kimmy

(I'm confused. Are you endorsing Paul Martin, or Ralph Klein?) Yeah those Calgary School dudes did an awesome job when they put all that oil under Alberta. So anything good that happens here is because we've got more money? Admittedly I pay little attention to the wacky world of BC politics, but isn't it the case that the Liberals are likely to be returned to office largely because the BC economy is stronger than it's been in a long time? In what categories have the Liberals' policies failed? It sounds like (perhaps like federal voters) the BC electorate has decided to overlook scandal to support a government that seems to be having some success. -k

Given the absense of CPC support in Quebec, I'm not sure a majority was ever a serious consideration. But given the softening of Liberal support in Ontario and the Atlantic, and absense of Liberal support elsewhere, failing to win a minority would certainly be a disaster for Harper. If he's not Canada's next Prime Minister, he should give way to somebody else. Patience, grasshopper. I maintain that the polls don't reflect Canadians' tolerance for corruption, they reflect that for several weeks now, the CPC's discussions of calling an election has overshadowed corruption in the polls. They've mishandled it, and they've taken the Liberals' worst issue out of the spotlight. But it'll be back in the spotlight at election time, whenever that is. The Liberals' desperate efforts to recruit the NDP and Kilgour to their cause show that the upswing in the polls hasn't made them any more willing to fight an election right now. Why? Because they know that the swing in polls is because people are ticked that the CPC is considering forcing an election, not that people have forgiven the corruption, and they know that when the campaign on, it'll be front and center again. -k

*sigh* Like Argus, you don't think past the individual's choices at the social factors that influence them. It's easy to say "Gee, maybe girls just don't like science/politics/whatever." But you have to ask why that is. It's not about being "tricked" but simple socialization. I'm not saying women don't enjoy reading Cosmo or its ilk. in fact I know more than a few women who are quite content living their lives as pale copies of Carrie Bradshaw. That's fine for them. I just think we do women in particular and society as a whole a disservice by not questioning existing attitudes towards women. I guess what we have here is a fundamental difference of philosophy. I just feel that people have more ability to control their lives than you apparently do. Before I'm accused of being a "rugged individualist" or something equally sarcastic, I'm very aware that for a lot of factors-- certainly poverty, certainly mental or physical disabilities, quite possibly race-- that limit peoples' ability to control their own destiny. I just dispute that our hypothetical rich white (and able-bodied) chick falls into that group. Really, only if she lets herself. For most of us, there's a wake-up call in life, a moment when we realize that we're *not* Carrie Bradshaw. For a great many of us, that comes during our first job, as a ... well, I did McDonald's and Subway. From the moment you realize that (name your fantasy role model) probably never worked at a Subway, you start figuring out what you're going to do instead. I did not emerge ex machina as a fully formed self-assured Rugged Individualist. I spent most of my life following the herd... my parents pushed me into sports because the frankly didn't think I was very bright... I probably didn't give them much reason to think otherwise... I spent more mental energy in highschool on tormenting the Dungeons and Dragons club and trying to pick the right clothes than on academics. I even got in trouble with the police once because I did something stupid trying to be cool. I do understand the influences you're talking about, BD, because if there's anybody who could have fallen victim to this sort of thinking, it would probably have been me. But I believe that we have the ability to make our own experiences. Between a couple of teachers and counsellors, my friends, the right boyfriends, the wrong boyfriends, a few books and magazines, maybe even TV or the internet, I've somehow learned a lot about myself, come to the (possibly erroneous) conclusion that I'm a pretty gifted person with a lot of choices. I don't think I'm in any way unique. I have sometimes regretted that nobody recognized me for the special snowflake I am earlier in life; I've sometimes wondered that perhaps maybe if I'd been male, or if I'd been brunette instead of blonde, maybe somebody would have recognized how bright I am much sooner; maybe I could have been pointed in the right direction and be doing something really awesome by now. Maybe I could have been working on a PhD by now, or have a talk-show on CBC Newsworld, or something, who knows, but (and here's the thing) I think probably almost everybody has those same thoughts; I hardly think it's exclusive to women. Think how much financial pressure there is on men to be providers; I wonder how many men missed their true calling because they were too busy working, or how many wished they could have tried something different but never got the chance because they had to keep providing. At any rate, my initial comment was that relative to other groups, women don't have much to complain about. And now we're discussing socialization... which whether or not you believe is a real or serious issue, I'd suggest it's equally applicable to any group in society. Of the issues raised in this thread, I certainly agree that domestic violence and sexual violence are serious and more women's issues than anything. As for non-sexual violence, I think August mentioned earlier that most murder victims are men. I'd also suggest that the majority of victims of non-sexual violence are men... I don't have statistics handy, but most of the men I know have been either in a physical confrontation or threatened with physical violence in some situation. In my recollection, when I hear of stabbings or beatings at nightclubs and so on, it's usually male victims. And I believe statistics indicate that it's disproportionately non-whites who are involved in violence as well. -kimmy {ex Sandwich Artist.} {{my sincere apologies to anybody who was in the Dungeons and Dragons club...}}

Yahoo news So, aside from making a deal with Layton to shore up his minority, Martin appears to have obtained the support of Liberal ship-jumper David Kilgour; I haven't done a headcount, but this should bring Martin close to the point where it's not possible for the BQ and Conservatives to win a non-confidence vote even if they choose to. Personally, I am supportive of more Canadian participation in helping resolve the situation in the Sudan, and if anything, the only disappointing thing here is that it took deal-making from a renegade MP to get a commitment on the topic. I think that this is the kind of representation that Edmonton-Beaumont voters were hoping for from their MP when they narrowly returned Kilgour to office. Good job, Mr Kilgour. -k

-k

Serious people (you know, one's who aren';t immediatelty dismissive of any issue they annot relate to) would find any system where women get most of the burden of labour, and most of the unpaid labour, but men collect most of the income and rewards resulting from the labour to be a serious issue. I'm sorry you can't get your head around the fact that there's more to this than who does the vaccumming. In third world countries, I could buy that we're talking about a very serious issue, but here I can't see how it boils down to anything other than a couple's personal finances. "He has most of the money and she does most of the work" certainly doesn't sound like any couple I know of. Awesome and all she had to do was carry you for nine months (during which time, wone presumes, she was still doing all the housework), push you out through her vagina, feed, clothe and otherwise look after you uuntl such a time as you could assume your duties. of course, there's the question of what about those women who don't want or can't have kids. I guess they should just stop their griping AND get back in the kitchen... My effort to put a little levity into this discussion has obviously not been well received, and I won't trouble you with it any further. It's sweet that you're sticking up for my mom, though. I'll pass that along; perhaps she'll bake you some cookies. (warning: mom's cookies kind of suck.) Your arbitrary dismmisal of relevant data is a touch farcical. Trends are really all we have to look at when dealing with such broad subjects. There's so many variables to take into account when looking at individual cases, even when one starts with the basic sketch of a white, middle class female. That's why one has to step back and look at the broader numbers to see what trends emerge. I noticed yesterday that extremely few people wear straw hats. Is there some barrier preventing people from wearing them? Or is it just that as individuals choosing their fashion accessories, few make the decision that straw hats are something they'd like to wear? Perhaps this trend against straw hats is not evidence of a barrier, just an agregate of individuals making individual choices? This is why I dismiss female enrollment in programs as evidence of some barrier. It isn't. It has no bearing on our hypothetical well-to-do white chick as she's deciding what she wants to do after highschool. I've heard that male English students are in the minority... is there some barrier keeping men out of university English programs? Should we be concerned about this under-representation? I've heard no calls of alarm over it... Maybe it is presumed that men could choose English if they wished to, but choose not to. If my experience is any indication, universities are actually pretty aggressive in trying to encourage female students to enroll in science and engineering. A guidance counsellor suggested I'd do well in engineering-- I'll leave it to you to decide whether she was refering to my aptitude, or just my slovenly social skills. Your local university probably has bright, happy, confident female engineering students touring highschools right now, talking to girls about engineering as a career choice. Private companies sponsor scholarships given exclusively to women in science and technology programs. I've talked to a number of female engineering students and their experiences have been uniformly positive, they describe their treatment from their professors and classmates with enthusiasm. If there's a barrier keeping our hypothetical rich white chick out of science or technology, I strongly suspect that it's a barrier she's imposed on herself, or allowed to be imposed on her- namely that "science is, like, totally not kewl." I don't have much sympathy for somebody who lets that kind of thinking run their life. I don't know why I should be any more concerned for her than I should be for somebody who decides "cigarettes are, like, totally kewl." Women. And men. And society. I can tell that you're itching to elaborate on that, so fire away. But you still ask the wrong questions. The question isn't "who's buying Cosmo?" but "why do women buy Cosmo?" I gather that you don't feel the obvious response, "because they enjoy it," is satisfactory. I suspect I'm going to hear something along the lines that she doesn't actually enjoy it, she's been tricked into enjoying it. Some kind of value judgment-- that such-and-such magazines are inherently bad for women, so they wouldn't buy it unless they'd been brainwashed or something-- is at work in this line of thinking. -kimmy

... I didn't say it was easy to do. I just said it was ultimately up to the women themselves, and it is. If you want to equate that with blaming the victim, then I'm not interested in talking with you further. Could we do more as a society to provide assistance? Probably, particularly in the cases of poor women, rural women, and women who are uneducated or don't speak english very well. And also probably for children, and for men who are affected by domestic violence but are too ashamed to seek help. Oh well, if it's not an issue to you, then I guess it doesn't matter to anyone.... I'm sorry, but division of household chores has to rank up there with the price of womens' hairstyles as an issue least likely to inspire sympathy for womens' issues. Griping about this sort of triviality is probably the reason mainstream society has largely tuned out womens' activists. We really need a vomiting smilie. Scoff if you must, but mom has barely had to leave the couch since I became tall enough to reach the controls on the washing machine. Ok, let's talk about these barriers. Poverty, obviously. I can imagine race could be be. But what about our well-to-do white woman? She's just graduated from highschool, her family is providing her with the financial resources to do whatever she wants, and she says "I want to be a ____!" Ok, so what ____ can't she choose, and what's holding her back? I'm not interested in hearing some argument like "only 25% of students in such-and-such undergraduate program are women." That's not a barrier, and it's not evidence of a barrier in and of itself. I don't want to hear about trends, I want to hear about our one individual and try and find out what's preventing her from doing anything she puts her mind to. Ask yourself this: who benefits from perpetuating these things? ... ... uh, people who like to buy stupid magazines and go to strip clubs? Who is harmed by the perpetuation of these things? Who owns Cosmo? ... some publicly traded corporation, I imagine... If women stopped buying Cosmo, the answer would be "nobody", because Cosmo would cease to exist very quickly. -k

We're not a jury, we're voters. The standard of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" doesn't apply in this situation. The standard is simply "do I believe what he's saying?" Given the strength of Martin's support in the party, the length of time, the prominence of those accused of wrongdoing, the sums of money which apparently just appeared in party coffers... there might not be enough to convict him, but there's certainly enough to give people pause. I personally suspect that if was ignorant of the details, it's because he chose to be. Then there's Warren Kinsella's recent comments... -k

That the Liberals will decide now IS the time for an election, yes that's probably wishful thinking. But I don't think it's wishful thinking to expect that an election campaign will put the spotlight back on the issues that put the Liberals behind in the polls. -k

No, I don't think many people are concerned that children will be ripped away from their mothers and taken to government buildings for 8 hours a day. I think people are mostly concerned that it could wind up being an administrative and financial nightmare on a scale that could make the gun registry look tame by comparison. That's the theory. In practice, it could wind up costing more to impliment than the corresponding economic benefits. I think that it could be a good idea, if well implemented... or a terrible idea if poorly implemented. My view is "it depends". If the plan is to shut down private daycares and replace them with buildings that have the Maple Leaf and "National Department of Daycare" on the front, providing universal, free to everyone daycare, then I think there's a great potential for it turn out poorly. How I would do it: -I just looked in the phonebook and found 8 pages of private daycares. I'd make use of this resource. -if necessary, I'd provide beefed up standards enforcement, some means of qualifying a daycare space as being government approved. -I'd provide vouchers for the poor so they could afford qualified daycare. I'd make daycare a tax deduction. -I'd provide incentives for people to create qualified daycare spaces in places where there are shortages. I think it could be done in a manner that doesn't require a massive investment of government capital to get going. I think it could be done largely by cooperating with the existing private daycare in our country. -kim

What has dragged down the Conservatives' numbers? Their talk of forcing an election. That's dominated the news for several weeks now. But once an election has been called, the election speculation stops being the #1 news item, and there will be plenty of opportunity for the election campaign to put the spotlight back on the issues that have torched the Liberals this spring. If the Liberals are as buoyed by these new polls as you guys, they could start planning ways to lose a non-confidence vote, as they may have been doing in March by trying to press the "omnibus bill". Until last month, the conventional wisdom had been that they'd be better off to have their election before the Gomery report comes out. -k

How would this work out for Canadians who don't live in cities? Quite poorly, I would expect. -k

I will check and get back to you. Argus and The Sweal have already asked what the corresponding statistic for men is. I think our society is pretty dangerous for everybody, unfortunately. Adult women with financial resources certainly have the choice of leaving abusive situations, and we can't make people make smarter choices. Children, poor women, and women in rural areas likely have far fewer options available, and them I have greater concern for. We try to provide options for women in dangerous situations... but those efforts aren't exactly universal. The stuff that in theory is available to all Canadians sometimes isn't available to the poor and to those outside big cities. I think that a number of issues-- access to services, medical, educational opportunities... that some would consider womens' issues are actually poverty issues or rural issues. (shrug.) If we're talking about cultures around the world, I'm sure there are real issues in many of them. From RB's message I thought we were talking about North American culture, in which case the problem seems to me to boil down to little more than the division of household chores. I just can't bring myself to view it as an issue of great importance in our society. If you really can't handle the load of housework, do what my mom did: squeeze out a couple of pups. Female politicians do ok. Just as female engineers or female welders do. The fact that fewer women than men enter these fields is, I think, a product of individual choices and not any sort of systematic problem. Consider the number of prominent female politicians in this country, then consider the number of prominent non-white politicians. What was it I said before? Maybe a bit dismissive, but the sentiment is still there: if you're a non-white woman in Canada, you look around and see white women in the highest positions in our country... and look around and see non-white people in ... well, not really anywhere very prominent at all. What are you going to conclude is the real barrier? Quite good, I hear... at least for a wealthy white woman in a major urban centre. I could certainly believe that poor women or women outside major centres, things are not so rosy. I'd suggest that poverty and lack of programs in rural areas are the barriers here, not gender. I sent an epic poison pen letter to the people at Mott's over their ad that depicts blondes as being too stupid to operate a Caesar without eye injury, and I've undertaken my own personal lifetime boycott of their products. I'd boycott Molson's over their current TV commercial as well, except that I'm already boycotting their products due to crappy quality. I think people vote with their feet and their wallets and their remote controls. These ads wouldn't be on TV if their sponsors didn't think they'd sell merchandise; those magazines wouldn't be on the shelves if people stopped buying them; the strip club would shut its doors if people stopped going. I don't really know of a good way of making people choose more sophisticated entertainment. Before you blame men for all of this, ask yourself when was the last time you saw a man buying Cosmopolitan. -kimmy

Reading RB's whinging is also somewhat like being beaten to death with popcorn. If someone is determined to play the victim card, there's no question that race is the way to go. Women have few serious complaints left... but if you're a visible minority, there's a wide range of avenues available for you to explore your feelings of persecution. -k

The forum, or the government? -k

Threats of physical violence are a new low for this forum, I'm sure. Could people at least pretend to be civil? I also fail to see what insult has been directed toward veterans as a group, eureka, only at yourself. Has anyone here seen the movie "Starship Troopers"? It was a science-fiction movie set in an a future Earth. While the focus of the movie was violence and explosions and stupidity, the movie also presented a interesting look at a fascist state of the future, and was worth a look for for that alone. One of the tenets of this society was that people could only become a Citizen and obtain full rights by serving in the military. I wonder if perhaps something similar is being advocated in this thread. The veterans have obviously given much more to this country than those of us who've never fought in a war. If a veteran says that he's stood in a trench with bullets flying past his head for this country, what can I tell him in response? I've paid taxes for a few years, that's about all. So if we have a difference of opinion on what the country should be like, his view obviously trumps mine by virtue of having risked life and limb for this country. So, having this class of citizen whose views are more important than the rest of us, shouldn't this be reflected in some way? Perhaps we should do away with elections entirely, and just have a ruling council of veterans. That way we wouldn't have to worry about betraying the veterans by holding the wrong opinions or voting the wrong way. The veterans came home from WWII and demanded social programs... in 1966. Prior to that, they spent 20 years enjoying unprecedented economic prosperity. This quest for social progress that began when the veterans came home... it certainly took its time bearing fruit, yes? I mean, I wasn't there at the time... but looking at the timetable... it looks as though the programs that the returning soldiers are alleged to have demanded didn't become law in Canada until the returning soldiers' kids were old enough to vote. In speaking for all veterans (except those who disagree with him, whose opinions are inherently less valid) eureka claims that veterans will feel betrayed by the dismantlement of social progress. In speaking for all young Canadians (except those who disagree with me, whose opinions are inherently less valid) I question whether the veterans are as fiercely committed to the Just Society as eureka believes. For many of us young people, an enduring image of the veterans is of those who waged legal warfare to keep turbans out of Legion halls, angry old men red-faced with rage at the prospect of accomodating someone's religious differences. Is it not fair for me to wonder whether these people are really in tune with the Liberal Vision? -k

I agree with the general theme you're expressing, but surely 30,000 is an error? I'm sure that Kilgour alone had nearly 30,000 votes... While you're right in saying that the FPTP voting system results in these monolithic looking electoral maps that exaggerate regional differences, I don't think the regional differences should be trivialized. The Conservatives had 60% of votes in Alberta, 30% in Ontario, and 10% in Quebec... that's a rather profound difference that defies explanation by FPTP or any other voting system. In the recent US election, the networks showed gradated maps, showing not just the overall result but the degree of that result-- strong tendancy to vote Democrat was shown dark blue, slight tendancy towards the Republicans was a pale red, etc. The resulting map was very different from the polarized "red state/blue state" picture that people got from the election. It would be interesting to see a corresponding map for Canada. -k

That was not my prediction of the future under a Conservative government. That was my prediction of the kind of messaging we are going to hear from PM PM and his friends over the next numerous months, especially during the election, whenever it comes. To respond to your questions, no: I don't think those things will happen. If I did think those things would happen if we don't vote Liberal, I'd vote Liberal out of fear just like everybody else. No, it's not really my overactive imagination either-- my message was not an invention, just an exaggeration; we're already seeing the same sorts of themes emerging from the Liberals and their supporters. And no, voting NDP won't avoid the "disaster". Remember, kids: if you vote NDP, you're just helping Harper win. A vote for the NDP is a vote for putting gay kids in Christian Camps for reprogramming. I simply don't believe there is a crisis. I believe that our country will be just fine under a different regime. I don't dismiss the veterans. Not in the least! What I dismiss is your claim to speak on their behalf; your insistance that your beliefs are theirs; your assertion that they went to war in Europe or Korea to fight for national childcare programs or same-sex marriages. By way of counterexample, I'll mention Stan Waters, WWII veteran and member of the original Reform Party. I watch the Rememberance Day ceremonies every year, and when they interview the veterans the one common theme that emerges is that they fought for peoples' right to hold their own beliefs and vote as they choose in a free and democratic country. -kimmy

You're stabbing the veterans in the back if you don't vote Liberal. You're quite literally taking a crap on the poppies of Flander's Field if you don't vote Liberal. The country will split up if you don't vote Liberal. Teenaged homosexuals will be rounded up and sent to Christian Camp for reprogramming if you don't vote Liberal. Molson Canadian will be replaced with Coors Light if you don't vote Liberal. Swarthy people will be deported if you don't vote Liberal. The Maple Leaf will be torn up and replaced with the Red Ensign if you don't vote Liberal. The hopes and dreams of starving African children will be crushed if you don't vote Liberal. The maple syrup will run dry if you don't vote Liberal. The beavers will die of grief if you don't vote Liberal. Haven't you heard? It's the end of the world if you don't vote Liberal. -kimmy {anticipating campaign ads featuring a teary-eyed little beaver clutching a Canada Flag.}

Attempting to divert? Coming from a guy who brought firewalls and communists into a discussion about how cooperating with the BQ would play in Alberta, the irony is rich. Harper's position on the centralization/decentralization theme is entirely clear. The challenge you face is not convincing people of that, but rather of convincing people that it's the apocalyptic catastrophe you believe it to be. -kimmy

So, in other words, nothing of relevance to anything being discussed in this thread; just a chip you felt like getting off your shoulder. Yes, I'm well aware that it was Harper. I'm just curious to know why such a big deal is still made of it. Really, if federalist Canadians in Ontario or Quebec are so offended by the proposals in the infamous "firewall" letter, why aren't they marching in the streets to have their own provinces tear down their own equivalent "firewalls"? Again, every proposal in the "firewall" letter is a policy already in force in one or both of Canada's largest provinces. Why do these policies only constitute a threat to the nation when the #4 province considers adopting them? -kimmy

I find the message composing interface works a lot better now. Tags and so-on are inserted at the cursor location instead of at the end of the message. The "snapback" feature in quotes is also neat. -k

Did you have a point? I merely point out that Duceppe's performance during the English-language leaders' debate was well-received in Alberta. I don't think I suggested support for his economic platform or ideological leanings, just that he's not the reviled figure Black Dog seems to suggest. What is this blather about a "firewall"? Why does a rejected policy proposal from several years back, made up entirely from planks already in effect in Quebec, Ontario, or both, continue to cause such anxiety for people like yourself? -kimmy

Before anybody gets overly excited or overly depressed about the poll results, spend a moment considering the situation. The present support for the Liberals comes after two weeks of frantic election speculation has completely overshadowed Gomery in the news. Angling for an election is not an issue that plays well for Conservative support. But once the election is called, corruption will be back in the spotlight, both as a central campaign issue and through the ongoing inquiry. -kimmy

As an Abertan, I know that provincial autonomy is a big issue. but I can't imagine the idea of the Cons playing footsies with the Kay-beckers (as they're known out here) playing well with their western base, given the traditional western (read: Albertan) animosity towards all things Quebec. I'm not aware of any animousity towards all things Quebec (although I can see where people might confuse an intense dislike of official bilingualism with an animousity towards all things Quebec.) More than other Canadians, Albertans tend to feel common groud with the Quebecers when it comes to provincial autonomy issues, as you mention. When it comes to Quebec separation, other Canadians are more likely to respond with anger than Albertans; Albertans are more likely to respond with indifference than other Canadians. In Ontario I found that the subject was enough to get people's blood boiling; in Alberta I don't know anybody who feels any passion towards the subject at all; most seem to view it with "que sera sera" calmness. Albertans watched last year's leadership debates and thought Gilles Duceppe seemed like a swell guy. Cooperating with the BQ on a non-confidence vote probably will cost Harper support in Ontario and other places where people actually feel passion about the BQ. But you're not seriously suggesting it'll cost Harper support here, are you? -k