Fischkoepfin

Thanks for your quick response. My son does have a passport, so that's not a problem. I've a letter drafted and we're going to notarize that today. I was hoping to leave the birth certificate here, but I can see your point.

P.S.: Good luck with your paperwork!

I'm (Green Card Holder) traveling to my home country next week with my 2-year old son. My husband (US-citizen), who's currently in school, is not coming with us, but he fully consents to the trip. I am fully employed at a state university, and there would be no reason for me not to return to the US.

I've read that in addition to passports, I should still be taking a notarized consent form that allows me to leave the country with my son. Does anyone have experience with this? Is there anything else I should take, like his birth certificate (we have different last names), documentation from my employer, etc?

So, I've been absent from VJ for a few month because I've been to busy to read or post anything. I've been looking for a job, sending out tons of applications; at the same time, I'm working hard to fulfill my graduation requirements, which means endless days of reading and writing. The job search went well despite a horrible job market, and I have a few interviews next week. We'll see how that will pan out, but hopefully I 'll land a job as my husband and I are quite ready to leave this place (we were planning to move last year but then the immigration thing interfered).

Anyway, I did miss you guys, and wanted to wish you all the best and happy holidays.

I just watched the movie last night, and I liked it despite its historical inaccuracies. The Mayan Empire was already in decline when the Spaniards arrived on the Mainland, and the Spaniards did not face an empire but an assortment of small city states. So the movie while claiming to portray the beginning of the decline actually picks up 500 years later.

/the spoiler feature rocks/

Anyway, the movie was beautifully shot, and I liked it better than the other Mel Gibson movies I've seen. The plot was a little flat in that it set up all these characters in the beginning but then only dealt with one of them in detail. It was cool that the whole movie was in the Mayan language. So, if you haven't seen it yet, go watch it.

Not eating the rind of a brie or camenbert is like drinking wine with ice cubes.

I have to say though that oftentimes the brie I've bought here is too old, making it taste like sweaty feet rather than creamy goodness. And the rind on those antique cheeses tastes even more rancid than the cheese itself. The only way to avoid that is to look at the best-by-date and buy a brie that will be good for another 3-4 weeks.

how 'bout we also implement a MAXIMUM wage? I'm quite certain that the CEOs of major petroleum companies and whatnot can never spend the 6 billion dollars they were paid last year.

If they'd just give up their freakin' bonuses, which in most cases a one year bonus for these meatwads are more than I'll ever make in a lifetime, then maybe, just maybe, they could afford to pay their worker bees a dollar or 2 more per hour than they do now

That would work for the major companies but most people are employed by small and medium size business's Speaking from experience the owners of these small and medium size business's are not raking it in like the CEO's of the fortune 500 companies. The pro-minimum wage people often hold those few up as a reason for raising the minimum but the truth is the harm would come to companies that can least afford it and who employ the most. It's class warfare at it's worst.

You keep saying that most Americans are employed by small businesses. That seems strange to me, as there don't seem to be many small businesses left thanks to conglomerates and giant corporations..

Also, it seems that the bigger the corporation the less money they pay their employees, as small companies have a much larger stake in keeping their employees happy. Content employees, namely those who make more money plus benefits, are not only more productive but also less likely to quit their jobs, leading to lower overheads, and thus higher profits.

Let's face it, the most prosperous era in American history, the post-WW II years, were marked by high wages for employees (so called family wages, allowing one person to feed his family and live comfortably), realistic salaries for CEOs, and a progressive tax structure. Ever since the model was abandoned (in the late seventies) the wage gap has grown, employees' wages have stagnated if not fallen, CEOs' salaries have skyrocketed, and social inequality has been on the rise. The economic policies we have now resemble those of the late 19th century, which, while great for the ones on top, inevitably bred social resentment, violence and the like. I, for one, prefer social justice to violence.

If you're referring to the Mathew Sheppard case, you made several errors:

• the perpetrators WERE NOT "Christian zealots"
  
• They never claimed to be "following the Word of God"
  
• the case was a rather simple robbery-battery-manslaughter (the touts had decided to rob and bash Sheppard because he was puny and looked "easy"--the fact that he was homosexual came in AFTER the arrest)
  

Wiki disagrees with you. The perps specifically targeted a gay man. They did probably pick Matthew because he was an easy target.

Also, Matthew Shepard's death has been used by Christian groups as an example of what happens to openly gay people, which not only justifies the murder but more importantly condones it. This link has more info (disturbing material).

I've read all six so far FEAR ME!

So,.... how many of the "Secret 7" series have you read?

I've read all of them and all Harry Potter-books. I haven't been ivolved in any massacres so far and don't consider either series evil.

To the lady in Atlanta: maybe books aren't the problem, but the ready accessibility of assault weapons...

Lesson here I guess is don't use drugs.

That's a lesson to be learned, but it would just evade rather than solve the issue. I find it quite disconcerting that immigration law allows USCIS to make decisions concerning immigrant status based on arbitrary interpretation and selective use of state or federal laws. By exploiting the discrepancies between three legal systems, the decisions which laws are applicable is up to the individual case worker. This is a violation of the equal protection and due process clause, and appears - at least to me - highly unconstitutional.

October 4, 2006

Justices Ponder Conditions for Automatic Deportation

By LINDA GREENHOUSE

WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 — The intersection of federal criminal law and immigration law is a perilous place for the millions of legal residents of the United States who are not citizens: one slip, one criminal conviction, can mean deportation.

The justices of the Supreme Court struggled, during the first argument of their new term on Tuesday, to understand exactly how the two statutory frameworks intersect.

The question, posed by two separate cases that were consolidated for a single argument, was whether immigration officials can treat an immigrant’s state-court conviction for possession of a small quantity of illegal drugs as an “aggravated felony” as long as the crime is considered a felony under the state law, even if federal law treats the same conduct as only a misdemeanor.

Conviction of an “aggravated felony” has dire consequences for a noncitizen, including automatic deportation without the usual rights of appeal and a permanent bar against returning to the United States.

Congress added the category of aggravated felony to federal immigration law in 1988, and it includes a number of specific offenses. Among them is a “drug trafficking crime” that in turn is defined as “any felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act,” the basic federal drug law. Does a particular drug crime that is a felony under the law of a state become a “felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act,” even if federal law would treat it only as a misdemeanor?

Although the government’s position has shifted over time, its current view is that the answer is yes. The law of the “jurisdiction of conviction,” Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler told the court, is what determines whether the crime is an aggravated felony.

Lawyers for two lawful permanent residents caught up in this statutory maze argued the opposite. “State felonies are not themselves punishable under the Controlled Substances Act,” Robert A. Long Jr., representing José Antonio López, told the court. “It is not a federal crime to violate state law,” he added.

Mr. López, a native of Mexico who became a permanent legal resident in 1990, pleaded guilty in a South Dakota court in 1997 to “aiding and abetting possession of cocaine,” a felony under South Dakota law for which he served 15 months in prison. Under federal law, a first offense of possessing cocaine is a misdemeanor.

At the time, the Board of Immigration Appeals took the position that a drug crime that was not a federal felony could not be considered an “aggravated felony.” While the non-aggravated-drug conviction made Mr. López deportable, it left officials with the discretion to treat him leniently, including granting him a “cancellation of removal.”

But while his case was pending before an immigration judge, the Board of Immigration Appeals changed its position and ruled that a state-law drug felony was an aggravated felony. Mr. López lost his final appeal last year before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, in St. Louis. He was deported to Mexico in January. His Supreme Court appeal is López v. Gonzales, No. 05-547.

The other case before the court, Toledo-Flores v. United States, No. 05-7664, was brought by another Mexican, Reymundo Toledo-Flores. He was convicted in Texas of possession of 0.16 grams of cocaine, less than six one-thousandths of an ounce, a felony under Texas law. He lost an appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, and was deported in April.

As is often the case with questions of statutory interpretation, the argument on Tuesday was dense, dry and technical. But the human dilemmas created by the government’s current interpretation have drawn considerable attention to the case.

Dozens of civil rights and criminal defense groups signed briefs on the immigrants’ behalf, as did the American Bar Association and three men who served as general counsels of the Immigration and Naturalization Service under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.

The former officials’ brief said that “because the ‘aggravated felony’ categorization has such sweeping consequences and essentially eliminates the capacity of the immigration enforcement system to differentiate among individual circumstances,” it should apply only when Congress has been completely clear.

Several justices found the language less than clear. Referring to the phrase “any felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act,” Justice Stephen G. Breyer said to Mr. Kneedler, the government’s lawyer, “I could look at those words a thousand times and not have a clue” whether the law covers state felonies that are only federal misdemeanors.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg observed that “it seems to me unseemly” that “because of the happenstance of the states in which they were convicted,” one immigrant could be “barred from ever coming back” while another who committed the identical offense would not be.

Mr. Long, the lawyer for Mr. López, agreed with the observation. He said the government’s interpretation would permit individual states to “banish” immigrants by labeling minor offenses as felonies.

Part of the argument was spent debating whether, for technical reasons, Mr. Toledo-Flores’s appeal was moot, as the government argued. His lawyer, Timothy Crooks, said the case was not moot because under the conditions of his “supervised release” in Mexico, Mr. Toledo-Flores must observe certain rules, including abstention from alcohol.

Justice Antonin Scalia replied that this was not a burden with sufficient real consequences to keep the case alive.

“Nobody thinks your client is really, you know, abstaining from tequila down in Mexico,” Justice Scalia said.

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Source

October 4, 2006

In Bill’s Fine Print, Millions to Celebrate Victory

By THOM SHANKER

WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 — Even as the Bush administration urges Americans to stay the course in Iraq, Republicans in Congress have put down a quiet marker in the apparent hope that V-I Day might be only months away.

Tucked away in fine print in the military spending bill for this past year was a lump sum of $20 million to pay for a celebration in the nation’s capital “for commemoration of success” in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Not surprisingly, the money was not spent.

Now Congressional Republicans are saying, in effect, maybe next year. A paragraph written into spending legislation and approved by the Senate and House allows the $20 million to be rolled over into 2007.

The original legislation empowered the president to designate “a day of celebration” to commemorate the success of the armed forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, and to “issue a proclamation calling on the people of the United States to observe that day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.”

The celebration would honor the soldiers, sailors, air crews and marines who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it would be held in Washington, with the $20 million to cover the costs of military participation.

Democrats called attention to the measure, an act that Republicans are likely to portray as an effort to embarrass them five weeks before the midterm election. The Democrats said both the original language and the extension were pushed by Senate Republicans. A spokesman for the Republican-controlled Senate Armed Services Committee said it was protocol not to identify sponsors of such specific legislation.

The overall legislation was approved in the Senate by unanimous consent and overwhelmingly in the House after a short debate.

Democrats nevertheless said they were not pleased.

“If the Bush administration had spent more time planning for the postwar occupation of Iraq, and less time planning ‘mission accomplished’ victory celebrations, America would be closer to finishing the job in Iraq,” said Rebecca M. Kirszner, communications director for Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader.

Lt. Col. Brian Maka, a Pentagon spokesman, said late Tuesday that the event was envisioned as an opportunity for “honoring returning U.S. forces at the conclusion” of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. “As the funds were not used in F.Y. 2006,” the official said, using the initials for fiscal year, “the authorization was rolled over into F.Y. 2007.”

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Source

I dont feel like wasting my time, I could write a 1000 page thesis on the subject and all you would do is twist,spin,bellyflop,nit pick,parse, your way out of it and end with another question! so sorry not gonna take your BAIT!

How do you know? So far you haven't made a single point that was not ripped from some neo-con publication and entirely your own.

Also, there's no need for 1000 pages. All it takes is a few self-conceived sentences.

and commonplaces.

Fish said: "ripped from some neo-con publication and entirely your own."

These are QUOTES ripped from an article! and they are TRUE! The statements I cut and pasted are ones that I agree with strongly! you can interpret them however you see fit. It seems anything coming from what you conceive to be from anything resembling the right you start adding words such as neo-con to put a negative conotation to it!

Even if you agree with them strongly doesn't mean you can just post them as your opinion. Furthermore, they are not from an article but from an editorial/ opinion essay that is all over the conservative newsmedia. Articles contain fact, editorials contain opinions, meaning they are not true.

Fish said:" I honestly would like to have a serious discussion, but that is impossible if all that is coming back is a barrage of stereotypes"

Personally I havent seen much of barrage of anything!

I have. As a reminder (and I know erekose has already pointed this out), you have accused me of being anti-American, of lacking intelligence, of refusing to have a real argument, of not being worth your time and so on.

you refer to Bush as Bushie, you said he was unintelligent, he maybe! I dont know him personally and I'm sure you don't either. So if you would just enlighten me on one thing who the hell put you in charge of JUDGING intelligence!

I have never doubted Bush's intelligence, I have just stated that there are smarter people than he, which is not that uncommon as there are only a few people who can claim that there are smarter than the rest of humanity. Also, I would never refer to Bush as Bushie as that would indicate a degree of acquaintance that I don't have or it would mean that I was condescending towards Bush. So please don't put words in my mouth.

If I started refering to you as Stinky fish I'm sure you would'nt appreciate it much at all! So when you got the Democrats out there calling him school yard names is just ridiculous! The only reason I think they do it is because in some sick way it makes them feel good! Oh and i'm sure all your info comes from ligitimate places only you know about!

I do not nor have I ever incited any democrats to name calling. First of all, I don't know any democrats, and second of all I believe in certain standards for political debate. Name-callling is stupid and attests to a poltical climate worthy of an dictatorship and not a democracy.

As to my info, it comes from a range of sources, but primarily the mainstream media. It is accessible to you as well if you took the time to read outside the narrow constraints of the right-wing new services. Yet, I do admit that all I write represents my own opinion in my own words, based on newsreports, lots of reading of books (the factual not the ranting kind), and long-term observation.

And now, I would appreciate it if you stopped leveling personal attacks at me and moved on to the issues.

Hey, would you mind answering my questions now? I'm totally convinced that you're good at reproducing other people's opinions as seen through your extensive citations from the right-wing media. The stuff you posted above is from another rant concerning the supposed connections between U.S. liberals and Chavez.

Btw, none of the people you cite are over 30 and still live with their parents, meaning this doesn't support your earlier statement. As a matter of fact, most left-leaning people (none of them liberals) I know hold real jobs, earn their living, and are perfectly capable of thinking for themselves.

I dont feel like wasting my time, I could write a 1000 page thesis on the subject and all you would do is twist,spin,bellyflop,nit pick,parse, your way out of it and end with another question! so sorry not gonna take your BAIT!

How do you know? So far you haven't made a single point that was not ripped from some neo-con publication and entirely your own.

Also, there's no need for 1000 pages. All it takes is a few self-conceived sentences.

I honestly would like to have a serious discussion, but that is impossible if all that is coming back is a barrage of stereotypes and commonplaces.

As one of those foreign women, I have to say I'm disgusted by this thread. Do you guys really think that nationality defines a women's mind (or body)? Or is it just that American women don't take $hit from men like you (gross overgeneralization, sorry)?

I can only speak for myself, but I did not come to this country to get married nor was my husband enticed by my foreigness except to help him learn another language. The rest just happened, and to be honest, the same is true for the many international couples I know.

I wonder why these threads on the defects of American women appear over and over again on this site, but seldomly do we see a thread arguing the opposite, such as American women prefer to marry foreign men because they dress better, have better manner, are less concerned about their cars, and most importantly don't feel the need to live up to some macho-man ideal? How would you feel if you were treated or talked about like some piece of property (and this goes both ways)?

Where exactly are all of these supposed Bush bashers that do nothing with their lives except hate Bush and his administration? I haven't met any of them. It seems to me that the real obsession is with seeking out people who have different opinions and totally exaggerating their fervor.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi called Chavez "an everyday thug." "You don't come into my country, you don't come into my congressional district, and you don't condemn my president," said Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y. Yes, the same Rangel who, after the Supreme Court ruled in Bush's favor in the 2000 presidential election, pronounced the decision an "injustice." With this newfound patriotic fervor, Democrats lashed into Hugo Chavez. Why, how dare he criticize President Bush in a demeaning, brutal fashion!

Here's the question. Where were the neo-defenders of Bush when Democrats repeatedly, and viciously, said virtually the same thing as did Chavez?

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.: "I sometimes feel as though Alfred E. Neuman is in charge in Washington."

Former President Jimmy Carter: "Regardless of the costs, there are determined efforts by top U.S. leaders to exert American imperial dominance throughout the world. These revolutionary policies have been orchestrated by those who believe that our nation's tremendous power and influence should not be internationally constrained

Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass.: "Week after week after week after week, we were told lie after lie after lie after lie. And now, despite the increasingly restless Iraqi population, the administration still refuses to face the truth, or to tell the truth."

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.: "Their plan is lie and die. And that's what they're doing. They lie to America about what's happening on the ground, they lie about why we're there, they lie about what's happening."

Rep. John Murtha D-Pa.: "Our troops [in Haditha] . . . killed innocent civilians in cold blood." (Murtha said this before there was an investigation. He later apologized.)

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.: Bush is a "loser" and a "liar." (Reid later apologized for loser, not liar.)

Michael Moore, the guy the Democrats granted a seat next to former President Jimmy Carter during the Democratic National Convention, called President Bush a "deserter," said "there is no terrorist threat" and denounced the war in Iraq, arguing that America entered into it because of "the oil companies, Israel, Halliburton."

there you go! I havent met them either! LOL

Yup, a bunch of people with different opinions. Oh, the horror!

ETA: Talk about conspiracy theories...

you wanted to know where the Bush bashers were I showed you a few, I know they have different opinions! and its fine to have a debate on issues, but to make statements such as this is absolutely hilarious. Where is the opinion in their Quotes? Its just plain bashing and absolutely no ideas of their own!

Hey, would you mind answering my questions now? I'm totally convinced that you're good at reproducing other people's opinions as seen through your extensive citations from the right-wing media. The stuff you posted above is from another rant concerning the supposed connections between U.S. liberals and Chavez.

Btw, none of the people you cite are over 30 and still live with their parents, meaning this doesn't support your earlier statement. As a matter of fact, most left-leaning people (none of them liberals) I know hold real jobs, earn their living, and are perfectly capable of thinking for themselves.

I say let's make the America's like the European Union!

And I say #### that idea, and #### the EU while we're at it.

Yeah, given that the US is not willing to integrate itself into international organizations, I agree with the first part of your answer. Only when the rest of the Americas bands together will the US see the benefit.

As to the second part, why is it that some Americans are so hostile to the EU? What has the EU done to the U.S.? Could it be just a case of jealousy od the existence of a functioning transnational political unit? Or is it that the US can't boss around member states in the way it wants to?

I don't see the EU as a functional political unit. To me, it's an amorphous dysfunctional entity

falling apart at the seams. The EU Institutions, specifically the European Commission and

the Council of Ministers, are undemocratic because they do not allow people to make or change

a single EU law. It is also undemocratic because there is no such thing as a "European people"

that could give it a democratic basis.

Fischköpfin,

I take it you agree that the EU legislative process (controlled by the *unelected*

Commission and the Council of Ministers) is inherently undemocratic?

Sorry, it took a while to get back, but yesterday got extremely busy at work, so I couldn't check VJ.

Anyway, I disagree. For one thing the commission is appointed by an elected parliament, the European parliament in Strassbourg, which also proposes and votes on the legislation. Commissioners are nominated by national government, which are elected. For another, the council of ministers is made up by government ministers from each of the member nations. The ministers are members of an democratically elected government and they are confirmed by the respective national parliaments. Thus, the executive of the EU while not directly elected by the people is a result of democratic processes (actually this process is more democratic than the selection of cabinet secretaries in the U.S. and about as democratic as the appointment of congressional members to committees).

As to your claim that there is no such thing as "European people," that is based entirely on your understanding of a nation in the traditional sense. There are many nations around the world that contains more than one nationality/ethnicity (like the U.S.), but noone doubts their democratic potential. Many European identify as EU-nationals in addition to being from one nation. And, sorry to repeat, these European elect democratic representatives to the European parliament which has become increasingly more powerful as the member nations grow together.

Finally, the EU and its parliament have formed a constitutional convention to make the EU more directly democratic. As you know, the constitution was rejected in two member nations, which means it needs to be revised, as only a consensus of all nations can implement the constitution.

I say let's make the America's like the European Union!

And I say #### that idea, and #### the EU while we're at it.

Yeah, given that the US is not willing to integrate itself into international organizations, I agree with the first part of your answer. Only when the rest of the Americas bands together will the US see the benefit.

As to the second part, why is it that some Americans are so hostile to the EU? What has the EU done to the U.S.? Could it be just a case of jealousy od the existence of a functioning transnational political unit? Or is it that the US can't boss around member states in the way it wants to?

Steve, as someone that has a strong distrust of a strong government already are you willing to risk giving the US even more power? If they made a American style union you know the USA would dominate it. Not only would the US have control over it's own country they would eventually dominate the rest of the countries. The chances of an American continent dictator would be a very real thing if some disaster would occur requiring some sort of emergency action. I don't like the idea of an EU for the same reason. To much power in one government body. You can keep the idea of a world government. Thats not for me!

The EU is still a representational government, not a dictatorship. As fishkoepfin points out, the countries with the weaker economies will benefit in the long run. We already have NAFTA and we've made trade agreements with South America. As I said earlier, this is more about economic power - we can set in place provisions that would secure our democratic process.

I think the main difference between NAFTA and the EEC (the starting organization of European states) is that the EEC worked through consensus and aimed at leveling the playing field between member states. NAFTA primarily aims at free trade but not regional economic development and it is not consensus-based in that the US wields more power than its trading partners. NAFTA is good for the US but bad for Mexico as the sugar dumping issue shows.

So, in a way the EU is a transnational organization that views the needs of its members collectively. So it is more similar to the U.S., which after all is another collective of states acting together in unity and relying on each other's support, than to NAFTA.

Snickers bars will never be the same.

Actually, snicker bars will finally taste normal again. If you've had snickers in recent years outside the U.S. you would have noticed that the chocolate tastes better with real cocoa oil than with trans-fat.

Why is that?

As a European, I think it's the best thing that could have happened to Europe.

The byzantine bureaucracy, the stifling loss of sovereignty since countries are required to follow European laws and are not allowed to pass certain laws (such as bringing back the death penalty, for example). The euro is a joke and to me all EU expansion represents is cheap labor for wealthy western European nations.

The EU was created to compete with the United States but it seems like some western European countries (France, Germany) did better on their own and haven't done very well at all since joining the EU. EU-wide unemployment rates are abysmal and to be honest, it's all just a little too 1984 for me.

Hate it. It's nothing but a big fat waste of time.

The EU has been good for most countries involved, including Germany and France, because it has allowed both nations to stay competitive in the global market. Most European nations are too small to have national economies. For poorer nations, like Ireland, Spain, and Portugal, joining the European Union meant getting out of the economic swamps they were in. Even Britain has profited from the EU; in contrast to 35 years ago, before they joined up, their economy is flourishing and it is in part due to the open market. And while the current phase looks like things are getting worse, within a few years the Eastern European countries will have caught up with the rest.

I'm also not sure if I agree on the cheap-labor point, but I can see why you thinkk that. Yet, the new members were contributing illegal labor to the EU before joining up, which depressed wages much more than currently when Eastern Europeans can work in the EU legally. It is up to individual states to pass laws that guarantee living wages, which most fail to do, but that is not the EUs fault.

The Euro is actually a very strong currency and much more stable than the dollar. I know there's a huge sentiment in England against the Euro, but that has more with a nationalist fear than with reality. Giving up the pound, while most likely better for the British economy, is seen as a threat to British identity, and that''s where the real problem lies. Yet, for the countries of Southern Europe, as well as Ireland and France, joining the currency union means finally having a stable currency.

The bureaucracy, while massive, is also relatively efficient. Part of the problem is that all documents relating to EU-affairs need to be made accessible in several languages as the EU refuses to agree on a language of affairs. Logically, the EU language should be German (spoked by the largest chunk of EU-people, but you can probably imagine that that is not a solution that appeals to either England or France, and for good reason even though it would severely cut down on the bureaucracy in Brussels.

Finally, EU-laws are based on consensus which means member countries can block laws going against their own laws and constitution before they are made laws. Once a EU-law is approved it has received approval by each nation, meaning that any complaiints against them by member nations are futile and pointless. Furthermore, and this is particular to Britain because of the absence of a constitution, the EU allows citizens to file against their governments in case of civil rights violations. And since Britain joined the EU, many Britons have profited from their provision.

And let's not forget that the EU is one reason why Western European nations for the first time in centuries have not spent large amounts of time fighting each other on battlefields. Germany and France are a prime example...

I say let's make the America's like the European Union!

You GOT to be kidding!! I would NEVER want to give up our national identity like that! I'm sorry Steven but that has to be the worst idea I have ever heard!

Why? It's working well for Western Europe.

And what is that map supposed to show? As someone who lives in the EU, I gotta go ahead and disagree. The EU is an abomination.

Why is that?

As a European, I think it's the best thing that could have happened to Europe.

Case Closed!

How can you close a case if you haven't even stated your position? Why are you refusing to at least explain why my answers were wrong? Don't you think it would be helpful to enlight future citizens concerning their misunderstanding of what America is all about?

I don't expect to get a response to either my answers or my questions from you or anyone else of your convictions because none of you actually seem to have any interest in convincing people of your opinions, but instead engage in pointless and unproductive mudslinging which, rather than exposing your presumed superiority, does nothing but portray your views not only as untenable but also as undesirable for a thinking human being.

Children, who play life, discern its true law and relations more clearly than men, who fail to live it worthily, but who think that they are wiser by experience, that is, by failure.

Fischkoepfin: 3

I read this op-ed piece this morning in the New York Times, and while the transfat-issue is definitely important, it seems the legislation has another provision of interest.

October 1, 2006

Op-Ed Contributor

Trans Fat Nation

By MARION NESTLE

THE proposal last week from the New York City Health Department to require restaurants to use cooking oils free of trans fats was a no-brainer. Trans fats — which are not natural in food but a byproduct of the partial hydrogenation of vegetable oils — raise the risk of heart disease, can easily be replaced and should have been out of the food supply a long time ago.

But eliminating trans fats will do nothing to help New Yorkers prevent obesity, which is the greatest food-related threat Americans face. Trans fats are what nutritionists like me call a “calorie distracter.” Removing them from your diet can lull you into forgetting that foods have calories. When it comes to obesity, how much you eat is more important than what you eat.

Lost in the hoopla over the trans fat decision was a second proposal from the health department that might have a far greater impact: to require restaurants that offer foods and drinks made from standard recipes — McDonald’s and Starbucks, for example — to display calorie contents on menu boards.

For doing something about obesity, it’s the calories — not the trans fats — that count. Labeling restaurant calories is a good idea because nobody, not even a trained nutritionist, can compute the number of calories in a meal without knowing the type and weight of every ingredient that goes into it.

Some fast-food companies and family-style chain restaurants have this information because their products are standardized, but usually you have to ask for the numbers or need a computer to find them. You might think twice about asking a Starbucks barista to make you a venti Caffè Mocha with breve milk and whipped cream if you knew it contained 770 calories, one-third of the daily calories needed by an average adult.

McDonald’s does list nutrition information at its restaurants, but on the bottom of the tray liners, where you are likely to find it only after you have eaten your food. (Last year the company announced it intended to start labeling the packaging of some products in 2006, but those packages haven’t arrived at my local McDonald’s outlets.) You might choose smaller portions if you knew in advance that three pieces of McDonald’s Chicken Selects contain 380 calories, but the 10-piece serving has 1,270 calories — more than half the calories most of us need for an entire day.

This is something that chain restaurants can do. And they should. People who eat in such places tend to be heavier than people who don’t, and the chains’ pricing strategies often encourage customers to choose larger portions.

The challenge is to deal with fancier restaurants that typically change their menus all the time. Computing calories would be truly impossible for such places. In them, you are on your own. You won’t know how many calories you are eating but it’s a good guess that they are higher than you can possibly imagine. A tablespoon of butter or olive oil contains 100 calories or more, and these add up quickly, especially with the enormous portions typical today. In nonchains, your only caloric recourse is to eat less.

I can’t think of a better or more practical way to teach people about calories in food than to list them right next to the prices. If restaurant companies really want consumers to be healthier and to make better food choices, they should support both the banning of trans fats and the listing of calories, in New York and across the country.

Marion Nestle, a professor of food studies and public health at New York University, is the author of “What to Eat.”

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Source

Answering questions with more questions isnt an answer!

You've figured that out eh?

Others have answered your questions - you haven't answered any.

Answering questions with more questions isnt an answer!

I answered your questions, which means that I didn't answer your question with questions but rather thought it only fair to get some of my questions answered. Alternatively, you could of course respond to my answers, which would at least indicate that you read my answers and understood them.

I do understand that the questions I posted might be too difficult...

They are not answers! they are simple anti american opinions!

Why are my answers not answers but opinions and where is the difference between the two? And more importantly what makes my answer anti-American?