Liam

I totally understand why a local would be abrupt or even callous to a boorish individual tourist. No misunderstanding there. I also understand that a lot of the reason why Americans may be mistreated overseas is US foreign policy. I should think that you could then as, "Why is *that* so?" Why is *that* acceptable or excusable? If you think it is justified, how would you like to be on the receiving end? Canada is fighting alongside the US in Afghanistan -- would you think it understandable for you, as a Canadian, to be mistreated while visiting a Muslim country? Aren't you as much personally responsible for the misguided acts of Stephen Harper's as I am for George Bush's?

Not being Canadian, you'll need to forgive me for not fully understanding your Charter, but here goes... wouldn't the Notwithstanding Clause allow the government to suspend the rights found in the Charter? if so, Leafless has his way out: simply incite a homosexual to attempt to burn the Reichstag... errr, Parliament, and the Conservatives can step in and start sending the gays (or whoever is the disgusting minority du jour) off to the camps.

When you're so foolish as to climb a mountain that is known to be dangerous and the park rangers have to air-lifted out, you have to pay the bill. I see this in a similar vein: if you're a Canadian in Lebanon for a short period of time (school, job assignment, tourism, etc.) you should be evacuated at taxpayers' expense. If, though, you're a Canadian-of-convenience and/or a dual citizen of a known-to-be-dangerous country and you choose to live in that dangerous country, you should not expect Canada to come to your rescue without having to shoulder some of the expense associated with your stupidity.

No, what I am saying is that it is fine to be patriotic, regardless of your national origin. The problem is that there is often a double standard applied: when a Canadian wears a maple leaf, it is seen as a matter of national pride but when an American wears a baseball hat or Yankees tee shirt while in Europe he is seen as an Ugly American and something a lot of people (including some in this forum) would roll their eyes at. (Personally, when I see a British tourist wearing a Man. Utd. jersey, I think it is kind of cool and don't consider it provincial of him or as Ugly British.) As far as its making a difference between being the target of constant insults and having a good time... uh, don't you see a basic problem there? I mean, doesn't part of you think it's kind of unfair to begin with that, by your own statement, Americans run the risk of being the target of constant insults when they step outside the US? Playing Devil's Advocate: don't you think that wearing a Canadian pin for the sole reason of not being confused with a dirty, imperialist American is sort of like a pedestrian's seeing a street fight but ignoring it so long as it doesn't effect him ("...so what if that woman is being whomped on by that guy, if I just keep my head down, no one will bother me...")?

I was chatting with someone about a trip to Europe when the issue of wearing a maple leaf pin came up. It is somewhat true (but also largely urban legend) that lots of Americans will put a Canadian flag on their backpack while traveling in Europe. Some do it, I admit, but I think the practice is not as prevalent as you'd believe. I know a few Canadians who would never fly the maple leaf at home who have made a point of wearing their Canadian-ness while overseas. As an American, I find few things more offensive whether done by an American trying to hide his nationality, or by a Canadian who does it solely to show the world she doesn't have the communicable Yanks Disease. :angry: I'd like to get the opinions of Canadians about this. Do you wear a Canadian flag pin when traveling? If so, why?

I don't think you'd get much argument from anyone that religion can be a wonderful thing, but the people who sit in seats of power of certain religions (televangelists, Islamicists, certain pedophile-protecting Catholic bishops, evangelicals who want to impose their own form of sharia on society, etc.) give aspects of religion a terrible name.

Why not?

I would characterize it as reckless, not necessarily malice. It would be appropriate to call it malice is the actor *knew* the negative result would occur yet acted anyway. In any event, it does say a lot about a person's character to go against the overwhelming voice of experience, particularly if the result is almost assured to be negative and impact of that negative result is felt by many who had no say about joining this enterprise. (Gee, I wonder what or whom we are talking about...? )

The problem with the plan is that it is too little, too late. Bush should have committed 250,000 more soldiers on the ground (for a total force of approximately 400,000) at the war's start. Adding 20,000 or 30,000 now is way too small a force to push the genie back in the bottle, not to mention keep it in there.

Could the recent announcement re Quebec be the first step to a similar "nations within a federation" arrangement (vis a vis Czechoslovakia)?

Actually, I was thinking more in the terms of violence of First Nations, attacks on English if they are resistant to Quebec making a break from Canada and assorted, escalating conflicts. You think separation will be a peaceful and uneventful thing? Has it ever been that way anywhere else in the world? The split between Slovakia and the Czech Republic back in the 90's was extremely peaceful... almost cordial by history's standards.

I don't think the American public would be overly concerned with a separate Quebec. I think the US government, though, wouldn't really like the idea of two northern neighbors with gradually evolving domestic policies regarding drugs, immigration, prescription drugs, energy, taxes, etc.

My ex died this past summer at age 38 after a 5 year battle with cancer. I will defer to Guyser who is going through it himself/herself(?), but I know from my own experience of living with someone with cancer, we'd often wish people would have just engaged us in normal conversation rather than have us repeat the same litany about recent treatments and doctors' opinions. Sentiment can sometimes come across as pity and, as Guyser alluded, pity is always awful. Even if you have doubts, don't beat yourself up over it -- I think you did the right thing and acted perfectly well.

The rules of the US Senate state that unless there is a resignation letter or a death certificate, an elected Senator remains in office. Someone else mentioned a Republican Senator who was physically absent from Capitol Hill for a few years after suffering a stroke. He held onto his seat the entire time. Unless Johnson takes a serious turn for the worse, I don't see his departing the Senate, voluntarily or otherwise.

Maybe that guy wouldn't be successful at a bar because he doesn't project the kind of "good provider" cues that urban club and bar-going women are looking for. A guy who walks into the urban bar setting who exhibits the cues of a good provider (as ruggedly goodlooking as the guy in your example, but wearing a suit and tie) would probably attract a number of women there. The guy in your example might be extremely successful in another kind of setting, like one where the women are looking for fellow blue-collar or rural types. The suit and tie guy in a rural bar could very well leave without getting a single phone number because he doesn't fit the profile of a good provider in that community.

So far, I am the only one who voted Men. You have to question why it is women have historically searched for that fountain of youth. It isn't to appeal to one another or simply to fuel their vanity -- it's to remain attractive to the fickleness of male tastes and attractions. Remove men from the equation and women become far less concerned with outward appearance. Not too many of the original feminists were out there buying tons of lipstick and mascara. Being gay, I see this all the time in the gay world, too. Gay men are far more concerned with looks, beauty, appearance, physique, etc., than their gay female or straight male counterparts. The reason? Because gay men, like straight women, know that men are more responsive to someone with good skin, good teeth, nice hair, pretty eyes, healthy bodies, etc. Grooming (and spending on beauty products) plays an enormous role in the lives of straight women and gay men. Both feel the need to remain attractive to their romantic interests. Converseley, women are far less driven by the beauty of their potential mates. What appeals to women is the security their partner represents. We've all seen numerous examples of the pretty trophy wife with the old codger (Larry King and whoever he's married to this month), and the two Plain Jane gay women partners (e.g., Mary Cheney and Heather Poe). The need to keep her man attracted is what drives most women to spend on beauty products and it is mostly male opinion that enforces those beauty standards. In my opinion.

People like the Westboro folks bring to mind a saying I've heard a bit recently: "They may believe in Jesus, but they certainly don't follow Him."

Thanks for posting those lyrics -- awesome!

Straight people aren't allowed to marry people of the same gender. That is the right that would need to be added. Of course, straight people didn't want to marry people of the same gender, but you asked what extra right would need to be added. I am really torn on this issue because I can see both sides. I support my gay friends who want the right to be with someone that they care for and I hope that they have the right to show each other their commitment for one another, but on the other side I can see how we would need to redefine the word marriage. I say we give consenting adults the right to marry whoever they want and live in happiness or misery whatever that union may bring. I appreciate your post, thanks for writing it. One issue, though, is the matter of extra rights. One of the more common arguments against any law that does something for a minority is the "special rights" (extra rights, special treatment, etc.) argument. Without stating what special rights or extra rights the minority gets, the accuser simply stonewalls by saying he's not in favor of granting special rights to certain people. It's catchy and it spurs the opposition of those outside the minority class because they're led to believe that someone else is getting special treatment from the state, kind of a "citizenship-plus". In reality, all the minority is getting is the equality the majority was born into, the equality the majority didn't have to work or sue or struggle to get. Anyhow, you said that an additional right was that people of the same gender would need to be added. I disagree: what you state is a specific act, not a legal right. A special right would be something like preferential treatment in hiring for state jobs, tax exemptions, added benefits that no one else in the society gets. This is clearly not the case with equal marriage rights -- gays would be treated exactly the same as straights. But opponents of equal marriage rights imply that gay people are getting something special that is denied to straight people. When you question them and ask what specific extra right gay people are getting, they can't answer because there is no extra right, there is no special treatment, there is no citizenship-plus. Gay people would just simply be allowed to have the state issue them a license, hold a civil ceremony and have the state recognize them as having legal obligations to one another: exactly the same way it looks upon the thousands of other married couples who wed on the same day. It is no less and no more special treatment than straight people get automatically by means of birth.

I am? That's a laugh. Actually, YOU are the one who is dividing the country. Simply by insisting that there is a different status called "SSM", you are automatically separating legally and equally married people into separate camps: gay v straight. Well, that was my question. What EXTRA rights would gay people get that isn't already bestowed upon straight people? Please tell me, because you seem to have the answers. If you would like to leave a country that treats all its citizens equally and that gives equal access to full participation in their society, you are free to do so. Perhaps you'd feel more at home in a less equal place? Saudi Arabia, maybe, is more to your liking?

Precisely, what special rights do gay people want? What rights would they get that straight people don't already have?

Constitutional amendments in the US are not subject to public referendum. The process you describe, where elected official propose and approve amendments, is the way the Constitution gets amended in the US. There may be an outcry from some quarters over the subject matter, but there would be no outcry over the process since they would be following the required process.

They didn't this past election. Maybe they were turned off my other Republicans who wanted them sent south. I concur. Bush got enormous praise for getting such high % of Hispanic/Latino voters in 2000. How many did he get? 40%. Whoop-de-frickin'-do. Bush was the sitting governor of a state with one of the largest number of Latino voters and, on top of the Elian Gonzales debacle, Gore still managed to get 60% of their votes nationally. Bush's 40% in 2000 was the high water mark for the GOP. I think Latinos are msart enough to see that they agree with the GOP on some ethical matters, but they know social support is better under the Dems. I really don't see the GOP as having a winning strategy either way. If they suppress their nativist wing to appeal to the Latinos, they might actually trigger the splintering off from the GOP a separate, mostly white anti-immigrant bloc of voters. If they maintain their adherence to the principals of the religious right (which is notoriously nativist -- just look at Pat Buchanan's "Culture War" speech to the 1992 GOP Convention, which is still the GOP image), the Latinos will stay in the D column.

I am not Canadian, but we are having the same debate here in Massachusetts. My feeling is No, we should not open up civil rights to popular vote, particularly where the effected class is a much-maligned minority. You keep calling it "SSM" as though it is an entirely different legal status. It is not. It is marriage, plain and simple, and is no less legal that "OSM".

Courts have decided that marriage is a civil right (Loving v. Virginia: "Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man...") and that orientation is, indeed, a characteristic that is protected by anti-discrimination statutes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class). It might not be universally accepted, but if it is in many places here in the US, I would wager it is, probably universally, across Canada.