kimmy

uh huh

It's not corrupted. It works exactly the way it's supposed to. It just doesn't fit in very well with a multi-party system. -kimmy

As for John Walker Lindh, yeah, he obviously believed in something. After converting to Islam and going to Yemen to study, he decided to join a terrorist group in Kashmir. And while he was there, he became infatuated with the Taliban and decided to go to Afghanistan. He might not have known he'd be expected to kill Americans (although he doesn't seem to have had any problem with joining up to kill Indians...) but he decided to join a terror group and then he decided to cast his lot in with the Taliban. You respect that? That's vile. -kimmy

First off, I think the evidence indicates that Tillman certainly wasn't dumb. Secondly, like most Canadians, I'm glad that Canada participated in the war in Afghanistan, and I greatly respect Tillman for giving up a lucrative career to participate as well. The war in Iraq may be debatable, but the war in Afghanistan was widely supported, and that is what Tillman signed up for. Even if Afghanistan had never harbored terrorists (although they did), destroying the Taliban regime was a tremendous victory for human decency. The Taliban regime was one of the biggest abominations that world affairs have witnessed since the Third Reich. -kimmy

How much exposure have you had to Ottawa, Kimmy? The really stupid stuff gets hidden unless it starts getting expensive.Kimmy, go to this web site, skip down and then check under "Professional, Administrative and Management Support Services". Click on a few of the contracts available, use your imagination and you'll understand how the gun registry cost $2 billion without "corruption". I lived in Ottawa for a while... when my dad uprooted the family to take a job with that Canadian telecom company that has generated so much negative press in the past few years. I know that Ottawa has many nice things, but in my experience not many nice people. The canal is lovely year round, and I went skating there. The Ottawa River is also lovely, and I bicycled and jogged often on the pathways on both the Ontario and Quebec shores of the river. I enjoyed watching people building Inukshuks in the shallows. I visited many of the sites of national interest. I navigated my crappy Plymouth Reliant amongst all the urbanites driving their European sedans to their high-tech jobs in the suburbs. And amongst all the suburbanites driving their European sedans to their government jobs in the city core. I amused myself with the irony that while people think Westerners are Canada's American-wannabes, most people my age in Ottawa seemed to pattern their lives after American music videos. My time in Ottawa was the first and only time in my 21 years in Canada that I've seen an actual living maple leaf. I had thought they were like Unicorns or Dragons. I spent enough time in Ottawa to know that if you're on the streets downtown at 3:59 pm on a weekday, you'd better take cover quickly; you've got 120 seconds to seek shelter before you're stampeded by government workers checking out for the day. I felt like I got in touch with Ottawa, the place... at least as much as I cared to. But of course, you're not asking after the actual city, you're asking whether I have had much exposure to the government culture. Of course not. I only know what the rest of you know, the part that comes out during Sheila Fraser reports and so on. Probably only a fraction of what happens. I do understand that when you're doing something on a government-size scale, the price-tags can be astronomical. But I also understand that there are efficient ways to do things, and inefficient ways to do things. Purchasing software and hiring experts from a major provider of database services would be one example of an efficient way of doing things. If (as Pateris claims) the government decided to build a database from scratch, and spent time and money training bureaucrats to become programmers, that sounds to me like an example of an inefficient way of doing things. I can't take for granted that what Pateris says is the exact truth, at least not until I read some hard evidence. However, I do think there is a strong case to be made for having an inquiry into how costs have gone so astronomically past the projections. Don't you agree? People who support the registry should be just as eager to see some accountability in the costs as people who are opposed. -kimmy

"5 million on Black" is a reference to the gambling game of Roulette. It is a game of chance where a wheel spins, and the ball comes to rest on a slot with a color (black or red) and a number, with odds corresponding to the probability of your bet. The implication seems to be that the Campbell government's "careful fiscal planning" is nothing of the sort, and that their "reinvestment in the economy" is not based on solid planning. -kimmy

If this is true, it's utterly astounding. I have always believed that the spiraling costs were due to corruption, not incompetence, but if your information is correct, I may have to revise my theory. Whether we keep the registry or scrap it, we at least ought to have an investigation into how this thing has become so expensive. I feel that we are owed some explanation for what happened, especially when they continue to ask for more money for it. -kimmy

I had very high hopes when the Martin era began. He said all the right things about running a more democratic government, reducing the concentration of power in the PMO, a larger role for backbenchers, and especially rebuilding Ottawa's relationship with the West. And, I'm sure that he means well. Like Travers said in the article, Martin is at heart a decent person. After 11 years of having a goon for a Prime Minister, I thought it would be nice to have a decent guy as prime minister for just once. But he just doesn't seem to be very good at the job. What has he failed to do? Well, aside from the healthcare deal (did that actually put in as much money as they promised during the election, or are people just excited because the Liberals keeping a campaign promise is a first?) what has he accomplished since becoming Prime Minister? He promised a new deal for cities; that doesn't even seem to be on the drawing board yet. National daycare also not yet on the drawing board. He promised to get to the bottom of sponsorship, but the Gomery inquiry seems to be stuck in quicksand. He promised to "address the democratic deficit", but that has been nothing more than talk; his actions show he's as committed to an autocratic PMO as Chretien was. He's promised less cronyism, and set about putting defeated Liberal MPs in cushy jobs. I don't see a lot of reason to be excited about the Paul Martin era so far. On the bright side, he's spent more work-time in the West as PM in the past year than Chretien did during his whole reign. That's something positive, I guess. He's delivered on one major campaign promise, which I believe is also one more than Chretien did during his whole reign... -kimmy

Does an activist who has tried to damage BC's forestry industry fit in with the more economically-aware image that the NDP has been trying to build? -kimmy

To expand on what Maplesyrup mentioned, here's the Star article: Yushchenko poisoned, likely intentionally. I thought stuff like this only happened in James Bond movies... -kimmy

Myth? So before the gun registry was enacted, there was no gun control at all? Are you sure about this, syrup? -kimmy Kimmy......1 + 1 doesn't equal 3. Do you know how many people that misogynist at U of Montreal shot 15 years ago? Yes, I'm familiar with the Ecole Polytechnique tragedy. It has been pointed out many times that the gun registry could have done nothing to prevent that incident. Lepine purchased his weapon legally. Had the gun registry been in effect that the time, Lepine could have applied to have it registered, and they would have had no reason to refuse him. And there is no doubt that You are perpetrating the same kind of fraudulent argument that many supporters of the registry make. You cite violent incidents as the reason we need the gun registry, but offer no explanation as to how the registry could prevent the violent incidents you reference. The shooting of the teacher in Brampton is a perfect example. Did the gun registry make her life safer? We don't yet know if the gun he used was registered or unregistered, but either way, it points out a problem. If the gun the husband used was registered, this incident proves that legally owned, registered firearms are just as deadly as unregistered firearms. If the gun was unregistered, it proves that violent people apparently don't feel inclined to register their guns. So really, how is the gun registry making our lives safer? It didn't help Mrs Candir. It couldn't have prevented the Montreal Massacre. You keep pointing out violent incidents as evidence that we need the registry, but please explain how the registry could have prevented any of it. -kimmy

Strike two Maplesyrup. Keep this up and you'll be banned from these forums. Greg Admin Just want to be clear on the rules here now Greg. It is OK to use words like fascists, nazis, commies, communism, but no swearing, is that correct? If I might be so bold... I believe that Greg's concern was likely that "F U!" is not civil discourse. I think Greg is trying to keep this from degenerating into pre-school recess. Surely if you have actual ideas to express, you can express them, rather than shout swears at people who disagree with you. -kimmy

Myth? So before the gun registry was enacted, there was no gun control at all? Are you sure about this, syrup? -kimmy

I read a very good article yesterday about Pat Tillman and the events following his death. http://www.antiwar.com/bock/?articleid=4143 Although the article is from an antiwar website, it seems well-researched and balanced, and it talks about Pat Tillman the human being, rather than making him a comic-book hero or charicaturing him. Here's an editorial from some paper I've never heard of, that seems to sum up things rather well. http://www.valleystar.com/editorial_more.p...=55933_0_28_0_M Some have lampooned Tillman as a dumb redneck who signed up so that he could shoot Arabs. This article discredits that view. http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file...SPG5K6FD091.DTL Here is Tillman's player profile from ESPN.com http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/prof...le?statsId=4455 At only 5'11 and 202 pounds, he was a midget by the standards of pro football. But he must have been pretty good at it; the contract he turned down to fight in Afghanistan would have made him one of the highest-paid players on his team. He was also awarded as Defensive Player of the Year in college. Tillman's page at Wikipedia also indicates he was an outstanding student. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Tillman He sounds like a truly unique individual. It is unfortunate that the US Army decided to falsify information surrounding his death. It seems like they valued Pat Tillman, Recruiting Propaganda Guy more than they valued Pat Tillman, Remarkable Individual. -kimmy

That is very well said. -kimmy

An earlier post said If Canada's safety comes from non-involvement, isn't the converse that involvement would put us at risk? Do you think OBL and his ilk make that distinction? That it's OK to trespass against Islam, as long as the UN says so? Recent history says no: Australia's actions in East Timor were as part of a UN resolution, and other nations participated, but Al Qaeda killed 85 Aussies in Bali as revenge. -kimmy

A poor word choice, perhaps. If any mentally handicapped people are reading the forum, I completely apologize. I had no intention of insulting the mentally challenged by comparing them to Maplesyrup. Here is what I should have wrote: -kimmy

Perhaps "whining" is a debatable term, but what's not debatable is that comparing the status of "lefties" in BC to the civil rights struggle of black Americans in the deep south is completely laughable and quite retarded. -kimmy

What happens if "doing the right thing" requires taking a stand against a Muslim nation (as with Australia's intervention in East Timor, or, conceivably, humanitarian intervention in Sudan)? Do we still do nothing, in fear of incurring the wrath of extremists? (and isn't it kind of a moot point, since Canada's participation in the overthrow of the Taliban has already put us on the list of enemies?) -kimmy

That's true. However, it's unlikely that the United States would have ever permitted Canada to develop the means to threaten them militarily. Now, this is just sheer nationalist bravado. If you're interested in seeing what the American aviation industry was capable at the time, take a moment to bask in the majesty and beauty of the XB-70 Valkyrie! -here: http://www.labiker.org/xb70.html To put it in perspective, imagine a plane larger than most commercial jets, carrying a load of bombs as heavy as a B-52, and with a cruising speed faster than any jet-fighter in service today. That's the Valkyrie, and it was in the air, over 40 years ago. Designed by the North American Aviation company in response to a military specification, the Valkyrie was like the Avro Arrow in the sense that it was way ahead of its time, but cancelled before it became operational. The Valkyrie still produced breakthroughs in aerodynamic research and manufacturing techniques that left a legacy. In fact, the surviving prototype was used as a testbed by NASA for years after the Valkyrie was cancelled by the military. I think it's fiction to claim Canada's aviation industry was somehow far in advance of it's American counterpart; I also think many would dispute that it took the US 20 years to build a jet fighter equal to the Arrow. For instance, the F14 and F15, which are still among the world's best, were in the air just over a decade after the Arrow's test-flights. Also it is worth pointing out that like the Avro Arrow, the US aviation industry also suffered cancellations as leadership envisioned the "missile age" replacing the "jet age" in the near future. One might claim the Avro Arrow would have been the world's best jet fighter if it hadn't been cancelled; one could equally claim that the North American F-108 Rapier would have supplanted the Arrow just a few years after: http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f108.html Ann Coulter is funny. Not in the way she thinks she's funny, though. -kimmy {reads about planes. }

Bullshit. I have heard this claim before by the Liberals and by defenders of the gun registry... blaming opponents of the registry for driving up costs. HOW? I have heard that some prank phonecalls and prank applications have been made to the registry; I have never heard any evidence to support that the government was forced to hire extra staff to deal with these prank calls/applications, and I know damned well that the government didn't spend $2 billion on extra staff. So where, then? I've got a theory about what caused the outrageous cost over-runs: grift. Little-noticed amongst all the fury over the sponsorship scandal was this little tidbit that came out of the government investigation into sponsorship: http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/05/10/canada/rcmp040510 The RCMP found fraudulent expenses in the gun registry and they weren't even investigating the gun registry. How much more do you think there is that we don't know about? Does anybody here think the Liberals are above it? I mean, if they're willing to exploit concern over National Unity to scam public money to their friends, why wouldn't they exploit concern over Public Safety to scam public money to their friends? I mean, for there to have been that much money thrown at the gun registry, there's only two possibilities. Total incompetence, or massive fraud. One or the other. There's no other explanation for this thing costing $300 per registered gun. -kimmy

Right. Riiiiight. I can just picture Elinor Caplan standing in the House of Commons, shrieking "They're burning tofu and fair-trade coffee in Prince George!!" -kimmy

I bet that of those 1500 uses a day, at least 1499 of them are police checking for firearms before responding to routine calls at private residences. Not that I have any objection to the police officers watching out for their safety in this manner, but I think it is disingenuous to claim that number proves the registry is an effective tool in preventing or investigating crime. -kimmy

Both comments are true, but my quibble is that when you see groups organize protests against Bush, it's recognized that they're organized, and they're generally dismissed a bunch of activists who aren't representitive of the population as a whole. For the flood of FCC complaints, one might get the impression that they're a broad-based popular opinion rather than one group that's mobilized. What's the normal response rate of people? About 1 in 10 or something? If 1 person makes the effort to register their opinion, there are likely about 10 who feel the same way? Just a guess. 1 in 10? 1 in 50? What's the response rate among members of activist groups participating in an organized plan of action? Close to 100%? Sure, they've got the right to express their opinion, but the manner they've done so makes it seem as if it was a groundswell of public opinion rather than an activist group. If the same number of people had expressed their opinion as an activist group, what would the response be? A big fat yawn. Activists bitching and yowling has become boring to the general public; the response would be more or less the same as the organized anti-Bushites get. So what to do? Pretend that you're a random sampling of the population instead of an activist organization. -kimmy

When I read the thread title, I immediately thought of these two threads: Troy Mike and Mary -kimmy