kimmy

Perhaps it's Rick Mercer, who I imagine doesn't work cheap. I haven't heard much about these pollution credits, but I'm concerned that I won't be getting a fair share. I sold my fearsome Plymouth Reliant a couple of years ago, and rely on bicycle and bus for transportation. How am I to get my credits? Should I have hung onto the Reliant until I have an opportunity to earn some pollution credits for disposing of it? This pollution-credits idea... is it an opportunity for rich-people to get tax-breaks by switching their yacht to wind-power, turning down the thermostat of the west-wing of the mansion a couple of degrees, and trading in the SUV for a more fuel-efficient Porsche? I just don't have an SUV, a west-wing, or a yacht. Where am I going to get my credits? -kimmy

(Note: I left out the inevitable accussation of anti-semitism.) See how the argument used by #2 does not address any of the salient points made in #1? If #2 were to say "that's wrong. Israel has good reasons for all those things.", we'd have us a debate. But as it is, if you tried this in high school, you'd be booted off the debate team. So why does it come up so frequently? I can't speculate as to the motives of those who use this line, but the practical result is a diminishment and tacit approval of the crimes Israel is accussed of, simply because someone else might be worse. I think the reason some have been pointing out the comparative lack of UN resolutions directed at China relative to Israel is not to downplay Israel's actions, but rather to question the UN's impartiality. Suppose the police in your community had the authority to stop vehicles completely at random and administer a mandatory breathalyzer test to the drivers. And suppose it came to light that 90% of the drivers given these random breathalyzer tests were Native Canadians. Wouldn't it be fair to question the impartiality of the program without arguing the guilt or innocence of any of the Natives dropped? -kimmy

Strippers AND free pizza? Her campaign office sounds like a bachelor party! What about an open bar? -kimmy

That's also something of a distortion, and probably amounts to an appeal to bigotry. By the same logic, some might say the same about our laws, only the ancient geography is different. Some might say that about our laws, but they'd be wrong. Our law is in constant evolution. Recognition of gay marriage is an example. Many within the Muslim faith, on the other hand, reject the notion that law can evolve: God's law was given to mankind during the time of Mohammed, and screwing around with God's law is viewed in an extremely dim light. -kimmy

If being (at best) a hapless victim of circumstances is good enough to make you Man of the Year in Canada, I guess what it says about Canadian values is that Canadians don't place a high value on achievement... because aside from getting arrested, I don't know what Maher Arar has ever achieved. Surely somebody in Canada must have actually achieved something in 2004. -kimmy

The government is going to sue some of the ad-firms to recover money. CTV: Gov't to sue ad-firms to recover $10 million That they're going to do this might result in some good PR. On the otherhand, it might remind people how mad they were about the sponsorship program in the first place, when most people seem to have forgot it or gotten over it. I think the fact that they're going to court over this is also a reply to those Liberals on the inquiry who'd been trying to argue that the the money wasn't really mis-spent, that Sheila Fraser was in no position to assess what return the program got for the money that was spent, that the government must have gotten some value in return for the money that was given to the ad-firms, etc. If any of that were true, we probably wouldn't be seeing the government taking this to court, would we? No, I don't think we would. But to me, the more interesting development is one mentioned towards the end of this article: Toronto Star: Gomery inquiry notes Lawyers are smart guys. I'm sure that Mr Scott knows that if he wades into this on Chretien's behalf, it creates the impression that Chretien has something to hide; I doubt it's something he'd do lightly, which to me says that Chretien *does* have some kind of personal stake in what's going on. After months and months of nothing from the Gomery inquiry, it looks like things might start to get interesting. -kimmy

wah wah wah, Canwest this, Canwest that. Newspapers have a smaller role in news coverage than they used to, as most Canadians use TV as their primary source for news coverage. Newspapers continue to shrink in importants as more and more Canadians do their reading and research on the internet. If you have a TV, you can get the CBC in Canada; their coverage is almost universal. My mother's family in the remote far north of Alberta was able to receive CBC even before they had a satellite dish; it was the only station they could get. CTV is likewise available in almost every Canadian home, I am sure. And I suspect that almost every market has independant broadcasters or smaller chains like Craig Media or CHUM-City which provide additional alternatives to the big 3. If one insists of focusing only on the lack of choice in newspapers, then even there you have options. I understand that in Vancouver, both major local dailies are owned by CanWest; however, the Toronto Globe and Mail is available on every streetcorner, isn't it? There's an alternate viewpoint on national and international issues. You could also get down to the library and pick up a Toronto Star for their national/international perspective, or a Winnipeg Free Press. For local issues, Syrup often mentions the virtues of the Georgia Strait as an independent media source. And again, I could understand the fuss if newspapers were the only news source available, but with a numerous TV and radio options to choose from, I just don't see the point. Anyway, we discussed media bias before, and found that people on this forum are apparently ok with biased reportage. -kimmy

Uh, no - the tsunami was triggered by an earthquake...a very big one. Maybe... but that's not causing some folks from going nuts anyway. Some in the muslim world seems to have decided that the tsunami caused by American/Israeli/Indian nuclear tests. http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1305996.html "It's a Jew-nami!" http://web.israelinsider.com/Views/4755.htm I had been wondering to myself: "why aren't the same people who snickered that the Florida hurricanes were God's message to Bush now asking whether the tsunami was Allah's message to the world's largest Muslim country?" Well, it turns out somebody has been asking. http://www.barnabasfund.org/News/Archive/N...ws-20050107.htm Indonesia was battered because it tolerates Zionist and American investments, and sinful infidel tourists performing all manner of abominations during the celebration of Christian holidays. Thailand was battered because Bangkok is the capital of corruption. See, the tsunami wasn't caused by the Jews after all, it was Allah's vengeance upon sinners and a warning to the rest to straighten up and fly right. Allah is one mean mofo. -kimmy

The CIA might have faked the tsunami! -kimmy

If it can be only one or the other, then my vote is for military. If we're serious about being sovereign and having our own presence in international affairs, then we have to be able to meet our international commitments. And that often means military, whether in participating in aid and relief efforts, peacekeeping, or being able to meet commitments that we have made to our allies. -kimmy

The Ukraine did seem to disappear rather quickly from our headlines; perhaps a sign that things are back to normal. As the saying goes, "no news is good news"; if your name is on the front page of the newspaper, more often than not it's because there's trouble. -kimmy {and if your middle name is in a newspaper article, that's a very bad sign indeed }

This sounds like revisionism. I believe it's a documented fact that federal CHST transfers to the provinces decreased during the Chretien years, and that Martin's efforts to eliminate the annual deficit were the cause of that, not tax cuts. -kimmy

I'd been under the mistaken impression that the R in DART stood for "Rapid"; luckily it appears this is not the case. -kimmy

(Is this message in some kind of code?) -kimmy {The fat man walks at midnight. The owls are not what they seem. Send four fried chickens and one piece of dry white toast.}

Another phony terrorist attack? Which prior phony terrorist attacks has the CIA stage? Please provide specifics. Thanks. -kimmy

Hey, caesar, still pumped about your weather? I just saw TV clips of SUVs sliding around Burnaby like curling rocks. I wasn't sure if I was watching the news or the Comedy Network. I guess I shouldn't laugh; the thermometer outside says it's -10 here right now; a brisk, invigorating -10. And we've had a few centimeters of snow too. I guess the difference is that here, unlike Vancouver, a few cm of snow doesn't cause all-out chaos. -kimmy

Every time the issue of military spending is mentioned on this message board, a certain left-wing kook always asks "why should we spend money on the military?" and I always reply that if we want to participate in the kinds of humanitarian missions that Canadians are supposedly proud of, we need to maintain the capability of doing so. In the past I have asked "what if we wanted to participate in a mission in Sudan?" but right now the horrible disaster in SE Asia is an even better example of why we have to maintain certain military capabilities. The most important of which is getting Canadian personnel and equipment to places where they are needed. Did I read that we had to rent a Russian freight airplane to get our personnel to the disaster areas? I have just read the DART thread, where it was revealed that Australia, which is a smaller and poorer country than us, has still managed to maintain this sort of capability more than we have. During a thread last month during the discussion of helicopters, submarines, and F-18 Hornets, I learned while researching a post that Canada's airforce purchased 5 A320 Airbus airplanes from an airline during the Mulroney years and converted them for military use. Right now these planes are being so heavily used that one analyst expects they will suffer premature failure because of overuse. Our fleet of Hercules transports is very old. Somebody in the DART thread said something like "Canada always wants a seat at the table of world affairs, but when it's time to pick up the tab, Canada heads for the washroom." I thought it was a very apt comment. Canadians are supposedly proud of our participation in international humanitarian efforts and peacekeeping around the world. But participating in those kinds of activities costs money and Canadians seem not to want to spend it. -kimmy

the most hated political leader in Canada and Harper is closing in on his record. How does Harper deserve even a tiny fraction of the hatred that Jean Chretien deserves? -kimmy

So, how are people to know whether one can or can't talk about these things? As the court said, if it's not overtly offensive, there's an onus on the individual to express his discomfort. How could it not be? People might not have the right to deliberately harrass people, but I don't see how any person is not entitled to possess any particular character flaw, including insensitivity. How can one legislate personality? -kimmy

You are right to an extent, but recall when it used to be legal to hit from behind and players would push each other's heads into the boards with much force. He crossed the line, but I am not sure he crossed it very far. Everyone is upset at the result of his actions and not the actions themselves. Had Moore not been so badly hurt, nobody would have remembered this. What I am trying to say is that the intent to injure (i.e. violence) rarely seems to be of concern, it is only those instances that result in serious injury. Sorry for not getting back to this sooner, but I wanted to check a few facts. I somewhat disagree with what you are saying. In 1999, Tie Domi punched Ulf Samuelsson from behind and knocked him out. Samuelsson was not seriously injured (by hockey standards) receiving only a light concussion and missing only a few games, but the NHL gave Domi a harsh suspension. In 2001, Domi delivered an elbow to the head of Scott Niedermayer and was suspended for the rest of the playoffs and the start of the next season; Niedermayer only missed 4 games. In 1993, Dale Hunter infamously rammed Pierre Turgeon into the boards after Turgeon had scored a goal. Turgeon received a concussion, and Hunter received what was (at the time) the most severe suspension in hockey history. In 2000, Marty McSorley slashed Donald Brashear in the head. Brashear received a concussion; McSorley was suspended for a full season (and the extremely bad publicity surrounding the incident effectively "blackballed" him from the NHL, some would say.) This spring, Hamilton AHL player Alexander Perezhogin was suspended for a full season after he slashed Garrett Stafford in the face with his stick. Stafford was cut, but not otherwise injured. These are (aside from Bertuzzi) the most notorious recent hockey incidents I could think of. And in all of them, the victim was back playing hockey before the offender. I don't think the severity of the injury was the determining factor. I think the one thing the Bertuzzi incident shares with all of these incidents is that it looked horrible on TV. You might be right that the league deals with these things reactively, but I believe they are reacting not to the extent of the injury, but to the extent of negative publicity. -kimmy

People who have decided to play hockey (particularly pro hockey) have chosen to take part in a sport where rough physical contact (and even fighting) is an understood risk. Being bodychecked or punched is not generally considered an understood risk of walking down the street. You can not choose to enter a boxing match and then cry that your opponent has punched you. However, if your opponent pulls a knife out of his shorts, you've got just cause to be upset! Likewise, Steve Moore can not complain that he was bodychecked by the Canucks, or that Matt Cooke fought him earlier in the game (Moore fought Cooke willingly, I recall). However, Moore is well within reason in complaining about what Bertuzzi did. Like a boxer who pulls out a knife during the match, Bertuzzi went way beyond the bounds of what someone participating in a hockey game has agreed to. And that's why Bertuzzi was suspended and that's why charges were filed. -kimmy

If Moore had expressed her view that Kemosabe is offensive to her, she would have my support here. If you're at work and your employer keeps calling you something that you've told them not to, then your employer is an ASS. Nobody should need to be harrassed or insulted by their employer. If Moore tells them she doesn't like it, and they continue to call her that, or fire her or something, then she's got a case when she goes to employment standards or human rights. But she didn't tell them. The article says so. The ruling says there was an onus for her to voice her disapproval. That's not a dispicable ruling, it is the most logical thing I have heard from a court in years. And geez, Syrup, this is "Play it Again Sports", not General Electric or Time-Warner. I don't think a used sporting-goods shop exactly has the judiciary and media under their control. I do not like to be called "Blondie". It is not overtly offensive; I do not expect people to know that I dislike it, so I tell them so. If somebody calls me Blondie, I firmly ask them not to. In almost all cases this solves the problem immediately; one time I had to (literally) step on some toes to get the point across. -kimmy

I don't see how plastering the Canada logo on any stationary object at events in Quebec is "conciliatory" to the Quebec nationalists. Reaction from Quebec in fact seems to indicate it was something of an irritant. I don't really see much conciliatory value in reminding the sovereigntists that they lost every time they went to a hockeygame or maplesyrup festival. At the very least, it was somewhat insulting to Quebecers for the fedz to assume they could buy Quebec's loyalty by sponsoring events and slapping the Canada logo on Jacques Villeneuve's racing suit. To me, that doesn't seem conciliatory at all. To me, being conciliatory would be something like, say, trying to find some ways for the Quebecois to control their own province without leaving Canada. And reaction to the sponsorship scandal was particularly harsh in Quebec. Many Quebecers felt that the federal government's scandalous actions unfairly perpetuated a nation-wide stereotype of Quebec as a hotbed of corruption. That wasn't exactly conciliatory either. In fact, I submit that the sponsorship program had nothing to do with reconciliation. Reconciliation with the sovereigntists would have been anathema to Chretien's philosophy of dominating the provinces at every opportunity. It was about winning the favor of Quebecers ... like a separated father trying to make his kids appreciate him by giving expensive gifts. -kimmy

Yes; this theory is popular with Canucks fans who are so blinded by loyalty to their team that they're unable to have any objectivity in the matter. Anybody with an objective mind and a basic understanding of high-school physics should be able to assess how little merit that view has. -kimmy

I think under most circumstances an attack as severe as Bertuzzi's attack on Moore would merit a harsher punishment, first offense or not. Particularly given the premeditated nature. Bertuzzi and his team-mates had been making public, veiled threats against Moore since the previous game where Moore bodychecked Markus Naslund. The attack was not a fight, it was one guy jumping another from behind. Nor was it a case of "playing the game the way he was taught." Bertuzzi's actions were completely outside of what's normal in hockey; even hockey's "enforcers" or "goons" follow a "code" which Bertuzzi went far outside of. Watch any amount of hockey, and you'll almost never see someone get punched from behind, and you'll never see somebody get their head pile-drived into the ice. -kimmy