kimmy

Just 3 episodes left. Season 1 we had Ned's execution... season 2 we had the Blackwater... season 3 we had the Red Wedding. It looks like the duel between the Mountain and Prince Oberyn will be tomorrow. I wonder which of this season's main plotlines will provide the big finish to this season? Fallout from Tyrion's trial? Events involving Littlefinger? Stannis's revenge? Big events involving Sansa and/or Arya? The Wildlings attack Castle Black? War between the Boltons and the Greyjoys? I really liked episode #7, particularly the scenes with Tyrion, and Arya and Sandor. The scenes with Tyrion and Jaime, Tyrion and Bronn, and Tyrion and Oberyn were all heart-wrenching in different ways. I knew as soon as it was revealed that the crown's champion would be Gregor Clegane that Oberyn would offer to be Tyrion's champion. The part where Oberyn recounted meeting Tyrion when he was an infant put a lump in my throat, and my eyes misted up when he said he told Tyrion he would fight for him. I also liked the scene where Sansa walks into the courtyard and sees snow for the first time in however long it might have been (had to remind myself that in Westeros, winter isn't an annual thing.) She looked so regal. It seems like Sansa is now in a situation where she could be allied to a very powerful man, if she wishes to be. Being with Littlefinger would provide her with security and an opportunity for vengeance. She could do worse... -k

Please elaborate. I gather this is some guy who wrote something about income equality or something, but please expand upon why you feel this is a big deal. I strongly believe that you're the one who doesn't get it. The first trillionaire will do things exactly the same. Regardless of who comes up with the next genius idea that chances how people live, it's a certainty that the people who succeed in monetizing it will come from the pool of those who are already wealthy beyond belief. -k

This week in Islam: Brooklyn man kills wife for making wrong dinner. People killing their spouses in domestic disputes isn't uncommon. What sucks ass about this particular incident is that his legal defense is attempting to use his culture as a mitigating factor: Imagine your name is Julie Clark and you're trying to argue your client is guilty of a lesser offense because his culture says it's ok to beat women. -k

So is the reason behind the ongoing temper tantrum over Benghazi really that people are mad they blamed it on the Youtube video instead of saying that the attack was because radicals found out that it was a CIA outpost? I mean, if it was my covert operation that got attacked, I think I'd be giving a false explanation to the public too. -k

This was actually reported over a year ago when the RBC thing blew up, but it was overlooked at the time. Here's an article from April 12, 2013: So... it wasn't a secret, but nobody was talking about it until last month. -k

It sounds like the University of Saskatchewan is doing some ground-breaking field research on the Streisand Effect. So the professor has his job back, the university's president has publicly apologized and admitted that they made a huge blunder. Her own job is probably now in jeopardy as this situation has caused serious damage to the university's reputation and to its relationship with academic staff and students. An emergency meeting Monday will determine what happens next. -k

Here's that article: If there's *really* a shortage of workers in certain areas, then Mr Kelly's buddies shouldn't be harmed by having to pay higher wages. The truth is that it's not simply about continued access to workers, it's about continued access to workers at artificially low wages. Here's a different article in which both Minister Kenney and Prime Minister Harper say they're concerned that foreign workers have become part of the business model in certain industries: ... Obviously the government's "progressive" work in this regard has been pretty lacking and Harper is just reading some talking points, because "Canadians always have first crack at jobs" has been boilerplate language in every government statement about the TFW program. Nonetheless it's interesting that the government is now acknowledging the business model aspect of this. Clearly the jig is up on that little game. The politicians now recognize that the campaign contributions from a few restauranteurs are not worth the political ass-kicking they're taking over this issue. -k

Is Lucic an 8-year old trapped in a gorilla's body? Hitting that Red Wings player in the nuts with his stick was so incredibly infantile. Now this. He seems like a giant toddler with no handle on his emotions. I wouldn't want to be there when he has a tantrum. -k

I feel the same way about this as I would feel if it were Jehovah's Witnesses or Christian Scientists or Asian wizards or New Age kooks or any other group that rejects modern medicine in favor of magic, prayer, power-crystals, or snake oil. There's a precedent in Canada for intervening in cases where JWs want to deny their kids medical care in life-threatening situations. I supported it then, and I supported now. But I suspect that the parents in this case may get more sympathy because they're First Nations rather than JWs, and because of increasing public gullibility in regard to the effectiveness of "alternative medicine". -k

... -k

I like the TV commercials featuring Captain Obvious. That's the extent of my knowledge about hotel reviews. -k

My radio has been invaded by South Africans. The Kongos brothers are from South Africa, but now live in Phoenix Arizona. They're apparently determined to make the accordion happen as a rock music instrument. "Come With Me Now" is a big hit. I once heard Gentleman defined as a man who can play the accordion, but doesn't. The Kongos brothers are clearly not gentlemen. Meanwhile, it was probably inevitable that Taylor Momsen would also end up on my radio. She's a model and actress and supposedly a singer as well. She fronts a band called "Pretty Reckless". She's pretty, alright. Not sure about reckless, but definitely pretty. There's been a lot of hype about her for reasons that have nothing to do with her musical talent. She's known for being on some TV show, she's known for modelling Madonna's clothing line, and she's known for getting semi-naked on stage. Now she's also known for the god-awful song "Heaven Knows". As much as the song is a gigantic block of cheesy Velveeta, I thought her vocals are actually ... pretty good. This is another "Pretty Reckless" song that does not suck nearly as much as "Heaven Knows", and after listening to this I have to grudgingly admit that I think Miss Momsen might have some potential in this singing business after all. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5VyNsINlcY -k

Shady, I don't think anybody is directing anger at people who were uncomfortable watching "the kiss". I think the anger is directed at people who were uncomfortable watching "the kiss" and claiming that they have been harmed or persecuted or assaulted by it. We have all these people from places like Family Research Council and American Family Association angry that ESPN showed "the kiss" and claiming that it was an attack on their religious beliefs. Bryan Fischer and Sandy Rios calling it an attack on their beliefs, Peter LaBarbera claiming he was "forced" to watch it, that sort of stuff. Maybe I'm cynical, maybe I just unaware of how massively popular TV coverage of the NFL draft is, but I find it amazingly coincidental that all of these religious zealots were glued to their TVs during the last round of the draft. I have a hunch that they were watching because they wanted to find out what happened with Michael Sam. Seems kind of like tuning in to a UFC fight so that you can complain about the violence. Seems kind of like August paying his $10 to see a Tarantino movie so that he can tell you how much he hated it. They have the right to be grossed out if they wish. But they don't have the right to be shielded from things that offend them. I mean, when Muslim dummies kick and scream because they saw a cartoon that offended them, what do we say? We say "grow some skin, bro". "They said this about our Prophet!" "They said that about our Quran!" Yeah? So? It's a big world full of people who don't share all your beliefs. Michael Sam did something on TV that doesn't conform to American Family Association's world view? Yeah? So? If they can't deal with it, it's their problem, not Michael Sam's and not ESPN's. -k

It might still be possible for a company to "astroturf" these "verified" reviews, but it takes a lot more effort, and money as well. If some hotel or whatever decides to go to guests and say "hey, give us a positive review, and we'll comp your visit" or some such arrangement, it's taking cash out of their pocket. Compare that with a situation where they can simply create a fictional name and write any number of glowing reviews to drown out comments from actual guests who may have signed in to voice real complaints about their stay. -k

I am pretty amazed by the Habs. I figured (and I'm sure I'm not alone in this) that once the big bad black-and-gold machine started rolling, they'd bulldoze right through Montreal just like they did to Detroit. But that sure was not the case. I am blown away by how well they are playing. Carey Price looks like he is in Olympic form right now. PK Subban is a force, regardless what people might think of his ... "exuberant" nature. And they are getting huge performances from a lot of guys who aren't exactly household names, like Tomas Plekanec. He's been around for a long time but I never really thought he was very good until watching him these playoffs. Many other lesser names are contributing as well. I see that the Oil Kings have won the WHL championship series against Portland, which is cool. The Oilers, Eskimos, and Golden Bears are all dog crap, but at least the Oil Kings are winners. -k

I respect Shady's right to be uncomfortable with watching two men kiss. I also respect his right to say "ewwww! Gross!" although it seems like a somewhat juvenile thing to do. However, I think many others who felt uncomfortable watching it are not just expressing their feelings, but also demanding that Michael Sam change his behavior to avoid causing discomfort to them, or that ESPN had some moral obligation to avoid causing them discomfort. To those people, I say "life's tough. wear a helmet." -k

Personally speaking, pretty bored with aboriginal grievances. -k

If a straight players' girlfriend had been at the draft, and he kissed her when his name was called... would that be an issue? Probably not, right? But it's a big issue when a gay players' boyfriend is at the draft and they express their excitement publicly. Personally I hope that we soon reach the point that it's a non-issue either way. -k

I was thinking Colossus of Rhodes. -k

Did you not just argue that fast food restaurants need cheap labour because they're competing in a global market for tourism? Unlike some on this forum, I've never portrayed myself as a champion of the free market. I'm not for dogma, I'm for pragma. I keep bringing up how the free market is supposed to work because some of the Free Market Heroes, ranging from Shady all the way up to the Conservative government, seem to want to ignore free market principles when it's not to the benefit of employers. I think this topic has really illustrated that "pro free market" and "pro business" are not the same thing. I am skeptical. If some of these businesses shut down because they can't get TFWs anymore, that probably means there is a market glut of that kind of business. Maybe we don't need a McDonalds or a Tim's on every corner. Maybe instead of encouraging entrepreneurs to build more McDonalds and Tims franchise locations by subsidizing their labor costs, we should ween them from that teat and have market forces direct their capital into some venture that could be of greater benefit to the entire economy. To me it sounds like (to borrow a Free Market Hero catch-phrase) some "creative destruction" is needed in this industry. (But the Free Market Heroes are only in favor of "creative destruction" when it's union jobs that are getting wiped out.) I'm focused on that one example because that has been the issue of contention. The statistics show that a large percentage of the TFWs are in fast food, and that's where Mr Kenney's temporary moratorium has been implemented, and that's where the businesses are crying that they will die without TFWs. So of course that's the issue. I have no issue at all with an employer being able to look outside the country to bring in a skilled worker to fill a real shortage. I've got a big issue with the TFW program being used to bring in cheap labor en masse. -k

I wonder who will act as Tyrion's champion, and I wonder who he'll have to fight. I can't help wondering if poor Jaime will volunteer himself to fight on Tyrion's behalf. I can't believe that Shae would willingly lie like that... even if she was bitter at Tyrion, I can't imagine why she would betray Sansa like that. She must have been coerced. Early in the first season (first episode, I think) we saw Cersei's aid spying on Tyrion and Shae and report back to Cersei with "something important". I would guess that scene is behind Shae's testimony, but I can't imagine what they would be using to coerce her. Clearly Dany's dragons have entered their rebellious teenage years. Soon they'll be staying out late, smoking, and running with a bad crowd. Lady Tyrell is obviously the brains in that family. Mace doesn't seem very swift. Ser Davos' speech at the Iron Bank was pretty awesome too. I always watch the opening sequence closely to see which locations are featured on the map, and this is the first time Bravos has been shown. So apparently Stannis is back in the game. -k

(these are the franchises that say they have to look outside the country because they can't find workers?) Ok, so you're saying that Canada needs TFWs to produce low-cost fast food because Canada is competing in the global tourism market. I doubt it, first off. I don't think the price of cheeseburgers is high on the list of considerations when international travellers are planning their vacation. The marginal price increase of menu items it might take to pay fast food workers a more competitive wage is going to be a miniscule portion of the overall cost of a vacation. What portion of fast food restaurant customers are international tourists? What portion of international tourists' dining dollars are spent at fast food restaurants? But the main point: I'm saying that by providing fast food places with access to cheap laborers from abroad, the government is intentionally dicking around with the free market in a way that acts to depress wages for fast food workers and by extension other unskilled workers with whom fast food restaurants are supposed to be competing for employees. And you're saying that it's justified, because rising costs in the fast food sector could harm tourism. Well, if preventing negative economic consequences elsewhere in the economy justifies meddling with the free market, then keeping the cost of fast food down seems like a silly place to start. There are way bigger fish to fry. Specifically, the price of fuel. High fuel costs have a ripple effect that is felt throughout the entire economy. It affects the cost of everything, including fast food. Imagine the effects on tourism. I've never heard a tourist complaining about the cost of a cheeseburger here in Kim City, but I've heard plenty of them complaining about the price of gas. Imagine how many vacations don't happen because the price of gas has just gotten too high. I know several seniors who've parked their RVs for good because they just can't pay for gas anymore. Imagine all the Americans who say "I'm not going to Canada this year because gas up there is just so expensive." Surely, if you think the government is justified in acting to depress wages among low-skilled workers due to potential benefits to other areas of the economy, then the government would be super-justified in taking action to reduce fuel costs and eliminate profiteering in the fuel industry. If this idea of dicking around with the free market to create benefits to the larger economy has any merit, then why don't we start with the fuel industry first, and pick on low-skill workers later? -k

That's how the "free market" is supposed to work. If McDonalds has to raise their wages to convince somebody to work there instead of working at Staples or Starbucks, so be it. If McDonalds has to raise the price of a cheeseburger to pay the higher wages, so be it. If the rising price of cheeseburgers decreases the demand and forces some of the McDonalds franchises to close, so be it. The closure of some franchises will decrease the demand for fast food workers, which will in turn act to balance rising wages, and everything will reach a happy equilibrium. That's how it's supposed to go. But instead, fast food companies are going to the government with their sad faces on and saying "nobody wants to work for us for $10/hr" and Jason Kenney says "oh hey, we can help you with that!" and providing a solution that rigs the labor market in favor of employers and cheap happy-meals, and against low-skilled workers. Why does Jason Kenney hate the free market? -k

When people say "nobody in Canada will take these jobs", what they mean is "nobody in Canada will take these jobs at the wages being offered." People usually omit the second half of that statement, but they shouldn't because it's an important qualifier. My first job was at a McDonalds. It sucked. I quit as soon as I found another job, in retail. I got a second job waitressing at a family restaurant, and as soon as I was old enough I started waitressing in bars, at which point I dropped the retail job, and eventually dropped the family restaurant job as well. It's my experience that fast food has crappy working conditions, and in the experience of myself and my other low-skilled friends, fast food was the last resort. If you could work at a real restaurant or a coffee shop or in retail, that was far better than working in fast food. Fast food is stressful and unpleasant and the pay is crappy. When you have work that people are reluctant to do-- it's dangerous, or disgusting, or has bad hours, or whatever-- the employer is supposed to figure out how to bring in workers. Higher wages, or a benefits package, or a path to advancement, or something. I mean, garbagemen don't earn $18 an hour because their job takes mad skills. The other part of otherthere's post that struck me: the 1% vacancy rate. Ok, so the rental housing market is so tight that workers can't come to town to fill these jobs? Wellll, first off, at minimum wage nobody's going to come to town for those jobs anyway. Second, if there's no rental housing available, where are the temporary workers going to stay? -k