JerrySeinfeld

Indeed. Those who still insist on 2006 thinking on Iraq mustn't havee read a newspaper sincce then. The odd car bomb aside (nothing Paris, Israel, London don't experience), Iraq is a changed place from 4 years ago. Some people don't wish to recognize that fact.

Iraq is a free country thanks to the war that was won. Democracy, human rights, freedom. Good riddance Saddam, Chemical Ali and the rest.

What colour is the sky in your world? Certainly innocents died in the Iraq war - UNINTENTIONALLY. But if you're going to draw a moral equivalence between Islam and the west, you might want to pick another area for comparison. It's pretty common knowledge that in the contest for killing innocent civilians, Islam gets the gold medal

Interesing clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_83AZD4TgoQ&feature=related

Michael I believe the mistake you've made here - and one that many Muslim apologists make - is that Islam is more than a religion; it is a political project, which envelopes the arenas of culture, government, freedom of speech, etc. How else would you explain the Canadian Islamic Congress trying to shut down Mark Steyn or Ezra levant? The motivation certainly wasn't because anyone was preventing them from worship. No. The motivation has more to do with a prominent Islamic group attempting to dominate and overturn our fundamental freedoms in the charter, simply because they are "insulted". CIC isn't a "fringe group" - but a mainstream representation of Muslims in Canada. The complaints against Steyn were based upon one simple premise: making the any negative public remarks about Islam in Canada de facto against the law. Can you think of any countries like that? How about Saudi Arabia, which means the action taken against Steyn was a veiled attempt at importing Saudi style values onto Canadians. We are all lucky that MacLeans and Steyn had the cojones to stand up and fight. Any lesser person or organization would have been censured, found "guilty" (100% conviction rate at the HRC) and paid a hefty fine, making the idea of ever criticizing Islam in public a very dangerous and expensive one for anyone who chose to go there. Hence the title question. You yourself have chosen to criticize other religions an cultures on this page. You should be thankful you enjoy this right, but by excercising that right you have answered my question: yes it should be OK to insult any religion, and Islam is not beyond debate, not should it be. If the CIC had won, we would be that much closer to Sharia in this very country. The very fact that the CIC took this case to "trial" is evidence of the Islamic community's lack of respect for the fundamental institutions upon which our society (and other societies) is founded. In their minds, it is "Islam first, fundamental freedoms second". This lack of respect, or at the very least, understanding, for the foundation of democracy is troubling, no?

It's a bizzare behavior: everytime someone mentions saudi officials pushing uncovered little girls back into a burning building, someone here at home brings up Jenny Craig - as if there is a moral equivalency. Women are not opressed in this country. Not in the least. Women are free to choose their own career, their own religion, where they wish to live, with whom they wish to associate, what they wish to eat, wear, read, listen to, vote for. Women are given virtually every advantage including favourable college and university admission standards, reduced expectations (a lower bar) for employment criteria in some cases and even their own university departments (women's studies) - ever seen a "department of men's studies" in a Canadian university? It makes me ill when I see people like Susan Cole try the logical acrobatics of drawing a moral equivalency between a mysoginistic murderous theocracy and Canada. But I supppose when you're life's goal is to find new and creative ways to criticizee your own culture and embolden objectively barbaric and inferior ones, you'll say pretty much anything.

Yea - because as a society we spend no time at all self-flagellating eevery aspect of ourselves. LOL! "We're ruining the planet! We're resposible for 9-11! We need to discuss racism! We need to examine the mysoginy that lurks within all men!" Sound like something we never do? Sounds more like a weekend watching CBC and CNN to me. The definition of a nanosecond: The time between a terrorist attack and someone in the west explaining how we were asking for it. We need to spend more time self-examining and self-criticising? Give me a freaking break. All we do is self-criticize. Perhaps if Islam had a few more Irshad Manjis and a a lot less nutjobs we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.

I would word it differently. Men achieve a lot of things, and make big decisions in life. But on the day to day things there is an odd and large slant biased toward women. Serendipitously, an interesting article touching on this topic appeared in the media today. Consider the following: http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/04/14/barbara-kay-male-studies-a-proposed-curriculum.aspx

Well, you are right about that. Interestingly it does any identity group no favours to have that attitude persist, however.

Around the western world of democratic countries there seems to be some considerable debate about whether or not it's OK to insult Islam. I find this peculiar because for decades holly wood has made films insulting to Christianity. Do the hardline Christians protest? Sure they do. That's their right. But the case of Islam becomes intriguingly different for a couple of reasons. First, a Dutch filmmaker (Theo Van Gogh) was murdered when he made an unflattering film about Islam. He was shot several times then his throat was cut to near decapitation, then a dagger was pinned to his chest with a note full of Islamic threats. Similarly, not too long ago a Muslim man invaded the home of the guy who made those infamous cartoons depicting Mohammed, and attempted to kill him. My point? It has become increasingly dangerous to speak freely in any disparaging way about Islam. What this means in practise is that certainly you may be free to make a movie about Islam, but really - are you willing to risk it? Steven Spielberg has made some interesting challenging films. Similarly, Brokeback Mountain or Capote were films that were supposed to be "daring" and "fighting the power". But were they really that courageous? Was Billy Graham showing up at Jake Gillenhall's doorstep with a gun and a machete? Here's a test for Hollywood courage: make a movie about how women are treated in the Middle East and see how much more protection you'll need at the red carpet, let alone your own home. Second, if threats of violence are not enough to deter you from saying ANYTHING badly about Islam in the media, how about actual government power? As we now know, Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant were hauled out on the carpet at the Human Rights tribunals for saying disparging things about the religion. They eventually won their case, however it was only due to deep pockets and their willingness to fight and fight hard. Imagine a normal private citizen facing the same inquisition? You would be railroaded and the expense would be enormous. In other words, you better just keep your mouth shut about Islam or you'll be paying...and paying and paying, that price. Is this freedom? In many many nations in the mid east, it is illegal to insult the prophet. Have we gotten there in our own country, without really realizing it? If we de facto cannot insult the religion here in Canada, are we that far off from the religious tyranny that exists in Saudi Arabia? http://bnp.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/muslim-march.jpg

Haha. You could be right. But it seems to me there is a plethora of media messages portraying "man as dummy" out there. And even if it is simply a target market trick aimed at pleasing the female eye, is it not still unhealthy to support this kind of viewpoint about men? Look at the flip side of that coin: I don't see many men's products that portray women as stupid. For instance, if "Gillete Mach 3 Razors" started a campaign with the basic premise that women are dummies, I bet you'd be hearing from women's groups and the Jack Laytons of the world about it. Just sayin' I see a double standard. With the help of strong lobby groups, little girls are consistently exposed to messages of self esteem building and general encouragement in schools. Statistically girls are more called upon in class and more encouraged to "do well" in school, yet it is boys who suffer most when you look at educational statistics. Example: Virtually every university in the continent as a "Department of Women's Studies". Is there a comparible for men? Point being - if we're all going to be concerned about "gender equity" - isn't it time we started paying attention to the neglected sex - ie, Males? How healthy can it be for young males to grow up in a world where they're consistently told to shut up and that men are dummies?

Yay! Let the hunt for a perceived disadvantageed identity group representative begin!

I list for you just a few examples of the "men are immature dufuses who need to be corrected and taught by women" stereotype that pervades the media: Tool Time (sitcom) Everybody loves Raymond (sitcom) Kellogs Fruit and nut cereal commercial Danone Yogurt commercial If the shoe was on the other foot, women's groups would be enraged.

Bush was smart enough to realize that waiting for agreement and "multilateralism" from the likes of France, China or Russia is a fool's game. Likewise he recognized long before the rest of the planet did that the UN is a collection of thugs, dictators and bureaucrats - hardly the kind of people you want on your team if you're really in favor of getting things done as opposed to talking it to death. See: Banda Aceh tsunami. Americans were there in a mattter of days while the UN was still talking it over.

I wouldn't bet on that. The US economy is in the midst of a massive deleveraging. Thingsa could easily be worse by then. But betting your re-election hopes on the prospect of a stronger US economy in 2012 seems to be coming from a pretty weak place given the huge popularity the guy enjoy not even 12 months ago. Any way you look at it, Bush Cheney's assessmenet - that Obama has suffered the fastest drop in approval of any president in history - is a correct one. No question he still has time to pull things out of the fire. Will he? Tough to say. But the american people have fairly convincingly communicated to the Democrats that they don't like this health care bill and don't want it, especially that the timing couldn't be worse given the state of the economy. Regardsless of what political stripe the pundits are, they seem to universally agree that the democrats will pay dearly at the polls in November, possibly losing the majority in both the house and Senate. It's gotten so bad that some Democrats have even given up the idea of running again this fall. Meantime since inauguration day, Iran has increased the number of centrifuges enriching uranium fro 400 to 8,000 and bumbped up the level of enriuchment from 5% to 20% - and the economy is hardly in a healthy state. So, going into year 2, we have a weakened President who lost his majority, making it even more difficult to govern, an Iranian policy that has by all measures, failed, and an electorate pissed of that his position oin health care polling is that "you people are too dumb to know what's good for you - so we're ramming the bill through anyway." Sounds like a recipe for a Carter style implosion to me. I guess there really is more to life than being able to deliver a knock out speech. Heck, everytime he gives yet another one on Health care, the approval numbers drop anothe couple of points.

Do you think a killer whale is actually happy in a small tank? They aren't like dogs - domesticated for thousands of years.

Or maybe we should blow up seaworld. I don't like these animals being used for shows. I don't mind zoos with really nice animal quarters (although even then they make me sad), but it seems like the shows take it a little too far. Thoughts?

I love that phrase "the assets" - is if to imply that Tiger Woods didn't earn the entire lot. No wonder women coo about marriage so much more than men do - what's the downside to marrying Tiger? It doesn't work out and he forks over half of his money to you? Geez. Tough decision. lol

Sorry Kimmy, I gotta disagree here. Your observations are partly right, but I think you're limiting your analysis to social settings and mating, which is natural as you are a woman observing the male culture from the outside looking in. I actually used to feel this way too, however as I matured and met more succesful, well respected and purely dominent males, I started to realize many other aspects of a "lead male" which relate to respect and status (such as achievement, intelligence and, yes, money for example), which had nothing to do with how a particular male performs in a social setting. The best example (although it's not a perfect match) I can think of is a general manager of a hockey team. The players down on the ice are the young boys and the behavior to which you refer in your post. Beating eachother up, performing best in their given limited venue is what matters to them. But everyone in the entire arena knows who's really in charge. And he doesn't have to speak loud or carry a big stick to try to prove it. Another exmaple? How about James Bond. Not the centre of attention. Just classy, cool, and in charge. I guess what I'm saying is, in a more mature environment outside off a bar full of youthful testosterone laden boys, there is another, higher level of Alpha male. In today's world, the Alpha male you describe in college often ends up washing someone else's car in his 30's. Make any sense?

I haven't been on here i awhile. I hopped on here expected to see some discussion of the recent revelation of the "climate change emails". Has this flown under the radar here?

I love this reply. Actually, Webster's apparently has a new definition for the words "split second" It's now defined as the length of time between a violent muslim attack and someone on the left expressing concern about "possible backlash against muslims" and bringing up "Timothy McVeigh". It happens so often (about every 4 months since 9-11 statistically) it's gotten to the point of pure comedy. Perhaps we'll get used to the next headline: "Muslims fear backlash against muslims in the wake of tomorrow's bombings".

Interesting action today. The Iranian government held it's annual anti-America rally outside the former US embassy (which by the way was sovereign US soil attacked by Ahmedinejad and his buddies at the time). The rally shouted "death to America". Meanwhile the Ayatollahs have rejected the notion of negotiating anything with respect to nukes. How's that extended hand doing, hanging out there in the wind, Obama? And then, when the anti-ayatollah protesters showed up and started chanting "Obama, you are either with us or with them" - that was truly awesome. Why? Because in an ironic one line phrase, those protesters have borrowed a phrase from GW Bush to illustrate how correct Bush has been about these guys all along. Sweet irony. So, BHO...are you with the democratic uprising, or with the Ayatollahs. Strange corenr he's painted himself into, isn't it. He wants to show the left at home and the euroninnies that he's "negotiating" - ie using diplomacy. But 1. It's not working. 2. There is an uprising of true democracy brewing in the country, and if he wants to "negotiate" or "extend a hand" to the Mullahs, he'd better not piss them off. For the king of double speak, I can't wait to see the verbal gymnastics he's got for this one.

Exactly, TK. Bang on, but you forgot one thing. You probably would suffer alot worse (death? prison?) if you walked around in a skirt in certain arab countries.

What do you mean "we can accomplish" - you mean society?

So what? I tell my assistant she's the absolute best and that I couldn't do anything without her. You'd be surprised what you can get a woman to do by feeding her sense of accomplishment. Market value isn't determined by whether it's difficult work. It's determined by what the market is willing to pay. And supply/demand determines that. Let's be frank, if you're in a shitty paying job, it's probably because there's another schlepp down the line ready to replace you. The world is chock full of administrative assistants without whom their boss "couldn't do anything", but therein lies the problem: the world is full of 'em. Same goes for childcare. Show me a childcare person (ie woman) who think's her work is irreplaceable and I'll show you dozens more that think the same thing. It's not rocket surgery we're talking about here.