PocketRocket

One other thing no one seems to have caught on to yet..... GWB is still claimiing the missile defense system is to defend us all against rogue states who have developed nuclear capability. Here's the problem with that. Nukes are essentially very easy to build. Anyone with a good high-school level science education, equipped with a few textbooks, and the proper materials, can build a nuclear explosive device. Basically, a nuke is simply two pieces of plutonium, or high-level uranium, each with one surface machined to near-perfect flatness. You arrange for these two flat surfaces to smack against each other REALLY HARD. Kaboom. Nuclear explosion. That is a massive oversimplification, but in essence it's an accurate description of how a nuke works. Here's the tough part; delivering the explosive. Sixty years ago the USA dropped nukes on Japan from airplanes. Forty five years ago we had missiles which could, ALLEGEDLY, launch from the USA and hit specific cities in Russia, and vice-versa. The accuracy of these weapons was never that well tested. How close would they come to their targets??? Developing the bomb is easy. Developing a dependable delivery system is tough, and very VERY expensive. If a couple of really rich nations, with technological savvy, manage to develop both the bomb, and a delivery system for it, we will simply find ourselves in another version of the cold war. The difference is that in the new game, there will be more players than in the last cold war. And God have mercy on the nation that takes the first shot, for they shall surely be turned into a puddle of glass. As for the BMD system, well, the USA has been consistently trying to perfect it for nearly fifty years, and they still can't get it off the ground. Why the hell should we invest in something that the USA has wasted this much time and money on??? They may have the resources to throw away. We do not. My worry is not about any rogue state attacking with a missile. What bothers me is how easily a pocket nuke could be delivered into New York Harbor, or anywhwere else, and set off before the ship it's on is inspected. That would make 9/11 look like a quilting bee by comparison.

Personally, I'd rather go with a "gut feeling" than with any "proof" as it would be provided by Bush. After all, he had "proof" that Iraq had huge hoards of WMD's. Bush and his boys manufacture "proof" as they see fit, whenever they need it to justify whatever action they want to take. As for the second statement/question, no, the USA will not shut down the BMD program if we refuse to go along. An admirable thought. But heads of state of militaristic countries will not bow to the wishes of peace-loving types. They will continue to attempt to develop weapons based on how effective they think the weapons will be. If they think a platform in space will be more effective, then they will attempt to develop it. End of story. An admirable thought. But heads of state of militaristic countries will not bow to the wishes of peace-loving types. They will continue to attempt to develop weapons based on how effective they think the weapons will be. If they think a platform in space will be more effective, then they will attempt to develop it. End of story. Well, I haven't been following the Russian BMD development, but the USA has been trying to develop BMD for almost fifty years. FIFTY YEARS. And they still haven't got it right. No reason to believe the Russians are any farther ahead, and the Russians are not the ones who are trying to make us go along with a Billion $$$$$ boondoggle. As for the pot and the kettle, we don't fall into either category as we are not trying to develop such a system, are we??? Somewhat more difficult than a geostationary object, but not that much more. If a spy satelite is in any kind of orbit, unless it adjusts it's vector by some means, it will be completely predictable. Someone targetting it would just need to pick their shot. A balistic missile is harder, because in the time allowed you cannot observe/predict it's flight all that well, and you cannot wait to pick your shot. I didn't see this until after I had replied to Kimmy's post. Good answer, and accurate. To elaborate on both our replies, anything in orbit is essentially stationary unless, as you pointed out, it randomly changes vector. This would be very resource-intensive and expensive and difficult to maintain. The whole point behind having something in orbit is that it costs nothing to maintain a consitent orbit, no matter whether it's a high or low altitude orbit. You simply put it up there at the correct vector and velocity, and it essentially continues on under it's own inertia indefinitely. This makes it a very easy target. Easy to see, easy to aim at. And, when you consider how fragile these things are, they could be disabled with a very minor hit. Something on the order of a hand grenade, or even smaller explosive. Better yet, a good, solid, electro-magnetic pulse would take out all of the electronic systems aboard, making it essentially just another piece of orbiting trash.

This raises two points. First is that if we wait until it actually works, then we won't have to spend anything for a loooooooong time. That's good. But if we wait until it's necessary, well, you don't decide to build an army AFTER you've been attacked. Waiting until it's necessary is kind of closing the barn door after the horse has run away. Or in Bush's case, the horse's ass. I also remember this being a one-day wonder. But it was just talk, not developed yet, for a very simplye reason. Anti-tank mines were developed after the tank. Anti-ship mines were developed after the ship. Anti-personel mines, well, that goes without saying. No one ever developed a weapon to attack another weapon WHICH HAD NOT BEEN INVENTED YET. There are no dedicated military space stations, and so, there are no anti-space-station mines. At least not yet. But you're right. They would be relatively easy to design and build. Far easier than the anti-missile-missiles are proving to be. For they would be attacking what is in essence a stationary target, sitting duck, if you will. Not yet, but if we climb aboard we will be expected to pay our share. I thik this would be a bad idea, as apparently there are still a few kinks to work out. BBC - Defense Shield Fails You're absolutely right. But these "kinks" have been plaguing them for almost fifty years. See my first post above. You don't buy a car before it's built, and the missile defense system is a worn-out jalopy whose delivery is almost fifty years past due. By the time they've perfected it, missiles will be obsolete. BTW, thanks for the link. I didn't provide one, simply mentioned the botched test, which I heard about on CBC radio. I don't like this analogy for a couple reasons. The biggest being simply this, those attempts at manned flight were made by ordinary folk who had little or no scientific knowledge, absolutely no financial backing, and certainly no research and development behind them. Excellent observation/speculation. This makes a great deal of sense as a low-orbit satellite could cover far more ground, and thus attack/observe a wider range of areas. The flipside is that it could only attack/observe a specific area at a specific time in it's orbit. But such an orbit would not necessarily make the satellite any harder to take out with an anti-satellite-satellite. The simple reason being that, no matter what your orbit, you are essentially standing still, relatively speaking. Anything else in the same orbital plane, or altitude, simply has to cross paths, which is far easier than, say, one jet fighter attacking another. Vectors do not have to be a perfect match. The two satellites simply have to be near each other for a split second, then, boom. Fait accomplis. Complicated to describe, simple to illustrate using even rudimentary pictures. (I love science. Can you tell)

If we can benefit by letting the USA play in our backyard, then by all means, let them play, under strict guidelines. As for development, see my previous post. If we're going to get involved in development, we should be developing on our own, then selling the technology to the US and other allies. Or better yet, leasing it to them. Longer-term benefits that way. As for the paragraph (deleted for space here) about spy satellites, there's a big difference between the ability to observe, and the ability to attack from the point of observation. Also, keep in mind exactly how NOT useful spy satellites have proven to be in Iraq (finding WMD's), in Afghanistan (finding Bin Laden) and elsewhere. Everyone talks about how great they are, but when it comes to the crunch, it seems that all they do is take fuzzy photographs. The Bond movie you speak of is "You Only Live Twice", one of my favorites. But the ship-eating-ship was not actually Russian. It was privately owned by one of the usual out-to-take-over-the-world Bond movie megalomaniacs. Boxing glove on the Canadarm. ROFL. Best line I've heard in years. I don't think this would be feasible on a long term basis. After a while, the guys in the plane simply wouldn't be alert. Automatic systems are not up to the job, at least not yet. Also, we don't have a Star-Wars type laser that would take out a missile in a sudden burst. It would have to stay locked on to the missile for an extended period to burn through. Outside factors come into play. If there are clouds, that would diffuse the laser and eliminate its effectiveness. The power supply would be so heavy the plane wouldn't be able to fly. Lasers as weapons are a VERY long way from becoming a reality. The Americans simply love playing cowboys and indians, and are becoming alarmed that the number of international "Indians" are declining. If they don't have an enemy, then the USA will simply create an enemy. Iraq is a good example. Sounds like they're starting to do the same with N.Korea, Iran, etc. There's a movie called "Canadian Bacon". It's a satirical, but quite accurate, look into the American mindset vis a vis war and warfare. In the movie, the USA decides it's time to declare war on Canada. In a comedy of errors, Canada wins, the USA surrenders, with not a single life being lost. It's quite funny. Check it out. I agree on both these points. Science ALWAYS producies spin-off benefits, and yes, it is not in the cards in the near future.

Oh boy, lots of stuff here. Where to begin??? First, let's remember how back in the late fifties, our PM (was it Diefenbaker??? don't remember) scrapped the Avro Arrow project based on the urging of the US President (can't remember his name either). The story goes that the Pres convinced Dief that rockets were the weapons of the future and that planes would be obsolete in a matter of months. So Canada helped to invest in the missile defense of the day. Missiles that would shoot down incoming missiles automatically. It never happened. The technology simply wasn't up to the task. What DID happen, was that Canada threw away its best claim to military greatness, and started down the road to becoming a military non-entity. Now it's 50 years later. 50 years of good ol' American know-how invested in research and development. Fact: Earlier this week, the USA did a test on its latest missile defense system. A target missile was launched from Alaska. In the south Pacific, the doors of the anti-Missile silo opened majestically. The defense missile's system carefully tracked the incoming target missile. The defense missile, in a wonderful display of grandeur.........DIDN'T EVEN GET OFF THE LAUNCH PAD. It seems that the technology STILL isn't up to the task. The USA, decade after decade, keeps offering truly wonderful weapons technologies that will make their, and our, borders impregnable. They keep asking Canada to invest in these technologies (read "pipe dreams"). And we keep getting sucked in. Canada still possesses some of the best scientific minds in the world. If we want military technology, we should be putting some of those minds to work, right here, and developing the technology on our own, Then we can sell it to the USA at a huge profit. Dual benefits here. First, it would make us a military power again, maybe not one of the biggies, but a contender. Second, such technology, if sold to the USA, Britain, and other allies, would pay for itself many times over.

Does this bother you only because it's over same-sex marriage??? Or does it bug you that an MP is ordered to vote the party line??? If it's the latter, then every governing party in Canadian history, and American, for that matter, have done the same. It's only democratic until the election is over.

I dunno. Grown men making more in one year than most of us earn in a lifetime, to play a game that they enjoy. Meanwhile, the fans have to spend a week's worth of wages, or more, just to bring their family to a game. Seems fair to me. I quit watching pro-hockey years ago when it became evident that it was more about the money than about the game. And now??? Well, I've enjoyed the year so far. It makes saturday nights in front of the tv much easier. No games on, so there are so many less channels to skip over. Kinda nice, really.

No, he's right. Knives should be prohibited. Then safety razors. Then box-cutters. After that, we should go after screwdrivers, awls, icepicks, and fireplace pokers. And finally, we should be shutting down those places that sell fingernail extenders. Those things are deadly. Uh-huh.

Throughout history, except for the very rich elite, no one was able to afford the smallest of luxuries, let alone patronizing the arts. Not until the past 100 years or so has the average westerner been able to afford such luxuries. And, if you look around the world, in this regard we are still in the minority. Nonetheless, art goes on. All over the world. There's a couple different ways to look at this question. The first is to simply answer "Free enterprise system, supply and demand, etc etc". In other words, something is worth what someone is willing to pay for it. If no one is willing to pay to hear me play guitar, then whay should the government pay me to play it??? Another angle is this; We all recognize the fact that there may be DaVincis in the raw out there, who will never know it because they never pick up a paintbrush. But does that mean we fund ALL fledgeling artists on the hope that one of them may turn out to be a VanGogh??? If not, then who decides which priveledged few receive the funding??? Who is qualified to make the choice but another artist??? But my major beef is with "cultural" art. It seems that if it makes allusions to a language or culture other that English-Canadian, it'll get a grant. As a musician for some 30 years now, who has supported himself in that field for about 20 of those years, it makes me very angry to see some Francophones "musicians" in my area living fat off government grants, and quite literally laughing about it. They think it's a great joke. The real funny thing is none of them made an HONEST musician's dollar, ie; getting out there and actually WORKING as a musician, rather than sitting at home thinking up new ideas for getting bigger grants. One of these "artists" made $96,000 after taxes last year. Never played a gig. Hasn't played one in almost 15 years. But he sure knows how to play the system. That is simply a waste of money. Agreed. War, like everything else, is getting to be all about technology. We need some original, Canadian, ingenuity and insight to develop some new, uniquely Canadian, battlefield technology. Don't ask me what. Perhaps stealth beer??? Heat-seeking hockey stick??? Ah, I know, the Attack Beaver. Joking aside, we should be looking into technology. We have the brains, we need to put them to work.

EUREKA: Thanks for the reply. Perhaps I should have made myself more clear. I do not mean to stop patronizing the arts entirely, what I am talking about is selective "cultural" patronization. The example I spoke of where two bands, writing similar music, in the same style. One writes it's lyrics in a language other than English, and is suddenly eligible for grants because it's a "cultural" phenomenon. Many of the arts can be made to pay for themselves through proper marketing. But I tend to agree with Robert A Heinlein that if an artist needs public support, then he's not an artist, but a prostitute. Something like a symphony orchestra would obviously not be a self-funding project, but funding stay-at-home songwriters, or painters, for example...... Who was it that said "hardship creates good art"??? Well, where is the hardship if you're having your life subsidized by some federal program so that you can sit at home and never have to worry about where your next rent payment is coming from??? Yeah, SOME of the arts need SOME support. But we need to re-assess what these are.

In my opinion they are not deserving of spousal benefits and should not receive them.You will see, therefore, why I am unenthusiastic about these entitlements now going to gays. Fair enough. No benefits for any couple who does not have kids. At least it's an unbiased stand. My point was to raise the issue of where these historical entitlements came from and why they are in place. In my opinion it is inequitable and those without children, who aren't subjected to the addional cost, and drain on budgets, who don't have a spouse forced to curtail her career or stay at home should not be eligible. Again, this statement is fair and unbiased. It discriminates equally against anyone who does not have kids. Do you consider that an argument? I could as easily say the reason gays don't have spousal benefits is they're GAY. The moment they become straight and marry someone from the opposite sex they'll become eligible. Actually, yes, I do consider it an argument. Spousal rights are given to people who have a spouse. If you're single, you don't have a spouse, so how can you enjoy spousal benefits. Where is the spouse who will benefit from them??? But there is a contradiction here. You said they will be eligible when they marry someone of the opposite sex, but earlier you said they should only get benefits if they have kids. Which way do you want it??? No, that would not be the conclusion. You can have sex with many people, but you can only be married to one, at least under current law. Sex and marriage, even common-law marriage, are two totally different things. Well, let's look at the words here. "Spousal Benefits" Not "Sibling Benefits" or "Parental Benefits". If you want to marry your sibling, or one of your parents, then hey, knock yourself out Billy-Bob. Whatever turns your crank. If you can manage to find someone who'll perform the ceremony, and you can get the wedding legally recognized, then the sibling/parent who would then be your spouse would be entitled to spousal benefits. But you are again contradicting yourself here. That statement about no spousal benefits shared by two people who do not have kids. Now you're suggesting that there should be spousal benefits transferrable to a sibling or parent. Unless you've produced progeny with that sibling or parent, then this suggestion goes against your first statement. Make up your mind. But the guy who "blows you now and then" is not asking for benefits. It's the guy who marries you, and blows you and only you, for better or for worse, in sickness and in health, who's asking for the benefits. You're comparison is like saying that some tart I pick up in a bar and have occassional casual sex with is entitled to benefits. That is not what the Gay rights activists are asking for. Try keep it relevant.

I hope this is the right forum for this. I don't think it should go unnoticed..... http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories The article goes on, but that's the gist of it. One of our best and brightest, now gone. Captain Mallett, best wishes for a speedy recovery. We are proud of you, and all the 'Birds. Captain Selby, may your skies always be clear, and the wind strong beneath your wings. Rest in peace

Two good questions. No, we should not sub-contract our defense to the USA. They want us weak. Why? I'm not sure. The last time we started going along with America's missile defence strategies, it cost us a lot of coin for missiles that never flew, and it cost us the Avro Arrow. They simply did not want us having superior weapons technology, and so pushed us into scrapping the Arrow project, and going along with a half-baked missile scheme. If we had completed developement and production of the Arrow, it would have made Canada the undisputed world leader in aerospace technology, and consequently we would have been a far richer nation when you consider all of the spin-offs of the technology that was being developed. If you doubt this, then consider that the performance of the Arrow was not matched for over twenty years, a lifetime in the aerospace industry. Second, yes, we should put a lot more money into our military. Where to get it??? Well, for a start, some of the coin that we're pouring into that bottomless hole called the "Gun Registry". Stop people like Shiela Copps from spending millions of $$$ on little paper flags to distribute across the country. (BTW, I never got mine. I seem to remember paying taxes like everyone else, so where's MY flag???) Divert a little of the "Cultural" spending. It's one thing to help promote culture. It's another thing entirely to provide tens of millions of dollars to a fund that will finance recording and promotional costs for a rock band simply because their lyrics are not in English. Stop, or at least dramatically reduce, funding for the arts. If an artist can't make a living doing his/her art full time, then they can bloody well get a job, and do their art on the side. I do. So do my musician friends. Lots of places where money is being thrown, money that could be better used in beefing up our military. Think about it. Australia, a country with less than half our land area, and approximately the same population, could probably invade us and take over with little resistance. Canada used to be a power. Perhaps not one of the biggies, but we were,from a military standpoint, respectable. While our troops are still among the best in the world, they are simply too few, and too ill-equipped.

You mean the few scapegoats; they did the same with Vietnam. Those kids being prosecuted were following orders. Yeah sure mm hmm and Nixon claimed " I am not a crook" I suppose you believed him too. what a giggle. Don't get me wrong, I have little doubt that some of the more senior officers knew what was going one, but I strongly doubt that Bush himself was aware of these little pranks. I mean think about it, knowing full-well that they were doing something that carries a very stiff penalty, do you seriously believe that those responsible would be trumpeting their activities to their seniors??? Besides, Bush wants to be percieved as the John-Wayne type, tough but fair, and always within the law. As much as I think Bush is a loser, I don't think even he would be stupid enough to condone such activities. He wants to put across a by-the-book image, hardly what this sort of thing projects. No, I don't believe Bush knew about AbuGharaib. Too many buffers between him and the action.

I hope you're wrong. Bush doesn't have to worry about re-election and the stakes are fairly high here. If Iraq fails and dissolves into civil war, or reverts to another brutal, corrupt dictatorship then US hopes for a renaissance in the middle east will be dashed. US casualties are not that high, really. Consider that the US loses 2,000 people to murder every week within its own borders. We won't even get into such things as traffic fatalities. Although the loses in Iraq are of enormous consequence to the people involved they are miniscule to a state the size of the US. And the hope of reforming the mideast by reforming Iraq was, I think, the driving force behind the Iraq war. If it collapses it will all have been for nothing. Worse than nothing, really, for it will have spawned deeper distrust and hatred for the US and the West and increased Islamic fanaticism and terrorism. There is a lot of reason to be concerned about Iran. Any nation ruled by demented religious wackos is capable of anything. I would far rather see the US go into Iran than take the chance the mad mullahs might produce nukes from what is clearly a massive effort. "Demented religious wackos" I think this description could well be applied to Bush and his little band of cronies. The difference is that Bush's Boys' religion seems to be equal parts Christian fervor and Money Madness. Bush's personal little Jihad will do little more than isolate and further enrage the Muslim fundamentalists, and give the extremists a larger pool of potential recruits to draw from. This war, from day one, was based on lies and hypocrisy. If it were otherwise, Bush's reasons for the war would not have changed on a regular basis. Like the kids who ate all the cookies, you tell one lie, and when that gets disproven, you tell another, and when that gets disproven...... Every time the current reason for the war is about to be shot down in flames, Bush's spin-meisters come up with another nice neat little package label for the war. "War on Terrorism" "Operation Iraqi Freedom" What about "We know for a fact that there are WMD's in Iraq. We know where they are being kept. We will go in and find them". So far they've found about enough sarin to wipe out all the mosquito larvae in a backyard fishpond, and it's been speculated that this gas is leftovers from what the USA gave Saddam in the 80's. No, Bush wanted to invade Iraq. He's wanted to do so for years. All he needed was an excuse, and he even had to fabricate that.

I hate to point out the obvious, but this still does not prevent sale of illegal, unregistered firearms. About all the registry does, in event of a crime, is this; if the weapon is actually found by the police, and it does happen to be registered, then they can determine who legally owns the firearm, and where it was purchased. That's all good if the owner is the shooter, but if the firearm was stolen, it just about gives the cops a starting point. But it's still just after-the-fact. It's a close-the-door-after-the-horse-has-left-the-barn sort of solution. It certainly doesn't help the victim of the shooting. Sure looks good on paper, though. But I'll tell you straight up, it doesn't make me feel any safer knowing that only responsible citizens are registering their firearms while the violent criminals are not.

That's what I like, a straightforward answer. Unfortunately, it's based on circular logic. Aspirin is a drug, so is tylenol. Most cough syrups contain drugs. Antihistamins. Sinus capsules. These are all drugs. How about gravol?? Echinecea?? Ginseng??? All drugs. Are you saying that they too should be illegal???? Here's my contention; Pot is a mildly intoxicating euphoric that happens to have some medicinal value. Alcohol, on the other hand, is a not-so-mild intoxicant with little or no medicinal value. We know for a fact that alcohol used in excess can cause both immediate (alcohol poisoning) and long term (scirrhosis of the liver, heart problems, high blood pressure, etc etc) problems. How can you condemn the one when the other is perfectly legal, and socially acceptable??? Interestingly enough, if you look into the history of pot, and how it became illegal, you can get a really good laugh. Up until the mid 40's, early 50's, it was quite legal. Then, when the beatniks started using it, it alarmed a bunch of extreme right-wing types got alarmed at these scruffy-looking poet wanna be's and bohemians. Out came the propoganda machine, and movies like "Reefer Madness" which was actually taken seriously by the general population at the time. (I particularly like the scene where the guy has his first toke, and immediately starts looking like Dr Jeckyll turning into Mr Hyde) All of a sudden, boom, anti-pot laws. All out of some McCarthy-ist propoganda, and general ignorance about the effects of the drug. Canada soon followed the USA in making pot illegal. The rest is a sad history of persecution. Don't even get me started on the benefits of legalization.

Mixed feelings on this one. I agree with ARGUS and a few others that natives have to learn to integrate further into mainstream society. But I also believe that they deserve some help along the way. Reserves are, in many ways, archaic with little value in and of themselves. A major problem with many reserves is this, they are isolated little communities far from cities, or even towns, that could provide schooling and jobs. So the inhabitants of these small, isolated reserves have no future, nothing to look forward to, except for the stagnation of their own little society. On the other hand, there are reserves nearer to cities wherein a fairly large segment of the people on the reserve hold jobs in the city. These people are, needless to say, far more prosperous, with a sense of direction. Consequently suicide and addiction rates are far lower. I think as a partial solution, we should look at phasing out some of the poorest, most isolated reserves, by moving them nearer to major centers so that they at least have the choice of interacting with mainstream society, and thereby giving them a future to look forward to, and something they can build on economically. But we should also be looking towards establishing a sense of unity with the native community, rather than this feeling of divisiveness, wherein it's become an "Us and Them" kind of game. This is, after all, Canada, where we supposedly welcome and nurture a variety of different nationalities and cultures. It would be a shame to treat our own native culture with any less respect than we give to those from abroad.

Sorry, I didn't see this one before I posted my last few. I've been working my backwards from the last post, but to address this..... I don't think this holds water for a couple reasons. First off, in this day and age, many MANY people marry without intent to raise kids. Both work for a living. Both have pension arrangements. What makes them any more deserving of spousal benefits than a gay couple??? Second, among those couples who do have kids, very few are putting out 5 or 6 kids or more. These days, a family with more than 2 kids is pretty rare. A lot of the time, the kids are grown up, moved out, and have jobs of their own by the time the parents are in their mid-40's. So, in a home in which there are no longer any hungry little mouths to feed, should the parents be disqualified from spousal benefits??? I didn't think so. You cannot use kids as the be-all-end-all argument for the right to get married. If you do, then anyone who does not intend to have kids should be disqualified from eligibility for marriage, and any married couple who fails to have kids, should have their spousal rights and status stripped from them. Under your argument in this post, else would be not only unfair, but hypocritical. As to why singles do not have spousal benefit-transfer rights, well that's simple, they are SINGLE. As soon as they get married, or even live together as a couple for a prescribed period and become common-law, then they get the same benefits.

I think that largely it is a question of 'legitimizing' homosexuality, and partly because of the tax implications of civil marriage. If I may add to this, what law states that the only reason for getting married is to have kids??? How many widows/widowers/divorcees get married later in life with no intention of ever having kids together??? Hell, how many marriages has Elizabeth Taylor gone through which produced no progeny??? She's been married what, 8 times???? 9??? In this day and age, I don't believe that the majority of people who get married do so after having a discussion like this "Hey, let's get married so we can have kids", "Gee, okay, after all, we can't have any kids if we're not married". Sorry, ARGUS, but that particular statement was a non-starter.

Such as? Well, where to begin??? After getting married, my wife and I realized that as an unmarried couple, we had far more advantages in terms of taxes and stuff. I can't give any solid details as doing the taxes was not my job. Suffice to say that getting married does not pay off at tax-time unless you've got kids. For two people who both work, being married actually seems to carry a financial penalty in the eyes of Revenue Canada. In this regard, allowing gays to marry would be, in a small way, to everyone's benefit, as they would then be subject to the same taxes as the rest of us, and there would be a few more bucks going into the tax coffers. As for rights, many companies carry pension plans wherein if the pension recipient dies, then the company goes on paying the pension to the surviving spouse. Currently, gay couples do not enjoy this benefit. Also, estate planning. If one spouse dies, then all common spousal property is legally inherited by the surviving spouse, unless there is a will stating otherwise. But in the case of a gay couple, where one of them owns a house, if the homeowner dies, and there is no will specifically granting ownership of the house to the gay partner, then the house is either inherited by the dead partner's next of kin, or reverts to property of the state. Too many others to mention, but think of any legal benefit OR obligation that automatically comes with marriage, and these are all things which gay couples are being denied.

Regarding your first point, churches have "Freedom of Religion" to fall back on. Churches do discriminate, yes, but not necessarily against gays, but against those who do not follow the tenets of the church. For example, a Catholic church may refuse to marry an Anglican couple, unless that couple agrees to change their religion and raise their children within the boundaries and tenets of the Catholic church. This I know about because, being raised Catholic, when I got married, my first choice was to be married within the Catholic church. My wife-to-be however, was NOT Catholic. We were told that we would have to take a course on Catholicism, marriage, and that my wife would have to make the change to Catholicism. Discrimination??? Absolutely, But not strictly against gays, but against non-Catholics. Kinda like a club, if you aren't a member, you don't get in. Your other point is a bit of a different case. If the teacher was using his/her position to proselytise on the joys of being gay, which would be against the tenets of the religion under which the school is run, then that would be grounds for firing. But, if said teacher was NOT obviously gay, and was NOT using the classroom as a forum for discussion on gay rights or anything, then firing the teacher would indeed be disriminatory. Our labor laws make clear the fact that if you're qualified and able to do the job, then the employer must show a good reason for firing you.

I am a bit unclear on this. So, a couple questions.... Does a domestic lawyer in Canada have the legal right to prosecute international war-crimes law??? Stipulated he/she does, then does Bush become legally responsible for the crime when there is real, credible evidence that he knew nothing of the acts in AbuGaraib and Guantanamo Bay, and when he did find out, he prosecuted the perpetrators??? All that aside, my gut feeling on this is, as someone mentioned earlier, it's a publicity grab. No way some lawyer in Vancouver, who no one has ever heard of, is going to get Bush into court, or even be taken seriously. I mean seriously, what are we going to do, extradite him???

THELONIUS: i think the USA is becoming more and more desparate every day to get the hell out of Iraq, but you'll never get a Republican to admit it. They're beginning to see how much of a mire they've got themselves into. We'll see in a couple months. Elections in IRAQ are due in January. Once they've got their own government properly set up, I think we'll see the USA high-tailing it out of there as fast as they can possibly run while still trying to maintain some righteous dignity. GWB won't be too keen to stay much longer, after all, the war is beginning to become unpopular, even among Republicans. That's not what he wants to see. What worries me is if he's got yet another war planned. There's a lot of rhetoric about Iran having nukes now. It sounds like Bush is setting up his population to endorse yet another romp in the sand.

I realize I'm new here, but if may offer a response to this.... I think that as long as a thread is productive, ie; fostering intelligent discussion without any flaming, then let it go. Even if it gets off topic, as long as it stays civilized and intelligent, and relevant to the surrounding discussion. It's amazing where a discussion can lead you if you let it. Staying strictly on-topic can sometimes stifle the emergence of some really good ideas. Just one man's opinion.....