kimmy

SkyDome has been sold to Rogers Communications for $25 million, which I am guessing is probably about the cost of the land it's sitting on. I have heard that it originally cost $600 million to build, and that a large portion of that was provincial and federal taxpayer money. I was wondering if anybody knows what the original breakdown of construction costs was, and whether those have ever been recouped in anyway. I believe that SkyDome has been sold before, correct? Followup question: if SkyDome were in Montreal rather than Toronto, would there be a lot more talk about the federal money which appears to have been completely wasted on this thing? -kimmy

Low-life underworld stuff? It's the Liberal Party of Canada, we should be used to it by now. -kimmy

Thanks for the excellent response. I think many people have become emotionally invested in the "we started it" mentality and are unwilling to consider that "they" might share the same shortcomings. As for knowing what happens in Islamic religious services... I think an excellent point was made earlier. Somebody (Stoker, maybe) pointed out that if a Christian preacher made hate-filled comments during a sermon, it would be reported in the media. Somebody in the congregation would be upset enough to complain. August1991 posted an article a while back, where a Montreal journalist tried to get someone to take a recording device into a mosque to record a sermon. He approached Arabs, both believers and non-believers, he said, and was refused. They said their community would not appreciate it. I will go back and try to find August's message; I think it was pretty interesting. I think that maybe the difference is that probably the large majority of Christians in Canada have been here for generations, while Muslims in Canada are most likely new Canadians or first generation Canadians. For them, being ostracized within their community is probably a serious threat, as they're not confident enough of their place in this country to risk going it alone without their support network. -kimmy

I'd never heard of the Black Donnely story, but I found an article here: http://www.frymybacon.com/articles/article...?article_ID=227 It does sound like there were monsters, but it wasn't the Donnely's... My choice is Marc Lepine. I have mixed feelings about the death penalty, but if that guy was strapped to the chair, I'd have no problem jabbing the needle into his arm. Thankfully he did us all a huge favour by doing the job himself. -kimmy

Given some of the events since the occupation, particularly those in Abu Ghraib prison, barbarism is certainly a charge that can be made. And of course, the charge of imperialism has been discussed extensively and probably will be debated by future generations. But genocide? The worst genocide in human history? I don't think even the harshest critics of Bush would characterize anything happening in Iraq as genocide. Genocide against whom? In my opinion, Mr Elkatmis completely jumped the rails and made himself look like a kook with that claim. -kimmy

QED? What do you imagine yourself to have proven? Not true at all. You may not agree with the argument that Frum makes, but to claim that the article was just an excuse to print an AIDS jab is weak. Finally. I meant both. The report for the same reason as the headline: it focuses heavily on the AIDS angle, and barely at all mentions that the Frum editorial focuses primarily on Arafat's violent past. -kimmy

Well, Syrup, you're right about one thing: the majority of Canadians are sick of the whining. You're wrong about whose whining they're sick of. This: ...is the kind of whining Canadians are sick of.-kimmy

What's all the squabbling about? Prior mention of media bias has generated only a yawn on these forums before. (see this thread or this thread for details.) I was under the impression that nobody seems to think it's a big deal. -kimmy

Thanks for the article, Willy. It does a good job presenting some of the arguments I've made in this thread. Either Romeo St Martin is stealing my posts for his articles, or else the concept was obvious to anybody willing to apply some critical thinking abilities. I'm guessing it's the latter. In other words, the report tries to spin this into bigger news. In otherwords, the report (and particularly the headline) misrepresented the content of the piece Day referred to in his email, to generate a sensationalist angle to a pretty dull story. Any comments on any of this, Terrible Sweal? -kimmy

They did. For those hoping for a right-wing alternative to the Klein Club, there's the brand new Alberta Alliance, who got nearly 10% of the popular vote. And of course we've got the NDP, the Liberals, the Greens. The question isn't why nobody has created an alternative, it's why so many Albertans are unwilling to support the altermatives that are there. -kimmy

Kimmy, you don't have to read David Frum to know what he's going to say. So, in short, you drew an inference about Day's intentions based on an assumption of the article's content? Yeah, that's about what I expected. Tripe? I won't argue over the merits of Frum's column. But I don't think anybody who has actually read the article would claim that that "AIDS rumour" is an accurate description of its content. He went out of his way to make it seem otherwise. From the story: Yes, I did mention that I read the article, didn't I? Are you seriously going to argue that Frum's main point is that Arafat may have had AIDS? For real? Well, I for starters I think running it under the headline "Stockwell Day cites Arafat AIDS rumour in email" when it first appeared on Monday night was a misrepresentation. (The article was updated with a new headline and Day's explanation of his meaning on Tuesday morning.) The report made it seem as if the AIDS comment was the only significant content of Frum's piece and that Day must have been referring to it when he cited Frum's piece in his e-mail. The article, particularly before being updated with the new headline and Day's response, created the impression that Day didn't send condolences because of AIDS. (see caesar's initial furious reaction.) So, yes, I definitely think the news report was questionable journalism. -kimmy

Did you actually read the David Frum piece before deciding it was implausible and inflammatory? Or did you just base that conclusion on what you've read in this thread and the fact that it's David Frum? If you're interested in reading the piece, it's here: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadA...le.asp?ID=15801 Frum's point is NOT that "ARAFAT has AIDS and is a FAG and will DIE soon." Frum cites the media's lack of curiousity into Arafat's ailment to support the article's main point: the media is pretty spineless when it comes to Arafat. Agree with Frum, or disagree. But his column is not about whether Arafat had AIDS, it was about whether our media painted an unjustly rosy picture of the man. The fact of this incident: Stockwell Day cites Frum article in explaining why he didn't send condolences to Arafat. People are free to draw whatever inferences they wish from that. However, I'm not sure it's a reporter's job to draw inferences. I think that's the job of other members of the House of Commons, editorialists, columnists, and so on. News reporters are supposed to report news, not create it. By presenting this as if AIDS was the key point of the Frum piece, rather than a single supporting paragraph in his main thesis, the report has put bias into the coverage of this story. -kimmy

I think if he's entitled to the benefit of unspoken meanings or intentions, then we're entitled to our doubts about what they are. Of course. We all have our prejudices about the people in Ottawa. In Day's case, it goes without saying that a lot of people are prepared to believe the worst about anything he says. That's fine, and maybe even justified. What's interesting to me, in this instance, is that the reporter who wrote this story are, apparently, among those. -kimmy

He was having an e-mail discussion with party colleagues, not issuing a press-release. -kimmy Is this a sort of 'what happens in Vegas' defence? No. It's a response to Caesar's comment that he should have been specific about what he meant. I don't write my private emails with the assumption that I have to make each one clear enough that strangers who somehow wind up in possession of it will be able to understand that email, out of context. Do you? -kimmy

And, Day has indeed clarified the intent of the email. -kimmy

We saw what you were getting at... sort of an "Everything I Need To Know, I Learned In Kindergarten" exercise in fairness. However, what some of us wanted to point out is that the real world is a lot more complicated than kindergarten. -kimmy

The media made them do it? Does Ms. Walker get to blame the media too? She's 33 years old... shouldn't she accept some responsibility for her own actions? I doubt that these kids were drinking and smoking pot because they were depressed over the economy or society. Personally, my bet is that these kids were drinking and smoking pot because they had the opportunity to drink and smoke pot. Maplesyrup talks about "doing what comes naturally"... I think that for most teenagers, getting drunk comes pretty naturally. Please tell us about viable social structures, Nic. What exactly do you have in mind? What should be different? -kimmy

Since he's Canadian, I guess that would make him an ignorant, biggotted, rednecked, western, Bush-lovin hillbilly. Still, writing a string of perjoratives about him doesn't really seem like the sort of open-minded, intellectually refined debate that non-ignorant, non-biggotted, non-redneck, non-hillbilly Canadians supposedly value. Why? Because you disagree with his views? -kimmy

He was having an e-mail discussion with party colleagues, not issuing a press-release. -kimmy

Can someone interpret this for me? 'Sounds good'. What? If you're spin-doctoring for a political party or trying to hype some product (or, in Syrup's case, both ) then trying to make them "sound good" is your goal, right? If you talk in relative terms (as Syrup did earlier) you can make it seem as though even the most unpopular product-- (dealcoholized beer? Ashlee Simpson records? Alberta NDP?) is exploding in popularity. The Alberta NDP doubled their number of MLAs? Wow! It's a revolution taking the whole province by storm! You're not seriously going to start pointing out typos, are you? I mentioned my voting plans earlier in this thread. With a Klein majority a foregone conclusion, my hope for this election was to get a more effective opposition into the Legislature. I think tonight's results were about as good as we could have hoped for on that front. The NDP did quite well considering the above. They had zero chance in Calgary; spending money on advertising there would have been a waste of resources that could be more help elsewhere. -kimmy

I assume this is what you're referring to: CTV report From what I can tell, Day is citing the David Frum article to illustrate his view that "As you know, there are two sides to the Arafat story. You pick.'' However, as the CTV report points out, David Frum's article is not just about Arafat having AIDS: Stockwell Day has long been known to be a supporter of Israel. He has been criticized for his lack of neutrality on the Israel-Palestine issue. I think the most rational explanation as to why he didn't send a condolence, and why he cited David Frum's article, is that he is not a fan of Arafat or the PLO. -kimmy

Why should Quebec care if the territories become provinces? Are the new provinces' THREE SEATS in Parliament going to upset the balance of power in this country? -kimmy

"They doubled their seats" sounds a lot better than "they went from 2 to 4." As Brian Mason himself said, "Looks like we'll need a bigger phone-booth." Overally, a pretty good result, I think. The Liberals gain some seats and the NDP will have official party status, so the opposition should be a little more effective. -kimmy

What it would be like? I'm not sure what it would be like; propose what you think it would be like, and suggest the point you want me to take from the situation, and I'll consider it. I have a feeling that what you're leading me towards is that the Reform and NDP notions of more vocal, active backbenchers would not work very well if those parties ever formed a government, for reasons Paul Martin discovered first-hand thanks to Ms Parrish. Harper got a taste of that dilemna himself during the election when he was forced to juggle his support for Gallant and White to speak their minds with his reluctance to have their controversial remarks damage the party. It might be that a Chretienesque Iron Fist is the only practical way to run a government in Canada. Reform and NDP will probably never have the chance to discover for themselves. But again, nobody who voted Liberal really has any business griping about Parrish being dismissed; you knew what you were getting when you voted for them. The difference between what and what? I'm sorry, but I'm just not sure what you're asking. -kimmy

Indeed, Tawasakm. To me the answer depends a lot on the circumstances. Are we the only 2 people on a deserted island, or is there a supermarket just down the street? If there's a supermarket just down the street and my neighbor has a decent income, then he can forget my chickens and go shopping if he's hungry. If we are the only 2 people on an island, then my answer depends a lot on the specifics. If there are thousands of wild chickens running around on this island, then my neighbor can get off his lazy ass and go get his own. Or, compensate me in some way to catch some chickens for him. If they're the only 2 chickens on the island, then first off, if they're a breeding pair then separating them to create some false sense of equality is obviously sheer idiocy. If they're both hens, then there's no harm in separating them, I suppose. But if I'm going to do that, then I want something in return. Does my neighbor have something he could swap me in return? If my neighbor has some durable goods he'd be willing to swap me, I would consider it. If he has some service that I depend on, then I would keep the hens and exchange eggs for that service. We could develop a specialized economy on our island. Perhaps I could grow a little garden or something to augment my poultry industry; he could hunt for meat and build shelter and stuff. When I was in junior high school we did a unit in social studies class where we imagined ourselves to be shipwrecked and set about various exercises in identifying needs and looking at different ways of meeting those needs. It probably sounds stupid to the older people here, but it was actually very constructive. It made the whole concept of an economy make sense. -kimmy