kimmy

In another thread, some people are suggesting that whiny atheists ought to grow a thicker skin and quit complaining about prayer being a scheduled part of city council meetings. In response, I asked: how would Christians feel if other peoples' religion was a scheduled part of council meetings? Now, thanks to Tulsa, Oklahoma, we can see first hand! Tulsa has a long-standing tradition of opening council meetings with Christian prayer. Secular groups complained that this amounted to a government endorsement of a religion. After fighting about it for quite some time, Tulsa chose to maintain the policy of opening meetings with religious invocation, but so as to not sanction any particular religion, the invocation is now open to representatives of any and all religions. Well, sooner or later a non-Christian was going to get a turn, and it happened last week when humanist Dan Nerren delivered the opening invocation. How did Christians react? Predictably. (Toni Calvey was a delegate at the RNC last week. Her husband Kevin is a former OK state legislator who just lost his chance to run for Congress this fall.) The article also includes a handy poll: "I'd wonder who the atheist is praying to." Who indeed? Dawkins? Darwin?? STALIN?! SATAN!?!?! Other Christians were not as offended as Mrs Calvey... just worried: Indeed... WHO ARE THEY PRAYING TO, if it isn't GOD?!! (?!!) After hearing such atheist filth about recognizing our own potential to overcome challenges, it is no wonder that poor Mr Warren needed to go home and pray extra-hard with his family. As an atheist, I feel extremely sorry that Mrs Calvey had to have her face slapped by the terrible affront of having a non-Christian speak at Tulsa city council. And I feel terrible that Mr Warren had to hear such shocking ideas about our potential to overcome challenges. I think .. maybe it is time for us atheists to quit assaulting the poor Christians with that kind of radical, in-your-face confrontation. It's ... it's just too divisive. -k

A claim of damage is part of the process of taking this to court. So while I do not for a moment believe that he has suffered $5000 worth of emotional distress, I do feel the request to drop prayers as an official part of council meetings is entirely reasonable, and I think that taking the matter to court is (while not something I would personally engage in) a matter of principle. Do you feel the request that prayer be dropped from council meetings is reasonable? -k

This is possibly the most controversial thing you have ever said. -k

And yet his budget would reduce Mitt Romney's taxes from 13.9% to 0.9%. -k

Yes, we keep hearing that the US corporate tax rate-- 35% --is higher than in other countries. The part that people keep forgetting to mention is that the US tax code is so full of deductions and loopholes and ways to avoid taxes that the *effective* corporate tax rate in the US is actually lower than in most countries. It's so easy for large, profitable corporations to find deductions that some of America's richest corporations don't pay *any* tax. If somebody said "we'll lower taxes to 25% but in exchange we're eliminating all the deductions and loopholes", do you think the corporations would take it? Well, it's good to know there's still some hope for you. Willard hasn't told us what he's going to cut, aside from getting rid of Planned Parenthood, of course. Paul Ryan's budget would have cut Pell grants, child tax credits, Medicare, Medicaid, the Earned Income Tax Credit, food stamps... Romney keeps saying he's not running on the Paul Ryan budget, but the money for the rich-guy tax cuts and defense spending has to come from somewhere, and programs that serve poor are where it's going to be. But I will keep in mind that these programs aren't being "eliminated", but rather "reformed", I am sure the difference is highly substantive. You got steamrollered last time you made that claim. -k

What an Awful Atheist! And also thank you for providing a link that didn't come from "The Blaze". Aside from being as slanted as any site out there, "The Blaze" is Glen Beck's site and I don't like to click on any link that puts another penny in that psychopath's pocket. I understand that to file the suit, he needed a complaint. Personally, it's not a fight I would pick, but I understand why others do. -k

Yeah. Thanks, Gost, I can't believe this thread went this far without somebody pointing out the big fat lie which underlies this whole premise, which is that the banks were forced to do it. Only a fraction of the sub-prime mortgages were mandated by government policies; the bulk of them were created by the banks themselves, when the banks discovered they could make money hand-over-fist by giving sub-prime mortgages and then selling the risk to unsuspecting investors by disguising them in complicated financial products. -k

They've promised tax cuts for corporations. They've promised to extend tax cuts for the wealthy ("the job creators!" in Republicanese.) They've promised to reduce capital gains taxes, which helps rich-guys an awful lot more than it helps regular Americans. None of this is secret. I'm not sure why you're trying to dismiss it with some crack about me believing they're in favor of child slavery. Don't you take them at their word? Yes, they've been very explicit on that point. They're very proud of it, in fact. Let's face it, Romney doesn't have "specific plans" for anything. There's been much talk about "entitlements reform", which is basically a code-word for the same thing. Your boy Paul Ryan came up with a budget slashing virtually every program to pay for these corporate tax cuts and capital gains tax cuts. But really, August, all you need is simple math. They've promised tax cuts for corporations. They've promised reduced capital gains taxes. They've promised to extend tax cuts for the wealthy. They've promised to increase spending on the military. And they've promised to reduce the deficit. Get back to me when you have worked out how they can keep all those promises without eliminating benefits/programs for "regular" Americans. Deregulation was a major factor in the the financial collapse, particularly in allowing "too big to fail" to happen, erasing the line between traditional banking and investment banking, and in allowing the creation of the fraudulent financial products that were at the center of the collapse. -k

So... 2 minutes for Jesus, 2 minutes for The Great Spirit... how about 2 more minutes for Ganesh? Of course the focus is on the council meeting prayers. Isn't that what the lawsuit is about in the first place? -k

I don't know much about Sam Harris, but I don't think characterizing him as an anti-Islam zealot is accurate. His point is not that "the terrorists are going to get us". His point, as I understand it, is that Islam is a terrible religion full of terrible ideas and that it has been afforded a respect it does not deserve because being critical of religion has been deemed inappropriate. Harris recently got in trouble with the Political Correctness Police when he argued in favor of racial profiling at airports. His argument is that refusing to consider race and religion as criteria in screening is a triumph of political correctness over rationality and observable empirical evidence. Considering the number of recent "angry white dude" terrorist incidents, perhaps his empirical evidence needs updating and his argument can be challenged on those grounds. However, characterizing it as Islamophobia falls short. S.E. Cupp is a big fat fraud. I have sometimes wondered if I could get a little gig going by donning a head-scarf, adopting a pen-name like Kimmy al-Ghazzar, and appearing in conservative media outlets as the Token Muslim. They'd keep bringing me back because I'd say exactly the kind of stuff that conservatives want to hear about Muslims, and it would have Authoritah because it came from the Token Muslim on the panel. That's basically S.E. Cupp's gig. She's the Token Atheist that conservative outlets get to represent atheists on their TV shows because she says exactly the kind of stuff that social conservatives want to believe about atheists. She's not there to represent atheism in good faith, she's there to provide bias confirmation for social conservatives. And when her current act starts wearing out and not getting her on TV as much as it used to, she will take the next step. A remarkable conversion! She will write a new book called something like "Seeing the Light: an atheist finds God" and go on all the conservative media again to talk about how empty she used to feel and how fulfilled she feels now that she has Seen The Light. And social conservatives will eat it up, and Betsy will post here that "even Prominent Atheist S.E.Cupp has rejected atheism and Seen The Light! Rejoice on this day!" -k

Suing for "anguish" et al is pretty ridiculous. Personally, if I was on that council, I would put in my earphones and listen to some Skynyrd and do some work while the rest of them were praying. However, I have no idea why the prayer needs to be part of the council meeting in the first place. If people need to pray before council meetings, why don't they show up a couple of minutes early? I wonder how a Christian might react if some council member insisted that each council meeting should open with a couple of minutes of native dancing, chanting, and drumming, to invoke the Great Spirit. As an atheist, I see both as an equally stupid waste of time. What about you guys? If there's 2 minutes of prayer for Jesus, what about another 2 minutes of native drumming? Seems fair, doesn't it? -k

By the way, here's why *I* love the United States. http://www.luminaidlab.com/ A couple of college girls take part in a disaster relief mission, and realize: "these people need a source of light!" They return home and come up with a brilliant design for a solar powered lantern that is cheap, durable, and compact, and they have made it a reality. Here's another reason why I love the United States: http://www.kickstarter.com/ People with ideas for projects can now "crowd-source" funding from strangers who just happen to think "that sounds like a great idea!" -k

Whether it be the Kardashians, or Paris Hilton, or Jersey Shore, or the Real Housewives of Wherever, or Toddlers in Tiaras, or Honey Boo-Boo... I think the one common feature that draws viewers to this junk is morbid curiosity. People watch this stuff for the same reason people slow down to look at traffic accidents. I think people tune in to feel a range of emotions from pity to schadenfreude to disbelief. I think the ultimate reward most viewers get from seeing Snooki on TV is to be feel better about themselves. I have some sympathy for Honey Boo-Boo and her family... I do genuinely hope the money they get for this makes their lives better. But there's no doubt in my mind that they are being exploited. As I mentioned before, Honey Boo-Boo first appeared on TV on an episode of Toddlers In Tiaras that went viral on the internet because she induced such a reaction of disbelief and pity. I think the Kardashians and their ilk are worse. At least with Honey Boo-Boo and her family, they're not there as role-models or celebrities. People might tune in and say "I can't believe these people exist," or they might tune in and say "oh, that poor child, I hope something good happens to her", but nobody is tuning in and saying "I wish I was more like these people." The Kardashians and the Jersey Shore kids and so on... I can't help wondering if some people actually see these people as role-models. "They're on TV and they're famous and they seem to have such a great life... I should be more like them..." I have seen at least a few people who have styled their clothing and hair and their tan after Snooki or The Situation, and it makes me gasp with concern. I think that turning these people into celebrities is, to some degree, a celebration of ignorance and idiocy, elevating idiots to the status of idols. Although, none of those come close to being the worst thing I've seen on "reality TV". The worst thing I have seen-- and I only saw a clip that was posted to a message board, I don't know what the show was called-- was some spoiled teen from the Hamptons. It was the girl's 16th birthday and her mother put on an incredibly extravagant birthday party, complete with limousines to drive her and her (apparently) dozens of friends to various clubs and venues they had rented. When they returned home the girl's birthday present was in the driveway-- a brand new Lexus-- and the girl had a howling tantrum, shrieking at her mother that she had "ruined her life". Because, you see, the Lexus was the wrong color. I think the entire spectacle was the most horrid thing I have ever seen. -k

I don't think I took an adequate look at this yesterday. * "allows companies that employ workers in the US" We ought to consider what those companies actually produce, and whether a tax cut is going to really help them. During the primaries Senator Santorum was talking about the Rust Belt and how his ideas would get working-class Americans back to work. The promise seemed to be that with just the right tax cuts or trade policies, those Rust Belt factories would spring back to life. Is that realistic? * "to sell products abroad" What products can America sell abroad? Some American products sell extremely well abroad. You mentioned movies and TV, for example. Those are two products that rely on American creativity. There are lots of other examples of products designed using American creativity that are immensely popular all over the world. American-designed electronics and computer software and clothing and cars. Unfortunately, the creativity part of the process doesn't put Rust Belt factory workers back to work, and the manufacturing part of the process is much more cost-effective to do elswhere. What American products won't sell abroad? Anything that requires no brainpower and cheap labor. No amount of tax cuts or trade policy is going to make it economically viable for an American textiles company to sell their tube-socks in China. * "and compete against imports" We also need to talk more about what that actually means. Do you want a textile-mill in Alabama to be able to produce a T-shirt just as cheaply as one in Bangladesh can? Or do you want the T-shirt made in Bangladesh to cost just as much as the one made in Alabama when it reaches the department store check-out? The second could easily be accomplished with tariffs, of course, but that's bad for consumers. The first might not be possible at all no matter how much you cut taxes. Cut taxes to zero and it still costs more to produce the T-shirt in Alabama than in Bangladesh, and we have to keep looking for more ways to make that T-shirt cheaper... cut wages, subsidize the factory... and at some point you have to ask yourself: why do we want to try and compete with Bangladesh at making T-shirts at all? But that's the hope that's being offered... give corporations the right tax-cuts, and American factories will spring to life again, bring back all those jobs that got lost when making stuff overseas became the cost-effective way to run a business. But it's a false hope. It's not realistic. -k

Leaving aside any discussion of social conservatism, I'll give you 4 reasons: (1) tax cuts for corporations and the rich. (2) big increase in military spending. (3) both of those things will be paid for with the elimination of benefits and programs for regular Americans. (4) a return to the cult-like devotion to deregulation that played a major role in destroying the economy in the first place. -k

People get too wrapped up thinking in terms of manufactured consumer goods. China can't re-shingle your roof, or fix your plumbing or renovate your basement. Your neighbors in Tweedleburg can do those things. Except not this year, because you haven't got the cash. This year, you decide to hold off for another year on fixing the roof, and try and do the basement one weekend at a time, and try and fix the plumbing yourself using some dubious advice you saw in a Youtube video. Tweedleburg can't build your iPad as cheap as China can, but it's not like if they cut taxes enough there are going to be new leading-edge electronics plants springing up around America either. -k

Sounds exciting! I wonder if this one comes with a code-name like "Son of B.O.S.S." or "Repo105". -k

Boy, Tim, you sure picked a turd of an example to make your case with. Wal-Mart's success in Sao Paulo or Amritsar or Prince George is very exciting news for the Walton family, of course, but it doesn't make one whit of difference to the people working in the stores or the warehouses in America. If you're working at the Walmart in Tweedleburg Iowa, rest assured that your job depends on Walmart's sales in Tweedleburg Iowa. If the Tweedleburg location becomes a money-losing store, they will close it regardless of how well the store in Sao Paulo is doing. Walmart's success as a corporation doesn't provide anybody in Tweedleburg a job. Sales in Tweedleburg provide workers in Tweedleburg a job. Which further undermines the case that giving tax cuts to the wealthy are going to fuel "small business- the engine that drives our economy." That's great news for "companies". But keep in mind that this bill of goods isn't being sold as something that's good for "companies", it's being sold as something that is going to put Americans back to work. And what's good for "corporations" and what's good for the average American voter are increasingly different things. -k

The point, Bill, is that the owner's ongoing success depends on having customers who can afford to buy his product. There is this argument going around that if rich-guys paid lower taxes, they would create more jobs. That is why people are going around saying "a poor person never gave me a job!" right now. They are arguing that rich-guys create jobs, and that if we cut taxes for rich-guys, they will create more jobs. And I am saying, no they won't. They'll find some other way to invest their money. Rich-guys won't go start businesses that hire people to produce goods and services, because right now the customers don't have money to buy goods and services. You accidentally hit the nail on the head here: That captures the whole point so perfectly. If you're running a businessman, it is great for you when people have money to buy your stuff! Somebody ran the numbers on Mitt Romney's 2010 tax return, and he paid 13.9%... something like $3 million. Under the tax plan that Paul Ryan proposed, he would have paid about $200,000, less than 1%. (not to pick on Mitt in particular, but he's one rich guy whose tax return has been studied.) And the thinking is this: give Mitt an extra $2.8 million a year, and he will use it to hire people. I call B.S. on that, because Mitt's a smart businessman. He's not going to hire people to produce a bunch of goods and services that there are no customers for. Don't give that $2.8 million tax cut to Mitt and pay for it by taking $2.8 million out of regular peoples' pockets. Leave the $2.8 million dollars in regular peoples' pockets so that they can afford to spend it at the struggling businesses in their communities. I love it. -k

Working with builders, I have worked on a couple of multi-million dollar residences, but most of the homes I have worked on have been more affordable "middle-class" residences and multi-unit residential buildings. During my many years waitressing, I can assure you that the large majority of my customers have been lower and middle class. When I worked in family dining and fast food, once again, most of my customers were lower and middle class. When I worked in retail, again most of my customers were lower and middle class. Without lower and middle class customers, none of the businesses that I worked at would have stayed in business. Period. If I recall, Bill, you used to play live music in bars. When you looked out at the audience, how many rich guys did you see, and how many average joes did you see? Are you sure a poor person never gave you a job? Was the guy who hired you for the gig a rich guy? Was he hiring you to play for an empty room, or did he assume there'd be customers? -k

The balance of trade also says that American companies depend on the American middle class for their sales. Most Americans don't work for Hollywood. Most Americans work for businesses that sell goods and services in their own communities. -k

"A poor person never gave me a job" is a catch-phrase that's going around in US politics lately, an idea that is supposed to convince people that tax cuts for the upper class are good for everybody. But the idea that "a poor person never gave me a job" is deeply flawed. For most employers in America, their ability to stay in business and hire people depends a lot more on the spending-power of lower and middle-class Americans than it does on the wealthy. And I think the idea that rich-people give people jobs bears more scrutiny. -k

Perhaps some sort of policy where the first post by new users is moderated? That would put an end to these spam-bots as well as to Markuze's harassment of people here. -k

It's pertinent to some of the arguments being made in this thread. "Americans are not politically engaged!" or "Americans are rejecting political dog and pony shows!" are theories that have been presented here. But making generalizations like that simply isn't supported by the information that's been presented so far. I guess we have a different view of how much of an "opportunity" this is for Honey Boo-Boo and her family. I hope they're getting a lot of money for this. That's all I can say. That's the only good thing that can come of this for this family. This is the modern day equivalent of the Freak Show Circus, and I just hope they're being paid a lot better than the Bearded Lady and the Dog-Faced Boy. I don't believe they were able to "compete" with Paul Ryan in any meaningful sense. Well, that analogy kind of depends on the comparison of becoming president to becoming famous on a reality TV show. I don't think it's a very good comparison. Becoming president (in theory, at least) requires the best qualities of humanity. Reality TV is often a celebration of the worst qualities, most commonly stupidity and boorishness and ignorance. Hopefully. The wart on my heel doesn't make me love myself any less, but I'll still be happy when it's gone. Judging from what I'm seeing in headlines and social media, I think many Americans feel the same way about Jersey Shore that I feel about my wart. -k

yet also, :angry: -k