JerrySeinfeld

Nationalized Daycare, support for a draconian, economically dibilitating Kyoto Protocol, Anti-Afghanistan (isn't Dion?), Reducing the age of consent for anal sex to 14.... Don't these things sound more like NDP style politics? But they aren't, they're Liberal ones. As I said in another post: Regardless of what happens in the next election, Dion is i trouble longer term by marrying himself and the Libs to Kyoto, climate change, anti-war and other short-sighted feel good policies normally reserved for the NDP. The Liberals are so intent on demonizing Stephen Harper as a cold-hearted right wing zealot, they've painted themselvs into an NDP corner by default. Will the country go for this? This type of feel good socialism usually plays well in hard times, but times are amazingly good right now in this country, perhaps the best ever? My theory: These expensive feel good left wing ideas will play well in the traditional heartland of BS academic government pork: Toronto, Vancouver, maybe Montreal. But will the ROC go for it? No. We could be in for minorty governments for awhile. And this could be a very good thing: isn't it refreshing to see politicians suck up to us full time, instad of just during elections? Thoughts please.

OK but enough of party pissing matches and back to the subject at hand: The article succinctly points out several reasons why Kyoto and the whole global warming ("climate change") thing is a fad based upon questionable science that shouldn't be used to dictate national econaomic policy. Period. Not sure how the next electino will play out, but I think Dion is in trouble longer term by marrying himself and the Libs to Kyoto, climate change and anti-war policies. I have comment on this before: the Libs are so concerned with painting Harper as a demonic cold-hearted right-winger, they're painting themselvs into an NDP corner by default. That will divide the country even further between the bleeding hearts in Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal but won't curry much favor anywhere else. With this leftiest polarization strategy the Libs are employing we could see minority governments for quite awhile.

You're wacked man. Lots of chicks dig the rugged "who gives a shit" look - as long as you don't smell like crap and take care of your body. In fact I read somewhere that women who are ovulating tend to be more attracted to men with "manly" features like facial hair or broad shoulders....nothing at all to do with clothing. Being able to clean-up nice never hurts - but personally I think women like the "cleaned up" look alot more when they know there's a "man" (ie. not a priss) underneath - I've had a lot of women tell me exactly that.

I'll put in language you can understand: talking "beauty" not "healthy". no mean same thing. For me health is a big part of beauty. Slim is generally more attractive, or "beautiful" if you will. Fat, not so much. Not too healthy eaither

Yep. Exactly. Couldn't say it better myself. So in summary: Women wanna look good 'cause men are visual. Been that way since...oh...the cavemen! And we didn't need a multi-billion dollar cosmetics industry to talk us into it. They just profit from an age old truth.

Nothing more then strap on a corset? Whats it designed to do again? Oh yeah make you waist look smaller and your chest bigger. Gee, those people 150 years ago sure had different conceptualizations of how to be more beautiful. I mean the Ideal tightlaced corset is supposed to reduce your waist to a 17 inch circumference. Chances are your average 12 year old anorexic school girl probabley has a larger waist then that. What about Early South American Cultures? Where the Idea of an elongated head was seen as beautifull, so elite children walked around with boards strapped to their heads. Or how about being more cat like in appearence that was supposed to be beautiful. So dental surgery and filing peoples teeth down so they were more pointy was practiced. Or what about the belief that being cross eyed was beautiful. So women went around getting surgery to change the muscles around their eyes to allow them to be cross eyed. Or what about the chinese tradition of foot binding? Now we are bitching and complaining about shaving? Well, yeah...go take a personal poll walk around and ask women wether they would prefer having their feet bound so tight they can't walk or would they prefer to shave their legs. As far as adding a few pounds, people should care. People should notice. The majority of both Canadians and Americans are overweight. And that is a definite health risk. It is something people should take notice of, obesity is an anethama to beauty. Yes not only is it ugly, but it is the ultimate demonstration of how little you value your own body, how little you respect yourself. now the issue may be raised that models are often dangerously skinny. Which may be the case. But infact most studies on what Men find beautifulll indicate that a walking skeleton is not high on the list. But that is no reason to flip to an even more unhealthy extreme, where the majority of the population is obese and at risk for heart disease. Great post. It encapsulates all that I've tried to say over the past 3 pages. In other words: 1. Slim is generally healthy, with a few outlier exceptions. 2. Fat is generally not healthy. 3. What is wrong with encouraging people to be healthy? 4. Many media marketing techniques are mere reflections of values we already hold. In addition: this constant mindset that women are sooooo hard done by in this world is both inaccurate and quite boring.

Heck the libs make fun of US politicians all the time for sport - why can't Day jump into the fray? Especially on such a BS issue like Al Gore's pet global meltdown theory.

So when girls see magazines of thin women they wanna diet or lose wieght? Gee - there's a shocker. OH MY GOD!!! CALL THE SOCIAL ENGINEERING POLICE!!! that about sums it up. But then again, when I see pictures of "The Terminator" it makes me wanna hit the gym Meantime I'm still waiting for the "marginalized 99.9%" to jump off a bridge or starve themselves to death. Till then you haven't really said much.

Exactly. As far as "rational actors" being a myth hmmm: let's follow DOGGY's logic here: The "media standard" (sic) represents only about "0.01%" of the populatino of women. So since people - under the "myth" of rational actors - can't make choices for themselves, then 99.99% of the population of women will be irreparably damaged by the Cover of Cosmo Magazine.

Why do you think that is the purpose of the Dove campaign? The purpose of the Dove campaign is to reach across demographics and establish themselves and their brand as a healthy product that will be with the consumer from when they are in their teens to when they are in their 60s. To understand the radicalness of the campaign you have to understand how cosmetics are normally marketed. MAC doesn't target rural middle age women, Nivea doesn't target young club goers. Elizabeth Arden doesbn't target stay at home moms....and so and so on. Big players like P&G and Lever have multiple brands (like Dove) and they segment the market and attack each group seperately. Dove is trying to imprint its identity as a whole, not just dove soap, or Dove lotion....the correlation would be if Molson stoppped marketing individual labels and concentrated on a core message identifying the Molson Brand and trying to cross the the wide segment of all beer drinkers with one common unifying message. Now ask me about advertisers inserting messages into Corner Gas. Good post. And you've also inadvertantly revealed something else: Maybe young girls aren't easily influenced by the media - but DOGGY sure is. He watches one "Dove" video and he's got himself all up in a lather about media beauty standards

Bait, what bait. There were 9 named storms this year in the Atlantic basin. True none of them hit the US. This isn't meant to be offensive towards you, but the United States is not the only determining factor in the global warming problem. There were 24 named storms in the Pacific, so it wasn't exactly a slow year. I completely agree with you that climate change is a hard thing to prove because it has happened in the past without human intervention. Completely agree. Even as this map shows..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TempAno...cmp_1951-80.gif .... while some areas have experieced increases over the last fifty years or so, there are some areas that haven't. Sure - but 9 named storms still falls well short of the predicted "very active season". I am becoming more and more suspiscious of these people who seem hell bent on proving that the left is finally right about something. In fact - it's kind of pathetic. Since the USSR collapsed, the left has been scrambling from gay marriage to melting iceburgs to islam....anything they can latch onto that is counter to the big bad USA!!!

No it's not - you just didn't understand it. You are the one who brought up models weighing 8% less than "regular" women. I merely pointed out that could be because we're all getting fatter and the models aren't changing. Also, you seem convinced that the media is hell bent on creating images of beauty which cause' "8 year old girls to vomit". I merely pointed out some examples of media which do the polar opposite. As most lefties, your convoluted idea that "big business" or "the media" (vague, undefined terms) is to blame for most of society's ills and I'm merely pointing out how incorrect you actually are. Haha - only if you're living with tunnel vision unable to see the simple idea that encouraging women to get fit isn't a capitalist conspiracy.

Maybe women are just getting fatter. In fact I think I read that our society is getting fatter in general. Maybe it's Mc donald's advertising - or KFC or Hooters. Wait! What is hooters promoting, being fat greasy food) or being thin (the slim busty waitresses)???? I'm confused? Which media should I believe... Oh wait a minute - here's a concept - how about ACCOUNTABILITY FOR MY OWN DECISIONS?!?!?!? I don't see a problem with any media that promotes the idea of being fit. But somehow, as in the same lefty idea that hates good news, doggy has found a way to be angry about it

Not even close. The only one that might stick is THIN. Ya - we should glorify fat people instead - because heart disease isn't the #1 KILLER IN NORTH AMERICA.

I assume this is a calculated attempt to make westerners, and Jews in particular, as angry as people in the Muslim world got over the Mohammed cartoons. His dream would be for outraged Jews to be burning Iranian flags and hucking stuff in mosques all over Europe and North America. Then he could say "See? They mock us for responding with righteous fury when our Prophet is desecrated, but when their own sacred cows are gored, they respond the exact same way." Except, it's not going to happen. Maybe this will be a master-stroke of propaganda in his own homeland and around the Middle East, I don't know. But in the western world, it's just another black mark that will further tarnish peoples' views of the Muslim nations. -k No, Kimmy. Sadly, a few perceptive "hardliners" will notice and encourage the powers to do something. Or in the case of GW Bush, will fight a proxy war against this nut in Iraq. But sadly, most of the west will ignore the conference and we'll hear all kinds of apologist remarks from the likes of the UN and the Europeans about how there is no reason not to allow Iran to have nukes. The only real reason for most lefties to go to war is after it's too late.

And of course, you convieniently ignore all the other things (such as the obession with thinness, which can hardly be argued to have much evolutionary appeal) that are far more prevelant and damaging. Seriously, when was the last time you heard someone say: "Gosh, her hair is so shiny, I wish I looked that healthy." You're losing this one badly, dog. healthy is beautiful. guys don't look at women and say "gosh I love that blush on her face" they just naturally attract to girls with a "glow". The natural healthy glow is much more beautiful than the phony one.

Tall. Thin. White. Light hair/tanned skin. Walked by a magazine rack lately? White? Tall? White? Light Hair? Tanned Skin? Just a couple of examples. The media often portrays ideals. In all facets of life. What's wrong with that?

Non sequiter. We're not talking about what attracts, we're talking about beauty standards as portrayed by the media which are two different things. So what is the media's narrow definition? Blonde hair or Brunette? Light skin or dark? Or Tanned? Or Fair? Big breasts or small? Big hips or narrow ones? Big butts or flat ones? I can't wait to hear all about it....

You've got to be kidding. Attraction is not learned. Although part of it might actually come from outward appearance, it's certainly not even close to being exclusive to that.

Israel will “soon be wiped out”? Iran’s President Ahmadinejad told delegates at his highly controversial Holocaust conference that Israel will “soon be wiped out” a day after he re-iterated his belief that the Holocaust is a “myth” link

So, basically, you're saying the beauty industries promotion of a narrow definition of physical beauty is fine becuase that definition is true? Congratulations: you missed the point too. IOW: "I resent Dove's attempts to broaden teh definition of of beauty beyond the current narrow standards prescribed by society and the media because I have internalized the narrow definition and don't like to see it messed with for some reason." What narrow definition?

And that's an exclusively "woman" problem? Give me a break. Everyone on the face of the earth deals with that. Although judging by the behavior and attitudes of lots of women I know, and judging by the articles and headlines I see on women's magazines I would suggest to you that women do a bang up job of perpetuating the emphasis on outward appearance. Let me guess: that's probably a MAN's fault somewhere down the line?

Instead a tornado hits London, England. And Continental ski hills are all snow-free. And the papers in England are predictably linking the unusual warm weather with global warming. Last year, when Eastern Europe saw some of the lowest sustained temperatures on record? Not a peep. The only thing predictable about the weather is that no matter what happens the eco-doom crowd will spin it to mean that mankind is the devil. Exactly - everything is evidence of global warming, which doesn't make it very scientific. If it's too cold - that's evidence of global warming...or "climate change". This website I believe provides a non-biased (maybe even environmentalist bias?) history of how climates on the earth have change throughout the past 500,000 years, the pastcouple of centuries and even in the past century...this is nothing new - it's just new to bored david suzuki fanatics.

What are you on? It broke a record yesterday for the warmest December 11th on record. http://www.theweathernetwork.com/weather/a...VR.htm?CABC0308 Today it is above seasonal. So we had a bad week, that is bound to happen. You didn't think global warming meant everyday was going to be hot and sunny did you? I think you've made my point loud and clear and I'm glad you took the bait: Everytime there is a weather anomally, we shouldn't start running around drawing major conclusions. It makes me laugh everytime you see a hurricane and someone says "global warming". Last year after Hurricane Katrina we heard CNN and all the retard environmentalists gabbing on about how the storms are getting bigger and fiercer and this is something we can expcet to see more and more of...heck even earlier this year "scientists" were predicting a very active storm season. And what happened this year? NOTHING!!!!! N O T H I N G Not ONE hurricane hit the USA this season. Not ONE.

Actually the nomination process is pretty grassroots. It usually takes place at a community hall or gymnasium and is attended by the individual supporters of each candidate-hopeful. It usually takes around 300-400 votes to win. Your comments about "more contacts" are bogus and could be slanted the other way too: ie. "Men spend all their time at the office cavorting with people who don't even live in the riding so can't nominate him - whereas the man's wife has more time to socialize and participate in community events and fundraisers, which makes her a much more viable candidate." Your point here is a good one though: WHich is exactly what I've been saying. Now you are the one who came up with the possbile reasons and I'll leave that to you. But you have made the point: women do have different priorities and may not involve themselves for their own reasons. Point made.