kimmy

In 3 hours? He issued a new statement directly contradicting his previous statement just 3 hours afterward. -k

Is this a new record for Fastest Flip-Flop in the history of US politics? -k

That ad is produced by "Our Principles PAC", a superpac run by a veteran Republican strategist who was one of the top advisors on the Mitt Romney 2012 campaign. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/top-former-romney-aide-launches-anti-trump-super-pac-218071 Clearly the Republican establishment are not happy about the prospect of him winning the nomination... but they may be too late to stop him. -k

A couple of news items pertaining to Trump's campaign... ..the first is that charges of simple battery have been filed against Trump's campaign manager Corey Lewandowski. The charges pertain to an incident involving a Breitbart reporter named Michelle Fields, who was grabbed by the arm and yanked away from a scrum hard enough to cause her bruises. The incident is minor. The incident isn't very interesting on its own. What's interesting is the resulting reaction at Breitbart, which ultimately led to Fields herself resigning, along with others at Breitbart including senior editor Ben Shapiro. They claim that Breitbart pressured Fields to shut up about the incident and attacked her for talking about it, suggesting that the website is trying to suppress information that's harmful to Trump's campaign. The second is a war between the Trump and Cruz campaigns over the wives. It apparently started prior to the Utah primary when a pro-Cruz superpac released a racy photo from Milana Trump's modeling days, with the caption "Meet your next First Lady. ...Or, you could support Ted Cruz on Tuesday." This was apparently supposed to persuade prudish Mormons not to vote for Trump. Trump responded by threatening to "spill the beans" on Heidi Cruz, and retweeting someone's unflattering photo of Heidi Cruz as contrasted with Mrs Trump. This is pretty ugly, and I'm not referring to Heidi Cruz's face. -k

WestCoastRunner posted the same song a few months ago! It seems to really grab people. -k

Wouldn't the most "tear down this wall" thing to do be to restore relations and trade with Cuba? At this point, does the embargo serve any purpose? What's the point? If this is about promoting human rights, what makes Cuba worse than other countries like China? And China and Cuba are like angels compared to the Saudis, who are apparently key US allies. If it's about promoting change in Cuba, I believe the fastest way for the US to promote change in Cuba would be to throw open the gates and let US culture work its magic. We in Canada know better than anyone what a powerful influence it can be. I don't actually think it's about promoting human rights or democracy in Cuba. I think it's just about pandering to a segment of voters in Florida who still hold a grudge for stuff that happened 60 years ago. -k

Guys, please focus on the topic and not on each others' writing style. -k

The FBI apparently has gotten into the phone without Apple's help. I guess they didn't need that universal backdoor key after-all. -k

I think Condoleeza Rice would be a pretty good choice, given her international experience... but being on the ticket would bring scrutiny to her personal life, which I think is the reason she has chosen not to pursue political ambitions. The Republican "evangelical base" just wouldn't stand for it. I think John Kasich makes the most sense. He has experience both in congress and as a state governor. He has a folksy charisma that would balance Trump's abrasiveness. He's the guy who non-Republicans say "if I was a Republican, he's the guy I'd be voting for", which probably means he would have stronger appeal to the undecided and independent voters come election time. And, of course, Ohio is a key swing state, so Kasich's popularity in Ohio would be a boost for the Republicans as well. -k

I certainly agree with that much. -k

People are pressing you on the religious angle because you've made it clear that your religious values are extremely important to you... so they are wondering why you would support somebody who seems to be at odds with those values. -k

I was really impressed with the Windows 10 upgrade process. It was completely seamless for me... quite an accomplishment, considering the rather old and unlikely combination of hardware devices I have in this machine. Given that Apple only has to make their upgrades work on Apple devices, it seems weird that they would screw up like this. There are only so many types of Apple devices out there to receive this upgrade... how hard could it be to make sure that the upgrade would work on each of them? -k

Well, the premise was: what if we had concrete evidence of a creator? Given that premise, we're assuming the question of a god's existence has been answered in the affirmative. To me the next step, after passing that hurdle, is to wonder what is the nature of that creator? Why would such a being create all of this in the first place? Was he bored? Lonely? Were we an intentional part of the creation, or something that just happened along the way, like the weed that unexpectedly starts growing in your terrarium? Would such a being be personal, in any sense that we tiny creatures can comprehend? Would human concepts like "bored" and "lonely" or any other human feeling even apply to such a being? Does the concept of "want" apply to such a being? Would such a being want to relate to me personally in any sense, any more than I want to relate to an individual tendril in the fungus colony that I assume is growing inside the expired sour creme container in my fridge? That fungus tendril weighs micrograms and it might not live a whole day... but that fungus tendril in comparison to me, is immeasurably greater than me in comparison to a hypothetical creator. Why would a hypothetical creator concern itself with the goings-on of a being whose life is so infinitely tiny and brief as myself? Would it make sense that a being that could create the whole vastness of this universe would care about minutia like what I eat, what I wear, or who I have sex with? -k

I've read the Watchmen a few different times in my life, and somehow got more out of it each time... I think I was just too dumb as a teenager to understand how much more there was. I also read Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns graphic novel, which actually came out a couple of months before Watchmen in 1986. Many elements of B vs S are lifted from that as well. Particularly the conflict between Batman and Superman and the resulting battle, obviously... but also some of the musings on how the world would react to superheroes. It seems that Moore and Miller independently arrived at pretty much the same the same conclusion. There's memorable panel in The Dark Knight Returns where Superman thinks to himself "They'll kill us if they can, Bruce. Every year they grow smaller. Every year they hate us more. We must not remind them that giants walk the earth." ...which is a theme in B vs S as well. -k

We went to "Batman vs Superman" tonight. I knew it wouldn't be very good, but the Kim City downtown theatre is closing down this week, and this was my last chance to see a movie there, so I decided to go. This movie was not specifically too good. Visually, the movie has a Zach Snyder look, as do the action sequences. I've liked some of his previous movies, especially The Watchmen. In B vs S, Zach Snyder rehashes a lot of stuff that we've seen in some of his prior movies, particularly The Watchmen. The media and politicians musing about Superman are lifted straight from The Watchmen's analysis of how the world would react to Dr Manhattan. I am picturing the writers of B vs S watching The Watchmen, with a bowl of dank chiba-chiba and a whole lot of Fritos, saying to each other "whoa, dude, this is pretty heavy! We should include this in our movie! Call up this Snyder dude, like right now!" Check out some of the names in the supporting cast: Jeremy Irons as Alfred, Holly Hunter as Senator Finch, Lawrence Fisburne as Perry White, Diane Lane as Clark Kent's mom, and of course Amy Adams as Lois Lane. And Kevin Costner even makes a cameo as Clark Kent's (deceased) father. They all outshine the principal characters. Jesse Eisenberg plays Lex Luthor as across between his Mark Zuckerberg character (from The Social Network) and the Mad Hatter. It starts off entertaining, but very quickly becomes grating. Ben Affleck's Batman is a surly, angry dude who seems to drink a lot. Cavill's Superman is pretty wooden. Gal Gadot debuts as Diana Prince... by day she's a jet-setting art historian... by night she's also a jet-setting art historian but in sexier dresses. But when the stuff hits the fan, she dons the bronze corset and brass wristguards to become Wonder Woman. I think she's really only known for being in Fast And Furious movies... she looks amazing, has an intriguing accent, and doesn't have a whole lot of lines in this movie. I think the most tedious thing about the movie is the complete lack of levity. I think I only cracked a smile once, when Holly Hunter discussed the virtues of granny's sweet tea as she unloads some Kentucky straight-talk on Lex Luthor. Other than that, it's all-serious all-the-time. No time for laughter or jokes here! Serious brooding to do! There's a couple of inane dream-sequences that should have been left on the cutting-room floor. I don't know if that's Snyder's fault or the writers. One thing that isn't Snyder's fault is that in addition to all the other stuff he has to get to in this film, he also has to throw in some completely unrelated scenes to introduce characters who will arrive in future movies. In addition to Wonder Woman, who apparently gets her own movie some time next year, there are more heroes on the way. Why did the call this mess "Dawn of Justice"? Because they're following this with a Justice League movie. As Marvel/Disney did with creating a series of movies that led to the Avengers, DC/Warner Bros is attempting to follow in the same footsteps. With Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman meeting up in this movie, they're just a few Superfriends short. -k

No. We will all agree to let sleeping dogs lay, and move forward, not backward... upward, not forward... and always twirling, twirling, twirling toward freedom! That's correct. I am just practicing for my future job as Minister of Information in the future Anthony-Hardner Despotic Regime. -Rittmeister Kimmy

A while back we discussed electric cars and you said the idea of gasoline backup, like in the Volt, was the most practical thing. The more I think about it the more I think you're right. I think the potential of gasoline fuel-cells like these... https://www.technologyreview.com/s/426252/gasoline-fuel-cell-would-boost-electric-car-range/ http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newenergyandfuel/com/2014/06/17/a-fuel-cell-directly-fueled-with-jet-fuel-or-gasoline/ ...to convert gasoline to electricity without using a combustion engine would make it an even more attractive combination. All the advantages of electric engines, plus the ability to leverage the existing, ubiquitous gasoline infrastructure, plus the ability to use gasoline in a more efficient, cleaner, vibration-free, noise-free, lightweight, compact package. -k

As to the original question... how does this affect my world view? Obviously since the information Betsy has presented is simply not true, it doesn't affect my worldview at all. If at some point we do find this long-sought, never-seen evidence of a creator, it will definitely change my world view. At that point I'd be forced to wonder about the nature of this creator... who is he? Does he know or care what we do? Are any of the organized religions right about who this creator is or what he wants us to do? or are all of the organized religions completely wrong about the creator? Does the creator want anything at all? Does the creator have any interest in our planet or the people on it? Does the creator care about me or what I do with my life? All of these things. I'd stop being an atheist, for sure. I'd become a deist, and spend more time thinking about those questions. -k

Most serious Christian Apologists, like Ravi Zacharias and Alvin Plantinga, are completely comfortable dealing with evolution and divorce themselves from the Six Days type thinking. Physical evidence for theistic evolution would be PERFECT for their world view! Why wouldn't anybody have told them about it? What makes you so sure that you've discovered something that everybody else on the planet doesn't seem to have heard about? These are guys who made it their lives' work to study this kind of information, and you're proposing that they just didn't hear about it? Major apologetics websites like Reasons To Believe also don't seem to be aware of this. If your interpretation of the NAS is correct, the discovery of physical evidence for theistic evolution would have had profound impact in the fields of science and philosophy. But we don't witness that impact ANYWHERE. Don't you think it's more likely that your interpretation of the NAS statement you keep quoting is just plain wrong? THERE it is!! ( ™ Chris Christie) -k

It's part of Betsy's version of the Gish Gallop. Present a torrent of blather, repeat yourself when people pose questions, and when people keep posing questions, tell them you're done and act like you've made your case. -k

Does that mean you don't have an explanation why none of the top minds in Christian Apologetics or theology seem to be aware of any of this evidence for theistic evolution you keep going on about? -K

The same logic would apply if they had announced they had physical evidence for theistic evolution. (which they didn't, btw.) Why don't you address the rest of my post? Why do you think you've discovered information that the top academics in theology and Christian Apologetics are unaware of? Do you think it's more likely that you know more than they do about this subject? -k

No, "it" is the fact that theistic evolution is not contradictory to science. Science has revealed facts about the universe that are so amazing that scientists who are religious see these facts as testament to what an amazing work god has created. The quote simply doesn't say what you wish it said. Sorry. If anybody had discovered physical evidence for god in 1998, we would have heard about it by now. It's not the sort of thing that would have just gone under the radar. It would have launched massive discussion. It would be shouted from the rooftops by religious leaders. It would have turned the scientific community on its head. But none of that happened. It's been 18 years, and none of this evidence for theistic evolution you think exists is actually anywhere to be found. I am not going to waste my time hunting for something I know darned well doesn't exist. I've spent enough time looking at various arguments for and against a creator since 1998 to know that nobody has presented physical evidence that proves a god caused it to happen. If you can point this evidence out, please do so. And while you're at it, maybe you should contact Alvin Plantinga and Ravi Zacharias and all the other top academics in the field of Christian Apologetics and as them why they aren't aware of this information that you have uncovered. Contact Albert Mohler. Contact the Pope's science department. Ask them why they aren't aware either. Or start small and and contact the department of theology at your local university and discuss the matter with them. Perhaps what you should really be asking yourself is why you believe that you have uncovered information that the top minds in theology and Christian Apologetics don't seem to be aware of. Perhaps you should think about that and ask yourself whether you're really more well-informed than the people who've made reconciling religion and science their life's work. -k