kimmy

"Who the hell is Grover Norquist, anyway?" asked George H.W. Bush, discussing the stupidity of Norquist's Taxpayer Protection Pledge. George's son, former Florida governor Jeb Bush, also scoffed at the Pledge while criticizing today's brand of Republicans who are committed to dogma and orthodoxy rather than finding solutions to problems. Who the hell is Grover Norquist? He's the head honcho of "Americans for Tax Reform", and he's a big deal becausehis "Pledge" has become a de-facto requirement for Republicans seeking public office. If you're a Republican and you're not down with Grover, you could have trouble on your hands, especially from other Republicans in Congress who have mostly signed the pledge. Mitt Romney has also signed the pledge. Anyway, here's Grover explaining why Mitt Romney is the right man to be president: Mitt Romney: Enough Fingers To Operate A Pen! Catchy slogan! -k

Here's the Newsweek cover Shady referenced in his status update. "COVER STORY: Obama has broken his promises, and it's clear that the GOP ticket's path to prosperity is our only hope" The cover story is an editorial by Niall Ferguson, a member of the John McCain campaign. I'm curious how he decided that "the GOP ticket's path to prosperity is our only hope" when all they're willing to tell us about that "path to prosperity" is that it isn't Paul Ryan's budget. -k

Oklahoma student Kaitlin Nootbaar-- 4.0 GPA, 4 straight years of straight A's-- is being refused her high-school diploma because she uttered the word "hell" in her valedictorian speech. It was offensive, and she can't have her diploma until she writes a letter of apology. The hypocrisy might not hit you until you see the school's mascot. -k

If one executive resigning can destroy a great retail chain, how great could they really be? It sounds to me like you're trying to scapegoat them uppity women for problems that are actually much more serious. -k

The question people like me are asking is why the Mitt Romneys of the world should be part of that half that pays no taxes. Let's keep in mind who these people who pay no income taxes are. Most of them are retirees, students, and the unemployed. Some of those unemployed may be the chronic deadbeats that we hear about, but many-- probably most-- are temporarily unemployed people who will be back to paying taxes sooner or later. The students will also be paying taxes sooner or later. Well that's nonsense. The financial news of the past several years has had numerous examples of profits that were created despite generating nothing of value. A couple of examples: -the mortgage shenanigans in the United States. Risky mortgages were bought, then repackaged into complicated financial products, and sold as "AAA"-rated investments to people who had no way of knowing that what they were actually buying was risky mortgages. Generating a profit by buying risky assets and deceiving your customers into thinking they're safe investments is clearly not "creating value for society". The "value" added by the financial institutions that made their profits this way was created entirely by deception. -Nortel was able to show profits for years, boosting their share prices so that their executives could obtain ludicrously large bonuses. But these "profits" were generated using accounting tricks that couldn't be sustained indefinitely, and when the jig was up, the stock price collapsed and countless investors were left high and dry. Yes, it's a wonderful system. You get your strawberries, and the vendor made a sale. Everybody wins! Yay! But we're not asking why the free market system is a good thing. We're asking why the Mitt Romneys of the world ought to pay less taxes while American Woman and Bush-Cheney2004 pay higher taxes. Your delightful little tale about the strawberries adds no insight to that question. Sticking with the strawberries, though: let me give you a couple of scenarios and you tell me which is better for the strawberry merchant. (1) A tax cut of $1.2 million per year for Willard, balanced by a tax increase of $1200/year for AW and BC2004 and 998 of their friends. (2) A tax cut of $1000 per year for AW and BC2004 and 998 of their friends, balanced by a $1.2 million tax increase for Willard. Well, in situation 1, 1000 people have $100 less per month of disposable income. They might have to cut some things out of their budget. They might not buy strawberries. Willard has more money to buy strawberries with, but he's just one guy. He can't eat that many strawberries. In situation 2, 1000 people get $100 a month more to spend on strawberries or whatever else it is that they want to spend it on. If you're the strawberry merchant, you've got to like that scenario better. The people who support tax cuts for rich-guys will say "Bah! You've vastly oversimplified this! There are many great reasons why it would be smarter give the tax cut to the rich guy! He could do great and wonderful things with that money! He could put 2000 people to work and the strawberry guy would have twice as many customers!" Well, maybe, but if that's the theory, then we *do* care whether those benefits trickle down and whether he's actually using his $1.2 million to put Americans to work and so on. I agree that your strawberry merchant creates value. I'm considerably more skeptical about Goldman Sachs and Bain. Apparently people have been conned into thinking that if you oppose tax-cuts for rich-guys then you must Hate Capitalism. -k

The "superhero" genre has been with us for over 70 years, and seems more popular than ever. Three of this year's 4 biggest movies to date (#1 Avengers, #2 Batman, and #4 Spiderman) are superhero movies, and it's been that way for several years running. I would suggest that the enduring, and increasing, popularity of the superhero genre is not likely to be explained by an unexpected increase in the number of 14 year olds in North America. Perhaps there is something else at work. -k

I love that song. I used to like Megadeth. It's not that I stopped liking them, it's just I kind of lost track of them. I remember reading an interview where he talked about living in a house with a big fence and a big gate and keeping a shotgun in his bedroom and how worried he was about the safety of his wife and kids when he went out on tour, and said something along the lines of "I'm just glad I have a dog that looks like an alligator with fur" to protect them when he's away. He's apparently now a born-again Christian, an Alex Jones supporter, and avid conspiracy nut. Ted Nugent is the funnier one, though. He's known for devil rock music, drugs, booze, having sex with teenagers, and having more kids out of wedlock than a whole NBA team. But he loves guns and hates Obama so he's a hero of the "family values" set. -k

Romney could make the whole tax thing go away very easily. He could prove Harry Reid is a big fat liar very easily. The fact that he hasn't is very telling. If Romney was really "proud to pay a lot of taxes", as he said he was, he'd have shown us. Romney doesn't want us to see his tax returns, and the obvious conclusion to draw is that Romney *isn't* proud that he *doesn't* pay a lot of taxes. It's an election where Team R is saying that rich people need tax cuts, and that working-class people will have to pick up the slack by giving up tax credits. To me it seems like showing us his returns would help Mitt show us why rich-guys need tax cuts. -k

Us too. Grew up as a rather apathetic "none", but we just loved Christmas. Fun times. You know, I honestly have no idea about the fashion side of things. I'm not sure where you can get a good concubine (I do know some shady ones, though.) If you converted to Pastafarianism, you could have wenches and dress in pirate regalia. Wenches and pirate regalia has to beat concubines and sandals, right? -k

Didn't Romney call Ryan's budget "brilliant" and say that he hopes Congress adopts it? -k

I haven't read anything to suggest that Latinos like him in the least, Catholic or not. One article I read went so far as to say that selecting Ryan indicates Romney has completely given up on Latino voters. -k

Exactly my point. "Biblical" marriages included some stuff that the Church Lady just ain't cool with. -k

What about the 1911 variants that are chambered in 9mm? Is that a good compromise? It looks a good way of not having to choose between the ultra-rugged design and the more popular/affordable ammo. Or is the 45ACP a major part of what makes the 1911 special? Also, why an older glock? Are the newer ones crappy? A couple of questions: as I'm interested in all this Commie surplus stuff, chances are pretty good I'm going to be shooting corrosive ammo at some point. I have read that it's very important to clean your gun right after shooting with that stuff. I've also read that in addition to oil, you need to pre-clean with water, Windex, or some blend of water and Windex, or ... well, I've seen several different stories. Do you have any corrosive ammo advice? On a similar note: it might be hard (or at least expensive) to buy anything other than FMJ for my Soviet guns. That's fine for my purposes for the time being... but supposing I want to shoot a deer or a zombie some day... is it possible to turn an FMJ into a JSP using a Dremel, file, knife, etc? Or would that just be asking for a face full of shrapnel? -k

I think it's worth pointing out that people who claim they're defending "a Biblical definition of marriage" are just talking about the New Testament parts of the Bible, because there's all kinds of wacky marital shenanigans going on in the Old Testament, as this handy infographic explains. There's never a wrong time to point out the zaniness of the OT, but it illustrates a more important point: marriage existed before Christ, it didn't always mean what Christians now say it does, and I have no idea how they came to the conclusion that they now own marriage and have exclusive right to define it. -k

(...) I'm merely pointing out that even though some religious types like to claim that the Bible is a source of absolute morals, we as a society have utterly rejected many of the rules set forth in the Old Testament. When was the last time western Jews or Christians hauled their disobedient child to town square and had the citizens stone him to death? Says to in Deuteronomy... but we know better. At some point, we decided that we're smarter than whatever asshole wrote Deuteronomy... and we're right. When some Muslim dumbass chokes his daughter to death for wearing western clothes, we don't say "yeah, well, that's what Deuteronomy says ought to happen, so we can relate." We call him a scumbag and hope he has a terrible time in prison. Because at some point, we rejected "absolute morality" set forth in the Bible. Isn't our ever-evolving concept of right and wrong a demonstration of "moral relativism" in action? -k

Part of August's long-standing habit of assigning people to categories. Lutherans-- earnest. Evangelicals-- angry. Buddhists-- pleasant but bland, etc. An East coast liberal Jew is completely different from a West coast liberal agnostic, for reasons only August could explain. -k

The theory that rich-guys need tax cuts is one of the major features of Mitt's campaign. His tax returns would be very relevant to making that claim. The fact that he won't show us what ought to be a compelling piece of evidence doesn't speak well for his case. Lost in all the furor about the tax returns Mitt won't release is the tax return that he did release. He paid a 13.9% rate, which doesn't sound too onerous to me. Somebody ran the numbers and concluded that under the Paul Ryan budget, Romney's tax rate would have been 0.82% Do you guys really think it's a good idea to knock $3 million off Romney's already modest taxes, while cutting food stamps and Medicare? -k

If moral relativism such a bad thing, why is it that we do not drag people to town square and smash their heads in with rocks for breaking God's Law, as the Old Testament commands? -k

So why is it that the wealthy don't bear a share of the cost of reducing the deficit? Why is it that lower and middle class citizens are being told they must give up programs that are important to their bottom line, while the tax cuts for the wealthy are deemed non-negotiable? And when that question comes up, the response is always something along the lines of "these are the risk-takers! these are the job-creators! Small business creates most jobs in America! We need to get America working again! We need to reward initiative!" etc etc. But this doesn't correspond to reality. I am highly skeptical the idea that "the wealthy" and "small business owners" are the same people. I don't think the Mitt Romneys and Hank Paulsons of the world are going to out there and start small businesses if we reduce their taxes. The assumption is that if rich-guys get to keep more of their money, they will use it to do something that will create jobs. The theory is that they will invest it in ways that put Americans to work. The reality is that they will will invest it in ways that generate profits for them. That doesn't necessarily put any Americans to work at all. For example: -shareholder profits often come at the *expense* of American jobs (ie, finding ways to increase corporate profit by outsourcing, or just plain shutting down American operations that are unprofitable. Sure, these are legitimate business decisions, but let's not pretend that shareholder profits = American jobs.) -investment profits sometimes come from investing in activities that only actually occur on paper (or in e-space...) such as the guys who made vast fortunes shuffling hot air around in the form of derivatives. What if, instead of giving tax cuts to rich-guys in the hope that they might use the extra money in ways that create jobs, what if they paid their taxes, and they got the breaks when they *actually do* use their money in ways that put Americans to work? Pretty radical idea, huh? -k

When people like Paul Ryan try to explain why they're willing to gut child tax credits and medicare and Pell grants and food stamps to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy, they start talking about how small business owners create most of the jobs in America (video: )But how many of "the wealthy" are actually small business owners, and how many small business owners are wealthy? Not many. We're not talking about giving tax cuts to people who are going to take their money and start a small business. We're talking about giving tax cuts to people who are going to take their money to Goldman Sachs and say "make me even richer". -k

Oh, come on. The only "incentive" involved was greed. Maybe the word you're looking for is "opportunity", but even that's not true as the sub-primes were not really a result of racial quotas. I think probably the most accurate word to fit your argument is "excuse". Congress gave the banks an excuse for what they did. In reality, what created the opportunity for banks to make mad cash off of bad mortgages was the ability to give bad mortgages and then pass the risks on to others. If the risk had been theirs, they wouldn't have assumed so much risk. And if they risk hadn't been disguised in indecypherable derivative packages, investors wouldn't have assumed so much risk either. It appears to me that the "incentive" and "opportunity" for banks to engage in this behaviour was a result of the refusal to regulate derivatives in the 1990s. All of the world's problems? No. But it seems clear that a big portion of the economic troubles that have hit North America in the past 4 years are a result of terrible behavior by bankers. The ongoing scandals dispel the idea that they can be trusted to govern themselves. They're no longer entitled to the benefit of the doubt. As a group they're simply not trustworthy, and trust can't be a part of any plan to prevent future trouble. -k

Awesome I hope I never have to kill an animal in self-defense. I've been hiking in increasingly remote areas, and the closest I've come to a bear is a black bear that was probably 200 yards away, and I was able to avoid a situation before he even saw me. And I'd hope that a warning shot would be adequate if I do ever find myself in a situation. I love animals, and animals love me. Someday, when my dream of having my own hillbilly haven is a reality, I anticipate that guns are going to be a daily part of my life. As I mentioned before, I often think of seeing my great-grandma heading off to her garden with her bucket and trowel in one hand and a rifle in the other, because she was more likely to meet coyotes and blackbears in her garden than slugs or weevils. But also, it's likely that when I do finally have my hillbilly haven, my nearest neighbors are going to be drug growers, bikers, neo-Nazis, and deranged loners. The idea that I might need to protect myself from humans is in the back of my mind, even without an SHTF situation. I think the Kel-Tec shotgun retails for about $900 in Canada, so I really can't picture buying it any time soon (probably, a Mossberg 500 with interchangeable stocks and barrels will be my first shotgun). Still, it's a neat idea. Kel-Tec seem like their business model is basically "design stuff that Kimmy things would be neat". They have neat 5.56mm folding rifles that accept AR-15 mags, and folding 9mm pistol-chambered carbines that accept Beretta 92 mags (and another model that accepts Glock 17 mags). Someday, something chambered in 9mm is probably on the list. That could be a lot of different things. On the one hand there are Norinco-made Chinese police pistols, or Norinco versions of established guns in 9mm. Then there's the Ruger 9mm/357 combo revolver, which kind of appeals because I definitely plan on having a revolver and a lever-gun in 357. But someday, if heaven forbid an SHTF scenario became a reality, a 9mm auto pistol and a 9mm pistol-chambered carbine would probably be pretty valuable. And if the pistol and the carbine had interchangeable magazines, that would be very handy. -k

Funny that you're so adamantly against the idea that the word "marriage" be redefined, yet you think nothing of redefining "bully" to suit your argument. I can't tell whether you're shamelessly dishonest, or too dense to recognize it. Your team is adamantly against the idea that gay couples should have the same benefits as heterosexuals. Presidential Candidate Romney affirms that if he wins, he might grant homosexuals hospital visitation rights, but that's about it. -k

Funny, that was the reaction after that scumbag shot up the Batman movie too. "Tell people that they are just animals, and they will act like animals." "This is what happens when people reject God." etc etc. And then it turned out that the shooter was a Christian-raised church goer, and we didn't hear that stuff anymore. -k

I almost did the same... a couple of hilarious posts and a considerable quantity of Buffalo Trace helped me remember that Betsy should be a target of laughter, not anger. -k