kimmy

The Soviets also had brave men who were willing to risk their lives in the void of space in rickety pieces of tin. What the Soviets didn't have, that the Americans did, was the technical expertise to go one step farther. It's really America's scientists and engineers that won the space race, but they aren't famous and won't get state funerals. Just a thought. Another thought: the United States spent more money on the 2008 bailouts than it has spent on NASA during the entire history of NASA. -k

Excellent observation. After all the discussion about these no-exceptions policies, it almost sounds as if Romney's position is the moderate compromise. I applaud Ryan for at least having the courage of his convictions. As I've said before... if you believe life begins at conception, then it shouldn't matter how conception occurred. If you believe an abortion kills an innocent person, how can you argue it's acceptable in some circumstances? -k

beautiful. Meanwhile, the Republican National Convention is themed "We Built This!" It's taking place in the Tampa Bay Times Forum, which cost $139 million to build... of which the "owners" paid $53 million and the taxpayers paid $86 million. As the old joke goes... "What do you mean *we*, kimosabe?" -k

So why the reluctance? Are they afraid to "bite the hand that feeds?" Or are they afraid that they simply can't win these cases? -k

I think you and she are talking about fundamentally different things. I think you're talking about truth as in objective fact, and she is talking about something more spiritual in nature. -k

Metallica had a sold out show in Vancouver last night and are playing a second one tonight. Yesterday they added a third show for Monday night. Tickets are $5, and all proceeds are going to the Vancouver food bank. It's not strictly from the goodness of their hearts... they're filming a concert movie, and they're adding the 3rd show to get more footage. Still pretty cool, though. Whatever else may be said about Lars, I'm pretty sure he's not a moron. He strikes me as a pretty bright and articulate guy, which probably makes him like Einstein by drummer standards. Jason Newsted! -k

I had some great Persecution updates-- including one featuring perennial favorite Tim Tebow!-- but I'll hold off until this current discussion passes. I am currious as to how Christians feel about other types of non-Christian marriage. Leaving aside same-sex marriage for the moment... what about civil marriage, common-law marriage, or marriages performed in other faith-traditions? It may have been at one point that Christians didn't consider a "common law marriage" a real marriage, but rather "two people living in sin". Is that still the case, or has that changed? Or what about a Hindu marriage? Do Christians consider it a real marriage if a man and a woman exchange vows under some idol? Do Christians consider it a real marriage if a couple sign some documents in a government office? If there was an uproar over any of that stuff, it was probably before my time. But I am not aware of any Christians objecting to the use of the word "marriage" to describe any of these non-Christian unions. And I am not sure why some Christians believe they have protective custody of the word "marriage" anyway. edit to add: of course, it's not just about the word marriage. While some people have suggested that if gays would just abandon the word "marriage" and have "civil unions" instead, people would be ok with giving them equivalent rights and benefits. But that position is in the minority among those who oppose same sex marriage. Just this past week the Republicans overwhelmingly agreed that they're not ok with "civil unions" either. -k

Thanks! Much of this information is over my head, but I get the impression that the gist of it is that Shady is full of it. -k

More "non-prosecution": http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7418634n No charges brought against executives at Lehman Brothers, despite proof, from an auditor and a whistleblower Lehman Brothers accountant, that an accounting scam called "repo105" was used to shuffle money off the ledgers to make the balance sheet look better for the purpose of willfully misleading investors. -k

The banks dished out way more sub-prime mortgages than any government quota system required them to, and they did it because financial deregulation combined with an extreme lack of ethics made it highly profitable for them to do so. -k

If what Todd Akin said makes him a radical, and AFA and FRC are saying "yeah! he's exactly right!" even after he withdrew the remark, how can they be any less radical than him? It's far from the first time somebody has said it. The pro-life movement has been propagating this lie for a long time. When Todd Akin said "he heard it from a doctor", he was probably referring to a prominent pro-life leader named Dr John Wilkes, who has been saying this for years. Dr Wilkes' support for this theory comes from another famous doctor, Dr Josef Mengele. The Nazis conducted "experiments" in which women were herded into the gas chambers and a fake gas was pumped in. After the pretend execution, the Nazis discovered that some of the womens' menstrual cycles were disrupted. That's not even close to suggesting that extreme trauma is an effective contraceptive, mind you, but it's the origin of this theory. Christian values like "God hates fags". Beats me. I'm at a loss. Considering he has co-authored bills that say more or less the same thing, it makes it hard to believe this was just a slip of the tongue. I heard him apologize for using the word "legitimate". "Because rape is never ever legitimate!" Mighty big of him. I did not, however, hear him apologize for attempting to lie to the people by passing off this flat out false notion as a fact. Nor did I hear him apologize for the implication that it's not a real rape unless the victim has been beaten so badly that she can't conceive. Nor did I hear him apologize for in essence saying that every woman who has sought an abortion after a rape is a liar. I'm pretty unimpressed by the apology. It's being politicized because he's running for political office. As a US Senator he would be in a position to apply his profound stupidity to laws that affect all Americans. -k

Great news for the Americans who need help the most: the Koch brothers, the Lehman brothers, General Electric Corporation, and Ann Romney's dancing horse! #HeckuvajobWillard! -k

I'll ignore all the troll antics and just respond to this: Well, if you're prepared to accept that AFA and FRC are "radical", then we're getting somewhere. So, why do Dan Cathy and so many Christians support radical groups like AFA and FRC? It's not like these are obscure little groups. AFA has almost 200 radio stations, hundreds of employees, hundreds of thousands of subscribers, and an annual budget in the tens of millions. FRC is an arm of "Focus on the Family" which is far larger than AFA. Maybe Christian extremism is more powerful in America than some would like to admit. Here's more of AFA mouthpiece Bryan Fischer, explaining how Rep. Akin is the real victim. "Akin is the real victim of forcible... assault." "Akin is the one getting gang... tackled." You can tell he was just itching to say "rape", but resisted because he knew what kind of trouble he'd get in if he did. -k

And "hell" isn't always used to mean a Biblical place of eternal suffering either. But if you're convinced that the principal of the school with the little demon logo isn't a hypocrite for taking this action over the word "hell", you are welcome to that belief. You have a right to your opinion, regardless of how ridiculous it is. -k

“At that point, if God has chosen to bless this person with a life, you don’t kill it.” Missouri Rapeublican Sharon Barnes says rape pregnancies are a blessing from God. -k

I'd file Galloway under a different category. I'd file that comment under the same heading as Whoopi Goldberg's "it wasn't rape-rape" comments in defense of Roman Polanski. I think that Galloway's desire to try to minimize the charges against Assange come from exactly the same mentality as Goldberg's desire to minimize the charges against Polanski. It's what you get when partisanship becomes more important than principle. In a broader sense, I think that "progressives" who made sexist attacks against Sarah Palin and Kathleen Harris and Belinda Stronach are guilty of the same thing. Or "progressives" who heaped verbal abuse on Bill Clinton's accusers. Or Vancouver Canucks fans who insist to this day that Todd Bertuzzi was innocent. -k

Trying to argue that "devils" isn't necessarily meant to refer to a demon isn't going to fly when it's a picture of a red guy with a tail, horns, and a pitch-fork. Be that as it may, I somehow doubt that many people will see the school as being in the right and her being in the wrong. What the school doing is most likely illegal. She's off to college regardless, and they've become the target of international laughter and ridicule. I notice that their website is now redirecting to Google. They have no doubt discovered that they stepped in it in a big way. -k

aw, shucks. -k

So back to chicken-man Dan Cathy. As I mentioned, I love the cognitive dissonance of people who on the one hand call for boycotts of JC Penny and Oreo and Home Depot and other businesses that have supported gay rights, but on the other hand howl that people who are boycotting Chick-Fil-A are Persecuting Dan Cathy for his Beliefs™. It breaks down like this: if I knew that a business was donating a portion of its sales to the KKK, I wouldn't shop there. If I knew that a business was donating a portion of its profits to the New Black Panthers, I wouldn't shop there. Regardless of how tasty their chicken sandwiches were. Chick-Fil-A isn't funding the KKK or the New Black Panthers. Instead, they're funding the American Family Association and the Family Research Council. Just about as bad. Here's an update on what Dan Cathy's greasy chicken money is supporting: American Family Association Family Research Council Watch this steaming piece of dog crap explain how real rape is when the woman is beaten so badly that she can't conceive. They're scum. They can wrap themselves in the flag and carry crosses and bibles and call themselves "American" and "Family", but they're scum. -k

I wasn't going to respond to this out of fear of getting run over by the ban-van. But I've had enough whiskey tonight that I just don't care. First off, I personally feel that Christians-- and you're certainly not the only one-- who have tried to co-opt public concern about bullying for their own political purposes are among the lowest of the low. Secondly, your idea that you understand bullying because some boy pulled on your pigtail one time is excellent evidence that you have no freaking clue. You're off on your own little planet. Third, that you'd make light of something that caused so much grief for my family speaks extremely poorly of you as a person. And lastly, on a related note... you're a terrible witness. -k

Good for him! Perhaps after he loses the election he can be made an honorary Cheesehead. #HeckuvajobWillard -k

It's hard for me to feel much sympathy for seniors. "Paying more for less" is what I think every time I look at the CPP deductions on my pay stub. -k

Yeah, Mitt and thousands of other extremely wealthy individuals for whom capital gains constitute most or all of their income. Well they're committed to giving tax-cuts to rich-guys, and they're committed to cutting the deficit, so simple math and process of elimination ought to tell you whose pockets Mitt's $2.8 million are coming out of. I guess in Shady-Speak it would be "reducing entitlements" or something like that, and in Paul Ryan Speak it would be "reducing tax expenditures", but however you want to phrase it, it means that the vast majority of Americans will have less money to spend. I mean, you can go through the whole double-speak exercise. "We are not increasing taxes! We are rationalizing the tax code! We are reducing entitlements! We are being fiscally responsible!" But the reality of it is this: if you slash Joe's tax deduction for healthcare insurance, that's money out of his pocket. And on and on, with each and every "entitlement" you want to cut. Call it what you want but the reality is that it is money coming out of the pockets of the vast majority of Americans that isn't going to be spent on new cars or new houses or any of the other goods and services that employ the vast majority of Americans. Are you guys so dishonest that you think that if you call it "cutting entitlements" that people won't realize what it means? Or are you so gullible that you believe it yourself? In terms of macro-economics, the thing you people keep forgetting is that a free market economy isn't going anywhere without a market. Consumers are tapped out. Personal debt is at an all-time high. Willard can promise that if you cut his taxes by $2.8 million, he'll start a widget-factory that will employ 100 Americans. But his widget factory is going to go out of business because consumers don't have disposable income to buy his widgets. And by this time we all know that Willard isn't going to use his $2.8 million to open a widget factory anyway. He's going to take it to Goldman-Sachs and have them invest it in phantom financial products that don't actually benefit anybody except Willard and Goldman-Sachs. -k

Honestly, this sounds like the kind of crap you'd hear on the Rush Limbaugh show. (read this in a Rush Limbaugh voice, or Foghorn Leghorn if you prefer.) "We got-- I'm just reading this here-- we've got a billion dollar company going down the tubes because some secretary-- probably some college-educated 'liberated woman'-- shook her ass in front of the CEO! Can you believe this? We got-- we got thousands of people gonna lose their jobs! Because some bimbo-- I mean, some businesswoman-- couldn't keep her skirt down, and then cried sexual harassment. Can you believe it? That's right, folks. Welcome to America 2012. Obama Nation. Makes you proud, doesn't it? Some bimbo lifts her skirt and cries sexual harassment and thousands of people lose their jobs. Makes me sick." --- I know this guy who was at one point in time placed extremely high in a medium-sized Canadian retail group. One time over drinks a group of us were discussing why all these box stores are springing up. He suggested that if you've got a big chain and your sales are languishing and your inventory is way too high, the easiest way to make your books look good is to... open more stores! Yep, common sense says that's not a smart thing to do. But big-time accounting, gotta impress the shareholders-type thinking says that it's exactly the right thing to do. Because you open 5 more stores, shuffle your inventory around, and then... ta-da! instead of a glut of inventory resulting from sluggish sales, you've got exactly the right inventory for the number of stores you have, and plus you can show your shareholders that you're Expanding Aggressively! Woot! -k

It's really not hyperbole. The Paul Ryan tax budget, that Grover Norquist and his minions in Congress are clamoring for, would have reduced Mitt's 2010 tax rate from 13.9% to 0.86%. 0.86% isn't "nothing", but it's the next best thing. The Paul Ryan tax plan would reduce Mitt's taxes from $3 million to $185,000. Why don't you explain for us, Shady, why you people think it would benefit America to reduce Mitt's taxes by $2.8 million and take that $2.8 million out of the pockets of lower and middle-class Americans. -k