benny

To me, it is David (the Taliban) against Goliath (American Imperialism). Canada has decided to take side with Goliath, which is the wrong side. But, as Prime minister of Canada, I would have done the same for two good reasons: 1) because to reason Goliath, up to a certain point, you have to cooperate with him; and 2) because the terrorists' cause, although we can hint at its legitimacy, is just not articulated enough by their promoters.

It is all about eye contact indeed. The "evil eye" of Muslims has a lot to teach us.

Immigration becomes a good challenge only if your are ready to face two types of misery: the one that pushes some Canadians to travel abroad for brides/husbands and the one that pushes foreigners to enter clandestinely in another country.

You can only take your chances by not insulting others.

You said elsewhere that French are calling orgasm, the little death. Recall also that, for Freud, the death drive is a desire to go back in our mothers' wombs.

We will have less problem integrating immigrants when we will have understood that a common culture is made not at all of some substantive contents but of a certain kind of emptiness or openness.

I cannot imagine Immigration Canada refusing entry to a sexy girl because a Canadian may fall in the trap of marriages for citizenship.

People need money to live nowadays.

Mines don't have to be sexy to maim children; they only have to look like toys.

Human justice is not perfect because there is always a probability that a criminal will not be condemned and/or that an innocent will be condemned. What were for sale were financial derivatives to lower the probability of criminals of being caught by timing the moment when a flood of frauds happens.

Money is a public good which become useless as soon as you finish killing everyone else on your planet.

Bottom line: when Americans will want to avoid dying on things like mines, they will think it may be a good idea to sign the international anti-mine treaties.

Justice is not Charity.

Yes. And to those who think greedy lawyers are a huge problem, just think at what charitable priests can do by taking refugee status claimants in the basements of their churches.

You fail both science and religious tests by naming names.

It doesn't make sense to condemn a pedophile to go babysit for free. Likewise, you don't condemn a sociopath, like Black, to do community services.

"Floodgate" is used here to mean "border". I guess Machjo wanted to convey the impression that the outside world is composed of too many desperate and uncontrollable populations. Anyhow, it would be more morally meaningful to think that Canadians are emitting so much greenhouse gases outside their borders that the rest of the World is fast becoming a big flood zone, full of potential ecological refugees.

What is common sense too is that to have guests over, solicitation is a prerequisite. At the most fundamental level, immigration is two people exchanging prestigious captives in order to make peace.

It is not the end of the world not to meet experimental science test but Apocalypse comes from not meeting the more stringent Christian test.

But ultimately, if the owner wants to avoid wars, he needs to meet a justice criteria.

Only a fundamentalist science preacher can keep repeating "it is not science" like if it could be a definitive conclusion of some debate.

A Canadian federal court of justice ordered the government to demand that the United States send home as soon as possible a young Canadian held in the US military jail in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

"What kind of criteria should immigrants meet?" is a short-sighted question, I think. Here is a better one: "What criteria should an owner meet in order to prevent strangers from infringing on his territory?"

What Brent Rasmussen means by "atheist" is: "someone in whom god-belief of any kind is absent." Because some beliefs can be unconscious, one needs a psychoanalysis to be certain s/he is an atheist. http://books.google.com/books?id=cKD8j-hHJ...lt&resnum=2

Creationists are hysterics but they are not the most sublime of hysterics: http://www.lacan.com/zizlacan2.htm