udawg

In follow-up, I hope that our poor performance, while I would never wish it upon our dedicated athletes, will open some eyes in the government as to the horrendous state of athletic programs in this country that many in the public have recognized for years. It's high time that we put these programs back on track and pay them the respect they deserve. Despite having many world-class and potential athletes in this country, ever since former Canadian swim coach Don Talbot was fired in 1988 for refusing to make a political selection to the national team, Canadian sport has been on a slide. Talbot, btw, then went on to coach for Australia, building their world-dominating team over the course of 12 years. That could have been us. I only hope that this [lack of] performance will be the shove into the deep end without a flutter board that forces us to take our athletes seriously.

Honestly, I am surprised. Then again, I guess I would be jealous too if I were a middle-aged overweight computer geek who never learned to throw a ball. Sorry, I'm a little upset at the complete and utter lack of support for our countries athletes, best in the world or not. Sport is one of the greatest things that humans can engage in. It fosters a spirit of healthy competition, while providing a way for people, young and old alike, to stay fit and have fun. It all sounds cliche-ed, but it's true. It is vitally important that we provide young people with healthy role models and goals to strive for. Maybe Canadians CAN exercise in the street, but a lot more would be likely to do it if they see their hero breaking records at the Olympics. And what's wrong with having nationalist feelings? As long as we're taking it out on the track and in the pool, rather than the battlefield, it's all good. The fact that the US and USSR were able to compete in sports and the other races during the Cold War are what prevented it from going hot. It provided an outlet without all the blood and radiation. The sportsmanship that Olympic athletes demonstrate should be a lesson to us all. When the Australian girl (Jodie Henry I think) broke the world record in the 100m freestyle earlier today, the former record holder swam over and gave her a hug and congratulated her. We can all learn from that. Giving a little extra money to our athletes so that they can pursue their goals and even show off our country a little bit is more important than I can explain with my limited vocabulary. There is nothing wrong with trying to be the best at something; it ensures that we continue moving forward, and nowhere are personal improvement, teamwork, and role-model ideals more obvious than in sports. We should be proud to help our athletes succeed.

I find occasionally that editorials introduce me to a new point of view that hadn't occured to me. Maybe that's because I'm sometimes too lazy to think of it myself Anyway, on the ads, I do enjoy some of them, some of them I ignore, but I think I would mind them even less if more ads meant lower costs for viewers, rather than simply higher profits for the networks. Of course, ads are why we get any TV over the airwaves, but hardly anyone actually limits themselves to bunny-ears at this point. Ads are just a way to increase profits yet again, but I don't mind them that much. They give me time to grab more beer and chips

*sigh* But sadly, some of us are still idealistic enough, or at least naively patriotic enough, that we (I) still do shop at the Canadian-owned store when given the opportunity. In the same way that I will watch an Oilers game, even though I hate the Oilers, over a Red Wings game, just out of blind patriotism. Maybe I'm just living in the past in this new age of globalism, but I like to think that we Canadians can at least stick up for each other when we're shopping, even if our government can't protect us abroad.

While I do not doubt the authenticity of the potential threat to the Olympics, I cannot think of any group that would benefit from attacking such a high-profile, MULTINATIONAL event. Yes, you can attack just the American section of the Athletes' Village, but the fact remains that it's an international event, and terrorist attacks are nothing if not political. So I actually doubt an attack will be made.

Everybody's looking too deep into it. Whether the US won or not depends on your view of what winning means. If, in this case, it means that the losing side changes political systems and conforms to the winner's ideals and systems, since that is essentially what the Cold War was about (keeping it simple), then the US won... or at least, is currently winning. If you decide the winner based on who is the more powerful nation at the end of the conflict, then the US (by most yardmarkers) won again. If you want to complicate it a bit, and say the Cold War was about having the superior nation in terms of athletics, technology, and economy, it's a split decision. The USSR won the athletics, won most of the major technological races (space), but lost the economic race. (theirs collapsed first) As I originally said, it depends what you want to define a win by.

Homosexuality is now considered genetic. Know what else is genetic? Murderous tendencies. Actually, if you think about it, anything that isn't the result of environmental differences, is based on genetics. The hard part comes when we try to define the limits of "normal" genetic differences. For a while, left-handed people were considered somewhat "lesser" people. Homosexuality was wrong for the greatest part of human history. Virtually every mental disorder still has its origin in genetics. Is it a defect? Or simply another variation? Even the most terrible mental impairment could be considered simply a genetic variance. I'm not going to ask where we draw the line, because everybody on this board will have a different opinion. I simply ask everyone to consider. Anything that was different from birth, about anyone, is natural. Whether it was meant to be like that, or whether a fairly large percentage of the human population has at least some minor "mistakes" in their genetic makeup, is what the issue is really about.

There is a certain amount of warped truth to that. It is the type of policies that GWB stands for that many fanatics around the world dislike, and are the main cause for their terrorist groups and actions. In theory, a man like Bush getting in office and carrying out actions around the world could spur more anti-Americans into terrorism.

UN Security Council Resolution 1154 involved the situation between Iraq and Kuwait, imposed a deadline, and sanctioned military force to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait if the deadline for self-removal was not met. Do a Google search, there are more sources for this than I can list. I used the CBC news Flashback site.

While I have no doubt that these men will be persecuted when they return to the US, they broke laws of their country and deserve it. I don't know or care if they're cowards or not, they had a legal obligation to fight for their country as soon as they signed up. They have to accept the decisions that their nation makes for them.

But how does the average healthcare user know if it's serious enough? You haven't answered how you're going to prevent people from NOT going to the ER because they're afraid of a fine. A fine is the same thing as a user fee, only the moment the user gets billed differs.

Interesting, I had the converse view during the election, that it was Herle that nearly lost the election for PM PM, rather than the other way around. I don't know that much about him either, other than what I saw on an interview with Craig Oliver and later with a CBC reporter.

While I am a strong advocate of a more capable military, I have had to ask myself, what would we use it for? The obvious answers, defence and peacekeeping, are simple. Except that, considering the world situation, the primary mission, defence (I hope we all agree that defending our borders is the primary mission), is not an issue. There is no force on the planet that would consider invading Canada, all things considered. Then to peacekeeping. Obviously this is something that means a lot to Canadians, but it also has very different requirements than simply defending our borders. If we were to design a military for the sole purpose of defending ourselves, a strong Navy is the key. Our entire nation is surrounded by water; any invading force has to pass through our territorial waters. On the other hand, if we were to design the military to be a solely peacekeeping force, then the infantry takes precedence. The one thing that both plans require, however, is a capable Air Force. Rather than relying on other nations to transport our ground equipment around the world to trouble spots, we need to be able to do it ourselves. Rather than relying on the US's Star Wars program and NORAD, we need to have our own air defence mechanisms at home. The starting place for any modern military has to be a capable air force. What we need to decide is which role we believe is currently more necessary: defending our borders, or peacekeeping. If we are secure enough in our beliefs of invulnernability at home, then peacekeeping, and the infantry for that, should be built up second (after the Air Force). Naturally, we cannot ignore the Navy, because their heavy transport and support capabilities are also necessary, but we simply wouldn't need the same size of force as we would on a strictly defensive footing. Thus, it really does come down to what we think the role of our armed forces should be. Peacekeeping, or strictly defensive? But either way, we need to build up our air forces, both defensive/offensive weapons (fighters) and transport.

Canada HAS oil. I believe the US is our largest market for it. Unfortunately, for several reasons, it is difficult for us to extricate ourselves from current agreements and deals. The use of oil as a bargaining chip with the US is potentially beneficial, but for the moment, unattainably so.

Yes caesar, it does increasingly seem as though free trade has drawn us so close to the US that we no longer have any maneouvering room in any negotiations. I'm not one of those people afraid that we'll completely lose our sovereignty, either politically or culurally, because of close ties to the US, but I definitely agree that it hinders our movement as an individual nation.