kimmy

Hey, maybe once Sheriff Joe has found Obama's real birth certificate, he can help OJ Simpson track down the real killers. How many times have Sheriff Joe and his "posse" promised "universe-shattering" revelations regarding Obama? How many times have they failed to deliver? Friday's press conference once again left the universe remarkably un-shattered. Friday's press conference is remarkable only in confirming how thoroughly unshattering Sheriff Joe's work has been. Maricopa County has literally hundreds of rape cases that have never even been opened because "he didn't have the manpower", yet he's wasted his manpower and resources and taxpaper money on this idiocy for 8 years, and still has little to show for it. It has, however, helped him bilk enough money out of suckers to fund his re-election campaigns. Maybe he's now reviving this because he's now facing jail time for contempt of court over repeated civil rights violations. Sheriff Joe is the idol of idiot-worshippers. If you're looking to Sheriff Joe to finally deliver "universe-shattering" revelations after years and years of failure, you're a colossal sucker. There's no other word for it. Sorry. -k

Whether Obama was telling the truth or not, it is a verifiable event that he said it. Whether the President was telling the truth or not, the fact that those words came from his mouth is an objective fact. There is a world of difference between reporting a verifiable event-- even if one of the people involved is conveying a falsehood-- and reporting pure fiction. I think it's ludicrous to attempt to equate the two. At present we have people who contend that Russian hacking is "fake news", because they believe that James Comey and John Brennan and Dick Clapper are all lying. No, it's verifiable that Comey and Brennan and Clapper have all stated that Russia was involved in politically motivated hacking. Now, if the reader wishes to conclude that the FBI and CIA and National Intelligence directors are all lying to them, that's up to the reader, but the statements from the 3 of them are all verifiable from many independent sources. By contrast, we have something like #PizzaGate, which exists because a bunch of deranged basement-dwellers at 4chan decided that since they use the phrase "cheese pizza" when talking about their child porn, John Podesta's favorite pizza shop must actually be a haven for pedophiles. And with the help of some script-bots and some "alt right" Twitter celebrities, this becomes a Twitter Trending Topic, and that's how fake news is made. To put utter fiction on an even playing field with real news because sometimes real news includes real political figures telling lies is completely inane. Some people have apparently decided that since real news sources have been used to promote lies, they're going to put their trust in psychopaths like Alex Jones, or the basement dwellers at 4chan, or whatever crap their friends "like" on Facebook. -k

Sheriff Joe has been saying for years that he has "proof". What's different this time? -k

We live in a world where a mental retard with an assault rifle stormed a pizza shop to free child sex slaves because a bunch of other mental retards made up a ridiculous story and posted it on Twitter. But it's no surprise that Breitbart would consider attempts to flag fake content as an attack on their readership. Alex Jones is no doubt equally angry. -k

Civil protest is a right of all Americans! -k

They've got an education secretary who wants to destroy public schools, a treasury secretary who wants to destroy financial regulation, an environment secretary who wants to destroy environmental regulation, a labor secretary who has fought tooth and nail against worker wages and benefits, an attorney general who's an opponent of civil rights... a lot of Trump supporters had this notion that he was different from "the Republican Establishment", but most of his cabinet picks appear to be straight from the Republican Establishment wish-list. -k

So first off it says "have experienced spousal violence", but does not claim that half of women are experiencing spousal violence on an ongoing basis. As well, the page you've linked to says "Half of all women in Canada have experienced at least one incident of physical or sexual violence since the age of 16" but does not specify spousal violence. As well, I strongly suspect that Canada has a broader standard as to what qualifies as spousal violence than Morocco. And I strongly suspect that Canada has much higher reportage and enforcement than Morocco. As with many statistics, this sort of thing needs qualification. I just heard on the news that Kim City has twice as many drunk driving incidents per capita as Vancouver. Does that mean that Kim City residents are drunken scofflaws? or does it mean that Kim City police are much better at catching drunk drivers than Vancouver police, on account of we only have one street? While crime statistics overall are on the decline, statistics for sexual violence have not mirrored the trend. Does that mean that these crimes are increasing in frequency, or does it mean that these crimes are being reported and enforced more vigorously? I think what's profoundly disturbing is that spousal violence in Morocco is apparently so normalized that a TV station seemed to think that covering facial bruises is the kind of lifestyle advice that women would find useful. -k

Having now finished watching the first season, I need to also mention Alfre Woodard, who portrays Cottonmouth's older step-sister, a corrupt Harlem politician named Mariah Dillard. She is not prominent during the first half of the season, but becomes a central figure in the second half. Woodard has an uninterrupted string of acting credits that's 40 years long, so it's no surprise that she makes Councilwoman Dillard a treat to watch. Woodard and Ali are both really great in this show. -k

I agree, but I still think the evidence needs to be put on the table and publicly discussed. Until such time as it's made available for all to see, there will continue to be suspicion that this is partisan politics as opposed to a demonstrable event. -k

huh? whaaaa? -k

Is there something wrong with the dictionary definition? A technology is a method of doing something... from the first time a human used a rock to grind grain into a more edible form, to the latest advances in integrated circuit manufacturing, it's all still about finding better ways to do things. Applied mathematics is a technology that allows us to quantify, model, and analyze. Newton invented calculus because he needed better tools to solve the problems he was studying... other mathematicians may be interested in it from a purely theoretical standpoint, but even then their research further expands the capabilities of mathematics as a technology for solving actual problems. Nuclear theory eventually led to nuclear technology. Ultimately, whenever people apply knowledge to solving problems, that's "technology". yes. Technology is about solving problems, and the problem of how to connect people to one another is one of the most fundamental problems in human history. Whether it be using ravens to deliver notes or smoke signals or the invention of the telegraph and the radio or the latest social networking website, finding better or at least new ways to communicate is one of the most fundamental human needs and therefore one of the most fundamental applications of technology.* In particular, finding new and better ways of connecting buyers and sellers is an area of technology that has obviously huge economic importance. I was thinking the other day that the arrival of eBay was perhaps a milestone the history of commerce. Perhaps Amazon as well... although, not from the outset, but at some point they evolved from Online Book Retailer to international retail platform. Currently I think sites like AliExpress and similar are breaking new ground... regular suckers like you and me can now get directly in contact with the dodgiest manufacturers in China. By the way, August, as I write this message I can simply highlight portions of your previous post and then click the "Quote This" pop-up that appears in my browser. The new forum software is great! For purposes of this thread... it is an advance in communications technology! When I first read this, my initial reaction was spontaneous out-loud laughter. I think the Internet has proven itself to be the most technologically sophisticated means of distributing utter bullshit in the history of our species. Goebbels is probably jizzing in his grave at the possibilities of what he could have done if he had the internet at his disposal. I think the current #PizzaGate fiasco demonstrates everything that need be said about the Internet as far as "honesty" is concerned. However, I do agree that this is an area of technology of ever-increasing importance. Honesty and reputation... how to ensure your online credentials with your bank, how to protect yourself from identity fraud, how to ensure that you're buying real products from real suppliers when you purchase things online. This sort of thing. * other fundamental applications of technology: healthcare, food production, energy production, transportation, shelter and comfort. -k

Those are handsome boys! I especially like the distinguished gentleman with the white whiskers. My kitty died this summer -k

I don't think "drawing customers" is a consideration for military or search-and-rescue purchasing decisions. In my business, we get paid by delivering results, and our customers don't care which equipment we use provided that the results are there. The capabilities of the aircraft are important, but also important is being able to afford to purchase an adequate number of aircraft to provide the coverage needed, and being able to afford to keep them flying. What I'm reading seems to indicate that the C27J aircraft has higher performance, but is a much more expensive aircraft, somewhere in the range of 50% more per unit. Do the slightly greater capabilities of the C27J aircraft outweigh the potential of buying 50% more of the C295? Given the amount of territory we have to cover, I would think the ability to purchase more aircraft would outweigh some modest performance advantages. -k

Rudy Giuliani has pulled himself out of contention for a cabinet post. Kellyanne Conway apparently also doesn't want a full-time job with the administration. She wants to spend time with her children, and working for the administration can be a 24/7 responsibility. And, as I mentioned earlier, working at a government salary would be a huge pay-cut for her. She made millions in just a few months working for Trump, and with the reputation she has built, she can rake in more millions as a consultant over the next couple of years and then really cash in working for some Republican senator in the 2018 elections. -k

They had announced the intent to put a woman on a bill, and apparently the most significant Canadian woman they could find was one who got busted for loitering. -k

That's a good point. These are interesting comments. Regarding football: I've written here before about my theory that allegiance to sports teams fills more or less the same psychological spot in our heads as allegiance to a religion. I suspect that it's actually all just about tribalism. I think that we're biologically predisposed to tribalism-- to form alliances around common identities, even if they be superficial ones. Whether it be a religious organization or a political organization, or whether it be a shared enthusiasm for a sports team or a musical performer or a fashion trend or a movie franchise, most people crave to belong to something. Regarding shopping: I recently saw a headline about neurological research suggesting that brand iconography in brand enthusiasts inspired similar neurological responses to what religious iconography inspires in religious believers. I didn't read the article, but I will see if I can dredge it up. I do think that buying things scratches a psychological itch that is deeper than we realize. Regarding points 1, 2, and 3: I think these make sense. I think peer pressure is noteworthy. If you live in a city, people are likely to be doing their own thing... I don't know where any of the people in my building spend their Sunday mornings. On the other hand if you live in a small town, you might stick out like a sore thumb if you're not in church. I think it's also a result of our increased mobility. Once upon a time many people were born, lived their whole lives, and died, within a radius of about 20 miles. Now it's common for people to move all over the country for work or school or whatever reason strikes their fancy. All that said, however, I think that scientific discovery has struck a major blow to religion. You can find examples right here on this forum who cling to "science can't explain this, therefore God" as their justification for religious belief. Science and religion can coexist, but if your religious faith is based on the fact that science doesn't have all the answers yet, then your God gets a little bit smaller every day. -k

I am currently knee deep in "Luke Cage", on Netflix. Luke Cage is part of the Marvel media empire and somewhat tied in with the Daredevil and Jessica Jones programs, also on Netflix. Luke Cage made his TV debut in the Jessica Jones TV series, where that troubled mad-woman more or less ruined his life. But Luke Cage is actually a comic book character that dates back to the early 1970s! He made his debut as "Luke Cage, Hero For Hire" in 1972. He was the first black superhero to headline a comic book. Marvel created the character in response to the growing popularity of "blaxploitation" movies, and the character concept is pretty much "he's like Shaft... but he's bullet-proof!" Luke Cage went by the superhero name "Power Man", and his "costume", if it could be called that, consisted of a bright yellow blouse with wide collar, groovy bell-bottoms, a mighty Afro, and, hilariously, a steel tiara and wrist-bracers. All of that is gone for the TV version, though his mentor does teasingly call him "Power Man" a few times, and one amusing scene pays homage to his original comic-books appearance. The TV version of Luke Cage is a big, handsome, well-groomed man with regular clothes that usually end up with bullet-holes in them. What hasn't changed, though, is that Luke Cage, like his earlier comic-book self, and like the blaxploitation heroes he was patterned after, is caught up in conflict with organized crime in a black neighborhood. And the Luke Cage TV program pays a visual and musical nod to the blaxploitation genre, as well, particularly the soundtrack which is filled with funk bass and wakka-chukka guitars. The Marvel productions have been accused of being "too white"... Luke Cage has a mostly non-white cast, and a heavily non-white creative staff behind the camera as well. I personally like the Netflix Marvel productions more than I like the Marvel movies. The movies often seem like they're on a mission to cram as many action scenes and explosions as possible into 2 hours. With these Netflix series, we get to spend 13 hours with these characters, and we get to know them quite intimately. Mike Colter is the ideal actor to be Luke Cage. He's about 6'4 and built like a linebacker. He's physically intimidating, and he's handsome. He radiates menace, or confidence, or charm, or seduction, ... it all feels very authentic. Sometimes when I watch movies with highly touted actors, I feel like I am watching "acting", which some people think is great. Watching Mike Colter as Luke Cage, I don't feel like I am watching "acting", I feel like I am watching "being". The character seems to come so naturally to him that there doesn't seem to be any "acting" involved at all. As is often the case with "superhero" shows, the villain makes the movie, and Luke Cage is no exception. My favorite part of this show has been watching Mahershala Ali portray crime-boss Cornell "Cottonmouth" Stokes. As with Vincent D'Onofrio as Wilson Fisk in the Daredevil series or David Tennant as Kilgrave in Jessica Jones, Ali makes Cottonmouth almost hypnotic to watch. He's a proud peacock of a man, dressed in the finest suits as he oversees his nightclub, the finest nightclub in Harlem. He loves music, and he could have been a great musician if he hadn't been forced into the family business. Mahershala Ali is currently starring in a limited release, small-budget movie called "Moonlight" which has been getting awards-show buzz. I think Netflix should consider themselves fortunate to have got him to play "Cottonmouth" before he becomes a big name. Overall, really enjoying this. Not quite as much as I enjoyed Jessica Jones, but at least as much as I enjoyed Daredevil. -k

My pleasure. Happy Holidays! -k

He didn't reference conservatives in general, he specified conservative idiots. If you feel triggered by that, go back to your safe space. -k

This. Absolutely this. As well: if "Happy Holidays" was good enough for Bing Crosby, it's good enough for anybody drawing breath in these shoddy times. -k

It's typical that the kind of people who criticize and ridicule Canadian subsidies for businesses like Bombardier are now hailing American subsidies for businesses as the way to "Make America Great Again." Much the same way that people who criticize the idea of government spending on infrastructure as wasteful and ineffective now believe that building a wall in the desert will stimulate America's economy. -k

That's precisely the point. That's how laws banning the burning of the flag were struck down in the first place. Likewise, Rosa Parks wasn't just out shopping that day, she went there with the full intention of getting arrested and put on trial. -k

When Tea Partyists talk about loving the Constitution, they generally mean the 2nd amendment, not the whole thing. In Trump's case, I suspect he's partial to the 5th as well. Why is Trump blathering about flag-burning right now? Has there been an outbreak of flag burnings of late? Is he trying to provoke his critics into burning flags in response? Is he trying to distract from other issues by tweeting some outrageous crap? -k

Because buildings are other peoples' property. Because arson puts people and property at risk. Your freedom to express yourself does not include the freedom to commit crime in the name of expressing yourself. This is not complicated. If I burn my own flag, that's me expressing my opinion. If I burn your flag, then I'm guilty of ruining your stuff, but not of flag-burning. If I broke into the 9/11 Museum and burned the 9/11 flag, then I'm guilty of a long list of crimes, but flag-burning isn't one of them. -k