theloniusfleabag

Dear April and takeanumber, If I may offer an example of this policy 'at work', please consider this. In my Canadian city, the Gov't (and larger corporations) must hire a certain set percentage of, what Canada calls at this point in time,) aboriginals. (I, myself, just call them 'the originals') If the gov't must hire, and is 'below quota', then only aboriginals are considered. If none apply with the sufficient skills and education, the gov't lowers the qualification standards and tries again. If one does apply, and doesn't show up for the interview, the gov't can still deny qualified individuals from getting the job based on 'incorrect ethnicity'. This story is true, or at leat I believ it is, as it came to me from someone who worked there for almost 20 years. Any racial or gender quota is automatically both incluse and exclusive. Therefore, both sides are unfair as each must be, at some point, exclusive. Only abolishment of the quota system can eventually ensure every person from every ethnicity can advance on merit, rather than legislation. Equality, equal rights and equal pay for equal work are something people themselves have to work on.

Dear Hugo, 'Benevolent dictators' are few and far between, but it comes down to who makes law. Is an Emperor or a monarch a 'dictator'? If so, and I believe it is, history is rife with both good and bad ones. Dear Big Blue Machine, I suspect you are being facetious, for they have yet to find one.

Dear Slavik44, I am presently reading "Shake Hands With The Devil" by LGen Romeo Dallaire, and it is a very 'enlightening' read. In Rwanda, very few nations were willing to spend any money or materiel there, even though it was one of the largest and fastest 'genocide crimes' in history. Canada was one of the few nations to try to help, but chronic underfunding in the Canadian military and bureaucracy amongst member nations and indeed within the UN itself renders 'peacekeeping' almost useless. As KK stated, the 'carrot and the stick' mentality is dependent on what is proffered as 'carrot'.

Dear bibby, Canada has it's own version of the NAACP in the form of misguided Gov't. I agree with you that there should be no such thing as 'race or gender' quotas, period. I am also proudly (but that is unfortunately waning) Canadian and would remind all that Canada was the refuge for all of those 'naughty runaway slaves' from the USA. Bigotry is prevalent throughout most societies, and racism, a slightly different animal, is one of the most dangerous menaces to all mankind.

Dear KK, Amen, KK, Amen. Equality itself should not rely on gender, nor race nor creed. We still have a ways to go, mind you, but I believe Canada is moving sluggishly in the right direction.

Dear Tawasakm, That depends on what your 'cause' is. Neither religious nor free enterprise proponents are willing to accept responsibility for their actions when Mammon is the only God they answer to. Power and wealth are the only things that matter, for them, 'today'. Responsibility, yesterday and tomorrow are for the suckers. No debt need be owed if 'all' are included as 'beneficiaries of the process', but as it stands, one must have power, of some type, to 'collect' any debt. As for acknowledging said 'debt', one must also first have a conscience and moral values. These are things that religion and 'free enterprise' do not inherently possess.

Dear Mr. Hardner, Amen, brother. Sadly, this is only a partial cure, (choosing the first paragraph) and mostly just a 'western' malaise. People have a long way to go.

Dear KK, I think what was meant is that freedom must be earned. The problem seems to be that people equate 'freedom' and 'democracy' far too closely. Actually, it is the freedom part that is ambiguous. There is no place in the Koran that refers to the 'will of the electorate', only the will of Allah. Any country that has 'God' as it's central law giver is doomed. Wacky. You should see what Israel's Knesset is like. A total cluster-f*&k, democracy or not.

Dear Argus, I suggest you read the book "Good Neighbors? The US and Latin America" by Ann E Weiss, 1985.

Dear KK, Very witty. However, Mr. Farrius could just shoot you and be done with it. Not so with Islamic radical terroists, though. They are trying to foment jihad by way of terror, and trying to coerce the west into another crusade. Only then could they get the support of Islam worldwide. Dear Mr. Farrius, What a load of bunk. They will support S Korea as long as it remains profitable to do so. Cheap goods come in to the US from S Korea and expensive weapons go out. It is what the US is good at.

Dear Mr. Hardner, You have hit the nail on the head with this one. Spiritual, schmiritual, that which serves Mammon and greed are what is rewarded in society today. Years ago, (Not that many I might add) the family was 'sacred'. Now, nothing but the almighty dollar is. Mass media has not only replaced religion, but the parents as well. Mass media relishes the opportunity, for they can create their own market on the 'tabula rasa' of each new generation, and influence it accordingly. As for Hugo's crime stats, I agree that single parent homes could be more likely to generate criminals, because mass media becomes the parent 'in absentia', and The Sopranos, et al, become the only input for moral guidance.

Dear Hugo, Nonsense. Capitalism did not start in the 50's. Moneylenders, those involved in trade since antiquity operated on the profit motive. Perhaps the electron microscope and the communications satellite would have been invented around the time of Christ if 'laissez-faire' capitalism had been allowed to dictate people's motivations. Pull your head out of your backside, man.

Dear Hugo, This one should be a no-brainer. I am not sure if you are aware of certain medical breakthroughs since the 50's, but polio, smallpox and TB deaths are wayyy down. None of these vaccines get distributed by Standard Oil or McDonald's, by the way. Doctors Without Borders, UNICEF, and a host of others deserve far more credit than Standard Oil or McDonald's, I'm afraid.

Dear Hawk, KK' arguments are technically not entirely correct. There is no proof that Saddam was 'in material breach' of said resolutions. Mind you, he wasn't complying either, that is, until the very end. One of the biggest beefs many have against the US is that they have violated or vetoed many UN resolutions, and only uphold those that serve their interests.

Dear All, I am from Alberta and thoroughly disgusted with most everyone in this election. This promises to be the most catastrophic election Canada has seen in many lifetimes. The NDP will turn Canada into an impoverished welfare state. The Liberals are turning us into an international welfare state by sheer waste and corruption. The Conservatives, under Harper, will sell us out to the US and to the unions. That idiot wants to bail out Air Canada (Again!)for god sakes. If he stands for free enterprise then let Milton (and Hargrove) run it into the ground, like they have done for years. No one is going to bail out my company if I try to take home 5 million a year when I only generate $100,000. I do not know enough about the Green Party to trust them. The BQ only serve Quebec. My guess is that the consevatives will form a minority Gov't with the BQ and NDP sharing the rest of the seats. Truly an unholy mess. Unions must go, welfare must go (I support work-for welfare),Canada must hold it's resources dear and add value at home. No one seems to represent the Canada we once had, as far as I can see.

Dear Reverend Blair, KK always makes some good points, and indeed the legality of everything the US did and does can be disputed(pro or con). When in breach of international law, the US simply refuses to recognize that authority. The US could not prove material breach of WMD laws, so it simply called Saddam a liar and placed a timeline on invasion that the UN inspectors could not meet. The US inspectors could not meet it either, but once the missles fly, it is too late to worry about 'truth'. Interestingly, someone posted a quote earlier from Tom Daschle, about Saddam being the only one ever to use WMD's against his own people. Misleading wording at best, and false to be sure. The US experimented with dispersal methods of WMD's on their own people, with (thankfully) minimal loss of life. Ironically, Tom Daschle was himself later to be a target of WMD's on American soil. He was mailed Anthrax, a particular strain traced back to the US Army WMD factory in Maryland. The US Army using WMD's against their own people? For political assassination no less?

Dear daniel, No proof required, it was me. It was a bit of a mistake on my part, I was merely trying to draw attention to another tragedy that happened also on that date. The thread has since been removed by the administrator.

Dear Argus, You can thank Mr. Bush, both Sr. and Jr for the gobbledegook. They muddied the waters fairly well by declaring war on non-existential entities. The 'war' on drugs, and 'terror' for example. Combatants are deemed to be those that bear arms on behalf of, and belong to an identifiable group, supported by an equally identifiable group, such as a soldier in a nation's army. Militants, according to The American Heritage Dictionary (#2) are Aggressive, especially when associated with some cause. The difference between these two is that combatants are recognized by the Geneva convention, and are, to a certain degree, legitimate. Militants may fight for a cause, but do not have to belong to a nation. They may have structure, but the supporting group may not be recognizable. Terrorists fall into a different category. Terrorism is defined as "when one group attacks a second group to coerce that second group into actions against a third group." Murder is the taking of life when not justified. So, in WWII, soldiers were 'combatants' when under fire, and no soldier could be accused of murder under the circumstances. The killing of POW's, however, was considered murder. The attempted murder of a whole religious group was considered mass-murder, or genocide. (not terrorism) The bombing of civilian populations by both the British (and especially by Arthur 'Bomber' Harris) and Germany was (or is now) considered 'terrorism'. That is because 'Bomber' Harris believed that by randomly attacking the civilian population of Germany, they would in turn pressure their leaders into 'suing for peace' or capitulation. So, Mr. Bush has declared war on a method (however evil) of combat. In my opinion, all deaths by terrorism is murder. However, declaring war legitimizes the actions of both parties to 'combatant' status. Sheer foolishness.

Dear KK, You are right that Chretien&Cronies are crooks through and through. Mr. Martin looks like he could be the biggest liar of them all. I also believe France oppsed the Iraqi invasion mostly for the billions that they were owed and had the potential to profit. None of them, however, claim to be the only righteous and morally upstanding nation in the world while commiting or abetting the very acts they claim to condemn, on such a large scale.

Dear Mr. Hardner, That depends on what the issue is, and who the people are. If one of those two people covets the possessions of the other, there is little, by way of means or method, that they could agree on. that is when democracy gives way to man's old standby, naked force.

Dear August1991, What utter nonsense. If this were even remotely true, words like nepotism, patronage, graft and brown-noser would not exist. Again, untrue. There is very little one can buy while being aware of which corporations are involved. Food additives, energy suppliers, even going to the movies can mean that your dollar ends up in the hands of weapons manufacturers or sports athletes. Supposedly the mantra of free enterprise is that 'competition is good'. Few knew that in the strip mall in their town offering a choice between Taco Bell, KFC or Pizza Hut meant no choice at all. They were all owned by Pepsi. This is where I start to wretch. This is the wonderful system that is based on the absence of morality.

Dear KK, If you weren't sure, Not always, of course, just when it suits them to do so. Why is most of the world cynical towards the US? The answer lies(sic) in the story of "the boy who cried wolf". The US says"Here is the truth". Then, when it becomes obvious to everyone that they lied, they say "Ok, here is the REAL truth". Then, when that is exposed or admitted to as false, they say "OK, here is the REALLY REALLY REAL truth". Then, people are lucky to find out 25 years later under the freedom of information act what little truth that there is left that someone forgot to shred.

Dear willy, Incorrect. Right and Wrong are indicators of direction in a 'polarized value system'. There is no morality attached to them save for the 'ethical moment'.Good and Bad are religious based, to be sure, but a separate animal. Correct. It all depends of the God you worship. Mammon dictates (especially in the USA) that what sells is therefore 'good' or 'right'. What was once unacceptable becomes 'pop-culturally desirable' and is rewarded accordingly. Lesbian sex (not that I'm against it, because I sometimes like to watch) on the six-O-clock news can go from 'wrong' to 'right' if the profits for the quarter show it to be so. That which was once sacred becomes trivial commodity, in a heartbeat, when money and profit become the 'moral compass'. We have always had these things, only squandering has become revered as an economy-builder. the others can all be attributed to selfishness.

Dear KK, I think you misunderstand. I had heard that Reagan had died. Came up with the 'jokes' that very day. I saw nothing of the 'nation in mourning' bit as I do not watch television and rarely follow American news. In fact, I read about the funeral on the BBC site. As to those that respected him as president, my comments were a reply to your statement He was by no means 'a president', rather merely a marionette controlled by those very forces I so vehemently oppose. He was 'The President That Never Was' if you read enough about the history. George H.W. Bush, former CIA director was his VP. Bill Casey, the next CIA director (and also known as 'the spookiest of all spooks') was his campaign manager. The key to his election? The failed (and some say sabotaged) rescue of the hostages in Iran by Pres. Carter. Instead of rescued hostages and a Carter election victory, arms were sold to Iran in exchange for the release of the hostages and the arms money used to fund CIA operations in Central America. Do I think Mr. Reagan could have thought all this out by himself? Never. His defense in court was "I don't remember". No wonder, as he was probably never privy to a lot.

Dear all, I have noticed that a lot of topics end up polarized, with the actions and beliefs of the US being the central topic. The question I pose is: Does America represent what most people of the world need? I was reading the BBC news about what Pres. Bush said regarding Australia, and the opposition leader's promise to pull troops out of Iraq if elected. Rarely does one see words and intent twisted like this. I would suggest that many throughout the world do not see the US 'practising what they preach' and the lack of faith in the situation in Iraq comes not from disliking 'freedom and democracy' but from lack of faith in the US.