kimmy

The Church of Norway is no longer the official state church-- that was changed just this year. -k

Good grief. Nobody cares. As several people have noted, the electoral college system makes the overall popular vote somewhat besides the point. Some people have been discussing the "538 blog", which seems to have a lot of research about what the electoral college count is going to look like on election night. And with just over a week to go, things still don't look good for Romney despite what his glee-club here would have you believe. -k

I'm not a fan of the idea of public officials advocating religion as a cure for social ills. To suggest that more religion is part of the solution seems to imply that not enough religion is part of the problem, and I don't care for the implication, obviously. Aside from being arguably offensive, it's also highly dubious. I'm not aware of any information correlating atheism with crime; I believe that statistics about US prison populations show the exact opposite to be true, in fact. As well, I believe that like other Canadian prairie cities, Winnipeg's largest major-crime problem is with native gangs... and there's an argument to be made that the legacy of church people is a factor in the issues facing native Canadians even today. That said, we unchurched heathens need to be careful choosing our battles, and this isn't one worth fighting about. Officer Clevis probably thought he was being inclusive by noting that he was calling upon people of all religions, but he was not inclusive enough. Regardless, I think this is a well-intentioned guy who just doesn't get it, as opposed to a Newt Gingrich type going out and openly attacking the non-religious. -k

We momentarily break from Persecuted Christians in America to take a look at... Non-persecuted Christians in America! Recently a church in Texas made headlines by posting a sign out front that read "Vote for the Mormon, not the Muslim! Vote for the capitalist, not the communist!" Aside from spreading inaccuracies about the President, this was controversial primarily because churches are not supposed to endorse political candidates. It's a violation of the tax code and can cost them their tax exempt status. In theory, at least. But not in practice. As it turns out, a rule put in place in 1984 requires that audits of churches must be initiated by a regional director. But in 1996, the IRS was reorganized in a way that eliminates the position of regional director. A 2009 court challenge threw out an audit of a church because the audit was not initiated by someone with appropriate authority. As a result the IRS has been unable to initiate any audit of churches since then because they have no policy on who is actually able to initiate an audit of a church. So, clearly, campaign away, pastors! -k

I often see people doing dumb things while texting or talking on their phones... usually drivers and pedestrians... I don't think I've ever seen somebody texting on their bicycle before. The most reckless cyclists I see are almost always ... what's the politically correct term... financially disadvantaged. Bicycles are year-round transportation here, and you don't have to buy gas. And so quite a few of the perennially impoverished rely on bicycles as their means of transport. It's fairly common to see folks in shabby clothes riding around on battered old bicycles, often with bags of cans and bottles tied to them, to take to the recycling depot. None of which I have any issue with. What's not good however, is that some of these guys are absolutely reckless on the road. Maybe it's defiance, or maybe they're hoping they get hit so they can collect an injury settlement, or maybe they just don't care if they get hurt or not. I dunno. -k

I suspect Dre is trying to say that regardless of who wins, Americans are going to receive shitty governance during the next 4 years. This election is merely about deciding which style of shit they prefer. -k

Obama seemed very much at ease and confident, whereas Romney sometimes seemed anxious or uncertain. Not really that good of a debate for Romney, if it was being viewed in isolation. But in the big picture, it was ok for Romney. He didn't blunder anything, he didn't come out with anything that will alarm people or think he's going to start the next war. The election is all about the economy, so really the only way tonight would have hurt Romney much would be if he was so bad that it would be impossible to imagine him representing America around the world. But he did well enough that I don't think anybody would worry about him. Romney did well enough to not hurt his election chances, and I think that was all that was required. In terms of foreign policy issues, I don't know if the two of them actually disagreed on much tonight. -k

First off, to be clear, I don't think this is particularly about Mitt Romney. The Sealy Mattress purchase was toward the end of his time at Bain, and the sale of Sealy to the next sucker was after Romney had left. How much of what transpired was related to Mitt is entirely speculative. As for your complaint that it's not a rational way for capitalists to act, that's kind of beside the point. Whether it's rational or not, it's what they did in both the Sealy Mattress case and the Harry and David Fruit Company case discussed above. And the New Yorker article claims $70 billion of "special dividends" were taken out of companies by private equity firms between 2003 and 2007, so clearly a lot of other "harvesting" has been done. Is it a rational way for capitalists to act? Well, yeah. Sure it is. Your objection is that maybe if they hung on to Sealy long-term it could grow into an asset far more than what they would get from what they actually did with it. Well, that's arguably true, but there are 2 major down-sides to that. First off, risk. Maybe the company doesn't grow as big as you hope, or maybe doesn't grow at all. Maybe TempurPedic Mattresses comes along and eats into your market share and your investment doesn't appreciate the way you want it to. Secondly, you're neglecting to consider the opportunity cost of holding on to Sealy. The money you have tied up in Sealy is money you can't use for your next take-over. The time you're spending with Sealy is time you could be using to engineer a new take-over. Why wait years and gamble on the return on your investment, when you can get paid right away with 100% certainty? Is it rational? Absolutely. If you had the chance to do it, you'd be crazy not to. -k

For some reason I assumed you'd been sent on vacation by Charles Anthony Travel Inc. -k

With Harper and Obama, the scaremongering has always been that once they got power, they'd unveil a Secret Agenda. Whereas with Mitt, the scaremongering is that he'll do exactly what he promised his party he'd do a few months ago. Well, either way he's got a bit of a problem. If he turns back into Massachusetts Mitt once he's in office, then his base is going to be asking "hey, what the hell happened to our Personhood Amendment and all the other stuff you promised??" Whereas if he delivers that stuff, he's going to alienate the independents he suckered into thinking he was just kidding when he promised that stuff. Either way he's going to be disappointing some people. He'd better hope his economic performance is such a big hit that everybody forgets all the social stuff he promised. In the meantime he's going to have to figure out which group is less important to his re-election chances. Then why do they keep electing such a bunch of dumbasses in Texas and the deep south? It's fear mongering to say Romney will limit abortions to cases of rape and incest, when that's what he's promising to do? Since when is it fear mongering to take a guy at his word? -k

Thanks for that well-researched and informative reply, Shady. Robert Reich has a resume longer than your arm, and your expertise is mostly limited to lifts and crunches, so all other things being equal I value his opinion more highly than yours. However, you're certainly free to explain the errors in Reich's video. Whenever you're ready. I think that perhaps some people are under the impression that private equity firms make money by buying struggling firms, making them profitable, and selling them for more than they bought them for. And maybe in some cases that's true. Maybe it used to be true more often than it is now. But right now, private equity firms make sure they get paid before any actual fixing of the companies has occurred. Now they get paid for the takeover, not for improving the management: The benefit private equity firms provide for the economy is supposed to be that they save troubled companies They are using special dividends to make sure they get paid whether they improve the co LA times article on Harry and David: The company posted operating profits, yet was losing money because the debt payments were crushing them. And the reason the company had these crushing debt payments in the first place was because the private equity firm had the company borrow a massive amount of money to provide them a "special dividend" as a reward for buying the company. Instead of making money by improving a company, the private equity firm made money by taking money out of the company and saddling it with debt. -k

When he was Mass governor, he had a liberal state House of Representatives to deal with, and a liberal electorate to appease. If he become President, he'll have a Congress where the Tea Party Freakshow Circus holds large influence, and he'll have won office on a mandate that came from Texas and the ex-Confederacy. There's no reason to think Kinder Gentler Mitt is what we'll see in the White House. There's no reason to think Social Conservative Primaries Mitt is the real thing either. There's also not really any reason to think Mass Mitt is the real guy. The one constant with Mitt appears to be that he'll be whatever he thinks will help him get elected and stay elected. If Mitt gets into office and finds a Congress full of Michelle Bachman types, and decides that he has to work with them and to appeal to the voters that elected them, I am extremely doubtful that Massachusetts Mitt is the one we'll see in the White House. I think he'll end up looking more like Primaries Mitt. -k

Well, that was his position when he was Mass governor. But he's also on record saying no abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or if the mother's life is in danger (that's the current position, last time I heard). He's also on record as supporting a Personhood Amendment (this was Republican Primaries Mitt) which would eliminate those exceptions too. So as always, the question is which Mitt will we see if he is elected? -k

I don't think that it's "shrill" to point out the degree to which Romney's current public statements disagree with his prior public statements or the statements of his campaign staff or the statements on his website. You seem to be solidly behind Mitt... I have to ask: do you support what he currently says stands for, or what he said he supported during the Republican primaries? -k

A few weeks ago I posted about how Sealy Mattresses got bought by a capital equity firm, squeezed for equity, saddled with debt, and was ultimately bought by an upstart competitor. I saw a video from Robert Reich today, explaining the process: Some on this forum have argued that if somebody is making a profit, that is proof that they are doing something that creates value for society. But I think the story of Sealy Mattresses demonstrates that it just isn't so. Reich explains why. Newt Gingrich (of all people) expresses it well here: -k

It seems to me that the part where increasing money supply causes inflation is a result of increasing aggregate demand. But if all this money that's being created doesn't actually wind up in the hands of consumers, there's no increase in aggregate demand, and nothing to drive inflation. So the relevant question to ask in trying to figure out why increasing the money supply hasn't caused much inflation is, who is holding this new money, and what are they doing with it? -k

Considering the federal government played a hand in Alberta's financial troubles in the first place, probably not super-grateful. The Cole's Notes version is that when Alberta and Saskatchewan became provinces in 1905, they didn't at that time have control over their resources. The federal government retained that control, and gave them a grant in lieu of royalties. Since royalties, at the time, were of negligible value in those two provinces, it was a pretty sweet deal. In 1930, the Natural Resources Acts gave Alberta and Saskatchewan (as well as Manitoba and BC) the same resource rights that the older provinces had, and revoked the grant. The end of the grant, combined with the Great Depression and severe drought conditions affecting the farming industry that was the chief industry in the province, all contributed to the problem. The main factor, of course, was probably the provincial government of the day, operating under Bible Bill Aberhart and his Social Credit theories. As for whether Alberta was "saved" by the feds, I'm not clear on that point. As far as I can tell, Alberta proceeded to default on a bunch of loans, mortgages, and government bonds, and continued to do so for several years. I'm not aware of any bail-out. -k

Painfully awkward video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2WVJNxOpvY -k

I notice that at present in-line images are enabled. In the past this forum had disabled in-line images, intentionally. I would like to offer 3 suggestions: -I think that images should remain enabled. They can be useful. For example the "Any art students here?" thread which features the painting in question. I think that it would be worthwhile to be able to post an in-line image to put a relevant graph in a thread, for example, or a piece of artwork under discussion, or a map, or a historical site, or in general anything relevant to the topic at hand. -I think that images should be limited to those relevant to the topic at hand. I think that allowing off-topic images will decrease the quality of discussion. I don't think we should allow threads to become cluttered with irrelevant pictures-- for example, somebody says something and another poster responds with a 1000x700 picture of Jean Luc Picard doing a face-palm. That would become old quickly. I think that in general "meme" style pictures should be discouraged. I don't think that allowing threads to become cluttered with "U Mad Bro?" and "Cool Story Bro" type images would be good for the forum. I think posting Not Safe For Work images (nudity, inappropriate gore, etc) should be grounds for suspension or banning. There are times when a NSFW image might be relevant to a thread... the aftermath of some act of violence, perhaps. People who post an image they think is relevant but may not be appropriate for a general audience should probably just use a hyperlink with a "NSFW" warning. -I don't think we should have images in our signatures. They disrupt the flow of the thread. I think that as a general policy, signatures should be kept to a modest size. I am Inviting other opinions. I would personally like to see images remain enabled, so I am hoping that if we set out some guidelines now, we can stop people from abusing them to the point that they get disabled again. -k

Yeah! Show us the law, Shady! -k

The conventional wisdom last week was that you could tell who lost by who was mad afterwards, and... -k

This is an excellent, succinct explanation of why private lenders were so excited about sub-prime market in the mid-2000s. -k

Percentages vs actual quantities is sometimes an important question to ask. "Second week audiences at The Adventures of Pluto Nash increased by 50% over first week audiences!" would give you a very different impression if you didn't know that only 2 people saw it in the first week. In the case of subprime mortgages from 2002 to 2006, however, we know that the number of mortgages was increasing dramatically, so it's not like the percentages are masking anything. The overall number of mortgages was growing rapidly, the private lenders share of the mortgage market was growing rapidly, so slice it any way you like and you're still left with the unavoidable conclusion that private lenders were the driving force behind the housing bubble. It was never my position that Fannie and Freddie were "so concerned about subprime mortgages". Of course. By 2008, the private lenders (the ones who hadn't collapsed, at least) were selling their Troubled Assets (the TA in TARP, ie risky mortgages) to the government. Of course their share of that market shrank dramatically. You're trying to say that all these private institutions were in this business because they were somehow conned into it by Fannie and Freddie? This is just hilarious stuff. What? What does that even mean? -k

Well, as we saw following the first debate, the appearance of "winning" is more important than the actual truthiness of the claims being made. -k