kimmy

I'd like to mention that Sainz herself has not pressed for any action to be taken, and has not complained about it beyond what she "tweeted". The NFL itself has taken it upon itself to act on this. Maybe partly because they don't want to offend female fans, although I doubt female fans are a big part of their financial plan. But mostly I think it's just the recognition that using sex to promote their product puts money in their pockets. -k

I disagree, I think that being herded away from the boys and excluded was probably tremendously educational for those girls. Eye-opening. -k

A couple months ago I saw a boxing match between Amir Khan of England, and Paulie Malignaggi-- a Brooklyn boy! From Noo Yawk! And it was quite a mismatch. Khan was just head and shoulders better, and just picked him apart and by the end of it was landing at will. And eventually-- in the 11th round, the referee finally said ok, that's enough. But the thing is, because Paulie never got knocked down, and because he kept his hands up right until the end, it looks like he's still got a chance, right? He's still standing, and his fists are up, so he's still in the fight, right? Was Duran gutless to keep pounding Moore until the referee steps in? No. Is an MMA fighter gutless to throw punches from a mount position until the referee steps in? No. Both sports rely on the referee to protect the participants. And personally, I've seen a lot of MMA and quite a bit of boxing, and I believe that MMA referees are more assertive in protecting the participants, and I believe the nature of the sport is the main reason why. As Shady points out, in boxing if a guy gets hurt that badly, he gets a chance to recover and continue. In MMA, if a fighter gets hurt that badly, his opponent will be on him very quickly and end the fight. I was pretty surprised that Moore was allowed to continue after that huge knockdown in the 7th round. If that was an MMA fight, that knockdown itself most likely gets a referee stoppage. If the referee didn't stop the fight right then, Duran would have mounted Moore, thrown 3 punches, and the referee stops it. Instead, Moore gets enough time to shake out the cobwebs, convinces the referee he can continue, and goes on to absorb probably 15 or 20 kill-shots to the head before the referee ends it. Why? He stayed on his feet. He kept throwing punches. He couldn't protect his head at all, but Duran couldn't knock him down again. Khan finds Paulie's face with the consistency of a Swiss watch, but Paulie never goes down so there's not really a moment when it's obvious that the referee has to step in. In MMA, it tends to be very apparent when the referee needs to step in. In boxing you get this .. well, he's still standing, his fists are still up, he can probably tie him up and get time to recover, he still has a chance to land a big punch, that sort of thing. I think the core of this argument over what's "gutless" is Da Shwa's misconception that if a guy is standing he can still defend himself but if he's not standing he can't defend himself. -k

(pg 6-7) (ABC excerpt)...If any of this sounds familiar, it's because Pope Benedict 16 was saying practically the same thing in England this week. Feisal Rauf at least has the decency to state his case without invoking the Nazis, which is admirable, I suppose. I would love to hear either Rauf or Benedict explain what they mean by "militant atheism" or "militant secularism" or "aggressive antireligion" in America and the UK. I mean, certainly we know that militant religious people tend to do stuff like launching crusades, building fortified compounds in Texas, crash airplanes into buildings, stuff like that. Where are the militant atheists? Are they the ones who go to court so that their kids don't have to pray to other peoples' gods in school, or learn junk-science in biology class? He says the Muslim world is losing respect for America because America doesn't permit religious voices to participate in building the good society. What, exactly, is he talking about? What religious points of view does he feel are being unjustly shut out? Is he saying the Muslim world is mad that Americans aren't learning "intelligent design" or praying to Jesus in school? Or is he saying Muslims are distrustful because of the rejection of religious-based rules against things like homosexuality and reproductive choice and womens' freedoms? When he says Muslims are losing respect for America because America is becoming less religious, is he trying to say that "they really do hate us for our freedoms"? Religion is being shut out! Religious voices aren't permitted to participate in our governments and our schools and our boardrooms! This isn't the language of a "liberal", and it's not the language of a Muslim extremist or anything of the sort. It's the same language we hear all the time from conservative American Christians who long for that old time religion to be brought back to our society. And aside from the small detail of being Muslim rather than Christian, that's exactly what Rauf is: a conservative religious man who thinks that religion has to be the foundation of a good society. The irony is, Fox News should be a huge admirer of this guy. He's on their team. -k

Do you really think this woman's employer puts her on TV to look like a professional? -k

Watch the videos Jack just posted for a stunning rebuke of the premise that a fighter can defend himself as long as he's still on his feet. -k

If you consider "pluralism" and "the rule of law" to define a liberal then everybody from Stephen Harper to George W Bush to the Pope are liberals. And having clerics advise judges on decisions might nicely conform with your views of the rule of law, but doesn't fit mine. -k

I'm not advocating for him as a fan. I'm just pointing out the surprising similarity between his 2004 book and the Pope's statements this week. After hearing non-stop about what a liberal Rauf is, I decided to do my own reading of his work, and found someone who sounds a lot like western conservative Christians. I can't speak for parents and grandparents of different religions, or attending churches of different religions... but I don't think anybody is demanding intermarriage or religions conversions. I have found that having co-workers and classmates of different faiths has never been an issue, as long as everybody respects certain boundaries. aw, shucks. -k

Probably just the easily scared. -k {boo!}

Whether you personally think he's a champion of peace or just another real estate developer isn't the point. Some on Team Supermosque clearly want to portray him as some kind of hero. Yes, Bubber, that's how it works. If his supporters are going to keep referring to his sterling character to deflect questions, then it's entirely reasonable to discuss how sterling his character really is. -k

It's funny that I'm now "people like you". In real life people think I'm some free-love pot-smoking hippy feminist. But here on the interweb I'm apparently some kind of wild-eyed FreeDominion type or something. -k

I think it's funny that you keep capitalizing liberal, nicky. It's a lot of work, since the book isn't provided in a format that can be cut-and-pasted and has to be transcribed by hand. Nonetheless, since you ask so politely... "Islamic history offers models of pluralism that could be quite instructive for modern American society, such as a court system that decided cases according to different religions' laws. Throughout most of Islamic history, laws differed not only from region to region but also within a given region. Laws were applied based on the litigants' beliefs, especially in matters of marriage and divorce, custody, and inheritance." (page 2) (if that sounds familiar, it's because he said something similar in his Huffington Post piece about Sharia: "At the core of Shariah law are God's commandments, revealed in the Old Testament and revised in the New Testament and the Quran. The principles behind American secular law are similar to Shariah law - that we protect life, liberty and property, that we provide for the common welfare, that we maintain a certain amount of modesty. What Muslims want is to ensure that their secular laws are not in conflict with the Quran or the Hadith, the sayings of Muhammad. (...) "In America, we have a Constitution that created a three-branch form of government - legislative, executive and judiciary. The role of the judiciary is to ensure that the other two branches comply with the Constitution. What Muslims want is a judiciary that ensures that the laws are not in conflict with the Quran and the Hadith. Just as the Constitution has gone through interpretations, so does Shariah law.") And Media Matters quotes pages 86-87 of "What's Right With Islam": "For America to score even higher on the "Islamic" or "Shariah Compliance" scale, America would need to do two things: invite the voices of all religions to join the dialogue in shaping the nation's practical life, and allow religious communities more leeway to judge among themselves according to their own laws." To make explicit what he's talking about, one of the widely circulated quotes available from the book: "(it) also would not be a violation of church-state separation to have a subsidiary entity within judiciary that employs religious jurists from diverse religious backgrounds to comment on the compliance of certain decisions with their religious laws and to provide guidance to their religious communities on how kosher or Shariah compliant these decisions are." (p111, quoted here among others) I dispute the premise that there's anything "liberal" about wanting courts to be overseen by clerics, priests, rabbis, houngans, sorcerors, witch-doctors, shamans, or fortune-tellers. Past my bedtime; will do more tomorrow or Saturday. -k

A great example of why I think many of Canada's far left are such losers: sheer shrieking hysteria combined with utter lack of perspective and appalling disregard for common decency. -k

It would be a mistake to equate Feisal Rauf with Saudi Arabia. I was reading his book earlier this week (what portions the publisher makes available for free online, at least); both of the quotations above are taken from it. And having just been reading through his book and wondering what this "militant atheism" was that he was complaining about, I was quite surprised at how closely the Pope's comments mirrored them. Unlike the Saudis, Rauf is of the opinion that Christians, Muslims, and even Jews can co-exist peacefully because of the common ground they share. And the above quotes illustrate their common ground, and also illustrates why I think the both of them can go do a backflip into an empty pool as far as I'm concerned. -k

I addressed this earlier, and I didn't see a response: Any response? -k

... ... They should get together and start a rock band. I would be interested to hear either of these guys explain this "extremism" or "militancy" of which they speak. -k

And it's not like you guys are trying to downplay it by referring to it as "a humble mosque", "a modest prayer space", "a simple community center", right? "Super" is derived from Latin and as a prefix indicates "above" or "beyond". As Park 51 will, aside from being a mosque, also house a swimming pool, a halal food court, an auditorium, a fitness center, and of course a 9/11 memorial. It certainly sounds like it is "above" and "beyond" a typical mosque to me. I also doubt whether many mosques cost $100 million to build or stand 13 stories tall, so it is also "super" in the sense of being exceptionally large. It is also "super" in the wonderful qualities being attributed to it by its supporters. Healing! Fighting intolerance! Creating unity! It sounds like it is almost supernatural. It also apparently has "super" powers! It is able to transform from "a humble mosque" to "a modest prayer space" to "a simple community center", almost like .So I feel that "supermosque" is an entirely reasonable description of Park 51. -k

Are we no longer proclaiming Imam Rauf to be the champion of peace? Is he now just another real-estate developer? Is Park 51 now just another real-estate development? We're lowering the bar on that one, are we? I'm not aware of other real-estate developers being hailed as champions of unity, builders of bridges between communities, healers of the nation, and so forth. The sterling character of Imam Rauf has in fact been made a focal point of this discussion. His supporters claim it's unthinkable to question his motives in light of all his wonderful intentions and good works. If that's going to be the argument, then his works are entirely open for discussion, Bubber. Iman Rauf's call for unity between Jews, Christians, and Muslims (but not atheists) is based on what he calls "the two greatest commandments", shared by all 3 Abrahamic religions: (1) to love god, and (2) to love all our fellow human beings as we love ourselves. Now, I don't presume to know what sort of home he provides for Daisy. But I have a hunch that he would not house her in a tenement that's been flagged for safety violations. If he's letting people live in buildings that are being sued for building code violations, is he really "loving his neighbors"? -k

I've always thought you were a real peach, Oleg. -k

After the "Fox News North" thread and the "Quebec's own Tea Party" thread, I was wondering when the next Big American Bogeyman would be brought forth by Canada's left. And there it is. (added points for the "right wing Republican wedge-politics" blast.) Here it is: large numbers of rural Canadians-- including many who vote NDP-- do not support the long gun registry. That's something that urbanite snobs apparently just can't comprehend. -k

I wasn't going to respond to this because it looked like the thread was almost dead, but now that the thread's back on I'll address this. My mention of the treatment of women in Islam was not offered as a reason why the mosque should not be built. I mentioned it as a response to Nicky3000 who asked why I didn't feel the spread of Islam in North America was something to celebrate. Nicky's view is that since many North American Muslims are far more enlightened than their third-world counterparts, my dislike for Islam is completely unfounded. My view is that Islam, even for fuzzy-wuzzy progressive North American Muslims, is at least as patriarchal and patronizing of women as the Catholics, my dislike of it is entirely rational. Would many feminists be stoked to hear that Catholicism was making a big comeback in North America? Personally, I kind of doubt it. *** I've been told that Imam Rauf is a liberal. After reading the excerpts of his book freely available on the Harper-Collins website, I disagree. Willing to discuss. -k

A few thoughts: first off, I am not sure why reporters need to be in the locker-room at all. If I were an athlete, I would not wish to have reporters-- of either gender-- wandering around asking questions while I shower and change. second... it sounds as if it was not just a matter of leering. She tweeted that what they were saying made her want to cover her ears. third... I think we all recognize that this person is not out there as a football reporter because of exceptional sports insight, and I'm pretty sure she's not out there as a champion of womens' liberation either. She's out there on behalf of her network. If networks feel that having attractive female reporters on their show will help reach larger audiences, and the NFL is ok with broadcasters using sex to sell their product, then the teams and players will just have to cooperate. Ultimately, it's the networks that put money in their pockets. While it's true that many pro athletes are boors of epic proportions, I don't accept that as an excuse. It's an excuse that could just as easily be made for anybody from executives at a board-room to engineers to construction workers or anywhere else where women aren't often included. I spend 8 hours a day with construction workers, and I don't accept "boys will be boys" as an excuse for bad behavior, and I don't often have to, because even my macho dumb-asses can achieve some basic decorum when I'm within earshot. The football players could, too, but choose not to. -k

The supermosque supporters have made Imam Rauf's character a focal point of this discussion, so it's entirely fair. -k

I will never, ever say MikeDavid00 is right about anything. However, I *will* say that your figures show that Wild Bill is pretty much correct: if you take a look at the figures in your link, you'll notice that of the 150,000 immigrants in the "economic" class, about 90,000 are listed as "spouses and dependents". Of the 250,000 immigrants stated there, only about 60,000 are the people who were selected to come here as workers that Canada needs. -k

Brand loyalty arises when a consumer finds a product that they like and becomes confident that the manufacturer can provide that level of satisfaction consistently. If I as a consumer feel that a manufacturer consistently provides a higher quality product, or a product more suited to my tastes, than its competitors, then it justifies additional expense on my part to choose that product over its competitors; there's nothing opposing free-market principles about it. Of course, whether a consumer is accurate in assigning additional value to a brand they're happy with is often pretty doubtful. -k