kimmy

Would you jump into a thread where people are talking about domestic violence and say "why are you pissing your pants about domestic violence when you're more likely to die from traffic accidents?" -k

Sure it's vile, and of course there are racists out there. But trying to equate all of Obama's opponents with what a few loonies on the internet are saying is a corrupt and dishonest exercise. -k

Of course. That's more or less what I was trying to say earlier: Why does World War II remain popular subject matter for movies (and video games, and documentaries, and fiction and non fiction books?) Because people love fighting and combat and action and espionage, and World War II is the only war in modern history where right and wrong are completely unambiguous. You still believe in the market system, right? It must have occurred to you that the reason people keep giving Tarantino money to make movies is that they think it's a good investment? You started off using the yardstick of box-office receipts as a means of scoffing at the wisdom of investing money in a Quentin Tarantino production, and now you're doubting the yardstick you yourself introduced. Do you have some reason to doubt that this movie has been commercially successful? Some reason beyond "Tarantino isn't a good director"? I doubt he "had" to go with anything. With the exception of Grindhouse, all of Tarantino's movies have been successful to some degree, and some of them have been significantly successful. Artistic merit is always debatable, but Tarantino's films are usually very well reviewed (present company aside.) Pulp Fiction in particular was immensely admired by critics as not just a good movie, but also an influential one. -k

It was bad taste, but it wasn't racist. As soon as I posted that message, I realized: "Bubber is going to post here and bring up that Shady thing as an example of how the Obama daughters have been mistreated." And it only took 10 minutes. As if a guy posting on a message board is remotely comparable to the years of abuse the Bush girls took in the mainstream media. You seriously don't remember anything about the Bush daughters? You don't remember a million late-night comedy jokes about their supposed alcoholism? You don't remember Maxim magazine photoshopping their heads onto lingerie models? Have you been stoned for most of the decade? -k

Are these the Obama daughters dolls you're referring to? Because if they are, I don't think they support the argument that Obama's family is subject to hate. Just the opposite, in fact. They're adorable... about as friendly as a plush representation of a human could be. Are you seriously going to compare the treatment the Obama daughters are getting with the ride the Bush twins or Chelsea Clinton got from the media? Ridiculous. Obviously their age is a big part of the reason why. But even if they were young adults, I still doubt comedians would target them with the same kind of abuse that the Bush and Clinton daughters were targeted with, out of fear that the "humor" might be called racist. As for the treatment Michelle Obama gets from the media? It doesn't seem to be racist to me either. She's one of the biggest celebrities on the planet right now, judging from the tabloid magazine covers I see when I buy groceries. The attention she receives seems to be overwhelmingly positive... stories focus on her hairstyles and her clothes and how she establishes a healthy body image for 40-something women, and all sorts of hard-hitting news angles like that. Why did people leave Laura Bush alone? Because she was a very low key First Lady. If you want a fair comparison for Michelle Obama, the only other First Lady with that kind of profile was Hilary Clinton... who as I recall was a regular target for all kinds of abuse. That Michelle Obama is being picked on because she's black is absurd. She's getting a sweet ride so far. If you want to convince people that the Obama family is getting a rough ride because of racism, first you have to convince people that the Obama family is getting a rough ride at all. And I just don't see it. -k

what the -k {wtf?}

Canada is under threat because we're in Afghanistan. But if we weren't in Afghanistan, we'd probably be under threat for something else. People who say "if we just didn't offend the extremists, we'd be safe!" really annoy me. The problem with their argument is that we don't decide what offends the extremists. The extremists decides what offends them. Australia offended the Muslim extremists by intervening in the genocide in East Timor. Wondering why all those Australians died in the Bali bombings? It's because their government took action to end a humanitarian disaster. Shame on those terrible Australians for preventing the slaughter of thousands of innocents. The mere fact that non-Muslim people are working at sites in Saudi Arabia is offensive to extremists. Gay bars offend extremists. One of the guys involved in the 1993 WTC bombing had also bombed a Greenwich Village gay bar in 1990. Naomi, if you feel we should pull our troops out of Afghanistan to appease the extremists, what else do you think we should do to appease the extremists? Prevent Canadians from going to Saudi Arabia? Shut down gay bars? If the African Union came to Canada and said "The situation in Darfur is worsening! We need help!" would you say no because it would offend the extremists? Basing our policies around what might offend the extremists isn't rational, because the extremists themselves aren't rational. -k

What I read suggests that KBR claims to be "self-policing", which is why the US Army turned the rape-kit over to KBR representatives. ...and when the US Dept of Justice obtained the rape kit later on, they found stuff that the US Army said was in the kit wasn't in the kit anymore. And Jones was told that if she pursued the claim that she shouldn't plan on working for them in Iraq any longer, and don't plan on working for them in the US either. And that if she had a problem with any of that she can't sue them but she can take them to "private arbitration". So it sounds like KBR's "self policing" process more or less consists of doing nothing, destroying evidence, threatening people with dismissal if they pursue complaints, and forcing them into an "arbitration process" that the company always wins. "Self policing" means just one thing: covering your own ass. A great example: the Dziekanski inquiry. -k

Yeah, I'm sure nobody is accusing them of producing their own currency or anything. It's the overall message that's the problem. What message does giving out big dumb novelty cheques with a Conservative logo on them send? "Conservatives give you money!" That money didn't come from the Conservatives. It came from the Canadian taxpayer. They used to ridicule the Liberals for this kind of thing, now they're doing it themselves. That's embarrassing. I'm sure this "Keddy" character came up with the idea himself, but it's embarrassing for the whole party, for obvious reasons. -k

When I said it has to look like an accident, I didn't mean a hunting accident! I should have said: it has to look like she died of natural causes. I've been thinking poison, maybe. -k

I was baffled about this as well. However, from what I have read it appears that her contract did not prevent her from reporting the crime to the police. Rather, the clause refers to her pursuing civil action against them-- by signing to the contract she waived the right to sue KBR and agreed that disputes with the company would be settled through private arbitration rather than civil dispute. A couple of points worth mentioning... First off, Haliburton/KBR apparently win over 80% of arbitration cases, and more than that, of 119 arbitration cases, only 3 resulted in the employee receiving any money at all. Secondly, while I've read nothing to suggest that Jones' contract in any way prevented her from reporting the crime to legal authorities... the question is: what legal authorities? The crime occurred outside the jurisdiction of the United States. However, US contractors operating in Iraq have legal immunity from Iraqi law enforcement as well. Jones' attackers will never see the inside of a courtroom, because nobody can charge them. -k

If it's any consolation, Oleg, I bet you probably bathe almost every month. -k

I think it's cute. However, if anybody has any idea how I could permanently deal with my landlord's cockatoo, that would be much appreciated. The only catch is that it has to look like an accident. -k

aw! Valid point... the Cosmo girl with the 22" waist and 42" breasts is probably the real worry. A while back on this board, someone mentioned the Dove "Real Beauty" advertisements, featuring "normal-looking" models... women of a variety of shapes and sizes hanging around in their underwear. Which is fine... but Dove's parent company is Unilever, which is also the parent company of other brands like Axe, purveyors of some of the most sexist ads I can recall. So really, you have to question their sincerity. Parents tell their kids all kinds of stuff that isn't really true, and kids know it more often than not. Hearing from mom and dad that she's still beautiful even if she's tubby is going to be of small comfort to a girl when all the images she sees and all the kids around her are telling her the opposite. Or how sales of Kobe Bryant's merchandise *improved* after he was accused of rape? Interesting topic, but one for another thread. -k

It's an animated comedy, not a documentary, Oleg. I think people may be tipped off to the fact that it's not real by the fact that they're all cartoon characters. -k

How would you make a film about the fall of the Iron Curtain? A movie that spans decades while only a few actual events occur? The reason nobody has made this movie is that it would be stupefyingly boring. If you want to watch a movie about the fall of the Iron Curtain, how about this one? Why does World War II remain popular subject matter for movies (and video games, and documentaries, and fiction and non fiction books?) Because people love fighting and combat and action and espionage, and World War II is the only war in modern history where right and wrong are completely unambiguous. As for boycotting violent movies? Go ahead, it's your right. But what kind of crybaby culture did we turn into where people are for some reason expected to be appalled by violent entertainment for no other reason than that it's violent? And at what point did war movies have to be somber and serious? Did everything change after Schindler's List or something? I know it didn't used to be that way. I've seen old war movies where heroes risked their lives to fight evil, and frankly I didn't see a problem with it. I am going to go watch "Snatch". The Gypsy will help me forget about this outbreak of wussiness. -k

The NHL would be all over Ballsillie's "jib" if he was trying to start an expansion franchise instead of relocate an existing one. The NHL will block a move of an existing franchise to Hamilton because they know that it's a goldmine market that somebody would pay a $200 million expansion fee to put an NHL team into. They don't like Ballsillie because his plan would take away the chance for the league to pocket a quick $200 million. Quebec City? Winnipeg? Maybe not as sure things. Maybe Quebec and Winnipeg could be destinations for relocating teams at some point if the league isn't as convinced that somebody would pay $200 million to start an expansion team into those cities. But the league doesn't want to admit that any of it's "developing markets" are failures, so relocations are not likely to happen any time soon either. If Ballsillie were determined to be in Hamilton, he could wait for the league to have another round of expansion, but that might be a long wait. They can't expand while several existing franchises are teetering on the brink. As for Limbaugh ... uh, yeah, I dunno if he's right for the Rams. The Rams have such a strong tradition of classy ownership. -k

So uh, why would people assume that some ancient civilization would have some kind of inside scoop on when the world is ending anyway? Personally I am not sweating this one. Every doomsday prediction ever made has turned out completely wrong, and I am confident that the trend will continue. The trailers for the movie look completely idiotic, however. "Thank goodness we've escaped in our airplane. Now, let's fly our airplane between all these collapsing buildings!" -k

I have just learned that messages expressing views you disagree with are "propaganda or political spam", but messages you agree with are "democratic action in defense of a truth." As for the natives... they've cleverly identified the Olympics as a huge opportunity for a shake-down, much in the same way that Post Office labour trouble usually coincides with the weeks approaching Christmas. Personally, I will probably buy some of the officially licensed native artwork, as a means of supporting natives who've "sold out" by cooperating with this event, and as a means of thumbing my nose at those who charter-rights represents. -k

I thoroughly enjoyed this movie! I have not laughed so hard at a movie in a long time. Aside from the hilariously over the top action, I really enjoyed the characters. I found myself really cheering for Columbus, and was hoping he would get together with Wichita even though that would be a total impossibility if he weren't literally the 2nd last man on earth. The celebrity cameo is so awesome that it's hard to keep from mentioning it, but I will try to restrain myself to preserve the delightful surprise for people who haven't seen Zombieland yet. -k {"I'm so excited for you, because you're about to find out Who You Gonna Call."}

Kim Kardashian is most known for her big round behind, not her breasts. She has those as well, but she's got soft curves everywhere. Wide hips, round shoulders, curvy legs, and a very attainable looking waistline, all smoothed out by a realistic amount of body fat. She's not fat, of course, but neither does she have the sort of body that girls would have to starve themselves to emulate. When my friends and I were concerned about boobs, we bought handweights, lay on our backs, and did butterflies, thinking that chest muscles would help create the appearance of size and make things stand out a little more. It would be just terrible if Kim Kardashian inspired a generation of girls to go out and get handweights... Girls will always be worried about some aspect of their appearance (and so will guys, I bet) and all things considered, I think having normal-sized girls worried about their boobs is probably safer than having normal-sized girls thinking they need to lose 20 pounds to be attractive. Overall, I think that yeah, women like Kim Kardashian or Jennifer Lopez are much better images for girls than Kate Moss and whatever unusually thin women the fashion industry is promoting at the moment. Indeed... but, what consumers? What products? As I mentioned earlier, I don't understand what the target audience/target consumer for this stuff actually is. Whoever the fashion industry is trying to reach with these fashion shows about thin models and weird clothes, it doesn't seem to bear any relationship at all to what people actually buy, or what they actually find appealing. Or, as Wild Bill expands on the subject: It seems to me that the strippers and the pornography industry probably have a pretty good idea what men find sexually appealing, and for the most part it seems like what men generally find interesting is *not* represented by the sort of androgynous stick-thin models that fashion-shows seem to employ. I remain puzzled as to who they're trying to reach and what they're actually selling. It seems to me like there's a huge disconnect between the "fashion world" and the real marketplace. -k

It's not without precedent. There was the time I received the time I received the Nobel Prize for Mathematics for attempting to solve Fermat's Last Theorem, and the time I received the Nobel Prize for Medicine for attempting to cure cancer using alcohol and oral se--- - hey, wait a minute, I didn't receive the Nobel Prize for any of that stuff. -k

No, you won't change peoples' views or reach a huge audience on this website. This is a small community, and you should consider whether you're acting like the sort of person people would like to have in their community. If this was a dinner party, you're the loudmouth guest who talks constantly. It's boorish. In the first 10 to 15 threads on the main page, 5 of them are threads you started to talk about the declining popularity of Ignatieff and/or the Liberals. Do you really need 5 threads for the same topic? -k

I was thinking more along the lines of why are these other atrocities so poorly known by large numbers of Canadians. I don't recall ever hearing a word about any of them in public school. Not to diminish the Holocaust, of course, but don't these other human disasters merit mention as well? It seems to me that that's a double standard. It doesn't seem right to start questioning your views just because some knuckleheads share the same views. There's knuckleheads everywhere on the political spectrum. I spend a lot of time questioning my own views, but it is not because there are knuckleheads who have the same views as me. It's because there are smart people who have different views from me. I like it when I read something that makes me have to stop and think about the positions I hold. That's why I've missed seeing you around here, BD. -k

I appreciate your enthusiasm, Mr C, but how many threads to we need on one topic? You're starting to seem like an infomercial, and that doesn't make people want to consider your opinions. It makes them want to change the channel. -k