kimmy

This woman isn't with the New Black Panthers or (as far as we can tell) any African Nationalist group. She's a civil servant who says she chose not to assist a client to the best of her ability because of his race. -k

I dunno, Bubbles, after watching that video clip I think it's clear that Whitey isn't the only one having a hard time getting over it. -k

Maybe, but August wasn't addressing artistic merit, he was addressing what people will be talking about in 30 years. 33 years later, Star Wars remains ubiquitous. 33 years later, nobody is talking about Annie Hall, except for the two of us here on this forum. Nobody my age has even seen Annie Hall. At some point in the not too distant future, those of you who were alive to remember it first-run will be few in number and the only people who've seen it will be some handful who rented it or stayed up to watch it at 2am on some high-numbered cable station. Annie Hall may have won the "best picture" award, but it lost the "what will people remember in 30 years" award. -k

von Spakovsky explains the decision to proceed with a civil case rather than a criminal case against the NBPP goons: (emphasis mine) I earlier said I wished I had more information about the 2006 Arizona Minuteman incident, and von Spakovsky provides that as well: (full editorial) -k

I don't see anything that said that the UK requires chips in passports. It just says that the Iroquois hand-made passports weren't adequate for security purposes. Hopefully the Haudenosaunee get their chips integrated soon. -k

That the commission may be comprised of partisan hacks does not detract from the seriousness of the allegations. These allegations need to be investigated; that the investigation is being done by partisan hacks undermines the process. -k

It doesn't support the claim you're making. Her committee is investigating the DOJ handling of the incident. They didn't make the decision not to pursue charges. -k

The group Abigail Thernstrom belongs to did not make the decision to not pursue the case against these men. The group Abigail Thernstrom belongs to is investigating the decision. The civil cases against these 3 men were filed in January 2009, while the Bush people were still in charge of the DOJ. The civil cases were being pursued until May 2009, when two of them were suddenly dropped and in the third the DOJ walked away with just an order that the night-stick guy can't carry weapons within 100 feet of polling stations in Philadelphia until after the 2012 election. The decision to drop the 2 cases and let the 3rd guy off scot-free was made well after Eric Holder became AG. -k

I'm concerned that everybody should have the right to vote, and that attempts to prevent people from voting should be dealt with by the law. My particular interest in this case is that it appears that the law has chosen not to deal with these defendants, and that that decision may have been influenced by political factors rather than legal ones. I have looked over the cases that yourself and Da Shwa have cited, and the only one that appears to me to be a relevant comparable was the 2006 Minuteman incident in Arizona. I would be interested in knowing what the reasons for not pursuing that case were. Regardless, if the DOJ f'ed up in 2006 by not pursuing that case, it doesn't justify repeating the error now. The outrage is, and always has been, over the appearance that the decision to not pursue cases against these goons was made based on their race. -k

I expect that in 1977, people like yourself were saying "in a couple of years, Star Wars will be forgotten and everybody will still be talking about Annie Hall" or in 1982, "E.T. will be forgotten and everybody will still be talking about Gandhi." Certainly everybody knows Gandhi, the man, but nobody my age has seen Gandhi the best-picture award winner of 1982. While E.T. on the other hand became and remains almost universally recognized. Likewise Annie Hall... (a discussion we've had before, I'm sure...) whatever its merits as a movie, it's just some film of some year gone by, of particular interest only to film buffs and Woody Allen fans. (I'm still amazed that Woody Allen fans even exist, but that's a different thread... that can be my contribution to the topic at hand: Woody Allen films are allegedly "well loved", but I detest them. I tried to watch Woody Allen once and was only able to make it through a few minutes before I had to go pummel my punching bag.) There seems to be a notion among "serious" movie fans that serious movies have serious subject matter and serious actors in serious settings, and that movies that aren't "serious" just aren't as good and aren't of lasting significance. What is "good" is entirely debatable, but lasting significance is not a function of putting people in period costumes or portraying historical events or attempting to portray "real life". Star Wars and E.T. are in the same category as Gone With The Wind, movies that have attained a status as not just popular movies but also as cultural icons. There are a few others that belong in the same category... The Wizard of Oz, It's A Wonderful Life, ...and after that you start getting into debates... maybe The Planet Of The Apes, maybe Jaws or 2001 or The Ten Commandments. Maybe "Titanic" belongs on that list too. Will "Avatar" be considered in the same category in years to come? My hunch is no, probably not... it lacks that certain something. Indeed. -k

This story is about Mel Gibson-- one of the most popular actors in the world for most of my lifetime-- uttering the "n-bomb" and going on a bizarre tirade against his wife. Gibson's immense celebrity status and the sensationalistic aspects of this most recent controversy is what has "National Inquirer" magazines flying off the shelves. The story remains the same-- and would be "big news"-- whether his wife were Russian, Australian, American, or Philippino. That you've somehow concluded that his wife's nationality is a factor in this story is not quite naive... I'd say more along the lines of absurd or comical. I'll grant you this much about the Russian spy story: it wouldn't have been as fascinating if the spies weren't Russian. Spies would be minor news. Sexy spies would be less minor news. But for obvious historical reasons, the idea of Russian spies has a special allure all of its own. You didn't concede a point, you re-iterated your own. I suspect that if you asked the CIA, they might tell you they're interested in Russian women but probably more interested in Chinese women at the moment. Boomer musicians/actors are interested in acquiring the company of the most attractive young women they can get. This pool of beautiful young women who'll have sex with rich old men now includes Russian women, as well as Western European and North American women. It's a growing global village. If people are talking about it, it's probably big news by some metric. -k

So the short version is that you'll stoop to sexist attacks if it's convenient to your purposes. Which would you say did more to fan racial tension in the United States: Fox coverage of the NBPP, or the media "newsgasm" over the Duke lacrosse rape case? -k

And again, I'm all in favor of a ban on chuck-wagon racing, which clearly places the animals at an unreasonably high risk. But complaints based on the emotional well-being of the animals rather than the chuck-wagon carnage are much harder to justify. -k

As Bill points out, that police officer had darned well better be aware of the possibility that the suspect has a weapon anyway. The guy who is most likely to pull a heater from under his car seat and start blasting is the guy who is least likely to have actually registered it. I have heard one "friend-of-a-friend" account of an incident where police arrived at a residence for a minor domestic disturbance complaint, already in aggressive stance and shouting "WHERE ARE THE GUNS?" "WHERE ARE THE GUNS?" and were not satisfied until all of the registered weapons were accounted for, at which point it was explained that concerned neighbors had heard shouting and called the police to make sure everything was ok. I've read other anecdotes along the same lines. The Carstairs quote refers specifically to C-68, the Rock quote is from 1994, when the Liberals were fighting for a long gun registry, and the Axworthy ones are from 1998 at a gun control conference where, presumably, Canada's newest gun control measures would have been pertinent. -k

Serious question: are you a vegan? If not, what steps do you take to make sure that the meat and dairy products you consume are produced humanely? I think that people who advocate that others act on behalf of some value (in this case, opposing animal cruelty) ought to be able to demonstrate that their own actions are consistent with that value as well. I suspect that many who oppose the Calgary Stampede can only rationalize their own food (and clothing) choices in terms of "out of sight, out of mind." -k

Sewell claims that the decision to drop the cases was made by career lawyers, and not by political appointees. This article (which was written in May 2009, long before the current controversy) directly disputes that. It claims that the career lawyers were continuing to pursue the civil case (and court documents show they were doing so as late as May 2009) and that the cases were dropped abruptly in mid-May. While the claim that criminal charges were dropped for racial reasons is clearly incorrect, the claim that there was political interference in the decision to drop civil cases against these men has not been refuted at all. -k

Sure. But how does allowing belligerent armed thugs to stand outside a polling station help minorities vote? And how does declining to prosecute those polling station thugs protect minority rights? -k

"Ask Jeeves" is a search engine that you could type human-language questions into and it would try to parse your question and provide relevant answers. Since this is hardly unique anymore, few people ask Jeeves anything anymore. Jeeves is probably feeling a little lonely, and is probably browsing our forum with all the spare time he has on his hands. -k

The issue, Shakey, is the dishonest use of the number of "hits" to the database as a rationale for its continued existence. People quote the number of times this thing gets accessed with the implication being that it's an important crime-solving tool. The truth is, the hits to the database are almost entirely from police officers trying to figure out if you're armed before they knock on your door. Register your rifle, and you're assured that if the police ever need to visit your residence, they'll do so with the assumption that you're armed and potentially dangerous. I had to look those up myself to verify that they're real, and ... they are. I'm pretty much astounded. People who live in cities seem completely unaware that there are places in Canada where having a firearm is not a matter of recreation, but of necessity. -k

Kimmy News Network has obtained a photo of one of the passports (link), and clearly they could use some work. -k

Nonetheless, there's nothing wrong with Obama framing it in terms that illustrate that it's their fight too. -k

The Mel Gibson story and the Anna Chapman story would have been big news regardless of the nationality of the women involved. I have no knowledge of this other person-- some 20 year old who got with one of the surviving Rotting Stones? -k

Really, do terrorists think that anybody's life is valuable in and of itself? This sounds like such a stupid argument to make... and it would be if the audience was North America. But the audience to which he was speaking might be more inclined to see Al Qaeda as America's problem, not their own. There might even be Africans who think along the lines of Malik Zulu Shabazz, who sees Osama Bin Laden as a brother-man, repzentin' for the brown man and standing up to Whitey. If Obama can convince east Africans that Muslim extremists aren't their friends, good for him. -k

My cat seems happy, but he still has all his claws. Many domesticated animals (particularly dogs and horses) thrive on human companionship, and the only cruelty is that their humans never get to spend as much time with them as they wish they could. That a loved pet is doing something different from what it would be doing in the wild is not in itself a measure of cruelty. The chuckwagon races should probably be scrapped. They result in animal deaths almost every year. But the rest? Some of the events are probably stressful for the animals. I could respect that criticism if it were coming from a vegan, or perhaps someone who only eats organic meat and dairy products. But if you're eating meat and dairy produced by big commercial operations, you're financially supporting animal cruelty in a way that makes the Calgary Stampede look like an episode of the Care Bears. -k

What do you mean "as if" this were at trend? This does not need to be a "trend" to be newsworthy. In considering whether the DoJ handling of this case was appropriate, the question "would this have been handled differently if the defendants had been of a different race?" is not just relevant, it's central to the issue. I introduced "make-believe bubbas" because there weren't any real ones. Feel free to supply information about actual armed white goons standing at the door of polling stations harrassing black voters. You supplied a list of previous cases that have no bearing to the current discussion. If you believe one of those cases is actually similar to the one under discussion, the onus is on you to explain why. I don't think you can. You skipped the part about showing a comparable case and went straight to the part where you act as if you provided relevant information, because the truth is that you don't have anything comparable. "b-b-but... Jim Crow!" You guys continue to try to make excuses for the way the DoJ handled this case by talking about injustices of the past. Is the DoJ supposed to uphold the law in 2010, or is the DoJ supposed to avenge injustices of the past? First you guys were arguing that Fox was wrong and negligent to be covering this story at all. Now the criteria as to whether it's "news" is apparently that it still has to be getting substantial coverage in the NY Times in 3 months. -k