kimmy

Stripped of all the verbiage, all the posturing, all the stylistic window-dressing, and all the attempts at abuse, Trial and Error's argument is pretty basic. -George Bush Jr is a mass murderer -mass murderers are insane -therefore, George Bush Jr is insane. Perhaps it looks more impressive if you say it with 3 pages rather than 3 lines, but that's pretty much it. I will leave debating the definition of insanity to Tawasakm, who seems much more qualified. However, I'm interested in the argument over whether Bush Jr is a mass murderer. His military actions and support of the death penalty have been cited as support for that view. Is any leader who has used military force a mass murderer? -kimmy

"Defending ourselves"? Uh, remember those peace-keeping and humanitarian missions Canadians are supposedly so proud of? Who do you think does that stuff? Remember our "DART" team that went to the tsunami-devastated areas last month? DART is a part of the Canadian forces. And as I recall, DART sat around for a week while they figured out how to get Canadian equipment to the places it was needed. Didn't we ultimately have to rent a Russian jalopy freight-plane to get our stuff where it was needed? In the days after the disaster, people needed clean water and we could have given it to them if we could have just got our crap there sooner. We did get our stuff there eventually, and I'm sure our people did a superb job and helped many people, but how much more could have been done if we could have only had our people there sooner? -kimmy

That is a completely different story. Canada does support rebuilding Iraq; we didn't believe that the invasion was appropriate. That is a big difference and quite expecting in our Peace keeping type of role. I completely agree with caesar here (which may be a first... ) I have also wondered whether things in Iraq would not have become such a mess had Canada and other nations become involved in the process sooner. -kimmy

Do you not feel that attempting to shut down the inquiry has the appearance of trying to obstruct justice? Do you not think that permitting the inquiry to be stopped would be a violation of one of Paul Martin's key campaign promises? -kimmy

This is just infuriating. There's an obvious appearance that they were attempting to use police resources to silence their critics. I can't think of anything more damning that you could say about a police force than that. What should be done about it? A public investigation by an independent authority would be my first choice. "Medical leave" my ass. And if Rayner suggests an internal investigation, he should be fired on the spot. This is so far beyond that. The public faith in the police has to be restored, and I think that requires an open, public investication by someone independent. -kimmy

No, I don't agree at all. He promised to defend Canadian values of civil rights, and he promised more democracy for MPs. So far, at least up to the point of the vote going against the legislation, he's delivering both. Are the two not at cross-purposes? Has he only failed to deliver on the promise to "defend the Charter come hell or high water" if the bill is defeated? I would think that in a situation where this bill could potentially be defeated, Martin's promises re: the Charter trump his proposals for more free votes. Incidentally, how close is this vote going to be? So far we know that 1 NDP and about 95 Conservatives will be voting against it. I think I might have read in the Toronto Star that roughly 1/3 of the Liberal GTA caucus of 40 are considering voting against the bill. If that 1/3 figure was true for the whole Liberal backbench, that could be possibly 32 Liberals not supporting the bill. That could be 128 "nays". I have not heard how Chuck Cadman or the BQ caucus are leaning, but this has the potential to be be defeated, I would think. Unless (as rumoured) the Liberal MPs opposed to the bill are being "encouraged" to treat the vote as "attendance optional". -kimmy

riveting

I don't care about his motives. The point is he promised more free votes and here is an example of delivering it. He's doing what he said he'd do. Perhaps as a Conservative you simply don't recognize that when you see it. I can concede that allowing his MPs a free vote on this issue is a little green check-mark in favor of his "Democratic Reform" promises. Can you concede that allowing his MPs to vote against this bill is a big fat red "X " against his promises to "defend the Charter" come hell or high water? -kimmy

A question for Eureka: What would you prefer the government do with this issue? The Liberals pose it as an "either/or"-- either we change the legal definition, or we use the Notwithstanding Clause. Do you agree with that assessment, or are there other options you feel the government has not looked at? And if using the Notwithstanding clause really is the only alternative to changing the legal definition of marriage, are you in favor of using it, or do you feel that is too extreme a measure? (I do not single you out as an attack on your position, as I don't personally object to either outcome in this debate. I just ask because you're more often than not a supporter of the liberal/Liberal side of things; I'm curious to know how you think they could handle this issue more to your liking, and that of other Liberal party supporters (and MPs) who aren't onside with Paul Martin on this issue.) -kimmy

CBS news report or did they? This raises some intriguing questions, I believe. * is the crack G.I. Joe ™ commando team in Iraq? * has the evil Cobra ™ squad joined forces with the insurgency? * will giving in to the insurgents' demands just encourage them to kidnap more plastic action figures? Mostly I worry about how poor Pentagon Barbie will feel if G.I. Cody comes home in a box other than the one he's sold in. -kimmy

"Achieve a better understanding of them"? We're not exactly talking Baudelaire or Rimbaud here, TS... Alberta, as distinct from the entirety of Canada, has its own history. The people who came to Alberta are from largely different backgrounds than the people who settled the older parts of Canada. Alberta has different industry. The people who built Alberta have their own achievements. In anticipation that you're going to tell me none of that is sufficient to view Alberta as a separate entity within Canada, I again ask you to elaborate. You said Quebec is Yes because it predates confederation as a distinct entity. What about BC? It predates confederation as a distinct entity as well. What about Ontario? Can Bob Rae really call himself a Proud Ontarian, or is he full of crap in your opinion? I'd like you to talk more about how you're drawing these lines you seem to feel are there. -kimmy

By pointing out how few people lived in Alberta 100 years ago? I don't think that's ever been in dispute, Eureka. My dad's family wasn't here 100 years ago, and my mothers family just slightly longer. But again, I don't think the fact that they came from elsewhere or that they haven't been in Alberta for great lengths of time diminishes what they did here after arriving. As I wrote previously, If it hadn't been for the will and money of Great Britain, the United States would have taken all of this long ago, Ontario and Quebec included. What of it? You probably wouldn't have grown to become a successful (whatever it is you do) if your parents hadn't provided you with food and shelter in your childhood. Does that diminish your pride in the things you've accomplished since? -kimmy

I took the following portion of your previous message to mean that you felt a lengthy association was a part of the concept of pride: Indeed, a lot of the people who have recently come to Alberta from elsewhere are still proud of their roots (particularly the Newfoundlanders!) but I don't feel that the fact that someone originated from someplace else necessarily makes it less appropriate for them to feel pride in their new home. For instance, some of the proudest Canadians are new immigrants (recall Daniel Igali at the Sidney Olympics.) I somewhat disagree. The flood of immigrants who came to the prairies in the early 20th century weren't brought to Canada generally, they were brought to the prairies specifically. In the case of my mother's people it was a promise of religious freedom in exchange for settling the prairies. In the case of my father's, it was simply the promise of land. They weren't being offered land on Yonge Street or promised religious freedom in exchage for opening shops in Montreal... the invitation was specific to the prairies. And there wasn't really a whole lot of Canada on the prairies at that time. The population of Alberta was under 75,000 at 1901; it quintupled within 10 years. The people people who arrived during those years were building part of Canada, but they were building something new and distinct from the parts of Canada that existed before they arrived. That they might have been Swedes or Ukrainians or Ontarians before they came west ought have little bearing on their taking pride in what they acomplished afterward. -kimmy

Uh, language? Religion? History? Law? Cultural attitudes? You certainly don't have to convince me of any of that. However, what I'm hoping for from Mr Terrible is some indication of where he feels the line is drawn and why he feels that way. Quebec's an easy one... what about Nova Scotia? So far, Sweal has offered only Quebec's status prior to confederation as a justification of why he considers it a spleen rather than a lobe of a larger liver. The same could be said of most of the other provinces, excepting Saskatchewan, Alberta, and arguably Manitoba. I find the argument being offered to me... that predating confederation is the key distinction... lacks something. BC's a pride-inspiring entity because it existed as a political entity prior to 1867, while Alberta is not as it was formed later? When in practice they are equivalent in every sense and fulfill the same role in their citizens' lives? No, I'm not buying that that's a key distinction. The history here might not be as long as in other parts of the country, but as I've mentioned, it is something I feel closely connected to by my family's involvement in it. Do achievements only have value after they've been expired for X number of generations? eureka seems to argue that indeed, not being far enough in the past is a knock on the idea that Albertans might be proud. Again, not particularly convincing as I see it. I suspect you're correct. -kimmy

Well then, that is credentials for diagnosing Bush's psychotic break down. Remember the old saying: "It takes one to know one" One doesn't need to be a doctor to recognize mental deficiencies. This is somewhat like arguing that stupid-people are uniquely qualified to run the school board. -kimmy

Actually, Maritin did take those as fairly high profile positions during the election. I disagree. While Martin (after assuming office) did make some talk of more free votes and more active backbenchers in his "Addressing the Democratic Deficit" action plan, those where not campaign issues of any note. -kimmy Interesting twist, kimmy, but your original point is belied by the facts. See? "democratic deficit" was a clear Martin policy. Whether it was an "issue" is not the issue. Do you get a paycheck from the Rightista party? As I said, I acknowledge that he made mention of "Addressing the Democratic Deficit ™" after taking office, however I maintain that it was not a significant issue during the election. If you were to interpret the Liberal election victory as a mandate to do any one thing, it would almost certainly have to be either "defend the Charter", or "defend the Canada Health Act." I don't recall the exact content of the Liberals' campaign promises in regards to democratic reform, but it seems to me that it revolved around relaxing the rules of what would constitute a vote of confidence. Which is swell, except that one of the first things Martin did after winning the election was have a stare-down with the opposition leaders on the issue of relaxing the rules of what would constitute a vote of confidence. As well, I believe Martin was in favor of free votes on issues of conscience, not issues of national policy. To hear him talk, "defending the Charter" is an issue of the highest national importance... so why isn't he even bothering to ensure his own backbenchers are onside? I think if you're being honest, you'll concede that the reason Martin is allowing a free vote for his backbenchers is political expediency, not his enthusiasm for democratic reform. -kimmy

Several reasons. First off, because Caesar, PocketRocket, and Terrible Sweal had already addressed the issue. Secondly, because it's off-topic for this thread. This thread was supposed to be about the politics of the SSM debate, not the morality of it. We have a Morality and Religion board on this forum; I believe the morality of SSM has been discussed there ad-nauseum. Why should this discussion get sidetracked by an off-topic argument that's already been beaten to death? Third, I thought the remarks spoke for themselves; comment wasn't necessary. Same reason nobody bothered to respond to WageSlave's remarks in the "What's an Albertan?" thread: stupid and pointless and didn't require a response. -kimmy

That's cynical. I like it. But I'm not sure I agree. The same-sex marriage issue seems like a tricky one for the Liberals, with a price to be paid whatever the outcome. If they were looking for a distraction, I think they'd go with something with more show and less substance... like having Carolyn Parrish get together with Rick Mercer again, or something. Or having Judy Sgro sue that guy who... hey, wait a minute.... -kimmy

Actually, Maritin did take those as fairly high profile positions during the election. I disagree. While Martin (after assuming office) did make some talk of more free votes and more active backbenchers in his "Addressing the Democratic Deficit" action plan, those where not campaign issues of any note. And I don't recall the Liberals ever saying anything to the effect of being a "big tent." They're pretty proudly the opposite, in fact. Harper made some "big tent" type remarks in explaining that he wouldn't remove Randy White and Cheryl Gallant from the party because in his view the Conservative party can have a range of views; I believe he was somewhat blasted for saying so; a tent big enough to hold Gallant and White is perhaps too big for the liking of most Canadians. I got the impression that it was somewhat a point of pride for the Liberals that they were not accomodating of views they viewed as being outside their core values. The Liberals made "defending the Charter" a central issue of the campaign, somewhat at Layton's expense... he's justified in reminding them of that now. -kimmy

From what I've read, it seems a lot of people believe that William Randolph Hearst was the leader of the campaign to create public fear and hysteria about marijuana. I have read a couple of rationalizations as to why he would do so: one is that as a stakeholder in DuPont, he viewed hemp fibre as a competitor to synthetic fibres that he stood to earn money from. A second is that as a stakeholder in forestry, he viewed hemp fibre as a competitor to wood pulp. Is it bad that marijuana has been demonized? Quite possibly. Hemp is a useful plant for reasons that go beyond producing marijuana. Hemp produces high-quality natural fibre that is useful for paper and cloth. And I have read that hemp is almost unrivalled in its ability to generate biomass quickly. While forests take years to replenish themselves after being harvested, hemp is an annual plant. In short, banning marijuana has deprived us of a plant that could potentially be put to great use and reduce our overuse of our forests. -kimmy

Dunno so much that I was blaming Junior. One doesn't generally "blame" someone for having a mental illness. I didn't say you were blaming him for having a mental illness. I said you were blaming his actions on mental illness. There's a key difference between the two. You seem to wish to come across as some sort of intellectual; if that's the case you might want to read more carefully. (and learning to operate the "quote" tags might help, too.) Ooh, zing! Don't patronize me. Yes, I gathered as much. Gee, can you spare a minute to run that one by me again, Kimmy. Am I to understand that you are citing a definition? Let me quickly re-phrase what you said so you can go back and think about it again. Critical thinking is the act of debating Junior's actions as stupid, uninformed, or short-sighted. Critical thinking: The disciplined ability and willingness to assess evidence and claims, to seek a breadth of contradicting as well as confirming information, to make objective judgments on the basis of well supported reasons as a guide to belief and action (etc) Evaluating Dubya's actions on their merits would be an example of critical thinking. Dismissing Dubya's actions as "crazy" on the basis of some half-baked article by a self-described kook would be an example of the opposite. Ooh, zing again! Because I'm immensely brilliant in so many areas of human endeavor that before I choose my path in life, I wish to look at all my options to see what suits me best. Or because I thought it would be interesting. That was weaker than a baby kitten. But keep trying. So, weighing Dubya's actions on their merits (or lack thereof) is simplistic, but filing them under "crazy" is bigtime sophistication? I think you might have that wrong. Dismissing things that you don't agree with as "insane" is about as simplistic as it gets. How many times have you heard the 9/11 hijackers described as "madmen"? Thousands, probably. Insightful? No, the opposite. Dismissing the hijackers as "madmen" ignores that there are complex causes of the situation. Filing their actions under "crazy" does a disservice to the cause of understanding of the world we live in. Likewise, blaming the American response on some kind of mental illness (a fictitious one, yet!) is entirely simplistic. It does not further anyone's understanding of the issues at stake. It's looking for an easy answer when the real answers are difficult. I guess you're just on a higher plane. That's not my take on him, that's his own take on himself. He had a psychotic break from reality: that's his own description of how he became "spiritually aware". You're certainly free to put as much stock as you like in "the good doctor's" views; just be aware that he's probably not going to be published in the New England Journal of Medicine anytime soon. -kimmy

You view Canada as a single liver (with Quebec apparently associated as a spleen, or something...) while I view Canada as more like different organs comprising a single body. Maybe that's a difference of opinion we just won't be able to get past. Still hoping you'll expand upon what you see as the key distinction that makes Quebec a spleen rather than another lobe; -kimmy

Personally I have no axe to grind on the issue of same sex marriage. I believe this country should legally recognize unions of same sex partners, and personally I'm equally comfortable with the term "marriage" as Martin insists, or with "civil union" as the Conservatives wish. I don't find extending the legal definition of marriage to be offensive, as traditionalists do; neither do I feel that using a "separate but equal" term is sinister, as advocates do. The Scandinavian countries use the term "civil union", I believe; those countries are hardly as backward or intolerant as advocates wish to portray people who favor a "separate but equal" designation. While I don't have any emotional investment in the final outcome, I find the debate around the issue interesting as an example of how our political process is functioning. While Harper has taken the brunt of criticism in this debate so far, I think Layton makes some interesting points here. The Liberals have never portrayed themselves as the "big tent" party or the "free votes" party or the "more active role for backbenchers" party. The Liberals have positioned themselves as the "Fight for Canadian Values" party, the "Defend the Charter" party. That was the message, continually through the last election and continues to be Martin's message now. The Liberal campaign signs said "Team Martin," didn't they? Presumably people who voted for the Liberals heard the message, both about "defending the charter" and about Paul Martin being the leader. I think that in this instance, where in Martin's description the issue is indeed a Charter issue, I think Layton is entirely fair in calling on Martin to live up to the promises he has made on that issue. If the SSM bill is defeated, and Martin does as threatened call an election on the issue, is it fair to ask whether his commitment to "defending the charter" will extend to evicting Liberal party members who vote against the bill from running again under Liberal colours? -kimmy

There's a distinction that you seem to gloss over, "pride in" vs "proud for". What is "proud for" supposed to mean? Are you "proud for" the Ukrainians who forced a new election to be held? I'm respectful of, admiring of, and even somewhat inspired by what they did. But not "proud", even with my half-Ukrainian ancestry. I'm sorry, but I disagree with what you are saying here... an association or connection with something is, as I see it, an integral part of the very concept of pride. Well, if we're going to do body-part analogies, then suppose the cells in my liver declared themselves "proud to be a Liver," proud to be playing an important role in the overall success and continued health of Kimmy. Is that an affront to Kimmy's Kidneys? A slight against Kimmy's Stomach? A poke at Kimmy's Pancreas? A declaration that the Liver wishes to separate from Kimmy and be an independent organism? Or can Kimmy's Liver be proud of the role it plays in Kimmy without offending the rest of Kimmy? I suspect you won't like the analogy; feeling that the Liver, Stomach, Pancreas, and Kidneys are not distinct enough to be considered separate organs; the Lungs being the only part of Kimmy being sufficiently distinct to merit being proud of their role in Kimmy. Rest assured that my Kimmy includes Lungs, and despite my current disagreement with my lungs I intend to remain a unified Kimmy, even while many individual bronchioles are currently in an inflamed state and spew virulent mucus that's causing unrest throughout Kimmy, and particularly in other parts of the Lungs. I would still appreciate it if you could further comment on why you feel that Quebec is something to be proud of (or have "pride for", if you really insist...)as an entity, while Alberta is not, and what you feel is the distinction-- please be specific. I would also appreciate if you could explain which other provinces are distinct enough to be proud of as entities. Bob Rae, for one, feels that his province is distinct enough to be "proud of" as an entity: http://www.ryanswell.ca/order_ont/Expositor.htm Do you agree? Or is Ontario just one lobe of a larger liver? -kimmy

That is a good read, August. I particularly liked this bit: Indeed. As Layton says, the Liberals fought and won the election largely on the strength of their promise to defend "Canadian values" from a Conservative party that is "too extreme for Canadians". This appears to be a situation where he's called on to do exactly that (and his threat to call an election to "defend the Charter" seems to indicate he feels that way as well) ... so why is he allowing members of his own party to vote against? -kimmy