kimmy

Who are you quoting, caesar? I would like to know whose opinions you're offering to support your case. The fact that many westerners have supported Reform/C.A./CPC as a protest vote against the old-line parties doesn't really support the argument that Harper is an extremist or has a hidden agenda. Once upon a time, the forerunner of the NDP was supported as a western protest party too, wasn't it? That some westerners supported the CPC and its forerunners as a protest vote doesn't really say anything other than testify to Canada's fractured political culture. As for Harper covering his tracks... as a man who has been involved in academic and political life for a long time, his "tracks" are a matter of public record, as the Liberals pointed out on their website "WhatHarperSaid" or whatever it was called. -kimmy

Because Americans don't have much sense of humour. -kimmy

My grandparents were Minnesota Swedes who came north and west in the 1920s. I guess they were just ahead of their time. -kimmy

Don't go handing anything to Hilary yet. Who'd heard of John Kerry 4 years ago? And until this summer it was supposed to be Howard Dean facing Dubya, wasn't it? A Democrat that many people will be watching is Barack Obama, the young man who demolished his opponent by a margin of over 40% in winning the Illinois senate seat. He is building a reputation as an electrifying speaker, and he might reconnect the Democrats with the black voters who went over to the Republicans over "values' issues. I'm sure there are others who will emerge as the Democrats try and figure out what they heck they're doing. As for Jeb Bush, I'm sure the Republicans understand the baggage that would bring. There has to be somebody out there that wouldn't alienate 49% of the electorate just through name alone. Jeb Bush himself recently said he won't run for the presidency. -kimmy

This is so wrong it's funny. It's not even the most one-sided election of my lifetime. Walter Mondale, in 1984, won just a single state and lost the popular vote by nearly 20%. The electoral vote scorecard was 525 to 13. In 1988, Michael Dukakis lost by 315 electoral votes and 9% of the popular vote. In 1992, Clinton beat George Bush Sr by 5% of the popular vote and 202 electoral votes. In 1996, Bob Dole (who I think would have made a much, much better president than Dubya, btw. Too bad he couldn't have run against Gore instead of Clinton. ) lost the election by 9% of the popular vote and 220 electoral college votes. In fact, a quick trip back through the history books revealed that there have been only 4 elections since 1900 that even compare to the 2004 in terms of close decisions: -Kennedy's win over Nixon in 1960 -Nixon's win over Hubert H Humphrey in 1968 -Carter's win over Ford in 1976 -and of course Bush Jr's win over Gore in 2000. Only those 4 elections had popular vote closer than the 2004 election. And only the 2000 election was closer in terms of electoral votes. I found many more landslides than close battles. Particularly epic beat-downs include Franklin D Roosevelt's win in 1936 and Richard Nixon's win over McGovern in 1972. Just some quick research to put this election in perspective. -kimmy

Bush received 3,500,000 votes more than Kerry. Surely there can't be any doubt this time who Americans prefered. In Ohio, they kept polling stations open for hours after closing times so that everybody who was in line would have a chance to cast their votes. Both parties had observers on hand to prevent dishonesty. Bush won Ohio by 147,000 votes, or 2% of the votes cast. That's close, but not close enough to make a recount worthwhile. The absentee ballots haven't been counted, but the large majority of absentee ballots are cast by military personnel serving overseas, and it's known that military voters go Republican by more than 2:1. Kerry did the right thing by acknowledging defeat. Recounts and legal proceedings would have upheld the Bush victory and worsened the divisions between people in the process. The results in Ohio and nationwide support what the major polls had been saying all along: Bush was ahead... a slight lead, but enough to win. The only thing making people question the result is those wildly inaccurate exit polls, and their disappointment that their guy didn't win. -kimmy

I'm puzzled. How do Carolyn Parrish's comments qualify as "standing up for Canada"? -kimmy

If these Americans don't feel democracy was done when Bush was elected with 51% of the vote, how happy are they going to be in Canada? This is a country where El Presidente Chretien was given near-autocratic power 3 times over 11 years without once getting over 41% of votes. Surely there's not much more hypocritical than Canadians questioning the legitimacy of Bush's mandate. -kimmy

Tsk, tsk, Syrup. You want to talk about jetting off on American vacations while your fellow Vancouverites are losing jobs? You're the last person I'd have expected to be so selfish. Mr Layton will be very disappointed when he hears about this. And surely, as an avid Canadian nationalist, you would agree that Canadians should travel within Canada, rather than heading for the United States? Which is better for Canadians? To spend their vacation experiencing the history of Old Quebec City? Witnessing Canadian Democracy in Action in the National Capital Region? Contemplating the majestic solitude of the Rocky Mountains? Or stuffing their weird purple money into strippers' garter-belts in Vegas? Buying cheesy Mouse souvenirs in Disneyland? Buying drinks for under-age co-eds in Fort Lauderdale? You do raise a good point, though. Tourism is another Canadian industry that is being adversely impacted by the high Canadian dollar. Just on the heels of war and terror threats and SARS, now the exchange rate is another factor keeping Americans from bringing us their money. Americans are discovering that thanks to the exchange rate, Canada isn't the great bargain it used to be, and they're not visiting as frequently. And, Canadian tourists are taking advantage of this opportunity to spend their money in the US instead of Canada. This Canadian Tourism report shows that even a 5% rise vs the US dollar has a negative effect on Canada's tourism industry and a 10% rise costs us in the billions. And at present, the rise is not 5%, not 10%, but 23% and still growing. I don't know what can be done about it... as Eureka points out, it's not a rise in the Canadian dollar, so much as a fall in the US dollar... but the effect, as far as Canada-US trade goes, is the same. And overall, the bad effects outweigh the good by a lot. I can't for the life of me imagine why you're so amped up about this. You're acting like a teenager cheering for his favorite sports team. The dollar isn't a sports team. Peoples' jobs are being hurt by this. For Canadian workers, the people you care most about, this is not a good thing. The only people who really benefit from it are people who have plenty of money and want to spend it on American things. This excerpt from a NY Times article points out some of the bad things that happened to us last time the dollar rose, and explains why people are worried about it this time around. (emphasis by me.) Link: New York Times article Well, at least some good came of yesterday's election. -kimmy

Yeah, sure, syrup. I'm "stomping" ( ) for the BC film industry because I actually give a crap. The truth is, I don't. I thought maybe pointing out the disasterous effect the rising dollar is having on jobs right there in la-la land where you live might wake you up to what the rising dollar really means. I guess I was too optimistic. The truth is, I am not in an export industry, so the high dollar has no direct effect on me. High or low, it doesn't directly affect me. For many, many Canadians whose jobs depend on exports to the US, whether it's Ontario factory workers or BC forestry workers or Vancouver film production staff, the high dollar is going to hurt. Who does the high dollar actually help, Syrup? Have you ever thought about that? Here's who the high dollar helps: -Canadians who want to invest in the US. (ie, rich Canadians.) -Canadians who want to spend 6 months a year in Florida or Arizona. (ie, rich, retired Canadians.) -Canadians who own NHL teams. (super-rich Canadians.) That sounds more like a special interest group to me... If Canadians are happy about the high Canadian dollar, it's because either they don't understand that it putting their jobs at risk. (or because they're planning a trip south. woo-hoo! Vegas!) A lot of people (not naming names ) see "Rising Canadian Dollar" and have the mistaken idea that it somehow puts more money in their pocket. *bzzzzt!* Wrong answer! -kimmy

You're right, syrup! This is terrific news, at least for those who live in Vancouver. As the rising dollar destroys Vancouver's film industry, unemployed actors and production staff will rush into low-end service-industry jobs. The result? Line-ups at your local Starbucks should get shorter! Woo-hoo! Link: In Reel Trouble -kimmy

By the way, I think Kerry's decision to not drag America through weeks of recounts and court proceedings over the provisional ballots is quite noble, and spares all of us a lot of uncertainty and instability. -kimmy

I was kind of hoping for a Kerry win, but I don't think it would have been a cure-all. I don't think the Bush win is a disaster, either. Watching Michael Moore try to spin this will be tremendously amusing. With Bush winning the popular vote and having comfortable margins of victory in Ohio and Florida, Moore will have to come up with some truly wacky theories when he's making Fahrenheit 912. Should be hilarious. -kimmy

That article is another smack in the face for those on this board that were ranting about Harper's Belgium musings while ignoring Martin's "asymmetrical federalism." -kimmy

Exit polls are inherently unscientific. If you actually watched any of the coverage yesterday, you heard the commentators saying to not put much faith in the early exit polls. 1- exit polls are not a scientific sample. They don't have enough employees to put an interviewer at each polling station. They pick a few polling stations which they hope are representitive of the region as a whole. 2- exit polls are not a random sample. They reflect the prejudices of the interviewer. It's known, for instance, that interviewers would generally rather roll up on white women than black men. 3- exit polls are voluntary response. As you are leaving a polling station and somebody rolls up to ask who you voted for, you can (and should) tell them you voted for the My Foot Up Your Ass party. Many people decline to answer the questions. The people who do answer are the people who want to tell you who they prefer. This puts the whole exercise into the same world as internet polls. 4- time of day. The exit polls that showed Kerry having big leads were taken early on in the day. Who votes early in the day? Disproportionately it is stay-at-home moms, the unemployed, students. These demographics skew towards Kerry, so of course the early exit polls showed Kerry leading. If you were paying attention during the analysis, you would have heard numerous disclaimers that later exit polling would represent demographics that skew more towards Bush. Exit polls are a joke, syrup. They give the talking heads something to blather about while they're waiting for real news to come in. Exit polls are done to find out what factors influenced voters during the final days of the election, so that the parties can better plan their campaigns next time. As a means of predicting the outcome of the election, they're worthless. -kimmy

If there's one thing that yesterday's results prove conclusively, it's that exit polls are a complete joke that credible news organizations would do well to avoid next time around. They're also a detriment to the democratic process and potentially impact results. -kimmy

Maybe he won because he's a John Travolta look-alike! Too bad Syrup is "taking a break". It would have been hilarious to hear his perspective on this. -kimmy

When you look at the benefits mankind gets from an undertaking like going to the moon, I believe it is not the destination, it is the journey that is most important. What did we actually gain from putting somebody on the moon? Some geological samples. What did we gain from the journey? Technological and scientific advances that have impacted our lives in more ways than bringing home some moon-rocks could. Or, read about the incredible B-70 Valkyrie bomber. It is amazing to consider that they created a plane that weighs more than a B52 and travels faster than any jet-fighter in the world right now... and they did it 40 years ago. The goal-- a replacement for the B52-- was never achieved. But the journey yielded breakthroughs in aerodynamics and manufacturing techniques that were valuable to the aviation industry. With that in mind... is there anything we could learn from going to Mars that we didn't already learn by putting a man on the moon? Personally, I kind of doubt it. It would be a lot the same, wouldn't it? Same challenges, different scale. I would imagine, at least. If we're looking for something to reach for, let's pick something that will give us expertise at something we're not very good at yet. We already know how to cram Tang and bottled oxygen onto space capsules. I don't know if travelling to Mars has anything new we can learn. -kimmy

On Halloween, the new CBC drama, H2O, will hit the airwaves. From what I'm reading, it involves a charismatic type taking over as Prime Minister, backed by a bunch of shadowy media and business types, invoking the War Measures Act, and selling Canada's water to the Americans. It bills itself as "set 5 minutes in the future", and writer/director/star Paul Gross says it's not just a drama, it's "a storm warning". Should be very entertaining. Maplesyrup will no doubt think he's watching a documentary. What does the production of a movie like this, and its play on the public broadcaster, say about us as a country? We're all pretty quick to snicker at American programs where shadowy foreigners threaten the US. Should we be snickering at ourselves as well, or is this indeed "a storm warning"? If so, what's the storm? -kimmy

On November 22, Albertans will take to the polls for the 3rd time this year, this time to re-elect Ralph Klein as premier. -kimmy

No, see, the saying "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's..." relates to when a follower asked Jesus why he should pay tribute to Caesar when he believed his allegiance belonged to - ah, forget it. Anyway, is the issue as black and white as some are suggesting? Can there really be a hard and fast rule that says churches can't talk politics? I will present a few hypothetical circumstances, and you guys can tell me which ones cross the line of what should be and what shouldn't be permitted for a church. Let's cook up a hypothetical political party that's running in a hypothetical election. We'll call them the Angry People Party. Scenario A: Chucky Chuckerson, APP leader, is trying for election in the Donnybrook riding. He decides to try to capitalize on anti-Muslim sentiment that he believes exists in this constituency. He makes statements in his advertising and to the media which contain incorrect statements about Islam. An Imam at a mosque within the Donnybrook riding hears about this, and he wants to respond. Can he address the factual inaccuracies in Chucky's statements, or would that be interfering in an election? Scenario B: Chucky Chuckerson, after doing some demographic research, believes that he could gain votes by appealing to Muslim voters in the Donnybrook riding. So, even though he doesn't know Halal from Hamas, he sends out advertising and media statements that represent himself as a Muslim. The local Imam doesn't believe that's true... his neighbor saw Chucky cramming down beer and pork-ribs at the local strip club! Can the Imam inform local muslims that Chucky Chuckerson does not, in fact, follow muslim teaching, or would that be interfering in the election? Scenario C: Chucky himself isn't attempting to use issues of religion for political gain-- he just wants to campaign on the issues. However, the local media often mentions that Chucky is a devout Muslim. The Imam, however, believes Chucky's policy platform is very contrary to Muslim values. Is it fair for him to detail how Chucky's policy positions differ from the teaching of Islam, or is that interference in the election? -kimmy

Globe 'n' Mail Bishop Henry speculates that Revenue Canada was probably just responding to a complaint, and never had any intentions of acting on the matter. Still, people staunchly defended Michael Moore for expressing his views on the election, and he's not even Canadian. Surely Revenue Canada had more important things to get to during June, like mailing me my damned return. :angry: -kimmy

Good point, caesar. The sponsorship scandal is not just bigger in terms of amount of money, but also the number of conspirators. The MFT, as I understand it at least, was unfair to Canadian manufacturers. By charging it to the manufacturer, the tax basically raised the cost of Canadian products 13% versus their world competitors. All other things being equal, if you're at your local Canadian Tire and choosing a ceiling fan, the US-made one would cost $100, the Chinese-made one would cost $100, and the Canadian-made one would cost $113, with the last $13 being from the MFT. That's not fair. That's stupid. Under the GST, the Chinese fan and US fan and Canadian fan would all cost $107. That's fair. Giving people in Canada and around the world a 13% penalty for buying Canadian is just stupid. -kimmy

(For the benefit of those who haven't been keeping tabs on the Rudwan Khalil story, Kathrada was the one who came to light when one of his students/followers was (allegedly) killed during fighting in Chechnya.) -kimmy