kimmy

cybercoma, global warming has been argued here ad-nauseum. I purposely avoided any reference to it in my message because I wanted to steer clear of reopening that whole mess again. I focused on the health-related effects of pollution in Canada's major urban centers, which I think is a problem that most should be able to agree on whatever their views on global warming. And, for better or worse we're already committed to Kyoto (aren't we?) so meeting our targets is something we need to address anyway. -k

Where do cars go when their time on earth has come to an end? If your car has been good, perhaps it will go to... Car Heaven. This is apparently another piece of our Kyoto-commitments puzzle, along with the TV commercials featuring the loathesome Rick Mercer admonishing people to make less smog. And I don't want to sound overly negative. This promotion certainly has some obvious merits: -offers tangiable incentive for people to change their habits, or at least update their smog-belching clunker with a newer (and presumably cleaner-running) vehicle. -is refreshingly Mercer-free. -appears to run at a minimal cost to the taxpayer. Aside from a modest advertising budget and a modest budget for the "rewards", there doesn't appear to be much expense involved. That said, it certainly seems a rather half-hearted effort. First of all, only 3 provinces-- Alberta, BC, and Ontario-- seem to be involved. Why? Secondly, the "rewards" are rather modest. Albertans who participate can receive a $1000 rebate on a new GM vehicle, up to $300 towards a new bicycle, or 6 months of free public transit in Edmonton or Calgary. The rewards in Ontario and BC are even lamer-- you're entered into a raffle for a new Chevrolet micro-compact car or a train-trip. This seems like rather modest incentive for anyone to consider parting with their vehicle. And lastly, the benefits are available only to those who are currently driving old cars. Why not provide someone (like, say, Kimmy@!) with some reward for being an environmentally friendly person? I got no present from the government when I ditched my mighty Reliant a few years ago, and I've been a bicycle and public transit person ever since. While I recognize that the intention here is to get older, polluting vehicles off the road, couldn't there be some recognition for people who choose not to obtain polluting old wrecks? I could certainly go out an plunk down a few hundred dollars and get another mighty Reliant; I choose not to, but many, many people my age do go out and purchase polluting old cars; other than high insurance prices there's nothing to dissuade them from doing so. What I wonder is ... if we're serious about air-pollution and climate change, is this the best we can do? We've spent a huge amount of money on the gun registry, where the benefits could (even in the most optimistic situation) be quantified at a few hundred lives a year maximum. I don't want to trivialize a few hundred lives, but I would suggest that air pollution carries a far higher human cost. I think that if you research the amount of people who die each year from respiratory ailments, and consider the additional costs to our healthcare resulting from respiratory ailments and huge numbers of people in Canada's large cities who are suffering from breathing problems, I think the overall impact makes guns seem like pea-shooters by comparison. -k

A relative of mine was involved in a car accident which caused the lead wire from her pacemaker to be dislodged and move down into her heart, to a position where it was not only not functioning properly, but also danger of damaging one of the valves. The situation was considered quite dangerous, and she was given priority treatment... but it wasn't next-day... -k

Sure thing! Visit my site, www.HotKimmy.com, for pictures and video! Yes, I got that. Lighten up. I was just having a little fun. Is this really a Federal Political issue? And, should it be? If so, then what should (or could) our government do to combat obesity? Aside from the obvious-- public information campaigns (the Participation couple are probably looking for work...)-- what would people suggest? -k

August wasn't even the poster I was taking issue with in that post. So you quoted August by accident or something? Thats right. Because, apparently, these people hate choice. They hate liberty. They hate democracy. They love being oppressed by religious and financial elites. They just lap it up. They simply can't get enough of it! Every morning when they wake up, they think to themselves "Boy, am I ever glad I don't get to vote in a free and democratic election!" Such is the extent of their hatred of liberty. Sounds kind of absurd when you actually make explicit what is implied in this "they hate freedom" nonsense, doesn't it? What's ridiculous is your presentation of it, not the fact that these views are held. They love being oppressed by religious and financial elites. -they believe such oppression is not oppression at all. They believe it's the law given to Mohammed by god himself. Every morning when they wake up, they think to themselves "Boy, am I ever glad I don't get to vote in a free and democratic election!" -the belief of Islamists is that Islam is not just a religious system, but also a political system and legal system. They believe that free and democratic elections are simply not the way god specified things to be run. (for casual observers, I again emphasize the term Islamists as opposed to Muslims in general.) Such is the extent of their hatred of liberty. -some of the liberties we take for granted are in opposition to their religious beliefs. "Hate" might not be the right term, but "oppose" seems pretty close. I can see what you are saying here, and it is not without merit, at least in some instances. However, here is something to consider: even here in Canada where we have a comfortable standard of living and relatively high quality of universal public education, we have people whose religious beliefs are such that they sincerely believe god will punish us for disobeying their religious beliefs. Even on this message board, we've had visits from some who sincerely believe that the SSM law will lead us to the same fate as Sodom and Gamorrah. We know that even here in our cozy, comfortable, tolerant, educated society, we have elements who are willing to commit murder in support of their religious beliefs-- think of abortion-clinic snipers, for instance. If our wealthy, enlightened society can produce individuals willing to kill for religious reasons, then how much worse might it be in societies where religion is all they have and the only education they have is memorizing religious verse? Surface level analysis. Ask yourself why opposition to western style freedoms is so intense in some circles. Could it be because a small group of elites have redirected the hatred of western intervention in the middle east toward western political systems for their own gain? In the minds of their followers, militant islamicists have defined fundamentalist Islam as opposition to western imperialism. Or it could be the same reason that Galileo was persecuted by the Catholic church. -k

Yes, I realize that Islam encompasses a wide range of views and beliefs. Which is why in this discussion I've been very careful to use the words Islamist and not Islamic, and Islamist and not Muslim. Islamism and Islamist refer very specifically to those Muslims who believe that their faith is a political system and legal system as well as a religious belief. -k

It sounds very intense and quite horrifying. I'm not sure I could bring myself to see something that sounds so bleak. I am sure you're right about this. Not that I can vouch for Aurore being a good movie, it's just that I have rock-solid confidence in English-Canada's film industry. Whatever films English Canada comes up with this year are guaranteed to be lame and seen by almost no one. Most recently, at least in Sheila Copps' final days as Heritage and Culture Czar, they seem to have given up trying to make movies that are uniquely "Canadian," and simply produce Canadian-made rip-offs of successful American movies. College-guy loses girl and has to drive across the country to win her back, having zany misadventures along the way? Woo-hoo! It's a third-rate Canadianized version of Road Trip! Evil blondes from space arrive on campus and seduce people to use as snack-food? Woo-hoo! It's a third-rate Canadianized version of Species! (The theory seems to be that adding Boobies to Canadian films will help them catch up with their US competitors.) It seems as though if there's any creativity to be found in Canada's film industry, it comes from Quebec. English Canada's film industry has been wildly successful in providing settings and facilities and even actors for visiting American productions, but rather shoddy at creating anything of its own. -k

Is it properly called "bias" if its true? So what exactly was there that was true in his message? -k

Unusual? Of course not. Who would have imagined that Ottawa's elite are subject to the same rules as everybody else? -k

Well, thanks for popping in at least. That was a terrific message. -k

No one wants to exclude religion from the debate. Most just want something a little more meaningful and insightful than "Those goat herding Arabs don't want us to be able to choose what color of shoes to wear." Shoes? I'm pretty sure August wasn't talking about shoes when he wrote the message you took issue with. The section you quoted was "On the other hand, the men behind these attacks in London (or Madrid, or New York, or wherever) don't think about two women or two men together. These men don't think about homosexuality. They refuse the idea that a person should be free to choose." We aren't talking about shoes, IMT. Nor are we talking about "goat-herding Arabs," or even Muslims in general, or even conservative Muslims. We are discussing militant Islamists. (I'm assuming you know the definition of the term "Islamist" and know it doesn't refer to Muslims as a whole... but I will point out the distinction for those who know might not.) So... nobody wants to exclude religion from the debate? I'm not convinced. I mean, you clearly felt more comfortable coming back to me with than with Why is that? Perhaps you just thought it would be witty, or perhaps you sought to trivialize the opposing viewpoint, or perhaps you really thought we were discussing shoes, or perhaps you prefered to leave religion out of the discussion. I think August's point-- that the Islamists are opposed to choice (not on shoes, as far as I know, but on many issues of fundamental importance to us in the west-- education, women's rights, democracy, sexuality, free expression) is fairly well supported even by common knowledge. One doesn't have to look through speeches by Osama to find clues to this leaning. One can simply look at life in countries where Islamist rule is in force. How are women treated under Sharia law? How do elections work out in those countries? Do people have religious freedom? (would you choose to live as a 'dhimmi' in an Islamic country?) How do homosexuals fare in these countries? (and so on.) Do people in Islamist countries have intellectual freedom, or freedom of expression? When saying the wrong thing can mean the head of state puts out a fatwa against you, I'd suggest not. And I've already mentioned Afghanistan. The Taliban were Osama's allies, his former comrades in arms, his ideological offspring. I suggest that the Taliban regime's reign of terror is tangiable proof that the Islamists do not belief people should be free to choose. And, finally, I already mentioned El Sayyid Nosair, who was part of the 1993 WTC bombing plot. Who also bombed a gay bar in Greenwich Villiage a few years earlier. Some like Sparhawk argue that the extremists want to effect change back in "their own countries". I agree, for now... but will people like this start deciding that our western democracies are "their own countries" too? -k

While some Ontario-types have tried to convince me that there's no anti-Alberta bias, we can always count on people like our little friend here to set matters straight. Serious answer: no. -k

The last two of your links aren't working, which is quite unfortunate because I was very interested. Could you try again? One thing that might help, if you can't get the links to work just by pasting them, would be a service like tinyurl.com that generates a shorter link to the article. -k

We keep seeing these statements over and over and over again, but never with any argument to back them up. Why do you think that is? Al-Qaeda is an Islamist organization, IMT. bin-Laden himself is a Wahhabi. A core belief of that branch of Islam is that religion and politics must conform to practices during the time of Mohammed, who had a direct hotline to heaven to explain how things ought to be. Any practices or beliefs developed after the time of Mohammed are dismissed as inventions of man; anything that disagrees with the word of god as given to Mohammed is clearly false. What would an Islamist state look like in practice? You saw it in Afghanistan. They didn't just refuse the idea that homosexuals should be free to choose how to live their lives... they lined homosexuals up in front of stone walls and used tanks to topple the walls on top of them, as a lesson to others. While apologists would no doubt like to exclude any consideration of religion from discussions of Al-Qaeda and their motivation, you can't. It's not a collective of people whose only unifying goal is to confront US intervention in the middle east. Fundamentalist Islam is a core belief. If you doubt the objectivity or veracity of anything I've written here, please feel free to do your own research. If you find anything that contradicts me, I'd love to hear it. -k

Try downloading the latest version of the Google toolbar - it will give you a spell checker you can use with any web form. And spyware? To a limited extent. Aside from anonymously providing the folks at Google with internet traffic information (statistics of which sites are popular) I believe it also provides targeted advertising when you go visit sites that have Google-linked ads. Even without the Google toolbar, you visit some sites and find ads supplied through Google servers, usually relating to the content of the page. You're at a page with Google-supplied ad-bars, and the content of the page relates to, say, the new Ford Mustang. Google's ad-targetting algorithm recognizes that you might be interested in cars, and long the right side of the page, you get this column with discrete little sponsored links... "Shop For Cars Online!" etc. And I believe that when you have the Google Toolbar installed, the additional information the toolbar collects about your browing habits makes the google-sponsored links that much more specific to you ("Shop For Cars In Edmonton!") Spyware, in the sense that it's collecting information about your browsing habits and using it to provide targetted advertising. But not really a threat to your privacy (statistics collected anonymously; no collection of personal data such as email addresses or passwords...) and no pop-up advertising (Google-sponsored links are always discrete and text-only, non-active elements on the webpage. You get the advertising anyway even without the toolbar.) Google is reputable, and operates within the guidelines of applicable US privacy laws, and if you've got the patience to read through the 19 page legal agreement, you can find out exactly what the toolbar does. However, some people (I'm one of them) simply don't care for the idea that their browing habits are being monitored, anonymously or not. I don't use a spellchecker, and if the occassional spelling mistake sneaks through, I can live with myself. -k

But was it the rhetoric that Al-Qaeda fed off of, or was it the US-led coalition invasion of Afghanistan? I argue that it's the latter. I believe that whether Bush had called it a "war on terrorism" or a humanitarian relief operation, the interpretation would have been the same amongst the hard-line Islamists and those sympathetic to their cause. Consider that the Australian-led intervention in East Timor was interpreted by most of the civilized world as the right thing to do, long overdue, action against a humanitarian crisis. But for bin-Laden and friends, the interpretation was quite different. To them, it was a crime against Islam; Christian crusaders invading the sovereign Muslim nation of Indonesia. Al-Qaeda responded to Australia's intervention in East Timor with the slaughter of dozens of Australians, as well as other western tourists, in Bali. Could gay marriage be viewed by some fanatics as a provocation? Well, sure. El-Sayyid Nosair, one of the participants in the 1993 WTC bombing, was also linked to a 1990 bombing at a Greenwich Village gay bar that killed 3 people. The problem with believing that these fanatics behave in a rational, predictable, cause-effect sort of way is that we can't actually *know* what they will interpret as a provocation... our interpretation of treating them fairly and staying out of their business might not coincide with *their* interpretation of fairly. We're not the ones who decide what's a trespass against them. They decide when they've been trespassed against. And, being fanatics and all, their interpretation is not necessarily going to be reasonable or logical. -k

What would either of those comments contribute to anything? Properly attributed or not, I can't envision a discussion to which either of those comments would be constructive. -k

uh, who are you? BTW, I'm tremendously open-minded. Just because I don't swallow everything that comes down the pike doesn't mean I'm not willing to consider new ideas. You don't have to be gullible to be open-minded. "Open-minded" doesn't mean the same as "empty-headed". That's a distinction that perhaps you should think on. -k

Tricky issue for lefties, pitting their support for women's issues against their support for swarthy-people and for non-Christian religions. Being progressive is tough when you're not sure whose progress needs your sympathy more. -k

I don't much care what other languages are on my cereal box, as long as English is still there. However, without Ontario to counterbalance Quebec, Quebec (or at least their federal representatives) would be even more insufferable than they are already. -k

Rage! I feel terrible for our friends the British. I don't really know what else to say right now, but whatever happens, we stand with Britain always. I can only wonder what the impact will be once the focus shifts from recovery to finding those responsible. -k

One small request... if you're going, please take Quebec with you. -k

Perhaps the Lower Mainland (and the Greater Toronto Area) can be considered frontier societies in their own way, now, as the large amounts of non-european immigrants entering these areas are undoubtably changing these regions in recent years. -k

I like to write, and to express myself. But also, I'm learning. In expressing my views, in letting other people consider my views and persuade me of their own views, I'm building the ideas that will form the basis of The Kimtastic World of Kimmorrow. My thoughts and values are still evolving. All of you have the very exciting opportunity to help shape these values. But remember, I won't be this open-minded and pliable forever. -kimmy

Even if it's a homosexual relationship with Jesus Christ? -k