theloniusfleabag

Dear Mr. Fortin, Indeed, I agree with you. Sadly, it is a crazy man who is to make that call. Not completely mad, nind you, because he is trying to use the sabre rattling as a negotiation tool to his advantage. North Korea, I am sure, would have tested a nuke if they had one. It would have been a strong bargaining chip, and Kim Jong-il has certainly used every one he's got so far. Black Dog is correct, the US will only act, whether it be unilaterally or otherwise, only if it is profitable to themselves to do so.

Dear Charles Anthony, Indeed, perhaps you could dust off the old arguments, because I think that you would see that even the staunchest libertarian still believes in arbitrary laws, though some aregue that these laws are 'natural'.As to Mr. Fortin's question, Which goes well with yours... the answer is that the stronger will seek to dominate the weaker. They would either have to merge wholly, or remain seperate entities.

I must say, I am a bit disappointed in Harper, I would like to be the first to say he doesn't speak for Canada (well, not all of it, and certainly not me) on this one. http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News/World...rc=w071379A.xml I think Israel should be expected to declare or acknowledge an 'official state of war', just as Lebanon should equally take responsibility either for failing to denounce (and fight against) Hizbollah, or failing to support them and declaring war on Israel. As far as Black Dog's 'nuanced summary' of the State of Israel goes, he's not all wrong. What some people here have mixed up is the context. The comparison should read: The UN (or a US/UK coalition, but according to Canada, overwhelming force) decides to award Canada back to the Natives. From the Gaspe Peninsula to Banff, 400kms North of the 49th inclusive. Then the Natives decide that there must be a 'democratic majority' of Natives, so most of the 'whites' (or overseas settlers) are not allowed to live on this land, but are allowed to work there, so they have to bus it in and out every day. Taxes, an allotment of water, most everything is arbitrary and up to them as to what will be left for you. How many people would not consider this 'unjust'? (I realize most would not strap a dynamite vest on in order to protest, but who can say after a few decades?)

I think an important point that some people are missing here is that it is highly likely that North Korea does not have nukes. They also do not have a 'functioning' missile that can reach North America. They are trying, mind you, and that is worrisome. However, for now, the threat is overblown, hence the curiously mild reaction from the US and others. Again, I must call attention to the fact that NK is several times more of a threat than Iraq was, as they are claiming to have WMDs, are both threatening to and trying to use/develop them, and yet Iraq got invaded while NK seems to be getting a 'pass'.

Dear August1991, Sadly, sports has become business. The business of entertaining the viewer. Indeed, even into the supposed 'cooperative' business world. In hockey, a player can be assessed a penalty for what is called 'diving', that is; trying to draw a penalty by faking/overacting a transgression. It is generally agreed that soccer players are the worst for this.

Then I expect their problem must be phallic.

Dear geoffrey, Yuck. I won several 'Most Gentlemanly Player' awards in minor hockey, but you won't win them if it isn't obvious that you are also trying your hardest. Never heard of this Zidane fellow, but he most certainly should have been aware that 'verbal assaults' can be expected by 'poor sportsmen', and his reaction is entirely his own fault. I hope August1991 takes note of this...'business' (or trade) is not 'cooperation', it is competition. It goes to show that there are no 'Morality 101' questions on an audit, nor a key for it on a calculator.

Dear Charles Anthony, I would expect the theory to be that if 'less privileged immigrants' are used to living in hovels, then they would be tickled to come here and build bigger hovels. Then they'd think that they were rich. Seriously, though... If 'pareto-optimal' is chased, is it the allocation of number pie wedges that was supposed to be fair, or the opportunity to aquire them? Sort of like Monopoly , are you to simply to share the properties available? Or are you 'given a fair shake' just by being allowed to roll the dice?PS. I am not sure 'Charles Anthony, Joined: 29-May 06Member No.: 1823 is 'old enough' to have those feelings...lol

Dear jdobbin, Thanks for the correction, wasn't sure if you were trying to slight him as some sort of 'immoral herpes dispenser' or not.

Dear August1991, I thought the last quote was more truthful, and less 'schmoozie' than the thrid one on your list. If this (aleit small) example of Harper's candor is really what makes the man, I am happy he is PM.

Dear Charles Anthony, I'll assume you mean 'pareto-efficient', but you'd still be wrong. That is, commerce, trade and war all have it that the 'name of the game [theory] is to win, not to share the spoils.

Dear BHS, "There's battle lines being drawn, Nobody's right if everybody's wrong". From your link, Paul Ehrlich says it best... Further down in the link, Generally, predictions in the long term must come from extrapolation, which can lead to silly conclusions if taken out of context. For example, who would believe the scientist who said, "From January to June, we have seeen an average increase in the temperature of Canada rise at a rate of 10 degrees per month. By December, we will be near the boiling point!"Things are cyclical, usually, and usually nature does just fine through these cycles, withouth the help of Mankind. Like the reversing of the polarity of the earth, for which evidence has been seen in the history of man's presence. from... http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/magnetic/reversals.html When we change factors in the model, predictions become even more difficult. Logic should still be applied, though.

Now that I think a bit more about it, yeah, declaring a 'war on terror' is folly in so many ways. For instance, in a 'static war', you don't wait for the enemy to attack if you can help it. If you are stronger, prepare to attack. If you are weaker, prepare to defend. (Sun Tzu said something along these lines). Therefore, the US should attack the terror before it strikes.

Dear Charles Anthony, Well, as free as any person living with a non-libertarian/anarchist gov't can be. To pick an example, let's say public transit passes were made to be 100%tax deductible. Or, perhaps even 105%. Some people would buy the passes for tax breaks at the end of the year, even if they didn't use them. More money could flow into the transit system, lessening the need for subsidy (as long as they didn't simply expand their budget accordingly). Tax breaks, exemptions, etc. could be used as 'the carrot' to encourage investment in that 'greater purpose' (especially where environmental concerns cannot be addressed in a feasible economic way, like meeting the ill-advised Kyoto targets).

This is an old theory, covered in other threads. Further, this isn't the right thread, really.

Good Morning PocketRocket, Yes it does. However, this forum does not allow 'cross-posting', and discourages posts with borderline 'hate speech', especially when it is not used to foment debate. I expect the above poster was banned from other forums with good reason.

Dear RB, This would lead to the extinction of the Human Species, no? I was unaware that this was an issue to be addressed. I was of the understanding that throughout most of the animal kingdom, females only want sex during estrous. Humans are a little different, to be sure ('sex drive versus reproductive drive' is more different in humans than other species), but could this advesely affect 'sex drive' to become non-existent as well?Would such a move create a stigma for women, where they become classified as 'breeders vs. sex toys'? (as crude as that comment is, I was unsure how to word it more 'politically correct')

Dear Shady, Looks like it is a double-edged sword... I believe that on another thread, someone here denied that there was any sort of 'baby-boomer' issue, that it was a myth...August1991, 'Small dead animals' is an incredibly partisan, right-wing conspiracy site. I wouldn't trust information from that site to be presented in an 'unbiased light' anymore than 'Fox News'.

Dear RB, I wish you would have asked a question or made a comment on this, (not just to hear what you think, but to give some direction to this thread) but I find it abominable. some claim nature intended our bodies to work they way they do, others claim god did everything. I don't believe the 'god's punishment' bit, but I do believe that humans don't have the capacity (at this time) to look at the long term effects. Claiming that 'nature (or god) must have been mistaken, and that we can engineer biology better, is likely to be folly.

She actually said 'can get raped', not 'get raped', which is a huge difference in the accusatory spectrum. Besides, I have to concur with PocketRocket, enough with Sheehan already. She is a boob and a louse, the war/antiwar debate is interesting enough to not 'dumb it down' with characters like Sheehan.

Dear August1991, I've seen these pics before, including a startling one related to the 'Eastern Blackout' a couple of years ago. To me, it looks like an x-ray exposing cancer cells on our Mother Earth, each point of light representing the death of the cells that were once there. No, the 'captains of industry' program the cells (or 'points') to consume the host, as fast and as selfishly as possible, rather than consider amalgamating the cells into a self-supporting, non-destructive entity of it's own.

Dear August1991, You are correct, the internet is changing what information is available, and I agree that it is a good thing. However, this isn't entirely correct. No, the Panama invasion was all over the news, on every channel, at the time. People didn't choose to ignore other information-it was withheld from them. It never was really reported that Noriega had been paid by the US Army for 31 years, and by the CIA for 15, and had that information been made public during the invasion, popular support for it may have gone out the window. Like GHW Bush's claim that crack-cocaine had been sold to an undercover cop on the Whitehouse front lawn. Lots of news coverage for the story, but little or no coverage when it came out that it was actually a lie. So, if the media is willing to print the lies in bold print, when it serves mammon to do so, and either prints the retractions in small print or not at all, does this not shape the way people think? Generally they do, but prefer to be spoon fed it rather than having to work, or critically think for it. So they turn on the boob-tube and accept the info as gospel truth. Further, they can only seek out what is made available to them. Granted, the internet had greatly broadened the base, but most people get the news from the TV or the local paper.

Dear Gosthacked, An interesting find. Not much to it htough, but streamlining NAFTA. As to one of the above poster's conspiracy rant, here is why it is garbage... http://www.nascocorridor.com/NASCO_Myths_Debunked.pdf

Dear Charles Anthony, You are too hard on yourself, if it could logically work, it would defend itself. I have an idea which strikes me to be along the same lines you may be thinking. I updated my signature today along these lines.Democracy could be done away with, but one would have to believe that something is greater than themselves for it to work.

Dear August1991, The 'cartel' isn't amongst the journalists, you are right, that would be silly. It is amongst the editors and owners. They ultimately decide what does and does not get published or disclosed. Most newspapers (the larger ones) and media outlets are owned by very few people. People like Robert Maxwell (now dead), Rupert Murdoch. Hollinger, etc. owned virtually all newspapers you might pick up. You ar correct, they can't control what you think, but they can control the information you get that helps you think. For example, when the US invaded Panama, it was condemned around the world (and in the UN) as a 'flagrant violation of international law', yet none of the major news networks (save one, I believe it was ABC that gave it a 7 second sound byte) reported that fact to the people of the US. Deemed 'not newsworthy', perhaps? You can bet a reporter might have covered and submitted the story, but the 'cartel' decided it was not going to report the information to the American public.