kimmy

WaPo Pretty clearly these guys are total amateurs. They should hire Chuck Guite and Alfonso Gagliano as consultants to show them how pros do it. -k

Where does the brainstem stop and the brain begin? The anatomy of the brain is well understood. An enormous amount of research has been put into mapping out which portions of the brain perform which functions. It's not a shades of grey thing. A neurologist could go into a lab and anaesthetize areas of a person's brain with very predictable results on what effect it would have on the person's abilities. The CT scan which was widely circulated during the controversy was clear evidence of the irreparable loss of capacity she had suffered. I'm sure you've probably seen the CT scan, because it was widely publicized and loudly trumpeted by "Save Terri!" types as "proof" that Terri could be easily saved. The CT scan showed the ventricles in Terri's cerebrum engorged to literally dozens times their normal size. In infants, this is a sign of hydroencephally, which is a condition that can be treated and allow the infant to recover and live normally. In adults, it's not. Hydroencephally is a condition in which the ventricles can not drain quickly enough. In infants, this causes the ventricles to swell due to build-up of cerebrospinal fluid. In infants this can happen because the skull is still soft and can expand to accomodate the extra volume. In adults, this doesn't happen. In adults, the skull is hard and the ventricles do not swell in this situation. In adults, the ventricles can only increase in size if there's a corresponding decrease in size of the surrounding brain tissue. The immense bloating of Terri Schiavo's cerebral ventricles was clear evidence of how much tissue she had lost in her cerebrum. Another thing the CT scan showed, which the "Save Terri!" crowd doesn't appear to have understand in the least, was the large amount of cerebrospinal fluid elsewhere in the brain, which isn't a sign of hydroencephally at all. It's clearly visible, filling what in a normal brain are the well-known grooves on the surface of the brain but in Terri's brain are enormous gaps. Particularly troublesome is the enormous gap between the left and right frontal lobes, showing complete atrophy of what in healthy people is the core of their consciousness. You can look at Terri's CT scan and look at a map of brain function and tick off piece by piece what capabilities she just didn't have anymore because that part of her brain was simply no longer there. This is stuff that is well understood within the medical community. Except, apparently, by the gang of witch-doctor quack snake-oil salesmen who served as the Schindlers' medical consultants and conned them into believing that they could rehabilitate Terri. Ultimately, Dr. Hammesfahr and his associates at their privately owned quack-science clinic were the only winners in the Terri Schiavo fiasco, as they got a ton of publicity for themselves, and no doubt conned the Schindlers out of a fortune in fees. And I maintain that the differences between the two cases are hardly enough to justify DeLay's grandstanding against Michael Schiavo. I don't think DeLay was thinking of modest differences like the difference between artificial feeding vs artificial respiration or the length of the condition when he was publicly blasting him as a barbarian and essentially accusing him of murder. -k

Assuming you're serious and expect an answer...No, I would not be supportive of that. -forcing women to sear burqas in public is not consistent with Canadian values. -seizure of property in response to a hajib infraction is not an appropriate or sensible punishment (and is not considered as such even in Saudi Arabia, incidently.) -there's no benefit to Canada in assisting such a request. In short, I would fully expect such a nonsensical request to be met with a polite "Sorry, we can't help you." If you're going to tell me that the same arguments could be made in response to the US request for the seizure of Francis Raj's drug farm, I disagree. -punishing people for smuggling drugs and circumventing Canada Customs is consistent with Canadian values. -seizure of the assets of people who have made their money through drug trafficking is a fair and logical punishment that fits the crime. -Canada does benefit from assisting in this request. How does Canada benefit from seizing Frank's property in Langley? -it will help deter drug criminals from coming to Canada. If we cooperate with the Americans on this, it will send the message that these people can not protect their assets by "hiding" them in Canada. -it will maintain a spirit of cooperation between law enforcement officials on both sides of the border. They caught him, they're going to pay the cost of the trial, they're going to pay the costs of keeping him in prison, but we benefit from his capture too. Three members of organized crime are off Canadian streets. That's pretty good, isn't it? If turning over Raj's assets in Canada is all it costs us, I'd say it's a bargain. And if the seizure of the property ends up costing more in terms of legal costs than it nets at auction, do we submit a bill to the US for the difference? You seem to believe that Canada ought to incur a cost, just so we can hand over money to the US. As I've said a few times already, we ought to pay Langley's expenses from the proceeds of the seizure before turning any money over to the Americans. If we incur legal expenses in applying a seizure, then those legal expenses should also come out of the proceeds. Anyway, at this point it goes from talking about "The Invasion!!" to haggling over court costs and legal fees, so in the big picture it's pretty minor. -k

The heart, in fact, has its own "pacemaker" and does beat on its own. Breathing is controlled by a reflex located in the brain-stem. So is swallowing. So is dilation of the pupils in response to light. Eye movements, tongue movements, and various other movements of the head that Schiavo supports said "proved" she was not brain-dead. None of this indicates the presence of any activity in the cerebrum, the part that of the brain that provides the functions that we think of as thought and personality and emotion and identity. The CT scan that was widely circulated during the controversy, and later the autopsy, proved conclusively how severely atrophied her cerebrum had become. At any rate, the differences between the circumstances of Terri Schiavo and DeLay's father are similar enough that you'd think DeLay might have some empathy instead of running around the country calling Michael Schiavo a barbarian and a murderer. -k

My intention was mostly to poke holes in the Toronto Star article, and in the conclusion that Shakeyhands has drawn from it. I think I've accomplished that. The article says that news directors leaned toward the Liberal and PC parties *more* than the populaltion at large did. August gave members of this forum a heads up on M Lafond's film well before the English language media got ahold of the story. As much as I admire August as a writer, I can't believe that he's a superior news-gathering organization to the CBC. The fact is that the allegations themselves and the controversy that was rising within Quebec were of themselves newsworthy. Is a news organization's mandate to report the news, or to "manage" it? You're saying people within the CBC may have given her the benefit of the doubt because of her personal connections within the organization? uh, isn't that the textbook definition of bias?? -k

No, we're fully aware of that. What Canadian interests exist at this point? First off, does Canada even have a seizure law comparable to the one in the US? Secondly, assuming we do, we would still have to conduct our own trial of Mr Raj in order to do so. The legal costs for a trial could easily exceed the procedes from the land sale. And thirdly, to conduct such a trial of our own, we would have to ask for the US to send him back here. With Mr Raj and his associates having been caught red-handed, it seems very likely that he will be convicted there and receive a lengthy sentence. Right now (or, technically, right after Mr Raj is convicted, as seems most likely given the 360-foot long piece of physical evidence and the circumstances of his arrest...) the Americans are in the position of requesting our assistance in enforcing the terms of his conviction. But if we wanted them to send him back here so that we could conduct our own trial so we could seize his property ourselves, then we are the ones placed in the position of making a request. In other words, one way or another, international cooperation will be required to bring a satisfactory resolution of this case. Using the American request for the seizure of his land as a starting point for arriving at such an agreement seems like the far more logical thing to do. What goals are we trying to accomplish here? 1. Mr Raj and his associates should be incarcerated, so as to not be able to commit crime on either side of the border. 2. Langley city hall should get their $35,000 in expenses back. It is of benefit to both Canada and the United States that Mr Raj has been captured. It is likewise of benefit to us as well as to the Americans that Mr Raj be put on trial. And incarcerated, once he is convicted. As it stands, the Americans will be paying the costs of the trial and the cost of his incarceration, so their request for the proceeds of the sale of his land is entirely fair. We need only take $35,000 from that money to pay Langley's expenses. Nonsense. This is a simple issue of cross-border cooperation. Only in the fact that it is land rather than other sorts of assets under discussion is this remotely interesting or unusual. But since it's land, it's an opportunity for alarmists and flag-waving rah-rah types to run around shouting waving their arms. The title of this thread is ample evidence of the mentality at work. -k

oh dear... -k

It is Canadian soil they are seizing. Which overall regardles of who had the deed, it's only rightful owner is Canada. Did you even read the rest of the thread? They aren't seizing Canadian soil. They're attempting to seize privately held title. It's not the same thing at all. A privately held title on Canadian soil. They want to seize the property and land. That means soil. Canadian soil, it is even stated in the artlce they wanted to seize the dead to the property. This is not clear? I don't see a difference really.If there is a difference, please show me. Big deal, who gives a crap? Whether the deed is held by IndoCanadian drug smugglers or the US Government, it's still Canadian territory. What do you imagine is going to happen? They're going to annex this land into their own country? Redraw the border around the new property? Build a military base? I'll tell you what'll happen. They'll auction the deed and apply the money raised to legal expenses in prosecuting the drug smugglers they have in custody. Foreigners buy and sell Canadian land all the time. That in this instance you're wetting your pants in terror because the prospective owner might be the US government rather than a businessman or corporation is quite funny. -k

Well yes, there is always the difficulty of determining whether the accused is guilty. How is that different than any other criminal code offense? The issue is not just of determining whether the actions in question were committed, but in deciding whether the actions were illegal in the first place. The issue here is not violation of rights. Do people have the right to have a consenting sexual relationship? Of course. Is that right without limit? Should it be permissible for a 30 year old have a consenting sexual relationship with a 10 year old? Of course not. An 18 year old? Yes, that's permissible. Somewhere between 10 and 18 there is boundary to draw. Ok, so how are these boundaries drawn? Consensus. Our elected officials will try to arrive at some sort of guideline that they believes reflects the values of Canadians. What limits are there in this creation of law by consensus? Well, if our elected officials step too far, or arrive at something which is not consistent with our guaranteed rights, then it will wind up before the Supreme Court, and it will be struck down. Isn't that the case for any law in this country? Well, we've discussed several instances of how government restricts corporations' right to commerce when dealing with young consumers. If you wish to discuss something we haven't already discussed then be specific. Same deal with churches. We've placed limits on freedom of religion, for instance forcing Jehovah's Witnesses children to undergo lifesaving medical procedures agains their religion. If there's something specific you wish to address, then go for it. -k

Kind of a reach, Shakey. The article shows disproportionately low preference among news directors for the NDP and the former Alliance, but disproportionately high preference for the Liberals and the late PC party. In short, there might not be a liberal bias, but the article suggests there might be a Liberal bias. One could also certainly wonder who the news directors who used to vote PC would chopse now that the PCs are dead. This tidbit here was particularly interesting... ...which supports what many have said about the CBC's coverage of Canadian politics. You can look back on this very message board and find at least a couple of instances where the CBC news website has just plain ignored Liberal-unfriendly news items that other media outlets were giving considerable attention. Sparhawk defended the CBC on one occasion, pointing out that news people have to make judgment calls and sometimes they get it wrong. Perhaps... but this article gives reason to wonder whether political preference might be behind those judgment calls. It is also worth pointing out that the survey seems to have been of TV news directors nationwide. That's hardly an authoritative methodology. For instance, what about the Ottawa press gallery, that has been accused of viewing their press career as an internship for higher-paying jobs with various government communications departments? The political preferences of TV news directors is an interesting starting point for a discussion, but it is hardly the last word on the subject. An interesting article, Shakey, but it doesn't say what you wish it said. I can see why the Star wrote this article... after all, the Star are NDP cheerleaders and this article seems to suggest that the NDP might not get a fair shot from TV news directors either. But overall, the point of the article is that the political preferences of TV news directors are disproportionately to the centre-- the Liberals and the former PC party-- and that certainly *does* suggest that there could be a Liberal bias in Canada's TV newsrooms. -k

I think the fact that Peter C Newman still thinks that hat is cool in 2005 should tell you all you need to know about the man's judgment. -k

Well, the porn-stache does look a lot like Jack's, but I don't think it's the same guy. Although, if he can make my computer run with "New Energy!" I'm all ears. -k

It seems like the people who think Orchard would have been a great leader for the Tories are invariably people who would not have voted Tory if their lives depended on it. I wonder if that means something. If Orchard were such a man of integrity, perhaps he should have run for leadership of a party whose policies he resembles. I assume his presence in the PC leadership race was a stunt of some kind. -k

:lol: Yes, it is imperative for Paul Martin to stand firm to make sure that Canadians who break laws in the United States are protected from the consequences of their actions!! You guys did read the part about this guy being a drug smuggler, right? About him being involved in illegal activity on both sides of the border? I mean, possessing a few grams of tree might now be decriminalized in Canada, but trafficking in it is not. And I'm quite sure that building your own "border crossing" is against the law as well; even if they were just transporting computer parts or fresh fruit across the border they've still skirted Canada Customs. Raj and his 2 friends were arrested when they emerged from the tunnel on the US side of the border (yes, I looked it up). They're in US custody and facing US charges. They were caught in Washington state in violation of American law, probably state and federal, and they're subject to the legal consequences in that jurisdiction. We've all heard news items about Canadians facing the death penalty when convicted of murder in Texas and Florida, or facing lifetimes in jail when caught with drugs in Islamic countries, so the notion that you face the consequences of the local law when you commit crimes abroad is not new to any of us. In the US, it is standard practice to seize assets of drug smugglers; what they've done in this case is standard practice. That they are asking for seizure of assets in Canada is not unprecidented, as your own article indicated. Only that in this case they wish to seize land is this case unique. Of course, when Canadians face the death penalty abroad, or lifetimes in jail for minor crimes, our government advocates on their behalf. Should they in this case? I don't believe they should. Drug smuggling is a major offense on this side of the border as well, and seizure of assets is not a cruel or unusual punishment. Should our government cooperate with the US request for seizure, if Mr Raj is convicted? I think so. I think we ought to auction the property, use the proceeds to pay off the expenses Langley incurred in filling in this tunnel, and hand over the remainder, if there is any, to the US. To me, that seems logical and fair. -k

If anything, society is moving the opposite direction regarding sex and children. As Fleabag pointed out, it used to be commonplace for girls to be married before they were 18, and now the idea is viewed with contempt. Some of the new laws against child pornography are pretty much unprecidented in terms of the restrictions on personal freedom and the legal consequences that can result. The public is increasingly aware of child molestation as the authorities become better at detecting it and more aggressive in punishing it, and with this increasing public awareness has come increased public anger at the offenders. We've entered an era where even the classic "baby's first bath in the kitchen sink" photo that every parent used to take now raises potential legal consequences if the guy at the photo-developing lab decides to call the cops. I don't see any evidence to suggest that society is moving in a direction towards increased tolerance or permissiveness toward pedophilia. I see lots of reason to think the opposite. You argue that the media could change that within a couple of decades, but I strongly doubt it. Given the intense public dislike of the subject, I think that any media executive who even suggested putting "Older Eye for the Adolescent Guy" on the air would be fired on the spot. No media outlet would dare risk the kind of public furor that would result from such a thing. -k

Your article seems to indicate that the only new wrinkle in this story is that it's land that's under discussion as opposed to other assets. The fact that it's happened before with other types of assets suggests that there's some sort of process which has been follwed in the past and will presumably be used again. From the sound of your article, the Americans are seeking cooperation and agreement with Canada in punishing a criminal who are carried out cross-border activities. They concede that they can't proceed on this without Canada's cooperation.Is there anything to be gained from not cooperating? -k

I guess that now when people think of me as a "regular user", this is what will come to mind. -k

Which is analogous to foreign states seizing property? Question: if they were seeking to confiscate Mr Raj's BMW (or his Chevette, or whatever he drives) rather than his drug farm, would you be as riled up about this? Is it the fact that it's land that you're concerned about? Or is it that a Canadian is being punished by the US for committing cross-border crime? In response to the former, I don't see an issue. A deed to a property is just an asset, no different from a car or a stack of cash. In response to the latter, I have little sympathy. If Mr Raj did not wish to face American punishment for his crimes, he should have confined his activities to this side of the border. And it is not to our benefit to shield Canadian citizens from the consequences of breaking the law in the United States. The Indo-Canadian gangs are a source of considerable violent crime in the Lower Mainland. And they are exchanging "BC Bud" for harder and more dangerous drugs to sell in Canada. Giving them protection from harsher consequences would be like giving them an invitation to set up shop. Heck, might as well give them tax breaks while we're at it. If the encroachment of the US "war on drugs" on Canada's sovereignty is what you meant by "The invasion begins..." then the invasion began earlier, with the more problematic and troubling extradition request for Marc Emery. -k

Why not introduce legislation that prohibits all exploitive relationships between adults and children, be they financial, sexual, moral, etc, then? Because the challenge becomes defining what is an exploitive relationship. There is probably fairly widespread consensus that a 30 year old seeking sexual favors from a 12 year old is exploitive... a 19 year old seeking sexual favors from a 14 year old is somewhat less clear cut, and a 17 year old and a 15 year old more difficult yet. I think that some of the other situations you suggest banning would be likewise difficult to achieve any sort of consensus. "Financial"? I think there's a widespread consensus that child labor is exploitive, and as a result we strictly control the situations in which it is permissible to employ children. If you week a broader notion of what might be financial exploitation of children-- advertisements or products aimed at children-- then you're far less likely to find any sort of consensus. And I'm not sure what you mean by "moral." -k

We don't let children go to any movie they feel like, or buy alcohol or cigarettes. I suspect that there are restrictions on what you can advertise during children's programs on TV... you probably can't advertise beer during Sesame Street, though I could be mistaken. You can't advertise cigarettes on TV at all. The government has intervened in medical cases when the welfare of children was at risk. Most people support the idea that there are some places where the government is justified in setting boundaries. The disagreements are mostly about where the boundaries should be, not whether there should be boundaries. Very few people (and I doubt Argus is among them) believe in complete government non-interference in all affairs, especially where children are concerned. Most people use the disclaimer "consenting adults" when they say "people should be allowed to decide for themselves" in response to governmental attempts to regulate behavior, whether it be restricting porn or mandating seatbelts or anything else. An affair with an adult is more likely to have profound effects on a child's future than watching the wrong movie or smoking a cigarette. -k

Why is it that when other politicians break promises or commit egregious gaffs it's forgiven or forgotten quickly, but some people that Peter MacKay is damaged goods for all eternity because he shafted David Orchard? Peter MacKay did the country a tremendous service by getting Orchard out of politics. He should be given a medal. -k

You're concerned that they're attempting to annex Canadian territory? Redraw the border in the Langley area? As much as I hate to interrupt your hyperbole, I think you're reading far too much into this. I would assume that the US government intends to try to take Mr Raj's assets, not annex Canadian territory. Just as they seize the car or the yacht or the bank-accounts of drug dealers if they believe they were purchased with the proceeds of drug trafficking, they also seize the deed to properties. Foreigners buy property in Canada all the time, Canada's borders do not change with each transaction. The property is still Canada's territory, subject to Canadian law and jurisdiction. In this case, the foreigner holding the deed to this particular piece of Canadian territory could wind up being the government of the United States, but I don't see how that would be any different than if the property owner was a private citizen. As long as the US pays the relevant property tax to Langley city hall and doesn't hold any loud parties, everything should be just fine. I suspect that our own government owns property in other countries for a variety of purposes. I suspect that other governments own property in Canada. I'm sure that their only intentions for the land are to auction it off anyway. I believe the relevant issue in this instance is that Langley city hall believes they have first claim on the proceeds, to reimburse them for the expense of filling in the drug tunnel. -k

I'm not exactly sure what the specifics of these charges are, but based on his role in the Terry Schiavo nonsense, I think it's fairly clear that DeLay is a jerk and a hypocrite. -k

David Dingwall was also a key figure in Gomery testimony earlier this year wasn't he? Dude's having a bad year. -k

PR. And always a pleasure to speak with you. BTW, what happened to "The Kimmy Party"???? Elections coming up. Better gear up the campaign eh. Leadership issues and internal squabbling. Anonymous members bitching to the Toronto Star. You know. I'm actually considering joining a new party. Click here for details! -k