kimmy

People were initially excited by the idea that their crappy Zeller's experience might be replaced with a reasonable competitor to Canada's existing department stores. Their initial excitement vanished when they arrived at Target and found such an inept selection of products. It was simply a waste of time shopping there. Target was worse than Zeller's ever was. -k

So they went out to buy some throw-rugs and French vanilla creamer, and the FBI jumped 'em before they got back to their fortification? That's low, J Edgar, real low. -k

This weekend I bumped into a couple of young men in suits and ties who wanted to "witness" me on the many virtues of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Here's how that went: Phase 1: The polite brush-off. Them: "Good afternoon! Could we speak with you for a minute about the--" Me: "Sorry, I don't have time to talk..." (kept walking) In probably 80% of interactions, this is all that's required. These guys were pretty determined, so they escalated things to Phase 2. Phase 2: The direct refusal. Them (walking after me): "This will just take a minute! This could change your life!" Me: (I turned around, and raised my left hand in the familiar "stop right there" gesture) "I'm really not interested." They nodded, and set off in search of somebody else to save. Most people who ignore the Polite Brush Off will get the message by this point. Only rarely do things get to... Phase 3: Aggressive refusal. If somebody refuses to respect a direct refusal, things have, IMO, become harassment. At this point you're basically trying to warn or threaten somebody to leave you alone. "I am going to tell the bouncer." "If you don't leave me alone my boyfriend will beat your ass." "I'll call the cops." The person you're dealing with is probably pretty stupid. And IMO some attempts at interaction are so crass or insulting that they go straight to phase 3 and are inherently harassment. If you go up to someone and grope them, you're not entitled to a courteous response. -k

Your attempt to "provide perspective" is just spin. It's as rigorous as when Shady posts something like "East coast blizzard today. #GlobalWarming" except that when Shady posts that stuff at least I know he's just having fun, while with you it seems you're quite serious and want your "analysis" to be taken "seriously". Well for starters you proposed the figure of 100 victims, which was badly out of date by the 3rd day of the scandal. When I corrected you with the figure of 500, you went shopping for a cite and through either design or serendipity came up with a still badly out of date figure of 170. With the figure now at well over 600 victims including 359 sexual assaults, you've completely abandoned that metric and are now going with "just a handful of rapes". Can you concede that you're just searching for some way to phrase what happened in a way that makes it sound less outrageous? I don't need to say anything to "pump up" what happened. The facts speak for themselves, and the facts were sufficient to create almost universal anger and outrage in the western world. (almost universal, with the MLW member who contends the whole thing was a hoax being one exception and yourself being the other exception. Universal except for you two.) I don't have to "pump up" anything. I don't have to exaggerate anything. I claimed 500 victims and it was actually well over 600 at the time... I actually understated it. A mob estimated at around 2000 people takes over a train station and hundreds of women are surrounded by groups of men and sexually assaulted, while the police are helpless to do anything. Those are the facts, universally agreed upon by eye-witnesses and by the police force's own internal report. Why would I need to do anything at all to "pump up" the incident? It's unprecedented in the Western world. (it's not unprecedented in the Muslim world, of course.) Let's not lose track of who was the one who started trying to reframe what happened in Cologne. I'm comfortable with the universally agreed on facts of the case. You're the one trying to provide a different "perspective", ie, you're trying to spin it. I simply don't care what Trudeau's rationale was for excluding males, I'm just glad he did. In light of recent events in Europe, I think this decision has been vindicated. -k

And I think he has reacted to reasonable concerns appropriately. Where do you imagine we are getting our refugees from? Canadian planes aren't dropping into the middle of a war-zone, scooping up refugees, and flying off while the battle rages around them. Canada is getting registered refugees from camps in Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey. The male refugees we've said no to aren't in the war zone. They're not in immediate danger from either Assad or ISIS. -k

First off, I've never claimed "all" asylum seekers are criminals, so you're arguing against a straw man here. A sad spectacle. And I've certainly never suggested they were "all" at the New Year's Eve sex-assault mob in Cologne. Some were at other sex assault mobs in Hamburg, Dusseldorf, and Stuttgart. Others probably just stayed home and didn't assault anyone that day. Your attempt to "highlight those stats" remains hilarious. There were a million asylum seekers let into Germany in 2015, yet just 100 complaints uh 170 complaints uh over 350 sexual assaults uh just a handful of rapes at the Cologne train stationon New Years Eve! Just a hand full of rape among one million migrants! What an astoundingly low crime rate! Surely these asylum seekers are to be commended! Not to minimize any particular incident! Frankly I don't care what the rationale behind it was, I view steering clear of the young single males as an excellent decision. I'm giving your guy credit for doing something smart, why are you complaining? In regard to my phrase "actual refugees", I sought to differentiate people who are fleeing from an actual wars from the economic tourists who are swarming into Germany from places that aren't war zones in search of a big house and fancy car. I think it is good that we're attempting to select real live Syrian refugees and avoiding Germany's issue with all of these Algerian and Moroccan "asylum seekers". In regard to what I term a "modest number", I don't get your complaint. I realize some contend that it's too many (and to some, any would be too many) but in terms of our population I think 25000 is a modest number. I do seem to recall some saying that 25000 is a pitifully small number when a rich nation such as ours could do more to help. I also recall someone pointing out that per capita, Germany is taking in 10x as many refugees as we are, as if it was a positive for Germany and a negative for Canada. Well, how smart does Germany look now? -k

Well, what is "good" is a pretty subjective matter. I've often suspected that some of the withered old fruits in the Academy would vote for an English period drama even if it was directed by Joel Schumacher and starred Rob Schneider. And as Argus pointed out earlier: ...if you only listened to classical music, would you have any business voting on awards that consider other genres of music? At any rate, it looks like the voting eligibility rules are being updated. They plan to end lifetime voting privileges for Academy members. If you haven't done anything in the industry in the past 10 years, you get changed from a "Member" to a "Member Emeritus", which will be a non-voting membership. That should get rid of a lot of tired old fossils, and could tip the scales more in favor of movies that are more relevant to normal people. -k

What a ridiculous comparison. Trying to draw some analogy between the difficulty of prosecuting sexual assault in Canada with the Middle Eastern attitudes toward womens' responsibility for avoiding male lust is ludicrous. I live 200 feet from a beach, and I assure you that women wear bikinis (and sometimes no tops) all summer long without sex assault mobs forming. I worked in bars and nightclubs for many years amongst women dressed in racy attire (and wearing likewise myself) and never did I see a sex assault mob break out. Contrary to what Middle Eastern imams might preach, men can control themselves in the presence of alluring women. Canadians know it, Canadian judges and jurors know it, Canadian defendants and defense attorneys know it. "But she was dressed immodestly!" is not a viable defense strategy in this country. It doesn't happen, contrary to what you'd have us believe. The difficulty in obtaining convictions for sexual assault is not because of the accusers' clothes. It's because these crimes usually don't have witnesses aside from the accused and the accuser, and they're almost always "he said, she said" cases where each side has a different view of whether it was consensual. It is extremely difficult to prove someone guilty beyond reasonable doubt in these circumstances. -k

Yes... your attempt to provide "context"... pointing out that there were over a million asylum seekers in 2015, and just a couple of thousand at the Cologne New Years Eve assault mob, so obviously migrants aren't any trouble at all! ... was quite laughable and I don't think really needs serious discussion. I think one thing we have learned from Europe that can be applied to Canada is to congratulate the Trudeau government on the extremely wise decision to focus on women, children, and families and steer clear of young single males. And the decision to settle on such a modest number. And to focus on actual Syrian refugees, as opposed to the economic opportunists flooding into Germany from Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, etc. -k

Yeah, I cited a couple of items from the Daily Mail, and I get that Daily Mail is something of a tabloid. Those are just examples of the kind of views I am concerned with, just as your video is an example of the kind of views you support. I don't disagree that there are Muslims willing to confront extremists. Do you disagree that the MuslimStern group called for modest dress and banning alcohol? Or that the Swedish video was real? Are you suggesting that these are hoaxes? As I keep saying, I don't believe these guys represent all Muslims. I do believe that they are typical of Muslims coming from conservative backwards Muslim countries, though. And the two Imams I've cited in this thread say the same. The progressive London Imam we talked about earlier said that yeah, some people in our community have extremely negative views about western women and we need to confront that. The conservative Cologne Imam says that yeah, some people in our community have extremely negative views about western women, and western women should be careful and dress modestly for their own safety. They disagree on the solution, but both guys agree on the problem. And why is what they're saying so surprising and uncomfortable for people? Guys come from cultures where women are told to be covered head-to-toe to avoid inflaming male lust, and they arrive in a country where women aren't dressed head-to-toe... and somehow people are surprised that there's a problem? Why? Why would this be surprising? Yes, I'm aware that many Muslims are opposed to Islamists and extremists and terrorists. -k

Should we design our policies around the goal of making sure that there is an abundant supply of desperate people available for minimum-wage work? -k

...but only in genres that interest the stodgy old snobs who vote on these things. -k

Things are heating up in the Democratic race, where Bernie Sanders is poised to win the New Hampshire caucus and is in a statistical tie in Iowa polling as well. Those are two very "white" states... and as things head to states with more black voters things would shift dramatically, as Clinton seems to have a large edge over Sanders among non-white voters. In South Carolina Clinton leads by 22 points, for example. Still, losing the first two states in the race should be a warning for Clinton... at one point this race looked more like a coronation, with nobody thinking Sanders or anyone else had a remote chance against Clinton. Sanders' unexpected rise should clue her in to what people don't like about her: This op-ed points out another problem with Clinton's campaign: Whether they agree or disagree with him, everybody knows where Sanders stands. Can people say that about Hilary? -k

According to the Wiki page, the Academy is 94% white, 77% male, 86% age 50 or older, and has a median age of 62. ...from what I've gathered, they can all vote on as many or as few categories as they like, whether they have any particular expertise in that category or not, and don't have to have even watched the nominees. Maybe, if they want to preserve the impression that their awards are based on merit, that could use some improvement. I think they'd like for people to believe that their awards are based on merit... ultimately this is an industry group, not a clique. The Oscars aren't just a vanity exercise for the old white dudes who run the awards... they're a useful promotional tool that makes a lot of money for the movie studios. Ultimately the Academy will want to do what it can to try to uphold the appearance of merit. Of course, giving out "affirmative action" nominations and awards would counteract that goal. (as do many other factors... for example giving awards based on the idea that a particular actor has been snubbed in the past, or that a particular project would support Hollywood's image of itself as being in the fight for just causes...) I think there's a growing amount of cynicism about the Academy Awards, and a growing feeling that they're not actually relevant to the kind of movies that most people enjoy. -k

The Heat Is ... Off? (too soon?) The Eagles are #1 on the list of huge bands that everybody else seems to love that I just don't like. Aside from the guitar solo finale to "Hotel California", of course, which is wonderful. The Nuge is 67, so if pattern holds we're stuck with him for 2 more years. -k

At first glance, yeah, they're a private organization and they can do whatever they want. But why do people care about the Oscars in the first place? The Academy Awards are a big deal because some portion of the public believes they have some credibility in judging the best movies and performances. And it's a big celebrity event because it has some degree of prestige. They can do what they want, but if they screw up sufficiently that they lose the pretense that their awards have merit or that there's some amount of prestige attached to them, it would cease to be a big cash-cow for them, and cease to be a significant marketing tool for the movie studios. Personally I can't waste 4 hours of my life watching an awards show, but check the list afterward to see if any movies or actors I like won awards. I wouldn't go see a movie based on Oscar nominations. "Precious had 6 nominations! It's the story of an illiterate morbidly obese teen suffering abuse at the hands of her horrible mother!" Would I see that? No! It sounds utterly depressing. Why would I see that, no matter how many Oscar nominations it gets? On the other hand I do like it when movies I like get recognition... it feels like my choices have been validated. -k

Yeah, that seems to be an issue. Perhaps it explains their fixation on "a certain type of movie". Hispanics, and Asians, and Native Americans, and pretty much anybody who isn't either white or black... But it's an American business, and in America "diversity" seems to be code for "needs more black people." -k

I suspect it'll end up being Will Smith as "the guy who just wants to get the job done and go home" vs Jared Leto as "the guy who wants to take the mission completely off the rails and cause as much chaos and destruction as possible", with everybody else being bit-parts. I suspect the trailers feature Harley prominently because she's totes adorbs and the producers know the character is a big fan favorite and Margot Robbie is totally hot right now, but when the movie comes out she'll just be eye candy and we've already seen most of her speaking parts in the trailers. That's my hunch anyway. But that's totally off topic, because Harley and Mr J are absurdly white, even by white-people standards, and the thread is supposed to be about diversity! Suicide Squad looks highly diverse, with two African Americans, one Hispanic American, one Asian American, and two Clown Americans. Regarding the lack of Oscar nominations for non-white people... I think one factor is that nominations in major categories tend to go to a "certain type of movie". Prestige pictures of various descriptions. High-brow movies. Historical dramas. And that sort of thing. And with the movie business being so American, the primary interest interest in prestige dramas about non-white characters tends to be focused on a pretty narrow list of topics: the civil rights movement, slavery, and possibly the Civil War. We had Selma recently, and 12 Years a Slave recently, and the public probably just isn't in a mood for another big movie on those topics yet. -k

I'd be surprised if very many of our minimum-wage workers make $20k a year. Theoretically, working full-time hours at minimum wage you could make 20k a year before-tax income, but how many minimum wage workers get full-time hours? Depending where you live, $20k a year might be enough to cover your basics provided you share the rent. It doesn't leave much for saving up for tuition or building assets to improve your lot in life, and it doesn't leave much to save for caring for yourself later in life. These jobs are for people living at home trying to save for college or to buy a car. -k

So... we shouldn't worry about things until after they've happened in Canada? Like, we shouldn't worry about nuclear weapons, since none have ever detonated in Canada? You've moved on from trying to pretend that there isn't a problem in Europe, which is good, but the notion that we shouldn't learn from the issues that other countries are now experiencing seems like a head-in-the-sand approach. -k

I'm really not that concerned with angry guys walking around with signs yelling about how much the West sucks. I'm more concerned with guys like this or this or this -k

Is the issue here that there were great performances by minority actors that were overlooked? Or is the real issue that there just aren't very many movies being made with good roles for minority actors to portray? Or is it a little of both? -k

In "Suicide Squad", the villains are the heroes. Deadshot will end up being the headline role of the movie, because it's Will Smith. The trailers look pretty good, though. -k

Probably lots of people said the same in 2011. Sudden death is great for hockey, but for a game like football or baseball, not so much. In tennis or volleyball when it gets to the tiebreaker, you have to win by two... somebody has to break the other guy's serve before they win. I kind of feel like if a team gets scored on without having a possession of their own, they should get a chance to "hold serve". The way things were clicking for Rodgers at the end, it seemed like they might have scored if they'd won the coin toss too, so you're left wondering if the coin-toss decided the outcome. Which is a terrible way for a championship game to be decided. I don't mind the outcome, though-- I was pulling for the Cardinals, they've been a hard-luck team for a long time, and I'm kind of sick of the Packers. -k

I'd point out that first off, the 10,000-25,000 is in addition to the Muslims we already bring into Canada, which have numbered 40,000-50,000 a year in recent years. So yes, the number of refugees is pretty small in the big picture, but it's accelerating a trend that's already underway. I'd also point out that like dialamah you're pointing to the small number as a positive. Doesn't that imply you recognize that the issues I'm talking about have some validity? I really do appreciate all the progress that has been made in Canada over the years, especially on womens' rights and gay rights. Which is why I'm extremely skeptical that these newly arriving social conservatives will have a positive impact on our country. Sure, I understand that many of them just want to be safe and raise their families and don't want to cause trouble for anybody. But there's still a portion within the community that holds views that are toxic and incompatible with our values. I will again mention the two progressive Muslims I quoted earlier in the thread who pointed out that there are Imams who do preach that western women are whores and deserve to be treated like garbage. That's not coming from Breitbart or Stormfront, that's coming from the progressive Muslims that people are always saying need to be listened to. -k