Alias

Over 60% polled say "I am cut and happy about it" ...says something Although I don't have the time to dive into your reading list, (thank you though) there seems to be a plethora of opinions available, by prestigious medical centers, that include topics based on the benefets of it. The majority do not mention the pain crisis you are convinced must scar a child. Seems that is a newer trend started in the 70's. "Trendy" I'm sure no cut men here remember it, my sons, brothers and father don't - So, whats your point again?

Can anyone who has has there child cut explain just how much pain it really seemed to cause. Of all the things I have done to may body that hurt, I just can't imagine that being cut inflicted much pain. My sons think they were born that way - So I guess there was no memory of the 2 minutes of crying after the 2 minute procedure in the room an hour after the birth. Just asked the guy in the office with me if he did with his new son. He says the same thing I hear here. "I am also, seems cleaner and the norm. Didn't really think about it that much, why? Whats the big deal" Just laughed and said never mind. Not a big deal to the people who were cut! Still trying to figure what side of the knife the professor falls on....only to better understand his position of course Carpe Diem

Did you have their appendices removed and their tonsils out too, just in case these developed medical problems later in life? No, sorry. Didn't realize there was a tradition that included that behavior. Tradition? That makes it OK? Well, it's traditional in many African and Asian countries to circumcise girls. It has the claimed social benefit of reducing promiscuity. We, on the other hand, call it mutilation and have made it a felony. Can you tell me why cutting a boy's genitals should be OK but cutting a girl's is a felony? http://www.circlist.com/femalecirc/anatfemale.html Seems a few females prefer it. But, good question I guess. The United States where routine (male) circumcision has gained widespread acceptance continues the practice without major discussion. .....and 60 million American males do not seem to mind. I cannot remember being cut. And never met anyone that did. My sons have no idea, other then the charm bracelet we made for them... ...and my wife prefers it, not having seen any other kind....so where is the harm again? I'm really more curious on why you (pro-ant eater) seem to have your issues with others choosing to do this? Botched clipping? (edit to add) smart ass remark Carpe Diem

PEAK OIL If true, and once realized - watch all hell break loose. It's not about who and how much produces. It's who has the largest reserves - hint Iraq has second largest behind the Saudi's The Hubbert peak theory, also known as peak oil, is an influential theory concerning the long-term rate of conventional oil and other fossil fuels production and depletion. It predicts that future world oil production will soon reach a peak and then rapidly decline. The actual peak year will only be known after it has passed. Carpe Diem

*** Yeah, I heard that there is in fact a 'no charge' policy for infant circumcision....But, they do take "Tips" Q. How do you circumcise a hillbilly? A. Kick his sister in the jaw. Carpe Diem

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aaOnA4EyVNLc&refer=us Where does the First Amendment stand, here? In this case I think she might want to spill the beans Carpe Diem

My Dad told me they used my detached foreskin down in the burn unit for skin graphs - glad to know I could help

Did you have their appendices removed and their tonsils out too, just in case these developed medical problems later in life? No, sorry. Didn't realize there was a tradition that included that behavior. Whats wrong Prof? Your not dealing with cut envy are ya? Carpe Diem

ya might be right http://www.notjustskin.org/en/ronstheory.html All of my 4 boys are cut. See no problem with it. Not even sure why I am involved in this thread (edit) to add clicky Carpe Diem

Other then being better looking then an ant eater - it is odor-free, it feels cleaner, and cuts's enjoy better sex according to some. A recent AAP report stated that circumcision does offer some benefit in preventing urinary tract infections in infants. Circumcision also offers some benefit in preventing penile cancer in adult men. Circumcision may reduce the risk of sexually transmitted diseases. Circumcision virtually eliminates the accumulation of smegma. Circumcision unquestionably facilitates better hygiene and the avoidance of conditions that result from uncleanliness But not a necessity Carpe Diem

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/06/AR2005070600231.html What a true American Hero! RIP! Carpe Diem

I can admit that I was duped. As mentioned earlier. I also have no doubt that the Bush Admin is doing this for the over all security of this country. I strongly disdagree with the process they pursued. And I also am a firm believer that the major issue with the "security" I mentioned is...... yep, oil. But that's another topic heh? Carpe Diem

edit to add: Did you know that Canada is consistantly one of our top three suppliers. Taking turns being number one. Canada. Now, but not before the invasion. Hence the topic of this thread. I agree it is better to fight there and not in the US, but it seems the US policies are creating a boom within the Jihadists. The fact of the matter is that what's happening is the solidification and legitimization of a government that is going to be heavily populated by really, really brutal, cruel criminals, most of whom are part of the mujahedin, which was a force that was created by the Pakistani intelligence and the U.S. in the 1980s to fight the Soviet Union and the Afghan communists. And these are the people, once again, running Afghanistan. And the way they run Afghanistan is to exploit and steal from the common people. Atta is now with Karzai, the US backed "winner" Keep in mind the entire election was a car wreck. With all candidates except Karrzai boycotting because of fraud. It was backroom deals with war lords that created the resolve. And if you want to call it "free elections with a democratically elected govt" well, I guess you can, but you'd be incorrect imho. It was prearranged by the U.S. that Karzai would be president, and that's the way it's going to be. With two of the biggest warlords, with private armies, as cabinet members. Your new elected Afghan government will include Mohammed Atta and Rashid Dostam, both of whom are involved in the drug trade, both of whom are seizing land, both of whom tax, mercilessly, the extremely poor people of this region, and both of whom are jockeying for positions in the Karzai regime. And I'll bet that Mohammed Atta is governor of a province and I'm sure that Rashid Dostam will be bought off or rewarded, somehow, with some sort of position. And the U.S. is cooperating with these people, the mujahedin leaders, who have been reincarnated as the, quote-unquote, “Northern Alliance,” but they're really just a bunch of feudal thugs who is use Kalashnikovs and R.P.G.’s instead of swords and horses. I disagree. It is a unique "war" we have there.New US detention centers littering the country. New bases being built left and right, permanent structures. We are there for the "long run". It is also a strategic step towards circling Iran, the last of three 'rouge" states on the list. And it seems we are in bed with the same people you think we have ousted. Who knows. Might be the best way to get Intel is keeping close to the enemy. But it is no way near over. 20,000 troops and growing. Not really. It was the core reason to me. In a nut shell. It is about oil being a strategic commodity! The US continues to consume record amounts of oil without providing a solid plan B, at all! US relies on the Saudi's to stave off a price increases triggered by many things such as weather, civil unrest etc. Severe increase could paralyze the US economy China is the new largest global consumer and growing much faster then the US. And is the Saudi's new largest customer Prior to the invasion, OPEC members, Iran & Iraq switched profits from $ to Euro's. Thus creating a weaker dollar in the world economy and possibly a continued down stream. With Ven considering the same, until the convenient coup attempt the month we invade Iraq. BTW, Iraq's were switched back as one of our first actions we when took over. and the kicker Iraq has the second largest reserves I guess you do not yet see any coincidence here? I truly believe Iraq was for the stabilization of the dollar, oil reserves and yes, democracy (to help control the govt for US means) . Even if there was a WMD threat, which I believe was an excuse, I feel the US should not be out there policing for the UN, especially when they (UN) says NO! And there was no direct threat to US soil. I agree that we should have done something to handle the potential security issues in regards to the US oil needs in the future. Taking out SH and occupying the second largest oil reserves in the world sure is effective. I simply am now more aware of the whole picture the Bush Administration seems to be committed too. It is the process of lying and BS that this is not what it is about , that bugs the shit out of me. My goal is not to redicule Bush. I voted for him. The first few people I engaged with the concept of this being for oil looked at me like I was a traitor, being that I was a hard core Republican. Now most of the "not for oil" folks cannot recall that conversation. And say "of course oil is a huge part" changing the tune, which is fine by me. I changed mine also. The point is that AQ does have a place to get easy pickins on US forces. And we created it. How it is going to go away is the question. Be interested in any opinions. A solution is what we should be talking about. Not a history lesson on why we are really there. That's pointless. If we plan on staying in Iraq until these "insurgents" are gone - we will lose that one. We created a situation where they breed faster then we can recrute. And most troops are getting real tired of three deployments in a row to Iraq. Carpe Diem

The Bush Admin agrees with you. By deciding to sell the Iraqi invasion based in part on a link to AQ, which was extremely weak at best in reality, the have created a convenient location for Jihadists to act. And again, since AQ seems to have a heavier presence in Jalalabad and Kandahar, why consider Iraq such a large "piece" of the war on terror? You mean is being done - (shhhh) Train, pull out and I guess maintain as a shit hole rotation. Democracy is rare in the middle east. Why again is it important for us to breed it there? Freedom maybe. But I smell oil Understanding peak oil and the shift in users, I agree that we need to control certain securities. But the process this administration pursued to get there is a scary reminder that an abuse of power can accomplish many things. Carpe Diem

I wonder if the majority of the "Gay Marriage" crowd would be happy with all the bennies a marriage gets, but just not use the term marriage? That term relates to religion in my eyes - Call it something else, get the benefits and be done with symantics. Here are some folks with this in mind http://www.unmarried.org/aboutus.php Carpe Diem

Yes, I agree. But most people do not separate the two operations. What again were the results, we as Americans, demanded after 9/11? Invade Saddam? Push democracy in Iraq? Don't think so! Our "enemy" in the "War on Terror" is reported to be on the Afghan/Paki border, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, operating freely. If so, why do we have so many troops in Iraq? " The war on terror " is only in Iraq because we created an environment for our enemy to rally there, you are right. The young, poor, confused muslim men of the world will continue to be indoctrinated to the dark side in part because of it. There was a weak connection prior to our invasion. Making war with Iraq, in the way Bush's Admin did, of course will breed more AQ support. If we want to defeat AQ, which I consider the "War on Terror", it will be through the intelligence communities combined with SF and Delta intervention - A little good press for the US in the Islamic world couldnt hurt either. The radicals are very small numbers in Islam. But continued invasions/occupations will create another version of the Afghan Jihad in the 80's/90's - cept we play the Soviets. Too bad we are not using the resources we've committed to Iraq for the "War on Terror" Pisses me off! Carpe Diem

Well, that pattern is a realistic one fer sure. Many examples inthe past. My point is I'd rather see more intelligent discussion on idea's and challanges of exiting Iraq then the continual nit picking over the BS war! IMHO The Bush Admin lost my trust through his deception process to get into Iraq. Now lets clean it up quickly! I actually know more troops in rotation back and forth to Afghanistan (SF) and would like to see more effort placed on that issue. It is deteriorating while everyone bitches about Iraq. Your point is proven too me. They lied, many including me believed at the time- but some still do ...towing the party line -not including me. Carpe Diem

I though the war on "terror" was in Afghanistan. Iraq was, started as, UN resolutions and the removal of Saddam - mission accomplished! Lets lead them there and not in two locations that were not connected in the first place, until recently. Two issues. It isnt Saddam Bin Laden in Iraqistan, Carpe Diem

Roger that! The resolution required Bush to declare to Congress either before or within 48 hours after beginning military action that diplomatic efforts to enforce the U.N. resolutions have failed. Bush also had to certify that action against Iraq would not hinder efforts to pursue the al Qaeda terrorist network that attacked New York and Washington last year. And it requires the administration to report to Congress on the progress of any war with Iraq every 60 days. We invaded in the name of the UN although the UN said "Do not do it"! but anyway... We've declared no WMD - one down We removed SH - two down Now the US has decided to continue the war, that was based on WMD and UN resolutions, in the name of creating a democracy and ridding Iraq of insurgencey....mmmm that's the hard part ..but included in the mission none the less So, lets train the Iraqi's under the same training our troops get. I mean, we can take a kid from the middle class hood, who most likely has never fired a rifle or even been hit in the face and train him to be a order following combat ready soldier with-in months. Lets set the number we need to train, train them to protect the freedom processe and get the fuck out already. And btw - when we leave all shiot will break loose and there's nothing we can do about it! Concentrate on Afghanistan and all the other rat holes AQ occupy - Mission accomplished three down ...at least the mission we've been told, this time around Carpe Diem

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/91109A0C-83F4-438F-9CC1-52DF6936CC6B.htm Even aljazeera aknowledges that he was involved. The man who said: "We did not have a revolution in order to have democracy," He is a former Islamic Revolutionary Guard commander, unabashedly conservative and loyal to Iran's Supreme leader Ayat Allah Ali Khamenei Agreed - bad bad bad I can almost see whats coming Carpe Diem

I feel like you Ron. Bad speech in an important time for support of the Iraq issue for Bush. He blew it! And he is losing support very very quickly. Lost my support a while back - first time in my politically aware life I do not consider myself a Republican - They have turned me, among many others...Independant, for now We need to wrap the Iraq War up soon. Havent we accomplished all of our "goals".....and btw, they'll pick up the pace of fighting when we leave....no matter what. Time to set that date! Bush should have done that last night! Yep, I voted for Bush.....but voted for McCain in the primaries Carpe Diem

Does ...court appointed count? Carpe Diem

Mike Maginnis - is one name I'll throw out. More to come if you decide that his rights were not violated under the Patriot Act for some odd reason. We were talking about the lack of due process related to the Patriot Act right? There is your name Remember, More than 140 cities and towns across the nation have passed resolutions critical of the Patriot Act. And last week, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 309-118 to forbid certain funds from going to Justice Department agencies that use a provision of the Patriot Act that eases restrictions on "sneak-and-peek" search warrants Such warrants allow agents to secretly enter a home or business to obtain evidence. Normally the subjects of sneak-and-peeks are notified within seven days of the search; the Patriot Act says only that notification must be within a "reasonable period." I realize I'm leading this off topic a bit, but oh well. It might get moved Have you researched this? You do not see the abuse of power - related to your rights? The First Amendment Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. What does this do for you?!! The First Amendment guarantees us... - freedom of religion - freedom of speech - freedom of assembly - freedom of association - freedom of the press Where does the Patriot Act attack these rights? Violates the First Amendment by effectively authorizing the FBI to launch investigations of American citizens in part for exercising their freedom of speech. Violates the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech by prohibiting the recipients of search orders from telling others about those orders, even where there is no real need for secrecy.. Creates a very serious risk that truly innocent individuals could be deported for association with The Fourth Amendment The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized The Fourth Amendment guarantees us freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. What it means too you? It ensures that government agents cannot search your house, office or other personal effects without probable cause that you have committed a crime (as verified by the issue of a warrant). Where does the Patriot Act attack these rights? Violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing foreign intelligence searches for criminal purposes without probable cause of crime. Violates the Fourth Amendment by failing to provide timely notice to persons whose home has been searched. Notice is also a key element of due process, which is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. Violates the Fourth Amendment by allowing the government to seize records in intelligence and Terrorism investigations without probable suspicion that the records pertain to a terrorist, spy or other foreign agent. The Fifth Amendment No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. What it means too you? The Fifth Amendment guarantees that no person can be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Where does the Patriot Act attack these rights? Allows indefinite incarceration of persons without judicial review thereby denying due process and equal protection of law. Creates a very serious risk that individuals could be deported for association with political groups that the government later chooses to regard as terrorist organizations. Secrets are the key to this act. Records are sealed and it is an offence to release names in most cases. I read where the ACLU cannot name a person(patriot Act) they represent. The DOJ used the Patriot act to to keep it quiet even after it is the Patriot Act that is in question. http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/ Read a bit about electronic privacy, or the lack of under the Patriot Act I really could go on and on, but I think you get my point Carpe Diem

There are two people: Those that appreciate any type of giving. Those that don't appreciate any type of giving unless it's "give til it hurts". Assuming no one appreciates what the US gives because it was pointed out how much others gave who had much less....is that. Assuming Remember rushmc's post here, I was mearly correcting an incorrect remark made. Unless you can debate that remark? Carpe Diem

The surveillance act relaxed that standard, so no evidence of a crime is necessary. Instead, intelligence authorities can go to a secret court and obtain a search warrant simply by demonstrating that the primary purpose of their investigation is to gather foreign intelligence and the person in question is a proven agent of a foreign power. Few people would likely find that egregious. But once the door is cracked for a due process exception, kicking it wide open becomes much simpler. And that's exactly what the Patriot Act does. Its Section 218 expands on the surveillance act standard to allow the same secret courts to grant warrants if federal law enforcement agents can certify -- not prove by hard evidence -- that the person to be searched is a suspected terrorist or a suspected foreign agent. No longer does terrorism or foreign intelligence need to be the "primary" purpose of the investigation; This may seem like a trivial change, but it isn't Worse, it will allow law enforcement to piggy back ordinary criminal investigations on to the espionage or terror warrant. The foreign surveillance court recognized the danger and initially refused to implement the expanded powers, but it was overruled by a never-before-convened three-judge panel. Encouraging sneak-and-peek Perhaps even worse are the Patriot Act's "sneak-and-peek" clauses. These provisions, which the House overwhelmingly voted to repeal, extend the Justice Department's ability to conduct secret searches of the homes and businesses of individuals -- citizens and noncitizens alike -- not just in terrorism or espionage cases, but for all criminal investigations. Certainly, the Justice Department has to meet the higher probable cause standard to conduct the searches. Still, authorities do not have to notify homeowners of the searches as long as the Justice Department can show that notification would in any way jeopardize the investigation. Since notification would in almost every case undermine an investigation, this could effectively spell the end of the "knock and announce" requirement on police executing searches, a major abrogation of privacy rights. The Fourth Amendment was added to the Constitution because of the Founders' deep-seated revulsion against the practices of their former English masters, who had wide-ranging powers to ransack homes in search of any evidence of tax evasion or other crimes. Carpe Diem