kimmy

Yes, I agree that there is certainly a parallel between a country that invades our airspace by launching a nuclear missile through it, and a country that invades our arespace by launching an interceptor missile through it. However, in the situation described, I think the invading of Canadian airspace is rather low on the totem-pole of rogue activities, don't you? However, if you do sincerely feel that invasion of Canadian territory is the key issue in determining who we should view as rogue states, then I imagine you're quite furious with the Danes, whose occupation of Hans Island in Canada's north is undoubtably a far more serious offence against Canadian sovereignty than the transition of a missile which would only be in Canadian airspace for a matter of minutes. Given the ... er, "outrage" which Canada as a whole feels over the Hans Island "crisis", I get the feeling that sovereignty is an issue that Canadians care about when it suits them to. I wonder if by 'assert' you actually mean 'enforce'. A state can certainly 'assert' its sovereignty through diplomatic means. I suppose you're right. Very well, "enforce" or "protect", then. Other than semantics, do you have any issues with the statement? -kimmy

No. I propose that the US will not ask for Canadian permission before using their BMD system over Canadian territory, any more than some hypothetical rogue nation would ask Canadian permission to fire their hypothetical nuclear missile over Canadian territory in the first place. Therefore, I feel that Canada's opportunity to assert sovereignty in this matter begins (and ends) with having Canadian personnel involved in the BMD system. I propose that Paul Martin knows this. I propose that as Jack Layton asserts, Paul Martin's efforts to obtain some "protocol" for asserting Canadian sovereignty will result in, basically, Canadian participation in the BMD system. Except, see, it won't be *called* that. It'll be called "asserting our sovereignty." Which is a very key distinction to gullible people, I imagine, but a very fictional distinction to objective people. -kimmy

In a little bit of denial about the Black Plague, are we? pfff. That was invented by Illuminati geneticists in the 14th century. -kimmy

Got any proof or evidence to back up your claim that the CBC is influenced by the federal government? I think people have cited government selection of CBC directors, and CBC's annual dependence on the government for funding as supporting arguments. -kimmy

You might not have the Shockwave extension installed for your browser. Shockwave is widely used on the internet for animation, short films, and a variety of multimedia possibilities. The browser extension is (I believe) available for all popular operating systems and browsers, and contains no advertising, spyware, or spam, and is free and requires no registration. Check out http://www.shockwave.com for details. -kimmy

Yeah right; now the torture in prisons is okay, hmmm In your closed mind, only. What about the election? You remember that? With the purple fingers and all that? -kimmy

Politics Watch: some quotes Yeah, but why bother? Whether Canada's PM gives permission or not. It'd be beyond naive to imagine the Americans would spend the billions to develop the capability of defending themselves from an attack, then not use that capability because the PM of some other country didn't give permission. Stockwell has it right, of course. In a situation where BMD would be used, time would be of crucial importance. I'm a little concerned that Stockwell is stealing my material, but oh well. Paul Martin contends that he's not naive and that some sort of agreement can be worked out. Yeah, not a new issue or new problem because those protocols have been part of NORAD. But we're participants in NORAD. If we arranged some kind of protocol by which we're informed and consulted on BMD in real-time, then ... aren't we participating in BMD as well? Jack Layton phrases it thusly: In other words, Martin makes a great show of "standing up to the Americans", for the benefit of the Caesars and Shakeys of our country, then enters into a NORAD-style arrangement by which Canadians could be part of this "consultation" process, essentially getting us into BMD through (as Layton aptly puts it) the backdoor. -kimmy

Ok, now what is De Little Scombag from Shawinigawwwn up to? CTV: Chretien files to remove Gomery What's the point? He's already testified, in manner that all of his fans agree was just super. None of the activities which Gomery has been critical of seem to be linked to Chretien. Chretien himself has said that if anybody within the administration of the program was involved in wrongdoing, they should be investigated and charged... so why is he now interfering in the process? If this succeeds, Chretien will have further undermined his unlucky successor. -kimmy

Is there any arguing that the Democrats are in serious trouble? -kimmy

Aren't a disproportionately large number of Armed Forces personnel from Quebec? -kimmy

You forgot "US-funded = propaganda." What makes you so sure that this TV station is a propaganda organ for the US government? I read nothing to indicate that the station's editorial policies are US-determined. What if, for instance, the station's editorial direction comes from the popularly-elected Iraqi government? -kimmy

I do kind of agree with this part. Asking questions shouldn't be a crime in a free country. But I don't believe in the Illuminati, the ZOG, the Gnomes of Zurich, the Stonecutters, the Shadow Men conspiracy, or any of the other mythical entities which are supposedly behind the scenes running all affairs. (I do kind of believe that De Shawinigawwwn Mafia runs all of Canada from a golf-course in Quebec, but that's another issue...) -kimmy

Obama seems like a very impressive young man and might be the Democrats' best choice if they decide to go with something fresh instead of trying to be Republican Lite. He's becoming known as a tremendous orator. He won election by a monumental landslide in November, although with the disclaimer that he was running against notorious nutbar Alan Keyes (and before that, disgraced sex-pervert Jack Ryan.) There's still the nagging question in the back of my mind, though... could a man named "Obama" become president in the US? I'm not even 100% sure that a black man could be elected president, let alone one with a foreign-sounding name. -kimmy

No, that's is exactly what we are NOT saying. Americans do not speak for Iraqis neither do the other terrorists. Well, before the elections we heard over and over that Iraqis don't want US-sponsored elections either, with violence from radicals cited as evidence. As it turns out, the silent majority of Iraqis turned out to be fairly happy with the US-sponsoredelections. And now we're hearing the claim, again based on violence from radicals, that Iraqis don't want US-sponsored media. Can you blame me for wondering whether the silent majority of Iraqis agree? Can you blame me for wondering whether when the radicals start blowing up power-stations, people will be claiming that Iraqis don't want US-sponsored electricity? I also question how board-members decided that this station is a propaganda-organ of the US government. I do not know the editorial policy of the station (do you?) but the phrase "US-funded' does not equate to pro-US propaganda. It's entirely possible, for instance, that the station might be run by Iraq's fledgling government, with funding from the US. -kimmy

What a lot of generalizations being thrown around. First off, I'll mention that I seriously doubt that most young adults today know much more about sending probes to Titan than young adults in 1930. Second, I'll claim that I think well-educated young adults of today probably know far more than well-educated young adults of 1930. I have no studies or surveys to back this up, just the fact that people are exposed to far, far more information of far more types. There are more *kinds* of knowledge than there were 75 years ago. Science of today has learned so many things that were not understood 75 years ago. Like a snowball rolling down a hill builds on itself, the collective ball of knowledge has grown enormously since then. We've inherited so much knowledge from the work of prior generations. And what may have been cutting-edge knowledge at the times Watson & Crick, or Einstein, or Heisenberg, or countless others were making these profound leaps in our collective knowledge base, this has trickled down to become common knowledge. Any good highschool student in 2005 can tell you the basics of the atom or genetics; not in 1930. Thirdly, much ado is being made of the not-so-good highschool students of 2005, or the not-so-educated young adults. I would propose that some people are simply not suited, either through aptitude or temperment, to academics. I would suggest that the people who in 1930 dropped out of school by grade 8 to work on the farm or join the army or fix automobiles, are now being forced to stay in school longer. I think that the kid who quit school at 14 to help with the farm in 1930, has to stay in school until he's 18 in 2005, because there's no farm for him to work on and he probably has little chance of becoming a tradesman without a highschool diploma, or because he's not allowed on a job-site until he's an adult, or at least because of social and parental pressure to graduate from highschool. Society needs laborers in 2005, just as in 1930 or 1830. I think that thanks to urbanization of our country, the unacademic type of young person is a lot more visible today than they used to be. I would suggest that the farm-working kid of 1930 and the "vocational-ed" kid of 2005 are probably the same guy, under different social circumstances. The farm-kid of 1930 could start doing his thing earlier; the vocational-ed kid of 2005 has to cool his heels until he's 18 before he can become a roofer or drive a forklift or become an apprentice in a skilled trade or whatever it is he's heading for. And there is nothing wrong with him being suited to that kind of work, no more than there was anything wrong with a kid deciding to leave school to help on the farm. It's valuable, if unglamourous, work that society needs done. And if the people who are doing that work seem crude or foul-mouthed or unintelligent to you, I'd suggest that they probably were in 1930 as well, but you didn't see them because they were driving a tractor in the country instead of riding to work on the bus. -kimmy

If it's not relevant, then I guess it'll just never be used. If it's not effective, then I guess there's no need to worry about a missile being shot down over Canada anyway. Which do you think would be more hazardous and costly to Canadians: a nuclear missile being shot down over Canada's high arctic, or a nuclear missile detonating in New York City? The question wasn't whether US invasions of Afghanistan or Iraq were good ideas. The question was, if a US President has a chance to save a huge number of lives by intercepting a nuclear missile before it detonates, doesn't he have to try? Any moral person would recognize that preventing the carnage is by far the #1 priority in a situation where BMD would be used. Trying to make the discussion about US foreign policy or friendly fire is a dodge. -kimmy

Are we making the assumption that a tiny minority of armed radicals speak for Iraqis as a whole? -kimmy

Seriously, caesar, do you think for even a microsecond that a US President-- ANY US President, not just Dubya-- would hesitate to use BMD if he had a chance to save lives, whether the Canadian PM agreed or not? If the choice is between saving the citizens you're sworn to protect at the expense of offending your neighbor, or sacrificing those lives to avoid causing offense, it would be *criminal* to choose the latter. If some US President had a chance to prevent a huge number of deaths by using BMD, he has to do it. That's his first obligation. If he doesn't do it, he should be removed from office and put on trial. -kimmy

Only if they (the USA government) respected international laws which we all know they do not. Stop the insulting nick names; that is being childish and we were told not to play these types of insulting childish games. What would the point of demanding Canadian consultation before using BMD? How stupid would someone have to be to imagine that the Americans would take "no" for an answer in any event? *ring-ring* "Hello, this is Paul Martin's personal assistant. This call better be hella-important, because the Prime Minister is giving an address to the First Nations Youth Athletics Development Committee." "Howdy. This is Dubya. This is kinda urgent. There's some kinda nuke or somethin like that heading for New York City, and we can try and shoot it down, but we gotta act fast and the Premier there or whatever his name is has to give permission or somethin." "One moment please, Mr Bush." (pause) "Hello, this is, uh, Paul Martin." "Howdy. This is Dubya. This is kinda urgent. There's some kinda nuke or somethin like that heading for New York City, and we can try and shoot it down, but we gotta act fast and we gotta get your permission before we can fire up the BMD thingy." "Well, George, I'd like to help, but the polls say that Canadians don't support BMD, so I'm probably going to say no. Sorry." *click* I mean, riiiiiight. What possible answer other than "yes" is acceptible in that instance? Perhaps Ottawa would create a new BMD hotline. It would be staffed by a man named Marc-Andre or Jean-Paul or Pierre somethingorother, a long-time friend of the Liberal Party. He would be paid approx $180,000 a year. His job function would be to pick up the phone and immediately say "Yes." -kimmy

Maybe they do. Then again, maybe it's the alcohol industry. Or the petrochemical industry. Or pulp and paper interests. Or menacing phonecalls from the Hell's Angels. Maybe it's a whole collection of things. Really, who knows. There's a lot of people for whom legalizing marijuana would be bad for business. -kimmy

I have a highly developed sense of humour. Trust me, I know funny when I see it. I'm more laughs than a barrel full of monkeys. Believe it. I was wondering, when you're cruising around whichever 3rd rate forums you visit when you're not here, and you see people spreading this fiction about BMD detonating nukes in Canadian skies, are you going to speak up and mention your new-found understanding of nuclear weapons, or are you going to keep quiet because there's no Kimmy around to keep people honest? -kimmy

Will anybody notice? uh, probably not. Then again, people didn't really notice Stephane Dion's western swing either... I considered attending his talk at the U on speculation that there might be free donuts and coffee, but had to wash my hair that day. If my shoddy French language skills have not led me astray, the article indicates that Mario is heading west in the belief that westerners are more likely to get with his message of decentralization than other Canadians. Probably he's right. -kimmy

I think that's true, unfortunately. There's the "ivory tower" outlook, and then there's the "playground" outlook, and while discussing it in ivory tower terms is fine for us on a message board, I think some consideration needs to be given to the child who will actually be out in the playground. Having said that, there are so many unspeakably shitty heterosexual parents in our society that the idea of excluding people who might very well make excellent parents is very depressing to me. I was watching the news yesterday and saw the Edmonton woman who was bitching about the daycare that accidentally locked her son inside (she was late picking up her son because she'd been in a bar drinking all afternoon, of course.) And watching this idiot struggle to form complete sentences, watching her disrupted speech patterns, I felt quite certain that she's got permanent brain damage, most likely self-inflicted by chemical means. She had all the mannerisms of long term substance abusers who've damanged themselves beyond repair. And she's got another child, quite visibly from a different father than the first. Her kids just don't stand a chance. They'll spend more time in juvenile detention than in high-school. There's no doubt in my mind. To think that this dust-head can go have as many kids as she wants, from as many fathers as she wants. To think that some of the intelligent, successful, responsible, articulate homosexual couples we've seen on TV during the gay marriage debates might be excluded from raising children by biased adoption procedures. To me, that's depressing. Gay parents won't be the ruination of our society. Stupid parents will. -kimmy

If you sincerely think Canada is that bad, then put on your asbestos underwear and start praying. My thoughts on the discussion at hand: I wouldn't get involved in anything like that, but I don't feel any need to condemn those that do. From a simple perspective of health, bringing people prone to high-risk behavior into your bed is a dumb idea. Somebody who's into "swinging" is just not somebody you should sleep with, not matter what precautions you take. As mom always warned you... "you don't know where that thing's been." I also think introducing others into the most intimate parts of your relationship has the potential for unexpected consequences to your relationship. Joey Lauren Adams' character in "Chasing Amy" philosophises on the emotional dangers of a threesome... and while a Kevin Smith movie may not be the most insightful source of relationship advice, I agree with what she said. -kimmy

Those are possibilities, I suppose. They could happen; I'm not sure that they would, but the potential is there. In any case I'm glad that the US is not an isolationist country. Despite the angry claims of some, I think that on balance the world is a better place than it would be without US participation in international affairs. -kimmy