Why Women are Inferior

A quick synopsis: The authors felt that too many women weren't following the original "Rules" when dating on the internet, and felt that it was their responsibility to once again provide a guide for their poor, helpless comrades. The problem, according to the authors, was that "It was starting to become a really bad bar scene. Women are e-mailing with abandon, answering men's ads, meeting a guy, e-mailing him the next day -- making a million mistakes!"

What were these women thinking?

The fact this book exists makes my case on the spot. If I were a lawyer who had to prove to a jury that "Jack should get his dad's money, not Linda" it would be a slam dunk: "Exhibit A: The Rules for Online Dating," I would say. A gasp. The foreperson stands: "Your honour, we see no reason to continue this trial. Linda is clearly inferior." Case closed.

But it goes beyond mere existence. The advice handed out by this book is so.... painfully obvious that I... I... Here, see what happens to you: "Never e-mail on a Saturday night; it smacks of desperation." Wow. That this advice requires giving only further establishes my point: It's amazing that women are able to stand upright.

My other problem with this publication is that it "smacks" of greed. Since the original book was published, the authors have published two more books: The Rules II, and The Rules for Marriage (a wonderfully ironic title, as one of the authors, Ellen Fein, was heading for divorce when it was published.) The Internet version is simply a restatement of the original books, with "e-mail" replacing "phone-call." I guess Fein's husband won their court battle. Perhaps his attourney used my strategy.

"...in the beginning Al-Qa'ida denied any connection to September 11. It turned out that Al-Qa'ida was not connected to the events. From an engineer's standpoint, I can prove that these buildings did not fall just like that because of a fire... Anyone who knows the properties of these buildings knows that Al-Qa'ida didn't do it.

So says Abu Hamza, Imam of the Finsbury Park Mosque. Despite his claim that it should be obvious to "anyone who knows the properties of these buildings" that 3000 degree oil fires covering entire floors would not be able to cause the buildings to collapse, I have yet to hear an engineer say anything except "I can't believe the towers stood as long as they did." On the other hand, why I would think that this would mean anything to this man is another story.

"These buildings were blown up from within..."

Right. That was the point of the planes. When they hit, that was the signal to hit the plunger. Good call.
Also, it turns out that Allah works in mysterious ways:

"I meant to go to Afghanistan, and prepared myself to do so, but Allah decreed otherwise - primarily in light of the fact that my passport was confiscated by the authorities."

Why the U of T ASSU is Inferior

Every year, the U of T ASSU publishes the "Anti-calendar," which is a collection of student evaluations of courses, and the professors who taught them. On the inside cover of this year's edition, there was the following inscription: "Dedicated to the memory of the Innocents, Afghanistan and Palestine, murdered." I was somewhat "surprised", to say the least, for three reasons.

First, there is no country known as Palestine. There may be (self-proclaimed) Palestinians, but much to their chagrin, there is no Palestine. Period.

Second, the ASSU represents all U of T students who are enrolled in the faculty. To include a dedication that only a portion of Arts students agree with is not fair to those who do not. And while some might say that it is the editor's prerogative to dedicate their work to whomever they wish, that does not change the fact that the calendar is intended for use by every Arts student, and should thus not contain anything that could possibly be construed as biased, or offensive. I think this particular dedication fails in both cases.

My third, and deepest concern, is that this statement is symptomatic of the sentiment on campus in relation to the situation in the Middle East, and more specifically in Israel. Does everybody on campus truly believe that only the Palestinians are innocent in the conflict? Unfortunately, either answer is disturbing. If yes, then this goes beyond a mere attempt at moral equivalence. It presumes that Israel is the only aggressor, and that the Palestinians are morally superior. If no, then why not mention the Israeli victims? To quote the editor, when asked about whether or not the statement also included Israeli victims:

"When I wrote it, I didn't think of it that way, I must admit. I still don't. That's not what I meant, that's not what I implied. It's a very simple statement to me, those innocent people have nothing to do with politics or anything."

From the dedication, one can infer that the editor refers only to the innocents killed. While that is, superficially, a noble idea, it whitewashes the fact that, aside from the "Innocents," many Palestinians who have been killed were terrorists intent on murdering Israeli civilians. As well, by mentioning the Palestinians, and not the Israelis, the editor marginalizes the many Israeli "Innocents" who have died at the hands of the Palestinian terrorists.

I suppose that's what bothers me. Those who lost their lives paid the ultimate price, but the living suffer in a different way. We are plagued by feelinglings of futility. There is nothing I can do to stop a terrorist from setting off explosives, or boarding an airplane, or taking out a gun and opening fire. Sure, if I was on the plane, I could attempt to subdue an attacker, but short of appropriating a firearm, I'm pretty much useless. That's why so much of the rhetoric coming out of Washington has been "Go out, live your life, but be vigilant." They understand that people are going to want to act. They also understand that beyong reporting your neighbours as terrorists (bonus points if they're a commie as well), there is little the ordinary citizen can do.