Melanie_

Pretty cynical. One thing is for sure, they can't use condoms that aren't available. You are making some broad generalizations here, attributing attitudes of relatively affluent North American youth to people living in poverty in Africa. Teen age pregnancy is not about not caring, its about a sense of personal invulnerability - it can happen to other people, but it can't happen to me. To some degree, I'm sure that is one of the contributing factors to HIV spread as well.

The pill and the morning after pill allow women to control their reproduction; condom use is dependent on the man's willingness to wear one. Seeing as how the responsibility for raising a child falls mainly to the woman, I prefer to see the woman taking the responsibility for preventing conception. (BTW, when I spoke of my daughters earlier, it was in a hypothetical sense - two of them are too young yet for any of this, and the other is grown with a child of her own). But, I see your point regarding STDs. Condom use is the best prevention, other than abstinance. This leads to another question - why is abstinance so rare? As a mother of 4, sometimes I feel like I'm fighting a losing battle against the mass sexualization my children are exposed to. The reality is they are surrounded by sex, on TV, movies, the internet, in the music they listen to, in the magazines they buy, etc. Even shows that are supposed to be kid friendly, written for the preteen audience, are filled with sexual innuendo. Yes, as a parent it is my job to teach them right from wrong, but does the media have to work so hard to undermine what I teach them?

I'm past the point of worrying personally about these things, but I'd rather see my daughters use the morning after pill on an as needed basis than have them on a birth control pill every day. After all, the reason the Pill works is because you're so bitchy when you take it, no one wants to come within 15 feet of you! (wait a minute...maybe I do want my daughters on the birth control pill....)

There's still the question of whether this "confession" is valid, or whether this guy is just some crazy nutjob trying to get his name linked to a notorious case.

Good plan, Leafless. Lets stop all this sodomy by putting those who practice it in jail! Ha ha ha, that'll stop sodomy, all right! One of the contributing factors to the spread of HIV in Africa is poverty, as August has pointed out several times. Condoms are expensive, where they are available at all; an alternative form of birth control is anal sex, even though it is more likely to spread HIV than vaginal sex. When condoms are available, they are often more likely to be used conventionally, to prevent pregnancy.

Rue... I wish I had answers to your questions; terrorism has taken over, and those on both sides who actually are willing to work something - anything - out are drowned out by the cycle of violence and retribution. We can't justify terrorism as a legitimate response, but we still have to find a way to recognize and remedy legitimate grievances. Thank you for your consistent rationality and clear analysis. I find that I'm developing a much more nuanced understanding of the Isreal/Palestine conflict through the discussion you and others have engaged in here - so if you feel frustrated when you are challenged to explain in more detail, remember that there are those of us who appreciate the effort. I still don't agree 100% with Isreal's actions, but I understand better the motivations and circumstances behind them.

How do you see any rights being taken away from English speaking White Christians and Jews? Or do you simply object to the rights of homosexuals and Muslims being acknowledged? Racism isn't under the guise of equality; rather, it is under the guise of protecting "traditional" values. Edited to address the thread: As non Jews, I don't think most of us are in the best position to gauge anti-Semitism in Canada; I haven't noticed coming into contact with it often, but that doesn't mean that it isn't there.

Interesting. My husband is from India, and he eats pork all the time. India is a huge and diverse land, with hundreds of distinct cultures and practices - you are making an assumption that all Indians are the same. Do you have a link or any other information about the incident in Regensburg? Otherwise, I might simply assume that you are saying Muslims should stay indoors on a Sunday morning.

Neither one sounds like much of a contender at this point. It would take a real heavy hitter to knock Katz out, I think.

The newsclip says there are three in the race already - do you know who's running against him? Will Al Golden give it another shot? Winnipeg likes to keep its mayors around for a couple of terms, so I don't think Sammy is in much danger of losing, unless he does something really around the bend. Your first link, the Black Rod, seems pretty full of itself, and any time Charles Adler is given any kind of credibility I have to be skeptical. But I'll check it out again from time to time, just for curiosity's sake.

Our taxes are high, but I'm happy with the services I get for them. I'm also happy with the social safety net I contribute to for those who are not as fortunate. I know there are many on this board who say they would rather pay lower taxes and then decide whether or not they want to make private contributions to independent charities as opposed to government programs. I'd rather have a broad range of accessible services available to all, rather than a pay as you go system available only to those who can afford it or who are lucky enough to tap in to someone's generosity.

If schools were to teach about all religions, and athiesm as well, equally and without value judgments attached, it would be equivalent to what the gay rights agenda is about. No one religion (or sexual orientation) should be given higher standing or more credence than another. I agree with you that teaching about all religions might reduce prejudice; social studies classes can do this. The point is not to endorse one religion more than another.

Good point, Shady. I wouldn't want to see all of the Rennasaince works banned from school, nor would I want to see works depicting Aphrodite or Zeus removed. Where is that line drawn? Is the painting being used for educational purposes? Are there other paintings reflecting a range of subjects displayed as prominantly? Why was this particular painting chosen - what are its artistic merits? A case would have to be made based on artistic criteria to support hanging the painting .

From your link.... Sharkman, this clearly violates seperation of church and state. A public school is a state run institution. It therefore cannot endorse one religion over another. If that painting were hanging in one of my children's schools I would protest, too. As for having a picture of the Queen in our schools, on our money, on our stamps, etc... Last time I checked, she was still the official head of our government, represented by the Governor General and a legion of Lieutenant Governors. There are certainly many who oppose this form of government, but it is the one currently in place.

I also am in favour of raising the age of consent, but I don't see how that will protect an innocent man from false accusations. I think that is the point I missed in your post.

Poor old guy, he shouldn't be held responsible for the emotional upheaval his relationship brings to a 14 year old. After all, she's still going through puberty, and you know how irrational young teenagers can be at this time - thats not his fault, now, is it? And what's with his wife leaving him? He has his needs, you know, and she should be more supportive of that, not judging him all the time. No wonder he's suicidal, all these women conspire against him.

Woo hoo, Portugal! England has been eliminated, Portugal advances!

Spare me (and my daughters, sister, nieces, cousins, and all our combined female friends) from the "intervention" of a god like this.

I have to take exception to this statement, mcqueen. You're setting up a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario by blaming kids' criminal activity on parents who hold down a job. The alternative is welfare; do you think that kids whose parents are on welfare are better off, or better supervised, than kids whose parents work? (And while I'm taking exception, Bubber, as a Winnipegger I have to say that signature is going to buy you a one way ticket to Flin Flon soon!)

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingn...p-4124194c.html I've been following this thread with great interest, although I don't know enough about land claims to participate. It looks like the Roseau River blockade has been called off, though.

Give me a break. Parents are not absolved of their responsibilities as parents just because there is subsidized daycare available.

As a woman, I have an agenda to combat every law that restricts or opposes me based on my gender. As the mother of children who are visible minorities, I have an agenda to combat every law that restricts or opposes them based on the colour of thier skin. Why shouldn't gays combat laws that restrict or oppose them based on their sexual orientation? The law of the land must be fair to all.

I think people are assuming that the model Quebec has followed is the model organized child care in the rest of Canada will also follow. Quebec's model is flawed in that it tried to expand too rapidly, putting space availability ahead of ensuring quality care for those spaces. I suspect that a lot of people were given jobs working in child care centres, simply because they were available and said they liked children, whether they actually knew anything about working with children or not. The other assumption people constantly make is that the rest of Canada will adopt the $7/day mandate. While this plan has it's advocates, I can't see it happening. Child care costs money, and parents should be expected to pay for it when possible. Sliding scale subsidies based on income are available here in Manitoba (and I assume in other provinces), but for the most part parents pay $18.80/day for preschool care. The biggest issue, as implied above, is balancing availability of space with good, nurturing, developmentally appropriate care, whether its centre based or home based.

Johnny Utah said that the ACLU hated Christianity, and you implied that they were unreasonably opposed to any displays of Christianity. Therefore, I went to the source, the ACLU website, to see what their position was and how they applied it. Here is their position: http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/25799prs20060605.html I've spent some time looking at different cases listed on their website, and haven't come across the one you mentioned, although I found the original case where the gay club was granted their status. But in looking at just a few of the dozens that are listed, I haven't seen anything that contradicts the position above. Individual religious freedom is defended, regardless of the religion, and state or school sponsored religion is challenged. I like it.

I don't know how I've gotten myself into defending the ACLU, an organization I'm marginally familiar with, but here goes anyway. My understanding is the ACLU is against government or establishment endorsment of any religion, regardless of which one it is. Prayer in school implies that the school is endorsing a particular religion, or religion in general, regardless of the individual beliefs of the students and their families. Individual rights to religious expression are defended, as seen in the article below... . http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/25799prs20060605.html