Black Dog

Spare me your crocodile tears. Where were these hand-wringing pleas for bipartisan cooperation during the Republicans' vicous assault on Clinton, whose biggest sin was getting a hummer in the Oval Office? Lies. What "eyewitness" cooberation are you referring to? I'd go on, but why bother? You are too blinded by thoughtless partisan loyalty to see anything beyond what you're spoon-fed.

Thing is, rights as we know them are not ours to bestow on whoever we deem fit. They are universal and unalienable. One could, I suppose, argue whther the right to marry is a basic human right. However, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination. Given that one segment of the population is entitled to certain benefits by virtue of being married, it stands to reason (and the Constitution) that said benefits be available to all. (Ideally, married couples shouldn't receive any special benefits, but taht's a differnt battle.)

Woot!

The whole scheme just seems like an awful lot of trouble, and for what? Change the word contract to "gay marriage" and I'm with you 100 per cent.

You forgot to mention that the terrorists hate our freedoms. What I'm saying is the attacks were a predictable response to Spain's involvement in the war on terror and the Iraq invasion. Fortunately, the real world is not so black and white. It's possible to combat terrorism without buying in to Bush's wrong headed and unwinnable war on terror.

Let me get this straight: Clinton is pilloried for attacking Iraq to distract from the Lewinski "scandal, but Bush is praised for invading and occupying Iraq to distract from his failing domestic policies. Huh? I'm not saying the warnings don't have soem use. However, given their frequency and lack of specificity, they are useless. Yes, it's good that citizens be prepared. But it would help if they knew what for. I already did: hello? Duct tape? Specific warnings against identifiable threats are not the same as the vague terror alerts. Again: prepare for what? You should probably pick articles that support your position, not refute it. So your assertion that Kerry claims domestic security funding is uneeded is a lie.

By whom? The FRC uses flawed, scientifically unsound methadologie sin conducting its "research". So the "proofs" are not credible. You can cite all the data in the world, but if the data itself is flawed so are your conclusions. By all apperances, it seems the FRC molds its data to suit its pre-conceived conclusions. Junk science at its worst. A basic principle of science: correlation does not equal causation. these conclusions also fly in the face of most credible data which indicates the vast majority of pedophiles are heterosexual (whether they molest children of the same sex or not). If anyone is "fanning the flames of fear", its those who would argue that simply extending marriage rights to a small minority of the population will lead to everything from legalized pedophilia to turning schools into gay recruitment camps! Why not throw in a rain of toads while you're at it...

Big frigging deal. Bush has already logged more vacation time than any other president in history. Worst. President. Ever. Hysterical much?

What no one seems to mention is that there have been no links shown between Hussein's Iraq and Al Q'aeda. If anything, the Anglo-American invasion was a boost to Al Q'aeda, more concrete evidence of what they say is the west's war against Islam. As for Spain, the Spanish population demonstrated the power of democracy. Anazar took the country into Iraq against the will of the population and in term, made Spain a terrorist target. The people of Spain held their government accountable and showed them there is a price to be paid for defying the popular will.

Your analogy is completey stupid. To follow its contorted "logic", the "fire keeper" would only have lost his job if the rest of the group found a way to make fire on their own. The end result is the tribe still has fire. However, this retarded comparason has no bearing ont he price of tea in China or, in this case, the price of rice in Haiti. Do you understand even the simplest concepts? For the Haitian agriculture producers, it's not a matter of finding another job. The economic conditions in that country are such that there are no jobs! Can you explain why this is "more true for Haiti", a country whose number one growth industry is "armed thugs"? In fact, I'd like to see you explain to a Haitian farmer who has been driven out of his livliehood by commodity dumping why he is better off now than when he was able to feed his family. People who lose jobs lose income. Period. Not a tough concept to grasp, brainiac. But your profound ignorance of economic realities would indicate you are a resident of some other planet, or just have your head up your ass.

Pot, kettle, black. But I digresss.

Is there any proof that this was Al Q'aeda? Keep in mind, they also claimed responisibility for last summer's black out as well. Again, we have the paradox of the war on terror: three years in and we're told that the world is much safer as a reult of this ham-fisted crusade against terrorism. Yet we're also told there are Al Q'aeda agents behind every bush, just waiting to strike. It seems to me, AQ is a real life Emmanuel Goldstein: an all purpose bogeyman that can neve rbe captured or defeated.

The FRC are regarded as purveyors of idealogically-motivated junk science. Paul Cameron's credibility has been resoundingly called into question by mainstream psychological and sociological organizations. Here's some background: Meet Paul Cameron. Paul Cameron bio and fact sheet So yeah: they are biased. Does the IPCE represent the majority or even a sizeable precentage of the gay community? How many members are there? How are they funded? Are they a real force in the movement or just a fringe group? And to me this hand-wringing about pedophilia and the sancity of marriage is a distraction from the dark reality of the Talibanesque religiou right seeking to impose their agenda of hate and fear on society.

Hey, it worked for George Dubya....

Ah yes, Kuwait. Say, how's democracy doing there?

But marriage is a legal matter. It is also a social matter and, obviously, a political matter. So it doesn't fit in just one of your boxes. Religion's track record in family and cultural matters ain't so hot either. But this isn't a pissing contest. So you'd be okay with, say, Musilm sharia law being used to settle divorce cases? How about the Mormon sects that practice polygamy? Are you okay with that too, then?

More or less. Read the Haiti thread in International Politics for more on the situation there.

But as things stand now, the church plays a largely ceremonial role in marriage. You can get married outside of a church, but you can't get married in a church without a liscence. Your idea would upend the existing structure more than any move to make state-sponsored marriage more inclusive could. Under your scheme, would the state still legally recognize marriages? State-sanctioned marriage is a contract that sets down the rights an obligations of its parties as well as legal entitlements. Take the state out and what recourse does one have if a marriage goes awry. I don't think "mediation" would be sufficient without legal muscle to enforce it. No, the whole scheme sounds like a way to weasel out of recognizing homosexual relationships. I say take the churches out of marriage.

Good post, but I've a quibble. The coup in Haiti was not a populist uprising, but perpatrated by elements of the haitian ruling class, including former elements of the Duvalier regime and, apparently, backed by The U.S. , France and Canada. It's a similar situation as occurred in Venzuala in (IIRC) 2000, when that countries wealthy elite formented a coup attempt against President Chavez. Like Haiti, the coup was spun by the Western media as a populist revolt, when Chavez actually enjoyed (and still enjoys) vast popular support among the poor and working class. If anything, however, these examples illustrate the lengths ruling elites will go to preserve the status quo, squash populist reform movements, and retain their slice of the pie by any means necessary.

Can you please provide some supporting evidence, please? I gather I'm on your side, but exaggerated statements like the above really undermine the credibility of your position and that of the whole anti-war/anti-Bush side. Thanks.

While iIagree with some elements, such as eliminating special rights for married couples, my big question is: why bother?

If I was Kerry, I'd feel pretty good about going toe-to-toe with Bush in a battle of soundbites. Bush is not exactly dazzling, rhetoric-wise. In fact, the man is barely literate.

No I don't agree, simply because it's impossible to "impose" democracy. (Accepting, of course, that such was the Bushies' intent in Iraq. I don't believe it is.) Uh, they didn't have to "soften" them up. 12 years of sanctions and bombings accomplished that nicely.

Give me a break. How can two parties legitimately represent the views of the entire population. The American two-party duopoly is simply outdated. The Dems and Republicans are essentially the same. The only differences are cosmetic. Is it any wonder, then, that voters are increasingly apathetic when presented with the choice between Tweedledum and Tweedledee? In a true democracy, more choice is better.

No I'm talking about the view that one should not question your leadership in war time and blindly "support the troops" regardless of the reasons why they are in danger. Which is crap. You can't trample international law and the basic principles of civilized international relations in the name of "maybes". Or at least you shouldn't.