kimmy

Russia's Christian roots go back far longer than England's, yet this attitude of compassion and fairness never took hold there. They went straight from heartless monarchy to heartless communism, and now to heartless kleptocracy. Why did the supposedly Judeo-Christian values we purport to follow never catch on in Russia, despite their ancient tradition of Christianity? Why did a country like England, with a far less ancient tradition of Christianity, somehow become the mother of what we in North America consider "western democracy" that you're describing as "Judeo-Christian"? Why not Italy or some other Mediterranean or Middle-East land where Christianity had a long head start over Christianity? Italy was the epicenter of Christianity in Europe. Italy had tremendous wealth, prowess in every field of achievement, and advanced the scope of human knowledge. Science, math, commerce, art, music, Italy was at the forefront of these things at a time when the English were still living in caves and trying to figure out if rocks were edible. And yet, somehow, what you're referring to as our modern Judeo-Christian values came from England, and not Italy. You mention Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand... has it occurred to you that these countries have one thing in common that sets them apart from other nations with long Christian roots like Italy, Spain, Russia? I suggest that the key factor here isn't "Judeo-Christian tradition", but rather the wealth of secular wisdom we inherited from England-- the Magna Carta, the parliamentary tradition, fundamental ideas about the rule of law that were passed on from England to us and especially to the American colonies who turned them into an example for the whole world. These ideas about justice, the rule of law, and the power of government, they didn't come deus-ex-machina out of scriptures, they were forged during centuries of conflict and strife in England. Russia had Christianity before England existed as anything other than a pile of rocks inhabited by pagan savages. But England had Habeus Corpus eight centuries ago and Russia still doesn't, all their centuries of Christianity notwithstanding. -k

That's debatable... ...and this is really the key point in all of this. Black's contention that you're a hypocrite if you like our society but you don't believe in God simply fails. It's not a sound argument. -k

...just that one danger? That's the only danger of theocracies? "I'm not saying we should have a theocracy and I'm not telling everybody that they have to get out and become Christians. I'm just saying that if you're not a Christian, you're destroying western civilization, because of reasons." ... what are these dangers, again? For a man of such a loquacious vocabulary, Mr Black does a remarkably poor job of articulating what this danger actually is. From attempting to parse his rambling, scatterbrained diatribe (and the previous one you linked to) as far as I can tell his main concerns with atheism are as follows: -if it's not obvious to you that there's a god who created life and the universe and makes miracles and rainbows and pretty music, then you're a stupid-head. -atheists are mean and disrespectful and wrote snarky letters in response to his last column. -there's a shadowy cabal of elite atheists secretly running the government. -if you ain't got Jesus, you ain't got no moral barometer (in the famous words of noted thinker Steve Harvey). -if you aren't a Christian, Mr Black doesn't think you're on his side in the fight to Defend Western Civilization. When relieved of his flowery and bloated prose, his arguments just don't seem nearly as sophisticated, do they? In regard to creation and the origins of life, that issue has been debated for ages by people far smarter than Mr Black. I don't think we need to get into that here, there's already other threads on that topic, and there's a wealth of information out there if you're interested in reading on it. Suffice to say that the pompous gasbag is hardly the final word on the subject. In response to the rudeness of the correspondence he's received, good for him. He's learned a life lesson that most of us learned many years ago, which is that if you act like a jerk, people will treat you like a jerk. In regard to the elite atheist cabal that's actually running things, it's laughable. Hey, perhaps it's the Illuminati! Perhaps it's those darned globalists that Steve Bannon is always raging about! Perhaps the world is actually run by a cabal of elite atheist globalist Illuminati! In regard to "the ghastly enfeeblement of moral relativism", I've already pointed out that the continuous and ongoing reinterpretation of the Bible's real intention demonstrates that "moral absolutism" is complete fiction. Slavery is great, Bible says so! Nope, slavery is bad! Bible says so! How'd that happen? Your source of "absolute morality" got reinterpreted. Moral relativism! Thou shalt not kill! Except in certain situations! Which situations? Nobody can agree! Moral relativism! And in regard to Mr Black's concern that he can't count on me to fight creeping Islamism? I will oppose creeping Islamism with the same intensity with which I oppose creeping Christian Dominionism, and for the same reasons. Mr Black needn't worry about that. -k

No, it isn't. It's a fitting illustration of a fault in Mr Black's argument. He advocates the superiority of the Absolute Morality of Scripture over the moral relativism of ideas based on good intentions and kindness and empathy. Yet his Absolute Morality couldn't keep him out of jail. What good is a codex of absolute morality when people just substitute their own judgment (or misjudgment) anyway? A classic example was Newt Gingrich, in the 2012 primaries, standing on a stage asking "How can I trust you if you don't pray?" His message was that if you don't subscribe to a defined set of rules, and if you don't fear the wrath of a God who will punish you for breaking those rules, he can't trust you. Well, Newt, how can we trust you under any circumstances? All the prayer in the world couldn't keep Newt from being a lying, cheating serial adulterer who didn't even pay his own campaign staff after he dropped out of the race. I think there's only a couple of Commandments left that Newt hasn't broken, regardless of his fear of the judgment at the hands of an all-seeing God. I mean, clearly the notion of an absolute morality and an eternal judgment doesn't inspire the kind of obedience that Mr Black claims it should, and his own life is proof of the point. The notion that the Bible confers an absolute and indisputable morality should be dismissed. Over the centuries, the contents of the Bible haven't changed, but the interpretation of its contents has changed dramatically. Slavery used to be good! Now it's bad! Both justified using the Bible. Other examples can be found. The prevalent Christian interpretation of the Bible's intentions makes it just another example of the "Ghastly Enfeeblement of Moral Relativism" that Black rages against. The source of the ongoing evolution of our interpretation of the Bible's contents? Primarily logic, reason, and most of all compassion. -k

The truth has been out for decades, despite what you and your ilk think. You guys are willing to overlook mountains of historical evidence that you're wrong while you search for tiny little grains you think are evidence that your preconceptions are correct. You started with the conclusion you want to arrive at, and are working backwards to try to find evidence. That's not how a "search for the truth" actually works. Leaving that aside, let's consider your conspiracy theory here. Did Spicer accidentally spill a big secret? Imagine for a moment that the US government had secret proof that the Holocaust was a hoax. Do you think Spicer would be in on that secret? Do you think the guy whose full-time job is to talk to the press would be the guy who gets let in on top secret info that nobody is supposed to find out? Imagine the job orientation he gets: "Ok, Sean, welcome to your new job as Press Secretary. Here's a few things you need to know. The Holocaust is a hoax. Area 51 is real. The moon landing is a hoax. The Illuminati is real. But MAKE SURE YOU DON'T TELL THE PRESS any of this! Ok, I think that about covers it. Any questions?" I mean, seriously. You really think that they'd give Sean Spicer the biggest secrets they have, so that he can go out in front of the press 7 days a week? Obviously they wouldn't, and that alone should be enough reason for you to know that Spicer's comments were because he's a dummy and not because he's actually blowing the lid of a giant conspiracy. Even if such a conspiracy existed, Sean Spicer wouldn't be in the loop. So trying to interpret his comments as anything other than a dumb-guy saying something dumb is pointless. -k

Conrad Black's comments... This is nonsense. We don't have to worship Jesus to recognize that we have a great society that is worth protecting. There's no hypocrisy. To use an analogy... much of the foundation of physics as it exists today was built on assumptions that turned out to be wrong-- time is constant, lines are straight, mass is constant, measurements are absolute-- none of those things are actually true. And yet much of the work that was done earlier remains valuable. Newton's laws of motion weren't wrong, they were simply a special case of a larger set of more universal laws. Saying that we're hypocrites for living in our current society without worshipping Jesus is like saying that we'd be hypocrites for using Newton's laws of motion without first renouncing Einstein's relativity. And the notion that our society is "Judeo-Christian life" is pretty dubious. For most of history, "Judeo-Christian civilization" was very different from the society we live in. I think our current society is built upon ideas that evolved over centuries in Great Britain, and influenced heavily by events in France and the United States as well. Recall that once upon a time in England, "God made me your King, and I can do whatever the hell I want!" was their version of a "Judeo-Christian society". Lands ruled by other Christian monarchies or by the Holy Roman Empire had their own versions of "Judeo-Christian society". And this is also stupid. Principles that atheists fight for-- like keeping religion out of classrooms and government-- are for the benefit of everybody. The rules that prevent schools from making kids recite the Lord's Prayer in class each morning also prevent schools from imposing other religions on your kids. An avid Christian might not see a problem with his kids having to recite the Lord's Prayer each morning, but I bet he'd be pretty upset if he found out that the teacher made his kids kneel down and pray to Mecca before class. -k

It has been interesting to see outspoken atheists like Bill Maher and Sam Harris become popular with "the right" because they're willing to pull no punches in regards to Islam, while many liberals have turned against Harris because "he is racist because he did not love the Muslims." -k

My thought is the opposite... by and large atheists are more skeptical and resistant to ideas that don't have a reasonable and rational basis. That's not necessarily true of all non-religious people, people who say "uh, spiritual but not religious" (or "uh, Christian, I guess?" people) when talking about their religious views-- such people might be inclined to drift from one type of hokum to the next. But choosing atheism, as opposed to "uh, spiritual but not religious" is a decision that you're done with hokum. I also disagree with the premise that filling peoples' heads with Jesus makes them less vulnerable to ideas that are a threat to our civilization. Someone once said "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Meaning, people can be manipulated through patriotism and religion to rally behind terrible ideas. Worked for Hitler. I bet every Middle East strong-man tells his citizens that Allah is on his side too. And without getting into a debate over Trump, I think that at the very least we can agree that the Steve Bannon/Breitbart vision of America also leans heavily on the pillars of patriotism and religion and this seems to be what Mr Black longs for as well. -k

Yes... they'll disregard any amount of evidence that disagrees with their preconception. But the tiniest notion that they think supports their theory is a "SMOKING GUN!!!" as far as they're concerned. Which is how Calm Spicy's misstep was seen as "blowing the lid off a massive conspiracy!!!" by people who are convinced the Holocaust was a hoax. -k

The committee isn't about wiretapping. The committee is about Russian influence in the 2016 election. You keep missing that point. On the wiretapping issue, the latest we heard is that the FBI surveillance of Trump advisor Carter Page was 100% legal. They obtained a warrant from a judge in accordance with the rules set for by FISA (Federal International Surveillance Act). They're allowed to do wiretapping when they have warrants. Giving them a warrant to do surveillance on Carter Page is a no-brainer, because he's on the Russian payroll. So were Flynn and Manafort. As things go along we'll hear that surveillance of Flynn and Manafort (and probably others) was also done 100% legally, with FISA warrants. The question isn't why the FBI was doing surveillance on all these Russian operatives, because the answer to that is blindingly obvious. The real question is why Trump had all these Russian operatives in his inner circle. Not true. The Democrats don't control these hearings. It's a bipartisan committee with members from both parties, but the chairman is a Republican, because the Republicans are the majority party. The chairman of the committee was Devin Nunes, but Rep. Nunes was forced to step down because he's now in the middle of an ethics probe for running off to the White House in the middle of the night to share privileged committee information with the Trump administration. Hmmm. I wonder why he'd do that? -k

So you're suggesting that Sean Spicer accidentally let the world know that "the elites" think the Holocaust is a hoax. Betsy, I think this is an example of why people tread very carefully around issues pertaining to the Holocaust. Spicer might not have intended any harm, but the world is full of people who still believe that the Jews are an evil secret society that control everything. Comments that, even unintentionally, lend support to Holocaust deniers are seized on by such people as evidence to support their ideas. -k

It looks like Erdogan is set to win handily. Turkey looks poised to dump parlimentary system in favor of the strongman system favored by her primitive neighbors. "Progress." -k

"Who knew that _____ could be so complicated?" (healthcare, tax reform, Syria, North Korea, more to come.) Ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect? It's the observation that people who know a lot know that they know a lot... people who know a bit know that there's a lot that they don't know, and people who don't know anything think that they know freaking everything. This "growing into the job" you speak of is the ongoing story of a guy who thought he knew everything discovering that he doesn't know anything. -k

If overbooking is such a financially necessary evil in the airlines business, then maybe they can use some of the resulting largesse to boost their "reaccommodation incentivization". As many people have said, if they didn't get a volunteer for $800, they should have offered more. Their own guidelines say they can go as high as $1350, and they didn't even go for that. If overbooking is as efficient as they say it is, then bumping passengers from flights should actually be pretty rare. If it's actually not rare, then maybe they need to dial it back a little or tweak their algorithms. Of course, as was mentioned earlier, this wasn't even a result of overbooking, it was because United decided at the last minute that they needed to move 4 employees to another airport. Ever heard the phrase "bad planning on your part doesn't constitute an emergency on my part"? Obviously this is a gigantic PR debacle for United Airlines. Maybe the fine print on your boarding pass says they can do this, maybe they had the legal right to bring in the rent-a-cops to remove him. Guess what: nobody cares. A few years ago, a newspaper in the UK did some reporting on Starbucks' elaborate tax avoidance mechanisms... revealing that Starbucks didn't actually pay any tax at all in the UK. Starbucks' reaction: "we're not breaking any laws. What we're doing is completely legal." As you can imagine, customers said "oh! If it's technically legal, then we don't see a problem with it." Ha, no they didn't. They voted with their feet, filling Starbucks' UK-based, tax-paying competitors to the rafters. After a campaign of social media shaming and boycotts, Starbucks announced that they would voluntarily pay 10 million pounds per year or some such figure. "technically legal" doesn't really move peoples' hearts. Peoples' reaction to this incident isn't "well, they're technically allowed to do this." Peoples' reaction is that this is a terrible way to treat paying customers. And it is. No other business would get away with this. If you bought a TV on sale, and the guys from BestBuy showed up at your house the next day and said "sorry, another customer wants to pay full price, so we need to take your TV back", you'd tell them to go to hell. Not so with airlines. When people fly, they're just relieved if they make it to their destination with their luggage and their dignity. They're willing to put up with the most obnoxious treatment from the security staff because they know the alternative is to not flying, or possibly getting tazered. They're willing to put up with waiting hours in the airport for security screening. It's a one-hour flight to Vancouver from here, but when you factor in all the time spent at the airport, it's almost as fast to just drive. Customer expectations when traveling by plane have become so low that almost anything feels like a "win". And that's another reason this incident has caught fire in social media. People feel like they've been pissed on for years by airlines, and it's gratifying to see them finally pay a price for it. Dr Dao's decision to act the way he did was foolish and resulted in him getting a broken face and a concussion. Most of us wouldn't have done that. Most of us would have meekly complied, and raged about it for days afterward. Few of us would have defied the rent-a-cops, but all of us understand that we could get refused flight. Or "reaccommodated" as CEO Oscar Munoz put it. Most of us would have been like the 3 passengers who left the plane without getting beat up but were probably just as mad as Dr Dao. It's infuriating to see the callous disregard for their customers. Maybe for the airline a flight is just some number on the ledger, but few people fly anywhere unless it's important to them. The cost and inconvenience of air travel is something most people don't do unless it's a big deal. So not getting to fly is also a big deal. "You're a doctor? You have to see your patients tomorrow? Tough ****." "You have to make a connecting flight? Don't care. **** you." "You'll miss your son's graduation? Who gives a ****." "You've been planning this vacation for months? We don't **** care." And for them to describe this as "reaccommodating" their customer has to be the stupidest euphemism since "alternative facts". They didn't "reaccommodate" those passengers. They removed them from the plane. This kind of corporate-speak makes you wonder if they understand that there are actual humans affected by these decisions. -k

similar thread here... -k

This much is true. This incident is primarily news because there's video that shocked people. The other 3 passengers who got off the plane without getting their asses stomped didn't make the news. However, this incident has brought attention to the astoundingly bad way airlines treat people. Yesterday I read a story from the LA Times where another man-- I believe he was a hedge-fund manager, it turns out-- was ordered off a United flight because a "high priority" passenger needed a last minute seat. They said that if he didn't want to leave willingly, he'd be leaving in handcuffs. He didn't contact the news at the time, but came forward with his story because United overbooking has been in the news. Imagine this for a minute. You buy a new TV on sale at Bestbuy. You get home, you're getting ready to watch some playoff hockey, and all of a sudden, a couple of Bestbuy employees arrive at your door. They tell you that they need to take your TV back because there's another customer who wants to pay full price for it. That would be ridiculous, right? Nobody would stand for that. So why do airlines get away with it? One of the business network analyses I saw on this issue suggested that this won't actually affect United's bottom line very much. Their reasoning: people already know that they'll be treated like crap by the airlines. Passenger expectations are so low that they're not even surprised that people can get thrown off the plane at the last minute. People will continue to choose their carrier based on lowest fares and best arrival times, the logic went. Of course, that was on Monday night, before the markets had seen how badly this has blown up on social media and the stock price took a minor hit. Maybe in the short term, some people will be mad enough at United that they are willing to pay more to fly other airlines. But in the long term, people will forget this and business will continue as usual. -k

I did provide a link to a screen-shot of the hate-filled posts before they were removed. You can see it or not see it as you wish. There is plenty of hate out there, whether you seek it out or not. I am guessing that if there was a guy who you agreed with 95 out of 100 things, but one of the things you disagreed with was that he thinks there should be a new worldwide Caliphate, that would be a deal-breaker no matter how many things you agreed about (and would for me as well, btw). For me, the idea that people should be persecuted, prosecuted, or "shot in the head" because they've violated someone's puritan sexual mores is likewise a deal-breaker. As for the degree that they're willing to "do anything about it"... I'm sure that he doesn't actually mean he wants people shot in the head. It's hyperbole. On the other hand, I suspect a lot of these people probably circulate hateful material around on Facebook and email. Probably would use their votes to support a politician who'd cater to them, perhaps donate money to organizations that agitate against gay people, and so on. I'm sure you don't write off all Muslims either, but I bet you don't hang out in places where Muslims congregate. I am perfectly able to deal with seniors on a one-on-one basis. Some of them are certainly decent people. I just try to avoid patronizing establishments that cater to seniors (and parents with rambunctious toddlers.) A dog-collar or chicken-suit, for sure. But those are bad fashion choices. There's a fine line between hating peoples' customs and hating people themselves. I try to keep that in mind. -k

Saturday Night Live weighs in: https://streamable.com/1w7rs -k

You said you'd never seen anything online that you'd classify as "hate-filled"... now you have. I understand why old-people are entrenched in their views. But so what? Understanding why they feel that way doesn't make me feel inclined to agree with them or forget that they're opposed to me. If somebody wants to declare that he's my enemy, I'm inclined to take his word for it. What are you getting at here? That I should embrace homophobic old-people because they hate homophobic Muslims? I understand how Islam views gay people and I don't view the increasing number of Muslims in Canada as a good thing, for just that reason. You live in a city full of newly arrived immigrants, but I live in a town full of elderly conservative rednecks. So you can understand which is a bigger annoyance to me on a regular basis. I don't agree with Muslim dress codes, but if some woman feels she should dress that way, that's her choice. I would feel the same if someone to wear a chicken-suit or a dog-collar and leash around town. I think it's laughable that people are trying to spin it as "empowerment", but at the end of the day it's her choice, and if she wants to wear a dog-collar or a chicken suit or a bag over her head, it's up to her. I wouldn't applaud her choice, but it's hers to make. Old-people have the right to hate gay people if they wish. Muslims have the right to hate gay people if they wish. Muslims have the right to believe women should walk around wearing tents. But I don't feel the need to pretend that any of these people are my friends, or to pretend to respect their opinions, or to make any effort to accommodate their views. -k

Yes, I think the sense of contempt for others expressed illustrates what I meant by "hate-filled", whether it meets the legal standard of hate-speech or not. -k

The #1 thing I plan to do when I am old is to not be a complete asshole, like many of the seniors I encounter seem to be. I know there are nice seniors around... but they're not the ones sitting around complaining about foreigners and gay people while they guzzle free coffee at IHOP. -k

I normally like the Leafs about as much as I like having my teeth scraped, but this year's edition is hard not to cheer for. I enjoyed yesterday's game, with the late-game heroics from the rookies, and McElhinney's incredible save on Sidney Crosby in the final minute to preserve the win and lock up the playoff spot. Congratulations on making it official! -k

I doubt you've visited the comments sections on very many news websites. There used to be a game, when Fox News would have David Silverman from American Atheists on as a guest, somebody from Fox would be deleting death threats from the Facebook page as fast as possible, while others tried to screen-capture the death threats before they got deleted, and usually the guy deleting the death threats just couldn't keep up. The kind of overt bigotry towards foreigners that Bob mentions is pretty typical. "The chinks are taking over, white kids can't even get into college anymore." "They're buying everything, Vancouver is going to be all Chinese soon." A lot of old-people also seem to think that gay people should be jailed, exiled, or worse. "They ought to round those people up and shoot 'em in the head." You might be willing to write something like that off as just joking, or lovable old curmudgeons being all lovable and curmudgeonly, but I certainly don't see it that way. It certainly sounds hate-filled to me, even if he didn't literally want people to get shot. It's hard to keep your cool when you hear something like that, and it made me mad for the rest of the day, and that's why I avoid places where old-people congregate now. If you think I'm too sensitive, just remember that you're probably "those people" to somebody, too. -k

That would also be an acceptable way to go. -k

In my experience, a lot the old-people dialogue veers more towards hate-filled than childishly ill-informed. I'm hoping to be killed fighting a cougar with my bare hands before I reach that age. That's how I want to leave this world. That's fine. You guys stick to your favorite hangouts, and I'll steer clear. Which is basically my take on this whole issue. "Go where the weather suits your clothes," as the old-people anthem says. If you've got a bunch of toddlers, don't go to a classy dining establishment. If you don't want to listen to toddlers, avoid restaurants where people take their toddlers. If you don't want to listen to old-people blathering, avoid Denny's and IHOP and Tim Horton's. -k