JerrySeinfeld

I agree. GM should have been allowed to fail. But instead President Obama subverted statute bankruptcy law, screwed the bondholders and gave the company to his buddies in the UAW as payback for election support. Farmers shouldn't get jack shit. Tax "breaks" for the rich? baaaaaahahahahahahaha. ahem...sorry. So if someone pays more than $1 million in taxes, but they get $100k back for allowable deductions, then that's a tax "break"?

To be clear, that's a grand a month for doing abosultely nothing, TM. I agree with Argus. Since when did people who never learned how to grow up and take care of their own adult resposibilities have entitlement to my money? Want money? Work for it, like the rest of us.

Something out of nothing? I dare you...dare you to go to the Hindu Kush wearing a skirt. And yet I saw this walking down Robson Street in Vancouver last week. Your point that Hillary wore different clothing at different times in Pakistan is heard. But the symbolism still exists. The larger point still sits out there exposed like a gay man in Tehran: obvious, yet somehow unacknowledged. Respect goes both ways - or at least it should.

All I know is that I'm happy the Harper team has found a way to crack the stranglehold the Liberal brand has had on most of central and eastern Canada. The Liberal brand is becoming more and more the "Toronto" brand. I think if we (ROC) all band together, we can elect the conservatives and beat up on the Toronto Liberals for decades to come. What sweet irony eh? ROC telling Toronto what to do, and not the other way around. Let's do it, Canada!

I don't know, Kimmy. You're a pretty reasonable person with an easygoing demeanor so you may be OK with it. But I've seen enough of the bra burning feminism around to know that there are plenty of women out there who don't at all like the fact that society "expects" them to behave or dress in a certain way simply because they are a woman. That is essentially what the hijab is, in that part of the world, so in that vain, it is oppressive. Maybe only mildly, but can you be a little bit pregnant? And Kimmy, don't play dumb. She's not wearing that scarf as a fashion statement. Haven't you noticed all the women reporters in public over there wearing the same thing? Christian Amanpour comes to mind. Here's a question: The RCMP is an institution in Canada. Many would say a cultural one as well as a government one, given that red uniform's consistent representation of Canada on the international stage. Wouldn't you expect that, out of respect for the cultural institution, people of varying religions would adapt the dress respectful of that institution as opposed to imposing their own dress code?

Which is one reason why we are there fighting, my friend.

You just made my point even stronger. If you wish to make an attempt to contradict my statement about multiculturalism being unicultural, perhaps you can google me a picture of Ahmedinejad waving an american flag when he vistited Columbia university a couple of years ago.

I don't care if the queen wore th headscarf. That's not an argument. Here is something to consider: multiculturalism is a unicultural phenomenon. It exists solely in the west. ie. you can't go over to pakistan or saudi arabia andd "be multicultural". You go along with their customs. So, when you go there, you go along with their customs. But when they immigrate to the west, we go along with their customs. One of the things most left wing people in the west have a difficult time grasping is that someone who is "of colour" or an immigrant from some foreign land sees themselves as superior, stronger, better than us. That is one of the fundamental flaws of left wing thinking: the antiquated view that immigrants are just lowly brown huddled masses wishing they were just like us. Sure, maybe they like our economic conditions, but a large number, particularly in the Muslim faith, see us as disgusting, weak and immoral. As a Muslim friend of mine is fond of saying: "White is the lowest common denominator". If you take your Obama-coloured glasses off for just a minute and see the clarity that there are countries full of people who believe they are the stronger horse and that we are the weak ones ready to surrender, then you might see Hillary's attire in a different light. That is an obvious symbol of weakness. Look, I'm all for kitchy cultural symbolism in the name of getting along. But when it comes to symbols of women's opprsession, I think it's the wrong message for the first female secretary of state of the USA to don a hijab. Remember, this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoXHXUu-6ow happened just a few kilometers from wheree Hillary was donning the garb. Bad.

I agree. isn't it nice for new people to adjust to their environment, and not the environment be expected to adjust to the new people?

Odd that Hillary would make the choice to wear a hijab in pakistan of all places. I'm sure the Hijab was simply next up in the rotation and, surprise! it happened to be in one of the most violent and Islamic countries in the world. Nothing to see here.

So do you think it's a good idea when someone goes, or comes to another countrry they should show some respect for the customs of that country, or is it better to dress according to your home country's customs?

I don't understand why Hillary Clinton wore a Hijab in Pakistan. Can someone please explain this to me?

Michael, Islam isn't just a religion, though. It is also a political project.

This doesn't surprise me one bit. Why do liberals have the monopoly on new Canadians? Because they are brown and PCs hate brown people? How cliche...and so "1980's". Most of left wing libera; viewpoints on immigrations is antiquated: they are a bunch of brown or yellow huddled masses with no redeeming qualities other than, well, being coloured. Just watch to see the basic attitude of liberals toward coloured folk: you are ours, so you'd better play nice.Unfortunately for the liberals, as things progress many self reliant immigrants will look at their policies and decide they don't agree. The largest minority in the USA is latinos. Do you think they're all shits and giggles about abortion or gay marriage? Being from texas, George W Bush always had a soft spot in his heart for latinos. Future republicans should continue the trend as the latino community represents a huge opportunity for the GOP. Same applies in Canada. Most Sikhs or chinese immigrants don't want a hand out, and they don't want to be patronized to. The whole "hey, you're yellow/brown, so I'm on your team and those horrid tories are not" routine will get more and more tired as new Canadians education themselves. It's patronizing, racist and obtuse. Just ask Barbara Boxer.

|The fact that you believe the earth's resrouces are finite is enough reason to invest in commodities, don't you think?

The problem with rampant multiculturalism as a policy is by definition it believes in everything, which means it believes in nothing. We accept the gay lifestyle, yet we also accept fundamentalist muslims who, in their home country, would stone a gay man to death. As a result of this odd irony, Canada has no identity, which goes a long way in explaining why muslim youths are attracted more so to the ideology of their original country than they are to the ideology of Canada, which is essentially a big vacuum. It might also explain the rise in gay bashing in places like amsterdam (further along the Islamification curve than Canada) and Vancouver. Next time you hear about gay bashing in Canada, make sure you get the name of the assailant, which the ethnically sensitive newsmedia is reluctant to give out. Good chance it will be some variation of muhammed. As one observer aptly put it: "Canada is the world's largest hotel" - a pretty good commentary for anyone who witness the masses of lebanese-Canadian "citizens" who had suddenly found religion and patriotism as the Israeli tanks rolled into southern lebanon a couple of summers ago. In came the Canadian evacuation planes, and, surprise, they all went back HOME to lebanon when the excitement subsided. What's our identity? How about "International Lapdog"

"After the mohammed cartoons, one knows that one can't publish sentences or drawings that defame Islam without expecting a security risk", said Felix Droste, head of Droste publishers. Oh and did you happen to hear about the dutch parlaimeentarian and film maker Geert Wilders who was denied entry into the UK because of his political views on Islam in europe? Just thought you'd like to know how "freedom" is shaping out across the pond.

Especially when any scientist who presents evidence contrary to the "consensus" he is ostracized or brandished as a liar. That kind of reaction doesn't strike me as scientific. The closest thing I would akin such a reaction to is...well, religion. Reminds me a lot of Galileo.

There is a flaw in your analogy too: a 1 degree change in global temperatures over the past century is hardly "uninhabitable" In fact, history has shown that warmer conditions have been more amenable to life, not hostile to it.

Good post, Argus. Really, the litmus test is freedom to criticize, freedom from fear. As I recall, the last temptation of christ and some other provocative films caused some uproar amidst catholics. There were some signs and demonstrations and articles. But I don't recall the kind of worldwide violence against innocents that occurs when someone makes an unflattering film/cartoon/article/book about Islam. Some examples: Worldwide rampages of killing and violence from Danish cartoons including setting fire to the Danish embassy in Lebanon Syria, a nun being shot in the back (and killed), and a worldwide bountry put on the head of the cartoonist who to this day lives under protection and fear. Did this same thing happen to Mel Gibson? The demanding that the chocolate swirl on the top of the burger king ice cream cone be pulled because it resembled the arabic symbol for Allah. The demanding of the removal from stores of a blow up sex doll called "Mustafa Shag" (shouldn't Islam be more concerned about eliminating REAL blow up mohameds?) The murder of Danish filmaker Theo Van Gogh who made an unflatteering film about Islam. Mohammed Bouyeri murdered Van Gogh in the early morning of 2 November 2004, in Amsterdam, in front of the Amsterdam East borough office (stadsdeelkantoor) on the corner of the Linnaeusstraat and Tweede Oosterparkstraat , while he was bicycling to work. Bouyeri shot van Gogh eight times with an HS 2000 handgun, and Van Gogh died on the spot. Bouyeri then cut Van Gogh's throat, nearly decapitating him, and stabbed him in the chest. Two knives were left implanted in his torso, one attaching a five-page note to his body. The note (Text) threatened Western governments, Jews. Has this happened to Mel Gibson? Certainly all religions have zealots who don't like their religion being criticized. But in the modern day the followers of Islam take the cake for being by far the most murderous and violent. What confuses me is why so many peoplee in the west are hell bent on apologizing to Islam every time some nutter jihadist blows something up. We think it shows an attempt of understanding. But very few have considered that they don't see it that way. They see it as weakness. As the leader of Hezbollah once said: "We are not fighting to win something from you in negotiation. We are fighting to destroy you." - an attitude about which President Obama appears sadly ignorant.

When Islamic immigrants make an effort to integrate and break from the hard core mysoginistic roots of radical islamic organization like Al Qaeda or the Taliban, we should applaud and encourage this in our country. Irshad Manji is a self-proclaimeed "Muslim Refusnik", working from withint the muslim religion for much need change with respect to the treatment of women, gays etc. and for peacful attitudes toward western democracies, as opposed to the tradition confrontational attitudes. She recognizez problems within her own community, and also reconizes that the only real change can come from within. Another "Muslim Refuzinik", and leader of the Muslim Canadian Congress, Tarak Fateh, has launched a campaign to ban the burka in Canada. This is a great gesture and step by members of the muslim community toward progress, integration and away from the hardline mysoginistic roots of the Taliban that has for so long hijacked the muslim faith in the name of oppression. Link I'm not entirely sure whether I support and outright ban as I believe in the charter. That said, the burka is a dramatic and shocking symbol of mysoginy and oppression, and there does remain a question as to whether covering your entire face and body in public is safe. Many will argue, I am sure, that wearing the burka is a choice. But as we have seen from the example of honour killings in this country and others, it's difficult to gauge how much "choise" is actually involved. Certainly a girl or women will put on a nice face for the public and tell people she chose to wear it, but when fathers and husbands kill wives and daughters when they do not wear it, fear may play a role in this "choice". So do I favor an outright ban? It's a tough call. But regardless, it's encouraging to see that some parts of islam are speaking out against the wahhabi-fication of islam worldwide. Bravo.

What's wrong with portraying Obama as an ape? can you please explain why it is ok to portray Bush as a monkey but not Obama? I'd like to hear your thoughts on this. Obviously you make some kind of connection in your mind. But heigh ho, you're not racist.

haha that is a good retort. good one BC. You see, the word "racism" is no longer just a word in the dictionary. For those on the left, it is a weapon you use on your opponent. The left is so consumed with race, they don't even know when they're being racist.

Wow - you know it's been a whilee since I watched that video. It rings even clearer today than it did back then; a blatant attempt to remove the fundamental right of freedom of expression from a western democracy: Canada. Just look at those three. I kind of feel for them, because as law students, they still don't see the complete riduculousness of what they want and how incompatible it is with a free society.

Here you go. You can also look it up in UK statistics sites, but be sure to add up all the variations: Muhammed, Mohamed Mohammed etc. Um, should who shut up? You seem confused. If you look at our country, it is Muslims who tried to hijack Canada's Human rights commissions to get others to "shut up: as you put it. Western Standard was basically put out of business for publishing the Danish Cartoons and MacLeans Magazine was hauled out on the carpet in a long drawn out HRC case for printing an article about Islam. Speaking of shutting up, I guess if you make an unflattering film about Islam in Europe, you're expected to "shut up" But I guess someone did that for him: A Dutch filmmaker who outraged members of the Muslim community with his attacks on the treatment of women in Islamic society was gunned down and stabbed to death on an Amsterdam street Tuesday morning. And you're waiting for an Islamic majority? Why wait when you can scare those blasted euro filmakers into silence right now? And heigh ho, since we're all hot for the topic of "shutting up", let's not forrget poor old Danish Cartoonist himself. How's his life going? I guess Islam has no sovereignty to it's host country's laws and values of freedom of expression. Michael, instead of knee-jerk accusations and race baiting, why don't you examine the facts on the ground. The only reason Islamics in this country were not allowed to trample on the basic fundamental right of freedom of expression in this country, which they clearly and on record attempted to do, is because two brave journalists recognized the attempt and fought tooth and nail to expose it. It is clear as day that complaints to the CHRC, backed by major Canadian Islamic groups in this country, attempted to subvert the fundamental human right of freedom of expression (and by default, freedom of discourse). That is a fact, Michael. You can throw around accusations all you want, but you can't dispute basic facts. I'm not against Muslim immigration. Rather I favour Muslim INTEGRATION. Kofi Anna was wrong: the host country ought not to be the one doing the "adjusting".