scribbles

That said, if you're rich enough to buy a BMW, they offer the R1200GS with a lowered seat and suspension. Much better fit for a shorter person.

+1 on the BMW, if you can reach the ground. Tall buggers.

5'6" and looking for a cruiser to tour and ride around town in the 1500cc range? There are a bunch of contradictions in there! ;) I second the vote for the Suzuki. While I don't think a cruiser is best suited to touring, the C90 or M90 have plenty of power for two up riding and touring, and it's not that heavy. Shaft drive, which requires minimal maintenance. Low center of gravity, and low seat height, both great for control especially if you're not tall. I find the Vulcan top heavy. The Goldwing is a beast, ditto the Yammy RoyalStar. Personally, I traded in my M50 for more of a sport touring bike (VStrom) because cruisers aren't comfy on longer rides. The VStrom is tall, though; I'm 5'9" and chose to lower it 3/4 of an inch.

*sigh* If I had hair to pull out, I would. AGAIN, the cost of the election is irrelevant. Where do you think that money is going? Into the ECONOMY. Transportation, lodgings, printers, media, food, etc. I really wish people would get past the ridiculous drivel about the cost and how the opposition wanted an election. They ALL did! Harper has been trying to trigger one for months! And if you don't believe that, despite every expert and analyst seeing it coming, you're truly blind. The outcome of the election will be the same. Let's just not get distracted by trivialities and illusion, like Harper wants, along the way.

I haven't tried the compass yet, but thought I'd throw out there that I talked to a friend about it today. She's a staunch Liberal, yet she tried the compass and didn't come out Liberal. She came out Bloc! Apparently her mostly Conservative co-workers came out as a mix of NDP, Liberal and Conservative. So, to those who say it's rigged, I say I have more doubts today than I did before.

April, if you liked Jhonen, check out Roman Dirge. Really good stuff.

The radio segment I heard clearly stated that it was the police that informed the school board, and that it was discovered that the students already knew AFTER the police blew the whistle on her to the school board. I'm just a little troubled as to why it is deemed acceptable that the police informed on her when they preface their disclosure by saying she hasn't done anything wrong. They did it out of a "moral obligation?" At what point did public safety officers become morality enforcers? Is that what we pay the police to do? And, how is their idea of morality suddenly accepted as universal? What if they felt homosexuality was immoral? Should they be allowed to inform on a gay teacher? If they felt that her extracurricular employment was a distraction or problem for the students, they could have offered to transfer her to another position or department. It was made clear that the school board elected not to do so.

What's interesting is that the police informed the school board, which is how this all came to pass. They informed the school board not, as they put it, because she was doing anything illegal, but because they felt they had a "moral obligation" to disclose it.

All governments have corruption and scandal in them to some degree. Perhaps it's cynical of me, but I become a lot more concerned when the scandal and corruption gets in the way of the functioning of the government. Did the sponsorship scandal impede government? Nope. It was also more than a decade and a half ago. Have the recent scandals impeded government? Absolutely. And that's why they are a problem. Besides the point, if you pledge to clean up and right the ship and improve accountability and transparency, you'd better be sure you're going to be held to a higher standard. The excuse of "well the other guys did it too" doesn't work when you got to where you are by saying the other guys acted wrong.

Give Gregory Maguire a try. Start with "Wicked," and you'll be hooked.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the way someone dressed defines how they should be treated. But, there are ingrained stereotypes that people have when they think or speak of the sex industry. Dressing "big", as you put it, creates a sideshow that distracts people from the purpose of the event an makes it more about "wow, they look outlandish." Sometimes being too brash and in-your-face takes away from the message.

I'm assuming Cyberfeab was trying to bait someone. That said, I DO hope that people attending this walk (I might as well) refrain from dressing and acting inappropriately. One of the biggest credibility-killers in activism is the propensity some people have for trying to draw attention to their cause by, as cyberfeab put it, dressing like clowns. By this I mean dressing to fit the stereotype of a sex worker. The issue should be the focus, not someone in tight leather and a bullwhip.

As much as I don't like his politics, I give the best moment of the last debate to Duceppe. When he came out and said that the reason he would honestly answer questions and the difference between him and the other two guys was that he KNEW he'd never be prime minister, I laughed harder than I've ever laughed at politics. I think it's too bad May won't be there this year. She had the most logical and informed answers to offer last year. I truly think she'd be the smartest of the bunch there this year. And I'm not even voting Green!

Hm. I said Merry Christmas at least a half dozen times this year and was neither lynched or arrested. One problem solved at least. :)

I'm a little confused about something. They claim they found the murder weapon, a bloody hammer, at the scene. Yet they are conducting an autopsy to decide cause of death?

I was a little shocked by the stats too. I think that's the point, though; we don't realize just how uncommon it is that someone reoffends because we are conditioned to focus on the few who do, and the media spoon feed us examples. Again, emotionally I couldn't care less is this asshole gets rehabilitated or not. But, I know that extending that attitude to everyone doesn't make any good sense. Anyways, I feel like this is getting close to a thread hijack, and this girl doesn't deserve that. It's unfortunate her family is going to have to deal with the ups and downs of what looks to be a long court case. I don't entirely understand what she was doing living in that motel with the guy for three days.

Hey, on an emotional level, I'm right there with you. I say give me five minutes in a locked room with him then send in the mops. Statistically, only 1% of paroled offenders end up committing a violent crime. That includes sexual offences. 7% commit a non-violent crime. The aim of the justice system should be to deter crime from happening. If you lock everyone up forever for doing something, you spend an enormous sum of money for an emotional triumph that doesn't actually deter anything. Again, on a less rational level I'd like to see him drawn and quartered. He deserves to rot for a long time in jail. Rationally, I know doing that for more and more criminals won't stem the tide, which is unfortunate. I'd like my rational and emotional side to agree once in a while.

In fairness, if we were ever attacked the US would be obligated to defend us out of self-interest, and they have a much bigger and better equipped military than we could ever have. Our only credible threat to sovereignty is, paradoxically, our ally to the south, and they would walk all over us if they were determined to. Our military is really about foreign intervention, and is better suited to a secondary or supportive role. We've always been excellent at that, because we have some of the best trained and skilled people. Giving them an obscenely expensive piece of aircraft that doesn't properly support the missions they fly, particularly if it turns out we can't actually afford to buy them, is a bigger insult in my opinion than asking them to use the CF-18s.

Argh! See, this is why I know where my vote is going. The issues are being lost behind the deliberate misdirection about coalitions and election costs. Where do you think that $300million is spent? In our economy. Consider it a democratically motivated economic stimulus package. I hope the swell turns towards issues that actually matter instead of fictional boogeyman stories of impending coalitions, cost exaggerations and attack ads that quote without context stuff that was said three years ago. It's making a mockery of our political system. In case you haven't noticed, I'll be playing in the poll. ;)

People should pay for their crime. But, I'd rather see the crime not get committed in the first place. Mandatory minimums and super-jails don't reduce crime in the least. Just ask the Americans. The real issue here is that a beautiful young woman had her life taken brutally and far too early. For the same kind of tragedy to be avoided in the future, it's going to take a change in mens' attitudes towards women, not a blue vote at the polls.

I am in full agreement with PP on supporting the military; if we're going to have one, equip it, otherwise don't bother. However. The issue here is not that the Conservatives want to equip the military. Nor is it that the Liberals don't want to, which I disagree with them on. The issue is that the fighters are NOT the right equipment for what we use them for, and experts have identified others that are better options. Even the Americans are skeptical of these machines. Bigger problem yet, Harper refuses to fess up to how much these things are actually going to cost, or where the money is coming from. For all the money that the Conservatives have spent on military equipment, not ONE machine has been delivered. And, for all the promises, everyone is left scratching their head as to where the money is coming from. He won't admit to the cost because we can't afford them. Why other options aren't being looked at is confusing, unless it's just a desire to be the first country in the world with this particular unit in the air. And, that's just a stupid reason.

Let's not mix politics, especially bad politics with this please. Based on the weapon that they're saying was used, I feel even worse for her.

I don't know. I'd actually rather think that being locked up in a prison for life "enjoying" the company of Bubba the 350lb silver-back gorilla in the bottom bunk would be a more satisfying punishment than old sparky. As emotionally satisfying as it is to wish death and dismemberment on assholes like this, capital punishment doesn't deter, and the evidence has shown that jail terms work. This guy will get a psych review because it's par for the course, go to trial and get locked up. The sooner the better.

Actually, I'm studying forensic psych right now. The number of people who successfully get by as not criminally responsible is very very low. This fucker's odds of skating by aren't great.

I had actually heard that the suspect is a manager at the hotel, not Diamonds. Violence against women is deplorable. I don't know what this guy's "excuse" is, but any man's need to exert dominance by force is a sign of their inferiority as people. Hope she didn't suffer long. Hope he does.