kimmy

That's a pretty weak assumption.First off, how many of the rules you're complaining about are actually new? Was there no law against driving drunk in your day, Drea? Or was there a law, and people just didn't think it was that big a deal? Illicit drugs were just as illegal in your day. The government was in many ways telling people what not to do back then just as now, and people nowadays obey or ignore laws just as they did back then. As well, a great deal of these new rules that you're complaining about are a result of knowledge. We now know that smoking is linked to cancer, so we announce that fact on cigarette packages. We now know that second-hand smoke can cause cancer, so smoking indoors is hurting other people. We now know about things like Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and that moms who smoke while pregnant give birth to dumber kids on average. We now know that there are deadly sexually transmitted diseases. As well, a great deal of these rules are to do with protecting people who really can't make their own decisions: children. Child car seats, bike helmets, smoking indoors, and so on. And finally, a lot of these rules deal with the fact that the world is a lot more complicated than it was in your day. Some are, some are not. As you've already explained, the same can be said for your generation. -k

The "no cajones" comment rubbed me the wrong way. Would you say that your son has "no cajones" because he doesn't drive drunk, or smoke, or drive around with a gun in his car? I don't think the fact that you people did all the stupid stuff you did when you were young proves that you had "cajones". I think it just demonstrates that you were either too dumb to recognized the hazards, or too irresponsible to care. -k

I don't think I said that. Although, thinning you folks out a little might reduce traffic congestion and make homes a little more affordable... When Andrea encourages her son to think about freedom and exercise his freedom, I somehow doubt that she's telling him to drive while drunk, take up smoking, or have indiscriminate, unprotected sex. I suspect that these are actually pretty shitty examples of the sort of idea she was trying to convey. I don't have any intention of arguing the quality of music. I just wish to point out something called "selective memory", which causes people to think "gee, music (or TV, or movies...) was better back when I was young." It wasn't. You remember the good stuff, and forgot the stuff that sucked. (which was most of it then, just as it is today.) There is also the tendency to compare apples to oranges. Old people think back and say "when I was that age, we had The Beatles, and now they have Britney Spears." Screw that. You know what? When you were that age, you had Fabian. -k

And you all survived! (except for the ones who didn't.) And you all survived! (except for the ones who didn't.) And you all survived! (except for the ones who didn't.) And you all survived! (except for the ones who didn't.) And you all survived! (except for the ones who didn't.) But you're all alive! (except for the ones who aren't.) You know who's spearheading all this curtailment of freedom? The babyboomers. Take a look at who our elected officials are. Who's fighting the tobacco industry? Babyboomers shocked at seeing their lifelong friends die painfully from lung cancer, and scared that the same thing might happen to their children or grandchildren. What put an end to "free love"? People your age, Drea, having enough "free love" during the 1980s to ensure that AIDS became thoroughly entrenched in North America. Who wants Hummers? Every time I see an SUV, I see somebody in their 40's or older behind the wheel. Us younger folk? We're going to be driving Civics, Smart-cars, or electric go-cars; as the shocking waste of fuel by your generation is yet another legacy that you've left to us. If I'd been born 30 years earlier, then I too would be driving around in my 1968 Dodge Charger getting 8 miles per gallon, with a beer in one hand and a smoke in the other, on my way to a booty-call or orgy of some sort. Did that really take "cajones"? Young people have a hell of a lot of cajones. It takes cajones just to get out of bed and keep going in this trainwreck of a world you people made for us. Well, the ones whose grandparents didn't survive are not here to marvel at their good fortune. But I agree about "irresponsible." I really do wish I could have had one of those beautiful '68 Chargers, though. -k

Speaking of a totally stupid statement, buffy. In saying that "the music industry is now exactly that -an industry" you seem to be suggesting that this is a new state of affairs. It isn't. It has been a thoroughly commercial exercise since the 1950s, and probably long before that. Elvis and the Beatles didn't just emerge from the egg as fully-formed million-selling artists. They were put on vinyl by people who viewed them through the lens of what could become commercially successful. They were put on the radio by people who viewed them through the lens of what could become commercially successful. The same can be said of anybody that the Baby Boomers grew up listening to. They were given the stage by people whose ultimate goal was making cash. Here is something else to consider: in the 1960s a consumer in a typical sized market might have had your choice of only a handful of radio stations playing music, plus a few television variety shows that would show some musical performances each week. Beyond that, music's ability to reach people was limited to live performance. Right now, you have a radio station for every genre of music. You can turn on a radio in most large cities and find a huge variety of music on the radio. You can hear System of a Down on commercial radio stations in 2008. In 1968, your only chance to hear something that radical on the radio would be if the Beatles snuck some code-words past the censors. And then you have 24 hour a day music video channels where you can watch artists from every genre of music convey their ideas visually as well as through music. (And if most of those songs and images are easily forgettable, don't be tricked into thinking that it was ever any different: for every Beatles or Neil Young, the boomers had a hundred Monkees and Archies and Frankie Avalons.) You have the internet where any artist has the opportunity to reach an audience through websites or Youtube or Myspace. You have internet "radio stations" that transmit streaming audio of any sort of music no matter how diverse or outside the mainstream. You have the ability to publish music Digitally, bypassing the record industry and record stores altogether. Montreal's "We Are Wolves" got one of their songs on the latest "Need for Speed" video game soundtrack. I liked the song, so I googled for the band, and within a couple of minutes I was watching cell-phone video of the band's live performances on Youtube, reading about the band on Myspace, and checking out more of their songs o on their website. And, if I'd been inclined, I probably could have bought some of their music from an online store. In 2008, a band can publish their music and gain an audience and earn a living with their music without ever being accepted by a "major record label." At what point in human history have musicians ever had the kind of opportunity to reach an audience that they do right now? And to bring it back to August's original question, this proliferation of choices is what has led to the decline of music's influence. Yup. In 1968, if the Beatles wrote something, you could be sure that everybody heard it. In 2008, everybody is listening to something different. -k

The article was dated January 25, and said the episode was to air "tomorrow night", meaning the 25th of January, so I assume the prophet has been eaten and digested. What I'm not able to determine is where this "tv show" actually airs. Their webpage ( http://www.flamethrower.tv/ ) boasts that FaithTV pulled their Jan 24th episode because they were too controversial, but I'm not actually able to determine whether FaithTV is a real network either. People who are really desperate to see people eat cookies on TV can apparently find the video on the website (or check out instead.) -k

The term "reality TV" was misapplied to many shows that have nothing to do with reality. Lazy TV critics removed any meaning from the term by applying it to any sort of unscripted TV. Shows like Survivor, The Amazing Race, The Mole (which I also thought was among the best of this genre; too bad it never caught on), Big Brother, and others that have been called "Reality TV" are in fact just elaborate game shows. My favorite of these game shows has been The Amazing Race. I think that people who watch the Amazing Race might inadvertently learn things about other countries and other people. Something I think is particularly good about the show is that the contestants activities are not confined to the "tourist" stuff in the places they go to. The tasks assigned to the contestants often involve everyday type situations. Sell x amount of fish at the fish market. Find this address and deliver this parcel to the resident. Find this call center employee and deliver this cup of tea. Viewers get to see normal neighborhoods, normal people, normal jobs... aspects of the countries that you don't see on travel TV, or the evening news, or Worldcare Save The Children charity fundraisers. I think The Amazing Race sneakily accomplishes something kind of admirable, without being preachy about it. -k

That's not been what I am saying at all (or anybody else as far as I've seen.) I can guarantee you that a great many Christians do take offense at things like the "Piss Christ" exhibit, or "The DaVinci Code," or "The Last Temptation of Christ," or the recent "Golden Compass" movie, "Pope on a Rope" soap, comedic depictions of Jesus, a great many political cartoons regarding pedophile priests, music lyrics, and all kinds of other things. All the time. Christians get offended all the time. That's not the issue. The issue is this: when Christians do get offended... what happens? letters are written... sometimes a consumer boycott is attempted, people stand out movie theatres with signs, that sort of thing. Riots? Nope. Fires? Pillaging? Murders? Nope. What's one difference between Dan Brown and Theo Van Gogh? Dan Brown's book/movie was based on the premise that Christianity is a hoax, and Theo Van Gogh's movie was critical of Islam's treatment of women. Another difference? Dan Brown is alive, and Theo Van Gogh got executed on the street. That'd be hilarious. Yep, the people at the church would probably be pretty offended. I can guarantee you'd survive the experience, though. When you're done at the church, go try the same thing at a mosque and see if it works out as well for you. -k

I think you guys are being funny little monkeys. Christians do not riot or burn stuff when they're upset. When their faith is insulted, they protest, they boycott, they write letters, they make their views known in legal and non-violent ways. To reiterate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davinci_code http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Temp...rist_%28film%29 -k

Your complete quote was: "actually jbg, no part of an individuals freedom could be described as , you have the freedom to be insulted or the recepient of insult or injury, as another party sees fit! are you kidding?! Are you for real? That's why we have such things as libel and slander laws.? right jbg?" It conveys the impression that you think libel and slander laws are a general remedy to any sort of hurt feelings, when in fact slander and libel have legal definitions that have to be satisfied before any statement could be considered slander or libel. -k

Was legal action taken against either of them? Charges filed? A lawsuit? Anything? Nope. Don Imus ("nappy-haired ho's") lost his job for a while because of the bad publicity his employer received. Now he's back on the radio. To re-iterate, there's no *law*. No *legal right* to not be offended. Whether you or I see a point to eating the Mohammad cookies is beside the point. The guy who is performing this act believes that there's a point to it, and it's entirely up to him. Perhaps he believes he is provoking discussion on a double standard (it doesn't matter if you offend Christians, but heaven forbid you offend other religions) or perhaps it is his way of denouncing organized religion, or Muslim violence, or the status of women in Muslim nations ("get back in the kitchen and bake me some Mohammad cookies!"), or perhaps he is ridiculing the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, or maybe it's just a shameless publicity stunt. Whatever the case may be, whose business is it to decide whether there's merit in what he has decided to do? Some light reading for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ When you pick him up, ask him if he believes in censorship. -k

Sure, but Kuzadd's message suggests he has a legal right to not be insulted. See what she wrote? "what jbg fails to grasp is a right to insult or injure extends ONLY as far as anothers' right NOT to be insulted or injured." In actuality, my right to insult another extends up to the point where it falls within the strict legal definition of libel/slander. Aside from that, I can say any damned thing I want. *my* common decency causes me to not cruelly taunt hobos, but that's an issue of my common decency, *not* any legal right of the hobo to not have his feelings hurt. Some comedians have made lucrative careers of having less common decency than most people; I can't recall any successful lawsuits or criminal proceedings against any of them. -k

(this is satire, right? You set out to produce a post that's just as stupid as the stuff Leafless has been posting, right?) -k

There is no such right. The circumstances under which the exercise of free speech can be considered to cause injury are clearly defined and do nothing to restrict the eating of cookies. Valuable Kimmy-Points for anybody who can demonstrate a legal precident either in Canada or the United States that shows otherwise. -k

Straw-man arguments. (what liberals are "promoting" Islam?) Dubious assumptions. ("Starving a helpless victim like Terri Schaivo"? Terry Schiavo was a vegetable. Her brain had atrophied to the size of a golf-ball. She wasn't a victim of starvation. She was a victim of a brain-injury.) Based on self-referential value-judgments. (It's easy to show that abortion is murder, if you begin your argument with the premise that abortion is murder.) The writer seems to suspect that his readership consists of idiots who can't think for themselves. There are some good arguments to be made in favor of conservative positions. This piece of crap does not present any of them. -k

I think there is a widely held perception that much of the bumbling is confined to Bush and his circle, not the Republicans as a whole. I think that whoever wins the Republican nomination will be viewed as being sufficiently distant from Bush so as to not be held accountable for Bush's record. Personally, at this point at least, I'm kind of excited about the next election. I'm starting to think McCain could be a really great leader. And I think both Clinton and Obama would make the election far more compelling than the duds the Democrats ran in the last 2 elections. -k

I really hate the way this news story has presented the issue. Since when is Stormfront's opinion on anything worthy of a news story? Is the implication that Mr Martin's idea is a bad idea because white supremacists like it? Is the implication that white supremacists are the primary beneficiaries of Mr Martin's idea? Mr Martin's proposal should not be debated through the distorted lens of whether neo-nazis think. It should be debated on its merits. As for the proposal itself, I'm undecided. I am conflicted on the idea of whether there should be a legal means of dealing with the Zundels of the world. The argument is sometimes made that suppressing such messages just adds to their appeal among the susceptible. It's argued that such ideas should be allowed into the realm of public debate so that they can be exposed as lacking truth or merit. However, the argument might also be made that the sort of people susceptible to such ideas in the first place often have limited ability to discern truth or merit and little facility to participate or understand such debate. I can see both sides of the issue. I'm not sure that allowing malicious attempts to incite hatred is of benefit to society in any way, but some would argue a slippery-slope principle applies here, or that the value of the principle in itself is more important than possible adverse affects from individual incidents. Very mixed feelings from me with regard to Section 13 itself. However, I think that the specific incidents that prompted Mr Martin to take up this cause were the complaints filed against Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant. I don't believe these are examples of what Section 13 was designed to prevent. I view these as attempts to promote/provoke legitimate public debate. They can certainly be defended as such, regardless of how sincere one believes Levant or Steyn are. I think the complaints can only be viewed as an interference in legitimate public discourse, and therefore these complaints are an abuse of the process. Therefore, I take a cowardly and weasel-like position: perhaps instead of throwing out that whole section of the act, perhaps the manner in which the complaints are audited could be overhauled to make it less prone to abuse. However, I applaud Mr Martin for bringing this issue to Parliament, as it is an issue that has sparked much debate among Canadians, whether Parliament wishes to discuss it or not. More information about Section 13 of the CHRA can be found here: http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/discrimination/watch_on_hate-en.asp -k

The question put forth wasn't "how are we going to keep uncivilized customs out of Canada". The question put forth: "This question is for White European Canadians who are tired of multiculturalism in Canada. Do you mind non-whites, particularly Asians and East Indians who are "Canadianized" or Assimilated? Or do you want a 100% White Canada?" My short answer: I don't care about skin colour. It's the culture. But answering that question volunteers you to a line of additional questioning. Volunteer yourself to answer the first question and you've must answer the following questions or be thought ill of. So I got them out of the way earlier so as to save inquiring minds some trouble. Q: Why did you self-identify as a white person who is tired of multiculturalism? What's wrong with multiculturalism? A: I love tasty eats and crazy gear as much as anybody. But culture isn't just tasty eats and crazy gear. Q: Oh yeah? Like what? People like you always talk about this in vague terms and never explain what aspects of other cultures make them uncomfortable. Isn't it reallyjust xenophobia? A: No, it's not. Here are some specific examples (the status of women in some cultures, traditions that are incompatible with Canadian law, long-standing ethnic conflicts being renewed in this country, as mentioned earlier) of aspects of other cultures that make me uncomfortable. All these things are things from other cultures that I don't want to see accepted in this country. I answered the original question and provided some reasons for my answer. Your question ("Yeah, so what are you going to do about it? Huh? Huh? Whatcha going to do? You can't do anything about it, can you blondie? So why don't you shut up and eat a shawarma?") is actually a bit of a tangent. However, if you'd like me to come up with some sort of strategy for dealing with that question, I could give it a go. I had hoped the job would come with a nice salary and an office on Parliament Hill, but what the heck. Lots of requests for accommodation of other beliefs are made all the time. Most are minor, some are a matter of opinion, and a few are a pretty big deal. So it depends on what we're being asked to tolerate, and what one views as intolerable. To me, allowing Sikh RCMP officers to wear turbans, for example, is a minor issue provided that the officer is still easily recognized as an RCMP member. To some, however, it's a matter of principle, an unacceptable interference with Canadian traditions. To some people, kirpans in schools or on airplanes is a serious issue. To me, it's one where a reasonable compromise could be made, but to others it's a matter of principle. To me, lobbying efforts on behalf of giving Sharia tribunals legal standing in Canada, is an example of a situation where I've been asked to tolerate the intolerable. While some people would point out that the tribunals would be voluntary or that people might resolve their personal issues by Sharia moderation anyway or that it wouldn't impact anybody outside of the Islamic community anyway, to me it's a matter of principle. -k

I can tell. The article identified several key reasons why these programs function poorly, including a couple that I thought were of particular interest: -poorly identified goals -little means of measuring the qualifications of the people who are supposed to be providing this education. So, basically, governments and schools and employers want to have diversity programs, but nobody is really sure what these programs are supposed to be, or how to tell if the people running the programs have any idea what they're doing. Possibly. I don't actually know the history. They may have filed formal complaints to the university, made anonymous complaints, or just sent a copy of the training manual to a reporter.The one student interviewed for the Diversity in Education article said she questioned the material being presented and was told to STFU. What is clear, though, is that complaining didn't actually do anything until bad press reached a furor. Prior to that, the university defended the diversity program. (or, as somebody's signature reads, "Shut up and be tolerant.") I've read the document, and it's chock full of interesting material, taking particular aim at white liberals and people who say "we're all just one race, the human race." Fascinating stuff. If you decide to read it and there's anything you're interested in discussing, give me a shout. I have not taken it upon myself to present Dr Butler's views here or debate their legitimacy. Why are you criticizing me for not debating the merits of Dr Butler's case when you've been arguing for several messages that she's a fringe wank who's not relevant to a discussion of "the anti-racist movement". Here's what I think. Feel free to agree, disagree, or respond as you wish: -views that most people consider "anti-racist" have been quite thoroughly absorbed into mainstream thought. -to continue to exist, or justify their existence, academics and activists need to advance theories that are outside of mainstream thought. They have to advance increasingly radical theories; otherwise they're not performing scholarship, or don't have a cause to be active for. -views like Butler's create antipathy among white people who might well be inclined to be sympathetic to the cause. -increased public sensitivity to "diversity" has created an audience or market for scholarship of this type. -the standards for scholarship of this type are not well established and as a result little means of discerning its merit. -being declared a university department, professor, course, or program, may confer a prestige or legitimacy upon such materials that is unmerited. -questioning the merit of such materials might get one branded as an undesirable of some sort. -k

If this was to be done, it had to apply to everybody. Otherwise, stations would gain a competitive advantage by ignoring it. The justification for the law was the death of a gas-station attendant who was killed while trying to prevent a "gas-and-run" theft. While that was an extreme incident, I have heard that attendants are often subject to violence in similar circumstances. And gas stations lose thousands of dollars to "gas and run" theft. Gas station owners are in favor of it... as long as their competitors have to do it too. In a few months, nobody is going to think it's a big deal. -k

jbg informs me that you have him on ignore, so you might have missed what he wrote to you: "I respect you for your friendship to the Jewish people." If that's the case, then I suppose my message probably seemed rather out of the blue. I was just skeptical about the extent of the friendship to the Jewish people that jbg was lauding you for. It's been my experience that your participation in any given discussion can be boiled down to one of just 3 issues: promote the Liberals, criticize the Conservatives, or protect the Liberals from criticism. So when I saw JBG gushing over your "friendship to the Jewish people," my cynicism just got the better of me. If it came across as a personal attack, then I'm sorry. However, while you're off being indignant, you might spend a moment or two wondering what you've done to earn this amount of cynicism. The mindless partisanship on this particular part of the forum is why I seldom post in this area anymore, and seldom have anything nice to say when I do. You're hardly the only one, Dobbins, if that's any consolation. -k

I've got a hunch that Dobbins would jump all over the Conservatives for having Canada skip an anti-racism conference, if he thought he could pull it off without re-opening the "Liberals are rife with anti-semitism" discussion. I've got a hunch that official Liberal spokesmen will decline to attack the Conservatives for the same reason, and that Liberal MPs will probably be advised to do the same. From the article: Surely Ms Okabe must recognize that the sincerity of this effort to "fight racism" is highly suspect when the entire event seems constructed to repeat the earlier debacle. How has the UN sunk to such depths in the first place? -k

Well, if we're limiting our interest to things that are illegal, then we could police that with, you-know, police. However, I didn't limit my comment to things that are illegal, I said "If a culture includes values or beliefs that are in conflict with Canadian values, then they ought to adapt," and I provided examples such as "the status of women in some cultures, traditions that are incompatible with Canadian law, long-standing ethnic conflicts being renewed in this country, and the like." Need I be more specific? Sure, why not. "The status of women in some cultures"... an example might be a couple from India who after conceiving, uses ultrasound to determine the sex of the fetus, and abort it if it is female (a frequent occurrence in India). Can't prevent them from having an ultrasound. Can't prevent them from having an abortion. Don't really have any means of "policing" this. But it's certainly an aspect of a foreign culture that I'd be less than pleased to see take hold in Canada. It would not warm the cockles of my heart in the way that funny hats and curried chicken do. "Traditions that are incompatible with Canadian law" ...an obvious example would be what some refer to as "female circumcision". Can't really say for sure what some doctor might do in the privacy of his clinic, but we can certainly make sure this remains illegal and prevent it from happening in public hospitals or on the taxpayer's dime. If some parents are of a mind to have it done to their child outside of the country, there's probably nothing we can do to stop them. That's an aspect of a foreign culture that I'd be less than pleased to see take hold in Canada. It would not warm the cockles of my heart in the way that funny hats and curried chicken do. "long-standing ethnic conflicts being renewed in this country" ...an example might be, for instance, the Air India bombing. Or any number of groups who've raised money to send to fund violent conflict in their old homelands. Canadian law enforcement would hopefully try to stop this. Likewise not the sort of thing that gives me the warm and fuzzies in regard to multiculturalism. BFD. Doesn't mean I have to "tolerate" that which is intolerable should it be brought to these shores. My dad is descended from Swedes who came to Canada after briefly settling in Minnesota. Mom's peeps were religious folk who fled persecution in eastern Europe. -k

Earlier you objected to me entering the views of "a fringe academic from nowheresville" into the discussion. Next up, while conceding that views like Butlers are hardly unique among academics, it's still not relevant to the discussion because they're just ivory tower types. So yeah, I do feel as though you've been trying to limit the scope of the discussion. "That guy's a kook; that other stuff is just academic wankery. It's not relevant. Let's talk about mainstream anti-racists instead." First it was one guy you wanted to dismiss as a fringy figure. Now it's the views of many academics in the field. At what point does it become worthy of your attention? Here's an article that examines the U of Delaware fiasco, and argues that a lot of diversity programs are actually poorly designed, poorly implemented, and that there's no means of evaluating the credentials of so-called diversity experts, and no agreed-upon standard for these programs: http://diverseeducation.com/artman/publish...cle_10543.shtml A couple of questions for you. First of all, are you aware of any universities in North America that have Neo-Nazi Studies departments? Can you provide examples of Neo-Nazis being consulted by school-boards or employers or universities in establishing policies? Are neo-Nazis being sourced as expert opinions for newspaper articles? Wouldn't you kind of agree that being university professors and having courses and programs and departments dedicated to advocating their views confers an appearance of legitimacy to people like Dr Butler that the neo-Nazis will never have? And if so, don't you think that makes a discussion of these views somewhat more pertinent than neo-Nazis, Frank Chu, or other run-of-the-mill kooks? I mean, we've had hundreds of pages of discussion about PolyNewbie's theories, and that guy didn't even have a job let alone a university department. Secondly, do you feel that neo-Nazis should just be ignored? They're not "mainstream", so BFD? I'm of the opinion that the program got canceled once the program got sufficient amounts of negative media exposure. I don't see evidence that student complaints got the program axed. The university's initial reaction, when the press picked up on the story, was not to do anything, other than try to explain it away. "oh, the students are mistaken. it's not a compulsory program." Only when bloggers, media, and the "Foundation for Individual Rights in Education" turned it into a PR disaster did the university take action. Did student complaints get change? Like crap they did. -k

I'm not tired of multiculturalism, provided it's defined in the warm fuzzy terms that Canadians typically think of: different skin tones, funny hats, people bumping around town dressed in wacky gear, delicious food, funky dance-steps, different styles of music, fascinating arts and crafts, and so-forth. (my own people were neither french nor english; my ancestors brought their own funny hats, goofy clothes, crazy arts and crafts, and nifty cuisine. The music and dance-steps leave a little to be desired, as I recall.) Who would be upset about any of that stuff? However, I'm not quite as enthusiastic about multiculturalism if one considers culture to encompass values as well as the sort of superficialities mentioned above. If a culture includes values or beliefs that are in conflict with Canadian values, then they ought to adapt. Examples would include the status of women in some cultures, traditions that are incompatible with Canadian law, long-standing ethnic conflicts being renewed in this country, and the like. I think we can all think of examples of cultural values that should have been checked at the door. Yes to multiculturalism; no to condoning things that we shouldn't allow in the name of tolerance. -k