kimmy

When long-standing grievances fail to achieve any sort of resolution, peoples' faith in "legal ways" of doing things diminishes and they find other outlets. The miners had all those rights in 1914. And most of the demands that they were striking for were already the law of the land in Colorado. In theory, the political machinery should have resolved the entire situation without any necessity for violence. It didn't, because the political machinery was heavily invested on the miners' owners' side of the dispute. And today, on the issue of police accountability, the politicians are again on the side of the cops. See the di Blasio situation in New York for what happens when a politician steps out of line with the cops. By the time this gets to looting and burning, the police have long past failed in responding proactively. -k

Law, order, and good government aren't just things we believe in because they're nice slogans. They're things we do because when we don't, shit gets real. For an extreme example, go read about the Colorado coal mine war. The mining companies had carte-blanche to do whatever they wanted, including using violence against the workers and their families (notably, the Ludlow massacre). The miners couldn't very well go to the government; the Colorado government was in the pockets of the mining companies (state National Guard troops had even participated in the massacre.) Instead, the union obtained a hell of a lot of guns, and the miners spent the next few weeks attacking mines. And that was ultimately what led to change. After the massacre, there was ink spilled and condemnation from polite society, but it wasn't until rich peoples' stuff started getting burned to the ground that the mining companies took the issue seriously. Serious reform only happened after a lot of blood was spilled and a lot of property was destroyed. And hopefully from a situation like that we learn that it's important to be proactive and address issues before they explode into that kind of tragedy. Police aren't being proactive. They're doing the opposite, adopting a siege mentality. Things are not going to get better. I do take issue with the narrative that it's about racism, though. I don't think cops are racist, I think they're prone to overuse force against people of all colors and backgrounds. This affects minorities disproportionately, because the cops interact with minorities more often in tense situations for reasons that we've all discussed before. But there's plenty of examples of white people getting their asses kicked by the cops as well. I don't think it's a matter of racism, I just think that there are too many within the police who use force excessively. And too many others who are protecting the "bad apples". -k

It sounds like you do not Support The Troops! Hey, everybody, this guy doesn't Support The Troops! Get him!! -k

Just go stand in the Free Speech Zone and hold up a sign that says "I am a little upset." Rest assured your message will be heard loud and clear. -k

This movie seems to be turning into some kind of litmus test for patriotism in America. If you question the veracity of Chris Kyle's accounts, why are you spitting on the graves of American war heroes? If you think the movie is simplistic, why do you not Support The Troops? If you think the movie was just not very good, why do you hate America? If you've got something negative to say about American Sniper, you're literally worse than the Dixie Chicks. Do you now, or have you ever, held a negative opinion about American Sniper? -k

It's not about the weight of the ball, BG. An underinflated ball is softer and easier for the receivers to squeeze when they make a catch. A more inflated ball is harder and doesn't squeeze, so it's harder to catch. The Patriots do a lot of throwing, but very little punting, so they really wouldn't care how much it affected punting. -k

You told me this before, in the thread where we were discussing the fact that Dick Fuld made a half billion dollars in pay and bonuses in the few years leading up to the destruction of Lehmann Brothers. Your contention was that CEOs would operate with the long-term interests of their company in mind. I contended, and continue to, that if you can pocket a half billion dollars in pay and bonuses in the span of a few years by thinking short-term instead of long-term, then you have no motivation to think long-term. Or, to frame this in terms of cars or houses... if some sucker came up to you and offered you an outrageous price for your car RIGHT NOW, why would you possibly give a crap what its resale value is going to be decades in the future? -k

I think it should be pointed out that this Stienhafel guy was the CEO of the entire company, not its Canadian expansion effort. While the Canadian expansion attempt was an unmitigated disaster, Target as a whole seems to be doing very well in spite of that. Stienhafel resigned in May 2014, and it was not due to the Canadian expansion, but rather due to a massive data security breach in December 2013, in which tens of millions of credit card numbers and tens of millions of shoppers' personal information was put at risk. So I think the whole premise of this thread is a little flawed-- the way it's presented, it is made to look as if Stienhaffel got a $60 million golden parachute for botching Target Canada. In fact, Stienhaffel appears to have been a very successful executive overall. -k

Guys! I am now equipped with Chromecast, and looking for stuff to stream. I'm familiar with Netflix, of course, but I'm looking for others. I've found one called Crackle, which seems pretty neat. I gather that Sony is behind it, and they've dipped into their vault to provide free content as a way of selling advertising. I have been looking at ones called FilmOn and Pluto.tv as well, although they don't seem to have a ton of stuff I'm interested in. Are there any other "must haves"? I think I'm just about ready to cancel my cable subscription. I'm at the point where I think all I would miss would be occasional live sports events and news coverage of big events like election night. -k

I thought he was great in Basterds. The opening scene where he interrogated the farmer was blood-chilling, with the ruthless sense of menace wrapped in the smarmy, cordial exterior. It was so tense that it took me most of the movie to unwind from it. -k

I only know Christophe Waltz from his career-making performance in Inglourious Basterds, but I've enjoyed Amy Adams in everything I've ever seen her in. I think she brings something extra to the party every time out, even in lightweight fluff like Night At The Museum. -k

Glad you asked! The game will be rife with Canadian entertainment, as Burton Cummings and Randy Bachman will reunite to provide an energetic half-time show that will undoubtedly have the young people abuzz! No, no Canadians. Katy Perry and Lenny Kravitz will provide the half-time entertainment. Adele Dazeem will perform the national anthem before the game. I am sure Katy Perry will be epic. I don't even like Katy Perry music, but I am sure that whatever she is doing is going to be epic. -k

Bill Belichick and the Patriots have been caught and punished by the league for cheating before, too. Not sure why anybody would give them the benefit of the doubt when we already know what kind of people there are in that organization. It should have never happened, and the Patriots have never needed advantages like this, so why should it be tolerated? It's ridiculous. The NFL may not have an exceptional punishment laid out for a team that tampers with equipment to gain an advantage. Then again, the NBA probably didn't have an exceptional punishment laid out beforehand for telling your mistress not to hang out with black people, either. The reason the NBA imposed an exceptional punishment on Donald Sterling is that it damaged the reputation and image of the entire league. This scandal has done the same for the NFL, though obviously to a far lesser extent than Sterling did. The fact that we're a week from the NFL's marquee event and the topic people are talking about is whether Tom Brady and/or Bill Belichick are cheaters and speculation about how many other times they've cheated and got away with it is a stain on the whole event. I don't support removing the Patriots from the game, but I do think handing Belichick a big fat fine would be appropriate. I think it would be also appropriate to tell him that this is Strike 2-- one more stunt like this and you're out of the league. I have to say that despite the controversy, I'm still pretty excited about the Superbowl. The Seahawks are the unofficial home team here in Kim Country, and the whole place will be abuzz. I am, like, totally into #sports you know? -k

I'm not comfortable with saying that it's all up to the parents. In this case, maybe there's an argument to make that the chemo was too awful and wouldn't have guaranteed survival anyway. I still don't agree, but let's leave this case aside for the moment and look at the more general case when parents' religious beliefs come into conflict with modern medicine. We've had court battles where Jehovah's Witnesses went to court to fight against life-saving blood transfusions. We've had numerous cases of children dying of easily treatable causes because their parents only believe in faith healing. In the case of this Native girl, you can press the argument that there's no guarantee that chemo would have saved her, but that can't be said of all these cases. There are plenty of cases every year where children die needlessly because of their parents' beliefs. So I'm simply not comfortable saying "it's up to the parents, end of story." I believe that people have the right to raise their children as they see fit, but that right doesn't extend to include abuse or negligence or failure to provide the essentials of life. Abuse, negligence, and failure to provide the essentials of life are three things that can definitely be said faith-healing parents let children suffer and die by withholding medical care. As a general principle, I completely reject the idea that parents have carte-blanche to withhold medical care for religious reasons. Now, maybe you can argue that in specific cases that declining medical treatment is a reasonable decision. Maybe you could even convince me that this was one of those instances, although I'm skeptical of that. But in the general case, no. -k

Well "good advice" is hardly the basis of law. Once the coveting crosses the line to become stealing, then sure. But up to then? Like Squid points out, a Commandment against Covet when there's no Commandments against Rape or Slavery seems like putting on the icing before you've made the cake. Surely that wouldn't be the case if the Ten Commandments were really the basis of our legal system, as certain types like to claim it is. Personally, I do a lot of coveting. I live in a neighborhood where there are a lot of homes in the mid 7-figure price range and vehicles that cost 6 figures. God struck me down every time I thought "I want to have that someday" I'd be long dead. And really, where would our economic system be if people stopped coveting their neighbors' stuff? "Keeping up with the Joneses" is arguably a key driver of economic activity. -k

When you started the thread you declared that the university's response was "refreshing". I gather you've had a change of heart. -k

I'm not sure why you're acting as if you've won something. The assumption was never that all 13 members of the group were equally involved. As I wrote over a week ago, the way the school has handled this has protected a few miscreants at the expense of everybody else. Mr Millet isn't afraid of having his name public, because he didn't actually do anything wrong. He's going to court to protect himself not from an Internet lynch mob, but from the university's "process". -k

When a local Future Shop location closed, the vacant space was eventually filled by Wholesale Sports Outdoor Outfitters. It would be pretty cool if the empty Target here was taken over by Cabela's. -k

This week in Islam, a woman was beheaded in Mecca, and a guy has begun serving a sentence of 1000 lashes and 10 years in prison for starting a website. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-publicly-beheads-woman-in-holy-mecca-as-blogger-set-to-receive-second-lashing-9982134.html -k

Weird mashup of slam poetry, Nancy Reagan, and evangelical Christianity. -k

There is always some event going on that baffles me as to why it's in the news. Some murder case, out of thousands of other murder cases, somehow captures the imagination of tabloid media and everybody covers it because everybody thinks everybody else is interested in it. Or some disappearance. Or something else. Sometimes there's an angle that makes it ideal for tabloid journalists-- often the angle is that the people involved are really attractive. I think we were talking about all this stuff not too long ago in the Oscar Pistorius thread. I saw a news article yesterday about a cat in Russia who saved an abandoned baby from certain death. Somebody heard a cat meowing loudly and went to find out what was going on. They found the cat in an alley, in a box, meowing its head off, and the cat was cuddled around a newborn baby. Without the cat crying, who knows how long it would have been before someone found the baby. And they think that without the cat there to keep it warm, the baby would have frozen to death before anyone found it. For me, I care far more about that kitty than I care about Oscar Pistorius or Natalee Holloway or Jon-Benet Ramsey or any of the other random news celebrities who have come and gone over the years. -k

It is amazing to me that a company that could be so successful in their US operations could be so completely incompetent in their Canadian expansion. I hope that the local hobos will be able to keep the nice red plastic shopping carts. Compared to traditional carts, they're quieter, lighter, handle better in snowy conditions, have a larger capacity for cans and bottles, and they're less likely to scratch parked cars. And they have a sporty flair that seems to perk up the hobos. I think that these fine carts may end up being Target's most notable contribution to life in Kim City. -k

Are you sure support for Israel in the US is in danger? It seems to me that "I support Israel's right to exist and defend itself" is right up there with "I support the troops" and "I respect Americans of all colors and creeds" on the list of stuff that every US politician has to say. Anything less than enthusiastic support for Israel is seen as cause for suspicion at the very least, and viewed as near treason in some quarters. What more should the US be doing to support Israel? Short of putting US bulldozers on the ground in Israel, isn't the US already doing just about everything within reason to support Israel in monetary, political, military, economic terms? Is it because Obama didn't provide a ringing endorsement of the settlement policy? Is that why people have decided that the US no longer supports Israel? The idea that Jews supported the civil rights movement 50 years ago and are owed payback seems ... well, occasionally there are politicians that remind black voters that Lincoln was a Republican, it seems about as relevant. I'm not sure it's apparent to people outside your synagogue that Jews today are particularly in solidarity with black people, the committee on social justice issues notwithstanding. It's nice that you have a committee for social justice, but if the purpose of the committee is so that you can tell people how committed to social justice you are, it seems a little self-serving. Once upon a time there was a federal NDP candidate in Edmonton Strathcona named Malcolm Azania, who is black. His political career effectively ended when someone unearthed stuff he had written on usenet many years earlier, while still a university student. The gist of the comments that were so damning to his political career is that he was questioning how it is that Jews, who he believed are among the most privileged and well-off groups in our society, are at the front of the line when it comes to claiming minority victimhood. Wrapped up in the typical language about "white privilege", he basically questioned the idea that there's this group who are among the most white-privileged of white-privilege people who nonetheless come out with the "guys! we're victims of the system, just like you!" when it's convenient for them to do so. Now, I'm not saying he's right or wrong, but this thread seems like an example of what he was talking about. -k

If physical dominance was what really turned women on, then guys like Thor Bjornsson would be hearthrobs, and guys like Bradley Cooper and Ryan Gosling would be shmucks. It's definitely about aesthetics. I agree with you that biological imperatives play into this more than we realize, but I think you're over-reaching and making really broad assumptions about how these traits are exhibited and interpreted. -k

"Harm" needs to be qualified. I think they did harm to the learning environment, but I don't think they planned to do direct harm to any of their classmates. Personally, I don't know what goes through my dentist's head when I'm in his chair. Maybe he's a raging misogynist or, maybe he's a raving homosexual, I have no idea. But whatever he's thinking, his thoughts stay private-- except as pertains to my teeth. He's never been anything other than cordial. His clinic environment gives me a sense of security. There are two exam rooms, separated by a privacy wall that doesn't reach the ceiling. Neither exam room has a door. Dental assistants come and go. There's always an assistant on hand when the dentist is in the room. Even if he secretly longed to go Cosby-style on a patient, he wouldn't have the opportunity. I think that women who are concerned about their safety can help themselves by paying attention to what the environment is like. -k