theloniusfleabag

Dear I miss Reagan, The media is part of the problem, but I have seen news reports suggesting that the majority of Muslims do not support terrorism. As to the claim that 'the US is pushing them to do it', yes, they feel that the US must be stopped, and held accountable for their actions, but do not advocate 'terrorism'.

Dear Hugo, While I have respect for your knowledge of philosophy, and for your command of the english language, I must end this debate, as it has become quite clear that you are mad. Yes, I'm sure I said that once men wear police uniforms, they become impervious to bullets, faster than a speeding train, enlightened by God, yada yada. Same goes for all who embrace social equality. Surprised you haven't heard the rhythmic drumming of our jackboots late at night. (Or perhaps you do?) Yes, the will of the child, so founded on reason.....What are parents thinking? Jelly beans for supper, and all my economic decisions shall be decided by which spot on the paper my puppy piddles!As far as I can see, Anarchy would throw human civilization back about 10,000 years, with the inviolable right to cannibalism 50 paces to my right, and to my left, a toddler, whom after deciding he could do without an education, is building a suspension bridge as my only access to Bubba's Groceries and Heroin Market. Thank you, NO.

Dear The Terrible Sweal, No so, invading Iraq for oil is the only thing in the common American's interest. Controlling oil reserves means you get to set the price. Most of the OPEC countries are 'moderates', enjoying the support of the US in their subjugation of their peoples. (This is Osama's big beef). If oil producing countries that were not 'US friendly', they could set the price as they saw fit, say $100/bbl, and countries like Venezuela could charge $98 and get away with it. Then, with gas at $5-10 dollars a gallon, Americans would get pretty antsy, demanding 'regime change' from within.

Dear Hugo, The imperative is to increase market share. That is why corporate takeovers and mergers are so commonplace now. The formula is 'buy out your competitor', thus increasing your market share, and the share value of the 'bought company increases in the short term. The investors gain a few dollars/share in the short term,the new 'super company' can lay off some of the staff from the old company, and 'cut costs' by eliminating redundancies. What percentage of the market share do companies aim for? 50%? 10%? Do they aim to do 'just good enough'? If this were true, there would have been no need for the 'Emancipation Proclamation", would there? Indeed, why not lift slavery and child labour laws, then. Nike, Martha Stewart Inc. and J.C. Penny would be banging down your door to do business on your lawless 'Anarchist land holding'. Humans are quite fallible, and never become infallible (unless you think that Jesus was an example of one). They are asked to become a servant to the 'greater good', of society and all citizens, when they don a police uniform. For some, it doesn't happen. For the majority, I believe, it does. Sadly, I expect they both will lie, and in fact they both do. However, I still claim that a 'democratic' gov't is the only mechanism that can wield the power of law (and force) for the basic good of every individual, (because there is an opposition party who has a legitimate crack at usurping the incumbent gov't through the will of the majority) rather than the will, law, and dubious morality of any one individual.

Dear Hugo, Not true, laws give it (and us) safety by regimenting it. Monopoly laws, truth in advertising laws, employment standards (not minimum wage, but safety standards) child labour laws, are all constraints to keep 'the chaotic monster of free enterprise' in check. And only a gov't can wield the power on behalf of the 'peoples' equitable and fair interest. No, you like to hear it as such. I am convinced of the falliability of man, whereas you think the individual can be trusted to be god-like, to a man. Because 'police men' [sic] are expected to put the law of all citizens above their own personal law, whereas anarchists do not believe it to be valuable to themselves to do so. I consider it noble, you consider it foolish. I expect that if one were required to 'promise not to personally profit or gain, any more than is equally profited by those that they govern' from their position as elected representatives, they they could be truly trusted to govern fairly. But this would make them socialists and not anarchists!

Dear caesar, Actually, more Cubans are enamoured with Che than with Castro. Che's pictures are everywhere in Cuba. As to Hugo's claim that the embargoes mean nothing, that is a load of horse-puckey. Where would any country be is they were blockaded and sabotaged from trade with the outside world for the last 30 years? Besides, Castro tried to retire after he 'took over Cuba', and was persuaded to stay on as leader. It was of no 'personal meglomania' that he stayed on as ruler.

Dear Hugo, Gov't is necessary because it is the the only legitimate 'enforcer' of law. You contend that these societal laws are arbitrary, but they are not, they are generally designed to prevent anarchy, or more correctly, chaos. You also claim that society is merely 'chance meetings' of the threads of individual lives, but I must ask: How can you give 100% importance to a 'spider's thread' (an individual life),and yet deny that the web it creates has any reality, benefit or importance at all, (or worse, that the web is harmful to the individual thread?) You wished to see the 'feasability' of anarchy contested, well here it is: 1. You cannot be trusted to mint your own money. (Gold deposits are nice, but whom would ensure to the others you've minted for, that you did not sell your scrip and your gold? ) 2. You cannot be trusted to 'self-police'. (Which will lead to #3) 3. You cannot be trusted in the situation, of: meeting (or beating) man X at a cherry tree, killing him and burying the evidence, and claiming 'first' and inviolable rights to the tree (or land, etc) 4. You cannot be trusted to have the intellect, or reasoning ability, to see what may appear to be a 'transgression' of your individual rights in the light of future beneficial mutual interest. I am a bit short of time, so must end this post here. In short, however, I will say that as a believer in 'the greater good (ie. society) that in the points listed above, I feel that if I should not be trusted, therefore you cannot be trusted. PS., dear Hugo, when I used the term 'you' above, it was not literally you, I meant "The one who is not me".

Dear maplesyrup, Now, if there was only a way to replace some of that 'safe' heroin and cocaine with some cyanide, Campbell would indeed be making Vancouver better.

Dear August1991, You have argued before that the 'morally correct' way is to adhere to the principles of 'adding value, and creating trade to the 'best degree', as it were. However, this should not come into play regarding ownership. If Bill Gates sits on the billions he earned, where as I might spend it, is it not better for me to have the money than him? I would create more employment, and generate more wealth for more people, by spending the money(or most of it) than he would by saving it. In no way should this translate into me having the 'right to ownership' of what another has.

Dear Hugo, I have read some of Che's work, specifically his book on guerilla tactics (It paralleled Mao's) . I recommend the book 'Shadow Warrior' by Felix Rodriguez, a former CIA operative who took the only picture of Che the day he was executed. His body wasn't discovered for decades. (Felix is proudly ex-Cuban, pro US) Supposedly the Bolivians killed Che, and Felix played no part, but he flew Che's body out by helicopter, and somehow it went missing for twenty odd years. Then Mr. Rodriguez was implicated in, and testified amid the Iran-Contra scandal. There are pictures of him in the oval office with a grateful Vice Pres. George H.W. Bush. As I recall, he was grilled pretty hard by, then US Senator, John Kerry. An interesting book.

Dear caesar, I find it hard to believe the US could veto this one, yet... AIPAC is 'the world's most powerful lobby'.

Dear maplesyrup, I do not watch tv, (well, maybe a couple of hours of news per month) and also am thought a bit weird. However, I think that to take up a lifestyle of banditry and 'whacking off in the woods' doesn't make me want to hear what he has to say.

Dear maplesyrup, That is a very strange wish.

Dear maplesyrup, Bre-X is pretty much a dead issue, which is why you are talking to yourself here. It certainly isn't seen as anything near Enron, et al. I saw Mr. Walsh frequently in a bar in Calgary, where I was the kitchen manager. It was just 2 blocks from Bre-X's head office in Kensington. In his last days, he was in a sorry state. Puffy and red-faced, pickled in scotch. I kind of felt sorry for him, as one time he was ranting about how unfairly the media was treating his son. I thought of saying to him, "Relax, man, that is what the media does. It doesn't have the 'truth' as it's main priority, it is first and foremost out to make money".

Dear Argus, I will post a few examples, but it is quite easy to find on google. The UN website requires some navigation, but is 'the horse's mouth', as they say, and not the opposite end of the horse, as a lot claim. www.iht.com/articles/512112.html usinfo.state.gov/mena/Archive/2004/Jan/29-370155.html aztlan.net/usunproxyofisrael.htm - www.us-israel.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html This last one is from "The Jewish Virtual Library", and is exacly as listed in the UN site. I suggest you explore the UN site, though. Interesting also is security council res 44/240, December 29 1989, condemning the US for invading Panama, as a 'flagrant violation of international law', while the US vetoed it and invoked UN article 51, "the right of self-defence" against the 'aggressor', Panama. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_..._v27/ai_8886407

President Bush recently stated that "some 50-75% of the top Al-Qaeda operatives have been captured or killed". (Read this on Yahoo news, I believe) In the Book 'Imperial Hubris', the author (a CIA expert on the middle east) states that the US had no clue as to the actual numbers, or whereabouts, of most of the Al-qaeda members'. So Bush claims 50-75% so it looks to the American people that he is winning. In reality, the claim is baseless, as they had no idea what 100% was. He will say whatever it takes to win the confidence of the American people, by telling them what they want to hear, and neither truth nor fact are relied upon or required.

Dear August1991, Indeed, many argue that the abolishment of minimum wage would employ more (I think Diane Francis of 'Alberta report took this stance some years ago). However, we would have to face the notion of having 'shantytowns' on the edge of the city.PS. I have sent you an urgent e-mail, (actually 2) I hope you see it soon.

Dear Argus, Groups of nations is what the UN is. Many of the 'tyrants' enjoy full support of 'the democracies' in exchange for resource access, favourable trade regs, and occasionally a favourable vote in the UN. I think the UN can work (Because any 'banding together of nations' will just suffer the same problems as the existing UN) if there was more transparency. For example, when one permanent member (with veto power) repeatedly 'stands alone' against the international community regarding it's actions, shouldn't the majority of the members assume that the '1' must be wrong?

Dear Cartman, Van (and BC in general) is much farther to the left of Alberta. Calgary, especially, is built up on oil and gas monies, so it would look a bit hypocritical for them not to encourage (or by other means discourage) it's use.

Dear Argus, You make a valid point here, but who decides 1. Accountability 2. Appropriate punishment? It certainly should not be decided 'unilaterally', such as the illegal invasions by the US of Panam, and more recently Iraq, for example. Sadly, the UN should be the only 'legal' body with this kind of power, yet it relies on it's member states to 'multilaterally agree' when their interests are often in conflict.

Dear August1991, I am personally hoping for 'pistolas at 20 paces' but I don't seriously think GW Bush can hold his own without pre-scripted 'help'. After seeing a few 'behind the scenes' or 'after the take is thought to be over' looks (some admittedly from Fahrenheit911) at Bush, I don't think the administration would welcome any sort of deviation from what his speechwriters provide.

Dear August1991, Well, once you do chop the tree down, you have exercised force, and decided the matter. PS. hope you check your mail soon.

Dear ft.niagra, While many would argue that saying such a thing is anti-semetic, (Wierd, semite means Arabic, or middle-eastern) Izzy Asper said he would not allow any condemnation of the actions of Israel to be printed in his papers. Ergo, he is openly saying he taints the news and views of the readers, for good or bad.

Dear Argus, (Perhaps not honour, but...Because it is: 1. the moral High Ground (Which the US claims it is acting upon) 2. Required by the Geneva convention(one side not respecting it does not give carte blanche to the other) 3. Once a 'soldier' is captured, the war for them is over. Torturing and killing captives is henious, no doubt, but one should never find one's self in a position of trying to 'justify' it. It just shouldn't be done.

Dear August1991, I agree, and believe a two-tiered system, with a small user fee, would provide universal coverage with the option of paying more to get more.