Figleaf

This is a hoot. Perhaps American arms shipments will find their way from Afghanistan to Iran. BTW, Who are the Taliban these days anyway?

Stalker.

Not at all. The blatent anti-semitism of your comment is there for all to see!

Because you can foster and encourage all you wish, but sometimes, there needs to be a catalyst. Is it? When? Where? The Iraq policy is discredited, though one can argue that method (Rummsfeld) was just as much, or even more to blame than the idea itself. Iraq, in sum, was a failure. But do you know what "neoconservatism" means? It is nothing more than "conservatism" practiced by former socialists... That's not a description I would endorse for neo-conservatism. In fact, the name neo-conservative is a bit of a misnomer because they are not really a new variant of oldstyle conservatism. They are the bastard rightwing offspring of (no-longer classical) liberalism. True conservatives (e.g. Pat Buchanan, George Will, historically Edmund Burke) are a much different animal who would have little use for the icons of neo-conservatism like Strauss, Hayek and von Mises. They choose THEM. Certainly not. 'Conservatism' either failed a long time ago, or has yet to truly fail, depending on how you look at it. Neo-conservatism has 'failed' in the sense that its every prescription proves to do more harm than good.

The dependents get the benefit, whatever it is. It is their lives who are being valued. What is so hard to understand? What is hard to understand is why married members' relatives deserve money that unmarried members relatives' don't. It's not hard for us military folks to understand. In the military, your family, dependents, are ONLY your spouse and children. Your next of kin is your mom, dad, sisters etc.... For example, as a single soldier I can go home and visit mom & dad all expenses paid (actually the price of an airline ticket) once a year. (I can go 20 times a year if I want, but the CF only pays for 1 trip). A married soldier cannot, because he lives with his "family". At Xmas, single members are often given priority to leave so they can travel home and be with next of kin. Married folks have their families with them, so they are considered to be "home". A married soldiers next of kin does not get any $$, only the spouse and children. If a married soldier gets divorced, his ex-spouse is entitled to his pension, where a single soldier has no such fear. It's about choices, if you get married there are plus & minus, same with being single..... As a single soldier, it does not bother me at all......... That's a lot of variations and exceptions based on marital status! Quite apart from whether such discrimination is legal, it tells me that the military is about 30 years or more behind the times in social understanding and Human Resource management. The Ozzie and Harriet 'family' mold is very much the exception these days. I suspect that using benefit and managemet practices that are stuck in the 70's imposes many hardships on modern military families. Too bad Mr. Marin moved on too soon.

The dependents get the benefit, whatever it is. It is their lives who are being valued. What is so hard to understand? What is hard to understand is why married members' relatives deserve money that unmarried members relatives' don't.

The value is being put on the dependants lives, that's the part you guys don't get. I don't 'get' how that justifies treating unmarried soldiers like their lives are worth less and forcing them to subsidize benefits for marrieds.

What idiosyncratic definition of 'underdog' leads you to make that rather silly-sounding claim? Hey Mr. Anti-Semite -- give it a rest with the 'all Jews are rich' stereotype. I suppose you believe 'Jews control the banks' too?

I'd love to. How do you propose I go about that?

Mah gawd, Clem, ah kin see thet garls a-yuss!

http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/det...80/22198016.jpg

... No, that would by like wishing Egypt happy anniversary today.

Yeah, right. You wouldn't want to associate with someone who foolishly claims the world is 6000 years old and man walked with dinosaurs when EVERYBODY KNOWS the world is now closer to 6200 years old and man ran from the dinosaurs.

That's a concern in two respects: -first, it means CF members' cannot provide for the security of their survivors (whatever their relationship); and -CF members can't obtain the financial advantages of buying insurance while they are young and healthy. There should be a remedy for both of those problems, and it would be to create a government sponsored but mandatory premium-charging life insurance scheme for ALL CF members which legislation should make convertible to a commercial policy when they leave the forces. The stated purpose of the benefit does not change the fact that the effect is to put a higher value on the lives of married members. This money could instead be used to raise overall forces pay, or provide other other benefits, or to buy better armour and equipment. So it forces unmarried members to subsidize married members. The theory there is that all of society benefits from an educated citizenry. That is a serious injustice. Not according to the rules you provided. They are being bonused for the value of their work, which is a job-relevant consideration. It is not like being granted more money for your death because of the job-irrelevant marital status. Your garbage man is an employee of a different organization. The comparison is therefore not applicable here. I didn't place the money value on anyone's life. The forces placed a different money value on some lives compared to others. [EDIT: oops, not the forces, the government/Veterans Affairs.]

Thank you for the information. This suggests that parents, no matter how indigent or how much the member was contributing to them, get nothing. It suggests that estranged spouses do get the benefit. In no way does it change the fact that the unmarried members' life is given less value than the married member's life. It discriminates on the basis of marital status. It forces unmarried members to subsidize benefits for married members. I think the military is in serious need of someone to re-evaluate their inequitable treatment of members based on marital status.

Drugs are evaluated on that [cost-benefit] basis. Please don't be so silly. Whether to pursue drug research is evaluated on that basis, the clinical properties of the drugs are clearly not evaluated on that basis. The former is a business choice, the latter is a scientific matter. I believe you are mistaken. Please provide a reference that supports you use of the term 'effective' in that context.

Holy Christ! Israel is a democratic nation whose Government is elected by the universal and free suffrage of its citizens. The only way to destroy the "zionist regime" is to destroy the zionists, which happen to be 90% of the population. Get out. You figure? You mean they don't want to kill Israeli civilians or say Jews in the rest of the world? Get out. Figleaf doesn't think so. Golly I am confused. There's an interesting double standard ... You both seem to think it's possible for western powers to make war on a regime but not on the people, but the same approach is impossible for anyone else.

Thank you for speaking up. It means a lot to me. I disagree. I am pointing out that the game of semantics is being played in the media when it deliberately misinforms us about Abduljihad's statements. I don't doubt Abjectjihad hates Israel and is no friend of the western world. I just think that this fact doesn't change what is a true comment about him and what is a false comment about him. And I decidely oppose warmongering on the strength of false representations (which we already saw lead to the Iraq debacle and now are being deployed to drive an attack into Iran).

I was using definition 2) & 3). You were using 4). No, I meant: "Consistent with or based on reason; logical" or "proceeding or derived from reason or based on reasoning". What component?

Procedural flaw doesn't exactly mean innocence. Dismissal means innocent if you're innocent until proven guilty.

Why should the unmarried soldier subsidize the married soldier?

It might be possible to get the same benefits in some other fashion or it might not - the person would not know. However, if someone knows that there is a benefit from believing in a diety and they want those benefits then it would be illogical to refuse to believe. I think we are dealing with a fundamentally different approach to what makes a belief 'rational'. To my way of thinking, a 'rational belief' is one that tests true by the measures of reason. You appear to mean that a belief is 'rational' if it is net positive in a cost benefit analysis. I don't see how the latter provides any support for the specific claims of theism or its various manifestations.

So the plan for now in the Bush gulag is to imprison innocent people indefinitely? And this is the 'democracy and freedom' Bush wants to bring the world? Feh!

Well, given this information, of which I was obviously ignorant, the case for raw gerrymandering-like in BC is much reduced. (Perhaps they have a more subtle agenda ...) Still, that doesn't make it any better for Ontario. BTW, thanks for correcting my ignorance of BC geography. And why is that a justification for rep/pop misalignment? Okay. All internet polls are crap, mine no less so.

Ok - then the disagreement may be over the intent of the words 'rational' vs. 'irrational'. Many people use the word 'irrational' to mean stupid or crazy. Stating that the existence of deity is simply outside the realm of 'rational' (i.e. falsifiable) science does not come with the pejorative connotations. If that is your intent then I can agree with your statement.In my example above I could have used the word logical instead of rational and that would have avoided the overlapping meanings of the word rational. I still do argue that there is a positive mental effect that is caused by a belief in a deity/higher power and that effect exists even if a deity does not exist. For that reason, belief in a deity is logical for any person who experiences this effect. You were all right until the last sentence. This 'belief' that someone adopts to secure the presumed biological benefits ... do they need to really believe it? If they do, and so they really force themselves to believe (in the absense of evidence) in the action of a deity, can't you see that that's not a rational belief?