kimmy

Considering the troubles we've had at Sikh temples in Canada, I wouldn't be so quick to call this a US issue. If I recall, the weapons of choice at Canadian dust-ups have been table-legs and cricket-bats and machetes and hammers, so I wouldn't be so quick to file it under gun trouble either. -k

Initial processing completed... I guess there's more processing to go. It's still at the shop? They at least give you a temporary ATT to get your pistol home, don't they? If buying a cheap pistol right off the bat is the way to get the ball rolling, then I think the TT-33 is the one I'll get. I've been thinking I would buy the .22 and the shotgun locally, just to support my local shops (who I am sure will be my main source of ammo at the very least) and leave online stores for my harder-to-find purchases. With my interest in Russian surplus junk, I'm expecting to deal with cosmoline. One site I looked at suggested that WD-40 is good at breaking down cosmoline. However, my firearms instructor strongly advised against getting WD-40 anywhere near your guns because it can penetrate into primers and cause misfires, and you can never completely get rid of it no matter how much you clean. He basically said "don't even use WD-40 in the same room as your guns and ammo." Any suggestions on the best way to clean cosmoline? -k

They interviewed me and my references last week! Hopefully that means that my license is on the way! So as I've been waiting for my license and doing all this window-shopping, I've come up with a wish-list that looks something like this: -a .22LR semi-auto for practice(Ruger 10/22 or Remington 597 probably) -Mosin-Nagant 91/30 -a 12ga shotgun (I would like to find one that comes with both short and long barrel as well as both full and pistol stock. That would give the versatility of both a real hunting shotgun as well as a really portable "wilderness defense" gun to take on an adventure.) -a cheap to buy, cheap to fire semi-auto pistol for practice (there are a lot of 1911-style pistols chambered in .22LR that would probably be a good choice, but a Tokarev TT-33 would be an interesting option as well.) -an SKS -a classic-style case-hardened single-action revolver in .357, maybe a Uberti. -a lever gun (had been looking at Marlin, but after reading about their quality control problems, I'm now looking at a Henry Big-Boy in .357) That should give me the chance to try different kinds of guns and different kinds of shooting. Only the lever action and the revolver are expensive. -k

In lots of ways, I've been very fortunate. I'm smart and physically gifted and and cute as a bug's ear, and grew up in a home where we weren't wealthy but were certainly never short of anything we needed. On the other hand, I grew up with an alcoholic mother who was emotionally and often physically abusive to me. That's not an appeal for sympathy or anything like that, and it's not an invitation for people to psychoanalyze me. It's just so that if I talk about hardship and fear and hopelessness, you understand that I'm not talking about the time my N*Sync CD got a scratch in it. Like Bonam said. If your plans fizzle out, make new plans. How do I board up my windows before the storm gets here? As best I can. Have the intelligence to think ahead, and the sense to start preparing. None of us have crystal balls, we just do the best we can. I'm pretty worried about the future in terms of things like the economy and my future financial security... so I'm doing as much as I can to plan for it right now. Lots of savings, paying off my mortgage as fast as I can, trying to plan a future where I have very low expenses and can provide a lot of the things I need on my own. That sort of thing. Utter devastation? If it's utter devastation, I'll be dead. If I'm still alive, it's not utter devastation and I'll get busy trying to decide what to do next. My buoy? What will keep me going when everything seems lost? Just the knowledge that this is the only life I'll ever have. What stronger motivation could there be than knowing you only have one chance? I mean, what would a Christian do? Sure, she'd pray and trust in god and all that good stuff, but she can't just sit there waiting for got to solve her problems, she has to do everything she can to carry on too. I'd do exactly the same. The only difference between me and her is that she carries on because she thinks it's part of god's plan and that things will work out eventually, while I carry on because this is the only life I will ever have and giving up isn't an option. -k

We agree on that much. This part, not so much. For me, the billions of years that follow my death are going to seem exactly like the billions of years that preceded my birth. They won't seem like anything. I'm not afraid of what happens after I die. I am somewhat worried about the dying part, however. And it's been my observation that Christians have the same worries as everybody else: Are my kids safe? What if I lose my job? What if it's cancer? How am I going to pay my rent this month? When the storm comes, Christians are boarding up their windows just like everybody else. Christians understand (like everybody else) that whatever happens after they die, they still have to take care of their responsibilities in the here and now. Feel which way? Tranquil peace? I find tranquil peace when I am hiking in the hills and when I'm kayaking on the lake. I find relief from my daily cares when I engage in activities that let me experience the joy of being in the moment. For me that includes things like my running and exercise, my time with my punching-bag and boxing with my friend/instructor. When I want to put aside the things I need to worry about for a while, I just do things that make me forget about the future and past and focus on the immediate. How do I deal with hardship? First off, perspective: realize that what might seem like hardship at the moment isn't really hardship. Billions of people on this earth would trade their hardships for mine without a second thought. My big worries, when it comes down to it, really aren't very big at all. Secondly, accountability: realize that I'm responsible for taking care of myself. Whatever worries me, I have to deal with those worries. If I don't get the windows boarded up before the storm gets here, it's my fault, not god's or anybody else's. And finally, I don't think we should meekly accept that anything is "god's plan". I think we're all responsible for doing everything in our power. If there's a god, he'd want it that way. His plan would be "deal with it". It's up to us to support things we think are right and oppose things we think are wrong. When I get to the end of the road, I think my greatest regret will probably be not doing more to fight things I think are wrong. -k

Minor note: If you were born after 1962 (that's most of us, I assume) the age of eligibility for OAS isn't 65, it's 67. That was implemented this year. Suggestion for younger members: plan your retirement based on the assumption that the age of eligibility is going to keep increasing, and the benefits aren't going to keep pace with the cost of living. In other words, we're on our own. Save now, and save hard. -k

I believe Apple has lost a few of these patent lawsuits in Europe recently. -k

How does the pipeline get a higher price for our oil? As far as I can tell, the idea is for China to get their oil cheaper, not to get us a higher price for it. Most of the royalties go to the provinces. The federal government will collect taxes from the new jobs created, and if we're lucky they might even collect some taxes from the corporations involved... Trying to sell this as a boost for all Canadians is a bit of a stretch, considering how fiercely Alberta guards its royalties, how fiercely the industry fought against Ed Stalmach when he had the gall to suggest that royalties ought to increase, all the subsidies and tax breaks that have been given to oil companies over the years... I think it's pretty clear that the big beneficiaries of this project are the corporations involved, not the average Canadians. If it's all about the market, then the market can find its way to make the pipeline happen. They can file the cost of compensating natives and addressing BC's environmental concerns under "costs of doing business". I just don't see a big rush. What's the worst that could happen? The oil doesn't get sold as fast? The oil stays in the ground longer? That's not such a bad thing. It'll only become more valuable as time goes on. It might be a big rush for China, and it might be a big rush for a few big corporations, but I don't think it's a big rush for you or me. -k

When you posted this, I interpreted the to indicate sarcasm. Sorry if I misinterpreted it. There was one just a couple of pages back (where he likened me to Captain Ahab hunting for the white whale). Happens periodically. He's accused me of hating on Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, and Tim Tebow because they're Christians as well. (for the record, false. I hate on them because they're a fascist, a scumbag, a jackass, and an overhyped player who sucks, respectively.) Perhaps what you hear about isn't the ultimate barometer on what Americans are talking about? As a quick trip to Google would show you, it was quite a widely discussed incident, with gay activists on one side crying "bigot!" and Christian activists on the other crying that Kirk Cameron was being attacked for his religious beliefs. Is it the kind of news that will affect your job or your mortgage or your social security? Of course not. But it's indicative of the battles that are being fought in the "culture wars" (the current one: Chick-Fil-A.) Well, here for example: Of course. Lots of religious people do good things. Lots of religious charities help people all over the world. Most of the religious people I know are very decent people in every respect. I could point to a good number of Christian politicians patting other Christians on the back for the important things they do in America (the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives is basically that very thing enshrined as government policy-- "religious charities are great! let's give them money so that they can do more great things!") And I could dredge up quotes from Archbishops Dolan and Lori reminding everybody how much important work Catholic Charities does in America in the preamble to their attacks against President Obama. I could also find plenty of Christian scholars claiming that Christian theology was the guiding principle behind the civil rights movement or womens' suffrage or the end of slavery. I could find you pastors talking about how Christians are the ones fighting the forces of darkness, defending families, keeping America strong, all that good stuff. I could find you lots of examples of regular people doing the same. If you'd like me to turn it into a big research project I could. But if you'd just like an example of what I'm talking about, here's one. Furthermore, to hear tell, religion is all bad. Yet the fact is, religious groups have done wonders around the world, helping establish schools, medical centers, hospitals, orphanages, sponsorships - I've seen it first hand. I've heard the testimonies from those benefiting - I've heard the appreciation. Since you seem determined to compare, I have to wonder - how many gay organizations have done the same? -k

I watched yesterday.There's obviously a couple of disclaimers that come with a film like this. First off, trying to explain such a complicated topic in the context of a two-hour movie is going to result in some oversimplification that detracts from the accuracy of the information. Secondly, there's certainly an editorial bias. With that out of the way, here are the major lessons I got from the movie. 1) The buck doesn't stop here. The heart of the problem is that the banks found a way to make risky investments and pass the risk along to somebody else. You would think that a bank would be careful to give mortgages to people who people who were likely to pay them back, and careful to avoid giving mortgages to people who were likely to default. And once upon a time, you would have been right to think that. But with the rise of deregulation in the 1990s, as well as the invention of complicated financial products called "derivatives" and "collateralized debt obligations" (CDOs) that was no longer true. It became possible for the banks to package up mortgages into bundles and sell them as "CDOs" to investors. In particular, the banks were able to hide sub-prime mortgages inside CDOs. The buyers of the CDOs didn't know that they were buying sub-prime mortgages, they just knew that they were buying a financial product that would provide X% return, and credit rating agencies like Moody's and S&P gave CDOs high credit ratings, so they felt safe. Disturbingly, the invention of CDOs made it *MORE* appealing for banks to give risky mortgages than safe mortgages, because risky mortgages gave higher interest rates. If a deadbeat came in and asked for a mortgage, the old-style thinking would be "We shouldn't give him a mortgage because he's a high risk to default and I will be on the hook." The new-style thinking would be "I should give him a mortgage, because we can get a high interest rate from him, and if he defaults it doesn't matter to me, it'll impact some sucker buys this mortgage from us." It's even more confusing than that, because the "securitization chain" passes through several different stages with added factors like default insurance and "credit default swaps" that it's difficult to know who exactly gets stuck with the bill if the mortgage defaults. But the short version of the story is that when banks thought they were free from the consequences of giving out risky loans, they started giving out risky loans as fast as they could. 2) People had powerful incentive to screw the future for the sake of short-term gain. I'm not talking our children or our children's children, I'm talking next year. These companies-- Lehmann Brothers, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, etc, had executives who earned hundreds of millions of dollars based on the company's performance in 2005. And again in 2006. And again in 2007. Everything exploded in 2008, but so what? They already had their hundreds of millions of dollars. That goes all the way down the food chain. The guys at the banks who got bonuses for selling more risky mortgages didn't have any reason to worry whether those mortgages defaulted in a year, because they already pocketed their bonus. The guys at AIG who got bonuses for selling more default insurance and credit default swaps didn't have any reason to worry that the defaults might ultimately kill AIG, because their bonuses were based on their sales, not the outcomes. This is closely linked to lesson #1, because the basic message is the same: if you reward people for taking risks, and they don't face any consequences if their risks don't pan out, they will act recklessly. 3) The foxes are guarding the hen house. Another key point the film makes is that the finance industry has become so complicated that only experts can understand what's going on, and the experts work for the financial industry. If you're a politician and you need policy advice on financial issues, who do you talk to? Well, you could ask industry professionals, but they obviously have a vested interest. You could ask experts working for the government's finance department... but within a few years those experts will be working for the financial giants, so they have a vested interest too. Politicians go to top academic experts, professors from schools like Harvard and Columbia... but those guys also make huge coin doing consulting work for the financial industry. What it boils down to is that the people that politicians could go to to help figure out how to deal with the finance industry happen to be people who have a vested interest in making sure that the financial industry makes as much money as possible. And it turns out that many of the people that Obama selected to help plan the recovery and rebuilding of the financial sector were key figures in designing the policies that led to the 2008 collapse. So overall it was a very depressing film that left me sad and worried. -k

Anger is only a bad thing if it's misdirected or channeled in inappropriate ways. As I recall, I pointed out at the time that if you really believed little Rachel was in real danger, you had a duty to notify law enforcement authorities. I bet you never called the police or the FBI, did you. I think we all know that you didn't believe there was any real intent of harm and that you were just talking about "the threats against little Rachel" to hype the idea that Christians are persecuted. If you think anything I'm doing is "persecution" then you're an example of exactly what I'm here to mock. -k

I don't think I need to explain to you that I was being snide in my previous post. The word "bigot" is thrown around pretty loosely on this forum, so it doesn't concern me too much. You have to consider the source... and in this case, the source is Shady, which kind of speaks for itself. You're willing to stand in the pocket and try and tell me why you think I'm wrong. I disagree with you, but I respect that you're willing to argue your case. Shady, on the other hand, is like a frickin' cuckoo clock. Sticks his head out at regular intervals, says "Kimmy's a bigot!" then vanishes again. Shady was, of course, one of the motivations behind this thread. Shady continuously regurgitates these right-wing talking-points that "Christians are the only group in America that you're allowed to discriminate against!" and that other great myth, "The War on Christmas". I think those are both laughable and stupid claims, and created this thread in part as an invitation to slug it out on either or both of them. There are several things wrong with that. First off, I don't post "every little wrongdoing". I could post from sun-up to sun-down and not come close to documenting "every little wrongdoing". For the most part, I have tried to keep the focus here on stories where Christians claim they're being persecuted as a means of obtaining political currency or claiming a moral high ground. And sometimes stories where Christians bring an avalanche of criticism upon themselves by being asses. And stories that particularly tickled my funny bone. I've skipped plenty of stories that didn't really fit the theme. I've skipped plenty of stories that I just didn't have time to write about (For example I was going to laugh at the dumb-ass Christians crying "What about Kirk Cameron's freedom of speech??" after he went on TV and made anti-gay remarks and got in a shitstorm of negative publicity. But I just didn't have time.) But I assure you, AW, if the topic of this thread was "Scumbag Christians" instead of "Persecuted Christians in America," it could be thousands of posts long by now. If you really think I'm posting "every little wrongdoing" or if you think all this is about "one bad pastor", you have your head in the sand. I'll leave it at that. Second, so what if I focus more on Christians than on some other group? If there's a writer who focuses his columns on criticizing (hypothetically) the financial industry, does the fact that he doesn't devote equal time to criticizing (say) the military mean that he is unduly biased against the financial industry? Does that make his criticism of finance invalid? I write about a variety of topics that interest me, and this is one of them. I don't think this is a valid complaint at all. And finally, I've never criticized all Christians, and never claimed that Christianity is all negative and no positive. That is simply not true. I certainly agree that churches do some good things. I don't think they need me to pat them on the back for it. They do a plenty fine job of that themselves. -k

What is the real need for this project? To get oil to China faster? To help big corporations get rich faster? I'm not opposed to China getting their oil, and I'm not opposed to corporations making profits. But I'm not convinced that either of those things should be high priorities for me or other average Canadians. What is the benefit of this for the average Canadian? I guess the big carrot being dangled for us is "jobs!" But where? There'll be some short-term construction jobs. And there'll be some port jobs created in Kitimat. (I assume that they'll be able to find people willing to relocate to Kitimat for work.) And I'm sure this will add more gas to the fire in Fort McMurray, which is already swamped with far more workers than the city has infrastructure to handle, and where the labor shortage is so intense that Tim Hortons has to offer professional-like salaries to the people working the counter. But if jobs for Canadians was the real priority, we wouldn't be talking about shipping raw product overseas to be refined by foreign workers. I'm skeptical that any of this should be a high priority for average Canadians. If the corporations involved can raise the money to make it happen on their own, and negotiate all the deals, and pay all the bills themselves, then that's cool with me. But if not, I have a hard time seeing it as a loss to the average Canadian. -k

I will send you a cut of all my pistol-shooting winnings. She makes it look glorious, but I can't imagine myself doing something like that. I've got no riding experience at all. As I understand it, horses are about the most expensive hobby you can get into. Maybe some day. I could picture myself trying the non-mounted version... These two run a shooting range in my hometown of Awesometon Alberta. My instructor said that they take about a month and a half, so I have a couple of weeks to go. -k

I don't see why we would export bitumen at all. We ought to be doing the value-added part of the process in Canada. As for Christy Clark... she's a lightweight. I had high hopes for her when she became leader, but she's been a complete dud. I think it's painfully obvious that what's going on here is a floundering politician grandstanding for the folks back home. Was walking out of the conference on an interprovincial energy strategy was a move designed to get news headlines, not to advance BC's position among the other provinces. BC has considerable energy interests of its own. Cheesy grandstanding isn't the best way to represent those interests. As British Columbians, do we really want to set a precedent when somebody wants to do a project like this is to try and shake them down? -k

I have a confession to make... I am a bigot. I am extremely bigoted against scumbags. Scumbag politicians, scumbag bankers, scumbag media people, scumbag police officers, scumbag criminals, scumbags of all descriptions. And it turns out that there are a lot of religious scumbags as well. And some people might think that we should not talk about scumbaggery when it is committed by people who say their religion demands it. But I don't agree. -k

For some people, walking and chewing gum at the same time is a challenge. For others, riding a horse full speed while shooting a single-action pistol is a breeze! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVzRRDZY-8M -k

A couple of big items from the banking world seem to be getting surprisingly little attention. The first is the LIBOR scandal, in which banks have been caught conspiring to rig the "London Inter-Bank Offered Rate", which is an interest rate benchmark that is used throughout the global financial community. Only Barclay's bank has been punished so far, but other banks are being investigated as well, and because of the way LIBOR is calculated, a considerable number of banks would have to be involved. I think that few people are concerned about LIBOR because most people don't understand any of this, and I certainly count myself among those who have no clue how this works. However, financial analysts believe that this is an issue of major importance, and that assets and loans directly affected by LIBOR rigging are valued in the hundreds of trillions of dollars. The second big news item from the banking world was the resignation of an HSBC executive after HBSC was caught laundering money for drug cartels, tax cheats, and terrorists. I am starting to wonder if the ethics of the financial sector only extend to questions like "what can we get away with?" and "will we get caught?" It might be some comfort that no Canadian banks have been named yet, but given the potential scale of the LIBOR scandal, "yet" is a key word there. -k

Not exactly on topic, I suppose... but does anybody here know anything about buying US real-estate? I have been looking at Canadian listings for undeveloped land in remote areas, trying to figure out when I will be able to afford to build my own little hillbilly haven way out in the sticks. And I've come to the conclusion that Canadian land is still pretty expensive. But I've been noticing that American land can be found for pretty cheap. So I have been considering the possibility of doing like the carpetbaggers of days of yore. Any thoughts? Is US land a good deal right now? Are there any down-sides to owning US land if you're a Canadian? -k

Are you sure they're harassing you because of your religious beliefs? Have you considered the possibility that they're harassing you because you're obnoxious? Food for thought... -k

Has this been mentioned already? The businessman featured in Mitt Romney's ad telling us what he built with his own hands also happened to be on the receiving end of over a million dollars of government "small business" grants. hmm. -k

Just to catch me up to speed... we're clamoring for new gun laws because some guy committed a mass shooting in a different country with different gun laws from ours? -k

August is, if I recall correctly, a professional mathematician of some description. Perhaps a mathematician is drawn to search for generalizations to help make sense of chaos. Scandinavians ---> blonde Scandinavians ---> Lutheran but Blonde ---> cheerful Blonde ---> dumb and Lutheran ---> honest, earnest .:. Scandinavians ---> Honest, earnest, cheerful, but dumb Scandinavians ---> Socialists .:. Socialists ---> Honest, earnest, cheerful, but dumb. It probably makes even more sense if you draw Venn diagrams. -k

Utterly shocking-- shocking!! that someone could suggest that intelligence could coincide with a phenotype. I would anticipate that the Political Correctness Police will be pounding at your door at any moment. -k

The Scandinavians are among the least religious people on earth. They're Lutheran in the same sense that Quebecois are Catholics. (ie, theoretically, on paper.) Are you sure? I don't know anything about mosques, but I have seen some pretty remarkable Catholic churches. It's no secret that I don't like much about religion, but I have to give them a big thumbs-up for awesome architecture. And the Catholics do it up better than most. Although, my Scandinavian ancestors built some pretty rocking churches as well. I think these predate Lutheranism, however. oooooh you're on extremely thin ice, you hapless mook. -k