kimmy

I get the impression that you people are afraid that immediately after winning an election, Harper would tear off a latex mask to reveal that he's actually ... Jerry Falwell or Jack Van Impe or something. I was unable to find any reference to the article you're referring to, and I don't have a subscription to that magazine. Perhaps, if you had a title or something, I could look for it next time I'm at a library. However, given the overwhelmingly Catholic nature of South America-- 80 to 90% in most countries-- I remain skeptical that you read what you think you read, or claim to have read. You're describing the religious conversion of literally hundreds of millions of people in less than a generation. Does that seem plausible? Personally, I don't find it very plausible. I'll believe it when I see it. Ah. Those wacky protestants, raising hell in North Africa (along with the Wahhabis). Dude, Muslims comprise 90+% of the populace of North Africa. From the reading I've done, the militias and movements involved in conflict and unrest in the region are likewise overwhelmingly fundamentalist Muslim (I can't vouch for Wahhabi) in nature. Mentioning the Muslims as if they were just an aside to the issue just makes you look desperate. -k

As you prefaced a reply to me with that comment, yes: I believe you did write it to me. As for your information, I will go have a look at it. -k

Don't even try to point out the error, Eureka. That particular fallacy is far too ingrained in the minds of a lot of the right wing posters on this forum for you to ever change. China is worse than Isreal, so Israel is good. Communists killed more people than the US, so the US didn't kill anyone. The Christian Right can't be fundamentalist, because the Mullahs are far more fundamentalist. I point out that the positions adopted at the recent CPC policy convention are odd positions for any "fundamentalist" group to adopt. -k

I'm not sure I agree with this part. Do not Quebecers speak for themselves in the form of public opinion polls that presently show strong preference for voting BQ federally and PQ provincially? There doesn't seem to be any great mystery as to how Quebecers feel. This part I can agree with. -kimmy

"YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!" -kimmy {didn't order the Code Red.}

I considered just humouring you, and replying "very well, then do you imagine these apocalyptic Protestant fundamentalists adopting policies granting equal rights to gay couples, or to not table abortion legislation." But, I decided I'm not in any mood to humour you. Think back to your statement about respecting people who respect you, and then ponder how much respect you deserve from me after what you just wrote to me. And since I am in no mood to humour you, I call "bullshit" on the claim you make about the explosive growth of apocalyptic Protestant fundamentalists. I find it doubtful. I'll regard it as a complete fabrication until you support this claim with some credible information. I know that you disdain being asked to support any claim you make, as it makes you tired or takes away from the valuable time you need to fight provincialists or whatever it is. But In this instance, I'm afraid I must ask. If being unaware of this information makes one too ignorant to be allowed to vote, then it's obviously much to important to just rely on hearsay. Before you ask: no, I won't be satisfied unless you can give me a more concrete source than something you heard on a radio show one time, or something you overheard while you were getting plastered at the Legion hall. Luckily, that information should be easy for you to provide. If it's such common knowledge that you deem people who didn't know it to be too ignorant to vote, then I'm sure this information must be plastered all over the web. I'm not asking for a complete bibliography, just two or three credible sources will do. I guess I must be quite uninformed... I hadn't believed that *any* Christian denominations or sects were among the world's most rapidly growing religions-- particularly in the poorer regions of the world as you indicated. I hadn't realized that these apocalyptic fundamentalists you speak of made up any significant number amongst the faith. I'm really quite surprised to hear it. Which is why I require some support for this claim: frankly it sounds like fiction to me. -kim.

Whoa-whoa-whaaah? I just can't picture the Wahabbi mullahs adopting policy resolutions to not introduce any legislation on abortion or to allow full legal benefits to same-sex couples. If the CPC is what passes for religious fundamentalism in Canada, then religious fundamentalism in Canada is an awful lot different from that in the US or anywhere else in the world. -kimmy

I never saw anything unsavory or dirty about the party's Reform roots, so I would say "not really." When Liberals persisted in saying "Reform-Alliance" during speeches as if they were Detective Columbo revealing the key piece of evidence, I always just found it amusing. I never really got how they figured that was supposed to be the smoking gun they seemed to think it was. My response was always "and?" However, I realize that it probably inspires a much different reaction in Ontario. Nonetheless, I don't personally feel any need to apologize for the party's Reform roots or to pretend they're not there. I just find the Liberals' about-face in strategy interesting. "Don't be tricked! They're not the old Tories!" "Don't be tricked! They're not the old Tories!" "Don't be tricked! They're not the old Tories!" "Don't be tricked! They're not the old Tories!" "Don't be tricked! They're still the old Tories!" I pose the opposite question to you. Don't you feel a little uncomfortable promoting this New Leaf Liberals idea, while at the same time arguing that the Tories are still the same old party they always were? In response to your question, I simply note that 16 months is not 12 years. I note that the Reform part which makes up the larger part of the CPC's membership was in large measure a direct and hostile response to the corruption of the Mulroney Tories. I would point out that of the party's current MPs, candidates, and organizers, very few have ties to the old Mulroney regime. While some of the old Mulroney back-room people may have stayed on with the PC party after the catastrophic defeat in 1993, I have been told that most left for greener pastures at that time (rats and sinking ships, as the old adage goes.) Now, has the Liberal Party undergone similar change under Martin and I just missed it? Aside from the retirement of Da Little Guy, the defeat of a few MPs, and some shuffling of cabinet posts away from Little Guy loyalists, I see little evidence to support the view that the party has undergone any great metamorphosis. Did I just fail to notice the Great Liberal Putsch of Aught-Four? -kimmy

Her opinions are stated as facts, not opinions, and are very deceptive to those who take them as facts. You may notice that she never says "I think that...", or "In my opinion, ....". Why is that? ...because it would be redundant? Most often, opinions are indeed state as facts. "That was a horrible movie." "Jennifer Garner is a shitty actress." "Baseball is boring to watch." These are stated as if they were verifyable certainties, even though they are opinions. It is not necessary for one to state "I think..." or "In my opinion..." for the listener to discern as much from their context and content. I am sure that we could search the board and find hundreds of statements of opinion from yourself, me, and dozens of others, with few of them prefaced with qualifiers such as "In my opinion" or "I think". This presentation does not make it deceptive or dishonest. I have watched the clip, and I don't believe Coulter says anything that isn't easily discernable as opinion from the content and context. If you disagree, please provide a specific example and explain why you feel it's deceptive. Watch it again. I think where you are having the difficulty is that Moore takes "semi-facts" and runs with them or misrepresents them. Coulter takes "anti-facts" and runs with them. The only difference is that Moore typically begins with something near reality and then twists it, while Coulter begins in Wonderland and doesn't really go anywhere from there. The purpose, in either case, is the same. I'm not having any difficulties. Moore's misuse of video footage and misrepresentation of circumstances is deliberate and calculated-- deceptive. Coulter is crazy and usually wrong, but she doesn't represent her opinions to be anything they're not. -kimmy

Personally I find it interesting that the Liberal boosters, who have continually strove to convince people that the CPC and the Canadian Alliance were just Reform in different clothes, are now instead desperately trying to link the CPC to the Mulroney Tories. I also find it interesting that people who are trying to convince us that the Conservatives are still the same 12 years after they left power, while at the same time trying to convince us that the Liberals are a completely different party just 16 months after Chretien took his short walk in the snow. -kimmy

Yes, IMT, I believe that's the case. She's expressing opinions. Her opinions might be brain-damaged and nonsensical, but they're not presented as anything other than one flake's opinion. I don't believe the word "deceptive" can be applied to opinions. "Deceptive" can be applied to the way one argues their case or presents the facts. But Coulter doesn't misrepresent facts during that clip; in fact she presents almost no facts at all. -kimmy

That's probably a reasonable compromise. Waiting to the end of the testimony lets people hear all the information; surely they don't need Gomery's analysis to tell them what it means. -kimmy

That was pretty strong. Funny that this sort of topic always creates generational friction here at Mapleleafweb. Us young'uns always wind up complaining about the mess that the older generation created or telling them to stop bitching about us kids. The older people, in reply, respond with variations of "when you've had more experience, you'll know better..." or "when I was your age..." or "Get off my lawn, you kids!!" It's a shame caesar is no longer with us; she could give us some perspective. Imagine all the changes she's seen in her lifetime. The arrival of the space-age, the jet-age, nuclear weapons, television, the airplane, the industrial age, the discovery of electricity, the invention of the printing-press... -kimmy

Most professors *do* have serious research to do; teaching undergraduates is a duty (or in some cases just a chore) that they do as part of their obligations to the university. I'm attending a class this spring. The professor often talks enthusiacally about something that one of his grad-students is researching, or something that they discovered. I get the impression that for some professors, the chance to discover and mentor the most promising undergraduates when they go into graduate studies is a very rewarding part of the job. But I've heard from others that some professors view teaching as just a nuisance, something that takes away from time that they'd rather be using to get their latest research paper published. -k

Sounds like they had "shoot, shovel, and shut up" covered well before Ralph Klein even thought of it. -k

They're going to campaign against Brian Mulroney? That ought to go over well. When has that ever happened? The only change this time from previous elections is that this time it's the Liberals and not the Reform/Alliance/CPC on the side of an issue that the media just can't get enough of. -kimmy

That's odd. We just had testimony from a Bernard Michaud claiming he did indeed obtain large amounts of cash for Mr Brault, and a cheque register to support the claim. -k

In response to some of the matters raised in the original message... Rumour has it that my own mother smoked and drank quite a bit during her pregnancies. And (though some of you will surely disagree) I seem to have come through intact. My (allegedly) turning out OK not evidence that drinking and smoking during pregnancy is ok. He pokes fun at lead-based paint on his baby-crib... if someone asked him, do you think he'd *choose* to paint his grandchild's crib with lead-based paint? "Hey, we had lead-based paint and we survived" is not a particularly good reason to ignore common sense and what has become wide-spread knowledge. Why doesn't he bitch about the removal of lead from gasoline? Cars back then had lead in the gasoline to combat "knocking"; studies on an urban neighborhood in Detroit where there were high volumes of leaded car-exhaust in the air proved that the results of all this lead flying around was, quite literally, a generation of stupid kids in that neighborhood. Why didn't the author mention "we used to drink and drive all the time? It was a big joke to us, and we survived"? I'm told that back in the day, it used to be a real lark to get plastered and drive around. And the people telling me the stories survived to laugh about it later, right? So what's the big deal? "Our mothers drank and smoked while pregnant, and we didn't wind up with brain-damage! (except for the ones that did.)" "We ate lead paint-chips and we turned out ok! (except for the ones that didn't.)" "We drove drunk and we didn't die! (except for the ones that did...)" ... That said, much of what the author says does make sense. It's been shown that playing in dirt and eating worms and drinking from the same bottle and all that other stuff kids do isn't just not harmful, it's actually helpful. Kids who grow up in overly sterile environments have weak immune-systems when they grow up. Exposure to lots and lots of different things builds your child's immune system. I do agree with him that this is a generation of couch-potatos. Too much X-box and TV and time on the computer. I was recently bicycling past my old junior-high and saw a phys-ed class out for a run... it was rather sad. The gym-teachers often had us go for a run around the perimiter of the school grounds- perhaps a couple of kilometers... as I was watching this group of young athletes, I was both amused and saddened to see about 1/3 of the little blubber-balls run out of gas and start walking after only about 100m. Perhaps kids have just gotten a lot more out-of-shape in the few years since I attended that school, or perhaps I just never noticed kids expiring after 100m because I was always near the front of the pack. Nonetheless, it disturbed me to see how many of these kids just couldn't do it. Perhaps kids don't play outdoors enough, perhaps they could find their own way home from school instead of being shuttled door-to-door. Perhaps kids are being smothered with kindness and care. I don't know... if I was a parent right now, I don't know what I would do... there's so many reports on the news about what can happen if you *don't* keep an eye on your kids. It surely can't be easy. -kimmy

good lord. All they need is a name like "The Education Freedom Act". I have been leaning toward engineering, whenever it is that I decide to attend university. I was going to say that I was hopeful that it's one field that's free from political tampering, but I just remembered that a few years back one of the US states legislated that the value of Pi would henceforth be "3". -kimmy

In comparing Coulter and Moore, one thing I'll point out is that Moore tries to create the appearance that he is making documentaries; with Coulter there's no doubt that she's providing commentary. Viewers watching Coulter know they are watching one person run her mouth. Viewers watching Moore will see news-footage presented in such a way as to make it appear they're watching a documentary. There's lots of detailed analysis of Moore's methods of manipulating footage to create things that never really happened: Seeing isn't really believing. To me, the difference is that Coulter is kooky, but Moore is deceptive. I have a hard time believing anybody with an IQ over about 80 could find Coulter to be anything more than comedy (she's funny... but not in the way she thinks she's funny. She's funny like your Grandma's friend that keeps trying to butter the cocker spaniel.) Moore on the otherhand... -kimmy

I read the entirety of your post. The stuff in regard to Harper, I won't bother taking issue with, as I don't think there's any point in discussing that with you. The part in regard to the effect of the Gomery inquiry's impact on public opinion, and the possibility of it spinning on a dime if the right testimony came out, seemed highly optimistic on your point and in large measure that optimism appears to have been founded on the assumption that it's just Jean Brault's testimony, which of course is not really the truth. And you're not alone in trying to describe it as "just one man's testimony". I've read countless times in the past week, both here and elsewhere, Liberal supporters saying "it's just one man; a guy charged with fraud." That so many Liberal-boosters have come up with this mistaken argument at the same time is what made me reference "talking-points". -kimmy

well said. If someone does something stupid or inept, and someone else calls them mentally handicapped (by whatever euphemism) then what's really occured? Someone has equated stupid or inept behavior with mental handicaps. That's really where the insult has taken place, not in the choice of words. Some time this past winter, we had a thread about a native woman who'd sued her employer for calling her "Kemosabe". I believe the content of the judge's ruling was something to the effect that the word "Kemosabe" was not obviously hateful and therefore the onus was on the woman to make it clear that she did not wish to be addressed as such. While that's probably sensible, I suspect it probably didn't really reflect the nature of the relationship between the woman and her employer. While I'm just guessing, I suspect they weren't using it in the same way the Lone Ranger addressed his good friend. I suspect they were, more or less, addressing her as "Visible Minority". Again the problem is not in the use of the word "Kemosabe", but in singling this person out for her ethnic background. I once saw a piece on the Jon Steward Show where Rob Corddry interviewed a "demographically diverse" group for their reactions to a new production of Fiddler on the Roof that stars (gasp!) a Gentile. The piece was, if I recall, supposed to be a send-up of the coverage of The Passion of the Christ, all those interviews that people start off "As a Christian, I found this movie to be..." or "as a Jew..." etc. In the Rob Corddry piece, he addresses people only by their ethnic group. "Jew: what did you think of Fiddler? Too 'goyim'?" "Black man: you're also Christian. You're two things. You're a Christian, and you're black." On one hand, it can be helpful to know someone's background when you're assessing what perspective and biases they bring to the table. However, I think the point of the Corddry piece was that too often it goes from that somewhat useful purpose, to the somewhat less valuable purpose of validating a perspective with token representatives. "We can't air your article on basketball shoes until you interview a black kid. Get on it." -kimmy {not "a blonde"... "a fair-haired Canadian."} {not pale... "Pigment-challenged" or "Suntan impaired".}

"One man's testimony"? Did the Liberals release another set of talking-points? hmm. I must have been booted from the mailing-list again. It is true that Brault is, indeed, just one man. It is true that his vivid recollection of brown envelopes and Italian restaurants had a flair that the inquiry has lacked to this point... which might be why it has proven so explosive. However, his testimony is pretty much the same in nature as that provided earlier in the inquiry. Those of you hoping for something to come out of the inquiry to save the Liberals' bacon should be praying extra-hard over the next couple of weeks, as testimony is schedule to wrap up in early May. But there has been little in the way of outright denials of anything at the inquiry; just memory-lapses, not the sort of thing likely to swing public opinion 180 on this. -kimmy

You're saying the LPC just hasn't cared enough to fight their image problems since taking office? You're saying they just didn't have the focus and incentive to do something in the last election? ...hmm. My personal theory is that while you make the Liberal PR machine sound like the Mossad and the Third Army rolled into one, perhaps it's not invincible after all. We shall. You've mentioned a number of times that people have no reason to hold Martin personally responsible for the scandal, and I agree with that, but at the same time I don't think people held Kimmy Campbell personally responsible for the sins of the Mulroney government either. -kimmy {not campbell}

If you're trying to gauge the full effect of the testimony, the more meaningful breakdown would probably be to compare this week's numbers to February, not to last week. Nonetheless, I think it's an oversimplification to just look at percentages. In BC, for instance I think it's logical to assume that the urban ridings that went Liberal last election are now leaning NDP, while the Tories' rural ridings are still leaning Tory. Liberals could lose some of their 8 seats there; NDP could gain some of those 8 seats, Tories will likely not change. And so on. The polls show a lot more people willing to consider the Tories than in the last election. And though people apparently prefer Martin 48% to 46%, that's a huge gain for Harper over last election, when people prefered Martin personally by double-digit margins. Either people just can't stand Martin, or Harper is having some success in combatting the "scary" image that people have tried to stick on him. -kimmy