kimmy

They can't do it. They couldn't win a majority last time out, and they won't do it next time when Quebec kicks the legs out from underneath them. They need Quebec. When you turn your backs on them, they're dead. Watch and see. -kimmy

If you really want to go that route, caesar has some great stories about BC Liberals that she'd like to share. However, what you're doing here is frankly kind of pathetic and smells badly of desperation. Well, if my understanding of the case is correct, then people were fired and the government was defeated. It seems like a very fair and wise way of dealing with cases like this. I am hopeful that the Ontario voters will do the same in the next federal election. Is there much else to discuss? -kimmy

Well, it's CBC/Radio-Canada that first said that. Why wouldn't the Conservatives make mention of it? (if you can't trust our state-run news agency, then who can you trust???) A huge blunder during the election campaign. Hopefully they've learned from that mistake. One billion did go missing at HRDC. Most of it was eventually accounted for, however. Not sure. When you consider how many former reporters have wound up with high-paying jobs in various government communications positions, and how many of those still have ties to their former colleagues, you certainly have to wonder. -kimmy

I strongly doubt that the Schiavo mess was precipitated by lawyers. It was a clash of wills between two groups whose beliefs were mutually exclusive. I believe that the lawyers in this case did what their clients wished them to do. And why bring poor Johnny Cochrane into this? The poor man died last week. I don't think dragging his name through the mud so soon after his death is particularly nice. And it doesn't further your argument either. -kimmy {"If the message don't fit, caesar's full of shit." -as Mr. Cochrane would say.}

Few observers seem to agree with you. Many feel that the Liberals will be all but decimated in Quebec, possibly losing 15-20 more seats, and with little chance to recover the loss elsewhere. I don't agree with you that the impact of the Gomery inquiry has already been felt. The most damaging testimony had not yet been given prior to the last election. Something else working against the Liberals since the last election is that before the election, people were optimistic that the "Paul Martin Era" would see great new things. Now it's 10 months since the election and I think most people have come to the conclusion that the "Paul Martin Era" hasn't exactly lived up to the hype... the biggest build-up to nothing since "New Coke". -kimmy

The Hill Times -kimmy

Actually, the subject was Ontario PC corruption, which is off topic in this forum. If you'd really like to talk about Hydro One and the Ontario PCs, the Provincial Forum is the place to do it. As for the Digby wharf, Global did a feature on it last week. A few minutes Googling will quickly confirm most of what Digby says. The Global story asked someone for the government what was done with the $3 million grant for upgrades, and the government itself didn't know. However, I have not yet seen anything to support the claim that the "Maritime Harbour Society" group to whom the wharf was given has ties to the Liberals. -kimmy

Boy this shows your maturity Kimmy... I can honestly say I am disppointed or maybe just being a crybaby... Well, we know it was you that made a big deal about "scumbag". Was it such a big leap to guess that you were probably the guy who made a big deal about "Fiberal" as well? -k

Have you suffered a blow to the head recently? -special k

Someone doesn't understand the difference between commentary and mindless ranting. Commentary typically requires some sort of insight. There is no such thing on Fox. I've never actually seen Fox News, so I can't comment. I can comment on Ann Coulter, who I think is a fruitcake of galactic proportions. That doesn't have much to do with the distinction that PocketRocket was drawing between news and editorial content, which appears to be beyond some peoples' ability to grasp. -kimmy

You're quite mistaken. The gun registry's cost overruns are not inclusive of other gun control programs. -k

I suspect that the only reason Greg decided to crack down on "Fiberal" was that a certain crybaby decided to complain. (see the more recent "Scumbag" controversy for more details.) Personally, I find it kind of cute. It reminds me of Maplesyrup's ranting. The good old days. -k

If you don't understand the difference between news and commentary, I'm not sure you should be calling others daft. -k

(shouldn't this be in the "Provincial politics" area? It appears to be strictly Ontario stuff.) -k

That's quite a coincidence. After playing "Knights of the Old Republic," I found myself searching the internet for instructions on building a lightsabre, and attempting to "force-wave" annoying junior highschool kids out of my way on the bus. -kimmy

Thanks for the link, Mr. Bacon. That was very interesting reading. Harper needs to be very careful with this. While it might be tempting to join the BQ in a non-confidence motion, they should wait until the publication ban can be lifted. If they can hold off the election until the Brault trial is underway and damaging testimony from both that trial and Gomery is leading the news every evening, they'll have a choke-hold on the Liberals. I also hope the BQ's eagerness to make political gain out of this doesn't lead to a mistrial for Brault and friends. -kimmy

Because that just wouldn't be caesar. -kimmy

Replacing a system that CAN work fairly for all taxpayers is much better than replacing it. Canadians do not want a two tiered system. Every time the idea of changes to the Canada Health Act comes up, people start throwing around phrases like "two-tier" and "US-style." Why is that? Why do Canadians, who fancy themselves to be so much more knowledgeable of the wider world than their American friends, seem to have the notion that if it's not "Canada-style" healthcare, it must be "US-style" healthcare? France and Sweden have healthcare systems where both private and public care providers work side-by-side. France and Sweden have outstanding healthcare systems, where patient care and wait times have been judged better than in Canada. The Conservatives will have to do a much better job of articulating a vision. As long as people have the notion that "changes to the Canada Health Act" equals "US-style healthcare", they won't get elected. As Argus said, they have to provide a clear, articulate proposal that people can look at. -kimmy

In this situation, The Liberals, Cons and BQ all effectively have the same voice on that committee, with the NDP having slightly less. Which, again, ignores the fact that the Liberals hold far more seats than any other party. Well, I disagree that they'd have effectively the same voice in the committee. And it doesn't ignore the # of seats; it's actually a good approximation of the number of seats in Commons. However, since you're quibbling over mathematic details from an idea I had 2 posts ago, I gather you have no complaints about anything I wrote in my last message? -kimmy

Have they? I hadn't realized. CBC Newsworld has been a non-stop Pope-a-thon the past several days, and I just haven't got the patience to sit through hours of Papal retrospectives in hope of seeing some non-Pope news. As for the CBC evening news, I seldom watch it in any event, as their local package is so 3rd rate. I found the story's absence from the CBC website to be somewhat conspicuous. Perhaps it was just an oversight. -kimmy

Oh, name one. Brazil and Jamaica. Everybody loves Brazil and Jamaica, two countries known the world over for their happy dispositions, sunny beaches, friendliness to visitors, lack of interest in starting wars or invading Iraq, and enthusiasm for partying. As well, Brazil exports all those spectacular models and soccer players, and Jamaica gave us reggae and many terrific athletes. Who doesn't love Jamaica and Brazil? Certainly neither of those countries are on Al Qaeda's hit-list, unlike us... -kimmy

I thought it was obvious to all that everything a political party does, regardless of the party, is just that. Well, if you agree that the principles of democracy dictate that the Atlantic accord and the Greenhouse Gas changes be debated and voted on on their own merits, not as an a package deal... and you agree that slapping them together into an omnibus bill was just political machination by the Liberals... then I don't see why you're so upset that I've characterized it as undemocratic. If the opposition forced two elections in a row, that party would be soundly defeated on the third, Gomery inquiry or not. That relies on the assumption that most people will be too dumb to figure out that the Liberals engineered their own non-confidence. It also makes the assumption that most voters will be madder about elections than about the results of the Gomery report. That notion is highly debatable, particularly in Quebec, where the Gomery inquiry trumps everything, and in places that didn't support the Liberals in the first place. I don't think there was ever any doubt as to the PM having the final say in the matter. I don't think that precludes a more cooperative process. How about 1 committee member for each 25 seats in parliament (rounded to nearest 25)? That's not overly complicated. Its imperfect. Its also the best option yet on the table. Well, Eureka agrees with you, but he believes any sort of multi-party committee process will taint the process with politics. I suspect that Paul Martin kind of agrees but (unlike Eureka) lacks the courage to state that opinion explicitly, relying instead on shenanigans like Minister Cotler's dog-and-pony show for the sake of misleading gullible-people as to his true feelings. -kimmy

Globe and Mail article CTV article National Post article (interestingly, not a whisper about this on the CBC website.) When does Jean Brault's jury get sequestered? That's a date that will probably get circled on a lot of calenders in Ottawa. -kimmy {the universe is unfolding as it should}

I think someone's desire to make a movie of this is just a continuation of a trend that's been growing for a number of years. Some of the most popular TV shows for the past several years have been, as eureka phrased it, "An appeal to the pocketbooks of ghouls." For years the show "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation" has been among the most watched shows on TV, and often #1. The show's formula is not so different from detective dramas of the past. You have a corpse, and a number of likely suspects... a few red herrings along the way, but finally the good-guys catch the murderer. What is different from the days of Murder She Wrote or Columbo is that the investigation examines gory medical evidence up close, often resulting in grotesque imagery. There's an autopsy every week as the corpse's wounds are examined in great detail. There is often a sexual aspect to the cases: in most episodes, either the corpses or the killers are beautiful women, and more often than not the murder came about through/because of/after some kind of taboo sexual hijinks. In the course of 5 or 6 seasons of CSI, they've either autopsied or incarcerated every blonde in Las Vegas, and have therefore had to launch spinoffs in Miami and New York, which are also among TV's most popular shows. If it sounds like I've watched the show entirely too often to complain about it, yes, that's true. I have been a loyal viewer for a long time. After all, it has a very good cast, the mysteries are often intriguing, and I like the idea of a show where the good-guys win using science instead of fists. I've been tiring of the show this season, but that's because of declining quality of the writing, not because of the gore and violence. But, I was thinking, if I'd watched something like this when I was a little kid, I'd have had nightmares about it. The things I saw on TV that gave me nightmares when I was little seem positively quaint in comparison. And while CSI airs at either 9 or 10 depending where you live, the show is now in sindication and episodes can be found mid-afternoon on some channels... so parents who think letting their kids watch TV after school is harmless might be in for a bit of a shock. In my opinion, the change in TV's permissiveness toward gore and violence over the past 10 years has been rather profound. I don't know how I'd respond if I were a parent. Having a TV-free home has some appeal... I think that kids are more and more exposed to images that are shocking and graphically violent. Movies, TV, video games... I think we are probably raising a generation that is numb to pain and suffering. -kimmy

When Adelle tries to become a judge, doctor, politician, or TV reporter, she's going to feel pretty stupid when those pictures of her bouncing around in front of her webcam turn up. -kimmy