kimmy

Obama's comments about "they cling to guns and religion" was part of a talk in which he tried (unsuccessfully, apparently) to explain the cultural divide between small-town conservative America and his audience, a wealthy gathering of west-coast donors. It wasn't mean-spirited, though it may have been condescending. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/obama-no-surprise-that-ha_b_96188.html It became quite a talking point for his opponents, being referenced repeatedly by people like Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin. -k

Entertaining stuff! -k

A birthmark isn't a deformity, nor is it a disability. In his case, it was just something that often made people cringe noticeably when they saw him for the first time. (I think it was what's called a "port wine stain", if you're wondering what I'm talking about.) I think to try and describe this as "ableism" would be to twist the definition of a disability to mean something it was never intended to. Or we could say that the startled reactions my acquaintance encounters daily just don't qualify as "microaggression" even though they're surely just as hurtful as the examples offered by the UC brochure, if not more so. Or we could say that the concept of micro-aggression, as explained in the Wiki article, isn't broad enough and discounts the experience of people who don't fall into a handful of check-box categories. -k

You keep saying stuff like this... But there's nothing to suggest this is actually happening, or is even the intent of the policy. -k

Well, that's what I'm trying to grasp here. From what I've gathered reading the Wiki article and the responses here it seems to relate to identity politics-- originally race, then later extended to include gender, sexual orientation, perhaps mental illness and ableism. None of that would seem to include somebody who is extremely unattractive or very overweight or has some visible deformity, or my acquaintance with the big purple birthmark that covers half his face. I don't think the offered explanation of what is a micro-aggression includes any of these circumstances. Yet it is obvious that all of these situations could result in continual reactions (both intentional and unintentional) from other people that would be hurtful and damaging. The example I offered certainly wasn't a case of ableism. He had no disability of any sort, simply a physical appearance that often caused people to react with noticeable discomfort. Quite similar to the example in the brochure of a woman adjusting her grip on her purse when a black person approaches. -k

Nobody has to, but somebody ought to say something before it turns into an elephant in the room. -k

You've heard the phrase "I won't even dignify that with a response." If somebody of the stature of Jeb Bush bothers to respond to a guy like Trump, then it might give the impression that Trump has a position that merits discussion. On the other hand, if nobody responds, it could create the impression that the candidates believe that it's politically disadvantageous to denounce Trump's views (ie, they believe there's actually a significant number of voters that they could alienate if they denounce Trump's comments.) It's a touchy subject for a lot of conservative voters. Recall Mitt Romney's attempts to tip-toe around the issue last time around with his inane comments regarding "self-deportation." Jeb Bush's Latino-friendly credentials aren't in doubt, but how many of the other candidates can say the same? -k

Gamergate is that nonsense still going on? -k

One of the things that does kind of rub me the wrong way about this is that it seems to elevate ethnicity and gender above other experiences. Like, if you make one of these unintentionally hurtful remarks to a woman or to a minority, that's a "micro aggression" and we're trying to stop that... but the wide variety of hurtful remarks made to other people don't seem to be cause for concern. Somebody who is fat or unattractive or has a visible deformity or some other unusual physical characteristic will experience many intentional and unintentional offenses in the course of a day but it's apparently not a micro-aggression. I had an acquaintance with a very large, somewhat startling birthmark that covered much of his face; for many people their reflexive reaction is to look away or to stare. Imagine going through life when half the people you encounter give visible indication that they're shocked by your appearance. But he's white and male, so it's not micro aggression apparently. -k

Of course he's enjoying it. It's the ultimate act of self-aggrandizement from a guy whose entire life is one big exercise in self-aggrandizement. Ultimately Trump running for the nomination doesn't hurt anybody except possibly Republicans. One of the things that Rince Priebus and the egg-heads at the RNC learned from 2012 is how crazy-talk alienated people. They wanted to present a more diverse, more tolerant face for the party in 2016. But here's this loudmouth running around with his megaphone shouting the same kind of rhetoric that alienated people last time around. They would desperately like for Carly Fiorina to at least be in the top 10 so that they'll have a woman on stage during the debates... if she gets bumped out of the debates by a loud-mouth guy ranting and raving against Mexicans, Rince is going to face-palm so hard he'll have a hand-print on his face for weeks. -k

I don't see any harm in providing college instructors with information about how common phrases or ideas might be perceived by students from other backgrounds. Ultimately I don't think anybody really *means* to cause offense with phrases like "where are you from?" or "wow, you speak English really well" or "I would never have guessed you're a scientist" and that sort of thing... providing some perspective on how the other person might perceive these comments doesn't hurt anyone. On the other hand, if there was a decree that said "you must not discuss any of these topics" that would be different. But I have not actually seen evidence that these topics have been banned from discussion. If you're a professor where it's a relevant topic, it probably doesn't hurt having some understanding of how some students might perceive your discussion on affirmative action. Perhaps it might help you plan a lecture that's better received. If you're a professor where it's not a relevant topic, then it might again help you to understand how launching into a broadside rant about affirmative action might alienate some of your students. -k

That fake clip of Obama kicking the door open is hilarious, and not racist at all. Trigger warning: -k

Of course he was being sarcastic. Nonetheless there were dummies claiming that the Parliament Hill shooting was staged by the government to provide justification for anti-terrorism laws. Cybercoma, the term "false flag" refers to an act carried out in such a way that the act is assumed to have been performed by someone else. Historically there was a naval tactic by which a ship would fly different colors to get close to an enemy vessel, then strike their colors and fly their real colors when they were in range to engage (see the movie "Master and Commander" for a fictional example of this being done.) Later and more deceptively it has been used as a pretext for war. For example, the Red Army went to the border with Finland and shelled a Russian border village, then claimed the Finns had done it and declared war against Finland... thus creating a completely fake justification for the Winter War (in which they got whipped. Karma.) More recently and more on-point is the idea of committing acts of terrorism as a pretext for staging war against a presumed sponsor of terrorism. Operation Northwoods was a never-implemented but real plan concocted by the US government which CIA spooks would commit acts of terror against the US and blame it on Cuba, giving the US a justification to invade Cuba. And this is what the conspiracy people are talking about, particularly in regard to 9/11. If the US government had a plan to commit fake terrorism to give them a justification to invade Cuba, then maybe 9/11 was also a plan invented to provide pretext to go to war. And the same people are convinced that the mass murder at Sandy Hook elementary school was a fictional event created by the US government to create an excuse for gun control laws. And so on. Any time anything bad happens, anywhere, the same kooks are out there shouting that it was a "false flag operation" created by the government to give the government an excuse to do something. "...take away our guns!" "...take away our Confederate flags!" In this new world, nothing ever happens on its own, it's always part of a larger secret agenda run by the government, Jews, Illuminati, or 12 foot tall shape-shifting lizards from space. -k

Well, again, look where the debate has gone in a short amount of time. It's gone from "the system is awesome, people who can't afford insurance don't matter and people who can't get insurance due to pre-existing conditions don't matter" to "we have to do something, but the President's plan is not the right answer." -k

oh FFS. You conspiracy people are frickin INSANE, Gost. The angle they *didn't* show you, which is widely available, shows Roof's car surrounded on all sides by cops with drawn guns. Complaining that this doesn't look realistic because they didn't beat his ass Eric Garner style is pretty retarded. The rest of their "detective work" -- namely that the photos must have been staged because he was allegedly a loner doesn't work either, because we know he did have friends. I don't get this whole mentality that everything that ever happens must be a giant hoax. "9/11 didn't happen!" "Sandy Hook didn't happen!" "The Malaysian jet didn't go missing!" "The Baltimore riots were created to distract us from SOMETHING!" "It's a false flag! Everything's a false flag!!!" You told me you've quit doing Alex Jones, it sounds like you've found something equally stupid to replace him with. You guys are out of your freaking minds. -k

Rush's influence within the party, and in general, is declining. His ratings are declining and he's being dropped by top stations and picked up by smaller stations. -k

Even the Republicans now seem to agree that the status quo as of 2008 needed improvement, and just disagree with how to fix it. Aside from Ted Cruz, the Republican thinking seems to be more along the lines of improving on Obamacare, rather than scrapping it. The Hatch-Burr-Upton plan would keep many elements of Obamacare, while getting rid of some controversial aspects and introducing some improvements (ending preferential treatment of insurance offered through employers in favor of individual tax credits for insurance, rate scales that are less tilted against young people). The big question is whether it could work when the individual mandate has been scrapped. But look at where the debate has gone in the past 8 years. It used to be that the Republican position on healthcare was that it was awesome as it was and the only thing that would make it better would be laws to reduce malpractice lawsuits. And the only plans being proposed were tax-free savings accounts to let people save for medical emergencies as if they were retirement plans or college tuition. Now everybody except Ted Cruz seems to agree that some sort of plan is required, and Republicans are even offering plans of their own. -k

Really, Shady? I thought you just wanted Joe to run for the laughs it would cause. If he does win the Democratic nomination, I hope that Paul Ryan wins the Republican nomination, just for the hilarity of seeing them debate. -k

In 2008 Hilary was following around behind Obama saying "guys! Look, I'm hip and with it too! Look! I am on MySpace and I have a iPod and I am in touch with the young folks too! See? I am cool! I *am* cool!" This time she is going to "guys! Look, I'm concerned crony-capitalism and opportunity for young people too! Look! I am made a statement about Trans Pacific Partnership and a statement about tuition and I am in touch with the young folks too! See? I am cool! I *am* cool!" But in 2008 she was never actually hip and with it. And in 2016, she's been travelling around the world promoting TPP and she's using unpaid internships to get young people to work on her campaign for free. Aside from some social issues, she might as well be a Republican. -k

I'm all for it. However, the illegal drug trade is apparently very lucrative. Want to drive a Bentley, Lamborghini, or top-of-the-line Range Rover? I don't see these outside doctor's offices or law offices... I see them at the grow-op supply shop. No matter how many drug people you throw in jail, that powerful lure of money is going to make sure there's somebody else to take their place. -k

Of course there's no guarantees of anything. That includes the premise that better gun control would have prevented him from getting a gun. But I'd point that some of the deadliest incidents of mass violence in Canada were carried out without guns. That includes the Air India bombing, as well as less well known incidents like a bombing at Giant Mine in Northwest Territories during a labor strike, a biker gang incident in Montreal where a night club was burned down with people inside. And as always, I'm somewhat in the middle of warring factions on this issue, because I support sensible gun policies, while I oppose the kind of hysterical over-reaction that some here are advocating. Canada's gun control laws work fine. We don't have a gun problem. We don't need to spend billions of dollars to fight a problem that, statistically speaking, is extremely minor. And to those who say "you can't put a price on human life! If it saves even one life it's worth it!" ...think about how many human lives could be spent if these untold billions were spent in more constructive ways. -k

I'm all in favor of some level of gun control. I'm in favor of careful screening of applicants. I'm in favor of delicensing people with criminal records and drug problems and taking their guns away. All of these things could have prevented Roof from buying a handgun. However, gun or no gun he was a racist who was determined to kill black people, and you can't legislate that away. -k

Will you be a "tribal" guy, or a "barbed wire" guy? That's what I'm wondering. -k