kimmy

I think that if you investigate crash safety ratings, you'll find that "death-trap" is not an accurate description of most small cars. And unless your family is bigger than the Waltons and Brady Bunch put together, you can fit a week's worth of groceries into a fuel efficient vehicle with no difficulty. I also think that if you're honest, you'll concede that one doesn't need a 6000 pound, 300hp off-road vehicle to carry groceries or get the kids to soccer practice. If one is genuinely concerned about cargo space, a minivan can hold at least as much as an SUV, and deliver twice the fuel economy. I think you'll also concede that most people who purchase SUVs have no intention of ever taking them off-road. Most people purchase these large, ridiculously inefficient vehicles as status-symbols, with no consideration of the environmental cost that their ego-trip is causing. I've noticed you're fond of calling people teenagers. I am old enough to drive, I owned a car, and got rid of it. I made a personal choice, based on my lifestyle, beliefs, and economic common sense. Even for people who do need a large or powerful vehicle on occasion, they don't need it all the time. Fuel taxes are a way of getting people to make smarter transportation choices. I think that higher fuel taxes are the only way of getting people to bear a fair share of the environmental cost of their lifestyle. Sadly, hitting people in the pocketbook seems to be the only way to get the message through. What is fairer than a fuel tax? People who use the most fuel pay the most tax. It's beautiful in its simplicity. -kimmy

Congratulations on setting the bar high! Albertans are drunkards? I believe Klein has been dry for about 3 years, since that well-publicized incident. Like many Canadians of all political stripes and social status, Ralph liked to go on a bender from time to time. The fact that Ralph would go to a regular bar and drink with regular people might be a clue to why people can related to him. Perhaps you might think on that. Could you expand on that? Albertans are plagerists? You'll have to explain this term for me. While simultaneously rejecting what? To paraphrase Voltaire, I disagree with what the media says, but I will defend the media's right to say it. Is anybody in Canada really excited about the media? Those on the left say the media is controlled by corporate interests. Those on the right resent the CBC and CRTC. People in "the regions" feel that the national media is too dominated by central Canada. Smart people feel that the media is geared toward dumb people. Just because many people are highly critical of the media doesn't mean they don't believe in a free press, and it doesn't make them hypocrites. You should talk. As a group, Albertans are the most confident and ambitious of Canadians. Do you mean hypocritical? In regard to what? Doesn't sound much like the Alberta I know. -kimmy

People who don't like paying high fuel taxes are certainly welcome to park their SUVs and drive an Insight, take the bus, or use their bicycles. Vancouver residents should be in favor of higher gas taxes it would unclog some of those ridiculously choked streets and maybe even make a dent in that yellow-brown dome of pollution that's visible all the way from Victoria. -kimmy

Really? Who would have voted for them? Not conservatives, that's for sure. So who? Oh, liberals? Socialists? Why would they? They never did before. They could have voted for Joe (Canadian politics' own Forest Gump) Clark last time around and they didn't. Well said Joe Clark could have lead the Conservatives to victory the same Joe Clark who lead the PC party into oblivion. And I have no idea what voters David Orchard was going to appeal to. Having read some of his articles, his ideology appears to be most at home with Jack Layton, but Canada already has an NDP and doesn't need a second one. -kimmy

Find new trading partners! I wonder why nobody has ever tried this before! Like, they could put together "Trade Missions" of trade ministers, premiers, industry leaders, and businessmen, and they could travel to other countries to promote Canadian goods and services! Uh, they already do this, caesar. They work their asses off trying to gain new footholds for Canadian trade all over the world. Guess what, no matter how hard you try, you're not just going to replace the billions and billions of dollars of business we do with the US by just deciding to trade with somebody else instead. -kimmy

I kind of agree, except for the phrasing. I don't really care if petroleum is conserved, I just think less should be burned. It's not the decreasing supply that worries me, it is the increasing amount of pollution in our air. -kimmy

I do believe Canadians were split, and I offer this article as support: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...NStory/National I have mixed feelings. I think the world is much better off without the Taliban or Saddam in power. The Taliban were the worst sort of scum-bags. Saddam was horrible. Nobody can seriously be sorry that they're gone. But I don't know if I would be personally willing to commit my life to that goal. If I was a Canadian leader, I don't know whether I could in good conscience commit Canadian soldiers' lives to that goal, not without real evidence that Iraq was a threat to Canada and its allies. I do worry about the rise of Islamic militants as a political force in our world. I'm not sure what the answer is. You can't reason with fanatics, and fighting them just attracts more people to their cause. I think there should have been some sort of international effort against Saddam, and I think it should have happened when he first started giving the UN inspectors trouble. I really do think that if it had been a more international effort, it wouldn't have turned into such an ugly mess. -kimmy

Maybe if Canadians had joined the US and UK in taking action, things would have worked out better. Maybe more nations would have joined in. Maybe the whole thing would not have turned into a debacle if it had been a multinational effort. At the time, Canadian opinion was relatively split on whether we should have gone, although it has certainly gone downhill now that it is obvious that the invasion was supported by flimsy evidence. The US and Great Britain are Canada's two oldest and strongest partners in the world, and believing them when they said this was something that needed doing didn't seem unreasonable at the time. I feel a little betrayed that they seem to have come to us under false pretenses asking for support. -kimmy

I thought Canadians were supposed to worried about internet pharmacies supplying US customers, since the US market could deplete Canada's supply of cheap medicine very quickly. Shouldn't we be relieved that "Jeb" doesn't want Florida residents tapping into our stash? As for David Orchard, I don't get what you're trying to say? Are you saying that David Orchard has something that Conservatives ought to listen to? I read his post-election rant, where I thought he came across as a bitter, sad little man. Was there something else on his page that I was suppose to get, particularly in regard to US trade protectionism? -kimmy

If it gets Chretien off Canadian soil, then I'm in favor of it! -kimmy

A Liberal campaign promise gets put on the back burner? And there are strings attached? No, sadly it is not very shocking at all. -kimmy

Typical, when somebody challenges your view with any substance, you avoid their argument and post something completely out of left field to try and support your cause. Yes, I remember the Montreal Massacre, even though I was very young at the time. Marc Lepine used a hunting rifle, a Remington .223 semi-automatic (not an "automatic gun" as your article claims). He legally purchased the rifle in Canada. He had no criminal record. Is there any reason to think that the current firearms registry could have done anything to prevent the tragedy in Montreal? I don't see any reason to assume it would have prevented him from acquiring the gun he used. Unless you can provide me a reason to think otherwise, I suggest that *you* are the one using red herrings to distract from the real argument. -kimmy

Well, I guess I will take on the role of devil's advocate. * the Liberals say that the registry costs are now capped at $25 million. But haven't they promised all along that they were going to control costs on this? Can we believe them this time? * Clayton Ruby says that "900 affidavits based on registry information that supported criminal prosecutions were filed in Canada last year." This doesn't mean that the registry resulted in 900 convictions. He doesn't really offer any explanation of how the information from the registry was used or how valuable it was. He just hopes that we'll be impressed by the figure of 900. At the supposed cap cost of $25 million per year, and 900 affidavits, that works out to over $27,000 per affidavit! Those better be some damned good affidavits at that price * He offers the statistic that there were 1367 firearms deaths in 1989 and only 842 in 2001, hoping to link the firearms registry to the drop in deaths to the firearms registry. He is being misleading. For a real look at firearms deaths, I offer charts from the government's own firearms site! http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/en/research/othe...ath/default.asp First of all, we notice that firearms deaths declined sharply from 1992 to 1995, before the registry even came into effect! If Clayton Ruby wants to be honest, why doesn't he compare statistics between 1994 and 2001? Only because the figures don't support his point! Second of all, I will point out that the large majority of firearms deaths in Canada are suicides and accidents. The # of deaths due to violent crime has been fairly steady at 200 per year since 1970! Suggesting that stronger firearms registration has reduced violent crime is not supported by fact. The # of accidents has also stayed fairly stable since 1980. Even a glance at the graph shows that the main variable is the # of suicides in any given year. We know that many suicides are related to financial matters. I would offer the suggestion that the # of suicides in a given year will have more to do with the unemployment rate for that year than anything to do with firearms legislation. I think trying to argue that the registry will have any effect on suicides and accidents is pretty ludicrous. And the # of homicides linked to firearms has clearly not changed that much in over 30 years. So what Clayton Ruby is trying to sell is clearly not supported by the facts, although he is trying to present figures to suggest otherwise. * in response to concerns about the availability of illegal firearms smuggled from the United States, Ruby offers only a bunch of talk about international agreement on the value of gun control. That is well and good, but what about the availability of illegal firearms sumggled from the United States? I actually have no objection to the idea that firearms should be registered. If automobiles should be registered, so should firearms. There is no reason not to. However, I am very concerned that Canadians are not getting good value for the money that is being spent on the registry. I also object to someone like Mr Ruby presenting an article loaded with misleading statistics to try to support an opinion that seems poorly supported by facts. -kimmy :angry:

I think you should go back and read *his* lips again. It's a fair question: if a church and the dept of immigration have a difference of opinion, who should win out? If the United Church is allowed to harbour some guy the government says is not allowed to be in Canada, then why shouldn't a mosque? Why not a mosque with a radical agenda? Where do you draw the line? The United Church doesn't represent me. The United Church isn't accountable to the people of Canada. And the United Church shouldn't be allowed to decide who gets to stay or go. Ed Broadbent might be right that the immigration system needs to be overhauled first. It seems to me that there were persistent allegations of corruption (say, isn't that why Gagliano wound up in Denmark?) and the criteria might not be fair. That doesn't change my view that churches don't get to decide who is allowed to live in Canada. Sure it is! It's going to be a hot-button issue next election, right up there with the shortage of French highway signs in BC -kimmy

you're hopeless As per caesar's request, Queen Elizabeth II shall no longer be refered to as Canada's Head of State. She shall heretofore be known as "Canada's Head of Provinces or Federal Government" -kimmy

(pssst, I think he means "state" as in "government" ) -kimmy :P

What I think is that more and more couples are deciding both partners need to work in order to provide a standard of living that they consider appropriate. More women delay marriage and childbearing so that they can concentrate on their careers first. Then it becomes a matter of working until the mortgage is paid off, or the SUV is paid for, or the cabin at the lake is paid for... as they enjoy the material things that 2 incomes can afford them, they decide they can wait a little longer to have children. They have children later and they have fewer. That is my theory, anyway. Based mostly on watching family friends and relatives. Anyway, I guess a question is, is it really such a bad thing? Like, as a nation we've decided that immigration is good... there's no shortage of people around the world who seem to want to come to Canada, so making up any shortfall in Canadian births shouldn't be a problem, right? -kimmy

Part of the contract guarantees that Sikorsky will put billions of dollars into Canada's aerospace industry. The graphic they showed on the news indicated that $1 billion of that would be invested in the Atlantic provinces! The 1992 EH101 contract also would have required the Cormorant consortium to invest billions of dollars into doing work in Canada. -kimmy

I just glanced over the analysis-- it seemed to me that his analysis had little to do with the Competitiveness statistic he invented. I'm saying that I think he invented a statistic that is pretty much meaningless, and as an example I cite the strong rating it gives the NDP. I think that even Jack Layton himself would concede that the NDP was not the most competitive party in the last election, don't you? I think the whole premise that dividing the # of close 2nd place finishes by the total # of 2nd place finishes is very hoaky. Suppose that some party, say the Rhinoceros Party finished dead last in every riding except for 1 riding, where they had a close 2nd place finish. So, they had 1 close second place finish out of 1 total second place finish... that would give... a 100% competitiveness rating! Wow! Even though they finished dead last in 307 out of 308 ridings! I think this example highlights where this guy's thinking falls flat: it doesn't take into account the total number of ridings. It also doesn't take into account the number of victories (which are probably a better measure of a party's strength than close 2nd place finishes, I would think. ) What if we try a difference calculation: -Victory = 3 points -Close 2nd place finish = 2 points -Non-close 2nd place finish = 1 point -3rd place finishes or worse = no points. Total # of points available = 3*308 = 924 (except for the BQ, which only ran in 75 ridings, so 3*75=225 points) Using the numbers from his chart (which we already know don't add up, but I'm not going to go find the real numbers...) Liberal: 3*135 = 405 2*38 = 76 1*109 = 109 (ie, 147 2nd place finishes minus 38 that were close = 109 that weren't close.) total: 590/924 = 63.9% Conservative 3*99 = 297 2*16 = 32 1*79 = 79 total: 408/924 = 44.2% NDP 3*19 = 57 2*19 = 38 1*32 = 32 total: 127/924 = 13.7% Bloc 3*54 = 162 2*21 = 42 1*0 = 0 total: 204/225 = 90.7% in Quebec. I don't know if these calculations are very meaningful either, but I do think my idea makes a lot more sense than his! My calculation includes victories, which are kind of important. My calculation also includes the total # of attempts, his just counts just the # of 2nd place finishes that weren't close. -kimmy

That's one problem. As well, as far as I can figure out their Competitiveness % is calcluated by dividing the "<3k" column by the "2nd place finishes" column ... which should give the NDP a Competitiveness % of not 20%, but a whopping 37%, far better than the other national parties. And I think the value of any calculation that concludes the NDP is Canada's most competitive political party is dubious to say the least. -kimmy

I have read that the average salary for an NHL hockey player is over $1.8 million US! Even if one buys the argument that hockey players have short careers so they need to earn more money to compensate, a normal person earning $40,000 US a year (that would be a very good salary by Canadian standards, right?) would have to work from age 20 all the way to retirement to earn as much as an average hockey player earns in just one season! So, I don't think I will worry too much about their welfare. I think they've got things under control. -kimmy

When I lived in Ottawa I found that there was a ridiculous number of Canadian flags around. I don't think Americans are the only ones with a flag-waving fetish. I don't think Molson is an important part of Canada's identity... but I do think that Joe Canadian and the "I am Canadian" ads are one of the few efforts anybody has made to express some kind of Canadian nationalism. Some of the ads might be a little boorish, but give credit where it is due, they found something that Canadians identified with and it has been a great success for them. Molson didn't create or define a national identity, but they have been busy at promoting the idea that we *have* a national identity, and that's not a bad thing. ps... Molson and Coors are horrible! -kimmy {I used to put Coors in the wasp traps as bait, but the SPCA made me stop! }

Why? What's wrong with Landslide Annie? I'm glad that Alberta at least has *somebody* in a high-ranking position. Remember a few years back when that blithering idiot Diane Marleau was Health Minister? She and Gary Mar were in a war of words for months and Alberta was being penalized under the Health Act? And then Anne McLellan took over as Health Minister and she and Gary solved the dispute in 15 minutes over cocktail weenies at a convention. Albertans need to have somebody in the upper reaches of government who wants to work with us instead of against us. Like her or not, that's Annie. -kimmy

No, maintaining different standards of health and education for people due to place of residency is anti-Canadian. :angry: How is it anti-Canadian? The *constitution* of our country awards those powers to the provinces. How can our very CONSTITUTION be anti-Canadian? I find this very interesting. The people who support provinces maintaining the role set out in the constitution are being called anti-Canadian by people who want to trash the constitution. The irony is intriguing. -kimmy

"The West" % of Canadian population: 30.0% (9.5m/31.7m) % of Cabinet: 20.5% (8/39) Under-represented by 9.5% Ontario % of population: 38.8% (12.3m/31.7m) % of Cabinet: 41.0% (16/39) Over-represented 2.2% Quebec % of population: 23.7% (7.5m/31.7m) % of Cabinet: 20.5% (8/39) Under-represented by 3.2% Atlantic % of population: 7.5% (2.4m/31.7m) % of Cabinet: 18.0% (7/39) Over-represented by 10.5% So, despite all this talk of the west being the big winners in the new cabinet, the numbers show that this region is still by far the least represented in cabinet. -kimmy {time on my hands. }