theloniusfleabag

Dear Charles Anthony, I don't follow this argument at all. These two ideas are mutually exclusive, no one ever 'gets stolen from' vis taxation to pay a copyright holder. (Well, perhaps a small portion on goods purchased through gov't expenditure from the private sector). My point is that all 'rights' are granted (moral or not) including a 'patent', and you are not forced to use a product to which a patent applies. Therefore, it does not 'bestow the right to steal' in the same way (your claim about) taxation does.

Dear Charles Anthony, I actually don't know what you are talking about. I don't know how my quotes appear to you. Is this like telling me I'm black? (j/k lol) Colour me mortified, I spelled 'their' wrong. Ugh. A throwback to the argument I had with Hugo pertaining to the nature of 'rights', including property ownership. He felt they were inherent, I say they are granted. So the 'further' bit is about granting rights of ownership. It is either all this way, (including the granting of copyright) or it is all about coersive force.

Pardon me for redirecting this thread, but something just occured to me (and I didn't want to start a new thread because this is directly related to the spirit of my intention of starting this particular topic) as I was reading the news... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5376524.stm Now, I believe one of Osama's last statements was a call for 'people of his kind' to gather in Africa, (Sudan, I believe) to 'regroup'. Would the western world be prudent to allow 'the caliphate' to manifest itself somewhere, or should militant Islamic fundamentalists never be allowed to to establish an example for all to judge? Was the Taliban an anomaly, or the newest face of Islam as a whole?

I am very impressed with this thread, some full-out honesty, especially RB and Borg. I am very impressed with your candor, RB, for while I know you champion women's rights and equality, you freely recognize the nuances of both 'equality' and 'difference'. I totally agree. I shed a tear (ok, a few) when the Canadian Women's Hockey Team won gold, but not for the men. When I saw (most of) that game between the Canadian Women's team vs. the USA Women's (who had been undefeated internationally for some 40+ games) I saw some of the best hockey ever played. It was played with guts, and determination, and a passion to perform your best (and to win) that you don't often get to see, even in the NHL playoffs. The joy and sometimes disbelief in the faces of those girls when they were awarded the gold medal will be a memory I will always carry.Perhaps the only way to ever see women in the NHL is to allow them to be smacked around just like all the boys up through minor hockey, and the cream will rise to the top, whatever gender. Mind you, for every player that IO met that made the NHL, I know about 3 or 4 that were crippled. Mostly knees, mind you.

Dear August1991, Or a particularly arrogant thief. I heard an interview with Conrad Black about 10-15 years ago, about him suing someone for slander, since they had accused him of wrongdoing. He sued for a retraction, not money, and won (I believe he always said that he sued for retractions and not cash). Now, he's off to the hoosegow...

Dear Charles Anthony, Indeed, though I think you stated elsewhere that someone who leaves there door open is 'asking for it'. 3 locks or none, it is still a transgression. Further to this, is 'possession' the only definition of 'ownership'? I've noticed that many an argument turns to 'the morality of coersion' right around the time you show up... j/k Yes, my patent on 'the question mark' is pending, please stop using it in the meantime...lol

Dear August1991, I think that Mulroney is as innocent as Orenthal. "Not guilty in a court of law" doesn't mean you didn't do it. Without more evidence, only Mulroney cam say for sure whether he received kickbacks, and 'billing for consultation' has to be the greyest area to examine. As for Schreiber,...from.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karlheinz_Schreiber Mulroney also was involved in other criminal activity after he left the PM's office. He went on to join the board of directors at Archer Daniels Midland...and then they got busted...http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1058-7195...%3E2.0.CO%3B2-U Just a short read from this link... and below... http://www.endgame.org/corpfines1.html Another bit of a read on ADM and 'influence-peddling' is here... http://www.electricarrow.com/CARP/agbiz/111.htm

Dear Charles Anthony, I see you as arguing two seperate points here. One dealing with 'caveat emptor', and one of the abolition of 'intellectual property'. To the first point, there is legal recourse should manufacturers claims and representations be false. The onus is on the consumer to either raise a fuss or stop buying the product. Ultimately, the consumer decides what levels of 'fraud' are acceptable. There is also an issue of 'falliability, where, due to circumstances beyond control, lemons get made. (I was told, once upon a time, to never buy a car manufactured on a Monday or a Friday, the worker's minds were elsewhere). I suppose that this argument needs it's own thread...the morality of free enterprise. Second point, Hugo's rejection of the notion of copyright. Without reward for creativeness, new developments would stagnate. ( I would venture to say that this idea could only be feasible in a 'commuunist collective', where all contribution is voluntary.) Who would come forward with a good idea to improve on a product if they weren't going to benefit from their effort? For example, let's take the guy who invented the intermittent windshield wiper. Without 'intellelectual property rights', Hugo claimed that the onus was on him to become a car manufacturer in order to receive any money from this development. It could never happen. 'R&D' would shut down if you could just wait for someone else to develop something and then just 'steal it'. The music industry, too, would be strangled without copyright. I could simply burn all of the Rolling Stones music, claim it as my own, and sell it to the radio stations for airplay at a greeatly reduced price.

I say that this is another case of someone trying to 'do the right thing' the wrong way. Water (and air) are essential to life (as is food, but of the three, you can go longest without food), and they used to be free and reasonably untainted. The issue of paying for water (or air) isn't a big deal now, but what of when you won't be able to drink any other form. We certainly are headed that way. Nature cannot filter at the rate we pollute (or, interfere), as evidenced by mass extinctions. Will it be ethical to charge for water (or air) sold by a company if there is no other alternative to stay alive? I will note, while we do this for food, there is some ability for subsistence farming. Further, for those religious folk, the bible clearly states that the earth freely provides for those that dwell upon it, humans are the only ones that can (and do) deny access to others based on selfish conduct.

Dear killjoy, Now, while I do like wikipedia for certain reasons, it is fallible. Like the above quote. If the Taliban were 'toeing the line' of some unidentified 'drug barons', why would they outlaw production? To go from too much to near zero isn't exactly beneficial to either the 'drug barons' nor the Taliban. Both would have their drug income cut to zero. Not very good thinking...most illogical.If OPEC can control the price by controlling production, then the heroin market would act the same, and either would suffer immensely from a production cut to zero. Heck, if you cut production of a product somebody is addicted to, you might find yourself getting 'invaded' by the angry consumer.

Really, this issue is should be about total vs. non-segregation of the sexes. Either we have boys only and girls only clubs (such as the boy scouts and girl guides) or we have none at all. There was one female to play hockey at the pro level (Manon Rheaume, I believe, who played in an NHL exhibition game for the Lightning, I think) and no where in the rulebooks does it say that you have to have a wiener between your legs to stop pucks. The trick is to be better at it than anyone else, period. Discrimination based on gender should either be enforced equally or abolished. That is, I say it is hypocritical that girls can join the boy scouts but boys cannot join the girl guides. Same goes for hockey. Ridiculous as it sounds, there should be no separate changing rooms, etc nor any other 'non-equal' treatment for either gender. If a woman can take getting plastered into the boards at full tilt by a 6'2" 200lb 16 yr old, and then get up and continue with the flow of the play, (or get knocked out cold but return the next period...and I don't mean 28 days later, lol) then so be it, she can earn a spot on the team.

Dear Higgly, I don't think Argus was contradicting himself, but rather offering up the two extremes of what could be done. I disagree with him, though, that it would have been a good idea (or possible) to let Saddam do the dirty work. From a cold-blooded pragmatic viewpoint, it should have been up to the US to depopulate the ME.Argus, I don't know if you read my previous reply to killjoy, but I am in agreement here, with the following caveat. This is the battle that must be fought, and why I claimed that our soldiers (and NATO) in Afghanistan are 'doing the right thing the wrong way'. While killjpoy may have legitimate concerns about Kaplan's apparent bias, Kaplan did spend a lot of time with the Pathans, and it became evident to him that 'compromise and negotiation' are not in the national psyche. I saw an excerpt from the interview of Karzai with Peter Mansbridge last night, and I also wish that karzai had been asked about this. Karzai came across as a very good diplomat, but it was almost as though I expected him at anytime to pass around his fuzzy little hat.

Dear killjoy, Actually, I have a book by Robert Kaplan called "Soldiers of God: With the Mujahideen in Afghanistan" (the first one, evidently there was a second) about the Pathans (who comprised about 50% of Afghanis) fighting against the Soviet occupation. The main focus was a man called Abdul Haq, a real 'go-getter' but devout Muslim and fierce Pathan warrior. (Interesingly, he was later to meet both Reagan and Thatcher, and was sent in to Afghanistan by the CIA at the beginning of the mission to oust the Taliban, only to be captured and hung.)The ways of the tribesmen are often beyond both logic and 'western' comprehension. On women, from pg 49 of the book. This isn't just 'more ignorant than Alabama', this is an entirely different world. Regarding Pathans and their commitment to idealism (even if it is illogical), Kaplan writes about Ahmad Shah Massoud, the "Lion of Panjshir", who had aroused the wrath of the Pathans for a temporary truce between his Northern Alliance and the Soviets in 1983. (Also notable is that Massoud was assassinated by 'Al Queda' 2 days before "9/11'. ) Kaplan writes...(on pg 41) So, while you may be right in criticizing the notions of those who say 'change can't happen', I would argue that while it may, it certainly will not be done by force of arms. It will not be done the way the US is trying to do it, nor the way NATO continues to do it, and I don't think Canada should waste any more troops trying to 'do the right thing' the wrong way.

Dear bradco, Thanks for your posts on this matter. Good to see that some people (like yourself) are attending events such as these with an open mind.

Dear killjoy, Indeed, I am in agreement here. However, from Margolis' quote and your reply... It isn't exactly a lie. The vast majority of Afghanis that are fighting now were never part of that gov't we sought to 'do war upon'. Most of them could care less how the people of the West live their lives, they only care about how it affects them in the immediate. They might be called 'terrorists' because they use guerrilla tactics (and I'm not talking about suicide bombs, but rather the 'hit&run mortar attacks, etc. that the Muj used against the Soviets)now, but they are not fighting the same fight we started. They aren't trying to re-install the Taliban, or any other gov't that seeks to commit attacks on the West (though they probably would like an Islamic fundamentalist rule), they are seeking to rid their land of the 'alien forces' that are trying to drastically change their way of life, especially away from their religiion. It seems that if anyone fights against the Nato forces, they become labelled 'Taliban', probably the number one reason there are so many 'Taliban' still left. Indeed, and if you leave, this particular war of occupation will end. Then staying or leaving becomes less important. To 'stay and finish the job' means what, exactly? The only thing that will eliminate religious fanatacism in Afghanistan (and elsewhere) is genocide. Or God. It sure isn't a 'real war' by any stretch. Even some on the extreme right-wing must feel that Afghanistan is a small, over-valued tussle with only one of the many heads of the Hydra. (Funny that the Hydra was from Argolis...)

Dear killjoy, As to failure, myata above raises some good points. Without establishing criteria to measure success or failure, labels such as this become moot. Mind you, any good business owner sets up these guidelines beforehand (usually within the framework of a business plan) so that even if they are behind schedule, they still can see if the eventual outcome will be worth continued investment and effort, or not. (This is my biggest beef with continued investment in Afghanistan, the lack of a 'business plan')There was a very good "Yes, Minister" episode regarding the implementation of 'success or failure criteria' before projects were undertaken, and the Civil Service was adamantly opposed. Accountability and gov't don't go together. Leaving would not exactly be failure, for it would be done by choice. I will refer you to the thread I started some time ago, called "Does Islam need a country?" They had outlawed music, kite-flying and destroyed millenia old statues of Buddha (and then sacrificed numerous sheep and cattle to atone for tardiness in the operation). They also became a 'state sponsor' of terrorism. However, they were becoming increasingly unpopular in their own country. No one will ever know if they would have been thrown out internally. The biggest question is, "Do the people of Afghanistan want democracy (and a secular one at that)?" If the answer is no, then we should leave. If we forcibly set one up, it won't survive the week after we leave anyway.Now, it seems, Osama Bin Laden has issued a 'call to arms;' to join him in Africa, (Sudan, likely) and Sudan will likely become the next 'Afghanistan'.

Dear August1991, Manana. (Hmm, can't seem to get the tilde over the 'n'...)Seriously, though, I expect Riverwind is right and I think the line between 'liberal and conservative', especially socially (rather than fiscally) is blurrier every day.

Dear crazymf, Glad to see you back. While we often disagreed, I consider you one of the 'real' posters here.

Dear killjoy, Perhaps the wording is a bit 'creative', but these are not outright 'myths'. The USA supported and funded many 'Anti-Western Islamic extremists', including people like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and many of those who went on to form the Taliban. As to opium production, it does appear that the 'Taliban' has changed their tune, but at one time they did outlaw it... http://www.unodc.org/unodc/newsletter_2001..._1_page002.html I had not heard that it was under the auspices of the 'drug lords to whom the Taliban were beholden', and from what I read it seems that this theory is purely speculative.

Dear Charles Anthony, No, I am talking about the attempt to capture your eyes, your ears and your mind. The only 'infomercial' I ever saw that extolled family values over consuming product was "A message from the Curch of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints", but they seek to take over your mind as well...they want their 10%!The only thing missing now is having the 'thought police' driving down your street with a megaphone, saying "Stay in your homes....consume...do not communicate with others, get those ipods in your ear, and watch the television...it will tell you the 'flavour of the day, for your worshipping enjoyment..."

Dear Argus, I defy you to take apart my example (above) of a workable gun registry.I could do the same for Kyoto, though I think it should be re-considered. The problem is that all gov'ts always use the stick and never the carrot. Even as a leftist, I can see where the private sector couled be utilized to tremendous advantage.

Dear August1991, No, not theirs at all. Yours, and mine. Of what we value. We fuel their actions. And in a strange circle, ours.

I have to agree with Argus here, socialization skills are far less than what they used to be. I personally blame the 'consumerist culture', because it breeds (perhaps unintentionally, as a bad by-product) isolationsim and severe (perhaps even harmful) levels of individualism.Yeah, High school occasionally sucked really hard. At a time when I was most impressionable, too. Suicide rates are high in teens, and fleeting thoughts of it are probably near 100%Probably the biggest thing in this is the desire to impress upon others your qualities, your thoughts and feelings (though we do this in different ways, from the screaming infant to the hack typing on a political forum ...), and desire to know what we look like through the eyes of the others, filtered, of course, through our own delusions of grandeur. "What will they think of me when I'm gone?" is a universal thought, I think. We now live in a consumer driven world where the 'once spectacular' is the 'barely adequate' within months, if not sometimes days. If you are 'going out', what better way than in a way that will be remembered by the most?

Dear Argus, While I claim to be a 'leftist', I am in agreement with most of your points. Both Kyoto and the gun registry are noble causes, but seriously flawed and in need of abolishment and re-thinking. I disagree, for I am both pro-gun ownership and pro registry. However, I think the registry could have been organized to be easy and profitable. (In my opinion, and I believe Charles Anthony also voiced this sentiment elsewhere- that the Liberal gov't was either guiltly of massive incompetence or corruption with the cost ballooning from 2 million to over a billion, and I believe it is the latter) The gun registry should have been (and still can be) privatized, just like automobile registration, with heavy fines if you get caught without it. A car dealer won't let you drive a vehicle off the lot without plates, nor should gun shops release a gun without paperwork. With the problem of selling a second-hand gun (that is, pre-owned), there should be a 'relinquishment of ownership' registration form, so the seller becomes free of responsibility for that firearm in the future. Privatization of the registry would be a huge savings to the gov't, (and they would be collecting taxes off the deal) and they would simply need to maintain access to the registration database on their end. I do not believe that this would cause any undue hardship on legitimate gun owners, and would help discourage the 'iffy' people from easily aquiring guns, especially if the registration database had access to criminal convictions. (Like the auto registry, if you have outstanding fines or too many demerits, they can withold registration from those who likely shouldn't have guns) This would obviously not fully stop the random shooting tragedies, but nothing really will, no system is foolproof. I think that this is an example of still holding on to the 'leftist ideology' of gun registry, while being somewhat logical and 'realist'.

Dear Mr. Hardner, He can hope, but I have my doubts. Sadly, dollars speak louder than public opinion. The web forum, or log, will still forever be 'passive' in trying to foment political change.