Originally posted by Yeniceri: But peaceful elections in Palestine is most certainly good news for the people thereof. Hear hear. Let's hope it becomes a habit.

One Muslim figure who witnessed Lord Alli’s speech reacted: “I’m angry, I think he’s got it wrongâ€. Brits! honestly, I don't know how they drum up enough conviction and passion to get up in the morning.

Also, some researchers hope to prove dogs can detect prostate cancer by smelling patients' urine. Playmates, guardians, cops, vehicles, test subjects, and now they may be required to sniff human urine? We may consider them man's best friend, but I wonder if dogs think we are dog's best friend?

Originally posted by sheherazade: Sorry, I have to ask... are men that unashamed...and...lazy Yeah. *Just practicing my creative quoting!*

Wow. And I thought my family had problems.

I'm sorry about your friend, L-X. Could you give us a little background? Who killed a police officer? How is your friend involved?

I have no expectations regarding cat placenta. Weird, I know. Anyway, smell is closely linked to memory, which is why a certain scent can immediately trigger a half-forgotten memory in startling detail. Which is why, in sappy movies, the heartsick heroine is tearfully sniffing her dearly departed lover's items of clothing. Me, I can't tolerate the smell of Vimto. You know, that blood-red drink popular in Somalia and (unfortunately) available at many halal stores worldwide. I used to love it as a kid, but one day this creepy neighbour lured me into her house, locked the front door and threatened to kill me. When I cried, she gave me some Vimto, but naturally I didn't want to drink anything, so she forced me. I had to drink a whole jugful while an unkempt woman smiled encouragingly while holding a cleaver. Ever since then, smelling even a whiff of the stuff panicks me out.

If their relationship gets rocky, will her friends console her that "there are other fish in the sea"?

The Flipmode, Makalajabti did not write much of what you "quote" there. And the link you claim describes a USC "forum" that concluded That ISLAM is the best bet for any woman to be liberated in the world leads to the website Islamtoday.com. Have the decency to treat others with respect. No one cares if you have a 6th grade education, got married at 15 and wear the Niqab. It's your treatment of fellow humans that will always be a measure of the kind of person you are.

Hinda will soon be given to a man twice her age for a few camels. She'll have many kids, only to see many die, thanks to malnutrition, disease and war. She will be an old woman by the time she reaches 40; lucky if she is not forced to seek food and shelter from a refugee camp. This perception of the rural life as an idyllic existence free of the worries and stresses of big city living is a holdover from the era of colonialism. Those forced to make a living from the land hold few romantic illusions about the back-breaking labor and drudgery of their existence.

^ Taste/Tasty and WACEL !! What the flip? [Roll Eyes] That stuck in my head, I mean totally. I try to forget. Nope! Just gets worse! Ok now, who do I talk to about getting the last 5 minutes of my night back..? Like an accident on the freeway, eh? You want to look away, but horrified fascination keeps your eyes glued to the scene...

This song is super-melodic, and I love the imaginative way McLachlan expresses yearning: "you speak to me in riddles/and you speak to me in rhymes". Possession, Sarah McLachlan Listen as the wind blows From across the great divide Voices trapped in yearning Memories trapped in time The night is my companion And solitude my guide Would I spend forever here And not be satisfied And I would be the one To hold you down Kiss you so hard I’ll take your breath away And after I’d wipe away the tears Just close your eyes dear Through this world I’ve stumbled So many times betrayed Trying to find an honest word To find the truth enslaved Oh you speak to me in riddles and You speak to me in rhymes My body aches to breathe your breath You words keep me alive And I would be the one To hold you down Kiss you so hard I’ll take your breath away And after I’d wipe away the tears Just close your eyes dear Into this night I wander It’s morning that I dread Another day of knowing of The path I fear to tread Oh into the sea of waking dreams I follow without pride Nothing stands between us here And I won’t be denied And I would be the one To hold you down Kiss you so hard I’ll take your breath away And after I’d wipe away the tears Just close your eyes dear

^I live more detailed criticism to the author's thesis advisor.

This is like a small microcosm of what's wrong in Somalia.

This country, once the epitome of easy-going liberalism, is edgier, less tolerant these days. Need I say more?

JB, I like to think that I survive better than overfed tourists whose idea of getting in touch with nature is watching tame lions from their safety-locked SUVs. I spent my formative years lulled to sleep by the howling of hyenas. I'm sure I could outwit a few bees. If I liked honey, which I don't

Were I to tell him his profile is beautiful in the first light running the beach with us, both of us stuporous, my son at fifteen might feint a blow at my "stuck out" ears he inherited or, worse, shoot me a glance so full of lead I couldn't fixate on how rapturous it is to race the sun just coming up and bask, luminous, in its reflection. Therefore, I won't chance it. Who wants language at 6:46 A.M.? Maybe you, reader, hungry for something more or else why are you here, so many claims on your attention superior to mine, in better color, clearer print, superior soundtrack, longer memory, more megabytes than mine. This is just a poem, ruthlessly heterodox in its appeal, rather conventional in technique though I like the underlying couplets, that zeugma, a couple of double-entendres and the consonances and cadences, how about you? What are you going to do today? It is 7:24. We all are ravenous, my son, me and you. I gave you a run, now here's your chalk white cup, café au lait, wheat toast, two croissants, a banana I'm slicing with my pocketknife. I believe in dealing with the stuff we've got for poetry, not what we haven't, except for the empyrean, oblivion, the ineluctable, my choice of memories about small circles in hell I've pulled myself out of— and I have a full beverage selection of tap water you and I can whisper into wine. I'm glad you're staying to share my petit dejeuner, I'm grateful, really, for your time. My son, you see, is off at the computer, refining my metaphors and running a program from a world I'll never enter, will you? Whipped butter? or just light margarine for your toast? Orange marmalade or plum? One lump or two? Peter Cooley

Hello Northerner, Originally posted by Northerner: Ahh the joys of Liberalism Callypso, I noticed you failed to address the ‘grooming’ thing? Was I wrong? Would these actions (wife swapping/homosexuality) have been accepted say 30 years ago? Does secularism allow what was previously unacceptable to become acceptable? Absolutely. Such as blacks and whites eating in the same restuarant in the US. It was illegal in parts of the southern United States as recently as the 1960s. I'm sure the reason people decided that racial segregation was immoral wasn't because of the struggles of the Civil Rights-era activists. I'm sure it's because Hollywood is run by secularistic Blacks, who made movies and shows that portrayed sympathetic and funny black characters (Sidney Poitier, anyone?). This then 'groomed' ignorant whites so that they mistakenly think blacks should have 'human rights'and then they were duped into being 'selfish' and letting blacks sit on the bus seat right next to them. What next? Blacks as mayors of major cities? Blacks in the US Supreme Court? Why do things that were unacceptable become acceptable? Could it be that people were bigots before, and they've become enlightened? If you are accepting despicable actions by despicable people under the terms you have mentioned above, then yes I will class you as being selfish! Sxb, they are not despicable actions. Despicable actions cause harm to others. Sexual peccadilloes are not despicable unless the object of one's passions is a minor. So long as two (or more) adults consent to do whatever they do behind closed doors, it's none of my concern. I will not lynch them, persecute them, or think about them much. In so far as that is better for my mental health, then I guess it is a selfish choice. By simply accepting that this is a norm and should not be frowned upon, you are looking after yours and societies ‘best’ interests in accordance with secularism, thus eliminating any moral or religious values in the process. Honestly. You've contorted the meaning of the word selfish into something pretty interesting there, haven't you? Now looking after my and society's best interests is selfish and immoral? Are you actually reading what you type? I have moral values, sxb. I don't cheat. I don't steal, or murder, or otherwise deliberately hurt others. As such, I expect society to stay the hell out of my personal choices when they affect no one else. I suspect you also want society to allow you to make the choices that are right for you. Your problem is that you also want society to allow you to make the choices that you think are right for everyone else. That's where we part company. To me (and others) who do not accept libralism/secularism as a form of governance designed for the good of the people, then that is ‘selfishness’ (looking after one’s own interests). My friend, if you have a system that is better than secular democracy as a form of governance, share with us. I would certainly like to know. Now you can paint over this with glossy emulsion paint but that the bottom line regarding liberalism/secularism and it’s supporters. So I gather. The thing is, you are probably a big supporter of liberalism so long as it suits YOUR best interests. Were America to go all theocratic, Bible-thumping, kill-the-infidel-Mohammedan-invaders a la Pat Robertson on you, I suspect you'd run right to the ACLU and demand your rights be protected. It's only when liberalism defends the rights of all those other unsavoury people who would be so much better off doing things your way, that you get a little hot under the collar. There's a word for that attitude, but it's been abused a few too many times here. You know, I'm not sure it's up to the task of actually being used correctly for once. The secular societies you are advocating has some major double standards in this ‘it is not harming anyone’ nonsense you are supporting. You only need to look at France/Holland and Belgium where the Hijaab has become a contentious issue but hey ‘it is not harming anyone’ so ban it? How do measure where the Hijaab is harming people? Does this make you a hypocrite (for supporting liberalism)? Where do you draw the line? Wait, because France banned the hijab in public schools, I'm a hypocrite? Does that mean you are a terrorist because some Muslims fly passenger planes into buildings? Does illogic know no bounds? The hijab is hurting no one, and France is wrong to ban it. But that's my opinion. France's government thinks that the hijab is somehow harmful to French society, and so they banned it. The argument can then revolve around whether France is right or wrong about the hijab's deleterious effects. But since you think that some things should be banned even if they have no harmful effect on anyone, I'm a little confused about why you are not cheering France on. Oh, I remember now. It's not in your best interests in this case.

And this one, because of a relevant 'discussion' on another thread: BOBBY: I just wanted to say you don't have to worry about me, 'cause I'm never gonna have sex. HANK: Whoa, Bobby, now don't say that! BOBBY: I thought that's what you wanted. HANK: Well, yes, if you were my daughter, but you're my son. BOBBY: Why is it not okay for girls, but it's okay for boys? HANK: It's called the double standard, Bobby. Don't knock it, we got the long end of the stick on that one.

I love Family Guy, but American Dad is an unfunny knock-off. Futurama is good too. I also like "King of the Hill", from FOX. It's gently subversive, rather than the often mean-spirited nastiness of FG. DALE: I know what's wrong with your truck. It's your quote unquote pollution controls. I heard on talk radio you don't even need 'em, they're just an egghead government plot. HANK: How is cutting down on pollution a government plot, Dale? DALE: Open up your eyes, man. They're trying to control global warming. Get it? "Global?" HANK: So what? DALE: That's code for U.N. commissars telling Americans what the temperature's going to be in our outdoors. I say let the world warm up, let's see what Boutros Boutros Ghali Ghali has to say about that. We'll grow oranges in Alaska! HANK: Dale, you giblet-head, we live in Texas! It's already 110 in the summer, and if it gets one degree hotter, I'm going to kick your *** !

^On the contrary, male testicles are large for the body frame of humans. From an article by David Marash. Gorillas, despite their large bodies, have comparatively tiny testicles. Those of chimpanzees, by contrast, are immense. The reason for the difference seems clear: Gorilla males compete with their bodies, not their sperm. Once a dominant silverback male has achieved control over a harem of females, he is pretty much guaranteed to be the only male who copulates with them. Chimps, by contrast, experience a sexual free-for-all, with many different males often copulating in succession with the same adult female. As a result, male chimpanzees compete with their sperm, and they have evolved big testicles to produce large quantities of it. In most species, the ratio of testicle size to body size is a good predictor of how many sexual partners an animal is likely to have. How, then, do human beings rate in this regard? The testicles of Homo sapiens are, relatively speaking, larger than those of gorillas but smaller than those of the champion chimpanzees. The most likely interpretation? Human beings are less certain of sexual monopoly than are gorillas, but are not as promiscuous as chimps. Another way of putting it: We are (somewhat) biologically primed to form mateships, but at the same time, adultery is no stranger in our evolutionary past .

^Don't misunderstand me, Castro. I think that kind of behaviour is pretty disgusting too. But I also think a lot of other things are disgusting: homosexuality and polygamy and smoking and tongue piercings and--I could go on for a while. But it's one thing to argue that something is abhorrent to one self, and another to deny another's right to self-expression. As for the question of how it will affect children, that's a perfectly reasonable question. I don't really know. How likely are swingers to have children? Do they inform their children of their actions? What if they bring up their kids to think that this is perfectly normal behaviour for parents, how would that affect the kids? If an argument against swingers relies on "but think of the children!", then this argument is suggesting that the acts of swingers are harmful to someone, and so opposition to it on that basis is no problem for me. But I was taking exception to people who will readily concede that something may have no discernable negative effect on people/society and yet it should be banned because it just makes them feel icky. Understand?

Northerner, With governments being secular, the Human Rights Act plays a big role in such discussions and is generally accepted that people be given their ‘rights’ (ie to live a life they want as long as it is not harmful to society). This is where the selfish attitude of the public has been groomed to accept whatever is ‘unharmful’ to them and society. That is an odd statement to make. People are being selfish for granting other people rights? And it's selfish to accept whatever is unharmful to one and to society? Should I take offense at your choices because, though not harmful to me or to society, I just find them objectionable? And in taking offense, should I demand that your rights be taken away? I suppose that would be the height of altruism. Sxb, your whole diatribe could have been used by white supremacists to deny blacks the rights accorded them under the Human Rights Act. Or by Christian fundamentalists who want to force others to live by Christian precepts (they would be the biggest opposition to polygamy, for example). Or by slave-owning Americans who questioned the basic humanity of blacks so as to make slavery a guilt-free enterprise. There's always going to be someone somewhere who takes offense at your lifestyle or choices. And there are always going to be people whose lifestyle and choices you find objectionable. The adult thing to do is to live and let live.

Khayr, quote: The same impulse that allows these Canucks to consider "open marriages" none of their business is the same impulse that suggests to them that polygamy should not be illegal. Except one follows with the Popular Sentiment of today and the other-Polygamy is associated with Religion, hence why the Majority of People are against it. Whenever the later is mentioned, the PEOPLE scream and kick and bring about the issue of 'WOMEN'S RIGHTS' to suppor their anti-religion Biases!!!The multiple exclamation marks don't convince me, walaal. There's no popular support for wife-swapping. Making blanket statements about people that don't share your faith is a typical tactic of religionists. And if an anti-religion bias pervades secular nations, it's only because these nations have a first-hand experience of the destructive effects of theocracies. That's why immigration goes from theocracy--->secular democracy, and not the other way around. If polygyny was decriminalized, it would be on the same bill that also allowed polyandry and gay marriage. I imagine that's unpalatable to you, but such is the double bind your lot have to suffer. On the one hand, you want to take advantage of liberal democratic ideals like personal freedom and the right to self-determination, so you demand the right to exercise your faith and its precepts. On the other hand, you don't want these self-same rights extended to other people, like gays or wife-swappers. Moral hypocricy.

Bishy, So I guess all the talk of KFC's inhumane treatment of our feathered compatriots won't depress your appetite?