kimmy

Chanel sandals? She's a teacher? I assume she's got a husband in a much more lucrative profession. I'm sure that one could find men's footwear from an equally high-end designer with an equally absurd price-tag. Let's talk about something that was explained to me as "utility". I could go to Zellers, Walmart, or the clothes section of The Real Canadian Superstore ™ and purchase a perfectly reasonable shirt for $10-15. I could go to my local Buffalo Jeans outlet and purchase a shirt of quite similar design for $80-$100. I could also purchase a plane white undershirt for possibly $5 or so at a number of places. In terms of *functionality*, all 3 of them are essentially equivalent. Any of the 3 would keep the upper half of my body covered. But in term of *utility*, all 3 are not the same. The Buffalo ™ shirt is deemed more appealing and attractive than the Zellers house-brand shirt. The Buffalo ™ shirt might confer upon the wearer an image of stylishness or sophistication that the Zellers shirt lacks. Or perhaps it might just make the wearer happy to be wearing a Buffalo ™ shirt on their body. These additional benefits, actually or imagined, as determined by the prospective customer, are considered utility and are part of the price. In the example of the Chanel sandals, I'm sure that the price tag can probably be broken down as: Materials: $2 Production costs: $3 Chanel label: $865. If a consumer decides to purchase an $870 pair of Chanel shoes instead of a $20 no-name pair, it is because she has made the choice that the style and name-value of a Chanel product is worth at least $850 to her. If a woman decides to get a $50 cut at a salon instead of a $15 cut at SuperCuts, it's because she feels that the presumably better and more skillful service she receives at the salon is worth the extra $35 over what she'd get at the SuperCuts. If womens' products and services in aggregate are more expensive than mens', it is because women, in aggregate, are more likely to spend the extra money for products they believe (rightly or wrongly) are superior. If more women changed their buying habits to place less emphasis (and dollar value) on the aesthetic aspects of utility, prices would respond. -kimmy

Indeed. While the incident received little or no mention in most media outlets (which is just as well, I think-- a small group of homosexual advocates and their "Sodomobile" has little news value) I did track down some coverage of the "Pink Panthers" and their demonstration to a few gay-oriented sources who unanimously described it as a terrific non-violent awareness-raising event. This Canadian Press photo certainly appears to tell a different story, as this delegate appears to have been swarmed, harrassed, and physically obstructed by these protestors. http://www.cp.org/asp/PHG_gallery.asp?the_..._date=3/18/2005 But it is just as well that the media treated the protest for what it was: of little significance, and of little relevance to the convention. The Pink Panthers will surely have to try harder next year if they want to grab headlines. Perhaps they could get Rick Mercer to drive the Sodomobile. -kimmy

I'd first off point out that Canada has participated in the 'war on terror', despite staying out of the Iraq invasion. And secondly I would mention that according to Al Qaeda themselves, Australia's UN-endorsed intervention in East Timor was an attack on Islam; Australia has officially been on Al Qaeda's hit-list since before the Iraq invasion, before the Afghanistan invasion, and before Sept 11, 2001. Al Qaeda has been threatening harm to the Australians since 1999, and most interestingly Australia's "trespass against Islam" had nothing to do with tagging along with the Americans at all. -kimmy

I have read before of Quebecois claiming that "the French Fact in Canada" is perhaps the only thing making Canada distinct from the US. They might be more correct than most care to admit. -kimmy

If you just want to be in a party and you don't have any principles to help you choose, I think the Liberals are probably right for you. -kimmy

Nowadays they have programs where you can do both at the same time! I asked my dad what he thought about the issue. He told me that if you go to a SuperCuts they don't have gender-biased pricing. He adds that in spite of that, for some reason he never sees women getting their hair done at SuperCuts. I can't vouch for what he says, having never been to a SuperCuts. BOO! BOOO!! I honestly don't know if this is one of the funniest things I've ever read here, or one of the most rancid! I can't decide whether to laugh or throw rotting vegetables. -kimmy

Might I remind you of the Bali bombing... Considering that the Bali bombing was a year *before* the invasion of Iraq, I think you're going to have a hard time arguing that the Bali bombing was a reprisal for joining the invasion. Al Qaeda might be pretty clever, but I'm not sure they're capable of time-travel or seeing the future. Election promises get you laughed out of the bank if you try to take them there.... Yeah, but fear that he would break that promise is motivated by this same "secret agenda" paranoia, not on any policy position they've stated. What's their position on abortion? They just stated it. But I doubt that this will be the end of the kind of scare-tactics that we saw last election. Promising to not introduce legislation is a lot different from promising something that actually requires government effort or particularly government money. -kimmy

As usual, the Conservatives can't help shooting themselves in the foot. I watched Harper last night and thought he was excellent during his speech... but the controversy over the equal ridings workshop makes Harper's speech pretty much an afterthought in coverage of the event. Harper's promise that his party would produce no abortion legislation if they formed the government was (I thought) pretty significant, and the same sex marriage position-- same rights, different name-- is a compromise that only extremists on either side should take issue with. But Cheryl Gallant's leaflets overshadow Harper's reasonable positions on social policy. Gallant is just like Parrish... an MP who grandstands for a specific constituency at the expense of her party. -kimmy

Completely, utterly wrong. There was only one crash of a Valkyrie. And it wasn't due to technological failure: it was because an F-104 was sucked into the Valkyrie's wake during an ill-conceived photo-op, causing a mid-air collision. The surviving Valkyrie prototype flew for years afterward without incident, being used as a research test-bed by NASA during dozens of flights. The technological failures of the Valkyrie program were limited to very minor items on the first prototype #1-- a hydraulics leak, a landing-gear malfunction, and some problems manufacturing the high-temperature skin. These problems were completely solved in prototype #2. The Brabazon was conceived at a time when the impact of advancing technologies simply wasn't foreseen. This quote explains further: http://unrealaircraft.com/classics/brab.php -kimmy

Your statements have been simply that politically-motivated opposition to the registry contributed substantial sums to the cost overruns. I will grant you that much, subject to a couple of disclaimers: * the sums are substantial in raw dollars, but not very substantial in relation to the overall amount of the cost overruns. Politically-motivated opposition might have been an aggravating factor, but it is far from a complete explanation for what has gone on. * the effects being blamed on political opposition-- the delays and backlogs and higher cost of processing applications-- are likely in large measure a result of the registry's self-admitted problems with their computer system and unwieldy application forms, not opposition. -kimmy

Is it in my imagination that huge sums of money have been wasted and that the opposition to the registry appears to account for only a small portion of it, even if one believes the rationale offered? Is it my imagination that while in 2000 the registry program blamed backlogs on last-minute registrants, their own actions since then indicate that inadequate computer systems and overly complicated registration forms were the real problem? Is it my imagination that the government could clear up this issue and end this controversy simply by having an external audit performed and making the results public? Is it my imagination that the most likely reason they haven't already done so is that they're worried about what might be revealed? -kimmy

I think that is due more to the concessions made to Newfoundland over the oil revenues, In Ontario's case, that appears to have been the straw that broke the camel's back... but in other provinces the game has been going on for much longer, and it's a game that has been learned by studying how Quebec politicians operate. Trudeau did but since then it has been mainly bribes and vote buying that I have seen. Trudeau and Chretien's firm stances and Mulroney and Martin's accomodating attitudes are quite different, but I do believe that all 4 of them are sincere in their motivations. I do think they all wanted to solve the Quebec problem but they obviously had different ideas of how to approach it. Have you considered starting a Bloc Pocket party? I somewhat agree with this train of thought. Stay if you wish, go if you must. But if you choose to separate, we "TROCs" insist that it be a clean break. Separation should be just that, not a buffet where one may choose this and that, but pass by other things. -kimmy

While I agree, it should be pointed out that this is not just something Bombardier does in Canada: ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier ) ...and I'm sure is pretty common to a wide variety of enterprises in many areas. One of the most glaring examples is in professional sports, where in the US many teams are able to wrangle ridiculous public subsidies for the construction of new facilities. Carrot: "imagine all the jobs, and the economic activity, and land development, and spinoffs it'll create!" Stick: "...but if we can't get help building a new stadium, we'll have to consider moving the team somewhere else..." I am sure that similar carrot/stick discussion dominates the agenda when Bombardier representatives meet with local officials and government types, whether in Ireland or Canada or elsewhere. Unfortunately it seems like in any discussion involving subsidies, the threat that "if you don't, somebody else will" is pretty credible... -kimmy

The Valkyrie was a spectacular success from a technological standpoint. It was a failure only because (like the Avro Arrow and North American F-108 Rapier) it was no longer needed. The Arrow, Rapier, and Valkyrie were all casualties of the same thinking: that long-range bombers (and the need to intercept them) would be done away with by rapidly advancing missile technology. The Brabazon was like the Arrow in the sense that its failure was a result of market conditions that were difficult to foresee at the time it was conceived. It was unlike the Arrow in the sense that the Arrow was cutting edge technology, while the Brabazon was designed around huge piston-driven propellers, a much-inferior technology for this application than the jet engines which were already beginning to appear at the time the Brabazon was supposed to enter the market. On the Concord, sonic boom, and environmentalists... (taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_2707 ) So clearly, environmental opposition was not just an excuse to snub the foreigners, as the American government applied the same reasoning in pulling the plug on Boeing's project too. (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde_%28airplane%29 ) So... aside from concern over spiralling fuel costs and being banned from flying the plane over land, the airlines simply didn't have the money. At any rate, I think it's highly doubtful that British aviation was "lightyears" ahead of the Americans... if they had any edge at all, it appears to have vanished quite quickly in the 1950s as jet technology emerged and American development was quicker to capitalize on its potential. Further, I think the consolidation of the British aviation companies in the late 1950s/early 1960s is mirrored in Canada and the US, as numerous high-profile projects were cancelled and many aviation firms paid the price. It appears to me that changing military thinking was the cause of this, not political squabbling. -kimmy

It appears that CBC has picked this up in Canada. If that's the case, it's a clear signal that they're trying to break into the key "Under 65" viewer demographic that they've been shut out of in recent years. -kimmy

yeah, that would happen! I'm sure that everybody from Trudeau right through to Martin has been dealing in good faith... but obviously there are very different ideas of what the best way to address the situation is. I don't know that continuing to grant concessions to Quebec has made Quebec less likely to separate, but I do believe that it has made other provinces more aggressive in seeking their own concessions from the fedz. Even Ontario is now getting into the act, it appears. -kimmy

I didn't concede that the delays and backlogs cost hundreds of millions. I proposed a cap of $332 million as the absolote highest number which could have been caused by backlogs, delays, and Klein. Out of $2 billion that's not much. While you may be concerned about that under 15%, I'm much more interested in the over 85% of which very little seems to have been accounted for. While it might be politically appealing for you to blame Klein and last-minute registrations for the backlogs, the government's own information indicated that their computer system was unable to cope and had to be completely replaced. So which seems like the real reason for the backlog and which seems like a desperate excuse? And information now appears to indicate that gun registry costs are approaching 2 billion dollars... the last update we've had from the government had costs at a still-scandalous $629 million. Why haven't we gotten a new accounting of costs for 3 years? But as usual this is just another opportunity to bang your favorite drum. "The provincialists, children! The provincialists!" You go ahead and do that, I won't trouble you any further. -kimmy

I did not watch any of the programs regarding the Concorde. However, it's a documented fact that the North American Aviation company was flying Valkyrie prototypes in 1963, when the Concorde was still just a proposal. The Valkyrie really *was* techonologically lightyears ahead of anything else at the time. The Valkyrie was larger- 93 metric tons vs 79 metric tons empty, with a maximum take-off weight almost 60 metric tons heavier than the Concorde (243t vs 185t). Longer range- the Valkyrie was capable of 7900km, vs 7200km for the Concorde. Speed? The Concorde was capable of Mach 2.04 full throttle, the Valkyrie was proven capable of cruising at over Mach 3. The Valkyrie project also pioneered construction techniques for building high-temperature components that were used in (guess what) the Concorde, among others. To suggest that the Concorde was beyond the reach of American technology of the time is simply absurd. The proof has been standing in a hanger at the Wright-Patterson Air Force Museum since before the Concorde even made its first test flight. You can read about the magnificent Valkyrie here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XB-70_Valkyrie ...or here: http://www.labiker.org/xb70.html It is likewise absurd to suggest that "the Americans" killed the Concorde by refusing to buy it. The Americans killed their own SST project, the Boeing 2707 (which was being designed, like the Valkyrie, to meet far higher performance specifications than the Concorde) by pulling government funding from the research and development, under pressure from the environmental lobby. "The Americans" did not refuse to buy the Concorde to kill it. "The Americans" did not buy the Concorde because the government of the United States does not, generally speaking, buy civilian jetliners in any significant number. Airline companies make their own decisions as to which airplanes they wish to purchase. And purchasing a jet which is unacceptable for use over populated areas, and gets ridiculously horrid fuel economy, is poor business planning. An American company did, in fact, attempt to operate a couple of leased Concordes between Dallas and Washington, and found the enterprise simply wasn't economically viable. As I expect British Airways and Air France decided themselves was true for the whole Concorde experiment, which despite its name prestige and marketing cachet, was of very limited commercial value in any case. As for the Brabazon, it appears to have been a case of the classic quotation "The aim was right, but the target moved." -kimmy

I had to look up the Brabazon. It's interesting that you cite it as a "visionary concept" or an example of British aviation being "lightyears ahead of the Americans," when its commercial failure appears to have been because it was rather the opposite. At a time when the deHavilland Comet was already in service and the Boeing 707 was just a couple of years from revolutionizing air travel, "visionary" appears to be the last word one would use to describe the Brabazon. As for the Concorde, it was not technologically "light years ahead" of American capabilities. In fact the Concorde is a smaller, much slower version of the Valkyrie bomber which the US was already flight-testing at the time the Concorde was first proposed. Philosophically, the "visionary concepts" behind the Concorde were also behind their American counterparts: the Boeing 2707 program was cancelled due to environmental concerns and economic infeasibility back in 1971; Concorde was ultimately done in by the same issues 32 years later after a grand total production of just 14 aircraft in commercial service. One wonders if similar rationales were offered in an effort to justify the CF18 contract... -kimmy

I think Farscape kind of "jumped the shark" when they arrived at Earth. It was a great program, though. I'm quite enjoying the new Battlestar Galactica show! -kimmy

The government's figures for staffing costs of the program are apparently included in the $332 million "other" expenses. Even if *all* of the staffing expenses were cause by the backlog (and obviously they weren't) and *all* of the "other" expenses were staffing expenses, that puts the damage from delays at a maximum of $332 million. But that's only about 15% of the costs of this program! Nonsense. The waiving of fees is why we are considering $119 million instead of $2 million. The $2 million figure was arrived at by estimating that registration fees would raise $117 million to offset costs almost entirely. Let us just look at the $119 million figure and dispense with discussion of fees. And even in 2002, when the cost was pegged at "only" $629 million, we find that the computer system alone, the computer system which they had to buy even if everybody cooperated and nobody objected in the least, that computer system alone had cost twice the $119 million that the whole program was supposed to cost. -kimmy

Indeed. Brazil's Embraer, in particular, gets a great deal of subsidy. What solution there might be to this dilemna is unclear. However, I don't see that this has much bearing on this current discussion, where the question appears to be as to whether Bombardier's government connections are strong enough squish competitors within Canada. (During what era was this?) Has it been lost? A few minutes of checking indicated to me that Britain's aviation industry, all the companies from the Goode Olde Dayes of British aviation, were not disbanded but just consolidated. Companies such as Bristol, Vickers, and the aircraft division of English Electric merged in 1960 to form the British Aircraft Corporation. Hawker and DeHavilland and Armstrong-Siddeley Engines formed the Hawker-Siddeley Group, which existed until 1977, when it merged with BAC to form British Aerospace, which is still around as a successful entity in military and civilian aviation, as is Westland Helicopters. I have done some reading in regards to the aerospace industry in the post-war era in relation to the demise of the Avro Arrow and the development of supersonic flight during these years. It is my observation that a shift in military thinking during this time contributed greatly to changes within the aerospace industry, and the hardships that caused the mergers in British aerospace are just a reflection of the same trend that saw the cancellation of the Arrow and of several major US aerospace contracts in the late 1950s. Bombardier is large. I'm sure that their presense has many spin-off benefits in the places where they operate. However, as with any expenditure of government money, I feel that it is important to ask whether the benefits merits are proportional to the expense. -kimmy

Sauce for the gander? The sauce you're serving up has been slung around Parliament Hill for several years by ganders, or turkeys as the case may be, on the government side of the house as well as those in the civil service whose competence is under scrutiny over this matter. It has been phrased not as questions which need to be asked, but as facts which stand on their own. The question needing to be asked is: how valid is this excuse? Our friends at the CBC have put together a nice little summary. http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/guncontrol/ First of all, a pertinent figure: Let us keep this original cost estimate of $119 million in mind as we proceed. Now, first off, it is worth mentioning that there is a vast human tendancy for people to wait until deadlines to do anything. File taxes; homework assignments; term-papers; return those videos to Blockbuster... people wait until deadlines. H&R Block and Revenue Canada understand the phenomenon well and make staffing decisions accordingly. Why was the Firearms Registry unable to do the same? Nevertheless, we press on. So while everybody from procrastinating farmers to Ralph Klein has been tarred with the blame brush, a major factor in the mushrooming costs was that they set up an inadequate computer system which they later had to scrap and replace. Finally, some numbers. First off, I've got to point this out: uh... enough said. That's beside the point. The more important part: "$332 million for other programming costs, including money to pay staff to process the forms." Ok, so this is after the deadline, after the backlog, and they've put the cost of processing applications as a *part* of the $332 million. So in response to your question of how much of the cost has been because of the "refuseniks", the answer is uncertain, but it is less than $332 million. As far as blaming Alberta, I'll mention that Alberta was not the only group to challenge the legality of the gun registry. Alberta was joined by Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and the Territories in asking for a Supreme Court opinion. As well, native groups have challenged the registry. -kimmy

That is a cheap shot and quite uncalled for; I thought better of you Kimmy despite your clouded judgement ha ha, no, caesar! See, it's all part of the new give-and-take relationship that eureka and I apparently now have. I wouldn't want to be accused of being humourless, after all. -kimmy {"The jocularity, children! The jocularity!"}

Welcome! I hope that you are, indeed, unpolarized! We desperately need more unpolarized people at this forum! On to your message: I am in agreement. Aside from asking nicely, we've seen no action from the government on actually meeting those commitments we've agreed to. Indeed. I believe that people who care about greenhouse gases already do what they can to use fuel more efficiently. People who don't lead energy-efficient lives probably know about greenhouse gases but just don't care. Personally, seeing Rick Mercer's annoying face on my TV makes me want to go out and burn *more* fossil fuel in some form of protest. But I digress. I firmly believe that the government will have to do something firm, bold, and potentially unpopular to make people change their habits. A flat carbon tax on each liter of gasoline? An environmental levy placed on each gas-guzzling vehicle sold? And instead of general revenue, the money would go into an environmental fund to finance projects like (for instance) offering incentives for people who wish to upgrade their homes with better insulation and high-efficiency furnaces and appliances. Frankly I no longer believe that Paul Martin has the stomach to do so, and certainly not while he has a minority government. -kimmy