d_rawk

Yeah. It would've been interesting to see if John McKay would have made good on his threat to walk if the vote had been whipped, and who else would have followed suit (maybe Wappel)? There's definately some dead wood in the Liberal caucus that the party could afford to lose. As you say, they are completely safe seats that wouldn't be hard to fill.

No, it shouldn't be sanitized. Christmas should be celebrated openly, honestly, loudly and proudly. But I don't think it should be the defacto, dominating lens through which all festivities are filtered. And it shouldn't be the language of the civil state. It doesn't need to be overbearing to be enjoyed. I'm with you on Christmas tree. It's a Christmas tree. But if I'm putting together a work party, I think it's unnecessarily insensitive to call it a Christmas party. Even if everyone has thick enough skin to not take it personally, what does it say about my level of respect for them? And if I do legitimately respect them, and am doing it simply as a matter of acting out cultural norms, isn't there some value in stopping for a moment and evaluating those norms? Don't I want to make a point of recognizing those who fall outside the narrow language of my own personal traditions? Shouldn't the state in a proudly multicultural country?

In shared civic spaces? Probably, yes. Just as we went after the posting of the 10 Commandments in courts. In your home? No. Fuck no. Can we get over all of this, and celebrate a multitude of disparate traditions, and no longer need to worry about nativity scenes in public spaces, because we will also have other symbols from other traditions in those same spaces and we can all enjoy our quirky differences? Hopefully! But we will have to first erase the stench of religious and cultural imperialism, and we aren't there yet. Who is offended by Rudolph and Jingle Bells? (silence). Who is made uncomfortable by Silent Night in public places where, tentatively, they are supposed to feel included? (squirming in seats)

Birdy - yikes! What do Santa, Rudolph, chocolates with bows, etc.. have to do with Christ? Those have been cultural secular symbols of the holiday festivities, certainly, and there is no need at all to part with them (I don't think any serious voices are suggesting so). But if I'm going to get drunk and party my ass off with people, I'd rather do it inclusively, rather than have them have to meet me on my own terms (Christmas). If it's a general holiday, open to all, then why adopt the exclusive language that is particular to a time when we were culturally exclusive? I think Jesus is hot shit, and I think that as far as non-violent insurrections against global military empires go, he had it totally nailed down (pun only half-intended). But that's my thing. I think it important to not go overboard and accidentally alienate Christians, certainly (ollie's point taken), by why should I want to alienate my potential fellow merry makers, either? No, but it's probably not a good idea to use a nativity scene centrepiece, either. But you weren't going to do that anyways, so ....

Anybody else see this? link

link

Gold! Green's statement should be worked into NDP promotional material as an endorsement, stat.

Fair 'nuff Here's what Mercer had to say: link

123 Yeas, 175 Nays

Hey, he's de-ratifying! :laugh:

Heh, can't we be at peace at least until the election rolls around? I'm holding back my typically overly wordy response. It's just feels too soon

"The Fifth Estate presents ..." Victims of the Lipid Hypothesis: How 20 years of denial of the existance of transfats skewed the data, and left a dangerous, profitable, low-fat 'health' industry in its wake. Is it enough for the mainstream nutritionists and medical community to admit that they were negligent and wrong, or must they bear some measure of responsibility for the dangers of the dietary fadism that has been the legacy of their stubborn refusal to confront the evidence all these years? (voice of Peter Mansbridge) Toooniiggghtttt, on The National: First Past the Post in a multiparty Parliament. Why your vote might not count as much as your civics teacher told you it would ... or as much as your neighbour's.

They do, absolutely. In another thread I said that I thought the post-convention bump would be even higher than it was. The story with the two polls so far (three actually, Decima released one today that hasn't been talked about here) is with the Quebec numbers though. The common wisdom was that Dion hasn't sold, doesn't sell, and can't ever sell in Quebec. But that is where he is polling highest, even over the significant post-convention Ontario bump, and that is where they know him best. If the commentators had been correct, we would expect to see the Quebec numbers drop (because of a visceral reaction to Dion), or at best see a very very minimal honeymoon increase in polling in that province, even while it spiked elsewhere. It's Chretien all over again. (not to suggest that Dion's Liberals are going to pull in three consecutive majority governments or anything ...)

I like #3 -- "Yet she increased her prostitution, remembering the days of her youth when she engaged in prostitution in the land of Egypt. She lusted after their genitals - as large as those of donkeys, and their seminal emission was as strong as that of stallions" (Ezekiel 23:19-20) :laugh: Good find, thanks DEM.

I read a couple of reviews, and apparently it sucks as a game even if you can get over the subject matter. Might be worth a download for the novelty. For the record, I'm not of the camp that thinks this thing should be pulled from the shelves or anything. I am uncomfortable with its popularity though, just as I'm uncomfortable with the popularity of the Left Behind series in general.

... let the pundits eat crow. I'm interested to read Chantal Hebert's backpeddling on all of this.

The Times article quote notes that it has been condemned by 'Muslims and secularists', which it thankfully has been. Worth noting, too, is that there has been a large campaign and pretty much universal condemnation against it by moderate Christians as well.

Happy birthday crazy pants! See ya soon

Ah, then I guess I owe you a truckload of something. What'll you take?

I'd bet a truckload (of what, I'm not sure ...) that the real issue isn't the downloading of copyright material at all, but bandwidth usage. An ISP should have no reason to be concerned about what you are downloading, unless they've received a direct complaint from the copyright holder (or representative organization). And you pay a private copy levy already, and nobody has yet satisfactorily demonstrated that you aren't within your legal rights to download whatever the heck you want in Canada (barring the obvious), unlike in the US. I think they just don't want you plugging their tubes when they can probably squish 30 or more 'average bandwidth' users in your place, each of them paying as much per month as you do.

Eww, Wente. Marcus Gee can be a real pain in the ass, too. [edit:] That's bizarre. My above link to the Globe and Mail endorsement of Harper now opens up to a "purchase this article" page. Here's the Google Cache Copy

Hahaha, that's awesome. :laugh: Especially this: Did you get a picture with him?

Hehe, forgive me my little rant then

Hmm, you mean what Harper said, or what PT and I were getting at? The rights of Parliamentarians are in no danger. An MP can vote however he or she wants, whenever they want. You might face party discipline for not towing the line if the caucas is whipped - your decisions have consequences, as they should. You may end up sitting as an independant. But you're not a prisoner of the party, and there is never anything stopping you from doing what you want/think is right. So presenting it as an issue of MP's 'rights' being threatened over and above the issue of the actual threatened rights of a section of traditionally disenfranchised citizenry is absurd. This is to say nothing of the political ins and outs of whether or not it is a good idea for Dion to whip the vote. It is just ... imagine Harper saying the same thing when the issue on the table was 'interracial' marriage or a women's right to choose, etc.. No matter what one thinks of the issues themselves, it seems incredibly bad taste to trumpet the rights of the Parliamentarians who are making these decisive decisions about people's lives and ability to choose how they live them ... It's bad enough that he could say it with a straight face, but all the worse that nobody called him on it.