Figleaf

And I would respons by saying your understanding of the media is pretty shallow and naive. Okay, an ad hominem. That's a theory. But it lacks tangible verifiability. And it's not inherently plausible. Really? How so? They aren't 'objective'. They're ingrained, perhaps inherited. Circular logic. You haven't addressed how what constitutes an "attractive homosapiens" is deterimed and by what. By homosapiens, obviously. No, I'm saying they are the very same thing. ... people wouldn't buy the products if the media didn't first tell them there was something wrong with them that thier product could fix. And I'm saying it's up to people whether they want to choose to believe the media about that or not. I'm saying that the function of media in promulgating standards is both obvious and irrelevant. Twenty years ago, the average model weighed 8 per cent less than the average woman. Today, they weigh 23 per cent less. Of course -- obesity is at an all time high, models haven't changed. The number of fat women competing in the flesh markets has changed.

If K reasonably believes that he will suffer death or grievous bodily harm as a result of the attack being imposed by J, and believes he has no way to preserve himself other than to wound, maim, or even kill J, then the Criminal Code says K is justified in so doing. I really don't see much of a divergence here between what the law says and what is "ethical." FTA So, you think K should accept the beating if it is merely humiliating and intensely painful but falls short of grievous bodily harm, and that K should be punished if she does not?

Geez, I'd have thought the headline would be: "Fully 9% of CEOs now accept Kyoto"

-How does the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms reflect a changing perspective on the relationship between the individual and the state? You need to visit a library for that one. Almost any public library will have some kind of books on that. Ask a librarian. You can use the bibliography in the books to find more sources for further reading. -What has been the role of the courts in interpreting the charter? Google search 'supreme court of canada'. The official website for the court has many of their major decisions available there. -Have Canadians lost faith in the ability of their elected representatives to resolve contentious identity based issues and turned, instead to the judiciary? Not totally. -Has this process, rooted in the provisions of the charter, “judicialised politics and politicized the judiciary” as some observers claim? No.

I really can't figure out why Ontario Hydro has to be such a honeypot for featherbedding and self-serving. How hard can it be to fire the board and senior officers? How hard can it be to find 9 or 10 honest, capable people to be a new Board of Directors?

It would be better to avoid imprecise phraseology though. It's not the collecting that's done on the basis of provincial wealth, its the SPENDING. 'Alberta' and 'Ontario' don't fund equalization. Equalization is funded by all Canadian taxpayers.

Last I heard, Canadian provinces are not for sale.

Wow. Insightful. Okay: why? Why are women like that? Possibly because being within the 'female culture' their perceptions are more trained to perceive these nuances. Possibly because there is a genetically implanted competitiveness between women seeking mates. Of course I'm merely speculating on these reasons. Can you offer any tangible proof of that suspicion?

We're not talking about overt statements, but a clear and consistent message. Pick up your average Cosmo-esque magazine and you see that the vast majority of articles are on how to change one's physical apperance. Yes, it appears to be a topic of great interest to many consumers. So is NASCAR. What about it? Of course. Advertisers want our attention. And golly gee look! Darned if homosapien's attention isn't engaged by the sight of attractive homosapiens. So? I can concede that without it affecting my position. Huh? How do you figure that? Why would advertisers spend millions to convince people to buy products if they were already forced through some oppressive system to buy those products? ...why is it that the media depiction of beauty standards can and often does contradict what people actually find attractive? I'm sorry but that question is nonsense. Which media? What standards? How can they depict a standard if its not the standard? Maybe because the standard changes? Face facts though, the standards don't change very much. Healthy, fit, and within a certain range of proportions have been overarching standards for a long time. I don't think we should expect the media to have remained the same over 50-200 years, but I'd certainly say our standards of beauty have changed little. Tell you what: look up "oppression" in the dictionary, then get back to me. Tell you what, look up "prat" and DON'T get back to me.

If you'd mentioned the Frinstitoot in the title I wouldn't have wasted my time looking in. Hmmmph. Here's the section in the Constitution: Anyone reading this can see that it doesn't specify a given amount of equalization. But subsection 2 is pretty close to declarative that 'sufficient revenues' must provide 'reasonably comparable'. These concepts are readily interpretable in courts. Push what through where on which table?

"President Bush worked with Republicans in Congress to pass legislation changing the way the federal government regulated, taxed and funded charities and non-profit initiatives run by religious organizations. Although prior to the legislation it was possible for these organizations to receive federal assistance, the new legislation removed reporting requirements which required the organizations to separate their charitable functions from their religious functions. Bush also created the White House Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives." - http://www.answers.com/topic/domestic-poli...-administration The Whitehouse Office of Faith Based Initiatives existence and mandate couldn't be more clear. Bush's government is actively substituting religious services for services that should be supplied by the (secular) government. I remember the days when provincial legislature members insisted on having their own staff deliver the welfare cheques in their riding. The message, as with the Faith Office, is 'Remember who you owe for this'. The MLAs wanted to have the credit. Bush wants the churches to have the credit. It's prosletyzing with tax dollars.

I don't really see why they should be lumped together. One thread discussed the Bush administration policy that lead to human rights abuses. Another thread discussed the economic opportunity costs of the Iraq war. An the third discussed the human costs of the war. They seem like discreet issues to me. Why bother with separate threads in the forums at all if we can't use them to deal with details and particulars?

I my opinion, women are more demanding about their own and their fellow women's looks than men are.

Come off it. Give me even one citation in the media that says anyone's value as a person is determined solely by their beauty. You're right: the billions of dollars advertisiers spend each year to promote "health and beauty" products, Suggests that advertising is persuasive. If there were an oppressive standard that all were conforming to, advertising would be irrelevant. Depicting the standard is not the same a setting one. You're sliding your argument around. "Effect"? Sure. Oppression? No. Such a use of the term 'oppression' is an insult to the billions of people around the world who experience it for real every day.

Nonsense -- In two respects: (1) the standards are only 'unrealistic' for those who can't match them. Are the standards to play in the NFL "unrealistic"? Well, not for those who get there, obviously. But they are unrealistic for people without that level of athletic ability. Does that imply a problem with the standard? I don't think so. (2) there are no laws specifying what beauty measures women must take. The claim of 'oppression' is hyperbolic bullpucky.

Dissatisfaction with Tory mis-steps and Dion's integrity and good sense are signs that the Liberals could indeed win a majority next time. The last poll I saw had the Liberals ahead in every province except Quebec and Alberta. Based on that, it seems Canadians outside of those provinces are looking for a government that represents the whole country and not just a geographic interest group.

That may be true if we had a variety of societies to chose from and accepted reciprocal obligations from the one which we accepted. In Canada and most other free societies you can go off an search for your state of preference at any time and even come back if you don't find one you like.

Yeah, I sure wish our security agencies weren't such incompetent boobs to create this situation.

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. Some obsessions are not healthy of course, but the Dove campaign and its adherents aren't making these distinctions... the video doesn't show a girl dieting, it shows a girl getting a makeover, as if it is shocking or offensive that someone might improve her appearance through better grooming. A haircut and facial! Oh god! How cruel! I don't think linquistic idiom is of any relevance to the point.

So, just for perspective, based on the cost of the Iraq debacle so far, if Bush and his cabal had not pointlessly and criminally attacked, the government could instead have ... Paid tuition for over 20 million Americans to obtain a 4 year degree; or Provided nine million Americans with open heart surgery; or Hired over eight million teachers; or Sent every American child under 12 for a one week summer camp.

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. That's your assertion. Beauty standards portrayed in the media include shiny hair (a sign of health), not being overweight (a sign of health), clear skin (a sign of health), and a winning smile (a mark of friendliness). Calling these things artificial can only be done out of an ideology that hopes to deny the truth to spare someone's feelings.

Of course this won't satisfy many religious types because their campaign is not about being left alone to do their thing, their campaign is really about preventing others from that same right. Having both hetero- and homo- 'unions' come from the state while carving 'marriage' into the purely religious sphere won't work for them because some churches are happy to perform SSMs. So, all couples would have 'unions', and any type of couple that finds a church that works for them would have 'marriages'. Which brings up another point ... if Parliament or a referendum purported to remove SSM, wouldn't that violate the religious freedom of churches who perform SSMs?

What ridiculous orwellian doublespeak! The preamble about 'same protections and benefits' is in direct opposition to choice #2. Care to explain how? Equal rights are equal rights. Look up equal in a dictionary. It does not mean 'different' it means the same. If 'marriage' and 'civil union' are the same, then why do opponents of SSM have a preference for the latter? They must be perceiving some DIFFERENCE that makes it appeal to them.

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. Anyone with a different view is 'missing the point' are we? Brilliant rebuttal. I'm saying that just because some people don't like how the beauty industry profiteers, is insufficient reason or basis to hope that they can redefine the 'reality' of what that profiteering is based on. The Dove campaign and its fellow-travellers are indulging in a hybrid of self-righteousness and fantasy.