kimmy

Who in this thread is attacking gun control? I have read no complaints about gun control, but numerous complaints about the ridiculous cost of the gun registry. You recognize that gun control and the gun registry are separate concepts, but respond to attacks on the gun registry as if they were attacks on gun control. Why is that? -kimmy

I don't think the question is whether North Korea as a whole would choose to launch; the only opinion that matters is the guy giving orders. If he feels his regime is being brought down and his life is in danger, does the fate of the rest of the country matter a lot to him? -kimmy

Mount Ida was a picturesque backdrop for the lovely town of Salmon Arm, with the town nestled up against the mountain's northern slope at the north end of the Salmon River Valley. Sadly, like much of the Salmon River Valley, Mount Idea was shorn of much of its beautiful mantle of evergreens by the devastating forest fires of the late 1990s. Years later, the blackened scars of that blaze are still visible on the hills throughout the area, and it may be years more before the region regains the beauty it had when I first visited. That said, there's no vortex. There's no such thing as a vortex. Nobody wants to "educate-yourself.org" about such nonsense and drivel. Wilhelm Reich was an incompetent crackpot, not a scientist. Orgones do not exist. Crystals are just crystals. Mobius Coils are just a waste of wire. The trails behind jet-planes are water-vapor and exhaust, not mind-controlling chemicals. Cell-phone towers do not transmit mind-control waves. For goodness sake, make some effort to learn the difference between reality and science fiction. -kimmy

I confess I'm somewhat disappointed. Someone had promised to edumacate me on a great many things. I had wanted to hear about all the magical doors that would open for me if I were an avid nationalist instead of a parochial cynic. I had wanted to hear about what it is that makes Canada's union authentic and real, as opposed to the "artificial" unions that have broken apart over the past decade or so. I had hoped to hear some kind of response to my claim that even without provincial governments in Canada, there would still be regional issues that would create "us and them" thinking. I had hoped there might be some discussion of my suggestion that the issue is of fundamental human psychology, as people crave, seek out, and build, their own distinct identities. -kimmy

I think the response to the figures you gave on the results of the gun registry were dismissive because the "figures" you gave appear to have been pulled out of thin air. You gave no reason other than speculation to support your number of lives you believe have been saved. I think your figures got exactly as much attention as they deserved. I, on the other hand, actually did some research on the subject, for a MapleSyrup-related thread that appeared on this forum late last year. You're free to look it up using this forum's search functions, if you wish. The figures show no appreciable difference between years prior to the gun registry coming into effect and years afterward. There's only slight annual variations (some up, some down) on a trend that was going downward for years prior to the gun registry. I'm 100% in favor of gun control in Canada! I'm 100% glad that we have it! Let's not lose sight of the fact that we had gun control long before the gun registry. Let's not lose sight of the fact that it was working well, and would have continued to work well without the registry. -kimmy

Pretty far, I would say. Any individual woman has such a wide range of choices open to her that a woman of past ages probably couldn't have even imagined. The statistics you mention don't mean much when discussing an individual. As she approaches adulthood, a young woman has virtually the same options available to her as a young man. (I'm ignoring careers in professional sports, though it should be pointed out that biology excludes the overwhelming majority from men from careers in professional sports too.) That fewer women, in aggregate, choose certain career paths is not evidence that an individual woman doesn't have the opportunity to choose them. There might still exist certain barriers in certain areas (such as politics or possibly the highest reaches of business) that work against women. And I don't know what might be done about it... but it's likely a situation that few of us will ever be confronted by. I think in some respects women have more choices than men. For women, leaving work to be a stay-at-home parent is considered a valid (and even noble) choice; a man who chose to be a stay at home parent would likely face a stigma. Some relatives faced this situation; the wife, with twice the earning power of the husband, returned to work after her maternity leave; he stays at home to care for their child. This has been the source of some disapproving comments from other family members, so I can only wonder what "the guys" think of it. I do think there are some situations that for physiological reasons will never be completely fair between the sexes. Women will likely always be physically smaller and weaker and generally less able to protect themselves physically. I think that reproduction (and all the related issues) will always place a much higher burden on women; I don't see any sensible remedy to that. I think that sexually, women will always need to exercise extra caution. I think that for reasons relating to the basic wiring of the brain, there will always be a surplus of men seeking sex and a shortage of women willing to provide it, and this will continue to have complex implications in many aspects of our society. And none of these factors, as far as I can see, are issues that any amount of social engineering can correct. But I don't think any of that works against you as an individual, if you make good choices. -kimmy

You might want to punch an extra vent-hole or two in your orgone-accumulator. -kimmy

Personally my opinion is that the forum has become more confrontational and polarized of late. I find that some of the newer members, from both ends of the spectrum, have a style which tends more towards denouncement than discussion. (perhaps I shouldn't talk; others might have felt the same about me when I first arrived.) Whatever the cause, I think it's evident in a lot of the threads of late. When I log in, I'm somewhat expecting of finding myself in some kind of verbal warfare, and perhaps this affects mmy writing. I don't think I'm the only one; looking at many of the long-time users of this forum, I see a testiness in their posts that wasn't there earlier. I think August's departure will only make things worse, as he's been something of a moderating influence, and someone who has always tried to steer threads toward discussion rather than confrontation. And I'd assume that you would have a thicker skin. From a guy whose very signature ("It's not the end of the world, but you can see it from there") is a put-down of my home (I suspected as much, and I was right... yes, I looked it up), I would expect some give-and-take. -kimmy

You know, like in the movie. A spineless, simpering, obsequious servant, treacherous and immoral yet bound to service of power through its own lust for gain. Kind of like Howard Wilson was for Jean Chretien. -kimmy

greeeeeaaat idea for a thread, Terrible. -kimmy

I'm very sorry if my comments have put Greg in a difficult situation. I'll be very sorry if my comments play any role in August deciding to leave the forum. I would say that I'm very sorry if my comments have upset or offended anyone, but that would be a lie. As I have already said, I don't feel I've stepped outside of accepted standards on this forum. The "lefties" here malign the character and intelligence of their least favorite politicians on a regular basis; the rest of us have come to recognize it as an accepted practice. So why, then, is it suddenly unacceptible when the shoe is on the other foot? The same day I posted "de little scombag...", I Miss Trudeau posted a message inferring that Conservative Party supporters are trailer-park residents. He insults a broad group of people, I insult one man whose record is well known and open to discussion, and yet I'm the one that gets a reprimand? I consider that to be quite hilarious, actually. I feel that "scumbag" is as defensible a description of Chretien as the characterizations of Harper or Klein or Bush or Campbell that fly around on this message board without comment, and I don't apologize for it. I've already discussed some of the reasons why in the Gomery Inquiry thread. I also feel that "the little guy from Shawinigan" is among the most ironic political slogans I've ever heard, given "the little guy's" history of using his political clout, influence, legal resources, and even physical violence to bully and intimidate those who stand in his way. "The little guy..." is a slogan that is begging and screaming to be used in the manner I used it... so I don't apologize for that either. If Greg doesn't agree with my reasons, he can go edit out the offending comments and I won't complain, but I refuse to apologize, and I refuse to retract the remarks. Shakey, if you feel that "scumbag" is at all unfair to Chretien, I invite you to go participate in the discussion of that in the Gomery Inquiry thread. Either stand opposed, or step aside. -kimmy

Trying to look at it from a practical approach, it seems to me that the question is how to ensure that the women are being brought to Canada to fill legitimate positions, and not positions that exist only on paper. Or likewise that these women are not working as strippers for some minimal length of time before being turned into prostitutes by the gangs. It seems to me that the issue could (and probably should) be approached from an administration and enforcement standpoint, rather than a moralist standpoint. Of course, where organized crime is concerned, administration and enforcement are rather difficult no matter how thoughtful the rules are... the implementation somehow always misses the mark. -kimmy

(Black Dog scooped you with this article in the "Missile Shield" thread.) -kimmy

Friendly advice: you're not allowed to post the whole article-- it's copyright violation. Post a small portion that makes the key point, and if possible provide a web-link or source where readers can read more. -kimmy

History records that Ty Cobb was a legendary baseball player, but also a scumbag. Whether history will record that Chretien was a legendary PM, or great, good, mediocre, or poor, will remain to be seen. You obviously have a high opinion of his accomplishments in office; I am less enthusiastic. But however history grades Prime Minister Jean Chretien, we've seen enough of him to form opinions about Human Being Jean Chretien. Ty Cobb's heroics on the ball-field may have encouraged baseball fans, or at least Detroit Tiger partisans, to overlook his shortcomings as a human being. Likewise, Chretien's alleged accomplishments as Prime Minister may persuade avid nationalists, or at least Liberal partisans, to gloss over his shortcomings. I choose not to, though I'm neither an avid nationalist nor a Liberal partisan. I stand by "scumbag". It's a character description at least as well-supported, and maybe better-supported, as the character-attacks that are *routinely* leveled against Harper or Campbell or Klein or Bush or any other left-wing target-du-jour on this forum that pass without comment by either the administration or most forum members. -kimmy

What about the "Shawinigan handshake" incident where he left the safety of his RCMP escort to choke a protester? What about ordering his personal security detatchment to pepper-spray protesters? What about feigning ignorance about the pepper-spraying of the protesters? What about joking about the pepper-spraying of the protesters? What about using his personal influence to strong-arm people in the BDC (the "Shawinigate" scandal?) What about using his personal influence to expedite the parole of his son, serial criminal Michel Chretien? That seems like a pretty good start on "tawdry" to me. -kimmy

so... he might be a scumbag, but he's OUR scumbag, so you'll defend him regardless of his long and tawdry history? In other words, you have no problem with the jeering of politicians... as long as it's politicians you don't like. ...and Chretien isn't? -French? Check. -Scumbag? Check. -Speech impediment? Check. I don't get it. Where's the problem? -kimmy

Stick to the facts, not insults. Greg Admin I object. First off, "De Little Scombag from Shawinigawwwn" is a fair-use parody of Chretien's own slogan "The Little-Guy from Shawinigan." Secondly, it's not a blanket put-down of any group (unlike I Miss Trudeau's comment yesterday depicting CPC-supporters as trailer-park residents.) It's a comment specific to one individual whose public record is well-known and well documented; anybody wishing to dispute whether "scumbag" is a fair description of Chretien and his well-known public record is welcome to do so. And thirdly, as I Miss Reagan points out, this policy does not appear to be applied in a consistent manner. Describing Chretien as a scumbag is at least as well-supported by documented fact as the depiction of Bush as a lunatic, or of Harper as a hate-mongerer, or a number of other comments that fly around this message-board without response. -kimmy

Most people who have travelled in Alberta's northern areas probably recognize the Rochfort Bridge by sight; it's one of the longest wooden-trestle bridges in the world and it's quite scenic. I'll post a picture of it later. However, Rochfort Bridge is now famous for a different and sad reason, as 4 RCMP officers were killed during a bust at a marijuana grow-op. 4 officers armed only with pistols were slain by a suspect with a high-powered rifle, a man they'd had trouble with in the past. In following days there will probably be many people using this horrible incident to show that decriminalizing marijuana is a mistake. I will pre-emptively offer my response to that line of thinking. If marijuana were legal in Canada, it would be grown by legitimate businessmen instead of gangsters, criminals, and Hell's Angels. If marijuana were legal in Canada, grow operations would be the domain of Revenue Canada instead of the RCMP. If marijuana were legal in Canada, grow operators would protect their investments with accountants instead of rifles. That's my view. What's yours? -kimmy

In lastnight's keynote address at the Liberal convention, Michael Ignatieff expressed themes I've been developing in this thread: Yahoo News Article: Ignatieff's keynote address -kimmy

Oops, sorry. You guys all look the same to me. -kimmy

This discussion started in the "Anchorwoman killed in Iraq" thread in the US Politics forum. I felt that it should be continued here. First off, I must confess I seldom watch CBC news, and the reason is not that it's "run by the Lie-berals". The reason is that CBC's presense in Alberta has become all but irrelevant. Their evening news package is actually a mish-mash of both Calgary and Edmonton news items, as their cutback left them with just a skeleton staff in Calgary. The notion that two cities of now more than a million people each would be served by a single local newscast was a major miscalculation. I do not use the CBC for local news because their product is inadequate to the market. People who look at the CBC news' abyssmal ratings in Alberta might be tempted to jump to the conclusion that it's because Albertans think the CBC is "Pravda"; they should consider that the local news package sucks. Global and CTV both deliver vastly superior products in Edmonton and Calgary, and the ratings are first and foremost a reflection of this fact. I do, however, watch CBC Newsworld from time to time, and have seen little to support the opinion that they're more critical of the Liberals than the privately-owned media. Certainly the CBC doesn't shrink from critical stories; I question whether they pursue them with the same vigor as CanWest, however. (Some will claim this is because of CanWest's slant, not CBC's). CBC also gives a lot of air-time to left-leaning features and documentaries, and a platform for left-leaning academics. I would be very skeptical as to whether they've given a similar platform for people with opposing views. -kimmy

I haven't determined anything. I've merely pointed out that two similar cases are not being treated in a similar matter by the right. I actually wasn't referring to you, I was referring to the posters who determined that Nineveh is "propaganda" with apparently nothing more than "US-funded" to support that conclusion. As I already said, and speaking only for myself (apparently I'm "the right" around here ) I've never considered the CBC to be "Pravda", and I think those that do are hardly representative of "the right" as a whole. Myself and others *are* concerned with media bias. Don't confuse the questioning of editorial slant with the claim of propaganda. And (at least here at Mapleleafweb) for every person claiming the CBC's government funding biases their agenda, you'll find someone claiming that corporate media's dependence on advertising biases their agenda, or that CanWest's Jewish ownership biases their agenda. I think that media bias is a legitimate issue, and it's hardly the exclusive domain of right wingers. And I would hope that one could ask questions of this nature without being called "paranoid" or having someone claim you're calling the CBC "Pravda". This previous post of mine was meant to mirror the rhetoric coming from the right on state sponsored media. So again, my question is: Why does the right make these claims about entities such as the CBC and BBC, and then turn around and defend an American instance of state sponsored media. I think the question deserves an answer. And my answer is contained in the preceding discussion about slant versus propaganda. I don't doubt for a moment that Nineveh is slanted in favor of the newly elected government of Iraq; I don't think that's the same as propaganda. And, as I've sought to point out, the same question can be asked of the lefties, as some of the comments in this thread demonstrate. I have actually looked at various national news networks in Canada because of this issue. Those that refuse to watch the CBC because it is "run by the Lie-berals" might be surprised to learn that the CBC tends to give a rougher ride to the ferderal liberals than any other network, on almost any given day. If you don't believe me, try it for yourself. Again, I was thinking of Caesar and Shakey, not yourself, when I said "they". If you've made the effort to actually compare coverage of various media outlets in Canada, then good for you. And if you wish to discuss this further, I'm up for it. We should start a separate thread in the Federal Politics area, though. I'll go do that now. -kimmy

And yet, when the same "evidence" is raised about a US funded media outlet in Iraq, the right wing among us can't bring themselves to condemn that too. What is it about the right that prevents them from applying the same criticisms across the board? I don't think I've ever called the CBC a propaganda organ. I may be concerned with bias (as I am with privately owned media outlets as well) but I've never mistaken them for a propaganda organ. Meanwhile, the wonder-friends here have determined that Nineveh TV is a propaganda organ, based solely on a description that could apply equally to the CBC. Yet they've never for a moment doubted the CBC's objectivity as a news source. So where's the hypocrisy *really*? Using similar criteria, one could likewise argue that the Germans were in better shape under the Third Reich than after its fall, yes? Don't ever say I won't quote myself. Ok, so on the one hand you're painting this incident as a rejection by Iraqis of US-funded media. But on the otherhand you're saying you're not under the assumption that the insurgents speak for the majority of Iraqis. So, what evidence to you have to indicate how the majority of Iraqis felt about Nineveh TV? There's an assumption central to your argument: Actually, that's not certain at all. It ignores the factional aspect of the situation in Iraq. Elements within the Sunni minority will attack institutions they perceive as tools of the Shiite majority long after the US has left. -kimmy

That's a big assumption. Given the expenses racked up by the inquiry already, starting another inquiry if this one is shut down might be a dangerous political decision for Martin. Likewise, people within his own party ranks are opposed to the inquiry, Chretien is putting Martin in a tough spot. Starting over from scratch could be viewed as a huge waste of money. But failing to deliver a public inquiry on ad-scam would be breaking one of Martin's key promises. Paul Martin's willing to vouch for Gomery. That's good enough for me. -kimmy