kimmy

It's not even loading... but if it's that one with the "socialism" caption that's been going around, then it's just stupid. As I mentioned previously, if you wanted to make a Joker-themed anti-Obama poster you need to go with "Do I really look like a man with a plan?" -k

I wasn't cringing because someone had a nice moment with a little child. I was cringing at the tone of your story. It reminded me of a time when one of my friends met an openly gay man, and felt compelled to tell everyone that she'd met a gay man, and had talked to him for several minutes, even though he was gay, and that she had found him really interesting, despite the fact that he's actually gay. She was ... I guess... expecting people to congratulate her for being so open-minded and brave as to talk to a gay man. She seemed perplexed that people didn't applaud her display of prominent nobility for talking to a gay man. But what was she really doing? She was calling attention to the fact that the one who really had an issue with this gay person's gayness was she herself. -k

The Blackmore family is a lot like the Bach family, except that Blackmore's wives and kids are sometimes all in the same place at the same time. -k

Well, for a lot of them, the only punishment was being lampooned in Team America: World Police. Bush states the obvious (is there a joke waiting to be made with that? I will leave it alone.) Your right to say whatever you want carries with it the inherent risk that people might not like what you have to say. (I run into this a lot.) A performer who gets political runs the risk of alienating fans who don't share those views. I lost a lot of respect for Dave Grohl when he spoke out in support of some renegade AIDS group that advocates forgoing treatment and having unprotected sex. I lost a lot of respect for Gord Downie after I was at a Tragically Hip concert where he appeared at one point to be pantomiming soldiers being shot, just a few days after Canadians had been killed in Afghanistan. Speaking out against Bush is pretty low risk for Michael Moore, whose only fans are people who support his views already. But for the Chunks? A lot of country music fans are rural, and a lot of rural people have pretty conservative views. Sorry, but they bit the hand that fed them. It's as simple as that. Well, we agree on that much: partisan politics as usual. But now we have to disagree again. When the president is a white guy, accusing him of deceit is just typical partisan politics, I think we can all agree on that much. But now, because the president is black, typical partisan politics is dangerous and could whip up extremism because if people don't believe Obama is doing a good job, it will incite hatred against all black people? See, you're accusing Joe Wilson of reaching for an opportunistic soundbite, but I believe that Jimmy Carter and Maureen Dowd and Hank Johnson here are doing exactly the same: just fighting partisan politics the way it has been done for years. -k

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2025786 Terrific news, if you're a middle-aged religious kook who has a dozen teenage brides and 54 grandkids. So, this is obviously a ringing endorsement of freedom of religion, right? uhuhuhuh no: WTF does that even mean?! -k

Well I thought Kuzadd's story was cute. It must have made those little brown children feel really good to get a pat on the head from a white person. And I can relate, because I have a young dark fellow on my crew, I think he's Jamaican or something, but now he's a Canadian! He's still in school, but he's home schooled so he can work afternoons with us, and we're just as pleased as punch to have him. He's just as sweet as could be. Always comes to work with an "I (heart) Jesus" pin on his shirt, and a big smile on his face, and he works just as hard as everybody else! And I always spend a little extra time with him so that he'll learn some skills that'll help him, and to show him that even though he's dark I just really appreciate all the hard work he does for us. And Kuzadd, if you're appalled at how patronizing and self-congratulatory all of the above was, then I've accomplished my goal, because that's exactly how I felt reading your cringe-inducing message. -k

First off, I think you're mistaken on the general premise. Freedom of religious belief is one that is often discussed and generates some contentious debates and moral quandaries. The bigamy case regarding the religious kooks of Bountiful is one current example, occasional court battles regarding Jehovah's Witnesses who'd deny life-saving medical treatment to children being another. Freedom of speech is another that is often discussed, whether in the context of hate-speech complaints being issued against people like Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn, or pornography and obscenity cases. Secondly, I suggest that the reason sexual freedom is more often a topic of conversation of debate than a lot of your other garden-variety freedoms is that most of our other freedoms are taken as obvious... so ingrained in our culture that debating them is pointless: who's going to disagree? -k

Seems like an awfully thin distinction on which to base this claim that Bush was regarded with respect that isn't being afforded Obama. On the one hand you've got one boor heckling Obama in Congress; on the other you've got a pantheon of celebrities ridiculing Bush from the biggest platform in the world. Perhaps there is an expectation that a Congressman not behave like a boor, compared to a natural expectation that celebrities will behave like boors. It's fundamentally different in the sense that a handful of people are attempting to equate it with racism somehow. "Liar", which in the Bush years was code for "doesn't tell the truth" is now apparently code for "negro", at least when spoken by someone from the Deep South toward someone of dark complexion. This is partisan politics, pure and simple. Some Obamatons think they can play this for political mileage to put their foes on the defensive, so that's what they're doing. The Bushies never had anything quite as effective, but if they did they'd have done the same. It's being talked about because claims of racism, especially when it's directed at the President of the United States, get talked about. This is stupid. First off, I have no doubt that there are racist fringe groups in the United States who are extremely upset that Obama is President. I can't guess at their numbers, but we know they exist. However, I think they may have already figured out that Obama's parents weren't both white. I don't think they needed Joe Wilson calling him a liar to figure that one out. I mean, what is the thinking here... that certain racists hear the word "liar", equate it with some sort of secret Deep South subtext, and suddenly realize ?I really don't think they needed Joe Wilson to point that out for them. I think the white supremacists were probably not waiting for a code-word from Joe Wilson to get made about Obama being President. I heard from my source at the FBI (as stupid as it sounds, I have a source at the FBI) in summer 2008 that they were already on alert regarding hate groups reacting to Obama's run for the presidency. See, most of the racists had already figured out well over a year ago that Obama's got an awfully deep tan. What this is is desperate, pitiful political opportunism. -k

Whether "race" has any validity as a scientific concept is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Whether "race" exists in any scientific sense or not, everybody understands what the terms "black" and "white" mean in the context they're being discussed here. There are historical and cultural facts that can not be dismissed by discussing the issue of whether "race" is a scientifically valid concept. The use of people of African descent as slaves in the United States is a historical fact that can not be denied by questioning the validity of race as a scientific concept. The fact that there is a Black History Month is not dependent on the validity of race as a scientific concept. The fact that there is a Black History Month is, like many other facts about the history of African descendants in America, a function of race as a social concept. The quote that I've referenced before is this: "In America, which I love from the depths of my heart and soul, when you look like me, you're black." -Colin Powell. My mom's peeps (Eastern European religious kooks) were seen as almost subhuman when they first arrived in this country... my dad's (Swedes) were only a rung or two higher when they first arrived in North America. But none of that is true today. You've certainly pointed out the evolving nature of prejudice, but that doesn't alter the fact of its existence. Trying to ignore the role of race (the social concept) is to ignore the elephant in the room. When groups of people had historically been relegated to the "powerless" group based strictly on their appearance, and when membership in in the "powerful" group is likewise limited to some who look a certain way, the social concept of race is important in understanding the context of the divisions that exist to this very day. Even the most powerful man in the world is, according to some, a victim of racism at this very moment. -k

you got pwned -k

If nobody heckled during one of his own speeches, it may have been because they were afraid they'd get their asses kicked by Secret Service agents. I'm highly skeptical that it's an indication of any level of respect for Bush. This was a guy who was likened to a chimpanzee. People urged him to go eat some pretzels (referencing an incident where he apparently choked on one.) Being called a liar is nothing new for politicians, but the claim that Bush himself planned the murder of thousands of his own citizens is something I can't recall being directed at other presidents. There's also the popularity of the belief that Bush himself was merely a sock-puppet for Dick Cheney. Or the frequent claim that he's a religious wacko, or reference to his use of drugs and alcohol as a young man. I reject as absurd the suggestion that Bush's critics afforded him some level of respect that Obama's critics haven't reciprocated. If anything, the reverse is in evidence. And that is without mentioning the celebrities, who seem to be a remarkably think-alike group. Bush's lack of intellect was a goldmine for people like Letterman and Jon Stewart. I recall that fat loser clutching his Oscar while he bellowed "SHAME ON YOU MR PRESIDENT SHAME ON YOU..." or the Dixie Chicks or various Baldwins... the celebrities are hardly a representative of the American people as a whole, but they have a loud voice and used it many times to express a genuine contempt for Bush. I am pretty much amazed right now as I listen to Obama's defenders point to Joe Wilson's outburst or the comments of partisan media hacks or the heated rhetoric over healthcare as some sort of unprecedented state of chaos in American politics, and conclude that it must be because Obama has dark skin. What? Unprecedented? Where were these people during the previous 8 years? What short memories people have. -k

Canada's reputation isn't riding on Omar Khadr. Nobody else around the world cares about the little turd either. -k

We have strikingly different memories of the Bush Jr years. Who gave Bush their utmost respect? His opponents and critics would barely even give him their civility, and more than a few would not even grant him that. Even among his supporters, and maybe I'm wrong here, but the attitude seems to have been primarily "Thank god he beat Gore/Kerry." I certainly can't recall Dubya Youth Regiment Drill Teams being formed, or cult-like sing-alongs in his honor, or people pledging to be his servants. None of that. -k

I agree with this much. , produced by Ashton Kutcher, features lots of celebrities pledging to support all sorts of socially active causes, but concludes with the pledgers pledging "to be a servant to our president". Dude, he's a president, not a feudal warlord. He doesn't get servants. -k

Indeed. A transparent attempt at getting the NDP to withdraw their support and force an election. If it works, there's no question who has brought Canadians to the polls. I don't see that this actually works, though. Layton finally has something he can sell to his supporters. "We got Stephen Harper to make changes to EI that working Canadians blah blah, blah blah blah... and we will work with the government again to get them to implement policy that works for working Canadians blah blah, blah blah blah" This is what NDP supporters have always said was the reason to send NDP MPs to parliament despite the fact that they'll never form a government. If Layton is shrewd, he could work the situation to produce a bit of a resume of stuff that he can show voters in the next election. If I was in his situation, I'd be brainstorming to find something else that I could compromise with Harper on. And, it doesn't hurt Harper at all to help Layton build up the NDP a little. If Layton increases his support, it's not going to come at the expense of Conservatives, it'll come from Green and Liberal voters. If I was in Harper's situation, I would be brainstorming on things that I could offer the NDP without alienating my own base. -k

He'd be spending some serious time on the toilet, for sure. Spinach is a fine vegetable, and it is unfortunate that its reputation has been tarnished in this regrettable incident. -k

Good grief, where did they get that, and what are they doing with it? -k

I have not argued that the stereotypes and discrimination are directed at blond men. I've been talking about blondes, and as I'm sure someone with your enthusiasm for semantics is well aware, "blonde" is used only when referring to women. When describing a man or a mixed group, "blond" is used. I never made a judgment about black males as a group. I wrote that white women are raped by black males at a far higher rate than the reverse. As you keep pointing out, I wrote that based on an incorrect interpretation of the data presented. However, it is no way a judgment about black males as a group. I think stating both of those points as fact in my own message shows my agreement with them. You're not satisfied? Why? Did you want a bouquet or a medal or something? If you don't want to be told you look foolish, you should stop writing foolish things. If you don't like being told you're dishonest, you should stop being dishonest. -you continued using a quote from me out of context, even after the proper context had been explained to you. -I asked you to show me where I disregarded information from "several universities", and you refused. -I asked you to show me where I disregarded information from the New York State Police, and you refused. -I asked you to show me where I spoke in absolutes, or made judgments about blacks as a group, or even black men, and you can't. And apparently all of this is justified in your mind by the fact that I made an inaccurate statement early in the other thread, which you have been running about repeating for 3 weekends in a row? If you honestly don't get why I'm upset with the way you've conducted yourself here, fine. If you're serious that you're not going to respond to me anymore, I guess I should consider that a blessing. I found Makmood Amajinabinabad's latest statements about the Holocaust offensive too, but haven't issued a condemnation. Have you issued a condemnation about Amajinabinabad's latest statement about the Holocaust? And if not, why? Are you a Holocaust denier? Negative stereotypes about just about every other group seem to have been banished from our media... but the dumb blonde is still with us. Why is that? When I was a kid, we had Kelly Bundy. Kids today have Kaley Cuoco characters on tv, and Jessica Simpson and Paris Hilton playing up the stereotype to promote their careers. Who was it when you were growing up? Barbara Eden? A while back, I mentioned an ad campaign that promoted the stereotype; notice Dancer's witty response. Certainly the jokes continue unabated. And it seems nonsensical to me that people seem to acknowledge that stereotypes are harmful and reinforce negative attitudes in every other instance, and yet seem convinced that this one stereotype along among all others is completely harmless. Kids are exposed to all of this crap before they're old enough to understand what "stereotype" even means... is it unreasonable to suggest that if "Huggybear" might have had a negative effect on the way black kids see themselves, Kelly Bundy might have had a negative effect on how blondes see themselves too? I find it amazing that educated people take as a given the effect in one case, and yet in the other case it seems completely incomprehensible to them. Look at your own reaction to the article I posted by Dr Bates: disbelief. Your first instinct was to reject the conclusion and start looking for reasons why he must have made a mistake. Perhaps I notice it more because I spend my week days working with a construction crew, and several evenings a week dealing with young people consuming alcohol. Perhaps the amount of time I spend in these environments gives me exposure to a different sort of people than you're used to. If I confront a customer who is misbehaving or tell someone that they need to leave, and they get verbally abusive in response, they will more often than not reference my hair color. I am sure that they'd find some other verbiage to throw at someone else, but I am always surprised that someone would throw "blonde" (usually in conjunction with B***H or C**T) in my face as if it were a pejorative. If a lineup at the grocery store is stalled because the cashier is having some kind of problem, someone will grumble "doesn't she know what she's doing?" But if the cashier is a blonde, someone will quite likely reference her hair-color as the source of the problem. And people who would be shocked and outraged if somebody said that in regard to a black cashier who was having a bad day will not make a peep of protest. And your view, apparently, is that the blonde behind the cash register doesn't need anybody to stick up for her because she hasn't got it as bad as the Somalis. And to me it just illustrates that people aren't offended at stereotypes or discrimination as general principles. They're just offended when stereotypes and discrimination are directed at the wrong groups. -k

Sorry, it was rude of me to tell you to put up or shut up. I should have simply stated that you're once again being dishonest, and that the reason you won't cite specific messages to support your claim is that you can't. So, again, my apologies. The point of the study is obvious, and the gymnastics to which you are going through to try to evade the point is making you look like a fool. uh huh. The participants were biased in favor of the brunette and against the blonde, but the blonde is a woman, so the obvious conclusion is that women were discriminated against! Well, after just 4 or 5 tries you finally got it. Good for you. That is utter crap. You can dispute the correctness of what I've said, but you can't support the claim that I've made judgments about a whole race. Of course you don't. Your slogan is "Listen What I Say", but you seldom extend the same courtesy to others. I agreed to both points here: I assume you will now go on some kind of rant as to whether the eleventh page of a 37 page thread constitutes "early on". I will leave you to that. Again, why should I extend someone a courtesy they won't extend to me? Why do the Somalis need some blonde to come to their aid when they have all you fine folks to stick up for them? That's the second time you've tried to play that, and as I told you the first time, no. I don't.However, I don't see that as any reason not to stand up for myself anyway. I see no reason not to confront someone who'd show me that kind of disrespect. I see no reason not to respond to people who ridicule the idea that it even exists or that it's anything other than harmless fun. I see no reason to suffer the sort of ass who will fight tooth-and-nail against any other type of bigotry yet still indulges in this bit of chauvinism because it makes him feel like he's still got nuts. If I don't say something, nobody else will. And I find that quite surprising, with all of you good, justice-minded people out there standing up for everybody. Yeah, that's mature. Good for you. I bet you feel really clever after that, don't you. When one is discussing a group (say, blondes) it is ridiculous to attempt to ascribe any given trait to the group as a whole. But when we're discussing a group that has chosen to act in a certain way (say, women who have colored their hair blond) then attempting to figure out what prompted this action becomes a much more reasonable exercise. -k

Being wrong and being dishonest aren't the same thing. I made a mistake, and acknowledged it as such. You went around repeating one of my statements out of context even after you were corrected. The premise both Kyle and Bates set out to test was in regard to blonde women. That they did not test how subjects viewed blond men is irrelevant to their result. The blonde woman was judged less capable and worth less than the brunette woman despite all other variables being equal... and you'd have us believe that the only thing that can be concluded from this experiment is that women are discriminated against? If I can find a study where a white woman was deemed to be more qualified than a black woman with identical qualifications, would you also be claiming that all it really shows is that women are discriminated against? Of course not. The observation that blacks may engage in some activity at a higher rate than members of some other group is not a judgment about blacks. It is a fact that Canadian aboriginals engage in substance abuse and suicide at a rate far higher than the population as a whole; that's not a judgment about Canadian aboriginals. I made 2 mistakes in the other thread. Firstly, I didn't read what the statistics represented, namely results of a survey rather than actual crime reports. Secondly, I didn't read that the statistics lumped in a variety of other offenses into the column that had been referred to as "rape" in the discussion. I admitted both of those mistakes early on. Why should I? The Somalis don't need me to stick up for them when they've got all you fine people to do it. Why should I go around fighting stereotypes of others, when nobody's ever shown me the same courtesy? The Somalis have legions of social justice crusaders to come to their defense; the only person who'll come to my defense is me. Women color their because they believe it will improve their cosmetic appearance. While some may do it simply for their own self-image, most do it because they wish to be viewed by others in a certain way. Women who choose blonde do so knowing full well the social connotations that choice comes with. Ask them if they're hoping men will pay attention to their new hair color, they'll say yes. If I made up a significant portion of the clientele for the sex industry, maybe you'd have a point. -k {byebye! see you again next saturday!}

I haven't watched this guy Duvall's campaign material, but if he was elected by people who wanted him to go stand up for families and fight for Jesus and so forth, then the people who voted for him on that premise are the ones who got clowned. He's cheating on his wife, banging lobbyists, and bragging about it to his buddies on your dime. I'm pretty sure that's not how Jesus would have done it. If this guy was elected by "family values" voters, he fooled them. He suckered them. It's as simple as that. And yeah, sorry, but it would be impossible to take a "family values" message seriously from this guy. This guy lecturing people about family and faith would be a complete joke. "Although I am here in Washington porking attractive young lobbyists while my wife suffers in silence, I remind you that values are what our nation is built on, and despite my example, please refrain from sex outside of marriage." It is about as credible as Amy Winehouse telling people to steer clear of booze and drugs. It only works as a cautionary tale. -k

You don't look a day over 30 under 70 over 30 under 70 over 30 under 70... -k

Getting your information from psychopaths like Alex Jones, or from scientifically illiterate idiots like in the first link, is not exactly a good way to get informed about anything either. -k

-k

I see nothing here that isn't explained handily by simple partisan politics. I believe Carter is invoking racism as a tactic to attack Obama's critics, not because there is any merit to the charge. And that is why throwing around the charge of racism reflects extremely poorly on Carter. -k