Black Dog

No. But fail to see how continuing the occupation and repression of Palestine wil actually reduce the antipathy towards Israel and Jews. Hamas and Islamic Jihad have both stated that their organizations are ready to postpone indefinitely their operations on the sole condition of an Israeli withdrawal to its pre-1967 borders. Are they serious? Only one way to find out. Earlier: Still don't see the connection between occupation and terrorism? ...whose leadership is kept under virtual house arrest by the IDF, which makes frequent incursions into the territories. The PA is impotent. At the height of its power, it cotrolled 17.2% of the Israeli occupied West Bank. I find it odd that Israel, with all its military might, is unable to maintain internal peace and security, yet the toothless PA is expected to whip up a cure in an instant. Yet settlement continues. Throughout the years of the "peace process" during the 1990s, Israel continued to construct settlements, doubling the number of settlers in the West Bank from about 100,000 to 200,000 according to the Israeli group "Peace Now." At least 34 new settlements have been built since Sharon took office. Meanwhile, I've pointed out elsewhere that the 95 per cent figure is bogus. Let me refresh your memory: What Barak offered at Camp David was a formula for continued Israeli military occupation under the name of a "state." The proposal would have meant: no territorial contiguity for the Palestinian state, no control of its external borders, limited control of its own water resources, and no full Israeli withdrawal from occupied territory as required by international law. In addition, the Barak plan would have included continued Israeli military control over large segments of the West Bank, including almost all of the Jordan Valley; codified the right of Israeli forces to be deployed in the Palestinian state at short notice; meant the continued presence of fortified Israeli settlements and Jewish-only roads in the heart of the Palestinian state; and required nearly 4 million Palestinian refugees to relinquish their fundamental human rights in exchange for compensation to be paid not by Israel but by the "international community." Barak himself said he intended to keep 15 percent of "Judea and Samaria" (the West Bank), therefore he could not have offered the Palestinians more than 85 percent of a divided non-state. Jordan had occupied the West Bank illegally occupied according to whom? That aside, you're engaging in semantics. Even if the Israeli occupation does not adhere to the strict dictionary definition, it remains a de facto military occupation in that the only way they are currently maintaining a hold on the land is by military force. That's just wrong: 242 in full Furthermore, 242 also "emphasiz(ed) the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." Subsequent to 242's adoption, the Security Council has adopted 26 resolutions that affirmed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the territories occupied by Israel. Of those resolutions, several deal directly with the issue of Israeli settlements and several also specifically deal with Israeli violations in Occupied East Jerusalem. In the same period the IDF killed 3,089 Palestinians (ICRC). That includes 2,476+ civilians and 589 children. Of course, I've already pointed out neither side has the monopoly on inhumanity: it is you who seems to believe Israel is pure.

Anti-semetism as a historical fact? Well duh. However, only a fool would deny that hatred flourishes under conditions such as those that exists in the territories under military occupation. Also, given that the "Arab world" outisde of the OT has, by and large, come to terms with Israel's existence on a political basis, your original contention that a withdrawl to the pre-1967 borders would inevitably result in Israel's destruction dose not stand up to scrutiny. You haven't suggested how a security fence along the Green Line would be a less effective measure than the one that currently is swallowing up Palestinian land. In the context of your original point, your comemnts on the prevelance of anti-Semetism s and corruption in the PA smack of obfustication. That's a purely sunbjective view. All the talk of "the Palestinians should stop the terrorists" is all well and good on paper: but how do you propose they go about doing this with no viable civil government and a military occupation on their doorstep. Furthermore, what incentive is there? has Israel given any reason for anyone to believe that if the intifada ceased tomorrow, that hey would withdraw? No. In fact, during th eperiod prior to the cureent intifada, a period of minimal terrorist activity, Israel continued expanding settlements and sucking up land. So your claim that peace is up to the Palestinians lacks credibility . No, the power to move towards a resolution of this conflict lies with Israel, who has the military, political and economic upper hand. A withdrawl from the territories, the dismantling of the settlements and the wall and a renewed commitment to the peace process would be gestures of good faith. At that point terrorism could be defined and dealt with as an issue on its own, seperate from the occupation. No, ity's your contradiction., sinc eyou choose to paint the PA as democratic when it suits your purposes to do so. But suppose that a majority of Palestinians do, in fact, support "terrorism" as a means of resistance to the occupation. So what? Resistance to a military occupation is an option, and while I don't endorse attacks on Israeli civilians, I would consider IDF targets within the OT to be fair game. Terrorism is not a necessarily corollary of the desire to drive the Jews into the sea, as you say. Again: extremism and terrorism are largely symptoms of the occupation: hell, even the UN envoy you mentioned earlier has acknowledged the conditions of the occupation is driving the type of extremism that often leads directly to more terrorism.

And of course, the brutal occupation would have nothing to do with the persistance of such sentiment, hmmm? Hate seldom exists in a vaccum. I think there's plenty of blame to go around on both sides. But, as I've said many, many times before, its Irsrael that holds all the cards in this situation. Funny. Especially considering any refernce to the democratic nature of the PA is usually greated with howls of "fraudulent elections!" and such. But I guess such contradictions are just part of the movement to cast the victims of Israeli occupation as villians. So you have no problem burying others' children? If Israel wasnts to build a wall, there's no reason they need to do so on Palestinian land. The wall would do the same job on the Green Line. But the fact that it deviates so much from Israel's borders indicates it is part of a land grab.

I had a fairly lengthy reply completed that vanished into the ether when I tried to post it (I'm not sure why that happened: god must have done it.) Rather than redo it, I'll address what appears to be the main arguments of the previous poster. Some of the quotes below are, in fact, paraphrases. This is coupled with the assertion that science contradicts itself, though, since no examples or instances of such contradictions are given, I’ll just speak to the former point. No where did I claim science was infallible. I have explicitly stated that science, through the scientific methods of experimentation, evaluation and duplication, is open to changes and revisions to existing theories. The poster above seems to be labouring under the misconception that, because science cannot at this point, fully explain the origins of the universe or predict the winning lottery numbers, it is inherently unable to do so. Of course, this narrow view ignores science's role in the progression of human civilization over the past several thousand years. Science and methodological naturalism (that is: the search to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms) has been, and continues to be, our best hope for revealing those mysteries of the universe we're not currently privy to. Blind adherence to religious dogma (which the poster above has in spades) adds nothing of intellectual value to these efforts. Such absolutist claims completely defy logic. Using a similar line of thinking, I could just as easily say that I created the universe. However, logic demands proof, proof demands evidence. The poster has yet to offer any evidence as top the existence of god. Indeed, the poster simply defers to the notion that "god" is a supernatural entity that exists outside of physical laws of space and time. At this point, the argument breaks down into the abstract. Since supernatural phenomenon, by definition, cannot be shown to exist, the existence of said phenomena is pure speculation (blind faith). Which is all well and good, given that religion for most people is a personal decision. However, given the ongoing efforts of creation "science" movement to subvert evolutionary and cosmological science to promote a sectarian viewpoint, it's important to highlight the glaring and obvious logical failings of the god hypothesis. This is a classic example of a false dichotomy. It's a logical fallacy that ignores the ever-growing body of cosmological knowledge that offers theories as to how the universe began that are wholly consistent with existing knowledge. I won’t highlight them here (as I could not possibly do justice to the complexities of theoretical physics and quantum mechanics), but the inflationary universe theory I mentioned is one example. However, even if all the science indicating a naturalistic explanation for the origins of the universe are incorrect, that does not leave divine, supernatural creation as the only possibility (why not believe in, say, aliens creating the universe or something? There’s just as much evidence of that as there is of God.) Time is actually a concept: it’s just ticks on a clock. It need not have a finite beginning or end. Indeed, if you count backwards long enough, you can end up with a very big, but not a mathematically infinite number. All the above arguments rely on one flawed assumption: that all that exists must have a beginning. However, this itself runs contrary to the physical observations (for example, particles emitted in nuclear radiation have no “cause”; they simply pop into existence) and quantum theory. Under quantum theory, “nothing” is something, since probability, not absolutes, rule any physical system. It is impossible, even in principle, to predict the behavior of any single atom; all physicists can do is predict the average properties of a large collection of atoms. Quantum theory also holds that a vacuum, like atoms, is subject to quantum uncertainties. Therefore, it remains completely within the realm of possibility that a low probability event such as the spontaneous formation of a singularity, could have led to the formation of the universe. Again, such theories (backed by mathematical modeling and physical observation) can twist the brain, making fantastic theories such as the existence of God seem comforting, even if they continue to fail the logic test. Finally: Atheism and secular humanism have a long and distinguished tradition in human civilization dating back to ancient Greece and likely beyond. The ”common knowledge” you speak of is borne from the ignorance of primitive peoples, who lacked the means and knowledge to adequately explain their world without resorting to supernatural explanations. As humanity has progressed, science, not religion, has led to the greatest advances in human civilization and knowledge.

Let's revisit your statement: Your previous thread dealt with Walid Shoebat the ex-PLO militant who is now working to further the cause of peace. Good for him. But your statements (such as the one above) are thinly veiled attempts to use his experience (decades old as it is) to characterize Arabs as a race of Jew haters. Furthermore, the existence of anti-Israeli sentiment has little bearing on the current political reality, which would indicate that the continued existence of Israel is not in question. Source? Wrong. Arafat recognized Israel's right to exist to Rabin in 1993 and affirmed "that those articles of the Palestinian Covenant which deny Israel's right to exist, and the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter (that is: the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security, acceptanc eof United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 and a commitment processof to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides) are now inoperative and no longer valid." That's the official position. As for anyone else, be it Hamas, or the Al Asqa Brigade, what makes their "stated goals" anymore representative of Arab and Palestinian sentiment than the views of the ultra Orthodox settlers who spray paint slogans like "Arabs to the gas chambers"?

Yes its hyperbole of the worst kind. It also cuts both ways. After all, restriction of movement, collective punishment, ghettoization, arrest and detention without due proces, seizure of property, and mass populatiion transfers were hallmarks of the Nazi regime. All are practices used by Israel in its occupation. Hatred can be found on both sides of the Green Line: Former Israeli Soldiers Tell of Harassment of Palestinians The only way to excise terrorism is to "drain the swamp": that is: address the causes of terrorism. Israel's occupation is by far the biggest greivance against the state, which manifests as terrorist activity. As much as you'd like to spread the belief that Arabs are predisposed to anti-semetism, racism is excrabated by the occupation. So retreat to the green line as an expression of good faith by the occupying power would do more to defuse terrorism than any other measure. Why? Because all Arabs are sympatheitic to terrorists? That said: 9-11 showed that such attacks can happen any time anywhere: Israel's occupation doesn't make it less likely. If anything, it makes it more likely. Most Palestinian violations of negotiated cease-fires came about as a result of continues Israeli incursions into the Occupied Territories, settlement construction and so forth. In other words, the trends show that, even as negotiations have progressed, Israeli violations of Palestinian rights have continued. Who's occupying who, again? And how are they suppoossed to that without resources and while under military occupation? Israeli withdrawl from the OT is a fundamental precondition of peace and the establishment of a viable Palestinian civil state. I could counter with similar examples from the other side, but why bother? Neither side has the monopoly on inhumanity. Terrorism is also a result of desperation.

Actually you contradict yourself: if energy cannot be created or destroyed, then how could God create it? The existence of supernatual beings, by definition, is unprovable, since proof of their existence requires that they conform to existing laws of nature. However, their violation of accepted and proven laws of nature is ipso facto proof of their non-existence. OHwere's one of the most common and fundamental flaws of theistic belief: a simple misunderstanding iof the word "theory" In science, a thory is not arbitrary; scientists don't pull "theories" out of their hats. Scientific theory is defined as "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth. Scientific theories, especially in cosmology or advanced theoretical physics, can be speculative at best, but they are based on existing empirical knowledge. As I stated before, the gaps in scientific knowledge are not themselves proof of God. Failure to fully demonstrate one does not logically necessitate the other. It's much simpler, and much more consistent with our knowledge of how the univerese works, to say "we don't know right now" than to create a god whose very existence is, at best, unprovable. No. It's simpler and therefore more appealling. But the scientific approach is backed by a stunning amount of emprical evidence. First: you continue to ignore existing empirical evidence regarding the origins of the univerese. Second: even if you arbitrarily decide to create a supernatural being that violates all known laws, what makes you so sure your sky-fairy is the right one? I'm completely prepared to debate it. But I expect responses that make sense and are in some way supported. Your jibberish statement regarding scientific reasoning was: Which would seem to indicate that some types of scientific knowledge disagree. Which is true, but a complete simplification and distortion. Just because one one naturalistic explanation is flawed, it does not mean that all are. Indeed, science has shown that methodological naturalism can push back ignorance, finding increasingly detailed and informative answers to mysteries that once seemed impenetrable. Of corse, cosmological explanations of the origin of the univerese don't state the universe "came from nothing". Simple relativity shows that matter can be created from energy and can dissapear into energy. It is primitive, in that it creates something out of nothingness: a supernatural entity that cannot be observed. As I indicated in another thread, if we were talking about a theoretical god, an abstract god, the best you can do is break even with atheism. However, from a Judeo-Christian standpoint, such a God becomes even less likely. Basically, any caveman can pull supernatural explanations out of nowhere. But human histrory has shown that naturalistic explanations do a far better job of explaining how the world works. Wrong. Gaps in scientific knowledge are evidence of nothing but the existence of gaps in scientific knowledge. You can use god to fill in the blanks if you want, but that doesn't make it so. Cosmological explanations describinmg the beginnings and function of th euniveres apply on any side of the time axis. therefore, its possible that this (observable) univeres appeared from a pre-existing one. For example, the Inflationary Universe model indicates our universe started out as a rapidly expanding bubble of pure vacuum energy, with no matter or radiation. After a period of rapid expansion, or inflation, and rapid cooling, the potential energy in the vacuum was converted through particle physics processes into the kinetic energy of matter and radiation. The Universe heats up again and we get the Big Bang. Already adressed this fallacy. That's simply irrational, in that it dispenses with the accumulated knowledge of mankind's entire history in favour of an arbitrary, unprovable and illogical construct.

Where would this energy go? Nowhere: as I said, the laws of thermodynamics state that the total amount of energy in a closed system (such as the universe) remains fixed. So energy isn't going anywhere. Your analogy is flawed in that the earth and solar system are not "closed" systems. Your claim that the universe cannot have existed forever has no theoretical basis. The Big Bang theory states the univeres "began" as a singularity; however, recently developed cosmological models give us reason to suppose that some prior state of the universe led to the production of this particular singularity. The physics behind it are mind-bending, of course, but that's to be expected: questions of the origins of the universe are unlikely to have pat answers (indeed, this lack of simplicity is no doubt to blame for the persistance of the logiocally flawed creator hypothesis). First, you seem to be misunderstanding what I'm saying. the universe as we know it began, as I said above, with the Big Bang: I'm talking about the possibility that the Big Bang came about from conditions in a pre-existing universe. As to your misunderstanding of the Second Law, total entropy increases as the univerese expands (as per the Second Law), but the observable universe has not existed long enoug to achieve total entropy (it's been around for 13.7 billion years). Your three points: Naturalistic explanations of origins, order and life itself are not "irratonal", but based on real knowledge. For example, the Big Bang theory (which remains the most widely accepted theory of the origins of the universe) is rational in that it conforms to existing knowledge of how the universe works (ie. the laws of thermodynamics and quantum physics). However, a creationist explanation simply ignores all existing laws and functions, assigning incomprehnsible power to an unknown supreme being, one who'se existence is supported only by abscence of evidence. Furthermore, unlike theistic explanations, naturalistic explanations are adaptable to new evidence and open to change. The theistic approach, founded as it is on unshakeable assumptions and pure faith, is wholly irrational.

That's a meaningless statement if there ever was one. Are you saying science does not exist? Or are you saying that because we cannot confirm with 100 per cent certainty the scientific theories concerning the origins of the uninverse, they are incorrect and, therefore, "proof" God exists? That's total sophistry. All you've done is pulled an arbitrary and exceedingly implausible explanation (lieterally) from thin air. Simply put, a supernatural being with no bounds or limits is not a reasonable explanation, given that being cannot itself be reasonably shown to exist. Energy cannot be created. That's basic thermodynamics. No you didn't. It's jibberish. To fill you in: A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism--it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms. Thus, physics describes the atomic nucleus with specific concepts governing matter and energy, and it tests those descriptions experimentally. Physicists introduce new particles, such as quarks, to flesh out their theories only when data show that the previous descriptions cannot adequately explain observed phenomena. The new particles do not have arbitrary properties--their definitions are tightly constrained, because the new particles must fit within the existing framework of physics. On the other hand, theists invoke shadowy entities that conveniently have whatever unconstrained abilities are needed to solve the mystery at hand. If you don't know, then God did it. It's the kind of thinking primitive man adopted to explain that which he could not comprehend. However, we've progressed enough to the point where, even if a scientific explanation currently eludes us, a naturalistic explanation remains a possibility. I've already told you. Your problem (aside from mangled syntax) is that you begin your quieries with a presumption that cannot be proven. As I said, pointing out the obvious gaps in scientific knowledge is not evidence god exists. First: it's not necessary that all things exist must have had a beginning. But, even if we accept that assumption, your logic is still flawed because if all things must have a beginning, so too must god. So, how did god come into being? The answer, according to theirts, is that God always existed. Which, of course, contradicts the basis for their statement that all things must have a beginning. Therefore, the existence of a supernatural supreme being cannot logically be supported. At this point, the arguments for God boil down to "because I said so"... If you can believe that God has no beginning, why is it so hard to believe that the universe itself had no beginning?

The only "peace" the current situation offers is the eventual elimination of the Palestinian people. Certainly, israel's neighbour's no longer pose a serious threat to its existence. Egypt and Jordan have both signed peace treaties with israel since 1973, while Lebanon and Syrai are both badly militarily outmatched by Israel and in no position to mount an effective assault. So your (unsupported) assertion that a retreat to the Green Line would lead to renewed hostilities and an eventual end to Israel doesn't hold so much as a drop of water. Yes. Israel has yet to mount a serious effort to negotiate a good faith with the Palestinians. Good faith negotiations are impossible so long as Israel continues the occupation. A curious statement in this context, given that Israel owes its very exiostence to the UN. Given the close ties between the US and Israeli governments, Israel's dependancy on the US and its influence on U.S. policy it's pretty obvious that the U.S. would have a role to play. That said, U.S. support is what has allowed Israel to get away with so many of its crimes. And why is that? A big problem here is that Israel's repeated incursions have resulted in the destruction of the Palestinian civil infrastructure. Furthermore, widespread corruption among the PA's leadership (which is to be expected in such an environment) has damaged its ability to be a viable foce. Of course, continued military occupation is no big help either. Again: why do terrorist groups exist and why do they enjoy such popular support? To answer this, first ask yourself how you would feel about living in squalor as a non-citizen under a foreign military occupier. Given the historical trend that shows periods of increased Israeli activities in the Occupied Territories lead to increases in terrorist activity, it's easy to see that Israel has acted in procation more than its been provoked. Agreed.

I am confused as to why you would say this were false when you are advocating a return to a policy that made possible wars costing tens of thousands of lives when an alternative exists. The alternative (that is: the status quo) will result in tens of thousands of deaths. But, to some Israel apologists, that's okay, so long a sit's the "right" people doing the dying. :angry:

This is bogus. Belief in the supernatural is the ultimate denial of reason since supernatural phemenon, by definition, can not be shown to exist by the scientific method. Claims of supernatural phenomena conflict directly and fundamentally with scientific understanding. Anything that starts with a conclusion (ie. God exists) cannot be considered scientifically sound. Certainly, you can point out that science and humanism have not offered explanations for everything that is. There's much we don't know. HOWEVER, this is not evidence of the existence of god. Sinc eyou are so rigorous in your demands from others, I'd like to see you elaborate on your claim regarding teh corelation between reason and religion.

There has not been an national Arab/Israeli conflict since 1973. Most of Israel's former enemies have since recognized its right to exist. Furthermore, Israel has the largest military in the region and the backing of the world's only superpower, as well as being the only state in the region with WMD. The survival of the Jewish state is not in question. To argue that the annexation and ethnic cleansing of the Occupied Territories is a matter of survival is fallacious.

That's amusing. Here's your original "point". Scientific theories are arrived at through rigorous testing revision and duplication. You start with a set of assumptions and test them. If they conform with the assumptuions, the initial tehory can be persumed to be correct. It's a sound and rational approach that's open to change, depending on new evidence. Gould's theory of punctuated equilibriumis an example of a theory that, initially, ran counter to the accepted theories concerning evolution and natural selection, but is now accepted as conventional wisdom. However, if one believes in god, the order is reversed: you start with a conclusion (God exists, and is responsible for the univere's existence) and try to make the evidence fiot the conclusion. It's an irrational perversion of the tried and true scientific method. There were also well-known scientists who challenged the theory that the earth was round and who argued the sun revolved around the earth. Science is not dogma, but serious scientific publications disputing evolution are all but nonexistent. In the mid-1990s George W. Gilchrist of the University of Washington surveyed thousands of journals in the primary literature, seeking articles on intelligent design or creation science. Among those hundreds of thousands of scientific reports, he found none. In the past two years, surveys done independently by Barbara Forrest of Southeastern Louisiana University and Lawrence M. Krauss of Case Western Reserve University have been similarly fruitless. That said, having not read the books you cite, I can't very well comment on them, save to pint out that Creationists love to abuse physics. The second law of thermodynamics actually states that the total entropy of a closed system (one that no energy or matter leaves or enters) cannot decrease. The second law allows for the transference of energy from one part of a closed system to another. So the universe is not "running down" as there is no "decline" in energy, only transferance. What's your point here? True, one can only theorize about the origins of the universe base don available evidence. We are limited. However, this is not de facto evidence for the existence of god, only pointing out (already obvious) shortcomings of scientific theory. Theoretical models have been published suggesting mechanisms by which our current universe appeared from a pre-existing one, for example, by a process called quantum tunneling (which I won't even touch here). Where is all the evidence for God's extsitence? I can't resist pointing out the irony of this statement coming from an ardent theist. Finally, my statement vis a vis the polytheistic origins of the Judeo-Chrsitian god was to indicate that religious beliefs themselves change over time. There remains significant evidence that the sky-god Yawheh/Jehovah orginated from the pantheon of deities worshipped by Israelites. There's nothing to distinguish the contemporary Judeo Christian god from other mythological sky-gods, such as Zeus, save the former's follower's persistance.

Once again: Again, context eludes you: Technical Realities: An Analysis of the 2004 Deployment of a U.S. National Missile Defense System. Once again (since apparently such a simple concept is impossible for some to grasp), when viewed from a cost-benefit perspectiove, missile defense is not a viable solution. Read the thread to date. I've been treading over the same ground with Stoker, and I'm not about to start with you.

Not when that tax money is being shovelled into private coffers. That's called "crony capitalism" (another part of trhe Alberta Advantage). Again: read the relevant part: "For an industry that provides 8 times the revenue as Saskatchewan's, Alberta is providing 20 to 70 times the subsidies!" Also remember, this is the province that is supposedly the bvaston of the free-market. There's nothing free-market about the practice of subsidizing the oil industry. Subsidizing is not promoting.

Iraq had no ICBM or even viable mid-range missile program, let alone nukes. Again: read the analyisis I linked to. There's also nothing tosay we won't be invaded by malevolant aliens withing a few years. Shall we begin work on our Anti-Alien Defense Initiative (AADI)? I've pointed out that missile defense is not technologically viable. I've also indicated the threats posed by ICBM's are waning. In other words: it's a wasteful and pointless venture.

Uh..becaus eof how our electoral system works? Duh. Sepratism is a dying movement in Quebec. The soverignists haven't been able to acheive their goal of an independent Quebec in almost 40 years. They've lost the momentum. What were those "extra rights"? What "rights" are Albertans currently being denied? What's your point? It's time to overcome your denial. 1.7 million westerners voted Con, 2 million for other centre or left of centre parties. Two-tirered medicine, lax gun laws, the paradoxially monikered compassionate conservativism are hallmarks of the United States. I've already pointed out that Alberta has long benefited from Canada's traditional social-democratic outlook. So teh Alberta you envision exists mostly in your head and on teh Sun's editorial pages. It's my money. We're talking about two completely different systems of government. What works in the U.S. won't necessarily translate well here. I think a better comparison is Australia, which has a Senate elected by PR. That would be the limits of small minds. I wonder: is gay marriage an extreme case?

The argument that the low mathematical probability of evolution ivalidates it as a theory is utterly fallacious. To use probability to decide between two alternatives requires a comparison of the probabilities of each alternative. Simply saying that one has low probability without calculating the probability for the other is inadequate. Mathematically, what is the probability of there being all seeing, all-knowing supreme being (in particlar, one whose very existence violates the laws of the universes as we know them and whose every attribute is contradictary)? Furthermore, low-probability events happen all the time: one could argue that the everyday event of an individual sperm finding the egg and developing into a human being is a fantastically low-probability event, yet we accept such events without question. Why not? As I said, the complexity of nature itself is not an argument for a supernatural explanation for existence. Indeed, such an argument simply reveals the limits of the human mind. Religious texts can hardly be considered reliable and objective evidence. Furthermore, the God of the Bible and Torah was, orginally, but one of many gods worshiped by the polytheistic, pre- semetic peoples of the Middle East. Chapter One of Genesis is from the Elohist source that used Elohim (plural) in referring to "God." Originally, the male god was Baal, and the female god was his consort Ashtoreth. Again: why not a coincidence? The simple fact of existence, as incomprhensible and as improbable as it may seem, does not necessitate a supreme creator. Indeed, such an explanation flies in the face of logic and all empirical evidence. There's mountains of emprical evidence that shows us how the world and universe works, how it developed and gives us insight into our beginnings. There's not a single, solitary shred of proof that points to the existence of god. So, based on available evidence, the odds against God lengthen considerably. Evidence, by definition, is something that can be verified objectively. The stories you speak of are individual experiences, subjective and totally unverifiable. Indeed, eyewitness evidence is among the most unreliable forms.

But does that "something" have to be a missile sheild? Would it be cheaper and more effective to stop ICBM's before they're launched? Or better yet, ensure they aren't built in the first place? BTW, here's an interesting assessment of the threat of ballistic missiles. The Declining Ballistic Missile Threat

First, differences in political opinions are not indicative of significant cultural differences. Second, and as I've pointed out elsewhere, more westerners voted against the Cons than for, and more Ontario residents voted Con than last time. Exaggerated regional voting patterns are a product of the system, not of any real schism of cultural values or political beliefs. To my knowledge, the view that the central government is breaking down has been kicking around since, oh, 1867. That said, I reiterate: I recognize the federalist system as it currently stands is flawed. But it requires rational thinking and cooperation, not reactionary temper tantrums. I remember how, during the height of Meech Lake and the constitutional debate, Albertans largely regarded Quebec's nationalistic aspirations with disdain. Funny how, the same province that once dismissed Quebec as spoiled whiners are trying the same duds on for size. Rather than separation, however, I think a far better solution would be if you and your whiny cohorts (who would be lucky to get 15 per cent of Alberta's population behind your wrongheaded, quixotic scheme) just pack up and go somewhere else, like the backwoods of the U.S. Bible belt, where your political and social notions are more likely to be accepted than here in Canada. Au contraire: it appears you are an island of stupidity in the midst of an ocean of rationality. As a matter of fact I do. But then, as an Albertan, feelings of superiority come easy when one is surrounded by ignorant rednecks. (Traitor is also a strange epitheth to toss from someone who's handle pays tribute to a foreign ruler) Because people like you are the minority. A vocal and annoying one, but a minority nonetheless. i like this province (though there's plenty about it I despise). I also like this country (even though nationalism of any stripe is irrational and, well, silly). And I'd rather see positive solutions, not destructive ones. As I said: if you hate it here, you're free to move elsewhere.

However, a shadow of a hope is better than no hope at all. Saddam knew that his WMD, while successful against badly-trained and poorly-equipped Iranians, would have very little impact on Coalition troops. Using them would have been pointless. Better to stash them away in the hopes that he could fight a guerilla war later. Ah, yes, but a shadow of a hop eis better than no hope at all: in which case he could have used the WMD in hopes of slowing the coalition advance enough or causing just enough casualties... Anyway, it's all pointless speculation. I won't beleive Saddam had significant WMD capability until I hear him admit it or see them for myself.

With a system that would not be viable for the foreseeable future? Why not simply build a big wall made of $10 bills over the western seaboard in hopes of deflecting ICBM's? It would be no more expensive and probably equally effective as a missile sheild. See, the problem is, you assume all things are equal. That North Korean or others' ICBMs are serious enough threats to justify the cost. That the cost is just par for the course. And that all the technological issues will just work themselves out. It's an awful lot to take on faith.

Hardly. There's nothing wrong with recognizing that we owe much of what we have as individuals to the greater whole called society. Some individuals benefit more than others and its only reasonable to suggest they pay a fair share, especially since the economic system we have is inherently inequitable, meaning some individuals are simply incapable of making a significant contribution. But that's kinda off topic.

Canada is, compared to Yugolsavia or other ethnicly-divided nations, culturally homogenous. The cultural differences between regions are small and religious differences are essentially a non-factor. If anything, your analogy is an argument for a stronger federalist system: after all, under the heavily centeralized government of Tito, Serbs, Muslims and Croats lived together in relative harmony. It was only with the collapse of the central government that things started breaking down. EXPLAINING CULTURAL CONFLICT IN EX-YUGOSLAVIA: INSTITUTIONAL WEAKNESS, ECONOMIC CRISIS, AND IDENTITY POLITICS