy son." "This, thy brother," the father reminds him. The story is about forgiveness, and also leads us to ask which one is *really* the prodigal son: the one who has come home to repent his errors, or the one who is envious of the welcome given his brother? The loyal son, in truth, seems quite distant from his father's generous and forgiving spirit: perhaps he is actually the one who has strayed? Nonetheless, I'm not exactly sure what this actually has to do with the Progressive Conservative/ Canadian Alliance merger. -k

Easy choice for me: Hedy Fry. Wilfully slandering Prince George was bad enough; lying afterwards that the mayor of Prince George had personally informed her of the cross burnings was even worse. Despicable. I'll write Svend a thank-you if he can get rid of her; I'll even buy him a ring. Who else really sucks... Gurmant Grewal... I heard he's not seeking reelection, which is good, because he was pretty embarrassing to the party. Carolyn Parrish needs to find a new line of work as well. -k

Here is the poll to which he refers. If the Liberals are up that far in Ontario, it might almost make up for all the seats they're going to lose in Quebec. -k

One thing worth pointing out is that Usual Dosage is a cabinet minister, and cabinet ministers were not allowed to against the bill. -k

The other night, August titled his post on Buzz Hargrove's announcement "Buzz Hargrove Appointed to Senate," and my initial reaction was to assume August was serious... I guess that's a statement about how much faith I have in politics in this country. -k

The sample size might be larger, but the poll is dated November 16. I'm becoming increasingly skeptical of all the polls floating around. The polls fluctuate so rapidly-- one says one thing, and a couple of days later another poll says something different. It makes me wonder if the variable is peoples' intentions, or the polling methodology. -k

Globe'n'Mail: Layton campaigns in BC. To clarify: he said oil and gas exports and did not specifically single out Alberta gas and oil. Of course, as the G'n'M article notes, -k

If you go back and read my earlier message, you'll see that the "religious freedoms" concerns in regard to C-250 are far from bogus. -k

Trust me, you've provided me with more chuckles than you know. -k

When the "rogue few" happen to be two consecutive party presidents in Quebec, plus a Cabinet Minister, plus some of the former Prime Minister's closest friends and associates... they're not rogues. Gomery explicitly stated that the Party cannot escape blame. Gomery spoke of a "culture of entitlement". I really doubt it. I don't believe you. Offer me a shred of evidence that the RCMP has the ability to act as an auditor on its own initiative. Offer me a shred of evidence that they've looked into any of the other issues I mentioned. I don't think they have. I don't believe your claim that they could or that they have. And, of course, blaming the BQ and PQ for all that went wrong is one of the funniest things that Liberal supporters come up with. Did they launder money for the Quebec Liberals? Did they issue fraudulent contracts? Maybe the sponsorship program would have done exactly what it was supposed to, if the Liberals hadn't let their own greed bring it into disrepute. Sure, blame the BQ and PQ for creating the incentive for the program, but all of the blame for its failures are squarely with the Liberals. Its undeniable. Don't give us that. Brian Mulroney was never convicted of anything, but you've often written of your belief in his guilt. There's a world of difference between proving someone guilty and finding someone trustworthy. OJ Simpson was acquitted of cutting his wife's throat, but I certainly wouldn't date the man. -k

Do you really think Mercer is trying to appeal to CPC supporters so that he can win the leadership at the next convention? You understand that Rick Mercer is a comedian, and that if he's planning to seek the CPC leadership, it's because he thinks it'll be a funny stunt to use on his show, right? -k

Norman continues to peddle misinformation as to what Bill C-250 actually contains. Bill C-250 amended the sections of the criminal code that deal with hate speech. There's no mention of physical gay bashing, or broadening the definition of hate crimes. Bill C-250 is irrelevant to the prosecution of gay-bashing incidents unless the perpetrators gave public speeches on the topic beforehand. for reference: That doesn't sound so bad, right? Bill C-250 expressly protects religion, right? These religious types must be worried about nothing, right?Let's have a closer look. Or at least have some lawyers have a closer look for us. (emphasis added by me) (source: http://www.carters.ca/pub/bulletin/church/2004/chchlb02.htm ) In other words, Bill C-250 expands the definition of "identifiable groups", and protects religious speech from punishment under 318.2, but does not protect religious speech from punishment under 319.1. In summary, the religious groups worried about Bill C-250 had reason to be concerned. -kimmy

The Gomery report had a clearly defined mandate, and within the scope of its mandate was thoroughly damning. It rejects the "a few rogue individuals" argument perpetuated by many on this forum, and specifically states that the party cannot escape responsibility. And what reason would I have to believe that the mentality Gomery referred to in his report is not also in evidence in other government programs? In fact we've already seen that it is, as the RCMP found fraudulent expenses at the gun registry. The RCMP has not investigated all the concerns. They've investigated what they were asked to. As for the rest, they're not able to show up anywhere they feel like and start going through ledgers. They investigate when they're asked to (as Chretien belatedly did with sponsorship), or if they are given specific knowledge of criminal activity (but with the state of whistleblower protection, what are the odds of that?) The rest of the stuff hasn't been investigated by the RCMP. The charges laid at the gun registry, for instance, came out only by chance during investigation of sponsorship. -k

Seing as how your link doesn't work, could you provide us with exactly how many "religious zealots" are in the Conservative party? Also, what constitutes a religious zealot? Someone who goes to church? I'm not sure what happened to the link. The portion of the link I typed was conservatives_hijacked_by_zealots but when it appeared on mapleleafweb it became conservatives...by zealots Actually, I think the problem is your spelling. I assume that you didn't mean to type "sceptic" and were trying to say either "skeptic" or "septic"-- most likely the latter.Try this, whiz-kids. -k

We've heard sworn testimony about the lengths the Liberals went to in obfuscating their activities and in leaving no paper trail of their activities. Why would anyone assume there wasn't more? I don't see any reason to assume there wasn't. I see no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt. It is not innuendo that the RCMP has filed charges for fraudulent expenses at the gun registry. It is a fact, and it is a fact that should raise suspicion given spiralling costs and the pattern of behavior we saw in sponsorship. The issue of the "Foundations" remains of interest to me. Given that they were specifically established in such a way as to be outside the scope of scrutiny, at the height of sponsorship money laundering, why shouldn't people be suspicious? They've resisted Shiela Fraser's efforts to get more access. Doesn't that seem suspicious, considering Paul Martin's supposed enthusiasm for openness and transparency? Is it innuendo to talk about why you no longer trust an institution? Is it innuendo if they've brought suspicion on themselves with their own record? If you don't think I'm being fair, then go ahead and convince me that any of my suspicions are unjustified. -k

Has anybody running for the Liberals in Quebec been charged in connection with the sponsorship program? No, I guess not. How many candidates running for the Liberals in Quebec had previous campaigns paid for by money stolen through the sponsorship program? How many of the Liberals' Quebec wing organizers had hands-on roles? How many people who knew what was going on didn't receive the "lifetime bans" that Paul Martin was dishing out? How much more went on that we didn't find out about? How much went on outside the scope of Gomery's mandate? What about Earnscliffe? What about all those "Foundations" established in 1997 that were designed to be not subject to the access to information act and not subject to scrutiny from the auditor general? How about the firearms registry: the RCMP has already laid 2 charges for bogus expenses in the gun registry, how much more is waiting to be discovered? At Enron, the slogan was "Don't send a memo if you can make a phone call, don't make a phone call if you can say it in person, and don't say anything if a wink or a nod will suffice." Add in some references to brown envelops left on tables, and that could be the Liberals too. Proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt might be the standard when it comes to deciding whether to throw someone in jail. And I suppose that for some people, "they couldn't find enough evidence to lay charges" might be reason enough to vote for somebody. But personally my standard is a little higher. -k

I voted Green last time out. In my riding, the Conservative candidate was guaranteed to win by around 20,000 votes, so I decided that rather than waste my vote either fighting or adding to a landslide I would vote to help the Green Party reach that 4% figure they supposedly needed to reach some sort of funding milestone. -k

I appreciate that Bakunin pops by to give us some perspective from Quebec. He might be a sovereigntist, but what of it? Are we to pretend that they don't exist? And if we kicked people off the forum for posting messages with imperfect grammar or punctuation, I would be all by myself here. -k

Marc Garneau is entering politics? I guess it makes sense. After all, he already has experience at being shuttled about at great expense performing useless rah-rah flag-waving on the taxpayers' dime. Good luck, Marc. -k