kimmy

...so, here's a guy who figures this is a big hoax designed to promote future UFC events in Canada. Moronic. The events in Montreal and Vancouver are going to sell out regardless, and Lesnar won't be on either card, anyway. Further, Lesnar was already the biggest name in mixed martial arts. The UFC has lost a lot more money by having their biggest draw out of action for a full year than they would gain from riling up Canadians over healthcare. Hey, maybe he's just a celebrity who feels like sharing his political opinions. -k

As I recall your personal philosophy, everyone is in control of their own circumstances and nothing happens to someone unless they choose it. So you must feel that there is no homelessness "problem" at all, right? -k

That's all that matters. Anything else is beyond my control. If I had classmates who were jealous of the mighty Reliant ...well, the bar was set pretty low for them to keep up. If I had classmates who wouldn't associate with someone who drove such an uncool car, well, what do I care? I probably wouldn't have had the right brands of clothes for their liking either. Classmates who had been given cars, well, perhaps they saw themselves as superior. Perhaps they saw themselves as fortunate. A lot of their peers saw themselves as spoiled rotten. Doesn't really matter. They didn't learn how it feels to earn things for yourself... but I'm sure most of them learned that in some other way. There's no universally understood way of telling the rest of the world who you are. The car you drive, the clothes you wear, the message they send to anybody else depends entirely on their own interpretation. When I see someone driving a "Hummer", I have a preconceived notion about the driver that's probably very different from what they would like people to think. People will make assumptions about you based on what they see before they know what you're about as a person. It's the way people are. A few years ago I got run off the Rabble/Babble message board for claiming that people who adorn themselves with tattoos and piercings are subjecting themselves to negative prejudices. Well, they are. We're all subject to various prejudices. People will interpret what they see in a way that fits with their own experiences and ideas, and come to conclusions that they will use as the starting point when they interact with you. You can't really control how they will react, but you would probably want to avoid using visual symbols that are at odds with the assumptions you'd like people to start with. The interpretation when somebody wearing a nice coat asks for money is probably pretty obvious. -k

Brock Lesnar is among the best in the world at what he does. What he does is fight. He's an extraordinary athlete and a dominating wrestler. He is not exactly a noted intellect, or renowned for doing anything other than grind his opponents into the mat. That said, I see no reason why Brock Lesnar's opinion is any less valid than the opinions of the myriad of celebrities who have endorsed the Obama agenda. Ashton Kutcher and the gang aren't exactly noted intellects either. -k {do you know why Mrs Lesnar wasn't afraid to drive 100 miles per hour to get him to the hospital? It's because she has really big drivers-side airbags.}

Yes, I'd be inclined to think someone who goes around boasting about his material goods is an ass. However, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the pride people take in earning things for themselves. When I was in high school I had a crappy Reliant that I'd bought using money I earned myself. Some of my friends had far better cars that their parents purchased for them. To me, that piece of garbage was a Lexus. That might be true for those people. However, those things are not true of everybody. Lots of people feel a strong desire to achieve things on their own. (As a species, we'd be sunk if that weren't true.) I don't see a problem with receiving charity, but I think many (most?) people have a wish to believe they can make their own way in the world and don't need the generosity of others to do so. -k

Last summer, NBC big-heads came up with an adventurous plan for beating the recession blues: put Jay Leno in prime time. They put Jay Leno in the 10pm time slot that used to be occupied by prestige dramas. Except, NBC doesn't really have any prestige dramas anymore. The idea was that Jay is a proven winner, NBC had no proven winners to put in the time slot, and new dramas are expensive to produce. NBC's theory was that even if Leno did earn high ratings, they would save a lot of money by not spending a lot of money developing new properties. NBC expected beforehand that a prime time talk show would not have as many viewers as the offerings on competing networks. NBC was ok with that, believing the money they would save would more than offset the loss in viewership. As expected, Jay Leno Show did not earn high ratings, being beaten badly by programming airing on other networks. NBC may have saved money by not investing in developing new programs, but things didn't work out as well as they hoped. The problem with not having viewers for one show is that you lose viewers for the next show too. Local NBC affiliates saw ratings plummet for their local 11pm newscasts, and they were irate. The domino effect may have continued later, as the later shows also lost viewers compared to the year before. Because the hosts changed, it is difficult to guess how much was due to different hosts and how much was due to the weak lead-in. Conan O'Brien, who had been promoted to replace Leno on the Tonight Show, has just received a $32 million buy-out, so that Leno can have his old show back; Conan's staff have received $12 million more in the buy-out. Leno returns to his old time slot. NBC will fill the space left by The Jay Leno show with new programs, including apparently a new Seinfeld project and a Law and Order show of some kind. NBC seems to have underestimated the damage that resulted from willingly giving up a chunk of its customers in return for saving money. Perhaps this has implications on other businesses too. -k

Yes, there are lots of ways to give a coat to someone who needs it, and by far the easiest ways are anonymous. Why donate it in person unless you're seeking some sort of personal validation From the act? My suggestion is: donate it to a Salvation Army thrift shop or a Value Village. These places are frequented by people who would like to purchase nice things but can't or won't pay full retail for them. Often these shops are frequented by the working poor, people who are trying to make their own way and don't wish to feel like they are receiving charity. When that coat ends up in the hands of somebody who buys it at Value Village, it will be worn with pride. If someone asks where they got that nice coat, he will be able to say "I bought it" instead of "someone gave it to me." That might not seem like a big deal for most of us, but I bet somebody will appreciate it. -k

I find that August's analyses are well thought out and worth the read, even if the predictions they result in it are not always correct. Except on the Arts & Culture forum, of course. There, he's completely talking out of his chapeau. -k

I think it breaks down like this: atheists are skeptics, and skeptics think Nostradamus is fake. Therefore, atheists hate Nostradamus. He doesn't seem interested in theology at all, he's only interested in Nostradamus-related crap. Why is he raving about atheists? I honestly think it's because he so retarded he doesn't even know who he's trying to fight with. -k

Yay! Another soul has been saved! -k

I was really offended by the part where Ted Danson showed up in blueface. -k

I don't think anybody considers the Tamil Tigers as a threat to *Canada*, if that's what you're getting at. That they only plan to cause violence in a different country doesn't strike me as a particularly strong argument for their release, however. -k

I'm not suggesting that paying more results in higher quality. (at twice the money, she would still be "Sara Simmonds".) I'm suggesting that maybe they could have hired an actress with a better resume than "Sara Simmonds" had they had more cash to work with. But the guy wasn't just the director, he was also the writer. He must have known what he wanted this character to be like. Surely he should have been able to "discern" whether she was providing a performance that met with his expectations. (isn't Ingmar a dude?) I think you are referencing a change in film-making style and directorial preference, rather than the capabilities of the actresses. I'm not sufficiently familiar with Anita Loos to comment on the comparison, but I'm familiar enough with Nora Ephron to agree with the flaccid part. What, like a random woman off the street? No. I wouldn't let a random man off the street do those things for me either. I would want a qualified professional. I suppose that statistically my chances of getting a qualified male in those two occupations would be considerably higher, but if I wind up with a female surgeon, would I doubt her competency? No. Would you? Is that what you're arguing? You'd rather have a male professional do important things for you ... because they're inherently more capable or something? I have had both male and female financial advisors over the past few years; the results have been equally mediocre. If it works as you theorize, then yes, it is. Kennedy is one of a very few women of significant stature in the off-the-camera part of the movie business, to the best of my knowledge anyway. I believe that she herself has only got where she is in the industry thanks to decades of association with Stephen Spielberg. She wonders where the women vanish between film-school and the real world? Maybe most of them just don't find Spielbergs of their own to work with. -k

That's a terribly flawed argument. First off, one is a form of punishment and the other is a means of crime detection. To argue that the latter won't work because the former doesn't work is just bad logic. For example: I often jaywalk. I'm habitual. I'm chronic. I just can't stop jaywalking. I believe there might be some sort of fine if I get caught, but I just don't care. I am not deterred by the fine. However, if there is a police car coming down the road, I don't jaywalk. I go right to the corner and use the crosswalk. See? It's not the punishment for the jaywalking that prevents this terrible criminal behavior, it's my likelihood of being caught. In most situations I feel highly confident jaywalking without fear of paying a fine, but when my chance of being caught rises dramatically, I obey the law. Secondly, I'm not actually convinced by the claim that state executions (or other harsh punishment) don't actually deter crime. I have heard this argument made before in arguments regarding capital punishment. I suspect the claim is made that American states with the death penalty have the same murder rate as states without the death penalty, so the conclusion is that the harsher punishment is not a deterrent. My disagreement is this: I think that some people are deterred by punishment, and some people are not. I think that the people who would be deterred by the death penalty are probably the same people who would already be deterred by the prospect of spending the rest of their lives in prison. I think that the people who are not deterred by life imprisonment are not deterred by the death penalty either. I think people who are not deterred by the death penalty or by life imprisonment fall into two groups: people who simply don't care what happens to them, and people who believe they will not be caught. I believe that if you took something that many people do, say jaywalking, and made the punishment for it harsh (instead of a pocket-change fine, you spend a day in jail) and show people that the crime *will* be detected and that the punishment *will* be applied, people will stop doing it. I am extremely confident of that. -k

I have no idea whether surveillance cameras are an effective deterrent to crime. However, I'm baffled that people think they have a right to privacy while walking down a public street. -k

Oh? what happened? Some epileptic person had a seizure? Some weak-ass kid puked up her pop-corn? From the shape of him, it appears he's eating pretty well. However, the grosses of his movies (with the notable exception of Fahrenheit 9/11) are "modest", to put it politely. You can't really get rich by appealing to a far-left audience. That's because the far-left are either miserly cheap, or just plain broke. -k

Whoosh! Double-whoosh! I remain convinced that he is the former Vice President. -k

If I recall, when the tsunami struck Indonesia, it took almost a week for our stuff to get there. And we had to listen to the most appalling rationalizations as to how it was actually GOOD that our stuff was getting there late. And then when we heard more about how the C-17s were too expensive and unnecessary when we could just rent that Russian jalopy like last time... If Canada wants to do this kind of work in the world, this is the kind of equipment we need. -k

Absurd, Dick. People are not flocking to this movie because they think its message will save the world. They're flocking to this movie to see COOL SH*T in 3D. If an anti-corporate message was all it took to get liberals to spend money, I think "Capitalism: A Love Story" might have grossed more. -k

...an obvious ploy intended to appeal to Armenian-Americans! Will the cynical identity-politics games never end?! ...an obvious ploy intended to appeal to African-Americans! Will the cynical identity-politics games never end?! (Also illustrates typical GOP racism, as not all black-people are good at basketball.) -k

He said the premise is flawed. Farming humans as a source of electricity is the least efficient energy solution ever devised. Humans are good at many things, but generating electricity is not one of them. The computing power required to create the elaborate virtual reality "MMORPG" shown in the game would consume far more electricity than the humans involved could create. The superintelligent machines would have been far smarter to get rid of the humans and pump all that food-sludge into a biomass-type electrical generating plant. They'd get way more energy, and way less hassle. -k

It was actually located on CapitalOne Hill. What's in YOUR wallet? -k

Get a room, you two. -k

You can't blame "the right" for picking up the tactics that their opponents have been using against them. You can't bring a knife to a gunfight, Bubber. I wouldn't be "relishing" this. It's a sad day for political discourse in the United States. So was Jimmy Carter's outburst. So was Maureen Dowd's column. (and before somebody says it, so was Joe Wilson's outburst, but for a different reason.) All of this is sort of thing is sad. Hopefully there is a backlash against this sort of politics. -k

This is really it in a nutshell. Of course this is pure partisanship. If this was about merit, it wouldn't be in the news at all, because this story has no merit. However, it must be pointed out that Obama's supporters and allies have themselves chosen the weapons these fights will be fought with. When people like Jimmy Carter or Maureen Dowd or thousands of bloggers are running about attempting to attack Obama's opponents by branding them as racists, they're setting a standard that their own "team" had better be wary of as well. Coming up with a sound-bite that brands your opponent a racist (or a sexist, or an antisemite, or some other terribly un-PC thing) is way more powerful than making arguments of substance. Because you can't sound-bite anything of any substance, and who has time to listen to an argument of substance when there's all these sound-bites that are so much more interesting? I don't think Obama supporters are angry at the game itself, I think they're just angry that the other side can play too. -k