JerrySeinfeld

You cannot assume that someone is a terrorist just because they are detained by the Canadian (or American) military. That is a foolish notion. You seemingly don't care that our Country might be shamed as the USA has been shamed by it's torture scandal. You are in the minority, of that I'm sure. Prisoners have probably been abused and treated wrongly in every war that has ever existed. We simply now have CNN to show the whole world when on incident happens. Get over the tears for the "detainees". This is war dude.

Put yourself in a pregnant woman's shoes in the current environment. All you have to think about is "do I want to be a mother? yes or no"...and someone else will pony up the cash if you do. Must be a nice coloured sky in that world.

Huh? Muslims LOVE to pop up with ritual denunciations! They seem to have no lack of effort denuciating with outrage and embassy burnings over danish cartoons, burger king chocolate swirls and sex dolls named Mustafa Shag. Isn't it odd the same effort is somehow lacking when it comes to denoucing real atrocities and acts of terror? That's the point: so far the "fringe" militants have done all of the speaking for Muslims. My question is, if there are reams of moderates who disagree with the militants, then why haven't we seen the mass protests and shows of outrage about being misrepresented by these criminals?

You're just stating a fact of life. What I'm saying is that in our current legal environment, it is ONLY the man who need be careful and suffer financial repercussions of his actions. Second, even precautions cannot prevent all pregnacies. So you're suggesting men cease to have sex? As you said - it takes TWO to make a baby. Why is it that the man is the one upon whom the financial burden is placed, if he has no control over the abortion decision? Nope. Simply stating an obvious legal descrepancy in financial responsibility.

I'm gonna go out on a not very high limb and say that most child support payments are insufficient for the full task. Men bugger off all the time: perhaps you're unfmamiliar with the term "deadbeat dad"? Now, if a woman gets pregnant, she can get an abortion or go through with it. Neither is much fun, and both can be dangerous to her health. A man, on the other hand, has to pay child support, though only if the woman has the resources to haul him into court. He doesn’t have to pay a dime if she has an abortion, or gives the baby up for adoption. Thing is, I'm not even necessarily arguing with the idea that people should live with their choices. But I have a hard time beleiving that if this issue were one of her wanting to have an abortion against his wishes hat anyone would side with her. Seems like around here, women are damned no matter what. We're talking legal rights and obligations here. I can't speak about those males who break the law.

Of course you guys knew I had to weigh in on this. Here is my recent thought on racism. I think it's funny how it is politically incorrect to say something like "black people are more violent than white people" (I don't believe this, I am just picking a random example statement) yet it's not considered politically incorrect to say something like "aboriginals are a very compassionate culture." see the double standard here? it's ok to make vast generalizations, but only if they are positive. I love catching "politically correct" types in these statements and pointing out that what they just said was a form of racism or prejudice. Has anyone else noticed that its ok to be prejudice to the positive?

First, thanks to BB, I see Steyn never said there were such a thing as "peaceful, rational muslims". The full quote: is: I'm not sure where you concoted the rest of the quote from. Thing is, there are such Muslim voices out there: Steyn probably hasn't heard of them, or , if he has, he rejects them (as he did in the case of the late Edward Said, whom Steyn mocked in death his usual sophmoric way). Like I said before, Steyn is simply looking for someone to parrot his views. Mark Steyn in brownface, if you will. But where are these rational views being expressed? And why aren't they louder?

Jerry, I agree with your assessement however I would say the choices need to be explicit from both the father and mother, probably something like this: 1. The mother has 15 days from when she finds she is pregnant to decide if she wants an abortion. If she does, she gets one. End of story. The father need not be involved. 2. If she decides she wants to have the kid, she would need to formally notify the father within 15 days of her knowing she is pregnant. The notice should allow the option of either accpeting or rejecting fatherhood within 15 days. 3. If he accepts fatherhood, both he and the mother have accepted all the responsibiliites and privilidges of parenthood (including support obligations). 4. If he rejects fatherhood, the onus now falls again to the mother. She can decide she lacks the will or resources to have the baby and can decide to have an abortion. End of story. 5. She can also decide that she will have the baby regardless. In this case, the father is freed of any parental priviledges or obligations. Not bad.

All of which she can't do without someone paying the freight - ie. the man. The man doesn't bugger off - he is forced to pay child support. And he has no choice in the matter - unlike the woman who has choices. I would prefer women face the full consequences, financially and otherwise, of their choice - as it is legally their choice. Women shouldn't ask for full freedom of choice, with no say from the man, if they aren't prepared to take the financial responsibility for their actions.

The man always has a choice when it comes time to wear a condom (or use other forms of birth control) or abstain from sex in the first place. so does the woman

If the man pays monthly for 18 years, that's certainly not a case where the woman (mother) bears "ultimate resposibility" for her choice is it?

Ah so the implication here is that there are no "peaceful, rational Muslims" (that is, Muslims everybody at work can agree on). I'm interested though: how much digging has Steyn done? Is he trying to bring a greater diversity of voices to the op-ed page? I've a gut feeling Steyn isn't looking for thoughtful commentators coming forward to explain the true spiritual meaning of the term jihad (they are out there, and not hard to find). He's looking for voices to confirm what he's telling us (that Muslims are nutjobs that want to destroy us all). That isn't an argument: it's wishful thinking. (Strangely, he asks, "But surely it's worth asking why in 2006 the Washington Post needs a man with a name like 'Ronald Stockton' to explain Islam to us?", which raises the obvious question of what makes a man with a name like "Mark Steyn" better qualified?) But hey, if it's diversity Steyn wants, I'm sure he'd be happy to give up his cushy gig on the cocktail circuit and hand the reigns over to a Muslim, right? actually I think steyn would correct you: "there ARE peaceful, rational muslims. most of them are. just as most germans were not nazis - but alot that did the rest of the world and the jews. if peaceful rational muslims will not speak up out of fear, then the refusal to print cartoons is just another form of the aqcuiescent, peacful muslim."

That's odd: because I see a helluva lot of coverage of Muslims: sharia law in Ontario, the Khadrs, the reaction to the Danish cartoons, the DC sniper, the 9-11 "20th hijacker" trial, etc etc. What I'm certainly not seeing is much representation of Mulsims themselves: you know, the people who would probably be able to offer the most insight into their own communities. As it is, we have to rely on pundits like Steyn for our information on what makes Muslims tick (and I have to wonder, as a Jewish-Catholic-Anglican-Baptist, where he gets his insight from, but that's the perk of punditry: you don't actually have to know what your talkig about as long as you say it with authority). Read the article again. That's precisely what Steyn is saying: A usually-minority-friendly media has been sparse in they're ability to get peaceful, rational Muslims to come forward. Why is that? As far as media coverage - it's hard to avoid the negative coverage when that's all there is. Show me some non-terrorist, non-violent muslim news and I'm sure the media would be scrambling all over themselves to print it.

I would if there was a coherent argument to attack. The gist of the article--"can we really trust the dirty terrorist Muslims in our midst"-- is not such an argument. Actually I thought the main point of the article was: The media is politically careful to tiptoe around the Muslim issue and hesitant to bring to light anything that might be attacked as "anti-muslim" - but in so doing the media as robbed the west of a chance to get to know more about the Muslim world and what it is really about.

If you disagree with Steyn, try to attack the argument, not the man.

My parents (and I would guess most parents) always taught me that with independance and freedom comes responsibility. The more freedom and independance we take on as childeren, commensurate with that comes responsibility. And with total freedom comes total responsibility. But it's not that way with women and choice is it? As it stands now, women have the ultimate choice when it comes to abortion, but don't bear ultimate legal and financial resposibility and consequence of their choice. Let's say a woman has an unwanted pregnancy. The choice in having or not having the child is HERS alone. WHat if the man involved doesn't want the child? As it currently stands legally...Too bad - it's not his choice. But if she does have the baby, the man is legally responsible for child support. In the spirit of what our parents teach us --with freedom comes responsibility-- wouldn't it make more sense to do this: Women need to decide if they want full freedom and full responsibility. If they do and the man has no legal bearing on the choice, then as well the man should bear no legal responsibility (ie. child support). Whereas if men were legally involved in the choice, then ultimately they too should bear the legal responsibility (ie. child care) of that choice. Right now, women want their legal cake and eat it too. They have ultimate freedom of choice, but then download the legal & financial consequences of that choice onto men. Comments?

Recent column: http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn121.html

Memo to you, John Stewart, George Clooney et al...the cold war is over dude - you lost.

How about the whole 'intellegent design' thing down in the states? They were shure trying to push that. there is a difference between "pushing" your agenda legally (christians) and "pushing" your agenda by targeting someone who speaks against you by slitting his throat ear to ear and pumping half a dozen bullets into him and puctuation your message with a note in arabic stuck to the victim with a knife. This is what happened to the last dutch filmmaker who tried saying something about muslims. fanatical christians do try to push their agenda, but they don't do it with fear, violence and intimidation.

Wow, first the queers, now the Muslims. It's getting to be that a guy can't even cross the street without an agenda being shoved down his throat. It's quite confusing actually: I don't know whether to give head or cut them off. If you were a queer in a Muslim country it would be cut off

None of these are good examples of a slippery-slope argument, at least how I defined it as a rational decision being made that trumps any further rational decisions. Free trade was no slippery slope; it was more like dropping off a cliff. Once the deal was signed, that was it. There was no gradual erosion of our sovereignty; we gave it up right then and there. Missile defence is exactly the same thing. Arguments against privatizing health care have been irrationally slippery-slope at times, but most of them are just based on ideology: Do we want a two-tier system or not? And global warming isn't a slippery slope. It's more like a provable scientific fact. Try again. The fact is the world has trended warmer in recent years. What's not proven is why. Collectively the world's scientists in the 1970's were convinced we were headed for the next ice age. None of these predicted disasters and calamities ever comes to pass. Hence: slippery slope. We already have a two tier system. The slippery slope argument that things will become "americanized" is used ALL THE TIME by lefties. Gave up our sovereignty with the FTA? You lost all of your credibility right there. And FYI, lefties back before we signed, were all running around warning how we were about to become the 51st state, that this was the beginning of the end for Medicare etc. BIG TIME slippery slope.

Yeah, just like those damned Christians! Gerry, do you have anything to actually say on issues besides stating "you guys are worse." Can you even name a time in the last, say, year, that Christians have forced an issue upon you or changed the law in a way to further their 'agenda'? Doubt it. Oh I"m sorry, was I supposed to engage in an intelligent debate with someone accusing Muslims of "pushing their agenda on us"?? Maybe next time. Muslims ARE pushing their agenda on us. Look around you. Watch the news.

Something I've always wondered about, people fall on hard times and need a helping hand up, but why have more kids then? Bottom line, don't have kids if you can't afford them. Who was it who said they had sex with their wife and ended up with unplanned children? Happens to rich people, also happens to poor people. Are you saying poor people shouldn't have sex just in case they accidentally get pregnant? NEW! Get the INCOME TEST! and we'll remove that chastity belt! LOL Go ahead, have all the sex and childeren you want. Just don't go asking for taxpayer support for your choices.

This is my line of thinking. I will support the troops, but I will not tolerate them dying for no reason. This is the same rhetoric we find common south of the 49th. Debate is healthy. If we cannot debate and discuss this, then democracy has failed us all. Dictators tell us what, and what not to do. (to harsh?) Martin should have given us a clear strategy as well. I cannot blame Harper for this totaly, but now that he is PM, it is on his shoulders now. What you said here is close to the same thing me and my boss were talking about today. We need to have a plan, a clear strategy. If there are no goals set, then we are wondering aimlessy around trying to do patch work here and there. This also leaves the troops wondering why they are still there. I care enough about our troops to say this. Being a military soldier takes, guts, courage, stamina, just a different type of human. If I were to put them in harms way, I better have a damn good reason for them being there. No goals? No plan? No strategy? NO TROOPS. Example, you cannot go to the bank and say you need money for a business venture. They ask if you have a business plan. You say no. They don't give you money. No plan/goals/strategy in Afghanistan? I cannot support wasting human lives. This by no way means that I do not support our troops. Also wtf is the RCMP doing in Afghanistan? They are NOT military. They really have no jurisdiciton there in any way shape or form. That is why we have an ARMY. Why are they there? This is typical Canadian fare. wake up. what the west needs is more troops in the middle east. period. option b? USA, CANADA, BRITAIN et al pulls out and militant islam continues to fester. we a go back to sleep, IRAN develops nukes while we pretent that peace is inevitable....

Argus, I agree wholeheartedly. Perhaps you and I will not agree on many things, but I have found that each time I post arguments or facts I get derided by insults and inuendo about the kind of person i am. It's the "Michael Moore - ization" of this forum; lets categoraize eveyone into easy slots so we can deride them one at a time. Lefties consistently look for convenient ways to demonize those that don't fit into their way of thinking. It's McCarthyism reversed - fifty years later. At least conservatives got over it in the firities - lefties are still doing it: "ohhhhhh...you are THIS kind of person...I THOUGHT SO!!!"