kimmy

beep boop this just in: JP Morgan Chase is nearing a settlement with the DoJ on an $11 billion dollar settlement over mortgage fraud. $11 billion might sound like a lot, but it's just a few months worth of JP Morgan Chase profits, so really no harm done. -k

The information that Derek Huff has provided to the media should not surprise anybody except for dumb-guys, toddlers, and senile shut-ins. The only time that the police actually come clean about anything like this is when they're caught red-handed-- on video, or in this case outed by one of their colleagues who has a conscience. And then, suddenly, when they know they're caught, they act all shocked. Chief Wiggum there gets up on the podium and says "Gee, I'm just completely flabbergasted! I never knew anything about this. We wouldn't tolerate this in our department! It's against our code of conduct! It's against the law! We wouldn't stand for it if we knew. We're obviously going to investigate this just as hard as we can, because by golly we care, darn it! And it's just one bad apple, and we're going to find the bad apple and we're going to deal with it." That is a load of bovine fecal matter. The cops that administered the curb-stompings are bad apples. The cops that know about the curb-stompings and didn't say anything are bad apples. The cops who reviewed the case and concluded that there was no wrongdoing are bad apples. The cops who blackballed Huff and Furman for "ratting" on Jack Redlick are bad apples. They are ALL bad apples, except for the two guys who actually did the right thing. They do not deserve our trust. The reason people are demanding civilian oversight for police misconduct investigations is that they know the police can not be trusted to investigate their buddies. This is completely ridiculous, and people should stop making excuses for scumbags and should stop accepting "it's just one bad apple". -k

Lack of belief in gods. "Strong" or "gnostic" atheists may be willing to claim with certainty that there are no gods, but that's not a universal position among atheists. Whether there's a great following is irrelevant. Lots of ideas that have no evidence have great followings. You're arguing that belief in gods is different from belief in fairies because one is mainstream and the other is fringey. But that's not a good argument. Lots of people think that Justin Bieber is an awesome musical talent, but that doesn't make it so. Lots of people used to think the earth was flat, but they were wrong. They even thought they had "evidence". The evidence that some people see for god is as debatable as the evidence others see for fairies: subjective, unquantifiable, unmeasurable, irreproducible. False. Erroneous. You may not, but others who play the same word game certainly do, presenting the same argument you are, with the intention of demonstrating that atheism is not a valid world view. And who is doing that, anyway? -k

Well that's just silly. As the story makes clear, he *did* go through the proper channels. And what are you talking about in regard to "crying wolf", and what false complaints? And where are all of these thousands of police officers who are creating all this "white noise" you speak of? There are hardly any. I can't off the top of my head think of any other similar cases in Canada. I can't think of any similar cases period, aside from Serpico. -k

This summer there was a news item in which a McDonald's employee filed a lawsuit against her franchise over their policy that wages would be paid only by payroll debit card. Not by cheque, not by cash, and not by direct deposit to your own bank account. Only through the payroll cards issued through JP Morgan Chase. What's wrong with that? Well, the cards come stacked with user fees. $1.50 for ATM withdrawals, 75 cents for every transaction, $1 to check your balance, $5 to withdraw at a bank teller. The basis of the lawsuit is that Pennsylvania law requires employees to be given the option to be paid in cash or cheque, and that the banking fees reduce the hourly wage of employees below the federal minimum wage. After an avalanche of negative publicity the franchise operators have changed their policy and now offer payment by direct deposit or cheque as well. The lawsuit has become a class action lawsuit and is still in progress. So why did this happen? Did the franchise just decide "hey, why don't we rip off our employees by making them pay bank fees to get access to their pay?" Of course not. That wasn't what they set out to do. Here's how the payroll cards are pitched by JP Morgan Chase: Here's how Small Business Trends describes the benefits of these cards: (Small Business Trends then proceeds to give business owners a whole bunch of cautions that resulted from the McDonald's lawsuit.) But you can see why small business owners would go this route. "Hey, we're saving on banking fees and the cost of printing cheques! It'll simplify our paperwork so much! And it'll be convenient for the employees!" Except that they either didn't know or didn't care about the fees that the employees would have to pay to get their money. So, basically what you have is a bank reaching out to business owners, offering them a way to cut their banking expenses and simplify their payroll process, and of course that would appeal to business owners. And in return for this altruistic service to the business community, the bank makes a killing on user fees gouged from low-income earners and teenagers, taking money from the people who can least afford to pay it. And that's another example of The Unannounced Class War. -k

The phrase "could be" is where we find ourselves in disagreement. I don't believe there is one, but I won't state that there *could not* be one. Can you prove there's no such thing? Where's your proof? Have you personally looked under every leaf in every forest? Do you discount the personal experiences of those who do believe they have been contacted by "wee people"? I won't ask you to answer, I'm just trying to point out the tedious pedantry that comes with saying that something *could not* exist. Indeed. The only difference being that if you say you don't believe there are tooth fairies, you don't get people demanding you prove it or maneuvering you into conceding that there is a possibility that tooth fairies exist. -k

Atheist blogger Hemant Mehta has the most up-to-date statistics that I'm aware of. (these statistics are for federal prisons only; not sure if that makes a difference). The number of self-described atheists in prison is absolutely miniscule, just 161 out of 218,167 prisoners. Add to that the 37,139 "nones" in prison, and you get about 17% of the prison population being non-religious. As the non-religious now make up about 20% of the general population of the US, I think that the claim that the non-religious are under-represented in US prisons is fair. At the very least, there's certainly no evidence to support the idea that the non-religious commit more crime than the religious. As for the question of whether they attend services, you're moving the goalposts. At first you started with the premise that organized religion is the best way of teaching morals and values. Well, does that really require regular attendance? Do people forget the morals they learned in church if they stop attending the services? Doesn't that kind of dispute the idea that it's a great way of teaching morals and values? Doesn't the fact that they stop going to the services in itself dispute the claim that it's a great way of teaching morals and values? -k

I'm completely baffled as to why True Believers such as William Lane Craig or Betsy think they have discovered some earth shaking argument with this insignificant bit of pedantry. Last year Betsy pounced upon an article in which Richard Dawkins refused to state that he is certain that there's no god. "A HA! His faith has weakened! He is no longer sure of his position!" Well, no. "...the same could be said of Father Christmas and tooth fairies. There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies?" Can you prove that there's no such thing as the tooth fairy? Is it possible to prove with certainty that the tooth fairy does not exist? No, it is not. No person can honestly and accurately claim that they know for certain that there's no such thing as the tooth fairy. Does that mean that we are all open-minded to the existence of tooth-fairies? Would it be fair or accurate for me to describe you as "American Woman, tooth-fairy agnostic, open-minded to the existence of tooth fairies"? Of course not. It would be insulting to you, and it would be dishonest of me. And yet when it comes to theological discussions, some people accept this as a reasonable argument. They want you to either claim that yes, you are 100% certain that there is no god, in which case they demand to see your proof, or if you're not willing to say that you are 100% certain, then you're "not an atheist, you're an agnostic and therefore open-minded to the existence of god" in which case they think they have achieved some sort of victory. It's not an honest discussion point, it's a douchey rhetorical tactic, and should be treated as such. -k

That might be your opinion, but I doubt it's correct. If we look at our friends south of the border, we find that the non-religious are under-represented in prisons while the religious are over-represented in prisons. Surveys find that religious people have as much premarital sex as non-religious people. The Bible Belt states lead the nation in teenage pregnancy rates. Religious people get divorced as much as non-religious people. It might "just make sense" that religion would cause people to be better people, but I'm not aware of any evidence to show that it actually happens. -k

Voter ID is in itself a reasonable requirement. People can just go get official ID. In practice, it's not that easy. Paperwork hoops to jumps through, long lineups, DMV locations that are only convenient for people who already have drivers licenses. These voter ID laws come at a time when states are closing DMV offices and consolidating their operations to mega-centers in the suburbs for efficiency. And voter ID laws are just part of an approach that is aimed at making it harder for people to vote. The North Carolina law that was in the news earlier also limits early voting and where college students can vote and limits voter registration and eliminates programs to get highschool students to pre-register as voters. You can look at other tactics like voter roll purges and voter "caging", and drawing peculiar district boundaries with political goals in mind. And you can look at the 6-hour lineups to vote in minority-heavy locations in Florida. So... while in and of itself voter ID is a reasonable requirement... do you sincerely feel that there's not an overall effort at work in trying to reduce the number of votes cast by people they don't like? -k

I think that was exactly what the dude who demanded moderator action to stop "anti-Christian bigotry" was arguing. -k

Kentucky governor Steve Beshear wrote an op-ed piece in the NY Times explaining that his state, as well as others like Arizona, Michigan, and Ohio, are moving ahead with Obamacare because it's in the interest of their citizens. 1 in 6 Kentucky residents don't have health insurance, resulting in preventable illness going untreated and costing Medicare and Medicaid more money later on. Beshear also touts economic benefits to the state. -k

Hopefully this prompts a look at mandatory minimum sentences. It is good that they're taking a second look at this case, but I can't help wondering if it's just because this particular case generated a sufficient amount of outrage to make the justice system look bad. -k

If everybody gets degrees in computer programming, it'll just mean that computer programming degrees will command lower salaries. -k

During a recent "ask me anything" on Reddit, Olivia Wilde was asked why "The Black Donnelys" was cancelled so quickly. Olivia lamented that it was because only her immediate family watched the show (and she suspects they may have been lying to her to protect her feelings.) Apparently, even Olivia's family have better things to do than watch the Houston Astros play baseball on TV, as the league-worst Astros managed to post a 0.0 Nielsen rating for their recent game against the Cleveland Indians. The 0.0 rating does not mean that literally zero people watched the broadcast, it just means that of 581 homes with Nielsen meters in the Houston area, zero of them watched the game, making it impossible to guess at the actual viewership. By way of contrast, even Cosby Show reruns and football box scores posted measurable ratings during the same time period. So, while the Astros may suck on the baseball diamond, they did manage to pitch a no-hitter in TV land. -k

When I was a kimlet, one of my favorite songs was Orion, by Metallica. The main reason for that is because of the ultra-low frequency chords in the intro. On dad's stereo, it would cause small objects in the room to vibrate. Then the chord changed and a different set of objects would vibrate. It was so cool. I played it over and over again. Much later on, I leaned that the song was strongly identified with bass player Cliff Burton, who died in a bus crash while the band was on tour, and that for many years afterward they did not play the song again in deference to Burton. In all these years it never occurred to me to wonder what Orion might sound like if it were reinterpreted in a flamenco style. But here it is anyway. I kind of like it: And Metallica's original studio version. -k

A poll done last year or the year before found that Tea Partiers had replaced atheists as the most disliked group in America. We're #2! We're #2! And they better not mess with us, because... -k

No, I don't attribute these causes themselves to religion. I pointed out that (for whatever reason) they receive political support from the religious right. -k

I don't know why so many religious nutjobs align themselves with political and social causes that have nothing to do with religion; you'd have to ask them, not me. -k

"nothing to do at all with religion" isn't accurate. Some of these items-- involving Joe Arpaio, or Louisiana residents thinking it's Obama's fault that the Katriana response was badly handled even though he was just a junior senator at the time, have nothing to do with religion. And many of these issues aren't inherently part of Christian doctrine. However, many or most of those items are being pushed by religious people for religious reasons. Creationism is not a universal belief among Christians, but the politicians who are trying to get it into classrooms are doing so for religious reasons. The Tennessee law that teachers can't mention homosexuality prior to 9th grade isn't inherently relevant to Christian doctrine, but it was done by religious people in the name of religious beliefs. Ditto abstinence-only sex education. And the religious right have made forays into many public policy issues that are not inherently part of Christian doctrine. When there are politicians calling climate change a fraud because God would never let that happen, it is entirely fair to call them religious nutjobs, even if climate change isn't an inherently religious issue. But there are religious overtones to many of these issues, and the religious right have also allied themselves with many other issues that aren't themselves explicitly religious. -k

But remember, if we keep shoveling money into the hands of the heroic Job Creators, they might hire more peons.The benefits of their wealth will flow, or at least trickle, down to the rest of us. -k

I assume it's a reference to the Brando movie "Mutiny on the Bounty"? I assume it was intended in jest. -k

Well we certainly try to avoid that here at MLW! -k

ah thanks, I get it now. -k

In this case, the consequences include a vacation in luxurious Millhaven. Some people are using at the term "rights" in a legal sense, and others are using it in the sense of people having sovereignty over their actions. Certainly the latter concept exists, but it's not going to get your ass out of Millhaven when you exercise a "right" that doesn't exist in the legal sense. -k