kimmy

Considering it's a Star Wars movie, I think it's more reasonable to be worried that merchandising will ruin it. ("Meeza Jar Jar Binks!") Considering it's a JJ Abrams movie, I think it's more reasonable to be worried that excessive lens-flares and "BWAAAAAM. BWAAAAAM." sound effects will ruin it. But so far the reviews seem to be overwhelmingly positive. -k

Ok, so even supposing you would be the real Rosa Parks of Williamsburg that you claim you would be, why would you think less of women who didn't wish to be subject to that sort of confrontation and intimidation on a daily basis? -k

I'm sure you would. I'm fully aware of how easy it is to sit at your keyboard and say how you'd do this and this and that differently if you were in their situation. -k

Ok, and after you get beat up, how enriched will you feel? -k

Ok, so you're on the bus and you're getting spat upon because you're wearing the wrong clothes or your hair is uncovered. How are you "engaging" people? How are you "creating your own environment"? How are you transforming this from abuse into an opportunity to explore life? Share with me your secrets, sensei! I wish to learn from your ways. -k

When I used to watch Star Trek: Next Generation, I always thought that the most unrealistic element wasn't that humans in the future might develop a technology that could satisfy everyone's material needs, but rather that such technology if it existed would be shared universally among people. -k

What a loony world you must live in if you imagine you can just "engage" with ultra-orthodox zealots as a "challenge" and change their views. "Scared" doesn't enter into it... I simply choose not to live in an environment where people are harassed and threatened and spat upon for not conforming to the views of religious fanatics. -k

So ultra-orthodox harassment of women doesn't happen because you don't think it happens? ha ha, ok. -k

If you've read the articles of the Haredi verbally abusing and spitting on women who don't comply with their standards of decency, and the gender-segregated bus-service, and you're still willing to describe that as "an opportunity", I guess that's your call. http://www.salon.com/2013/01/30/shadowy_modesty_squads_police_ultra_orthodox_brooklyn/ http://heebmagazine.com/hasidic-street-harassment/37735 I don't think most women would wish to be subjected to treatment like this. -k

...completely different from that Kenyan Ann Dunham! The son of CUBAN COMMUNISTS is trying to become PRESIDENT!! Somebody needs to notify ORLY TAITZ!!! -k

If he's an old-person, then he and his cohorts were in OUR wallets, Shady. -k

The cost of owning vs renting depends a lot on where you lived. I visited Windsor in 2008 and could have bought a beautiful home with cash I had in my bank account (but then I'd have been unemployed like everybody else in Windsor at the time.) Conversely I recall stories from 2005 about people in Calgary with 6 figure incomes who had to rely on sleeping on friends' couches because there simply weren't any places to live regardless of price. For me, the decision of renting vs owning became straightforward a few years back when rent prices became higher than mortgage payments. Even disregarding the equity I am building, I am saving money by paying a mortgage instead of paying rent. And the idea that "oh, people should put off owning and just rent until they save up some money" is somewhat based on the idea that rent prices are somewhat affordable, but that's not necessarily true. -k

I'm not advocating for growing the public sector, I'm pointing out that trying to promote slashing public sector jobs as a means of reducing unemployment is patently stupid. The OP's article points out that federal and provincial public sectors have shrunk steadily over the years, and so what they're really talking about is growth of municipal government as an employer. So why don't you guys get together and make a list of municipal services that you want axed. I'm guessing that the first and only item on that list will be "safe injection sites", but maybe you'll surprise me. Then make a list of services that are municipally done in your area that are mandatory but you think should be privatized, like maybe garbage removal and snow removal, if those aren't already privatized in your town. And add up the expected savings from eliminating "safe injection sites" and privatizing garbage removal etc, and let me know whether you think the resulting change to your property taxes is going to result in enough savings to make dent in your property taxes that will let you Go Forth And Stimulate The Economy. I know what my property taxes are, and even a significant reduction to the city's spending isn't going to make a significant difference to my disposable income. Your argument is that if Joe Average had more disposable money then he could spend more money on local businesses to increase employment. Ok, I agree. If that's what the Fraser Institute is advocating for, I'm all for it. Get back to me when the Fraser Institute does a study about why incomes are so flat and why all the economic growth is going to the people at the top of the food chain. -k

So that's a "no"? -k

Oh sure, but go through the OT and see how THOSE GUYS treated captives. -k

I didn't ask about some random ethnic neighborhood. If you were a non-Jewish female would you be comfortable living alone in a heavily Hasidic neighborhood? As Rue explained earlier, it's not much of a picnic. -k

There's no Radical Bible either, but it contains some pretty horrendous stuff. Most Christians are able to adapt their understanding of it to life in this century. I believe that most first-world Muslims do the same. -k

Look, I'm just pointing out that the idea presented in OP's article-- that unemployment would decrease if government didn't hire so many people-- is a load of crap. If you want to argue for smaller public sector employment based on budget realities that's completely reasonable. But trying to frame it as creating opportunity for Joe Worker is just retarded. -k

If the complaint is that high levels of taxation are preventing business from hiring people, well, overall taxation levels have been shifting from business to individuals for many years. Businesses should theoretically be hiring more people than in years past. Cybercoma started a thread some time ago to discuss the relationship between business tax rates and employment. Spoiler: not so much. -k

I notice you didn't actually answer the question. Would you blame me for not wanting to live in a Hasidic neighborhood? You seem to want to argue that it wouldn't necessarily happen that way, but that seems to be based on optimism rather than realism. -k

So employers are just dying to hire more people but they can't because they have to pay taxes? -k

Obama was never a member of congress. -k

Golly! A girl soldier, too!! GOOD NIGHT!! -k

If you'd read the article you'd have noticed that the federal and provincial public sectors have declined considerably over the years; the increase is at the municipal level. As for the premise of Professor Di Matteo's claim-- that governments hiring people increases the unemployment rate because it reduced the opportunity for the private sector to hire people-- that's typical Fraser Institute puro. Look, go ahead and say that you want the public sector cut back so that your taxes can be lower. Just be honest. Don't try and frame it in a way that makes it sounds like you're interested in increasing employment opportunities for the little guy, because it's just laughable. -k