Melanie_

You say "their brother Arabs" as if they were homogenous, as if one were exactly the same as the other. "They all look the same", "I can't tell them apart", etc. We are more likely in North America to recognize differences between Ireland and Scotland than differences between Palestine and Saudi Arabia, for example (or between Morocco and Mozambique, but that is for another thread). You are passing judgment while completely ignoring the social and economic implications of any one nation simply absorbing that many displaced people all at once. Which "brothers" does Canada have an obligation to rescue, if they were all displaced at once? Anyone who is Christian? Anyone who is white? What are your criteria for other Arab nations having an obligation to take in the Palestinian refugees?

Yes, that's my neighbourhood. Every time I drive down Route 90, they are building something new.

Queer Eye for the Straight Crazymf?

I'm not sure which you are supporting - liberating the people, or going after the nukes and oil. Or maybe both. I agree that these boys didn't deserve to be hanged - my god, they were just kids. Not that it matters, but from the article it sounds like they weren't even gay, just two horny teenagers who couldn't have sex with teenage Iranian girls, so went for the next best thing. But I don't believe that the US is concerned with human rights violations like this as part of their foreign policy; they couldn't care less as long as they are ensuring America's interests are met. "Liberating" is just a convienient word that scores political points at home.

The first link is pretty weak; is there anything further you can post on it? As for the second, certainly Hamas has made it clear that they want all of the land that was Palestinian before 1967, including all of the West Bank. They are the most militant faction of the Palestinians, though, and do not speak for everyone there. The hardliners on both sides are undermining any chance of true peace in Isreal/Palestine, while pointing to each other's atrocities and shouting "I told you so!" Sometimes I think they are hoping for an attack, so they can claim the moral high ground and justify any action they take, no matter how brutal it is. There is no compassion for the innocents caught in the crossfire; each side will say there are no innocents on the other side, just rabid killers. Nothing can be resolved until some recognition for the humanity of both nations is given, and both sides are so entrenched in their own righteousness they can't seem to do it. I have hope that Ariel Sharon has made a sincere step in the direction of peace with the pullout; lets see how it plays out.

The US didn't go in there to free oppressed people from human rights violations; they came up with that idea after they were already there, and found out there was no real basis for them to have attacked. If they set up a pro US government tomorrow, give Uncle Sam access to their resources, and allow them to use Iraq as a staging ground for their next target, do you really think the US will care what human rights violations are going on Iraq?

Adler on line? Please. He is the biggest egomaniac on the radio, and only allows opinions that agree with him on his show. Of course the poll shows what he wants it to - his listeners ("citizens of Adler nation") are convinced that they should stroke his ego rather than think for themselves.

Yet another big box store development is going in quite close to my home; in the last 5 years, this area has gone from fields to big box stores at an amazing rate. I have to admit that I like the convienience of having everything so close by, but I always wonder who designed the layout, as the stores seem to have been dropped from the sky with no thought to how they share the space with the other stores next to them. And who really thinks its a good idea to walk outside from store to store, across vast parking lots, during a Winnipeg winter? The stores being generic, soulless, may be true, but at the same time I'm not necessarily looking for an esoteric experience when I want to buy school supplies at Wal-Mart, or a hammer at Home Depot.

Yeah, I only drive when I can't get some big strong man to chauffeur me around. And I never stop for pedestrians - can't they see me coming and get out of the way? After all, I'm generally chatting on my cell phone with a girlfriend about hair and clothes and makeup, and since she's driving too we can't both be expected to watch the crosswalks and oncoming traffic.

Certainly. That's why I pointed out that you could indeed use a sort of community blame against Americans for the actions of the government they elect. However, you can't put the cart before the horse. Bush's actions are in response to attacks on Americans, not the cause of them. The first attempt to take down the WTC happened well before his time. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You may be able to hold all voters, and non voters, responsible for the government they elect, and the actions the government chooses. But can you really hold people responsible for the actions of others just because they share a skin colour, or a country of origin? I have origins in Ireland, but that doesn't make me an IRA supporter, and I don't feel I should be held accountable for their actions. Suggesting that all young men who can trace their ancestry to the Middle East are accountable for terrorism is equally absurd. August - I am being maybe a bit over the top here - it's a nonstop, domestic flight. She's flown several times with us, but never alone, so she will just have to endure my paranoia; you know that the word "mother" is embedded in the word "smother", after all!

August - my 13 year old daughter is flying by herself for the first time in a couple of weeks; I'm paying the extra $ for a flight attendant to accompany her, even though she is past the age for it (to her immortal embarrassment, I am told). If there were an extra charge for extra security, I would gladly pay it, even though I know that there are no guarantees. I wonder how the people who would be targetted for this program will feel about it, though? My husband and son would likely be stopped each time, and both would laugh and take the cash, easy money. Maybe that would be the reaction of some, or even most; I can't say. But I think it opens the door to racial profiling in other areas, and it casts suspicion on everyone who is not white. You may argue that the suspicion is already cast and this is just a response to it, but it legitimizes discrimination.

I'm just trying to follow your logic, not agreeing with it. If any young man of middle eastern origin is to be held accountable for the actions of others, doesn't it follow that any middle aged white American should be held responsible for the actions of other middle aged white Americans?

Oh, well then, if we did it to them in the 50's, with our great understanding of environments and how they will be impacted by foreign species, we certainly can excuse them from this little transgression.

I never thought I would say this, but today I am an admirer of Ariel Sharon. This is not going to win him votes, hardline Israeli's will condemn him as a traitor, the Palestinians will misinterpret this as their victory, but he is finally doing the right thing in dismantling all the settlements in Gaza. Unfortunately, I agree with you, the right thing just may turn in to a disaster; Hamas sees this as capitulation to their tactics, and is already talking about how they can force further pull outs from the West Bank and Jerusalem. But is Isreal really giving in to terrorism, or doing what is moral and just in spite of terrorism?

I take back my earlier comments. North Dakota opened the Devil's Lake outlet yesterday, without waiting for the joint environment scan to be done. Of course, ND says that they conducted their own assessment, and there are no hazards to the Lake Winnipeg system. The results of the joint assessment will be available in about two weeks, but by then water from Devil's Lake will have reached Lake Winnipeg. Doer says they are violating the Boundary Waters Treaty, and Ottawa needs to get more involved. That's telling 'em, Gary!

By this logic, middle aged white guys from the US should bear the burden of the decisions made by Bush et al, and therefore actions taken by Middle Eastern regimes against them are justified. After all, they all look alike, don't they?

Gays and lesbians raise their biological children, and studies have shown that there are no adverse effects (its summer time, and I don't have my text books at hand, but every child development text I have ever taught from has made this statement). Why should adopted children be any different?

Toro, have you read his other NESARA threads? Very entertaining! BTW, onlythetruth, what happened to June 30 being the big day?

I'm curious about this case, Hawk. Was she praying out loud, distracting other students? Was she making a big show out of it, or trying to convince other students to join her? If not, I don't understand why she would get into trouble, as no one would even know she was praying unless she herself called attention to it. Its interesting to see how this thread has "evolved" from the original question, regarding prayer in school, to a discussion about evolution and creationism. What theories should be taught? If we are going to teach the Christian version of creation, should we also teach the Native American, the Hindi, the Greek mythology version? I can see all of those beliefs, including Christian, being taught in a social studies class, while evolution can be taught in science.

It is a step in the right direction, as for a long time North Dakota was not interested in any objections Manitoba had; but persistence paid off, and there will be an environmental study and a filter system. From the coverage here in Winnipeg, it seems we got what we wanted, and the people of Devil's Lake also will have relief from the constant flooding.

We don't need a conspiracy generator, we just need onlythetruth to come back and post again! Are you out there, onlythetruth???

I know its a typo, but I love the imagery of the "workpalace"! There absolutely are non monetary benefits to staying at home, and sometimes we are fortunate enough to be able to juggle both (when my two younger kids were small, I restructured so I only taught night classes, and picked up contracts that I could do from home on my own schedule. It wasn't great for my career path, but I was able to spend the time I wanted with my children, which was more important to me). I agree that it is a choice that people make with their eyes wide open (hopefully), but I think your assessment of the contract between the partners is idealistic. In reality, the lines of power in a relationship are often connected to who brings home the money.

Last time I checked, there was no salary, pension plan, workers compensation benefits, EI, CPP, business trips, or financial bonuses to nurturing children. Several posters on this forum believe in a health care system that would favour those who can afford to pay for quicker service, and the dismantling of other social programs so that people pay or do without. Staying at home would definitely put women at a disadvantage in these scenarios, and they would likely feel pressure to go back to work. Women who choose to stay home are financially dependant on someone else, but if they choose to continue to work, they spend a huge proportion of their income on child care, and still are seen by many as abdicating their parental responsibilities. (Before we start another debate on the topic, I'm not advocating free child care; as I've said before, parents should be expected to pay a reasonable amount for their care. But the full cost of care would make it out of reach for almost any family, especially if they have more than one child; a public system with a sliding scale for fees is my preference.)

Are you against all forms of birth control for straight people, then?

You'll have to point it out...I wouldn't want to miss such an historic first...