kimmy

Pretty good trolling attempt, but next time you could spice it up with some "kids these days..." and "when I was their age..." comments. Also maybe some anecdotes like "I didn't need student loans, I put myself through college by getting a paper route" and "my first job was at a mail room, and within 3 years I was VP of Sales! You just have to start at the bottom and work your way up!" -k

Was Fiorina part of the decision to spin off Agilent? And, if so, was it a good choice? I think that would be a more relevant metric of Fiorina's leadership than the stock market. -k

I don't claim to know whether Fiorina did a good job or not as HP CEO, but stock price isn't a very good indicator. Tech stocks received a massive market correction in 2000. The bubble burst, and the fallout affected everybody in the sector. Some large companies didn't even survive. (Dad was working at Nortel at the time... I think he eventually bought a six-pack with the employee stock he received there.) And then the whole stock market suffered again in the months following 9/11. Here's the tech-focused NASDAQ stock index during that time frame. You can see that the whole industry got smashed in 2000. So I don't think you can blame that stock price plunge on Fiorina. -k

I just read that Trump was up until 2am ranting on Twitter about what a bitch Megyn Kelly is. He might have got some laughs with that Rosie O'Donnell line, but it sounds like he's a little bent about it. I was also reading that Megyn got more flack from some quarters for asking Scott Walker "would you really let a mother die rather than have an abortion?" in regards to his position against abortion even in medical emergency. He gave some bs answer regarding "alternatives", but in cases like an ectopic pregnancy, there *aren't* alternatives. Shady, I was just noticing your status update regarding Carly Fiorina. Do you think she has a shot at even getting into the next "top 10" debate, or is she just campaigning to become somebody's Vice Presidential nominee? -k

The idea was never "let's go save the Japanese by bombing them!" The idea was "let's end this war swiftly." But Japan's swift surrender after the atomic bombs fell *did* save millions of Japanese lives. Millions. The Americans were expecting to lose 500,000 American lives in finishing the conventional war against Japan during Operation Downfall. Japan would have lost military personnel in the millions, and the civilian casualties would have been catastrophic. As I mentioned before, Operation Downfall plans included the use of 7 more nuclear bombs against Japan. Thank god Japan surrendered before Operation Downfall happened. The US demonstrated that they had overwhelming might, and they demonstrated that they had the resolve to use it. Saner minds in Japan recognized the inevitable result of continuing to fight. Hardliners in Japan wanted to fight to the very last man, even at the cost of total annihilation, but the graphic demonstration of American power at Hiroshima and Nagasaki convinced enough people that surrender was the only option. And if that hadn't been the case, we would be talking about Japan in the past tense, like Pompei. Yes, it is terrifying and horrible that a quarter million people were incinerated in a matter of seconds. But it would have been more horrible if the conventional war had continued and millions died of conventional bombs and conventional bullets and conventional starvation and conventional disease. Millions would have died from conventional horrors of war. So while it is ok to be shocked and horrified at the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, keep in mind that more horrible things were coming for Japan and that their surrender at that time saved millions of people and homes and basically saved Japan as a nation. -k

Like everybody else, I'm baffled by the positive press Trudeau's performance has received. I don't think he was awful, I just don't think he did anything that great. For me, the only one who made gains was Elizabeth May, and that's probably because her last performance in a national debate set the bar so low for her that anything short of spontaneous combustion would have been an improvement. Last time out she came across as a shrill, annoying, overstimulated idiot. This time, she seemed calm and acted like she knew she belonged there. She had several pertinent points, and was well-spoken. This was by far her best performance on a national stage. It's not a game-changer-- the Greens are still irrelevant-- but my opinion of her greatly improved. For the other three, they delivered more or less what was expected. Harper was his old stodgy self. Nothing exciting, but no gaffes either. I wasn't terribly inspired by his response to attacks on his budget deficits. I thought Mulcair was ok. I don't know if anything went really wrong or really right for him. I don't know if he won any new fans, but I doubt he lost any votes either. I think his goal was probably to convince people that he's not a business-hating tax-and-spender, and I'm not sure whether he succeeded or not. For me the only thing that jumped out about Trudeau was his attack on Mulcair re: the clarity act, and his defense of his party's position on C-51. I thought the debate format itself was ok, and that Paul Wells did pretty well. I hope we have more of these. I would like to hear more about domestic policy next time. -k

The phenomenon you're alluding to is called "The Bradley Effect". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect But despite the belief that Obama's poll numbers were inflated by people falsely stating support to avoid appearing racist, that wasn't the case. You're stating the belief that Harper's poll numbers are being deflated by people falsely denying their support, to avoid appearing uncool to their urban hipster friends. That won't be the case either. People aren't afraid that what they tell a telephone pollster will affect their social standing. The areas where supporting Harper could make you a social pariah-- Montreal, urban Toronto, urban Vancouver-- don't elect Conservative MPs anyway. -k

Yeah, this is dumb. Professing faith seems like a requirement for the job. Seems to me that she's like a school teacher who has decided to disregard the required curriculum. From her beliefs, she sounds like she should be at a Unitarian church instead. One thing people lose when they leave the church is the sense of community. Some atheists have been trying to create these "atheist churches" to build the same sort of sense of community that religious people enjoy. I don't know whether it will take off. -k

I know the improvement you're all hoping for, and as much as I'd like to post more, I only have so much free time. I do my best to provide as much Fresh Kimmy as possible, but I do have a life outside the forum, and there's only so much Kimmy to go around. Thanks for understanding. -k

Japan did a lot more than crash a few airplanes into some ships, dude. Go read about Japan's actions during WWII, as well as their numerous other atrocities during the first half of the 20th century. -k

Go read about Operation Downfall. Because that is what would have happened if Japan had not surrendered when they did. The Americans were on the brink of launching would would have been the most ambitious and most devastating military assault in history. The Americans were projecting to lose from 250,000 to over 500,000 American soldiers. The cost to the Japanese in military lives alone would have been multiple millions. The cost to Japan in civilian lives and destruction would have been utterly catastrophic. The United States was prepared to use not one, not two, but 7 more atomic bombs against Japan in the course of Operation Downfall. The devastation that would have befallen Japan would have been the most horrifying thing in human history. Yes, Japan are extremely lucky that they surrendered when they did. If the decision to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is what made up their minds, then they should put up a statue of President Truman in Tokyo. -k

Good grief, "shots fired in anger" is a figure of speech meaning "in active conflict". Nuclear weapons have been detonated many times, but only twice as an act of war. Every other time has been as a test or demonstration. The decision to use nuclear weapons against Japan was hotly debated within the US government, and was not made lightly. -k

I have a hunch that the social stigma of self-identifying as a Harper supporter in 2015 is pretty different from the stigma of self-identifying as a homosexual 40 years ago. This same "hidden closet" was supposed to be the reason why Obama was going to lose 2 presidential elections in spite of polls that said he'd win. "People are afraid to say they won't vote for Obama because they don't want to look like racists," the logic went. It turns out that the pollsters had it right and the people counting on the "hidden closet" were wrong. It turns out that there weren't very many votes hiding in that closet. There won't be many votes in this one either, August. -k

We already saw Petyr's "gift" to Olenna, and the ultimate effect was Cersei's walk of shame in episode 10. In other GoT news, Max von Sydow has supposedly been cast as the Three Eyed Raven. I think this rumor is probably fake, since: -von Sydow has only two eyes, -and is clearly not a raven. -k

If you insist on using language that you know is going to cause offense, you're not really trying to have a conversation, you're just trying to cause offense. It's entirely predictable that the conversation is going to turn hostile, and it's your own fault for taking it there. You weren't really interested in talking at all, you were interested in badgering somebody for "looking to be offended". Wait, so you're saying you don't personally use the word "negro" when you talk to black people? Why is that? Why would you deprive yourself of this opportunity to assert your Free Speech Rights and inform people that they're irrational for taking offense? "Where are you from?" has a different connotation when you're used to hearing it being asked by people who assume from your appearance that you're an immigrant. "You people" has a different connotation when its being used to ascribe stereotypical traits to you based on your skin color. -k

Ok, so first off Cecil had a name because he was part of a long-running research project. It's not just something people tacked on after he was killed. Second, how did you hear about this Sabrina Corgatelli person? You heard about it because people are mad at her and the media picked up on it. So spare us the clap-trap that people aren't mad at her because she's a woman. The stuff on her facebook page makes clear that's not the case. She's clearly loving the attention, trolling people on her facebook page. "To all the haters. Stay tuned, you’re gonna have so much more to be p***** off about." She doesn't have a dental practice. She does have a web store, where she sells hunting apparel. 95% of people probably think she's scum, but they're not the peope who would buy her stuff anyway. Her customers would be a bunch of Ted Nugent type assholes, and killing a bunch of wild animals probably makes her a hero to them. She's probably hoping all this attention brings more Ted Nugent pricks to her web-store. -k

Well, I was hoping to illustrate two points with the fake conversation I wrote. The first is, who are you to decide what's rational or irrational for people to take offense at? The whole thread long I have been asking this question of people who scoff at the idea of "micro-aggressions", and have yet to get any kind of answer. You know that "you people" and "Negroes" is going to cause offense if you're talking to a black person... are you going to use those words anyway and then explain to them that they're being "irrational" when they react negatively? Or are you going to use different words so that the conversation doesn't turn negative? The second is, are you trying to have a conversation or a confrontation? If you're trying to actually have a conversation, why would you sabotage it by using language that you know is just going to antagonize the person you're trying to talk to? Of course, if you're deliberately trying to sabotage the conversation, feel free to continue being a jerk and using confrontational language, but don't complain that the other person is the one being irrational when you've deliberately selected this confrontational course. -k

Ok, so hypothetically Harper wins a majority in the election, and after some short period of time he steps down, and our new Prime Minister is selected by Conservative delegates at a leadership convention in Tuktuyuktuk. And they come up with ... I dunno, let's say (trumpet flourish) Pierre Poilievre or (trumpet flourish) Lisa Raitt. Still happy? Or are you going to be like "heeeyy, I didn't want this politically correct bs, I thought we were getting Jason Kenney." -k

There's nothing "intelligent" about the notion that you have any business telling people how they're supposed to feel about things. "You people need to stop resisting police. Just cooperate and everything will be fine." "What do you mean 'you people'?" "You know. Negroes." "What the--" "Look, there's no need to be irrational. Negroes is a historically accurate term." "Are you for real?" "See, this is why I find it so frustrating to deal with you people. You react so irrationally to everything. Why do Negroes have to react emotionally instead of having an intelligent discussion?" Yeeaaaahhh, *that's* an intelligent discussion. -k

First off, it's a big assumption to assume everybody would be in favor of this. Secondly, even if not, the morality of the drug itself isn't the only issue to discuss. For example, why did this take so long, and what are the political ramifications. If you aren't personally interested in the topic, why not move along instead of being a crybaby? Complaining that somebody started a thread that you don't personally find interesting is a diva move. -k

What you're describing is so far from the reality of our system, it's almost like you're new here. The reality is, people don't vote for 1 of 309 members of parliament, they vote for 1 of 3 parties. People don't care at all which backbencher will sit in Parliament on behalf of their riding. People care a lot which party is in power, and especially who is the Prime Minister. And if people vote for the Conservatives with the expectation that Harper will continue as PM, and he then proceeds to step down and hand the keys over to some doof who wins a clown-show leadership convention, people are going to be pissed. -k

He wasn't doing something legally. That is an established fact. His defense is that he claims he didn't know they were breaking the law. And what weight should we give his claims? He has a proven track record of poaching. And he has a proven track record of lying about it. He was caught and confessed to both of those things in the United States, when he and his buddies drove into a Wisconsin wildlife reserve, killed a bear, then drove back to Minnesota and lied to authorities in claiming they'd killed the bear there, instead of in the protected wildlife area. We know he did that, because he confessed to it. And that whole scenario doesn't sound too different from what he and these guides did this time: drove into the national park where Cecil was protected, and lured him out into the neighboring farmer's land where they killed him. The farm owner has been charged in connection with this as well; he was in on it. You really don't think Dr Walt was aware that this farm was right next to the national park when he booked his safari? That he didn't know they were heading into the national park? You don't think he was the least bit suspicious that they insisted on leading the lion back the direction they came from before they let him shoot it? You think all of this just didn't register with him? You think the guides told him something like "No, Meester! Must not shoot lion here! Haunted forest! Evil spirit! Much bad luck! Must lure lion back to farm before shoot!" and he bought it? Do you think Dr Palmer graduated dental school and became this financially successful by being stupid? Personally, I think his claim that he didn't know what was going on is a big fat lie. And the question of his legal guilt only matters in court. He might get extradited to Zimbabwe and a judge there can decide if they believe his version of the story. There's lots of things that are legal, but are still scummy. If Dr Walt had gone to Zimbabwe and got real permits to hunt a lion that wasn't on protected land and part of a research project, that might have been legal, but I still don't have to like a guy who goes out and blows $50,000 to kill an endangered animal so he can feel like a big man. Cattle and pigs are never going extinct. Rhinos and lions and whales and lots of other things probably are. Do you want your grandkids to grow up in a world where the only animals left are ones that we've decided to grow in feed lots? That's the direction we're heading. -k

He himself has admitted to the facts; the defense he has offered is not "I didn't do it" but rather "I thought I was doing it legally." I don't even care if he thought he was doing it legally. -k

Rajotte (he was my MP last time I lived in Edmonton) is leaving politics. I don't know that there was ever anything special about him; just a typical backbencher, isn't he? I had no idea Jean Charest was still around. -k

He had $50,000 (plus travel expenses) to blow on this adventure, and on other safaris in the past. He had $125,000 to compensate his receptionist for unlawfully firing her after she threatened to report him for ongoing sexual harassment. He might not be up there in the billionaire club, but it seems like he's doing all right. I think that in light of Dr Walt's misfortune, a lot of people who depend on the goodwill of consumers might have second thoughts about going hunting for endangered animals. And I think that the fake rhino horn idea is pretty brilliant, provided they can create convincing fakes. If you're shopping for a rare item, say on eBay, and you discover that 95% of the eBay listings for the item are actually fake and you have no way to tell which ones are real... are you still going to fork over big money for it? If you're a seller, how do you convince a prospective buyer that unlike most of the other listings you have the real thing? -k