kimmy

hmm, somebody's been busy! I will respond to some of this more fully later, when I am feeling better, but in the mean time I would like to ask for a clarification from Mr. Swell: Being proud (for good reasons) of a collective entity such as Canada, or Quebec, or the Atlanta Braves or whatever, makes sense to me if there is some distinction particular to that collective. Are all Quebecers entitled to be proud of their collective entity, in your opinion? Or just the Francophones? Or just the "pur-lain"? And are any of the other provinces sufficiently distinct for their residents to take pride in them, in your view? -kimmy

Can I vote for both? People of course are being petty. I doubt any of the people criticizing Clarkson for skipping the event were really very sorry that she didn't attend. That said; Clarkson really does suck. If her office had simply come out with the facts in the first place instead of coming up with an evolving, leaky cover story, there wouldn't have been much to talk about. She invited scrutiny and criticism upon herself, as she's done several times in the past. I think it is fair to say that Clarkson has brought controversy to the position of Governor General, and diminished Canadians' respect for the office. So, while "sucks" might not be a kind way of putting it, I think she has done a disservice to the position of Governor General, not just through her response to the recent controversy, but also in the past with her lavish spending and seeming arrogance in response to criticism. -kimmy

"The dear doctor"? Have you checked out "the dear doctor's" credentials? "The dear doctor" isn't even a witch-doctor, let alone a doctor of any art or science. His credential, from his own website, is that he had a psychotic break from reality. Seriously. I believe that "fruitcake" is a technically accurate description of "the dear doctor". Watch for future articles that cite Orgone Accumulators as the answer to America's energy problems, and declare Meditation and Power Crystals as the key to peace in the Middle East. Blaming Dubya's actions on mental illness is a rationalization. Debating Dubya's actions as stupid, uninformed, short-sighted is called critical thinking. You know, I do agree with that part. I'm auditing a course at my local university about the workings of the human brain, and I've found it is an astounding instrument. But reading "the dear doctor's" biography, I wonder if perhaps I'm taking the hard way. Perhaps I should just roll a huge joint, get blasted, and proclaim it a "spiritual awakening". Then I could declare myself a "healer" too. -kimmy

oooh! Ouch! Zing! I didn't say the feds have to. You seem to be saying they are, however: I am simply challenging you to provide one example of how Albertans are a "hinderance" or "stopping the rest from performing". And instead of an answer, you start talking about "US Style healthcare." This is a "straw man" argument. (ask eureka what that means.) Portraying any change to the delivery of healthcare in Canada as "US-style healthcare" is simple scaremongering. Portraying Klein as an advocate of "US-style healthcare" is simply not accurate. Klein characterized the US health system as the most expensive in the world, and flatly says he has no intention of adopting it. Klein is interested in countries like France and Sweden where both public and private services co-exist very successfully. Of course "France-style healthcare!" or "Sweden-style healthcare!" don't have the same scare-value, do they. Thanks for contributing, caesar. Don't forget to shout "We want to be Proud Canadians, not USA butt kissers!" a few times before you go. -kimmy

Indeed. This person has invented a psychological ailment and proceded to diagnose Bush and 105,000,000 other Americans as having that ailment. Such presumption says more about the author than his subject, and might indicate some sort of megalomaniacal disorder of some sort. Argue that Bush is stupid, ignorant, or uninformed. Argue that his policies are short-sighted or motivated by a hidden agenda. Argue that American voters have been conned or scared or that they're short-sighted. There's lots of great arguments about Bush and his policies to be made. But don't make up a bunch of psychological mumbo-jumbo, unless you want to look like a complete fool. It makes you seem like a fruit-cake and trivializes the point you want to make. -kimmy

Layton and Duceppe both have aggressive agendas for this budget and threaten dire consequences if they don't get their way. The CPC presumably doesn't want to fight another election before they have their policy convention. They could easily provide Martin with enough votes to pass the budget regardless of what Duceppe and Layton threaten. Would Martin really put something in the budget so unpalatable to CPC members that they'd have to join the BQ and NDP in attempting to defeat it? -kimmy

Please inform us, then, caesar, what Albertans are holding this country back from accomplishing. What energy is the federal government spending appeasing Albertans that could be spent elsewhere? Please expand on this, it sounds like you've got a lot to say. -kimmy

Eureka, You seem to have interpreted my message as an attack on Ontario, where as I was trying to express in human terms the distance from the center, and lack of identification with the supposed “Canadian identity”. Confronted with the claim that many Canadians outside Ontario identify with their provinces rather than with Canada, and some reasons why that might be, your response seems to be anger and accusation. The poll I saw indicates that about half of Canadians outside Quebec and Ontario feel about the same as me (far more in Quebec, a bit fewer in Ontario.) Is it your view that we’re all just dense? Or would you agree that maybe there’s some reasons why people just don’t feel very connected to Canada? Ontario may not have a plurality of seats in the commons, but since the advent of the BQ, Ontario MPs have made up the bulk of the caucus of the ruling party… 2004: 75 of 135 2000: 100 of 172 1997: 101 of 155 1993: 98 of 177 …and prior to the BQ it appears that in most cases a party formed a government by winning Quebec and Ontario; the rest of the country being rather inconsequential. Ontarians really think they lack a say in national affairs? I guess that just reinforces the point of how much perception plays into this and how deep federalism’s image problem runs. But even if Ontarians don’t feel the federal government represents them, it doesn’t challenge the statement that people in other provinces don’t feel the federal government represents them. Regionally autonomous, of course. But do regionally autonomous newspapers and stations build this “national identity” we’re talking about? Or does it just encourage people to continue to identify with their region first and with the nation second? Note that I didn’t say “Ontario owned” or “Ontario controlled.” I said “dominated.” And I think that’s quite obvious, for reasons of simple mathematics. That’s where the audience is, so that’s who the programming and reportage is designed to appeal to. For obvious reasons the national media outlets are headquartered in Toronto. For obvious reasons, when they want analysts and experts, they get people who live close-by. If I’m watching a western Canadian giving an opinion on a national broadcast, it’s almost certainly because the west has wound up on the losing side of some issue. (and if I’m watching an Atlantic Canadian giving an opinion on a national broadcast, it’s almost certainly because they’re talking about fish.) The federal government requires Canadian networks to produce an amount of Canadian programming, supposedly to promote a national identity as well as promoting Canadian artists and producers. So how is that national identity coming along? A quick survey of my TV guide and my recollection of recent efforts turns up the following dramas and comedies: -Toronto cops -a Toronto newsroom drama -Toronto lawyers -Ottawa parliament hill staffers -Toronto troubled teens -small-town Saskatchewan -a Vancouver coroner -Toronto commuters -a Toronto pop singer Promoting a national identity? Or just producing programming aimed at the huge southern-Ontario audience? (Intriguing, though: of those shows, the small-town Saskatchewan one is the huge hit.) The coverage of national affairs is adequate. It is my connection to them that I find lacking. Other peoples’ representatives, arguing over other peoples’ issues. National stories I find compelling tend to be issues like the Sponsorship program… which while stimulating my interest in national affairs, do not make me feel closer to the federation. (Quite the opposite, really, when one considers the reasons behind the sponsorship program and the manner in which it became corrupted.) And again, the media’s determination of what’s a national issue seems to be skewed. Sometimes snowfall in the GTA or a sensationalistic trial in the GTA are leading stories on the national evening news. I reject that the west is just an extension of the center, for reasons I’ve already described at great lengths in this thread. This whole concept of Canada as “Quebec” and “the rest” … the “Two Founding Peoples”, is irrelevant out here and is dismissive of the fact of how much of the prairies was built by people like my ancestors who had nothing to do with “the center” and are neither French nor British in origin. Cabot, de Champlain, Wolfe, Montcalm, Plains of Abraham, Lord Elgin, Cartier, MacDonald, Charlottetown. Wonderful stuff, I’m sure… but again, nothing for me to connect with. Perhaps it’s a difference of perception, just as mystifying to me as your claim that Ontarians feel they don’t have a say in national affairs. I have not seen a great number of elections in my lifetime, but most election night analysis seems heavily focused on the Quebec aspects. Last summer’s election was a bit of an exception when BC provided a bit of drama as to whether Jack Layton might hold the balance of power. But even that was framed in terms of determining how much of a role the Bloc Quebecois would have in the new minority parliament. You’re right, I wasn’t around, not by a long-shot. I have read, however. I gather that the Maple Leaf was rammed through parliament by a coalition of Pearson’s (central Canada dominated) Liberal caucus and Quebec Progressive Conservatives. Diefenbaker’s western caucus were bitterly opposed, for whatever reason. Nowhere did I gather that acceptible to the West was a concern or even consideration; it appears to have been all about Quebec. Which is somewhat beside the point. I don’t offer the flag as evidence of central Canada imposing its will on the whole country (although that appears to have been the case) but simply as an example of why people in the west might not identify with the supposed national identity. The maple leaf as nature doesn’t appear west of the Great Lakes in any significant way. The Maple Leaf as a symbol has historical significance only in Quebec and Ontario. Either way, what about it is supposed to make me feel represented or attached to it? Australia has a constellation which can be seen from everywhere in the country. Wales has a dragon which (I assume) is hard to find anywhere within their borders. Most countries have abstract designs representing broad themes that are important to their country. Us? We’ve got a plant that’s of significance only to a select group in a select portion of the country. You cite provincial powers as a reason for Albertans to feel like partners in Confederation, yet you also blame these same provincial powers for regionalism. And sure, we’re equal with other provinces. But that doesn’t address the main issue we have been discussing: attachment to the whole of the country. You have it right when you say: I agree with the point. However, in the big picture, I doubt that a federal government with greatly expanded powers would be as responsive to local needs as a provincial government. Supposing the provincial governments were completely disbanded, then who is accountable to me? A federal government that really doesn’t need a single vote from outside the Windsor-Ottawa-Montreal region to maintain a grip on power. Why would I expect a government like that would have at heart the interests of us way out in the hinterlands? What could you say to reassure me that it would? Do you feel that concentrating more power in the hands of a government heavily represented by such a small geographic portion of the country would be to the benefit of us outsiders? Personally I highly doubt it; I think it could only serve to heighten dissatisfaction with the federal government. You keep saying “the Constitution never intended…” but I’m skeptical. In discussing provincial administration of resources, the exact same wording was used over and over again in Constitutional Acts from 1867 all the way until 1930. If it was an error they had 63 years to spot it; surely they had enough tries to get it right. Alberta and Saskatchewan weren’t even granted those powers at the time they became provinces; it didn’t happen for 25 years later. Again, surely they would not have added those powers in 1930 if it hadn’t been intended? There is a difference between an error and a mistake. When you make an error, you say “oops.” When you make a mistake, you say “It seemed like a good idea at the time, but it didn’t turn out very well.” I doubt the wording in the Constitution was an error, but I can listen to the argument that it has proven to be a mistake. As for removing powers from the provinces, or burying the demagogues, how do you propose to perform these Herculean feats? -kimmy

I've abstained from going into the resources and revenues discussion. First off, we've done it before in a number of threads in the 6 months or so I've participated in this forum. And secondly because I believe it is a red herring in this instance. I recall seeing a series of polls on a Canadian website (I believe it was either the Globe and Mail or the National Post; I can't recall and have been unable to locate the pages I am thinking of) which surveyed Canadians about attitudes towards the country. One of the questions posed was "Do you see yourself as a Canadian first, or a resident of your province first." In every province except two, the results were close, with in some cases "province first" having a slight lead, and in others "Canada first" was slightly ahead. The two provinces where the question achieved lopsided results were (predictably) Quebec, and (perhaps also predictably) Ontario. In Quebec, "province first" had a strong majority. Ontario, on the other hand, was the only province where "Canada first" scored a decisive win. Why might that be? Earlier in this thread, Shakeyhands said "I don't believe I have ever said that I was proud to be an Ontarian (?) But have said many times that I am damn proud to be Canadian..." and August replied "*Sigh* Canada in a nutshell. " I believe that's pretty much it. An Ontarian (or at least the ones in southern/eastern Ontario, the large majority) can turn on the national news and watch his local weather forecast. He speaks, and the government listens. Government in Canada is dominated by southern Ontario. Media in Canada is dominated by southern Ontario. The Canada he sees in the media corresponds to the Canada around him. The Canada he read about in school corresponds to the Canada around him. Of course he identifies with Canada: the Canada the rest of us only see in the media is just day to day life for him. He might not even recognize that it's not so in the rest of the country. An Albertan, on the other hand, probably relies on local news sources rather than national news sources, for an obvious reason: national news sources do a shoddy job of covering events outside of Toronto and Ottawa. An Albertan will turn on election night coverage, patiently sit through an hour of 3 talking heads from Toronto and one from Montreal discussing "the Quebec Question", and catch local results during the "late night wrap up" portion of the show. An Albertan rather watch American TV programs as Canadian-made ones, because while neither is remotely relevant to his day to day life, at least the American shows are entertaining. The previous Prime Minister only set foot in Alberta a few times during his entire reign of terror, and said that he didn't like to do business with Albertans because "dey are diff'rent"... and had to explain that he was joking because based on his track record he might well have been serious. That red blotch in the middle of the flag? An Albertan will have to move elsewhere to see one of those on a tree, because they don't grow anywhere near here. Yeah, that's a great symbol for the country, truly national. Easy to say "don't be provincial! we're all Canadian! Group hug!" but actions speak louder than words, and Canada has given Albertans little reason to feel like real partners in Confederation. It all just seems like it belongs to somebody else; I can't really relate to it. At any rate, I feel that trying to relate the issue to resource revenues is off the mark; the poll I mentioned indicated that people in other provinces (aside from Ontario) were as likely as Albertans to be "province first" people. While I don't advocate blowing a quarter-billion dollars on advertising to convince Canadians outside central Canada that they matter, I do think the concept of Canada has image problems elsewhere in Canada, not just in Quebec. In Quebec it might be antipathy; in other parts of Canada it's more like apathy. -kimmy

Certainly. And I don't dismiss their contributions at all. I don't see why "Proud to be an Albertan!" would be taken as a slight against other Canadians. Has anything in my writing given you reason to think that by "Proud to be an Albertan!" I mean "I'm better than you"? I'm not saying that I think the length of one's family tree within this country makes anyone "more" Canadian than anyone else. I mention my family history not by way of claiming any kind of superiority. My message, the point of that whole spiel, was to try to express my feelings of why I'm very attached to this province. At a time when many parts of Canada were already settled and had growing economies and decent standards of living, my grandparents decided to keep going west with the goal of creating something new. I took Terrible Sweal's message to be asking "why would someone identify with Alberta rather than with Canada?" I've tried to address that question with my little story. I don't know if other Canadians know about people like my grandparents; I've certainly never seen any indication to indicate they do. Canadians seem to think the history of the west goes something like: French voyageurs with canoes and beaver pelts... then nothing for a long time... then Louis Riel... then nothing for a long time... then Chinese slave-labourers were blown to pieces building the railroads... then more nothing... then provincial status for the prairies... then nothing for a long time... then oil was discovered... and now it's happy-land. Perhaps the history of the prairies is just too boring to be of much interest to the rest of the country. Or perhaps it doesn't fit conveniently into the Coles Notes version of Canada that has (1) Aboriginal People, (2) French People, (3) British People, and (4) "other." Terrible Sweal's message seems to imply that he feels "an Albertan" is just somebody who lives between 4 straight lines and one squiggly line on the map. I disagree. I have a personal history that's tied specifically to this region and to no other part of Canada. And my grandparents, both sets, have stories unique to this part of the country. My people didn't "come over on the Mayflower" (figuratively speaking) but I feel that there is a history as unique and distinctive as the Quebecois or Newfoundlanders. And... as others have mentioned in this thread... have you ever heard anyone ask "what is a Quebecois?" or "what is a Newfie?" or why anyone would be proud to be that? They're proud and visible people wherever they're transplanted to, and I wouldn't imagine most Canadians have any difficulty with the idea that they have the right to be. So I found the question that launched this thread (and the possible assumptions behind it) a little perplexing. That might highlight the silliness of "bashing" Albertans, but does not show that it doesn't happen. -kimmy

6 of 10 voters said "yes, there is," in the last election. I think there's a stylistic difference in evidence. Chretien's way would certainly have been to shuffle individuals around, deny everything, give the press nothing to talk about, and wait for some shiny new bauble to distract them. Martin's decision to call a public inquiry was perhaps not the politically expedient way to do things, but in my view it was the right thing to do. It was a move worthy of the Paul Martin that was supposed to take Alberta by storm; it's very sad that we haven't seen more of that Paul Martin. And while it has failed to produce anything major in terms of holding anyone accountability, I haven't yet given up hope. There is still key testimony to come. And there have been some minor fraud charges laid... perhaps something more significant will come from those trials. -kimmy

Well, "Da Little Scom-Bag from Shawinigan" has gone ahead and done it. As threatened, Chretien's mouthpiece, David Scott, has indeed filed papers demanding Judge Gomery recuse himself, and failing that, challenge Gomery in federal court. Globe 'n' Mail: Chretien's temper-tantrum Not surprisingly, the 3 opposition leaders have called on the Liberals to stand firm in support of the inquiry, with Jack Layton being particularly blunt (in manner that would do MapleSyrup proud) : And not surprisingly, Marting is still pretending he's in China. So, what's Chretien's motivation? What's the point? What's in it for him? What's his angle, anyway? This column reflects on Jean Chretien, the man, the myth, the legend, and speculates on what might be on his mind... Globe 'n' Mail columnist: At heart, Chretien is just a prick Is this about the all-important "Chretien legacy", then? It seems to me that Chretien will most likely be remembered for graft more than for anything achieved during his tenure (except for eliminating the deficit, but most view that as Paul Martin's achievement, not Chretien's.) Going to legal war against the Gomery commission is not likely to change the perception of Chretien as a man who presided over graft and swept it under the rug whenever possible. In fact, it's likely to make his image worse: not only did he preside over corruption and attempt to hide it from public view, he also tried to shut down the inquiry. Other than the most devoted Chretien devotees could believe that this improves his optics? Perhaps this is closer to the heart of the matter: A public inquiry is just completely opposite to Chretien's style. How would Chretien have handled Sheila Fraser's report had it not been for his (fortuituously timed) departure from politics? I think we all know: "Dis guy, he go to Denmark. Dat guy, he stay in Denmark. Dis guy, he go to de Senate. An' all of us, we say in de Question Period: I don' know not'ing about dat." But despite his distaste for the process, Chretien is apparently excited about his scheduled testimony, which will be in a couple of weeks. Yes, Mr Chretien is looking forward to taking the stand so that he can trot out the tired old "We had to save Canada!" pony again. Just as Dubya and the Republicans whip out "9/11! National security!" any time they need an excuse for anything, the Chretienites shout "Quebec referendum! National Unity!" when they need an excuse. -kimmy

The obvious one I can think of is the widely seen movie and "photo evidence" alleging that the attack on the Pentagon was staged. (details: http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/pentagon.htm ) There's also a variety of theories surrounding the identity of the 9/11 hijackers. A few seconds with Google turned up this page, which I suspect is probably typical of the genre: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/stf3.html But I think that most sane people limit speculation of Bush's complicity in 9/11 to negligence in assessing and responding to security threats, and for foreign policy that may have provoked the attack. -kimmy

Although I understand (and support ) the reasons Maple Syrup has been banned, I must confess I'll miss the little guy. I liked the cut of his gibberish. His messages often gave me great enjoyment, and I frequently laughed out loud while reading his hysterical ranting. When I read his ...works... I had this mental image of someone with a severe facial tic, gripping his keyboard with white-knuckled intensity and his heart teetering dangerously towards tachycardial paroxysm as he raged over some real or imagined slight of the Progressive Society of the Future. Or of a dewy-eyed romantic, clutching his hands to his chest as he waxed poetic over Jack Layton's latest triumph. But of course, what I myself and I'm sure many others will remember most about Maple Syrup is his inability to articulate his own beliefs or challenge others' beliefs with anything more than a Sesame Street level of critical thinking ability. Watching Syrup attempt to engage in discussion always brought to mind Ernie and Bert trying to explain the difference between "near... and far." And perhaps if Syrup weren't so manic I'd have wondered if he were made out of felt in real life. But I tend to think of Syrup not as a Muppet, but as the internet equivalent of the "Church of the Fire of God" street preachers that I used to see at the entrance to downtown Ottawa's Rideau Center shopping mall on Saturday afternoons. Wild, crazy, unpredictable, funny, and just a little scary. Reading Maple Syrup's messages was like spending a moment with a manic zealot street-preacher, without having to wipe spittle and froth off your jacket afterwards. Godspeed, little buddy. I have nothing but fond memories. -kimmy

I guess somewhat predictably this thing looks poised to break down across factional lines; the Sunni minority is already unhappy about the election thing and is going to take their ball and go home. Al-Zarqawi: voting isn't cool. Guardian UK: more on Zarqawi Candidates are idols; people who vote are idol-worshippers; the Quran condemns both to lots and lots of wrath. This is actually somewhat similar to my personal view of candidates as "idols of idiot-worshippers." It was probably inevitable that one of these jackasses would come up with religious rhetoric to prove that Allah hates elections. -kimmy

This is clearly a ridiculous situation, but I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation for why the policy existed. As much as the Liberals annoy me, I doubt they just decided "hey, let's treat our overseas Canadian Forces personnel like second-class citizens." There must have been a rational explanation for the policy; I'd like to hear the reasoning behind it before I condemn it. However, something has clearly gone awry and they should fix it ASAP. -kimmy

I don't think WestJet has ever had a labour dispute... Some might suggest that the root of Air Canada's problems stem from labour relations policies that they established back when they were a crown corporation. -kimmy

Ok, I’m not sure if this is a good idea but whatever. Something about Black Dog’s message made me feel I had to answer it, so here goes. My mother’s grandparents were ethnic Ukrainians who left Russia in the late nineteenth century. Their religious community had faced persecution throughout Europe, and when Queen Victoria invited them to settle Canada’s prairies and guaranteed their religious freedom, they accepted. They did as they promised, carving chunks out of the wilderness, establishing settlements, and playing an important part in building the Canadian prairies that we know today. My mother’s grandparents, and her parents, were part of a community that settled in the far north of Alberta, somewhere between the Buffalo Head Hills and Caribou Mountains. Although many of them like my mom have integrated into mainstream Canada, some of them still live very closely by the beliefs that brought them to Canada, and you can still find their communities throughout the prairies. My dad’s parents were born to Swedish immigrants who had settled near Thief River Falls, Minnesota. Early in the twentieth century their families headed north, stopping briefly in Manitoba, and in Saskatchewan, and central Alberta, before heading even farther north. They purchased land not too far from where mom’s ancestors had settled, and broke ground. Things were not easy in that part of the country. My dad’s family wasn’t able to build a permanent home on their land for quite some time. They lived in a temporary sod house built on the land during the summer so they could work on the farm; during winters my dad and his sisters all boarded with families in a town some ways away so that they could attend school; the sisters worked as nannies. It was not until the 1960s that they had a permanent home on their land; it was not until 1967 that electricity had reached their home. My grandparents didn’t just come to Alberta, they built Alberta. I’m proud that my parents and grandparents accomplished so much and overcame so much when they settled this province. I am proud of what they built. And I don’t have a lot of patience for those who would disparage it, especially those who have no idea what it is that they’re disparaging. No, my grandparents didn’t put the oil in the ground themselves, but yes, I still feel that my grandparents and my parents helped build the province I live in today. The word “legacy” gets thrown a lot, but in this instance, I really do feel it applies. The province I live in today was built for me by my grandparents. How could I not feel a sense of personal attachment to it? And of course they weren’t just building Alberta, they were building Canada. The land they broke changed from wilderness to settled land, the roads and communities they established now host new industry in the north and contribute to the prosperity of all Canada. My ancestors were not French or English, but they helped build this country in a very tangiable way. This is why many Albertans, myself included, have so little interest in the “Two founding peoples” type of rhetoric that seems to dominate political thought in this country. It doesn’t reflect the country I see around me, it doesn’t reflect the part of Canada that my ancestors built, and it doesn’t reflect my ancestors who worked so hard to build this part of Canada. So there you go. I don’t know if the Black Dogs and Terrible Sweals of the world will understand or relate to what I’ve written here, and I can live with that. I’ve tried to explain my feelings as best I can, and that’s all I can do. Think of it what you wish. -kimmy

Curse? You don't need to have 20/20 eyesight to follow the puck. You just have to understand the game a little. If a guy is skating with the blade of his stick on the ice, he's most likely got the puck. If a guy is skating with his stick off the ice, he hasn't got the puck. If everybody's attention is focused on one guy, he's got the puck. If players are converging on one spot, that's probably where the puck is. You don't have to see the puck itself to know where it is, you can tell who has the puck or where it's located just by what the players are doing. Ok, say you're watching a football game, and the quarterback does a fake hand-off, and half the defence is fooled and goes after the runningback even when he hasn't got the ball. Why did they get suckered in? Not because they see him with the ball, but because they see action that makes them think he's got the ball. He rolls out instead of staying back to make a block, right? Same principle applies in hockey. Look for the player who is acting like he's got the puck. He does have the puck; in hockey there's no faked hand-off. Hockey is a fast game with lots of physical contact, lots of skill and artistry, and few stops in the action compared to football or baseball. Trying to explain why one likes a certain sport is like trying to explain why one likes a certain type of music. You can try to put it into words, but somebody will either like it or not like it and trying to explain it to them won't change their view. Canada is hardly the only hockey nation; Russia is very competitive with Canada, as is the United States, and other nations such as the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Finland, Sweden are also strong. Nations like Germany and Switzerland are attempting to catch up as well. Could I ask why the United States calls its professional league baseball championship "the World Series", when teams from Cuba and Japan aren't invited to challenge for it? The Todd Bertuzzi incident is hardly typical of hockey as a whole, and only people who don't follow the sport closely assume otherwise. Why is violence in hockey a concern when violence in other sports gets barely a mention? In baseball, the pitcher will often deliberately throw at a player. In baseball, bench-clearing brawls are common, but they're laughed off-- "boys will be boys", or what have you. Where as in hockey, a fight is seen as evidence of the "thuggery inherent in the game" or similar hyperbole. I don't understand the reason for the double standard. Hockey, like football, is a contact sport, with well defined rules as to what is and isn't acceptible. In football you can tackle someone as hard as you want, but you're not allowed to ram the crown of your helmet into them or strike at their head. In hockey, you're not allowed to check someone from behind, or raise your elbows or leave your feet when making a check, or use your stick as a weapon. Of course there are rules about what is and isn't allowed. How could there not be? I don't see your point in questioning that. And, of course hockey sounds silly when you describe it in terms of what they're actually doing. Guys on metal blades moving around on a sheet of ice, trying to hit a piece of rubber with a flat-ended pole. That sounds pretty silly. What's baseball? 10 guys on a field, one armed with a club. The 9 men without clubs have leather bags on one hand, and they have a leather-wrapped ball of string and throw it at the man with the club repeatedly. The man with the club is trying to hit the ball of string with the club. If he hits the ball of string and makes it move, he runs towards a bag full of sawdust guarded by one of the 9 guys without clubs. The other 8 guys try to get the ball of string the guy with the sawdust bag before the man with the club gets there. If the man with the club makes it there before the ball of string, he gets to stay with the other man he just went to visit at a spot marked by a bag full of sawdust. Then they throw the ball of string to another of the 9 men who don't have clubs; another man with a club emerges; they throw the ball of string at him as well; he tries to emulate the first man with the club; the first man with the club will try to move to another bag of sawdust, which is also guarded by a man with a leather bag on his hand. The men with the club ultimately want to get back to the exact spot they started from, at which point they are allowed to go sit down. -kimmy

A final note on Adrienne Clarkson's involvement on this... a somewhat sour note. Globe & Mail: Clarkson's aide fesses up. A quick summary of the timetable: Jan 7: Lois Hole dies. Jan 9: Clarkson leaves on personal vacation. Jan 10: Canada asks Clarkson to attend Ukraine inauguration scheduled for Jan 18 Jan 14: Clarkson notified that Ukraine inauguration will be delayed until Jan 23 due to legal challenges. Jan 18: Lois Hole memorial occurs. Jan 19: No, it wasn't a "personal commitment", it was a "previous commitment," according to beleaguered secretary Randy Mylyk, who adds that Mrs Clarkson is deeply saddened that people are questioning her sincerity. Jan 20: Well, ok, it actually was personal time, all along. First, let me say that I somewhat doubt anybody is really that upset that Clarkson didn't attend the memorial service. I don't think anybody really likes her that much, and I don't think anybody really missed her that much, and I think the criticism directed at her is primarily from people who are happy to have an excuse to bag on her. That being said, if there's any question why people dislike Clarkson, look at the sequence of events and the fibs her crew had to make to cover for her. It's somewhat typical of the kind of arrogance that people have come to associate with her. -kimmy

Oh. Was this for me? Perhaps "Proud to be an Albertan!" is the kinder, gentler, positive-feeling Canadian equivalent of "Don't mess with Texas." If you don't think Albertans actually exist, perhaps you could take it up with MapleSyrup and Caesar, who never miss an opportunity to needle anything Albertan. If Alberta is just a [geographic area] ... couldn't one likewise make the same argument about Canada? Given Alberta and Canada both as political and geographic entities... I find that Alberta is the one that is more real to me, the one I more strongly identify with. The Canada I see in the national media doesn't really respond very closely to my day to day life; I don't identify with it that strongly at all. Does that answer your question? -kimmy

A masterpiece? You're too kind! I think anyone in the west who disputes the notion that our laws can evolve is either delusional or in deep denial. I did say "many" (not "most" or "all") in the Muslim faith believe that their laws can not be changed. Of particular interest are the Wahhabis, for whom traditionalism, literalism, and rejecting "innovations" to the Muslim faith were the central themes of their movement. Before you get the idea that this is a tiny remote sect comparable to the Snake-Handlers or similar fringe Christian groups, let me mention that Wahhabism is the state religion of Saudi Arabia, and that thanks to Saudi largesse, many of the new mosques built in Canada and elsewhere are of this conservative branch of Islam, and it is among the most rapidly spreading forms of Islam. You can agree, disagree, do your own research on the subject, get back to me if you wish, whatever, but I stand by the comment: a significant (and growing) number of Muslims do not believe it is permissible for the law to evolve. -kimmy

A year ago, Paul Martin publicly chastized David Kilgour, and relieved him of his post as Secretary of State for Berundi and Belize (or whatever crappy-ass position it was) for asking whether legalizing gay marriage would put us on a slippery slope towards legalizing polygamy. A year later, the Liberals have initiated a study to determine whether legalizing gay marriage has put us on a slippery slope towards legalizing polygamy? uh-huh... sounds about right. -kimmy

No. Martin is not "imposing" anything. Tell me: under the new legislation, will heterosexauls be forced to marry people of the same sex? No? Then Martin is "imposing" nothing. Martin's imposing a revised definition of marriage that some might not agree with. You know, I think it's a fair bet that among those who are enthusiastic supporters of gay marriage, most probably wouldn't vote Conservative anyway. It's an oversimplification to say that the move won't play in Quebec because Quebec has a high level of popular support for same sex marriage, or likewise that it won't play well in greater Toronto or BC's lower mainland. On aggregate, those generalizations might be true. However, look a little closer and you get a better idea of what the Conservatives hope this accomplishes. Quebec and southern Ontario and BC's lower mainland have significant religious and ethnic minority communities that (according to the conventional wisdom) the federal Liberals have been able to tap into, and the federal Conservatives haven't. In the recent US election, exit polls found surprising numbers of black and hispanic voters going Republican, as the gay marriage issue turned Christian blacks and hispanics off of voting for the Democrats in the numbers they traditionally have. Opposition to gay marriage is hardly exclusive to WASPs, as the recent controversy from India showed. We now know that Sikhs are quite opposed, we know how the gays are treated in the Muslim world so I we can guess what the official Islamic line on gay marriage is, and of course devout Catholics of all ethnic backgrounds are also not onside with gay marriage. I think the Conservatives' intention here is to make groups of people that traditionally vote Liberal by default ask themselves whether they really share the Liberals' values. -kimmy

I don't see a problem. Previous discussions of "attack ads" on this forum have often featured the argument that the Liberals are doing what they need to do, and the Conservatives are simply not using their advertising effectively. Is this even an "attack ad"? Yes, the phrase "impose gay marriage" is more vague and menacing than one would find in a balanced editorial on the issue... but by the standards of political advertising, it strikes me as being pretty tame, or at worst "about average" compared to the standards of what we accept as normal political campaigning in this country. The Conservatives have frequently been criticized as being too white and too Christian; one would think "targetting ethnic groups" would be a logical step. They've identified an issue where the Liberals' hold over ethnic votes may be on shaky ground. The Conservatives feel this is an area where they can bridge a gap between themselves and ethnic voters and an issue where the Liberals' strategy of being all things to all people might be a vulnerability. Why wouldn't the Conservatives try to capitalize on it? And lastly, as the Liberals have always insisted that the Conservatives are too extreme for Canadians, they should be more than happy to go to war on this issue, right? The Liberals have got a great opportunity to show Canadian voters that the Conservatives are "different". What was the Liberal slogan during the election campaign? "Choose the Canada you want", or something like that? Well, here's another opportunity for them to highlight the differences between them and the opposition. -kimmy