kimmy

Ooooh, he's got a cross! Must be another religious fanatic! Out of curiousity, Black Dog, what about the event you refered to in the original post do you characterize as "fanaticism"? -kimmy

Good effort, August, but probably a wasted effort. I doubt the people you're making fun of will even sense the sarcasm. -kimmy

I'm not a historian, obviously but if my understanding of that event is correct, the mutiny was sparked when British officers had the Indian soldiers prepare their rifles using a grease that the Indians believed to be made from beef tallow. I'm not sure that the event, as described, would be as offensive to Muslims as the beef-tallow musket-wadding was to the Hindu soldiers. I believe that under Islam, Christians are recognized ("people of the Book") and permitted to worship privately. An open-air event with loud music, loud praise, and open display of religious symbols is probably pushing the bounds of what is acceptible, but unless I have things completely wrong, I believe the Muslims' own scripture requires some tolerance of Christian worship. -kimmy

Don't forget "fair trade" coffee shops! -kimmy

I didn't say I thought it was smart. I just don't think the comparison Black Dog is trying to make is accurate. FWIW, If I was sending people into harm's way, I wouldn't feel right about telling them what spiritual preparations they're allowed to perform. If I'm telling people to risk their lives on my behalf, they can play their Amy Grant records and yell "Ah'm talkin' bout JEEEEZUS!" all night long. They can sacrifice live chickens to the Goat God. Whatever they feel they need to do is fine with me. I'm asking for too much from them already. Asking them to defer their spiritual needs to avoid offending sensibilities on top of what I'm already is asking is just too much. What message might their Iraqi allies get from hearing a female voice or all the talkin'bout JEEEEEzus? Probably something along the lines of "we have different beliefs from you." What the Iraqi allies decide to do with that information is up to them, of course, but it is a reflection of them, not on the US soldiers. I understand that they're not as tolerant of other religions and cultures as we in the west. But 150 years ago, Turkish muslims fought alongside Christians from England and France in the Crimean War. Why would it have been acceptible then but not now? -kimmy

I guess I could buy into that argument if I did believe it was just a small minority of the insurgents that are religious extremists, or that there was a significant number of Christian extremists among the US forces, or that religious extremism was a motivating factor behind the US actions in Iraq. But I don't believe any of those things, and so I feel that a comparison of the US army to the insurgents falls flat. -kimmy

Debating over the definition of what qualifies as "moral" doesn't refute anything I wrote. -kimmy

I guess when they heard they'd be fighting Allah's warriors, they figured having some holy mojo on their side would even things out. I heard that there are 15,000 US soldiers involved in the assault on Fallujah, so 35 out of 15,000 sounds like a pretty small proportion. One wonders what portion of the Fallujah rebels could be classified as religious fanatics? -kimmy

If the upshot of this story is that the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor because the poor can't get into university, then there's an omission here. Apprenticeship and skilled trades are just as likely (if not moreso) to lead to a well-paying career. If financial success is our yardstick of advancement in society, then omitting apprenticeship from the study limits its value as a measure of social opportunity. -kimmy

That is pure fiction! People *did* see huge differences between them. In fact they thought the differences were much bigger than they actually are. Moving towards more liberal values will not get a Democrat into the White House, because liberal values have been soundly rejected by the voters in the states you're referring to as Jesusland. Have another look at the US electoral map, and which states are red and which are blue. (The Onion.com electoral map labelled the blue states "Hate Guns" and the red states "Hate Fags". there is probably some amount of truth in this flippant breakdown.) Choosing a more liberal candidate is not going to increase the number of electoral votes available in blue states. It is not going to decrease the amount of electoral votes available in red states. And running a more liberal candidate is not going to turn "Hate Fags" states into "Hate Guns" states. A major problem for the Democrats is that some of their core constituencies are now divided. Black and hispanic voters used to lean heavily towards the Democrats. Polling indicates that those voters were almost evenly split during the past election. Why? Because of "values issues". A larger proportion of black and hispanic voters are highly religious... and they were left with a dilemna: how could they vote for the party that was traditionally the party of minority empowerment, when that party is advancing views that are opposed to their religious views? The Republicans were successfully able to use "values issues" to drive a wedge between the Democrats and some of their traditional support. -kimmy

So, overall, which religions do you think should be banned, Syrup? -kimmy

Sorry, I got carried away. I'll try again. The idea that people will have to adapt to change, and will have to take responsibility for their own lives and careers is just fine with me. I just never expected this kind of adapt-or-die, Darwinist, survivalist kind of idea coming from you. It's the sort of thing I would expect from Stoker. I'm wondering if it's a one-time-only thing, or if your new survival of the fittest attitude will apply to other discussions, like with the homeless or people who can't afford healthcare or tuition fees. -kimmy

What about Muslim institutions? I think they've lost their way too. Let's abolish them too. And Rastafarians have always kind of bugged me. We could ban them while we're at it. -kimmy

What exactly do you believe is a good level for the dollar Kimmy? Is any change up or down bad? What, if anything, do you think the government should do about it? What do you think is causing it? What do I think would be a good level for the dollar? That's an interesting question. What level would be of personal benefit to Kimmy? Or what level would be of greatest benefit to the greatest number of Canadians? Is any change bad? Change is change. It will affect some people for the better, some people for the worse, and some people not at all. What should be done about it? Obviously that will have to be in the hands of people who know about these things. But shouldn't we as Canadians at least be aware of the issues? Shouldn't we make an effort to recognize that whatever monetary policy is set, there will be winners and losers? Shouldn't we take a moment to look and see what monetary policy they decide on, and and which Canadians benefit from it and which Canadians bear the consequences? What do I think is causing it? I hear the massive deficits being run by our friends to the south may have something to do with it... I'm not really advocating one way or the other. I just find Maplesyrup's rah-rah, boo-yah nationalist boosterism to be uniformed. Canada doesn't "win" anything when our dollar rises. It's a change, that helps some Canadians and hurts others. In many instances, the ones who will benefit are often well-off Canadians, and the ones who will suffer will most likely be average Canadians. Which is why I find it so funny that Jack Layton Jr here is jumping up and down with excitement at the dollar's rise. I think that in many cases, "streamlining operations" and "becoming more competitive" are code-phrases for paying less in taxes and salaries and benefits, which left-wing types won't be happy about. I would also suspect that in many cases, the new tools which you say will be purchased will likely be "labor saving"... in some cases that means getting more output from the same number of employees. But in other cases, it might mean getting the same output from fewer employees. Why Syrup... what a right-wing thing to say. -kimmy

A week ago, Dutch film-maker Theo van Gogh was murdered. Van Gogh had made a film critical of the treatment of women under Islam. The suspect, a Morroccan immigrant, was captured after a chase and gun-fight with police. He had also left a death-threat on the body, directed towards a Dutch member of parliament. Since then, 8 extremists have been arrested in connection with the murder. Now, an anti-Muslim backlash is underway. It started with vandalism, but it has turned violent. -kimmy

Why is it in this country that any discussion of updating the health care system somehow always ends at "we don't want a US style system"? As Eureka noted, the French system is among the best in the world, if not the best. The French system has elements of both private and public healthcare. But instead of analysing what aspects of their system make it efficient, we somehow wind up in the same old argument, as if Canadian-style and American-style were the only two health-systems in the world. Eureka's comment couldn't be more apt: "We spend too much moral energy shouting about healthcare and none in looking at other examples other than comparing ourselves to the US." Is healthcare actually on the mend in Canada? We had a big highly-publicized summit where the provinces teamed up to wail and scream until the Liberals agreed to honor *some* of the promises they made during the election, and replace *some* of the funding shortfall they've created over the past 11 years, and we're ready to declare the system fixed? No wonder they find governing this country so easy. -kimmy

Has anybody heard of anyone losing their jobs today over the higher dollar? Has anybody? Anybody? Yes, Cartman, I have. I linked some articles earlier in this thread. One indicates Vancouver's film industry is down over 30% from a year ago. A second was an analysis from the Canadian Tourism Association illustrating the effect that a rise in the Canadian dollar has in reducing international tourism to Canada and increasing Canadians spending their vacation money outside of Canada-- the rise from $.74 US to $.84 US will cost Canada's hospitality industry in the billions. The third article included some information on the job losses and factory closings that resulted in the early 1990s, the last time the dollar was this high. Good enough? If not, just keep your eyes open. There'll be more. -kimmy

Certainly. And I acknowledge the potential for hijinx with the electronic voting system used. Touch screens? No paper record? WTF? I find it completely laughable that the worlds' technological superpower is apparently unable to reconcile electronic efficiency with paper accountability. When I voted in civic elections last month, I was given a piece of paper with boxes to fill in, and a black marker. I filled in the appropriate boxes, put my ballot in a privacy sleeve, and took the sleeve to a nice woman. She took my ensleeved ballot and put it into machine which removes the ballot from the sleeve, scans it electronically, and deposits it into a locked box for safe keeping and, potentially, recounting if required. When the computer had scanned my ballot, it displayed a message to confirm my ballot had been accepted. The nice lady smiled and sent me on my way. The entire process took under a minute. Civic elections in Canada have this worked out smoothly while it continues to mystify American election officials. Maybe we should offer assistance and impartial observers, like we do for little banana republics that are new at this whole democracy thing. -kimmy

Joe Average would be better off with a lower Canadian dollar, not a higher one. If ordinary Canadian workers whose employment is threatened by the skyrocketting dollar are a "special interest group", then so be it. To me, the people who benefit from the high dollar sound more like "special interest groups." Have you actually noticed anything getting cheaper when you go shopping? Has anybody? Anybody? Personally, I haven't. Prices seem to be staying exactly the same. Consumers aren't benefitting from the high dollar. Store owners are beneffiting from the high dollar. They are pocketting the savings from the improved exchange rate. Another "special interest group" that the high dollar helps, while ordinary Canadians reap few of the benefits. -kimmy

Well, they are polls, not predictions. No matter how good the sampling process involved in an exit poll, it is still sampling, which means that there is a margin of sampling error. As well, they are useful in providing details of how specific demographic groups have voted and the expressed reasons for their vote. They also help pollsters develop voter turnout models for future elections — that is, a sense of how many of each demographic group can be expected to turn out for an election. All of this is true. Exit polls have their uses. Predicting results is not one of them, but that doesn't seemed to have stopped people from reading that into the exit polls result they were seeing mid-day on Nov 2. -kimmy

And yet, France's system incorporates user fees and for-profit elements that would be against the Canada Health Act. -kimmy

Wrong. Fox News regular and conservative hack Dick Morris says This must be the first time in your life you've ever cited an opinion from Fox News as a source of information. Regardless, it's not true. If you watched any election day coverage, you saw many disclaimers about the validity of exit polls. We were warned many times to be skeptical of the exit poll results, even before the polls closed and real results started coming in. A little information about how exit polls are conducted, combined with some common sense and understanding of basic statistical methods should be enough to inform anybody (except possibly Maplesyrup) of the reasons why they're unreliable. I posted on this in another thread already, but to summarize: The sample size is small. The responses are voluntary. Pollsters decide who to approach. Exit polling is not conducted across a variety of precincts, it is conducted at a few precincts which pollsters presume to be a reasonable cross-section of voters. And more importantly, the time of day. Exit polling is conducted early in the day. Who votes early in the day? Largely it is housewives, the unemployed, and students-- demographics that skew heavily toward the Democrats. If you watched the election day coverage, you saw a multitude of analysis all telling you this kind of thing. You saw experts tell you that exit polls have a huge margin of error compared to scientific, random-sample polls. You saw people tell you that unless the election is a landslide, the exit polls aren't going to give you accurate indicators. Exit polls are useful for the political parties to figure out what factors played into voters' decisions when they were in the polling booth. They can help them do a "post mortem" and pick up information that might help them next time. And if they find that their supporters in eastern time zones aren't getting out to vote, they can get their volunteers phoning people in western time zones. As for hacking of electronic results, who knows? Maybe it happened. I'll be very interested to hear more if there's anything to it. But let's give up on exit polls. They're unreliable. And reporting of exit polls shouldn't be permitted until after polls are closed, anyway. It has the potential to influence voters. -kimmy

Woo-hoo! Yee-haw! Awesome! w00t! More terrific news for wealthy Canadians! Not such good news for many Canadian workers, especially those in manufacturing. Oh well. Perhaps Syrup will hire some out of work Vancouver actors to wash and wax his Escalade when he returns from his trip to Las Vegas. -kimmy

Wait wait, Osama Bin Laden caused the fall of the Soviet Union? That doesn't sound quite right.... -kimmy

I think it's pretty clear that the unpopular (in Canada) Bush government was bad news for the Conservatives in the past election. Martin was able to successfully attack Harper by linking him (in the minds of voters, at least) with Bush and Klein. (The counter-strategy of trying to link Martin with McGuinty wasn't quite as successful, as McGuinty hasn't had enough time to really piss off voters yet. ) No question, the Bush victory means that the Liberals will have Bush to play off of again in the next election, unless this minority government somehow lasts the full 5 years. -kimmy