Liam

I don't think it's really a matter of human rights, but society (and the law) recognizes that even the dead have certain post-death rights -- the bequeathing of assets according to the wishes of the deceased being the most prevalent. I don't know what the law is in Canada, but in the US even when someone who dies without a will, the deceased's assets get passed to his or her family through the process of intestate succession; the state doesn't just harvest his or her assets and property for the benefit of the common good. I don't see why someone's physical body should be treated with any less reverence or respect.

While a fan of organ donation, there are some people who should not be considered as organ donors (cancer patients, HIV-infected individuals, etc.) yet whose organs might be added to the donor pool through this kind of system. I think the better approach is focusing our efforts on recruiting voluntary organ donors who are in a better position to know (and assess) their safety as a donor.

Houston: - complete lack of land use zoning: it is very common to see a sky scraper wedged between a tar-roofed shack and a church, and common to see things like a KFC with a drive through window in the middle of the business district - even within the city limits, it's main architectural quality can be best described as "sprawl" - bubbas - let's not forget about the permanent malodorous petrochemical cloud that cloaks the city when the wind blows a certain way - suburbanites with big hair and big SUVs who feel it is their duty to talk to about how important it is to have Jesus as your personal savior If you think of the most stereotypical Bush supporter, all you have to do is go to Houston's environs to see your worst fears realized. Calgary can do better in choosing a role model.

I think you should neither want to emulate nor assume Houston as a peer. Seriously.

I am a Clinton fan (particularly moreso now that we have Chimpy McFlightsuit as the current president), but I don't think Clinton can take credit for all the good things that happened during his years in office. I give credit to the divided government we had at the time. The GOP-controlled Congress would pass a law and Clinton could either sign it or veto it. Likewise, he could champion some piece of legislation that the GOP could either squash in committee or pass it out to the entire body for a vote. The end result was more an exercise in consensus seeking and of finding common ground. The problem with single-party government, as we have down here now, is that it leads to a breakdown in the checks and balances and bad legislation rarely meets with a presidential veto. Single party government can be good when they're on the right track, but there is nothing worse when they're on the wrong track as we see now.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/0...al_source_.html Evidently, a reporter at ABC News was told that the feds are data mining his phone number... This administration has proven time and again that its M.O. is to lie and that it is completely untrustworthy. Personally, I'd rather have a president whose biggest lie was about staining a blue dress.

Truman came to the presidency upon FDR's death and was never seen by his contemporaries as being up to the task. Early in his life, he worked in a clothing store and even after a long career in Washington (where he oversaw quite a bit of the nuts and bolts of weapons production and requisitioning during WW2), he was often derided as "the habberdasher from Independence (Missouri)". After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it became known that he was kept in the dark regarding the Manhattan Project. To be fair, Roosevelt and the guys out in the desert kept it pretty close to the vest and almost no one knew we were building an atomic bomb, but Truman's critics used it as an example of how he was little more than a country-bumpkin. After the war, Truman faced an economy that was retooling from a war footing to a peace economy and there were massive rail strikes, coal miner strikes, etc. Truman refused to bend and played hardball to get the economy going again. Then, he pushed an already war weary country into Korea, and then fired the beloved General MacArthur who is widely credited with liberating much of the Pacific in WW2. An interesting fact: the White House had never been renovated till Truman was in office. Floors were sagging, the roof was leaking in spots, so he quietly had the entire place gutted -- literally, there was nothing between the dirt below the basement level to the roof rafters and the entire structure was rebuilt inside with steel reinforcements, modern wiring, phone lines and HVAC. There is an intersting photo of a bulldozer inside the building in David McCullough's book "Truman". The public never knew that the White House, for those months, was literally just an empty shell. Truman thought it would damage the nation's psyche if they saw the White House on the receiving end of a wrecking ball, particularly during the Korean War. So there was as little fanfare as possible, Truman simply moved across the street at Blair House while the entire structure was rebuilt from within. Truman also set himself apart from the Washington scene in that his wife was often not in DC. She spent a lot of her time back at their modest home in Missouri, and he didn't move in the social circles expected of presidents. Truman retired in 1953 when Eisenhower was sworn in. He moved back to the same house he and Bess owned their whole lives and he only rarely ever stepped back into the spotlight. In hindsight, he was a remarkable president, one of the greatest, even.

I don't mean any of this in a flaming way, because I am genuinely curious... Honestly, I can't really fathom why Canadians are against this program. Well, let me back up a bit... I don't know that a missile defense shield would really work in the first place and that any terrorist use of a nuclear device against the US would more likely happen after the device was smuggled in and loaded into a car or truck... but let's assume the project would work -- why are Canadians against it? Given that most of the world's nuclear weapons are north of the equator, it's safe to assume that any nuclear missile would probably cross the north pole or pretty close to it... Let's assume that a missile is headed to NYC or Washington DC, it crosses near the north pole and its path takes it down through Northern Quebec... With the shield only covering the US, the US would have to wait till it crosses into US airspace before it shot it down. The result would be that solid radioactive mass would fall on US territory, perhaps in the northernmost region of NY state or Vermont, but the drift of nuclear waste would imperil Montreal and possibly Quebec City. With the shield covering both the US and Canada, the same missile could be targeted before it even gets to Baffin Island. Its solid radioactive mass would land on Canadian soil, but in an extremely remote and sparsely populated area, and any radioactive fallout would scatter in a desolate part of the northermost tier. There would be no, or limited, damage done to Canada. Given that something like 80% of Canadians live within 200 km of the US's northern border, NOT having the shield cover Canada actually puts 80% of your population at a higher risk of experiencing some of the negative side effects (i.e., fallout from the destroyed missile once it crosses into US territory) of such a nuclear attack.

I am absolutely not afraid of a different point of view. Ahmenijad (sp) isn't doing anything more than poking a pointy stick at Bush. (Actually, I think Bush quite deserves a pointy stick and worse.) What I find sadly notable is that some people are treating this letter as though it were a genuine invitation to sit down to settle the differences between Iran and the rest of the world. It is a PR stunt. It offers nothing. It doesn't make any attempt to rectify damage done by both sides of this ongoing spat. All it does is point out Bush's mistakes, the failure of the Iraq policy, and rails against the existence of Israel. It is all expressions of a particular point of view, of which I do not fear discussing, but some people are making it seem like the modern day equivalent of Moses' descent from Mt. Sinai with the holy tablets. It is simply not an attempt at closing a diplomatic breach. Do you know what this letter is? This letter is the equivalent of a hypothetical divorced couple who haven't spoken in years. The spurned wife sends the ex-husband a letter saying, "You will never be a decent husband, you are a morally corrupt individual, you drink too much, you are incapable of being honest, you will never amount to anything, your children have nothing but contempt for you and you will die a cold and lonely death," then having everyone say "Look!! She's reaching out to him!"

No one here has, but I regularly read posts to other political discussion boards and I am embarrassed to say that there are plenty of people out there who sound like they now trust Iran more than they trust the US.

I am fairly liberal (by most US standards) and am counting the days till Bush is out of power, but I have to agree that only a fool would allow himself to be duped into believing that this letter is some sincere attempt at diplomacy.

You have to look at the totality of the environment, from cradle to grave. Britons walk more and bike more all their lives than we do. They are more likely to live in towns and cities where it is possible to walk and/or use public transport to get to most places (school, the market, work, etc.). It is the more consistent use of their bodies to go places that allows them to eat steak and kidney pie and drink at the pub. In contrast, in North America, we get in our SUVs, pull out of the garage, drive to the parking garages at our offices, drive to our kids' school, pick them up at the door, drive across town to their ballet or karate classes or soccer practices (where they get their tiny dose of daily exercise while we chat with the other moms and dads), get dinner at the drive through, and drive back to our garages. Our kids couldn't be bothered to actually play outside when they've got Playstation up in their rooms. Heaven forbid we should cook anything that is from scratch. I mean, how lazy and unconcerned with nutrition is a society that solves its kids' school lunch problem with either factory-made, frozen peanut butter and jelly pockets or salt and preservative-laden "lunchable" kits of baloney bits and chocolate pudding?

Well, I agree with some of what you say and disagree with other parts. We are each entitled to our opinions and points of view. I didn't cite a McCain example because I didn't think it necessary to do so. OK, here's one: in the straw poll in Tennessee a few months ago, McCain asked the voters in the straw poll to not vote for him, but to cast their votes as write-ins for Bush to show the president that the people still support him. Suck. Up. Another one? How about McCain's recent 180 on the religious right? In 2000 they were "agents of intolerance", particularly after smearing McCain in the South Carolina primary (the whole Rovian/Falwellian push polling asking GOP voters if they'd still support McCain if they knew he had "a black baby"). Today, McCain seems to be a fan of Falwell's. Clandestine meetings with Falwell in DC. Speaking at Liberty University. Suck. Up. Re: Giuliani -- I should have been more clear. I think the infidelity thing (and other issues) could be used against him in the primaries. And he is simply way too liberal for the right wingers who make up the base of the GOP party apparatus and primary voters. I would not discount him as a VP candidate, though.

Moi?

The parties' nominees won't be clear till after the mid-term elections this November. If the Democrats retake one or both houses of Congress, you can expect the GOP to nominate a perceived outsider, someone like Mike Huckabee from Arkansas or George Allen from Virginia. I could see Colin Powell making a run, but not getting too far in the primaries. I am going to go out on a limb and say that McCain will not, under any circumstances, be the GOP nominee in 2008. I just don't think he's going to make it through the GOP primaries. He's sucking up to the current power-base of the GOP, which is a risky move since the power-base is incredibly unpopular among the electorate. He has lost his "maverick" stance by being such a suck up to Bush. And he appears sycophantic at every turn. I feel the same will be true with Giuliani. He's far too liberal for GOP primary voters and has *soooo* much baggage. His pre-9/11 reputation was lower than dirt and he's had some shady dealings that have roiled some GOP insiders (e.g., the Bernie McKerrick nomination to head Homeland Security practically blew up in Rudy's face). The Dems will only need to remind voters that Rudy was publicly humiliating his wife by having an openly adulterous affair while mayor of NYC and that he didn't even have the decency to call off his marriage face-to-face. His wife only found out they were "done" when she watched Rudy dump her via a televised interview. I also can't see Condi heading a ticket now or ever. She's a terrible public speaker, has never run for political office, and is a co-architect of most of Bush's disastrous policy decisions. Colin Powell essentially ended her political future as a frontrunner last week. I could see her as a VP candidate, but not a very compelling one. My prediction for the GOP ticket is Allen/Huckabee. On the Dem side, I think Mark Warner of Virginia is the one to beat. Hillary has the cash and the name recognition, but I think she will see the writing on the wall and will see that she can't "flip" many red states to blue. Clintons want to win and only fight to win, but when polls show that only 28% would vote for Hillary, I think they'll recognize that not running in 2008 is better than trying and falling short. I see a Mark Warner/Wesley Clark ticket as being pretty potent.

The Pope presides over a nation that is almost 100% men, has bodyguards who dress in pantaloons (i.e., the Renaissance version of capri pants), he dresses in a frock and insists that no one wears the same hat he wears, makes people kneel and kiss his ring, has more jewelry and art at his disposal than all the royals in the world combined, and lives in a mansion that would make Versace jealous. That already sounds pretty queeny to me.

It's not really the word "decider", it's how it came across. It would have been stronger for Bush to have said, "I decide and my decision is that Rumsfeld stays." By whining, "I'm the decider," Bush might as well have been using the childhood chestnut, "you're not the boss of me."

There are already a few rumors running about that Goss resigned because he may be implicated in the Duke Cunningham/HookerGate problem. Another rumor has it that Goss, a former congressman from Florida, intends to run for the GOP nomination for US Senate. The current GOP frontrunner, Katherine Harris (aka, Cruella deVille from the 2000 Florida Recount Debacle), has been running a disastrous campaign and is viewed by even those in the GOP as a write-off. The GOP has been unsuccessful at finding a replacement for Harris. Goss would need to declare his candidacy by next week to make it onto the GOP primary ballot.

my piont is to a soldier once you cross that line be it for a quickie, or long term relationship it does not matter, your branded, and your peers will no longer have trust in your abilities, to soldier. They see it more a piont of an honour code break it , and your done.. So whether your born with it or expermenting, does not matter. you've broken the code and life as you know it will come to a screaching halt, and eventually you will quit as it is not tolerated at this piont of time. And it may become more acceptable with time but things have not changed in the 26 years i've been serving. With the exception of Gay women, but even they are not totally free from harassment. My point wasn't to limit the conversation to gay or straight contacts within the military -- I think that's a conversation for another thread. I also took back my use of the example of the soldier on leave, drinking too much and having a daliance with a fellow soldier. I do not disagree with you that someone who is outed might face a very short career in the military. But I think the bulk of my reply was to counter what you said that a single encounter makes someone gay (or at least bi), to which I completely disagree. Someone who is gay can get it up and have sex with a woman. It doesn't make him any less gay. A lesbian can agree to have sex with a man and she might even get pleasure out of it. It doesn't mean she won't go running back to her girlfriend once the encounter is done with. There is more to labeling someone as gay or straight than the simple fact of with whom they sleep. It is an identity thing, and it is not subject to change.

Would you say that Liberace was straight (or bi) if on one occasion he got really drunk and thought, "I've never kissed a girl -- what the heck? -- let me just see what this is about," when given the chance to sleep with a woman? It wouldn't make him straight since his inclination and desires are to be exclusively with other men. If he had some inclination to be with women as well as men, I'd say he was bi. But just messing around with someone of the same gender once (or even a few times or even dozens of times) does not make that person gay if his or her inclination is to be exclusively with someone of the opposite gender.

In the case of my reply, I threw the military in there since it is probably the highest profile almost-all-male environment. I was not implying that gay activity is condoned or that a life in the military necessarily includes the occasional dabble with same-gender activity -- actually, quite the opposite is true in the US. That said, I do know of a few guys who were once in the Marines or the Navy (now civilians) and who are now living with boyfriends and/or frequenting gay bars and clubs. They are way in the minority of all servicemen, and given military members' protectiveness of their institution, I don't want to fan the flames and probably should have used a different environment as an example. A fraternity or all-male college, for example, would have served as good an environment for my argument.

Exactly. I think a lot of straight people confuse performing certain acts (or simply stopping the performance of them) with having a particular orientation. (And I think that might explain the emphatic nature of my posts against the "ex gay" movement earlier in the thread. And I think it might explain the "we just don't know" arguments of those who think that gay orientation can be changed.) It is entirely possible for a sophomore at an all-women's college to engage in certain acts with her classmates for a semester or two. That does not make her the next Ellen DeGeneris. A man in the armed services can bond with his mates and maybe get drunk and dabble a handful of times while on leave. That does not make him gay. What makes someone gay is having an inner gay identity -- an identity that makes him or her have attractions for members of the same gender. It does not mean experimenting (and possibly even getting a lot of pleasure from "crossing a line"), there is more to it than that. And that's why I am emphatic in my posts that orientation is not something that can be "cured" or changed. While I don't agree 100% with the content in the attached link, as a gay man who tried to be a straight man, I think it pretty much sums up much of my position on the issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex-gay

Massaoui to serve life in prison. Link... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12615601/

Actually, the question should be, "if these people are known terrorists, why can't the Bush administration avail themselves of the right under FISA to issue a pre-warrant tap and then seek a warrant on that tap within the following 72 hours?" Seems like a slam dunk that they would get the warrant. And there is nothing about the warrant process which alerts the parties to the fact that a communication has been monitored.

I hope no one interprets my comments as disrespectful in any way. I truly do not intend to offend or be obnoxious. OK, Betsy, by this logic, would it not also make sense then that someone who is gay can be seduced at a young age into believing he is straight? I can vouch for the fact -- based on my experience and those of countless gay men I know. Seriously, I can only think of one or two gay men I know who *never* tried to be straight. Society is overwhelmingly geared toward validating the "straight" life: weddings, proms, dating reality TV shows, high school dances, gender-specific organizations from infancy through adulthood, etc. Gay people learn from a very young age that they do not fit in, that they need to adapt to the majority view. Like a member of a minority group who can see racism in certain things, gay people can see that they are continuously exposed to societal conventions that reinforce a type of life that they cannot connect with. Perhaps straight people just see this as "life" and not something they need to be conscious of? Back to my point, gay people are often socialized into trying to be straight, particularly when they hit adolescence and all the boys and girls start dating and having crushes. I'd guess that close to 90% of gay people try to, or at least pretend to, be straight at some point in their lives. If seduction into a certain lifestyle was possible, would it not be logical that the overwhelming majority of people who allow themselves to be seduced into a life that is wrong for them be gay people who try to conform to the social majority? If *any* young people allow themselves to be seduced into living a gay life, I cannot imagine that it's more than a handful -- in the scheme of things.