Liam

Of course, because he wants to go on vacation for two months and doesn't want to come back from Cannes to a decimated Iraq with the September surge deadline looming. One to two more years should allow him to set himself up nicely with an apartment in Geneva.

I personally haven't audited the Pentagon's budget, but... *LOL However, even if there wasn't a line item titled "Protecting Canada", Canadian and American interests are so intertwined (domestically in North America) and so paralleled globally through co-owned companies, business contracts, etc., that Canada's domestic security and international commercial interests receive a fair degree of protection from US defense spending. The US is not alone in providing this protection. An American company can feel comfort doing business in Cote d'Ivoire knowing that France has an aircraft carrier somewhere off the west coast of Africa and that French marines can swoop in to rescue them if the nation explodes in chaos. In that sense, France provides a degree of protection to US commercial interests. Swedish tourists can comfortably visit certain parts of the globe under the protective umbrella of the British navy or the Chinese military. Canadians, whose government has an even less projective military presence globally, certainly piggy-back on the defense spending of other nations in the protection of its people and its interests. I don't mean for that to be insulting, because it's that way for everyone. Large military presences make for stability for a variety of people to go into a region to enjoy its tourist amenities, to do business, to perform relief work, to seek education, etc.

The USA doesn't protect Canada, it protects itself. In many ways the USA protects itself against Canada, softwood lumber, BSE, wheat, etc. Those of you who think the USA is altruistic enough to "protect" Canada, to "grant" us our sovereignty should educate yourself into how countries really work. The US protects its interests. Canada and its security is a tremendous interest of the US'. Based on Canadian nationalists' own claims, the US would be up a creek without a paddle if it wasn't for Canada's natural resources and our trade relationship. I'm going to debate that point (as I happen to agree with it to a degree), but one of the results of that interest is that the US does indeed protect Canada. It would be far more costly to us if we did not.

The difference between the parties is that Democrats allow people to be evangelicals whereas Republicans require them to be evangelicals.

Is it any surprise Utah remains the most pro-Bush state?? http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/220065/4/

I think the right question is whether a civilzed society tolerates/allows gun ownership(?).

Sarkozy and Chirac are, politically, closer together than either one is to an American conservative. "Conservative" or "right [wing]" in Europe has an entirely different meaning. If Sarkozy were an American, he'd probably be more like a Nelson Rockefeller, hardly someone Bush and Co should pop a beer open for.

Well, I was never molested and I'm not involved at all in the mental health field, but I think it makes sense (if you can rationalize the criminal mind) that a lion is going to frequent the field with the most numerous of the easiest prey. But to address your point, I think any child who is an outside the norm (whether he is gay, whether he's a rebel, whether his mom and dad are going through a divorce) can probably be seen by a potential molester as an easy mark. Who is the kid going to tell and who is going to believe him if he blabs? I can't address your acquaintance's claim, but will say that I have heard something similar from female rape victims. Personally, I think sexual orientation is hardwired into people and I think some people who are not honest with themselves want to place the blame for their being gay on someone else. I am skeptical of such claims. But, like I said, that's just opinion as I'm not a mental health expert.

It can really only be #1, 9/11 and the subsequent war in Iraq where the misguided "reaction" has been 100% realized. Say what you will about Gore, global warming and all that, but even if you think that going green and hybrid cars and carbon footprints is as equally misguided a reaction to Katrina as the war in Iraq was to 9/11 (to even equate the two in my response is giving your hypothetical about as much wiggle room as a Mini Cooper needs to make a three point turn in Red Square), it's all just hype for the time being. Not one power plant has been shut down, not one tree has been saved, not one carbon molecule has been stopped from going up a chimney since "An Inconvenient Truth" was released. 0% of it has been realized. Absoultely none of it has been imposed on the country, unlike the war in Iraq. The answer has to be #1.

Most pedophiles are looking for the easiest access to their victims. In many cases, that means a male molester will seek victims where he is trusted, namely, while acting as a chaperone to young boys. It does not necessarily mean he is gay, it just makes him a wily hunter. Regarding the claimed correlation between abuse as a child causing someone to become gay, I have a theory about that but it is about how some molesters choose their victims. I think some molesters choose some victims who are already deemed by their peers as outsiders, kids who are isolated and who have a smaller social network of friends they can confide in, maybe a strained family life. It's not uncommon for little kids who will grow up to be gay adults (as I said, I knew I was gay by age 5) to fit that profile and present themselves as a perfect victim to someone who wants to commit and have it never be discovered.

It might have been me who said that. I knew I was different at about age 3. By age 5 I knew I liked Tarzan and did not at all like Jane.

Without reading through the whole thread, I find this one of the more interesting questions to ask. It conjures up a variety of possibilities: the terror suspect held in custody, the terror trainee shipped off to remote Pakistan, the suicide bomber strapped with bombs heading to the locale market, the scientist developing aerosolized anthrax in a secret lab, the terror kingpin sipping champagne on a yacht in Dubai. According to most moral and religious codes, killing, no matter who the "victim" is, is wrong and immoral. I think a valid follow up question, though, is whether the moral transgression associated with killing a terrorist is justified (will the death of one person spare greater suffering? does it move us toward the better good? etc.). War is never nice, but even the Catholic Church has the concept of a just war. I think under this umbrella is the notion of a just killing, considering it is a precise operation aimed at stopping a likely act of terror. I think killing a terrorist is not what Jesus would do, but I think there are few remedies available when the threat of death upon others is imminent. I do not condone the killing of people when they do no represent a threat, regardless of their inner feelings.

Ask yourself this: how often do you allow your 11 year old female child to attend a scouting camp sleepover supervised by a 35 year old man? Do you let her participate in a town swimming league at the local Y while her male coach, one of the local dads, is in the locker room where she showers and dresses? Now put an 11 year old male son in the same situations. A scouting camping trip? Being coached at the local Y? No brainers. Parents are more protective of children in cross-sexual situations. We trust our sons with other men and our daughters with other women. The problem is that pedophile males are usually only entrusted with male children. Hence the skewing of numbers. I think Rue made it pretty clear and your inability to read and understand simply reveals bias against gay people.

I find the early part of this post quite disturbing. Sorry, but no doctor can prescribe away someone's sexual orientation. If medication exists to change orientation, I am sure there would be some story among right wingers that gay teachers were putting it in the milk at public schools, etc. Orientation simply cannot be medicated away. Sex drive, perhaps, but orientation can only be denied by a willing party. Is it not possible that this church friend might not be 100% honest with you about his "inner demons"? I've heard similar claims by people who swore they no longer desire a drink. About the claim that Christians don't hate homosexuals -- I agree. The problem is that 95% of the people who claim to possess these Christian values would just as soon see me diminished or, worse, punished in some way. You may be among the 5% of true Christians, but you've got a heck of a lot more enemies within the Christian camp than inside the gay camp.

Both are quite slimming, let me tell ya,

So we are waiting? What do you have to say? I haven't yet read through the entire thread, so... What strikes me about this story (as with many instances where the notion of gay indoctrination is at issue) are statements such as this: "Last month, Deputy Education Minister Miroslaw Orzechowski said teachers deemed to be promoting ``homosexual culture'' in schools would be fired, and the ministry announced it would draw up corresponding legislation. The ministry has not defined what it means by efforts to promote homosexuality and has yet to submit the legislation, according to the parliamentary press office." Now, what is "homosexual culture"? I'm gay and even I don't know what that means. Let me clarify: I am sure I know what it means "in code" but there is literally no such thing as "gay culture". In code, what he means is that any teacher who promotes the notion that gay people shouldn't be humiliated into hiding themselves or who shouldn't attempt to repress their true selves and marry a nice Polish girl is promoting a subversive and punishiable mindset. The local homosexual has, hereby, weighed in.

Having government treat me as an equal in no way impacts your ability to raise your children in an intolerant atmosphere if that's your wish. But by drawing laws according to your beliefs, you would directly condemn my children to being orphans should I die young. That's some moral code.

I think anyone who refuses to hold his government responsible for its misdeeds is a traitor. There was a time when Republicans has a conservative distrust in government claims and demanded accountability, a certain return in exchange for government outlays, and concrete steps to accomplish government-funded tasks. Those were the days.

...very sad when Piggy was crushed by that boulder.

Gays and lesbians also have biological children. I have a good friend who has two children, born to her by artificial insemination, from the same father. She is as good a mother as any heterosexual woman I know, and both her children are smart, strong, and well adjusted. Being a lesbian doesn't change the fact that she is a woman, with a maternal instinct. Another friend of mine has a daughter born before she was ready to admit to herself and to her family that she was a lesbian - her daughter is 22 now, and is an amazingly gifted, self assured young woman. I have several other friends and aquaintances who are also gay or lesbian, and so do each of you - you just might not know it. I am a single gay dad with sole custody of my two own biological children, both under the age of nine. Their mother, my ex-wife, died of cancer last year in her 30's. I'm not revealing that to garner sympathy -- not at all -- but merely to put a human face on the gay marriage debate. If I was straight and remarried a woman, few people would object to my new family's receipt of certain tax benefits as a family. Few people would consider our new family to be artificial. But being a gay man who might marry another gay man suddenly makes me not worthy or suddenly makes mine some kind of discounted family? People who oppose gay marriage are, essentially, telling my kids that they will never be part of a two-parent household again, that if I should have health problems, they ought to be shipped off to strange relatives in some distant state, that their household will never have parity with the other kids in the neighborhood. Make no mistake about it, I take attacks on gay marriage personally. Attacks on gay marriage are attacks on the stability of my kids' home environment. They are pointed, direct attacks on my kids and their future. Opposition to equal treatment under the law has a heck of a lot more to do with opposition to gay people, in general, than it does with fostering stable families within which children can grow and be nurtured. Anyone who claims to be against gay marriage but in favor of supporting families is either willfully uninformed that there are thousands of potentially disenfranchised kids out there or an utter and willful hypocrite.

FWIW, I've been on vacation with my kids the past week so I have not caught up on this thread. Anyhow, my comments about not giving two sh^ts were not directed at you solely, they were directed at people in general. I don't care if the general public loves me or loathes me, but I expect my government to treat me the same as it does every other citizen. That means giving me equal access to state-issued licenses and giving me the same tax benefits others get. Giving tax breaks only to married people then telling a certain part of the population that they'll never qualify because their government won't let them marry is favortism, pure and simple. It's just not fair. It's sad that some people either can't see it or refuse to see it.

First, straight people are not a race, so one cannot be racist against them. I'm not even biased against straight people -- that's ludicrous. I simply want my government to put me on equal footing and to treat me the same way and to give me (and my partner) equal opportunity. Here's the deal: I pay the same tax rate as someone else with my same income level and, yes, I do get some things for my tax money (roads, defense, an inept government, etc.), but a partner and I (in the US) wouldn't get nearly the same tax breaks as a married (i.e., "straight married") couple. We can't file a joint federal income tax return, courts do not automatically honor each of us as the other's survivor, we cannot receive Social Security benefits should one of us die, even in a court of law I can be forced to testify against my partner (something a straight married couple never has to face because of spousal privilege)... there are thousands of benefits that a straight couple gets simply by saying "I do" in a Vegas wedding chapel, be it Britney Spears or a waitress at a local diner, than a gay couple will ever get. If anything, straight couples are given things on a silver platter. In order to get even some of the basics (inheritance of property, health care proxy, etc.) I can get them but only if I pay a lawyer to draw up the papers. Straight couples *never* have to do this if they're married. Talk about silver platter. Gay couples do not get the silver platter, we get the paper plate -- at least here in the US. I don't think I deserve better protection than anyone. I just think that if I equally support a government with the same tax dollars as a straight person, I should get an equal amount out of it. You seem to have a problem with that -- I hope you're not representational of the straight agenda.

Special status?? Where in my post did I say that being gay earns me special status? Being gay doesn't make me better than anyone. But it doesn't make me worse than anyone, either. Particularly when you consider that gay people fund their governments in equal amounts as their straight brethren, yet most of them get nothing but inequality in return. Thankfully, I live in Massachusetts which has full equality, but 95% of gay Americans live in states where they pay as much in taxes as straight people but get nothing in return. Is that fair? That is THE gay agrenda. I couldn't give two sh*ts if you like me, love me, hate me or want to see me hoisted on a pike in the town square. But my agenda, THE gay agenda, is not to be forced to treated like a dog turd on the street. Why should I pay taxes into a system which continues to marginalize me as a person and give me fewer rights than someone who did nothing to earn better status? I've paid into systems that hates me long enough. You have the luxury of being oblivious to it. Society caters to you, whether you know it or not. For me, if I lived anywhere else than where I do, I'd have to incur thousands of dollars in legal fees for will drafting, health care proxies, and the like. And regardless of where I live and regardless fo the rights I have here in Massachusetts, I still wouldn't get the same protection at the federal level than Britney Spears gets when she decides to have a 30 hour marriage with her latest co-dependent at the Betty Ford Clinic. So spare me that "gay agenda" cr^p. It seems to me that straights are the ones with the real agenda and it's to keep anyone unlike them at a disadvantage.

I don't know if you're referring specifically to Imus when you talk about middle class white people, but I'm pretty middle class and white-- though three decades younger than Imus -- and my friends and I have been using the word "ho" for 20+ years. Eddie Murphy made it a common term back in 1982(?) with his Velvet Jones "I Wanna Be a Ho" routine on SNL.

My last boyfriend was a Canadian doctor. He and his ex-wife moved to the US from Canada for career reasons. She is also a doctor and a pretty brilliant scientist (based on what he's told me and based on the company she works for here in Massachusetts). I'm not going to comment on Candian v. US healthcare, but I will say that I think there are more opportunities in the US medical field than in Canada's.