Black Dog

He'd rather not violate his personal beliefs by fighting a war he doesn't believe in. Furthermore, he tried to play the game by the rules (as I already pointed out), but the Army messed with his C.O application. His choices were go to jail, or go to war. He found a third option. Also, let's not forget that the armed forces is, for many, an employer of last resort. The best (and for many, the only) chance to get an education and valuable work experience that doesn't necessarily involve blowing people's heads off.

Under Canadian law, consent is required for any sexual relationship. It's far more fundamental to the integrity of the institution of marriage than the gender of its participants. Why would anyone want to get rid of consent as a criteria anyway? We want to move forward, not backwards.

That's not entirely true. In Hinzman's case, his claim is based on the likliehood of persecution should he return (in his case, prosecution for desertion). Of course, he orginally applied for concientous objector status withing the Army (and did everything by the book) only to have the Army "lose" his paperwork. The soldier who refuses to fight Bull. Hinzman and those lik ehim may be many things, but cowardly isn';t one of them. There's nothing cowardly about taking a stand for your beliefs, especially if it means giving up as much and risking as much as tehse guys have. I'll reserve accusations of cowardacie for those too afraid or too ignorant to question their leaders.

Kosovo Liberation Army. Oops. If we had "taken an acticve role" the way folks liek Harper want, we'd be bogged down in Iraq right now. It would be nice to think Canada would be a strong force for global justice on the world stage, but the reality is we'd probably just run around enforcing the same order that has created many of the problems we see today. It seems to me that responding with force and aggression in kind makes us no better than "them" (whoever "they" are). Where did I say that? I think the military needs to be modernized, with more attention placed on the needs of the rank-and-file (including safety on the job and the ability to make a living).

So who is it we're supposed to be bombing in Sudan? Threatening The Sudan Government Won't Help Darfur

In all the discussions I've seen on this subject, I've noticed that most of the arguments in favour of a dramatic increase in military spending tend to be based in the abstract, such as asserting that a bigger military will give Canada a bigger role in world affairs. Taken by itself, such a statement is meaningless, as it fails to define what is mant by a "voice" or role. For example, look at the recent high-profile cases involving Canadians abroad, such as the murder of the Cnadian photojournalist in Iran. Would having a bigger military have enabled Canada to leverage a better result? No, because the dispute was political and diplomatic in nature. In disputes of that nature, military power is only a factor if one of the parties has the ability, desire and conviction to use their military power to enforce a favourable resoultion. Canada has never been that kind of country, nor would many want it to become one. Peacekeeping and "humanitarian intervention" are fine in theory, but have prove problematic in practice. Look at the Balkans, where NATO backed factions like the KSA, who have since been shown to be affiliated with Al Qaeda and otehr terrorist groups. Sudan is another story, one that has been developing for a long time, but is only now becoming a priority for the west. Intervention in that country would be extremely problematic given the legacy of imperialism and the involvement of western economic interests in Sudan's oil. So I'm not sure if peacekeeping should continue to be a prority. In some cases, I can see it being a good thing, but it's not quite as cut and dried as the Canadian mythos surrounding it would suggest.

By the way, KK, I found this tidbit while searching for more stuff to counter some of the persistant claims regarding pot: Marijuana and Driving The rest is worth a look as well: Drug war myths.

What "dirty-work" is that, exactly. The issue of what to do with Canada's armed forces has come up many times on this board. IMO, the key question that needs to be answered before we spend so much as an extra dime on our military is: what do we want our military to do. My position, of course, has been that since a standing military force seems to be a necessary evil, Canada should develop a small, well-equipped force that can protect our borders and enforce Canadian territoorial soverignty. And that's about it.

Marriage was (and in some places, still is) an institution where women are considered property. Marriage was/is a transaction. In contemporary western society, the theory behind marriage is a partnership of equals. So the idea that marriage hasn't changed in the past thousand (or even 200) years is a fallacy. In our society (the one currently struggling with the whole gay marriage issue) consent is a factor in marriage and sexual relationship. So the argument against child, animal or fire hydrant marriage stands.

So? It's still valid. Maybe you should be looking at what else is going on in their lives. Again, correlation does not equal causation. The "gateway drug" theory is yet another popular tool of the anti-pot crowd. It too, is a myth. What the gateway theory presents as a causal explanation is a statistic association between common and uncommon drugs, an association that changes over time as different drugs increase and decrease in prevalence. Marijuana is the most popular illegal drug in the United States today. Therefore, people who have used less popular drugs such as heroin, cocaine, and LSD, are likely to have also used marijuana. Most marijuana users never use any other illegal drug. You hear that Hugo, you left-wing hot head? Not only that, research is showing that other cannabinoids or combinations of cannabinoids show more therapeutic potential than THC alone. As well, pure THC appears to cause more anxiety, depression, or unease than the combination of cannabinoids found in the natural plant. Smoking isn't the only way to ingest cannabis anyway. It can be cooked, too.

I read the links. It's the same tired propaganda that the drug warriors have been spewing since day one. Very little of it is supported by the facts. Correlation does not equal causation. And just because one individual goes chronic (most pot users use it only moderately), that's not an argument for continuing the draconian policies of drug prohibition (which, I should also point out, have done nothing to reduce drug use. Marijuana, as well as other drugs, is on the increase.)

This is quite insensitive to the homosexual community don't cha think? Not really. That's why they call heteros "breeders."

A big factor is that more people are waiting longer to have kids. Mor epeopel want to have a career and a life before they take on the responsibility of kids. I also wonder if there's been any rise in infertility. Bearing children is not a "priceless gift": it's our biolgical mandate. I see no problem with people wanting something more from life than work, breed and die. Personally, I like these guys' philosophy.

The cops, of course, can hardly be expected to be considered an unbiased source on the issue of marijuana. For them, the war on drugs means more money to fund anti-drung task forces and fancy SWAT teams for "COPS"-style raids on grow-ops. Nevermind that much of the "harmful effects of marijuana" cited by the Cowtown cops are not supported by the evidence. Let's take a look. So does booze, yet alcohol is legal. There is no compelling evidence that marijuana contributes substantially to traffic accidents and fatalities. At some doses, marijuana affects perception and psychomotor performances- changes which could impair driving ability. However, in driving studies, marijuana produces little or no car-handling impairment- consistently less than produced by low moderate doses of alcohol and many legal medications. In contrast to alcohol, which tends to increase risky driving practices, marijuana tends to make subjects more cautious. Surveys of fatally injured drivers show that when THC is detected in the blood, alcohol is almost always detected as well. For some individuals, marijuana may play a role in bad driving. The overall rate of highway accidents appears not to be significantly affected by marijuana's widespread use in society. Marijuana produces immediate, temporary changes in thoughts, perceptions, and information processing. The cognitive process most clearly affected by marijuana is short-term memory. In laboratory studies, subjects under the influence of marijuana have no trouble remembering things they learned previously. However, they display diminished capacity to learn and recall new information. This diminishment only lasts for the duration of the intoxication. There is no convincing evidence that heavy long-term marijuana use permanently impairs cognitive functions. There is nothing about marijuana specifically that causes people to lose their drive and ambition. In laboratory studies, subjects given high doses of marijuana for several days or even several weeks exhibit no decrease in work motivation or productivity. Among working adults, marijuana users tend to earn higher wages than non-users. College students who use marijuana have the same grades as nonusers. Among high school students, heavy use is associated with school failure, but school failure usually comes first. Paranoia is a common side effect of pot use that only lasts as long as the high. As for "internal tissue damage" that's a very scary way of describing the possible damage to the lungs from smoking. Like tobacco smoke, marijuana smoke contains a number of irritants and carcinogens. But marijuana users typically smoke much less often than tobacco smokers, and over time, inhale much less smoke. As a result, the risk of serious lung damage should be lower in marijuana smokers. Studies of newborns, infants, and children show no consistent physical, developmental, or cognitive deficits related to prenatal marijuana exposure. Marijuana had no reliable impact on birth size, length of gestation, neurological development, or the occurrence of physical abnormalities. The administration of hundreds of tests to older children has revealed only minor differences between offspring of marijuana users and nonusers, and some are positive rather than negative. This is a laugh. Pot is a depressent and certainly not a drug commonly linked to violent behavior. Now, there may be a link between violent crime and the drug trade, but that has nothing to do with teh drug itself. Indeed, drug-related violence is a byproduct of drug prohibition. Like the rest of the claims made, there's no attribution and no supporting evidence. I can say that, in 1972, after reviewing the scientific evidence, the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse concluded that while marijuana was not entirely safe, its dangers had been grossly overstated. Since then, researchers have conducted thousands of studies of humans, animals, and cell cultures. None reveal any findings dramatically different from those described by the National Commission in 1972. In 1995, based on thirty years of scientific research editors of the British medical journal Lancet concluded that "the smoking of cannabis, even long term, is not harmful to health." So "stick that in your pipe and smoke it."

I think you have to determine what degree of risk is pose dby people driving while high. Knowing a thing or two about pot use ( ), I can say it's not a drug conducive to driving. Eithe ryou're too high to even bother getting behind the wheel or paranoid enough to take it easy. Now, of course your judgement and reaction time are impaired. But I just don't ever see driving while high becoming as big a problem simply because, even if it were legalized, it wouldn't be as common as booze (not to mention lingering social stigmas). That said, you can usually tell when someone's high, even if there's no breath test. If you run someone through the usual roadside tests for balance, coordination etc., and they're baked, you'll be able to tell. Aw c'mon. You must know that pot prohibition goes back to before such concerns were an issue. Drug prohibition is rooted in racism and xenophobia, not to mention the stubborn persistance of the puritanical value of self-denial. Indeed, even today the "safe driving" argument is a minor one.

I may be a prick, but I'm not an idiot. As far as I'm aware thousands of people haven't fought and died for maintaining the traditional definition of marriage. In fact, the Nazis were virulently anti-homosexual and were also very focused on perserving "traditional values" (the "Traditional Values Coalition" would fit in nicely with the Nazis). Of course, you don't have an argument. That's why you always trot out the same fallacious garbage. Naw, it's late this month, so I'm gonna have to go down to the school yard and sell heroin to the kiddies. Hey, the homosexual agenda doesn't pay for itself.

Fallacy? Like the kind you've been using throughout this thread in assuming God exists? What else does religion rely on, then? Faith is the cornerstone, the rock upon which religious belief is founded. Just because your explanation is simple and easy to explain, does not make it rational when there's no facts to support it. Yes it is. I've already addressed this. Therr's a simple reason for that: science cannot rely on belef in the supernatural. Explanations must be consistent with what we know about how the universe works. On these grounds, supernatural explanations are out of bounds.

Of course, you exclude search for objective truth that points to God. Like? If you have soem objective proof, by all means: give it up. I expect whatever change you underwent was a lot of work. You weren't just sitting on the couch one day and then ZAP! I think in instances like these, "God" is a crutch, a concept which allows people to focus their energies on bettering themselves. Still, the strength is within us all. That, in my view, is far more miraculous than some kind of divine intervention.

I agree. Marriage for all or marriage for none. Would that extend to couples who adopt?

This may come as a bit of a surprise, but FOX and Clear Channel ARE the "mainstream media". CNN tries to plant itself in the middle, but leans to the right and the other networks follow suit. For once, I'd like some solid examples of the so-called "liberal" media bias. No. They're liars. Refuting Rush. FAIR on Rush Lyin' Annie

Nice to see you're still a moron and still trotting out the same b.s. What does this have to do with polygamy, anyway? Newsflash: such behaviours aren't limited to homosexuals (indeed, not all homosexuals even engage in such practices).

Heroes? Uh...source? And I thought this was funny: Again: where is the vitriol for some of the others responsible for the sorry state of political discourse? Like Ann "Tim McVeigh should have blown up the New York Times" Coulter, or Bill "Shut Up Shut Up Shut Up" O'Reilly? Or could it be that it's not the lies or the venom you folks are upset about, but that, for once, such tactics are being directed at right-wingers, instead of coming from them? Hypocrites.

Of course Moore's work is propaganda. But so is Fox News, the National Review, Bill O'Reilly etc. Yet I don't hear any howls of indignation from the right about these and others' distortions, lies and manipulations. I gues spropaganda, for some, is just whatever you disagree with. Certainly I haven't seen anyone on this board or anywhere else cite Moore as a reliable factual source. He's a provoceteur I agree that Moore's focus on Congress was off the mark. He shjould have looked at the service records of the Bush administration members themselves. Chickenhawks all.

Naturally, anyone who disagrees with hard-arsed conservativism must be stupid or gullible. Utter elitist claptrap. Venom spitting (not to mention lies and misinformation) is the sole domain of right-wing commentators. They are incensed that a left-wing idealogue like moore dars to turn their own weapons against them and their institutions.

First: homosexuality is not, by any stretch of the imagination, "completely accepted". Second: the reason homosexuality is no longer considered "detestable and wrong" is because we have recognized that it is not a choice or a disease and should not be stigmatized as such. Nor should the behaviors of consenting adults be subject to legal prohibitions. Bestiality and pedophilia lack the element of consent required by akll socially acceptable forms of sexual conduct. I don't esee that changing.