The DAILY DIGEST: INFORMATION and OPINION from ST. JOHN’S to VICTORIA.
ST.JOHN'S TELEGRAM - Share the blame
HALIFAX HERALD - A foothold on the moon
MONTREAL GAZETTE - Pre-school advantages would benefit Quebec
OTTAWA SUN - Waiting for the truth
TORONTO STAR - Growth of food banks signals rise in poverty
WINNIPEG SUN - Resignation too long in coming
CALGARY SUN - Grassroots grow deep
EDMONTON SUN - Justice denied
LETHBRIDGE HERALD - A reminder to the U.S. about Afghanistan
VICTORIA TIMES-COLONIST - It's time for clarity on private clinics
B.C. bands sign $500M agreement
Taliban will fight through the winter, warns British commander
Foreign influence: More landed immigrants joining military, despite citizenship requirement
Orphans of war
Wounded to get millions in compensation
AFGHANISTAN: Violence fuels disillusionment and threatens reconstruction - UN
President Karzai's Afghanistan still faces daunting challenges, writes Lyse Doucet.
Studied to death
Taliban slays teachers
Is it time for an Afghanistan Study Group?
The end of mandatory retirement: Now what?
Spies pillage our economy
Income trusts may be forced to skip tax holiday
Labour bill 'one-sided'
Scandinavia does it and enjoys high living standard
Bill would limit rights of those who want to work
Chinese officials like to control news
Easing of rules promised for Olympics, but there's reason to be skeptical
The world should stop playing dead for Putin
Toward American ‘Space Dominance’
America hears the truth
Sure ... let terrorists establish peace
Arabs, Israelis React to Iraq Study Group
A door opens for US-Iran cooperation
HEALTH CARE RELATED
'Pesticides are what is killing our kids'
Clostridium difficile QUEBEC
Sleeve sneeze 'the polite thing to do'
McEvoy report didn’t go far enough
Immigrant Youth Measure up to Their Canadian-born Counterparts
Bill to let immigrants sponsor extended family members
POLITICS IN THE PROVINCES
Dion's Grits surge past Tories
Calvert: Tories' silence on equalization 'inexcusable'
Calvert ire on equalization justified
Premier's to-do list
Clement: provinces need convincing on wait-time guarantees
Some Cape Bretoners call for special status after Quebecois declared a nation
Pointless motion on same-sex marriage just rubs salt in wound
SWERVIN' MERVIN NEEDS TO CALL HOME
Elections set stage for potential dust-up
We’re right, they’re evil
Liberals' popularity surges with new leader
Haskett wants domain site
Dion wins the cabbie nomination
POLITICS - US
An uncivil war over semantics
Bush is given a way out of Iraq, but will he take it?
Wheat board fight splits Western farmers
The Path Towards Marketing Choice for Western Wheat and Barley
Experts list hard lessons of post-9/11 world
Global warming: a few skeptics still ask what's causing it to happen
Pandemic plan revised
OPINION AND INFORMATION
We don't beat animals -- so why are kids fair game?
Rules of dying seek consensus between patients, doctors
Does the Soul Exist?
Western culture: Is it death by fertility rate?
A rush to judgment on the public sector
Decentralize national institutions
Elvi serve up a hunka, hunka burnin' love
Christmas survival guide
Don't forget accessories and add-ons
Un poisson dans l'eau
Le fédéral rend public la nouvelle version du plan de grippe pandémique
Dion ne serait pas le premier dirigeant à avoir la double nationalité
Un 13e décès à Saint-Hyacinthe
Des femmes manifestent contre le gouvernement Harper
Dans la tête de Bush
La vie après Kandahar
Mariage gai: les évêques très déçus que le débat soit fermé
Dion tendra l'oreille à ses prédécesseurs
L'élection de Dion dope les libéraux
Is there a need "to figure out a realistic long-term strategy for our mission in Afghanistan."?
WHY or WHY NOT?
"In the end, Iraqis, not the White House or congressmen from Alabama, must determine Iraq’s destiny. Left alone, Iraqis — and also
Afghans — will eventually work out a modus vivendi. But their wounds will not begin to heal until foreign occupation troops depart."
It is for these reasons that Canada needs its own Afghanistan Study Group.
Let's bring together a non-partisan group of the best minds in the country — people such as Allan Gotlieb, John Manley and Louise
Fréchette — to figure out a realistic long-term strategy for our mission in Afghanistan. By virtue of being above politics, this group
could consult widely inside and outside the country and create a policy that puts Canada and our troops ahead of a chain of events
that led the Americans to their Iraq debacle.
While my Christmas shopping awaits, along with other such activities of the season, allow me to make some comment on the Dec. 9 DD.
Interestingly enough, Norman Greenfield and I seem to share some common ground. The state issues marriage licenses and even perform such services, while at the same time allowing church's to continue to do the same, as is present practice. As long as there are options available, then I see no need to change anything. Gays can not be married in the Catholic Church. Neither can I. However, gays and I can both be married by the state, or even the United Church. We both have options.
Where I disagree with Norman is that when a fundamental pillar of our culture is altered, we should be sensitive to the fact that not all with embrace such a change. If a long-serving state official does not feel comfortable, or feels they are committing a sin, in marrying gay couples, then their status should be grandfathered in, though I can see it becoming mandatory for future state officials to do so. Remember, gay conduct was a criminal offense in this country until 1971, and some believe it should still be. As such, we should be sensitive of the deeply held beliefs of those on the other side of the issue, and not trample on their rights, either. While Trudeau said the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation, some are surprised to discover that we are now all supposed to cheer on, support, and promote whatever takes place in some of those bedrooms. They are concerned what our society will embrace next and what the repercussions might be. Is there anyone interested in easing those concerns, or is reverse discrimination and the dictates of the minority somehow more palatable? Is so, how so?
While I have no problem with gay unions, in fact, I wish more people would actually make such a commitment to one another, I did prefer to see "marriage" remain as defined. We have gone from saying we have no business in what two or more people do behind closed doors, which I agree with, to now being told that what some of what takes place should be embraced as something our children should be taught as being just as preferable to a heterosexual relationship. It would seem that someone
has kicked open the doors of the nation's bedrooms and invited us all in. I can imagine my grandfather's reaction had he been told that this was one of the freedoms he was going to war to fight for. Is anyone surprised that this might disgust some people? By the way, it is disgust they feel, not fear.
What is next, some ask? Multiple-partner marriages? If not, on what logic could be base our objections? Morality? You got to be kidding.
How about bestiality? I mean, if one is gentle and caring, who is really harmed? No doubt, those who would object must simply be afraid of chickens and the like.
Can I marry my Dad? My Grandma? While I'd bet the farm both would object, with disgust and morality pretty high on the list, should we prevent those who do wish such a relationship?
Yes, there are things that disgust me, including mealy mouthed politicians who we would be fools to trust and special interest groups who care only for themselves and be damned our society. All that said, what makes me burn most has nothing to do with the advent of gay marriage. While I'm not a proponent of the new institution, I am more concerned about all the rights we have and the damn little responsibility we take. This is one change in our society I think we all should be concerned with.
For example, I am more concerned about parents who fail their children, who fail to be take responsibility for their children's actions, who fail to support them in every way to allow them to be best prepared to meet the challenges of this world. If your child is a failure or some kind of misfit, chances are the cause can be found in your mirror. To be honest with you, I'm reaching the point where if Jack and Joe can do a better job than Jack and Jill in raising their children, then let them have at it.
God help me if I was ever responsible for raising the next Paris Hilton. By the way, for the record, I'm not afraid of bad parents. I'm disgusted by them.
I am always surprised at the number of women who are opposed to women’s equality and believe that women are inferior to and should be dependent on men (feminism is defined as “the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.”)
Women who have taken extreme views of gender relations, on either side of the issue, are certainly not feminists. However, their extreme views are used by misogynists and others to undermine women’s struggle for justice.
It is sad that some women are content only to have “an awareness of the importance of women in our world” while accepting their own political, economic, and social inferiority. I find it difficult to understand why women should be content to hide their abilities in these areas. Even worse, it is this inferiority complex that leads many women to accept violent domestic situations.
Why are some women afraid to seek their equality with men? Is it to massage men’s ego? Are they more comfortable in a patriarchal society where they never have to make a decision for themselves? It is a fear of independence? Is it based on their religious beliefs and the concept that women must for eternity pay for the sin of Eve? Are they, for some reason, threatened by stronger or more intelligent women and feel compelled to undermine their efforts to achieve equality?
Subject: Marriage issue is over, this time for good. Oh, it that right ...
SSM - as an indication of the "wisdom" of a society
Hmmm ... issue is over. Perhaps.
Here's a Holiday thought, particularly for all the 'caring and sharing' secular Humanist Canadians who say "well it doesn't really affect me ... if they wanna get married, let'em."
Perhaps we'll not think so in 3 generations. Sometimes things take a while to kick-in.
Ponder ... if your parents had been a HomoSex couple and their parents had been a HomoSex couple & your great grandparents had been too. Might that have made any difference to you (i.e. your being) and your society.
If anything goes ... where's the limit.
The Pendulum must swing back
Swing back towards a publicly accepted Code of Morality
Perhaps this one (as an interim step at least)
the North American Autochthonous Peoples'===================================
(I've found these same words in three different arrangements
and include links to all three, but present this one because I had to pick one)
Remain close to the Great Spirit.
Show Great respect for your fellow beings.
Give assistance and kindness wherever needed.
Be truthful and honest at all times.
Do what you know to be right.
Look after the well-being of mind and body.
Treat the Earth and all that dwell thereon with respect.
Take full responsibility for your actions.
Dedicate a share of your efforts to the greater good.
Work together for the benefit of all mankind.
Mark Garstin writes in part:
What I did hear on the radio yesterday was an attack by Dion against Harper accusing him of copying all of the bad policies of George W. Bush. Sheeze, I really did think (hope) that Dion was going to be different and that the tone of politics was going to change for the good. Unfortunately, it sounds as if Dion is going to take up the old and tired tactic of slamming the Americans for political gain. Why is it that the Liberals are so perpetually anti-American, it is almost racist how they hate our closest and best neighbour? How would we feel about the Americans if their government continually attacked and slammed Canada as openly and as brazenly as do the Liberals.
As an American-Canadian who has long been in despair over Bush's contempt for international law and the US Bill of Rights, his almost magical transformation of nearly universal good will towards the US after 911 into nearly universal dislike or even hatred, and his wasting American lives and treasure on the illegal and incredibly stupid invasion of Iraq, I cannot imagine a greater insult than equating criticism of Bush's disastrous policies with "slamming Americans."
Whatever faint justification there may have been for identifying Bush's disastrous policies with "Americans" evaporated with the recent American election, and the release of the Iraq Study Group report.
As to "How would we feel about the Americans if their government continually attacked and slammed Canada as openly and as brazenly as do the Liberals," I am certainly outraged when American politicians continue to rant about all the terrorists coming from, or through, Canada because - unlike most Canadian criticisms of the US government's policies - they are false and malicious, and they are having disastrous consequences with respect to our border with the US. Consequences that are being implemented in spite of the fact that the open border with Canada poses no danger, and despite both Martin and Harper's cozying up to the "North American Security Perimeter" and the other measures towards "deeper integration" with the US.
The fact is that most of the people who vote for Bush (and many who don't) have no idea where Canada is, especially if they live south of the northern tier of states.
Subject: Should we do this for the Troops?
Somehow, I can't quite see Tony Clement standing up in the House to demand that we help our boys in Afghanistan this way!
Woman MP demands hookers for the troops
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_2048862.html?menu=news. quirkies. sexlife
. . . should the link read "quickies" rather than "quirkies"?
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Daily Digest December 10, 2006
Joe Hueglin wrote: