FastNed

Hello James, welcome to the Forum. As Greg has pointed out, we are a very diverse group with opinions covering all spectrums and we have very informative discussions. Perhaps the reason that morality and religion are so intertwined is the historical fact that despite the popularity of the fad of the day, our various religions have continued to maintain their vision of morality. Their message of what constitutes moral action remains as a consistent standard unaffected by contemporary events. I believe it fair to say that the majority of people who hold religious beliefs do not wish to impose their religious views of what is "moral" upon others. This is true at least here in North America where freedom of religion is an essential element of our civilization. This concept is particular to democracies and does not appear to have validity under other forms of government. However well or poorly we practice our particular religion, common to us is the belief that you may condemn the sin but not the sinner. I believe we have matured in our religious views over this last half century or so and no longer expect our Laws to reflect our moral views in areas which could be called "personal privacy matters". As long as those involved are consenting adults, it really is none of our business what occurs in the privacy of someone's bedroom. We will not, however, allow this claim of homosexual "rights" to be used to destroy our religions, to declare out holy literature to be "hate" speech or, to censor our religious authorities when they express the position of our religion. If our religion holds that homosexual activity is unnatural and a sin, our spiritual leaders may well continue to express the moral judgment of our religion on those who practice such acts. Bluntly, live with it. It is our "right" to hold moral opinions and no one in their right mind should expect us to disregard six thousand years of religious beliefs to make someone feel good. "Marriage " is a term with deep religious significance and it should be left as a religious ceremony. If someone wishes to go to the Gay Bishop in New Hampshire and his Church allows Gay Marriage, fine because it is allowed by their religious doctrine. That is what religious freedom is all about. Those of us who hold other beliefs must have that same religious freedom. The success of our civilization is that we accommodate many different views and we preserve the right of everyone to hold a minority view while living in peace with each other.

Is is a rather open "secret" that Israel possesses between two hundred and four hundred devices which, if assembled, would be considered nuclear weapons. Note that this is "if, as and when" assembled - this technical arrangement has allowed Israel to certify that it does not possess Nukes for quite a few years. Israel assisted South Africa in creating that Nations Nukes, not the other way around. Any suggestion that France ever assisted Israel in atomic weapon development is merely another display of ignorance; anti-Semitism by France is a long existing condition. Three strikes, you're out!

To put an immediate point on the problem, this month may see a demonstration of North Korean Nukes as well as an indictor of their success with ICBM technology. They have IRBM's down pat and the unanswered question is their capabilities with longer ranges. Very little of what goes on in NK is in the public domain nor does a media exist which publishes outside of government control so hard data from them is difficult to discover. Other sources seem to hint at a eight or ten year push to attain the ability from China and Russia to launch and place satellites in orbit. The throw weight requirements for this are equally applicable to nuclear missile launch at an intercontinental distance. Canadians may soon discover the need for anti-ballistic missile defenses. Equally disturbing, dirty little facts are crawling out from rocks all over the world which appear to indicate that the terrorists are close to launch of a genocidal attack on the West, most likely biological. The SARs debacle disclosed that Canada has no effective National Public Health response to incidents of this nature and as the UN functionaries and Shi'ia clerics discovered in Iraq, these fanatics consider everyone and everything fair game. If Canadians start to drop like flies, it will be America's fault, as usual.

Two quibbles, if you will, Logical1 with your thoughts. First, the Ten Commandments are Hebrew in origin not Christian and were later adopted by Christian faiths. They are an expression of the Judeo-Christian concepts upon which our Nation was founded. Please reread our Declaration of Independence and consider how essential was the Christian belief of our Founders to the establishment of our Nation. I am not attempting to nit pick with you, but rather am requesting that you consider the basic beliefs of those who founded this Nation. Second, please reconsider your statement that a Court House is an inappropriate place for such a display. On the contrary, I suggest to you that if you consider what transpires therein, it is the most appropriate choice of all public buildings for such a display. Much if not most of what transpires there is in fact a reflection of those Ten Commandments as passed into Public Law. We prosecute those who have killed, committed theft, and so forth and begin by requesting that those who testify swear an oath on a Bible "so help me God". I see no major destruction of our principles by a display of the Ten Commandments there. This is a minimal infringement (if it is so categorized) upon the rights of those who do not believe that a display of Judeo-Christian beliefs should be allowed. Both views have a right of expression. The government must simply remain neutral. What has not been argued or decided to date is the basic jurisdiction of the Federal Court in a matter of religious expression in a State Court House. Remembering that the first ten amendments are a limitation on the powers of the Federal Government, unless and until it is decided that the 14th Amend. makes this applicable to State Governments, it remains unresolved. This is a serious legal question and as a constitutional matter may be raised at any time, it will no doubt be briefed and argued at the Supreme Court when this reaches that Forum. For those not familiar with American Law, justifications or defenses must be raised at the initial trial level or they are considered waived - however, constitutional rights may never be waived so this constitutional question may be raised at any level of trial or appeal. N.B. This is a simplified statement of a complex legal issue but it is appropriate and applicable to this matter.

Two thoughts -Whatever marriage may have become, whatever meaning may be assigned to it when half of those who participate in this covenant no longer believe that "faithful" remains a mutual vow, the fact remains that it is a religious joining, a "Blessing" or "Sacrament" to those who participate. Failure to keep this covenant no more invalidates marriage than failure to keep a commandment invalidates the Ten Commandments. Failure or "Sin" is part of our religious traditions for while we are made in His image, we are not gifted with His perfection. That some of us sin and are imperfect in the execution of our covenant of marriage is no grounds for intrusion of the government into our religions to state we must allow homosexual marriages if they are forbidden by our dogma. To Ronda, you are so correct. Having just experienced the tenth anniversary of the ending of my marriage by the death of my wife, when two have been made one and then one is gone, you are left with a very large hole in your heart and soul. There is nothing which can replace the love which is lost and nothing to fill that emptiness within.

SirRiff, the Dumbo-crats and their Media are desperate to create an issue against President Bush. They have pulled out all the stops to liken this to Vietnam in the hope that they can turn the Country against him. Iraq has to be seen as a failure or the seven dwarfs now running are all done. Watch for President Bush's speech to the UN late this month, a great many questions about WMD will be settled at that time. The issue of more troops is again something manufactured by the Dumbo-cruds and the media, as is their generation of an expectation that Iraq could be reconstructed instantly. These people would rant and rave about God taking six days to make the Heavens and Earth - they are of the opinion that it should have been done in three!

SirRiff, while you and I often have different viewpoints, I can usually follow you but this time you have me lost. What on earth does the Jonathan Pollard Case have to do with anything under discussion? For the record, Pollard was nailed in 1985 for passing highly classified info to Israel. Since his conviction, the State of Israel has attempted to have his life sentence reduced. They thought they had a good shot with Clinton who was inclined to do so. To prevent this from happening, to prevent Pollard not only having his sentence reduced but a deal being made to release him to Israel, a number of high Intelligence figures had to threaten Clinton with Very public resignations were he to do so! Pollard will serve his sentence and rot and die in prison - the intelligence community wanted the death penalty. The mantra you will hear is: "What's the Harm? Israel is an Ally." He only gave information to one of our friends! Well, there are times your friends are more dangerous than your enemies. Let's just suppose that the information Pollard provided named the agent who provided it - a highly placed spy in a third nation. And lets suppose that the Israeli Intelligence Department just happened to be penetrated by that Third Nation. Need I spell out what happened to that agent? That is why American Intelligence people are truly p1ssed off and why Pollard will rot in jail. None of this, however, relates to 9 - 11 or the terrorist problem which grew on Clinton's watch. Willie was big at ordering women onto their knees but p1ss poor at defending Americans or extracting a price for their deaths. How about Somalia, two embassy bombings in Africa and then the USS Cole - all on his watch and his total response was a few cruise missiles and he blew up an aspirin factory. What, they should get a headache and die? The man has no stones and that will be the judgment of history. He is and was a politician, not a patriot. A man with vision, with principles, a man with courage can lead Americans to do the most dangerous and wonderful things. All Clinton could see was women he wanted on their knees.

Hi, Neal - In some ways I agree with you that at a certain level execution is too good for the drug purveyors but this is a highly complex matter without any simple answers. Our problems will continue unless and until we either execute every substance abuser or we find better methods to deal with the problem. After a dozen years of involvement in volunteer work with substance abuse (alcohol to zoloft) I believe that among the higher level of dealers, those that wholesale in major quantities are many who are not abusers or addicts. No penalty is too extreme for this group. It's the lower levels which does include some major dealers but who are trapped into substance abuse that are the most difficult to deter. Prison alone doesn't solve much except a temporary removal from the action. In most prisons, it doesn't even end substance abuse because while we keep the inmates in, we have little success in keeping abusive substances out! Much to my regret and against my preconceptions and leanings, I have been pushed and shoved into the conclusion the best we may be able to do is to remove people out of control from the general population to the betterment of all of us. There is a category of people predisposed (for whatever reason) to substance abuse and we do not have an effective system to deal with them, assist them (if this is possible) in controlling their dependency or provide them with methods to escape their dependency. AA, NA and other 12 step programs appear to have initial "success" with about one third of those that come to the programs. I am measuring "success" as the ability to make a first anniversary - one complete year clean and free. When that "clean" period is doubled to two years, the success rate drops to three to ten percent. This figures have some slop in them because they are not a statistical study but represent real people I've observed over the last decade in the New England area. From conversations with others involved around North America , their observations are fairly consistent with these numbers. I place more credence to these figures than those from studies because when you are dealing with the "abuser" pretty much on a daily basis, it's next to impossible to hide the signs that someone has "gone out". I believe part of our problem comes from our failure to develop methods to create early warning signs for the "abuser" mentality - warning signs for the individual as well as for our Court and Criminal Justice system. Everyone who takes a drink is not a potential alcoholic and every kid who does a joint is not a potential addict. Part of the problem in devising methods to deal with the problem is the large number of people who either drank to excess or toked their way into oblivion at one time or another who do not have "abusive" personalities. More needs to be done to educated these people of the difference between themselves and those who do not have personalities which can handle what they did. Once that difference is accepted as fact, we can begin to identify the potential abuser early on and attempt to intervene to control their actions. Giving someone a break may be the correct course for a non-abuser but the exact opposite may be the more successful approach with the abusive personality. Identification and early intervention appears to have more potential than waiting for a full five alarm crisis. On the balance, the legality of the substance used and abused does not make a significant difference in number of abusers. They exist and find a method to express their dependency within or without the law. The War on Drugs may be hurting our society far more than they do but that is yet another discussion!

Lost, of course we listen to Grandma - she'd clout you over the ear if you didn't! Or at least mine did. SirRiff, I listened to MLK at BU - yes, I was there then. And I was in the South and I can tell you first hand that despite what some of them might wish to believe, no gay is facing what existed in Mississippi. No way in hell! Those people truly fought to be seen and treated as human, as members of the human race. This is not a civil rights issue. Marriage is a religious term and should be reserved for religious ceremonies. If Gay people want a legal relationship, civil unions or partnerships would serve that purpose. Demanding their relationships be defined as "marriage' is an attack upon our morals and churches and will begin a war - none of us should wish to go there.

RB, I don't have a cite but in a recent article "Sex without Guilt" stated that there were contemporary studies among younger married couples which indicated that 53 % of the women had explored extra-maritial sex and had at least one affair. If true, "feel good" is now more important than "faithful".

Yes, there is an historic tragedy which must be corrected. The Hashemite Kings are the true Guardians of Islam and this illegal Saudi occupation of Islamic Holy Sites must be ended.

You know, Craig, there is one thing I am quite certain of and that is that the word "Jew" with all its connotations does not apply to the Sabras of Israel. The historic jew who was oppressed for several thousand years and responded with yiddish plaints from the Book of Job no longer exists except as an elder group which is quickly passing. For the last fifty years, those born there or raised from childhood there are a different breed and very few have bothered to notice this. They paid with their blood for the land which they hold and the wimps want to give it to those Arabs who ran away. Certainly, those officers of the IDF all of whom take their oath of office atop Masada with the words "Never Again!" are just going to roll over and play dead for the Palestinians or other Moslems who wish them dead. Yeah, sure! Just like America is going to roll over and die! I have been all over Israel, from hang gliding in the Golan to the nudist colonies in the Sinai (before they gave it back) and I felt right at home with the Sabras - they are crazy like Americans are crazy. They will no more give Israel to the Arabs than we will give America back to the Indians. The Palestinians, who never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity are a prime example of the Arab delusional mentality and are in the process of discarding their last opportunity from America. When they have done so, America will no longer restrain Israel and when a tipping point is reached, that will be the end of it!

SirRiff, the problem revolves around the "Krazy" types who believe that a nuke or three is some sort of magic wand. Or something like a mosquito repellant which will make the US keep away! Or that possession makes one all powerful and a member of the First World. I suspect that it is going to require that we smash someone flat to dissuade a number of nut-cases of this folly. I have not looked into the production of fusion weapons but my memory is that it is a much higher magnitude of difficulty than a rather simple atomic fission device. (And this is quite definitely not the time to be doing internet or library searches for info on fusion devices!) Even several dozen atomic weapons could only hurt us, the redundancy built into our civilian and military command and control could withstand this easily. Not painlessly and not without an horrible cost but we designed to survive a fusion strike from the Soviets' so all anyone of these fools would accomplish would be to hurt us and remove any and all civilized restraint from us. Anyone who would buy one of these from Krazy Kim would plan to use it on us and we intend to prevent that. So how do we deal? Short of war, China is our best option. There are no good options, only less worse ones.

Exceptional post, Logical1, very well done!

If the geniuses in Ottawa had not poisoned the well with the Bush administration, a face saving compromise could have been possible. A few symbolic gestures, a change or three by each in the manner supports were handled and a little good will should have prevailed - this was our historic method of resolving our cross-border controversies. Friends bent a little to accommodate each other. But that only works between friends. Are we still friends? That is a question being asked with some frequency today in America. Recently, Victor Davis Hanson examined the question of our old WW II Friends and asked : "What is an ally?" in "The Awakening" In our post 9 - 11 world, we have taken a hard look at those around us and discovered that we have been ignoring reality: " the current meaning of "ally" too often reads as a state benefiting from American friendship that in turn expresses its thanks by gratuitous expressions of hostility in times of crisis." Shame on us for the blinders we have been wearing! In looking specifically at Canada, he expressed this thought: "We should never be angry with Canada, simply because we should never expect anything from it — inasmuch as it has long ago decided to emulate the European Union model. Let us respect its status as a neutral and pacifistic state that neither wishes nor deserves cooperation with the United States in defense matters." Canada has ignored invitations (for several years) to join with us in planning for the anti-ballistic missile defense of North America and absent that cooperation, the anti-ballistic defense of North America ends at the Canadian Border. Canada's choice, not America's. A very good question is if this "no cooperation" model should apply only in defense matters or should be applied in all trans-border issues, including free trade.

The problem with these damn Marketing Boards is that they really put the screws to consumers; prices are artificially raised, production is lowered and all of those with political clout get fat while the rest of us pay and pay and pay. Everyone in America pays an extra .20 cents per gallon of milk because the Milk Marketing Boards mandate lower production, get price supports passed and our kids pay this price to keep marginal producers in business or make agribusiness very rich! And when this passes into the export channel, it makes major problems between us. When they want to ship this stuff across a border, the politicians start yelling "these are my sheep to be fleeced, stay on your own side of the border and do it to your own!". So long as we allow this sort of nonsense to prevail, we will continue to have problems. You can not export your internal price supports unless you have a rare monopoly product.

Hi KK, you can always be proud of those accomplishments! From comments I have heard on the combat effectiveness of the Canadians in Afghanistan, with complete understanding that the best of the best were selected to go, those troops need not take a back seat to anyone. There were what, several hundred? With the best of equipment and transitional training, within a year at most Canada could field five or six top squads ready and able to project Canadian Military power anywhere on Earth. Logistics and transport are a problem but we have long memories down here, in spite of the insults from your current crop of politicians. If a Canadian Plane or Embassy were seized and transport were needed, it would be available. Hell, our guys would be b1tching if they couldn't go along and help! With this group of politicians and candidly, the anti-American feelings of so many, it is unlikely that Canada will develop a "Joint Defense" policy with America. I believe that to be unfortunate and short-sighted but that is Canada's choice. This being the reality, it is doubtful that Canada will allocate the funds necessary to develop a professional military of any significant size. Realistically, I not sure that you need one. Excepting a remotely possible but unlikely scenario involving Quebec and France, what Foreign Power is going to threaten you up there? You live in the wrong neighborhood for that because we Americans would not put up with it. That may be hard for some Canadians to swallow but we are too interrelated and too interconnected for us to allow any foreign power to lean on you. You may continue to elect those we consider idiots, but they will be Canadian idiots not foreign ones and some of you have made quite plain their opinion of some of those we elect. Cousins may fight but they close family ranks when outsiders come along. Let me suggest one approach to military forces: first, a few sharp points, small unit Special Forces ready and able to project Canadian protective powers anywhere needed. Next, a civil defense multi-service National Guard and last, as this appears to be Canada's cup of tea, a Peacekeeping Force of M.P./civil engineer/reconstruction types. This last group really needs a hard look, though, as the UN experience and history is really p1ss poor to date.

Hi Pell, I have never been able to distinguish between Asperger's Syndrome and a dx of dysraphia but no doubt those with a formal medical education are correct in saying they are different in cause, if not in effect. My maternal family is from Morell, arriving there in 170- something via Bermuda. The generation prior to me is all gone and I haven't been Down Home in a dozen years. I understand a few are left on the Island but the rest are scattered across Canada as far as Alberta, the last I heard. My Grandfather came to Boston and after the death of his first wife, was "gone to California" where he began a new and very prolific family. The latest of that branch (sadly) to be in the News was recently killed in the UN Compound in Baghdad. We do get around and many of us are lifelong adrenaline junkies.

While the traditional defenses of Canada are next to non-existent, in the Princess Pat's you have the basis for a force equivalent to Delta, GSG-9 or SAS units. They are at the tail end of Canadian Military Logistics and are just about reduced to "midnight acquisition" to maintain their effectiveness. Properly equipped and supported, they would be the sharp point of any Canadian effort. Canadians have much to be proud of in their performance in Afghanistan! But you can not expect a starving man to be greatly effective.

Welcome to the Forum, Tyke. You express an opinion held by some Canadians but the question is, How many? I'm not knocking you or your opinion, rather I am questioning exactly how wide spread is that view? But to be blunt, the invasion of Iraq was but a battle in our War, think of D-Day and a beachhead on enemy soil. Despite media attempts to make it so, the WMD issue is merely part of the terrorist problem - does it make any difference if a terrorist kills with a knife, a gun, anthrax or a nuke? The problem, as we see it, is religious terrorists who have elected to attack us and who make it plain that only one of us will be standing when it's over. Excuse my bias (or not, as you wish) but I intend that it be us, not them. Let's not narrow the focus to Iraq, that is not the major question posted! Can Canada continue without a defense policy and continue to wander around like a fat rich tourist, a sheep ready for slaughter - if you believe it can, please pass the B-B-Q sauce!

I regret to hear that Pell, as I know from personal experience that P.E.I. once had a system to identify highly gifted children and advance their educational opportunities. I attended the seventh grade in a one room school house there (and no, it was not before the turn of the prior century!) and when the yearly test disclosed I wasn't exactly dumb, they wanted to move me to Charlottetown and place me in a special school with advanced educational opportunities. It fell apart in my case when they discovered I was a "Damn Yankee" and the funding for the program only covered Canadian Citizens but the program was there. It's a pity it no longer exists or if it does, they are missing young people like you. A great deal of attention is paid to those of lesser ability (properly so) but there should be an equal attention paid to the other end of the curve. I am not certain that "use it or loose it" applies to intelligence but I do know that if you do not exercise and use your abilities, they fade and it takes much effort to regain a prior level. Exploration into learning abilities is a fascinating field and all we are certain of now is that we have barely explored the possibilities in this area!

Just another example of the conditioning of "Pavlov's Dogs", if a particular kind of performance brings a reward it is going to be repeated. Some good thoughts, Nuke; does anyone here who has had experience with Welfare have any ideas on what might be a successful approach to the problem? Once a child is here it is a little too late to ignore it and we certainly can not allow it to be neglected. Let me raise a rather nasty thought for discussion: If abortion is legal, can we require that someone in this situation be prevented from having additional children on the public dole? I do not think I would wish to be part of a society that promoted such a policy but the question is legitimate. Let's discuss it. Neal.F., what do you think since you have experience in working with young mothers?

Hello Logical1, welcome to the Forum. Taking the content of your first posting as an indicator, you're a fine addition to the group. Perhaps it's my tired old eyes but I find it difficult to read the screen without a few para breaks - take pity on us frail older folks and please throw in a break here and there. Might I suggest that you, as do many others, are reading only part of the Constitution when you say: I believe those who drafted our Constitution designed it with the concept that we could all live together with our different views and maintain a civilized society. The pendulum has swung too far in this matter and another part of our magnificent Document is being ignored. Would you please take a look at all of Article most particularly the noted section: What has been neglected in this debate are the rights of those people of faith. Without going into technical rules of legal construction, the long form of the highlighted section is: Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. All of the focus on this issue has been on the first part of the Article while the second part has been ignored! The original intent of the drafters was to prevent the adoption of a "State" religion, such as the Church of England with which they had great experience, or a repeat of the folly of the Continent where Catholicism was the "Official" religion. They had lived under the abuse of such a merger of Church and State and had no intention of re-creating such idiocy! They then considered the experience of America (to that date) where so many of them had been in flight from religious persecution of one sort or another and thus guaranteed the right of the people to worship or not as they chose. This is the entire point of the very much ignored second section of that sentence. It has equal legal significance as the first and is not a minor afterthought. We do not have religious riots and slaughters in North America because it is our common value that we shall live in peace, each of us free to worship as we will. I suggest this value has been ignored and slighted in the legal area and the pendulum has swung too far to one extreme and is in need of correction. Our National Motto is: "IN GOD WE TRUST" and evidence of religion is everywhere we look in our daily lives. We make great efforts to accommodate all sorts of groups among us but mainly, those who hold religious beliefs are ignored and slighted. May I ask you what harm you see to our civil society by the display of the Ten Commandments anywhere? So long as public funds are not used, where is the harm if a small area of a public building or area is used to display a symbol important to many of us? Christmas displays are another good example of this anti-religious discrimination. There are many things done and sometimes displayed in the name of "Political Correctness" that I find objectionable and even worse, public funds are expended on them! The question of the motives of Judge Moore in this matter is bothersome but the principle is sound whatever his motive. No public funds were expended on this monument and the display space used in the public area of the Courthouse was minimal so where is the harm? Having spent years in Courthouses, experiencing the worst of our society, I find it ironic that the principles we wish exhibited there by those present are denied exposure.

Pell, I believe all the "labels" obscure the problem. We can not make all people to be born with equal eyesight, physical agility & strength, intelligence and so forth but we can work for equality of opportunity. In America (perhaps Canada, as well) our educational system has been deteriorating over the last several generations perhaps, as I think, from a failure to focus on basic education. The educational fad of the day has been an ever changing target while traditional educational values have been ignored. Feel good policies have neglected basics such as reading and writing (never mind math) and promoted students ahead in the system while they lack the knowledge to advance. And those students promoted ahead of their knowledge become isolated and alienated as their inability to participate at higher levels become obvious. If you wished to design a system to screw up fragile kids, you couldn't do much better than this. When the "labels" cut in, when numbers become more important than educational achievement, the problem is just moved to a higher level. Rather than admit to educational failure (which none of us like to do) the performance levels are then reduced and/or special "Studies" programs are created and the bar is lowered yet again. This continual lowering of the bar denigrates the value of every graduate most especially those of a "labeled" group. Those few schools which have ignored the educational fads and have continued to concentrate on traditional educational values, promote and graduate students of recognized quality without regard to "labels". These schools and institutions prove that equality of opportunity does function as it should across all categories. It is a shame to us all that there are so few of them.

SirRiff, you really are determined in your anti-Americanism. Heads you win, tails America looses. In the 80's, when Afghanistan was fighting a Soviet invasion and occupation of its Country, the U.S. contributed to the Afghan rebels. That Bin Laden was one of those Rebels is an historical fact but the funding was not directed to him but rather to the Rebels. Today, this is the type of "Humanitarian" intervention you desire America to perform. There are people in this world who having once used violence, like Pavlov's dog believe that it is the solution to every problem. They are as incorrect as those who say "violence never solved anything.". Each of these is the extreme end of the scale and a mark of intelligence in any society is the ability to avoid either extreme, so long as that is a realistic possibility. You must adjust your response to the scale of the threat and if survival mandates an extreme response or extinction, your choice should be plain.