kimmy

Haven't you heard? Phil Robertson is the new Rosa Parks. Imagine a future when Christians can speak their mind, when they don't have to give up their seats on the bus, when they can vote. Someday you could even see a Christian President of the United States of America. And when that day comes, people will look back and think "Phil Robertson started this all." -k

It's a hilarious video that I think other members will like. I couldn't care less if you don't want to watch, Shady. -k

I don't know if Pope Francis is anti-capitalist, but he has certainly delivered some blistering blasts to outrageous executive bonuses and profit without conscience. I don't see anything to indicate that WWWTT's Jesus cartoon is referring specifically to the Pope, though. It references a story about Jesus, not about the Pope. It should be important to all Christians, not just Catholics. -k

Some people might imagine that Christmas for atheists is unfulfilling or even depressing. However, as this heartwarming song and video demonstrate, Christmas can be spiritually uplifting for atheists as well. -k

Agenda 21 is a plan to promote sustainable development and policies to reduce environmental impact of human population growth. It's voluntary and non-binding. The idea that it's "sinister" and "very dagnerous" is retarded. -k

WWWTT, that is not what heaven is about! Jesus won't be kicking banker ass in heaven, because there certainly won't be any bankers in heaven. Rather, this cartoon is a reminder of Matthew 21:12 where Jesus arrives at the temples and finds money-changers doing business there. He flipped their tables and chased them away and told them "This is a house of prayer, not a den of robbers!" If I had to guess what the message of this drawing is, I think it would be to point argue that Christianity is supposed to be about social justice and charity, not commerce or servicing the wants of the wealthy. Here the signs on the table indicate these are American banks and investment houses, and so perhaps the message is that American Christians should not support those who would favor big banks at the expense of the poor. (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻$$$ -k

And that's the entire essence of the problem. Decisions that are made today are going to screw over me, and they'll screw your kids even worse than me, and screw their kids even worse than yours. -k

I'm sorry, but no. The increases you paid starting in 2000 were to cover the gigantic shortfall in the plan's funding. You haven't "paid it forward', you've barely been paying your own share for the past 15 years. Prior to that you guys weren't putting in close to enough money to cover your own pensions. Your existing pension payouts aren't even fully funded; you don't get to talk about sharing in increased payouts without acknowledging the fact that you'd once again be robbing people who come after. -k

I don't consider myself a socialist, and I know that you and Derek certainly don't think of yourselves as socialists either. Which is why I found it especially odd that Derek kept mentioning the blue vest lady as a reason why affluent boomers should get boosted CPP benefits. Obviously she should pull herself up by the boot straps, take responsibility for herself, and so on. Perhaps she can start a successful business or, as August proposes, maybe she can start a YouTube channel or a cable TV show and live large. What an absurd comment. The ones who "want a lot more now without paying their dues" are the boomers proposing that they get increased CPP payouts while only paying increased premiums in their few years left before retirement. Us "spoiled kids" will be paying our dues (and the boomers' as well) for the next 40 years. -k

I would also like to wish everyone a Merry Christmas. -k

My power bills are just fine, thanks to my thrifty, energy-efficient LED Christmas lights. I usually wear green stuff and get tanked on St Patrick's Day, and I'm neither Irish nor Catholic. I don't believe in ghosts or goblins or ghouls, but I always have fun on Halloween. And I'm not a Christian but I love Christmas. As a people, we need more things that bring us together, not fewer. Every society has had traditions that help create unity. Christmas is one of the few that we have. And it's good that at least once a year people make being together their highest priority. It's unfortunate that so many people spend themselves into distress during this time of year, or feel pressured to provide unrealistic gifts or acquire the most popular toy for their kids. People should learn to set limits, learn to communicate with their kids, learn to deal with their own emotional issues. Do you need to get your kid the unobtainable or unaffordable toy they want, or do you feel obligated to do it because you secretly fear you've failed them the other 364 days of the year? -k

So Phil Robertson is apparently the Rosa Parks of our times, that's the word on the street. -k

I don't think the people who've helped themselves to the public trough and left a massive tab behind of their folly have any business complaining if they don't receive higher pension payouts that they never actually paid for. It seems utterly ludicrous to me. You guys already got yours. I think that people your age who don't have gold houses and rocket cars have only themselves to blame. People who don't receive the new Enhanced™ levels of CPP payouts as they're phased in would still receive current levels. And there's more assistance for people who are in dire straits, so it's not like I'm advocating leaving the elderly poor to starve. And what's with this sudden sympathy for people who have made choices that left them in less-than-robust financial situations? Earlier in this thread yourself and Dick expressed an overwhelming lack of sympathy for young people who've been left behind by the changing job market and student debt and degrees that aren't needed anymore and offshoring and all of these things. But now you care about some older lady who's working in a blue vest job at Walmart? Why? Because she's old? Well, let's be clear: it's not my plan. There's talk going on about higher pay-in and higher pay-out for CPP. It's somebody's plan, but not mine. My position is just that higher pay-out should only be for people who have provided higher pay-in. That's all. And saying that folks who didn't pay increased premiums shouldn't get increased benefits isn't "screwing them over". On the other hand, awarding increased benefits to boomers who only paid the increased premiums for a few years would be a king-sized screw-over. It would be utterly criminal. And I have to point out that the reason driving this talk behind Enhancing™ the Canada Pension Plan is that employee pension plans have ceased to exist. Government workers might still have them; I wouldn't know. But private sector workers don't have them. Even employers that used to have them are phasing them out; new employees don't get to participate. It's the realization that these plans no longer exist and that people in the future will be relying entirely on CPP and their savings that is driving the discussion about expanding CPP. Folks who grew up in the era when employee pension plans still existed shouldn't even need Enhanced™ CPP. -k

To me it sounds like an idea that would be great for people who are nearing retirement, and great for people who are new to the work force or not yet in the work force, but would really suck for people like me who have been in the work force for a while and paid a lot of money into the current system. Well, yes. I don't think folks your age and up have any business expecting a windfall from higher pension payouts when you won't be paying higher pension premiums for nearly as long as us "young'uns". If you don't like the idea of paying into a program that you won't benefit fully from, then welcome to my world. I entered the workforce with hundreds of billions of dollars of pension liabilities to fund, and hundreds of billions of dollars of accumulated public debt amassed on programs and services that have been cut back or cut completely before I got to participate at all. I mean, you guys ran up immense public debt during the most prosperous times in human history. How's that even possible? And now that your time in the workforce is coming to a close and you guys near retirement, suddenly the priority changes. "Holy geez, all these programs and services are just unsustainable. We have to cut because the debt is just too high. But you know what we really need to do is Enhance ™ the pension plan and improve care for seniors. It's really important, everyone." I can't imagine why you'd expect to be exempt from the problem of putting money into stuff that won't directly benefit you, when that's the permanent legacy the baby boomers have left. Maybe, but the deadbeats and layabouts who'll actually be caring for you in your rest home suite really don't give a crap. They're there for the money, and it's not a lot of money at that. They're as motivated and committed as fast-food workers. -k

I was reading yesterday that Brazil has chosen the Saab Gripen over the Super Hornet and Dassault Rafale. If I recall, the Rafale and Super Hornet were a couple of the options Canada has looked at, weren't they? -k

In the spirit of the season, here is some delightful Christmas music. Here is "What Child Is This?" performed on the otamatone by the Cleveland Otamatone Orchestra. (I've heard that all the minorities in Cleveland have otamatones.) THANKS, OTAMA -k

That's one of the ideas that's being tossed around right now. Unfortunately it still leaves the problem of unfunded obligations to current CPP members. When deciding when to make cuts, picking a "fair" age cut-off never seemed to be much of a problem. They picked a 1963 birthdate as the cut-off when they were raising the eligibility age from 65 to 67. When Romney and Jughead were campaigning with their ideas of voucherizing social security and medicare, they did the same. "Don't worry, this won't affect anybody over 50." Once again a 1963 birthdate would have been the magic cut off. When they started ramping up tuition fees in the mid 1990s, did they have this kind of discussion about fair? A college degree cost somebody who entered college in 1995 more than twice what it cost somebody who entered college in 1991. It must have sure sucked to be born in 1977 instead of 4 years earlier... I don't see that deciding that people who are currently close to retirement are not eligible for "enhancements" is any more complicated than deciding that people who are currently close to retirement won't be required to face the costs of "reforming" these programs. My former landlord is married to one of those Filipino care aids, and the stories she told him would make your skin crawl. Suffice to say she had a pretty low opinion of her compatriots and the work they did and their general reliability. From what I've heard, the best care you can buy for $10.50 an hour isn't actually very good. -k

The "Kill the Gays" law which has been the topic of much discussion has passed parliament in Uganda. It is no longer the "Kill the Gays" bill, as the death penalty has been removed. Instead, homosexual activity is punishable by life imprisonment. Failing to report suspected homosexuals to the authorities is also a criminal offense under the law. -k

I'm completely unequipped to judge the merits of the TV program. I've never seen it, and I only this past week discovered that the family's last name isn't actually "Duck". It sounds like the show is about a family of successful entrepreneurs and their business, which sounds like a step up from the usual reality TV fare. Shows about the plastic surgery-addicted wives of rich-guys. Shows about child beauty pageants. Shows about people who are famous for no good reason. Shows about hoarders. Shows about teenage girls from wealthy families having exorbitantly expensive birthday parties. Shows about morons who drive off cliffs in shopping carts. Honestly, Duck Dynasty sounds quite edifying compared to most of the reality TV stuff going around right now. -k

And perish the thought that a guy should be using his fame to promote science and education rather than sports merchandise or music or reality TV shows. -k

We keep hearing about "people who get offended by Christmas", but WHO are they? I've never actually met them. Todd Starnes over at Fair And Balanced is combing America looking for stuff he can spin into War on Christmas "news" stories. A hoax news story from an Onion.com style website went viral-- a teacher at the fictional Argon school in San Francisco had supposedly suspended a student for wishing him Merry Christmas. After the story went viral, the non-fictional and very real Argonne school in San Francisco started receiving threats of violence. State capitols where legislators enacted legislation permitting religious displays now find themselves hosting Festivus poles and Flying Spaghetti Monsters. But despite the fake news articles and Festivus poles, where is the actual "War on Christmas"? Is it the "Keep Saturn in Saturnalia" billboard, or the retailers who are using the phrase "Happy Holidays" in their advertising? What about this constitutes the "war" that the wing-nuts keep talking about? Christian groups like American Family Association, with the help of people like Bill O'Reilly and Todd Starnes, have been pushing the idea that if someone says "Happy Holidays" or "Seasons Greetings", they're attacking Christianity. They are becoming swears or curses in the minds of some people. This is a very recent thing. Happy Holidays has been around for a long time and never caused controversy; Bing Crosby was musically wishing everyone Happy Holidays in the movie "White Christmas" over 70 years ago, as well as singing quite a few other very popular Christmas songs that had nothing to do with religion. -k

Somebody got suspended here? This isn't about regulation, Rue. Neither Phil Robertson's suspension nor the current movement to boycott A&E have anything to do with regulations. It's all about Public Relations. A&E probably feared they would face a backlash like Rush Limbaugh faced after his comments about Sandra Fluke. A&E probably hoped they could head off a backlash by being proactive and taking action before bad publicity mounted. Instead they've offended a whole different segment of their audience and put their most valuable property in jeopardy. -k

You're right, I don't get it. Help me figure out what you're talking about. You're putting dots and leaving me to connect them, and I'm obviously not connecting the dots the way you think they are supposed to be connected. This is turning into a game of Pictionary. State your opinion, and we'll discuss it. Initially you had framed this discussion in terms of employment, as if the plethora of digital content creates a vast opportunity for employment. But it doesn't. Lots of people are creating digital content; very few people are making any money at it. And money is a vital component of any useful definition of employment. If you're "employed" at something that doesn't provide you an income, you don't have employment, you have a hobby. This latest quip about vacuum cleaners and washing machines.. Ok, so the amount of time required by women to do unpaid labor in the home was reduced, so women used their newfound free time to earn income doing paid labor. I am with you so far. So now that paid positions are vanishing in some industries, many people once again have free time and no paid position. How will they use their free time? As far as I can tell, your answer is creating digital content... which is a fun hobby I suppose, but one which provides no income. Finding ways to use free time is easy. Finding ways to use free time to generate an income is difficult. I know lots of people trying to do so, with varying (but mostly disappointing) degrees of success. But perhaps I am still not getting what you are saying. Maybe you have something else in mind. If you do, don't leave me to keep guessing. Just come out and state your position and we'll talk about it. Quit circling the runway and land the freakin' plane, dude. -k

Not just that, but the way the way the company is perceived in general. I was at a Christmas party last week and somebody started talking about this video, and within a couple of minutes the topic of conversation had turned to how much Air Canada sucks. "We're not happy until you're not happy" is apparently Air Canada's unofficial slogan. If marketing like this reinforces in peoples' minds how likeable Westjet is compared to their major competitor, that probably sells tickets at other times of the year too. I bet the guy who said he wanted socks and underwear was kicking himself afterwards... -k