udawg

That would be around the same time the US also supported bin Laden and other rebels in Afghanistan against the Soviets....

The NDP did good things for Saskatchewan... before they got arrogant. For the first 8 years or so, there was good, careful spending... public programs we could sustain, and they made a difference. Of course, they DID get arrogant... and now they think they can do anything. But that's beside the point. For a while, the NDP did good things for us.

Why don't we just bring back the draft? Gets rid of that annoying surplus population, puts our military back on track, and enforces good physical fitness. Alas, what to do with them when they get too old for regular duty.... off with their heads?

I'll be sure to let your caretakers know when you get old and useless that you no longer see any point in living. And because smart people know about aerobic exercise, I guess they just don't care... no jock geniuses, you know.

I disagree with Galahad. School is not just about developing the brain, school is about preparing children for the rest of their lives. And while I don't expect all kids to be Olympic contenders, I see no reason why every young person cannot live an active life. Wouldn't want our geniuses dying at 45 of a heart attack, would we?

Whether a person is an atheist, a Muslim, or a member of any other religion other that Christianity is not the point. The reason that our leaders swear on a bible is that Christain beliefs are what this (and many other) countries are based on. Whatever the individual's personal beliefs, they can still be held to the standard that we decided on, as a nation back in 1867. The point is not what THEY believe in, the point is that they lead our country with OUR beliefs guiding them.

Good point.... couldn't tell you what the answer is, but I'll be watching for anything pertaining to that.

Amen to that, Cameron. The NDP are a good provincial choice... that's the level at which socialist policies can be good ideas. At the national level however, we need governments who are not afraid to use muscle when necessary, who are willing to take a few losses for the better good. Bleeding hearts like the NDP would be a disaster federally. Go conservatives.

In Saskatchewan, there is a unit in phys ed/health classes, from grade 10 on, where the students have to research, formulate, then execute an "action plan". This can take the form of almost any physical activity (weighlifting, running, swimming, team sports, etc). The idea is to have students get used to an active lifestyle early. Problem is, these phys ed/health combo classes are only required up to grade 10, so students only have to do one year with the action plan. Many of the target students, the obese or potentially obese, simply don't do the execution part of it, take their lower mark, and don't care. How do you make students care? How do you make people in general WANT to live a healthier life? Young people don't really care about living longer, they think they'll live forever. Even if they think they're overweight or not healthy, many are too self-consious to do something about it. So the way I see it, mandatory phys ed is a step in the right direction, but as slavik points out, you can't make people give a solid effort.

Cameron: The way humans can get infected is because other beef-based products (salami, some sausages, other sandwich-type meats) use the brain and spinal cord. Processing plants end up using just about every part of a cow in the end. You're probably safe eating regular ground beef, but you can't be sure of the part of the body that other products come from.

Just read today (CNN.com, nytimes.com) that the Americans think it's a POSSIBILITY that the cow came from Canada... but the media has jumped on the blame Canada bandwagon way too fast. -The US mad cow was beleived to be 4 to 4 1/2 years old... the cow that supposedly came from Canada would be 6.... -in the American version of the story, the cow had 3 calves... Canadian sources say the cow that the US matched it to only had two calves... Obviously, there are two versions here... and the US has yet to prove that they are the same cow. If both sides are correct in their numbers, the American story doesn't hold water. I will laugh if it turns out that these are two separate cows... And the US, once again, will have to eat its words concerning another disproven accusation. (Think WMD in Iraq... uranium from Africa...)

I find it interesting that the goverment switches its standpoint from programs to discourage drug (including marijuana) use, which have been costing taxpayers money for years, to suddenly deciding to legalize simple possession. Marijuana should not be legalized, because it undermines all the education programs that have been in place, and are actually starting to have an effect. I don't have a problem paying taxes for programs like DARE, but when the government undermines these efforts by legalizing possession, that's when I begin to get upset. I know several young people who no longer fear carrying it around with them. Legalizing possession has made using marijuana easier and less risky for these teenagers. And we all know about the risks of drug use in young people. (Slavik44's post is quite comprehensive.) I don't understand why the government undertook this initiative in the first place... all this does is open the door for further drug legalizations. Drug use is one of the biggest problems with young people today, so they make it easier? It's still illegal for young people to drink alcohol... does this mean that we've decided, as a nation, that alcohol is worse than other forms of drugs? I hope somebody can clarify the government's reasoning, because it doesn't make any sense at all to me.

My mistake, I suppose it is anti-Americanism... war seems to be what America is all about.

This is not anti-Americanism, it's merely anti-war. As you have previously stated in these forums, networks such as CNN (not an American network, i suppose) have reported decidedly leftist views on the war in Iraq. It's not America the media loves to hate, it's what America decides to do. And it's the entire media, not just the pathetic Canada and EU.

Check the NASA site (http://www.nasa.gov/) or the European Space Agency site (www.esa.int) to be sure...

I believe you may have mixed up your numbers. From what I've read, there have been around 30 missions to Mars, in total, and about one third have been successful. Of actual Mars landing attempts, 3 of nine have been successful.

A nation has no right to impose on the type of family unit of its people. It should be an individual [family] choice, not one dictated by any outside party. I don't personally have a view on which system is better, as both have their merits and detracting points. I do agree on a per-head tax break in addition to existing tax benefits for having children, because population growth is going to be one of the most important factors in the future of this country. And I'm not against immigration, but I'd rather have a home-grown population than a mostly immigrant one. An interesting point, but not necessarily valid. Do children who grow up in one-parent families end up severely messed because of the missing element? There is no reason to believe that normal family roles cannot exist in a family with gay parents. I'd rather not prohibit gays from having families, because while I don't believe in extra rights and privileges for minority groups, equal rights are fine. Political correctness HAS been taken too far, but being politically incorrect also has its risks. Most things that are considered politically incorrect border on bigotry. Having your own opinion is fine, but if you use these views to insult a group or to try to minimize their rights, you find yourself alot closer to Nazism than you might be comfortable with. The reason political correctness has taken such a firm hold is that minority groups cannot seem to differentiate between a simple opinion, and ulteriorly motivated comments. So they simply complain about every comment, which makes it very difficult to even have a simple discussion on the subject.

What ARE your sources???!!!

It seems to me that the fundamental difference, and the problems, between Christianity in the modern age, and Islam, is their importance in everyday life. As a Muslim, your life is built around your religion. Religion is a part of everything you do, every decision you make. Praying toward Mecca 5 times every day is a good demonstration of this importance. Christianity, since the Reformation, has experienced an increasingly (?) diminished role in the everyday lives of its followers. There was a time when Christians based their lives on their religion, but those days have long passed. Now, religion, for most Christians, especially in the West (USA, Canada, much of Europe) is an afterthought. People only pray for ceremony, go to church on special occasions, and to many, religion is an inconvenience. The ten commandments are a foreign idea to many so-called Christians. Which brings up another topic. It seems to me that the ten commandments are merely the basis on which good morals and honesty and other nice things are built. The ten commandments cannot possibly cover all situations (which is why we have a criminal code), but does that mean that the commandments themselves are open for interpretation?: If you and your partner are not married, but love one another, and so on and so forth, is it still wrong to have sex? Obviously, if one is married, or otherwise involved with someone else, it's wrong, but does the verbatim of the ten commandments matter? Is it just the thought that counts? Or are the commandments to be taken literally? Anyway, that was food for thought. Back to the Christian/Muslim problem, religion (and Islam) is diminished by Western values not intentionally, by no plot, but merely by the role that religion is expected to take in Western societies. If Christians were all still hyper-religious (no offense intended at anyone), Islamic radicals wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

Life in prison? Where's the advantage? I don't see the U.S. being able to have him executed. Unless Saddam doesn't know that. Which he probably does.

This is starting to sound like a debate on Native rights. I don't want to get into the legal or moral definition of marriage, or the choice/'born-with-it' arguments, and I (as a heterosexual) am in favour of gay rights.... but not gay privilege. Because if gays get extra privileges, and minority ethnic groups get privileges, and the French get privileges, and women get privileges, then I want extra privileges as a straight, white, no-deviancies, run-of-the-mill, unremarkable, English-speaking man.

I agree with Hugo. If the Man of the Year award is going to go to a group, it should not be a special-interest group like gays or feminists or whatever. If you want to give the award to one gay man, for standing up for his rights, in the face of oppression and persecution, like Martin Luther King Jr., I won't argue. But I don't see what the gay community, as a community, has done for anyone, or accomplished for themselves.

I suggest the impact on the Canadian industry will be positive. Any way you figure it, we benefit: If the world market decides American beef is too risky, they need to find their supply elsewhere. The Canadian cattle industry will be there to catch the crumbs of a sudden switch of suppliers, from American to whereever, even if we aren't at the forefront. The other possibility is that the world market will decide American beef is safe. Now, I know that reason and logic do not play a huge role in the markets, but if American beef, with a single case of BSE, is safe after 2 weeks, does it not stand to reason that Canadian beef, with a single case, EIGHT MONTHS AGO, would also be safe? Either way, the Canadian beef industry should come out ahead. Also, consumers may see a slight increase in price in the short term, but the market will stabilize as the initial shock factor wears off.

Now, see, why didn't we simply close the border completely, the way they did to us 8 months ago? The top three importers of American beef already have, and it would go a long way to easing the anti-American sentiment among cattle ranchers in Canada, to see the all-powerful U.S. economy fall victim to their own histeria. Nobody believed us when we claimed virtually no chance of contaminated beef in the market, and we've been essentially cut off from the world market for months now. Why shouldn't the same happen to others, even if that other IS the mighty US?

New to these discussions... I hope that's a joke. The Conservative Party would NOT get the female vote... and you'd lose half your men too, because I can't think of anyone who is pleased with what Ms. Copps did with any of her portfolios while in Cabinet. (Except the French and the feminists, and you'd lose more votes than you'd gain.)