Rue

Ouch. I wasn't smart enough to be a dentist or doctor. Stand up comedy I am not so bad with.

Uh oh. I agree with Leafless on this! Absolutely and unequivocally! Actually the concept of "harm" is a very very complex one. How we define harm and who is harmed necessarily depends on a wide range of factors and considerations. Why I strongly agree with Leafless is that there are many life examples of people who do the right thing and still have harmed people intentionally and unintentionally and likewise there are many life examples of people who have done the wrong thing but harmed no one. Look morality is not something I claim dibs on. I have a hard enough time defining it for myself. I am an imperfect man and I make no claims to know what it really means other than what it means for me- trying to do what I think is the right thing-being honest, treating others the way I would want them to treat me, helping people without expecting anything in return, and not lying, Those would be my personal lithmus tests for moral standards but that is all they are, my personal ones. I can't speak for anyone else. I would think the best way to show moral behaviour is in our actions not in our words. Incest for me necessarily means there is a power imbalance that prevents free consent in the relationship because of a distortion of feelings because of that power imbalance. For me to be moral, I would think we have to do things based on our free will and not because we were coerced or manipulated into something because of a power imbalance. That said, I think it is important people know when a mental health care professional deals with incest they do not judge their patients what they deal with is the distortion that comes from not respecting people's boundaries. In theory sexual behaviour that is consensual between adults should not be the problem. However we all know consensual sex where one side is killed and asks to be killed or physically mutilated or injured is not going to be considered acceptable by society even if it was consensual. With incest with due respect, it is impossible for it to be consensual because by its very definition it comes about from using familiarity from another relationship that was non sexual to now take the same trust earned when it was non sexual to provide a rationalization for engaging in sex. That very rationalization is necessarily a manipulation of trust and so it can not generate consensuality or free consent-its necessarily coercive. At least that is how I would argue it on behalf of society and argue why it should be a crime. As a therapist I would be clear and up front with a patient that sex with a sibling or parent is something society will never condone or accept and necessarily creates psychological and emotional issues and if a patient told me they were fine with it then I would say I am not and they need not stay because it will not be my role to help them condone it and feel good about it. I would make it clear the only help I could give is to prevent it from happeningt. However with all the incest relationships I have come across no one came to me and said they were happy. They were either raped or they were now having a crisis from having been the molester/abuser. You know it is probably the most difficult thing one will come cross as a family mediator/lawyer-it is very hard to stay calm and neutral. A person who rapes their child who then must be addressed which I have had to do requires every ounce of strength not to express feelings of anger and contempt towards. Its what causes many a police officer, child run away, prostitute, to become so "hard". That "hardness" is a protective shield. What I most often saw with children of incest was a disassociated state. Its where you leave your body as it happens to be able to cope with it. My bias comes from seeing its victims. I confess I do not know anyone who said they wanted to engage in it. The parents I saw doing it or the men I saw doing it to their sisters, were rapists and they knew what they were doing was wrong. Even when they tried to defend it as consensual that would not last very long. All I can tell you is something within their own bodies won't allow them to defend it-they sabotage themselves so to speak.

Before you roll your eyes, you might want to find out what the International Monetary Fund is and who influences it. You might also want to ask yourself who controls 85% of Canada's economic activities. You might also want to ask yourself this simple question-if US consumers stop spending-does it effect other economies.

I think JBG, Bill Clinton should have stayed completely out of this. He should have at least had the decency to be quiet. By becoming an active participant he has violated a long standing protocol that former Presidents must stay out of political campaigns and at least remain neutral to the public. By becoming a nasty, partisan shrill for Hilary he has lost a lot of respect and he;s dividing the party and causing a lot of racial tension. The only one who can benefit from this long term is John McCain. I do think McCain can defeat Hilary but not Obama.

Lol I doubt you will get any references. I am inclined to believe the the taunts designed to insult you flow precisely because his stated position can not be referenced and/or he is not able to provide a response other then what appear to be passive aggressive derogations as to your gender. The manifested hostility towards you I find regrettable. I commend your efforts to provide the information you did.

AT one day I hope you do get to meet some Warriors and are able to talk with them about that incident. Its not the kid they were talking down but what he symbolized. The actual kid and the honour he showed they respect-for them the kid is a symbol of the federal government hiding behind the kid. That emoting is seen as pride and saying enough is enough to the government. They know the kid was just a symbol. Their emoting was a message to the federal government they were cowards for sending soldiers. It has nothing to do with that soldier and everything to do with the government's inaction and hiding behind the armed forces rather than deal with the issue. To them its a matter of using the military as a cover for their lack of honour by trying to hide behind the honour of the military. The Armed Forces was not there issue-the federal government was and remains. If what you stand for and what made you join the armed forces is the same honour code the federal government and our politicians honoured, we would not have this problem AT. People like you when you shake someone's hand mean it. Your word is who you are. The legacy of our politicians not standing by their word is what has caused this mess and its the exact same honour code you live(d) your life by that will have to be incorporated by our politicians if this is to resolve itself-and I say it will precisely because people like you do exist and will make sure it happens. In the short term some pathetic racists will try use the event to taunt and incite, some hot-head outside agitators will try exploit the situation and some innocent people on both sides will be f..cked....but it will resolve itself because both sides are honourable good people. I did not know that story about the kid AT. Damn.

I think many times what is defined as an authority problem is in fact adhd, a learning disability, poor diet causing fluctuating sugar levels and vitamin defficiencies which of course affects mood and impair cognitive processes. I would also speculate the toxic chemicals in the air and water and mould in the schools have something to do with certain behaviours. I have no doubt that children brought up by t.v.'s and computers, and who do not learn to read and write or add and substract or to use their minds without a computer, lose a limited window of opportunity between say 2 and about 6 to develop parts of the brain that will be needed in later life if they are to engage in abstract thinking one would need to call on to be able to see more then black and white and therefore be less likely to argue over. The effect of computer technology, diet, chemicals in our environment all are creating contributing factors to this alleged "bad" or "out of control" behaviour we are seeing. However I would also suspect some of what we see is the phenomena of every generation thinking the next one is bad and out of control and worse then when they were that age. I think as well sexual violence and sexuality have definitely evolved to a point where because children are sexualized so quickly part of the problems we see that we think are behavioural are in fact reactions to the sexualization processing being imposed on children who are not ready and feel overhwelmed by it but can not say so. I also think part of what we see are the phenomena of single homes with only one parent or where there are two parents, both working and so much of parenthood has been delegated to pre and after school programs or giving children a key and having the computer and t.v. baby sit them. So I think it's a whole combination of factors and if you asked me to summarize it to 10 then I would say; 1-poor diet 2-lack of sleep 3-lack of physical exercise 4-lack of recreational and after school programs 5-absence of music, arts education and programs that teach children to create and work with their hands 6-no positive role models 7-over exposure to tv's and computers and the need to teach children to read, write and think abstractly and without computers 8-inappropriate delegation of or abandoning of parenting roles 9-too many children having children 10-this notion that schools should magically neutralize the negative side effects of 1-9.

In response to Melanie when she stated; "My first reaction is to be repulsed by incest, but I'm not convinced that my personal reaction should serve as a guide in other people's lives, particularly self aware, consenting adults. " I can only say in regards to the above comment that what you state is precisely what the professional practice regulations require of psychiatrists, psychologists, nurses, social workers. I think you are dead on Melanie precisely because personal reaction necessarily distorts what we perceive . Therapists of course call it transference and counter-transference phenomena. Now in response to Renegade he stated; "nowhere in our criminal law is there a mandate to maximize genetic diversity and minimize genetic defects" Well technically Renegade the Criminal Code of Canada doesn't talk about the above but that is precisely why in the Criminal code it is a criminal offence to have sex with your parents or brothers or sisters and first cousins. In regards to those inconsistencies you mentioned Renegade what can I say other then exasperating what you discuss is of course the reality that people with money can manipulate the legal system and often that is all it comes down to, what you can afford to get away with.

The point is Jefferiah and I am sure you know some were responding to you tonque in cheek, anyone who will use the actions or the opinions of an idiot to then assume it applies as a characteristic or quality of belief of everyone else in the faith the idiot claims to have, is an idiot. Geez I am full of judgements today. Its the fibre in my diet.

Thank you for the comment AT. Its ironic AT but one of the most potent images I will always have is that day when the pimply faced soldier stood with the warrior in his face, one emoting the other doing what a soldier does....something that we would never see in the vast majority of countries in this world-restraint. Evil sanctioned murder, lol, no, Canadian soldier.

Charter I have been told to cool it when responding to the above person and I am genuinely trying to follow what the moderator said because I appreciate what the moderator is trying to say to me is more for my sake but I regret the above very much and it has been bothering me for some time and I hope it comes to some resolution. I thin k the vast majority of us on this board genuinely try to be above board as to who we are and what are views are and try to be respectful and have no hidden agendas. I hope you and Joan or anyone else does not make the mistake I did and that is to get baited. I think what I have been reminded is to challenge the words being said and leave the rest to the moderators and I am trying. In this issue I urge people to debate the issues and not the people which is what I am also trying to do. I am not sure what it is but with aboriginal issues it always seems to somehow turn into a very emotional debate questioning peoples' motives. I do not question for one second some of the people who have expressed their views are not motivated by hatred for aboriginals but for what they feel is an issue unfairly imposed on them. I also do not question for one second that the motive for the vast majority aboriginal peoples just like the vast majority of non aboriginals on the either side of this debate this is not about in your face confrontation or racist taunts its about trying to find mutual respect and a way to co-exist with mutual respect. As for those with an agenda to spread hatred and prevent this, I hope as you say Charter their transparency is evident and is not allowed to contaminate a peaceful process towards resolution of these problems. As peaceful as I am in ideology, I have my warrior side too as we all do. I also doubt if I was in the shoes of aboriginals I could be as restrained as so many of them have been and I say the same about those on the other side of the debate who have not resorted to taunts and name calling.

The point was I get confused as to where you stand on issues because they appear inconsistent and sorry I do not read your posts in isolation appreciating your comment on trolling. My intent was not to troll and you are right to call me out on that but to make the point that if you want me to criticize all Christians because of these fools, then how is it you expect such a link but no link between you and your supporting Ron Paul? Is it not just as unfair Buffy? That was my point. So you found some people who claim they are Christians acting like Jackasses. Yah I know quite a few lol. Yer point? Thanks I am not about to criticize Christianity as a religion becuase of people like this who exploit it for their own agendas. At least I am consistent Buffy. Howz about you? I challenge this the same way I did when you presented the story about those ultra-orthodox Jews spitting at Muslisms. Not because of what you reported, but because I believe pointing out peoples' idiocy doesn't make their religion bad, just them idiots. I had this same debate with JBG many times. Its an honest difference in opinion as to how to discuss idiots. If it came across as me saying you are a hippocrate no I did not mean that, I meant its simpy not fair to judge people with generalities otherwise does that not mean I can assume since you support Ron Paul....that is all I meant. They are idiots. Period. Humans use all religions to be idiots. So? Nah I do not feel like being morally self-righteous and smug in regards to these people. Thanks. Got enough of my own imperfections to work on. psst-Hilary was really picking on Bam Bam yesterday sheesh I say

Guyser I genuinely believe that as long as people can throw about words like "heathen" without insight to its reprecussions and understanding it is sad but I will not let that influence my responses. To me it is nothing but a racial taunt to be condemned and if need be challenged by us all and there is much work to be done, not with the individual who engages in the taunt but others who might believe it is a legitimate thing to say. You have nothing to defend. I commend those posters who stick to the issues and refrain from such comments. You have nothing but respect from me as does Jenny and as do those posters that disagree with you but have stuck to the issues.

Oleg you stated; "Pedophilia - does generate homosexual ideation in the young after being molested. " Oleg it doesn't that is a misconception. I have enclosed some articles for you to back up what I am going to say if you are interested. When a child is traumatized by an adult, many complex reactions and developments can occur but no they do not suddenly become gay or turn gay as a result of the trauma. That is like saying a boy molested by an older women when he is 12 will become hetero-sexual if he was otherwise going to be gay. To make a long story short, our sexual identity is based on many complex factors starting with out genetic predisposition and literally the structure of our brains and our chromosone, hormonal and other chemical make-up. People don't become gay or straight because its forced on them. Think about that. Boys who are raped in jails when they get out of jail do not become gay. In fact they may confuse violence as an expression of sexual affection but they don't think all sex must be gay. I have worked over twenty years with many children victims. They go through some very tell tale reactions and developments and if their trauma and the experiences from it are not talked out yes they can be stored and lead to all kinds of problems but gender identify formation problem is not one of them. In fact same sex rape may cause gender identity problems with transgender people but not others. Women don't become lesbians because they are raped. Men don't become gay because they are raped. That is a myth. In fact what is most likely to happen when a child is sexually abused is they develop a disassociative personality disoder, severe depression, become physically abusive to themselves, develp anorexia, drug and alcohol addiction, suicidal ideation, anger management problems, many things but what you say. One's sexual identity is not based on someone raping you. No identity is. You are confusing traumatic reaction to identity formation and they are not the same. It may seem that way to you because someone may say to you I was raped by a man so I will never trust men again but think about that Oleg. The stereotype with a lesbian raped by a man is that she will never trust a man again once she's been raped by a man and that is why she is gay. But if that is the case, why would you then think a man raped by a man would be gay? Would they not also just like the lesbian not be expected to trust men? Well that women did not become a lesbian because the man raped her any more then a boy in later life decides he's gay and may have been molested as a child. Sexual molestation is about power abuse and boundaries not preference. It can't force the mind to create preference but it can force the mind to represss feelings. Chances are a young man who is raped like a young women who is raped has problems with any trust figure or anyone touching them they don't suddenly say oh I was raped by a man so I love it and want more of it. That is absurd. Each human when abused is different as to how they react and cope and what effects it has on their psyche. The only thing that humans have the same when they are abused is the fact that they feel betrayed, blame themselves, and the violation makes them feel self-loathing. Other then that, no Oleg it doesn't work that way and we take each victim as we find them and all we do to help them heal is help them work through the pain, the physical and mental effects and how it lingers in many other kinds of behaviour and relationships-we simply help them work to a point where they feel good about themselves-their sexual identity was always there and it simply re-emerges when they feel healthy again-and if they are gay or straight or bi, that is what comes back when they re-emerge. Now with pedophilia which is a sexual disorder unlike homo-hetero or bi-sexuality, like any sexual disorder it may be influenced by trauma. What I find ironic is this came up in a post about aboriginals. In the aboriginal world, they are light years ahead of us and the notion of double spirits in people's psyches. In fact their holistic practices in regards to the psyche and healing trauma are now being incorporated by Western medicine. Whether we ever catch up with them is another story. resources/The%20Traumatic%20Impact%20of%20Child%20Sexual%20Abuse.pdf http://www.csom.org/train/victim/resources...ual%20Abuse.pdf http://www.fsu.edu/~trauma/v9/TerrorSuidic...rauma_blind.pdf http://www.forge-forward.org/newsletters/v...xualtrauma.html http://www.recovery-man.com/trauma.htm http://www.fsu.edu/~trauma/v7/Taxonomy.pdf http://www.estss.org/ewots05/ew05_files/hellem01.pdf http://www.crimevictimservices.org/sexassault/index.php

I have no argument banning hand-guns except for in gun-clubs. All I am saying is it won't resolve the problem. More to the point, what next, knives? Banning is just flaying at the symptom not the problem. The crux of the problem is gangs and disaffected youth who use guns as part of their gang personna. If you are asking me personally would I carry a hand gun to feel safe, I would say no. I have lived in a country where people carry a gun on their arm as a life necessity. It doesn't make you feel safe at all. I would think learning martial arts is a far better solution if what you are looking for is the feeling of safety. Unless you are an absolute expert on fire-arms and have the kind of cold dettached unemotional demenor needed to be able to use one in a crisis you probably will end up freezing and getting yourself killed as the person takes the gun from you and shoots you or pulls their gun on you-not to mention they are completely inaccurate and even when you think you are shooting at someone you might be completely missing them and killing your wife or child or an innocent by stander. I never liked hand guns. To unpredictable. Using them in a target range is hard enough. As for rifles I have no problem with seasoned rural/subsistence hunters. They respect their weapons as a life necessity-its not a game or an ego thing to them. Its us city idiots we have to worry about.

Your question has two parts; i-the biological factor, ii-the relationship factor. I am sure you are aware that in the case of i, incest is as you say a taboo, because in-breeding will kill out any people with genetic defects that will arise. Nature intended us to diversify our gene pools to remain healthy, evolve and adapt. There is no debate as to the results of genetic inbreeding. This leads us to the second factor and that is if there is no biology issue, should incest between adopted children be a problem? In regards to the second matter it is not just an issue of biology it is an issue as to what constitutes or should constitute a healthy relationship. Whether someone is your adopted child or sibling or biological one, the non-biological relationship is the same. So there are issues of trust and power. In a relationship between any parent and child or sibling, the trust requires parties maintain sexual boundaries or the relationship necessarily becomes deviated and abusive since one of the parties will use the power that comes with their sibling status or parental authority to impose on the other. A healthy sexual relationship is supposed to be about two consenting adults who come to their choice through free will. The sex between adopted siblings or between adopted parents and children is not done through free will but a distortion or exploitation of the closeness that comes from being a father or sibling. When say Woody Allen decided to take up with Mia Farrow's daughter, he had played the role of her father for many years. To pretend he could suddenly switch that off and be her equal is not genuine. Her initial attraction physically would have come about because of his role as her father figure not an equal. He then exploited that power and still does. Ideally healthy relationships should not have baggage attached to them that starts in earlier realtionships where one party had power over the other and now wishes to continue that power imbalance but now use sex to reinforce the power imbalance. Now if my father when I am in my 30's marries some women and I meet her daughter for the first time and presumably her daughter is of the same age or emotional level as I (i.e., not 18) and I have never had any relationship with her and do not live with her adn my father and step mother and that daughter and I are completely independent, a relationship taking place between us although probably not a smart thing (because if we break up it causes tension to the other couple) would be different then say if I was 15 and the step sister is say 10 and we live together for ten years before I decide to get into bed with her. The key here is to see what kind of relationship preceded the one you now move into and whether that relationship distorts feelings and power.

Keng your comments above summarize the point I was making and that is you have an agenda , "criticism about Jews or Israel". If that was your agenda which it now appears is from what you say, JBG or I or anyone else have the right to challenge you on that and we have. My comments suggested you had an agenda other then discussing historic facts and you have stated it above "criticism about Jews or Israel". To me this is not about making friends Keng. When I defend a position it is not to be popular, its to express something I genuinely believe and I attempt to do so taking the time to provide something other then my subjective feelings as the basis for my statenments. It is in my personal opinion inappropriate for you to use the holocaust and your beliefs as to its merits or significance to criticize Jews or Israel. To use any people's collective genocide or suffering to argue what happened to them is not unique or morally signigicant necessarily incites resentment against the people who suffered. I am relieved in a way you responded with words that makes it clear what your agenda was and continues to be.

i know many doctors who are pro choice. I am not sure being a physician predisposes one to being pro-choice or pro-life. The point is a physician has a professional responsibility to keep his personal and/or religious views to himself or herself when treating a patient and if they can't do that-they have no business treating the patient and as far as I am concerned being in the profession. Being a professional means precisely that you can have to dettach your personal opinions and feelings from your work. On that note I am off to circumsize a Ron Paul supporter. Oops I slipped when I saw the swastika tatoo. No I am joking. Calm down.

I appreciate your efforts to respond with salient information.

I wish to make clear that what Keng now does is engage in a classic example of holocaust denial. Holocaust denial has two components. One is to try deny the number of Jews that died in the holocaust or question whether the holocaust happened. The other component of holocaust denial is to trivialize its consequences, i.e., to suggest its not unique to Jews and its not unique in terms of slaughters and since people other then Jews died in the holocaust and have died in other genocides or slaughters, its not unique to Jews and people should resent Jews for trying to say it is. The above proposition is often expressed as per the words of Keng are the classic words of someone writing to the Stormfront (Nazi) web site and stating; “One thing that really bothers me is when people make a big deal out of the Holocaust, and the fact that what happened to the Jews was a Uinque thing only applying to the Jews. Like noone else in the world at the time suffered except for the Jews.” A further classic example of how the argument that the holocaust is not special to Jews is advanced by people with an agenda to in fact trivialize the holocaust can be seen at; http://christianparty.net/holocaust.htm and is I would suggest the frame of reference Keng uses and many people claiming to be Christian fundamentalists use and its important this be flushed out and not couched in the pretense of an alleged historical debate. Its not. It is in my opinion hate mongering and its designed to baiting people's feelings and memories. But let us deal with this issue which Keng has introduced and that is since the Nazis did not kill Jews only it should not be considered unique to Jews. No Jew has ever asked that the suffering of others in the holocaust be ignored. In response to another poster in another line of posts on this same topic, I specifically provided her with a plethora of holocaust memorial sites by Jews which makes it clear as a central precept of Jews remembering the holocaust Jews remember ALL peoples who died in the holocaust and the fact Jews explain why it is unique to Jews does not mean they suggest non Jews did not suffer. Every crime against humanity deserves condemnation but Jews do not need to compete in some morbid contest with Keng or anyone else as to who suffered the most in history or during the holocaust just as it was ludicrous for Keng to try smeer the memory of US soldiers by trying to engage their contributions in World War Two against Canadian soldiers in some contest as to whose contribution was better. The uniqueness to Jews of the holocaust comes from specific historic characteristics not subjective feelings or moral superiority as Keng engages in. It is based on the fact that Nazis marshaled the machinery of their state to target millions of Jews, i.e., 6 million. Yes 5 million non Jews died in the holocaust but that does not change the other fact, that it specifically targetted one people more then any other. The holocaust killed many but it is distinct and unique to what happened to Jews precisely because it involved a destruction process which specifically targeted for death and the hunting down and killing of Jews from across Europe including any European with one Jewish grandparent. Of course not all victims were Jews and no it does not mean if you say the holocaust had a unique effect on Jews it means others did not die. But here is the distinction (and it comes from a remark by Eli Weisel) not all victims were Jews, but all Jews were victims. Therein lies the uniqueness which Keng tries to trivialize. In the Nazi holocaust there was most certainly a specific ideological and concerted state policy and apparatus to single out Jews simply because they were Jews. This is why the Nazis had specific songs about Jews but not Poles or Romanoes or 7th Day Adventists or Gays or Communists or Jehova’s Witnesses, or the mentally ill or disabled. It doesn’t mean the others who died suffered less, but it does mean in the case of Jews there was a complex. systematic and deliberate targeting of Jews that was not carried out with the other groups. It's why Nazis would sing a song like;”Wenn sas Judenblut bom Messer spritzt dan gehts nochmal so gut!” (when Hew-blood spurts from the dagger, then things will go twice as well) or why the Nazi newspaper Der Stumer had as its slogan, “The Jews are our misfortune”. This is why in genocide studies, Steven Katz, in his work, The Holocaust in Historical Context, Vol. 1 has advanced the position that the Jewish Holocaust was “phenomenologically unique as a holocaust and to Jews by virtue of the fact that never before has a state set out, as a matter of intentional principle and actualized policy, to annihilate physically every man, woman, and child belonging to a specific people, i.e., the Jews of Europe. The fact is the Jews of Europe were a unique target of the Nazis and the fact that others died does not change that fact nor should it be used by the Kengs of the world to try manipulate you into denigrating what that means to Jews or to those Jews want to undersrand how the holocaust effected and will always effect us. Yes it can be stated that tt was only in the case of the Jews that there was a determination to seek out every man, woman and child across Weurope. The death camps that Keng and others would have you believe killed non Jews and therefore is not special to Jews is odious because it is historic fact that while others may have died there, these camps were specifically created in contemplation of exterminating Jews. These factories were constructed and managed with the sole purpose of killing trainload after trainload of Jews. Others were thrown in, but the major group, the specific group targeted was Jews. These camps would not have existed had there been no need to kill Jews. Once they were, it then and only then made it easier for Nazis to add to the list of victims and that is the point. Others died precisely because it became easier to kill them by being able to kill millions of Jews. More to the point when the Kengs of the world try engage you in odious contests as to who suffered more and suggest it is acceptable to be cynical about Jews who think the holocaust has special meaning please remember the groups he tries to use to manipulate you against Jews were not singled out for open-air, public massacres of tens of thousands of people on a daily basis throughout Eastern Europe. No their suffering was no less worse, but historically it came about in a different context and Keng depends on your ignorance of history to gloss over the context to not understand why it is different. Think of the logical conclusion to Keng’s argument and that is since 55 million people died in World War Two, we should not examine how the holocaust was unique to Jews since is just 6 million of 55 milion. Why? Does this mean we forget what happened to the Romanos? Does these mean we forget the Jews who died; Aushwitz-over 1.25 million, Chelmo-200,000, Sobibor-260,000, Belzec-500,000, Treblinka-800.000, Majdanek-130,000? This attempt to suggest Poles died in the holocaust so the holocaust is not unique to Jews is also absolutely misleading. Of 6 million Poles who died, 3 million of them were Jews. Non Jewish Poles died because of war, not specifically because the Nazis had a state policy to exterminately. They were killed indiscriminately not because of their specific ethnicity or simply because they were Poles. Had these Poles been Nazi sympathizers they would not have been killed. Jews on the other hand whether sympathetic or not to the Nazis would die. The uniqueness of genocides is it kills not because of what you believe but because of what you are assumed to be by virtue of your race or ethnicity. A Lutheran who dies in the holocaust dies because he chose to confront the Nazis not necessarily because he was a Lutheran. Many Lutherans found Nazism quite compatible with their beliefs. 7th Day Adventists died not because of who they were but because of what they believed. Jews simply were killed because they were Jews. Both suffered equally but the context of the criteria for killing them is NOT and was NEVER the same. Interestingly the only other ethnic group specifically exterminated and treated just like Jews but not specifically mentioned in state policy, was the Romano people and their treatment is always remembered by Jews and is as unique to them as it is to Jews. They were exterminated simply because of their ethnicity. This does not make the holocaust any less unique to Jews or Romanos. All I ask is that when you discuss and remember history, you understand that when people try trivialize historic events and their distinct meaning to the victimized groups, there may be an agenda attached to make it easier to deny the event and denigrate the memory of the victims. In this case Keng’s efforts to denigrade the memory of Jews is no different then what he did with US soldiers and it trivializes the uniqueness of the holocaust’s effect on other groups by turning them into his tool to use as a manipulative weapon to trivialize others. If Keng genuinely cared about these other groups-he would never use their memory to denigrate the holocaust and its significance to Jews nor would he try incite people into using their memory to resent Jews, or as he says be cynical towards them when they point out it is unique to Jews because it wiped out one third of our population in the world and it is unique in terms of genocides because of its focus on one specific people. The genocide of aboriginals, the genocide of Armamians, Rwandans, Cambodians and now people in Darfur, etc., they all have specific and unique meaning to the ethnic groups that were targeted for genocide and no there is no less meaning simply because there are many genocides. Each is unique. To use one to trivialize another is what manipulative hate mongers like to do.

Your question is deceitful. His comment did not differentiate between the suffering and pain of any of the victims and for you to suggest he did shows the agenda you are now trying to pursue. It also shows your agenda is to try pit one group against another to try suggest the effect of the holocaust on Jews was not unique to Jews and you can advance that arguement by saying others suffered. You bait on cue and now you have your platform-who do Jews think they are trying to suggest the holocaust has specific significance to them that differs from the experience it has to others-because Keng in his infinite wisdom deems suffering and pain all the same and to be lumped into one category so he doesn't have to listen to Jews or feel guilty about what happened to them right Keng? Nothing special happened to the Jews that didn't happen to anyone else right Keng? Lets nto make such a big deal about it right Keng? It makes people cynical right Keng?

You now prove with the above comment your intent is not just to call Bush an idiot but now engage in the age old couched antti-semitic taunt that the holocaust is not unique to Jews. I would urge everyone at this point to simply ignore you. Your specific words "that makes somne people a little cynical about the whole issue" refers simply to you and your agenda which is to deny the holocaust's specific application to Jews and try downplay that significance by trying to suggest if one talks of the holocaust and its specific extermination of Jews this necessarily ignores non Jews. You Sir and I state this as bluntly as I can, have zero credibility on this issue. To deny the holocaust had specific and unique application to Jews is odious enough but to try exploit this to try turn people against Jews and suggest Jews are unfair if they try point out how it is unqiue to us is nasty. No one has denied Romanos, gypsies, gays, communists, Jehova's Witnesses, 7th Day Adventists, the mentally ill, the disabled, trade unions and Lutherans and Catholics were killed in the holocaust-but you Sir now engage in this attempt to suggest if Jews point out this is unique to us because it deliberately targetted us for extermination it is unfair to these other groups is absolute and utter bull shit. The fact you now turn this post into this topic shows what your true intentions were. It was never to just call Bush an idiot-it was to try argue the holocaust is not unique to Jews and deals with the extermination of Jews in many countries. The killing of the other peoples was not done in as many countries and to such a volume and you know it. But that isn't the point is it. Taunting is the point.

...and the same reaction....one that reacts not to the problem but the symptom and a reaction that doesn't call for a solution but in fact a quick fix to hide the problem to make it go away. There already is gun control. That is not the issue. One sub-issue, is that guns can get smuggled into Canada easily. That is not a gun control issue but an issue that deals with cross border control of the movement of people and goods. Unless you want every person coming across the border stripped naked and each and every piece of luggage and car shredded you want stop the smuggling of hand guns. As well if you think you can stop every truck, every cargo train, every air cargo shipment and find these hand guns think again. Its not possible. There will always be hand guns on the streets. No one is arguing with gun control or asking it be removed. What the politicians are doing is making useless noise to exploit the issue to make it seem like they care and have a solution but they do not. Let's get real, the same politicians that say, put them all in jail, are the same politicians that won't raise the taxes needed to build and fund and finance the prisons that would be required, let alone the court rooms, and extra goevrnment services required to maintain all that. The same politicians that decry violence, are the same politicians who cut funding so that children when growing up have no recreational services to provide them constructive positive alternatives when they are growing up so they do not turn to gangs and of course guns. More to the point, what will you do censor all the music coming up from the South depicting gangs and gang members as artists and cool? See we talk of putting security guards at doors and screening students. That's nice. You think that addresses the pronlem or the symptom? You think young people if they carry guns won't find away round the this? I say it again. I personally believe in gun control. But no there is no miracle cure for this and certainly shutting down gun clubs which teach people how to be responsible with guns is the exact opposite of what you want to do. Gun clubs do not encourage people to use guns like toys or status symbols. People in target gun clubs are disciplined, focused people that is why they are there. They respect it and do not like the idiots who have these guns on the street use it was a weapon they use it as a method to teach themselves to be disciplined and remain calm and focused. A target shooter can't shoot a gun unless they are calm and focused. Me I do not want guns on the streets. But we are talking hand guns in cities. Rifles? Well no, no one wants them in the city, and me I can't stand recreational hunters who get drunk and once a year go up North and blow things up and leave a mess. But we have to distinguish the urban cities and the lifestyle in cities from those people who live in rural areas who use rifles not as a weapon but as a way to eat and survive. The law can not penalize genuine subsistence hunters or target shooters who are not the problem and never were. What we are talking about are in fact young men with no respect for authority who carry guns as an extension of their penises. Its how they express their manhood. In a society where they feel powerless anbd marginalized this hand gun becomes their equalizer. Suddenly they aren't some skinny, pimply faced nobody, they have a gun and they are a big shot. It has everything to do with how men perceive their weaknesses and what they do to try compensate for them. Want to deal with the problem? It will take more then the usual, put them in jail with harsher sentences knee jerk reaction until next time. It requires no quick fix, but long term programming starting with children in kindergarten and working its way all the way up the ladder. It requires recreational centres, community centres, after school sports, music and art, cultural, and other programs. It requires teaching young people survival skills so when they feel powerless they don't see turning to the gun and gang as the only alternative. To do that requires no quick miracle cures, but long term projects that won't get a politician quick votes within his 4 year term of office. It requires parents who get involved and volunteers from the community to serve as role models. Unfortunately its easier for people to simply sit back on the sofa and delegate the responsibility to others and want a quick fix to make something uncomfortable go away. Aint gonna happen.

With due respect there have been many editorial cartoons portraying Jesus, the Pope, nuns, priests, choir boys. Also with due respect, I don't think ANY religion has an inalienable right to expect its prophets can not be depicted in a free society in an editorial cartoon. If I saw a derogatory cartoon about Moses I might bery well find it offensive as a Jew and I have seen a lot of amti-semitic cartoons in my day often used when criticizing Israeli policies, but I would prefer to explain why I feel such cartoons are offensive then simply censor them. An editorial cartoon by its very nature will necessarily offend some because its point is to challenge views and satirize them and try get people to question something, usually a value that has been contradicted by someone's actions. Its a deliberate attempt to challenge people to see more then one view. In this specific situation, I personally believe the problem here is that the same fundamentalist Muslims who decry this depicture of Mohammed in this cartoon are self-serving and inconsistent, i.e., they are not applying that same standard equally to other religions, just their own. These are the same fundamentalist Muslims who remain silent and see nothing wrong with the wide spread anti-semitic, anti-buddist, anti-Hindu, anti-gay, anti-Bahai, anti-Christan and anti-Zorostrean cartooons cirulated in their societies to name just a few targets. Look we all would hope with any editorial cartoon, sensitivity and common sense prevails and quite frankly that is why these cartoons are vented by editorial boards but people are going to get offended and in a free society we talk it out when we get offended we don't censor unless there are compelling circumstances. So I respectfully disagree with you on this one. I agree with you that we should not negatively generalize about anyone simply because they are Muslim or Christian or Bahaii of Jew, etc., but I also do not think tolerance of others should be confused with allowing any one group to be in fact intolerant of others by being abkle to dictate its beliefs on others. The last thing we want to do in a free society is start allowing everyone to see themselves as a victim. We are not victims. We have free choice, and we exercise that free choice through the privilege of free speech. For me, tolerance necessarily requires an application of the same standard for all, not a selective one because if we do that then everyone will portray themselves as a victim and demand compensation and censorship of others. In a free society Muslims or anyone else have the right to speak out and criticize such cartoons and explain their feelings.The way to get people to understand you is to talk it out. Trying to censor what bothers you is not dealing with the problem its masking it and it doesn't resolve it, it just supresses it forcing it to be expressed in some other form. Lets deal with it out in the open. Having tantrums and yelling and screaming and demanding people be killed as a reaction to a view you disagree with is if nothing else rude. Again I bring it back to the issue of male hygiene and my theory that men with beards tend to scream and burn things because there faces are itchy and full of fleas and so they get angry. I say take a shower, shave, get a good hair cut, cut your toe and finger nails, cut those ear and nose hairs, deal with the bushy eyebrows, brush your teeth, wear clothes that do not have blood stains, and then we can sit down and talk. All this spitting and screaming iis not good. It makes people swet and smell and spew fluids. Its just not conducive to tolerance.

Sorry been away. Read your response. I loved the Hitlerly reference. hah. Good one.You have to admit you do like his views on Zionism. That's o.k. However I appreciate you are mostly leftist in your views that is why I challenged you on his record. You were honest in saying you agree with just some of his agenda. That's the problem. You can't pick and choose with these guys. They attract young idealistic people precisely because in my opinion they play manipulation, they tell you stuff that has a meaning to you but has a far different meaning for the Nazis that also support him. Those Nazis need you idealistic people like you as their cover. Sorry if you thought I got personal. I am just talking the views and issues not you personally. I do not question your motives or suggest you are a Nazi. I am not smearing you. Your views on Zionism are in the open. So are his. If you say its coincidence, they are the same so be it. Lol. Also you are right I was a Hitlery supporter but that was before Bam Bam. Well at least I did not say Fred Thompson although he is funny.