kimmy

An accident? Seems to me that the rule is there because it was intended to be. I believe August has written that Upper Canada insisted on provincial control of resources because they didn't want to share revenues from their newly discovered kerosene deposits with the other provinces. If that's the case, Alberta is simply carrying on a Canadian tradition. Recall that for a long time, Canada's Oil Capital was Sarnia, not Calgary. The scene on the back of the old $10 bill was Sarnia, not anywhere in Alberta. The system, as it was set forth, worked well for Ontario for a long time. Why is it an accident when it works to somebody else's benefit? And if it was an accident in 1867, why did they repeat the accident again and again when Manitoba and BC and PEI joined? And again in 1930 when Alberta and Saskabush were finally granted control over their resources? Of course, in 1930 the prairies' natural resources were assumed to be a few coal pits, some salt licks, and that funny character in Turner Valley with the gasworks. Was the real accident that they underestimated the dollar value of what they were signing over? Indeed. Perhaps. With so many employers desperate for workers, it could be a boost for industry in this province. I can't help thinking that an organized campaign to attract people from other provinces might be poorly received, though. -kimmy {arrr. avast!}

Avast, ye bilge rats. Since today is International Talk Like A Pirate Day, I will run my reply through the English-to-Pirate translator before I post it. -k

What's your point? End consumers paid the cost of the MST too. Of course. Why would anybody assume the Canadian government would be able to go about taxing people in other countries? indeed. If a Canadian product and its foreign-made competitor are sitting on the shelf next to each other, then it's only fair that there should be an equal tax on both. If the price of the Canadian product includes a 13.5% manufacturer's tax, and the price of its foreign-made competitor includes no tax at all, then the Canadian product (and Canadian producer) has been arbitrarily discriminated against in the market place. Of course not. Why would we punish Canadian employers trying to compete in the global marketplace? How do you figure? If the Mississauga Widget Company sells 1000 widgets at $1 apiece in Canada, and another 10000 widgets at $1 apiece abroad, then the Canadian government collects $70 in GST. Perhaps you are thinking that if all 11000 widgets are sold in Canada, then the government could collect $770 in GST, rather than just $70. Perhaps that would be the case if Canadians actually wanted to buy 11000 widgets, more likely it is the case that if MWC was unable to export the 10000 widgets they sell abroad, they'd simply have to cut production and fire a number of their employees. Perhaps it is your view that it was a better idea to tax all 11000 widgets before they leave the factory, but again, why is it a good idea to hamper Canadian companies with higher production costs in comparison to their foreign competitors? Perhaps you feel that with the 13.5% manufacturer's tax that would have been applied before the GST, then we could have collected $1485 in tax. Except that the Belfast Widget Company sells widgets at $1.05, and with the manufacturer's tax applied, Mississauga Widget Company's widgets now cost $1.13. So their market share drops dramatically, because instead of 5% cheaper than the competition, they're now 8% more expensive. Again, before long the Mississauga Widget Company probably has to cut costs, cut production, and cut jobs. Why wouldn't we? Why would we give Canadian consumers an incentive to support producers in other countries at the expense of Canadian producers? When Joe Consumer is at the store looking at widgets, why would we give him an incentive to reach for the one that is produced in a foreign country over the Canadian-made one? You're giving Joe the choice of paying 13.5 cents of tax if he buys Canadian or no tax at all if he buys foreign. You want Joe Consumer to pay a 13.5% penalty for supporting Canadian jobs. Why? Do you hate people in Canada's manufacturing sector? Do you want Canada to return to a fur and cod based economy? -k

Yes... but not for this. -k

Doing some reading on the incident which prompted Musharraf's outburst, it turns out that Musharraf's government did give Mukhtar 500,000 rupees in compensation for the incident to which Fleabag refers. 500,000 Pakistani rupees is apparently worth about $8000, which makes the "millionaire" comment seem like a bit of an exaggeration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukhtar_Mai The incident is apparently something of a sore-spot for Musharraf, and he banned her from travelling outside the country because he was upset that western activist groups were using her to embarrass his country. The article seems to indicate that the "village council" was more along the lines of members of one family that claimed to have been wronged by a member of Mukhtar's clan or family. Another article indicates that the family that gang-raped Mukhtar had also been using gang-rape as a means of intimidating another family, trying to get them to leave so that their land could be taken. Is this "systemic"? The wiki article indicates that only with the urging of a local Imam did Mukhtar even come forward to file charges. It sort of gives me the impression that the issue is an inability to maintain law and order in isolated areas. I gather that the statement that set PM Paulie off was this: I have no idea what expertise Musharraf might have to comment on rape cases in Canada. Perhaps he might be of the impression that rape cases in the west result in victims receiving big settlements. (Did Kobe Bryant's alleged victim get a bunch of money? I can't recall.) I suspect Musharraf, embarrassed by the negative publicity over the Mukhtar Mai incident, was trying to deflect criticism of his nation. Trying to downplay the issue by questioning the motivations of women in his own country is bad enough, but impugning the motives of Canadian women really crosses the line, in my opinion. -k

I guess it was the start of the NFL season that reminded me of this discussion. Sunday NFL with dad is something of a tradition; once the snow falls and on days when I'm not working, at least. I think it's sometimes interesting to look back on things and see if you still feel the same way. And with Canadian troops taking a more dangerous role in Afghanistan, it is once again somewhat topical. As for Walker-Lindh, what can be said. I can at least kind of understand why people in dangerous, violent regions join terrorist groups. I can understand that some of them feel their very right to exist is being threatened and that they have to take extreme measures to (in their minds, at least) defend themselves. I don't support it, of course, but I can at least kind of get the thought-process and I can kind of get how they get to that. But how can you empathize with somebody from a well-off family who decides that what he really needs to do is go to the other side of the world and join a group dedicated to blowing up buses of civilians in order to effect the independance of a region that he has no ties to at all? That's Walker Lindh. Before joining the Taliban and Al Qaeda, he went to Pakistan to join the Harkut ul Mujahideen, a group using terrorism to try to create an Islamist state in Kashmir. And then he went to Afghanistan and joined Al Qaeda. I'm not very familiar with the facts of the case. It must have been somewhat soft-pedalled in the news, because I can't recall it being much of an issue at the time. But I sense that you've got a mistaken idea of what I find most offensive about Walker-Lindh. It's not that he put himself in a situation that ultimately led to him participating in armed conflict against his own country. It's that he grew up with all the advantages of education and religious freedom and personal security that a well-off American has... and decided that the right thing for him to do would be to travel to the other side of the world to join a group dedicated to murdering civilians. To me, that's loathesome. -k

Looking back on this, I still agree with everything I wrote. Looking back on this, I think it's a shame that we never got to hear MapleBear explain why he thought John Walker-Lindh was so deserving of respect. If it were possible, I'd still shake Pat Tillman's hand. If it were possible, I'd shake John Walker-Lindh's hand too. I'd shake his hand as I kicked him in the groin, again and again and again, over and over until I was sure that there was no medical possibility of the little puke reproducing. -kimmy

While I have often criticized our prime minister for lacking courage, I will give credit where it is due: Martin blasts Musharraf for rape comments. It has been a pretty good week. First, Dalton McGuinty telling religious arbitration to step off, and now Paul Martin asking his Pakistani counterpart "WTF was that?" I find it inspiring to see our leaders actually standing up for our values. Since when have our politicians had the spine to stand up to swarthy peoples and religious lobbies? related story: Musharraf opens mouth; crap comes out. -k

If drug-smugglers and white supremacists get into gun-battles in wilderness areas along the boarder, that sounds like a win-win situation to me. I hope there's tons of casualties on both sides. No, but if you're lucky perhaps Black Dog would ridicule you. -k

2 : a member of or descendant from one of a group of northern Semitic peoples including the Israelites Get a dictionary, twine sphere. Perhaps twine sphere was simply questioning whether Hebrew is an accepted synomym for someone of Jewish faith. I don't know what it means, but it's funny. I know what "twine" and "sphere" mean, but I don't think I've ever heard them used in combination to address a person before. -k

Is there a way your employer will pay for language classes? Bi-lingualism is generally helpful, no matter what the language. Exercise for the mind, so they say. My francais is deplorable, but I have picked up a bit of Cantonese (which probably outnumber French speakers by now!), Greek and Punjabi. There was a thread a while ago about this. I shall endeavor to search for it. It refered to a government-commissioned survey about the acceptance of official bilingualism within civil service ranks. It found a large portion of civil servants annoyed by being forced to take language training for jobs that in practice require no french, along with other findings that made the language policy seem less-than-brilliant. Argus had some interesting comments in that thread, including the claim that job language requirements are arbitrarily reclassified according to who the manager wants to promote. -k

I just wanted to add, I'm hoping you can explain why you feel the GST is regressive while the MFT wasn't. Both take money out of the consumer's pocket when he buys something. The MFT's only benefit, from a consumer's point of view, is to give the consumer the chance to evade taxation by buying foreign-made products. -k

Oh Kimmy... it is tasty, melts on your tongue.... keep away from me, chicken-hater. -k

Based on the less-than-gripping content, and acting that makes Rob Schneider look like Tom Hanks, they might provide closed captioning that says "Relax, Mrs O'Halloran, you're not missing much." An oversight, obviously. But a human rights violation? To me, sounds more like somebody who was looking for an opportunity to bring attention to a cause, or more likely, looking for an opportunity to create bad publicity for the Conservatives. A legitimate complaint, but I doubt the sincerity of Mr O'Halloran's motivation. -k

This sort of comment detracts from your message, and from peoples' willingness to give your opinion a fair hearing. -k

Well, this article clearly refutes Subway's assertion that French and Chicken just go together. Clearly, the French hate chickens. One question that remains unanswered is why anybody would want to eat something called "fat liver" in any event. -k

The MFT was a terrible idea. Why penalize Canadian manufacturers 13% when they're competing against foreign companies who have no such disadvantage? How could that possibly be a good idea? As for the GST being regressive, pfff. Less wealthy Canadians spend a larger proportion of their income on food and rent-- items that are exempt from GST. Wealthier Canadians spend a higher proportion of their money on items that are not GST exempt. -kimmy {ps: aren't you going to thank me for not leading Canada into the the first Gulf War?}

Yes, this is comparable to some failed Alberta Liberals (like, say, the guy in my riding who used Liberal campaign signage to promote his injury law firm website...) calling for Martin's resignation because Martin can't win seats in Alberta. Truth is, unfortunately for the Conservatives, that they have not been able to recruit Quebec candidates of any prominence, for reasons that are in large measure beyond Harper's control. That's unfortunate for the party, but the corollary (am I using that right?) is these Quebec candidates are of no consequence almost by definition. -k

Quite a feat, considering that Gulf War v1.0 was in 1991 and Chretien didn't take office until 1993... -k

It arose in the Mulroney bashing thread, and August appears to have decided that rather than hijack that discussion, he'd start a different one. If you disagree with the views expressed here then please feel free to partake, but if you feel this discussion is not to your interest then I encourage you to abstain. -k

out of curiousity, how long have you and the other anglo been there? I'm guessing that you've both been there for long enough to have been hired under different regulations? oh well. Say hi to Mme. Lapointe for me. -k

Chretien kept us out of the first Gulf War? uh? Weren't we involved in the first Gulf War? And wasn't that before Chretien was Prime Minister anyway? Aside from that... * Deciding not to scrap the GST was among Chretien's smarter moves (or non-moves, as August might point out.) * Scrapping the helicopter purchase contract was one of the stupidest wastes of money Ottawa has inflicted on us during my lifetime. * the Clarity Act... a policy penned by Stephen Harper and advocated for years by Preston Manning? Fitting that the big piece of Chretien's legacy would be something he stole. -kimmy {...but he did perfect the Shawinigan Handshake, a martial arts move rivalling the Five-point Palm Exploding Heart Technique in lethal efficacy.}

Very good news, in my opinion. And somewhat surprising- when was the last time a Canadian politician had the stones to say "sorry, but no" to an ethnic lobby? -k

My disappointment at knowing I won't be able to have a federal government job is somewhat tempered by my relief that I won't have to beat the shit out of myself for getting a federal government job. In truth, this is a non-issue to me. I am 22 years and 3 months old, which means that if I started learning french tomorrow, I'd be starting about 22 years too late for me to learn the language fluently enough to ever pass the government's testing. And, even if I had started learning french from day 1, I still wouldn't be able to advance much higher than assistant chief paper-shuffler, since my name's not LeBlanc or Lapointe or so-on. On the bright side, the feds won't be hiring anybody for quite some time. I recall reading recently that PMPM is considering cutting 41,000 civil service jobs. It warms my heart to think of M. LeBlanc huddled up against the exhaust at the National Arts Centre, trying to keep warm while he begs for change from Rideau Centre shoppers, and Mme Lapointe telling her children that Santa won't be coming this year. -k

Personally I've always been skeptical as to whether the sponsorship program was ever such a smart idea. Plastering the Government of Canada logo all over everything just after such a narrow victory in the divisive referendum seems like rubbing salt in a fresh wound, to me. Ultimately, the furor over the corruption in the program has undone any goodwill that the program might have achieved in the first place, so that discussion is moot. I don't think they'll get a "resounding majority" in any event. As you've mentioned before, there's other issues and the Gomery report is hardly the only factor in determining the outcome. I also think that the difference between "innocent" and "not guilty" will come into play. It will be hard to prove that Martin and his associates knew of the corruption... but likewise it will be hard to prove they didn't. I personally believe that if Paul Martin didn't know about the corruption, it's because he chose not to know. I suspect that the Gomery report will contain nothing that gives me cause to believe otherwise. I am an avid hockey fan, and often read columns and so on. I recall reading a column a long time ago-- before the auditor general's report made the sponsorship program a household name-- in which a Toronto Sun columnist looked at sponsorship program money being given to Canada's NHL teams. The Maple Leafs and the western teams received practically none, the Montreal Canadiens received a substancial amount, but by far the team receiving the most money from the program was the Ottawa Senators. Why, the Toronto columnist wondered, is the federal government giving money to our cross-province rivals, while our own team is getting none? Is it, he wondered pointedly, because Senators then-owner Rod Bryden was a friend of John Manley? This was the first time I'd heard of the sponsorship program, and I set about googling for it to find out why my beloved Oilers were not getting a fair share of the pie, just as I'm sure the Toronto columnist was wondering why his Leafs were not getting any pie. At the time it had not occured to me that this program would become a historic Scandal or any such thing. My point is, this was a Toronto Sun hockey writer in 1999 or so, already looking at the program before anybody knew much of anything about Sponsorship, and wondering whether favors were being given out, just from looking at publically available documents. If dumb-ass hockey-writer guy was onto it in 1999, why wouldn't the Minister of Finance, who talks to all of these people every day and has access to a zillion documents that dumb-ass hockey-guy couldn't dream of, have at least heard something? Wondered whether something was up? Talked to his colleagues? Talked to an aide? Had an aide look up some figures? Taken any action at all? He chose not to know. That's the only answer that makes sense to me. My own feeling was that waiting for Gomery's report was always the right thing to do, and this spring when Harper was trying to defeat the government to force an election, I had the feeling it was a mistake. That turns out to have been the case. Now I suspect it is probably the Liberals who will want to force an election before the report comes out, and I think latest delay will likely give them more opportunities to do so. Sad. -k