JerrySeinfeld

You mean they actually have sovereignty over their own persons? OutRAGEOUS! 'course you don't mention how rare that is in this world, nor do you mention all the other ways women lack power. Actually if you read more carefully you'll see I refer to OUR SOCIETY (not the world). I would concede your allusion to the fact that women's power dynamic is certainly in a diffrent realm in other parts of the world (read: Muslims cuontries). The point I'm making is an interesting one, though. You're right when you say they have sovereignty over their own persons in our society which is a given. What I'm talking about is the result of that. That sovereignty, for good or bad, also results in a great deal of power (the original issue here - you're skipping aruond).

The answer to this question is religious not scientific. Every so called 'scientific' argument for calling a fetus human can be matched by an equally valid 'scientific' argument that a fetus is not human. In our society we respect the people to choose the religion of their choice. This means that people should be free to decide for themselves whether a fetus is human or not. And they are free to do that - or I should say WOMEN are free to do that. Certainly an odd predicament for a group which "lacks power" in life's important realms such as home or family.

So what? At the end of the day, abortion is a women's issue, regardless of the anti-abortion side' rationale. Maybe in Jerryland, but there, people wear hats on their feet, grass comes out of lawnmowers and hamburgers eat people. Well certainly you're not suggesting childbirth is an unimportant issue?

Sorry guys but I this article on our position re: Global Warming makes way to much sense not to post. I love it when objective writers say sensible, non-partisan, non-emotional things... Foot-dragging is a tradition At the Second World Climate Conference in 1990, Canada committed to stabilizing its emissions of greenhouse gases at then-current levels within a decade. The pledge was repeated in the federal government’s Green Plan of that year. There followed a federal-provincial National Action Strategy on Global Warming, the federal Efficiency and Alternative Energy Program (1991), and a National Action Program on Climate Change (1995). A revised commitment, at Kyoto, to reduce emissions by 6 per cent from 1990 levels by 2008-12, resulted in the National Climate Change Process (1998), soon overtaken by Canada’s First National Climate Change Business Plan (2000), not to mention Canada’s National Implementation Strategy on Climate Change and, inevitably, a second National Climate Change Business Plan (2002). Meanwhile, the federal government was churning out Action Plan 2000, a Climate Change Plan for Canada (2002), and, in 2005, Project Green, billed as “a plan for honouring our Kyoto commitment.” Altogether, I make that two programs, four plans, a process, two strategies, and a project. The result: by 2004, Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions were nearly 27% above their 1990 baseline, having risen in more or less a straight line throughout this period. Ottawa alone had spent, by the federal environment commissioner’s count, $6-billion on sundry climate change schemes, to no discernible effect. So before we start, let us discard this notion that the Conservatives’ Clean Air Act, with its leisurely timetables and hazy specifics, represents some radical new achievement in the field of foot-dragging, wheel-spinning and pointless busywork. If they see further -- all the way to 2050! -- it is because they are standing on the shoulders of giants. For that matter, there’s not a lot of difference in how the two parties would proceed from here. The Conservatives’ short-term timelines are not far off those the Liberals had in mind, their regulatory approach -- cap and trade -- is broadly similar, and their long-term targets are in the same ballpark as those proposed by the Liberal leadership candidates. (My own plan: let the greenhouse gases escape through the hole in the ozone layer. Mind you, I am not a licenced climatologist...) If it seems ludicrous for governments to be setting emissions targets for 2050, when they cannot even hit their budget targets for the current year, it is. But that simply reflects the scale of the problem. To turn around something as vast and unmanageable as global warming -- assuming we can do anything about it -- will take decades. You have first to slow the growth of emissions, then reduce them in absolute terms, before you can finally stabilize atmospheric concentrations -- the accumulated residue of all those yearly emissions -- at levels that will, even then, merely halt the increase in global temperatures, never mind actually reverse them. The critics are screaming because the Tory plan would do little to reduce emissions in the next four years. But what does it matter if the long-term target is the same? I understand that the longer we wait to get started, the greater the reduction we will eventually have to make. But since the same critics seem to believe we can slash emissions by 30 to 40 per cent in the space of two years -- the kind of effort that would be required, at this late date, to meet our Kyoto targets -- it is surely possible to reduce them by 60 or even 80 per cent over 30 years. Yes, there’s a danger, should concentrations rise above a certain level, that we may pass a tipping point, where the very processes unleashed by atmospheric warming give rise to further warming. But it is impossible to fix that point with any precision. The head of climate science for NASA, James Hansen, warns that global emissions must be capped by 2016. The Conservatives propose to do so starting in 2020. Four years marks the difference between whether the planet lives or dies? Four years, moreover, in Canada -- a country that accounts for just 2 per cent of world emissions? To listen to some of the more hysterical of the government’s critics, you’d think they held the fate of the world in their hands. They -- we -- do not. We have a moral obligation to do our part, and we hardly set a good example when we renege on our international commitments, either de facto (the Liberals) or de jure (the Tories). But the cold fact is that Canada is largely irrelevant to the overall picture. This is a problem, in sum, that will require concerted international action over the better part of a century. That’s a hard thing for democratic societies to manage, even one at a time, let alone trying to herd 160 or so countries with wildly diffferent resource bases, standards of living, and political ideologies inside the same corral. Now consider that the costs of global warming are distant and uncertain, while the costs of preventing it are real and apparent, and it is easy to understand why politicians are so slow to come to grips with it. The same public that demands action on global warming screams blue murder if the price of gas rises a nickel. That points to both the importance, and the insignificance, of Kyoto. It’s a treaty: nothing more, nothing less. Its targets were not decreed by cosmic writ, but were the result of the usual horse-trading and grandstanding -- witness the 6 per cent figure to which Jean Chretien committed Canada, on the basis that it was 1 per cent more than the Americans had promised. Still, you have to start somewhere. Without some such agreement, the temptation for every nation would be to free-ride on the others. So it’s unfortunate and embarrassing that we have not lived up to our commitments. But it’s not -- well, it’s not the end of the world.

There is indeed a power imbalance in our society - women hold most of the important power.

For all the naive on this site: Life ain't fair. Who ever said it would be? Live with it.

Isn't it about time, given images like this: http://www.rawa.org/murder-w.htm That we simply started ramping up our presence in the middle east? I know everyone on the left is bored and has ADD when it comes to committment, but my goodness. We all know what's at stake here. We all know the lefties want to do what "feels good" so lets start talking turkey about the differences...the REAL differences between our societies and why our way of life is so much better. We seriously need to colonize - ie IMPOSE our way of life (freedom, equality for women, democracy) upon these people who frankly, don't know any better. Let's get on the the colonization! The USA, the world's first non-imperial superpower needs to change its ways and start IMPERIALIZING!!!

Cops are like the USA. They wield a great about of power - and as a result responsibility as well. It's not absolute power but it's there. From time to time those with power overstep their boundaries. Example: from time to time some observes might say "that cop (or the USA) is using too much force to get that criminal into line". Others might disagree. In other words, people will always disagree with how the cops (the USA) use their power and whether or not it's being handled responsibly and in the best interests of the greater good. But generally speaking, when the criminal comes knocking at your door, thank god the cops (the USA) exist.

Veils are not just innapropriate, they are offensive. Not just to women and men in this country who believe in equality but to those who simply wish to have eye and expression contact with those to whom we are speaking. It comes down which culture rules the day in our society - a midievil one or an advanced one. In our culture we don't wear masks to business meetings. Now the question is: will their culture adapt to our norms, or will our culture adapt to theirs?

Oh Drea, at least from your response, I've learned a new word: succinct. I looked it up in the Liberal dictionary. It sez, "a word of many meanings. All on a continuum. Ranging from not at all succinct...to very, very, very succinct. At the extreme end of the succinctness spectrum lies, so succinct: that's the point when there's actually nothing said at all. It's only a fantasy. May also refer to Imagine." Women are cats, men are dogs we all know that. SO the phrase like "top dog" is an insult to women? How about someone who "works like a dog"? I suppose this is to be percieved as an insult to women by BLACK DOG and other overwhiney lefties? How about "DOG AND PONY SHOW"? Surely this is in some way directed at the female underclass as well? The song "who let the dogs out" certainly must have been misinterpreted by thousands of youths as a song about MEN? Black Dog and his lefty crybabies wouldn't have it! This is secretly a song about poor Belinda and other downtrodden women so oppressd by the societal reference to them -and only them- as animals. lol

Ah, now I see what your getting at. Your approach is so confused its hard to make heads or tales of it. You're referring to this statement I made above: "But I think it does say something about how our enlightened society views women." I'll have to bring you along slowly. First: can you think of a common derogatory term for women with canine connotations? No. Please enlighten me as to the terminology with which you are obviously familiar.

True - but it's kind of pathetic when you see big massive displays and millions of CD sold...and multiple Larry King Live appearances --all about how they're being "silenced"

Pity for you I did no such thing. To quote myself: "Now I wouldn't go as far to say that Peter MacKay's remarks were anti-women or that he's a misogynist..." So quite clearly, I'm acknowledging (in fact, endorsisng) the view that MacKay was referring to one particular woman and not women in general. Now that I've batted away that gnat of an argument, would you be so kind as to answer my question and tell me what, if not Stronach, MacKay could have been referring to in his comment to McGuinty? First things first - I'd be interested to see how your weak attempt at logic can link an MP making a comment about a particular woman as being a comment upon our society's view of women as a whole? Can't wait to see this squirminess....

Not only that, he's a rabid winger. You can tell by the terminology he likes to use (ie Shrub). That type of stuff is rampant on the far-left blogs. Give them a read, they're very entertaining. Not only that - but they can't stop whining. Usually the best arguments they come up with are reserved for ad hominem criticisms. "Oh so-and-so is so stupid". I think the best way to sum up the left is this: they support things that "feel good." Basically if you look at any lefty policies, it doesn't matter if it makes any sense, as long as it "feels good." If the left were a movie star they'd adopt an african orphan at a cost of $3 million.

Let's assume for a second that McGuinty's account of events is accurate. McGuinty made a remark about MacKay's dog and MacKay responds with "You already have her." So, tell me: to what was he referring? Are you saying that MacKay was implying that McGuinty was in possession of MacKay's actual canine companion? And that the gesture towards Stronach's seat was...perhaps a nervous tic? Please enlighten me as to alternate explanations. I'm sure it will be as scintillating and enlightening as the rest of your contributions to this board... even if mackay referred to A PARTICULAR woman - ie. Belinda Stronach - as a dog, your stretch implying that any reference to her as a dog would then translate into a statement about an ENTIRE GENDER is a window into your own viewpoints and generalizations about genders. Using your flawed and implicitly sexist logic, referring to Peter Mackay as an asshole would be an insult to the entire male population.

The VEIL is symbolic of THIS: http://www.rawa.org/murder-w.htm 'nuff said.

Dissemble much? You can quibble over the significance of the remark, question the reaction, or cast aspersions on the integrity and honsety of the Libeals for seizing on it, but it's impossible to deny the meaning of MacKay's remark. You are correct in that technically, all MacKay said was" you have her". But that remark makes no sense whatsoever except as a reference to Stronach (that he allegedly gestured at Stronach's seat is merely the icing on the cake). If Mackay had manned up and apologized, this would have blown over instantly. But he lied about it and continues to lie about it. I'm always uncomfortable when people talk about a heirarchy of issues because what's trivial to one person can be life or death for someone else. As a Jew, would you be comfortable with someone using an anti-Semetic epitepth? Would then be happy if that same person told you to get real and deal with substantive issues like the rise of anti-Semetic violence in Europe? Sometimes seemingly trivial issues are windows into much more serious ones. Now I wouldn't go as far to say that Peter MacKay's remarkes were anti-women or that he's a misogynist; he's just a gutless asshole. But I think it does say something about how our enlightened society views women. Because you choose to project "dog" to refer to "women" is a window into your own viewpoints. Other than that it has nothing to do with Women - and Stronach should be chided for attempting to play that very weak card. Pretty rich coming from the last person women would want to model their lives after.

Thanks for the endorsement. It's nice to see the left getting some love for calling a spade a spade (I don't know about Ike, but Reagan was stupid and Nixon was vulgar-and a crook to boot!). So I'm confident that the prevailing view of the Shrub's intellect will stand the test of time. Pay no attention to BD - he's merely a cheerleader. Reagan and Bush Junior are both geniuses in their own right. As usual it takes the lefty cheerleaders eons to catch up.

no - the berlin wall was meant to keep people IN, this wall is meant to keep illegals OUT

To sum it up: With Iraq I think that people are just depressed by it and, to a certain extent, bored by it and want it go away. The Democrats are not really offering any great proposals on that or anything else. They’re assuming that simple weariness will see them through. If you take Iraq out of the equation everything is going swimmingly. America has an unemployment rate half that of most other advanced economic societies. It has lower gas prices and Its economy is effectively thriving. There’s just this mood of weariness with this sort of slow-drip torture of a light colonial policing engagement that is thankless and a little too messy for American tastes. America and the rest of the West has ADD. Whereas the enemy - radical Islam - has will and staying power. Not a good recipe for the future.

Belinda only wishes she had one of the best qualities of a dog: Loyalty. Parlaimentarians have been insulting eachother in crass fashion for decades! The only new part about this story is that someone actually has the gaul to ask for an apology - and better yet, tries to make this a "Women's Issue" (baahahahahahaha). This coming from someone named as "the other woman" in a trashy divorce case, and an MP who opportunistically tossed loyalty and relationship to the wind in hopes for a quick power grab (which ultimately backfired). Most self-respecting women wouldn't dare align themselves or their moral compass with this poor excuse for a "Woman".

Hey dude if ethinically "sensitive" euros cowtow to the threats (which they ARE), and form domestic and foreign policy to appease the violent immigrants (which they ARE) then the battle is already over in Europe - especially France. Just take a gander at the collection of vile thugs known as the "francophone summit".

History will be much kinder to GW Bush et. al. Genuis leader in a very difficult period - and classically being criticized by the squeemish - a la Reagan years. But history was kinder to Reagan too.

It's about Muslims threatening people's lives if they don't stop saying/writing/printing things that are "offenseive" to Muslims, ricardo.

But knowing that this is not the original intent makes all the difference. Actually, knowing that's not the original intent is the point and weakens the song's point. Also, the quote you cited above pretty much sums up Muslims message to (a) the pope ( danish newspapers publishing cartoons etc.