kimmy

A few points: First off, I am not familiar with the definition of "harassment" under Pennsylvania law. The incident as related by Officer Curtis certainly sounds like it would meet the legal definition of assault, so it seems like a rather pointless distinction. Second, it seems entirely reasonable that the judge found there just wasn't enough evidence to support a conviction. I note that the judge did not allow the victim's cell-phone video of the incident into evidence. Finally, to me it's not the acquittal that seems noteworthy here, it is the judge's comments. Lecturing the victim on tenets of Islamic theology was a ridiculous tangent. Explaining that he was a "doofus" for wearing a "Zombie Muhammad" costume because (unlike Jesus) Muhammad did not rise from the dead is irrelevant to the substance of the case and invites speculation as to what the judge's intention really was. Going on to explain that in a Muslim country he could have been put to death for wearing that costume is even more inane. What point was he trying to make there? That the accused was actually going easy on him? Or just that he was lucky to be in the good ol' USA? But, as a point of fact the incident did indeed occur in the USA, which is an important point that we'll get back to. The most troubling aspect of the judge's comments is the comment that the victim went far beyond his first amendment rights by insulting Islam. To me that's an indefensible comment. Here in Canada, BS like that might fly... Mr Perce could probably have ended up in front of a human rights tribunal or something equally repulsive for wearing that costume. But in America? I don't think Americans accept the idea that your freedom of speech ends when the feelings of a religious person (or a brown person or a gay person) get hurt. I think that would be a very controversial statement for a sitting judge to make regardless of the facts of the trial, and I think he is fully deserving of the scrutiny that he is now receiving. -k

Use of the imperial measurements is "grandfathered in" to a lot of things. Construction, machine work, land surveys, sports, things like that. Basically for a few reasons... Sheer amount of work required to convert existing data to metric. Compatibility with long-established standards. Compatibility with American suppliers or customers. Tradition. I got the impression that the original poster was of the impression that Canada has recently switched to metric; in fact we've been metric for decades. A lot of us on the forum are not old enough to know what it was like before metric. Some things still tend to be most commonly given in imperial units (people's height and weight, furniture and drapes dimensions...) and other stuff is in metric (gas, groceries, speed, temperatures...) but it's a non-issue. People use both types of measurement with complete fluency. It's not complicated at all. If I'm watching a fight from England and they give the fighters' weights in "stones", I'm ok with that too. -k

I will also bet a virtual $5 on The Help. The Academy voters simply can't pass up an opportunity to show how socially progressive they are, and having an acclaimed civil rights-themed movie on the ballot is like putting a dish of Smarties in front of a fat kid. The other possibility, I suppose, might be Hugo, as Martin Scorsese is a sentimental favorite. -k

This may be why support for the death penalty is on the rise... high profile murderers have been in the news. The Robert Pickton trial, Clifford Olson died, Karla Homolka released... there are some people who are so sickening that the question "well why *not* execute them?" becomes a serious discussion. Somebody like Paul Bernardo or Clifford Olson ...there's no questions as to their guilt, and there's no way that monsters like this could ever be considered "rehabilitated" enough to ever be allowed out of prison. So ... why not the death penalty for cases like this? I think probably there are two main arguments... one is that the definition of "cases like this" is highly subjective. Any murder case that provokes strong emotion and public outrage could potentially become "cases like this". The other is a philosophical discussion about what limits should be placed on the power of the state. -k

"Michelle Obama's $1.4 million vacation" ...makes it sound like it was some absurd exercise in opulence. In truth the main reason her vacation is more expensive than yours is that she has to travel with extraordinary security precautions, including a bunch of guys in black suits and sunglasses. To me what the ad really illustrates is peoples' lack of perspective and how easily they get hung up on symbols. In Canada we saw the same thing at the G8 summit. Of the billion dollars of expenses for that fiasco, what was it that really set people off? The $2 million "fake lake". A billion dollars for police overtime and all of that sort of stuff was completely abstract to people... but a fake lake, that's something tangible for people to bitch about. And much the same with this ad. $1.4 million probably wouldn't even buy hubcaps for the armored personnel carriers driving around in Operation Why Are We Here Again? or the stationary for Operation Wall Street Bailout. Those activities are so expensive that it's completely abstract to people. But a $1.4 million vacation? That makes people mad because they can relate to it. People know it's 1000x more expensive than their own vacation and it gets them all agitated. -k

Yes, excellent point. In another thread, somebody speculated that the Obama vs Catholics birth control mandate controversy might be a clever ploy the Democrats cooked up so that Obama could reconcile with them and win support. I think a better conspiracy theory might be that if the birth control mandate controversy was planned, it was planned with the intention of turning the Republican primaries into a religious rage-out. I think it's pretty clear that what's going on right now isn't going to make the party more attractive to independents and centrists and the "Reagan Democrats" I keep hearing about. I think that if Rick can right the Irate Religious People vote to win the nomination, it'll pretty much sow up a second term. -k

What do you mean, "you people"? There's a constitutional discussion to be had, but that's not what last Thursday's hearing was about. If they were discussing constitutionality, they would have had legal experts instead of clergymen on the panel. If the title of the hearing didn't explain its purpose, the dudes holding 8 foot tall posters of Martin Luther King and Gandhi should have made it pretty clear. They weren't there to examine constitutional issues, they were there to cast the clergymen as modern-day negroes, Obama as their oppressor, and Issa and his team as civil rights heroes. The hearing wasn't about the constitutionality of the mandate, it was political theatre. And it backfired. They wanted to leave everybody with a religious freedom message, but that's not how it worked out. At the end of the day, the winning political message of the day was that picture. They completely blew it. They lost control of the narrative. They got beat. They didn't just get beat, they got beat up. They got the shit kicked out of them. They got curb-stomped. I'm not sure if you realize quite how badly things went for Darrell Issa and his panel last week, soI've prepared this video presentation to better illustrate it for you. And that's why this issue has been so much less prominent in the past week. Between last Thursday's debacle at the oversight committee hearing, and the Virginia abortion law, and the publicity surrounding Rick Santorum... the Republicans have come to realize that continuing to hard-sell this issue would be politically disastrous. -k

It has been a rather quiet week on the "ZOMG Obama is trampling religious freedoms!!!" front, and I suspect that the reason for that is the savage ass-kicking that Darrell Issa took last Thursday. Issa led the Congressional Oversight hearing last Thursday on the subject of the contraception mandate. They figured they had a political winner. They called the hearing "Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?" which (aside from being the best title since the Derek Zoolander Center For Children Who Can't Read Good And Wanna Learn To Do Other Stuff Good Too) gives a pretty clear idea where they wanted to take things. After all, everybody loves freedom. Protecting religious liberty is a can't-miss angle, right? They even had staffers holding up giant posters of Gandhi and Kennedy and Martin Luther King to make the point extra-clear. But then THIS image of Issa's panel went viral. If you're male, you may not realize how enraging that picture is. Darrell Issa probably didn't realize at the time. He found out later on. They did have a couple of women on the afternoon panel, but by that time the damage was already done. If Issa could have a do-over, he'd probably schedule things so that the token females were on the morning panel instead of the afternoon panel. If he could have a do-over, he probably also wouldn't have kicked Sandra Fluke off the morning panel. Sandra Fluke was the witness the Democrats signed up for the hearings; she's a Georgetown University student leader who had a story about a classmate who lost her ovaries because the treatment for ovarian cysts happens to be birth-control pills that the university wouldn't cover. Issa excluded her because she was "not qualified"... while he probably intended that to mean theological expertise, the picture that went viral gave the impression that the qualifications to be on Issa's panel are a black suit and a dick. He gained little by excluding her from the panel anyway; after the publicity the morning session raised, Sandra Fluke made a media appearance and her statement was printed by a number of media outlets and was read into testimony by the Democratic representative anyway. It's a fair bet that Miss Fluke's statement got a lot more publicity due to the controversy that it would have received if she had been allowed to participate in the panel. When Issa got home and discovered that the picture of the all-male panel had gone viral and that #wherearethewomen had become a trending topic on Twitter, he decided to fight back by comparing his panel to Martin Luther King, which of course is always a good idea. With Thursday turning into a day that he'd rather forget, Issa hastily departed from the contraception biz to concentrate on his OPEN Act --the new improved SOPA-- which I'm sure will be wildly popular. -k

French photographer Remi Ochlik and American reporter Marie Colvin were killed today in Syria, and from what I heard on CBC radio as I was driving home, there is some belief that they were intentionally targeted by Syrian forces. I just read this article about Marie Colvin and it sounds like she was an amazing person. That eye-patch is not just a bad-ass fashion statement; she lost her left eye to shrapnel while covering the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka. She also covered conflict in Kosovo, East Timor, Libya, Lebanon, three different wars in Iraq, and more. She met with Moammar Gaddafi often enough over the past 25 years that she wrote a book about it, called "Mad Dog and Me". The part of the article that jumped out most was this: They played Colvin's final report on CBC tonight, describing the death of an infant who had been hit by shrapnel; the child was beyond medical help and they could only watch helplessly. I think it would take an extraordinary person to keep throwing themselves into situations like that, where they face not only danger to themselves, but also knowing that they would see things that nobody would want to see. I would think that by this stage of her career, money was no longer a motivator and she must have been driven by passion (or perhaps mental illness?) The nature of her work made the way she died unsurprising to her friends, and probably to Colvin herself: -k

The "Personhood Pledge" states that life begins at the moment of conception. Santorum, Paul, and Gingrich (as well as the losers) signed it. Romney is the only holdout. Gingrich later clarified his position: he would not protect a fertilized egg until it is successfully implanted. Newt's view is that protecting an egg prior to implantation is an untenable position because it creates a whole slew of ethical and legal problems, and ignores the medical reality that the majority of fertilized eggs fail to implant even without any interference. That position enraged pro-lifers. Newt's a dick, but I think he deserves some respect for having the intelligence to recognize the problem with granting rights at the moment of conception, and the integrity to say so. Rick either doesn't recognize the problem, or he's lying to somebody. Rick says he's "not coming for your contraceptives", but he's a signatory to the Personhood Pledge who has vowed to protect life from the moment of conception. That basically means banning every form of contraception except the condom. Hormonal contraceptives and the IUD can prevent fertilized eggs from implanting, which is murder in Santorum's world. -k

In a way, I agree. As a teenager I spent quite a bit of time looking into religions. It seemed so important to other people, that I started to wonder if I was missing out on something. So I set out to find out what I was missing. But I could never get into it. As I read, I kept coming back to the same question: why do people believe this stuff? I get that people have a need to believe in things, maybe to believe in a creator, and maybe greater meaning. But what I can't get is how people look at any particular religion and say "yeah, this is the truth. These guys have it all figured out. These guys have been granted information from a higher source, and everybody else is wrong. This is what it's really all about." -k

Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson: -k

I'm not saying that god has been eliminated. I am saying is that god is no longer (as Moonlight put it) a "tyrannical dictator of morality". The morality that our religions endorse has become (as Moonlight put it) a "democratic regime of morality". The morality endorsed by religions in our society has changed in accordance with the views of our society. Why did European Christians stop burning accused witches? Because Europeans came to realize that it was barbaric. Why do African Christians continue to kill accused witches? For the same reason that non-Christian Africans continue to kill accused witches. -k

I disagree. We have lots of different forces trying to shape public opinion (and the church remains one of them) but ultimately there's no single source leading it. No prime minister or religious leader or public figure has the power to redefine what our culture understands as right and wrong. These people have what influence they have because their vision fits closely enough to a large enough number of people. If they fall out of step with the vision of their supporters, that influence would vanish very rapidly. If some political leader announced he was bringing back slavery, or if a religious leader announced that it was time to put sinners to death, there would be a mass exodus of their supporters and their influence would vanish in a heartbeat. Ralph Klein once said that the way to succeed in politics is to figure out where the parade is heading, and get there first. I don't think any politician or religious leader or public figure is capable of directing the parade where he wants it to go. A leader who tries to tell the parade where to go and waits for it there is going to end up by himself with no parade and no further relevance. -k

I wasn't sure whether to put this here or in the arts and culture forum. I picked here because I thought it would appeal to some of you who are fans of classic aircraft. I recently saw a gripping animation depicting a WWII dogfight between two relentless pilots of a Spitfire and a Messerschmitt 109. Although animated, the two aircraft are shown in tremendous detail. I really enjoyed the sense of motion the film gives. Most of us only get to fly in the passenger seat of aircraft that make slow turns, go straight, and stay at the same altitude for most of the trip. This animation gives an idea what it might be like to be in a swooping, agile aircraft trying to pursue and evade another swooping, agile aircraft and keep it in the sights long enough to shoot it down. I am sure there's some artistic license here, but overall I thought it was terrific. It's from Poland, and I gather it's by a film-school student. I would give him an A+. Fair warning: the film makes a rather startling change in tone at about 5:50, which is foreshadowed by the title. I found it rather jarring, and if you're just interested in the planes, you might want to stop watching at 5:49... Regardless, I really enjoyed this video. Without further ado... Paths of Hate. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2XOcfQZlDk Higher resolution version: -k

We already have, don't you think? Religious people like to talk about how their faith gives them an absolute morality grounded on higher principles; us faithless heathens on the other hand have no basis for morality, or so they claim. But the Bible is full of ideas that we have rejected (and the same can be said for probably any other religious scripture as well.) We have thrown away a huge number of laws from the Bible, and kept just a few very important principles-- principles that coincidentally happen to be almost universal across virtually every human society. The Bible says to put adulterers and gays and disobedient children to death; even conservative Christians and Jews know that is morally reprehensible. Would they say that if their religion were a source of "absolute morality"? No, they wouldn't. Their religion's morality has evolved over time and is really not absolute at all. In fact the way people understand and interpret their scripture is a product of the society they live in; as western society has become more enlightened its religion has followed. I think we've already more or less overthrown god and installed a democratic regime, Moonlight. -k

I applaud you. That's an idea that some religious people are simply not able to grasp. -k

In the other Santorum thread, sharkman asked for more information about why I don't like the guy's politics, and I didn't respond at the time. Since the other thread has turned into Shady's Gay Marriage and Polygamy Chapel, I'll respond here. Rick on personal freedom: Rick on why the state does belong in your bedroom: Interview Santorum on contraception: Transcript of that quote; original source of October interview Rick on support for Planned Parenthood: Interview on Fox Rick on support for Planned Parenthood: Santorum campaign Rick on support for Planned Parenthood: Source Rick on whether he'd ban contraception: Washington Post intervew (reminder: Rick on whether people are free to make their own decisions: )Rick on whether state governments have the right to ban contraception: Washington Post intervew Rick on whether state governments have the right to ban contraception ABC interview -k

To be clear, I was just talking about how he delivers his message in debate and speeches. -k

So to sum up... Michael's a leftist poseur for thinking that modern western Christians ought to be above sending their kids to a brainwashing boot-camp? Have I got that right? I would say that if Michael is guilty of anything, it's naivety. Nothing that the true fanatics might do ought to be surprising. -k

Actually I'm pretty sure she confessed illegal drug use to Oprah during an interview. I think that's neither here nor there. People with enough money have access to whatever they want, be it legal or not. And people seem to destroy their lives equally well with legal drugs or illegal drugs. That hockey player last summer died from legal painkillers his brother got him, didn't he? To me the big question is why so many of the rich and famous seem to get into this sort of trouble. -k

So, the Cole's Notes version of the story goes like this: a 23 year old Saudi man named Hamza Kashgari expresses religious doubts on Twitter. The entire kingdom of Saudi Arabia goes APESHIT and Hamza flees the country. Unfortunately for him, he gets nabbed by Interpol in Malaysia and returned to Saudi Arabia where he's in danger of being executed for blasphemy. I'm not exactly sure why Interpol would be acting as the international arm of Saudi Arabia's religious fedayeen, but I think they ought to answer for it. Regardless, that's beside the point. And the point is just this: these people are scum. I don't think there's anything I could say that describes how repulsive the Saudis are in quite the same way as letting Sheikh Nasser Al Omar tell you about it himself. Watch this 70-year old infant bawl like a baby as he pleads for the death of a 23 year old man for hurting the feelings of an omnipotent supreme being and a guy who's been dead for 1400 years. The only way you can have any peace with people like this is to make sure you never come anywhere near them. That's all I can think of to say right now. -k

We in BC are familiar with the difficulties of prosecuting Mormon bigamists. Not sure if you easterners are aware of the situation, but here in BC there's a town called "Bountiful" where a kook named Winston Blackmore and his followers practice polygamy. Authorities have been looking for a way to prosecute him, but have concentrated on avenues like tax evasion and finding underage brides, because they are afraid that a polygamy charge will not survive in court. And the stumbling block is not those darned homos, but rather religious freedom. Authorities in the United States are about to experience the same headache, and once again the headache will not be those darned homos, but rather constitutionally guaranteed religious freedom. I'm confused, Shady. Up until today you were a staunch defender of religious freedom. What happened? Why aren't you standing behind these poor Christians who are being persecuted for their religious beliefs? As Rick Santorum would say, America is the only country on earth where rights are granted by God rather than by government, and these people believe God wants them to have lots and lots of wives and some flawed human-made government is standing in their way. Is that right? I ask you. Is that right? How can the laws of man stand in the way of what God himself told Joseph Smith to inscribe on those brass tablets? Does that seem right? When did you start hating religious freedom, Shady? You changed, man. It used to be about the music. -k

Those who eschew contraception are certainly free to not buy contraceptives... their right to exercise their religion has not been impaired. -k

Whether the beer companies did anything *illegal* isn't really the issue. It's a lawsuit, not a criminal trial. The real question is whether they did anything *embarrassing* enough to make them want to settle this out of court. I suspect that the beer companies are probably concerned that they might look bad when it becomes news that they have been dumping 5 million cans of beer a year into a town of 10 people that just happens to be 50 feet across the border from a reservation that has banned alcohol to combat epidemic fetal alcohol syndrome. Legal or not, it looks like the epitome of corporations that just care about money and don't feel any social responsibility whatsoever. It'd be like Raytheon setting up a new rocket-launcher retail outlet in the West Bank. -k