kimmy

Interesting and not very surprising. I wasn't able to get to the web-page you linked, but I'll take your word for it; it makes perfect sense. The number of people who claim to have been offended by the breast must exceed the number of people who actually saw the breast by several orders of magnitude. I submit simple common sense as evidence: it was Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake. How many people would be watching THAT close enough to see a split second of breast? Some, I'll grant, but not many; certainly not nearly the number who claim to have seen it and been offended. I watched the Superbowl with my family and some friends; we had a nice little party with beer and chips and decorations and stuff (more or less a typical Sunday for us ) and the TV was on during the whole half-time show, including the infamous breast segment, and of 10 people in the room, not one of them saw the exposed breast or knew of it until it was mentioned later. Not a statistically significan sample, of course, but character evidence demonstrating how much attention people pay to halftime shows. This wasn't about moral outrage, it was about seizing an opportunity to advance an agenda. I am sure that the same is true of the recent "Desperate Housewives" promotional skit on Monday Night Football, in which a towel-clad woman attempted to distract a star player from playing against her favorite team by using sex-appeal, and then dropping her towel and jumping on him (though no actual nudity occured.) It was certainly sexually suggestive, so offended citizens made a big ruckus over it, some of the moral outrage being an organized effort, I suspect. They got an official apology from ABC. The offended citizens, however, would do well to note that the resulting publicity earned the next episode of "Desperate Housewives" the highest ratings of the season. -kimmy

Good post. Yes, it's remarkable how politicians' perspective changes when they're on the inside instead of on the outside. Like Paul Martin's talk of addressing the democratic deficit while ... aside from a few soundbites during the election, I don't think he's even mentioned the democratic deficit since he became PM. -kimmy

What do these morons envision doing with all that electricity, if not selling it to the Americans at a hefty profit? Stockpile it in car-batteries for some distant future when ELECTRONS are scarce? -kimmy

Hey, that's about a DVD rental per day. Surely "Canada" is worth that? I don't know anybody who watches a DVD rental per day. It could also be, say, a fair chunk of somebody's post-secondary tuition... Is Canada worth it? Maybe; some people might disagree. When I see this attitude that Alberta is some kind of blight on Canada that the rest of Canada wishes would go away, it makes me wonder. -kimmy

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories I would think that heavily populated southern Canadian cities could also be adversely affected if nuclear warheads exploded in the northeastern United States. -kimmy

Stoker, ICBMs might be the present danger, and cruise missiles are not presently a major component of any nation's nuclear arsenal. I don't believe that there's a reflection of any great technological hurdle, I believe it's a reflection of present circumstances. A working Ballistic Missile Defence shield could certainly change circumstances to make cruise missiles a major component of an enemy arsenal. There might have been a time when only the Americans were smart enough to build a cruise missile; that's clearly not the case anymore. ICBMs might be the main threat "rogue nations" have in their arsenal right now; I was hoping to illustrate that there are certainly other options they could explore. You've said that this is not a cure-all, it's just one tool for security. Ok, and I suppose that makes sense. But as far as value of these security tools, is this the best way to spend all that money? I keep thinking back to that senator saying "I don't think we can be militarily strong if we are financially weak." And I keep thinking back to one of the presidential debates when Kerry asked why such a small proportion of containers coming into ports are inspected, and why they haven't got more security personnel at border crossings and airports. Bush replied that they just don't have enough money to do more. The money going into BMD could hire an awful lot of port/airport/border-crossing inspectors. If you're trying to determine which is more likey to cost American lives over the next however many years, I think there's a greater probability that it'll be a terrorist attack from within than a missile attack from some rogue nation. That's my own personal guess, of course. I don't object to Canada participating, as long as it's limited to supplying some land, or Canadian firms participating (if any of them have anything to offer.) I don't think Canadian government money should be involved; I strongly feel that Canadian security would be better enhanced by spending that money on better coastal patrol, port inspections, airport security, etc. -kimmy

Well maybe you should get to know your country a little bit better. I *have* lived in Ontario, and I never got the impression that Western Canada was appreciated either. In order to afford everything and have low taxes, you need to have more people paying taxes, and Toronto has a bigger population than Alberta. Affording everything just depends on revenue. It's well known that "the cost of confederation" is about $7 billion a year for Alberta. That is, add up all the money that comes into Alberta from the federal government, then subtract all the money that leaves Alberta to the federal government, and Alberta comes out behind by about $7 billion every year. $2000 for every man, woman, and child. Yes, yes. High oil prices are good for Alberta. I think we got that. Given ongoing situations in the world, and increasing scarcity of petroleum resources, I wouldn't expect oil prices dropping below $12 a barrel any time soon (or ever...) The oilsands aren't Alberta's only resource, anyway. Alberta's economy would not be any less diverse. Alberta's economy would be exactly as vulnerable to oil market changes as it is right now. Canada's defence industry is in the east? Those English-built submarines? Those new American-built Sikorsky helicopters that are supposed to replace the Sea Kings? Our fleet of American-built F-18s? Does the Canadian military fly Bombarier commuter-jets into battle? What Eastern Canadian defence industry are we talking about here? The occasional make-work project for Halifax shipyards? -kimmy

Of course suicide rates are astronomically high on the reserves. They're a disaster. Reserves are not good. Projects that are supposed to create opportunities on reserves wind up lining the pockets of corrupt band officials. Young people wind up leaving the reserves to look for opportunities in the cities, because there's nothing for them on the reserves. But they find themselves poorly adapted to life in cities, as they've had little opportunity to gain the life skills they need to succeed (or, even, scrape by.) Here on the prairies, many natives who come to the cities wind up joining gangs. Give them special treatment or extra help or whatever, but the reserves are terrible. -kimmy

People on this message board seem to think it's a piece of cake. "Oh, let's be less dependant on the Americans. We'll just trade with Asia instead!" Gee, what a novel idea! I wonder why nobody has thought of it before. Canada is interested in trade with Asia. Canada is trying to expand trade with Asia. The problem is, it's not as easy as it sounds. The problem is that these countries are even more protectionist than the Americans! -kimmy

There could be a serial killer in the Edmonton area (over the past handful of years there have been a number of prostitute murders which may have been related to each other) but this case is not related to those. -kimmy

Then to intergrate it with GPS, it won't be something that you can make for five grand in your garage......... The guy who is, in fact, building one in his garage, disagrees. His plans indicate that the electronics, including a single-board computer, a computer-linked GPS receiver, and altimeter and attitude measuring devices used by hobbyists who build remote control helicopters. Anyway, what does it matter? I doubt rogue nations or terrorist organizations who might consider building one would limit themselves to Mr Simpsons' self-imposed $5000 budget. And WW II area buzz bombs were shot down with anti aircraft guns targeted by the human eye, not too mention propeller driven aircraft. Well, if Bruce Simpson ever declares war on the United States, perhaps his missiles will be easy enough to intercept. However, I expect that if a foreign power puts its expertise into developing a cruise missile, they'll probably have a research budget of much more than $5000, and I would expect something quite a bit more sophisticated than a V1 to come flying over. Very low altitude flight and higher speeds would be possible; in fact Mr Simpson believes his $5000 missile will be capable of low-altitude flight. I don't think Mr Simpson's home-made cruise missile represents something an enemy nation would wage war with, but it's worrying as an indication of how much technology is available to the average citizen, or theoretically to terrorists. Could a terrorist cell operating just south of the US-Mexico border slap together something like this and use it to deliver a WMD to San Diego or Phoenix or Houston before the USAF had a chance to respond? Off a boat? Dropped from a plane? Submarine? Or perhaps it could be built with enough range to make a longer trip on its own. Maybe they just haven't had any reason to do so. Any nation capable of putting satellites in orbit is capable of building an equivalent to the GPS system. Anyway, other means of guidance might work well enough. I don't expect pinpoint accuracy is critical if you're delivering a nuclear warhead. The Nazis were able to get their V1s to London using a guidance system made out of springs, pendulums, and clockworks. Given more modern instrumentation to keep track of airspeed and time, and a computer to keep track of the trip, I would anticipate a fairly effective autopilot could be made without any GPS guidance at all. What do I know? I'm just a kid with a computer. I thought that a cruise missile is an ideal way to bypass the missile defence shield, but if Vlad thinks new-generation ICBMs will be able to bypass the missile defence shield, then who am I to argue? He has likely discussed it with military scientists who know what they're talking about. The point is, the missile defence shield is only going to be effective until somebody else figures out a way past it. George Patton said "Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man." He was probably referring to the Maginot Line, but the missile defence shield will be a fixed fortification too. Not in the literal sense of something that just sits there on the ground, but in the sense that it's a stationary obstacle that their enemies will find a way around. All this does is throw down a gauntlet to encourage other nations to improve their technology. Iran and North Korea probably aren't up to it, but are you sure the Russians and Chinese aren't? -kimmy

...a GPS-guided buzz-bomb... Who cares? It wouldn't have to be as good as the next-generation US missile to deliver a massive warhead to a big population center. If the US had prior warning of an impending attack, they could certainly foil it if it relied on GPS. That's assuming they had prior warning... Hypothetically, some nation could build and launch their own GPS network for a fraction of the cost of the missile defence shield. It doesn't matter if the Americans and Japanese have "the best" expertise in electronics and computing. Computing technology has become widely available; one no longer needs to be a world leader to do things that were on the cutting edge 20 years ago. In 1980, a computerized autopilot for a missile was advanced military research; in 2004 it's a term-project for a tech-school student. For the scramjet, I mentioned the Aussie program merely to point out that it's not a top secret military technology. The Russians, in fact, successfully scramjet missiles in 1992. An enemy nation would not need to compete with top-of-the-line US technology to render a Ballistic Missile Defence system pointless; they need only come up with a system that's not ballistic or not a missile. A low-flying, rapid, guided missile (the scramjet cruise missile we've been discussing) was an idea that came to me after about 2 minutes of contemplating the shortcomings of what I've read about BMD so far, and nothing you've said has convinced me it's not a viable threat. I'm sure there are far more devious minds than mine out there who could come up with more dangerous ideas. How do you protect your home? Do you use locks on your windows -or- locks on your doors? Having locks on both is a waste of money you see....... IOW words, don't you think it prudent to try and defend against all possable threats? Spending hundreds of billions to protect against ballistic missiles doesn't seem that intelligent if it just causes your enemies to use other avenues. To borrow your analogy, putting security bars on your windows IS a waste of money if you can't lock your back door. This could be the 21st century equivalent of France's Maginot Line. Of course not. Automobile engines of 40 years ago (and of today) fall short of ideal, in ways such as efficiency and reliability. It's never been perfected, and probably never will be. It's an ongoing competition as a multitude of consumers with different needs and preferences make choices based on ever-changing factors. The putting-satellites-in-orbit business, on the otherhand, is a pretty small niche. There's only a few customers, a few launches per year, and the criteria are a lot simpler: satellite gets into the correct orbit, or satellite doesn't get into the correct orbit. Automobile engines fall short of the goal, and always will; satellite launching rockets reach the goal. -kimmy

But only if it was that simple........look what Ronnie Rays Guns did to the Soviet Union with Star Wars.....they couldn't keep up with the cost. IOW, all the countries that are opposed to the United States BMD program, will have to spend the money to develop the technology to defeat it..... But will the technology to bypass a BMD shield be nearly so expensive to develop? Last month I saw a US senator saying "I do not think we can be militarily strong if we are financially weak." I agree with him, and so I question the wisdom of a massive expenditure on a missile defence system at this point when the US is already running massive deficits. Cruise missiles are older than I am... and with technological advances in the past 10 years, it's got to be even easier. While doing some reading on cruise missiles, I found this interesting page from a New Zealander who proposes that a cruise missile can be built using off-the-shelf parts for under $5000. Check it out: http://www.aardvark.co.nz/pjet/cruise.shtml I don't know what the Chinese aerospace industry's capabilities are, but if they're up to the 1960s, then that's probably about all it would take for them to build a capable cruise missile. The real magic of a cruise missile isn't the aeronautical engineering, it's the guidance. The United States no longer has the leadership in computing science and electronics that it once did. As for the scramjet part of my proposal, the US doesn't have a monopoly on that, either. One of the leading scramjet programs is the HyShot, at the University of Queensland in Australia. And, I don't know how difficult it would be for some other country to imitate the US stealth plane technology. But from what I've been reading, low-altitude cruise missiles are difficult to detect anyway; stealth technology might not even be required. It just seems to me that pouring literally hundreds of billions of dollars into a defence system to protect against ballistic missiles might not be wise, when it seems completely conceivable to me that non-ballistic or even non-missile methods of delivering weapons of mass destruction pose an equally large threat to the safety of Americans. Most modern commercial satellites are launched on booster rockects that were derived from early ballistic misslie programs. Well, that's super... but given that we've been able to put satellites in orbit for over 40 years, I'm not sure that additional research on this front is going to do us a lot of good. -kimmy

caesar's post is a good example of why no politician has the stones to say what Argus wrote, even though his post makes a lot of sense. Point out that the law is overly vague, and next election your opponents will be writing in their brochures: "Argus OPPOSED tougher child-porn laws!" In our world of 10-second sound-bites, there's no chance for a politician to set out an intelligent argument on the issue without risking being charicatured. -kimmy

Aside from that, the idea of securing our part of North America doesn't just mean not being attacked. It also means we have to be prepared to prevent fellows like this chap: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Ressam ...from operating within Canada. -kimmy

If colonizing space is something we'd like to see in the future, it would make more sense to spend the money on stuff that's actually related to space exploration... the international space-station, a faster way of travelling in space, maybe a lunar colony to process Maplesyrup's moon-rocks for fusionable helium, that sort of thing. I don't see why the "military industrial complex" would mind... most of the money would be going to the same companies anyway, I would expect. -kimmy

The civilian applications for hammers are pretty clear to everyone. The civilian application for ballistic missiles is, frankly, eluding me at the moment. -kimmy

Whaaaa? I don't get the connection. Syrup's plan to use Moon-rocks to solve our energy problems is the one where we're exploiting natural resources for our own greed. Seems to me that the 'home base' in question was a big military vessel, somewhat like an aircraft carrier. I think its destruction fit squarely into the category of self defense, much like when Layton Skywalker blew up the Death Star while Darth Bush was trying to atomize the lefty base. Searching for political wisdom in an Emerich/Devlin film seems to me somewhat analogous to searching for gold nuggets in kitty's litter-box. I think my little feline buddy is about as likely to leave a gold nugget in there as Emerich and Devlin are to put an intelligent thought into one of their movies. In all seriousness, though, what do you think "Mars Attacks!" has to say on the issue of missile defense? "ACK! ACK! ACK-ACK! ACK-DACK! DACK ACK ACK!" Another movie I think we should probably discuss is that James Bond movie where there's this big Russian spaceship that flies around in orbit and literally swallow other spaceships and satellites. Do you think that future space-shuttle missions should be equipped with some type of weapon to protect themselves from spaceship-eating spaceships? They could perhaps put a boxing-glove on the CanadArm. -kimmy

I think arms races are a good thing, they cause technology, that can later be used for humanitarian purposes, to be developed at astonishing rates. Well... World War II spurred advances in aviation that were later of great benefit to the civilian aviation industry. Military communications technology has found its way into the civilian telecommunications industry. But I'm not sure how a missile/anti-missile arms-race is really going to be of much benefit to the populace as a whole. Is there a civilian ballistic missile industry out there that I'm not aware of? I'm not really sure how you and I will benefit that much from all this research into building a better missile. I think the primary beneficiaries of this research will be the companies contracted. Aside from the political ramifications, I think the idea of spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a defense against missiles is dubious logic for an obvious reason, one that's already been made apparent by Mr Putin. Build a better lock, and somebody will device a better set of lockpicks. Putin has already announced plans to develop missiles that will be difficult to intercept. Here's a thought... Cruise missile technology is already well-known. Stealth aircraft technology is already well-known. And research into "scramjet" engines has the promise of delivering jet propulsion at speeds well over Mach 10. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramjet#Scra...mjet_programmes ) Suppose somebody combined the 3 to give a low-flying. hard-to-detect guided missile which would approach targets very rapidly and give a very narrow window of opportunity for interception? What then? Does the US go spend another trillion dollars developing a new shield against this sort of a threat? -kimmy

Is it true that in Ontario the strippers don't get an appearance fee, and they only get money by selling lap-dances? If that's the case, no wonder they need to import women from poor countries. Maybe instead of lobbying for favors from Immigration, these businessmen should re-examine the way they compensate the dancers. -kimmy

I don't get it. All the quotes in that article are from people who think moving away from right-wing values is a mistake... why would they think Stronach is a better choice? -kimmy

He might say he hasn't heard, but he's heard. They have people whose job is to follow Canadian affars full-time. He would have been thoroughly prepared before his visit. -kimmy

It sounds like the discussion was at least civil. And it didn't sound like Bush was angered or upset or offended by it. Just the opposite, in fact. To me it sounds like Layton did a good job. No indication that anyone was called a bastard or idiot. No dolls were stomped, from what I gather. It sounds like a positive exchange. I expect that while President Bush was not swayed, he was at least left with a better appreciation of why many Canadians oppose our participation in the missile defense plan. -kimmy

He already said that. I hope you might go back and read his post again, caesar. People talk as though BushCo has a monopoly on BS, but there clearly is BS coming from all sides. -kimmy

I posted a link to a site with a thorough treatment of this crackpot theory the LAST TIME somebody posted this topic. Here's the thread: Crackpot theories And here's the debunking: Snopes When there's undeniable evidence of what happened to the Twin Towers on 9/11, why is it so hard to accept that a 3rd plane might have been hijacked and crashed into a target? -kimmy