kimmy

Does anybody here remember the controversy that erupted right here in Canada when Stephen Harper was accused of disrespecting the traditions of the Catholic church by (allegedly) pocketing the communion wafer? If the Muslims are a bunch of small-minded intolerant crybabies who howl when somebody doesn't respect their traditions, doesn't that mean the Catholics are also a bunch of small-minded intolerant crybabies who howl when somebody doesn't respect their traditions? -k

I'm not sure that's all of it, Mr Toad. It seems to me that people have been conditioned to look for something that might not be intended at all... to simply assume it's implied. For example, I recall some time ago on this forum a discussion where I had facetiously mentioned my duty to all of humanity to pass on my "radiant skin and straw-colored hair" to future generations, and was startled to the degree at which some people interpreted my narcissism as a put-down of other races. (Certainly a much different reaction than when I compared my appearance to "sour cream".) -k

Well, in this thread, Melanie (offering high altitude the reason for Kenyan dominance in distance running) and Morris Dancer (asking why Kenyans don't dominate the Premier League, and comparing Kenyan dominance in distance running to French dominance in cuisine). Melanie offers an environmental explanation; Morris offers cultural explanations and copious sarcasm; both seeking to dismiss the role of genetics. Why are Melanie and Morris disputing the role of genetics? Why are we discussing Kenyan marathoners at all? Because if Lictor can get people to agree that a Kenyan might have genetic advantages when it comes to running, the next thing he's going to say is that if Kenyans are genetically more suited to running, it seems equally apparent that European people are genetically more suited to activities like "science" or "literature" or "having jobs" or "staying out of jail." And I don't think anybody wants to do that discussion again. Something mentioned in Lictor's own article that should be emphasized here: "Differences among athletes of elite calibre are so small," notes Robert Malina, Michigan State anthropologist and editor of the American Journal of Human Biology, "that physique or the ability to fire muscle fibres more efficiently that might be genetically based ... it might be very, very significant. The fraction of a second is the difference between the gold medal and fourth place." Genetics might determine your ultimate potential at some activity, but few people ever reach their ultimate potential at any activity. Genetics gave me a body-type that's not well suited to running, but when I competed in track and field I was able to easily whip most of my longer-legged, slimmer opponents. None of us had gotten to the point where the hand nature dealt us meant more than the training and preparation we did. And most people never get to that point, at any activity at all. If genetics were the be-all and end-all, the women's marathon world record holder wouldn't looks like this. -k

But the first half that statement is so scary and controversial for many people, because there are a lot of people who just don't understand the second half. Acknowledging that there's any sort of difference beyond the purely superficial is taken by some people as ammunition to advocate the superiority of one group over the other. So a lot of well-intentioned people will fight to the death to dispute the existence of any such genetic differences, no matter how slight. -k

I'm not sold on the argument that this garment is oppressive to women. If we were talking about clothing designed to cover the wearer's face or turn her into a tent, that's different. If that was what she was wearing, I'd be disgusted if she wore it. But is what she's wearing actually a symbol of the oppression of women? I don't think the garment itself is oppressive... What she's wearing is no different from stuff that Western women have worn at some points for purposes of fashion. A number of Christian sects also have a tradition of women covering their hair. If what she's wearing is oppressive to women... is a yarmulke or a turban oppressive to men? Arguing that by wearing this garment she is being complicit in Muslim oppression of women requires a chain of logic that goes something like this.... the garment itself isn't oppressive, but it's a Muslim traditional garment, and some Muslims make women wear oppressive garments, so Hilary is giving those oppressive garments the thumbs-up by extension. But that's pretty shoddy. The Muslims who do that stuff would probably flog women for wearing the sexy little number Hilary has on. And the additional photos provided by AW make the argument irrelevant. If she's complicit in Muslim oppression of women by wearing a sheer, bright blue scarf that doesn't cover her face or even all of her hair during a visit to a shrine... what message is she sending when she stands face to face with Pakistan's prime-minster with head uncovered and shakes his hand? -k

As I understand it, a lot of Kenyans *do* run, for reasons that are not genetic, but cultural. Running had been (and may still be) the most popular form of transportation in Kenya. And, when Kenya's most famous sports heroes have been runners, it inspires others follow their example (for the same reasons Canadian boys want to be hockey stars and not cricket stars.) And ... is it really so scary to consider that there *could* be a genetic factor? I once audited an anatomy class where the professor mentioned that some African group (and I can't recall which) has an ankle geometry that is more favorable to running than other groups. I believe his explanation was that tendon is on average attached just a millimeter or two outside the human mean in such a way that running benefited, at the expense of a corresponding trade-off in activities where the foot was to perform heavy pushing or lifting movements. Analogous to a higher gear on a bicycle: great for going fast on the level ground, but not much use for climbing a steep hill. I can't recall much about that discussion, and it was mentioned only in brief. Maybe there's a study on it, or maybe it's his own pet theory. But ... is it that far fetched? Everybody would agree that a Kenyan and a Swede have slightly different geometry in the bones of their faces. Is it unreasonable to suggest that they might have slightly different geometry in the bones of their ankles as well? -k

Having viewed the garment in question-- thanks, AW-- I don't have a problem with it. I wouldn't have liked to see her wear the sort of stuff that would have made conservative Muslims happy. But this is bright blue and transparent and is not hiding her face or even all of her hair. The message I get from this is "I'll wear this as a show of politeness for your customs, but I'm not personally into it at all." -k

Well, he's right about this one, of course. If someone says black pride or brown pride or gay pride or whatever, it's taken in a positive sense... "I am affirming my value!" But if someone says "white pride", immediately people react as if they're a neo-Nazi. We had a hundreds-post long thread about that, didn't we? He mentioned Mark Steyn, who had to defend himself against the HRC for statements that compared to Hossain's are quite mild. Ezra Levant is another well known example. I think he is again saying that if a white person said the stuff Hossain wrote, they'd probably find themselves in deep trouble. -k

The web page you cited to start this thread isn't a "government guideline". DiversityInc is, from what I have read, a privately owned business that funds its activities with support from corporate sponsors and by providing diversity training to private corporations. I have not seen any government guidelines on how you may interact with people. However, most employers do have some sort of policy on this subject. Employers care about this stuff. If not because a significant portion of prospective employees and prospective customers are not white, then at least because they don't want to get their asses kicked in a "hostile work environment" lawsuit. And don't be so quick to poo-poo the idea of a "hostile work environment" lawsuit. It might be your only recourse when the Swarthy Overlords have taken over! -k

I would not say any of these things to a black co-worker. Nor do I go about insulting co-workers who are white or of other backgrounds either. It's not "Orwellian", it's basic civility. If one doesn't care about being civil to one's co-workers, he should at least consider the bottom line: conflict in the workplace is bad for business. -k

Best wishes to you! If your child inherits your intelligence, she will be truly blessed. When is BC_Chicklet due? -k

The Chiefs suck. With several arrests for beating up chicks and waving guns in peoples' faces, Larry Johnson sucks too. First point: Larry Johnson is not the first NFL player to make anti-gay remarks. For example: in 2002, Jeremy Shockey was asked by Howard Stern what he'd think if he found out one of his team-mates was gay. Shockey said that he "wouldn't stand for it". Johnson is ridiculing people by calling them homosexuals. Using "faggot" as a put-down is in itself insulting to homosexuals, of course, but to me, Shockey's remarks represent real actual intolerance. I don't recall Shockey receiving any formal discipline for his remarks, and I don't recall there being much of a ruckus in the media over it either. A few differences: Shockey played for the New York Giants at the time; Johnson plays for the lowly Kansas City Chiefs. Shockey is white; Johnson is black. Shockey was a golden-boy rookie sensation; Johnson is a guy on the tail end of his career with multiple arrests. And, Shockey didn't actually use a slur like "faggot". Second point: The NFL is an entertainment business, basically. And, an entertainment business survives entirely on the goodwill of its audience. So... how much of the NFL's audience is gay? How much of the NFL's audience would actually care enough about this sort of thing to force the NFL to take any sort of action? My suspicion is: not much. I'm not sure how much of a financial hit gays could actually cause the NFL. Perhaps some advertisers would be concerned enough about this sort of a controversy to steer clear, but I think the NFL is too popular and too successful to be threatened by that sort of thing. They would have no trouble replacing any advertisers who drop them. That's my belief, anyway. So... if the financial incentive to be respectful just isn't there, does the league have any reason to care? What motivation, other than potential financial damage, might encourage the NFL to be "a good corporate citizen" in this instance? -k

Golly, they'll be in trouble next election. -k

The bird can be moved about by resizing your window. It will remain a fixed distance from the right margin of your browser window, so if anyone had a burning desire to see the site map, they could just drag the right edge of their browser window to one side or the other. Personally I like to think of the bird as the site's unofficial mascot, a little bluebird of happiness. -k

So really, the bright side is that there's no bright side? Am I getting this right? -k

bjre is coming from country where food inspection is not "ok culture". Back in glorious China bjre admire entrepreneurial food producer who boost healthful protein of food by adding healthful additive such as melamine. In China courageous food buyer may eat whatever he brave enough to put in mouth and he survive by lucky best wish or happy good fortune. In Canada fascist police state food inspectors not permit clever entrepreneur add healthful melamine to milk product and rob entrepreneur chance to make money and not allowing courageous food consumer to experience happy good fortune by surviving sexy flirtation with catastrophic kidney failure. In fascist Canada cowardly consumer having no freedom to eat melamine unless he buying can of cement mix additive. Now fascist Canada make more bad luck by make herbal medicine not containing hemlock, strychnine, Draino, paint thinner, DDT, ammonia, acetate, and not even healthful melamine permitted. Why fascist Canada doing such bad to poor Canadian consumer? -k

I believe it is quite true that many victims of crime and violence are the authors of their own misfortune. (the rash of drug-war related murders this year in Vancouver being a prime example. People who die in gang-related violence for the most part have picked their own demise. Who do bikers kill? Almost always, other bikers...) It is also true that one can reduce the chance of coming to harm by being sensible and cautious. However, that certainly doesn't apply to everything. Instead of talking in nebulous terms, I'm thinking of a real situation. A woman I know, in her 60s, was at a grocery store one day and was reading the label on a package of hamburger when some meth-head walked up and punched her in the side of the head before she even realized he was there. I'd be interested to hear charter-rights explain how she "chose" that. -k

Yeah, but on the bright side if they finish last, they can use their #1 draft pick to draft a future superstar! ..er, wait, what? ... I'm being told that they have traded their #1 draft pick to Boston. -k {on the bright side, if the Leafs finish last, the Boston Bruins can draft a future superstar!}

The perception that white-collar criminals get off with a slap on the wrist, coupled with some large-scale rip-offs has created a public desire for this. -k

ah-ha! I just knew there must be a reason why racism is actually caused by socialism! -k

I love the smell of bullshit in the morning, it smells like ... well, why don't you tell us which city you live in that has experienced 1000 deaths due to H1N1? Mexico City? Sao Paolo? St Catherines? -k

He's not trying to be The Amazing Kreskin here. Now that the Liberals have hurriedly put the cover back on the Big Red Button, we're back to "Canadian's don't want an election!" mode, and Harper will be A Bad Guy if he calls one. Dobbins and his crew are just praying that Harper looks at these poll results and decides it's time to try again. Dobbins is basically correct here: Canadians really don't want an election. And nobody else is going to force an election right now. So it's catch-22 for Harper... he's got enough support to come close to his majority if there were an election right now, but if he called an election to take advantage of the opportunity he wouldn't have that support anymore. -k

A school is not a street. It's private property, and unless you're a student, staff, or invited guest, you're trespassing. Anything else you need cleared up? -k

I doubt that the "Wildrose Alliance" has anything in common with these comedy parties (and Natural Law and Progressive Canadians might think they're serious political parties, but they're comedy.) Disappointment and frustration with the provincial Progressive Conservative party seems quite intense in Alberta, and a lot of people will probably vote for this upstart party just out of spite. -k

And how is that remotely similar? -k