kimmy

A pretty epic day of football yesterday! I personally think that if you don't like Peyton Manning, you just don't like football. Manning and Tom Brady are undoubtedly two of the greatest ever, #2 and #3 on the all time wins list, instant Hall of Famers, and it is a treat to watch them. The Seahawks vs 49ers game was just a streetfight, a brutal matchup between two really tough teams that hate each others' guts. Colin Kaepernick's running ability gave the 49ers the edge early, but his questionable passing smarts was the 49ers' downfall late in the game. The 49ers blew their lead on turnovers, forcing them to go to the passing game in the late stages, and Kaepernick threw some dumb passes to turn the ball over, as well as fumbling the ball while he was scrambling. Kaepernick just rubs me the wrong way. He talks like his IQ is about room temperature, and with his stupid chin-strap beard, tattooed up sleeves, and body-builder physique, he just looks like a tool. Seattle QB Russell Wilson is somewhat the opposite, a composed young man who doesn't blow people out of the stadium with any aspect of his game, but makes smart, efficient, low-risk decisions. He's not a game-breaker, but he doesn't have to be. The Seattle defense is relentless, and Marshawn Lynch and the offensive line eventually just pound the opposing defense into submission. I think that the Seahawks and 49ers would make it into the top 3 of most experts' lists of the best teams, and it's kind of unlucky for them that they're both in the same division. The matchup of the Broncos offense against the Seahawks defense is interesting. If anybody can get to the Seattle defense, it's probably Manning. If he can keep them on the field, they'll get gassed. Denver's defense is weak against pass, but strong against the run, so it might force Seattle to throw more than they'd like, especially if they get behind. I think it's kind of fun that with the big media spectacle of a Noo Yawk Superbowl, it'll be two western teams in the spotlight. -k {OMAHA!}

I was thinking about buying the stones, but balked at the price. I bought some ornamental glass "stones" and threw them in the freezer, and they seem to work ok. The idea of going out and looking for actual stones occurred to me, but started wondering about stuff like whether they might contain stuff that could dissolve into my whisky, or if they might turn into sediment while I was drinking, and so-on. -k

Christie has a bit of a reputation for getting revenge on people who cross him, so it wouldn't exactly be out of character. But supposing Christie didn't order this attack on Fort Lee, and his staffers hatched the plan on their own, what was their motive? You know one of the most frequent motives for employees to do things? They want to impress the boss. -k

Was this thread really an attempt to promote discussion in the first place? What discussion is the opening post was supposed to foster? "Here's a gun owner who did something ridiculous, so let's ban guns?" Does an accidental discharge of a firearm merit a serious discussion? Here in BC, we have a plethora of accidental death every year. -recreational boating -recreational snowmobiling. -recreational ATVing. -downhill skiing -drowning -backwoods hiking Drowning alone kills far more people than firearms accidents and firearms homicides combined in BC, and that includes all the drug gangsters running around in Surrey shooting each other. If public safety is really the cause behind the concern over guns, there are way better places to start than recreational shooters. -k

If it's hard to see a motive for Chris Christie to order it... then what motive do you see for his staff to do this? Do you suppose that Bridget Kelly just decided it would be hilarious to turn Fort Lee into a parking lot for a week? Don't you find it odd that when David Wildstein got the email that said "Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee" he responded "Got it" instead of "What the hell are you talking about?" -k

If you believe Christie, at least. Here's a question, though. He said he rounded up his staff last month and asked them about this. Doesn't that strike you as odd? Spend a moment and think about the timing of that meeting. The bridge lane closures happened 4 months ago. In September, the press and the state legislature were accusing the Christie administration of causing the chaos in Fort Lee deliberately, and Chris Christie scoffed and dismissed it as ridiculous muckraking. In October, the press and the state legislature were accusing the Christie administration of causing the chaos in Fort Lee deliberately, and Chris Christie scoffed and dismissed it as ridiculous muckraking. In November, the press and the state legislature were accusing the Christie administration of causing the chaos in Fort Lee deliberately, and Chris Christie scoffed and dismissed it as ridiculous muckraking. In December, Christie rounds up his staff and demands that they come clean with him about whether they knew anything about the lane closures. Wait, what? These accusations have been in the news for 3 months already, and he's just having this meeting now? The state legislature has had a committee investigating the lane closures for 2 months already, and he's just having this meeting now? That doesn't strike you as odd? Not even a little bit? Riddle me this, Shark Man: why did Chris Christie decide to ask his staff about this in December? Why not at some point in the 3 previous months? What changed in December that made Christie decide it was time to find out more about this? Any ideas? Any at all? Give up? Bueller? Bueller? You know what happened in December? David Wildstein got subpoenaed. That's what happened. That's when (as the kids say) "Shit Got Real". All of a sudden it's an emergency for Chris Christie because his inner circle has to turn over their communications relating to the bridge lane closures. Then Chris Christie has this big meeting and David Wildstein and Bill Baroni (the two executives appointed by Christie who implemented the lane closures) both resign their Port Authority jobs within a week of each other. I'm sure that people who wish to believe Chris Christie knew nothing don't see it as odd that Chris Christie had this meeting in December when the subpoenas arrived instead of in September when the accusations were made. I suspect that's probably because they don't actually want to think about it. -k

Well, maybe "retards" was inappropriate, but when we look at folks like Ted Cruz or the Tea Party favorites from the last election cycle-- Bachmann, then Perry, then Cain, then Santorum... to say nothing of non-presidential candidates that the Tea Party managed to get on ballots, like Todd Akin or Joe Walsh or Christine O'Donnell... the word "retarded" was wrong, more like deranged or disconnected from reality. -k

I bet the women at York University are really feeling deprived that this terrific individual doesn't want to associate with them. He probably has lots of great information that he could share. Yup, there's little doubt that the women at York are the real losers in this one. For sure. -k

All things considered, I'd much rather see Chris Christie win the nomination than a freak like Ted Cruz or the next flavor of the month from the Tea Party's Roulette Wheel of Retards. Unless they find a proverbial "smoking gun" that proves Christie knew what his flunkies were up to, I don't think this means the end of his presidential aspirations. It will certainly give his future opponents a lot of ammo, though. It will all come down to how credible his denial is. The New Jersey state legislature has been digging into this issue for months, and Chris Christie has been mocking the accusations of political motives behind this for months. "I was working the cones myself," he laughed at one point. It's hard to imagine that this issue has been in the news for several months without Chris Christie once mentioning it to either his chief of staff or his personal friend at the Port Authority. He's asking us to believe that his flunkies came up with this idea on their own without telling him, and then lied directly to him about what actually transpired. How likely does that seem? I suspect that peoples' answer will probably depend on how much they like Chris Christie to start with. -k

Here is a message from earlier in this thread where I provided links. -k

I'm not sure I understand the question, Michael. The "how" seems fairly straight-forward. Can the Port Authority order lane closures for a "traffic study"? Clearly they can. The emails show that they even got funding approved for their "traffic study". There's no mystery to "how". Are you asking how the Port Authority could be used for political purposes? The Port Authority is run by people appointed by the administration. They know where their bread is buttered. This is, likewise, not terribly mysterious. The "SCANDALE!" is by far the more important aspect of this story. The "why", not the "how", matters. The email trail clearly shows this was a plan hatched well beforehand between Bridget Kelly (Christie's chief of staff who was axed yesterday) and David Wildstein, the Port Authority executive (a friend of Christie's dating back to highschool). The email trail shows Kelly declaring "Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee." "Got it," Wildstein replies. Over the next couple of weeks they exchange emails on the progress of this plan as funding for the "traffic study" gets approved. And we get to see the string of text messages between Wildstein and Bill Baroni (also of the Port Authority) as they share updates as the traffic disaster unfolds. When someone forwards an urgent request for help for Fort Lee mayor Mark Sokolich, one of them replies "Is it wrong that I'm smiling?" "No," the other replies. In regard to the issue of schoolbuses being trapped in traffic and unable to get to school, one of them says "I feel badly about the kids" and the other replies "They are the children of Buono voters" (Buono being Chris Christie's opponent in the election.) It's clear that the mess was deliberately planned by the Port Authority, and it's clear that Christie's chief of staff Bridget Kelly instigated it. And it was obviously done to make life miserable for Fort Lee mayor Mark Sokolich, possibly because he endorsed Buono instead of Christie. And that is genuinely "SCANDALE!", Michael. -k

Regarding the "Firearms Fails" video: Most of those are examples of recklessness or sheer stupidity, of course. The one in which the guy is knocked backward into a chair, however, is not a "firearms fail". I've seen that one before, it was from a video demonstrating a round called the ".577 Tyrannosaur". It's a round designed for safari guides to use as a last resort to protect clients from dangerous animals. It's one of the most powerful small-arms cartridges in the world, and is too much gun for most shooters, as the video shows. The guy in the video was shooting in safe, controlled conditions with proper stance and proper hearing protection. About 10 guys try shooting the 577 Tyrannosaur in the video, with about the same result: knockbacks, sore shoulders, and laughter. It's not a "fail", it's just what happens when you shoot a gun with that much recoil. -k

The loyalty which "Ford Nation" has shown their guy is truly heart-warming. Aren't Ford supporters in large measure the "tough on crime, say no to drugs" folks that can't stand crack-heads and couldn't care less what happens to them? That's the part that's so interesting to me. They hate the idea of drug liberalization and safe injection sites and anything that might show the least amount of sympathy or concern for people with drug problems. Except for Rob Ford, who's just a good guy fighting a problem who just needs some understanding so he can get back on track and the media are evil for picking on the poor guy and talking about his problem and it should be his own business and blah blah blah LEAVE ROB FORD ALONE!!!! Why is Rob Ford the only crack-head in Canada who deserves our sympathy? -k

I find myself in the strange position of supporting Shady. Google uses their insidious powers to target me with ads for stuff that I'm already shopping for. Oooh. Scary. Meanwhile, the government can justify whatever it does in the name of "fighting terrorism!" and they've shown they're willing to define "terrorism" in increasingly broad ways to use these new powers. I provided examples elsewhere of states where exposing animal rights abuses by factory farms and feedlots is now classified as an act of terrorism. And how TransCanada Pipelines is working with state and local law enforcement agencies to show how to use laws that were designed to fight terrorism can be used to suppress anti-pipeline protestors (and I don't care whether you agree with pipeline protestors or not, that's beside the point. Anti terror laws were never intended to be used to suppress peaceful protest.) And last year we learned about how information about non-terror activities that turns up during NSA's business can be passed along from NSA to other law-enforcement agencies. And we saw how little the assurances of "accountability" and "oversight" actually mean. Despite assurances that the amount of oversight made it impossible, we now have documented cases of NSA operators using these surveillance tools to cyber-stalk their ex-girlfriends. And we now know that the court oversight that was supposed to prevent abuses lags months behind the NSA's programs. And we know that they can get authorizations using the broadest terms, to the point that authorization is essentially meaningless. And we saw that despite the assurance that Congress oversees everything, we had the NSA's representatives lying to Congress about their activities. -k

Hunger Games - Catching Fire: I quite liked this. They showed us more of the fictional setting of Panem and the tactics that "the Capital" employs to keep its territories in line. The main cast is all top-notch, particularly Jennifer Lawrence, Donald Sutherland, and Woody Harrelson. New for this installment is Jena Malone, who gets to play a character almost as nuts as Jena is in real life. This left me looking forward to the next one. G.I. Joe - Retaliation: as you'd expect from any movie that says "Based on the line of Hasbro action figures" in the opening credits, this is incredibly loud and incredibly stupid. What can I say? Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson is a guilty pleasure. They blow up London. Fast And Furious 6: as you'd expect from any movie with "6" in the title, this is incredibly loud and incredibly stupid. What can I say? Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson is a guilty pleasure. They blow up London too. This was actually pretty fun. The car sequences are entertaining, and the ferocious Gina Carano joins the cast so you know you're getting chick-fights. Part of the appeal of this franchise has been the camaraderie of the group of central characters... and with the untimely death of Paul Walker this winter, that puts the future of the franchise in question. "Fast and Furious 7" was in production but I don't know how much they finished. So that makes 3 times they destroyed London in 2013, vs just 2 for New York City. A surprising upset! Will New York City reclaim the title in 2014, or will London continue to reign supreme? And with a new Godzilla film on the way, will Tokyo be a contender? Or maybe somewhere completely off the board like Moscow or Rio De Janeiro? I'm excited to find out which cities get demolished the most in 2014! -k

Not going to happen. I would never have an affair with a man whose wife got a battle rifle for her 16th birthday and has a code-name like "The Warlord". That's just plain a bad idea. -k

You better believe that I'll be bringing it in 2014! 2014 is going to be the kimmiest year on record! -k

I'm not a purist per se, but I devoured a pretty large chunk of the Tolkien source materials back when the Lord Of The Rings movies came out. One thing that people might not realize is that the storyline about Gandalf and Galadriel teaming up to stomp Sauron's ass out of Dol Guldur is part of the fictional history of Middle Earth, and it's the reason Gandalf keeps leaving Bilbo and the Dwarves to fend for themselves. It's not mentioned in The Hobbit, but it's explained in other Tolkien writings (the appendices of Lord of the Rings? Unfinished Tales? The Silmarillion? Possibly all of them.) Smaug was of great concern to Gandalf, because dragons had been allied to Sauron's former boss Morgoth during the first of the great wars between good and evil in Middle Earth, and Gandalf believed that when Sauron returned, Smaug would honor the old allegiance and aid Sauron. I think it's actually cool that the movies are expanding this part of the story. If they didn't, it would leave the viewer wondering "why does Gandalf keep leaving the guys in the lurch when they need him most? What a jerk!" As well, it should provide a pretty cool scene in the final movie. Galadriel is one of the oldest and most powerful beings in Middle Earth... we'll see why next film. I didn't mind too much that they expanded the character of Bard and the setting of Laketown. I didn't mind Legolas returning; he's the prince of the elves of Mirkwood, it would have been weird if he wasn't there. I didn't even mind that they created a new character, Tauriel, and I have always liked Evangeline Lilly-- a good Edmonton girl. What I did mind was that they spent so much screen time with Tauriel and Legolas. I really didn't give a crap about their crappy love triangle. I didn't care that Tauriel might have a crush on the dwarf with the mullet. I thought the tacked on quest where she has to seek out the dwarf with the mullet to cure his poisoned wound was completely unnecessary and a gigantic waste of time. And I thought the scene involving chanting and glowing was cringe-inducingly bad. HOWEVER! All of that doesn't matter too much, because what this movie has is SMAUG. Every scene involving dragons in this movie is AWESOME! Benedict Cumberbatch is a sexy, sexy man. His voice puts chills up my spine even without the electronic effects that turn him into Smaug. Smaug is cunning and psychotic and immense and terrifying and magnificent. He's incredible. -k

Less puking on stuff is another of my resolutions. And to you too! Stay Classy, San Diego! -k

Well, I wouldn't presume to know the contents of either Phil Robertson's heart or his thesaurus, but in context, it appears like he's looking for a word that means more like "expand". In context it's obvious that he's explaining his notion of sin, not trying to describe sin as a process that starts as homosexuality, and changes to bestiality, then heterosexual promiscuity, then back to homosexuality again. That point is furthered by his list of people who aren't getting into heaven immediately afterward. As for Shady's list of alleged whining, . The only whining was from Shady himself. -k

Yay! The first post of 2014! Is anybody making resolutions for the coming year? My resolution is to use less sugar in my coffee. And other little things that take minimal effort but could make a difference if I remember them every single day. Anybody else? -k

To add to Dick's comments above, I would say that this sort of program can help to humanize people. I don't know that the Robertson family (prior to this controversy, at least) ever attempted to represent conservatives. They're obviously big fans of the right to own guns, and they're obviously big into prayer... but I don't know that anything about the program is in particular a platform for conservative ideology. So I don't see why the program would be embarrassing to conservatives. I think the speakers list at the Value Voters Summit should be far more embarrassing to conservatives than a rural family on a TV show. -k

Yes, the situations that occur on the show are contrived. That much was covered in the GQ interview. And we've already discussed that they don't wear camo 24/7. So what, exactly, are you guys saying IS fake? You don't think Phil Robertson is actually a born-again Christian? You don't think Phil Robertson actually shares a view of homosexuality that is held by somewhere over 100 million other Americans? Why? Why would that be hard to believe? You couldn't swing a possum in rural Louisiana without hitting a born-again Christian who thinks homosexuality is a sin. Seems an odd think to doubt. Further to that, there's now apparently video footage of Phil Robertson dating to before the TV show, in which he tells men they ought to marry women who are 15 or 16, because if you wait until she's 20 she's just going to be picking your wallet. So if anything, it sounds the Phil that's on TV is probably, if anything, toned down compared to real life. -k

Can you elaborate on why conservatives would be embarrassed by the Robertson family? Aside from dubious grooming habits, I'm not actually aware of anything about the Robertsons that would reflect poorly on people who share their views. I've never watched the show. Have you? -k