kimmy

Television was at its zenith during the 1970s? I doubt it. I seriously doubt it. I was not alive during the 1970s. However, I have seen reruns, and I've talked to people. And I've had the same conversation with people who believe that the movies or the music of their time was the "zenith" of the art. It wasn't. The bulk of what you watched on TV in the 1970s was crap. People have very subjective memories. They tend to remember "Mary Tyler Moore" and "Archie Bunker" and forget about "Love Boat", "Starsky and Hutch", "Alice", "CHIPS", "The Dukes of Hazard", and dozens more that were so wretched they haven't even surfaced as reruns. There is a lot of crap on TV today, but there was a lot of crap on TV in the 1970s too. And having seen some of the shows hailed as the best of their eras, well, I might be biased but I don't think any of it stands up well against the best of today's television programs. -kimmy

Of course. TV producers are capitalists, and they try to appeal to the market. They give the market what it wants. If people stopped watching "The Bachelor", the capitalists would stop putting it on the air and try and figure out what people want to watch instead. We can blame TV executives for aiming their programming at what people want to watch, but we can't blame TV executives for the fact that what people want to watch is often depressingly dumb. If TV executives thought that a Jack Layton Fireside Chat would draw huge ratings, that is what they'd put on the air. (but realistically, you're the only person who'd want to see that, Maple. ) If people made it clear that they want more intelligent programming and started rejecting stupid programming, the TV industry would be trying to find ways of satisfying the audience. However, when TV comes up with new and creative shows, they're often cancelled due to low ratings as most viewers would prefer to watch stuff they're more comfortable with. That says more about the collective viewing public than it says about TV executives. -kimmy

uh, you realize that the issue in this instance is E. Coli bacteria, and not BSE? It arises from unsafe storage, unsafe preparation, or unsafe processing of meat. There is nothing the farmers can do to prevent it, and no amount of testing on the animals before they're slaughtered can assure the safe handling of meat afterward. So, should each restaurant have a qualified meat inspector in the kitchen at all times? Should each restaurant have a representative on duty at their meat-supplier of choice to ensure that the equipment used in grinding the meat is sterilized frequently? Who has the strongest incentive to verify the quality of the food? The customer, quite obviously; they're the ones eating it. But you're not going to suggest each customer should also be a qualified meat inspector, or be present in the kitchen to ensure that safe handling procedures are followed, right? Who is best placed to ensure safety? The restaurants are best placed to ensure safe handling procedures are followed during preparation. But the meat supplier is best placed to ensure that the ground beef on its way to the restaurant has been processed safely. -kimmy

...because naming the restaurants would unfairly punish them, when the fault appears to lie with the meat supplier. -kimmy

A *good* protest against Ralph Klein was at last year's Klondie Days pancake breakfast when a bunch of gay and lesbian couples rushed the stage and started kissing each other right in front of Klein. Klein himself congratulated them for peaceful protest. A pie in the face, on the other hand, is just stupid. It has no message other than "I hate you" or "I'm juvenile." I don't buy the argument that smacking people's faces with pies is now a legitimate form of expression because it's happened a few times before. One could make the exact same argument about the anti-globalization protesters who break windows at McDonald's while they're marching. It's happened numerous times, it's only a minor crime, and there's (supposedly) a political message attached to the act, so why don't we just accept it as a legitimate political expression? Because it's stupid and uncivilized and beneath us as a society, that's why. -kimmy

7. Canada's beer and liquor companies don't want the competition. 8. Alcohol has tradition on its side; it's been part of "white-people" culture since ancient times. Marijuana just doesn't have the long tradition in our culture that would give it the same kind of leniency. And good point about the biker gangs. Given their huge financial interest, I bet they'd be awfully upset with anybody who made marijuana legal for sale in Canada. -kimmy

And I suppose someone buzzed out on weed has never done anything stupid? Stupid, yes, but I doubt you'll find someone buzzed out on weed going out to berate people. If Klein was buzzed out on weed, he'd probably have gone to the homeless shelter to share a bag of Doritos. People under the influence of marijuana are not prone to (and are barely capable of) aggression. Alcohol, on the other hand... FWIW, Klein has admitted to trying marijuana. He said he didn't like it because it made him feel paranoid. The argument that there's a roadside test for alcohol content but not for marijuana use is a practical issue, but doesn't speak to the hypocrisy of the country's treatment of the two substances. How long has alcohol been legal... and how long has there been a roadside blood alcohol test? I don't think anybody can suggest that automotive safety is the historical root of the issue. As for road tests, what if instead of focusing on what the person has consumed, the test focused on what the person can do? Can the person's eyes track movement? Can the person pass some test of coordination? Quick test of response time? The police had people walking in straight lines and touching their noses before they had breathalizers, right? Isn't that more meaningful than some arbitrary number? As I understand it, the effects of alcohol vary from person to person... some people are incapable of driving well before they reach .080 blood alcohol. Maybe instead of a chemical test, they could have people demonstrate coordination and use an electronic device (video game? ) to measure reflexes and response time. -kimmy

I don't get it. Are you saying that the babbling is actually capitalist propaganda? Or is Vancouver radio just a lot different from what I'm used to? Do you think a morning show on music radio should focus more on 'class struggle'? I'm looking forward to hearing the "Worker and Parasite" morning show. Should be very informative. -kimmy {"Schnell! Schnell! Less talk! More music!" "Ja, mein herr!"}

One could argue that in some cases, terrorism comes in response to aggression or imperialism. But what about the hostage-takers demanding that the French law against head-scarves be overturned? In this thread we called the Arabs rumoured to have participated in the Beslan massacre "mercenaries" and "volunteers". "Mercenaries" was also used to describe the many foreigners that supported the Taliban in Afghanistan. "Mercenaries" and "volunteers" are of course ridiculous euphemisms. Mercenary suggests someone motivated by money. And "volunteer" suggests, well, helpfulness... but if you really believe the "volunteers" primary motivation was Chechen independance or "law, order, and good government" in Afghanistan, you're probably gullible enough to believe that Dubya's primary motivation is the well-being of the Iraqi man on the street. -kimmy

Jean Chretien! Well if he says so, it must be true! If Grand-pere Chretien told me it was a nice day, I'd run outside to check. An agreement made this week proves that Canada's system is the best? Well, that and Chretien says so. Are we so fixated on our friends to the south that this debate has to be "EITHER" Canadian style "OR" US-style? Global TV ran a series of features this week that looked at other countries-- France and Germany among them-- that have good healthcare systems. Maybe proponents of integrating private elements into the public system would be doing themselves a favor by rebranding their ideas. "US-style? of course not! We propose French-style healthcare!" -kimmy

Mapleleafweb has another important feature. It's the only discussion forum that has Kimmy. -kimmy

If you ask your nephew to give you a "family rate" for renovating your basement or whatever, you at least have to pay him for the materials plus enough to show him that you appreciate the time he's taking, that he could be spending renovating his own basement. And if you ask your nephew to work at your house at a "family rate", you certainly wouldn't expect him to stop going to his regular job during that time, would you? You wouldn't try and get your nephew blacklisted from local construction companies, so he'd have little choice but to work at your house, right? As I understand the NEP, it not only arranged a "family rate" for oil sold in Canada, it also -prevented Alberta from earning world price on its oil, by severely taxing any oil exported outside Canada. -essentially tried to drive American oil companies out of Alberta by imposing severe taxes on non-Canadian oil companies. Putting a "family" spin on it doesn't sound very accurate. If that's how things work in your family, caesar, I bet the reunions are a riot. (literally ) Everybody's so amped up about Canadian ownership, and somehow forgets that the American firms that were slammed by the NEP employed real people. Does it make much different to the average employee whether his company is owned by Wall Street or Bay Street? His main concern is that he has a job. Getting foreign owners out of Canada's resources might sound good, to nationalists at least, but when that policy impacts real people it is hard to blame them for not thinking "big picture" when their livelihoods are affected. While doing research in this thread, I came across the claim that Bay Street wasn't interested in investing in Alberta's oil industry when it was just getting started; American money played a bigger role in getting Alberta rolling. The question keeps popping up, "what if your neighbor won the lottery"? What happens if your neighbor wins the lottery? The government takes a large chunk of it to redistribute, but your neighbor still reaps some of the benefit of his good fortune. Federal transfer of wealth ensures that a good chunk of Alberta's oil largesse is shared with other Canadians, but Alberta keeps a lot of it as well. As it should be. Mobility within Canada is a right we all have, and one of the ideas that built this country was that people should go where they have the opportunity to succeed. It used to be looked at as a good thing, at least until Chretien said otherwise. My family has relocated several times to pursue opportunities. I don't see why other Canadians can't. -kimmy

You knew about the court ruling all along? Couldn't you have mentioned it a little earlier when people were arguing about whether the federal government could tax Alberta's resources? Don't forget, the court ruling didn't overturn the NEP. It only affected that one part of it. The NEP also had other sections, like punitive taxes on American companies, that remained in effect until Mulroney took office. And, the effects may have lasted longer than the policy. American companies were encouraged to get lost; they didn't return at the exact moment the taxes were repealed... Pretty-please? I would actually really appreciate it if you could find that; I'd be very interested in understanding the reasoning behind that position. All of this was before my time and I can only learn about what happened by reading. -kimmy

I'm surprised that this poll is running so close. -kimmy

Lougheed signed the NEP, it was a negotiated agreement between Alberta and the feds. Those aren't the facts. Your claim sounded fishy to me so I checked, and here's what I came up with. (source: CBC archives) And, in fact, Alberta did challenge the NEP in court, and won. (source: CBC archives) (both taken from a feature called Striking Oil in Alberta which also has some multimedia clips that you can view.) The Supreme Court ruling certainly challenges some of the claims being made in this thread. I will have a look later on to get some quantitative facts about the effect of the NEP on employment in Alberta. -kimmy

He said "Islamism", which is not the same as Islam. The difference between the two is about as important as it gets, in my opinion. -kimmy

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...rial040909.html Rules? Who has time for rules? We're saving the country, damnit! The Liberals did learn something from our neighbors to the south: you can justify just about anything, provided you wrap it in the flag and question the patriotism of those who oppose. -kimmy

The United States does not protect Canada because they're nice guys. I mean, they're our allies and everything, but even if we weren't partners in NATO etc, they'd still react very badly to another country messing with Canadian territory. Russia? China? You can't think the Americans would just sit back and let a rival superpower annex land in North America. The Americans would react to protect Canada because they have no interest in seeing an aggressive, hostile power set up shop within striking distance of the United States. What would be a real threat to Canadian sovereignty? A real threat to Canada's sovereignty would be if some ill-conceived plan to build nuclear weapons landed us in violation of international treaties and caused us to be the target of international trade sanctions that crippled our economy. I think that's a much more likely threat to Canadian sovereignty than any of the scenarios suggested in this thread so far. -kimmy

I think the real problem is probably that our underfunded military has already been stretched beyond its ability to meet our obligations around the world. -kimmy

I think quite obviously the opposition parties don't want to go to the polls until the Liberals give the public a reason to want to. If the Liberals are forced to disolve parliament over something unimportant, then it looks like the opposition parties have forced the situation by playing petty politics and that will hurt them at the polls. As for the whole notion, good for the opposition parties. On election night, PM Martin pledged that he would strive to work constructively with the Opposition "because Canadians expect it." And all of the opposition parties promised to go to parliament to try to cooperate in the best interest of Canadians. Well, this certainly sounds like a good first step. It might force Martin to honor his talk about "addressing the democratic deficit" and working constructively with the opposition. And it should give the opposition parties the power to advance causes that their constituents care about. It should be very interesting to see how things work out. -kimmy

It was Johnny Cochrane who said "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit." There seems to be a lot of gloves in Dubya's closet. The drunk driving, his service record seem to be the most damaging. However, this stuff was talked about during the last election and wasn't a decisive factor in that election, so it's hard to see why it'll be a factor this time now that it's basically old news. -kimmy

Actually... http://www.minerals.net/mineral/sulfides/p...rite/pyrite.htm Anyway, I think the point of this thread (if it has one) is probably that Syrup is nuttier than a Snickers bar. -kimmy

Are you under the impression that we're not already doing our best to open doors with China and other East Asian nations? -kimmy

Equally so. The mouse and the caterpillar are both stuck in your terrarium. If the mouse or caterpillar are going to get out of the terrarium, it doesn't appear that jumping is a solution for either of them. The distinction you drew-- Alberta and Saskatchewan having no status prior to being given created by constitutional act-- might be accurate, but doesn't seem to have any practical value. It doesn't seem to have much to do with how a province would actually go about attempting to secede. Most likely it would come down to either a peaceful constitutional amendment, or else a unilateral declaration followed by either external mediation or military force. Don't you think? -kimmy

Canada has received a great return on its investment in Alberta's oil sector, and continues to do so. There's literally hundreds of thousands of high-paying jobs that are contributing income tax. Not just in the oil industry but also in spin-off industries that support the oil industry. I imagine corporations are probably paying some amount of tax as well, although that's not necessarily a given. The equalization point has been made already in this thread. Money that the Federal government doesn't need to transfer to Alberta is money that can be transfered to other provinces. And the NEP raised a large chunk of revenue for the federal government as well, didn't it? August mentioned a counterexample-- tariffs causing Canadians to pay above-market price to support Ontario manufacturers. Playful mentioned that a lot of federal money has been thrown around to support industry in Canada, with often questionable results. You can look at various forms. Whether it's subsidies to shipbuilders or jet manufacturers, or bail-outs for agriculture and fishermen, or freight rates that gave preferential pricing to send certain types of product one direction or the other, or military purchases that require jobs to be created in certain regions of the country. In the big picture, the federal government has always made an effort to promote industries, not just nationally but also within specific regions. I guess the idea is that helping a region become stronger is good for the whole country. Well, oil has made Alberta stronger, but Canada derives a huge benefit from that industry as well, even without receiving royalties. -kimmy