kimmy

If you weren't a 12-foot tall lizard, BD, I might have voted for you. -k

To all my friends in Quebec, "Happy Moving Day!" And to the rest, "Happy Long Weekend!" Whether you are celebrating by ingesting large quantities of alcohol with friends, blowing shit up with low-grade explosives, smoking cannabis on Parliament Hill, breaking windows downtown, or just staying home and watching third-rate performers on CBC, remember to play safe, everyone! -kimmy {proud and free}

Earlier this week some asshat from Toronto wrote to the Journal to say that he was glad that because of the flooding, he would not have to listen to western farmers crying about drought for a few years. I was bemused. -k

I'm certainly not well-versed enough to recognize at one point one stops being a federalist and becomes a centralist; if I've applied an inaccurate term to your views, I apologize. In my year here at MLW, you've argued that provinces have too much power in virtually every area of government; I can't recall seeing a single kind word from you toward any provincial government on any subject, ever. I often get the feeling that in your vision of how Canada should be, the provinces would be little more than oversized building-improvement districts. Nonetheless, my point was not to open a discussion on that subject, merely to ask whether Paul Martin Jr is somebody you feel can stand up to the premiers and the "decentralists". This is a rather elaborate way of saying that no, Paul Martin is not really standing up to the premiers and the decentralists in a way you're confident in... correct? I really disagree. I don't think "weak-kneed dithering" is an image that's just been invented by Martin's opponents. I think it's a fair assessment of his time in office. I honestly don't think he's shown leadership on any issue or any challenge that's faced him. I don't think he's made any "hard choices". I think hard choices have been made for him by circumstances. I can't think of any issue where he's taken the initiative. While Martin's supporters might blame the perception of him on his foes, that just seems like an excuse to me. I'd be much more impressed if Martin's supporters could make some kind of case about all the dynamic, assertive things he's done rather than blaming the media or the opposition for his image problems. -k

Do you ever even try to address the points raised in posts that you reply to? Or do you simply settle for inane and sarcastic remarks? If you disagree with my comment, say why. Well, I thought it was tremendously amusing, yet quite topical. The idea of an "Urban Hipster" pavillion at Heritage Days certainly tickled my fancy. Since you apparently don't share my sense of whimsy, I'll give you the more prosaic, less entertaining version. That "urban hipster" might be a more descriptive term than "French Canadian" doesn't make "urban hipster" a cultural group. It might give somebody an idea of who you hang out with or what you do in your spare time or whatever. However, I don't think this sort of ... temporal ... description is sufficient to qualify you as a cultural group. I think one important part of what we consider a "cultural group" is something that runs along the lines of lineage, heritage, legacy, continuity. I think we're talking about identifyable and non-subjective characteristics. And not something as fluid or temporary as your recreational habits, favorite music, or style of clothes. You might be able to call "urban hipsters" a subculture or something, just like "skateboarders" or "fat pimply Dungeons + Dragons kids". But not a cultural group, not in the sense that we mean when we talk about Canada as a multicultural country. -k

I didn't say "extreme", eureka, I said "graphic". As in, I've suggested on several occassions that PMPM has testicles the size of Tic-Tacs. I don't believe that Paul Martin personally participated in scamming money in the sponsorship program, but I'm still far from impressed with him. I can't imagine why anybody else would be either. We've discussed the 1995 budget before, and the subsequent effects on our social institutions. I know you're a fierce federalist and centralist, eureka... surely you can't be impressed by Martin's catch-phrase "asymmetrical federalism" or his penchant for bending over forward to accomodate every premier that wants to pick a fight with Ottawa. You're something of a traditionalist, so you probably have little interest in seeing any effort to "address the democratic deficit"; still, that was one of his major themes prior to taking over from Chretien, and during the election campaign; nary a peep has been spoken of it since, at least up to last week's announcement that Bernard Shapiro and Belinda Stronach are (apparently) shining examples of this government's efforts on that issue. How about Martin's weak-kneed handling of Sgro? He left her pretty much on her own, and if I recall correctly the decision to step down from the Immigration portfolio was her decision, not his. What about him getting bullied around by his own backbencher, Carolyn Parrish, who not only called him out publicly and dared him to discipline her, but actually had to tell the press that she didn't give a crap about her own party or the leader to provoke him to take action. How about hanging two of his cabinet ministers out to dry (Ralph Goodale re:changes to his budget, and Bill Graham on BMD) as he publicly undermined their credibility for the sake of political expedience. You can see where I'm going with this, right? Tic-Tacs. -k

"Urban hipster" conveys far more cultural information than "french canadian," "native american," or "christian." Cool. I'll watch for your pavillion at Heritage Days. -k

(did you mean to type "B.C. cops", or was "B.S. cops" deliberate? ) I was actually kind of enchanted with an idea that Sparhawk raised earlier: why should the government recognize *any* marriage? Why not use the phrase civil union in a legal sense, and leave government completely out of the marriage biz? As for polygamy... I've got no personal objection to consenting adults entering whatever arrangements they're comfortable with (but I do object to girls being raised as brides and married off at the age of 12, which is why I think the RCMP ought to go into Bountiful with flamethrowers and bulldozers... but I digress.) However, my support adults being able to live their lives as they wish doesn't extend to wanting to extend spousal benefits to every union that calls itself a family. -k

Yeah, but in those days a highschool education meant you were able to read, write, skin a moose, and start a fire with flint and steel. Seriously, though... I don't believe the problem is in aptitude. I strongly doubt that many or any of the kids in these studies spend 2 hours a night doing homework. The reason achiever type kids can handle work and school at the same time is not that they're inherently smarter or anything, it's just that they have better habits. Kids who struggle working part-time while in highschool are also kids who would struggle anyway. If these kids weren't cleaning tables at McDonald's, they'd be downtown or at the mall or playing X-Box or surfing for porn or watching TV ... or doing pretty much anything except homework. The idea that work takes time away from their studies is flawed because they aren't using time for studying anyway. I know kids. In fact I myself was a kid until just recently! Kids who struggle aren't struggling because the material is too tough. They struggle because they lack structure and work habits and focus. Maybe working part-time can help them with that. -k

Do you see a good reason to limit the term "cultural groups" to religious and racial groupings? I will give a two-part answer. First, I am not comfortable in the first place that some peoples' views deserve special consideration because they have swarthier pigmentation than me, or worship in an oddly-shaped building on specific days of the week. So for the purposes of discussing social issues, I honestly don't care who qualifies as a "cultural group". Having said that, it's not up to me. There seem to be many people in Canada that do believe in recognizing cultural groups. We do, after all, bill ourselves as a multicultural country. For discussion of cultures within Canada to have any meaning, the term has to be more specific than "urban hipsters" or "me and my friends" or "people who share my political views". Those can't be considered cultural groups... not unless you want to completely destroy any meaning the term "cultural group" has by making it so vague and non-specific that it could describe anyone. -kimmy {sort of reminds me of an author who went under-cover to write about sorority girls. She asked about diversity. "Diversity? Oh, we're very diverse! We have blondes, brunettes, and red-heads!"}

With a few more polls like the recent one that showed 70% support of the populace supporting the recent SC ruling, you'll quite likely find the Liberals themselves floating some ideas that sound suspiciously like more private care. But first, they'll have to figure out ways of "rebranding" the concept so that it doesn't sound like the stuff they declare war against every election. -k

...but, there's cake... I think the two posters who most embody the spirit of what I think civil debate should be are August1991 and Sparhawk. I think both set an example by rising above the "BOO-YAH!" partisanship to express their views calmly and politely. I think they both deserve a round of applause for keeping it classy. -k

This is the most absurd and asinine thing I've yet to see posted on this forum. Someone doesn't agree with our current leadership and you offer them a one-way ticket out of the country? That ranks up there as slightly better than executing them, fascist. Standard fare from ScottyTheTrickyNinja. Rather than discussing the substance of the issue, he spews this sort of crap at anybody who dare question the Liberals. I assume the only reason Scotty wasn't banned along with RightWinger is that Scotty didn't threaten to drive to Lethbridge and kick Greg's ass in person (...unlike RightWinger.) As for "Paul Martin: SLIME" ...I don't think he's slime. I do, however, think he's not even a fraction of the man I used to think he was before he became PM. It appears that whatever strength or courage Martin used to have when he was Finance Minister came from having Jean Chretien around to do the fighting for him. I've smeared Martin in the most graphic terms in this forum in an effort to get his supporters to stand up for him... and nobody has ever bothered. The conclusion I've come up with is that the only thing Liberal supporters like about Paul Martin is that he's not Stephen Harper; that seems to be sufficient. -k

The United church. Most non judeo-christian religions. Actually, a whole lot of Christians that are more concerned with the teachings of Jesus than the teachings of the churches. Which non Judeo-Christian religions specifically? I know for sure that the Muslims and Sikhs (Canada's largest non-Christian faiths, I believe) are not open-minded on the subject. I don't believe the Hindus are either. Buddhists, perhaps? Who else... the Bahai? The Movementarians? Not all cultural groups are ethnic groups. So... by "cultural groups", you're referring to those that call a "small" a "tall" and a "large" a "vente", yes? -k

It looks like some of you need a "time out." Go to your rooms and think about what you've done. This thread should be closed. Actually, no further discussion in this thread was necessary after my previous awesome message, which was the alpha and omega of debate on the subject. Case closed. -kimmy

Yes, I came up with the Batman/Spiderman silly hypothetical, but you were willing to discuss it. And you wanted to discuss your own equally silly hypothetical. I mean, I thought you liked silly hypotheticals. How is Jerry's any worse than either of those two? -k

Good for little Bridgette! When I was 12, most of my friends got a big fat allowance for doing nothing, but I did chores and delivered junk-mail 3 days a week to earn money. Busing tables like Bridgette would have been an improvement. Better conditions, probably, and better pay for sure. Old-people are constantly complaining that "kids these days" do nothing and have everything handed to them on a silver platter, and don't understand the value of money or having to work for it. Ok, so what's wrong with this, then? We're *not* talking about some Dickensian nightmare-world where kids are working in coal-mines and fireworks-factories, and we're not talking about some Malaysian sweat-shop where 8-year olds are locked in basements for 12 hour shifts making shoes for 50 cents a day. It's restaurant help... 2-hours a day... and they're not even allowed to go near anything dangerous. Something else to consider: rural kids are hard-working members of the economy from a very early age, and always have been. Where's the equivalent opportunity for city kids? Maybe it's working at basic jobs in the service industry. It seems to me like a good way for kids to learn things about the world that might help them later in life. -k

Have you been drinkingn kimmy? Of course. I was completely loaded all weekend. What of it? No. Am I the only person not allowed to comment on someone's question? The guy who loves silly hypotheticals (what if Batman fought Spiderman; what if everybody got billionaire treatment from our health system...) complaining that Jerry's hypothetical isn't realistic enough seems kind of ironic. That's all I'm saying. -k

This is ridiculous. If Harper had gone to the parade, many of the same people who are criticizing him for not going would be criticizing him for going instead. It would be condemned as a transparent effort to adjust his image, gain publicity, or trick people. Even if Harper had gone to the parade, it's unlikely his detractors would have interpreted his presence as support for the gay community. I am picturing editorials like "Harper sat silently behind the wall of RCMP officers assigned to his protection, regarding the paraders with a cold, icy gaze, as if sitting in judgment..." As well, Harper's presence would have been extremely disruptive. The gay community apparently hates Harper with a passion. The parade would no doubt have been disrupted by a protest centered around Harper-- at best, people shouting slogans at him, and at worst possibly physical confrontation. I doubt Harper would have even been welcome. Do you invite people you hate to your birthday parties? And it's not like going to the parade would have meant anything anyway. Would it change the minds of his detractors? "Well, he's opposed to SSM, but he did go to the parade, so I guess he's ok." uh, not so much. None of the people criticizing Harper for not going to the parade are people who would ever vote for Harper anyway, whether he went to the parade or not. -k

There is prime healthcare and less-than-prime health care. The question asks which one you want for your kids. Not HOW, not WHY, just which. No. It is not about which "provides" better care it is about which of two qualities you want. Venturing into the "provides" question is exactly the ideological bent the question was meant to bring to the surface. The exact question was: Naturally I assumed that your option B meant that the rich should have to sit through months of wait-lists too. What's the alternative? That my kids get treated like billionaires when they're sick? pshuh. Right. Because this is Canada. Because the people who've taken healthcare where it's gotten over the past 12 years will be in charge for perpetuity. Because "fixed for a generation" apparently means putting in enough new money to *almost* keep up with inflation. Because our system has provided us with a number of physicians that's less than other top nations. Because addressing the shortcomings will require an infusion of capital expenditure that I can't picture happening without private participation. Like, seriously-- what do you picture actually changing? How do you picture this change actually occuring? -k

Oh yah. But a poll based on the idea that everybody gets treated like billionaires is super-realistic, right? Are you the only guy allowed to post hypotheticals around here? You said that if people didn't like your crappy poll, they should go post their own, but Jerry does so and you have a hissy-fit. -k

I actually saw it later after reflecting on what you'd said, but frankly I was distracted by the black Jewish midget homosexuals. On Kim Campbell, I believe she's returned to academia, hasn't she? On resistance to female leaders: I once read a theory that we spend all our childhoods rebelling against our mothers-- "Kimmy, stop banging those pots together." "Kimmy, you take the garden-hose out of your little brother's mouth right now." "Kimmy, it's bedtime." "Kimmy, turn off that god-awful racket." "Kimmy, you be home by 10:00 or you're grounded." "Kimmy, you are NOT going to school dressed like that." Our mothers are our first authority figures when we're small children, they were the ones who set boundaries for us, and pushing against those boundaries is something we do as we grow up. And when we're adults and some other woman in a position of authority is trying to assert authority over us, it reminds us of our mothers setting boundaries or giving orders... and we find ourselves pushing against their authority, as we did when we were growing up. It's a theory I read once. I don't know if there's anything to it. But I do recall reading that both men and women respond less favorably to female leaders than male leaders. I dunno. -k

BOO-YAH! -k

There you go again. How do you get "prime healthcare" out of the question you asked? As I keep saying-- your preference for "Option B" and condemnation of "Option A" is based on the assumption that "Option B" provides awesome healthcare for your kids and "Option A" provides shitty healthcare for your kids. If that's what you actually wanted to ask, then why didn't you ask "Do you want awesome healthcare for your kids, or shitty healthcare for your kids?" if it was your intention to determine whether people want awesome healthcare or shitty healthcare? And what have the rich got to do with either? And reading the question, why would anybody assume that giving my kids healthcare equal to the healthcare the rich are getting would mean giving my kids better healthcare? Come on! Hello, this is Canada! There's no fucking way that would happen! The only way my kids will get healthcare equal to that which Belinda.ca's kids and Martin's grandkids receive is if Belinda.ca's kids and Martin's grandkids are forced to go through months of waiting-lists too. You'd have to be on crack to think our universal public healthcare will ever be funded enough to treat your kids and my kids like Belinda.ca's kids can get treated if she opens up her checkbook. Instead of daydreaming about that, why don't we just say "fuck it" and go make our own billion dollars? It'd be easier. Spiderman, unless Batman found a way to outfox him. You just hate Batman because he's a rich, white conservative. Hater. -k

Sure you did. "...people who love their ideology more than they love their children," remember? You're right. I guess I do make conclusions about love too. Ok, and how can you make that conclusion without having made assumptions about the quality of care provided in each instance? Who would win a fight between Batman and Spiderman is a hypothetical. This was just an effort to frame discussion of a real issue in terms that are favorable to your viewpoint. While you contend it was merely a what-if exercise, your effort was clearly to retrieve results applicable to discussions of real-world healthcare service in this country. The poll was obviously constructed to encourage support for option B, ("all polling is push-polling," you said, "at least I'm honest about it") which you no doubt would have called to the attention of private-care supporters had people cooperated. With people having not cooperated with the poll's intention, you can at least vilify those who didn't endorse your viewpoint. "Obviously, some people love their ideology more than they love their children!" But making that judgment requires an assumption, which not all of the respondents may have shared. -k