Or a distant third possibility is that you're right.  :)

"And you can see why - those differences are often used as a rationale for suppressing women's progressive empowerment.  i don't think that it's the right way to go about having that debate, but i understand their motives."

heh sure.  Denying obvious biological realities is perfectly reasonable as long as the motives are pure.

"These differences don't matter, so they shouldn't be suppressed out of fear that they will be used for repressive purposes.  The facts are the facts, regardless of what use they are put to, dont you agree?"

Liberals have different ideas about 'repressive purposes' and some differences do matter.  Let's say that you are trapped on the roof of your flat and the place is a burning inferno.   You are hurt and can't come down the ladder that is offered.  You'll have to be carried.  You look down and you see the 6"2 250 pound male firefighter standing next to a 5"2 100 pound female one.  Which do you want to come up and carry you down?

We may quibble:  but there are 5"2 100 pound males we wouldn't prefer, either.  Statistically, though, you're more likely to have men who can do this job then women.  This is a fact and facts are facts, regardless of what use they are put to, don't you agree?

Now, in this example it will so happen that the fire dept has had trials and tests and a fair amount of men didn't make the cut, either.  Why?  Because in this occupation 'differences matter.'  You don't want to employ weaklings and incompetents just because because life hangs in the balance.  It is a simple fact of reality that men are more likely going to make the cut than women.

Now, as far as I'm concerned- and we can see if maybe you are more sexist than I am- if a woman can do the same work with the same ease as a man (in the fire dept scenario, here) then I have no objections to the woman having the job.  If, however, the woman only has to lift 100 pounds to get on the dept while men have to lift 200 pounds, I have a real problem with that.

Liberal feminism is comfortable with this.  They find ways to avoid it.  For example, they begrudgingly admit the principle but they get around it by requiring the applicant to lift 150% of their own body weight (or something like).  So, our 100 pound woman needs only to be able to lift 150 lbs and then she's in!  Hooorah!  Statistically, women are going to be on the lighter end and under this scenario, then, be required to lift less than the statistically more likely to be heavier men.  Which is just swell, of course, because if we're lucky the only people who need to be saved will weigh no more than 150% of a woman's weight.

This is coming from a man who has personal experience on the matter.  I applied to be a fire fighter once upon a time.  Out of some 3,000 applicants, only about 700 passed the physical requirements (150% of your weight lifting, etc) and out of these 700 I finished in the top 98% percentile for the test scores.  Do the math:  I would have been about in the top 50, easily.  They only took 125.  After considerations for race and gender, I dropped to 140th in line, and did not get the job.

Don't get me wrong- I'm not personally traumatized or anything, here.  But I do see the dangers of glib assertions that 'differences don't matter' when liberals are at work to 'make things equal.'

"1) Hamas are people too (shocker!).  Mostly they live in the epicentre of this on-going conflict, and mostly they want peace, because they want their children to be able to grow up and go to school without catching an Israeli army bullet in the chest."

lol Hamas wants to drive Israel into the ocean.   this is like saying that Al Qaeda are people too.  They also 'mostly' want peace.   They don't want to have to worry about their children catching an American bullet in their chest.  And oh yea, they want every non-Muslim in the world either exterminated or living under Sharia law.  heh

"2) This is also not a shock.  You have to be trying really hard to tie this in to Obama's victory (he's not even in charge for 60 days or so)."

It isn't a shock but I don't think it is so difficult to tie this into Obama's victory.  But hey, when Russia is seeking to place its missles in France instead of Poland, don't worry, by that time perhaps we'll have time to elect another president to rescue ya'll.   

"i mean, i know you have a prophecy to fulfill and all, but really."

I don't know what you mean by this.

Isn't it fun to be in broad agreement on something?

While I would like to agree with your 'if two people apply for a job' scenario I'm not so sure that in practice you always get 'equally well-qualified and capable.'  From my own experience with the fire fighting thing I can't speak to the qualifications of those who beat me out.  I have a lone anecdote from someone who confided in me about the situation and he alluded that I was beat out by lesser qualified folks.  However, I know others who have lost out to affirmative action who have more impressive stories and at least in their cases we aren't talking about 'if two people equally well-qualified and capable.'  Not in practice.  So, it makes a great theory, but then there is the reality.

"No, this is the problem we had in our terrorism debates.  Understanding is not excusing."

Right, but let's understand the whole package, shall we?  Let us understand that Hamas does not merely want their children to grow up without fear of an Israeli bullet going through them, but they want Israel exterminated altogether.  With that extra bit of 'understanding' we can begin to understand why Israel might be expending bullets.

Perhaps you need to acquaint yourself with the Hamas Charter: http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm

Check out articles 11,12, and 13 to see if you can get a sense of what it must be like to negotiate with such people, if you even wanted to.

"Are Al Qaeda not people?  Just because someone is a violent irrational gynophobic religious nutjob does not mean that he is not also a human being with hopes for the future."

No doubt.  My point is "What are their hopes for the future?"  On this you are being deliberately obtuse.  We are talking about people who believe that Islam should be the law of the land around the entire globe and that Sharia Law should supersede all others.   While I believe (more than you do) that there is a great swath of Muslims who share similar hopes 'as a human being' as any other person, there is no question about the Islamic ideology and its ultimate aims.

Yea, the Nazis were 'just people with hopes for the future' too.  Same with the Communists.   I have yet to see from you how 'understanding' does not 'excuse' those who would exterminate you if only they could, and, unchecked, will.

"The statement that this guy made clearly aspires to an end to the conflict"

lol you're so easy.  "Dear Western Liberal:  I know what we put in our charter, but please, believe me.  We do not go in for violence.  We wish only to be able to drink our coffee in peace."

It is undeniable that they 'clearly aspire to an end of the conflict.'  There is no question about that.  Clearly they think Obama will help them achieve that end.  Now, exactly what kind of end do they have in mind?

"Your take on this is that the terrorists love Obama because he will be soft on them, but isn't it interesting that we've had no Bin Laden video this time around?  Whatever else you say about him he's got some political savvy."

Actually a lot of the stuff I'm reading indicates that Obama did do what he did intentionally this year but that in 2004 Obama goofed.  Ie, he thought that he would help Kerry.  This time he knows better.

Isn't it clear that with no Bin Laden video that indicates Bin Laden wanted Obama?  Right?  Why would Bin Laden want Obama?

"i mean that you now have both religious AND literary reasons for positively anticipating World War III."

Literary reasons, perhaps.  I'm not the same brand of 'end times' Christian you're familiar with in regards to the Left Behind folks.  But seriously, I am not offering prophecy (that I am aware of).  I'm offering analysis.  See below.

"but don't deny it - you'll be just a tiny bit pleased with yourself if things pan out like in the back-story to Fidelis, wont you.   Very Happy"

:)

I would rather people saw the same lessons from history that I see and acted on them, thus preventing the Birth Pangs 'back-story' from occurring.  It would be bitter indeed to be found right as a biological holocaust swept my family away, no?

Nonsense?  Are you even reading what was written?  The word 'nonsense' is not an appropriate response to what was said.  It would be like saying that a stop sign is red and having you say "No, it tastes like an apple!"

"Both sides have what appear to be equally intransigent positions."

Fine, but let's not pretend that a Hamas endorsement of Obama does not illustrate how an Obama administration apparently appears to Hamas.

"The charter is nothing more than a statement of principles."

heh  right, and when I set out my statement of principles I always begin with a 'position of strength' that prefers the extermination of the other side.  You're right, that leaves lots of room for negotiation.    You're such a hoot, Cop.

Hamas/Hitler:  "We call for the extermination of the Jews in our charter, but we'd settle for concentration camps."

"One in which they can save face, live in peace, and achieve prosperity.  We all have the same goals on that score.  The difficulty is in coming up with a formula that can achieve those ends."

You are so unbelievably naive that you are positively dangerous.  The scary thing is that people just like you are now in power.

"Both sides have what appear to be equally intransigent positions."

Fine, but let's not pretend that a Hamas endorsement of Obama does not illustrate how an Obama administration apparently appears to Hamas.

I have made no statement about this and pretend nothing of the sort.  I think that you read too much into public statements.  Indeed, you read too much into just about everyone's statements.

"The charter is nothing more than a statement of principles."

heh  right, and when I set out my statement of principles I always begin with a 'position of strength' that prefers the extermination of the other side.  You're right, that leaves lots of room for negotiation.    You're such a hoot, Cop.

Nowhere does the charter call for the extermination of Jews.  The issue of the right of return is an old one, and neither side believes that the Palestinians are going to end up retaking the land that they were displaced from decades ago.  It doesn't matter what the charter says about such matters.  You are simply buying into the hysteria on one side of the dispute.  The US needs to restore its credibility with Palestinians that it can be an impartial broker of a peace deal.  Obama is in a much better position to do this than any previous President.  It is absolutely imperative for international security that he try to broker a peace deal.

"One in which they can save face, live in peace, and achieve prosperity.  We all have the same goals on that score.  The difficulty is in coming up with a formula that can achieve those ends."

You are so unbelievably naive that you are positively dangerous.  The scary thing is that people just like you are now in power.

You are so unbelievably cynical and out of touch that you are--well--pretty harmless.  There are a lot of people like you out there who have extremist views, but the process will go forward with better informed and more diplomatic participants.  Luckily, people like you are not in power and really haven't been.  Not even Bush is so naive as to think that war is the only solution to the problem.  He simply has no credibility with the Palestinians, and that makes it impossible for him to be a positive influence on negotiations.

Saaaaaaasquatch.

I'm late to this thread, but I just had to ask...am I the only one who voted for "Superfly" Jimmy Snuka?

I hope not.

No wonder Ohio went for Obama.

Danny --

i'm saying that the simple fact of them being happy about Obama's election could easily be because they perceive that he will be more effective at breaking the deadlocked peace process than Bush has been.  You are arguing (or rather, insinuating) that their happiness demonstrates that they somehow 'know' that Obama will be a big softy in dealing with them (after all, he's been known to pal around with terrorists before).

I think Hamas probably does think Obama will be soft.  That doesn't mean he will be or that he won't get results in the peace process despite Hamas.  The Israeli-Palestinian problem seems to be intractable though -- I'm not sure anyone can unravel it.

Are you suggesting that no Israelis want peace as well?

But I think SJ would concede that some Palestinians want peace; he might even concede a majority of them (but you'll have to ask him that).  But Hamas is a particular political subgroup of Palestinians that wants to drive Israel into the ocean, just as there are political subgroups of Israelis who want to do the same to the Palestinians, right?  Would you trust groups like that on either side in any sort of negotiation?  Since nothing else seems to work, it may be that we have to talk to groups like this, but it would be better to have negotiations between two groups who are actually at least open to the idea of a settlement short of completely destroying the other side.

a) that Obama will give Hamas everything he wants, in which case he is insane and therefore not a good guide to what will actually occur; or (more likely) b) that Obama will be more effective in brokering a peace deal which will be at least minimally satisfactory to all non-lunatic parties.

There is a third possibility: Hamas may think Obama's support for Israel will be weaker and thus allow for a more favorable environment for Hamas.  Fourth possibility: Hamas may think Obama won't do enough to support the more moderate Palestinian factions, thus allowing for a more favorable environment for Hamas.  Fifth possibility: Hamas may think that Obama's willingness to meet with it will increase its legitimacy, thus enabling it to raise more funds and obtain more support for its goal of driving the Israelis into the ocean.

And . . . Is Hamas a "non-lunatic party"?  If not, shouldn't we do what we can to marginalize Hamas and pave the way for more moderate parties to take control of the negotiations?  And if Hamas were to get stronger or create more problems, might that result in a backlash in Israel, causing hardliners to obtain power?