theloniusfleabag

Dear Lost In Manitoba, No, hooked on phonics is the worst thing to happen to literacy since the invention of mental retardation. I may make a few spelling errors on this forum once in a while, but if I am working on something important, I'll double check the spelling. (And not with 'spell check', it cannot make judgements of context). The spelling mistakes I see today, even in business, make my blood boil. I personally blame 'Hooked On Phonics' because it presented the fast, easy 'tv dinner' way of teaching children spelling, but it did more harm than good.

Dear Army Guy, Eurka's claim is not false, but perhaps too difficult to prove the numbers. The Russians had liberated the Polish extermination camps such as Auschwitz and Majdanek, and the British dismissed their reports as Russian propaganda. Then they themselves came across some camps such as Bergen-Belsen. From "The Reader's Digest Illustrated History of WWII" (1989) pg.416... Does 'some' equate to 'thousands'? Difficult to say, but I guarantee you the Russians killed thousands. As to the Nuremburg Trials, most historians agree that there wasn't a whole lot of legal 'legitimacy' to them, they were 'victor's justice', and it went ahead because no one wanted to see the Nazis (at least the important ones that caused everything) walk away unpunished. The French, most notably, but other occupied countries too, killed thousands of 'collaboraters' for years after the war.

Dear BHS, The US invasion of Panama was deemed 'illegal'. http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/44/a44r240.htm Interestingly, while claims of 'left wing bias in the media' are rampant, only one major US news station reported the fact that the UN condemned their invasion of Panama, in a 7 second 'btw' soundbyte'. The rest did not utter a single word. An interesting documentary on the issue (that won an academy award) was called "The Panama Deception".Further, when pressed on the issue, Kofi Annan said that the US invasion of Iraq was 'illegal'. When one nation violates the borders (by invasion of another), they must either have declared war, or had a UN approved mandate to do so. The US did neither, technically. However, no 'court' of any country has the power to declare the actions of others 'illegal'. That is why the UN Security Council, and other organizations like NAFTA and GATT tribunals exist.

Dear August1991, There are tons that we don't hear about. That is why it isn't really a story. Every once in a while you can read a story about nepotism or misappropriation of funds on reserves, but even these are not seen with any surprise. On most reserves, the chief and council will have large families that see the lion's share of gov't payments, above and beyond what is allocated to specific programs. Even then...well, I have been on lots of reserves, and heard many a story. This would probably answer #2 as well...it just isn't 'news'.

Dear Shady, Well, that link opens up more questions than it answers. Actually it is pretty damning to the Bush admin. After 4 years they still can't get their story straight. Clarke claims 'sole responsibility' for the decision, but then says "The FBI actually approved it", and the FBI denies Clarke's word. People in the Bush admin seem to be trying to throw themselves on a grenade that hasn't gone off yet... Seems like Moore was telling the truth, and the US gov't hasn't even settled on the lie they are going to tell the people. And you seem to have every faith in them...let us know when they finalize whatever lie they come up with at the end, and bring it back to us.

Dear BHS, I haven't heard any of his comments, do you have a link? So have I, but they may need to be given a few grains of salt, depending on where they originated. Gonna have to wait and see on this one. I'm sure that any official investigation will have to take this into account.

Dear Shady, It was a movie....and the actor makes hundreds of millions of dollars a year to play make-believe while the rest of his time is spent wandering around in a drug addled, drunken stupor. As Black Dog states, you can't so easily seperate your end from your means. I doubt very much that someone could expect to enjoy the 'rewards and fruits of Heaven' if they set out to conquer it by force.

Here is the CBC version, http://www.cbc.ca/story/business/national/...biz-051117.html I am not sure what is behind this sudden 180 degree turn, but they must be privy to some sort of truly amazing information. Either that, or Martin promised them "no corporate taxes for 50 years" if they implement Kyoto and vote liberal...

Dear crazymf, Not much is new here, and btw, Chong is a surgeon. Mind you, the article is basically 'anonymous', as it is claimed that Chong simply 'passed it on'. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...ual/ai_n8569550 Some of it is very good and pertinent, some of it is the same old propaganda, not based on any truth, just meant to scare. For example, Rubbish. Parroting this nonsense will not help anyone. This part is very true.

Dear Black Dog, Here is an interesting bit... http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/...18-3c9da35b.htm Former Deputy Defence Secretary Wolfowitz thought that Cahalbi had 'misused funds', from the US, and in return for those funds, they seem to have gotten 'faulty intelligence' (that they used to justify the invasion). Now, Wolfowitz is head of the World Bank...I believe it was Toro who suggested the World Bank was full of 'competent, dedicated people'...but dedicated to what?

Dear crazymf, Indeed that is correct. A bit more about it can be read in "Disarming Iraq" by Hans Blix, in which this ultimatum can be found on pg. 8. Not really a 'call for surrender', really, though, more like the sherriff telling the bad guy to leave town before sundown. Do you haonestly think that the US would have let Saddam waltz away like that (had he chosen to leave)? Secondly, would that have really influenced the US not to invade? I am sure you'll agree, the answer would be 'No' to both questions. I am not sure if anyone noticed this, perhaps it is my vanity, but Leafless did not deign to answer a single one of my questions. I thought they were reasonable...

Dear eureka, I'll agree with you on that. As an 'Albertan', I have no wish to see the west secede either. I saw a television program a while a go called 'This Hour Has 22 Minutes", and they did a spoof on political pundits, called "The 'Right' Answer". They said (in reference to Quebec) "Why wait for the referendum, start carpet bombing now!"

Dear August1991, When I visited the Plains of Abraham, (years ago) I thought it sad that both Wolfe and Montcalm succumbed to injuries sustained in the battle. Looks like Canada managed to linger a while longer, but the wounds never did heal, and now she may die too. There are some that will be saying, "Let the enfant terrible leave home, so long as he knows he can't take his bedroom with him!" Others will say "it is a terrible shame, but good luck to Quebec (as a nation)." What are your thoughts, August, on the future of an independent Quebec?

Dear Sparhawk, Then he was, in a way, fighting against the US (or, at least US funded and supplied 'mujahideen'). The Russians had almost the same chance as the US has of defeating the Afghanis. Virtually zero.

Dear crazymf, It depends largely on who benefits from the death. Killing a gas station attendant for $50 in crack money is deemed different than killing the robber while his gun was raised to the attendant's head. In the first case, only the crackhead benefits, and this is deemed 'wrong'. In the second case, lots of people stand to benefit. If there are enough beneficiaries, perceived or actual, then it is deemed 'legitimate'.

Dear Leafless, Which times were those, and to whom? Surrender during the invasion you mean? He most likely would have been killed outright. If you mean before the invasion, I don't recall any offer to 'surrender' nor any refusal. eureka is quite right with this. As has been mentioned recently, the US' bumbling actions have been a gift that Osama and 'al Qaeda' could have only dreamed of. Iraq has become a beacon to, and a haven for, terrorists, only after, and because of, the actions of the US/UK.

Dear wardmd, I don't think we'll see a whole lot of revelations if all of them are 'put under oath', there are wasy around telling the truth. (for all of them, including Wilson)First, there is the 'Ronald Reagan defense'..."President? I don't remember being President..." Then, there is the 'Oliver North defence' (as coached by CIA director Bill Casey) "To the best of my recollection, I did nothing wrong, because I am a good American, and good Americans don't do anything wrong, to the best of my recollection".

Dear Cartman, I was looking at the board index, and a guest was reviewing this topic. Interesting because I was just reading a book called "By Way Of Deception", by Victor Ostrovsky. He was a former Mossad 'katsa' (agent) and he claimed to have seen, in a 'mossad proprietary', over 1,000 brand new Canadian passports, ready for use. He suspected that they must have been stolen, but there was no story about it in the news. In that business, they had all the equipment and chemicals to replicate any passport paper of any country, but Canadian passports were much preferred by the Mossad. Further, for 'proprietary companies', ( or 'front businesses', much like the ones the CIA uses) the Mossad had some 70+% of theirs in Canada.

Dear crazymf, If you care to look back, all the reasons why invasion of Iraq was not 'internationally legal' are there too, or they would have rolled into Bagdhad when they had the world on their side. They knew it then, they just ignored it this time.

Dera BHS, It really doesn't matter much if definitions are changed, the point is that the US refuses to acknowledge the existing ones (Though they have lied, saying "We don't torture"), so why would they acknowledge any amendment? You are right, though, the rules are broken so often now a revisit of the regulations is in order. But, is it really greater leniency that should be applied, or or a greater condemnation of transgressions, for both sides?

Dear Leafless, The US shouldn't be commended for deficit spending. Even a monkey could do it. from...http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...1&dopt=Abstract N.B. the last sentence here.Also, here is an interesting read on 'stress experiments'... http://salmon.psy.plym.ac.uk/year1/psy128c...with_stress.htm I read an interesting (yet sickening) article on tests done with monkeys where the avoidance of pain was the name of the game, and the monkeys had to keep a 'joystick-controlled' platform upright for a long period of time. If the platform strayed from the horizontal plane, the monkey received a shock to it's brain. I think the record was 36 hrs or something. My basic point about the monkeys is that deficit spending is about the avoidance of pain. One can avoid the pain of an angry electorate if a 'responsible budget' is seen as 'too tight-fisted', by deficit spending. Cutting of spending or the raising of taxes (which are the only ways to control defecits) are seen by the electorate as 'painful measures', and they will pass the pain on, if they can, to those that implemented them, through lobbys, public opinion polls, or ultimately, votes.

Dear Leafless, Actually, it is well nigh impossible to prove 'non-existence'. It (non-existence) is also infinite, and surrounds all of 'that which does be'. So, the only way to actually prove non-existence is to show all 'that which does be' and how it would leave no room for unknown things.However, there is plenty of evidence pointing to the conclusion that there aren't /weren't any. from... http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington...ce/11901299.htm Also,from... http://middleeastreference.org.uk/kamel.html As you can see, the overwhelming indication is that the US knew of programs in the past, but suspected or were informed that Iraq had no functioning WMD programs for several years before the invasion. Even Colin Powell said something to the National Security Council (an advisor to the president) like "Saddam is being kept in his box. He is incapable of projecting power against his neighbors". The only defence (or offence) the US and 'coalition' had to counter this was the accusation of "You're lying". However, they have yet to offer any verification of either their claims of WMDs or, that anyone who told them that they were destroyed, lied. (There is relevant question of this, as Iraq did not sufficiently document the destruction. Had they done so, they might have staved off/postponed the invasion). So, as I stated at the beginning, that leaves us all with the as of yet impossible task of 'proving' every square inch of the desert is there, leaving no room for hidden WMDs.

Dear sharkman, My point wasn't really about the US (or the West)'s religion, but rather Bush's statement that 'you are either with us or against us' and are they bent on converting the entire world to 'their way'. Keep in mind that the 'powers that be' in the US have been virtually the same people for about 30 years.

Dear kimmy, http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...ial_051114.html Precedent has been set on this one. Smith may be 'on the hook' for the fate of the women.

Dear Minimus Maximus, Indeed, I think all moves from this point forward can be seen as 'election posturing'. If Layton changes his stance and deals with the Liberals re:health care, and then reneges on his previous stance of 'not having faith in the gov't, it will be curtains for the NDP as well (in the credibility dept.) In that case, I would expect a PC minority with the BQ holding the balance of power. Might even be a good thing.