kimmy

I can't comment on his views, and he can certainly speak for himself. I started this thread to respond to a claim made by you-know-who that comments I made, critical of politicians in the American south and south-west amounted to anti-Christian bigotry. I don't apologize for any of it. It's not anti-Christian bigotry, it's anti-dumbass bigotry. And I don't even object to dumb-asses, as long as they don't try to inflict stupidity on others, especially when it's done with malice. I don't care if Pat Robertson doesn't like gay people, but it makes me pretty sick when Pat Robertson gets on his TV show and tells his audience that gay men wear special rings that cut people and infect them with AIDS. I don't object if a politician thinks that oral sex is sinful, but if he's trying to get a ban on oral sex reinstated, I object. That's not anti-Christian bigotry. Calling it anti-Christian bigotry is insulting to everybody involved, particularly the considerable majority of Christians, because the considerable majority of Christians would object to that stuff too. And I think it's sad and pathetic when some people, who are either religious nutjobs themselves or Elephant Team members or both, claim it's an attack on religious freedoms when stupid public statements or stupid public policy are confronted. And I'll never apologize for doing it. -k

It's his choice, but it's not a legal right per se. If he gets convicted in court, he can't appeal the convictions on the grounds of a "right" to fight against Canadian forces, because no such right exists. -k

At this point, I can only assume that you're attempting to get the thread locked to spare yourself further embarrassment. -k

Did anybody catch the Jon Stewart bit this week in which he contrasted the rights' views of the 2nd amendment vs their views of the others? The theme could be summed up with his line: "So, with guns the Constitution is iron-clad. But with terrorism, it's a list of suggestions." It featured right-wing pundits, plus politicians like John Cornyn and Lindsey Graham explaining why that the 2nd amendment is an unchangeable absolute, yet essentially arguing that the 1st and 4th amendments are negotiable BECAUSE TERRORISM. And concludes with Monica Crowley saying "look, the Constitution is not a suicide pact!" ...in essence, saying that yes, she thinks the government ought to infringe on the 4th amendment to protect Americans. If you applied the same logic to the 2nd amendment... -k

Ok, I think I have a handle on what is meant by "Speak White", but what did Pauline Marois actually do that prompted this thread? -k

Well, "hyper" is a pretty fair description, and considering your passion for attempting to finagle a position out of trivialities, I can only assume you're trying to build a resume as an I.P. lawyer. And I'll leave it at that, as everything you've presented was already smacked down thoroughly by Black Dog. Case closed, Perry Mason. -k

He's an imp, not a dwarf. -k

You can't have a pirate movie without a deceased, morbidly obese Italian guy? -k

Martin Luther King Jr's party affiliation? What does that have to do with anything? I do think it speaks for itself that the Elephant Team guys have to reach back all the way to the 1960s looking for broad-minded Republicans, though. Or the 1860s. "Abraham Lincoln! And, uh... Martin Luther King Jr? Or was it Sr? And, uh... " A few straw-men have been set up around here... "Not all religious people are nut-jobs!" I never said they were. "Believing in a religion doesn't mean you're nuts." Somebody might have said that, but it wasn't me. "Martin Luther King Jr was a Christian pastor!" There were and are lots of great Christians. I've never claimed otherwise. Christian people who I love and think are awesome: Isaac Newton, Stephen Colbert, J.R.R. Tolkien, many others. Christian people who I think are religious nutjobs: Pat Robertson, E.W. Jackson, the preacher who said to beat the gay out of your kids, the preacher who wanted to build concentration camps for gay people, many others. And to reiterate, these types of news items emanate in disproportionate numbers from the "Bible Belt" region of America. In regard to AW's attempts to go hyper-lawyer on my earlier comments, I'll just endorse Black Dog's excellent response and leave it at that. -k

Arrr! Avast, me hearties! It be International Talk Like A Pirate Day! And we be celebrating with this trailer for an upcoming TV series, called Black Sails. It be something of a prequel to Treasure Island, as one of the characters be a young John Silver. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VPrWOHX9kQ Arrr, it be from England, but we won't hold that against 'em, will we, lads? There be swashbuckling afoot, and booty enough for all! -kaptain kimmy {and gimme yer doubloons, before me cutlass-arm gets twitchy, matey!}

Today is International Talk Like A Pirate Day, and it reminded me of this thread for some reason... Season 4 is supposed to begin in Spring 2014 which seems like an awfully long ways away. aw, crap, the frickin' cops, what do they want?? And Season 3 is scheduled for release on DVD and Blu Ray on February 18, 2014, which also seems like an awfully long ways away. -k {Sorry, Pliny, it won't be available on VHS.}

There's a lot that's changed, obviously. But morally, I think that if anything we're collectively better than we were back in "the good ole days". Just think of all the deplorable things that we as a society have done in the past that we would never accept today. And the proposal you're presenting fails anyway: the politicians and officials who built this massive surveillance program aren't "today's kids" anyway. These people are in their 60s and 70s. They grew up in the imaginary age of morality that you're longing for. And if you look at opinion polls, you'll find that it's the older generation that supports the NSA surveillance programs and the younger that oppose it. Consider how many times President Obama referenced Edward Snowden's age in the early days of the controversy, or how many times has Keith Alexander dismissed the NSA's critics as a bunch of kids who live in their parents' basement and similar contempt-filled comments. No, sharkman, the issue is not that my generation let this happen because we don't have morals. The issue is that people who grew up in the age of The Red Menace (!!!) view the government as their noble defender against The Enemy and want the government to do whatever it takes to protect them from The Enemy. That's why by and large the Boomer types support the NSA surveillance programs and the Millenials don't. The Millenials just aren't that scared of The Enemy. -k

I submit that you're imagining a sanitized version of "the good ole days" that never actually existed. In "the good ole days" rioting Canadian youths didn't just smash cars and shops, they smashed people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christie_Pits_riot http://violentaugust.com/ http://www.library.ubc.ca/chineseinbc/riots.html -k

Usually when people complain about "moral relativism", it's the preface to the argument that we need absolute morals, and the only place we can get absolute morals from is from God. ...but if morals can come from wherever you decide, then they're just relative, right? I mean, if I don't like the morals I got from my parents, then maybe I can reject those and look to Buddha for moral grounding, or maybe instead of that I can look to Ayn Rand or Sartre or Batman or Gordon Gecko or frickin I dunno Genghis Khan. I assure you that the kids who rioted in Vancouver knew that the stuff they were doing was "wrong". There was not a single person in that riot who did not know that wrecking shops and looting and setting cars on fire was wrong. Not a single one of them is going to tell the court that "gee, I thought setting a cop-car on fire would be ok, I didn't think I was doing anything wrong." I can't tell you why they *did* do it, but I can assure you with complete certainty that the reason *isn't* that they didn't know that destroying the city was wrong. Ditto with any murderer, robber, thief, vandal, and so-on. And as I mentioned earlier, many bad acts are committed by people who *do* purportedly subscribe to a code of absolute morals. -k

So the solution to privacy questions is More Jesus? Is that what you're saying? I have 3 responses to that. First off, every President and 95%+ of members of Congress and the Senate have been Christians. if More Jesus really caused people to behave More Ethically, this wouldn't be an issue. Secondly, US lawmakers *have* a concrete source of right-and-wrong morals to guide them; it's call the Constitution. Finally, considering the number of contradictions in the Bible, and the number of times that peoples' understanding of the Bible has updated to reflect more modern values, the premise that the Bible is a solid source of right-and-wrong morals is dubious at best. -k

They be shootin' everybody up in here. -k

The Bible Belt refers to a geographic region, not a religion. The defining characteristic of the Bible Belt is not just Christianity, but also social conservatism. If a high proportion of Christians defined the Bible Belt, most of the United States would be Bible Belt, excluding some of the Northeast and Northwest. But Christianity on its own doesn't define the Bible Belt, the particular brand of socially conservative evangelical Christianity that dominates the South defines the Bible Belt. When I said the South has a higher proportion of religious nutjobs than the rest of America, the emphasis should be on nutjobs, because there are religious people all over America but the South is by far the leader in religious people who are nutjobs. Now, there's a chicken-and-egg type argument to be made regarding the Deep South. All of those states except for Texas are among America's lowest-income, highest unemployment, lowest educated. Any statistical measure of success you can think of, you'll find that the Deep South at the bottom. Any statistical measure of failure, and you'll find the Deep South at the top. So, why? Does educational failure cause the embrace of hardcore conservative religion? Or does hardcore conservative religion lead to educational failure? Do they form a vicious circle? Is it a cultural thing rather than a religious thing, as in do the history and cultural traditions of the region lead to the rejection of fancy book larnin' and the embrace of religion and hardcore social conservatism? So I was wrong to say that the south has that sort of stupidity *because* of a higher density of religious nutjobs, when there's an argument to be made that both the stupidity and the religious nutjobbery are symptoms of larger cultural issues. I made a couple of other errors in that thread. First off, in not sufficiently fact-checking the Joe Arpaio AR-15 story (although as I mentioned I got that interpretation straight from mainstream websites, so it's much like a bilingual dogs type situation.) And secondly by lumping Arizona in with the Bible Belt, when Arizona actually has its own separate kind of crazy, though one that's likewise intertwined with social conservatism. But to the main thrust of the accusation, no. To summarize, the difference isn't that Southerners are Christian while the rest of American isn't. The large majority of Americans in all regions are Christians. The Bible Belt isn't defined by Christianity in general, it's defined by a socially conservative mentality blended with a brand of Christianity that believes things things like this: from Christian pollsters Lifeways Research. -k

That's pretty much what I think and it was in the context of reading and posting on this forum. It's interesting that human nature is to always try to think of the extreme or very rare example as if since the law or example or norm does not apply to the extreme case, then it must be thrown out. I think life is more complicated than that. So for the extreme example of some deranged fanatic who has remade the religion in his image, then his/her acts or words condemn him/her and there should be no respect or tolerance, in my opinion. That's basically how I feel too. If Pat Robertson was coming down the sidewalk toward me, I'm not sure I'd make way for him to pass, I might give him an earful instead. And it's not because he's a Christian, it's because he's an asshole. And I take issue with someone who might tell me that if I told Pat Robertson he's an asshole, it's an example of anti-Christian bigotry. It's not anti-Christian bigotry, it's anti-asshole bigotry. And the stuff that we talk about in this forum is almost always about specific incidents, not some generalized slam at religious people. Not sure if you're aware or not, but what prompted the latest cry of "anti-Christian bigotry" was when I posted this list in another thread: (full disclosure: one item, the AR15 item, was found to be untrue, the subsidy for the Ark museum is actually a tax break; the remainder is true.) And you'll notice that the word "Christians" isn't actually mentioned at all in that list, and that a number of these items have nothing at all to do with religion. And the items that do relate to religion are not slams at religion in general, they're slams at bad public policy being promoted by politicians who are bringing religion into the public sphere. -k

"Shock" is the wrong word. Very little that the government (either Canadian or US) does should shock anyone except for the completely naive. That we are not "shocked" does not mean that we should be meekly accepting of everything they do. Really for the first time Americans have hard evidence to confront their government about what's actually happening rather than meekly accepting it. Recall that just a few months ago James Clapper stood in Congress and lied to congressmen who were asking questions about the extent of what surveillance was actually being performed. And almost everything that Americans have been told about these programs, from what data was collected, to who it was being collected about, to how it's being collected, to how it is used, to the amount of oversight, has been a lie. And only in the past couple of months has the government started to take the issue seriously, because the American public has been provided with the information to participate in that discussion. "As loath as I am to give any credit to what's happened here, I think it's clear that some of the conversations this has generated, some of the debate, actually needed to happen. If there's a good side to this, maybe that's it." -James Clapper -k

Sheikh Ali bin Shabbab is, of course, a fictional character; I could have referenced any number of real Muslim clerics who have made astoundingly bigoted statements about women or Jews or gays. We both plenty of examples of this kind of Muslim cleric. Does that type of person deserve more respect than a secular ignoramus because their views come from their Quran? My answer is no. I'm still not clear on your answer. Bishop Jackson's statements are easy enough to find; as he's running for Lt. Governor of Virginia his anti-gay rhetoric has caught a lot of attention lately. (btw, I believe he declared himself to be "Bishop" of his own ministry, it's not a title conferred upon him by the Catholic church or any other organized group. I think his ministry would be classified as "independant Baptist".) And he's claiming that if people look at his views when they decide not vote for him, they're applying an unconstitutional "religious test". Should Virginia voters view this guy differently from how they would view a secular bigot? My answer is no. Despite what he's saying, his answer is also no, because he's boasting of his religious views as the reason that Christian voters should vote for him, and that no true Christian would vote Democrat. So he clearly wants religion to be an issue. I don't believe that E.W. Jackson is more deserving of respect or tolerance than any other bigot, whether his comments are a result of "a Biblical world view" or not. I doubt you would either. But some, including Jackson himself, claim that if you criticize what he's saying, you're persecuting him for his religion. And the difference is that nobody insists that Jenny McCarthy's idiotic views must be respected because they come from religion. Islam might not say that those women have to go around wearing bags on their heads, but those women have gone to court claiming that their religion gives them the right to wear their bags on their head when they testify in court or in their drivers license photos or when they case their votes. -k

So to paraphrase, you're not demanding moderator action because of the content of the messages, you're demanding moderator action because you suspect that the people posting the messages might be prejudiced? Haha, alrighty then. -k

So are you saying that I should inherently respect Bishop E.W. Jackson or Sheikh Ali bin Shabab more than I should respect a secular hate-monger because they claim their views are based on holy books? Same question. -k

So the Brazilian oil company PetroBras is apparently among the terrorists that the NSA is protecting Americans from. -k

There's plenty of proof. Some of if has been mentioned in this thread. Female genital mutilation. Children dying from easily treatable illnesses because their parents belong to religious groups that forbid medical intervention. Outbreaks of diseases at churches run by pastors who oppose vaccination. Those are examples of demonstrable harm resulting from religion. -k

I missed the part where you explain how anybody's "right to vote" was interfered with. I mean, you Elephant Team guys who insist that voter roll purges and voter ID laws and 6 hour lineups aren't impeding peoples' right to vote had better be prepared to come up with a hell of a good argument if you're going to claim that peoples' right to vote was impeded because the Tallahassee TeaTards weren't given a tax exemption. You're a long way from meeting the standard, sharkman. And, like I said earlier, Republican-supporting groups spent hundreds of millions of dollars to "get out the vote". How much more money do you think they needed? And, like I said earlier, there are specific requirements for what kind of activities are eligible for this type of tax exception, and political groups don't fit the criteria. -k