Melanie_

Nope. Your imaginary friend, the Magic Sky Pixie, has no impact on the queen. You and I debated the monarchy in another thread some time ago (it had to do with Peter Phillips marrying a Catholic), so maybe revive that if you want to discuss the monarchy again. Bubber, I don't think you need to worry. Even with all the amazing powers Leafless believes I have (you know, to destroy the US and Canada with my powers of Extreme Liberalism), I don't think I'm going to destroy his attitudes anytime soon.

What those girls went through is unthinkable, and I for one cried when I read about them. Don't think my compassion is only for the father. He will live with what he did for the rest of his days, and I'm not trying to excuse him. He made incredibly bad choices, and they paid the price for it. At the same time, I can feel compassion for him as he learns to live with his grief and his guilt, knowing that nothing he ever does will make up for that night. I too don't buy that it was society's fault, the government's fault, Indian Affairs' fault, etc. That is the easy way out. He did this as an individual, and the colour of his skin or his cultural background has nothing to do with it. I do wonder where everyone else was, though - didn't anyone say, "Hey, this guy is in the hospital, where are his kids?"

What is being destroyed is the cowardice of judging people based on assumptions, rather than on fact. If I can help destroy attitudes like yours, I'll celebrate, not hang my head.

I think this: is a much more rational view than this: I can agree with you when you talk about savagery, the radical Muslims, and even to some extent appeasement, although I see a difference between trying to have a dialogue and giving in. This weekend I heard Barack Obama quote JFK, "We should never negotiate out of fear, but we should never fear to negotiate." We have to believe that there are those willing to engage in discussion, and seek them out to try to broker peace. When we take the position that all Muslims are into death for the sake of death, we close off all possibility of peace.

Hmmm, I "denounce democracy" by stating that I think someone's race/culture shouldn't impede them from participating in the democratic process. I love your logic. Perhaps you should re-examine your own commitment to democracy. I don't believe that minorities are out to destroy Canada. I take Obama at his word when he says he is Christian, not Muslim (although I don't think there should be any reason for a non Christian not to hold office). Yep, that's me, extreme liberalism.

You seem to like sweeping generalizations. I'm fairly left leaning, yet I agree with you that these bombings were terrible. I'm even more outraged that the bombers used 2 women with Down Syndrome as the vehicles for the bombs - they were marginalized, seen as expendable, and probably had no idea what was happening. I can't speak for everyone on the left, but I've yet to see a post on these forums that indicates anyone approves of this kind of action, or loves savagery. But I do think that you love the opportunity to take a horrible tragedy and use it to condemn all Muslims, regardless of where they are or how they feel about what happened.

Leafless, you are so funny! Honestly, sometimes I think you just say things to stir the pot and create debate, because I have a hard time believing anyone can make comments like this with a straight face.

This is a good point. It gives me more optimism for what could happen if America chooses Obama. As for Paris Hilton, I'll pass. You can have my turn if you want.

I'm not telling you it's none of your business, I'm telling you it is a stupid question. If you want to categorize that as lefty tyranny, feel free. You may see the demonstrators in Kenya as primitive, but your attitude in this thread indicates you would fit right in with them. You see people as either like you or not like you, and those who are not like you have no value. Your interpretation of my response is silly. You are reading your own prejudice into my words, which in some twisted way gives you satisfaction. I'll just sit here and smirk.

Is Leafless really White or is he in fact a Christian? Only the cultural majority can hold office? You are no different than the people in Kenya who are killing each other right now with machetes because of tribalism.

Angus, have some compassion. This poor man will have to live with the knowledge that he killed his two daughters. Regardless of his race, this story is heartbreaking, and it is beneath you to use it to score political points.

Did you read the opening post?

Another possibility that has been discussed a fair bit is the prevelence of vaccinations, particularly now that they are being administered to the second and third generation. I haven’t read any conclusive evidence, but there are those who believe that, while vaccinations are a godsend to prevent so many diseases, they also contribute to compromising the immunity system in other ways, leading to higher incidences of asthma and allergies. The benefits seem to outweigh the risks so far. I’ve also studied child neglect a fair bit, and teach child development at the college level. The babies at the Romanian orphanages are heartbreaking – I show a video regularly that still brings me to tears each time. These orphans are at an extreme, but they show us the long term impact of children being denied sensitive, loving, consistent caregiving. More and more I see that the first few years of a child’s life are the real window of opportunity for him/her to lay the groundwork for healthy psychological development. I totally agree with what you have said about brain development. Babies are born with all the neurons they will ever have, but they aren’t connected yet. The connecting happens through the experiences they have, which is why each of us understands the world slightly differently. Lise Elliot, author of “What’s going on in there? How the mind and brain develop in the first five years of life”* describes the brain as being equivelent to every person on earth having a phone, but no one being hooked up to the system yet. The neurons becomes “hooked up” as the child interacts with his/her environment, and neural pathways are created. The more often those pathways are reinforced, the more ingrained they become, so that each person’s brain is physically structured differently than anyone elses’ (the “phone lines” are connected in unique ways). As Drea points out, parenting has a great deal to do with this – parents need to teach kids appropriate behaviour and provide the security of firm limits in a loving environment. Drea, I know you are unconvinced about the impact of smoking on the developing fetus, particularly because your son does just fine. I’m not saying there is a direct, causal relationship, because there are always interacting factors. But we do know that a higher proportion of kids whose mothers smoked during pregnancy have long term repercussions. The immediate repercussions (low birth weight, respiratory problems, prematurity, etc) are more noticable, but other repercussions can show up later. Not every child whose mother smoked will show these impacts, and not every child who shows these impacts will have a mother who smoked. There are so many variables, but each time we identify a variable we have an opportunity to reduce the risk. *A book that I think all new parents should read!

What do you suppose that general revenue pays for? Claiming that the government is merely “milking the economy” is a poor attempt to justify the tobacco industry – any tobacco industry – and minimize the health consequences of cigarettes. Understand, I am not opposed to the tax free status of First Nations. I am opposed, though, to people deliberately making poor choices then expecting others to carry the cost.

Try it out here

The tobacco industry directly contributes to the cost of health care, which is slightly offset by the taxes people pay on their cigarettes. What is the tax status of those little ma and pa operations? Anyone who deliberately compromises their health by smoking should be contributing to the cost of their treatment via taxes.

The focus on Obama being black is illogical to me. He has a black father and a white mother, so he is equally black and white. You could as easily call him white as black, but somehow that doesn't happen - even though he was raised in an affluent, primarily white neighbourhood by his white mother, with little contact with his black father. I'd rather see the focus be on where he stands on issues than on the pigmentation of his skin.

Last time I mentioned this I was roundly mocked, but I'm game to say it again! One of my pet peeves is poor grammar and spelling, particularly the use of the words there, their, and they're. I mark a lot of essays, and it constantly amazes me that people can get to post secondary education and not be able to use those three words correctly.

Hmmm…. Divorce is necessary when one partner is “exceedingly abusive”… what level of abuse is tolerable? You keep implying that the author of this study had an agenda, and is a feminist. Personally, I don’t know anything about the author’s views, so I’m curious about where you are getting your information from. I managed to get a hard copy of the study, and found it to be stringently objective, but I’m sure that whatever I say is tainted in your eyes. I think we are hijacking this thread, as we don’t seem to be discussing incest anymore. If you are interested in continuing a discussion about divorce and the feminist agenda in a new thread, I’d be willing to. I’ll leave it up to you to start the thread, so the ball’s in your court.

Still waiting for your take on what feminists got that they didn't deserve. I'm also hoping you will answer Drea's question, if an action does no one harm is it really immoral, and Cybercoma's request for links that support your position that "traditional" families are best. I love how you immediately smear someone who's research disagrees with your beliefs. Perhaps her research findings show that divorce isn't as bad because in fact it isn't as bad. Data from longitudinal studies are now becoming available, so we are able to see the long term impact rather than speculate on what it might be. Children do best when parents use the authoritative parenting style (as opposed to authoritarian or permissive), whether they are single parents, married parents, common law, same sex or mixed sex. Parenting practices and the relationship between the parent and child are the best determinants of child outcomes, not the relationship between the parents.

From the linked article.... Lisa Strohschien's website Perhaps the agenda is yours. I seem to remember asking you what exactly feminists "got" that you object to, and you have yet to respond. Lesbian thread

I agree with much of what you have said, Rue, but I'll just add a few thoughts. Alcohol and cigarette consumption during pregnancy can contribute to the issues raised in the opening post - the effects of alcohol are well documented, but the effects of smoking are less well known. Slowly, research is showing a connection between smoking during pregnancy and attention deficiencies in childhood, and behaviour problems. Tobacco Consumption During Pregnancy and its Impact on Psychosocial Child Development Tobacco Consumption During Pregnancy and Its Impact on Child Development These findings are often lost in the more immediate impact of smoking during pregnancy (low birth weight, increased risk for SIDS, prematurity, respiratory difficulties). Also, because attention and behaviour issues show up so many years later, the connections are not as apparent. The quality of parenting and the quality of non parental care can definitely have an impact as well. They can support each other, or offset each other, but simply having non parental care isn't necessarily a bad thing, which I think you were implying. Its all about the quality of the care - is it sensitive, caring, fair, and supportive of learning? If so, non parental care can enhance children's development.

Cybercoma, here's a link to some recent Canadian research, published in October 2007, that states that divorce is unrelated to changes in parenting behaviour. It doesn't cover the entire gamut of the debate between you and Kengs, but it does contradict Kengs position, as do some of the other articles linked from this site. Unfortunately you would have to be a subscriber to read the entire article, but the abstract is quoted below. Challenging the Presumption of Diminished Capacity to Parent: Does Divorce Really Change Parenting Practices?

You are dancing around in circles, obviously wanting to say something but not willing to come out and say it. Spit it out, so we can actually discuss whatever it is you have in mind. As for your idea of everyone rising up and saying "screw you, we're not voting", how do you envision that turning out? Because I see a very happy dictator (no specific person in mind here) rubbing his hands in glee at the thought.

A more realistic scenario, Moonlight Graham, is shaping up in Winnipeg. We are starting to debate a rapid transit gondola system from St. Vital Mall to the University of Manitoba, bypassing the river and the rush hour gridlock ( yes, I know our "gridlock" is minimal compared to other cities, but it still is an issue relative to our traffic). This gondola would pass over a residential area, so the question of whether or not individual homeowners "own" airspace above their property, and how far above, becomes a real issue of contention.