Gabriel

To get a good sense of context, I think it's also important to partially redefine "disposable income". Generally speaking we all know it refers to net income after taxes, but perhaps we want to take into account likely expenses that most folks don't have the discretion to deny - healthcare costs, for example. So for every dollar we in Canada are putting towards healthcare, via our taxes and out-of-pocket expenses (for both individuals and businesses), our neighbours to the south are spending about two dollars, also via taxation and out-of-pocket expenses (for both individuals and businesses). I'm sure most Americans are alarmed at this, given the reality that standards of quality for healthcare goods and services are largely the same between Canada and the USA. Like you, I'm sceptical of American Woman's claim of disposable income. Even if the ~29% disparity is accurate according to a particular definition of disposable income, we need to put it in the context of healthcare spending comparisons between our two countries - which again puts America way out ahead of us without much good reason.

I didn't say any of those things. I think you need to tone down your sensitivity radar, here. Since we're on the topic of gay equality, I assumed that the comfort levels of gay people with respect to their being open about their sexual orientation is something we can analyze in order to get a bearing of what degree of equality has been achieved by gay people in Toronto, and more broadly, in Canada. I think a natural extension of this is to discuss how gay people can wear their sexuality on their sleeves. I didn't think it was out-of-line to make the observations that some gay persons, just as some straight persons, are quite 'out there' with respect to their sexuality. Depending on the context, it's easily definable as being obnoxious. Does it bother me? Not really. Do I have more or less of an issue with it when compares to straight girls being too trampy or straight guys being too macho? Not at all. Did I suggest that gay folks are more likely to be sexually obnoxious that then straight counterparts? Nope, that was your own unfounded inference of my earlier posts. When did I ever describe non-gays as "normal people", suggesting that gays are abnormal? Seems to me like you're on some homophobic witch hunt. Sorry to disappoint you, but I won't fulfill your desire to be the homophobic pinata that you wanna smash open - because I'm not homophobic. Chill, brah! Anyways cheers.

I'm guessing it's some sort of old-school tribal machismo, thing. :-)

Khadr will be tried in the USA, though. They're moving forward with his case.

Well said. The victims of that siege were more than likely much more desperate than any suicide bomber.

Are you asking me a question, or....?

I was just making an observation on the Bush-Merkel backrub event, and not commenting directly on on your opinion. I don't think I was reacting without some appropriate frame of reference having not read the OP. I still haven't read the OP, as I just don't really care about the Obama-bow event. I'll go read it now and if I feel like it I may comment.

Where are you getting this number from, that Americans have 29.3% higher disposable income? Even if this number is accurate, one of the most relevant facts in the comparison of Canadian and American healthcare is the cost. With America spending twice as much per capita on healthcare, something is wrong and needs correction. I don't see how the 29.3% higher disposable income figure (if accurate) can play down a 200% increase in healthcare costs, which are largely inelastic goods and services. I also don't see how it's relevant - perhaps you can elaborate. Remember as well that the quality of Canadian medical services is largely on par with those in America. As an aside, yes things definitely become more expensive in Canada for unknown reasons. Even similar or EXACT products at big box chains like Costco or Best Buy simply cost more in Canada, before factoring in our typically higher sales taxes. I've never understood it.

So Obama has made it clear that he intends to repeal this policy of the military. Apparently Secretary Gates was giving some spiel about military matters and then discussed his support for the Obama position. I don't know enough about the American military to comments, but I sure hope that the American military culture isn't so homophobic that it couldn't handle the removal of "don't ask, don't tell". Any folks in here with some personal connection to the American military feel like commenting on whether or not such a repeal would actually have a negative impact on the American military's morale or anything else? Peace.

Looks like par form the course with respect to naomiglover's patter of objectivity and appropriate context - or lack, thereof. Honestly, if there was ever an equitable military to be a part of with respect to men and women, I'd imagine the USA would be near or at the top of that list. Let's not forget that the USA is in many ways the world leader with respect to civil liberties and legal equalities. Again, this isn't the Taliban or North Korea.

Check this out, near the top of your second link, in reference to Omar Khadr - He has been subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment during his time in US custody, and continues to face unfair trial by military commission for crimes he is alleged to have committed when he was still a child. This is simply untrue. Being put on a regimen on not being permitted to have more than three hours of uninterrupted sleep (which does NOT mean he was not permitted to sleep more than three hours a day, or even consecutively) IS NOT torture, and it certainly is not cruel, inhumane or degrading. Let's not forget that he is NOT an American citizen and was legally defined as an enemy combatant for many years, and in a legitimate legal limbo. He was well taken care off, with access to medical and psychological services. If you read declassified reports that reference American and Canadian intelligence and other officials who had dealings with Khadr, he was in good condition. In fact, he was often uncooperative and mocking these officials, and providing contradictory statements. No doubt he was coached by the older terrorists at Gitmo on how to behave with these officials. In short, AI *never* acknowledges that there are broader questions of justice and right vs. wrong in the Omar Khadr case. His lack of having a lawyer present when being held as an enemy combatant when being interviewed (it hardly looked like an interrogation to me if you see the portion of the video that was released, as well as descriptions of Khadr's state by Canadian officials) isn't some GRAVE breach of fundamental freedoms. Let's analyze with a little bit of common sense about what really would constitute a grave breach of fundamental standards of justice - i.e. North Korea.

Let's not pretend like the laws relating to human rights and civil liberties are entirely objective. It's entirely possible to have differing interpretations of how the laws and spirit or human rights and civil liberties can apply to various situations. As much as AI puts itself forward as a champion of human rights, they can on occasion throw their support behind the wrong cause. AI does not OWN the definition of what is and isn't acceptable with respect to these issues in all scenarios. Don't act like one cannot have legitimate disagreements with AI. One of many examples I can think of is AI's strong support for Omar Khadr. Most recently, there's an article on the AI-Canada website encouraging people to do what they can (i.e. copy and paste a prepared letter by AI and send it to Stephen Harper) to pressure the government to repatriate Khadr. Rather than being concerned with obtaining the best outcome with respect to ALL issues on the table (Omar Khadr's rights and freedoms AS WELL as the need for justice with respect to him answering for his crimes), AI is obsessed with only the transgressions of Omar Khadr's rights (domestic and international), both real and perceived. AI consistently ignores the difficulty of many scenarios faced by our military and government with respect to difficult scenarios. Khadr's status with respect to rights was highly debatable, despite AI's claims to the contrary. There's been no acknowledgement from AI that I've seen regarding the legitimate questions over specifically what rights Khadr is entitled to. Being part of a terrorist group that breaks all conventions and laws of combat (and civil/political conduct!) perhaps DIDN'T entitle him to all the protections of the Geneva Conventions. AI also made many strong definitive claims that Khadr was tortured (he was not tortured), along the same lines as CANADIEN insisting that sleep deprivation always constitutes torture - no ifs ands or buts. It's simply not true, and the protections of the law afforded to prisoners with subjective language such as the right "not to be subjected to degrading or inhumane conditions" (or something along those lines...) is SUBJECTIVE. Where CANADIEN and AI (and perhaps yourself) view all forms of sleep deprivation as torture, myself and many others (as well as the SCOTUS and the Obama administration) disagree with you. I could go on and on, but to oversimplify AI as the be-all-and-end-all of what defines right and wrong with respect to human rights and civil liberties is plain nonsense. They don't own these issues. Every single little word and letter in human rights and civil liberties legislation do not trump all other social needs and concerns in every single situation. AI, being ideological, cannot recognize that.

Well clearly Bush misjudged was Merkel's response would be. As I've already said, it's not something I would do, and I can assure you that I understand professionalism in the North American context. As an aside, although not relevant to this situation given the origins of Bush and Merkel, what is defined as professionalism varies between different countries. In meeting I've have and meetings I've heard of involving professionals from far-away places, the demeanour differs. I'm sure you already know this, though, but I can tell you that my experiences with Israeli professionals, for example, illustrate a much more informal business culture. Untied top buttons, often no tie, louder conduct which some would describe as more honest and other as more abrasive. Depends who you ask. See what I mean? I didn't even read any of those posts so I'm not sure what you're referring to. You can't fault me for not replying to things I haven't even read. Like I said, I didn't read it - my bad. Perhaps there's more to their relationship than we know of, though. Maybe they had exchanges before and for whatever reason Bush thought they were comfortable enough with one another for a little funny moment. Just because they're all world leaders doesn't mean they can't have some informal moments. Clearly we're not going to see eye-to-eye on this. I completely understand your perspective, I assure you. I'm only sharing what my initial reaction to clip was. I wasn't thinking - "what a buffoon!", but rather "that Merkel needs to lighten up!" Let me assure you that I'm hardly a hyper-partisan with respect to American politics. Broadly speaking, I like Obama's demeanour and manner of speaking and impression of genuineness, but dislike some of his decisions (i.e. the initial apology-tour). Anyways cheers.

I'm willing to trust that Amnesty International does indeed view Omar Khadr's treatment as contrary to domestic and internationals laws, as well as their sensibilities. I'm assuming you've got some familiarity with AI, and it's not a stretch to assume that they strongly support Omar Khadr and most likely have engaged in vigorous activities to advance his best interests - i.e. spending money to support his legal defense, trying to build goodwill for Omar Khadr by making public statement supporting him, etc. I think AI actually leveld a lawsuit against Canada on Khadr's behalf, or something like that. Generally speaking, AI tends to support the enemies of the West. I won't be asking CANADIEN for evidence regarding his claim that AI has described Khadr's treatment at Club Gitmo as torture - I'm sure it's true.

Let me elaborate, as I didn't mean to express a distaste for stereotypically gay ways of speaking. When I said "overly out-there gays", I meant those gays that are much more overt about their sexuality than simply speaking with a lisp. It's basically me just being unimpressed with obnoxious people. Let me make it clear that this impression of mine isn't specific to gays, but people of all sexual orientations - and it is dependent on context. If I'm going to club, of course I'll expect (and HOPE!) to see come provocatively dressed ladies, y'knaw mean?! Outside of these types of environments, however, I have to wonder how insecure someone must be and/or how desperate for attention they must be when being so loud, in both behaviour and dress (again, this goes for folks of all sexualities).

For clarification purposes, I'm sure you'd agree it depends on the context. We can't make a blanket statement that sleep deprivation doesn't equate to torture. When evaluating whether or not sleep deprivation is or isn't torture, we need to examine the volume of sleep deprivation and the methods through which it was implemented. When examining how the USA under Bush used sleep deprivation on Gitmo, I've heard of only one case that borders on what I would consider to be torture - some detainee being kept awake for 180 hours.

Well said. I also agree that wyly needs to be continually challenged on his simplistic assertions that Canadian healthcare is all-around better simply because our life expectancy is half a few percent higher. I'm not sure what role differing quality and/or access to healthcare between Canada and the USA has to do with this life expectancy discrepancy, if any at all. My judgement tells me it's much more related to a healthier lifestyle lived among more Canadians, for whatever reason(s).

I disagree. I understand where you're coming from, and maybe you're right about Bush being out-of-line. All I'm saying is that my instincts tell me otherwise. With respect to me not addressing the OP, I honestly didn't even read it. I don't think Obama bowing to King Abdullah is a big deal one way or the other. The distasteful part of it is simply that this is the top man of a country that doesn't reflect many American values - specifically civil liberties and freedoms. It's awkward for the head of the world's freest country to show this type of respect to the head of a very repressive theocracy, but whatever. With respect to endearing qualities of Obama, he has many. I'm not an Obama fanboy, but I always tune in when I can to watch him speak. I also feel that he comes across as extremely genuine and down-to-earth, a very important quality for the President. I'm not sure if you were trying to imply that I'm highly partisan with respect to American politics, but if that's what your were suggesting, let me assure you that I am most definitely not.

Well, first of all, he's not representing my country as I'm a Canadian. It's entirely possible to like a characteristic or feature or another person that is a component of oneself. Not that I don't consider myself to be a genuine person, but I feel like that incident was a down-to-earth moment for Bush and not a poor tact Michael Scott (a la the American version of the TV show "The Office") moment as some others would perceive it. Again, just because I wouldn't do it doesn't mean I can't be cool with someone else doing it. Although I see and appreciate American Woman's perspective of this moment, I simply disagree. I think some folks are just way too uptight, and Merkel's shocked response to me illustrates someone who's too uptight. My advice to her - relax, Bush ain't gonna bite you. That moment looks like Bush is comfortable with himself, and Merkel isn't. Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, but I'm only sharing what my instincts tell me when watch that clip.

I didn't want to ask the question, but I was gonna respond with something very similar. I just didn't wanna be Captain Obvious.... cheers. :-)

The comments you made about desperation being a big contributing factor to suicide bombers is a fallacy I've herd for many years. Ideological indoctrination is much more responsible for compelling young Muslims towards suicide bombing and Islamic terrorism in general. I hope I don't need to give you the long list of prominent terrorists who hardly fall under the category of being disadvantaged or desperate. Clearly perceptions need to be changed among these extremists, take for example the commonly held generalization among certain opponents of the War on Terror as being a euphemism for a conflict with Muslims. We all know the War on Terror is absolutely NOT a war against Islam, yet this perception persists among many in the Arab-Muslim world via various methods of indoctrination: whether it be from warped opinions of family and friends, occurring at the mosques, in schools being taught by leftist professors, the media, deceitful internet sources, etc. You seem to be suggesting that somehow Western foreign policy is to blame for creating some sort of desperation among these suicide bombers and terrorists that leaves them no other optional. That's straight up ridiculous, and I know it's not the last time I'll hear it. Just for fun, feel free to investigate the backgrounds of the 9/11 hijackers. Why not start with some of the most infamous suicide bombers in history? How about Osama bin Laden and his close circle like Ayman al-Zawahiri. How about the London suicide bombers? Were they desperate and impoverished and oppressed? The Toronto 18, perhaps? Or the Madrid bombers? Let's be serious. It's ideology and the false sense of victimization, and not real desperation. This is only the top of the iceberg, as the factors contributing this indoctrination are complex and far-reaching. Spend some time and watch some translated Arab media where it's completely expected and politically correct to denigrate Israel and Jewish people. Go check out Al-Jazeera's website and look at the bias in their reporting, from describing the IDF as the IOF to having a completely warped perspective of the entire I/P conflict and the West's efforts to protect itself from the monster of Islamic terrorism. Let's be serious for once.

I would too. No question our facilities are world class in that regard.

Feel like linking any relevant stories? Perhaps he had some unusual underlying condition or rare circumstances which were more likely to be better treated in the USA. EDIT - I found one, here. From the article, Robert Bell, chief executive officer of University Health Network, one of Canada's largest groups of hospitals.... [said] there could be good reason for Mr. Williams to have the operation in the United States if he has a complex heart condition that requires special expertise.

As you've said, they did a very good job of this as many folks are parroting these lies, as is evidenced in this very thread by Born Free. Born Free seems to honestly believe that the government did engage in personal attacks against Colvin, which simply isn't true. I had a semi-passionate argument with a the mother of a close friend of mine (god bless her, it's a great family, although they lean HARD to the left!) who kept insisting that the Canadian government had indeed denigrated Colvin in a slanderous attack. I could could not convince her otherwise, and she is staunchly anti-Harper and will believe anything tht reinforces hi political predispositions. It simply never happened, but she had made up her mind about - perhaps she had watched that CTV clip after the alleged character assassination of Colvin by MacKay! Yet the Liberal party, NDP, and much of the media seems to purport this myth that this slander did indeed happen. It was sad to see the opposition members like Ujjal Dosanjh (sp?) go on television and lie about the Conservatives personally attacking Colvin, and none of the media challenged these statements as false! Opposition member after opposition member was given a free ride to make the false claims and none of the media persons I watched challenged this lie. If Colvin was so slandered, surely it would be easy to find the quotes online. It's not as if there's a shortage of critiques of the Harper government out there. If anything, quite the opposite is true.

You mean trying to be effeminate and talking with a forced lisp? Why are you bringing that up?