Catchme

http://www.slate.com/id/2161289/fr/rss/ sulfur particles in the air cause acid rain.

Ann and her friendhere, and just what is with those born again right winger Republicans and their addictions? *Sensitive link, though not in anyway pornographic, disturbing, crude or harsh.

What does believe in marriage mean? Why does it give a sense of permanence to the relationship? You yourself walked away from a marriage in a few short years. How long have you been with this fellow? It sounds like longer than you were with your husband, if this is the case, then perhaps a sense of permanence, does meet reality? Making a life-time commitment to one another, does not need state sanctions to make it be more permanent, or solid. My partner and I will be celebrating 28 years this year, his mother has been married 4 times withing this time frame. Also, he stayed at home as a house husband for 3 years, long before it became an identifable recourse in our society. The bigotry that was expressed towards us, by some, during this period, was unbelievable. Even though it well discussed amongst the family members, and the grandparents, to examine it for feasability and consensus, some in the extended family thought it beyond the pale. Even though the alternative would have been latch key children, it was more important for the male partner to be working for some reason. The truth is marriage still comes with the built in systemic and operant conditioning towards a clear male bias. So, please do let us know if your relationship changes after your marriage. Having said that, I feel the same way towards marriage, as I do any other social construct, everyone has freedom of conscience and self-determination, and am happy with whatever anyone else chooses to do as long as their choice has no impact upon me and is within the laws of the land.

Why is anyone using abortion statistics from the USA to discuss abortions in Canada?

IMO, only an idiot would not expect the government to explain themself.

So women seeking equality has spelled the demise of "traditional" marriage? Ergo, "traditional" marriage is an unequal partnership contract favouring males. So, males decrying the loss of traditional marriage are then decrying the loss of an institution that gave them unfair advantage over women. Oh my, that is so too bad, eh?!

No

Dont fall into the right wing trap. That statement is exactly what you hear out of the south. Neither Harper nor the Cons want to destroy this country. Change it maybe, but not willfully destroy it No, I let my use of destroy it stand, the changes they are making or want to make, are not is what need to be changed. Further, their continued move towards deep integration and a a North American union is wilful destruction of Canada.

Of course, homeostasis is the fundamental principal to all living things, however, it is seldom acheived, even within organisms themselves. Saying "when everything is equal" is more than a bit ideologically blinded.

Give us an example, or indeed any other sort of support for that assertion, if you can. Are White, English speaking Catholics forcing the federal government to make constitutional changes or force federal intervention to accommodate their views? That is not support for your assertation they are footing bills for everyone. That would be because the laws favoured white males in the first place.

You were justifying YOUR daughter as being properly raised. He did not define "properly raised" nor did he define "productive members of society" in terms of material accomplishments. You did. No, actually he did define properly raised. And no I wasn't, I was uttilizing an example that happened to be my daughter and granddaughter. I do not. I said explicitly that when everything is equal and the only things that are different are stay-at-home or day-care, a parent must be bad if day-care is better. This is not correct, ascribing bad and good, better than worse than, as quantifiers and qualifiers is incorrect analysis. People utilize day care for a variety of reasons. Sending one's child to day care is not abdicating parental responsibility by any means. How many children do you have charles? That is fine. Not all children are treated equally within families. that kind of goes against your unconditional love theory eh? Reserach carrying capacity of a society and you will find out all you need to know about it.Sounds like one of those "well adjusted" any-which-way-the-wind-blows concepts. Actually, it is a scientific, mathematical and economical methodology, that is used to figure out the required hours of work conducted, or needed to be conducted, by human capital in any given society, that is needed to sustain the greater society as a whole.

One would think our NEW government is trying to make us slip, eh? After all they are always saying: Canadians are stupid, Canada is a thrid rate country, etc etc..perhaps they want to make us what they believe we are? That canada is number one, again illistrates that Canadians are not stupid and we as a peoples in our country have been making the correct decisions for ourselves historically. It is certainly sad, that the Harper government, and their supporters, want to destroy a country that is ranked number 1 in the world.

Paul Martin and Bill Graham, seemed to get the equipment needed, though a bidding process, and in a timely manner, that the Can military is using NOW in Afghanistan. So, why can't O'Connor and Harper?

Cheney has being playing avoidance of this with his tripping around the world, on American taxpayer's dime. He should be indicted, and hopefullly he will. And one would hope the same would go for the whole Bush administration.

Understood -- now. However, your reply did NOT take exception to his premise and you never offered a definition of your own. Your reply presented material accomplishments as a representation of success. Splitting hairs charles, I was, and did, take exception to premise of children cannot be raised properly if they attend day care. In order to do this I wanted to know what he meant by properly, as properly is subjective, eh? Anyway I do not want to go further with this the original topic is long gone, and yet somehow this one continues. Again apparently as a platform to trash me. Correct. However, you could have also said that your daughter...All of the above (may certainly have questionable results but) conceivably can be done with the intent of being "productive members of society" but you distinctly described a narrow set of accomplishments. Why would I have said all of the above, we were discussing blueblood's perception of properly raised and his day care topic. Yes, indeed you are, a bit of intellectual honesty would be in order, do you not think?!Well adjusted, is again a subjective realization, the contextual value is only important based upon POV. Maybe well adjusted to you sounds like a compromise, however, such is not the case. I have come across a good amount of children who spent every moment and every day of their early childhood with their mother and they certainly were not well adjusted, and by all intense purposes their individuality and self-esteem, had suffered because of their mother's over attention. That would be your subjective position, and bad parents is also your subjective opinion. Children are raised at home, a good day care is a suppliment to values, social skills and education. Are you then also opposed to private schools, the ultimate day care? If you believe all parents give their children unconditional love, you would be in error, such is not always the case, and most often is not the case at all. Regard is most often conditional and that is what people get from those external to the family. Society is not going to love the child who grows up into an adult unconditionally, and most children who are raised in an overly sheltered environment have quite a difficult time in dealing with this realization. A child who is secure with themselves, and their parents unconditional love, do not need it exhibited towards them 24 hrs a day 7 days a week in order to know their self worth. One gets their self worth based upon formulated childhood self-esteem, life experiences, both social and career wise, through contact with others not of their immediate family and learned abilities. Granted perhaps I did by even dignifying this ridiculous thread with a response at all. Hindsight 20/20. Facts on the ground do not bear this out, which is why all children in families are not the same identically. What does "dictated by the carrying capacity of the society" mean? Reserach carrying capacity of a society and you will find out all you need to know about it. My mom will not have to think again. Neither did my mom, but you must realize that such is not the case with the many, or our long term care facilities would be empty right now..

Are WASP the only group in Canada capable of trying to maintain a certain identity? What about Aboriginals and Quebecers? Or Blacks that continually play out reverse discrimination the same type of crap they accuse the White guys of doing. It seems the only group that does not have an identity, are White Catholics, who are forced to take a back seat and pay the bills for all other dominating groups. Talk about calling the kettle black! What bills are white catholi paying for me? Oh yes that would be none. If marriage needs government propping, then it has NO ability to stand on its own as a function. It is funny how some argue that the government should stay out of our lives, but then wants government intervention where they feel it should be. And that seems to be the areas of freedom of conscience and action. When growing up in Bible belt Saskatchewan, most often the only time people went to church was for weddings, including the Bride and groom. Sure enough, the communties had the church faithful that attended every Sunday, but for the most part pews sat empty. Marriage in the form we know it, came about with the agricultural revolution, where men wanted access to woman's progenity for a access to a labour pool. It was basically an official contract of ownership of the woman and children. Would you agree that our jurisprudence framework comes from the Roman Empire?

Studies have shown that education, while serving time, is extremely beneficial for both society and the person incarcerated. That seems all fine and good for someone going through rehab. There is the problem with hardened criminals and repeat offenders, maybe they are just born criminals and won't change. I believe this also sends out a very dangerous message to the poor especially the homeless, it's alright to commit crime; for causing harm to society you will get a warm place to live, guaranteed food, entertainment, lax employment, belong to a society --> there's more incentive to go to jail than to stay out. What's next subsidizing prostitutes for conjugal visits on a regular basis? I agree that education and all that will help, but it should be provided to the prisoners that truly want to reform and have undergone a psych evaluation. Society should also accept that those who are truly reformed are no longer "bad guys" and should not discriminate against/judge them as that's half the problem. The reason why persons become hardened criminals is because the are repeat offenders. repeat offenders are usually those who have no education, no ability to become gaiinfully employed upon release, and so return to whatever caused them to be jailed in the first place. That is why programs are needed for 1st time offenders, either within the jail setting or immediately upon release. When I was going for a degree in social work, I developed a model, that was a private business construct, that was designed solely for 1st time offenders and stopping the system failure that causes repeat offenses. When I changed degree majors, I actually handed the model over to classmates, who are now actively working on implimenting it. Well, actually, they have created the business model and are utilizing it with a good deal of sucess, and they have partnerships with the John Howard society as well to decrease rates of recidivism amongst first time offenders. Our focus should be not creating hardened criminals. And I agree people should see them as having paid their dues, because they do not, it leaves first time offenders without employment opportunities and to a future of crime, without having support networks. those who do usually do not go on to offend again. How could the homeless pay for their stay if they were put injail according to your theory? In fact please your thoughts regardless the homeless and jail please, as I do not see where you are coming from.

Argus: Romans were mediterrian peoples, they were not Europeans at the time of Roman Empire. There was no Europe. Those who insist upon putting modern day contextual values upon ancient peoples are using sloppy thinking. FN's did mine and smelt, just not steel. Some were master stonemasons that people are in awe of today. You cannot make that claim they would not have advanced. That is unknowable. But none of this has anything to do with Charter and Charter rights and those who think by changing the Charter they can deprive others of their rights.

So English people are 'mediteranean people's'? What does that even mean?[/qb] You're rambling now white doors, focus, k? Romans were mediterrian peoples, they were not Europeans at the time of Roman Empire. Those who insist upon putting modern day contextual values upon ancient peoples are using sloppy thinking. No, you and argus, are the ones trying to say ancient Romans were Europeans. And, as I noted above, that is sloppy thinking. Plus it shows a lack of knowledge, that of course is not surprising as it runs through both of your dialogues. Funny I was just thinking that about you, though it was unexpected for me to see you self identify quite so honestly. Whitemen killed whitemen long before they came to North America, to kill FN's in the USA. And whitemen continue to do so today. No one said they learned from the white man, really white doors you need to focus. They had no chance because of of the heinous actions that were perpetuated upon them and the diseases that ravaged them, that white man brought. Those are the facts. They were innocent victims, both in the USA in the Indian Wars, and here in Canada though the breaches in Treaty ratification, stealing land, residential schools, etc etc. FN were not defeated in Canada, in fact some were rewarded with land settlements for their assistance to the Crown. And this is why they have exclusionary rights under the Charter, because of outstanding, rights that had not yet been met. Anyone who suggest changing the Charter does so for agendas in stealing FN lands yet again, and to deprive others of their rights and freedoms.

Studies have shown that education, while serving time, is extremely beneficial for both society and the person incarcerated. If they do work while in jail they are paying their keep, 5-6 bucks a day that they get for working 8 hours or more, is NOT getting paid to be in jail. For example, the City of Nanaimo, has a contract with the medium security detention facility located there. They give the facility x amount of dollars for the contracted work the inmate crews do. The inmates who go out each day, get paid between 5 and 6 bucks per day, while they are working 8+ hours. The facility integrates the difference in monies paid out and received, into their operational costs. And it is a significant amount. So in truth, the workers are paying for their incarceration costs plus, receive pocket money towards when they get out, or to buy personal items within the jail. Moreover, as I stated above, if the inmate does take skill courses and post secondary education, they must either get student loans to do so, or have a private funding source. The course rates are lower because the inmate is NOT attending the educational facility and thereby is not contributing to the associated costs of direct attending said facility. And I believe that is fair.

The home was not even the point of the original thread context that august took this from. And it is NOT about, for me, people insisting on judging themselves in comparison with others people and their accomplishments. Though apparently some have tried to make it appear so. It WAS about BLUEBLOOD's definition of children being properly raised and how they were not if they were raised in a day care and my taking exception to HIS premise. Again, this is all taken out of context, I was merely exampling for blueblood, because that is his concept of productive being based on the material NOT mine. It was HIS definition of what properly raised meant, NOT MINE. And this response was framed, only in regards to having a child attending day care, and his belief that those children who were attending day care did not know how to work and be productive members of society. My response was showing him that it was spurious and inaccurate to hold a position such as that. It is certainly is not my definition. Again, it was an example only, of how erroneous his assumption that children who go to day care cannot be raised properly according to his, blueblood's, material definition, as opposed to being raised at home. But go ahead, jump on the bandwagon too, and overlook my saying it is blueblood's definition of properly raised being, what is accomplished materially, x3, not mine. And regarding my granddaughter being well adjusted it was also in regards to her attending day care and also being well adjusted. You see this is the problem with august's taking this snip out of the original thread context, just so people such as yourself could trash me, and no one knowing what the contextual value of the words actually were. It seems, there are always those, such as yourself, who want to hop on the band wagon, no matter how wrong they are in their premise and assumptions. And it is interesting to see, how they like to judge other people according to what they personally believe to be correct. BTW, not that it is any of your business, but my daughter and I, are extremely close, unlike some families I know, where the mother stayed at home full time. In my opinion, her material success is because she is; deeply spiritual, honest, loving and warm hearted, and giving to her country and community, plus being a hard worker. And in my original post, I noted that, I felt it was the nature of the person, that was the foundation of who they were, and what they would do, as opposed to day care versus mom at home scenario dictating what they do. Parental input, can be a factor, but not always the major one. I disagree, if they are working beyond the individual hours needed, as dictated by the carrying capacity of the society, they most certainly are carrying their own weight, plus more than. Neither, it is the relationship between the parent and child, the situation at hand, plus many more factors, it is no matter if they were raised by mom at home or attended day care. If you think because a mom stays at home with the child/children that would mean ergo the child will look after the aging parent, instead of putting them in a home, you had better think again.

Nobody cares about hunting and gathering. ALL societies were hunter gatherers at one point. Some moved on to more advanced systems. The natives of North America did not. Okkkaaaayyyyy. So much for education. They did advance, and you have a lack of education, that is quite clear. If not for hunting and gathering capabilities, that settlers learned from FN, they would not have survived, nor could have exploartion of Canada and the USA have happened with out FN's skills in these areas. Nor the fur trade. Here is a map of ancient Rome, they were Mediterranian peoples, not that you would care the only thing apparently you care about is completely skewing history to conform to what you want it to and to portray FN's in as bad of a light as you possibly can. http://www.roman-empire.net/shop/empire-map-116.html Guns and steel make better arms advancement and nothing more. And even then they could not have beaten FN's except for the nasty evil actions taken against them.

Canuck E Stan, August took my comment completely out of contextual value, and now you are using it to trash talk me. blueblood and I, were discussing what he meant by children being raised proprerly, as he inferred they were not being raised properly if they went to a day care. I asked him what did raised properly mean, and he responded to ME, that it was a hard working member of society that worked and carried their own weight. So, I responded back with the example, that my daughter had gone to day care from the time she was 3, and and thereby gave him an example that showed day care had little to do with children not being properly raised by his standards. Moreover, had you read the thread that august pulled from, for some weird reason of his own, instead of deciding to attack me, you would've have read they rennovated their home they purchased to make it worth that much. Plus holding down full times jobs and part time jobs. Nor did I ever infer they better than, nor was I even measuring their success as a person on real estate prices. It sure takes some kinda people to take things out of contextual value just to try and trash talk someone else. Hope you feel better as a person for it!

That's because they have two debts, one to society for their crime, and one to you and I for all the tax dollars we pay to look after them. No, they have 1 debt, we are locking them away to keep our society safe. If that is the means we choose to punish criminals, then we have to bear the responsibility of the cost to keep ourselves safe. And after doing some research I find that if a prisoner takes education courses, they must pay for them either through student loans of personal funding. the rates are lower, but one would expect so, as there is no associated costs to the the educational facility for instruction or hearting and lighting space nor use of washrooms etc. So, really, your complaint they get it for free is off base. Here is why educating persons in prisons helps society in the long run. Most people in jails are there for crimes of poverty. http://www.ncsall.net/?id=560 http://www.education.monash.edu.au/centres...6nov02burke.pdf And what if they can't and have no money seeing as how they are there for crimes of poverty in the first place? Slavery. Chain gangs do not stop reoffending rates if they did the US jails would be empty of reoffenders. Though education does stop reoffending rates. Go figure eh?!

I do not agree with spousal support beyond the time it takes for the spouse to become educated and gainfully employed. Moreover, I believe that woman are absolutely foolish if they are in a marriage and have no self supporting skills. Oh, I agree the potential for abuse is huge, the potential for males to shirk responsibility is even huger.