Gary Kamiya places way, way too much emphasis on alleged historical injustices done by the West to the Arab and Islamic world over the past 100 years as the main driver for today's problems. I cannot find any single issue raised by Kamiya that rises to the same level of significance, for example, that slavery has and still does in the US. Most of the historical injustices mentioned by Kamiya were all largely indirect in nature and have become more footnotes to history instead of front-page headlines, including the propping up of unpopular dictators. Granted, the British and the French drew the lines in the sands of the Middle East to suit their own colonial interests in 1920 but the locals really did not care - the tribal affiliations were and still are the strongest arbiter in the region. I just don't get the sense that everybody around the world is a freakin history expert on events that occurred prior to their everyday experiences. There are exceptions, of course, such as the aforementioned slavery in the US, the Holocaust (which the author believes is irrelevant to the matter at hand or he would have mentioned it), the atomic bombing of Japan, etc. Need I go on?

What the author is promoting is the far left intrepretation of history that places all the responsibility and blame for the ills in the world at the feet of the great "imperialist hegemonic power", the USA and that everybody else is a "victim" and is therefore entitled to a lifetime of reparations, if you will. Kamiya always writes these long-winded dissertations on world events that seem to go nowhere. He is waiting for some future US administration to buy into his worldview, despite the fact he never articulates any consequences to his misguided ideas.

Take for example the current "right of return" sticking point in Palestine, which the author probably believes is some neocon conspiracy to deprive the Palestinians their heritage. The hard reality is that there simply is no way that this will ever be accepted, despite the wishes of the author, into any comprehensive agreement over Palestine. Israel would lose its Jewish character overnight and that simply will not happen. So move on. If this was so goddamn important why did'nt Nasser negotiate something back in 1960 while there were only 100,000 people at-stake. Now we have 5.5 million people that are supposedly displaced all over the Middle East, equal to the population of Israel.

My conclusion is that the Bernard Lewis' point of view is more firmly rooted in reality and provides the best approach to solving intractable issues. That is why people like Kamiya are always on the outside and frustrated.

Joan is trying to refute the notion that the rappers made Imus say what he did. I agree with her in a literal sense but I think what people are really saying is that rappers are heavily responsible for the trashing of young women, in general, and that Imus was clever enough to go along for the ride. The basic issue I am hearing is whether Imus is to be held to a higher standard than rappers. I think the argument that says the rappers get a free pass because they don't talk to presidential candidates is ridiculous because most kids between 10-15 consume mostly rap music and act out its lyrics. I cannot give rappers a free pass on this. Imus is wrong but the rappers and their corporate protectors are also on the hook.

In a sane society, why do we expose our kids to such poison and take the view that rappers are some sacred cow. Is this where political correctness has led us

What I am hearing is that the use of the term "nappy headed" is the real issue rather than the use of the term "hoes". Unfortunately, most girls from age 12-20 will tell you that being called a "hoe" is normal everyday conversation and no big deal because being "ghetto" is cool these days. However, talking about "nappy headed" is all about "curly black hair" and therein lies the problem. There is nothing in the current culture that will give you a pass from this type of a racial slur. However, when you put the two together, you get confusion because there are a lot of folks who think that the hip-hop culture is largely to blame for our depraved culture, anyways, and that Imus is just "along for the ride" and should get a pass. And Don is also clever in that he assumed he would get a pass because people in powerful positions would never really understand what he said and what he really meant.

I have never seen any instance in the working world where a woman was paid less than a man for the same work, the same job title, the same qualifications and in the same point in time. That statement covers over 30 years in several important industries. That also includes even more senior level positions. This is consistent with what others have said in that there is no overt disrimination. Sophisticated companies will not knowingly underpay a female worker for the same "unit of work" and the same skill set.

However, what I have seen repeatedly is that over the long-run, fewer women than men achieve senior level positions in companies because they "pull-back" in their early to mid-30's and refuse to assume additional responsibilities. This effectively limits their careers somewhere in the middle of the corporate ladder. Men, by default, continue on and assume those higher level positions. Does this reflect gender bias, or, as some of the posts indicate, more a reflection of individual choices and not some evil scheme perpetuated by one gender over the other.

I believe the facts bear this out and to push for total equality on all measures of "success" is more a political issue than necessarily a practical or desirable one.