JB Globe

Cosign - in the absence of any hard factual data, it's absolutely impossible to prove that any one religion is more moral than the other. Especially when they're so many other factors that may be contributing to the existence of certain social norms, customs, etc.

1 - What is your definition of "acting & dressing Canadian" 2 - Since when do all Canadians have the same belief system in the first place? And what is this system supposed to be? The Catholic faith? Anglican? Does that mean athiests are left out 3 - Since when do Canadians in general have the same attitudes towards freedoms and government? We're a democracy, we're not all supposed to have the same ideas about our institutions. It sounds like you're holding immigrant-citizens to a ridiculously stringent standard that you wouldn't hold Canadian-born-citizens to. Do you have any factual information to back this up? If not, than why should anyone believe you? I think this qualifies as a rant. Great job. So far you've proven that there's ONE family that fits your definition. Only a few hundred thousand more to go.

I think it says quite a lot about your entire argument that you're relying on a Canadian rip-off of an American email chain letter to provide context to your irrationally xenophobic worldview. Forget facts, let's stir up some emotions about a past that never existed, yes? I refer you to the entry on this email from snopes.com (the leading site on urban legends, referenced often by CNN, Fox News, etc) I think it just about covers exactly the kind of revisionist agenda in the American "letter" as is present in the Canadian one. http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/newimmigrants.asp This fits both the original "letter" and JBG's own account of his family history (and then using that to generalize the history of ALL immigrants of that era). Both accounts are totally absolute - the old immigrants were complete saints, no mention is made of any sort of "wrong" act that may have been committed. For any rational person who knows their history this would immediately send up a red flag - there are no absolutes in any society, at any time. It's a sign that the author is writing more about an imagined myth than the reality on the ground. In short, old immigrants are not saints, and new immigrants are not devils. Fact of the matter is that while some people would love to think that their grandparents were part of some golden generation who were all staunch patriots, the reality is that they were just as human as the current crop of immigrants. And I defy any of you who think otherwise to provide factual and historical information to prove your point. The fact that so far this post is full of nothing but your first-hand impressions of the past illustrates that you're operating in the realm of myth, rather than in reality.

JBG, Care to explain where this "letter" comes from? Or do I have to tell everyone for you?

If drug traffickers were given a choice, between the status quo and legalization, which do you think they'd choose? BBC journalist Misha Glenny asked just this very question to various drug traffickers in BBC for part one of the (very good) radio series "When Crime Took on the World" (available on itunes in PRI - The Changing World) The vast majority of them wanted to keep it illegal, because legalizing it would kill their profits and put many of them out of business. I don't think there's a bigger blow to the whole notion of the "war on drugs" than the fact that the people it's supposed to be eliminating actually WANT to maintain the policy because it keeps them in business and makes them rich.

Nail. Hit. Head.

Seems to be the line is that commonly accepted clothing requirements for religious people shouldn't be a barrier to employment in civil service. And I'll say it again - what negative effects, if any, has there been in the Toronto Police Force since it started allowing devout Sikh officers to join? I haven't seen any. And the slippery slope argument is bunk, because there's been no further uniform changes.

Because we're dealing with a long term problem, meaning we don't base our predictions on short-term trends, such as a mini-cooling period of 5 years. If this cooling continues for another 5-10 years, then we have something. But as this graph shoes, this new data is constant with past "mini-cooling" periods. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrum...ture_Record.png The temperature didn't just "plateau" - it sank in the early 80's, yet after that time it start to rapidly rise again. Until more evidence comes in this current "plateauing" is consistent with the temperature increases of the last 50 years.

I'd really, really, like you to show me the damage done to the Toronto Police force since its members were allowed to wear Turbans 20 years ago. Otherwise, stop making yourself look ridiculous by making a mountain out of, well, nothing. How so? Because of a religious hat? Is this the best example you can come up with? Good job. So, in your words, we're already living in a state of "tyranny" . . . Jackass, do you know what tyranny really is? Yes or no? Because if things are that damn bad in your mind, we must be living in totally separate countries, because I don't see ANY evidence of tyranny around me. Maybe you could provide us with some evidence of this tyranny? Or, you could admit you're being a sensationalist chicken-little. 1 - There is no national "morality," there are laws. We're a secular nation, not a religious one. 2 - We are not based on "the heritage of the European culture" - because Europe isn't a culture, it's a region filled with many cultures and nations, and even from day one, Canada has been a country with many different people living in it. 3 - You're full of BS, because there isn't a shred of legislation or law that backs up your claim that Canada is "A Christian European nation" Most Canadians don't want to be European or anything else anyway, we want to be Canadian.

If I somehow became a citizen of India, and I was a part of a public institution that was denying me my constitutionally guaranteed rights, you're damn right I would speak out.

Good for you. Thankfully our laws protect all of us from the likes and dislikes of others, and people can't be denied their Charter Rights because some people don't like the kind of religious hat they wear. Like I said earlier, Toronto Police officers have been wearing Turbans for over 20 years, and it hasn't done a thing to weaken the organization. In fact, having more Sikhs on the force has been a benefit in a city home to many Sikhs. If you're really concerned about the integrity of the Mounties, you might want to start with taser use and internal corruption. Those seem like bigger issues to most of us than their hats.

It's becoming clear you don't know what you're talking about. - Hedges has an MA in Divinity from Harvard and his father was an influencial minister. So excuse me if I don't really think it's worth it to respond to your critique of one of his sentences. Besides, Hitchens has no expertise in religion - but you have no problem with him writing about it, do you? Even some book reviewers who like him criticized him on this one because, in their words - he did not have the level of knowledge of religion necessary to write an intelligent book about it. They can criticize all they want - I won't ever deny that organized religion has been responsible for many crimes and violence. My point is that Hitchens & Harris are biased in their study of organized religion - they focus on the worst of religion and make no effort to examine anything else. Their books are glorified hack jobs, and one could quite easily do the same thing with any sort of secular ideology and make it look like it was the source of all evil in the world. Not all of Hitchens' and Harris' critics do this, but one common criticism from their critics (religious or not) of their take on religion is they do this very thing with religion. Again - Hitchens and Harris don't want others to do unto them as they're doing unto others. They want people to make a distinction between THEIR Humanism and OTHER people's forms of atheism - but they're not willing to accept that there is a major difference between fundamentalist Islam and moderate or progressive Islam. They don't want to be associated with Stalin's brand of atheism, because they follow a different, MORE TRUE brand, yet they want to associate all Muslims with radical, extreme Islam. Again, not all of their critics say this. Reza Aslan for example is all about reformation and change in the Muslim world, but criticizes Harris for different reasons. Shock! GASP! You mean, a minority of Muslims sometimes try to twist words to make religious doctrine appear in favour of immoral acts? All this time I though Muslims weren't fully human and that they're weren't a few bad apples in the bunch. Here I thought it was only Jews and Christians and Hindus and Buddhists and Taoists and Humanists who did that. But really - Islam is no more or less capable of attempting to justify immoral acts by twisting meanings than secular governments are capable of doing so by twisting the meanings of international law. http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2244293620070522 "nearly 80 percent of all U.S. Muslims reject [suicide] attacks, a survey showed on Tuesday." So I shouldn't be concerned with Stalin & Mao's killings because of the method they used? You make them believe in something "irrational," or rather, they're motivated by something other than immediate self-interest. This could just as easily be God or nationalism. After all, it's not like members of the armies of secular nations haven't been sent on "suicide missions" before. Just because Hitler wasn't the first Jew-hater doesn't excuse him from being the most ruthless one. According to you, but according to the historical community - there's no consensus on Hitler's personal views. Sure - but as with most of your analysis you're not being comprehensive - the question shouldn't be how stable is Turkey in comparison with all other secular governments, (comparing Turkey to Britain is apples and oranges) but how stable is Turkey in comparison to countries which are most like it? (new secular governments in unstable regions). I mean, can you say even that Turkey is any worse off than any of it's neighbours in the Balkans, Russia or Middle East for example? Frankly, I think Turkey has done decently, all things considered. Sure, but it's not exactly as if Western nations have been utterly stagnant for the last half century in trying to find alternative energy sources. We've been complicit in helping advance the kinds of ideologies we say we don't like - through oil money and our bumbling foreign policy. They don't want to block criticism of dangerous ideologies, they just want to block criticism that lumps dangerous ideologies, in with THEIR ideology. Just like you don't want people equating you with Stalin. Reason being, is because the "Islam is the enemy" approach makes the jobs of progressive reformers more difficult, in-fact, it renders them useless, because in a completely polarized conflict between "us" and "them" there can be no room for dissent or differing opinions, the "us" side must be totally unified, and dissenters must be thrown out of "us" Yes, actually, you should stay silent - you shouldn't say anything. Instead, you should be listening - listening to the voices in the Muslim world which have been speaking out against these crimes since before you were born, you should really HEAR what they are saying, and how they're saying it. You should understand how it is possible to criticize problems within Islam without vilifying the entire scope of Islam. Only then should you start speaking - speaking in support of these people, never FOR these people. Because really, they know more about the problem than any of us ever could, and they are more effective in finding and implementing solutions than we ever could be. After all, we're outsiders, it's their community. We don't appreciate outsiders coming in and changing our communities, we appreciate it when change comes from within. Dito for Muslims, because after all, they're as fully-human as we are.

It's quite simple, if politicians are doing things the public doesn't like, the public votes them out. If the Canadian public is unhappy with this country's immigration policy, they need to take political action. Well, we can look at polling data, which suggests that while people may have problems with specific policies, most Canadian are supportive of immigration and multiculturalism in general.

Than why are you talking about the Middle East? France's mantra has been that if you assimilate, you get to be considered fully-French, regardless of where you're from and what you look like. However, this hasn't been the case at all.

Note - I put all three responses to White Doors, Argus, and Rue in one post, due to a session-time-out two responses were lost, and I don't have time to re-write them. Which has translated into de-facto apartheid for Palestinians. Caught up in the national intoxication after the "miracle" victory of the '67 war, Israelis foolishly pursued a dream of reclaiming biblical Israel without considering the long-term consequences and questions (ie - how do we continue to be a Jewish state and a democracy if we are oppressing the democratic rights of people who are under our legal system?) of that decision. The consequences were that over decades of oppression, popular opposition to the occupation has translated into violent resistance, which has made apartheid-like policies necessary in Palestinian areas. Had Israel settled for a ceasefire, rather than a land-grab, it would not be in this situation right now. Two words - Settlement construction. Because you didn't reference the name or comments of the official you quoted. I wasn't aware that I needed to be held to a higher standard than yourself. I wasn't aware of Samir Kuntar, period. So rather than take the word of a pro-Likhud hack, I wanted some independent info. Now I know who he is, and yes, he is a murderer. Can we make a deal here jackass? Can you stop accusing me of using strawman arguments if you're going to do the same thing? To summarize what I said much earlier - Israel got itself into the occupation mess because it was caught up in the hype of it's victory of '67 and believed it was destined to reclaim biblical Israel because of it's divine greatness (which was proven by the miracle victory) and didn't realize that the reason it won in '67 was the 15 years of rigorous training and planning prior. So they rushed into the West Bank and Gaza without any real long-term plan, without thinking about any existential questions of what the decision meant for the future of Israel, and now - they're stuck because of political gridlock - because no political party has enough clout to make any sort of bold move forward, because any concession towards peace is an opportunity for right-wingers to demonize the left as cowards and anti-Israeli. And neither do you, which is why we both rely on expert analysis to form our opinions. Dito for you, brother. Why? So you could tell me something I knew when I a kid? There's little you could tell me about the human impact on both sides as a result of this conflict that my Zaida hasn't already taught me, thank you very much. You're doing the same thing. Get off your high horse once in a while, it's good for your sperm count. No, because a long time ago I decided to take an objective look at the conflict, and spent years learning and reevaluating my positions. My main arguments are only seen as "bigoted" by pro-Israeli fanatics such as yourself, and Palestinian fanatics. For those of us who don't see the world in black and whites, where good and evil isn't determined by what side of the fence you're on, this isn't a radical concept. I'm sorry you think this conflict is a battleground in some "clash of civilizations" between the West and Islam, that's not what bothers me. What bothers me is your using us Jews as a proxy for your wet-dreams of killing Muslims. We've been exploited and oppressed by you Gois for quite some time now, we don't need you doing it anymore - especially when you're claiming to be "our friends" but you're anything but.

Says who, you? I've never read anything by Hedges that suggests he believes that. Have you? The problem with Hitchens and Harris' arguments, like other atheist fanatics, is that they ignore the fact that secular ideologies also have the capacity to turn their adherents into irrational people who will violate human rights to advance their cause. If by this you mean that it will lead to most people becoming atheist, than that's a gross assumption based on nothing more than your own personal experience. However if you mean that objectively challenging one's own beliefs (and really, we could be talking about political beliefs as well here) will result in an evolution of one's own beliefs, than of course. I would argue that any political, national, or ethnic ideology that espouses that its followers/members are superior simply because of their beliefs, nationality, or ethnicity qualifies as being transcendent. Other than the small minority of Imams and scholars affiliated with extremist movements - who is saying that suicide bombing of civilians is acceptable under Islamic doctrine? The vast majority of Muslims and Muslim scholars readily admit that Islam does not allow the targeting of civilians, or setting out on a mission with the implicit intention of killing oneself. Well of course you CAN challenge the entirety of Islam on the issue of suicide bombing, it would just be utterly redundant considering it's already considered a sin. If that's the case, than why are communists responsible for some of the worst atrocities in human history? (see: Stalin's purges, Cultural Revolution, Khmer Rouge genocide) Whatever the motivators behind certain Nazi figures actions, the de-facto way they played out in the general public was an ideology based on racial superiority, religious elements were only used when it helped advance that ideology. Actually, there's no historical consensus on if Hitler was religious or not. The term "first caliphate" does not apply to all governments that existed from Mohammed-the end of the Ottomans - it is not one single monolithic entity (ie - the Ottoman Empire was radically different from the Umayyad Caliphate). Within that time period there have been waves of conservatism, reform, fundamentalism, etc. - it didn't just start with Ataturk. Even now there is reform going on in the Muslim world, some authors like Reza Aslan have argued that we are in the period of the Islamic Reformation. Moderates are going at it with extremists, conservatives, liberals, and vice versa. And quite frankly, a non-Muslim Western man discrediting Islam as a whole only serves to help extremists who have set up this polarized worldview that "the West is against Islam in general"

There's two very obvious reasons for that - one, I live in the West, not the Middle East, so I'm more likely to criticize things that happen in my home country than in another country (newsflash, we all do this). Two - we advertise ourselves as an open society for immigrants, Saudi Arabia doesn't. As such, if we don't live up to our own hype, we're going to face criticism.

Now, in your books, do these antithetical views include all women who choose for themselves to wear hijab, or do they only include sexist views?

You don't know that at all. Please cite me where in the article it tells you her knowledge of women's rights? Because right now it looks like you're talking out of your ass. You're just simply continuing your tenancy of filling in the blanks with your prejudice against Islam by ASSUMING all Muslim women who wear any kind of head covering are doing so because their dad's have forced or brainwashed them into doing it.

If you don't want people to make assumptions about your argument, than you need to actually EXPLAIN YOURSELF. Next time post more than an inflammatory sentence - we can't read your mind.

Care to expand on that? Are you saying we should enforce some sort of hijab ban or something?

What the hell do we even know about her culture? The article describes her as "radical" and gives no examples. I know she wears a niqab, but that's it. Any judgment you pass is based on assumptions. Sure, she could be a radical extremist, or she could just be conservative. We don't know what the deal is at this point.

It's the New Yorker, they're not the Daily News, this stunt will only backfire in the long run. The entire reason they have a boatload of subscribers is their image of a high-minded intellectual mag that's above this sort of "cultural barbarism" Besides, if some shmuck who believed the Obama myths were to pick up the mag and open it, they'd be left confused, staring at a review of a instillation artist's work at MoMA that involves a toilet with a bunch of LEDs in the bowl. But, EMPTY provactivity? Ie - running a cartoon of Bush nailing a Saudi oil prince up the rear, with no article to accompany it? Since when do mags create a controversy on their cover and then not address it inside?

Sure, do you know what international law says about military occupation? Do you know what the UN says about the Israeli occupation? Good, so we both agree that both sides are out of step with international law. Even with Israel's policy of underminding the PA to a point where they were not capable of living up to their end of the bargain, then using this as an excuse for Israel to not live up to its end of the bargain (ie - removing settlements) ie - At one point Israel was bombing PA police stations, then a few months later was chastising the PA for not being able to get a handle on militants. It's still just "all their fault?" I don't think so. A former US ambassador to the Israel and Egypt agrees with me and he was an architect of the Israeli-Egyptian peace accords. You know, the one that WORKED. True, and Israel's offers have time and time again been lopsided in their favour (see: West Bank Cantonment) So they're both guilty of wanting more land rather than wanting peace. I do? That's news to me. Listen, I know you don't normally deal with people who don't pick sides in this conflict, but just because I don't like the idea of a "murderer" (although, I'd like to see an article, because often times the definition of if someone's a murderer or not is determined by what side of the (security) fence you're on) being freed in a prison swap - I also don't like Israel jailing elected officials just because they belong to Hamas, rather than the fact they committed a crime, and because it doesn't have authority in WB & Gaza anyway.. They refuse to accept it for the same reason it's being offered - because of how their policies play to their own people. Israelis aren't any more altruistic than Palestinians, it's all PR - sorry. I wasn't aware that Israel unilaterally withdrew and gave sovereignty there to the Palestinians, because until recently, they had unilaterally closed the borders and seaport in an effort to strangle Gaza's economy, and collectively punish (and indirectly kill) it's civilians for electing and supporting Hamas (which responded with rocket attacks which killed innocent Israeli civilians). It's only collateral damage if you kill people by accident. When Israel launches a missile at a car in a crowded market, it KNOWS it will kill civilians, it just doesn't care, because Palestinian lives aren't worth anything in Israeli politics and society - which is exactly why Israel behaves with what I call a murderous recklessness in choosing it's targets. Targeting civilians through occupation and blockade is in my books morally equivalent to targeting civilians with suicide bombings. One is a slow death, the other is quick. It's disappointing that simpletons like you get distracted by the big explosions to the point where you can't see what's wrong with an occupation that keeps a population chronically malnourished, it's economy constantly sagging and it's institutions, such as health care, woefully underfunded. And right-wing Israeli blogs light up in celebration each time an Israeli offensive kills a Hamas gunman along with a dozen civilians. This conflict has manufactured some pretty disgusting individuals on both sides. And Israel elected as PM a man who gave the green light to Lebanese Christians militias to slaughter innocent civilians. Just like with sports, people are willing to forgive the dirt someone's done so long as they're playing for "their side" Let me guess, you're not racist - you just think Arabs are scum? Lovely. They're won't be peace in the middle east so long as non-Jews think they're helping the situation by propping up the Likhud party with the belief that it speaks for all Israelis. And that Israel is an angel in some sort of cosmic war against the devlish Muslim horde. This conflict isn't a proxy for your bigoted worldview, sorry - you don't get to play other people's lives.

I should've been clear that I was speaking from a journalistic perspective, hell from a publishing perspective - why would you put an image on the cover of your mag that isn't related to any article in your mag? Especially one that is intentionally provocative - kind of feels like a lame attempt at attention grabbing at the expense of anything substantive. The New Yorker presents itself as a mag that is above this - apparently not anymore.